CLARK'S 
 
 FOREIGN 
 
 THEOLOGICAL    LIBRARI. 
 
 FOURTH   SERIES. 
 VOL.  VII. 
 
 f^cng^tcnbcig;'^  Comimntary  on  ti)e  ®o5pcI  of  ^t  3)oi)n. 
 VOLUME  II. 
 
 EDINBURGH: 
 T.  &    T.    CLARK,    38,    GEORGE    STREET. 
 
 MDCCCLXV. 
 
COMMENTAEY 
 
 ON 
 
 THE  GOSPEL  OE  ST  JOHN. 
 
 y 
 
 E.  W.  HENGSTENBERG,  D.R, 
 
 PROFESSOR  OF  THEOLOGY,  BERLIN. 
 
 TBANSLATED  FEOM  THE  GEEMAN. 
 
 VOLUME  II. 
 
 EDINBURGH: 
 
 T.    &    T.    CLARK,    38,    GEORGE    STREET. 
 
 LONDON :  HAMILTON,  ADAMS,  &  CO.    DUBLIN :  JOHN  EOBERTSON  &  CO. 
 
 MDCCCLXV. 
 
SIUERAY  AXD  GIBB,  PErNTEES,  EDI>'BUKGH. 
 
EXPOSITION 
 
 THE  GOSPEL  OF  ST  JOHN. 
 
 CHAPTER  XI.  1-46. 
 
 THE    RAISING    OF    LAZARUS. 
 
 We  begin  here  with  the  investigation  of  the  question  whether 
 the  sinner  of  Luke  vii.,  Mary  Magdalene,  and  Mary  the  sister 
 of  Lazarus,  were  different  persons,  or  only  different  designations 
 of  the  same  person.  The  result  of  this  inquiry  is  of  great 
 importance  in  the  explanation  of  the  present  section. 
 
 The  more  ancient  material  for  its  solution  Deyling  gives 
 in  his  Observ.  Sac.  iii.  291  seq.  Clemens  Alexand.  assumes 
 only  one  anointing,  which  he  ascribes  to  the  woman  who  was  a 
 sinner.  Tertullian  says  that  the  sinner,  by  the  Avashing  of 
 Christ's  feet,  presignified  and  presymbolized  His  burial,  and 
 therefore  identifies  her  with  the  sister  of  Lazarus.  Oriffen 
 (Tract.  35  in  Matt.)  remarks  :  "  Many  think  that  the  four 
 Evangelists  have  written  concerning  one  and  the  same  woman." 
 He  himself  declares  against  this  opinion,  though  it  was  the 
 current  one  of  his  time.^  The  reason  which  he  lays  most  stress 
 upon, — "  It  is  not  to  be  thought  that  Mary  who  loved  Jesus,  the 
 sister  of  Martha,  who  had  chosen  the  better  part,  was  a  '  sinner 
 of  the  town,'  " — exerts  with  most  people  a  strong  influence, 
 
 ^  Origen  seems  sometimes  inconsistent.  In  Tract.  12  in  Matt.  App.  3, 
 he  proceeds  on  the  supposition  of  the  identity  of  the  sinner  and  the  sister 
 of  Lazarus  and  Mary  Magdalene.  But  this  is  not  a  real  contradiction.  In 
 the  former  place  he  follows  tradition  ;  in  the  other,  he  introduces  his  own 
 hypothesis,  which  he  mentions  as  such. 
 
 VOL.  II.  A 
 
2  CHAP.  VII.  1-XII.  50. 
 
 although  its  force  is  destroyed  by  what  the  Saviour,  who  came 
 into  tlie  world  to  save  sinners,  the  friend  of  publicans  and  sin- 
 ners, in  Luke  vii.,  says  to  the  Pharisee  Simon.  (Liicke,  for 
 example,  says :  "  The  word  afiaproaXo'^,  in  Luke  vii.  37,  is  so 
 fatal  to  the  identification,  that  a  single  glance  at  this  hypothesis 
 is  quite  sufficient.")  Irenseus  has  been  without  reason  quoted  in 
 favour  of  the  distinction  between  the  sinner  and  Mary.  But 
 Chrysostom,  in  the  sixty-second  Homily  on  St  John,  treads 
 in  the  footsteps  of  Origen.  "  Mary,"  he  says,  "  the  sister  of 
 Lazarus,  who  anointed  Christ,  is  not  the  harlot,  but  a  different 
 person,  honourable  and  excellent." 
 
 While  to  the  Greek  Church,  with  her  predominant  spirit 
 variously  touched  by  the  heathen  Greek  morality,  it  must  have 
 been  exceedingly  hard  to  reconcile  herself  to  the  theory  which 
 identifies  the  sinner  and  Mary  the  sister  of  Lazarus,  that  theory 
 found  in  the  Latin  Church,  especially  in  consequence  of  the 
 authority  of  Gregory  the  Great,  absolute  and  universal  accept- 
 ance. In  the  Breviary  it  is  taken  for  granted  that  what  is  said 
 of  the  sinful  woman,  of  Mary  Magdalene,  and  of  Mary  the 
 sister  of  Lazarus,  refers  to  one  and  the  same  person.  The 
 antiphone  to  the  Magnificat  in  the  Feast  of  St  Mary  Magdalene 
 (22d  July)  runs  thus :  "  Jesus  Christ  came  into  the  world  to 
 save  sinners ;  and  He  who  did  not  scorn  to  be  born  of  the  Virgin 
 Mary,  did  not  count  it  unbecoming  to  be  touched  by  Mary  the 
 sinner.  This  was  that  Mary  whose  many  sins  were  forgiven 
 because  she  loved  much.  This  was  that  Mary  who  was  thought 
 worthy  first  of  all  to  see  Him  who  was  raised  from  the  dead."^ 
 In  the  Catholic  Church  of  France  there  arose,  in  the  seven- 
 teenth century,  a  very  strenuous  opposition  to  this  theory.  The 
 defenders  of  the  identity  appeared,  in  the  domain  of  learning, 
 to  be  altogether  vanquished.  This  went  so  far,  that  in  a  whole 
 series  of  dioceses,  with  Paris  at  the  head,  the  new  editions  of  the 
 Breviary  were  issued  without  those  portions  of  the  office  of  St 
 Mary  Magdalene  which  referred  to  Luke  vii.  and  the  sister  of 
 Lazarus,^ — a  remarkable  instance  of  the  freedom  which  has 
 always  more  or  less  opposed  in  that  Church  the  intolerance  of 
 
 ^  In  a  current  Roman  Catholic  hymn  we  read  :  Maria  soror  Lazari, 
 Quae  tot  commisit  crimina,  Ab  ipsa  fauce  tartari,  Redit  ad  vitse  Hmina. 
 
 -  There  are  two  editions  lying  before  the  author,  the  Breviary  of  Nancy 
 and  that  of  ^fctz,  which  show  the  difference. 
 
CHAP.  XI.  1-46.  3 
 
 dead  uniformity.  Bat  soon  after  this  change  a  reaction  took 
 place,  and  the  old  Catholic  view  regained  the  predominance. 
 
 In  the  theology  of  the  churches  of  the  Reformation,  the 
 current  hypothesis  was  that  the  three  persons  were  distinct. 
 This  was  supported,  among  others,  by  Lyser,  Calovius,  and 
 Bengel.  It  needs  no  proof  that,  with  men  of  such  views  as 
 theirs,  the  Pharisaic  bias  against  the  "sinner"  exerted  no  in- 
 fluence. It  was  not  until  the  Rationalist  period  that  such  a  bias 
 began  to  manifest  itself  again,  and  then  a  sentimental  element 
 entered  into  the  question.  A  strong  feeling  of  repugnance 
 displayed  itself  against  admitting  the  censorious  Simon  "into 
 the  loving  company  and  household  fellowship  of  the  brother  and 
 sisters  in  Bethany."  If  the  sinner,  Mary  Magdalene,  and  the 
 sister  of  Lazarus  were  identified,  their  family  circle  must  be 
 regarded  with  an  essentially  different  consideration  from  that 
 usually  accorded.  Martha  must  be  connected  with  her  husband, 
 the  repulsive  and  harsh  Simon.  Mary,  whom  we  have  been 
 accustomed  to  regard  as  a  silent  soul  involved  in  meditation, 
 who  has  opened  her  pure  heart  to  the  Redeemer,  "  as  the  tender 
 flowers  silently  unfold  themselves  to  the  sun,"  becomes  "  a  wild 
 and  tameless  woman;"  who  first  found  in  Christ  stillness  for 
 her  passions,  and  convulsively  clings  to  Him  still,  lest  the  calm- 
 ness of  the  waters  of  her  soul  should  be  exchanged  again  for 
 tempest.  Probably,  too,  Lazarus  has  undergone  a  similar  deve- 
 lopment. He  eats,  after  having  led  the  life  of  the  prodigal  son, 
 in  the  house  of  his  brother-in-law,  the  bread  of  mercy ;  and  she 
 loves  him,  not  on  account  of  any  natural  worthiness  to  be  loved, 
 not  as  the  type  of  those  who  continue  in  the  grace  of  baptism, 
 but  like  Him  who  has  come  to  seek  and  to  save  that  which  was 
 lost,  and  rejoices  when  He  has  found  it.  To  some  it  is  hard  to 
 accept  all  these  changes.  Others  will  love  Bethany  all  the 
 more,  if  an  honest  investigation  should  establish  that  the  old 
 idylhc  view  has  rested  upon  illusion.  It  would  then  yield  them 
 pure  consolation  in  the  consideration  of  their  own  circumstances, 
 and  in  the  remembrance  of  melancholy  passages  of  their  own 
 religious  development. 
 
 There  have  not  been  wanting  those  who  have  sought  to 
 mediate  between  these  opposite  views.  At  their  head  is  Grotius, 
 who  on  Matt.  xxvi.  6  maintains  the  identity  of  the  sinner  in 
 Luke  vii.  with  the  Mary  of  Lazarus,  but  doubts  whether  this 
 
4  CHAP.  VII.  1-XII.  50. 
 
 latter  Mary  were  identical  with  Mary  Magdalene.  The  reasons 
 which  he  alleges  for  the  now  generally  admitted  identity  of  the 
 anointing  in  Matthew,  Mark,  and  John,  and  the  now  generally 
 renounced  identity  of  the  anointing  in  Luke  vii.  with  theirs,  we 
 shall  proceed  to  consider ;  for  the  presentation  of  this  argument 
 forms  an  excellent  preparation.  "  In  Matthew  and  Mark,"  he 
 says,  "  everything  coincides.  In  Matthew,  Mark,  and  Luke,  the 
 accounts  agree  that  the  occurrence  took  place  at  a  feast  in  the 
 house  of  Simon ;  and  that  the  woman  came  with  an  alabaster 
 box  of  ointment,  akd(3aarrpov  jjbvpov,  from  which  she  anointed 
 Jesus.  Matthew,  Mark,  and  John  agree  that  this  took  place 
 in  Bethany,  at  a  feast ;  that  the  ointment  brought  by  the  woman 
 was  very  precious ;  that  she  was  therefore  blamed  among  the 
 disciples  (John  mentions  Judas)  as  guilty  of  waste,  under  the 
 pretence  that  the  expenditure  might  better  have  been  devoted 
 to  the  poor ;  that  Christ  defended  the  woman,  with  the  intima- 
 tion that  the  honour  had  reference  to  His  burial.  These  details 
 are  too  specific  and  peculiar  to  have  concurred  at  different 
 times.  Again,  Luke  and  John  agree  that  the  woman  washed 
 Christ's  feet,  and  wiped  them  with  the  hair  of  her  head,  which 
 was  certainly  so  singular  a  proceeding,  as  not  to  allow  the  sup- 
 position of  being  repeated.  Let  it  be  added,  that  John  gives 
 this  token  as  characteristic  of  Mary  the  sister  of  Lazarus,  that 
 she  was  the  person  who  washed  the  feet  of  Jesus,  and  wiped 
 them  with  her  hair.  But  a  thing  which  happened  more  than 
 once,  could  hardly  be  mentioned  as  a  sufficient  distinguishing 
 mark  of  any  one." 
 
 We  shall  now  proceed,  first,  to  examine  the  reasons  alleged 
 against  the  identity  of  these  seemingly  different  persons,  and 
 then  proceed  to  an  exposition  of  the  reasons  in  favour  of  that 
 identity. 
 
 1.  It  is  asserted  that  chronological  data  will  not  allow  the 
 anointing  in  Luke  to  be  one  with  the  anointing  in  Bethany ; 
 and  therefore  that  the  sinner  cannot  be  identified  with  the  sister 
 of  Lazarus.  "  The  anointing  recorded  in  Luke,"  says  Bengel 
 on  Luke  vii.,  "  took  place  in  a  Galilean  town  before  the  Trans- 
 figuration, indeed  before  the  time  of  the  second  Passover ;  while 
 the  other  anointing  took  place  at  Bethany,  six  days  before  the 
 third  Passover."  But  this  argument  rests  upon  the  unsound 
 hypothesis,  that  chronological  principles   must   alone  rule  the 
 
CHAP.  XI.  1-46.  0 
 
 order  of  events  in  tlie  Gospel  of  Luke, — a  view  by  which  Bengel 
 was  so  far  led  astray,  as  to  assume  that  there  was  a  double  pair 
 of  sisters  Mary  and  Martha,  one  Galilean,  Luke  x.,  and  another 
 of  Bethany,  and  which  in  other  respects  has  introduced  such 
 inextricable  confusion.  Luke  announces,  in  ch.  i.  3,  that  he 
 purposed  giving  the  events  in  their  order.  But  the  analogy  of 
 the  book  of  Judges  teaches  us  that  we  are  not  to  extend  this 
 purpose  to  every  detail.  The  author  of  that  book  says,  in  the 
 first  words  of  it,  that  he  intended  to  write  what  took  place  after 
 the  death  of  Joshua.  But  he  then  forthwith,  throughout  the 
 first  chapter,  recapitulates  events  that  occurred  during  Joshua's 
 life,  which  were  of  importance  for  the  right  understanding  of 
 events  which  took  place  after  his  death ;  and  in  ch.  ii.  6  seq. 
 he  returns  back  to  the  times  of  Joshua.  The  words,  "  And  it 
 came  to  pass  after  Joshua  was  dead,"  at  the  beginning,  were 
 designed,  therefore,  only  to  lay  down  the  o'ule,  which  would 
 admit  of  exceptions  where  circumstances  rendered  them  neces- 
 sary. So  also  is  it  with  Luke.  The  beginning  and  the  end  of 
 his  Gospel  relate  events  in  their  chronological  succession.  But 
 in  the  middle,  after  he  has  brought  down  the  history  to  the 
 verge  of  the  Passion,  between  the  active  work  and  the  sufferings 
 of  the  Kedeemer,  we  have  in  ch.  ix.  57-xviii.  34,  an  entire 
 circle  of  events  which  he  did  not  purpose  to  adjust  chrono- 
 logically ;  thereby  intimating,  that  in  this  section  everything 
 bears  an  indefinite  character,  so  far  as  time  and  place  are  con- 
 cerned,— a  testimony  against  those  who  would  enforce  chronolo- 
 gical rules  upon  matter  that  obstinately  resists  them.  In  this 
 part  of  Luke's  Gospel,  which  is  not  fettered  by  chronology,  and 
 which  is  justified  by  the  consideration,  that  in  Holy  Scripture 
 everything  gives  way  to  edification,  stands  the  narrative  of  the 
 visit  of  Jesus  to  Mary  and  Martha,  ch.  x.  38  seq.  In  reference 
 to  the  chronological  position  of  this  visit  we  are  left  perfectly 
 free :  the  writer  gives  us  not  the  least  intimation.  But  the  same 
 Spirit  from  whom  proceeded  the  interpolation  of  this  whole 
 chronologically  unconnected  mass,  manifests  its  influence  in 
 various  ways,  even  in  those  parts  which  are  chronologically  con- 
 nected. Luke  even  in  them  also  combines  the  succession  of 
 time  with  the  connection  in  the  nature  of  the  events  :  he  intro- 
 duces parentheses,  and  places  things  related  by  their  character 
 in  juxtaposition.     Such  a  parenthesis  occurs  in  the  narrative  of 
 
b  CHAP.  VII.  1-XII.  50. 
 
 the  feast  in  the  house  of  Simon  the  Pharisee,  concerning  the 
 sinner  and  her  anointing,  ch.  vii.  36-50.  This  is  not  an  arbi- 
 trary supposition  :  it  rests  upon  plain  and  obvious  grounds. 
 The  narrative  is  given  as  an  appendix  to  the  Lord's  declaration 
 in  ch.  vii.  34 :  "  The  Son  of  man  is  come  eating  and  drinking ; 
 and  ye  say,  Behold  a  gluttonous  man,  and  a  winebibber,  a  friend 
 of  publicans  and  sinners  !"  The  Pharisaic  offence  at  "  the 
 friend  of  publicans  and  sinners,"  could  not  be  better  exemplified 
 than  by  this  narrative.  The  catchword  a/ji,apTcok6<i  serves  to 
 connect  the  event  related  in  its  chronological  sequence  and  the 
 interpolation  with  each  other.  Thus  the  account  of  Luke's 
 anointing  is  perfectly  free  as  to  its  chronological  place  :  what 
 that  place  is,  must  be  found  in  the  other  Evangelists.  Luke 
 says  nothing  about  the  time  of  its  occurrence. 
 
 2.  "  Martha  and  her  sister,"  it  is  said,  "  were  of  Bethany, 
 but  Magdalen  of  Galilee."  But  there  is  no  contradiction  here. 
 The  name  Magdalena  certainly  points  most  probably  to  Mag- 
 dala  as  the  home  of  Mary,  and  thus  of  Martha  also, — a  place 
 mentioned  in  Matt.  xv.  39  as  on  the  west  coast  of  the  sea  of 
 Gennesareth,  a  few  miles  from  Tiberias,  and  now  el  Medschdel. 
 The  free  communication  between  Jerusalem,  in  a  certain  sense 
 the  metropolis  of  the  whole  people,  and  the  country,  easily 
 explains  how  Martha  came  to  Bethany.  Simon  may  have  made 
 her  acquaintance  at  one  of  her  visits  to  the  feasts.  With  the 
 change  of  her  dwelling,  the  change  of  her  designation  would 
 concur.  The  original  name  we  know  not.  Martha,  "  the 
 lady,"  was  certainly  not  her  original  name,  but  the  honourable 
 designation  which  was  given  her  when  she  became  the  mistress 
 of  the  rich  Simon's  household  affairs,  just  as  in  earlier  days  she 
 who  was  called  as  a  virgin  Iscah  (Gen.  xi.  29),  obtained  as 
 Abraham's  wife  the  name  of  Sarai,  "  my  dominion,"  honourable 
 lady.  In  Jerusalem  the  name  Martha  would  not  have  been  very 
 distinguishing,  only  having  value  within  the  house  ;  but  it  was 
 quite  sufficient  for  the  little  village  of  Bethany,  where  there 
 was  only  one  lord,  the  rich  Simon,  whose  property  was  there, 
 and  also  one  "  lady."  ^     Mary  had  remained  in  Galilee,  and 
 
 1  Instead  of  n''3n  TOV^  i"  1  Kings  xvii.  17,  the  Targum  has  SfTia  niD- 
 The  maid  in  2  Ivings  v.  3  speaks  nrnD!?,  to  her  mistress.  In  Isa.  Ix.  2,  the 
 maid  and  her  mistress,  nm^,  are  placed  together.  In  Bereshith  Rabba, 
 sec.  47,  we  read :  "  The  Rabbis  say  KHID  for  Thv2-,  mistress  of  the  house." 
 
CHAP.  XI.  1—46. 
 
 there  led  a  life  of  sin.     After  the  Lord  had  cast  seven  evil 
 spirits  out  of  her,  she  had  followed  Him  in  His  travels  through 
 Galilee,  Luke  viii.  1-3.      She  could  not  separate  from  Him 
 with  whom  she  had  received  the  death  of  her  sinful  passions. 
 He  had  become  the  magnet  of  her  life.     Darkness  came  upon 
 her  inner  being  when  she  no  longer  saw  this  light.     About  half 
 a  year  before  His  death  Jesus  had  left  Galilee.     During  the 
 entire  period  between  the  last  Feast  of  Tabernacles  and  the 
 last  Passover,  He  remained  in  Jerusalem  and  its  neighbour- 
 hood (Bethabara  and  Ephraim).     Mary  had  accompanied  Him 
 in  the  journey  from  Galilee  to  Jerusalem,  Matt,  xxvii.  55,  56 ; 
 Mark  xv.  40,  41  ;  Luke  xxiii.  49,  55  ;  John  xix.  25.     What 
 should  she  do  in  Galilee,  when  the  "  great  light"  which  had 
 risen  upon  the  darkness  of  that  country  had  retired  from  it  ? 
 Nothing  remained  for  her  then  but  the  remembrance  of  her 
 sins.      When  Mary  went  to  Judea,  she  was  directed  to  take 
 up  her  abode  with  her  sister.     There  she  could  "  sit  still  in  the 
 house,"  and  show  that  the  words  of  Pro  v.  vii.  11  no  longer 
 applied  to  her  ("  she  is  loud  and  stubborn  ;  her  feet  abide  not 
 in  her  house")  ;  she  could  at  the  same  time  continue  her  com- 
 munion with  the  Healer  of  her  soul.     The  visit  to  the  sisters 
 •  which  Luke  x.  38-42  records,  took  place  during  the  time  of 
 our  Saviour's  abode  in  Jerusalem  after  the  Feast  of  Taber- 
 nacles.    That  Jesus  often  went  to  Bethany,  we  learn  from  the 
 history  of  His  last  days,  when  He  was  wont  to  pass  the  night 
 in   that  village,  after   spending   the    day  in   Jerusalem.      In 
 Bethany  Lazarus  also  had  found  a  new  home.     That  he  abode 
 in  the  house  of  his  brother-in-law,  and  such  a  brother-in-law, 
 leads  us  to  the  conclusion  that  he  had  adopted  a  similar  course 
 to  that  of  his  sister  Mary  ;  and  this  is  confirmed  by  the  special 
 love  that  Jesus  bore  to  him,  Matt,  xviii.  10-14 ;  Luke  xv.  4-7, 
 xix.  10.     That  his  position  in  the  house  of  his  brother-in-law 
 was  a  humble  one,  we  may  gather  from  the  conduct  of  the 
 latter   to  his  sister-in-law;    and  we  have  a  direct  assurance 
 of  it  in  the  parable  concerning  Lazarus.     This  parable,  which 
 Jesus   probably  delivered   on   the   same   occasion,   forms  the 
 counterpart  to  the  transaction  between  Jesus  and  Simon  touch- 
 ing Mary  Magdalen. 
 
 3.  "  If  Luke,"  it  is  urged,  "  meant  the  same  woman,  why 
 does  he  designate  her  by  different  names,  and  speak  no  other- 
 
8  CHAP.  VII.  1-XII.  50. 
 
 wise  in  chs.  vii.  viii.  x.  than  if  he  intended  to  introduce  to  us 
 three  different  women  ?  In  eh.  x.  38  he  speaks  of  Mary  the 
 sister  of  Lazarus  as  of  one  unknown,  while  in  ch.  viii.  he  had 
 already  referred  to  the  Magdalen.  Mary  the  sister  of  Martha 
 is  never  termed  Magdalene,  and  Mary  Magdalene  is  never 
 termed  the  sister  of  Martha  or  Lazarus."  This  argument  is 
 at  first  glance  very  plausible  ;  but  it  loses  its  force  when  we 
 remark  that  the  Evangelists,  in  their  communications  concern- 
 ing the  relations  of  Mary  and  Martha,  were  under  a  certain 
 degree  of  restraint.  As  to  the  reasons  of  this  reserve,  we  are 
 left  to  conjecture.  One  reason  was  probably  a  regard  for 
 Gentile  readers.  In  the  writings  of  the  Old  Testament  we 
 meet  with  only  exceptional  instances  of  such  regard — for  in- 
 stance, in  the  preacher  Solomon.  These  writings  were,  as  a 
 whole,  ignored  by  the  Gentile  world.  But  it  was  otherwise 
 with  the  writings  of  the  New  Testament.  They  were  written 
 in  the  language  then  universal;  and  the  tendency  of  the 
 Christian  Church,  from  the  beginning,  was  to  make  incursions 
 upon  heathenism,  while  the  Church  of  the  Old  Testament  was 
 content  to  maintain  its  own  existence.  The  result  corresponded 
 with  the  design.  It  was  natural  that  the  spirit  of  defence  in 
 heathenism  would  fasten  its  keen  observation  on  the  written 
 archives  of  the  new  religion,  and  use  them  in  its  own  service. 
 This  being  the  case,  it  seemed  perilous  to  lay  open  very  ex- 
 plicitly the  life  of  Mary ;  it  might  be  surrendering  to  the  rude 
 mockery  of  the  Gentiles  one  of  the  leading  persons  of  Chris- 
 tianity, and  with  her  the  Christian  cause  itself.  It  seemed 
 more  appropriate  to  give  mere  hints,  so  that  only  the  deeper 
 investigators  might  understand  the  whole  connection  of  things, 
 which  would  remain  hidden  from  superficial  readers.  A  second 
 design  was,  as  it  seems  to  us,  one  of  pious  respect  to  Martha. 
 It  was  not  desirable  to  expose  to  all  the  world  the  strange 
 household  relations  in  which  she  stood  as  the  wife  of  Simon 
 the  Pharisee.  But  whatever  view  we  may  take  of  the  reasons 
 of  it,  the  fact  of  an  intentional  reserve  lies  clearly  before  us ; 
 and  with  it  the  argument  we  now  consider  falls  to  the  ground. 
 Luke  introduces  to  us  in  ch.  vii.  36,  "  a  woman  which  was  a 
 sinner."  That  he  knows  her  name,  but  will  not  mention  it,  is 
 shown  by  what  immediately  follows,  where  he  retrospectively, 
 and  with  a  secret  hint,  alludes  to  her  name.     When  in  ch. 
 
CHAP.  XI.  1-46.  V 
 
 viii.  1  seq.  he  returns  again  to  the  chronological  order,  he 
 makes  mention  of  "  certain  women  which  had  been  healed  of 
 evil  spirits  and  infirmities,"  placing  at  their  head  Mary  Mag- 
 dalene, "out  of  whom  went  seven  devils."     There  we  have 
 the  "  sinner."      But  even  in  this  gentle  and  prudently  hinted 
 solution  of  the  mystery  which  the  previous  section  presents, 
 we  have  the  same  reserve  again.     The  expression,  which  had 
 already  occurred  in  Mark  xvi.  9,  retains  a  certain  ambiguity,  so 
 that  it  might  be  explained  of  an  "  infirmity,"  a  merely  bodily 
 infliction.     The  sin  is  at  the  same  time  disguised  under  the  veil 
 of  this  expression.     Matthew  and  Mark  record  the  anointing  in 
 Bethany  as  performed  by  "  a  woman."     That  they  know  the 
 name,  and  that  it  was  concealed  only  for  the  time,  is  plain  from 
 the  fact  that  they  record  the  declaration  of  Christ,  "  Verily, 
 verily,  I  say  unto  you.  Wherever  this  Gospel  shall  be  preached 
 in  all  the  world,  there  shall  this  that  this  woman  hath  done  be 
 told  for  a  memorial  of  her."     Name  and  memorial  are  insepar- 
 ably connected  together.     In  John's  account  of  the  last  feast 
 in  Bethany,  the  giver  of  the  feast  is  designedly  unmentioned. 
 " They,"  it  is  said,  "made  Him  a  feast."     Lazarus  was  not  the 
 host ;  for  he  is  expressly  mentioned  as  one  of  the  guests.     Who 
 the  host  was,  is  indirectly  contained  in  the  remark  that  "Martha 
 served;"  that  is,  according  to  New  Testament  phraseology, 
 played  the  hostess.   That  Martha  was  married,  is  plain  from  her 
 name:  she  appears  as  the  head  of  the  house  in  Luke  x.  38,  "A 
 woman  named  Martha  received  Him  into  her  house;"  she  re- 
 quires of  Mary  only  that  she  should  lend  her  co-operation,  and 
 help  her  in  her  many  cares  as  the  mistress  of  the  house.   Bengel 
 properly  compares  1  Cor.  vii.  32  seq.     If  Martha  was  the 
 hostess,  her  husband  must  have  been  the  host.     His  name  had 
 been  mentioned  already  in  Matt.  xxvi.  6,  "  When  Jesus  was  in 
 Bethany,  in  the  house  of  Simon  the  leper,"  and  in  Mark  xiv.  3. 
 But  there  Martha  is  not  mentioned,  and  the  name  of  Mary 
 is  also  wanting.     John,  on  the  other  hand,  omits  to  give  the 
 name  of  the  host,  although  well  known  to  him.     We  see  that 
 all  the  Evangelists  have  it  in  view,  that  the  unpleasant  family 
 relations  of  this  house  should  not,  at  the  first  glance,  be  laid 
 bare,      Simon   is   in   Luke   plainly   mentioned,   but   not  the 
 husband  of  Martha.     Luke  isolates  him,  in  order  to  show  his 
 title  to  make  his  comment.     Never  are  Simon  and  Martha 
 
10  CHAP.  VII.  1-XII.  50. 
 
 brought  together  in  the  narratives.  We  are  obhged  to  supply 
 the  inference  that  he  was  the  husband  of  Martha.  The  same 
 design  appears  in  John  also,  in  the  circumstance  that  in  ch. 
 xix.  25  he  suddenly  introduces  the  name  of  Mary  Magdalene, 
 without  giving  the  reader  any  further  intimation  about  her, 
 without  giving  any  answer  to  the  obvious  question  as  to  her 
 relation  to  Mary  the  sister  of  Lazarus.  For  the  great  mass  of 
 readers  this  relation  was,  for  the  time,  to  remain  uncertain. 
 For  this  there  was  probably  another  reason,  in  addition  to  those 
 already  suggested.  Many  readers  would  find  more  edification 
 in  these  things  when  distributed  among  several  persons,  than 
 when  united  in  one.  And  the  Evangelists  would  not  prevent 
 this.  But,  at  the  same  time,  care  was  taken  that  the  true 
 relation  of  things  might  be  known  by  those  to  whom  their 
 occurrence  in  one  person  would  not  be  an  offence,  but  yield 
 edification,  who  were  thoroughly  free  from  the  Pharisaical  spirit 
 of  Simon, — a  thing  more  difficult  than  to  many  it  might  appear. 
 That  the  Apostles  themselves  were  not  altogether  free  from 
 this  spirit,  is  plain  from  the  fact  that  Judas  was  able  to  infect 
 them  with  his  murmuring  displeasure.  Had  not  Mary  been  a 
 "  sinner,"  this  would  not  have  been  possible. 
 
 4.  "  It  is  said  concerning  the  sinner  of  Luke,  that  she  was 
 a  woman  in  the  city.  The  Mary  of  Lazarus,  on  the  contrary, 
 dwelt  in  Bethany,  which  is  by  Luke  himself,  in  ch.  x.,  described 
 as  a  village."  But  there  is  no  real  contradiction  in  this.  The 
 connection  in  which  Luke  communicates  the  narrative  of  the 
 sinner  in  ch.  vii.,  as  a  mere  appendage  to  the  assertion  that 
 Christ  was  the  friend  of  publicans  and  sinners,  independently 
 of  all  chronological  sequence,  of  itself  intimates  that  external 
 relations  would  be  given  only  in  the  vaguest  generality. 
 Exactness  would  in  such  a  case  be  not  an  advantage,  but  a 
 defect.  Where  the  account  was  so  general,  Bethany  might 
 appropriately  be  spoken  of  as  the  suburb  of  "a  city."  The 
 article  does  not  denote  a  definite  city,  but  stands  as  often 
 generically — the  city  in  opposition  to  the  country :  so  the  moun- 
 tain in  Matt.  v.  1,  is  really  a  mountain,  and  thus  translated 
 by  Luther ;  and  the  sliip  of  Matt.  ix.  1,  a  ship.  Bethany  was 
 a  suburhium  of  Jerusalem  :  according  to  John  xi.  18,  it  lay 
 "nigh  to  Jerusalem,"  only  15  stadia  removed;  and  the  citizens 
 had  there  their  resort,  according  to  vers.  19,  45,  46,  and  the 
 
CHAP.  XI.  1-46.  11 
 
 narrative  of  the  feast,  Luke  xi.  37  seq.  The  property  of 
 Simon  was  related  to  the  city,  as  a  detached  country-house  to 
 a  village.  Jesus  was  wont  to  retire  there  to  spend  the  night 
 during  His  last  week.  As  here  the  city,  in  a  wider  sense, 
 includes  its  surroundings,  so  Jericho  is  used  for  the  district  of 
 Jericho  in  Matt.  xx.  29.  Jesus  had  spent  the  night  in  the 
 neighbourhood  of  the  city.  When  he  left  that  lodging,  a  blind 
 man  met  Him  near  the  city  who  sat  and  begged,  according  to 
 Luke  xviii.  35,  who  does  not  here  contradict  Matthew,  but  only, 
 as  a  later  writer,  gives  the  more  exact  details. 
 
 5.  "  The  sinner "  comes,  as  Augustin  says,  first  to  Jesus, 
 and  obtains  through  her  humiliation  and  tears  the  forgiveness 
 of  her  sins.  This  seems  to  show  that  she  must  be  distinguished 
 from  the  sister  of  Lazarus,  with  whom  Jesus  at  the  anointing 
 in  Bethany  was  already  well  acquainted,  and  who  was  the  only 
 sister-in-law  of  Simon  the  leper,  at  whose  house  the  feast  was 
 made.  But  Schleiermacher,  in  his  work  upon  Luke,  has  shown 
 in  what  difficulties  we  are  entangled,  if,  deceived  by  appear- 
 ances,— which  here  result  from  the  fact,  that  Luke  takes  a 
 particular  incident  in  the  life  of  the  sinner,  and  interweaves  it 
 into  a  complete  exhibition  of  Christ's  life, — we  assume  that  the 
 sinner  had  been  hitherto  a  perfect  sti:anger  to  Jesus  and  the 
 circle  into  which  she  entered.  "  Is  it  indeed  probable,"  he  asks, 
 "  that  a  respectable  Pharisee  at  a  great  feast  would  have  per- 
 mitted entrance  into  the  guest-chamber  to  a  person  whose  reputa- 
 tion was  so  foul,  and  so  justly  foul,  in  the  whole  neighbourhood? 
 The  person  who  should  venture  on  and  accomplish  such  an  act 
 — without  being  rejected  with  abhorrence  and  removed,  or 
 appearing  in  a  very  adventurous  and  ridiculous  light — must,  on 
 the  one  hand,  have  had  a  right  to  be  there,  and  to  enter  among 
 the  guests,  and,  on  the  other,  have  stood  in  some  well  under- 
 stood relation  to  Christ  Himself."  The  appearance  as  if  the 
 sinner  now  for  the  first  time  obtained  forgiveness  of  sins,  has 
 arisen  from  the  fact  that  Jesus  defends  her  against  the  attack 
 of  her  Pharisaic  brother-in-law;  as  also  that  she  had  been 
 constrained  by  the  uncoui'teous  conduct  of  this  brother-in-law 
 towards  Jesus  to  give  a  new  expression  to  the  fulness  of  her 
 heart's  love  and  gratitude  towards  Him,  and  thus  to  retrieve 
 the  Christian  honour  of  the  house.  To  Simon  the  Pharisee, 
 Mary  is  never  anything  but  a  sinner.     A  supernatural  gift  he 
 
12 
 
 CHAP.  VII.  1-XII.  50. 
 
 Jias  never  himself  experienced  in  his  own  heart,  and  so  can 
 never  acknowledge  it  in  another.  In  opposition  to  his  spiritual 
 rudeness,  Jesus  confirms  to  the  humiliated  Mary,  before  all 
 the  guests,  the  forgiveness  of  her  sins.  A  similar  position 
 to  what  he  assumed  towards  his  sister-in-law  Mary,  Simon 
 assumed  towards  his  brother-in-law  Lazarus.  The  parable 
 concerning  Lazarus,  which  Jesus  delivered  probably  at  the 
 same  meal,  is  the  counterpart  of  the  colloquy  between  Simon 
 and  Jesus  concerning  Mary  Magdalene.  That  this  parable 
 had  a  historical  basis,  was  shown  by  the  Fathers.-^  If  we 
 deny  the  connection  between  John's  Lazarus  and  the  Lazarus 
 of  the  parable,  we  pave  the  way  for  modern  destructive  criti- 
 cism, which  uses  the  parable  in  order  to  bring  into  suspicion 
 the  historical  truth  of  the  narrative  of  Johu.^  It  is  a  strik- 
 ing circumstance  in  itself,  that  any  name  is  mentioned  in  the 
 parable.  This  occurs  in  no  other  parable  of  the  New  Tes- 
 tament. But  if  Jesus  had  purposed  to  use  a  name,  He  cer- 
 tainly would  not  have  used  this  one  in  particular,  which  must 
 have  made  all  think  of  the  Lazarus  so  nearly  related  to  Him- 
 self, if  He  had  not  had  this  same  Lazarus  in  His  eye.  With 
 the  historical  Lazarus,  who  dwells  in  the  house  of  his  brother- 
 in-law,  a  rich  man,  and. eats  at  his  table,  the  Lazarus  of  the 
 parable  has  this  in  common,  that  he  satisfies  himself  with  the 
 crumbs  that  fell  from  the  rich  man's  table :  the  historical  rela- 
 tion is  presented  to  us  here  only  with  a  poetical  clothing.  The 
 Lazarus  of  the  parable  dies,  and  goes  into  Abraham's  bosom : 
 and  the  starting-point  for  the  poetry  lies  in  the  history  itself. 
 And  even  for  the  resurrection  of  the  historical  Lazarus  we  have 
 a  point  of  connection  in  the  parable.  It  is  said  in  Luke  xvi.  31, 
 "  If  they  hear  not  Moses  and  the  prophets,  neither  will  they  be 
 convinced  if  one  should  rise  from  the  dead."  This  passage  has 
 close  affinity  with  John  xi.  46,  where  we  read,  after  the  record 
 that  many  believed  in  consequence  of  the  resurrection  of  Laza- 
 rus, "  But  some  went  to  the  Pharisees,  and  told  them  what  Jesus 
 had  done."     We  may  well  assume  that  Simon  was  among  the 
 
 ^  Tertullian,  de  Animd,  says  :  Imaginem  existimas  exitum  ilium  pauperis 
 Ijetantis  et  divitis  maerentis?  Et  quid  illic  Lazari  nomen,  si  non  in  veritate 
 res  est?  Feuardentius  on  Irenaeus,  B.  iv.  c.  4,  has  collected  similar  testi- 
 monies from  the  Greek  and  Latin  Fathers. 
 
 2  Baur,  iiber  die  Evangelien,  s.  249. 
 
CHAP.  XL  1-46.  13 
 
 number  of  these.  Even  the  name  "  leper,"  which  he  bears  in 
 Matthew  and  Luke,  awakens  no  favourable  prejudice  towards 
 him.  A  man  would  not  continue  to  be  designated  by  such  an 
 opprobrious  name,  after  being  healed  of  the  disease,  unless  his 
 spiritual  nature  suggested  a  certain  analogy  with  that  disease. 
 And  what  is  recorded  of  him  in  Luke  vii.  excellently  suits  this 
 name.  If  after  the  resurrection  of  Lazarus  he  retained  the  same 
 disposition  towards  Christ  which  that  narrative  displays,  where 
 he  denied  to  the  guest  obtruded  upon  him  the  most  common 
 courtesies,  we  may  well  rely  upon  it  that  he  was  the  centre  of 
 what  is  recorded  in  John,  ver.  46.  Thus,  probably,  from  the 
 same  house  in  which  Mary  sat  at  Jesus'  feet,  and  Martha 
 served  Him  with  joyful  heart,  where  Lazarus  dwelt  whom 
 Jesus  loved,  proceeded  the  first  impulse  to  the  Saviour's  death. 
 It  is  obvious  to  assume  that  Simon  nourished  a  mortal  hatred 
 towards  Him  who  had  disturbed  the  peace  of  his  house,  Matt. 
 X.  34.  Finally,  even  the  five  brothers  in  the  parable  belong, 
 as  Bengal  perceived,  not  simply  and  solely  to  the  region  of 
 fiction.  The  originals  might  well  have  sat  at  this  same  table. 
 We  have,  in  Luke  xi.  37  seq.,  yet  another  scene  which  seems 
 to  belong  to  this  same  feast.  A  Pharisee  there  also  invites 
 Jesus  to  his  table :  not  a  Pharisee  like  Nicodemus,  but,  as  the  con- 
 versation at  the  table  shows,  one  of  the  ordinary  stamp.  There 
 we  have  certain  quite  peculiar  relations  in  the  house  of  this 
 Pharisee,  such  as  could  scarcely  have  been  found  in  any  other 
 than  the  house  of  Simon.  This  circumstance  leads  us  only  to 
 identify  the  house,  in  which  probably  the  scene  also  of  Luke 
 xiv.  1—24  is  to  be  placed,  where  Jesus  is  invited  by  one  "  of  the 
 chief  Pharisees"  to  eat  on  the  Sabbath.  But  while  the  latter 
 scene  probably  belongs  to  the  time  of  the  abode  of  Jesus  in 
 Jerusalem,  before  the  journey  into  the  country  beyond  Jordan, 
 John  X.  40, — the  same  time  in  which  the  visit  of  Jesus  to 
 Mary  and  Martha,  Luke  x.,  falls, — in  Luke  xi.  37  seq.  there 
 are  definite  reasons  which  lead  us  to  the  last  meal  in  Bethany, — 
 namely,  the  fact  that,  according  to  ver.  49,  this  meal  must  have 
 occurred  in  the  last  days  of  our  Lord ;  and  again,  the  coinci- 
 dence of  the  discourses  which  Jesus  uttered  against  the  scribes 
 and  Pharisees  with  Matt,  xxiii.^     The  description  of  the  vivid 
 
 '  Probably  there  is  some  internal  connection  between  the  facts,  that 
 Jesus  to  the  Pharisee's  offence  does  not  wash  His  hands,  Luke  xi.  38,  and  that 
 
1-4  CHAP.  VII.  1-XII.  50. 
 
 conflict  of  Jesus  with  His  fellow-guests,  the  Pharisees  and 
 scribes,  in  vers.  53,  54,  assures  us  of  the  originals  of  the  rich 
 man's  five  brothers.  This  further  sets  aside  the  remark  of 
 Benwel,  "  Simon  the  Pharisee  doubts  whether  Jesus  were  a 
 prophet ;  Simon  the  leper  could  not  doubt,  in  the  presence  of 
 Lazarus  raised  up."  That  he  could  doubt,  is  clear  from  John 
 xi.  4C,  according  to  which  eye-witnesses  of  that  resurrection 
 told  the  Pharisees  with  an  evil  motive  what  Jesus  had  done ; 
 and  that  he  did  actually  doubt,  from  the  combination  of  the 
 parable  of  Lazarus  with  this  passage.  That  there  must  be  a 
 connection  between  Luke  xvi.  31,  "  If  they  hear  not  Moses  and 
 the  prophets,  neither  will  they  be  persuaded  though  one  rose 
 from  the  dead,"  and  John  xi.  46,  has  forced  itself  upon  the 
 convictions  of  many  expositors.  Stier,  for  example,  remarks 
 on  the  latter  passage,  "Now  Luke  xvi.  31  has  its  impressive 
 fulfilment;"  which  proceeds,  however,  upon  the  unfounded 
 supposition  that  the  parable  of  Lazarus  belorged  to  an  earlier 
 period.  The  possibility  of  the  doubt  in  itself  could  not,  how- 
 ever, be  denied.  A  Pharisee  like  Simon  is  a  poor  psychologist 
 when  the  light  side  of  human  nature  comes  into  question.  He 
 judges  all  things  according  to  his  own  perverted  heart,  and 
 after  the  fashion  of  his  party,  so  rich  in  wiles  and  self-decep- 
 tion. A  preconcerted  plan  between  Jesus  and  the  three  Chris- 
 tian members  of  his  household  was  to  the  cunning  Jew  the 
 solution  of  the  wdiole  problem;  and,  in  fact,  he  could  not  go 
 further  who  was  morally  so  low  as  not  to  recoil  from  the  sup- 
 position of  such  a  concerted  scheme. 
 
 6.  "  The  Pharisee  Simon  says,  in  Luke  vii.  39  :  This  man, 
 if  he  were  a  prophet,  would  have  known  who  and  what  manner 
 of  woman  this  is  that  toucheth  him  ;  for  she  is  a  sinner.  Ac- 
 cording to  this,  the  sinner  was  till  now  unknown  to  Jesus,  while 
 the  Mary  of  Lazarus  had  stood  in  the  nearest  relation  to  Jesus 
 long  before  the  meal  at  Bethany."  But  we  have  already  shown 
 in  what  perplexities  we  involve  ourselves,  when  we  assume  that 
 this  woman  then  for  the  first  time  entered  into  the  presence  of 
 Jesus  and  the  circle  which  joined  Him  around  the  table.     The 
 
 the  Pharisee,  Luke  vii.  44,  gives  Him  no  water  for  His  feet.  A  guest  who 
 neglected  the  most  sacred  customs,  seemed  to  the  Pharisee  deserving  of  no 
 civility.  He  rejoiced  that  what  sprang  from  his  own  inclination  was  thus 
 in  some  sense  justified. 
 
CHAP.  XI.  1-46.  15 
 
 objection,  liowever,  is  I'obbed  of  its  point  by  observing  that  the 
 word  prophet  here  only  includes  the  idea  of  holy  man,  and  sent 
 of  God ;  and  that  the  knotoing  here,  as  often,  is  not  a  merely 
 superficial  and.  purely  theoretical  knowledge,  but  real  and  prac- 
 tical— such  a  knowing  as  that  of  Isa.  Ixiii.  16,  where  Israel  says 
 to  God :  "  Doubtless  Thou  art  our  Father,  though  Abraham  be 
 ignorant  of  us,  and  Israel  acknowledge  us  not :  Thou,  O  Lord, 
 art  our  Father,  our  Redeemer;  Thy  name  is  everlasting;"  as 
 also  that  of  Hos.  xiii.  5.  Simon  does  not  stumble  at  Christ's 
 theoretical  ignorance,  but  at  the  fact  that  He  ignores  and  pre- 
 termits the  earlier  sinful  course  of  this  woman.  It  is  not  said 
 in  vain,  "  When  the  Pharisee,  which  had  bidden  Him,  saw  it." 
 It  was  as  a  Pharisee  that  Simon  took  offence  at  the  conduct  of 
 Jesus.  The  whole  narrative  is  recorded  as  an  adjunct  to  the 
 remark  that  the  Pharisees  took  offence  at  "  the  friend  of  pub- 
 licans and  sinners."  If  the  knowing  here  is  understood  of 
 being  acquainted  Avith  the  mere  fact,  Simon  does  not  inter- 
 pose as  a  Pharisee,  and  the  connection  with  ver.  34  is  lost. 
 According  to  our  view,  we  have  here  a  distinct  parallel  to  Matt, 
 ix.  11  :  "  And  when  the  Pharisees  saw  it,  they  said  unto  His  dis- 
 ciples. Why  eateth  your  Master  with  publicans  and  sinners'?" 
 
 7.  "  At  the  anointing  of  Luke  vii.  no  one  murmured  on 
 account  of  the  waste  of  the  ointment  ;  only  the  Pharisee 
 thought  within  himself  that  Jesus,  if  a  prophet,  would  not 
 have  let  this  woman  touch  Him  ;  but  in  John  xii.  Judas  mur- 
 murs on  account  of  the  waste  of  the  precious  substance,  and 
 Christ  defends  this  act.  In  Luke,  Christ  instructs  Simon  in 
 the  nature  of  true  love  as  the  undeceiving  sign  and  assurance  of 
 justifying  faith,  and  announces  to  her  who  had  anointed  Him 
 the  forgiveness  of  her  sins.  In  John  there  is  nothing  of  all 
 this."  But  there  is  no  contradiction  here :  nothins  more  than 
 agreement  and  supplementing.  The  narrative  of  Luke  was 
 required  by  its  object  to  bear  a  partial  character.  Pie  gives  it 
 only  as  an  illustration  of  the  Pharisaic  complaint  against  Christ 
 as  the  "  friend  of  publicans  and  sinners."  Weisse  (die  evang. 
 Gesch.  ii.  s.  143)  has  rightly  stated  this  one-sided  cliaracteristic 
 of  the  narrative :  "  The  peculiar  essence  of  the  narrative  is 
 brought  out  by  the  parable  of  the  two  debtors,  with  the  ap- 
 pended application.  Jesus  would  plainly  show  how  a  converted 
 sinner — that  is,  one  who  knows  and  repents  of  her  sins — is  of 
 
16  CHAP.  VII.  1-XII.  50. 
 
 more  value  than  such  righteous  persons  as  have  never  attained 
 to  a  true  consciousness  of  their  sinful  condition."  A  second 
 scene  which  was  enacted  at  the  anointing — that  which  contains 
 the  displeasure  and  murmurings  of  the  disciples,  as  already- 
 recorded  by  Matthew  and  Mark — it  did  not  comport  with 
 Luke's  object  to  introduce.  This  scene  stands  in  an  internal 
 connection  with  the  former,  as  we  have  already  intimated. 
 After  Simon's  assault  upon  the  woman  had  been  decisively- 
 repelled  by  our  Lord,  there  arose  a  murmuring  against  her 
 even  in  the  circle  of  tlie  disciples.  These  were  disposed,  after 
 she  had  been  so  highly  exalted  by  Christ,  to  prepare  for  her  a 
 slight  humiliation ;  for  they  themselves  were  as  yet  not  quite 
 exalted  above  the  prejudice  excited  by  the  fact  that  she  had 
 been  such  a  sinner.  John  almost  expressly  points  to  the  repre- 
 sentation in  Luke,  when  he  describes  the  anointing  in  words 
 taken  from  that  Gospel;  and  he  then  supplements  Matthew 
 and  Mark  by  the  information  that  the  centre  of  the  opposition 
 to  Mary  in  the  apostolical  circle  was  Judas  the  traitor.  This 
 gives  a  very  significant  contribution  to  the  understanding  of  the 
 transaction.  It  suits  well  the  character  of  Judas  that  he  should 
 come  to  the  help  of  Simon,  and  lead  up  another  seemingly  jus- 
 tifiable assault  against  Mary.  Simon  and  the  son  of  Simon 
 understand  each  other.  The  others,  or  at  least  several  among 
 them,  are  carried  away  by  the  specious  argument ;  they  exhibit 
 the  relics  of  a  Pharisaical  spirit  still  within  them,  and  which 
 could  not  be  destroyed  and  entirely  disappear  until  the  out- 
 pouring of  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  collision  between  the  believing 
 and  the  unbelieving  portion  of  the  guests,  inevitable  at  such  a 
 time  of  intense  excitement,  gave  occasion  to  Jesus,  during  the 
 progress  of  the  meal,  to  deliver  the  parable  of  Lazarus, — in 
 consequence,  probably,  of  offensive  allusions  which  Simon  made 
 to  the  disparagement  of  his  brother-in-law,  as  he  had  formerly 
 done  in  the  case  of  his  sister-in-law.  And  with  all  this  there  is 
 abundant  room  also  at  this  feast  for  what  is  recorded  in  Luke 
 xi.  37  seq.  The  intimation  there,  that  the  conflict  began  with 
 the  commencement  of  the  feast,  ch.  xi..38,  completely  coincides 
 with  Luke  vii.  45,  46.  We  might  expect  a  plenitude  of  events 
 at  a  feast  which  occurs  in  the  eventful  period  of  our  Lord's 
 last  days. 
 
 8.  Finally,  "  The  sinner  in  Luke,"  it  is  affirmed,  "  cannot  be 
 
CHAP.  XI.  1-46.  17 
 
 identical  with  Mary  Magdalene.  For  what  is  said  of  the  latter 
 — that  Jesus  cast  out  of  her  seven  spirits  or  '  demons ' — does 
 not  infer  a  life  of  sin,  but  rather  a  derangement  for  which  she 
 was  not  responsible.  Where  demons  are  introduced,  possession, 
 as  commonly  understood,  is  meant."  But  the  demons  do  not 
 stand  in  any  particular  relation  to  possession  :  they  everywhere 
 signify  the  "  angels  of  Satan,"  Matt.  xxv.  41,  Rev.  xii.  7, 
 whose  ministry  he  uses  for  all  his  evil  works.  This  appears 
 most  plainly  in  1  Tim.  iv.  1,  where  the  teachings  of  error  are 
 termed  "  the  doctrines  of  demons,"  thus  ascribing  to  them  an 
 influence  in  the  purely  spiritual  domain ;  and  from  1  Cor.  x.  20, 
 it  is  evident  also,  where  the  Gentiles  are  represented  as  sacri- 
 ficing to  demons,  and  not  to  God,  and  those  wdio  partake  of 
 Gentile  sacrificial  feasts  as  entering  into  the  fellowship  of 
 demons.  Here  also  the  demons  appear  as  presiding  over  a 
 moral  region,  and  from  whom  a  kind  of  moral  contagion  pro- 
 ceeds. When  James,  ch.  ii.  19,  says,  "The  demons  believe 
 and  tremble,"  he  evidently  has  in  view  the  whole  of  the  "  spiri- 
 tual powers  of  wickedness,"  Eph.  vi.  12.  And  when  our  Lord, 
 in  Matt.  ix.  34,  describes  Satan  as  the  "  prince  of  the  demons," 
 He  doubtless  meant  all  the  powers  of  evil  spirits  which  exist 
 apart  from  Satan,  and  not  one  individual  class  of  them.  We 
 are  led  to  the  same  result  by  the  fact  that  the  expressions,  "  evil 
 spirits,"  Luke  vii.  21,  and  "unclean  spirits,"  Matt.  x.  1,  Luke 
 iv.  33,  Mark  iii.  11,  are  used  interchangeably  with  demons. 
 These  expressions  are  too  general  to  allow  of  their  being  re- 
 stricted to  any  special  classes  of  evil  spirits.  Moreover,  to 
 these  "unclean  spirits,"  identical  with  the  demons,  there  is 
 expressly  attributed  by  our  Lord,  in  Matt.  xii.  43  seq.,  an  influ- 
 ence in  spiritual  things  :  "  When  the  unclean  spirit  is  gone  out 
 of  a  man,  etc. ;  then  goeth  he  and  taketh  to  himself  seven  other 
 spirits  more  wicked  than  himself."  Thus  the  Lord  speaks  when 
 depicting  the  growing  depravation  which  would  follow  upon 
 the  beginnings  of  repentance  among  the  Jews,  wdio,  in  conse- 
 quence of  the  manifestation  of  Christ,  would  degenerate  into  a 
 "  synagogue  of  Satan."  This  passage  is  all  the  more  important, 
 since  here,  and  in  the  M'hole  New  Testament  onli/  here,  we 
 find  the  seven  demons  or  unclean  spirits  of  Mary  Magdalene 
 recurring. 
 
 But  the  fact  remains, that  throughout  the  Gospels  the  demons 
 VOL.  II.  B 
 
18 
 
 CHAP.  VII.  1-XII.  50. 
 
 are  commonly  introduced  with  reference  to  so-called  possession  ; 
 while,  on  the  other  hand,  the  morally  evil  influences  which 
 come  from  hell  are  referred  directly  to  Satan,  who,  for  example, 
 put  it  into  the  heart  of  Judas  to  betray  the  Redeemer,  John 
 xiii.  2,  and  enters  into  Judas,  Lnke  xxii.  3.  But  this  is  ex- 
 plained by  the  consideration,  that  moral  siuTender  to  the  dark 
 powers,  as  being  the  more  awful,  leads  the  thought  more  ob- 
 viously and  directly  to  that  "  old  serpent,"  whose  working  was 
 manifested  in  the  moral  region  at  tlie  first  commencements  of 
 human  history.  No  unchangeable  rule  can  be  deduced  from 
 this.  Even  as  possession  in  Acts  x.  38  is  referred  directly  to 
 the  devil,  so  in  certain  circumstances  moral  degradation  may  be 
 represented  as  resulting  from  the  influence  of  demons.  The 
 reason  why  this  was  the  case  with  Mary  Magdalene,  we  have 
 already  indicated.  Thus  there  was  a  veil  thrown  over  her 
 former  melancholy  condition. 
 
 These,  then,  are  the  reasons  which  may  be  urged  against  the 
 personal  identity  of  the  Sinner,  Mary  Magdalene,  and  Mary 
 the  sister  of  Lazarus.  It  remains  that  we  exhibit  the  positive 
 arguments  which  support  the  hypothesis  of  that  identity. 
 
 If  Mary  Magdalene  and  the  sister  of  Lazarus  are  made  two 
 persons,  the  latter  was  not  present  at  the  crucifixion,  had  no 
 connection  with  the  embalming  (Mark  xvi.  1 ;  Luke  xxiii.  55 
 seq.),  and  was  not  amongst  the  witnesses  of  the  resurrection. 
 The  place  which  we  should  assign  to  the  woman  so  inwardly 
 bound  to  the  Lord,  to  Mary  the  sister  of  Lazarus  living  so 
 near  as  Bethany,  is  everywhere  appropriated  to  Mavy  Mag- 
 dalene. At  the  cross  there  is  only  one  Mary  present,  the  wife 
 of  Cleopas,  besides  Mary  Magdalene  and  the  mother  of  Jesus, 
 John  xix.  25.  At  the  entombment  of  Jesus  we  miss  the  sister 
 of  Lazarus  all  the  more,  as  she  had,  John  xii.  7,  already  pre- 
 symbolized  the  burial  of  the  Lord.  Was  she  likely  to  have  left 
 the  actual  embalming  to  the  hands  of  others  ? 
 
 As  Peter  regularly  stands  at  the  head  in  the  lists  of  the 
 Apostles,  so  does  Mary  Magdalene  when  women  are  mentioned. 
 This  place  of  honour  is  given  her  in  all  the  four  Evangelists. 
 Thus  it  is  in  the  enumeration  of  the  women  who  followed  Jesus 
 m  Galilee,  Luke  viii.  2  ;  in  the  narratives  of  the  crucifixion, 
 Matt,  xxvii.  5G,  Mark  xv.  40,  47 ;  of  the  entombment,  Matt. 
 
CHAP.  XI.  1-46.  19 
 
 xxvii.  61,  Mark  xvi.  1 ;  of  the  resurrection,  Matt,  xxviii.  1, 
 Mark  xvi.  9,  Luke  xxiv.  10.  Tlie  only  exception  is  John  xix. 
 25.  There,  Mary  the  sister  of  the  Lord's  mother  is  mentioned 
 before  Mary  Magdalene.  But  this  was  done  evidently  to  avoid 
 sundering  her  from  the  previously  mentioned  mother  of  Jesus, 
 who  naturally  took  precedence  of  Mary  Magdalene,  and  formed 
 the  centre  of  the  occurrence  there  mentioned.  How  absolutely 
 Mary  Magdalene  took  the  first  place  in  John's  Gospel,  is  plain 
 from  ch.  xx.  1,  18,  where  she  alone  is  mentioned,  and  those 
 who  accompanied  her  are  left  unmentioned.  Now,  if  we  dis- 
 tinguish Mary  Magdalene  from  the  Mary  of  Lazarus,  and  from 
 the  sinner  of  Luke,  we  lose  all  reason  for  such  a  distinction — 
 the  uniformity  of  which,  however,  shows  that  it,  like  the  dis- 
 tinction of  Peter,  must  rest  upon  some  definite  fact,  and  some 
 express  word  of  our  Lord  connected  with  that  fact.  For  the 
 isolated  Mary  Magdalene  there  remains  no  reason  but  this  one, 
 that  Jesus  cast  seven  devils  out  of  her ;  but  this  is  not  sufficient. 
 We  need  some  fact  which  exhibits  Mary  as  more  than  merely 
 suffering  and  receiving.  The  anointing  and  the  glorious  com- 
 mendation which  Jesus  gave  lier  on  occasion  of  it — this  is  the 
 true  solution  of  the  mystery  of  the  distinction  of  Mary  Mag- 
 dalene. 
 
 The  anointing  in  Bethany  is  recorded  by  Matthew,  Mark, 
 and  John.  We  might  naturally  expect  that  Luke  also  would 
 include  it.  For  it  was  in  reference  to  it  that  Jesus  said, 
 "  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you.  Wheresoever  this  Gospel  shall 
 be  preached  in  all  the  world,  this  also  that  this  woman  hath 
 done  shall  be  told  for  a  memorial  of  her."  But  Luke  contains 
 this  memorial,  only  if  we  recognise  the  identity  of  the  sinner 
 in  ch.  vii.  with  Mary  the  sister  of  Lazarus. 
 
 John,  in  ch.  xi.  2,  gives  it  as  a  characteristic  mark  of  Mary 
 of  Lazarus,  that  she  anointed  the  Lord,  and  wiped  His  feet  with 
 the  hairs  of  her  head.  But  this  token  would  lose  its  distinctive- 
 ness, if  we  suppose  that  another  woman,  the  sinner  in  Luke 
 vii.,  had  performed  the  same  act ;  and  this  passage  excludes 
 the  notion  of  a  double  anointing  on  the  part  of  Mary  herself, 
 for  here  only  one  anointing  is  spoken  of.  Had  there  been  two, 
 then,  in  the  time  that  John  wrote,  the  anointing  recorded  by 
 him  in  ch.  xii.,  and  already  before  him  by  Matthew  and  Mark, 
 would  not  less  than  the  earlier  have  passed  out  of  remembrance. 
 
20  CHAP.  VII.  1-XII.  50. 
 
 John  must  then  necessarily  have  separated  off  tlie  one  from  the 
 other.  Moreover,  we  are  otherwise  involved  in  the  greatest 
 difficulties  by  the  assumption  that  the  one  Mary  anointed  twice. 
 What,  once  performed,  was  an  expression  of  deep  and  true 
 feeling,  must  partake,  on  repetition,  of  another  and  forced 
 character.  The  whole  transaction  of  the  anointing  is  perfectly 
 intelligible  only  if  we  combine  all  the  elements  which  on  the 
 one  hand  occur  in  Luke,  and  on  the  other  in  John,  as  forming 
 its  conditions ;  and  thus  assign  to  it  one  motive,  and  rescue  it, 
 once  only  performed,  from  all  imputation  of  extravagance  on 
 the  part  of  Mary.  The  things  to  be  assumed  are,  that  Mary 
 had  been  a  sinner,  and  had  found  mercy  through  Jesus ;  that 
 our  Lord  had  given  to  her,  feeling  so  deeply  as  she  did  her 
 own  un worthiness,  the  very  highest  proof  of  His  love  in  the 
 resurrection  of  her  brother  ;  that  Jesus  was  dishonoured  by  the 
 master  of  the  same  house  that  had  received  such  a  deliverance ; 
 and  that  thus  a  mighty  impulse  had  been  given  to  show  "  that 
 gratitude  had  not  died  out  upon  earth,"  and  that  Simon  had 
 not  infected  the  whole  house  with  his  leprosy.  This  house  was 
 disinfected  by  the  savour  of  Mary's  ointment  from  the  pesti- 
 lential vapours  with  which  Judas  had  previously  filled  it.  If  it 
 had  before  represented  the  germ  of  the  synagogue  of  Satan, 
 now  it  became  a  type  of  the  future  Church  of  Christ.  Mary 
 was  urged  the  rather  to  present  the  very  utmost  in  honour  of 
 Jesus,  and  to  go  to  the  very  verge  of  the  extravagant,  inasmuch 
 as  she  knew  that  the  sufferings  and  death  of  Jesus  impended, 
 that  she  was  paying  Him  the  last  honour — a  circumstance  to 
 which  our  Lord  expressly  gives  prominence  for  her  justifica- 
 tion :  comp.  ch.  xii.  7. 
 
 The  hypothesis  of  two  distinct  anointings  is  encountered  by 
 the  insuperable  difficulty  of  both  having  occurred  in  the  house 
 of  a  Simon ;  but  his  designation,  on  the  one  hand,  as  a  Pha- 
 risee, and  on  the  other  as  a  leper,  presents  no  contradiction, 
 but  rather  the  reverse.  By  what  figure  could  Pharisaism  be 
 better  designated  or  described  than  by  that  of  leprosy,  by  which 
 man  in  a  living  body  becomes  an  offensive  and  abhorred  thing  ? 
 Both  anointings,  further,  took  place  at  a  feast,  and  both  have 
 in  common  the  highly  characteristic  circumstance  of  the  wiping 
 of  Jesus'  feet  with  the  hair  of  the  anointer's  head.  But  the 
 Evangelists  have  so  carefully  ordered  their  expressions,  that  he 
 
CHAP.  XI.  1-46.  21 
 
 cannot  err  wlio  very  carefully  follows  their  hints.  There  are 
 phenomena  here  which  are  very  characteristic  in  regard  to  the 
 relation  of  the  Evangelists  generally.  The  later  writers  adopted 
 the  most  characteristic  expressions  of  the  earlier,  thereby  as 
 good  as  expressly  citing  them,  while  declaring  their  purpose  to 
 be  only  supplementary  ;  just  as,  in  the  narrative  of  Moses,  his 
 manner  when  returning  to  tlie  same  object  is  not  expressly  to 
 adopt  the  same  words  again — which  would  not  suit  the  popular 
 character  of  Holy  Writ — but  to  connect  the  latter  with  the 
 former  by  verbal  repetition,  mingled  with  inserted  supple- 
 mentary matter.  Luke  borrows  the  very  peculiar  akd^aarpov 
 fxvpov,  "  an  alabaster  box  of  ointment,"  from  Matt.  xxvi.  7, 
 Mark  xiv.  3,  and  intimates  thereby  that  his  anointing  is  the 
 same  with  that  of  Bethany.  John  indicates  the  identity  of 
 the  anointing  related  by  him  with  that  of  Matthew  and  Mark, 
 by  adopting  from  the  latter  the  commercial  expression  irta-TtKi], 
 unadulterated  (Mark  xiv.  3,  vdpSov  TricrTt/c?;?  TroXureXoO? ;  John 
 xii.  3,  vdpSov  in<jriKrj<i  TrdXvTtfxov).  On  the  other  hand,  by 
 the  literal  adherence  to  Luke  vii.  38,  in  ch.  xi.  2,  he  intimates 
 that  the  anointing  by  Mary,  recorded  by  him,  is  identical  with 
 the  anointing  by  the  sinner  in  Luke  -vii.  (John  xi.  2,  rjv  8e 
 Mapla  rj  akeiy^acra  rov  Kvptov  fJivpo),  Kol  iKfid^acra  tov<;  TToSa? 
 avTov  ral<i  Opt^l  avTr]<i ;  Luke,  tou<;  ttoSw;  avrov — ral'i  6pi^l — 
 avTTj'i  e^efiaacre — /cat  ifKei^e  tm  p,vpw).  How  closely  John 
 adheres  to  Luke,  is  emphatically  shown  by  the  fact  that  his 
 "  who  wiped  His  feet  with  her  hair  "  is  explicable  only  by  com- 
 parison with  Luke.  John  thoughtfully  refers  the  wiping,  not 
 to  the  ointment,  but  to  the  feet.  The  precious  ointment,  which 
 was  rubbed  in,  could  scarcely  be  regarded  with  any  propriety 
 as  the  object  of  the  wiping.  This  points  to  water  or  the  like  : 
 comp.  ch.  xiii.  5.  But  nothing  of  this  kind  has  been  men- 
 tioned in  John  ;  nor  can  the  mystery  be  solved  but  by  a  com- 
 parison with  Luke.  According  to  ver.  38,  Mary  washed  the 
 feet  of  Jesus  w^ith  her  tears,  and  dried  them  with  the  hairs  of 
 her  head :  comp.  ver.  44.  John  could  not  have  written  thus, 
 had  he  not  designed  that  the  supplement  should  be  taken  from 
 Luke  ;  unless  the  notion  of  the  Fathers  be  the  correct  one,  that 
 the  Evangelists  form  a  four-sided  whole. 
 
 The  account  in  Luke  on  the  one  side,  and  of  John  on  the 
 other,  mutually  supplement  and  are  necessary  to  each  other. 
 
22  CHAP.  VII.  1-XII.  50. 
 
 The  questions  which  force  themselves  upon  us  in  Luke, — How 
 came  Jesus  in  the  house  of  the  Pharisee,  who  displayed  so 
 unfriendly,  yea,  so  decidedly  inimical  a  feeling  towards  Him  ? 
 What  could  have  induced  such  a  man,  who  stood  in  absolutely 
 no  internal  relation  to  Him,  who  denied  Him  the  commonest 
 courtesies  which  a  host  shows  his  guests,  to  invite  Jesus ;  and 
 what  could  have  induced  Jesus  to  accept  the  invitation  ?  How 
 came  the  sinner  in  this  company  ? — are  questions  Avhich  receive 
 their  answers  in  the  narrative  of  John.  But  in  his  narrative 
 also  there  are  many  things  which  compel  us  to  go  back  to  Luke. 
 If  we  regard  the  family  circle  in  Bethany  as  limited  to  Lazarus 
 and  his  two  sisters,  we  can  hardly  understand  the  mixed  com- 
 pany which  was  assembled  there  for  condolence,  and  cannot  see 
 why  Jesus  did  not  at  once  go  to  the  house,  but  remained  outside 
 at  a  distance ;  why  Martha  goes  out  to  Him  there ;  why  she 
 secretly  calls  her  sister ;  and  why  that  sister  goes  out  without 
 letting  her  company  know  the  reason  of  her  departure.  Only 
 when  we  regard  the  evil-minded  Pharisee  Simon  as  standing  in 
 the  background,  whose  friends  have  met  the  personal  acquaint- 
 ances of  Mary  and  Martha  for  the  purpose  of  condoling,  can 
 we  understand  what  is  written  in  ch.  xi.  46  :  "  But  some  went 
 to  the  Pharisees,  and  told  them  what  Jesus  had  done."  The 
 intimation,  "  but  Mary  sat  in  the  house,"  with  its  reference  to 
 Prov.  vii.  12,  is  seen  in  its  true  light  only  when  we  recognise 
 in  the  Mary  of  John  the  sinner  of  Luke.  To  this  we  are  led 
 also,  that  Mary  has  so  large  a  quantity  of  precious  ointment  at 
 her  disposal.  This  ointment  was  not  provided  by  INIary  ori- 
 ginally for  the  anointing  of  Jesus.  It  was  already  before  in 
 her  possession;  for  otherwise  the  complaint  would  not  have 
 been  that  she  had  not  sold  the  ointment,  but  that  she  had 
 bought  it  instead  of  giving  the  money  to  the  poor.  Christ  says 
 in  her  justification,  that  she  had  hept  the  ointment  against  the 
 day  of  His  burial,  John  xii.  7,  in  opposition  to  the  declaration 
 of  Judas,  that  she  ought  to  have  sold  it.  This  possession  of 
 ointment  infers  a  previous  life  of  vanity.  And  the  otherwise 
 unaccountable  wiping  with  her  hair  is  only  then  rightly  intelli- 
 gible, when  we  consider  that  Mary  had  formerly  made  the  hair 
 of  her  head  minister  to  sin,  so  that  the  present  use  of  it  was  an 
 act  of  penance :  comp.  1  Pet.  iii.  3.  Both  the  ointment  and 
 the  hair  are  similarly  united  in  Judith  x.  3.     There  we  read 
 
CHAP,  XI.  1-46.  2'd 
 
 that  Judith,  when  she  prepared  herself  to  go  to  Holofernes, 
 in  order  to  attract  him  by  her  arts,  "  anointed  herself  with 
 precious  ointment,  and  braided  the  hair  of  her  head."  There 
 is  an  analogy  also  with  the  women  who,  in  the  wilderness, 
 dedicated  their  precious  mirrors,  previously  the  instruments  of 
 their  vanity,  to  the  service  of  the  sanctuary,  Ex.  xxxviii.  8.  So 
 also  the  tears  of  her  eyes  and  the  kissing  of  Jesus'  feet  would 
 refer  to  an  earlier  misuse  both  of  her  eyes  and  of  her  lips. 
 The  early  Fathers  noticed  all  these  things.  Gregory  the  Great 
 says,  in  his  33d  Homily  on  the  Gospels  (the  passage  is  found  in 
 the  Romish  Breviary)  :  "  It  is  manifest  that  the  woman,  who 
 had  formerly  abandoned  herself  to  evil  courses,  applied  the 
 ointment  to  the  perfuming  of  her  flesh.  What  she  had  shame- 
 fully provided,  she  now  worthily  dedicated  to  God.  With  her 
 eyes  she  had  sought  earthly  vanity,  but  now  she  wept  with 
 them  in  penitence.  With  her  mouth  she  had  spoken  proudly 
 [but  see  rather  Prov,  v.  3,  vii.  13],  but  now  she  kissed  with  it 
 the  Lord's  feet."  That  the  Mary  of  Lazarus,  like  the  sinner, 
 had  led  a  passionate  career,  is  intimated  by  John  xi.  32  : 
 "  When  she  saw  Him,  she  fell  down  at  His  feet,  and  said,  Lord, 
 if  Thou  hadst  been  here,  my  brother  had  not  died."  Martha  had 
 used  the  same  words ;  but  the  passionate  falling  at  the  feet  of 
 Jesus  is  peculiar  to  Mary.  Here  it  is  to  be  observed,  that  the 
 preference  for  a  place  at  the  feet  of  Jesus  is  a  tender  bond, 
 which  connects  the  sinner  of  Luke  with  the  Mary  of  Lazarus  : 
 comp.  Luke  vii.  38,  x.  39 ;  John  xi.  32,  xii.  2.  That  was  the 
 place  most  desirable  to  the  state  of  her  feeling,  most  appropriate 
 to  the  profoundness  of  her  inward  sorrow.  Also  the  coinci- 
 dence between  "  which  toucheth  Him,"  in  Luke  vii.  39,  with  the 
 words  spoken  to  Mary  Magdalene,  "  Touch  Me  not,"  John 
 XX.  17,  is  not  without  significance.  But  it  can  here  be  only 
 hinted  at. 
 
 How  strictly  the  accounts  of  the  anointing  interpenetrate 
 and  complete  each  other,  may  be  further  seen  clearly  in  one 
 small  speciality.  According  to  Matt.  xxvi.  7,  Mark  xiv.  3,  the 
 woman  pours  the  ointment  on  the  head  of  Jesus.  According 
 to  John  xii.  3,  Mary  anoints  the  feet  of  Jesus.  There  can  be 
 no  contradiction  here,  inasmuch  as  Matt.,  ver.  11,  Mark,  ver. 
 8,  show  that  the  anointing  only  began  with  the  head,  and  had 
 a  more  general  character ;  and  the  quantity  of  the  ointment 
 
24  CHAP.  vir.  i-xii.  50. 
 
 requires  us  to  assume  that  it  was  more  general.  The  recon- 
 ciliation we  have  in  Luke.  The  feet  there  are  the  main  con- 
 cern. But  there  is  an  indirect  allusion  to  the  head  in  "My 
 head  with  oil  thou  didst  not  anoint,"  in  the  words  of  Jesus  to 
 Simon.  It  belonged  to  the  polemical  character,  so  to  speak,  of 
 the  anointing,  that  she  began  with  the  part  of  the  body  which 
 Simon  had  omitted  to  anoint.  Then  she  turned  to  the  part  which 
 the  heart's  feeling  of  the  "  Sinner"  must  have  thought  of  most. 
 Do  we  lose  anything  if  we  recognise  in  the  Mary  of  Lazarus 
 the  "  woman  that  was  a  sinner  ?"  Gregory  gives  us  the  answer 
 to  that  question  :  "  If  I  think  of  the  penitence  of  Mary,  I  can 
 better  weep  myself  than  say  anything.  For  who  has  so  hard  a 
 heart,  that  the  tears  of  this  sinner  cannot  soften  it  to  repent- 
 ance?" 
 
 The  raising  of  Lazarus  is  recorded  only  in  the  Gospel  of 
 John.  The  silence  of  the  other  Evangelists  need  not  perplex 
 us,  even  if  there  were  no  specific  reasons  for  it.  Niebuhr 
 (Geschichte  Assurs  und  Babel,  s.  6)  says :  "  The  Oriental  his- 
 torian is  extremely  precise  in  the  chronological  frame,  but  in  the 
 proper  historical  narrative  very  imperfect ;  so  that  omission  of 
 the  most  important  incidents  is  no  impeachment  of  his  truth." 
 The  historical  books  of  the  Old  Testament  share  in  this  pe- 
 culiarity of  Oi'iental  historical  writing ;  so  that  we  need  not 
 wonder  at  finding  it  reproduced  in  the  New  Testament,  where 
 it  was  all  the  more  natural,  from  the  fact  that  the  Divine  plan 
 provided  for  the  supplementing  of  the  earlier  Evangelists  by 
 the  later  —  just  as  in  the  canon  of  the  Old  Testament  the 
 Chronicles  were  introduced  as  supplementary.  In  the  books 
 of  Kings,  for  instance,  the  combination  of  the  tribes  of  the 
 wilderness  against  Israel,  under  Jehoshaphat,  is  passed  over  in 
 silence ;  a  circumstance  the  deep  importance  of  which  we  learn, 
 not  only  from  the  historical  account  in  2  Chron.  xx.,  but  also 
 from  the  psalms  referring  to  it,  xlvii.,  xlviii.,  Ixxxiii.,  which  con- 
 firm every  feature  in  the  account  of  the  Chronicles.  Viewed  in 
 the  light  of  our  own  historical  writings  the  silence  of  the  books 
 of  Kings  is  all  the  more  unintelligible,  inasmuch  as  nothing 
 less  than  the  very  existence  of  God's  people  was  at  stake,  and 
 the  wonderful  deliverance  which  was  vouchsafed  to  Israel  was 
 rich  in  edification  for  all  generations  of  the  people.     So  also  in 
 
CHAP.  XI.  1-46.  25 
 
 2  Kings  xxi.  there  is  no  trace  of  the  carrying  away  of  Manasseh 
 to  Babylon,  nor  of  his  conversion  and  restoration.  The  omission 
 of  the  former  point  is  all  the  more  striking,  since  his  carrying 
 away  captive  was  the  punishment  of  Manasseh's  guilt,  on  which 
 the  writer  has  dwelt  at  length. 
 
 John  expressly  says,  in  ch.  xx.  30,  xxi.  25,.  that  it  was  not 
 his  design  to  exhaust  the  infinite  treasures  of  the  acts  of  Christ's 
 life  in  his  narrative,  but  only  to  make  prominent  some  of  them. 
 This  declaration  holds  good  of  all  the  Evangelists.  This  is 
 supported  by  the  fact,  that  the  first  three,  apart  from  the  history 
 of  the  Passion,  remain  mostly  in  the  Galilean  domain  ;  and  that 
 ISIatthew  expressly  announces  his  intention  to  do  so.  If  the 
 Evangelists  aimed  only  at  an  eclectic  treatment,  we  might 
 expect  that  the  assertion,  "  the  dead  are  raised  up,"  in  Matt, 
 xi.  5,  would  be  illustrated  by  the  communication  of  at  least  one 
 example  in  each  Gospel.  Luke  has  only  two  instances  of  the 
 raising  of  the  dead ;  the  others  are  content  with  recording  only 
 one  of  these. 
 
 The  resurrection  of  Lazarus  was  assuredly  an  event  of  high 
 importance.  Yet  we  must  be  careful  not  to  exaggerate  that 
 importance.  We  must  not  overlook  the  fact,  that  all  miracles 
 are  essentially  alike,  and  that  it  is  altogether  wrong  to  measure 
 their  greatness,  as  it  were,  by  the  ell.  The  Lord  Himself,  at 
 the  healing  of  the  man  born  blind,  ch.  ix.  6,  declared  that  it  was 
 a  creative  work,  and  thus  that  in  reality  it  was  on  a  level  with 
 the  raising  of  Lazarus.  If  we  observe  that  this  very  miracle 
 formed,  according  to  John,  the  occasion  of  the  final  catastrophe 
 in  the  life  of  Jesus,  it  is  not  to  be  overlooked  that  also,  accord- 
 ing to  John,  the  matter  stood  so,  that  even  without  this  miracle 
 that  final  catastrophe  must  have  come.  Ch.  xi.  8  is  sufficient 
 to  prove  this.  The  raising  of  Lazarus  was  not  the  essential 
 cause  of  the  catastrophe,  but  only  the  accidental  cause. 
 
 Let  us  turn  now  to  a  consideration  of  the  special  reasons 
 which  have  been  adduced  for  the  silence  of  the  first  three  Evan- 
 gelists. We  must  first  repel  the  notion  that  their  silence  sprang 
 from  ignorance  of  the  event.  The  Lord  went  to  the  scene 
 of  Lazarus'  resurrection  in  the  company  of  His  disciples,  and 
 Matthew  was  one  of  these.  The  three  Evangelists  record  that 
 feast  of  Simon  which,  according  to  John,  stood  in  close  con- 
 nection with  the  raisins  of  Lazarus.     The  anointing  of  Jesus 
 
26  CHAP.  VII.  1-XII.  50. 
 
 at  that  meal  was  based  upon  that  fact  as  having  ah'eady 
 occurred.  But  all  doubt  is  removed  by  the  parable  of  Lazarus 
 in  Luke,  especially  by  the  close  of  it,  the  connection  of  which 
 with  John  xi.  46  has  forced  itself  always  upon  expositors.  How 
 little  right  we  have  to  infer  ignorance  from  silence  in  their 
 narratives,  is  plain  enough  from  Matt.  xxvi.  61,  xxvii.  40,  Mark 
 xiv.  57-59,  compared  with  John  ii.  19.  The  first  two  Evan- 
 gelists do  not  record  the  event  contained  in  John,  but  they  after- 
 wards refer  to  it. 
 
 They  have  more  show  of  reason  on  their  side  who  explain 
 the  silence  of  the  first  three  Evangelists  by  reference  to  Lazarus 
 as  being  still  alive.  If  these  Gospels  were  written  in  the  last 
 days  of  the  Jewish  state,  in  which,  as  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews 
 shows,  excitement  against  the  Christians  had  reached  a  very 
 high  pitch,  the  resurrection  of  the  narrative  might  have  led  to 
 a  renewal  of  the  danger  which,  according  to  John  xii.  10, 
 threatened  the  risen  life  of  Lazarus.  That  personal  regards 
 were  not  without  influence  upon  the  inspiration  of  the  Gospels, 
 we  have  already  seen  in  the  example  of  Mary  and  Martha : 
 another  example  Heumann  refers  to  :  "  The  first  three  Evan- 
 gelists do  not  publish  that  Peter  was  the  disciple  who  cut  off 
 the  servant's  ear.  All  three  relate  the  fact ;  all  three  knew 
 that  Peter  did  it ;  but  none  of  the  three  mentions  him."  We 
 must  not,  however,  forget  that  this  only  amounts  to  possibility, 
 and  that  the  hypothesis  is  not  adequately  supported  by  a  his- 
 torical basis. 
 
 Nor  can  we  account  for  the  omission  by  explaining  that  the 
 first  three  Evangelists  restricted  themselves  to  the  Galilean 
 region  until  the  Passion  week.  Matthew  leaves  that  region  in 
 ch.  xix.  1.  Luke  might,  in  that  portion  of  his  Gospel  which 
 is  not  fettered  by  chronological  law,  have  as  well  related  this 
 fact  as  the  parable  concerning  Lazarus.  This  reason  is  not, 
 indeed,  without  some  force.  The  communications  relating  to 
 the  time  from  the  departure  from  Galilee  to  the  festal  entrance 
 in  Jerusalem,  are  in  the  first  Gospels  in  the  highest  degree 
 imperfect,  as  is  evident  from  the  fact  that  in  Matthew  they 
 occupy  only  two  chapters. 
 
 But  the  chief  reason  must  doubtless  be  looked  for  in  an- 
 other direction.  The  great  men  of  the  Old  Testament  were 
 instructed  to  change  their  voice.     Among  David's  psalms,  for 
 
CHAP.  XI.  1-16.  27 
 
 example,  there  are  those  which,  like  the  sixteenth,  lead  us  into 
 the  mysterious  depth  of  the  life  in  God,  and  the  characteristic 
 name  of  which  is  onao,  secret;  and  there  are  also  those  in 
 which  he  condescends  to  the  simple,  plain  alphabetical  psalms, 
 in  which  we  find  only  a  collection  of  proverbs.  This  twofold 
 manner  we  find  also  in  connection  with  our  Lord  and  His 
 Evangelists.  The  mysterious  side  of  His  nature  was  presented 
 more  especially  in  the  metropolis,  where  He  had  to  do  with 
 "  those  who  see."  For  a  colloquy  like  that  with  Nicodemus 
 there  could  hsve  been  found  in  Galilee  no  immediate  occasion. 
 This  double-sidedness  of  our  Lord's  manifestation  rendered  it 
 necessary  that  the  Gospel  should  not  be  written  by  any  one 
 single  writer.  The  vocation  of  each  Evangelist  had  reference 
 to  that  only  which  was  to  him  accessible.  For  the  deep  and 
 mysterious  that  disciple  had  a  special  mission  whom  Jesus  loved, 
 and  who  lay  on  His  bosom,  as  Christ  in  the  bosom  of  the 
 Father  It  was  not  merely  in  the  Divine  plan  for  these  writings 
 that  John  was  reckoned  on  and  provided.  In  the  apostolical 
 circle  also  they  looked  upon  him  from  the  beginning  as  designed 
 for  this ;  and  we  cannot  suppose  that  John's  Gospel  took  the 
 Church  by  surprise.  The  narrative  of  the  raising  of  Lazarus 
 belonged  to  the  class  of  things  reserved  for  John.  That  the 
 mysterious  character  which  it  bears  has  its  ground  in  the  event 
 itself,  and  not  in  the  mere  record,  is  plain  from  the  comparison 
 of  the  perfectly  plain  narrative  of  the  healing  of  the  man  born 
 blind  in  ch.  ix.,  as  also  from  the  narrative  of  ch.  iv.  43-54, 
 which  is  nearly  related  in  its  character  to  the  first  three  Evan- 
 gelists. We  can  hardly  imagine  the  history  of  Lazarus'  resur- 
 rection told  in  the  manner  of  the  first  three  Evangelists.  It 
 belonged  essentially  to  the  "  spiritual  Gospel." 
 
 Let  us  now  investigate  the  meaning  of  the  event  before  us. 
 It  had  this  in  common  with  all  the  miracles  and  signs  of  Christ 
 — to  serve  for  the  glorification  of  the  Son  of  God,  ver.  4.  But 
 its  individual  and  specific  purport  was,  to  typify  and  represent 
 the  future  resurrection  of  the  dead.  Christ  issues  no  mere  bulls, 
 or  letters  of  simple  authority.  All  that  He  will  perform  in  that 
 other  world.  He  had  already,  during  His  earthly  life,  pretypified 
 and  symbolized  in  act ;  having  by  that  type  and  symbol  given 
 an  assurance  of  that  which  hath  not  yet  appeared.  We  have 
 here,  as  it  were,  the  embodiment  of  the  utterance  which  our 
 
28 
 
 CHAP.  VII.  1-XII.  50. 
 
 Lord  gave  in  ch.  v.  2h,  28,  29  :  "  The  hour  cometh,  when  the 
 dead  shall  hear  the  voice  of  the  Son  of  God ;  and  those  that 
 hear  shall  live.     The  hour  cometh,  in  the  which  all  that  are  in 
 the  graves  shall  hear  His  voice,   and  shall  come  forth ;   those 
 which  have  done  good,  to  the  resurrection  of  life."     The  koX 
 vvv  eart  of  ch.  v.  25  expressly  points  (see  the  commentary  on 
 the  passage)  to  this  typical  significance  of  our  Lord's  resur- 
 rection acts  :   and  thus  the  early  Church  interpreted   them.^ 
 Vers.  23-27  of  the  present  chapter,  which  can  be  understood 
 only  in  this  point  of  view,  have  special  relation  to  the  present 
 event.     The  raising  of  Lazarus  constitutes  the  climax  of  the 
 pledges,  given  in  act,  of  the  future  resm-rection.     Jesus  re- 
 awakened the  daughter  of  Jairus,  just  dead,  upon  the  very 
 couch  where  her  spirit  departed ;  and  the  young  man  of  Nain, 
 on  his  way  to  the  grave  ;   but  He  here  signalizes  His  abso- 
 lute dominion  over  death,  by  calling  back    to   life  one   who 
 had  been  four  days  dead,  and  in  whom  corruption  had  already 
 begun  to  take  place.     The  chronological  position  of  this  event 
 corresponds  with  this  internal  relation  which  it  bears  to  the  other 
 resurrections.    It  was  not  accidental  that  it  befell  at  the  end  of 
 the  life  of  Jesus.     This  was  its  appropriate  place;  and  thus 
 Christ,  immediately  before  He  gave  Himself  up  to  death,  de- 
 clared Himself  to  be  the  supreme  ruler  of  death ;    thus  He 
 assured  us  of  the  voluntary  character  of  His  sacrifice,  and  gave 
 warranty  to  the  hope  of  His  own  resurrection.^ 
 
 Besides  being  a  pledge  of  the  dominion  of  Christ  over 
 death  in  the  more  limited  sense,  this  event  also  gives  us  assur- 
 ance of  the  power  of  Christ  to  dispense  salvation  to  all  the 
 
 1  Augustin :  Oportebat  ut  modo  aliqua  faceret,  quibus  datis  velut  suse 
 virtutis  indiciis,  credamus  in  eum,  et  ad  illam  resurrectionem  prteparemur, 
 quae  erat  ad  vitam,  non  ad  judicium.  Domini  facta  non  sunt  tantummodo 
 facta,  sed  signa.  Calvin  :  Fuit  hie  quasi  extremus  actus  et  clausula,  jam 
 enim  mortis  tempus  appropinquabat :  vivam  imaginem  ante  oculos  posuit 
 futurae  nostrse  resurrectionis. 
 
 _  2  Lyser :  It  cannot  be  doubted  that  Christ  reserved  this  celebrated 
 miracle  for  the  time  when  His  own  death  was ,  imminent,  that  He  might 
 heal  the  offence  of  His  own  cross  and  death,  and  render  His  resurrection 
 after  three  days  more  credible.  Inasmuch  as  Christ  did  not  raise  only 
 the  recently  dead,  but  one  who  had  been  in  the  grave  over  three  days,  it 
 was  made  more  credible  that  He  Himself  after  three  days  would  arise,  and 
 did  arise. 
 
CHAP.  XI.  1.  29 
 
 wretched,  whose  misery  is  hving  death :  comp.  on  ch.  v.  21. 
 The  Apostles  were  destined  to  experience  such  death  in  a  Hving 
 body  after  the  death  of  Christ.  But  by  His  own  resurrection 
 the  Saviour  redeemed  the  pledge  which,  in  regard  to  the  salva- 
 tion of  His  disciples  from  such  a  death.  He  had  given  them  in 
 the  resurrection  of  Lazarus. — Bodily  death  is  the  figure  and 
 reflection  of  spiritual  death.  Instead  of  "In  the  day  thou 
 eatest  thereof,  thou  shalt  die,"  we  may  read,  "  In  the  day  thou 
 (spiritually)  diest,  thou  shalt  also  (bodily)  die."  According  to 
 ch.  V.  21,  24,  Christ  demonstrates  His  lifegiving  power  even  in 
 the  present  state  by  awakening  sinners  from  the  death  of  sin. 
 Sinners  are  termed  dead  in  Matt.  viii.  22.  "This  my  son  was 
 dead,  and  is  alive  again,"  is  the  language  of  his  father  concern- 
 ing the  prodigal  son,  Luke  xv.  The  Apostle  Paul  describes 
 believers  as  those  who  have  become  alive  from  the  dead,  Rom. 
 vi.  13.  He  speaks  in  Eph.  ii.  1  of  those  dead  in  trespasses  and 
 sins ;  and  appeals  to  the  sinner  in  ch.  v.  14,  "  Arise  from  the 
 dead."  From  this  death  too,  the  most  frightful  of  all  deaths, 
 and  the  primitive  form  of  death,  we  have  the  pledge  of  a  joyful 
 and  blessed  resurrection  in  the  resurrection  of  Lazarus.  It 
 teaches  us  further  that  help  is  near,  and  help  which  is  suf- 
 ficient, even  when  death  has  gone  very  far,  even  when  the  rjhr] 
 o^et  has  begun  to  take  place.^ 
 
 We  have  here  the  last  of  three  manifestations  of  Christ's 
 glory  in  Judea,  which  form  a  counterpart  to  three  manifesta- 
 tions of  His  glory  in  Galilee:  comp.  on  ch.  ix.  1-x.  21.  The 
 second  of  them,  recorded  in  ch.  ix.,  the  restoration  of  the  man 
 born  blind,  is  referred  to  here  in  ch.  xi.  37.  As  the  manifesta- 
 tion of  Christ's  glory  in  ch.  vi.  is  divided  into  two  parts — the 
 feeding,  and  the  stilling  of  the  tempest — we  may  reckon  alto- 
 gether seven  manifestations  in  St  John  :  three  pertaining  to 
 Judea,  and  four  to  Galilee.  This  distribution  is  recommended 
 by  the  fact  that  the  number  seven  plays  an  important  part 
 elsewhere  in  John — both  in  the  Gospel  and  in  the  Apocalypse. 
 
 In  vers.  1-16  we  have  what  preceded  the  journey  to  Bethany, 
 as  connected  with  it.     The  words  of  Lampe  aptly  express  the 
 
 ^  Augustin :  Quam  difficile  surgit,  quern  moles  consuetudinis  premit ; 
 sed  tamen  surgit :  occulta  gratia  intus  vivificatur,  surgit  post  vocem 
 magnam. 
 
30  CHAP.  VII.  1-XII.  50. 
 
 leading  idea  of  this  section :  Primura  indicia  omniscientise 
 Domini  in  ejus  susceptione  commemoratur.  The  Lord  knew 
 beforehand  with  supernatural  assurance  that  the  sickness  would 
 not  issue  in  pei'manent  death,  but  would  tend  to  the  glorifica- 
 tion of  the  Son  of  God ;  that  this  journey  would  be  without 
 any  peril  to  Himself ;  that  Lazarus,  whose  sickness  alone  the 
 message  announced,  was  already  dead ;  and  that  He  Himself 
 would  raise  him  from  death. 
 
 Ver.  1.  "  Now  a  certain  man  was  sick,  named  Lazarus,  of 
 Bethany,  the  town  of  Mary  and  her  sister  Martha." — The 
 "But,"  in  opposition  to  what  had  been  recorded  in  ch.  x. 
 40-42  concerning  the  abode  of  Jesus  on  the  other  side  Jordan, 
 intimates  that  here  begins  the  narration  of  the  circumstances 
 which  occasioned  His  suspension  of  His  work  there.  "  Now  a 
 certain  man  was  sick,  named  Lazarus:"  this  kind  of  introduc- 
 tion shows  that  we  shall  now  have  to  do  with  a  personage  who 
 had  never  yet  (either  in  first  three  Gospels  or  in  John)  been 
 mentioned.  And  this  introduction  was  all  the  more  appropriate, 
 as  the  name  Lazarus  had  already  occurred  in  the  Gospel  of 
 Luke ;  the  Lazarus  of  whose  parable  stands  in  a  certain  rela- 
 tion with  John's,  so  that  it  seemed  proper  to  prepare  the  way 
 for  their  identification.  Bethany  needed  not  to  be  distinguished 
 from  any  other  town  of  the  same  name.  There  was  no  such 
 other  town  in  existence ;  it  is  only  a  false  reading  which  has 
 introduced  it  into  ch.  i.  28 ;  and  if  there  had  been  another 
 Bethany,  some  note  of  distinction  would  have  been  necessary. 
 The  expression,  "  the  town  of  Mary  and  her  sister  Martha," 
 was  not  introduced  for  that  purpose ;  for  Bethany  had  never 
 been  mentioned  before  as  the  dwelling  of  Martha  and  Mary, 
 either  in  John  or  in  the  first  three  Gospels.  These  also  speak 
 of  Bethany  without  any  distinguishing  note,  and  take  it  for 
 granted  that  there  was  only  one  such  place.  The  prepositions 
 dwo  and  e/c  do  not  demonstrate  that  Lazarus  was  born  at 
 Bethany ;  sufficient  that  at  the  time  of  the  event  he  was  dwell- 
 ing thei'e.  The  prepositions  are  used  from  the  standing-point 
 of  the  city,  in  which  the  whole  people  annually  assembled  for 
 the  high  feasts,  and  which  was  the  centre  of  the  nation  in  a 
 far  higher  sense  than  any  other  capital.  'Airo,  in  respect  to 
 locality,  does  not  ordinarily  indicate  derivation ;  but  simply  the 
 place  from  which  one  comes  to  another  place :  comp.  Matt. 
 
CHAP.  XI.  1.  31 
 
 xxvii.  57,  av0p(i)7ro<;  TrXoucrio?  airo  ^ApLfxa6aM<i.  If  Mary 
 came  from  Magclala,  then  the  brother  and  sister  came  also 
 from  the  same  place.  We  find  Lazarus  in  the  house  of  his 
 brother-in-law.  He  cannot  therefore  have  been  a  resident  in 
 Bethany,  as  would  have  been  to  be  expected,  if  he  had  origin- 
 ally sprung  from  Bethany. 
 
 KoifiT],  village  or  hamlet,  is,  as  it  were,  to  be  enclosed  in 
 quotation  marks.  That  Mary  and  Martha  dwelt  in  one  kco/jlt} 
 had  already  been  mentioned  in  Luke  x.  38.  John  here  sup- 
 plementally names  the  place,  which  Luke  had  designedly 
 omitted  to  do.  The  veil  which  had  been  throw^n  over  the 
 earlier  relations  of  the  sisters  is  here  at  least  partially  with- 
 drawn. John  speaks  of  Mary  and  Martha  as  of  persons  known 
 through  the  earlier  narrative  of  Luke  x.  38-42  :  the  "  certain 
 man,  named  Lazarus,"  is  introduced,  by  being  connected  with 
 their  names,  into  a  circle  already  known  to  the  readers.  That 
 Mary  is  mentioned  before  Martha,  who  is  introduced  as  Mary's 
 sister,  is  explained  by  the  same  passage  in  Luke,  which  repre- 
 sents Mary  as  spiritually  the  more  important  person.  Ver.  2 
 gives  a  further  reason.  There  we  have  the  explanation,  that 
 the  "  sinner,"  who  according  to  Luke  vii.  anointed  the  Lord ; 
 the  "woman,"  who  according  to  Matt.  xxvi.  7,  Mark  xiv.  3, 
 performed  that  act,  in  reference  to  which  the  approving  word 
 of  Christ  was  spoken,  "  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you,  Wher- 
 ever this  Gospel  shall  be  preached  in  the  whole  world,  there 
 shall  also  this  that  this  woman  hath  done  be  told  for  a  me- 
 morial of  her," — was  no  other  than  Mary,  to  whom  conse- 
 quently the  place  of  pre-eminence  before  her  sister  belonged 
 by  the  best  right.  The  selection  of  the  expressions  points  so 
 specifically  to  Luke  vii.  as  to  be  equivalent  to  a  simple  quota- 
 tion. The  order  here,  in  which  Mary  takes  precedence, — John 
 being  guided  pre-eminently  by  the  spiritual  relation, — is,  how- 
 ever, not  the  only  one.  In  ver.  19,  Martha  and  Mary  are 
 mentioned  in  an  order  which  has  reference  to  their  civil  and 
 social  relation.  In  this  last  Martha  was  first,  as  Luke  x.  38 
 shows,  where  Martha  is  represented  as  receiving  Christ  into 
 her  house,  and  Mary  assumes  a  subordinate  place.  What 
 Jesus  says  to  Martha  in  Luke  x.  41,  fjbepL/j,va<i  koX  Tvp/3d^'ij 
 irepl  TToXXa,  suits  very  well  the  character  of  a  thrifty  house- 
 wife ruling  over  a  large  establishment,  and  who  has  to  consult 
 
32  "  CHAP.  VII.  1-XII.  50. 
 
 tlie  wishes  of  a  man  like  Simon.  What  Paul,  in  1  Cor.  vii. 
 34,  says  of  the  difference  between  the  virgin  and  the  married, 
 serves  to  illustrate  the  relation  between  the  two  sisters;  and 
 shows  that  the  difference  between  them  did  not  arise  so  much 
 from  any  original  difference  in  nature,  as  rather  from  their 
 diverse  position  in  life  and  training. 
 
 Ver.  2.  "It  was  that  Mary  which  anointed  the  Lord  with 
 ointment,  and  wiped  His  feet  with  her  hair,  whose  brother 
 Lazarus  was  sick." — Hitherto  it  had  been  said  only  that  Mary 
 and  Martha  belonged  with  Lazarus  to  the  same  place.  Thus 
 it  was  necessary  to  define  still  more  closely  the  relation  in 
 which  he  stood  to  them.  That  he  is  described  as  the  brother 
 of  Mary,  and  only  indirectly  as  the  brother  of  Martha  (the 
 latter  having  been  mentioned  as  the  sister  of  Mary),  is  not  to 
 be  explained  only  by  the  circumstance  that  Mary  was  the  one 
 last  spoken  of.  Lazarus  stood  nearer  to  Mary  as  an  unmarried 
 sister,  than  to  the  married  sister.  Hence  also  in  ver.  45  (if  the 
 current  reading  is  the  correct  one)  it  is  said  of  the  Jews,  that 
 they  came  to  Mary  to  testify  their  sympathy.  She  is  therefore 
 regarded  as  the  chief  mourner. — The  Mary  whose  brother 
 Lazarus  was  sick,  is  thus  described  as  the  same  with  the  person 
 who  anointed  our  Lord.  This  way  of  mentioning  it  presup- 
 poses that  there  never  occurred  more  than  one  such  anointing : 
 the  token  would  otherwise  have  had  nothing  characteristic  in 
 it.  The  Aor.  Partic.  indicates  the  "closed  past"  (Buttmann). 
 John  afterwards  touches  upon  the  anointing  in  ch.  xii. ;  not 
 giving  a  full  detail,  but  merely  adding  one  particular  that  had 
 been  passed  over  by  the  rest.  To  this  account  we  cannot  refer 
 the  aXeiylraaa ;  for  the  object  evidently  was  to  describe  Alary 
 to  the  I'eaders  by  a  sign  already  well  known  to  them.  Nor  can 
 the  a\ely\raaa  be  explained  as  referring  to  tradition.  John  in 
 no  one  instance  can  be  proved  to  have  referred  to  traditional 
 reports.  All  that  he  presupposes  is  found  in  the  first  Gospels. 
 Nor  does  the  aXec-^aaa  countenance  those  who  assume  a 
 double  anointing  by  Mary :  the  participle  cannot  be  made  to 
 mean,  "  who  once  more  anointed  the  Lord."  The  anointing 
 of  the  Passion  week  was,  at  the  time  John  wrote,  long  past ; 
 and  the  fact  that  he  afterwards  touches  upon  it  is  left  out  of 
 sight.  But  a  double  anointing  by  Mary  is  decisively  set  aside 
 by  the  circumstance  that  the  akevy^raaa  would  not  have  been 
 
CHAP.  XL  3,  4.  33 
 
 sufficient  for  the  purpose  of  separating  between  the  earh'er  and 
 the  later,  since  the  former  also  would  belong  to  the  region  of 
 the  past.  It  might  be  thought  that,  according  to  the  view  now 
 given,  rjv  would  not  be  the  reading,  but  eVrt;  but  this  objection 
 is  obviated  by  the  remark,  that  the  leading  idea  is  contained 
 in  the  words,  "It  was  Mary,  whose  brother  Lazarus  was  sick ;" 
 and  that  the  words  rj  aXelyfraaa — avTr}^  do  not  contain  more 
 than  a  subordinate  clause,  "  that  Mary  who  was  well  known  by 
 the  anointing  which  she  afterwards  performed." 
 
 Yer.  3.  "  Therefore  his  sisters  sent  unto  Him,  saying,  Lord, 
 behold,  he  whom  Thou  lovest  is  sick." — The  degree  of  the  sick- 
 ness is  not  indicated.  That  was  rendered  needless,  inasmuch 
 as  their  mission  to  Christ  of  itself  proved  that  all  human  aid 
 was  valueless,  and  that  it  was  a  sickness  "unto  death,"  ver.  4. 
 The  message  to  the  "  Lord "  declared  that  they  were  not 
 uttering  a  request;  but  that  they  were  content  to  state  the 
 case,  and  leave  it  to  the  Lord  to  do  as  seemed  good  to  Him. 
 But  that  a  certain  request  lay  concealed  under  these  words, 
 is  evident  from  "whom  Thou  lovest;"  hinting  the  thought 
 that  Jesus,  who  had  already  come  to  the  help  of  so  many  per- 
 sons not  directly  connected  with  Himself,  had  now  in  the  case 
 of  a  dear  friend  a  manifest  call  to  interpose  with  His  aid. 
 Heumann  supposes  that  "  the  good  sisters  knew  not  as  yet  that 
 the  Lord  was  omniscient,  and  needed  no  intimation  of  theirs." 
 But  the  message  should  not  be  regarded  in  the  light  of  informa- 
 tion, so  much  as  in  the  light  of  a  request.  Quesnel  observes, 
 "  A  sinner,  who  feels  his  unworthiness  and  his  misery,  should 
 often  come  to  Jesus  with  the  same  words,  following  the  example 
 of  these  two  sisters  :  Lord,  he  whom  Thou  lovest  is  sick." 
 
 Ver.  4.  "  When  Jesus  heard  that,  He  said.  This  sickness  is 
 not  unto  death,  but  for  the  glory  of  God,  that  the  Son  of  God 
 might  be  glorified  thereby." — Jesus  shows  that  He  is  better 
 acquainted  with  the  circumstances  of  the  sickness  than  the  sisters 
 were  who  sent  Him  the  message.  He  not  only  knows  that  it 
 exists,  but  can  explain  also  its  origin  and  its  end.  "Jesus  said' 
 — to  whom  is  not  mentioned.  It  seems  obvious,  in  the  nature  of 
 things,  that  He  spoke  primarily  to  the  messengers,  who  were  not 
 to  be  sent  home  without  answer ;  and  this  is  confirmed  by  ver 
 40,  where  Jesus,  speaking  to  Martha,  appeals  to  this  word  as 
 having  been  spoken  to  her,  as  well  as  by  the  earher  ver.  22,  for 
 VOL.  II.  C 
 
34  CHAP.  VII.  1-XII.  50. 
 
 Martha  could  have  founded  the  hope  which  she  there  utters 
 only  on  that  declaration  of  Christ.  The  whole  transaction  be- 
 tween Christ  and  Martha  in  vers.  24-27,  takes  it  for  granted 
 that  Christ  had  already  given  His  utterance  as  to  what  would 
 first  of  all  befall  her  brother.  But  ver.  12  shows  that  the 
 Apostles  were  also  present ;  for  it  speaks  of  their  knowing  the 
 fact  of  Lazarus'  sickness.  The  elTrev  is  designedly  used  in  this 
 indefinite  manner,  in  order  to  intimate  that  the  word  of  Christ 
 was  not  intended  for  this  or  that  person.  The  object  of  the 
 declaration  required  the  greatest  publicity.  The  assurance  of 
 Jesus'  foreknowledge  of  the  issue  of  the  sickness — which  assur- 
 ance was  thus  certified  by  as  many  witnesses  as  possible — was 
 part  and  parcel  of  the  miracle.  Only  thus  could  the  thought  of 
 happy  accident  be  obviated. 
 
 The  words  do  not  expressly  say  that  Jesus  would  raise  up 
 Lazarus.  They  rather  seem  to  imply  that  He  would  heal  the 
 man  who  was  sick  unto  death.  Not  until  Lazarus'  death  had 
 become  a  reality  is  it  clearly  expressed  that  Christ  will  raise  up 
 the  dead  man ;  then  it  is  made  plain  that  "  not  unto  death " 
 refers  to  a  permanent  condition  of  death, — a  transitory  death 
 not  being  termed  such, — just  as  in  Matt.  ix.  24,  "  The  maiden 
 is  not  dead,  but  sleepeth  (not  dead,  as  others  die)."  (Heumann  : 
 The  Lord  speaks  of  a  death  by  which  Lazarus  should  be  lost 
 to  his  sisters.)  Mary  and  Martha  had  already  this  illustration 
 from  the  fact,  when  the  message  arrived;  for  Lazarus  was 
 already  dead.  Of  the  four  days  that  Lazarus  is  said  to  have 
 been  in  the  grave  when  Jesus  raised  him,  two  must  be  reckoned 
 for  Jesus'  continuing  in  the  place  where  he  was,  ver.  6,  one  was 
 occupied  in  carrying  the  message,  another  by  the  journey  of 
 our  Lord ;  so  that  Lazarus  must  have  died  shortly  after  the 
 departure  of  the  messenger,  and  have  been,  as  was  the  custom 
 amongst  the  Jews,  almost  immediately  buried.  When  the  mes- 
 senger returned,  he  had  been  already  two  days  in  the  grave. 
 
 The  road  from  the  Jordan  to  Jerusalem  took  about  seven 
 hours :  five  for  the  plain  from  Jericho,  two  from  Jericho  to  the 
 Jordan.^  It  leads  over  Bethany,  and  thus  required  for  Christ 
 as  well  as  the  messengers  not  much  over  six  hours.    Bethabara 
 
 '  Compare  von  Eaumer,  S.  60.  Maundrell  went  with  the  pilgrim-train 
 to  the  Jordan.  "With  reference  to  the  valley  of  the  Jordan,  he  says  that 
 he  reached  it  five  hours  after  leaving  Jerusalem,  and  that  he  spent  two 
 
CHAP.  XI.  4.  35 
 
 lay  in  all  probability  in  the  same  position  as  the  pilgrims'  baths 
 placed  there  as  a  memorial. — Jesns  knew  that  Lazarus  was 
 already  dead.  He  must  have  intentionally  so  ordered  this 
 message,  that  the  sisters  could  not  at  once  understand  its  mean- 
 ing. It  seemed  at  first  thought  that  Jesus  had  erred, — that, 
 in  fact,  He  supposed  Lazarus  would  not  die  at  all.  This  sem- 
 blance of  error  was  designed  to  evoke  the  energy  of  their  faith. 
 As  soon  as  the  sisters  were  firmly  established  in  the  living  faith 
 that  Jesus  was  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  ver.  27,  the  true 
 interpretation  of  His  words  dawned  upon  their  minds. — What 
 Jesus  says  holds  good  of  every  mortal  sickness  of  believers, 
 and  was  intended  so  to  do  :  for  everything  here  has,  in  connec- 
 tion with  the  obvious  sense,  a  symbolical  and  typical  character. 
 The  sickness  of  believers  does  not  lead  to  permanent  death  :  it 
 tends  rather  to  the  glorification  of  the  Son  of  God  in  their 
 resuiTection.  But  so  long  as  the  time  has  not  yet  come  when 
 Jesus  should  finally  demonstrate  Himself  to  be  the  Son  of  God, 
 and  give  the  last  pledge  of  His  hidden  power  to  raise  the  dead, 
 it  was  necessary  that  some  palpable  glorification  of  the  Son  of 
 God  should  be  given  as  an  earnest ;  and  that  the  present  occa- 
 sion was  selected  by  our  Lord  for  the  purpose  of  giving  such 
 assurance,  is  evident  from  a  comparison  with  ch.  ix.  3. — "  This 
 sickness  is  not  unto  death  "  may  be  illustrated  by  Isa.  xxxviii.  1, 
 where  it  is  said  of  Hezekiah,  that  he  was  "  sick  unto  death." 
 And  the  passages  are  all  the  rather  analogous  inasmuch  as  in 
 that  case  also  the  sickness,  which  was  in  itself  mortal,  became 
 a  sickness  "  not  unto  death"  through  the  intervention  of  a  mes- 
 senger sent  from  God.  If  we  observe  that  the  meaning  is  here 
 also,  "  This  mortal  sickness  is  not  unto  death,"  the  passages 
 become  very  closely  related. — It  is  first  said  that  the  sickness 
 should  be  for  the  glory  of  God ;  and  then  this  is  more  expressly 
 defined,  that  the  Son  of  God  should  be  thereby  glorified.  The 
 Jews  placed  the  glory  of  God  and  the  glory  of  Christ  in 
 absolute  opposition,  just  as  unbelief  and  half-belief  do  even  to 
 the  present  day.  Christ  teaches  us  that  the  honour  of  God  coin- 
 cides with  the  honour  of  His  Son ;  that  it  is  effectually  secured 
 only  by  the  glorification  of  the  Son.     Bengel :  Gloria  Dei  et 
 
 hours  over  the  way  from  Jericho  to  the  Jordan.  So  also  Robinson  spent 
 a  little  more  than  two  hours,  deducting  stoppages,  on  the  latter  part  of 
 the  journey. 
 
36  CHAP.  VII.  1-XII.  50. 
 
 gloria  Filii  Dei  una  gloria.  It  is  for  us  to  purge  out  all  the 
 Rationalist  leaven  in  respect  to  this  which  still  remains  among  us. 
 
 Ver.  5.  "  Now  Jesus  loved  Martha,  and  her  sister,  and 
 Lazarus." — We  have  here,  on  the  one  hand,  the  motive 
 assigned  for  the  saying  of  Jesus  in  ver.  4,  which  presented  the 
 prospect  of  Lazarus'  deliverance  from  death ;  and,  on  the  other, 
 the  motive  for  His  subsequent  act,  in  journeying  towards  Jeru- 
 salem for  the  purpose  of  accomplishing  that  saying.  That  the 
 latter  is  not  to  be  excluded,  is  evident  from  the  "  Our  friend 
 Lazarus,"  etc.,  which  our  Lord  says  to  His  disciples,  ver.  IL 
 That  gives  His  friendship  to  Lazarus  as  the  motive  of  the 
 journey.  ^A'^/airav  is  used,  and  not  (piXelv,  as  in  ver.  3,  because 
 women  are  the  first  mentioned.  'A'ya.Trr)  is  the  love  which  does 
 not  so  much  rest  upon  individual  inclination  as  upon  the  purely 
 ethical  basis,  and  which  accordingly  does  not  find  its  expression 
 in  tenderness.  That  the  relation  even  of  the  Son  of  man  to 
 women  was  under  certain  restrictions  which  were  not  observed 
 towards  men,  and  that  these  restrictions  were  in  force  until 
 the  ascension,  is  shown  by  a  right  interpretation  of  the  yu,?;  fiov 
 aiTTov  which  Jesus  speaks  to  one  of  the  women  here  alluded  to, 
 that  is  Mary,  who  would,  in  the  passion  of  her  fervour,  pre- 
 maturely overstep  these  limits. — As  it  respects  the  order  of  the 
 three  persons,  Lazarus  takes  the  last  place,  because  death  for 
 him  who  dies  in  faith  is  not  an  evil,  or,  if  an  evil,  one  which  is 
 followed  by  an  abundant  compensation.  It  was  not  Lazarus 
 who  sent  to  Christ, — he  doubtless  rejoiced  in  the  prospect  of 
 being  received  into  Abraham's  bosom,  Luke  xvi.  22, — but  his 
 sisters.  Martha  could  not  be  sundered  from  Lazarus,  as  she 
 was  most  severely  affected  by  his  death :  comp.  on  ver.  2.  Thus 
 Martha  must  come  first. 
 
 Ver.  6.  "  When  He  had  heard  therefore  that  he  was  sick. 
 He  abode  two  days  still  in  the  same  place  where  He  was." — 
 The  love  of  Jesus  was  approved,  not  in  His  tarrying  two  days, 
 but,  in  spite  of  that  tarrying,  by  the  fact  that  He  afterwards, 
 without  any  regard  to  the  machinations  of  the  Jews,  journeyed 
 into  Judea. — The  fxev  is  not  followed  by  the  8e  which  usually 
 corresponds  with  it,  in  order  to  make  the  direct  introduction  of 
 the  contrast  more  striking. — Wherefore  did  Jesus  abide  two 
 days  where  He  was  ?  The  answer  is  given  by  ver.  15.  Christ 
 there  expresses  His  joy  that  He  was  not  in  Bethany  before 
 
CHAP.  XI.  7.  37 
 
 Lazarus'  death ;  because  the  raising  him  from  the  dead  would 
 tend  more  certainly  to  strengthen  His  disciples'  faith  than  the 
 healing  which  would  have  resulted  from  His  being  present. 
 Thus  it  was  for  the  same  reason,  to  give  opportunity  for  a 
 stronger  development  of  His  miraculous  power,  that  Christ 
 here  delayed.  If  He  had  set  out  at  once,  He  would  have 
 reached  when  Lazarus  had  been  dead  two  days.^  The  reason 
 why  He  would  go  later  to  Bethany  is  given  by  the  words  of 
 Martha  in  ver.  39.  The  dead  man  was  to  be  raised  up  at  the 
 time  when  corruption  begins  generally  to  do  its  vigorous  work. 
 This  gave  occasion  to  that  climax  in  the  resurrection-acts  of 
 Christ  which  the  Gospels  set  before  us. 
 
 But  was  not  this  delay  a  hard  one  to  the  poor  sisters  ? 
 Those  Avho  maintain  this  will  find  difficulties  enough  in  almost 
 everything  else.  In  all  ages  the  Lord  has  been  pleased  to  sub- 
 ject His  people  to  more  severe  probation  than  this.  He  spares 
 not  the  flesh,  that  the  spirit  may  thrive.  And  this  we  see 
 plainly  cared  for  here.  Jesus  had  previously  given  the  sisters 
 the  staff  of  His  promise.  And  it  Avas  a  high  grace  that  He, 
 before  the  fulfilment  of  the  promise,  accustomed  them  for  a 
 while  to  fight  against  fear  in  dependence  upon  His  word.  Nor 
 is  it  to  be  overlooked  that  they  themselves,  as  well  as  the  uni- 
 versal Church,  derived  benefit  from  the  enhancement  which 
 the  miracle  gained  from  delay.  Moreover,  we  must  through- 
 out the  entire  narrative  direct  our  regard  rather  to  the  whole 
 work  of  Christ,  than  to  His  personal  relation  to  Mary  and 
 Martha,  which  only  subordinately  comes  into  view.  How  many 
 faithful  sisters  have  to  give  up  their  brother  for  ever,  so  far  as 
 this  life  is  concerned,  and  not  merely  to  wait  for  his  restoration 
 a  few  short  days  !  We  have  here  an  exhibition  beforehand  of 
 what  was  to  happen  to  all.  This  gives  the  true  key  to  the 
 whole  narrative. 
 
 Ver.  7.  "  Then  after  that  saith  He  to  His  disciples,  Let  us 
 go  into  Judea  again." — "ETretra  and  fMera  tovto  are  often  con- 
 nected in  the  classical  authors.  The  tautology  does  not  indi- 
 cate remissness  of  style,  but  directs  attention  to  the  strange 
 
 ^  Without  paying  attention  to  the  relation  of  time,  many  have  assumed 
 that  Jesus  designed  to  let  Lazarus  die  before  going  to  him,  in  order  that 
 He  might  raise  him  up.  We  have  already  shown,  however,  that  Lazarus 
 was  already  dead  when  the  message  reached  our  Lord. 
 
38  CHAP.  VII.  1-XII.  50. 
 
 circumstance  that  Jesus  afterwards  did  that  which,  if  He 
 intended  doing  it  at  all,  it  seemed  that  He  should  have  done  at 
 once,  and  suggests  reflection  upon  that  circumstance.  This 
 impressed  the  Apostles  themselves.  At  the  first,  as  Jesus  did  not 
 set  out  at  once,  they  had  inferred  that  He  had  done  what  He 
 purposed  to  do  from  a  distance.  From  this  agreeable  delusion 
 they  were  unexpectedly  aroused  by  the  summons  to  this  peril- 
 ous journey.  Jesus  does  not  say,  to  Bethany,  but  to  Judea,  in 
 order  to  suggest  what  made  the  journey  perilous,  and  to  excite 
 the  opposition  of  the  disciples.  He  had  left  Judea  in  order  to 
 place  Himself  beyond  the  reach  of  the  persecution  with  which 
 His  enemies  threatened  His  life.  That  He,  in  going  to  Judea, 
 was  going  to  Bethany,  was  self-understood,  according  to  vers. 
 3  and  4,  and  needed  not  therefore  to  be  expressly  mentioned. 
 
 Ver.  8.  "  His  disciples  say  unto  Him,  Master,  the  Jews  of 
 late  sought  to  stone  Thee ;  and  goest  Thou  thither  again  ?  " — 
 Nvv,  so  recently.  In  order  to  make  their  dehortation  more 
 forcible,  they  bring  what  had  lately  happened  into  the  imme- 
 diate present. 
 
 Vers.  9,  10.  "  Jesus  answered,  Are  there  not  twelve  hours 
 in  the  day  ?  If  any  man  walk  in  the  day,  he  stumbleth  not, 
 because  he  seeth  the  light  of  this  world.  But  if  a  man  walk 
 in  the  night,  he  stumbleth,  because  there  is  no  light  in  him." — 
 Jesus  repels  the  objection  of  the  Apostles,  by  showing  from  His 
 own  indwelling  higher  knowledge  that  the  journey  would  be 
 without  danger.  Heumann  is  essentially  right  when  he  says, 
 "  The  time  in  which  He  should  (could),  according  to  His 
 Father's  will,  teach  and  preach,  and  work  miracles  imhindered, 
 He  terms  His  day  of  twelve  hours  ;  and  at  the  same  time  gives 
 it  to  be  understood  that  this  day  would  be  followed  by  a  night, 
 the  time,  namely,  when  He  should  fall  into  His  enemies'  hands, 
 be  condemned  to  death,  and  die  a  death  both  shameful  and 
 painful."  Jesus  does  not  give,  as  it  were,  a  comparison  and  its 
 application,  but  the  figure  and  the  application  run  into  each 
 other.  It  follows  that  we  must  not  seek  to  distinguish  between 
 what  belongs  merely  to  the  figure  and  what  to  the  application ; 
 but  that  each  individual  trait  belongs  to  the  matter  in  hand,  and 
 all  has  a  double  meaning.  The  lower  sense  is  very  clear.  The 
 "  light  of  the  world"  is  the  sun,  according  to  Gen.  i.  15,  16. 
 Men  stumble  generally  in  the  night  alone.     When  this  occurs 
 
CHAP.  XI.  9,  10.  39 
 
 exceptionally  in  the  clay  (Isa.  lix.  10,  "  We  stumble  at  mid- 
 day ;"  Hos.  iv.  5,  "  And  tliou  stumblest  in  the  day"),  extraor- 
 dinary circumstances  must  be  assumed  which  have  caused  the 
 day  to  be  turned  into  night,  Job  xvii.  12.  These  exceptions 
 are  not  here  taken  into  account,  and  the  rule  only  is  regarded. 
 BXeTret  and  eanv  iv  avru>  correspond  to  each  other.  The  light 
 of  the  sun  is  in  a  man,  because  the  eye  receives  it  into  itself, 
 and  thus  enables  him  to  avoid  the  obstacles  in  his  path.  Now 
 let  us  look  at  the  figurative  meaning.  How  far  the  day  and 
 the  night  come  into  consideration  is  shown  in  the  clauses, 
 "  because  he  seeth  the  light  of  this  world,"  and  "  because  the 
 light  is  not  in  him."  Accordingly  it  is  intimated  that  the  day 
 is  light,  the  night  is  darkness.  But  light  is  in  Scripture  the 
 ordinary  image  of  salvation,  night  of  an  unsaved  state.  Now 
 the  Lord  says  the  time  of  salvation  is  not  quite  run  out,  and 
 therefore  now  there  is  nothing  to  fear.  But  a  time  will  come 
 when  it  shall  have  run  out,  and  then  danger  will  ensue.  Day 
 and  night  are  contrasted  also  as  the  time  of  help  and  of  help- 
 lessness in  ch.  ix.  4.  So  also  the  night  is  introduced  in  ch.  xiii. 
 30 :  "  And  it  was  night"  when  Judas  went  out.  There  can  be 
 no  question  that  the  words  have  something  mysterious  in  them ; 
 that  the  external  night  is  to  John  here  the  symbol  of  spiritual 
 night,  when  the  light  of  the  sun  ceased  to  shine,  when  therefore 
 the  power  of  darkness  began,  and  the  hour  came  for  successful 
 assault  upon  the  people  of  God.  As  descriptive  of  an  unsaved 
 state,  night  is  used  also  in  Eev.  xxi.  25,  xxii.  5,  where  it  is  said 
 of  the  kingdom  of  glory,  "  And  there  shall  be  no  night  there." 
 The  grievous  interchange  of  day  and  night,  to  which  the  mili- 
 tant Church  is  here  subjected,  will  there  cease  for  ever.  A  like 
 distinction  of  a  twofold  time  for  Christ  and  His  disciples,  a 
 time  of  safety  and  a  time  of  suffering,  occurs  also  in  Luke  xxii. 
 35,  36. 
 
 Jesus  does  not  speak  of  the  day  generally,  but  of  the  twelve 
 hours  of  the  day.  The  fact  that  He  thus  represents  safety  as 
 the  characteristic  of  the  entire  day  down  to  its  perfect  close — 
 so  that  he  who  only  walks  generally  in  the  day  has  no  more 
 cause  of  fear  in  the  twelfth  hour  than  in  the  eleven  preceding 
 — leads  to  the  conclusion  that  the  day,  or  the  time  of  salvation, 
 still  continued,  and  would  continue,  during  the  whole  journey, 
 although  very  near  its  close  nevertheless.     (Bengel :  Jam  longe 
 
40  CHAP.  YII.  l-XII.  50. 
 
 processerat  cursus  Jesu ;  jam  multa  erat  hora,  sed  tameii  adhuc 
 erat  dies.)  Elsewhere  in  John  we  have  stress  laid  upon  the 
 hour:  comp.  ch.  vii.  30,  viii.  28.  So  also  in  Luke  xxii.  53, 
 with  which  passage  this  stands  in  a  close  internal  connection. 
 Lyser :  Necclum  adesse  horam  passionis,  de  qua  ad  pontifices  et 
 seniores  dicit :  hsec  est  vestra  hora. — UpoaKO'Trretv,  b'C':i,  in  the 
 Old  Testament,  is  generally  used  without  any  moral  meaning, 
 but  only  of  proceeding  onwards.  But  the  former  is  here  neces- 
 sarily required  by  the  connection  of  the  figurative  with  the  proper 
 meaning. — The  antitype  of  the  "  light  of  this  world,"  the  sun,  is 
 the  saving  grace  of  God.  This  appears  under  a  similar  image  in 
 Job  xxix.  3,  where  Job  says  of  the  time  of  his  prosperity,  "When 
 His  candle  shined  upon  my  head,  and  when  by  His  light  I  walked 
 throuffh  darkness."  In  Isa.  Ix.  19  we  read:  "  The  sun  shall  no 
 longer  shine  upon  thee,  but  the  Lord  shall  be  thine  everlasting 
 light."  And  in  Rev.  xxii.  5  :  "  They  need  not  the  light  of  the 
 sun,  for  the  Lord  God  giveth  them  light."  There  the  sun  is  the 
 figure  of  the  saving  grace  of  God,  which  is  now  in  the  most  real 
 sense  imparted  to  the  Church.  Even  in  Jesus  there  was  at  the 
 time  of  His  suffering  "no  light."  Because  the  sun  of  salvation 
 was  gone  down  in  His  heaven,  He  knew  not  how  to  counsel  or  to 
 save  Himself.  And,  looked  at  in  a  higher  sense,  we  have  here 
 a  general  proposition  which  is  spoken  primarily  with  reference 
 to  Christ  and  His  disciples  (Bengel :  ri?,  indefinite  pertinet  hoc 
 ad  discipulos,  qui  etiam  sibi  timebant ;  with  reference  to  the 
 extension  of  it  to  the  disciples,  we  may  compare  Luke  xxii.  35, 
 36),  but  which  has  also  a  universal  applicability.  The  separa- 
 tion between  the  time  of  unhindered  active  vocation  and  passion, 
 as  seen  in  Christ,  recurs  also  among  His  disciples.  There  is  a 
 time  which  comes  also  to  them,  when  they  see  not  the  light  of 
 tlie  world,  and  no  light  is  in  them  ;  when  they  must  say,  "'  Now 
 there  remains  for  me  no  more  than  to  lie  down  in  my  suffering." 
 "  And  since,  then,"  says  Lyser,  "  every  man's  day  at  last  goes 
 down,  we  must  not,  when  we  see  that  the  time  is  come,  with- 
 stand, but  say.  Thy  will  be  done,  O  Lord ;  Thou  hast  given 
 life,  and  Thou  hast  power  to  take  it ;  Thou  wilt  for  it  give 
 life  everlasting.  The  hairs  of  our  head  are  all  numbered  of 
 Thee. — Meanwhile,  let  it  be  our  comfort,  that  it  lies  not  in  the 
 power  of  the  devil,  or  of  the  ungodly  world,  to  make  our  sun 
 go  down,  but  only  in  the  hand  of  God.     He  has  given  to  the 
 
CHAP.  XL  11.  41 
 
 day  twelve  hours,  and  of  not  one  of  these  can  our  foes  rob  us 
 against  His  will." 
 
 Ver.  11.  "  These  things  said  He :  and  after  that  He  saith 
 unto  them,  Our  friend  Lazarus  sleepeth ;  but  I  go,  that  I  may 
 awake  him  out  of  sleep." — The  circumstantiality  at  the  be- 
 ginning was  intended  to  guide  the  reader  before  he  proceeds 
 further  to  reflect  upon  the  meaning  of  this  mysterious  word  of 
 Christ.  It  serves  the  same  end  which  probably  was  served  by 
 a  pause  in  the  Lord's  oral  colloquy  with  His  Apostles,  and  in 
 the  Psalms  by  Selah.  After  their  Master  had  obviated  the 
 disciples'  objections  to  the  journey.  He  gives  the  reasons  which 
 induced  Him  to  take  it.  He  says,  "  Our  friend,"  in  order  all 
 the  more  to  excite  the  Apostles'  sympathy.  This  our  friend 
 shows  that  the  relation  between  Christ  and  Lazarus  must 
 not  be  regarded  in  the  same  light  as  human  friendships  gene- 
 rally, such  as  that  between  David  and  Jonathan,  but  that  it 
 belonged  entirely  to  the  Christian  sphere.  Individual  friend- 
 ship would  not  have  been  common  to  Christ  and  His  Apostles. 
 Bengel  is  not  correct  here :  "  Christ  says  this  at  a  time  when 
 Lazarus  w^as  just  dead."  Lazarus  had  died  three  days  before. 
 But  Jesus  says  this  now  for  the  first  time,  because  it  is  His 
 will  to  go  now  and  reawaken  him.  He  is,  however,  perfectly 
 right  when  he  proceeds  :  "  No  man  had  given  Him  information 
 of  the  death,  and  yet  Jesus  knew  it."  The  description  of  the 
 death  of  believers  as  sleep  has  been  derived  into  Christian 
 phraseology  probably  from  the  present  passage,  and  Matt.  ix. 
 24.  The  answer  to  the  question,  "  Why  did  not  Jesus  speak 
 at  once  of  death  and  the  resurrection,  and  thus  prevent  the 
 misunderstanding  of  the  Apostles?"  is  simply,  that  Christ 
 intended  by  this  word  to  introduce  a  milder  view  of  death,  as  a 
 mere  falling  asleep.  (Augustin  :  "  The  Lord  awakened  him 
 from  the  sleep  of  the  sepulchre  with  the  same  ease  with  which 
 thou  arousest  a  sleeper  from  his  bed.")  The  scriptures  of  the 
 Old  Testament  not  seldom  exhibit  death  under  the  image  of 
 sleep  :  e.g.  in  Jer.  li.  17,  "  They  shall  sleep  a  perpetual  sleep  ;" 
 Job  xiv.  12,  "  So  man  lieth  down,  and  riseth  not :  till  the 
 heavens  be  no  more,  they  shall  not  awake,  nor  be  raised  out  of 
 their  sleep."  But  Dan.  xii.  2  is  the  only  preparation  among  all 
 these  passages  for  the  New  Testament  phraseology.  The  others 
 do  not  include  the  idea  of  awaking  out  of  the  sleep  ;  but  only 
 
42  CHAP.  VII.  1-XII.  50. 
 
 the  sealing  up  of  life  and  strength.  But  this  one  is  adapted  to 
 fill  us  with  contempt  of  death,  the  terror  of  which  beset  the 
 saints  of  the  Old  Testament. 
 
 Vers.  12,  13.  "  Then  said  His  disciples.  Lord,  if  he  sleep, 
 he  shall  do  well.  Howbeit  Jesus  spake  of  his  death :  but  they 
 thought  that  He  had  spoken  of  taking  of  rest  in  sleep." — The 
 disciples  would  not  indeed  have  misunderstood  Christ's  mean- 
 in  o-,  if  the  saying  of  ver.  4  had  not  made  it  obvious  that  the 
 sickness  of  Lazarus  would  not  issue  in  death,  but  that  it  would 
 be  removed  by  the  healing  power  of  Jesus.  Accordingly,  they 
 could  hardly  understand  how  the  actual  death  of  Lazarus  should 
 be  meant  by  KeKOi/xrjrai.  They  supposed  that  the  Lord  brought 
 about  a  salutary  crisis  from  a  distance,  as  He  had  done  on 
 several  other  occasions :  comp.  ch.  iv.  49  seq.  That  Christ's 
 miraculous  power  had  to  do  with  the  supposed  sickness,  M^as  a 
 supposition  all  the  more  natural,  as  Jesus  could  in  the  ordinary 
 way  have  had  no  knowledge  of  the  fact.  Supernatural  know- 
 ledge and  supernatural  action  go  hand  in  hand.  Under  these 
 circumstances,  the  journey  seemed  to  them  without  object ;  and 
 they  had  not  been  so  completely  pacified  respecting  its  danger 
 by  Christ's  assurance,  as  not  to  desire  still  to  be  relieved  from 
 it.  (Calvin:  They  gladly  lay  hold  of  this  occasion  for  flying  the 
 danger.)  What  the  words  of  Christ,  "  But  I  go  to  wake  him 
 out  of  sleep,"  meant  to  express,  was  indeed  still  very  obscure  to 
 them;  but  as  they  conceived  themselves  to  be  quite  certain  as  to 
 the  Lord's  intention  in  using  the  word  /ce/cot/^Tjrat,  they  did  not 
 give  themselves  much  trouble  to  investigate  further  the  sense 
 of  the  other  words.  Suffice  that  they  had  found  reason  suffi- 
 cient for  dissuading  Him  from  the  journey,  which  they  per- 
 sisted in  thinking  a  fatal  one.  Anton  :  "  Among  these  disciples 
 was  John,  the  narrator  of  this  circumstance,  and  a  sharer  in 
 this  opinion.     But  now  he  is  ashamed  of  it." 
 
 Vers.  14,  15.  "  Then  said  Jesus  unto  them  plainly,  Lazarus 
 is  dead.  And  I  am  glad  for  your  sakes  that  I  was  not  there, 
 to  the  intent  ye  may  believe ;  nevertheless,  let  us  go  unto  him." 
 — Jesus  rejoices  that  He  had  not  been  there ;  because  His 
 disciples  would  derive  more  confirmation  to  their  faith  from  the 
 resurrection  of  one  who  had  been  long  dead,  than  they  would 
 have  derived  from  the  healing  of  a  man  sick  unto  death.  "  That 
 ye  may  believe"  is  the  explanation  of  "  for  your  sakes."     Faith 
 
CHAP.  XI.  16.  ■  43 
 
 is  as  it  were  when  it  groics,  and  not  before.  At  every  new 
 stage  of  faith,  that  which  preceded  is  regarded  as  belonging,  so 
 to  speak,  to  the  region  of  unbehef. 
 
 Ver.  16.  "  Then  said  Thomas,  which  is  called  Didymus, 
 unto  his  fellow-disciples.  Let  us  also  go,  that  we  may  die  with 
 Him." — How  necessary  it  was  that  the  Apostles  should  be  thus 
 strengthened  in  faith,  this  word  of  Thomas  shows.  He  believes 
 in  Christ,  otherwise  he  would  not  have  desired  to  go  with  Him 
 unto  death,  (That  ^er  avrov  refers  to  Christ,  and  not  to 
 Lazarus,  is  proved  by  the  connection  with  ver.  8.  Only  ivith  a 
 living  person  can  one  die.  If  any  doubt  remained.  Matt.  sxvi. 
 35  would  remove  it.)  But  that  Thomas,  notwithstanding  the 
 assurance  of  Jesus  in  vers.  9,  10,  is  so  convinced  that  He  is 
 going  to  meet  His  death,  shows  that  there  was  still  in  him  an 
 evil  alloy  of  unbelief,  a  contest  between  doubt  and  confidence. 
 The  Avord  of  Christ  has  less  force  and  effect  upon  him  than  the 
 evident  fact  of  the  fierce  hatred  of  the  Pharisees,  who  wanted 
 nothing  more  than  an  opportunity  to  get  Him  in  their  power. 
 — There  is  no  reason  whatever  for  the  supposition  that  Thomas 
 bore  the  corresponding  Greek  name  Aihvixo<i  in  addition  to  this 
 Hebrew  name.  The  words,  "  called  Didymus,  or  twin,"  rather 
 give  the  explanation  of  his  original  name.  It  is  the  same  in  ch. 
 iv.  25,  where  o  Xeyofievo^;  'Kpiaro'^  is  equivalent  to  "  which  is  in 
 Greek  Christ;"  as  also  in  ch.  i.  39,  the  o  Xeyerai  ep/xtjvevofxevov. 
 John  usually  gives  such  explanations  of  names  only  where  the 
 name  is  important  to  the  matter  in  hand  :  compare  on  ch.  ix.  7. 
 And  the  reason  of  this  is  obvious:  explanations  of  ordinary  names 
 would  be,  as  a  rule,  extremely  insipid.  In  the  present  case  we  are 
 led  to  expect  something  important,  from  the  fact  that  no  less 
 than  three  times  we  find  it  said  of  Thomas,  "who  is  called  Didy- 
 mus," ch.  XX.  24,  xxi.  2;  these  two  instances  occurring  so  near  to 
 each  other  as  to  show  that  something  significant  in  the  meaning 
 suggested  the  repetition,  more  especially  as  John  is  a  writer  who 
 measures  every  word.  Accordingly,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that 
 the  name  Thomas,  which  never  occurs  in  the  Old  Testament 
 as  a  proper  name,  was  imposed  upon  the  Apostle  by  our  Lord 
 as  descriptive  of  his  character,  and  that  the  words  "  called  twin" 
 were  designed  to  point  to  this  significance  in  his  name.  Many 
 such  characteristic  names  are  found  in  the  Old  Testament, 
 especially  in  the  prophets  (comp.  on  ch.  i.  43) ;  and  we  also 
 
44  CHAP.  VII.  1-XII.  50. 
 
 find  them  among  the  Apostles  (comp.  on  ch,  vi.  71).  The 
 Apostle  who  is  always  in  the  lists  paired  with  Thomas,  Matthew, 
 bears  a  name  which  belonged  to  him  as  a  disciple,  and  referred 
 to  his  relation  with  the  Lord.  His  original  name  was  Levi.^ 
 But  wdiat  is  the  meaning  of  the  name  Thomas  ?  It  signifies 
 one  at  sight  of  whom  we  are  reminded  of  twins. — Dxn  occurs 
 only  as  a  plural  in  the  Old  Testament ;  an  avrjp  8ti/rf;^09,  a 
 double-minded  man,  Jas.  i.  8,  comp.  Blylrv^oi,  in  ch.  iv.  8.  Inward 
 discordance  is,  alas,  common  to  all  who  still  live  in  the  flesh  ; 
 but  the  vehement  disposition  of  Thomas  brought  his  double- 
 raindedness  into  special  exhibition,  so  as  to  make  him  an  apt 
 exemplification  of  an  undecided  character.  The  proper  key  to 
 the  name  is  found  in  Gen.  xxv.  23,  24 :  "  And  the  Lord  said 
 unto  her,  Two  nations  are  in  thy  womb,  and  two  manners  of 
 people  shall  be  separated  from  thy  bowels ;  and  the  one  people 
 shall  be  stronger  than  the  other  people;  and  the  elder  shall 
 serve  the  younger.  And  when  her  days  to  be  delivered  were 
 fulfilled,  behold,  there  were  twins  in  her  womb:"  Sept.  rfjBe 
 Tjv  hihvjxa  iv  rfj  KoCkta.  Thomas  had  his  Esau  also,  the  first- 
 born, and  his  Jacob — the  old  and  the  new  man.  But  this 
 reference  to  the  passage  in  Genesis  is  not  only  humiliating ; 
 there  is  in  it  consolation  also  for  Thomas,  and  for  all  of 
 whom  he  is  the  type :  the  elder  must  at  last  serve  the  younger, 
 and  this  was  gloriously  exemplified  in  the  later  self-sacrificing 
 character  of  the  missionary  Thomas.  The  interpretation  we 
 have  given  is  confirmed  by  the  fact  that  it  gives  a  sufficient 
 reason  for  the  appendage,  o  \ey6/jievo<i  AiSv/jio<;,  which  does  not 
 indeed  always  accompany  the  name  of  Thomas.  In  the  two 
 earlier  passages  the  affix  is  added  to  the  name  under  circum- 
 stances which  especially  display  the  undecided  character  of 
 Thomas:  the  word  of  doubt  in  ch.  xx.  25  belonged  to  the  one 
 twin,  to  the  other  the  energetic  confession  of  faith  in  ver.  28. 
 In  ch.  xxi.  2,  Thomas  is  paired  with  Simon  Peter, — the  man  of 
 
 ^  It  is  characteristic  in  evidence  of  the  authorship  of  Matthew,  that 
 only  in  him  we  have  the  order  Qcofia;  nod  MurSalo;^  ch.  x.  3  ;  Mark,  in 
 ch.  iii.  18,  and  Luke,  in  ch.  vi.  15,  have  the  names  in  the  inverted  order. 
 Matthew  himself,  in  his  humility,  would  not  assign  to  himself  the  first 
 place,  although  it  obviously  belonged  to  him.  And  it  is  in  V:armony  with 
 this  that  he  alone  gives  the  appendage  to  his  name,  "  the  publican."  His 
 humility  preferred  to  point  back  to  his  earlier  despised  condition. 
 
CHAP.  XI.  17-19.  45 
 
 rock  and  the  man  of  double-mind — unity  and  doubleness.  This 
 juxtaposition  points  out  to  us  what  we  are  by  nature,  and  what 
 we  ought  more  and  more  to  become  by  grace. 
 
 We  have  now,  in  vers.  17-44,  the  narrative  of  the  raising 
 of  Lazarus. 
 
 Vers.  17,  18,  19.  "  Then,  when  Jesus  came,  He  found  that 
 he  had  lain  in  the  grave  four  days  already.  (Now  Bethany  was 
 nigh  unto  Jerusalem,  about  fifteen  furlongs  off.)  And  many 
 of  the  Jews  came  to  Martha  and  Mary,  to  comfort  them  con- 
 cerning their  brother.'' — As  to  €')(€iv,  ver.  17,  see  the  notes  on  cli. 
 V.  5.  The  aTTo,  ver.  18,  is  used  of  distance  from  a  place.  This 
 peculiar  phraseology  is  found  in  the  New  Testament — besides 
 the  Gospel,  where  it  occurs  in  ver.  8  of  the  disputed  chapter 
 xxi. — only  in  the  Apocalypse,  ch.  xiv.  20.  The  use  of  the  Trpo, 
 in  ch.  xii.  1,  is  analogous,  as  well  as  its  employment  by  the 
 Sept.  in  Amos  i.  1,  iv.  7.  The  statement  of  the  distance  of 
 Bethany  from  Jerusalem  serves  to  explain  the  following  state- 
 ment, viz.  that  many  sympathizers  came  thence  to  the  house  of 
 mourning.  It  it  said  that  Bethany  was  nigh  to  Jerusalem. 
 John's  design  required  him  only  to  observe  that  such  was  at 
 that  time  the  relation  between  the  two  places :  whether  that 
 relation  still  continued,  was  in  itself  an  indifferent  matter.  It 
 can  hardly  be  inferred  from  the  ^v  that  John  meant  to  speak  of 
 Jerusalem  and  Bethany  as  already  destroyed :  in  that  case  it 
 must  also  be  inferred  from  ch.  xviii.  1,  that  John  spoke  of  the 
 garden  as  having  disappeared:  comp.  also  ch.  xix.  41.  Quite 
 parallel  is  "  Nineveh  was  a  great  city,"  Jonah  iii.  3,  which  does 
 not  mean  to  say  that  it  was  no  longer — the  continuance  of 
 Nineveh  in  the  time  of  the  author  is  an  assumption  which  lies 
 at  the  basis  of  the  book — but  only  that  Jonah  found  it  ch. — 
 It  is  clear  that  the  Jews,  in  ver.  19,  are  not  the  "Jewish  party 
 in  opposition  to  Jesus."  The  position  of  affairs  in  the  house 
 requires  us  to  suppose  that  the  company  was  a  mixed  one,  and 
 so  we  find  by  the  result  it  was :  comp.  on  ch.  i.  19.  The  words 
 are  literally,  "  to  those  about  Martha  and  Mary."  The  phrase 
 was  originally  employed  in  classical  Greek  only  of  eminent  per- 
 sons, who  were  surrounded  by  attendants ;  its  use  as  a  mere 
 circumlocution  was  a  later  debasement.  The  New  Testament 
 never  sanctions  this  degenerate  use.     In  Acts  xiii.  13,  those 
 
46  CHAP.  VII.  1-XII.  50. 
 
 around  Paul  are  the  Apostle  and  his  companions ;  a  mere 
 pleonasm  is  not  to  be  thought  of  in  John.  The  expression 
 points  to  the  fact  that  the  house  was  an  important  one,  and 
 that  we  must  regard  ]\Iary  the  mistress,  in  whose  honour  her 
 sister  partakes,  as  surrounded  by  a  number  of  female  servants ; 
 and  the  connection  with  the  name  Martha  is  in  favour  of  the 
 same  view.  Esther  iv.  16  throws  some  light  upon  it,  where 
 Esther  says,  "  I  also  and  my  maidens  will  fast."  The  mistress 
 and  the  maidens  make  up  one  whole.  In  harmony  with  the  cCl 
 'Trepl  Mdpdav  we  have  the  statement  of  ver.  20,  that  Martha, 
 the  real  centre  of  a  circle,  knows  at  once  of  the  arrival  of  Jesus, 
 while  Mary,  who  only  virtually  partakes  of  her  dignity,  has 
 heard  nothing  about  it. 
 
 Ver.  20.  "  Then  Martha,  as  soon  as  she  heard  that  Jesus 
 was  coming,  went  and  met  Him :  but  Mary  sat  still  in  the 
 house." — Connecting  with  this  the  parallel,  Luke  x.  39,  we 
 must  explain  "  sat  as  usual  in  the  house."  (Berl.  Bible  :  "  Here 
 John  refers  us  to  Luke  x.  39,  he  having  written  after  Luke.") 
 It  forms  a  contrast  to  Prov.  vii.  12,  where  it  is  said  of  the 
 adulteress :  "  Now  is  she  without,  now  in  the  streets,  and  lietli 
 in  wait  at  every  corner."  This  had  been  true  of  Mary  in  former 
 days,  but  now,  after  her  conversion,  she  is  all  the  more  anxious 
 to  live  in  still  seclusion.  That  word  of  the  Old  Testament  had 
 now  become  a  sharp  goad  (Eccles.  xii.  11).  It  is  probable  that 
 Martha  had  secretly  been  informed  of  the  arrival  of  Jesus,  ver. 
 28,  so  that  neither  Mary  nor  those  around  her  knew  of  it.  This 
 secrecy  sprang  from  the  internal  relations  of  the  house  at  the 
 time. 
 
 Vers.  21,  22.  "  Then  said  Martha  unto  Jesus,  Lord,  if  Thou 
 hadst  been  here,  my  brother  had  not  died.  But  I  know,  that 
 even  now,  whatsoever  Thou  wilt  ask  of  God,  God  will  give  it 
 Thee." — If  Thou  hadst  been  here — at  the  time  of  the  sick- 
 ness. It  is  a  clear  misapprehension  to  suppose  that  Martha,  in 
 ver.  21,  utters  a  reproach  against  Jesus.  The  word  of  Christ, 
 in  ver.  4,  forms  the  foundation  for  vers.  21  and  22.  That 
 word  guaranteed,  if  Jesus  were  present,  the  healing  of  the  sick 
 man,  as  Jesus  Himself  admits  in  ver.  15;  but  if  Lazarus  died 
 before  His  coming,  it  guaranteed  the  resurrection  of  the  dead 
 man.  Martha  does  no  more,  therefore,  than  give  expression  to 
 her  faith  in  the  word  of  Christ.     That  He  would  be  able  to 
 
CHAP.  XI.  23,  24.  47 
 
 make  good  even  this  word,  which  would  indeed  involve  very 
 great  things  (oaa),  she  could  all  the  less  doubt,  inasmuch  as 
 His  miraculous  power  had  already  approved  itself  in  raising  the 
 dead,  and  given  practical  demonstration  that  even  death,  the 
 most  awful  of  all  our  enemies,  had  no  power  against  Him :  and 
 the  veKpol  iyeipovrat,  Matt.  xi.  5,  had  already  had  its  glorious 
 illustration.  And  Calvin's  remark  as  to  the  utterance  of 
 Martha's  hope  being  the  result  of  wandering,  rests  upon  a  total 
 misunderstanding  of  the  matter.  This  charge  would  be  well- 
 founded  only  if  Jesus  had  not  given  the  word  of  ver.  4  as  a 
 staff  for  her  hope.  Then,  indeed,  she  must  have  been  contented 
 with  the  consolation  common  to  all  believers ;  and  then  it  would 
 have  been  wild  presumption  to  expect  anything  extraordinary 
 for  herself.  And  such  presumption  would  not  have  been  re- 
 warded by  the  granting  of  an  irrational  request. 
 
 Jesus  makes  trial,  before  He  proceeds  to  verify  His  word, 
 in  ver.  4,  whether  the  subjective  conditions  necessary  in  the 
 two  sisters  (represented  by  ISIartha)  for  the  realization  of  that 
 word  are  present  in  them ;  or  rather,  as  the  presence  of  those 
 conditions  was  taken  for  granted  by  His  words,  He  gives  her 
 opportunity  of  expressing  herself  satisfactorily  on  the  matter. 
 Her  faith  that  the  power  of  Jesus  could  call  back  the  dead  to 
 earthly  life,  she  had  already  freely  spoken  out  in  ver.  22.  But 
 that  was  not  enough.  It  must  be  clearly  established  that  she 
 also  stood  firm  in  the  fundamental  truth  as  it  respects  the 
 resurrection.  This  was  all  the  more  important,  as  the  whole 
 transaction  was  to  have  a  symbolical  meaning ;  as  Jesus  pur- 
 posed to  exhibit  in  it  a  prelude  of  the  general  resurrection  at 
 the  end  of  the  world, — a  practical  demonstration  of  the  power 
 by  which  He  will  then  call  back  all  believers  from  death  to  life. 
 This  colloquy  between  Martha  and  Christ  has,  as  it  were,  a 
 liturgical  significance.  Nothing  occurs  in  it  which  does  not 
 hold  good  of  all  who  bury  their  beloved  dead.  There  is  no 
 allusion  in  it  to  the  recalling  of  Lazarus  back  to  this  poor 
 earthly  life.  Assurance  of  that  had  been  given  in  ver.  4.  Jesus 
 tests  first  Martha's  faith  in  the  resurrection  itself,  vers.  23,  24 ; 
 and  then  He  requires  her  to  confess,  in  the  presence  of  the 
 Church  represented  by  the  Apostles,  her  faith  in  Himself,  as 
 the  author  of  the  resurrection. 
 
 Vers.  23,  24.  "Jesus  saith  unto  her,  Thy  brother  shall  rise 
 
48  CHAP.  VII.  1-XII.  50. 
 
 again.  Martha  saitli  unto  Him,  I  know  that  he  shall  rise  again 
 in  the  resurrection  at  the  last  day." — The  "  Believest  thou 
 this?"  of  ver.  26,  is  in  effect  to  be  understood  also  in  ver.  23. 
 This  is  evidenced  by  the  answer  of  Martha,  who  recognises  in  the 
 address  of  Christ  a  demand  for  her  faith  in  the  great  article  of 
 the  resurrection  of  the  dead.  Jesus  propounds  the  objective 
 Divine  truth ;  and  it  is  for  Martha,  as  the  representative  or 
 mouth  of  all  believers,  to  avow  her  faith  in  it.  Primarily,  she 
 represents  her  sister  with  herself.  That  the  examination  into 
 her  subjective  standing-point  of  faith  is  not  here  the  great 
 matter,  but  only  the  bringing  into  exhibition  a  faith  which  was 
 present  and  known  to  Jesus,  is  plain,  from  the  circumstance 
 that  our  Lord  does  not  pursue  the  same  examination  with  Mary. 
 The  whole  transaction  was  intended  to  be  significant  for  all  ages 
 of  the  Church  of  God  upon  earth. — The  avacrrrjcreTaL,  "he  shall 
 rise  again,"  cannot,  in  the  Lord's  mouth,  refer  to  a  return  into 
 the  sphere  of  the  present  miserable  earthly  life.  This  is  shown 
 by  the  answer  of  Martha,  as  well  as  by  the  current  Christian 
 and  Jewish  phraseology.  Li  this  it  signifies  the  transition  into  a 
 new  glorious  condition,  which  lies  beyond  the  present  existence 
 of  men.  Yer.  25  altogether  excludes  the  reference  to  a  mere 
 restoration  to  life  :  the  ^o)?;,  the  ^ijaerac,  accord  not  with  the 
 present  state  of  existence. — The  New  Testament  teaches  a 
 twofold  stage  of  being  in  that  other  world :  the  one  which 
 begins  for  believers  with  their  departure  from  this  life;  the 
 other  which  begins  with  the  last  day.  To  the  former  refers 
 what  the  Lord  said  to  the  thief  on  the  cross ;  as  also  John  xiv. 
 2,  3,  xiii.  36,  xvii.  24  ;  Eev.  xiv.  13,  "Blessed  are  the  dead  who 
 die  in  the  Lord  froin  henceforth ;"  vii.  9-17,  xiv.  1-5,  xv.  1-4. 
 To  the  latter  refer,  for  example,  Matt.  xix.  28 ;  John  v.  25, 
 28,  29,  vi.  39,  40 ;  Kev.  xix.  9,  xxi.  22.  In  the  Revelation  the 
 two  stages  are  often  combined  in  the  unity  of  life  or  salvation, 
 e.g.  ch.  ii.  7,  10,  17,  iii.  5.  That  the  former  may  be  included 
 under  the  term  "  resurrection,"  is  evidenced  by  Rev.  xx.  5,  where 
 it  is  expressly  described  as  the  first  resurrection.  There  can  be 
 the  less  objection  to  this,  inasmuch  as  the  figurative  use  of  the 
 resurrection  holds  extensively,  and  in  various  ways,  throughout 
 the  Scripture ;  every  transition  from  misery  to  blessedness, 
 from  a  lower  to  a  higher  condition,  being  described  by  the 
 terms  :  comp.  my  commentary  on  Rev.  xx.  5.     Martha,  in  her 
 
CHAP.  XI.  25,  26.  49 
 
 answer,  here  looks  alone  on  the  second  stage  of  blessedness,  the 
 resurrection  at  the  last  day  ;  and  it  cannot  be  doubted,  taking  the 
 current  phraseology,  and  especially  ch.  v.  25,  28,  29,  into  view, 
 that  Jesus  pre-eminently  referred  to  the  same.  But  that  in 
 connection  with  this.  He  has  also  the  former  in  view, — that  the 
 resurrection  here  means  the  whole  of  that  future  life — that  we 
 consequently  have  here  the  basis  of  the  "first  resurrection"  in 
 the  Apocalypse, — is  plain  from  ver.  25,  where  Jesus  unites 
 resurrection  and  life  inseparably  together,  so  that  the  sphere  of 
 the  resurrection  must  be  just  as  extensive  as  that  of  life.  If 
 there  is,  according  to  the  most  unambiguous  and  oft-re2:)eated 
 declarations  of  our  Lord  and  His  Apostles,  a  life,  a  blessedness, 
 before  the  commonly  so-called  resurrection,  so  must  there  be  also 
 a  resurrection  before  the  resurrection  commonly  so-called,  or 
 before  the  last  day.  With  such  an  all-comprehending  meaning 
 the  resurrection  occurs  in  Matt.  xxii.  30.  For  the  idea  of  resur- 
 rection is  there  also,  according  to  ver.  32,  as  extensive  as  that  of 
 life.  But  it  is  the  first  stage  which  is  in  that  chapter  predomi- 
 nantly in  question.  For  when  we  read  there  (and  also  Mark  xii. 
 25),  "  In  the  resurrection  they  are  as  the  angels  in  heaven,"  we 
 must  not  refer  the  ev  ovpavM  to  the  angels ;  in  that  case  the  oi 
 must  have  come  first,  as  many  MSS.  in  Mark  have  interpolated 
 the  ol  before  ev  ovpavoL<;.  We  must  rather  construe  aXS!  ev 
 ovpavS  elat,  d)';  ayyeXoi :  but  in  heaven  are  as  the  angels.  The 
 explanation  of  Fritzsche  and  others,  "  But  they  are  as  the  angels 
 of  God  iu  heaven  (are),"  is  not  so  obvious ;  and  the  reason 
 which  is  made  to  sustain  it,  "  that  in  the  New  Testament  the 
 Messianic  kingdom  for  the  dead  recalled  to  life  is  not  heaven, 
 but  on  this  earth  itself,"  rests,  according  to  the  intimation 
 already  given,  upon  a  partial  apprehension  of  the  truth.  It  is 
 the  first  stage  of  the  resurrection  which  is  especially  regarded, 
 because,  among  the  blessed  spirits  m  heaven,  the  inappropriate- 
 ness  of  marriage  is  especially  prominent.  Phil.  iii.  20  is  parallel : 
 ri/jLb)v  yap  to  TroXlrevfjia  ev  ovpavol<i  vrrdp'^ei.  The  blessed 
 spirits,  in  their  resui'rection,  attain  to  the  place  where  already, 
 during  their  earthly  life,  their  proper  home  was. 
 
 Vers.  25,  26.  "Jesus  said  unto  her,  I  am  the  resurrection, 
 and  the  life ;  he  that  believeth  in  Me,  though  he  were  dead, 
 yet  shall  he  live  :  and  whosoever  liveth,  and  believeth  in  Me, 
 shall  never  die.     Believest  thou  this  ?  " — From  the  resurrection 
 
 VOL.  II.  D 
 
50  CHAP.  YII.  1-XII.  50. 
 
 the  Lord  turns  to  its  Author  and  Agent.  "  I  am  the  resur- 
 rection and  the  Hfe."  Christ  is  the  antitype  of  the  tree  of  life 
 in  Paradise  :  he  that  eateth  of  Him  shall  live  for  ever.  He  is 
 the  resurrection  and  the  life,  not  only  as  the  giver,  but  as  the 
 procurer  of  both.  The  root  is  His  atoning  death,  by  which  He 
 hath  assuaged  the  wrath  of  God  and  vanquished  death,  2  Tim. 
 i.  10 ;  Heb.  ii.  14.  It  reads,  "  I  am  the  resurrection  and  the 
 life."  Jesus  is  this  already  virtually,  according  to  His  in- 
 dwelling power ;  just  as,  according  to  ch.  i.  4,  the  life  was  in 
 Him  before  He  appeared  in  the  flesh.  But  not  until  the 
 resurrection  will  the  power  already  existing  in  Him  approve 
 itself  in  act.  Bengel  is  not  correct  here  :  Ego  praesens,  non 
 adstrictus  ad  longinquum.  Noli  putare,  INIartha,  te  differri  in 
 longinquum.  Mors  cedit  vitse  ut  caligo  luci,  protinus.  The 
 recall  of  Lazarus  to  this  wretched  life  stood  in  no  direct  and 
 immediate  connection  with  the  words,  "  I  am  the  resurrection 
 and  the  life  ;"  it  had  to  do  with  them  only  so  far  as  the  power 
 immanent  in  Christ,  which  will  one  day  effect  the  resurrection 
 and  life,  had  its  prelude  in  Lazarus'  restoration.  In  the  Old 
 Testament  we  find  that  all  salvation,  whether  in  the  world  to 
 come  or  in  the  present  world,  is  connected  with  the  name  of  the 
 Messiah.  Of  the  Messianic  age  we  read  in  Isa.  xxv.  8,  "  He 
 will ,  swallow  up  death  in  victory,  and  the  Lord  God  will  wipe 
 away  tears  from  off  all  faces," — the  tears  which  flow  with 
 peculiar  bitterness  on  account  of  death.  In  ch.  xxvi.  19  it  is 
 said,  "  Thy  dead  men  shall  live,  together  with  my  dead  body 
 shall  they  arise.  Awake  and  sing,  ye  that  dwell  in  dust :  for  thy 
 dew  is  as  the  dew  of  herbs  (light  or  salvation),  and  the  earth 
 shall  cast  out  the  dead."  According  to  Dan.  xii.  2,  in  the 
 Messiah's  days  "  many  of  them  that  sleep  in  the  dust  of  the 
 earth  shall  awake,  some  to  everlasting  life,  and  some  to  shame 
 and  everlasting  contempt."  That  the  "  life"  of  believers 
 begins  immediately  after  death,  is  proved  by  the  parable  of 
 Lazarus.  The  poor  man  is,  according  to  Luke  xvi.  22,  carried, 
 when  he  dies,  by  the  angels  into  Abi'aham's  bosom,,  where  he  is 
 comforted,  ver.  25.  The  distinctive  character  which  hell  with 
 its  torments  bears  in  that  description — the  wide  gulf  which  is 
 firmly  established  between  the  one  and  the  other,  go  to  prove 
 that  life  also  in  that  world  must  bear  a  not  less  distinctive 
 character.     If  life,  according  to  this  parable,  which  stands  in  a 
 
CHAP.  XI.  27.  51 
 
 near  and  peculiar  connection  with  the  event  before  us,  com- 
 mences with  the  departure  from  the  present  state,  the  resurrec- 
 tion also,  which  goes  hand  in  hand  with  it,  must  have  a  similar 
 beginning.  Resurrection  and  life  are,  in  Hos.  vi.  2,  connected 
 together ;  and  both  as  describing  the  transition  from  a  miserable 
 to  a  happy  existence.  Ua?  o  ^a>i/,  whosoever  liveth,  forms  the 
 antithesis  to  Kav  dirodavr},  though  he  die,  and  must  therefore 
 refer  only  to  the  natural  life.  The  ov  /ij;  aTroddvr),  shall  not 
 die,  corresponds  to  the  ^/ja-erai,  shall  live ;  and  thus  the  dying 
 here  cannot  be  used  in  the  ordinary  sense,  as  in  the  Kav  dirodavrj, 
 but  with  an  emphasis :  death,  which  is  no  more  than  the  transi- 
 tion to  true  life,  is  not  death  at  all.  The  two  members  of  the 
 clauses  are  an  advance  respectively  on  each  other's  meaning. 
 In  the  former,  life  after  death  is  assured  to  believers ;  in  the 
 latter,  it  is  declared  that  they  shall  not  die  at  all.  The  death 
 of  which  Jesus  speaks  in  the  former  clause,  accommodating 
 Himself  to  our  common  phrase,  is,  when  more  clearly  viewed, 
 no  real  death.  There  is  not  here  any  distinction  of  two  classes. 
 It  is  true  that  the  former  clause  holds  good  only  of  those  who, 
 with  Lazarus,  are  ah-eady  dead ;  but  for  living  believers  like 
 Martha,  both  clauses  are  valid.  Jesus,  however,  has  the  living 
 primarily  in  \-iew.  The  ^rjaeTai  of  itself  shows  this.  His  design 
 is  to  arm  His  living  believers  against  all  the  terrors  of  death. 
 
 Ver.  27.  "  She  saith  unto  Him,  Yea,  Lord  :  I  believe  that 
 Thou  art  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  which  should  come  into 
 the  world." — Martha  does  not  avow  her  faith  distinctively  in 
 Jesus,  as  the  resurrection  and  the  life,  but  as  the  super-worldly 
 (comp.,  in  reference  to  "  coming  into  the  world,"  on  ch.  i.  9) 
 Redeemer  and  Son  of  God.  If  He  be  this — if  the  triple  honour 
 which  Martha  ascribes  to  Him  be  truly  His,  then  it  is  suffi- 
 ciently plain  of  itself  that  He  must  be  the  resurrection  and  the 
 life.  Quesnel :  "  Nothing  in  respect  to  Christ  seems  incredible 
 or  transcending  hope,  when  we  have  a  living  faith  in  His  divi- 
 nity; but  the  whole  building  falls  to  the  ground  when  this 
 foundation  is  disturbed."  Martha  says,  "  I  have  believed."  The 
 perfect  (comp.  ch,  vi.  69)  is  significant,  as  showing  that  she 
 does  not  now  attain  for  the  first  time  to  that  faith,  but  is  only 
 avowing  the  faith  which  she  already  possessed ;  that,  conse- 
 quently, it  is  not  His  design  to  pi'oduce  faith  in  her  soul,  but 
 only  to  give  her  opportunity  to  confess  the  faith  she  had. 
 
52  CHAP.  VII.  1-XII.  50. 
 
 Yer.  28.  "  And  when  she  had  so  said,  she  went  her  way, 
 and  called  Mary  her  sister  secretly,  saying,  The  Master  is  come, 
 and  calleth  for  thee." — Why  did  not  Martha  earlier  give  Mary 
 information  ?  It  was  natural  that  at  first  she  was  wholly  possessed 
 by  the  thought  of  going  out  to  meet  Jesus,  and  of  strengthening 
 her  faith  in  the  promise  sent  to  her  (ver.  4),  by  beholding  Him, 
 and  hearing  His  words.  As  soon  as  her  heart  had  received  this 
 invigoration,  she  hastened  at  once  to  her  sister.  "  Secretly," 
 leads  to  the  inference  that,  among  those  who  according  to  ver. 
 19  were  present,  many  were  included  who  stood  in  a  hostile  or 
 alienated  relation  to  Christ.  In  Martha's  purpose  these  were 
 to  be  kept  aloof.  God's  purpose,  however,  was  different  from 
 hers.  All  who  were  in  Bethany  should  be  present  at  the  miracle. 
 "  The  Master  is  come."  Quesnel :  "  Jesus  had  no  other  name 
 in  this  family  than  Lord  and  Master ;  for  it  was  a  family  of 
 faith  and  of  obedience."  That  Jesus  called  for  JMary,  was  the 
 necessary  consequence  of  His  presence,  and  of  the  end  of  His 
 coming,  according  to  ver.  4.  Those  out  of  love  to  whom  the 
 miracle  took  place,  must  needs  be  present  to  behold  it. 
 
 Ver.  29.  "  As  soon  as  she  heard  that,  she  arose  quickly,  and 
 came  unto  Him." — Mary,  says  Quesnel,  leaves  without  delay 
 comforters  who  were  a  burden  to  her  grief,  in  order  to  find  out 
 the  true  Comforter.  It  is  only  at  His  feet  that  we  can  find  a 
 consolation  that  penetrates  the  heart. — Ver.  30.  "  Now  Jesus 
 was  not  yet  come  into  the  town,  but  was  in  that  place  where 
 Martha  met  Him."  Why  did  not  Jesus  come  to  the  place  ? 
 It  appears  that  He  remained  outside,  in  the  neighbourhood  of 
 the  sepulchre.  For  it  is  evident  from  what  follows,  that  the 
 sepulchre  was  very  near  the  village.  The  Jews  followed  Mary 
 on  her  way  to  Jesus,  supposing  that  she  was  going  to  the  place 
 of  sepulture  :  therefore  that  must  have  been  near  to  the  place 
 where  Jesus  was.  Our  Lord's  conduct  on  the  occasion  was 
 shaped  by  the  unequal  character  of  the  visitors  at  the  house. 
 The  mixed  multitude  were  to  be  present  at  the  raising  of 
 Lazarus  (ut  tam  grande  miraculum  quatriduani  mortui  resur- 
 gentis  testes  plurimos  inveniret, — Augustin),  but  yet  Jesus 
 would  not  go  to  the  scene  accompanied  by  such  a  crowd.  They 
 were  to  be  present,  but  it  must  be  without  any  seeming  or  direct 
 arrangement  on  His  part.  He  would  come  into  contact  with 
 them  at,  but  not  before,  the  performance  of  the  sacred  act. — 
 
CHAP.  XI.  32-34.  53 
 
 Ver.  31.  "  The  Jews  then  which  were  with  her  in  the  house, 
 and  comforted  her,  when  they  saw  Mary,  that  she  rose  up 
 hastily  and  went  out,  followed  her,  saying,  She  goeth  unto  the 
 grave  to  weep  there." 
 
 Ver.  32.  "  Then  when  Mary  was  come  where  Jesus  was, 
 and  saw  Him,  she  fell  down  at  His  feet,  saying  unto  Him, 
 Lord,  if  Thou  hadst  been  here,  my  brother  had  not  died." 
 — There  is  not  the  most  distant  hint  of  any  reproach  here. 
 Reproaches  are  not  lightly  uttered  against  the  Lord  by  one 
 who  sits  at  His  feet.  The  words  of  Mary  are  the  very  same 
 which  Martha  had  spoken  in  the  former  part  of  her  first  address, 
 ver.  21.  Doubtless  the  sisters  had  often  interchano;ed  this  kind 
 of  observation  with  each  other.  To  the  second  part  of  Martha's 
 address  corresponds  Mary's  prostration  :  comp.  the  irpoaKvvova-a, 
 KoX  alrovad  tl  irap  avrov,  Matt.  xx.  20.  This  form  of  suppli- 
 cating the  salvation  which  ver.-  4  had  placed  before  her  vision, 
 was  appropriate  to  the  forgiven  sinner,  whose  consciousness  was 
 anew  and  most  vividly  affected  by  a  sense  of  unworthiness  in 
 the  presence  of  that  new  manifestation  of  grace  which  was' 
 especially  intended  for  her :  comp.  the  "  Lord,  I  am  not 
 worthy"  of  the  centurion,  in  JSIatt.  viii.  8.  The  whole  deport- 
 ment of  Mary  evidences  her  firm  confidence  in  the  miraculous 
 power  of  Jesus,  which,  according  to  ver.  4,  He  must  put  forth 
 upon  her  dead  brother,  though  it  had  not  pleased  Him  to  put  it 
 forth  upon  her  brother  while  sick  and  alive. 
 
 Vers.  33,  34.  "  When  Jesus  therefore  saw  her  weeping, 
 and  the  Jews  also  weeping  which  came  with  her,  He  groaned 
 in  the  spirit,  and  was  troubled,  and  said,  Where  have  ye  laid 
 him  ?  They  say  unto  Him,  Lord,  come  and  see." — It  has  long 
 been  fully  established  that  the  i/jb^pcfidcrOai  can  denote  no  other 
 passion  than  that  of  holy  anger.  That  the  phrase  accepts  no 
 other  meaning,  is  confessed  even  by  those  who,  not  knowing 
 how  otherwise  to  evade  it,  enforce  another  signification  upon 
 the  word  here.  Liicke,  for  example,  says  :  "  The  lexical  defi- 
 nition of  a  scholiast  upon  Aristophanes,  Equit.  851,  /Spcfxaadai,, 
 TO  opyl^eaOai  koL  aireCkelv,  is  accepted  by  all  lexicographers.  If 
 we  hold  to  the  strict  meaning,  then  Jesus  was  angry,  and  saw 
 Mary  and  the  Jews  weeping  with  displeasure."  The  ancient 
 Greek  expositors,  who  had  still  before  their  eyes  the  living 
 phraseology,  gave  the  verb  the  signification  of  anger.     "  Only 
 
54  CHAP.  VII.  1-XII.  50. 
 
 this  interpretation,  that  of  loud  and  violent  indignation,  is  the 
 literal  one  that  i/x^pifiaaOat  accepts,"  Gumlich  asserts  and 
 amply  proves  in  his  exhaustive  tractate  on  the  resurrection  of 
 Lazarus  (S.  and  K.  1862).  But  the  indignation  of  our  Lord 
 could  not  have  been  directed  at  the  weeping  of  Mary  and  the 
 Jews  :  this  is  plain  from  the  fact  that  Jesus  Himself  afterwards 
 wept.  The  same  reason  decides  against  the  assumption  that 
 Jesus  was  wroth  with  and  strove  against  His  own  emotion, 
 excited  by  the  weeping  of  those  around  him;  an  assumption 
 which  is  also  refuted  by  the  consideration  that  there  is  nothing 
 recorded  of  any  such  preceding  involuntary  emotion  on  the  part 
 of  our  Lord.  Moreover,  it  would  then  have  been  more  in 
 keeping  that  He  should  have  composed  rather  than  excited 
 Himself.  No  further  illustration  is  necessary  to  show  how 
 little  any  thus  or  thus  originated  anger  is  worthy  of  Jesus  the 
 Saviour,  who  sympathizes  with  us  in  our  infirmities.  His  vehe- 
 ment wrath  being  occasioned  by  the  weeping,  it  must  have  been 
 excited  only  by  that  which  caused  this  weeping.  And  that  was 
 no  other  than  the  great  enemy  of  the  human  race.  Death.  To 
 this  our  thoughts  are  at  once  directed  by  the  words  which  follow 
 the  mention  of  our  Lord's  deep  feeling.  He  asks,  "  Where 
 have  ye  laid  him  f  " — a  question  which  is  the  introduction  to  His 
 actual  advance  towards  Death,  and  His  wresting  from  him  the 
 prey  which  he  had  carried  off.  The  anger  was  manifestly  the 
 internal  feeling  which  precedes  the  act  of  revivification,  and  in 
 which  that  act  had  its  psychological  root.^  It  is  not  the  passion 
 which  brings  about  the  resolution  of  Jesus  ;  that,  according  to 
 ver.  4,  had  been  long  fixed.  The  weeping  around  Him  was  only 
 a  subordinate  factor.  It  would  be  altogether  out  of  harmony 
 with  the  Divine  dignity  of  Jesus,  to  regard  Him  as  raised  solely 
 by  the  weeping  to  so  high  a  state  of  emotion,  and  to  the  sublime 
 act  that  followed  upon  it.  The  weeping  could  not  be  wanting  ; 
 but  it  was  only  one  of  the  subordinate  circumstances :  the  Lord's 
 determination  was  already  formed. — The  Redeemer's  wrath  will 
 appear  all  the  more  appropriate  when  we  consider  that  the  event 
 had  a  symbolical  meaning  ;  that  Lazarus  was  the  representative 
 of  all  believers  fallen  asleep  ;  and  that  we  have  here  the  pledge 
 
 ^  Lyser :  Indigne  fert,  quod  atra  mors  hunc  bonum  suum  amicum  rapuit 
 et  hoc  fremitu  se  ipsuni  excitat  ad  aggrediendum  grande  hoc  opus,  quo 
 Lazarum  ex  faucibus  mortis  eripere  vult. 
 
CHAP.  XI.  33,  34.  55 
 
 and  assurance  of  the  abolition  of  the  last  enemy,  ea-'^aro^  e')(6po<i 
 KurapyetTai  6  Odvaro^,  1  Cor.  xv.  26.  It  may  be  objected  that 
 the  auger  seems  to  be  directed  against  a  personal  enemy ;  but 
 such  an  objection  comes  very  flatly.  We  are  accustomed,  in 
 the  Old  Testament,  to  see  impersonal  and  transitory  powers 
 assuming  life,  personality,  and  form,  in  order  that  their  defeat 
 and  destruction  may  be  all  the  more  effectually  exhibited  : 
 comp.  e.g.  Hos.  xiii.  14.  Jesus,  according  to  Matt.  viii.  26,  not 
 only  threatens  the  wind  and  the  sea, — to  abate  the  force  of  this 
 analogy,  it  may  be  pleaded  that  the  act  was  symbolical,  living 
 powers  lying  concealed  behind  the  wind  and  the  sea  :  comp.  on 
 ch.  vi.  14-21, — but  He  rebukes  the  fever  also  in  Luke  iv.  39. 
 If  we  take  into  view  the  whole  Scripture  doctrine,  it  will  be 
 plain  that  behind  death  also  there  is  concealed  a  personal  enemy. 
 Death,  according  to  Gen.  ii.  17,  iii.  19,  came  upon  the  human 
 race  through  the  deceit  of  Satan  :  comp.  the  book  of  Wisdom, 
 ch.  ii.  24.  Our  Lord  calls  Satan  a  murderer  from  the  begin- 
 ning, ch.  viii.  44 ;  and  in  Heb.  ii.  14  Satan  is  described  as  the 
 ruler  of  death  himself  destroyed  by  Christ.  Thus,  when  our 
 Lord  advances  against  death.  He  at  the  same  time  advances 
 against  Satan.  Death  and  the  devil  are  in  the  Scripture  view 
 inseparably  connected. 
 
 Jesus  was  angry  in  spirit.  A  comparison  with  IMark  viii. 
 12,  Luke  X.  21,  John  xiii.  21,  Acts  xvii.  16,  Trapco^uvero  rb 
 TTvevfMa  avTov  ev  avrto,  will  show  that  rw  irvevfjiari,  defines  the 
 passion  to  have  been  an  internal  one,  and  consequently  full  of 
 force,  in  contrast  with  emotions  which  are  merely  put  on  for 
 appearance,  or  go  no  lower  than  the  surface.  The  nil  is,  in 
 the  Old  Testament,  the  seat  of  all  strong  passions  :  Gen.  xli.  8  ; 
 Prov.  XXV.  28  ;  Ps.  xxxiv.  19.  The  remark  that  "  the  spirit, 
 as  contradistinguished  from  the  soul,  the  seat  of  natural  human 
 sensibility,  is  here  named  as  the  sacred  domain  in  which  that 
 violent  emotion  was  exhibited,"  will  not  stand  the  test  of  the 
 passages  we  have  quoted.  It  is  a  mistake  also  to  conclude  from 
 the  Tw  Trvevfiari  that  the  anger  of  Jesus  was  restricted  to  the 
 inner  spirit.  It  is  rather  self-understood  that  His  passion,  which 
 had  its  proper  seat  in  the  spirit,  must  have  had  an  external 
 expression, — as  generally  the  measure  of  the  internal  strength 
 of  an  emotion  is  the  measure  of  its  outward  utterance, — otherwise 
 it  could  not  have  been  matter  of  historical  record.     Yatable 
 
56  CHAP.  VII.  1-XII.  50. 
 
 rightly  observes  :  Vultum  miitavit  Jesum  et  vocem  et  gestum 
 pra3  dolore.  "  And  was  troubled."  Tdpaaa-eiv  occurs  in  the 
 New  Testament,  so  far  as  it  refers  to  men,  always  and  only  of 
 mental  emotions  ;  and  it  must  here,  in  opposition  to  those  who 
 think  of  a  "  bodily  shivering,"  all  the  rather  be  referred  to 
 the  spiritual  sphere,  inasmuch  as  the  eavrov  is  defined  by  the 
 preceding  tm  irvevfj^aru  'Erdpa^ev  eavrov  is  the  same  as 
 eTapd^dv  '^^  TTvev/xart,  ch.  xiii.  21,  with  this  difference,  that  in 
 the  other  instance  the  emotion  was  more  passive,  while  here  it 
 is  active  and  intentionally  called  up.  Jesus  excites  Himself  to 
 an  energetic  conflict  with  the  wicked  enemy  of  the  human  race. 
 Any  reference  to  the  Divine  nature  of  Christ,  and  His  elevation 
 above  all  mere  passivity  of  physical  emotions,  as  resting  upon 
 that  Divine  nature  (Augustin  :  Turbaris  tu  nolens,  turbatus  est 
 Christus  quia  voluit.  In  illius  potestate  erat  sit  vel  sic  affici.  O 
 And  even  Liicke :  "  A  purely  involuntary  emotion  would  be  too  ~ 
 passive  for  the  Johannine  Christ"),  is  not  to  be  sought  in  the 
 irdpa^ev  eavrov.  The  same  would  be  said  of  a  human  hero, 
 who  roused  himself  to  a  sharp  contest.  Isa.  xlii.  13  gives  us 
 some  illustration  :  "  The  Lord  shall  go  forth  as  a  mighty  man. 
 He  shall  stir  up  jealousy  like  a  man  of  war ;  He  shall  cry,  yea 
 roar ;  He  shall  prevail  against  His  enemies."  If  Ave  explain 
 the  active  sense  of  the  emotion  by  reference  to  the  Divine 
 nature  of  Christ,  there  is  no  reason  why  the  same  active  verb 
 was  not  used  in  ch.  xii.  27,  xiii.  21. 
 
 The  question  which  immediately  follows  the  Lord's  excite- 
 ment, Where  have  ye  laid  him  ?  serves  only  to  introduce  and 
 prepare  for  the  act  which  flowed  from  it,  and  has,  as  it  were, 
 a  liturgical  significance.  We  can  no  more  conclude  from  His 
 asking  the  question,  that  Jesus  knew  not  the  place  of  sepulture, 
 than  we  can  conclude  from  Where  art  tJiou  ?  in  Gen.  iii.  9,  that 
 God  knew  not  the  retreat  of  Adam.  How  little  our  Lord's 
 questioning  generally  was  based  upon  His  ignorance  (as  if  He 
 asked  because  He  knew  not)  we  have  seen  in  ch.  vi.  6,  and  still 
 more  clearly  in  the  style  in  which  the  disciples  going  to  Emmaus 
 were  questioned,  Luke  xxiv.  17-19.  If  Jesus,  at  a  distance, 
 and  without  any  human  information,  knew  that  Lazarus  was 
 dead, — if  He  was  so  sure  beforehand  that  the  sickness  would 
 issue  to  the  glory  of  God,  and  that  the  journey  would  be 
 without  peril  to  Himself, — if  we  move  in  the  sphere  of  miracle 
 
CHAP.  XI.  35.  57 
 
 from  the  beginning  to  end  of  this  whole  transaction, — it  seems 
 a  strange  transition  to  another  sphere  when  Christ  is  made  to 
 ask  information  about  the  burial-place  becau.se  He  knew  it  not. 
 (Augustin  :  Scisti  quia  mortuus  sit  et  non  ubi  sit  sepultus  ?) 
 We  have  already  seen  that  our  Lord  had  remained  in  the  neigh- 
 bourhood of  the  sepulchre,  and  this  of  itself  proves  that  He  was 
 acquainted  with  it.  The  question  was  not  intended  to  furnish 
 Him  with  information  upon  a  matter  in  which  He  was  ignorant ; 
 it  served  only  to  define  the  boundary  between  the  domain  of  the 
 Son  of  God  and  that  of  men,  who  have  to  transfer  as  it  were 
 their  dead  to  Him,  being  unable  to  accomplish  aught  themselves. 
 Men  can  only  lay  their  dead  in  the  grave.  One  alone  can  raise 
 from  the  dead. 
 
 The  Kvpie,  Lord,  reflects  the  impression  of  the  dignity  of 
 His  person  which  the  deportment  of  Jesus  had  created  in  the 
 mourners'  minds.  The  "come  and  see"  is  seemingly  a  remi- 
 niscence of  Ps.  Ixvi.  5,  xlvi.  8,  springing  from  the  impulse 
 to  use  Scripture  language  in  solemn  moments;  and  the  very 
 words  were  all  the  more  carefully  preserved  by  the  narrator, 
 because  those  passages  in  the  Psalms — "  Come  and  see  the 
 works  of  God :  He  is  terrible  in  His  doings  toward  the  chil- 
 dren of  men ;"  and,  "  Come,  behold  the  works  of  the  Lord,  who 
 doeth  wonders  in  the  earth" — were  to  receive  a  new  confirma- 
 tion. The  ep')(ov  koX  Xhe  can  scarcely  be  used  indifferently 
 here,  seeing  that  John  everywhere  else  uses  it  with  a  significant 
 reference. 
 
 Ver.  35.  "  Jesus  wept."  —  Gumlich  rightly  observes  that 
 both  His  wrath  and  tears  were  occasioned  by  one  thing,  death. 
 That  Jesus  wept  at  the  death  of  Lazarus  is  proved  by  ver.  36, 
 on  which  Heumann,  holding  the  opinion  that  the  tears  had 
 another  cause,  is  obliged  to  say,  "  The  Jews  were  mistaken, 
 when  they  supposed  that  He  wept  over  the  death  of  Lazarus." 
 Surely  there  is  no  need  to  seek  diligently  for  any  other  reason 
 than  the  same  which  called  forth  the  tears  of  all  who  were 
 present.  Had  there  been  any  such  reason,  the  weeping  of 
 our  Lord  would  have  been  carefully  distinguished  from  that  of 
 all  others.  Death  and  tears  are  connected  in  the  Old  Tes- 
 tament, e.g.  in  Isa.  xxv.  8, — "  He  will  swallow  up  death  in 
 victory ;  and  the  Lord  God  will  wipe  away  tears  from  off  all 
 faces ;  and  the  rebuke  of  His  people  shall  He  take  away  from 
 
58  CHAP.  VII.  1-XII.  50. 
 
 off  all  the  earth  :  for  the  Lord  hath  spoken  it," — a  passage  with 
 which  ours  stands  in  close  external  connection ;  for  here  Jesus 
 pours  out  the  tears  in  order  to  make  that  saying  true,  in  order 
 that  He  might  be  able  to  wipe  away  all  other  tears.  It  is  thrice 
 recorded  that  Jesus  wept :  in  this  passage, — over  Jerusalem, — 
 and  in  Gethsemane,  Heb.  v.  7.  AaKpvetv,  only  here  in  the  New 
 Testament,  is  milder  than  KkaUiv :  it  signifies  only  that  tears 
 filled  the  Lord's  eyes.  That  literal  weeping  was  not  in  itself 
 improper  for  Jesus,  is  evidenced  by  Luke  xix.  41,  Heb.  v.  7  ;  but 
 it  is  out  of  keeping  with  the  present  case,  because  our  Saviour's 
 tone  is  pre-eminently  active,  and  the  excitement  of  sympathy 
 with  the  suffering  race  of  mankind  serves  only  as  a  foundation 
 for  His  rigorous  resolve  to  come  to  the  rescue  of  that  race.  In 
 Gethsemane  it  was  otherwise.  There  the  tone  of  our  Saviour 
 was  predominantly  passive.  So  also  was  it  when  He  wept  over 
 Jerusalem,  when  He  was  enforced  to  give  it  up  to  ruin.  But 
 in  the  present  instance,  the  tears  which  are  devoted  to  the  misery 
 of  mankind  as  exemplified  in  Lazarus,  are  preceded  by  the 
 wrath  of  His  spirit  against  the  wretched  enemy  of  mankind. 
 — With  the  weepers  Jesus  had  not  wept.  AVhen  He  saw  them 
 weeping — the  only  thing  by  which  they  could  exhibit  their  love 
 to  the  deceased — He,  the  only  one  Avho  could  do  more  than  that, 
 was  angered  in  spirit,  preparing  Himself  for  practical  help. 
 This  shows  us,  by  the  way,  that  in  circumstances  when  human 
 help  may  be  of  service.  He  who  can  be  helpful  should  not  spend 
 much  time  in  inactive  tearful  sympathy.  But  when  He  comes 
 to  the  very  place  and  abode  of  death,  He  gives  Himself  up  to 
 softer  sensibility,  that  He  may  by  His  pattern  sanctify  sym- 
 pathy. (Augustin :  Flevit  Christus,  fleat  se  homo.  Quare 
 enim  flevit  Christus,  nisi  quia  flere  hominem  docuit.)  But 
 in  the  Lord  this  sympathy  does  not  so  much  accompany 
 the  vigorous  assault  on  death,  as  form  part  of  its  foundation. 
 Lampe's  remark,  repeated  by  Baur  and  others,  is  based  upon 
 a  thorough  misunderstanding :  "  There  was  no  reason  for  weep- 
 ing over  Lazarus,  who,  as  Jesus  certainly  knew,  would  now  be 
 awakened  to  God's  and  His  own  glorification."  Lampe  con- 
 cludes, that  the  Lord  must  have  wept  over  the  Jews;  Baur 
 decides  for  the  spuriousness  of  the  narrative.  They  overlooked 
 the  fact  that  the  weeping  of  Jesus  was  the  necessary  postulate  of 
 His  action,  even  as  all  the  miracles  of  Christ  proceeded  out  of 
 
CHAP.  XI.  36,  37.  59 
 
 a  similar  profound  emotion  of  soul.^  A  cold  or  stony-hearted 
 raiser  of  the  dead  would  belong  to  the  region  of  fiction.  The 
 living  Saviour  could  only  as  a  helper  approach  the  place  of 
 corruption ;  and  only  Avith  tears  in  His  own  eyes  Avipe  away 
 the  tears  of  ours. 
 
 Vers.  36,  37.  "Then  said  the  Jews,  Behold  how  he  loved 
 him !  And  some  of  them  said,  Could  not  this  man,  which 
 opened  the  eyes  of  the  blind,  have  caused  that  even  this  man 
 should  not  have  died?" — That  the  exclamation  and  question  of 
 the  Jews  proceeded  from  sincere  hearts,  and  that  they  had  some 
 foundation  of  truth — the  thought,  to  wit,  that  Jesus  at  the  death 
 of  Lazarus  could  not  consistently  maintain  a  purely  passive  atti- 
 tude— is  evident  from  the  influence  which  both  have,  according 
 to  ver.  38,  upon  our  Lord.  His  indignation  at  the  enemy  is 
 excited  by  it  afresh.  That  shows  that  the  Jews  had  given  pro- 
 minence only  to  one  element  in  the  matter,  which  has  still  its 
 force  when  those  die  who  love  Jesus.  Both  His  love  and  His 
 power  warrant  the  supposition  that  He  cannot  be  in  such  a  case 
 simply  passive,  but  that  He  must  recall  them  to  life.  Certainly 
 there  is  concealed  behind  the  "Behold  how  he  loved  him!" 
 the  question,  "  How  has  he  then  thus  let  him  die  ?"  And  behind 
 the  question  of  ver.  37,  another,  to  wit,  "  If  he  could  have 
 done  so,  why  did  he  not?"  But  that  they  do  not  put  these 
 secret  questions  in  the  spirit  of  reproach,  is  shown  by  the-  fact 
 that  the  reverence  which,  at  this  crisis,  impressed  the  most 
 violent  minds,  hinders  them  from  speaking  out  what  they  think. 
 It  is  not  in  itself  sinful  to  question  in  uncertainty  and  awe  the 
 ways  of  God  and  His  message,  provided  only  the  hand  be  laid 
 on  the  mouth,  and  the  questioner  does  not  murmur,  or  make 
 himself  a  judge.  This  latter  is  that  sinning  with  the  tongue 
 against  which,  in  all  the  unsearchable  providences  of  God,  we 
 have  to  be  on  our  guard.  We  cannot  doubt,  however,  that 
 there  was  something  else  latent  in  their  thoughts.  "  Will  he 
 not  even  now  give  some  further  demonstration  of  his  love  and 
 power  ?"    The  thought  was  only  a  germ,  and  did  not  take  expres- 
 
 '  Melanchthon :  Nullum  miraculum  sine  magno  aliquo  niotu  Christi 
 factum  est,  sicut  ipse  dicit,  Luc.  viii.  Apparet  autem  imprimis  magnos 
 sestus  animi,  magnos  agones  fuisse  in  hac  resuscitatione,  fremit,  dolet,  in- 
 dignatur,  lacrymat.  Hie  motus  nobis  ignoti  sunt,  sed  significant  luctam 
 acerrimam,  cum  decrevisset  resuscitare  Lazarum. 
 
60  CHAP.  VII.  1-XII.  50. 
 
 sion ;  but  that  it  was  there,  is  proved  by  the  influence  which 
 the  Jews'  words  excited  upon  our  Lord. — The  question  of  ver. 
 37  could  be  answered  by  every  one  only  with  Yes.  They  be- 
 lieve in  the  opening  of  the  eyes  of  the  blind  man ;  and  that 
 was  so  absolutely  a  creative  work,  that  He  who  could  perform 
 it  could  also  heal  a  man  sick  unto  death.  Why  do  they  not 
 rather  mention  the  resurrection  of  Jairus'  daughter,  and  the 
 young  man  of  Nain  ?  Because  they  simply  confine  themselves 
 to  an  event  that  had  occurred  only  a  short  time  before,  and  in 
 their  own  midst ;  and  the  rather  as,  in  the  present  case,  it  was 
 primarily  the  healing  of  a  sick  man  that  was  concerned,  and 
 not  the  raising  of  a  dead  one. 
 
 Ver.  38.  "Jesus  therefore  again  groaning  in  Himself, 
 Cometh  to  the  grave.  It  was  a  cave,  and  a  stone  lay  upon  it." 
 — The  new  access  of  our  Lord's  indignation  is  clijefly  excited  by 
 the  words  of  the  Jews.  They  tend  to  renew  and  quicken  His 
 zeal  against  the  fearful  foe  of  the  human  race.  "Because 
 Christ,"  says  Calvin,  "does  not  come  to. the  grave  like  an  idle 
 spectator,  but  as  a  strong  hero,  who  prepares  himself  for  war,  it 
 is  not  to  be  marvelled  at  that  He  is  again  angry ;  for  He  sees  only 
 that  awful  tyranny  of  death  which  He  is  come  to  vanquish  and 
 destroy."  And  Gumlich  well  observes,  "  The  finished  act  of  the 
 miracle  was  the  goal,  at  which  alone  the  Lord's  displeasure  would 
 find  its  perfect  solace,  and  His  zeal  its  perfect  satisfaction." 
 
 Ver.  39.  "  Jesus  said,  Take  ye  away  the  stone.  ]\Iartha, 
 the  sister  of  him  that  was  dead,  saith  unto  Him,  Lord,  by  this 
 time  he  stinketh :  for  he  hath  been  dead  four  days." — It  is  a 
 very  unfortunate  supposition  which  some  have  hazarded,  that 
 Martha  did  not  believe  the  Lord  purposed  to  restore  her  brother's 
 life  when  He  came  to  the  sepulchre,  but  only  desired  to  see 
 the  remains  of  His  friend  once  more, — a  design  from  which 
 therefore  she  dissuaded  Him.  The  right  view  is,  that  Martha, 
 by  reference  to  the  corruption  begun,  would  place  before  Jesus 
 the  greatness  of  the  work  which  He  designed  to  accomplish. 
 We  see  by  what  follows  what  end  she  wished  to  attain.  She 
 would  thereby  give  occasion  to  Jesus  for  a  new  confirmation  of 
 His  promise,  and  thus  strengthen  her  own  faith :  "  Lord,  he 
 already  stinketh  :  I  believe,  help  Thou  mine  unbelief."  Death 
 and  corruption  seem  to  the  natural  reason  to  lie  beyond  the 
 domain  in  which  even  miraculous  power  may  display  itself;  and 
 
CHAP.  Xr.  40.  61 
 
 believers  have  evermore  to  struggle  against  tlie  same  natural 
 reason.  It  is  more  especially  vigorous  in  INIartha  here,  inasmuch 
 as  the  crisis  of  decision  was  immediately  impending.^  "  The 
 sister  of  him  that  was  dead :"  the  most  vehement  conflict  would 
 naturally  begin  in  her  mind,  at  this  moment  of  supreme  deci- 
 sion, because  she  was  most  nearly  aifected.  She,  whose  heart 
 and  soul  were  directed  entirely  to  the  dead  man,  would  bespe- 
 cially  affected  by  the  signs  of  corruption.  That  ."he  stinketli" 
 was  only  her  inference — cannot  be  proved  by  "  he  hath  been 
 dead  four  days."  For  this  latter  gives  the  reason  of  the  wit- 
 nessed fact :  he  stinketh,  as  it  could  not  be  otherwise  with  one 
 who  has  been  four  days  dead.  The  57877  o^ei  must  necessarily 
 have  been  an  actual  truth.  For — that  is  the  reason  why  the 
 Evangelist  records  the  expression.  It  was  intended  to  show 
 emphatically  the  greatness  of  the  miracle.  But  even  if  it  be 
 made  a  mere  inference,  the  •ijBr]  o^ec  asserts  still  its  actual 
 truth.  "  The  reason,"  remarks  Gumlich,  "  for  Martha's  confi- 
 dent assertion  is,  in  fact,  so  plain,  that  nothing  but  the  vain 
 imagination  of  a  miracle  before  the  miracle  prevents  its  being 
 seen." — From  the  words  "by  this  time  he  stinketh,"  as  connected 
 with  ver.  44,  it  has  been  justly  concluded  that  the  body  was 
 not  embalmed.  And  this  bears  testimony  to  the  faith  which 
 Mary  and  Martha  reposed  in  the  word  of  their  INIaster,  ver.  4. 
 They  did  not  bury  their  brother  after  the  manner  of  the  Jews, 
 ch.  xix.  40,  because  they  hoped  that  he  would  not  permanently 
 inhabit  the  grave. 
 
 Ver.  40.  "  Jesus  saith  unto  her.  Said  I  not  unto  thee,  that, 
 if  thou  wouldest  believe,  thou  shouldest  see  the  glory  of  God?" 
 — Jesus  affords  the  desired  help  to  the  rising  unbelief  of  be- 
 lieving Martha.  In  the  presence  of  corruption  He  renews 
 His  promise.  "  If  thou  wouldest  believe  "  refers  only  to  vers. 
 23-27.  There  Jesus  had  based  the  demand  for  faith,  not  on 
 the  confirmation  which  the  present  case  would  afford  to  His 
 miraculous  power,  but  on  His  own  person,  and  on  His  own 
 absolute  power  over  death.  The  words,  "  thou  shouldest  see 
 the  glory  of  God,"  refer  solely  to  ver.  4.  Only  there  do  we 
 find  mentioned  that  glory  of  God  which  was  to  be  manifested 
 in  Lazarus.     The  seeing  God's  glory  points  us  back  to  Isa. 
 
 *  Lyser :  Quaudo  ad  rem  ipsam  ventnm  est,  turn  demmn  infirmitatessen- 
 timus — rem  nirnis  diu  dilatnm  esse  ac  proinde  omnem  conatum  irritum  fore. 
 
62  CHAP.  VII.  1-XII.  50. 
 
 xl.  5  :  "  And  the  glory  of  God  shall  be  revealed,  and  all  flesh 
 shall  see  it  together." 
 
 Ver.  41.  "  Then  they  took  away  the  stone  from  the  place 
 where  the  dead  was  laid.  And  Jesus  lifted  up  His  eyes,  and 
 said,  Father,  I  thank  Thee  that  Thou  hast  heard  Me."— The 
 old  covenant  furnishes  repeated  instances  of  prayer  offered  in 
 the  form  of  anticipated  thanksgiving.  "The  Church  is  dis- 
 tinguished from  the  world  by  this,  that  she  does  not  pray  in 
 the  way  of  experiment;  she  rests  in  her  petitions  on  God's 
 word  and  promise ;  so  that  she  can  ask  in  faith  without  waver- 
 ing, James  i.  6."  This  is  the  explanation  of  the  fact  that  in 
 the  Mosaic  economy  there  were  no  specific  prayer-offerings ; 
 these  were  latently  involved  in  the  thank-offerings,  which  we 
 not  seldom  find  presented  amidst  circumstances  of  sorrow, 
 when  they  could  refer  only  to  a  deliverance  expected,  and 
 not  a  deliverance  attained.  (See  further  in  my  Treatise  on 
 Sacrifice.)  The  anticipatory  confidence  which,  even  in  the  Old 
 Testament,  gave  birth  to  this  form  of  petition  from  the  lips  of 
 believers,  was  infinitely  more  appropriate  to  Christ  on  account 
 of  His  unity  with  the  Father.  Looking  away  from  the  mere 
 form  of  the  petition,  Jesus  here  announces  that  He  will  per- 
 form, in  the  strength  of  God,  the  work  which  present  circum- 
 stances brought  before  Him.  It  is  not  the  hearing  of  any 
 former  prayer  that  is  referred  to.  No  such  prayer  is  alluded 
 to;  the  actual  granting  of  the  prayer  does  not  in  any  sense 
 follow  until  ver.  44,  which  altogether  excludes  the  notion  that 
 Lazarus  had  here  already  begun  to  rise  from  the  dead  and  live 
 again.  Accordingly,  the  words  can  be  explained  only  on  the 
 ground  of  that  anticipating  confidence  which  was  already  in- 
 wardly assured  of  the  actuality  of  the  future  salvation  from 
 death.  We  have  something  similar  in  Ps.  liv.  6,  where  David 
 in  the  midst  of  his  distress  expresses  a  full  confidence  of 
 deliverance :  "  I  will  freely  sacrifice  unto  Thee ;  I  will  praise 
 Thy  name,  0  Lord,  for  it  is  good  ;"  and  also  Ps.  Ivi.  13. 
 
 Ver.  42.  "  And  I  knew  that  Thou  hearest  Me  always  :  but 
 because  of  the  people  which  stand  by  I  said  it,  that  they  may 
 believe  that  Thou  hast  sent  Me." — Our  Lord  refers  to  1  Kings 
 xviii.  37,  where  Elijah  says,  "  Plear  me,  O  Lord,  hear  me ;  that 
 this  people  may  know  that  Thou  art  the  Lord  God."  The 
 express  petition,  uttered  in  the  form  of  confident  assurance. 
 
CHAP.  XI.  43.  63 
 
 was  not  designed  to  obtain  the  granting  of  the  request ;  it 
 might  indeed  have  been  omitted,  since  the  relation  of  Jesus  to 
 God  was  so  intimate  and  perfect  that  no  express  utterance  of 
 a  request  was  ever  needed:  every  the  slightest  wish  of  His  soul, 
 every  glance  of  His  eye,  was  regarded ;  and  to  Him  the  words 
 of  Isa.  Ixv.  24  applied  in  their  fullest  sense,  "Before  they 
 call,  I  will  answer."  It  is  not  signified  here  that  His  prayer 
 generally  is,  in  relation  to  God,  superfluous, — this  would  con- 
 tradict Mark  vi.  46,  which  shows  that  Jesus  went  up  to  the 
 mountain  to  pray,  Luke  ix.  28,  etc., — but  prayer  as  formally 
 expressed  in  words.  So  far  as  concerned  His  relation  to  God, 
 "  He  lifted  up  His  eyes  "  was  enough,  and  more  than  enough. 
 Something  analogous  to  these  high  prerogatives  of  Christ  we 
 find  in  the  experience  of  advanced  saints,  Rom.  viii.  26.  There 
 is  even  among  mere  men  a  stage  of  sinking  into  God,  in 
 which  the  words  of  prayer  rather  recede  and  are  lost.  The 
 iiKoveiv  of  itself  shows  that,  not  prayer  generally,  but  a  certain 
 kind  of  prayer,  is  declared  to  be  unnecessary.  That  Jesus  on 
 this  occasion  did,  however,  express  His  prayer  in  words,  was 
 solely  on  account  of  those  who  were  around ;  in  order  that  the 
 connection  between  the  sequel  and  the  person  of  Christ  might 
 be  abundantly  clear,  and  thus  faith  in  His  Divine  mission  might 
 be  wrought  in  their  minds. — That  which  our  Lord  here  says  in 
 the  form  of  address  to  God,  He  might,  as  in  ch.  xii.  30,  have 
 said  in  the  form  of  an  address  to  the  multitude.  But  that,  on 
 the  present  occasion,  would  have  been  less  solemn,  and  less 
 befitting  the  sublimity  of  the  crisis.  The  effect  of  the  Lord's 
 act  upon  the  standers-by,  was  produced  by  the  circumstance 
 that  they  were  raised  with  Jesus  into  the  posture  of  prayer ; 
 they  were  elevated  to  that  prayerful  sentiment  which  was  the 
 habitual  frame  of  Christ,  the  ceaseless  breathing  of  His  soul, 
 and  which  made  the  present  form  of  words  the  most  appropri- 
 ate to  Himself. — UavroTe,  ever, — whether  I  expressly  put  the 
 petition  or  not. 
 
 Ver.  43.  "  And  when  He  thus  had  spoken,  He  cried  with  a 
 loud  voice,  Lazarus,  come  forth." — In  regard  to  the  ciy  of 
 Jesus  here,  that  holds  good  which  He  had  said  in  regard  to  the 
 praying,  ver.  42.  The  loud  voice,  the  outward  demonstration 
 of  confidence  and  decision  (comp.  on  ch.  i.  15),  was  intended 
 only  to  symbolize  to  those  around  the  connection  between  the 
 
64  CHAP.  VII.  1-XII.  50. 
 
 will  of  Jesus  and  the  resurrection  act.  The  parallels  in  the 
 other  Evangelists,  Mark  v.  41,  Luke  vii.  14,  viii.  54,  in  which 
 Jesus  utters  His  cry  on  occasions  of  raising  the  dead,  show 
 that  the  call  was  addressed  to  the  dead  man,  and  that  the 
 revivification  was  simultaneous  with  that  call.  Comp.  also  ch. 
 V.  25,  according  to  which  the  dead  shall  hear  the  voice  of  God. 
 Further,  as  Liicke  observes,  "  If  we  compare  ver.  43  with  ver. 
 11,  the  hevpo  efo)  is  the  moment  of  revival  itself."  Lampe's 
 objection,  that  Jesus  addressed  Lazarus  not  as  a  dead  man,  but 
 as  a  living,  is  dismissed  by  a  reference  to  Ezek.  xxxvii.  4 : 
 "Ye  dry  bones,  hear  the  word  of  the  Lord."  There  also  the 
 dead  were  addressed.  That  which  Jesus  here  does,  is  the  type 
 and  prelude  of  that  which  He  will  do  at  the  last  day.  This  is 
 shown  by  the  connection  of  our  passage  with  ch.  v.  28,  29. 
 
 Ver.  44.  "  And  he  that  was  dead  came  forth,  bound  hand 
 and  foot  with  grave-clothes;  and  his  face  was  bound  about 
 with  a  napkin.  Jesus  saitli  unto  them,  Loose  him,  and  let 
 him  go." — The  grave-clothes  that  bind  the  dead  express  the 
 consolatory  assurance  that  the  departed  has  now  rest  from  his 
 hard  toil  upon  the  earth,  which  lies  under  the  Lord's  curse. 
 They  say  symbolically  what  Isaiah  said  in  words :  "  They 
 enter  into  peace,  they  rest  upon  their  beds."  The  hands  and 
 feet  were  bound  by  them,  for  a  sign  that,  with  death,  the 
 painful  toil  of  hand  and  foot  is  over ;  as  Paul  Gerhard  sings, 
 "  The  head,  and  hands,  and  feet  rejoice,  that  rest  has  come  at 
 last."  The  grave-clothes  proper  were  there  besides.  The 
 wrappings,  which  are  here  expressly  limited  to  the  hands  and 
 the  feet,  were  added  over  and  above  the  shroud ;  and  as  they 
 served  no  practical  purpose,  but  had  only  a  symbolical  use, 
 their  binding  was  of  a  looser  nature,  and  the  raised  man  could, 
 although  not  without  some  trouble,  move  forward  a  few  steps. 
 By  the  supposition  that  each  foot  was  specially  bound  about, 
 the  significance  of  the  whole  is  lost.  Why  then  would  the 
 word  "  loose  "  have  been  used  ?  The  napkin  corresponds  to 
 these  grave-clothes.  It  had  its  origin  in  Gen.  iii.  19  :  "  In  the 
 sweat  of  thy  face  shalt  thou  eat  bread,  till  thou  return  unto  the 
 ground."  It  intimated  that  the  dead  had  departed  from  labour 
 and  sorrow.  Gen.  iii.  17,  Ps.  xc.  10,  Kev.  xiv.  13,  and  out  of 
 "  great  tribulation,"  Eev.  vii.  14  ;  that  they  "  rest  from  their 
 labours."     According  to  chap.  xx.  7,  the  napkin  was  "  on  the 
 
CHAP.  XI.  45,  46.  65 
 
 head."  Accordingly  01/^69,  the  face,  is  here  used  as  pars  pro 
 toto.  It  covered  the  forehead,  on  which  the  sweat  stands.  That 
 the  eyes  were  covered,  is  plain  from  the  words,  "Loose  him, 
 and  let  him  go,"  which  refer  to  the  napkin  also,  and  show  that 
 the  napkin  was  a  hindrance  to  going.  Nor  is  it  a  mere  accident 
 that  the  countenance  is  here  designated  by  a  word  which  is 
 derived  from  seeing. — In  the  "  let  him  go  "  it  is  not  signified 
 that  Lazarus  went  alone  to  the  house,  which  would  have  been 
 unnatural.  They  were  to  let  him  go,  inasmuch  as  they  were  to 
 remove  those  bandages  which  they  had  laid  upon  the  supposed 
 dead  man.  The  "  let  him"  refers  to  the  restraints  which  they 
 had  caused,  and  which  were  the  only  ones  left,  after  Jesus 
 Himself  had  removed  the  main  hindrance.  As  in  ver.  34  the 
 burial  is  ascribed  to  the  whole  company  present,  so  here  with 
 the  unloosing. — "Death,  sin,  devil,  life,  and  grace  are  all  in 
 His  hand.  He  can  save  all  who  come  to  Him — that  is  the 
 great  practical  result  which  the  whole  narrative  teaches." 
 
 In  vers.  45,  46,  we  have  the  effect  of  the  miracle  upon  the 
 people  around, — Ver.  45.  "  Then  many  of  the  Jews  which 
 came  to  Mary,  and  had  seen  the  things  which  Jesus  did, 
 believed  on  Him." — It  does  not  mean  many  of  the  Jews  who 
 had  come  to  Mary,  tmv  eXOovrcov,  but  many  Jews  (among  those 
 present  generally)  who  had  come  to  Mary.  It  is  taken  for 
 granted  that  they  had  not  all  come  to  Mary.  What  is  alone 
 intimated  here,  receives  its  illustration  from  the  relations  of  the 
 household  as  we  have  explained  them.  Mary  had  come  solely 
 on  Simon's  account.  Mary  is  mentioned,  and  not  Martha, 
 because  the  latter,  the  mistress  of  the  house,  could  not  be 
 separated  from  Simon.  The  believing  acquaintance  had  come 
 to  Mary  in  the  first  place,  and  only  subordinately  to  Martha, 
 who  in  this  point  of  view  depended  on  Mary.  And  we  must 
 suppose  that  they  brought  with  them  the  beginnings  of  faith. 
 When  they  saw  what  Jesus  had  here  done,  their  germ  of  faith 
 was  more  fully  developed ;  comp.,  for  a  similar  process  and  use 
 of  faith,  the  remarks  on  John  vii.  5.  But  we  may  also  assume 
 that  ol  ek66vTe<;  here  stands  irregularly  for  tmv  e\66vro)v — as  an 
 abbreviated  relative  clause.  Mary  would  in  that  case  be  men- 
 tioned as  the  chief  mourner.  (In  favour  of  this  a  whole  series 
 of  analogies  may  be  adduced  from  the  Apocalypse  :  comp. 
 Winer  and  Buttmann.)    We  have  a  similar  construction  in  ch. 
 
 VOL.  II.  E 
 
66  CHAP.  VII.  1-XII,  50. 
 
 i.  14.  But  such  irregularities  seldom  occur  in  the  simple 
 historical  style ;  and  the  fact  that  only  Mary  is  mentioned  here, 
 differently  from  ver.  19,  leads  to  the  grammatically  obvious 
 interpretation.  That  avrcov,  in  ver.  46,  refers  to  those  who 
 came  to  Mary,  is  a  construction  which  will  not  harmonize. 
 But  we  must  suspend  our  judgment. 
 
 Ver.  46.  "  But  some  of  them  went  their  ways  to  the  Phari- 
 sees, and  told  them  what  things  Jesus  had  done." — 'E|  avrcov 
 — if  we  adopt  the  former  of  the  explanations  offered  upon  ver. 
 45,  Tcov  'lovSalcov, — some  of  those  who,  in  contradistinction  to 
 those  who  came  to  Mary,  had  come  to  Martha,  in  her  cha- 
 racter of  mistress  of  the  house  and  wife  of  Simon,  probably 
 in  concert  and  co-operation  with  that  Pharisee  (Luke  vii., 
 "chief  of  the  Pharisees"),  Luke  xiv.  1.  Grotius  remarks: 
 Impios  hos  fuisse  necesse  est,  quod  genus  hominum  ne  con- 
 specta  quidem  mortuorum  resurrectione  resipiscere  solet,  Luke 
 xvi.  31.  "He  contrasts  them,  as  untouched  and  uninfluenced, 
 with  the  many  believers ;  and  gives  it  plainly  to  be  understood 
 that  their  zealous  information  occasioned  the  assembling  of  the 
 synagogue,  and  the  bloody  counsel  of  Caiaphas."  Bengel : 
 Citius  cedit  mors  virtuti  Christi  quam  infidelitas.  Death  yields 
 to  Christ's  virtue  sooner  than  unbelief.  The  difference  in  dis- 
 position among  the  Jews  had  not  appeared  during  the  course  of 
 the  event  itself.  The  majesty  of  Christ  had,  for  the  time,  over- 
 come their  unbelief.  But  it  afterwards  betrayed  itself  among 
 those  whose  minds  were  unfriendly ;  and  ch.  xii.  10  probably 
 gives  us  the  true  solution  of  the  manner  in  which  the  matter 
 was  solved.  Then  the  rulers  of  the  Jews  resolve  to  kill  Lazarus 
 as  well  as  Jesus.  This  presupposes  that  they  had  found  some 
 fault  in  him.  Doubtless  they  imagined  some  preconcerted  plan 
 between  Jesus  and  the  family  in  Bethany.  Lazarus  had  acted 
 the  part  of  death. 
 
 In  ver.  47-53  we  have  the  plans  which  were  devised  by 
 the  Council  in  consequence  of  this  event,  and  their  result. 
 
 Vers.  47,  48.  "  Then  gathered  the  chief  priests  and  the 
 Pharisees  a  council,  and  said,  What  do  we  ?  for  this  man  doeth 
 many  miracles.  If  we  let  him  thus  alone,  all  men  will  believe 
 on  him ;  and  the  Romans  shall  come  and  take  away  both  our 
 place  and  nation." — Anton  :  "  When  God  displays  His  greatest 
 
CHAP.  XI.  47,  48.  67 
 
 works  before  the  world,  the  world  is  provoked  to  the  highest 
 pitch  of  bitterness  and  wrath."  For  dp'^i€pei<i  and  ^apia.  see 
 on  ch.  vii.  32.  The  precedence  of  the  high  priests  shows  that 
 by  the  Pharisees  are  meant  the  Pharisaic  party  among  the 
 assessors  of  the  council.  Xwehptov  here  signifies  a  session. 
 The  word  was  chosen  in  allusion  to  the  nomen  proprium  of  the 
 supreme  spiritual  authority.  This  proper  name  does  not  occur 
 in  John,  as  it  does  in  the  first  Evangelists  and  the  Acts ;  just 
 as  he  omits  to  mention  the  scribes  and  the  vo/julkoL  Having 
 the  most  accm'ate  acquaintance  with  Jewish  institutions,  he 
 always  avoids  expressly  alluding  to  them.  Thus  he  names 
 not  the  Sanhedrim,  but  describes  its  sitting  by  a  word  which 
 alludes  to  the  proper  name.  "  What  shall  we  do  ? "  is  the 
 ordinary  question  of  those  who  are  pondering:  Judg.  xxi.  16  ; 
 1  Sam.  V.  8  ;  Jonah  i.  11 ;  Acts  iv.  16.  Here  it  is  strictly, 
 What  do  we?_  Since  the  circumstances  are  urgent,  and  de- 
 manding instant  action,  and  since  there  can  be  no  doubt  that 
 something  must  at  once  be  done,  the  present  and  the  present 
 of  the  indicative  is  strictly  appropriate. — The  proper  motive 
 of  the  opposition  to  Jesus  was,  among  the  Pharisaic  members 
 of  the  high  council,  a  different  one  from  that  exhibited  in  ver. 
 48.  It  was,  in  one  word,  that  which  Matt,  xxvii.  18  gives, 
 where  it  is  said  of  Pilate,  "  He  knew  that  through  envy  they 
 had  delivered  Him."  Compare  what  was  said  on  ch.  x.  8  con- 
 cerning the  true  character  of  the  conflict  between  Christ  and 
 the  Pharisees.  But  this  self-seeking  ground  of  their  hatred  to 
 Jesus  they  cannot  lay  bare.  They  make  pretence  of  another 
 reason,  and  represent  it  as  if  they  were  alone  actuated  by  love 
 to  the  people.  The  specifically  Pharisaic  reasons  were  the  less 
 brought  forward  because  the  council  had  in  it  many  Sadducee 
 members,  and  the  influential  high  priest  himself  belonged  to 
 that  party.  Had  the  Pharisees  urged  any  of  their  own  charac- 
 teristic arguments,  some  such  conflict  might  have  arisen  between 
 the  two  parties  as  Acts  xxiii.  10  records.  They  therefore  aban- 
 doned the  domain  of  theology,  and  contented  themselves  with 
 such  political  arguments  as  were  common  to  the  Sadducees  with 
 themselves.  Their  anxiety  was  not  altogether  baseless.  Although 
 the  kingdom  of  Christ  was  not  of  this  world,  yet  at  that  time 
 of  general  excitement  insurrectionaiy  movements  might  easily 
 have  connected  themselves  with  His  appearance  (comp.  John 
 
68  CHAP.  VII.  1-XII.  50. 
 
 vi.  15) ;  the  Romans  might  give  a  political  interpretation  to 
 events  which  had  in  them  no  political  meaning,  entirely  ig- 
 norant as  they  were  of  the  spiritual  character  of  the  new 
 kingdom.  Characteristic  in  this  view  is  Pilate's  "  Thou  art 
 a  king  then?"  The  intelligence  of  the  Jewish  Messianic  ex- 
 pectations liad  at  that  time  penetrated  far  and  deep  in  the 
 heathen  world.  Percrebuerat  toto  Oriente  vetus  et  constans 
 opinio,  esse  in  fatis  ut  eo  tempore  Judaea  profecti  rerum  poti- 
 rentur,  says  Suetonius  (Vespasian,  iv.)  ;  and  Tacitus  (Hist.  v. 
 13)  speaks  in  the  same  style  (comp.  Christol.  iii.  2).  And  as 
 these  expectations  bore  a  political  character,  it  was  obvious 
 that  the  same  political  character  would  be  referred  to  the  his- 
 torical appearance  of  the  Messiah.  Nor  was  it  a  contradiction 
 that  those  who  longed  for  the  Messiah  as  a  deliverer  from  the 
 hateful  Roman  dominion,  were  disposed  to  league  against  Christ 
 on  account  of  the  danger  threatened  from  the  Romans.  For 
 Christ  would  never  from  the  beginning  yield  Himself  up  as  the 
 instrument  of  their  insurrectionary  schemes ;  and  they,  on  their 
 part,  were  not  inclined  to  lose  what  they  had  in  favour  of  a 
 passive  Messiah,  who  would  not  favour  them  in  their  dearest 
 desires.  Of  any  spiritual  victory  over  the  heathen  world  which 
 Christ  was  preparing  for,  they  had  no  presentiment.  But 
 what  they  did  in  order  to  prevent  the  ruin  of  the  Temple  and 
 the  destniction  of  their  national  existence,  precisely  brought 
 about  that  ruin  and  destruction.  (Augustin  :  Temporalia  per- 
 dere  timuerunt  et  vitam  seternam  non  cogitaverunt  ;  ac  sic 
 utrumque  amiserunt.)  "  Behold,  your  house  is  left  unto  you 
 desolate,"  says  the  Christ  whom  they  rejected  in  Matt,  xxiii. 
 38,  and  history  has  approved  His  word.  Lyser :  "  As  the 
 Evangelist  tells  us  that  Caiaphas  unwittingly  prophesied  con- 
 cerning the  fruits  of  Christ's  death,  so  we  may  say  of  these 
 counsellors  that  they  unwittingly  prophesied  concerning  the 
 future  destinies  of  the  Jewish  people."  In  the  prophecies  of 
 the  Old  Testament,  the  rejection  of  the  good  Shepherd  is  fol- 
 lowed by  the  wasting  of  the  land,  and  the  destruction  of  the 
 people,  Zech.  xi. ;  and,  according  to  Dan;  ix.  24-27,  the  conse- 
 quence of  the  murder  of  the  Anointed  was  that  the  greater  part 
 of  the  people  became  a  prey  to  the  army  of  a  strange  prince, 
 which,  an  instrument  in  the  hand  of  an  avenging  God,  should 
 utterly  destroy  the  fallen  city  and  the  desecrated  Temple. 
 
CHAP.  XI.  47,  48.  09 
 
 "  The  Eomans  will  come :"  comp.  Jer.  xxxvi.  29,  "  The 
 king  of  Babylon  shall  certainly  come  and  destroy  this  land ;" 
 Dan.  ix.  26,  "And  the  people  of  the  prince  that  shall  come 
 shall  destroy  the  city  and  the  sanctuary" — he  that  shall  come 
 being  a  non-theocratic  ruler  coming  from  without.  To  these 
 passages  the  Pharisees  here  refer.  We  have  shown  in  the 
 Christology  that  the  passage  in  Daniel  was  generally  understood 
 of  an  impending  destruction  of  Jerusalem.  Atpecv,  to  take 
 away,  remove,  destroy  (comp.  xix.  15,  31),  so  that  the  place, 
 as  such,  and  the  people  should  no  longer  exist.  The  x^/jucov  pre- 
 ceding the  place  is  to  be  well  noted ;  those  who  omitted  it  were 
 ill-advised.  That  the  word  place  here  of  itself  signifies  the 
 Temjile,  cannot  be  established  from  2  Mace.  v.  19, — dX)C  ov  Bi,a 
 rbv  TOTTuv  TO  eOvo^  aXka  Zia  to  e6vo<i  tov  tottov  6  KvpLo<;  i^eX- 
 e^uTo), — for  it  is  only  the  connection  with  ver.  15  that  makes 
 the  place  the  Temple  in  that  passage.  But  "our  place"  can 
 only  be  the  Temple.  It  is  the  habitual  style  of  the  New  Testa- 
 ment not  to  mention  the  city  so  much  as  the  Temple,  the  seat 
 and  dwelling-place  of  the  entire  people.  In  the  books  of  Moses 
 we  read  of  the  "tabernacle  of  the  congregation,"  the  place 
 where  the  Lord  had  communion  with  His  people,  and  dwelt 
 with  them.  Ps.  Ixxxiv.  4  refers  to  the  Temple,  "The  sparrow 
 hath  found  an  house,  and  the  swallow  a  nest  for  herself;*'  and 
 so  also  ver.  5,  where  the  Israelites  are  spoken  of  who  dwell  in 
 the  house  of  the  Lord ;  Ps.  xxvii.  4,  xxiii.  6,  Ixi.  5,  Ixiii.  3. 
 The  Temple  is  called  in  Isa.  Ixiv.  10  our  holy  and  beautiful 
 house.  "Your  house"  the  Lord  in  Matt,  xxiii.  38  calls  the 
 Temple,  referring  to  these  Old  Testament  passages.  If  Jeru- 
 salem is  included  in  our  present  passage,  it  can  only  be  on 
 account  of  the  Temple. — Place  and  people  correspond  to  each 
 other.  The  Temple  was  the  spiritual  centre  and  the  soul  of 
 the  people.  Were  the  Temple  gone,  there  would  be  no  people. 
 Israel  is  an  e6vo<;,  as  a  people  among  the  peoples ;  o  Xao9,  as  the 
 elect  people.  To  Wvo^  could  hardly  be  used  concerning  Israel 
 without  some  addition  like  r^fjuoiv  here.  If  ?;/i&)V  had  been  want- 
 ing, it  must  have  been  tov  \aov.  The  Pharisees  feared  that 
 the  Romans  might  say,  W\i\\  the  sons  of  the  wilderness,  in  Ps. 
 Ixxxiii.  5,  hevTe  koX  i^oXoOpevacofiev  avTov<i  i^  edvov;.  Anton  : 
 "  They  thought  only  of  the  ruin  ad  extra ;  about  the  ruin  ad 
 intra  they  made  no  question." 
 
70  CHAP.  VII.  1-XII.  50 
 
 Vers.  49,  50.  "  And  one  of  them,  named  Caiaphas,  being 
 the  high  priest  that  same  year,  said  unto  them.  Ye  know  nothing 
 at  all,  nor  consider  that  it  is  expedient  for  us,  that  one  man 
 should  die  for  the  people,  and  that  the  whole  nation  perish  not." 
 — The  name  of  Caiaphas  is  the  same  as  Cephas,  the  difference 
 being  merely  that  between  the  Syriac  and  the  Chaldee  pronun- 
 ciation. The  same  change  of  forms  is  found  in  the  name  of 
 the  town  Kaifa  (v.  Raumer,  s.  156),  called  by  William  of 
 Tyre  Porphyria,  which  was  probably  a  translation  of  Kaifa. 
 Caiaphas  was  only  a  surname  :  his  proper  name  was  Joseph. 
 Josephus  says,  in  Antiq.  xviii.  2,  2,  koX  ^IcocrrjTro';  6  koI  Ka'Cdcpa'i 
 8id8o'^o<;  rjv  avrm  ;  and  in  xviii.  4,  2,  koI  tov  dp-^iepea  ^IcoarjTrov 
 rov  Kol  Kaid^av  eTTLKokovfievov  diraXXd^a^  rrj<i  lepcoavvr]';.  No 
 doubt  Joseph  took  the  name  Caiaphas  when  he  entered  on  his 
 office  :  it  was,  properly  speaking,  his  official  name.  It  desig- 
 nated the  high-priesthood  as  the  rock  on  which  the  edifice  of 
 the  theocracy  rested.  Caiaphas  bore  that  name  at  the  very  time 
 when  Jesus  gave  it  to  the  first  of  the  Apostles,  the  rock  on  which 
 He  built  His  Church.  It  may  therefore  be  assumed  that  the 
 Lord  had  a  polemical  object  in  giving  Simon  his  new  name, 
 setting  against  the  imaginary  rock  the  true  one.  Consequently 
 the  name  Cephas  was  a  declaration  of  war  against  the  religion 
 of  the  times,  and  an  announcement  of  a  new  building  to  be  set 
 up  :  comp.  ch.  x.  8. 
 
 The  remark  that  Caiaphas  was  high  priest  that  year  occurs 
 ^'^'^'  three  times,  vers.  51,  T8,  13.  Josephus  gives  evidence  of  the 
 frequency  with  which  the  high-priesthood  changed  hands  during 
 his  time,  Antiq.  xviii.  2,  2  ;  and  it  is  a  remarkable  fact,  that 
 several  high  priests,  and  specially  the  immediate  predecessors  of 
 Caiaphas,  had  enjoyed  the  dignity  only  one  year.  "  And  not 
 long  after,  having  displaced  this  man,  he  appointed  Eleazar,  the 
 son  of  Annas,  the  high  priest ;  and  the  year  having  passed,  he 
 gave  the  high-priesthood  to  Simon,  he  having  held  the  dignity 
 not  more  than  one  year,  Joseph,"  etc.  The  more  the  high- 
 priesthood  became  the  centre  of  the  national  existence,  the 
 more  it  became  the  interest  of  the  Romans  to  provide  that 
 single  persons  should  not  establish  their  roots  too  firmly.  The 
 words,  "  being  high  priest  that  year,"  stand  in  special  and  plain 
 relation  to  these  facts.  Although  Caiaphas  administered  the 
 high-priesthood  during  several  years  (in  connection  with  which 
 
CHAP.  XI   49,  50.  71 
 
 it  is  to  be  remembered  that  Vitringa,  Obs.  vi.  13,  2,  has  sug- 
 gested doubts  as  to  the  continuance  in  office  ascribed  to  him  by 
 Josephus),  yet  every  year  the  people  expected  a  change ;  and  if 
 he  remained  in  office  after  the  current  year,  it  was  only  for  the 
 next  year  that  he  was  supposed  to  hold  it.  Very  characteristic 
 is  the  delicate  reference  to  these  peculiar  relations  of  time,  which 
 are  not  recorded  so  much  as  taken  for  granted.  Eusebius,  H.  E. 
 1,  10,  recognised  these  relations,  but  he  apprehended  them  too 
 vaguely.  Caiaphas,  according  to  Acts  v.  17,  belonged  to  the 
 party  of  the  Sadducees ;  and  that  very  circumstance,  doubtless, 
 enabled  him  to  retain  his  office  longer  than  others.  The  rough 
 manner  peculiar  to  this  party  may  be  discerned  here.  "  Ye 
 know  nothing  at  all,  nor  consider,"  seems  to  be  a  rather  needless 
 impertinence.  He  might  have  begun  his  answer  to  the  question, 
 "What  do  we?"  without  any  such  rough  introduction,  by  the 
 simple  words,  "  It  is  expedient  for  us."  We  have  here  only  a 
 single  example  of  that  which  Josephus  says  generally  in  the 
 Jewish  War,  ii.  8.  14  :  Kal  ^apiaaloi  fiev  (ptXdWrjXoL  re  koX 
 T7)v  et?  TO  KOLVov  o/uiovoiav  d(TKovvTe<;,  ^aSBvKalcov  Se  koL  7rpo<i 
 dWijXovi  TO  rj6o<i  d<ypt(t)T€pov.  It  is  usually  explained,  "  Ye 
 consider  not  that  it  is  expedient  for  us."  But  it  is  better  to 
 give  oTt  the  meaning  foi^  or  because :  first,  the  objection  that 
 they  had  spoken  inconsiderately  what  they  had  said,  "  What  do 
 we?"  then  the  establishment  of  this  objection,  by  showing  them 
 that  the  course  to  be  taken,  about  which  they  were  in  doubt, 
 was  plainly  marked  out.  In  the  two  other  passages,  where  oti 
 follows  hiaXo<yt^ea6ai,  Matt.  xvi.  8  and  Mark  viii.  16,  17  (in 
 John,  BtaXoyl^eaOai,  occurs  only  here),  the  otc  does  not  bear  the 
 signification  that,  but  means  because,  and  is  independent  of  the 
 verb.  Even  in  Luke  v.  21,  the  StdXoy.  stands  without  direct 
 connection  with  the  verb.  The  notion  that  BiaXcjl^eaOe  is  not 
 appropriate,  as  connected  with  on,  gave  occasion  to  the  reading 
 Xoyi^eaOe.  First  comes  o  Xao9,  the  people  in  their  specific 
 character  and  dignity ;  then  6\ov  to  edvo<i,  the  people  in  mass, 
 in  opposition  to  the  one  man.  "E6vo<;  is  like  ii3,  the  most  com- 
 prehensive designation.  It  means,  properly,  host  or  crowd,  and 
 is  used  by  Homer  even  of  swarms  of  flies.  'O  Xa6<;,  DJ?n,  is  the 
 preferential  name  of  Israel,  because  the  people  of  God  were  the 
 only  people  in  the  fullest  sense,  as  united  by  an  internal  bond  : 
 the  heathen  were  DJ?  i6,  ov  \ao9,  according  to  Deut.  xxxii.  21, 
 
72  CHAP.  VII.  1-XII.  50. 
 
 1  Pet.  ii.  10,  because  they  were  without  the  true  and  real  bond 
 of  unity,  fellowship  with  God. 
 
 Vers.  51,  52.  "  And  this  spake  he  not  of  himself :  but  being 
 high  priest  that  year,  he  prophesied  that  Jesus  should  die  for 
 that  nation  ;  and  not  for  that  nation  only,  but  that  also  He 
 should  gather  together  in  one  the  children  of  God  that  were 
 scattered  abroad." — What  Caiaphas  said  flowed,  as  is  evident, 
 from  an  evil  fountain,  and  had  a  wicked  intention ;  but  John 
 reo-ards  the  Divine  influence  that  was  upon  him  as  so  overruling 
 his  words,  that  the  spiritual  ruler  of  the  covenant  people  should 
 express  his  bad  purpose  in  such  words  as  might  most  aptly 
 utter  a  profound  truth.^  He  who,  with  John,  believes  in  a  living 
 God,  whose  secret  operation  pervades  the  hearts  of  the  ungodly, 
 scarcely  needs  the  express  assurance  that  the  Evangelist  gives. 
 Without  the  Divine  influence,  another  instead  of  Caiaphas 
 might  have  delivered  the  sentiment,  or  Caiaphas  might  have 
 been  able  to  express  his  opinion  in  words  which  could  not  have 
 admitted  a  sacred  interpretation.  In  the  'Trpo(f)7jTeveiv  there  is 
 regarded  only  the  Divine  suggestion  or  inspiration,  which  had 
 for  its  foundation  the  fact  that  Caiaphas  was  the  high  priest  at 
 the  time.  It  was  appropriate  and  so  ordered  that  he,  in  that 
 office,  should  bear  testimony  to  the  true  propitiation  which  the 
 true  .High  Priest  would  effect  by  His  representative  death.  It 
 was  a  parallel  to  this  when  Pilate,  the  holder  of  the  civil  autho- 
 rity, was  constrained  to  bear  witness,  in  the  superscription  on 
 the  cross,  that  Jesus  was  Kijig  of  the  Jews,  and  to  reply  to  those 
 who  urged  the  change  of  this  inscription,  that  "  what  he  had 
 written  he  had  written."^  Pilate  was  under  the  same  Divine 
 guidance  as  that  which  here  makes  Caiaphas  prophesy.  And 
 it  was  also  a  parallel,  when  the  people  cried  out,  "  His  blood  be 
 on  us  and  on  our  children,"  Matt,  xxvii.  25  ;  when  the  high 
 priests  and  scribes  mocked  Christ  on  the  cross,   with  words 
 
 ^  Calvin  :  Thus  Caiaphas  was  at  this  momeut  bilinguis.  He  poured  out 
 his  impious  and  cruel  pui-pose  of  rejecting  Christ  which  he  had  conceived 
 in  his  mind  ;  but  God  gave  his  tongue  another  turn,  so  that  he  should  at 
 the  same  time  utter  a  prophecy  in  ambiguous  words.  It  was  God's  will 
 that  a  celestial  oracle  should  issue  from  the  pontifical  seat. 
 
 ^  Bengel :  Caiaphas  and  Pilate  condemned  Jesus  :  each,  however,  gave 
 his  own  specific  testimony  in  his  own  sense.  Caiaphas,  in  this  passage, 
 concerning  the  sacrificial  death  of  Christ ;  Pilate,  in  the  title  on  the  cross, 
 concerning  His  kingdom. 
 
CHAP.  XI.  51,  52.  73 
 
 which  they,  as  it  were  involuntarily,  borrowed  from  Ps.  xxii., 
 and  by  which  they  spoke  their  own  condemnation,  Matt,  xxvii. 
 43 ;  when  the  soldiers,  to  fulfil  Ps.  xxii.,  must  cast  lots  upon  the 
 vesture  of  Christ,  ch.  xix.  23.  In  regard  to  all  these  things, 
 the  "  not  of  himself"  holds  good,  as  well  as  the  positive 
 answering  to  this  negative,  that  the  persons  concerned  pro- 
 phesied, without  on  that  account  being  prophets.  For  more 
 appertains  to  the  being  a  prophet,  than  such  momentary  and 
 partial  influences. 
 
 It  is  noteworthy  that  John  does  not,  like  Caiaphas,  say 
 vTrep  rov  Xaov,  but  virep  rov  eOvov^.  He  could  not  have  made 
 Caiaphas  say  anything  but  6  Xao9  when  speaking  of  the  Jews  : 
 comp.  ver.  50,  xviii.  14.  He  himself  speaks  from  the  standing- 
 point  of  his  own  time  and  the  Church  of  Christ.  Then  the 
 distinction  between  o  Xao9  and  ra  Wvq  had  vanished  :  comp. 
 Isa.  xlii.  6  ;  Gesenius,  Thes.  i.  v.  "»"iJ.  Another  people  of  God 
 had  taken  the  place  of  the  Jews,  1  Pet.  ii.  10  ;  Rev.  xviii.  4, 
 xxi.  3.  The  Jews  were  only  an  e6vo'=;,  like  the  rest.  That  the 
 Jews  were  in  question  here,  is  evidenced  by  the  article  pointing 
 to  the  word  of  Caiajjhas.  But  this  delicate  distinction  itself 
 shows  how  faithfully  John  reproduced  the  expression  of  the  high 
 priest.  In  ver.  52  John  supplements  the  saying  of  Caiaphas, 
 which,  in  its  divinely-designed  meaning,  contained  the  truth 
 indeed,  but  not  the  whole  truth.  In  relation  to  the  "  children 
 of  God,"  that  is  most  fully  applicable  which  was  remarked  upon 
 the  sheep  not  of  this  fold,  ch.  x.  16.  The  children  of  God  scat- 
 tered abroad  are  not  single  believers,  or  individuals  predisposed 
 to  believe,  who  were  scattered  amongst  the  unbelieving  Gentiles, 
 iDut  the  Dispersion  generally.  This  has  been,  since  Gen.  xi., 
 the  essential  character  of  the  whole  world  of  heathenism,  as  the 
 kernel  and  centre  of  wdiich  the  children  of  God  here  appear : 
 the  abandoned  refuse  of  them,  not  predestined  to  become 
 children  of  God,  are  not  taken  into  account.  The  correctness 
 of  this  view  is  manifest  from  the  original  passages  in  Gen.  x. 
 5,  32,  compared  with  vii.  35.  Local  dispersion  is  here  regarded 
 only  as  the  reflection  of  the  internal  dispersion.  From  the 
 tower  of  Babel  the  bond  of  fellowship  was  broken  which  pre- 
 viously united  the  human  race,  and  all  had  been  dissolved  and 
 confused.  With  the  external  dispersion,  the  most  decisive 
 separation  of  temper  and  spirit  between  the  several  national 
 
74  CHAP.  VII.  1-XII.  50. 
 
 personalities  runs  parallel.  The  commencement  of  the  re- 
 gathering  was  made  in  the  Old  Testament  by  the  call  of  the 
 Israelitish  people.  That  created  a  centre  of  aggregation.  Christ 
 gathers  into  this  fold  the  scattered  sheep  of  the  Gentile  world 
 (comp.  on  ch.  x.  16),  and  that  by  His  atoning  death,  the  result 
 of  which  was,  that  "  a  great  multitude,  which  no  man  could 
 number,  of  all  nations,  and  kindreds,  and  people,  and  tongues," 
 enter  into  the  fold.  A  fundamental  passage  in  the  Old  Testa- 
 ment is  Isa.  xlix.  6,  where  the  Lord  says  to  His  servant,  "  It 
 is  a  light  thing  that  Thou  shouldest  be  My  servant,  to  raise  up 
 the  tribes  of  Jacob,  and  to  restore  the  preserved  of  Israel ;  I 
 will  also  give  Thee  for  a  light  to  the  Gentiles,  that  Thou  mayest 
 be  My  salvation  unto  the  end  of  the  earth."  But  Isa.  Ivi.  8 
 still  more  closely  touches  our  present  passage.  There  we  read, 
 after  the  reception  of  the  "  sons  of  the  stranger"  into  the 
 kingdom  of  God  had  been  spoken  of,  as  it  would  take  place  in 
 the  Messiah's  days :  "  The  Lord  God,  which  gathereth  the 
 outcasts  of  Israel,  saith.  Yet  will  I  gather  others  to  Him,  be- 
 sides those  that  are  gathered  to  Him"  (LXX. :  avvdjcov  and 
 avvd^Q)). 
 
 Ver.  53.  "  Then,  from  that  day  forth,  they  took  counsel 
 together  for  to  put  Him  to  death." — Among  the  Pharisees  as  a 
 party, the  death  of  Christ  had  been  long  decided  on,  ch.  v. 
 16,  18,  vii.  1,  19,  25,  viii.  37  ;  but  the  council  itself  only  now 
 adopted  that  resolution,  and  from  this  time  onward  plotted  for 
 its  accomplishment.  Thus  they  realized,  remarks  Lampe,  the 
 type  of  Joseph's  brethren,  who  took  counsel  concerning  his 
 death.  Gen.  xxxvii.  18. 
 
 Vers.  54-57.  Jesus,  who  would  die  at  the  Passover  as  the 
 paschal  lamb,  repairs,  on  account  of  the  persecution  which 
 threatened  Him,  to  Ephraim. 
 
 Ver.  54.  "Jesus  therefore  walked  no  more  openly  among 
 the  Jews ;  but  went  thence  unto  a  country  near  to  the  wilder- 
 ness, into  a  city  called  Ephraim,  and  there  continued  with  his 
 disciples." — Ephraim  is  thus  specifically  mentioned  as  the  name 
 of  the  tribe  ;  and  all  expository  combinations  which  do  not  bear 
 this  in  mind  must  be  rejected.  Thus  we  must  give  up  the  com- 
 bination with  Ophra,  a  town  of  the  Benjamites,  >^1P^,  Josh,  xviii. 
 23 ;  or  with  Ephron,  pSV,  2  Chron.  xiii.  19,  where  the  Masorites 
 led  the  way  in  this  confusion.     For  the  Kej'i,  Ephrain,  appears 
 
CHAP.  XI.  54  75 
 
 there  to  rest  upon  the  collocation  with  Ephraim ;  and  the  sug- 
 gestions of  the  Masorites  have  no  more  weight  than  those  of  a 
 modern  critic.  We  are  assisted  in  defining  the  locality  of 
 Ephraim,  not  only  by  the  name  itself,  which  suggests  a  place 
 hard  upon  or  beyond  the  borders  of  the  tribe  of  Ephraim,  but 
 by  a  passage  of  Josephus  also  (De  Bell.  Jud.  iv.  9,  9),  the 
 existence  of  which  enables  iis  to  confute  the  evil-disposed  indus- 
 try of  our  moderns,  who  strive  to  prove  that  the  Evangelist  has 
 made  the  name  of  the  tribe  into  the  name  of  a  town.  Josephus 
 says  there  that  Vespasian  had  conducted  from  Cassarea  an  ex- 
 pedition of  horsemen  to  subdue  the  hitherto  unsubdued  parts 
 of  Judea ;  that  he  went  into  the  hill  country  and  occupied  two 
 districts,  the  Gophnitic  and  the  Acrabatene,  afterwards  seizing 
 the  little  towns  Bethel  and  Ephraim,  ^leff  a<i  B'qdrfKd  re  koX 
 E(j>palfj,  iroXl^via ;  and  that,  finally,  after  he  had  left  garrisons 
 in  these  places,  he  journeyed  to  Jerusalem.  Accordingly 
 Ephraim  must  have  lain  in  the  mountain  country,  near  Bethel ; 
 which  agrees  very  well  with  the  fact,  that  Bethel  in  the  tribe  of 
 Benjamin  was  situated  near  the  border  of  the  tribe  of  Ephraim. 
 As  there  is  no  record  in  the  Old  Testament  of  any  town  named 
 Ephraim,  we  are  obliged  to  assume  that  the  place  is  there  repre- 
 sented by  some  other  name ;  and  we  are  disposed  to  find  it  in 
 the  "  Baal-hazor,  which  is  by  Ephraim" — UV,  near,  as  in  Gen. 
 xxxY.  4 ;  Josh.  vii.  2 — where  Absalom,  according  to  2  Sam.  xiii. 
 23,  held  his  sheep-shearing.  The  place,  like  Ephraim,  lay  hard 
 by  the  border  of  the  tribe  of  Ephraim ;  and  it  is  quite  consistent 
 with  John's  intimation,  of  Ephraim  being  close  upon  the  desert, 
 that  Absalom  kept  his  flocks  there  (-im?D  is  properly  pasture). 
 The  name  Baal-hazor  might  have  been  all  the  more  easily 
 rejected,  because  it  was  not  strictly  speaking  a  proper  name  of 
 a  town,  but  merely  the  designation  of  a  place  by  the  name  of 
 certain  property  in  it  (Gesenius :  villam  habens),  which  the 
 narrative  in  Samuel  makes  prominent.  That  the  name  Baal- 
 hazor  no  longer  existed  in  the  time  of  Jesus  is  plain,  from  the 
 fact  that  Josephus  mentions  instead  Baal-zephon,  the  name 
 cun-ently  known  to  him  of  the  Egyptian  town,  and  transposes 
 this  Baal-zephon  into  the  Ephraimite  territory.  This  could 
 hardly  have  occurred  to  him  if  the  place  had  still  borne  its  old 
 name. 
 
 Ephraim  was  situated  in  the  district  "  near  to  the  wilder- 
 
76  CHAP.  VII.  1-XII.  50, 
 
 ness."  That  was  the  reason  why  our  Lord  chose  this  locahty. 
 The  wilderness  forms  an  antithesis  to  publicity,  the  nrapp-qa-ia. 
 It  isolated  the  place,  and  excluded  it  from  human  intercourse :  it 
 afforded  also  a  refuge  from  approaching  persecution,  and  gave 
 opportunity  for  seeking  yet  deeper  seclusion.  We  have,  in 
 Matt.  xxiv.  26,  an  echo  of  this  sojourn  of  our  Lord  (comp.  on 
 the  Sterpt/Se,  iii.  32)  near  and  in  the  wilderness.  At  an  earlier 
 period  also  Jesus  had  occasionally  repaired  to  the  wilderness, 
 Luke  V.  16.  His  retreat  at  the  present  time  was  the  beginning 
 of  the  end,  a  prelude  to  the  fulfilment  of  Deut.  xxxii.  20 : 
 "  And  He  said,  I  will  hide  My  face  from  them,  I  will  see  what 
 their  end  shall  be;"  and  of  Hos.  v.  6:  "They  shall  go  with 
 their  flocks  and  herds  to  seek  the  Lord,  but  they  shall  not  find 
 Him ;  He  hath  withdrawn  Himself  from  them."  The  article 
 in  rj  €pr)/jio<i  stands  generically  (comp.  Acts  xxi.  38)  ;  it  does  not 
 denote  a  particular  wilderness,  but  the  wilderness  in  opposition 
 to  other  localities.  The  wilderness  is  meant  which,  according 
 to  Josh.  xvi.  1,  "goeth  up  from  Jericho  throughout  Mount 
 Bethel,"  the  hill-range  in  the  neighbourhood  of  Bethel.  "  This 
 desert,"  observes  Keil,  "is  no  other  than  that  which,  in  ch. 
 xviii.  12,  is  called  the  wilderness  of  Bethaven,  since  Bethaven 
 lay  east  of  Bethel."  In  Josh.  viii.  15,  24,  reference  is  made  to 
 the  sqme  desert.  Epiphanius  mentions  a  man  who  accompanied 
 him  in  the  wilderness  of  Bethel  of  Ephraim,  when  he  went  up 
 from  Jericho  to  the  hill  country  (a-vvohevaavr6<i  fiot,  iv  r§ 
 iprjfJba)  Ti]<i  BaiOrfK  ical  ^Ecfipaifi).  This  was  indeed  the  same 
 way  which  Jesus  took  when  He  returned  from  Ephraim  to 
 Jerusalem.  John  goes  on  in  what  follows  to  describe  the  im- 
 pression which  was  produced  by  the  circumstance  that  our  Lord 
 retreated  from  publicity  into  seclusion. 
 
 Ver.  55.  "  And  the  Jews'  Passover  was  nigh  at  hand ;  and 
 many  went  out  of  the  country  up  to  Jerusalem  before  the 
 Passover,  to  purify  themselves." — We  learn  from  Acts  xxi. 
 24,  26,  that  this  cleansing  consisted  primarily  in  external  cere- 
 monies ;  but  more  reflecting  souls  regarded  these  as  only  the 
 symbol  of  the  sanctification  of  hearts,  Ja's.  iv.  8  ;  1  Pet.  i.  22  ; 
 1  John  iii.  3.  The  law  contains  no  specific  injunction  with 
 regard  to  this  purification  before  the  Passover.  But  the  pro- 
 priety of  such  a  preparation,  for  the  highest  and  holiest  of  the 
 feasts,  was  obvious  in  the  nature  of  things ;  and  it  was,  more- 
 
CHAP.  XI.  56.  77 
 
 over,  sanctioned  by  a  series  of  historical  types,  which  taught 
 the  doctrine,  that  every  approach  to  God,  and  every  reception 
 of  His  grace,  must  be  preceded  by  a  worthy  preparation.  In 
 Gen.  XXXV.  2,  Jacob  says  to  his  people,  when  he  would  go  with 
 them  to  Bethel  to  celebrate  Divine  service,  "  Be  clean,  and 
 change  your  garments."  In  Ex.  xix.  10,  11,  we  read:  "And 
 the  Lord  said  unto  Moses,  Go  unto  the  people  and  sanctify 
 them  (Sept.  koX  w^vlctov  avrov^)  to-day  and  to-morrow,  and  let 
 them  wash  their  clothes,  and  be  ready  against  the  third  day ; 
 for  the  third  day  the  Lord  will  come  down  in  the  sight  of  all 
 the  people  upon  Mount  Sinai."  In  Josh.  iii.  5,  Joshua  says 
 to  the  people,  "  Sanctify  yourselves  (Sept.  a^vlaacrdi),  for 
 to-morrow  the  Lord  will  do  wonders  among  you."  That  the 
 doctrine  lying  at  the  basis  of  all  these  passages  was  applied  also 
 to  the  Passover,  we  learn  from  2  Chron.  xxx.  16-20.  There 
 we  read  of  an  exception  in  favour  of  those  whose  circumstances 
 would  not  allow  them  to  be  cleansed  and  prepared  for  coming  to 
 the  Passover.  "  If  the  Jews,"  says  Lyser,  "  during  several  days 
 prepared  themselves  for  eating  the  shadowy  and  transitory 
 Passover,  with  what  earnest  prayer  and  careful  examination 
 should  Christians  approach  the  mysterious  table  on  which  the 
 true  Passover  of  the  New  Testament  is  exhibited!"  comp.  2 
 Cor.  vii.  1. 
 
 Ver.  56.  "  Then  sought  they  for  Jesus,  and  spake  among 
 themselves,  as  they  stood  in  the  temple.  What  think  ye,  that 
 he  will  not  come  to  the  feast  ? " — These  questions  start  from 
 the  fact  of  the  seclusion  of  Christ.  According  to  their  tenor, 
 "  the  mixed  multitude,  who  in  religious  matters  are  full  of 
 variations  and  uncertainty,"  doubt  whether  Jesus  will  or  will 
 not  come  to  the  feast :  that  He  will  not  come,  seems  the  more 
 probable  supposition.  "  Wait  only  a  while,  ye  good  people," 
 says  Lyser,  "  and  ye  will  see  with  what  publicity  and  stately 
 dignity  He  will  enter  your  city."  In  John's  record  of  the  im- 
 pression which  the  seclusion  of  Jesus  made  upon  the  people, 
 there  is  evident  a  certain  gentle  irony.  It  was  somewhat  as 
 if  they  had  been  dubious  whether  the  sun,  for  the  moment 
 hidden  behind  the  clouds,  would  ever  come  forth  again.  We 
 have  two  questions  before  us  :  What  think  ye  about  his  con- 
 cealment ?  Do  ye  think  that  he  will  not  come  to  the  feast  % 
 (comp.  Winer.)     If  we  assume  only  one  question,  and  explain 
 
78  CHAP.  VII.  1-XII.  50. 
 
 it,  "  What  can  be  the  cause  that  he  does  not  come  to  the 
 feast  ? "  we  disturb  the  connection  with  ver.  54,  and  overlook 
 the  chronological  relations.  It  was  still  a  long  time  to  the 
 feast,  and  Jesus  might  yet  come.  Nothing  is  in  harmony  with 
 this  but  the  question  whether  the  Lord  would  come  at  all. 
 
 Ver.  57.  "  Now  both  the  chief  priests  and  the  Pharisees  had 
 given  a  commandment,  that,  if  any  man  knew  where  He  were, 
 he  should  show  it,  that  they  might  take  Him." — The  "  also  "  is 
 not  to  be  overlooked.  In  the  preceding  w^e  saw  the  impression 
 which  the  concealment  of  Jesus  made  on  the  multitude.  Here 
 we  have  the  measures  which  the  spiritual  authorities  were 
 thereby  induced  to  adopt.  Not  merely  the  people,  but  their 
 religious  rulers  also,  deduced  from  the  transitory  seclusion  of 
 Jesus  the  inference  that  He  desired  to  withdraw  altogether 
 from  publicity ;  and  they  therefore  proceeded  against  Him  in 
 the  full  confidence  that  their  measures,  even  if  they  failed  of 
 any  tangible  result,  would  at  least  stamp  Jesus  as  an  impostor 
 shunning  the  light.  How  must  they  have  been  confounded 
 when  our  Lord  suddenly  appeared  among  them  free  and  unre- 
 strained ! 
 
 Ch.  xii.  is  occupied  with  the  occurrences  of  the  last  six  days 
 before  the  final  Passover  of  Jesus.  First,  we  have  in  vers.  1-8 
 His  anointing  in  Bethany.  John's  narrative  does  not  profess 
 to  record  the  incident  as  a  whole,  with  all  its  attendant  circum- 
 stances ;  but  only  to  give  a  series  of  supplements  to  his  prede- 
 cessors. He  briefly  sums  up  the  fundamentals  of  the  event, 
 and  as  much  as  possible  in  their  words.  His  additions  are  : 
 the  specification  of  the  time  of  the  supper ;  its  connection  with 
 the  resurrection  of  Lazarus ;  the  name  of  the  woman  who 
 anointed  Christ ;  the  name  of  the  particular  disciple  who  stimu- 
 lated the  opposition  to  Mary's  act  in  the  circle  of  the  Apostles, 
 connected  with  a  remark  upon  the  motive  of  that  disciple. 
 
 Ver.  1.  "  Then  Jesus,  six  days  before  the  Passover,  came 
 to  Bethany,  where  Lazarus  was  which  had  been  dead,  whom  He 
 raised  from  the  dead." — The  narrative  connects  itself  with  the 
 end  of  the  previous  chapter  by  ouv.  Jesus  confounded  the 
 thoughts  and  machinations  mentioned  in  ch.  xi.  55-57,  and 
 which  had  their  origin  in  His  seclusion,  by  His  actions :  at  the 
 right  time  He  came  forward  with  the  utmost  publicity,  and 
 
CHAP.  XII.  1.  79 
 
 thus  overturned  all  their  notions. — With  reference  to  irpb  e| 
 Tjfiepcbv  Tov  Trda'^a — about  six  days  before  the  Passover — comp. 
 on  eh.  xi.  18. — Which  way  did  our  Lord  take  from  Ephraim 
 to  Bethany  ?  John  does  not  say  :  we  must  therefore  assume 
 that  the  former  Evangehsts  had  given  an  account  of  this  ; 
 and  our  expectation  is  found  to  be  warranted.  They  all 
 agree  that  our  Lord  in  His  last  journey  to  Jerusalem  passed 
 through  Jericho  :  comp.  Matthew,  in  which  the  account  of  this 
 last  journey  begins  ch.  xx.  17,  and  goes  on  to  ver.  29 ;  Mark  x. 
 46  (the  beginning  of  the  narrative  in  ver.  32)  ;  Luke  xix.  1 
 (the  beginning  in  ch.  xviii.  31).  John's  predecessors  also  give 
 us  the  reason  why  Jesus  took  the  circuitous  route  through 
 Jericho  :  the  time  of  seclusion,  John  xi.  54,  had  run  out  ;  and 
 Jesus  would  now  enter  Jerusalem  in  full  publicity.  To  the 
 stately  entrance  which  He  contemplated,  a  large  retinue  was 
 necessary.  To  gather  these  together,  our  Lord  took  the  road 
 leading  through  Jericho,  which  was  in  the  high  pilgrim-road 
 through  Perea.  As  soon  as  Jesus  joined  this  track,  great  mul- 
 titudes of  people  began  to  surround  Him,  Matt.  xx.  29  :  comp. 
 Mark  x.  46 ;  Luke  xviii.  36,  xix.  3.  These  crowds,  who  doubt- 
 less came  to  Jerusalem  the  same  day  on  which  Jesus  entered 
 Bethany,  spread  there  the  report  of  His  coming,  set  the  whole 
 city  in  commotion,  and  were  the  occasion  that  many  came  to 
 Jerusalem  even  on  the  Sabbath  ;  and  that  still  more  fetched  the 
 Lord  on  the  ensuing  day.  The  circuitousness,  therefore,  of  the 
 road  gives  no  difficulty.  Probably  Jesus  during  the  last  time 
 did  not  remain  in  Ephraim,  but  sought  out  the  perfect  solitude 
 of  the  wilderness  which  lay  between  Ephraim  and  Jericho  : 
 comp.  on  ch.  xi.  54. 
 
 How  are  the  six  days  to  be  reckoned  ?  The  word  Passover 
 is,  in  the  law,  used  only  of  the  paschal  lamb,  and  in  Matthew 
 and  Mark  only  of  the  paschal  meal.  If  here  also  in  John  it 
 describes  the  whole  festival,  we  must  assume  that  the  festival 
 took  its  beginning  from  the  meal,  the  name  of  which  passed 
 over  to  the  whole  week.  Ch.  xiii.  1  makes  this  certain.  There 
 the  "  feast  of  the  Passover"  commences  with  the  paschal  meal ; 
 and  the  definition  of  the  time  there  is  all  the  more  decisive,  as 
 the  account  is  connected  with  our  present  one,  and  refers  to  the 
 same  feast.  The  paschal  meal  belonged  to  the  evening  of  the 
 fourteenth  of  Nisan,  which,  according  to  Jewish   reckoning, 
 
80  CHAP.  VII.  1-XII.  50. 
 
 begins  at  the  same  time  the  fifteenth  Nisan.  The  paschal  meal 
 fell  then  on  the  Thursday  evening.  If  we  reckon  six  days 
 backwards,  Jesus  came  to  Bethany  on  the  evening  of  the  Friday, 
 the  eighth  of  Nisan, — which,  according  to  Jewish  computation 
 of  time  (Lev.  xxiii.  32),  also  began  the  ninth  of  Nisan, — before 
 the  rest  of  the  Sabbath  had  begun.  The  first  day  went  from 
 the  Friday  evening  to  the  Saturday  evening  ;  the  second  from 
 Saturday  evening  to  Sunday  evening,  and  so  forth.  The 
 "  Supper"  of  our  Lord  must  belong  to  the  day  of  His  arrival ; 
 for  otherwise  the  words  "  on  the  next  day,"  ver.  12,  would  be 
 meaningless, — a  thing  which,  in  John's  chronological  style,  is 
 inconceivable,  and  more  especially  here,  where  the  Evangelist 
 defines  precisely  those  points  in  the  Passion  week  which  were 
 left  undecided  in  the  first  Gospels.  The  "  Supper  "  of  Bethany 
 was,  doubtless,  the  principal  meal  of  the  Sabbath-day.  The 
 entrance  into  Jerusalem  followed  on  the  Sunday  :  the  second 
 or  next  day  extended,  according  to  Jewish  reckoning  of  time, 
 from  Saturday  evening  to  Sunday  evening.  Jesus  tarried  in 
 Bethany  at  least  thirty-six  hours.  It  has  been  erroneously 
 urged,  that  the  chronology  in  the  text  interferes  with  the  sanc- 
 tity of  the  Sabbath.  The  Sabbath  is  still  among  the  Jews  pre- 
 ferred for  the  enjoyment  of  feasts.  But  the  food  was  prepared 
 previously ;  and  even  the  tables  must  have  been  arranged  in 
 order  before  the  Sabbath  began.  Nor  does  the  fact  that  guests 
 came  from  Jerusalem  militate  against  the  feast  having  been  on 
 the  Sabbath.  The  ecclesiastical  district  of  Jerusalem  extended 
 beyond  the  walls.  "  Lightfoot,  in  the  Hor.  Heb.  p.  73,  cites  a 
 mass  of  passages  from  Jewish  writers,  which  establish  that 
 Bethphage  was  altogether  regarded  as  if  it  had  been  situated 
 within  the  walls  of  Jerusalem.  The  wall  was  thus  considered 
 as  pushed  outwards  ;  and  Bethany  was  no  more  than  a  Sabbath- 
 day's  journey  for  the  citizens  of  Jerusalem,  although  it  was 
 no  less  than  fifteen  stadia  "  (Wieseler,  s.  435).  The  narrative 
 of  Luke  xxiv.  50-53,  compared  with  Acts  i.  12,  makes  it  clear 
 tliat  Bethany  was  not  more  than  a  Sabbath-day's  journey  from 
 Jerusalem.  Accordingly,  the  Sabbath  would  not  throw  any 
 impediment  in  the  way  of  the  Jews'  coming  to  Bethany  in  order 
 to  see  Jesus,  as  recorded  in  ch.  xii.  9-11. 
 
 The  other  Evangelists  make  no  express   mention   of   the 
 sojourn  of  Jesus  in  Bethany  before  the  entrance  into  Jerusa- 
 
CHAP.  XII.  1.  81 
 
 lem.  But  they  do  not  imply  that  He  passed  by  that  place 
 without  spending  the  night ;  which  is  rendered  improbable  by 
 the  fact,  that  in  their  own  accounts  Jesus  went  out  to  Bethany 
 every  evening  of  the  last  week  of  His  life  upon  earth :  Matt.  xxi. 
 17  ;  Mark  xi.  11,  12  ;  and  especially  Luke  xxi.  37.  Jesus  had 
 spent  the  previous  night  with  Zaccheus  in  Jericho  :  thus  He  had 
 already  made  a  long  day's  journey  when  He  reached  Bethany. 
 It  is  not  j^robable  that  He  first  passed  by  Bethany  and  went  to 
 Jerusalem,  and  then  returned  back  to  the  former  place.  There 
 is  a  distinct  intimation  of  the  sojourn  in  Bethany  before  the 
 entrance  into  Jerusalem  in  I^Iark  xi.  1 :  "  And  when  they  came 
 nigh  to  Jerusalem,  ei<?  Brjdcjiajr}  koX  Br^Oaviav  irpo'i  to  opoq 
 rcov  'EXacMV,  unto  Bethphage  and  Bethany,  at  the  Mount  of 
 Olives  ;"  and  Luke  xix.  29.  Bethphage  and  Bethany  form  in 
 these  passages  a  geographical  unity.  Bethphage,  alone  men- 
 tioned in  Matt.  xxi.  1,  is  placed  first  in  order,  to  intimate  that 
 Jesus  had  already  left  Bethany  behind  Him.  Mark's  introduc- 
 tion of  the  latter  word  intimates  that  the  Evangelists  knew 
 more  than  they  narrate — that  Jesus  made  Bethany  His  point  of 
 departure  that  day.  The  hint  in  Mark  and  Luke  is  fully  de- 
 veloped in  John. — But  for  what  reason  did  the  earlier  Evan- 
 gelists omit  expressly  to  record  the  sojourn  of  Jesus  in  Bethany 
 before  the  entrance  into  Jerusalem?  The  answer  is  simply, 
 that  their  accounts  had  no  point  of  connection  with  that  sojourn, 
 and  did  not  require  it  for  the  sake  of  supplement.  Luke  had 
 already,  in  ch.  vii.,  independently  of  chronology,  narrated  the 
 anointing,  as  an  illustrative  appendage  to  our  Lord's  designa- 
 tion of  Himself  as  the  friend  of  publicans  and  sinners.  Matthew 
 places  the  account  of  it  in  ch.  xxvi.  6,  etc.,  immediately  before 
 that  of  the  treachery  of  Judas.  He  gives  it  without  any  refer- 
 ence to  time.  The  roTe,  corresponding  to  rore  in  ver.  3,  comes 
 in  ver.  14.  So  also  with  Mark  in  ch.  xiv.  3-9.  Their  narratives 
 of  the  anointing  are  in  both  these  Evangelists  parenthetical  inser- 
 tions, without  reference  to  time.  They  separate  the  account  of  the 
 consultations  of  the  high  priests  from  that  which  records  Judas' 
 offer  of  himself  as  their  instrument.  Both  Evangelists  subor- 
 dinated chronological  sequence,  interrupting  it  in  order  to  insert 
 for  a  purpose  an  event  which  they  had  both  reserved.  But 
 the  reason  why  they  mention  the  fact  just  where  they  do,  is 
 not  what  many,  following  Augustin,  assume,  viz.  that  Judas, 
 VOL.  II.  F 
 
82  CHAP.  VII.  1-XII.  50. 
 
 in  consequence  of  the  anointing,  and  the  waste  which  Jesus 
 permitted,  was  filled  with  hatred  and  anger,  and  conceived  the 
 project  of  the  betrayal.  That  Judas  derived  his  instigation  to 
 treachery  from  that  event  is  a  mere  fiction,  for  which  there  is 
 no  definite  ground  in  the  narrative.  And  it  is  decisive  against 
 this  hypothesis,  that  Matthew  and  Mark  do  not  mention  Judas 
 — whom  John  alone  names ;  but  they  must  have  mentioned 
 him  had  there  been  such  a  connection  between  the  two  events. 
 The  first  two  Evangelists  place  the  story  of  the  anointing  imme- 
 diately before  the  account  of  Judas'  treachery,  in  order  to  make 
 more  prominent  the  darkness  of  the  traitor,  in  contrast  with  the 
 light  of  Mary.  The  avarice  of  Judas,  who  sold  Christ  for  thirty 
 pieces  of  silver,  is  the  perfect  opposite  of  the  aTroiKeta  of  Mary 
 upon  Christ's  person.  She  gives  what  she  has  in  perfect  sacri- 
 fice, probably  the  last  relics  of  her  substance  (comp.  the  o  el')(€v 
 avTT),  eTTOLTjae,  Mark  xiv.  8)  ;  Judas,  on  the  other  hand,  turns 
 Christ  Himself  to  gold.  John  only  assigns  here  to  the  residence 
 in  Bethany,  which  the  other  Evangelists  leave  chronologically 
 indefinite,  its  appropriate  and  true  place  in  our  history. — 
 Bethany  is  described  as  the  place  where  Lazarus  was :  he,  since 
 his  resurrection,  was  the  principal  person  in  Bethany.  The 
 circumstance  that  he  was  there  probably  occasioned  Jesus' 
 going — the  remembrance  of  the  miracle  would  thereby  be 
 freshened  ;  it  occasioned  the  feast  which  celebrated  that  event ; 
 and  attracted  tlie  concourse  of  multitudes  who  came  to  seek 
 Jesus,  ver.  9.  The  fact  that  Jesus  had  called  Lazarus  from 
 his  grave,  brought  to  Him  the  crowds  which  fetched  Him  from 
 Jerusalem,  vers.  17,  18.  The  description  of  Lazarus,  on  this 
 mention  of  him,  has  a  solemn  amplitude,  which  was  intended  to 
 arrest  the  reader's  attention  to  this  person,  and  his  high  import- 
 ance. Many  copyists  did  not  understand  this.  Hence  some  of 
 them  omitted  6  redvrjKoxi  as  superfluous ;  others,  for  the  same 
 reason,  o  ^Irjcrov';. 
 
 Ver.  2.  "  There  they  made  Him  a  supper ;  and  Martha 
 served :  but  Lazarus  was  one  of  them  that  sat  at  the  table  with 
 Him." — The  phrase  "  making  a  feast  "is  commonly  used  of  a 
 greater  and  more  special  repast:  comp.  Mark  vi.  21;  Luke 
 xiv.  12,  xvi.  17.  And  the  feast  before  us  was  of  that  kind. 
 It  served  to  celebrate  the  resurrection  of  Lazarus.  The  coming 
 of  Jesus  was  doubtless  expected.    All  things  had  been  prepared 
 
CHAP.  XII.  3.  So 
 
 for  the  feast,  and  the  guests  had  been  summoned.  That 
 Martha  played  the  hostess  in  her  own  house,  is  shown  by  Luke 
 X.  38,  40:  comp.  Matt.  viii.  15;  Mark  i.  31.  It  would  not 
 have  been  becoming  for  an  eminent  woman  to  have  discharged 
 such  a  service  in  another  house  than  her  own.  Martha,  the 
 housewife,  who  had  under  her  a  company  of  servants,  waited 
 even  in  her  own  house  only  because  the  circumstances  Avere 
 extraordinary.  Where  "  the  Master  "  is  present,  who  in  ver. 
 26  says,  "  If  any  man  serve  Me,  him  will  My  Father  honour," 
 it  is  perfectly  becoming  that  the  mistress  should  serve.  That 
 Lazarus  was  among  the  guests,  had  a  theological  significance  : 
 it  was  a  demonstration  of  the  ti'uth  and  greatness  of  the 
 miracle.  Perfect  reinstatement  in  the  former  life — and  not 
 merely  the  change  from  death  into  the  state  of  a  sick  man — 
 was  required  by  the  symbolical  significance  of  the  event. 
 
 Ver.  3.  "Then  took  Mary  a  pound  of  ointment  of  spikenard, 
 very  costly,  and  anointed  the  feet  of  Jesus,  and  wiped  His  feet 
 with  her  hair :  and  the  house  was  filled  with  the  odour  of  the 
 ointment." — The  whole  conduct  of  Mary  is,  as  Chrysostom  re- 
 marked, that  of  a  "broken-hearted  soul."  Wichelhaus  (Comm. 
 on  the  Passion-history)  observes,  "She  must  have  been  similarly 
 affected  as  the  sinner  of  Luke  vii."  That  she  anoints  the  feet 
 of  Jesus,  that  she  unlooses  her  hair,  to  do  which  was  held  among 
 the  Jews  a  great  disgrace,  that  she  wipes  with  it  the  feet  of  Jesus 
 — all  exhibit  her  as  the  sinner  and  the  penitent.  Wichelhaus, 
 who  acknowledges  all  this,  seeks  in  vain  to  prove  that  ch.  xi. 
 records  a  great  transgression  on  the  part  of  Mary.  The  nard, 
 to  which  Pliny  assigns  the  first  place  amongst  unguents  (H.  N. 
 xii.  26  :  de  folio  nardi  plura  dici  par  est,  ut  pn'wczpa^i  in 
 unguentis),  is  mentioned  only  by  Mark  of  the  earlier  Evan- 
 gelists. Matthew  speaks  only  in  general  of  a  costly  ointment. 
 The  pound  here  corresponds  to  the  "alabaster  box"  of  Matthew 
 and  Mark.  According  to  the  metrological  investigations  of 
 Boeckh,  Xlrpa  was  not  merely  a  weight  of  twelve  ounces,  but 
 also  a  measure  for  liquids.  A  vessel  which  contained  twelve 
 ounces  of  water  was  the  libra  mensuralis,  the  metrical  pound 
 for  liquid ;  and  the  ointment  boxes  were  probably  so  made  as 
 to  contain  just  one  such  metrical  pound.  ITicm/co?  is  not,  with 
 many,  to  be  understood  in  the  sense  of  liquid;  for  an  adjective 
 derived  from  Trivw  never  occurs,  and,  moreover,  potable  in  the 
 
84  CHAP.  VII.  1-XII.  50. 
 
 sense  of  liquid  would  be  a  strange  application  of  the  word.  It 
 must  rather  be  interpreted,  with  the  old  Greek  expositors,  that 
 which  might  be  trusted,  real,  genuine.  The  word  TTiarLKo^ 
 is  not  to  be  found  in  classical  authors ;  for  in  the  passage 
 commonly  adduced  from  Aristotle's  Rhetoric,  ireiaTLKrj  is  the 
 reading  now  generally  acknowledged.  Yet  we  find  in  an  Attic 
 inscription  (Boeckh,  Corp.  Inscript.  i.  382),  a  JTio-TO/cparT/? 
 IIcaTLKov,  both  proper  names  of  father  and  son,  probably 
 meaning  the  same.  In  later  Greek,  TncrrLKO'?  was  the  super- 
 cargo, to  whom  the  ship  and  its  freight  were  entrusted ;  and 
 then  the  man  who  stood  representative  of  the  company,  and 
 w^as  bound  to  make  provision  for  it.  It  was  probably  an  ex- 
 pression of  common  life,  and  specifically  a  commercial  terminus 
 technicus.  This  interpretation  is  made  the  more  probable  by 
 the  fact  that  nard  was  so  frequently  adulterated.  Pliny,  xii. 
 26,  says :  Adulteratur  et  Pseudonardo  herba  .  .  .  Sinceruni 
 quidem  levitate  deprehenditur.  Again,  xiii.  1  :  Conveniet 
 meminisse  herbarum  quae  nardum  Indicum  imitentur,  species 
 novem  a  nobis  dictas  esse  :  tanta  materia  adulterandi  est. 
 Tibullus  speaks  of  the  nardus  pura  ;  and  in  Galen  we  find  the 
 expression  aKepaiov  applied  to  it.  Pliny,  xii.  26,  assigns  to 
 genuine  nard  the  value  of  a  hundred  denarii  to  the  pound. 
 But- that  could  not  have  been  its  highest  price  ;  for  Pliny  gives 
 to  nard  the  supreme  place  among  unguents,  but  at  the  same 
 time  mentions  another  species  which  he  declares  to  be  worth 
 from  25  to  300  denarii :  comp.  ver.  5. 
 
 Vers.  4,  5.  The  eh  ck  roiv  fju.  avrov  refers  to  the  ol  fj,a6r)Tal 
 avTov,  not  as  a  correction,  but  as  supplementary.  That  Judas 
 was  only  the  originator  of  the  complaint,  is  plain  from  the 
 reproof  administered  to  more  than  one  in  ver.  8.  What  Judas 
 alleges  is  so  specious  and  plausible,  that  the  record  of  the  other 
 Evangelists  may  easily  be  believed  as  quite  natural.  "  For 
 luxurious  and  prodigal  feasts,"  says  Wichelhaus,  "  such  an 
 anointing  might  have  been  appropriate ;  but  what  end  could 
 such  luxury  upon  Jesus  serve  ?  What  reasonable  man  would 
 not  have  agreed  with  Judas  in  this  censure  ?" — Merely  for  dis- 
 tinction from  the  other  Judas,  the  IlifKovof  alone  would  have 
 been  sufficient.  The  surname  Iscariot,  the  man  of  lies,  is 
 added,  because  it  was  now  that  Judas  declared  himself  to  be 
 essentially  what  that  name  signified ;  he  disguised  his  covetous- 
 
CHAP.  XII.  6.  85 
 
 iiess  and  lust  of  thieving  under  the  semblance  of  pious  care  for 
 the  poor  :  comp.  ver.  6.  "  Who  should  betray  Him  "  has  also 
 its  special  significance  here.  While  he  in  his  avarice  was 
 exhibiting  his  anger  against  this  expression  of  love  to  Jesus,  he 
 was  proving  himself  a  worthy  candidate  for  betraying  Jesus 
 through  avarice.  Three  hundred  pence  or  denarii,  nearly  ten 
 pounds,  was  to  these  disciples  a  large  sum.  It  is  characteristic 
 of  Judas,  the  type  of  later  money-making  Jews,  that  he  so 
 accurately  knows  the  price  of  a  thing  with  which  he  had 
 nothing  to  do.  Even  if  we  had  not  the  narrative  of  John,  this 
 valuation  of  the  ointment,  which  Mark  also  gives,  would  of 
 itself  have  pointed  to  Judas. 
 
 Ver.  6.  "  This  he  said,  not  that  he  cared  for  the  poor ;  but 
 because  he  was  a  thief,  and  had  the  bag,  and  bare  what  was 
 put  therein." — Baard^ecv  always  in  the  New  Testament  means 
 to  carry ;  so  even  in  ch.  xx.  15,  where  the  bearing  is  only  by 
 the  context  determined  to  be  a  carrying  away.  Baard^eiv  itself 
 never  stands  for  appropriating,  or  spending  on  itself;  nor  is  the 
 i^daraae  pleonastic,  if  we  take  the  verb  in  its  usual  meaning 
 of  carrying.  The  new  element  lies  in  the  ra  ^aWofMeva,  which 
 specifies  the  contents  of  the  common  bag,  aiid  shows  that  it  was 
 filled  by  affectionate  gifts.  This  new  appendage  to  the  sentence 
 required  a  new  verb.  That  Judas  had  the  bag  is  remarked  also 
 in  ch.  xiii.  29  ;  whence  we  see  that  this  bag  served  both  for 
 the  supply  of  the  necessities  of  the  company,  and  for  charities 
 to  the  poor.  The  contributions  to  this  common  stock  came, 
 according  to  Luke  viii.  3,  principally  from  women.  As  Judas 
 had  the  bag  and  carried  these  contributions,  he  had  good 
 opportunity  for  appropriation.  Obviously,  he  must  have  often 
 given  occasion  for  such  a  suspicion  ;  but  his  fellow-disciples, 
 observing  the  law  of  love,  had  kept  down  this  fearful  suspicion, 
 receiving  his  justification,  however  little  plausibility  it  might 
 have.  After  his  betrayal,  all  these  grounds  of  suspicion  re- 
 turned to  them  in  full  force. 
 
 It  can  scarcely  fail  to  be  acknowledged,  that  the. provision 
 of  this  bag  stands  in  some  relation  to  2  Chron.  xxiv.  8,  the 
 only  passage  in  which  the  Septuagint  employs  r^XwaaoKOfjuov. 
 There  we  find  that,  by  command  of  king  Joash,  they  made  a 
 chest,  and  deposited  it  in  the  forecourt  of  the  Temple ;  that  all 
 the  princes  and  all  the  people  brought  joyfully  their  Te^iple 
 
86  CHAP.  VII.  1-XII.  50. 
 
 tribute,  ive/SaXov  et?  to  lyXcoaaoKO/xov :  comp.  /SdWeiv,  used  of 
 throwing  gifts  into  God's  treasury,  Matt,  xxvii.  6 ;  Mark  xii. 
 41 ;  Luke  xxi.  1.  Jesus  explains,  in  Matt.  xvii.  26,  that  He, 
 as  the  Son  of  God,  was  rightfully  free  from  the  obligation  of 
 Temple  tribute.  By  adopting  as  a  pattern  the  institution  in 
 2  Chron.  xxiv.,  He  arrogated  to  Himself  what  in  that  passage 
 was  devoted  to  Jehovah.  The  negative  in  Matt,  xvii.,  and  the 
 positive,  rest  upon  the  same  ground.  It  was  in  the  most  proper 
 sense  a  Divine  chest,  and  theft  from  it  was  robbery  of  God. 
 Christ  appointed  this  provision  as  a  type  and  example  for  His 
 Church.  Origen  calls  the  ecclesiastical  poor-steward  tov  rrjfi 
 €KK\7)(Tia<i  e'^ovra  jXcocraoKo/jLov. — We  do  not  read  that  Jesus 
 gave  the  bag  into  the  charge  of  Judas :  probably  he  pressed 
 himself  into  this  service,  and  Jesus  suffered  it  to  be  so.  But 
 how  could  He  have  done  this,  when,  as  the  Son  of  God,  He 
 knew  what  was  in  man,  ch.  ii.  25,  and  had,  in  particular,  pene^ 
 trated  the  heart  of  Judas  from  the  beginning  ?  (Comp.  on  ch. 
 vi.  71.)  Lampe  answers  this  question  with  perfect  propriety: 
 "  It  is  part  of  the  adorable  ways  of  Divine  Providence  in  regard 
 to  sin,  that  sinners  are  placed  in  circumstances  in  which  their 
 wickedness  must  break  out."  Jesus  let  Judas  have  the  bag, 
 not  although  he  was,  but  because  he  was,  a  covetous  man.  The 
 promise  contained  in  the  petition  of  the  Lord's  Prayer,  "Lead 
 us  not  into  temptation,"  like  the  promises  contained  in  all  of 
 them,  applies  only  to  the  sincere  and  rightly  disposed.  That 
 Judas  was  not  one  of  these,  was  manifested  by  the  fact  that  he 
 forced  himself  into  the  keeping  of  the  bag.  Had  he  been 
 honestly  disposed,  he  would,  considering  his  bias  to  covetous- 
 ness,  have  been  anxious  to  keep  himself  as  far  from  money  as 
 possible.  But  as  he  served  avarice,  it  was  part  of  his  doom  that 
 the  bag  was  committed  to  his  hands.  Criminal  records  present 
 in  relation  to  this  the  most  manifold  analogies.  Most  trans- 
 gressors become  such  by  opportunity  presented  to  them.  That 
 which  slumbers  within  them  is  often  aroused  by  remarkable 
 concatenations  of  events  pointing  plainly  to  the  finger  of  God's 
 providence.  To  keep  them  back  from  such  temptation  would 
 not  make  them  better;  it  would  only  hinder  their  sin  from 
 reaching  maturity,  and  showing  its  full  fruits,  which  is  the  con- 
 dition of  thorough  reformation  if  this  be  still  possible,  and  the 
 foundation  of  judgment  if  not.     To  doubt  that  Jesus  marked 
 
CHAP.  XII.  7.  87 
 
 the  defalcations  of  Judas,  is  to  doubt  of  His  Divinity.  The 
 abomination  of  covetousness  He  had  probably  often  dilated  on 
 to  His  disciples,  with  express  reference  to  Judas.  Having  done 
 that.  He  did  all.  Since  Judas  had  no  hearing  ear,  the  Lord 
 would  not  violently  break  in  upon  the  development  of  his  sin. 
 He  must  fulfil  his  destiny. 
 
 Ver.  7.  "  Then  said  Jesus,  Let  her  alone  :  against  the  day 
 of  My  burying  hath  she  kept  this." — The  gentleness  of  Jesus 
 in  His  reproof  shows  that,  as  the  other  Evangelists  expressly 
 record,  the  murmuring  was  shared  in  by  such  as  had  no  evil 
 thought,  and  required  to  be  gently  dealt  with.  Burial  is  not 
 the  interment  itself,  but  the  preparations  for  it.  The  day  or 
 the  time  of  burial  was  already  come,  inasmuch  as  the  death  of 
 Jesus  was  immediately  impending.  We  are  not  justified  in 
 having  recourse  to  the  notion  of  a  providential  arrangement  of 
 circumstances,  or  to  explain  the  keeping  and  the  using  of  the 
 ointment  "  as  an  unconscious  prophetic  act,"  and  to  go  on  with 
 Stier :  "  Mary  designed  only  to  pay  the  Lord  a  tribute  of  honour 
 appropriate  to  the  feast,  and  does  not,  for  her  own  part,  think 
 of  any  burial  or  embalming."  We  may  rather  regard  it  as  on 
 all  accounts  probable  that  the  thought  of  the  impending  death 
 of  Jesus  filled  Mary's  soul,  and  was  the  reason  why  she  reserved 
 for  future  use  the  ointment,  which  otherwise  she  would  have 
 sold  for  the  good  of  the  poor.  What  Jesus  had  already  plainly 
 declared  in  Galilee,  Matt.  xvi.  21 ;  what  He  had  so  expressly 
 told  His  disciples  at  the  outset  of  the  present  final  journey. 
 Matt.  XX.  17,  Mark  x.  32-34,  Luke  xviii.  31-34;  what  was 
 not  unknown  even  to  His  enemies,  Matt,  xxvii.  63 — could  not 
 have  been  concealed  from  Mary,  occupying  the  position  which 
 she  did.  She  who  hung  on  the  Lord's  lips,  Luke  x.  39,  had 
 hidden  this  deep  in  her  heart.  The  extravagance  of  her  honour 
 to  Jesus  sprang  in  part  from  the  consciousness  that  it  was  the 
 last  honour  she  would  do  Him,  the  last  expression  of  her  thank- 
 fulness for  all  that  He  had  done  for  her,  the  unworthy.  This 
 consciousness  must  be  appealed  to  as  the  only  moral  justifica- 
 tion of  her  act.  The  mere  providential  significance  of  the  act 
 would  not  be  sufficient  for  that  purpose.  The  reading  ha  eh 
 rrjv  7j/xepav  rov  ivra^caa/xov  fiov  rrjprjari  avTO  is,  notwithstand- 
 ing its  high  authentication,  a  mere  correction  introduced  by 
 those  who  supposed  the  Ivra^iaayuQ'^  could  only  be  effected  on 
 
88  CHAP.  VII.  1-XII.  50. 
 
 the  person  of  one  already  dead.  It  is  opposed  by  the  preced- 
 ing narrative  in  John  and  the  other  Evangelists,  according  to 
 which  the  whole  of  the  ointment  was  then  and  there  expended 
 (it  was  the  waste  of  it  all  that  was  the  main  element)  ;  by  Matt, 
 xxvi.  12,  Mark  xiv.  8,  according  to  which  Mary  anointed 
 Christ  beforehand;  by  Mark  xiv.  6,  where  the  a^ere  avTrjv 
 forms  a  clause  of  itself ;  as  well  as  by  the  current  use  of  ac^e?, 
 d(}i€Te,  in  the  Gospels,  which  usually  indicates  a  brief  despatch. 
 Ewald  explains,  "  Let  her  keep  it  for  the  day  of  My  burial." 
 But  avTo  too  evidently  refers  to  the  fivpov,  as  Mark  xiv.  8  also 
 vouches.     Trjpelv  is  used  precisely  as  in  ch.  ii.  10. 
 
 Ver.  8.  "For  the  poor  always  ye  have  with  you;  but  Me 
 ye  have  not  always." — Jesus  alludes  to  Deut.  xv.  11,  "  For  the 
 poor  shall  never  cease  out  of  the  land :  therefore  I  command 
 thee,  saying.  Thou  shalt  open  thine  hand  wide  unto  thy  brother, 
 to  thy  poor,  and  to  thy  needy  in  thy  land,"  with  which  ver.  4 
 there  does  not  stand  in  contradiction,  "  there  shall  be  no  poor 
 among  you  ; "  for  there  it  is  asserted  that,  on  the  whole,  wealth 
 and  well-being  should  be  the  rule,  which  would  naturally  admit 
 exceptions.  That  the  "  Me  ye  have  not  always  "  does  not  con- 
 tradict the  "  I  am  with  you  always,"  needs  no  demonstration. — 
 The  words  of  Jesus  show  that  we  must  be  on  our  cnard  against 
 admitting  the  common  utilitarian  principle  too  largely  in  the 
 Church.  What,  looked  at  in  the  light  of  this  principle,  appears 
 to  be  waste,  may  have  its  full  justification  as  the  expression  of 
 thankful  love  and  glowing  devotion.  A  deeper  consideration  will 
 make  it  plain  that  this  seeming  waste  often  accomplishes  more 
 than  those  applications  of  money  which  plainly  proclaim  their 
 practical  uses.  The  cathedrals  are  not  less  necessary  than  the 
 parish  churches  to  the  maintenance  of  Christian  worship. 
 
 In  vers.  9-11  we  have  the  excitement  which  the  coming  of 
 Jesus  produced  in  the  city. 
 
 Ver.  9.  "  Much  people  of  the  Jews  therefore  knew  that 
 He  was  there  :  and  they  came  not  for  Jesus'  sake  only,  but 
 that  they  might  see  Lazarus  also,  whom  He  had  raised  from 
 the  dead." — It  is  plain  enough  that  the  word  Jews  here  is  not 
 used  with  a  hostile  meaning,  but  that  only  their  nationality  is 
 thereby  denoted :  comp.  on  ch.  i.  19.  Persons  are  here  spoken 
 of  who  are  under  an  attraction  to  Christ.  These  were  found 
 especially  amongst  the  strangers  who  came  up  to  the  feast  (comp. 
 
CHAP.  XII.  10-13.  89 
 
 ver.  12)  ;  for  the  people  of  the  place  would  have  had  earlier 
 opportunities  of  seeing  Lazarus.  If  Jesus  tarried  thirty-six 
 hours  in  Bethany,  there  was  ample  time  for  their  coming.  The 
 report  of  His  arrival  in  Bethany  was  doubtless  soon  spread  in 
 Jerusalem  by  those  who  had  accompanied  Him. 
 
 Vers.  10,  11.  "  But  the  chief  priests  consulted  that  they 
 might  put  Lazarus  also  to  death ;  because  that  by  reason  of 
 him  many  of  the  Jews  went  away,  and  believed  on  Jesus." — 
 "  Lazarus  also,"  no  less  than  Christ,  ch.  xi.  53.  Such  a  thought, 
 albeit  transitory,  came  to  the  high  priests  when  they  observed 
 the  great  excitement  of  the  people  :  eaeicrOrj  rj  ttoXl^, — which 
 Matthew,  in  ch.  xxi.  10,  remarks  concerning  the  entrance  of 
 Christ, — was  already  true  here.  The  fact  that  they  wanted  to 
 kill  Lazarus,  shows  that  they  regarded  the  miracle  of  his  resur- 
 rection as  a  concerted  scheme,  just  as  the  Pharisees  endeavoured 
 to  set  aside  the  greater  fact  of  the  resurrection  of  Christ  by  an 
 imputation  of  deceit.  All  that  Christ  gained  was  so  much  lost 
 to  the  high  priests.  Li  vTrfj'yov,  wiiich  simply  corresponds  to 
 the  rjXdov  of  ver.  9,  Lampe  sees  too  much  meaning,  when  he 
 makes  it  signify  the  people's  forsaking  the  priestly  chair  to  ex- 
 press their  contempt  of  the  priests. 
 
 the  entrance  into  jerusalem. 
 Vers.  12-19. 
 
 The  Apostle  first  gives  the  chronological  specification  which 
 was  wanting  in  the  earlier  Evangelists.  Then  he  briefly  sums 
 up,  down  to  ver.  15,  what  they  had  already  written  on  the 
 subject.  To  this  resume  he  appends  his  own  contribution.  First 
 comes  the  remark,  that  the  connection  between  this  event  and 
 Zech.  ix.,  already  observed  upon  by  Matthew,  was  not  perceived 
 fully  until  Christ  was  glorified ;  then  the  relation  it  bore  to  the 
 resurrection  of  Lazarus ;  and  finally,  how  the  Pharisees  were 
 affected  by  the  whole  proceeding.  The  arrangement  of  the 
 Avhole  section  can  be  understood  only  when  we  perceive  that  the 
 Apostle  first  recapitulates,  and  then  supplements. 
 
 Vers.  12,  13.  "  On  the  next  day  much  people  that  were 
 come  to  the  feast,  when  they  heard  that  Jesus  was  coming  to 
 Jerusalem,  took  branches  of  palm-trees,  and  went  forth  to  meet 
 Him,  and  cried,  Hosanna :  Blessed  is  the  King  of  Israel  that 
 
90  CHAP.  VII.  1-XII.  50. 
 
 Cometh  in  the  name  of  the  Lord." — On  the  next  day  :  after  the 
 arrival  of  Jesus  in  Bethany,  and  after  the  supper  held  on  the 
 same  day.  The  entry  followed  doubtless  on  the  Sunday  fore- 
 noon. It  cannot  be  detached  from  the  tenth  Nisau,  inasmuch 
 as  it  was  on  this  day  that  the  typical  paschal  lamb  was  set  apart, 
 Ex.  xii.  3.  As  Jesus  declares  Himself  to  be  the  antitype  of  the 
 Passover,  it  was  doubtless  with  reference  to  this  that  He  chose 
 the  day  of  entrance.  Nor  is  it  without  significance  that  it  was 
 on  the  same  day  the  people  under  Joshua  went  up  from  the 
 Jordan,  to  begin  their  warfare  with  the  powers  of  Canaan, 
 Josh.  iv.  19.  That  war  was  the  type  of  "  the  judgment  of  this 
 world,"  which  was  by  Jesus,  the  true  Joshua,  to  be  accom- 
 plished. The  "  great  multitude"  consisted,  doubtless,  for  the 
 most  part,  of  Galileans.  In  the  capital,  where  the  Pharisaic 
 spirit  was  concentrated,  and  which  the  prophet  had  always  indi- 
 cated as  the  centre  of  destruction,  Micah  i.  5,  the  number  of 
 susceptible  spirits  was  much  smaller  than  in  the  provinces.  Bata 
 are  of  themselves  palm-branches  ;  but  tmv  (fiotviKcov  is  added, 
 because  that  botanical  technical  term  might  not  be  understood 
 in  lands  where  the  palm  did  not  grow.  "  The  branches  of  the 
 palms "  are  simply  palm-branches  ;  and  the  repeated  article  has 
 here,  as  in  so  many  other  cases,  been  made  much  more  of  than 
 necessary.  They  are  palms  in  opposition  to  other  trees,  and 
 their  branches  to  other  parts  of  the  tree. — The  meaning  of  palm- 
 branches  we  learn  from  Lev.  xxiii.  40.  There  the  children  of 
 Israel  were  commanded,  in  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles,  to  take 
 green  branches  of  palms,  and  the  boughs  of  thick  trees ;  and 
 they  were  to  rejoice  before  the  Lord  seven  days.  The  present 
 festal  rite  was  therefore  an  expression  of  joy,  the  object  of 
 which  was  the  coming  of  the  so  long  expected  King.  In  the 
 prophetic  passage,  which  forms  the  centre  of  the  whole  event, 
 the  "  Rejoice,  O  daughter  of  Zion  !"  corresponds  to  the  bearing 
 of  palm-branches.  This  rejoicing  found  in  the  palm-branches  its 
 external  expression :  so  the  bearing  of  green  branches  and  palms 
 is  in  2  Mace.  x.  7  the  symbol  of  joy.  Parallel  with  this  passage 
 is  Rev.  vii.  9.  "  If  the  palms  are  to  be  understood  as  palms  of 
 joy,  the  symbolical  acknowledgment  of  the  salvation  which  the 
 name  of  Jesus  pledges,  then  these  two  passages  harmoniously 
 coincide.  As  the  people  once  expressed  by  this  symbol  their 
 rejoicing  in  salvation,  when  Jesus  the  Saviour  entered  into  the 
 
CHAP.  XII.  12,  13.  91 
 
 earthly  Jerusalem,  so  now  the  elect  express  their  joy  when  they 
 are  with  Christ  in  the  heavenly  Zion." — The  acclamation  of  the 
 multitude  is  taken  from  Ps.  cxviii.  25,  26,  "  Save,  Lord,  we 
 beseech  Thee ;  blessed  is  He  that  cometh  in  the  name  of  the 
 Lord,"' — words  the  application  of  which  to  the  present  occasion 
 was  all  the  more  obvious,  because,  as  Jewish  writings  testify, 
 they  were  on  other  occasions  used  as  a  cry  of  joy  in  the  public 
 worship  of  the  people.  The  psalm  is  a  song  of  the  Church's 
 gratitude,  exalted  by  the  goodness  of  God  from  tJie  deepest 
 depression  to  the  highest  glory.  What  befell  Israel,  when  saved 
 from  the  captivity,  was  only  the  type  of  the  people's  deliverance 
 in  Christ. 
 
 That  in  the  Hosanna,  "  Save  now,"  the  people  pray  on  behalf 
 of  their  King,  and  only  indirectly  for  their  own  salvation  (in  har- 
 mony with  the  prophecy,  where  the  King  y^'ij,  is  defended  of 
 God),  is  manifest  from  Matthew,  who  makes  the  people  cry 
 "  Hosanna  to  the  Son  of  David,"  as  well  as  from  the  correspond- 
 ence of  the  following  "  Blessed  be."  The  word  Hosanna  must, 
 in  the  time  when  John  wrote,  have  become  naturalized  among 
 the  Christian  congregations,  even  the  Gentile  ones  ;  therefore  he 
 does  not  add  the  translation,  as  his  wont  is  on  occasion  of  intro- 
 ducing other  Hebrew  words.  Li  the  original  Hebrew  passage, 
 the  accents  require  us  to  construe  "  May  He  that  cometh  be 
 blessed  in  the  name  of  the  Lord"  (comp.  my  Comm.  and  Hup- 
 feld)  :  the  name  of  the  Lord,  His  historically  manifested  glory, 
 is  the  source  of  blessing,  ch.  v.  43.  "  I  am  come  in  My  Father's 
 name,"  furnishes  no  sufficient  reason  for  construing  otherwise. 
 Luke  xix.  38  makes  it  manifest  that  ev  ovoyuaTi  is  to  be  con- 
 nected with  evko^Tjfievo^.  There  the  order  is,  Ev\o'y7]/jievo<i  6 
 ip')(Ofievo^  ^aaiXev^i  ev  ovoyuaTi  Kvplov,  not  6  /3aaL\ev<i  6  ipx^- 
 aei/o?.  BaaiXev^  rov  'laparjX  serves  more  closely  to  define  Him 
 that  was  coming,  and  thereby  at  the  same  time  to  give  the 
 reason  of  the  benediction  imprecated  on  Him.  Since  the 
 benediction  manifestly  should,  as  in  Matthew,  consist  of  three 
 clauses,  we  must  add,  in  thought,  "  Blessed  be,"  or  "  Hosanna," 
 to  the  King.  The  passages  of  the  Old  Testament  in  which  the 
 Messiah  is  described  as  King  of  Israel,  have  been  adduced 
 already  on  ch.  i.  50.  Christ  is  here  primarily  marked  out  only 
 as  King  of  Israel.  If  he  be  King,  it  is  self-understood  that  He 
 is  also  the  Kincr  absolute,  the  King  without  fellow.     For  He 
 
92  CHAP.  VII.  1-XII.  50. 
 
 could  be  acknowledged  as  King  by  the  multitude  only  on  the 
 ground  of  His  Messianic  dignity.  But  the  people  expected  in 
 the  Messiah  the  King  whom  no  other  king  should  equal. 
 
 Vers.  14,  15.  "  And  Jesus,  when  He  had  found  a  young 
 ass,  sat  thereon  ;  as  it  is  written,  Fear  not,  daughter  of  Sion  : 
 behold,  thy  King  cometh,  sitting  on  an  ass's  colt." — Why  did 
 Jesus,  just  at  that  time,  enter  so  majestically  into  Jerusalem, 
 with  His  passion  before  Him,  and,  as  it  were,  beginning  that 
 passion  by  entering  ?  The  following  section  gives  the  answer. 
 It  will  show  that  Christ  demonstrated  Himself  by  His  sufferings 
 to  be  King ;  that  His  death  was  the  means  of  the  realization 
 of  His  dignity  and  attainment  of  His  dominion  ;  that  by  His 
 death  the  prince  of  this  world  was  to  be  cast  out ;  and  that 
 Christ  should,  when  He  was  lifted  up  from  the  earth,  draw  all 
 men  unto  Him  :  comp.  vers.  23,  24,  31,  32.  This  strict  con- 
 nection between  the  sufferings  and  the  dominion  was  set  forth 
 in  the  prophet  Zechariah.  There  the  King  cometh  meek  or 
 afflicted,  and  riding  upon  an  ass  ;  and  in  this  character  of  suf- 
 ferer He  speaks  peace  to  the  Gentiles,  and  obtains  dominion 
 over  the  whole  earth. 
 
 The  entry  of  Christ  into  Jerusalem  had  also,  apart  from 
 the  prophecy  of  the  Old  Testament,  to  which  Matthew  and 
 John  place  it  in  relation,  its  own  independent  significance, 
 otherwise  we  should  hardly  be  able  to  understand  the  fact  that 
 Mark  and  Luke  do  not  expressly  intimate  its  connection  with 
 the  prophecy.  That  our  Lord  enters  Jerusalem  in  this  festal 
 manner,  was  intended  to  exhibit  Him  as  now  about  to  assert 
 that  royal  dignity  which  until  now  He  had  in  a  measure 
 concealed.  But  that  He  enters  upon  an  ass  was  intended  to 
 symbolize  the  manner  in  which  He  would  assert  His  royalty : 
 to  wit,  in  the  way  of  humility  that  He  ever  pursued,  as  an 
 example  for  His  Church,  which  should  never  forget  that  her 
 Head  rode  forward  upon  an  ass  when  He  assumed  His  kingdom 
 upon  earth.  The  ass  signifies  the  Cross  aspect  and  condition  of 
 the  Church.  The  old  Gentile  Romans,  who,  according  to  Ter- 
 tullian,  called  the  Christians  asinarii,  in  allusion  to  this  event, 
 understood  it  better  than  superficial  expositors,  who  want  to 
 make  the  ass  a  symbol  of  peace.  Into  that  same  city  which 
 David  and  Solomon  had  so  often  entered  amidst  a  retinue  of 
 proud  horsemen,  and  upon   magnificently  caparisoned  mules 
 
CHAP.  XII.  14,  15.  93 
 
 and  chargers,  the  Lord  now  entered  upon  a  borrowed  ass,  a 
 pitiful  "  ass's  colt,"  never  before  used  for  riding  on.  The  trap- 
 pings were  represented  by  the  poor  garments  of  His  disciples  ; 
 His  retinue  consisted  of  those  whom  the  world  accounted  mere 
 rabble,  upon  whom  the  wise  Pharisees  and  rich  men  of  Jerusalem 
 looked  down  with  contempt.  To  him  who  had  no  eye  for  the 
 glory  that  was  concealed  beneath,  the  whole  matter  must  have 
 seemed  a  pitiful  comedy.  That  the  ass  was  not  in  the  East 
 essentially  more  honoured  than  amongst  ourselves,  is  proved 
 by  the  Son  of  Sirach,  ch,  xxx.  24  (xxxiii.  25),  as  also  by  the 
 original  passage  in  Zechariah,  where  the  riding  upon  the  ass  is 
 conjoined  with  the  predicate  ''JJ?,  which  can  mean  only  afflicted. 
 That  a  king  should  ride  upon  an  ass  at  all,  was,  in  the  East, 
 a  thing  unexampled  ;  but  here  the  King,  as  such,  in  His  royal 
 progress,  rides  upon  it,  and  indeed  upon  a  mere  ass's  colt.  The 
 remembrance  of  this  should  be  our  encouragement  when  the 
 Lord's  sad  humiliation  upon  earth  is  reproduced  in  the  provi- 
 dential course  of  His  Church,  and  our  warning  against  seeking 
 too  high  things  as  His  people.  It  should  also  be  a  caution  to 
 those  who  are  always  so  ready  to  magnify  every  little  stumbling- 
 block  in  the  Scripture  into  an  argument  against  its  divinity. 
 Even  in  Scripture  the  Lord  wears  the  garb  of  a  servant ;  and 
 in  reference  to  it  also  holds  good  the  word,  "  He  comes  riding 
 on  an  ass's  colt,"  as  also,  "  Blessed  is  he  that  shall  not  be  offended 
 in  Me." 
 
 The  remarkable  evpcov,  having  found,  altogether  inappro- 
 priate had  Jesus  brought  the  ass  with  Him  from  Bethany,  has 
 an  entire  history  behind  it,  which  John,  who  omits  all  merely 
 subordinate  circumstances,  and  presupposes  details  as  known, 
 almost  in  express  terms  tells  us  to  seek  in  the  earlier  Evangelists. 
 The  watchword,  with  the  whole  history  resting  upon  it,  is  found 
 in  those  earlier  writers  :  comp.  Luke  xix.  30,  evp'-qcrere  iraiXov 
 SeBefievov;  ver.  32,  aireXOovre'^  he  ol  aTrea-TdX/iieuoL  evpov  Ka0u)<; 
 el-rrev  avroi<i ;  Matt.  xxi.  2 ;  Mark  xi.  2,  4.  Mark  and  Luke 
 mention  only  the  young  ass.  The  mention  of  the  she-ass 
 occurs  only  in  Matthew,  whose  eye  is  ever  keenly  directed  to 
 the  minutest  details  which  exhibit  fulfilment  of  Old  Testa- 
 ment scripture.  The  original  in  Zech.  ix.  9  runs  fully  thus  : 
 "  Rejoice  greatly,  O  daughter  of  Zion  ;  shout,  O  daughter  of 
 Jerusalem  :  behold,  thy  King  cometli  unto  thee  :  He  is  just,  and 
 
94  CHAP.  VII.  1-XII.  60. 
 
 having  salvation  (saving  Himself)  ;  lowly,  and  riding  on  an  ass, 
 and  tipon  a  colt  the  foal  of  an  ass."  The  variations  here  have 
 been  usually,  but  very  superficially,  explained  on  the  ground  that 
 John  cites  from  memory.  But  then  they  would  not  have  been 
 omissions ;  the  quotation  would  not  then  have  so  literally  coin- 
 cided with  the  original  as  it  does,  apart  from  the  first  words, 
 where  the  change,  as  will  presently  be  seen,  is  an  intentional 
 one.  The  reason  of  the  variation  was  rather  the  Evangelist's 
 design  to  direct  attention  to  the  main  point  which  John  had  in 
 view  in  narrating  the  accordance  between  the  prophecy  and 
 its  fulfilment,  the  riding  upon  a  young  ass.  The  lowli/  it  was 
 the  less  necessary  to  reproduce,  because  in  the  original  it  was 
 covered  by  the  "  riding  upon  an  ass." — Instead  of  the  "  Rejoice 
 greatly,  daughter  of  Zion,"  in  the  original,  John  has  "  Fear 
 not,  daughter  of  Zion."  But,  so  far  as  the  meaning  goes,  the 
 "Fear  not"  does  not  vary  much  from  the  original.  The  matter 
 of  the  joi/  is  here  especially  the  redemption  from  the  power  of 
 an  oppressor,  the  Gentile  power.  This  is  shown  by  the  con- 
 nection with  ver.  8,  "  And  no  oppressor  shall  pass  through  them 
 any  more,  for  now  have  I  seen  with  mine  eyes."  Accordingly, 
 the  "  Fear  not"  is  latent  in  the  "  Rejoice."  Lampe :  Non  nudum 
 gaudium  preecipitur,  sed  tale  quod  prsecedentem  timorem  exac- 
 torum  excipiebat.  The  "  Rejoice"  is  only  the  negative  translated 
 into  the  positive.  But  John  did  not  introduce  the  change  in 
 his  own  fashion  simply ;  he  rather  derived  the  "  Fear  not"  from 
 Isa.  xl.  9  :  "  O  Zion,  that  bringest  good  tidings,  get  thee  up 
 into  the  high  mountain  ;  O  Jerusalem,  that  bringest  good 
 tidings,  lift  up  thy  voice  with  strength :  lift  it  up,  be  not  afraid ; 
 say  unto  the  cities  of  Judah,  Behold  your  God;"  and  at  the 
 same  time,  from  Zeph.  iii.  1 6,  a  passage  dependent  on  this  of 
 Isaiah  :  "  In  that  day  it  shall  be  said  to  Jerusalem,  Fear  thou 
 not ;  and  to  Zion,  Let  not  thine  hands  be  slack  ;"  with  ver.  15 
 preceding  it,  "  The  Lord  hath  taken  away  thy  judgments,  He 
 hath  cast  out  thine  enemy  :  the  King  of  Israel,  even  the  Lord, 
 is  in  the  midst  of  thee :  thou  shalt  not  see  evil  any  more."  The 
 change  of  the  "  Rejoice  greatly"  can  all  the  less  be  fortuitous, 
 inasmuch  as  Matthew  also  has  introduced  a  remarkable  variation 
 upon  these  same  words.  He  has  instead,  from  Isa.  Ixii.  11, 
 etTrare  Trj  dvyarpl  ^icov,  pointing  in  a  most  suggestive  manner 
 to  the  connection  of  these  passages,  and  weaving  the  isolated 
 
CHAP.  XII.  14,  15.  ■  95 
 
 Utterance  of  Zechariali  into  the  great  tissue  of  passages  dwelling 
 on  the  same  theme.  We  can,  indeed,  hardly  doubt  that  John 
 decidedly  chose  the  universal  formula  of  citation,  /ca^co?  iari 
 <ye<ypafifMivov,  in  order  to  intimate  that  in  his  view  the  single 
 passage  of  the  original  took  its  place  in  the  midst  of  a  much 
 Avider  and  larger  connection. 
 
 The  "  Fear  not "  denotes,  according  to  the  original  passages, 
 the  absolute  security  of  salvation.  The  miserable  and  lowly 
 condition  in  which  Zion  lies  as  it  were  buried,  and  the  apparent 
 omnipotence  of  her  foes,  must  not  mislead  her,  and  abate  her 
 confidence.  The  daughter  of  Zion  must  not  fear,  in  spite  of 
 the  lowliness  of  her  King,  and  in  spite  of  His  sufferings.  That 
 which  might  seem  to  warrant  fear,  will  in  fact  serve  to  remove 
 it  for  ever.  The  King  will  vanquish  the  world,  not  merely 
 despite  His  deep  humiliation,  but  by  the  very  means  of  that 
 humiliation.  Even  to  the  present  day  He  is  then  greatest  when 
 He  seems  to  be  least ;  and  still  with  His  disciples  death  is  the 
 way  to  life.  Just  when  they  are  sinking  deepest  into  the 
 depths,  the  "  Fear  not "  is  most  applicable  to  their  case.  John, 
 quoting  the  Old  Testament  passage,  must,  in  harmony  with 
 the  phraseology  of  the  Apocalypse,  behold  another  daughter  of 
 Zion,  still  continuing  to  exist  in  the  Christian  Church,  concealed 
 behind  that  daughter  of  Zion  whose  destruction  was  impending 
 when  Jesus  entered  (indeed,  the  weeping  over  Jerusalem  re- 
 corded by  Luke,  ch.  xix.  41,  was  among  the  circumstances  of 
 the  same  entry),  and  was  accomplished  when  John  wrote.  The 
 fjbr)  (fio^ov,  as  spoken  to  the  common  Zion,  would  have  been 
 meaningless.  The  true  daughter  of  Zion  meant  by  the  Evan- 
 gelist was  for  the  moment  represented  by  the  multitude  who 
 cried  Hosanna.  It  consisted  really  of  those  from  among  the 
 Jews  who  believed  in  Jesus.  And  these  were  increased  by 
 believers  from  among  the  Gentiles.  Both  the  exclusion  from 
 Zion  and  the  adoption  into  Zion  proceeded  according  to  a 
 spiritual  principle.  That  in  the  time  of  the  Evangelist  the 
 separation  from  the  external  Zion  was  perfectly  accomplished, 
 is  shown  by  the  manner  in  which  John  speaks  concerning  the 
 Jews  :  comp.  on  ch.  i.  19.^ 
 
 ^  The  true  and  spiritual  notion  of  the  daughter  of  Zion,  which  was 
 variously  prepared  for  even  in  the  Old  Testament,  is  given  by  Augustin  : 
 "  In  that  reprobate  and  blind  people  nevertheless  was  the  daughter  of 
 
96  CHAP.  VII.  1-XII.  50. 
 
 Ver.  16.  "  These  things  understood  not  His  disciples  at  the 
 first :  but  when  Jesus  was  glorified,  then  remembered  they  that 
 these  things  were  written  of  Him,  and  that  they  had  done  these 
 things  unto  Him." — There  is  a  similar  remark  in  ch.  ii.  22. 
 The  opened  understanding,  and  the  glorification  of  Christ,  stood 
 in  the  relation  of  cause  and  effect.  That  event  gave  the 
 Apostles  an  entirely  new  standard.  They  saw  that  beneath  the 
 deepest  humiliation  the  highest  glory  might  be  hidden  ;  that 
 greatness  could  not  be  measured  by  the  ell,  but  must  be  esti- 
 mated according  to  a  spiritual  standard.  Moreover,  the  out- 
 pouring of  the  Holy  Ghost  was  connected  with  the  glorification 
 of  Christ,  ch.  vii.  39,  xiv.  26;  and  that  great  gift  raised  the 
 Apostles  to  a  higher  stage  of  knowledge  and  perception.  Till 
 that  time  their  eyes  were  holden  by  their  carnal  Messianic 
 expectations.  The  present  event  had  too  poor  an  aspect  to 
 allow  them  to  discern  in  it  the  royal  entrance  of  the  King, 
 who  should  speak  peace  to  the  Gentiles,  and  whose  kingdom 
 stretched  from  sea  to  sea,  from  the  Euphrates  to  the  ends  of 
 the  earth,  Zech.  ix.  10.  But  when  they  learned  to  discern 
 spiritual  things  spiritually,  and  to  understand  the  hidden  process 
 of  the  Redeemer's  power,  and  the  great  difference  between  the 
 kingdom  of  Christ,  Avith  its  concealed  glory,  and  the  kingdoms 
 of  this  world,  their  eyes  were  opened,  and  they  obtained  an 
 insight  into  the  connection  between  prophecy  and  fulfilment. 
 The  eTTOLTja-av  includes  especially  the  action  of  the  people  just 
 recorded,  and  which  also  belonged  to  the  fulfilment  of  the  pro- 
 phecy,— especially  the  Hosanna  in  correspondence  with  the  de- 
 signation of  the  Messiah  as  yj^"i3,  saved  of  God,  in  the  prophecy. 
 What  Christ,  and  at  His  command  the  Apostles,  did,  cannot 
 be  brought  under  this  point  of  view;  because  that  Avas  done 
 with  the  design  to  bring  the  prophecy  to  its  fulfilment.  But  we 
 may  include  the  free  action  of  the  Apostles,  which  rested  not 
 upon  the  command  of  Christ,  and  did  not  recognise  the  refer- 
 
 Zion,  to  whom  it  was  said,  Fear  not,  behold  thy  King  cometh,  sitting  upon 
 the  foal  of  an  ass.  This  daughter  of  Zion  to  ■\^^hom  these  words  were 
 divinely  uttered,  was  found  amongst  those  sheep  who  heard  the  voice  of 
 the  Shepherd  ;  she  was  in  that  mviltitude  who  praised  the  coming  Lord 
 with  so  much  devotion,  and  escorted  Him  with  so  great  a  band.  And  it 
 was  said  to  her,  Acknowledge  Him  who  is  the  object  of  thy  praise,  and  be 
 not  afraid  when  thou  seest  Him  suffer,  because  that  blood  is  being  poured 
 out  by  which  thy  crime  will  be  blotted  out,  and  thy  life  restored  to  thee." 
 
CHAP.  XII.  17-19.  97 
 
 ence  to  any  prediction ;  as  also  the  circumstance,  that  they 
 found  the  ass,  and  that  the  owner  of  the  ass  suffered  them  to 
 take  it  away.  The  rehation  which  John  sustained  to  the  earher 
 EvangeUsts  will  not  allow  us  to  limit  the  eTroirjaav  merely  to 
 what  he  recorded :  we  may,  and  Ave  must,  borrow  the  supple- 
 ment of  his  account  from  his  predecessors. 
 
 Ver.  17.  "  The  people  therefore  that  was  with  Him  when 
 He  called  Lazarus  out  of  his  grave,  and  raised  him  from  the 
 dead,  bare  record." — The  next  verse  shows  that  their  testimony 
 did  not  rest  upon  their  own  personal  eye-witness,  but  upon 
 what  they  had  heard  from  others.  The  same  is  made  plain  by 
 ver.  12,  according  to  which  "  the  multitude"  consisted  of  those 
 who  had  come  from  abroad  to  the  feast.  But  these  could  not 
 have  been  eye-witnesses  of  the  resurrection  of  Lazarus :  they 
 were  at  the  time  of  that  event  far  away  from  Jerusalem. 
 Luther,  translating  "  but  the  people  who  were  with  Him  when 
 He  called  Lazarus  out  of  the  grave,  and  raised  him  from  the 
 dead,  published  the  fact,"  follows  the  incorrect  reading  ore  (Vulg. 
 quando),  which  sprang  from  the  false  notion  that  /lapTvpelv  must 
 needs  infer  the  testimony  of  an  eye-witness.  Luke  xix.  37 
 gives  us  the  general  foundation  for  all  that  is  peculiar  here. 
 
 Yer.  18.  "  For  this  cause  the  people  also  met  Him,  for  that 
 they  heard  that  He  had  done  this  miracle." — The  people  here 
 are  identical  with  the  people  of  vers.  17,  12.  The  supposition 
 of  another  and  different  crowd  is  altogether  baseless.  In  ver. 
 17  we  have  what  the  people  did  after  they  had  joined  Christ ; 
 in  ver.  18,  what  they  did  when  they  came  out  to  meet  Him. 
 Ver.  17  brings  in  a  supplement  to  ver.  13;  ver.  18,  a  supple- 
 ment to  ver.  12.  The  /cat  does  not  "  distinguish  between  the 
 crowd  already  accompanying  Him  and  that  which  came  to  meet 
 Him,"  but  points  to  the  fact,  that  the  resurrection  of  Lazarus 
 was  not  only  the  matter  of  their  praise  who  met  Jesus,  but  the 
 very  reason  that  they  came  at  all. 
 
 Ver.  19.  "  The  Pharisees  therefore  said  among  themselves. 
 Perceive  ye  how  ye  prevail  nothing  ?  behold,  the  world  is  gone 
 after  him." — Among  themselves  is  the  same  as  to  each  other: 
 the  mere  thoughts  of  the  heart  cannot  be  matter  of  historical 
 record.  That  John  was  so  well  acquainted  with  the  projects  of 
 the  Pharisees  (comp.  ver.  10),  suggests  a  middle  person,  who 
 had  some  common  relation  to  the  disciples  and  to  the  Pharisees. 
 YOL.  II.  G 
 
98  CHAP.  VII.  1-XII.  50. 
 
 And  we  naturally  think  of  IMartha  as  such — the  wife  of  Simon 
 — who  must  have  heard  in  the  family  circle  of  her  husband 
 much  that  would  otherwise  have  been  concealed,  ©ecopeire  is 
 not  to  be  taken  as  a  question  :  comp.  Acts  xxi.  20.  The  Apostle 
 rejoices  over  the  embarrassment  of  the  Pharisees  :  this  is  the  only 
 point  of  view  in  which  we  can  regard  the  verse.  Paraphrases 
 like  that  of  Grotius — "  We  must  adopt  stronger  measures  to  carry 
 out  the  decree  of  the  council" — spring  from  a  total  misapprehen- 
 sion of  John's  design.  Everywhere  we  see  that  he  takes  plea- 
 sure in  recording  the  opposition  brought  to  bear  against  Jesus, 
 and  the  shame  to  which  his  Master's  enemies  were  always  put. 
 In  the  contest  between  evil  and  good,  the  saying,  "  Ye  see 
 that  ye  prevail  nothing,"  must  always  hold  from  age  to  age. 
 Ver.  24  shows  that  the  deepest  prostration  of  the  good  cause 
 can  never  make  this  doubtful. — We  have  an  Old  Testament 
 parallel  in  1  Sam,  xxiv.  21,  where  Saul  is  obliged  to  say  to 
 David,  "  And  now,  behold,  I  know  well  that  thou  shalt  surely 
 be  king,  and  that  the  kingdom  of  Israel  shall  be  established  in 
 thine  hand:"  comp.  ch.  xxiii.  17,  where  Jonathan  sajs,  "And 
 thou  shalt  be  king  over  Israel,  and  I  shall  be  next  unto  thee ; 
 and  that  also  Saul  my  father  knoweth."  The  relation  of  Saul 
 to  David  was  a  kind  of  type  of  the  relation  of  the  Pharisees  to 
 Christ.  The  representatives  of  a  bad  cause  have  the  secret 
 consciousness  that  they  fight  against  God.  Therefore  they 
 must  needs  lose  heart  on  every  fresh  reverse.  That  here  also 
 "  This  spake  he  not  of  himself"  holds  good — that  the  Apostle 
 regards  these  words,  which  were  extorted  from  the  enemies  of 
 Christ,  as  a  kind  of  prophecy,  is  plain,  from  the  connection  in 
 which  the  succeeding  narrative  so  manifestly  stands  with  these 
 words  :  Yea,  verily,  ye  do  nothing  at  all ;  all  the  Avorld  goeth 
 after  Him — not  only  the  Jews,  but  even  the  very  Greeks! 
 These  last  were  already  sending  their  deputation  ;  and  as  the 
 result  of  their  request,  Jesus,  in  ver.  32,  utters  the  word,  "  And 
 I,  if  I  be  lifted  up  from  the  earth,  will  draw  all  men  unto  Me." 
 Bengel  here  observes  :  A  hyperbole  springing  from  indignation. 
 If  the  whole  world,  say  they,  were  ours,,  it  would  desert  us  to 
 go  after  Him.    There  lies  in  their  words  something  prophetical. 
 
CHAP.  XII.  20.  99 
 
 jesus  and  the  greeks. 
 Vers.  20-36. 
 
 It  was  a  remarkable  coincidence,  that  on  the  very  day  when 
 Jesus  took  leave  of  the  Jews,  and  withdrew  into  seclusion, 
 certain  Greeks  expressed  the  desire  to  see  Him ;  and  that 
 Jesus  was  led  by  this  desire  to  announce  the  near  approaching 
 extension  of  His  kingdom  among  the  Gentiles.  Like  the  wise 
 men  from  the  east  at  Christ's  birth,  these  Greeks  are  to  be 
 regarded  as  types  and  representatives  of  the  heathen  world, 
 destined  to  be  received  into  the  kingdom  of  Christ.  But  Bengel 
 is  not  altogether  right  in  describing  the  proceeding  as  "  prelude 
 of  the  transition  of  the  kingdom  of  God  from  the  Jews  to  the 
 Gentiles."  Such  a  transition  never  in  fact  took  place.  This  is 
 proved  by  a  glance  at  the  multitude  shouting  Hosanna  from 
 among  the  Jews  in  the  preceding  section.  Believers  from 
 among  the  Gentiles  did  not  take  the  place  of  the  Jews  gene- 
 rally, but  of  the  unbelieving  mass  of  the  Jewish  people.  The 
 stem  of  God's  kingdom  consisted  of  believers  from  the  Jews, 
 and  into  this  stock  the  Gentiles  were  to  be  grafted  :  and  it  is 
 this  which  the  coming  of  the  Greeks  pretypified.^  That  the 
 scene  occurred  in  the  Temple,  is  evident  from  the  circumstance 
 that  this  was  the  ordinary  scene  of  Christ's  work  in  the  last 
 days  :  comp.  Luke  xxi.  37,  but  specially  from  ver.  36,  com- 
 pared with  Mark  xiii.  1. 
 
 Ver.  20.  "  And  there  were  certain  Greeks  among  them  that 
 came  up  to  worship  at  the  feast." — It  has  been  already  shown, 
 on  ch.  vil.  35,  th^t" EXkrjve^;  never  means  Hellenistic  Jews,  but 
 always  Gentile  Greeks.  We  must  not  think  here  even  of  cir- 
 cumcised Gentiles :  these  by  their  circumcision  became  Jews. 
 Only  in  relation  to  born  Gentiles,  who  had  never  been  received 
 by  circumcision  into  the  community  of  Israel,  can  the  scruple 
 
 ^  Augustin  gives  us  here  the  right  view  :  Behold,  the  Jews  desire  to 
 kill  Him,  the  Gentiles  to  see  Him ;  but  they  also  were  Jews  who  cried, 
 Blessed  is  He  that  cometh  in  the  name  of  the  Lord.  Behold  those  of  the 
 circumcision,  and  those  of  the  uucircumcision,  like  two  bodies  from  dif- 
 ferent parts,  coming  together  and  uniting  with  the  kiss  of  peace  in  the  one 
 faith  of  Christ. 
 
100  CHAP.  VII.  1-XII.  oO. 
 
 of  Philip  and  Andrew  be  understood ;  and  only  to  them  was 
 appropriate  the  answer  of  Christ,  who  declined  the  desired 
 audience,  with  an  allusion  to  the  fact  that  the  wall  of  separa- 
 tion would  soon  by  His  death  be  done  away.  The  true  religion 
 exercised,  even  in  its  imperfect  Old  Testament  form,  a  mighty 
 influence  upon  those  deeper  intellects  in  the  Gentile  world 
 who  had  the  opportunity  of  becoming  more  closely  acquainted 
 with  it.  Solomon  says  in  the  prayer  at  the  dedication  of  the 
 Temple,  1  Kings  viii.  41  :  "  Moreover,  concerning  a  stranger, 
 that  is  not  of  Thy  people  Israel,  but  cometh  out  of  a  far  country 
 for  Thy  name's  sake  ;  (for  they  shall  hear  of  Thy  great  name, 
 and  of  Thy  strong  hand,  and  of  Thy  stretched-out  arm ;)  when 
 he  shall  come  and  pray  toward  this  house  :  hear  Thou  in  heaven 
 Thy  dwelling-place,  and  do  according  to  all  that  the  stranger 
 prayeth  unto  Thee  for ;  that  all  people  of  the  earth  may  know 
 Thy  name."  In  the  days  of  Christ,  the  number  of  those 
 Gentiles  who  were  inclined  to  the  Israehtish  religion  was  ren- 
 dered greater  than  ever  before  by  the  deeper  degeneracy  of  the 
 Gentile  religions  at  that  period.  They  appear  in  Acts  xiii.  43, 
 50,  xvi.  14,  xvii.  4,  17,  under  the  name  of  ae^o/xevoi,.  They 
 formed  an  admirable  bridge  for  the  passage  of  the  Gospel  from 
 the  Jews  to  the  Gentiles.  It  could  not  be  otherwise  than  that 
 these,"  God-fearers"  would  receive  the  tidings  of  the  a;reat  works 
 of  God  with  peculiar  delight  and  desire,  Mark  vii.  26,  ^v  Be  ?; 
 yvv7]  'EXkrjvU,  'Zvpoc^oLvUtaaa  tS  yevet,  shows  that  by  the 
 term  Greek,  Gentiles  generally  of  Greek  tongue  and  culture 
 were  meant.  Accordingly  we  need  not  assume  Greeks  from 
 Greece  to  be  signified  here.  That  they  applied  to  Philip  of 
 Galilee — by  Isaiah  called  Galilee  of  the  Gentiles — makes  it  pre- 
 sumable that  they  themselves  also  dwelt  there,  in  one  of  its 
 Greek  towns.  The  present  participle,  dva/3aiv6vTccv,  is  used,  as 
 in  ch.  ix.  8,  in  the  Hebrew  sense,  without  any  definition  of  time. 
 The  notion  of  habitually  going  need  not  be  introduced :  that 
 would  have  been  much  more  specifically  noted.  It  means 
 certain  from  among  the  number  of  those  who  then  had  come  up 
 to  the  feast.  The  words  "  to  worship  "  indicate  that  they  were 
 not  the  visitors  generally — so  that  ch.  xi.  55  might  be  brought 
 into  comparison — but  the  Gentile  visitors,  whose  participation  in 
 the  feast  was  limited  to  the  TrpoaKwetv,  attributed  to  them  by 
 Solomon,  and  who  had  not  received  the  sacramental  rite.     It  is 
 
CHAP.  XII.  21,  22.  101 
 
 said  of  the  chamberlain  of  Canclace,  in  Acts  viii.  27,  iXrjXvOec 
 7rpoaKvvi]<T(ov  et9  'lepovaaXrjfi. 
 
 Ver.  21.  "  The  same  came  therefore  to  Philip,  which  was  of 
 Bethsaida  of  Galilee,  and  desired  him,  saying,  Sir,  we  would 
 see  Jesus." — Why  did  they  apply  to  Philip  in  particular  ?  His 
 name  gives  the  answer ;  he  was  the  only  one  among  the  Apostles 
 who  bore  a  Greek  name.  Greek  name  and  Greek  culture  went 
 hand  in  hand.  Tlie  respectful  request  Kvpte  shows  that  they 
 were  deeply  concerned  for  the  attainment  of  their  desire. 
 Kvpte  is  certainly  the  word  which  Mary  uses  to  the  gardener ; 
 but  only  at  a  crisis  when  she  thought  that  she  was  dependent 
 on  him  in  a  matter  of  supreme  importance  to  her.  The  Greeks 
 did  not  venture  to  go  straight  to  Jesus  Himself ;  they  thought 
 they  must  take  hold  of  the  skirt  of  him  that  was  a  Jew,  Zech. 
 viii.  23,  like  the  Gentile  centurion  who  sent  the  elders  to  Jesus, 
 Luke  vii.  3.  Their  special  desire  had  reference  to  a  private 
 and  confidential  colloquy.  As  Jesus  taught  openly,  they  might 
 easily  enough  see  Him  in  passing.  But  that  kind  of  seeing 
 was  not  of  much  value  in  itself. 
 
 Ver.  22.  "  Philip  cometh  and  telleth  Andrew :  and  again 
 Andrew  and  Philip  tell  Jesus." — Philip  and  Andrew  are  united 
 also  in  ch.  i.  45.  That  Philip  did  not  venture  himself  to  go 
 directly  to  Jesus,  that  he  first  lays  the  matter  before  Andrew, 
 and  takes  counsel  with  him, — whence  many  expositors  have 
 deduced  the  doctrine  that  it  is  expedient  in  difficult  cases  to 
 resort  to  the  counsel  of  at  least  one  trusted  friend, — shows  that 
 there  was  a  For  and  Against  in  reference  to  the  wish  of  the 
 Greeks.  As  it  respects  the  For,  the  participation  of  the  Gen- 
 tiles in  the  kingdom  of  Christ  was  unanimously  attested  by  the 
 whole  of  prophecy.  Compare,  for  example,  Isa.  Iv.  4,  5  :  "  Be- 
 hold, I  have  given  Him  for  a  witness  to  the  people,  a  leader  and 
 commander  to  the  people.  Behold,  Thou  shalt  call  a  nation  that 
 Thou  knowest  not,  and  nations  that  knew  not  Thee  shall  run 
 unto  Thee ;"  with  ch.  Ivi.  3,  7.  According  to  the  first  personal 
 Messianic  announcement.  Gen.  xlix.  10,  the  people  should 
 gather  to  Shiloh.  Christ  had  predicted,  in  the  most  express 
 manner,  the  extension  of  His  kingdom  to  the  Gentiles,  ISIatt. 
 viii.  11 ;  He  had  held  intercourse  with  the  Gentile  centurion, 
 with  the  woman  of  Canaan,  and  with  the  Samaritan  woman. 
 But,   on   the   other  side,    Christ    had   communicated   to   His 
 
102  CHAP.  VII.  1-XII.  50. 
 
 Apostles  the  command  not  to  go  in  the  way  of  the  Gentiles, 
 and  to  enter  no  city  of  the  Samaritans,  Matt.  x.  5 ;  He 
 had  said  to  the  woman  of  Canaan,  "  I  am  not  sent  but  unto 
 the  lost  sheep  of  the  house  of  Israel ; "  He  had  just  before 
 the  present  occasion,  John  x.  16,  represented  the  calling  of 
 the  Gentiles  as  dependent  on  His  own  atoning  death,  and 
 thereby  indirectly  declared,  that  until  His  death  the  wall  of 
 partition  which  separated  Him  and  His  people  from  the  Gen- 
 tiles should  continue.  Thus  it  is  explained  why  Philip  first 
 talked  over  the  matter  with  Andrew,  and  that  the  two  proffer 
 no  specific  request  to  Jesus,  but  simply  report  to  him  the  wish 
 of  the  Greeks.  The  answer  of  Christ  was  a  negative.  The 
 exclusion  of  the  Gentiles  was,  until  His  atoning  death,  which 
 broke  down  the  middle  wall,  the  rule.  This  rule  admitted, 
 indeed,  certain  exceptions,  in  order  to  pretypify  the  calling  of 
 the  Gentiles.  But  this  design  had  been  already  subserved  ; 
 and  it  was  specially  befitting  that  the  separation  should  be 
 maintained  inviolate  now  at  the  end,  in  order  that  the  distinc- 
 tion between  the  two  ages  should  be  distinctly  marked. 
 
 It  does  not  follow  from  Philip's  consulting  Andrew  about  the 
 request,  that  the  latter  was  the  more  spiritually  advanced.  Yet 
 there  are  not  wanting  passages  in  which  Andrew  is  the  more 
 prominent :  Mark  iii.  18,  xiii.  3  ;  Acts  i.  13.  There  his  name 
 follows  those  of  the  three  most  confidential  disciples  of  Jesus. 
 
 Ver.  23.  "And  Jesus  answered  them,  saying,  The  hour  is 
 come,  that  the  Son  of  man  should  be  glorified." — "  To  them  " 
 — Andrew  and  Philip.  There  is  no  trace  of  any  reception  of 
 the  Greeks ;  on  the  contrary,  the  specific  reference  to  the 
 disciples,  in  ver.  26,  shows  that  Jesus  had  to  do  with  them 
 alone.  Moreover,  the  final  result  of  Christ's  answer  tends  to 
 this  one  thing,  that  the  time  for  the  admission  of  the  Gentiles 
 was  not  yet  come.  The  criticism  which  asserts  that  "it  is  quite 
 uncertain  here  whether  the  desire  of  the  Greeks  was  granted, 
 and  to  whom  the  address  was  uttered,"  falls  before  a  deeper 
 consideration  of  the  text. — "  The  hour  is  come :"  the  Gentiles 
 therefore  must  only  wait  a  little  longer  with  patience,  since, 
 with  the  glorification  of  the  Son  of  man,  their  union  with 
 Christ  was  immediately  connected  ;  and  this  is  the  issue  of  the 
 whole  discourse  in  ver.  32.  As  to  the  reason  why  our  Lord 
 here  and  elsewhere  speaks  not  of  the  time  generally,  but  of  the 
 
CHAP.  XII.  24.  lOo 
 
 hour,  Beza  makes  a  very  subtle  remark, — which  will,  by  the 
 way,  serve  to  show  with  what  propriety  the  Erlangen  critic 
 asserts  the  time  to  be  come  for  dismissing  the  old  veterans  in 
 exegesis  to  the  rest  they  have  merited  :  "  The  word  hour  seems 
 more  expressly  to  denote  that  providence  of  God  which  is  not 
 only  universal,  but  most  specific  in  all  things,  and  especially  in 
 the  mystery  of  our  salvation  :  that  providence  in  which  God 
 has  ordered  from  eternity,  not  only  the  years,  months,  days, 
 but  even  the  most  minute  portions  of  time  ;  and  certainly  this 
 doctrine,  as  it  is  most  sure,  and  harmonious  with  the  nature, 
 power,  and  will  of  God,  so  it  most  wonderfully  confirms  us  in 
 our  faith  and  patience,  in  opposition  to  distrust  and  impatience." 
 — "That  the  Son  of  man  may  be  glorified  "  has  its  commentary 
 in  ch.  xvii.  5,  "And  now  glorify  Thou  Me,  O  Father,  with  the 
 glory  which  I  had  with  Thee  before  the  world  was."  It  pertains 
 to  the  glorification  of  Christ,  according  to  what  follows,  that 
 He  has  much  fruit,  ver.  24,  that  He  draws  all  to  Himself,  ver. 
 32 ;  but  that  is  not  the  proper  essence  of  that  glorification, 
 which  is  rather  the  ceasing  of  the  servant  form,  and  His  recep- 
 tion into  the  glory  of  the  Father.  Bengel  gives  us  here  the 
 correct  view :  Apud  Patrem,  c.  xvii.  5,  et  in  conspectu  omnis 
 creaturse.  Christi  glorificatio  et  gentium  conversio  in  unum 
 tempus  incidit.^ 
 
 Ver.  24.  "  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you.  Except  a  corn  of 
 wheat  fall  into  the  ground  and  die,  it  abideth  alone  :  but  if  it 
 die,  it  bringeth  forth  much  fruit." — In  what  has  preceded  there 
 was  the  fact  that  the  glorification  of  Christ  was  immediately 
 at  hand ;  here  we  have  the  liour  of  its  accomplishment :  the 
 essential  way  and  means  to  it,  its  inevitable  foundation,  was 
 death.  But  because  this  was  contrary  to  all  natural  reason, 
 and  because  the  disciples'  minds  would  recoil  from  it,  and  all 
 the  more  as  Christ's  suifering  was  the  prophecy  of  their  own, 
 calling  upon  them  also  per  asjjera  ad  astra,  therefore  Christ 
 here  set  out  with  a  strong  preliminary  encouragement.  In  His 
 words  there  is  a  remarkable  blending  of  figure  and  fact.  The 
 spiritual  seedcorn  is  Christ.     That  His  death  was  absolutely 
 
 ^  Augustin :  "He  saw  the  Geutiles  who  should  believe  in  all  nations  after 
 His  passion  and  resurrection.  On  occasion,  therefore,  of  those  Greeks  who 
 desired  to  see  Him,  He  foreannounces  the  future  plenitude  of  the  Gentiles ; 
 and  foretells  that  the  hour  of  His  glorification  was  already  come." 
 
104  CHAP.  YII.  1-XII.  50. 
 
 necessary  in  order  to  His  bringing  forth  much  fruit,  and  draw- 
 ing all  to  Him,  ver.  32,  has  its  foundation  in  the  expiatory, 
 vicarious  significance  of  His  death:  comp.  ch.  x.  11,  15.  In 
 the  fact  of  the  atonement  accomplished  by  Christ,  the  whole 
 process  of  His  dominion  has  its  root.  Isa.  liii.  clearly  taught 
 that  doctrine,  especially  in  ver.  10  :  "  When  His  soul  hath 
 made  an  offering  for  sin.  He  shall  see  His  seed."  The  thought 
 is  this,  that  in  the  sacrificial  death  of  the  Servant  of  God 
 there  was  a  quickening  power ;  on  that  death  He  would  found 
 His  living  Church.  "It  bringeth  forth  much  fruit"  points 
 back  to  Isa.  xi.  1,  where  the  branch  out  of  the  root  of  the 
 stem  of  Jesse,  the  Messiah  appearing  primarily  in  humilia- 
 tion, should  spring  forth  and  bear  fruit ;  as  also  to  Ezek.  xvii. 
 23 :  "  In  the  mountain  of  the  height  of  Israel  will  I  plant  it 
 (the  tender  twig,  ver.  22)  ;  and  it  shall  bring  forth  boughs,  and 
 bear  fruit." 
 
 Yers.  25,  26.  "He  that  loveth  his  life  shall  lose  it ;  and  he 
 that  hateth  his  life  in  this  world  shall  keep  it  unto  life  eternal. 
 If  any  man  serve  Me,  let  him  follow  Me ;  and  where  I  am, 
 there  shall  also  My  servant  be  :  if  any  man  serve  Me,  him 
 will  My  Father  honour." — Following  Christ's  pattern,  all  His 
 servants  also  must  willingly  sacrifice  all  things  to  their  calling ; 
 and  thus  shall  they  all  share  His  glory.  The  two  verses  form 
 a  parenthesis.  All  the  Gospels  show  it  to  be  Christ's  manner 
 to  avail  Himself  of  any  opportunity  to  represent  Himself  as 
 the  pattern  of  His  disciples.  The  death  of  Christ  is  distin- 
 guished, on  the  one  side,  from  the  voluntary  offering  up  of  life 
 on  the  part  of  His  servants.  It  is  only  Christ's  death  that  has 
 consequences  for  all  the  world,  brings  forth  much  fruit,  and 
 effects  that  all  are  drawn  to  Him ;  the  results  of  tlie  death  of  His 
 servants  are  only  personal,  in  that  they  themselves  attain  eternal 
 life,  go  where  Christ  is,  and  are  honoured  by  His  Father.  But 
 in  the  most  general  and  comprehensive  fact — the  necessity  of 
 spiritual  self-sacrifice,  and  death  being  not  loss  but  gain — the 
 Lord  and  His  servants  are  alike.  And  it  is  only  this  general 
 aspect  of  the  matter  that  is  here  regarded.  Expressions 
 bordering  on  those  of  ver.  25  had  been  earlier  uttered  by  our 
 Lord,  according  to  the  other  Evangelists  ;  evidence  how  im- 
 portant it  was,  that  this  great  thought  should  be  deeply  and 
 indeliby  engraven  on  the  minds  of  the  disciples  :  comp.  Matt. 
 
CHAP.  XII.  25,  2G.  105 
 
 X.  25,  26,  39;  Luke  xlv.  26.— "He  that  lovetli  his  life,"  his 
 soul :  that  is  equivalent  to  "  He  that  loveth  his  own  individual 
 existence,"  himself.  The  soul  is  not  here  used,  as  in  Matt.  x. 
 28,  Luke  xii.  22,  in  antithesis  to  the  body ;  but  it  represents 
 the  whole  person.  In  Matt.  xvi.  24  we  read,  airapvqadadco 
 eavTov,  and  then  follows,  "  for  he  that  will  save  his  soul,"  etc. 
 Thus  the  soul  is  there  also  paralleled  with  the  self.  That  in 
 Luke  xiv.  2(>  a  man's  own  soul  is  the  man  himself,  is  plain 
 from  the  juxtaposition  of  these  persons  throughout,  the  father, 
 the  mother,  etc.  In  the  Old  Testament  the  soul  is  frequently 
 used  for  the  whole  personality  :  e.g.  in  Gen.  xiv.  21,  "  Give  me 
 the  persons  (the  souls),  and  take  the  goods  to  thyself;"  Ex.  i. 
 5  :  comp.  Acts  ii.  41.  The  ground  of  this  phraseology  is  to  be 
 found  generally  in  the  fact  that  the  soul,  as  the  breath  of  God, 
 Gen.  ii.  7,  the  "honour,"  Gen.  xlix.  6,  is  the  better  part  of 
 man,  and  hence  well  fitted  to  represent  the  man.  But  here 
 there  is  probably  a  specific  reason  for  designating  the  whole 
 person  as  the  soul,  in  the  fact  that  the  subject  here  is  the  pre- 
 servation or  the  loss  of  the  life ;  now  the  soul  and  the  life  are 
 closely  allied  in  Scriptural  phraseology. — The  position  con- 
 templated is  that  in  which  the  soul  or  the  individual  existence, 
 and  the  calling  or  duty  assigned  of  God,  are  opposed  to  each 
 other.  Now  the  first  and  chief  commandment,  to  love  God 
 with  all  the  soul,  excludes  all  love  to  the  individual  I ;  the  in- 
 dividual I,  so  far  as  it  places  itself  in  opposition  to  the  vocation, 
 must  be  hated.^  This  hatred,  directed  not  against  the  soul  in 
 itself,  but  against  its  undue  claims,  is  at  the  same  time  the 
 truest  love  to  our  own  soul  and  life.  It  assures  the  soul  of  a 
 secure  place  there  where  her  proper  home  is  alone  to  be  sought. 
 Miaecv  means  simply  hate ;  to  love  less  it  never  means,  either 
 here  or  elsewhere  in  the  Scripture.  The  father  and  mother, 
 and  so  on,  must,  according  to  Luke  xiv.,  when  they  come  into 
 conflict  with  our  relation  to  Christ,  not  merely  be  less  loved, 
 but  be  hated  and  energetically  cast  away.  "In  this  world," 
 which  is  so  poor  in  true  professions,  which  can  give  and  take 
 
 ^  Augustia  :  When,  therefore,  it  comes  to  this,  that  either  we  must 
 oppose  the  precept  of  God  or  cease  to  live,  and  a  man  is  forced  to  choose 
 one  of  the  two  courses,  under  the  pressure  of  persecution, — then  he  must 
 prefer  to  die  witii  God's  favour  than  to  live  with  His  displeasure  ;  lie  must 
 hate  his  soul  in  this  life,  that  he  may  preserve  it  unto  life  eternal. 
 
106  CHAP   YII.  1-XII.  50. 
 
 away  so  little,  and  to  give  up  for  which  the  future  world  with 
 that  eternal  life  which  alone  is  worthy  of  the  name  of  life,  is 
 the  greatest  of  all  follies. 
 
 In  ver.  36  we  have  first,  in  the  words,  "If  any  man  serve 
 Me,  let  him  follow  Me,"  the  duty  which  is  to  be  discharged  by 
 His  servants  ;  then  the  reward.  In  a  certain  sense,  there  is  a 
 serving  of  Christ  predicable  of  the  laity.  But  that  official  ser- 
 vice is  here  meant,  appears  first  from  the  circumstance  that  the 
 address  is  directed  to  the  special  and  peculiar  servants  of  God 
 in  His  kingdom ;  but  still  more  clearly,  in  the  second  place, 
 from  the  succeeding  words,  "  There  shall  also  My  servant  be." 
 AidKovo<i  always  denotes  an  official  position :  comp.  Matt.  xxii. 
 13  ;  2  Cor.  iii.  6,  vi.  4.  Grotius  rightly  remarks  :  "  He  here 
 silently  terms  Himself  a  King  who  has  many  servants,  for  the 
 administration  of  the  things  of  His  kingdom."  "  Let  him  follow 
 Me  :"  in  the  way  of  self-denial  and  consecration  of  life.^  Matt. 
 X.  38  gives  us  a  commentary  on  i/jbol  aKoXovdeiro} :  "  AVhoso 
 taketh  not  up  his  cross  and  followeth  Me,  is  not  worthy  of 
 Me  ; "  xvi.  24,  "  If  any  man  will  follow  Me,  let  him  deny 
 himself,  and  take  up  his  cross  and  follow  Me,"  where  ottlctq) 
 fiov  iXdelv  corresponds  to  the  SiaKoveiv  here.  Beneath  this 
 challenge,  "  Let  him  follow  Me,"  there  lies  a  concealed  promise. 
 It  is  taken  for  granted  that  the  way  of  the  servants,  no  less 
 than  the  way  of  their  Master,  is  a  way  of  the  cross,  to  the 
 voluntary  assumption  of  which  cross  the  dKoXovOeiTw  is  a  chal- 
 lenge. In  this  aspect  of  it,  Mark  x.  38,  39,  is  parallel,  where 
 Jesus  foreannounces  to  the  sons  of  Zebedee  that  they  will 
 drink  the  cup  which  He  drank,  and  be  baptized  with  the  bap- 
 tism with  which  He  was  baptized. — "  And  where  I  am,  there 
 shall  also  My  servant  be  :"  the  commentary  on  this  is  ch.  xiv. 
 2,  3,  xvii.  24.  Christ  takes  His  servants  up  into  those  heavenly 
 dwellings  whither  He  had  gone  before  to  prepare  their  place. 
 As  soon  as  they  make  their  exit  from  this  miserable  life,  they 
 come  to  Him  in  Paradise,  Luke  xxiii.  43,  into  the  condition  of 
 heavenly  blessedness,  2  Cor.  xii.  4  :  comp.  ver.  2.  Of  any 
 intermediate  condition,  or  Hades-life,  the  Lord  knows  nothing : 
 comp.  2  Cor.  v.  8 ;  Phil.  i.  23. 
 
 ^  Augustin  :  What  is  the  following  Him  but  the  imitating  Him  ?  For 
 Christ  hath  suffered  for  us,  says  the  Apostle  Peter,  leaving  us  an  example" 
 that  we  might  follow  His  steps. 
 
CHAP.  XII.  27.  107 
 
 Ver.  27.  This  saying  of  our  Lord  is  connected  with  ver.  24. 
 In  very  deed,  the  dying  of  the  seedcorn  is  not  so  light  a  matter. 
 The  soul  of  our  Lord  in  the  prospect  of  it  was  deeply  troubled. 
 But  it  must  be  so ;  it  could  not  be  otherwise.  It  was  inseparably 
 bound  up  with  the  great  work  that  Christ  was  bound  to  accom- 
 plish. This  trouble  and  this  death,  therefore,  were  the  way  to 
 glorification.  The  words  t)  "^vyr]  fiov  TerdpaKrai  are  taken 
 from  Ps.  xlii.  6,  Ivarl  Treptkv'jro'i  el  i)  ^Irv^i]  fxov  koX  IvaTi  crvv- 
 rapd(Taei<i  fxe,  Why  art  thou  disquieted  ?  ver.  7  ;  6  0eo<?  f^ov 
 7rpo<i  i/xavTov  rj  'yfrv^t]  fiov  erapd'^Ori  :  comp.  ver.  12  ;  Ps.  xliii.  5. 
 To  the  same  psalm,  the  expression  of  David's  deepest  lamenta- 
 tion in  his  misery,  the  Lord  also  refers  in  Matt.  xxvi.  38,  Mark 
 xiv.  34.  We  obtain  anything  like  insight  into  the  nature  and 
 ground  of  this  trouble  of  the  Redeemer,  only  when  we  have 
 obtained  a  right  perception  of  the  significance  of  His  death. 
 If  the  death  of  Christ  was  merely  an  "  event"  or  "  calamity" 
 which  befell  Him  in  the  way  of  His  vocation,  He  would  have 
 gone  to  encounter  it  with  cheerful  confidence.  Otherwise  He 
 would  have  stood  on  a  lower  level  than  His  own  martyrs, — 
 Ignatius,  for  example,  who  wrote  in  the  prospect  of  death,  "  It 
 is  glorious  to  give  up  the  world  to  go  to  God,  that  I  may  have 
 the  sight  of  His  face  ;  let  me  be  the  food  of  beasts,  so  I  may 
 find  my  God.  I  am  God's  corn  ;  I  shall  be  crushed  by  the 
 teeth  of  wild  beasts,  that  I  may  become  the  pure  bread  of 
 Christ."  But  that  Christ's  death  was  something  altogether 
 different  from  a  death  of  self-sacrifice  in  the  ordinary  sense,  is 
 shown  by  ver.  24,  according  to  which  the  full  power  for  the 
 extension  of  His  kingdom  has  its  root  in  the  death  of  Christ ; 
 and  vers.  31,  32,  according  to  which  the  Redeemer  conquered, 
 by  His  death,  the  prince  of  this  world,  and  draws  all  men  to 
 Himself,  abolishes  the  wall  of  partition  which  had  hitherto  ex- 
 cluded the  Gentiles  from  the  kingdom  of  God.  The  root  and 
 centre  of  the  work  of  Christ  is  everywhere  the  vicarious  expia- 
 tion accomplished  by  His  death  ;  and  with  this  was  inseparably 
 connected  His  bearing  for  us  the  wrath  of  God.  John  describes 
 Him  in  ch.  i.  29  as  the  Lamb  of  God  who  taketh  away  the 
 sin  of  the  world.  In  ch.  iii.  14  Christ  sets  Himself  forth  as 
 the  antitype  of  the  serpent  in  the  wilderness,  inasmuch  as  He 
 assumed  unto  Himself  the  most  deadly  of  all  deadly  ejiergies, 
 sin,  and  vicariously  made  atonement  for  it.     In  ch.  x.  11  seq. 
 
108  ClIAP.  VII    l-XII.  50. 
 
 our  Lord  refers  to  Isa.  liii.  10,  where  the  Servant  of  God  is 
 said  by  His  death  to  make  satisfaction.  According  to  Matt.  xx. 
 28,  Jesus  gives  His  soul  a  ransom  for  many ;  He  presents  for 
 the  sins  of  the  human  race,  which  could  not  without  satisfaction 
 be  foro;iven,  a  satisfaction  which  the  sinners  themselves  could 
 never  have  given,  and  thus  effects  and  provides  for  the  justi- 
 fication of  sinners  before  God.  God  made  Christ  sin  for  us, 
 2  Cor.  V.  21 ;  He  sent  Him  as  a  sin-offering,  Rom.  viii.  3  ;  He 
 is  the  propitiation  for  our  sins,  Rom.  iii.  25. 
 
 We  have  in  this  passage  the  prelude  to  the  conflict  of  Jesus 
 in  Gethsemane.  The  trouble  here,  and  the  trouble  there,  form 
 a  unity  :  one  key  unlocks  both.  But  we  have  elsewhere  re- 
 marked, with  reference  to  that  fact :  "  The  problem  to  be  solved 
 is  this,  not  how  this  bitter  anguish  generally,  and  specifically 
 this  anguish  as  coming  just  before  His  death,  should  lay  hold 
 of  the  Redeemer,  but  how  this  anguish  should  declare  itself  to 
 be  the  supreme  degree  of  the  fear  of  death  :  the  Lord  prays  for 
 the  removal  of  this  fear  of  death ;  the  fear  of  death  extorts  from 
 •Him  the  bloody  sweat.  Nothing  of  this  kind  is  foimd  recur- 
 ring in  the  death  of  any  Christian  martyr  or  confessor.  And 
 yet  this  very  circumstance  makes  the  infinite  difference  between 
 the  Redeemer  and  His  servants.  The  sting  of  death  is  sin. 
 The  more  free  man  is  from  sin,  the  sweeter  to  him  is  death,  as 
 the  way  to  the  Father. — The  only  solution  of  this  is  the  vicarious 
 significance  of  the  sufferings  and  death  of  Jesus.  If  our  chas- 
 tisement was  upon  Him  in  order  that  we  might  have  peace, 
 then  in  Him  must  be  concentrated  all  the  horror  of  death.  He 
 bore  the  sin  of  the  world,  and  the  wages  of  that  sin  was  death. 
 And  death,  therefore,  must  to  Him  assume  its  most  frightful 
 form.  The  physical  suffering  was  nothing  in  relation  to  this 
 immeasurable  suffering  of  soul  which  -impended  over  the  Re- 
 deemer, and  the  full  greatness  and  depth  of  which  He  clearly 
 perceived.  Therefore,  in  Heb.  v.  7,  a  fear  is  described  as  that 
 which  pressed  with  such  awful  weight  upon  our  Lord.  When 
 God  freed  Him  from  that,  He  saved  Him  from  death.  Thus, 
 when  the  suffering  of  Christ  is  apprehended  as  vicarious,  and 
 accordingly  as  voluntary,  all  the  accompanying  circumstances  are 
 easily  enough  understood.  Then  we  can  understand  the  sudden 
 transition  in  tone  and  feeling  from  that  of  the  high-priestly  prayer 
 to  that  of  the  conflict  in  Gethsemane.    With  equal  freedom  the 
 
CHAP,  XII.  27.     •  109 
 
 Redeemer  responded  here  to  the  one  and  there  to  the  other  side 
 of  His  destiny.  Then  also  we  see  how  it  was  that  the  Redeemer, 
 far  from  being  surprised  by  the  agony  or  overpowered  by  its 
 prospect,  provided  everything  with  reference  to  it,  and  took  the 
 most  advanced  disciples  with  Him,  that  they  might  be  witnesses 
 of  His  infirmity,  and  also  of  that  which  He  effected  for  us." 
 Thus  Augustin  remarks  with  perfect  correctness :  "  Christ's 
 perturbation  tranquillizes  us,  and  His  infirmity  makes  us  firm  ;" 
 and  Beza :  "  The  cause  of  this,  the  most  awful  and  horrible 
 distress  in  the  mind  of  Christ,  was  the  sense  of  the  Divine 
 wrath,  than  which  nothing  more  terrible  can  be  conceived." 
 If  the  perturbation  had  had  no  actual  significance,  if  it  had 
 been  merely  a  variation  of  Aveakness,  Jesus  would  not  have 
 given  it  such  express  and  careful  utterance. 
 
 Ti  etTTO)  is  the  expression  of  consideration,  and  intimates  that 
 the  matter  had  two  aspects ;  that  what  was  recommended  as 
 desirable  on  the  one  hand,  was  on  the  other  very  doubtful : 
 comp.  Matt.  xxi.  25,  26  ;  1  Cor.  xi.  22.  The  "  What  shall  I 
 say?"  standing  first,  softens  the  following  "Father,  save  Me 
 from  this  hour,"  shows  that  it  was  only  under  one  aspect  that 
 the  deliverance  was  desired,  and  that  not  without  hesitation, 
 thus  paving  the  way  for  the  following  retractation.  There  is 
 no  reason  for  understanding  the  "  Father,  save  Me  from  this 
 hour"  interrogatively.  Stier.very  justly  opposes  this  by  saying, 
 "  To  our  feeling  there  is  something  discordant,  at  this  time  of 
 profound  spiritual  emotion,  in  a  prayer  which  just  questions. 
 Shall  I  ask  this  request?"  There  is  nothing  inappropriate  in 
 the  fact,  that  in  the  midst  of  this  circumscribing  agony,  the 
 anguish  of  His  soul  expressed  itself  in  an  actual  supplication. 
 This  is  the  most  obvious  interpretation  ;  and  were  it  otherwise 
 doubtful,  it  would  be  coiifirmed  by  Matt.  xxvi.  39,  where  Jesus 
 prays  that  the  cup  might  pass  away  from  Him.  And  Heb,  v.  7 
 is  decisive  against  the  interrogatory  theory  :  there  we  read  of 
 strong  crying  and  tears  being  offered  to  Him  who  was  able  to 
 save  Him  from  death.  "  But  to  this  end  came  I  unto  this  hour :" 
 hia  TOVTo,  that  My  soul  might  be  troubled.  The  anguish  which 
 evoked  this  supplication  of  Jesus,  "  Save  ISIe  from  this  hour," 
 was  the  very  reason  why  this  hour,  the  time  of  anguish,  came 
 upon  Him.  It  was  the  basis  of  the  work  of  redemption.  Christ 
 must  endure  horror,  that  we  might  be  delivered  from  horror. 
 
110  GHAP.  VII.  1-XII.  50. 
 
 That  which  constituted  the  design  for  which  the  hour  was  ap- 
 pointed, could  not  be  the  occasion  for  the  prayer  that  it  should 
 come  to  an  end.  The  Sea  tovto  is  important,  because  it  exhibits 
 the  inmost  connection  between  the  agony  of  Christ  and  His 
 atoning  work.  Those  who  explain  the  trembling  after  the 
 manner  of  Liicke, — "  as  a  sacred  law  of  nature  :  death  has  a 
 horror  for  man,  especially  death  as  coming  upon  young  and  fresh 
 life," — have  to  make  their  very  beginning  with  the  Bia  tovto. — 
 The  petition,  "  Father,  glorify  Thy  name,"  is  fully  apprehended 
 when  we  regard  it  as  the  counterpart  of  the  request,  "  Save 
 Me  from  this  hour,"  as  well  as  in  connection  with  "  Therefore 
 came  I  unto  this  hour."  Glorify  Thy  name  by  causing  that 
 My  soul-anguish  and  My  death  be  not  in  vain,  but  that  it  serve 
 to  My  own  glorification,  the  salvation  of  the  world,  and  the 
 ejvtension  of  Thy  kingdom.  Let  Me  suffer  what  I  must  suffer 
 — let  Me  tremble  and  agonize,  so  that  only  this  fruit  may 
 finally  come  from  My  sufferings.  Since  this  request  was  a 
 definite  and  absolute  one,  it  has  for  its  foundation  the  assur- 
 ance that  the  Lord  loould  in  this  manner  glorify  His  name. 
 The  deepest  depth  of  this  suffering  is  for  Christ  the  way  to 
 glorification. 
 
 Ver.  28.  "  Father,  glorify  Thy  name.  Then  came  there  a 
 voice  from  heaven,  saying,  I  have  both  glorified  it,  and  will 
 glorif}'-  it  again." — God  glorified  His  name  by  the  works  which 
 Christ  accomplished  by  His  power,  the  resurrection  of  Lazarus 
 being  the  last ;  and  He  would  further  glorify  His  name  by 
 prospering  the  suffering  and  death  of  Christ  to  the  end  of  His 
 glorification,  and  the  spread  of  the  kingdom  of  God  over  the 
 whole  earth.  According  to  ver.  29,  the  people  heard  thunder  ; 
 and  the  question  rises,  whether  the  voice  from  heaven  here  was 
 identical  with  the  thunder,  or  whether  there  was  some  articulate 
 voice  distinct  from  the  thunder.  We  decide  in  favour  of  the 
 former  view.  There  is  no  reason  for  assuming  any  voice  shaped 
 into  words.  Among  the  concomitants  of  the  sound,  immediately 
 after  "  Glorify  Thy  name,"  the  thunder  did  expressly  say  what 
 John  gives  as  its  meaning,  in  connection  with  which  it  is  not 
 accidental,  that  after  ovpavov  the  Xeyovaa  is  wanting.  1  Sam. 
 xii.  presents  the  nearest  analogy.  There  we  have  not  a  voice 
 of  the  Lord  separated  from  the  thunder,  but  the  thunder  itself, 
 following  at  an  unusual  time ;  and  in  immediate  connection  with 
 
CHAP.  XII.  28.  Ill 
 
 the  words  of  Samuel  is  the  voice  of  the  Lord.  In  ver.  18  of 
 that  chapter  we  read,  "  So  Samuel  called  unto  the  Lord,  and 
 the  Lord  gave  thunder  (voices)  and  rain  that  day  ;  and  all  the 
 people  greatly  feared  the  Lord  and  Samuel,"  To  describe 
 thunder  as  the  voice  of  the  Lord,  was  only  following  the  example 
 of  the  Old  Testament.  Seven  times  it  is  so  termed  in  one 
 Psalm,  Ps.  xxix.  In  Job  xxxvii.  4  we  read,  "  He  thundereth 
 with  the  voice ;"  and  in  Ps.  xviii.  13,  "  The  Lord  also  thun- 
 dered in  the  heavens,  and  the  Highest  gave  His  voice  :"  comp. 
 also  1  Sam.  xii.  17  ;  Ex.  ix.  23.  If  John  had  intended  that 
 we  should  distinguish  clearly  between  the  thunder  and  the 
 voice,  he  would  have  recorded  both  in  separate  terms.  But 
 there  is  no  trace  of  any  such  distinction.  On  the  contrary, 
 John  points  expressly  to  the  fact,  thafe  the  thunder  and  the  voice 
 were  one  and  identical.  He  records  that  the  multitude  heard 
 the  voice,  and  said  that  it  thundered.  Thus  the  people  recog- 
 nised the  voice  itself  as  thunder.  There  is  not  the  slightest 
 hint  that  the  people  heard  less  than  what  took  place  ;  that  on 
 account  of  the  dulness  of  their  ears  they  received  the  impres- 
 sion only  of  a  rumbling  noise,  but  did  not  apprehend  the  articu- 
 late voice.  The  multitude  heard  no  articulate  voice  at  all. 
 Accordingly  our  Lord  speaks,  with  allusion  to  what  they  had 
 heard,  of  a  voice,  and  exhorts  them  to  lay  that  voice  to  heart. 
 Thus  the  thunder  spoke,  even  to  those  who  heard  nothing 
 besides  the  thunder.  John  himself  intimates  that  only  thunder 
 was  there,  when  he  uses  the  eho^aaa  and  So^daco,  words  used 
 with  allusion  to  thunder,  and  thunder  as  repeated,  r\)h)p.  The 
 name,  son  of  thunder,  given  by  Jesus  to  John,  Mark  iii.  17, 
 assumes  and  was  based  upon  a  sense  of  the  symbolical  language 
 of  nature.  It  is  natural  that  the  son  of  thunder  should  assign 
 its  true  significance  to  the  thunder,  and  that  he  should  regard 
 it  less  prosaically  than,  for  instance,  Stier,  who  remarks,  "  Mere 
 thunder  as  the  voice  of  the  Father  over  His  Son,  were  some- 
 thing altogether  unworthy  :  with  him  who  does  not  feel  that, 
 we  have  no  disposition  to  argue."  Certainly  we  do  find  in 
 Scripture  heavenly  voices  without  thunder :  comp.  1  Sam.  iii. ; 
 Matt.  iii.  17,  xvii.  5  ;  Acts  ix.  4,  xxii.  7.  But  we  cannot  find 
 there  any  satisfactory  instance  of  a  connection  between  thunder 
 and  the  articulated  voice  of  God.  In  Ex.  xix.  19,  we  read  that 
 Moses  spoke,  and  God  answered  with  His  voice ;  but  according 
 
112  CHAP.  VII.  1-XII.  50. 
 
 to  ver.  16,  that  voice  was  thunder;  for  the  voices  and  the  light- 
 nings are  there  placed  in  juxtaposition.  The  idea  of  an  articu- 
 late voice  of  God  combined  with  the  thunder  at  the  giving  of 
 the  law  (prsemissa  tonitrua,  quas  attentionem  quasi  excitabant 
 et  deinceps  articulatge  voces),  rests  simply  upon  the  expositor's 
 caprice.  The  articulate  voice  there  belongs  to  Moses  alone,  who 
 comes  forward  as  the  interpreter  of  God,  and  is  legitimated  as 
 such  by  the  thunder.  What  Moses,  according  to  Ex.  xix.  25, 
 uttered,  could  only  have  been  the  same  ten  commandments  which, 
 in  ch.  XX.  1,  are  referred  back  to  God,  who  sanctioned  Moses,  as 
 His  speaker  and  representative,  by  the  "  voices"  of  thunder. 
 In  Ex.  XX.  11),  the  people  ask  that  Moses  might  speak  to  them 
 alone,  and  not,  as  aforetime,  with  the  accompaniment  of  the 
 terrifying  thunder-speech -of  God.  True  that  in  Deut.  v.  4  we 
 read,  "  The  Lord  talked  to  you  face  to  face  in  the  mount,  out 
 of  the  midst  of  the  fire."  But  how  that  is  to  be  understood,  that 
 the  Lord  spoke  only  by  the  "  voices"  of  thunder,  while  the 
 words  spoken  were  those  of  Moses,  is  plainly  declared  in  ver.  5  : 
 "  I  stood  between  the  Lord  and  you  at  that  time,  to  show  you 
 the  word  of  the  Lord,  saying."  That  Moses  with  reference  to 
 the  ten  commandments  acted  the  part  of  an  interpi'eter,  is  shown 
 by  the  "  saying,"  which  is  immediately  followed  by  these  ten 
 commandments.  In  Rev.  x.  4,  the  voices  of  thunder  are  intro- 
 duced with  specific  meanings.  But  here  also  we  may  say  there 
 is  a  specific  meaning  :  it  is  marked  by  the  circumstances  under 
 which  the  thunder  is  introduced.  If  in  that  passage  of  the 
 Apocalypse  the  thunder  itself  seems  to  speak,  that  belongs  only 
 to  the  vision.  In  all  other  Apocalyptic  passages  the  thunder 
 itself  is  the  voice  of  God  :  ch.  iv.  5,  viii.  5,  xi.  19,  xvi.  18. 
 Throughout  the  whole  of  Scripture  there  does  not  occur  a  single 
 instance  in  which  articulate  speech  is  introduced,  concealed 
 beneath  the  thunder. — Thunder  is  in  its  nature,  and  the  im- 
 pression it  produces  upon  every  human  heart,  not  merely  in 
 general  a  revelation  of  the  glory  of  God,  but  a  revelation  of  a 
 threatening  and  terrifying  character.  Dread  is  the  sentiment 
 which  always  responds  to  it.  This  was  the  character  it  bore  at 
 the  giving  of  the  law.  It  proclaimed  to  tlie  people  that  their 
 God  was  a  jealous  God,  who  would  inexorably  visit  their  sins 
 upon  them.  It  presented  to  them  the  alternative  between 
 obedience  and  judgment ;    and  it  pointed .  to  the  great  truth 
 
CHAP.  XII.  29.  113 
 
 that  whosoever  should  break  the  law  must  die.  So  also  in  Ps. 
 xviii.  and  xxix.  According  to  Ps.  xxix.  7,  the  voice  of  the  Lord 
 divides  with  flames  of  fire  ;  the  thunder  appears  to  be  the  sym- 
 bolical threatening  to  the  world,  and  therefore  at  the  same  time 
 a  symbolical  promise  to  the  Church  of  God  oppressed  by  the 
 world.  In  the  Apocalypse,  which  it  is  obviously  natural  to 
 compare  with  the  Gospel  of  John,  the  thunder  always  has  a 
 polemical  character  ;  it  has  always  a  reference  to  terrible  judg- 
 ments, whether  these  are  only  threatened  as  to  come,  or  actually 
 accomplished :  comp.  ch.  iv.  5,  viii.  5,  x.  3,  xi.  19,  xvi.  18.  That 
 here  also  the  "  voice"  has  not  only  an  imposing,  but  also  a 
 threatening  character;  that  it  aims  at  the  glorification  of  God's 
 name  by  the  subversion  of  the  enemies  of  God  and  His  Christ, 
 is  shown  by  ver.  31,  where  the  thunder  is  introduced  as  a  pre- 
 monition of  judgment  upon  this  world  and  its  prince. 
 
 Vers.  29  and  30  form  an  interlude.  But  Jesus  imme- 
 diately restores  the  connection.  While  in  vers.  31  and  32  He 
 more  fully  develops  the  meaning  of  the  thunder.  He  comes  to 
 the  thought  which  forms  the  direct  answer  to  Philip  and  An- 
 drew, the  indirect  answer  to  the  Greeks :  that  the  time  was  at 
 hand  when  there  should  be  closer  relations  with  the  Gentiles. 
 That  time,  however,  not  being  actually  come,  the  wishes  of 
 the  Greeks  could  not  be  granted.  Had  not  the  intervening 
 words  of  the  people  been  spoken,  Jesus  would  at  once  have 
 begun  with  ver.  31.  Thus  the  close  of  the  answer  to  the 
 Gentiles  is  formally  and  primarily  a  part  of  the  answer  to  the 
 people. 
 
 Ver.  29.  "  The  people  therefore  that  stood  by,  and  heard  it, 
 said  that  it  thundered :  others  said.  An  angel  spake  to  him." — 
 The  people  regarded  at  first  only  the  material  phenomenon.  But 
 what  this  did  not  deny — under  the  circumstances  of  the  occa- 
 sion, the  force  of  which,  as  at  the  raising  of  Lazarus,  must  have 
 excited  and  carried  away  the  minds  of  all,  what  it  could  not 
 have  denied — the  deep  significance  of  the  material  phenomenon, 
 some  individuals  expressly  declared  in  words,  thus  interpreting 
 the  general  feeling  of  all.  (Doubtless  the  saying  "  it  thunders" 
 was  spoken  not  without  agitation ;  and  nothing  would  be  more 
 perverse  than  to  interpret  them  as  speaking  of  common  tliun- 
 (der.  In  the  "  angel"  the  Divine  energy  and  presence  is  em- 
 bodied to  them  :  comp.  on  ch.  v.  4.  They  think  that  God  gave 
 VOL.  II.  n 
 
114  CHAP.  VII.  1-XII.  50. 
 
 Christ  His  testimony  by  the  thunder,  and  thus  assured  Him  of 
 the  answer  to  His  prayer.^ 
 
 Ver.  30.  "  Jesus  answered  and  said,  This  voice  came  not 
 because  of  Me,  but  for  your  sakes." — The  answer  of  our  Lord 
 has  regard  to  the  avTM,  spake  to  Him.  He  points  them  to  the 
 fact  that  He,  in  the  internal  relation  in  which  He  stood  to  the 
 Father,  needed  no  such  external  token ;  and  that  they  should 
 think  rather  of  themselves.  Thunder  is  a  solemn  sign  of  the 
 time :  woe  to  him  who  does  not  understand  and  lay  to  heart  this 
 sign.  Its  voice  announces  a  judgment :  he  who  does  not  receive 
 its  warning  will,  in  that  judgment,  fall.  That  which  is  in  ver. 
 31  only  hinted,  finds  its  more  full  explanation,  so  far  as  it 
 referred  to  the  Jews,  in  vers.  35,  36,  44-50. 
 
 Ver.  31.  "  Now  is  the  judgment  of  this  world :  now  shall 
 the  prince  of  this  world  be  cast  out." — We  have  in  ver.  31  the 
 exposition  of  the  voice's  meaning.  It  announces  that  there  is 
 to  be  a  judgment  held  upon  this  world.  This  judgment  pro- 
 ceeds primarily  on  the  prince  of  this  world ;  but  that  it  does 
 not  end  there — that  it  at  the  same  time  proceeds  upon  those 
 who  are  one  with  him  in  spirit  and  act^-those  who  are  of  their 
 father  the  devil,  viii.  44 — is  plain  from  the  fact  that,  before  the 
 prince  of  the  world,  the  world  itself  is  mentioned  as  the  object 
 of  judgment  (Stier  is  manifestly  wrong :  "  The  ungodly  world 
 is  itself  in  a  certain  sense  judged  in  its  prince,  when  it  is  saved'^)  ; 
 more  especially  from  ver.  30,  which  warns  the  Jews  against 
 falling  in  the  judgment ;  and  vers.  35—44  seq.  Ver.  32  shows 
 that  the  judgment  has  its  root  in  the  death  of  Christ.  There 
 Christ  represents  Himself  as,  in  consequence  of  His  death, 
 drawing  all  men  to  Him ;  but  this  positive  energy  must  have 
 the  negative  one  of  judgment  as  its  inseparable  concomitant. 
 Christ  cannot  draw  to  Himself  without  at  once  condemning 
 the  prince  to  whom  they  had  previously  belonged,  and  who  will 
 not  let  them  go  unless  he  is  judged  and  stripped  of  his  power, 
 and  at  the  same  time  themselves  whom  He  receives,  so  far  as 
 
 ^  In  what  embarrassments  expositors  are  involved  who  assume  a  distinc- 
 tion between  the  thunder  and  the  voice  of  God,  may  be  seen  in  Lampe's 
 remark  on  this  verse :  "It  cannot  without  difficulty  be  decided  whether  the 
 people  really  heard  thunder  distinct  from  articulate  voice,  and  without  any 
 such  voice,  or  whether  they  called  the  sound  of  the  voice,  as  it  came  to 
 their  ears,  by  the  name  of  thunder." 
 
CHAP.  XII.  31.  115 
 
 their  indwelling  sin  is  concerned,  the  extirpation  of  which  in 
 judgment  is  the  condition  of  their  heing  drawn  to  Christ,  to 
 whom  they  could  never  come  in  the  spotted  garment  of  the 
 flesh.     Judgment  and  salvation  go  hand  in  hand. 
 
 The  death  of  Christ  has  a  condemnincr  simiificance  in  two 
 ways.  First,  as  to  those  who  receive  it  in  faith :  a  condemning 
 sword  pierces  their  soul ;  the  pain  of  penitence  is  the  prerequi- 
 site of  faith ;  the  condemnation  of  their  sin,  which  was  accom- 
 plished upon  the  cross,  approve^  its  saving  power  in  them  only 
 Avhen  they  have  gone  through  this  severe  discipline.  And  then 
 the  death  of  Christ  has  its  judicial  significance  for  those  who 
 reject  it  in  unbelief.  The  destruction  of  Jerusalem  had  its  root 
 in  the  death  of  Christ :  the  blood  of  the  Redeemer  was  upon 
 them  and  their  children.  He  who  counts  the  blood  of  the  cove- 
 nant an  unholy  thing,  Heb.  x.  29,  is  doomed  to  eternal  con- 
 demnation.— Ps.  xcvii.  exhibited  the  manifestation  of  Christ 
 under  the  judicial  point  of  view.  "  The  appearance  of  Christ 
 had  a  judicial  significance  also  for  those  among  the  Gentiles 
 who  obeyed  the  Gospel :  the  nothingness  of  their  past  existence 
 was  thereby  made  manifest ;  and  profound  shame  took  the  place 
 of  the  pride  with  which  they  had  despised  Zion.  Among  those 
 who  would  not  acknowledge  this  '  The  Lord  reigneth,'  that 
 side  of  the  judgment  which  is  here  prominent  came  into  force." 
 — "  The  prince  of  this  world : "  thus  Satan  is  named  only  in 
 the  last  discourses  of  Jesus  in  John ;  first  here,  and  then  in 
 xiv.  30,  xvi.  11.  This  dignity  is  attributed  to  him  only  where 
 its  subversion  is  immediately  in  prospect.  As  regards  the  fact, 
 Matt.  iv.  8,  9  corresponds,  where  the  devil  shows  Christ  all  the 
 kingdoms  of  the  world  and  their  glory,  and  says  to  Him,  "  All 
 these  things  I  will  give  thee,  if  thou  wilt  fall  down  and  worship 
 me."  What  he  promises  to  give,  he  must  himself  possess.  Then, 
 again,  the  description  of  the  devil  in  2  Cor.  iv.  4,  as  "  the  god 
 of  this  world,"  is  in  strict  keeping ;  but  especially  Eph.  ii.  2, 
 where  Satan  is  described  as  the  prince  who  has  power  over  the 
 air.  The  air,  corresponding  to  the  tov  koct/iov  tovtov  of  the 
 preceding  verse,  the  atmosphere  of  the  earth,  denotes  the  influ- 
 ences of  Satan  everywhere  surrounding  man,  who  breathes  an 
 air,  as  it  were,  infected  by  Satan. 
 
 The  imagination  and  desire  of  the  human  heart  is  evil  from 
 youth  up :  tliere  lies  the  foundation  of  Satan's  power.     That 
 
116  CHAP.  VII.  1-XII.  50. 
 
 power  does  not  rest  upon  any  right  of  Satan  which  even  God 
 is  bound  to  respect :  the  notion  of  such  a  right  is  opposed  to  all 
 Scripture.  But  the  being  subjected  to  his  power  is  only  the 
 deserved  punishment  and  necessary  consequence  of  sin ;  so 
 that  with  the  cause  the  effect  also  must  cease.  JSIan  is  too 
 weak  and  insignificant  to  assume  anything  like  an  independent 
 middle  position  between  God  and  Satan.  He  must  walk  either 
 with  God  or  Satan.  Since  the  fall,  he  has  been  reduced  to 
 bondage  under  the  devil.  B\jt  through  the  manifestation  of 
 Christ,  and  especially  through  His  atoning  death,  the  power 
 of  sin  has  been  broken.  Since  that  event  it  has  been  a  great, 
 anachronism  when  a  people  or  an  individual  remains  subject 
 to  the  broken  power  of  Satan.  From  the  time  that  sin  was 
 atoned  for  on  the  tree,  punishment  has  ceased  for  all  who 
 enter  into  the  new  order  of  things ;  new  powers  of  life  have 
 been  provided  and  given  to  them.  And  thus  Satan  has  now 
 nothing  in  them. — "  Shall  be  cast  out :"  not  from  dominion,  but 
 from  the  v^orld ;  for  that  is  the  word  which  immediately  pre- 
 cedes, and  we  are  led  to  that  also  by  the  corresponding  e/c  t?";<? 
 7^9,  from  the  earth,  in  ver.  32.  The  removal  of  Christ  from 
 the  earth,  which  thus  seems  to  exclude  Him  from  dominion 
 over  it,  wall  have  for  its  consequence  the  removal  of  Satan  from 
 the  earth.  The  eK^XTjOrjcreraL  efco,  the  exclusion  of  Satan  from 
 the  world,  is  virtually  contained  in  and  implied  by  the  death  of 
 Christ  on  the  cross.  The  realization  of  it  goes  on  from  stage 
 to  stage,  until,  in  the  casting  of  Satan  into  the  lake  of  fire. 
 Rev.  XX.  10  marks  its  consummation.  A  very  important  crisis 
 in  that  realization  is  the  binding  of  Satan  in  Rev.  xx.  2,  the 
 destruction  of  the  Gentile  power  which  was  the  firmest  bulwark 
 of  Satan  on  the  earth.  But  that  realization  actually  began  with 
 the  death  of  Christ.  From  that  time  it  w^as  demonstrated  that 
 powers  were  energetic  against  Satan  which  the  human  race  had 
 never  before  known. — Here  Satan  is  cast  out  of  the  world ;  in 
 Rev.  xii.  7-9  he  is  cast  out  of  heaven,  as  the  result  of  the  vic- 
 tory which  Christ  had  won  over  him  through  blood  and  death. 
 The  difference  is  only  a  formal  one.  For  that  Satan  cannot 
 maintain  himself  in  heaven,  means  in  the  Apocalypse  simply 
 that  his  power  is  broken  through  the  blood  of  Christ,  ver.  11. 
 Everything  mighty  is  translated  into  heaven. 
 
 "  And  I,  if  I  be  lifted  up  from  the  earth." — According  to 
 
CHAP,  XII.  32.  117 
 
 the  current  interpretation,  there  lies  in  these  words  a  double 
 meaning :  they  are  made  to  refer  at  once  to  the  crucifixion  and 
 to  the  exaltation ;  and  the  crucifixion  itself  is  regarded  as  the  be- 
 ginning of  the  glorification.  Bengel :  "  In  the  cross  itself  there 
 was  already  something  tending  to  glory."  But  we  must  reject 
 this  double  meaning,  and  adhere  to  the  simple  reference  to  the 
 death  of  Christ.  This  is  demanded  by  the  explanation  of  the 
 Apostle  in  ver.  33 ;  it  is  suggested  also  by  the  interpretation  of 
 the  Jews  in  ver.  34 :  they  find  in  the  v-y^wOSi  e/c  t^9  7^79  the 
 contrary  of  their  expectation  concerning  the  Christ,  that  He 
 would  /jievecv  et?  rov  alcova,  abide  for  ever ;  and  Christ  confirms 
 that  interpretation,  by  warning  them  to  avail  themselves  of  the 
 light  which  would  only  a  short  time  remain  among  them.  The 
 relation  to  ver.  31  also  demands  such  an  exposition  :  by  the 
 same  event  which  seemed  to  assure  to  the  prince  of  this  world 
 his  authority  over  it,  he  would  in  reality  be  cast  out ;  and  by 
 the  same  event  which  seemed  to  displace  Christ  altogether  from 
 the  earth.  He  would  be  exalted  into  supreme  dominion  over  it, 
 and  enabled  to  draw  all  men  unto  Himself.  To  combine  and 
 include  reference  to  the  glorification,  is  to  oppose  the  symbolism 
 of  the  cross.  The  high  place  is  to  him  who  is  hanged  not  a 
 demonstration  of  honour ;  it  points  to  the  fact  that  he  is  no 
 longer  worthy  to  be  found  on  earth,  that  earth  rejects  him,  and 
 that  he  is  devoted  to  the  vengeance  of  God :  comp.  Deut.  xxi. 
 23,  "  He  that  is  hanged  is  accursed  of  God ;"  and  in  our  Lord's 
 discourses  the  v-^ovv  always  refers  to  the  crucifixion,  never  to 
 the  ascension ;  comp.  on  ch.  iii.  14,  viii.  28.  There  is  no  trace 
 throughout  the  New  Testament  of  any  hint  that  makes  the  cross 
 a  symbol  or  type  of  Christ's  exaltation.  The  Old  Testament 
 passage,  Isa.  liii.  8,  refers  to  a  violent  death,  "  He  was  cut  off 
 out  of  the  land  of  the  living:"  comp.  Acts  viii.  33.  In  ver.  24, 
 dying  simply,  and  as  such,  corresponds  with  the  being  lifted  up 
 from  the  earth. 
 
 "  I  will  draw  all  men  unto  Me  :"  the  Gentiles  also,  whom 
 hitherto  the  prince  of  this  world  had  held  so  entirely  in  his  own 
 power  :  comp.  ch.  x.  16.  With  the  irdvra'i  ekKvaw  7rp6<;  efxavrov 
 (Lampe  :  He  thus  teaches,  that  those  whom  Jesus  di'aws  are  at 
 the  same  time  drawn  away  from  the  head  and  body  of  which 
 they  had  been  previously  part  and  members),  the  answer  to  Philip 
 and  Andrew,  and  indirectly  to  the  Greeks,  is  completed :    Ye 
 
118  CHAP.  VII.  1-XII.  60. 
 
 shall  come  to  Jesus,  but  the  time  is  not  yet  quite  come.  The 
 corn  of  wheat  must  first  fall  into  the  earth.  The  power  of  the 
 prince  of  this  world,  who  has  hitherto  been,  so  to  speak,  your 
 legitimate  sovereign,  must  first  be  broken  by  My  death.  Then 
 will  the  Gentiles  experience  My  attracting  power. — The  draw- 
 ing power  exists  for  all:  unbelief  is  the  only  thing  which  can 
 exclude  from  this  glorious  benefit,  ch.  iii.  15,  16,  and  here,  ver. 
 36.  Anton  :  "  Not,  indeed,  as  if  man  could  not  oppose,  for  the 
 will  of  man  is  free ;  but  yet  it  is  so  mighty,  that  where  a  man 
 will  withstand  it,  he  must  do  violence  to  himself  in  order  to  get 
 the  victory."  He  also  remarks,  in  reference  to  the  drawing  of 
 Christ :  "  That  which,  in  ver.  24,  is  the  grain  of  seed  bringing 
 forth  fruit — but  on  the  condition  of  its  first  dying — becomes 
 here  the  drawing.  For  that  drawing  did  not  take  place  until 
 after  the  death  ;  but  after  Christ's  death  it  proceeded  with 
 power :  men's  minds  and  hearts  were  mightily  moved.  When 
 the  world  thought  that  they  had  now  extinguished  His  name, 
 the  attraction  of  that  name  first  began  :  and  we  must  not  regard 
 this  as  if  that  attraction  was  merely  to  be  the  result ;  but  that 
 it  was  the  influence  of  His  death,  as  of  a  causce  meritorice,  to 
 which  the  Lord  refers  and  declares :  I  will  thus  draw  men  to 
 Me ;  I  will  now  stretch  out  My  hands  unto  them."  The  draw- 
 ing of  Christ  does  not  consist  merely  in  the  power  of  attraction 
 which  His  death  itself  exercises  :  as  Anton  remarks,  "  Then  will 
 My  death  pov/erfully  draw  men's  minds,  and  lay  on  their  hearts 
 the  tenderest  obligation."  The  main  point  is  rather  the  drawing 
 of  the  Holy  Spirit,  who  was  to  be  obtained  by  the  atoning 
 death  of  our  Lord,  and  who  reveals  to  the  heart  the  meaning  of 
 that  death :  comp.  ch.  vii.  39.  Ch.  vi.  44  alludes  to  an  internal 
 attractive  power ;  and  in  ch.  xvi.  8  Christ  says  that  He  would 
 exercise,  through  the  Holy  Ghost,  the  power  here  described. 
 
 Ver.  33.,  "  And  I,  if  I  be  lifted  up  from  the  earth,  will  draw 
 all  men  unto  M.e."^^!^7)fiaLvetv  is  simply  to  point  out,  and  does 
 not  signify  merely  "hint."  So  in  Acts  xi.  28,  xxv.  27  ;  Eev.  i. 
 1,  and  always  in  the  Sept.  and  the  Apocrypha. 
 
 Ver.  34.  "  The  people  answered  Hinij  We  have  heard  out 
 of  the  law  that  Christ  abideth  for  ever :  and  how  sayest  thou. 
 The  Son  of  man  must  be  lifted  up  ?  who  is  this  Son  of  man  ?" — 
 The  Lord  says,  in  Matt.  viii.  11,  12  :  "  And  I  say  unto  you, 
 That  many  shall  come  from  the  east  and  west,  and  shall  sit 
 
CHAP.  XII.  34.  119 
 
 down  with  Abraham,  and  Isaac,  and  Jacob,  in  the  kingdom  of 
 heaven  :  but  the  children  of  the  kingdom  shall  be  cast  out  into 
 outer  darkness ;  there  shall  be  weeping  and  gnashing  of  teeth." 
 This  word  of  Christ  was,  in  the  closing  scene  of  His  public  life 
 among  the  Jews,  realized  in  a  visible  manner.  Greeks  come 
 and  desire  to  see  Jesus.  Jesus  declares  to  them,  as  the  repre- 
 sentatives of  the  Gentile  world,  that  the  time  would  soon  come 
 in  which  He  would  draw  the  Gentiles  to  Himself.  The  Jews 
 who  were  present  dei'ive  from  the  reply  which  He  made  to  the 
 Gentiles  a  reason  for  their  opposition.  Jesus  warninglj  points 
 them  to  the  fact,  that  there  was  a  little  space  yet  left  to  them  ; 
 that  soon  the  light  would  be  removed,  and  that  then  darkness 
 would  come  upon  them  in  its  might. — The  opposition  of  the 
 Jews  sprang  from  a  malignant  Aviil.  That  the  abiding  for  ever 
 formed  no  real  contrast  to  the  being  lifted  up  from  the  earth, 
 the  words  of  Christ  themselves  might  have  shown  them,  in  which 
 the  being  lifted  up  from  the  earth  appears  as  the  mere  point  of 
 transition,  as  the  foundation  of  His  glorification,  of  the  casting 
 out  of  the  prince  of  this  world,  and  of  the  extension  of  His 
 dominion  over  all  the  earth.  The  same  they  might  have  learned 
 from  the  Old  Testament.  In  Isa.  liii.  the  vicarious  propitiation 
 and  death  of  the  Messiah  appears  as  the  necessary  basis  of  His 
 abiding  for  ever :  "  When  Thou  shalt  make  His  soul  an  offering 
 .  for  sin,  He  shall  see  His  seed.  He  shall  prolong  His  days." 
 And  in  Daniel  himself,  to  whom  they  appealed,  the  violent 
 death  of  the  Messiah  is  foreannounced,  ch.  ix.  26.  Through 
 suffering  to  glory  is  the  law  which  approved  itself  in  the  lives 
 of  all  the  great  men  of  the  Old  Testament,  the  types  of  Christ, 
 and  pre-eminently  of  David.  That  it  was  with  them  a  mere 
 subterfuge,  or  a  prejudice  resting  upon  a  sinful  disposition, 
 and  not  from  any  scruple  which  honest  minds  felt  at  the  thing 
 itself,  is  plain  from  the  fact,  that  Christ,  in  His  answer  to  their 
 objection,  does  not  in  any  way  enter  into  it,  but  only  exhorts 
 them  to  know  the  time  of  their  visitation.  (Anton  :  "  After  the 
 manner  of  the  so-called  learned,  they  wrested  a  single  little  word 
 against  the  evidence  of  the  whole  matter."  Quesnel :  "  The  law 
 announces  the  humiliation  and  death  of  the  Messiah,  as  well  as 
 His  glory,  and  the  dux'ation  of  His  kingdom  ;  but  self-love  holds 
 fast  that  which  flatters  its  vanity  and  effeminacy,  passing  by 
 what  does  not  accord  with  its  notions  and  fleshly  inclinations.") 
 
120  CHAP.  VII.  1-XII.  50, 
 
 They  said,  We  have  heaixl  out  of  the  law.  The  passage 
 they  had  in  view  is  in  Daniel.  That  they  quoted  this  by  the 
 name  of  the  law,  demonstrates  that  this  book,  as  a  portion  of 
 the  canon,  had  for  them  a  binding  force,  and  that  they  durst 
 not  oppose  this  surer  authority  in  deference  to  the  doubtful 
 authority  of  Christ,  who  opposed  it  by  His  words :  comp.  on 
 vo[jio'i,  ch.  X.  34.  The  full  meaning  of  their  reference  to  the 
 law,  here  emphasized,  we  see  in  ch.  ix.  29  :  "We  know  that 
 God  spake  to  Moses  (Daniel) ;  but  as  to  this  man,  we  know  not 
 whence  he  is."  Our  passage  shows  that,  among  the  Jews  of 
 the  time  of  Christ,  the  book  of  Daniel  had  the  fullest  canonical 
 authority,  which  indeed  Josephus  confirms  in  many  places. 
 "  We  have  heard : "  what  the  Scripture  said  was  then  known 
 rather  by  hearing  than  by  reading. — The  idea  of  Christ's 
 abiding  for  ever  occurs  in  many  passages  of  the  Old  Testament. 
 In  Isa.  ix.  5  He  is  termed  the  "everlasting  Father"  (Luther: 
 "  who  for  ever  nourishes  His  kingdom  and  Church  ")  ;  in  ver.  7 
 it  is  said,  with  reference  to  the  Messiah,  "  Of  the  increase  of 
 His  government  and  peace  there  shall  be  no  end — from  hence- 
 forth for  ever."  According  to  Ps.  ex.,  the  Messiah  is  a  high 
 priest  for  ever.  According  to  Dan.  ii.  24,  the  God  of  heaven 
 would  establish  a  kingdom  which  should  never  be  abolished. 
 And  in  Dan.  vii.  13,  14,  it  is  said  of  Him  who  cometh  in 
 the  clouds  like  the  Son  of  man,  "  His  dominion  is  an  ever- 
 lasting dominion,  which  shall  not  pass  away."  Compare,  in 
 relation  to  the  eternity  of  His  government,  Ps.  Ixxii.  5,  7,  17, 
 Ixxxix.  37,  38.  That  the  Jews  singled  out  from  these  passages 
 that  of  Daniel,  is  evident  from  the  fact  that  there  only  the 
 Messiah  is  described  as  the  Son  of  man.  They  said,  instead  of 
 Christ's  "  I  must  be  lifted  up,"  the  Son  of  man  must  be  lifted 
 up,  in  order  to  make  more  emphatic  the  contrast  between  what 
 Christ  had  uttered  concerning  Himself,  and  that  which  is  said 
 concerning  the  Son  of  man  in  Daniel.  And  they  held  them- 
 selves all  the  more  justified  in  making  the  substitution  here, 
 because  Christ  had  so  often,  and  so  lately  as  the  introduction  to 
 the  last  discourse,  in  ver.  23,  described .  Himself  as  the  Son  of 
 man,  with  allusion  to  that  passage  of  Daniel.  But  the  appeal 
 to  this  alone  cannot  explain  the  substitution.  This  is  evident, 
 especially  from  "  Who  is  this  Son  of  man  ?  "  which  points  to 
 the  difference  between  the  sufferino;  Son  of  man  whom  Christ 
 
CHAP.  XII.  35.  121 
 
 would  enforce  upon  tliem,  and  that  eternally  glorious  Son  of 
 man  referred  to  in  Daniel,  whom  alone  they  would  receive,  and 
 know  nothing  of  any  other. — Ael  vylrcodrjvai,  must  be  lifted  up. 
 Jesus,  in  fact,  had  said  so  much,  when  He  declared  the  lifting 
 up  from  the  earth  to  be  the  necessary' condition  of  His  dominion 
 over  it. 
 
 Ver.  35.  "  Then  Jesus  said  unto  them,  Yet  a  little  while  is 
 the  light  with  you :  walk  while  ye  have  the  light,  lest  darkness 
 come  upon  you :  for  he  that  walketh  in  darkness  knowetli  not 
 whither  he  goeth." — Anton :  "  Christ  says  that  there  was  no 
 time  now  for  sophistry  and  circumlocution  with  such  phrases. 
 It  was  a  solemn  matter.  O  how  differently  should  they  demean 
 themselves  in  the  residue  of  their  little  time,  and  not  while  it 
 away  with  affected  contradiction  !  O  how  should  they  seek  at 
 once  for  refuge  to  the  light,  to  shield  themselves  against  the 
 coming  darkness  !"  On  light  and  darkness,  equivalent  to  salva- 
 tion and  ruin,  see  ch.  viii.  12.  The  light  proceeds  from  Christ ; 
 but  the  contrasted  darkness  shows  that  the  light  in  itself  does 
 not  denote  the  person  of  the  Redeemer.  The  light  did  not 
 cease  to  be  among  them  precisely  at  the  crisis  of  Christ's  death. 
 (Bengel :  lux  ipsa  manet,  sed  non  semper  est  in  vobis.)  This 
 is  evident  from  the  great  movement  at  the  day  of  Pentecost. 
 The  limit  of  grace,  which,  according  to  the  Lord's  saying,  yet 
 remained  to  them,  did  not  consist  merely  in  the  two  days  which 
 intervened  between  these  words  and  the  Saviom^'s  death.  First 
 must  the  atoning  death  of  Jesus  and  His  resurrection  unfold 
 their  power,  and  that  which  is  spoken  of  in  ver.  32  become 
 true  of  the  Jews  also.  Nevertheless,  the  period  of  light  to  the 
 Jews  was  drawing  swiftly  to  its  close ;  and  their  giving  up  the 
 Lord  to  death  was  the  beginning  of  that  end.  In  that  act  they 
 invoked  His  blood  on  themselves  and  on  their  children.  The 
 time  during  which  the  light  was  with  the  Jews  here  corresponds 
 to  the  time  of  their  visitation  in  Luke  xix.  44. — The  ivaUdng 
 stands  opposed  to  an  idle  and  indifferent  rest.  It  denotes 
 activity;  and  in  what  way  activity  should  approve  itself  under 
 existing  circumstances,  is  shown  by  the  "  believe  in  the  light"  of 
 ver.  36. — Instead  of  ew?,  whilst  (compare  the  ew?  rjixepa  eVri, 
 ix.  4),  many  important  witnesses  have  here  and  in  ver.  36  w?. 
 But  there  is  no  other  example  of  such  a  use  of  (09,  or  anything 
 like  it. — St  Luke,  xix.  43,  exhibits  more  fully  the  meaning  of 
 
122  CHAP.  vir.  i-xii.  50. 
 
 the  darkness  here :  "  For  the  day  shall  come  upon  thee,  that 
 thine  enemies  shall  cast  a  trench  about  thee,  and  compass  thee 
 round,  and  keep  thee  in  on  every  side."  Yet  that  is  only  the 
 external  side  of  the  darkness.  With  the  external  exposure  to 
 ruin,  the  internal  want  of  salvation  goes  hand  in  hand.  The 
 fundamental  place  in  the  Old  Testament  is  Jer.  xiii.  16.  The 
 prophet  says  there,  in  view  of  the  Chaldean  catastrophe :  "  Give 
 glory  to  the  Lord  your  God,  before  He  cause  darkness,  and  before 
 yom'  feet  stumble  upon  the  dark  mountains,  and,  while  ye  look 
 for  light,  He  turn  it  into  the  shadow  of  death,  and  make  it 
 gross  darkness  " — "  and  (that  ye  may  know  what  this  darkness 
 means)  he  that  walketh  in  darkness  knoweth  not  whither  he 
 goeth,"  into  what  an  abyss  of  misery  he  may  fall :  comp.  ch. 
 xi.  10 ;  Prov.  iv.  19,  "  The  w^ay  of  the  wicked  is  as  darkness : 
 they  know  not  at  what  they  stumble." 
 
 Ver.  36.  "  While  ye  have  light,  believe  in  the  light,  that 
 ye  may  be  the  children  of  light.  These  things  spake  Jesus, 
 and  departed,  and  did  hide  Himself  from  them." — So  long  as 
 ye  have  salvation,  believe  in  the  salvation,  and  in  its  represen- 
 tatives and  instruments.  Sons,  in  the  sense  of  adherents,  is  a 
 phrase  common  to  Christ  throughout  the  Evangelists :  Matt, 
 viii.  12,  xii.  27,  xiii.  38 ;  Mark  ii.  19.  In  Luke  xvi.  8  we  read 
 of  the  children  of  light,  viol  (paro'i,  by  the  side  of  the  children 
 of  this  world. — In  ch.  viii.  59  it  is  said,  "  Then  Jesus  hid  Him- 
 self, and  went  out  of  the  Temple."  But  the  case  there  is  essen- 
 tially different  from  the  present.  There  Jesus  concealed  Himself 
 because  the  Jews  wanted  to  stone  Him.  He  retired  from  the 
 presence  of  a  transitory  danger,  and  thus  His  retreat  was  only 
 a  transitory  one.  But  here  there  was  no  danger  impending ; 
 and  the  concealing  Himself  was  a  definitive  one.  He  retired 
 into  secret,  that  the  catastrophe  might  not  take  place  before  the 
 time.  He  was  to  suffer  and  die,  and  He  would  suffer  and  die, 
 as  the  paschal  lamb.  It  is  to  be  assumed  that  Jesus  from  this 
 time  onwards  retreated  altogether  from  public  life.  This  helps 
 to  define  the  chronological  relations  of  vers.  20-36.  We  have 
 already  seen  that  the  entry  into  Jerusalem  belonged  to  the 
 Sunday.  On  the  following  day,  that  is,  Monday,  Jesus  cursed 
 the  fig-tree  on  the  way  from  Bethany  to  the  city,  Mark  xi.  12. 
 When,  in  the  early  morning  of  the  next  day,  Tuesday,  He 
 went  again  to  the  city,  the  disciples  saw  that  the  fig-tree  had 
 
CHAP.  XII.  37-50.  123 
 
 withered  away,  ^Mark  xi.  20.  On  this  day  Jesus  entered  the 
 Temple  for  the  last  time ;  and  that  which  is  here  recorded  must 
 have  happened  on  the  same  day :  for  the  detail,  see  Wieseler. 
 St  John  gives  here  no  chronological  specification,  because  the 
 time  might  be  gathered  with  sufficient  certainty  from  his  prede- 
 cessors. There  were  now  only  two  days  to  the  Passover.  These 
 He  spent  in  the  circle  of  His  disciples.  The  Old  Testament 
 original  of  "  He  went  away  and  hid  Himself "  is  Deut.  xxxii. 
 20 :  "  And  He  said,  I  will  hide  My  face  from  them,  I  will  see 
 what  their  end  shall  be  :  for  they  are  a  froward  generation, 
 children  in  whom  there  is  no  faith." 
 
 Vers.  37-50. 
 
 We  have  here  the  concluding  word  of  the  first  of  the  four 
 groups  which  make  up  the  main  portion  of  the  Gospel.  It 
 falls  into  two  parts.  In  the  first  the  Evangelist  himself  speaks. 
 He  makes  observations  upon  a  problem  which  sprang  out  of 
 the  facts  recorded  in  the  first  portion  :  How  could  the  unbelief 
 of  the  Jews  be  accounted  for?  Must  it  not  operate  against 
 the  Divine  mission  of  Jesus  ?  In  order  to  obviate  this  arising 
 scruple,  the  Apostle  first  declares  that  this  unbelief,  far  from 
 witnessing  against  Christ,  had  been  foreannounced  in  the  pro- 
 phecy of  the  Old  Testament,  and  was  to  be  viewed  in  the  light 
 of  a  Divine  punishment  upon  the  perverseness  of  the  people, 
 vers.  37-41.  He  then  shows  that  this  unbelief  was  only  par- 
 tial :  many  believed  on  Jesus,  not  only  from  among  the  people, 
 but  from  among  the  rulers,  although  they  did  not  make  open 
 avowal,  because  of  their  servile  dependence  upon  men.  In  the 
 second  part  of  this  concluding  word,  the  Apostle  introduces 
 Jesus  Himself  as  speaking.  He  has  at  the  end,  in  ver.  36,  the 
 concluding  word  which  Jesus  addressed  to  Judas  before  His 
 departure,  but  broken  off  in  the  middle.  Here  he  communi- 
 cates the  second  part  of  it.  Jesus  represents  Himself  as  the 
 true  'representative  of  the  Father,  and  the  only  Saviour ;  pro- 
 claiming the  judgment  which  must  be  hereafter  the  inseparable 
 attendant  of  unbehef.  This  is  the  appropriate  winding  up,  as 
 of  the  whole  relation  in  which  Jesus  had  stood  to  the  Jews,  so 
 also  of  the  evangelical  record  of  that  relation.  The  division 
 of  what  was  originally  united,  the  Evangelist  must  the  rather 
 have  determined  on,  because  the  fundamental  thought  of  the 
 
124  CHAP.  VII.  1-XII.  50. 
 
 whole  of  the  last  discourse  had  been  fully  contained  in  vers. 
 35,  36. 
 
 Vers.  37,  38.  "  But  though  He  had  done  so  many  miracles 
 before  them,  yet  they  believed  not  on  Him :  that  the  saying  of 
 Esaias  the  prophet  might  be  fulfilled,  which  he  spake.  Lord, 
 who  hath  believed  our  report  ?  and  to  whom  hath  the  arm  of  the 
 Lord  been  revealed  V — The  first  words  of  ver.  37  allude  to  Ps. 
 Ixxviii.  11,  12  :  "  And  forgat  His  works  and  His  wonders  that 
 He  had  showed  them.  Marvellous  things  did  He  in  the  sight 
 of  their  fathers  iu  the  land  of  Egypt,  and  in  the  field  of  Zoan." 
 This  allusion  is  significant :  it  has  an  apologetic  importance. 
 It  had  been  the  hereditary  character  of  the  people  to  be  unbe- 
 lieving, in  spite  of  all  signs  and  wonders.  Reference  had  been 
 made  to  this  same  passage  in  ch.  x.  32.  There  the  leading 
 word  which  identifies  the  allusion  is  eSet^a ;  here  it  is  efiirpoaOev 
 avTOiv.  It  was  only  the  old  thing  made  new  when  the  Jews 
 were  unbelievino;.  As  their  unbelief  had  no  force  as  an  argu- 
 ment  against  the  divinity  of  Jehovah,  no  more  had  it  any  force 
 against  the  Divine  mission  of  Christ,  in  whom  the  Jehovah  of 
 the  Old  Testament  was  incarnate.  As  roaavra  can  only  mean 
 so  many,  and  not  so  great  (comp.  vi.  9,  xiv.  9,  xxi.  11), — while 
 our  Gospel  records  only  seven  miracles,  four  Galilean  and  three 
 Jewish, — we  cannot  fail  to  discern  here  a  tacit  acknowledgment 
 of  the  existence  of  other  Gospels.^  The  Evangelist  points  to 
 the  multiplicity  of  the  miracles  in  ch.  xx.  30,  31,  xxi.  25  also. 
 The  climax  of  them  all  was  the  raising  of  Lazarus.  That  "  they 
 believed  not,"  is  not  exhibited  under  the  aspect  of  guilt,  but  of 
 doom  or  Divine  reprobation,  and  is  shown  by  "  that  it  might  be 
 fulfilled,"  according  to  which  their  unbelief  must  serve  for  the 
 fulfilment  of  the  prophetic  word,  and  therefore  stand  under  the 
 Divine  direction.  We  must  not  fritter  away  the  ha  as  Ebrard 
 does  :  "  The  words  do  not  refer  to  any  design  on  the  part  of 
 God ;  but  what  the  Jews  brought  on  themselves  as  the  result 
 of  their  unbelief,  is  stated  in  such  a  way  as  if  they  had  designed 
 to  fulfil  God's  word."  We  ought  rather  to  say,  that  because  the 
 Jews  could  not  have  had  any  design  to.  establish  the  truth  of 
 God's  prediction  by  their  unbelief,  therefore  the  ovk  iirLCTTevov 
 
 ^  Lampe  :  John  relates  only  a  few  :  lie  does  not  go  beyond  that  Sep- 
 tenary. But  closing  the  canon  of  the  Gospels  with  his,  he  points  to  those 
 things  which  not  only  himself,  but  others  also  before  him,  related. 
 
CHAP.  XII.  37,  38.  125 
 
 must  be  referred  to  a  Divine  decree.  Ver.  39  also  establishes 
 the  same,  where  "  they  believed  not"  is  reproduced  as  "  they 
 could  not  believe." — The  fact  that  their  unbelief  is  exhibited  in 
 the  light  of  a  Divine  penalty,  does  not  exclude  their  guilt,  but 
 rather  presupposes  that  guilt.  God  has  so  constituted  human 
 nature,  that  man,  if  he  does  not  withstand  beginnings,  has  him- 
 self no  longer  under  his  own  control :  comp.  on  ch.  viii.  43.  But 
 that  which  is  a  decree  resting  upon  guilt,  the  consequence  of 
 the  righteous  judgment  of  God,  could  not,  and  ought  not  to  be 
 wrested  to  the  disparagement  of  Christ.  Rather  it  should  have 
 given  the  Jews  occasion  to  smite  upon  their  breasts,  and  cry, 
 God  be  merciful  to  me,  a  sinner  ;  harden  not  further  my  heart, 
 that  I  cease  to  fear  Thee ;  give  me  grace  unto  repentance. — The 
 clause  added,  rov  irpot^y^Tov,  points  to  the  reason  why  the  word  of 
 Isaiah  must  necessarily  come  to  fulfilment.  '^Ov  elire  is  solemn 
 enlargement.  Kvpte,  which  also  the  Septuagint  adds,  serves  to 
 mark  it  off  from  ch.  lii.  13-15.  There  the  Lord  speaks.  With 
 ch.  liii.  1  the  prophet  begins.  The  Evangelist  did  not  mechani- 
 cally adopt  the  Kvpie  from  the  Sept. ;  he  never  follows  that 
 version  in  arbitrary  additions  and  omissions.  The  prophet 
 begins  the  further  exposition  of  that  which  had  been  said  in 
 brief  by  the  servant  of  the  Lord  in  ch.  lii.  13-15  ;  setting  out 
 with  the  complaint  that  so  many  did  not  believe  his  report  con- 
 cerning the  servant  of  God,  so  many  did  not  behold  the  glory 
 of  God  manifest  in  Him.  The  words,  according  to  their  con- 
 nection, specially  refer  to  the  Jews  :  the  unbelief  of  the  Jews, 
 which  went  so  far  that  the  believers  were  only  a  vanishing 
 minority,  is  mourned  over  in  them.  Joy  over  the  many  Gentiles 
 who,  according  to  ch.  lii.  13-15,  receive  and  apprehend  with 
 delight  the  tidings  concerning  the  servant  of  God,  goes  side  by 
 side  with  grief  over  the  many  of  Israel  who  believe  not  the 
 tidings.  And  in  that  passage  of  Isaiah  himself,  unbelief  is 
 exhibited  under  the  aspect  of  doom.  They  believe  not,  because 
 the  arm  of  the  Lord,  the  unfolding  of  His  Divine  power  in 
 Christ,  is  not  revealed  to  them,  because  God  withdraws  from 
 them  the  knowledge  of  His  power  made  manifest  in  Christ. 
 Prophecy  has  not  for  its  object  generally  the  free  actions  of 
 men,  but  the  Divine  decrees ;  and  that  there  is  such  a  decree 
 in  the  quoted  word  of  Isaiah,  is  shown  by  the  expression  in 
 1  Pet.  ii.  8  :  the  disobedient  are  appointed  not  to  believe.     We 
 
126  CHAP.  VII.  1-XlI.  50. 
 
 have  shown  in  the  Christology,  that  nj;DB>  in  the  original,  aKoi] 
 here,  is  equivalent  to  that  which  we  hear — that  which  has  been 
 made  known  unto  us,  the  prophets,  represented  by  Isaiah. 
 Ch.  xxi.  10  gives  a  comment  on  the  words,  "  That  which  I  have 
 heard  of  the  Lord  of  hosts,  the  God  of  Israel,  have  I  declared 
 unto  you."  And  this  view  is  supported  by  the  correspondence 
 of  the  two  members.  As  the  knowledge  comes  to  the  prophet, 
 so  it  comes  to  the  hearer  also,  only  through  supernatural  reve- 
 lation. Anton  :  "  Lord,  who  believeth  our  report  %  We  do 
 not  speak  our  own  to  the  people,  saith  the  prophet,  but  as  we 
 have  ourselves  heard,  and  as  we  have  through  hearing  found 
 its  truth  in  ourselves.  We  do  not  set  dreams  before  them, 
 or  inventions  of  our  own.  No,  it  is  uKorj  rjixoivT — Seemingly 
 independent,  the  Jews  were  in  fact  only  a  plaything  in  the 
 hands  of  God.  Under  this  point  of  view,  their  unbelief  was  not 
 an  argument  against  Jesus,  but  a  confirmation  of  His  Divine 
 mission,  to  the  concomitant  circumstances  of  which  it  belonged, 
 according  to  the  prophecy  of  the  Old  Testament. 
 
 Vers.  39,  40.  "  Therefore  they  could  not  believe,  because 
 that  Esaias  said  again.  He  hath  blinded  their  eyes,  and  hardened 
 their  heart ;  that  they  should  not  see  with  their  eyes,  nor  under- 
 stand with  their  heart,  and  be  converted,  and  I  should  heal 
 them." — Therefore^  on  account  of  the  Divine  decree  announced 
 by  Isaiah  in  ch.  liii.  The  otl  then  introduces  a  second  rea- 
 son, or  an  elucidation  of  the  former  one,  from  the  mouth  of 
 the  same  Isaiah  :  comp.  ch.  v.  16,  18  ;  Matt.  xxiv.  44.  The 
 forced  supposition,  that  hia  tovto  refers  not  to  what  precedes, 
 but  to  what  follows  (when,  according  to  the  correct  remark  of 
 De  Wette,  we  might  have  expected  a  Se  or  Kal  of  transition), 
 sprang  from  a  false  apprehension  of  vers.  37,  38,  which  regards 
 that  passage  as  intimating  only  the  fact  of  the  Jews'  unbelief. 
 Rightly  says  Anton  :  "  For  again  has  Isaiah  ex  eodem  funda- 
 mento  spoken." — The  cited  passage  of  Isaiah,  ch.  vi.  10,  runs 
 according  to  the  original :  "  Make  the  heart  of  this  people  fat, 
 and  make  their  ears  heavy,  and  shut  their  eyes  ;  lest  they  see 
 with  their  eyes,  and  hear  with  their  ears,  and  understand  with 
 their  heart,  and  convert,  and  be  healed."  The  quotation  is  not 
 very  strictly  literal,  but  accords  in  reality  nearly  enough  with 
 the  original.  The  address  is  there  directed  to  the  prophets ;  but 
 he  seems  there  to  be  only  an  instrument  of  the  Divine  decree, 
 
CHAP.  XII.  41.  127 
 
 and  that  which  is  imposed  upon  him  or  the  collective  servants 
 of  God  whom  he  represents,  must  be  referred  back  to  God. 
 It  lay  in  the  scope  of  the  Evangelist  to  make  prominent  this 
 Divine  causality ;  for  it  was  his  purpose  to  exhibit  the  unbelief 
 of  the  Jews  under  the  aspect  of  a  Divine  decree  and  judicial 
 infliction.  Properly  speaking,  the  first  person  ought  to  have 
 been  used  instead  of  the  imperative,  "  I  have  blinded."  But 
 then  it  would  have  been  too  obviously  natural  to  take  the  prophet 
 as  the  subject,  the  rather  that  in  the  original  of  Isaiah  he  is  the 
 person  to  whom  the  words  are  addressed.  Therefore  John  used 
 first  the  third  person ;  but  that  he  selected  it  only  for  the  reason 
 assigned  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  he  uses  the  first  person  in  the 
 conclusion,  Idaco/zac,  or,  according  to  another  reading,  Idaofiac. 
 This  is  not  an  instance  of  "  negligence ;"  but  it  shows,  on  the 
 contrary,  how  precisely,  down  to  the  least  minutiae,  everything 
 is  ordered  in  John's  Gospel.  Guilt  was  upon  the  Jews.  But 
 that  they  might  not  imagine  that  they  defeated  Christ's  plans 
 by  their  unbelief,  and  overturned  the  evidence  of  His  mission, 
 prominence  is  given  to  the  Divine  causation,  in  connection  with 
 their  perverse  determination.  What  they  would  not,  they  should 
 not,  might  not,  and  could  not.  Situated  as  they  were,  everything 
 that  furthered  the  faith  of  the  well-disposed  only  strengthened 
 them  in  their  unbelief.  That  is  the  Divine  penalty,  the  doom 
 which  ruled  over  them,  and  hurried  them  to  their  destruction. 
 
 Ver.  41.  "  These  things  said  Esaias,  when  he  saw  His  glory, 
 and  spake  of  Him." — Avrov  refers  back  to  ver.  37.  The  dis- 
 tinction from  the  Lord,  ver.  38,  who  is  still  the  subject  in  ver. 
 40,  is  all  the  less  necessary  because  John,  as  he  himself  says  in 
 this  verse,  beheld  Christ  in  the  Jehovah  of  the  Old  Testament. 
 — Isaiah  saw  "  the  Lord"  sitting  on  His  throne.  He  says  in 
 ver.  5,  "  Mine  eyes  have  seen  the  King,  the  Lord  of  hosts." 
 But,  according  to  the  tenor  of  the  Old  Testament,  all  visible 
 manifestation,  all  revelation  of  the  Lord,  is  made  through  His 
 Angel,  the  brightness  of  His  glory ;  and  this  was  seen  manifest 
 in  Christ  in  the  flesh. — "  And  spake  of  Him  :"  thus  that  also 
 refers  to  Christ,  which  in  ver.  40  was  quoted  from  Isaiah  as  the 
 Lord's  own  act.  It  was  He,  therefore,  who  blinded  the  eyes 
 of  the  Jews,  etc.  The  Jews,  while  they  vainly  imagined  that 
 by  their  unbelief  they  discredited  His  cause,  and  stamped  Him 
 as  a  "  deceiver,"  were  falling  under  His  condemnation.     The 
 
128  CHAP.  YII.  1-XII.  50. 
 
 refutation  of  the  Jews'  delusion,  that  Christ  must  be  a  false 
 Messiah  because  they  held  Him  to  be  such,  becomes  here  a 
 cutting  irony. — We  must  be  on  our  guard  against  supposing 
 that  the  words  here  have  no  express  reference  to  the  case  in 
 hand,  and  bear  only  a  cursory  relation  to  the  state  of  the  Jews. 
 The  fundamental  idea  of  the  whole  passage  is  the  penalty  of 
 obduration,  which  the  Lord  threatened  upon  His  apostate  people ; 
 and  the  Lord,  who  held  that  doom  over  them,  was  no  other  than 
 Christ  Himself.  That  which  He  Himself  brought  to  pass,  could 
 not  be  brought  into  evidence  against  His  claims. 
 
 Vers.  42,  43.  "  Nevertheless  among  the  chief  rulers  also 
 many  believed  on  Him  ;  but  because  of  the  Pharisees  they  did 
 not  confess  Him,  lest  they  should  be  put  out  of  the  synagogue : 
 for  they  loved  the  praise  of  men  more  than  the  praise  of  God." 
 — The  unbelief  of  the  Jews,  it  has  been  hitherto  unfolded,  could 
 not  be  urged  as  an  argument  against  Christ's  Messiahship.  But 
 certainly  it  pertained  to  the  confirmation  of  the  Divine  mission 
 of  Christ,  that  faith  in  some  should  be  found  mingled  with 
 unbelief  in  others.  For  the  people  of  the  covenant  could  never 
 sink  so  low  as  to  rise  up  as  one  man  against  the  most  glorious 
 manifestation  of  their  God.  With  this  consideration  in  his  mind, 
 the  Evangelist  has  all  along  diligently  set  over  against  the  out- 
 breaks of  unbelief  in  the  majority,  the  expressions  of  faith  in 
 the  few.  And  here  he  points  to  the  fact,  that  this  necessary 
 condition  of  the  Divine  mission  of  Christ  was  present.  Not  only 
 among  the  people  (Augustin  :  Eorum  autem  qui  crediderunt 
 alii  usque  adeo  confitebantur  ut  palmarum  ramis  acceptis  veni- 
 enti  occurrerent,  etc.),  also  among  the  rulers, — who  had  specially 
 hard  difficulties  to  overcome,  in  whom  the  perverse  national 
 tendency  was  concenti'ated,  and  who  from  their  position  were 
 most  likely  to  be  affected  by  prejudices, — many  believed  on 
 Christ ;  and  although  through  the  fear  of  men  they  were 
 restrained  from  making  open  confession,  yet  their  faith  bore 
 witness  to  the  impressive  majesty  of  the  appearance  of  Christ, 
 and  the  mighty  drawing  of  the  Father  to  the  Son  :  comp.  ch. 
 vi.  44.  By  iirla-revaav,  they  believed,  John's  phraseology  allows 
 us  to  understand  only  a  true  faith.  That  was  the  only  faith 
 which  would  enter  suitably  into  the  design  of  the  Evangelist 
 here.  That  their  faith,  indeed,  had  not  attained  its  full  energy, 
 was  shown  by  their  shrinking  from  confession.     But  this  was 
 
CHAP.  XII.  44,  4S.  129 
 
 the  condition  of  Nicodemus  and  Joseph  of  Arimathea  for  a  long 
 time,  whose  faith,  however,  afterwards  broke  through  all  impedi- 
 ments :  comp.  on  eh.  iii.  2. — When  Augustin  observes,  Principes 
 hos  habuisse  ingressum  fidei,  quo  si  profecissent,  amorem  quoque 
 humanse  glorioe  superassent, — what  he  says  is  true,  though  one- 
 sided. Even  weak  faith  must  make  confession.  The  strong 
 emphasis  laid  in  Matt.  x.  32,  33  upon  the  necessity  of  con- 
 fession, shows  that  we  are  wrong  in  supposing  that  confession 
 comes  with  the  gradual  strengthening  of  faith.  The  faith  that 
 makes  no  avowal,  cannot  attain  its  full  power.  And  he  who 
 forgets  the  obhgation  to  confess,  is  in  danger  of  extinguishing 
 his  faith,  in  order  to  fly  from  the  admonitions  of  his  conscience. 
 — "  Lest  they  should  be  put  out  of  the  synagogue  :"  comp.  on 
 ch.  ix.  22.  The  praise  of  men  is,  according  to  ch.  v.  44  (comp. 
 1  Thess.  ii.  6),  the  honour  which  springs  from  and  is  bestowed 
 by  man :  the  praise  of  God  is  the  honour  which  comes  from 
 God.  How  must  the  image  of  God  have  become  dim  in  such  a 
 man !  God  is,  in  His  Old  Testament  name  Jehovah,  Existence, 
 the  personal  necessary  Being,  out  of  whom  all  is  nothingness 
 and  death,  the  only  One  about  whom  man  need  care,  and  for 
 whose  favour  man  should  struggle.  Men,  whose  name  is  weak- 
 ness, cannot  assure  us  of  anything,  cannot  really  hurt  or  really 
 profit  any. 
 
 Vers.  44,  45.  "  Jesus  cried,  and  said.  He  that  believeth  on 
 Me,  believeth  not  on  Me,  but  on  Him  that  sent  Me.  And  he 
 that  seeth  Me,  seeth  Him  that  sent  Me." — There  can  be  no 
 doubt  that  John  here  communicates  a  discourse  actually  de- 
 livered by  Jesus.  There  is  absolutely  no  proof  that  He  puts 
 words  into  our  Lord's  mouth  (see  on  ch.  iii.  16)  ;  this  was  for- 
 bidden by  the  deep  reverence  which  he  entertained  for  his  Lord. 
 Here  it  is  also  opposed  emphatically  by  the  eKpa^e,  which  refers 
 to  the  Lord's  manner  of  uttering  His  discourse,  just  as  in  ch. 
 vii.  28,  37.  When  this  hypothesis  is  supported  by  argument 
 drawn  from  the  unoriginal  and  almost  recapitulatory  character 
 of  the  discourse,  we  have  only  to  remark,  that  while,  on  the 
 one  hand,  this  discourse  is  not  formally  a  composition  from  the 
 earlier  recorded  words  of  Christ  in  John,  from  which  it  has 
 not  verbally  borrowed  a  single  expression  (ver.  48  even  touches 
 upon  Luke  x.  1 6  ;  and  there  is  no  Johannasan  parallel  for  the 
 Ka\  fxr)  (f)v\d^r}  in  ver.  47),  on  the  other  hand,  to  have  given 
 
 VOL.  II.  I 
 
130  CHAP.  VII.  1-XII.  50. 
 
 anything  materially  new  would  have  been  scarcely  appropriate 
 in  a  final  discourse  of  our  Lord.  Vers.  35,  36  bear  evidently 
 the  same  character  of  material  dependence  on  earlier  words 
 combined  with  formal  independence. 
 
 It  has  been  further  argued,  that  there  is  wanting  here 
 the  organic  connection  which  is  observable  elsewhere  in  the 
 Lord's  discourses  as  given  by  John ;  but  to  us  it  seems  that  it 
 must  be  the  fault  of  the  expositor  if  the  clear  process  of  thought 
 is  not  here  traced.  The  analysis  is  as  follows :  I  am  the  truly 
 Sent,  ver.  44 ;  and  the  visible  image  of  the  Father,  ver.  45 ; 
 and  because  I  am  this,  I  am  the  Saviour  of  the  world,  ver.  46 ; 
 and  on  this  account  unbelief — although  the  proper  design  of 
 My  mission  is  not  judgment,  ver.  47 — must,  in  the  nature  of 
 things,  bring  on  judgment :  the  rejected  word  of  God,  which 
 offers  the  most  glorious  of  all  benefits,  eternal  life,  must  recoil 
 in  judgment  upon  the  heads  of  those  who  scorn  it  in  My  lips. 
 "  For  1  have  not  spoken  of  Myself ;  even  as  the  Father  said 
 unto  Me,  so  I  speak."  In  these  words,  in  which  the  end  of 
 Christ's  discourse  returns  to  the  beginning  {ovv),  the  Jews 
 received  a  measure  by  which  they  might  mete  their  future — 
 their  future  in  this  world,  and  their  future  in  the  world  to  come. 
 A  profound  woe  lies  concealed  behind  them. — The  book  of 
 Judges,  ch.  ii.  1-5,  presents  us  something  strictly  analogous. 
 There  a  word  of  the  angel  of  the  Lord  to  the  collected  Israelites, 
 without  any  specification  of  the  historical  relations,  and  of  the 
 organ  through  which  the  angel  spake,  is  inwoven  into  the  intro- 
 duction, in  which  the  author  of  the  book,  with  his  own  hand, 
 exhibits  the  points  of  view  under  which  the  time  of  the  Judges 
 is  to  be  regarded. 
 
 When  did  Jesus  speak  these  words?  As  John  gives  no 
 note  of  the  time,  we  must  naturally  think  of  the  nearest  point 
 of  connection  ;  and  with  this  agrees  the  entire  character  of  the 
 discourse,  which  J.  Gerhard  thus  describes :  "  Christ  would,  in 
 this  grave  and  serious  attestation,  publicly  take  farewell  of  the 
 ungrateful  and  unbelieving  Jews,  and  throw  the  whole  blame 
 of  their  judgment  upon  themselves  alonCi"  Thus  we  have  here 
 the  continuation  of  the  former  part  of  ver.  36 ;  and  the  words, 
 "  These  things  spake  Jesus,  and  departed,  and  did  hide  Him- 
 self from  them,"  would  have  stood  after  "  Whatsoever  I  speak 
 therefore,"  etc.,  in  ver.  50,  if  the  Evangelist  had  not  thought  it 
 
CHAP.  XII.  46,  47.  131 
 
 appropriate  to  close  his  Epilogue  by  a  portion  of  the  concluding 
 words  of  Christ.  This  view  is  supported  also  by  the  considera- 
 tion, that  vers.  35,  36  are  too  brief  for  the  solemn  crisis  of  His 
 departure  from  the  people ;  and  then,  that  the  figure  of  light 
 and  darkness  which  was  employed  in  vers.  35,  36,  returns  again 
 at  once  in  ver.  46,  after  Jesus,  in  vers.  44,  45,  had  laid  the 
 foundation,  by  a  reference  to  His  own  dignity  and  His  unity 
 with  the  Father,  for  the  testimony  that  in  Him  light  was  given 
 to  the  people,  and  that  with  His  departure  darkness  would  come 
 upon  them. 
 
 "  He  that  believeth  on  Me,  believeth  not  on  Me,  but  on 
 Him  that  sent  Me."  The  Jews  sought  to  isolate  Christ,  and  to 
 erect  a  wall  of  partition  between  Him  and  the  Father :  We 
 believe  not  thee;  we  beheve  only  in  God;  and  because  we 
 believe  in  Him,  we  will  know  nothing  of  thee.  Entering  into 
 this  their  delusion,  Jesus  says, — he  believeth  not  on  "Me." 
 Ewald,  who  makes  our  Lord  intimate  "  that,  when  He  de- 
 manded faith  in  Himself,  He  did  not  thereby  demand  faith 
 in  Himself  as  a  mortal  man,  but  pure  faith  in  God  and  His 
 word" — changes  the  meaning  into  its  direct  opposite.  Jesus 
 denies  here,  as  in  Mark  ix.  37,  all  distinction  between  Himself 
 and  God. — The  clause  in  ver.  45  is  peculiar  to  this  concluding 
 word;  and  it  is  explained  by  what  was  observed  upon  ch.  i.  18. 
 To  believers  and  unbelievers  the  Father  was  in  Christ  exhibited ; 
 and  this  was  the  cause  of  the  downfall  of  the  Jews,  that  they 
 had  seen  the  Father  in  Christ,  and  had  blasphemously  fought 
 against  Him :  comp.  on  decopecv,  ch.  vi.  40.  Bengel  is  wrong 
 here  :  Ea  visione,  quam  fides  comitatur. 
 
 Ver.  46.  "I  am  come  a  light  into  the  world, that  whosoever 
 believeth  on  Me  should  not  abide  in  darkness." — Light  and 
 darkness  signify  here,  as  in  vers.  35,  36,  salvation  and  ruin. 
 Jesus  came  into  the  world  as  the  personal  salvation,  that  who- 
 soever believeth  on  Him  should  not  abide  in  that  darkness,  which 
 involves  all  who  have  either  not  known  Christ,  or  are  without 
 Him  :  comp.  on  ch.  i.  4,  viii.  12. 
 
 Ver.  47.  "And  if  any  man  hear  My  words,  and  believe  not, 
 I  judge  him  not :  for  I  came  not  to  judge  the  world,  but  to 
 save  the  world." — ^vXa^y  (keep  not)  is  much  better  authenti- 
 cated than  iriaTevari  (believe  not).  The  expression  is  borrowed 
 from  the  language  of  the  law:  comp.  e.g.  Ex.  xii.  17,  xv.  26. 
 
132  CHAP.  VII.  1-XII.  50. 
 
 By  the  use  of  this  language  Christ  places  Himself  on  a  level 
 with  the  Supreme  Lawgiver.  The  keeping  His  words  forms 
 an  antithesis  to  the  utter  rejection  of  them.  In  the  aicovarj  we 
 must  not  include  a  believing  adherence.  The  Lord  has  to  do 
 in  these  words  only  with  the  decidedly  unbelieving.  To  the 
 fit)  (pvXdacreiv  here,  corresponds  the  /jlt]  \afji,j3dvecv  in  ver.  48. 
 "I  judge  him  not:"  in  harmony  with  ch.  iii.  17,  this  simply 
 asserts  that  the  proper  vocation  and  position  of  Christ  is  not 
 that  of  a  judge,  but  that  of  a  Saviour ;  that  the  judgment  only 
 unfolds  itself  subordinately  and  of  itself,  growing  out  of  the 
 rejection  of  the  Saviour.  Judgment  has  not  its  root  in  Christ, 
 or  in  any  joy  He  feels  in  pronouncing  sentence ;  it  has  its 
 root  rather  in  the  unbeliever,  and  in  the  wicked  relation  which 
 he  assumes  towards  the  truth  from  God.  He  is  avTOKaraKpiTO';, 
 Tit.  iii.  11.  But  on  that  very  account  the  judgment  is  only 
 the  more  unavoidable ;  and  it  is  simple  folly  to  suppose  it  can 
 ever  be  escaped. 
 
 Ver.  48.  "  He  that  rejecteth  Me,  and  receiveth  not  My 
 words,  hath  one  that  judgeth  him  :  the  word  that  I  have  spoken, 
 the  same  shall  judge  him  in  the  last  day." — The  catastrophe  of 
 Jerusalem  was  to  the  Jews  a  prelude  or  type  of  this  last  day. 
 Then  did  the  apparently  impotent  word  of  Christ  come  up 
 against  them  like  an  armed  man.  Here,  as  in  ch.  viii.  50,  there 
 is  allusion  to  Deut.  xviii.  19. 
 
 Ver.  49.  "  For  I  have  not  spoken  of  Myself ;  but  the  Father 
 which  sent  Me,  He  gave  Me  a  commandment,  what  I  should 
 say,  and  what  I  should  speak." — It  is  frivolous  to  make  a 
 distinction  between  the  elirelv  and  the  Xdkelv.  The  union 
 of  the  two  words  only  indicates  emphatically  that  all  things 
 whatever  Christ  spake  He  spake  under  the  commission  of  the 
 Father. 
 
 Ver.  50.  "  And  I  know  that  His  commandment  is  life  ever- 
 lasting :  whatsoever  I  speak  therefore,  even  as  the  Father  said 
 unto  Me,  so  I  speak." — This  commandment,  the  fruit  of  the 
 doctrine  sent  from  Him,  when  it  is  believingly  received  and 
 embraced  in  the  heart.  The  practical  result  is,  that  Christ  has 
 nothing  to  leave  to  the  people,  which,  on  account  of  its  unbelief. 
 He  must  abandon,  but  death  and  destruction.  In  rejecting 
 Him  they  had  renounced  the  Father ;  and  the  insulted  word  of 
 the  Father  must  work  its  influence  upon  them,  until  it  should 
 
CHAP.  XIII.  1.  133 
 
 leave  them  neither  root  nor  branch.     For  them  it  was  the  worm 
 which  never  dieth. 
 
 CHAPTEES   XIIL-XVIL 
 
 The  first  four  of  the  seven  divisions  of  the  body  of  this 
 Gospel  relate  how  Jesus  wrought  the  works  of  Him  that  sent 
 Him  while  it  was  day :  the  last  three  describe  His  departure. 
 The  first  of  these  three,  ch.  xiii.-xvii.,  records  how  Jesus  loved 
 His  own  to  the  end  ;  relates  how,  in  the  prospect  of  His 
 passion.  He  prepared  His  disciples  for  His  coming  departure, 
 thus  furnishing  for  His  Church  of  all  times  a  rich  treasure  of 
 consolation.  The  Old  Testament  types  of  this  portion  are : 
 Deuteronomy,  in  which  the  departing  Moses  set  before  his 
 people  the  memory  of  the  way ;  the  sayings  of  Joshua  before 
 his  death,  ch.  xxiii.,  xxiv. ;  and  the  "  last  words  of  David,"  in 
 2  Sam.  xxiii.,  model  of  the  departure  of  St  Paul  from  the 
 elders  of  the  Ephesian  Church,  in  Acts  xx. 
 
 In  the  early  part,  the  narrative  of  what  passed  at  the  Last 
 Supper,  John  bears  only  a  supplementary  relation  to  the  earlier 
 Evangelists.  From  ch.  xiv.  onwards  he  communicates  what  his 
 predecessors  had  altogether  passed  over ;  they  having  modestly 
 recognised  the  limits  of  their  gift  and  vocation,  and  not  having 
 ventured  on  the  province  of  that  disciple  who  formerly  lay  on 
 our  Saviour's  breast,  and  was  initiated  beyond  the  rest  into  His 
 mysteries. 
 
 Ch.  xiii.  falls  into  three  parts :  the  feet-washing,  vers.  1-20 ; 
 the  conversation  touching  the  traitor,  vers.  21-30  ;  the  discourse 
 to  the  disciples  after  the  traitor's  departure,  vers.  31-38. 
 
 the  feet-washing. 
 
 Ch.  xiii.  1-20. 
 
 Ver.  1.  "  Now,  before  the  feast  of  the  Passover,  when  Jesus 
 knew  that  His  hour  was  come  that  He  should  depart  out  of  this 
 world  unto  the  Father,  Jiaving  loved  His  own  which  were  in 
 the  world.  He  loved  them  unto  the  end." — The  8e  points  to  the 
 circumstance  that  we  have  before  us,  not  a  new  book,  but  only 
 
134  CHAP.  XIII -XVII. 
 
 a  new  section  of  it.     That  the  connection  is  formed  by  an  ad- 
 versative particle,  places  the  severity  of  Jesus  against  the  Jews 
 in  ^contrast  with  His  love  towards  His  own.     This  first  verse 
 gives  the  sketch  ;  vers.  2  seq.  give  the  completion.     The  etSa)?, 
 knowing,  here,  is  resumed  in  ver.  3.     As  we  cannot  in  that  verse 
 interpret  "  hecause^^  but  only  "  although  He  knew,"  so  we  are 
 constrained  to  interpret  here.     This  will  appear  the  obvious 
 interpretation,  when  we  consider  that  the  motive  of  the  trans- 
 action is  indicated  by  the  words,   "  as  He  loved  His  own," 
 etc.     If  we  understand,  "  because  He  knew,"  there  arise  two 
 motives  for  this  action,  placed  unconnectedly  together,  which 
 is  scarcely  tolerable.     If  we  understand,  "  although  He  knew," 
 we  have  first  a  reference  to  the  hindrance  which  existed  to 
 the  last  display  of  love,  and  then,  in  "  because  He  loved,"  a 
 reference  to  the  living  principle  through  which  that  hindrance 
 was  overcome.      ^ A'yairrjaa'i  alone  contains  the  motive  :    the  V- 
 et'Sco?,  placed  before  it,  points  to  what  opposed  the  motive,  and  \ 
 must  be  vanquished  by  the  energy  of  that  love.     The  proof  of  \ 
 love  which  Jesus  now  at  the  last  gave  to  His  disciples,  beams     '. 
 out  in  all  the  richer  light,  because  Jesus  was  clearly  conscious 
 that  His  transition  into  a  state  of  glory  was  near  at  hand.    That,       j 
 notwithstanding  this  knowledge,  He  so  profoundly  abased  Him-       / 
 self  towards  His  disciples,  and  washed  their  feet,  must  fill  us       : 
 with  thankful  and  adoring  love.     It  was  as  if  God  had  from 
 heaven  itself  come  down  to  wash  the  feet  of  sinful  mortals ! 
 And  this  He  did  to  men  who  immediately  before  had  been 
 contending  for  a  pitiful  scrap  of  worldly  honour  !     "  Can  any 
 one,"  says  Heumann,  "  who  reads  this  historj^,  retain  a  spark  of 
 pride  in  his  heart  'ij  Or  if  he,  notwithstanding  what  he  reads, 
 remains  proud,  is  he  not  unworthy  of  the  name  of  a  Chris- 
 tian?"— We  must  not  understand  "  having  hitherto  loved  His 
 own  ; "  for  the  hitherto,  which  would  form  the  antithesis  to  et? 
 TeXo'i,  is  not  in  the  text  j  the  "  in  the  world "  looks  back  to 
 the   "  out  of  the  world,"  and  refers  to  the  perilous  position  ' 
 in  which  the  disciples  would  be  found  after  the  impending 
 departure  of  their  Lord  (comp.  ch.  xvii.  11 :  "  I  am  no  longer 
 in  the  world ;  but  these  are  in  the  world,  and  I  come  to  Thee." 
 Grotius  :  Quos  relicturus  erat  in  hoc  rerum  salo.     J.  Gerhard : 
 "  Because  they  still  remained  in  the  world,  in  the  valley  of  tri- 
 bulation, where  they  must  expect  nothing  but  trouble"), — leads 
 
CHAP.  XIII.  1.  135 
 
 expressly  to  the  love  which  manifested  itself  in  this  last  proof, 
 and  by  which  Jesus  strengthened  their  hearts  beforehand  to 
 meet  the  coming  sorrow.  We  must  therefore  assume  that 
 a'yanTrjCTa'i  indicates  His  love  in  general,  wdiile  rj^airrjaev  points 
 to  the  particular  act  of  love  which  now  sprang  from  that  source. 
 — ^A<yaTrav  can  of  itself  signify  only  the  affection  of  love.  But 
 as  this  can  be  known  only  by  the  action  that  expresses  it,  such 
 an  action  is  indirectly  indicated  in  the  rj^airrjaev.  That  this 
 rj^airrjaev  must  be  primarily  referred  to  the  act  of  w^ashing 
 their  feet,  is  evident  from  the  words  "  before  the  feast  of  the 
 Passover."  The  other  tokens  of  love  which  are  recorded  in  this 
 section  are  part  of  the  feast  itself.  Yet  we  may  appropriately 
 regard  the  remaining  evidences  of  love  as  supplementary  to 
 the  feet-washing.  "  To  the  end  "  seems  to  show  that  the  Evan- 
 gelist so  regarded  them.  There  is  no  difficulty  in  this,  when 
 we  consider  what  followed  as  only  the  unfolding  of  what  had 
 been  already  displayed  in  the  washing,  and  furnishing  a  com- 
 mentary upon  it.  If  we  separate  them,  the  eh  Te\o<;  loses  its 
 significance.  The  remaining  acts  of  love,  which  were  assiiredly 
 confirmations  of  the  tender  affection  of  the  Lord  towards  His 
 disciples,  would  then  fall  beyond  and  after  the  reXo?.  We 
 cannot  argue  that  the  supreme  proof  of  His  love.  His  death, 
 lay  nevertheless  beyond  the  "  end "  here  mentioned ;  for  the 
 words  here  refer  to  the  love  displayed  to  His  own,  and  not  to 
 that  which  was  manifested  by  the  Saviour  of  the.  world. 
 
 It  remains  that  w^e  examine  the  chronological  note  at  the 
 beginning  of  the  verse,  "  before  the  feast  of  the  Passover." 
 Remembering  John's  manner  in  giving  marks  of  time  (comp. 
 ch.  xii.  1),  we  cannot  doubt  that  his  words  here  refer  to  the 
 event  which  he  was  about  to  record,  primarily  to  rjjaTr^aev,  or 
 to  the  "  riseth "  in  the  nanrative ;  or  that  the  feet-washing 
 occurred  in  the  time  before  the  paschal  feast. 
 
 "Before  the  feast"  either  means  nothing  (and  that  can 
 the  less  be  assumed,  inasmuch  as  John  is  the  only  one  of  the 
 Evangelists  who  follows  definite  chronological  leadings,  all  his 
 other  notes  of  time  being  thoroughly  precise,  such  as  that  of  the 
 six  days  before  the  Passover  in  ch.  xii.  1 ;  on  the  following  day, 
 ver.  12),  or  it  points  to  the  fact,  that  the  transaction  to  which 
 this  note  of  time  refers,  the  feet-washing,  belongs  to  the  time 
 immediately  before  the  beginning  of  the  paschal  feast ;  that 
 
136  CHAP.  XIII. -XVII. 
 
 between  the  feast  and  the  washing  nothing  else  intervened ; 
 that,  with  the  completion  of  the  washing,  the  Passover  imme- 
 diately began  for  those  here  concerned.  If  we  give  up  the 
 closest  proximity  of  the  feast,  we  are  left  to  most  arbitrary 
 hypotheses  as  to  the  time.  We  have  no  more  reason  to  refer 
 it  to  the  day  before  than  to  any  other  day.  But  considering 
 the  high  importance  which  the  Evangelist  himself  attaches 
 to  the  events  here  recorded,  the  feet-washing  and  what  was 
 connected  with  it  down  to  ch.  xvii.,  it  is  inconceivable  that 
 he  would  leave  them  chronologically  indefinite,  with  abso- 
 lutely no  note  of  time ;  and  more  especially  as  they  have  been 
 treated  with  very  exact  chronological  precision  by  the  other 
 Evangelists,  themselves  much  more  careless  on  this  point.  It 
 is  plain  that  the  last  meal  of  Jesus,  to  which  all  in  John's 
 thirteenth  chapter  relates,  was,  according  to  those  earlier  Evan- 
 gelists, the  paschal  meal ;  and  that  Jesus  partook  of  it  at  the 
 same  time  with  the  Jews,  entirely  according  to  the  law  and 
 the  universal  custom  of  the  feast.  (Wichelhaus  has  thoroughly 
 settled  this  point  in  his  Leidensgesch.)  If  the  Evangelist  had 
 had  the  design,  attributed  to  him  by  many,  of  subverting  this 
 chronological  decision  of  his  predecessors,  he  could  not  have^ 
 acted  more  perversely.  He  would  have  opposed  to  their  chro-1 
 nological  precision  an  absolutely  vague  indefiniteness.  ■^    (\ 
 
 That  "  before  the  Passover  "  means  "  immediately  before  " 
 (just  as,  in  Luke  xi.  38,  Trpb  rov  aplarov  refers  to  what  im- 
 mediately preceded  the  mid-day  meal),  has  been  well  shown  by 
 Lange,  who  argues  that  such  specific  acts  as  the  rising  from 
 the  table,  ver.  4,  are  not  reckoned  by  days,  but  by  hours  and 
 moments.  Accordingly  the  sense  here  must  be,  that  immediately 
 before  the  beginning  of  the  feast  He  rose  up. 
 
 Having  settled  that  this  action  took  place  immediately 
 before  the  paschal  feast,  the  further  question  arises  as  to  when 
 the  feast  itself  began.  It  is  to  be  taken  for  granted  that  the 
 most  important  time  of  the  feast,  that  of  the  fourteenth  Nisan, 
 cannot  be  excluded  from  the  paschal  period.  Those  who  have 
 attempted  to  do  so  have  been  labouring,  under  a  misapprehen- 
 sion. That  which  gave  its  name  to  the  whole  feast  must 
 necessarily  have  been  included  within  its  limits.  But  the 
 question  is,  whether  the  feast  had  its  beginning  literally  with 
 the  commencement  of  this  meal,  or  whether,  as  Wieseler  and 
 
 \j 
 
CHAP.  XIII.  1.  137 
 
 Wichelhaus  maintain,  the  slaying  of  the  lamt  must  also  be 
 included. 
 
 We  decide  in  favour  of  the  former  view,  and  assume  that 
 the  beginning  of  the  feast  coincided  with  the  beginning  of  this 
 meal.  The  very  idea  of  the  feast  is  in  harmony  with  such  a 
 view.  'Eoprrj  always  corresponds  in  the  New  Testament  to 
 the  Hebrew  an,  and  is  never  used  save  of  joyful  festivities, 
 in  which  the  people  rejoiced  before  the  Lord.  The  root  JJn 
 signified  originally  to  dance,  then  to  celebrate  a  festivity : 
 "  derived  from  the  sacred  choruses  and  dances  with  which  the 
 feasts  were  wont  to  be  observed  "  (Gesenius).  The  joy  which 
 was  accordingly  associated  with  the  idea  of  the  feast,  was  based 
 upon  the  presupposal  of  an  accomplished  atonement,  obtained 
 in  the  Passover  through  the  slaying  of  the  lamb.  The  great 
 day  of  atonement,  notwithstanding  its  profound  importance 
 (Lev.  xvi.  31),  was  never  termed  a  feast  any  more  than  our 
 Good  Friday  falls  under  the  Scriptural  notion  of  a  feast.  The 
 paschal  feast  was  further,  according  to  Isa.  xxx.  29  (comp.  Ex. 
 xii.  42),  a  night-feast,  and  did  not  begin  until  darkness  had  set 
 in ;  but  the  slaying  of  the  lamb  took  place  while  it  was  yet  day. 
 The  same  passage  of  Isaiah  shows  that  feast  and  song  were 
 always  inseparably  connected.  According  to  Ps.  Ixxxi.  2-4,  the 
 feast  pertained  to  the  domain  of  the  moon,  and  was  begun  with 
 shouting  and  song :  comp.  2  Chron.  xxx.  21,  22.  Finally, 
 the  feast  is  always  called  in  the  books  of  IMoses  the  feast  of 
 unleavened  bread.  But  the  eating  of  the  unleavened  bread 
 began,  according  to  Ex.  xii.  18,  not  till  "the  evening,"  the 
 evening  which  opened  the  fifteenth  Nisan,  Lev.  xxiii.  6.  On 
 the  fourteenth  Nisan,  between  the  two  evenings — that  is,  in  the 
 afternoon — there  was  indeed  a  Passover  to  the  Lord  ;  but  that 
 was  the  paschal  sacrifice,  not  the  paschal  feast,  with  which  we 
 are  here  concerned.  The  two  are  carefully  distinguished  in 
 Num.  xxviii.  16,  17,  "In  the  fourteenth  day  of  the  first  month 
 is  the  Passover  of  the  Lord.  And  in  the  fifteenth  day  of  this 
 month  is  the  feast :"  comp.  also  2  Chron.  xxxv.  17. 
 
 .  It  may  therefore  be  regarded  as  fixed,  that  -the  paschal 
 feast  had  its  commencement  with  the  paschal  meal.  But  what 
 defined  the  actual  commencement  of  the  meal?  Having  so 
 entirely  spiritual  a  character,  we  may  assume  that  its  com- 
 mencement was  not  a  material  but  a  spiritual  one  ;  and  we  can 
 
138  CHAP.  XIII. -xvir. 
 
 the  less  doubt  this,  inasmuch  as  its  conclusion  is  expressly 
 described  to  have  been  a  spiritual  one  :  vfivr](TavTe<i,  Matt.  xxvi. 
 30.  The  meal  had  its  specific  liturgy,  which  Jesus  did  not 
 dispense  with,  so  far  as  it  adhered  to  holy  Scripture,  as  the 
 vfivi](Tavre<;  itself  shows.  The  meal  had  indeed  its  unvarying 
 introductory  words.  All  that  took  place  before  the  moment 
 when  these  were  spoken,  was  regarded  as  "  before"  the  feast  of 
 the  Passover,  although  immediately  preceding  and  introducing  it. 
 
 The  further  question  arises.  Did  the  Lord's  act  of  washing 
 take  place  before  the  beginning  of  the  paschal  meal,  as  thus 
 indicated  ? 
 
 It  may  be  argued  from  vers.  2  and  4,  that  the  supper,  and 
 consequently  the  feast,  had  begun  before  the  feet-washing.  But 
 the  fact  of  the  time  having  come,  does  not  prove  the  beginning 
 of  the  meal  or  of  the  feast ;  that  depended  on  the  liturgy,  and 
 the  actual  eating  which  then  immediately  followed.  The  koX 
 BeLTTVov  <yivofjLevov  (Tisch. :  not  <yevofievov)  points  to  the  circum- 
 stance that  in  a  certain  sense,  not  coming  into  consideration 
 here,  the  supper  was  already  come.  (Meyer :  "  While  they 
 were  in  the  act  of  keeping  the  supper.")  The  supper  was  not 
 yet ;  it  was  about  to  begin.  The  translation  of  the  Vulgate, 
 coena  peract^,  and  Luther's  "  after  the  supper,"  would  not  be 
 justified  even  by  the  reading  ryevofxevov. 
 
 But  we  can  positively  demonstrate  that  the  feet-washing 
 preceded  the  actual  beginning  of  the  supper  and  of  the  feast. 
 
 That  the  washing  of  the  feet  was  customary  at  all  greater 
 feasts,  was  a  result  of  the  Oriental  equipment  of  the  feet,  the 
 Oriental  climate,  and  the  Oriental  habit  of  reclining  at  the 
 table,  which  brought  the  feet  into  contact  with  the  neighbour. 
 To  give  the  guest  no  water  for  his  feet  was,  according  to  Luke 
 vii.  44,  regarded  as  something  altogether  unusual,  and  as  a 
 great  indignity.  The  word  of  our  Lord,  in  ver.  10,  shows 
 that  the  washing  of  the  feet  was  a  necessity  at  the  feast. 
 Least  of  all  could  it  have  been  omitted  at  the  paschal  feast ; 
 that  would  have  been  in  the  fullest  sense  a  profanation. 
 
 The  very  nature  of  the  case  demonstrates  that  the  feet- 
 washing  preceded  the  actual  meal;  this  is  attested  by  the  whole* 
 of  Scripture,  wherever  the  matter  is  mentioned,  from  Gen.  - 
 xviii.  4,  xix.    2,  downwards.     Classical  antiquity  affirms  the 
 same  thing.     Not  only  was  the  washing  of  the  feet  "  usually  " 
 
CHAP.  XIII.  1.  139 
 
 performed  before  the  meal;  it  was  so  always,  and  without 
 exception. 
 
 We  gather  from  vers.  4,  5,  that  the  apparatus  for  the  feet- 
 washing  was  quite  prepared,  but  had  not  as  yet  been  used. 
 This  leads  us  to  the  conclusion  that  our  Lord's  act  had  a 
 specific  reason  ;  and  that,  in  fact,  He  did  what  others  had 
 omitted.  And  those  who  had  neglected  the  act  must  be  sought 
 within  the  circle  of  the  disciples.  The  master  of  the  house  had 
 only  yielded  his  chamber  to  the  Lord.  He  did  not,  as  in  Luke 
 vii.,  act  the  part  of  the  host.  In  this  last  feast  our  Lord  Him- 
 self occupies  the  place  of  entertainer:  comp.  Matt.  xxvi.  17. 
 The  master  of  the  house  was  always  bound  to  his  family  at  the 
 paschal  season.  Those  expositors  who  hold  the  independent 
 nature  and  significance  of  our  Lord's  act,  are  much  embarrassed 
 by  the  p^i'esence  of  the  materials  for  washing ;  Lampe,  for  ex- 
 ample, following  the  example  of  Euthymius,  represents  Jesus 
 as  having  asked  for  these  things  at  the  hands  of  the  host,  etc. 
 That  would  have  had  to  be  recorded,  if  the  act  had  been  one 
 of  independent  origination  ;  but  as  we  see  the  reverse,  we  may 
 fairly  infer  that  the  feet-washing  was,  so  to  speak,  accidental 
 in  its  origin. 
 
 In  respect  to  the  Lord's  act,  it  must  be  taken  for  granted 
 that  no  other  washing  had  preceded.  Now,  if  it  is  a  settled 
 point  that  such  a  ceremony  was  absolutely  necessary  before  the 
 beginning  of  the  feast,  then  must  the  present  one  have  occurred 
 before  "  the  supper  "  began,  and  consequently  before  the  Pass- 
 over. It  would  have  been  most  inappropriate  for  Jesus  to  wash 
 over  again  the  feet  that  had  been  washed.  "jETg  did  not," 
 says  Schweitzer,  "  superjluously  rewash  their  feet :  there  would 
 have  been  nothing  but  an  artificial  example  in  such  an  act, 
 as  it  would  not  have  been  an  act  of  necessity." 
 
 The  fact  that  our  Lord  rose  up  from  the  table,  ver.  4, 
 shows  that  He  assumed  the  place  of  others  whose  business  it 
 was  to  wash  the  feet,  but  who  had  pretermitted  it.  If  He  had 
 had  the  independent  design  to  wash  the  feet  of  His  disciples. 
 He  would  not  have  seated  Himself  at  the  table.  And  the  act 
 itself  leads  to  the  same  conclusion.  His  washing  their  feet 
 .  would  have  had,  viewed  apart  from  some  specific  occasion  for 
 it,  a  far-fetched  and  romantic  character;  and  the  objection 
 which  Weisse,  for  instance,  urges  against  it  as  a  "  tasteless 
 
140  CHAP.  XIII.-XVII. 
 
 humiliation"  (he  remarks  that  he  could  find  no  edification  in 
 it,  as  it  would  have  to  eveiy  unbiassed  feeling  a  touch  of  thea- 
 trical design  in  it),  would,  on  such  a  supposition,  be  not  alto- 
 gether unfounded.  Ewald  remarks,  on  that  theory  :  "  A  strange 
 thought  was  seen  suddenly  to  take  possession  of  Christ's  soul ;" 
 and  Liicke  observes  :  "  Here  all  was  unusual ;  the  Master  of 
 the  house  performs  the  act  Himself,  and  by  performing  it 
 interrupts  the  supper."  We  cannot  but  see  the  confusion  of 
 all  these  observations ;  and  that,  by  renouncing  any  specific 
 reason  for  the  Lord's  act,  they  lose  the  only  key  to  its  interpre- 
 tation., J  ©y  recognising  the,  as  it  were,  accidental  occasion  of 
 the  feet-washing,  we  get  rid  of  the  notion  that  Jesus  apparently 
 j)rescribed  a  rite  to  be  observed  in  all  times ;  and  we  are  then 
 justified  in  distinguishing  between,  the  eternally  valid  principle 
 of  the  feet-washing,  and  the  form  of  its  expression  as  influenced 
 by  passing  circumstances.  If  we  ignore  the  fortuitous  origin 
 of  the  act,  we  can  hardly  refute  the  argument  of  Weisse,  that 
 as  the  symbolical  rite  never  became  a  sacred  usage  of  the  early 
 Church,  the  historical  truth  of  the  narrative  may  be  impeached. 
 
 Finally,  the  assumption  of  a  special  reason  for  the  act  is 
 sti'engthened  by  the  urgent  manner  in  which  our  Lord  requires 
 of  His  disciples  that  they  wash  one  another's  feet.  It  is  obvious 
 to  infer  that  He  exhorted  them  to  perform  in  future,  after  His 
 example,  the  service  that  they  had  just  neglected.  So  also  the 
 emphatic  exhortations  to  brotherly  love,  vers.  34,  35,  shine  out 
 in  brighter  light  when  we  consider  that  the  Apostles  had  re- 
 cently incurred  the  blame  of  neglect  in  that  particular. 
 
 So  far  we  draw  our  materials  from  John  himself.  But  our 
 view  is  enlarged  if  we  compare  the  nearest  predecessor  of  John 
 among  the  Evangelists,  Luke,  with  whom  he  everywhere  has 
 more  contact  than  with  any  other.  He  relates,  in  ch.  xxii.  7-23, 
 the  events  of  "  the  day  of  unleavened  bread,  when  the  Passover 
 must  be  killed,"  in  chronological  order,  and  in  harmony  with 
 his  two  predecessors.  Then,  in  the  manner  with  which  in 
 him  we  are  familiar,  he  adds  a  supplement  not  chronologically 
 connected  with  what  precedes,  vers.  24-38.  There  he  narrates 
 a  contest  that  took  place  among  the  disciples  as  to  who  of  them 
 should  be  greatest,  and  the  words  which  our  Lord  addressed  to 
 them  in  consequence.  But  we  cannot  imagine  this  contention  to 
 have  occurred  after  the  beginning  of  the  supper :  such  a  supposi- 
 
CHAP.  XIII.  ].  141 
 
 tlon  would  be  utterly  inconsistent  with  the  solemn  tone  in  which 
 Jesus  commenced  the  feast.  But  neither  can  we  imagine  it  before 
 the  commencement  of  the  feast,  at  a  time  so  full  of  solemnity, 
 unless  we  suppose  that  some  circumstances  surprised  them  into 
 it,  that  something  in  the  state  of  matters  gave  direct  occasion 
 for  the  contest.  That  occasion  we  must  not  seek  in  the  selec- 
 tion of  places  at  the  table  (Lichtenstein)  ;  it  must  rather  be 
 sought  in  the  fact  that  a  service  was  expected  by  some  which 
 was  not  rendered.  This  will  appear  evident  from  the  exhorta- 
 tion of  ver.  26,  which  refers  to  this  contention  :  "  He  that  is 
 greatest  among  you,  let  him  be  as  the  younger ;  and  he  that  is 
 chief,  as  he  that  doth  serve."  We  infer  from  this  that  the 
 greater  among  the  Apostles,  those  who  were  by  the  Lord  dis- 
 tinguished above  the  rest,  and  were  the  appointed  "pillars," 
 with  Peter  at  their  head,  had  expected  from  the  lesser  Apostles 
 a  service  which  these  had  not  rendered.  The  words  of  Jesus, 
 ver.  27,  show  that  that  service  was  no  other  than  the  washing 
 of  the  feet :  "  For  whether  is  greater,  he  that  sitteth  at  meat, 
 or  he  that  serveth  ?  is  not  he  that  sitteth  at  meat  ?  but  I  am 
 among  you  as  he  that  serveth."  These  words  of  Luke  stand 
 in  undeniable  connection  with  ver.  4,  where  Jesus  assumes 
 the  garment  of  a  servant,  in  order  to  wash  the  disciples'  feet. 
 If  the  serving  of  Jesus,  which  in  Luke  is  exhibited  as  the  cor- 
 rective of  the  disciples'  reluctance  to  serve, — a  reluctance  which 
 gave  occasion  for  the  contest, — was  actually  this  washing  of  the 
 feet,  the  disciples'  refusal  to  serve  must  have  been  no  other  than 
 their  having  declined  to  wash  each  other's  feet. 
 
 The  matter  then  stands  thus.  Jesus  had  seated  Himself  at 
 the  table,  and  probably  Peter  enjoyed  the  honour  of  washing 
 His  feet.  After  this  was  done,  he,  with  the  other  disciples 
 interioris  admissionis,  also  sate  at  the  table,  expecting  that  the 
 **  younger"  would  spontaneously  assume  the  function  of  feet- 
 washers  for  all  the  rest.  But  pride  evoked  pride.  The  younger 
 Apostles,  following  a  quick  impulse,  seated  themselves  also  at 
 the  table.  Thus  a  situation  of  deep  embarrassment  was  the 
 result :  murmuring  and  contest.  Who  would  be  the  first  to 
 rise  up  again  ?  Jesus  put  an  end  to  the  embarrassment,  by 
 arising  from  the  supper  and  washing  the  feet  of  His  disciples. 
 How  much  sorrow  was  caused  by  this  fatal  contention  in  the 
 circle  of  the  disciples,  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  Matthew  and 
 
142  CHAP.  XIII.-XVII. 
 
 Mark  pass  over  it  altogether,  -svhile  Luke  and  John  touch  it 
 only  by  way  of  hint. 
 
 If  our  Lord's  washing  occurred  immediately  before  the 
 beginning  of  the  last  paschal  meal,  John  is  in  perfect  harmony 
 with  the  other  Evangelists.  Such  a  harmony  every  one  must 
 certainly  expect  who  only  remembers  and  carefully  considers 
 the  general  relation  in  which  John  stands  to  his  predecessors. 
 He  also  will  be  incapable  of  doubting  that  in  John  the  last 
 supper  and  the  Lord's  death  must  fall  within  the  paschal  feast. 
 This  is  the  goal  to  which  all  that  precedes  tends.  Jesus 
 always  withdrew  from  His  enemies  until  the  Passover  was 
 come ;  He  goes  up  to  the  capital  when  the  feast  draws  nigh, 
 entering  it  on  the  day  when  the  lambs  were  set  apart.  Ch.  xix. 
 36  points  the  same  way,  where  Christ  appears  as  the  antitype 
 of  the  paschal  lamb. 
 
 Vers.  2,  3,  4.  "  And  supper  being  ended,  (the  devil  having 
 now  put  into  the  heart  of  Judas  Iscariot,  Simon's  son,  to  betray 
 Him,)  Jesus  knowing  that  the  Father  had  given  all  things  into 
 His  hands,  and  that  He  was  come  from  God,  and  went  to  God ; 
 He  riseth  from  supper,  and  laid  aside  His  garments ;  and  took 
 a  towel,  and  girded  Himself." — Kal  SelTrvov  ^yivofievov  in  ver.  2 
 means  literally,  "And  the  meal  being  about  to  begin."  Kal 
 announces  the  further  development  of  what  was  given  in  epi- 
 tome in  ver.  1.  The  meal  needed  no  more  exact  definition,  as, 
 according  to  the  connection  with  ver.  1,  it  could  only  be 
 understood  as  that  which  the  other  three  Evangelists  had 
 made  familiar,  and  which  opened  the  paschal  feast.  Tobit 
 ii.  1  is  similar:  "Li  the  feast  of  Pentecost  there  was  a  good 
 dinner  prepared  me,  in  the  which  I  sat  down  to  eat."  There 
 a  good  meal  is  spoken  of  quite  indefinitely ;  but  the  connection 
 shows  that  the  chief  meal  of  the  feast  is  meant.  The  passage 
 is  also  further  analogous,  inasmuch  as  the  iyevrjOr)  apiarov  there 
 also  indicates  the  meal  by  its  material  preparation.  It  follows 
 in  ver.  4  :  "  Then,  before  I  had  tasted  of  any  meat,  I  started 
 up."  In  harmony  with  this  parallel  passage,  Heumann  para- 
 phrases our  text :  "  When  the  last  supper  was  provided  for, 
 and  stood  ready  on  the  table."  In  ch.  xxi.  20,  the  article 
 secures  to  the  feast  its  definite  character,  just  as  here  the  rela- 
 tion to  ver.  1  does  :  to  heiirvov,  the  generally  known  and  cele- 
 brated meal. 
 
CHAP.  XIII.  2-4.  143 
 
 The  scope  of  the  remark  that  Satan  had  ah'eady  put  it  into 
 the  heart  of  Judas  to  betray  Jesus,  must  first  be  interpreted  by 
 the  epitome  of  ver.  1,  and  then  by  the  words  of  ver.  3.     Vers. 
 2  and  3  serve  for  the  development  of  the  words  of  the  epitome, 
 etSob? — TraTepa.     Accordingly,  the  already  determined  treachery 
 of  Judas  is  here  referred  to  only  as  involving  the  near  approach 
 of  the  death  of  Jesus,  and,  as  connected  with  it.  His  approaching 
 departure  to  the  glory  of  the  Father.     That  Jesus,  in  the  pro- 
 spect of  that  glory,  abased  Himself  so  deeply,  and  assumed,  as 
 never  before,  the  form  of  a  servant,  showed  the  energy  of  His 
 love  to  His  own.      Vers.  31,  32  also  support  this  view.     There 
 the  beti'ayal  of  Judas  appears  as  no  other  than  the  prelude  of 
 the  glorification  of  Christ.     If,  in  interpreting  the  words,  "  the 
 devil  having  now  put  it  into  the  heart  of  Judas  Iscariot,"  we 
 omit  to  connect  them  with  the  first  and  third  verses,  we  are  left 
 to  mere  conjectures,  and  the  result  must  be  a  wide  variety  of 
 opinions.     But,  dealing  with  them  as  above,  vers.  1-3  present 
 much  simplicity  and  transparency  of  thought.     The  Apostle 
 gives  the   utmost   prominence  to   the   circumstance   that   the 
 demonstration  of  Christ's  love  derived  its  deepest  significance 
 from  its  having  been  exhibited  at  the  end,  at  the  period  when 
 His  glory  was  about  to  attain  its  consummation,  in  which  it 
 might  have  been  supposed  that  thoughts  of  greatness  would 
 leave  no  room  for  any  other.     A  secret  Kyrie  eleeson  is  always, 
 however,  the  undertone.     While  the  Apostle  so  strongly  illus- 
 trates the  humble  love  of  Christ,  he  at  the  same  time  mourns 
 over  the  proud  (piXovetKia  of  himself  and  his  brother-disciples, 
 whose  darkness  was  only  shone  upon  by  the  clear  brightness 
 of  Christ's  example.     That  is  the  proper  key  to  the  striking 
 accumulation  of  the  expressions. — That  Satan  at  that  time  had 
 already  put  it  into  the  heart  of  Judas  to  betray  his  Master,  was 
 an  internal  fact  of  which  the  Searcher  of  hearts  alone  could  be 
 cognizant.     But,  inasmuch  as  it  here  enters  as  an  historical 
 element,  it  is  to  be  taken  for  granted  that  the  internal  fact  had 
 already  assumed  an  external  form,  and  become  known  to  man. 
 Now,  the  other  Evangelists  expressly  record  this  to  have  been 
 the  case ;  they  prove  that  Judas  had  already  concluded  his 
 compact  with  the  high  priests.  Matt.  xxvi.  14-16 ;  Mark  xiv. 
 10,  11 ;  Luke  xxii.  3-6.     John  would  have  appealed  to  these 
 passages,  had  the  question  been  put  to  him,  How  knowest  thou 
 
144  CHAP.  XIII.-XVII. 
 
 this  ?  It  is  plain  that  he  had  in  view  the  passage  of  Luke,  his 
 immediate  predecessor,  for  there  also  the  trafficking  of  Judas 
 with  the  chief  priests  is  referred  to  Satan.  The  narrative  in 
 Luke  begins  with  the  words,  "  Then  entered  Satan  into  Judas, 
 surnamed  Iscariot,  being  of  the  number  of  the  twelve,"  words 
 to  which  John,  in  ver,  27,  also  expressly  alludes.  He  reserves, 
 however,  the  very  strong  expression  used  there  for  the  last  stage. 
 — According  to  Rev.  xvii.  17,  it  might  have  been  stated  that 
 God  put  it  into  his  heart.  Satan  everywhere  serves  only  as  the 
 instrument  of  the  plans  of  God.  What  Judas  did,  like  all  the 
 works  of  the  _  ungodly,  stood  under  the  secret  direction  of  the 
 Supreme.  The  sin  belonged  to  himself.  Since  he  would  not 
 separate  from  it,  and  be  converted,  in  spite  of  all  the  means 
 freely  vouchsafed  to  him,  he  was  compelled  to  be  the  involuntary 
 instrument  of  the  plans  of  Satan  first,  and  then  of  God,  whose 
 servant  even  Satan  is ;  and  when  he  had  done  this,  he  was  to 
 be  thrown  away,  and  go  to  his  own  place.  As  his  personal 
 definition,  to  distinguish  the  traitor  from  the  other  Judas  among 
 the  Apostles,  ^//xw w?  was  enough.  The  ^laKapuorov  was  added 
 only  to  stamp  the  traitor  with  infamy  :  comp.  on  ch.  vi.  71, 
 xii.  4. 
 
 On  ver.  3  Heumann  observes :  "  This  must  not  be  viewed 
 as  if  John  repeated  in  ver.  3  his  first  elB(o<;  in  ver.  1,  '  although 
 He  knew.' "  His  amazement  at  this  act  of  Jesus  constrained 
 him  to  say  again  what  he  had  said  already,  and  thus  to  excite 
 the  attention  of  his  readers  :  "  I  say  it  once  more,  that  He, 
 knowing  that  His  Father  had  made  Him  Lord  of  all  lords,  and 
 that  He  was  about  to  enter  heaven  in  full  triumph,  nevertheless 
 humbled  Himself  so  much  as  to  wash  the  feet  of  His  disciples." 
 The  8e8(OK6,  "  gave,"  is  used  by  anticipation  ;  the  brief  space  of 
 time  which  elapsed  between  the  present  and  the  bestowment  of 
 His  power  is  ignored  :  compare  the  "  will  straightway  glorify 
 Him,"  ver.  32.  That  the  iravra,  "  all  things,"  is  to  be  taken 
 in  its  full  comprehensiveness,  is  evident  from  Matt,  xxviii.  18, 
 "  all  power  is  given  unto  Me  in  heaven  and  upon  earth :"  comp. 
 Heb.  ii.  8. — The  consciousness  of  Jesus,  that  He  had  come  forth 
 from  God,  must  have  been  pre-eminently  vivid  at  the  time 
 when  His  return  to  God,  and  to  the  glory  which  He  had  with 
 Him  before  the  world  was,  immediately  approached. 
 
 He  laid  aside  His  gannents,  ver.  4, — so  far,  that  is,  as  they 
 
CHAP.  XIII.  5,  6.  145 
 
 were  an  hindrance  to  the  act  He  was  about  to  perform.  This, 
 of  course,  appHecl  only  to  the  outer  garment.  That  Jesus 
 girded  Himself  with  the  napkin,  is  evident  from  ver.  5.  That 
 was  specifically  the  equipment  or  habitus  of  a  servant.  In 
 Luke  xvii.  8,  we  read  of  a  servant  to  whom  his  lord  says,  "  Gird 
 thyself,  and  wait  upon  me."  That  our  Lord  so  formally  pre- 
 pared Himself  for  the  act,  not  only  had  reference  to  the  end 
 He  proposed,  but  served  also  to  realize  vividly  before  our  eyes 
 the  depth  of  His  humiliation.  The  matter  might  have  been  ac- 
 complished without  all  this  formal  preparation.  But  then  the 
 humiliation  of  the  disciples  would  have  been  less  profound,  and 
 the  admonition  less  penetrating.  Only  on  the  consideration  we 
 have  mentioned  can  the  careful  detail  of  the  Apostle's  descrip- 
 tion be  understood. 
 
 Vers.  5,  6.  "  After  that  He  poureth  water  into  a  bason,  and 
 began  to  wash  the  disciples'  feet,  and  to  wipe  them  with  the 
 towel  wherewith  He  was  girded.  Then  cometh  He  to  Simon 
 Peter :  and  Peter  said  unto  Him,  Lord,  dost  Thou  wash  my 
 feet?" — "He  began"  points  to  the  circumstance  that  the  act 
 had  to  be  performed  over  a  wide  circle.  The  ep')(erai  ovv,  in 
 its  reference  to  ver.  5,  suggests  that  Jesus  began  with  Peter ; 
 which  has  been  denied  only  in  the  interests  of  a  narrow  and 
 petty  opposition  to  the  Roman  Church.  Ver.  5  says  in  general, 
 that  Jesus  began  to  wash  the  disciples'  feet.  •  Ver.  6  adds  with 
 whom  He  began  ;  and  the  ovv  is  specifically  connected  with  the 
 Tjp^aro  :  thus  He  came,  or  thus  beginning  He  came.  It  is 
 probable,  on  other  grounds,  that  our  Lord  began  with  Simon 
 Peter.  The  order  of  precedence  among  the  Apostles,  in  which 
 Peter  always  had  the  first  place  (comp.  Matt.  xvi.  18),  could 
 hardly,  on  such  an  occasion  as  this,  have  been  ignored  by  Christ. 
 And  that  would  have  been  all  the  less  appropriate,  inasmuch  as 
 Peter  had  doubtless  assumed  the  first  place  in  the  contention. - 
 When  Christ  commenced  the  feet-washing  with  him,  it  was  all 
 the  more  keen  a  humiliation  of  his  aspiring  natural  man.  Even 
 the  protest  of  Peter  leads  to  the  conclusion  that  Jesus  com- 
 menced with  him.  Every  other  disciple  would  doubtless  have 
 protested  in  the  same  way;  and  if,  through  modesty,  one  or  other 
 had  kept  silence,  the  impetuous  Peter  would  doubtless  have  in 
 some  way  interposed.  As  the  Lord  had  placed  him  at  the  head 
 of  the  Apostles,  he  had,  in  a  certain  sense,  a  right  to  be  their 
 VOL.  II.  e: 
 
146  CHAP.  XIII.- XVII. 
 
 representative.  But  in  that  case  the  explanation  which  ensued 
 between  Jesus  and  Peter  would  have  taken  place  before ;  we 
 can  understand  it,  as  it  lies  before  us,  only  on  the  supposition 
 that  Peter  began  the  series.  "  But,"  observes  Heumann,  "  as 
 the  Lord  commanded  the  first  to  let  it  be  so,  the  others  kept 
 silence  when  their  turn  came  ;  however  astonished,  they  never- 
 theless submitted  obediently  to  receive  the  service  which  the 
 Lord  performed." — Peter  was  not  wrong  in  resenting  the  Lord's  -^ 
 humiliation  in  washing  his  feet.  So  long  as  he  did  not  recog- 
 nise the  symbolical  significance  of  this  action,  it  must  have 
 seemed  to  him  altogether  abnormal  and  unaccountable ;  and 
 even  if  he  had  come  to  the  full  consciousness  of  his  own  guilt 
 and  obligation,  it  must  have  seemed  to  him  a  too  severe  punish- 
 ment that  the  Lord  should  dedicate  Himself  to  so  degrading  a 
 service.  But  any  such  symbolical  meaning  he  would  not,  and 
 could  not,  assume  on  his  own  suggestion.  The  Lord  Himself 
 must  declare  it.  When  He  had  done  so,  Simon  Peter's  oppo- 
 sition was  withdrawn.  All  is  here  correct  enough  ;  and  the 
 censure  which  the  expositors  are  generally  disposed  to  cast 
 upon  Peter  has  no  foundation. 
 
 Ver.  7.  "Jesus  answered  and  said  unto  him.  What  I  do 
 thou  knowest  not  now ;  but  thou  shalt  know  hereafter." — Jesus 
 intiniates  that  there  was  a  mystery  in  the  matter.  "  Here- 
 after;" some  light  came  to  Peter  through  the  following  expla- 
 nation of  our  Lord.  Yet  that  was  not  sufficient.  He  did  not 
 thoroughly  understand  it  until  his  fg]!  had  taught  him  to  know 
 the  depth  of  his  sinfulness,  and  to  see  how  needful  it  was  that  • 
 he  should  be  washed  of  Christ;  until,  in  fact,  he  obtained 
 through  the  Holy  Spirit,  whose  outpouring  depended  on  the 
 glorification  of  Christ,  the  deepest  insight  into  his  own  misery 
 and  Christ's  abundant  benefit. 
 
 Ver.  8.  "  Peter  saith  unto  Him,  Thou  shalt  never  wash  my 
 feet.  Jesus  answered  him.  If  I  wash  thee  not,  thou  hast  no 
 part  with  Me." — Peter  continues  to  protest.  The  Loi'd's  allu- 
 sion to  the  fact  of  a  mystery  was  not  sufficient  to  overcome  his 
 opposition.  In  order  to  that,  he  must  at  least  have  some  elemen- 
 tary knowledge  of  what  the  mystery  was.  And  that  knowledge 
 the  Lord  now  gives  him  by  His  answer.  The  bodily  washing  i 
 was  a  type  of  the  spiritual  washing  away  of  the  defilement  of 
 sin.     This  alone  saved  it  from  being  unnatural  and  unworthy 
 
CHAP.  XIII.  8.  147 
 
 of  Christ,  and  made  it  for  the  Apostles  no  longer  a  piercing 
 rebuke,  but  actually  an  evidence  of  the  supreme  love  of  their 
 Lord.  Jesus,  whose  name  signifies  that  He  would  save  His 
 people  from  their  sins,  is  only  then  truly  in  His  element.  Both 
 things  must  concur  in  our  estimate  of  the  reason  for  the  act : 
 I'eference  to  the  Apostles'  omission  of  the  service  to  each  other, 
 and  this  spiritual  meaning.  The  latter  justifies  the  act  in  its 
 real  signification,  the  former  justifies  its  form. 
 
 That  the  washing  must  be  understood  in  its  spiritual  sense, 
 which  the  Israelites  were  prepared  for  by  the  Levitical  washings 
 — these  having  regarded  external  impurity  as  the  figure  of  sin, 
 so  that  the  purifications  were  symbolical  acts  that  typified  what 
 must  take  place  on  sin — is  plain  from  the  circumstance  that  no- 
 thing more  is  said  about  washing  the  feet,  but  only  of  washing 
 generally;  as  also  from  the  result  that  is  said  to  follow  from  the 
 not  being  washed  by  Christ.  To  have  no  part  in  Him,  means  . 
 to  have  nothing  to  do  with  Him,  to  be  excluded  from  all  "^ 
 communion  with  Him :  Josh.  xxii.  24,  25 ;  2  Sam.  xx.  1 ;  1 
 Kings  xii.  16;  2  Cor.  vi.  15.  Entire  exclusion  from  the  fel- 
 lowship of  Christ  can  befall  only  those  who  refuse  to  seek  for 
 spiritual  cleansing  from  Him.  With  this  agrees  the  undeniable 
 reference  to  Ps.  li.  4,  which  the  saying  of  our  Lord  contains. 
 David  there  prays  to  God :  "  Wash  me  thoroughly  from  mine 
 iniquity,  and  cleanse  me  from  my  sin."  When  Jesus  arrogates 
 to  Himself  what  is  there  supplicated  from  God,  He  assumes  to 
 Himself  a  Divine  dignity.  That  passage  in  the  Psalm  teaches 
 us  also  that  the  washing  here  refers  directly  to  the  bestow- 
 ment  of  forgiveness  (viirTecv  is  equivalent  to  d(}>LevaL  dfiaprla^;, 
 Mark  ii.  10,  Matt.  ix.  6,  which  the  Pharisees  rightly  regarded 
 as  arrogating  a  Divine  prerogative),  and  not  primarily  to  sane-  \\ 
 tification.  Ver.  9  gives  us  the  comment  on  ver.  4  of  the  Psalm : 
 the  blotting  out  of  iniquity  corresponds  to  the  washing.  "  In 
 the  preliminary  petitions,  vers.  3,  4,  5,  the  subject  is  the  main 
 and  prominent  blessing  in  the  forgiveness  of  sins.  And  the 
 unfolded  supplications  are  occupied  primarily  only  with  this, 
 vers.  9-11.  Then  in  vers.  12-14  the  Psalm  turns  to  the  second 
 gift,  which  necessarily  follows  from  the  communication  of  the 
 first,  the  impartation  of  the  sanctifying  grace  of  God."  But 
 though  the  washing  has  primarily  nothing  to  do  with  sancti- 
 fication,  yet  Jesus,  when  He  arrogates  to  Himself  the  power  to 
 
148  CHAP.  XIII.-XVII 
 
 forgive  sins,  indirectly  assumes  also  the  power  of  creating  a 
 pure  heart ;  for  Pie  by  the  former  places  Himself  in  the  pro- 
 vince of  God,  with. whom  the  commencement  in  justification  is, 
 according  to  Ps.  li.,  inseparably  connected  with  the  termination 
 in  holiness. — The  word  about  washing  must  have  found  an 
 immediate  response  in  Peter,  who,  in  Luke  v.  8,  cries,  "  I  am 
 a  sinful  man,  O  Lord."  The  law  of  Moses  has  such  a  severe 
 word  as  this  (Num.  xix.  20)  :  "  But  the  man  that  shall  be 
 unclean,  and  shall  not  purify  himself,  that  soul  shall  be  cut  off 
 from  among  the  congregation."  As  certainly  as  Christ  is  the 
 thrice  Holy  One,  so  certainly  the  man  born  and  bound  in  sin 
 remains  separated  from  Him  by  a  wide  gulf,  unless  He  should 
 fill  up  the  great  gulf  by  the  forgiveness  of  sins.  When  here 
 the  being  washed  by  Christ  is  made  the  fundamental  condition 
 of  all  fellowship  with  Him,  we  are  thereby  assured  that  the 
 knowledge  of  sin,  and  the  desire  to  be  washed  from  it  by  Christ, 
 are  the  first  principles  of  all  Christianity.  "  Whatever  purity 
 a  man  may  flatter  himself  that  he  has,"  says  Quesnel,  "  unless 
 Jesus  purifies  us,  we  are  unworthy  of  His  fellowship,  of  the 
 communion  of  His  body,  and  of  the  glory  of  His  new  life." 
 That  the  basis  of  the  doctrine  of  the  water  of  forgiveness  is 
 the  blood  of  the  atonement,  we  learn  from  ch.  xix.  34,  35 ;  1 
 John  V.  6.  The  forgiveness,  therefore,  which  Jesus  imparted 
 during  the  continuance  of  His  earthly  life,  must  have  had  an 
 anticipative  character. 
 
 •  Ver.  9.  "  Simon  Peter  saith  unto  Him,  Lord,  not  my  feet 
 only,  but  also  my  hands  and  my  head." — We  must  supply :  If 
 the  matter  is  so,  then  wash,  etc.  Peter  had  but  recently,  in 
 the  contention,  found  how  mighty  sin  was  still  in  him.  It  was 
 natural  that  he  should  lose  all  consciousness  of  what  he  already 
 possessed  through  the  grace  of  his  Master,  and  that  he  should 
 come  to  Christ  as  one  who  generally  had  not  yet  been  washed 
 from  his  sins,  1  Cor.  vi.  11.  Therefore  Jesus  must  remind  him 
 of  the  condition  of  grace  in  which  he  stood. 
 
 Vers.  10,  11.  "  Jesus  saith  to  him.  He  that  is  washed  needeth 
 not,  save  to  wash  his  feet,  but  is  clean  every  whit :  and  ye  are 
 clean,  but  not  all.  For  He  knew  who  should  betray  Him ;  there- 
 fore said  He,  Ye  are  not  all  clean." — Jesus  had  already  trans- 
 ferred the  matter  into  the  spiritual  domain.  "  He  that  is  washed" 
 must  mean  only  "  He  that  is  washed  in  a  spiritual  sense."    First 
 
CHAP.  XIII.  10,  11.  149 
 
 comes  the  universal  proposition,  and  then  the  specific  applica- 
 tion of  it  to  the  disciples. — Purity  appears  here  as  the  conse- 
 quence of  the  washing ;  and  as,  according  to  ver.  8,  the 
 bestowment  of  forgiveness  of  sins  was  signified  by  that  wash- 
 ing, so  purity  must  consist  in  the  possession  of  forgiveness. 
 How  had  the  Apostles  become  clean  ?  According  to  ch.  iii.  5, 
 and  the  other  passages  of  the  New  Testament  which  we  have 
 there  alluded  to,  the  basis  of  that  blessing  was  baptism.  But 
 this,  in  their  case,  required  supplementing,  inasmuch  as  it  was 
 the  baptism  of  John,  which  could  only  imperfectly  attain  its 
 end  by  assuring  the  future  forgiveness  of  sins  (Mark  i.  4). 
 This  supplement  the  Apostles  attained  through  their  relation  to 
 Christ :  comp.  ch.  xv.  3.  They  were  led  thereby  to  repentance 
 and  faith ;  and  their  faith  led  to  forgiveness  of  sins,  Acts  x.  43, 
 and  the  purification  of  the  heart  that  rests  upon  forgiveness, 
 Acts  XV.  9.  In  consequence  of  their  faith,  the  Son  of  man, 
 who  had  upon  earth  the  right  to  forgive  sins,  absolved  them 
 from  their  sins :  because  they  were  believers  in  Him,  they  be- 
 came righteous  in  Him.  They  could  say  with  David,  "  Blessed 
 is  the  man  whose  iniquity  is  forgiven,  whose  sin  is  covered." — 
 To  the  washing  of  the  feet,  ever  coming  into  contact  with  the 
 dust  and  soil  of  earth,  corresponds  in  the  spiritual  domain  the  , 
 forgiveness  of  sins  to  which  the  man  in  a  state  of  grace  is  ' 
 liable,  from  the  fact  that  he,  by  nature  a  sinner,  dwells  among  / 
 a  people  of  unclean  lips — such  sins  as  result  from  the  mere  daily' 
 walk  in  a  corrupted  world.  The  Apostles  were  men  of  sincere 
 heart ;  they  hated  sin  as  those  who  had  obtained  forgiveness ; 
 and  when,  in  their  own  despite,  and  to  their  deep  sorrow, 
 they  were  surprised  into  it,  they  had  an  intercessor  with  the 
 Father,  Jesus  Christ,  1  John  ii.  1,  who,  if  we  confess  our  sins, 
 as  Peter  confessed  them  here,  is  faithful  and  just  to  forgive  us 
 our  sins,  and  cleanses  us  from  our  unrighteousness,  1  John  i.  9.  _ 
 — "  But  not  all "  was  intended  to  pierce  the  conscience  of  Judas, 
 whom  the  Redeemer  did  not  give  up  until  the  last  good  impulse 
 had  died  within  him.  Jesus  must  exhaust  all  the  means  of 
 love  and  discipline,  however  plain  it  was  that  through  the  guilt 
 of  his  obduration  all  would  be  in  vain.  Therefore  He  washed 
 his  feet  also,  for  a  sign  that  He  still  stood  ready  to  wash  even 
 him  spiritually  from  his  unrighteousness.  But  the  word  was 
 not  spoken  for  Judas  alone.    In  common  with  the  later  sayings 
 
150  CHAP.  XIII.-XVII. 
 
 of  our  Lord  concerning  the  traitor,  it  serves  to  obviate  the 
 natural  suspicion  that  Jesus,  without  observing  it,  had  nourished 
 a  vipet  in  His  bosom, — a  fact  that  would  have  been  an  argument 
 against  His  true  divinity.  The  clearly  discerned  and  plainly 
 foreannounced  treachery  weighed  nothing  against,  but  rather 
 in  favour  of,  the  claims  of  Jesus  as  the  Son  of  God  :  comp. 
 ver.  19.  Jesus  thereby  declared  that  He  possessed  the  Divine 
 prerogative  of  searching  the  heart  and  the  reins.  The  Evan- 
 gelist himself  makes  this  emphatic  in  ver.  11. 
 
 Vers.  12-17.  Our  Lord's  feet-washing  presents  a  twofold 
 aspect.  It  was,  on  the  one  hand,  an  act  of  ministering  love, 
 which  had  for  its  object  the  performance  of  that  literal  bodily 
 washing  which  the  pride  of  the  disciples  had  left  unaccomplished. 
 On  the  other  hand,  the  feet-washing  symbolized  the  forgiveness 
 of  sins  assured  through  Christ.  When  our  Lord  went  on  to 
 impress  it  upon  the  Apostles  that  they  should  copy  the  example 
 given  by  Himself,  that  must  of  course  be  interpreted  only  of  the 
 former  of  these  elements.  The  latter — the  washinw  of  forgive- 
 ness — was  peculiar  to  Christ.  It  rested  on  His  divinity.  No 
 one  man  can  spiritually  wash  another.  Admonitory  appeals, 
 and  attentive  watchfulness  over  others'  sins,  have  nothing  to  do 
 with  this  washing ;  moreover,  the  danger  incident  to  this  is  so 
 great,-  Matt.  vii.  3,  that  we  cannot  suppose  it  to  have  been  re- 
 commended and  made  a  duty  in  so  absolute  a  manner.  It  was 
 all  the  more  obvious  that  the  former — the  setting  an  example 
 of  brotherly  service — was  the  true  interpretation,  inasmuch  as 
 our  Lord's  act  was  occasioned,  in  its  formal  aspect,  by  the 
 Apostles'  own  deficiency,  and  was  really  intended  to  have  the 
 significance  of  a  pattern.  Beza  remarks,  that  by  God's  grace 
 it  had  been  given  to  the  Apostles  to  respond  in  their  conduct 
 to  the  Lord's  present  requirement :  this  is  attested  by  the  Acts 
 of  the  Apostles,  in  which  there  is  no  trace  of  the  contentions 
 that  were  formerly  so  rife,  and  also  by  their  epistles. 
 
 Ver.  12.  "So,  after  He  had  washed  their  feet,  and  had 
 taken  His  garments,  and  was  set  down  again.  He  said  unto  them, 
 Know  ye  what  I  have  done  to  you?" — This  question  demanded 
 that  they  should  reflect  on  the  whole  transaction ;  and  in  order 
 to  lead  them  to  this  after  consideration,  Jesus  sets  before  them 
 in  full  what  the  matter  had  to  do  with  them,  and  what  His 
 design  had  been. 
 
CHAP.  XIII.  13-15.  151 
 
 Ver.  13.  "Ye  call  Me  Master  and  Lord  :  and  ye  say  well ; 
 for  so  I  am." — The  nominative  is  not  used  instead  of  the  voca- 
 tive :  but  (f)(oveiv  signifies  to  name.  When  the  Apostles  spoke 
 of  Christ,  they  M'ere  wont  to  say  :  The  Master  said  this,  the 
 Lord  did  this.  The  article  must  be  emphasized.  The  Master 
 and  the  Lord  simply :  here  we  are  carried  beyond  the  mere 
 human  nature.^  Absolute  dominion  over  others  in  spiritual 
 things  would  be  a  sinful  claim,  unless  made  by  one  who  par- 
 took of  the  Divine  nature. 
 
 Vers.  14,  15.  "If  I  then,  your  Lord  and  Master,  have 
 washed  your  feet,  ye  also  ought  to  wash  one  another's  feet. 
 For  I  have  given  you  an  example,  that  ye  should  do  as  I  have 
 done  to  you." — The  washing  is  here  to  be  taken  in  its  literal 
 sense.  A  spiritual  meaning  has  no  foundation  ;  and  it  is  ob- 
 viated by  reference  to  the  disciples'  omission  of  the  material 
 washing,  as  well  as  by  the  Lord's  own  present  act.  That  which 
 they  had  now  omitted  they  must  do  in  the  future,  moved  by 
 the  example  of  Christ.  That  there  are  circumstances  under' 
 which  it  is  a  duty  literally  to  wash  others'  feet,  is  plain  from 
 1  Tim.  V.  10.  Among  the  disciples  themselves  there  might  arise 
 occasions  for  it.  But  the  commandment  must  be  understood 
 with  a  certain  reserve.  Beneath  the  specific  injunction  there 
 lies  the  universal  precept  which  it  symbolically  exhibited — the 
 precept  of  self-sacrificing  love,  to  which  no  service  is  too  mean. 
 The  form  of  the  expression  given  to  this  precept  is  taken  from 
 the  act  then  performed.  If  this  is  acknowledged,  it  will  appear 
 plain  that  the  literal  fulfilment  does  not  by  any  means  satisfy 
 the  injunction  ;  indeed,  that  the  literal  fulfilment  might  be 
 under  certain  circumstances  a  violation  of  the  precept.  The 
 literal  feet-washing  is  by  it  enjoined  upon  them  only  as  a  mini- 
 stry of  love.  But  that  it  is  now  as  it  were  only  in  the  relation 
 of  the  woman  to  the  man.  Gomarus  has  well  observed,  that  in 
 our  part  of  the  world  it  is  not  so  much  the  feet  as  the  shoes 
 that  require  the  cleaning.  The  washing  of  the  feet  would  be 
 among  us  a  burden  :  it  presupposes  the  Oriental  manner  of 
 clothing  the  feet,  and  the  propriety  that  resulted  from  it. 
 Where  the  feet  are  among  the  covered  parts  of  the  body, 
 
 ^  Placseus  in  Lampe  observes  :  Prseter  Deum  patrein  et  dominum 
 nostrum,  Jesum  Christum,  nemo  in  N.  T.  o  Kvpio;  appellatur,  excepto 
 Csesare,  qui  a  Festo,  liomine  Romauo  et  a  vera  pietate  alieuo,  sic  appellatur. 
 
152  CHAP.  XIII.-XVIl. 
 
 decency  demands  that  they  should  not  be  uncovered  before 
 strangers.  As  a  symbohcal  act,  and  as  an  exemplification  of 
 ministering  love,  the  washing  of  the  feet  is  not  inadmissible. 
 But  it  is  not  here  commanded.  There  is  something  strange 
 and  forced  in  such  an  injunction.  The  ancient  Church  was 
 rightly  advised,  and  followed  a  sure  instinct,  in  giving  it  up.    . 
 
 Ver.  16.  "Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you.  The  servant  is 
 not  greater  than  his  Lord  ;  neither  he  that  is  sent  greater  than 
 He  that  sent  him." — The  name  Apostle  (he  that  is  sent)  Jesus 
 confers  in  Luke  vi.  13  upon  His  twelve  disciples.  From  the 
 fact  that  the  Lord  uses  that  name,  we  gather  that  the  phrase, 
 general  in  its  form,  is  used  with  a  special  reference  to  the  dis- 
 ciples. 
 
 Ver.  17.  "If  ye  know  these  things,  happy  are  ye  if  ye  do 
 them." — The  doing  is  emphasized  by  the  Lord  in  a  manner 
 similar  to  this  in  Matt.  vii.  21 ;  Luke  vi.  46,  xii.  47. 
 
 In  vers.  18,  19,  the  Lord  obviates  the  danger  of  their  re- 
 ferring what  was  said  for  the  Apostles  alone,  to  the  traitor 
 found  amongst  them. 
 
 Ver.  18.  "I  speak  not  of  you  all ;  I  know  whom  I  have 
 chosen  :  but,  that  the  Scripture  may  be  fulfilled.  He  that  eat- 
 eth  bread  with  !Me  hath  lifted  up  his  heel  against  Me." — I 
 speak  not  of  you  all :  this  points  to  that  which,  in  ver.  10,  Jesus 
 had  said  concerning  the  Apostles'  state  of  grace,  and  to  the 
 exhortation  of  vers.  13-17  based  upon  it.  Vainly  has  it  been 
 attempted  to  place  in  opposition  things  immediately  connected 
 together.  Only  those  who  in  essentials  are  pure,  can  mutually 
 wash  each  other's  feet. — The  choosing  spoken  of  here  cannot  be  \ 
 any  other  than  that  spoken  of  in  ch.  vi.  70,  "  Have  I  not  chosen 
 you  twelve?"  and  there  is  in  fact  no  reason  to  understand  the 
 choosing  otherwise  than  as  the  reception  into  the  number  of 
 the  Apostles.  Grotius  paraphrases :  Non  de  omnibus  bene 
 spero.  Novi  intime  eos,  quos  mihi  in  co mites  elegi.  The 
 knowing  is  opposed  to  the  partial  not  knowing  which  might 
 seem  to  be  inferred  from  the  treachery  of  Judas  :  comp.  ch. 
 vi.  64  and  ver.  11  here. — "I  know  whom  I  have  chosen"  in- 
 volves that  Jesus  had  not  received  the  traitor  among  His 
 Apostles  through  ignorance.  With  this  negative  is  connected 
 the  positive,  "  but  (I  have  chosen  him)  that,"  etc. :  comp.  ch. 
 ix.  3;   "but  (he  was  born  blind)  that."     Jesus  chose  Judas 
 
CHAP.  XIII,  19.  153 
 
 that  he  might  betray  Him,  and  that  thus  the  Scripture  might 
 be  fulfilled,  according  to  Avhich  such  a  man  belonged  to  the 
 necessary  surrounding  of  the  Redeemer.  Had  our  Lord  not 
 chosen  Judas,  the  nature  of  the  world,  as  it  has  been  exhibited 
 in  the  scripture  quoted,  would  have  been  imperfectly  repre- 
 sented in  the  apostolical  circle ;  and  this  again  would  have  been 
 an  unfaithful  type  of  the  Church  in  its  later  development. 
 Judas  belongs  to  the  apostolical  circle  no  less  than  Peter  and 
 John.  We  should  miss  something  essential  if  there  had  been  no 
 Judas  among  the  Apostles.  We  might,  following  Matt.  xxvi. 
 56,  Mark  xiv.  49,  John  xix.  36,  supplement  tovto  jeyovev. 
 That  would  only  come  to  the  same  thing.  The  tovto  <yeyovev 
 would  refer  to  the  fact  of  the  choice  of  Judas  by  Christ. 
 
 The  passage  quoted  is  from  Ps.  xli.  The  subject  of  that 
 Psalm  is  the  suffering  Righteous  One,  not  specially  David. 
 That  which  is  there  said  of  him  must  pre-eminently  be  fulfilled 
 in  Christ,  in  whom  the  idea  of  the  Righteous  One  became 
 a  reality.  When,  then,  after  the  wickedness  of  the  open 
 enemies  has  been  depicted,  we  read  in  ver.  10,  "  Yea,  mine 
 own  familiar  friend,  in  whom  I  trusted,  which  did  eat  of  my 
 bread,  hath  lifted  up  his  heel  against  me" — like  a  beast  which 
 strikes  out  against  its  master  and  feeder — there  is  at  the  foun- 
 dation the  general  truth,  that  in  the  world  of  sin  the  righteous 
 man  cannot  but  have  false  friends  ;  and  this  truth  must  have 
 its  realization  in  Christ.  The  quotation  is  according  to  the 
 original  text.  The  Septuagint  has :  6  iadlcov  apTov<i  fiov  ifie- 
 yakvvev  iir  ifie  TTTepvLo-fMov.  That  Christ  did  not  regard  the 
 passage  as  directli/  Messianic,  is  plain  from  the  fact  that  He 
 omits  "  in  whom  I  trusted,"  which  would  not  have  been  appro- 
 priate to  Him  who  knew  what  was  in  man.  That  the  /xeT  i/xov 
 does  not  merely  denote  the  fellowship  of  eating,  but  the  eating 
 with  Christ  as  the  host,  is  evident  from  the  original,  where 
 the  words  run,  "  who  eateth  My  bread."  From  the  relation  in 
 which  Judas  stood  to  Christ,  he  was,  like  all  the  Apostles, 
 nourished  by  Christ :  comp.  ch.  xii.  6,  and  Matt.  xxvi.  17, 
 where  the  Apostles  ask,  "  Where  shall  we  provide  Thee  the 
 Passover?"  (Bengel :  Jesus  est  ut  pater  familias  inter  discipu- 
 lorum  familiam)  ;  and  finally  from  ver.  26. 
 
 Ver.  19.  "Now  I  tell  you  before  it  come,  that,  when  it  is 
 come  to  pass,  ye  may  believe  that  I  am  He." — 'ATrdprtf  from 
 
154  CHAR,  xiir.-xvii. 
 
 this  time  onwards  (instead  of  the  airdpTi,  Matt,  xxvi,  64,  Lnke 
 has,  ch.  xxii.  69,  airo  rod  vvv),  points  to  the  fact  that  Jesus 
 
 »  would  still  recur  often  to  the  same  subject.  Some  interpret 
 "just  now,  now  at  once."  But  New  Testament  phraseology 
 furnishes  no  certain  example  of  this  interpretation  (comp.  ch. 
 i.  52)  ;  and  we  have  no  reason  for  departing  from  the  ordinary 
 meaning,  as  our  Lord  does  often  return  to  the  subject  of  the 
 betrayal. — The  foreannouncement  of  it  not  only  obviates  an 
 obvious  argument  against  Jesus  ;  in  connection  with  that  fore- 
 announcement,  the  betrayal  becomes  a  positive  argument  in 
 His  favour. — "That  I  am;"  that  is,  the  absolute,  the  central 
 personality :  comp.  on  ch.  viii.  24.  For  to  that  alone  does  it 
 belong  to  try  the  heart  and  the  reins,  and  to  know  the  hidden 
 before  it  is  evolved  in  act.  At  the  basis  lie  those  passages  of 
 Isaiah,  in  which  Jehovah  proves  His  true  divinity  by  His  pre- 
 diction of  the  future,  such  as  ch.  xliii.  11-13. 
 v*  Ver.  20.  "  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you,  He  that  receiveth 
 whomsoever  I  send,  receiveth  Me ;  and  he  that  receiveth  Me, 
 receiveth  Him  that  sent  JMe." — Jesus  had  given  to  His  disciples 
 the  pattern  of  self-humiliation,  and  had  pressingly  urged  them 
 to  follow  that  example.  The  expression  here  is  directly  con- 
 nected with  this.  Vers.  18,  19  in  reality  bear  a  parenthetical 
 character.  Its  position  at  the  close  of  the  whole  transaction 
 requires  us  to  assume  that  the  Lord  here  returns  to  the  act 
 from  which  all  had  started,  which  had  been  the  central  subject,  -V 
 and  with  which  all  thus  closes ;  and  that  He,  glancing  at  the 
 treachery  of  Judas,  would  fortify  the  other  disciples  in  their 
 fidelity  by  a  reference  to  the  dignity  of  their  vocation.  There 
 is  no  evidence  whatever  that  the  treachery  of  Judas  would  have 
 been  a  temptation  to  the  remainder  of  the  Apostles.  The  son 
 of  perdition  they  looked  upon  only  with  amazement  and  grief. 
 
 -^That  the  Apostles  might  not  mistake  the  real  dignity  of  their 
 vocation,  in  consequence  of  His  exhortations  to  humility,  Christ 
 here  at  the  conclusion  points  expressly  to  that  dignity  with  de- 
 signed allusion  to  an  earlier  utterance,  Matt.  x.  40  (comp.  Mark 
 ix.  37  ;  Luke  x.  16),  the  continued  validity  of  which  seemed 
 to  be  endangered  by  those  words  of  exhortation.  It  is  to  this 
 seeming  danger  that  the  "  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you,"  with 
 its  express  assurance,  refers.  Berl.  Bible  :  "  This  is  said  for 
 consolation  to  those  who   must  have  received  a  severe  lesson 
 
CHAP.  XIII.  20.  155 
 
 before."  But  we  must  not  limit  ourselves  to  the  notion  that 
 Christ  here  exhibits  the  other  side,  in  order  to  obviate  mis- 
 understanding of  the  lesson  of  humility.  The  two  views  are 
 not  placed  in  juxtaposition  ;  but  the  consciousness  of  the  dignity 
 of  their  vocation  must  rather  bring  with  it  a  willingness  to 
 humble  themselves.  He  who  is  penetrated  with  the  conviction 
 that  he  is  in  the  enjoyment  of  a  divine  mission,  will  not  be 
 ready  to  contend  about  the  trivial  honours  of  this  world ;  he 
 will  freely  surrender  them  to  him  whose  worldliness  of  spirit 
 finds  nothing  better  to  desire.  True  spiritual  pre-eminence  puts 
 an  end  to  all  common  ambition,  and  has  below  its  feet  all  such 
 questions  as,  whether  one  should  wash  the  feet  of  others,  or  be 
 washed.  To  contend  about  such  pitiable  matters  is  below  its 
 dignity.  The  Lord's  word  here  stands  in  close  connection  with 
 Luke  xxii.  28-30,  and  finds  there  its  commentary.  Jesus,  after 
 He  had  commended  the  humble  service  of  love  and  self-i'enun- 
 ciation  to  His  disciples  by  word  and  example  (the  feet-washing), 
 now  refers  them  to  the  dignity  of  their  vocation,  and  shows  them 
 that  they  are  called  to  high  honour.  That  remained,  notwith- 
 standing their  obligation  to  self-abasement ;  indeed,  it  rendered 
 them  all  the  more  disposed  to  such  humility.  For  all  honour 
 which  the  world  could  offer,  would  be  in  comparison  only  con- 
 temptible.— Lampe  observes  on  "whom  I  shall  send:"  "Christ, 
 although  preparing  Himself  to  suffer,  nevertheless  foresees  His 
 dignity  as  King  of  the  Church ;  and  as  such  He  will  have 
 His  legates,  whom  He  will  send."  The  Apostles  were  only 
 the  first  in  the  great  company.  We  have  here  the  basis  of 
 the  designation  of  ministers  in  the  Apocalypse,  as  the  angels  of 
 the  Church.  The  principle  from  above  is  here  as  expressly  as 
 possible  declared  in  relation  to  office  in  the  Church.  Lampe, 
 the  Reformed  theologian,  remarks  :  "  The  servants  of  God  in 
 the  congregation  of  the  Old  Testament,  as  well  the  extraordi- 
 nary like  the  prophets,  as  the  ordinary  like  the  priests,  were 
 regarded  as  sent  of  God.  The  same  expression  was  transferred 
 to  the  ministers  of  the  New  Testament,  as  well  the  extraordi- 
 nary, the  most  eminent  of  whom  were  therefore  called  Apostles, 
 as  the  ordinary,  Rom.  x.  15,  who  therefore  were  called  angels, 
 Rev.  ii.  and  iii.  The  edv  riva  Tre/iA/^w  is  intentionally  general, 
 in  order  to  intimate  that  the  sending  of  Christ  would  not  be 
 restricted  to  the  Apostles." 
 
156  CHAP,  XIII.- XVII. 
 
 Vers.  21-30. 
 
 The  feet-washing  is  now  followed  by  our  Lord's  discourse 
 concerning  His  betrayer.  The  Tama  elirdiv  at  the  beginning 
 places  this  in  immediate  juxtaposition  with  the  address  which 
 Jesus  had  delivered  to  His  disciples  after  the  washing  was 
 finished,  and  Jesus  had  resumed  His  seat  at  the  table.  Matthew 
 and  Mark  coincide  upon  this.  According  to  Matt.  xxvi.  21, 
 Mark  xiv.  18,  Jesus  uttered  the  words,  "  Verily  I  say  unto 
 you,  One  of  you  will  betray  Me,"  immediately  after  He  had 
 placed  Himself  at  the  table  with  the  twelve,  and  the  supper 
 had  begun.  Matthew  and  Mark  point  not  indistinctly  to  the 
 fact,  that  our  Lord's  words  concerning  the  traitor  were  closely 
 connected  with  the  commencement  of  the  feast ;  Mark  espe- 
 cially, who  to  the  et?  e'^  vyuwv  appends  o  eaOiwv  /tier'  ifjiov.  Ver. 
 18  in  John  shows  what  that  connection  was.  "  He  that  eateth 
 my  bread,"  in  the  Psalm,  was,  as  it  were,  realized  in  act  at  the 
 beginning  of  the  meal.  Such  a  special  occasion  is  demanded 
 for  the  "  troubled  in  spirit,"  ver.  21.  Luke  omits  the  colloquy 
 touching  the  traitor,  and,  instead  of  it,  inserts  another  omitted 
 by  his  predecessors,  and  which  belonged  to  the  end  of  the  feast. 
 We  have  already  observed  that,  after  the  airdpTL  in  ver.  19,  a 
 series  of  our  Lord's  utterances  concerning  the  traitor  was  to 
 be  expected.  There  was  a  particular  reason  for  that  one  which 
 Luke  records.  It  was  to  occasion  the  departure  of  the  traitor, 
 who,  although  he  must  be  present  at  the  institution  of  the 
 supper,  would  have  been  altogether  out  of  place  during  the  sub- 
 sequent outpourings  of  our  Lord.  That  the  words  concerning 
 the  traitor  in  Luke  closely  resemble  the  earlier  ones,  is  quite 
 natural,  as  it  is  a  designed  repetition  for  a  particular  purpose. 
 In  the  Old  Testament  we  often  find  in  such  cases  the  echo-like 
 recurrence  of  the  same  words  :  as  may  be  observed,  for  example, 
 in  Ps.  xlii.  and  xliii.  But  Luke's  words  are  too  closely  con- 
 nected with  what  Jesus  had  uttered  at  the  supper,  to  allow  us  to 
 suppose  that  he  arbitrarily  inserted  them.  Not  only  the  ifkriv 
 IBov  comes  here  into  consideration, — which,  in  spite  of  all  that 
 Wichelhaus  says,  cannot  be  regarded  as  an  appendage  of  Luke, 
 without  throwing  some  suspicion  upon  his  genuineness, — but 
 also  the  tov  7rapa8iS6vTo<;  (xe  in  its  undeniable  reference  to  the 
 TO  virep  vacov  BtBofjuevov.     That  what  is  recorded  by  Luke  in 
 
CHAP.  XIII.  21,  22  157 
 
 A'er.  23  does  not  harmonize  -with  the  period  after  the  institution 
 of  the  supper,  is  an  assertion  which  could  be  made  only  by 
 those  who  take  an  incorrect  view  of  the  previous  transactions 
 concerning  the  traitor. 
 
 Ver.  21.  "  When  Jesus  had  thus  said,  He  was  troubled  in 
 spirit,  and  testified,  and  said.  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you,  That 
 one  of  you  shall  betray  Me." — The  testifying  (comp.  on  ch.  i.  7, 
 iii.  11)  is  the  opposite  of  speaking  from  mere  supposition  :  it 
 here  declares  what  Christ  utters  was  founded  upon  fact,  and 
 rested  upon  direct  intuition.  This,  in  connection  with  such 
 events  as  we  have  here,  lies  beyond  the  human  domain  :  Christ's 
 possessing  it  was  based  upon  His  participation  in  the  divine 
 omniscience.  The  testifying  has  its  counterpart  in  the  "  Verily, 
 verily,"  of  our  Lord's  discourse  ;  intimating  that  He  did  not 
 speak  in  the  language  of  supposition,  but  of  certain  knowledge. 
 That  Jesus  spoke  only  of  one  among  the  twelve,  had  probably 
 for  its  reason  the  prevention  of  the  excitement  which  the  men- 
 tion of  his  name  would  have  raised  among  the  Apostles,  and  of 
 the  premature  departure  of  the  traitor,  who  mustneedsj^artake 
 of  the  holy^  §BPES^*  -^^  ^^^®  same  time,  all  the  others  were 
 thereby  stimulated  to  a  salutary  self-examination. 
 
 Ver.  22.  "  Then  the  disciples  looked  one  on  another,  doubt- 
 ing of  whom  He  spake." — They  looked  at  each  other,  not  so 
 much  to  detect  the  traitor  in  anv  other  face,  as  to  see  whether 
 in  others'  countenances  they  saw  any  suspicion  of  themselves. 
 How  weak  is  the  flesh,  how  deceitful  the  heart,  and  how  deeply 
 had  fallen  many  even  of  the  believers  of  the  Old  Testament ! 
 This  gives  the  point  of  connection  for  Matt.  xxvi.  22-24.  The 
 Lord's  word  then,  ver.  23,  "  He  that  dippeth  his  hand  with  Me 
 in  the  dish,  the  same  shall  betray  Me,"  not  only  contains  a  more 
 specific  designation  of  the  traitor,  but,  in  its  repeated  reference 
 to  Ps.  xli.,  gives  prominence  to  the  indignity,  that  one  of  His 
 table-companions  should  betray  his  Lord.  Mark  makes  this 
 very  emphatic  in  ch.  xiv.  20  :  "  It  is  one  of  the  tivelve  that  dip- 
 peth with  Me  in  the  dish."  Here  follows,  from  ver.  23  to  ver. 
 29,  a  scene  peculiar  to  John,  the  communication  of  which  was 
 the  reason  that  he  made  mention  of  the  incident  concerning  the 
 traitor.  Vers.  21  and  22  serve  only  as  an  introduction  or  point 
 of  connection  with  what  the  other  Evangelists  had  already 
 recorded,  and  which  is  here  briefly  resumed.    That  which  John 
 
158  CHAP.  XIII.-XVII. 
 
 communicates  in  vers.  23-29  is,  as  it  were,  his  own  private  pro- 
 perty. He  alone  could  have  imparted  from  the  first  source, 
 and  therefore  the  Evangelists  who  preceded  him  left  it  unmen- 
 tioned. 
 
 Ver.  23.  "Now  there  was  leaning  on  Jesus'  bosom  one  of 
 His  disciples,  whom  Jesus  loved." — That  the  words  "whom 
 .Tesus  loved  "  occupy  the  place  of  a  proper  name  (Heumann : 
 "  a  title,  a  designation,  by  which  John  desired  to  be  known  "), 
 appears  from  its  being  repeated  often  (ch.  xix.  26,  xx.  2,  xxi. 
 7,  20),  as  well  as  from  its  being  used  in  circumstances  in  which 
 the  love  of  Jesus  is  not  under  consideration.  They  are  a  para- 
 phrase (as  Bengel  tells  us)  of  the  name  of  John,  which  signifies 
 "him  whom  Jehovah  loves."  In  the  love  of  Jesus,  the  Jehovah 
 manifest  in  the  flesh,  the  pious  wish  became  fulfilled  from  which 
 the  denomination  arose.  Meyer  objects  that  it  ought  in  that 
 case  to  have  been,  not  "  whom  Jesus  loved,"  but  "  whom  the 
 Lord  loved."  But  John  speaks  of  Jesus  as  the  Lord  only  twice 
 before  His  resurrection,  ch.  iv.  1,  vi.  23.  Jesus,  on  the  other 
 hand,  is  the  standing  name.  That  was  the  name  which  belonged 
 to  the  Son  of  man,  Jehovah  manifest  in  the  flesh.  To  have 
 designated  himself  as  pre-eminently  the  disciple  whom  Jesus 
 loved,  would  have  been  presumption  on  John's  part  (Grotius 
 very  incorrectly:  Hac  modesta  circumlocution e  se  designare  solet 
 Johannes) — he  would  have  shown  himself  a  "  babbler  who  on 
 all  occasions  boasted  that  none  of  the  other  disciples  were  so 
 highly  esteemed  as  himself" — if  this  pre-eminence  had  not,  like 
 the  primacy  of  Peter,  rested  upon  some  declaration  of  Christ 
 Himself,  and  thus  been  removed  out  of  the  region  of  self-com- 
 placent fancy.  Lampe's  remark,  "  That  he  was  much  beloved  >^. 
 by  Jesus,  was  the  conclusion  he  drew  from  the  strong  love 
 towards  Jesus  with  which  he  felt  his  own  heart  filled,"  is  more  , 
 specious  than  true.  In  all  probability  Jesus  gave  this  declara- 
 tion in  the  form  of  an  interpretation  of  the  name  John,  which  >» 
 even  by  this  interpretation  became  a  "new  name."  This  is 
 confirmed  by  the  fact  that  Jesus  on  other  occasions  stamped 
 the  spiritual  character  of  His  Apostles  by  the  imposition  of  a 
 second  name:  comp.  on  ch.  vi.  71,  xi.  16.  Where  the  proper 
 name  itself  only  needed  to  be  expounded,  it  was  obvious  to 
 retain  it,  and  to  sanctify  it  by  an  interpretation  given. — The 
 place  which  John  assumed  at  the  table,  on  the  bosom  of  Jesus 
 
CHAP.  XIII.  24.  159 
 
 (comp.  on  ch.  i.  18),  was  symbolically  significant :  it  stood  in 
 close  reference  to  his  name ;  and  thus  rested  doubtless  on  an 
 appointment  of  Jesus. — Larape  is  wrong  here  :  "  The  Papists 
 will  find  it  hard  to  justify  the  primacy  of  Peter ;  John  takes 
 here  the  first  place,  not  only  at  the  table,  but  also  in  the  heart, 
 of  Christ."  Peter  and  John  have  each  after  his  kind  the  first 
 place  in  the  apostolical  circle  ;  and  both,  inwardly  bound  to 
 each  other,  were  altogether  without  envy  at  each  other's  pre- 
 eminence. Peter,  between  w^hom  and  the  Pope  of  Rome  there 
 is  no  solid  bridge,  so  that  there  is  not  the  least  necessity  for 
 explaining  away  the  pre-eminence  which  the  Lord  gave  him, 
 is  placed  at  the  head  with  reference  to  the  energy  of  action. 
 The  profoundly  internal  John,  with  his  depth  of  love,  his 
 inwardness  and  devotion,  stands  nearest  to  the  heart  of  Jesus. 
 We  may  say,  that  because  the  relation  between  John  and  Jesus 
 took  the  form  of  a  relation  of  love,  and  was  so  far  partial  in  its 
 character,  he  was  not  called  to  the  primacy,  however  necessary 
 love  was  to  that  primacy  :  comp.  ch.  xxi.  15. 
 
 Ver.  24.  "  Simon  Peter  therefore  beckoned  to  him,  that 
 he  should  ask  who  it  should  be  of  whom  He  spake." — The 
 present  vevet  is  characteristic.  The  scene,  which  he  himself 
 witnessed,  and  with  which  he  had  particularly  to  do,  is  imme- 
 diately before  the  Apostle's  eyes.  That  a  mere  beckoning  was 
 suificient,  implies  a  closer  relation  between  John  and  Peter, 
 such  as  is  attested  by  many  other  passages  :  ch.  xx.  2,  xxi.  7  ; 
 Luke  V.  10,  xxii.  8 ;  Acts  iii.  4,  viii.  14.  Lachmann's  text 
 reads :  koX  Xeyeo  avrut  elire  Tc<i  iartv  irepi  ov  Xeyei.  Here  again 
 we  may  learn  a  lesson  of  caution  in  relation  to  this  text.  The 
 beckoning  presupposes  that  Peter,  in  his  position  at  the  table, 
 could  not  communicate  with  John  by  word.  The  Xijei  comes 
 into  contradiction  with  this.  The  elTri  is  unpleasantly  ambi- 
 guous. The  obvious  view  of  it  would  be  that  John  should 
 speak  of  his  own  accord.  Then  arises  the  difficulty  as  to  how 
 John  came  to  know,  or  how  Peter  could  take  it  for  granted 
 that  he  knew.  ,'  According  to  another  view,  the  "  say "  is 
 equivalent  to  "ask."  But  then  we  should  expect  avToj,  and 
 "say"  in  the  meaning  of  "ask"  is  strange.  The  reading 
 arose  doubtless  from  the  difficulty  felt  in  appreciating  the 
 spiritual  rapport  between  John  and  Peter,  and  in  understand- 
 ing how  a  request  could  be  made  by  a  mere  nod. — Peter  was 
 
160  CHAP.  XIII.-XVII. 
 
 not  urged  by  curiosity.  He,  the  man  of  action,  who  cut  off  the 
 high  priest's  servant's  ear,  thought  that  there  was  something 
 here  also  for  him  to  doy  That  Jesus  entered  into  his  desire, 
 served  to  answer  the  end  indicated  in  ver.  19.  According  to 
 this,  Jesus  could  not  end  with  "  One  of  you  shall  betray  Me ;" 
 He  must  before  the  betrayal  mention  the  name  of  the  traitor, 
 although  it  w-as  preliminarily  left  in  the  keeping  of  the  disciple 
 whom  Jesus  loved.  He  would,  in  committing  it  to  John,  com- 
 mit it  to  the  whole  apostolical  circle,  to  the  collective  Christian 
 Church. 
 
 Ver.  25.  "He  then,  lying  on  Jesus'  breast,  saith  unto  Him, 
 Lord,  who  is  it?" — ^EimTeaoiv  points  to  a  certain  violence  in 
 the  act,  a  stroiig  impulse  of  affection,  which  the  disciple  of  love 
 must  have  felt  when  the  Lord  said,  "  One  of  you  will  betray 
 Me."  The  reading  of  Lachmann's  text,  avaTreadov,  sprang 
 from  an  inconsiderate  comparison  with  ver.  12  or  ch.  xxi.  20, 
 in  which  passages  the  word  refers  to  the  habitual  place  which 
 John  occupied  at  the  supper,  and  not  this  particular  act.  The 
 address  Kvpte  shows,  that  with  John  the  tenderness  of  affection 
 did  not  impair  the  awe  of  reverence. 
 
 Ver.  26.  "Jesus  answered.  He  it  is  to  whom  I  shall  give  a 
 sop,  when  I  have  dipped  it.  And  when  He  had  dipped  the  sop. 
 He  -gave  it  to  Judas  Iscariot,  the  son  of  Simon." — Why  did 
 Jesus  take  this  method  ?  Not  merely  that  He  might  be  under- 
 stood by  John.  If  He  could  say  softly  the  words  e/cetz^o? — 
 iTTiScoao),  He  might  just  as  easily  have  softly  pronounced  the 
 name.  The  purpose  of  our  Lord  was  rather,  by  this  intima- 
 tion of  the  manner  of  the  betrayal,  to  make  more  emphatic  the 
 horror  and  the  abomination  of  that  act.  He  thus  realized  in 
 act  the  words  of  Ps.  xli.  10,  "He  that  eateth  my  bread,"  which 
 He  had  quoted  in  ver.  18,  and  to  which  in  ver.  21  He  had 
 referred.  Outwardly  viewed,  that  which  Jesus  did  was  an 
 expression  of  paternal  favour  to  Judas.  The  other  disciples, 
 observes  Beno;el,  doubtless  thoucfht  that  Judas  was  fortunate 
 beyond  them.  It  need  not  be  proved  that  this  was  not  mere 
 semblance;  and  nothing  can  be  more  foolish  than  to  speak  of  it 
 as  a  "  cunning  designation  by  an  act  which  had  the  force  of  a 
 token  of  friendship  and  goodwill."  Although  the  act  had  a 
 complaining  and  condemnatory  significance,  it  was  doubtless,  at 
 the  same  time,  a  declaration  that  Jesus  had  not  yet  quite  given 
 
CHAP.  XIII.  26.  IGl 
 
 up  Judas,  that  He  was  still  ready  to  receive  him  again  into  the 
 fellowship  of  His  love.  He  must  and  He  would  touch  his  heart 
 once  more,  if  haply  he  might  yet  be  susceptible  of  better  emo- 
 tions. Besides  John,  to  whom  Jesus  had  previously  given 
 the  commentary  on  the  symbolical  act,  Judas  also  knew  the 
 meaning  of  the  sign.  His  conscience  gave  him  the  inter- 
 pretation, especially  as  Jesus  had  already  alluded  to  that 
 passage  in  the  Psalm.  In  order,  however,  to  be  absolutely 
 certain,  he  asked  Jesus,  according  to  Matt.  xxvi.  25,  "Master,^ 
 is  it  I?"  and  Jesus  answered  him,  "Thou  hast  said."  This 
 colloquy  between  Jesus  and  Judas  must  have  proceeded  softly, 
 and  so  that  no  one  perceived  it  except  John,  who  had  been 
 already  made  acquainted  with  the  secret,  and  thus  was  espe- 
 cially observant.  This  is  on  other  accounts  probable.  Jesus 
 could  not  have  unmasked  the  traitor  before  all  the  Apostles 
 without  exciting  the  utmost  commotion  in  their  minds,  and 
 especially  occasioning  some  premature  explosion  on  the  part 
 of  Peter.  It  is  made  necessary  also  by  vers.  28,  29./  That 
 Jesu&  could  exchange  these  'words  with  Judas  ih'^private, 
 renders  it  necessary  to  suppose  that  the  latter  sate  near  Him 
 at  the  table.  Probably  Peter  was  first  in  the  series  on  that 
 side,  and  Judas  ended  it  on  the  other;  so  that  in  one  respect 
 he  was  the  nearest  to  the  Lord,  in  another  the  most  distant. 
 This  is  supported  by  the  fact  that  in  all  the  catalogues  Peter 
 takes  the  first  place  and  Judas  the  last :  comp.  Matt.  x.  2-4 ; 
 Mark  iii.  16-19;  Luke  vi.  14-10. — The  yjrcofjiiov  of  itself  points 
 to  bread.  In  later  Greek,  -^^wfjii  was  bread;  and  Suidas  remarks, 
 ■\lrco/j,b<;  6  dpro^.  That  it  was  a  morsel  of  bread,  is  plain  also 
 from  the  frequent  reference  to  the  passage  in  the  Psalm,  "  He 
 that  eateth  my  bread.""  We  have  here  such  an  allusion  to  the\ 
 paschal  rite  as  forbids  us  to  separate  this  feast  from  that  of  the 
 Passover.  In  the  paschal  meal  there  was  a  sop  called  charoseth, 
 made  up  of  figs,  nuts,  and  other  fruits  compounded  with  wine 
 or  vinegar.  In  this  sop  the  householder  dipped  pieces  of  un- 
 leavened bread,  and  was  followed  in  the  act  by  the  rest  of  the 
 company.  The  sop  was  not  a  continuation  into  the  j)aschal 
 feast  of  a  custom  belonginc;  to  an  ordinary  meal ;  it  beloncred 
 
 DO  J  ^  ~_J»- 
 
 entirely  to  the  paschal  feast.  It  had  a  symbolical  meaning. 
 It  represented  the  fruits  of  the  blessed  land  to  which  the  par- 
 taking of  redemption  gave  them  a  right ;  just  as  in  the  law  the 
 
 VOL.  II.  L 
 
162      ,  CHAP.  XIII.- XVII. 
 
 benefits  of  nature  were  always  conjoined  witli  the  grace  of 
 redemption.  Matt.  xxvi.  23  refers  to  this  dish.  If  we  refer  it 
 to  the  common  bread  of  the  daily  meal,  there  is  no  connection 
 with  that  passage.  There  remains  no  material  to  be  dipped 
 into. 
 
 Ver.  27.  "  And  after  the  sop  Satan  entered  into  him.  Then 
 said  Jesus  unto  him,  That  thou  doest,  do  quickly." — Tore  serves 
 to  give  prominence  to  the  frightful  crisis.  The  allusion,  in  the 
 "  Satan  entered  into  him,"  to  Luke  xxii.  3,  is  all  the  less  doubt- 
 ful, as  this  peculiar  phraseology  never  again  occurs  in  the  same 
 way,  either  in  reference  to  Judas  or  for  any  other  purpose. 
 In  Mark  v.  12,  Luke  viii.  32,  it  is  used  of  bodily  possession. 
 There  is  an  apparent  opposition  here,  but  it  is  only  a  formal 
 one  :  it  only  intimates,  that  now  first  the  word  used  by  Luke 
 reached  its  fullest  truth.  We  ought  not  to  say  that  Luke  wrote 
 "  less  exactly."  "  There  were  two  stages,"  says  Lampe,  "  of 
 which  it  in  a  special  manner  held  good  that  the  devil  entered 
 the  heart  of  the  traitor :  the  first  in  the  preparation  for  the 
 betrayal,  and  the  second  in  the  accomplishment  of  it."  As  the 
 indwelling  of  Satan,  so  also  the  indwelling  of  God  by  His  Spirit, 
 has  its  several  degrees ;  and  as  the  phraseology  is  relative,  it 
 may  be  used  of  the  several  crises  of  possession.  The  only 
 que&tion  is  as  to  the  point  from  which  we  take  our  departure. 
 The  basis  of  the  expression  used  by  Luke  and  John  was  the 
 word  which  Jesus  had  used  at  an  earlier  period,  ch.  vi.  70 : 
 "  Have  I  not  chosen  you  twelve,  and  one  of  you  is  a  devil  ? " — 
 an  incarnate  Satan. 
 
 Why  did  the  final  decision  follow  so  close  upon  this  sop  ? 
 The  colloquy  recorded  by  Matthew  between  Jesus  and  the 
 traitor  is  presupposed  by  John.  It  belonged  to  the  sop,  as  a 
 commentary  upon  it.  The  foundation  of  the  entrance  of  Satan 
 into  the  traitor  was  formed  by  the  absolute  assurance  that  he 
 was  detected.  In  the  interest  of  his  design  he  had  overcome 
 the  shining  evidences  which  Jesus  had  earlier  given  of  His 
 Godhead,  otherwise  the  betrayal  would  be  inconceivable  :  he 
 who  would  betray  the  Son  of  God,  must  first  be  convinced  that 
 He  is  not  the  Son  of  God.  The  divinity  of  our  Lord  now  sud- 
 denly shone  out  in  the  demonstration  that  He  gave  of  His  pos- 
 sessing the  Divine  prerogative  of  searching  the  heart  and  the 
 reins.    Not  uttering  a  supposition,  but  with  absolute  assurance, 
 
CHAP.  Xlir.  28,  29.  163 
 
 Jesus  says,  "  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you,  One  of  you  shall 
 betray  Me."  The  rays  of  Divinity  now  beam  still  more  brightly 
 upon  Him.  By  sign  and  word  the  Lord  says  to  him.  Thou  art 
 he  who  eateth  My  bread,  and  betrayeth  Me.  Then  should  he 
 have  been  pierced  to  the  heart,  as  Achan  was  in  Josh.  vii. ;  and 
 all  the  more,  as  Jesus  was  at  the  same  time  attracting  him,  and 
 declaring  to  him  by  this  very  sign  that  he  was  not  yet  struck 
 out  from  the  number  of  the  twelve,  and  that  there  still  remained 
 space  for  his  return.  But  he  would  not ;  and  the  vehement 
 effort  which  he  made  to  close  his  heart  against  heavenly  in-  ^ 
 fluences,  must  at  the  same  time  have  opened  the  door  to  the 
 influences  of  hell :  yea,  he  must  have  derived  the  very  strength 
 for  that  resistance  from  his  union  with  those  powers  of  evil.  As 
 it  is  said  of  David  that  he  strengthened  himself  in  his  God,  so 
 Judas  strengthened  himself  in  Satan.  Tliis  crisis  decided  his 
 fate  for  all  eternity. — The  word,  "  What  thou  doest,  do  more 
 quickly,"  does  not  command  Judas  to  do  anything  generally, 
 but  to  do  more  quickly  what  he  will  do,  and  must.  He  shows 
 thereby  that  He  does  not  fear  the  act  of  Judas ;  that  His  impulse 
 to  suffer,  and  to  finish  the  work  which  the  Father  had  given 
 Him  to  do,  was  stronger  than  the  impulse  which  Satan  had 
 given  to  Judas  ;  that  His  desire  for  the  salvation  of  the  world 
 was  more  vehement  than  Judas'  desire  for  the  reward  of  his 
 sin.  Judas  sees  himself  by  this  word  of  Jesus  profoundly  de- 
 graded. He  has  not  power  over  his  Master,  as  he  had  imagined 
 he  would  have,  and  soothed  his  vain  thought  thereby,  like  many 
 others  who  follow  in  the  footsteps  of  Judas ;  but  his  Master  uses 
 for  His  own  purpose  the  designs  of  the  traitor. 
 
 Vei's.  28,  29.  "  Now  no  man  at  the  table  knew  for  what 
 intent  He  spake  this  unto  him.  For  some  of  them  thought, 
 because  Judas  had  the  bag,  that  Jesus  had  said  unto  him.  Buy 
 those  things  that  we  have  need  of  against  the  feast ;  or,  that  he 
 should  give  something  to  the  poor." — This  remark  has  so  far 
 actual  circumstantial  interest,  as  it  shows  what  a  thorough  hypo- 
 crite Judas  was,  and  how  little  the  evidence  of  his  treachery 
 could  be  gained  in  a  natural  way.  Even  now  the  eyes  of  his 
 fellow-disciples  ai'e  not  opened,  so  finnly  had  he  closed  all  the 
 issues  of  his  heart,  and  watched  over  his  words  and  looks. 
 "  No  man  knew"  besides  the  disfiiple  whom  Jesus  loyed.  This 
 limitation  is  given  by  ver.  23.     If  the  letter  is  pressed,  Judas 
 
164  CHAP.  XIII.-XVII. 
 
 himself  must  be  made  unaware  of  it. — The  supposition  here 
 refeiTed  to  will  appear  "  senseless  and  wild,"  only  if  we  inade- 
 quately depict  to  ourselves  the  situation,  and  sunder  the  meal 
 here  described  from  the  paschal  feast.  "  For  the  feast"  is  more 
 fully  explained  by  ch.  xiii.  1,  which  shows  that  only  that  part 
 of  the  feast  was  meant  which  followed  the  opening  of  the  Pass- 
 over./ Jesus  had,  in  the  anticipation  of  His  passion  and  death, 
 taken  no  care  for  the  remainder  of  the  feast.  His  disciples  had 
 doubtless  been  surprised  at  that ;  and  it  was  all  the  more  natu- 
 ral that  they  should  refer  the  Lord's  present  words  to  that  fact, 
 as  the  things  needed  would  be  required  in  the  next  morning. 
 It  has  been  asserted,  that  to  buy  in  the  night  of  the  Passover 
 would  have  been  a  violation  of  the  enjoined  rest  of  the  feast. 
 But  at  the  feasts,  when  men  w^ere  to  rejoice  before  the  Lord, 
 they  were  less  rigorous  than  at  the  Sabbath.  The  law  itself,  in 
 Ex.  xii.  16,  permitted  on  the  first  day  of  the  feast  the  provision 
 of  food  which  was  forbidden  on  the  Sabbath.  The  immense 
 multitudes  of  people  in  Jerusalem  at  the  feast,  and  the  wide 
 variety  of  needs  arising  from  it,  caused  doubtless  a  certain 
 relaxation  of  rule  after  the  great  feast,  in  order  that  the 
 remainder  of  the  festival  might  be  worthily  cared  for.  In  view" 
 of  such  pressing  and  decisive  necessity,  we  may  be  sure  that 
 some  resource  must  have  been  discovered  for  relief.  "  Neces- 
 sitj  breaks  law :"  the  Talmud  gives  express  evidence  as  to  how 
 provision  was  made  for  buying  during  the  feast.  Tract.  Sabbath, 
 c.  xxiii.  1.  A  difficulty  arises  only  if  we  separate  the  meal  in 
 John  from  the  paschal  feast.  In  that  case  there  would  have 
 been  no  urgency  in  the  buying.  Needless  trouble  has  been 
 raised  as  to  the  offices  for  buying  and  selling  being  open.  The 
 paschal  feast  certainly  did  not  last  elsewhere  longer  than  that 
 of  the  Apostles  ;  and  the  sellers,  who  are  always  ready  enough 
 for  gain,  especially  the  Jewish,  would  not  delay  to  open  their 
 stores. 
 
 Others  thought  that  Jesus  commanded  Judas  to  give  some- 
 thing to  the  poor :  that  is,  for  the  same  object,  the  procuring 
 of  provision  for  the  further  need  of  the  feast.  There  were 
 doubtless  many  whose  slender  resources  were  exhausted  by  the 
 expenditure  of  the  journey  and  the  first  part  of  the  feast.  It 
 was  the  office  of  gi'atitude  for  the  grace  of  redemption  sealed 
 in  the  Passover,  to  take  charge  of  such  as  these.     According 
 
CHAP.  XIII.  30.  165 
 
 to  the  prescription  of  the  law,  the  people  were  to  rejoice  before 
 the  Lord  in  the  great  feasts,  and  to  receive  personce  miserahiles 
 into  the  fellowship  of  this  joy,  by  hospitality  and  alms.  Deut. 
 xvi.  14  :  "  And  thou  shalt  rejoice  in  thy  feast,  thou,  and  thy 
 son,  and  thy  daughter,  and  thy  man-servant,  and  thy  maid- 
 servant, and  the  Levite,  the  stranger,  the  fatherless,  and  the 
 widow,  that  are  within  thy  gates :"  comp.  ver.  11,  xii.  12.  This 
 injunction  had,  as  we  may  take  for  granted,  been  observed  by 
 Jesus  at  the  earlier  feasts  which  He  had  attended ;  and  that  cir- 
 cumstance would  render  the  supposition  more  natural.  Qnesnel : 
 "  The  Redeemer  sanctified  the  feast  by  mercy ;  and  He  teaches 
 us  that  we  should  give  more  liberal  alms  on  those  days  on  which 
 God  more  richly  dispenses  His  gifts.  That  is  only  a  righteous 
 requital ;  but  all  the  advantage  is  on  our  side."  But  the  sup- 
 position of  the  text  was  obvious  only  if  the  feast  in  John  was 
 the  paschal  feast :  the  distribution  of  alms  at  such  an  other- 
 wise unseasonable  time  would  be  accounted  for  as  a  necessary 
 appendage  of  the  feast.  Under  ordinary  circumstances,  the 
 time — it  being  night — was  altogether  inappropriate.  But  the 
 paschal  night  was  the  most  excited  of  the  whole  year — the  only 
 one  which,  in  this  regard,  was  equal  to  the  day :  comp.  Isa.  xxx. 
 29.  The  supposition  about  Judas'  errand  would  have  been,  on 
 any  other  night,  "  senseless  and  wild." 
 
 Ver.  30.  "  He  then,  having  received  the  sop,  went  imme- 
 diately out;  and  it  was  night." — Instead  of  ev6e(o<i  i^rjXOev, 
 Lachmann  and  Tischendorf  have  e^r{K,6ev  ev6v<i,  following  pre- 
 ponderating witnesses.  The  ore  i^rjXOe,  which  many  add  at 
 the  end  of  this  verse,  omitting  it  at  the  beginning  of  ver.  31, 
 is  essential  to  that  verse,  since  it  gives  emphasis  to  the  connec- 
 tion between  the  utterance  of  Jesus  and  the  departure  of  Judas. 
 In  ver.  30,  however,  it  is  superfluous  and  disturbing.  John 
 connected  the  receiving  of  the  sop  with  the  departure  of  Judas, 
 because  there  was  a' link  of  causation  between  them.  The  ev6v(; 
 is  pressed  too  far,  if  we  draw  from  it  the  conclusion  that  he 
 went  out  at  that  precise  moment.  The  ev6v<i  soon  after,  in  ver. 
 32,  teaches  us  that,  as  also  that  of  ch.  vi.  21.  Such  an  instan- 
 taneous departure  cannot  be  conceived ;  for  by  it  Judas  would 
 have  betrayed  himself  before  all  the  other  disciples.  It  would 
 have  been  just  the  same  as  if  one  among  ourselves  should  with- 
 draw from  the  rank  of  communicants :   indeed   much   more 
 
166  CHAP.  XIII.-XVII. 
 
 surprising,  when  we  consider  tlie  legal  strictness  of  the  Old 
 Testament.  He  could  not  have  gone  away  before  the  most  holy 
 feast  of  the  nation — the  feast  on  which  their  participation  in 
 redemption  depended — reached  its  conclusion  in  the  song  of 
 praise.  The  external  reasons  which  forbade  this  were  rein- 
 forced by  a  special  internal  reason.  Hypocrites,  like  Judas, 
 are  particularly  scrupulous  in  the  observance  of  religious  usages. 
 He  w^ould  not  assuredly  act  like  an  ordinary  knave,  who  tramples 
 on  all  restraints ;  that  would  have  been  out  of  harmony  with  0 
 his  whole  past  life :  he  concealed  his  wickedness  under  the  . 
 garment  of  devotion ;  and  the  thirty  pieces  of  silver  were  a 
 slight  and  accidental  matter  to  him.  He  would  have  forsaken 
 his  part,  and  have  acted  in  opposition  to  that  delusion  by  which 
 he  soothed  his  conscience,  had  he  wantonly  broken  through  the 
 sacredness  of  the  festal  circle.  There  are  also  other  reasons 
 which  assure  us  that  Judas  was  present  at  the  institution  of  the 
 sacrament.  Luke  xxii.  21,  22,  are  of  decisive  import  in  relation  '^ 
 to  this.  There,  after  the  institution  of  the  Supper,  Jesus  says : 
 But,  ifkrjv,  behold,  the  hand  of  him  that  betrayeth  Me  is  with 
 Me  on  the  table.  So  also  "  they  all  drank  of  it,"  Mark  xiv.  23,1 
 after  the  mention  of  the  Twelve  just  preceding,  vers.  17,  20.  \ 
 Further,  the  passage  in  the  Psalm,  on  which  our  Lord  lays  such  O 
 decisive  stress,  "  He  that  eateth  My  bread  hath  lifted-  up  his 
 heel  against  Me,"  would  not  have  had  its  complete  fulfilment  if 
 Judas  had  not  partaken  of  the  holy  meal.  So  also  the  symbo- 
 lical character  of  this  first  supper  must  not  be  left  unconsidered 
 in  respect  of  this :  there  must  have  been  present  some  represen- 
 tative of  those  who  should  eat  and  drink  unworthily,  and  to  their 
 own  condemnation,  1  Cor.  xi.  29.  The  matter,  then,  must  be 
 viewed  thus  :  after  the  transaction  touching  the  traitor,  and  the 
 completion  of  the  paschal  feast,  followed  the  institution  of  the 
 sacrament,  wdiich  required  only  a  few  moments :  Matt.  xxvi. 
 26-29  ;  Mark  xiv.  22-25  ;  Luke  xxii.  17-2"0.  When  we  con 
 sider  the  record  given  of  this  by  the  first  three  Evangelists,  and 
 the  strictly  corresponding  account  of  Paul  in  1  Cor.  xi.,  we 
 shall  not  need  any  further  reason  why  John  passed  it  over  in 
 silence.  It  was  for  him  to  supplement  his  predecessors ;  and 
 they  had  already  perfectly  communicated  these  proceedings. 
 After  the  institution  of  the  sacrament,  Jesus  brought  back  the 
 discourse  to  the  traitor,  Luke  xxii.  21,  22,  in  order  to  occasion 
 
 1 
 
CHAP.  XIII.  30.  167 
 
 his  departure,  whose  presence  during  the  confidential  utterances 
 that  were  to  follow  would  have  been  disturbing.  Judas'  going 
 out  followed  after  the  psalm  of  praise  had  been  sung,  and  con- 
 sequently the  official  feast  had  ended.  The  intercourse  of  our 
 Lord  with  His  disciples  now  assumed  a  freer  character ;  and 
 Judas,  the  business  agent  of  the  society,  could  retire  without 
 exciting  much  attention,  more  especially  as  our  Lord's  word, 
 "  What  thou  doest,  do  quickly,"  furnished  him  with  a  cloak  for 
 his  disguise. — The  view  we  have  taken  is  further  supported  by 
 the  consideration,  that  after  ver.  30  we  cannot  find  any  room 
 for  the  institution  of  the  sacrament.  Vers.  31—35  are  most 
 closely  connected  with  the  departure  of  Judas.  Peter's  word, 
 in  ver.  36,  "Lord,  whither  goest  Thou?"  refers  to  ver.  33,  and 
 allows  no  interval.  With  ch.  xiv.  1  we  enter  upon  the  last 
 discourses  of  our  Lord  to  His  disciples,  and  we  cannot  imagine 
 any  interval  during  the  utterance  of  them.  In  ch.  xiii.  36  we 
 are,  according  to  the  other  Evangelists,  beyond  the  song  of 
 praise;  but  the  holy  supper  must,  from  its  express  explanation 
 as  given  by  our  Lord,  and  from  the  nature  of  the  case,  have 
 preceded  that  psalm. 
 
 That  Judas  partook  of  the  supper,  may  with  perfect  pro- 
 priety be  regarded  as  the  ecclesiastical  view.     It  is  supported  by 
 the  far  greater  number  of  the  more  important  authorities  among 
 the  Fathers,  as  well  as  in  the  middle  ages.      As  to  the  opinion 
 of  the  Lutheran  Church,  the  remark  of  John  Gerhard  is  very 
 characteristic :  qui  aliter  sentiat  nemo  mihi  notiis.     Those  who 
 have  differed  have  been  led  by  two  classes  of  motive :  some 
 based  upon   ecclesiastical  discipline   (held  by  many  Eeformed 
 theologians),  and  some  based  upon  sentimentality  (held  by  most 
 moderns,  with  Neander  at  their  head).     Wichelhaus  has  most 
 fully  exhausted  the  historical  material.     He  argues  against  the   -7 
 participation  of  Judas,  on  the  ground  that  the  known  character     • 
 of  such  a  transgression  as  Judas'  would  necessarily  exclude 
 from  the  communion  of  the  body  and  blood  of  Jesus.     This  is 
 certainly  not  without  force ;  but  it  is  outweighed  by  another     ^ 
 consideration  still  more  important,  namely,  that  the  first  supper 
 had  a  symbolical  significance,  and  was  a  prospective  exhibition   , 
 of  the  sacrament  of  all  future  times.     Nothing  more  was  abso- 
 lutely necessary  than  the  protest  against  him,  and  that  was  given 
 with  abundant  force.     Nor  is  it  to  be  overlooked  that  the  feet 
 
1G8  CHAP.  XIII.-XVII. 
 
 of  Judas  were  Avasliecl  with  the  rest.  Now,  if  we  press  the 
 argument  of  ecclesiastical  discipline,  the  washing  of  his  feet 
 would  be  equally  a  stumblingblock.  Signifying  as  it  did  the 
 forgiveness  of  sins  imparted  by  Christ,  it  would  not  seem  to 
 have  been  appropriate  to  Judas.  But  if  we  regard  him  as  the 
 type  of  those  who,  notwithstanding  the  proffer  of  the  washing 
 away  of  their  sins  by  Christ,  perish  in  their  guilt,  we  find  no 
 further  difficulty.  Wichelhaus  argues  further :  "  According  to 
 Matthew,  ch.  xxvi.  25,  Jesus  had  designated  Judas,  before  the 
 collected  disciples,  as  the  traitor;  consequently  he  could  not 
 have  remained  any  longer  ;  and  it  is  impossible  that  a  detected 
 traitor  should  have  partaken  of  the  sacred  supper  with  the  other 
 Apostles."  But  all  that  he  says  about  the  "collected  disciples" 
 is  an  interpolation  of  his  own.  Matthew  says  nothing  about 
 it.  All  he  thinks  of  is,  that  Jesus  uttered  the  words,  "  Thou 
 hast  said."  That  had  to  him  an  apologetic  meaning.  It  was 
 sufficient  if  only  one  among  the  Apostles  besides  Judas  heard  it. 
 That  Jesus  spoke  it  before  all,  is  in  itself  highly  improbable ; 
 and  John  intimates  the  very  contrary. 
 
 -*"  The  remark,  "  It  was  night,"  has  no  chronological  import- 
 ance.    The  whole  festival  was  a  night  festival :  comp.  Ex.  xii. 
 
 8,  42,  "  This  is  that  night  of  the  Lord,  to  be  observed  of  all 
 the  children  of  Israel  in  their  generations."  It  belonged  to  the 
 domain  of  the  moon,  and  not  to  that  of  the  sun  :  comp.  "  in  the 
 new  moon,  in  the  time  appointed,  on  our  solemn  feast-day," 
 Ps.  Ixxxi.  4.  It  began  2~iy3,  after  the  light  of  the  day  had 
 entirely  departed.  That  had  to  do  with  the  nature  of  the  fes- 
 tival. The  Lord  arose  upon  His  people  in  the  night  of  their 
 misery,  as  the  Sun  of  their  salvation.  The  night  signified  their 
 Egyptian  oppression,  as  the  type  of  all  oppression  which  the 
 people  of  God  should  ever  have  to  endure  from  the  world. — 
 Now,  if  the  night  mentioned  in  this  verse  had  no  chronological 
 meaning,  it  had  a  symbolical  one.  What  night  meant  from  the 
 moment  when  Judas  went  out — it  existed,  indeed,  before  his 
 departure,  but  its  full  significance  came  out  only  with  that — 
 may  be  seen  in  what  has  been  observed  upon  ch.  ix.  4,  5,  xi. 
 
 9,  10.  In  harmony  with  the  symbolism  of  the  paschal  feast, 
 the  night  signified  the  dark  pagsion-season  for  Christ  and  His 
 disciples,  which  really  began  with  the  vers.  31-38,  departure  of 
 Judas. 
 
CHAP.  XIII.  31,  32.  169 
 
 With  the  departure  of  Judas  begau  the  profound  humilia- 
 tion of  Christ.  It  was  beyond  all  things  needful  to  strengthen 
 the  disciples  against  the  temptation  that  would  spring  from  His 
 abasement.  Jesus  did  this  by  intimating,  in  vers.  31,  32,  that 
 suffering  and  abasement  would  be  for  Him  only  a  short  point 
 of  transition  to  supreme  glory. 
 
 Vers.  31,  32.  "  Therefore,  when  he  was  gone  out,  Jesus 
 said,  Now  is  the  Son  of  man  glorified,  and  God  is  glorified 
 in  Him.  If  God  be  glorified  in  Him,  God  shall  also  glorify 
 Him  in  Himself,  and  shall  straightway  glorify  Him." — That 
 iho^daOr),  in  ver.  31,  refers  to  an  actual  fact  that  had  already 
 taken  place,  and  not  to  an  anticipated  event  (accoixling  to 
 many  the  passion  of  Christ,  which,  however,  is  never  viewed 
 under  the  aspect  of  glorification ;  according  to  others.  His  state 
 of  exaltation),  is  shown  by  the  el  iSo^dcrdr)  in  ver.  32.  The 
 relation  of  the  two  verses  to  each  other  becomes  entirely  incom- 
 prehensible, if  we  do  not  perceive  that  in  ver.  31  an  accom- 
 plished fact  is  spoken  of,  and  in  ver.  32  the  consequence  that 
 should  be  developed  from  that  fact.  The  Son  of  man  had  / 
 been  glorified  through  all  that  He  had  done  while  it  was  day, 
 ch.  ix.  4.  With  the  departure  of  Judas,  and  the  night  that 
 then  and  thereby  set  in,  when  no  man  could  work,  ch.  ix.  4, 
 xi.  10,  xiii.  30,  His  course  was  so  far  ended ;  and  a  new  one 
 began,  which,  however,  was  to  be  one  in  reality  closely  con- 
 nected with  the  former.  The  glorification  of  the  Father  by\ 
 the  Son  is  now  followed  by  the  glorification  of  the  Son  by  the,' 
 Father. 
 
 To  the  glorification  of  the  Son  of  man  by  His  acts  the  e'So^- 
 aaa  of  ch.  xii.  28  also  refers.  To  the  So^dcrco  there  corresponds 
 ver.  32  here.  According  to  ch.  xi.  4,  the  sickness  of  Lazarus 
 had  for  its  end,  that  the  Son  of  GodT  should  be  glorified.  We 
 have,  in  ch.  xvii.  4,  5,  simply  a  commentary  on  these  two  verses.  N^ 
 Accordingly,  the  glorification  of  the  Son  of  man  was  to  consist 
 only  in  the  consummation  of  His  work  upon  earth,  in  the  acts 
 by  which  He  at  the  same  time  manifested  His  own  glory  and  -\ 
 the  glory  of  God  :  comp.  on  ch.  ii.  11. — Wherever  the  Son  of 
 man  is  mentioned,  the  Son  of  God  is  in  the  background,  accord- 
 ing to  the  precedent  of  the  original  passage  in  Daniel :  comp. 
 on  ch.  i.  52.  The  glorification  briniis  the  hidden  backo;round 
 into  the  light. — That  eV  avrS  signifies  not  by  Him,  but  in  Him, 
 
170  CHAP.  XIII.-XVII. 
 
 is  shown  by  the  corresponclhig  ev  eavrw,  ver.  32.  Since  the 
 Son  of  man  is  the  Son  of  God  manifest  in  human  form,  the 
 manifestation  of  God  in  the  flesh,  therefore  God  is,  at  the  same 
 time,  glorified  in  Him :  comp.  on  eh.  xi.  4. 
 
 What  was  remarked  upon  eh.  vii.  4  holds  good  in  reference 
 to  the  el  in  ver.  32.  It  is  still  more  emphatic ;  and  intimates 
 that  the  one  must,  so  to  speak,  draw  the  other  after  it  by  logical 
 consequence.  In  1  Sam.  ii.  30,  "Them  that  honour  Me^^vilt 
 honour,"  we  have  the  proposition  on  which  the  inferential  "  if" 
 here  rests.  As  the  particular  instance  here  rests  upon  the 
 general  principle  there  expressed,  so  again  out  of  this  particular 
 may  be  constructed  a  general  proposition,  calculated  to  excite 
 our  zeal  to  make  the  glory  of  God  the  aim  of  all  our  endeavours 
 upon  earth.  But  there  is  for  the  disciples  a  still  more  direct 
 and  potent  encouragement  here.  If  Christ  was  to  be  received 
 up  into  the  glory  of  God,  then  would  His  disciples  be  safe  ;  if 
 the  fulness  of  omnipotence  was  at  His  command,  they  need  not 
 tremble  though  the  whole  world  were  in  arms  against  them. 
 How  the  glory  of  Christ  turned  to  the  advantage  of  His  fol- 
 lowers, is  developed  in  ch.  xiv.  12  seq. — The  glorification  assured 
 by  God  to  Christ  began  with  the  resurrection,  and  was  con- 
 summated in  His  session  at  the  right  hand  of  the  Father,  with 
 all  the  supreme  prerogatives  and  glories  connected  therewith. — -/ 
 '£y  eavTcp,  in  Himself,  is  stronger  than  m-apa  aeavTa>,  with 
 Thyself,  in  ch.  xvii.  5.  The  latter  might  have  spoken  of  the  n 
 Arian  Christ.  ^Ev  eavrat  leads  to  the  equality  with  God  in 
 power  and  glory  ;  intimates  that  the  Son  was  to  be  received  up 
 into  the  sphere  of  the  Father.  In  the  Apocalypse,  the  Lamb 
 in  the  midst  of  the  throne,  ch.  vii.  17,  corresponds  to  the  iv 
 eavTM.  As,  during  the  earthly  life  of  Christ,  the  relation  of 
 the  Father  to  Him  was  not  one  of  nearness  and  help  merely,  as 
 God  was  manifested  in  Him,  ver.  31,  as  the  Father  was  in  Him 
 and  He  in  the  Father,  ch.  xiv.  10,  11 ;  so  also  in  glory  we  must 
 conceive  of  no  mere  nearness,  but  Christ  is  to  be  received  up 
 into  the  Divine  glory  itself.  The  communion  of  nature  which 
 was  declared  in  the  earlier  time,  must  have  the  latter  as  its  con- 
 sequence.— "  And  shall  forthwith  glorify  Him  :"  immediately  \ 
 after  death,  not  in  some  remote  distance,  allowing  an  interval 
 during  which  the  disciples  might  be  left  to  themselves. 
 
 Ver.  33.  "  Little  children,  yet  a  little  while  I  am  with  you. 
 
CHAP.  XIII.  33.  171 
 
 Ye  shall  seek  Me  :  and  as  I  said  unto  the  Jews,  Whither  I  go, 
 ye  cannot  come ;  so  now  I  say  to  you." — From  the  contempla- 
 tion of  His  glory,  Jesus  again  descends  to  His  disciples.  That 
 which  He  here  tells  them,  forms  the  foundation  for  the  solemn 
 exhortation  of  vers.  34,  35.  He  would,  by  allusion  to  the  im- 
 pending separation,  render  their  minds  tender  and  susceptible, 
 that  they  might  receive  the  exhortation,  and  shut  it  up  in  their 
 heart.  That  which,  when  leaving  them,  He  had  so  emphati- 
 cally laid  on  their  hearts  as  His  last  request,  they  would  never 
 dismiss  from  their  thoughts."^  This  exhortation  brings  the  holy 
 supper  to  its  conclusion.  It  began  with  uncharitable  conten- 
 tion ;  it  ends  in  the  exhortation  to  love.^ 
 
 It  was  appropriate  that  our  Lord,  when  He  would  exhort 
 His  disciples  to  love,  should  use  the  most  affectionate  address, 
 T€KVLa,  never  elsewhere  occurring  in  all  the  Evangelists  (reKva 
 only  once,  Mark  x.  24  :  comp.  Matt.  ix.  2  ;  Mark  ii.  5  :  comp. 
 TraiSia,  ch.  xxi.  5),  but  which  finds  a  kind  of  echo  in  the  First 
 Epistle  of  John.  And  it  was  all  the  more  appropriate,  as  our 
 Lord  lays  down  as  the  foundation  of  His  precept  of  love — as 
 I  have  loved  you. — "^  Ye  shall  seek  Me  :"  especially  in  the 
 times  of  trial  and  trioulation.  This  word,  as  parallel  with 
 what  Jesus  had  spoken  to  the  Jews  (comp.  vii.  33,  34,  viii.  21), 
 points  to  the  fact  that  even  for  the  disciples,  and  for  the  faith- 
 ful members  of  the  Church,  the  ceasing  of  the  bodily  presence 
 of  Christ  would  be  grievous  and  hard  to  be  borne.  Christ 
 would  be  unapproachable  to  the  Jews  ;  and  so  He  would  be,  in 
 a  certain  sense,  to  His  disciples,  until  they  were  received  one 
 by  one  into  the  heavenly  glory,  and  He  should  return  in  visible 
 form :  comp.  Acts  i.  11.  Assuredly,  Jesus  did  not  leave  His 
 disciples  orphans ;  He  came  to  them  by  the  Paraclete  ;  He  is 
 still  and  ever  with  them,  present  in  the  midst  wherever  two  or 
 three  are  gathered  together  in  His  name.  But  all  this  is  not 
 full  compensation  for  His  personal  presence ;  does  not  hinder 
 Christ  from  appearing  as  one  who  has  gone  away,  aTTohrjfJiGiv, 
 Matt.  XXV.  14 ;  does  not  prevent  His  disciples  from  desiring, 
 during  the  interval  until  His  return,  to  see  one  of  the  days 
 of  the  Son  of  man,  Luke  xvii.  22 ;  and  does  not  cause  that, 
 durins  this  whole  season,  the  fundamental  tone  of  Christen- 
 dom  should  not  be  sorrow.  But  it  was  profitable  for  them  that 
 it  was  so.    Wrestling  faith  was  thereby  excited  (comp.  ch.  xx. 
 
172  CHAP.  XIII.-XVII. 
 
 29),  and  thus  the  best  preparation  secured  for  seeing  Him  in 
 person. 
 
 Jesus  says,  "  Yet  a  little  while  am  I  with  you."  This  is  to 
 be  referred  to  the  short  space  until  His  imprisonment.  The 
 intercourse  of  the  risen  Lord  with  His  disciples  was  essentially 
 different  from  all  His  former  intercourse,  and  led  the  way  to 
 that  entirely  spiritual  communion  which  began  after  the  Lord's 
 ascension,- — This  is  the  only  passage  in  which  Jesus  spoke  to 
 His  disciples  concerning  the  Jews.  Elsewhere  He  uses  the 
 designation  only  in  the  conversation  with  the  Samaritan  woman, 
 with  Caiaphas,  with  Pilate.  We  have  here  the  germ  of  the 
 Johannsean  phraseology :  comp.  on  ch.  i.  19.  Just  here,  after 
 the  institution  of  the  sacrament  of  the  new  covenant,  before 
 the  mention  of  the  new  commandment,  and  where  there  is  a 
 sharp  distinction  made  between  the  disciples  and  the  enemies 
 of  Jesus,  the  designation  is  quite  in  place.  How  carefully 
 John  distinguishes  between  his  own  words  and  the  words  of 
 Jesus,  may  be  gathered  from  the  fact  that  the  Jews  are  never 
 mentioned  save  here,  without  the  Evangelist  himself  coming 
 forward  in  his  own  person  to  use  the  name. 
 
 Vers.  34,  35.  "  A  new  commandment  I  give  unto  you.  That 
 ye  love  one  another ;  as  I  have  loved  you,  that  ye  also  love 
 one  another.  By  this  shall  all  men  know  that  ye  are  My  dis- 
 ciples, if  ye  have  love  one  to  another." — It  is  an  arbitrary  and 
 baseless  notion,  that  the  love  of  the  disciples  to  each  other  is 
 here  supposed  to  be  the  compensation,  as  it  were,  for  the  bodily 
 absence  of  Christ.  We  have  already  exhibited  the  right  con- 
 nection with  ver.  33 :  that  verse  is  the  soil  for  the  seed  of  the 
 present  ones.  It  would  also  be  a  mistake  to  make  the  new 
 commandment  here  the  New  Testament  first  and  great  com- 
 mandment, as  Ebrard  does :  "  That  same  single  new  command- 
 ment which  the  New  Testament  brings  in  as  a  necessary  sup- 
 plement "of  the  ten  precepts  of  the  Old  Testament."  The  first 
 and  great  commandment  is  even  in  the  New  Testament  the 
 love  of  God.  That  brotherly  love  is  made  prominent  here, 
 had  its  reason  in  the  contention  which  had  preceded.  Knapp 
 rightly  observes  (^De  novo  prcecepto  Christi)  that  there  is  here  a 
 silent  condemnation  of  the  disciples,  who  had  been  unfaithful 
 in  some  degree  to  this  obligation  of  love.  What  they  had 
 neglected,  while  Christ  was  with  them,  they  were,  after  His 
 
CHAP.  XIII.  34,  35.  173 
 
 departure,  all  the  more  diligently  to  observe.  A  comparison 
 with  the  Lord's  saying  in  ver.  15,  which  has  a  manifest  reference 
 to  the  <f)i\ovetKLa  of  the  disciples,  shows  that  here  also  there 
 is  such  a  reference  as  the  undertone. 
 
 The  Old  Testament  foreannounced  Christ  as  a  new  Law- 
 giver, Isa.  ii.  3,  xlii.  4.  The  difference  between  Christ  and 
 Moses  in  this  domain  appears  in  this,  tliat  Christ  here  comes 
 forward  independently  as  a  Lawgiver,  while  Moses  ordinarily 
 referred  back  his  laws  to  Jehovah,  and  represented  himself  to 
 be  only  a  mediator.  Li  a  certain  sense,  all  the  laws  of  the 
 New  Testament  are  old  laws.  The  law  of  the  Old  Testament 
 has  eternal  value,  and  belongs  to  the  Church  of  the  New  Tes- 
 tament no  less  than  to  that  of  the  old:  comp.  Matt.  v.  17-20. 
 In  a  certain  sense,  all  the  commandments  of  the  New  Tes- 
 tament are  new.  Even  the  first  and  chief  commandment  of 
 the  Old  Testament,  the  precept  of  the  love  of  God,  shines  forth 
 in  new  brightness  now  that  Christ  has  brought  the  Father  near 
 to  us,  and  in  the  manifestation  of  His  love  laid  the  foundation 
 for  ours.  It  was  to  the  disciples  as  if  they  had  never  received 
 this  precept  before.  Also  the  precept  of  brotherly  love,  the 
 love  of  our  neighbour,  was  in  the  Old  Testament  so  cleai'ly  and 
 rigorously  set  forth,  that,  viewing  it  merely  as  a  commandment, 
 it  could  not  be  more  expressly  enjoined.  To  love  our  neighbour 
 as  ourselves,  Lev.  xix.  18,  is  just  the  same  precept  in  the  New 
 Testament  as  in  the  Old :  Mark  xii.  31 ;  Matt.  xxii.  39.  Yet 
 this  commandment  also  has,  in  a  certain  sense,  become  new. 
 First,  it  has  received  a  new  foundation  in  the  love  of  Christ. 
 The  Lord  has  saved  the  expositors  from  speculating  as  to  what 
 the  newness  of  the  law  consisted  in,  by  adding,  "  as  I  have 
 loved  you."  Christ  exhibits  the  commandment  as  a  new  one, 
 after  He  has  come  to  the  perfection  of  the  manifestation  of  His 
 own  love,  and  His  departure  from  the  disciples  was  impending : 
 comp.  ver.  33.  Secondly,  in  internal  connection  with  the  new- 
 ness of  the  foundation  stands  the  new  limitation  of  the  sphere 
 of  this  love.  In  the  Old  Testament  the  neighbour  is,  accord- 
 ing to  grammatical  and  historical  exposition,  the  member  of  the 
 covenant  established  on  Sinai,  the  fellow-partaker  of  the  Old 
 Testament  covenant  benefits.  In  the  New  Testament  he  is  the 
 member  of  tlie  covenant  sealed  by  Christ, — the  new  command- 
 ment here  consequently  corresponds  to  the  new  covenant  of 
 
174  CHAP.  XIII.- XVII. 
 
 which  Christ  had  spoken  in  the  institution  of  the  Supper, — the 
 fellow-partaker  in  His  redemption,  the  brother  in  His  love. 
 This  is  a  relation  which  before  Christ  had  nev^er  been  in  the 
 world,  and  of  all  the  bonds  of  love  it  is  the  most  binding  and 
 internal. — ^AW-i]Xov<i  refers  to  the  true  disciples  of  Christ,  i/xol 
 IxaOrjraij  ver.  35.  Primarily  the  Apostles  were  meant ;  but  these 
 were  the  representatives  of  all  believers  :  comp.  ch.  xvii.  11. 
 But  that  which  primarily  was  spoken  of  the  stricter  bond  of 
 Christian  brotherhood,  involves  also  the  indirect  obligation  to 
 the  most  universal  love  of  man  ;  just  as  the  love  of  Christ  to 
 His  own  disciples,  which  is  here  set  before  us  for  our  imitation, 
 rests  upon  the  foundation  of  His  universal  love  to  the  world. 
 Even  under  the  Old  Testament  they  were  to  love  the  stranger 
 as  themselves  :  this  proves  that  the  Pharisaical  gloss  on  the 
 precept  of  the  love  of  their  neighbour,  which  certainly  in  the 
 letter  referred  only  to  fellow-Israelites,  was  not  according  to 
 the  mind  of  the  Lawgiver.  If  we  are  to  love  the  Christian 
 brother  as  Christ  loves  him,  so  we  are  to  love  all  men  because 
 Christ  loves  them,  and  died  for  them.  Nevertheless,  the  vio- 
 lation of  brotherly  love  is  a  heavier  guilt  than  the  violation  of 
 the  universal  love  of  man.  The  measure  of  the  guilt  is  the 
 greatness  of  the  love  of  Christ. — The  commandment  is  at  first 
 nakedly  laid  down,  and  then,  after  the  reason  given  for  it,  it  is 
 repeated  with  an  inserted  «at,  wdiich  refers  to  the  reason  given : 
 ti/a,  Ka9cb<i  '^jaTrrja-a  v/Md<;,  koI  vfxel'i  dyaTrdre  dWT^Xovi.  The 
 displacement  of  the  iva  does  not  militate  against  this  view, 
 which  is  simple,  and  recommended  by  the  comparison  of  ver. 
 15.  We  find  the  same  elsewhere,  e.g.  in  ver.  29,  and  2  John 
 6. — Acts  iv.  32  may  be  compared  with  ver.  35 ;  and  what  the 
 heathen  used  to  say  of  the  Christians  (Tertull.  Apol.)  :  "  See 
 how  they  love  one  another." 
 
 Ver.  36.  "  Simon  Peter  said  unto  Him,  Lord,  Avhither  goest 
 Thou  ?  Jesus  answered  him.  Whither  I  go,  thou  canst  not  fol- 
 low Me  now;  but  thou  shalt  follow  Me  afterwards." — What 
 Jesus  had  said  concerning  love  had  gone  straight  to  Peter's 
 heart,  and  the  more  as  he  had  taken  a  prominent  part  in  the 
 contention  which  had  given  rise  to  the  exhortation.  But  there 
 was  somethinii;  in  the  Lord's  words  which  smote  him  still  more 
 keenly :  Christ  had  spoken  of  His  speedy  departure.  On  this 
 point  he  earnestly  desired  more  light ;  and,  as  the  Lord's  answer 
 
CHAP.  XIII.  37,  33.  175 
 
 shows,  in  order  that  he  might  actively  interfere,  and  unite  his 
 destiny  with  Christ's.  Whither  goest  Thou  ?  If  Thou  goest 
 unto  death,  I  will  go  with  Thee :  compare  the  word  of  Thomas 
 in  ch.  xi.  16 ;  and  Elisha's  word  to  Elijah  in  2  Kings  ii.  4,  6 : 
 "  As  the  Lord  liveth,  I  wall  not  leave  thee."  The  "  canst  not " 
 in  our  Lord's  answer  has  a  psychological  reason.  Before  Peter 
 could  die  for  Christ,  Christ  must  have  died  for  him,  and  have 
 obtained  for  him  hy  His  death  the  Holy  Spirit,  who  is,  with 
 other  attributes,  a  Spirit  of  might.  August. :  Quid  festinas, 
 Petre  ?  nondum  te  suo  spiritu  solidavit  Petra.  There  were  also 
 other  reasons  for  that  inability.  In  God's  counsel,  Peter,  before 
 he  followed  his  Lord  in  death,  must  strengthen  his  brethren, 
 and  feed  the  lambs  of  Christ.  But  that  the  inability  was  con- 
 nected with  the  state  of  Peter's  mind,  is  evident,  as  from  the 
 answer  of  Peter,  so  also  from  a  comparison  of  Matthew  :  there 
 "  thou  canst  not  follow  Me  now  "  is  followed  by  "  All  ye  shall 
 be  offended  in  Me  this  night." 
 
 Ver.  37.  "  Peter  said  unto  Him,  Lord,  why  cannot  I  follow 
 Thee  now  ?  I  will  lay  down  my  life  for  Thy  sake." — As  Peter 
 could  not  follow  Christ,  so  likewise  he  w^as  ignorant  of  himself, 
 and  estimated  his  own  strength  far  too  highly.  True  self-know- 
 ledge could  come  to  him  only  in  consequence  of  the  outpouring 
 of  the  Holy  Ghost.  The  Spirit  searcheth  all  things,  the  deep 
 things  of  God,  and  the  deep  things  of  the  human  heart.  Never- 
 theless, Peter  was  like  the  vouno;  eagle,  which  is  beginning  to 
 stir  its  wings.  Of  such  stuff  were  the  martyrs  formed,  when 
 the  full  possession  of  the  Holy  Ghost  was  added.  The  spirit 
 was  already  willing,  though  the  flesh  was  weak :  the  strength 
 was  small,  the  will  was  good.  Aug. :  Quid  in  animo  ejus  esset 
 cupiditatis  videbat,  quid  virium  non  videbat. 
 
 Ver.  38.  "  Jesus  answered  him,  Wilt  thou  lay  down  thy 
 life  for  My  sake?  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  thee,  The  cock 
 shall  not  crow,  till  thou  hast  denied  Me  thrice." — When  Jesus 
 disclosed  to  Peter  his  real  weakness,  He  assured  him  at  the  same 
 time  of  the  means  of  his  recovery,  after  his  fall,  which  would 
 lead  him  to  a  much  profounder  knowledge  of  himself.  That 
 fall  was  itself  a  demonstration  of  the  Divine  omniscience  of  his 
 Master,  and  must  therefore  have  assisted  to  strengthen  his  faith. 
 When  he  heard  the  cock-crowing,  he  must  have  remembered 
 the  word  of  Christ. 
 
176  CHAP,  xiii.-xvir. 
 
 Vers.  36-38  coincide  accurately  with  what  the  other  Evan- 
 gelists record  of  the  same  event.  We  have  here,  in  ver.  36, 
 the  starting-point  of  the  whole  incident,  which  in  the  others  is 
 wanting.  The  question  of  Peter  here  refers  to  the  words  of  our 
 Lord,  not  communicated  by  the  other  Evangelists,  immediately 
 after  the  departure  of  Judas.  And  our  Lord's  answer  here, 
 "  Whither  I  go,  thou  canst  not  follow  Me  now,  but  thou  shalt 
 follow  Me  afterwards,"  connects  itself  with  vers.  31,  32,  in 
 Matthew.  That  the  ansiver  there  also  issues  from  Peter,  har- 
 monizes well  with  the  fact  that,  according  to  John,  the  Lord's 
 words  were  primarily  addressed  to  him.  John  communicates 
 the  former  part  of  that  answer,  Matthew  gives  the  remainder 
 in  ver.  33.  John  supplements  the  answer  of  Jesus  by  the 
 words  placed  at  the  beginning,  "  Wilt  thou  lay  down  thy  life 
 for  My  sake?"  What  Peter  replied,  ISIatthew  had  already 
 recorded :  hence  John  omits  it  here. — As  to  the  particulars  of 
 time,  there  is  no  essential  difference  between  John  and  Matthew. 
 The  rore  of  the  latter,  in  its  reference  to  the  koI  vfxvyjaavre^j 
 i^\6ov  ek  TO  opo^  twv  iXaicoi',  leaves  us  ample  space  in  the  in- 
 terval between  the  hymn  with  which  the  Passover  began,  and 
 the  arrival  at  the  Mount  of  Olives.  Those  only  are  embarrassed 
 by  it  who  place  the  departure  of  Judas,  with  which  vers.  31-38 
 in  John  are  immediately  connected,  before  the  institution  of  the 
 supper,  and  the  hymn  that  marked  its  commencement. 
 
 Mark  adheres  closely  to  Matthew ;  he  gives  only  Avhat  the 
 Lord  had  said  concerning  the  cock-crowing,  but  in  a  rather  more 
 detailed  form. 
 
 The  address  of  Jesus  to  Peter  in  Luke,  ch.  xxii.  31,  32, 
 forms  the  continuation  of  Matt.,  vers.  31,  32.  That  Peter, 
 besides  the  words  quoted  by  Matthew  and  John,  added  further, 
 "  Lord,  I  am  ready  to  go  with  Thee  to  prison  and  to  death,"  is 
 quite  in  harmony  with  the  vehemence  of  his  character.  He 
 cannot  do  full  justice  to  the  absoluteness  of  His  devotion  and 
 willingness  to  sacrifice  himself ;  and  he  is  all  the  more  impetuous 
 because  a  still  voice  within  his  inmost  soul  whispers  to  him  that 
 he  has  not  yet  the  needed  strength.  This  voice  he  thus  strove 
 to  silence.  To  the  threefold  assurance  of  his  readiness  for 
 self-sacrifice  (John  :  Lord,  why  cannot  I  follow  Thee  now  ?  I 
 will  lay  down  my  life  for  Thy  sake.  ]\Iatt. :  Though  all  men 
 shall  be  offended  because  of  Thee,  yet  will  I  never  be  offended. 
 
CHAP.  XIV.  177 
 
 Luke :  Lord,  I  am  ready  to  go  with  Thee,  both  unto  prison 
 and  to  death),  corresponds  the  threefold  denial  in  the  Lord's 
 reply,  and  in  the  event.  The  same  heaping  of  affirmation  we 
 find  at  the  denial  itself  in  Matt.  xxvi.  74. 
 
 Chap.  xiv. 
 
 The  Lord's  words  in  eh.  xiii.  36-38  had  concerned  Peter 
 alone.  Here  He  turns  directly  to  the  disciples  in  general.  The 
 abruptness  of  the  transition  originated,  in  a  series  of  many 
 manuscripts,  the  clause  which  overwhelming  authority  decides 
 to  be  spurious,  koX  elTrev  rol'i  fxaOrjTaU  avrov  (Luther :  and  He 
 said  to  His  disciples).  The  transition  is  all  the  more  startling, 
 as  Peter  did  not  in  the  foregoing  assume  the  character  of  repre- 
 sentative of  the  Apostles,  but  appeared  in  his  own  personal 
 relations.  Further,  the  beginning,  "  Let  not  your  hearts  be 
 troubled  :  believe  in  God,  believe  also  in  Me,"  and  the  sequel,  in 
 which  all  the  resources  of  consolation  and  strengthening  are 
 suggested,  presuppose  that  immediately  before  great  dangers  had 
 been  referred  to,  by  which  the  disciples  were  threatened.  Look- 
 ing at  John  alone,  that  was  not  the  case.  In  ch.  xiii.  36-38, 
 the  Lord  had  to  do  with  Peter  alone  ;  and  it  is  not  of  external 
 danger  that  He  spoke,  so  much  as  of  moral  aberration.  In  vers. 
 31-35  the  Lord  had  certainly  spoken  of  His  departure  ;  but  He 
 did  not  there  allude  to  the  disconsolate  condition  into  which  the 
 disciples  would,  as  a  consequence,  fall.  He  had  exhibited  that 
 departure  to  them  in  vers.  31,  32,  under  a  cheerful  aspect;  and 
 in  vers.  33,  34,  connected  with  it  the  exhortation  to  love.  How 
 little  chap.  xiii.  furnishes  the  foundation  of  ch.  xiv.,  may  be 
 noted  from  the  fact,  that  expositors  can  by  no  means  come  to 
 agreement  as  to  the  connection  between  "  Let  not  your  heart  be 
 troubled,"  and  what  precedes.  Lampe's  embarrassment  betrays 
 him  into  the  remarks  :  "  His  mercy  is  so  great,  that  before  His 
 people  call  upon  Him  He  answers  them,  Isa.  Ixv.  24,  and  proffers 
 consolation  to  those  who  have  not  in  their  thoughts  the  hope  of 
 experiencing  it."  Accordingly,  we  are  di'iven  to  suppose,  that 
 between  ch.  xiii.  and  ch.  xiv,  there  is  a  link  which  the  pre- 
 decessors of  John,  whom  he  everywhere  only  supplements,  will 
 supply,  and  which  will  form  the  starting-point  and  the  key  to 
 the  encouragements  that  now  follow.  We  are  especially  referred 
 VOL.  II.  M 
 
178  CHAP.  XIII.-XVII. 
 
 to  Luke,  as  the  immediate  predecessor  of  John,  to  whom  his 
 supplementary  details  are  generally  most  directly  attached.  In 
 Luke  we  have  the  middle  clause  surprisingly  supplied.  The 
 Lord  there,  in  ch.  xxii.  35—38,  turns  from  Peter  to  the  disciples 
 generally.  He  reminds  them  that,  through  the  grace  of  God 
 so  visibly  overruling  them,  they  had  hitherto  prospered ;  that  no 
 distress  and  no  need  had  invaded  them,  ver.  35.  He  tells  them 
 that  now  another  time  was  coming,  when  God's  manifest  grace 
 would  be  withdrawn — a  time  of  need  and  danger — enemies 
 around  them,  and  nowhere  a  friend — everywhere  persecutions, 
 hardships,  and  dangers,  ver.  36.  He  points  in  ver.  37  to  the 
 reason  of  this  change  :  the  days  were  to  come  to  their  Master 
 of  which  the  prophet  Isaiah  had  written,  when  He  was  to  be 
 "  numbered  with  the  transgressors  ;"  and  shows  them  that  if 
 their  Head  suffered,  the  members  must  suffer  also ;  that  their 
 Head  suffered  only  in  consequence  of  that  power  which  had 
 been  given  to  darkness,  and  that  the  members  must  encounter 
 the  same.  It  would  have  been  unnatural  that  the  servants 
 should  be  prosperous  while  the  Master  suffered  and  died.  The 
 disciples  had  misunderstood  the  word,  "  Let  him  that  hath  no 
 sword,  sell  his  coat  and  buy  one,"  which  in  a  proverbial  form 
 only  expressed  the  thought  that  a  very  perilous  period  was  at 
 hand,  which  could  not  be  met  but  by  the  most  energetic  and 
 effectual  means  of  defence,  and  in  which  they  would  liave  to 
 sacrifice  all  in  order  to  withstand  the  pressure  of  their  foes. 
 They  supposed,  though  dubiously,  with  the  feeling  that  they 
 might  be  altogether  wrong,  and  with  the  wish  that  the  Lord 
 would  open  to  them  the  right  understanding,  that  a  defence 
 with  external  weapons  was  recommended  to  them  :  "  Lord,  here 
 are  two  swords,"  The  Lord  says,  "  It  is  enough ;"  thereby  inti- 
 mating that  His  words  were  to  be  taken  with  some  qualification, 
 and  that  their  defence  must  be  sought  in  an  altogether  different 
 region.  For  if  two  only  were  enough,  swords  of  that  kind 
 generally  must  have  been  useless.  Against  the  forces  of  the  High 
 Council  nothing  could  be  effected  with  two  swords.  And  with 
 this  rejection  of  the  wrong  weapons  of  defence  against  the  im- 
 pending danger — of  weapons  that  would  have  no  value  in  a  con- 
 test in  which  the  real  opponent  is  the  "  prince  of  this  world,"  ver. 
 30,  is  immediately  connected  the  exhibition  of  those  true  and 
 spiritual  weapons  which  our  chapter  presents.    It  is  enough :  the 
 
CHAP.  XIV.  179 
 
 visible  sword  is  not  to  be  your  defence,  but  simple  faith.  Sursum 
 corda.    Seek  your  help  above,  from  your  God  and  your  Saviour. 
 
 This  explanation  of  the  starting-point  of  our  Lord's  words 
 in  this  chapter  is  of  no  slight  practical  importance.  The  im- 
 perilled situation  in  which  the  disciples  were  placed  during  the 
 sufferings  of  Christ,  is  typical  for  the  Church  of  the  last  days. 
 Then  will  power  be  again  given  to  darkness ;  the  world  will 
 again  go  such  lengths  as  to  crucify  Christ  afresh  ;  His  Church 
 will  be  threatened  with  danger  on  all  hands  ;  and  the  grace  of 
 God,  which  had  through  such  long  periods  been  with  her,  will 
 seem  rather  to  retreat  and  be  concealed.  Now  this  chapter 
 teaches  us  how  we  must  conduct  ourselves  at  such  a  time ;  with 
 what  weapons  we  are  to  defend  ourselves  against  the  threatening 
 danger ;  and  what  those  helps  are  on  which  we  may  surely  rely. 
 
 The  whole  chapter  bears  a  consolatory  character,  in  har- 
 mony with  Isa.  1.  4,  Ixi.  1,  Matt.  xi.  5,  according  to  which  it  is 
 the  proper  vocation  of  Christ  to  strengthen  the  feeble,  to  bind 
 up  broken  hearts,  and  to  bring  glad  tidings  to  the  poor.  The 
 exhortations  scattered  here  and  there  to  love  and  to  keep  His 
 commandments,  vers.  15,  21,  23,  are  only  subordinate :  they 
 only  point  by  the  way  to  the  moral  conditions  on  which  the 
 realization  of  His  consolations  and  promises  is  suspended;  they 
 give  the  preparatory  prospect  of  the  unfolding  of  this  most 
 important  aspect,  the  thorough  exliibition  of  which  could  not  be 
 wanting  in  the  Lord's  last  sayings  in  another  connection,  and 
 thus  serve  as  a  link  between  the  consolatory  and  the  hortatory 
 portions  of  the  farewell  discourses.  They  have  precisely  the 
 same  position  which  ver.  18  assumes  in  Ps.  ciii., — a  psalm  which, 
 in  its  fundamental  tone,  is  thoroughly  consolatory.  That  "  Let 
 not  your  heart  be  troubled"  is  here  the  ground-tone  of  the 
 whole  discourse,  is  shown  by  the  recurrence  of  these  introduc- 
 tory words  towards  the  close,  in  ver.  27. 
 
 We  have  evidently  here  a  complete  whole  connected  and 
 rounded.  The  three  interruptions  of  the  disciples — of  Thomas 
 in  ver.  5,  of  Philip  in  ver.  8,  of  Judas  in  ver.  22 — do  not  disturb 
 the  connection ;  the  Lord's  discourse  does  not  derive  from  them 
 a  character  of  irregularity ;  but  they  only  give  Him  occasion  to 
 develop  more  fully  what  was  in  His  original  plan.  The  first 
 interjection,  that  of  Thomas,  was  excited  by  our  Lord  Himself. 
 
 The  clause  placed  at  the  outset,  "  Let  not  your  heart  be 
 
180  CHAP.  XIII.-XVII. 
 
 troubled  :  believe  in  God,  believe  also  in  Me,"  is  developed 
 through  the  exposition  of  those  individual  grounds  of  encourage- 
 ment for  the  troubled  heart,  and  of  those  individual  means  of 
 defence  against  distress  and  danger,  which  are  provided  of  God 
 in  Christ.  The  first  thing  is,  that  to  the  disciples  of  Christ 
 heaven  is  sure  ;  that  no  power  of  this  world  can  exclude  them 
 from  eternal  life  :  turning  to  this  refuge,  they  can  look  calmly 
 at  the  confusion  of  things  upon  earth ;  their  tribulation,  because 
 temporal,  is  light :  "  Who  can  rob  us  of  the  heaven  which  the 
 Son  of  God  gives  to  our  faith?"  The  departure  of  Jesus  is  all 
 the  less  grievous  to  them,  because  it  enabled  Him  to  prepare 
 them  places  in  heaven,  and  because,  when  their  hour  is  come, 
 He  will  return  to  receive  them  into  their  eternal  inheritance, 
 vers.  2,  3.  But  they  are  not  only  referred  to  the  world  beyond  : 
 into  the  confusion  of  this  world  shine  down  the  clear  lights  of 
 the  Divine  grace  from  above ;  and  even  in  the  time  of  their 
 perilous  pilgrimage  upon  earth,  they  are  enriched  with  the  best 
 possessions.  The  second  in  the  series  of  encouragements  is  this  : 
 They  have  in  Christ  the  certain  way  to  heaven,  the  assured 
 preparation  for  eternal  life ;  and  the  being  obliged  to  renounce 
 the  world,  robs  this  present  being  of  all  its  importance,  and 
 empties  it  of  all  real  substance.  In  Christ  the  Father  has 
 been  made  known  to  them  ;  in  the  world  of  shadows  the  truth 
 has  shined,  and  in  the  world  of  death  life  has  been  revealed ; 
 and,  united  to  Him,  they  can  never  fail  of  their  participation  in 
 His  glory,  vers.  4-11.  The  third  consolation  :  They  need  not 
 fear,  that  with  the  departure  of  Christ  His  tvorks  will  cease. 
 That  departure  will  rather,  as  being  His  entrance  to  the  glory 
 of  the  Father,  enable  them  in  His  power  to  do  yet  greater 
 works :  the  apparent  end  of  Christ's  manifestations  of  His  power 
 will  in  reality  be  the  beginning  of  them,  vers.  12-14.  The 
 fourth  :  If  they  must,  in  the  coming  hard  conflict  with  the 
 world,  be  without  the  visible  presence  and  assistance  of  their 
 Lord,  He  will  instead  send  them  another  Intercessor,  the  Spirit 
 of  truth,  vers.  15-17.  The  fifth:  They  need  not  fear  that 
 Christ  will  disappear  from  them.  He  would  leave  His  people 
 only  for  a  short  time ;  He  would  then  come  back  again ;  and 
 that  not,  as  before,  in  a  visible  form,  but  secretly,  and  in  such 
 a  manner  as  to  be  manifest  only  to  His  own ;  yet  with  a  much 
 more  deep  and  effectual  influence,  so  that  His  coming  back 
 
CHAP.  XIV.  181 
 
 brings  true  life  with  it,  vers.  18-24.  The  sixth :  The  disciples 
 must  not  despond  because  their  understanding  was  as  yet  so 
 dull,  and  because  they  had  failed  to  penetrate  the  depths  of 
 truth.  This  defect  the  Holy  Spirit  would  supply,  whom  the 
 Father  would  send  in  Plis  name  :  the  same  Comforter  who  was 
 before  promised  as  a  Helper  in  the  conflict  with  the  world,  is 
 now  promised  as  a  Teacher,  vers.  25,  26.  Finally,  the  seventh 
 consolation  :  The  peace  of  Christ,  ver.  27,  where,  after  exhaust- 
 ing all  grounds  of  encouragement,  the  "  Let  not  your  heart 
 be  troubled"  returns  again.  After  all  this,  the  announcement 
 of  the  departure  of  Christ  to  the  Father  would  be  no  more 
 grievous,  but  joyful.  Christ  passes  thereby  from  the  form  of  a 
 servant  into  the  full  fellowship  of  the  Divine  glory,  ver.  28. 
 The  conclusion  of  all  is  the  declaration,  that  the  catastrophe 
 presented  in  the  pi'ospect  was  now  very  near  at  hand,  and  the 
 summons  to  the  disciples  to  go  forth  with  their  Lord  to  meet  it. 
 We  must  suppose,  that  after  "  Arise,  let  us  go  hence,"  they 
 arose  and  departed  :  this  is  evidently  included.  In  such  cases 
 of  request  and  performance  the  Scripture  is  often  concise  and 
 condensed  :  so,  for  example,  in  Gen.  iv.  8,  what  Cain  said  to 
 Abel  is  omitted,  so  that  the  supplement  must  be  sought  in  the 
 sequel :  comp.  Ex.  xix.  25.  In  Isa.  viii.  2  we  have  a  strictly 
 analogous  case.  In  our  present  passage  we  may  find  a  parti- 
 cular reason  for  so  brief  a  hint,  in  the  solemn  and  stately 
 character  of  the  discourse  of  these  chapters  having  something 
 of  a  poetical  tinge.  If  the  Evangelist  had  not  intended  us  so 
 to  understand  him,  he  must  needs  have  made  some  cautionary 
 remark.  The  summons  of  itself  excludes  the  idea  of  other 
 discourses  having  been  afterwards  uttered  in  the  same  locality. 
 It  is  inconsistent  with  the  dignity  of  Christ,  and  the  solemnity 
 of  the  occasion,  to  assume  that  He  followed  arbitrary  impulses, 
 such,  for  instance,  as  Gerhard  and  others  suggest,  who  compare 
 it  with  the  broken  words  of  separating  friends.  Jesus  repeats 
 the  "  Rise,  let  us  go  hence,"  afterwards  in  Gethsemane,  !Matt. 
 xxvi.  46  ;  and  there  the  departure  follows  hard  upon  the  sum- 
 mons. Concurrently  with  the  request  to  arise,  the  discourse 
 itself  reaches  its  full  close  in  ch.  xiv.,  issuing  in  a  formal  word 
 of  farewell :  comp.  especially  ver.  28. — Vfe  gather  from  this, 
 that  the  discourse  could  not  have  been  carried  on  upon  the  same 
 scene ;   and  that,  if  other  words  were  to  follow,  these  would 
 
182  CHAP.  XIII.-XVII. 
 
 have  a  new  starting-point,  and  belong  to  a  new  locality,  which 
 suggested  new  impulses,  and  formed  as  it  were  a  new  station, 
 different  from  that  of  the  last  supper.  Here  we  have  one  ter- 
 minus, the  departure  from  the  feast-chamber ;  the  other  is  in 
 ch.  xviii.  1,  the  passage  of  the  Cedron.  What  intervened 
 must  have  been  spoken  in  the  way  fi'om  the  chamber  to  the 
 brook ;  and  with  this  agrees  the  circumstance,  that  the  vine- 
 yards on  the  road  would  give  appropriate  occasion  for  the  repre- 
 sentation of  Himself  as  the  true  Vine  (comp.  iv.  35),  and  that 
 the  words,  "  He  lifted  up  His  eyes  to  heaven,"  ch.  xvii.  1, 
 suggest  that  the  prayer  was  offered  under  the  open  heaven. 
 So  much  of  the  way  as  led  through  the  agitated  city,  the  streets 
 of  which  were  in  the  evening  especially  excited,  was  probably 
 passed  in  silence  ;  outside  the  city,  before  that  anxious  passage 
 of  the  Cedron  with  which  John  in  ch.  xviii,  1  expressly  links 
 the  discourses  of  ch.  xv.-xvii.,  Jesus  stood  and  gathered  the 
 disciples  around  Himself.  Robinson  (vol.  ii.  33)  remarks  with 
 reference  to  this  locality,  that  before  the  valley  reaches  the  city, 
 and  opposite  its  northern  part,  it  broadens  into  a  space  of  con- 
 siderable extent,  which  is  built  upon,  and  contains  olive  and 
 other  fruit  trees.  He  adds,  that  at  this  place  it  is  crossed 
 obliquely  by  a  path  which  leads  from  the  north-eastern  corner 
 of  Jerusalem  over  the  northern  part  of  the  Mount  of  Olives. 
 
 Ver.  1.  "  Let  not  your  heart  be  troubled :  believe  ye  in 
 God,  and  believe  in  Me." — "  These  words,"  observes  Gerhard, 
 "  contain  the  sum  of  what  was  to  be  said  ;  they  are  the  theme 
 which  Christ  would  place  at  the  head  and  bring  in  again  at  the 
 close,  that  the  main  scope  of  the  whole  discourse  might  be  per- 
 fectly clear."  The  words  are  an  allusion  to  Ps.  xlii.  5  :  "  Why 
 art  thou  cast  down,  O  my  soul  ?  and  why  art  thou  disquieted 
 within  me  ?  hope  thou  in  God."  >  There  can  be  the  less  doubt 
 of  this,  inasmuch  as  the  Lord  frequently  elsewhere  refers  to 
 this  passage  :  comp.  on  ch.  xii.  27. — Jesus  Himself  says  in 
 ch.  xii.  27,  "  Now  is  My  soul  troubled  ;"  and  in  ch.  xiii.  21,  it 
 is  said  of  Him  that  "  He  was  troubled  in  sjoirit :"  consequently 
 He  cannot  have  required  in  His  servants  anything  like  a  stoical 
 apathy,  which  is  ever  the  sign  of  a  withered  and  hardened 
 heart ;  but  only  that  their  sorrow  should  never  have  the  do- 
 miajon  over  them.     It  must  be  observed  that  He  is  here  speak- 
 
6hap.  XIV.  1.  183 
 
 ing  not  to  such  as  were  enjoying  a  perfect  tranquillity, — so  that 
 the  dehortation  would  refer  to  a  dismay  possible  in  the  future, — 
 but  to  souls  that  were  profoundly  moved  and  disquieted.  To 
 these  His  exhortation  is,  that  they  should  not  remain  in  their 
 disquietude,  but  rise  through  it  to  that  consolation  from  above, 
 the  necessary  condition  of  which  is  a  previous  sorrow,  such  a 
 sorrow  as  dead  insensibility  can  never  know.  Christians  have 
 tender  hearts,  and  therefore  deep  sorrows ;  but  they  have  also 
 the  privilege  of  consolation  from  above.  But  the  dehortation 
 and  the  exhortation  have  here — as  a  comparison  of  the  original 
 Hebrew,  and  especially  the  sequel  of  the  chapter,  show — a  pre- 
 dominantly consolatory  and  encouraging  significance  :  Ye  need 
 not  disquiet  yourselves,  ye  have  reason  to  believe. 
 
 The  original  refers  only  to  God.  That  God,  however,  was 
 not  the  abstract  God  which  could  not  be  the  object  of  true  faith 
 and  living  confidence ;  but  rather  the  God  who  had  been  re- 
 vealed through  the  ages,  and  had  dwelt  in  their  midst,  the  God 
 of  Abraham,  Isaac,  Jacob,  Moses.  That  God  had  now  in  Christ 
 become  perfectly  revealed  ;  and  that  gave  the  Believe  in  God 
 an  altogether  new  significance.  (Bengel :  Fides  antiqua  in 
 Deum  novo  quasi  colore  tingitur  in  Jesum  Christum  credendo.) 
 — Each  of  the  two  clauses  suffices  in  itself  :  Believe  in  Gocl^  and 
 Believe  in  Me.  The  juxtaposition  is  only  apparent.  The  God 
 whom  they  were  to  trust  was  the  Father  of  Christ;  and  the 
 Christ  whom  they  were  to  trust  was  the  true  revelation  of  God  : 
 they  who  believed  in  Him,  believed  on  Him  that  sent  Him,  ch. 
 xii.  44.  If  Christ  and  the  Father  are  one,  ch.  x.  30,  it  is  indif- 
 ferent whether  we  place  our  confidence  in  God  or  in  Christ. 
 The  form  of  juxtaposition,  as  of  counterparts,  is  adopted  in 
 order  to  obviate  the  misunderstanding  which  would  sunder  God 
 from  His  manifestation  in  Christ,  and  assign  to  Christ  only 
 a  subordinate  place.  But,  strictly  speaking,  the  two  clauses 
 include  and  are  the  equivalent  of  each  other.  The  passage, 
 Ex.  xiv.  31,  is  in  a  cei'tain  sense  analogous  :  "  And  the  people 
 believed  the  Lord,  and  His  servant  Moses."  Faith  was  reposed 
 in  Jehovah,  who  was  revealed  through  Moses,  and  in  Jehovah, 
 who  wrought  great  deeds  by  Moses.  Here  also  the  juxtaposi- 
 tion is  merely  apparent.  Jehovah  sundered  from  Moses  would 
 not  be  Jehovah,Jbut  an  empty  idea  of  the  imagination,  which 
 could  not  be  the  object  of  faith  and  confidence.     Another  Old 
 
184  CHAP.  XIII.-XVII. 
 
 Testament  parallel  is  2  Chron.  xx.  20,  where  Jehoshapliat  says 
 to  the  oppressed  people,  "  Believe  in  the  Lord  your  God,  so 
 shall  ye  be  established  ;  believe  His  prophets,  so  shall  ye  pros- 
 per."    There  also  Jehovah  is  not  the  abstract  God,  but,  as  the 
 appendage  shows,  the  God  who  dwelt  among  the  people ;  and,  in 
 His  organs  the  prophets,  assumed,  as  it  were,  flesh  and  blood. — 
 Those  who  would  separate  the  clauses  which  are  here  inse- 
 parably connected  together,  who  would  hold  to  the  "  Believe 
 in  God,"  but  give  up  the  "  Believe  also  in  Me,"  are  involved 
 Vin  a  ruinous  error.     A  God  sundered  from  Christ  dwells  in 
 inaccessible  light — not  to  be  apprehended,  and  utterly  obscure. 
 jlFaith,  however,  can  apprehend  only  a  God  become  incarnate ; 
 which  explains    the   fact,   that  Deism   everywhere  in  history 
 appears  as  the  mere  forerunner  of  Atheism,  and  as  nothing  but 
 a  developing  Atheism.     But  more  :   as  the  iricrrevere  denotes 
 rather  the  privilege  than  the  obligation  of  believing,  it  is  of 
 great  significance  that  God  sundered  from  Christ  has  nothing 
 left  for  forgiveness  or  bestowment.     All  the  Divine  gifts  which 
 are  individually  enumerated  in  the  sequel  are  bestowed  through 
 the  medium  of  Christ ;  God  has  poured  upon  Him  all  the  ful- 
 ness of  His  gifts  ;  and  He  has  reserved  nothing  more  that  He 
 could  give  to  those  who  come  to  Him  without  the  mediation  of 
 Christ.     They  are  worthily  dealt  with  in  that  they  are  sent 
 away  empty.     It  is  the  appropriate  punishment  of  that  pride 
 which  is  offended  by  the  lowliness  of  Christ.     (Calvin  :  Pudet 
 superbos  homines  humilitas  Christi.    Ideo  ad  incomprehensibile 
 rei  numen  evolant.) — That  the  irLarevere  is  in  both  instances  to 
 be  taken  as  imperative,  is  now  all  but  universally  acknowledged. 
 (Tlie  Vulgate  is  incorrect :  Creditis  in  Deum  et  in  me  credite  ; 
 so  Luther  and  the  English  translation.)     The  relation  of  the 
 positive  to  the  negative,  with  the  comparison  of  Ps.  xlii.  6,  Ex. 
 xiv.  31,  and  2  Chron.  xx.  20,  are  sufficient  to  prove  this  to  be 
 the  correct  view.     UiaTeveTe  is  after  el^  ifie  emphatically  re- 
 peated, in  order  to  point  to  the  supreme  dignity  and  importance 
 of  Christ,  who  is  not  introduced  as  a  simple  adjunct,  but  is  on 
 a  level  with  the  Father  as  a  proper  and  real  object  of  faith. 
 Luther :  "  Ye  have  heard  that  ye  should  trust  in  God ;  but  I 
 would  show  you  how  you  may  come  to  that  faith,  so  that  ye 
 may  not  set  up  for  yourselves  another  idol  under  His  name, 
 after  your  own  devices.     If  ye  would  assuredly  come  to  Him 
 
CHAP.  XIV.  2.  185 
 
 with  true  faith,  ye  must  come  to  Him  in  Me,  and  tlirough  Me : 
 if  ye  have  INIe  aright,  ye  have  Him  aright." — 'This  saying  shows 
 us,  on  the  one  hand,  that  characteristic  of  our  nature  which 
 everywhere  and  always  inchnes  to  fear  and  despondency  ;  and 
 it  also  shows  us,  on  the  other  hand,  the  dignity  of  Christ,  who 
 in  the  fulness  of  love  takes  upon  Himself  our  infirmity,  Avho, 
 Himself  then  going  to  meet  Satan  and  death,  yet  is  so  sublimely 
 exalted  above  His  own  suffering,  that  He  can  come  to  His  dis- 
 ciples' help  with  consolation,  and  arm  them  against  danger  and 
 dread. 
 
 In  vers.  2  and  3  we  have  the  first  ground  of  consolation, 
 the  allusion  to  life  eternal.  This  is  very  fittingly  made  the 
 first,  inasmuch  as  eternal  life  is  the  supreme  benefit,  for  which 
 every  other  paves  the  way.  That  He  would  give  His  people 
 eternal  life,  Jesus  had  from  the  very  beginning  declared 
 emphatically  :  comp.  ch.  iii.  15,  16.  Then  again  it  must  be 
 observed,  that  however  glorious  the  gifts  and  graces  are  which 
 Christ  gives  to  His  disciples  in  the  present  life,  their  condi- 
 tion in  this  life  is,  after  all,  a  transitory  and  changeable  one. 
 The  Divine  gifts  and  influences  themselves  may  suffer  many 
 interruptions.  The  sun  often  hides  himself  behind  the  clouds. 
 The  Church  of  Christ  must  be  disciplined  by  the  cross.  There 
 is  one  star  of  hope,  however,  Avhich  shines,  and  shines  steadily, 
 in  always  equal  clearness.  To  this  the  Lord  ha.d  pointed  His 
 people  before,  in  the  prospect  of  coming  troubles  and  persecu- 
 tions, Luke  vi.  23  :  "  Rejoice  and  be  exceeding  glad,  for  great 
 is  your  reward  in  heaven."  St  Paul  recommends  this  as  an 
 excellent  defence  against  fear,  in  2  Cor.  iv.  17,  18  :  "  For  our 
 light  affliction,  which  endureth  but  a  moment,  worketh  for  us," 
 etc. ;  and  so  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  ch.  xi.  26.  When 
 once  this  hope  is  firmly  rooted  in  the  mind,  the  soil  is  at  the 
 same  time  and  thereby  prepared  for  the  scattering  of  the  seed 
 of  other  consolations.  He  to  whom  the  end  is  sure,  cannot 
 before  the  end,  and  in  the  way  to  it,  be  forsaken  and  lost.  The 
 heirs  of  eternal  life  must  be  kept  by  God,  during  the  time  of  yj 
 their  pilgrimage,  like  the  apple  of  His  eye. 
 
 Ver.  2.  "  In  My  Father's  house  are  many  mansions :  if  it 
 were  not  so,  I  would  have  told  you.  I  go  to  prepare  a  place 
 for  you." — The  Father's  house  is  His  heavenly  abode.  Comp. 
 Deut.  xxvi.  15,  "  Look  down  from  Thy  holy  habitation,  from 
 
186  CHAP.  XIII.-XVII. 
 
 heaven,  and  bless  Thy  people  Israel;"  Isa.  Ixiii.  15,  "Look 
 down  from  heaven,  and  behold  from  the  habitation  of  Thy 
 holiness;"  Ps.  xxxiii.  13,  14,  "  The  Lord  looketh  down  from 
 heaven  :  He  beholdeth  all  the  sons  of  men.  From  the  place 
 of  His  habitation  He  looketh  upon  all  the  inhabitants  of  the 
 earth  ;"  2  Chron.  xxx.  27,  "  Then  prayer  came  up  to  His  holy 
 dwelling-place,  even  to  heaven."  Comp.  further,  Ps.  xx.  7, 
 Ixviii.  6  ;  Jer.  xxv.  30.  The  earthly  Temple,  the  tabernacle  of 
 congregation,  the  place  where  God  is  wont  to  hold  communion 
 with  His  people,  where  He  dwells  upon  earth  and  receives  His 
 people  as  guests,  has  its  antitype  in  heaven  :  comp.  Ps.  xi.  4 ; 
 Heb.  ix.  24  ;  Rev.  vii.  15,  xi.  19,  xiv.  15.  There  the  supreme 
 God,  who  in  all  times  and  in  all  places  is  the  dwelling-place  of 
 His  people, — whether  upon  earth  or  in  heaven,  Ps.  xc.  1 ;  Deut. 
 xxxiii.  27, — has  His  sacred  abode,  in  which  He  dwells  not  alone, 
 but  receives  to  Himself  all  His  saints  after  the  cares  and  the 
 conflicts  of  life. 
 
 "  Many  mansions  :"  so  there  is  room  there  for  you  all,  when 
 the  prince  of  this  world  shall  leave  you  no  more  place  upon 
 earth :  comp.  ert  totto'^  earl,  "  yet  there  is  room,"  Luke  xiv.  22. 
 Luther  :  "  If  they  will  not  suffer  you  to  be  citizens  and  neigh- 
 bours, or  even  guests,  but  would  have  all  the  world  for  them- 
 selves, let  them  have  the  world,  but  know  that  ye  shall  never- 
 theless have  mansions  enough."  Many  the  mansions  must  be, 
 since  the  Father's  house  will  contain  not  only  the  multitude 
 which  no  man  can  number,  Rev.  vii.  9,  of  the  saints  made 
 perfect,  Heb.  xii.  23,  but  also  the  ten  thousands  of  angels,  Deut. 
 xxxiii.  2 ;  Heb.  xii.  22.  Allusion  to  the  many  gradations  of 
 dignity  in  that  future  life  (Augustin  :  MultaB  mansiones  diversas 
 meritorum  in  una  vita  seterna  significant  dignitates)  introduces  a 
 discordant  and  foreign  element  into  the  passage.  Here  we  can 
 think  only  of  what  is  common  to  all :  if  the  earth  has  no  more 
 place  for  you,  there  is  room  enough  in  heaven.  The  phraseo- 
 logy reminds  us  of  Gen.  xxiv.  23,  25.  To  the  servant's  question, 
 "Is  there  room  in  thy  father's  house  for  us  to  lodge  in?" 
 Rebekah  answers,  "  We  have  both  straw  and  provender  enough, 
 and  room  to  lodge  in."  The  allusion  can  be  the  less  doubted, 
 inasmuch  as  what  follows,  "  I  go  to  prepare  a  place  for  you/' 
 stands  in  undeniable  relation  to  that  narrative :  comp.  ver.  31, 
 where  Laban  says,  "  Come  in,  thou  blessed  of  the  Loi'd ;  where- 
 
CHAP.  XIV.  2.  187 
 
 fore  standest  thou  without?  for  I  have  prepared  the  honse.^' 
 Sept.  iyo)  8e  r)roLp,aaa  rrjv  oIkmv.  We  see  from  such  an 
 allusion  as  this,  what  high  value  the  Old  Testament  had  in  the 
 Saviour's  estimation.  From  a  matter  of  common  history  there 
 He  derives  here  the  words  for  the  presentation  of  a  supremely 
 important  truth.  There  is  a  real  parallel,  though  not  verbal,  with 
 these  many  mansions,  in  Matt,  xxv.  34,  where  Jesus  speaks  of 
 that  kingdom  which  had  been  prepared  for  the  blessed  of  the 
 Father  from  the  foundation  of  the  world. 
 
 "  If  it  were  not  so,  I  would  have  told  you,"  is,  in  another 
 form,  the  same  as  "  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you,"  in  ver.  12. 
 The  disciples  might  absolutely  rely  upon  it ;  and  in  this  confi- 
 dence might  count  it  for  nothing  that  the  earth  seemed  to  have 
 no  more  place  for  them, — comp.  ch.  xvi.  2  ;  Rev.  xiii.  17, — and 
 that  the  cry,  apov,  apov,  John  xix.  15,  was  lifted  up  on  all  sides 
 against  them.  For  He  who  gave  them  this  assurance  was  the 
 only  True  Being — He  of  whom  it  is  written,  "  There  was  no 
 guile  found  in  His  mouth,"  Isa.  liii.  9,  comp.  1  Pet.  iii.  22 ;  and 
 who  assuredly  would  not  deceive  His  disciples  with  fallaciovis 
 hopes.  Heaven  is  an  unknown  land.  It  will  be  hard  for  men 
 to  obtain  it  by  letters  of  commendation.  If  these  are  to  have 
 any  value,  the  person  who  issues  them  must  be  absolutely  con- 
 fident, and  enjoy  an  unlimited  amount  of  personal  confidence. 
 Anton :  "  Here  He  speaks  to  His  intimates.  So  great  was  their 
 faith,  that  they  believed  what  Christ  said  must  be  true,  however 
 hard  they  might  find  the  application  of  it." 
 ■Js  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  after  "  I  would  have  told  you" 
 there  must  be  interposed  a  period.  If  the  connection  is  made, 
 "  If  it  were  not  so,  I  would  have  told  you  that  I  go  to  prepare 
 a  place,"  the  going  away  to  prepare  a  place  is  declared  to  be 
 needless.  But,  according  to  ver.  3,  Christ  does  actually  go  to 
 prepare  it.  The  ore  iropevofiaL,  which  is  found  in  some  con- 
 siderable manuscripts,  sprang  from  a  false  punctuation,  and 
 with  a  more  correct  punctuation  must  vanish.  If  we  place  a 
 period  after  elirov  av  v/mv,  the  on,  can  be  justified  only  by  a 
 forced  interpretation.  That  Christ  goes  away  to  prepare  a 
 place,  is  no  apparent  reason  why  there  exist  many  mansions. 
 
 That  the  fact  of  there  being  many  mansions  does  not  exclude 
 the  Lord's  work  in  preparing  them,  may  be  illustrated  by  the 
 narrative  of  the  patriarchal  times,  already  referred  to.     Rebekah 
 
188  CHAP.  XIII.-XVII. 
 
 had  said,  "There  is  room  to  lodge  in;"  and  yet  Laban  after- 
 wards, "  I  have  prepared  the  house,  and  room  for  the  camels." 
 The  room  may  be  there ;  but  before  it  can  be  occupied,  obstacles 
 must  be  removed,  and  arrangements  made. 
 
 In  what  way  did  our  Lord  provide  a  place  for  His  people  ? 
 He  tells  us  Himself,  in  ch.  xvi.  10.  By  His  departure  to  the 
 Father  He  obtained  that  righteousness  which  is  the  essential 
 condition  of  entrance  into  the  Father's  house.  By  the  propi- 
 tiatory virtue  of  His  sacrifice  of  His  life  for  the  sheep,  ch.  x.  11, 
 the  partition  between  heaven  and  earth  was  done  away.  Eter- 
 nal life  was  won,  when  Christ,  the  antitype  of  the  brazen  serpent 
 in  the  wilderness,  took  sin  upon  Himself,  and  expiated  it  as  a 
 substitute,  ch.  iii.  15.  But  with  the  atoning  sufferings  there 
 was  connected,  in  order  to  the  preparation  of  heavenly  places, 
 the  resurrection  and  ascension  of  the  Redeemer.  He  must  first 
 enter  as  our  7rp6Spofxo<i,  our  Forerunner,  into  eternal  glory, 
 Heb.  vi.  20.  The  Head  must  be  in  heaven  before  the  members 
 can  enter  there.  To  be  in  heaven  is  to  be  with  Christ.  We 
 can  conceive  of  the  glory  of  believers  only  as  the  participation 
 in  His  glory,  as  their  assumption  into  glorious  fellowship  with 
 Him. 
 
 Our  entrance  into  the  glory  of  heaven  being  thus  made  so 
 entirely  dependent  upon  Christ,  His  atoning  sacrifice  and 
 entrance  into  glory,  it  follows,  that  in  the  times  before  the 
 Christian  economy  this  entrance  was  not  fully  opened,  and  that 
 the  pious  of  the  Old  Testament  were  only  in  a  state  of  pre- 
 paration. Christ  first  perfectly  abolished  death,  and  brought 
 life  and  immortality  to  light,  2  Tim.  i.  10.  The  paradise  in 
 which,  according  to  Luke  xxiii.  43,  the  penitent  thief  was  to  be 
 with  Christ,  was  opened  first  by  Him. 
 
 He  who  receives  and  retains  in  his  heart  the  full  force  of 
 this  text,  must  attain  to  an  estimate  of  temporal  things  quite 
 different  from  that  which  is  held  by  the  world.  He  has  in  him- 
 self an  inalienable  heritage  which  infinitely  transcends  all  earthly 
 good.  St  Basil,  when  the  prefect  of  the  Arian  emperor  threat- 
 ened that  he  would  persecute  him  by  land  and  sea,  and  taunt- 
 ingly asked  him  where  he  would  abide  then,  said,  with  allusion 
 to  this  passage,  "  Either  under  heaven  or  in  heaven."  Luther 
 answered  Cardinal  Cajetan  in  a  similar  way  :  "  If  the  earth  has 
 no  place  for  me,  yet  heaven  will." 
 
CHAP.  XIV.  3.  189 
 
 Ver.  3.  "  And  if  I  go  and  prepare  a  place  for  you,  I  will 
 come  again,  and  receive  you  unto  Myself ;  that  where  I  am, 
 there  ye  may  be  also." — Here  we  have  the  third  thing :  the 
 abodes  are  there  ;  Christ  prepares  them ;  and  He  receives  His 
 own  to  Himself.  That  which  is  here  said  of  the  coming  of 
 Christ,  receives  illustration  from  the  example  of  Stephen.  He, 
 at  the  hour  of  his  death,  Acts  vii.  55,  beholds  the  glory  of  God, 
 and  Jesus  standino;  at  the  rio;ht  hand  of  God.  In  his  last  word, 
 "  Lord  Jesus,  receive  my  spirit,"  he  addresses  Him  as  present, 
 and  yields  to  Him  his  soul,  that  He  may  introduce  it  into 
 heavenly  glory.  We  have  here  the  comforting  assurance  that 
 the  Lord  is  personally  present  at  every  deathbed  of  believers  ; 
 and  in  harmony  with  this  assurance,  we  have  countless  records 
 of  dying  experience,  in  which  faith  has  been  in  such  energetic 
 exercise  as  to  become  sight.  To  set  aside  this  consolatory  truth 
 by  any  qualifying  interpretation,  is  wrong ;  nor  is  there  any 
 reason  for  doing  so,  since,  according  to  vers.  18  seq.,  the  entire 
 life  of  believers  is  pervaded  by  manifestations  of  the  Lord ;  and 
 it  is  to  be  understood  as  self-evident,  that  He  accompanies  His 
 own  through  the  valley.  The  angel  of  the  Lord,  who  appeared 
 to  Abraham  in  a  bodily  prelude  of  His  incarnation,  says,  in 
 Gen.  xviii.  14,  "  At  the  time  appointed  I  will  return  unto  thee, 
 and  Sarah  shall  have  a  son  ;"  and  that  He  fulfilled  His  word, 
 is  manifest  from  ch.  xxi.  1,  "  And  the  Lord  visited  Sarah,  as 
 He  had  said."  If,  at  the  hour  of  birth,  the  Son  of  God  is  near, 
 why  should  He  not  much  rather  be  near  in  the  hour  of  death  ? 
 The  Lord  teaches  us,  in  Luke  xvi.  22,  that  in  the  last  hour  the 
 heavenly  powers  are  especially  active  :  the  angels  carry  Lazarus 
 into  Abraham's  bosom.  The  other  interpretations  have  sprung 
 from  the  fact,  that  men  have  taken  "  I  come  again "  sepa- 
 rately from  "  and  receive  you  unto  ISIyself  "  (wath  which,  how- 
 ever, it  is  so  inseparably  connected,  that  there  is  not  even  a 
 comma  between  them),  and  have  then  compared  with  it  other 
 passages  in  which  the  coming  of  the  Lord  is  spoken  of,  inter- 
 preting this  by  those.  It  is  obvious,  from  the  nature  of  the 
 case,  that  the  coming  of  the  Lord  is  a  manifold  and  various 
 comine; :  for  He  is  the  Living  One.  Where  a  cold  faith  thinks 
 only  of  an  indefinite  working  from  afar,  there  a  living  faith 
 apprehends  a  real  coming  down  from  above.  Here  we  have 
 not  simply  a  figure  derived  from  sense,  but  the  actual  truth  of 
 
190  CHAP.  XIII.-XVII. 
 
 the  matter.  The  Lord,  according  to  Rev.  ii.  1,  walks  in  the 
 midst  of  the  seven  golden  candlesticks :  He  is  everywhere 
 present  in  His  Church  upon  earth,  and  everywhere  in  ceaseless 
 activity.  And  it  is  a  fundamental  view  of  the  Apocalypse,  that 
 wherever  He  works  He  comes.  With  the  coming  of  ver.  18 
 seq.  the  coming  of  our  present  passage  has  nothing  to  do. 
 There  it  is  not  the  receiving  the  disciples  home  that  is  spoken 
 of,  but  rather  the  tokens  and  manifestations  by  which  Christ 
 declares  Himself  to  His  people  during  their  pilgrimage  to  be 
 the  Living  One.  The  eschatological  interpretation  (Origen  : 
 "  He  means  His  second  coming  from  heaven  ;"  so  Lampe  : 
 "  He  speaks  of  His  final  coming  visibly  in  the  clouds  of  heaven," 
 Acts  i.  11)  overlooks  the  fact  that  the  Lord's  utterance  was 
 primarily  addressed  to  the  Apostles,  and  that  we  must  include 
 here  only  what  was  an  advantage  to  them  personally ;  and  it 
 forgets  the  connection  with  the  word  spoken  to  Peter,  varepov 
 Be  aKo\ov6^aei<;  fjioi,  ch.  xiii.  36.  There  is  no  reason  why  we 
 should  rob  ourselves  of  the  gracious  consolation  which  this 
 declaration  of  our  Lord  reserves  for  the  time  of  our  departure ; 
 we  should  rather  receive  it  into  our  heart,  and  overcome  by  it 
 all  the  terrors  of  death,  which  then  assumes  a  friendly  aspect, 
 when  we  know  that  the  Lord  accompanies  it,  to  take  us  to 
 Himself. — "  And  receive  you  unto  Myself : "  heaven  is  made 
 heaven  really  and  truly  only  by  our  entering  there  into  the 
 most  direct  personal  fellowship  with  Christ,  whom  upon  earth 
 we  loved.  Luther :  "  So  that  ye  have  most  assuredly,  both  at 
 once,  the  mansions  in  heaven  and  Me  with  you  for  all  eternity." 
 Christ  Himself,  without  any  veil,  and  without  any  medium, 
 without  anything  that  in  our  present  life  interposes  between 
 Him  and  us — that  is  the  profoundest  desire  of  the  soul  in  this 
 valley  of  tears.  And  that  desire  will  be  satisfied  when  He  shall 
 come  and  receive  us  home  to  Himself. 
 
 "  After  Christ,"  observes  Lampe,  "  had,  in  vers.  2  and  3, 
 shown  that  eternal  salvation  was  connected  with  this  going 
 away.  He  now  enumerates  the  several  benefits  which  the 
 disciples  would  have  to  expect  upon  earth  through  Himself  and 
 for  His  sake."  First,  in  vers.  4-11,  to  His  people,  through 
 their  knowledge  of  Him  the  way  is  open  to  heavenly  blessedness, 
 and  to  that  glorious  house  of  the  Father.  To  be  in  possession 
 of  the  right  way  to  heaven,  is  a  precious  consolation  in  our 
 
CHAP.  XIV.  4.  191 
 
 present  troubled  life  ;  througli  that  we  are  enabled,  in  this 
 miserable  world,  to  wait  patiently  for  the  blessed  time  when  we 
 shall  reach  the  house  of  our  Father  and  the  presence  of  our 
 Lord. 
 
 Ver.  4.  "  And  whither  I  go  ye  know,  and  the  way  ye 
 Icnow." — Jesus  here  passes  over  to  the  exhibition  of  the  second 
 ground  of  encouragement.  The  emphasis  must  be  laid  on  the 
 loay.  This  is  evident  from  what  follows,  where  the  way  is 
 spoken  of  simply  and  alone,  not  the  place  to  which  Jesus  was 
 going.  Hence  it  does  not  refer  to  the  way  Christ  Himself  was 
 taking,  but  to  that  way  which  His  disciples  must  enter  in  order 
 to  reach  His  presence.  We  are  led  to  the  same  conclusion  by 
 the  relation  in  which  the  icay  stands  to  the  last  words  of  ver.  3, 
 "  that  where  I  am,  there  ye  may  be  also  ;"  as  also  by  the  whole 
 tenor  of  the  thought  in  vers.  2  and  3,  which  is  this,  that  heaven 
 is  not  for  Christ  alone,  but  also  for  His  disciples. — The  abbre- 
 viated reading,  oirov  vTrdyo)  otSare,  rrjv  o8ov,  which  gives  a 
 very  uncouth  construction,  is  not  essentially  different  from  the 
 common  one,  since  even  in  it  the  emphasis  lies  upon  the  way. 
 Perhaps  it  was  a  right  apprehension  of  this  that  led  to  the 
 abbreviation. 
 
 The  way  is  not  generally  the  way  to  God,  but  the  way  to 
 the  Father's  house  ;  the  way,  therefore,  to  eternal  life,  the 
 method  and  manner  of  attaining  it.  That  Christ  Himself,  or 
 faith  in  Him,  was  that  way,  the  disciples  had  had  abundant 
 occasion  to  learn.  The  Lord  had  at  an  earlier  time  emphatically 
 and  repeatedly  so  declared :  for  example,  He  had,  in  ch.  v.  24, 
 said,  "  He  that  heareth  My  word,  and  believeth  on  Him  that 
 sent  Me,  hath  everlasting  life;"  in  ch.  vi.  40,  47,  "He  that 
 believeth  on  Me  hath  everlasting  life  ;"  in  ch.  xi.  25,  "  I  am  the 
 resurrection  and  the  life  :  he  that  believeth  on  Me  shall  never 
 die."  He  had  in  the  words  immediately  preceding  declared  it 
 to  be  Himself  who  would  prepare  for  His  people  mansions  in 
 eternal  life,  and  then  receive  them  there.  In  such  a  connection, 
 no  other  way  to  heaven  could  occur  to  the  disciples'  thoughts 
 than  Himself. 
 
 The  definite  words  in  which  a  knowledge  of  the  way  to 
 heaven  was  here  attributed  to  the  disciples,  were  intended  to 
 expose  to  them  the  uncertainty  in  which  they  still  remained,  to 
 give  occasion  for  further  instruction  upon  it,  and  to  ensure  for 
 
192  CHAP.  XIII.-XVII. 
 
 that  other  instruction  a  ready  access.  The  taking  their  know- 
 ledge for  granted  served  here  the  same  purpose  as,  in  Rev.  vii. 
 13,  the  question  by  which  the  knowledge  of  ignorance  was 
 communicated,  and  occasion  taken  to  impart  instruction  in  the 
 most  effectual  way.  "  Ye  know,"  however,  maintains  its  truth  ; 
 and  there  is  no  reason  for  assuming,  with  Lampe,  that  Jesus 
 attributed  to  them  a  knowledge  of  that  which  they  might  and 
 ought  to  have  known.  The  disciples  knew  more  than  they  sup- 
 posed. (Augustin  :  Sciebant  discipuli,  sed  se  scire  nesciebant.) 
 As  certainly  as  they  believed  in  Jesus,  so  certainly  had  they 
 recognised  in  Jesus  the  true  way  to  heaven.  But  their  sorrow 
 had  thrown  for  a  moment  a  cloud  over  their  knowledge,  and 
 this  cloud  the  Lord  now  sought  to  disperse. 
 
 Ver.  5.  "  Thomas  saitli  unto  Him,  Lord,  we  know  not 
 whither  Thou  goest ;  and  how  can  we  know  the  way  ?  " — It  is 
 not  without  significance  that  the  words  "  called  Didymus " 
 are  not  added,  as  in  ch.  xi.  16,  xx.  24,  xxi.  2.  It  shows  us 
 that  Thomas  does  not  here  exhibit  his  own  peculiar  spiritual 
 character,  but  only  expresses  what  was  common  to  all.  Accord- 
 ingly, he  does  not  speak  in  his  own  name,  but  in  the  name  of 
 all ;  and  Jesus,  in  ver.  7,  presupposes  that  it  was  the  general 
 spirit  that  spoke  in  him.  Circumstances  were  already  beginning 
 to  be  such,  that  the  differences  between  the  man  of  rock  and 
 the  man  of  doubt  were  done  away.  "  All  ye  shall  be  offended 
 because  of  Me  this  night,"  said  Jesus,  Matt.  xxvi.  31,  and  this 
 offence  even  now  began  to  be  developed. — "  We  know  not 
 whither  Thou  goest "  must  be  more  carefully  interpreted  than  it 
 has  been  by  most  expositors.  Christ  must  have  spoken  altogether 
 in  vain  to  His  disciples,  if  they  had  not  understood  that  He  was 
 going  to  heaven,  to  the  glory  of  the  Father.  He  had,  indeed, 
 in  so  many  words,  told  them  that  He  was  going  to  the  Father's 
 house  ;  and  that  that  Father's  house  was  heaven,  every  child  in 
 Israel  knew  full  well.  "  He  that  dwelleth  in  heaven  "  was,  on 
 the  basis  of  Ps.  ii.,  one  of  the  most  common  designations  of 
 God.  But  the  understanding  of  the  disciples  was  only  external. 
 They  were  altogether  sunk  in  grief  at  the  departure  of  their 
 Master,  and  in  anxious  solicitude  on  account  of  the  abandon- 
 ment and  danger  that  impended  over  them.  Heaven  had 
 become  to  them  an  unknown  land ;  they  could  not  spiritually 
 accompany  their  Master  on  the  way  that  lay  before  Him.    And 
 
CHAP.  XIV.  6.  193 
 
 on  that  very  account  tliey  could^  in  a  realizing  manner,  appre- 
 hend the  way  for  themselves  to  heaven.  If  the  way  of  Christ 
 was  obscure,  their  own  would  be  obscure  also.  Only  when  with 
 clear  glance  they  could  accompany  their  Lord  into  the  regions 
 of  liglit  beyond,  were  they  in  a  position  to  discern  in  Him  the 
 plain  way  to  heaven.  When  the  heavenly  glory  of  Christ  was 
 obscured  to  them,  their  eyes  were  necessarily  holden  that  they 
 could  not  discern  the  shining  path,  the  way  of  holiness,  Isa. 
 XXXV.  8,  which  would  guide  them  from  this  world  to  the  next. 
 This  way  is  no  other  than  Christ  Himself;  and  he  who  has 
 not  penetrated  to  a  clear  perception  of  the  heavenly  glory 
 of  Christ,  must  also  lose  His  track  upon  earth.  Berl.  Bible  : 
 "  The  clearness  of  knowledge  may,  in  the  dark  hour,  be  much 
 dimmed.  Christ  the  sun,  however,  is  there,  although  behind 
 the  clouds." 
 
 Ver.  6.  "  Jesus  saith  unto  him,  I  am  the  way,  and  the 
 truth,  and  the  life  :  no  pian  cometli  unto  the  Father,  but  by 
 Me." — When  our  Lord  calls  Himself  the  way,  that  means  more 
 than  merely  the  guide.  "  The  example,"  says  Luther,  "  of 
 Christ  is  very  precious,  but  it  is  too  high  for  us,  and  we  cannot 
 follow  it.  I  must  have  a  firm  and  sure  bridge  which  will  carry 
 me  over."  The  word  "  I  am  the  way,"  points  to  the  fact  that 
 he  who  would  enter  heaven  must  be  baptized  and  lost  in  Christ, 
 so  that  not  he  himself  shall  live,  but  Christ  in  him.  Jesus  does 
 not  only  show  the  way  :  He  is  the  way.  Only  in  absolute  union 
 to  His  person,  only  in  the  most  internal  fellowship  with  Him, 
 can  heaven  be  attained.  This  shows  us  the  deep  misery  of  our 
 fallen  nature,  which  of  itself  is  altogether  excluded  from  heaven. 
 "  Many  paths  paved  by  Divinity  lead  to  happiness"  is  the  maxim 
 of  the  world  ;  Christ  declares  these  many  ways  to  be  only  by- 
 paths and  ways  of  error.  He  teaches  only  one  way — Himself ; 
 and  to  know  only,  one,  is  the  note  and  badge  of  His  disciples. 
 The  "  particularism,"  the  individuality,  which  is  now,  under 
 the  dominion  of  rationalism,  so  much  scorned,  is  the  signature 
 of  the  Christian  Church.  "  With  tliis  one  stroke,"  says  an  old 
 expositor,  "  Christ  rejects  all  the  worship  of  the  heathen,  of 
 Mohammedans,  and  Jews  outside  the  Church ;"  and,  we  would 
 add,  the  delusion  of  all  deists,  freemasons,  and  rationalists. 
 "  Here  is,"  says  Luther,  "  another  marvellous  thing  ;  and  this 
 is  what  St  John  is  evermore  urging,  that  all  our  doctrme  and 
 VOL.  II.  N 
 
194  CHAP.  XIII.-XVII. 
 
 believing  must  tend  to  Christ."  "  A  Carthusian  monk  makes 
 a  way  in  which  he  would  reach  to  heaven  :  I  will  forsake  the 
 world  as  wicked  and  impure ;  I  will  go  into  a  corner,  fast  every 
 day,  eat  no  flesh,  and  plague  my  body ;  such  vigorous  spiritual 
 life  God  will  regard,  and  by  it  save  me."  The  rationalist  thinks 
 that,  in  a  way  of  righteousness  much  less  anxiously  sought  out, 
 he  will  attain  to  heaven.  But  the  true  Church  of  Christ  knows, 
 with  Him,  no  other  way  than  He  Himself. 
 
 The  words,  "  and  the  truth,  and  the  life,"  must  essentially 
 intimate  the  same  thing.  For  the  clause,  "  No  man  cometh 
 unto  the  Father  but  by  Me,"  refers  back  to  "  I  am  the  way." 
 Accordingly,  the  clause  intervening  must  present  the  same 
 relation  under  another  expression  :  I  am  the  way,  because  the 
 truth  and  the  life.  This  is  important  in  the  consideration  of 
 many  expositions  given  of  the  words,  especially  of  koI  rj  aX^deia. 
 That  exposition  is  the  only  right  one  according  to  which  the 
 truth  does  not  remain  apart  from  the  way  and  the  life  :  the  only 
 idea  of  truth  appropriate  here  is  that  in  which  Christ,  as  the 
 truth,  is  at  the  same  time  the  way  and  the  life ;  just  as  all 
 definitions  of  the  way  are  inadmissible  which  remain  apart  from 
 the  idea  of  truth  and  of  life. 
 
 Hence  "  I  am  the  truth "  cannot  refer  to  the  truth  of 
 words,  but  only  to  the  truth  of  bejng,  from  which  indeed 
 truth  of  words  necessarily  flows.  I  am  the  truth  is  the  same 
 as,  I  am  Jehovah  ;  for  Jehovah,  Jahve,  means  the  Being,  the 
 pure  absolute  existence,  independent  of  which  all  is  delusion, 
 in  whom  all  must  participate  who  would  be  partakers  of  that 
 Being  which  is  the  only  source  of  all  creaturely  existence. 
 
 ^'  I  am  the  truth  :"  thereby  the  Lord  primarily  places  Him- 
 self in  opposition  to  all  that  is  created,  to  the  world  and  all  that 
 therein  is.  But  the  exclusiveness  refers  in  a  certain  sense  even 
 to  the  Father  and  the  Holy  Spirit.  To  men,  Christ  is  the  truth; 
 if,  passing  by  Him,  they  would  seek  the  truth  in  God  or  the 
 Spirit,  they  find  nothing  but  delusion  and  a  lie.  Only  in  Him 
 is  the  Father  and  the  Holy  Ghost  accessible  to  man  as  the 
 truth. 
 
 If  Christ  is  the  way.  He  must  also  in  this  sense  be  the 
 truth ;  and  were  He  not  the  truth  in  this  sense.  He  could  not 
 be  the  way.  No  man  can  win  heaven  who  does  not,  in  personal 
 union  with  the  personal  truth,  attain  to  redemption  from  the 
 
CHAP.  XIV.  6.  195 
 
 miserable  delusion  of  the  present  world,  from  the  shining 
 impiety  of  its  virtues,  the  wretched  phrases  of  its  truths,  the 
 hollowness  of  its  inspirations,  and  the  hypocrisy  of  all  its  views. 
 If  Christ  is  the  truth.  He  must  also  he  the  way.  He  who  is 
 baptized  into  the  truth,  and  penetrated  by  it,  he  who  is  taken 
 lip  into  the  fellowship  of  the  personal  truth,  has  heaven  opened 
 to  him, — that  abode  of  truth  which  is  the  absolute  opposite  of 
 the  vanity  and  the  lie  which  from  the  Fall  has  set  up  its  seat 
 in  the  earth. 
 
 The  Old  Testament  passage  in  which  the  word  truth  occurs 
 in  this  sense  is  Jer.  x.  10 :  "  But  the  Lord  is  the  true  God, 
 He  is  the  living  God,  and  an  everlasting  King."  Jehovah  as 
 truth  (Michaelis :  Veritas  in  re)  forms  here  the  contrast  to  the 
 false  gods,  whose  nature  is  nothing  else  than  deception  and 
 nothingness.  That  passage  is  seen  the  more  certainly  to  be 
 connected  with  this  one,  from  the  circumstance  that  there  also 
 the  truth  is  conjoined  with  the  life.  There  it  is  the  effect  of  the 
 truth  of  God  that  before  His  wrath  the  earth  quakes,  and  the 
 nations  cannot  abide  His  indignation.  This  shows  that  truth 
 does  not  there  mean  truth  of  words,  but  truth  of  being.  That 
 which  is  there  uttered  of  Jehovah,  is  here  appropriated  by 
 Christ  to  Himself ;  as  truth  is  to  lie,  in  Kom.  i.  25,  the  relation 
 of  God  is  to  the  idols.  The  truth  of  God  means  there,  that 
 He  is  as  such  the  possessor  of  all  true  being,  and  that  out  of 
 Him  there  is  nothing  but  vanity  ;  whence  the  necessary  conse- 
 quence is,  that  he  who  would  be  a  partaker  of  the  trutli  must 
 partake  of  it  only  in  fellowship  w'ith  God. 
 
 In  ch.  i.  14,  Christ  is  spoken  of  as  "  full  of  grace  and 
 truth ;"  by  that  very  word  He  is  exalted  above  humanity,  and 
 placed  in  the  Divine  sphere,  whose  high  prerogative  it  is  alone 
 to  possess  the  truth.  In  Rev.  iii.  7  we  read,  "These  things 
 saith  He  that  is  holy.  He  that  is  true."  There  we  cannot 
 limit  the  meaning  to  the  truth  of  words.  That  truth  of  being 
 is  signified,  may  be  inferred  from  the  fact  that  truth  is  there  in 
 juxtaposition  with  holiness,  absolute  supremacy  above  all  that 
 is  created.  In  Rev.  xix.  11,  Christ  as  the  True  One  is  the 
 antithesis  of  Ps.  cxvi.  11,  "All  men  are  liars,"  who  deceive 
 those  who  trust  in  them,  and  cannot  help  those  who  hope  in 
 them.  The  truth  of  the  nature  of  Christ,  which  is  based  upon 
 His  almightiness  and  true  divinity,  appears  there  as  the  guaran- 
 
196         •  CHAP.  XIII.-XVII. 
 
 tee  of  His  Church's  victory.  In  1  John  v.  20,  the  True  One 
 is  simply  and  as  such  identified  with  the  true  God ;  Christ  is 
 there  first  termed  "  He  that  is  true,"  and  then  designated  the 
 true  God  and  eternal  life. 
 
 As  Christ  is  the  truth,  so  also  He  is  the  life :  comp.  on  ch. 
 i.  4.  He  who  is  not  in  fellowship  with  Him,  has  only  the  sem- 
 blance of  living;  in  reality  he  is  dead,  a  walking  corpse.  Truth 
 and  life  go  hand  in  hand.  Where  truth  is — true  being,  with- 
 out the  alloy  of  delusion  and  untruth — there  is  also  life,  and 
 thence  vanish  all  the  miserable  restraints  which  compass  about 
 on  all  sides  the  existence  which  is  fallen  into  delusion  and  the 
 lie. 
 
 There  is  no  reason  why  we  should  restrict  the  coming  to  the 
 Father  to  another  world.  Its  meaning  rather  is  generally  a 
 relation  to  the  Father.  Where  such  a  relation  is  entered  into, 
 the  way  also  to  the  Father's  house  is  opened :  it  were  impossible 
 that  He,  after  the  pilgrimage  of  life  is  over,  should  leave  those 
 without  who  once  belonged  to  Him  ;  just  as,  on  the  other  hand, 
 it  were  impossible  that  those  should  enter  the  Father's  house 
 who  never  stood  in  any  such  personal  relation  to  Him  during 
 their  life  upon  earth.  The  words  mean  this :  No  man  cometh 
 to  the  Father,  and  therefore  to  the  Father's  house.  That  this 
 phrase  must  be  regarded  as  expressing  generally  a  relation  to 
 the  Father,  is  shown  moreover  by  ver.  7,  where  hnoicing  the 
 Father  corresponds  to  coming  to  the  Father  here ;  and  with  the 
 negative  the  positive  runs  parallel :  every  man  who  receiveth 
 Me  cometh  to  the  Father,  and  so  to  the  Father's  house. 
 
 This  saying  of  our  Lord  is  full  of  consolation.  No  crosses, 
 no  tribulations,  however  severe,  can  rob  Christians  of  the  con- 
 fidence that  they  have  in  Christ,  the  way,  the  truth,  and  the 
 life;  that  they  are  in  Him  redeemed  from  the  oppressive 
 empire  of  vanity,  under  which  the  soul  that  thirsts  after  true 
 possessions,  to  aXrjdcvov,  Luke  xvi.  11,  is  condemned,  and  from 
 the  thraldom  of  death,  which  has  ever  from  the  Fall  compassed 
 man  about  in  all  its  variety  of  forms ;  that  they  are  in  the  way 
 to  that  heaven  which  has  come  down  to  earth  in  the  truth  and 
 the  life,  and  to  which  truth  and  life  aspire  back  as  their  home. 
 Those  things  which  cannot  deprive  us  of  the  truth  and  the  life 
 and  the  heavenly  way,  are  in  reality  not  afflictions ;  they  are, 
 indeed,  if  they  tend  to  bring  us  into  nearer  connection  with 
 
CHAP.  XIV.  7.  197 
 
 the  truth  and  the  life,  to  be  esteemed  rather  as  "  pure  joy," 
 James  i.  2.  This  is  the  right  spiritual  estimate  of  all  the  trials 
 of  life  and  all  suffering  in  the  world,  which  indeed  are  hard  to 
 human  nature,  and  against  which  human  nature  continually 
 rebels. 
 
 Ver.  7.  "If  ye  had  known  Me,  ye  should  have  known  My 
 Father  also:  and  from  henceforth  ye  know  Him,  and  have  seen 
 Him." — Luther:  "If  ye  had  known  Me.  This  knowledge  of 
 Christ  is  not  that  of  which  St  Paul  speaks,  the  knowing  after 
 the  flesh ;  but  it  is  the  knowing  how  to  regard  Him,  what  we 
 have  in  Him,  and  how  we  may  enjoy  Him.  This  is  not  at- 
 tained by  high-minded  hypocrites,  but  by  the  lowly,  contrite 
 hearts  and  troubled  consciences ;  and  by  them  not  without  care 
 and  trouble,  so  that  "they  must  concern  themselves  mightily 
 about  it."  "  If  ye  had  known  Me  "  intimates  that  the  disciples  / 
 had  not  yet  pressed  into  a  perfect  knowledge  of  Christ,  and 
 therefore  of  the  Father ;  of  the  Father  who  perfectly  reveals 
 Himself  in  Christ,  the  express  image  of  His  person,  in  whom, 
 as  St  Paul  says,  Col.  ii.  9,  the  fulness  of  the  Godhead  dwelleth 
 bodily.  \ "  From  henceforth  ye  know  Him :"  this  shows  that, 
 objectively  considered,  this  knowledge  of  God  was  assured  to 
 them  by  the  manifestation  of  Christ  in  the  flesh,  and  their 
 internal  communion  with  Him ;  the  necessary  consequence 
 being,  that,  in  their  willing  docility,  this  knowledge  was  to  all 
 intents  and  purposes  already  fundamentally  in  them.  "If  ye 
 had  known  Me"  certainly  required  some  following  qualification, 
 otherwise  there  would  have  arisen  a  contradiction  with  ver.  4 
 (the  way  ye  know)  ;  and  the  disciples  would  have  been  placed 
 on  a  level  with  the  Jews-,  to  whom  Jesus  in  ch.  viii.  19  said,  "If 
 ye  had  known  Me,  ye  would  have  known  My  Father  also."  The 
 objective  character  of  the  Yti^cocr/cere — that  it  primarily  refers 
 to  a  knowledge  offered — is  shown  by  the  fact  that  icopaKare, 
 ye  have  seen,  is  added,  this  being  afforded  directly  by  the 
 manifestation  of  Christ.  That  which  was  intended  first  of  all 
 to  soften  the  asperity  of  the  blame,  and  to  save  the  disciples 
 from  the  painful  feeling  which  the  parallel  with  the  unbeliev 
 ing  Jews  would  have  excited,  served  at  the  same  time  as  an 
 admonition  that  they  should  ponder  what  was  given  them,  and 
 not,  by  a  denial  of  the  knowledge  already  imparted,  sink  down 
 to  the  low  and  melancholy  level  of  the  Jews,  who,  dishonouring 
 
198  CHAP.  XIII.-XVII. 
 
 /■    ^ 
 
 the  Son,  had  lost  the  Father  also.  'ATrdpn,  from  this  time 
 forward,  ch.  xiii.  19.  The  noio  does  not  mean  the  then  present 
 moment,  but  the  time  since  they  had  learnt  to  know  Christ. 
 The  Lord  divides  the  existence  of  the  disciples  into  two  halves, 
 formerly  and  now.  The  line  of  demarcation  in  their  life  was 
 their  relation  to  Christ.  Before  they  had  seen  and  known  Him, 
 they  knew  not  the  Father ;  in  Christ  they  had  learnt  to  know 
 the'  Father,  and  thus  gained  the  certain  way  to  the  Father's 
 house.  In  1  Cor.  xiii.  12  also,  aprt  occurs  in  the  sense,  not  of 
 a  moment,  but  of  a  period. 
 
 If  the  jLvo)a-K€Te  is  at  once  referred  to  a  subjective  know- 
 ledge, we  must  either,  with  Lampe,  interpolate  an  exposition, 
 "  Ye  begin  now  to  know  ;"  or,  with  Liicke,  we  must  give  it  a 
 future  application,  and  extract  from  it  the- consolatory  assur- 
 ance, "  that  the  hour  is  not  now  far  distant,  when  the  former 
 ignorance  of  the  disciples  would  be  exchanged  for  clear  know 
 ledge."  Against  the  latter  view  it  may  be  observed,  that  the 
 present,  yivcoaKeTe,  and  still  more  the  perfect,  ewpaKare,  evidence 
 that  a  knowledge  is  meant  which  the  disciples  already  enjoyed. 
 (Both  are  united,  as  here,  in  the  passage  of  Demosthenes  cited 
 by  Winer  :  av6pa>7r(p  ov  7)/jiei<;  ovre  ytvaxTKo/iev  ov6'  ecopaKafiev 
 TTfo'TroTe.)  But  ver.  9  excludes  all  doubt.  There  Jesus  mourns 
 that  Philip  had  denied  the  knowledge  already  imparted.  That 
 such  a  knowledge  was  intended,  is  shown  also  by  the  word 
 spoken  to  him  in  ver.  8,  which  on  any  other  supposition  is 
 unintelligible. 
 
 Ver.  8.  "  Philip  saith  unto  Him,  Lord,  show  us  the  Father, 
 and  it  sufficeth  us." — The  Apostles  had  hitherto  seen  Christ 
 only  in  the  form  of  a  servant,  irf  the  humiliation  under  which 
 the  glory  of  the  Father  was  profoundly  hidden.  At  the  Trans- 
 figuration it  Avas  only  transitorily  shone  through  ;  and  that 
 sublime  spectacle  w^as  witnessed  not  by  all  the  disciples,  but 
 only  by  the  most  advanced.  Under  these  circumstances,  it  was 
 natural  that  the  disciples,  having  in  their  view  the  prophecies-, 
 of  the  Old  Testament,  which  always  presented  a  prospect  of 
 the  glorious  revelation  of  the  glory  of  the  Lord,  Isa.  xl.  5,  and 
 having  further  in  their  view  the  impending  severe  trials  and 
 dangers  which  would  demand  a  mighty  auxiliary  for  their 
 faith,  should  be  unable  altogether  to  reconcile  themselves  to 
 the  fact  that  they  were  so  absolutely  referred  to  Christ  in 
 
CHAP.  XIV.  8.  199 
 
 regard  to  their  relation  to  the  Father,  and  should  feel  a  disposi- 
 tion to  ask  for  a  revelation  of  the  Father  besides  that  of  Christ, 
 in  order  to  their  invigoration  in  their  perilous  path,  more  espe- 
 cially as  their  spiritual  eye  was  not  yet  strong  enough  to  discern 
 the  glory  which  was  hidden  under  so  thick  a  veil  of  humiliation. 
 Their  rising  desire  was  gratified  when  the  concealed  glory  of^ 
 Christ  burst  through  in  the  resurrection,  in  the  ascension,  and 
 in  those  great  victories  which  the  Church  through  Christ  gained 
 over  the  world,  ver.  12.  Then  the  Father  was  plainly  and 
 obviously  shown  to  them ;  although  not  in  the  way  here  desired 
 by  Philip,  be^e  Cl^ist,  but  in  Christ.  That  which  was 
 natural  and  excusable  in  the  Apostles,  if  not  altogether  justifi- 
 able, ver.  9,  because  it  sprang  from  the  dimness  of  their  vision, 
 which  could  not  discern  the  glory  behind  the  form  of  a  servant, 
 would  be  now,  after  the  means  for  sharpening  the  spiritual  vision 
 have  been  afforded  through  the  outpouring  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
 and  when  we  have  before  us  the  glorious  evidences  and  tokens 
 of  the  ascended  Lord,  and  of  His  triumph  through  the  Chris- 
 tian ages,  a  melancholy  anachronism.  Where  a  similar  desire 
 now  arises,  it  springs  from  a  less  excusable  source.  Christ  must 
 dwell  in  the  heart  by  faith,  if  His  spiritual  glory  is  to  be  beheld. 
 That  man  in  whose  heart,  through  his  own  fault,  He  has  not 
 taken  up  His  abode,  has  eyes  which  see  not,  and  ears  which 
 hear  not.  It  is  his  righteous  punishment  that  he  is  excluded, 
 as  from  the  Son,  so  also  from  the  Father. 
 
 The  Apostles  exhibit  their  faith  in  Christ  in  this,  that  they 
 ask  of  Him  to  bring  about  the  manifestation  of  the  Father 
 which  they  desire.  And  they  are  all  the  more  justified  in  put- 
 ting that  request,  because  in  the  earlier  days  of  their  predeces- 
 sors and  types,  such  a  manifestation  of  the  glory  of  the  Lord 
 was  vouchsafed  to  the  elders  of  Israel  for  the  strengthening  of 
 their  faith  :  comp.  Ex.  xxiv.  9-11.  They  did  not  consider  that 
 the  mediator  of  the  old  covenant  was,  unlike  the  Mediator  of 
 the  new,  a  weak  man,  who  needed  to  exhibit  to  the  representa- 
 tives of  the  people  an  authentication  direct  from  God,  and  who 
 needed  himself  to  be  invigorated  by  such  a  manifestation  to  his 
 faith.  To  desire  such  a  revelation  under  the  New  Testament, 
 was  a  virtual  denial  of  the  divinity  of  Christ,  which  could  not 
 but  meet  with  such  an  earnest  rejection.  This  refusal,  how- 
 ever, could  not  be  absolutely  severe,  but  rather  full  of  tender- 
 
200  CHAP,  xiii.-xvir. 
 
 ness,  inasmuch  as  the  revelation  of  the  Father  in  Christ  had 
 not  yet  finished  its  course  and  reached  its  consummation.  Kal 
 apKel  rjfuv  points  to  the  fact  that  they  had  not  reached  full 
 satisfaction  through  any  revelation  of  the  Father  in  Christ 
 which  they  had  yet  beheld :  comp.  2  Cor.  xii.  9. 
 
 Ver.  9.  "  Jesus  saith  unto  him,  Have  I  been  so  long  time 
 with  you,  and  yet  hast  thou  not  known  Me,  Philip  ?  he  that 
 hath  seen  Me  hath  seen  the  Father ;  and  how  sayest  thou  then, 
 Show  us  the  Father?" — Jesus  could  not  possibly  have  cut  off  all 
 immediate  relation  of  believers  to  the  Father,  and  required  that 
 the  Father  be  sought  only  in  Himself,  if  it  were  not  that  the 
 being  of  the  Father  and  the  being  of  the  Son  perfectly  coin- 
 cided with  each  other,  and  the  whole  fulness  of  the  Gospel 
 dwelt  in  Himself  bodily,  and  the  Father  had  poured  into  Him 
 all  the  riches  of  His  essence.  Otherwise,  it  would  have  been  a 
 betrayal  both  of  the  Father  and  of  the  behevers.  The  Supreme 
 God  cannot  give  His  glory  to  another ;  and  the  human  heart 
 thirsts  for  God,  for  the  living  God,  nor  can  it  be  satisfied  with 
 any  quasi-god,  with  any  mere  "  divine  being." — The  appeal  by 
 name  served  to  prick  the  disciple's  conscience,  and  to  remind 
 him  that  he  had  become  alius  a  seipso,  an  alien  to  himself. — 
 Bengel  rightly  deduces  from  the  Lord's  utterance  here  the  in- 
 violable rule :  In  omni  cogitatione  de  Deo  debemus  Christum 
 proponere.  The  duty,  however,  is  subordinate  here.  The  main 
 thing  is  the  consolation,  the  great  grace,  that  the  God  who  in 
 Himself  is  a  hidden  God,  has  become  perfectly  revealed  to  us  in 
 Christ.  "  Have  I  been  so  long  time  with  you,"  has  now  for  us 
 become  a  much  wader  and  more  comprehensive  truth. 
 
 Ver.  10.  "  Believest  thou  not  that  I  am  in  the  Father,  and 
 the  Father  in  Me  ?  the  words  that  I  speak  unto  you,  I  speak 
 not  of  Myself  :  but  the  Father,  that  dwelleth  in  Me,  He  doeth 
 the  works." — The  two  clauses,  "  I  am  in  the  Father,"  and 
 "the  Father  is  in  Me,"  denote  only  the  same  relation  under 
 two  aspects.  From  this  it  follows  that  the  two  clauses  which 
 serve  for  the  illustration  of  that  relation, — and  of  which  the 
 former  formally  refers  to  the  "  I  am  in  the  Father,"  the  latter 
 to  "  the  Father  is  in  Me," — do,  in  reality,  refer  to  both.  It 
 might  just  as  well  have  stood,  "  The  w^ords  which  I  speak, 
 speaketh  the  Father  Himself ;  and  the  works  which  T  do,  I  do 
 in  the  Father." — The  explanation  is  at  the  same  time  proof. 
 
CHAP.  XIV.  11.  201 
 
 This  is  shown  by  a  comparison  with  such  parallels  as  ch.  x.  37, 
 38.  The  demonstrative  argument  in  the  loorcls  of  Christ  is 
 seen  in  ch.  vii.  46,  where  the  servants  of  the  high  priests  say, 
 "  Never  man  spake  like  this  man,"  and  ch.  vi.  68,  69,  where 
 Peter  says  to  Christ,  "  Lord,  Thou  hast  the  words  of  eternal 
 life,"  and  bases  upon  the  words  of  Christ  his  faith  that  Jesus 
 was  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God.  Christ  Himself,  ch.  vi.  63, 
 demonstrates  from  His  words  that  Pie  shared  the  Divine 
 nature :  "  The  words  which  I  speak  unto  you,  they  are  spirit, 
 and  they  are  life."  With  regard  to  the  works,  comp.  on  ch.  v. 
 36,  X.  25,  26.  These  Avorks  are  not  exclusively  the  miracles 
 proper :  every  act  of  Christ  is,  as  an  outbeaming  of  His  nature, 
 demonstrative  of  His  unity  with  the  Father ;  yet  the  works 
 have  their  climax  in  the  miracles,  because  these  form  the  most 
 palpable  evidence  of  the  saying,  "  I  and  the  Father  are  one." 
 The  "dwelling"  or  abiding  indicates  habitual  indwelling,  in 
 opposition  to  a  merely  transitory  influence  and  operation,  such 
 as  men  enjoyed  under  the  Old  Testament. 
 
 Ver.  11.  "  Believe  Me  that  I  am  in  the  Father,  and  the 
 Father  in  Me  :  or  else  believe  Me  for  the  very  works'  sake." — 
 Heumann :  "  O  how  would  the  disciples  be  humbled  by  this 
 address,  in  which  our  Lord  spoke  in  such  a  manner  as  if  He 
 doubted  as  to  their  faith  in  Himself  !"  With  this  we  must 
 compare  ch.  x.  38.  His  disciples  ought  first  of  all  to  believe 
 Christ's  utterance  as  to  His  relation  to  the  Father,  as  it  was 
 delivered  by  the  impression  of  His  whole  personality.  But  if 
 they  were  in  circumstances  which  would  not  allow  of  this,  they 
 should  at  least  believe  on  account  of  the  works.  Li  connection 
 with  these  might,  as  in  ver.  10,  the  words  have  been  named, 
 the  whole  sum  of  His  spirit-breathing,  life-breathing  discourses, 
 in  contradistinction  to  the  mere  utterance  concerning  His  being 
 one  with  the  Father.  But  the  Lord  falls  back  upon  the  ivorks 
 alone,  because  these  furnished  the  most  palpable  evidence. 
 The  works  themselves :  this  points  to  the  fact  that  these  alone 
 were  sufficient  for  demonstration.  Luther  :  "  This  is  the  style 
 in  which  St  John  and  St  Paul,  before  others,  teach  in  this 
 matter,  firmly  uniting  together  Christ  and  the  Father,  in  order 
 that  we  may  learn  not  to  think  anything  about  God  apart  from 
 Christ,  and  to  hide  and  wrap  ourselves  in  His  Christ. — Here  is 
 a  beautiful  word  and  sermon  for  the  Apostle  Philip,  in  which 
 
202  CHAP.  XIII.-XVU. 
 
 not  only  is  he  answered,  but  the  fluctuating  thoughts  of  all 
 men ;  for  the  whole  world  and  thyself  are  here  told  by  the 
 Lord :  Wherefore  wilt  thou  seek  God  otherwise  than  in  ]SIe, 
 or  desire  to  see  and  hear  any  other  word  and  work  than  that 
 which  I  speak  and  do  ?" 
 ^  In  vers.  12-14  we  have  the  tliird  ground  of  consolation. 
 Christ  had  finally,  with  express  emphasis,  referred  to  His  tvorks. 
 Out  of  the  consolation  there  sprang  up  to  the  disciples  a  new 
 element  of  sorrow.  These  works  must,  it  seemed  to  them,  cease 
 with  the  departure  of  the  Lord.  Left  to  their  own  poverty  and 
 impotence,  they  must,  in  opposition  to  the  unfriendly  word,  fare 
 but  miserably.  That  was  about  to  be  removed  which  had  given 
 some  measure  of  firmness  to  all.  It  is  against  this  grief  that 
 their  blaster  here  consoles  them.  The  works  would  not  cease 
 with  His  departure ;  they  should  rather,  in  consequence  of  His 
 departure,  rise  to  a  higher  level  of  energy  and  significance.  He 
 who  should  be  elevated  to  the  glory  of  the  Father,  would,  by 
 His  disciples,  perform  yet  greater  works.  They  should  only 
 ask ;  and  out  of  His  inexhaustible  riches  they  should  obtain  all 
 that  their  necessities  might  demand. 
 
 Ver.  12.  "  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you.  He  that  believeth 
 on  Me,  the  works  that  I  do  shall  he  do  also ;  and  greater  works 
 than'  these  shall  he  do :  because  I  go  unto  My  Father." — This 
 vigorous  assurance  shows  at  the  outset  how  far  beyond  the 
 horizon  of  the  disciples  lay  the  promise  that  followed.  The 
 Lord  had,  in  ch.  v.  20,  described  the  works  which  He  performed 
 during  His  earthly  life  as  the  mere  prelude  to  greater  works. 
 The  greatest  deeds  which,  in  the  Old  Testament,  were  ascribed 
 to  the  Messiah,  were  at  this  time  scarcely*  even  inaugurated. 
 He  was  to  be  the  light  of  the  Gentiles,  Isa.  xlii.  6 ;  and  to  rule 
 from  sea  to  sea,  and  from  the  river  to  the  ends  of  the  earth, 
 Ps.  Ixxii.  8 ;  Zech.  ix.  10 ;  all  kings  were  to  worship  Him,  all 
 the  heathen  serve  Him,  Ps.  Ixxii.  11.  The  root  of  Jesse,  which 
 stood  as  an  ensign  to  the  nations,  the  Gentiles  were  to  seek  unto, 
 Isa.  xi.  10.  Of  all  this  there  was  as  yet  but  the  faint  anticipa- 
 tion. And  the  great  Messianic  work  of  grace  and  judgment 
 upon  the  Jewish  people,  as  f  oreannounced  by  the  prophets,  was  as 
 yet  far  from  accomplished.  Instead  of  the  hundreds  of  believers 
 from  among  the  Jews  who  were  assembled  during  the  Lord's 
 life,  1  Cor.  XV.  6,  many  myriads  were  won  by  the  preaching 
 
x:hap.  XIV.  12.       '  203 
 
 of  the  Apostles  after  the  Lord's  resurrection,  Acts  xxi.  20.  And 
 as  it  regards  the  judgment  upon  them,  the  withering  of  the 
 fig-tree  of  the  Jewish  people  took  place  only  in  symbol  shortly 
 before  the  departure  of  Christ ;  and  the  actual  rooting  up  of 
 those  plants  which  the  heavenly  Father  had  not  planted  was 
 left  to  the  future,  to  be  the  work  of  the  exalted  Redeemer,  and 
 to  those  prayers  of  believers  which  should  evoke  His  work ;  for, 
 according  to  Matt.  xxi.  21,  the  withering  of  the  fig-tree  appears 
 as  the  work,  in  this  sense,  of  the  believers  themselves. 
 
 The  antithesis  is,  in  fact,  not  between  Christ  and  His  dis- 
 ciples, but  between  the  humble  and  the  exalted  Christ.  His 
 disciples  accomplish  their  works  only  as  the  organs  of  the 
 ascended  Lord,  and  by  His  assistance.  The  whole  power  of 
 performance  is  here  expressly  placed  in  the  disciples'  faith  in 
 Christ ;  in  the  words  "  because  I  go  to  the  Father  "  it  is  based 
 upon  the  glorification  of  Christ,  and  the  omnipotence  connected 
 with  it ;  in  ver.  13,  whose  iroirjaco  refers  back  to  the  Troirja-et  of 
 ver.  12,  Christ  alone  is  exhibited  as  acting,  while  the  co-opera- 
 tion of  the  disciples  is  referred  to  their  i^rayer.  Without  Me, 
 said  the  Lord  in  ch.  xv.  5,  ye  can  do  nothing. 
 
 The  Apostles  are  not  specifically  spoken  of,  but  generally 
 all  who  believe  in  Christ.  We  are  ijierefore  justified  to  seek 
 the  fulfilment  of  these  words  in  the  Avhole  course  of  the  history 
 of  the  Christian  Church. 
 
 With  "  The  works  that  I  do  shall  he  do  "  we  must  compare 
 Mark  xvi.  17,  18.  There  the  works  are  individually  enume- 
 rated. But  we  must  regard  that  enumeration  as  only  an  indi- 
 vidualizing. Behind  these  palpable  signs  stand  others,  which 
 are  more  concealed  and  less  obvious,  but  in  reality  much  greater : 
 the  miraculous  power  which  Christ  will  assure  to  His  people 
 for  the  conversion  of  individuals  and  nations,  for  the  effect  of 
 regeneration  in  a  world  corrupted  to  the  very  centre,  for  their 
 victory  over  the  whole  hostile  force  of  the  world,  and  over 
 its  prince  who  wields  that  force.  That  of  this  we  are  especi- 
 ally to  think,  is  plain  from  "  greater  things  shall  he  do."  In 
 reference  to  miracles,  commonly  so  called,  Christ  was  not  sur- 
 passed by  His  disciples ;  on  the  contrary,  they  were  considerably 
 inferior  to  Him.  But  in  what  domain  we  ai'c  chiefly  to  seek  the 
 works  here  spoken  of,  ch.  xii.  32  teaches  us :  "  And  I,  if  I  be 
 lifted  up  from  the  earth"  (this  corresponds  to  the  "  going  to 
 
204  CHAP.  XIII.-X^I. 
 
 the  Father"  here),  "  will  draw  all  men  unto  Me."  Hence  the 
 great  work  which  was  to  be  accomplished  after  the  exaltation 
 of  Christ,  and  in  the  power  of  that  exaltation,  was  the  conver- 
 sion of  the  icorld,  specially  the  heathen  nations.  Further,  in 
 ch.  X.  16,  where  our  Lord  thus  exhibits  the  result  of  His  aton- 
 ing death,  and  the  great  task  to  be  fulfilled  after  it:  "And 
 other  sheep  I  have,  which  are  not  of  this  fold :  these  also  must 
 I  bring,  and  they  shall  hear  My  voice ;  and  there  shall  be  one 
 fold,  and  one  shepherd."  So  also  we  may  compare  Matt,  xxviii. 
 18-20.  There  the  Lord  bases  upon  the  "power"  given  unto 
 Him  in  heaven  and  earth  as  the  result  of  His  atoning  passion, 
 the  injunction,  "  Go  ye  forth  and  disciple  all  nations,"  and  pro- 
 mises that  He  would  be  with  them  to  the  end  of  the  world 
 for  the  accomplishment  of  a  work  immeasurably  surpassing  all 
 human  power.  We  have  also  an  illustration  of  the  "  greater 
 works  than  these  shall  he  do  "  in  the  Apocalypse,  which  depicts 
 the  marvellous  victory  of  Christ  and  His  members  over  the 
 Gentile  world  and  its  prince ;  compare  particularly,  ch.  xvii. 
 14 :  "  These  shall  make  war  with  the  Lamb,  and  the  Lamb 
 shall  overcome  them :  for  He  is  Lord  of  lords,  and  Kino;  of 
 kings ;  and  they  that  are  with  Him  are  called,  and  chosen,  and 
 faithful."  But  the  propgr  commentary  on  our  text  is  furnished 
 by  a-  word  spoken  some  days  before  to  the  disciples.  Matt.  xxi. 
 21,  22  :  "  Verily  I  say  unto  you,  If  ye  have  faith,  and  doubt  not, 
 ye  shall  not  only  do  this  that  is  done  to  the  jig-tvee,  but  also,  if 
 ye  shall  say  unto  this  mountain,  Be  thou  removed,  and  be  tliou 
 cast  into  the  sea ;  it  shall  be  done.  And  all  things,  whatsoever 
 ye  shall  ask  in  prayer,  believing,  ye  shall  receive."  This  pas- 
 sage is  closely  connected  with  that  we  are  considering.  Ver.  22 
 absolutely  coincides  with  ver.  13.  They  have  in  common  also 
 the  introduction  by  "  Verily,"  and  the  emphasis  laid  on  believ- 
 ing. We  see  from  this  that  the  greater  works  were  to  consist 
 in  the  victory  over  Jerusalem,  and  over  the  Gentile  secular 
 power  then  concentrated  in  Eome.  It  needs  no  proof  that  the 
 fig-tree  signified  the  Jewish  people ;  and,  of  course,  what  they 
 were  to  do  must  have  referred  to  an  autitypical  action  in  some- 
 thing else,  since  the  natural  fig-tree  was  already  desti'oyed. 
 "  This  which  is  done  to  the  fig-tree"  must  have  referred  to 
 something  yet  to  be  done  to  its  counterpart.  So  also,  in  con- 
 nection with  the  fig-tree,  the  mountain  must  have  had  a  sym- 
 
CHAP.  XIV.  12.  205 
 
 boHcal  meaning:  nor  can  this  be  obviated  by  the  suggestion 
 that  this  mountain  is  spoken  of ;  for  a  specific  fig-tree  was  also 
 spoken  of.  This  fig-tree,  this  mountain,  were  sanctified  into 
 symbols  of  hostile  powers.  The  mountain,  in  contradistinction 
 to  the  fig-tree,  can  only  be  a  symbol  of  Gentile  temporal  power. 
 Ill  the  Old  Testament,  mountains  are  used  as  the  ordinary  sym- 
 bols of  kingdoms.  In  Zech.  iv.  7,  the  great  mountain  is  the 
 Persian  empii'e,  which  was  in  an  attitude  of  opposition  to  the 
 building  of  the  Temple.  In  Jer.  li.  25,  the  mountain  which 
 endangers  the  whole  earth  is  the  Chaldean  empire.  So  the 
 mountain  here  is  the  universal  empire  that  then  was,  that  of 
 Rome.  The  sea  is,  according  to  the  common  sj^mbolism  of 
 Scripture,  the  sea  of  nations :  comp.  on  ch.  vi.  14—21 ;  Rev. 
 viii.  8,  9,  out  of  which  the  universal  empire  had  arisen  mightily 
 in  the  time  of  its  prosperity,  but  into  which  it  now  sinks  back 
 again  through  the  faith  of  the  disciples  and  the  power  of  Christ. 
 Rev.  xviii.  21  is  parallel,  where  we  read,  with  reference  to  the 
 Roman  empire,  and  in  allusion  to  Jer.  li.  63,  64 :  "  And  a 
 mighty  angel  took  up  a  stone  like  a  gi'eat  millstone,  and  cast  it 
 into  the  sea,  saying,  Thus  with  violence  shall  that  great  city 
 Babylon  be  thrown  down,  and  shall  be  found  no  more  at  all." 
 On  the  ground  of  the  same  passage  in  Jeremiah,  our  Lord,  re- 
 ferring to  the  then  ruling  power,  had  already  spoken,  Matt,  xviii. 
 6,  of  those  who  offended  His  little  ones  being  cast  into  the  sea 
 with  millstones. 
 
 The  foundation  of  the  doing  works  like  Christ's,  and  still 
 greater  works,  is  to  be  found  in  the  "  going  to  the  Father."  What 
 follows  is  only  the  further  development  of  the  idea,  that  Christ's 
 work  would  not  cease  with  His  death ;  that  the  disciples  need 
 not  fear  that  they  would  sink  back  into  the  darkness  when  the 
 light  of  His  works,  which  during  His  earthly  life  had  irradiated 
 them*,  was  withdrawn ;  and  that  they  would  not  be  left  to  the 
 consequences  of  their  own  impotence.  The  independence  of 
 the  clause  is  confirmed  by  a  comparison  with  ver.  28,  where  the 
 "  I  go  to  the  Father"  stands  in  a  similar  independent  position, 
 and  where  the  "  My  Father  is  greater  than  I"  develops  the 
 consolatory  meaning  lying  in  those  words.  The  independence 
 of  the  clause  in  ver.  13,  "  And  whatsoever  ye  shall  ask,"  etc.,  is 
 plain  from  Matt.  xxi.  22,  which  accurately  corresponds  with 
 this  present  saying.     So  also,  from  the  repetition  in  ver.  14, 
 
206  CHAP.  XIII.-XVII. 
 
 Jesus  was  going  to  the  Father,  into  the  glory  which  He  had 
 with  Him  before  the  world  was,  ch.  xvii.  5 ;  and  He  tlierefore 
 could  most  mightily  assist  His  disciples  in  the  performance  of 
 greater  works  than  He  Himself,  in  the  days  of  His  servant  form, 
 could  accomplish.  To  go  to  the  Father  was  to  enter  into  His 
 glory,  Luke  xxiv.  26 ;  and  this  glory  could  not  but  have  a  most 
 pervasive  influence  upon  His  people  below.  When  Jesus  went 
 to  the  Father,  the  grief  of  the  disciples  must  be  turned  into 
 joy,  and  their  despondency  into  confidence.  The  departure  of 
 their  Lord,  which  seemed  to  make  them  helpless,  and  abandon 
 them  an  easy  prey  to  the  wolves,  was  the  very  condition  and 
 foundation  of  their  power  and  of  their  victory.  It  made  their 
 Master's  omnipotence  available  for  them.  "  How  should  we  not 
 expect  something  more  glorious  from  the  exalted  than  from 
 the  humbled  Christ?"  Luther:  "  Christ  going  to  the  Father 
 means,  that  He  is  exalted  to  the  Lord  above,  and  placed  on  a 
 royal  throne  at  the  right  hand  of  the  Father,  all  power  and 
 authority  being  subjected  to  His  sway  in  heaven  and  in  earth. 
 And  ye  shall  therefore  have  the  power  to  do  such  works,  because 
 ye  are  My  members,  and  believe  in  Me,  so  that  ye  shall  be  in 
 Me  and  I  will  be  in  you. — Now  I  am  weak,  because  I  yet  walk 
 here  below  in  this  flesh ;  and  do  slighter  and  less  considerable 
 works,  only  raising  a  few  from  the  dead  and  healing  a  handful 
 of  Jews;  and  1  must  submit  to  be  crucified  and  slain.  But 
 afterwards,  when  I  have  been  crucified,  have  been  buried,  and 
 have  risen  again,  I  shall  make  my  great  leap  from  death  into 
 life,  from  the  cross  and  the  sepulchre  to  eternal  glory,  and 
 Divine  majesty  and  power ;  and  will  then,  as  I  have  said,  draw 
 everything  to  Me,  so  that  all  creatures  must  be  subjected 
 to  Me,  and  I  can  say  to  you.  Apostles  and  Christians  :  Thou, 
 Peter  and  Paul,  go  and  overturn  the  Koman  empire,  if  it  will 
 not  receive  My  word  and  obey  Me ;  for  it  must  either  receive 
 the  Gospel,  or  stumble  over  it  to  ruin." 
 
 This  present  saying  of  our  Lord  is  not  merely  rich  in  conso- 
 lation ;  it  also  gives  occasion  to  rigid  self-examination  on  the 
 part  of  the  Church  and  of  individual  Christians.  Christ  has 
 here  given  solemn  asseveration,  that  whosoever  believeth  on 
 Him  shall  do  works  like  those  which  He  did  while  on  earth,  and 
 even  greater  works.  Therefore,  when  these  works  are  found 
 wanting  there  must  be  lack  of  faith :  as  Augustin  says.  Si  ergo 
 
CHAP.  XIV.  13.  207 
 
 qui  credit  faciei,  non  credit  utique  qui  non  faciei.  The  com- 
 plaint, which  is  now  so  common,  over  the  corruption  of  the 
 world,  the  feeble  wail  of  despondency  over  the  unbelief  of  the 
 age,  must  be  abashed  before  this  utterance  of  our  Lord.  Christ 
 sits  for  ever  at  the  right  hand  of  the  Father,  equipped  with 
 in-esistible  arms  against  all  His  enemies.  But  "  faith  faileth 
 upon  earth."  There  is,  indeed,  a  difference  of  seasons  in  the 
 kingdom  of  God ;  there  are  times  in  which  power  is  given  to 
 the  darkness;  and,  doubtless,  such  a  time  is  that  wherein  we 
 live.  But  our  saying  avails  even  for  such  times  as  these.  The 
 greater  is  the  opposition,  the  more  plainly  is  it  the  task  of  faith 
 to  do  "  greater  works,"  and  the  richer  is  the  aid  which  is  given 
 from  on  high  for  the  accomplishment  of  this  task. 
 
 Ver.  13.  "  And  whatsoever  ye  shall  ask  in  My  name,  that 
 will  I  do,  that  the  Father  may  be  glorified  in  the  Son." — "  And," 
 when  I  have  gone  to  the  Father ;  or,  in  virtue  of  My  departure, 
 through  which  I  shall  be  received  into  the  fellowship  of  the 
 Divine  omnipotence.  The  connection  with  ver.  12  shows  that 
 petitions  are  referred  to  here  which  have  relation  to  the  things  — < 
 of  the  kingdom  of  God :  their  effect  is  the  performance  of 
 the  works.  Prayer  directed  to  that  object  is  for  ever  being 
 answered;  although  the  arrangement  of  the  time  and  hour 
 must  be  left  to  the  wisdom  of  Him  who  sitteth  at  the  right 
 hand  of  the  Father,  and  although  the  answer  may  be  impeded 
 by  many  weaknesses  and  defeats  on  our  part. — To  the  name  all 
 expressions  and  revelations  of  the  nature  converge :  comp.  on 
 ch.  i.  12,  ii.  23,  v.  43,  xii.  13.  It  corresponds  to  the  memorial^ 
 or  memory,  to  the  historical  personality.  He  who  would  pray 
 to  Christ  in  such  a  way  as  to  be  heard,  must  not  set  before  his 
 eyes  a  phantasy  of  his  own  imagination :  he  must  represent  to 
 himself  the  corporeal  form  of  the  historical  Christ,  in  the  outlines 
 which  the  Apostolical  Confession  of  Faith  presents  to  us ;  he 
 must  thoroughly  renounce  all  idealistic  refuges.  Christ  has, 
 by  His  deeds  upon  earth,  made  unto  Himself  a  glorious  name 
 (comp.  Isa.  Ixiii.  14)  ;  first  of  all,  by  those  which  He  performed 
 in  His  state  of  humiliation,  and  since  by  the  victorious  course 
 of  eighteen  hundred  years  in  His  Church ;  and  ^vhosoever  would 
 pray  to  Him  with  acceptable  prayer,  must  in  faith  embrace  the 
 whole  fulness  of  these  manifestations  of  His  name.  Experience 
 bears  witness  that  prayer  dies  out  in  feebleness,  precisely  in 
 
 ^ 
 
208  CHAP.  XIII.-XVII. 
 
 proportion  as  the  name  of  Christ  is  obscured  to  the  mind  by 
 doubt. 
 
 He  to  whom  the  prayer  is  directed  is  designedly  not  named, 
 because  it  would  be  matter  of  indifference,  after  Christ  had 
 gone  to  the  Father,  whether  petitions  were  addressed  to  Him  or 
 to  the  Father.  Both  would  come  to  the  same  thing;  for,  as 
 Christ  is  in  the  midst  of  the  throne,  Rev.  vii.  17,  prayer  truly 
 offered  to  the  Father  is  offered  to  Him,  and  prayer  offered  truly 
 to  Him  is  offered  also  to  the  Father.  That  supplication  cannotJ 
 be  presented  to  the  Father,  as  contradistinguished  from  Christ, . 
 is  plain  from  the  tovto  nrott^aw.  If  there  were  an  alternative 
 in  the  case,  this  expression  would  oblige  us  to  assume  that  the  ' 
 prayer  was  to  be  addressed  to  the  exalted  Christ. — The  Troa/cro) 
 here  refers  to  the  irocija-eiy  in  ver.  12.  Luther :  "  What  He 
 had  said  about  their  doing  greater  works.  He  again  appropriates 
 to  Himself."  This  was  to  the  disciples,  altogether  penetrated 
 by  the  consciousness  of  their  impotence,  not  discouraging,  but 
 full  of  consolation.  It  might  appear  that  the  sphere  of  the 
 Lord's  action  and  the  sphere  of  the  disciples'  action  were  dif- 
 ferent ;  but  this  distinction  vanishes  when  we  observe,  that  even 
 in  those  cases  in  which  the  act  seemed  to  belong  to  Christ 
 alone  (such  as  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem),  the  disciples  were 
 actually  co-operating  by  their  prayer,  and  that,  on  the  other 
 hand,  there  could  be  no  work  done  by  the  disciples  alone  with- 
 out the  effectual  aid  of  Christ. — "  That  the  Father  may  be 
 glorified  in  the  Son:"  the  aim  of  the  acting  of  Christ  is  pri-  . 
 marily  His  own  glorification.  But  this  reflects  back  on  the 
 Father.  When  it  is  seen  that  the  Son  can  do  great  things,  says 
 Theophylact,  He  is  glorified  who  hath  begotten  such  a  Son. 
 
 Ver.  14.  "  If  ye  shall  ask  anything  in  My  name,  I  will  do 
 it." — We  have  here  an  express  repetition,  which,  with  its  afirjv, 
 afii]v,  at  the  beginning,  springs  from  the  same  source.  It  is 
 intended  to  furnish  supplication  with  a  yet  firmer  ground  of  con- 
 fidence. Luther :  "  Our  Lord  Christ  foresaw  that  this  article 
 would  go  hard  with  human  reason,  and  that  it  would  be  much 
 assailed  by  the  devil."  Comp.  Ps.  Ixii.  12  :  "  God  hath  spoken 
 once,  yea,  twice  have  I  heard  this,  that  power  belongeth  unto 
 God."  God  said  it  not  once  only,  but  confirmed  it  by  a  second 
 assurance,  that  all  power  was  His.  So  also  in  1  John  ii.  14, 
 repetition  has  the  effect  of  stronger  assurance.     The  iyco,  which 
 
CHAP.  XIV.  15.  209 
 
 Gerhard  describes  as  a  word  of  majesty,  gives  great  prominence 
 to  the  supreme  authority  of  Christ  in  His  exalted  state  :  it  is  as 
 it  were,  I  to  whom  all  power  is  given  in  heaven  and  upon  earth. 
 Luther :  "  Wliat  ye  ask,  I  will  do :  this  is  as  much  as  to  say, 
 I  am  God,  who  may  do  and  give  all  things." 
 
 In  vers.  15-17  follows  the  fourth  ground  of  consolation. 
 Christ  had  foreannounced  to  His  disciples,  that  they  would  be 
 brought  before  judgment-seats,  and  princes,  and  kings.  The 
 contemplation  of  this  must  have  invested  His  departure  with 
 every  element  of  sadness.  Their  confidence  in  their  conflict  with 
 the  world  had  hitherto  rested  upon  the  fact,  that  they  had  Him 
 in  their  midst  as  their  champion  and  advocate.  They  were  them- 
 selves avOpwrroi  aypd/jifj.aToi,  koX  ISimtui,  Acts  iv.  13.  What 
 should  they  be  able  to  attempt  and  accomplish  after  the  depar- 
 ture of  the  Lord,  when  the  contest  with  the  world  grew  more 
 and  more  fierce  ?  The  sorrow  and  anxiety  of  this  prospect  our 
 Lord  obviates  here  by  His  consoling  word :  He  would  send  His 
 people  another  Advocate  in  their  process  against  the  world, — 
 an  Advocate  who  should,  during  all  the  ages  of  the  militant 
 Church,  abide  with  them,  assist  their  infirmity,  and  conduct 
 their  cause  with  full  efficiency — the  Spirit  of  truth.  Lampe 
 thinks  that  the  promise  of  the  mission  of  the  Holy  Ghost  was 
 appropriately  connected  with  the  preceding,  because  in  it  was 
 given  the  power  for  the  accomplishment  of  the  greater  works. 
 But  the  fact  is,  that  with  regard  to  the  greater  works,  the  dis- 
 ciples were  referred  not  to  the  Holy  Spirit,  but  to  the  power 
 of  the  glorified  Christ.  The  Holy  Spirit  appears  here  only  in 
 His  proper  function,  as  Intercessor,  Advocate,  or  Comforter. 
 
 Ver.  15.  "  If  ye  love  ISIe,  keep  My  commandments." — This 
 is  the  condition  to  which  the  fulfilment  of  the  promise  now  to 
 be  given  is  attached.  What  is  here,  where  the  main  point  was 
 consolation,  only  hinted  at,  is  further  dilated  upon  in  ch.  xv. 
 And  the  hint  given  here  leaves  it  to  be  expected  that  such  a 
 moral  hortatory  portion  of  the  last  discourses  of  our  Lord  was 
 to  follow.  For  if  fidelity  in  the  love  of  Christ,  and  in  the 
 observance  of  His  commandments,  is  of  such  pervasive  import- 
 ance, surely  it  was  not  enough  to  deal  with  it  only  in  the  way  of 
 a  brief  and  passing  intimation.  Jesus  here  most  vitally  and 
 thoroughly  connects  together  love  to  Himself,  and  the  fulfil- 
 ment of  His  commandments.     lie  acknowledges  no  love  which 
 
 VOL.  II.  O 
 
210  CHAP.  XIII.-XVII. 
 
 does  not  find  its  expression  in  the  observance  of  His  laws. 
 These  cannot  be  separated  from  the  person  :  they  are  so  many 
 conditions,  under  which  alone  communion  with  His  person  is 
 possible.  On  the  other  hand,  our  Lord  recognises  no  fulfilment 
 of  His  commandments  which  is  not  an  outgoing  of  personal 
 love  to  Himself.  He  condemns  every  other  kind  of  fulfilment 
 which  springs  only  from  temporal  interest,  from  fear  of  punish- 
 ment, from  deference  to  public  opinion,  as  mere  illusion.  It  is 
 expressly  declared  that  love  is  the  condition  of  all  obedience  to 
 His  commandments,  and  must  approve  itself  in  that  obedience. 
 '"  "  My  commandments  :"  Moses  was  not  wont  to  speak  thus. 
 It  implies  the  oneness  of  nature  between  Christ  and  the  Supreme 
 Lawgiver.  Hence,  in  unison  with  this,  we  mark  the  intentional 
 use  of  the  same  expressions  which  are  used  in  the  Old  Testa- 
 ment with  reference  to  Jehovah  :  comp.  especially  Ex.  xx.  6, 
 "  And  showing  mercy  unto  thousands  of  them  that  love  Me, 
 and  keep  My  commandments ;"  Deut.  vii.  9,  "  The  faithful 
 God,  which  keepeth  covenant  and  mercy  with  them  that  love 
 Him,  and  keep  His  commandments,  to  a  thousand  generations ;" 
 ver.  11,  "  Thou  shalt  therefore  keep  the  commandments,  and 
 the  statutes,  and  the  judgments  which  I  command  thee  this  day 
 to  do  them  ;"  Ps.  ciii.  17,  18,  "  But  the  mercy  of  the  Lord  is 
 from  everlasting  to  everlasting  upon  them  that  fear  Him,  and 
 His  righteousness  unto  children's  children,  to  such  as  keep  His 
 covenant,  and  to  those  that  remember  His  commandments  to  do 
 them ;"  Ps.  xxv.  10.  The  two  expressions  of  the  Mosaic  law- 
 come  nearest  to  our  passage.  There  the  keeping  of  the  com- 
 mandments of  God  appears  both  as  the  guarantee  and  as  the 
 outflow  of  love  to  Him,  as  its  inseparable  attendant. — The  com- 
 mandments of  the  Old  Testament  were  also  the  commandments 
 of  Christ ;  and  they  are  included  by  Him  when  He  speaks  of 
 His  commandments.  For  He  had  solemnly  recognised  them, 
 and  exhorted  Plis  Church  inviolably  to  keep  them :  comp.  Matt. 
 V.  17-20.  But  He  did  not  simply  receive  them  externally  into 
 His  Gospel ;  He  has  everywhere  modified,  supplemented,  and 
 established  them :  comp.  on  ch.  xiii.  34.^- All  old  things  in  Him 
 became  new.  For  example,  the  first  and  greatest  commandment 
 of  the  Old  Testament,  that  of  the  love  of  God,  takes  here,  as 
 we  see  in  ch.  xv.,  the  form  of  a  commandment  to  love  Christ, 
 who  first  loved  His  disciples  ;  whilst  the  commandment  to  love 
 
CHAP.  XIV.  16.  211 
 
 our  neighbour  takes  the  form  of  a  commandment  to  love  the 
 brethren  who  are  sharers  of  the  redemption  in  Christ.  All  Old 
 Testament  ordinances  and  precepts  are  baptized  in  Christ,  and 
 new-born  in  Him. 
 
 Ver.  16.  "  And  1  will  pray  the  Father,  and  He  shall  give 
 you  another  Comforter,  that  lie  may  abide  with  you  for  ever." 
 — Jesus  does  not  supplicate  His  Father  as  a  servant,  but  as  the 
 Son,  to  whom  He  can  deny  nothing.  If  we  remember  the 
 rovro  TTOirjaw,  and  the  "  because  I  go  to  the  Father,"  in  which 
 Christ  arrogates  to  Himself  an  absolute  participation  in  the 
 Divine  glory,  we  might  expect  it  to  follow,  "  And  I  will  send  you 
 another  Intercessor,"  as  we  find  it  actually  in  ch.  xvi.  7  :  iav  Be 
 TTopevOoi  7re^-v/r&)  avrov  7rp6<;  y/ia?.  But  the  phrase  our  Lord 
 used  received  its  character  from  the  design,  everywhere  appa- 
 rent (comp.  ver.  13),  to  refer  everything  in  its  last  issues  to  the 
 Father,  who  was  not,  as  it  were,  constrained  by  the  mediation 
 of  the  Son,  but  was  to  be  brought  nearer  by  Him  to  the  spirits 
 of  men — infinitely  nearer  than  He  stood  to  them  under  the  old 
 dispensation.  Luther  says  :  "  Christ  asks  the  Father,  not  in 
 His  Divine  being  and  nature,  in  which  He  is  equally  with  the 
 Father  almighty,  but  because  He  is  true  man,  Mary's  son."  But 
 the  Angel  of  the  Lord  also,  the  Logos,  supplicated  the  Lord  on 
 behalf  of  His  Church  upon  earth,  Zech.  i.  12  ;  and  the  Lord 
 assured  Him  that  He  was  heard.  "  Another  Intercessor :" 
 Luther :  "  For  I  cannot  be  ever  with  you  below  in  this  manner. 
 If  I  am  to  enter  into  My  gloiy,  and  spread  My  kingdom  by 
 your  means,  I  must  die,  and  go  to  heaven,  and  leave  you  be- 
 hind Me." 
 
 It  seems  at  the  first  glance  startling,  that  the  sending  of  the 
 Holy  Ghost  is  here  made  conditional  on  the  love  of  Christ  and 
 the  keeping  His  commandments,  while  in  1  Cor.  xii.  3  it  is  said, 
 that  no  man  can  call  Christ  Lord  but  by  the  Holy  Ghost.  We 
 have  not,  however,  here  to  do  with  the  mission  of  the  Holy 
 Ghost  in  general,  but  with  His  mission  in  a  distinct  relation,  as 
 the  Paraclete,  and  as  the  Helper  in  that  great  process  which 
 the  Church  is  ever  vindicating  against  the  world.  s/ 
 
 In  regard  to  the  Paraclete,  expositors  are  very  diverse. 
 According  to  one  party  (Origen,  Chrysostom,  Cyril  of  Jeru- 
 salem, Theophylact,  Luther),  the  word,  which  is  used  of  the 
 Holy  Ghost  only  in  the  last  discourses  of  Christ  given  by  St 
 
212  CHAP.  XIII.-XVII. 
 
 John  (comp.  ver.  26,  xv.  26,  xvi.  7 ;  of  Christ,  in  1  John  ii.  1), 
 means  comforter,  consoler.  According  to  another,  it  is  a  judi- 
 cial expression  to  designate  advocates  in  judicial  processes.  The 
 upholders  of  this  interpretation  appeal  to  classical  Greek  usage,, 
 which  is  best  explained  in  the  treatise  of  Knapp,  De  Spiritu 
 Sancto  et  Christo  Paracletis  (Opusc.  t.  i.),  where  Trapa/cXT^ro?, 
 from  TrapaKoXeoi,  to  summon  to  aid,  is  used  of  those  who, 
 whether  as  agents  or  as  influential  friends,  undertook  the  cause 
 of  those  who  stood  before  the  judgment-seat.  » 
 
 But  the  interpretation  Comforter  has  no  trivial  arguments 
 in  its  favour.  We  read  in  Acts  ix.  31,  concerning  the  first 
 Christian  congregations,  kol  r-p  TrapaKkt'jcret  rev  djlov  7rvevfj,aTo<; 
 iTfKrjOvvovTO,  "  and  by  the  comfort  of  the  Holy  Ghost  were 
 multiplied  :"  comp.  ch.  vi.  1,  7,  vii.  17.  There  the  Holy  Ghost 
 is  a  comforting,  encouraging  Spirit.  It  is  obvious  to  assume 
 that  we  have  here  an  exposition  or  paraphrase  of  the  name 
 Paraclete ;  and  that  He  was  called  Paraclete  on  account  of  His 
 consolation. 
 
 Further,  the  verb  irapaKaXew  is  never  used  in  the  New 
 Testament  for  summoning  to  aid ;  and  therefore  irapdKk7}ro<i 
 could  not  be  derived  from  it  as  an  adjective  of  passive  signifi- 
 cation, advocatus.  It  is  always  used  in  the  sense  of  speaking  to, 
 or  encouraging  and  comforting — in  so  many  instances,  indeed, 
 amounting  to  more  than  a  hundred,  that  the  exclusiveness  of  this 
 meaning  can  scarcely  be  accidental.  In  Acts  xxviii.  20 — the  only 
 place  adduced  by  Knapp  in  support  of  the  meaning,  summon  to 
 aid — the  common  interpretation  is  apprqjDriate :  comp.  ch.  xxiv.  4. 
 
 Finally,  TrapaKaXelre  irapaKaXeire  top  \aov  (xov,  Xeyec  6 
 0eo9,  is  the  beginning  of  the  second  part  of  Isaiah,  to  the  com- 
 mencement of  which,  especially  ch.  xl.  3-5,  the  New  Testament 
 repeatedly  refers,  and  everywhere  with  the  view  that  its  fulfil- 
 ment belongs  to  the  time  of  the  new  economy  :  comp.  on  ch.  i. 
 23,  ii.  11. — St  Luke,  in  ch.  ii.  25,  alluding  to  this  irapaKdXeire, 
 describes  Simeon  as  Trpocrhe'^ojJievo'i  irapaKXTjcnv  tov  ^lapaifK. 
 It  is  hard  altogether  to  sunder  this  irapaKkrjro'i  from  that  irapa- 
 Kokelre.  The  Son  of  man  had  hitherto'  fulfilled  and  realized 
 this  TrapaKoXetTe :  after  His  departure,  the  Holy  Spirit  would 
 take  His  place. 
 
 These  are  very  plausible  arguments;  but  their  weight  is 
 overbalanced  by  those  which  support  the  other  interpretation. 
 
CHAP.  XIV.  16.  213 
 
 And  first,  the  form  is  of  decisive  importance.  Derived 
 from  the  3  Perf.  Pass,  it  bears  a  passive  cliaracter;  irapaKkT^ro^; 
 can  no  more  mean  Comforter  than  K\rjT6<;  can  mean  Caller. 
 That  the  older  Greek  expositors  attributed  an  active  significa- 
 tion to  this  form,  is  a  fact  not  sufficient  to  outweigh  this  argu- 
 ment. Nor  is  it  of  much  moment  that  Aquila  and  Symmachus, 
 in  Job  xvi.  2,  use  TrapaKXrjTovi  where  the  Hebrew  speaks  of 
 comforters,  translated  by  the  Septuagint  irapaKki^rope^  and 
 Symmachus  7rapr]yopovvTe<;.  For  even  the  7rapdKKi]To<;,  pas- 
 sively accepted,  expresses  the  idea  of  supporting. 
 
 The  second  argument  is,  that  we  ought  not,  without  due 
 consideration,  to  forsake  the  classical  Greek  usage,  in  which 
 irapcLKK'qTO'i  always  occurs  in  the  sense  of  advocate-at-law. 
 This  has  all  the  more  force,  inasmuch  as  the  word  bearing  this 
 meaning,  and  with  it  a  series  of  other  judicial  expressions,  had 
 passed  over  into  the  Rabbinical  phraseology ;  with  the  same 
 meaning  it  is  frequent  in  the  writings  of  Philo  (comp.  Carpzov. 
 Exerc.  in  Ep.  ad  Heb.,  p.  155 ;  Loesner,  Observ.  ex  Phil.,  p. 
 496),-  as  also  we  find  it  in  the  epistle  of  Barnabas,  who,  in  §  20, 
 describes  the  wicked  as  ifkovaimv  irapdicKrjTOL,  irevrjrwv  avo/xoi 
 KpiraL 
 
 In  the  document  of  the  Church  of  Vienne  (Eusebius,  Hist. 
 Ecc.  V.  2)  TrapdKXrjTO'i  is  used  to  designate  one  who  represents 
 the  person  of  another  in  a  judicial  process.  The  passage  is  all 
 the  more  remarkable,  because  it  furnishes  the  fii'st  instance  of 
 an  allusion  to  St  John's  sayings  concerning  the  Paraclete,  and 
 because  it  goes  on  the  supposition  that  they  mention  the  word 
 Paraclete  with  the  meaning  then  current  among  Greek  writex's. 
 Vettius  JEpagathus  requests,  when  certain  Christians  were 
 brought  before  ItEe  tribunal,  that  he  might  be  heard  dTroXojov- 
 fjueva  virep  tmv  aSeXc^wi'.  This  was  refused  him,  and  he  was 
 himself  executed.  It  then  goes  on  :  dveXijcpdr)  koX  avTO^  eh  tov 
 KXrjpov  TMV  fxaprvpoiv,  7rapdKXrjT0<;  XpiaTiavcov  'yprjfxarLaa^, 
 e-^wv  he  rov  irapdKkrjrov  ev  eavrS,  ro  irXelov  tov  Za'^apiov,  b 
 Bia  TOV  7rXr]pu>/xaTo<i  tfj<i  d'ya7r7J<i  iveSel^aro,  evhoKrjcra<i  virep  T}]<i 
 Twv  dhe\j)SiV  aTroXoyla';  koI  ttjv  eavTOv  Oelvai  yfrv^i^v.  He 
 receives  the  name  of  the  Christian's  Paraclete,  not  because  he 
 addressed  comfort  to  them,  but  because  he  came  forward  as 
 their  advocate  and  intercessor ;  and  he  proved  by  this  coura- 
 geous intercession  that  he  had  within  himself  the  Paraclete  >. 
 
214  CHAP.  XIII.-XVII. 
 
 promised  by  Jesus  to  His  disciples,  who  therefore  was  not  to 
 be  a  comforter,  but  only  an  intercessor. 
 
 The  Christian's  conflict  with  the  world  presents  itself  in 
 many  ways  under  the  aspect  of  a  judicial  process ;  and  it  was 
 with  reference  to  this  aspect  of  it  that  Jesus  had  already 
 previously  promised  His  people  the  assistance  of  the  Holy 
 Ghost.  In  Matt.  x.  17,  18,  He  had  predicted  to  His  disciples, 
 that  "  they  will  deliver  you  up  to  the  councils,  and  they  will 
 scourge  you  in  their  synagogues,  and  ye  shall  be  brought  before 
 governors  and  kings  for  My  sake.  But  when  they  deliver  you 
 up,"  our  Lord  continued,  "  take  no  thought  how  or  what  ye 
 shall  speak  ;  for  it  shall  be  given  you  in  that  same  hour  what 
 ye  shall  speak.  For  it  is  not  ye  that  speak,  but  the  Spirit  of  ^ 
 your  Father  which  speaketh  in  you."  Here  we  have  the  full 
 Paraclete,  as  he  appears  in  classical  writers,  the  agent  and 
 pleader  at  the  bar ;  only  the  name  7rapdK\7]To<;  is  wanting. 
 The  parallel  saying  in  Mark  xiii.  9-11  is  all  the  more  appro- 
 priate in  this  connection,  inasmuch  as  it  occurs  in  a  discourse 
 which  our  Lord  had  delivered  shortly  before,  on  the  Tuesday 
 before  the  feast,  and  thus  only  two  days  previously. 
 
 If  we  understand  Paraclete  in  the  sense  of  comforter,  it  is 
 hard  to  account  for  the  narrowly  restricted  use  of  the  word. 
 As  in  our  passage  the  Paraclete  is  promised  to  the  disciples  in 
 connection  with  their  relation  to  the  world  (comp.  ver.  17),  so 
 also,  in  ch.  xvi.  7,  the  promise  of  the  mission  of  the  Paraclete 
 is  connected  with  predictions  of  the  world's  persecutions  (comp. 
 ver.  1).>(^  Generally  there  is  no  passage  in  which  the  idea  of 
 representative  or  advocate  is  not  appropriate.  In  ch.  xv.  26, 
 the  Holy  Spirit  is  called  the  Comforter  only  in  reference  to  ch. 
 xiv.  16 :  the  same  Person,  whom  I  have  promised  to  send  as  your 
 advocate  in  the  severe  conflict  with  the  world,  will  render  you 
 great  assistances  also  in  other  respects.  In  1  John  ii.  1,  Christ 
 Himself  exercises  the  function  of  an  advocate  for  His  own 
 people  with  the  Father.  Christians  have  a  hard  double  cause 
 to  carry  through  with  God  and  with  the  world ;  and  in  neither 
 can  they  succeed  without  a  powerful  representative.  That  such 
 a  relation  of  advocate  to  clients  is  not  limited  to  classical  usage, 
 is  shown  by  Job  xxix.  12-17.  Job  describes  himself  there  as 
 availing  himself  of  his  powerful  position  for  the  defence  of  the 
 poor  and  the  miserable  in  the  judgment,  as  a  true  Paraclete. 
 
CHAP.  XIV.  16.  215 
 
 Hence,  as  there  are  reasons  so  decisive  for  giving  the  term 
 Paraclete  the  meaning  of  advocate  and  intercessor,  we  must 
 not  be  inchned  to  allow  much  weight  to  those  weaker  reasons 
 which  favour  the  signification  comforter.  The  argument  which  *^ 
 rests  upon  the  meaning  of  the  word  TrapaKoXeco  in  the  New 
 Testament  is  set  aside  bj  the  remark,  that  the  noun,  as  such, 
 irrespective  of  its  derivation,  was  imported  and  accepted  from 
 the  then  current  judicial  phraseology.  ^ And  this  observation 
 has  all  the  more  weight,  inasmuch  as  John,  the  only  Evangelist 
 in  whose  writings  the  word  Paraclete  occurs,  is  precisely  the 
 one  who  never  uses  the  TrqpaKaXefo  elsewhere  so  common  in 
 the  New  Testament, — a  reniaTkabTe  testimony,  also,  in  favour 
 of  the  unity  and  connectedness  of  his  writings.  The  coinci- 
 dence of  the  term  with  the  TrapaKaKelre  of  Isa.  xl.  1,  we  cannot 
 regard  as  other  than  fortuitous ;  and  must  also  assume,  that  in 
 Acts  ix.  31  we  have  not  an  exposition  of  the  name  Paraclete, 
 but  only  an  allusion  to  it. 
 
 When  our  Lord  says,  "He  will  send  you  another  Para- 
 clete," it  does  not  lead  necessarily  to  the  conclusion  that  He 
 had  hitherto  actually  and  effectually  approved  Himself  their  ^^ 
 advocate.  The  meaning  may  be  this  :  Be  not  afraid  of  the  / 
 persecutions,  the  judicial  processes,  which  threaten  you  in  the 
 world,  whether  the  Jewish  or  the  Gentile  world.  If  I  cannot 
 be  your  7rapdK\r)To<i  in  them,  I  will  provide  for  you  another 
 advocate  in  My  stead.  Yet  there  had  been  occasions  when 
 Jesus  had,  in  a  certain  sense,  literally  shown  Himself  their 
 judicial  advocate  :  comp.  for  example.  Matt.  xii.  1-8.  And 
 then  the  whole  contest  with  the  world  may  be  regarded  as  a 
 judicial  process  with  it,  as  we  find  in  the  Old  Testament  the 
 epithets  of  legal  contention  are  applied  frequently  to  all  con- 
 tests, so  that  the  idea  of  the  Paraclete  is  enlarged  to  mean  help 
 in  every  kind  of  conflict  with  the  world.  A  yet  further  exten- 
 sion, to  mean  help  in  every  other  kind  of  difficulty,  cannot  be 
 established  here.  Paraclete  and  process  are  inseparably  con- 
 nected. 
 
 The  first  fulfilment  of  the  promise  lying  before  us  we  find 
 iu  the  fourth  chapter  of  the  Acts.  The  Apostles  were  asked, 
 before  the  high  council,  by  what  authority  and  in  Avhat  name 
 they  did  those  things.  Peter  answered  the  question,  "  filled 
 with  the  Holy  Ghost,"  ver.  8.      The  members  of  the  high 
 
216  CHAP.  XIII.-XVII. 
 
 council  wondered  at  what  tliey  heard,  and  were  unable  to 
 reconcile  it  with  the  position  and  education  of  the  Apostles,  so 
 mightily  did  their  Advocate  make  His  presence  and  aid  known, 
 ver.  13. — The  et?  rov  alwva,  equivalent  to  Tracra?  ra?  rjixepa<;, 
 €(!)<;  Trj<;  crvvrekeia'i  rov  aL(bvo<;,  Matt,  xxviii.  20,  gives  us  the 
 comforting  assurance  that  the  promise  was  given  to  the  Apostles 
 not  as  individuals,  but  as  representatives  of  all  believers  ;  that, 
 so  long  as  the  world  lasts,  the  Paraclete  will  discharge  His  > 
 function  in  the  Church ;  and  that  the  Church,  in  her  conflict 
 with  the  world,  need  never  despair,  however  superior  may  be 
 the  world's  numbers,  dignities,  and  endowments.  "  Wherefore," 
 says  Luther,  "  there  is  no  wrath,  or  threatening,  or  dismay ; 
 nothing  but  confident  laughter,  and  sweet  consolation  in  heaven 
 and  upon  earth." 
 
 Ver.  17,  "  Even  the  Spirit  of  truth  ;  whom  the  world  can- 
 not receive,  because  it  seetli  Him  not,  neither  knoweth  Him  : 
 but  ye  know  Him ;  for  He  dwelleth  with  you,  and  shall  be  in 
 you." — The  Spirit  of  truth  is  the  Spirit  to  whom  the  truth  be- 
 longs, who  possesses  it  as  His  own,  ch.  xv.  26,  and  who  imparts 
 it  to  those  to  whom  He  is  given,  ch.  xvi.  13;  1  John  iv.  6. 
 The  Spirit  approves  Himself  as  the  Paraclete,  by  imparting 
 the  truth  to  those  whose  cause  He  defends  in  their  severe  pro- 
 cess with  the  world.  Of  all  weapons,  this  is  the  noblest.  This 
 will  bring  the  Church  finally  and  triumphantly  through  all  be- 
 leaguerments.  Truth  is  mightier  and  nobler  than  all  science,  v 
 than  all  hair-splitting  reasonings,  than  all  specious  eloquence, 
 than  all  cunningly  conceived  speculations.  On  their  possession 
 of  this  truth  rested  the  confident  fidelity  to  their  confession 
 displayed  by  the  confessors  of  the  faith,  independent  of  all 
 external  relations,  and  unshaken  even  in  the  presence  of  death. 
 It  was  the  basis  of  that  joyful  acceptance  of  martyrdom,  by 
 which  the  Church  made  such  an  impression  on  the  world.  He 
 who  has  a  firm  hold  on  the  truth,  knows  that  his  interests  and 
 his  person  are  hidden  above,  and  that  all  his  discomfitures  are 
 but  the  passage  to  victory.  Luther  :  "  Hence  let  it  be  to  thee 
 no  small  consolation  ;  for  there  is  nothing  upon  earth  that  can 
 so  comfort  in  the  time  of  need,  as  for  the  heart  to  be  confident 
 in  its  cause."  But  the  truth  not  only  evidences  its  influence 
 upon  the  spirit  of  its  confessors ;  it  also  impresses  the  world. 
 From  the  Fall  downwai^ds  the  world  has  been  overrun  with 
 
CHAP.  XIV.  18.  217 
 
 lies ;  yet  it  can  never  evade  the  influence  of  the  truth.  The 
 uncreated  Divine  image  retains  still  some  measure  of  its  prero- 
 gatives.    Truth  makes  its  sure  appeal  to  the  conscience. 
 
 The  world  cannot,  so  long  as  it  maintains  itself  to  be  the  ^ 
 world,  become  partaker  of  the  Spirit ;  for  that  Spirit  it  has  no 
 receptivity  :  its  eyes,  defiled  by  sin,  cannot  perceive  Him  ;  and 
 therefore  it  is  excluded  from  the  independent  possession  of  the 
 high  and  noble  blessedness  of  truth,  access  to  which  can  be 
 obtained  only  through  the  Spirit.  For  the  truth  belongs  to 
 God  alone,  and  can  become  the  heritage  of  the  creature  only 
 through  the  Spirit,  who  is  the  bond  between  the  Creator  and 
 the  created.  The  truth  impresses  the  world ;  but  proper  access 
 to  that  truth  is  sealed  against  the  world,  because  it  cannot  re- 
 ceive the  Spirit.  Believers,  however,  perceive  and  know  the  . 
 Holy  Ghost  by  intimate  communion,  and  not  afar  off.  The 
 example  of  the  world  shows  that  no  discernment  of  the  Spirit 
 can  be  attained  at  a  distance ;  and  it  is  because  the  Spirit  is 
 immanent  within  them,  that  believers  are  established  in  the 
 possession  of  the  truth. 
 
 The  world  has  also  its  own  irvevfia,  the  spirit  of  lying  who 
 proceedeth  from  Satan,  Matt.  xiii.  38,  39  ;  Acts  xvi.  13.  That 
 spirit  the  world  knoweth  and  seeth,  although  it  is  no  less  imma- 
 terial than  the  Spirit  of  truth.  Hence  we  must  not  seek  the 
 reason  for  His  not  being  seen,  and  not  being  known,  in  the  fact 
 of  the  imijiateriality  of  the  Spirit  of  truth  (Grotius  :  Mundus 
 non  curat  nisi  ea  quse  oculis  corporeis  conspiciuntur ;  quale  non 
 est  ille  spiritus)  ;  but  only  in  this,  that  the  eyes  of  the  world 
 were  beclouded  and  holden  by  sin.  Berl.  Bible  :  For  no  man 
 can  know  God,  unless  he  is  converted  from  his  sins. — In  the 
 double  present,  ytvooa-Kere,  and  fievet,  our  Lord,  abstracting  from  \| 
 all  relations  of  time,  places  the  character  of  His  disciples  and 
 the  character  of  the  world  in  contrast.  But  in  order  to  obviate 
 misapprehension,  the  timeless  present  is  accompanied  at  the 
 close  by  the  future  earai,  to  show  that  the  whole  matter  belongs 
 to  the  domain  of  futurity.  Many  copyists  could  not  appreciate 
 this  delicate  turn  :  hence  they  displaced  ea-rac  by  ia-riv. 
 
 In  vers.  18-24  we  have  the  Jifth  ground  of  consolation  : 
 Christ  comes  again. 
 
 Ver.  18.  "  I  will  not  leave  you  comfortless  (orphans)  ;  I 
 will  come  unto  you." — Our  Lord  does  not  place  His  own  com- 
 
218  CHAP.  XIII.-XVII. 
 
 ing  in  opposition  to  the  coming  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  He  does 
 not  say,  I  Myself  will  come ;  for  even  in  the  Divine  Spirit  it 
 is  He  who  comes  to  His  disciples.  He  says  positively,  I  come, 
 that  the  disciples  might  not  fall  into  the  comfortless  notion  that 
 they  would  not  henceforth  have  to  do  with  Him  directly,  and 
 that  the  Holy  Ghost  would  interpose  as  a  separating  medium 
 between  Him  and  them.  He  gives  them,  the  assurance,  that 
 even  after  His  departure  they  would  remain  in  the  most  im- 
 mediate connection  with  Himself.  The  evidence  that  Christ, 
 even  after  His  return  to  the  Father,  held  personal  intercourse 
 with  His  disciples,  in  harmony  with  this  promise,  and  therefore 
 that  the  being  in  the  Spirit  furnished  only  the  basis  of  this 
 intercourse,  we  find  primarily  in  the  appearances  of  the  risen 
 Lord,  but  also  in  the  history  of  Stephen,  who,  according  to  Acts 
 vii.  55,  56,  saw  the  heaven  opened,  and  Jesus  standing  at  the 
 right  hand  of  God,  and  who,  in  ver.  59,  said  to  the  immediately 
 present  Redeemer,  "  Lord  Jesus,  receive  my  spirit ;"  and  in 
 ver.  6,  "  Lord,  lay  not  this  sin  to  their  charge."  Then  the 
 Apocalypse,  the  first  chapter  of  which  records  a  manifestation 
 of  Christ  to  the  Apostle  ;  a  manifestation  which,  however,  pre- 
 supposes the  e^evojxriv  iv  nrvev/Jbart,  ver.  10.  How  little  the 
 Spirit  is  to  be  regarded  as  a  restricting  medium  of  partition, 
 which  precludes  the  Lord  from  any  direct  operation  upon  earth, 
 is  shown  by  the  history  of  Saul's  conversion,  in  which  Christ 
 comes  to  the  persecutor  without  even  any  preKminary  reference 
 to  the  Holy  Ghost  at  all. 
 
 What  coming  of  Christ  is  here  spoken  of?  Certainly  not  His 
 return  at  the  end  of  the  world  ;  for  in  that  case  He  would  have 
 left  His  disciples  long  orphans,  and  the  consolation  would  have 
 been  comfortless  enough.  According  to  ver.  19,  the  coming 
 was  soon  to  begin ;  and  the  characteristic  distinction,  "  the  world 
 seeth  Me  not,"  would  not  be  at  all  suitable  to  the  eschatological 
 return,  inasmuch  as  at  His  final  coming  all  the  nations  are  to 
 be  gathered  into  His  presence.  Matt.  xxv.  32.  Nor  can  the 
 manifestations  of  the  risen  Lord  exclusively  be  meant ;  for  the 
 Eedeemer  does  not  speak  of  what  should  be  the  prerogative  of  a 
 few  elect,  but  of  what  should  be  the  portion  of  all  His  believers 
 in  every  age  and  continually  :  comp.  especially  the  fMovrjv  rrap 
 avTM  iroirjaoiiev  in  ver.  23,  which  cannot  be  referred  to  the 
 appearances  after  the  resurrection  ;  and  generally  vers.  21  and 
 
CHAP.  XIV.  18.  219 
 
 23,  which,  taking  their  whole  contents,  cannot,  without  great  vio- 
 lence, be  limited  to  those  appearances  of  the  risen  Lord,  as  is 
 all  the  more  evident  if  wo  compare  the  strikingly  coincident 
 parallel  in  Rev.  iii.  20.  There  the  Redeemer  stands  before  the 
 door  of  every  one  who  belongs  to  the  number  of  His  people  ; 
 and  His  coming  notes  a  relation,  the  effect  of  which  runs 
 through  the  whole  earthly  existence  of  believers,  "  like  heaven 
 upon  earth,  and  the  brightness  which  irradiates  the  night."  The 
 promise,  "  I  will  not  leave  you  comfortless,"  was  but  very  imper- 
 fectly fulfilled  in  the  manifestations  of  the  Lord  occurring  in 
 the  interval  between  the  resurrection  and  the  ascension.  It  points 
 to  a  permanent  connection.  On  the  other  hand,  we  must  not 
 by  any  means  exclude  those  intermediate  manifestations  of  the 
 risen  Lord.  When  Jesus  says  here,  in  ver.  19,  "  Yet  a  little 
 while,  and  the  world  seeth  Me  no  more  ;  but  ye  see  Me,"  every 
 one  must  refer  the  words  primarily  to  the  appearances  after  the 
 resurrection,  especially  as  these  have  that  characteristic  mark  in 
 common  with  all  later  spiritual  manifestations,  that  the  world 
 does  not  participate  in  them,  but  that  they  belonged  exclusively 
 to  believers :  comp.  Acts  x.  40,  41,  "  Him  God  raised  up  the 
 third  day,  and  showed  Him  openly,  not  to  all  the  people,  but 
 unto  witnesses  chosen  before  of  God."  This  view  is  confirmed 
 by  the  parallel  passage,  ch.  xvi.  16,  22,  which  may  well  serve  as 
 a  comment  upon  our  ver.  19.  But  the  appearances  of  our  risen 
 Lord  must  not  be  excluded ;  and  all  the  less  as  the  result  of 
 the  coming  of  Christ  here  in  ver.  19  is  seen  to  be  the  invigora- 
 tion  of  His  disciples,  a  result  which  notoriously  first  followed  at 
 the  resurrection  of  their  Lord.  When  the  risen  Redeemer  first 
 appeared  to  His  disciples,  they  rose  immediately  from  the  death 
 of  languor  and  despondency  :  comp.  Ps.  Ixxii.  15.  It  is  evident 
 that  a  false  apprehension  of  the  resurrection  has  placed  in  oppo- 
 sition things  which  are  in  fact  perfectly  accordant.  When 
 Christ  arose  with  a  glorified  body.  His  appearances  were  a 
 type  and  prelude  of  that  living  intercourse  which,  according  to 
 Matt,  xviii.  20  and  xxviii.  20,  is  to  subsist  between  Christ 
 and  His  Church  to  the  end  of  the  world ;  and  what  in  Acts 
 i.  3  is  recorded  as  historical  fact,  bears  at  the  same  time  the 
 character  of  a  prophecy,  which  in  its  fulfilment  runs  through 
 all  the  ages  of  time.  Only  thus  is  it  to  be  explained,  that  St 
 Paul,  in  1  Cor.  xv.  7,  8,  places  the  manifestation  of  that  which 
 
220  CHAP,  XIII.- XVII. 
 
 was  given  to  himself  after  the  ascension  on  the  same  level  with 
 the  manifestations  of  the  risen  Lord  before  the  ascension. 
 
 Here  we  have  the  real  secret  of  the  strength  of  believers  in 
 their  conflict  with  the  world,  which  in  number  and  equipments 
 far  preponderates.  It  is  their  concealed  intercourse  with  that 
 Jesus  to  whom  all  power  in  heaven  and  earth  is  given,  that 
 enables  them  to  look  down  upon  the  earth  far  below  their  feet. 
 When  the  waves  of  the  world's  wrath  run  high,  they  say  to 
 Him,  "  Be  not  a  terror  unto  me  ;  Thou  art  my  hope  in  the  day 
 of  evil,"  Jer.  xvii,  17. — God  in  the  Old  Testament  bears  the 
 honourable  appellation  of  the  God  of  the  orphans,  Ps.  Ixviii.  6  ; 
 He  is  described  as  one  with  whom  the  fatherless  findeth  mercy, 
 Hos.  xiv.  3 ;  and  also  with  special  reference  to  His  suffering 
 Church  upon  earth.  This  His  high  title  God  will  make  good, 
 so  far  as  concerns  the  disciples,  and  especially  the  Apostles, 
 through  Christ,  with  whom  all  the  treasures  of  His  mercy  and 
 power  are  laid  up,  and  who,  in  Old  Testament  prophecy,  was 
 once  called  the  Everlasting  Father,  Isa.  ix.  6.  Their  orphan- 
 hood, their  abandonment,  their  miseiy,  must  not  make  them 
 dispirited ;  it  must  rather  fill  them  with  deeper  joy.  For  the 
 greater  their  orphanhood,  the  more  confidently  might  they  rely 
 upon  the  consolation  of  the  Father  of  the  fatherless. 
 
 The  orphan  condition  of  the  Apostles  lasted  from  the  begin- 
 ning of  the  passion  to  the  resurrection.  It  was  the  type  of 
 conditions  which  are  ever  recurring  in  God's  dealings  with  the 
 whole  Church  and  its  individual  members.  When  these  cir- 
 cumstances occur,  it  is  "  our  duty  to  weep  with  our  mother  as 
 fatherless,  and  to  lift  up  our  hands  to  our  Father"  (Quesnel). 
 Then  will  the  word  be  fulfilled  to  us,  as  it  was  formerly  to  the 
 Apostles  :  I  have  forsaken  thee  for  a  small  moment,  but  with 
 great  compassion  I  will  gather  thee. 
 
 Ver.  19.  "  Yet  a  httle  while,  and  the  world  seeth  Me  no 
 more ;  but  ye  see  Me  :  because  I  live,  ye  shall  live  also." — That 
 the  world  which  was  to  be  excluded  from  seeing  Christ  is 
 primarily  the  unbelieving  Jewish  people,  is  shown  by  ch.  vii. 
 33,  where  Jesus  says  to  the  Jews,  "  Yet  a  little  while  am  I 
 with  you :  ye  shall  seek  Me,  and  shall  not  find  Me."  To  see 
 Christ  no  longer  is  the  climax  of  all  misery :  for  in  Him  is  the 
 fountain  of  all  true  joy ;  and  when  He  departs,  the  Divine 
 judgments  throng  in  on  all  sides.   The  words,  "  Because  I  live," 
 
CHAP.  XIV.  19.  221 
 
 etc.,  are  the  foundation  of  the  promise  that  the  disciples  should 
 see  Christ.  In  the  life  of  Christ  Himself  lies  the  guarantee 
 that  His  disciples  should  live.  But  the  condition  of  that  life 
 was,  that  they  should  see  Him.  Seeing  Christ  and  living  are, 
 with  the  Apostles,  eveiywhere  and  inseparably  one  and  the 
 same  :  He  is  the  centre  of  their  being.  When  they  see  Him 
 not,  they  are  as  dead  in  a  living  body.  The  life  of  Christ  must 
 develop  itself  in  His  disciples  further  and  further  until  the 
 joyful  resurrection  :  comp.  ch.  xi.  25.  But,  according  to  the 
 connection,  that  life  alone  is  here  pre-eminently  meant  which  un- 
 folded itself  in  the  Apostles  immediately  with  the  resurrection. 
 Life  is,  in  the  Old  Testament,  wherever  there  is  contentment 
 and  joy  :  comp.  Job  xxi.  7  ;  Prov.  xvi.  15.  i 
 
 According  to  some  critics,  the  present,  ^to,  stands  here  instead 
 of  the  future.  But  that  would  involve  the  necessity  of  the 
 present  being  substituted  afterwards  for  the  future,  ^7]aeade. 
 Jesus  had  described  Himself  in  ver.  6  as  the  life.  There  is, 
 therefore,  no  ground  whatever  for  an  enfeebling  interpretation. 
 Jesus  not  merely  will  live,  but  He  is,  under  all  circumstances, 
 the  Living ;  and  in  the  fact  tliat  He  lives  is  the  pledge  given 
 that  He  will  live,  and  that  His  disciples  shall  live  with  Him. 
 Berl.  Bible  :  "  Life  is  His  essential  nature  ;  dying  is  a  strange 
 thing,  but  now  necessary  to  Him."  That  which  is  a  scrange 
 thing  can  only  be  transitory.  In  Luke  xxiv.  5,  6,  the  angels 
 say  to  the  women,  "  Why  seek  ye  the  living  among  the  dead  ? 
 He  is  not  here.  He  is  risen."  Christ  did  not  become  alive 
 again — the  r)<yep67}  does  not  accord  with  that — but  He  is  the 
 Living  One  under  all  circumstances ;  and  in  the  fact  that  He  is 
 always  the  Living  One  lies  the  ground  of  His  resurrection.  In 
 Acts  ii.  24,  Peter  says  concerning  Christ,  "  Whom  God  raised 
 up,  having  loosed  the  pains  of  death,  because  it  was  not  possible 
 that  He  should  be  holden  of  it."  The  impossibility  rested  upon 
 this,  that  He  was  the  essentially  Living.  The  tfio-q  aKarakvro<; 
 which,  according  to  Heb.  vii.  16,  dwells  inherently  in  Christ, 
 elevates  Him  above  the  law  of  death.  In  Rev.  i.  18,  we  read 
 that  Christ  approved  Himself  the  "  Living  One"  by  the  over- 
 coming of  death. 
 
 The  life  of  His  disciples  is  the  necessary  consequence  of  the 
 life  of  Christ.  As  the  Living,  He  is  also  the  life-distributing  : 
 He  cannot  rest  until  He  has  vanquished  for  His  people  death  in 
 
222  CHAP,  xiir.-xvii. 
 
 all  its  forms,  and  abolished  it  utterly.  In  the  Old  Testament 
 God  is  called  the  living  God,  for  the  consolation  of  His  people 
 who  sink  into  death.  David  thirsts  for  the  living  God,  Ps.  xlii. 
 3,  because,  as  such.  He  was  the  God  of  his  life,  ver.  9,  dis- 
 tributing life  to  His  own.  But  as  the  Living  One  is  the  source 
 of  life  to  His  own,  so  He  is  the  source  of  death  to  His  enemies. 
 Because  He  liveth,  they  must  die.  The  first  form  of  that  death 
 is  their  seeing  Him  no  more. 
 
 Yer.  20.  "  At  that  day  ye  shall  know  that  I  am  in  My 
 Father,  and  ye  in  Me,  and  I  in  you." — Primarily  the  day  of 
 the  resurrection  ;  yet  this  only  as  the  beginning  of  a  whole 
 period  of  time,  during  which  the  annunciations  of  this  resur- 
 rection continued.  By  the  resurrection,  and  the  manifestation 
 to  the  disciples  connected  with  it,  was  actual  demonstration 
 given  that  Christ  is  in  the  Father,  and  that  He  stands  in  the 
 most  intimate  and  essential  fellowship  with  Him  :  comp.  Rom. 
 i.  4.  The  disciples  learnt  this  by  living  actual  experience,  from 
 the  fact  that  the  life  of  the  Father  manifests  itself  in  Him. 
 As  by  the  resurrection  it  was  demonstrated  that  Christ  is  in 
 the  Father,  comp.  ver.  10,  so  also  it  was  proved  that  the  rela- 
 tion of  the  disciples  to  Him  was  not  an  imaginary  one,  but  a 
 real  one ;  that  He  was  truly  the  life  of  their  souls  :  comp.  Gal. 
 ii.  20.  That  could  He  be,  only  if  He  is  actually  the  only  Son 
 of  God.  But,  as  it  regards  the  latter  point,  their  knowledge 
 depended  not  upon  a  mere  inference.  Concurrent  with  this 
 conclusion,  was  the  flowing  of  Christ's  life  into  them  at  His 
 resurrection.  Only  by  this  communion  of  His  life  could  a 
 true  assurance  arise  that  they  were  in  Him  and  He  in  them. 
 Luther :  "  I  had  not  such  power  in  me  before,  for  I  was,  like 
 others,  under  the  devil's  power,  and  under  the  fear  of  death. 
 But  now  I  have  another  spirit,  which  Christ  gives  me  through 
 the  Holy  Ghost ;  by  which  I  trace  that  He  is  with  me,  and 
 that  I  may  scorn  all  the  threats  of  the  world,  death,  and  the 
 devil,  and  joyfully  glory  in  my  Lord,  who  lives  and  reigns  for 
 me  in  heaven." 
 
 Ver.  21.  "He  that  hath  My  commandments,  and  keepeth 
 them,  he  it  is  that  lovetli  Me  ;  and  he  that  loveth  Me  shall  be 
 loved  of  My  Father,  and  I  will  love  him,  and  will  manifest 
 Myself  to  him." — Lampe  remarks  :  "  The  expression  is  changed. 
 Earlier  He  had  addressed  the  disciples ;  now  He  proceeds  to 
 
CHAP.  XIV.  22.  223 
 
 speak  in  the  third  person,  because  the  promise  of  His  coming 
 which  precedes,  specifically  concerned  His  disciples,  but  this 
 concerns  all  His  people."  Instead  of  specifically,  we  would  say 
 especially.  That  Lampe  distinguishes  too  nicely,  is  shown  by 
 the  e/KpavL^eiv  in  ver.  22. 
 
 As  the  impartation  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  ver.  15,  so  also  the 
 manifestation  of  Christ,  is  conditional  on  love  to  Christ  approv- 
 ing itself  in  the  keeping  of  His  commandments.  The  high 
 reward  promised  must  fill  with  glowing  emulation  towards  this 
 obedience.  What  under  one  aspect  is  recompense,  is  under 
 another  the  consequence  of  Christ's  manifestation.  But  before 
 that  manifestation  there  must  be  the  full  bias  and  earnest  effort 
 of  the  soul  to  keep  His  commandments.  Christ  cannot  mani- 
 fest Himself  to  an  indolent  and  careless  soul. — The  kuI  rrjpav 
 avTa<i  more  closely  explains  the  having:  it  points  to  the  fact 
 that  our  Lord  did  not  mean  the  unreal  and  merely  outward 
 remembrance  of  the  law.  To  refer  the  e%«z/  to  this  latter,  and 
 assume  that  the  koI  rrjpcov  avrd<i  is  an  appendage,  equivalent  to 
 "  He  that  not  merely  has  My  commandments,  but  also  keepeth 
 them"  (Augustin:  Qui  habet  in  memori^  et  servat  in  vita), 
 would  scarcely  be  in  harmony  with  the  emphasis  of  the  Johan- 
 nasan  phrase.  Grotius  rightly  compares  (on  e'^eiv)  ch.  v.  28, 
 where  it  is  used  concerning  the  vital  and  real  possession  of  the 
 word  of  God.  Christ  Himself  shows  how  the  merely  external 
 having  is,  when  closely  considered,  no  having  at  all.  Matt.  xiii. 
 12  :  "  But  he  that  hath  not,  from  him  shall  be  taken  away  that 
 which  he  hath."  The  eKecvo^ — He  and  no  other — intimates  that  "^ 
 the  human  heart  is  eminently  prone  to  yield  itself  to  the  delu- 
 sions of  a  mere  semblance  of  love  to  Christ,  of  a  mere  love  of 
 feeling  and  fancy. — The  love  of  the  Father  comes  into  consi- 
 deration only  as  the  foundation  of  the  love  of  Christ ;  and  this 
 only  as  the  foundation  of  its  form  of  expression,  its  manifesta- 
 tion, which  involves  in  itself  the  fulness  of  all  blessedness,  and  is 
 the  foretaste  of  eternal  happiness,  enabling  the  soul  to  say,  in 
 the  time  of  affliction,  "  Yea,  though  I  walk  through  the  valley 
 of  the  shadow  of  death,  I  will  fear  no  evil ;  for  Thou  art  with 
 me." 
 
 Ver.  22.  "  Judas  saith  unto  Him,  (not  Iscariot,)  Lord,  how 
 is  it  that  Thou  wilt  manifest  Thyself  unto  us,  and  not  unto  the 
 world?" — "The  disciples,"  says  Lampe,  "did  well  in  confess- 
 
224  CHAP,  xiii.-xvii. 
 
 ing  their  ignorance,  and  in  asking  questions  for  their  further 
 instruction.     Their  questions  bring  us  excellent  fruit,  because 
 they  gave  the  Lord  occasion  to  add  further  explanations  and 
 encouragements."     "  Not  Iscariot : "  that  was  obvious  of  itself. 
 But  care  for  the  honour  of  the  true  Judas,  to  whom  it  was  a 
 severe  grief  to  have  a  name  like  the  traitor's,  required  that  pro- 
 vision should  be  made  against  the  possibility  of  ever  so  fleeting  a 
 confounding  of  the  two  persons,  by  keeping  them  absolutely  dis- 
 tinct.   Matthew,  in  ch.  x.,  takes  pains  to  avoid  naming  the  true 
 disciple  by  his  name  of  Judas :  he  introduces  him  by  a  double 
 surname,  Lebbeus  and  Thaddeus,  and  makes  the  former  take 
 the  place  of  his  proper  name.     Mark  also  calls  him  Thaddeus 
 in  ch.  iii.  18.      Luke,  in  the  Acts,  describes  him  as  Judas  the 
 brother  of  James,  at  a  time  when  Judas  Iscariot  was  already 
 dead,  and  confusion  was  not  possible  any  longer.     The  para- 
 phrastic name  in  Matthew  and  Mark,  and  the  addition  'Ia«aj/3oy 
 in  Luke,  sprang  from  the  same  reason  as  the  "  not  Iscariot"  here. 
 "  How  is  it,"  lohat  has  happened  f  (Lachmann  omits  the  kol; 
 but  it  has  been  struck  out  here  on  the  same  grounds  which  se- 
 cured its  omission  in  ch.  ix.  36) :  there  must,  in  his  opinion,  some- 
 thing extraordinary  have  taken  place,  indeed  some  fatal  incident 
 must  have  interposed,  that  Jesus  should  limit  His  revelation  to 
 His  disciples,  and  withdraw  it  from  the  world.    Christ's  univer- 
 sal dominion,  as  predicted  by  the  prophets,  and  so  many  earlier 
 announcements  of  our  Lord  Himself — for  example,  that  He 
 would  draw  all  men  unto  Him,  and  that  many  should  come  from 
 the  east  and  west,  and  sit  down  with  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob 
 in  the  kingdom  of  God — appeared  to  him  to  be  altogether  out 
 of  keeping  with  such  a  word  as  this.     There  would  have  been 
 much  to  reply,  indeed,  to  such  a  difficulty.     For  example :  that 
 Jesus  did  not  renounce  His  absolute  victory  over  the  world  by 
 not  revealing  Himself  to  it ;  that  the  exclusion  referred  only  to 
 the  world  which  should  refuse  to  abandon  its  wickedness ;  and 
 that  Christ  would  adopt  the  most  effectual  means  of  redeem- 
 ing it  from  that  sinful  nature.     But  Jesus  limits  Himself  in 
 His  answer  to  one  thing.     After  express-  repetition  of  the  en- 
 couraging promise  to  His  disciples.  He  indicates  that  the  world 
 excludes  itself  from  participation  in  this  glorious  promise,  in- 
 asmuch as  it  does  not  fulfil  the  absolute  and  unchangeable  con- 
 dition on  which  it  is  suspended.    Thus  nothing  had  taken  place ; 
 
CHAP.  XIV.  23.  225 
 
 no  hindrance  had  occurred  to  baffle  the  Lord,  constrain  Him  to 
 change  His  plans,  and  give  up  His  vast  enterprise ;  the  world 
 simply  made  itself  unworthy  of  so  high  an  honour.  We  may 
 compare  Eccles.  vii.  10  for  the  Ti<ye<yov€v :  "  Say  not  thou,  What 
 is  the  cause  that  the  former  days  were  better  than  these  ?  " — what 
 has  brought  in  this  fatal  change  ? — Stier  is  not  quite  correct  in 
 making  it  the  only  word  uttered  by  this  Judas.  It  must  be 
 placed  in  connection  with  ch.  vii.  4.  There  the  "  brethren"  of 
 Jesus  say  to  Him :  "  If  Thou  doest  these  things,  show  Thyself 
 unto  the  world."  The  view  is  very  common,  that  in  the  mission 
 of  Jesus  a  revelation  to  the  world  was  necessarily  given ;  that  it 
 is  not  enough  if  a  little  company  in  quietness  enjoy  His  mani- 
 festations. The  nearest  connections  of  Jesus  after  the  flesh 
 were  least  satisfied  with  the  notion  of  a  seeming  dominion  in  a 
 corner.  But  by  the  appeal,  "  Lord,"  Judas  shows  that  he  laid 
 his  scruples  humbly  at  his  Master's  feet. 
 
 Ver.  23.  "Jesus  answered  and  said  unto  him,  If  a  man  love 
 Me,  he  will  keep  My  words  :  and  My  Father  will  love  him,  and 
 we  will  come  unto  him,  and  make  our  abode  with  him." — 
 The  promise  which  had  been  given  in  ver.  21  to  the  disciples, 
 receives  here  an  addition.  Not  He  alone  comes,  but  the  Father 
 wi»:h  Him,  and  with  Him  the  inexhaustible  fulness  of  all  con- 
 solation, the  most  abundant  compensation  for  the  impending 
 departure  of  Jesus,  the  Son  of  man. — The  love  of  Christ  and 
 the  performance  of  His  commandments  is,  as  for  the  individual, 
 so  also  for  the  churches,  the  measure  of  the  participation  in  this 
 glorious  manifestation.  To  deal  lightly  with  the  least  among 
 the  precepts  of  Christ,  is  wilfully  to  fight  against  our  own  bless- 
 edness. "  The  soul,"  says  Quesnel,  "  which  aspires  to  be  the 
 Temple  of  the  Sacred  Trinity,  must  have,  as  it  were,  an  eternal 
 longing  to  do  His  will."  What  holds  good  of  the  soul,  holds 
 good  also  of  the  Church.  The  fiov7]v  irap  avTM  irotijaofiev 
 points  to  "  that  I  may  dwell  among  them,"  Ex.  xxv.  8,  xxix.  45, 
 46:  compare  Ezek.  xxxvii.  27,  "  My  tabernacle  also  shall  be 
 with  them."  The  beginning  of  the  true  fulfilment  of  these 
 Old  Testament  sayings  was  the  revelation  of  Christ  in  the 
 flesh  (comp.  on  ch.  i.  14) ;  its  eternal  realization  we  shall 
 find  in  the  new  Jerusalem  :  here  have  we  the  middle  ful- 
 filment. In  the  parallel  place.  Rev.  iii.  20,  the  reference  to 
 the  Canticles  comes  out  more  prominently  than  even  here, 
 VOL.  II.  P 
 
226  CHAP.  XIII -xvii. 
 
 where,  however,  the  tender  and  internal  tone  points  the  same 
 way. 
 
 Ver.  24.  "  He  that  loveth  Me  not  keepeth  not  My  sayings : 
 and  the  word  which  ye  hear  is  not  Mine,  but  the  Father's 
 which  sent  Me." — He  "  keepeth  not  My  words,"  and  therefore 
 the  Father  cannot  love  him;  we  cannot  come  to  him,  and 
 make  our  abode  with  him.  Thus  nothing  has  "  taken  place," 
 but  the  world  excommunicates  itself.  The  saying,  "  and  the 
 word  which  ye  hear,"  etc.,  gives  the  reason  wherefore  the  not 
 keeping  Christ's  commandments  entails  such  ruinous  conse- 
 quences. If  Christ's  word  goes  back  to  the  Father's  authority, 
 then  arise  in  full  power  all  those  sayings  of  the  Old  Testament 
 in  which  the  keeping  of  the  commandments  of  God  is  exhibited 
 as  the  condition  of  fellowship  with  Him,  from  Gen.  xviii.  19 
 downwards.  Compare  particularly  Lev.  xxvi.  3,  "  If  ye  walk 
 in  My  statutes,  and  keep  My  commandments,  and  do  them;" 
 vers.  11,  12,  "And  I  will  set  My  tabernacle  among  you,  and 
 My  soul  shall  not  abhor  you.  And  I  will  walk  among  you, 
 and  will  be  your  God,  and  ye  shall  be  My  people ;"  Deut.  vii. 
 12  seq.,  xxviii.  1,  15.  And  the  reference  to  these  passages  of 
 the  Old  Testament  shows  further,  that,  over  and  above  the 
 application  to  individuals,  the  application  to  religious  communi- 
 ties must  not  be  forgotten.  In  the  proportion  in  which  they 
 are  filled  with  zeal  for  the  obedience  of  the  words  of  Christ 
 does  the  Father  love  them,  and  make  His  abode  among  them. 
 When  this  zeal  dies  out,  the  Father  with  Christ  retires,  and 
 leaves  nothing  but  darkness  behind.  This  the  Jews  were  to 
 find  out  in  sad  experience,  to  which  the  word  of  Christ  pri- 
 marily refers  :  comp.  ch.  xv.  20. 
 
 >"  In  vers.  25,  26,  we  have  the  sixth  consolation.  With  the 
 thought  of  their  Master's  departure,  the  thought  of  their  own 
 immaturity  must  have  painfully  risen  in  their  consciousness. 
 "  Ye  are  yet  without  understanding,"  the  Lord  had  not  long  be- 
 fore said  to  them,  Matt.  xv.  16.  Even  as  disciples  and  learners 
 they  felt  themselves  insecure,  and  thought  they  could  not  go  on 
 without  the  guidance  and  further  instruction  of  their  Teacher. 
 And  now,  after  the  departure  of  Christ,  they  were  alone  to  re- 
 present His  cause.  How  should  they  step  forward  as  teachers 
 who  had  scarcely  as  yet  clearly  and  sharply  seized  the  very 
 first  elements  of  Christian  doctrine,  who  were  always  stumbling 
 
CHAP.  XIV.  25,  26.  227 
 
 at  unsolved  mysteries,  and  encountering  difficulties  everywhere  ? 
 comp.  ch.  xvi.  25.  They  might  well  indeed  cry  out,  with  Jere- 
 miah, "  Ah,  Lord,  I  know  not  how  to  speak :  I  am  young." 
 The  Lord  now  intimates  to  them  that  His  departure  would  not  be, 
 as  they  vainly  sujiposed,  the  end  of  His  instruction  among  them ; 
 but  that,  in  the  mission  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  He  had  provided 
 them  with  an  abundant  compensation  for  His  own  departure. 
 
 Vers.  25,  26.  "  These  things  have  I  spoken  unto  you,  being 
 yet  present  with  you.  But  the  Comforter,  which  is  the  Holy 
 Ghost,  whom  the  Father  will  send  in  My  name,  He  shall  teach 
 you  all  things,  and  bring  all  things  to  your  remembrance,  what- 
 soever I  have  said  unto  you." — The  words,  "  These  things  have 
 I  said  unto  you,"  indicate  that  the  discourse  of  Christ  to  them 
 was  drawing  near  its  end.  They  do  not  primarily  refer  to  the 
 whole  of  His  discourses  during  His  public  ministry,  but  to  the 
 discourse  which  He  was  then  uttering.  Yet  this  particular  por- 
 tion was  a  representative  of  the  whole.  In  this  last  discourse 
 of  Christ  there  was,  as  in  all  the  former,  much  that  remained 
 obscure  to  the  disciples;  they  did  not  yet  feel  themselves  satisfied ; 
 everywhere  there  were  chasms  in  their  knowledge,  and  riddles 
 unsolved.  It  was  in  view  of  the  scruples  and  difficulties  which 
 this  fact  caused,  that  Christ  uttered  the  present  consolations.    - 
 
 This  promise  is  essentially  different  from  that  of  vers.  15-17. 
 There  the  Holy  Ghost  was  promised  to  them  as  an  advocate  in 
 their  conflict  with  the  world ;  here,  as  the  teacher  who  should 
 save  them  from  their  ignorance. — Here  also  the  Holy  Spirit  is 
 a  Paraclete,  an  intercessor  or  advocate.  But  this  designation 
 was  only  to  indicate  the  identity  of  the  Helper  in  both  cases : 
 "  the  same  whom  I  earlier  promised  to  you  as  an  advocate  in 
 your  process  with  the  world."  We  ai'e  not  at  liberty  to  assume 
 that  the  original  idea  of  an  advocate  at  the  bar  is  enlarged  into 
 that  of  one  who,  under  difficult  circumstances,  speaks  in  behalf 
 of  another.  For  it  is  not  a  Helper  in  their  teaching  office  that  is 
 primarily  promised  to  the  Apostles — one  who  should  speak  for 
 them  to  others — but  one  who  should  help  them  out  of  their  igno- 
 rance. There  is,  however,  no  reason  whatever  for  the  assump- 
 tion, that  the  specific  idea  of  an  advocate  is  here  weakened  down 
 to  the  very  general  one  of  an  assistant  or  helper.  The  term 
 Paraclete  never  occurs  in  so  general  a  sense.  In  ch.  xvi.  7, 
 where  He  is  named  again,  He  is,  as  in  ch.  xiv.  16,  the  advocate 
 
228  CHAP,  xiii.-xvii. 
 
 in  the  process  against  the  world ;  and  in  eh.  xvi.  13,  where  our 
 promise  recurs,  and  is  further  unfolded,  it  is  not  the  Paraclete 
 who  is  mentioned,  but  the  Spirit  of  truth.  This  shows  plainly 
 that  the  Pai*aclete  here  only  lays  down  the  stepping-stone  for  ver. 
 16,  indicating  that  the  Holy  Spirit  was  a  person  already  known 
 to  them  by  what  had  been  spoken  before.  If  this  is  forgotten,  all 
 that  is  characteristic  is  removed  from  the  idea  of  the  Paraclete. 
 "  The  Holy  Ghost :"  comp.  on  ch.  vii.  39.  "  In  My  name" 
 indicates  that  the  mission  of  the  Holy  Spirit  has  for  its  founda- 
 tion the  historical  personality  of  Christ  (comp.  on  ver.  14), — all 
 that  comes  to  mind  when  we  hear  the  name  Christ,  all  that 
 He  did  and  suffered  upon  earth,  of  which  the  atonement  accom- 
 plished by  the  Redeemer's  suffering  and  death  is  the  great 
 result :  comp.  on  ch.  vii.  39.  Before  Christ  had,  by  His  passion 
 and  sacrifice,  made  Himself  a  glorigiig.,ji.ame,  the  Holy  Spirit 
 could  not  be  sent  forth. — We  have  here  Father,  Son,  and  Holy 
 Spirit  together,  as  in  Matt,  xxviii.  19,  where  the  name,  the 
 measure  of  personality,  is  attributed  to  the  Holy  Spirit  no  less 
 than  to  the  Father  and  the  Son.  The  sending  from  the  Father 
 is  here  spoken  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  even  as  in  ver.  24  of  the 
 Son.-^T-That  the  teaching  is  not  explained  simply  by  the  bring- 
 ing to  remembrance  that  follows,  as  many  of  the  older  expositors 
 thought,  in  their  polemical  zeal  against  the  Romish  Church  ; 
 that  the  teaching  is  either  the  generic  notion,  which  includes 
 the  specific  reminding,  or  refers  to  the  impartation  of  new 
 elements  of  instruction,  with  which  the  bringing  instruction 
 already  received  from  Christ  to  mind  was  to  go  on  concurrently, 
 — is  plain  from  the  parallel  passage,  ch.  xvi.  12,  13,  according 
 to  which  the  teaching  function  of  the  Holy  Ghost  was  far  to 
 transcend  that  of  a  mere  remembrancer,  and  to  refer  to  veiy 
 much  that  Jesus  Himself  could  not  tell  His  disciples,  because 
 they  were  not  able  to  bear  it.  The  limitation  of  the  teaching 
 to  the  mere  bringing  to  remembrance,  is  in  opposition  to  the 
 fact  as  we  find  it  throughout  the  books  of  the  New  Testament. 
 The  doctrinal  substance  of  the  Apostolical  Epistles,  and  of  the 
 Apocalypse,  cannot  by  any  means  be  referred  back  to  the  dis- 
 courses which  Christ  delivered  during  His  life  upon  earth ; 
 although  the  germs  and  principles  of  all,  down  to  the  minutest 
 details,  were  contained  in  them.  But  it  is  self-evident  that  the 
 teaching  ofiice  of  the  Spirit  could  not  come  into  contradiction 
 
CHAP.  XIV.  27.  229 
 
 with  the  reminding  office;  as  also,  that  the  promise  is  here 
 given  primarily  to  the  Apostles,  through  whose  instrumentality 
 the  Holy  Spirit  imparted  His  instructions  to  the  chui'ches  of  all 
 ages.  Assm*edly  the  Divine  Spirit  continues  still  His  teaching 
 function  in  the  Church ;  but  it  is  limited  now  to  the  penetrating 
 ever  deeper  into  the  meaning  of  that  which  Christ  and  His 
 Apostles  taught.  That  the  promise  here  primarily  referred  to 
 those  who  received  it,  and  was  mainly  limited  to  them,  is  obvious 
 from  the  second  member  of  it.  The  reminding  function  of  the 
 Holy  Spirit  could  be  exercised  only  upon  those  who  had  been 
 the  companions  of  Jesus  during  His  life  upon  earth.  But  the 
 teaching  and  the  reminding  offices  go  hand  in  hand.  That  the 
 "  will  teach  you  all  things"  was,  as  to  essentials,  closed  with  the 
 completion  of  the  canon,  is  made  obvious  by  the  "  show  you 
 things  to  come,"  in  eh.  xvi.  13,  which  manifestly  found  its  ful- 
 filment in  the  book  of  Revelation.  For  us,  the  consolation  here 
 given  assumes  a  different  form  from  what  it  had  to  the  Apostles. 
 As  the  result  of  its  fulfilment  to  those  to  whom  it  was  primarily 
 given,  we  have  received  the  Holy  Scriptures  of  the  New  Testa- 
 ment, and  in  them  the  remedy  of  all  our  ignorance ;  especially 
 as,  depending  upon  the  promises  given  first  to  the  Apostles,  we 
 may  be  confident  that  we  are  not  left  to  ourselves  in  its  inter- 
 pretation, but  that  the  Holy  Spirit  will  continue  His  teaching 
 function  by  the  exposition  of  the  truth  of  Scripture.  Here  is 
 the  never-ceasing  prerogative  and  pre-eminence  of  the  Church 
 before  the  world;  with  all  tiie  boasted  advancement  of  its 
 science,  the  world  is  left  to  the  natural  ignorance  of  man,  and 
 deals  in  the  dark  with  the  highest  problems  of  life. — The  bring- 
 ing to  remembrance  was  obviously  not  to  be  of  a  merely  mecha- 
 nical or  internal  kind ;  but  such  as  at  the  same  time  opened  up 
 a  deeper  understanding.  Bengel  rightly  observes,  that  in  these 
 last  discourses  of  our  Lord,  so  faithfully  reproduced  by  St  John, 
 we  have  a  document  of  the  fulfilment  of  this  promise  itself. 
 
 In  ver.  27  is  the  seventh  and  last  consolation — the  promise 
 of  peace.  Enemies  all  around  them,  sheep  in  the  midst  of 
 wolves — such  was  the  position  of  the  disciples  on  the  departure 
 of  Christ.  Nevertheless,  Christ  guarantees  to  them,  and  through 
 them  to  the  Church  of  all  ages.  His  peace.  This  is,  at  the  first 
 glance,  and  to  the  judgment  of  carnal  reason,  an  absurd  promise ; 
 and  yet  it  has  its  reality,  and  experience  confirms  its  truth. 
 
230  *  CHAP.  XIII -XVII. 
 
 Yer.  27.  "  Peace  I  leave  with  you,  My  peace  I  give  unto 
 you :  not  as  the  world  giveth,  give  I  unto  you.  Let  not  your 
 heart  be  troubled,  neither  let  it  be  afraid." — Peace  is  the  condi- 
 tion of  one  who  is  not  hurt  by  enemies.  We  must  not  set  in 
 the  place  of  peace  a  mere  state  of  prosperity.  The  original 
 Hebrew  Dl^Ji',  from  D^K',  to  be  whole,  denotes  the  condition  of 
 one  who  is  unhurt  by  inimical  influences,  by  those  hostile  powers 
 which,  from  the  Fall  downwards,  have  hemmed  in  human  life 
 on  all  sides, — human  nature,  "  beset  with  original  sin,  infirmity, 
 distress,  and  death."  But  elprjvq  never  has,  even  ostensibly, 
 any  other  meaning  than  that  of  peace,  which  is  the  meaning 
 entirely  in  harmony  with  the  derivation  of  the  word.  The  anti- 
 thesis of  elprjvq,  according  to  ch.  xvi.  33,  is  6Xi-^ln<i,  tribulation 
 or  oppression. — '-40w;/xi  is  here,  as  in  Matt.  xxii.  25,  used  of 
 that  which  one  leaves  behind  on  departing.  Christ  seemed  as 
 if  He  was  about  to  leave  His  disciples  nothing  but  an  inherit- 
 ance of  warfai'e  and  oppression  :  comp.  ch.  xv.  18-21 ;  but, 
 when  we  look  closely  into  the  matter,  He  really  leaves  them 
 peace.  The  words,  "  My  peace  I  give  unto  you,"  intimate  that 
 this  peace  would  rest  upon  His  positive  influence,  and  spring 
 directly  from  Himself.  First  comes  the  paradox,  that  after 
 His  departure  they  would  have  peace ;  then  more  definitely 
 the  source  whence  that  peace  would  come,  which,  indeed,  was 
 slightly  indicated  in  the  d^irj/jii,.  The  explanation,  that  "  Jesus 
 did  not  take  away  the  peace  of  His  disciples  with  Him,  but 
 rather  gave  them  of  His  own  peace,"  devises  a  peace  which  the 
 disciples  had  independent  of  their  Lord,  and  overlooks  the  fact 
 that  it  is  not  said,  "  your  peace,"  which  such  an  antithesis  would 
 have  required. — The  severest  trials  awaited  the  Apostles ;  never- 
 theless, they  found  themselves  more  and  more  in  a  condition  of 
 peace.  For,  1.  They  were,  through  Christ,  established  in  the 
 possession  of  eternal  life,  and  no  enemy  could  rob  them  of  that 
 blessed  state  and  experience.  2.  Hostile  oppression  was  a  dis- 
 turbance of  their  peace  only  to  human  apprehension,  and  so  far 
 as  fleshly  sensibility  went ;  in  reality,  it  furthered  their  religious 
 welfare,  helped  to  prepare  them  for  eternal  life,  and  was  there- 
 fore a  concealed  benefit  of  grace.  And  during  their  tribulation 
 the  Lord  was  peculiarly  near  to  them ;  then  more  than  usually 
 He  fulfilled  His  own  word,  "  We  will  come  to  him,  and  make 
 our  abode  with  him."   Had  they  much  tribulation  in  their  hearts, 
 
CHAP.  XIV.  27.  231 
 
 the  consolations  of  Christ  all  the  more  quickened  their  souls. 
 3.  Oppression,  persecutions,  and  contempt,  bore,  even  upon 
 earth,  only  a  transitory  character.  Final  victory  over  them  all 
 was  guaranteed,  ch.  xvi.  33  ,•  and,  in  the  confident  expectation 
 of  that  victory,  their  momentary  degradation  could  not  over- 
 much affect  their  hearts.  The  death  of  Christ  seemed  essen- 
 tially to  peril  the  peace  of  the  disciples :  comp.  Luke  xxiv.  17. 
 But  after  His  resurrection,  the  Lord  welcomed  them  with  the 
 greeting,  Peace  be  unto  you!  ch.  xx.  19,  xxi.  26,  and  thusv 
 intimated  that  the  promise  given  to  them  before  His  depar-  \ 
 ture  had  begun  its  accomplishment.  This  is  a  type  of  the 
 ever  recurring  dealings  of  our  Lord  with  us.  The  most  perfect 
 realization  of  the  words,  "  My  peace  I  give  unto  you,"  belongs 
 to  the  perfect  kingdom  of  God. — That  the  promise  of  peace 
 stands  here  just  at  the  end,  probably  has  allusion  to  the  circum- 
 stance, that  men  were  wont  to  utter  the  wish  of  peace  at  the 
 time  of  separation  :  comp.  1  Sam.  i.  17,  xx.  42 ;  2  Sam.  xv.  9. 
 In  the  place  of  the  impotent  wish,  the  saving  efficacy  of  Christ's 
 promise  comes  in.  The  objection,  that  Christ  is  not  imme-  \j 
 diately  departing  from  His  disciples,  but  they  go  along  with 
 Him,  has  no  force.  We  sometimes  take  farewell  more  than 
 once.  Here  this  takes  place  at  the  close  of  the  last  and  highest 
 festival,  at  the  end  of  their  last  mournful  interview,  before  the 
 stress  of  conflict  with  the  prince  of  this  world  begins.  ,/ 
 
 "  Not  as  the  world  giveth,  give  I  unto  you."  According  to 
 the  current  exposition  our  Lord  here  says,  that  He  does  not 
 give  peace,  or  gifts  generally,  as  the  world  gives  them,  delu-  y 
 sively ;  that  is,  merely  seeming  peace  and  hollow  blessings.  But 
 such  a  thought  would  thus  be  very  imperfectly  expressed.  We 
 must  not  arbitrarily  introduce  the  idea  that  the  world's  peace  is 
 an  illusion  or  an  empty  phrase,  and  that  its  good  things  are 
 only  the  semblance  of  good  things.  Nor  do  we  clearly  see  that 
 there  is  any  antithesis  of  Christ's  peace  as  the  true.  But  the 
 main  point  is,  that  with  its  principle  of  selfishness,  the  world 
 does  not  like  to  give  at  all,  not  even  its  seeming  peace  and  its 
 seeming  good  things.  Especially  in  relation  to  tlie  disciples, 
 who  come  prominently  into  view  here,  the  world  must  be 
 regarded  as  manifestly  and  only  hostile.  The  key  to  the  right 
 interpretation  is  found  in  ch.  xvi.  33,  "  In  the  world  ye  shall 
 have  tribulation  :"  this  is  all  the  more  obvious,  inasmuch  as  we 
 
232  CHAP,  xiii.-xvii. 
 
 have  there  the  last  farewell  of  Christ  to  His  disciples,  just  as 
 here  we  have  the  preliminary  farewell.  Tribulation,  ^X,tT|ri? ; 
 that  is  the  world's  gift  in  regard  to  all  the  disciples  of  Christ. 
 For  them  it  has  nothing  better.  It  seems,  indeed,  sometimes 
 as  if  Christ  also  had  nothing  better  for  them ;  as  if  He  left 
 them,  without  help,  a  prey  to  the  oppressions  of  the  world. 
 There  lies  the  essential  sharpness  of  the  sting ;  that  was  the 
 strong  temptation  to  which  the  Baptist  had  sometime  been 
 exposed.  But  in  reality  it  is  far  otherwise.  As  the  world  gives 
 them  tribulation,  so  He  gives  them  peace :  only  this  is  required, 
 that  His  disciples  should  know  how  to  appropriate  that  peace, 
 that  they  should  take  a  spiritual  estimate  of  things,  and  await 
 the  right  time.  The  vfjbiv  belongs  also  to  the  Kadco<i  6  Koa[Jio<i 
 SiBcoai.  Instead  of  as,  we  might  read  equally  well  what.  The 
 difference  in  the  gift  connects  with  it  also  a  variation  in  the 
 manner  of  giving,  an  unfriendly  or  a  friendly.  The  tribula- 
 tion which  the  Avorld  inflicts  upon  the  disciples  of  Christ,  is  with 
 a  touch  of  irony  described  as  a  gift,  in  reference  to  those  good 
 gifts  which  they  ought  to  have  been  ready  to  give.  Such  a  use 
 of  the  word  giving  is  often  found  in  the  Old  Testament :  for 
 example,  in  Deut.  xxxii.  6,  "  Do  ye  thus  requite  (give)  the  Lord, 
 O  foolish  people  and  unwise?"  1  Sam.  xxiv.  18,  where  Saul 
 says  to  David,  "  Thou  hast  rewarded  me  good,  whereas  I  have 
 rewarded  thee  evil :"  I,  who  should  have  given  thee  that  which 
 was  good,  have  instead  thereof  brought  thee  a  wicked  gift :  comp. 
 my  commentary  on  Ps.  vii.  5. — The  recurrence  of  fir]  rapaaaeado 
 indicates  the  conclusion  of  the  grounds  of  consolation. 
 
 After  the  Lord  has  so  powerfully  and  in  such  various  ways 
 comforted  His  disciples.  He  can  now  go  further,  and  declare 
 that  they  ought  to  rejoice  over  that  which  had  been  the  source 
 of  their  deeper  sorrow. 
 
 /  Yer.  28.  "  Ye  have  heard  how  I  said  unto  you,  I  go  away, 
 and  come  again  unto  you.  If  ye  loved  Me,  ye  would  rejoice, 
 because  I  said,  I  go  unto  the  Father :  for  My  Father  is  greater 
 than  I." — Christ  exhibits  His  return  to  the  Father  as  a  matter 
 of  joy  to  the  disciples,  first  of  all  on  the  ground  of  their  love 
 to  Him  ;  but  what  would  redound  to  His  honour  would 
 serve  at  the  same  time  their  best  interests.  He  enters  into  a 
 condition  of  eternal  glory,  which  will  allow  Him  to  fulfil  the 
 high   promises   that  He  had  made   to  them  in  the   previous 
 
CHAP.  XIV.  28.  233 
 
 words.  That  He  made  prominent  the  former  point,  had  respect  • 
 to  the  sentiment  of  the  disciples,  that  it  was  the  obhgation  of 
 their  love  to  mourn  over  His  departure.  But  if  reference  to 
 the  good  of  the  disciples  had  not  been  in  the  background,  Christ 
 would  not  have  added  "  and  come  again  unto  you  "  to  the  "  I 
 go  away."  That  would  have  had  no  meaning,  if  the  personal 
 interests  of  Christ  alone  had  been  involved.  If,  on  the  other 
 hand,  there  is  a  latent  reference  to  the  salvation  of  the  disciples, 
 these  have  their  due  significance.  Through  His  departure  to  \ 
 the  Father,  who  is  greater  than  He,  He  can  fulfil  His  promise 
 of  return.  This  return,  in  which  He  would  impart  to  His 
 disciples  much  more  than  He  had  imparted  during  His  earlier 
 earthly  life,  was  to  be  a  result  of  His  assumption  into  the  glory 
 of  the  Father.  That  the  personal  interests  of  the  disciples  were 
 in  the  background,  and  that  they  were  coincident  with  those  of 
 Christ  Himself,  is  shown  by  the  relation  in  which  "  ye  would 
 rejoice"  stands  to  "  Let  not  your  heart  be  troubled,  neither  let 
 it  be  afraid,"  in  ver.  27.  There  the  subject  was  solicitude  about 
 their  own  danger,  and  therefore  the  corresponding  joy  must 
 have  refei'ence  to  their  own  salvation,  Quesnel  is  perfectly 
 right  in  saying,  "  The  interests  of  Jesus  Christ  ought  to  be 
 dearer  to  us  than  our  own.  But  we  cannot  seek  His  things 
 without  at  the  same  time  finding  our  own."  \ 
 
 Christ  does  not  demand  of  His  disciples  that  they  should  i 
 rejoice.  He  knew  that  their  love  was  not  yet  purified  enough 
 for  that.  But  when  He  says  to  them  that  they  ought,  if  they 
 loved  Him,  to  rejoice,  the  result  was  doubtless  attained  that 
 their  sorrow  was  mitigated.  So  from  us  He  does  not  demand  at  / 
 once  that  we  should  rejoice  when  our  beloved  are  taken  away. 
 He  leaves  nature  its  rights  ;  He  has  sympathy  with  our  Aveak- 
 ness,  which  is  bound  up  with  the  best  elements  of  our  nature. 
 It  is  the  healthy  development  of  love,  that  it  is  first  blended 
 with  earthly  admixtures,  and  only  by  degrees  sublimates  itself 
 into  the  pure  heavenly  flame. — In  a  certain  sense,  every  one 
 who  dies  in  the  Lord '  may  say  to  his  friends  what  Christ  says 
 here  to  His  disciples.  Every  believer  goes  at  his  departure  to 
 His  Eedeemer,  and  thus  into  the  glory  of  the  Father.^ — That 
 
 ^  Cyprian  :  Dixit  Domiuus  :  si  me  dilexissetis  gauderetis  quoniam  vado 
 ad  Patrem,  docens  et  ostendeus,  cuin  cari  quos  diligimus  de  saeculo  exeunt, 
 gaudeudum  potius  esse  quam  doleudum. 
 
234  CHAP.  XIII. -XVII. 
 
 the  Father  was  greater  than  Jesus,  makes  His  departure  to  the 
 Father  matter  to  be  rejoiced  in,  only  if  Christ  in  His  departure 
 was  received  into  the  fellowship  of  the  glory  of  the  Father 
 (comp.  eh.  xvii.  5).  If  I  shall  be  with  My  Father,  I  shall  be 
 greater  than  I  am  now.  It  is  clear  from  this,  that  Christ  is  not 
 here  set  over  against  the  Father  in  His  original  essence,  nor  in 
 His  human  nature  generally ;  for  this  shared  the  exaltation  to 
 the  Father's  right  hand,  whereas  a  condition  is  here  meant  which 
 was  laid  aside  by  going  to  the  Father.  But  He  is  placed  in 
 opposition  to  the  Father  according  to  His  entire  personality,  as 
 the  Christ  come  into  the  flesh,  and  in  the  form  of  aT  servant,  as 
 He  was  then  incorporate  and  lived  among  men.  The  Arians 
 had  no  right  to  use  this  passage  in  the  interest  of  their  doctrine ; 
 on  the  contrary,  the  assumption  of  Christ  into  the  supreme  glory 
 of  the  Father,  as  it  is  here  taught,  serves  most  effectually  to 
 refute  their  error.  Equality  in  glory  pi'esupposes,  and  is  based 
 upon,  equality  in  essence.  According  to  Liicke,  the  word,  "  For 
 My  Father  is  greater  than  I,"  must  express,  "  not  the  transi- 
 tory human  consciousness  of  the  Eedeemer  in  His  earthly  hu- 
 miliation," but  "  the  essential,  indissoluble  consciousness  of  His 
 subordination  to  the  Father."  But  indeed  the  going  to  the  Father 
 made  no  difference  in  that  essential  consciousness.  But  only 
 such  a  being  greater  can  be  attributed  to  the  Father  as  came  to 
 an  end  when  Christ  went  home  to  Him.  Other  explanations, 
 such  as  "  God  can  better  protect  you  than  My  earthly  presence 
 with  you,"  or  "  the  Father  is  a  mightier  defence  than  I  am," 
 are  negatived  by  the  consideration  that  Christ's  going  to  the 
 Father  is  primarily  exhibited  as  a  matter  of  joy  and  advantage 
 to  Christ  Himself.  "  If  ye  loved  Me"  plainly  shows  that  the 
 disciples  were  to  rejoice  on  Christ's  own  account  at  His  de- 
 parture to  the  Father.^ 
 
 ^  We  select  a  few  striking  sayings  from  the  older  expositors.  Augustin : 
 Hsec  est  forma  servi,  in  qua  Dei  filius  minor  est,  non  Patre  solo,  sed  etiam 
 Spiritu  Sancto :  neque  id  tantum  sed  etiam  se  ipso :  quid  idem  ipse  in  forma 
 Dei  major  est  se  ipso.  Unum  sunt  (ch.  x.  30)  secundum  id  quod  Deus  erat 
 verbum  :  major  est  Pater,  secundum  id  quod  verbum  caro  factum  est. 
 Infidelis,  ingrate,  ideone  minuis  tu  eum,  qui  fecit  te,  quia  dicit  ille  quid 
 factus  sit  propter  te?  Squalls  enim  Patri  filius,  per  quern  factus  est 
 homo,  ut  minor  esset  Patre  factus  est  homo  :  quod  nisi  fieret,  quid  esset 
 homo  ?  Luther  :  "  Going  to  the  Father,  means  receiving  the  kingdom  of 
 the  Father,  where  He  is  like  the  Father,  known  and  honoured  in  the  same 
 
CHAP.  XIV.  29-31.  235 
 
 Ver.  29.  "  And  now  I  have  told  yon  before  it  come  to  pass, 
 that,  when  it  is  come  to  pass,  ye  might  believe." — Comp.  ch. 
 xiii.  19.  "I  have  told  it  yon"  refers  to  the  departure  of  Christ, 
 and  His  retuiji  to  His  disciples,  as  this  had  its  glorious  beginning 
 in  the  resurrection.  Of  like  significance  with  the  vTrdjco  koX 
 ep'^ofiat  7rpo9  f/xa?,  is  the  Tropevo[xai  7rpo9  rov  Trarepa.  For  the 
 going  of  Christ  to  the  Father  must  have  its  announcement  or 
 declare  itself  in  His  resurrection  and  glorification.  The  pre-  »  / 
 diction,  therefore,  refers  to  the  suffering  of  Christ,  and  His 
 entrance  into  His  glory,  Luke  xxiv.  26. 
 
 After  the  Lord  had  strengthened  His  disciples.  Himself 
 doing  that  which  He  appointed  Peter  to  do,  "  Strengthen  thy 
 brethren,"  Luke  xxii.  32,  He  can  challenge  them  to  go  forth 
 with  Him  to  the  decisive  conflict. 
 
 Vers.  30,  31.  "  Hereafter  I  will  not  talk  much  with  you  ; 
 for  the  prince  of  this  world  cometh,  and  hath  nothing  in  Me. 
 But  that  the  world  may  know  that  I  love  the  Father ;  and  as 
 the  Father  gave  Me  commandment,  even  so  I  do.  Arise,  let  us 
 go  hence." — In  relation  to  the  prince  of  this  world,  comp.  on  ch. 
 xii.  31.  "  As  often  as  we  hear  this  name,"  says  Calvin,  "  we 
 should  be  ashamed  of  our  wicked  condition.  For,  let  men  vaunt 
 themselves  as  they  may,  they  are  the  devil's  slaves,  and  no  better, 
 until  they  are  born  again  through  the  Spirit  of  Christ."  Those 
 who  boast  of  their  free  spirit,  and  of  being  freethinkers,  are 
 entangled  in  their  own  great  folly.     It  is  well  for  them  to  say, 
 
 majesty.  Therefore  I  go  hence,  He  says,  that  I  may  become  greater  than  I 
 am  now ;  that  is,  I  go  to  the  Father.  For  the  kingdom  which  I  am  to 
 receive  at  the  right  hand  of  the  Father  is  over  all ;  and  it  is  better  that  I 
 should  go  from  this  humiliation  and  weakness  into  the  power  and  dominion 
 which  the  Father  hath,  in  which  He  governs  with  almighty  majesty. — 
 Thus  He  goes  out  of  a  narrow  space  into  the  broad  heaven,  out  of  this 
 prison  into  a  great  and  glorious  kingdom,  where  He  is  much  greater  than 
 before.  Before  He  was  a  poor,  sad,  suffering  Christ ;  but  now  with  the 
 Father,  He  is  a  great,  glorious,  living.  Almighty  Lord  over  all  creatures. — 
 In  His  nature  He  abides  equal  to  the  Father,  eternal  God,  and  yet  con- 
 descended upon  earth  to  the  most  abased  and  feeblest  ministration  of  a 
 servant  for  us,  and  for  us  sank  into  death.  But  by  dying  He  overcame 
 death,  and  takes  us  with  Himself  above,  where  His  kingdom  is  the  Father's, 
 and  the  Father's  kingdom  is  His."  Anton  :  "  According  to  ver.  12,  the 
 disciples  were  to  be  greater  than  Christ  in  His  present  condition."  Bengel: 
 Ante  ipsam  profectionem  minor  fuerat  etiam  angelis,  Heb.  ii.  9,  post  pro- 
 fectionem  major  se  ipso,  ver.  12,  patri  par,  xvii.  5. 
 
236  CHAP,  xiii.-xvii. 
 
 "  We  will  not  have  tliis  man  to  rule  over  us ;"  but  that  does  not 
 make  them  free,  and  they  are  enslaved  still  in  the  most  abject 
 bondage.  "  When  the  people  of  the  world,"  says  Quesnel, 
 "  follow  their  joassions,  they  think  they  are  doing  their  own 
 will ;  but  in  reality  they  are  only,  on  the  one  hand,  obeying  the 
 will  of  the  prince  of  this  world,  whose  desires  and  plans  they 
 execute,  and,  on  the  other,  they  serve,  through  the  overruling 
 power  of  God,  His  plans,  and  do  His  will,  which  is,  and  must 
 evermore  be,  supreme  over  that  of  His  creatures."  Satan  never 
 approved  himself  more  fully  the  prince  of  this  world,  than 
 when  he  incited  the  Jews  and  the  Gentiles  to  contend  against  V 
 the  Son  of  God. 
 
 Judas  was  in  the  confederacy  of  the  multitude  :  comp.  ch. 
 xviii.  3.  But  Jesus  introduces  us  into  the  concealed  back- 
 ground of  the  manifestations  of  his  life,  the  mere  external  part 
 of  which  is  all  that  the  world  in  its  melancholy  superficiality 
 beholds.  Before  His  profound  glance  Judas  vanishes,  the 
 Roman  soldiers  vanish,  the  servants  of  the  high  priests  and 
 Pharisees  vanish,  and  one  only  remains,  whom  they,  with  their 
 superiors,  serve  as  poor  unconscious  instruments, — the  prince  of  I 
 this  world,  who  sets  in  motion  their  schemes  and  their  arms. 
 This  view  of  the  matter  gives  us  to  perceive,  on  the  one  hand, 
 the  full  solemnity  of  .the  conflict,  and  urges  us  to  take  the 
 whole  armour  of  God,  since  in  such  an  assault  we  can  do 
 nothing  by  our  own  power  (comp.  Eph.  vi.  11,  12) ;  on  the 
 other  hand,  it  is  full  of  encouragement,  since,  when  Satan  is 
 on  the  scene,  we  may  be  very  sure  that  God  will  be  on  the 
 scene  likewise. — In  Luke  xxii.  53,  again,  our  Lord  refers 
 to  Satan  what  the  Jewish  rulers  undertook  against  Him  with 
 seeming  success.  All  rested  upon  this,  that  power  was  given 
 to  the  darkness.  So  also,  in  ch.  viii.  44,  He  had  indicated 
 Satan  as  the  proper  originator  of  the  assaults  of  the  Jews.  In 
 ch.  vi.  70,  too,  the  traitor  was  connected  with  Satan.  But  we 
 must  not  limit  our  thoughts  to  Satan's  manifestations  in  the 
 persons  of  his  instruments.  We  are  led  to  perceive  that  Jesus 
 had  to  do  immediately  with  the  enemy  himself,  by  the  parallel 
 of  the  temptation  at  the  outset  of  our  Lord's  ministry,  and  by 
 Rev.  xii.  7-9,  where  Christ  is  in  direct  conflict  with  Satan  and 
 his  angels.  At  the  agony  in  Gethsemane,  which  preceded  the 
 appearance  of  Satan  in  his  instruments,  we  must  regard  Satan 
 
CHAP.  XIV.  30,  31.  237 
 
 himself  as  actively  engaged.  There,  as  formerly  in  the  begin- 
 ning, he  assaulted  Christ  as  a  tempter. — In  the  present  passage 
 the  prince  of  this  world  and  the  Redeemer  are  in  contest ;  in 
 the  parallel  passage  of  the  Apocalypse,  ch.  xii.  7-9,  Michael 
 and  the  dragon  contend  :  these  are  only  different  names  of  the 
 same  persons.  "  Michael  and  Satan  are  the  proper  factors  of 
 history.  All  others,  however  they  may  push  themselves  for- 
 ward, and  however  much  also  they  may  draw  upon  themselves 
 the  eyes  of  a  shortsighted  world,  are  but  subordinate  agents 
 and  instruments."  (Comment,  on  Apocalypse,  Clark's  Trans.) 
 This  note  on  the  Apocalyptic  passage  holds  good  here  also. 
 The  obscuration  of  the  true  nature  of  this  conflict  involves  the 
 greatest  peril.  The  spiritual  eye  of  the  believer  must  be  open 
 to  discern  the  real  opponent. 
 
 "  He  hath  (indeed)  nothing  in  Me"  {ovk  is  not  superfluous ; 
 the  double  negation  strengthens  the  emphasis — absolutely 
 nothing)  :  this  is  to  be  interpreted  by  reference  to  the  dp^wv, 
 the  meaning  being  regulated  by  the  fact  that  Satan  is  called 
 the  regent  of  this  world.  The  having  is  accordingly  that  of  a 
 ruler  and  possessor  ;  and  the  eV  ifiot  marks  tlie  territory  of  the 
 possession.  The  reference  to  the  ^^^i^^ce  of  this  ivorld  makes 
 the  mere  exeiv  equivalent  to  the  ex^iv  i^ovaiav,  the  having 
 authority,  in  ch.  xix.  11.  Christ  was  absolutely  beyond  the 
 domain  of  his  authority,  because  He  was  not  of  this  world, 
 which  since  the  Fall  has  been  subject  to  the  dominion  of  Satan, 
 and  consequently  by  a  righteous  judgment  exposed  to  his 
 assaults :  comp.  on  ch.  xii.  31.  To  be  in  coi  strained  subjection 
 to  Satan  is  the  wretched  lot  only  of  the  children  of  Adam  ; 
 Christ  is  in  His  divine  nature  sublimely  elevated  above  it. 
 But  in  His  obedience  to  God,  and  in  His  acceptance  of  the 
 work  of  redemption  committed  to  Him — which  demanded  that 
 He  should  submit  to  Satan's  assault  for  one  moment,  that  He 
 might  vanquish  him  for  ever — our  Lord  would  not  evade  or 
 withdraw  from  the  contest.  "  He  hath  nothing  in  Me  :"  these 
 words  are  in  fact  equivalent  to  "  I  am  not  of  this  world,"  to 
 which  the  domain  of  Satan  was  limited,  but  "  from  above,"  ch. 
 viii.  23 ;  the  cause  and  the  effect  are  here  both  intimated. — 
 "  Hath  nothing  in  Me :"  One  only  upon  earth  could  ever 
 utter  these  words.  All  who  come  into  being  according  to  the 
 ordinary  course  of  nature,  are,  in  consequence  of  sin,  Satan's 
 
 \^ 
 
238  CHAP,  xiii.-xvii. 
 
 subjects.  But  this  One,  who  voluntarily  placed  Himself  before 
 the  enemy,  and  confronted  all  his  power,  broke  down  his 
 dominion  for  all  those  who  should  become  one  with  Himself 
 through  faith.  " Hath  nothing"  absolutely  nothing,  points 
 primarily  and  obviously  to  the  Lord's  perfect  freedom  from 
 sin.  But  His  divinity  is  thereby  assumed.  A  sinless  man  is 
 an  unreality ;  as  certainly  so  as  Adam,  according  to  Gen.  v.  3, 
 begat  a  son  in  his  own  image  and  likeness. — Liicke  is  wrong 
 here :  "  The  reason  why  Satan  had  no  power  over  Christ  lay  in 
 this,  that  Christ  had  overcome  the  world,  and  already  glorified 
 it."  The  true  reason  was  no  other  than  this,  that  Christ  was 
 not  of  the  world,  and  that  there  was  in  Him  nothing  of  that 
 element  which  gives  Satan  his  power  over  the  world.  This 
 being  sin,  the  reason  why  Satan  had  nothing  in  Him  was 
 simply  this,  that  He  was  "holy,  and  undefiled,  and  separate 
 from  sinners,"  Heb.  vii.  26,  and  therefore  absolutely  apart 
 from  the  human  race,  and  "higher  than  the  heavens." — Our 
 Lord  uttered  the  words,  "  he  hath  nothing  in  Me,"  as  a 
 protest  against  those  erroneous  conclusions  which  have  been 
 drawn,  or  might  be  drawn,  from  the  fact  that  He  seemingly 
 became  subject  to  the  power  of  Satan.  Luther :  "  My 
 suffering  this,  is  not  because  I  am  not  strong  enough  for 
 Satan,  whom  I  have  so  often  cast  out."  Lampe :  "  Not 
 through  any  flaw  in  Him,  but  through  the  exuberance  of 
 His  love ;  not  through  the  power  of  the  devil,  but  the  will  of 
 His  Father." 
 
 "But  that  the  world  may  know  ;"  the  world  which  lieth  in 
 the  wicked  one,  but  which  includes  in  itself  the  yet  future 
 children  of  God,  ch.  xi.  52,  who  through  faith  in  Christ  are  to 
 be  drawn  out  of  the  world  and  introduced  into  the  Church  of 
 God,  ch.  iii.  16.  It  is  only  under  this  aspect  that  the  world 
 comes  here  into  consideration.  The  world  embraces  all  the 
 children  of  Adam ;  all  are  by  nature  children  of  wrath,  Eph. 
 ii.  3.  Nevertheless  there  is  here  a  great  distinction.  There  is 
 a  world  which  is  capable  of  being  drawn,  ch.  vi.  44,  xii.  32, 
 does  not  serve  its  prince  with  perfect  joy,  but  sighs  to  be  free 
 from  his  dominion.  This  is  the  aspect  of  the  world  that  comes 
 into  view  here.  The  world  only  on  its  susceptible  side,  and 
 not  the  hardened,  it  is  the  design  of  the  Lord  to  enlighten  and 
 bring  to  true  knowledge. 
 
CHAP.  XV.  1-xvi.  11.  239 
 
 The  true  reason  why  our  Lord  confronted  Satan  and  sub- 
 mitted to  his  assaults,  was  His  love  to  His  Father,  and  the  great 
 commission  entrusted  to  Him.  The  Father  gave  Him  this 
 work  to  do  out  of  love  to  the  world  (comp.  on  ch.  iii.  16)  ;  and 
 the  Father's  motive  was  no  secret  unshared  by  the  Son.  But 
 while  He  also  loved  the  world,  it  was  primarily  out  of  love  to 
 the  Father  that  He  accomplished  the  work  of  redemption. 
 That  He  entered  into  the  contest  with  Satan  under  these 
 particular  circumstances,  in  this  so  to  speak  dramatic  form, — 
 so  that  the  Church  has  bequeathed  to  her  a  ^passlon-histori/ 
 with  all  its  affecting  and  heart-piercing  crises,  and  can,  on 
 the  basis  of  that  history,  celebrate  a  passion-week, — took  place 
 in  order  "  that  the  world  might  know,"  etc.,  that  there  might 
 be  given  to  it  the  true  and  urgent  impulse  to  behold  and  medi- 
 tate upon  the  scene. 
 
 ^  The  words,  "  Rise,  let  us  go  hence  " — which  must  be  pre- 
 ceded, not  by  a  full  stop,  but  by  a  comma — contain,  in  the 
 form  of  a  command  to  the  disciples,  the  intimation  of  what  was 
 to  be  done  in  order  that  the  world  might  know,  etc. ;  they  are 
 equivalent  to,  "  Therefore  I  will  set  forth  with  you,  that  I  may 
 encounter  the  assault  of  the  prince  of  this  world."  ^EyeipeaOe, 
 aycofiev  IBov  ijyycKev  6  TrapaSiBov'i  fxe :  thus  Jesus  speaks, 
 according  to  Matt.  xxvi.  46,  in  Gethsemane  immediately  before 
 the  arrival  of  Judas.  He  designedly  repeats  the  "  Rise,  let  us 
 go,"  when  the  conflict  directly  impends.  On  the  iyeipeade 
 Augustin  remarks :  Discumbens  discumbentibus  loquebatur. 
 The  word  in  Matt.  xxvi.  also  signifies  rising  up  in  opposition 
 to  sleeping  and  continuing  to  rest. 
 
 Chap.  xv.  1-xvi.  11. 
 
 The  fifteenth  and  sixteenth  chapters  contain  the  discourses 
 which  our  Lord  uttered  shortly  before  His  passage  over  the 
 brook  Kedron  ;  the  seventeenth  chapter  contains  His  prayer  to 
 the  Father.  In  His  discourse  to  the  disciples,  the  Lord  first 
 unfolds,  in  the  section  before  us,  the  threefold  relation  in  which 
 they  stand,  first  to  Him,  then  to  one  another,  and  lastly  to  the 
 world. 
 
 The  Lord  first  gives  to  His  disciples  a  commentary  upon 
 the  first  table  of  the  Decalogue,  "  Thou  shalt  love  the  Lord  thy 
 
 ^( 
 
240  CHAP.  XIII.-XVII. 
 
 God."  That,  under  the  New  Testament,  takes  the  form  of 
 abidincT  in  Christ.  Since  the  existences  or  natures  of  the  Father 
 and  the  Son  perfectly  coincide  and  cover  each  other,  Jesus 
 could  not,  in  a  separate  section,  adjust  His  disciples'  relation  to 
 the  Father  specifically.  As  they  stood  with  respect  to  Himself, 
 so  they  stood  with  respect  to  the  Father  ;  should  they  abide  in 
 Him,  they  would  abide  in  the  Father.  Then,  in  ch.  xv.  12-17, 
 He  turns  to  the  second  table.  The  commandment,  "  Thou  snalt 
 love  thy  neighbour  as  thyself,"  takes,  in  the  kingdom  of  Christ, 
 the  form  of  Christian  brotherly  love.  After  the  Lord  had 
 determined  His  people's  relations  to  Himself  as  their  Head, 
 and  to  each  other  as  brethren  (Augustin :  "  For  on  these  two 
 commandments  of  love  hang  all  the  law  and  the  prophets"), 
 He  sheds  light  upon  their  relation  to  the  world,  and  what  they 
 would  have  to  expect  from  it,  and  what  resources  they  would  be 
 able  to  use  in  defence  against  its  enmity. 
 
 The  sections  are  clearly  and  sharply  demarcated.  The  first 
 is  separated  from  the  second  by  the  concluding  formula  in  ver. 
 11 ;  the  second  from  the  third  by  the  concluding  formula  in 
 ch.  XV.  17.  The  third  is  distingviished  from  that  which  follows 
 by  the  circumstance  that  the  watchword  world— which^  in  the 
 beginning  of  the  section,  is  used  with  intentional  frequency,  in 
 order  to  point  attention  to  the  theme  which  now  begins  to  be 
 treated — twice  recurs  at  the  end.  And  that  all  things  down  to 
 the  most  minute  are  here  ordered  and  sure,  appears  from  the 
 fact  that,  in  the  first  section,  the  watchword  abide  occurs  pre- 
 cisely ten  times,  as  J.  Gerhard  long  ago  observed  {fjielvr],  in  ver. 
 11,  is  a  false  reading)  ;  that  in  vers.  12-17,  which  are  entirely 
 devoted  to  love,  there  are  seven  characterizations  of  that  grace, 
 the  seven  further  being  divided  as  usual  into  four  and  three  : 
 ar/airare,  r]<ya'Trr}(Ta,  afyaTTT^v,  a^airaTe — ^lX(ov,  ^iKoi,,  (ptkovi  ; 
 that  in  the  third  section  Koa-fio'i  also  recurs  seven  times,  the  seven 
 being  divided  into  five  at  the  beginning  and  two  at  the  end — a 
 division  of  seven  which  elsewhere  accompanies  that  into  four 
 and  three.  We  cannot  attribute  this  to  chance,  especially  as 
 this  kind  of  reckoning  occurs  so  frequently,  not  only  in  the 
 Gospel  and  the  Apocalypse  of  St  John,  but  also  in  the  Lord's 
 discourses,  as  recorded  by  the  first  three  Evangelists.  We  have 
 only  to  refer  to  the  petitions  of  the  Lord's  prayer,  the  benedic- 
 tions, and  the  seven  words  on  the  cross. 
 
CHAP.  XV.  1.  241 
 
 Ver.  1.  "  I  am  the  true  vine,  and  My  Father  is  the  husband- 
 man."— In  vers.  1  and  2  the  relation  is  sketched  in  its  general 
 outlines ;  from  ver.  3  onwards  with  specific  reference  to  the 
 disciples.  The  not  observing  this  order  of  thought  misled  De 
 Wette,  who  remarks  that  the  fruitfulness  of  the  branches  is  an 
 idiea  that  comes  in  too  soon  at  ver.  2,  and  which,  in  the  appro- 
 priate order,  should  follow  ver.  5.  Calvin  gives  the  actual  force 
 of  the  figure  of  the  vine  thus :  "  He  teaches  that  the  life-sap 
 flows  only  from  Himself,  whence  it  follows  that  the  nature  of 
 men  is  unfruitful,  and  void  of  all  good."  So  also  Gerhard  : 
 "  He  would,  by  this  figure,  denote  the  most  intimate  union 
 between  Himself  and  His  disciples,  and  all  believers  in  Him." 
 ^\^hen  Christ  describes  Himself  as  the  true  vine.  He  intimates 
 the  existence  of  false  vines.  These  may  be  either  the  natural 
 vines,  according  to  the  remark  of  Meyer  and  others  :  "  Christ 
 declares  Himself  to  be  the  reality  of  the  idea  which  is  only 
 symbolically  exhibited  in  the  natural  vine ;  the  material  growth 
 of  the  earth  is  not  the  true  vine,  but  only  its  type  and  figure;" 
 or  the  false  vine  is  a  spiritual  power  which  promises  life  but 
 does  not  bestow  it,  as  Beza  says  :  "  He  speaks  of  the  true  vine 
 as  that  which  alone  has  in  itself  that  quickening  life,  and  is 
 alone  able  to  communicate  it,  in  opposition  to  all  other  means 
 for  the  securing  of  spiritual  life,  which  are  altogether  false  and 
 delusive."  This  last  \dew  is  the  only  right  one.  It  is  in  itself 
 improbable  that  Christ  would  designate  Himself  the  true  in 
 opposition  to  a  common  vine.  That  earthly  things  are  only 
 types  and  symbols  of  the  heavenly,  is  indeed  a  theosophic  idea, 
 but  not  a  scriptural  one.  It  would  be  more  suitable  to  Diony- 
 sius  Areopagita  than  to  the  Redeemer.  In  ch.  i.  9  Christ  is 
 termed  the  true  light,  not  in  opposition  to  the  natural  light,  but 
 in  opposition  to  spiritual  lights,  like  John  the  Baptist,  imperfect 
 and  transitory.  Christ  is  the  true  bread  in  chap.  vi.  35,  not  as 
 opposed  to  ordinary  bread,  but  as  opposed  to  the  manna.  The 
 good  (that  is,  the  true)  shepherd  the  Lord  is  termed  in  ch.  x. 
 11,  as  the  antithesis,  not  of  ordinary  shepherds,  but  of  the  wicked 
 rulers  and  guides  of  the  people,  the  Pharisees.  The  visible 
 world  has,  according  to  the  scriptural  view,  its  own  proper 
 significance  in  itself,  and  it  must  not  be  degraded  into  a  mere 
 shadow  and  type.  We  can  all  the  less  doubt  that  the  comparison 
 points  to  a  spiritual  vine,  because  in  the  Old  Testament  Israel 
 VOL.  II.  Q 
 
 \ 
 
242  CHAP,  xiii.-xvii. 
 
 often  is  introduced  as  such,  and  because  his  destination  to  be  a 
 true  vine  is  contrasted  with  his  lamentable  degeneracy,  which 
 needed  grafting  again,  and  renewal.  This  was  promised  in 
 Christ.  Israel,  the  vine  of  God,  is  the  fundamental  idea  of 
 Ps.  Ixxx.  Concerning  degenerate  Israel  we  read  in  Dent,  xxxii. 
 32,  "  For  their  vine  is  of  the  vine  of  Sodom,  and  of  the  fields 
 of  Gomorrah  :  their  grapes  are  grapes  of  gall,  their  clusters  are 
 bitter."  Hosea  says,  in  ch.  x.  1,  "  Israel  is  an  empty  vine,  he 
 bringeth  forth  fruit  unto  himself ;  according  to  the  multitude 
 of  his  fruit  he  hath  increased  the  altars,"  etc.  According  to 
 Isa.  v.  2,  4,  the  Lord  planted  His  vineyard  with  the  choicest 
 vine,  and  "  looked  that  it  should  bring  forth  grapes,  and  it 
 brought  forth  wild  grapes."  In  Ezek.  xix.  10-14,  Israel  is  a 
 vine  fruitful  and  full  of  branches,  which  was  destroyed  by  the 
 wrath  of  God.  But  the  real  original,  to  which  the  Lord  here 
 refers,  even  as  in  Matt.  xxi.  He  refers  to  the  parable  of  the 
 vineyard  in  Isa.  v.,  is  Jer.  ii.  21,  "  Yet  I  had  planted  thee  a 
 noble  vine,  wholly  a  right  seed :  how  then  art  thou  turned  into 
 the  degenerate  plant  of  a  strange  vine  unto  Me?"  LXX. : 
 670)  Se  i^vrevcrd  ere  dfiTreXov  KapTrocpopov  iraaav  akrjOLvrjV,  7ra)<i 
 iaTpd(j>7j^  el<i  irLKplav  rj  afiireko^  rj  aXkorpla.  There  we  have 
 the  same  antithesis  between  the  true  and  the  false  vine.  Since 
 Israel  is  changed  from  a  true  to  a  false  vine,  another  true  vine 
 must  be  substituted  :  such  an  one  as  should  not  be  strange  to 
 Israel,  but  in  which  Israel  finds  again  his  true  nature,  as  the 
 Messiah  is  in  Isa.  xlix.  3  mentioned  as  He  in  whom  Israel  would 
 attain  to  his  destination,  and  in  whom  the  idea  of  Israel  would 
 be  realized.  The  false  vine  is  not  Israel  generally,  but  Israel 
 after  the  flesh,  1  Cor.  x.  18  ;  Israel  degenerate  from  its  true 
 nature,  and  not  gathered  again  into  Christ  its  head.  The 
 thought  is,  that  salvation  does  not  come  from  out  of  the  people 
 themselves,  but  from  above,  from  fellowship  with  Christ,  who 
 has  been  placed  in  its  midst :  comp.  Rom.  ix.  31,  x.  3.  The 
 true  vine  is  Christ,  or  the  Church  in  its  absolute  dependence 
 on  Christ ;  the  false  vine  is  the  Jews  establishing  their  own 
 righteousness,  and  all  those  who  tread  in  their  footsteps,  all 
 communities  which  separate  from  the  Head,  and  sever  salvation 
 from  its  absolute  dependence  upon  Him.  We  may  find  a 
 commentary  on  this  passage  in  the  beautiful  golden  vine  over 
 the  gate  of  the  Herodian  temple,  "  a  marvel  both  of  size  and  of 
 
CHAP.  XV.  1.  243 
 
 art  to  all  beholders/'  as  Joseplius  says,  Ant.  xv.  11,  3  :  comp. 
 also  Bell.  Jud.  v.  5,  4,  where  we  read,  "  The  gate  had  also 
 golden  vines  upon  it,  from  which  depended  clusters  as  long  as  a 
 man;"  and  the  thorough  description  of  this  vine  in  the  Mischna 
 Cod.  IMiddoth,  c.  3,  8. 
 
 Our  Lord  convicted  of  error  the  Pharisaic  notion  concern- 
 ing the  vine,  which  in  His  own  time  was  the  prevalent  inter- 
 pretation, and  at  the  same  time  He  pointed  to  the  real  truth 
 which  was  contained  in  the  figure.  Christ  is  the  true  vine 
 only,  in  the  first  place,  as  opposed  to  Israel  after  the  flesh,  the 
 synagogue  of  Satan  (Quesnel :  "  The  Church  does  not  bear 
 bitter  fruit  like  the  synagogue"),  which  became  such  because 
 it  assumed  to  have  life  in  itself,  and  would  not  derive  it  from 
 connection  with  Christ  as  the  Head  of  the  Church.  "  I  am 
 the  true  vine,"  our  Lord  cries  out,  through  all  ages  of  the 
 Church,  in  opposition  to  those  who  either  altogether  or  partially 
 establish  their  own  righteousness,  and  would  set  up  in  the 
 Church  other  soui'ces  of  life  than  those  which  it  derives  from 
 connection  with  Him  as  its  only  and  living  Head. 
 
 "  And  My  Father  is  the  husbandman : "  the  husbandman 
 here  is  identical  with  the  vinedresser,  the  dfiTreXovpyo';  of  Luke  \ 
 xiii.  7,  9  ;  >yecopy6'i  is  the  general  term.  We  may  seek  explana- 
 tion in  Gen.  ix.  20,  "  And  Noah  began  to  be  an  husbandman 
 (Sept.  yeapyos:),  and  he  planted  a  vineyard."  There  the  work 
 of  the  husbandman  is  the  general  designation,  including,  as  a 
 specific  branch,  the  planting  of  the  vineyard.  No  mention  is 
 made  of  any  owner  of  the  vineyard  or  the  land  ;  the  husband- 
 man only  is  mentioned,  because  here  possessorship  is  not  referred 
 to,  but  labour.  That  this  labour  had,  first  of  all,  the  planting  of 
 the  vine  for  its  object,  is  shown  by  the  example  of  Noah.  And 
 it  corresponds,  in"  the  Divine  vineyard,  that  the  Father  had  sent 
 His  Son  into  the  world,  and  caused  Him  to  take  flesh  of  our 
 flesh.  It  may  be  questioned,  however,  whether  that  function 
 of  the  husbandman  is  here  alluded  to.  In  the  succeeding  verses 
 we  read  only  of  two  works  performed  by  the  husbandman,  the 
 cutting  off  of  unfruitful  branches,  and  the  cleansing  of  the 
 fruitful.  And  that  the  Divine  act  which  corresponds  to  these 
 is  not  attributed  to  the  Father  in  opposition  to  the  Son,  is 
 evident,  as  Chrysostom  and  Augustin  noted,  from  ver.  3,  where 
 the  purity  of  the  disciples  is  derived  from  the  word  which  Christ 
 
244  CHAP,  xiii.-xvii. 
 
 had  spoken  ;^  while,  as  it  respects  the  cutting  off  evil  branches, 
 eh.  V.  22  is  decisive,  according  to  vv^hich  the  Father  had  given 
 all  judgment  to  the  Son.  Jesus  terms  Himself  the  vine,  not 
 with  respect  to  His  whole  being,  but  only  one  aspect  of  it.  He 
 is  the  vine,  inasmuch  as  He  is  immanent  in  the  Church.  But, 
 so  far  as  He  rules  over  the  Church,  He  is,  along  with  the 
 Father,  the  husbandman. 
 
 Ver.  2.  "  Every  branch  in  'Me  that  beareth  not  fruit  He 
 taketh  away ;  and  every  branch  that  beareth  fruit  He  purgeth 
 it,  that  it  may  bring  forth  more  fruit." — It  may  seem  strange 
 that  our  Lord  should  speak  of  branches  in  Him  that  bear  no 
 fruit ;  it  is  manifest  that  those  are  meant  who  have  never  borne 
 fruit  at  all.  It  might  seem  that  these  could  not  be  regarded 
 in  any  sense  as  branches,  especially  as  the  beginning  of  fruit- 
 bearing  is,  according  to  ch.  vi.  29,  faith  in  Christ.  Yet  Ques- 
 nel's  observation  is  perfectly  true,  that  "  the  good  and  the  evil 
 branches  belong  alike  to  the  stock."  The  matter  is  resolved 
 by  the  actual  offer  of  the  grace  of  Christ,  and  the  voluntary 
 acceptance  of  that  grace.  So  long  as  this  is  proffered,  and 
 until  Christ  punishes  the  rejection  of  His  gifts  by  exclusion 
 from  His  kingdom  (comp.  ver.  6),  the  unbelieving  and  the 
 wicked  are  branches  in  Him  the  vine.  Predestinarianism, 
 indeed,  is  much  embarrassed  by  "  in  Me,"  as  may  be  seen 
 in  the  commentaries  of  Calvin  and  Lampe.  What  is  spoken 
 of  is  the  unfruitful  branches  actually  being  in  Christ  the  vine, 
 and  not  their  thinking  themselves,  or  others  thinking  them,  to 
 be  so.  The  matter  is  an  actual  offer  of  the  gifts  of  Christ,  and 
 the  assurance  of  the  ■  possibility  of  a  full  participation  in  them  : 
 an  offer  and  an  assurance  which  result  in  nothing  only  through 
 the  fault  of  those  who  receive  them.^ 
 
 ^  Aitgustin :  When  He  spoke  of  the  Father  as  the  husbandman  who 
 should  take  away  the  unfruitful  branches,  but  purge  the  fruitful  that  they 
 should  bear  more  fruit,  He  spoke  also  of  Himself  as  the  cleanser  of  the 
 branches,  "  Now  ye  are  clean  through  the  word  which  I  have  spoken  to 
 you."  Behold  He  Himself  is  the  purger  of  the  branches, — the  duty  not  of 
 the  vine,  but  of  the  husbandman. 
 •  ^  Calvin  :  Multos  ceuseri  in  vite  opinione  hominum,  qui  re  ipsa  radicem 
 in  vite  non  habeut.  Ita  Dominus  vineam  suam  apud  Prophetas  nominat 
 populum  Israel,  qui  externa  professmie  nomen  ecclesiae  habebat.  Lampe : 
 In  a  certain  sense  even  hypocrites  may  be  said  to  be  in  Christ,  partly 
 because,  in  the  external  fellowship  of  the  Church,  they  partake  of  the 
 
CHAP.  XV.  2.  245 
 
 "  Every  branch  in  ^le  that  beareth  not  fruit : "  the  Jewish 
 branch  is  pnmarily  meant ;  as  by  the  contrasted  fruit-bearing 
 branch  we  are  to  understand  primarily  the  Apostles,  and  the 
 Christian  Church  having  its  germ  in  them.  That  even  the 
 Jews  were  a  branch  in  Christ  the  true  vine,  is  as  certain  as  that, 
 according  to  eh.  i.  11,  when  He  came  to  the  Jews,  He  came  to 
 His  OAvn  property.  Accordingly,  they  belonged  to  Him  from 
 God,  and  by  absolute  right.  It  w^as  because  the  Jews,  in  spite 
 of  their  not  bearing  fruit,  their  unbelief  and  their  enmity,  were 
 still  a  branch  in  Christ,  that  a  final  attempt  was  to  be  made  after 
 the  death  of  Christ,  and  through  the  sending  of  the  Paraclete, 
 to  win  them  :  ch.  xv.  26,  xvi.  7-9.  Those  with  whom  this  final 
 attempt  was  vain,  and  who  persisted  in  their  stiffnecked  rebel- 
 lion, w^ere  cut  off.  But  the  evidence  that  Jesus  had  primarily 
 in  view  the  Jews,  when  He  spoke  of  the  branches  not  bearing 
 fruit,  is  found  in  the  fact  that  the  same  thought  recurs  in  ver. 
 (3,  where  the  reference  to  Ezek.  xv.  places  the  allusion  to  the 
 Jews  beyond  doubt.  Further,  that  the  general  proposition, 
 "  Every  branch  in  Me  that  beareth  fruit,"  etc.,  refers  first  of  all 
 to  the  Christian  Church,  as  existing  in  the  germ  of  the  apos- 
 tolic company,  is  shown  by  ver.  3.  But  it  is  manifest  that  the 
 reference  of  the  unfruitful  branches  to  the  unbelieving  Jews 
 goes  on  parallel  with  this.  A  comparison  of  Jer.  viii.  13  leads  to 
 the  same  result :  "  I  will  surely  consume  them,  saith  the  Lord  : 
 there  shall  be  no  grapes  in  the  vine,  nor  figs  on  the  fig-tree, 
 and  the  leaf  shall  fade ;  and  the  things  which  I  have  given  them 
 shall  pass  away  from  them."  There  also  we  have  the  taking 
 away ;  and  the  reason,  the  not  bearing  fruit,  is  common  to  both. 
 In  regard  to  this  latter,  we  may  still  further  compare  Deut. 
 sxxii.  32,  where  it  is  said  of  the  people  of  Israel,  "  Their  grapes 
 are  grapes  of  gall,  their  clusters  are  bitter ; "  Isa.  v.  2,  "  And 
 He  looked  that  it  should  bring  forth  grapes,  and  it  brought 
 forth  W'ild  grapes ; "  !Micah  vii.  1.  Speaking  of  the  Jews,  John 
 the  Baptist  uttered  the  general  declaration,  "  Every  tree  that 
 bringeth  not  forth  good  fruit,  is  hewn  down  and  cast  into  the 
 fire."     The  same  words,  with  reference  to  the  same  people,  are 
 
 sacrament  of  union  with  Christ,  and  therefore  hoast  themselves  of  being  in 
 Christ ;  partly  because  they  are  esteemed  by  others  to  be  such  as  belong  to 
 the  mystical  body,  or  at  least  are  tolerated  in  the  external  communion  of 
 the  disciples. 
 
246  CHAP,  xiii.-xvii. 
 
 spoken  by  our  Lord  in  Matt.  vii.  19.  For  the  alpei,  we  may 
 compare  Luke  xiii.  7,  9.  There  the  fig-tree  which  was  to 
 be  cut  down  is  the  Jewish  people ;  and  the  alpei,  has  also  its 
 parallel  in  KaKoii^  KaKm  aTroXeaei,  avrov<;,  in  Matt.  xxi.  41.  The 
 branch  bearing  no  fruit  in  our  passage,  is  in  Matt.  xxi.  19  the 
 fig-tree  bearing  only  leaves.  In  Rom.  xi.,  the  olive-tree  is  an- 
 other parallel  to  the  vine ;  the  i^eKXdadrjaav  K\d8oc  corresponds 
 to  the  aipei  avro,  as  we  find  it  stated  of  the  Jews  in  Rom.  xi. 
 19.  The  reference  to  the  Jews  in  our  present  passage  will 
 hardly  be  misapprehended,  if  we  bear  in  mind  that  the  last 
 discourses  of  Christ  in  the  first  Evangelists,  and  especially  in 
 Matthew,  are  predominantly  concerned  with  the  judgment  which 
 was  to  befall  the  Jews  on  account  of  their  unbelief. 
 
 The  alliteration  between  alpeiv,  to  take  away,  and  KaOaipeiv, 
 to  purge,  goes  for  nothing,  as  it  exists  only  in  the  Greek,  and 
 the  verbs  themselves  have  nothing  in  common.  (Bengel : 
 Graceful  rhythm,  although  Kadaipco  is  not,  like  Karalpa),  from  v 
 aipo),)  That  even  the  fruit-bearing  branches  also  need  purging, 
 points  to  the  deep  and  thorough  corruption  of  human  nature. 
 Calvin  :  "  He  mentioned  the  purging,  because  our  flesh  abounds 
 in  superfluous  and  noxious  vices,  and  is  only  too  fruitful  of 
 them."  The  means  of  the  cleansing  are  manifold ;  and  many 
 other  passages  of  Holy  Scripture,  as  well  as  experience,  make 
 it  plain  that,  among  those  means,  tribulations  are  prominent. 
 Many  therefore  suppose  them  to  be  mainly  intended.  But  that 
 here  we  must  think  of  the  purifying  power  of  the  word,  is  clear 
 from  ver.  3.  Luther :  '•'  In  what  way  that  purifying  comes, 
 and  what  the  purification  truly  is  by  which  they  are  incorpo- 
 rated into  Christ  as  living  branches,  He  plainly  shows,  when 
 He  adds.  Now  ye  are  clean,  etc."  All  other  means  are  but 
 subsidiary  to  the  energy  of  this  first  and  main  instrument. 
 ^^  Ver.  3.  "  Now  ye  are  clean  through  the  word  which  I  have 
 spoken  unto  you." — The  Lord  had,  in  vers.  1  and  2,  spoken 
 generally.  Henceforth  He  speaks  with  specific  application  to 
 the  disciples.  He  says  here,  first,  that  they,  for  the  present, 
 belong  to  the  second  of  the  two  classes  indicated  in  ver.  2.  That 
 was  consolatory  to  their  minds ;  but  consolation  was  not  our 
 Lord's  real  end.  The  Lord's  admission  that  they  were  clean, 
 forms  only  a  transition  to  the  following  exhortation  to  abiding 
 in  Him,  which  is  the  real  pith  of  the  whole  section,  as  is  plain 
 
CHAP.  XV.  3.  247 
 
 enough  from  the  word  being  repeated  ten  times.  As  soon  as 
 they  forget  the  abiding,  they  fall  back  into  the  former  class. 
 Thus  it  was  equivalent  to  saying,  "  Now  ye  are  indeed  already 
 clean  ;  but — "  Liicke's  "  Be  ye  therefore  without  fear,  ye  will 
 never  be  cut  off,"  misses  altogether  the  right  point  of  view. — 
 The  purity  here  corresponds  to  the  fruit-bearing  in  ver.  2.  That 
 it  was  only  a  commencing  purification  which  they  had  received, 
 is  shown  by  the  relation  to  ver.  2,  where  it  is  seen  to  be  a  pro- 
 cess continually  going  on  in  the  fruit-bearing  branches :  by  the 
 following  words,  in  which  the  urgent  exhortation  to  abide  in 
 Christ  rests  upon  the  consideration  that  there  were  still  in  them 
 ifnpui'e  elements  which  struggled  to  get  the  mastery  again  ;  and 
 by  ver.  13,  according  to  which  Christ  must,  even  for  His  dis- 
 ciples, lay  down  His  life,  and  deliver  them  by  His  blood  from 
 their  sin.^ 
 
 The  source  or  cause  of  the  purity  of  the  disciples  is  stated 
 to  be  the  word  which  Christ  had  spoken  to  them.  That 
 excludes  every  notion  that  they  had  acquired  their  cleansing 
 by  any  efforts  of  their  own,  or  any  inherent  righteousness  pos- 
 sessed. The  Father,  in  whom,  according  to  ver.  2,  the  purifying 
 energy  has  its  final  source,  wrought  it  in  them  through  the  word 
 of  the  Son.  It  is  not  any  single  word  that  is  intended,  as  some 
 think,  who  appeal  to  eh.  xiii.  10  as  that  word ;  but  the  sum  of 
 all  that  which  Christ  had  spoken,  as  Peter  said  to  Him,  "  Thou 
 hast  the  words  of  eternal  life."  In  ver.  7  corresponds  "  and 
 My  words  abide  in  you,"  where  the  prjfiara  is  but  the  expan- 
 sion of  the  \6jo<i  in  our  present  passage.  Out  of  the  word  of 
 Christ  sprang  that  faith  to  which,  in  Acts  xv.  9,  the  purification 
 of  the  heart  is  ascribed.  Thus  the  word  is  the  final  and  proper 
 cause  of  purity.  To  the  word  of  Christ  a  high  importance  is 
 here  assigned ;  and  we  are  therefore  led  to  set  our  affection  upon 
 it,  to  meditate  upon  it  day  and  night,  and  absolutely  to  submit 
 our  wills  to  its  influence.  We  are  warned  against  the  deceitful- 
 ness  of  modern  theology,  which  assumes  to  be  censor  and  judge 
 of  the  word  which  cleanses  us,  and  wrests  and  perverts  it  every 
 
 1  Augustin :  Mundi  atque  mundandi.  Neque  enim  nisi  mundi  essent, 
 fructum  f erre  potuissent :  et  tamen  omnem,  qui  fert  fructum,  purgat  agri- 
 cola,  ut  fructum  plus  afferat.  Fert  fructum,  quia  mundus  est :  atque  ut 
 plus  afferat  purgatur  adlmc.  Quis  enim  in  hac  vita  sic  mundus,  ut  non  sit 
 magis  magisque  mundandus  ? 
 
248  CHAP,  xiii.-xvii. 
 
 way.  It  is  the  direct  consequence  of  the  importance  here 
 attached  to  the  word,  that  Christ  has  taken  cai'e  that  it  should 
 be  transmitted  to  His  Church  in  an  uncorrupted  and  pure  form. 
 As  the  complement  of  the  word  which  Christ  Himself  spoke 
 immediately  to  His  disciples,  we  have,  according  to  ch.  xvi. 
 13,  14,  that  which  He  has  communicated  by  His  Spirit  for  the 
 Church  of  all  ages. 
 
 ^  Ver.  4.  "  Abide  in  Me,  and  I  in  you.  As  the  branch  can- 
 not bear  fruit  of  itself,  except  it  abide  in  the  vine ;  no  more 
 can  ye,  except  ye  abide  in  Me." — To  the  fact  uttered  in  the  pre- 
 ceding verse,  is  now  adjoined  an  exhortation.  Then  the  Lord 
 develops  the  motives  which  must  afford  the  disciples  an  argu- 
 ment to  abide  in  Him :  that  abiding  alone  makes  them  capable 
 of  bearing  fruit,  vers.  4,  5.  Not  abiding,  is  to  fall  under  the 
 Divine  judgments,  ver.  6.  He  who  abideth  may  pray  with 
 assurance  of  being  heard,  ver.  7.  He  enters  into  an  intimate 
 fellowship  with  the  Father  and  the  Son,  ver.  8.  He  receives 
 the  portion  of  that  which,  to  the  Apostles,  was  the  best  and 
 highest  good — the  love  of  Christ,  ver.  9.  Then,  after  the  nature 
 of  this  abiding  is  still  further  explained  and  developed,  ver.  10, 
 there  follows  the  concluding  formula,  ver.  11,  "Abide  in  Me." 
 It  is  shown  by  what  follows  that  the  disciples  could  not  do  this 
 of  themselves,  and  of  their  own  power :  "  Without  Me  ye  can 
 do  nothing."  But  they  could,  like  Judas  and  the  Jews,  close 
 their  own  hearts ;  they  could  wickedly  hinder  the  efficacy  of  the 
 means  employed  by  Christ  in  order  to  their  abiding;  and  they 
 are  here  urgently  exhorted  not  to  do  that.  The  main  instru- 
 ment by  which  Christ  effects  our  abiding,  is,  according  to  ver. 
 3,  His  word.  Their  preservation  could  be  secured  only  by  the 
 same  means  which  wrought  the  beginning.  In  the  fundamen- 
 tal passage  relating  to  our  abiding  in  Christ,  John  vi.  56,  we 
 read,  "  He  that  eateth  My  flesh,  and  drinketh  My  blood,  abideth 
 in  Me,  and  I  in  him."  There  the  means  of  abiding  in  Christ 
 appears  to  be,  that  we  incessantly  receive  the  flesh  and  blood  of 
 Christ,  and  thereby  more  and  more  tanie  and  discipline  and 
 render  divine  our  own  flesh  and  blood.  This  factor  goes  hand 
 in  hand  with  the  Word  of  God.  That  Christ  should  be  more 
 and  more  evidently  formed  within  us,  is  the  tone  and  substance 
 of  the  Word  of  God.  Everything  in  it  points  to  that — Christ 
 attaining  a  full  life  in  us. 
 
CHAP.  XV.  5.  249 
 
 The  emphasis  thrown  upon  "  abide  in  Me"  by  our  Lord, 
 serves  for  the  refutation  of  the  doctrine  of  the  indefectibility  of 
 grace.  If  this  were  a  sound  doctrine,  our  whole  section  would 
 have  been  needless.  The  ten  times  repeated  abiding,  shows 
 that  there  is  not  merely  an  abstract  possibility  of  fallinsf,  but 
 the  most  urgent  danger  of  falling,  against  which  we  need  to  be 
 every  moment  pn  our  guard. 
 
 "  And  I  in  you."  Some  explain  this  as  if  the  exhortation 
 were  here  continued :  Do  your  diligence,  that  I  may  be  able  to 
 abide  in  you ;  by  your  own  abiding,  so  demean  yourselves,  that 
 I  may  still  abide  in  you.  But  it  is  simpler  to  take  it  thus  :  (So 
 I  also  abide  in  you.  Ch.  vi.  56  confirms  this  view.  Only  the 
 fiuvere  iv  ifioi  has  a  hortatory  meaning ;  as  is  plain  from  the 
 fact,  that  the  motive  and  inducement  presently  introduced  refer 
 to  that  alone. — As,  in  the  reason  urged  for  the  abiding  in  Christ, 
 all  fruit-bearing  is  made  dependent  upon  that  abiding,  this 
 is  a,  strong  denunciation  of  fallen  human  nature,  which  out  of 
 its  own  resources  can  produce  only  sin  or  delusive  virtue  ;  and 
 therefore  it  is  a  direct  refutation  of  all  Pelagianism.^ 
 
 Ver.  5.  "  I  am  the  vine,  ye  are  the  branches :  he  that  abid- 
 eth  in  Me,  and  I  in  him,  the  same  bringeth  forth  much  fruit ; 
 for  without  Me  ye  can  do  nothing." — The  first  words  do  not 
 contain  a  mere  repetition. .  The  words  which  had  been  formerly 
 spoken  generally  are  now  specifically  applied  to  the  relation  to 
 Christ  and  His  disciples,  in  order  to  draw  the  conclusion,  that 
 they  can  bear  fruit  only  in  fellowship  with  Him.  "  Ye  are 
 the  branches"  does  not  imply  that  the  disciples  were  the  only 
 branches.  It  is  rather  equivalent  to  saying:  My  relation  to 
 you  is  that  of  the  vine  to  the  branches.  This  does  not  exclude 
 the  fact,  that  with  them  there  were,  and  after  them  should  be, 
 other  branches.  That  there  were  other  branches,  and  that  the 
 Jews  in  particular  were  such,  is  shown  by  vers.  2  and  6.  The 
 absolute  relation  of  vine  to  the  branches,  which  Jesus  assumes 
 in  declaring  His  relation  to  His  disciples, — His  thus  making 
 Himself  to  be  unconditionally  the  source  of  all  spiritual  powers 
 
 1  Augustin  :  Magna  gratise  commendatio.  Nonne  huic  resistunt  veritati 
 homines  mente  corrupti,  reprobi  circa  fidem,  qui  loquuntur  iniquitatem 
 dicentes :  a  Deo  habemiis,  quod  homines  sumus,  a  nobis  ipsis,  quod  justi 
 sumus  ? — Qui  a  semetipso  se  fructum  existimat  ferre,  in  vite  nou  est ;  qui  in 
 vite  non  est  in  Cbristo  non  est,  qui  in  Christo  nou  est,  Christianus  non  est. 
 
250  CHAP.  XIII -XVII. 
 
 of  life, — presupposes  and  rests  upon  the  basis  of  His  divinity. 
 Aiigustin :  Quamvis  autem  Christus  vitis  non  esset  nisi  homo 
 esset :  tamen  istam  gratiam  palmitibus  non  prseberet  nisi  etiam 
 Deus  esset.     "  Without  Me  ye  can  do  nothing"  leads  to  the 
 deep  corruption  of  our  nature,  and  presupposes  the  irovrjpol  6We9 
 in  Matt.  vii.  11,  and  "  that  which  is  born  of  the  flesh  is  flesh" 
 of  ch.  iii.  6.     Thence  will  appear  at  the  same  time  the  necessity 
 of  the  closest  adherence  to  the  vine,  and  of  the  firmest  continu- 
 ance in  a  state,  to  relapse  from  which  is  to  fall  back  again  into 
 the  old  impotence.     Augustin  :  Non  ait,  sine  me  parum  potestis  \ 
 facere,  sed  nihil  potestis  facere.     Luther :  "  Thus  there  is  a  • 
 heavy  sentence  pronounced  upon  all  life  and  action,  however  ; 
 great  and  glorious  it  may  seem  to  be,  which  is  out  of  Christ : 
 man  can  do  nothing,  and  be  nothing,  out  of  Him." 
 
 Ver.  6.  "  If  a  man  abide  not  in  Me,  he  is  cast  forth  as  a 
 branch,'^nd  is  withered ;  and  men  gather  them,  and  cast  them 
 into  the  fire,  and  they  are  burned." — In  the  former  words  th© 
 abiding  in  Christ  was  commanded,  on  the  ground  that  it  alone 
 would  capacitate  them  to  bring  forth  fruit.  The  not  bearing 
 fruit  is  a  miserable  lot.  Hei'e  the  exhortation  assumes  a  still 
 more  solemn  character :  the  fire  is  the  issue  of  not  abiding. 
 "  If  any  man  abide  not  in  Me" — whether  it  be  that  he  never 
 made  a  beginning  of  fruit-bearing,  or  that  he  afterwards  fell 
 away  again,  and  thus  relapsed  into  the  state  of  the  not-bearing 
 branch,  ver.  1.  The  limitation  to  the  latter  part  of  the  alter- 
 native is  negatived  by  the  fact  that  there  is  reference  to  the 
 words,  "  Every  branch  in  Me  that  beareth  not  fruit,"  ver.  2, 
 which  evidently  here  have  their  full  development ;  as  also  by 
 the  fact  that  Jesus,  in  the  whole  verse,  has  primarily  in  view 
 the  unbelieving  Jews,  who  were  as  certainly  branches  in  Christ, 
 as  they  belonged  to  the  people  of  God  :  the  Jews  had  originally 
 stood  in  a  relation  to  Christ — He  was  their  divinely-appointed 
 Shepherd,  and  they  His  flock ;  but  they  did  not  abide  in  Him, 
 they  violently  sundered  themselves  from  Him.  A  comparison 
 with  Ezek.  xv.  makes  this  allusion  to  the  Jews  indubitable. 
 There  the  Jews  appear  under  the  image  of  a  degenerate  and 
 wild  vine,  which  was  fit  for  nothing  in  the  world  but  to  be  burnt : 
 "  Shall  wood  be  taken  thereof  to  do  any  work  ?  or  will  men 
 take  a  pin  of  it  to  hang  any  vessel  thereon  ?  Behold,  it  is  cast 
 into  the  fire  for  fuel."     We  are  led  to  the  same  result  by  the 
 
CHAP.  XV.  6.  251 
 
 parallel  with  the  last  discourses  of  Christ  in  ^Matthew,  which 
 for  the  most  part  refer  to  the  Divine  judgment  impending  over 
 the  degenerate  people.  Especially  we  must  bear  in  mind  the 
 symbolical  treatment  of  the  fig-tree  that  bore  no  fruit,  but  leaves 
 only,  Matt.  xxi.  18  seq.,  Mark  xi.  12-14 ;  as  also  the  parable  of 
 the  vineyard,  Matt.  xxi.  33,  Mark  xii.  1  seq.  As  this  last  refers 
 back  to  Jer.  v.,  so  our  present  parable  rests  upon  Ezek.  xv.  It 
 is  obvious,  however,  that  the  reference  to  the  Jews  is  only  the 
 primary  one,  and  not  the  sole.  The  Lord  speaks,  indeed,  to 
 such  as  have  already  become  Christians.  But  that  there  is  a 
 certain  latitude  of  interpretation,  which  will  refer  the  not  abiding, 
 or  the  falling  away,  to  the  Gentiles  who  were  to  be  called  into 
 the  kingdom  of  God,  is  taught  by  the  parable  of  the  guest  who 
 had  not  on  a  wedding  garment :  comp.  also  E,om.  xi.  22,  "  But 
 toward  thee  goodness,  if  thou  continue  (iav  i'm^eivrji)  in  His 
 goodness  ;  otherwise  thou  also  shalt  be  cut  off."  This  apostasy 
 shall  increase  in  a  special  manner  towards  the  final  period  of 
 the  kingdom  of  God.  That  the  rt?  designates  rather  an  ideal 
 person  than  an  individual,  a  unity  which  embraces  a  real 
 plurality  of  persons,  is  shown  by  the  following  avrd  in  the 
 plural,  which  in  the  Kaierat  returns  back  into  the  ideal  unity. 
 It  is  not  accidental  that  our  Lord  here  uses  the  third  person ; 
 not  saying,  "  If  ye  abide  not  in  Me,"  although  immediately 
 afterwards  the  direct  address  returns  in  ver.  7.  This  serves  to 
 intimate  that  the  not  abiding  and  the  cutting  off  of  Judas  would 
 not  apply  to  any  other  of  the  Apostles ;  that  to  the  remainder 
 belonged  rather  the  promises  addressed  to  such  as  should  abide 
 in  Christ. — The  two  aorists,  e^X'^Or)  and  i^rjpdvdr],  emphatically 
 indicate  that  the  guilt  is  at  once  followed  by  the  decree  of 
 punishment,  although  the  execution  of  that  doom  may  be  a  little 
 longer  delayed.  The  nm33  of  the  Mosaic  law  strictly  corre- 
 sponds. The  soul  that  broke  the  Divine  command  is  cut  off  at 
 the  moment  of  the  breach  itself. 
 
 The  being  cast  out  refers  to  exclusion  from  the  kingdom  of 
 God :  comp.  Matt.  viii.  12,  "  But  the  children  of  the  kingdom 
 iK^r]dr](TOVTat  {i/c  t?}?  ^aaiXeLa<;)  into  outer  darkness."  Matt.- 
 xxi.  43  gives  us  a  commentary  on  the  ipk-qdr]  e^co,  so  far  as 
 Jesus  had  the  Jews  in  His  eye  when  He  spoke :  "  The  kingdom 
 of  God  shall  be  taken  from  them,  and  shall  be  given  to  a  nation 
 bringing  forth  the  fruits  thereof."     The  guilt  corresponding  to 
 
252  CHAP,  xiii.-xvii. 
 
 this  retribution  we  have  in  Matt.  xxi.  39  :  "  And  they  took  him, 
 and  cast  him  out  of  the  vineyard."  They  thrust  the  Lord  of 
 glory  out  of  the  vineyard,  and  as  the  penalty  they  are  now 
 themselves  thrust  out ;  or,  at  the  moment  when  they  did  this, 
 they  did  really  cast  themselves  out:  comp.  also  Luke  xx.  16. — 
 "■^^  The  e^TjpdvOrj  has  here  the  same  meaning  as  in  the  case  of  the 
 fig-tree,  which  signifies  the  Jewish  people,  INIatt.  xxi.  19.  It 
 points  to  the  solemn  fact,  that  with  severance  from  Christ  all 
 life  and  prosperity  cease.  The  first  evidence  of  this  is  in  the 
 spiritual  and  ecclesiastical  life,  which  dies  away.  What  a  fear- 
 ful change  has  passed  upon  Judaism,  in  regard  to  this,  since  the 
 rejection  of  Christ!  How  saltless  and  vapid  has  everything 
 b.ecome !  But  the  withering  has  its  reference  also  to  outward 
 prosperity.  All  bloom  and  every  sign  of  well-being  passed  away 
 with  the  rejection  of  the  Messiah. 
 
 The  plural  auvouyovcn,  ^aXkovai,  is  significant :  it  can  refer 
 only  to  the  instrunients  of  the  Divine  judgment,  and  shows  that 
 that  judgment  is  to  be  executed  by  men.  Lampe :  Hoc  judi- 
 cium non  immediate  a  Deo  infligitur.  Pater  amputavit  pal- 
 mites  :  sed  plures  sunt  qui  eos  colligunt.  Comp.  Isa.  xiii.  3, 
 "  I  have  commanded  ]My  sanctified  ones ;  I  have  also  called 
 My  mighty  ones  for  Mine  anger;"  and  the  Lord's  own  word, 
 "  Where  the  carcase  is,  there  shall  the  eagles  be  gathered 
 together,"  in  which  the  eagles  point  to  the  Eoman  standards. 
 If  we  carefully  note  the  double  plural,  we  shall  not  hastily  with 
 Stier  interpret  the  fire  as  meaning  the  "  great  furnace  at  the 
 end  of  the  world."  It  signifies  rather  the  Divine  judgment,  as 
 in  Deut.  xxxii.  22  :  "  For  a  fire  is  kindled  in  Mine  anger"  (here 
 fire  is  evidently  expounded  as  wrath),  "  and  shall  burn  unto  the 
 lowest  hell ;  and  shall  consume  the  earth  with  her  increase,  and 
 set  on  fire  the  foundations  of  the  mountains."  Just  before,  we 
 read,  "  And  I  will  move  them  to  jealousy  with  those  that  are 
 not  a  people ;  I  will  provoke  them  to  anger  with  a  foolish 
 nation."  The  executioners  of  the  Divine  judgments  are, 
 throughout  the  chapter,  the  Gentiles.  The  Baptist  had  early 
 threatened  the  Jews  with  the  fire  of  Divine  judgment  in  case 
 they  scorned  to  be  baptized  by  Christ  with  the  Holy  Spirit,  the 
 sole  preservative  against  the  fire.  Mate.  iii.  10-12.  So  also  the 
 Redeemer  Himself  in  Matt.  vii.  19.  In  the  Apocalypse  the 
 fire  is  coynmonly  the  fire  of  the  Divine  wrath  :  comp.  my  com- 
 
CHAP.  XV.  7.  253 
 
 mentary  on  ch.iv.  5,  viii.  5,  xiv.  18.  The  material  fire  in  Matt. 
 xxii.  7,  "  And  he  sent  forth  his  armies,  and  destroyed  those 
 murderers,  koI  ttjv  ttoKiv  avrcov  iveTrprjae"  is  only  the  embodi- 
 ment of  this  spiritual  fire.  That  we  must  not  here  think  pri- 
 marily of  the  fire  of  hell,  the  final  manifestation  of  the  fire  of 
 the  Divine  wrath,  is  shown  by  the  original  passage  in  Ezekiel, 
 ch.  XV.  There  the  fire  is  that  of  the  Divine  judgment  by  the 
 hands  of  the  Chaldeans ;  and  the  material  of  the  fire  is  not 
 individuals  as  such,  but  the  catastrophe  has  a  national  import. 
 The  final  form,  however,  of  this  fire  is  of  course  the  fire  of  hell, 
 Matt.  V.  22,  XXV.  41,  xiii.  40,  42.  The  general  doctrine  is  this, 
 that  their  relation  to  Christ  involves  those  in  heavier  n-uilt  and 
 punishment  who  cease  from  His  fellowship,  and  who  thereby 
 sink  back  into  a  condition  which  is  far  worse  than  that  of  those 
 with  whom  He  never  entered  into  any  such  relation.^  The 
 truth  of  this  declaration  of  the  Redeemer  was  demonstrated  not 
 only  in  the  Jews,  but  also  in  many  early  flourishing  Christian 
 communities  and  peoples,  which  were  consumed  by  the  fire  of 
 the  wrath  of  God  because  they  failed  to  abide  in  the  Vine. 
 
 Ver.  7.  "  If  ye  abide  in  Me,  and  My  words  abide  in  you, 
 ye  shall  ask  what  ye  will,  and  it  shall  be  done  unto  you." — A 
 new  motive.  To  have  the  privilege  to  pray  with  acceptance  is 
 a  high  prerogative  ;  and  the  condition  of  that  privilege  is  abid- 
 ing in  Christ.  To  "  if  ye  abide  in  ]\Ie"  is  appended,  "  and 
 My  words  abide  in  you,"  in  order  to  impress  it  upon  the  dis- 
 ciples that  they  must  attach  supreme  importance  to  the  words 
 of  the  Lord,  and  give  them  all  their  due.  It  was  through  His 
 words  that  they  came  to  Christ,  and  their  retaining  His  words 
 that  would  decide  their  abiding  in  Him.  He  who  deals  frivo- 
 lously or  capriciously  with  Christ's  words,  who  partially  rejects 
 them,  or  evades  them  by  one-sided  interpretation,  deceives  him- 
 self if  he  thinks  that  he  abides  in  Christ.  Lachmann's  reading 
 alTrjcraaOe,  instead  of  anrjaeaOe,  is  condemned  by  the  fact  that 
 the  imperative  never  occurs  in  that  form.  4  The  future  is  in 
 ch.  xvi.  2Q  the  same  as  here ;  and  the  imperative  was  doubt- 
 less adopted  through  failure  to  understand  the  passage.     If  we 
 
 ^  Augustin :  Ligna  vitis  tanto  sunt  contemtibiliora  si  iu  vite  non  man- 
 serint,  quanto  gloriosiora  si  manserint.  Unum  de  duobus  palmiti  congruit, 
 aut  vitis  aut  ignis.  Si  in  vite  non  est,  in  igue  erit :  ut  ergo  in  igne  non  sit, 
 in  vite  sit. 
 
254  CHAP,  xiii.-xvii, 
 
 lose  sight  of  the  strict  and  inseparable  connection  of  these  words 
 with  those  which  follow,  we  may  suppose  that  the  future  yields 
 no  appropriate  meaning — as  if  every  man  might  ask  what  he 
 would ;  and  consequently  the  imperative,  giving  an  authority 
 for  such  asking,  would  seem  necessary.  But  if  we  pass  on  imme- 
 diately to  "  and  it  shall  be  done,"  it  becomes  manifest  that  the 
 words  speak  of  petition  that  may  he  granted. — The  limitation  to 
 "  what  ye  will"  is  given  by  what  precedes.  Supplication  for 
 temporal  good,  for  instance,  cannot  proceed  from  one  in  whom 
 Christ's  words  abide,  Luke  xii.  15  ;  his  mind  is  set,  and  set 
 wholly,  on  the  true  riches.  Augustin :  Aliud  volumus  quia 
 sumus  in  Christo,  et  aliud  volumus  quia  sumus  adhuc  in  hoc 
 seculo.  Here,  however,  we  must  think  especially  of  such  ask- 
 ing as  is  concerned  with  the  universal  interests  of  the  kingdom 
 of  God ;  for  the  Lord  is  not  so  much  speaking  to  individuals 
 as  to  the  Church  as  such,  represented  by  the  Apostles.  If  the 
 Church  abides  in  Christ,  she  cannot  fail  of  victory  over  the 
 world,  particularly  the  Jews,  and  then  over  the  whole  power  of 
 heathenism  :  comp.  on  ch.  xiv.  12.  All  the  Church's  power,  as 
 outward,  is  dependent  on  her  internal  relation  to  Christ.  If  all 
 is  well  there,  her  enemies  need  cause  no  alarm. 
 
 Ver.  8.  "  Herein  is  My  Father  glorified,  that  ye  bear  much 
 fruit.:  so  shall  ye  be  My  disciples." — We  have  here  also  a  mo- 
 tive to  abiding  in  Christ.  For,  according  to  what  has  preceded, 
 the  bringing  forth  fruit  is  dependent  on  that  abiding.  But  this 
 has  here  a  double  blessed  result.  First,  the  Father  is  glorified 
 by  it,  on  whose  ground  the  fruit  is  borne  (Bengel :  Multitudo 
 uvarum  honorifica  est  vinitori) ;  and  this  is  of  itself  a  blessed 
 thing,  fruitful  in  the  reward  that  follows  :  comp.  ch,  xiii.  32. 
 And  then,  secondly,  they  thereby  advance  more  and  more  into 
 the  blessed  condition  of  the  disciples  of  Christ,  whose  most 
 characteristic  token  is  the  bearing  much  fruit.  In  the  sermon  on 
 the  mount,  we  have  the  glorification  of  the  Father  set  forth  as  a 
 motive  to  zeal  in  good  works,  Matt.  v.  16.  In  regard  to  iSo^dadr], 
 the  proleptic  aorist,  comp.  Winer.  Before  yev^aeade,  we  must 
 supplement  iv  rovra.  Beza:  Ita  glorificabitur  Pater  meus,  et  ita 
 demum  eritis  mei  discipuli,  si  multum  fructum  attuleritis.  Some 
 expositors  interpret,  "  Thereby  My  Father  is  glorified  in  your 
 bringing  forth  much  fruit,  and  becoming  My  disciples."  But, 
 in  harmony  with  the  figure,  the  exhortation  refers  only  to  the 
 
CHAP.  XV.  9,  10.  255 
 
 bearing  of  fruit.  Tiie  result  that  they  become  disciples  in  rela- 
 tion to  Christ,  is  simply  parallel  with  the  result  that  the  Father 
 is  glorified  :  comp.  ver.  1 ;  eh.  viii.  31  also  is  in  favour  of  the 
 co-ordination,  lav  vfM6t<?  ^eivrjTe  iv  tc3  \oyw  rS  ifiw,  aXrjdci)^ 
 /jbadrjTat  fiov  eVre.  As  there,  so  here  also,  the  Lord  makes 
 the  becoming  disciples  a  promise.  'AkrjdSi<i  may  have  passed 
 over  from  that  passage  to  this.  The  e/xot  is  also  an  argument 
 for  the  co-ordination  of  Christ  with  the  Father.  The  becoming 
 disciples  also  could  scarcely  with  propriety  be  made  the  condi- 
 tion of  the  glorification  of  the  Father.  The  reading  fyevqcrOe 
 originated  in  an  incorrect  notion  concerning  the  dependence  of 
 .  tW,  which  only  in  a  few  exceptional  cases  is  connected  with  the 
 indicative  future.  The  saying  teaches  us  that  the  final  end  of 
 our  actions  should  be  the  good  pleasure  of  God  and  His  glory, 
 and  that  we  cannot  more  effectually  attain  that  object  than  by 
 zeal  in  good  works ;  and  the  fact  that  these  are  dependent  on 
 our  abiding  in  Christ,  should  urge  us  continually  to  adhere  to 
 Him.  Further,  we  are  taught  that  we  may  only  then  assure  our- 
 selves gf  our  intimate  relation  to  Christ,  when  there  is  in  ourselves 
 that  inseparable  result  of  abiding  in  Him,  the  bearing  of  fruit. 
 
 Ver.  9.  "  As  the  Father  hath  loved  Me,  so  have  I  loved 
 you  :  continue  ye  in  My  love." — The  last  motive  :  Abiding  in 
 Christ  is  the  only  means  of  retaining  the  highest  good,  Christ's 
 love.  "  As  the  Father  hath  loved  Me  :"  the  love  of  Jesus 
 receives  its  highest  significance  in  this,  that  it  is  the  reflection 
 of  the  Father's  love  to  Him.  The  love  of  Him  whom  the  Father 
 loveth  as  His  Son,  should  be  preserved  as  the  apple  of  our  eye. 
 The  word  is,  "  hath  loved  Me,"  because  only  those  demonstra- 
 tions of  the  Father's  love  to  the  Son  which  had  been  openly 
 witnessed  come  here  into  consideration.  "  My  love"  can  be  only 
 the  love  ,of  Christ  to  His  people,  not  the  love  of  His  people  to 
 Him.  They  would  abide  in  this  love,  if  they  did  not,  like  the 
 Jews,  constrain  Him  through  their  apostasy  to  withdraw  His 
 love  from  them  ;  or,  in  other  words,  if  they  kept  His  command 
 ments,  ver.  10.  Strictly  parallel  with  this  is,  in  Rom.  xi.  22, 
 the  "  continuing  in  His  goodness,"  not  losing  it  through  apos- 
 tasy. Christ's  love  is  suggested  also  by  a  comparison  of  the 
 abiding  in  the  vine,  "  in  Me,"  ver.  4.  Accordingly,  here  also 
 the  discourse  must  refer  to  abiding  in  an  objective  person. 
 
 Ver.  10.  "  If  ye  keep  My  commandments,  ye  shall  abide  in 
 
256  CHAP,  xiii.-xvii. 
 
 My  love;  even  as  I  have  kept  My  Father's  commandments, 
 and  abide  in  His  love." — That  the  a-'yairr]  (mov  is  the  love  of 
 Christ  to  His  people,  is  evident  from  the  corresponding  djaTrr] 
 e/i?7  in  ver.  9.  Consequently,  the  love  of  God  also  at  the  end 
 must  be  the  love  of  God  to  Christ,  not  the  love  of  Christ  to 
 God.  To  this  we  are  led  also  by  ch.  x.  17  :  "  For  this  cause 
 My  Father  loveth  Me,  because  I  lay  down  My  life."  The 
 laying  down  the  life  there  corresponds  to  the  keeping  the  com- 
 mandments of  God  here.  This  was  manifested  especially  in  the 
 fact,  that  Christ,  in  obedience  to  the  will  of  the  Father,  pre- 
 sented the  atoning  sacrifice.  "  Even  as  I  have  kept,"  etc., 
 hangs  on  ver.  9.  As  Christ's  love  to  His  people  is  the  reflet- 
 tion  of  the  Father's  love  to  Him,  it  is  natural  that  its  main- 
 tenance should  rest  on  the  same  condition.  We  have  here 
 generally  a  thought  which  is  the  counterpart  of  ver.  9.  To 
 the  exhortation  of  that  verse,  urging  the  disciples  to  continue 
 in  the  enjoyment  of  His  love,  is  here  appended  an  indication  of 
 the  means  in  order  to  that  continuance. 
 
 Ver.  11.  "These  things  have  1  spoken  unto  you,  that  My 
 joy  might  remain  in  you,  and  that  your  joy  might  be  full." — 
 Properly  "might  be  in  you,"  not  "might  remain  ;"  it  is  97,  not 
 fi€ivrj.  My  joy,  in  contradistinction  to  your  joy,  can  only  be 
 the  joy  of  Christ  in  His  disciples  or  over  them  ;  especially  as 
 the  interpretation,  "My  joy  fulness  may  be  in  you,"  is  opposed 
 altogether  by  the  phraseology.  The  joy  of  Christ  is  described 
 as  being  in  His  people,  inasmuch  as  it  is  a  transcendent  passion 
 or  affection,  which  penetrates  its  object,  and  sinks  into  it  en- 
 tirely. In  the  Hebrew,  verbs  expressing  joy  are  frequently 
 connected  with  2.  In  the  same  way  as  joy  is  spoken  of  here,  it 
 is  spoken  of  also  in  Luke  xv.  5,  7,  10.  Comp.  Eph.  iv.  30, 
 according  to  which  the  Holy  Ghost  is  grieved  by  the  sins  of  the 
 elect.  But  there  are  Old  Testament  passages  which  expressly 
 illustrate  it :  such  as  Ps.  xlv.  9,  where  it  is  said,  in  reference  to 
 the  bride  of  the  Divine  King  of  the  future  age,  "  Out  of  the 
 ivory  palaces,  whereby  they  have  made  thee  glad;"  Isa.  Ixii.  5, 
 "  As  the  bridegroom  rejoiceth  over  the  bride,  so  shall  thy  God 
 rejoice  over  thee ;"  and  Zeph.  iii.  17,  "  The  Lord  thy  God  in 
 the  midst  of  thee  is  mighty ;  He  will  save.  He  will  rejoice  over 
 thee  with  joy,  He  will  rest  in  His  love,  He  will  joy  over  thee 
 with  singing." 
 
CHAP.  XV.  11.  257 
 
 The  joy  of  the  disciples  keeps  pace  with  the  joy  of  the 
 Redeemer.  That  joy  is  fulfilled  when  it  attains  its  chmax  : 
 comp.  on  ch.  iii.  29.  It  therefore  means,  "And  the  highest 
 joy  shall  be  yours."  The  climax  of  all  joy  is  the  consciousness 
 of  being  and  abiding  in  Christ :  comp.  Song  of  Solomon  i.  4, 
 "The  king  hath  brought  me  to  his  chambers.  We  will  be 
 glad  and  rejoice  in  thee.  We  will  remember  thy  love  more 
 than  wine." — We  have  here  the  concluding  formula  of  the 
 first  part  of  Christ's  farewell  discourses.  That  which  He  lays 
 down  as  the  design  of  His  words  (comp.  ch.  xvi.  1,  33),  which 
 exhort  to  abiding  in  Him,  is  at  the  same  time  a  motive  to  that 
 abiding.  Who  must  not  wish  that  Christ  may  be  able  to  re- 
 joice in  him  ?  And  who  would  rob  himself  of  his  own  joy, 
 which  rises  or  declines  in  proportion  as  Christ's  command  to 
 abide  in  Him  is  responded  to  ? 
 
 There  follows  now,  in  vers.  12-17,  the  New  Testament 
 supplement  of  the  second  table  of  the  law.^  As  in  the  former 
 section  abiding  was  the  watchword,  so  now  it  is  love.  Jesus 
 bases  the  commandment  of  Christian  brotherly  love  upon  the 
 type  and  example  of  His  own  love,  ver.  12.  The  greatness  of 
 His  love  He  exhibits  by  intimating  that  it  urged  Him  to  lay 
 down  His  life  for  His  friends,  ver.  13.  To  such  great  love 
 they  were  to  respond — this  is  a  second  motive — by  obedience  to 
 His  commandments,  especially  that  of  brotherly  love,  ver.  14. 
 His  love,  however,  did  not  declare  itself  merely  in  His  sacri- 
 ficial death ;  it  finds  expression  also  in  this,  that  He  makes  His 
 friends  sharers  and  fellow-partakers  of  His  knowledge  of  the 
 mysteries  of  God,  ver.  15  ;  and  this  was  all  the  more  a  reason 
 why  they  should  return  His  love  by  faithful  obedience,  espe- 
 cially in  reference  to  His  commandment  of  brotherly  love. 
 And  they  should  further  be  urged  to  love  by  the  consideration, 
 that  Jesus,  vers.  16, 17,  who  elected  them,  and  therefore  had  the 
 right  to  impose  the  conditions  of  their  relation  to  Him,  specified 
 as  those  conditions  that  they  should  bring  forth  fruit,  and  spe- 
 cifically that  they  should  love  one  another.  Thus  we  have  here 
 three  motives  :  the  example  of  Christ ;  the  obedience  to  which 
 they  are  bound  by  His  love ;  and  the  fulfilment  of  the  condition 
 under  which  their  election  was  vouchsafed  to  them. 
 
 1  J.  Gerlaard :   Duo  exhortationis  capita ;    primo  ut  vere  credentea 
 uniret  sibi,  secundo  ut  'eos  unixet  inter  se  invicem. 
 
 VOL.  II.  E 
 
258  CHAP.  XIII.-XVII. 
 
 f  Ver.  12.  "  This  is  My  commandment,  That  ye  love  one 
 another,  as  I  have  loved  you." — This  is  My  commandment : 
 that  is,  in  regard  to  your  relation  to  each  other.  By  aXK'))Kov^ 
 the  domain  is  indicated  in  which  this  commandment  is  all  in 
 all.  If  we  fail  to  bear  in  mind  the  limitation  prescribed  by 
 the  context,  we  must  needs  interpret  it  by  saying  that  brotherly 
 love  is  only  a  single  expression  of  a  generally  renewed  and 
 right  Christian  spirit,  that  it  shows  in  one  point  the  goodness 
 of  all,  and  that  therefore  this  commandment  is  in  a  certain 
 sense  the  only  one.  Augustin :  "  Where  there  is  love,  there 
 must  be  faith  and  hope ;  and  where  there  is  brotherly  love, 
 there  must  be  also  the  love  of  God."  But  the  Scripture  is  not 
 wont  to  speak  thus ;  it  does  not  place  thus  in  the  background 
 the  first  and  great  commandment.  We  read  in  Eom.  xiii.  that 
 "love  is  the  fulfilling  of  the  law;"  the  connection  teaches  us — 
 especially  ver.  8,  "  Owe  no  man  anything,  but  to  love  one  an- 
 other :  he  that  loveth  his  neighbour  hath  fulfilled  the  law" — 
 that  the  fulfilment  of  the  law  is  meant  so  far  as  it  refers  to  our 
 relation  to  one  another. 
 
 Ver.  13.  "  Greater  love  hath  no  man  than  this,  that  a  man 
 lay  down  his  life  for  his  friends." — The  injunction  of  brotherly 
 love  had  been  grounded  on  the  love  of  Christ  to  His  disciples. 
 The  strength  of  His  own  love  our  Lord  here  further  declares, 
 and  thus  points  to  the  strength  of  the  obligation  entailed,  and 
 the  height  of  the  demand  which  gratitude  urged.  "  He  teaches 
 us,"  says  Quesnel,  "  as  our  Master,  our  love  to  the  brethren ;  to 
 copy  the  love  which  He  bears  to  us."  If  I  have  loved  you  to  the 
 extent  of  sacrificing  My  life  for  you,  ye  must  also  have  a  fervent 
 and  self-sacrificing  love  to  each  other.  We  have  the  unfolding 
 of  the  same  thought  in  1  John  iii.  16,  Eph.  v.  1,  2.  Jesus  here 
 speaks  of  the  laying  down  of  His  life,  in  allusion  to  Isa.  liii.  10 : 
 comp.  on  ch.  x.  11,  where  the  sheep  correspond  to  XhQ  friends 
 of  this  passage.  That  the  death  of  Christ  comes  into  view  as  a 
 sacrificial  death,  is  evident  from  the  reference  to  a  passage  in 
 the  Old  Testament  that  treats  of  the  sacrificial  death  of  the 
 servant  of  God.  A  death  of  mere  devotion  is  quite  unsuitable 
 here.  Christ  did  not  save  the  life  of  His  disciples  by  dying  for 
 them.  Even  'Ris  friends  need  an  atoning  sacrifice  ("  And  hath 
 given  Himself  for  us  an  offering  and  sacrifice  to  God,  irpocr^opav 
 Koi  Ovaiav,''  as  we  read  in  Eph.  v.  2).   So  active  is  sin  and  the 
 
CHAP.  XV.  14,  15  259 
 
 corresponding  wrath  of  God.  The  friends  here  are,  liowever, 
 to  be  distinguished  from  the  sinners  and  enemies  of  Horn.  v.  8, 
 10;  and  Liicke's  remark,  that  "only  because  He  in  His  love 
 thinks  of  sinners  as  friends,  does  He  die  for  them,"  fails  to 
 meet  the  case.  What  Paul  there  wrote,  St  John  could  not 
 here  have  written.  The  Apostles  to  whom  Christ  is  here 
 speaking  were  not  sinners  and  enemies  in  the  sense  in  which 
 St  Paul  there  speaks  of  sinners  and  enemies.  "  Greater  love :" 
 love  is  here  spoken  of  in  relation  to  the  disciples,  who  were 
 already  friends.  Hence  there  is  no  propriety  in  the  objection 
 that  has  been  urged,  viz.  that  love  to  enemies  and  dying  for 
 them  was  greater.  In  relation  to  friends,  the  offering  up 
 of  life  is  the  greatest  demonstration  of  love.  Luther  says : 
 "  He  is  so  gentle  and  tender  to  them,  that  He  speaks  into  their 
 heart  this  last  commandment  that  He  leaves  them  ;  impressing 
 upon  them  that  they  should  consider  and  think  how  He  loved 
 them,  and  what  He  had  done  for  them.  This  is  My  command- 
 ment :  I  lay  it  upon  you,  and  demand  it  as  the  return  of  My 
 great  and  unspeakable  love,  if  indeed  ye  would  that  men  should 
 hioiv  you  for  My  disciples" 
 
 Ver.  14.  "  Ye  are  My  friends,  if  ye  do  whatsoever  I  com- 
 mand you." — We  have  here  a  second  motive.  In  the  preceding 
 verse,  the  injunction  of  brotherly  love  had  been  based  upon  the 
 example  of  Christ.  Here  it  is  based  upon  the  obedience  which 
 the  disciples  of  Christ  as  His  friends  are  bound  to  render.  As 
 friends  He  treats  His  disciple*,  when  He  gives  up  His  life  for 
 them  ;  as  friends  they  should  approve  themselves,  by  fulfilling 
 His  commandment,  and  thus  loving  one  another. 
 
 Yer.  15.  "Henceforth  I  call  you  not  servants  ;  for  the  ser- 
 vant knoweth  not  what  his  lord  doeth :  but  I  have  called  you 
 friends  ;  for  all  things  that  I  have  heard  of  My  Father  I  have 
 made  known  unto  you." — Tiie  practical  reasoning  runs  as  in 
 ver.  14.  Christ  treats  His  disciples  as  friends,  not  only  by 
 dying  for  them,  but  also  by  the  free  communication  of  all  that 
 which  He  had  heard  of  the  Father.  Such  love  they  should 
 requite  by  fulfilling  His  commandments,  especially  that  of 
 loving  one  another.  Aov)^^  is  here  the  antithesis  of  0t\o9  :  a 
 servant  and  nothing  more,  a  mere  slave.  The  absolute  depend- 
 ence of  the  disciples  on  Christ  can  never  cease  :  even  as  friends, 
 they  still  are  servants:  comp.  ch.  xiii.  13,  16,  and  here,  ver.  20. 
 
260  CHAP.  XIII.-XVII. 
 
 EiprjKa  refers  to  what  had  just  been  spoken.     The  Lord  had     , 
 at  an  earher  period  termed  the  disciples  friends,  Luke  xii.  4  ;    i , 
 but  now  the  relation  of  friendship  had  reached  its  point  of 
 consummation  through  the  perfected  revelation  of  the  Divine 
 counsels,  mysteries,   and  doctrines.      "  All   things  : "    this  is 
 spoken  generally,  and  does  not  exclude  the  fact  that  there  was 
 very  much  to  be  imparted  to  the  disciples  at  a  later  period,  • 
 which  they  were  not  as  yet  able  to  hear  (comp.  ch.  xiv.  26,  xvi. 
 12-14),  as  also  that  there  was  much  which  our  Lord  withheld 
 from  the  disciples,  as  generally  transcending  human  capacity,v 
 and  having  no  tendency  to  further  them  in  the  way  of  salva- 
 tion.    Suffice  that  Jesus  withheld  nothing  from  them  through 
 lack  of  love ;  and  the  limitation  which  Calvin  expresses  is  plain 
 from  the  nature  of  the  case :  "  Nothing  of  those  things  which \ 
 concerned  our  salvation,  and  which  it  imported  that  we  should   1 
 know."   The  expression  implies  obviously  the  absolute  supremacy  J 
 of  the  person  of  Christ,  and  the  infinite  interval  between  Him 
 and  His  disciples.     What  endless  love  was  it,  that  the  eternal 
 Son  of  the  Father  should  communicate  to  poor  mortals  those 
 mysteries   Avhich    He  possessed   through  fellowship  with   His 
 Father ;  and  how  urgent  the  obligation  to  requite  that  love  with 
 obedience  !     The  form  of  expression  suggests  the  similarity  of 
 Jer.  xxi.  10. 
 
 The  Old  Testament  revelation  was  a  prelude  of  the  revela- 
 tion perfected  in  the  Son,  Heb.  i.  1 ;  and  the  rather,  as  even  in 
 the  prophets  it  was  the  Spirit  of  Christ  who  spake,  1  Pet.  i.  11. 
 
 Vers.  16,  17.  "  Ye  have  not  chosen  Me,  but  I  have  chosen 
 you,  and  ordained  you,  that  ye  should  go  and  bring  forth  fruit, 
 and  that  your  fruit  should  remain ;  that  whatsoever  ye  shall  ask 
 of  the  Father  in  My  name.  He  may  give  it  you.  These  things 
 I  command  you,  that  ye  love  one  another." — A  new  reason,  the 
 third.  The  disciples  did  not  choose  Christ,  but  Christ  chose  the 
 disciples.  Therein  lay  the  propriety  of  His  laying  down  the 
 conditions  of  discipleship.  One  fundamental  condition  is,  that 
 they  bear  fruit ;  and  it  was  therefore  necessary  that  they  should 
 love  one  another,  for  brotherly  love  is  part  of  the  fruit  of  dis- 
 cipleship.— The  choosing  here,  as  in  ch.  vi.  70,  xiii.  18,  is  the  Ni 
 assumption  into  the  number  of  the  Apostles.  And  the  enume- 
 ration among  the  faithful  was  of  course  included.  To  ask 
 whether  the  election  referred  to  the  Apostles  or  to  the  believers, 
 
CHAP.  XV.  IC,  17.  261 
 
 is  as  perverse  as  to  ask  whether  in  1  Sam.  xvi.  13  the  gift  of 
 the  Spirit,  common  to  all  believers,  is  spoken  of,  or  the  royal 
 charisma.  When  applied  to  all  believers,  the  term  refers  only 
 to  the  Christian  privilege  or  state,  as  such.  The  ordaining 
 marks  the  high  and  independent  prerogative  of  assigning  their 
 lot.  The  word  vTrdjeLV,  "  that  ye  should  go,"  is  not  superfluous ;  j 
 but  it  points  to  the  fact  that  Christianity  is  such  a  continuous 
 movement  of  life.  The  bringing  forth  fruit  embraces  at  once 
 the  good  works  which  are  common  to  all  believers,  and  those 
 wdiich  were  peculiar  to  the  apostolical  office.  That  it  here 
 stands  specially  connected  with  Christian  brotherly  love,  is 
 manifest  from  its  connection  with  what  precedes ;  and  in  ver.  17 
 it  is  expressly  asserted. 
 
 The  words,  "  that  your  fruit  should  remain  :  that  w^hatso- 
 ever  ye  shall  ask  the  Father  in  My  name,  He  may  give  it  you," 
 forsake  the  main  thought,  and  indicate,  by  the  way,  what  would 
 abundantly  encourage  the  disciples  in  the  fulfilment  of  the  duty 
 of  their  vocation  to  bring  forth  fruit.  The  fruit  would  approve 
 itself  to  be  abiding — as  fruit  that  does  not  perish,  but  has  the 
 best  results  (comp.  1  Cor.  xv.  58,  "  knowing  that  your  labour 
 is  not  in  vain  in  the  Lord") — by  this,  that  it  would  place  the 
 disciples  in  the  blessed  condition  of  offering  acceptable  prayer, 
 and  prayer  that  would  always  be  answered  :  comp.  on  eh.  xiv. 
 13  and  xvi.  23.  By  their  fruit  they  would  show  themselves  to 
 be  the  genuine  disciples  of  Christ ;  and  to  such  the  Father  can 
 deny  nothing  which  they  ask  in  the  name  of  His  Son.  That 
 every  offence  against  love  affects  injuriously  the  offering  of 
 acceptable  prayer,  had  been  many  times  impressed  uj^on  them 
 by  their  Master :  comp.  Matt.  vi.  14,  15,  v.  23,  and  Peter's 
 words  in  1  Pet.  iii.  7. — Ver.  17  serves  at  one  and  the  same  time 
 as  the  complement  of  the  thought  in  ver.  16,  and  as  the  final 
 formula  for  the  whole  section,  corresponding  to  the  close  of  the 
 first  section  in  ver.  11. 
 
 The  relation  of  the  disciples  to  Christ,  to  each  other,  to  the 
 world,  are  the  three  fundamental  points  which  needed  establish- 
 ment, definition,  and  adjustment.  Our  Lord  comes  to  the  last 
 in  ch.  XV.  18-xvi.  11,  not  as  it  were  fortuitously,  as  if  the  in- 
 junction of  brotherly  love  naturally  suggested  the  hatred  of  the 
 world.  That  is  only  the  formal  link  of  connection  between  the 
 two  sections,  which  does  not  affect  the  independent  import  of 
 
262  CHAP,  xiii.-xvii. 
 
 this  latter.  Still  less  are  we  to  suppose  that  the  hatred  of  the 
 world  is  introduced  merely  to  strengthen  the  motive,  or  add  one 
 to  the  motives,  to  enforce  the  exhortation  to  brotherly  love  con- 
 tained in  the  previous  section.  (Lampe  :  Tacite  novo  argu- 
 mento  prseceptum  amoris  fraterni  stabilitur.  Illis  enim  potissi- 
 mum  incumbit,  ut  vi  unita  fortiores  se  reddant,  quibus  multi 
 et  timendi  hostes  imminent.)  There  is  nothing  to  warrant  such 
 a  view  ;  and  the  introduction  of  it  tends  greatly  to  imperil  the 
 independence  of  a  section  so  important  as  this.  It  was  of  the 
 greatest  moment  that  the  disciples  should  rightly  apprehend 
 their  relation  to  the  world — that  they  should  be  rightly  per- 
 suaded at  the  very  outset  that  they  would  have  nothing  to 
 expect  from  the  world  but  hatred  and  persecution — and  that 
 they  should  know  the  reason  of  this.  Otherwise  the  "  strange- 
 ness" of  it,  1  Pet.  iv.  12,  would  have  led  them  into  great 
 temptations.  In  ch.  xvi.  1,  the  Lord  declares  that  the  aim  of 
 His  communication  was  expressly  to  obviate  temptations  from 
 that  source.  If  the  disciples  knew  from  the  beginning  what 
 they  had  to  expect  from  the  world — if  they  discerned  it  as  a 
 necessity,  based  upon  the  relation  of  the  world  to  Christ  and 
 to  the  Father, — then  persecution,  whenever  it  set  in,  could  have 
 no  strength  to  mislead  them  as  to  their  Master's  cause;  it  would 
 rather  strengthen  their  faith  in  Him  who  had  so  clearly  and 
 expressly  set  before  them  what  they  had  to  expect  from  the 
 world.  But  the  Lord  does  not  limit  Himself  to  a  description 
 of  their  danger,  and  a  development  of  its  necessity  :  He  refers 
 the  Apostles  also  to  the  help  which  they  might  look  for ;  and 
 the  Church  has,  from  the  day  of  Pentecost  downwards,  gloriously 
 realized  that  promise. 
 
 The  formal  articulation  of  the  section  is  seen  in  the  circum- 
 stance, that  according  to  the  common  division  of  seven  into  five 
 and  two,  the  watchword  world  occurs  five  times  at  the  beginning, 
 and  twice  at  the  close.  It  may  be  distributed  thus :  the  hatred 
 of  the  world  and  its  cause  generally,  vers.  18-25  ;  and  the  pre- 
 liminary reference  to  the  help  to  be  afforded  in  encountering  it, 
 vers.  26,  27.  Then  in  ch.  xvi.  1-4  we  have  the  climax  of  the 
 hatred,  its  paroxysms  (to  use  Bengel's  expression)  ;  and  there- 
 upon, in  vers.  5—11,  the  still  more  developed  reference  to  the 
 sending  of  the  Paraclete. — In  ch.  xv.  18—25,  the  arrangement 
 is  as  follows  :  the  Lord  first,  in  vers.  18-20,  exhibits  the  hatred 
 
CHAP.  XV.  18.  263 
 
 of  the  world  towards  His  disciples  as  the  necessary  fruit  of  their 
 hatred  to  Plim  ;  then,  in  vers.  21—24,  He  refers  back  their 
 hatred  to  Himself  to  their  hatred  to  the  Father ;  and  finally,  in 
 ver.  25,  He  points  to  the  fact,  that  the  Jews,  the  portion  of  the 
 %vorld  then  before  His  eyes,  only  fulfilled,  through  their  hatred 
 to  Him,  the  predictions  of  the  Old  Testament  Scripture. 
 
 Ver.  18.  "If  the  Avorld  hate  you,  ye  know  that  it  hated  Me 
 before  it  hated  you." — That  yivwa-Kere  is  imperative,  the  cor- 
 responding fivijiMovevere  in  ver.  20  shows.  The  Lord's  meaning 
 refers  to  a  living  knowledge,  which  alone  is  able  to  furnish 
 effectual  aid  against  the  assaults  of  temptation.  If  the  world 
 first  hated  Christ,  its  hatred  must  have  rested  on  some  essential 
 principle  of  necessity ;  and  true  Christians  must  be  conscious 
 of  a  stronff  willino-ness  to  submit  to  a  hatred  which  is  the  in- 
 separable  concomitant  of  membership  in  Christ,  and  the  absence 
 of  which  infers  the  absence  of  that  union.  Augustin  :  "  Thou 
 refusest  to  be  in  the  body,  if  thou  declinest  to  bear  with  Christ 
 the  hatred  of  the  world."  Bernard  :  "  Do  not  the  members 
 follow  the  body  ?  If  we  receive  good  things  from  our  Head, 
 why  should  we  not  also  endure  evil  ?  Do  we  wish  to  reject  the 
 troublesome,  and  communicate  with  Him  only  in  the  pleasant  ? 
 It  is  not  a  great  thing  that  the  member  should  suffer  with  the 
 Head,  when  with  the  Head  it  will  be  glorified."  Luther :  "  Had 
 they  not  first  hated  Christ,  they  would  not  now  hate  me.  But 
 because  they  hated  Plim  who  died  for  them,  what  wonder  that 
 they  oppose  me :  what  am  I  in  comparison  of  the  Lord"?"  He 
 who  duly  considers  that  the  world  hated  Christ  before  it  hated 
 himself,  will  not,  when  the  world's  hatred  presses  him  hard, 
 yield  to  the  temptation  to  think  that  Christ  might  have  spared 
 him  these  heavy  assaults,  and  to  murmur  because  He  has  not. 
 He  will  rather  regard  his  trial  as  the  seal  of  his  union  with 
 his  Lord.  In  the  ivorld  the  Lord  saw  primarily  that  phase  of 
 the  woxdd  with  which  the  disciples  had  pre-eminently  to  do — 
 Judaism.  This  is  proved  by  the  present,  /xiaei,  in  reference  to 
 the  disciples ;  by  the  perfect,  /xefjbla-rjKev,  in  reference  to  Christ ; 
 by  the  sequel,  wherein  Jesus  speaks  of  those  who  had  heard 
 His  discourses,  and  had  seen  His  works ;  by  ver.  25,  where  the 
 Lord  refers  to  those  who  were  subject  to  the  law  ;  and  by  the 
 airoavva^oyyov<;,  in  ch.  xvi.  2.  He  introduces  here  a  new  prin- 
 ciple of  division,  to  which  a  Jew  would  find  it  hard  to  reconcile 
 
264  CHAP.  XIII.- xvii. 
 
 himself.  Hitherto  Judaism  and  heathenism  had  confronted 
 each  other.  Now,  however,  the  contrast  is  simply  between  the 
 world  and  the  Church ;  and  unbelieving  Judaism,  in  spite  of 
 the  law,  and  circumcision,  and  the  Passover,  must  needs  sink 
 into  a  subdivision  of  the  world.  But  obviously  the  Jews  were 
 only  primarily  meant.  The  idea  of  the  world  embraces  in  itself 
 "  all  nations,"  all  the  children  of  Adam  who  have  not,  by  union 
 with  Christ,  been  redeemed  from  their  natural  ruin  and  regene- 
 rated, and  by  abiding  in  Him  maintained  their  new  estate. 
 
 Ver.  19.  "If  ye  were  of  the  world,  the  world  would  love  his 
 own :  but  because  ye  are  not  of  the  world,  but  I  have  chosen 
 you  out  of  the  world,  therefore  the  world  hateth  you." — The 
 hatred  of  the  world  does  not  aim  at  human  weakness  in  the 
 disciples.  It  is  evoked  rather  by  their  good  side,  that  which 
 they  have  specifically  Christian,  the  image  of  Christ  stamped 
 upon  them.  In  this  the  world  beholds  something  strange  and 
 repulsive ;  something  unfamiliar  and  intolerable,  because  it,  in 
 act  and  reality,  is  a  continual  protest  against  the  world.  On 
 "  the  world  would  love  its  own,"  Luther  says :  "  But  He  speaks 
 as  to  matters  concerning  the  Gospel.  Here  they  all  agree 
 together — Pilate,  Herod,  Caiaphas,  Judas,  and  all  devils — 
 against  Christ  and  His  people,  however  otherwise  at  enmity 
 among  themselves.  Towards  each  other,  apart  from  Christ, 
 they  are  such  friends  as  dogs  and  cats ;  but  in  all  that  concerns 
 Christ  they  are  quite  unanimous  in  their  hatred."  With  all 
 subordinate  differences,  there  remains  ever  an  absolute  concord 
 in  the  essential  matter.  The  election  manifests  itself  in  this, 
 that  Christ  impresses  upon  those  who,  like  others,  were  children 
 of  wrath  (Eph.  ii.  3),  His  own  stamp ;  renews  in  them  His  own 
 image  ;  imparts  to  them  thoughts,  inclinations,  and  tempers, 
 altogether  different  from  those  of  the  world,  springing  from  a 
 source  quite  other  than  that  opened  by  the  fall.  Thei^ce  arises 
 a  contrast  which  has  no  parallel,  and  which  conceals  beneath  it 
 no  latent  principle  of  unity. — If  the  hatred  of  the  world  springs 
 from  the  source  thus  indicated,  it  ought  not  to  be  matter  of 
 dismay,  but  rather  to  be  rejoiced  in  as  a  sign  of  election,  the 
 highest  prerogative  of  man. 
 
 Ver.  20.  "  Remember  the  word  that  I  said  unto  you.  The 
 servant  is  not  greater  than  his  lord.  If  they  have  persecuted 
 Me,  they  will  also  persecute  you  ;  if  they  have  kept  My  ■saying, 
 
CHAP.  XV.  20.  265 
 
 they  will  keep  yours  also." — The  saying,  "  The  servant  is  not 
 greater  than  his  lord,"  had  been  spoken,  ch.  xiii.  16,  in  another 
 connection :  the  disciples  were  not  to  fail  in  or  shrink  from 
 those  manifestations  of  love  in  which  their  Master  had  preceded 
 them  as  their  example.  This  was  His  primary  meaning ;  but 
 the  translation  of  this  watchword  into  another  region  w^ould  be 
 all  the  more  easily  understood  by  the  disciples,  inasmuch  as 
 Jesus  had  once  before,  IMatt.  x.  24,  used  it  in  precisely  the  same 
 way.  The  rrjpecv  rov  \6jov  must  mean,  following  the  parallels, 
 retaining  the  word  in  mind,  as  opposed  to  a  thoughtless  forget- 
 fulness,  and  a  scornful  rejection  of  it :  comp.  ch.  viii.  51,  52,  55, 
 xiv.  15,  21,  23,  24,  xv.  10.  The  Lord  places  the  condition  and 
 the  result  in  juxtaposition,  and  leaves  it  to  the  Apostles  to  decide 
 which  of  the  two  propositions  assumed  is  the  existent  state  of 
 the  case,  and  so  to  shape  their  prognostic  of  the  future.  If  we 
 include  the  past  and  the  present,  then  the  Lord's  word  con- 
 tinues thus :  "  As  they  have  persecuted  Me,  they  will  also  per- 
 secute you ;  as  they  have  not  kept  !My  Avord,  but  rather  on 
 account  of  it  have  laid  snares  for  My  life,  ch.  viii.  37,  so  will 
 they  not  keep  your  word,  but  rather  on  account  of  it  place  your 
 lives  in  danger.  Thus  ye  see  clearly  what  ye  have  to  expect 
 from  them ;  and  when  the  peril  shall  come,  ye  must  not  think 
 it  a  strange  thing,  and  take  it  ill."  It  is  plain  from  the  "  all 
 these  things"  of  ver.  21,  which  cannot  of  course  refer  simply  to 
 "  they  wall  persecute,"  that  beneath  the  alternative  at  the  close, 
 there  is  an  announcement  of  snares  and  various  dangers  im- 
 pending. When  the  Lord  speaks  of  the  Apostles'  word  as  not 
 kept,  it  is  clear  that  He  speaks  of  them  as  Apostles,  as  appointed 
 ministers  of  the  word,  and  not  merely  as  representatives  of 
 believers.  J.  Gerhard :  "  He  subjoins  the  mention  of  their 
 word,  that  He  may  fortify  them  against  the  offence  of  their 
 Gospel  being  despised  when  they  should  preach  it."  Luther 
 hits  the  practical  point  well :  "  It  is  not  fit  that  the  Head  should 
 wear  a  crown  of  thorns,  and  the  members  sit  upon  cushions. — 
 Therefore  let  it  not  seem  strange  to  you  ;  for  thus  it  is  with  Me." 
 The  Saviour  had,  in  vers.  18-20,  opened  up  to  the  disciples  a 
 consolatory  aspect  of  the  sufferings  which  they  had  to  expect 
 from  the  world :  they  suffer  "  for  My  sake,"  as  Christians.  We 
 perceive  the  strength  of  this  consolation  by  examining  Acts  v.  41 : 
 "  But  they  went  from  the  presence  of  the  council  rejoicing,  ore 
 
 \^ 
 
266 
 
 CHAP.  XIII.-XVII. 
 
 vTJ-ep  Tou  ovojxaTO'i    Karrj^LMOrjcrav   aTi/xaa-OPpai : "    comp.  also 
 1  Pet.  iv.  16.     But  the  consolation  was  not  yet  perfect.    There 
 remained  yet  another  important  stumblingblock.     Did  not  the 
 matter  stand  as  all  the  authorities,  and  the  immense  preponder- 
 ance of  the  people,  thought, — on  the  one  side  Jesus  and  His 
 disciples,  on  the  other  side  God  and  the  Jews  ?    This  stumblincv- 
 block  our  Lord  takes,  in  vers.  21-25,  out  of  the  way.     The 
 persecution  which  the  world,  or  the  Jews,  directed  against  the 
 disciples  for  the  name  of  Jesus,  rested  upon  ignorance  of  that  God 
 in  whom  they  boasted,  ver.  21.     For  as  Jesus  had  approved 
 Himself  the  Sent  of  God  by  His  words,  full  of  spirit  and  life, 
 their  hatred  of  Him  was  a  hatred  of  God,  His  Father,  as  well 
 as  of  Christ  Himself,  vers.  22,  23.     And  all  the  more,  as  His 
 works,  such  as  no  other  had  done,  ver.  24,  had  gone  hand  in 
 hand  with  His  words.     The  matter,  therefore,  stood  thus :   on 
 the  one  side  the  disciples,  Christ,  the  Father;  on  the  other  the 
 world,  with  its  princes,  the  Jews,   who,  by  their  rejection   of 
 Christ,  had  been  transformed  from  the  Church  of  God  into  the 
 synagogue  of  Satan.     Who  would  not  rejoice  to  suffer  at  the 
 hands  of  the  world,  in  the  fellowship  of  Christ  and  of  the 
 Father? 
 /       Ver.  21.  "But  all  these  things  will  they  do  unto  you  for 
 My  name's  sake,  because  they  know  not  Him  that  sent  Me." — 
 The  aWd  points  to  the  introduction  of  a  new  thought,  i  Now 
 that  new  thought  we  do  not  find  in  the  "  for  INIy  name's  sake," 
 equivalent  to  "  on  account  of  My  historical  manifestation  and 
 personality"  (compare  Sia  rb  ovofxd  ixov,  Matt.  x.  22,  xxiv.  9 ; 
 eveKev  i/iov,  Matt.  v.  11).     For  it  had  been  already  taught  in 
 vers.  18-20,  that  Christ  was  the  cause  of  the  hatred  of  the  world 
 against  His  disciples.     The  new  element  lies  rather  in  this,  that 
 the  matter  of  vers.  18-20,  the  persecution  for  Christ's  sake,  is 
 referred  to  ignorance  of  the  Father  as  its  primary  source,  and 
 thus  the  disciples  are  saved  from  the  solicitude  of  thinking  that 
 the  Father  was  against  them.     If  the  Jews  had  known  the 
 Fatlier,  they  must  have  loved  Christ,  whom  the  Father  had 
 sent,  and  in  whom  He  had  revealed  Himself. 
 
 Ver.  22.  "  If  I  had  not  come  and  spoken  unto  them,  they 
 had  not  had  sin  ;  but  now  they  have  no  cloak  for  their  sin." — 
 That  the  Jews,  by  their  hatred  to  Christ,  had  revealed  their 
 ignorance  of  the  Father,  Christ  2:)roves  first  by  His  vjords,  which 
 
CHAP.  XV.  22.  267 
 
 exalted  Him  far  above  the  level  of  mortality,  and  demonstrated 
 that  the  Father  had  sent  Him,  and  that  the  Angel  of  the  Lord, 
 whom  the  Old  Testament  magnified,  had  appeared  in  Him  in 
 the  flesh.  By  the  side  of  this  px'oof  from  the  icords,  comes  in 
 the  proof  from  the  icorks,  in  ver.  24.  The  koI  eXdXijaa  avrolq 
 is  badly  translated  by  Luther,  "  und  hiitte  es  ihnen  gesagt," 
 and  told  them.  "And  had  spoken  to  them"  refers  rather  to  the 
 whole  substance  and  body  of  the  discourses  of  Christ  during 
 His  ministry,  which  had  loudly  and  always  protested  against 
 their  separating  Him  from  Plis  Father.  He  was  by  them  de- 
 clared to  be  the  Sent  of  the  Father ;  for  the  words  which  He  had 
 spoken  were  spirit  and  life,  and  consequently  argument  of  His 
 superhuman  life  :  comp.  on  ch.  vi.  63  ;  "  Thou  hast  the  words 
 of  eternal  life,"  ver.  68 ;  the  avowal  which  the  servants  of  the 
 high  priests  were  constrained  to  make,  that  never  man  spoke 
 like  this  man,  ch.  vii.  46 ;  and  the  testimony  to  His  discourse, 
 in  Matt.  vii.  28,  29,  "  The  people  icere  astonished  at  His  doc- 
 trine :  for  He  taught  them  as  one  having  authority,  and  not  as 
 the  scribes."  The  words  and  the  ivorks  constituted  the  double 
 evidence  which  Jesus  adduced,  as  here  so  also  in  ch.  xiv.  10,  for 
 His  being  in  the  Father.  In  Luke  x.  23,  24,  He  said  to  His 
 disciples,  "  Blessed  are  the  eyes  which  see  the  things  which  ye 
 see  :  for  I  say  unto  you,  that  many  prophets  and  kings  desired 
 to  see  the  things  which  ye  see,  and  have  not  seen  them ;  and 
 to  hear  the  things  which  ye  hear,  and  have  not  heard  them." 
 There  our  Lord  appeals  to  the  great  double  evidence  of  His 
 words  and  His  works  to  attest  His  heavenly  origin. 
 
 The  rjkOov  has  no  independent  meaning,  but  is  connected  A 
 with  iXoiXTjcra,  and  should  not  be  separated  from  it  by  a  comma. 
 According  to  the  connection  with  what  precedes,  where  the 
 Lord  had  spoken  of  the  unbelief  and  hatred  displayed  by  the 
 Jews  towards  Himself,  the  words,  "If  I  had  not  come  and 
 spoken  to  them,"  must  mean,  "  If  they  had  not  been  imbeliev- 
 ing,  in  spite  of  My  having  spoken  to  them,  and  demonstrated 
 and  made  plain  My  Divine  mission  by  My  discourses." — "They 
 had  not  had  sin ;"  that  is,  no  sin  of  such  all-penetrating  im- 
 portance :  comp.  on  ch.  ix.  41,  "  If  ye  were  blind,  ye  would  not 
 have  sin."  The  universal  disease  of  the  human  race  scarcely 
 comes  into  consideration,  in  comparison  with  this  sin  of  unbelief 
 in  Christ,  as  attested  and  legitimated  by  His  words.     That  this 
 
268  CHAP.  XIII. -XVII. 
 
 is,  strictly  speaking,  the  only  sin,  is  involved  in  the  fact  that  its 
 essence  is  a  guilty  contempt  of  the  only  remedy  for  sin.  Augus- 
 tin :  "  For  this  is  the  sin  by  which  all  sins  are  retained ;  whoso- 
 ever has  it  not,  to  him  all  sins  are  remitted."  A  disease  for 
 which  there  is  offered  a  sure  remedy,  can  scarcely  be  regarded 
 as  a  disease.  In  ch.  xvi.  9,  also,  the  not  believing  on  Christ 
 appears  as  the  climax  of  all  sin,  and  in  a  certain  sense  the 
 only  sin.  So  also,  in  Matt.  xi.  20-24,  where  Jesus  condemns 
 the  cities  in  which  He  had  performed  most  of  His  wonderful 
 works,  and  declai'es  their  guilt  to  have  been  incomparably 
 greater  than  that  of  Tyre  and  Sidon,  cities  notorious  for  their 
 heathenish  abominations,  greater  indeed  than  even  that  of 
 Sodom. — "  But  now  they  have  no  cloak  for  their  sin."  For  sin 
 before  Christ  there  was  a  7rpo0acrt9,  an  excuse,  that  of  igno- 
 rance. Acts  xvii.  30,  1  Pet.  i.  14  :  men  knew  not,  and  could 
 not  know,  better;  on  which  account  in  the  Old  Testament  there 
 is  foreannounced  a  future  restoration  to  the  greatest  sinners, 
 doomed  by  the  judgments  of  God  to  temporal  destruction. 
 This  kind  of  excuse  has  indeed  only  a  relative  significance; 
 but  an  excuse  of  that  relative  kind  was  expressed  by  the  term 
 TT/Jo^acri?.  The  antithesis  here  gives  the  preceding  "had  not 
 had  sin  "  its  limitation  and  precise  meaning ;  such  sin  as  much 
 may  be  said  to  apologize  for,  cannot  in  the  fullest  and  deepest 
 sense  be  called  sin.  Without  this  limitation,  these  words,  "they 
 had  not  had  sin,"  would  have  been  a  contradiction  to  the  law 
 and  the  prophets  of  the  Old  Testament,  would  have  been 
 inconsistent  with  the  Divine  judgments  preceding  Christ,  and 
 with  the  language  of  Rom.  i.  18.^ 
 
 Ver.  23.  "  He  that  liateth  Me,  hateth  My  Father  also."— 
 This  is  not  merely  asserted  here  by  Christ.  It  is  rather  an . 
 inference  from  that  which  had  been  laid  down  on  the  former 
 verse.  *  Since  Jesus  had  by  His  words  approved  Himself  the 
 Son,  it  followed  that  the  hatred  displayed  against  Him  was 
 displayed  against  \hQ  Father  also.  The  Jews  professed  that 
 they  loved  God,   and  that  on  the  ground  of  that  love  they 
 
 '  Calvin :  "He  does  not  absolve  them  entirely,  but  extenuates  the 
 gravity  of  their  wickedness.  Nor  was  it  the  design  of  Christ  to  promise 
 indulgence  to  others ;  but  to  hold  His  enemies,  who  had  contumaciously 
 rejected  the  grace  of  God,  convicted  of  their  sin ;  whence  it  appeared 
 plainly  that  they  were  altogether  unworthy  of  grace  and  mercy." 
 
CHAP.  XV.  24,  25.  269 
 
 hated  Christ;  the  God,  however,  whom  they  loved  was  not, a 
 true  God,  but  a  phantom  which  they  named  God.  This  was 
 as  certain  as  it  was  that  Christ's  words  had  declared  Him  to  be 
 the  Son.  The  fact  that  they  rejected  Christ,  in  spite  of  all 
 His  words  so  full  of  spirit  and  truth,  detected  their  hypocrisy, 
 and  showed  them  to  be  manifest  enemies  of  that  Father  whom 
 they  professed  to  love. 
 
 Ver.  24.  "  If  I  had  not  done  among  them  the  works  which 
 none  other  man  did,  they  had  not  had  sin  :  but  now  have  they 
 both  seen  and  hated  both  Me  and  My  Father." — We  have 
 here  the  second  proof  of  the  proposition,  that  the  Jews  by  their 
 hatred  of  Christ  had  displayed  their  ignorance  of  the  Father, 
 and  their  hatred  of  Him.  It  lay  in  this,  that  Christ  by  His 
 worlcs  had  most  amply  declared  Himself  to  be  the  Sent  of  the 
 Father.  That  the  Jews  hated  Him,  in  spite  of  His  works,  was 
 a  sin  in  comparison  of  which  all  former  sin  sank  into  insigni- 
 ficance. "Which  none  other  man  did  "  may  be  compared  with 
 Matt.  ix.  33,  where  the  multitudes  cried  on  account  of  the 
 healing  a  dumb  and  deaf  man  under  demoniac  influence,  "It 
 was  never  so  seen  in  Israel."  The  miracles  of  Jesus  acquired, 
 through  their  connection  with  the  dignity  of  His  person,  an 
 absolute  supremacy  over  all  that  had  been  wrought  under  the 
 Old  Testament;  apart  from  the  fact  that  some  individual 
 miracles — such  as  the  healing  of  the  man  born  blind  (ch.  ix. 
 32),  and  the  raising  of  Lazarus — had  no  parallel  or  approxima- 
 tion in  the  Old  Testament. 
 
 Ver,  25.  "  But  this  cometh  to  pass,  that  the  word  might  be 
 fulfilled  that  is  written  in  their  law.  They  hated  Me  without 
 a  cause." — The  Lord  now  obviates  another  objection,  which 
 might  be  drawn  from  the  Jews'  enmity  against  Him,  by  point- 
 ing out  that  they  were,  and  would  be,  only  instruments  in  the 
 fulfilment  of  that  which  was  written  in  the  Old  Testament 
 Scriptures,  and  consequently  that  their  hatred  would  serve 
 only  as  an  authentication  of  His  claims.  It  was  an  Old  Testa- 
 ment fundamental  principle,  that  no  righteous  man,  and  least 
 of  all  the  Christ,  would  fail  to  encounter  the  hatred  and  perse- 
 cution of  the  world.  Accordingly,  Christ  would  not  be  Christ 
 without  the  hatred  of  the  Jews.  So  also,  in  ch.  xii.  38,  39,  the 
 opposition  of  the  Jews  to  Christ  was  regarded  in  the  light  of 
 a  Divine  appointment,  through  which  the  fulfilment  of  Old 
 
 i/ 
 
270  CHAP.  XIII.-XVII. 
 
 Testament  prophecy  was  brought  about.  Seen  from  this  point 
 of  view,  the  hatred  of  the  Jews  should  have  no  power  to  dis- 
 hearten, but  rather  to  fill  with  the  highest  joy.  We  see  in  it 
 the  presence  of  the  Divine  hand,  impressing  upon  Christ  the 
 seal  of  authentication.  The  aXXd  points  to  the  circumstance 
 that  a  new  point  of  view  in  regard  to  the  hatred  of  the  Jews  is* 
 opened  up.  Accordingly  tovto  fyijovev  must  be  supplemented  :-/• 
 comp.  xix.  36,  and  probably  also  xiii.  38,  Matt.  xxvi.  56,  Mark 
 xiv.  49.  The  name  of  the  law  is  here,  as  in  x.  34,  xii.  34, 
 referred  to  the  entire  Old  Testament,  because  the  remaining 
 books  divide  with  the  Mosaic  the  whole.  "  In  their  law ;"  so 
 that  thus  the  criteria  of  the  ]\Iessiah,  given  in  the  law,  were 
 such  as  they  were  obliged  to  accept  and  be  regulated  by. 
 
 In  reference  to  the  e^layjcrdv  fjue  Bcopedv,  we  may  collate  the 
 following  passages  of  the  Old  Testament.  First,  Ps.  xxxv.  19. 
 There  the  suffering  just  man  says,  "Let  not  them  that  are 
 mine  enemies  wrongfully  rejoice  over  me;  neither  let  them 
 wink  mth  the  eye  that  hate  me  without  a  cause  :"  Sept.  oi 
 fiiaovvre^  fie  hwpedv.  Then,  again,  the  fourth  verse  of  Ps.  Ixix., 
 which  is  so  often  cited  and  applied  to  Christ.  There  the 
 suffering  Eighteous  One  says,  "  They  that  hate  Me  without  a 
 cause  (Sept.  again,  ol  fiLcrovvTh  fie  Scopedv)  are  more  than  the 
 hairs  of  Mine  head  ;  they  that  would  destroy  Me,  being  Mine 
 enemies  wrongfully,  are  mighty."  It  will  be  seen  that  these 
 two  passages  have  in  common  "  hating  me  wdthout  a  cause," 
 and  "  enemies  wrongfullv."  These  verbal  resemblances  and 
 parallels,  which  are  peculiar  to  the  Davidic  psalms  of  the 
 Righteous  One,  have  the  effect  of  indicating  that  they  are 
 links  of  a  great  chain,  parts  of  a  great  descriptive  painting. 
 So,  finally,  Ps.  cix.  3,  "  They  compassed  Me  about  also  with 
 words  of  hatred;  and  fought  against  Me  without  a  cause:" 
 Sept.  iiTo\e/jb7]adv  /xe  hcopedv.  In  this  psalm  too  the  suffering 
 Kighteous  One  speaks.  "  That  the  singer  had  in  view,  at  the 
 same  time,  the  family  of  David,  and  especially  Him  in  whom 
 it  would  reach  its  crown ; — that  the  psalm,  as  it  proceeded 
 from  David,  so  also  went  back  to  him  (in  his  offspring),  and 
 kept  him  ever  in  view, — cannot  be  doubted  when  we  compare 
 the  last  verse  of  the  psalm  with  the  first  of  Ps.  ex.,  and  with 
 the  fifth  verse  of  the  same.  Here  it  is  the  help  of  the  Lord, 
 which  He  sends  to  His  anointed  in  His  sufferings;  there  it 
 
CHAP.  XV.  26.  271 
 
 is  the  glory  which  He  sheds  upon  the  saved  one.  Here  we 
 see  how  He  stands  at  the  I'ight  hand  to  save  him  fx'om  those 
 who  condemn  his  soul;  there  we  hear  Him  saying  the  great 
 word,  Sit  thou  at  My  right  hand."  This  connection  of  the 
 109th  Psalm  with  the  110th  throws  a  wonderful  light  upon 
 the  remaining  psalms  of  David  which  refer  to  the  suffering 
 Righteous  One.  The  quotation  here  is  designedly  combined 
 from  the  three  passages  quoted.  From  the  first  two  we  have 
 the  hating;  the  thil'd  is  indicated  by  the  fact  that  the  verb 
 there  is  in  the  preterite.  The  co-reference  to  this  passage  is  of 
 importance,  inasmuch  as  there  the  final  reference  to  Christ, 
 which  is  rather  concealed  in  most  of  the  passages  which  treat 
 of  the  suffering  righteous,  appears  most  expressly  and  plainly, 
 
 Ver.  26.  "  But  when  the  Comforter  is  come,  whom  I  w^ill 
 send  unto  you  from  the  Father,  even  the  Spirit  of  truth,  which 
 proceedeth  from  the  Father,  He  shall  testify  of  Me." — Jesus 
 had  hitherto  fortified  the  disciples  against  the  hatred  of  the 
 Jews,  by  reminding  them  that  it  fell  upon  them  on  account  of 
 His  name ;  that  the  hatred  which  they  felt  for  Him  had  His 
 Father  also  for  its  object;  and  finally,  that  this  hatred  subserved 
 the  fulfilment  of  Old  Testament  prophecy.  A  new  element 
 now  enters.  It  might  have  been  supposed  from  the  previous 
 considerations,  that  Jesus  had  already  now  finished  with  the 
 Jews.  But  this  issue  would  have  been  at  variance  Avith  the 
 prophecies  of  the  Old  Testament,  which  were  not  satisfied  by 
 all  that  had  been  yet  attained.  According  to  those  prophecies, 
 the  calling  of  a  special  election  was  as  necessary  as  the  rejec- 
 tion of  the  mass.  Hence  our  Lord  intimates  that  the  work 
 of  salvation  among  the  Jews  was  not  sealed  and  closed ;  and 
 that  He  would  oppose  to  their  hatred  such  a  power  in  the 
 Paraclete  as  should  subdue  many  into  submission.  The  Christ 
 of  truth,  coming  from  the  Father,  would  with  victorious  power 
 break  down  the  opposition  of  many.  Thus  the  disciples  were 
 prevented  from  making  the  enmity  of  the  Jews  a  source  of 
 despondency. 
 
 These  words  concerning  the  Paraclete  do  not  point  back 
 to  ch.  xiv.  26 — that  saying  is  not  taken  up  again  until  ch.  xvi. 
 13 — but  to  ch.  xiv.  16,  where  the  question  is  the  same  as  it  is 
 here,  the  warfare  against  an  unfriendly  world.  The  Holy 
 Ghost  is  the  Paraclete  only  inasmuch  as  He  in  this  conflict 
 
272  CHAP,  xiii.-xvii. 
 
 lends  His  aid.  The  idea  of  the  Paraclete  is  elucidated  in  2  Tim. 
 iv.  16 :  "  At  my  first  answer  no  man  stood  with  me,  but  all 
 men  forsook  me :  notwithstanding  the  Lord  stood  with  me,  and 
 strengthened  me."  The  human  paracletes,  or  judicial  advo- 
 cates— which  service  in  ancient  times  Atas  discharged  not  merely 
 by  counsellors,  but  also  by  distinguished  friends — had  forsaken 
 the  Apostle ;  but,  instead  of  them,  the  heavenly  Paraclete  had 
 faithfully  stood  by  his  side — Christ,  that  is,  by  the  Spirit  whom 
 He  sent.  The  vfilv  must  be  carefully  noted.  -  It  shows  that 
 the  Holy  Spirit  is^nsidered  here  as  having  His  indwelling  in 
 the  Apostles,  and  not  as  simply  exerting  His  immediate  influ- 
 ence upon  the  minds  of  those  to  whom  they  preached  the  word. 
 So,  in  ch.  xvi.  8,  it  is  only  a  false  interpretation  which  finds 
 anything  like  a  direct  relation  of  the  Paraclete  to  the  world. 
 This  is  evident  from  the  preceding  Trpo?  v/^a?  in  ver.  7.  We 
 may  compare  the  "  filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost "  in  Acts  iv.  8 ; 
 and  Luke  xxiv.  49,  where  the  Lord,  after  His  resurrection,  says 
 to  His  disciples,  "  And,  behold,  I  send  the  promise  of  ]\Iy  Father 
 upon  you :  but  tarry  ye  in  the  city  of  Jerusalem,  until  ye  be 
 endued  with  power  from  on  high ; "  and  also  Acts  i.  8,  "  But  ye 
 shall  receive  power  after  that  the  Holy  Ghost  is  come  upon 
 you ; "  and  ch.  iv.  31.  There  is  a  distinction  in  ver.  27  between 
 the  testimony  which  the  Holy  Spirit  would  bear  in  His  function 
 as  Paraclete  by  the  lips  of  the  Apostles  against  the  opposing 
 world,  and  the  Apostles'  own  testimony,  which  would  refer 
 to  the  historical  facts  as  such,  and  which  they  would  bear  as 
 intelligent  and  honourable  men :  compare  the  same  distinction 
 in  Acts  v.  32,  where  Peter  says,  "  And  we  also  are  His  wit- 
 nesses of  these  things ;  and  so  is  also  the  Holy  Ghost,  whom 
 God  hath  given  to  them  that  obey  Him."  There,  however,  the 
 two  testimonies  are  inverted.  Those  that  obey  are  the  Apostles. 
 As  here,  so  also  in  our  Lord's  word.  Matt.  x.  20,  "  It  is  not  ye 
 that  speak,  but  the  Spirit  of  your  Father  that  speakefcli  in  you :" 
 the  organ  altogether  retires  behind  the  efficient  Spirit.  Ques- 
 nel  brings  out  the  practical  element  in  these  M'ords  with  much 
 force:  "What  have  we  to  fear?  The  Spirit  who  is  in  the 
 Church  and  dwelleth  in  our  hearts,  is  stronger  than  the  spirit 
 which  dwells  in  the  world  and  in  the  ungodly. — We  labour  in 
 vain  when  we  seek  to  overcome  error  by  merely  human  means, 
 without  the  assistance  of  the  Spirit  of  truth." 
 
CHAP.  XV.  27.  273 
 
 That  the  Holy  Ghost  finally  proceedeth  from  the  Father,  the 
 original  source  of  all  power,  was  a  truth  of  such  importance,  so 
 encouraging  and  quickening  to  the  disciples,  before  whom  Christ 
 stood  in  His  humble  servant-form  (compare  "  The  Father  is 
 greater  than  I"  in  xiv.  28),  that  the  words  "  from  the  Father" 
 are  immediately  expanded  into  "  proceedeth  from  the  Father," 
 in  order  to  give  this  point  its  full  prominence.  Both  were  very 
 important, — the  proceeding  from  the  Son,  on  which  the  em- 
 phasis falls  in  "  whom  I  will  send  from  My  Father,"  and  the 
 proceeding  from  the  Father ;  but  the  latter  was  under  their 
 present  circumstances  so  important,  that  it  might  not  be  lightly 
 despatched  with  a  mere  "  from  the  Father."  Calvin :  "  Nor  in 
 the  face  of  such  great  forces,  such  and  so  impetuous  assaults, 
 would  the  testimony  of  the  Spirit  suffice,  unless  we  were  per- 
 suaded that  He  came  from  God."  The  explanation  of  the  fact 
 that  the  Spirit  is,  on  the  one  hand,  sent  by^^hrist,  while  on  the  )  / 
 other  He  proceeded  from  the  Father,  is  to  be  sought  in  the  fact  v 
 that  He  was  sent  by  Christ,  from  the  glory  of  the  Father.  ^ 
 The  eKTropeverat,  taken  in  connection  with  the  preceding  Tre/i-v^ty, 
 shows  that  we  have  not  to  do  here  with  eternal  relations  in  the 
 Godhead,  but  with  the  mission  of  the  Spirit  to  the  Apostles.  / 
 The  present,  eKTropeverai,  is  the  timeless  tense  that  stands  in  a 
 general  sentence :  when  He  goeth  forth,  it  is  from  the  Father 
 that  He  goeth.  The  more  specific  idea  is  given  by  the  preced- 
 ing future.  There  can  be  no  reference  to  the  going  forth  of 
 the  Spirit  from  Gen.  i.  downwards,  through  the  whole  period 
 of  the  Old  Testament  economy  (comp.  Isa.  Ixiii.  11).  The 
 Spirit  in  this  speciality — as  Paraclete,  as  Spirit  of  truth  (comp. 
 ch.  xiv.  17) — was  specially  linked  to  the  atoning  death  of 
 Christ ;  He  was  not  yet  in  the  world,  because  that  Christ  was 
 not  yet  glorified :  comp.  ch.  vii.  39.  The  Spirit  of  truth,  the 
 Paraclete,  was  what  Peter  lacked,  says  Augustin,  when  he  was 
 terrified  by  a  little  maid,  and  uttered  his  triple  denial :  "  He 
 giving  His  testimony,  and  making  His  witnesses  most  resolute, 
 took  away  all  fear  from  the  friends  of  Christ,  and  converted 
 the  hatred  of  His  enemies  into  love." 
 
 Ver.  27.  "  And  ye  also  shall  bear  witness,  because  ye  have 
 
 been  with  Me  from  the  beginning." — This  is  a  second  power  for 
 
 subduing  the  hatred  of  the  Jews :  which,  indeed,  derives  its 
 
 true  significance  from  its  strict  connection  with  the  first  preced- 
 
 VOL.  II.  S 
 
274  CHAP,  xiii.-xvii. 
 
 ing  it.  This  double  testimony — that  of  the  Holy  Ghost  and  the 
 historical — now  goes  on  in  the  Church  concurrently.  But  the 
 thorough  study  and  use  of  the  latter  is  not  so  simple  as  in  the 
 apostolic  age ;  and  it  demands  a  profound  research.  The  pre- 
 sent, /lapTupelre,  is  fully  explained  by  the  future  that  imme- 
 diately precedes.  The  Lord  places  Himself  in  the  future  :  "  Ye 
 then  bear  witness."  We  have  a  commentary  on  "  from  the 
 beginning"  in  Mark  i.  1 ;  Luke  i.  2  ;  Acts  i.  21.  The  begin- 
 ning was  the  first  manifestation  of  Christ :  comp.  1  John  i.  1, 
 "  That  which  was  from  the  beginning,  which  we  have  heard, 
 which  we  have  seen  with  our  eyes,  which  we  have  looked  upon, 
 and  our  hands  have  handled,  declare  we  unto  you." 
 
 Ch.  xvi.  1.  "  These  things  have  I  spoken  unto  you,  that  ye 
 should  not  be  offended." — We  find  here  expressed  the  ultimate 
 aim  of  all  that  had  been  said  from  ch.  xv.  18  onwards,  and  the 
 point  of  view  is  shown  under  which  all  must  be  viewed.  The 
 design  was,  namely,  to  obviate  the  offence  which  the  hatred  of 
 the  Jews  could  not  fail  to  occasion,  especially  as  authority  and 
 scientific  knowledge  were  on  their  side.  "  These  things "  does 
 not  refer  merely  to  the  foreannouncement  of  their  hatred ;  it 
 includes  also  everything  that  had  been  said  to  place  their  hatred 
 in  the  true  light,  as  well  as  the  help  which  had  been  promised 
 in  the  sending  of  the  Paraclete.  "  That  ye  should  not  be 
 offended  "  leads  us  into  a  circle  of  ideas  which  the  first  Evan- 
 gelists had  already  exhibited  as  realized.  In  them  we  have  seen 
 the  hatred  of  the  world  becoming  to  the  disciples  a  sore  aKciv- 
 SaXov,  the  source  of  a  perilous  temptation  to  apostasy  from 
 Christ, — comp.  Matt.  xiii.  21,  xxiv.  9,  xxvi.  31-33, — a  tempta- 
 tion which  had  already  hard  beset  the  Baptist,  Matt.  xi.  3. 
 
 Ver.  2.  "  They  shall  put  you  out  of  the  synagogues  :  yea, 
 the  time  cometh,  that  whosoever  killeth  you  will  think  that  he 
 doeth  God  service." — The  Lord  indicates  what  direction  the 
 temptation  to  offence  would  take,  and  thus  shows  the  necessity 
 of  those  communications  which  had  for  their  object  to  encounter 
 and  overcome  that  temptation.  In  reference  to  aTroa-vvaycoyov';, 
 comp.  on  ch.  ix.  22,  xii.  42  :  in  these  words  there  is  involved 
 the  degenerating  of  the  synagogue  into  a  synagogue  of  Satan, 
 Rev.  ii.  9,  iii.  9.  The  synagogue  which  could  not  tolerate 
 Christians  within  it,  would  show  by  that  fact  that  it  was  no 
 
 J 
 
CHAP.  XVI.  3,  4.  275 
 
 longer  a  "  congregation  of  the  Lord."  Casting  out  Christians, 
 they  would  cast  out  Christ,  and  with  Christ  the  Father.^  The 
 disciples  were  not  voluntarily  to  depart  out  of  the  synagogue, 
 but  to  await  what  would  happen  to  them  on  a  full  proclamation 
 of  the  Gospel.  This  gives  a  very  intelligible  hint  to  the  faithful 
 in  times  of  the  Church's  decline,  viz.  that  they  should  keep  far 
 from  their  thoughts  the  idea  of  arbitrary  secession.  The  new 
 formation  is  right  only  when  the  casting  out  has  gone  before. 
 
 The  Xarpeia  in  itself  signifies  cultus  in  general ;  but  the 
 7rpoa<f)epeiv  shows  that  sacrificial  worship  is  particularly  meant : 
 corap.  Ex.  A'iii.  16,  21,  22 ;  2  Sam.  xv.  8,  where  the  sacrifice  is 
 certainly  a  Xarpeia ;  Rom.  xii.  1,  where  Ovaia  and  Xarpeia  are 
 combined.  We  may  find  the  basis  of  the  opinion  or  thought, 
 here  ascribed  to  the  Jews,  in  Ex.  xxxii.  29.  There  Moses 
 declares  the  self-renouncing  assault  of  the  Levites  upon  the 
 rebels  to  be  an  acceptable  sacrifice  which  they  had  brought  to 
 the  Lord  :  "  Ye  have  to-day  filled  your  hands  [strictly,  "  Fill  your 
 hands ;"  the  acceptance  of  what  was  done  uttered  in  the  form  of 
 command]  in  this,  that  ye  have  turned  every  man  upon  his  son 
 and  his  brother,  and  have  thus  obtained  for  yourselves  a  bless- 
 ing." The  fearful  quid-pro-quo,  however,  was  this,  that  in  the 
 present  case  the  rebelswou^dlliink  to  make  the  faithful  a  sacri- 
 fice. They  made  their  beginning  with  Christ  Himself.  That 
 this  was  accomplished  at  the  Passover,  rested  upon  the  view 
 here  indicated. 
 
 Ver.  3.  "  And  these  things  will  they  do  unto  you,  because 
 they  have  not  known  the  Father,  nor  Me." — The  Lord  here 
 opens  up  another  encouraging  aspect  of  their  case,  in  reference 
 to  the  persecutions  predicted  in  ver.  2.  Calvin  :  "  That  the 
 Apostles  might  scorn  with  lofty  minds  their  blind  fury." 
 
 Ver.  4.  "  But  these  things  have  I  told  you,  that,  when  the 
 time  shall  come,  ye  may  remember  that  I  told  you  of  them. 
 And  these  things  I  said  not  unto  you  at  the  beginning,  because 
 
 '  Augustin  :  "  Since  there  was  not  any  other  people  of  God  than  that 
 seed  of  Abraham,  if  they  would  acknowledge  and  receive  Christ,  they  would 
 abide  as. natural  branches  in  the  olive-tree  :  there  were  not  to  be  churches 
 of  Christ  and  synagogues  of  the  Jews  distinct ;  but  if  they  would  be  one, 
 they  might  be  one.  But  as  they  would  not,  what  remained  but  that, 
 remaining  out  of  Christ,  they  should  cast  them  out  of  the  synagogues  who 
 would  not  leave  Christ  ?  " 
 
276  CHAP,  xiir.-xvii. 
 
 I  was  with  you." — The  aWd  in  the  preceding  verse  stated  why 
 they  would  do  these  things  ;  here  it  states  why  the  Lord  spoke 
 of  it.  Tavra  refers,  as  in  ver.  1,  not  simply  to  that  which  the 
 disciples  had  to  suffer  from  the  world,  but  also  to  those  conso- 
 latory suggestions  which  Christ  had  opened  to  them  in  regard 
 to  their  sufferings.  In  what  immediately  preceded,  the  pro- 
 phecy of  their  future  suffering  had  been  lightened  by  a  prospect 
 of  joy.  Our  Lord  had  certainly  before  spoken  to  His  disciples 
 of  their  coming  persecutions,  Matt.  v.  10,  x.  17  ;  but  it  had  been 
 ^to  them  asiif  He  had  not  so  spoken,) the  blessed  present  having 
 prevented  their  thoughts  from  lingering  upon  His  words.  The 
 announcement  never  exerted  a  penetrating  influence  upon  them 
 until  now,  when  Jesus,  Himself  on  His  way  to  death  and  deeply 
 moved,  addressed  it  to  His  deeply  moved  disciples ;  and  when, 
 without  admixture  of  other  elements.  He  made  it  the  matter  of 
 one  great  division  of  His  last  discourses,  placing  it,  by  a  funda- 
 mental and,  as  it  were,  systematic  treatment,  in  an  altogether 
 new  light.  That  Jesus,  indeed,  had  earlier,  and  in  a  variety  of 
 ways,  spoken  to  them  on  the  same  subject,  is  not  only  evident 
 from  the  testimony  of  the  first  Evangelists,  but  is  also  obvious 
 of  itself,  since  His  three  years'  intercourse  with  the  disciples 
 must  have  furnished  Him  many  opportunities  for  such  dis- 
 course, and,  according  to  the  fundamental  views  of  the  Old 
 Testament,  especially  the  Psalms  and  the  prophecies  of  Jere- 
 miah, the  way  of  the  disciples  through  a  world  of  sin  could  not 
 be  other  than  full  of  thorns. — Their  Master  had  not  from  the 
 beginning  spoken  it  in  so  affecting  a  manner,  because  He  was 
 yet  with  them,  and  Himself  defended  them,  ch.  xvii.  12,  execut- 
 ing the  office  of  their  advocate  in  their  conflict  with  the  world, 
 ch.  xiv.  16.  But  now,  when  His  departure  was  at  hand.  He 
 must  tell  them  more  definitely,  in  order  that,  when  the  persecu- 
 tion should  arrive.  His  word  might  take  the  place  of  His  per- 
 sonal presence. 
 
 Vers.  5,  6.  "  But  now  I  go  My  way  to  Him  that  sent  Me  ; 
 and  none  of  you  asketh  Me,  Whither  goest  Thou  ?  But  because 
 I  have  said  these  things  unto  you,  sorrow  hath  filled  your 
 heart." — The  Redeemer  now  begins  to  lead  on  their  thoughts 
 to  the  consolation  which,  as  the  expansion  of  ch.  xv.  26,  He 
 would  assure  to  them  in  the  presence  of  an  unfriendly  world. 
 The  transition  is  made  by  Se,  because  in  the  preceding  verse  the 
 
CHAP.  XVI.  7.  277 
 
 presence  of  Jesus  with  His  disciples  had  been  finally  spoken  of. 
 But  any  external  connection  with  what  goes  before  is  not  to  be 
 sought. 
 
 Peter  had  in  ch.  xiii.  36  asked,  "  Whither  goest  Thou?" 
 But  the  Lord  here  means  another  kind  of  asking,  such  as  would 
 take  pleasure  in  the  subject,  and  spring  from  a  heart  never 
 weary  of  hearing  about  it.  The  disciples  ought  in  consistency 
 to  have  besought  Christ  again  and  again  to  tell  them  of 
 heaven,  and  the  glory  which  He  expected  to  enter  there.  This 
 questioning  would  have  been  all  the  more  reasonable,  as  on 
 their  adequate  view^s  of  this  subject  rested  all  their  joy  in  the 
 prospect  of  the  world's  hatred  and  persecution.  Thither,  where 
 He  was  going,  He  would  fetch  His  disciples,  that  they  might  be 
 received  into  the  fellowship  of  His  glory,  ch.  xiv.  3,  4  ;  thence 
 He  would  send  them  power  to  perform  the  greatest  works,  ch. 
 xiv.  12  ;  from  heaven  He  would  send  the  Holy  Spirit  as  their 
 advocate  in  their  process  with  the  world,  and  as  their  abiding 
 teacher ;  from  thence  He  would  manifest  Himself  to  them, 
 clothed  in  the  glory  of  the  Father.  But  these  questions  had  no 
 impulse  in  their  minds.  They  were  altogether  carried  away  by 
 their  sorrow  at  His  departure. 
 
 Ver.  7.  "  Nevertheless  I  tell  you  the  truth  ;  It  is  expedient 
 for  you  that  I  go  away  :  for  if  I  go  not  away,  the  Comforter 
 will  not  come  unto  you ;  but  if  I  depart,  I  will  send  Him  unto 
 you." — "  /  tell  you  the  truth"  (Bengel :  mentiri  nescius)  :  comp. 
 ch.  xiv.  2,  "  If  it  were  not  so,  I  would  have  told  you."  Jesus 
 makes  it  express  and  emphatic  that  He  tells  them  the  truth  in 
 this  matter ;  because,  as  the  sadness  of  the  Apostles  shows  in 
 ver.  6,  the  matter  seemed  to  be  very  different.  Bengel  is  not 
 right  when  he  says  that  there  is  here  a  double  function  of 
 the  Paraclete,  towards  the  world  in  this  passage,  and  towards 
 believers  in  ver.  12.  As  Paraclete,  the  Holy  Ghost  has  but 
 one  office  :  to  assure  to  the  Apostles,  and  generally  to  all  the 
 faithful,  help  in  their  conflict  with  the  world.  The  irpo'i  vfid'? 
 must  be  carefully  noted.  It  shows  that  the  Holy  Spirit  is 
 regarded  here  only  as  indwelling  in  the  disciples,  and  not  as 
 a  power  which,  in  connection  with  them,  works  upon  men's 
 minds.  The  ov  iyo)  ireix-y^w  vfilv,  in  ch.  xv.  26,  is  strictly  cor- 
 responsive. — Wherefore  was  the  Paraclete  to  come  only  after 
 His  departure  ?     The  answer  is,  because  Christ  was  to  procure 
 
 y 
 
 ] 
 
278  CHAP,  xiii.-xvii. 
 
 for  tliem  and  minister  to  them  the  Holy  Ghost  only  through 
 His  atoning  death  ;  and  He  could  be  imparted  only  to  those  who 
 were  reconciled  to  God  through  the  blood  of  His  Son  :  comp. 
 what  was  said  upon  ch.  vii.  39,  xii.  32.  According  to  Gal.  iii. 
 14,  the  sending  of  the  Holy  Ghost  required  as  its  condition  that 
 Christ  should  become  a  curse  for  us.  J.  Gerhard :  "  The  corn 
 of  wheat  falling  into  the  ground  produced  this  among  other 
 fruits,  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  John  xii.  24,  in  token  whereof 
 Christ  after  His  resurrection  breathed  on  the  Apostles,  and  said, 
 '  Receive  ye  the  Holy  Ghost,'  ch.  xx.  22."  Why  did  Jesus  do 
 this  only  after  His  resurrection  ?  Manifestly  because  the  Holy 
 Spirit  was  a  blessing  obtained  by  His  passion.  Anton  :  "  Father, 
 Son,  and  Holy  Spirit  are  not  divided ;  and  no  one  Person  can, 
 without  violation  of  the  Divine  holiness,  work  good  in  man  with- 
 out the  Redeemer's  atoning  entrance  into  heaven."  That  was 
 the  true  reason.  On  the  other  hand,  that  the  presence  of  Christ 
 in  the  flesh  placed  a  wall  of  partition  between  the  disciples 
 and  the  Holy  Spirit,  is  an  altogether  unfounded  idea,  though 
 Augustin  led  the  way  in  it :  "  What  is  therefore  If  I  go  not 
 away  the  Paraclete  loill  not  come  but  this,  that  they  could  not 
 receive  the  Spirit  so  long  as  they  persisted  in  knowing  Christ 
 after  the  flesh?" 
 
 Ver.  8.  "And  when  He  is  come.  He  will  reprove  the  world 
 of  sin,  and  of  righteousness,  and  of  judgment." — We  have 
 here  the  leading  features  of  the  preaching  which  the  Apostles, 
 under  the  influence  of  the  Spirit,  were  to  engage  in.  The 
 meaning  of  the  present  verse  must  first  of  all  be  sought  in  its 
 own  terms.  The  further  expansion  in  vers.  9,  10  can  be 
 regarded  only  as  the  touchstone  of  the  interpretation  found 
 independently  of  it ;  especially  as  the  Lord's  saying  in  those 
 verses  can  be  rightly  understood  only  on  the  basis  of  a  right 
 understanding  of  our  present  passage.  The  world,  after  what 
 has  preceded,  must  be  regarded  primarily  in  its  Jewish  mani- 
 festation :  that  is,  the  Jews.  So  Heumann  stated  it  rightly  : 
 "  The  Lord  here  sets  before  the  Apostles  only  their  first  apos- 
 tolical work,  since  they  were  to  urge  upon  the  Jewish  people 
 the  sin  of  their  past  unbelief,  and  were  to  convert  a  great  mul- 
 titude of  them."  So  also  the  later  preaching  among  the  heathen 
 population  of  the  world  had  essentially  the  same  foundation  of 
 principles.     Yet  these  sustained  a  certain  modification,  inas- 
 
CHAP.  XVI.  8.  279 
 
 much  as  the  Apostles  had  not  to  apply  their  preaching  to  those 
 who  were  already  unbelievers,  but  simply  to  those  who  did  not 
 believe.  The  Jews  were  to  be  reproved  because  of  their  already 
 present  unbelief  ;  but  it  was  to  be  set  before  the  Gentiles  how 
 great  would  be  their  sin  and  guilt  if  they  did  not  believe,  and 
 thus  despised  the  only  remedy  for  their  sins.  In  reference  to 
 the  righteousness  and  the  judgment,  the  heathen  were  to  receive 
 exhortations,  in  order  that  they  might  place  themselves  right, 
 appi'opriate  the  righteousness,  and  escape  the  judgment,  instead 
 of  the  condemnation  or  reproof  that  the  Jews  required,  who  had 
 already  placed  themselves  in  an  attitude  of  contempt. 
 
 The  sin  can  be  only,  according  to  ch.  xv.  22,  24,  unbdief  in 
 the  manifested  and  gloriously  authenticated  Redeemer.  For 
 that  was  there  pointed  out  as  the  single  great  sin  of  the  Jews. 
 -Augustin  :  "  He  put  this  sin  before  all  the  rest,  as  if  it  were 
 alone  :  because,  this  sin  abiding,  all  others  are  retained ;  and, 
 this  sin  departing,  all  others  are  remitted."  This  sin  would  be 
 mightily  detected  in  them,  and  pressed  upon  their  consciences, 
 by  the  Holy  Spirit's  demonstration  accompanying  the  Apostles. 
 — The  righteousness  must  necessarily  belong  to  the  same  to 
 whom  the  sin  belonged,  that  is,  the  world:  else  we  are  left  to 
 random  conjecture.  The  righteousness  of  Christ  would  never 
 have  been  thought  of  here  apart  from  ver.  9  ;  nor  can  that 
 verse  justify  such  an  interpretation  of  the  present  passage. 
 Still  more  remote  is  the  righteousness  of  God,  to  which  not 
 even  ver.  9  gives  the  slightest  semblance  of  plausibility.  But 
 the  righteousness  cannot  be  regarded  as  having  grown  in  the 
 soil  of  their  hearts  to  whom  it  belongs  :  from  their  hearts  only 
 the  sin  proceeds.  By  the  preceding  mention  of  sin,  every  notion 
 of  "  a  righteousness  of  their  own,"  ISla  8cKaioa)jvr},  Rom.  x.  3, 
 is  excluded.  Their  righteousness  must  rather  come  to  them 
 from  without.  And  whence  it  comes  we  gather  from  the  fore- 
 going words,  "  He  shall  convince  the  world  of  sin."  If  the  sin, 
 according  to  ch.  xv.  22,  24,  consisted  in  this,  that  they  believed 
 not  in  Christ,  then  the  righteousness  could  be  theirs  only  through 
 their  believing  in  Christ.  The  prophecies  of  the  Old  Testa- 
 ment Scriptures  had,  in  the  most  various  forms,  referred  to  a 
 righteousness  coming  from  above,  which  would  be  part  of  the 
 prerogatives  and  blessings  of  the  Messianic  age  ;  so  that  there 
 is  no  ground  for  the  objection  that  this  interpretation  of  the 
 
280  CHAP.  XIII.-XVII. 
 
 passage  is  a  premature  intrusion  into  the  specific  phraseology  of 
 St  Pauh  "  In  His  clays,"  we  read,  Jer.  xxiii.  6,  "  Juclah  shall 
 be  saved,  and  Israel  shall  dwell  safely ;  and  this  is  His  name 
 whereby  He  shall  be  called,  The  Lord  our  Righteousness T  The 
 Messiah  was  to  bear  the  name  of  "  The  Lord  our  Righteous- 
 ness," because  He  would  be  the  channel  through  which  the 
 righteousness  of  God  w^ould  flow  to  His  people,  and  become 
 our  righteousness.  According  to  Dan.  ix.  24,  the  Messiah  was 
 to  bring  in  an  "  everlasting  righteousness."  Isaiah  says,  in  ch. 
 liii.  11,  "By  His  knowledge  shall  My  righteous  servant  justify 
 many ;  for  He  shall  bear  their  iniquities."  And  in  ch.  xlv.  24, 
 25,  "  Surely  shall  one  say.  In  the  Lord  have  I  righteousness 
 and  strength  ;  in  the  Lord  shall  all  the  seed  of  Israel  be  justi- 
 fied, and  shall  glory  :"  comp.  further,  ch.  xlv.  8;  Ps.  Ixxxv.  11. 
 To  this  righteousness,  which  indeed  belongs  to  the  people  of" 
 God,  but  did  not  grow  up  in  the  soil  of  their  own  nature,  the 
 Lord's  saying  in  Matt.  v.  6  refers,  "  Blessed  are  they  which 
 do  hunger  and  thirst  after  righteousness  :  for  they  shall  be 
 filled,"  which  again  points  us  back  to  Isa.  Iv.  1. — And  as  the 
 sins  and  the  righteousness  belong  to  the  world,  so  also  does  the 
 judgment.  It  can  be  no  other  than  the  condemnation  which 
 falls  upon  the  world,  and  primarily  upon  the  Jews,  when  they 
 persist  in  the  sin  of  unbelief  towards  Christ,  and  will  not 
 become  partakers  of  the  righteousness  which  springs  from  faith 
 in  Him. — Around  these  three  centres,  in  fact,  revolves  all  the 
 preaching  of  the  Apostles  to  the  Jews  after  the  outpouring  of 
 the  Holy  Spirit.  For  the  Trepi  d/xapTLa<i  we  may  compare,  for 
 example.  Acts  ii.  22,  23,  as  also  ch.  iii.  13-15.  For  the  Trept 
 hiKaioavvTj^,  ch.  ii.  38,  "Kepent,  and  be  baptized  every  one 
 of  you  in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ  for  the  remission  of  sins," 
 and  ch.  iv.  12,  "Neither  is  there  salvation  in  any  other;"  v. 
 31,  viii.  37,  x.  43,  xiii.  38,  39,  "Through  this  man  is  preached 
 unto  you  the  forgiveness  of  sins  ;  and  by  Him  all  that  believe 
 are  justified  from  all  things,  from  which  ye  could  not  be  justi- 
 fied by  the  law  of  Moses."  For  irepl  /cpt'o-eo)?  we  must  compare 
 ch.  ii.  19-21 ;  and  "fear  was  upon  every  soul,"  in  ver.  43,  with 
 ch.  iii.  23. 
 
 In  all  other  parts  of  the  New  Testament,  iXey^eiv  stands 
 for  a  reproving  charge,  the  conviction  which  impresses  guilt 
 upon  the  conscience,  and  is  everywhere  used  only  of  moral 
 
 N 
 
CHAP.  XVI.  y,  10.  281 
 
 crimination.  So  ch.  iii.  20,  viii.  46,  Eev.  iii.  19.  In  2  Tim. 
 iv.  2,  eXey^ov  and  iTnTifirjcrov  go  together.  In  Tit.  i.  13  we 
 read,  eXey^e  avTOu<;  a7roT6fi(o<i.  In  Jas.  ii.  9,  iXey^ofjuevoi,  vtto 
 TGv  v6/j.ov  &)<?  Trapa/ddrac.  Hence  the  iXey-^^eiv  has  always  to 
 do  with  transgressors^  and  this  is  its  meaning  in  our  present 
 passage.  Its  reference  to  righteousness  and  judgment  has  also 
 a  reproving  tone.  It  is  directed,  as  the  preceding  "  of  sin" 
 shows,  against  those  who  were  involved  in  unbelief,  who  through 
 their  guilt  robbed  themselves  of  righteousness,  and,  unless  they 
 repented,  would  fall  into  condemnation.  That  the  ground-tone 
 of  apostolical  preaching  after  Pentecost  was  conviction  and  re- 
 proof, is  evident  from  its  result  in  Acts  ii.  37,  "  pricked  in  their 
 heart,"  and  the  affrighted  "  What  shall  we  do  ?"  In  Bengel's 
 note,  "  He  who  is  convicted  of  sin,  afterwards  passes  over  into 
 the  righteousness  (of  Christ),  or  shares  (with  Satan)  condem- 
 nation," the  bracketed  words  are  unwarranted  interpolations 
 from  ver.  9. 
 
 Vers.  9,  10.  "  Of  sin,  because  they  believe  not  on  Me :  of 
 righteousness,  because  I  go  to  My  Father,  and  ye  see  Me  no 
 more." — The  righteousness  forms  the  antithesis  to  the  sin  (Se)  ; 
 the  judgment,  the  antithesis  to  the  righteousness  (Se).  The 
 on  is — "with  reference  to  the  fact  that,"  John  ii.  18.  In  the 
 first  clause,  it  means  "consisting  in  this,  that;"  in  the  second 
 it  is  equivalent  to  "thereby  attained,  that;"  and  in  the  third, 
 once  more  "  consisting  in  this,  that."  Kighteousness  consists 
 not  in  the  going  of  Christ  to  the  Father,  and  His  not  being  ^ 
 seen  by  His  disciples ;  but  through  this  the  righteousness  was  ^ 
 obtained  for  us.  The  form  which  the  statement  assumes  is  ex- 
 plained by  reference  to  the  state  of  the  Apostles'  minds.  That 
 wdiich  filled  them  with  the  deepest  grief  would  bring  to  them 
 the  wholesome  fruit  of  righteousness  ;  and  was  therefore, 
 rightly  viewed,  not  matter  of  sorrow,  but  of  joy.  It  is  not 
 "  because  they  see  Me  no  more,"  but  "  because  ye  see  Me  no 
 more."  The  appearances  of  the  risen  Lord  are  here  taken  no 
 account  of,  because  they  were  of  a  transitory  character,  and 
 served  only  as  means  to  an  end,  viz.  the  full  conviction  of  the 
 Apostles. — The  judgment  is,  in  ver.  8,  that  which  impended 
 over  the  unbelieving  Jews,  in  case  they  should  continue  in  their 
 unbelief.  And  that  here  also  we  are  to  understand,  beneath 
 the  judgment  already  accomplished  on  Satan,  a  latent  reference 
 
282  CHAP,  xiii.-xvii. 
 
 to  the  judgment  threatening  the  Jews,  is  pLiin  from  the  "  con- 
 vince the  world,"  which  must  be  the  supplement  of  each  clause, 
 and  in  harmony  with  which  the  mention  of  the  judgment  upon 
 Satan  must  have  a  condemnatory  meaning  for  the  world  and 
 the  Jews.  In  fact,  the  already  executed  judgment  upon  Satan, 
 the  prince  of  this  world,  contains  in  itself  a  denunciation  of 
 judgment  upon  the  /cocr/io?  of  his  subjects,  provided  they  do 
 not  in  good  time  release  themselves  from  their  bond  of  subjec- 
 tion to  him,  which  they  can  do  only  through  faith  in  Jesus 
 Christ.  Augustin  :  "  Let  those  who  follow  him  who  is  judged, 
 take  heed  lest  they  be  hereafter  judged  like  their  prince,  and 
 condemned."  Quesnel :  "  Blind  men,  who  still  cling  to  the 
 world  and  set  your  hopes  upon  it,  what  will  become  of  you 
 when  your  prince  is  already  adjudged  to  eternal  punishment?" 
 The  judgment  upon  Satan  was  accomplished  through  the  death 
 of  Christ,  comp.  on  ch.  xii.  31 ;  and  with  Satan  the  world  itself 
 is  virtually  condemned.  In  ch.  xii.  31,  the  world,  as  the  object 
 of  the  judgment,  is  mentioned  before  the  prince  of  the  world. 
 That  world  can,  however,  escape  through  penitence  the  execu- 
 tion of  the  suspended  sentence  ;  it  may  by  faith  pass  over  into 
 the  domain  of  another  Prince,  of  Him  who  hath  judged  the 
 prince  of  this  world.  It  is  a  perilous  thing  to  continue  a  sub- 
 ject of  an  already  condemned  prince,  and  to  refuse  submission 
 to  Him  who  hath  condemned  that  prince.  If  the  prince  of 
 this  world  is  judged,  the  cry  rings  out,  "  Save  yourselves  from 
 this  untoward  generation,"  Acts  ii.  40 — a  generation  which  has 
 Satan  for  its  lord,  ch.  viii.  44. — The  judgment  upon  Satan  was 
 not  actually  consummated  but  by  the  atoning  death  of  Christ ; 
 but  here  it  is  regarded  as  already  accomplished,  KeKpcrai, 
 because  it  was  immediately  at  hand,  and  because  it  would  be 
 an  actually  effected  judgment  when  the  Holy  Spirit  should 
 begin  to  exercise  His  reproving  function. 
 
 Chap.  xvi.  12-33. 
 
 After  the  Lord  had  regulated  the  Apostles'  views  of  their 
 fundamental  relations.  He  now  turns  to  His  specific  farewell 
 discourse.  This  chai'acter  we  find  in  vers.  12-15.  As  Moses, 
 when  he  departed,  pointed  to  Joshua,  Dent.  xxxi.  23,  so  Jesus 
 pointed  to  the  Holy  Ghost,  who  should  lead  His  disciples  into 
 
CHAP.  XVI.  12.  283 
 
 all  the  truth.  With  this  is  connected  in  ver.  16  an  allusion  to 
 His  immediate  departure,  and  that  seeing  Him  again  which 
 should  follow  upon  it.  So  also  the  words  of  Christ  in  vers. 
 20-28,  anticipating  the  question  of  the  disciples  as  to  the  mean- 
 ing of  these  words,  lead  back,  according  to  the  explanation 
 given,  into  the  track  of  the  farewell  discourse,  inasmuch  as  they 
 point  to  the  impending  departure  of  the  Lord,  and  the  advan- 
 tage which  should  accrue  from  it  to  the  disciples.  So  also  the 
 third  paragraph,  occasioned  by  the  interruption  of  the  disciples, 
 bears  a  farewell  character ;  it  predicts  to  the  disciples  their  ap- 
 proaching dispersion,  but  intimates  that  such  calamities  should 
 never  have  the  power  to  depress  their  spirit. 
 
 The  fact  that  in  vers.  12-15,  just  as  in  vers.  7-11,  the  Holy 
 Spirit  is  the  subject,  has  misled  many  expositors,  leading  them 
 to  think  that  a  new  section  does  not  begin  here.  We  have 
 already  pointed  out,  that,  with  ver.  11,  there  is  a  conclusion  first 
 of  the  section  ch.  xv.  18-xvi.  11,  and  then  also  of  the  whole 
 discourse  from  ch.  xv.  1  onwards.  There  is,  indeed,  a  con- 
 nection between  the  discourse  beginning  with  ver.  12  and  the 
 general  strain  of  the  whole,  inasmuch  as  here  the  internal  work 
 of  the  Spirit's  edification  follows  the  Spirit's  operation  as  it 
 respects  the  word.  But  that  is  only  the  connection  of  transi- 
 tion from  one  section  to  another ;  it  serves  only  to  connect  what 
 follows  with  the  general  body  of  the  one  discourse,  and  to  show 
 that  it  is  not  an  absolutely  new  commencement  that  follows. 
 That  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  spoken  of  in  vers.  12-15,  is 
 essentially  distinguished  from  that  of  vers.  7-11, — and,  there- 
 fore, that  the  link  of  connection  is  not  very  strict, — is  plain 
 from  the  fact  that,  in  ch.  xiv.,  these  two  operations  of  the  Holy 
 Ghost  are  exhibited  as  totally  distinct.  As  vers.  7-11  of  this 
 chapter  refer  back  to  ch.  xiv.  15-17,  so  vers.  12,  13  refer  back 
 to  ch.  xiv.  25,  26. 
 
 Ver.  12.  "  I  have  yet  many  things  to  say  unto  you,  but  ye 
 cannot  bear  them  now." — It  is  not  "  I  might  have,"  but  "  I 
 have;"  and  it  leads  to  the  conclusion  that  Christ  could  not 
 now  say  it  to  them  on  account  of  their  weakness,  but  that  He 
 would  say  it  at  a  later  period.  The  Spirit  of  truth,  who 
 should  impart  it  to  them,  would  give  what  He  received  of 
 Christ,  ver.  14 ;  and  through  that  Spirit  Christ  therefore  would 
 speak  to  His  disciples.     The  Revelation  of  John,  which  was 
 
284  CHAP,  xiii.-xvii. 
 
 included  under  this  promise,  and  itself  formed  a  considerable 
 part  of  its  matter,  is  in  cli.  i.  1  referred  back  to  Christ  as  its 
 author ;  and  the  Spirit  in  whom  John  found  himself  when  he 
 received  the  revelation  (ch.  i.  10)  was  only  the  medium  of  the 
 reception  of  the  contents  which  sprang  from  Christ,  and,  finally 
 from  God.  In  ch.  i.  10,  .xix.  10,  xxii.  16,  the  substance  of  the 
 Apocalypse  is  directly  said  to  be  derived  from  Christ. 
 
 Of  what  nature  were  the  many  things  which  Christ  had  yet 
 to  say  to  His  Apostles?  It  appears  from  a  comparison  with 
 ch.  XV.  15,  that  in  all  great  essentials  the  revelation  already  im- 
 parted through  Christ  had  a  certain  completeness,  and  that  the 
 supplement  promised  through  tTTe  Holy  Ghost  could  refer  only 
 to  specialities.  What  follows,  shows  that  among  the  many 
 things  the  future  destinies  of  the  Church  occupied  the  first 
 place.  One  instance  we  have  in  the  revelation  which  St  Peter 
 recorded  in  Acts  x.,  concerning  the  reception  of  the  Gentiles 
 into  the  kingdom  of  Christ.  So  also  there  were  to  be  further 
 revelations  concerning  the  great  facts  of  our  Lord's  passion, 
 resurrection,  exaltation,  which  should  be  based  upon  these  facts, 
 not  yet  accomplished,  themselves. — Those  to  whom  Christ  had 
 yet  much  to  say,  were  manifestly  the  same  to  whom  He  had 
 already  spoken  many  things.  And  as  these  were  the  Apostles, 
 we, have  n^^ight  to  go  beyond  their  circle  for  the  fulfilment  of 
 the  great  promise  of  future  communications ;  and  Beza  was 
 quite  justified  in  his  zeal  against  those  who  "  dare  to  continue 
 into  long  ages  after  the  Apostles'  death,  the  revelations  which 
 our  Lord  promised  to  the  Apostles  whom  He  Himself  chose." 
 
 Baardl^etv  does  not  mean  "  apprehend."  The  sense  is,  that 
 the  Apostles  must  not  generally  be  overweighted.  Their  weak- 
 ness required  that  the  truth  should  be  gradually  imparted  to 
 them,  as  the  Lord,  in  Luke  xii.  42,  required  that  the  wise 
 householder  should  divide  the  food  in  due  season,  iv  Katpw. 
 Much  of  that  which  they  had  already  heard  was  not  less  be- 
 yond their  apprehension  than  what  had  been  hitherto  withheld 
 (comp.  ver.  25).  The  victory  of  Christianity  over  the  power  of 
 heathenism  was  not  in  itself  harder  to "  be  understood  than  its 
 victory  over  Judaism.  But  the  Lord  contents  Himself  with 
 depicting  the  latter  point  in  lively  colours ;  He  speaks  of  the 
 victory  over  Gentile  powers  only  in  hints :  the  full  expansion  of 
 the  truth  He  reserves  for  the  Apocalypse,  after  the  catastrophe 
 
CHAP.  XVI.  13  285 
 
 of  Jerusalem  had  already  taken  place. — These  disclosures,  pre- 
 maturely imparted,  would  have  been  to  the  Apostles  only  a  use- 
 less burden ;  they  would  have  been  only  distracted,  by  matters 
 of  no  immediate  practical  significance,  from  the  point  to  which 
 now  their  attention  should  be  supremely  directed.  Matt,  xxiii. 
 4  furnishes  a  comment  on  the  ^aard^etv :  Jesus  says  of  the 
 Pharisees,  "  They  bind  heavy  burdens,  and  grievous  to  be 
 borne,  Sva/SdaraKTa,  and  lay  them  on  men's  shoulders."  Jesus 
 would  not  lay  doctrinal  burdens  upon  the  shoulders  of  the 
 Apostles  which  they  could  not  yet  bear,  and  in  this  Pie  gave 
 liis  Church  a  pattern  :  we  also,  following  His  example,  should 
 avoid  overloading.  J.  Gerhard  is  wrong  in  saying,  that  by 
 naming  the  Spirit,  Christ  gives  the  reason  why  the  Apostles 
 could  not  bear  what  He  had  yet  to  say, — because  they  were  yet 
 carnal.  The  Spirit  of  Christ  would  tell  them  Avhat  Christ  did 
 not,  simply  because,  after  the  Lord's  departure,  He  would  take 
 His  place. 
 
 Ver.  13.  "  Howbeit  when  He,  the  Spirit  of  truth,  is  come, 
 He  will  guide  you  into  all  truth :  for  He  shall  not  speak  of 
 Himself ;  but  whatsoever  He  shall  hear,  that  shall  He  speak : 
 and  He  will  show  you  things  to  come." — P.  Anton:  "As  He 
 will  rebuke  the  world  upon  the  three  points  of  which  we  heard 
 in  ver.  8,  so  He  will  not  forget  His  other  office.  He  will  lead 
 you  into  all  truth."  That  the  "  you "  must  refer  only  to  the 
 Apostles,  has  been  shown  in  our  remarks  upon  ver.  12.  On  this 
 point  Tholuck  says  :  "  The  persons  addressed  are  no  other  than 
 the  witnesses  to  the  truth  of  ch.  xv.  17, — those  to  whom  vei's. 
 17,  18  apply, — for  whom  He  primarily  prays  in  ch.  xvii.  9,  the 
 rest  being  prayed  for  in  ver.  20."  We  would  add,  that  what  is 
 here  meant  is  not  the  quickening  of  truths  already  present  in 
 the  minds  of  the  individuals  (so  that  1  John  ii.  27  might  be 
 brought  into  comparison) ;  but  the  first  impartation  of  truths 
 not  yet  made  known.  This  is  evident  from  the  reference  to 
 ver.  12,  according  to  which  we  can  only  include  matters  which 
 Christ  had  not  yet  spoken  of.  It  is  plain  also  from  the  words 
 which  follow,  "  He  will  show  you  things  to  come,"  where  we 
 may,  from  the  species,  infer  the  kind,  the  revelation  of  hitherto 
 unknown  mysteiiies.  The  Apostles  laid  the  most  decisive  claim 
 to  be  the  organs  ^of  such  revelation.  "  Regarding  this  promise," 
 says  Grotius,  "  tke  Apostles  say.  It  seemed  good  to  the  Holy 
 
286  CHAP,  xiii.-xvii. 
 
 Ghost  and  to  us."  Acts  x.  records  an  important  revelation 
 made  to  Peter.  John,  in  the  Apocalypse,  declares  himself  to 
 be  the  orcjan  of  hicfh  revelations.  With  regard  to  the  revela- 
 tions  and  prophetic  position  of  Paul,  see  2  Cor.  xii. ;  Eph.  iii.  3 ; 
 Gal.  i.  1,  ii.  2.  It  has  been  shown  in  my  Commentary  on  the 
 Apocalypse  (Clark's  Transl.),  ch.  i.  1,  xviii.  20,  that  for  the 
 reception  of  new  truths  there  is  no  other  organ  than  the  pro- 
 phetic ;  and  that  this  organ,  under  the  New  Testament,  is  inti- 
 mately connected  with  the  Apostolate,  forming  a  portion  of  its 
 prerogatives.  We  find  no  trace  in  the  New  Testament  that 
 any  disclosures  of  secret  truth,  important  for  the  whole  Church, 
 were  made  beyond  the  circle  of  the  Apostles ;  or  any  revela- 
 tions which  affected  the  doctrine  or  the  future  destiny  of  the 
 whole  Church.  What  we  read  in  the  Acts  of  the  manifestations 
 made  to  other  prophets,  bears  always  a  very  subordinate  cha- 
 racter ;  we  never  read  that  they  were  the  organs  of  any  great 
 and  new  revelations. 
 
 It  has  been  maintained,  entirely  without  reason,  that  the 
 truths  into  which  the  Spirit  of  truth  should  lead  them  were  not 
 to  be  more  closely  defined.  They  w^ere  simply  all  those  which 
 first  were  clearly  expressed  in  the  Apostolical  Epistles  and  Apo- 
 calypse, and  concerning  which  the  discourses  of  Christ  had  given 
 in  the  Gospels  no  adequate  disclosure.  That  the  Apocalypse  in 
 particular  occupies  an  important  place  among  them,  is  plain 
 from  the  triple  dvayyeXel,  in  vers.  13,  14,  15,  and  from  the 
 corresponding  high  importance  which,  in  the  Apocalypse  itself, 
 is  ascribed  to  its  revelations  and  teachings.  The  promise  given, 
 as  we  have  seen,  to  the  Apostles  alone,  would  have  been  waver- 
 ing and  useless,  if  it  had  not  resulted  in  documents  from  which 
 we  might  gather  the  nature  of  the  disclosures  communicated  to 
 them.  Only  by  the  presence  of  such  archives  could  the  appeal 
 of  enthusiasm  and  heresy  to  this  promise  be  foreclosed  and  cut 
 off.  (Augustin :  All  the  most  senseless  heretics,  wishing  to 
 bear  the  name  of  Christians,  have  sought  to  give,  by  occasion 
 of  this  passage,  an  evangelical  colouring  to  lies  against  which 
 man's  common  sense  rebels.)  The  apostolical  writings,  the 
 monuments  of  the  fulfilment  of  this  promise,  form,  notwith- 
 standing their  apparent  independence,  an  organic  whole,  in  the 
 instruction  of  which  the  Spirit  of  truth  has  provided  for  all 
 the  needs  of  all  ages  of  the  Church.     Stier's  assertion,  that  this 
 
CHAP.  XVI.  13.  287 
 
 passage  is  not  strictly  a  proof  of  the  infallibility  of  the  Apostles, 
 inasmuch  as  the  promise  essentially  belongs  to  us  all  (1  John 
 ii.  27),  is  based  upon  an  opinion  which  we  have  already  rejected, 
 viz.  that  the  promise  was  given  to  all  believers  generally,  while 
 it  was  really  given  to  the  Apostles  alone,  who  were  consecrated 
 as  the  organs  of  the  establishment  of  the  whole  treasury  of  the 
 truth  needed  by  the  Church.  On  the  same  false  foundation 
 rests  the  Eomish  view,  wdiich  refers  the  saying  to  a  revelation 
 running  through  all  ages  of  the  Church. — The  Spirit  would 
 lead  into  the  whole  or  the  full  truth,  inasmuch  as  He  would 
 supplementally  add  wdiat  Jesus  during  His  life  had  not  com- 
 municated ;  and  bring  to  their  remembrance  that  which  He  had 
 spoken  to  them.  The  difference  between  the  two  readings,  et? 
 iraaav  rrjv  oKriBeiav  (for  which  !Mark  v.  33  speaks),  and  et?  ttiv 
 ak7]Qeiav  Tvaaav,  into  all  truth,  and  all  of  it,  touches  not  the 
 sense. 
 
 That  the  Spirit  would  lead  them  into  all  truth,  is  grounded 
 upon  this,  that  He  would  not  speak  of  Himself,  but  speak  that 
 which  He  had  heard.  The  Spirit  cannot  absolutely  speak  of 
 Himself,  because  He  exists  in  the  most  intimate  communion  of 
 nature  with  the  Father  and  the  Son ;  because  it  belongs  to  His 
 essence  to  be  the  Spirit  of  the  Father  and  of  the  Son.  Augustin  : 
 "  He  will  not  speak  of  Himself,  because  He  is  not  of  Himself. 
 But  whatsoever  things  He  shall  hear.  He  will  speak :  whatsoever 
 He  shall  hear  of  Him  from  whom  He  procee4eth."  That  which 
 is  self-understood  is,  however,  here  emphatically  stated,  because 
 there  is  a  false  "spirit,"  which  speaks  of  itself,  and  on  that 
 account  can  lead  not  into  truth,  but  only  into  error.  (Luther : 
 "  His  preaching  would  not  be  like  a  dream  of  man,  like  that  of 
 those  who  bring  matter  of  their  own, — such  things,  to  wit,  as 
 they  have  neither  seen  nor  known.  But  He  would  preach  such 
 things  as  had  a  foundation  under  them ;  that  is,  what  He  re- 
 ceived of  the  Father  and  Me.")  That  was  the  spirit  who  was 
 active  in  the  false  prophets  of  the  Old  Testament :  comp.  Jer. 
 xxiii.  16,  "Thus  saith  the  Lord  of  hosts.  Hearken  not  unto  the 
 words  of  the  prophets  that  prophesy  unto  you  :  they  make  you 
 vain  :  they  speak  a  vision  of  their  own  heart  [Michaelis  :  '  Ex 
 corde  suo  tanquam  principio  oriundam,'  corresponding  to  the 
 aj)  eavrov  here  :  in  ver.  26  they  are  called  '  prophets  of  the 
 deceit  of  their  own  heart'],  and  not  out  of  the  mouth  of  the 
 
288  CHAP.  XIII.- XVII. 
 
 Lord:"  comp.  Isa.  xiv.  14,  27,  ix.  14.  In  1  Kings  xxii.  21 
 this  spirit  appears  personified,  in  harmony  with  the  character  of 
 the  vision,  and  offers  to  deceive  Ahab,  by  being  a  lying  spirit  in 
 the  month  of  all  the  prophets  of  the  calves.  In  Zech.  xiii.  2, 
 the  Lord  promises,  "  And  also  I  ^Yill  cause  the  prophets  and 
 the  unclean  spirit  to  pass  out  of  the  land."  That  this  spirit 
 still  existed  in  the  times  of  the  New  Testament,  and  that  there 
 was  needed  a  rampart  against  him  in  the  Spirit  who  should  not 
 speak  of  Himself,  and  in  the  trustworthy  monuments  of  His 
 revelation,  is  plain  from  INIatt.  xxiv.  11,  24;  Eev.  xvi.  13,  14; 
 2  Thess.  ii.  2. 
 
 As  the  "  not  of  Himself,"  so  also  the  "  what  He  hatli  heard," 
 points  back  to  the  Old  Testament.  "  That  which  was  heard" 
 was  the  term  by  which  the  true  prophets  (see  Isa.  liii.  1 ; 
 Obad.  1)  designated  their  announcements,  in  order  to  express 
 that  they  had  nothing  to  communicate  which  they  had  not 
 received,  and  thus  to  arrogate  to  themselves  absolute  authority. 
 In  Isa.  xxviii.  9,  the  prophets  take  their  taunting  word  out  of 
 the  mouth  of  the  mockers,  who  cried,  "  To  whom  shall  he  teach 
 nyiDC'?"  the  comment  on  which  is  ch.  xxi.  10  :  "  That  which  I 
 have  heard  of  the  Lord  of  hosts,  the  God  of  Israel,  have  I 
 declared  unto  you."  Of  icliom  the  Spirit  lieareth,  is  not  here 
 declared,  because  the  main  point  primarily  was  to  emphasize 
 His  hearing.  According  to  ver.  14,  He  hears  primarily  from 
 Christ;  according  to  ver.  15,  what  He  hears  goes  back  to  the 
 Father.  Against  those  who  at  once  supplement  "  of  the 
 Father,"  Kling  rightly  observes :  "  If  we  suppose  the  Spirit 
 hearing,  as  it  were  by  the  side  of  the  Son,  from  the  Father,  the 
 whole  relation  is  disturbed,  and  the  subordinate  and  false  posi- 
 tion of  the  Greek  Church  theory  is  assumed." 
 
 "And  He  will  show  you  things  to  come."  Ta-  ep'^o/xeva — here 
 we  have  the  most  distinguished  species  of  the  class.  "  Things 
 to  come"  is  an  expression  which  a  series  of  prophetical  passages 
 in  Isaiah  use  to  designate  the  events  of  the  future,  which  form 
 the  object  of  prophecy:  ch.  xli.  22,  23,  xliv.  7,  xlv.  11.  Ta 
 ipyofjieva,  so  far  as  they  were  peculiar  •  to  the  revelation  given 
 to  the  Apostles,  can  be  only  the  future  destinies  of  the  kingdom 
 of  God.  We  are  led  to  this  conclusion  by  the  original  in  Isaiah, 
 where,  on  the  ground  of  the  revelations  made  by  the  prophets 
 concerning  the  future  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  the  false  gods 
 
CHAP.  XVI.  13.  289 
 
 are  tauntingly  challenged  :  "  The  things  that  are  coining  and 
 shall  come,  let  them  show  unto  them."  Nor  is  it  very  difficult 
 to  determine  what  theme  those  future  revelations  to  the  Apostles 
 Avould  mainly  dwell  upon.  Concerning  the  destruction  of  Jeru- 
 salem, the  Lord  had  Himself  given  clear  prediction ;  so  clear 
 and  perfect,  that  the  boundary  line  was  reached  which  separates 
 between  prophecy  and  history.  Hence  we  expect  disclosures 
 concerning  the  history  of  the  Church,  in  its  relation  to  the 
 Gentile  secular  power.  This  had  been  lightly  indicated  by  our 
 Lord  as  the  second  hostile  agency ;  even  as  it  is  exhibited  in  the 
 scenes  of  the  crucifixion,  which  bear  upon  them  a  symbolical 
 character.  Li  Matt.  xxi.  21,  the  Lord  sets  over  against  the 
 fig-tree  of  the  Jewish  people  the  symbol  of  a  mountain  for  the 
 .  Gentile  power,  to  remove  which  was  the  task  assigned  to  the 
 faith  of  the  Church.  Li  ]\Iatt.  x.  18,  "  And  ye  shall  be  brought 
 before  governors  and  kings  for  ]\Iy  sake,  for  a  testimony  against 
 them  and  the  Gentiles,"  the  Lord  gives  an  intimation  of  the 
 persecutions  which  threatened  the  Church  from  the  heathen 
 world,  and  of  the  judgment  upon  it  which  would  ensue.  In 
 Luke  xxi.  24,  He  speaks  of  the  times  of  the  Gentiles  being 
 accomplished,  following  upon  the  judgment  upon  Jerusalem. 
 Li  Matt,  xviii.  6,  there  is  a  reference  to  Jer.  li.  63,  64,  where 
 Jeremiah  gives  to  Seraiah,  going  to  Babylon,  the  command  to 
 read  his  prophecy :  "  And  it  shall  be,  when  thou  hast  made  an 
 end  of  reading  this  book,  that  thou  shalt  bind  a  stone  to  it,  and 
 cast  it  into  the  midst  of  Euphrates  :  and  thou  shalt  say.  Thus 
 shall  Babylon  sink,  and  shall  not  rise  from  the  evil  that  I  will 
 bring  upon  her ;  and  they  shall  be  weary."  And  this  shows  that, 
 behind  the  reference  to  events  immediately  coming,  there  lay 
 concealed  a  reference  to  the  Gentile  powers,  which  would  one 
 day  in  a  more  serious  manner  offend  the  little  ones  :  comp.  Rev. 
 xviii.  21.  These  hints  we  expect  to  see  expanded  by  the  Holy 
 Ghost,  and  with  a  precision,  luminousness,  and  practical  force, 
 somewhat  corresponding  to  the  pattern  given  in  our  Lord's  de- 
 scription of  the  catastrophe  of  Jerusalem.  If  this  be  so,  Stier's 
 observation  is  quite  correct :  "  And  now  let  him  who  hath  ears 
 to  hear,  hear  what  the  Spirit  saith  to  the  churches,  through  the 
 bosom-disciple  in  Patmos,  who  was  in  the  Spirit  on  the  Lord's 
 day."  The  Church  and  the  Gentile  power  are  the  theme  of 
 the  Apocalypse.  I  observed  in  my  commentary  on  that  book 
 VOL.  II.  T 
 
290  CHAP.  XIII.-XVII, 
 
 as  follows  :  "  It  is  remarkable  that  this  promise  of  our  Lord 
 should  have  been  found  in  the  Gospel  of  John.  The  intima- 
 tions of  what  was  to  come,  given  elsewhere  than  in  his  writings, 
 are  only  of  an  occasional  scattered  description.  They  are  to  be 
 met  with  chiefly  in  Paul,  who  did  not  belong  to  the  apostolic 
 circle  as  it  then  existed.  If  we  were  to  conceive  of  the  Apoca- 
 lypse dropping  away,  we  should  at  once  feel  that  the  promise 
 of  Christ  had  found  no  adequate  fulfilment.  Even  from  the 
 analogy  of  the  fulfilment  given  to  the  parallel  declaration,  '  He 
 will  bring  to  your  remembrance  whatsoever  I  have  said  to  you,' 
 as  it  is  to  be  found  in  the  Gospels,  especially  in  those  of  John 
 and  Matthew,  we  are  naturally  led  to  expect  a  book  specially 
 devoted  to  the  announcement  of  what^was  to  come ;  and  this  so 
 much  the  more,  as  the  prophecy  of  the  Old  Testament  presented 
 the  type  of  something  independent  and  complete.  The  Gospel 
 itself  thus  looks  beyond  itself  to  another  book,  that  should  be 
 peculiarly  occupied  with  the  revelation  of  things  to  come,  as 
 these  belonged  to  the  many  things  of  which  the  Lord  had  said 
 to  His  disciples  that  they  could  still  not  bear  them."  Our 
 Rationalist  criticism  cannot  confront  the  Lord's  declaration  in 
 this  passage ;  more  especially  after  having,  as  it  has,  contended 
 against  the  genuineness  of  the  Second  Epistle  of  Peter,  the  only 
 book  springing  from  an  original  Apostle,  which,  apart  from  the 
 Apocalypse,  contains  a  detailed  foreannouncement  of  future 
 things :  comp.  2  Pet.  ii.  1  seq.,  and  the  allusion  to  this  passage 
 in  the  Epistle  of  Jude,  vers.  17,  18. 
 
 Ver.  14.  "He  shall  glorify  Me;  for  He  shall  receive  of 
 Mine,  and  shall  show  it  unto  you." — The  Holy  Spirit  would 
 glorify  Christ,  inasmuch  as  He  would  impart  revelations  which 
 could  not  be  explained  from  natural  causes,  leading  the  mind 
 up  beyond  the  human  domain  into  the  divine.  This  im- 
 portance could  not  be  attached  to  the  doctrines  generally,  so 
 much  as  to  those  special  disclosures  of  the  future.  That  these 
 are  more  particularly  to  be  considered  here,  is  plain  from  the 
 repetition,  here  and  ver.  15,  of  the  avayyeXel,  the  triple  recur- 
 rence of  which  serves  to  demonstrate  what  deep  significance 
 our  Lord  attached  to  these  revelations  of  futurity.  Grotius' 
 observation  is  correct :  "  By  this  He  will  show  forth  My  glory, 
 inasmuch  as  through  Me  future  things  will  be  foreannounced 
 to  My  people."     In  a  long  series  of  passages  in  the  second 
 
CHAP.  XVI.  14.  291 
 
 portion  of  Isaiah,  it  is  shown  to  have  been  the  design  of  the 
 many  predictions  of  the  future  contained  in  the  book,  to  demon- 
 strate that  Jehovah  was  God,  or  to  glorify  Ilim :  see  ch.  xli. 
 2b,  26,  xhii.  9-11.  As  those  prophecies  were  to  serve  for  the 
 glorification  of  Jehovah,  so  those  of  which  our  passage  speaks 
 Avere  to  serve  for  the  glorification  of  Christ.  They  would  show 
 that  to  Him  was  applicable  the  word  spoken,  in  Dan.  ii.  22, 
 concerning  Jehovah :  "He  revealeth  the  deep  and  secret  things; 
 He  knowetli  what  is  in  the  darkness,  and  the  light  dwelleth 
 with  Him."  The  world  would,'  in  consequence  of  the  con- 
 firmation which  these  prophecies  should  receive,  say,  as  Nebu- 
 chadnezzar said,  Dan.  ii.  47,  "  Of  a  truth  it  is,  that  your  God 
 is  a  God  of  gods,  and  a  Lord  of  kings,  and  a  revealer  of  secrets, 
 seeing  thou  couldest  reveal  this  secret." 
 
 All  that  the  Holy  Spirit  would  communicate,  should  return 
 back  to  Christ,  and  serve  to  His  glorification.  The  Holy  Spirit 
 receives  His  disclosures  from  Christ  (comp.  Rev.  i.  1,  xxii. 
 16) ;  and  that  they  really  belonged  to  Him,  is  plain  from  the 
 fact  that  an  actual  knowledge  of  the  future  is  found  only 
 within  the  domain  of  the  Christian  Church.  When  heathen 
 Rome  was  still  dreaming  of  immortality,  the  Christian  Church, 
 taught  by  the  Apocalypse,  was  as  surely  persuaded  of  its  im- 
 pending fall,  as  if  it  had  already  sunk  before  its  eyes. — 
 The  saying  we  now  consider  suggests  to  us  that  we  should 
 reverently  dwell  upon  the  Apocalypse,  and,  if  we  find  in  it 
 obscurities,  reflect  upon  the  dimness  of  our  own  vision.  If  we 
 do  not  take  this  book  into  the  account,  it  is  hard  to  indicate 
 how  the  promise  was  fulfilled.  We  cannot  then  point  to  any 
 apostolical  revelations  or  disclosures  of  the  future  which  con- 
 tributed in  any  striking  manner  to  the  glorification  of  Christ. 
 The  prophecies  of  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  were  not  such  ; 
 for  the  Son  of  man  had  already,  before  the  Spirit's  revelations, 
 preoccupied  that  theme.  Nor  the  predictions  of  the  end  of 
 the  world ;  for  the  glorification  ensuing  was  to  be  of  a  practical 
 kfnd,  and  to  serve  to  the  extension  of  the  Redeemer's  kingdom 
 upon  earth.  Thus,  the  communication  of  the  Holy  Spirit  that 
 should  glorify  Christ  must  move  in  the  same  circle  as  the  pre- 
 dictions of  the  Apocalypse.  In  harmony  with  our  passage  is 
 the  high  significance  which  that  book  ascribes  to  its  own  pro- 
 phetic revelations  (comp.  ch.  xix.  10,  with  my  commentary)  : 
 
292  CHAP,  xiii.-xvii. 
 
 there  also  the  disclosures  which  the  sj^irit  of  prophecy  makes 
 are  referred  back  to  Christ  (compare  my  remarks  on  the  same 
 passage,  ch.  xxii.  16)  ;  further,  the  prophetic  testimony  of  Jesus, 
 according  to  that  book,  culminates  in  the  Apostles.  With 
 ep-^ofjieva,  compare  a  fikXket  'ylveadai  jneTa  ravra,  Rev.  i.  19. 
 
 Ver.  15.  "All  things  that  the  Father  hath  are  Mine: 
 therefore  said  I,  that  He  shall  take  of  Mine,  and  shall  show  it 
 unto  you." — Jesus  now  shows  how  great  things  the  Apostles 
 had  to  expect  in  the  Holy  Spirit's  revelation  of  the  future, 
 by  declaring  that,  in  this  ma'tter  as  in  all  others.  His  domain 
 was  co-extensive  with  that  of  the  Father;  so  that  nothing 
 Avas  inaccessible  to  Him,  nothing  going  beyond  His  own  sphere. 
 The  "  of  Me  "  needed  this  explanation  all  the  more,  inasmuch 
 as  the  Old  Testament  had  always  most  decisively  referred 
 the  disclosure  of  the  future  to  God  alone,  exhibiting  it  as 
 His  supreme  and  sole  prerogative.  In  harmony  with  the  pre- 
 sent passage,  the  Apocalypse  in  its  very  first  words  refers 
 itself  to  God  as  its  original :  "  The  revelation  of  Jesus  Christ, 
 which  God  gave  Him : "  comp.  also  ch.  xxii.  6.  The  triple 
 dvayyeXei  v[uv,  "  will  show  you,"  must  have  had  the  effect 
 of  making  the  Apostles  anticipate  with  the  most  anxious 
 expectation  the  disclosures  which  were  foreannounced  with 
 such  deep  emphasis.  When  they  subsequently  recalled  this 
 promise,  and  reflected  who  among  them  would  be  the  instru- 
 ments of  these  high  revelations,  the  three,  Peter,  James,  and 
 John,  would  be  the  most  prominent ;  for  these  three  had  been 
 on  every  occasion  distinguished  by  our  Lord,  and  were  among 
 the  Apostles  "the  greater."  Of  these  three,  again,  that  disciple 
 who  leaned  on  the  Lord's  bosom  seemed  the  most  adapted  to 
 the  revelation  of  these  deep  mysteries,  Amos  iii.  7.  His  self- 
 renouncing,  contemplative,  mystical  peculiai'Ity,  placed  him  in 
 the  forefront. 
 
 Ver.  16.  "A  little  while,  and  ye  shall  not  see  Me:  and 
 again  a  little  while,  and  ye  shall  see  Me ;  because  I  go  to  the 
 Father." — The  Lord  utters  here  the  proper  farewell  word. 
 But  He  veils  it  in  intentional  mystery,  in  order  that  the 
 difficulty  which  it  presented  to  the  understanding  of  the  dis- 
 ciples might  give  opportunity  for  further  explanation.  The 
 connection  with  what  precedes  is  made  plain  by  ver.  7.  The 
 sending  of  the  Holy  Ghost  had  His  going  to  the  Father,  His 
 
CHAP.  XVI.  10.  293 
 
 death  and  His  resurrection,  for  its  condition. — The  double 
 fiLKpov,  a  little  while  (comp.  Isa.  x.  25,  Hagg.  ii.  6),  shows 
 that  we  must  interpret  it  of  events  which  belonged  to  the 
 immediate  futm'e.  As  the  former,  the  n'ot  seeing,  manifestly 
 referred  to  the  death  of  Christ,  which  was  close  at  hand,  so  we 
 must  understand  the  second  of  an  event  which  was  the  next  in 
 order  of  those  then  under  consideration.  For  that  reason  alone 
 we  must  prefer  applying  it  to  the  resurrection  (Bengel :  In 
 universum  quatriduum)  rather  than  to  the  outpouring  of  the 
 Ploly  Ghost.^  That  the  latter  event  does  not  satisfy  the  Lord's 
 meaning  seems  plain,  further,  when  we  consider  that  at  the 
 Pentecost  the  disciples  did  not  see  the  Lord,  saving  in  a 
 figurative  and  spiritual  sense ;  whereas  in  the  resurrection  they 
 saw  Him  literally,  and  that  literal  seeing  preceded  the  other. 
 The  reference  to  the  resurrection  is,  as  Stier  remarks,  "in- 
 controvertibly  established  by  the  simple  antithesis  between 
 o'^ecrOe  and  ov  Oecopelre ;  if  the  one  takes  away  the  bodily 
 visibility,  the  other  must  give  it  back  again."  Moreover,  the 
 o-yjrofiaL  v/zd'i  in  ver.  22  corresponds  to  the  oyjrecrde  fie  in  our 
 present  passage.  If  this  latter  might  indeed  in  itself  and  in 
 another  connection  be  referred  to  the  outjJouring  of  the  Holy 
 Ghost,  yet  the  former  could  not,  since  we  hear  nothing  of  a 
 Christophany  at  the  Pentecost.  But  it  must  not  be  overlooked 
 that  these  terms,  6-<^e(76e  and  oyjrovrai,  are  used  in  Matt,  xxviii. 
 7,  10,  Mark  xvi.  7,  when  recording  the  Apostles'  seeing  their 
 risen  Lord  ;  comp.  the  wcj^Or]  in  Luke  xxiv.  34  ;  Acts  xiii.  31 ; 
 1  Cor.  XV.  5,  6,  7,  8.  But  the  verb  oTrro/xaL  is  never  once 
 used  with  reference  to  the  outpouring  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  It 
 is,  generally,  never  used  elsewhere  save  to  express  an  actual 
 l)ersonal  beholding,  irpoacoirov  irpo^  irpoaanrov,  face  to  face,  1 
 Cor.  xiii.  12 :  comp.  Acts  xx.  25;  Rev.  xxii.  4. 
 
 The  clause  "  Because  I  go  to  the  Father,"  gives  the  reason 
 of  both  assertions,  "  A  little  while,  and  ye  shall  not  see  Me," 
 
 1  If  we  consider  carefully  the  consolatory  meaning  of  the  second  fnx.p6u, 
 we  cannot  possibly  go  further  for  it  than  the  resurrection.  Lampe  :  "  It 
 was  a  supreme  point  of  consolation,  that  the  hour  of  temptation  was  to 
 pass  in  so  short  a  space  of  time.  As  nothing  was  more  sad  than  the 
 absence  of  their  beloved  Master  amidst  the  deepest  distresses,  so  nothing 
 was  more  comforting  than  that  the  little  cloud  should  be  so  soon  dissipated 
 by  the  new  rising  of  the  Sun  of  Righteousness." 
 
294: 
 
 CHAP.  XIII.-- xvir. 
 
 and  "  again  a  little  while,  and  ye  shall  see  Me."  Christ  could 
 not  go  to  the  Father  otherwise  than  by  that  bodily  death  which 
 made  Him  invisible  to  the  disciples.  But  since  going  to  the 
 Father  was  the  same  thing  as  entering  into  His  glory,  there- 
 fore the  resurrection  was  inseparably  connected  with  the  death. 
 He  who  was  thus  going  to  the  Father  could  not  be  holden  by 
 the  bands  of  death.  But  the  resurrection  necessarily  involved 
 His  appearance  to  His  disciples;  only  through  it  would  the 
 death  and  resurrection  produce  their  fruits.^ 
 
 He  went  to  the  Father  before  the  day  of  the  ascension  came  : 
 concerning  the  ascension,  He  says  in  ch.  xx.  17,  not  v7rd<yo3,  but 
 ava^aLvo)  irpo'i  rov  irarepa.  The  resurrection,  which  was  not 
 merely  a  revivification,  but  a  glorification  also,  showed  that  He 
 had  already  gone  to  the  Father. — The  omission  of  the  words  ort 
 vTrayo)  Trpo?  rov  irarepa,  in  several  important  MSS.,  may  be 
 explained  partly  by  the  difficulty  of  the  sense,  and  partly  by 
 the  fact  that  Jesus  in  ver.  19  omits  these  words.  But  their 
 genuineness  is  vouched  for  by  their  recurrence  in  ver.  17.  That 
 the  Apostles  took  the  clause  from  ver.  10,  and  attached  it  arbi- 
 trarily to  clauses  with  which  it  originally  had  no  connection, 
 and  that  they  thus  even  wilfully  aggravated  the  difficulty  of  the 
 passage,  is  in  the  highest  degree  improbable.  The  words  are 
 here  absolutely  indispensable  ;  for  they  alone  give  the  Lord's 
 saying  its  character  of  inexplicable  mystery  :  the  mere  "  A  little 
 while,  and  ye  shall  not  see  Me ;  and  again  a  little  while,  and  ye 
 shall  see  Me,"  they  would  have  been  able  to  interpret,  even 
 as  they  had  not  failed  to  understand,  according  to  ver.  22,  the 
 very  similar  declaration  of  Christ  in  ch.  xiv.  19.  It  was  the  ore 
 virdya,  '•'  because  I  go  to  the  Father," — to  the  present  day  so  full 
 of  embarrassment  to  expositors, — which  made  the  saying  hard  to 
 be  understood  by  the  Apostles.  These  words  of  themselves  were 
 not  difficult.  The  thought  had  become  familiar  to  them  in  the 
 Lord's  discourses  :  comp.  ch.  vii.  33,  xiii.  33,  xvi.  10.  The  diffi- 
 culty arose  from  its  being  connected  with  what  went  before  by 
 OTL,  "  because."  The  former  of  the  two  clauses  might  be  natu- 
 rally so  explained.     "  I  go  to  the  Father,  and  ye  see  Me  no 
 
 ^  Lampe :  "  The  departure  to  the  Father  demanded  that  He  should 
 presently  make  Himself  visible  again  after  the  resiirrection.  For  thus  He 
 would  demonstrate  that,  by  His  former  departure,  He  had  appeased  the 
 Father." 
 
CHAP.  XVI.  17,  18.  295 
 
 more,"  had  been  said  in  ver.  10.  But  that  the  going  to  the 
 Father  should  at  the  same  time  be  the  reason  of  their  seeino- 
 
 o 
 
 Him  again,  was  what  the  disciples  could  not  understand ;  and 
 the  obscurity  of  this  point  was  diffused  over  the  whole.  It  was 
 all  the  worse,  as  the  matter  concerned  the  most  important  cata- 
 strophes, which  were  immediately  impending,  and  as  they  were 
 robbed  of  that  understanding  of  these  important  declarations 
 which  they  thought  they  had.  But  their  JNlaster  would  exorcise 
 their  spiritual  discernment,  and  therefore  designedly  threw  this 
 stone  of  offence  in  their  path.  Luther  remarks  on  the  double 
 "  little  while  :"  '*  Thus  there  is  here  on  earth  an  everlasting 
 change  going  on  among  Christians.  Now  dark  and  night,  pre- 
 sently it  will  be  day." 
 
 Vers.  17, 18.  "  Then  said  some  of  His  disciples  among  them- 
 selves, What  is  this  that  He  saith  unto  us,  A  little  while,  and 
 ye  shall  not  see  Me  :  and  again  a  little  while,  and  ye  shall  see 
 Me  :  and.  Because  I  go  to  the  Father  ?  They  said  therefore. 
 What  is  this  that  He  saith,  A  little  while  ?  we  cannot  tell  what 
 He  saith." — The  proceeding  is  a  natural  one.  First,  they  ask 
 one  the  other  what  Jesus  could  mean  ;  for  they  suppose  that  the 
 cause  of  their  not  understanding  might  possibly  be  an  individual 
 defect  in  themselves.  As  they  receive  no  satisfactory  replv, 
 they  come  to  the  conclusion,  that  in  these  words  there  was  a 
 mystery  not  to  be  solved  by  any  of  the  company  of  the  disciples. 
 They  do  not  venture  to  carry  their  difficulty  at  once  to  Christ ; 
 they  are  ashamed  of  their  ignorance,  and  fear  to  augment  their 
 Master's  sorrow,  by  exposing  their  slow  progress  in  the  school 
 of  His  instruction. — The  "  little  while"  which  they  single  out, 
 and  all  that  was  immediately  connected  with  it,  was  not  pre- 
 eminently the  obscure  part  of  His  words,  but  the  pre-eminently 
 interesting  to  their  minds.  They  would  fain  have  an  explanation 
 concerning  every  part  of  an  announcement  which  placed  in  the 
 prospect  a  doubly  momentous  catastrophe.  Their  desire  was  all 
 the  more  urgent,  inasmuch  as  their  half-won  understanding  had 
 been  abruptly  taken  away  from  them  by  the  clause  which  the 
 Lord  had  added. — How  important  the  fMiKpov  was,  and  how  it 
 formed  the  centre  of  all  the  disciples'  thoughts,  may  be  gathered 
 from  the  fact,  that  in  vers.  lG-19  it  occurs  no  less  than  seven 
 times,  which  was  certainly  no  more  accidental  than  the  threefold 
 repetition  in  vers.  13-15  of  dvayyeXel. 
 
296  CHAP,  xiii.-xvii. 
 
 Ver.  19.  "  Now  Jesus  knew  that  tliey  were  desirous  to  ask 
 Him,  and  said  unto  them,  Do  ye  inquire  among  yourselves 
 of  that  I  said,  A  little  while,  and  ye  shall  not  see  Me :  and 
 acrain  a  little  while,  and  ye  shall  see  Me"?" — That  this  know- 
 ledge on  the  part  of  Christ  belonged  to  Him,  as  knowing 
 what  was  in  man,  eh.  ii.  25, — that  is,  that  the  Apostles  had  in 
 no  way  given  outward  intimation  of  their  determination  to  ask 
 Him, — is  plain  from  ver.  30,  where  the  disciples  concluded  that 
 Jesus  knew  all  things,  from  the  fact  that  His  answer  antici- 
 pated their  question.  The  Lord  designedly  omits,  in  the  repe- 
 tition of  His  saying,  the  words,  "  because  I  go  to  the  Father," 
 which  involved  the  greatest  difficulty,  and  a  difficulty  which 
 could  hardly  be  removed  at  present ;  He  limits  Himself  to  the 
 elucidation  of  the  two  former  clauses,  to  understand  w^hich,  as 
 the  "What  is  this  that  He  saith?"  shows,  was  the  point  of  most 
 immediate  concern  to  the  Apostles. 
 
 Ver.  20.  "  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you.  That  ye  shall  weep 
 and  lament,  but  the  world  shall  rejoice ;  and  ye  shall  be  sorrow- 
 ful, but  your  sorrow  shall  be  turned  into  joy." — The  strong 
 affirmation  at  the  beginning  was  intended,  in  the  first  place,  to 
 dissipate  at  once  the  illusion  that  events  might  take  another 
 and  more  favourable  turn ;  but  it  must  be  regarded,  at  the  same 
 time,  as  equally  belonging  to  the  latter  clause  of  the  verse. 
 Heumann  :  "  Believe  Me  once  more,  when  I  affirm  it  most 
 solemnly,  that  your  sorrow  will  be  followed  by  the  greatest  joy ; 
 and  when  that  sadness  shall  come  upon  you,  fail  not  to  remem- 
 ber, in  your  distress  and  anxiety,  what!  now  so  solemnly  affirm 
 to  you."  "  A  little  while,  and  ye  see  Me  no  more,"  is  thus 
 explained  as  meaning  such  a  withdrawal  as  would  cause  deep 
 sorrow  to  the  disciples.  Accordingly,  it  was  plain  to  them  that 
 Jesus  was  speaking  concerning  His  impending  death  ;  and  the 
 rather,  as  Oprjvelv,  dprjvo';,  were  used  especially  of  lamentation 
 for  beloved  persons  departed  :  Mark  ii.  18,  xi.  17  ;  Luke  xxiii. 
 27. — The  words,  aXV  rj  XvTrr),  k.t.X.,  echo  Ps.  xxx.  12  :  comp. 
 also  Esth.  ix.  22. 
 
 Vers.  21,  22.  "A  woman  when  she  is  in  travail  hath 
 sorrow,  because  her  hour  is  come  :  but  as  soon  as  she  is  delivered 
 of  the  child,  she  remembereth  no  more  the  anguish,  for  joy  that 
 a  man  is  born  into  the  world.  And  ye  now  therefore  have 
 sorrow  ;  but  I  will  see  you  again,  and  your  heart  shall  rejoice, 
 
V 
 
 CHAP.  XVI,  23.  297 
 
 and  }'our  joy  no  man  taketh  from  you." — According  to  the 
 express  exposition  of  our  Lord  Himself,  nothing  is  to  be  im- 
 ported into  the  figure  of  the  bearing  woman  beyond  the  im- 
 mediate transition,  in  which  the  deepest  sorrow  is  followed  by 
 the  highest  joy ;  and  the  edifying  meaning  which  the  saying- 
 has,  when  thus  simply  viewed,  is  rather  lessened  than  aug- 
 mented by  the  other  deeper  significations  which  are  sought  in  it. 
 In  the  Old  Testament,  the  image  of  the  bearing  woman  is 
 everywhere  viewed  under  one  aspect,  that  of  sorrow ;  and  the 
 other,  that  of  joy  following,  is  not  included  :  comp.  Mic.  iv.  9, 
 10 ;  Isa.  xxvi.  17  ;  Jer.  iv.  31 ;  Hos.  xiii.  13.  Thus  there  is 
 here  an  extension  of  the  figure  which  is  already  familiar  in  the 
 older  Scriptures. — "  And  your  heart  shall  rejoice"  is  taken  from 
 Isa.  Ixvi.  14. — The  words,  "  and  your  joy  no  man  taketh  from 
 you,"  point  to  the  fact  that  their  seeing  Christ  again  would  be, 
 in  contradistinction  to  or  contrast  with  the  transitory  sorrow 
 which  the  not  seeing  Him  would  cause,  a  source  of  imperish- 
 able and  everduring  joy  and  rejoicing.  That  their  seeing  "X 
 Him  again  would  be  only  transitory,  the  Lord  had  very  expli- 
 citly intimated,  when  He  referred  the  Apostles,  in  ver.  13,  to 
 the  Holy  Ghost ;  but  this  transitory  seeing  would  be  sufficient 
 to  lay  the  foundation  of  an  abiding  joy.  From  that  time  it 
 would  be  true,  "  In  whom,  though  ye  see  Him  not,  yet  believ- 
 ing, ye  rejoice  with  joy  unspeakable,  and  full  of  glory,"  1  Pet. 
 i.  8.  We  see  in  Luke  xxiv.  52,  53,  that  the  ascension  was  not 
 an  interruption  to  the  joy  of  the  disciples  :  as  surely  as  their 
 Head  was  in  heaven,  so  surely  would  it  stand  firm  that  He 
 would  be  with  them  unto  the  end  of  the  world  :  comp.  Acts  i. 
 11,  iii.  21. 
 
 Ver.  23.  "  And  in  that  day  ye  shall  ask  Me  nothing.  Veril}-, 
 verily,  I  say  unto  you,  Whatsoever  ye  shall  ask  the  Father  in 
 My  name,  He  will  give  it  you." — Jesus  had  in  the  previous 
 words  answered  the  question  of  the  disciples  before  it  had  been 
 put.  Here  He  takes  into  view  the  condition  of  the  disciples, 
 out  of  which  the  necessity  for  asking  had  arisen.  The  day  is 
 here  the  day  when  Jesus  would  see  Plis  disciples  again,  and  they 
 should  see  Him  ;  but  this  day  is,  in  the  Old  Testament  manner, 
 regarded  as  the  beginning  term  of  a  new  epoch,  in  which  the 
 Apostles  should  be  elevated  above  the  low  position  which  they 
 had  hitherto  occupied.     From  the  moment  of  their  first  seeing 
 
298  CHAP.  XIII.-XVIL 
 
 Him  again,  the  Apostles  were  exalted  into  a  new  being.  This 
 developed  itself,  however,  by  degrees.  That  the  outpouring  of 
 the  Holy  Spirit  on  the  day  of  Pentecost  did  not  constitute  a 
 new  beginning,  is  plain  from  the  fact,  that  on  the  evening  of 
 His  resurrection  the  Lord  said  to  His  disciples,  "  Receive  ye 
 the  Holy  Ghost,"  ch.xx.  22.— "  Ye  shall  ask  Me  nothing" 
 stands  in  obvious  connection  with  the  purpose  of  the  disciples, 
 perceived  by  Jesus,  to  ask  Him  in  ver.  19  :  comp.  ver.  30.  That 
 lower  position  of  spiritual  insufficiency  and  impotence  from 
 which  their  question  sprang,  would  cease  from  that  day :  they 
 would  no  longer  need  to  seek  instruction  in  that  external  way, 
 wherein  it  could  be  only  very  imperfectly  obtained ;  but  ap- 
 proach to  God,  the  source  of  all  true  internal  perception,  would 
 be  opened  up  to  them,  according  to  the  predictions  of  the  Old 
 Testament,  which  foreannounced  such  an  unmediated  know- 
 ledge of  religious  truth  :  comp.  Isa.  liv.  13,  "  All  thy  children 
 shall  be  taught  of  God ;"  and  Jer.  xxxi.  34,  "  And  they  shall 
 teach  no  more  every  man  his  neighbour,  and  every  man  his 
 brother,  saying.  Know  the  Lord ;  for  they  shall  all  know  Me, 
 from  the  least  of  them  unto  the  greatest  of  them,  saith  the 
 Lord." 
 
 "  Whatsoever  ye  shall  ask"  must  be  referred,  as  the  "  ye 
 shall  ask  Me  nothing"  shows,  specially  to  matters  of  uncertainty 
 in  their  knowledge  (Bengel :  "  Ye  shall  not  need  to  ask  Me  ; 
 for  ye  shall  clearly  know  all  things") :  comp.  Jas.  i.  5,  "  If  any 
 man  lack  timdo77i,  let  him  ask  of  God,  who  giveth  to  all  men 
 liberally;  aiid  it  shall  be  given  him.*^  Yet  the  promise  goes 
 beyond  this  specific  reference  :  whatever  ye  may  ask  in  those 
 circumstances  in  which,  during  the  time  of  your  imperfection, 
 ye  were  wont  to  ask  Me  ;  and  in  all  other  cases  :  comp.  Matt, 
 xxi.  22. — "  In  My  name  :"  this  intimates  that,  in  order  to 
 prayer  being  answered,  the  petitioner  must  have  the  whole  his- 
 torical personality  of  Christ  before  his  eyes  ;  that  he  must  go 
 to  a  God  not  concealed,  but  manifested  in  Christ ;  that  in  his 
 prayer  he  must  sink  into  and  be  absorbed  by  what  Christ  hath 
 done  and  suffered  for  us,  grounding  u}X)n  that  all  his  hope  of 
 acceptance:  comp.  on  ch.  xiv.  13, .14,  xv.  16. — In  Matt.  xxi. 
 22  it  is  not  "  in  My  name,"  but  "  believing." 
 
 Ver.  24.  "  Hitherto  have  ye  asked  nothing  in  My  name  : 
 ask,  and  ye  shall  receive,  that  your  joy  may  be  full." — The 
 
CHAP.  XVI.  24.  299 
 
 Lord  does  not  here  throw  any  reproach  upon  His  disciples. 
 The  reason  that  they  had  not  hitherto  asked  anything  in  His 
 name,  was  that  that  name  had  not  yet  been  perfectly  unfolded 
 in  all  its  meaning ;  that  the  main  elements  of  its  development, 
 the  atoning  sufferings,  the  resurrection,  and  the  glorification  of 
 Christ,  were  still  in  the  future.  Jesus  must  first  perfectly  ex- 
 hibit Himself  as  a  Saviour,  before  faith  in  His  name  could  per- 
 fectly exert  its  power.  Here,  as  frequently  elsewhere  (comp. 
 for  example,  ch.  i.  17,  vii.  39),  the  opposition  which  is  in  fact 
 only  relative  is  uttered  absolutely ;  to  intimate,  that  in  com- 
 parison of  their  future  confidence  in  the  name  of  Jesus,  that 
 which  they  had  already  exercised  was  scarcely  worthy  of  regard. 
 From  the  very  beginning  of  the  disciples'  relation  to  Christ, 
 there  had  been  in  their  prayers  an  element  of  trust  in  the  name 
 of  Jesus.  The  God  of  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob — to  whom 
 alone  the  Jews  turned — began  to  recede  before  the  Father  of 
 Jesus  Christ ;  and  in  consequence  of  that  fact,  the  disciples' 
 prayers  had  acquired  a  new  element  of  inwardness  and  depth. 
 But  in  comparison  of  their  future  prayer,  in  the  name  of  Jesus, 
 that  was  not  to  be  regarded  or  remembered.  The  advancement 
 was  not  merely  matter  of  subjective  joyfulness  :  that  was  only 
 subordinate.  The  true  root  of  the  higher  prayer  was  the  eleva- 
 tion of  the  objective  significance  of  the  name  of  Jesus  ;  that  of 
 itself  would  result  in  higher  personal  joy.  From  the  time  that 
 Christ  gave  His  life  for  His  friends,  ch.  xv.  13,  and  for  their 
 salvation  sat  down  at  the  right  hand  of  God, — or,  to  use  Luther's 
 phrase,  "  atoned  for  sin,  strangled  death,  ravaged  hell,  and 
 opened  heaven," — His  name  would  become  to  them,  in  quite  a 
 new  sense,  the  pledge  and  guarantee  of  their  prayer  being  heard. 
 They  would  then  have  to  do  with  a  propitiated  God,  at  whose 
 hands  all  their  prayers  would  be  sure  of  immediate  acceptance. 
 The  Father  cannot  withstand  the  name  of  Christ  made  perfect 
 (comp.  the  reriXearat,  John  xix.  30),  when  it  is  urged  before 
 Him.  Luther :  "  When  that  name  is  complete,  and  every- 
 where preached,  there  will  be  new  prayer  and  new  worship  in 
 all  the  woi'ld  ;  ye  will  then  pray  in  My  name  to  good  purpose, 
 and  the  virtue  of  My  name  will  be  proved  by  your  prayers  being 
 mightily  heard  and  answered." — Their  full  joy  was  to  be  the 
 antithesis  of  their  former  imperfect  joy.  It  would  grow  out  of 
 their  prayer  being  perfectly  granted. 
 
300  CHAP,  xiii.-xvir. 
 
 Ver.  25.  "  These  things  have  I  spoken  unto  you  In  pro- 
 verbs :  but  the  time  cometh,  when  I  shall  no  more  speak  unto 
 you  in  proverbs,  but  I  shall  show  you  plainly  of  the  Father." — 
 That  which  is  here  spoken  must  be  regarded  as  parallel  with 
 what  was,  in  vers.  23,  24,  held  out  to  the  expectation  of  the 
 disciples  :  for,  in  vers.  26,  27,  the  Lord  recurs  to  this  latter. 
 There  was  a  strict  connection  between  the  disciples  having  an 
 entirely  different  access  to  God  generally  and  specifically  in  the 
 domain  of  knowledge,  and  His  words  to  them  becoming  clear 
 and  transparent :  before,  those  words  had  been  full  of  obscuri- 
 ties and  unsolved  mysteries;  they  had  had  to  say,  with  Ezekiel's 
 hearers,  "  Doth  He  not  speak  parables  1 "  and  everywhere  they 
 had  been  obliged  to  put  questions,  the  answers  to  which  were 
 not  always  satisfactory.  But  they  would  be  translated  into  an 
 entirely  new  life ;  and  both  those  results  would  follow  from 
 the  Lord's  being  able  to  say  to  them,  "  Receive  ye  the  Holy 
 Ghost." — "  These  things  "  refer  primarily  to  vers.  19  seq. ;  but 
 really  they  refer  to  the  whole  course  of  our  Lord's  previous 
 teaching.  Everywhere  they  had  encountered  manifold  obscuri- 
 ties. Not  only  in  the  Gospel  of  John,  but  often  in  the  other 
 Gospels,  we  find  this  illustrated  :  for  example.  Matt.  xiii.  36,  xv. 
 15  seq.,  xvi.  5  seq.  For  Trapoi/jbia,  corresponding  to  the  Hebrew 
 h^r2,  primarily  a  figurative  saying,  then  generally  any  difficult 
 and  obscure  saying,  comp.  the  remarks  on  ch.  x.  6.  Uapprja-ca' 
 is  boldness  in  speaking,  then  generally  any  open  and  unfettered 
 speech  :  comp.  ch.  xi.  54,  xviii.  20.  Our  Lord's  words  in  ch. 
 xi.  14  come  nearest  as  illustration  :  "  Then  said  Jesus  unto 
 tliem  plainly,  Lazarus  is  dead."  Before  He  had  said,  "  Our 
 friend  Lazarus  sleepeth."  It  was  not  that  Jesus  would  change 
 His  speech  :  the  change  would  pass  upon  the  disciples,  who 
 would  see  clearness  where  they  had  formerly  seen  only  obscurity. 
 They  were  to  be  raised  to  a  higher  position ;  and  to  them,  there- 
 fore, the  Teacher  would  be  quite  different.  The  hour  of  this 
 passage  is  identical  with  the  day  in  ver.  23,  the  time  of  the 
 resurrection.  That  was  the  date  of  the  elevated  condition  of 
 the  disciples.  The  Lord's  prophetic  promise  referred  especially 
 to  the  words  which  He  would  speak  as  the  risen  Redeemer : 
 comp.  Luke  xxiv.  44 ;  Acts  i.  3.  But  it  includes  also  all  the 
 earlier  words.  These  recurred  after  the  resurrection  anew  to 
 their  minds :  comp.  ch.  xiv.  26,  according  to  which  the  Holy 
 
CHAP.  XVI.  26,  27.  301 
 
 Ghost  would  bring  to  remembrance  all  that  the  Lord  had  told 
 them.  Then  it  seemed  as  if  Jesus  was  saying  all  anew  ;  every- 
 thing obtained  a  new  meaning  and  force  for  them.  We  may 
 add,  that  Jesus  also  spoke  to  them  through  the  Holy  Ghost : 
 comp.  vers.  12-14. — Jesus  names  the  Father  as  the  matter  of 
 the  communication  He  would  make.  Everything  in  religion 
 goes  back  to  Him.  His  domain  embraces  at  the  same  time  that 
 of  the  Son  and  the  Holy  Ghost :  "  Of  Him,  and  through  Him, 
 and  to  Him,  are  all  things,"  Eom.  xi.  36. 
 
 Vers.  26,  27.  "  At  that  day  ye  shall  ask  in  My  name  :  and 
 I  say  not  unto  you,  that  I  will  pray  the  Father  for  you  :  for 
 the  Father  Himself  loveth  you,  because  ye  have  loved  Me,  and 
 have  believed  that  I  came  out  from  God." — The  words  are  not, 
 "  I  will  not  pray  the  Father  for  you,"  but,  "  I  say  not  that 
 I  will  pray  the  Father  for  you."  This  only  means"""T!mt  the 
 emphasis  does  not  fall  absolutely  upon  His  intercession  ;  that  it 
 was  not  needful  that  He  should  first  render  gentle  the  Father's 
 countenance  ;  that  they  would  have  not  only  the  Son,  but  the 
 Father  also,  unconditionally  on  their  side.  Grotius  :  Prsetereo 
 hoc  quasi  minus  eo,  quod  jam  inferam.  They  were  to  pray  in 
 the  name  of  Christ,  involved  in  Him,  and  wrapped  up  in  His 
 atonement :  therefore  they  would  have  not  merely  a  merciful 
 Saviour,  but  a  merciful  Father  also.  It  is  perfectly  clear  that 
 the  Lord  does  not  here  deny,  or  exhibit  as  needless,  that  intei'- 
 cession  for  His  own  which  is  elsewhere  so  expressly  insisted  on  : 
 comp.  ch.  xvii.  9  ;  1  John  ii.  1 ;  Rom.  viii.  34 ;  Heb.  vii.  25. 
 That  rather  is  indirectly  confirmed  by  the  "  in  My  name." 
 How  could  the  Redeemer  assume  an  attitude  of  indifference 
 towards  the  details  of  the  life  and  needs  of  those  who,  trustino; 
 to  His  accomplished  work,  come  as  suppliants  before  God  ?  He 
 does  not  take  away  from  the  disciples  the  prospect  of  His  inter- 
 cession, which  was  so  consolatory  to  their  minds ;  but  it  was 
 His  purpose  to  open,  in  connection  with  that,  another  and  a 
 second  source  of  consolation  and  joy.  Anton  excellently  re- 
 marks :  "  He  would  remove  everything  out  of  the  way.  For 
 man  is  so  constituted  as  willingly  to  turn  everything  into  gall 
 and  bitterness ;  and  this  is  true  even  of  the  intercession  of 
 Christ.  That  intercession  is  an  excellent  consolation  !  /  But 
 then  man  comes  to  think  that  the  good  God  must  have  a  hard 
 heart  if  He  must  needs  be  urged  and  impelled  by  an  intercessor; 
 
302  CHAP.  XIII.-XVII. 
 
 and  thus  the  coarsest  idea  of  intercession  is  interwoven  into  the 
 material  of  Christ's  intercession.  That  was  one  main  reason 
 of  the  subsequent  muhipHcation  of  many  intercessors  besides 
 Christ.  For  they  said  we  must  have  as  many  intercessors  as  we 
 can.  One  land  has  this,  another  that ;  one  town  this,  another 
 that :  thus  the  blessed  Lord  is  dealt  with  as  if  He  were  a 
 Saturn.  No,  the  fault  was  not  with  God,  that  ye  so  dealt  with 
 the  matter.  I  tell  you  ye  must  not  so  think  of  My  intercession 
 as  if  the  Father  were  not  Himself  well  disposed,  but  must 
 first  be  coerced  into  kindness.  No,  .He  Himself  loveth  you, 
 and  Himself  ordained  My  intercession.  He  appointed  the  way 
 of  acceptable  prayer,  that  ye  might  know  whence  to  draw  your 
 confidence.  But  ye  must  not  take  away  the  blessedness  of  it 
 again." 
 
 '  The  love  of  the  Father  is  here  grounded  upon  the  disciples' 
 love  to  Jesus,  and  their  faith  in  Him.  But  this  love  which  has 
 their  faith  for  its  condition,  was  preceded  by  another  love  which 
 appointed  the  atonement,  and  opened  up  the  way  to  faith  :  A" 
 comp.  cli.  iii.  16;  1  John  iv.  19.  To  those  who  stood  only 
 under  the  government  of  this  love,  our  Lord  would  never  have 
 said,  "  I  say  not  that  I  will  pray  the  Father  for  you."  In  that 
 case,  the  intercession  of  Christ  occupies  the  foreground :  that 
 intercession,  of  which  we  read  in  Isaiah,  "  He  will  make  inter- 
 cession for  the  transgressors,"  Isa.  liii.  12.  Then  the  propitia-"^ 
 tion  of  the  wrath  of  the  Father,  coexisting  with  His  love,  was 
 necessary. 
 
 Ver.  28.  "I  came  forth  from  the  Father,  and  am  come  into 
 the  world  :  again,  I  leave  the  world,  and  go  to  the  Father." — 
 As  in  ver.  16,  so  here  again  at  the  end  of  this  part  of  the 
 discourse,  our  Lord  speaks  words  which  prepare  the  way  for 
 His  farewell.  The  point  of  connection  is  provided  by  the  last 
 words  of  the  preceding  verse.  Luther :  "  That  He  might  show 
 what  that  going  to  the  Father  meant.  He  says,  '  I  leave  the 
 world,'  that  thus  the  disciples  might  mark  that  He  now  spoke 
 somewhat  more  clearly  than  before. — In  the  same  way  also, 
 after  the  resurrection,  He  spoke  of  it  (Luke  xxiv.  44),  and  said, 
 *  These  are  the  things  which  I  spoke  unto  you  while  I  was  yet 
 with  you.' "  Jesus  left  the  world  at  the  moment  of  His  death, 
 and  did  not  return  to  it  in  His  resurrection.  The  existence  of 
 the  risen  Lord  belonged  to  another  world,  and  His  appearances 
 
CHAP.  XVI.  29-32.  303 
 
 transitorily  broke  through  the  limits  which  generally  distinguish 
 the  two  spheres  of  existence. 
 
 Vers.  29,  30.  "  Ilis  disciples  said  unto  Him,  Lo,  now 
 speakest  Thou  plainly,  and  speakest  no  proverb.  Now  are  we 
 sure  that  Thou  knowest  all  things,  and  needest  not  that  any 
 man  should  ask  Thee  :  by  this  we  believe  that  Thou  earnest 
 forth  from  God." — The  words  of  the  Apostles  in  ver.  29  have 
 special  reference  to  the  more  than  ordinarily  clear  and  simple 
 saying  of  Jesus  in  ver.  28.  They  are  heartily  rejoiced  at  their 
 own  understanding  ;  they  congratulate  themselves  that  they  can 
 gladden  their  Master  by  the  declaration  that  they  understand 
 Him.  They  recognise,  in  their  thus  understanding,  a  foretaste 
 of  the  fulfilment  of  the  promise  given  them  in  ver.  25,  to  which 
 they  verbally  refer.  Anton  :  "  Now  they  breathe  freely,  and 
 inhale  the  fresh  air.  The  disciples  did  well  in  that  they  did 
 not  complain  alone,  but  told  freely  out  their  lightened  feelings. 
 To  be  always  complaining  is  no  virtue.  And  as  they  had 
 affected  their  JMaster  with  their  sorrow,  so  they  would  now 
 rejoice  Him  with  their  little  glimmer  of  joy  in  faith. — And  not 
 with  one  little  word  alone  do  they  attest  their  recovery ;  they 
 three  times  as  it  were  lift  up  their  voices.  And  this  is  appro- 
 priate to  thankfulness.  These  are  the  offerings  of  the  lips  that 
 praise  Thy  name,  O  God." — In  ver.  29  the  Apostles  had  referred 
 to  the  conclusion  of  Christ's  words ;  in  ver.  30  they  go  back  to 
 its  beginning  again,  Avhich  was  to  them  not  less  consolatory  than 
 the  end.  By  anticipating  their  question  by  His  instruction, 
 ver.  19,  Christ  had  manifested  Himself  the  possessor  of  omni- 
 1SCl(ince,  the  KapSioyvcoaTr]';,  Acts  i.  24,  xv.  8,  Jer.  xi.  20.  In 
 this  they  behold,  recurring  to  the  close  of  the  Lord's  discourse,  a 
 great  assistance  to  their  faith  in  His  saying  that  He  came  forth 
 from  God.  These  words  of  the  disciples  stand  in  no  connection 
 with  ver.  23.  There  it  was  promised  that  they  should  not  find 
 it  necessary  to  ask  Christ ;  here  the  matter  is,  that  Jesus  did 
 not  need  to  be  asked  by  the  disciples.  'Ev  tovto),  properly  "in \ 
 this,  by  this."  The  effect  upon  their  minds  is  thus  traced  to , 
 its  cause. 
 
 Vers.  31,  32.  "  Jesus  answered  them,  Do  ye  now  believe  ? 
 Behold,  the  hour  cometh,  yea,  is  now  come,  that  ye  shall  be 
 scattered,  every  man  to  his  own,  and  shall  leave  Me  alone  :  and 
 yet  I  am  not  alone,  because  the  Father  is  with  Me." — It  makes 
 
304  CHAP.  XIII.-XVII. 
 
 no  essential  difference  whether  we  take  dpri  TrLareveTe  as  a 
 question  or  as  a  declaration.  For,  even  in  the  former  case, 
 Jesus  concedes  to  His  Apostles  that  they  do  now  believe,  and 
 only  warns  them  not  to  lay  too  much  stress  upon  that  un- 
 contestable fact  (comp.  ver.  27,  ch.  xvii.  8).  'VXJie  question 
 simply  intimates  that  all  was  not  yet  quite  right  with  their 
 faith,  that  there  was  some  reason  why  they  should  not  so  very 
 confidently  build  upon  it :  Are  ye  so  absolutely  assured  that  ye 
 now  believe  ?  The  interrogatory  construction  is  favoured  by  a 
 comparison  with  ch.  vi.  70,  xiii.  38,  where  our  Lord  tests  the 
 confident  faith  of  Peter  by  a  similar  question.  If  we  drop  the 
 interrogation,  and  make  it  a  simple  affirmative,  the  antithesis 
 seems  too  violent,  t  Jesus  could  hardly  declare  the  Apostles 
 absolutely  to  have  faith,  and  then  forthwith,  without  anything 
 intervening,  attach  to  it  a  prediction  of  their  utter  weakness. 
 
 'The  announcement  of  their  coming  infirmity  was  not 
 designed  solely  as  a  reproach.  According  to  ch.  xviii.  8,  our 
 Lord  Himself  paved  the  way  for  the  flight  of  His  disciples.  It 
 was,  as  it  were,  in  the  order  of  things  that  their  company  was 
 scattered.  Christ  must  die  for  them  and  rise  again  before  they 
 were  to  be  equipped  with  invincible  assurance  and  boldness. 
 Cowardice  in  the  cause  of  Christ  could  be  objected  to  only  after 
 His  death  and  resurrection.  To  require  that  the  Apostles  should 
 have  sacrificed  themselves  for  Christ  before  He  had  sacrificed 
 Himself  for  them,  would  be  to  demand  from  a  child  the  work 
 \of  a  man.  The  word  crKopTnadfiTe  points  back  to  Zech.  xiii.  7, 
 and  suggests  the  Lord's  recent  quotation  of  that  passage  and 
 application  of  it  to  the  Apostles,  Matt.  xxvi.  31,  32.  .TJiq- 
 passage  contained  in  it  an  element  of  consolation,  since  there 
 was  connected  with  their  dispersion,  both  in  the  original  passage 
 and  the  quotation,  the  renewal  of  the  bond  between  the  Shep- 
 herd and  His  scattered  flock.  Ta  iSia,  the  individual  refuges 
 of  the  disciples,  in  contradistinction  to  the  one  rallying-point, 
 Christ.  For  "  leave  Me  alone,"  comp.  Matt.  xxvi.  56.  M6vo<i 
 points  to  Ps.  xxii.  21,  where  the  Righteous  One  cries,  "Deliver 
 My  soul  from  the  sword,  ISIy  darling  (My  only  one)  from  the 
 power  of  the  dog." 
 
 Ver.  33.  "  These  things  I  have  spoken  unto  you,  that  in  Me 
 ye  might  have  peace.  In  the  world  ye  shall  have  tribulation  : 
 but  be  of  good  cheer ;  I  have  overcome  the  world." — We  have 
 
CHAP.  XVII.  305 
 
 here  the  close  of  the  whole  discourse  continued  in  ch.  xv.  xvi. 
 That  discourse  had  for  its  end,  after  the  hortatory  portion,  to 
 lead  the  disciples  to  perfect  peace  in  Christ.  Abiding  in  Christ, 
 brotherly  love,  stedfast  fortitude  amidst  persecutions  of  the 
 world,  were  all  conditions  on  which  was  suspended  the  enjoy- 
 ment of  peace  in  Christ.  This  peace  includes  assurance  against 
 all  hostile  powers  :  comp.  on  ch.  xiv.  27.  The  having  is  not  to 
 be  referred  so  much  to  the  state  as  to  the  consciousness  of  it. 
 To  the  having  peace  corresponds  the  Oapaelv,  he  of  good  cheer. 
 The  words  of  Christ  should  lead  them  to  the  confidence  that 
 all  the  hosts  of  their  enemies  could  not  touch  them.  But  the 
 subjective  consciousness  of  peace  must  rest  upon  the  objective 
 possession  of  that  peace  which  Christ  hath  obtained.  NevUrjKa 
 is  anticipatory  :  the  great  work  of  redemption,  now  to  be  accom- 
 plished, and  by  which  the  victory  was  to  be  achieved,  is  regarded 
 as  done  (corap.  on  ch.  xii.  31,  32).  By  similar  anticipation,  we 
 have  iviK7](7av  in  Rev.  xii.  11,  and  vevcKiycare  in  1  John  iv.  4. 
 
 Chap.  xvii. 
 
 "  A  good  sermon  must  have  a  good  prayer"  (Luther).  This 
 prayer,  which  forms  the  climax  of  our  Lord's  last  discourses  to 
 His  disciples,  has  been  termed  the  high-priestly  prayer  of  Christ. 
 And  rightly  so,  in  as  far  as  we  have  here  the  most  amply  un- 
 folded intercession  of  Jesus  for  His  people.  Intercession  for 
 the  congregation  was  one  of  the  most  essential  functions  of  the 
 high  priest,  Lev.  ix.  22,  Num.  vi.  22-27.  But  that  Jesus,  by 
 .  this  prayer,  prepared  Himself  for  the  high-priestly  act  of  atone- 
 ment has  no  warrant  in  ver.  19  ;  and  the  prayer  itself  stands  in  no 
 demonstrable  connection  with  the  redeeming  sacrifice  of  Christ. 
 
 According  to  the  current  exposition,  Jesus  first  prays  for 
 Himself,  vers.  1-5 ;  then  for  His  Apostles,  vers.  6-19 ;  and 
 finally  for  those  who  should  believe  on  Him  through  their  word, 
 the  Church  of  all  ages.  But  this  distribution  is  not  satisfactory; 
 it  takes  too  much  account  of  the  mere  form  of  the  prayer.  In 
 vers.  1-5  there  is  a  petition  for  the  glorification  of  His  people 
 concealed  beneath  the  prayer  for  His  own  glorification  ;^  and  on 
 
 ^  Lampe  otserves,  that  only  in  appearance  our  Lord  at  the  outset 
 pleaded  His  own  cause  :  "  He  seeks  no   other  glorification  than  what 
 consists  in  this,  that  He  should  make  His  people  partakers  of  eternal  life." 
 VOL.  II.  U 
 
306  CHAP.  XIII.-XVII. 
 
 the  principle  of  this  distribution,  vers.  24-26  present  no  slight 
 difficulties.  The  Lord  here  returns  back  from  believers  generally 
 to  the  Apostles  ;  and  the  petition  for  the  heavenly  glorification 
 of  these  Apostles,  as  it  is  contained  in  this  conclusion,  shows 
 plainly  that  the  previous  petition  was  not  general,  but  specifically 
 referred  to  the  Apostles,  and  those  who  should  believe  through 
 their  word.  To  the  same  conclusion  we  are  led  by  the  fact  that 
 in  vers.  6-23  the  word  /cocr^o?  occurs  with  unusual  and  plainly 
 intentional  frequency,  while  everything  seems  to  point  to  the 
 general  position  of  Christians  in  the  world. 
 
 A  more  correct  distribution  will  be  as  follows.  At  the 
 beginning,  vers.  1-5,  and  at  the  end,  vers.  24-26,  the  Lord 
 prays  that  His  people  may  have  the  great  benefit  and  blessing 
 of  the  kingdom  of  God,  eternal  life,  the  heavenly  glorification, 
 the  foundation  of  which  was  His  own  glorification.  In  the 
 middle,  vers.  6-23,  He  prays  to  the  Father  on  behalf  of  His 
 people,  that  they  might  have  help  in  the  perilous  position  in 
 which  they  would  be  found  in  the  world,  during  the  days 
 of  their  pilgrimage  on  earth ;  His  prayer  being  first  for  the 
 Apostles,  and  then  for  all  believers. 
 
 Ch.  xiv.  offers  a  perfect  analogy.  There  the  Lord  first 
 directs  the  Apostles'  thoughts  to  the  certainty  that  heaven  was 
 theirs  ;  and  then  He  speaks  of  the  Divine  assistance  and  grace 
 which  they  should  receive  during  the  time  of  their  pilgrimage. 
 What  the  Lord  there  promises.  He  here  prays  for. 
 
 That  the  whole  refers  to  the  disciples,  we  gather  from  ver. 
 13,  where  the  end  of  the  prayer  is  represented  to  be  their 
 establishment  in  perfect  joy. 
 
 It  is  of  some  importance  for  the  understanding  of  this 
 prayer,  that  we  should  not  study  it  as  an  outpouring  of  the 
 Son's  heart  to  the  Father ;  we  must  rather  regard  it  as  having 
 much  to  do  with  the  edification  of  the  disciples :  comp.  ch.  xi. 
 42.  If  Jesus  had  had  only  to  do  with  the  Father,  it  would 
 have  been  enough  that  "He  lifted  up  His  eyes  to  heaven.;" 
 the  needs  of  the  disciples  would  not  have  been  unfolded  before 
 us  in  such  detail ;  the  supplications  on-  their  behalf  would  not 
 have  been  so  minute,  and  so  constantly  referred  to  their  grounds. 
 Augustan  says  :  "Not  only  the  direct  preaching  of  such  a 
 Teacher,  but  also  His  prayer  to  the  Father  for  them,  served 
 for  the  edification  of  His  disciples."     Lampe  :  "  The  confirma- 
 
CHAP.  XVII.  307 
 
 tion  and  salvation  of  these  disciples  was  the  primary  scope  of 
 these  prayers."  Schmieder :  "  His  words  were  not  only  an 
 effusion  of  the  heart  to  the  Father,  but  also  a  pondered  and 
 careful  exposition  for  the  disciples." 
 
 Between  this  high-priestly  prayer  and  the  conflict  in  Geth-  / 
 semane,  as  recorded  by  the  first  three  Evangelists,  there  might  ^ 
 seem  at  the  first  glance  to  be  an  irreconcilable  opposition.  It 
 has  been  said,  that  whosoever  was  able  to  pray  as  Jesus  prays 
 in  John,  and  was  so  confident  of  his  victory  over  the  world  and 
 his  own  glorification,  could  not  possibly  have  immediately  after- 
 wards fallen  into  such  trembling  and  despondency,  into  such 
 bitterness  of  death.  Either  of  the  two  might  be  imaginable, 
 but  not  both  together.  But  this  contradiction  vanishes  at  once, 
 so  soon  as  we  apprehend  the  true  significance  of  the  conflict  in 
 Gethsemane.  If  our  Lord  struggled  and  suffered  for  us  and 
 in  our  stead,  if  the  chastisement  of  our  peace  was  laid  upon 
 Him,  then  in  Him  also  it  was  necessary  that  all  the  horror  of  • 
 death  should  be  concentrated.  He  boi'e  the  sin  of  the  world, 
 and  the  wages  of  that^^in  was  death.  Death  must  therefore 
 appear  to  Him  in  its  most  fearful  form  ;  and  the  rather  as  our 
 Representative  alone  could  look  profoundly  into  the  depths  of 
 sin.  The  physical  suffering  was  nothing  in  comparison  to  this 
 immeasurable  suffering  of  the  soul.  >  And  if  the  struggle  was 
 vicarious,  and  thus  voluntarily  assumed,  the  suddenness  of  the 
 transition  should  not  seem  strange  to  us.  It  is  not  our  task  to 
 trace  and  explain  the  connection  between  His  different  emo- 
 tions. With  equal  freedom,  the  Redeemer  was  equal  now  to 
 the  one,  and  then  to  the  other,  aspect  of  His  destiny.  Then 
 we  likewise  understand  how  it  was,  that,  with  such  clear  con- 
 sciousness. He  went  forth  to  encounter  this  conflict ;  how,  far 
 from  being  surprised  by  it,  or  being  overcome  by  its  agony. 
 He  prepared  all  things  beforehand,  left  behind  the  rest  of  the 
 Apostles,  while  He  took  with  Him  the  three  most  advanced,  as 
 witnesses  for  the  Church  of  all  ages ;  how  fie  went,  as  it  were, 
 ex  professo  to  suffer  and  struggle,  even  as  at  the  beginning 
 of  His  manifestation  He  was  not  fortuitously  encountered  by 
 Satan,  but  led  by  the  Spirit  into  the  wilderness  that  He  might 
 be  tempted  of  Satan. 
 
 That  St  John  has  altogether  omitted  the  conflict  in  Geth- 
 semane,  is  at  the  first  glance  strange.     He  himself  was,  with 
 
308  CHAP.  XIII.-XVII. 
 
 Peter  and  James,  a  toitness  of  this  struggle  ;  and  that  it  was  of 
 the  greatest  moment  to  the  Church,  is  evident  from  the  very 
 fact  that  the  three  were  taken  by  our  Lord  to  behold  it.  But 
 the  anomaly  vanishes  as  soon  as  we  rightly  discern  the  relation 
 of  St  John  to  the  three  first  Evangelists,  and  the  supplementary 
 character  of  his  Gospel.  The  more  momentous  the  event  was, 
 the  more  obvious  it  was  that  the  first  Evangelists  should  record 
 it  with  the  utmost  circumstantiality,  thus  leaving  for  the  fourth 
 no  Faraleipomena.  The  transition  to  St  John's  silence  is  seen 
 in  the  comparative  brevity  wath  which  Luke  records  the  incir 
 dent.  He  sums  up  briefly  all  that  the  two  Evangelists  had 
 already  communicated,  inserting  only  three  facts  peculiar  to 
 his  account :  first,  that  the  disciples  slept  through  sorroiv ;  then, 
 that  an  angel  from  heaven  appeared  to  the  Redeemer,  and 
 strengthened  Him  ;  finally,  that  Llis  sweat  fell  to  the  ground 
 like  drops  of  blood.  While  St  Matthew  draws  from  the  unex- 
 hausted fulness,  we  see  in  St  Luke  the  end  of  the  historical 
 material.  St  John  could  not,  according  to  the  design  of  his 
 Gospel,  repeat.  Instead  of  that,  he  gives  all  the  more  perfectly 
 the  high-priestly  prayer  of  our  Lord,  which  his  predecessors 
 had  not  ventured  to  touch,  it  having  been  regarded  from  the 
 beginning  as  reserved  for  St  John. 
 
 Ver.  1.  "These  words  spake  Jesus,  and  lifted  up  His  eyes 
 to  heaven,  and  said.  Father,  the  hour  is  come ;  glorify  Thy 
 Son,  that  Thy  Son  also  may  glorify  Thee." — The  circumstan- 
 tiality with  which  the  prayer  of  our  Lord  is  introduced  bespeaks 
 its  high  significance.  That  He  lifted  up  His  eyes  to  heaven  is 
 more  than  once  recorded  :  ch.  xi.  41 ;  Mark  vii.  34 ;  Matt.  xiv. 
 19.  On  all  these  occasions,  Jesus  was  in  the  open  air  ;  and  in 
 that  position  the  upward  glance  would  be  more  conspicuous. 
 There  is  not,  indeed,  in  the  words  themselves  actual  demon- 
 stration that  our  Lord  pronounced  His  last  discourses  under 
 the  open  heaven.  The  eyes  may  obviously  be  lifted  up  to 
 heaven  within  a  chamber ;  and  so  we  find.  Acts  vii.  b5,  that 
 Stephen  lifted  up  his  eyes  to  heaven  in  the  midst  of  the  council. 
 The  expression,  however,  suggests  it ;  and  we  have  already,  on 
 other  and  strong  grounds,  proved  that  Jesus  did  speak  in  the 
 open  air. — The  hour  is  in  itself  indefinite :  the  sequel  alone  will 
 furnish  its  more  precise  specification.  (Augustin  :  He  shows 
 that  all  time,  and  all  that  in  time  is  permitted  to  be  done  or 
 
CHAP.  XVII.  2.  309 
 
 suffered,  was  appointed  by  Him  who  is  above  subjection  to 
 time.)  Accordingly,  it  was  not  the  hour  of  the  passion,  but  of 
 the  glorification.  In  His  spirit,  the  suffering  was  already  past. 
 The  word  is  more  fully  uttered  in  ch.  xii.  23  :  "  The  hour  is 
 come,  that  the  Son  of  man  should  be  glorified.''-^-"  Glorify  Thy 
 Son:"  glorify  Me  because  I  am  Thy  Son,  from  whose  nature 
 the  perfection  of  glory  is  inseparable,  and  who  only  for  a  season 
 could  renounce  that  glory.  The  Divine  glory  attended  the  Son 
 of  God  even  in  His  state  of  humiliation  (comp.  ch.  i.  14,  ii.  11), 
 and  manifested  itself  most  variously  in  His  deeds:  comp.  ch. 
 xi.  4,  xiii.  31,  xii.  28.  But  it  was  a  deeply  concealed  glory ; 
 and  the  Son  of  God  prays  that  now  this  concealment  might 
 cease,  that  His  glory  might  beam  forth  again  in  its  original 
 brightness. 
 
 The  Father  was  to  glorify  the  Son,  that  the  Son  might 
 glorify  the  Father :  the  glory  of  the  Father,  and  the  blessed- 
 ness of  believers  given  with  it,  was  the  final  goal.  The  Kai 
 after  ha  is  spurious  :  it  weakens  the  idea,  so  important  in  the 
 present  connection,  that  the  glorification  of  the  Son  here  comes 
 into  consideration  only  as  means  to  an  end.  The  glory  of  the 
 Father  could  not  of  itself  know  any  addition  :  His  being  glori- 
 fied, therefore,  can  only  refer  to  men's  recognition  of  that 
 glory.  But  men's  knowledge  and  acknowledgment  of  His 
 glory  required  Christ's  glorification  as  its  condition.  It  has  its 
 various  gradations  and  degrees.  But  it  is  evident  from  wdiat 
 follows,  that  the  Lord  here  contemplates  the  highest  gradation 
 of  it — the  perfected  knowledge  of  the  glory  of  God  in  eternal 
 blessedness.  But  the  idea,  "  that  Thy  Son  also  may  glorify 
 Thee,"  could  not  remain  in  this  generality.  It  points  forward 
 by  its  very  mysteriousness,  left  to  conjecture,  to  a  closer  defi- 
 nition of  its  meaning.  Luther :  "  It  is  also  to  be  observed  in 
 this  text,  how  Christ  ascribes  it  to  Himself  that  He  alone  was 
 the  man  through  whom  the  Father  must  be  glorified.  That 
 goes  clean  beyond  all  creaturely  degrees." 
 
 Ver.  2.  "  As  Thou  hast  given  Him  power  over  all  flesh, 
 that  He  should  give  eternal  life  to  as  many  as  Thou  hast  given 
 Him." — Jesus  first  justifies  His  request  concerning  His  glori- 
 fication. It  was  in  perfect  harmony  with  that  glorification  that 
 God  had  given  Him  the  power  to  impart  eternal  life  to  all  His 
 people.     This  power  He  could  exercise  only  when   He  had 
 
310  CHAP.  XIII.-XVII. 
 
 Himself  entered  into  His  glory ;  His  saints  could  be  nowhere 
 but  where  He  was ;  their  glory  should  consist  in  beholding  His 
 glory,  ver.  24,  ch.  xiv.  2,  3.  Kadco^  here  is  used  just  as  "itJ>X3 
 in  Ps.  li.,  "  When  Nathan  the  prophet  came  unto  him,  after 
 he  had  gone  in  to  Bathsheba;"  Mic.  iii.  4.  Primarily  it  is  only 
 correspondence  that  is  meant,  but  the  causal  connection  lies  in 
 the  background.  For  e^ovaia,  compare  the  remarks  on  ch.  x. 
 18.  The  giving  Him  power  is  to  be  regarded  as  simultaneous 
 with  the  sending  of  ver.  3.  It  was  the  recompense  which 
 should  crown  the  work,  and  the  prospect  of  which  would  in- 
 spirit to  its  performance.  As  the  Father  gave  the  Son  His 
 power,  so  He  must  place  Him  in  that  condition  in  which  He 
 could  exei'cise  it.-'^he  power  given  is  over  all  flesh,  inasmvich 
 as  no  man  absolutely  and  of  necessity  is  excluded  from  the 
 range  of  it.  The  limitation  of  that  power  is  in  every  case  the 
 result  of  the  fault  of  individuals,  who  reject  the  salvation  pro- 
 vided for  all :  comp.  "  Ye  would  not,"  Matt,  xxiii.  37.  JJdaa 
 adp^  embraces  the  whole  of  mankind,  corresponding  to  the 
 Koafio^,  ch.  iii.  16  ;  the  ev  iravrl  edvet,  Acts  x.  35.  In  Matt, 
 xxiv.  22,  Luke  iii.  6,  Acts  ii.  17,  1  Cor.  i.  29,  Traaa  crdp^  is 
 used  to  express  the  idea  of  the  entire  human  race.  Men  are  so 
 denominated,  in  contradistinction  to  purely  spiritual  natures : 
 comp.  the  irvev/xa  adpKa  ovk  e-^ei,  Luke  xxiv.  39. 
 y  Strictly,  the  words  run,  "  That  all  which  Thou  hast  given 
 Him"  (nominative  absolute),  "  He  may  give  them."  The  sum- 
 ming up  of  all  believers  into  one  ideal  unity  makes  still  more 
 emphatic  the  impartation  of  salvation  to  all  of  them,  without 
 exception.  \"  As  many  as  Thou  hast  given  Him"  corresponds 
 with  "whosoever  believeth  in  Him;'  just  as  the  K6afxo<i  in  ch. 
 iii.  corresponds  with  the  iracra  adp^.  All  are  given  to  Christ 
 who  do  not  wilfully  seal  their  hearts  against  faith.  The  limita- 
 tion cannot  be  in  God,  else  would  the  bestowal  of  power  over 
 all  flesh  be  illusory.  But  it  is  referred  back  to  God,  because 
 He  judicially  excludes  unbelievers  from  salvation,  and  judicially 
 makes  believers  partakers  of  it. 
 
 The  eternal  life  which  is  here  spoken  of  can  belong  only  to 
 the  sphere  of  the  other  woiid ;  for  it  is  such  an  eternal  life  as 
 was  still  future  to  the  Apostles,  whom  the  Lord  had  always 
 pre-eminently  in  His  eye.  Further,  it  was  only  the  eternal  life 
 of  the  other  world  which  was  absolutely  dependent  on  the  glo- 
 
CHAP.  XVII,  3.  311 
 
 rification  of  Cluist.  The  conclusion  in  ver.  24,  corresponding 
 with  the  beginning,  leads  to  the  same  result ;  as  also  does  ch. 
 xiv.  2,  3.  But,  apart  from  these  clear  and  definite  reasons,  in 
 the  nature  of  things  we  must  refer  this  eternal  life  to  the  other 
 world.  The  expression  itself  suggests  it ;  and  there  are  only 
 a  few  passages  in  the  discourses  "of  oiir  Xiord  in  St  John  whicli 
 bring  eternal  life  into  this  present  state.  Generally  they  are  in 
 harmony  with  the  words  of  our  Lord  in  the  other  Evangelists, 
 where  the  ^wr}  alwvio^  is  everywhere  limited  to  the  other  state : 
 comp.  Matt.  xix.  29  ;  Mark  x.  30 ;  Luke  xviii.  30,  where  the 
 ^oa-q  ala)vco<i  is  appropriated  to  the  alcbv  €p')(pfievo<i.  Recent  • 
 exposition,  instead  of  recognising  in  the  few  passages  of  this 
 Gospel  exceptions  to  the  rule,  has  fallen  into  gross  exaggera- 
 tion, and  not  shrunk  from  the  assertion,  that  the  Gospel  of 
 John  contradicts,  on  the  one  hand,  the  other  Evangelists,  and 
 on  the  othei'  the  revelation  of  the  Apocalypse:  compare  my 
 commentary  (Clark's  TransL).  Li  ch.  vi.  40,  xi.  25,  the  resur- 
 rection and  life  are  inseparably  united ;  and  in  ch.  iv.  14,  v. 
 39,  vi.  54,  xii.  25,  eternal  life  is  strictly  referred  to  the  other 
 world.  Luther :  "  This  power  over  all  that  liveth,  such  autho- 
 rity to  give  eternal  life,  belongs  to  no  creature  :  the  creaturex 
 may  receive  it,  but  God's  power  alone  can  give  eternal  life.-.--^ 
 For  even  the  angels,  though  they  live  eternally,  cannot  impart 
 eternal  life." 
 
 Ver.  3.  "  And  this  is  life  eternal,  that  they  might  know 
 Thee  the  only  true  God,  and  Jesus  Christ,  whom  Thou  hast 
 sent." — Jesus  not  only  has  to  give  a  reason  for  the  "  glorify 
 Thy  Son,"  but  He  must  also  show  that  His  own  glorification 
 would  be  the  condition  of  the  Father's.  The  latter  He  does 
 now.  If  the  Father  places  Him,  in  harmony  with  the  authority 
 given  to  Him,  in  a  condition  to  give  eternal  life  to  His  people, 
 the  goal  of  the  Father's  glorification  would  be  thereby  attained. 
 For  the  essence  of  eternal  life  is  to  know  God  as  He  is,  and 
 that  is  the  only  true  glorifying  of  Christ :  to  give  Him  His 
 honour,  is  simply  to  acknowledge  the  glory  that  He  has. — The 
 knowledge  of  God  has,  indeed,  its  beginnings  in  the  present 
 life ;  but  in  its  full  truth  it  belongs  to  the  life  to  come  :  there 
 we  shall  first  see  God  as  He  is,  1  John  iii.  2 ;  there  first  know 
 Him  as  we  are  known,  1  Cor.  xiii.  12.  If  eternal  life  consists 
 in  the  perfect  knowledge  of  God,  or  the  beholding  of  His  glory, 
 
312  CHAP.  XIII.-XVII. 
 
 ver.  24,  the  foretaste  of  this  knowledge  must  be  the  substance 
 of  spiritual  life  in  this  world,  the  only  essential  element  in  it, 
 the  highest  goal  to  which  we  should  in  this  world  aspire.  Those 
 who  neglect  in  this  life  to  labour  after  this  goal,  rob  themselves 
 of  eternal  life.  The  nature  of  eternal  life  is  at  the  same  time 
 the  way  to  eternal  life.  "  To  know  Thy  power,"  it  is  said,  in 
 Ecclus.  XV.  3,  "  is  the  root  of  immortality." — The  added  clause, 
 "  the  only  true  God,"  is  instead  of  a  reason :  because  Thou  art 
 the  only  true  God.  To  see  Him  as  He  is,  must  be  the  only 
 absolute  felicity.  As  the  only  true  God,  He  is  Jehovah,  the 
 '  pure,  absolute  Being,  out  of  whom  there  is  nothing  but  illusion 
 and  shadow ;  to  know  this  essential  God,  and  in  that  know- 
 ledge to  be  united  to  Him,  is  the  only  true  life  for  His  crea- 
 tures. 
 
 The  original  passage  for  the  designation  of  God  as  the  Only 
 One  (comp.  ch.  v.  44;  Rom.  xvi.  27  ;  1  Tim.  i.  17,  \i.  15,  16; 
 Jude  25),  is  Deut.  vi.  4,  "  Hear,  O  Israel ;  the  Lord  your  God 
 is  one  God."  One  God  is  not  merely  an  antithesis  to  common 
 polytheism,  but  declares  that  out  of  Him  no  true  being  exists, 
 that  He  is  the  one  and  all ;  it  annihilates  all  imagination  of  in- 
 dependent strength,  Hab.  i.  11,  and  the  deification  of  riches. 
 Job  xxxi.  24.  As  in  the  original  passage,  and  in  our  Lord's 
 saying  based  upon  it,  Mark  xii.  29,  30,  the  unity  of  God  is  the 
 ground  of  the  command  to  love  Him  above  all  (comp.  Matt.  iv. 
 10,  "  Thou  shalt  worship  the  Lord  thy  God,  and  Him  only 
 shalt  thou  serve,"  where  the  ^ovm  is  inserted  from  ver.  4  of 
 the  original  in  Deuteronomy),  so  here  it  is  the  ground  of  the 
 doctrine  that  to  know  Him  is  eternal  life.  If  God  is  the  Only 
 Being,  He  alone  must  be  loved.  He  alone  must  be  served,  in 
 Him  alone  our  honour  is  to  be  sought ;  He  is  alone  the  source 
 of  living  water,  Jer.  ii.  13 ;  of  life,  Ps.  xxxvi.  10 ;  He  is  the 
 life,  Deut.  xxx.  20,  and  to  know  Him  is  eternal  life.  Besides 
 Deut.  vi.  4,  we  may  compare  Job  xxiii.  13,  "  He  is  one,  and 
 who  can  turn  Him?"  There,  from  the  unity  of  God,  His  irre- 
 sistibility, the  absoluteness  of  His  omnipotence,  is  argued.  As 
 there  is  none  beside  Him,  whoever  has  this  Being  against  him 
 must  fall. 
 
 The  akrjdivo^  is  parallel  with  the  /xovo^  :  the  one  serves  for 
 the  elucidation  of  the  other.  Because  He  is  the  only,  therefore 
 He  is  the  true,  God  ;  and  because  He  is  the  true  God,  therefore 
 
CHAP.  xvn.  3.  313 
 
 He  is  the  only  one.  That  being  whicli  is  simply  true,  is  alone 
 the  Divine ;  all  other  being  is  infected  with  illusion  and  untruth  : 
 compare  my  commentary  on  the  Apocalypse,  ch.  iii.  7,  "  These 
 things  saith  the  Holy  One  and  the  True."  As  the  truth  of  His 
 being  is  here  parallel  with  its  oneness,  so  in  that  passage  and 
 Rev.  vi.  10  the  truth  is  parallel  with  the  holiness,  that  is,  with 
 the  absoluteness,  of  that  being.  The  truth  of  being  is  in  anti- 
 thesis to  the  lie,  the  deceitfulness,  the  delusion,  the  vanity,  and 
 the  hollowness  which  cling  to  all  created  things. — When  God 
 is  declared  to  be  the  only  and  the  true  God,  His  unity  is 
 declared  only  in  regard  to  everything  out  of  Himself :  it  does 
 not  exclude  the  Son,  who  shares  His  honour,  but  the  world,  and 
 the  false  gods  which  it  invents.  This  is  plain,  from  the  fact 
 that  it  is  not  the  abstract  Godhead  which  is  declared  to  be  the 
 only  ti'ue  God,  but  the  Father  of  Christ.  Anton  :  "  It  is  in- 
 clusive, and  only  in  opposition  to  Allotria." — By  the  a\7]dcv6v 
 Seov,  the  reason  for  which  the  "glorify  Thy  Son,  that  Xhy  Son 
 also  may  glorify  Thee,"  was  urged,  is  made  complete.  The 
 appendage,  "  and  Jesus  Christ,  whom  Thou  hast  sent,"  was 
 necessary,  in  order  that  the  Apostles — whom  the  Lord,  accord- 
 ing to  ver.  13,  had  always  in  view — might  not  misunderstand 
 the  words  concerning  the  only  true  God.  He  Himself  must 
 be  named,  as  being,  not  only  in  time,  bnt  also  in  eternity,  the 
 only  medium  of  the  knowledge  of  the  one  true  and  only  God. 
 
 That  Jesus  is  not  placed,  as  it  w-ere,  in  juxtaposition  with 
 God,  after  the  Mohammedan  manner — "  There  is  no  God  but 
 God,  and  Mohammed  is  His  prophet" — but  as  participator  in 
 the  essence  and  in  the  honour  of  the  one  only  God,  is  plain 
 from  the  fact  that  the  full  knowledge  of  Christ  is  reserved  for 
 eternal  life,  which  presupposes  His  superabounding  glory.  It 
 is  evident  also  from  this,  that  the  knowledge  of  Christ  is,  not  less 
 than  the  knowledge  of  the  Father,  made  one  with  eternal  life 
 itself.  This  presumes  that  He  is,  not  less  than  the  Father, 
 holy  and  true :  comp.  Rev.  vi.  10,  whei'e  these  predicates  are 
 given  to  the  Father,  with  iii.  7,  where  they  are  given  to  Chi'ist. 
 In  1  John  V.  20,  Jesus  Christ  is  taken  up  into  the  region  of  the 
 Only  True  :  the  Father  and  the  Son  together  form  the  opposite 
 of  idols.  The  predicate  of  Truth  is  first  assigned  to  the  Father ; 
 and  then  it  is  said  of  His  Son,  Jesus  Christ,  "  This  is  the  true 
 God,  and  eternal  life,"  in  order  to  show  that  in  Him  the  Father 
 
 J 
 
314  CHAP.  XIII.-XVII. 
 
 is  perfectly  revealed,  and  that  in  Him  all  the  Father's  fulness 
 is.  Luther  says  :  "  Since  He  bases  eternal  life  upon  the  know- 
 ing Himself  with  the  Father,  and  says,  that  without  the  know- 
 ledge of  Him  no  man  can  attain  unto  eternal  life,  and  thus  that 
 it  is  one  and  the  same  knowledge  by  which  He  and  the  Father 
 are  known,  He  must  perforce  be  of  the  same  essence  and 
 nature  with  the  Father  :  that  is.  He  must  be  the  selfsame  true 
 God,  yet  a  Person  distinguished  from  the  Father." 
 
 "  Whom  Thou  hast  sent "  points  to  the  Old  Testament 
 Angel  of  the  Lord,  like  unto  God  :  comp.  on  iii.  17.  That  we 
 are  not  to  think  of  a  mere  mission,  like  that  of  the  prophets, 
 but  of  that  sending  which  was  from  heaven  to  earth,  is  plain 
 from  ver.  18. — Our  Lord  does  not  say,  "  Me,  whom  Thou 
 hast  sent,"  but,  making  Himself  objective,  "  Jesus  Christ." 
 This  was  the  name  which  He  bore  upon  earth  in  His  state  of 
 humiliation,  "the  man  Christ  Jesus,"  1  Tim.  ii.  5.  Its  use 
 suggested  evidently,  that  He  whom  the  disciples  saw  before 
 them  in  the  form  of  a  servant,  would  in  eternal  life  assume  an 
 altogether  different  position.  For  the  same  reason,  it  Avas  our 
 Lord's  good  pleasure,  in  those  passages  which  treat  of  His 
 future  glory,  to  designate  Himself  the  Son  of  man :  comp.  ch. 
 xii.  23.  And  how  wont  He  was  to  speak  of*  Himself  in  the 
 thijd  person,  is  seen,  for  example,  in  Matt.  xi.  27.  Luther: 
 "  This  I  have  often  said,  and  now  say  it  again,  that  when  I  am 
 dead  it  may  be  thought  of,  and  men  may  learn  to  avoid  all 
 teachers,  as  sent  and  driven  by  the  devil,  who  set  up  to  talk  and 
 preach  about  God,  simple  and  sundered  from  Christ.  If  thou 
 wouldst  go  straight  to  God,  and  surely  apprehend  Him,  so  as  to 
 find  in  Him  mercy  and  strength,  never  let  thyself  be  persuaded 
 to  seek  Him  elsewhere  than  in  the  Lord  Christ.  In  Christ 
 begin  thy  art  and  study ;  in  Him  let  it  abide  firm  ;  and  wherever 
 else  thy  own  reason  and  thinking,  or  any  other  man's,  would 
 lead  thee,  shut  thine  eyes  and  say,  I  must  not,  and  I  will  not, 
 know  of  any  other  God  than  in  my  Lord  Christ."  / 
 
 Vers.  4,  5.  "  I  have  glorified  Thee  on  the  earth :  I  have 
 finished  the  work  which  Thou  gavest  Me  to  do.  And  now,  O 
 Father,  glorify  Thou  Me  with  thine  own  self  with  the  glory 
 which  I  had  with  Thee  before  the  world  was." — After  Jesus  had 
 grounded  His  prayer  for  glorification.  He  repeats  His  request, 
 now  declaring  that  the  condition  on  which  that  glorification  was 
 
CHAP.  XVII.  4,  5.  315 
 
 suspended  was  fulfilled,  and  that  work  finished,  for  the  per-/ 
 formance  of  which  He  relinquished  the  state  of  glory  belonging 
 to  His  nature,  and  assumed  the  form  of  a  servant.  Schmieder : 
 "  After  our  Lord  had  expressed  the  final  design  of  the  glorifi- 
 cation, which  He  had  asked  on  His  own  behalf, — to  wit,  the 
 glorification  of  the  Father  in  men,  through  the  communication 
 of  eternal  life  to  man, — He  takes  up  once  more  the  prayer  for 
 glorification,  setting  forth  first  the  ground  of  His  warrant  to 
 urge  this  prayer  now,  and  declaring  wherefore  the  hour  of 
 glorification  had  now  actually  come."  For  "  I  have  glorified  ■ 
 Thee,"  comp.  ch.  xiii.  31,  32;  Matt.  ix.  8;  Luke  vii.  16,  xiii. 
 13.  While  Christ  revealed  His  own  glory.  He  at  the  same  time 
 bore  witness  to  the  glory  of  the  Father ;  He  raised  His  people 
 with  a  mighty  hand  out  of  their  indifference  towards  Him, 
 made  them  lift  up  their  hearts  to  Him,  and  consecrate  them- 
 selves to  His  service ;  even  as  to  the  present  day  the  way  to  the 
 glorification  of  God  is  only  through  Christ.  Luther :  "  Th^ 
 Lord  Christ,  when  He  was  upon  earth,  so  glorified  the  Father,  / 
 that  He  made  His  praise,  honour,  and  dignity  great.  And  it 
 is  the  whole  life  and  being  of  a  Christian  man,  as  it  was  of 
 Christ  Himself,  to  exalt  the  honour  and  glory  of  God  alone,  to 
 know  and  to  magnify  His  grace  and  goodness." — To  the  hri  Tr]<i 
 7^9  corresponds  the  Trapa  creavro),  that  is,  "  in  heaven." — Yf  hen 
 the  Lord  says,  "  I  have  finished  the  work,"  He  anticipates  what 
 still  remained  of  it,  which  was  to  be  accomplished  in  the  next 
 approaching  hours.  ^It  was  not  really  fulfilled  until  the  Lord 
 could  say,  "  It  is  finished." — Hv,  Thou,  forms  the  antithesis  to 
 iyo),  I.  Righteousness  required  that  the  Father  should  glorify  /\ 
 the  Son,  who  had  glorified  Him.  On  account  of  the  antithesis 
 to  iyo)  ere,  we  must  point  jjue  av,  irarep,  not  /ie,  av  irarep,  as  in 
 ver.  21 ;  also,  there  must  be  a  comma  between  <tv  and  irarep. 
 The  address,  "  O  Father,"  yecurs  four  times ;  besides  "  Holy 
 Father"  in  ver.  11,  and  "  Righteous  Father"  in  ver.  25.  From  V 
 the  glory,  the  restoration  of  which  Jesus  here  prayed  for,  we 
 must  distinguish  that  glory  which  was  inseparable  from  His  na- 
 ture, which  indwelt  in  Him,  even  during  His  humiliation  (comp. 
 ch.  ii.  11,  xiii.  31),  and  which  ever  and  anon  beamed  forth  in  His 
 words  and  in  His  deeds.  Even  in  the  case  of  believers,  there 
 exists  this  difference  between  a  glory  inseparable  from  their 
 nature  (comp.  vers.  10,  22),  and  that  added  glory,  which  will 
 
316  CHAP.  XIII-XVII. 
 
 be  theirs  only  in  the  future  life.  His  transfiguration  was  a 
 prelude  and  earnest  of  Christ's  heavenly  glory.  AYith  the  Trapa 
 aeavrS,  compare  the  iv  eavra>,  in  ch.  xiii.  32.  This  shows  that 
 Christ  would  be  taken  up  into  the  fellowship  of  the  Divine 
 glory  itself.  The  irapa  aeavru)  is  explained  by  the  antithesis  to 
 eVt  Trj<i  <yrj<i.  It  served  to  introduce  the  universal  designation 
 of  the  place  of  the  glorification.  "  Before  the  world  was" 
 (compare  "  before  the  foundation  of  the  world,"  ver.  24),  in- 
 volves Christ's  participation  in  disunity ;  for,  before  the  world 
 was,  was  only  God.?  To  be  before  the  world,  is,  in  Ps.  xc.  2, 
 the  Divine  prerogative :  "  Before  the  mountains  were  brought 
 forth,  or  ever  Thou  hadst  formed  the  earth  and  the  world,  from 
 everlasting  to  everlasting.  Thou  art  God:"  comp.  on  ch.  i.  1. 
 The  angels  belong  to  the  A:ocr/io9 ;  their  creation  is  included  in 
 Gen.  i.  1,  even  if  it  does  not  fall  under  the  work  of  the  six  days. 
 With  "  which  I  had  with  Thee  before  the  world  was,"  we  may 
 comp.  what  Prov.  viii.  22,  etc.,  says  concerning  Wisdom  having 
 been  with  God  in  the  beginning  of  His  way,  before  His  works, 
 before  the  earth  was,  before  the  mountains  were  established, 
 when  He  prepared  the  heavens.  In  harmony  with  our  present 
 passage,  Jesus,  in  ch.  viii.  25,  also  claimed  for  Himself  a  Divine 
 glory  before  the  world  was.  Luther :  "  Here  is  once  more  a 
 stern  and  clear  text  for  the  divinity  of  Christ  against  the  Arians, 
 although  they  have  thought  to  make  a  hole  through  it.  He 
 says  plainly,  that  He  had  possessed  His  glory,  and  had  been  one 
 with  the  glorious  nature  of  the  Father,  before  the  world  was 
 made.  What  that  was,  believers  will  estimate.  For  before  the 
 world  was,  nothing  could  be  but  God  alone ;  since  between  God 
 and  the  world  there  is  no  middle  thing,  all  must  be  either  the 
 Creator  Himself  or  a  creature."  7 
 
 After  Jesus  had  prayed  to  the  Father  that  He  would,  by 
 the  glorification  of  His  Son,  open  the  way  to  heavenly  glory  for 
 His  disciples.  He  turns  to  the  petitions  which  refer  to  the  pro- 
 cedure of  the  Apostles  in  the  world.  In  vers.  6-11  He  lays 
 the  foundation  for  these  petitions,  by  mentioning  the  peculiarly 
 near  relation  in  which  they  stood  to  God,  vers.  6-10,  and  that 
 they  needed  His  help  in  their  perilous  situation  in  the  world, 
 ver.  11.  Then,  in  the  latter  part  of  ver.  11,  He  utters  the 
 petition. 
 
 Yer.  6.  "  I  have  manifested  Thy  name  unto  the  men  which 
 
CHAP,  XVII.  6.  317 
 
 Thovi  gavest  Me  out  of  the  -workl :  Thine  they  were,  and  Thou 
 gavest  them  Me ;  and  they  have  kept  Thy  word." — "  I  have 
 declared  Thy  name"  immediately  suggests  Ps.  xxii.  23,  "  I  will 
 declare  Thy  name  unto  my  brethren."  The  name  of  God  is 
 usually  His  historically  manifested  glory.  Here,  where  the 
 name  is  present  before  the  manifestation,  the  nature  of  God 
 Himself  is  described  as  His  name,  inasmuch  as  it  contains  in 
 itself  the  germ  of  the  actual  manifestation:  comp.  on  ver.  11. 
 "  God  is  known  in  Judah,  His  name  is  great  in  Israel,"  we  read 
 in  Ps.  Ixxvi.  2.  God  had  ever,  in  the  Old  Testament,  made 
 Himself,  through  His  acts,  a  glorious  name,  Isa.  Ixiii.  14.  But 
 these  revelations  of  the  name  were,  in  comparison  of  that 
 effected  through  Christ,  of  so  little  account,  that  the  name  of 
 God  had  hitherto,  as  it  were,  not  been  made  known.  The  men 
 form  the  antithesis  to  the  Father  and  the  Son  in  the  previous 
 verse.  ^"  Whom  Thou  hast  given  Me"  refers  not  to  eternal 
 predestination,  but  to  election  in  time.  They  were  given  at  the 
 moment  when  they  attained  to  faith. — The  design  of  the  words, 
 "  Thine  they  were,"  etc.,  was  formally  to  pave  the  way  for  the 
 petition  in  ver.  12,  and  in  effect  to  turn  the  disciples'  hearts  to 
 God.^  God  could  not  forsake  them,  even  because  of  the  love 
 which  He  bears  to  all  His  creatures ;  how  much  more,  then, 
 would  He  defend  them  as  believers,  as  those  who  had  main- 
 tained their  state  of  faith !  "  Thine  they  were,  and  Thou  gavest 
 them  to  Me."  Both  these  were  true,  even  of  Judas :  comp. 
 ver.  12,  where  he  also  is  numbered  among  those  whom  the 
 Father  had  given  to  the  Son.  But  because  the  thit'd  thing  was 
 in  him  wanting — the  keeping  God's  word — the  first  and  the 
 second  lost  their  force,  yea,  were  changed  in  his  case  into  a 
 condemnation  and  a  curse. 
 
 "  Thine  they  were :"  that  is,  as  men,  as  belonging  to  the 
 Koa/jio^,  as  Thy  creatures.  If  we  do  not  interpret  this  by 
 referring  to  rot?  dvOpoiiroL'^  and  to  eK  rod  Koa/xov,  we  are  left  to 
 mere  conjecture.     We  may  compare  Gen.  i.  and  ii.  7,  and  "  In 
 
 ^  Luther :  "  That  He  used  so  many  words,  was  not  in  order  that  His 
 petition  might  have  more  effect  with  tlie  Father ;  for  He  knew  it  all  before, 
 and  everything  that  Christ  could  ask  or  desire  is  and  must  be  done.  But 
 He  said  so  much,  that  our  hearts,  always  so  fearful  and  doubtful  before  God, 
 might  be  encouraged  ;  that  they  might  joyfully  and  boldly  look  up  to  Him, 
 nm  to  Him  with  all  confidence,  and  stand  before  His  presence  with  delight." 
 
318  CHAP.  XIII.-XVII. 
 
 Him  we  live,  and  move,  and  have  our  being,"  Acts  xvii.  28,  and 
 "  We  are  His  offspring,"  ver.  29.  The  universal  providence  of 
 God  rests  upon  the  creative  relation  ;  and  that  universal  pro- 
 vidence is  the  foundation  of  the  special  care  which  He  has  of 
 believers.  The  Psalmists  constantly  refer  to  their  relation  to 
 the  Creator  for  the  strengthening  of  their  faith  in  the  saving 
 and  helping  mercy  of  God.  In  Ps.  xxii.  10,  11,  the  singer 
 dwells  upon  the  fact,  that  God  had  been  the  sufferer's  God, 
 even  from  his  earliest  infancy,  and  exults  that  He  will  not  leave 
 him  or  forsake  him.  "  Thou  preservest  man  and  beast,"  it  is 
 said  in  Ps.  xxxvi.  6  :  how  much  more  His  saints !  In  Ps.  civ.  the 
 greatness  of  God,  in  His  care  for  all  creatures  living  on  earth, 
 is  exhibited,  in  order  to  invigorate  the  Church's  confidence  in 
 the  final  victory  of  God's  people  over  the  world.  In  Ps.  cxlv.  9 
 we  read,  "  The  Lord  is  good  to  all,  and  His  tender  mercies  are 
 over  all  His  works  :"  over  all,  therefore  how  much  more  over 
 His  people  !  Our  Lord  Himself  took  pleasure  in  reminding' 
 His  disciples  of  God's  goodness  in  caring  for  all  His  creatures  : 
 comp.  Matt.  vi.  26,  x.  29-31.  In  these  passages  we  have  His 
 own  comment  upon  "  Thine  they  were."  But  it  cannot  mean 
 that  they  were  once  the  Father's,  but  not  the  Son's.  That 
 would  be  at  variance  with  ver.  10,  according  to  which  the 
 Father  can  have  nothing  that  the  Son  has  not ;  and  with  vers.  5 
 and  24,  according  to  which  the  Son,  before  the  foundation  of  the 
 world,  shared  the  glory  of  God ;  and  with  ch.  i.  3,  which  shows 
 that  all  things  were  made  by  the  Word.  Augustin  rightly 
 remarks  :  "  Were  they  ever  the  Father's,  and  not  the  only- 
 begotten  Son's ;  and  had  the  Father  ever  anything  which  the 
 Son  had  not  1  Far  be  it.  Assuredly  God  the  Son  had  once 
 that  which  He  had  not  as  man  the  Son."  But  it  was  not  here 
 the  question  to  exalt  the  prerogative  of  the  Son.  Jesus  would 
 lay  all  His  own  in  the  arms  of  the  Father. 
 
 "  And  Thou  gavest  them  Me :"  hence  they  have  become 
 Thine  in  an  altogether  different  sense  from  that  in  which  they 
 were  Thine  as  men.  They  were  Thine  as  men  :  how  much 
 more  are  they  Thine  as  Christians  !  In  the  third  clause  we  find 
 the  word  of  the  Father  mentioned,  and  not  the  word  of  Christ ; 
 and  this  points  to  the  fact,  that  the  relation  to  Christ  is  here 
 referred  as  involving  in  itself  the  deepened  inwardness  of  the 
 relation  to  the  Father.    Luther :  "  In  their  being  My  disciples, 
 
CHAP.  XVII.  7-9.  319 
 
 and  hearing  My  word,  they  hear  and  keep  not  My  word,  but 
 Thine."  To  the  keeping  of  God's  word,  in  this  passage,  cor- 
 responds, in  ch.  XV.,  the  abiding  in  Christ.  Where  this  third  is 
 wanting,  the  first  two  foundations  for  trust  in  the  grace  of  God 
 are  robbed  of  all  their  strength. 
 
 Vers.  7,  8.  "  Now  they  have  known  that  all  things,  what- 
 soever Thou  hast  given  Me,  are  of  Thee  :  for  I  have  given 
 unto  them  the  words  which  Thou  gavest  ]\Ie ;  and  they  have 
 received  them,  and  have  known  surely  that  I  came  out  from 
 Thee,  and  they  have  believed  that  Thou  didst  send  Me." — We 
 have  here  the  further  develoj^ment  of  "  Thou  gavest  them  Me," 
 and  "  they  have  kept  Thy  word."  They  have  become,  in  the 
 fullest  sense,  God's  own  ;  and  therefore  He  cannot  withdraw 
 from  them  His  help. 
 
 Ver.  9.  "  I  pray  for  them  :  I  pray  not  for  the  world,  but 
 for  them  which  Thou  hast  given  Me  ;  for  they  are  Thine." — 
 He  does  not  say,  "  I  pray  not  noio  for  the  world,"  nor  "  I  pray 
 not  in  the  same  sense ;"  but  generally,  "  I  pray  not  for  the 
 world."  This  shows  that  the  world,  as  such,  is  simply  shut  out 
 from  the  grace  of  God ;  that  to  pray  for  it  would  not  be  accord- 
 ing to  the  will  of  God ;  that  1  John  v.  16  holds  good  of  the 
 world,  "  There  is  a  sin  unto  death  :  I  do  not  say  that  he  shall 
 pray  for  it."  The  world  may  be  viewed  under  two  aspects. 
 First,  there  is  the  susceptibility  of  grace,  which,  despite  the 
 depth  of  the  sinful  depravation  of  Adam's  race,  still  remains 
 in  it.  Of  the  world  in  this  sense,  Jesus  says,  "  I  came  not  into 
 the  world  to  condemn  the  world,  but  to  save  the  world :"  comp. 
 ch.  i.  29,  iii.  17,  iv.  42.  Viewed  under  this  aspect,  the  world  is 
 the  object  of  Christ's  intercession.  The  disciples  themselves 
 were  won  from  the  world.  But  the  world  may  also  be  viewed 
 as  ruled  by  predominantly  ungodly  principles.  Of  the  world 
 in  this  sense,  we  read  in  ch.  xiv.  17,  that  it  could  not  receive 
 the  Spirit  of  truth.  To  pray  for  the  world,  thus  viewed,  would 
 be  as  vain  as  to  pray  for  the  "  prince  of  this  world."  It  is  an 
 object  not  to  be  prayed  for,  but  to  be  prayed  against.  To  it 
 apply  all  those  objurgations  in  the  so-called  cursing  psalms, 
 which  our  Lord  so  emphatically  and  so  repeatedly  quoted  and 
 acknowledged  as  the  word  of  God.  Of  that  world  Ps.  Ixxix.  10 
 says :  "  Let  Him  be  known  among  the  heathen  in  our  sight,  by 
 the  revenging  of  the  blood  of  Thy  servants  which  is  shed."    To 
 
320         '  CHAP,  xiir -XVII. 
 
 it  applies  the  word  of  Rev.  vi.  10  :  "  And  they  cried  with  a 
 loud  voice,  saying,  How  long,  O  Lord,  holy  and  true,  dost  Thou 
 not  judge  and  avenge  our  blood  on  them  that  dwell  on  the 
 earth?"  Luther  gives  us  what  is  in  all  essentials  the  right 
 view :  "  But  how  can  the  two  be  reconciled.  His  not  praying 
 for  the  world  here,  and  His  commanding  us,  in  ISIatt.  v.,  to  pray 
 for  our  enemies  ?  The  answer  is  ready  :  to  pray  for  the  world,\ 
 and  not  to  pray  for  the  world,  must  both  be  right  and  good.  ■/ 
 As  the  world  now  stands,  and  as  it  rages  against  the  Gospel, 
 He  will  in  no  way  have  it  prayed  for,  that  God  should  wink  at 
 and  suffer  its  evil  nature  and  ways  ;  but  we  must  pray  against 
 it,  that  God  would  hinder  its  projects,  and  bring  them  to  nought. 
 So  Moses  did,  Num.  xvi.  15,  against  Korah  and  his  company  : 
 he  was  very  wroth,  and  said  unto  the  Lord,  Respect  not  Thou 
 their  offering.  Thus  Christ  shows  us  here  the  two  companies  : 
 the  first  and  small  one,  which  keeps  and  must  preach  the  word 
 of  God ;  and  the  greater  one,  which  aims  to  thwart  that  little 
 flock  in  everything."  Similarly  Quesnel :  "  The  world,  that 
 corporation  of  the  wicked,  which  stands  fast  and  ever  will  stand 
 fast,  though  individuals  of  its  members  may  be  snatched  from 
 it,  remains  under  the  curse,  and  is  treated  as  under  the  ban,  as 
 having  no  part  in  the  sacrifice  of  Christ,  and  therefore  none  in 
 His  intercession.  What  an  idea  this  must  give  us  of  the 
 world !" 
 
 Ver.  10.  "  And  all  Mine  are  Thine,  and  Thine  are  Mine  ; 
 and  I  am  glorified  in  them." — Only  "  all  Mine  are  Thine" 
 belongs  to  the  present  matter.  "All  Thine  are  Mine"  is, 
 added  only  to  place  in  full  light  the  inwardness  of  the  fellow- 
 ship on  which  "  all  Mine  are  Thine"  rests  :  it  is  equivalent  to 
 "  even  as  all  Thine  is  Mine."  So  also,  in  Matt.  xi.  27,  the 
 clause,  "  No  man  knoweth  the  Son  but  the  Father,"  does  not 
 immediately  belong  to  the  matter  in  hand,  but  serves  only  as  a 
 basis  of  support  for  "  No  man  knoweth  the  Father  but  the 
 Son."  Luther  remarks  :  "  It  were  not  so  much  to  say.  All 
 Mine  is  Thine  ;  for  every  man  may  declare,  that  whatever  he  has 
 is  God's.  But  it  is  much  greater  when  He  inverts  it,  and  says. 
 All  Thine  is  Mine ;  for  no  creature  of  God  can  say  that."  We 
 have  an  elucidation  of  "  All  Thine  is  Mine"  in  Rev.  v.  12. 
 There  the  ten  thousands  of  angels  cry,  "  Worthy  is  the  Lamb 
 that  was  slain,  to  receive  power,  and  riches,  and  wisdom,  and 
 
CHAP.  XVII.  11.  321 
 
 strength,  and  honour,  and  glory,  and  blessing."  The  seven 
 ascriptions  correspond  with  the  sevenfold  praise  of  God  in  ch. 
 vii.  12.  
 
 Christ  was  glorified  in  His  people,  inasmuch  as  they  per- 
 ceived and  acknowledged,  beneath  the  veil  of  His  servant-form, 
 the  true  Son  of  God ;  and  even  on  that  account  they  became 
 the  object  of  more  gracious  care  to  the  Father,  who  beholds 
 His  own  honour  in  the  honour  of  His  Son  :  comp.  ch.  xi.  4. 
 Luther  :  "  By  the  world  I  am  obscured,  dishonoured,  and  con- 
 demned ;  but  they,  My  disciples,  because  they  hear  the  word 
 that  I  am  sent  of  Thee,  and  that  I  have  all  that  is  Thine, 
 glorify  Me.  Thereby  I  am  revealed  and  plainly  set  before 
 them,  so  that  they  regard  Me  altogether  differently  from  the 
 world,  even  as  Thy  Son,  the  eternal  and  true  God.  No  pos- 
 sessions and  no  honours  in  the  world  are  to  be  corapai*ed  with 
 this,  that  He  will  be  glorified  in  the  infirmity  of  our  poor  flesh 
 and  blood,  and  that  God  the  Father  is  so  highly  honoured  and 
 well  pleased  when  we  magnify  and  honour  the  Christ."  /^ 
 
 Ver.  11.  "  And  now  I  am  no  more  in  the  world,  but  these 
 are  in  the  world,  and  I  come  to  Thee.  Holy  Father,  keep 
 through  Thine  own  name  those  whom  Thou  hast  given  Me, 
 that  they  may  be  one,  as  we  are." — From  the  reference  to  the 
 worthiness  of  the  disciples  the  Lord  turns,  in  the  words  "  I  am 
 no  more  in  the  world,  but  come  to  Thee,"  to  the  necessities  of 
 their  condition.  That  which  is  here  simply  hinted  is  in  ver.  12 
 seq.,  after  the  petition  uttered,  more  largely  developed.  Thence 
 we  see  that  the  world  is  here  regarded  as  a  tempting  power,  and 
 that  the  words  "  I  am  no  more  in  the  world"  were  intended  to 
 suggest  that  the  defence  which  they  had  hitherto  enjoyed  would 
 be  withdrawn  through  the  departure  of  Christ,  near  at  hand,  and  . 
 therefore  anticipated  as  already  come. — It  is  not  a  contradiction 
 that  Jesus  here  says,  "  I  am  no  more  in  the  world  ;"  while  else- 
 where He  says,  "  Lo,  I  am  with  you  always,  even  to  the  end  of 
 the  world,"  and,  "  Wherever  two  or  three  are  gathered  together 
 in  My  name,  there  am  I  in  the  midst  of  them."  This  latter 
 presence  with  His  disciples  belongs  to  a  higher  order  of  things. 
 He  is  now  no  longer  with  them  in  the  world ;  He  visits  them 
 from  above.     This  belongs  to  the  domain  of  the  irdrep  ajLe. 
 
 The  holiness  of  God  is  His  absolute  supremacy  over  all 
 things  created  and  temporal  (comp.  my  comm.  oji  Ps.  xxii.  3  ; 
 
 VOL.  II.  X 
 
 V 
 
B22  CHAP.  XIII.-XVII. 
 
 Eev.  iv.  8 ;  Clark's  Trans.).  An  erroneous  notion  has  been 
 entertained,  that  by  the  holiness  of  God  is  meant  His  conde- 
 scension and  mercy ;  and  for  this  the  designation  in  Isaiah, 
 "The  Holy  One  of  Israel,"  has  been  appealed  to.  But  the 
 idea  of  love  is  there  imported  simply  and  alone  by  the  relation 
 of  status  constructionis.  The  Holy  One  of  Israel  is  the  Sovereign 
 God,  separate  from  all  that  is  creature,  and  independent  of  all 
 that  is  creaturely,  the  absolute  and  unending  One,  who  belongs 
 to  Israel,  and  from  whom  an  endless  fulness  of  power,  in  oppo- 
 sition to  the  world,  flows  to  Israel  His  people.  The  passage  in 
 Hos.  xi.  9  is  no  stronger  as  an  argument :  "  I  will  not  execute 
 the  fierceness  of  JMine  anger,  I  will  not  return  to  destroy 
 Ephraim  :  for  I  am  God,  and  not  man  ;  the  Holy  One  in  the 
 midst  of  thee :  and  I  will  not  enter  into  the  city" — I  will  not  be 
 like  men  who  go  in  and  out  of  the  city.  The  idea  of  mercy  \ 
 lies  no  more  in  that  of  the  Holy  One,  as  such,  than  in  that 
 of  God ;  although  freedom  from  human  outbreaks  of  wrath  is 
 certainly  included  in  the  notion  of  separation  from  everything 
 creaturely.  But  here  the  holiness  of  God,  as  the  connection 
 shows,  comes  into  consideration  only  as  excluding  every  idea  of 
 want  of  power.  Calvin  :  "  That  out  of  His  heavenly  glory 
 He  may  help  our  weaknesses.  The  whole  prayer  tends  to  this, 
 to  prevent  the  disciples'  minds  from  sinking,  as  if  their  condi- 
 tion would  be  worse  on  account  of  the  bodily  absence  of  their 
 Master."  As  the  Holy  One,  God  has  absolutely  in  His  hands 
 the  means  of  granting  what  was  prayed  for.  The  allusion  to 
 the  Holy  Father  intimated  to  the  disciples,  that  the  departure 
 of  Jesus,  their  Protector  in  the  past,  need  not  fill  their  souls 
 with  anxiety.  They  were  given  over  to  a  mightier  One,  who 
 could  do  and  who  possessed  all  things.  We  may  compare  "  My 
 Father  is  greater  than  I,"  in  ch.  xiv.  28.  What  Jesus  in  His 
 state  of  humiliation  petitioned  of  the  Father,  the  disciples  might 
 all  the  more  confidently  expect,  inasmuch  as  He  Himself  entered 
 into  the  fellowship  of  the  Father's  glory :  comp.  ch.  i.  5. 
 
 The  w  BeSa)Kd<;  fiot,  "  through  Thy  own  name,  which  Thou 
 hast  given  Me,"  is  now  pretty  generally  acknowledged  to  be  the 
 right  one :  that  of  oy?,  which  Luther  [and  the  English  transla- 
 tion] follows,  sprang  from  a  misapprehension  of  the  meaning. 
 The  c5,  by  attraction  for  o,  which  many  authorities  substitute, 
 points  to  Ex.  xxiii.  21.     There  Jehovah  says  concerning  His 
 
CHAP.  XVII.  11.  323 
 
 Angel,  "  My  name  is  in  Him"  (comp.  Christ,  vol.  i.).  The  Angel, 
 iu  whom  was  the  name  of  God,  was  the  Angel  on  whom  it  was 
 incumbent  to  make  a  name  for  God — whose  nature  is  repug- 
 nant to  being  nameless — by  manifesting  through  His  glorious 
 acts  the  nature  of  God  dwelling  in  Him.  The  name  was,  as  it 
 were,  proleptically  used  for  that  aspect  of  the  Divine  nature  in 
 which  the  name  of  God  culminates,  which  impels  Him,  as  it 
 were,  out  of  Himself,  and  moves  Him  to  manifestation  and  ini- 
 partation  of  Himself:  comp.  on  ver.  C.  The  addition  only  makes 
 more  expressly  prominent  that  which  already  lay  in  iv  tu>  6v6- 
 fiarl.  aov.  The  name  of  God  is  His  character  as  forming 
 history.  His  nature  as  issuing  into  manifestation  ;  and  the  un- 
 folding of  this  name  is  to  be  sought  only  in  Christ  (comp.  ver. 
 G)  :  only  in  Him  has  God  a  name.  The  disciples  stood  in  no 
 direct  relation  to  the  Father  ;  they  belonged  to  the  Father  only 
 through  the  Son ;  they  were  kept  in  the  name  of  the  Father, 
 only  in  so  far  as  the  name  of  the  Father  was  at  the  same  time 
 the  name  of  the  Son.  Around  the  name  of  God  in  Christ  the 
 disciples  had  gathered.  This  name  alone  builds  up  the  Church. 
 In  this  centre  the  Holy  Father  would  keep  His  people.  If  they 
 should  fall  out  of  that  name,  the  Church  would  cease  to  exist. 
 According  to  the  connection  with  what  precedes,  the  world  was 
 the  power  which  would  make  every  effort  to  rend  the  disciples 
 from  the  name  of  the  Father  and  of  the  Son,  thus  destroying 
 their  unity.  Against  their  persecutions  and  seductions  the 
 Saviour  appeals  to  the  power  of  the  Father  :  asking  of  Him 
 what  He  Himself  in  the  fellowship  of  the  Father  would  do. 
 
 ,  That  the  name  of  the  Father  is  to  be  conceived  as  actually 
 indwelling  in  Christ, — that  we  must  not  interpret  it,  "  which 
 Thou  hast  given  Me  to  declare" — is  evident  from  the  original 
 text,  Ex.  xxiii.  21.  There  "  My  name  is  in  Him"  indicates 
 equal  Divine  glory.  For  the  words  were  used  to  enforce  a 
 warning  against  dishonour  done  to  Plim  :  "  Beware  of  Him, 
 and  obey  His  voice,  provoke  Him  not ;  for  He  will  not  pardon 
 your  transgressions  :  for  INIy  name  is  in  Him."  The  proclama- 
 tion of  the  name  of  the  Lord  was  not  incumbent  on  that  Angel ; 
 it  was  His  rather  to  make  for  God  a  glorious  name  by  His 
 acts. — "  That  they  may  be  one,  as  we  are."  The  unity  of  the 
 disciples  among  themselves  was  only  secondary ;  it  was  not  to  be 
 independently  laboured  for,  but  it  was  to  approve  itself  as  real 
 
324  CHAP,  xiii.-xvii. 
 
 ■/ 
 
 when  God  fulfilled  the  petition  here  uttered.  That  unity  would 
 be  precious  only  if  it  was  not  enforced,  but  should  grow  out  of 
 their  abiding  in  the  name  of  God  and  Christ,  just  as  spontane- 
 ously as  the  union  between  the  Father  and  the  Son.  The  type 
 of  all  those  attempts  at  unity  which  should  be  substitutes  for 
 this  natural  union,  we  have  in  the  Babel  of  primitive  times. 
 That  tended  only  to  increase  division.  He  who  looks  more 
 deeply  will  not  be  deluded  by  it.  Luther  :  "  But  it  is  no  other 
 than  that  which  Paul  in  1  Cor.  xii.  12,  and  many  other  pas- 
 sages, says,  to  wit  that  we  are  one  body  in  Christ ;  not  merely  of 
 one  opinion  or  one  thought,  but  of  one  nature. — But  this  we 
 can  attain  in  no  other  way  than  by  this,  that  God  keep  us  in  His 
 name  :  that  is,  that  we  abide  in  the  word  which  we  have  received 
 concerning  Christ.  For  the  word  holds  us  together,  so  that  we 
 all  abide  in  one  Head,  and  depend  on  Him  alone. — The  devil 
 tries  hard  to  break  this  bond,  and  by  his  cunning  devices  to 
 rend  us  away  from  the  word." 
 
 /  Vers.  12-15  serve  for  the  further  justification  of  the  prayer 
 Mattered  in  ver.  11.  The  watchword  "  keep"  recurs  in  ver.  15, 
 and  marks  the  conclusion. — Vers.  12,  13  dilate  upon  the  ele- 
 ment of  need^  which  was  briefly  hinted  at  in  ver.  11.  Vers.  14, 
 15  return  to  the  element  of  dignity,  which  was  dwelt  upon  in 
 vers.  7-10.  The  disciples  are  committed  to  the  care  of  the 
 Father,  for  Jesus  leaves  them,  vers.  12,  13  ;  they  are  the 
 bearers  of  the  word  of  God,  and  as  such  worthy  of  His  protec- 
 tion, vers.  14,  15. 
 
 Ver.  12.  "  While  I  was  with  them  in  the  world,  I  kept 
 them  in  Thy  name  :  those  that  Thou  gavest  Me  I  have  kept, 
 and  none  of  them  is  lost,  but  the  son  of  perdition  ;  that  the 
 Scripture  might  be  fulfilled." — To  the  being  given  by  God 
 corresponds  the  election  by  Christ  in  ch.  vi.  70,  xiii.  18.  Faith 
 is  the  subjective  condition  of  both  ;  and  as  Judas  is  numbered 
 among  those  whom  God  had  given  to  Christ,  at  the  time  of  his 
 call  he  must  have  possessed  faith. — The  Lord  has  Judas  in  His 
 mind — without  however  raentioniig  him,  because  that  would 
 have  been  out  of  harmony  with  the  solemn  dignity  of  the 
 prayer — in  order  to  anticipate  and  obviate  the  conclusion  which 
 might  be  drawn  to  the  prejudice  of  His  shepherd  fidelity,  or, 
 generally,  of  His  shepherd  ability,  from  the  ruin  of  Judas.  In 
 his  case  it  was  necessary  that  the  watchful  care  of  Jesus  should 
 
CHAP.  XVII.  12.  325 
 
 be  wasted;  for  he  was  taken  into  the  number  of  the  Apostles  to 
 be  dropped  from  it  again.  "  It  had  not  been  the  task  of  the 
 Redeemer  to  save  him,  but  to  bear  with  him,  and,  despite  his 
 foreknown  insalvabihty,  to  neglect  nothing  in  his  case  which  the 
 relation  between  Master  and  disciple,  appointed  by  the  Father, 
 demanded"  (Schmieder). 
 
 Perdition  is  here  used,  as  in  Eev.  xvii.  8,  11,  2  Thess.  ii.  3, 
 of  ruin  simply,  of  the  perdition  of  hell,  in  contradistinction  to 
 7]  ^coi],  eternal  life,  in  Matt.  vii.  13.  To  the  son  of  perdition 
 here,  corresponds  the  child  of  hell  in  Matt,  xxiii.  15. — The  sou 
 of  perdition  is  he  who  belongs  to  perdition ;  and  Luther's 
 translation,  das  verlorne  Kind — the  lost  son — does  not  exactly 
 hit  the  point.  We  may  compare  the  "  children  of  the  king- 
 dom," Matt.  xiii.  38 ;  "  children  of  the  bride-chamber,"  Mark 
 ii.  19;  "sons  of  thunder,"  Mark  iii.  17;  "children  of  this 
 generation,"  Luke  xvi.  8,  xx.  34 ;  "  children  of  light,"  John 
 xii.  36.  This  mode  of  designation,  which  all  the  Evangelists 
 show  to  have  been  current  with  Christ,  frequently  occurs  in 
 the  Old  Testament :  compare,  for  example,  the  "  children  of 
 death,"  those  who  were  appointed  to  die  and  belong  to  death 
 as  personified,  that  is,  the  dying  themselves,  Ps.  Ixxix.  11 ;  the 
 "  children  of  the  needy,"  Ps.  Ixxii.  4.  The  designation  of 
 Judas  as  the  son  of  perdition  involves  the  reason  why  ho  must 
 be  lost ;  and  thus  his  perdition  could  furnish  no  argument  to 
 the  disparagement  of  Christ.  He  was  one  whose  destiny  was  >, 
 to  be  lost.  The  designation  here  corresponds  to  the  words 
 which  derive  his  ruin  from  the  necessity  that  Scripture  should 
 be  fulfilled.  Accordingly  the  subject,  or  child  of  ruin,  means 
 one  who  was  devoted  or  given  over  to  ruin. — Judas  was  lost, 
 that  the  Scripture  might  be  fulfilled.  Christ  knew,  when  He 
 chose  him,  that  notwithstanding  his  transitory  gleam  of  faith, 
 he  would  apostatize  and  betray  Him.  If,  therefore.  He  re- 
 ceived him  notwithstanding  into  the  number  of  the  Apostles, 
 it  must  have  been  that  he  might  work  out  his  own  ruin,  and 
 thus  that  the  Scripture  might  be  fulfilled,  which  includes  such 
 a  man  among  the  necessary  surroundings  of  the  Kedeemer. 
 That  he  came  to  ruin  was  his  own  fault ;  but  since,  in  spite  of 
 his  foreseen  fall,  he  was  taken  into  the  number  of  the  Apostles, 
 and  would  not  have  been  thus  ruined  if  he  had  not  been  taken 
 into  their  number,  it  may  be  said  that  he  was  lost  that  the 
 
 \ 
 
326  CHAP.  XIII.- XVII. 
 
 Scripture  might  be  fulfilled.  As  he  would  fall,  he  should  an^ 
 did  fall.  It  was  his  doom  that  he  was  admitted  into  the  near 
 fellowship  of  Christ,  and  thus  had  this  peculiar  occasion  of 
 falling.  His  election,  and  the  concurrent  ruin,  were  to  serve 
 for  the  fulfilment  of  Scripture.  In  harmony  with  the  present 
 text,  our  Lord  says,  in  ch.  xiii.  18,  that  He  had  chosen  Judas 
 that  the  Scripture  might  be  fulfilled. — The  citation  of  Scripture 
 would  be  matter  of  great  uncertainty  if  any  other  scripture 
 could  be  meant  than  that  expressly  quoted  in  ch.  xiii.  18  ;  the 
 only  one  which  our  Lord  generally  applied  to  the  case  of  Judas. 
 In  that  passage  the  perdition  of  Judas  is  not  directly  spoken  of, 
 but  his  traitorous  act, — a  traitorous  act,  however,  which  had 
 perdition  as  its  immediate  consequence. 
 
 Yer.  13.  "And  now  come  I  to  Thee;  and  these  things  I 
 speak  in  the  world,  that  they  might  have  My  joy  fulfilled  in 
 themselves." — After  "  But  now  come  I  to  Thee,"  we  must 
 supply  in  thought,  "  and  Thou  must.  Holy  Father,  keep  them 
 in  Thy  name ;"  and  then  follows  the  statement  of  the  reason 
 why  Jesus  commits  them  so  emphatically  to  His  Holy  Father. 
 Tavra,  these  things,  refer  to  the  "  Holy  Father,"  etc.  "  In 
 the  world,"  yet  being  in  the  world,  before  My  departure. 
 Before  He  leaves  the  world.  He  says  this  for  the  consolation 
 of  the  disciples  whom  He  leaves  behind  Him.  Luther  : 
 "Therefore  He  would  by  these  words  show  them  another 
 secure  place,  where  He  would  be  much  better  able  to  keep 
 them  and  save  them ;  that  is,  with  the  Father,  to  whom  He  is 
 now  going,  in  order  that  He  may  receive  all  things  into  His 
 own  hands,  and  be  able  always  to  be  with  them,  although  out- 
 wardly and  in  the  body  He  might  be  absent."  "My  joy:" 
 that  is,  the  joy  which  I  prepare  for  them,  by  means  of  the 
 prayer  which  I  offer  in  their  hearing  and  for  them  to  the  Holy 
 Father;  just  as  "My  peace,"  in  ch.  xiv.  27,  meant  the- peace 
 which  I  give  unto  them.  Joy  is  here,  as  in  ch.  xiv.  28  (ch.  xv. 
 11  is  not  to  be  compared),  the  opposite  of  the  sorrow  which  the 
 disciples  felt  at  the  impending  departure  of  Christ.  The  joy 
 which  Jesus  provided  for  them,  by  committing  them  to  the 
 keeping  of  the  Father,  who  was  greater  than  He,  would  be 
 perfect.  That  resulted  from  the  fact  that  He  to  whom  they 
 were  committed  was  the  ITolr/  One. 
 /''Vers.  14,  15.  "I  have  given  them   Thy  word;   and  the 
 
CHAP.  XVII.  14,  u.  327 
 
 world  hath  hated  them,  because  they  are  uot  of  the  world,  even 
 as  I  am  not  of  the  world.     I  pray  not  that  Thou  shouldest  take 
 them  out  of  the  world,  but  that  Thou  shouldest  keep  them  from 
 the  evil." — That  Christ  had  given  them  the  word  of  God,  was 
 the  reason,  on  the  one  hand,  of  the  world's  hatred,  as  between 
 Christ's  people  and  the  world  a  wall  of  separation  had  been 
 set  up  by  that  word ;  and,  on  the  other  haniST'ortliat  committal 
 of  them  to  the  protecting  power  of  God  which  is  pleaded  for 
 in  ver.  15.     The  fact  that  the  world  hated  them  would  serve 
 to  recommend  them  to  God ;  it  was  the  confirmation  of  their 
 sincere  relation  .to  God.     If  they  had  not  the  word  of  God  in 
 themselves,  the  world  would  love  them. — They  might  not  be 
 taken  from  the  world;  partly  because  they  themselves  must, 
 while  yet  in  the  world,  be  prepared  and  matured  for  eternal 
 life  (ver.  17,  and  the  yvcopca-co,  ver.  26);  and  partly  because 
 they  must  first  fulfil  the  mission  entrusted  to  them  for  the 
 world,  ver.  18  (comp.  Phil.  i.  24,  and  "Ye  are  the  salt  of  the 
 earth").     Elijah  cried  in  deep  despondency  (1  Kings  xix.  4), 
 "  It  is  enough :  O  Lord,  take  my  life."     That  Jesus  did  not 
 pray  the  Father  that  He  would  take  His  disciples  out  of  the 
 world,  was  to  warn  them  beforehand  not  to  pray  as  Elijah  did, 
 when  the  hatred  of  the  world   should  pierce  tliem  bitterly. 
 Tripeiv  with  gk  is  found  only  here  and  Rev.  ili.  10  :  the  con-^ 
 struction  is  explained  by  noting  that  the  idea  of  delivering 
 from  is  included  in  the  preserving.     The  e/c  of  itself  shows  that 
 TTov-qpoi)  is  not  the  designation  of  a  person,  but  of  a  domain  of 
 evil ;  that  we  must  therefore  not  think  of  the  great  enemy,  but 
 only  of  evil  generally :  Luke  vi,  45 ;  Rom.  xii.  9  ;  2  Thess.  ii.  3, 
 where  ro  irovTjpov  corresponds  to  the  wicked  men  of  ver.  2  ; 
 1  John  iii.  12,  v.  19.     It  is  decisive  against  taking  Troprjpov  as 
 masculine,  that  here,  as  well  as  in  the  Lord's  Prayer,  there  is 
 an  undeniable  allusion  to  Gen.  xlviii.  16,  where  Jacob  says, 
 "The  Angel  who  redeemed  me  from  all  evil,"   o  0776X09  0 
 pvofievo^  fie  iic  ttuvtcov  roiv  kukwv,  a  passage  to  which  we  may 
 trace  a  reference  in  2  Cor.  i.  19  ;  2  Tim.  iv.  17,  18  ;  2  Thess. 
 iii.  2,  3.     It  is  all  the  more  difficult  to  establish  that  Satan  was 
 here  meant,  inasmuch  as  throughout  the  prayer  the  Lord  has 
 to  do  with  the  world,  and  never,  with  Satan.     As  rov  irovqpov  is 
 capable  of  two  meanings,  it  is  obvious  tliat  we  should  adopt 
 that  one  for  which  the  context  decides ;  and  the  context  here 
 
328  CHAP,  xiii.-xvii. 
 
 introduces,  not  the  one  spirit  of  evil,  but  the  evil  spirit  of  the 
 world.  The  evil  comes  into  consideration  here,  more  especially 
 as  assuming  the  character  of  an  inward  temptation  ;  to  this  we 
 are  led  by  the  correspondence  between  "  from  the  evil "  and 
 "  in  Thy  name."  Schmieder :  "  The  petition.  Keep  them  from 
 the  evil,  and  thfe  petition,  Keep  in  Thine  own  name,  stand  in 
 the  strictest  connection.  Keeping  them  in  the  name  of  God, 
 is  keeping  them  in  that  which  sanctifies ;  preserving  them  from 
 the  evil,  is  preserving  them  from  that  which  would  desecrate  or 
 rob  them  of  sanctification."  But  the  pressure  of  persecution 
 on  account  of  the  word.  Matt.  xiii.  21,  is  not  to  be  excluded. 
 The  world  lieth  in  wickedness,  1  John  v.  19  :  this  evil  besets 
 the  disciples  of  Christ  in  two  ways,  by  two  temptations  which 
 go  hand  in  hand.  That  which  they  have  to  suffer  from  the 
 evil  in  the  world,  may  easily  mislead  them  into  making  an  end 
 of  their  difficulties,  by  admitting  the  evil  into  themselves. 
 
 In  vers.  16-19,  Jesus  prays  the  Father  that  He  would 
 sanctify  the  disciples,  and  gives  the  reason  of  this  prayer. 
 
 Vers.  16,  17.  "  They  are  not  of  the  world,  even  as  I  am  not 
 of  the  world.  Sanctify  them  through  Thy  truth  :  Thy  word 
 is  truth." — Yer.  16  repeats  what  had  been  already  said  in  ver. 
 14.  We  may  suppose,  therefore,  that  these  words  are  not  in- 
 serted for  their  independent  meaning,  but  serve  as  a  foundation 
 for  the  prayer  ensuing  in  ver.  17.  The  disciples  belong  not  to 
 the  world,  because  they  are  sundered  from  the  world  by  the 
 word  of  God  given  to  them,  ver.  14,  by  Christ.  The  Father, 
 therefore,  is  prayed  to  make  this  separation  from  the  world 
 perfect  and  real  by  the  continual  operation  of  that  word.A-To 
 sanctify  is  to  separate  from  the  world,  and  translate  into  ^he 
 region  of  God — to  consecrate.  The  crov  after  ry  akrjOeLa  (Thy 
 truth)  is,  according  to  preponderating  testimonies,  spurious. 
 Bengel  has  made  the  remark  that  we  often  hear  of  the  truth 
 in  John,  but  never  of  the  truth  of  God.  'Ev  rfj  akrjOeLa  is 
 explained  by  the  subsequent  eV  ahrjOela,  from  which  it  must  by 
 no  means  be  severed :  comp.  aXrjdm,  ver.  8.  Now,  since  ev 
 akTjOeia  is  always  used  adverbially  (in  3  John  3,  4,  "walking 
 in  truth"  is  "truly,  truthfully  walking"),  the  article  "in  the 
 truth"  must  be  taken  generically ;  the  truth  forms  the  anti- 
 thesis of  semblance  and  defectiveness  :  comp.  on  ch.  iii.  21. 
 We  find  ''the  truth"  for  "truth"  also  in  1  John'i.  6.     The 
 
CHAP.  XVII.  18.  329 
 
 addition  "  Thy^^  in  the  present  text  {aov)  sprang  from  a  mis- 
 conception of  the  adverbial  character  of  "  in  truth."  The 
 Codex  Vaticanus  omitted  the  article  from  a  right  apprehension 
 of  this.  And  Luther  also  retained  this  right  apprehension, 
 although  he  followed  the  incorrect  reading  crov :  "  And  that 
 in  Thy  truth,  so  that  it  may  be  a  sound  and  right  sanctifi- 
 cation, — as  also  St  Paul  speaks  in  Eph.  iv.  24,  in  justitia  et 
 sanctitate  veritatis,  that  is,  in  a  right,  pure,  and  true  holiness." 
 We  might,  indeed,  be  disposed  to  interpret  "  in  truth"  as  hint- 
 ing a  contrast  with  01d_  Testament  sanctifyings,  which  only 
 accomplished  an  external  holiness,  "  sanctifying  to  the  purifica- 
 tion of  the  flesh,"  Heb.  ix.  13.  But  such  a  reference  in  this 
 connection  would  be  far-fetched.  We  are  oblio;ed  to  refer  it  to 
 the  imperfect  sanctification  of  which  the  Apostles  were  already 
 the  subjects.  "  They  are  not  of  this  world,"  in  ver.  16,  means, 
 expressed  positively,  "  They  are  now  already  holy ; "  and  "in 
 truth"  intimates  that  this  already  existing  holiness  yet  lacked 
 its  perfect  reality  :  comp.  6  ayco^,  ayiaadjjTco  eri,,  Rev.  xxii.  11. 
 — "  Thy  word  is  truth,"  and  therefore  the  ground  of  true  sanc- 
 tification. The  word,  by  means  of  which  the  first  separation 
 from  the  world  was  effected  (comp.  ch.  xv.  3),  is  also  the  means 
 by  which  this  separation  must  be  brought  more  and  more  to  its 
 true  and  perfect  consummation. 
 
 Ver.  18.  "  As  Thou  hast  sent  ]\Ie  into  the  world,  even  so 
 have  I  also  sent  them  into  the  world." — We  have  here  a  new 
 motive  to  the  fulfilment  of  this  petition.  The  disciples  w^ere, 
 in  ver.  6,  viewed  as  Christians ;  now  they  are  viewed  as  Apostles. 
 They  were  all  the  more  in  need  of  true  sanctification,  since  they 
 were  destined  for  a  mission  to  the  ivorlcl.  If  they  themselves 
 should  be  infected  with  the  spirit  of  the  world,  they  would  not 
 be  able  successfully  to  accomplish  their  mission.  The  Kadoo'i — 
 Koa/xov  is  not  a  superfluous  parallel.  He  who  sent  His  Son  into 
 the  world  must  take  care  that,  by  the  true  sanctification  of  His 
 messengers,  the  end  of  His  Son's  mission  into  the  world  should 
 be  attained.  So  also,  in  ver.  16,  "  Even  as  I  am  not  of  the 
 world  "  is  more  than  a  mere  pai'allel.  Christ's  effectual  separa- 
 tion from  the  world  was  the  ground  of  the  sanctification  of  His 
 disciples, — The  Apostles  had  already  received  their  mission : 
 the  Lord  had  Himself  called  them  Apostles,  Luke  vi.  13,  and 
 given  them  the  full  authority  pertaining  to  their  oflSce,  Matt.  x.  1. 
 
330  CHAP.  XIII.-XVII. 
 
 Ver.  19.  "And  for  their  sakes  I  sanctify  Myself,  that  they 
 also  might  be  sanctified  through  the  truth." — The  Father  must 
 assure  to  the  disciples  the  means  of  true  sanctification ;  because 
 otherwise  the  Son  would  have  vainly  assumed  His  great 
 undertaking.  The  thought  of  the  preceding  verse  returns  here 
 in  another  form.  To  the  sending  Christ  into  the  world,  corre- 
 sponds in  this  verse  Christ's  sanctification  of.  Himself.  The 
 present  is  used,  because  the  self-consecration  which  was  to 
 reach  its  climax  in  the  Redeemer's  atoning  death  still  con- 
 tinues. (Calvin  :  This  sanctification,  although  it  pertained  to 
 the  whole  life  of  Christ,  yet  was  most  eminent  in  the  sacrifice 
 of  His  death.)  The  exclusive  reference  of  the  words  to  the 
 impending  sacrificial  death  (Bengel :  Sanctifico  me,  mortem 
 crucis  tolerans),  disturbs  the  connection  with  "As  Thou  hast 
 sent  Me  into  the  world,"  which  furnishes  a  comment  on  "I 
 sanctify  ISfyself,"  otherwise  indefinite  of  itself ;  and  it  disturbs 
 also  the  connection  with  ch.  x.  36.  As  there,  so  here  also, 
 sanctification  is  separation  to  the  service  of  God  in  His  king- 
 dom. The  only  difference  is,  that  in  ch.  x.  He  who  separates 
 is  God,  while  here  it  is  Christ  who  separates  Himself ;  and  in 
 that  passage  it  may  be  observed  that  the  sanctifying  is  simul- 
 taneous or  coincides  with  the  entrance  into  the  world.  "  For 
 them  :"  Christ  sanctified  Himself  for  the  whole  world,  and  His 
 vocation  He  entered  on  as  a  Redeemer  of  all  men ;  but  the 
 Apostles  here  come  prominently  into  view,  because  the  Lord  is 
 now  praying  for  them,  and  their  relations  were  central :  comp. 
 ver.  20.  In  ch.  xv.  13  also,  the  atoning  death  of  Christ  is 
 exhibited  as  undergone  specifically  for  the  Apostles. 
 
 After  His  prayer  for  the  Apostles  as  to  their  position  in  the 
 world,  the  Lord,  in  vers.  20-23,  turns  to  the  petition  for  be- 
 lievers in  the  same  relation  :  comp.  the  6  K6crfjbo<i  in  vers.  21, 
 23.  The  transition  to  this  part  of  the  prayer  we  see  in  ver.  18, 
 where  the  Lord  had  spoken  of  the  sending  of  the  Apostles  into 
 the  world. 
 
 Ver.  20.  "  Neither  pray  I  for  these  alone,  but  for  them 
 also  which  shall  believe  on  Me  through  their  word." — As  to 
 the  present  participle  "TnarevovTcov,  comp.  the  remarks  on  ch. 
 ix.  8.  All  faith  in  the  Church  is  dependent  on  the  word  of  the 
 Apostles,  the  oral  or  the  written  ;  the  written,  after  the  death 
 of  the  Apostles,  having  of  course  greatly  preponderated  in  in- 
 
CHAP.  XVII.  21.  331 
 
 fluence  over  the  oral.  Following  the  analogy  of  the  Old  Tes- 
 tament, which  is  everywhere  based  upon  written  documentary 
 archives,  the  Lord  must  doubtless  have  had  tlie  writings  of  the 
 Apostles  iu  view.  The  corruption  of  so-called  oral  tradition  at 
 that  time  infected  all  departments.  Our  Lord  strenuously 
 resisted  it,  everywhere  turning  men's  thoughts  from  human 
 ordinances  to  Holy  Scinpture  :  "  it  is  written"  was  with  Him 
 the  constant  solution.  This  being  the  case,  how  can  we  suppose 
 that  He  would  have  relied  for  the  diffusion  of  truth  in  His 
 Church  upon  a  mere  oral  tradition  ?  We  have  the  earliest 
 historical  commentary  upon  the  saying  of  this  passage  in 
 Irenaeus  iii.  1  :  "  We  have  not  received  the  knowledge  of  the 
 plan  of  salvation  from  any  others  but  those  who  delivered  the 
 Gospel ;  that  Gospel  which  they  had  first  preached,  and  after- 
 wards, by  God's  will,  handed  down  to  us  in  writings,  to  be  the 
 pillar  and  ground  of  our  faith." 
 
 Ver.  21.  "That  they  all  may  be  one;  as  Thou,  Father,  art 
 in  Me,  and  I  in  Thee,  that  they  also  may  be  one  in  us :  that 
 the  world  may  believe  that  Thou  hast  sent  Me." — The  second 
 ev  is  opposed  by  the  most  important  testimonies ;  and  it  is  con- 
 demned by  a  comparison  with  ver.  11.  There  also  the  being 
 one  is  made  a  result  of  being  in  God  and  Christ :  the  unity 
 has  no  independent  significance ;  but  comes  into  consideration 
 only  as  far  as  it  is  the  necessary  result  of  being  in  God  and 
 Christ.  The  second  ev  was  introduced  into  the  text  in  conse- 
 quence of  a  failure  to  recognise  the  truth,  that  being  one  and 
 being  in  the  Father  and  the  Son  are  correlatives,  and  cover  each 
 other.  The  fact  that  their  union  absolutely  rests  upon  their 
 being  in  the  Father  and  tlie  Son,  contains  a  striking  warning 
 against  all  enforced  and  self-made  unions.  Anton :  "  This 
 wants  more  than  a  mere  palliative,  like  the  hundreds  of  union- 
 writings  which  have  been  put  forth  by  empirics  in  our  days. 
 All  these  are  only  Pelagian  workmongering,  that  introduces 
 worse  confusion.  The  hurt  must  be  healed  by  one  only  Physi- 
 cian, the  true  High  Priest."  Real  union  consists  in  this,  that 
 we  become  "  partakers  of  a  divine  nature  "  through  fellowship 
 with  the  Son,  and  in  Him  with  the  Father,  2  Pet.  i.  4.  Where 
 divisions  appear,  they  must  be  rectified,  not  in  themselves,  but 
 in  their  root — an  interrupted  relation  to  Christ.  "  All  religion," 
 says  Quesnel,  "  all  the  counsels  of  God,  point  to  unity.     Jesus 
 
332  CHAP.  XIII.-XVII. 
 
 Christ  is  Himself,  tlirougli  His  incarnation,  the  centre  and  the 
 bond  of  that  union.  The  whole  fulness  of  the  Godhead  dwells 
 in  Him  essentially  and  perfectly  through  the  word;  and  He 
 dwells  spiritually  in  true  Christians  through  faith  and  love." 
 
 The  second  ha,  "  that,"  resumes  the  first.  The  third  is  not 
 co-ordinated  to  these,  but  serves  to  indicate  the  ultimate  design 
 which  the  being  of  believers  in  Christ  subserves ;  it  furnishes 
 the  Church  with  a  power  that  overcomes  the  world,  and  thus 
 serves  to  realize  the  end  of  Christ's  mission  into  the  world: 
 comp.  ch.  iii.  16.  If  believers  are  in  the  Father  and  the  Son, 
 of  one  heart  and  one  soul,  if  the  life  of  Christ  is  continued  in 
 them,  that  must  impress  the  world.  The  Church  is  mighty  in 
 its  aggression  upon  the  world,  in  proportion  as  "  I  dwell  in  the 
 midst  of  her "  holds  good,  in  proportion  as  she  approves  herself 
 to  be  the  tabernacle  of  God  among  men :  comp.  on  Kev.  xxi.  3. 
 The  world  judges  the  Teacher  by  His  disciples,  the  Lord  by 
 His  servants.  When  human  impulses  and  passions  rule  in  the 
 Church,  she  cannot  fail  to  go  astray  from  Christ.  But  when 
 His  image  is  reflected  from  the  Church,  when  she  presents 
 fruits  which  grow  not  in  the  rest  of  the  world,  the  world  may 
 be  induced  to  recognise  in  Him  the  Son  of  God,  who  has  stamped 
 His  image  on  His  people.  In  the  faith  that  the  Father  hath 
 sent  Christ,  the  world  renounces  itself  and  its  own  character. 
 
 Ver.  22.  "  And  the  glory  which  Thou  gavest  Me  I  have 
 given  them ;  that  they  may  be  one,  even  as  we  are  one." — The 
 honour  of  the  Son  is  to  be  one  with  the  Father,  who  shares  His 
 nature  with  Him.  From  the  Son  this  honour,  consisting  in 
 unity,  passes  over  to  believers,  who  become  one  in  this,  that 
 Christ  lives  in  them.  Gal.  ii.  20,  Phil.  i.  21 ;  that  they  eat  His 
 flesh  and  drink  His  blood,  ch.  vi.  Their  unity  among  themselves 
 is  their  glory,  only  inasmuch  as  it  rests  upon  their  unity  with 
 Christ.  Unity  enforced  by  despotic  power  and  the  arts  of  policy 
 confers  no  glory. — "  Whom  Thou  hast  given  Me,"  before  the 
 world  was,  ver.  5.  For  the  honour  of  unity  with  the  Father 
 is  the  foundation  of  that  collective  heavenly  condition  spoken 
 of  there.  Schmieder  speaks  otherwise  :  "  The  glory  which  the 
 Father  had  given  Jesus  consists  in  this,  that  the  Father  had 
 already  appeared  in  the  Son,  and  so  appeared  that  the  Son 
 spoke  words  which  the  Father  had  given  Him,  and  performed 
 works  which  the  Father  wrought  through  Him,  and  which  no 
 
CHAP.  XVII.  23,  24.  333 
 
 other  man  could  perform."  It  will  be  best,  following  J.  Ger- 
 hard, to  unite  the  two :  "  That  beatific  communion  between  the 
 Father  and  the  Son,  and  also  between  the  Divine  and  the 
 human  nature  in  Christ."  The  second  phase  of  giving  honour, 
 here  has  the  first  as  its  basis.  That  the  first  cannot  be  excluded, 
 is  evident  fi'om  iv  tm  ovofj^art  (tov,  &  BeBcoKd<;  fxot  in  ver.  11,  with 
 its  allusion  to  Ex.  xxiii.  21. 
 
 Ver.  23.  "  I  in  them,  and  Thou  in  Me,  that  they  may  be 
 made  perfect  in  one ;  and  that  the  world  may  know  that  Thou 
 hast  sent  Me,  and  hast  loved  them,  as  Thou  hast  loved  ^Me." — 
 The  words,  "  that  they  may  be  perfected  into  one,"  resume  the 
 thought  of  ver.  22,  in  order  to  connect  with  it  the  statement  of 
 the  end  which  this  unity  would  subserve,  the  glorious  result 
 which  would  accrue  from  it :  "  And  if  they  shall  thus  become 
 one,  the  world  will  thereby  know,"  etc.  It  is  added,  that  this 
 unity,  in  order  to  the  attainment  of  that  end,  must  be  a  perfect 
 one — "  perfected  into  one,"  that  is,  all  merging  into  this  unity. 
 A  blessed  residuum  of  the  unity  which  Christ  prays  for  is  even 
 now  present  in  the  Church,  notwithstanding  all  appearances. 
 But  Christ's  people  are  as  yet  far  removed  from  perfect  one- 
 ness, and  on  that  account  the  influence  of  their  unity  is  only 
 imperfect  and  partial.  No  other  way,  however,  leads  to  the 
 consummation  of  this  oneness,  but  a  sinking  deeper  into  Christ ; 
 and  the  conflict  which  seeks  to  remove  the  obstacles  to  this 
 deeper  sinking  into  Him,  is  often  more  helpful  to  unity  than  the 
 attempts  to  establish  an  enforced  unity. 
 
 From  the  prayer  for  their  preservation  in  time,  our  Lord 
 turns,  in  the  conclusion,  which  corresponds  with  the  beginning, 
 to  a  prayer  for  their  eternal  salvation ;  first  the  prayer  itself, 
 ver.  24,  then  the  ground  on  which  it  is  urged,  vers.  25,  26. 
 Luther :  "  This  is  the  last  but  the  most  comforting  thing  in 
 the  prayer,  for  all  who  hang  upon  Christ,  that  thus  we  become 
 confident  as  to  what  we  have  to  hope  for  in  the  end,  as  to  where 
 we  are  to  find  our  final  rest,  we  who  are  in  this  world,  poor  and 
 despised,  and  without  any  continuing  city." 
 
 Ver.  24.  "  Father,  I  will  that  they  also  whom  Thou  hast 
 given  Me  be  with  Me  where  I  am ;  that  they  may  behold  !My 
 glory,  which  Thou  hast  given  Me :  for  Thou  lovedst  jMc  before 
 the  foundation  of  the  world." — Ou?  8e8coKd<;  fie  (Cod.  Alex,  and 
 Vat.  0  8eS(OKa<i,  summing  up  the  many  into  an  ideal  unity: 
 
334  cHAr.  xiii.-XYii. 
 
 comp.  the  ttuv  in  ver.  2),  primarily  the  Apostles :  comp.  ver.  6, 
 xiv.  2,  3.  According  to  vers.  20-23,  however,  the  prayer  really 
 extends  to  all  believers  generally,  although  to  the  Apostles  there 
 was  assured  a  specially  distinguished  place  in  the  Divine  glory, 
 Matt.  xix.  28.  The  strength  of  this  "  I  will "  lies  not  in  itself 
 (comp.  Mark  vi.  25  and  35,  the  will  spoken  in  prayer  appears, 
 by  that  fact,  to  be  conscious  of  its  limitation),  but  in  this,  that  it 
 is  the  Son  of  God  who  here  speaks.  That  which  He  absolutely 
 declares  to  be  His  will  (differently  in  Matt.  xxvi.  39),  must 
 also  be  the  will  of  the  Father.  To  behold  the  glory  of  Christ, 
 and  of  the  Father  in  Him,  is,  according  to  ver.  3,  the  essence  of 
 eternal  life ;  beholding  it,  we  become  partakers  of  it.  It  is  not 
 here  "  the  eschatological  union  of  Christ  with  His  people  when 
 He  comes  back  in  the  clouds  of  heaven  "  that  is  meant ;  rather 
 the  blessedness  into  which  the  believer  is  introduced  at  the 
 moment  of  death  :  compare  on  eh.  xiv.  3,  xi.  23.  %," Thou 
 gavest,"  according  to  the  current  interpretation,  is  used  by  anti- 
 cipation :  the  Lord  regards  Himself  as  already  installed  in  the 
 glory  for  which  He  had  prayed  in  ver.  5.  But  the  words,  "  be- 
 cause Thou  lovedst  Me  before  the  foundation  of  the  world," 
 show  that  we  must  think  of  a  giving  before  the  toorld  was, 
 abstracted  from  the  temporary  interruption  which  it  suffered 
 through  the  incarnation.  It  is  equivalent  to  "  which  Thou,  in 
 love,  gavest  Me  before  the  foundation  of  the  world."  "  Thou 
 gavest"  corresponds  to  "I  had"  in  ver.  5.  This  eSw/ca?  re- 
 ferred to  a  glory  given  before  the  world  was,  and  confirms  what 
 we  said  upon  the  8eSa)/ca9,  in  ver.  22,  against  those  who  would 
 refer  it  merely  to  the  Son  of  man. 
 
 Yers.  25,  26.  "  O  righteous  Father,  the  world  hath  not 
 known  Thee  :  but  I  have  known  Thee,  and  these  have  known 
 that  Thou  hast  sent  Me.  And  I  have  declared  unto  them  Thy 
 name,  and  will  declare  it ;  that  the  love  wherewith  Thou  hast 
 loved  Me  may  be  in  them,  and  I  in  them."  — "  Righteous 
 Father "  stands  in  this  elevated  discourse  for  "  Father,  Thou 
 art  righteous,"  Rev.  xvi.  5 ;  and  what  follows  is,  by  a  constructio 
 ad  sensum,  continued  in  such  a  manner  as  if  these  words  had 
 preceded.  The  righteousness  of  God  approves  itself  in  this,  that 
 His  procedure  stands  in  harmony  with  His  being  and  action  : 
 comp.  1  John  i.  9 ;  2  Thess.  i.  6,  7  ;  Heb.  vi.  10.  The  righteous 
 one  is  not  the  "  rightly  disposed : "  that  is  rather  y^^,  6aio<;,  comp. 
 
CHAP.  XVII.  25,  26.  335 
 
 on  Rev.  xv.  4.  We  liave  here  the  ground  for  the  request  in 
 ver.  24.  God  must  in  His  righteousness  mark  out  His  own  be- 
 fore the  world  by  the  impartation  of  eternal  glor3\  The  reason 
 given  cannot  go  beyond  the  matter  of  the  request.  Thus  we 
 must  not,  after  "  the  world  hath  not  known  Thee,"  supplement 
 "therefore  must  Thou  exclude  them  from  eternal  life;"  but 
 that  which  is  said  of  the  world  here  serves  only  to  set  the  dis- 
 ciples in  brighter  relief  by  its  shadow.  That  the  world  cannot 
 attain  to  eternal  life,  is  indeed  involved  indirectly  in  the  passage. 
 This  follows  from  the  reasons  which  our  Saviour  gives  for  His 
 prayer  concerning  the  eternal  life  of  His  people.  "  I  have 
 known  Thee :"  Jesus  places  the  world  first  in  opposition  to  \ 
 Himself,  because  the  knowledge  which  the  disciples  had  received" 
 flowed  from  Him  as  the  source. — In  their  knowing  that  God  had 
 sent  Christ,  they  knew  at  the  same  time  the  Father,  who  in  Christ 
 revealed  Himself,  whose  name  dwelt  in  Him,  ver.  11. — "And 
 will  manifest:"  the  work  of  Christ  in  His  disciples  will  go  on; 
 they  are  to  be  raised  to  a  higher  stage ;  and,  in  consideration 
 of  that,  the  father  will  overlook  their  present  imperfection. 
 Schmieder :  "  In  the  disciples  there  was  still  a  not-knowing, 
 which  must  first  be  done  away.  But  our  Lord  covers  this  by 
 the  promise  that  He  will  further  reveal  in  them  the  Father's 
 name.  This  pledge  redeemed  them  from  the  deficiency  still 
 marked  in  them."  The  "  I  will  manifest"  was  fulfilled  in  the 
 resurrection  of  Christ,  and  the  instructions  following  that  event ; 
 in  the  presence  of  the  risen  Lord  ever  with  His  people ;  and 
 in  the  outpouring  of  the  Holy  Ghost. — The  clause  with  Xva  Y_ 
 gives  the  design  of  the  manifestation :  if  this  design  were 
 attained,  God  would  not  deny  them  eternal  life.  That  would 
 be  to  deny  His  own  love,  and  to  dishonour  Christ,  who  dwelt  in 
 them.  "That  the  love  wherewith  Thou  lovest  Me  might  be 
 in  them  :"  that  Thou  mayest  love  them  with  the  love  with 
 which  Thou  hast  loved  Isle.  "  In  them :"  according  to  the 
 connection,  common  in  Hebrew,  between  verbs  or  nouns  of 
 passion  with  the  object  of  the  passion,  by  means  of  3 :  comp. 
 on  ch.  XV.  11. 
 
336  CHAP.  XVIII.  XIX. 
 
 CHAPTERS   XVIII.   XIX. 
 
 THE  SECOND  GROUP  OF  THE  SECOND  DIVISION,  THE  SIXTH  OF 
 THE  WHOLE  :  THE  SUFFERINGS,  DEATH,  AND  BURIAL  OF 
 OUR  LORD. 
 
 First,  we  have,  In  ch.  xviii.  1-11,  His  betrayal  and  capture. 
 
 Here  also  St  John  gives  only  supplementary  details.  He 
 passes  over  the  kiss  of  Judas,  the  address  of  Christ  to  the  band 
 after  His  capture,  and  also  the  transaction  with  the  young  man, 
 which  is  peculiar  to  St  Mark.  On  the  other  hand,  he  explains 
 how  Judas  came  to  seek  Jesus  in  this  place ;  describes  more 
 specifically  the  band  of  the  captors,  according  to  their  several 
 elements  :  he  first  communicates — and  that  is  the  proper  centre 
 of  his  description — the  procedure  of  vers.  4-9 ;  first  mentions 
 the  name  of  the  disciple  who  smote  off  the  ear  of  the  high 
 priest's  servant,  and  the  name  of  that  servant ;  and  supplements 
 the  words  addressed  to  the  disciples  accoi'ding  to  St  Matthew. 
 All  that  St  John  has  in  common  with  the  other  Evangelists 
 serves  only  for  the  introduction  of  what  is  peculiar  to  himself, 
 and  is  therefore  recorded  as  briefly  as  possible. 
 
 ,  Ver.  1.  "  When  Jesus  had  spoken  these  words,  He  went  forth 
 with  His  disciples  over  the  brook  Cedron,  where  was  a  garden, 
 into  the  which  He  entered,  and  His  disciples." — "  He  went 
 out:"  there  was  not  any  point  of  departure  mentioned  in  the 
 preceding  chapter :  we  must  derive  it  therefore  from  the  irepav. 
 He  went  from  this  side  Kidron  to  the  other.  As  the  passage 
 of  our  Lord  over  the  Kidron  is  immediately  connected  with  His 
 last  discourses,  ch.  xv.-xvii.  (javra  el'ircov),  these  discom'ses  must 
 have  been  uttered  in  the  neighbourhood  of  the  border,  on  this 
 side :  compare  the  introductory  remarks  on  ch.  xiv.  The  brook 
 Kidron  is  mentioned  only  here,  in  the  New  Testament:  p^ei'/u-appo?, 
 flowing  in  winter, — a  description  which  perfectly  suits  the 
 peculiarity  of  Kidron.  "  Nine  months  of  the  year  the  Kidron 
 is  without  water"  (v.  Eaumer).  William  of  Tyre  says,  "The 
 brook  Kidron,  swollen  by  rains,  was  wont  to  flow  in  the  winter 
 months."  We  have  a  comment  on  the  name  Kidron,  troubled, 
 in  Job  vi.  16,  where  Job  compares  his  faithless  friends  to 
 brooks  :  "  What  time  they  wax  warm,  they  vanish  ;  when  it  is 
 
CHAP.  XVIII.  2.  337 
 
 liot,  they  are  consumed  out  of  their  place."  The  reading  rwv 
 KiSpcov  for  Tov  KeSpwv  sprang  from  the  ignorance  of  copyists. 
 St  John,  who  everywhere  goes  back  to  the  text  of  the  Old  Testa- 
 ment, cannot  possibly  have  so  written  it,  as  the  Hebrew  name 
 Kidron  has  nothing  whatever  to  do  with  cedars.  Lachmann 
 retains  tou  Kehpoiv,  in  token  that  tlie  external  reasons  for  this 
 reading  are  at  least  of  equal  force  with  those  which  sustain  the 
 other;  and  the  internal  reasons  are  altogether  in  its  favour. 
 Josephus  knows  nothing  of  the  brook  of  the  cedars  :  he  always 
 uses  o  KeSpwv,  or  merely  KeSpcov :  compare  the  passage  in 
 Wetstein.  While  he  declines  the  name  '^(eiiiappo^  KeSpdi)vo<;, 
 Aiitiq.  viii.  1,  5,  the  more  Hebraizing  John  avoids  this  by 
 inserting  the  article  :  so,  in  2  Sam.  xv.  23, 1  Kings  xv.  13,  rcov, 
 instead  of  tov,  must  be  attributed  to  the  transcribers,  since  no 
 one  who  had  the  original  before  him  could  have  so  written. 
 And  the  true  reading  there  is  not  destitute  of  all  external  tes- 
 timony :  see  Holmes.  St  John  gives  prominence  to  the  passage 
 of  the  Kidron  probably  with  some  reference  to  2  Sam.  xv.  23, 
 where  David,  in  his  conflict  with  his  rebellious  subjects,  went 
 over  the  Kidron :  6  Baai,\ev<i  Sie^r)  tov  '^(etixdppovv  KeSpdov. — 
 The  garden,  here  alone  mentioned,  in  which  Jesus,  according  to 
 the  abundant  testimony  of  the  first  Evangelists,  overcame  death 
 for  His  people,  is  the  counterpart  of  that  garden  in  Avhicli  the 
 first  Adam  succumbed  to  death.  Augustin :  It  was  fitting  that 
 the  blood  of  the  Physician  should  there  be  poured  out,  where 
 the  disease  of  the  sick  man  first  commenced.  The  property  to 
 which  the  garden  belonged  is  called,  in  Matt.  xxvi.  36,  Mark 
 xiv.  32,  Gethsemane.  St  John  does  not  mention  the  name 
 (any  more  than  St  Luke),  because  the  first  two  Evangelists  had 
 made  it  known.  These  give  the  name ;  St  Luke  designates  the 
 place  as  on  the  Mount  of  Olives ;  St  John  places  it  beyond  the 
 Kidron. 
 
 Ver.  2.  "  And  Judas  also,  which  betrayed  Him,  knew  the 
 place  ;  for  Jesus  ofttimes  resorted  thither  with  His  disciples." — 
 The  owner  of  this  place  must  have  stood  in  a  special  relation  to 
 Jesus :  this  is  evident,  not  only  from  His  free  resort  to  the 
 garden,  but  also  from  the  narrative  of  the  young  man  in  Mark 
 xiv.  51,  52.  The  young  man  must  have  belonged  to  the  family 
 of  the  owner  of  the  garden.  This  is  plain  from  his  clothing — 
 in  a  cold  night  he  had  on  only  a  linen  garment — which  did  not 
 VOL.  II.  Y 
 
338  CHAP,  xviir.  xix. 
 
 permit  him  to  be  taken  away  from  the  place.  Sympathy  for 
 Jesus,  at  the  time  of  His  imminent  danger,  must  have  led  him 
 suddenly  from  his  bed  into  the  open  air.  Curiosity  could  not 
 have  been  the  motive :  in  that  case  the  Evangelist  would  not 
 have  mentioned  the  matter,  which  was  worth  recording  only  as 
 showing  that  the  Apostles  had  ground  for  flying.  noX\.aKt<i, 
 oft,  cannot  refer  only  to  the  few  days  immediately  preceding 
 the  Passover.  Jesus  kept  Himself,  during  the  whole  time 
 between  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles  and  the  last  Passover,  in 
 Jerusalem  and  its  neighbourhood.  Yet  it  seems  that  in  the  last 
 days  before  the  Passover,  Gethsemane  was  the  special  abiding- 
 place  ;  that  He  spent  there  the  nights  of  Monday  and  Tuesday, 
 Tuesday  and  Wednesday,  Wednesday  and  Thursday ;  that  He 
 withdrew  thither  during  the  last  two  days  before  the  festival 
 for  still  seclusion  ;  and  thence  sent  the  disciples  into  Jerusalem 
 for  the  preparation  of  the  Passover.  If  this  were  so,  we  have 
 the  reason  why  Judas  was  so  sure  of  finding  Him  there.  On 
 the  day  of  the  entrance  into  Jerusalem,  on  Sunday,  Jesus, 
 according  to  Mark  xi.  11,  returned  with  the  Twelve  to  Bethany. 
 In  reference  to  the  next  day,  we  read,  in  Mark  xi.  19,  "  And 
 when  evening  was  come.  He  went  out  of  the  city."  It  is  cer- 
 tainly not  accidental  that  St  Mark  does  not  here,  as  in  ver.  11, 
 say,  "  to  Bethany,"  but  "  outside  the  city."  St  Luke  gives,  in 
 ch.  xxi.  37,  a  general  notion  of  the  locality  where  Jesus  spent 
 the  remaining  nights  after  Sunday :  "  And  at  night  He  went 
 out,  and  abode  in  the  mount  that  is  called  the  Mount  of  Olives." 
 Certainly  Bethany,  according  to  St  Luke,  belonged  also  to  the 
 Mount  of  Olives,  ch.  xix.  29.  That  we  must  not  stop  there, 
 however,  but  regard  him  as  having  Gethsemane  also  partly  in 
 view,  is  shown  by  a  comparison  with  ch.  xxii.  39,  40.  What 
 determined  our  Lord  to  change  His  abode,  is  not  clear.  Pro- 
 bably greater  nearness,  probably  also  the  household  relations 
 in  Bethany. — Judas  knew  the  place ;  that  is,  in  regard  to  the 
 matter  now  concerned,  as  the  abode  of  Jesus.  Jesus  Avent 
 designedly  to  the  place  which  Judas  knew.  The  time  for 
 hiding  Himself  from  His  enemies  was  past :  His  hour  \vas  come. 
 He  must  afford  the  traitor  an  opportunity,  that  He  might  show 
 that  His  surrender  to  death  was  voluntary. 
 
 Ver.  3.  "  Judas  then,  having  received  a  band  of  men  and 
 officers  from  the  chief  priests  and  Pharisees,  cometh  thither 
 
CHAP.  XVIII.  3.  339 
 
 with  lanterns,  and  torches,  and  weapons." — There  can  be  no 
 doubt  that  by  the  band  Roman  mihtary  were  meant.  Xirelpa 
 is  used  everywhere  in  the  New  Testament  only  of  Roman  troops : 
 comp.  Matt,  xxvii.  27 ;  Acts  x.  1,  xxvii.  1.  Chiliarch  (comp. 
 ver.  12)  is  everywhere  the  name  of  a  Roman  military  authority ; 
 and  when  Me  find  the  airelpa  connected  with  the  chiliarch,  a 
 cohort  with  its  tribune  is  meant :  comp.  Acts  xxi.  31 ;  and 
 Josephus,  Antiq.  xix.  2,  3,  i]a-av  et?  crreipa'i  ria-aapa^,  ot?  to 
 a^aatkevTov  rifiicorepou  t?}?  rvpavvlho^  irpovicetro,  koX  oi'Se  fxev 
 airrjecTav  p^era  tcov  '^iXiap^cov,  Jud.  Bell.  xi.  11,  1.  The  band  is 
 here  the  cohort  which  was  employed  for  such  purposes  as  the 
 present,  and  during  the  feast  was  stationed  in  the  Temple. 
 Josephus  says,  in  Antiq.  xx.  5,  3 :  "  When  the  feast  called 
 Passover  was  come,  on  which  it  is  our  custom  to  provide  un- 
 leavened bread,  and  a  great  multitude  of  people  from  all  places 
 having  come  together  to  the  feast,  Cumanus  feared  that  some 
 insurrections  might  occur,  and  therefore  gave  orders  that  a 
 cohort  of  soldiers  with  their  weapons  should  be  established  in 
 the  court  of  the  Temple,  in  order  to  quell  any  such  insurrections 
 as  might  arise  (KaraareXovvra^  top  vecoTepLcrp^ov  el  apa  rt? 
 'yevocTo).  But  the  same  thing  was  wont  to  he  done  hy  his  prede- 
 cessors in  the  government  of  Judea  at  the  feastsP  In  his  work  on 
 the  Jewish  war,  he  says  of  the  Castle  Antonia  (v.  5,  8) :  "  But 
 where  it  was  connected  with  the  Temple,  there  were  steps  by 
 which  the  watchers  (there  was  always  a  legion  of  Romans  there) 
 went  down  armed,  and  planted  themselves  in  the  courts  at  the 
 feasts,  to  observe  the  people,  that  no  uproar  might  arise."  In 
 these  two  passages  of  Josephus  we  have  a  commentary  on  our 
 present  text,  with  its  article.  It  is  otherwise  with  the  band, 
 77  arrelpa,  in  Matt,  xxvii.  27,  Mark  xv.  16  :  comp.  John  xix.  2. 
 There  it  is  the  cohort  which  kept  watch  at  the  Prsetorium, 
 Pilate's  residence,  the  earlier  royal  castle  of  Ilerod  in  the  upper 
 city.  The  chief  station  of  the  Roman  troops,  the  7rap€p./3o\7], 
 in  Acts  xxi.  34,  37,  was  the  Castle  Antonia.  From  this  a  watch 
 was  provided,  both  for  the  Temple  at  the  time  of  the  feasts, 
 and  for  the  Prsetorium  when  the  procurator  was  in  Jerusalem. 
 These  circumstances  are  clearly  stated  in  Josephus  (de  Bell. 
 Jud.  V.  5,  8 :  compare  the  remark  of  Reland  in  Haverkamp's 
 edition).     There  was  always  an  entire  legion  in  Antonia. 
 
 There  is  no  reason  for  assuminij  that  it  was  a  mere  detach- 
 
340  CHAP.  XVIII.  XIX. 
 
 ment  of  the  cohort  which  was  sent.  If  the  hierarchs  wouhl 
 be  safe,  they  must  guard  against  the  possibiHty  of  the  matter 
 becoming  noised  abroad,  and  a  great  insurrection  among  the 
 people  ensuing :  comp.  Matt.  xxvi.  5.  How  numerous  were 
 the  dependants  of  Jesus,  especially  among  the  Galileans  then 
 present  at  the  feast,  was  shown  by  the  entrance  into  Jerusa- 
 lem. A  mere  detachment  would  not  have  required  the  presence 
 of  the  chiliarch.  He  had  reason  enough  for  taking  his  whole 
 force,  in  order  to  provide  for  all  the  contingencies  Avhich,  amidst 
 a  people  already  excited,  could  scarcely  be  foreseen.  It  was 
 important  to  suppress  all  thought  of  opposition  at  the  outset  by 
 an  imposing  display  of  force  :  once  suffered  to  begin,  there  was 
 no  end  to  its  possible  effects.  Time  had  already  been  when  the 
 crowds  of  the  people  took  Jesus  by  force  and  would  make  Him 
 a  king,  John  vi.  15. 
 
 The  first  three  Evangelists  do  not  give  so  much  prominence 
 to  the  part  played  by  the  Roman  military.  In  effect  it  was  not 
 of  extreme  importance  in  itself.  Even  in  St  John  we  see  that, 
 down  to  the  leading  away  of  Jesus  to  Pilate,  the  Jews  were  the 
 main  and  independent  actors.  But  it  may  be  shown  that  the 
 earlier  Evangelists  do  take  for  granted  the  intervention  of  the 
 Roman  soldiers.  The  double  style  of  arms  of  itself  hints  at  this  : 
 partly  with  swords  and  partly  with  staves,^  Matt.  xxvi.  47 ;  Mark 
 xiv.  43.  It  is  improbable  that  the  reason  of  this  twofold  equip- 
 ment lay  in  the  fact  that  swords  fell  short ;  in  the  highest 
 degree  improbable  also,  that  the  Romans  would  have  tolerated, 
 by  the  side  of  their  militarily  accoutred  power,  another  force 
 also  in  arms.  To  bear  arms  in  travelling,  as  a  defence  against 
 robbers,  was  permitted  to  individuals.  But  we  find  no  trace  of 
 any  Jewish  force  in  the  Temple  provided  with  arras.  More  of 
 this  was  not  to  be  thought  of  ;  the  first  readers  of  St  Matthew 
 must  have  understood  the  intervention  of  the  Roman  military 
 when  the  double  armour  was  mentioned.  Further,  our  Lord's 
 word  concerning  the  twelve  legions,  ]\Iatt.  xxvi.  53,  appears  to 
 suggest  that  Roman  soldiers  had  to  do  with  His  capture :  the 
 twelve  lemons  of  angels  form  a  contrast  with  the  fragment  of  a 
 
 ^  The  ^vXci  -were  used  by  the  Roman  soldiers  also,  when  the  service  was 
 not  properly  military,  but  only  that  of  police.  In  a  tumult,  Pilate,  accord- 
 ing to  Josephus,  Bell.  Jud.  xi.  9,  4,  forbade  his  soldiers  to  use  the  sword, 
 but  ^vMig  Trettii!/,  to  strike  with  their  staves. 
 
CHAP.  XVIII.  3.  341 
 
 Eoman  legion.  Mark  xiv.  51  points  also  to  Roman  military : 
 there  it  is  said  of  the  young  man  who  followed  Christ,  koI  Kpa- 
 Tovcriv  ainov  ol  veavicrKOL.  This  description  will  not  suit  the 
 servants  of  the  high  priest :  these  were  certainly  for  the  most 
 part  old  men.  On  the  other  hand,  the  Roman  military  were 
 commonly  regarded  and  spoken  of  as  juvenes,  jimiores,  juvenilis : 
 see  ■r]hri  iTTtXeXej/xivcov  rcov  ^ A')(aLKMV  veavLCTKwv  in  Polybius, 
 adolescens  in  Cic.  pro  Milone,  and  other  passages  in  Schleussner. 
 But  we  shall  not  trust  ourselves  to  inquire,  whether  by  the  svt- 
 ners  in  Matt.  xxvi.  45  we  are  to  understand,  with  Grotius,  the 
 Gentiles  (comp.  Gal.  ii.  15  ;  and  avo/ioi,  in  Acts  ii.  23,  1  Cor. 
 ix.  21)  ;  or  whether  the  Kovarwhla  in  Matt,  xxvii.  65  was  the 
 Roman  Temple -watch,  the  use  of  which,  in  order  to  the  Avatch- 
 ing  of  Jesus'  sepulchre,  Pilate  permitted  to  the  Jews,  and  which 
 he  spoke  of  as  standing  at  their  disposal :  "  Ye  have  a  watch." 
 But-  extremely  important  are  the  passages,  Luke  xxii.  4  and  52, 
 where  the  commandants  of  the  Temple  are  spoken  of  in  the 
 plural,  the  <7Tpar7]yoL<i  tov  lepov.  The  Jews  had  only  one  cap- 
 tain, arpaTrjyo^,  of  the  Temple,  whose  position  was  so  eminent, 
 that  in  Josephus  he  is  mentioned  immediately  after  the  high 
 priest,  and  a  son  of  a  high  priest  was  invested  with  this  dignity : 
 comp.  Antiq.  xx.  6,  2  ;  De  Bell.  Jud.  ii.  17,  2.  In  the  Acts, 
 St  Luke  mentions  only  one  chief  captain,  whose  only  following 
 were  the  "  officers,"  ch.  iv.  1,  v.  24,  26,  o  arparrj'yo'i  rov  lepov: 
 this  excludes  the  notion  of  several  captains  of  the  temple  at 
 other  times  than  the  Passover,  and  of  these  the  Acts  of  the 
 Apostles  speaks.  How  then  can  the  plurality  of  captains  in 
 Luke  xxii.  4,  52,  be  otherwise  explained,  than  that  the  one  cap- 
 tain belonged  to  the  Roman  military  stationed  in  the  Temple 
 at  the  time  of  the  Passover  ?  It  will  not  suffice  to  say,  tliat  by 
 the  plural  a-rparTj'yoL  is  meant  the  Jewish  commandant  with  his 
 officers.  Appeal  may  be  made  to  Josephus,  Antiq.  xx.  9,  3, 
 where,  however,  the  secretary  of  the  Jewish  commandant  is 
 referred  to  :  for  o-rparrj'yo^;  always  means  one  who  in  a  subdi- 
 vision of  troops  was  clothed  with  the  highest  authority, — not 
 the  officer,  but  the  chief  captain;  and  this  notion  is  further 
 opposed  by  the  concurrence  between  our  present  passage  and 
 Luke  xxii.  4. 
 
 With  regard  to  the  high  priests  and  Pharisees,  comp.  the 
 remarks  on  vii.  32.   Although  it  was  full  moon,  the  torches  and 
 
342  CHAP,  XVIII.  XIX 
 
 lanterns  were  thought  necessary  in  order  thoroughly  to  investi- 
 gate the  dark  spaces  of  the  trees  in  the  garden  and  the  house. 
 The  most  obvious  matter  here  is  the  betrayal  of  our  Lord  with 
 a  kiss.  St  John  hints  at  such  an  act,  although  he  does  not  nar- 
 rate it,  but  presupposes  it  to  be  already  known.  He  describes 
 Judas  twice — the  repetition  would  serve  to  point  attention  to 
 the  note  of  description — as  he  who  betrayed  Him,  o  irapaSiSov'? 
 avTov,  vers.  2,  5,  the  participle  used  in  the  Hebrew  manner : 
 comp.  on  ix.  8.  Thus  we  expect,  even  according  to  St  John,  an 
 act  of  betrayal.  The  indication  which  he  gives  has  its  com- 
 ment in  Matt.  xxvi.  48-51 ;  Mark  xiv.  44,  45  ;  Luke  xxii.  47, 
 48.  Further,  the  remark  in  ver.  5,  "  And  Judas  also,  whicli 
 betrayed  Him,  stood  with  them,"  is,  if  we  do  not  supplement 
 St  John  from  the  other  Evangelists,  a  needless  and  irrelevant 
 one.  It  repeats  only,  and  in  an  inappropriate  place,  what  had 
 been  said  already  in  ver.  3.  It  leads  to  the  thought,  that  Judas 
 had  separated  himself  from  the  band,  though  that  is  not  here 
 mentioned  ;  and  it  stands  in  specific  relation  to  the  irporjp'^eTo 
 avTQv<i,  "  went  before  them,"  of  St  John's  immediate  predeces- 
 sor, St  Luke,  ch.  xxii.  47.  The  words  expressly  intimate  the 
 fact,  that  the  scene  was  already  over  with  the  kiss  of  Judas. 
 Judas  had  first  come  forward  from  among  the  number  of  his 
 confederates  ;  now  Jesus  comes  forward  after  Judas  had  gone 
 back  again  into  their  ranks.  Only  from  misapprehension  has  it 
 been  thought  that  vers.  4  seq.  conclude  the  idea  of  Judas'  kiss 
 having  preceded.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  perfectly  clear  that 
 we  can  imagine  it  to  have  taken  place  only  before  ver.  4. 
 
 Ver.  4.  "  Jesus  therefore,  knowino;  all  thino-s  that  should 
 come  upon  Him,  went  forth,  and  said  unto  them,  Whom  seek 
 ye?" — ElBa)<i  is  used  here  as  in  ch.  xiii.  1  :  "as  He  knew,"  or 
 "  although  He  knew."  That  Jesus,  notwithstanding  this  know- 
 ledge, presented  Himself  to  His  enemies,  is  made  prominent  to 
 His  honour.  Humanly  speaking,  it  was  to  Jesus  perfectly  im- 
 possible to  evade  His  capture.  This  is  quite  obvious.  But  the 
 Evangelist  proceeds  from  the  assumption  that  supernatural 
 means  were  at  His  disposal ;  and  it  was  to  Plis  glory  that  He 
 did  not  use  these  supernatural  resources  :  comp.  Matt.  xxvi.  53, 
 where  our  Lord  Himself  says,  "  Thinkest  thou  that  I  cannot 
 now  pray  to  My  Father,  and  He  shall  presently  give  Me  more 
 than  twelve  lesions  of  an  eels  1 
 
CHAP.  XVIII.  0.  343 
 
 ^E^eXdcov :  this  must  refer  only  to  our  Lord's  advancing 
 beyond  the  circle  of  the  disciples,  or  out  of  His  concealment. 
 For  that  Jesus  did  not  withdraw  from  Gethsemane,  is  evident 
 from  ver.  3,  according  to  which  Judas  wdth  his  band  entered 
 into  the  garden;  as  also  from  ver.  26,  where  one  of  the  servants 
 of  the  high  priest  says  to  Peter,  "Did  not  I  see  thee  in  the 
 garden  with  him?"  Therefore  the  band  must  have  penetrated, 
 just  as  here  the  word  i^eXOcov  is  used  also  in  Matt.  xiv.  14, 
 Mark  vi.  34  (comp.  on  vi.  3). — The  question,  "  Whom  seek 
 ye?"  is  uttered  on  account  of  the  answer;  and  to  that  answer 
 was  to  be  appended  the  command  of  Christ  to  let  His  disciples 
 go, — a  command  enforced  by  the  previous  miracle  of  Christ's 
 power.  The  express  commission  of  the  band  went  not  beyond 
 the  taking  Christ  prisoner.  This  appeared  to  the  high  priests 
 something  so  great,  that  they  seem  not  to  have  spent  a  thought 
 on  the  disciples.  But  it  was  obvious  that  the  multitude,  when 
 their  special  duty  was  discharged,  went  beyond  the  letter  of 
 their  function,  and,  in  order  to  act  in  the  spirit  of  the  rulers 
 and  to  deserve  their  thanks,  laid  their  hands  on  the  Apostles 
 also."  The  "  rulers  of  the  Temple  "  who  were  with  them  were 
 justified  by  their  position  in  acting  independently  thus.  Jesus 
 would  now  suppress  that  desire,  the  presence  of  which  tlie 
 soldiers'  treatment  of  the  young  man  also  reveals.  The  same 
 narrative  of  the  young  man  shows  that  it  was  only  our  Lord's 
 interference  that  saved  the  Apostles  from  imprisonment.  The 
 Apostles  they  durst  not  touch;  so  they  would  at  least  lay  hands 
 on  one  belonging  to  the  wider  circle  of  the  Lord's  dependants. 
 
 Ver.  5.  "  They  answered  Him,  Jesus  of  Nazareth.  Jesus 
 saith  unto  them,  I  am  He.  And  Judas  also,  which  betrayed 
 Him,  stood  with  them." — The  band  declare  their  commission  in 
 the  same  terms  in  which  they  had  received  it.  Although  the 
 sign  which  Judas  gave  them,  and  perhaps  in  part  tlieir  own 
 earlier  knowledge  (comp.  vii.  32,  45),  assured  them  who  it  was 
 that  stood  before  them,  yet  the  words  "We  seek  thee,"  by 
 which  they  would  have  been  placed  in  direct  personal  relation 
 to  Jesus,  would  not  pass  their  lips.  Here  was  the  beginning 
 of  the  terror  which  presently  afterwards  threw  them  on  the 
 ground. 
 
 In  the  word  eyw  elfii,,  the  Lord  uttered  forth  the  dignity  of 
 His  person.     Accordingly  He  struck  the  multitude  like  a  flash 
 
344  CHAP.  XVIII.  XIX. 
 
 of  lightning.  Jesus  tlierebj^  declared  Himself  to  be  He  of 
 whom  the  prophet  said,  "  And  He  shall  smite  the  earth  with 
 the  rod  of  His  mouth,  and  with  the  breath  of  His  lips  shall  He 
 slay  the  wicked ;"  and  who  says  Himself,  in  Isa.  xlix.  2,  "  And 
 He  hath  made  My  mouth  like  a  sharp  sword."  This  was  the 
 earnest  of  that  which  is,  in  Rev.  i.  16,  written  of  the  exalted 
 Redeemer,  "  And  out  of  His  mouth  went  a  sharp  two-edged 
 sword  ;"  as  also  of  what,  in  2  Thess.  ii.  8,  is  written  to  depict  the 
 destruction  of  antichrist  by  the  Redeemer  at  His  coming,  "Whom 
 the  Lord  Jesus  will  destroy  by  the  breath  of  His  mouth."  If 
 Jesus  had  not  tempered  the  power  of  His  word,  its  effect  would 
 now  also  have  been  annihilating,  like  the  word  spoken  in  the 
 might  of  God  by  EHjah,  2  Kings  i.  10,  12  ;  by  Elisha,  2  Kings 
 ii.  24,  V.  27 ;  and  by  the  Apostle  in  Acts  v.  5  ("  And  Ananias, 
 hearing  these  words,  fell  down,  and  gav^e  up  the  ghost"), — al- 
 though these  wei'e  only  feeble  men.  But  the  influence  of  our 
 Lord's  word  was  precisely  what  the  end  designed  required  it  to 
 be.  Jesus  must  and  would  be  taken,  but  His  disciples  must  go 
 free.  For  this  it  was  enough  that  His  captors  knew  with  whom 
 they  had  to  do.  This  was  needful  also,  in  order  that  all  in- 
 ferences drawn  from  His  capture  to  the  disparagement  of  His 
 divinity  should  be  obviated,  and  that  the  voluntariness  of  His 
 surrender  to  death  should  be  fully  established.  That  which 
 Christ  here  did  was  sufficient  to  show  what  He  could  do,  and 
 what  in  due  time  He  will  do.  Augustin  :  "  He  says  /  am,  and 
 casts  down  the  ungodly.  What  will  He  do  as  Judge  who  did 
 this  when  judged?  What  will  He  do  as  reigning  who  did  this 
 as  about  to  die  V 
 
 We  have  already  observed  that  the  notice  "  Judas  stood  " 
 serves  only  for  the  connection  of  St  John's  narrative  with  that 
 of  the  first  three  Evangelists.  We  are  lost  in  diflSculty  if  we 
 attempt  to  assign  a  meaning  to  these  words  without  going 
 beyond  the  sphere  of  St  John's  own  narrative.  If  with  ^leyer 
 the  words  are  regarded  as  merely  a  "tragical  point  in  the 
 description  of  this  assault,  without  any  further  significance," 
 they  could  not — even  apart  from  the  fact  that,  according  to 
 ver.  3,  they  were  perfectly  useless — have  stood  here.  Tlieir 
 position  precisely  where  they  are  admits  of  only  one  explana- 
 tion. They  were  intended  to  obviate  the  false  notion  that  the 
 word  "  I  am  He,"  addressed  to  the  captors,  was  to  say  any- 
 
CHAP.  XVIII.  6,  7.  345 
 
 tiling  unknown  to  tliem  ;  and  to  intimate  the  fact  tliat  the 
 scene  with  the  traitor  had  already  preceded.  On  that  account, 
 also,  the  words  "who  betrayed  Him  "  are  here  repeated. 
 
 Ver.  6.  "As  soon  then  as  He  had  said  unto  them,  I  am 
 He,  they  went  backward,  and  fell  to  the  ground." — The  Evan- 
 gelist speaks  of  the  whole  multitude;  and  Leo  (Serm.  i.  do 
 Passione)  rightly  observes  :  "  Which  word  struck  down  that 
 band,  gathered  up  of  all  the  most  ferocious  people,  as  if  with  a 
 lijxhtnino;  stroke,  so  that  all  those  fierce  and  terrible  threaten- 
 ings  fell  at  once."  If  we  contemplate  the  whole  scene  aright, 
 we  shall  discern  no  difference  between  Jews  and  Romans, 
 between  those  who  had  already  a  secret  dread  of  Jesus,  and 
 those  who  knew  nothing  about  Him,  or  looked  down  upon  Him 
 with  the  deepest  scorn.  The  lightning  flash  struck  all  alike, 
 the  courageous  and  the  presumptuous  as  well  as  the  fearful. 
 If  St  John  saw  the  matter  otherwise,  it  was  not  worth  his 
 trouble  to  communicate  it.  "  They  went  backward,"  airrfkdov 
 el<i  ra  oirlcxa),  is  the  "iinx  1J1D3  which  prophets  and  psalmists 
 declare  concerning  the  ungodly  driven  backwards  by  the  omni- 
 potence of  God:  Isa.  xlii.  17  ;  Jer.  xlvi.  5 ;  Ps.  xxxv.  4,  xl.  15, 
 cxxix.  5.  These  w'ords,  "They  went  backwards,"  introduced 
 as  it  were  with  the  marks  of '  quotation,  are  the  theological 
 description  of  the  effect  of  Christ's  word;  "they  fell  to  the 
 earth"  are  the  natural  description.  We  have  an  analogy  in 
 the  various  descriptions  of  the  potion  which  our  Lord  was  pre- 
 sented with  on  the  cross.  St  I^Iatthew  describes  it  theologically, 
 on  the  ground  of  the  passage  in  the  psalm,  as  "vinegar  mingled 
 with  gall,"  ch.  xxvii.  34 ;  St  Mark  physically,  as  "wine  mingled 
 with  myrrh,"  ch.  xv.  23.  The  falling  to  the  ground  was  the 
 form  in  which  the  retreating  before  Christ's  word  manifested 
 itself. 
 
 Ver.  7.  "Then  asked  He  them  again.  Whom  seek  ye? 
 And  they  said,  Jesus  of  Nazareth." — After  His  object  in  con- 
 founding them  -was  attained,  our  Lord,  the  Lion  and  the 
 Lamb,  speaks  to  them  in  a  milder  tone.  He  Himself  gives 
 them  courage  to  accomplish  the  ta.sk  they  had  undertaken  ; 
 whilst,  however,  what  they  had  just  experienced  would  restrain 
 them  from  transgressing  the  strict  limit  of  their  commission. 
 "  Jesus  of  Nazareth,"  they  uttered  in  low  tones.  Bu'.  when 
 they  found  their  task  done,  when  they  had  bound  Jesus,  they 
 
346  CHAP.  XVIII.  XIX. 
 
 give  up  all  tlieir  fear,  and  are  ashamed  of  their  earlier 
 cowardice.  When  the  heart  is  far  from  God,  the  work  of 
 hardening  goes  on  apace,  so  soon  as  the  sensible  impression  is 
 past,  and  God  withdraws  again  into  silence.  This  was  most 
 impressively  manifested  in  the  history  of  Pharaoh. 
 
 Vers.  8,  9.  "  Jesus  answered,  I  have  told  you  that  I  am 
 He.  If  therefore  ye  seek  Me,  let  these  go  their  way  :  that  the 
 saying  might  be  fulfilled  which  He  spake.  Of  them  which 
 Thou  gavest  Me  have  I  lost  none." — '-'Iva  7r\7]po)6fj :  it  took 
 place,  or  Jesus  so  acted :  comp.  xv.  25,  xix.  36  ;  Mark  xiv.  49. 
 That  which  our  Lord,  in  ch.  xvii.  12,  utters  in  the  form  of 
 fact,  referred  to  the  whole  of  His  life  upon  earth,  and  by 
 anticipation  included  the  whole  space  down  to  His  death :  it 
 was  in  fact  a  prediction  which,  in  this  act  of  our  Saviour's 
 preservation,  found  its  fulfilment. — Jesus,  in  ch.  xvii.  12, 
 spoke  of  His  care  for  the  salvation  of  His  disciples'  souls.  The 
 external  protection  which  He  here  vouchsafes  must  therefore 
 be  regarded  in  connection  with  that :  the  disciples  were  not  yet 
 strong  enough  to  endure  the  internal  temptations  which  would 
 have  assailed  them  in  imprisonment.  They  could  not  suffer 
 for  Christ  before  Christ  had  suffered  for  them.  The  greatness 
 of  their  spiritual  danger  we  see  exemplified  in  the  example  of 
 the,  most  advanced  of  all,  Simon  Peter.  The  fall  out  of  which 
 he  rose  again  mio'ht  have  been  for  the  "little  ones"  an  irre- 
 parable  one.  The  external  protection  afforded  by  our  Lord 
 derived  its  main  significance  from  the  connection  between  their 
 temporal  danger  and  their  spiritual.  From  purely  external 
 danger  the  Lord  never  protects  His  people.  He  predicted  to 
 Peter  that  He  Himself  would  provide  martyrdom  for  him. 
 
 Ver.  10.  "Then  Simon  Peter,  having  a  sword,  drew  it,  and 
 smote  the  high  priest's  servant,  and  cut  off  his  right  ear.  The 
 servant's  name  was  Malchus." — The  earlier  Evangelists  speak 
 of  one  of  the  disciples :  St  John  first  mentions  the  name.  But 
 the  other  Evangelists  lead  us  obviously  to  think  of  Peter,  who, 
 according  to  Luke  xxii.  33,  said,  "  Lord,  I  am  ready  to  go  with 
 Thee  to  prison  and  to  death:"  comp.  Matt.  xxvi.  35;  Mark 
 xiv.  31.  Their  not  naming  Peter  appears  to  be  accounted 
 for  by  the  fact  that  they  wrote  in  his  lifetime,  which,  in  the 
 case  of  St  Mark,  an  ancient  tradition  expressly  states,  repre- 
 senting his  Gospel  to  have  been  composed  with  the  co-operation 
 
CHAP.  XVIII.  10.  347 
 
 of  that  Apostle.  St  John,  writing  long  after  Simon  s  deatli, 
 was  free  from  the  restraint  of  that  consideration. — That  two  of 
 the  disciples  were  furnished  with  swords — doubtless  for  protec- 
 tion against  the  robbers  who  made  the  roads  very  unsafe,  Luke 
 X.  30 — is  recorded  by  St  Luke,  xxii.  38.  The  weapon  which 
 Peter  bore  must  liave  been  for  a  purpose  permitted  by  the 
 Lord ;  otherwise  Pie  would  have  earlier  obviated  the  mis- 
 understanding of  His  words,  "  And  he  that  hath  no  sword,  let 
 him  sell  his  coat,  and  buy  one,"  Luke  xxii.  36  (compare  the 
 introductory  observations  to  ch.  xiv.),  with  a  more  full  instruc- 
 tion. Peter  was  to  fail,  in  order  that  the  Lord  might  have 
 occasion  in  rebuking  him  to  instruct  the  Church  of  all  ages  ; 
 and  He  found  an  opportunity,  through  Peter's  act,  of  putting 
 forth  His  miraculous  power,  and  thus  of  proving  that  He  volun- 
 tarily surrendered  Himself  to  the  hands  of  men. — The  multi- 
 tude set  themselves,  after  Christ's  words,  to  seize  Him,  or  had 
 already  laid  hold  on  Him.  This  presupposal  of  Peter's  deed 
 must  be  inserted  from  the  other  Evangelists  :  Matt.  xxvi.  50  ; 
 Mark  xiv.  46  ;  Luke  xxii.  49.  Ver.  12  here  records  the  act 
 fully  accomplished,  after  the  obstacle  of  the  interruption  was 
 set  aside. 
 
 Peter's  act  requires  the  preceding  scene  for  its  explanation, 
 especially  when  we  remember  that  Roman  military  were  present. 
 That  gave  him  to  understand  the  power  of  his  Lord.  It  was 
 hard  for  him  to  understand  how,  possessed  of  such  power,  his 
 Master  would  suffer  Himself  to  be  taken.  He  thought  that  if 
 he  boldly  made  a  beginning  of  the  assault,  the  Lord  would  be 
 stirred  up  to  make  a  glorious  end  of  it. — The  Bov\o<i  here  does 
 not  belong  to  the  uTrr^pera?  of  ver.  3  :  comp.  ver.  18,  where  a 
 distinction  is  made  between  them.  The  vTrrjpirai  are  officials  : 
 accordingly,  in  ver.  12,  they  are  called  "  officers  of  the  Jews." 
 They  belonged  to  the  people.  Malchus  was  only  a  private 
 servant  of  the  high  priest,  and  was  not  therefore  officially  pre- 
 sent. Simon's  stroke  fell  upon  him  probably  because,  though 
 having  no  official  warrant  to  be  there,  he  was  present,  and  made 
 himself  prominent  as  the  officious  tool  of  his  master. — It  has 
 been  assumed,  probably  without  any  reason,  that  Peter's  design 
 was  to  cut  off  the  head  of  the  obtrusive  servant  of  the  high 
 priest.  His  external  unsteadiness,  rather,  made  him  prudently 
 limit  himself  to  cutting  off  the  ear.     But  it  was  the  Lord  who 
 
348  CHAP.  xvin.  xix. 
 
 so  guided  his  hand  that  he  did  not  become  an  unintentional 
 murderer,  '•'  and  suffered  him  to  do  only  so  much  harm  to  the 
 servant  as  was  necessary  in  order  that  He  might  have  oppor- 
 tunity to  do  good  to  His  enemies,  to  instruct  His  disciples,  and  to 
 edify  all  the  world." — That  tlie  ear  was  not  quite  cut  off,  seems 
 evident  from  the  fact  that,  according  to  Luke  xxii.  51,  Jesus 
 healed  him  by  simply  touching  it.  St  Luke  alone  expressly  men- 
 tions this  healing.  But  it  is  taken  for  granted  in  the  circum- 
 stance common  to  all  the  Evangelists,  that  Peter  was  not  seized, 
 and  not  even  his  sword  taken  away :  comp.  ver.  11.  Nor  would 
 Jesus  have  allowed  it  to  go  so  far,  if  He  had  not  had  the  heal- 
 ing in  view. — The  intimation  that  the  ear  was  the  right  ear,  is 
 common  to  St  John  with  his  immediate  predecessor,  St  Luke. 
 St  John  first  mentions  his  name.  How  he  came  to  do  that  is 
 explained  by  vers.  16  seq.,  where  we  find  that  he  knew  the  high 
 priest,  and  went  in  and  out  of  his  house.  He  recognised  in 
 Malchus  an  old  acquaintance  :  according  to  ver.  26,  he  knew 
 his  family  connections.  The  other  Evangelists  may  have  heard 
 the  name  of  the  servant,  but  St  John  alone  had  any  interest  in 
 communicating  it. — Malchus  means  king.  Josephus  (Bell.  Jud. 
 i.  14,  1  ;  Antiq.  xiii.  5,  1)  mentions  an  Arabian  king  Malchus. 
 The  celebrated  heathen  philosopher  Porphyry  was  called  INIal- 
 clius ;  and  his  other  name.  Porphyrins,  was  only  a  translation 
 of  it,  Suidas  :  "  Porphyry,  who  wrote  against  the  Christians, 
 was  called  king."  Jerome  (in  Wetstein)  says  :  "  There  was 
 there  a  certain  old  man  named  Malchus,  a  Syrian  by  nation 
 and  language,  whom  we  might  call  in  Latin  king."  Probably 
 he  was  the  head  servant  of  the  high  priest,  his  chamberlain  : 
 probably  called  Malchus  in  sport,  as  the  king  of  the  servants — 
 a  name  that  then  clung  to  him.  That  proper  names  in  those 
 days  often  had  such  a  natural  origin,  is  shown  by  the  name 
 Pannychis,  pertaining  to  a  concubine  whom  Herod  gave  to 
 Archelans  (Joseph.  Bell.  Jud.  i.  25,  6). 
 
 Ver.  11.  "Then  said  Jesus  unto  Peter,  Put  up  thy  sword 
 into  the  sheath :  the  cup  which  My  Father  hath  given  ]\Ie, 
 shall  I  not  drink  it  ?  " — St  Matthew  gives  more  copiously  what 
 our  Lord  said  to  Peter :  ch.  xxvi.  52,  53.  John  supplements 
 it  by  communicating  the  allusion  to  one  word  which  our  Lord 
 had  spoken  in  the  conflict  of  Gethsemane  not  recorded  in  his 
 Gospel  (comp.  Matt.  xxvi.  42).     This  word  appropriately  fits 
 
CHAP.  XVIII.  12-27.  349 
 
 the  close  of  the  Lord's  Avords  in  Matthew :  "  Thus  it  must  be." 
 The  cup  which  God  gives  is  in  the  Old  Testament  the  destiny 
 which  He  appoints.  Upon  the  expression  which  Christ  on  this 
 occasion  uttered,  rests  the  practice  of  the  collective  Church  of 
 Christ  in  the  midst  of  the  persecutions  which  the  authorities 
 may  inflict.^ 
 
 JESUS  BEFORE  ANNAS  AND  CAIAPHAS — PETER's  DENIAL. 
 
 Vers.  12-27. 
 
 With  ver.  27  the  narrative  of  our  Lord's  appearance  before 
 Caiaphas  is  closed,  without  our  being  told  what  occurred  in  it. 
 This  is  all  the  more  remarkable,  as,  according  to  St  John  him- 
 self, something  very  decisive  must  necessarily  have  taken  place 
 there.  The  examination  before  Annas  was  altoa;ether  of  a 
 preliminary  character,  and,  as  Jesus  declined  to  answer  the 
 question  of  the  high  priest,  led  to  no  result.  That  Jesus  must 
 have  been  condemned  to  death  before  Caiaphas,  to  whom  in 
 ver.  24  He  is  led  away,  is  plain  from  ver.  14,  where,  in  allusion 
 to  the  event  now  being  prepared  for,  it  is  mentioned  that 
 Caiaphas  had  earlier  counselled  the  Jews  that  it  was  good  for 
 one  man  to  die  on  behalf  of  the  people.  It  is  plain  also  from 
 the  transactions  before  Pilate,  which  rest  upon  the  supposition 
 that  the  Jewish  verdict  of  death  had  already  taken  place.  The 
 rulers  of  the  people  first  desire  that  Pilate  would,  without 
 further  ado,  confirm  this  condemnation,  ver.  30,  and  are  in- 
 duced, by  his  persistent  refusal,  to  raise  a  complaint ;  returning 
 afterwards,  when  Pilate  declared  their  charge  to  be  unfounded, 
 to  their  original  demand,  that  Pilate  must  confirm  the  sentence 
 they  had  decreed,  ch.  xix.  7.  We  are  here  as  good  as  expressly 
 pointed  back  to  the  earlier  Evangelists.  We  are  led  to  expect 
 that  we  shall  find  in  them  a  chasm  concerning  the  transactions 
 before  Annas,  which  explains  why  St  John  so  particularly 
 describes  what  was  comparatively  of  less  importance  ;  as  also, 
 that  we  shall  find  in  them  a  selected  and  exhaustive  account  of 
 the  transactions  before  Caiaphas  and  the  Sanhedrim,  which 
 relieves  St  John's  silence  of  its  strangeness.     This  expectation 
 
 1  Cyprian  ad  Dcmetrianum:  "None  of  us,  -when  he  is  appreliended, 
 resists ;  nor  does  he  avenge  himself  upon  your  unjust  violence  (although 
 our  people  are  great  and  numerous)." 
 
350  CHAP.  XVIII.  XIX. 
 
 is  found  to  be  satisfied.  The  resultless  appearance  before  Annas 
 is  entirely  passed  over  in  the  first  three  Evangelists ;  on  the 
 other  hand,  they  record  the  transaction  before  Caiaphas  and 
 the  Sanhedrim  with  a  minuteness  which  allows  nothing  to  escape. 
 But  St  Luke  gives  a  point  of  connection  for  St  John's  narrative 
 in  Luke  xxii.  61,  where  we  find  our  Lord  with  Peter  once  more 
 in  the  court,  and  the  "  without"  and  the  "  below"  cease,  which, 
 according  to  Matt.  xxvi.  69,  Mark  xiv.  QQ,  had  separated  him 
 from  his  Master.  John  xviii.  24  gives  the  solution  of  this  diffi- 
 culty. That  St  John,  on  the  other  hand,  takes  for  granted 
 .what  had  been  narrated  by  the  first  three  is  plain,  apart 
 from  the  other  reasons  we  have  assigned,  from  the  fact  that, 
 while  nothing  had  been  said  in  vers.  12-27  of  any  co-operation 
 of  the  Sanhedrim,  but  the  high  priest  only  was  mentioned,  in 
 ver.  28  we  are  suddenly  met  by  a  plurality,  dyova-i,  avTol;  and 
 in  ch.  xix.  6,  15,  the  "  high  pi'iests"  are  spoken  of,  the  term 
 used  currently  by  St  John  as  a  concise  description  of  the  High 
 Council :  comp.  on  ch.  vii.  32.  From  the  position  which  the 
 High  Council  everywhere  in  St  John  assumes  in  relation  to 
 Christ's  interests  (comp.  e.g.  ch.  xi.  47-53,  57),  we  are  naturally 
 led  to  suppose,  that  by  them  with  Caiaphas  the  matter  was 
 decided. 
 
 The  denial  of  Peter  had  been  thoroughly  described  by  the 
 first  three  Evangelists.  But  St  John  must  return  to  it,  because 
 that  event  could  not,  without  the  communication  of  the  events 
 before  Annas,  be  adjusted  in  its  historical  connection.  At  the 
 same  time  St  John,  touching  as  lightly  as  possible  what  they 
 had  narrated,  adds  only  a  few  notices.  In  regard  to  the  chrono- 
 logical position  of  Peter  s  denial,  St  Luke  forms  the  transition 
 to  St  John.  While  in  St  Matthew  and  St  Luke  the  things 
 concerning  our  Lord  and  Peter  are  simply  narrated  together, 
 without  regard  to  the  sequence  of  time  (the  fact  that  Jesus  is 
 first  spoken  of  refers  not  to  time,  but  Ilis  dignity),  we  perceive 
 from  St  Luke  that  the  three  denials  of  Peter  had  already 
 taken  place  before  the  Sanhedrim  assembled  :  comp.  ch.  xxii. 
 Q2,  66.  "  Concerning  the  penitence  of  Peter,"  says  Bengel, 
 "  St  John  presupposes  what  the  other  Evangelists  write."  If 
 his  Gospel  was  meant  to  have  an  independent  position  and 
 significance,  it  could  not  possibly  have  broken  off  here. 
 
 Vers.  12,  13.  "Then  the  band,  and  the  captain,  and  officers 
 
CHAP.  XVIII.  12,  13.  351 
 
 of  the  Jews,  took  Jesus,  and  bound  Him,  and  led  Him  away 
 to  Annas  first  (for  he  was  father-in-law  to  Caiaphas,  which  was 
 the  high  priest  that  same  year)." — According  to  Matt,  xxvii.  2, 
 Mark  xv.  1,  Jesus  appears  not  to  have  been  bound  until  He 
 was  led  away  to  Pilate.  The  apparent  contradiction  is  removed 
 by  observing  that  the  bonds  w^ere  removed  in  order  to  His  being 
 examined.  That  it  was  the  custom  of  the  Jews  to  bind  those 
 who  were  brought  as  delinquents  before  the  Sanhedrim,  appears 
 from  Acts  ix.  1,  2,  14,  21,  xii.  6,  wdiich  are  quite  in  harmony 
 with  St  John.  Ver.  24  here  makes  it  indeed  probable  that  our 
 Lord  had  already  been  loosed  from  His  bonds  when  He  stood 
 before  Annas  in  the  preliminary  examination,  otherwise  the 
 SeSefievov  would  be  superfluous. — The  reason  why  Jesus  was 
 first  led  to  Annas — named  by  Josephus  (Antiq.  xviii.  2,  1) 
 Ananus  the  son  of  Seth — is  simply  stated  to  be  the  circum- 
 stance that  he  was  the  father-in-law  of  Caiaphas.  It  was  not, 
 therefore,  because  of  any  official  position  on  which  he  stood, 
 but  only  as  an  expression  of  personal  respect  to  him  ;  and  this 
 leads  us  to  infer  that  Caiaphas  would  not  have  so  honoured  him 
 if  his  father-in-law  had  not  been  in  ofiice  himself,  and  a  man 
 distinguished  by  competency  in  affairs.^  We  are  led  to  the 
 same  result  by  the  fact,  that  even  in  the  chambers  of  Annas 
 Jesus  was  questioned,  ver.  19,  by  Caiaphas, — a  proof  this  that 
 offi,cially  only  he  had  to  hear  Jesus.  In  Luke  iii.  2,  where 
 we  learn  that  the  Baptist  appeared  eV  ap^^iepetu?  "Avva  koL 
 Kaid(f>a,  it  is  not  meant  that  Annas  held  any  official  position  ; 
 all  that  it  signifies  is  tlie  considerable  independent  influence 
 which,  as  a  person  in  high  esteem,  he  exerted.  The  singular 
 dp^t6pea}<;,  supported  by  the  best  MSS.,  is  of  moment,  inti- 
 mating that  the  official  person  who  was  high  priest  was  largely 
 
 ^  Josephus  (Antiq.  xx.  9,  1)  gives  us  a  luminous  view  of  the  position 
 occupied  by  Annas,  which  was  the  ground  of  his  son-in-law's  respect  for 
 him :  "  This  aged  Ananus  was  a  most  fortunate  man  :  he  had  five  sons, 
 and  all  of  these  attained  the  high-priesthood.  He  had  himself  enjoyed  the 
 honour  long.  This  happened  to  no  other  of  our  high  priests."  It  is  of  no 
 moment  that  the  sons  of  Ananus  did  not  reach  the  dignity  until  after  this 
 event.  The  honour  in  which  Annas  was  held,  and  from  which  afterwards 
 their  elevation  proceeded,  was  already  considerable.  Probably  Caiaphas 
 owed  his  elevation,  too,  to  the  respect  in  which  his  father-in-law  was  held. 
 He  here  gave  him  back  in  some  sense  part  of  what  he  had  received  through 
 his  influence. 
 
352  CHAP.  XVIII.  XIX. 
 
 influenced  by  another  person.  The  personage  who  exerted  that 
 influence  stood  first.  With  this  passage  of  Luke  our  present 
 passage  strictly  harmonizes :  it  may  be  regarded  as  the  key  for 
 its  explanation.  In  the  enumeration  of  the  leading  members 
 of  the  council,  Acts  iv.  6,  Annas  is  named  before  Caiaphas  : 
 this  further  confirms  the  hint  of  our  text,  that  Caiaphas,  who 
 officially  preceded  all  others,  was  entirely  under  the  influence 
 of  Annas.  Only  such  a  dominant  influence  could  have  occa- 
 sioned his  being  mentioned  first ;  any  official  position  would 
 certainly  have  placed  him  subordinate  to  Caiaphas.  The  fact 
 of  Christ  being  led  away  to  Annas,  shows  not  only  the  inde- 
 pendent authority  which  he  exercised,  but  also  the  intensity  of 
 his  hatred  to  Christ.  His  son-in-law  knew  that  he  could  not 
 afford  him  a  greater  joy  than  by  giving  him  some  concern  in 
 this  process.  The  hatred  felt  by  Annas  to  Christ  continued  to 
 burn  in  his  son,  the  younger  Ananus  mentioned  by  Josephus. 
 He  perverted  his  high-priestly  function  so  far  as  to  trespass 
 upon  the  Roman  authority  of  life  and  death,  and  to  bring  about 
 the  destruction  of  James  the  Apostle,  "  the  brother  of  Jesus, 
 who  is  called  Christ,  and  many  with  him  ;"  for  which  abuse  of 
 authority  he  was  displaced  from  his  office  :  comp.  Josephus, 
 Antiq.  XX.  9,  1. 
 
 Where  was  the  dwelling  of  Annas?  Doubtless  chambers 
 were  assigned  to  him  in  the  house  of  his  son-in-law,  in  the  high- 
 priestly  palace.  To  this  we  are  led  by  a  comparison  with  the 
 first  three  Evangelists,  who  do  not  mention  Annas,  and  place 
 the  three  denials  of  Peter  in  the  court  of  Caiaphas  the  high 
 priest.  Other  reasons  also  decide  for  this.  1.  It  is  of  itself 
 remarkable  that  St  John  represents  Christ  as  led  from  person 
 to  person,  not  from  place  to  place  :  they  led  Him  to  Annas,  ver. 
 13 ;  Annas  sent  Him  to  Caiaphas,  ver.  14 ;  they  lead  Jesus  from 
 Caiaphas,  ver.  28.  All  this  indicates  that  the  locality  was  the 
 same.  When  a  change  of  place  is  referred  to,  it  is  expressly 
 mentioned :  "  they  led  Jesus  to  the  palace,"  ver.  28.  2.  "  That 
 disciple,"  we  read  in  ver.  15,  "was  known  to  the  high  priest:" 
 the  high  priest,  with  the  article,  could  only  be  Caiaphas.  In 
 Acts  iv.  6  Annas  is  not  described  as  high  priest ;  but  mention 
 is  made  of  Annas  the  high  priest,  in  contradistinction  to  others 
 of  the  name  who  had  not  been  high  priests.  Caiaphas  is, 
 throughout  St  John,  always  the  high  priest,  xi.  49,  xviii.  24,  28 ; 
 
CHAP.  XVIII.  12,  13..  353 
 
 and  here  lie  has  just  been  alluded  to  as  such,  vers.  13, 14.  But 
 this  disciple  went  with  Jesus  into  the  palace  of  the  high  priest. 
 Thus  Jesus,  when  He  was  led  to  Annas,  was  led  into  the  palace 
 of  Caiaphas.  3.  In  the  court  of  the  building  in  which  Annas 
 dwelt  stood  the  servants  of  the  high  priest  (comp.  vers.  18,  26), 
 that  is,  of  Caiaphas ;  to  whom  we  are  the  rather  pointed,  be- 
 cause the  relatives  of  him  whose  ear  Peter  cut  off  in  all  pro- 
 bability were  in  the  service  of  the  same  master,  and  all  the 
 Evangelists  say  that  Malchus  was  the  servant  of  Caiaphas.  If 
 Annas  had  not  dwelt  in  the  high  priest's  palace,  we  should  have 
 found  his  own  establishment  gathered  together.  4.  The  body 
 of  servants,  according  to  ver.  18,  stood  round  a  fire  of  coals 
 while  Jesus  was  with  Annas.  Peter  went  to  that  perilous  place 
 only  because  he  would  be  near  his  Master ;  he  remained  there, 
 doubtless,  not  a  moment  longer  than  Jesus  was  in  the  place.  In 
 ver.  24  Jesus  is  led  away  to  Caiaphas ;  yet  Peter  remains  near 
 the  fire,  and  amidst  the  same  company.  This  shows  that  the 
 sending  from  Annas  to  Caiaphas  was  only  a  sending  from  one 
 part  of  the  house  to  another.  The  court  was  common  to  both 
 houses.  5.  After  Peter's  first  denial,  Jesus,  according  to  St 
 John,  was  led  away  to  Caiaphas.  According  to  Luke  xxii.  61, 
 Jesus  turned,  at  the  third  denial,  and  looked  at  Peter.  Thus 
 at  the  third  denial  he  was  in  the  same  place  where  he  was 
 before.  Jesus,  already  with  Caiaphas,  is  at  the  same  time  with 
 Peter  in  the  same  place.  This  is  to  be  explained  only  on  the 
 supposition  that  the  court  was  common  to  the  two  dwellings  of 
 Annas  and  Caiaphas.  The  assertion  of  Baur  (Kanon  Evang.), 
 "  When  Jesus  was  again  led  away  from  Annas  and  went  over 
 the  court  (of  Annas),  the  two  other  acts  of  denial  took  place," 
 is,  looking  at  St  John  alone,  untenable.  At  ver.  24  Jesus 
 must  not  merely  have  been  on  the  way  to  Caiaphas,  but  must 
 have  reached  his  presence ;  for  to  ver.  4  is  joined  "  they  led 
 Jesus  from  Caiaphas"  in  ver.  28. — Moreover,  we  cannot  tell 
 why  so  much  opposition  has  been  encountered  by  the  theory 
 that  Annas  lived  in  the  high  priest's  palace.  According  to  the 
 custom  of  the  East,  where  the  palaces  of  the  great  belong  usually 
 not  only  to  the  actual  ruler,  but  to  all  his  kin,  it  must  always  be 
 probable  in  itself  that  in  the  high  priest's  palace  the  whole  'yivo'i 
 ap-)(^LepaTi,Kov,  Acts  iv.  6,  resided. — On  the  words,  "  who  was 
 the  high  priest  that  year,"  compare  what  was  said  upon  ch.  xi. 
 
 VOL    IT.  z 
 
354  CHAP,  xviii.  XIX 
 
 49.     As  high  priest  of  that  year,  Caiaphas  was  at  the  same  time 
 the  high  priest. 
 
 Ver.  14.  "  Now  Caiaphas  was  he  which  gave  counsel  to  the 
 Jews,  that  it  was  expedient  that  one  man  should  die  for  the 
 people." — Compare  ch.  xi.  50.  To  the  unconscious  prophecy 
 which  Caiaphas  had  uttered  (compare  ver.  51)  St  John  now 
 refers,  because  the  fulfilment  of  that  prophecy  was  now  pre- 
 pared for, — a  fulfilment  in  which  Caiaphas  played  no  insignifi- 
 cant part.  And  this  observation  leads  also  to  the  same  conclu- 
 sion, that  the  high  priest  in  what  follows  could  be  only  Caiaphas. 
 
 Ver.  15.  "  And  Simon  Peter  followed  Jesus,  and  so  did 
 another  disciple.  That  disciple  was  known  unto  the  high  priest, 
 and  went  in  with  Jesus  into  the  palace  of  the  high  priest." — The 
 article  before  ak\o<i  owed  its  origin  to  an  unseasonable  com- 
 parison of  ver.  16,  and  probably  also  ch.  xx.  2.  The  article 
 must  be  given  up.  It  would  mark  out  this  disciple  as  known  to 
 the  readers.  But  how  was  he  thus  known  ?  St  John  eveiy- 
 where  represents  that  only  as  known  which  had  been  found  in 
 the  first  three  Evangelists.  But  these  knew  nothing  of  another 
 disciple  here. — It  cannot  be  doubted  that  the  other  disciple  was 
 John :  that  alone  gives  the  reason  why  his  name  was  not  men- 
 tioned. Peter  and  John  elsewhere  appear  as  united :  compare 
 on  ch.  xiii.  24.  Judo;ino;  from  the  entire  character  of  John 
 and  his  relation  to  Christ,  we  might  have  expected  that  he, 
 beyond  all  the  other  disciples,  would,  with  Peter,  have  refused 
 to  be  separated  from  the  Lord.  Under  the  cross  we  find  the 
 disciple  whom  Jesus  loved,  xix.  26.  After  the  resurrection  he 
 runs  with  Peter  to  the  sepulchre,  and  faster,  too,  than  Peter. 
 As  the  "  other  disciple "  he  describes  himself,  just  as  here,  in 
 ch.  XX.  2,  3,  4, 8.  So  far  back  as  ch.  i.  35,  41,  he  is  the  unknown 
 disciple  by  the  side  of  one  whose  name  is  mentioned ;  and  the 
 manner  in  which  he  there  concealed  and  yet  revealed  himself, 
 has  much  affinity  with  what  we  find  here.  That  tendenc}'  to 
 keep  his  own  person  as  much  as  possible  in  the  background 
 which  pervades  the  whole  Gospel,  culminates  at  its  close  in  the 
 olhaixev,  "we  know,"  which  has  given  the  expositors  so  much 
 trouble.  We  are  led  also  to  think  of  St  John,  by  the  circum- 
 stance that  he  alone,  of  all  the  Evangelists,  shows  any  interest, 
 in  keeping  with  his  being  "  known  to  the  high  priest,"  about 
 the  relations  of  the  high  priest's  house  :  he  intimates  the  rela- 
 
CHAP.  XVIII.  15.  355 
 
 tionsliip  between  Annas  and  Caiaphas,  ver.  13 ;  mentions  tlie 
 name  of  the  high  priest's  servant  whose  ear  Peter  smote  off ; 
 refers  to  another  among  the  servants  of  the  high  priest  who 
 was  related  to  Malchus,  ver.  26;  speaks  of  the  portress,  r]  irai- 
 hiaKT}  7)  dvpcopo^,  where  the  other  EvangeHsts  mention  only  a 
 maid,  /mm  TrachiaKi],  TraohicrKr]  Ti? ;  and  in  ver.  18  specifies  the 
 fire  of  coals  around  which  the  servants  of  the  high  priest  were 
 gathered  in  the  cold  night. — The  language  speaks  of  acquaint- 
 anceship, not  of  kindred.  Acquaintances  and  kindred  are 
 distinguished  in  Luke  ii.  44,  and  so  also  often  in  the  Old 
 Testament,  Job  xix.  13,  xlii.  11. — St  John  stood  in  some  rela- 
 tion to  the  high  priest  himself,  not  merely  to  his  servants.  This 
 is  here  expressly  said ;  in  ver.  1 6  it  is  emphatically  repeated,  and 
 all  is  in  strict  harmony.  St  John  goes  without  any  ado  into 
 the  palace  of  the  high  priest.  No  introduction  was  needed  for 
 him  ;  he  had  free  access.  To  the  servants  he  must  have  been 
 a  person  of  some  eminence.  They  venture  to  say  nothing 
 against  him,  nor  against  Peter  while  he  was  there.  The  maid 
 admitted  Peter  at  his  word ;  and  that  she  did  this  somewhat 
 unwittingly,  is  plain  from  her  subsequent  attack  on  Peter. — 
 How  the  acquaintance  originated  can  scarcely  be  conjectured ; 
 human  relations  are  manifold.  But  the  character  of  St  John 
 leads  to  the  obvious  supposition  that  it  rested  on  religious 
 grounds.  Searching  for  goodly  pearls,  John  had  earlier  sought 
 from  the  high  priest  what,  after  he  had  gone  through  the  inter- 
 vening station  of  the  Baptist,  lie  found  in  Christ.  With  what 
 eyes  he  had  formerly  regarded  the  position  of  the  high  priest,  is 
 indicated  by  the  fact,  that  as  a  disciple  of  Christ  he  neverthe- 
 less assigned  to  the  word  of  the  high  priest  a  prophetic  signi- 
 ficance, ch.  xi.  51.  John,  by  his  internally  devout  nature,  had 
 so  attracted  the  good-will  of  the  high  priest,  that  he  did  not 
 wholly  cast  him  off  even  after  he  had  gone  over  to  the  true 
 High  Priest.  Nor  had  John  entirely  abandoned  him.  Real 
 love  cannot  be  so  easily  rooted  from  the  heart ;  and  it  is  cha- 
 racteristic of  St  John  to  retain,  rrjpelv,  a  pious  regard  to  earlier 
 relations.  In  the  love  which  hopeth  all  things,  he  might  hope 
 yet  to  win  the  high  priest  to  Christ.  Moreover,  we  find  among 
 the  Apostles  one,  whose  surname,  o  ZrjXcoTi]';,  Luke  vi.  15,  Acts 
 i.  13,  shows  that  he  had  gone  through  a  similar  process  of  de- 
 velopment.    And  the  life  of  St  Paul  furnishes  some  analogies. 
 
356  CHAP.  XVIII.  XIX. 
 
 Ver.  16.  "But  Peter  stood  at  tlie  door  without.  Then 
 went  out  that  other  disciple,  which  was  known  unto  the  high 
 priest,  and  spake  unto  her  that  kept  the  door,  and  brought  in 
 Peter." — Expositors  condemn  Peter  for  having,  in  his  weakness, 
 ventured  so  much.  Even  Calvin  says:  "As  Christ  had  declared 
 bj  His  own  voice  that  He  spared  Peter  and  the  others,  it  would 
 have  been  far  better  to  groan  and  pray  in  some  obscure  corner, 
 than  to  go  openly  before  the  eyes  of  man  when  he  was  so  little 
 firm."  That  may  be  true  ;  but  love  vanquishes  reasoning,  and 
 after  all  Peter  following  Christ  is  dearer  in  his  denial,  than  if, 
 without  denying,  he  had  remained  in  some  obscure  corner.  It 
 must  have  been  a  mighty  and  irresistible  impulse  which  urged 
 Peter  to  follow  Christ.  He  had  more  to  fear  than  all  the 
 others ;  for  it  was  he  who  had  smote  off  the  ear  of  the  high 
 priest's  servant,  ver.  26.  That  made  his  situation  peculiarly 
 dangerous  ;  and  explains  how  it  was  that  he  was  embarrassed 
 by  addresses  which  under  other  circumstances  would  have  been 
 regarded  as  harmless  mockery.  At  the  time  of  the  outrage,  our 
 Lord's  healing  act  had  restrained  the  servants  from  attacking 
 Peter.  But  it  was  very  natural  that  the  act  was  revived  in 
 their  remembrance.  Since  Peter  had  not  a  good  conscience 
 in  relation  to  that  act,  and  had  been  by  the  Lord  Himself 
 reproved,  it  must  have  been  all  the  more  natural  that  he 
 should  expect  to  suffer  for  it. — What  John  said  to  the  portress 
 is  not  told,  because  it  may  be  inferred  from  what  she  there- 
 upon did.  Gen.  iv.  8  is  similar :  "  And  Cain  talked  with  Abel 
 his  brother :  and  it  came  to  pass  when  they  were  in  the  field." 
 What  Cain  said  to  Abel,  "  Let  us  go  into  the  field,"  is  to  be 
 supplied  from  what  follows. 
 
 Vers.  17,  18.  "  Then  saith  the  damsel  that'  kept  the  door 
 unto  Peter,  Art  not  thou  also  one  of  this  man's  disciples  ?  He 
 saith,  I  am  not.  And  the  servants  and  officers  stood  there, 
 who  had  made  a  fire  of  coals  (for  it  was  cold)  ;  and  they 
 warmed  themselves :  and  Peter  stood  with  them,  and  warmed 
 himself."  —  When  was  it  that  the  maid  spoke  to  Peter  ? 
 Obviously  not  directly  after  she  had  admitted  him, — for  then 
 her  objections  would  rather  have  been  urged  against  his  enter- 
 ing at  all, — but  after  John,  whose  person  she  respected,  had 
 gone  away.  John  doubtless  accompanied  his  Master  to  Annas, 
 and  records  what  he  has  concerning  that  interview  from  per- 
 
CHAP.  XVIII.  17,  18.  357 
 
 sonal  knowledge;  he  probably  also  went  with  Him  to  Caiaphas, 
 so  that  the  nari'ative  of  this  examination  which  we  have  in  the 
 first  three  Evangelists  was  derived  from  his  testimony.  We 
 must  not  connect  ver.  17  with  ver.  16,  but  with  ver.  18,  which 
 is  only  then  properly  understood  when  it  is  regarded  as  sup- 
 plying the  circumstances  under  which  the  colloquy  in  ver.  17 
 took  place.  The  fire  of  coals  and  its  surroundings  had  a  close 
 connection  with  the  first  assault  of  the  niaid ;  and  it  was  not 
 accidental  that  all  the  assaults  upon  Peter  took  place  near  this 
 fire.  She  was  bent  upon  bringing  the  Apostle — whose  entrance 
 she  could  not  prevent — into  embarrassment  before  the  whole 
 company  of  the  servants,  and  thus  making  herself  also  an  im- 
 portant and  interesting  personage.  She  was  in  possession  of  a 
 secret;  she  alone  was  aware  that  Peter  had  entered  through 
 the  intercession  of  John,  whom  she  knew  as  a  follower  of 
 Jesus ;  whom  but  another  disciple  would  he  have  introduced  ? 
 And  she  might,  with  the  official  feeling  of  a  portress,  come 
 forward  (St  Luke's  koX  arevicraaa  avTa>,  xxii.  56,  is  very  re- 
 markable) to  demand,  as  it  were,  a  warranty  after  he  had 
 entered  instead  of  before.  Thus  St  John  is  in  full  harmony 
 with  the  other  Evangelists,  according  to  whom  the  first  attack 
 and  the  first  denial  of  Peter  took  place  while  he  warmed  him- 
 self.— The  matter  was  at  the  outset  harmless  enough.  Yet  it 
 is  not  right  to  say  tliat  Peter  was  afraid,  where  there  was  no 
 great  reason  to  fear.  It  might,  in  further  course,  have  taken 
 a  very  critical  shape  for  his  safety. 
 
 "Thou  also,"  says  the  maid,  with  allusion  to  John,  and 
 indicating  the  ground  of  her  suspicion  :  "  John,  who  brought 
 thee  in,  is  a  disciple  of  this  man ;  thou  also  assuredly  art  the 
 same." — The  despondent  spirit  which  led  to  his  denial  on  this 
 occasion  was  not  inconsistent  with  the  courage  with  which  he 
 cut  off  the  high  priest's  servant's  ear,  ch.  xviii.  10.  That  act 
 did  not  spring  from  the  tranquil  courage  of  faith ;  it  was  the 
 courage  of  a  naturally  strong  feeling,  which  had  lost  itself  in 
 circumstances  of  momentary  excitement.  As  everything  natural 
 has  its  risings  and  fallings,  so  also  has  the  merely  natural  feel- 
 ing. Hero  and  coward,  in  the  ordinary  human  sense,  are  not 
 pure  opposites.  Circumstances  altered  the  ease.  Tlien  Peter 
 had  been  stimulated  by  a  glance  at  his  Lord,  whose  demonstra- 
 tion of  miraculous  power  he  had  just  witnessed  in  the  prostra- 
 
358  CHAP.  XVIII.  XIX. 
 
 tion  of  the  multitude.  But  now,  when  he  saw  that  Lord  so 
 powerless,  his  courage  fell.  This  was  needful  in  order  to  his 
 humiliation.  Thus  only  could  he  become  a  true  Peter,  when  his 
 confidence  in  his  own  natural  strength  was  utterly  taken  away. 
 
 The  fire  had  been  made  by  the  servants  of  the  high  priest, 
 in  the  expectation  that  they  would  have  to  wait  out  the  night 
 while  the  examination  proceeded.  Considerable  time  must 
 elapse  while  the  members  of  the  High  Council  were  being 
 assembled.  The  co-operation  of  the  Roman  soldiers  went  no 
 further  than  the  bringing  Jesus,  and  delivering  Him  up  in  the 
 palace  of  the  high  priest.  After  that,  the  responsibility  of 
 watching  Him  rested  with  the  Jews. — Tobler,  writing  from 
 Jerusalem,  says  :  "  There  are  occasionally  outbreaks  of  winter 
 down  to  May.  We  sat  in  the  evening  trembling  with  the 
 frost,  wrapped  up  in  mantles.  The  fact  that  Peter  warmed 
 himself  in  the  palace  of  the  high  priest  on  the  third  of  April, 
 is  quite  in  keeping  with  all  modern  observations  of  the  weather, 
 as  well  as  with  the  customs  of  the  inhabitants.  On  the  third 
 of  April  1837,  after  sundown  the  temperature  was  +6°  R." — 
 The  servants  stood:  this  seems  to  be  opposed  to  the  record  of 
 the  other  Evangelists,  according  to  whom  the  servants  were 
 sitting,  .Matt.  xxvi.  58,  Mark  xiv.  54,  Luke  xxii.  55.  But 
 standing  and  sitting  doubtless  alternated;  moreover,  the  first 
 Evangelists  also  speak  of  the  €crTcbT€<;,  Matt.  xxvi.  73 ;  irape- 
 arwre^,  Mark  xiv.  69,  70.  Nor  is  there  any  contradiction 
 between  Peter's  standing  in  this  account,  and  his  sitting  outside 
 in  the  court.  Matt.  xxvi.  69,  when  the  maid  came  and  looked 
 at  him.  The  standing  here  forms  the  transition  to  his  going 
 out  into  the  porch  in  Matthew,  ver.  71.  The  excitement  caused 
 by  the  question  induced  Peter  to  rise  up. — It  has  been  rightly 
 observed  that  Peter,  playing  the  bold  man,  and  mixing  among 
 the  soldiers  as  one  of  themselves,  laid  already  the  foundation 
 for  his  subsequent  denial.-^ 
 
 Ver.  19.  "  The  high  priest  then  asked  Jesus  of  His  disciples, 
 and  of  His  doctrine." — Not  Annas,  but  Caiaphas,  questioned 
 Jesus.     Annas  presided,   as  it  wei'e,  over  the  council  at  the 
 
 ^  Lampe :  He  thought  he  might  be  securely  quiet  in  this  crowd.  But 
 inasmuch  as  the  word  of  Jesus  could  not  be  false,  Satan  followed  him  into 
 this  hiding-place.  And  he  found  him  opportunely  enough.  This  dissimula- 
 tion was  itself  a  tacit  denial. 
 
CHAP.  XVIII.  20,  21.  359 
 
 examination ;  but  the  strictly  judicial  function  could  not  be 
 committed  to  him  by  Caiaphas.  The  greater  the  injustice 
 was,  the  more  important  it  became  not  to  violate  judicial 
 forms.  Caiaphas  doubtless  was  instructed  and  inspired  by 
 Annas,  but  formally  Jesus  had  to  do  with  him  alone. — The 
 question  concerning  the  disciples  coincided  with  that  concern- 
 ing the  doctrine;  the  second  served  to  explain  and  define  the 
 first.  We  gather  from  the  answer  of  Christ,  that  the  matter 
 in  question  was  not  that  He  should  indicate  the  persons  of  His 
 disciples — as  a  culprit  might  be  required  to  name  his  con- 
 federates— but  rather  that  Pie  should  show  the  relation  He 
 bore  to  His  disciples.  But  that  was  one  with  His  doctrine,  and 
 upon  His  doctrine  that  relation  rested.  It  was  of  importance 
 to  provide  materials  for  the  charge  to  be  brought  before  the 
 High  Council — that  Jesus  made  Himself  the  Son  of  God  and 
 arrogated  Divine  authority,  and  in  this  presumption  elevated 
 Himself  above  all  legitimate  authority,  gathering  around  Him- 
 self a  crowd  of  disciples,  who,  as  such,  were  the  enemies  of  that 
 authority.  It  was  of  equal  importance  in  order  to  their  provid- 
 ing material  for  the  second  charge  before  the  Roman  Forum, — 
 that  Jesus  made  Himself  a  king,  and  thereby  set  Himself  up 
 against  Cesar :  comp.  Luke  xxiii.  2.  If  we  regard  the  two 
 questions  as  perfectly  distinct,  the  answer  of  our  Lord  leads  to 
 embarrassment;  for  in  that  case  it  refers  only  to  the  second 
 question. 
 
 Vers.  20,  21.  "  Jesus  answered  him,  I  spake  openly  to  the 
 world;  I  ever  taught  in  the  synagogue,  and  in  the  temple, 
 whither  the  Jews  always  resort;  and  in  secret  have  I  said 
 nothing.  Why  askest  thou  Me?  ask  them  which  heard  Me, 
 what  I  have  said  unto  them  :  behold,  they  know  what  I  said." — 
 Jesus  declines  answering  the  high  priest's  question.  The  reason 
 of  that  refusal  must  not  be  sought  in  His  desio;n  to  withdraw 
 from  the  interrogation  altogether.  Before  the  assembled  San- 
 hedrim Pie  at  once  declared  Himself  to  be  the  Son  of  God ; 
 before  Pilate  Pie  avowed  His  royal  dignity.  His  silence  had 
 rather  *n  admonitory  character;  it  gave  the  high  priest  to 
 understand  that  he  was  not  worthy  of  any  reply,  because  he  did 
 not  seek  but  flee  from  the  truth.  It  sprang  from  the  same 
 reason  that  led  to  the  silence  at  the  outset  before  the  council, 
 Matt.  xxvi.  63,  Mark  xiv.  61;  the  perfect  silence  before  Herod; 
 
360  CHAP.  xvni.  XIX. 
 
 the  refusal  to  answer  Pilate,  after  lie  had  made  it  plain  that  he 
 desired  not  to  serve  the  truth,  but  his  own  personal  interest, 
 ch.  xix.  9.  The  high  priest  set  out  with  the  determination  to 
 allow  no  entrance  to  the  truth.  He  resolved,  under  all  circum- 
 stances, to  deliver  Jesus  to  death,  ver.  14.  His  questions  had 
 no  other  design  than  to  provide  materials  for  accusation  and 
 sure  impeachment.  When  the  authorities  assume  such  a  posi- 
 tion, there  is,  looking  at  them  alone,  no  room  for  the  duty  of 
 confessing  (1  Pet.  iii.  15  takes  for  granted  a  certain  measure 
 of  good-will)  ;  and  it  would  have  been  unworthy  of  our  Lord's 
 dignity  to  commit  Plimself  to  a  fruitless  colloquy  with  the  high 
 priest.  The  duty  of  confession  came  later  for  our  Lord  ;  that 
 is,  when,  before  the  Sanhedrim  in  open  session,  He  was  solemnly 
 and  publicly  asked  by  the  high  priest  whether  He  were  the  Son 
 of  God  ;  as  also  by  the  human  authority,  "  Art  thou  the  King 
 of  the  Jews'?"  Then  our  Lord  stood  before  the  great  tribunal, 
 and  before  the  world.  In  Pilate  there  was  a  certain  measure 
 of  good  disposition ;  he  had  not,  to  such  an  extent  as  the  high 
 priest,  closed  the  avenues  of  his  heart  against  all  good  emotions. 
 To  have  spoken  to  the  heart  of  the  high  priest  would  have  been 
 perfectly  vain.  He  had  firmly  resolved  to  give  no  access  to  the 
 truth.  The  objective  fact  of  our  Lord's  teaching,  however,  was 
 plain  enough :  it  needed  no  confession  to  make  that  sure.  For 
 the  "sood  confession"  which  our  Lord  had  to  make  before  His 
 death,  a  more  fitting  place  and  time  would  come  afterwards. 
 
 The  words  in  which  Jesus  accounted  for  His  silence  inti- 
 mate that  there  was  no  secrecy  in  question,  and  that  what  was 
 public  might  be  known  in  another  way. — This  answer  of  our 
 Lord  threw  the  high  priest  out  of  his  course.  The  end  of  his 
 investigation  was  to  obtain  material  for  the  charge  to  be 
 brought  against  Him  in  the  council.  Upon  this  he  had  firmly 
 reckoned :  how  firmly  we  may  gather  from  the  fact,  that  the 
 insufficiently  prepared  testimonies  of  the  witnesses  at  the  great 
 examination  led  to  so  impotent  a  result.  Matt.  xxvi.  59,  60 ; 
 Mark  xiv.  55-59.  The  difficulty  which  the  first  Evangelists 
 present — the  reconciling  the  character  of  .Christ's  enenjies  with 
 their  defect  of  foresight  in  this  instance — finds  in  St  John  its 
 explanation. — For  TrapprjaLa,  see  on  ch.  xi.  54,  vii.  4,  26.  ^Ev 
 avvarycuryfj :  the  article  is  wanting,  because  no  particular  syna- 
 gogue was  to  be  indicated.     In  itself  the  article  would  not  be 
 
CHAP.  XVIII.  22.  361 
 
 inadmissible  for  the  generic  noun ;  but  here  it  could  not  have 
 been  used,  since  in  iv  tw  lepw  it  marks  out  the  Temple  specifi- 
 cally. Jesus  had  taught  in  the  synagogues  of  Galilee,  as  is  evi- 
 dent from  a  series  of  passages  in  the  first  Evangelists,  and  John 
 vi.  59.  The  Galileans  were  then  present  at  the  feast,  and  it 
 was  easy  therefore  to  ascertain  certainly  what  Jesus  had  taught 
 in  their  synagogues.  In  Jerusalem  He  had  always  repaired  to 
 the  Temple.  The  reason  of  this  was,  that  He  always  sought  the 
 utmost  possible  publicity,  and  everywhere,  as  much  as  in  Him 
 lay,  spoke  to  the  loorld.  "  Whither  the  Jews  always  resort :" 
 that  characterized  the  Temple,  in  contradistinction  to  the  syna- 
 gogues. In  harmony  with  this  passage,  our  Lord,  in  Matt,  xxiii. 
 38,  speaks  of  the  Temple  as  the  house  of  the  Jews.  Three  times 
 in  the  year,  according  to  the  ordinance  of  the  law,  all  the  males 
 were  to  appear  in  the  Temple,  in  the  house  of  "  convocation," 
 in  the  place  where  God  was  wont  to  hold  intercourse  with  His 
 people,  Deut.  xvi.  16.  The  words,  "  In  secret  have  I  said 
 nothing,"  point  to  Isa.  xlv.  19.  Tliere  Jehovah  says,  in  allusion 
 to  the  prophecy  communicated  by  Him,  "  I  have  not  spoken  in 
 secret,  in  a  dark  place  of  the  earth  ;"  to  the  parallel  clause  the 
 Lord  refers  in  Matt.  x.  27.  If  He  sometimes  taught  in  a  nar- 
 rower circle,  and  there  unfolded  "  the  mysteries  of  the  kingdom 
 of  God,"  Matt.  xiii.  11,  He  did  this  only  on  account  of  the 
 want  of  susceptibility  in  the  multitude ;  He  uttered  nothing  to 
 His  disciples  which  He  did  not  in  another  form  and  at  another 
 time  publicly  teach,  nothing  that  was  by  those  disciples  to  be 
 kept  secret.  This  is  evident  from  Matt.  x.  27,  in  harmony 
 with  our  present  passage.  Augustin  :  And  even  this,  which 
 seemed  to  be  spoken  by  Him  in  secret,  in  a  certain  sense  was 
 not  spoken  in  secret,  inasmuch  as  it  was  not  so  spoken  as  to  be 
 concealed  by  those  to  whom  it  was  spoken ;  but  rather  so  that 
 it  might  be  everywhere  proclaimed. 
 
 Ver.  22.  "  And  when  He  had  thus  spoken,  one  of  the 
 officers  which  stood  by  struck  Jesus  with  the  palm  of  his  hand, 
 saying,  Answerest  thou  the  high  priest  so?" — In  Matt.  v.  39, 
 the  verb  paTvt^eLv  occurs  for  striking  on  the  cheek ;  the  same 
 is  probably  its  meaning  here  also.  The  blow  on  the  cheek, 
 as  inflicted  for  a  supposed  offence,  may  be  compared  with 
 1  Kings  xxii.  24,  where  the  false  prophet  Zedekiah  smote  the 
 true  prophet  Micaiah.     The  servant  probably  had  in  view  that 
 
362  CHAP.  XVIII.  XIX. 
 
 passage  of  the  law,  Ex,  xxii.  27,  which  St  Paul  quoted  under 
 similar  circumstances,  Acts  xxiii.  5. 
 
 Ver.  23.  "  Jesus  answered  him.  If  I  have  spoken  evil,  bear 
 witness  of  the  evil;  but  if  well,  why  smitest  thou  Me?" — 
 According  to  Deut.  xxv.  2,  the  judge  alone  might  inflict  blows 
 en  the  wicked  man  worthy  to  be  beaten.  Our  Lord  doubtless 
 spoke  these  words  in  a  low  and  gentle  tone.  It  was  His  love 
 that  did  not  reckon  it  below  His  dignity  to  convict  this  servant 
 of  his  evil.  Quesnel :  "  To  speak  on  such  occasions  with  truth, 
 with  gentleness,  and  with  righteousness,  is  much  harder  than  to 
 present  the  other  cheek."  The  word  of  Jesus  to  a  servant,  as 
 well  as  that  to  the  high  priest,  shows  that  St  John's  Christ  also 
 knew  how  to  condescend  from  His  high  dignity. 
 
 Yer.  24.  "  Now  Annas  had  sent  Him  bound  unto  Caiaphas 
 the  high  priest." — Here  again  the  high  priest  is  Caiaphas,  in 
 contradistinction  to  Annas.  The  ovv  was  dropped  from  the 
 text  by  those  who  thought  it  inappropriate,  because  it  excluded 
 the  possibility  of  taking  aTreaTeiXev  in  a  pluperfect  sense  ;  by 
 others,  it  was  expunged  in  favour  of  8e  or  KaL  Between  Annas 
 and  Caiaphas,  as  already  shown,  there  was  locally  only  a  court- 
 yard ;  or  rather  Jesus  was  with  Caiaphas  as  soon  as  he  left  the 
 apartments  of  Annas.  And  while  He  was  with  Annas  He  was 
 still  in  the  palace  of  the  high  priest,  Luke  xxii.  54 ;  indeed,  in 
 a  certain  sense,  He  was  with  Caiaphas  himself.  Matt.  xxvi.  57, 
 Mark  xiv.  53  ;  not  merely  because  he  was  the  occupant  of  the 
 house,  but  also  because  the  examination  was  had  before  him. 
 But  because  Caiaphas  had  honoured  Annas  by  placing  the  pri- 
 soner before  him,  and  caused  the  examination  to  be  conducted 
 under  his  honorary  presidency,  Jesus  might  be  said,  as  in  ver.  13, 
 to  have  been  led  to  Annas,  so  also  in  this  verse  to  have  been  sent 
 from  Annas  to  Caiaphas.  St  John  adheres  to  the  forms  of 
 expression  which  Annas  and  Caiaphas  themselves  used.  The 
 SeSefievov  here  indicates  that  Jesus  was  not  at  once  led  from  the 
 apartments  of  Annas  before  the  Sanhedrim,  but  that  a  certain 
 period  of  waiting  intervened.  With  the  present  statement, 
 which  informs  us  that  Jesus  was  led  from  Annas  to  Caiaphas 
 before  the  second  and  third  denial  of  Peter,  agrees  that  of  St 
 Luke,  who  relates  that  on  the  third  denial  our  Lord  turned 
 and  looked  upon  the  Apostle.  Accordingly  He  was,  on  the 
 third  denial,  with  Peter  in  the  court.     Between  the  second  and 
 
CHAP.  XVIII.  25-27.  363 
 
 the  third  denial  there  elapsed,  according  to  St  Luke,  about 
 an  hour.  During  this  time  our  Lord  must  have  remained 
 standino;  in  the  court.  Such  a  lono;er  continuance  in  the  court 
 is  also  demanded,  by  the  fact  that  the  High  Council  did  not 
 assemble  until  it  was  day,  Luke  xxii.  66. 
 
 Ver.  25.  "And  Simon  Peter  stood  and  warmed  himself: 
 they  said  therefore  unto  him.  Art  not  thou  also  one  of  his 
 disciples  ?  He  denied  it,  and  said,  I  am  not." — In  ver.  17  rod 
 avOpoDTTov  rovTov,  here  avrov,  as  in  ver.  26.  Jesus,  at  the 
 second  and  third  denial,  was  in  the  court.  The  avrov  points  to 
 the  Lord  as  present.  The  entrance  of  Jesus  into  the  court 
 probably  gave  occasion  for  the  renewal  of  the  assault  upon 
 Peter.  According  to  St  Mark,  the  initiative  was  taken  again 
 by  the  same  maid  who  stirred  the  matter  at  the  first.  On  the 
 former  occasion  she  had  addressed  Peter ;  now,  repelled  by 
 him,  she  addresses  the  bystanders.  According  to  St  Mark, 
 "another  maid"  spoke  to  those  around,  "This  man  also  was 
 with  Jesus  of  Nazareth."  According  to  St  Luke,  "  another  " 
 spoke  to  Peter  on  the  matter,  "  Thou  art  also  of  them."  St 
 John  embraces  the  various  persons  introduced  by  the  others  in 
 one  cIttov,  "  they  said."  Apart  from  the  statements  of  the 
 Evangelists,  it  is  obvious  that,  in  the  midst  of  the  idle  circle, 
 whose  thoughts  naturally  were  fixed  upon  the  business  that  laid 
 upon  them  this  disagreeable  night's  service,  one  word  begat 
 another,  and  the  several  scenes  were  hastily  enacted,  one  being 
 made  prominent  by  one  Evangelist,  another  by  another. 
 
 Vers.  26,  27,  "  One  of  the  servants  of  the  high  priest  (being 
 his  kinsman  whose  ear  Peter  cut  off)  saith.  Did  not  I  see  thee 
 in  the  garden  with  him  1  Peter  then  denied  again  ;  and  imme- 
 diately the  cock  crew." — The  third  denial  was  a  scene  composed 
 of  sundry  incidents.  An  indifferent  word  spoken  by  Peter 
 probably  gave  occasion  for  the  beginning  of  the  encounter. 
 This  enabled  them  to  detect  the  Galilean ;  and  the  first  three 
 Evangelists  agree  in  giving  prominence  to  this  moment.  A 
 relative  of  Malchus  then  joined  in  the  attack ;  he  said  he  saw 
 Peter  in  the  garden  with  Jesus.  This  is  St  John's  account. 
 That  many  were  mingled  in  the  assault,  is  indicated  by  St 
 Matthew  and  St  Mark,  when  they  speak  of  those  who  stood 
 around. 
 
364  CHAP.  XVIII.  XIX. 
 
 CHRIST    BEFORE    PILATE. 
 
 Cha-P.  XVIII.  28-xix.  16. 
 
 In  communicating  his  facts  concerning  the  interrogation  in 
 the  dwelling  of  Annas,  and  the  examination  before  Caiaphas 
 and  the  High  Council,  St  John  refers  back  to  his  predecessors 
 in  the  narrative,  contenting  himself  with  indicating  the  place 
 where  their  record  is  to  be  inserted ;  but,  in  the  present  section, 
 he  has  the  material  for  essential  supplements,  so  that  he  indeed 
 first  gives  us  a  complete  view  of  the  whole  transaction.  Here 
 also,  however,  he  is  in  reality  only  supplementing,  as  is  very 
 plain  from  ch.  xviii.  28,  as  also  from  ver.  33,  where  Pilate's 
 question  to  Jesus,  "Art  thou  the  King  of  the  Jews?"  is  based 
 upon  the  charge  brought  by  the  Jews  as  related  by  St  Luke  ; 
 and  from  ver.  40,  where  "  they  cried  again  "  refers  to  an  earlier 
 cry  recorded  only  by  St  Mark ;  and  from  ch.  xix.  2,  where  a 
 comparison  with  St  Luke  alone  tells  us  where  the  soldiers 
 obtained  the  royal  staff. 
 
 Ver.  28.  "  Then  led  they  Jesus  from  Caiaphas  unto  the 
 hall  of  judgment :  and  it  was  early  ;  and  they  themselves  went 
 not  into  the  judgment-hall,  lest  they  should  be  defiled  ;  but  that 
 they  might  eat  the  Passover." — The  persons  who  "  led," — 
 the  rulers  of  the  people  who  had  condemned  Jesus, — we  must 
 supplement  out  of  the  earlier  Evangelists.  Prsetorium  was  ori- 
 ginally the  name  of  the  locality  in  Rome  where  the  praetors  sat 
 in  judgment ;  then  it  came  to  signify  generally  the  private  and 
 official  residences  of  the  high  lioman  officials.  The  Roman 
 procurators  of  Palestine  had  their  proper  residence  in  Cesarea ; 
 but  at  the  great  feasts,  and  especially  at  the  Passover,  they 
 betook  themselves  to  Jerusalem  to  prevent  uproars.  They  then 
 occupied  Avhat  was  once  the  palace  of  Herod  (Joseph,  de  Bell. 
 Jud.  ii.  19,  4  ;  compare,  on  the  locality  of  the  royal  castle, 
 Lightfoot,  in  the  Centuria  dwrograpliica  Matthce.o  prcemissa,  c. 
 23).  It  is  not  "  into  the  praitorium,"  but  "  to  the  praetorium." 
 Avrol,  they,  not  in  antithesis  to  Jesus,  as  if  He  had  gone  away, 
 but  to  Pilate,  who  went  out  to  them.  That  Jesus  Himself  did 
 not  enter  the  prgetorium,  but  remained  standing  before  it  with 
 the  rulers,  is  implied  in  "  they  lead," — not  "  they  send,"  but 
 "  they  lead."     Liicke  incorrectly  :  "  The  Jews  sent  Jesus  with 
 
CHAP.  XVIII.  28.  365 
 
 the  soldiers  into  the  prjBtorium,  to  show  that  they  were  come ;" 
 but  the  soldiers  had  long  withdrawn,  having  only  aided  in  the 
 capture  of  our  Lord.  Not  till  ver.  33  does  Pilate  take  Jesus 
 into  his  palace. 
 
 Ilpmc',  the  period  of  the  morning  from  three  till  six,  appears 
 in  Mark  xiii.  35  as  a  part  of  the  common  sleeping-time.  The 
 Roman  judicial  sessions  did  not  usually  take  place  until  nine 
 o'clock.  That  Pilate  was  already  prepared  to  receive  the  Jews, 
 is  to  be  explained  by  the  supposition  that  he  had  been  already 
 notified.  The  Jews  urged  the  matter  with  the  greatest  despatch, 
 in  order  to  leave  no  time  for  the  development  of  the  people's 
 excitement,  and  that  they  might  be  able  to  enjoy  uninterrupted 
 the  mid-day  meal,  and,  finally,  for  the  reason  assigned  in  eh. 
 xix.  31.  Pilate  received  the  summons  probably  the  evening 
 before,  at  the  same  time  that  he  received  intelligence  of  Christ's 
 capture.  The  dream  of  his  wife  points  to  the  same  conclusion 
 (Matt,  xxvii.  19),  occasioned  as  it  was  by  what  she  had  just 
 heard  before  retiring  to  rest. — The  care  with  which  the  Jews 
 avoided  external  contamination  forms  a  fearful  contrast  to  the 
 levity  with  which  they  burdened  themselves  with  the  heaviest 
 of  all  sins.  It  may  be  asked  what  the  phrase  "  eating  the 
 Passover"  means.  If  it  was  eating  the  paschal  lamb,  John  is 
 irreconcilably  at  variance  with  the  other  Evangelists,  his  pre- 
 decessors :  according  to  them,  the  great  feast  of  the  Passover, 
 which  they  represent  as  eaten  by  Christ  at  the  same  time  with 
 the  Jews,  was  long  over. 
 
 The  phrase  "  eat  the  Passover  "  signifies  eating  the  Passover 
 in  its  widest  extent  of  meaning.  This,  at  the  first  feast,  was 
 the  eating  of  a  lamb,  with  bitter  herbs  and  unleavened  bread  ; 
 for  the  remainder  of  the  time  it  consisted  of  the  unleavened 
 bread  and  the  peace-offerings,  the  so-called  chagigah,  the  name  of 
 which  shows  that  it  was  an  essential  part  of  the  Passover-eating. 
 The  peace-offerings  were  presented  acicording  to  legal  ordinance. 
 We  read  in  Deut.  xvi.  16  concerning  the  three  high  feasts, 
 "  Ye  shall  not  appear  before  Me  empti/ ;"  and  in  Ex.  xxiii.  15 
 this  is  specifically  said  of  the  feast  of  unleavened  bread.  That 
 the  practice  was  in  accordance  we  see  in  1  Sam.  i.,  according  to 
 which  Elkanah  yearly  brought  at  the  Passover  his  peace-offering, 
 and  the  whole  family  partook  of  the  sacrificial  meal  thus  pro- 
 vided.    In  2  Chrou.  xxxv.  7-9  we  find  that  oxen,  as  well  as 
 
366  CHAP.  XVIII.  XIX. 
 
 lambs  and  kids,  were  necessary  to  the  feast  of  the  Passover.^ 
 According  to  the  Mishna,  those  festal  offerings  were  presented 
 every  day.^  But  the  first  day  of  the  feast,  15th  of  Nisan,  was 
 specially  chosen  for  the  presentation  of  these  offerings.^  The 
 chief  feast  of  this  day  was,  on  the  one  hand,  the  chief  feast  of 
 the  whole  festival.  The  character  of  the  first  meal  was  solemn 
 and  stately.  With  the  feast  of  the  15th,  on  the  other  hand, 
 joy  was  predominant,  according  to  the  characteristic  Israelite 
 view  of  all  festivals  :  comp.  Dent.  xvi.  14.  To  have  been 
 prevented  from  sharing  this  feast  must  have  been  particularly 
 disagreeable. 
 
 Which  particular  portion  of  the  paschal  eating  was  here 
 meant,  cannot  be  gathered  from  the  phrase,  but  must  be  deter- 
 mined by  the  context.  If  the  first  d^iy  is  spoken  of,  tliat  defines 
 the  phrase,  in  itself  indeterminate,  and  including  all  the  eating 
 of  the  feast,  as  meaning  the  paschal  lamb  with  its  accompani- 
 ments ;  if  any  following  day  is  meant,  then  reference  is  made 
 to  the  eating  of  the  unleavened  loaves  and  the  flesh  of  the 
 peace-offerings,  without  its  meaning  being  anywise  changed. 
 That  (payelv  to  irda^a,  eating  the  Passover,  occurs  throughout 
 the  first  Evangelists  only  in  reference  to  the  first  meal,  is  purely 
 accidental ;  the  explanation  being  that  they  never  had  occasion 
 to  mention  the  other  meals  of  the  feast.  In  our  passage  the 
 first  meal  cannot  be  referred  to.  We  find  ourselves,  after  xiii. 
 1,  in  the  domain  of  the  ioprt)  rov  Trda'^a,  the  Feast  of  the 
 Passover  generally,  which  began  with  the  eating  of  the  paschal 
 lamb.  The  night  was  past  which  followed  the  evening  on 
 which  the  whole  nation  were  under  obligation  to  eat  the  feast. 
 We  are  thus  introduced  by  the  Evangelist  into  the  general 
 feast  of  unleavened  bread  in  the  narrower  sense.  The  most 
 obvious  meal  which  presents  itself  to  our  consideration  here  is, 
 as  we  have  clearly  seen,  that  pre-eminent  mid-day  meal  so 
 
 ^  Comp.  Annot.  uber.  in  Hagiog.  Ad  holocausta  nimirum  et  sacrificia 
 salutaria,  isto  Pasclialis  festo  offereuda,  ut  simul  habereut  homines,  unde 
 copiosius  convivarentur.  Berth eau :  "  Many  thankofferings  were  presented, 
 the  flesh  of  which  was  consumed  by  the  offerers  and  those  who  were  invited 
 to  partake." 
 
 ^  Chagigali,  c.  1,  m.  6.     Rahe,  ii.  287. 
 
 ^  Comp.  Lightfoot,  0pp.  i.  p.  741.  The  Lexicon  Arnch  says  under  jn  : 
 Edebant  et  bibebant  et  Jaetabantur  et  sacrificium  chagigae  offerebant,  ad 
 quod  adducendum  tenebantur  die  decimo  quinto. 
 
CHAP.  XVIII.  28.         •  367 
 
 joyfully  partaken  of  on  the  15tli.  That  the  remark  of  Bleek — 
 that  the  writer  had,  in  what  precedes,  given  no  hint  that  the 
 time  of  the  legitimate  slaying  and  eating  of  the  paschal  lambs 
 was  over — is  altogether  incorrect,  is  plain  from  the  investigations 
 entered  into  on  ch.  xiii.  1. 
 
 That  the  phrase,  "  that  they  might  eat  the  Passover,"  may 
 refer  to  the  eating  of  the  Passover  generally,  in  all  its  compre- 
 hensiveness, demands  no  proof,  being  self-understood.  It  must 
 be  admitted  that  the  word  Passover  signifies  not  merely  the 
 opening  feast  of  the  14th,  but  the  whole  seven  days'  feast ; 
 there  is  no  ground  for  the  assertion  that  the  eating  of  the 
 Passover  can  refer  only  to  the  meal  of  the  14th  :  it  cannot  be 
 denied  that  the  following  days  also,  and  especially  the  15th, 
 had  their  eating  essentially  connected  with  the  nature  and  pur- 
 pose of  the  feast.  Nevertheless,  while  the  admissibility  of  this 
 phraseology  is  self-evident,  we  ought  to  expect  that  it  would  be 
 found  elsewhere.    And  this  expectation  is  abundantly  confirmed. 
 
 In  the  law  itself  we  are  furnished  with  a  fundamental 
 passage,  all  the  more  important  because  it  must  have  contri- 
 buted to  mould  the  current  phraseology.  AVe  read  in  Deut. 
 xvi.  2,  3,  "  Thou  shalt  therefore  sacrifice  unto  the  Lord  thy 
 God,  of  the  flock  and  the  herd,  in  the  place  which  the  Lord 
 shall  choose  to  place  His  name  there.  Thou  shalt  eat  no 
 leavened  bread  with  it  (therein,  vbv)  :  seven  days  shalt  thou  eat 
 unleavened  bread  therewith,  even  the  bread  of  affliction."  Here 
 we  have,  in  reference  to  the  sacrifice  which  ran  throush  the 
 seven  days,  not  merely  the  phrase  sacrifice  the  Passover,  but 
 also  that  of  eating  the  Passover :  for  when  it  is  said,  "  Thou 
 shalt  eat  no  leavened  bread  thereiuitJi,"  this  means,  "  When  thou 
 eatest  the  Passover,  thou  shalt  not  eat  with  it  leavened  bread." 
 Keil :  "  As  vhv  can  only  be  referred  back  to  HDD,  it  is  hereby 
 plainly  declared  that  the  sacrificing  and  eating  of  the  Passover 
 should  last  seven  days."  We  must  not  explain  ver.  2,  with 
 Liicke  and  Meyer,  "  Thou  shalt  sacrifice  the  lamb  of  the 
 Passover  to  the  Lord,  and  (besides  that)  of  the  flocks  and  the 
 herds."  For,  apart  from  the  fact  that  nna  must  necessarily 
 have  had  the  article ;  that,  as  the  Passover,  in  the  narrower 
 sense,  certainly  consisted  of  the  flock,  Passover  and  flock  could 
 not  have  been  thus  coupled  together ;  and,  finally,  that  if  this 
 view  were  permissible,  at  least  there  would  have  been  a  copula ; 
 
368  .      CHAP.  XVIII.  XIX. 
 
 — apart  from  all  this,  the  explanation  we  refer  to  is  refuted  by 
 the  suffix  in  ver.  3,  which  points  back  to  riDS.  This  shows  that 
 sheep  and  goats  could  mean  only  the  material  of  the  Passover. 
 If  Passover,  sheep,  and  goats  were  co-ordinate  simply,  there 
 would  have  been  a  plural  suffix.  Therefore  it  remains  certain, 
 that  in  ver.  2  the  Passover  is  spoken  of  in  its  most  compre- 
 hensive sense,  and  in  ver.  3  the  eating  of  it,  which  was  to  last 
 seven  days. 
 
 .  Another  important  passage  in  the  Old  Testament  is  2  Chron. 
 XXX.  22  :  "  And  they  did  eat  throughout  the  feast  (lyiDH  nx) 
 seven  days,  offering  peace-offerings,  and  making  confession  to 
 the  Lord  God  of  their  fathers."  Here  we  have  the  identical 
 language  of  our  passage,  only  that  instead  of  the  Passover  it  is 
 the  feast  they  eat,  according  to  ver.  21  the  feast  of  unleavened 
 bread  :  a  difference  which  is  of  no  moment,  since  it  is  admitted 
 by  all  that  the  whole  feast  was  also  called  the  Passover.  How. 
 much  this  passage  troubled  Bleek,  we  may  gather  from  his 
 attempt  to  alter  the  reading. 
 
 These  proofs  are  so  abundantly  sufficient,  that  we  are  not 
 disposed  to  cite  the  parallels  out  of  the  Talmud  which  the  older 
 expositors  quote.^  The  very  name  Chagigali  shows  that  the 
 peace-offerings  were  counted  among  the  Jews  as  part  of  the 
 paschal  eating. 
 
 Movers,  in  his  treatise  on  the  last  Passover  and  the  day  of 
 Christ's  death,  alleges,  in  opposition  to  this  reference  to  the 
 mid-day  meal  of  the  15th  Nisan,  that,  according  to  the  Talmud 
 (Tr.  Sanhedrim,  fol.  63),  none  of  the  parties  to  a  sentence  of 
 death  passed  by  the  Sanhedrim  might  eat  anything  on  the  day  ; 
 so  that  the  members  of  the  council  who  had  condemned  Jesus  to 
 death  could  not,  if  this  had  been  the  15th  Nisan,  have  eaten 
 even  the  sacrificial  offerings  of  the  Chagigah.  But  Friedlieb 
 {Archceol.  der  LeidensgescJiichte)  asserts  that  there  is  no  proof 
 that  this  late  tradition  of  the  synagogue  had  continued  to 
 influence  the  practice  of  the  Sanhedrim  in  Jerusalem.  We  are 
 in  the  habit  of  doino;  too  much  honour  to  these  outgrowths  of 
 Jewish  fantasy,  which  were  so  abundant  while  the  Temple  still 
 stood.  It  is  with  this  imaginary  custom,  as  with  the  supposed 
 custom   which    forbade    the   keeping   of   cocks   in  Jerusalem. 
 
 ^  Comp.  e.r/.  Otto,  Lex.  Rabbin,  v.  511;  Bynssus,  de  morte  CLristi ; 
 Reland,  Antiq.  Sac.  p.  271. 
 
CHAP.  XVIII.  28.  369 
 
 Granted  that  such  a  custom  existed,  Jewish  sophistry  would 
 find  it  easy  to  remove,  in  this  case,  the  burden  from  itself. 
 There  was  no  capital  sentence  on  this  occasion  ;  that  proceeded 
 only  from  Pilate.  "  It  is  not  lawful  for  us  to  put  any  man  to 
 death,"  was  the  confession  of  the  Jews  themselves  in  ver.  31. 
 
 On  the  other  hand,  there  is  a  reason  which  forbids  us, 
 apart  from  the  relations  of  time,  which  do  not  agree  with  the 
 reference  to  the  paschal  lamb,  to  think  of  the  feast  which 
 commenced  the  Passover,  Lightfoot  (on  John  xviii.  28)  and 
 Bynseus  {de  morte  Christi)  point  to  the  fact,  that  the  entering 
 a  Gentile  house  belonged  to  that  order  of  defilement  which 
 lasted  only  until  the  end  of  the  day,  until  sundown.  Now 
 the  first  paschal  meal  fell  after  sunset ;  it  did  not  begin,  as 
 Liicke  supposes,  "between  the  two  evenings  of  14th  Kisan;" 
 that  was  the  period  for  the  slaying  of  the  paschal  lambs  :  it 
 began  rather  not  until  evening,  after  darkness  had  fully  set  in 
 (comp.  on  ch.  xiii.  1)  ;  and  therefore  the  entering  of  a  Gentile 
 house  had  no  influence  on  this.  It  follows  that  we  can  only 
 think  of  a  feast  which  was  held  in  the  course  of  the  same  day ; 
 of  the  feast,  namely,  which  was  the  joyful  mid-day  meal  of 
 15th  Nisan. 
 
 This  argument  is  an  absolvite  demonstration.  All  defile- 
 ments that  arose  from  contact  with  unclean  persons  lasted, 
 according  to  the  law,  only  through  the  day  on  which  they  arose, 
 and  ended  with  the  sundown,  when  the  defiled  persons  washed 
 themselves  :  comp.  Num.  xix.  22  :  "  And  whatsoever  the  un- 
 clean person  toucheth  shall  be  unclean,  and  the  soul  that 
 toucheth  it  shall  be  unclean  till  evening."  That  the  defilement 
 which  resulted  from  enterino;  a  Gentile  house  belono;ed  to  this 
 class,  is  obvious  enough.  Further,  the  law  says  nothing  about 
 defilement  contracted  through  entering  a  Gentile  house,  or 
 intercourse  with  Gentiles.  This  was  a  later  Jewish  ordinance, 
 which,  however,  as  always,  endeavoured  to  prop  itself  on  a  defi- 
 nite law.  What  this  law  was,  Ave  learn  from  ^Maimonidcs  (in 
 Bynseus  and  Reland).  The  ground  of  general  defilement  was, 
 that  the  specific  cause  could  not  be  determined.  "  Our  customs," 
 says  Maimonides,  "  have  settled  that  all  Gentiles,  whether  men 
 or  women,  are  like  those  who  are  always  affected  with  the  flux, 
 whether  the  fact  be  known  or  not,  when  viewed  in  the  light  of 
 purity  or  impurity."     Thus  the  Gentiles  were  regarded  as  in 
 
 VOL.  II.  2  A 
 
370  CHAP.  XVIII.  XIX. 
 
 the  same  class  with  those  who  were  affected  with  flux,  and  laid 
 under  the  same  law.  But  the  defilement  that  resulted  from 
 touching  such  a  person  lasted  only  till  evening :  comp.  Lev.  xv. 
 5  seq.,  19  seq.  So  was  it  with  all  similar  defilements.  Finally, 
 we  have  in  the  book  of  Judith  a  weighty  testimony  to  the  fact, 
 that  defilement  through  intercourse  with  Gentiles  had  no  in- 
 fluence upon  the  time  of  the  institution  of  the  Supper.  Accord- 
 ing to  ch.  xii.  7-9,  Judith  went  in  the  evening  from  the  Gentile 
 camp,  and  purified  herself  from  the  defilement  to  which  she  had 
 been  exposed  :  then  she  took  the  evening  meal.  After  adduc- 
 ing all  these  convincing  reasons,  we  scarcely  need  suggest  how 
 improbable  it  is  in  itself  that  defilement  through  commerce 
 with  Gentiles  should  have  lasted  more  than  one  day :  the  de- 
 filement of  one  day,  as  things  were,  was  felt  to  be  a  very  heavy 
 burden  ;  but  seven  days'  defilement  would  have  had  the  effect, 
 that  a  great  portion  of  the  people  would  never  have  been  un- 
 defiled. 
 
 Liicke  and  others  have  objected,  that  this  defilement  would 
 have  been  a  hindrance,  if  not  to  the  eating,  yet  to  the  killing 
 of  the  paschal  lamb.  But  St  John  does  not  say,  "  that  they 
 might  slay  the  Passover,"  but  "  that  they  might  eat  the  Pass- 
 over." The  not  slaying  and  the  not  eating  were  not  necessarily 
 connected,  since  the  slaying  might  be  done  by  a  representative ; 
 and  even  if  such  a  connection  had  existed,  it  was  much  more 
 obvious  to  mention  the  slaying,  which  was  a  condition  of  the 
 eating.  We  might,  not  content  with  parrying  the  thrust  of  our 
 opponents,  turn  their  weapons  against  themselves.  On  the 
 morning  of  14th  Nisan,  it  would  have  been  more  natural  that 
 the  Jews  should  avoid  defilement  because  it  would  hinder  the 
 slaying  the  lamb,  than  because  it  hindered  their  eating  it. 
 Bleek  {Beit.  S.  113)  says :  "  In  any  case,  the  entering  a  Gentile 
 house  effected  a  defilement,  which  for  its  removal  would  require 
 particular  ceremonies,  with  which,  as  may  easily  be  supposed, 
 the  Jews  would  have  been  very  loth  to  burden  themselves  on 
 14th  Nisan."  But  the  burden  of  "  particular  ceremonies"  con- 
 sisted in  one  simple  washing,  to  which  the  Jews  were  long 
 accustomed,  and  the  apparatus  for  which  was  everywhere  at 
 hand  :  comp.  ch.  ii.  6. 
 
 Steffert  (iiher  den  Ursprungdes  Ev.  Matthaus,  S.  137)  adopts 
 another  expedient.    He  oljserves,  that  the  paschal  meal,  although 
 
CHAP.  XVIII.  29.  371 
 
 after  sundown,  and  therefore  at  the  end  of  the  day,  yet  be- 
 longed, properly  speaking,  to  the  14tli  Nisan.  Thus  he  thinks, 
 that  in  this  exceptional  case  the  defilement  also  must  have  gone 
 on  with  it  into  the  evening.  But  tlie  conclusion  is  an  unsound 
 one.  The  Jews  laid  down  the  general  rule,  that  in  reference  to 
 holy  feasts  and  evening  prayer  the  evening  was  reckoned  with 
 the  preceding  day.^  This  exception  was  based  upon  the  nature 
 of  the  case.  The  points  concerned  are  precisely  those  which 
 make  the  Jewish  reckoning  of  time  seem  unnatural.  All  the 
 preparations  and  concomitants  of  the  Last  Supper  belong  to 
 the  passing  day :  thus  the  meal  itself,  although  really  belonging 
 to  the  domain  of  a  new  day,  must  be  reckoned  in  the  current 
 day.  No  law  could  transform  the  evening  supper  into  a  moi'ning 
 meal.  So  also  with  evening  prayer,  the  guilt  for  which  pardon 
 was  sought,  the  benefits  for  which  thanksgivings  were  offered, 
 belonged  to  the  day  that  w^as  gone.  These  were  the  things  that, 
 according  to  Jewish  statements,  occasioned  the  exception  to  the 
 rule,  that  a  new  day  began  with  sundown.  That  defilement  under 
 any  circumstances  stretched  into  the  evening,  cannot  be  estab- 
 lished by  the  slightest  historical  proof  ;^  nor  can  it  be  shown 
 how  this  could  ever  have  been  made  an  exception  to  the  rule. 
 
 Ver.  29.  "  Pilate  then  went  out  unto  them,  and  said.  What 
 accusation  bring  ye  against  this  man?" — Pilate  is  supposed  to 
 be  a  personage  well  known,  from  the  earlier  Evangelists.  The 
 first  among  them  describes  him,  when  he  is  first  introduced,  in 
 eh.  xxvii.  2,  as  the  Eoman  governor,  like  Josephus,  Antiq.  xviii. 
 3,  1,  "  Pilate,  the  govei'nor  of  Judea,"  and  adds  his  pranomen 
 Pontius.  He  was  the  fifth  in  the  list  of  the  Roman  procurators 
 of  Judea.  Concerning  the  character  of  Pilate,  Philo  gives  some 
 remarkable  information  in  the  Legatio  ad  Caiian  (0pp.  p.  1033). 
 According  to  him,  he  was  a  proud  and  obstinate  man  :  ^y  rrjv 
 (pvcTiv  aKafi7r/]<i  koX  fiera  rod  avOdhov^  dfMel\iKTo<;.  The  threat 
 of  the  Jews  to  appeal  to  Ca3sar  in  a  certain  matter  provoked 
 
 '  Comp.  Reland,  S.  263  ;  and  "Wahner,  Antiq.  Heb.  ii.  p.  18. 
 
 ^  It  may,  however,  be  shown,  that  the  defilement  of  the  preceding  day 
 did  not  hinder  partaking  of  the  paschal  feast :  comp.  e.g.  the  passage  from 
 Pesachim  in  Lightfoot  (Mar.  xiv.  22  :  Lugeus  lavat  se  et  comedit  Pascha 
 suum  vespere)  ;  but  especially  Pesachim,  c.  81,  the  substance  of  which  is 
 thus  stated :  "  All  unclean  persons,  those  excepted  who  were  defiled  by 
 the  dead,  might  eat  the  Passover  on  the  day  on  which  they  clean&ed  them- 
 selves by  the  bath." 
 
372  CHAP,  xviii.  XIX. 
 
 lilm  to  the  uttermost ;  for  he  feared  that  this  opportunity 
 would  be  taken  to  bring  to  light  all  the  other  offences  of  his 
 government :  the  bribes  he  had  taken,  the  misappropriations  he 
 had  permitted,  the  deatlis  he  had  inflicted  without  law  or  justice, 
 and  the  intolerable  severity  he  had  in  many  cases  manifested. 
 His  unquiet  conscience  came  into  sharp  conflict  with  his  proud 
 and  wrathful  nature,  which  made  submission  exceedingly  hard. 
 We  have  here  the  key  to  Pilate's  conduct  in  the  matter  of  Jesus. 
 The  two  accounts  are  mutually  supplementary.  Pilate  had  a 
 great  desire  to  decide  righteously  concerning  Jesus,  since  in  this 
 case  his  great  passions,  covetousness  and  ambition,  were  not 
 played  upon.  The  person  of  Christ  made  upon  him  a  deep 
 impression.  His  better  nature  came  out,  when  he  had  standing 
 before  him  personal  innocence  and  righteousness.  But  his 
 energy  was  subdued  by  the  consciousness  of  his  earlier  crimes, 
 which  did  not  permit  him  entirely  to  break  with  the  Jews. 
 While  in  the  end  he  was  obliged  to  give  way,  the  energy  of  his 
 character  went  so  far  as  the  circumstances  would  allow,  as  we 
 see  in  the  obstinacy  with  which  he  persisted  in  his  attempts 
 to  save  Jesus,  and  at  last  in  the  superscription  on  the  cross. 
 Pilate  goes  out  to  the  rulers  of  the  Jews.  He  had  not  been 
 long  in  his  office  before  he  had  occasion  to  learn  that  nothing 
 was  to  be  done  with  the  Jews,  unless  concessions  were  made  to 
 their  religious  views.  He  had  been  obliged  to  yield  to  their 
 petition,  rrjpelv  avToh  ra  iraTpla  (comp.  Josephus,  de  Bell.  Jud. 
 ii.  9,  2,  where  Titus  says  to  the  Jews,  "  We  have  kept  your 
 country's  laws"),  after  he  had  received  evidence  of  the  ciKparov 
 tt}?  SetcrcBai,fjbov[a<i  avroiv  (Joseph.  Bell.  Jud.  ii.  9,  2  ;  Antiq. 
 xviii.  3,  1). — The  address  which  Pilate  made  to  the  Jews  gave 
 them  to  understand  at  once  that  they  would  not  attain  their 
 greatly  desired  object,  to  make  him  confirm  without  further  ado 
 their  sentence  of  death.  An  illustration  of  this  we  have  in 
 Acts  XXV.  16,  where  Festus  says  to  the  Jews,  who  long  for 
 judgment  upon  Paul :  "  It  is  not  tlie  manner  of  the  Eomans 
 to  deliver  any  man  to  die,  before  that  he  which  is  accused  have 
 the  accusers  face  to  face,  and  have  licence  to  answer  for  himself 
 concerning  the  crime  laid  against  him."  Pilate  was  previously 
 acquainted  with  the  cause  of  Jesus.  He  knew,  according  to 
 Matt,  xxvii.  18,  that  the  rulers  of  the  Jews  had  delivered  Him 
 out  of  envy ;  that  they  who  constituted  themselves  His  judges 
 
CHAP.  XVIII.  30-32.  373 
 
 Avere  at  the  same  time  a  party ;  and  that  the  question  was  that 
 of  a  judicial  murder.  The  ■warnings  of  his  wife,  who  doubtless 
 dreamed  about  what  had  occupied  her  thoughts  much  before 
 she  slept,  shows  that,  and  in  what  sense,  the  cause  of  Jesus  had 
 been  talked  about  in  Pilate's  circle. 
 
 Ver.  30.  "  They  answered  and  said  unto  him.  If  he  were 
 not  a  malefactor,  we  would  not  have  delivered  him  up  unto 
 thee." — The  Jews  demand  of  Pilate  that  he  should  make  of  his 
 judicial  dignity  a  merely  formal  use,  relying  on  their  integrity, 
 and  m.indful  of  the  fact,  that  a  short  time  before  the  power  of 
 life  and  death  was  still  in  their  hands.  On  A;a«o7roto9  Beza 
 says :  "  Guilty,  not  of  a  vulgar  crime ;  but  what  kind  of  crime, 
 that  is,  blasphemy,  for  which  they  condemned  Him,  they  do 
 not  say."  Together  with  blasphemy,  they  have  in  their  eye 
 the  assumption  of  royal  dignity :  comp.  Luke  xxiii.  2.  On 
 TrapeBcoKajjiev,  comp.  Matt,  xxvii.  2. 
 
 Vers.  31,  32.  "  Then  said  Pilate  unto  them.  Take  ye  him, 
 and  judge  him  according  to  your  law.  The  Jews  therefore 
 said  unto  him.  It  is  not  lawful  for  us  to  put  any  man  to  death : 
 that  the  saying  of  Jesus  might  be  fulfilled,  which  He  spake, 
 signifying  what  death  He  should  die." — Pilate  refers  them  to 
 the  Roman  law,  the  decision  of  which  was,  JVe  quis  indictd  causa 
 condeinnetur :  no  man  could  be  condemned  but  on  the  ground 
 of  a  formal  judicial  process.  If  the  Jews  would  not  have  that, 
 they  must  judge  Him  according  to  their  own  law.  The  judging 
 includes  the  execution.  Since  the  matter  was  one  of  life  and 
 death,  and  criminal  cases  were  withdrawn  from  Jewish  authority, 
 the  answer  of  Pilate  was  in  plain  fact  a  rejection  of  the  wishes 
 of  the  Jewish  rulers.  That  we  must  so  regard  it,  is  shown  by 
 a  comparison  with  ch.  xix.  6,  where  Pilate  says  to  the  Jews, 
 "  Take  him,  and  crucify  him."  That  this  must  be  understood 
 with  the  qualification,  "  if  ye  can  and  dare,"  is  plain  from  the 
 fact,  that  the  punishment  of  the  cross  was  not  a  Jewish  but 
 a  Roman  punishment.  But  Pilate  used  the  ambiguous  word 
 Kpivetv,  judge.  It  is  probable  he  did  this  designedly.  Probably 
 his  intention  was  to  involve  the  Jews  in  a  snare.  If  they  took 
 this  seeming  permission,  he  had  them  in  his  power.  They  lost 
 then  the  advantage  which  they  had  over  him.  How  dangerous, 
 under  certain  circumstances,  the  independent  execution  of  a 
 capital-  sentence  might  be,  is  seen  in  the  narrative  given  by 
 
374  CHAP.  XVIII.  XIX. 
 
 Josephus  (Antiq.  xx.  9,  1).  The  younger  Ananus,  the  son  of 
 Annas,  took  advantage,  as  high  priest,  of  a  favourable  oppor- 
 tunity, when  the  governor  Festus  was  dead,  and  Albinus  his 
 successor  was  not  yet  come,  to  put  to  death  James  and  some 
 others.  But  he  was  charged  with  this  before  Albinus,  who 
 threatened  him,  in  an  angry  letter,  with  punishment.  The 
 result  of  it  was,  that  he  was  deposed  by  King  Agrippa.  That 
 the  Jews,  notwithstanding  the  passionate  fury  with  which  they 
 were  wont  to  be  led  away, — as,  for  instance,  in  the  case  of 
 Stephen's  martyrdom.  Acts  vii.  57, — made  no  use  of  Pilate's 
 seeming  permission,  but  rather  contented  themselves  with  pro- 
 secuting the  matter  further  before  the  Roman  tribunal,  is 
 regarded  by  the  Evangelist  as  the  work  of  God's  influence,  who 
 thus  brought  about  the  accomplishment  of  that  which  Jesus 
 had  earlier  spoken  touching  the  manner  and  circumstances  of 
 His  own  death.  The  punishment  of  the  cross  was  inseparably 
 connected  with  the  Roman  condemnation,  as  stoning  was  with 
 that  of  the  Jews.  To  the  manner  of  His  death,  Jesus  had 
 referred  in  ch.  iii.  14,  "  The  Son  of  man  must  be  lifted  iq? ;"  ch. 
 viii.  28,  xii.  32.  That  the  Evangelist  had  this  last  passage  in 
 view,  "  I,  if  I  be  lifted  up  from  the  earth,  will  draw  all  men 
 unto  Me,"  is  plain  when  we  reflect  that  he  had  there  added  the 
 observation,  "  This  He  said,  signifying  what  death  He  should 
 die."  The  mere  hints  of  the  passages  in  St  John  need,  how- 
 ever, the  commentary  which  is  found  in  the  sayings  of  Christ, 
 found  only  in  the  three  Evangelists  :  Matt.  x.  38,  xvi.  24,  xx. 
 19  ;  Mark  viii.  34,  x.  21 ;  Luke  ix.  23,  xiv.  27.  On  the  ground 
 of  these  more  precise  utterances,  St  John  explains  that  the  less 
 distinct  sayings  recorded  by  himself  refer  to  the  crucifixion. 
 
 God  so  ordered  all,  that  the  word  of  Christ  as  to  the  man- 
 ner of  His  death  was  fulfilled.  But  this  word  of  Christ  rested 
 upon  an  actual  necessity.  The  Gentiles  must  take  part  in  the 
 death  of  the  Redeemer,  in  order  that  that  death  might  be  exhi- 
 bited as  the  collective  guilt  of  the  human  race,  even  as  it  was 
 the  pre-intimation  of  what  one  day  the  degenerate  Church  of 
 the  Gentiles  would  independently  strive  to  do  against  Christ, 
 and  has  already  begun  to  do.  The  death  of  the  cross  has  a 
 profoundly  edifying  significance.  It  gave  occasion  to  reveal 
 overcoming  power  in  its  most  effectual  manifestation.  Christ 
 as  the  atoning  sacrifice  is  therein  most  luminously  set  forth, 
 
CHAP.  XVIII.  33.  375 
 
 Gal.  iii.  1.  How  the  bearing  of  the  cross  was  typical  for  the 
 self-denial  of  believers,  Jesus  Himself  had  often  taught. 
 
 Ver.  33.  "  Then  Pilate  entered  into  the  judgment-hall 
 again,  and  called  Jesus,  and  said  unto  Him,  Art  thou  the 
 King  of  the  Jews  ?" — Pilate  had  set  the  alternative  before  the 
 Jews,  either  to  bring  a  formal  accusation  against  Jesus,  or  to 
 judge  Him  according  to  their  own  law.  They  declined  the 
 latter ;  and  we  may  suppose  they  adopted  the  former.  St  John, 
 who  brings  the  matter  down  to  the  point  when  the  accusation 
 must  come  forward,  but  does  not  record  it,  points  back  as  cer- 
 tainly as  if  he  said  so  to  his  predecessors.  We  find  what  is  here 
 presupposed  in  Luke  xxiii.  2,  the  words  of  which  are  strictly 
 applicable  here  :  "  They  began  to  accuse  Him,  saying.  We 
 found  this  fellow  forbidding  to  give  tribute  to  Cesar,  saying 
 that  he  himself  is  Christ  a  king."  With  these  last  words 
 are  connected  the  recurring  question  of  Pilate  to  Jesus,  "  Art 
 thou  the  King  of  the  Jews  ?"  St  Luke  records  only  two  words 
 as  to  what  followed  the  question  :  Jesus  answered,  "  Thou  say- 
 est  it."     St  John  gives  the  transaction  fully. 
 
 Pilate  repairs  with  Jesus  into  the  prsetorium,  to  avoid  being 
 disturbed  in  the  investigation  by  the  uproar  .of  the  Jews,  the 
 66pv^o'i  peculiar  to  them.  Matt,  xxvii.  24  ;  Acts  xxi.  34  ("  And 
 when  he  could  not  know  the  certainty  for  the  tumult,  66pv^ov, 
 he  commanded  him  to  be  carried  into  the  castle").  The  e'^co- 
 v7]a-€  suggests  that  Jesus  had  hitherto  stood  outside  the  praeto- 
 rium,  otherwise  Pilate  would  have  needed  only  to  go  in  to  Him. 
 For  an  illustration  of  the  "  called,"  we  may  refer  to  the  "  com- 
 manded him  to  be  carried  into  the  castle  "  in  the  passage  just 
 quoted.  That  the  calling  might  take  place  through  the  instru- 
 mentality of  others,  is  evident  from  ch.  xi.  28.  It  appears  that 
 St  John,  who  did  not  depart  from  Jesus,  followed  Him  into  the 
 palace :  there  was  no  prohibition  which  hindered  the  Jews  from 
 entering  ;  they  had  refused  to  enter  only  for  a  reason  that  had 
 no  force  to  him.  The  exact  report  which  St  John  gives  of 
 the  proceedings  within  the  prgetorium,  leads  to  the  conclusion 
 that  he  was  present  at  these  proceedings.  The  publicity  of  all 
 Roman  legal  procedures  allowed  no  man  to  be  excluded  who 
 was  disposed  to  witness  these  proceedings. 
 
 As  the  Jews  were  under  the  necessity  of  bringing  forvrard 
 a  formal  charge,  they  could  not  limit  themselves  to  the  offence 
 
376  CHAP.  XVIII.  XIX. 
 
 which  liacl  led  to  His  condemnation  in  the  council — that  of 
 assuming  to  be  the  Son  of  God ;  this  had  no  force  whatever  in 
 a  Roman  forum.  It  was  necessary  that  they  should  have  a 
 political  offence  to  urge  ;  and  the  fact  that  Jesus  had  arrogated 
 royal  dignity,  gave  them  some  assistance  in  this  matter.  Lampe 
 is  wrong  in  asserting  that  Jesus  only  in  consequence  of  the 
 Jewish  charfje  vindicated  to  Himself  a  kino;dom.  The  entrance 
 of  Jesus  into  Jerusalem  had  for  its  end  the  enforcement  of  His 
 kingly  authority,  and  He  exhibits  Himself  as  a  King  in  Matt. 
 XX.  20,  23,  XXV.  34,  40.  The  word  of  the  malefactor,  "  Lord, 
 remember  me  when  Thou  comest  in  Thy  kingdom,"  shows  that 
 Jesus  had  earlier  represented  Himself  as  a  King.  The  royal 
 prerogative  was  inseparable  from  the  Messianic.  But  the  Jews 
 degraded  the  kingly  authority  of  Jesus  into  a  lower  sphere. 
 They  chai'ged  Him  with  political  sedition,  and  thus,  like  Poti- 
 phar's  wife,  laid  upon  Him  their  own  sins.  But  Pilate  knew 
 with  whom  he  had  to  do,  and  gave  our  Lord  opportunity  to 
 defend  Himself  against  the  charge. — The  TJiou  beginning  the 
 sentence  certainly  intimates  a  contrast  between  the  appearance 
 of  Jesus  and  the  idea  of  kingly  dignity  ;  but  Lampe  observes, 
 in  opposition  to  those  who  think  that  Pilate  spoke  in  a  tone  of 
 mochery,  that  Pilate  was  from  the  beginning  seized  by  a  holy 
 awe, of  Jesus,  which  effectually  restrained  every  movement 
 of  scorn,  and  impelled  him  fundamentally  to  investigate  the 
 Saviour's  cause,  and  brino-  His  innocence  to  lio;ht. 
 
 Ver.  34.  "  Jesus  answered  him,  Sayest  thou  this  thing  of 
 thyself,  or  did  others  tell  it  thee  of  Me?" — Jesus  was  present 
 throughout  the  whole  of  tliis  transaction  with  the  Jews.  The 
 Roman  law  required  this,  and  it  is  not  only  affirmed  by  the  first 
 Evangelists,  Matt,  xxvii.  12,  Mark  xv,  4  seq.,  Luke  xxiii.  14 
 (evoiTnov  vfioov  avaKplvati),  but  attested  by  ver.  33  here,  accord- 
 ing to  which  Jesus  had  been  with  the  Jews  all  this  time  before 
 the  prastorium.  Our  Lord's  question,  therefore,  was  not  in- 
 tended to  give  him  explanation  of  anything  that  he  did  not 
 know,  but  rather  to  move  and  awaken  Pilate's  conscience.  It 
 was  designed  to  excite  within  him  distrust  of  the  Jews'  accusa- 
 tion. Had  Jesus  been  the  King  of  the  Jews  in  the  sense  in 
 which  the  accusation  had  so  termed  him,  Pilate  himself  must 
 have  found  it  out :  seditious  movements  and  insurrections  could 
 not  well  be  concealed.     But,  as  he  must  admit  that  nothing  of 
 
CHAP.  XVIII.  35,  36.  377 
 
 that  sort  had  come  to  his  knowledge,  he,  who  knew  the  com- 
 plainants well,  would  attach  very  little  importance  to  their 
 assertion,  but  investigate  the  matter  independently  of  them, 
 and  especially  give  attentive  heed  to  the  explanation  of  Jesus 
 Himself.^ 
 
 Ver.  35.  "Pilate  answered.  Am  I  a  Jew?  "Thine  own 
 nation,  and  the  chief  priests,  have  delivered  thee  unto  me : 
 what  hast  thou  done?" — Pilate  confesses  that  he  has  no  per- 
 sonal knowledge  of  Jesus,  that  the  matter  hitherto  had  moved 
 altogether  in  a  Jewish  sphere  ;  and  that  there  was  nothing 
 a£i;ainst  Jesus  but  the  allegation  of  the  Jews.  Since  he  is  far 
 removed  from  attaching  final  and  decisive  importance  to  the 
 Jewish  charge,  he  asked  the  Lord  Himself  what  He  had  done. 
 Thus  the  answer  of  our  Lord  had  gained  its  end. 
 
 Ver.  36.  "  Jesus  answered.  My  kingdom  is  not  of  this 
 world.  If  My  kingdom  were  of  this  world,  then  v/ould  My 
 servants  fight,  that  I  should  not  be  delivered  to  the  Jews  :  but 
 now  is  My  kingdom  not  from  hence." — Jesus  is  not  speaking 
 of  the  nature  of  His  kingdom,  but  simply  and  alone  of  its  origin. 
 Augustin  :  He  does  not  say,  But  now  is  not  My  kingdom  here, 
 but  hence.  Lampe  :  To  be  erected  indeed  in  the  world,  but 
 not  of  the  world.  To  "  of  this  world"  and  "  hence"  is  opposed 
 "  of  heaven  :"  comp.  ch.  viii.  23  and  Jas.  iv.  1,  where  "  hence" 
 forms  a  contrast  to  "  from  above,"  ch.  iii.  17  ;  comp.  "  earthly," 
 677176409,  ch.  iii.  15.  Bengel:  "Whence  it  is,  that  is  from  heaven, 
 He  does  not  plainly  say  ;  but  He  hints  it  when  He  says  that  He 
 had  come  into  the  world."  The  best  comment  on  the  words  of 
 Christ  is  furnished  by  the  original  passages  of  Daniel,  on  which 
 it  rests.  The  four  universal  kingdoms  of  Daniel  are  followed 
 by  a.  fifth  of  absolutely  heavenly  origin,  the  Messianic  kingdom, 
 which,  on  account  of  that  origin,  was  all-comprehensive  and 
 eternal.  It  is  all  the  more  obvious  that  we  must  have  recourse 
 to  that  passage,  inasmuch  as  Jesus  ever  has  it  in  His  eyes 
 when  speaking  of  the  kingdom  of   God  or  the  kingdom  of 
 
 ^  Grotius  liits  the  right  point,  missed  by  many  others,  such  as  Lucke 
 and  De  Wette :  "  Thou  hast  been  so  long  ruler,  and  so  careful  a  defender 
 of  the  Roman  majesty,  and  hast  thou  ever  heard  anything  that  would  im- 
 peach Me  of  a  design  to  usurp  authority  against  Eome  ?  If  thou  hast  never 
 known  anything  of  thyself,  but  others  have  suggested  it,  beware  lest  thou 
 be  deceived  by  an  ambiguous  word." 
 
378  CHAP,  xviii.  XIX. 
 
 heaven.  AVe  read  in  Dan.  ii.  34,  35  :  "  Thou  sawest  till  that 
 a  stone  was  cut  out  without  hands,  which  smote  the  image  upon 
 his  feet  that  were  of  iron  and  clay,  and  brake  them  to  pieces. 
 Then  was  the  iron,  the  clay,  the  brass,  the  silver,  and  the  gold, 
 broken  to  pieces  together ;  .  .  .  and  the  stone  that  smote  the 
 image  became  a  great  mountain,  and  filled  the  whole  earth." 
 Again,  ver.  44  :  "  And  in  the  days  of  these  kings  shall  the  God 
 of  heaven  set  up  a  kingdom,  which  shall  never  be  destroyed  : 
 and  the  kingdom  shall  not  be  left  to  other  people,  but  it  shall 
 break  in  pieces  and  consume  all" these  kingdoms,  and  it  shall 
 stand  for  ever."  Finally,  ch.  vii.  13,  14 :  "I  saw  in  the  night- 
 visions,  and,  behold,  one  like  the  Son  of  man  came  with  the 
 clouds  of  heaven,  and  came  to  the  Ancient  of  days,  and  they 
 brought  Him  near  before  Him.  And  there  was  given  Him  (by 
 the  Ancient  of  days)  dominion,  and  glory,  and  a  kingdom,  that 
 all  people,  nations,  and  languages,  should  serve  Him  :  His 
 dominion  is  an  everlasting  dominion,  which  shall  not  pass  away, 
 and  His  kingdom  that  which  shall  not  be  destroyed."  To  the 
 last  quoted  prophecy  our  Lord  refers  also  in  Matt,  xxviii.  18, 
 "  All.  power  is  given  unto  Me."  There  is  perhaps  no  passage 
 of  the  Old  Testament  to  which  the  Lord  so  frequently  alludes 
 as  this  (comp.  my  Christology,  vol.  iii.). — The  word  of  Jesus, 
 "  My  kingdom  is  not  of  this  world,"  has  often  been  perverted 
 in  the  interests  of  a  theory  which  would  sunder  the  state  from 
 the  dominion  of  Christ.  Rightly  understood,  the  passage  sub- 
 serves the  very  opposite  purpose.  The  kingdom  that  sprang 
 directly  from  heaven  must  have  absolute  authority  over  all  the 
 earth,  and  it  will  not  submit  to  be  put  into  obscurity  or  into  a 
 corner.  The  necessary  consequence  of  the  saying,  "not  of  this 
 world,  not  from  here,"  is  what  we  find  written  in  Rev.  xi.  15  : 
 "  The  kingdoms  of  the  world  are  become  the  kingdoms  of  our 
 Lord,  and  of  His  Anointed  ;  and  He  shall  reign  for  ever."  In 
 the  original  of  Daniel,  all  peoples  are  represented  as  serving 
 this  kingdom.  It  does  not  occupy,  by  the  side  of  this  world's 
 kingdom,  a  sphere  sundered  from  it,  and  not  occupied  by  it ; 
 but  it  breaks  that  power  down  under  itself.  The  fact  that  all 
 the  Evangelists  so  carefully  relate  the  Lord's  assumption  of 
 His  Kingship  before  human  authority,  is  explained  only  on  the 
 ground  that  He  is,  as  the  Apocalypse  styles  Him,  the  King 
 of  kings,  and  that  kings  and  states  do  not  exist  with  Him,  and 
 
CHAP.  XVIII.  37.  379 
 
 concurrently  with  His  kingdom,  but  are  absolutely  under  His 
 authority. 
 
 Christ  does  not  say  to  Pilate,  "  My  kingdom  has  nothing  to 
 do  with  yours;"  but  He  intimates  that  His  kingdom,  not  being 
 of  earthly  origin,  could  not  be  contended  for  or  against  with 
 earthly  resources.  Pilate  would  perfectly  understand  what  was 
 enough.  The  accusation  was  of  political  insurrection,  of  a 
 course  of  conduct  like  that  of  the  Egyptian,  Acts  xxi.  38  ; 
 Theudas,  Acts  v.  36  ;  and  Judas  the  Galilean,  ver.  37.  If 
 Jesus  kept  aloof  from  all  such  courses,  if  He  expected  the 
 foundation  of  His  kingdom  only  "  from  heaven,"  "  without 
 hands,"  then  He  was  either  a  harmless  enthusiast,  or  that  for 
 which  He  gave  Himself  out,  in  which  case  all  opposition  to 
 Him  would  be  blasphemous  and  vain  :  the  word  of  Gamaliel 
 would  hold  good,  "  But  if  it  be  of  God,  ye  cannot  overturn  it, 
 lest  haply  ye  be  found  fighting  against  God." — The  reference 
 to  Pilate's  question,  "Art  thou  the  King  of  the  Jews?"  ex- 
 hibits the  ^acrCkeia,  the  kingdom,  not  In  a  passive,  but  in  an 
 active  sense :  meaning  "  My  kingly  power,  My  dominion." 
 So  also  "kingdom"  is  used  in  Rev.  i.  6,  xi.  15,  xii.  10,  xvii.  18. 
 
 "  My  servants,"  not  the  angels.  Matt.  xxvi.  53,  for  these 
 belong  to  a  heavenly  region  ;  but  here  servants,  e'/c  rov  Koa/xov, 
 are  spoken  of:  they  are  rather  the  disciples  of  Christ,  who, 
 not  reckoning  the  abortive  act  of  Peter,  never  did  anything 
 of  this  kind ;  or  the  servants  whom  Christ  would  have  in 
 the  future  for  such  a  case.  The  latter  is  better,  as  in  the 
 Gospels  the  disciples  are  described  as  the  virrjpeTaL  of  Christ. 
 It  does  not  say,  "  They  would  have  fought,"  but  "  they  would 
 fight,"  Vulg.  decertarent ;  for  the  surrender  to  the  Jews  was 
 not  yet  complete :  it  was  then  only  perfect  when  Pilate  fulfilled 
 the  desires  of  the  Jews,  comp.  xlx.  16. 
 
 Ver.  37.  "  Pilate  therefore  said  unto  Pllm,  Art  thou  a  king 
 then  ?  Jesus  answered,  TIiou  sayest  that  I  am  a  king.  To 
 this  end  was  I  born,  and  for  this  cause  came  I  into  the  world, 
 that  I  should  bear  witness  unto  the  truth.  Every  one  that  Is  of 
 the  truth  heareth  My  voice."' — Jesus  had  declined  to  be  a  king 
 in  the  Jewish  sense;  it  was  not  His  amhition  to  be  a  king. 
 Yet  He  had  spoken  of  His  kingdom.  This  was  ground  enough 
 for  Pilate's  deeper  investigation,  although  he  was  convinced  that 
 there  was  nothing  politically  dangerous  in  Christ,  and  that  the 
 
380  CHAP.  XVIII.  XIX. 
 
 matter  Avas  more  that  of  the  man  than  of  the  judge.  Ovkovv,  so, 
 is  conclusive  with  regard  to  the  foregoing  words  :  Accordingly, 
 thou  art  then  a  king.  The  notion  of  an  "  ironical  by-meaning" 
 is  altogether  to  be  excluded.  In  all  Pilate's  intercourse  with 
 Jesus,  there  is  not  the  slightest  trace  of  mockery.  The  impression 
 of  Christ's  person  was  so  powerful,  that  such  feelings  could  not 
 but  be  suppressed. — Jesus  answered,  "  Thou  sayest  it,  that  I 
 am  a  king,"  according  to  My  own  declarations  :  so  let  it  be  ;  I 
 have  nothing  to  oppose  to  this,  but  avow  Myself  freely  and 
 publicly  a  king.  Tiiis  was  the  "  good  confession"  which  Jesus 
 witnessed  before  Pilate,  1  Tim.  vi.  13.  Luke  xxii.  70  is 
 similar  :  "Then  said  they  all,  Art  thou  then  the  Son  of  God? 
 He  said  unto  them,  Ye  say  that  I  am."  The  point  before 
 on,  is  to  be  rejected  in  both  cases.  For  the  avoidance  of  ambi- 
 guity a  "this"  would,  according  to  that  pointing,  have  been 
 necessary  after  "  ye  say,"  since  Xeytu  commonly  has  tchat  is  said 
 connected  with  it  by  ore.  Certainly  the  formula  cru  \eyeL<;  of 
 itself  affirms  perfectly  and  unambiguously  ;  but,  considering 
 the  high  importance  of  the  confession  of  Christ,  it  was  proper 
 that  the  object  of  the  avowal  should  not  be  derived  from  what 
 precedes,  but  that  it  should  be  expressly  stated :  Yea,  I  am  a 
 King. 
 
 According  to  the  current  exposition,  Jesus,  in  the  words, 
 "  Therefore  was  I  born,"  etc.,  defines  more  closely  the  nature 
 of  His  kingdom.  Bengel :  To  a  kingdom  of  this  world  is 
 opposed  the  kingdom  of  truth.  Liicke :  "  Assuredly  I  am  a 
 King,  but  My  kingdom  is  the  truth."  But  in  fact  there  is  not 
 the  slightest  reference  to  the  kingdom.^  The  words  refer  rather 
 to  the  prophetic  office  of  Christ.  Our  Lord,  after  having 
 avowed  His  royal  dignity,  turns  the  discourse  from  a  subject 
 which  Pilate  could  scarcely  apprehend,  to  another  aspect  of 
 His  nature  and  vocation  which  would  be  easier  of  apprehension 
 to  Pilate.  It  is  true  that  the  right  understanding  of  this  would 
 serve  materially  to  make  the  kingsliip  more  intelligible,  and  to 
 place  it  in  a  true  light.  He  who  describes  the  immediate  end 
 of  His  mission  to  be  the  annunciation  pf  the  truth,  would  not 
 be  a  king  in  the  ordinary  sense,  in  that  sense  in  which  the  Jcm^s 
 had  falsely  charged  Him  with  assuming  it ;  nor  could  He  con- 
 
 1  Lampe  :  He  does  not  state  the  scope  aud  design  of  His  kingdom,  but 
 only  of  His  advent  into  the  flesh. 
 
CHAP.  XVIII.  37.  381 
 
 descend  to  involve  Himself  with  mere  political  insurrectionary 
 movements.  The  transition  from  the  kingly  to  the  prophetic 
 office  of  Christ  was  all  the  more  obvious,  inasmuch  as  Isaiah, 
 ch.  Iv.  4,  described  the  Messiah  as  at  once  the  Witness  and  the 
 Leader  and  Lawgiver  of  the  nations  :  the  /xapTvp^aco  here 
 evidently  refers  to  the  ivitness  there.  So,  in  Rev.  i.  5,  Jesus 
 Christ  "  the  faithful  AYitness"  distinguished  from  Christ  "  the 
 Prince  of  the  kings  of  the  earth."  If  we  would  set  in  a  closer 
 connection  the  two  offices  of  testimony  and  ruling,  we  cannot 
 do  that  without  establishing  the  fact  that  the  testimony  paves 
 the  way  for  the  dominion.  But  in  the  present  colloquy,  that 
 would  have  required  to  be  more  clearly  intimated.  On  ixap- 
 TvpTjato,  comp.  iii.  32,  33.  The  words,  "for  this  end  was  I 
 born,"  of  themselves  point  beyond  the  common  sphere  of 
 humanity.  No  one  born  in  the  ordinary  way  of  mortals  could 
 ever  say  that  he  was  born  for  any  particular  destiny  or  voca- 
 tion. The  other  words,  "for  this  end  am  I  come  into  the 
 world,"  do  the  same  still  more  emphatically:  they  show  that 
 the  being  of  Christ  in  time  and  upon  earth  was  preceded  by 
 anotlier  being.  Jesus  came  into  the  world  in  order  to  bear  testi- 
 mony to  the  tmith,  that  truth  about  which  Gentile  thinkers  had 
 made  so  much  stir,  but  which  could  be  truly  known  only  through 
 the  communication  of  Him  who  came  down  from  a  higher 
 sphere,  and  testified  what  He  had  seen  and  heard :  comp.  ch. 
 iii.  31,  32.  In  the  words,  "  Every  one  that  is  of  the  truth," 
 the  Lord  turns,  like  Paul  before  Felix  and  Festus,  from  the 
 judge  to  the  man.  Bengel  is  v\'rong  here  :  "'  Jesus  here  appeals 
 from  the  blindness  of  Pilate  to  the  intelligence  of  believers." 
 Under  the  general  statement  we  incline  rather  to  see,  "If  thou 
 art  of  the  truth."  The  very  fact  that  our  Lord  entered  into 
 such  close  conversation  with  Pilate,  of  itself  shows  that  he  must 
 have  stood  in  some  relation  to  the  truth.  Jesus  made  no  answer 
 to  Herod,  Luke  xxiii.  18  ;  His  answer  to  Caiaphas,  at  the  first 
 hearing  in  the  chambers  of  Annas,  was  a  refusal,  vers.  20,  21 ; 
 before  the  High  Council  He  at  first  kept  silence ;  and  the  answer 
 which  He  at  length  gave,  under  the  high  priest's  adjuration, 
 was  manifestly  meant  only  for  publicity.  Pilate  was  the  only 
 one  with  whom  He  really  held  discourse;  and  the  circumstance 
 that  He  afterwards  denied  him  an  answer,  ch.  xix.  9,  shows 
 that  previously,  and  while  He  did  enter  into  discourse  with 
 
382  CHAP,  xviii.  XIX. 
 
 him,  there  was  something  in  him  yet  to  be  worked  upon.  He 
 then  freely  presented  the  side  of  his  nature  which  gave  a  point 
 of  connection  for  the  truth.  But  at  the  moment  when  he  gave 
 the  preference  to  his  own  lower  interest,  Jesus  turned  away 
 from  him.  The  portion  which  Pilate  had  in  the  truth  was  this 
 especially,  that  he  did  not  count  himself  good,  and  did  not,  like 
 the  Pharisees,  justify  himself.  He  was  a  man  of  the  world, 
 but  he  had  no  desire  to  be  or  to  appear  anything  else.  He 
 M^as  no  hypocrite :  like  Nathanael,  he  was  free  from  guile,  ch. 
 i.  48.  Although  he  did  not  think  much  of  the  sin  which  he 
 admitted,  yet  it  sometimes  enforced  itself  upon  him  :  when  he 
 came  in  contact  with  personal  truth,  he  was  seized  with  its  awe; 
 and  the  desire  stirred  within  him  to  unite  himself  with  that 
 truth,  and  so  reach  a  higher  element. 
 
 "  Every  one  that  is  of  the  truth :"  the  truth  appears  as  a 
 domain  from  which  those  spring  who,  in  any  sense  whatever, 
 partake  of  truth.  A  similar  kind  of  expression  we  have  in  "  of 
 nothing  and  vanity,"  Isa.  xl.  17  ;  "  of  nothing,"  Isa.  xli.  24 ;  "  of 
 vanity,"  Ps.  Ixii.  10 ;  e«  tov  Trovrjpov,  of  the  region  of  evil.  Matt. 
 V.  37  ;  ef  ipideia^,  Rom.  ii.  8.  In  1  John  iii.  19,  "  being  of  the 
 truth  "  refers  to  the  full  possession  of  truth,  as  that  is  the  pri- 
 vilege of  Christians.  In  our  present  passage,  the  limitation  is 
 given  by  the  connection.  It  cannot  mean,  in  this  context,  the 
 full  possession  of  truth  —  that  could  be  attained  only  by  the 
 testimony  of  Christ — but  only  a  susceptible  disposition.  The 
 beginninfi  of  this  was  in  Pilate.  But  in  order  to  be  of  the 
 truth,  he  must  have  released  that  disposition  from  all  its  en- 
 tanglements, and  mightily  striven  against  the  impulses  which 
 would  check  it.  That  he  failed  to  do  this  was  his  condemna- 
 tion.— Jesus  speaks  categorically :  "  Every  one  that  is  of  the 
 truth  heareth  My  voice."  Accordingly,  the  man  who  loudly 
 boasts  of  his  striving  after  truth,  and  yet  heareth  not  Christ's 
 voice,  but  glories  in  the  free  spirit  of  his  illumination,  is  not  of 
 the  truth,  is  no  philosopher,  but  the  opposite. 
 
 Ver.  38.  "  Pilate  saith  unto  Him,  What  is  truth  ?  And 
 when  he  had  said  this,  he  went  out  again  unto  the  Jews,  and 
 saith  unto  them,  I  find  in  him  no  fault  at  all." — That  the  ques- 
 tion "  What  is  truth  *?"  was  not  uttered  by  Pilate  in  the  spirit  of 
 desire  to  know,  but  that  it  was  intended  to  break  off  the  colloquy, 
 is  plain  from  the  fact  that  Pilate  with  those  words  depar'ted.    He 
 
CHAP.  XVIII.  S8.  383 
 
 observed,  like  Felix,  Acts  xxiv.  25,  that  his  heart  was  going 
 where  he  was  loth  to  follow;  and  that  he  might  easily  be 
 brought  to  a  point  where  he  must  outrage  all  his  dearest  incli- 
 nations. The  question  tlu'own  out,  "What  is  truth?"  was  to 
 serve,  as  it  were,  for  a  justification  of  his  breaking  off  a  con- 
 versation that  took  a  disagreeable  turn.  Talking  about  truth 
 ends  in  nothing ;  about  it  there  must  be  many  opinions,  and  so 
 many  heads  so  many  minds.  It  was  not  the  language  of  a 
 theoretical  sceptic — the  historical  character  of  Pilate  contra- 
 dicts that — but  of  a  worldling  who,  entirely  given  up  to  the 
 "  real  interests  of  life,"  qx  to  his  passions,  had  lost  the  sense  for 
 truth,  and  had  taught  himself  to  regard  it  as  a  mere  chimera. 
 Every  heart  swayed  by  passion,  or  filled  with  avarice  and  ambi- 
 tion, asks  internally  like  Pilate,  although  all  are  not  as  sincere 
 as  he  was,  in  openly  uttering  their  despair  as  to  truth.  Con- 
 cerning truth,  that  holds  good  which  is  said  of  wisdom  in  Wisd. 
 of  Sol.  i.  4 ;  "  For  into  a  malicious  soul  wisdom  shall  not  enter, 
 nor  dwell  in  the  body  that  is  subject  to  sin." — The  three  words 
 "  What  is  truth  ?  "  were  for  Pilate  full  of  destiny.  By  them 
 he  put  away  that  truth  from  himself  which  so  graciously  and 
 invitingly  appealed  to  him.  By  them  he  laid  the  foundation  for 
 the  suicide  by  w^hich,  according  to  the  report  of  Eusebius,  who 
 appeals  to  Greek  historians,  he  ended  his  days  under  the  Em- 
 peror Caius. — Pilate  declined  the  truth.  But  he  could  not  de- 
 fend himself  against  its  representative  ;  and  he  who  was  not  very 
 scrupulous  at  other  times  about  an  act  of  injustice,  more  or 
 less,  strove  hard  to  save  Him,  but  always  with  the  reservation 
 that  his  own  existence  was  not  imperilled.  Here  again  we  see, 
 that  "  being  of  the  truth  "  was  not  absolutely  far  from  him,  and 
 that  he  stood  higher  than  Herod  or  Caiaphas.  Doubtless  he 
 uttered  the  question  "What  is  truth?"  with  a  certain  sorrow, 
 wdth  the  consciousness  that  he,  such  a  man  as  he  was,  sold  under 
 sin,  was  obliged  to  put  the  question,  but  that  he  was  to  act  so 
 contrary  to  it. — The  words  "  I  find  no  fault  in  him "  are  a 
 point  of  coincidence  with  Luke  xxiii.  4.  Between  these  words, 
 and  what  in  ver.  39  he  said  to  the  Jews,  lies  the  sending  to 
 Herod,  which  St  Luke  alone  records.  St  John  could  imme- 
 diately add  the  "  but  ye  have  a  custom,"  especially  as  Pilate, 
 according  to  St  Luke,  had,  after  He  was  sent  back,  again 
 declared  Christ's  innocence. 
 
384  CHAP.  XVIII.  XIX. 
 
 Ver.  39.  "  But  ye  have  a  custom,  that  I  should  release  unto 
 you  one  at  the  Passover :  will  ye  therefore  that  I  release  unto 
 you  the  King  of  the  Jews  ?  " — The  first  three  Evangelists  had 
 already  recorded,  but  most  copiously  St  Matthew,  the  free 
 choice  offered  between  Jesus  and  Barabbas.  St  John  briefly 
 touches  it,  and  only  to  preserve  a  point  of  coincidence  with  his 
 predecessors.  It  is  perfectly  plain  that  the  proposal  of  Pilate 
 was  not  free  from  additional  wrong.  Only  the  guilty  were 
 interceded  for.  In  this  way  he  would  at  once  save  Jesus,  and 
 give  the  rulers  an  opportunity  of  retreating  honourably  out  of 
 the  matter.  His  own  guilty  conscience  permitted  him  not  to 
 oppose  these  rulers  decisively.  But  they  were  only  rendered 
 more  obstinate  in  their  demand  by  a  proposition,  the  motive  of 
 which  they  divined.  "At  the  Passover:"  Bengel  rightly  ob- 
 serves, "Therefore  that  day  was  the  Passover;  and  on  that  day 
 the  congregated  people  asked  Pilate."  The  opinion  which  makes 
 Jesus  to  have  stood  before  Pilate  at  the  early  morning  of  the 
 day  between  the  two  evenings  of  which  the  Passover  was  to  be 
 slain,  is  altogether  irreconcilable  with  this  "  at  the  Passover." 
 The  earliest  beginning  that  we  can  assign  to  the  Passover  was 
 the  time  of  the  slaying  of  the  paschal  lamb,  Lev.  xxiii.  5,  which 
 must  now  have  been  already  past,  since  we  here  find  ourselves 
 already  in  the  sphere  of  the  Passover.  But,  according  to  the 
 first  three  Evangelists,  who  substitute  feast  for  Passover,  Matt, 
 xxvii.  15,  Mark  xv.  6,  Luke  xxiii.  17,  we  are  already  on  the 
 other  side  of  the  first  paschal  meal,  for  this  began  the  feast : 
 comp.  on  ch.  xiii.  1.  To  the  same  result  we  are  led  by  the  mean- 
 in  o-  of  the  usacre.  There  can  be  no  manner  of  doubt  that  the 
 prisoner  in  it  represented  Israel.  He  served  first  of  all  as  a 
 remembrancer  of  the  deliverance  of  the  children  of  Israel  from 
 Egypt :  that  was  the  aspect  Avhich  alone,  as  it  regards  the  Komans, 
 was  exhibited.  But  with  this  there  was  connected  the  external 
 aim,  to  express  the  hope  that  the  Lord,  through  His  redeeming 
 grace  sealed  by  the  Passover,  would  one  day  again  deliver  His 
 people  from  the  bondage  of  earthly  power.  But  the  deliverance  of 
 the  children  of  Israel,  which  this  usage  commemorated,  followed  on 
 the  15th.  Israel  went  out  after  the  Passover  was  not  only  slain, 
 but  eaten.  That  fact  rested  upon  the  necessity  of  the  case: 
 the  objective  exhibition  and  the  subjective  appropriation  of  re- 
 deemino-  crrace  formed  the  root  of  the  exodus.     It  formed  also 
 
CHAP.  XVIII.  40.  385 
 
 the  basis  of  their  hope  in  their  future  deliverance  from  this 
 world's  power.  This  deliverance  rested  upon  the  atoning  blood  : 
 comp.  Zech.  ix.  11,  "  As  for  thee  also,  by  the  blood  of  thy  cove- 
 nant I  have  sent  out  thy  prisoners  out  of  the  pit  wherein  is  no 
 water."  Thus  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  usage  belonged 
 only  to  the  15th  Nisan,  and  consequently  that  St  John,  in  per- 
 fect harmony  with  the  other  Evangelists,  refers  the  examination 
 of  Jesus  before  Pilate  to  the  15th  Nisan.  The  only  possible 
 escape  from  this,  that  Pilate  in  this  case  anticipated  what  pro- 
 perly belonged  to  the  feast,  is  rendered  impossible  by  Mark 
 XV.  8.  This  shows  that  the  initiative  in  reference  to  the  release 
 of  a  prisoner  was  taken  by  the  people.  The  request  of  the 
 usual  release  of  the  prisoner  was  a  parenthesis  quite  indepen- 
 dent of  the  transaction,  and  of  which  Pilate  skilfully  availed 
 himself.  Pilate  speaks  of  the  King  of  the  Jews.  "  His  per- 
 verseness  in  intermingling  exasperating  mockery  by  this  King 
 of  the  Jeivs,""  belongs  only  to  the  expositors.  Pilate  intimates 
 to  the  Jews  that  they  would  act  against  their  own  interests,  if 
 they  persisted  to  extremity  against  Jesus.  In  the  eyes  of  the 
 Romans  He  was  the  representative  of  the  Messianic  hope  of  the 
 Jews,  and  this  would  be  in  Him  mocked  and  hung  upon  the 
 cross.  If  passion  had  not  blinded  the  rulers,  they  would  have 
 adopted  every  expedient  to  obviate  such  a  scandal.  The  scorn 
 which  the  Roman  soldiers  afterwards  would  manifest  against 
 Jesus,  would  in  His  person  fall  upon  the  Jews.  But  in  the 
 background  there  lay  a  presentiment  of  Pilate,  that  Jesus  was 
 actually  the  King  of  the  Jews,  and  that  therefore  they  were 
 outraging  their  most  sacred  treasure  in  delivering  Him  up  to 
 him  for  crucifixion. 
 
 Ver.  40.  "  Then  cried  they  all  again,  saying,  Not  this  man, 
 but  Barabbas.  Now  Barabbas  was  a  robber."  —  The  word 
 "  again"  is  of  no  small  moment  in  regard  to  St  John's  relations 
 with  his  predecessors.  No  earlier  cry  is  mentioned  by  St  John, 
 nor  does  he  give  us  the  antecedents  for  any  such  cry.  We 
 cannot  admit  De  "Wette's  observation  :  "  It  may  be  referred  to 
 vers.  30  seq.,  where  indeed  no  crying  is  mentioned,  but  Avhere 
 it  may  be  supposed."  For  there  Pilate  had  to  do  only  with  the 
 rulers  :  the  people  are  not  introduced  until  the  transaction  con- 
 nected with  the  release  of  the  prisoner.  St  John  refers  here 
 specifically  to  St  Mark :  the  "  again "  stands  in  a  similar  con- 
 
 VOL.  II.  2  B 
 
386  CHAP.  XVIII.  XIX. 
 
 nection  with  the  "  again"  of  Mark  xv.  13,  "  They  cried  again, 
 Crucify  him,"  and,  hke  this,  points  back  to  Mark  xv.  8,  the 
 only  passage  where  mention  had  been  made  of  any  loud  cry  of 
 the  people,  "  And  the  multitude,  crying  aloud,  began,"  etc. 
 (Fritzsche  :  TlaXiv  belongs  to  the  clamour  raised  in  ver.  8,  not 
 to  the  words  pronounced  with  a  loud  voice.) — The  TravTa  of  St 
 John  (comp.  irainrX'qdel  in  St  Luke,  ver.  18)  serves  as  a  con- 
 firmation of  the  statement  of  St  Matthew,  that  Pilate  placed 
 Barabbas  with  Jesus  before  the  people  for  their  choice,  with  the 
 supposition  that  the  decision  would  be  in  favour  of  the  light, 
 when  they  saw  opposed  to  Him  the  utter  blackness  of  the  other. 
 They  certainly  would  not  have  been  so  unanimous  in  favour  of 
 Barabbas ;  the  voices  would  have  been  very  discordant,  if  this 
 alternative  had  not  been  simply  set  before  them.  Barabbas, 
 according  to  the  accounts  of  the  Evangelists,  had  nothing  in 
 him  that  could  recommend  him  particularly  to  the  people.  Such 
 a  wretched  representative  of  their  national  hope  they  would  not 
 have  chosen,  if  their  choice  had  been  entirely  free. 
 
 Ch.  xix.  1.  "  Then  Pilate  therefore  took  Jesus,  and  scourged 
 Him." — Between  this  verse  and  the  preceding  lies  Matt,  xxvii. 
 24,  25,  the  mention  of  Pilate's  washing  his  hands ;  as  between 
 ch.  xviii.  39  and  40,  the  message  of  Pilate's  wife,  Matt,  xxvii. 
 19.  After  the  popular  will  had  been  uttered  in  so  express  a 
 manner,  Pilate  yielded  to  it.  He  paved  the  way  for  the  cruci- 
 fixion when  he  gave  up  Jesus  to  be  scourged.  But  he  hoped 
 to  be  able  to  restrain  in  the  midst  of  its  course  the  punishment 
 itself.  When  he  presented  to  the  people  the  sad  image  of 
 suffering  innocence  and  righteousness,  he  thought  they  would 
 be  smitten  by  it.  That  was  the  reason  why  he  permitted  the 
 soldiers  to  indulge  all  their  mockery  of  Jesus,  to  which  the 
 scourging  had  given  them  a  kind  of  right.  The  more  deeply 
 He  was  humbled,  the  more  tragical  the  spectacle  was  which  He 
 exhibited,  the  better  would  Pilate's  end  be  subserved.  "  It  is 
 a  poor  policy,"  says  Quesnel,  "  when  we  undertake  to  win  the 
 world,  and  at  the  same  time  indulge  them  with  part  of  what 
 they  desire  ;  and  when  we  think  to  satisfy  our  duty  by  denying 
 them  the  other  part.  Fidelity  cannot  divide  itself  in  relation  to 
 God." 
 
 Crucifixion  was  usually  preceded,  among  the  Eomans,  by 
 scourging,  which  was  so  painful  and  horrible,  that  the  delin- 
 
CHAP.  XIX.  1.  387 
 
 quents  not  seldom  gave  up  the  ghost  during  the  process.  Heyne 
 has  devoted  a  special  treatise  to  the  question,  ciir  supplicio  addita 
 fuerit  virgarum  scevitia  (Opusc.  iii.).  The  true  reason  was,  the 
 determination  to  heap  upon  the  malefactor  all  kinds  of  torment. 
 This  we  learn  from  Josephus,  who  mentions  the  combination  of 
 scourging  and  crucifixion  in  several  passages.  In  the  Antiq. 
 V.  11,  1,  he  says  the  malefactors  were  scourged  and  tormented 
 in  every  possible  way  before  death.  In  another  passage,  De 
 Bell.  Jud.  ii.  14,  9,  scourging  is  mentioned  as  the  prelude  of 
 crucifixion :  "  And  taking  others,  they  led  them  to  Floras, 
 whom  having  scourged  with  rods,  he  crucified."  The  scourging 
 inflicted  by  Pilate  was  evidently  of  this  kind.  As  the  question 
 in  St  John  concerned  only  life  and  death,  we  may  suppose,  after 
 the  attempt  in  ch.  xviii.  39  had  ended,  that  the  scourging  was  the 
 introduction  to  the  penalty  of  death.  The  same  is  evident  from 
 a  comparison  of  Matthew  and  Mark,  where  the  scourging  is  the 
 preliminary  of  the  crucifixion  :  Matt,  xxvii.  26,  "  And  when  he 
 had  scourged  Jesus,  he  delivered  Him  to  be  crucified;"  Mark 
 XV.  15,  "  And  so  Pilate,  willing  to  content  the  people,  delivered 
 Jesus,  when  he  had  scourged  Him,  to  be  crucified."  As  also 
 in  our  Lord's  own  fore-announcement  of  His  passion,  Matt.  xx. 
 19,  "  And  shall  deliver  Him  to  the  Gentiles,  to  mock,  and  to 
 scourge,  and  to  crucify  Him;"  and  Luke  xviii.  33,  "And  they 
 shall  scourge  Him,  and  put  Him  to  death."  There  is  no  suffi- 
 cient reason  for  distinffuishino;  the  scouro;in£i;  of  Matthew  and 
 Mark  from  that  of  John.  The  difference  in  the  expression,  there 
 (ppayeWovv,  the  Latin  fiagellare,  here  /jbaarcyovv,  the  genuine 
 Greek  expression,  is  of  little  moment,  since  in  our  Lord's  pre- 
 diction, Matt.  XX.  19,  we  have  fiaaTtyovv.  St  Matthew  chooses 
 the  official  term,  since  the  execution  itself  was  now  in  question. 
 The  historical  portion  of  the  scourging  is,  in  Matthew,  and 
 Mark,  and  John,  the  same ;  the  only  difference  being,  that  the 
 former  pass  over  the  fruitless  attempts  of  Pilate  to  arrest  the 
 natural  course  of  things,  and  disturb  the  connection  between 
 the  scourmno;  and  crucifixion.  The  assertion,  that  in  the  first 
 Evangelists  the  scourging  follows  the  sentence,  while  in  St  John 
 it  precedes  it,  is  altogether  erroneous.  The  Evangelists  mention 
 no  other  sentence  than  that  which  m  fact  was  uttered  in  the 
 scourging.  The  formal  sentence  of  death  spoken,  according  to 
 St  John,  by  Pilate  afterwards,  they  pass  over  as  less  important. 
 
388  CHAP.  XVIII.  XIX. 
 
 It  is  misleading  to  connect  the  scourging  in  St  John  with  Luke 
 xxiii.  16,  where  Pilate  says  to  the  Jews,  "  Having  punished 
 him,  I  will  let  him  go."  There  th^  matter  was  only  of  a  disci- 
 plinary infliction,  which  Pilate  offered  to  the  Jews.  What  that 
 infliction  was  to  be  is  not  plainly  said,  because  nothing  depended 
 upon  it :  he  desired  only  to  pave  the  way  for  the  Jews  to  retire 
 with  honour  from  the  matter.  The  loud  demand  of  the  people, 
 which,  according  to  St  Mark,  was  independent  of  the  other 
 transaction,  and  took  place  while  Pilate  was  making  the  over- 
 ture to  the  rulers — their  loud  and  increasing  cry  that  he  would 
 release  a  prisoner  as  usual,  had  such  an  effect  upon  Pilate,  as  to 
 make  him  withdraw  the  proposition  he  had  made,  and  adopt 
 other  means  which  seemed  to  present  themselves  for  the  same 
 end.  When  these  means  failed,  he  reverted,  according  to  Luke 
 xxiii.  22,  to  his  earlier  proposal,  but  could  obtain  no  hearing  for 
 it.  St  Luke  alone  gives  us  the  account  of  Pilate's  fruitless 
 proposal.  He  omits  the  scourging.  But  that  he  did  not  omit 
 it  through  ignorance,  we  learn  from  ch.  xviii.  33. — The  more 
 terrible  the  scourging  was,  the  more  miserable  was  its  contrast 
 with  Pilate's  "I  find  no  fault  in  him."  But  such  contradic- 
 tions are  unavoidable,  when  a  man  with  a  guilty  conscience, 
 assailable  at  all  points,  attempts  to  withstand  the  evil  of  others. 
 We,  however,  must  never  forget  that  Jesus  endured  the  scourg- 
 ing for  us :  "  He  voluntarily  withdrew  from  heavenly  joys,  and 
 clothed  Himself  with  all  sorrows  and  agonies,  that  He  might 
 take  away  the  sorrows  of  man  and  fill  him  instead  with  joy." 
 
 Ver.  2.  "  And  the  soldiers  platted  a  crown  of  thorns,  and 
 put  it  on  His  head,  and  they  put  on  Him  a  purple  robe." — The 
 thorns  declared  that  the  dominion,  of  which  the  crown  was  a 
 symbol,  should  cost  Christ,  who  attained  it,  dear.  This  was 
 the  truth,  and  therefore  the  crown  of  thorns  in  Christendom  has 
 been  always  regarded  with  deep  interest.  As  certainly  as  the 
 crown  was  the  crown  of  a  king,  so  certainly  was  the  purple  robe 
 a  royal  robe,  and  the  idea  of  a  soldier's  mantle  is  quite  out  of 
 keeping.  St  Luke  does  not  mention  the  mantle ;  but  in  ch. 
 xxiii.  11,  he  relates  of  Herod,  "  And  IJerod,  with  his  men  of 
 war,  set  Him  at  nought,  and  mocked  Him,  and  arrayed  Him  in 
 a  gorgeous  robe  {ea-drjTa  XafiTrpav),  and  sent  Hira  again  to 
 Pilate."  There  we  have  an  answer  to  the  question  where  the 
 Jewish  soldiers  obtained  the  royal  robe  (Herod  says,  in  Josephus, 
 
CHAP.  XIX.  3.  389 
 
 Bell.  Jud.  i.  23,  5,  to  his  sons,  Bl8a)/xt  vfilv  iaOrjra  ^aaCkLKrjv). 
 On  the  renewal  of  the  judicial  investigation  before  Pilate,  it 
 had  been  laid  aside,  as  below  the  dignity  of  the  occasion  ;  but 
 when  Jesus  was  handed  over  to  the  soldiers,  they  put  it  on  Him 
 again.  St  Luke  speaks  of  a  gorgeous  or  resplendent  robe  ;  St 
 Matthew  of  a  "  scarlet  robe"  {^afivha  kokkIvtjv,  cli.  xxvii.  28)  ; 
 St  Mark  xv.  17  ("jropcpvpav)  and  St  John  speak  of  a  purple 
 robe.  There  is  no  contradiction  in  all  this.  Aa/Mirpo';  does  not 
 signify  white,  but  splendid  or  magnificent :  it  was  therefore  the 
 most  general  designation.  It  simply  says  that  the  robe  was  a 
 gorgeous  robe — as  may  be  supposed,  an  old  one  laid  aside.  That 
 there  is  no  contradiction  between  purple  and  scarlet,  we  learn 
 from  two  passages  in  the  Apocalypse :  ch.  xvii.  4,  "  And  the 
 woman  was  arrayed  in  purple  and  scarlet  colour;"  and  ch. 
 xviii.  16,  where  one  and  the  same  garment  is  called  both  purple 
 and  scai'let.  Purple  is  the  more  general,  scarlet  the  more  spe- 
 cific, designation.  Braun  (Z^g  vestitii  sacerdotrim,  i.  1,  c.  14)  has 
 shown  that  in  all  ancient  times,  purple,  as  the  leading  colour  for 
 magnificent  garments,  often  included  in  it  the  scarlet  colour. 
 When  the  soldiers  laid  on  Jesus,  and  as  the  suffering  Jesus,  a 
 purple  garment,  they  unconsciously  bore  witness  to  the  truth. 
 For  Christ  is  the  "  Prince  of  the  kings  of  the  earth,"  Rev.  i.  5  ; 
 the  "  King  of  kings,"  xix.  16 ;  and  the  foundation  of  that 
 dominion  was  laid  in  His  sufferings. 
 
 Ver.  3.  "  And  said.  Hail,  King  of  the  Jews !  and  they 
 smote  Him  with  their  hands." — The  words  ■ijp^ovTo  77/309  avrov, 
 received  by  Lachmann  into  the  text  after  the  Codex  Vatic, 
 appeared  to  many  transcribers  superfluous.  But  it  serves  to 
 tell  us  that  they  in  the  most  formal  manner  came  before  Him, 
 in  order  to  pay  Him  the  obeisance  due  to  royalty.  The  motive 
 which  induced  the  soldiers  to  practise  their  mockery  is  revealed 
 in  the  words  of  the  salutation.  King  of  the  Jews.  They  did 
 not  mock  the  presumption  of  Jesus.  It  was  the  kingdom  of 
 the  Jews  itself  that  they  laughed  at.  The  soldiers  regarded 
 Jesus  as  the  representative  of  the  Messianic  hope  of  the  Jews. 
 They  would  turn  into  ridicule  those  royal  hopes  which  were 
 known  far  in  the  heathen  world,"  more  especially  as  those  hopes 
 took  an  external  direction,  and  aspired  to  the  dominion  of  the 
 whole  earth.  The  soldiers  represented  the  Gentile  world 
 turning  to  scorn  the  lofty  pretensions  of  the  Jews.     But  there 
 
390  CHAP.  XVIII.  XIX. 
 
 was  here  a  remarkable  irony  of  fate.  The  mockery,  "  Hail, 
 King  of  the  Jews,"  was  to  change  soon  into  awful  earnest. 
 
 "And  they  smote  Him  :"  according  to  Matt,  xxvii.  29,  30, 
 with  the  reed  which  they  had  placed  in  His  right  hand  as  a 
 royal  sceptre,  but  which  He  had  declined  to  accept.  Lampe : 
 "  It  had  not  seemed  good  to  the  Saviour  so  far  to  respond  to 
 their  wickedness  as  to  receive  this  reed  in  His  hand  He  could, 
 without  disparaging  His  decorum,  suffer  indigrdties,  hut  not  per- 
 form them.  Wherefore,  when  He  refused  to  retain  the  reed 
 in  His  right  hand,  they  inflicted  blows  upon  Him  with  it." 
 These  indignities  presuppose  that  the  condemnation  had  in 
 fact  taken  place ;  and  if  the  scourging  had  the  significance 
 which  we  have  assigned  to  it,  that  was  certainly  the  case. 
 Only  one  who  was  condemned  could  be  handed  over  to  the 
 violence  of  the  soldiery.  When  Pilate  surrendered  Jesus  to 
 the  scourge,  he  in  fact  pronounced  thereby  His  condemnation. 
 In  the  ordinary  procedure  of  justice,  the  verbal  condemnation 
 should  have  preceded  the  scourging.  But  this  did  not  take 
 place,  because  Pilate  was  not  without  hope  that  he  could 
 restrain  the  punishment  in  its  course.  He  wished  to  avoid  the 
 indecency  of  recalling  a  formally  uttered  sentence  of  con- 
 demnation. But  as  that  hope  was  frustrated,  he  was  obliged 
 afterwards  to  pronounce  the  formal  sentence. 
 
 Yer.  4.  "  Pilate  therefore  went  forth  again,  and  saitli  unto 
 them.  Behold,  I  bring  him  forth  to  you,  that  ye  may  know 
 that  I  find  no  fault  in  him." — Here  first  it  is  definitely  estab- 
 lished that  Pilate  caused  Jesus  to  be  led  into  the  prsetorium 
 to  be  scourged,  and  that  there,  where  the  watch  was  stationed, 
 the  indignities  of  vers,  2,  3  were  inflicted.  That  Pilate  once 
 more  led  Him  out,  was  itself  a  proof  that  he  held  Him  innocent, 
 because  he  otherwise  would  have  made  no  further  attempt  to 
 move  His  accusers  in  His  favour.  In  the  case  of  one  who  was 
 pronounced  a  delinquent  by  the  authorities,  the  crucifixion 
 followed  immediately  on  the  scourging.  On  "  I  find  no  fault 
 in  him,"  Grotius  remarks :  "  That  is,  not  even  so  much  fault 
 as  would  warrant  his  being  beaten  with  rods.  Thus  he  con- 
 demned his  own  iniquity." 
 
 Ver.  5.  "  Then  came  Jesus  forth,  wearing  the  crown  of 
 thorns,  and  the  purple  robe.  And  Pilate  saith  unto  them. 
 Behold  the  man !" — Pilate  preceded,  that  attention  might  be 
 
CHAP.  XIX.  6,  7.  391 
 
 first  directed  to  him  and  to  his  words,  and  that  the  impression 
 of  his  words  might  not  be  damaged  by  a  glance  at  Him  whom 
 they  persecuted  with  such  obstinate  prejudice.  Then  he  caused 
 Jesus  to  come  before  them,  ^opeo),  as  distinguished  from 
 (pepco,  indicates  that  the  crown  of  thorns  and  the  purple  robe 
 then  belonged  to  the  proper  costume  of  Christ.  The  subject 
 in  Xeyet  needed  not  to  be  mentioned,  because  it  was  plain 
 enough  that  not  Jesus,  but  Pilate,  was  the  speaker.  "  Behold 
 the  man :"  look  once  more  on  this  man,  this  man  who  is  man 
 no  more,  Isa.  liii.  3,  a  worm  and  no  man,  Ps.  xxii.  7,  in  His 
 deepest  misery  lustrous  with  innocence  and  righteousness, 
 silent  and  patient  in  His  sufferings,  like  a  lamb  led  to  the 
 slaughter,  and  like  a  sheep  that  is  dumb  before  her  shearers. 
 Pilate  thought,  judging  others  by  himself,  that  they  would 
 need  only  to  look  upon  Him  in  His  humiliation,  so  full  of 
 innocence,  and  their  hatred  would  pass  away.  But  Pilate 
 forgot  two  things :  first,  the  abyss  of  wickedness  opened  up  in 
 those  who  stand  in  a  near  relation  to  religion,  without  admittine; 
 its  transforming  influence  into  their  hearts ;  and  then  the  all- 
 penetrating  influence  which  bigoted  ministers  of  religion  exer- 
 cise upon  the  laity,  when  the  latter  are  not  armed  against  them 
 by  true  religion. 
 
 Ver.  6.  "  When  the  chief  priests  therefore  and  officers  saw 
 Him,  they  cried  out,  saying,  Crucify  him,  crucify  him.  Pilate 
 saith  unto  them.  Take  ye  him,  and  crucify  him  :  for  I  find  no 
 fault  in  him." — "  Take  ye  him,  and  crucify  him,"  is  only  a 
 vivid  form  of  refusing  to  be  their  tool :   comp.  cli.  xviii.  31. 
 
 Ver.  7.  "  The  Jews  answered  him.  We  have  a  law,  and  by 
 our  law  he  ought  to  die,  because  he  made  himself  the  Son  of 
 God." — The  Jewish  rulers  were  emboldened  by  the  spirit  of 
 concession  which  they  already  found  in  Pilate,  who  surrendered 
 a  man  whom  he  pronounced  innocent  to  the  scourging  which 
 was  reserved  only  for  the  guilty,  and  who  supplicated  them  in 
 favour  of  Jesus,  when  he  ought  to  have  enforced  his  own  autho- 
 rity, and  manfully  defended  against  them  the  cause  of  inno- 
 cence and  righteousness.  Thus,  when  their  political  accusation 
 had  come  to  nought  (Grotius  :  Not  being  able  to  establish  the 
 crime  against  the  Roman  authority,  they  urge  their  own  law), 
 they  return  back  to  the  position  which  they  had  taken  at  the 
 beginning,  ch.  xviii.  30,  and  demand  that  Pilate  should  condemn 
 
392  CHAP.  XVIII.  XIX. 
 
 Him  on  their  decision,  whether  he  himself  found  Him  guilty  or 
 not.  They  do  not  concede  so  much  to  Pilate  as  to  point  out 
 the  passage  in  the  law  which  they  had  in  view.  That  passage 
 was  Lev.  xxiv.  16,  which  decrees  that  the  blasphemer  of  God 
 shall  be  punished  with  death.  It  was  the  same  judicial  decree 
 on  the  ground  of  which  Jesus  before  the  high  priest  was  ad- 
 Judged  to  die.  He  had  there,  on  the  adjuration  of  the  high 
 priest,  that  He  should  say  whether  He  was  the  Son  of  God, 
 answered  in  the  affirmative.  Thereupon  the  high  priest  de- 
 clared, "  He  blasphemeth ;"  and  the  council  decreed,  "  He  is 
 guilty  of  death,"  Matt.  xxvi.  63  seq.  With  "  He  made  himself 
 the  Son  of  God,"  comp.  ch.  v.  18,  "  He  called  God  his  Father, 
 making  himself  equal  with  God."  The  claim  to  be  the  Son  of 
 God  fell  under  the  category  of  blasphemy  only  if  it  were  a  pre- 
 sumptuous claim.  This  was  the  sense  in  which  Pilate  took  the 
 words  of  the  high  priest ;  and  if  it  had  been  untrue,  Jesus  would 
 not  by  His  silence  have  confirmed  it  as  the  right  sense.  That 
 the  members  of  the  Sanhedrim  were  in  earnest  as  to  this  claim  of 
 Sonship — that  they  regarded  it  as  including  the  assumption  of 
 divinity,  is  plain  from  ch.  x.  33.  There  the  Jews  accused  Jesus 
 of  blasphemy ;  of  blasphemy  consisting  in  this,  that  though  he 
 was  man,  he  made  himself  God. 
 
 Ver.  8.  "  When  Pilate  therefore  heard  that  saying,  he  was 
 the  more  afraid." — His  present  fear  was  distinguished  from  the 
 former  only  by  the  more.  Even  before  then  he  must  have 
 feared  that  he  should  draw  down  on  himself  the  vengeance  of 
 God.  Pilate  had  been  already  alarmed,  when  he  thought  he 
 had  to  do  only  with  a  man  under  the  special  protection  of 
 Heaven.  The  words  of  his  wife,  "  Have  thou  nothing  to  do 
 with  this  just  man,"  sank  deep  in  his  heart.  But  now  that, 
 accordinfT  to  the  declaration  of  the  Jews,  Jesus  made  Himself 
 the  Son  of  God,  a  new  aspect  of  the  case  was  opened,  and  he 
 might  dread  being  in  the  fullest  sense  a  660fji,d^o<;,  a  fighter 
 against  God.  Wliat  Jesus,  according  to  their  statements,  had 
 uttered  concerning  Himself,  he  could  not  lightly  dismiss  from 
 his  mind.  "  He  remembered,"  says  Heumann,  "  His  wonderful 
 works,  and  with  deeper  reflection  than  before ;  he  bethought 
 himself  that  Jesus  was  a  holy  man,  to  whom  lying  and  decep- 
 tion were  impossible."  The  impressions  of  Christ's  person,  the 
 majesty  which  shone  through  all  His  deep  humiliation,  led  Pilate 
 
CHAP.  XIX.  9.  393 
 
 involuntarily  to  think  of  something  beyond  the  sphere  of  mere 
 humanity.  He  did  not  think  of  a  son  of  the  gods,  bf  one  dei 
 ciijusdam  jilim.  The  unity  of  God,  a  truth  ineradicably  im- 
 planted in  the  human  mind,  never  entirely  disappeared  in  poly- 
 theism ;  and  this  unity  became  more  and  more  prominent  in 
 the  period  of  the  decline  of  Gentile  culture.  Pilate,  in  regard 
 to  this,  like  his  centurion,  Matt,  xxvii.  54,  Mark  xv.  39,  stood 
 very  much  under  the  influence  of  the  people  among  whom  he 
 had  dwelt  so  many  years.  His  conscience  had  been  before  this 
 much  wounded.  He  now  feared,  that  by  new  guilt  he  should 
 involve  himself  in  the  immediate  judgments  of  Heaven. 
 
 Ver.  9.  "  And  went  again  into  the  judgment-hall,  and  saith 
 unto  Jesus,  Whence  art  thou?  But  Jesus  gave  him  no  answer." 
 — Pilate  went  into  the  prsetorium,  and  led  Jesus  with  him.  The 
 auditory  outside  seemed  to  him  too  profane  for  the  introduction 
 of  this  question.  That  "  Whence  art  thou"?"  could  have  but 
 one  meaning,  "  Belongest  thou  to  heaven  or  to  earth  ?  art  thou 
 God,  or  mere  man?"  is  now  generally  acknowledged  :  comp. 
 ch.  vii.  28,  xviii.  36,  37.  What  our  Lord  in  the  latter  passage 
 said  concerning  His  kingdom,  that  it  was  not  of  this  World,  not 
 from  below,  applied  also  to  His  person.  He  was  not,  like  ordi- 
 nary men,  e«  tS)V  Karoi,  but  e/c  rcov  dva>,  ch.  viii.  23.  To  the 
 TTodev  here  corresponds  the  avcodev  in  ver.  11.  Pilate  designedly 
 put  the  question  in  this  general  form.  A  holy  fear  restrained 
 him  from  putting  it  more  directly.  He  felt  that  in  the  region 
 he  now  entered  he  was  at  a  loss,  and  must  reveal  his  inaptitude. 
 Wherefore  did  not  Jesus  answer  Pilate  ?  The  reason  must  be 
 the  same  which  occasioned  the  silence  before  Annas,  before  the 
 council,  and  before  Herod  ;  as  also  the  silence  on  the  accusa- 
 tions of  the  rulers  before  Pilate,  of  which  Matthew  (vers.  12, 
 13)  and  Mark  (vers.  4,  5)  make  mention.  The  supposition, 
 that  "  Jesus  kept  silence  because  a  heathenish  notion  of  Son- 
 ship  to  God  was  in  question,"  is,  apart  from  the  fact  that  it  rests 
 on  a  groundless  supposition,  wrong,  simply  because  it  severs 
 our  Lord's  silence  here  from  its  connection  with  His  other 
 silences.  Like  the  rest  before  whom  Jesus  kept  silence,  Pilate 
 no  longer  deserved  an  answer.  He  had  earlier  declined  to  be 
 led  by  Jesus  into  the  knowledge  of  the  truth,  because  he  would 
 not  sacrifice  the  passions  with  which  his  soul  was  filled  :  comp. 
 ch.  xviii.  38.     His  whole  bearing  had  shown  that  his  personal 
 
394  CHAP.  XVIII.  XIX. 
 
 interest  was  first  in  everything,  and  that  he  listened  to  the  cause 
 of  right  only  so  far  as  this  consisted  with  his  own  interest. 
 Jesus  looked  through  his  soul,  and  knew  that  he  was  incapable 
 of  practically  following  even  the  truth  that  he  knew.  There 
 was  no  obligation  incumbent  upon  Him  to  avow  His  divinity 
 before  the  world.  He  had  already  solemnly  avowed  Himself  to 
 be  the  Son  of  God  before  the  council.  The  "  good  confession" 
 which  Christ  was  to  witness,  and  had  already  witnessed  before 
 the  Eoman  power,  touched  not  His  divinity,  but  His  world- 
 embracing  kingdom  as  based  upon  that  divinity.  Thus  Jesus 
 could  and  must  make  good  on  this  occasion  the  prophetic  word 
 concerning  the  lamb  which  opened  not  its  mouth,  Isa.  liii.  7. 
 And  all  the  more  as,  to  the  deeper  glance,  there  was  even  in 
 His  silence  an  answer  to  Pilate's  question  whether  man  or  God. 
 "  He  showed,"  says  Heumann,  "  by  this  silence  the  dignity  of 
 His  person,  and  that  it  rested  with  Himself  whether  He  would 
 answer  or  not,  while  He  by  no  means  admitted  Pilate  to  be  His 
 judge."  Further,  if  He  laid  no  claim  to  divinity,  it  would  have 
 been  His  duty  to  have  absolutely  repelled  the  allegation  of  the 
 Jews,  that  He  made  Himself  the  Son  of  God.  That  would  have 
 been  to  give  God  His  honour.  His  silence  said,  "  I  am  from 
 above,  but  thou  art  not  worthy  that  I  should  admit  thee  into 
 the  mystery  of  My  nature.  For  thine  heart  is  not  right  before 
 God."  The  silence  was  more  significant  than  words.  The 
 "  from  above"  was  uttered  in  it ;  and  at  the  same  time  an  em- 
 phatic intimation  of  Pilate's  insincerity,  who  belonged  to  that 
 large  class  of  whom  these  words  have  been  used  :  "  A  man  of 
 the  world  is  often  touched  by  Divine  deeds  and  Divine  teaching, 
 as  we  see  in  King  Agrippa  and  the  governor  Felix,  Acts  xxiv. 
 24  and  xxvi.  28  ;  but,  as  the  Lord  says  in  Matt.  xiii.  22, 
 worldly  thoughts  choke  the  word,  that  it  brings  forth  no  fruit." 
 How  entirely  our  Lord's  silence  was  justified,  is  manifest  from 
 the  deep  effect  it  produced  on  Pilate,  here  as  well  as  in  Matthew, 
 vers.  12, 13, — an  effect  which  it  must  have  produced,  inasmuch 
 as  assumed  dignity  is  ever  rich  in  words,  while  only  true  great- 
 ness can  bear  to  be  held  in  suspicion  or  denied. 
 
 Ver.  10.  "  Then  saitli  Pilate  unto  Him,  Speakest  thou  not 
 unto  me?  knowest  thou  not  that  I  have  power  to  crucify 
 thee,  and  have  power  to  release  thee?" — Pilate  certainly  did 
 not  speak  in  the  sensitive  and  excited  tone  of  offended  dignity. 
 
CHAP.  XIX.  11.  395 
 
 (Lampe :  "  Threatening  anger  is  plainly  opposed  to  the  pre- 
 ceding fear.")  That  would  have  been  contrary  to  the  whole 
 position  which  he  assumed  towards  Jesus  ;  and,  moreoverj  his 
 impression  of  Christ's  majesty  was  too  deep  to  allow  it.  He 
 simply  desired,  half  imploringly,  to  have  from  Jesus  an  expla- 
 nation of  the  marvellous  fact,  that  He  thought  him  worthy  of 
 no  reply  who  held,  nevertheless,  His  life  in  his  hands.  "  Power 
 to  crucify  "  precedes  the  "  power  to  deliver^*  because  the  beam 
 in  the  balance  decidedly  vibrated  that  way.  The  scourging  had 
 already  taken  place,  which  was  the  prelude  to  crucifixion,  and 
 Pilate's  attempt  to  soften  the  rulers  had  already  failed.  The 
 order  has  been  inverted  in  many  MSS.,  simply  from  a  notion 
 that  the  right  of  the  magistracy  was  strictly  "  jus  vitce  et  necis." 
 That  the  emphasis  fell  upon  the  "  crucify,"  is  shown  by  what 
 follows  :  "  Thou  couldest  have  no  power  over  Me." 
 
 Ver.  11.  "  Jesus  answered,  Thou  couldest  have  no  power 
 at  all  against  Me,  except  it  were  given  thee  from  above  :  there- 
 fore he  that  delivered  Me  unto  thee  hath  the  greater  sin." — 
 To  the  question  Jesus  had  given  no  answer.  Against  the  ex- 
 press denial  of  His  dignity  He  must  utter  a  protest.  The  words 
 "  Thou  couldest  have  .  .  .  given  thee  "  declared  that  Pilate,  to 
 whom  Jesus  was  apparently  in  submission,  was  in  truth  only  an 
 instrument  in  a  higher  hand  which  ruled  over  the  destiny  of 
 Jesus  ;  and  that  to  it,  not  to  him,  was  Jesus  subjected.  "  Shall 
 the  axe  boast  itself  against  him  that  heweth  therewith  ?  or  shall 
 the  saw  magnify  itself  against  him  that  shapeth  it?"  Isa.  x.  15. 
 The  imaginary  lord  was  thus  reduced  to  a  servant,  not  only  of 
 the  Father,  but  of  the  Son,  between  whom  there  was  the  fullest 
 concert.  To  this  connection  between  the  Father  and  the  Son 
 points  the  relation  in  which  the  avwOev  stands  to  the  iroOev  of 
 Pilate.  Grotius  :  Inde  sell,  unde  ortus  sum,  tacite  enim  hoc 
 indicat.  Stier  :  "  In  this  heavenly  avwOev  there  is  at  the  same 
 time  a  late  answer  to  the  previously  unanswered  question  as  to 
 His  origin."  The  matter  is  not  here  the  authority  of  the  magis- 
 tracy. Stier  regards  these  words  as  a  support  for  the  "  unas- 
 sailable theory  of  the  Divine  right  of  the  powers  that  be ;"  but 
 the  question  was  rather,  as  the  reference  to  Pilate's  words  shows, 
 the  material  power  which  Pilate  as  the  representative  of  earthly 
 dominion  had  over  Jesus,  whom  no  one  as  it  seemed  could  wrest 
 from  his  hands. — The  leading  thought  is  followed  by  an  under- 
 
396  CHAP.  XVIII.  XIX. 
 
 tone.  "  Therefore  :"  that  is,  because  thou  hast  obtained  power 
 over  Me  only  through  a  special  Divine  ordering.  The  fact  that 
 Pilate  had  only  a  permitted  power  over  Jesus,  as,  on  the  one 
 hand,  it  overturned  the  conclusion  which  Pilate  drew  from  his 
 power  in  favour  of  his  superiority,  so,  on  the  other  hand,  it 
 served  for  his  apology.  He  had  not,  like  the  Jews,  voluntarily 
 entered  into  the  matter ;  he  was  by  Divine  destiny  connected 
 with  it,  he  himself  knew  not  how,  and  would  with  all  his  heart 
 have  been  free  from  it. 
 
 All  the  enemies  of  Jesus,  Herod  and  the  Jews,  no  less  than 
 Pilate  and  the  Gentiles,  did  against  Him  "  what  the  hand  and 
 counsel  of  God  had  determined  before  to  be  done,"  Acts  iv.  27. 
 Even  the  act  of  the  traitor  Judas  rested  on  a  decree  wpLo-fiivov, 
 corresponding  to  the  SeSofievov  avwOev  here.  But  when  a  man 
 against  his  wall  is  involved  in  a  matter,  the  Divine  causality  is 
 in  the  foreground ;  when  he  deliberately  seeks  it,  the  human 
 is  predominant.  In  regard  to  this,  Ex.  xxi.  12,  13  is  very  in- 
 structive :  "  He  that  smiteth  a  man,  so  that  he  die,  shall  surely 
 be  put  to  death.  And  if  a  man  lie  not  in  wait,  but  God  deliver 
 him  into  his  hand ;  then  I  will  appoint  thee  a  place  whither  he 
 shall  flee."  The  murderer  no  less  than  the  manslayer  stands 
 under  the  decree  of  God,  but  no  one  would  think  of  comforting 
 an  impenitent  murderer  by  referring  him  to  this  Divine  destiny. 
 It  was  not  until  his  brothers  had  attained  to  a  penitent  sense  of 
 their  fault,  that  Joseph  represented  to  them  for  their  consola- 
 tion the  Divine  causality,  Gen.  1.  20.  As  soon  as  the  Jews 
 repented,  they  also  had  presented  to  them  the  Divine  causality. 
 Till  then  their  minds  must  be  directed  to  their  own  guilt  alone. 
 — Our  Lord  does  not  acquit  Pilate  of  guilt.  The  contrast  pre- 
 sented to  him  was  only  a  relative  one.  The  relative  admeasure- 
 ment of  guilt,  according  to  its  various  grades,  the  allusion  to 
 the  guilt  of  Israel,  as  deeper  than  that  of  the  heathen,  recurs 
 often  in  the  discourses  of  our  Lord  in  the  earlier  Evangelists, 
 Matt.  X.  15  ;  Luke  xii.  48.  When  Jesus  established  the  mea- 
 sure of  Pilate's  guilt.  He  declared  Himself  to  be  His  judge's 
 Judge,  and  intimated  to  him  the  place  which  He  Himself  would 
 occupy  at  the  great  day  of  universal  judgment. 
 
 "  He  that  delivered  Me  to  thee"  must  be,  according  to  the 
 comparison  with  Pilate,  which  leads  us  to  expect  that  here 
 person  is  set  against  person,  as  also  according  to  ch.  xviii.  28, 
 
CHAP.  XIX.  12.  397 
 
 Caiaphas ,  not  however  Caiaphas  as  an  individual,  but  as  the 
 representative  of  the  Jewish  people,  whom  Pilate  opposes  to 
 himself  in  Matt,  xxvii.  24,  and  who  cried  out  in  ver.  25  (7ra9  o 
 Xao^),  "  His  blood  be  on  us,  and  on  our  children."  Caiaphas 
 was  accordingly  an  ideal  person  as  it  were,  the  representative 
 of  the  Jewish  national  spirit  as  it  then  was,  in  harmony  with 
 the  representative  position  which  the  high  priest  assumes  in  the 
 Old  Testament.  According  to  Lev.  iv.  3,  the  sins  of  the  high 
 priest  were  reckoned  to  the  people  :  "  If  the  priest  that  is 
 anointed  sin  according  to  the  sin  of  the  people."  In  Zech.  iii.  1, 
 the  high  priest  appears  before  the  Lord  burdened  with  the  sins 
 of  the  whole  people.  Aben  Ezra,  on  Lev.  iv.  3,  says  :  Ecce 
 pontifex  maxiraus  sequiparatur  universo  Israeli. 
 
 Ver.  12.  "  And  from  thenceforth  Pilate  sought  to  release 
 Him  :  but  the  Jews  cried  out,  saying.  If  thou  let  this  man  go, 
 thou  art  not  Cesar's  friend  :  whosoever  maketh  himself  a  king 
 speaketh  against  Cesar." — 'Ek  tovtov,  as  in  vi.  66,  from  that 
 time  onwards.  Before  e^rjTet  there  might,  as  in  ver.  8,  be  placed 
 a  fiaXXov.  Its  omission  rested  upon  the  idea,  that  in  comparison 
 of  his  present  striving,  the  earlier  came  not  into  consideration. 
 John  could  have  known  this  only  in  case  Pilate  had  shown 
 the  earnestness  of  his  present  endeavour  in  a  very  demonstrative 
 manner,  coming  out  from  the  prsetorium  to  the  Jews.  How 
 he  showed  it,  we  are  not  told. — The  Jews  perceived  that  a 
 change  had  come  over  Pilate,  and  that  with  their  present  means 
 they  could  not  accomplish  anything  more.  They  now  laid  hold 
 on  their  most  perilous  weapon.  They  set  simply  before  Pilate 
 the  alternative  of  giving  up  Jesus,  or  of  losing  himself.  They 
 threatened  him,  not  ambiguously,  with  an  accusation  before 
 Cesar. — "Friend  of  Cesar"  was  then  the  highest  title  of 
 honour  with  which  the  high  Roman  officials,  after  praiseworthy 
 government,  were  rewarded  :  comp.  Wetstein  on  this  passage. 
 To  be  not  a  friend  of  Cesar,  not  to  sacrifice  all  other  interests 
 to  his,  was  the  gravest  charge  against  a  man  like  Pilate,  and 
 one  which  the  suspicious  Tiberius  was  always  sufficiently  in- 
 clined to  listen  to.  (Tacitus,  Ann.  iii.  38  :  Majestatis  crimen 
 omnium  accusationum  complementum  erat.  Suetonius,  Vita 
 Tib.  c.  58  :  Qui  atrocissime  exercebat  leges  majestatis.)  — 
 "  Speaketh  against :"  Jesus  had  declared  Himself  to  be  a 
 King,  and  thereby,  according  to  the  assertion  of  the  Jews, 
 
398  CHAP.  XVIII.  XIX. 
 
 raised  Himself  into  competition  Avith  the  power  of  Cesar.  The 
 matter  primarily  moved  in  the  sphere  of  words,  and  the  avri- 
 Xeyeiv  preserves  therefore  its  ordinary  meaning.  The  Jews 
 spoke  really  according  to  the  mind  of  the  Roman  imperial 
 power.  We  have  nothing  to  do  here  with  the  inability  of 
 Cesar  to  apprehend  the  true  nature  of  the  kingdom  of  Christ. 
 To  the  pretensions  which  the  imperial  power  maintained,  the 
 kingdom  of  Christ  actually  stood  in  direct  contradiction.  This 
 is  plain  from  the  conflict  of  life  and  death  which  arose  after- 
 wards between  the  imperial  dominion  and  the  Church  of  Christ, 
 as  well  as  the  description  of  that  conflict  in  the  thirteenth  chap- 
 ter of  the  Apocalypse. — Jesus  was  to  be  condemned,  but  only 
 after  His  innocence  had  been  made  as  clear  as  day,  and  acknow- 
 ledged by  the  judge  in  the  most  decisive  manner,  and  in  repeated 
 ways.  To  attain  this  double  end,  there  could  have  been  chosen 
 no  more  fitting  instrument  than  Pilate,  free  from  the  malig- 
 nity of  the  Jews,  yielding  to  the  impressions  of  truth,  and  filled 
 with  a  certain  zeal  to  put  it  in  the  true  light ;  but  yet  too  weak 
 to  enforce  it  at  the  price  of  his  own  interests  or  place. 
 
 Ver.  13.  "  When  Pilate  therefore  heai'd  that  saying,  he 
 brought  Jesus  forth,  and  sat  down  in  the  judgment-seat,  in  a 
 place  that  is  called  the  Pavement,  but  in  the  Hebrew,  Gab- 
 batha." — Twv  \6<ya}v  tovtcov  is  the  most  approved  reading : 
 every  word  was  to  Pilate  an  arrow.  Tovrov  rov  \6jov  seems  to 
 have  come  from  ver.  8. — Pilate,  according  to  ver.  9,  had  gone 
 with  Jesus  into  the  prsetorium,  in  order  that  he  might  there 
 speak  to  Him  quietly.  Ver.  12  requires  us  to  assume  that  he 
 then  came  forth  to  the  people,  and  made  known  to  them  his 
 full  design  to  set  Jesus  at  liberty.  After  his  conscience  had 
 received  that  deadly  blow  from  the  Jews,  he  went  back  into 
 the  praetorium,  and  hastened  Jesus  out.  The  condemnation 
 must  be  spoken  under  the  open  heaven,  in  the  presence  of  the 
 accused. — That  the  judgment-seat  of  the  Roman  governors 
 stood  in  the  open  air,  according  to  the  tenor  of  our  narrative, 
 is  proved  by  Josephus,  De  Bell.  Jud.  ii.  9,  3  :  "  Pilate  having 
 sat  down  on  the  judgment-seat  in  the  great  stadium,  summoned 
 before  him  the  people,"  etc.  There  he  is  speaking  of  Cesarea. 
 In  section  4  he  speaks  of  the  same  thing  at  Jerusalem,  around 
 which  "  the  people  gathered  themselves  together  with  uproar." 
 But  still  more  explicit  is  ii.  14,  8.    This  passage  shows,  that  when 
 
CHAP.  XIX.  13.  399 
 
 the  procurator  came  to  Jerusalem,  the  judgment-seat  was  placed 
 before  his  dwelling,  the  old  royal  castle  of  Herod,  identical  with 
 the  prsetorium  here.  We  are  presented  with  the  same  scene  as 
 here.  Tov  before  /3i]/iaroii  is  omitted  by  Lachmann.  Every- 
 where else  in  the  New  Testament  this  word  has  the  article ;  but 
 in  two  of  the  passages  quoted  from  Josephus  it  is  without  the 
 article.  A  judgment-seat  might  be  mentioned,  because,  when 
 the  procurator  left  Jerusalem,  the  /3^/ia  also  was  taken  away  : 
 the  yS^ytia,  therefore,  had  not  so  permanent  a  character  as  the 
 court  of  justice.  We  see  in  Matt,  xxvii.  19,  that  Pilate,  during 
 the  previous  transactions  with  the  people,  had  intermittently 
 occupied  the  judgment-seat. — When  St  John  approaches  that 
 crisis  of  universal  interest,  the  proper  pronunciation  of  Christ's 
 doom  by  Pilate,  everything  becomes  momentous  to  him  :  he 
 designates  places  by  their  two  names,  the  Greek  and  the 
 Hebrew,  or  Aramaic,  and  specifies  the  day  and  the  hour. — The 
 Greek  and  the  Aramaic  names  indicate  the  same  place  under 
 different  relations,  yet  so  that  these  two  relations  are  funda- 
 mentally connected.  The  Greek  name  points  to  the  Mosaic 
 work,  which  in  its  beauty  indicated  the  dignity  of  the  judg- 
 ment :  comp.  Kev.  iv.  6.  The  Aramaic  name  indicated  the 
 elevation  of  the  place,  suggesting  the  fact  that  absolute  sub- 
 mission was  due  to  the  word  of  the  judge.  AiOoarpwTov  (we 
 find  the  word  in  Josephus,  Bell.  Jud.  vi.  1,  8)  strictly  means 
 inlaid  with  stone  generally,  but  was  specifically  used  for  Mosaic 
 tessellation.  Gabbatha  signifies  liill.  The  town,  which  is  called 
 in  Hebrew  Gibeah,  Josephus  mentions  frequently  under  the 
 name  Gabbatha.  So  Antiq.  v.  1,  29  :  "  There  is  a  tomb  and 
 monument  of  him  in  the  city  of  Gabbatha."  In  vi.  4,  2,  he 
 says  of  Samuel,  "  Coming  thence  afterwards  to  Gabbatha :" 
 comp.  viii.  12,  4,  5,  xiii.  1,  4.  Josephus,  Bell.  Jud.  v.  2, 1,  calls 
 Gibeah  in  Benjamin  Ta^aOaaovkrjv,  adding  the  explanation, 
 "  this  means  hill  of  Saul."  The  only  difference,  that  Josephus 
 spells  it  always  with  one  yS,  is  of  small  moment ;  for,  apart 
 from  the  fact  that  the  reading  Ta^aOa  is  not  altogether  un- 
 supported, the  reduplication  of  the  letter  might  have  been 
 introduced  for  a  euphonic  purpose,  the  original  word  being 
 otherwise  harsh.  So  there  is  in  the  Hebrew  a  purely  euphonic 
 dagesh  forte.  Hence  for  the  same  reason  we  have  fiafificovd^; 
 instead  of  fiafiwvd^,  in  a  number  of  manuscripts  of  Matt.  vi.  24. 
 
400  CHAP,  xviir.  XIX. 
 
 The  opposite  we  find  in  the  case  of  the  name  n^y^  which  the 
 Septuagint  translate  Fd^a.  There  were  other  locaHties  around 
 Jerusalem  which  bore  the  name  of  hill,  as  the  hill  of  the  lepers, 
 Jer.  xxxi.  39.  Iken's  objection,  that  the  name  was  too  general, 
 equally  applies  to  AcBoarpoyrov ;  and,  moreover,  the  specific 
 characterization  of  the  place  was  given  in  the  preceding  iirl 
 rod  ^rjf^aro<;.  These  names  were  appropriate  only  in  the  imme- 
 diate neighbourhood  of  the  judgment-seat.  When  they  spoke 
 elsewhere  of  these  localities,  the  reference  to  the  ^fjfia,  or  the 
 connection  with  it,  required  to  be  expressly  mentioned.  Ac- 
 cording to  the  analogy  of  AidoaTpcorov,  we  might  expect  that 
 the  word  Gabbatha  would  be  a  general  designation.  The  hill 
 probably  was  an  artificial  one. 
 
 Yer.  14.  "  And  it  was  the  preparation  of  the  Passover,  and 
 about  the  sixth  hour :  and  he  saith  unto  the  Jews,  Behold  your 
 King  !" — The  exact  specification  of  the  place  is  followed  by 
 that  of  the  time.  First  the  day  of  the  week :  "  it  was  the 
 preparation  of  the  Passover."  These  words  have  been  dif- 
 ferently understood.  According  to  some,  they  say  that  it  was 
 the  preparation  of  the  Passover,  the  day  of  preparation,  on  which 
 the  paschal  lamb  was  provided ;  according  to  others,  that  it  was 
 the  preparation  for  the  Sabbath  in  the  Passover  feast.  The 
 latter  interpretation  is  the  correct  one.  UapaaKevrj  rod  irda'^a 
 cannot  mean  the  preparation  for  the  Passover.  To  Trda'^a 
 meant  either  the  paschal  lamb  or  the  whole  feast.  On  that 
 supposition,  it  must  have  signified  the  feast  day  of  the  paschal 
 feast.     But  the  word  never  occurs  with  that  signification. 
 
 Further,  irapacrKevr]  never  is  used  for  the  day  that  preceded 
 the  feast ;  only  for  the  day  that  preceded  its  one  Sabbath. 
 Bleek  has  not  been  able  to  adduce  the  slightest  proof  that  this 
 word,  and  the  corresponding  Aramaic  Nnaiiy,  was  ever  em- 
 ployed to  designate  the  day  before  the  feast.  There  lies  the 
 point  of  the  discussion  :  failing  to  prove  this,  the  cause  is  lost. 
 In  the  New  Testament,  irapaaKevr)  is  always  the  proper  name 
 of  a  week-day,  the  Friday.  If  the  word  was  also  used  for  the 
 preparation  days  of  the  feasts,  how  was  it  that  the  preparation 
 day  of  the  Sabbath  was  always  called  the  preparation  day,  or 
 preparation  day  absolutely,  rj  irapaaKevr],  or  irapacrKevrj,  without 
 the  word  Sabbath  being  ever  added  ? — an  addition  which  was  all 
 the  more  necessary,  because  all  the  passages  which  speak  of  the 
 
CHAP.  XIX.  14.  401 
 
 day  of  preparation  refer  to  the  feast,  and  ambiguity  was  there- 
 fore unavoidable.  The  passages  are  Matt,  xxvii.  62  ;  Mark  xv. 
 42  ;  Luke  xxiii.  54  ;  John  xix.  31.  St  Matthew  says,  "  The 
 next  day  that  followed  the  day  of  the  preparation."  He  means 
 thereby  the  Sabbath, — a  strange  note  of  time,  if  it  were  not 
 quite  settled  that  "day  of  preparation,"  standing  alone,  was 
 synonymous  with  Friday.  St  INIark  explains  the  day  of  prepa- 
 ration as  "  the  day  before  the  Sabbath."  He  gives  his  Greek 
 readers  this  explanation  of  a  term  which  in  Jewish  phraseology 
 was  more  limited  than  its  sound.  But  elsewhere  than  in  the 
 New  Testament  we  find  the  same  phrase.  Joseph  us,  Antiq.  xvi. 
 6,  2,  mentions  an  edict  of  Augustus,  which  gave  the  Jews 
 certain  exemptions  on  the  Sabbath,  and  "  on  the  day  of  its  pre- 
 paration from  the  ninth  hour."  There  the  word  is  used  for  the 
 Friday ;  although  Josephus  or  the  edict  explains  it  for  Gentile 
 readers,  as  being  the  day  before  the  Sabbath,  because  the 
 simple  7rapaaKev7]  would  have  been  unintelligible  to  them.  So 
 also  in  the  language  of  the  fathers,  irapaaKevrj  is  always  Friday : 
 comp.  Clem.  Alex.  Stromata  7  ;  Dion.  Alex,  in  Kouth,  Rell. 
 Sac.  s.  ii.  p.  385,  and  other  passages  in  Suicer.  The  word  is 
 also  expressly  quoted  as  the  Jewish  phrase.  Synesius  in  Ep.  iv. 
 says,  "  It  was  the  day  which  the  Jews  term  preparation."  Thus 
 the  use  of  the  phrase  is  absolutely  on  our  side.  The  opposite 
 view  has  here  no  ground  to  stand  upon.  Bleek  has  skilfully 
 concealed  the  point  on  which  all  depends ;  but  even  he  is 
 obliged  to  confess,  "  that  the  expression  in  this  form  is  not 
 found  elsewhere."  The  argument  is  not  in  the  least  degree 
 weakened  by  the  allegation,  that  the  first  day  of  the  paschal 
 feast,  as  being  equal  to  the  Sabbath,  demanded  its  preparation. 
 That  would  have  force  if  the  word  bore  only  an  appellative 
 character, — if  it  had  not  been,  in  Jewish  phraseology,  the 
 proper  name  of  the  last  day  in  the  week  but  one.  Our  oppo- 
 nents appeal  to  the  fact,  that  in  the  Jewish  writings  any  is  fre- 
 quently used  for  the  eve  of  the  feasts,  and  especially  of  the 
 Sabbath.  But  there  is  no  proof  that  my,  evening,  corresponds 
 to  TrapaaKev^,  preparation  day.  Inasmuch  as  erei  is  used  of 
 the  eves  of  the  feasts,  but  preparation  day  always  denotes  the 
 day  before  the  Sabbath,  the  two  words,  which  are  not  coinci- 
 dent in  meaning,  have  nothing  in  common.  The  Jewish  word 
 for  irapaaKevq  is  fc^n^liy,  which  had  never  any  other  meaning 
 
 VOL.  II.  2  C 
 
402  CHAP.  XVIII.  XIX. 
 
 than  that  of  the  day  preceding  the  Sabbath,  and  was  simply  the 
 name  of  the  week-day :  Buxtorf,  Lex.  c.  1160.  This  same  word 
 is  used  by  the  Syriac  translator  for  the  word  TrapaaKevTj.  In 
 Syriac  it  so  decidedly  and  so  exclusively  denoted  the  Friday, 
 that  the  Syrians  termed  Good  Friday  the  day  of  preparation 
 for  the  Passion  :  comp.  Castelli,  Lex.  (ed.  Michaelis),  p.  673. 
 
 It  has  been  maintained  that  St  John,  if  he  had  regarded  the 
 first  feast  day  as  the  day  of  death,  would  not  so  indefinitely 
 have  designated  as  the  Friday  in  the  Passover  that  day  which 
 might  have  been  any  other  of  the  seven  feast  days,  especially 
 here,  where  he  is  so  exact  in  his  record,  that  he  defines  the  very 
 hour.  But  what  precedes  had  determined  the  day,  in  harmony 
 with  the  first  three  Evangelists,  who  in  regard  to  this  point 
 leave  no  room  for  doubt :  comp.  on  xviii.  28,  39.  Here  the 
 emphasis  falls  upon  the  determination  of  the  dar/  of  the  week, 
 which  had  not  yet  been  given. 
 
 It  has  again  been  asserted,  that  to  regard  the  preparation 
 day  of  the  Passover  as  the  preparation  day  for  the  Sabbath 
 in  the  Passover,  must  always  have  the  air  of  a  forced  evasion 
 of  a  difficulty.  But  this  assertion  rests  upon  the  supposition, 
 already  overturned,  that  irapaa-Kevr]  signified  preparation  day 
 generally.  As  soon  as  we  settle  it  that  the  word  standing  alone 
 meant  the  day  before  the  Sabbath,  the  Friday,  the  ambiguity 
 is  at  once  removed.  The  parallel  passages  adduced  by  Eeland 
 (Antiq.  Sac.)  have  then  their  full  force.  The  pseudo-Ignatius, 
 in  the  Epistle  to  the  Philippians,  c.  13,  speaks  of  the  Sabbath  of 
 the  Passover,  that  is,  of  the  Sabbath  which  fell  in  Easter,  which 
 in  the  Christian  Church  took  its  beginning  in  the  week  preced- 
 ing the  Monday  of  the  resurrection.  Socrates,  Hist.  Ecc.  v.  22, 
 speaks  of  the  Sabbath  of  the  feast,  to  ad^^arov  t^9  eoprrj^. 
 
 Once  more,  it  has  been  maintained  to  be  unimaginable  that 
 the  first  day  of  the  feast  should  be  designated  a  preparation 
 day.  Now  if  the  first  day  of  the  feast  had  been  simply  and  as 
 such  denominated  a  day  of  preparation,  it  would  have  been  some- 
 thing strange ;  for  its  character  as  the  first  feast  day  infinitely 
 outweighed  its  character  as  a  day  of  preparation.  But  it  must 
 be  remembered,  that  whatever  was  peculiar  to  the  day  as  the 
 first  of  the  feast,  was  now  already  over.  For  the  rest  of  the 
 day  its  characteristic  as  the  preparation  preponderated ;  or, 
 at  least,  this  characteristic  might  fitly  be  taken  into  considera- 
 
CHAP.  XIX.  14.  403 
 
 tion,  especially  as  the  Evangelist's  design  was  to  indicate  the 
 day  of  the  week,  and  as  such  the  day  was  only  the  TrapaaKevrj. 
 Moreover,  while  the  main  end  of  the  statement  was  a  chrono- 
 logical one,  we  may  suppose  that  it  was  intended  further  to  pave 
 the  way  for  the  record  that  the  Jews,  in  order  that  the  bodies 
 might  not  remain  on  the  cross  during  the  Sabbath,  came  to 
 Pilate  and  asked  that  their  legs  might  be  broken  and  they  taken 
 away. 
 
 Finally,  appeal  has  been  made  to  the  Jewish  regulation, 
 according  to  which  the  first  day  of  the  feast  might  never  fall  on 
 the  second,  fourth,  and  sixth  day  of  the  week :  nor  on  the  last, 
 the  Friday,  because  in  that  case  the  first  feast  day  would  have 
 been  a  mere  preparation  for  the  Sabbath.  Ideler  gave  cur- 
 rency to  this  argument  (Handb.  der  Chronologic  i.  S.  521)  ;  but 
 it  has  been  long  since  established  that  that  Jewish  decision  was 
 not  extant  in  Christ's  time,  or  centuries  later.  After  Baronius 
 maintained  this,  Bochart  thoroughly  proved  it  (Hieroz.  i.  562, 
 ed.  Rosen.  638),  Byngeus  taking  the  same  view.  In  the  Talmud 
 mention  is  frequently  made  of  a  case  in  which  a  feast  might 
 fall  on  the  day  of  preparation ;  and  Abenezra  says,  "  Both  in  the 
 Mishna  and  in  the  Talmud  we  may  see  that  the  Passover  might 
 come  sometimes  on  the  second,  fourth,  and  sixth  day."  It  may 
 be  proved  also  from  Epiphanius,  that  this  regulation  was  a  recent 
 one. 
 
 The  determination  of  the  hour  follows  that  of  the  day :  "  it 
 was  about  the  sixth  hour,"  oypa  he  atael  cktt),  or,  according  to 
 Lachmann,  copa  Be  to?  eKrr].  Mark  xv.  15  says,  "  It  was  the 
 third  hour,  and  they  crucified  Him."  St  John  does  not  con- 
 tradict this  ;  but  he  supplements  it.  His  statement  was  not  to 
 be  isolated ;  it  was  in  his  design  to  be  combined  with  that  of 
 his  predecessors.  St  John  had  the  records  of  the  three  Evan- 
 gelists, in  all  their  details,  before  his  eyes ;  he  never  corrects 
 them,  but  everywhere  supplements.  The  two  statements,  when 
 combined,  furnish  the  result  that  the  sentence  of  Pilate  and  the 
 leading  away  to  crucifixion  fell  in  the  middle,  between  the  third 
 and  the  sixth  hour,  that  is,  about  half  an  hour  after  ten.  The 
 uxret  or  w?  in  St  John  intimates  expressly  that  he  did  not  mean 
 precisely  the  sixth  hour,  but  that  the  sixth  hour  is  only  referred 
 to  as  the  period  in  the  day.  The  idea  of  a  contradic:ion  has 
 sprung  only  from  the  fact  that  the  two  Evangelists  were  supposed 
 
404  CHAP.  XVIIl.  XIX. 
 
 to  have  substituted  the  current  hour  in  the  place  of  the  hour  as 
 the  time  of  the  day.  The  supposition  that  among  the  Jews  the 
 day  was  divided  into  four  periods,  each  of  three  hours,  rests  not 
 only  upon  the  declarations  of  Maimonides  and  of  the  Talmud ; 
 it  cannot  be  said  that  the  division  of  the  day  was  of  late  origin. 
 That  it  existed  in  Christ's  time,  is  made  extremely  probable 
 by  the  analogy  of  the  division  of  the  niglit  into  four  periods, 
 each  of  three  hours  :  comp.  Mark  xiii.  35 ;  Luke  xii.  38.  It  is 
 still  more  forcibly  suggested  by  INIatt.  xx.  3,  4.  The  reason 
 why  there  is  here  a  transition  from  dawn  to  the  third  hour,  from 
 this  to  the  sixth,  and  from  the  sixth  to  the  ninth,  can  only  have 
 been  that  the  day  was  actually  divided  into  spaces  of  three 
 hours.  We  are  led  to  the  same  result  by  the  fact  that,  in  the 
 whole  history  of  the  crucifixion  in  the  Gospels,  only  the  third, 
 sixth,  and  ninth  hours  occur,  and  that  generally  in  the  New 
 Testament  these  hours  are  much  oftener  mentioned  than  the 
 intervening  ones.  The  fourth  and  the  fifth  hours,  for  instance, 
 never  occur  in  the  New  Testament ;  and  the  tenth  only  once, 
 John  i.  40,  where  it  was  the  highest  personal  interest  of  the 
 Evangelist  to  define  with  exactitude.  Further,  this  supposi- 
 tion alone  explains  the  fact,  that  precisely  in  connection  with 
 those  hours  which  mark  the  quadrants  of  the  day,  the  were/  or 
 Trepi  is  so  often  used:  comp.  Matt,  xxvii.  46;  Luke  xxiii.  44; 
 John  iv.  6 ;  Acts  x.  3,  9.  The  intermediate  time  between  the 
 third  and  the  sixth  hour  seems  also  in  the  nature  of  the  case 
 the  most  suitable.  If  we  adhere  to  the  thiy^d  hour,  the  space  is 
 too  much  narrowed  for  the  transactions  before  Pilate,  and  we 
 come  in  conflict  with  the  statement  not  merely  of  Matt,  xxvii, 
 45,  but  also  of  Mark  himself,  xv.  33,  that  with  the  sixth  hour 
 the  darkness  began.  As  the  darkness  coincided  with  the  cruci- 
 fixion, as  it  was  the  answer  in  act  to  the  crucifixion,  and  the 
 concomitant  mockery  of  the  Jews,  we  can  hardly  suppose  that 
 Jesus  at  the  commencement  of  the  darkness  had  been  hanging 
 three  hours  on  the  cross.  On  the  other  hand,  if  we  advance  to  the 
 sixth  hour,  space  is  too  much  narrowed  for  the  crucifixion  itself. 
 Pilate  said  to  the  Jews,  "  Behold  your  King."  Here  also 
 we  must  renounce  the  notion  of  mockery,  which  would  so  badly 
 have  served  Pilate's  ends ;  this  would  ill  accord  with  the  dis- 
 position of  the  wretched  man,  who,  drawn  hither  and  thither, 
 this  way  by  his  conscience,  that  way  by  his  interest,  certainly 
 
CHAP.  XIX.  15,  16,  405 
 
 was  but  little  inclined  to  "  sport  with  the  King  of  the  Jews." 
 Jesus  was  assuredly  a  representative  of  the  Messianic  hope  of 
 the  Jewish  nation.  According  to  Pilate's  secret  presentiment, 
 He  was  yet  more ;  and  he  could  not,  even  at  the  moment  of 
 uttering  the  sentence,  hold  out  to  the  Jews  a  more  powerful 
 motive  to  bethink  themselves  and  stay  their  fury,  than  this, 
 "  Behold  your  King." 
 
 Ver.  15.  "But  they  cried  out,  Away  with  him,  away  with 
 him,  crucify  him.  Pilate  saitli  unto  them,  Shall  I  crucify  your 
 King?  The  chief  priests  answered,  We  have  no  king  but 
 Cesar." — The  double  apov  here,  like  the  alpe,  Luke  xxiii.  18, 
 Acts  xxi.  36,  points  to  Deuteronomy.  Gesenius :  Formula 
 solennis  Deut.  ubicunque  jubetur  supplicium,  hsec  est  mi)! 
 lanpo  ynn.  Comp.  xiii.  6,  where  it  is  said  of  false  prophets,  and 
 xvii.  7,  Sept.  kuI  e^apel^  rov  Trovqpop  i^  vfiwv  avrcov,  xix.  9. 
 The  apov  was  the  judicial  expression  of  their  demand,  which 
 as  such  bore  in  it  its  own  motive ;  aravpcacxov  signified  the 
 form  in  which,  under  present  circumstances,  the  supposed  re- 
 quirement of  law  might  be  satisfied. — "  We  have  no  king  but 
 Cesar:"  they  renounce  their  hope,  that  they  may  be  rid  of  its 
 hateful  representative :  comp.  Acts  xvii.  7.  But  their  word  had 
 a  deeper  significance  than  they  themselves  meant ;  and  there- 
 fore it  was  recorded.  When  they  despised  Christ  their  true 
 King,  and  delivered  Him  up  to  death,  they  ceased,  in  fact,  to  be 
 God's  people  and  kingdom,  and  sank  entirely  under  the  power 
 of  this  world,  which  God  used  for  the  execution  of  His  wrath 
 upon  them :  comp.  Luke  xix.  27.  Lampe  :  "  They  elected 
 Cesar  to  be  their  king  ;  by  Cesar  they  were  destroyed,  and  that 
 in  the  time  of  the  Passover." 
 
 Ver.  16.  "Then  delivered  he  Him  therefore  unto  them  to 
 be  crucified.  And  they  took  Jesus,  and  led  Him  away." — Uape- 
 ScoKev  obviously  must  not  be  understood  of  material  delivery 
 over ;  it  is  equivalent  to  ')(ap[t,ea6ai  et?  aTrcoXetav,  Acts  xxv.  16 : 
 comp.  ver.  11.  A  comparison  with  that  passage  shows  that  in 
 the  expression  there  lies  a  complaint  against  Pilate.  Accord- 
 ing to  the  Roman  law  he  acted  unjustly,  but  still  more  so 
 according  to  the  law  of  God,  which  commands  the  ruler,  "  Ye 
 shall  not  respect  persons  in  judgment,"  Deut.  i.  17.  TlapeScoKe 
 here  is  distinct  from  TrapeScoKe  in  Matt,  xxvii.  26.  Here  it 
 denotes  the  last  and  definitive  delivery,  as  it  followed  upon  the 
 
406  CHAP.  XVIII.  XIX. 
 
 solemn  judgment ;  there  it  was  the  actual  delivery,  as  it  was 
 expressed  by  the  scourging.  St  Matthew  has  omitted  the 
 attempt  of  Pilate  to  undo  the  sentence  v/hich  had  been  actually 
 uttered  by  the  fact  of  the  scourging;  he  has  omitted  also  the 
 formal  pronunciation  of  the  sentence. 
 
 Despite  the  seeming  humiliation  of  Jesus  under  Pilate,  the 
 transactions  before  him  yielded  a  result  which  furthered  the 
 Divine  plan  of  salvation.  Jesus  was  to  die  for  the  sins  of  the 
 world ;  but  His  innocence  and  righteousness  must  be  attested 
 by  the  judge  himself  who  condemned  Him  to  death.  Pilate's 
 triple  "I  find  no  fault  in  this  man;"  the  declaration  that  he 
 would  be  innocent  of  the  blood  of  this  righteous  man ;  the  adop- 
 tion of  all  means  that  might  have  been  available  to  rescue  Him, 
 down  to  the  very  moment  when  he  pronounced  the  sentence ; 
 the  message  of  his  wife  ; — all  these  things  utterly  destroy  the 
 very  root  of  the  disparaging  conclusions  that  might  be  drawn 
 from  the  condemnation  of  our  Lord. 
 
 We  shall  now  cast  a  closing  glance  over  the  series  of  events 
 that  took  place  before  Pilate.  They  present  no  real  difficulty, 
 still  less  any  contradictions.  Matthew  and  Mark  are  most 
 brief ;  Luke  and  John  communicate  each  his  peculiar  details 
 with  considerable  minuteness.  But  in  the  matter  common  to 
 all  the  Evangelists,  we  have  a  sure  guide  by  which  we  can 
 adjust  the  position  of  what  is  peculiar  to  each,  so  that  the  order 
 is  never  arbitrary  or  doubtful. 
 
 John  xviii.  29-32  forms  the  beginning.  Then  follows 
 Luke  xxiii.  2.  The  Jews,  repelled  in  their  request  that  Pilate 
 would,  without  further  ado,  confirm  the  judgment  they  had 
 pronounced,  bring  their  accusation  against  Jesus,  that  He 
 stirred  the  people  to  sedition,  and  hindered  them  from  giving 
 tribute  to  Cesar,  saying  that  He  Himself  was  Christ  a  King. 
 This  accusation  was  the  point  of  connection  for  the  question, 
 common  to  all  the  Evangelists,  "Art  thou  the  King  of  the 
 Jews?"  From  St  John  we  gather  that  Pilate  put  this  question 
 to  Chi'ist  after  he  had  taken  Him  into  the  prsetorium.  The 
 Lord's  answer  is  communicated  by  the  first  three  Evangelists 
 only  in  its  central  words,  ai)  \6<y€i,<i.  St  John  records  pre- 
 viously the  explanations  which  Jesus  had  given  Pilate  touching 
 the  nature  of  His  kingdom  before  that  decisive  answer.  Then 
 did  Pilate,  convinced  of  His  innocence,  betake  himself  with 
 
CHAP,  XIX.  16.  407 
 
 Jesus  to  the  people  outside,  and  speak  for  the  first  time  the 
 words  afterwards  twice  repeated,  "  I  find  no  fault  in  this  man," 
 John  xviii.  38 ;  Luke  xxiii.  4.  The  rulers  are  not  pacified  by 
 that  declaration  ;  they  renew,  with  increased  vehemence,  their 
 allegations:  Luke,  ver.  5.  Pilate  challenges  Jesus  to  defend 
 Himself,  but  He  answers  nothing,  so  that  Pilate  greatly  mar- 
 velled, Matt.  xiii.  14;  Mark,  ver.  5.  In  the  accusation  of  the 
 rulers,  mention  had  been  made  of  Galilee.  Pilate  takes  up 
 that  word,  hoping  that  here  would  be  an  opening  for  his  own 
 extrication  from  the  embarrassment.  He  asks  (Luke)  whether 
 Christ  were  a  Galilean;  and  on  finding  that  it  was  so,  sends  Him 
 to  Herod.  After  Christ's  return  from  Herod,  Pilate,  according 
 to  St  Luke,  summons  the  rulers  of  the  people  together,  and 
 declares  a  second  time,  "  I  find  no  fault  in  him ;"  but  offers, 
 that  the  hateful  offence  of  false  accusation  and  unrighteous 
 judgment  might  not  seem  to  rest  with  them,  to  inflict  corporal 
 punishment  on  Christ,  and  release  Him.  So  far  we  follow  St 
 Luke.  Now  all  the  Evangelists  concur.  That  the  people's 
 voice  might  be  raised  in  favour  of  the  accused,  Pilate  makes 
 use  of  the  popular  cry,  heard,  according  to  St  Mark,  just  at 
 this  moment,  and  before  the  answer  to  the  proposal  of  chastise- 
 ment could  be  given,  demanding  the  release  of  a  prisoner ;  and 
 he  gives  them  the  choice  between  Christ  and  Barabbas.  The 
 conciseness  with  which  St  John  touches  this  momentous  event 
 suggests  that  it  had  been  already  exhaustively  treated  by  his 
 predecessors.  Between  the  proposal  of  Pilate  and  the  answer 
 of  the  people  must  be  placed  the  message  from  his  wife,  which 
 is  peculiar  to  St  Matthew.  After  this  attempt  had  failed, 
 Pilate  a  third  time,  despairing  of  the  matter  now,  says,  "  I  find 
 no  fault  in  him,"  Luke,  ver.  22,  and  repeats  his  earlier  pro- 
 position to  dismiss  Jesus  with  chastisement.  But  His  enemies 
 redouble  their  clamour,  Luke,  ver.  23.  Still  Pilate  did  not  give 
 all  up.  He  declared  by  a  symbolical  action,  the  washing  of  his 
 hands,  that  he  would  release  himself  from  all  responsibility. 
 The  multitude,  regarding  nothing  but  the  readiness  to  fall  into 
 their  plans  which  Pilate's  words  betrayed,  declare  tliemselves 
 prepared  to  take  the  whole  responsibility  upon  themselves, 
 Matt.  xxiv.  25.  Then  follows  the  scourging,  Matt.  ver.  26 ; 
 Mark  xv.  15  ;  John  xix.  1.  Then  come  the  indignities  perpe- 
 trated by  the  soldiers,  Matt.  vers.  27-31 ;  Mark,  vers.  16-20  ; 
 
408  CHAP   XVIII.  XIX. 
 
 John  xix.  2,  3.  Then  Pilate  renews  his  attempts  to  influence 
 the  people  in  favour  of  Jesus, — attempts  which  St  John  records 
 in  vers.  4  seq. ;  and,  finally,  when  these  availed  nothing,  the 
 formal  and  final  sentence. 
 
 the  crucifixion. 
 Chap.  xix.  17-30. 
 
 Vers.  17  and  18  sura  up  briefly  what  the  earlier  Evangelists 
 had  recorded,  to  serve  as  a  point  of  connection  for  what  is 
 peculiar  to  St  John.  Then  there  is  a  copious  nan-ative  of  four 
 facts,  which  either  the  other  Evangelists  altogether  omit,  such 
 as  the  committal  of  the  Lord's  mother  to  the  care  of  John,  or 
 in  which  St  John  has  made  remarkable  additions  :  the  super- 
 scription on  the  cross,  the  division  of  the  garments,  and  the 
 vinegar  offered  to  drink. 
 
 Vers.  17,  18.  "And  He,  bearing  His  cross,  went  forth 
 into  a  place  called  the  place  of  a  skull,  which  is  called  in  the 
 Hebrew,  Golgotha ;  where  they  crucified  Him,  and  two  other 
 with  Him,  on  either  side  one,  and  Jesus  in  the  midst." — We 
 misht  think,  accordinir  to  ver.  16,  that  the  Jews  were  the 
 subject  of  TrapekajBov.  But  the  verbs  "delivered"  and  "  led" 
 will  not  suit  the  Jews,  inasmuch  as  the  Koman  punishment 
 could  be  executed  only  by  Roman  instruments  ;  still  less  "  they 
 crucified"  (comp.  ver.  23),  which,  however,  belongs  to  the  same 
 subject.  The  agents  in  these  verbs  therefore  must  be  those  on 
 whom  devolved  the  crucifixion,  the  Roman  soldiers,  the  same 
 who,  according  to  vers.  1-3,  had  performed  the  scourging 
 which  was  the  introduction  to  the  crucifixion.  But  St  John 
 would  have  expressed  himself  more  precisely,  if  he  had  not 
 reckoned  on  being  supplemented  out  of  his  predecessors  :  com- 
 pare especially  Matt,  xxvii.  31,  Avhere,  according  to  ver.  27, 
 the  soldiers  of  the  governor  are  the  subject  to  "  led  Him  out 
 to  be  crucified  ;"  Mark,  ver.  20,  comp.  ver.  16. — Executions 
 must  take  place,  according  to  the  Roman  as  well  as  the 
 Jewish  custom,  without  the  gate  :  Num.  xv.  35  ;  1  Kings  xxi. 
 13  ;  Acts  vii.  38.  It  signified  that  "  this  soul  was  rooted  out 
 from  his  people :"  the  culprit  executed  was  cast  out  of  the  com- 
 munity of  his  fellow-citizens.  The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews, 
 ch.  xiii.   12,  13,  grounds  upon  the  fact  that  Christ  suffered 
 
CHAP.  XIX.  19,  20,  409 
 
 without  the  gate,  the  exhortation,  "  Let  us  go  forth  therefore 
 unto  Him  without  the  camp,  bearing  His  reproac/t." — 'Evrevdev 
 Kol  evrevOev  occurs  in  the  New  Testament  only  here  and  Rev. 
 xxii.  2.  By  the  middle  place  assigned  to  Him,  Jesus  was 
 marked  out  as  the  chief  personage.  It  appears  that  this  place 
 was  given  Him  at  the  urgency  of  the  Jews.  But  there  was  a 
 providence  of  God  concerned  in  it.  A  malefactor  on  the  right 
 hand,  and  a  malefactor  on  the  left  hand ;  so  was  it  right  for 
 Him  who,  according  to  Isa.  liii.  12,  was  reckoned  among  the 
 transgressors,  and  was  the  representative  of  many  sinners. 
 
 In  his  record  of  the  superscription  on  the  cross,  vers.  19-22, 
 St  John  is  particularly  copious,  because  he  discerned  in  what 
 Pilate  WTote,  and  in  the  obstinacy  with  which  he  held  to  it,  a 
 remarkable  leading  of  Divine  providence.  His  predecessors 
 had,  as  St  John's  copiousness  itself  might  lead  us  to  expect, 
 touched  this  subject  very  briefly :  compare  Matt,  xxvii.  37  ; 
 Mark  xv.  26.  St  Luke  alone  had  mentioned  the  three  lan- 
 guages. St  John  alone  alludes  to  the  contention  with  the  Jews 
 about  the  change  in  it. 
 
 Ver.  19.  "  And  Pilate  wrote  a  title,  and  put  it  on  the  cross. 
 And  the  writing  was,  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  the  King  of  the 
 Jews." — TtTXo9,  titulus,  was  the  judicial  name  of  the  super- 
 scription. That  St  John  gives  the  technical  term,  is  in  harmony 
 with  the  significance  which  he  attached  to  the  whole  matter. 
 Naturally,  the  superscription  was  written  and  placed  on  the 
 cross  only  at  Pilate's  order.  "  The  King  of  the  Jews  :"  a  voice 
 in  Pilate's  heart  spoke  in  favour  of  His  being  so  in  reality. 
 He  had  already  done  enough  at  the  bidding  of  the  Jews.  In 
 the  consciousness  of  his  injustice  to  Christ,  he  would  not  further 
 afflict  Him  by  charging  Him  in  His  death  with  making  a  pre- 
 sumptuous claim.  Yet  the  determinations  of  men,  especially  of 
 such  men  as  Pilate,  in  whom  diversified  motives  and  impulses 
 cross  each  other,  are  not  to  be  reckoned  upon.  That  this 
 resolution,  however,  was  held  firmly,  in  spite  of  the  counter 
 influence  of  the  Jews,  was  regarded  by  St  John  as  resulting 
 from  the  influence  of  God,  who  holds  the  hearts  of  men  in  His 
 hands.  Lampe :  We  believe  that  Pilate  piously  wrote  this  title 
 under  a  certain  Divine  impulse. 
 
 Ver.  20.  "  This  title  then  read  many  of  the  Jews :  for  the 
 place  where  Jesus  was  crucified  was  nigh  to  the  city :  and  it 
 
410  CHAP.  XVIII.  XIX. 
 
 was  written  in  Hebrew,  and  Greek,  and  Latin." — The  observa- 
 tion that  many  of  the  Jews  witnessed  this,  was  not  intended  as 
 a  confirmation  of  the  fact ;  but  to  intimate  that  Jesus  was  pro- 
 claimed the  King  of  the  Jews  before  many  witnesses. — 'The 
 three  lano-uao-es  were  sif^nificant  to  St  John,  inasmuch  as  their 
 concurrence  testified  that  the  King  of  the  Jews,  as  such,  was  at 
 the  same  time  the  King  of  the  Gentiles  (comp.  on  i.  50)  ;  that 
 throuc^h  Him  the  prophecy  of  Japhet  dwelling  in  the  tents  of 
 Shem,  Gen.  ix.  27,  and  of  Shiloh  whom  the  nations  would 
 obey.  Gen.  xlix.  10,  were  accomplished.  Calvin  :  The  Lord 
 thus  declared  that  the  time  was  at  hand  when  He  would  make 
 everywhere  known  the  name  of  His  Son.  As  it  regards  the 
 order  of  the  languages,  the  Greek  precedes  the  Latin  in  St  Luke 
 also ;  but  there  is  this  difference,  that  the  Hebrew  comes  last  in 
 his  account,  while  in  John  it  takes  precedence.  The  inverted 
 order  may  be  most  simply  accounted  for  as  due  to  St  John's 
 preference  for  the  Hebrew.  'E/Spa'Carl  occurs  four  times  in  the 
 Gospel,  twice  in  the  Apocalypse,  but  nowhere  else  in  the  entire 
 New  Testament.  Neither  of  the  two  Evangelists  professes  to 
 follow  the  actual  order  of  the  languages.  It  is  probable  that 
 the  Latin  was  really  the  first,  as  the  tongue  of  the  rulers  of  the 
 land  (the  reading  of  Cod.  B.,  'Pcofxalari,  'EXK-qvLcrrL,  sprang 
 from-  the  erroneous  supposition  that  John  must  needs  follow  the 
 actual  order,  as  in  the  original  title)  ;  then  the  Greek  followed, 
 as  the  actual  language  of  the  country ;  and  finally  the  Hebrew. 
 St  Luke  placed  the  Greek  first,  because  he  wrote  primarily  for 
 Greeks  (Theophilus) ;  and  St  John  gives  it  the  precedence  of 
 the  Latin,  because  it  was  the  more  generally  diffused  language. 
 Vers.  21,  22.  "Then  said  the  chief  priests  of  the  Jews  to 
 Pilate,  Write  not.  The  King  of  the  Jews ;  but  that  he  said,  I 
 am  Kino-  of  the  Jews.  Pilate  answered,  What  I  have  written 
 I  have  written." — The  representations  of  the  Jews  were  made  to 
 Pilate,  who  was  not  himself  present  at  the  crucifixion,  before 
 the  Lord  was  led  away,  when  the  superscription  was  just  pre- 
 pared. The  whole  section,  vers.  19-22,  does  not  stand  to  vers. 
 17  and  18  in  the  relation  of  sequence,- but  of  juxtaposition. 
 The  superscription  had  been  written  and  attached  to  the  cross 
 before  Jesus  was  led  forth.  'Ap^i'^pei'i  is  used  by  Josephus, 
 just  as  it  is  by  the  Evangelists,  to  designate  all  priests  of  the 
 higher  rank :  comp.  e.g,  Antiq.  xx.  7,  8  ;  Bell.  Jud.  iv.  3,  6. 
 
CHAP.  XIX.  23,  24.  411 
 
 But  often  as  the  ap'^iep€t<;  are  mentioned,  the  addition,  "  of 
 the  Jews,"  is  found  only  here.  We  must  seek  therefore  some 
 special  occasion  for  it.  Evidently  the  high  priests  of  the  Jews 
 stood  in  a  peculiar  relation  to  the  King  of  the  Jews, — a  relation 
 which  explains  the  motive  of  the  high  priests.  Between  them 
 and  Christ  a  strife  of  life  and  death  for  dominion  had  been 
 going  on :  comp.  on  x.  8,  Matt.  xxi.  28,  xxvii.  18,  according  to 
 which  the  high  priests  delivered  Jesus  for  envy.  In  this  rivalry 
 between  the  high  priests  of  the  Jews  and  the  King  of  the  Jews, 
 we  may  discern  the  impulse  of  that  bitterness  which  led  them 
 to  rob  Christ  of  the  honour  which  had  been  given  Him  by  the 
 superscription  of  Pilate. 
 
 Pilate's  answer,  o  'yk'ypa^a,  <y€ypa<pa,  doubtless  suggests  that 
 obstinacy  of  character  which  Philo  attributed  to  him  (ti]v  (pvaiv 
 aKajXTrrj^i).  Still,  as  the  preceding  transactions  show  how  little 
 he  was  able,  under  the  pressure  of  a  guilty  conscience,  to  persist 
 in  the  object  he  set  out  with,  we  may  justly  refer  his  unbending 
 determination  in  this  particular  point  to  the  secret  overruling 
 of  God,  which  secured  that  on  the  cross,  where  Jesus  obtained 
 the  right  to  His  dominion.  He  should  be  proclaimed  King. 
 Lampe  :  "  As  this  title  was  written  in  the  three  cardinal  lan- 
 guages of  the  world,  so  in  a  short  space  His  kingdom  was 
 announced  to  all  nations  in  the  same  tongues."  What  is 
 expunged  is  as  good  as  not  written.  Hence  "  I  have  written" 
 is  equivalent  to  "  It  must  be  so." 
 
 Vers.  23,  24.  "  Then  the  soldiers,  when  they  had  crucified 
 Jesus,  took  His  garments,  and  made  four  parts,  to  every  soldier 
 a  part ;  and  also  His  coat :  now  the  coat  was  without  seam, 
 woven  from  the  top  throughout.  They  said  therefore  among 
 themselves.  Let  us  not  rend  it,  but  cast  lots  for  it,  whose  it 
 shall  be:  that  the  scripture  might  be  fulfilled,  which  saith. 
 They  parted  My  raiment  among  them,  and  for  My  vesture  they 
 did  cast  lots.  These  things  therefore  the  soldiers  did." — All 
 the  Evangelists  mention  the  division  of  Christ's  garments,  be- 
 cause this,  of  itself  a  less  important  circumstance,  contained  a 
 fulfilment  of  the  prophecy  in  Ps.  xxii.  19.  The  interest  which 
 they  all  felt  in  this  proceeding  sprang  from  their  sure  conviction 
 of  the  inspiration  of  the  Old  Testament,  which  of  itself  would 
 attach  significance  to  otherwise  indifferent  coincidences.  The 
 relation  of  the  incident  to  the  passage  in  the  psalm  was  so  plain, 
 
412  CHAP,  XVIII.  XIX. 
 
 that  the  first  three  Evangelists  held  it  needless  to  quote  it  (for 
 the  quotation  in  Matthew  is  spuriou.s).  In  his  allusion  to  the 
 coincidence  between  the  prophecy  and  its  fulfilment,  John  goes 
 more  into  detail ;  he  testifies  that  inspiration  in  the  Old  Testa- 
 ment extended  to  the  minutest  matters,  and  that  the  overruling 
 of  Divine  Providence  is  in  these  minute  details  of  special  mo- 
 ment. Now,  as  the  individual  words  of  the  psalm  were  requi- 
 site to  this  object,  he  cites  the  passage  itself.  That  passage 
 speaks,  in  its  first  clause,  of  the  division  of  the  garments ;  in  its 
 second,  of  the  lot  cast  for  the  it^zh,  the  long  vesture,  after  the 
 removal  of  which  the  body  was  left  naked ;  so  that  it  involves 
 a  climax:  Job  xxiv.  7-10;  Ps.  xxxv.  13  ;  Esther iv,  2.  Both 
 were  strictly  fulfilled.  The  soldiers  divided  among  themselves 
 the  other  habiliments  of  Jesus :  the  covering  of  His  head,  the 
 girdle.  Matt.  x.  9,  Acts  i.  13;  the  shoes,  i.  27;  the  coat,  Matt. 
 V.  40 ;  and  then  cast  lots  for  the  outer  vesture.  That  which  is 
 here  detailed  St  Mark  hints  at  in  xv.  24,  "  And  when  they  had 
 crucified  Him,  they  parted  His  garments,  casting  lots  upon 
 them,  what  every  man  should  take."  Accordingly  the  lot  was, 
 at  least  in  part,  of  such  a  kind,  that  one  obtained  something, 
 while  others  obtained  nothing.  Strictly  speaking,  it  is  not 
 "  what  every  man  should  take,"  but  "  who  should  obtain  some- 
 thing." As  the  value  of  the  four  parts  was  unequal,  the  first 
 distribution  also  was  probably  by  lot. 
 
 That  four  soldiers  were  usually  employed  in  these  matters 
 by  the  Romans,  is  plain  from  many  sources :  e.g.  Acts  xii.  4 ; 
 Philo  in  Flaccum,  p.  981.  John  alone  describes  the  vesture 
 which  the  Son  of  man  wore.  And  in  harmony  with  his  de- 
 scription, the  glorified  Christ  appeared  to  him  in  a  similar 
 vesture,  ivSeSv/jLevo^  irohrjpr],  Rev.  i.  13. — "  Throughout,"  so 
 that  the  web  went  through  the  whole,  and  no  seam  was  visible. 
 Before  'iva  Tfkrjpadi]  we  must  interpolate,  "  This  came  to  pass," 
 or,  "  They  must  do  this."  "  This,  therefore,  the  soldiers  did," 
 forms  of  course  the  transition  to  the  following  scene.  The  act 
 of  the  soldiers,  however,  in  itself  indifferent,  would  not  have 
 been  made  prominent  by  such  a  transition-formula,  had  not 
 their  act  stood  under  the  disposal  of  a  higher  power,  which  gave 
 it  importance.  Apparently  all  is  come  to  an  end  with  the  Re- 
 deemer. "  The  distribution  of  the  garment  served,"  as  Luther 
 says,  ''  for  a  sign  that  everything  was  done  with  Christ,  just  as 
 
CHAP.  XIX.  25.  413 
 
 with  one  who  was  abandoned,  lost,  and  to  be  forgotten  for  ever." 
 The  soldiers  doubtless,  during  this  act,  continued  their  mockery 
 of  the  King  of  the  Jews ;  and  the  matter,  doubtless,  derived  its 
 attractiveness  rather  from  this  pastime  than  from  any  material 
 gain.  We  have  here  the  continuation  of  the  mockery  in  ch. 
 xix.  2,  3.  But  the  deed  itself  was  under  the  hand  of  Provi- 
 dence; and,  concurrent  with  the  profane  irony,  there  was  a 
 sacred  irony  upon  the  irony. 
 
 In  vers.  25-27,  Jesus  commits  His  mother  to  John.  This 
 record  is  peculiar  to  the  fourth  Evangelist :  it  would  seem  as 
 if  the  others  regarded  it  as  his  property.  The  question  arises, 
 where  we  are  to  place  the  incident;  and  the  most  obvious 
 thought  is,  that  it  occurred  towards  the  close,  as  only  on  the 
 border  between  life  and  death  would  our  Lord  have  committed 
 His  mother  to  any  other  keeping.  Moreover,  the  jxeTa  rovro, 
 in  ver.  28,  would  mean  nothing,  if  the  following  occurrence 
 were  not  in  immediate  connection  with  that  we  now  consider. 
 But  that  following  occurrence,  according  to  the  express  remark 
 of  John,  fell  in  the  near  neighbourhood  of  the  Saviour's  death. 
 Accordingly,  the  word  which  Jesus  here  addressed  to  His 
 mother  and  to  John  must  take  the  fourth  place  among  the 
 Seven  AVords  spoken  from  the  cross  :  the  first,  "  Father,  forgive 
 them;"  the  second,  "This  day  shalt  thou  be  with  Me  in  Para- 
 dise;" the  third,  "My  God,  My  God,  why  hast  Thou  forsaken 
 Me  ? "  The  sacred  design  in  the  number  Seven  will  be  seen, 
 when  it  is  observed  that  it  is  obtained  here  only  by  combining 
 the  records  of  the  four  Evangelists ;  so  that  their  origin  was 
 not  due  to  any  artistic  arrangement  on  the  part  of  the  several 
 writers.  Of  these  seven  utterances,  four  were  spoken  in  the 
 near  approach  of  His  death,  and  had  an  immediate  reference 
 to  it. 
 
 Ver.  25.  "  Now  there  stood  by  the  cross  of  Jesus  His 
 mother,  and  His  mother's  sister,  Mary  the  wife  of  Cleophas, 
 and  Mary  Magdalene." — According  to  Matt,  xxvii.  55,  56,  at 
 a  certain  distance  from  the  cross  of  Jesus  there  stood  "  many 
 women,"  among  whom  Mary  Magdalene,  Mary  the  mother  of 
 James  and  Joses,  and  the  mother  of  the  sons  of  Zebedee,  are 
 mentioned.  Mark,  in  ch.  xv.  40,  41,  names  also  three  women  : 
 Mary  Magdalene,  Mary  the  mother  of  the  younger  James  and 
 Joses,  and  Salome ;  the  same  therefore,  with  this  only  differ- 
 
414  CHAP.  XVIII.  XIX. 
 
 ence,  that  the  name  of  James  has  the  appendage  rov  fjuKpov, 
 and  instead  of  the  mother  of  the  sons  of  Zebedee  her  name  is 
 stated.  The  appendage,  "  the  less,"  was  rendered  necessary  by 
 Salome  being  mentioned  instead  of  the  mother  of  Zebedee's 
 sons.  There  were  only  two  prominent  men  with  the  name  of 
 James.  The  elder  of  these  was  the  son  of  Zebedee.  Thus 
 Matthew,  who  introduces  the  mother  of  the  sons  of  Zebedee, 
 needed  not  to  define  more  particularly  the  lesser  James.  John 
 omits  his  own  mother,  the  mention  of  wliom  would  have  been 
 somewhat  of  an  interruption  in  this  scene,  and  substitutes  the 
 mother  of  Jesus,  who  forms  here  the  centre  of  all.  The  two 
 others  are  identical  with  those  mentioned  by  the  other  Evan- 
 gelists :  this  we  might  be  led  to  expect,  by  the  fact  that  Matthew 
 and  Mark  certainly  named  those  only  who  had  a  certain  claim 
 to  be  distinguished  from  the  rest.  The  further  difference  in 
 the  order  resulted  from  the  mother  of  Jesus  being  mentioned 
 first.  She  could  not  be  otherwise  than  at  the  head ;  and  her 
 sister  would  naturally  follow.  Thus  Mary  Magdalene,  who  in 
 all  the  other  enumerations  of  holy  women  takes  precedence, 
 must  needs  have  on  this  occasion  the  last  place. 
 
 To  Mary  the  mother  of  Jesus  was  now  fulfilled  the  word 
 of  Simeon,  Luke  ii.  35,  "  And  a  sword  shall  pierce  thy  own 
 soul  also:"  the  same  sword  which,  according  to  the  prophecy 
 of  Zech.  xiii.  7,  was  to  smite  and  pierce  the  Shepherd  of  the 
 Lord.  Grotius  aptly  regards  her  presence  at  the  cross  as  a 
 prophecy  of  the  Christian  boldness  which  was  to  be  exhibited 
 even  by  the  weaker  sex. — "  And  His  mother's  sister,  Mary  the 
 wife  of  Cleophas:"  since  we  have  no  instance  of  actual  sisters 
 bearing  the  same  name,  the  sister  must  be  sister-in-law.  The 
 term  sister  is  frequently  used  for  near  relations  :  Tobit  viii.  4, 
 7,  vii.  4,  compared  with  ver.  2  ;  Job  xlii.  11.  The  designation 
 had  its  specific  reason,  probably  in  the  circumstance  that  after 
 the  death  of  Cleophas  the  two  families  were  blended  into  one. 
 The  sons  of  this  Mary  are  recorded  by  Matthew  and  Mark  as 
 being  James  and  John.  Accordingly  Mary  could  be  only  the 
 wife  of  Cleophas,  which  is  indeed  the  most  obvious  relationship 
 implied  in  the  term.  Cleophas  is  mentioned  here  only  in  the 
 New  Testament ;  but  he  must  be  identical  with  the  Alphaeus 
 mentioned  by  ISIatthew,  Mark,  and  Luke :  for  James,  who 
 in  Matt,  xxvii.  5C),  Mark  xv.  40,  is  called  the  son  of  Mary,  the 
 
CHAP.  XIX.  25.  415 
 
 wife,  according  to  John,  of  Cleoplias,  was,  according  to  Matt. 
 X.  3,  the  son  of  Alphaeus ;  as  also  according  to  Mark  iii.  18, 
 Luke  vi.  15,  Acts  i.  13.  The  difference  is  to  be  explained  by 
 the  fact  that  the  name  was  originally  Aramaic,  and  took  the 
 form  "•Bpn.  Now  the  n  might  be  translated  variously  in  the 
 Greek :  compare  the  analogies  in  the  Septuagint,  which  Gese- 
 nius  has  collected  under  the  letter  n  in  his  Thesaurus.  Whether 
 the  Cleophas  of  Luke  xxiv.  18  is  the  same  name,  may  be 
 doubted  :  it  may  have  been  a  contraction  of  KXeoTrarpo^.  If 
 he  had  been  the  same  man  as  is  mentioned  in  Luke  vi.  15,  the 
 Evangelist  would  not  in  the  same  Gospel  have  adopted  another 
 Greek  name.  But  if  the  two  names  were  originally  the  same, 
 that  would  be  a  reason  why  he  should  choose  another  Greek 
 form,  in  order  that  personal  identity  might  not  be  supposed  to 
 be  implied.  Mark  ii.  14  shows  us  that  the  name  was  a  current 
 one :  there  we  have  another  Alphgeus,  the  father  of  Matthew. 
 — We  are  led  to  suppose  that  Cleophas  or  Alphgeus  was  already 
 dead,  from  the  circumstance  that  Mary  is  everywhere  else 
 indicated  by  her  maternal  relation.  Supposing  him  to  have 
 died  early,  we  can  understand  how  Mary  with  her  sons  came 
 into  a  close  relationship  with  Joseph  the  husband  of  Marv,  who 
 would  represent  a  father  to  them. — The  James  and  John  of 
 Mark  xv.  40  can  be  no  other  than  those  whom  he  had  men- 
 tioned in  ch.  vi.  3,  and  with  them  Judas  and  Simon,  also 
 therefore  sons  of  Mary.  If  it  was  not  Mary  mother  of  our 
 Lord,  but  another  Mary,  who,  according  to  Mark  xv.  40,  was 
 the  mother  of  these  sons,  then  we  must  not  think,  in  Alark 
 vi.  3,  of  literal  brothers  of  Jesus,  but  only  of  nearest  kindred : 
 comp.,  concerning  the  brothers  of  Jesus,  the  remarks  on  ch.  ii. 
 12,  vii.  3. — Many  suppose  that  four,  and  not  three  women,  are 
 mentioned  here.  The  (unnamed)  sister  of  the  mother  of  Jesus 
 is  supposed  to  be  Salome  the  mother  of  John,  and  Mary  wife 
 of  Cleophas  to  be  a  different  person.  But  that  this  is  a  mere 
 learned  device,  is  rendered  exceedingly  probable  by  the  simple 
 circumstance,  that  the  Christian  Church  has  from  the  beffinninir 
 regarded  them  as  three  in  number.  Where,  in  the  earlier  Evan- 
 gelists, a  great  number  of  women  had  been  previously  mentioned, 
 and  then  individuals  are  specified,  three,  and  never  four,  are 
 alluded  to  in  connection  with  the  cross.  Hence  we  may  natu- 
 rally expect  that  here  also  three,  and  not  four,  are  alluded  to. 
 
416  CHAP.  XVIII.  XIX. 
 
 Only  on  the  supposition  that  Maiy  wife  of  Cleophas  was  the 
 sister  of  our  Lord's  mother,  can  we  account  for  the  postpone- 
 ment of  ISIary  Magdalene,  who  everywhere  else  takes  the  firs£ 
 place  among  the  women,  as  uniformly  as  Simon  Peter  takes 
 the  first  among  the  Apostles.  The  Kai  also  could  be  omitted 
 only  if  there  was  no  ambiguity.  It  could  not  possibly  have 
 been  wanting  if  a  description  had  preceded  which  required  that 
 the  name  of  the  same  person  should  follow  to  make  it  clear. 
 If  the  sister  of  the  mother  of  Jesus  and  the  wife  of  Cleophas 
 are  two  persons,  then  the  former  lacks  a  name,  and  the  latter  is 
 introduced  without  a  reason  given  for  the  introduction.  Nor 
 is  there  ever  given  the  slightest  intimation  of  a  relationship 
 betwixt  John  and  our  Lord.  The  manner  in  which  our  Lord 
 committed  to  him  His  mother  leads  to  the  conclusion,  that  a 
 relationship  of  affinity  did  not  subsist  between  the  two.  Finally, 
 among  the  three  Marys,  here  designedly  placed  in  juxtaposition, 
 we  are  not  justified  in  interposing  another,  especially  such  a 
 characterless  and  indefinite  personage  as  this  "  sister  of  the 
 mother  of  Jesus,"  about  whom  neither  the  earlier  Evangelists 
 nor  St  John  give  us  any  the  slightest  information. 
 
 Ver.  26.  "  When  Jesus  therefore  saw  His  mother,  and  the 
 disciple  standing  by  whom  He  loved,  He  saith  unto  His  mother, 
 Woman,  behold  thy  son  ! " — The  fact  that  the  women  in  Matt, 
 xxvii.  55  looked  on  generally  from  afar,  does  not  exclude  the 
 supposition  that  it  was  permitted  to  the  mother  of  Jesus  to 
 approach  nearer  to  the  cross,  especially  as  the  Lord's  mother 
 did  not  belong  to  the  circle  of  the  women  mentioned  there. 
 The  address  "  Woman,"  occurring  also  in  ch.  ii.  4,  is  explained 
 by  Matt.  xii.  48,  where  Jesus  says  emphatically  to  those  who 
 announced  the  arrival  of  His  mother,  "  Who  is  My  mother  ? " 
 and  intimated  that,  in  the  things  pertaining  to  His  vocation, 
 into  which  His  mother  would  intrude,  the  relation  between  them 
 altogether  receded.  Thus  here  also  the  term  ivoman  suggests 
 that  at  this  crisis  His  relation  to  His  mother  retreated  altogether 
 in  comparison  of  the  high  commission  given  Him  by  His  Father 
 to  redeem  a  sinful  world.  We  must  carry  this,  however,  no 
 further  than  as  teaching  us  that  no  such  relation  must  hinder 
 us  from  the  discharge  of  our  duty.  We  must  not  forget  that, 
 in  the  latest  moments  of  His  earthly  existence.  He,  as  a  pattern 
 to  us,  cared  for  His  mother.     He  had  honoured  His  Father  by 
 
CHAP.  XIX.  27.  417 
 
 childlike  obedience,  in  deference  to  the  fourth  commandment ; 
 and  He  honours  His  mother  by  careful  provision  for  her  ex- 
 ternal need. — "Behold  thy  son"  presupposes  that  Mary  had  no 
 sons  besides  Jesus.   To  honour  parents  by  faithful  care  of  them, 
 is  not  merely  the  duty,  but  the  privilege  also,  of  children  ;  and 
 if  she  had  had  other  children,  Jesus  would  have  infringed  upon 
 that  privilege  by  committing  His  mother  to  John.     He  would 
 have  left  His  disciples  but  a  poor  pattern  of  the  sanctification 
 of  the  relations  appointed  of  Heaven,  if  He  had  thus  absolutely 
 placed  Himself  in  independence  of  those  relations.    The  duty  of 
 the  sons  would  have  remained,  even  if  the  supposed  brothers  of 
 Jesus  had  at  that  time  been  in  a  state  of  unbelief.     Moreover, 
 this  supposition  is  based  on  a  false  exposition  of  ch.  vii.  3  :  cer- 
 tainly the  "brethren  of  Jesus"  are  a  few  weeks  afterwards, 
 Acts  i.  14,  in  the  number  of  the  believers ;  and  He  who  knew 
 what  was  in  man,  who  saw  the  future  developments  of  the 
 character  of  Peter  and  Judas  from  the  beginning,  would  have 
 fallen  under  the  reproach  of  shortsightedness,  if  He  had  taken 
 their  mother  from  them  on  the  ground  of  their  temporary  un- 
 belief, and  committed  her  for  ever  to  another.     The  actual 
 mother  of  the  "brethren"  of  Jesus,  Mary  the  wife  of  Cleophas, 
 had  been  mentioned  just  before.— On  the  words  of  Christ  to 
 His  mother  and  John,  the  Berlenberg  Bible  justly  says :  "  Thus 
 it  is  not  opposed  to  the  mind  of  Christ,  when  we  extend  the 
 commandment  for  parents  and  children  further  than  its  mere 
 •letter."— Our  Lord's  design  was  not  to  provide  for  John,  but 
 to  provide  for  His  mother.     He  begins  with  her,  and  gi^^es  her 
 a  son,  because  as  a  feeble  woman  she  needed  that  protection ; 
 and  when  He  said  to  John,  "  Behold  thy  mother,"  this  meant 
 only  that  he  w^as  to  pay  her,  from  that  time  forward,  the  respect 
 due  to  a  mother.     The  result  shows  this.     Mary  does  not  take 
 John,  but  John  takes  Mary  to  his  house.     Quesnel's  remark 
 springs  from  an  entire  inversion   of  the  order  :    "  The  holy 
 Virgin  receives  all  Christians  as  her  children  in  the  person  of 
 John.     This  property  over  us  gives  us  the  right  and  the  confi- 
 dence to  place  all  our  interests  in  her  hands." 
 
 Ver.  27.  "Then  saith  He  to  the  disciple,  Behold  thy 
 mother !  And  from  that  hour  that  disciple  took  her  unto  his 
 own  home."—"  From  that  hour"  must  be  taken  literally ;  but 
 "  to  his  own  house"  intimates  that  Mary  was  from  that  time 
 
 VOL.  TI.  2    D 
 
418  CHAP.  XVIII.  XIX. 
 
 the  honoured  companion  of  his  home.  The  too  Hteral  view- 
 assumes  that  John  had  a  house  in  Jerusalem,  while  ch.  xxi.  1 
 shows  that  His  abiding  home  was  Galilee ;  and  further,  that  he 
 at  once  led  our  Lord's  mother  to  his  own  house,  which  is  con- 
 trary to  ver.  34,  and  in  itself  unnatural,  Bengel's  remark  is 
 Avrong  here :  "  The  sword  had  now  sufficiently  penetrated  the 
 soul  of  Mary :  now  she  is  guarded  against  seeing  and  hearing 
 the  most  bitter  things,  the  darkness,  the  abandonment  of  God 
 [but  both  had  already  taken  place],  the  death."  It  is  the  duty 
 and  the  right  of  the  nearest  friends  to  abide  until  the  last 
 breath.  It  would  have  been  severity  towards  His  mother,  and 
 towards  the  disciple  whom  He  loved,  had  He  sent  them  both 
 away. 
 
 In  vers.  28-30,  we  have  the  potion  of  vinegar  which  was 
 given  to  our  Lord.  '  It  was  customary  to  provide  for  those  who 
 were  to  be  crucified  a  malefactor's  potion,  which  should  mitigate 
 their  pains,  and  still  their  horrible  thirst.  The  vessel  contain- 
 ing such  a  drink  was,  according  to  ver.  29,  already  there  before 
 Jesus  said,  '•  I  thirst."  Matthew,  in  ch.  xxvii.  34,  describes  the 
 potion  tlieologicalhj  as  vinegar  mingled  wdth  gall,  because  he 
 sees  in  it  a  fulfilment  of  prophecy,  Ps.  Ixix.  21,  "  They  gave 
 Me  also  gall  for  My  meat ;  and  in  ISIy  thirst  they  gave  Me 
 vinegar  to  drink."  This  description  of  the  potion  is  a  delicate 
 and  veiled  quotation.  As  to  its  physical  nature,  it  says — as 
 every  one  must  see  who  admits  the  reference  to  Ps.  Ixix.  21, 
 according  to  which  the  words  "gall  and  vinegar"  must  have,* 
 as  it  were,  quotation  marks — only  this,  that  the  potion  was  at 
 once  sour  and  bitter.  Mark,  who  everywhere  devotes  a  special 
 observation  to  externalities,  describes  the  potion  in  its  physical 
 quality,  "And  they  gave  Him  to  drink  wine  mingled  with 
 myrrh."  The  myrrh  was  designed  to  make  the  drink  bitter, 
 and  rob  it  of  its  flavour.  Galen  (in  Wetstein)  says  of  myrrh, 
 ej^et  TTiKplav.  Accordingly,  we  must  regard  the  wine  as  bitter 
 vinegar.  This  drink  was  offered  to  Jesus  by  the  soldiers  before 
 the  crucifixion,  but  He  rejected  it :  "  And  having  tasted.  He 
 would  not  drink,"  Matt,  xxvii.  34.  It  is  significant  here  that  the 
 Lord  first  tasted :  this  pertains  to  the  reason  for  rejecting  it. 
 In  the  bitter  and  sour  w4ne,  the  entire  relation  of  the  ungodly 
 to  Jesus  was  exhibited  ;  to  Jesus,  who  through  them  and  for 
 them  suffered.     When  He  repelled  this  drink.  He  uttered  His 
 
CHAP.  XIX.  28.  419 
 
 condemuation  of  this  position,  and  rejected  it  as  unworthy  of 
 Him.  But  this  rejection  can  be  viewed  only  as  preliminary  ; 
 and  it  intimated  that  an  acceptance  of  it  was  afterwards  to 
 follow.  Jesus,  according  to  the  psalm,  must  actually  drink,  but 
 the  circumstances  stated  there  were  not  yet  in  existence.  It  is 
 said,  "  In  My  thirst  they  gave  Me  vinegar  to  drink."  Thus  the 
 thirst  must  first  be  experienced.  Luke  mentions  the  vinegar 
 in  ch.  xxiii.  36,  37.  According  to  his  statement,  the  soldiers 
 mockingly  offered  Jesus  during  the  crucifixion  the  vinegar  as 
 His  royal  table-wine ;  and  made  much  of  the  misrelation  in 
 which  the  malefactor's  potion  stood  to  His  assumed  royal  dig- 
 nity. This  scene  is  peculiar  to  Luke.  Matthew  mentions  the 
 vinegar  a  second  time  in  ch.  xxvii.  48,  "  And  straightway  one 
 of  them  ran,  and  took  a  sponge,  and  filled  it  with  vinegar,  and 
 put  it  on  a  reed,  and  gave  Him  to  drink."  Mark  xv.  36  is 
 parallel.  According  to  both,  this  incident  followed  hard  upon 
 the  word  which  Jesus  uttered  about  the  ninth  hour,  "  My  God, 
 My  God,  why  hast  Thou  forsaken  Me  ?"  and  His  death  imme- 
 diately followed.  This  is  the  same  occurrence  which  John  here 
 touches,  as  immediately  preceding  the  death.  Pie  adds  the 
 important  clause  which  fii'st  places  the  whole  incident  in  its 
 true  light,  that  they  gave  Him  this  to  drink  in  consequence  of 
 His  cry,  "  I  thirst." 
 
 Ver.,28.  "After  this,  Jesus  knowing  that  all  things  were 
 now  accomplished,  that  the  Scripture  might  be  fulfilled,  saith, 
 I  thirst." — The  knowledge  of  Christ  that  all  things  were  now 
 fulfilled,  was  the  motive  which  impelled  Him  to  introduce 
 that  one  last  circumstance  still  wanting  to  the  perfect  fulfil- 
 ment of  Scripture.  The  question  whether  "  all  things "  refers 
 generally  to  the  work  which  Christ  was  to  accomplish,  or  to 
 the  predictions  of  it  contained  in  the  Old  Testament,  tends 
 to  divide  things  internally  united.  The  work  to  be  done 
 by  Christ  was,  in  its  fundamental  principles,  perfectly  fore- 
 announced  and  described  in  the  Old  Testament.  That  refer- 
 ence to  the  prophecies  is  not  to  be  excluded,  is  shown  by  the 
 following  words,  "that  the  Scripture  might  be  fulfilled."  So 
 also  in  Luke  xxii.  37  :  "  For  I  say  unto  you,  that  this  that  is 
 written  must  yet  be  accomplished  (reXeo-^^vat)  in  Me,  And  He 
 was  reckoned  among  the  transgressors  :  for  the  things  concern- 
 ing Me  have  an  end."     So  also  Luke  xviii.  31,  Rev.  xvii.  17, 
 
420  CHAP,  xviir.  XIX. 
 
 which  set  aside  the  remark  of  Bengel,  "  reXew  refers  to  things, 
 reXeLoo)  to  holy  Scripture."  The  real  distinction  between  the 
 two  verbs  is  this,  that  reXetOvv  is  the  stronger,  and  marks  per- 
 fect fulfilment.  TeXeiovv  is  related  to  reXecv,  as  r\mh,  in  order 
 to  fulfil,  entirely/  to  fulfil,  Jeremiah's  word  in  2  Chron.  xxxvi. 
 22,  is  related  to  nis^o!',  to  fulfil  the  word  of  the  Lord  through 
 Jeremiah,  in  ver.  21.  That,  on  the  other  hand,  reference  to  the 
 work  committed  by  God  to  the  Son  of  man,  to  all  that  which  He 
 had  undertaken  to  do  and  suifer,  is  not  to  be  excluded,  needs 
 no  other  proof  than  that  this  was  the  obvious  interpretation 
 of  the  words.  Moreover,  we  must  observe  the  relation  in  which 
 the  rereXeo-rai,  here  and  in  ver.  30  stands  to  the  last  word  of 
 Ps.  xxii.,  nC'y,  "  He  hath  done  it,"  corresponding  with  the  rela- 
 tion of  "  My  God,  My  God,  why  hast  Thou  forsaken  Me"  to 
 the  beginning  of  that  psalm.  The  work  of  God  must  be  re- 
 garded, therefore,  as  wdiat  was  finished :  comp.  ch.  xvii.  4,  "  I 
 have  finished  the  work  which  Thou  gavest  Me  to  do." 
 
 "  All  things "  receives  a  limitation  in  what  follows  :  one 
 point  was  in  reserve,  one  thing  which  was  yet  wanting  to  the 
 full  fulfilment  of  Scripture,  and  therefore  to  the  accomplish- 
 ment of  the  work  of  God  ;  hence  all  things  with  the  exception 
 of  one  point.  The  idea  is  evidently  this  :  Jesus  knew  that  all 
 was  accomplished,  that  one  thing  only  failed  as  yet.  In  order 
 to  bring  in  the  fulfilment  of  this  one  thing,  He  uttered  the 
 w^ord  "  I  thirst ;"  and  when  this  was  also  fulfilled.  He  said  again, 
 "  It  is  finished." — According  to  John,  Jesus  uttered  the  word 
 "  I  thirst "  in  order  to  introduce  a  fulfilment  of  Scripture,  the 
 word  of  Ps.  Ixix.  21.  To  such  a  theological  reason  we  are 
 independently  led  by  the  declaration  of  the  Evangelist.  There 
 can  be  no  doubt  that  the  "  I  thirst "  was  literally  true.  The 
 most  burning  thirst  was  wont  to  torment  the  crucified.  But  in 
 the  immediate  approach  of  death,  our  Lord  would  not  assuredly 
 have  first  desired  to  drink  ;  He  could  not  possibly  have  dedicated 
 yet  one  of  His  sacred  seven  words  to  the  relief  of  a  mere  bodily 
 craving.  That  Jesus  uttered  the  word  in  order  to  the  fulfilment 
 of  a  passage  in  the  psalm  is  a  stumbling-block  only  to  those 
 who,  on  the  one  hand,  have  surrendered  the  principle  of  the 
 high  import  of  the  Old  Testament,  which  Christ  regarded  as 
 Divine  down  to  its  Iwra  and  Kepaia,  and  who,  on  the  other 
 hand,  fail  to  discern  that  that  word  of  the  psalm  utters  a 
 
CHAP.  XIX.  29.  421 
 
 general  truth,  so  that  the  incident  retains  its  importance  even 
 for  those  who  altogether  look  away  from  the  psalm  itself.  That 
 passage  most  luminously  exhibits  the  position  which  the  world 
 assumes  to  the  Sufferer,  to  righteousness  suffering  through  the 
 guilt  of  the  world.  In  ver.  20  we  read,  "  Reproach  hath  broken 
 My  heart,  and  I  am  full  of  heaviness ;  and  I  looked  for  some  to 
 take  pity,  but  there  was  none ;  and  for  comforters,  but  I  found 
 none."  After  the  enemies  had  brought  the  Sufferer  so  low  that 
 He  was  broken  down  in  body  and  soul,  they  ought  to  have  been 
 amazed  at  the  work  of  their  hands,  and  their  hatred  should 
 have  turned  to  inward  pity.  But  they  give  the  Sufferer,  instead 
 of  the  refreshing  potion,  gall  and  vinegar.  The  situation  here, 
 presented  is  dependent  on  the  passage  in  the  psalm,  and  yet  at 
 the  same  time  independent  of  it.  Jesus  says  in  His  suffering, 
 which  He  endured  for  the  world,  "  I  thirst."  What  do  they 
 give  Him  in  His  thirst  ?  Vinegar.  This  potion,  presented  to 
 malefactors,  was  a  benefit ;  presented  to  righteousness  suffering 
 incarnate,  it  was  a  harsh  and  bitter  insult.  To  close  His  career 
 with  such  a  symbolical  action  was  all  the  more  appropriate  to 
 our  Lord,  inasmuch  as  what  then  took  place  was  not  an  isolated 
 thing,  but  reflected  the  attitude  which  the  world  would  assume 
 to  Him  in  succeeding  ages.  The  more  vividly  we  see,  in  our 
 own  time,  the  counterpart  of  this  offer  of  vinegar,  the  less 
 reason  have  we  to  deal  critically  with  it  here  as  a  symbolical 
 action,  and  the  less  propriety  is  there  in  evading  it  by  all  kinds 
 of  forced  exegesis.  The  better  way  is  to  turn  it  all  to  our  profit. 
 Quesnel :  "  See  there  the  mortifications  and  amenities  which 
 men  have  to  offer  Him  who  gives  His  life  for  them.  A  vessel 
 of  vinegar  for  the  blood  which  He  shed  for  them.  After  this, 
 can  we  complain  of  the  ingratitude  of  men,  and  of  the  small 
 consolation  which  we  sometimes  receive  from  our  own  friends  ?  " 
 Ver.  29.  "  Now  there  was  set  a  vessel  full  of  vinegar  :  and 
 they  filled  a  sponge  with  vinegar,  and  put  it  upon  hyssop,  and 
 put  it  to  His  mouth."- — Meyer's  remark  here  is  erroneous  : 
 ""0^09  is  sour  soldiers'  wine,  posca.  John  says  nothing  of  the 
 stupefying  draught  which  Jesus  rejected."  It  is  against  the 
 soldiers'  wine  which  expositors  have  invented,  that  besides  the 
 vessel  with  vinegar,  the  sponge  also  and  the  reed  were  in  readi- 
 ness. This  shows  that  the  provision  was  made  for  malefactors. 
 Of  any  "  stupefying  draught "  the  other  three  Evangelists  are 
 
422  CHAP.  XVIII.  XIX. 
 
 quite  unconscious.  The  potion  must  have  been  another  and  a 
 worse  one  than  mere  soldiers'  wine,  otherwise  the  design  for 
 which  our  Saviour  said  "  I  thirst"  would  not  have  been  accom- 
 plished, and  Ps.  Ixix.  21  would  be  quite  unsuitable.  The 
 necessary  consequence  of  Meyer's  view,  "  In  Ps.  Ixix.  21  the 
 offering  of  vinegar  is  the  act  of  scorn  and  wickedness,  which 
 does  not  suit  here,"  is  sufficient,  at  the  same  time,  for  its 
 refutation. — Instead  of  the  reed,  «:a\a/xo9,  in  Matthew,  John 
 mentions  specifically  the  hyssop.  This  would  have  been  a 
 refinement,  if  he  had  not  viewed  the  hyssop  with  a  theological 
 eye.  It  is  striking  also,  that  instead  of  KciXafjio^  vaa-Q^irou,  he 
 says  barely  vo-o-cotto^.  This  of  itself  gives  us  reason  to  suppose 
 that  here  there  is  an  allusion  to  a  passage  of  the  Old  Testament 
 in  which  hyssop  is  mentioned,  but  not  the  reed  of  hyssop.  The 
 hyssop  is  in  the  Mosaic  law  (comp.  Heb.  ix.  13),  and  in  Ps.  li. 
 9,  which  comes  strictly  into  consideration  here,  "  Purge  me  with 
 hyssop,  and  I  shall  be  clean,"  the  symbol  of  expiation.  (Comp. 
 my  Commentary  on  the  Psalms,  and  Egypt  and  the  Books  of 
 Moses.)  To  the  Evangelist  the  hyssop  with  the  sponge  of 
 vinegar,  the  hyssop  of  mockeri/,  forms  a  memorable  contrast  to 
 the  hyssop  of  atonement ;  and  he  regards  it  as  a  Divine  arrange- 
 ment that  the  reed  was  no  other  than  a  branch  of  hyssop. 
 Celsius  gives  us  the  most  complete  explanations  of  the  natural 
 history  of  hyssop  (Hierobotan.  i.  407).  In  the  Talmudic  tract 
 Succa,  hyssop  is  mentioned  among  the  branches  which  were 
 used  at  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles.  Abulfadli  (in  Celsius)  says 
 that  it  reached  nearly  the  height  of  an  ell.  The  cross  being  so 
 low,  this  was  sufficient. 
 
 Ver.  30.  "  When  Jesus  therefore  had  received  the  vinegar, 
 He  said.  It  is  finished  :  and  He  bowed  His  head,  and  gave  up 
 the  ghost." — That  was  accomplished  which  the  prophecies  of  the 
 Old  Testament  had  foreshown  as  the  work  of  Christ,  to  accom- 
 nlish  which  was  incumbent  on  Christ  in  His  state  of  humiliation, 
 incumbent  on  the  So7i  of  man :  comp.  Luke  xviii.  31,  "  All 
 things  that  are  written  by  the  prophets  concerning  the  Son  of 
 man  shall  be  accomplished^^  (reXeaOrja-eTat).  The  limitation  to 
 the  state  of  humiliation  is  obvious,  from  the  fact  that  our  Lord 
 uttered  it  on  the  cross,  where  that  humiliation  had  its  end.  "  It 
 is  finished,"  peculiar  to  John,  forms  the  foundation  for  Luke's 
 last  word  of  our  Lord,  "  Father,  into  Thine  hands  I  commend 
 
CHAP.  XIX.  31.  423 
 
 My  spirit."  Lampe  :  "  For  the  Father  could  not  keep  back 
 from  His  bosom  one  who  had  so  perfectly  done  the  will  of  His 
 Father."  To  these  last  words,  as  recorded  by  Luke,  corresponds 
 the  "  gave  up  "  here,  TrapeSooKe.  "  Gave  up,"  without  mention 
 of  Him  to  whom,  is  as  it  were  an  express  allusion  to  that  last 
 word,  in  which  the  imperfect  expression  finds  its  interpreta- 
 tion. Bengel  Avell  says  :  "  There  are  seven  words  in  the  four 
 Evangelists,  all  of  which  not  one  has  recorded.  Whence  it  is 
 plain  that  these  books  are,  as  it  were,  four  voices,  which  produce 
 symphony  when  heard  together." 
 
 Chap.  xix.  31-37. 
 
 The  Apostle  relates  here  what  ensued  after  the  death  of 
 Jesus,  and  before  He  was  taken  down  from  the  cross.  John 
 is  silent  as  to  the  miraculous  natural  phenomena  which  were 
 connected  wnth  the  death  of  Christ,  because  he  had  nothing  of 
 his  own  to  add  to  them.  He  records  only  what  the  others  had 
 omitted,  that  the  legs  of  Jesus  were  not  broken,  like  those  of 
 the  malefactors  crucified  with  Him  ;  that  one  of  the  soldiers 
 pierced  His  side  with  a  lance ;  and  that  forthwith  blood  and 
 water  came  thereout :  three  facts  to  which  he  assims  a  hig-h 
 
 o  CD 
 
 importance. 
 
 Ver.  31.  "  The  Jews  therefore,  because  it  was  the  prepara- 
 tion, that  the  bodies  should  not  remain  upon  the  cross  on  the 
 Sabbath-day  (for  that  Sabbath-day  was  an  high  day),  besought 
 Pilate  that  their  legs  might  be  broken,  and  that  they  might  be 
 taken  away." — According  to  Deut.  xxi.  23,  the  bodies  of  persons 
 suspended  were  to  be  taken  down  and  buried  the  same  day, 
 and,  "  as  we  may  see  in  the  application  of  this  law,  Josh.  viii.  29, 
 X.  26  seq.,  before  sundown  "  (Keil).  Abhorrence  of  the  offence 
 was  to  be  shown  in  this,  that  the  delinquents  were  utterly 
 destroyed  as  soon  as  possible,  that  the  land  might  be  no  longer 
 made  unclean  by  them.  That  this  law  was  in  force  at  this  time 
 we  see  in  Josephus,  although,  in  a  polemical  interest,  he  assigns 
 it  to  a  wTong  cause — the  care  for  burial.  He  says,  De  Bell. 
 Jud.  iv.  5,  2,  of  the  Idumeans  :  "  They  went  to  such  a  pitch  of 
 impiety,  that  they  cast  them  out  unburied  [those  whom  they 
 had  slain],  although  the  Jews  were  so  anxious  about  burial  that 
 they  were  in  the  habit  of  taking  down  those  crucified  by  the 
 
424  CHAP,  xviii.  XIX. 
 
 visitation  of  law,  and  burying  them  before  the  sun  ^Yent  down." 
 If  the  new  light  of  a  common  day  was  not  to  look  upon  the 
 corpse  of  a  malefactor,  it  is  obvious  that  they  -would  be  especially 
 solicitous  when  that  new  day  was  a  lioly  day.  In  this  case,  the 
 following  day  was  not  merely  an  ordinary  Sabbath  ;  it  was  one 
 which  derived  a  special  dignity  from  its  being  also  one  of  the 
 days  of  the  feast.  The  utter  want  of  conscience  on  the  part  of 
 the  rulers  was  paralleled  only  by  their  excessive  scrupulosity 
 in  such  externalities.  This  is  the  common  characteristic  of 
 hypocrites. 
 
 TlapacTKevi]  here  also  is  the  proper  name  of  the  sixth  day  of 
 the  week.  If  it  were  a  term  that  might  indifferently  designate 
 the  preparation  of  feasts,  or  this  feast,  there  must  have  been  an 
 addition  rov  aa^^drov.  The  words  "  for  that  Sabbath-day  was 
 a  high  day"  have  been  made  to  serve  as  the  basis  of  an  argu- 
 ment that  this  Sabbath  was  at  the  same  time  the  first  day  of 
 the  feast ;  for  only  that  day  could  be  great,  like  the  seventh 
 and  last,  because  these  two  were  termed  holy  in  the  law,  but 
 not  every  day  of  the  feast.  It  is  not  said,  however,  that  the 
 day  was  great  as  a  feast-day ;  it  rose  above  the  level  of  ordinary 
 Sabbaths,  because  to  its  sanctity  as  the  Sabbath  there  was  super- 
 added its  dignity  as  being  also  a  feast-day,  though  not  one  of 
 the  holiest  days  of  the  feast.  The  passage  proves  rather  the 
 reverse  of  these  conclusions.  The  day  spoken  of  here  could  not 
 be  the  fil'st  day  of  the  feast :  for  in  the  case  of  this  day,  as  the 
 most  important  day  of  the  whole  year,  its  festal  quality  would 
 preponderate  over  its  Sabbath  quality;  while  here,  inversely, 
 its  quality  as  a  Sabbath  is  pre-eminent,  and  its  quality  as  a 
 feast-day  only  something  superadded.  In  one  point  alone,  in 
 reference  to  its  rest,  the  Sabbath  outweighed  the  first  feast-day. 
 But  this  point  comes  not  here  into  consideration.  Here  the 
 question  is  only  the  sanctity  and  festal  character  of  the  day. 
 In  the  interest  of  a  higher  festal  character,  the  question  of  rest 
 on  the  first  day  of  the  Passover  would  not  have  been  so  rigor- 
 ously regarded.  The  Passover  was  the  root  of  all  the  feasts, 
 and  -was  therefore  instituted  before  the  Sabbath,  yea  before  the 
 covenant  on  Sinai :  compare,  for  the  dignity  of  the  Passover, 
 on  ch.  v.  1.  This,  therefore,  stands  irreversibly  firm.  If  the 
 following  day  was  the  first  feast-day,  it  would  have  been  so 
 described,  and  not  as  the  Sabbath. 
 
CHAP.  XIX.  32,  33.  425 
 
 The  crurifragium  was  among  the  Komans  of  itself  a  distinct 
 punishment.  The  reason  of  its  connection  with  the  crucifixion 
 is  to  be  sought  in  the  idea  of  a  compensation.  Instead  of  the 
 longer  continuance  of  the  agony,  there  was  a  compromise  in 
 its  greater  acuteness.  The  breaking  of  the  legs  generally  issued 
 in  death  (Amm.  Marc.  xiv.  9  speaks  of  those  qui  fractis  cruribus 
 occiduntiir),  and  would  therefore,  in  the  case  of  such  as  were 
 already  exhausted  by  the  torments  of  crucifixion,  soon  hasten 
 death.  From  the  circumstance  that  the  converted  malefactor 
 had  to  undergo  this  punishment,  Bengel  draws  the  conclusion  : 
 "  Even  to  the  converted  there  often  remain  sorrows,  and  an 
 external  bodily  misery  equal  to  that  of  the  ungodly." 
 
 Vers.  32,  33.  "  Then  came  the  soldiers,  and  brake  the  legs 
 of  the  first,  and  of  the  other  which  was  crucified  with  him. 
 But  when  they  came  to  Jesus,  and  saw  that  He  was  dead  al- 
 ready, they  brake  not  His  legs." — Jesus,  according  to  ver.  30, 
 had  said  in  the  presence  of  the  soldiers,  "  It  is  finished,"  had 
 then  bowed  His  head,  and  given  up  the  ghost.  Looking  there- 
 fore at  John  alone,  we  should  not  infer  that  the  soldiers  came 
 to  Jesus  with  the  design  of  breaking  His  legs.  We  are  led  to 
 the  opposite  by  marking  that  they  did  not  come  to  Jesus  until 
 they  had  broken  the  legs  of  the  two  malefactors.  Jesus  was 
 the  chief  person.  If  they  had  originally  the  intention  of  break- 
 ing His  legs,  they  would  have  made  their  beginning  with  Him ; 
 or  if  they  took  the  persons  in  order,  Jesus  must  have  come  be- 
 tween the  two  in  the  operation.  Their  leaving  the  natural  order 
 must  have  had  a  specific  reason.  Accordingly,  the  note  of  the 
 soldiers  seeing  that  Jesus  was  already  dead,  can  only  mean  that 
 this  confirmed  their  previous  observations.  A  comparison  of  the 
 other  Evangelists  leads  to  the  same  result.  According  to  these, 
 the  centurion,  and  "  those  who  were  with  him,"  were  deeply 
 impressed  by  the  death  of  Jesus,  Matt,  xxvii.  54,  Mark  xv.  39, 
 Luke  xxiii.  47. — The  intention  of  the  piercing  could  not  have 
 been  to  ascertain  the  reality  of  Christ's  death ;  for  the  soldier 
 was  no  professor  of  medical  jurisprudence.  It  could  only  have 
 been  to  hasten  the  death,  in  case  it  had  not,  as  circumstances 
 seemed  to  indicate,  taken  place ;  and,  as  His  death  was  abso- 
 lutely probable,  in  a  manner  less  rough  than  that  of  breaking 
 the  legs.  With  this  design,  the  thrust  would  naturally  be 
 directed  to  the  heart ;  for  there,  it  was  w^ell  known,  was  the 
 
426  CHAP.  XVIII.  XIX. 
 
 seat  of  mortal  wounds.  Galen  (in  Wetstein)  says :  "  That  the 
 piercing  of  the  heart  necessarily  brings  death,  is  among  things 
 universally  acknowledged."  Sextus  Empiricus :  "  Piercing  the 
 heart  is  a  cause  of  immediate  death."  So  also  Quinctilian. — 
 That  blood  and  water  came  forth  (Lampe  :  "  We  must  hold  to 
 the  letter :  blood  first  flowed,  then  M'ater,  so  limpid  that  it  might 
 be  seen  by  John  and  others  around  to  be  different  from  blood"), 
 seems  by  what  follows  to  have  been  something  extraordinary, 
 indeed  miraculous.  We  might  therefore  expect  that  analogous 
 facts  are  not  to  be  found ;  nor  is  it  strange  that  the  responsa 
 of  the  medical  faculty  in  reference  to  our  passage  are  so  unsatis- 
 factory. What  Tholuck  adduces  goes  far  enough  to  show  the 
 conditions  in  human  bodies  which,  under  peculiar  circumstances, 
 mio;ht  brino;  about  the  result  here  recorded.  If  more  could  be 
 done,  it  would  be  possibly  a  disadvantage  to  the  design  of  the 
 Evangelist. 
 
 Ver.  35.  "  And  he  that  saw  it  bare  record,  and  his  record 
 is  true  ;  and  he  knoweth  that  he  saith  true,  that  je  might  be- 
 lieve."— That  the  assurance  refers  to  all  the  three  points  in  the 
 preceding,  and  not  to  the  third  alone — that  the  bones  of  Jesus 
 were  not  broken,  that  His  side  was  pierced,  and  that  blood  and 
 water  came  forth, — is  shown  by  the  connection  with  vers.  36, 
 37,  which,  by  yap,  refer  also  to  the  two  former  incidents.  But 
 the  Evangelist  had  the  third  matter  in  view  pre-eminently;  for 
 the  assurance  is  directly  connected  with  it.  The  two  former 
 facts  were  so  simply  material,  and  of  themselves  probable,  that 
 the  assurance,  as  referring  to  them  alone,  would  seem  almost 
 superfluous.  In  connection  with  the  tJii7'd,  on  the  contrary, 
 deception  of  an  excited  fancy  might  easily  be  asserted.  There 
 was  something  unusual,  under  these  circumstances  something 
 miraculous  :  that  in  the  Lord's  case  blood  and  water  came 
 forth,  symbols  of  the  atonement  and  justification  which  His 
 death  obtained  for  us,  was  to  the  Apostle  sufficient  reason  for 
 saying  so  emphatically  that  he,  the  reporter,  was  not  a  credulus, 
 but  a  Jidelis.  The  assurance  designedly  takes  a  triple  form. 
 On  0  €copaKQ)<i  Bengel  says  :  "  Hence  it  appears  that  John  clave 
 inseparably  to  the  body  of  Jesus  after  His  death."  In  regard 
 to  the  perfect  fiefjbapTvprjKe,  comp.  on  ch:  i.  34.  Testimony  is 
 called  true,  in  opposition  to  a  statement  which  rests  upon  delusion 
 or  lie.    "Iva  introduces  the  design  of  the  assurance  so  expressly 
 
CHAP.  XIX.  36.  427 
 
 given  in  the  preceding  words.  There  must  be  supplemented 
 from  the  context,  "  This  I  say,"  or,  "  These  things  are  written :" 
 comp.  ch.  XX.  31.  In  the  same  eUiptical  way,  Xva  is  used  in  ch. 
 i.  22,  "  Who  art  thou?  (we  ask  thee,)  in  order  that  we  may  give 
 an  answer."  UtaTeveiv  is  used  for  believing  generally,  not 
 for  believing  in  the  truth  of  a  fact  stated :  comp.  ch.  xx.  8  and 
 ver.  31,  where,  instead  of  the  simple  believing  as  here,  we  read, 
 "Believe  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ."  UiaTevecv  not  seldom 
 occurs  in  John  with  this  comprehensive  meaning  :  ch.  i.  7,  51, 
 xi.  15. 
 
 Ver.  36.  "For  these  things  were  done,  that  the  scripture 
 should  be  fulfilled,  A  bone  of  Him  shall  not  be  broken." — Tap 
 justifies  the  connection  which  the  preceding  words  established 
 between  the  truth  of  the  recorded  facts  and  believing.  Tavra 
 refers  to  those  preceding  facts  generally.  One  of  these,  how- 
 ever, is  prominently  stated :  "  They  brake  not  His  legs." 
 This  was  brought  about  in  the  providence  of  God,  who  caused 
 Jesus  to  die  before  the  soldiers  came  to  break  the  bones,  that 
 in  this  way  an  utterance  of  the  Old  Testament  might  be  ful- 
 filled. This  correspondence  between  prophecy  and  fulfilment 
 is  itself  a  strong  motive  to  faith.  By  scripture  is  here  meant, 
 as  in  ch.  xiii.  18,  Mark  xii.  10,  xv.  28,  an  individual  passage  of 
 Scripture :  it  is  equivalent  to  to  jeypa/x/jbevov  tovto,  Luke  xx. 
 17,  37.  Scripture  is  whatsoever  is  written  and  is  found  in  the 
 Book  simply.  "  That  the  scripture  might  be  fulfilled"  is  equiva- 
 lent to  "  that  what  is  written  might  come  to  pass."  John  was 
 not  looking  at  the  passage,  Ps.  xxxiv.  21 :  for  there  the  bones  of 
 a  living  righteous  man  are  spoken  of  ;  there  the  singular  ocrrovv 
 is  not  used ;  and  the  avrov  is  wanting.  We  expect  in  relation 
 to  this  something  beyond  what  is  common  to  all  saints.  The 
 allusion  was  rather  to  two  passages  which  treat  of  the  paschal 
 lamb  :  Ex.  xii.  46,  "  Neither  shall  ye  break  a  bone  thereof," 
 Sept.  Kol  ocnovv  ov  a-wTpl-y^ere  air  avrov ;  and  Num.  ix.  12, 
 "  Nor  break  any  bone  of  it."  John  easily  substitutes  avvrpi- 
 ^rjaerai  for  avvrpi'^^eTe,  crvvrpi'^^ovcn,  that  their  application 
 might  be  more  obvious  to  the  Antitype,  in  regard  to  which  the 
 Evangelist  makes  most  prominent  the  Divine  causality.  The 
 view  that  the  paschal  lamb  was  typical  of  Christ  is  not  found 
 only  in  1  Cor.  v.  7.  In  ch.  i.  29  of  John's  Gospel,  Christ  is 
 the  Antitype  of  the  paschal  lamb:  ch.  vi.  4  also  points  to 
 
428  CHAP.  XVIII.  XIX. 
 
 Christ  as  the  true  Paschal  Lamb.  Jesus  declared  Himself  to 
 be  the  Paschal  Lamb,  in  that  He  withdrew  before  His  enemies 
 until  He  could  die  at  the  Passover ;  as  well  as  by  instituting 
 the  Supper  in  the  place  of  the  Jewish  feast. 
 
 For  a  clear  apprehension  of  the  connection  between  this 
 Mosaic  ordinance  and  the  fact  we  now  consider,  it  is  necessary 
 that  we  should  look  at  the  design  and  significance  of  that 
 ordinance.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  it  was  intended  to 
 obviate  the  profanation  of  the  paschal  lamb.  No  violence  was 
 to  be  offered  to  it :  nothino;  which  might  tend  to  obliterate  the 
 distinction  between  the  all-holy  sacrifice  of  the  Lord  and  a 
 common  sacrificial  animal.  In  Micah  iii.  3,  the  greediness  is 
 described  of  those  who,  not  content  with  eating  the  flesh,  broke 
 the  bones  asunder  that  they  might  find  out  everything  eatable. 
 Such  greediness  was  to  be  excluded  from  the  holy  meal.  Ex. 
 xii.  46  leads  us  to  a  similar  reason  of  the  ordinance :  "  Neither 
 shall  ye  break  a  bone  thereof "  is  there  preceded  by,  "  In  one 
 house  shall  it  be  eaten ;  thou  shalt  not  carry  forth  aught  of  the 
 flesh  abroad  out  of  the  house."  Both  fall  under  the  same  law : 
 the  lamb  was  to  be  treated  with  sacred  respect,  and  not  as  a 
 common  sacrifice.  So  also  in  Num.  ix.  12,  "  They  shall  leave 
 none  of  it  until  the  morning,  nor  break  any  bone  of  it."  The 
 parallel  clause  leads  to  the  same  reason  of  the  ordinance.  If 
 any  part  of  the  holy  lamb  remained  over,  it  was  not  to  be  used 
 as  common  food,  nor  given  to  other  persons ;  it  must  be  burnt. 
 If  we  thus  discern  the  reason  of  the  Mosaic  ordinance,  the  pas- 
 sage we  now  consider  has  some  light  shed  on  it.  It  was  the 
 same  divine  decorum  which  forbade  all  indignity  to  be  offered 
 to  the  typical  paschal  lamb,  and  hindered  all  indignity  from 
 being  offered  to  the  Antitype.  To  the  distinction  between  the 
 typical  lamb  and  common  sacrifices  in  relation  to  the  breaking 
 of  the  bones,  corresponds  the  distinction  between  Christ  and 
 the  two  malefactors. 
 
 Ver.  37.  "  And  again  another  scripture  saith,  They  shall 
 look  on  Him  whom  they  pierced." — The  passage  is  Zech.  xii.  10. 
 For  an  exposition  of  its  meaning  and  its  connection  with  the 
 fact  before  us,  we  refer  to  the  Christology  (vol.  iii.  Clark's 
 Trans.).  John  here  contemplates  only  the  piercing  (i^eKevTij- 
 crav,  as  here  also  in  Rev.  i.  7  :  see  on  that  passage),  not  the 
 penitent  looking  at  the  Pierced  One,  which  referred  to  another 
 
CHAP.  XIX.  37,  429 
 
 time.    The  Evangelist  had  recorded  three  facts  in  the  preceding 
 verses,  as  suited  to  work  faith.     Only  in  regard  to  two  does  he, 
 in  vers.  36,  37,  suggest  how  fitted  they  were  to  produce  this 
 effect,  as  realizing  what,  according  to  the  Old  Testament,  was 
 to  befall  the  Christ.     In  regard  to  the  third  fact,  the  issuing  of 
 water  and  blood  is  without  such  an  intimation.     The  reason  of 
 this  absence  cannot  have  been  that  the  Apostle  attached  less 
 importance  to  it.     We  saw  in  ver.  35,  that  it  was  upon  this 
 event  that  John  laid  the  chief  stress.     The  reason  was  rather, 
 that  the  Evangelist  regarded  the  import  of  this  event  as  per- 
 fectly plain,  so  that  he  could  leave  the  reader  to  discern  it  for 
 himself  ;  even  as  the  Christian  Church  of  all  ages  has  detected 
 it  without  difficulty.     This  reason  for  silence  may  be  supported 
 by  many  parallels  :    for  example,   the  three  Evangelists  omit 
 referring  to  Ps.  xxii.  in  their  record  of  the  distribution  of  the 
 garments ;  and  John,  in  ver.  18,  does  not  quote  Isa.  hii.  12. 
 Blood  and  water  flowing  from  the  side  of  the  Redeemer  dead 
 upon  the  cross :  what  that  signifies,  no  Christian  heart  can  ever 
 doubt.    The  hlood  is  the  blood  of  atonement,  which  is  exhibited 
 in  Isa.  liii.  as  the  centre  of  the  work  of  redemption  :  comp.  on 
 ch.  vi.  53.     The  router  signifies,  in  the  symbolism  of  the  Old 
 Testament,  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  which  is  shown  to  have  its 
 ground  in  the  blood  of  atonement,  by  its  being  placed  after  that 
 blood.    We  have  the  interpretation  in  1  John  i.  7,  "  The  blood 
 of  Jesus  Christ  cleanseth  us  from  all  sin,"  where  the  cleansing 
 pertains  to  the  water.     So  also  in  1  John  v.  6  :  "  This  is  He 
 who  came  by  water  and  blood,  even  Jesus  Christ ;  not  by  water 
 only,  but  by  water  and  blood :"  water  without  blood  would  have 
 been  forgiveness  without  satisfaction,  according  to  the  doctrine 
 of  those  who  regard  the  death  of  Christ  as  a  mere  event  or 
 concomitant.   .  Rev.  i.  5  is  also  parallel,  "  Who  loved  us,  and 
 washed  us  from  our  sins  in  His  blood ;"  and  vii.  14,   "  Who 
 washed  their  garments  in  the  blood  of  the  Lamb  :"  the  washing 
 signifies  the  attainment  of  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  through  the 
 appropriation  of  the  blood  of  Christ.     These  parallels  are  of  all 
 the  greater  importance,  as  they  are  John's  own  :  at  the  same 
 time  there  is  a  reference  to  the  two  sacraments  of  the  Christian 
 Church.     The  water  signifies  baptism,  which  is  connected  with 
 the  forgiveness  of  sins,  comp.  on  ch.  iii.  5 ;  the  blood  points  to 
 the  holy  communion,  comp.  on  ch.  vi.  53. 
 
430  CHAP.  XVIII.  XIX. 
 
 THE    BURIAL    OF    JESUS. 
 CHAP.  XIX.  38-42. 
 
 It  is  peculiar  to  John's  account  of  this,  that  Joseph  of 
 Arimathea  came  forward  pubhcly  with  his  confession  of 
 Christj  which  Mark  in  the  ToXfj,7]aa^,  xv.  43,  had  only  slightly 
 intimated ;  and  that  Nicodemus  co-operated  with  Joseph  in  the 
 interment  of  Jesus.  He  further  gives  the  particulars  of  the 
 spices,  the  statement  that  the  sepulchre  was  in  the  neighbour- 
 hood of  the  garden,  and  that  this  was  the  reason  why  they 
 placed  Him  there.  The  rest  is  simply  taken  up  from  the  earlier 
 Evangelists,  in  order  to  add  these  additional  traits.  "  Wonder- 
 ful power  of  the  death  of  Christ!"  cries  Quesuel,  "which  gives 
 courage  to  avow  Him  in  His  deepest  humiliation,  to  those  who, 
 when  He  was  performing  His  wonderful  works,  came  to  Him 
 only  in  secret." 
 
 Ver.  38.  "  And  after  this,  Joseph  of  Arimathea  (being  a 
 disciple  of  Jesus,  but  secretly  for  fear  of  the  Jews)  besought 
 Pilate  that  he  might  take  away  the  body  of  Jesus  :  and  Pilate 
 gave  him  leave.  He  came  therefore,  and  took  the  body  of 
 Jesus." — "Aprj,  with  its  allusion  to  dpOcoaiv,  ver.  31,  can  refer 
 only  to  the  taking  the  body  from  the  cross,  not  to  the  removing 
 of  the  body  already  taken  down.  The  KaOekwv  of  INIark  xv. 
 46,  Luke  xxiii.  53,  points  to  the  same  conclusion.  Pilate  had 
 given  orders  that  the  legs  of  the  crucified  should  be  broken,  and 
 they  taken  down  and  removed.  The  soldiers,  acting  on  their 
 own  responsibility,  had  failed  to  break  the  legs  of  Jesus.  The 
 removal  of  the  body,  as  having  that  condition  connected  with  it, 
 they  durst  not  attempt  themselves  or  permit  to  others,  notwith- 
 standing the  piercing  of  His  side,  until  Pilate  gave  permission. 
 This  permission  Joseph  sought,  and  Pilate  conceded  it,  after 
 having  called  the  centurion,  and  made  satisfactory  inquiries  as 
 to  the  actual  death  of  our  Lord :  comp.  Mark  xv.  44,  45.  The 
 article  before  the  name  of  Joseph,  the  omission  of  which  in  some 
 MSS.  sprang  from  an  inconsiderate  comparison  of  the  other 
 Evangelists,  points  to  the  fact  that  Joseph  was  already  known 
 from  the  records  of  those  predecessors  of  Jolin,  who  introduce 
 him  formally,  as  one  altogether  unknown  before :  Matt.  ver.  57  ; 
 Mark,  ver.  43  ;  Luke,  ver.  50.     Matthew  heads  the  list  of  his 
 
CHAP.  XIX.  39.  431 
 
 qualifications  with  his  riches,  dvOponTro^  7r\ov(Tio<;,  with  allusion 
 to  Isa.  liii.  9,  where  the  prophet  represents  the  exaltation  of 
 Christ  as  beginning  with  His  being  buried  with,  a  rich  man, 
 instead  of  being  entombed,  according  to  His  enemies'  intention, 
 wifli  malefactors.  Arimathea  is  now  Ramlah,  eight  hours' 
 journey  from  Jerusalem  (v.  Eaumer,  S.  217).  That  Joseph 
 was  a  native  of  Arimathea,  but  a  resident  of  Jerusalem,  illus- 
 trates his  position  as  a  member  of  the  council,  Mark  xv.  43, 
 Luke  xxiii.  51,  and  the  fact  of  his  having  a  sepulchre  in  the 
 city,  Matt.  ver.  60.  But  the  circumstance,  that  the  sej)ulchre  had 
 never  been  used  before,  indicates  that  his  removal  to  Jerusalem 
 had  taken  place  only  a  short  time  before.  Matthew  alone  tells 
 us  expressly,  that  the  sepulchre  in  which  Jesus  was  placed 
 belonged  to  Joseph.  The  correspondence  between  "  of  Ari- 
 mathea" and  the  new  grave,  serves  to  anticipate  and  confirm 
 that  statement.  Probably  the  consideration  that  he  had  a  new 
 grave  in  the  neighbourhood  of  the  place  of  crucifixion,  and  his 
 reflection  upon  the  hand  of  Providence  in  this,  was  the  impulse 
 to  his  coming  out  from  his  previous  concealment.  He  had 
 hitherto  been  only  in  secret  a  disciple  of  Jesus.  It  is  true  that, 
 according  to  Luke,  ver.  51,  he  had  not  consented  to  the  deed  of 
 the  Jews  ;  but  he  had  known  how  to  clothe  his  protest  in  such 
 a  form  as  to  avoid  being  known  as  a  disciple  of  Christ.  Lampe  : 
 Non  directe,  atque  eapropter  invalide :  indirectly,  and  therefore 
 ineffectually. 
 
 Yer.  39.  "  And  there  came  also  Nicodemus  (which  at  the 
 first  came  to  Jesus  by  night),  and  brought  a  mixture  of  myrrh 
 and  aloes,  about  an  hundred  pound  weight." — "  Who  came  to 
 Jesus  by  night"  (comp.  on  ch.  vii.  50)  corresponds  with  what 
 had  been  said  about  Joseph  in  ver.  38.  Lampe  :  "  They  had 
 been  fellows  in  the  imbecility  and  fear  of  faith  ;  now  they  are 
 fellows  in  the  fortitude  of  love."  The  myrrh  and  aloes  point 
 to  Ps.  xlv.  9.  There  it  is  said  of  the  apparel  of  the  great  King, 
 in  the  day  of  the  joy  of  His  heart,  in  the  day  of  His  espousals 
 to  the  Gentile  world  (comp.  ch.  xii.  32  :  "  And  I,  if  I  am  lifted 
 up,  will  draw  all  men  unto  Me"),  that  all  His  garments  "  were 
 of  myrrh  and  aloes" — nothing  but  myrrh  and  aloes :  they  were 
 so  fragrant,  that  they  might  have  been  nothing  else.  The  figure 
 of  the  psalm  becomes  here  incorporated  in  a  symbol.  In  respect 
 to  the  abundance  of  the  material,  comp.  2  Chron.  xvi.  14.    There 
 
432  CHAP.  XVIII.  XIX. 
 
 it  is  said,  that  Asa  was  laid  "  in  the  bed,  which  was  filled  with 
 sweet  odours,  and  divers  kinds  of  spices." 
 
 Ver.  40.  "  Then  took  they  the  body  of  Jesus,  and  wound  it 
 in  linen  clothes  with  the  spices,  as  the  manner  of  the  Jews  is  to 
 bury." — The  696via,  linen  clothes,  with  which  the  whole  body 
 was  enveloped,  are  to  be  distinguished  from  the  KeLpcaa  in  ch. 
 xi.  44,  these  having  been  mere  bands,  which  pertained  only  to 
 the  hands  and  feet,  and  which  were  there  connected  with  the 
 winding-sheet.  Only  in  the  case  of  our  Lord  are  666via  men- 
 tioned :  comp.  Luke  xxiv.  12  ;  John  xx.  6,  7. 
 
 Ver,  41.  "  Now  in  the  place  where  He  was  crucified  there 
 was  a  garden ;  and  in  the  garden  a  new  sepulchre,  wherein 
 was  never  man  yet  laid." — The  place  must  naturally  be  taken 
 with  a  wide  meaning.  The  circumstance  that  the  sepulchre  had 
 never  been  used  before  is  made  so  emphatically  prominent  by 
 the  Evangelists  (Matthew,  "  in  his  new  sepulchre ;"  Luke  xxiii. 
 53,  "  wherein  yet  never  man  lay :"  John  takes  "  new"  from 
 Matthew,  and  "  never  man  yet"  from  Luke),  that  it  must 
 have  been  regarded  as  an  important  fact.  They  discerned 
 in  it  a  Divine  hand,  so  ordering  it  that  the  Prince  of  life 
 was  never  laid  in  a  place  of  corruption.  Something  analo- 
 gous we  may  note  in  the  "  new  cart,"  with  the  "  two  milch 
 kine  on  which  there  hath  come  no  yoke,"  whereon  the  ark  of 
 the  covenant  was  to  be  brought  back  from  the  Philistines, 
 1  Sam,  vi.  7. 
 
 Ver.  42.  "  There  laid  they  Jesus  therefore,  because  of  the 
 Jews'  preparation-day  ;  for  the  sepulchre  was  nigh  at  hand." — 
 The  meaning  is  not  that  they  intended  afterwards  to  remove 
 Him  again,  but  that,  under  these  circumstances,  the  nearness 
 of  the  sepulchre  decided  in  its  favour  ;  whereas  otherwise  there 
 would  have  arisen  a  keen  emulation  among  the  disciples  of 
 Christ.  The  reason  for  choosing  the  nearest  place,  was  simply 
 the  proximity  of  the  Sabbath.  How  entirely  different  would  it 
 have  been  if  the  following  day,  beginning  with  the  evening,  is 
 regarded  as  the  first  day  of  the  Passover  !  Thus  the  interment 
 of  Jesus  would  have  been  almost  simultaneous  with  the  slaying 
 of  the  paschal  lamb. — In  the  Divine  care  of  the  body  of  Jesus, 
 there  has  always  been  observed  a  type  and  pledge  of  God's  care 
 of  the  Christian  Church,  when  brought  to  the  lowest  point. 
 The  circumstances  were  all  the  more  significant,  as  Isaiah  in 
 
CHAP.  XX.  1.  43^ 
 
 ell.  liii.  had  made  the  honourable  burial  of  the  servant  of  God 
 the  begmning  of  His  exaltation. 
 
 CHAPTEE  XX. 
 
 THE    RESURRECTION. 
 
 THE  SEVENTH  GROUP  OF  THE  WHOLE  GOSPEL;    THE  THIRD 
 OE  ITS  SECOND  PART  :    THE  RESURRECTION. 
 
 In  ch.  XX.  1-18,  John  learns  in  the  empty  sepulchre  to  believe 
 in  the  resurrrection,  and  the  risen  Lord  appears  to  Mary 
 Magdalene. 
 
 Ver.  1.  "  The  first  day  of  the  week  cometh  Mary  Mag- 
 dalene early,  when  it  was  yet  dark,  unto  the  sepulchre,  and 
 seeth  the  stone  taken  away  from  the  sepulchre." — The  plural 
 TO,  (Ta^^ara,  which  often  occurs  in  the  Sept.  and  in  Josephus 
 as  well  as  in  the  New  Testament,  was  supposed  to  point  to  the 
 high  dignity  of  the  day.  It  is  the  plwalis  excellentice,  of  such 
 wide  use  in  Hebrew.  The  Sabbath  is  termed  in  Isa.  Iviii.  13 
 "  the  holy  of  the  Lord."  From  a  similar  cause  it  sprang  that 
 all  days  of  the  week  were  distinguished  by  their  relation  to  the 
 Sabbath  (the  one  day,  or  first  day,  jjbia,  of  the  Sabbath,  and  so 
 forth) ;  and  that  the  Sabbath,  for  instance  in  Luke  xviii.  12, 
 embodied  in  itself  the  whole  week.  It  is  incorrect  to  say  that 
 the  Sabbath  of  itself  signified  the  week.  The  first  day  of  the 
 week  was  peculiarly  appropriate  for  the  resurrection,  inasmuch 
 as  on  it  the  creation  of  the  world  had  begun,  and  light  had  been 
 brought  into  being.  With  the  resurrection  of  Christ  a  new 
 creation  began,  and  a  new  light  went  forth  into  the  darkness. 
 
 "Cometh  Mary  Magdalene:"  Matt,  xxviii.  1  mentions 
 Mary  ^lagdalene  and  the  other  Mary ;  Mark,  besides  these, 
 Salome,  xvi.  1.  Luke  is  most  copious ;  he  mentions,  xxiv.  10, 
 with  ]\Iary  Magdalene  Joanna,  now  first  appearing  in  his  Gospel, 
 and  Mary  mother  of  James,  and  "others  with  them :"  comp. 
 xxiii.  55,  xxiv.  1,  according  to  which  those  women  went  to  the 
 sepulchre  who  had  remained  together  watching  the  interment 
 (his  predecessors  had  mentioned  as  such  Mary  Magdalene  and 
 
 VOL.  II.  2  E 
 
434  CHAP.  XX. 
 
 the  other  I^Iary),  and  "  certain  others  with  them."  The  whole 
 circle  of  Galilean  women,  as  might  have  been  expected,  joined 
 the  pilgrimage.  John,  who  everywhere,  and  especially  in  the 
 narrative  of  the  resurrection,  is  extremely  sparing  in  the  com- 
 munication of  what  was  already  known  through  his  predecessors, 
 touching  it  only  so  far  as  was  necessary  for  the  introduction  of 
 his  own  peculiar  contributions,  goes  no  further  than  the  men- 
 tion of  I^Iary  J^Iagdalene,  who  also  with  his  predecessors  is  the 
 central  personage,  and  always  is  placed  first.  But  we  find  in 
 John  a  definite  allusion  to  the  fact  that  he  passed  over  the 
 others  only  for  brevity.  That  lies  in  the  olSafiep,  we  know,  in 
 ver.  2,  which  cannot  without  the  utmost  violence  be  interpreted 
 otherwise  than  "I  and  the  women  who  went  out  with  me." 
 Ewald  remarks,  with  strict  propriety :  "  That  Mary  Magdalene 
 went  out  alone  to  visit  the  sepulchre  is  in  itself  improbable, 
 and  at  the  same  time  opposed  to  the  older  narrative,  besides 
 being  out  of  keeping  wath  his  own  bent  in  ver.  2."  The  impos- 
 sibility of  sundering  Mary  Magdalene  from  the  other  women 
 becomes  very  plain  when  we  note  Luke  xxiv.  10.  There,  in 
 conjunction  with  the  others,  she  brings  the  Apostles  the  report ; 
 just  as,  according  to  Matthew  and  ISIark,  she  came  together 
 with  them  to  the  sepulchre. 
 
 .The  fact  that  John  does  not  mention  the  intention  with 
 
 which  Mary  and  her  companions  went  to  the  sepulchre,  is  as 
 
 good  as  an   express  allusion  to  his  predecessors,  according  to 
 
 whom  the  women  w^ent  out  to  anoint  the  body  of  Jesus :  Mark 
 
 xvi.  1 ;  Luke  xxiv.  1,  xxiii.  55.— Mary  came  early,  while  it  ivas 
 
 yet  dark  at  the  sepulchre.     This  statement,  and  Luke's  "  very 
 
 early  in  the  morning,  opOpov  ^adia"  are  supposed  to  contradict 
 
 Mark's  "  at  the  rising  of  the  sun."     Certainly  his  dvarelXavro'i 
 
 Tov  7)\lov  can  be  interpreted  only  as  orto  sole.     But  this  does 
 
 not  imply  that  the  sun  had  fully  risen.     Many  passages  in  the 
 
 New    Testament,   and   the  frequently  occurring  avaroXai  in 
 
 classical  writers,  show  that  the  rising  of  the  sun  was  an  act  not 
 
 limited  to  one  moment.     The  sun  is  really  risen,  though  the 
 
 disc  of  the  sun  may  not  be  visible  in  the  lieaven ;  for  the  dawn 
 
 is  created  by  it  before  it  rises.     :Mark  precedes  his  sunrise  by 
 
 the  remark  "  very  early,''  and  shows  that  he  meant  only  the 
 
 first  glimmering  of  dawn.    His  ch.  i.  35,  /cat  nrpon  evvvxov  \iav, 
 
 furnishes  a  comment  on  this  Xlav  irpcot.     Fritzsche :   Mane, 
 
CHAP.  XX.  2.  435 
 
 multa  adhuc  nocte  =  bene  mane.  In  the  evvv^pv  there,  we  have 
 a  parallel  to  the  o-kotm'^  eVi  ovarj'i  here.  Mark  speaks  of  the 
 sunrise  in  the  broader  sense,  as  opposed  to  dark  night ;  but  John 
 does  not  say  "  when  it  was  yet  night,"  but  only  that  the  light 
 of  day  had  not  yet  altogether  dispelled  the  darkness.  It  was 
 precisely  the  time  which  Homer  describes  by  KpoKOTrerrXo'i  rico<; : 
 comp.  Eustatius  ad  Horn.  xi.  p.  181,  "having  something  of  the 
 night's  darkness  remaining,  although  the  sun's  rays  shed  upon 
 it  a  golden  tinge."  In  the  nature  of  the  case  we  should  expect 
 neither  perfect  darkness  nor  perfect  light.  In  the  Old  Tes- 
 tament, the  dawn  was  consecrated  as  a  symbol  of  transition  from 
 misery  to  happiness,  from  suffering  to  joy  :  Isa.  Iviii.  8,  comp. 
 ver.  10,  xlvii.  11,  viii.  20;  Hos.  vi.  3,  x.  15 ;  2  Sam.  xxiii.  4, 
 and  specifically  Ps.  xxii.  1 :  there  the  hind  of  the  morning  is 
 the  suffering  righteous,  to  whom  salvation  is  come.  There 
 seems  to  be  a  special  reference  to  this  psalm,  the  same  which 
 throughout  the  crucifixion  both  our  Lord  and  His  apostles  had 
 continually  in  view. — "Unto  the  sepulchre"  must,  from  what 
 follows,  be  to  the  sepulchre,  not  into  it :  comp.  ch.  xviii.  28 ; 
 Mark,  ver.  2,  cttI  to  fivrjfielov ;  Luke  xxiv.  1,  eVl  to  fjuvij/jba.  Yet 
 the  preposition  eh  was  designedly  chosen.  If  Mary  had  not 
 actually  visited  the  sepulchre  itself,  the  Evangelist  would  have 
 used  eVt  instead :  comp.  elaekOovaai,  Luke  xxiv.  3  ;  i^eXdovaat 
 airo  Tov  fjLU7)fj,etov,  Matt,  xxviii.  8. — John  had  mentioned  the 
 stone  in  connection  with  the  resurrection  of  Lazarus,  xi.  38, 
 but  not  in  connection  with  our  Lord's  sepulchre :  Anton  :  "  An 
 instance  to  show  that  John  refers  back  to  the  other  Evangelists. 
 For  he  had  said  nothing  before  of  any  stone.  He  knew  that 
 it  was  a  matter  well  known  to  believers  through  the  earlier 
 accounts." 
 
 Ver.  2.  "  Then  she  runneth,  and  cometh  to  Simon  Peter, 
 and  to  the  other  disciple  whom  Jesus  loved,  and  saith  unto 
 them,  They  have  taken  away  the  Lord  out  of  the  sepulchre, 
 and  we  know  not  where  they  have  laid  Him." — The  women 
 had  received  a  command  to  carry  to  the  Apostles  the  angels' 
 report  concerning  the  resurrection,  Matt,  xxviii.  7,  and  espe- 
 cially, as  Mark  xvi.  7  adds,  to  Peter  as  their  head.  According 
 to  Luke  xxiv.  9,  they  reported  all  that  they  had  learnt  at  the 
 sepulchre  "to  the  eleven,  and  to  all  the  rest."  As  it  is  im- 
 probable that  all  these, — not  only  the  Apostles,  but  all  other 
 
436  CHAP.  XX. 
 
 believers, — were  assembled  in  one  place,  we  have  to  assume  that 
 they  divided  the  commission  among  them.  It  then  was  obvious 
 that  to  Mary  Magdalene,  who  everywhere  takes  the  first  place 
 among  the  holy  w^omen,  would  be  assigned  the  communica- 
 tion of  the  angels'  message  to  Peter,  especially  named  by  the 
 angel,  as  v/ell  as  to  his  faithful  companion,  the  disciple  whom 
 Jesus  loved.  According  to  Luke,  the  message  embraced  all 
 that  he  records  in  vers.  3-8, — that  they  found  not  the  body  of 
 Jesus  in  the  sepulchre,  that  two  angels  appeared  to  them  in  their 
 anxiety,  and  announced  to  them  the  resurrection.  John,  how- 
 ever, contents  himself  with  communicating  the  first  part  of  the 
 message — the  fact  that  the  women  found  the  sepulchre  empty. 
 This  is  in  harmony  with  his  pervading  habit  of  touching  lightly 
 what  his  predecessors  had  narrated ;  and  of  introducing  their 
 details  with  the  utmost  brevity,  and  merely  as  a  basis  for  incor- 
 porating and  adjusting  his  own  independent  matter.  If  it  were 
 a  matter  of  condensation,  then  the  narrative  of  the  appearance 
 of  the  angels,  and  the  transitory  manifestation  of  our  Lord  Him- 
 self in  the  way  (Matt,  xxviii.  9),  must  have  been  postponed  to 
 that  of  the  report  of  the  sepulchre  being  found  empty.  This  last 
 reproduced  what  the  women  had  seen  with  their  bodily  eyes, 
 and  stated  on  personal  evidence  a  firm  fact ;  those  other  reports 
 moved  in  a  sphere  where  excited  imagination  might  play  a  con- 
 siderable part.  The  question  in  them  was  one  of  an  oTnaaia, 
 Luke,  ver,  23,  that  certainly  might  have  objective  significance, 
 but  in  regard  to  which  it  was  needful  to  be  very  guarded.  The 
 really  central  matter  in  the  message  of  the  women  seems  to  be 
 that  which  John  alone  selects,  that  of  Luke  xxiv.  24,  where  the 
 disciples  of  Emmaus  say :  "  And  certain  of  them  which  were  with 
 us  went  to  the  sepulchre,  and  found  it  even  so  as  the  women 
 had  said  ;  but  Him  they  saw  not :"  this  latter  word  intimates, 
 in  harmony  with  Matt,  xxviii.  9,  that  the  women  had  asserted 
 that  they  had  seen  Jesus.  The  Apostles  gave  full  acceptance 
 only  to  that  part  of  the  message,  only  to  that  which  every  one 
 with  a  sound  eye  to  the  testimony  must  have  believed.  The 
 remainder  awakened  only  presentiments  and  indefinite  hopes. 
 Until  further  confirmation  it  was  not  spoken  of,  a  mere  rumour, 
 Xripo^,  Luke  ver.  11.  But  we  may  prove  from  John  himself 
 that  Mary  INIagdalene  must  have  said  more  than  what  he  so 
 briefly  communicates.   The  facts  reported  by  him  point  us  to  the 
 
CHAP.  XX.  2.  437 
 
 supplement  which  we  find  in  Luke.  It  is  stinking  at  the  outset 
 that  ^laiy  runs.  Accordingly  she  must  have  already  experienced 
 something  which  did  not  paralyse  her  feet,  but  gave  them  wings. 
 Further,  if  Mary  had  nothing  further  to  report,  she  would  have 
 come  weeping  to  the  Apostles.  But  she  does  not  weep  till  ver. 
 12,  when  that  seems  to  be  vanishing  from  her  which  she  had 
 thought  she  held  fast.  If  Mary,  besides  mentioning  the  fact 
 which  was  evident  to  her  sense,  the  emptiness  of  the  grave,  had 
 not  alluded  to  some  explanation  of  that  fact  which  she  believed 
 she  had  received,  the  conduct  of  the  two  disciples  is  hardly  to 
 be  accounted  for.  The  report  of  Mary  must  have  deposited  in 
 them  the  germ  of  a  faith  in  the  Lord's  resurrection  ;  but  that 
 could  not  have  been  the  case  if  she  merely  reported  the  empti- 
 ness of  the  sepulchre.  For  the  fact  that  the  sepulchre  was 
 empty  furnished  no  evidence  in  favour  of  the  resurrection ;  it 
 was  rather  evidence  to  the  contrary,  since  the  resurrection  of 
 Jesus  was  inseparably  connected  with  His  making  Himself 
 known  to  His  disciples.  If  the  words  of  Mary  had  not  given 
 the  two  disciples  some  ground  of  hope,  why  did  they  run  so 
 fast  to  the  sepulchre  ?  How  was  it  that  John  should  record 
 the  circumstance,  indifferent  in  itself,  that  he  outran  Peter  and 
 came  first  to  the  sepulchre,  if  their  difference  of  speed  did  not 
 reveal  a  difference  of  sentiment  with  regard  to  the  report 
 received  by  Mary, — a  prelude  to  the  subsequent  difference  in 
 their  faith  and  wonder?  The  running  of  the  two  men  pre- 
 supposes a  germ  of  faith  in  the  Lord's  resurrection ;  a  germ 
 which  was  implanted  solely  by  the  report  brought  to  them 
 through  Mary.  Without  some  such  faith  they  would  have 
 gone  to  the  sepulchre,  if  they  went  at  all,  with  faltering  steps 
 and  downcast  faces.  In  the  disciple  whom  Jesus  loved  this 
 germ  was  more  energetically  developed  through  the  influence 
 of  that  personal  and  individual  love  to  Jesus  which  distinguished 
 him  beyond  all  the  other  disciples.  So  also  the  fact  that  John 
 came  to  a  mature  faith  in  the  resurrection  while  still  in  the 
 sepulchre,  ver.  8,  assumes  that  the  message  of  Mary  had 
 already  given  him  ground  for  hoping  it. — With  "  they  have 
 taken  away,"  etc.,  we  may  compare  Luke  xxiv.  3,  "  And  tliey 
 entered  in,  and  found  not  the  body  of  the  Lord  Jesus,"  pro- 
 vided we  include  ver.  4,  according  to  which  they  were  in 
 consequence  filled  with  grief  and  anxiety :  "  And  it  came  to 
 
438  CHAP.  XX. 
 
 pass,  as  they  were  much  perplexed  thereabout."  What  Mary 
 here  said  was  the  result  which  observation  with  the  natural 
 eye  would  lead  to.  That  she  knew  how  to  distinguish  ac- 
 curately between  the  sphere  of  lower  sense  and  that  of  the 
 higher,  itself  awakens  in  our  minds  a  prejudice  in  favour  of 
 her  trustworthiness. 
 
 Ver.  3.  "Peter  therefore  went  forth,  and  that  other  disciple, 
 and  came  to  the  sepulchre." — Luke,  after  mentioning  the  cold 
 reception  which  the  women  with  their  message  met  with  at  the 
 hands  of  the  Apostles,  ver.  11,  says  in  ver.  12,  "  Then  arose 
 Peter,  and  ran  unto  the  sepulchre ;"  he  singles  out  Peter  from 
 the  rest.  John  completes  his  account  by  adding  that  he  was 
 with  Peter.  That  Luke  knew  more  than  he  recorded,  is  plain 
 from  ch.  xxiv.  23,  when  the  disciples  of  Emmaus  say,  "  And 
 certain  of  them  that  were  with  us  went  to  the  sepulchre."  If 
 Peter  accordingly  did  not  go  alone,  we  might  naturally  enough 
 suppose  that  John  would  go  with  him  :  for  these  two  appear 
 everywhere,  and  in  Luke  particularly,  united  in  the  most  per- 
 fect manner  (compare  on  ch.  xiii.  24)  ;  and  certainly  there 
 was  not  one  in  the  whole  company  of  the  Apostles  more  dis- 
 posed than  John  to  faith  in  the  resurrection.  Luke  limits 
 himself  to  the  mention  of  Peter,  simply  as  being  the  head  of 
 the  Apostles.  John  of  course  had  a  personal  interest  in  record- 
 ing his  participation. 
 
 Ver.  4.  "  So  they  ran  both  together  :  and  the  other  disciple 
 did  outrun  Peter,  and  came  first  to  the  sepulchre." — Augustin : 
 "  After  he  had  said  that  they  came  to  the  sepulchre,  he  returns 
 back  to  say  how  they  went."  AVe  have  here  John's  supple- 
 ment to  Luke's  word,  "Peter  ran."  That  it  may  be  very  plain 
 where  his  more  copious  and  exact  narrative  is  to  be  inserted, 
 John  takes  almost  all  the  words  of  the  summary  account  in 
 Luke,  and  adapts  his  additions  to  them  :  Luke  says,  that  Peter 
 ran  to  the  grave ;  John,  that  Peter  and  John  ran,  the  latter 
 faster  than  the  former :  Luke,  that  he  stooped  down  and  beheld 
 the  linen  clothes  laid  by  themselves  ;  John  uses  the  very  same 
 words,  so  that  there  can  be  no  idea  of  mere  accident  in  the 
 matter:  Luke  speaks  of  the  linen  clothes  alone;  John  says,  that 
 the  napkin  did  not  lie  with  the  linen  clothes :  Luke,  that  he 
 went  home  {airrikOe  tt/oo?  eavrov)  ;  and  John  uses  the  very  same  ' 
 words,  "  went  away  again  unto  their  own  home  "  {airrikOov  irpo^ 
 
CHAP.  XX.  4.  439 
 
 kavTov<i).  If  we  attach  their  real  value  to  these  designed 
 allusions,  we  shall  not  be  misled  by  John's  ver.  8,  "  And  he  saw 
 and  believed,"  in  its  plain  reference  to  Luke's  ver.  11,  "  And 
 they  believed  them  not."  Now,  says  John,  the  earlier  unbelief 
 of  the  disciples  gave  way  in  the  case  of  at  least  one  of  those 
 disciples.  It  was  not  fortuitous  that  John  in  this  way  linked 
 his  narrative  to  Luke  amonfj;  the  three  Evano;elists.  Matthew 
 breaks  off  his  account  of  the  holy  women,  after  recording  how 
 the  Lord  appeared  to  them,  and  gave  them  a  commission  to  the 
 disciples ;  Mark  still  earlier,  after  his  communications  on  the 
 appearance  and  commission  of  the  angel.  Both  fail  to  narrate 
 the  reception  which  they  and  their  tidings  concerning  the 
 resurrection  and  their  message  met  with  from  tlie  Apostles. 
 Luke  alone  of  the  three  Evangelists  mentions  this.  Now,  as 
 it  was  John's  design  to  furnish  supplements  to  the  first  three 
 accounts,  it  was  natural  that  he  should  take  up  the  thread 
 where  that  Evangelist  laid  it  down  who  had  carried  the 
 common  narrative  furthest.  There  was  all  the  more  reason 
 why  John  should  refer  to  Luke,  because  Luke  had  not,  like 
 the  other  Evangelists,  passed  over  in  silence  the  event  which 
 John  wished  to  record  fully,  the  journey  of  the  two  to  the 
 sepulchre,  but  had  related  it  imperfectly ;  so  that  it  was  of 
 moment,  in  order  to  obviate  the  semblance  of  contradiction,  to 
 take  up  the  earlier  account  again,  and  to  indicate  the  places 
 where  the  additions  were  to  be  inserted. 
 
 What  made  John  run  faster?  We  must  reject  all  such 
 external  reasons  as  the  more  advanced  age  of  Peter.  If  the 
 difference  had  rested  upon  that  ground,  it  would  have  been  a 
 trifling  thing  to  mention.  It  is  opposed  also  by  the  analogy  of 
 the  following  incident,  where  John  yields  in  turn  to  Peter : 
 John  does  not  go  into  the  sepulchre,  Peter  does.  If  in  this  the 
 difference  must  be  referred  to  the  spiritual  sphere,  so  also  in  the 
 case  of  the  running.  The  true  interpretation  will  approve  itself 
 true,  by  referring  both  differences  between  the  two  Apostles  to 
 the  same  grounds.  The  reason  why  John  ran  faster  ^vas  this, 
 that  he  was  the  disciple  whom  Jesus  loved.  Personal  love  to 
 Jesus,  which  kept  pace  with  tlie  love  of  Jesus  to  him,  gave 
 wings  to  his  feet.  (Quesnel :  John  must  outrun  Peter ;  we 
 must  be  loved  before  we  can  love  or  run.)  If  the  matter  had 
 been  one  of  duty  in  his  vocation,  had  there  been  anything  to 
 
440  CHAP.  XX. 
 
 do  or  to  suffer  for  Jesus  and  His  Church,  Peter  would  certainly 
 not  have  been  behindhand.  Hence  the  reason  was  the  same 
 for  -which  the  Lord  committed  His  mother,  not  to  Peter,  but  to 
 John.  The  Apostle  had,  in  fact,  in  ver.  2,  all  but  expressly 
 assigned  the  reason,  by  there  designating  himself  the  disciple 
 whom  Jesus  loved,  ov  e(pi\ei,  6  'It^ctou?  : — (piketp,  stronger  than 
 the  ajaTrav,  used  elsewhere. 
 
 Ver.  5.  "  And  he  stooping  down,  and  looking  in,  saw  the 
 linen  clothes  lying ;  yet  went  he  not  in." — Luke  had  used  the 
 words,  "  And  stooping  down,  he  beheld,"  etc.,  of  Peter.  John., 
 taking  up  the  same  narrative,  does  not  purpose  to  correct  Luke : 
 that  would  have  been  contrary  to  all  analogy.  He  simply  inti- 
 mates that  this  was  what  was  common  to  him  and  Peter ;  and 
 then,  in  ver.  6,  introduces  supplementarily  the  statement  of  that 
 in  which  Peter  anticipated  him.  Peter,  too,  had  naturally 
 first  looked  into  the  sepulchre,  and  had  then  entered  into  it,  in 
 order  to  investigate  the  matter  more  closely.  The  odovla,  linen 
 clothes,  with  which  the  whole  body  was  swathed :  comp.  on 
 xix.  40. — Why  did  not  John  go  at  once  into  the  sepulchre? 
 His  tender  feeling,  the  gentle  inwardness  of  his  love  to  Christ, 
 feared  a  shock.  He  left  it  to  the  stronger  and  bolder  Peter  to 
 make  the  first  essay.  As  soon  as  this  gave  a  satisfactory  result, 
 he  .followed  after.  John  here  records  his  own  weakness  with 
 the  same  openness  as,  in  ver.  4,  he  records  his  strength. 
 
 Vers.  6,  7.  "  Then  cometh  Simon  Peter  following  him,  and 
 went  into  the  sepulchre,  and  seeth  the  linen  clothes  lie,  and 
 the  napkin,  that  was  about  His  head,  not  lying  with  the  linen 
 clothes,  but  wrapped  together  in  a  place  by  itself." — Luke  says, 
 "  the  linen  clothes  laid  by  themselves  (alone).'^  This  fxova 
 would  have  been  very  hard  of  explanation,  if  we  had  not  John's 
 commentary  on  it :  it  might  seem,  so  to  speak,  as  if  he  had 
 expected  a  supplementary  commentator.  Qewpetv,  in  contra- 
 distinction to  the  mere  ^Xeneiv,  signifies  the  more  careful  view 
 which  was  secured  by  approaching  nearer.  The  significance  of 
 this  circumstance,  so  minutely  recorded,  out  of  which,  accord- 
 ing to  ver.  8,  John's  faith  derived  its  strength,  has  been  well 
 stated  by  Lampe  :  "  It  was  because  He  who  altered  the  condi- 
 tion of  the  grave  did  nothing  in  haste,  but  designedly,  and  for 
 a  specific  purpose,  unwound  the  bandages  from  the  body,  and 
 disposed  them  decently  in  their  several  places." 
 
CHAP.  XX.  8.  441 
 
 Ver.  8.  "  Then  went  in  also  that  other  disciple  which  came 
 first  to  the  sepulchre,  and  he  saw  and  believed." — We  must  not 
 interpret,  "  He  believed  what  Mary  had  said  about  the  empti- 
 ness of  the  grave,"  as,  strangely  enough,  Augustin,  Luther, 
 and  Bengel  do.  (Augustin  :  "  What  did  he  see,  what  did  he 
 believe  ?  He  saw  the  empty  sepulchre,  and  believed  what  the 
 woman  had  said,  that  He  was  taken  away  from  the  sepulchre.") 
 For  that  would  have  required  to  be  more  specifically  stated ;  it 
 is  opposed  to  the  emphatic  meaning  of  the  term  believe,  espe- 
 cially in  the  writings  of  John  (comp.  on  xix.  35)  ;  and  it  is 
 not  in  keeping  with  the  parallel  words  of  Luke  concerning 
 Peter,  "  wondering  in  himself  at  that  which  was  come  to  pass," 
 davfid^Qjv  TO  yeyovo';, — wherein  there  was  at  least  a  dawn  of 
 faith,  and  which  shows,  as  Calvin  says,  that  something  greater 
 and  hio-her  came  into  his  mind  than  mere  wonder.  But  we 
 must  not  at  once  explain,  "  He  saw  and  believed  that  Jesus  was 
 risen."  That  also  would  have  required  to  be  more  expressly 
 declared.  The  faith  here  meant  must  needs  be  a  faith  in  Christ 
 absolutely,  in  the  same  general  sense  as  the  word  inarevecv  is 
 used  also  in  ver.  25.  The  faith  developed  here  was  faith 
 that  Jesus  was  the  Christ  the  Son  of  God,  ver.  31,  and  that 
 which  Thomas  avowed,  ver.  28,  "My  Lord  and  my  God:" 
 comp.  the  7re7rLaTevKa<;,  in  ver.  29,  which  is  based  upon  this 
 word  of  Thomas.  Faith  in  the  resurrection  was  involved  in  this 
 broader  faith  ;  it  was  a  part  of  the  whole. — Faith  in  Christ  is  an 
 empty  delusion,  if  there  is  no  faith  in  His  resurrection,  which  is 
 the  immediate  effect  and  evidence  of  His  Messianic  dignity  and 
 Divine  Sonship. — That  so  slender  a  circumstance  evoked  faith 
 in  John,  is  explained  by  the  fact,  that  this  event  had  in  a  variety 
 of  ways  been  prepared  for : — by  the  intelligence  of  Mary  ]\Iag- 
 dalene ;  by  all  his  experiences  of  the  Divine  dignity  of  Christ ; 
 by  decisive  foreannouncements  of  His  own  resurrection  ;  by  all 
 that  which  in  the  Old  Testament  was  predicted  (as  in  Ps.  ex. ; 
 Isa.  liii. ;  Zech.  ix.  9,  10)  concerning  Christ,  as  the  Kuler  over 
 all  Plis  enemies,  as  entering  through  sufferings  into  His  glory, 
 as  dividing  the  prey  with  the  strong,  as  attaining  a  dominion 
 over  the  earth,  extending  to  its  utmost  bounds.  Had  not  these 
 solid  grounds  been  existing,  John  might  have  been  charged 
 with  the  reproach  of  credulity.  So  also  he  would  have  been 
 amenable  to  the  charge  of  incredulity  if  he  had  not  believed : 
 
442  CHAP.  XX, 
 
 compare  what  Jesus  says,  Luke  xxiv.  25,  to  the  disciples  of 
 Emmaus,  "  O  fools,  and  slow  of  heart  to  believe  all  that  the 
 prophets  have  spoken."  In  ver.  9,  the  Apostle  himself  points 
 to  these  foundations  of  his  faith.  If  we  compare  "  He  saw  and 
 believed"  with  the  words  to  Thomas,  "  Blessed  are  they  that 
 have  not  seen,  and  yet  have  believed" — to  which  they  have  an 
 undeniable  allusion — we  must  perceive  in  them  the  Apostle's 
 self-accusation,  that  he  believed  not  altogether  without  seeing, 
 that  he  still  required  some  small  hold  on  the  visible,  and  that  for 
 a  season  he  had  still  doubted  whether  the  Divine  nature  of  his 
 Lord  would  declare  itself  in  the  resurrection.  We  might  draw 
 from  tliis  self-accusation  of  the  Apostle  the  conclusion  that, 
 apart  from  the  Apostle's  hardness  to  believe,  the  manifestations 
 of  the  risen  Lord  would  have  been  altogether  needless.  But, 
 even  as  it  was  becoming  that  the  Apostles  should  believe  in  the 
 resurrection  without  these  appearances  of  the  risen  Redeemer, 
 it  seemed,  on  the  other  hand,  good  to  Him  to  confirm  this  faith 
 by  actual  evidence,  and  thus  to  give  it  such  mighty  power 
 as  to  overcome  the  world,  so  that  the  Apostles,  strong  in  its 
 strength,  might  go  forth  and  convince  all  men.  So  is  it  ever 
 with  faith  generally.  It  must  be  present  before  experience ;  but 
 if  it  were  not  surely  and  variously  confirmed  by  experience,  it 
 would  soon  become  feeble,  and  die  by  degrees.  "  The  singular 
 eVio-Teucre,"  observes  Meyer,  "  serves  to  satisfy  his  oivii  personal 
 experience,  never  to  be  forgotten,  of  that  crisis ;  but  it  is  not  to 
 be  ren;arded  as  excludino;  Simon  Peter's  simultaneous  faith." 
 But  this  singular  concurs  with  another  singular,  the  davfid^wv 
 which  Luke  says  of  Peter :  he  attained  to  a  developed  faith, 
 while  Peter  went  no  further  than  wonder.  "  He  believed" 
 gives  probably  a  key  to  the  fact,  that  the  disciple  whom  Jesus 
 loved  had  no  specific  manifestation  vouchsafed  to  him,  while 
 one  was  vouchsafed  to  Peter.  We  may,  however,  seek  it  in 
 the  pre-eminence  of  Peter  himself. 
 
 Ver.  9.  "  For  as  yet  they  knew  not  the  scripture,  that  He 
 must  rise  again  from  the  dead." — The  Apostle  gives  the  reason 
 why  he  then  first  believed  in  the  resurrection,  and  that  he  re- 
 quired to  see  in  order  to  believe,  notwithstanding  the  existence 
 of  such  abundant  and  express  uttei'ances  of  the  Old  Testament 
 in  relation  to  the  resurrection,  which,  it  might  have  been  sup- 
 posed, would  have  from  the  beginning  rendered  it  a  certainty 
 
CHAP.  XX.  10.  443 
 
 to  tliem  all.  It  is  true  that  the  scripture  loudly  proclaims  the 
 resurrection,  hut  that  scripture  Avas  not  understood  or  hioion 
 by  these  disciples,  entangled  in  subjectivity ;  just  as  even  now 
 the  Scripture  testifies  and  declares  much  that  we  do  not  know 
 and  understand  until  Divine  dispensations  to  us,  and  manifold 
 experiences,  sometimes  very  bitter,  or  richer  communications  of 
 the  Holy  Spirit,  raise  us  to  a  higher  spiritual  intelligence. — 
 John  speaks  here  only  of  the  foreannouncements  of  the  resur- 
 rection as  contained  in  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament : 
 comp.  Luke  xxiv.  25-27,  44-47,  where  Jesus  similarly,  speak- 
 ing of  His  resurrection,  points  to  the  prophecies  of  the  Old 
 Testament.  Our  Lord's  own  declarations  concerning  His 
 coming  resurrection  are  not  simply  apart  from  and  with 
 "Scripture:"  they  are  to  be  regai'ded  only  as  interpretations 
 and  deductions  drawn  from  it,  and  were  declared  to  be  such 
 when  uttered  :  comp.  the  Set,  ]\Iatt.  xvi.  21,  Luke  ix.  22,  with 
 Luke  xxiv.  26,  44.  He  had,  before  His  resurrection,  as  after 
 it,  done  no  more  than  open  their  understanding  to  comprehend 
 the  Scripture,  Luke  xxiv.  45. 
 
 The  "knew  not"  must  not  be  too  absolutely  taken.  It  only 
 says  that  the  disciples'  knowledge  of  the  scripture  had  no  such 
 living  power  as  of  itself  to  lead  them  to  faith.  We  must  accept 
 "they  knew  not"  with  the  same  slight  modification  as  "they 
 believed  not,"  ch.  vii.  5  (comp.  on  that  passage).  John  is 
 particularly  partial  to  the  expression  of  a  relative  contrast  in  an 
 absolute  form  :  comp.  on  i.  17,  vii.  39.  Compared  with  the 
 knowledge  which  the  Apostles  afterwards  attained,  their  present 
 knowledge  scarcely  deserved  the  name.  Seen  from  the  point  he 
 then  occupied,  it  seemed  to  have  vanished.  The  Apostle  makes 
 with  deep  humiliation  his  confession  here.  The  scripture  was  in 
 itself  so  clear,  and  Jesus  had,  before  His  passion,  so  thoroughly 
 and  so  impressively  expounded  it  to  His  disciples,  that  it  was 
 incomprehensible  how  he  had  first  to  see  in  order  to  believe ! 
 But  the  seeing  Avould  never  have  led  him  to  faith  if  this  "  not 
 knowing  the  scripture"  had  been  an  absolute  ignorance, 
 
 Ver.  10.  "  Then  the  disciples  went  away  again  unto  their 
 own  home." — The  disciples  waited  at  their  homes  for  further 
 intelligence.  However  certainly  John  believed,  he  also  waited 
 for  further  intelligence  of  the  Redeemer.  For  He  had  given 
 His  disciples  certain  assurance  that,  presently  after  His  passion, 
 
444  CHAP.  XX. 
 
 He  would  see  them,  and  they  should  see  Him  again  :  ch.  xvi.  16, 
 22.  This  promise,  with  all  others  like  it,  had  now  become  matter 
 of  living  expectation  to  John ;  in  some  sense  also  to  Peter. 
 JTpo?  kavTov  in  Luke,  7rpo9  eavTOix;  here,  the  only  instances  in 
 which  this  peculiar  phraseology  occurs  in  the  New  Testament  :^ 
 explained  by  the  fact  that  the  dwelling  is  regarded  as  part  of  the 
 dweller,  so  that  he  who  comes  home  comes  to  himself.  Because 
 the  expression  was  so  entirely  peculiar  and  strange,  John  adopted 
 it  into  his  language.  It  seems  like  an  express  reference  to  Luke, 
 like  a  declaration  that  he  was  supplementing  that  Evangelist. 
 
 In  the  narrative  of  our  Lord's  appearance  to  Mary  Magda- 
 lene, vers.  11-18,  John  dilates  upon  what  Mark,  in  ch.  xvi.  9, 
 had  already  briefly  hinted  :  "  Now  when  Jesus  was  risen,  early 
 the  first  day  of  the  week.  He  appeared  first  to  Mary  Magdalene, 
 out  of  whom  He  had  cast  seven  devils."  That  the  appearance 
 in  Mark  is  not  that  of  which  Matt,  xxviii.  9  speaks,  but  tiiat  in 
 our  text,  is  plain  from  a  comparison  of  ver.  10  in  Mark  with 
 ver.  18  here.  Hastening  to  the  end,  he  passes  over  the  former 
 in  silence ;  because  that  manifestation  had  been  less  important, 
 more  transitory  and  superficial,  and  not  adequate  to  produce 
 in  the  minds  of  those  who  were  favoured  with  it  a  perfectly 
 undoubting  faith.  The  "/rsi5"  in  Mark  does  not  exclude 
 that  earlier  manifestation  :  it  notes  this  one  only  as  the  first 
 among  those  mentioned  by  him.  This  is  evident  from  the 
 relation  between  the  Jirst  and  the  after  that  in  ver.  12,  and  the 
 afterward,  ver.  14. 
 
 Ver.  11.  "But  Mary  stood  without  at  the  sepulchre  weep- 
 ing :  and,  as  she  wept,  she  stooped  down,  and  looked  into  the 
 sepulchre." — The  disciples  had  run  to  the  grave  :  Mary  Magda- 
 lene came  more  slowly.  She  remains  there,  after  the  disciples 
 had  gone  away :  they  went  away  so  soon,  doubtless  because  it 
 was  their  task  to  carry  intelligence  to  their  fellow-Apostles, 
 and  with  them  to  wait  for  that  manifestation  of  the  risen  Lord 
 which  had  been  promised  to  the  whole  apostolical  circle.  Peter 
 and  John  had  both  received  a  joyful  influence  from  the  sepul- 
 chre :  Peter  marvelled,  John  believed.-  Mary,  on  the  contraiy, 
 weeps,  notwithstanding  that  the  Apostles  had  communicated 
 their  impressions  to  her.      The  result  of  the  whole  gave  no 
 
 ^  Joseplius  has  it  in  Antiq.  viii.  5,  C  :  -Trpoi  uCrov;  inaaToi  rou  fixatXias 
 dTToT^vaxi/TOc  d'zhiaoc.v. 
 
CHAP.  XX.  12-14.  445 
 
 satisfaction  to  her.  The  reason  of  this  could  be  only  that  she 
 had  earlier  been  more  favoured ;  and  had  expected,  therefore, 
 that  the  Apostles  would  have  been  more  favoured  also.  She 
 liad  seen,  in  company  with  the  other  women,  a  vision  of  angels 
 who  announced  Christ's  resurrection  ;  on  the  way  home  she 
 had  seen  the  Lord  Himself,  although  only  in  a  transitory  way. 
 Now  she  has  nothing  but  the  empty  grave,  before  which  she 
 indulges  in  sorrow,  especially  as  the  Apostles  had  seen  nothing 
 more.  She  is  thrown  into  doubt  as  to  her  earlier  experience, 
 and  this  doubt  breaks  her  heart.  Her  weeping  for  Jesus,  how- 
 ever, is  heard :  first  the  angels  become  visible  to  her  again,  and 
 then  Jesus  Himself  appears  to  her. 
 
 Ver.  12.  "And  seeth  two  angels  in  white  sitting,  the  one  at 
 the  head,  and  the  other  at  the  feet,  where  the  body  of  Jesus 
 had  lain." — The  angels  appear  as  the  answer  to  Mary's  weep- 
 ing. This  sets  aside  the  question,  How  was  it  that  Peter  and 
 John  did  not  see  the  angels  ?  The  weeping  was  the  condition 
 not  merely  of  their  being  seen,  but  also  of  their  appearing. 
 The  angels  had  nothing  more  to  do  in  the  sepulchre.  This  is 
 evident  from  their  position,  their  sitting.  Bengel :  Sedentes 
 quasi  opera  perfunctos, — sitting  as  having  done  their  work. 
 They  appear  there  only  because  Mary  seeks  the  living  among 
 the  dead.  That  they  sat  on  the  place  where  the  Lord  had  lain, 
 one  at  the  head,  and  the  other  at  the  feet  (comp.  Ps.  xxxiv.  8, 
 "  The  angel  of  the  Lord  encampeth  about  them  that  fear  Him, 
 and  delivereth  them"),  intimated  to  her  that  no  impiety  had  been 
 permitted  here  :  when  God's  angels  kept  their  guard,  no  impious 
 hands  could  enter. — It  was  appropriate  that  the  angels  in  the 
 New  Testament  should  serve  Him  who,  in  the  Old  Testament, 
 is  exhibited  as  the  Head  of  the  angels,  the  Angel  of  the  Lord, 
 the  Captain  of  the  Lord's  host,  Josh.  v.  They  appeared  at 
 His  birth,  after  His  temptation,  in  Gethsemane,  at  the  resur- 
 rection, at  the  ascension. — '£y  Xev/fot?,  in  loliite,  is  found  else- 
 where only  in  Kev.  iii.  4,  5.  In  every  other  place  of  the  New 
 Testanipnt,  white  garments  are  mentioned.  White  was  the 
 colour  of  glory,  its  symbolic  shadow:  comp.  on  Eev.  iv.  4. 
 The  white  garments  of  the  angels  correspond  to  the  name  of 
 "  holy  ones,"  that  is,  glorious  ones,  which  they  bear  in  the  Old 
 Testament. 
 
 Vers.  13,  14.  "And  they  say  unto  her,  Woman,  why  weep- 
 
446  CHAP.  XX. 
 
 est  tliou  ?  She  saitli  unto  them,  Because  thej  have  taken  away 
 my  Lord,  and  I  know  not  where  they  have  laid  Him.  And 
 when  she  had  thus  said,  she  turned  herself  back,  and  saw  Jesus 
 standing,  and  knew  not  that  it  was  Jesus." — Mary,  although 
 invigorated  by  the  aspect  of  the  angels,  could  not  at  once  be 
 comforted.  Her  heart  desires  to  see  another,  to  see  Jesus 
 Himself.  Had  not  that  taken  place  which  is  recorded  in  Matt. 
 xxviii.  9,  the  vision  of  angels  alone  would  have  been  sufficient 
 for  her  satisfaction.  That  her  heart  longed  for  mox'e  was  made 
 plain  by  her  very  action,  as  she  turned  away  from  the  sepulchre 
 and  the  angels  towards  the  side  whence,  if  He  should  appear 
 at  all,  Jesus  would  come. — She  sees  Jesus  standing,  and  knows 
 not  that  it  is  Jesus.  The  reason  of  her  not  knowing  must  not 
 be  sought  in  Mary  alone.  What  Mark  says,  ch.  xvi.  12,  with 
 regard  to  the  two  disciples  of  Emmaus,  holds  good  here  :  Christ 
 appeared  to  them  and  to  her  in  another  form,  iv  erepa  fjiopcpfj. 
 So  also  ch.  xxi.  4,  where  Jesus  appears  to  the  disciples  by  the 
 Galilean  lake,  and  they  knew  not  that  it  was  Jesus ;  whereas, 
 in  Plis  two  manifestations  to  the  apostolic  circle  in  Jerusalem, 
 Jesus  at  once  made  Himself  known.  Analogies  are  found  in 
 the  angel-manifestations  of  the  Old  Testament,  especially  Judges 
 xiii.  16,  where  we  read,  "  For  Manoah  knew  not  that  it  was 
 the  angel  of  the  Lord," — a  passage  to  which  John,  in  ch.  xxi. 
 4,  literally  alludes.  The  reason  of  their  not  knowing  was  not 
 simply  the  weakness  of  spiritual  vision  in  Manoah  and  his 
 wife ;  but  especially  this,  that  the  angel  of  the  Lord  would  not, 
 until  afterwards,  announce  himself  plainly  as  such  :  comp.  ver. 
 17-21.  In  consequence  of  this,  "  Manoah  knew  not  that  it  was 
 an  angel  of  the  Lord,"  ver.  21.  Glorified  corporeity  is  distin- 
 guished from  ordinary  corporeity,  in  that  it  serves  the  spirit 
 absolutely,  and  assumes  at  its  desire  various  forms  of  manifes- 
 tation. Jesus  would  not  at  once  be  known  to  Mary,  otherwise 
 than  in  Matt,  xxviii.  9.  •  This  time,  the  voice  was  to  be  the 
 token  of  recognition.  It  was  in  the  name  Mary,  into  which  He 
 condensed  the  whole  relation  in  which  He  stood  to  her  soul, 
 that  He  would  be  made  known. .  He  would,  at  the  same  time, 
 teach  His  Church  of  all  ages,  that  in  the  guidance  of  His  people 
 He  might  be  expected  to  assume  many  strange  appearances, 
 and  that  Pie  would  often  be  present  among  those  who  were 
 still  bemoaning  His  absence,  and  weeping  for  His  presence. 
 
CHAP.  XX.  15-17.  447 
 
 Ver.  15.  "Jesus  saith  unto  her,  Woman,  why  weepest 
 thou?  whom  seekest  thou?  She,  supposing  Him  to  be  the 
 gardener,  saith  unto  Him,  Sir,  if  thou  have  borne  Him  hence, 
 tell  me  where  thou  hast  laid  Him,  and  I  will  take  Him  away." 
 — When  Mary  knew  not  Jesus,  it  was  obvious  that  she  should 
 first  think  of  the  gardener :  garden  and  gardener  pertain  to 
 each  other.  What  she  says  to  the  supposed  gardener  is  not  so 
 much  the  real  meaning  of  her  heart,  as  the  expression  of  her 
 glowing  desire  to  have  her  Lord  again,  were  it  only  His  dead 
 form.  The  Kvpie,  Sir,  which  in  its  respectfulness  goes  beyond 
 the  position  of  the  gardener,  must  be  explained  by  the  con- 
 sideration that  she  thought  herself  dependent  upon  him  for  what 
 was  her  dearest  treasure. 
 
 Ver.  16.  "Jesus  saith  unto  her,  Mary  !  She  turned  herself, 
 and  saith  unto  Him,  Rabboni !  which  is  to  say.  Master !" — The 
 Mart/!  which  Jesus  here  spoke  went  deeper  into  her  heart,  and 
 was  thus  much  more  fitted  to  remove  all  doubt  in  the  reality  of 
 the  resurrection,  than  all  that  was  said  at  the  first  manifestation. 
 The  superscription  of  this  was  the  "  Fear  ye  not,"  and  its 
 characteristics  were  strangeness  and  suddenness.  The  women 
 ventured  to  touch  His  feet  and  worship  Him.  But  here  Mary, 
 in  the  overmastering  love  of  her  heart,  would  actually  embrace 
 Him.  The  crTpa^elaa  here,  compared  with  the  ecrTyoa^?;  et?  ra 
 oTTtcTG),  ver.  14,  shows  that  the  former  turning  was  only  partial. 
 Now,  when  she  knows  Jesus,  she  turns  away  entirely  from  the 
 sepulchre  and  the  angels  towards  Him.  Kabboni,  here  only 
 and  Mark  x.  51,  is  |U"i,  a  dialectical  variety  of  Eabban  with  the 
 suffix.  In  process  of  time  the  suffix  lost  its  meaning,  like  the 
 pronoun  in  the  Dutch  Mynheer,  and  the  Evangelist  rightly 
 omits  it  in  the  interpretation  he  gives.  The  address  Rabboni 
 is  in  harmony  with  the  place  at  Jesus'  feet  which  Mary  loved ; 
 that  was  the  place  of  a  disciple  in  relation  to  her  Master.  It 
 was  natural  that  she  who  was  formerly  too  masterless  and  free, 
 should  be  especially  thankful  that  she  had  found  in  Jesus  the 
 great  Master. 
 
 Ver.  17.  "Jesus  saith  unto  her.  Touch  Me  not;  for  I  am 
 not  yet  ascended  to  My  Father  :  but  go  to  My  brethren,  and 
 say  unto  them,  I  ascend  unto  My  Father,  and  your  Father ; 
 and  to  My  God,  and  your  God."— The  "Touch  Me  not"  pre- 
 supposes that  Mary  was  in  the  act  of  touching  the  Lord,  for 
 
448  CHAP.  XX. 
 
 He  would  refuse  onlj  that  which  was  proffered.  "ATTTeaOai  Is 
 always  used  in  the  Old  Testament  of  bodily  touching ;  in  Luke 
 vii.  39  it  is  used  specifically  of  Mary  in  relation  to  Jesus  ;  and 
 as  there  is  nothing  to  limit  the  .neaning  here,  we  may  regard 
 the  Lord  as  forbidding  bodily  touching  as  such.  The  women 
 in  Matt,  xxviii.  9  embraced  the  feet  of  Jesus,  and  He  forbade 
 them  not.  Tlie  disciples  are  challenged  by  the  Lord  in  Luke 
 xxiv.  39  to  handle  Him,  ■\\rrj\a<^i](Tare  fie ;  and  to  Thomas  He 
 said,  "  Reach  hither  thy  hand,  and  thrust  it  into  My  side." 
 Therefore  the  reason"  of  the  prohibition  must  be  sought  in  the 
 personal  character  of  Mary,  and  in  the  passionate  nature  of  the 
 touch  which  sprang  from  that  character.  Mary  would  embrace 
 the  Lord.  She  thought  that  the  limits  which  had  formerly 
 existed  between  her  Lord  and  herself  (many  very  incorrectly 
 make  her  suppose  that  she  could  continue  to  act  towards  her 
 Lord  "in  the  old  style  of  confidence")  were,  now  that  the 
 Saviour  had  passed  into  another  form  of  existence,  removed ; 
 and  that  she  might  now  give  free  course  to  her  feelings,  without 
 fearing  the  admixture  of  anything  human  in  her  sentiment 
 towards  her  Lord.  But  the  Lord  repelled  her.  "  Touch  Me 
 not,  for  I  am  not  yet  ascended  to  My  Father :"  Mj  glorification 
 is  not  yet  perfect ;  the  partition  still  remains  in  part  which  the 
 infirmity  of  human  nature  erected  between  you  and  Me  ;  but 
 soon,  when  I  have  gone  to  the  end  of  the  way  which  I  have 
 now  entered,  this  partition  Avill  be  withdrawn.  Every  one  will 
 be  able  to  express,  without  any  reservation,  love  to  Him  who 
 sitteth  at  the  right  hand  of  the  Father. 
 
 The  ascension  appears  here,  as  in  Mark  and  Luke,  to  be  a 
 stage  of  the  Redeemer's  course  quite  distinct  from  the  resur- 
 rection, while  inseparably  connected  with  it  and  its  necessary 
 complement.  John  mentions  the  ascension  thrice,  in  ch.  iii.  13, 
 vi.  Q2,  and  this  passage.  His  silence,  therefore,  as  to  the  his- 
 torical event  must  not  be  considered  as  implying  un acquaint- 
 ance with  it,-^an  ignorance  which  his  relation  to  Mark  and 
 Luke,  apart  from  every  other  consideration,  renders  it  impossible 
 to  maintain.  Matthew  does  not  record  the  ascension  ;  and  yet 
 he  mentions,  ch.  xxvi.  64,  comp.  xxviii.  8,  Christ's  sitting  at  the 
 right  hand  of  God,  which  presupposes  the  ascension.  If,  in 
 opposition  to  all  the  Evangelists,  we  make  the  resurrection 
 simply  the  restoration  of  Christ  to  life  as  before,  then  the 
 
CHAP.  XX.  17.  449 
 
 ascension  assumes  the  character  of  a  new  stage,  and  it  is  diffi- 
 cult to  understand  how  any  Evangehst  could  omit  the  record  of 
 it.  But  if,  on  the  other  hand,  we  admit  that  Christ  rose  in  a 
 glorified  body,  the  resurrection  and  the  ascension  are,  as  it  were, 
 one,  and  bound  up  together.  The  latter  event,  in  that  case, 
 must  take  place  so  soon  as  Christ  had  sufficiently  attested  His 
 resurrection,  and  given  the  instructions  and  commissions  which 
 rested  on  the  resurrection.  Anton  :  "  The  resurrection  placed 
 the  Redeemer  in  a  new  kind  of  life.  Therefore  He  could  not 
 remain  upon  earth  ;  but  there  was  an  ascension  to  come."  It 
 was  all  the  less  necessary  for  John  to  narrate  the  fact  of  the 
 ascension,  as  his  predecessors  had  given  the  narrative  in  a  very 
 complete  manner. 
 
 The  prohibition  is  followed  by  a  commission.  Mary  must  go 
 to  the  Apostles,  and  give  them  information  of  the  approaching 
 ascension  of  the  Redeemer.  Why  did  the  Lord  send  them 
 intelligence  of  His  approaching  ascension,  and  not  of  His 
 resurrection  already  accomplished  ?  Why  does  He  say  nothing 
 about  His  appearing  in  their  midst,  and  His  manifold  inter- 
 course with  them  afterwards  ?  The  answer  is,  that  the  essential 
 consolation  of  the  resurrection  lay  in  the  ascension  which  was 
 connected  with  it,  by  which  Christ  would  enter  into  the  full 
 possession  of  His  Divine  glory,  and  thus  be  able  in  the  most 
 effectual  manner  to  care  for  His  disciples  and  help  His  Church. 
 Christ  sitting  at  the  right  hand  of  the  Father  is  the  proper  and 
 all-sufficient  consolation  of  the  Church.  Not  until  He  should 
 be  with  the  Father,  who  was  greater  than  He,  ch.  xiv.  28  ;  not 
 until  the  Father  had  glorified  Him  with  the  glory  which  He  had 
 before  the  foundation  of  the  world,  ch.  xvii.  5,  could  He  equip 
 His  disciples  with  irresistible  might.  The  appearances  of  the 
 risen  Lord,  far  from  being  excluded  by  this  message,  which  only 
 gave  prominence  to  the  great  central  fact,  were  all  the  more  to 
 be  expected  after  that  message.  If  Christ  was  truly  going  to  His 
 Father,  it  was  needful  that  He  should  give  His  disciples,  before 
 His  departure,  indubitable  proofs  that  the  bands  of  death  could 
 not  hold  Him.  The  entire  position  of  the  Apostles  demanded 
 that  Christ  should  appear  in  their  midst.  Paul,  in  1  Cor.  xv., 
 pretermits  the  appearances  of  Christ  to  the  women,  in  token 
 that  the  faith  of  the  Church  could  not  be  based  upon  tliem;  that 
 they  were  only  the  prelude  of  the  proper  fundamental  mani- 
 VOL.  II.  ■  2  F 
 
450  CHAP.  XX. 
 
 festations.  But  if  our  Lord  had  pre-announced  His  appearances 
 in  the  apostolic  circle,  they  would  have  lost  that  character  of 
 abruptness  which  it  was  manifestly  appropriate  that  they  should 
 bear. — Jesus  says,  "  I  ascend,"  not  "  I  will  ascend,"  in  order 
 to  intimate  that  His  whole  being  already  tended  towards  the 
 ascension,  which  would  have  immediately  taken  place  had  it 
 not  been  necessary  to  give  the  Apostles  demonstration  that  He 
 had  risen,  and  to  leave  with  them  His  last  injunctions. 
 
 Our  Lord  here  for  the  first  time  calls  His  disciples  brethren. 
 This  He  did  primarily  with  allusion  to  Ps.  xxii.  23,  where  the 
 Righteous  One  delivered  from  the  bands  of  death  says,  "  I  will 
 declare  Thy  name  unto  my  brethren."  But  this  designation  had 
 a  deeper  reason.  It  pointed  to  that  more  profound  fellowship 
 between  Jesus  and  His  people, — a  fellowship  created  by  that 
 redeeming  death  of  which  the  resurrection  was  the  seal.  Christ 
 having  given  His  life  for  them,  translated  them  from  friends 
 into  brethren,  ch.  xv.  15.  Anton  :  "  Christ  used  this  term  first 
 after  His  resurrection,  because  the  resurrection  was  the  seal  of 
 the  atonement  with  its  satisfaction,  so  that  they  might  be  assured 
 now  of  their  fellowship  with  Christ  and  in  Christ.  Although 
 He  has  gone  into  glory,  He  makes  His  disciples  already,  as  it 
 were,  sharers  of  it ;  He  clothes  them  with  His  dignity,  and  is 
 not  ashamed  to  call  them  brethren  (Heb.  ii.  12)."  How  full  of 
 consolation  this  new  designation  was  to  be,  the  sequel  shows. 
 As  brethren  they  were  the  partakers  of  that  glory  which  He  had 
 obtained  by  His  death  ;  His  God,  who  received  Him  into  that 
 glory,  became  their  God. — He  does  not  say  "to  our  Father, 
 to  our  God,"  because  He  was  Christ's  God  and  Father  in 
 a  different  sense  from  that  in  which  He  was  their  God  and 
 Father.  He  was  their  God  only  because  He  was  Christ's  God 
 and  they  Christ's  brethren.  Augustin :  Natura  meum,  gratia 
 vestrum  :  Mine  by  nature,  yours  by  grace. 
 
 Ver.  18.  "  Mary  Magdalene  came  and  told  the  disciples  that 
 she  had  seen  the  Lord,  and  that  He  had  spoken  these  things 
 unto  her." — Compare  Mark  xvi.  10. 
 
 Chap.  xx.  19-23. 
 
 Now  follows,  in  vers.  19-22,  the  appearance  of  Christ  in 
 the  midst  of  the  disciples. 
 
CHAP.  XX.  19-23.  451 
 
 The  appearances  of  the  risen  Lord  had  a  twofold  end :  1. 
 To  give  assurance  to  His  disciples  of  the  reality  of  His  resur- 
 rection ;  and  2.  To  communicate  to  them  the  new  authority 
 which  He  had  obtained  by  His  atoning  death.  Both  ends  are 
 expressly  noted  by  Luke,  Acts  i.  3 :  1.  He  was  seen,  during 
 forty  days,  in  many  manifestations  and  acts  which  gave  infallible 
 proof  of  His  resurrection.  2.  He  spoke  to  them  of  the  things 
 pertaining  to  the  kingdom  of  God,  this  being  a  more  compre- 
 hensive statement  of  the  second  design.  This  twofold  design 
 explains  how  all  the  four  Evangelists,  without  being  on  that 
 account  in  any  respect  imperfect,  might  restrict  themselves  to 
 individual  manifestations  ;  indeed,  it  shows  that  they  must  have 
 given  prominence  severally  to  individual  manifestations,  or 
 otherwise  they  could  not  have  avoided  the  accumulation  of  like 
 narratives, — a  repetition  which  they  all  show  themselves  careful 
 to  avoid.  The  two  essential  points  noted  above  are  found  in 
 them  all ;  and  as  almost  every  individual  appearance  involved 
 both,  they  might  very  well  distribute  them  as  they  have  done. 
 
 After  the  appearance  of  Christ  to  Mary  Magdalene,  followed 
 His  appearance  to  the  two  disciples  who  were  journeying  into 
 the  country.  This  Mark,  ch.  xvi.  12,  13,  summarily  narrates, 
 and  places  it  between  the  appearance  to  Mary  in  the  morning 
 and  the  appearance  to  the  Apostles  in  the  evening  of  the  day 
 of  resurrection.  Luke  gives  the  narrative  in  all  its  fulness. 
 According  to  him,  the  appearance  was  in  the  late  afternoon  of 
 the  day,  ch.  xxiv.  29. 
 
 About  the  same  time  occurred  the  manifestation  to  Peter 
 which  is  passingly  mentioned  by  Luke,  ver.  34,  and  which  Paul 
 alludes  to  in  his  narrative  of  the  appearances  of  our  Lord,  1  Cor. 
 XV.  5.  He  places  it  at  the  head,  and  before  that  to  the  Twelve, 
 the  appearances  to  the  women  being  carefully  excluded.  That 
 interview  with  Peter  could  not  have  taken  place  when  the  two 
 went  out  of  Jerusalem  to  go  to  Emmaus,  for  they  knew  of  no 
 other  authority  for  the  resurrection  of  Christ  than  the  rumour 
 of  the  women,  Luke  xxiv.  22  seq.  And  when  they  returned  in 
 the  evening  to  Jerusalem,  and  entered  the  apostolic  circle,  it 
 had  occurred  ;  for  the  Apostles  met  them  with  the  intelligence 
 that  the  Lord  was  risen  indeed,  and  had  appeared  unto  Simon. 
 
 We  now  come  to  the  appearance  of  Christ  on  the  evening 
 of  the  day  in  the  circle  of  the  Apostles.    This  is  recorded  briefly 
 
452  CHAP.  XX. 
 
 by  Mark,  ver.  14,  copiously  by  Luke,  vers.  33-43,  and  by  John 
 in  the  present  passage.  In  the  statements  as  to  time  there  is  a 
 perfect  agreement.  According  to  Mark,  the  Apostles  were  at 
 the  table  when  Jesus  entered  into  their  midst.  Luke  mentions 
 no  time ;  but  Jesus,  in  his  account,  asks,  "  Have  ye  anything 
 to  eat?"  and  the  Apostles  have  at  once  in  readiness  a  little  fish 
 and  honey.  According  to  John,  the  occurrence  fell  in  the  even- 
 ing. The  suddenness,  unexpectedness,  and  unearthliness  of  the 
 appearance,  all  make  prominent;  the  trait  that  it  took  place 
 when  the  doors  were  shut  is  peculiar  to  John,  but  is  required 
 by  the  statement  of  Luke,  that  the  Apostles  thought  they  saw 
 a  spirit.  The  words  of  our  Lord  to  the  Apostles  have  two  ele- 
 ments of  importance.  1.  He  demonstrated  to  them  the  reality 
 of  His  resurrection,  and  that  gradually :  first  offering  Himself 
 to  their  sight,  then  challenging  their  touch,  and  finally  asking 
 them  for  meat.  2.  He  gave  them  the  authority  of  their  voca- 
 tion, and  at  the  same  time  the  spiritual  powers  which  that 
 vocation  presupposed.  Luke's  account  is  limited  to  the  first  of 
 these  points,  because  he  reserves  the  authority  committed  to  the 
 Apostles  for  Christ's  final  interview  with  them  before  the  ascen- 
 sion. John,  on  the  other  hand,  refers  to  Luke  for  the  former 
 point, — what  is  there  copiously  stated,  vers.  37—43,  he  touches 
 briefly,  ver.  20:  after  "He  showed  them  His  hands  and  His  feet," 
 inserted  merely  to  adjust  the  position  of  what  Luke  recorded, 
 we  are  to  understand,  as  it  were,  "  and  so  forth."  He  further 
 supplements  him,  according  to  his  characteristic  thoroughness, 
 by  dwelling  on  the  second  point  in  vers.  21-23  ;  while  after- 
 wards, for  the  same  reason  which  made  Luke  abbreviate,  he 
 passes  over  in  silence  the  final  interview  before  the  ascension. 
 
 Out  of  the  several  incomplete  narratives  a  perfect  one  may 
 easily  be  formed.  The  Lord  enters  with  the  customary  greet- 
 ing, "  Peace  be  to  you,"  which  from  His  lips,  and  under  these 
 circumstances,  had  unusual  significance.  Then  He  convinces 
 the  astounded  Apostles  of  the  reality  of  His  resurrection,  which 
 they  must  be  assured  of  before  the  mission  resting  upon  it 
 could  be  committed  to  them.  Thereupon  He  repeats  the  "  Peace 
 be  unto  you,"  assuredly  with  stronger  emphasis,  as  introductory 
 to  His  commission,  which  would  bring  upon  them  so  much  care 
 and  danger ;  and  with  the  communication  of  this  commission, 
 and  the  gifts  and  prerogatives  necessary  to  it.  He  concludes. 
 
CHAP.  XX.  19.  453 
 
 Ver.  19.  "  Then  the  same  day  at  evening,  being  the  first 
 day  of  the  week,  when  the  doors  were  shut  where  the  disciples 
 were  assembled  for  fear  of  the  Jews,  came  Jesus,  and  stood  in 
 the  midst,  and  saith  unto  them.  Peace  be  unto  you." — When 
 our  Lord  entered  into  their  midst,  the  Apostles  had  been  in 
 many  ways  prepared  for  His  coming :  by  the  first  message  of 
 the  women,  by  the  experience  of  Peter  and  John  at  the  sepul- 
 chre, by  the  report  brought  by  Mary  Magdalene  of  the  appear- 
 ance she  had  seen,  by  the  appearance  also  to  Peter,  and  by  the 
 tidings  of  the  Emmaus  disciples.  We  can  hardly  doubt  that 
 their  whole  soul  was  rapt  in  desire  and  in  expectation  of  the 
 coming  of  their  Master.  When  we  reflect  upon  the  funda- 
 mental importance  of  that  visitation  of  the  Apostles,  it  will  be 
 clear  that  all  these  preceding  preparations  were  no  more  than 
 absolutely  necessary. 
 
 According  to  strict  Jewish  computation,  the  evening  was  no 
 part  of  this  first  day  of  the  week.  But  in  common  life  the  Jews 
 were  in  the  habit  of  reckoning  the  evening  with  the  day  that 
 it  closed ;  and  this  we  must  do  here,  if  we  would  preserve  the 
 integrity,  as  one  whole,  of  the  events  which  had  their  climax  in 
 the  Lord's  visitation  of  the  Apostles.  Matthew,  in  ch.  xxviii.  1, 
 reckons  the  day  as  continuing  until  the  dawn  of  the  following. 
 It  must  have  been  already  very  late,  for,  according  to  Luke,  the 
 disciples  of  Emmaus  were  present  at  this  appearance. — Luke 
 says,  ch.  xxiv.  36,  "  And  as  they  thus  spake,  Jesus  Himself 
 earrj  eV  fieau)  aurcov,  and  saith  unto  them,  elpijvr]  vfuv,  Peace  be 
 unto  you."  There  is  here  an  intentional  adherence  to  Luke's 
 phraseology.  What  is  peculiar  to  John,  becomes  all  the  more 
 emphatic  when  what  is  common  to  both  is  expressed  in  the 
 same  words.  Moses  in  ancient  times  pursued  the  same  method, 
 when  returning  to  the  same  matter.  He  recapitulates  earlier 
 details  as  much  as  possible  in  the  same  words,  and  then  inserts 
 what  was  newly  to  be  communicated. — The  Greek  plural  dvpai 
 was  often  used  for  a  door,  on  account  of  the  two  leaves  which 
 frequently  formed  it,  corresponding  to  the  Hebrew  DTi^l.  It  was 
 evidently  the  one  door  of  the  place  in  which  the  Apostles  were 
 assembled.  If  the  Lord's  entrance  was  not  of  a  character  trans- 
 cending the  ordinary  limits  of  corporeity,  if  Jesus  had  knocked 
 at  the  door,  or  if  the  door  of  itself  had  sprung  open  (comp. 
 Acts  xii.  10),  John  must  have  expressly  stated  it ;  since  the 
 
454  CHAP.  XX. 
 
 person  of  our  Lord,  especially  as  delineated  by  John  after  the 
 resurrection,  would  lead  us  to  take  a  miracle  for  granted  rather 
 than  otherwise.  The  circumstance  that  the  doors  were  shut, 
 was  in  itself  not  important  enough  to  be  mentioned ;  and  it  is 
 very  noteworthy  that  the  mention  of  the  closed  doors  occurs 
 precisely  in  that  part  of  the  narrative  where  John  simply  reca- 
 pitulates what  Luke  had  already  recorded.  The  more  concise 
 he  is  here,  the  less  probable  will  it  seem  that  he  would  have 
 mentioned  the  fact  of  the  door  being  shut  if  it  had  had  to  do 
 with  our  Lord's  entrance.  And,  in  that  case,  the  repeated 
 mention  in  ver.  26  must  be  very  strange.  Further,  why  were 
 the  disciples  so  terrified  ?  why  did  they  believe  they  saw  a  spirit  ? 
 This  question,  which  Luke's  narrative  suggests,  is  answered 
 only  when  we  find  in  John  that  the  doors  remained  shut  after 
 our  Lord's  entrance.  We  are  led  to  regard  this  as  the  reason 
 of  its  being  mentioned,  by  comparing  Matt.  xiv.  26,  "And 
 when  the  disciples  saw  Him  walking  on  the  sea,  they  were 
 troubled,  saying.  It  is  a  spirit."  They  there  regarded  Him  as 
 a  spirit,  because  He  was  above  the  law  of  a  material  body.  So 
 was  it  here.  Finally,  we  are  led  to  the  conclusion  that  the 
 doors  remained  shut,  by  a  consideration  of  the  manner  in  which 
 the  risen  Lord  is  represented  elsewhere  as  appearing  and  vanish- 
 ing :  compare  icpavepcoarev  eavrov,  ch.  xxi.  1 ;  iiftavepooOrj,  Mark 
 xvi.  12;  eScoKev  avrov  i/Mcjjavr}  jeveaOat,  Acts  x.  40;  a(^avTO<i 
 i^evero  air  avrodv,  Luke  xxiv.  31.  It  is  not  said  that  Jesus 
 came  through  the  closed  doors.  That  Avould  have  made  John 
 travel  beyond  the  region  of  his  own  observation,  and  forsake 
 the  sphere  of  the  historian.  The  apparent  contradiction,  that 
 Jesus  entered  into  their  midst  when  the  doors  were  shut,  and 
 yet  presented  Himself  to  His  disciples'  touch,  and  ate  before 
 them,  is  removed  by  the  simple  remark,  that  after  His  resur- 
 rection the  glorified  body  of  our  Lord  was  absolutely  under  the 
 dominion  of  the  spirit.  Augustin :  "  After  His  resurrection. 
 He  did  with  His  body  what  He  listed."  Of  this  our  Lord  in 
 the  days  of  His  flesh  gave  an  earnest,  when  He  walked  upon  the 
 sea,  ch.  vi.  19.  What  was  then  an  isolated  act,  became  after 
 the  resurrection  the  rule.  "  Peace  be  unto  you "  (Bengel : 
 "  The  same  formula  is  thrice  repeated,"  vers.  19,  21,  36)  points 
 back  to  ch.  xiv.  27.  The  peace  which  Jesus  there  promised  He 
 brings  them  here,  whilst  He  announces  Himself  as  the  risen 
 
CHAP.  XX.  20,  21.  455 
 
 Lord.  In  His  resurrection  His  disciples  received  the  pledge  of 
 victory  over  all  their  enemies  and  His. 
 
 Ver.  20.  "  And  when  He  had  so  said,  He  showed  unto 
 them  His  hands  and  His  side.  Then  were  the  disciples  glad 
 when  they  saw  the  Lord." — Luke,  in  vers.  24,  40,  mentions 
 the  hands  and  the  feet ;  John,  the  hands  and  the  side.  Since 
 the  side  is  mentioned  only  on  account  of  the  wound  (comp. 
 ch.  xix.  34),  the  hands  and  the  feet  must  have  been  introduced 
 for  the  same  reason.  The  wounds  received  by  our  Lord  on 
 the  cross  were,  to  the  Apostles,  demonstration  that  they  had 
 not  now  to  do  with  an  unessential  (pavraa^ia  or  "  spirit,"  but 
 with  the  selfsame  Jesus  who  suffered  for  them  on  the  cross. 
 A  comparison  of  John  with  Luke  leads  to  the  firm  conclusion 
 that  our  Lord's  hands  and  feet  as  w^ell  as  His  side  were  pierced, 
 which  Bahr,  Hug,  and  others,  show  to  have  been  usual  at 
 crucifixions.  As  the  elp/jvij  v/xlv  points  back  to  ch.  xiv.  27,  so 
 does  e')(apriaav  to  ch.  xvi.  22,  "I  will  see  you  again,  and  your 
 heart  shall  rejoice,  '^ap'tja-erac" 
 
 Ver.  21.  "  Then  said  Jesus  to  them  again,  Peace  be  unto 
 you  :  as  My  Father  hath  sent  Me,  even  so  send  I  you." — The 
 first  "  peace"  was  directed  to  the  disciples ;  the  second  to  the 
 Apostles.  Before  He  gave  them  their  commission,  our  Lord 
 assured  His  servants  of  their  protection  against  all  their  enemies. 
 This  peace,  guaranteed  to  them  in  respect  to  their  oj^ice,  had  its 
 foundation  in  the  fact  of  the  resurrection  ;  and,  as  connected 
 with  that,  or  immediately  springing  from  it,  the  Lord's  speedy 
 assumption  into  the  full  participation  of  the  gloiy  of  the  Father. 
 Instead  of  TrifMirco,  the  other  word,  dirocrreWa),  might,  in  itself 
 considered,  have  been  used :  this  is  evident  from  the  name  of 
 the  Apostles,  and  ch.  xvii.  18.  But  there  is  an  intentional 
 variation  in  the  word,  in  order  to  avoid  placing  the  mission  of 
 the  Apostles  on  a  level  with  that  of  their  Master.  That  this 
 sending  was  so  directly  connected  with  their  assurance  of  the 
 resurrection,  reminded  the  Apostles  that  the  significance  of  the 
 resurrection  extended  far  beyond  the  narrow  circle  of  those  to 
 whom  the  Lord  announced  Himself  as  risen ;  that  it  was  a  resur- 
 rection oecumenical  and  for  all  the  world  ;  that  the  great  concern 
 would  now  be  to  enter  upon  the  work  of  spreading  the  Gospel 
 to  the  ends  of  the  earth,  according  to  the  manifold  predictions 
 of  the   prophets ;   and  that  they  must  not  think  to  enjoy  in 
 
456  CHAP.  XX. 
 
 passive  coBtemplation  the  blessedness  obtained  for  them,  but 
 gird  up  their  loins,  and  take  up  the  sword,  for  contest  with 
 all  the  powers  of  the  world.  The  mission  of  Jesus  now  had 
 its  end ;  and  its  end  was  the  beginning  of  the  mission  of 
 the  Apostles.  (Calvin :  "  His  own  course  being  fulfilled,  He 
 commits  the  same  functions  to  them,  who  should  govern  the 
 Church  to  the  end  of  the  world.")  Jesus  does  not  say,  "I  will 
 send  you,"  but  "  I  send  you."  With  their  own  conviction 
 of  the  reality  of  the  resurrection  began  in  them  a  new  life, 
 which  should  urge  them  mightily  forth  into  the  world.  The 
 day  of  Pentecost  only  brought  to  consummation  what  was 
 already  begun  here.  It  was  not  the  Feast  of  Pentecost,  but 
 the  resurrection  announced  to  them,  that  Jesus  had  already 
 referred  to  as  the  great  crisis  and  turning-point  in  ch.  xvi. 
 23,  26. 
 
 Ver.  22.  "  And  when  He  had  said  this,  He  breathed  on 
 them,  and  saith  unto  them,  Keceive  ye  the  Holy  Ghost." — The 
 breathing  here  stands  in  relation  to  Gen.  ii.  7,  where  Jehovah 
 breathes  into  the  first  man  the  breath  of  life,  and  thus  man 
 becomes  a  living  soul :  Sept.  kol  iv€(f)va7]aev.  By  this  allusion 
 our  Lord  places  Himself  on  a  level  with  Jehovah  Elohim,  with 
 Jehovah  who  there  possessed  the  fulness  of  divinity.  The  same 
 7rv6v/xa  ^(ooTTOLovv  which  there  went  forth  from  Jehovah  Elohim, 
 and  produced  in  man  the  Divine  image,  proceeds  here  from 
 Christ,  in  order  to  reinstate  the  Divine  image,  first  in  the 
 Apostles,  and  then  in  those  who  should  believe  through  their 
 word,  ch.  xvii.  20.  The  relation  to  Gen.  ii.  7,  which  speaks  of 
 an  immediately  effectual  inbreathing,  such  as  at  once  created  a 
 "  living  nature,"  shows  that  our  Lord's  act  here  was  not  of 
 merely  prophetic  significance — that  it  did  not  simply  pretypify 
 what  was  to  become  a  reality  on  the  day  of  Pentecost.  We  are 
 led  to  the  same  result  by  the  present  TrefiTrco  in  ver.  21,  as  well  as 
 by  the  nature  of  the  case  :  it  could  not  be  otherwise  than  that 
 their  conviction  of  the  truth  of  the  Lord's  resurrection  should  be 
 a  great  turning-point  in  the  life  of  the  Apostles,  and  that  with 
 this  crisis  they  would  receive  an  advanced  susceptibility,  and  a 
 concurrent  enlargement  of  the  influence  of  the  Spirit.  What 
 they  now  received  was  the  preliminary  and  condition  of  what 
 they  were  to  receive  at  Pentecost ;  according  to  the  Lord's  word, 
 "  Unto  him  that  hath  it  shall  be  given."    The  beginnings  of  the 
 
CHAP.  XX.  23.  457 
 
 Holy  Spirit  were  imparted  according  to  the  universal  law  of  our 
 Lord's  operation,  viz.  to  perform  in  prelude  and  earnest,  while 
 still  upon  earth,  all  that  He  would  afterwards  in  heaven  perform 
 universally,  even  down  to  the  resurrection  of  the  dead,  "  in 
 order,"  says  Quesnel,  "  that  we  may  know  that  He  is  the  real 
 ground  of  all,  in  His  true  humanity." — If  the  breathing  was 
 an  actual  impartation,  how  was  it  with  Thomas,  not  present  on 
 this  occasion  ?  The  answer  is,  that  those  who  were  present 
 received  in  and  with  the  breathing  the  Holy  Ghost ;  but  that 
 the  influence  was  not  necessarily  bound  to  the  symbol  which  was 
 its  medium.  The  great  essential  was  living  faith  in  the  resur- 
 rection. When  Thomas  uttered  the  words,  "  My  Lord  and  my 
 God,"  he  also  was  made  partaker  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  or  rather 
 he  must  already  have  been  partaker  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  to  utter 
 the  words  at  all :  comp.  1  Cor.  xii.  3.  Had  it  not  been  for  its 
 profound  and  important  relation  to  Gen.  ii.  7,  Jesus  would 
 probably  have  altogether  omitted  the  symbolical  action.  The 
 essential  factor  was  not  the  proper  breathing,  but  the  resurrec- 
 tion and  faith  in  Him  who  rose. 
 
 We  have  here  an  interpenetrationof  personal  grace  and  official 
 grace ;  of  such  as  was  common  to  all  believers  and  such  as  was 
 peculiar  to  the  Apostles,  and,  as  represented  by  them,  to  all  the 
 bearers  of  ministerial  office  in  the  Church.  That  the  former 
 is  not  to  be  excluded,  the  relation  of  the  act  to  Gen.  ii.  7  plainly 
 shows  :  as  there,  so  here  also,  the  act  was  one  which  pertained 
 to  the  human  race.  That  the  second  is  not  to  be  excluded,  is 
 plain  from  the  connection  in  which  "  Receive  the  Holy  Ghost" 
 here  stands,  on  the  one  hand,  to  "  I  send  you,"  ver.  21,  and,  on 
 the  other  hand,  to  the  remitting  and  retaining  of  sins  in  ver.  23. 
 Such  a  combination  of  personal  and  official  grace  often  occurs 
 in  the  Old  Testament :  for  example,  in  the  case  of  Saul,  1  Sam. 
 X.  6,  xvi.  14  ;  and  David,  1  Sam.  xvi.  13.  Quesnel :  "  The 
 Christian  receives  the  Holy  Ghost  only  for  himself;  priests  and 
 bishops  for  others  also.  It  is  a  frightful  thing  in  the  Church, 
 to  be  in  office  a  channel  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  an  instrument 
 of  the  wicked  spirit  through  disorderly  and  carnal  living." 
 
 Ver.  23.  "  Whose  soever  sins  ye  remit,  they  are  remitted 
 unto  them ;  and  whose  soever  sins  ye  retain,  they  are  retained." 
 — Jesus  would  fill  His  disciples  with  the  consciousness  of  the 
 dignity  of  their  vocation,  that  they  might  make  it  the  labour  of 
 
458  CHAP.  XX. 
 
 body  and  soul  worthily  to  discharge  its  functions.  They  should 
 in  Christ's  place  have  the  authority  to  remit  and  to  forgive  sins. 
 The  former  is  the  main  function,  the  proper  end  of  the  spiritual 
 office.  "  But  if,"  says  Anton,  "  a  minister  of  the  Gospel  is 
 despised  in  the  administration  of  this  grace,  it  turns  from  the 
 acjjLevai.  to  the  Kpareiv.  The  remitting  takes  place  primarily 
 in  the  case  of  those  who  believe  and  are  baptized ;  the  retaining 
 in  the  case  of  those  who  are  unbelievers,  and  accordingly  reject 
 baptism."  But  then  both  functions  are  more  generally  exer- 
 cised in  the  continuous  history  of  the  Christian  Church.  Ex- 
 amples of  the  remission  are  furnished  by  Cornelius  and  his  house, 
 Acts  X-.  47,  48,  and  the  man  of  Lystra,  Acts  xiv.  8-10  :  examples 
 of  retaining.  Acts  viii.  20,  where  Peter  says,  "Thy  money  perish 
 with  thee ;"  Acts  xiii.  10,  11,  where  Paul  condemns  Elymas, 
 as  in  ch.  xviii.  6  the  Jews  of  Corinth.  He  who  has  to  do  with 
 office  held  in  the  Holy  Ghost,  is  cut  off  from  all  appeal.  Strictly 
 speaking,  it  is  Christ  who  "  hath  the  key  of  David ;  who  openeth, 
 and  no  man  shutteth ;  who  shutteth,  and  no  man  openeth,"  Rev. 
 iii.  7.  But  Christ  has  given  this  key  to  the  ministry  in  His 
 Church,  and  placed  in  their  hands  the  decision  of  salvation  and 
 perdition.  But  the  foundation  of  this  high  authority  is  the  Holy 
 Ghost.  The  office  in  the  Church  holds  it  only  so  far  as  it  pos- 
 sesses the  Holy  Ghost.  When  not  led  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  its 
 remission  and  its  retention  are  of  no  moment.  Thus  the  high 
 prerogative  assigned  to  its  representatives  cannot  lead  to  self- 
 exaltation,  but  rather  to  fear  and  trembling.^  That  which  is 
 here  conferred  on  the  whole  apostolical  circle,  and  in  it  to  the 
 ministerial  office  of  all  times,  had  been  already  prospectively 
 conferred  on  Peter,  Matt.  xvi.  19,  as  the  centre  of  the  apostoli- 
 cal circle.  The  remitting  here  explains  the  loosing  in  Matthew ; 
 the  retaining  here,  the  binding  there.  In  Matthew,  both  had 
 their  comment  in  the  preceding,  "  And  I  will  give  unto  thee  the 
 keys  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven."  Accordingly,  it  is  only  ad- 
 mission into  the  kingdom  of  God,  and  exclusion  from  it,  that  is 
 meant ;  and  if  this  be  so,  the  binding  can  only  be  the  retaining 
 
 ^  Erasmus :  They  who  lift  their  crests,  and  atrogate  to  themselves  a  kind 
 of  tyranny,  should  remember  what  went  just  before.  Shall  we  swell  with 
 the  spirit  of  the  world,  and  complacently  exult  in  our  power  to  forgive  and 
 remit  sins?  Hold  your  authority,  but  take  care  that  it  has  the  Spirit 
 through  whom  Christ  gave  the  authority. 
 
CHAP.  XX.  24-29.  459 
 
 of  sins  that  exclude  from  the  kingdom  of  God ;  the  loosing  only 
 the  forgiveness  of  the  same,  and  the  consequent  admission  into 
 the  kingdom  of  God. 
 
 the  second  appearance  to  the  apostles. 
 
 Chap.  xx.  24-29. 
 
 This  appearance  is  to  be  regarded  as  the  complement  of  the 
 former,  since  it  had  special  reference  to  that  one  among  the 
 Apostles  who  still  doubted  of  the  Lord's  resurrection.  Many 
 have  been  disposed  to  transfer  it  to  Galilee.  But  it  is  in  itself 
 improbable  that  the  Apostles  had  set  out  for  Galilee  before  the 
 end  of  the  seven  days'  feast;  and  then  ver.  26  intimates  that 
 they  were  in  the  same  place  where  they  received  the  former 
 manifestation,  "  when  the  doors  were  shut,"  showing,  as  in  ver. 
 19,  that  their  fear  of  the  Jews  continued, — a  fear  which  would 
 not  have  been  felt  in  Galilee.  Finally,  the  conviction  of  the 
 Apostles  as  to  the  reality  of  the  resurrection  seems  always  to 
 pertain  to  Jerusalem,  the  manifestations  in  Galilee  having 
 another  end ;  and  as  Thomas'  unbelief  was  the  only  reason  for 
 this  new  visitation,  his  conviction  its  only  result,  we  should  not, 
 without  urgent  argument,  leave  Jerusalem  and  betake  ourselves 
 to  Galilee.  Thus  this  manifestation  formed  the  conclusion  of 
 the  Apostles'  abode  in  Jerusalem,  removing  every  further  reason 
 for  that  abode.  On  the  Sabbath  the  Apostles  were  resting 
 there,  according  to  the  law :  the  first  day  of  the  week  was  spent 
 by  them  in  calm  celebration  of  the  resurrection,  and  of  the  first 
 visit  of  the  risen  Lord,  by  which  this  day  was  for  ever  sancti- 
 fied. To  sanction  this  celebration  the  Lord  appeared  again  in 
 their  midst  on  that  day,  and  on  none  of  the  intervening  days, 
 thus  accomplishing  the  last  work  which  remained  to  be  done 
 in  Jerusalem.  On  the  second  day  of  the  week  they  set  out  for 
 Galilee,  awaiting  there  the  manifestation  of  their  Lord. — It  has 
 been  often  assumed  that  the  disciples  I'eported  to  Jesus  the 
 unbelief  of  Thomas.  But  when  could  this  have  taken  place  ? 
 Was  it  in  some  visit  not  revealed  ?  But  such  a  visit  could  not 
 have  occurred  in  Jerusalem,  since  the  object  to  be  attained 
 there,  the  full  conviction  of  the  Apostles,  was  perfectl}^  gained 
 by  the  two  visits  that  are  narrated ;  and  that  it  did  net  take 
 place  there,  is  in controvertibly  plain  from  ch.  xxi.  14,  according 
 
*460  CHAP.  XX. 
 
 to  which  only  two  appearances  of  our  Lord  to  the  Apostles 
 belong  to  Jerusalem.  Or  was  it  on  occasion  of  this  second  visit 
 itself  ?  But  this  second  appearance  had  this  unbelief  of  Thomas 
 for  its  ground,  and  presupposed  it.  If  we  assume  that  the  Lord 
 previously  knew  nothing  of  his  unbelief,  we  do  away  with  the 
 meaning  of  this  manifestation,  we  abolish  the  distinction  which 
 existed  between  the  appearances  in  Jerusalem  and  those  in 
 Galilee,  and  we  cannot  enter  into  the  real  design  of  our  Lord's 
 previous  reference  to  the  seeing  Himself  in  Galilee. 
 
 Ver.  24.  "  But  Thomas,  one  of  the  twelve,  called  Didymus, 
 was  not  with  them  when  Jesus  came." — As  to  AlBvfjLo^,  see 
 the  remarks  on  ch.  xi.  16.  The  surname  stands  here  in  direct 
 connection  with  the  event  now  related.  "  The  Twelve"  is  the 
 appellation  of  the  Apostles  in  all  the  Evangelists.  Account  is 
 not  taken  of  the  fact  that  one  place  was  vacant.  It  is  all  the 
 less  regarded,  because  the  Twelve  was  not  a  fortuitous  number, 
 but  rested  on  theological  grounds ;  in  the  Old  Testament  twelve 
 having  been  the  consecrated  signature  of  the  Church.  Why 
 Thomas  was  not  with  them, — whether  it  was  for  the  reason  indi- 
 cated in  Heb.  x.  25,  "  Forsake  not  the  assembling  of  yourselves 
 together,  as  the  manner  of  some  is  ;"  whether,  with  his  doubts 
 concerning  Christ,  the  bond  that  united  him  to  his  brethren 
 became  relaxed, — we  cannot  with  certainty  determine.  But 
 Anton  rightly  observes :  "  They  did  not  separate  from  Thomas, 
 who  was  so  unrestf ul ;  for  he  was  not  even  then  an  enemy  of 
 Christ,  but  a  dear  friend,  only  that  he  gave  too  much  place  to 
 his  postulatis.  This  teaches  us  an  important  lesson — to  distin- 
 guish whether  those  in  error  are  friends  or  foes,  and  not  to  be 
 too  swift  to  separate.     Let  this  be  noted." 
 
 Ver.  25.  "  The  other  disciples  therefore  said  unto  him,  We 
 have  seen  the  Lord.  But  he  said  unto  them,  Except  I  shall 
 see  in  His  hands  the  print  of  the  nails,  and  put  my  finger  into 
 the  print  of  the  nails,  and  thrust  my  hand  into  His  side,  I  will 
 not  believe." — "  We  have  seen  the  Lord : "  this  is  the  sum- 
 mary only  of  their  report.  It  is  self-understood  that  they  told 
 him  the  whole  occurrence.  But  he,  in  his  hardness  to  believe, 
 accused  them  of  credulity.  Tviro'i  is  impression,  trace.  In  the 
 second  clause,  totto';  is  more  suitable  (Grotius :  t^tto?,  videtur ; 
 roTro'i,  impletur),  and  the  rather  to  be  preferred,  as  it  is  so  easy 
 to  account  for  the  substitution  of  tvtto^.     Thomas'  affirmation 
 
CHAP.  XX.  26,  27.  461 
 
 has  three  members :  the  number  three  is  often  in  the  Old  Tes- 
 tament the  mark  of  emphasis,  e.g.  Ezek.  xxi.  32.  Thomas  had 
 doubtless  seen  the  crucifixion  in  common  with  the  rest :  this  we 
 may  infer  from  the  vivid  impression  made  upon  him  by  the 
 image  of  the  Crucified.  According  to  Luke  xxiii.  49,  there 
 stood  beside  the  women  irdvTe^  ol  yvwarol  avrov,  at  a  certain 
 distance  from  the  cross.  That  John  alone  is  mentioned  as 
 being  present,  may  be  explained  by  the  fact  that  to  him  a 
 word  was  addressed.  Thomas  does  not  mention  the  feet, 
 because  the  hands  and  the  feet  were  one  whole  to  him ;  and 
 the  experiment  on  the  hands  Avould  suffice. 
 
 Vers.  26,  27.  "  And  after  eight  days,  again  His  disciples 
 were  within,  and  Thomas  with  them.  Then  came  Jesus,  the 
 doors  being  shut,  and  stood  in  the  midst,  and  said.  Peace  be 
 unto  you.  Then  saith  He  to  Thomas,  Reach  hither  thy  finger, 
 and  behold  IMy  hands ;  and  reach  hither  thy  hand,  and  thrust 
 it  into  My  side :  and  be  not  faithless,  but  believing." — It  must 
 incline  in  favour  of  Thomas  that  he  was  found  again  in  the 
 midst  of  the  disciples.  The  declarations  of  his  fellow-disciples 
 doubtless  made  a  deeper  impression  upon  him  than  he  was 
 willing  to  allow.  "Eight  days:"  this  is,  in  Luke  ix.  28,  the 
 definition  of  a  week,  the  time  otto  aa^^drov  iirl  ad^^arov. 
 Thomas  had  demanded  three  things :  the  first  and  second  are 
 here  inverted,  because  Thomas'  emphasis  lay  upon  his  touching ; 
 he  did  not  depend  upon  his  eye  alone,  since  that  might  be 
 deceived  by  a  (fydvracr/jia :  comp.  Luke  xxiv.  39.  But  the  per- 
 ception through  the  hands  might  not  be  omitted,  because  the 
 whole  declaration  of  Thomas  was  to  be  perfectly  reproduced. 
 That  the  Lord  knew  what  he  had  said,  was  a  more  convincing 
 demonstration  of  the  reality  of  the  resurrection  than  any  seeing 
 and  feeling ;  hence  all  further  thought  of  them  vanishes  from 
 Thomas'  mind,  and  he  at  once  bursts  into  the  cry,  "  My  Lord 
 and  my  God."  With  the  "  hither"  the  Lord  offered  him  His 
 hand.  "Behold"  is  the  antithesis  to  feeling,  and  must  be 
 thought  of  as  emphasized.  Although  Thomas  believed  not, 
 ver.  25,  yet  he  was  not  on  that  account  an  "  unbeliever."  The 
 term  aTrtoTo?  denotes  a  settled  state  of  unbelief.  It  is  not 
 altogether  correct  to  speak  so  much  of  the  unbelieving  Thomas. 
 He  would  have  ceased  to  be  Thomas  if  he  had  become  an  un- 
 believer.   It  was  the  vibrating  between  faith  and  unbelief  which 
 
462  CHAP.  XX. 
 
 obtained  him  his  name.  The  Lord  does  not  say,  "  Be  not  un- 
 beheving,"  so  much  as  "  Become  not  unbelieving."  He  must 
 turn  from  the  evil  way  which,  continued  in,  would  lead  to 
 unbelief  as  its  goal. 
 
 Ver.  28.  "  And  Thomas  answered  and  said  unto  Him,  My 
 Lord  and  my  God." — It  runs  ehrev  uvtm  :  therefore  "  My  Lord 
 and  my  God"  is  a  concise  expression  of  deep  feeling,  instead 
 of  "  Thou  art  my  Lord  and  my  God."  We  have  here  the  first 
 passage  in  which  Jesus  is  expressly  by  His  disciples  called  God, — 
 a  confession  which  was  soon  to  be  the  common  one  of  the  whole 
 Christian  Church ;  as  Pliny,  in  the  Epistle  to  Trajan,  records 
 that  the  Christians  sang  hymns  to  Christ  as  God.  Thomas 
 utters  here,  as  his  confession,  only  what  Jesus  had  constafltly 
 set  before  His  disciples  as  His  doctrine.  When,  for  example, 
 He  said  to  Philip,  cli.  xiv.  9,  "  He  that  seeth  Me  hath  seen  the 
 Father,"  and  ver.  10,  "  I  am  in  the  Father,  and  the  Father  in 
 Me,"  He  taught  that  the  existences  of  the  Father  and  the  Son 
 were  perfectly  co-extensive,  and  that  in  Himself  dwelt  all  the 
 fulness  of  the  Godhead.  Much  vain  industry  has  been  spent  in 
 evading  this  confession  of  Thomas,  by  those  who  do  not  accept 
 the  doctrine  of  Christ's  divinity.  He  addressed  to  Christ  precisely 
 the  same  words  which  are  elsewhere  addressed  to  the  supreme 
 God :  e.g.  Ps.  xxxv.  23,  "  Stir  up  Thyself,  and  awake  to  my 
 judgment,  even  unto  my  cause,  my  God  and  Lord,"  o  0eo9  /^ou 
 Kol  o  KvpLo<i  fiov,  Ecclus.  i.  1,  ^E^o/iio\o<yovfjLai  (701  Kvpie  ^aaCkev 
 KoX  alvka-(o  ^eov.  We  are  in  a  sphere  in  which  the  boundary 
 between  God  and  the  creature  is  drawn  with  the  most  rigid 
 precision  :  comp.  Deut.  vi.  4 ;  Mark  xii.  29,  30.  The  address 
 of  Thomas  would  have  been  blasphemy  if  there  had  been  in 
 the  Father's  essence  anything  that  came  not  to  manifestation 
 in  the  Son.  That  Thomas,  in  the  excitement  of  the  moment, 
 passed  from  one  extreme  to  another,  cannot  be  asserted  by 
 any  one  who  observes  that  Christ  accepted  his  invocation  at 
 once.  (Calvin :  Never  would  He  have  suffered  that  the  honour 
 of  the  Father  should  be  wrested  and  transferred  to  Himself.) 
 "Thou  hast  believed,"  referring  to  Himself,  shows  that  to  recog- 
 nise in  Christ  the  Lord  and  God,  and  specifically  Ids  own  Lord 
 and  God,  is  the  necessary  condition  of  faith.  (Calvin :  He 
 emphatically  calls  Him  his  own  twice,  to  show  that  he  spoke 
 from  a  living  and  solemn  sense  of  faith.)     To  talk  of  an  "  ex- 
 
CHAP.  XX.  29-31.  463 
 
 aggerated  cry,"  is  altogether  out  of  the  question,  in  relation  to 
 a  Gospel  which  everywhere  discloses  a  tendency  to  place  the 
 divinity  of  Christ  in  the  clearest  light. 
 
 Ver.  29.  "Jesus  saith  unto  him,  Thomas,  because  thou  hast 
 seen  Me,  thou  hast  believed :  blessed  are  they  that  have  not 
 seen,  and  yet  have  believed." — Christ  recognises  therefore  that 
 faith  also  which  has  sight  for  its  condition.  That  He  will 
 receive  to  Himself  the  well-disposed  though  weak  in  faith,  that 
 He  will  help  their  unbelief  by  actual  demonstration,  is  a  blessed 
 truth,  of  which  His  treatment  of  Thomas  is  a  most  consolatory 
 pledge.  But  the  Lord  places  higher  that  faith  which  is  present 
 and  energetic  before  sight  comes.  Thomas  is  here  blamed  for 
 not  exhibiting  that  faith.  John  had  seen  but  little;  and  yet  he 
 reproves  himself  for  not  having  believed  without  seeing :  comp. 
 ver.  8.  The  case  was  much  worse  with  Thomas.  He  had,  in 
 the  testimony  of  his  bi'other  Apostles,  received  such  help  for  a 
 faith  grounded  upon  the  word  of  God,  that  if  the  faith  had 
 been  in  any  sense  strong  within  him,  he  would  not  have  required 
 any  further  seeing.  As  then,  so  now,  it  becomes  believers  to 
 believe  without  seeing  :  compare  the  saying  of  Peter,  which 
 alludes  to  this  word  of  our  Lord,  1  Pet.  i.  8.  But  then,  as  now, 
 it  pleases  Christ  to  crown  and  confirm  that  faith  by  making 
 Himself  known  in  many  ways  as  its  Lord  and  God.  Faith 
 would  languish  if  its  actual  experience  were  in  continual  con- 
 tradiction to  it. — The  Aorist  particij^les  are  to  be  explained  by 
 this,  that  the  process  is  represented  as  a  closed  one,  and  the 
 fiuKapcoL  is  its  result. 
 
 Chap.  xx.  30,  31. 
 
 These  two  verses  are  not  the  conclusion  of  the  whole  book, 
 but  the  conclusion  of  the  main  body  of  it,  extending  from  ch.  i. 
 19  downwards.  The  closing  chapter  xxi.  corresponds  to  the 
 prologue  in  ch.  i.  1-18.  So  also  the  Apocalypse  has  introduc- 
 tion, body,  and  conclusion.  If  we  forget  that  we  have  here 
 only  the  conclusion  of  the  body  of  the  Gospel,  ch.  xxi.  must 
 become  a  mystery.  These  verses,  30,  31,  as  a  conclusion  of  the 
 whole  Gospel,  would  in  their  brevity  be  out  of  harmony  with  the 
 diffuseness  of  the  prologue,  as  also  with  the  conclusion  of  the 
 Apocalypse,  ch.  xxii.  6-21.     The  body  of  the  work  needed  a 
 
464  CHAP.  XX. 
 
 conclusion,  such  as  we  have  it  here,  in  order  to  mark  it  off 
 from  the  epilogue,  which  must  needs  declare  itself  to  be  such 
 by  its  position.  We  expect  such  a  conclusion  all  the  more, 
 inasmuch  as  we  find  that  in  the  body  of  the  Gospel  itself  there 
 is  such  a  conclusion,  ch.  xii.  37—50,  dividing  between  the  first 
 four  groups  and  the  last  three. 
 
 Vers.  30,  31.  "And  many  other  signs  truly  did  Jesus  in 
 the  presence  of  His  disciples,  which  are  not  written  in  this 
 book  :  But  these  are  written,  that  ye  might  believe  that  Jesus 
 is  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God ;  and  that  believing  ye  might 
 have  life  through  His  name." — The  words  ttoWo, — fiaOrjTMv 
 avTov  are  in  allusion,  like  ch.  xii.  37,  x.  32,  to  Ps.  Ixxviii.  11, 
 12.  We  must  not  limit  the  signs  to  demonstrations  given  by 
 the  risen  Lord  to  His  resurrection  ;  for  there  is  nothing  to 
 indicate  such  a  restriction,  and  a  comparispn  of  ch.  xii.  37  and 
 xxi.  25  declares  against  it.  But  we  must  not,  on  the  other 
 hand,  exclude  those  infallible  proofs  of  the  risen  Lord  :  for 
 they  fall  under  the  idea  of  the  aijfxeta  which  Jesus  did  ;  they 
 are  testimonies  in  act  that  Jesus  was  Messiah  :  comp.  Acts  i.  3, 
 where  the  appearances  of  the  risen  Lord  are  described  as  tsk- 
 fir]pia.  (Hesychius,  TeKfirjpiov  aijfielov  aXrjOe^;  Suidas,  oXtjOlvov 
 (TTjixelov.)  Moreover,  these  appearances  have  just  before  been 
 recorded,  and  reference  to  them  therefore  seems  obvious.  The 
 included  reference  to  the  resurrection  alone  makes  "  in  the 
 presence  of  His  disciples "  intelligible.  Only  the  manifesta- 
 tions of  the  risen  Lord  were  restricted  to  the  Apostles :  all  the 
 earlier  (Tqfxela  belonged  to  a  much  wider  circle,  although  the 
 disciples  were  present  at  them,  and  indeed,  as  witnesses  chosen 
 of  the  Lord,  ch.  xv.  27,  must  have  been  present.  We  must 
 seek  this  specific  reason  for  the  words  "  in  the  presence  of  His 
 disciples ;"  otherwise  "  in  the  presence  of  all  the  people,"  Luke 
 xxiv.  19,  would  have  been  the  more  obvious  record.  Ch.  xxi.  1 
 also  leads  us  to  include  the  resurrection  and  its  demonstrations. 
 Tol<i  fiaOrjTal'i  there  obviously  points  back  to  ivcomov  twv  fiadr)- 
 rSiv  here. 
 
 The  <T7]ixeta  which  this  Gospel  copiously  records  are  ten  in 
 number,  which  was  certainly  not  fortuitous :  seven  before  the  re- 
 surrection,— three  in  Galilee,  and  four  in  Judea;  and  three  after 
 the  resurrection, — the  appearance  to  Mary  Magdalene,  and  the 
 two  appearances  among  the  Apostles.     That  the  "  signs  "  are 
 
CHAP.  XXI.  465 
 
 here  made  distinctively  prominent  without  including  the  words, 
 is  in  harmony  with  the  strong  emphasis  laid  upon  the  epya,  the 
 Avorks,  throughout  John's  Gospel,  ch.  v.  36,  x.  38,  xv.  24.  A 
 reason  may  be  found  for  it  in  the  fact  that  the  three  earlier 
 Evangelists  had  made  these  words  prominent  in  their  records. 
 By  this  observation  he  intimates  that  he  had  written  not  the 
 Gospel,  but  a  Gospel;  and  suggests  that  the  supplement  of 
 what  he  failed  to  record,  because  it  was  perfectly  given  by  his 
 predecessors,  should  be  sought  in  their  nffrratives.  On  the 
 connection  between  the  concluding  words  of  the  Evangelist  and 
 the  preceding  events,  Bengel  aptly  remarks  :  "  To  the  mention 
 of  the  faith  of  Thomas,  is  very  appropriately  attached  a  com- 
 mendation of  faith  to  all,  as  the  scope  of  his  book."  The  con- 
 nection is  all  the  closer,  as  Thomas  had  believed  on  the  evidence 
 of  a  "  sign." 
 
 THE  CONCLUSION  OF  THE  GOSPEL  IN 
 CHAPTER  XXI. 
 
 The  introduction  of  the  Gospel,  ch.  i.  1-18,  goes  up  to  the 
 eternal  existence  of  Jesus.  In  the  conclusion,  now  lying  before 
 us,  John  communicates  what  refers  to  the  continuation  of  His 
 Divine-human  being  in  the  Church,  founded  upon  His  death 
 and  His  resurrection.  So  also  ^latthew  and  Mark  closed  their 
 Gospels  with  an  express  reference  to  the  missionaiy  work  of 
 the  Apostles.  This  closing  chapter  forms  a  transition  from 
 the  Gospels  to  the  Acts.  First,  in  vers.  1-14,  we  have  the 
 missionary  work  of  the  Apostles,  and  their  heavenly  reward. 
 Then,  in  vers.  15-17,  the  institution  of  Peter  in  his  pastoi'al 
 office;  in  18-23,  the  prediction  of  their  final  departure  made  to 
 the  two  most  eminent  Apostles,  Peter  and  John  ;  and  finally, 
 in  vers.  24,  25,  the  proper  epilogue,  in  which  John  announces 
 liimself  as  the  author  of  the  Gospel,  affirms  his  own  trust- 
 w^orthiness,  and  alludes  to  the  reason  why  he  had  communicated 
 only  a  selection  of  facts. 
 
 The  notion  that  ch.  xxi.  is  a  postscript  has  sprung  from  a 
 lack  of  insight  into  the  construction  of  the  Gospel.     It  leads  to 
 the  assumption  of  a  fortuitousness  in  the  composition  which  is 
 VOL.  II.  2  G 
 
466  CHAP.  XXI. 
 
 altogether  unworthy  of  the  apostolical  character,  and  inconsis- 
 tent with  the  tenor  of  this  Gospel ;  and  it  altogether  fails  to 
 give  any  reason  why  the  Apostle  did  not  strike  out  the  con- 
 clusion in  ch.  XX.  30,  31,  after  the  addition  of  the  postscript 
 had  rendered  it  unsuitable. 
 
 Yer.  1.  "After  these  things  Jesus  showed  Himself  again 
 to  the  disciples  at  the  sea  of  Tiberias ;  and  on  this  Avise  showed 
 He  Himself." — "After  these  things;"  fiera  ravra,  the  transi- 
 tion formula  so  common  in  John :  comp,  ch.  ii.  12,  v.  1,  14, 
 vi.  1.  The  e^avepwcrev  kavTov  (comp.  ^avepcoaov  creavrov, 
 ch.  vii.  4)  intimates  that  the  risen  Lord  was  ordinarily  inacces- 
 sible and  invisible  to  His  disciples  ;  that  He  had  entered  into  a 
 manner  of  existence  altogether  different  from  His  earlier  life  : 
 compare  the  e^avepooOr}  in  Mark  xvi.  12,  14.  Jesus  had  earlier 
 manifested  forth  His  hidden  glory,  ch.  ii.  11 ;  now  His  person 
 has  become  hidden,  and  it  never  could  be  discovered  or  met 
 unless  it  voluntarily  came  forth  from  its  seclusion.  To  the 
 manifestation  here  corresponds  the  appearance  in  the  midst 
 when  the  doors  were  shut,  ch.  xx.  19,  26.  Both  intimate  plainly 
 that  the  present  corporeity  of  Jesus  was  altogether  different 
 from  the  former.  He  who  could  appear  with  closed  doors  was 
 not  confined  to  the  region  of  sensible  observation ;  He  was  then 
 only  manifest  when  it  pleased  Him  to  enter  that  domain,  so 
 that  the  dim  eyes  of  flesh  (Job  x.  4)  might  be  able  to  discern 
 Him. — The  disciples  at  the  two  former  appearances  were  the 
 Apostles,  and  so  were  they  here. — The  sea  of  Tiberias ;  a  deno- 
 mination peculiar  to  John  among  the  Evangelists:  comp.  on  ch. 
 vi.  1.  'jEtti  is  literally  as  in  ch.  vi.  19,  and  means  simply  "ow 
 the  sea."  The  bank  is,  in  Biblical  phrase,  on  or  over  the  waters ; 
 hence  hv  very  frequently  in  Hebrew :  e.g.  Ps.  i.  3.  And  as  eVt 
 is  here  Hebraistically  used,  so  airo  in  ver.  6,  corresponding  to 
 the  Heb.  p  of  the  cause. — The  second  i^avepwaev  is  not  to  be 
 supplemented  by  kavrov — He  showed  Himself — but,  in  allusion 
 to  the  first  Galilean  sign,  ch.  ii.  11,  by  rip  So^av  avrov.  The 
 mention  of  Nathanael  in  ver.  2,  pointing  to  that  same  first  sign, 
 is  in  favour  of  this  view.  The  word,  needing  its  object  and 
 standing  without  it,  represents  as  it  were  an  express  reference 
 to  that  first  sign.  "  He  showed  Himself  thus,  ovTca"  is  not  a 
 needless  diffuseness  of  narration,  but  intimates  by  its  circum- 
 stantiality the  importance  of  the  facts  and  the  attention  they 
 
CHAP.  XXI.  1.  467 
 
 claim.  It  is  the  manner  of  Scripture,  from  Genesis  downwards, 
 to  draw  attention  to  the  importance  of  events  by  this  kind  of 
 repetition  and  circumstantiality.  Thus  "  he  lifted  up  his  eyes 
 and  looked "  is  always,  as  in  Gen.  xviii.  2,  said  when  the 
 matter  is  of  great  moment,  and  attention  was  to  be  drawn  to 
 its  importance.  So  in  John  we  have,  for  example,  "  These 
 things  therefore  the  soldiers  did,"  ch.  xix.  24.  Both  seem  to 
 stand  for  a  Nota  Bene. 
 
 According  to  Matt,  xxviii.  7,  the  angel  gave  the  women  a 
 commission  that  they  should  go  tell  the  disciples,  "  Behold,  He 
 goeth  before  you  into  Galilee."  That  the  going  before  does 
 not  mean  going  earlier  than  they,  but  a  going  before  them  as 
 Pastor  and  Guide,  is  plain  from  a  comparison  with  the  Lord's 
 saying  in  Matt.  xxvi.  32,  the  fulfilment  of  which  the  angel 
 announces  to  be  at  hand.  (Fritzsche :  Ecce  jam  fit  quod 
 declaratum  est,  irpodjei.  This  verb,  in  the  sense  of  preceding 
 any  one.  Matt.  xxi.  9,  Mark  xi.  9,  Luke  xviii.  39,  is  used  as  here 
 with  the  accusative  of  the  person.  Matt.  ii.  9,  Mark  x.  32,  koI  r)v 
 Trpodyoov  avTov<i  6  ^lT]aov<;.)  "  I  will  go  before  you  "  forms  in 
 Matt.  xxvi.  32  the  antithesis  to  the  scattering  of  the  flock  caused 
 by  the  death  of  the  Shepherd ;  but  this  meaning  it  could  have 
 only  on  the  supposition  that  the  going  before  was  His  leading 
 the  regathered  flock  to  Galilee.  If,  therefore,  we  perceive  that 
 the  gathering  of  the  flock  was,  according  to  Matthew,  to  be 
 the  condition  of  Christ's  going  before  them,  and  to  precede  the 
 departure  into  Galilee, — if  He  was  to  lead  His  gathered  flock 
 to  Galilee,  after  having  gathered  them  simply  and  alone  by 
 revealing  Himself  to  them,  and  convincing  them  of  the  reality 
 of  His  resurrection, — then  we  must  assume  that  the  silence  of 
 Matthew  as  to  the  manifestation  of  Christ,  recorded  by  the 
 other  Evangelists,  in  the  midst  of  the  Apostles  on  the  evening 
 of  the  day  of  resurrection  in  Jerusalem,  was  not  due  to  his 
 ignorance  of  the  fact,  but  to  his  design  to  give  prominence  to 
 those  records  by  which  Isaiah's  prophecy,  quoted  in  his  ch.  iv. 
 15,  16,  concerning  the  glorification  of  the  neighbourhood  of 
 the  Galilean  sea,  might  be  shown  to  have  been  fulfilled.  On 
 the  other  hand,  in  perfect  harmony  with  the  commission  quoted 
 by  Matt,  xxviii.  10,  "  Go  tell  My  brethren  that  they  go  before 
 Me  into  Galilee,"  the  manifestations  of  the  Lord  in  Jerusalem, 
 as  recorded  by  John,  were  limited  in  their  design  to  the  full 
 
468  CHAP.  XXI. 
 
 conviction  of  the  Apostles  that  Christ  was  risen  ;  with  the  single 
 exception  of  ch.  xx.  21-23,  where  something  is  said  that  must  have 
 been  spoken  emphatically  at  the  first  meeting  with  the  Apostles. 
 The  proper  intercourse  with  the  Apostles,  the  "  speaking  of  the 
 things  pertaining  to  the  kingdom  of  God,"  Acts  i.  3,  was 
 reserved,  even  according  to  John,  for  Galilee.  We  have  here 
 the  beginning  of  that  discourse  concerning  His  kingdom.  The 
 contents  of  this  chapter  are  well  described  by  those  words  of 
 Luke,  in  Acts  i.  3. 
 
 Ver.  2.  "There  were  together  Simon  Peter,  and  Thomas 
 called  Didymus,  and  Nathanael  of  Cana  in  Galilee,  and  the 
 sons  of  Zebedee,  and  two  other  of  His  disciples." — All  the 
 names  mentioned  here  are  introduced  with  a  definite  reason. 
 In  the  case  of  Simon,  his  surname  Peter  hinted  that  reason. 
 The  first  of  the  Apostles  could  not  be  wanting;  and  it  is  in 
 keeping  with  this,  that  in  the  entire  narrative  he  has  the  first 
 place.  Hence  he  necessarily  opens  the  list.  Why  Thomas  was 
 associated  with  him,  is  shown  by  the  clause  "  called  Didymus :" 
 comp.  on  ch.  xi.  16.  The  key  to  the  mention  of  Nathanael  is 
 furnished  by  the  clause  "  of  Cana  in  Galilee."  That  could 
 not  have  been  intended  to  make  Nathanael  more  known  ;  for 
 in  ch.  i.  it  was  not  said  that  Nathanael  was  born  in  Cana, 
 although  immediately  after  the  narrative  of  the  meeting  between 
 Christ  and  him  we  read  of  the  marriage  at  Cana.  Nathanael 
 of  Cana  was  important  to  the  Evangelist,  as  a  representative 
 of  the  first  miracle  by  which  Jesus  manifested  forth  His  glory 
 in  Cana:  comp.  ch.  ii.  11.  Our  present  manifestation  forms 
 the  counterpart  of  that  first  Galilean  miracle.  This  end  is  kept 
 in  view  by  the  additional  clause,  "  of  Galilee."  If  it  had  been 
 intended  only  to  note  the  origin  of  Nathanael,  that  would  have 
 been  inadequate  or  needless.  There  was  no  Cana  out  of  Gali- 
 lee; and  Cana  had  been  three  times  mentioned  as-  Cana  of 
 Galilee,  ch.  ii.  1,  11,  iv.  46  Considering  how  economical  of 
 repetitions  the  Evangelist  is,  we  cannot  regard  this  as  merely  a 
 repeated  statement  of  Nathanael's  country.  The  clause  was 
 almost  equivalent  to  an  express  reference  to  the  earlier  passages. 
 Why  the  presence  of  John  and  his  brother  is  expressly  men- 
 tioned, is  explained  by  their  designation  as  "  sons  of  Zebedee." 
 Zebedee  is  never  elsewhere  mentioned  in  the  Gospel  of  John. 
 With  the  same  appellation  of  sons  of  Zebedee  (the  indefinite 
 
CHAP.  XXI.  2.  469 
 
 expression,  oi  tov  Ze^eBalov,  is  here  designedly  used  in  order 
 to  intimate  that  a  more  exact  definition  of  their  relation  is  found 
 elsewhere),  these  two  brothers  appear  in  connection  with  the 
 first  fishing  at  the  commencement  of  our  Lord's  ministry,  the 
 counterpart  of  which  is  the  fishing  in  this  chapter,  deriving  its 
 interpretation  from  the  earlier  one,  and  having  "  I  will  make 
 you  fishers  of  men"  in  common  with  it:  comp.  Matt.  iv.  21, 
 22  ;  Mark  i.  19,  20  ;  Luke  v.  10.  The  two  unnamed  brethren 
 must  at  any  rate  have  been  Apostles ;  for  fxaOrjrai  stands 
 before  and  after,  ver.  14,  of  the  disciples  in  a  narrower  sense, 
 the  Apostles ;  and  Apostles  were  especially  concerned  in  this 
 fishing,  which  symbolized  their  future  apostolical  work.  The 
 reasons  which  are  discernible  for  the  mention  of  the  five  names 
 lead  us  to  suppose  that  the  silence  preserved  as  to  the  names 
 of  the  other  two  was  not  a  disparaging  silence.  They  were  not 
 named,  only  because  there  was  no  particular  reason  for  it ;  and 
 to  have  named  them  would  have  been  to  obscure  the  design  in 
 the  naming  of  the  five.  For  the  rest,  they  are  as  good  as  named; 
 and  the  Evangelist  might  reckon  upon  their  being  detected. 
 When  Peter  went  a  fishing,  his  brother  Andrew  would  needs 
 accompany  him:  comp.  Matt.  iv.  18;  Mark  i.  29;  Luke  vi. 
 14 ;  John  vi.  8.  And  where  Andrew  was,  there  we  should 
 expect  Philip :  comp.  ch.  i.  45,  xii.  22  ;  Mark  iii.  18.  The 
 latter  we  might  expect  with  all  the  more  confidence,  as  he  was 
 connected  also  with  Nathanael  or  Bartholomew  by  a  very  close 
 bond  :  comp.  i.  46 ;  Matt.  x.  3 ;  Luke  vi.  14. 
 
 The  high  importance  of  this  event  is  indicated  in  the  artistic 
 grouping  of  those  concerned  in  it.  The  number  seven  is 
 divided,  as  commonly  in  the  Apocalypse,  into  three  and  four. 
 At  the  head  of  the  three  stands  Peter ;  Thomas,  the  divided,  in 
 the  middle ;  on  one  side  of  him  the  man  of  rock,  on  the  other 
 Nathanael,  the  true  Israelite  without  guile,  ch.  i.  48.  At  the 
 head  of  the  four  stand  the  sons  of  Zebedee,  with  Peter,  the 
 Apostles  of  the  more  intimate  circle.  The  seven  are  more- 
 over divided  again :  Peter  at  the  head,  then  three  pairs.  The 
 number  seven  is  fixed  ;  but  that  it  was  not  a  fortuitous  number, 
 is  plain  from  the  details  of  this  grouping.  Similarly  exact  is 
 the  grouping  in  E,ev.  vi.  15.  Other  examples  of  the  signifi- 
 cance of  number  in  the  Gospel  of  John  have  been  collected  in 
 my  Commentary  on  the  Apocalypse  (vol.  ii.  Clark's  Trans.). 
 
470  CHAP.  XXI. 
 
 — The  seven  represented  the  collective  apostolical  circle  (comp. 
 ver.  14),  with  Paul  included,  so  far  as  he  was  later  received 
 with  full  rights  into  this  circle.  They  were  a  majority ;  only 
 four  of  the  Apostles  were  wanting;  and  the  more  intimate 
 circle  was  complete.  It  is  remarkable,  that  in  the  catalogue  of 
 the  Apostles,  Matt.  x.  2-4,  the  seven  here  numbered  as  present 
 take  precedence  of  the  absent  ones. — "  And  two  other  of  His 
 disciples"  may  be  compared  with  "  and  two  of  His  disciples," 
 ch.  i.  35. 
 
 Ver.  3.  "  Simon  Peter  saith  unto  them,  I  go  a  fishing. 
 They  say  unto  him.  We  also  go  with  thee.  They  went  forth, 
 and  entered  into  a  ship  immediately ;  and  that  night  they 
 caught  nothing." — It  was  shown,  in  ch.  i.  43,  that  Matt.  iv. 
 18-22  does  not  indicate  the  Apostles'  having  entirely  aban- 
 doned their  vocation.  They  still  pursued  it,  so  far  as  their  new 
 vocation  left  them  time.  Augustin  refers  to  Paul,  who,  with 
 all  his  superabundant  apostolical  labour,  victum  manibus  suis 
 transigehat.  From  the  resurrection  to  Pentecost  there  was  an 
 interval  to  the  Apostles  wherein  they  might  appropriately  seek 
 their  maintenance  with  their  own  hands.  Gregory  the  Great 
 says  justly,  however :  "  Peter  returned  to  his  fishing,  but 
 Matthew  did  not  return  to  his  tax-gathering.  There  are  things 
 which  cannot  be  applied  to  altogether  without  sin,  to  which 
 after  conversion  we  cannot  return."  "  They  went  forth"  from 
 the  town  in  which  Peter  resided :  Capernaum,  according  to 
 Matt.  xvii.  24,  27  ;  Bethsaida,  the  fishing  town  of  Capernaum  : 
 comp.  on  ch.  vi.  3,  according  to  ch.  i.  45.  "Immediately:" 
 6u^u9  (comp.  ch.  xiii.  32,  xix.  34)  appeared  superfluous  to  many 
 transcribers,  and  hence  was  omitted.  But  it  intimates,  in 
 keeping  with  "  all  the  night"  in  Luke  v.  5,  the  long  continuance 
 of  the  fruitless  labour.  If  the  Apostles  as  soon  as  they  met, 
 thus  before  the  coming  of  night  proper,  entered  the  ship,  their 
 unrewarded  labour  must  have  lasted  through  the  night.  Ilid^o) 
 occurs  in  John  six  times,  besides  this  passage,  and  ver.  10 ; 
 never  in  the  first  Gospels. 
 
 The  detail  with  which  the  incident  is  recorded,  has  in  it 
 something  "  un-Johannean,"  if  we  fail  to  discern  the  symbolical 
 character  of  the  whole ;  but  that  symbolical  design  gives  weight 
 to  things  otherwise  inconsiderable.  The  argument,  that  John 
 must  in  that  case  have  expressly  declared  this  symbolical  charac- 
 
CHAP.  XXI.  3.  471 
 
 ter,  is  ungrounded  ;  for  here,  no  less  than  in  the  record  of  the 
 bhghted  fig-tree,  of  which  no  interpretation  is  given,  the  sym- 
 bolical meaning  is  plain  enough  to  all  thoughtful  and  reflecting 
 readers,  and  such  only  had  John  in  view.  The  Old  Testament 
 gives  us,  with  regard- to  this,  a  plain  hint,  in  Ezek.  xlvii.  9, 10 : 
 comp.  on  ch.  i.  43.  If  the  fishes  there  were  men,  to  be  brought 
 to  life  by  the  Messianic  salvation,  then  the  fishers  could  only  be 
 the  messengers  of  that  salvation,  who  gather  the  living  into  the 
 kingdom  of  God,  and  lead  them  into  the  fellowship  of  the 
 Church.  The  word  which  our  Lord  spake  at  the  first  fishing, 
 ''  I  will  make  you  fishers  of  men,"  applies  to  the  present  fishing ; 
 for  John  always  presumes  upon  the  records  of  the  three  Evan- 
 gelists being  known.  We  have  a  key  also  in  the  parable  of  the 
 net  in  Matt.  xiii.  Accordingly  the  sea  signifies  the  world,  the 
 net  the  kingdom  of  God,  in  its  capacity  to  receive  men  into 
 itself.  But  the  demonstration  that  we  have  here  before  us  an 
 allegory  in  act,  lies  in  this,  that  the  narrative  only  in  this  point 
 of  view  is  clear,  luminous,  and  significant  in  every  particular  ; 
 and  that  thus  only  it  is  suitable  to  the  character  of  an  epilogue, 
 to  which  only  that  pertained  which  was  transitional  from  the 
 Gospel  to  the  history  of  the  Acts.  If  we  reject  the  spiritual 
 interpretation,  the  narrative  of  vers.  1—14  has  certainly  a  strange 
 aspect ;  and  we  must,  if  we  would  be  sincere,  confess  that  we 
 would  rather  pass  over  it.  The  emphasis  would  then  fall  upon 
 the  fact  that  Jesus  generally  manifested  Himself  to  His  dis- 
 ciples, and  not  upon  the  communications  which  He  made  to 
 them ;  nor  can  we  then  see  precisely  why  the  narrative  stands  in 
 the  epilogue;  and  moreover,  the  demarcation  is  disturbed  which 
 separates  the  appearances  of  Jesus  in  Galilee  from  those  in 
 Jerusalem.  The  doubts  which  have  been  entertained  as  to  the 
 genuineness  of  ch.  xxi.  have  their  root  in  the  inability  to  discern 
 this  spiritual  meaning, — an  inability  natural  enough  to  those 
 who  are  not  trained  by  the  exposition  of  the  Old  Testament  to 
 understand  the  New.  Those  who  yield  to  such  doubts,  how- 
 ever, are  obliged  to  confess,  that  the  record  is  throughout  and 
 entirely  Johannean  in  its  cast. 
 
 That  Simon  Peter's  energy  took  the  initiative  in  regard  to 
 this  ordinary  fishing,  was  an  intimation  that  he  would  take  the 
 lead  of  his  brethren  in  the  spiritual  fishing  also.  But  when 
 he  only  intimates  his  own  firm  resolution,  expecting  the  free 
 
472  CHAP.  XXI. 
 
 determination  of  the  rest,  we  are  led  to  presume  that  his  pre- 
 cedence would  not  be  in  the  spiritual  domain  a  primacy  of 
 tyranny  ;  that  it  was  not  one  established  formally  by  rule,  but 
 that  it  was  to  result  from  that  pre-eminence  of  energy  which 
 would  attach  the  others  to  himself  in  free  subordination  and  joy- 
 ful recognition  of  the  gift  imparted  to  him  by  the  Lord. — "  And 
 that  night  they  caught  nothing :"  on  the  first  fishing  Simon 
 said,  "  We  have  toiled  all  the  night,  and  have  taken  nothing." 
 As  the  fact  was  in  both  cases  brought  about  by  Divine  disposal, 
 we  are  led  at  once  to  assume  that  it  was  eminently  significant. 
 A  passage  in  the  Old  Testament,  which  is  here  as  it  were  dra- 
 matically expounded,  gives  us  the  solution.  In  Isa.  xlix.  the 
 prophet  depicts,  vers.  1-3,  the  vocation  and  destiny  which  the 
 Lord  appointed  to  His  servant,  the  Messiah.  In  ver.  4  he 
 exhibits  the  contradiction  between  the  mission  and  its  result  : 
 the  people  of  the  covenant,  to  whom  it  was  first  addressed, 
 requite  that  faithful  labour  with  ingratitude  !  "  Then  I  said, 
 I  have  laboured  in  vain  ;  I  have  spent  my  strength  for  nought 
 and  in  vain:"  Sept.  Kevoi)<i  eKoirlaaa,  eh  fu-draiov  koI  eh 
 ovhev  eScoKa  rrjv  la'^vv  fiov.  In  compensation  for  refractoiy 
 Israel,  the  Lord  gives  His  Servant  for  an  inheritance  the  heathen, 
 who  also  in  Ezekiel  are  the  proper  object  of  the  fishing : 
 the  fishes  there  also  are  won  from  the  dead  sea  of  the  heathen 
 world.  The  historical  commentary  is  found  in  the  Acts  (comp. 
 especially  ch.  xiii.  46),  and  in  Rom.  xi.  9-11,  according  to  which 
 Israel  as  a  people  despised  the  Gospel  salvation,  and  only  a 
 small  proportion  of  individuals  received  it.  Night  signifies,  in 
 the  symbolism  of  Scripture,  an  unsaved  state — comp.  on  ch.  xiii. 
 30,  xi.  9,  10 — and  thus  here  the  fruitlessness  of  work.  "VYeitzel 
 (in  his  valuable  treatise  On  the  Testimony  borne  by  the  fourth 
 Evangelist  to  himself,  S.  and  K.  49)  gives  us  the  right  inter- 
 pretation, when  he  sees  in  the  fact  a  "  type  of  the  long  fruitless 
 labour  of  the  original  Apostles  among  the  Jews,  after  the  first 
 sudden  pentecostal  successes."  An  objection  has  been  raised 
 against  this  view,  that  it  represents  the  abundant  success  among 
 the  Gentiles  as  vouchsafed  to  the  original  Apostles,  whereas  it 
 was  vouchsafed  to  Paul ;  but  Gal.  ii.  9,  which  is  appealed  to, 
 affords  no  support  to  that  notion,  inasmuch  as  that  verse  only 
 treats  of  a  temporary  arrangement.  Peter  in  Rome,  John  in 
 Ephesus,  proved  that  the  contrary  was  the  truth.    The  impossi- 
 
CHAP.  XXI.  4.  473 
 
 bility  of  the  permanent  limitation  of  the  original  Apostles  to 
 the  Jews,  is  evident  from  the  conclusion  of  Matthew's  Gospel. 
 INIoreover,  the  entire  contrast  between  the  original  Apostles  and 
 Paul  is  based  on  error.  We  have  already  shown  that  the  dis- 
 ciples present  at  this  fishing  represented  the  collective  apostolical 
 circle,  and  that  as  including  Paul  with  his  abundant  labour, 
 which  was  vouchsafed  to  him  only  as  a  member  of  the  body 
 combined  under  Peter  as  its  head. 
 
 Ver.  4.  "  But  when  the  morning  was  now  come,  Jesus  stood 
 on  the  shore ;  but  the  disciples  knew  not  that  it  was  Jesus." — 
 Morning  is  the  type  of  dawning  salvation  :  comp.  on  ch.  xx.  1 ; 
 Ps.  XXX.  6,  lix.  17,  xc.  14,  cxliii.  8.    For  TrpcotW,  comp.  ch.  xviii. 
 28,  XX.  1,  in  both  cases  irpwt.     We  have  in  Matt,  xxvii.  1  the 
 full  7rpa)ta<i  Se  yevofxivrj'i  literally.     That  passage  and  Matt.  xx.  1 
 are  the  only  two  besides  this  in  the  New  Testament  where  irpwia 
 occurs ;  and  both  times  in  a  connection  where  the  guilt  and  the 
 rejection  of  the  Jews  are  spoken  of,  when  the  new  day  of 
 Christ's  glorification  breaks  among  the  Gentiles  :  comp.  ?;  airo- 
 /SoA,r;  auTMV,  KaraXkayr]  Koafiou,  Rom.  xi.  15  ;  and  rS  avTcov 
 TrapaTTToofiari,  tj  crwTTjpla  toU  e6veai,  Rom.  xi.  11. — "  On  the 
 shore:"  the  combination  of  ecrr?;  and  ek  is  as  in  ch.  xx.  19,  26. 
 Here  Jesus  stands  on  the  margin.     At  the  first  fishing,  Luke 
 V.  4,  He  went  up  into  the  ship ;  in  ch.  vi.  19,  He  came  to  the 
 disciples  on  the  sea.     That  He  here  remained  standing  on  the 
 bank,  points  to  the  fact  that  now,  withdrawn  from  the  sea  of 
 the  world.  He  belonged  to  another  stage  of  being.     To  Him 
 applied  what  will  one  day  be  true  of  all  His  people,  "  There 
 was  no  more  sea,"  Rev.  xxi.  1  (compare  my  commentary  on  this 
 passage).     That  He  was  on  the  bank,  and  His  disciples  on  the 
 sea,  was  an  illustration  of  His  word,  ch.  xvii.  11,  "  I  am  no 
 longer  in  the  world,  but  these  are  in  the  world."     In  the  parable 
 of  the  net,  in  Mark  xiii.,  the  margin  signifies  in  ver.  48,  accord- 
 ing to  ver.  49,  the  future  state,  tlie  "end  of  the  world."' 
 
 "  The  disciples  knew  not  that  it  was  Jesus  :"  so  precisely  of 
 Mary  Magdalene,  ch.  xx.  14,  "  And  she  knew  not  that  it  was 
 Jesus."  Here  again  our  Lord  appeared  "  in  another  form," 
 because  it  was  not  His  will  to  be  recognised  at  once.     In  this 
 
 ^  The  careful  Grotius  saw  in  this,  as  in  many  other  points  of  our 
 chapter,  the  true  meaning :  "  Signifying  that  He  through  the  resurrection 
 had  reached  the  shore  ;  they  were  still  on  the  deep.'' 
 
474  CHAP.  XXI. 
 
 manner  the  impression  upon  the  disciples  would  be  deepened ; 
 at  the  same  time  they  would  be  led  into  a  perception  of  the 
 truth,  that  Jesus  was  always  with  them,  although  their  eyes 
 might  not  always  be  able  to  discern  Him. 
 
 Ver.  5.  "  Then  Jesus  saith  unto  them,  Children,  have  ye  any 
 meat  ?  They  answered  Him,  No." — TeKva  :  thus  does  the  Lord 
 address  the  disciples  in  Mark  x.  24.  Tlachla  is  distinguished  from 
 this  here.  Tekvu  might  be  adults ;  iraihla,  on  the  contrary,  desig- 
 nates the  age  of  childhood  :  comp.  Luke  i.  80,  to  he  irai^LOv 
 rjv^ave,  xi.  40 ;  1  Cor.  xiv.  20.  Haihla  is  the  term  by  which 
 age  addresses  youth,  authority  those  subordinate,  and  wisdom 
 the  ignorant  and  inexperienced :  comp.  1  John  ii.  13, 18.  Jesus 
 here  by  the  term  irathla  assumes  the  position  of  KadTjyrjTi]';, 
 Matt,  xxiii.  8,  which  was  appi'opriate  to  Him,  especially  in  rela- 
 tion to  the  fishing  of  His  Apostles.  The  diminutive  form  gives 
 the  expression  a  certain  tenderness. 
 
 UpocrcpdyLov,  what  was  eaten  with  bread.  Jesus  condescends 
 to  the  language  of  the  fishermeriy  who  ordinarily  ate  only  fish 
 with  bread :  compare  what  was  said  upon  o-^^dpiov,  ch.  vi.  9. 
 This  last  word  could  not  be  used  here ;  for  that  in  John  always 
 signifies  the  individual  article  of  food  eaten  with  the  bread,  the 
 single  fish:  comp.  ch.  vi.  9,  hvo  oyjrdpia,  ver.  11,  and  vers.  9, 
 10,  13  of  the  present  chapter.  But  here  the  general  idea  of 
 food  eaten  with  the  bread  was  meant.  "  Have  ye  any  meat?" 
 fjLT}  stands  where  a  negative  answer  is  presupposed  or  expected 
 (Winer,  453).  Jesus  shows  by  the  style  of  the  question  that 
 He  knew  how  the  matter  was,  and  indeed  wished  it  otherwise. 
 The  ov  of  the  disciples,  confirming  His  supposition,  is  followed 
 by  an  intimation  of  the  way  in  which  they  might  alter  the  state 
 of  things.  That  Jesus  put  the  question  for  His  own  sake,  that 
 He  would  have  fish  for  Himself,  is  shown  by  a  comparison 
 with  Luke  xxiv.  41,  and  yet  more  definitely  by  ver.  10,  where, 
 after  the  state  of  things  was  changed,  He  caused  the  fish  to  be 
 brought  forward  which  the  disciples  had  taken.  As  formerly 
 He  huncered  for  the  fruit  of  the  fia;-tree,  so  now  does  He 
 hunger  for  the  fishes  which  the  disciples  might  have  taken,  but 
 had  not ;  not  for  the  natural  fishes  as  such, — the  risen  Redeemer 
 had  no  need  of  bodily  food,  and  vers.  9,  12,  14  show  that 
 that  would  not  have  been  wanting  to  Him, — but  for  the  men 
 whom  the  fishes  signified  :  comp.  ch.  iv.  7,  where  our  Lord  says 
 
CHAP.  XXI.  6,  7.  475 
 
 to  the  woman  of  Samaria,  "  Give  Me  to  drink."  Jesus  would 
 spiritually  eat  of  the  food  which  the  disciples  had  provided,  and 
 they,  on  the  other  hand,  should  eat  of  His  food. 
 
 Ver.  6.  "  And  He  said  unto  them,  Cast  the  net  on  the  right 
 side  of  the  ship,  and  ye  shall  find.  They  cast  therefore ;  and 
 now  they  were  not  able  to  draw  it  for  the  multitude  of  fishes." — 
 The  ship  signifies  the  Church,  the  net  her  missions.  The  left 
 side  is,  in  the  Divine  fishery,  the  side  of  the  Jews,  the  right 
 side  that  of  the  Gentiles.  The  right  is  the  better  hand,  and 
 therefore  the  right  side  is  the  good  side.  The  meaning  of  the 
 name  Benjamin,  the  son  of  the  right  hand,  is,  "  His  father 
 loveth  him,"  Gen.  xliv.  22,  and,  "  the  beloved  of  Jehovah," 
 Deut.  xxxiii.  12  :  compare  my  commentary  on  Ps.  Ixxx.  In 
 Gen.  xlviii.  the  youth  on  whom  the  right  hand  was  laid  is  more 
 blessed  than  he  on  whom  the  left.  "  The  right  hand,"  says 
 Gesenius  (Thes.  po'"),  "  boni  ominis  erat."  Because  the  right 
 hand  is  the  better.  Matt.  v.  20,  the  Lord  places  His  sheep  on 
 the  right  hand  and  the  goats  on  the  left.  The  multitude  of  the 
 fishes  here  represents  the  "  great  multitude  which  no  man  could 
 number,  out  of  every  nation,  and  tribe,  and  people,  and  tongue," 
 Rev.  vii.  9.  That  the  disciples  without  hesitation  acted  on  the 
 sufTgestion  of  the  Unknown,  shows  that  His  beincj  had  for  them 
 an  imposing  majesty. 
 
 Ver.  7.  "  Therefore  that  disciple  whom  Jesus  loved  saith 
 unto  Peter,  It  is  the  Lord.  Now,  when  Simon  Peter  heard  that 
 it  was  the  Lord,  he  girt  his  fisher's  coat  unto  him  (for  he  was 
 naked),  and  did  cast  himself  into  the  sea." — The  thoughtful 
 John  first  recognises  the  Lord;  the  energetic  Peter,  who  on 
 another  occasion.  Matt.  xiv.  28,  said,  "  Lord,  if  it  be  Thou,  bid 
 me  come  unto  Thee  on  the  water,"  casts  himself  into  the  sea  to 
 reach  Him.  We  see  here  that  the  primacy  of  Peter  had  its 
 limits,  that  it  extended  no  further  than  the  energy  of  action 
 came  into  consideration.  As  here,  so  certainly  in  later  times, 
 he  heard  John,  and  in  many  things  listened  to  him  in  his 
 Christian  vocation.  'O  Kvpio^; :  John  so  designates  Jesus 
 before  His  resurrection  only  twice :  comp.  on  ch.  xiii.  23.  Thus 
 he  names  the  risen  Saviour  also  in  ch.  xx.  18,  20,  25,  28, 
 and  several  times  in  the  sequel  of  this  chapter.  Ata^covvvfii 
 occurs  in  John  only  here  and  ch.  xiii.  4,  5.  The  middle  voice 
 signifies  "  Gird  oneself."      Tov  eTrevBvnjv  is  the  accusative  of 
 
476  CHAP.  XXI. 
 
 closer  definition,  so  frequent  in  Hebrew :  comp.  tov  dpiOfiov, 
 ch.  vi.  10  (Winer).  It  does  not  mean  that  he  drew  on  the 
 garment,  but  that  he  girded  himself  in  it :  therefore  he  was 
 already  clothed  with  it.  "  He  was  naked "  explains  this  gird- 
 ing :  the  connection  shows  with  what  restriction  we  must  take 
 the  "  naked."  It  can  refer  only  to  the  circumstance  that  Peter 
 was  not  provided  with  the  outside  garment,  the  uttoSutt;?.  The 
 i7r6vBvrr]<i  (comp.  eirevhvaaadaL,  superinducere,  2  Cor.  v.  4)  in- 
 timates by  its  very  name  that  it  took  a  subordinate  place  in  the 
 clothing.  That  naked  stands  often  for  slight  clothing,  needs  no 
 further  demonstration :  Grotius  has  done  all  that  is  necessary 
 to  show  that  the  idea  of  absolute  nakedness  is  to  be  repelled, 
 even  if  Gen.  iii.  7,  21  were  not  sufficient.  Peter  had  on  him 
 a  mere  wrapper.  Theophylact  says,  "  a  linen  shirt,  such  as  the 
 Phoenician  and  Syrian  fishermen  were  wont  to  wear."  This 
 in  his  labour  he  had  worn  ungirt ;  but  now  he  girded  himself, 
 the  better  to  swim.  Swimming  is  suggested  by  the  "  throwing 
 himself  into  the  sea."  As  to  any  further  preparation  of  his 
 person  in  order  to  appear  fitly  before  the  Lord,  the  text  says 
 nothing,  whatever  the  expositors  may  say. — The  Apostle  enters 
 into  this  detail  because  this  sudden  decision  of  Peter  sym- 
 bolized the  gift  which  was  afterwards  developed  in  the  govern- 
 ment of  the  Church.  With  the  same  impetuous  promptitude 
 with  which  he  threw  himself  into  the  Galilean  sea,  he  after- 
 wards threw  himself  into  the  sea  of  the  world.  Always  to  be 
 first,  not  to  leave  the  initiative  to  others,  and  even  to  restrain 
 those  who  take  it,  seems  to  be  one  of  the  first  marks  of  a  voca- 
 tion to  govern  the  Church.  Our  verse  might  be  applied  to 
 the  present  spirit  of  church  government  in  evangelical  Ger- 
 many. It  cannot  be  in  this  respect  according  to  the  heart  of 
 Jesus ;  were  it  so.  He  could  not  have  placed  Peter  at  the  head 
 of  His  Apostles. 
 
 Ver.  8.  "  And  the  other  disciples  came  in  a  little  ship  (for 
 they  were  not  far  from  land,  but  as  it  were  two  hundred  cubits), 
 dragging  the  net  with  fishes." — Tap  explains  and  justifies  the 
 disciples'  having  come,  without  following  Peter's  example,  to 
 shore.  So  slight  was>  the  distance  from  the  land,  that  the  dif- 
 ference between  them  could  not  be  great.  Their  justification 
 is  completed  by  the  avpovT€<i,  "  dragging  the  net."  Peter  did 
 right  in  leaving  the  ship,  and  the  others  did  right  in  remain- 
 
CHAP.  XXI.  9,  10.  477 
 
 insr.  The  exact  statement  of  the  distance  on  the  lake  corre- 
 spends  to  that  in  ch.  vi.  19.  John  here,  as  in  Rev.  xxi.  17, 
 measures  by  ells.  The  peculiar  use  of  olttq  with  the  meaning 
 "  distance  from  "  is  only  found  in  John,  in  the  Gospel  and  the 
 Apocalypse  :  comp.  on  ch.  xi.  18  ;  with  the  "  about  fifteen  fur- 
 longs off  "  corresponds  very  strictly  the  "  as  it  were  two  hundred 
 cubits  "  here.  ITKoiupiov  is  here  used ;  previously  ifXoiov.  We 
 find  the  same  interchange  between  the  two  words  in  ch.  vi.  17 
 seq. 
 
 Ver.  9.  "  As  soon  then  as  they  were  come  to  land,  they  saw  a 
 fire  of  coals  there,  and  fish  laid  thereon,  and  bread." — ^AvOpaxia 
 is  only  here  and  ch.  xviii.  18.  On  Keifxivrjv,  comp.  ch.  ii.  6, 
 19,  29  ;  on  eirLKeifxevov,  ch.  xi.  38.  ^Oy\rdpiov  is  used  by  John 
 only  of  single  fishes ;  and  the  one  fish  is  suggested  by  the  single 
 loaf.  John  describes  simply  in  genuine  historical  manner  what 
 he  with  the  rest  found.  As  to  whence  the  fire  of  coals,  the  fish 
 and  the  bread,  came,  he  keeps  silence ;  just  as  in  ch.  xx.  19,  26 
 he  limits  himself  to  saying  that  Jesus  came  when  the  doors 
 were  shut,  without  travelling  beyond  the  sphere  of  his  observa- 
 tion to  enter  into  the  question  as  to  how  the  Lord  came.  The 
 supposition  that  Jesus  provided  these  things  as  men  do,  rests 
 upon  a  misconception  of  the  new  sphere  in  which  the  risen 
 Lord  moved.  If  Jesus  was,  in  truth,  "  The  Lord,"  there  is  no 
 reason  for  bringing  down  the  fact  by  such  explanations  into 
 the  region  of  ordinary  life.  Jesus,  who,  according  to  ch.  vi., 
 fed  thousands  in  the  days  of  His  flesh  with  five  loaves  and  two 
 fishes ;  at  whose  command,  according  to  Matt.  xvii.  27,  Peter 
 caught  the  fish  with  the  stater  in  its  mouth ;  who,  at  the  first 
 Galilean  miracle,  turned  water  into  wine, — retained  here  also 
 the  name  of  "  Wonderful,"  which  the  ancient  prophecy  had 
 given  Him. 
 
 Ver.  10.  "  Jesus  saith  unto  them.  Bring  of  the  fish  which 
 ye  have  now  caught." — John  speaks  of  the  fishes,  l-ydve^,  vers. 
 6,  8,  11.  Jesus  describes  the  same  thing  by  another  word, 
 7rpocr(j)d'ytov,  ver.  5,  oyjrdpia  here.  The  difference  had  some 
 significance.  The  disciples  spoke  as  in  the  style  of  fishermen  ; 
 Jesus  for  him  who  was  to  eat.  He  regards  the  fish  only  in 
 the  light  of  food. — Why  did  the  Lord  cause  His  disciples  to 
 bring  of  their  fish? — not  that  they  might  serve,  together  with 
 the  one  fish  which  already  lay  on  the  fire  of  coals,  for  the 
 
478  CHAP.  XXI. 
 
 disciples'  repast.  The  sjmbolical  character  of  the  whole  inci- 
 dent opposes  this ;  as  also  does  ver.  13,  which  shows  that  the 
 disciples  ate  only  of  that  one  fish  and  one  loaf  which  were  pro- 
 vided already  before  the  landing  of  the  net.  That  important 
 circumstance,  further,  would  not  have  been  omitted.  Mani- 
 festly the  end  was  answered,  when  the  fish,  or  rather  one 
 representing  the  whole,  was  brought  to  Jesus ;  for  nothing 
 more  was  done  with  them.  The  fishes  were  regarded  under 
 the  aspect  of  food,  as  the  very  term  used  has  shown.  But 
 materially  the  Lord  did  not  eat  of  them  any  more  than  the  dis- 
 ciples. This  shows  that  they  bore  a  symbolical  character.  If 
 they  represented  men  or  nations  gathered  into  the  kingdom  of 
 God,  then  our  Lord's  eating  was  simply  spiritual :  it  signified 
 the  Lord's  participation  in  the  fruit  of  His  servants'  labours, 
 the  joy  which  their  labour  would  provide  for  Him  in  the  future : 
 comp.  Jer.  xv.  16,  "  Thy  words  were  found,  and  I  did  eat  them  ; 
 and  Thy  word  was  unto  me  the  joy  and  rejoicing  of  mine 
 heart,"  where  eating  is  equivalent  to  the  finding  pleasure  in  it, 
 as  the  succeeding  words  show.  Ezekiel  says,  ch.  iii.  3,  con- 
 cerning the  Divine  revelation,  "  Then  did  I  eat  it ;  and  it  was 
 in  my  mouth  as  honey  for  sweetness."  This  spiritual  eating 
 which  His  disciples  w^ere  to  prepare  for  Jesus,  was  to  be  the 
 condition  on  which  their  own  eating  should  depend.  So  Isaac 
 ate  of  his  son's  venison  before  he  blessed  him  :  that  was  the 
 condition  of  the  paternal  blessing,  that  he  should  first  show 
 himself  a  son  by  providing  the  venison ;  and  in  the  enjoyment 
 of  the  venison  the  blessing  was  uttered. 
 
 Ver.  11.  "  Simon  Peter  went  up,  and  drew  the  net  to  land 
 full  of  great  fishes,  an  hundred  and  fifty  and  three :  and  for 
 all  there  were  so  many,  yet  was  not  the  net  broken." — The  same 
 word,  dvi^T),  is  used,  Mark  vi.  51,  for  entering  the  ship.  Peter 
 must  first  go  up  into  the  ship,  in  order  to  release  the  net  which 
 adhered  to  it.  He  performed  this  task,  doubtless,  not  alone  : 
 he,  however,  was  the  chief  personage ;  and  his  act  only  is  men- 
 tioned, because  he  was  the  centre  of  the  spiritual  fishery  which 
 was  here  symbolized.  In  this  spiritual  fishery  the  drawing  of 
 the  net  to  land  signified,  according  to  Matt.  xiii.  48,  49,  the 
 "  end  of  the  world,"  and  what  will  take  place  then.  Accord- 
 ingly, Peter  here  represents  not  the  mere  individual  apostolate, 
 but  at  the  same  time  the  whole  ministry  of  teaching  and  preach- 
 
CHAP.  XXI.  11.  479 
 
 ing,  which  has  continued  that  apostolate  from  age  to  age.  The 
 net  full  of  fishes  represents  not  merely  the  "  first-fruits  of  the 
 Gentiles,"  as  they  were  gathered  in  by  the  Apostles  themselves, 
 but  the  whole  "  fulness  of  the  Gentiles,"  their  irXrjpco/u.a,  Rom. 
 xi.  25,  as  it  is  to  be  gathered  down  to  the  end  of  the  world : 
 comp.  Matt.  xxiv.  14.  It  follows  from  this  as  a  direct  conse- 
 quence, that  we  must  not  limit  our  views  here  to  the  Apostles 
 as  individuals. 
 
 That  the  number  one  hundred  and  fifty  and  three  must 
 have  a  deep  significance,  is  urgently  felt  by  all  who  discern  the 
 symbolical  meaning  of  the  whole  ;  otherwise  the  minuteness  of 
 specification  would  have  a  character  of  pettiness :  comp.  Bengel. 
 It  is  bootless  to  object  that  the  historical  character  of  the  chapter 
 must  suffer  if  we  make  the  number  here  of  any  importance. 
 For  the  distinction  between  the  great  fishes,  which  alone  are 
 reckoned,  and  the  little  ones,  is  a  mere  passing  allusion ;  so  that 
 there  is  a  certain  latitude  allowed  here  for  theological  specula- 
 tion. The  deep  meaning  of  the  number  was  acknowledged  in 
 ancient  times.  Jerome  suggested  that  there  were  a  hundred 
 and  fifty-three  kinds  of  fishes,  and  that  it  was  thereby  signified 
 that  the  Church  was  a  net  which  received  of  every  kind.  But 
 it  cannot  be  established  that  any  one  in  ancient  times  counted 
 precisely  that  number  of  genera ;  not  to  say  that  such  an 
 enumeration  was  current  at  the  time  (Lampe),  which  however 
 it  must  have  been  on  that  supposition.  Then  again  there  is 
 absolutely  no  analogy  for  such  a  natural-historical  allusion.  All 
 such  secret  hints  in  John's  Gospel  and  in  the  Apocalypse  remain 
 within  the  domain  of  Scripture.  Grotius  perceived  rightly  that 
 the  number  had  some  connection  with  2  Chron.  ii.  17  :  "  And 
 Solomon  numbered  all  the  strangers  that  were  in  the  land  of 
 Israel,  after  the  number  wherewith  David  his  father  had  num- 
 bered them  ;  and  there  were  found  an  hundred  and  fifty  thou- 
 sand, and  three  thousand  and  six  hundred :"  comp.  1  Kings  ix. 
 20.  On  the  "  strangers,"  Kimchi  remarks :  "  The  remnant  of 
 the  Canaanites,  who  were  no  longer  given  over  to  the  worship 
 of  false  gods."  It  has  been  shown,  in  the  commentary  on 
 Zech.  ix.  7  (Christology,  vol.  iii.  Clark's  Trans.),  that  prose- 
 lytes were  here  spoken  of ;  and  that  the  reception  of  strangers 
 in  Israel  during  David's  life  was  a  type  of  the  future  entrance 
 of  the  fulness  of  the  Gentiles  among  the  people  of  God.     As 
 
480  CHAP.  XXI. 
 
 our  present  passage  is  related  to  2  Chron.  ii.  17,  so  is  Rev.  xiii. 
 18  related  to  Ezra  ii.  13.  Without  the  Old  Testament  key, 
 both  passages  entirely  baffle  us.  The  objection,  that  John 
 omits  the  six  hundred  of  the  calculation  in  Chronicles,  has  but 
 little  force.  John  counts  one  fish  for  every  thousand ;  and 
 therefore  an  incomplete  thousand  would  go  for  nothing. 
 
 ToaovTcov,  so  great  in  number :  comp.  on  ch.  xii.  37.  The 
 "  net  broken"  stands  in  no  antithesis  to  Luke's  "  and  their  net 
 brake,"  ch.  v.  6.  There  it  was  only  its  being  in  dange^^  of 
 breaking, — a  danger  which,  as  we  read,  was  at  once  obviated. 
 But  here  also  there  is  the  urgent  danger  of  breaking,  as  is 
 evident  from  the  roaovrcov  ovrwv.  Where  all  is  significant,  this 
 trait  also  is  of  moment.  Grotius  discerned  in  it  a  "  presage  of 
 the  wonderful  unity  of  those  who  should  be  gathered  into  the 
 Church  by  the  labour  of  the  Apostles."  Of  this  we  can  the 
 less  doubt,  because  already,  in  John's  time,  the  word  cryia-yLa 
 was  also  established  to  denote  divisions  in  the  Church  (comp. 
 1  Cor.  i.  10,  xi.  18,  xii.  25),  and  is  used  in  John's  Gospel  itself 
 for  spiritual  discord  :  ch.  vii.  43,  ix.  16,  x.  19.  The  words  are 
 of  very  considerable  importance,  as  we  are  all  too  much  inclined 
 to  look  at  the  divisions  which  seem  to  exist,  and  to  forget  the 
 bond  of  unity  that  is  there.  We  need  not  take  refuge  from  the 
 visible  in  the  invisible  Church,  any  more  than  we  need  fly  from 
 the  past  and  the  present  into  the  "  millennial  reign."  The  net 
 was  never  broken,  ovk  iaylcrdr} ;  and  it  is  better  for  us  to  purge 
 our  eyes,  that  we  may  see  the  unity  which  still  obtains  in  the 
 Christian  world.  One  Lord,  one  Spirit,  one  baptism,  one  Holy 
 Scripture,  the  common  heritage  of  the  three  confessions  of  the 
 ancient  Church, — all  these  show  that,  despite  all  a-'yicrfxaTa, 
 springing  from  the  roaovrcov  ovrcov,  the  necessary  concomitants 
 of  so  many  nations  with  all  their  peculiarities  brought  into 
 one  fellowship,  there  is  yet  an  indissoluble  bond  of  unity  that 
 encircles  the  whole  Christian  Church. 
 
 Ver.  12.  "  Jesus  saith  unto  them.  Come  and  dine.  And 
 none  of  the  disciples  durst  ask  Him,  Who  art  Thou  ?  knowing 
 that  it  was  the  Lord," — Aevre :  comp.  ch.  iv.  29.  'Apiardco 
 signifies  here,  as  in  Luke  xi.  37,  and  like  dpiarov,  Matt.  xxii. 
 4,  Luke  xi.  38,  xiv.  12,  the  chief  meal  of  the  day,  the  mid- 
 day repast.  This  was  never  in  ordinary  life  bound  strictly  to 
 the  hour ;  and  the  symbolical  character  of  all  here  makes  the 
 
CHAP.  XXI.  13.  481 
 
 precise  hour  of  the  less  importance.  An  "  early  morning  meal," 
 however,  is  unsuitable  to  the  meaning  of  the  event.  The  phrase 
 and  the  symbol  here  go  hand  in  hand,  and  both  point  to  some- 
 thing later  than  the  early  repast.  It  was  only  to  the  mid-day 
 meal  and  the  supper  that  guests  were  wont  to  be  invited. — 
 ^E^erd^eiv  is  stronger  than  ipojrav :  although  the  disciples  were 
 sure  that  it  was  the  Lord,  yet  they  would  gladly  have  heard 
 fi'om  His  own  lips,  for  blessed  confirmation  and  more  full 
 assurance,  had  not  the  Lord's  majesty  restrained  them.  In  the 
 presence  of  that  majesty,  the  question  seemed  to  them  to  have 
 a  derogatory  character.  The  eToX/xa  shows  that  the  words 
 c186t€<;,  k.t.X.,  were  to  represent  the  question,  not  as  superfluous, 
 but  as  unbecoming.  They  durst  not  demand  satisfaction  of  the 
 Lord,  as  of  an  indifferent  person. 
 
 Yer.  13.  "  Jesus  then  cometh,  and  taketh  bread,  and  giveth 
 them,  and  fish  likewise." — Jesus  came  at  the  head  of  the  dis- 
 ciples, from  the  net  brought  to  the  shore  to  the  fire  of  coals. 
 After  the  disciples  had  received  Him  as  their  guest.  He  took 
 the  place  of  host.  Grotius :  "  He  showed  Himself  to  be 
 Paterfamilias  to  the  Church,  whose  it  was  to  give  every  man 
 his  portion."  The  feast  which  He  gave  them  consisted  only  of 
 one  fish  and  one  loaf ;  the  loaves  were  in  those  days  small,  and 
 the  fish  was  not  a  large  one.  This  was  sparing  hospitality 
 (Bengel  is  wrong  :  "  satiavit  omnes"),  if  we  forget  the  sym- 
 bolical character  of  the  whole;  rather  the  scantiness  of  the  fare 
 was  intended  to  intimate  that  its  end  was  not  in  itself,  but  that  it 
 signified  something  different,  something  higher.  It  has  been 
 regarded  as  meaning,  that  Jesus  provides  for  His  disciples 
 in  the  present  life  (compare  "  The  labourer  is  worthy  of  his 
 hire,"  Matt.  x.  10)  ;  but  such  an  interpretation  is  far  from  satis- 
 factory, inasmuch  as  it  makes  Christ's  hospitality  but  small 
 towards  His  people  ;  and  moreover,  it  is  altogether  refuted  by 
 the  fact  that  the  meal  did  not  take  place  until  the  net  was 
 d^a^vn  to  the  shore.  We  must  therefore  carry  the  interpretation 
 into  the  next  world.  The  meal  signified  the  heavenly  reward 
 of  faithful  labour :  compare  "  Great  is  your  reward  in  heaven," 
 Matt.  V.  12,  and  "  He  that  reapeth  receiveth  a  reward,  and 
 gathereth  fruit  unto  life  everlasting,"  ch.  iv.  36.  This  heavenly 
 reward  is  often  introduced  under  the  figure  of  a  feast,  which 
 Jesus  provides  for  His  people,  Luke  xii.  37  ;  xxii.  30,  "  That 
 
 VOL.  II.  2  II 
 
482  CHAP.  XXI. 
 
 ye  may  eat  and  drink  at  My  table  in  My  kingdom ;"  Matt.  xxvi. 
 29,  xxii.  1  seq.,  xxv.  10 ;  Rev.  vii.  17,  xix.  9.  The  Apostles 
 here  received  not  merely  a  symbol,  but  also  an  earnest  of  that 
 heavenly  feast.  Regarding  this  entirely  symbolical  meaning, 
 we  understand  how  it  was  that  the  breaking  of  bread  was  want- 
 ing, Luke  xxiv.  30 ;  and  more  than  that,  the  benediction  and 
 thanksgiving :  comp.  ch.  vi.  11.  These  took  place  only  in  feasts 
 which  were  limited  in  their  design  to  themselves.  Here,  where 
 the  meal  represented  benefits  which  were  not  to  be  imparted 
 until  a  future  state,  they  would  have  been  out  of  keeping.  The 
 pm'port  of  the  entertainment  also  explains  the  circumstance, 
 that  Jesus  Himself  did  not  eat :  He  did  not  say,  "  Let  us  dine ;" 
 but,  "  Come  and  dine."  The  Apostles  all  the  while  spake  not 
 a  word.  They  knew  that  they  had  to  do  with  the  majesty  that 
 must  be  waited  for  to  begin.  Silence  was  appropriate  to  this 
 meal ;  speech  would  have  obscured  its  symbolical  meaning. 
 The  feast  interpreted  itself. 
 
 Ver.  14.  "  This  is  now  the  third  time  that  Jesus  showed 
 Himself  to  His  disciples  after  that  He  was  risen  from  the  dead." 
 — In  this  connection  the  disciples  are  the  disciples  in  the  stricter 
 sense, — the  majority  of  the  apostolical  circle,  represented  by 
 their  most  eminent  members.  To  them  Christ  had  appeared  only 
 twice  before — on  the  evening  of  the  resurrection,  and  eight  days 
 afterward.  The  manifestation  to  Mary  Magdalene,  to  Peter, 
 to  the  Emmaus  disciples,  come  not  here  into  view.  John  enu- 
 merates only  the  manifestations  which  were  granted  to  the 
 apostolical  college.  He  further  indicates,  that  there  were  after- 
 wards other  appearances,  which  John,  however,'  would  not 
 record.  John  counts  elsewhere  also,  ch.  ii.  11,  iv.  54,  which 
 latter  passage  has  close  affinity  with  the  present,  so  far  as  the 
 expression  goes.  Even  when  he  does  not  expressly  enumerate, 
 he  evidently  attaches  much  importance  to  number ;  as  is  plain 
 from  the  fact,  that  he  narrates  three  miraculous  occurrences  in 
 Judea,  four  in  Galilee, — seven  in  all.  On  iyepOeh  e'/c  veKpcov, 
 comp.  ch.  ii.  22,  xii.  9,  17. 
 
 Vers.  15-23. 
 
 Jesus  commits  to  Peter  the  care  of  His  flock,  and  exhorts 
 him  to  labour  after  that  love  which  is  the  necessary  condition 
 of  the  worthy  discharge  of  his  duty.     He  foreannounces  also 
 
CHAP.  XXI.  15.  483 
 
 by  what  death,  in  the  discharge  of  that  duty,  he  should  glorify 
 God,  and  answers  his  question  as  to  the  end  which  would  befall 
 his  fellow-disciple  John. 
 
 With  this  general  glance  at  the  future  development  of  the 
 Church,  is  fitly  connected  his  institution  in  office  whom  Jesus, 
 when  He  first  met  him,  ch.  i.  43,  described  as  the  rock  on 
 which  He  would  build  His  Church. 
 
 Ver.  15.  "  So,  when  they  had  dined,  Jesus  saith  to  Simon 
 Peter,  Simon,  son  of  Jonas,  lovest  thou  Me  more  than  these  ? 
 He  saith  unto  Him,  Yea,  Lord ;  Thou  knowest  that  I  love 
 Thee.  He  saith  unto  him.  Feed  My  lambs." — John  speaks  of 
 Simon  Peter:  Jesus  addresses  him  as  Simon,  son  of  Jonas. 
 The  reason  lay  not  in  any  allusion  to  Peter's  denial,  which 
 might  be  supposed  to  have  tendered  him  unworthy  of  his 
 other  name.  During  the  whole  of  this  colloquy  there  does  not 
 occur  the  faintest  allusion  to  the  denial  of  Beter.  Such  allu- 
 sions have^Beenlntroduced  and  forced  upon  the  text  by  exposi- 
 tors. Peter's  denial — of  which  too  much  every  way  is  made — 
 was  long  over.  Even  Stier,  who  holds  fast  the  current  notion, 
 is  obliged  to  confess,  "  There  is  no  trace,  in  vers.  3,  7,  of  any 
 timorousness  in  Peter's  entrance  into  the  apostolical  circle." 
 The  true  reason  of  the  address  is  rather  to  be  sought  in  a  com- 
 parison with  ch.  i.  43 :  "  Thou  art  Simon,  the  son  of  Jonas ; 
 thou  shalt  be  called  Peter."  To  the  second  clause  there  corre- 
 sponds here,  "  Feed  My  sheep."  The  promotion  would  have 
 been  anticipated,  the  condition  of  that  promotion  would  have 
 been  lowered  in  significance,  if  Simon  had  at  the  outset  here 
 received  the  appellation  Peter.  He  is  remanded  back,  as  it  were, 
 into  his  natural  position,  in  order  that  he  may  be  exalted  out  of 
 it  into  new  dignity.  Hitherto  he  had  been  only  Peter  designate. 
 Now  he  was  to  be  inducted  into  his  office  as  Peter.  The  desig- 
 nation  is,  so  to  speak,  pretermitted,  in  order  to  lay  all  the  stress 
 upon  the  condition  of  it.  So  also,  in  Matt.  xvi.  17,  the  Lord 
 first  addressed  Peter  as  Simon  Barjona,  and  announced  to  him 
 that  He  would  make  him  Peter.  Those  who  explain  the  omis- 
 sion of  the  name  Peter  by  a  reference  to  his  denial,  rend  our 
 passage  violently  from  its  connection  with  ch.  i.  43  and  Matt, 
 xvi.  17. 
 
 Jesus  asks  Peter  if  he  loved  Him  more  than  these,  the  other 
 disciples.     The  question  about  the  more  takes  it  for  granted 
 
484  CHAP.  XXI. 
 
 that  there  was  conceded  to  Peter  a  position  excelling  that  of  all 
 the  rest  (comp.  Matt.  xvi.  18), — that  he  was  to  be  truly  Peter, 
 the  rock  upon  which  the  Church  was  to  be  built,  the  pastor  of 
 the  flock  of  Christ. — The  Lord  might  have  said,  "  Thou  lovest 
 Me  more  than  these,  therefore  feed  My  sheep."  That  this  was 
 the  actual  fact,  is  plain  from  his  having  the  flock  committed  to 
 him.  From  the  presence  of  the  result,  we  may  argue  the  pre- 
 sence of  the  condition  on  which  that  result  depended.  But  in 
 naming  the  condition,  the  Lord  puts  it  in  the  form  of  a  ques- 
 tion ;  and  that  because  the  loving  more  was  not  a  fixed  and 
 unalterable  experience,  but  something  that  might  at  any  time 
 be  lost,  something  that  must  be  preserved  and  increased  by 
 watching  and  praying,  something  tliat  was  always  questionable, 
 and  therefore  matter  of  earnest  self-examination, — Asher,  in 
 Deut.  xxxiii.  24,  is  spoken  of  as  the  most  favoured  among  his 
 brethren,  and  as  blessed  before  the  sons.  The  same  might 
 have  been  said  of  every  other  son  of  Jacob.  Each  was  such  in 
 his  own  sphere.  So  also  love  to  Jesus  has  its  various  spheres. 
 Which  of  these  spheres  comes  into  notice  here,  must  be  esti- 
 mated by  the  position  which  Peter  was  to  assume.  Peter  had 
 just  shown  that  his  love  was  more  energetic  in  one  particular 
 direction  than  that  of  the  others,  inasmuch  as  he  threw  himself 
 into  the  sea  while  the  others  followed  after  in  the,sliip.  This 
 constant  girding  himself  in  the  service  of  the  Lord,  comp.  ver 
 18,  was  his  loving  more  than  the  rest.  The  government  of  the 
 Church  demanded  pre-eminently  a  practically  energetic  and 
 effective  love.  In  this  Peter  was  superior  to  John,  even  as 
 Martha  was  to  Mary. 
 
 Peter  assures  the  Lord  that  he  loved  Him  ;  he  says  nothing 
 about  "  more  than  others."  He  knew  well  that  he  might,  in  a 
 certain  sense,  answer  in  the  affirmative  (comp.  1  Cor.  xv.  10, 
 where,  instead  of  "I  have  laboured  more  than  they  all,"  it 
 might  have  been  "  I  have  loved  more  than  they  all")  ;  but  the 
 affirmation  would  not  pass  his  lips,  because  he  felt  how  much 
 in  other  respects  he  fell  behind  his  fellow- Apostles,  and  John 
 especialh\  But  while  m  one  point  his  answer  lagged  behind 
 the  question,  in  compensation  it  went  before  it  in  another. 
 Peter  substituted  for  the  arfairav  the  ^Ckelv,  which  rather 
 denotes  the  tendemesa^ofrJ^ye'T'comp.  on  ch.  xi.  5.  Probably 
 he  used  Dm,  diligere  ex  intimis  visceribus,  with  allusion  to  the 
 
CHAP.  XXI.  15.  485 
 
 beginning  of  Ps.  xviii.,  "  I  will  love  Thee  heartily,  O  Lord, 
 my  strength." — "  Thou  knowest"  refers  to  Ps.  xl.  10,  where 
 the  singer,  after  the  assurance  of  his  thankful  love,  says,  "  O 
 Lord,  Thou  knowest,"  precisely  as  here.  That  Peter  really 
 meant  the  Supreme  Lord  by  his  Kvpte, — ^to  which  in  the  original 
 mn"'  corresponds,  rendered  by  the  Septuagint  here,  as  commonly, 
 Kvpie, — is  evident  from  what  follows,  "  Thou  knowest  all 
 things,"  ver.  17  :  to  know  all  things  is  the  prerogative  of  the 
 Lord  God  alone.  The  design  of  the  appeal  to  the  omniscience 
 of  the  Lord,  was  the  same  as  in  the  psalm.  In  my  commen- 
 tary there  I  obsen^ed :  " '  O  Lord,  Thou  knowest,'  intimates  how 
 easily  we  may  delude  ourselves  and  others  by  the  semblance  of 
 readiness  for  God's  praise.  Let  us  see  to  it  always  that  we  can 
 appeal  to  the  omniscience  of  God  in  this  matter."  "  Lord,  Thou 
 knowest,"  occurs  also  in  Ezek.  xxxvii.  3  ;  but  this  passage  does 
 not  stand  in  such  close  relation  to  our  present  one.  It  is  the 
 original  of  the  "  Lord,  Thou  knowest,"  in  Rev.  vii.  14. 
 
 Jesus  s.ays  first,  "  Feed  My  lambs :"  apviov,  the  diminutive 
 of  dp^v.  On  occasion  of  the  second  and  third  questions,  He  sub- 
 stitutes the  usual  nrpo^ara,  sheep.  The  dpviov,  occurring  else- 
 whei'e  only  in  the  Apocalypse,  points  back  to  Isa.  xl.  11,  where 
 it  is  said  of  Jehovah  the  Good  Shepherd,  "  He  will  gather  the 
 lambs  in  His  arms."  Christ,  Jehovah  manifest  in  the  flesh, 
 commits  His  tender  lambs,  when  He  leaves  the  earth,  to  Peter. 
 The  spiritual  sheep  are  at  the  same  time  lambs,  needing  tender 
 and  vigilant  care  ;  "  if  overdriven,  they  may  soon  die." — "  My 
 lambs:"  Christ  is  the  "chief  Shepherd,"  1  Pet.  v.  4,  whose 
 own  the  sheep  ai'e,  John  x.  12  ;  He  commits  His  sheep  to 
 Peter  as  His  chief  pastor ;  He  again  commits  them,  1  Pet.  v. 
 1-3,  to  tliu  ])rcsi)Vters  as  the  under-shepherdsj_  for  that  is  in- 
 volved in  his  styling  himself  their '  fellow-elder  (comp.  my 
 Comm.  on  the  Revelation).^ — Instead  of  /Soo-atw,  Jesus  the 
 second  time  uses  Trotfiaivco.  Boctkco,  the  Latin  pasco,  is  pro- 
 perly to  pasture  :  care  for  their  own  nourishment  is  one  of  the 
 first  oKliga'tions  of  the  good  shepherd:  compare  "shall  find 
 pasture,"  ch.  x.  9.  Uoi/jiaLvco  is  more  general,  and  signifies  the 
 whole  pastoral  care.   The  third  time  our  Lord  recurs  to  /3oo-«&), 
 
 ^  Beza :  Meos:  Not  therefore  as  their  Lord,  as  Peter  acknowledges; 
 nor  as  dpxivoi/xnv  (that  was  Christ  aloue,  the  Lord  of  the  sheep,  who  gave 
 His  blood  for  their  redemption),  but  as  His  faithful  minister. 
 
486  CHAP.  XXI. 
 
 to  impress  it  thoroughly  upon  Peter,  that  he  must  make  this 
 portion  of  his  pastoral  office  his  main  and  first  concernment. 
 
 Ver.  16.  "He  saith  to  him  again  the  second  time,  Simon, 
 son  of  Jonas,  lovest  thou  Me"?  He  saith  unto  Him,  Yea,  Lord ; 
 Thou  knowest  that  I  love  Thee.  He  saith  unto  him.  Feed  My 
 sheep." — The  second  question  differs  from  the  first,  in  that 
 Jesus  omits  the  "  more  than  these."  Peter  again  substitutes 
 for  ayaiTM  his  ^Ckoi.  Not  until  he  had  done  this  twice,  does 
 our  Lord  take  up  his  ^CkS)  into  His  question,  as  if  in  recogni- 
 tion of  it.  UaXiv  is  connected  with  Sevrefjov  also  in  ch.  iv.  54. 
 "  Again  "  indicates  that  Jesus  went  beyond  the  first  question  ; 
 "  a  second  time"  points  forward  to  the  third  in  ver.  17.  The 
 reading  irpo^arla,  here  and  ver.  17  is  merely  an  imitation  of 
 apvla.  Upo/Sarlov  is  not  known  in  the  Old  Testament,  or  in 
 the  Septuagint,  or  in  the  Apocrypha.  Everywhere  we  have 
 only  nrpo^ara  and  apvla:  the  latter  in  the  Sept.  of  Jer.  1.  45, 
 and  Ps.  cxiii.  4,  6. 
 
 Ver.  17.  "  He  saith  unto  him  the  third  time,  Simon,  son  of 
 Jonas,  lovest  thou  Me  1  Peter  was  grieved  because  He  said 
 unto  him  the  third  time,  Lovest  thou  Me  ?  And  he  said  unto 
 Him,  Lord,  Thou  knowest  all  things ;  Thou  knowest  that  I  love 
 Thee.  Jesus  saith  unto  him.  Feed  My  sheep." — Jesus  asks 
 thrice,  because  three,  the  first  number  of  completeness,  is  the 
 sicmature  61  emphasis :  therefore  for  the  same  reason  that  John 
 in  ch.  XIX.  35,  gave  a  triple  assurance  of  the  fidelity  of  his 
 narrative.  As  in  the  Old  Testament  the  number  three,  in  a 
 number  of  cases,  occurs  with  this  meaning  (comp.  e.g.  the 
 priestly  benediction,  the  triple  Holy  in  Isa.  vi.),  and  as  the  New 
 Testament  presents  undeniable  instances  of  the  same  (comp.  2 
 Cor.  xii.  8),  there  is  no  reason  to  assume  any  special  reference 
 to  the  triple  denial  of  Peter.  There  is  but  a  connection  of  form 
 between  the  two ;  and  in  the  case  of  the  denial,  the  number 
 three  was  the  number  of  completeness.  Peter  is  grieved.  The 
 triple  question  of  hisTliord  showed  that  there  was  a  distrust  of 
 his  love,  and  Peter  felt  how  well_grounded  that  distrust  was  : 
 comp.  "  I  am  a  sinful  man,  O  Lord,"  Luke  v.  8.  But  thougli 
 with  sorrow,  he  can  also  with  confidence  appeal  to  the  Searcher 
 of  hearts  for  the  sincerity  of  his  love. 
 
 That  Jesus,  by  a  threefold  repetition,  and  therefore  with 
 the  strongest  emphasis,  represents  love  to  Himself  as  the  great 
 
CHAP.  XXI.  18.  487 
 
 requirement  for  feeding  the  flock  of  God ;  that  He  does  not 
 mention  tTie  love^f  G'od^'wlircli  in  the  Old  Testament  law  is 
 the  one  thing  supreme, — can  be  explained  and  justified  only  on 
 the  ground~of  ClTrist's  perfect  and  absolute  divinity :  not  acknow- 
 ledging His  divinity, "we  cannot  but  regard  it  as  an  invasion 
 of  the  rights  of  Him  who  will  not  give  His  honour  to  another. 
 Concurrently  with  "Lovest  lliovTMeT^  omi  Tjord  speaks  only 
 of  His  sheep,  while  in  the  Old  Testament  the  flock  of  Jehovah 
 is  always  spoken  of. — "  Lord,  Thou  knowest  all  things,"  abso- 
 lutely transcends  the  creaturely  sphere.  To  know  all  things  is 
 ever  in  the  Old  Testament  the  prerogative  of  God  :  comp.  e.g. 
 Ps.  vii.  10,  cxxxix.  That  Jesus  shared  this  prerogative,  Peter 
 had  variously  experienced  in  fact.  We  have  a  parallel  generally 
 in  ch.  xvi.  39,  where  the  Apostles  say,  "  Now  we  know  that 
 Thou  knowest  all  things  :"  comp.  also  ch.  ii.  24. 
 
 Ver.  18.  "  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  thee.  When  thou 
 wast  young,  thou  girdedst  thyself,  and  walkedst  whither  thou 
 wouldest :  but  when  thou  shalt  be  old,  thou  shalt  stretch  forth 
 thy  hands,  and  another  shall  gird  thee,  and  carry  thee  whither 
 thou  wouldest  not." — The  delivery  to  Peter  of  his  office  is 
 followed  by  a  foreannouncement  of  the  sufferings  which  he 
 would  have  to  endure  in  the  discharge  of  it,  and  of  the  issue 
 which  was  reserved  for  him :  Luke  ix.  31 ;  2  Pet.  i.  15.  The 
 foreknowledge  of  this  departure  was  part  of  Peter's  preparation 
 for  his  duty  ;  it  served  also  to  still  in  him  all  lust  of  dominion, 
 to  extinguish  in  him  all  desire  to  "  lord  it  over  God's  heritage," 
 1  Pet.  v.  3  :  moreover,  it  drove  him  to  seek  from  above  all 
 needful  help  for  so  perilous  an  office.  (Grotius  :  "  How  diffi- 
 cult an  office  he  received !  The  matter  was  one  that  involved 
 the  sacrifice  of  liberty  and  life.") — N6coTepo<;,  younger,  is  the 
 comparative  :  the  point  of  comparison  must  be  sought  only  in 
 the  'yqpdar]';  that  follows,  "  became  old."  Accordingly  the 
 whole  period  is  included  from  the  present  until  old  age,  and 
 the  death  of  crucifixion  to  ensue.  "  Thou  wast,"  979,  is  to  be 
 explained  on  the  ground  that  Jesus  looks  back  over  Peter's  life 
 from  its  end.  If  we  overlook  this,  and  refer  the  779,  not  to 
 the  ideal,  but  to  the  actual  past,  the  whole  long  and  important 
 space  between  the  youth  of  Peter  and  his  death  fails  to  come 
 into  view.  The  expression  would  also  be  somewhat  harsh,  since 
 it  was  in  this  very  interval  that  Peter's  girding  himself  was  so 
 
488  CHAP.  XXI. 
 
 momentous  for  the  Church,  while  the  girding  of  the  actual  past 
 was  not  brought  into  consideration.  "Thou  girdedst  thyself" 
 stands  in  undeniable  relation  to  the  girding  of  himself  in  ver.  7. 
 In  that  act  the  Lord  beheld  a  symbol  of  the  unrestrained  energy 
 with  which  Peter  would  strongly  and  independently  execute  his 
 vocation.  Men  gird  themselves  when  they  go  to  labour  or 
 travel  (Buchner :  "  We  gird  ourselves  when  we  prepare  and 
 raise  ourselves  to  undertake  something  difficult"):  comp.  "Let 
 him  gird  himself  and  serve  me,"  Luke  xvii.  8;  Ex.  xii.  11,  2 
 Kings  iv.  29  ;  Acts  xii.  8,  where  the  angel  said  to  Peter,  "  Gird 
 thyself,  and  put  on  thy  sandals."  In  Prov.  xxxi.  17,  the  girding 
 the  loins  runs  parallel  with  strengthening  the  hands. — The 
 opposite  of  "  Thou  girdedst  thyself,  and  wentest  whither  thou 
 wouldest,"  is,  "  And  another  shall  gird  thee,  and  lead  thee 
 whither  thou  wouldest  not."  The  contrast  must  be  simply  the 
 general  one  between  independence  or  unrestrained  energy,  and 
 dependence  or  passiveness.  To  substitute  binding  for  girding 
 is  in  itself  inadmissible,  as  girding  is  never  used  in  that  sense  ; 
 and  it  is  further  opposed  by  the  antithesis.  We  then  read  "  shall 
 bring,"  not  "  shall  lead  :"  in  order  to  make  the  passiveness  more 
 emphatic,  comp.  the  ^epeiv  in  relation  to  Christ  on  His  way  of 
 suffering,  Mark  xv.  22.  The  "  Other^^  is  not  expressly  defined. 
 The  only  point  was  to  express  the  contrast  of  autonomy,  or 
 self-rule,  and  heteronomy,  or  the  rule  of  others.  The  "  not 
 willing"  refers  to  the  sensitive  flesh,  shrinking  even  in  those 
 most  advanced  in  the  spiritual  life :  comp.  Matt.  xvi.  22,  23. 
 
 We  have  not  yet  remarked  on  the  iKTevel<i  Ta<;  %erpa9  aov. 
 Were  this  not  tliere,  we  should  have  only  the  general  antithesis 
 of  activity  and  passiveness,  self-rule  and  the  rule  of  others.  But 
 "  Thou  shalt  stretch  forth  thine  hands,"  standing  first,  points  to 
 the  special  fact  in  which  the  heteronomy  and  the  passiveness 
 would  be  shown.  We  cannot  doubt  that  his  crucijixion  is 
 meant ;  for  the  Crucified  is  speaking  to  Peter,  whose  feelings 
 had  been  ineffaceably  impressed  by  the  outstretched  hands 
 which  he  had  so  lately  seen.  Any  other  interpretation  must 
 tend  to  embarrassment ;  no  other  outstretching  of  the  hands 
 can  be  safely  thought  of.  The  stretching  out  of  the  hands  is 
 elsewhere  noticed  as  a  characteristic  of  crucifixion  :  compare 
 the  classical  passages  in  Wetstein.  Artemidorus  mentions,  as 
 belonging  to  crucifixion,  ry-jv  rcov  '^(etpcov  eKraacv ;  and  Plautus 
 
CHAP.  XXI.  19.  489 
 
 says,  Dispessis  manibus  patibulum  cum  habebis.  Finally,  the 
 "Follow  Me"  points  to  the  cross,  vers.  19,  22,  compared  with 
 ch.  xiii.  36,  where  Jesus  had  said  to  Peter,  "  Thou  shalt  follow 
 Me  afterwards  :"  thus  we  have  here  the  unfolding  of  the  hint 
 already  given  there.  The  Lord  makes  prominent  this  particular 
 point  in  the  crucifixion,  because  in  it  impotence  and  restriction 
 were  most  clearly  exhibited.  The  hands  are  the  instruments  of 
 action  ;  they  being  bound,  all  action  ceases.  Passiveness  being 
 the  state  generally  indicated,  this  must  also,  in  the  crucifixion, 
 be  made  prominent. — If  "  thou  shalt  stretch  forth  thine  hands  " 
 refers  to  the  crucifixion,  we  have  a  clue  to  the  meaning  of 
 "  another."  The  punishment  of  the  cross  was  specifically 
 Roman,  ch.  xviii.  32.  The  Romans  inflicted  it  on  Christ ;  and 
 His  servants  would  have  to  endure  it  at  their  hands. — This 
 utterance  is  referred  to  by  Peter  in  his  second  Epistle,  ch.  i.  14. 
 We  must  not  interpret  that  of  any  new  revelation.  Peter 
 combines  the  event  we  now  dwell  upon  with  the  circumstances 
 of  time.  But  still  plainer  is  1  Pet.  v.  1,  where  he,  in  prospect 
 of  martyrdom,  terms  himself  the  fidprvi  rcov  tov  XpLarov  iradr)- 
 fidrcov.  Then  had  the  fulfilment  of  this  present  prophecy 
 already  begun.  The  Epistle  was  written  from  Babylon — that  is, 
 Rome  in  its  capacity  as  an  enemy  of  the  people  of  God — at  a 
 time  when  Satan  already  went  about  as  a  roaring  lion  seeking 
 whom  he  might  devour,  ch.  v.  8.  Wit7iess  of  the  sufferings  of 
 Christ  was  the  Apostle,  inasmuch  as  he  would  represent  thoi^e 
 sufferings  in  a  living  image. — The  crucifixion  of  Peter  is  attested 
 to  us  by  the  most  trustworthy  testimonies ;  among  others  by  Ter- 
 tullian,  who  says,  Petrus  passioni  Dominicce  cequatur :  compare 
 also  Eusebius,  Hist.  Ecc.  ii.  25.  Peter  was,  so  far  as  we  know, 
 the  only  one  among  the  Apostles  who  suffered  the  same  death  as 
 our  Lord. — The  appearance  to  James,  which  Paul  mentions  in 
 1  Cor.  XV.,  forms  the  complement  to  that  which  here  concerns 
 Peter,  and  presently  afterwards  John.  (Compare,  for  the 
 chronological  position  of  this  appearance,  my  treatise  on  the 
 Supposed  Contradictions  in  the  Narration  of  the  Resurrection 
 of  Jesus  and  the  Appearances  of  the  Risen  Lord.)  This  mani- 
 festation to  James  probably  referred  to  the  departure  which  he 
 also  had  to  expect. 
 
 Ver.  19.   "  This  spake  He,   signifying  by  what  death  he 
 should  glorify  God.     And  when  He  had  spoken  this,  Pie  saith 
 
490  CHAP.  XXI. 
 
 unto  him,  Follow  Me." — We  have  the  explanation  of  "  glorify 
 God"  in  Matt.  v.  16,  "that  they  may  see  your  good  works, 
 and  glorify  your  Father  which  is  in  heaven."  God  is  glorified 
 in  the  joyful  death  of  martyrs,  which  can  have  its  source  only 
 in  Him,  and  apart  from  Him  cannot  be  found.  It  appears  that 
 John  had  Peter's  saying,  1  Pet.  iv.  16,  in  his  eyes:  "But  if 
 any  man  suffer  as  a  Christian,  let  him  not  be  ashamed ;  let  him 
 glorify  God  on  this  behalf,"  So^a^iroi  Se  rov  ©eov  iv  tw  fiipet 
 Tovra.  Martyrdom  in  which  Christian  virtue  exhibits  its 
 highest  bloom,  appears  there  also  to  be  a  glorification  of  God. 
 The  ecclesiastical  use  of  the  phrase  "glorify  God"  for  the 
 death  of  martyrs  evidently  sprang  from  this  passage. — "By 
 what  death :"  this  cannot  refer  to  violent  death  generally,  but 
 to  the  special  kind  of  death  ;  for  only  such  a  kind  of  death  is 
 referred  to  as  would  serve  to  glorify  God.  The  genus  was  not 
 death  generally,  but  the  death  of  martyrdom.  The  species  of 
 death  was  crucifixion  only. — "  Follow  Me "  must  primarily 
 refer  to  the  external  following,  to  the  fact  that  Peter  was  then 
 and  there  to  follow  Christ's  steps :  this  is  plain  from  the  aKo- 
 Xoudovvra  in  ver.  20.  According  to  that  verse,  the  following  was 
 such  as  might  be  seen.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  it  is  obvious 
 that  "  Follow  Me "  must  also  be  understood  of  a  following 
 in  the  way  of  the  cross.  To  this  we  are  led  by  the  connection, 
 thus  only  established,  with  the  words  that  preceded  ;  to  this  we 
 are  led  also  by  the  obvious  parallel  of  Matt.  x.  38,  "  Whosoever 
 taketh  not  up  his  cross,  and  followeth  after  Me,  is  not  worthy 
 of  Me,"  a  word  which  must  involuntarily  have  occurred  to 
 Peter's  mind  when  he  heard  the  "  Follow  Me,"  the  rather  as 
 the  Lord  had  repeated  it  in  prospect  of  His  own  passion.  Matt, 
 xvi.  24 ;  by  the  fact  that  we  cannot  see  any  sufficient  end  in  the 
 mere  external  following,  which  would  have  been  without  mean- 
 ing to  the  reader,  and  alone  would  not  have  been  mentioned  by 
 John  ;  and  finally  by  ver.  22,  where  "  Follow  thou  Me"  forms 
 the  opposite  of  another  destiny  which  awaited  John.  The  seem- 
 ingly discordant  views  are  reconciled  by  the  assumption  that 
 the  Lord  primarily  meant  an  external  following,  but  that  this 
 had  a  real  symbolical  significance,  and  was  to  foreshadow 
 Peter's  imitation  of  Christ  in  the  death  of  crucifixion, — an 
 assumption  which  is  all  the  more  obvious,  as  the  whole  chapter 
 bears  so   pre-eminently  a  symbolical  character.      This  view, 
 
CHAP.  XXI.  20.  491 
 
 represented  by  Grotius/  will  satisfy  the  grounds  of  both  inter- 
 pretations. The  typical  following  would  mitigate  the  later 
 actual  fellowship  of  the  cross  to  Peter,  and  quell  in  his  work 
 all  emotion  of  pride.  In  it  was  given  to  him  the  most  emphatic 
 memento  mon. — With  regard  to  the  two  points  in  our  Lord's 
 words  of  prophecy  to  Peter,  J.  Gerhard  remarks  :  "  In  the  jfirst 
 Christ  sets  before  him  His  own  example  in  feeding  the  flock  ; 
 in  the  second,  His  own  example  in  the  endurance  of  death." 
 
 Ver.  20.  "  Then  Peter,  turning  about,  seeth  the  disciple 
 whom  Jesus  loved  following  ;  which  also  leaned  on  His  breast 
 at  supper,  and  said,  Lord,  which  is  he  that  betrayeth  Thee?" 
 — As  Peter  followed  Jesus,  John  also  followed  unbidden.  He 
 understood  the  words  of  Christ ;  and  by  his  following  also  he 
 expressed,  without  dictating  to  his  Master,  his  own  willingness 
 to  suffer  martyrdom,  with  especial  allusion  to  "  whither  thou 
 wouldest  not"  spoken  by  the  Lord  to  Peter.  Peter  turned 
 when  he  heard  some  one  following  (on  iina-rpacfieL'i,  comp.  ch, 
 xii.  40,  Rev.  i.  12:  this  last  passage  leads  to  the  conclusion  that 
 he  had  special  occasion  to  turn.  Bengel  says  :  "  He  had  begun 
 therefore  to  follow") ;  and  when  he  saw^  John,  he  was  seized  with 
 a  desire  to  have  him  as  his  companion  in  martyrdom,  according 
 to  the  saying,  dulce  est  solamen  miseris  socios  habere  malorum. 
 And  as,  in  his  own  case,  the  prediction  of  the  cross  had  followed 
 so  soon  upon  the  triple  "Lovestthou  Me?"  bethought  that 
 the  disciple  who  stood  in  a  peculiarly  affectionate  relation  to 
 Christ  might  lay  more  special  claims  to  martyrdom  than  him- 
 self ;  and  therefore  he  made  a  faint  endeavour  to  obtain  from 
 the  Lord  a  decree  to  that  purpose.  This  w^as  his  only  fault. 
 Peter  did  not  desire  to  impose  upon  John  a  death  of  martyr- 
 dom against  his  will ;  but  the  fact  was,  as  Anton  says,  "  Peter 
 perceived  that  John  would  go  with  him."  In  the  words,  "whom 
 Jesus  loved,".  "  which  also  leaned  on  His  breast  at  supper,  and 
 said.  Lord,  which  is  he  that  betrayeth  Thee?"  John  points  to 
 the  facts  on  which  the  question  and  the  desire  of  Peter  were 
 based.     The  triple  number  gives  perfectly  the  motive  which 
 
 ^  "As  before  He  had  made  the  things  done  signs  of  things  which  He 
 spoke,  so  now  He  expresses  what  He  had  said  in  a  conspicuous  sign.  For 
 '  Follow  Me  '  had  a  common  meaning  first,  which  Peter  obeyed,  and  then 
 another  and  mystical  meaning.  He  alluded  to  what  He  had  said  in  Matt. 
 X.  38." 
 
492  CHAP.  XXI. 
 
 impelled  him.  First,  ''  -whom  Jesus  loved :"  we  have  already 
 shown  that  this  formula  arose  out  of  a  signification  of  the  name 
 of  John  which  Jesus  Himself  had  uttered.  John  could  not 
 content  himself  with  that,  however ;  since,  as  he  had  often  used 
 the  phrase  as  a  mere  personal  designation,  it  would  not  have 
 been  sufficient  of  itself  to  explain  Peter's  motive.  The  second 
 is,  "  which  also  leaned  on  Jesus'  breast  at  supper :"  avairiirreLv 
 is  always  used  by  John  of  placing  oneself  at  table  :  comp.  ch. 
 vi.  10,  xiii.  12  ;  as  also  in  the  first  three  Evangelists.  We  must 
 therefore  adhere  to  the  same  meaning  here:  "which  also  placed 
 himself  near  Jesus'  breast  at  supper."  In  the  passage  alluded 
 to,  John  xiii.,  the  riv  he  avaK6Lfievo<i  el?  iv  tm  koXttu)  tov  ^Irjaov, 
 in  ver.  23,  corresponds  with  the  present;  not  the  iTrtirea-cbv 
 eirl  TO  (TT}]do<;  of  ver.  25.  We  have  already  remarked,  that  the 
 place  which  John  occupied  at  the  table  betokened  the  alto- 
 gether peculiar  internal  relation  of  love  subsisting  between  his 
 Lord  and  him.  But  the  Apostle  now  adds  in  the  third  clause 
 a  reference  to  an  occurrence  which  had  exhibited,  and  that  with 
 regard  to  Peter  also,  the  greater  intimacy  between  Christ  and 
 John, — to  the  incident  of  ch.  xiii.  23-25,  where  Peter  used  the 
 instrumentality  of  John  in  asking  the  Lord  about  the  traitor. 
 Anton's  observation  here  is  of  profound  practical  application : 
 "  Because  the  kinds  of  suffering,  especially  of  bodily  suffering, 
 vary,  men  fall  into  making  comparisons  about  it.  Why  should 
 I  suffer  this  ?  Why  not  the  other  ?  One  ought  not  thus  to 
 look  at  the  other.  For  the  tempter  obtains  great  power  when 
 children  of  God  make  such  comparisons.  Here  is  something 
 to  be  guarded  against  diligently  !" 
 
 Ver.  21.  "  Peter,  seeing  him,  saith  to  Jesus,  Lord,  and  what 
 shall  this  man  do?" — What  will  this  man  receive  or  suffer? 
 He  who  stands  so  near  to  Thee  and  me  will  not  surely  be  sepa- 
 rated in  death  from  Thee,  or  from  me :  comp.  2  Sam.  i.  23. 
 The  cautionary  and  repelling  word  of  Christ  throws  light  upon 
 the  question :  the  blame  does  not  fall  upon  the  curiosity,  but 
 upon  unauthorized  interference. 
 
 Ver.  22.  "  Jesus  saith  unto  him.  If  I  will  that  he  tarry  till 
 I  come,  what  is  that  to  thee  ?  Follow  thou  Me." — Jesus  gives 
 His  express  utterance  concerning  the  end  of  John's  life ;  and 
 beneath  "  If  I  will,"  etc.,  lies  concealed  "  I  will."  The  condi- 
 tional form  was  introduced  simply  because  Peter,  who  had  ven- 
 
CHAP.  XXI.  22.  493 
 
 tured  to  prescribe  laws  to  Christ,  was  not  worthy  to  receive  His 
 utterance  in  the  direct  form.  The  language  is  that  of  majesty, 
 which  "suffers  no  invasion  of  prerogative,  even  from  those  stand- 
 ing nearest :  comp.  ch.  ii.  4 ;  Matt.  xii.  48.  But  the  repulse  was 
 only  formal.  Jesus,  who  always  entered  so  kindly  into  the 
 wishes  of  His  disciples  (Bengel :  "  The  Lord  never  inflicted  a 
 pure  repulse  upon  His  friends,  however  unreasonably  tliey  might 
 ask"),  did  in  fact  respond  to  Simon's  request  for  a  declaration 
 as  to  the  future  of  his  fellow-disciple.  His  utterance  was  inter- 
 preted as  such  not  only  by  the  "brethren,"  ver.  23,  but  also  by 
 John  himself.  To  the  same  conclusion  we  are  led  by  its  cor- 
 respondence with  the  utterance  concerning  Peter.  On  Oe\(o, 
 Bengel  says :  The  power  of  Jesus  over  the  life  and  death  of  His 
 people.  Meveii^,  remain,  could  in  this  connection  only  have 
 referred  to  abiding  in  this  life :  comp.  1  Cor.  xv.  6 ;  Phil.  i. 
 24,  25.  The  coming  of  Jesus  could  not  have  had  an  individual 
 meaning  in  relation  to  John ;  not  the  coming  to  take  him  in 
 the  hour  of  death,  ch.  xiv.'  3,  for  in  this  sense  the  Lord  came 
 even  to  Peter.  But  we  must  find  a  sense  in  which  John  re- 
 mained, and  Peter  did  not,  until  Christ  came.  If  the  coming 
 was  one  of  universal  import,  we  must  needs  think  at  once  of  the 
 Lord's  coming  in  judgment  upon  Jerusalem,  concerning  which 
 He  had  said,  Matt.  xvi.  28,  "  Verily  I  say  unto  you.  There  be 
 some  standing  here  who  shall  not  taste  of  death  until  they  see 
 the  Son  of  man  coming  in  His  kingdom : "  comp.  Mark  ix.  1 ; 
 Matt.  xxiv.  34,  which  teaches  that  that  generation  was  not  to 
 pass  before  the  sign  of  the  Son  of  man  would  be  seen  in  heaven. 
 Peter  fulfilled  his  course  in  martyrdom  some  few  years  before 
 that  catastrophe :  John,  on  the  other  hand,  survived  that  great 
 and  solemn  coming  of  Jesus.  Meanwhile,  we  must  not  limit 
 ourselves  to  this  first  phase  of  the  historical  coming  of  Jesus. 
 When  the  Lord  spoke  of  John's  remaining  until  He  should 
 come.  He  seems  to  have  intimated  that  soon  after  His  coming 
 John  should  depart.  But  that  will  not  suit  the  coming  in  judg- 
 ment on  Jerusalem ;  for  John  survived  that  event  nearly  thirty 
 years.  Further,  it  appears  that  the  link  between  the  abiding  of 
 John  and  the  coming  of  Jesus  "vVas  not  a  merely  external  one ; 
 but  that  before  his  departure  John  was  to  do  his  own  part  in 
 connection  \^^th  the  coming  of  Christ.  Now  there  was  nothing 
 of  this  sort  in  connection  with  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem. 
 
494  CHAP.  XXI. 
 
 But  it  is  altogether  decisive,  that  John  actually  survived  a  second 
 coming  of  the  Lord,  which  could  not  therefore  be  excluded. 
 In  his  lifetime  fell  the  beginning  of  the  great  conflict  between 
 Christ  and  Rome.  With  the  Eoman  persecution,  as  it,  under 
 Domitian,  partook  of  an  ecumenical  character,  followed  simul- 
 taneously the  coming  of  the  Lord.  This  is  one  of  the  funda- 
 mental principles  of  the  Apocalypse.  That  book  is  occupied, 
 after  its  first  verse,  with  that  "  which  should  shortly  come  to 
 pass."  According  to  ch.  i.  3  and  xxii.  10,  the  time  was  near. 
 "I  come  quickly,"  the  Lord  declares,  ch.  xxii.  7, 12,  20,  iii.  11, 
 ii.  5,  16.  On  Rev.  i.  1  it  was  observed:  "'The  keeper  of 
 Israel  neither  slumbers  nor  sleeps.'  '  I  am  with  you  always 
 unto  the  end  of  the  world.'  Of  these  truths,  the  'shortly 
 coming  to  pass'  and  the  '  I  come  quickly'  of  this  book  are  the 
 necessary  consequence.  The  boundless  energy  of  the  Divine 
 nature  admits  here  of  no  delay.  There  is  nothing  of  quiescence 
 or  indolent  repose  in  God.  His  appearing  often  to  linger  is 
 merely  on  account  of  our  shortsightedness.  He  is  secretly 
 working  for  salvation  and  destruction  when  He  seems  to  us 
 to  be  standing  aloof "  (Com.  on  Rev.  vol.  i.  p.  47,  Clark's 
 Transl.).  At  the  same  crisis,  when  the  world  came  with  its 
 prince,  the  Lord  came.  In  this  second  historical  coming  of 
 Christ,  John  was  himself  pars  aliqua.  He  was  the  herald  of 
 His  coming ;  and  that  he  might  be  such,  was  the  reason  that 
 the  Lord  willed  that  he  should  tarry.  Yet  not  that  alone :  the 
 Apocalypse  is  included  in  the  coming  of  the  Lord.  In  it  He 
 came  with  His  consolation  to  His  people,  groaning  under  the 
 oppression  of  the  world's  power.  That  was  the  specific  purport  of 
 the  Apocalypse.  Hence  Ben  gel  says,  with  perfect  propriety : 
 "  To  Peter  the  cross,  to  John  that  great  Apocalypse,  were  in 
 mystery  promised  here." — Bengel  also  says  on  "Follow  Me:" 
 "  The  future  is  involved  in  the  imperative.  Do  thy  part :  leave 
 to  the  survivor  his."  It  is  only  a  following  in  the  most  pregnant 
 sense  that  is  here  assigned  to  Peter :  the  following  of  Christ  in 
 the  way  of  the  cross,  in  the  more  general  sense,  pertains  to  all 
 Christians ;  and  that  John's  desire,  as  expressed  in  his  following 
 with  Peter,  was  satisfied,  and  that  he  was  also  a  partaker  of  the 
 cross  of  his  Lord,  is  evident  from  Rev.  i.  9,  10.  With  "  Follow 
 thou  Me"  the  colloquy  ends.  Here,  as  in  Luke  xxiv.  31,  it 
 might  be  said,  "  And  He  vanished  out  of  their  sight." 
 
CHAP.  XXI.  23.  495 
 
 Ver.  23.  "  Then  went  this  saying  abroad  among  the  bre- 
 thren, that  that  disciple  should  not  die  :  yet  Jesus  said  not  unto 
 him,  He  shall  not  die ;  but.  If  I  will  that  he  tarry  till  I  come, 
 what  is  that  to  thee?" — The  Xoyo^  rested  upon  the  assumption 
 that  the  coming  referred  to  was  the  last  coming,  that  with  which 
 the  iraXi/yyeveaia  was  connected,  Matt.  xix.  28  :  thus  it  was  as  to 
 those  tlien  living  the  period  of  the  great  change,  1  Cor.  xv.  51,  52, 
 and  of  the  rapture  into  the  air,  1  Thess.  iv.  17, — passages  which 
 probably  had  their  influence  upon  the  formation  of  this  opinion. 
 The  Apostle  opposes  to  this  opinion  that  there  was  a  difference 
 between  not  dying  and  surviving  till  the  coming  of  the  Lord ; 
 he  intimates  that  there  was  to  be  a  coming  of  the  Lord  before 
 the  end  of  the  present  world,  so  that  one  might  live  till  the 
 coming  of  the  Lord,  and  then  afterwards  die.  Heumann 
 touches  the  right  point  here :  "  John  teaches  his  readers  what 
 return  of  the  Lord  was  not  to  be  understood  here.  Since,  that 
 is,  some  Christians  supposed  that  the  Lord  was  speaking  of  His 
 coming  to  the  general  judgment,  concerning  which  an  angel 
 said  at  the  ascension,  'This  Jesus  will  in  like  manner  come 
 again  as  ye  have  seen  Him  go  into  heaven,'  Acts  i.  11,  and 
 inferred  therefore  that  John  would  not  die,  but  remain  in  the 
 world  until  the  last  day,  and  then  be  taken  up  with  all  other 
 surviving  believers  into  heaven, — John  here  testifies  that  Jesus 
 had  not  said  that  he  ivould  not  die.  He  gives  it  to  be  under- 
 stood, that  he,  like  his  fellow-Apostles,  would  die,  and  conse- 
 quently not  survive  to  the  last  day,  and  the  coming  of  the  Lord 
 in  judgment;  and  that  they  therefore  erred  who  understood 
 the  Lord's  words  of  that  His  final  coming." — John  describes 
 Christians  as  "  brethren."  The  bond  of  brotherhood  girded 
 the  disciples  of  Christ  from  the  time  that  the  Lord  had  termed 
 them  His  brethren,  ch.  xx.  17.  Avtm  :  What  is  said  in  rela- 
 tion to  any  one  is  in  a  certain  sense  said  to  him,  although  the 
 words  were  primarily  addressed  to  another.  It  is  after  the 
 manner  of  the  Old  Testament :  comp.  e.g.  Gen.  xx.  2,  "  And 
 Abraham  said  of  Sarah  his  wife.  She  is  my  sister." 
 
496  CHAP.  XXI 
 
 concluding  formula  op  the  gospel. 
 
 Vers.  24,  25. 
 
 Ver.  24.  "  This  is  the  disciple  which  testifieth  of  these 
 things,  and  wrote  these  things ;  and  we  know  that  his  testimony 
 is  true." — Lampe :  "  He  names  himself  simply  disciple,  as  his 
 constant  custom  is."  Tovtcov,  ravra,  can  refer  only  to  all  that 
 from  the  beginning  of  the  Gospels  down  to  ver.  23.  What 
 Lampe  further  says  must  remain  true  :  "  Then  he  adds,  '  This 
 is  the  disciple  which  testifieth  of  these  things,  and  wrote  these 
 things ;'  which  cannot  be  defended  from  the  imputation  of  false- 
 hood, if  any  other  than  the  Apostle  affixed  this  chapter."  In  the 
 otSa/jiev  the  spirit  of  John  is  one  with  the  spirit  of  his  readers : 
 compare  "  When  ye  are  gathered  together,  and  my  spirit,"  1  Cor. 
 V.  4,  and  3  John  12,  "  Yea,  and  we  also  bear  record ;  and  ye 
 know  that  our  record  is  true."  The  profound  conviction  of  the 
 truth  of  his  testimony,  of  which  the  Holy  Spirit  was  the 
 source,  ch.  xiv.  26,  filled  him  with  the  assurance  that  it  would 
 be  acknowledged  as  true  by  all  who  were  of  the  truth.  Not  only 
 he  knew  it,  but  the  Church,  all  Christendom  upon  earth,  knew 
 it.  That  John's  confidence  did  not  delude  him,  has  been  proved 
 by  the  experience  of  all  ages.  All  brethren,  ver.  23,  all  sincere 
 Christians  (compare  r}iJLel<i  Travre'i,  ch.  i.  16),  have  ever  set  to  it 
 their  seal.  This  enlargement  of  personal  conviction  into  that 
 of  the  Church  is  extraordinarily  frequent  in  the  Old  Testament. 
 Habakkuk,  for  example,  speaks  throughout  his  third  chapter  as 
 the  microcosmos  of  the  whole  community.  In  the  New  Testa- 
 ment all  those  passages  are  analogous  where  the  Apostles  speak 
 of  themselves  in  the  plural,  as  Rom.  i.  5  ;  2  Cor.  i.  8  seq. ; 
 1  John  i.  1  (Winer).  For  the  reason  of  this  so-caWed  pluralis 
 majestaiicus  is  the  central  position  of  the  Apostles — the  fact  that 
 they  were  not  so  much  individual  persons,  as  the  epitome  of 
 the  Church  :  compare  the  to  iv  vfuv  •koI/jlviov  toO  ©eov,  1  Pet. 
 V.  2,  which  makes  the  shepherds  include  as  it  were  the  flock. 
 According  to  1  John  i.  3,  the  object  of  the  Apostle's  declaration 
 and  teaching  was,  that  his  readers  should  walk  in  fellowship 
 with  him,  and  through  him  with  the  Father  and  His  Son  Jesus 
 Christ.  There  also  we  are  met  by  him  as  a  central  figure. 
 The  theory  of  another  author  adding  his  postscript,  which  has' 
 
CHAP.  XXI.  25.  497 
 
 no  ground  whatever  to  rest  upon,  is  refuted  by  the  impossibility 
 that  this  Gospel  could  have  been  issued  without  some  such  con- 
 clusion as  we  have  in  vers.  24,  25  ;  by  the  unmeaningness  of 
 oiSafiev  in  the  mouth  of  one  unknown  ;  by  the  present  parti- 
 ciple 0  fiaprvpcov,  and  the  singular  olfxai,  ver.  25  ;  by  the  close 
 affinity  between  this  assurance  of  the  truth  of  a  testimony  and 
 ch.  xix.  35  ;  by  its  relation  with  3  John  12  ;  finally,  by  the 
 correspondence  of  this  concluding  formula  for  the  whole  Gospel 
 with  the  concluding  formula  of  the  main  body  in  ch.  xx.  30,  31, 
 and  the  circumstance  that  in  both  formulae  there  is  contained 
 the  hint  that  the  Gospel  was  only  a  selection  from  a  much  more 
 abundant  mass. 
 
 Ver.  25.  "  And  there  are  also  many  other  things  which 
 Jesus  did,  the  which,  if  they  should  be  written  every  one,  I 
 suppose  that  even  the  world  itself  could  not  contain  the  books 
 that  should  be  written.  Amen." — Instead  of  ocra,  qucecunque, 
 which  points  to  the  great  mass  of  things  omitted,  many  MSS. 
 have  the  simple  a.  On  "  which  Jesus  did,"  comp.  ch.  ii.  23. 
 John  in  all  his  books  makes  frequent  mention  of  writing.  For 
 Kad^  ev,  comp.  Acts  xxi.  19  ;  and  for  olfiat,  Gen.  xli.  1,  Sept. 
 Objection  has  been  needlessly  taken  to  the  singular  "  I  suppose," 
 because  John  never  speaks  in  the  singular.  For  there  is  really 
 here  no  speaking  in  the  first  person,  no  actual  obtrusion  of  his 
 own  personality :  olfiat  means  no  more  than  "  so  to  speak." 
 K6afjbo<i  is  the  whole  world  as  such,  and  not  in  a  moral  sense. 
 On  '^(opelv,  hold,  comp.  ch.  ii.  G.  Heumann  is  right  in  inter- 
 jecting, "  which  we  four  Evangelists  have  not  written ;"  for  John 
 everywhere  takes  his  three  predecessors  into  account.  Here 
 he  is  speaking  generally  of  what  had  not  been  written.  Much 
 has  been  idly  said  about  "  hyperbole  quite  foreign  to  John's 
 simplicity  and  thoughtf ulness."  But  there  is  no  hyperbole  here. 
 Internal,  transcendent  greatness,  simply  takes  the  array  of 
 the  external — takes  dimensions  of  space  ;  after  the  precedent  of 
 Amos  vii.  10,  where  Amaziah,  the  priest  of  Bethel,  says  to 
 Jeroboam,  "  Amos  hath  conspired  against  thee  in  the  midst  of 
 the  house  of  Israel :  the  land  is  not  able  to  bear  all  his  words :" 
 it  is  not  large  enough ;  they  find  no  place  therein.  That  the 
 external  here  only  represents  the  internal — that  we  must  dis- 
 tinguish between  the  thought  and  its  clothing,  is  plain  from 
 the  olfiai,  opinor,  "  I  suppose."  Bengel :  "  olfxai,  opinor  ;  the 
 VOL.  II.  2  I 
 
498  CONCLUDING  OBSERVATIONS. 
 
 amplification  is  softened  by  this  word."  The  idea  is  that  of  the 
 absolute  unfitness  of  the  world  for  the  spiritual  acceptance  and 
 use  of  a  perfect  history  of  Christ.  Hyperbole  could  be  alleged 
 only  if  this  unfitness  were  other  than  absolute.  We  may  find 
 many  analogies  in  the  Apocalypse  (compare  my  Commentary). 
 There  is  no  more  exaggeration  here  than  in  the  verse  of  Luther's 
 well-known  hymn,  "  And  were  the  world,"  etc.  There  also 
 spiritual  greatness  is  made  to  assume  the  dimensions  of  space. 
 Wetstein  rightly  observes  :  "  Coronis  evangelio  imposita  respon- 
 det  tS  irpoacoTTO)  rrfKav^el  in  principio,  i.  1,  2,  3."  The  world 
 which  was  made  by  Christ  is  even  for  that  reason  too  small  to 
 hold  the  perfect  knowledge  of  Him, — all  that  might  be  said  of 
 Him.  How  weighty  is  the  practical  conclusion  which  may  be 
 drawn  from  the  fact,  that  precisely  these  words  form  the  con- 
 clusion of  this  Gospel  and  of  the  Four,  of  all  that  is  delivered 
 in  the  Gospel  verbally  written  !  How  anxious  should  we  be  to 
 receive  this  fourfold  Gospel  into  our  hearts ! 
 
 CONCLUDING  OBSERVATIONS. 
 
 After  our  investigations  in  detail,  there  still  remain  several 
 questions  to  be  discussed  which  refer  to  the  Gospel  as  a  whole. 
 Of  these  the  most  important  is  its  design.  John  himself  tells 
 us  clearly  and  decisively  what  that  was,  at  the  close  of  the 
 main  body  of  it.  He  says,  ch.  xx.  31,  "  These  are  written,  that 
 ye  might  believe  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God ; 
 and  that  believing  ye  might  have  life  through  His  name." 
 In  harmony  with  this  is  the  prologue,  which  sets  forth  as  the 
 great  theme,  "  The  Word  was  made  flesh."  The  Evangelist 
 gives  in  the  prologue  the  sum  of  what  he  would  unfold  through- 
 out the  work. 
 
 So  also  in  the  first  three  Evangelists  we  have  the  full  con- 
 fession that  Jesus  was  the  Messiah ;  and  the  Messiah  not  in  the 
 ordinary  Jewish  sense,  but  in  a  sense .  that  makes  Messiah  and 
 Son  of  God  equivalent  and  synonymous  terms.  Testimonies 
 to  the  Divine  nature  of  Christ  we  find  throughout  Matthew :  for 
 instance,  in  all  those  countless  passages  where  Jesus  is  spoken  of 
 as  the  Son  of  7nan  (comp.  on  ch.  i.  52)  ;  in  the  record,  occurring 
 
CONCLUDING  OBSERVATIONS.  499 
 
 at  the  very  outset,  of  tlie  incarnation  through  the  Holy  Ghost ; 
 then  in  ch.  iii.  11,  12,  14,  x.  37,  where  Christ  arrogates  for 
 Himself  that  supreme  love  which  throughout  the  Old  Testa- 
 ment is  spoken  of  as  the  prerogative  of  God  alone,  ch.  xi.  27, 
 xvi.  16,  27,  xvii.  5,  xxii.  41-46,  xxv.  31,  xxvi.  63-65,  xxviii. 
 18-20.  In  Luke  we  refer  simply  to  evo^  Be  eari  ypeia,  "  one 
 thing  is  needful,"  ch.  x.  42.  If  devotion  to  Jesus  was  the  one 
 thing  needful.  He  must  be  God  over  all ;  and  that  must  apply 
 to  Him  which  is  written  in  Deut.  vi.  4,  5,  a  passage  which  the 
 Lord  evidently  had  in  view.  It  would  have  been  pure  blas- 
 phemy for  another  than  the  Son  of  God  in  the  fullest  and  most 
 essential  sense  to  have  described  devotion  to  himself  as  the  one 
 thing  needful.  The  first  three  Evangelists  make  it  generally 
 their  aim  also  to  show  that  Jesus  the  Christ  was  the  Son  of 
 God  :  in  Matthew  this  constantly  appears  in  the  comparison  of 
 prophecy  with  fulfilment.  But  he  does  not  expressly  lay  this 
 down  as  his  design  ;  and  we  may  say  that  it  does  not  rule  in  his 
 narrative  to  anything  like  the  same  degree  as  it  does  in  the 
 narrative  of  John.  All  that  Jesus  said  and  did  had  profound 
 interest  for  the  Evangelists  ;  and  they  do  not  ask  at  every  step 
 how  far  every  detail  serves  to  demonstrate  the  proposition  that 
 Jesus  was  the  Christ.  They  have  their  joy  in  the  history  as 
 such.  John  is  the  only  one  who,  as  a  rule,  retains  that  design 
 unchangeably  in  view.  His  Gospel  was,  so  to  speak,  the  first 
 apology.  He  exhibits  the  proposition  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ, 
 the  Son  of  God,  in  a  certain  systematic  completeness,  and  by  a 
 series  of  arguments  he  demonstrates  it.  These  arguments  we 
 shall  now  glance  at,  in  order  that  we  may  have  a  clear  view  of 
 the  character  of  the  entire  Gospel. 
 
 That  Jesus  is  the  Christ,  and  as  such  the  Son  of  God,  is 
 first  the  Lord's  own  testimony  to  Himself.  When  the  woman 
 of  Samaria  says,  "  I  know  that  the  Messias  conieth,"  Jesus 
 answers  with  decisive  clearness,  "  I  am  He,"  ch.  iv.  26.  He 
 evermore  assumes  that  central  place  which  in  the  Old  Testa- 
 ment was  the  prerogative  of  Jehovah.  He  describes  Himself 
 as  the  way,  the  truth,  and  the  life ;  as  the  light  of  the  world,  as 
 the  true  bread  from  heaven,  as  He  who  could  give  water  to  drink 
 that  would  quench  all  thirst  for  ever,  as  the  good  Shepherd,  as 
 the  door  of  the  sheep.  At  the  very  outset,  in  His  conversation 
 with  Nicodemus,  He  declares  Himself  to  be  the  only-begotten 
 
500  CONCLUDING  OBSERVATIONS. 
 
 Son  of  God,  who  came  down  from  heaven,  aud  would  go  back 
 to  heaven,  and  who,  during  His  sojourn  upon  earth,  was  at  the 
 same  time  in  heaven.  He  utters  the  lofty  word,  "  I  and  the 
 Father  are  one,"  ch.  x.  30.  Jesus  Himself  testifies  that  His 
 own  utterance  concerning  His  own  person  furnished  a  sure 
 ground  for  faith  in  Him,  and  that  it  was  only  a  concession  to 
 infirmity  when  He  appeals  to  other  grounds,  ch.  x.  38,  xiv.  11. 
 He  defends,  in  ch.  viii.  14,  the  validity  of  this  testimony  against 
 the  Pharisees,  intimating  to  them  that  He  might  not  be 
 measured  by  a  human  standard,  that  He  moved  in  a  sphere  in 
 which  the  mists  of  vanity  and  self-complacency  exist  not,  and  in 
 which  the  saying,  "  Let  another  praise  thee,  and  not  thyself,"  had 
 no  force.  Accordingly  Jesus  could  bear  testimony  to  Himself  ; 
 and  the  truth  of  His  testimony  is  confirmed  by  the  whole  im- 
 pression of  His  personality.  Men  had  only  to  regard  Him  in 
 His  majestic  dignity,  in  His  glory  as  the  only-begotten  of  the 
 Father,  and  the  thought  must  instantly  vanish,  that  He  had 
 in  proud  self-delusion  arrogated  to  Himself  a  dignity  that  did 
 not  belong  to  Him,  or  that  Pie  had  in  intentional  deception 
 given  Himself  out  to  be  the  Son  of  God.  Men  who  make 
 themselves  God  are  always  either  madmen  or  knaves.  Who 
 but  a  blasphemer  would  dare  to  place  Jesus  in  the  one  or  the 
 other  of  these  classes  ? 
 
 Those  who  were  not  satisfied  with  His  testimony  to  Himself 
 Jesus  refers  to  His  works,  especially  to  His  miracles,  as  being 
 a  testimony  borne  to  Him  by  the  Father.  "  The  works,"  He 
 says,  in  ch.  v.  36,  "  which  the  Father  hath  given  Me  to  finish, 
 the  same  works  that  I  do  bear  witness  of  Me,  that  the  Father 
 hath  sent  Me."  So  also  He  appeals  to  the  works  in  ch.  x.  25, 
 37,  38  :•  "  The  works  that  I  do  in  My  Father's  name,  they  bear 
 witness  of  Me. — If  I  do  not  the  works  of  My  Father,  believe 
 Me  not.  But  if  I  do,  though  ye  believe  not  Me,  believe  the 
 works  :  that  ye  may  know  and  believe  that  the  Father  is  in  Me, 
 and  I  in  Him."  Similar  references  to  the  works  are  found  in 
 ch.  viii.  18,  xiv.  11.  According  to  ch.  xv.  24,  it  was  the  works 
 that  made  the  Jews  inexcusable,  and  proved  that  in  hating 
 Jesus  they  hated  the  Father.  In  ch.  xi.  15,  He  rejoices  that 
 Lazarus  had  died  before  His  arrival,  because  He  thus  had 
 opportunity,  by  the  performance  of  a  glorious  work — the  raising 
 one  a  considerable  time  dead — to  strenfjthen  the  faith  of  His 
 
CONCLUDING  OBSERVATIONS.  501 
 
 disciples.  According  to  ver.  42,  He  formally  utters  the  petition 
 for  the  raising  of  Lazarus,  that  the  connection  of  the  work  with 
 His  own  person  might  be  set  in  full  light,  and  that  thus  faith 
 in  His  Divine  mission  might  be  wrought  in  the  hearts  of  those 
 who  were  present. — The  Apostle  often  points  to  the  deep  im- 
 pression which  the  works  of  Jesus  produced  upon  the  men  of 
 his  day  and  all  eye-witnesses.  Nicodemus  says  to  Jesus,  ch. 
 iii.  2,  "  We  know  that  Thou  art  a  teacher  come  from  God ;  for 
 no  man  can  do  the  miracles  that  Thou  doest,  except  God  be 
 with  him."  According  to  ch.  ii.  23,  many  in  Jerusalem  be- 
 lieved in  His  name  when  they  saw  the  miracles  that  He  did. 
 According  to  ch.  iv.  45,  when  Jesus  came  to  Galilee  the  Gali- 
 leans received  Him,  because  they  had  seen  all  that  He  had  done 
 in  Jerusalem  at  the  feast.  In  ch.  vii.  31  we  read  :  "  And  many 
 of  the  people  believed  on  Him,  and  said,  When  Christ  cometh, 
 will  He  do  more  miracles  than  those  which  this  man  hath  done  ?  " 
 What  significance  the  Apostle  attached  to  the  works  of  Christ, 
 is  shown  by  the  narrative  of  the  man  born  blind.  Everything 
 is  ordered  in  true  apologetic  style,  with  the  design  to  obviate 
 all  hostile  attack.  The  same  holds  good  of  the  narrative  of 
 Lazarus'  resurrection. 
 
 The  fact  that  the  Evangelist  attached  such  high  importance 
 to  the  Lord's  miracles,  would  lead  us  to  expect  in  his  Gospel  a 
 series  of  detailed  miraculous  events.  Nor  are  we  deceived  in 
 our  expectation.  It  is  true  that,  so  far  as  their  number  goes, 
 the  miracles  are  not  so  prominent  in  his  Gospel  as  in  those  of 
 his  predecessors ;  it  is  true,  as  Ewald  says,  that  "  his  entire 
 work  contains,  if  we  look  at  the  matter  as  a  quantity,  for  the 
 most  part  Christ's  words  and  discourses;"  but,  as  it  is  John 
 who  gives  most  prominence  to  the  miraculous  element,  this 
 must  be  explained  by  the  fact  that  he  assumes  the  existence  of 
 his  predecessors'  narratives.  The  miracles  which  he  describes 
 in  detail  are  representatives  of  classes ;  and  with  regard  to  each 
 the  design  of  the  Evangelist  was,  that  those  analogous  facts 
 should  be  inserted  which  his  predecessors  had  already  recorded. 
 Baur  observes  (die  Evangelien,  S.  2557) :  "  Only  one  kind  of 
 miracles  is  here  altogether  wanting,  the  casting  out  of  demons ; 
 which  is  all  the  more  strange,  as  precisely  this  class  of  miracles 
 is  most  amply  and  frequently  detailed  in  the  Synoptists."  But 
 the  explanation  of  the  matter  is  simply  this,  that  the  material 
 
502  CONCLUDING  OBSERVATIONS. 
 
 had  been  already  exhausted  by  them.  Mere  repetition  is  care- 
 fully avoided  by  the  Evangelist. — To  the  works  belong  also 
 those  facts  by  which  Christ  declares  Himself  to  be  the  risen  and 
 glorified  Lord.  Their  apologetic  significance  is  referred  to  in 
 ch.  vi.  62,  ii.  18,  19,  viii.  28,  xx.  31.  The  assurance  of  the 
 resurrection  commended  itself  not  only  to  faith,  but  also,  in  the 
 person  of  Thomas,  to  doubt  itself. 
 
 The  witness  borne  to  Jesus  by  the  Father  is  connected  with 
 a  series  of  other  Divine  hints  and  confirmations :  for  example, 
 that  Caiaphas  must  utter  the  word,  "  It  is  expedient  that  one 
 man  should  die  for  the  people,"  ch.  xi.  50,  the  deep  significance 
 of  which  the  Apostle,  in  ver.  51,  expressly  comments  on ;  that 
 Pilate,  despite  the  opposition  of  the  Jews,  described  Jesus  as  the 
 King  of  the  Jews  in  the  superscription  of  the  cross ;  that  blood 
 and  water  from  the  side  of  Jesus  followed  the  piercing  of  the 
 spear,  as  a  symbol  of  redemption  and  justification  obtained  by 
 His  passion, — a  circumstance  so  marvellous,  that  the  Apostle 
 expressly  and  emphatically  declares  himself  to  have  seen  what 
 he  records,  ch.  xix.  35.  The  apologetic  import  of  this  occur- 
 rence he  alludes  to  when  he  makes  the  design  of  his  testimony 
 to  be,  "  that  ye  might  believe." 
 
 Concurrent  with  the  works  of  Jesus  are  the  words.  Jesus 
 Himself  makes  the  argument  from  them  valid  in  ch.  vi.  63. 
 There  He  tells  those  who  were  in  danger  of  mistaking  Him, 
 "  The  words  which  I  have  spoken  to  you,  are  spirit  and  are 
 life."  According  to  ch.  xv.  22,  the  words  of  Christ  constitute 
 so  decisive  a  demonstration  of  His  Divine  mission  that  they 
 are  sufficient  of  themselves  to  render  those  inexcusable,  and  to 
 involve  them  in  condemnation,  who  had  heard  without  attain- 
 ing to  faith.  In  ch.  xvii.  8,  our  Lord  says,  "  For  I  have  given 
 unto  them  the  words  which  Thou  hast  given  Me ;  and  they 
 have  received  them,  and  have  known  surely  that  I  came  out 
 from  Thee,  and  they  have  believed  that  Thou  didst  send  Me." 
 All  this  they  learnt  from  the  words  of  Christ,  which  so  mani- 
 festly had  their  source  in  another  world,  and  could  never  have 
 sprung  from  this  poor  earth.  According  to  the  Baptist's  word, 
 in  ch.  iii.  31,  he  that  is  of  the  earth  speaketh  of  the  earth ;  and 
 the  only-begotten  Son  of  God  testifies  in  His  sayings  what  He 
 had  heard  and  seen  in  the  supermundane  sphere.  By  the  side 
 of  the  self-testimony  of  Jesus,  the  works  and  the  words  are 
 
CONCLUDING  OBSERVATIONS.  503 
 
 made  prominent  in  ch.  xiv.  10,  "  Believest  thou  not  that  I  am 
 in  the  Father,  and  the  Father  in  Me?  The  ivords  that  I  speak 
 unto  you,  I  speak  not  of  Myself  ;  but  the  Father  that  dwelleth 
 in  Me,  He  doeth  the  icorks"  And  if  in  ver.  11,  in  connection 
 with  His  self-testimony,  the  works  only  are  emphasized,  "  Be- 
 lieve Me  that  I  am  in  the  Father,  and  the  Father  in  Me ;  or 
 else  believe  Me  for  the  very  works'  sake,"  that  was  not  be- 
 cause the  works  were  better  demonstration  than  the  words ;  but 
 the  Lord  appeals  to  them  simply  as  being  the  more  obvious  and 
 palpable  demonstration. 
 
 The  Apostle  frequently  points  to  the  deep  impression  which 
 the  words  of  Christ  produced ;  he  makes  it  very  prominent  that 
 this  testimony  approved  itself  in  its  effect.  When  Jesus,  at  a 
 season  when  many  misconceived  and  deserted  Him,  said  to  the 
 Apostles,  "Will  ye  also  go  away?"  Peter,  as  the  mouthpiece 
 of  all,  ch.  vi.  68,  answered,  "  Lord,  to  whom  shall  we  go  ?  Thou 
 hast  the  words  of  eternal  life."  This  is  the  response  of  the 
 confessing  Church  to  that  which  Jesus  had  Himself  said  con- 
 cerning the  high  significance  of  His  words.  Even  the  servants 
 of  the  high  priest  are  constrained  to  avow,  ch.  vii.  46,  "Never 
 man  spake  like  this  man."  —  The  direct  consequence  of  the 
 high  position  conceded  to  the  woi'ds  of  Christ  is  this,  that  in 
 the  Gospel  a  series  of  His  Divine  discourses  is  communicated. 
 Especially  the  discourses  delivered  before  His  departure  are  to 
 be  looked  upon  in  this  light.  They  enforce  from  every  heart 
 not  hardened,  from  every  soul  not  under  the  ban  of  its  own 
 perverted  inclinations  and  lusts  (comp.  ch.  v.  44),  the  avov/al 
 that  Jesus  is  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God.  They  are,  not  less 
 than  the  miracles,  signs,  arjfieia,  although  John,  following  the 
 current  phraseology,  has  used  that  word  only  with  regard  to 
 the  works  of  Christ. — The  effect  of  this  testimony  is,  indeed, 
 dependent  on  a  subjective  condition ;  but  wherever  this  condi- 
 tion is  not  wanting,  where  the  heart  is  found  right  with  God,  it 
 cannot  but  prove  its  might. — "My  doctmie,'"  says  Christ,  in 
 ch.  vii.  16,  17,  "  is  not  Mine,  but  His  that  sent  Me.  If  any  man 
 will  do  His  will,  he  shall  know  of  the  doctrine,  whether  it  be 
 of  God,  or  whether  I  speak  of  Myself."  The  doctrine  of  Christ 
 approves  itself  to  the  conscience  of  him  who  has  a  sincere  will 
 to  do  the  will  of  God.  He  shall  find  in  it  the  solution  of  the 
 mystery  of  his  inner  being,  the  satisfaction  of  the  desires  of 
 
504  CONCLUDING  OBSERVATIONS. 
 
 his  longing  heart,  and  all  help  for  his  struggling  and  wrestling 
 spirit.  The  place  of  doubt  is  only  departure  from  God,  the 
 perverted  heart  that  will  do  the  will  of  the  flesh,  and  will  not 
 be  disturbed  in  the  gratification  of  its  lusts  and  passions. 
 
 By  the  side  of  these  three  great  arguments  the  Gospel  pre- 
 sents a  series  of  others. 
 
 The  Baptises  testimony  to  Christ  could  not  be  omitted, 
 especially  as  it  was  that  testimony  which  led  John  himself  to  the 
 Lord.  It  was  his  personal  experience  of  the  force  of  that  wit- 
 ness that  made  John  attach  to  it  such  importance,  and  assign 
 it  such  prominence.  So  early  as  the  prologue,  ch.  i.  7,  he 
 alludes  to  it :  "  The  same  came  for  a  witness,  to  bear  witness  of 
 the  light,  that  all  men  through  Him  might  believe."  In  ch.  i. 
 19-36,  the  Evangelist,  at  the  outset  of  the  body  of  the  Gospel, 
 communicates  the  threefold  testimony  which  the  Baptist  bore 
 to  Jesus  at  the  period  of  His  first  appearing.  In  ch.  iii.  22-36, 
 John  abases  himself  profoundly  under  Christ  at  the  end  of  his 
 own  course,  and  utters  a  glorious  testimony  concerning  Him : 
 "  He  must  increase,  but  I  must  decrease. — He  that  believeth  on 
 the  Son  hath  everlasting  life :  and  he  that  believeth  not  the  Son 
 shall  not  see  life ;  but  the  wrath  of  God  abideth  on  him."  It 
 has  been  shown  (in  vol.  i.),  that  in  these  communications  touch- 
 ing the  Baptist,  the  Evangelist  had  no  polemical  reference  to 
 imaginary  disciples  of  John.  He  had  rather  the  followers  of 
 Thomas  in  view,  the  Biyjrv^oc  of  his  time,  who  vibrated  un- 
 easily between  faith  and  unbelief.  The  testimony  of  John 
 is  only  one  link  of  a  chain  of  demonstrations  to  the  proposition 
 that  Jesus  is  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God.  This  is  not  only 
 suggested  in  ch.  xx.  31 ;  we  learn  it  definitely  from  ch.  v.  33-35, 
 where  Jesus  appeals  to  John's  witness  in  opposition  to  the  Jews. 
 There  this  testimony  opens  the  series  of  those  which  the  Father 
 bore  to  the  Son.  There  it  is  a  power  against  unbelief  gene- 
 rally, not  a  weapon  to  resist  the  pretensions  of  an  obscure  sect. 
 And  the  importance  of  this  testimony  (with  regard  to  which 
 compare  vol.  i.)  was  approved  by  its  effects.  According  to  ch.  i., 
 it  led  to  Jesus  His  first  disciples ;  according  to  ch.  x.  41,  42,  the 
 people  were  induced  to  believe,  by  comparing  what  John  had 
 said  concerning  Christ  with  the  works  which  they  beheld  in  Him. 
 How  Jesus  was  accredited  by  the  predictions  of  the  Old 
 Testament,  Matthew  had  shown  in  a  very  complete  series  of 
 
CONCLUDING  OBSERVATIONS.  505 
 
 instances.  But  John  also,  although  taking  for  granted  what 
 his  predecessor  had  written,  does  not  omit  all  reference  to  them. 
 Jesus,  in  ch.  v.  39,  appeals,  in  opposition  to  the  hostile  Jews, 
 to  the  "  scriptures"  that  testified  of  Him,  to  the  whole  body  of 
 Messianic  prophecies  in  the  Old  Testament,  which  were  fulfilled 
 in,  Him;  and  then,  in  vers.  45-47,  He  specifically  challenges 
 the  testimony  of  Moses.  At  the  entrance  of  our  Lord  into 
 Jerusalem  on  an  ass,  the  Evangelist  expressly  points  out  that 
 the  event  was  a  fulfilment  of  Zechariah's  prophecy,  ch.  xii.  16. 
 At  the  distribution  of  the  garments,  and  the  casting  lots  for  the 
 vesture,  he  points  to  the  coincidence  of  prophecy  and  fulfilment, 
 ch.  xix.  23,  24.  So  also  with  regard  to  the  vinegar  given  Him 
 to  drink,  ver.  28.  And  in  the  circumstance  that  the  legs  of 
 Jesus  were  not  broken,  and  that  one  of  the  soldiers  pierced  Him 
 with  a  lance,  John  sees  the  hand  of  God,  which  brought  about 
 this  harmony  between  prediction  and  accomplishment. 
 
 Hand  in  hand  with  the  prophecies  of  the  Old  Testament, 
 we  have  the  testimony  of  Christ's  own  predictions.  By  the 
 clearness  with  which  the  future  lay  open  before  Him,  He  was 
 proved  to  be  the  Sent  of  God,  who  partook  of  the  omniscient 
 prerogative  of  the  Divine  nature.  For  God  alone  can  reveal 
 secret  things,  Dan.  ii.  28  ;  and  He  to  whom  He  reveals  hidden 
 things  is  thereby  authenticated  and  declared  to  be  trustworthy, 
 so  that  all  must  believe  the  testimony  that  He  bears  to  Himself. 
 Jesus  ever  has  His  own  destiny  open  before  Him.  He  fore- 
 announces,  as  early  as  ch.  iii.  14,  His  death  on  the  ci^oss.  After 
 the  words  in  ch.  xii.  32,  "  And  I,  if  I  be  lifted  up,  will  draw 
 all  men  unto  Me,"  John  adds,  "  This  He  said,  signifying  what 
 death  He  should  die:"  comp.  further  ch.  viii.  28,  xviii.  32. 
 He  utters,  in  ch.  ii.  19  (comp.  ver.  22),  a  prophecy  of  His 
 resurrection.  In  ch.  xvi.  16,  He  foreannounces  to  the  Apostles 
 His  impending  departure,  and  that  speedy  reappearance  which 
 the  resurrection  fulfilled.  The  same  clear  view  of  the  future 
 our  Lord  displays  M'ith  regard  to  His  disciples.  This  is  seen  in 
 the  promises  of  protection  to  be  afforded  them,  ch.  xvii.  12 
 (comp.  ch.  xviii.  9),  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit  whom  they  should 
 receive,  ch.  vii.  38,  39,  xiv.  16,  17,  25,  26,  xv.  26,  xvi.  7,  13, 
 as  connected  with  the  glorious  and  public  accomplishment  at 
 Pentecost.  Our  Lord  says  to  Peter,  ch.  i.  42,  at  the  first 
 meeting,  "Thou  art  Simon,  the  son  of  Jonas:  thou  shalt  be 
 
506  CONCLUDING  OBSERVATIONS. 
 
 called  Cephas,  which  is,  by  interpretation,  A  stone,"  or  Peter. 
 The  man  of  rock  had  justified  his  name,  at  the  time  when  John 
 wrote,  by  the  whole  course  of  his  life,  and  by  his  death.  Jesus 
 predicts  to  Peter  his  denial,  ch.  xiii.  38,  comp.  ch.  xviii.  25-27; 
 so  also  his  mode  of  departure,  in  which  he  should  follow  his 
 Master  by  a  death  on  the  cross,  ch.  xiii.  36,  xxi.  18.  And  the 
 life  of  John,  different  from  that  of  Peter,  lies  clearly  before  His 
 vision,  ch.  xxi.  22.  Through  all  the  discourses  of  our  Lord 
 there  runs  a  prophecy  of  the  doom  to  befall  the  Jeivish  people 
 (comp.  e.g.  ch.  viii.  21,  24,  28,  xv.  2,  6),  the  fearful  fulfilment 
 of  which  had  already  taken  place,  threatening  those  with 
 similar  judgment  who  should  walk  in  the  footsteps  of  the  Jews' 
 unbelief  in  Christ.  How  plainly  the  Lord  saw  the  course  of 
 the  Church  down  to  the  end,  is  shown  especially  in  ch.  xxi. 
 He  proclaimed  from  the  beginning  that  His  Church  would  be 
 entirely  severed  from  the  temple  at  Jerusalem,  ch.  iv.  21,  23  ; 
 saw  that  the  consequence  of  His  death  on  the  cross  would  be 
 an  extension  of  His  kingdom  over  the  heathen  world,  ch.  xii. 
 32  (comp.  ch.  iv.  35,  38)  ;  that  the  seedcorn  falling  into  the 
 earth  would  bring  forth  much  fruit,  ch.  xii.  24  ;  that  the  con- 
 verted Jews  and  Gentiles  would  be  formed  into  one  fold,  ch.  x. 
 16.  He  gives,  after  the  resurrection,  a  figure  of  the  prosperous 
 labour  of  His  servants  among  the  Gentiles.  He  predicts  that 
 His  Church  would  withstand  all  the  assaults  of  the  world,  and 
 conquer  the  whole  earth,  ch.  xvi.  33. — In  harmony  with  the 
 Lord's  own  predictions,  there  are  other  evidences  that  His 
 knowledge  penetrated  all  things,  into  depths  inaccessible  to  the 
 human  mind.  He  assumes  the  prerogative  of  the  Searcher  of 
 hearts :  He  knows  what  is  in  man,  ch.  ii.  25.  He  looks  through 
 Judas  the  traitor  from  the  beginning,  ch.  vi.  64.  When 
 Nathanael  comes  to  Him,  He  says  of  him,  "  Behold  an  Israelite 
 indeed,  in  whom  there  is  no  guile,"  ch.  i.  48  ;  and  as  He  looks 
 into  his  inner  being,  so  also  He  knows  his  external  relations, 
 ver.  49.  He  says  to  the  Samaritan  woman,  "  Thou  hast  had 
 five  husbands  ;  and  he  whom  thou  now  hast  is  not  thy  hus- 
 band ;"  and  the  woman  herself,  with  many  of  the  town,  are 
 led  to  faith  in  Jesus  by  the  fact  that  He  told  her  all  things 
 that  ever  she  did.  When  the  Apostles  had  fished  all  night, 
 and  taken  nothing.  He  says  to  them,  "  Cast  the  net  on  the 
 right  side  of  the  ship,  and  ye  shall  find,"  ch.  xxi.  6.     On  the 
 
CONCLUDING  OBSERVATIONS.  507 
 
 ground  of  the  accordance  between  the  word  and  the  result, 
 John  says,  "It  is  the  Lord."  There  was  uttered  the  design 
 for  which  John  recorded  all  the  facts  which  proclaimed  that 
 the  knowledge  of  Jesus  transcended  all  human  limits.  They 
 were  to  bring  his  readers  to  the  conviction  that  Jesus  is  the 
 Lord. 
 
 In  1  John  V.  6,  great  stress  is  laid  upon  the  effects  of  Chris- 
 tianity. These  are  asserted  to  be  the  testimony  which  God 
 gives  to  His  Son.  The  Apostle  there  gives  prominence  to  a 
 triad  of  those  testimonies :  the  ivater,  or  the  forgiving  of  sins 
 imparted  by  Christ ;  the  blood,  or  the  atonement  accomplished 
 by  Him  ;  and  the  spirit,  who  bears  witness  that  the  Spirit — 
 that  is,  the  Divine  nature  in  Christ — is  truth.  That  there  is 
 upon  earth  a  fellowship  of  those  who  are  partakers  of  these 
 great  gifts, — who  have  received  reconciliation  with  God,  the 
 forgiveness  of  sins,  and  the  Holy  Ghost, — is  the  best  demon- 
 stration that  He  from  whom  these  gifts  come  is  the  Son  of 
 God  in  truth.  To  this  argument  from  effects  which  apart 
 from  Christ  are  never  found,  the  Gospel  also  frequently  points. 
 In  the  prologue  we  read,  "  As  many  as  received  Him,  to 
 them  gave  He  power  to  become  the  sons  of  God,"  ch.  i.  12 ; 
 and,  "  Out  of  His  fulness  have  all  we  received,  and  grace  for 
 grace,"  ch.  i.  16.  Jesus  Himself,  in  ch.  iii.  5,  represents  rege- 
 neration of  water  and  the  Spirit  as  the  privilege  of  His  people. 
 He  describes  Himself,  ch.  iv.  10,  as  One  who  can  give  the 
 living  water  and  allay  the  thirst  of  the  human  spirit ;  in  ch.  vi. 
 as  giving  life  to  His  people,  when  He  gives  them  His  flesh  and 
 blood  to  eat.  They  have  in  Him  blood  and  water,  ch.  xix.  34 ; 
 through  Him  they  obtain  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  ch.  vii. 
 38,  XV.  26,  xvi.  7,  xx.  22  ;  knowledge  of  the  truth,  and,  as  the 
 result  of  it,  freedom  from  the  slavery  of  sin,  ch.  viii.  32,  as 
 well  as  purification  from  its  pollution,  ch.  xv.  3  ;  the  power 
 of  acceptable  prayer,  ch.  xv.  7  ;  peace,  ch.  xiv.  27  ;  deliver- 
 ance from  the  terror  of  death,  ch.  viii.  51,  xi.  26.  Who 
 would  not  believe  on  the  name  of  Him  who  can  impart  to 
 His  people  gifts  so  transcendent,  and  in  no  other  way  to  be 
 obtained ! 
 
 John  delights  to  communicate  the  confessions  which  Jesus 
 evoked  by  the  influence  of  His  personal  manifestation.  In 
 them  also  he  discerns  testimonies  to  His  Divine  dignity,  evi- 
 
508  CONCLUDING  OBSERVATIONS. 
 
 dences  in  favour  of  the  proposition  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ,  the 
 Son  of  God.  Nathanael  cries,  "Thou  art  the  Son  of  God," 
 ch.  i.  50 ;  Peter,  in  the  name  of  the  Apostles,  "  Thou  art  the 
 Christ,  the  Son  of  God,"  ch.  vi.  69 ;  Martha  utters  the  same 
 avowal,  ch.  xi.  29 ;  Thomas,  overpowered  by  facts,  must  cry, 
 "My  Lord  and  my  God;"  the  Samaritans  testify,  "  We  have 
 heard  Him  ourselves,  and  know  that  this  is  indeed  the  Christ, 
 the  Saviour  of  the  world  :"  comp.  further  ch.  vii.  31.  When 
 Jesus  enters  Jerusalem,  the  people  meet  Him,  and  cry,  "  Ho- 
 sanna,  blessed  is  the  King  of  Israel,  that  cometh  in  the  name 
 of  the  Lord,"  ch.  xii.  13.  Many  also  of  the  rulers  of  the  people 
 believe  on  Him,  and  keep  back  their  confession  only  through 
 fear  of  the  Pharisees,  ch.  xii.  42.  The  reason  why  men  refuse 
 their  confession  to  Christ  is  perfectly  plain  :  they  come  not  to 
 the  light,  because  their  deeds  are  evil.  Their  hatred  is  not  less 
 a  testimony  in  favour  of  Christ  than  the  love  of  the  men  whose 
 hearts  are  right. 
 
 The  Evangelist  not  only  adduces  positive  arguments  for  his 
 proposition  that  Jesus  is  Christ,  the  Son  of  God  :  he  also  refutes 
 all  objections  to  that  doctrine.  It  might  be  a  disparagement  to 
 the  divinity  of  Christ,  that  so  large  a  proportion  of  the  Jews 
 disbelieved  :  he  enters  into  this  frequently,  in  the  Lord's  dis- 
 courses which  he  communicates,  e.g.  in  ch.  v.  8,  and  in  his  own 
 observations,  ch.  xii.  37  seq.  So  also  he  meets  the  objection 
 that  might  be  derived  from  the  treachery  of  Judas,  one  of  the 
 Twelve,  ch.  vi.  64,  70,  71,  according  to  which  Jesus  was  not 
 surprised  by  the  traitor,  but  knew  him  as  such  from  the  begin- 
 ning, ch.  xiii.  18,  19,  21-30,  xvii.  12.  The  stumblingblock 
 which  might  be  found  in  our  Lord's  capture  he  removes  also, 
 by  showing  in  fact  that  Jesus  freely  delivered  Himself  up. 
 Moreover,  He  cast  His  captors  to  the  ground  by  a  word. 
 
 We  have  shown  that  the  aim  to  demonstrate  that  Jesus  is 
 the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  rules  the  whole  Gospel.  But  the 
 question  now  arises.  Does  the  Apostle  design  in  this  merely  to 
 raise  those  who  stood  in  a  lower  stage  of  faith  to  a  higher  one, 
 or  has  he  in  view  the  doubts  which  were  already  stirring  in  his 
 own  time? 
 
 Of  itself,  the  simple  proposition  would  not  lead  us  to  the 
 assumption  of  any  polemical  or  apologetical  design.  That 
 Jesus  is  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  is  in  fact  the  centre  of 
 
CONCLUDING  OBSERVATIONS.  509 
 
 Christianity ;  and  it  may  be  thought  that  the  Apostle  who  him- 
 self, before  all  others,  rested  on  that  centre,  would  make  it  his 
 great  task  to  give  the  utmost  prominence  to  this  one  thing 
 needful,  merely  for  the  furtherance  of  the  faith  of  those  who 
 were  not  yet  firmly  established  on  this  foundation.  Meanwhile 
 there  is  much  in  the  Gospel  itself  which  forbids  us  to  adhere 
 absolutely  and  alone  to  this  positive  design. 
 
 If  the  Apostle  wrote  merely  for  the  advantage  of  a  faith 
 not  yet  perfect,  his  treatment  would  have  been  less  systematic. 
 The  aim  would  not^  to  such  an  extent,  have  pervaded  the  whole 
 book  down  to  its  minutest  detail ;  the  Evangelist  would  have 
 involuntarily,  oftener  than  he  does,  abandoned  the  centre  and 
 wandered  to  the  circumference.  The  matter  would  not  have 
 been  such  as  to  allow  the  section  of  the  adulteress  to  be,  as  it  were, 
 a  foreign  element  in  a  Gospel  directed  to  one  great  end.  The 
 Evangelist  would  have  been  less  disposed  to  array,  as  he  does, 
 a  whole  battalion  of  orderly  reasons.  In  the  record  of  miracles, 
 he  would  not  have  been  so  careful  at  once  to  deduce  from  them 
 a  dogmatic  result.  On  occasion  of  the  very  first  miracle,  he 
 remarks,  ch.  ii.  11,  that  Jesus  in  that  miracle  manifested  forth 
 His  glory.  It  is  he  pre-eminently  who  exhibits  the  miracles  as 
 signs,  (TTjfieta,  means  of  placing  the  person  of  Jesus  in  the  true 
 light,  ch.  ii.  11,  23,  iv.  54,  xii.  37.  The  style  in  which  the 
 miracles  on  the  man  bom  blind  and  Lazarus  are  narrated,  the 
 manifest  intention  to  fortify  these  facts  against  all  objections, 
 can  hardly  be  accounted  for  on  the  supposition  that  John  wrote 
 only  to  simple  faith. 
 
 It  must  be  regarded  as  noteworthy,  that  the  last  figure  who 
 appears  before  the  words  in  which  John  lays  down  the  scope 
 of  his  Gospel,  "  These  are  written,  that  ye  might  believe  that 
 Jesus  is  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God;  and  that  believing  ye 
 might  have  life  through  His  name,"  is  that  of  Thomas,  and 
 that  the  words  of  Christ  addressed  to  him,  "  Be  not  faithless, 
 but  believing,"  and,  "  Because  thou  hast  seen  Me,  thou  hast 
 believed :  blessed  are  they  that  have  not  seen,  and  yet  have 
 believed,"  undeniably  connect  themselves  with  that  conclusion. 
 We  are  led  by  this  to  the  inference  that  the  Apostle  aimed  not 
 merely  to  further  an  imperfect  faith,  but  to  furnish  antidotes 
 to  doubt. 
 
 That  the  Apostle  had  to  do  with  doubt  and  doubters,  seems 
 
510  CONCLUDING  OBSERVATIONS. 
 
 plain  from  his  assuring  us  of  the  truth  of  his  record  in  ch.  xxi. 
 24 :  comp.  ch.  xix.  37.  There  is  nothing  of  the  same  kind  in 
 the  earlier  Evangelists. 
 
 Tiie  seasonable  and  opportune  character  of  Holy  Scripture 
 generally  affords  a  presumption  in  favour  of  a  polemic  and 
 apologetic  design  in  this  Gospel.  Those  scriptures  especially, 
 which  furnish  predominantly  doctrinal  elements,  display,  as  a 
 rule,  a  relation  to  the  special  needs  and  errors  of  the  time.  It 
 is  because  scripture  commonly  presents  truth  in  its  reference  to 
 concrete  relations  and  living  errors,  that  it  has  had  such  a  living 
 power,  penetration,  and  effect.  What  in  any  one  age  is  mighty 
 in  its  operation,  may  be  presumed  to  be  mighty  in  its  influence 
 upon  all  times. 
 
 It  is  true  that  the  arguments  for  a  polemical  design  in  this 
 Gospel  are  not  perfectly  obvious ;  and  he  who  rejects  them 
 cannot  have  them  enforced  upon  him.  But  it  was  in  the 
 nature  of  the  case  that  the  design  should  not  be  palpable.  The 
 Apostle  would  have  taken  the  edge  from  his  weapon,  if  he  had 
 made  his  aim  more  expressly  and  evidently  prominent.  To  the 
 reasonings  and  devices  of  heretics,  he  would  not  oppose  the 
 like ;  not  fictions  to  fictions,  but  what  he  had  heard  and  seen, 
 beheld  and  handled  with  his  hands  (1  John  i.  1) :  to  the 
 Christological  image  of  mist,  he  would  oppose  the  historical 
 Christ  in  His  full  historical  truth.  That  was  the  weapon  with 
 which  he  warred.  To  this  was  necessary  the  strictest  historical 
 fidelity.  This  the  Apostle  has  so  carefully  maintained,  that,  in 
 spite  of  his  aim  for  the  times,  not  one  word  occurs  which  leaves 
 the  region  and  sphere  of  our  Lord  Himself.  There  can  be  no 
 doubt,  if  we  compare  the  Epistles  of  John  and  the  Apocalypse, 
 that  in  the  section  ch.  xv.  18-xvi.  11,  the  theme  of  which  is 
 the  position  of  the  disciples  in  the  world,  the  Apostle  had 
 the  relations  of  his  own  time  in  view,  the  hatred  with  which 
 the  heathen  part  of  the  world  persecuted  the  Christians ;  and 
 that  it  was  his  purpose  to  meet  the  temptations  to  offence  which 
 this  persecution  supplied.  But,  this  notwithstanding,  every- 
 thing refers  directly  to  the  hatred  of  the  Jewish  part  of  the 
 world  which  Jesus  had  before  Him :  ch.  xv.  15,  22,  24,  suit 
 only  the  Jews  :  so  also  ''^tliey  shall  cast  you  out  of  the  syna- 
 gogues," ch.  xvi.  2  ;  "of  sin,  because  they  believe  not  on  Me," 
 ch.  xvi.  9,  refer  only  to  that  phase  of  the  world  which  by  un- 
 
CONCLUDING  OBSERVATIONS.  511 
 
 belief  had  already  sinned  against  Christ.  Generally,  all  is 
 concretely  Jewish,  and  never  is  there  one  word  of  generaliza- 
 tion. The  emphasis  which  in  the  high-priestly  prayer  is  laid 
 upon  the  disciples  being  one,  the  urgent  exhortations  to 
 brotherly  love  in  ch.  xv.  12-17,  receive  in  the  Epistles  of 
 John  and  the  Apocalypse  a  striking  historical  illustration. 
 But  here  also  every  word  refers  primarily  to  the  relations 
 which  existed  in  the  time  of  the  Son  of  man.  His  one  aim 
 rules  in  the  Gospel,  but  yet  it  bears  everywhere  a  rigidly  his- 
 torical character.  Hence  the  exactitude  in  the  notes  of  time 
 and  place  ;  the  precise  specification  of  historical  relations  and 
 persons  which  produces  in  every  unbiassed  mind  the  impression 
 of  perfect  historical  truth.  He  who  would,  in  support  of  a 
 theory,  doubt  this,  will  find  liis  conviction  in  Josephus,  as  our 
 commentary  has  abundantly  shown. 
 
 Owing  to  the  rigidly  historical  stx'ain  of  the  Gospel,  we 
 cannot  arrive  at  perfect  assurance  with  regard  to  the  question 
 whether  John  had  a  polemical  design,  unless  we  compare  with 
 it  his  other  writings.  The  first  of  his  Epistles  is  of  special 
 moment  in  this  relation.  It  presents  such  abundant  and  mani- 
 festly intentional  points  of  contact  with  the  Gospel,  that  we 
 may  regard  it  as  a  kind  of  historical  commentary  on  it,  as  its 
 key  or  introduction,  opening  up  the  way  for  its  application  to 
 the  relations  of  the  time  when  it  Avas  written. 
 
 The  situation  presented  to  us  in  the  first  Epistle  is  as  follows. 
 The  time  stood  in  danger  of  the  "  sin  unto  death,"  of  that  sin 
 which  had  ruined  the  Jews  (comp.  the  Gospel,  ch.  xv.  22,  xvi. 
 9).  Many  false  prophets  had  gone  out  into  the  world,  ch.  iv. 
 1,  through  whom  the  world,  or  heathenism,  sought  to  penetrate 
 the  Church,  ch.  ii.  19,  v.  21 ;  and  the  Apostle  at  the  end  of  his 
 Epistle  cries  to  his  readers,  "  Little  children,  keep  yourselves 
 from  idols."  The  fundamental  error  of  these  false  prophets  was 
 the  denial  of  Christ,  ch.  ii.  18.  "Little  children,  it  is  the  last 
 time  ;  and  as  ye  have  heard  that  antichrist  shall  come,  even 
 now  are  there  many  antichrists,  whereby  we  know  that  it  is  the 
 last  time."  John  regards  this  eri'or,  so  perilously  spreading  in 
 the  Church  of  the  Gentiles,  as  the  beginning  of  the  end.  As 
 it  was  the  last  hour  of  Judaism  when  it  gave  itself  up  to  this 
 hour,  so  would  the  Church  of  the  Gentiles  make  shipwreck  on 
 the  same  rock  if  the  germ  of  this  error  were  allowed  to  develop, 
 
512  CONCLUDING  OBSERVATIONS. 
 
 and  it  obtained  the  mastery.^  Witli  the  denial  of  the  saving  truth 
 that  Jesus  is  the  Christ,  there  was  connected  another  double 
 error  :  first,  the  violation  of  brotherly  love  ;  and  secondly,  the 
 neglect  of  God's  commandments,  the  abolition  of  those  dis- 
 tinguishing marks  which  He  had  set  between  the  world  and 
 His  people.  The  three  points  are  blended  in  ch.  iii.  23,  24  : 
 "And  this  is  His  commandment,  That  we  should  believe  on  the 
 name  of  His  Son  Jesus  Christ,  and  love  one  another,  as  He 
 gave  us  commandment.  And  he  that  keepeth  His  command- 
 ments dwelleth  in  Him."  The  same  three  points  encounter 
 us  in  the  second  Epistle  of  John.  He  describes  it  there  as 
 the  great  business  required  by  the  times,  that  "  we  love  one 
 another,"  ver.  5  ;  then,  "  that  we  walk  after  His  command- 
 ments," ver.  6 ;  and  finally,  he  comes  to  the  cardinal  point, 
 ver.  7,  "  Many  deceivers  are  entered  into  the  world,  who  con- 
 fess not  that  Jesus  Christ  is  come  in  the  flesh.  This  is  a 
 deceiver  and  an  antichrist."  In  harmony  with  the  first  Epistle, 
 vers.  8—11  of  the  second  show  how  much  in  danger  the  Church 
 then  was  of  losing  Christ,  and  God  with  Christ ;  and  that  only 
 the  most  severe  and  unshrinking  opposition  could  secure  the 
 Church  from  this  greatest  of  all  dangers. 
 
 The  genesis  of  that  error,  and  the  cause  of  its  wide  extension, 
 we  may  gather  with  some  probability  from  Matt.  xiii.  20,  21. 
 There  oppression  and  persecution  on  account  of  the  world  appears 
 as  the  chief  reason  of  the  fall  of  unsettled  minds.  To  the  same 
 points  our  Lord's  word  in  Matt.  xxiv.  9-13.  There  He  repre- 
 sents it  as  a  consequence  of  the  hatred  of  the  people,  that  many 
 would  be  offended,  that  many  false  prophets  would  arise  and 
 find  entrance  into  the  Church,  and  that  the  love  of  many  would 
 wax  cold.  Historical  observation  tends  to  the  confirmation  of 
 this.  The  theology  of  compromise  is  ordinarily  a  product  of  the 
 infusion  of  the  world  in  the  Church.  Its  leading  principle  is 
 the  endeavour  to  relax  the  Church's  severity,  and  to  relieve  it 
 from  all  pressure  as  it  regards  the  ruling  power,  and  to  reconcile 
 itself  with  that  power  by  all  means.     That  this  principle  was 
 
 ^  Lampe :  He  set  all  the  legions  of  the  spirit  of  antichrist  before  their 
 eyes,  fashioned  in  various  ways,  fighting  against  the  Divine  glory  of  our 
 Saviour,  without  whom  there  was  no  salvation  to  be  expected,  some  by 
 snares,  and  some  by  open  warfare,  and  continuing  that  warfare  through  a 
 long  course  of  ages. 
 
CONCLUDING  OBSERVATIONS.  513 
 
 then  at  work,  we  may  gather  from  many  definite  hints  in  the 
 first  Epistle.  In  ch.  iii.  13  we  read,  "  Marvel  not,  my  brethren, 
 if  the  world  hate  you."  Before  this,  and  after  it,  the  Apostle 
 zealously  condemns  their  lack  of  brotherly  love.  It  is  obvious 
 that  this  lack  was  the  result  of  the  wox'ld's  hatred :  men  denied 
 their  brethren  because  they  Avere  afraid  of  suffering  persecutions 
 with  them,  and  would  avoid  encountering  with  them  all  the 
 evils  which  the  minority,  the  "  little  flock,"  would  have  to 
 endure  at  the  hands  of  the  world.  According  to  ch.  iii.  16,  it 
 was  a  time  when  it  was  needful  to  lay  down  life  for  the  brethren  ; 
 according  to  ch.  iii.  12,  a  time  when  the  remembrance  of  Cain 
 was  suggested,  who  slew  his  brother.  The  endeavour  to  pro- 
 pitiate a  persecuting  world  might  well  lead  them  to  deliver  up 
 their  brethren  to  the  world's  hatred:  compare  the  aX\7]\ov<; 
 irapaScoaovac  of  Matt.  xxiv.  10.  ^ 
 
 The  Epistles  of  John  form  a  counterpart  to  the  Epistle  \ 
 to  the  Hebrews.  As  the  latter  came  to  the  succour  of  the 
 churches  exposed  to  internal  danger  from  the  Jewish  persecu- 
 tion, so  the  Epistles  of  John  encounter  the  internal  dangers 
 which  the  influence  of  the  preponderance  of  Gentile  authority 
 introduced.  These  dangers  were  the  same  which  the  present 
 day  presents  to  view.  He  who  would  be  at  peace  with  the 
 great  world  around  him,  must  before  all  things  give  up  the  true 
 and  perfect  divinity  of  Christ;  for  that  is  the  fundamental 
 ground  of  the  enmity  which  exists  between  the  Church  and  the 
 world.  He  must  renounce  all  rigour  in  his  zeal  for  the  com- 
 mandments of  Christ,  especially  those  which  are  most  contrary 
 to  the  world,  those  which  enforce  the  crucifixion  of  the  flesh, 
 with  its  affections  and  lusts,  which  demand  absolute  self-denial, 
 and  which  maintain  the  ordinances  of  God  inviolate  against  the 
 caprice  of  subjective  inclination.  Finally,  he  must  erect  a  wall 
 of  partition  between  himself  and  the  true  confessors. 
 
 The  scope  of  the  first  Epistle  is,  in  ch.  v.  13,  described,  like 
 that  of  the  Gospel,  in  ch.  xx.  31 :  "  These  things  have  I  written 
 ■  unto  you  that  believe  on  the  name  of  the  Son  of  God ;  that  ye 
 may  know  that  ye  have  eternal  life,  and  that  ye  may  believe 
 on  the  name  of  the  Son  of  God :"  comp.  ch.  v.  5,  "  Who  is  he 
 that  overcometh  the  world,  but  he  that  believcth  that  Jesus  is 
 the  Son  of  God?"  The  accordance  between  the  Epistle  and 
 the  Gospel  is  too  plain,  the  designed  relation  of  the  former  to 
 VOL.  II.  2  K 
 
514  CONCLUDING  OBSERVATIONS. 
 
 the  latter  is  too  manifest,  to  allow  of  their  being  sundered  from 
 each  other.  Then,  if  the  Epistle  was  written  with  reference  to 
 certain  particular  relations  in  the  age,  the  same  must  hold  good 
 of  the  Gospel.  When  could  a  Gospel,  the  design  of  which 
 was  to  maintain  the  proposition  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ,  the  Son 
 of  God,  have  more  fitly  issued,  than  at  a  time  when  "  many 
 antichrists"  were  abroad,  who,  according  to  ch.  ii.  22,  23,  de- 
 nied that  Jesus  was  the  Christ  ? 
 
 In  opposition  to  all  novelties,  the  Apostle,  in  1  John  iii.  11, 
 refers  Christian  people  to  the  message  which  they  had  heard 
 from  the  beginning.  So  also  in  the  second  Epistle,  vers.  5,  6, 
 John  opposes  to  the  deceivers  the  Gospel  as  originally  received 
 by  word  of  mouth.  From  these  passages — with  which  may  be 
 connected  the  injunction  in  Rev.  ii.  25,  iii.  11,  "  That  which 
 ye  have  already,  hold  fast ; "  the  praise  of  the  Philadelphian 
 Church,  Rev.  iii.  8,  "  Thou  hast  kept  My  word ; "  and  Rev.  ii. 
 26,  "And  he  that  overcometh,  and  keepeth  My  works  unto  the 
 end,"  My  works,  which  I  have  performed,  and  I  have  com- 
 manded— there  is  only  a  step  to  the  written  Gospel,  which 
 repeated  and  fixed  the  oral  Gospel  as  a  firm  bulwark  against  all 
 the  attacks  of  the  deceivers. 
 
 The  third  Epistle  of  John,  no  less  than  the  first  and  second, 
 bears  a  polemical  character.  The  joy  of  the  Apostle  over 
 Gains,  who  walked  in  the  truth,  was  based  upon  the  fact  that 
 the  truth  was  then  greatly  endangered  by  false  teachers.  And 
 Diotrephes  is  mentioned  as  one  of  the  most  prominent  of  these 
 seducers. 
 
 But  the  Apocalypse  carries  us  further  than  the  Epistles  into 
 the  issues  and  objects  of  John's  writings.  In  the  epistle  to 
 the  Church  of  Ephesus,  ch.  ii.  2,  we  read :  "  I  know  thy  works, 
 and  thy  labour,  and  thy  patience,  and  how  thou  canst  not  bear 
 them  that  are  evil :  and  thou  hast  tried  them  which  say  they  are 
 apostles,  and  are  not,  and  hast  found  them  liars."  We  see  here 
 that  the  false  prophets  were  desirous  to  introduce  an  entirely 
 new  Christianity.  This  is  evident  from  their  having  given 
 themselves  out  to  be  apostles,  and  therefore  displacing  the  old 
 Apostles,  the  bearers  and  representatives  of  original  Christianity. 
 It  is  quite  in  harmony  with  this,  that  John,  in  the  third  Epistle, 
 says  of  Diotrephes,  "  He  receiveth  us  not,  prating  against  us 
 with  malicious  words."     This  was  one  of  the  new  apostles,  who 
 
CONCLUDING  OBSERVATIONS.  515 
 
 went  so  far,  according  to  ver.  10,  as  to  cast  out  of  the  Church 
 those  who  remained  faithful  to  the  old  apostolate.  We  are 
 provided  with  a  still  more  express  description  of  the  character  of 
 their  false  doctrine  in  Rev.  ii.  6,  13,  20,  where  the  deceivers"  of 
 that  time  are  exhibited  as  Nicolaitanes  or  Balaamites,  and  as 
 dependants  of  Jezebel.  We  learn  from  tliis  that  the  matter 
 was  one  of  "mediation  theology,"  or  a  compromise  with  the 
 world,  and  the  absorption  of  heathenism  into  the  Church  of 
 God ;  as  it  is  hinted  in  the  close  of  the  first  Epistle,  "  Little 
 children,  keep  yourselves  from  idols,"  where  the  power  that 
 endangered  Christianity  was  heathenism  clothed  in  Christian 
 disguise.  Balaam,  in  Greek  Nicolaus,  who,  according  to  Num. 
 XXV.,  compared  with  ch.  xxxi.  16,  seduced  the  Israelites,  by 
 means  of  the  Moabitish  and  Midianite  women,  to  lust  and  par- 
 ticipation in  idol  worship ;  and  Jezebel,  the  daughter  of  Ethbaal, 
 king  of  Sidon,  consort  of  Ahab,  king  of  Israel,  who,  as  a  mur- 
 derer of  the  prophets,  introduced  the  worship  of  idols  into 
 Israel, — are  the  two  Old  Testament  representatives  of  heathen 
 perversion  penetrating  the  Church  of  Christ,  who  live  again  in 
 the  false  doctrines  of  the  present  time. 
 
 But  the  Apocalypse  not  merely  presents  the  error  to  us  in 
 sharp  outlines ;  it  gives  us  also  information  as  to  its  origin,  and 
 the  reason  of  the  great  influence  which  it  exerted  over  men's 
 minds,  so  as  to  bring  the  very  existence  of  God's  Church  into 
 danger.  Concurrently  with  warnings  against  heretical  teachers, 
 there  are  in  the  apocalyptic  Epistles  exhortations  to  stedfastness 
 in  face  of  this  world's  persecutions.  It  is  obvious  that  these 
 two — persecution  and  false  doctrine — stood  in  internal  connec- 
 tion ;  that  persecution  paved  the  way  for  error,  as  being  the 
 means  of  escaping  danger ;  that  this  error  was  in  fact  a  conces- 
 sion to  the  persecuting  power  on  the  part  of  those  who  were 
 internally  vanquished, — an  attempt  to  remove  the  enmity  which 
 existed  between  the  Church  and  the  world. 
 
 In  the  epistle  to  the  Church  of  Pergamos,  the  connection 
 between  persecution  and  false  doctrine  comes  out  very  plainly. 
 There  the  angel  of  the  Church  is  first  praised,  because  he  had 
 held  fast  the  name  of  Jesus,  and  had  not  denied  His  faith,  even 
 in  the  days  when  Antipas  the  faithful  witness  was  martyred. 
 Then  he  is  blamed,  because  he  tolerated  those  who  retained  the 
 doctrine  of  Balaam.     These  were  evidently  the  men  who,  in 
 
516  CONCLUDING  OBSERVATIONS. 
 
 the  place  where  "  Satan's  throne"  was, — that  Is,  the  capital  seat 
 of  the  persecutions  of  Christians  in  Asia, — fell  internally  before 
 the  Gentile  persecutions,  sought  some  method  of  compromise 
 with  the  enemy,  some  scheme  of  mediation  by  which  they  might 
 propitiate  the  throne  of  Satan. 
 
 We  are  led  to  the  same  result  by  the  passage,  ch.  ii.  14  : 
 "  But  I  have  a  few  things  against  thee,  because  thou  hast  there 
 them  that  hold  the  doctrine  of  Balaam,  who  taught  Balak  {for 
 Balak)  to  cast  a  stumblingblock  before  the  children  of  Israel, 
 to  eat  things  sacrificed  unto  idols,  and  to  commit  fornication." 
 It  is  here  made  emphatic  that  Balaam,  in  his  seducing  arts,  had 
 Balak,  king  of  Moab,  always  in  view.  From  him  he  expected 
 his  reward,  if  his  schemes  succeeded.  Doubtless  "  in  behalf 
 of  Balak"  had  reference  to  the  relations  of  the  time  present. 
 "  The  Balaamites  in  Pergamos,"  says  Bengel,  "  also  sought  the 
 favour  of  eminent  heathen  powers."  The  Balak  of  the  present 
 was  the  Eoman  dominion,  with  which  the  false  teachers  sought 
 to  make  common  cause;  that  which  was  called  just  before  "the 
 seat  of  Satan,"  or  his  throne. 
 
 "  To  him  that  overcometh,"  we  read  in  ch.  ii.  17,  "  will  I 
 give  to  eat  of  the  hidden  manna."  Those  who  overcome  are 
 the  opposite  of  the  Balaamites,  who  yielded  to  the  pressure  of 
 heathenism,  and,  in  fear  of  the  persecuting  power,  committed 
 themselves  to  concessions. 
 
 In  ch.  ii.  26  we  read :  "  And  he  that  overcometh,  and 
 keepeth  My  works  unto  the  end,  to  him  will  I  give  power  over 
 the  nations."  He  who  "does  not,  like  the  Balaamites  of  the  day, 
 yield  himself  up  to  the  spiritual  bondage  of  the  Gentiles,  shall 
 obtain  as  his  reward  dominion  over  the  Gentiles. 
 
 In  Rev.  xi.  1,  2,  also,  we  have  evidence  that  false  doctrine 
 was  a  product  of  heathen  persecution  :  "  And  there  was  given 
 me  a  reed  like  unto  a  rod :  and  the  angel  stood,  saying.  Rise, 
 and  measure  the  temple  of  God,  and  the  altar,  and  them  that 
 ■worship  therein.  But  the  court  which  is  without  the  temple 
 leave  out,  and  measure  it  not ;  for  it  is  given  unto  the  Gentiles  : 
 and  the  holy  city  shall  they  tread  under  foot  forty  and  two 
 months."  Here  we  have  in  apocalyptic  form  a  parallel  to  Matt. 
 xxiv.  9-13.  The  temple  is  the  Church.  The  proper  temple 
 consists  of  those  who  are  thoroughly  penetrated  and  filled  with 
 the  spirit  of  the  Church ;  the  external  forecourt  consists  of  those 
 
CONCLUDING  OBSERVATIONS.  517 
 
 who  are  only  superficially  touched.  The  measuring  is  the  extent 
 of  the  preservation.  AMiere  the  measuring  ceases,  there  begins 
 the  region  of  abandonment.  That  the  forecourt  Avas  given  up  to 
 the  Gentiles,  was  related  to  their  treading  the  holy  city,  as  effect 
 is  related  to  cause.  The  world  overflowing  the  Church  caused 
 that  from  many  who  had  not  was  taken  that  which  they  had. 
 Nothing  but  a  perfect  faith  could  be  a  sure  breakwater  against 
 the  violent  waves  of  the  world.  All  who  are  without  it  must, 
 at  such  conjunctures,  like  Issachar,  Gen.  xlix.  15,  bow  their 
 shoulders  to  serve. 
 
 After  these  investigations,  we  may  then  determine  the  ques- 
 tion of  the  genesis  of  John's  authorship.  All  the  Johannean 
 writings  have  for  their  starting-point  the  overflowing  of  the 
 Church  by  the  persecuting  Gentile  world.  The  Apostle  had 
 been  told  by  the  risen  Lord,  ch.  xxi.  22,  that  he  should  tarry 
 till  He  came.  This  coming  of  the  Lord  implied  a  previous 
 coming  of  the  prince  of  this  world.  John  was  not  to  be  an  idle 
 spectator  of  this  coming,  or  of  the  Lord's  coming  to  encounter 
 him  ;  he  was  rather  to  serve  as  an  instrument  in  the  coming  of 
 Christ.  That  was  the  reason  why  he  must  remain  so  long. 
 This  mission  he  fulfilled  in  three  ways.  In  his  Gospel  he  gave 
 an  historical  foundation  to  the  faith  of  Jesus  as  the  Christ,  the 
 Son  of  God,  which  was  shaken  by  Gentile  persecution,  and 
 showed  that  the  deceivers  who  attacked  this  faith  are,  in  the 
 true  history  of  Christ,  brought  to  shame.  In  the  first  Epistle 
 he  gave  a  contemporary  commentary  to  the  rigidly  historical 
 Gospel,  and  showed  how  that  Gospel  was  to  be  applied  to  the 
 errors  of  the  present  time.  The  second  and  third  Epistles  are 
 a  kind  of  appendage  to  the  first ;  they  are  concerned  with  a 
 particular  manifestation  of  the  compromising  theology  which 
 had  been  evoked  by  heathen  persecution.  Finally,  in  the 
 Apocalypse  John  overturns  the  dread  felt  for  the  persecuting 
 heathen  world ;  shows  that  it  was  doomed  to  the  destructive 
 judgments  of  God,  while  the  Church  was  to  remain  victorious  : 
 so  that  it  was  simple  folly  to  condescend  through  fear  to  con- 
 cessions, and  true  wisdom  to  hold  faithful  to  Clu'ist  and  His 
 Church.  The  Apocalypse  shows  how  God  avenges  His  people 
 on  the  persecuting  world  ;  how  He  secures  for  His  Church  the 
 victory  over  the  Gentile  state,  and  for  her  sake  binds  Satan  a 
 thousand  years,  so  that  he  could,  no  longer  mislead  the  heathen 
 
518  CONCLUDING  OBSERVATIONS. 
 
 into  great  assaults  ;  how,  finally,  He  creates  a  new  heaven  and 
 a  new  earth,  and  brings  down  the  new  Jerusalem  from  heaven 
 to  earth. 
 
 The  Gospel  and  the  Apocalypse  concur  in  this,  that  they 
 only  take  their  point  of  departure  from  the  relations  of  the 
 present :  they  do  not  regard  those  relations  in  their  accidental 
 individual  characteristics,  but  view  the  general  in  the  par- 
 ticular, and  thus  maintain  their  full  significance  for  all  ages  of 
 the  Church.  The  Apocalypse  does  not  confine  itself  to  the  then 
 present  phase  of  the  power  of  this  world.  Of  Domitian,  the 
 author  of  the  heathen  persecution  of  the  day,  it  furnishes  no 
 trace.  It  embraces  in  its  view  the  whole  conflict  which  the 
 Church  has  to  wage  with  heathenism  and  its  invisible  head 
 down  to  the  end  of  time.  Its  theme  is,  according  to  ch.  i.  7, 
 the  whole  coming  of  Christ  in  the  clouds.  His  judicial  power  as 
 displayed  from  generation  to  generation.  Domitian  is  merged 
 in  the  whole  to  which  he  belonged,  in  the  heathen  state  hostile 
 to  God.  The  glance  of  the  seer  embraces  all  the  vast  spaces  of 
 the  history  of  the  world.  So  also  in  the  Gospel,  as  in  the  first 
 Epistle,  the  Apostle  does  not  confine  himself  to  the  fortuitous 
 form  which  an  evil  theology  of  compromise  had  assumed  in  his 
 own  time ;  he  has  not  to  do  with  the  changing  vesture  of  error, 
 but  with  its  essential  substance,  permanent  in  all  times,  ever 
 recurring  under  fleeting  forms,  as  oft  as  the  Church  is  over- 
 flowed anew  by  the  world.  Had  the  Apostle  conferred  upon 
 the  heresiarchs  of  his  time  the  undeserved  honour  of  entering 
 into  the  details  of  all  their  inventions,  then  his  Gospel  would 
 have  become  obsolete  witii  the  errors  which  it  overthrew.  The 
 Apostle  beheld  in  these  only  the  beginning  of  the  end,  and 
 that  of  itself  would  preserve  him  from  entering  into  them  too 
 minutely.  "  The  dogmatic  proportions  and  allusions  of  the 
 prologue,"  says  Liicke,  "  are  stated  very  generally,  and  the 
 opposites  are  only  indirectly  reflected  in  them."  Olshausen 
 perceived  the  fact,  but  he  deduced  from  it  an  erroneous  infer- 
 ence :  "  The  love  and  the  gentleness  of  the  Apostle  of  love  not 
 only  permitted  no  trace  of  severity  and  bitterness  to  escape,  but 
 declined  all  specific  and  direct  attack."  That  such  soft-hearted 
 love  and  gentleness  were  not  characteristic  of  this  Apostle,  may 
 be  abundantly  seen  in  the  Epistles,  as  confirmed  by  the  nar- 
 rative of  his  encounter  with  Cerinthus.     Ewald's  unsupported 
 
CONCLUDING  OBSERVATIONS.  519 
 
 opinion,  that  tlie  Apostle  "determined  that  liis  Gospel,  as  a 
 legacy  of  love,  should  not  be  made  public  until  his  death,"  is 
 upset  at  once  by  the  consideration  of  the  polemical  undertone 
 of  those  general  propositions,  as  it  is  established  by  a  comparison 
 between  the  Epistles  and  the  Gospel.  The  Gospel  itself  was 
 thrown  into  the  midst  of  the  strife  of  parties. 
 
 Baur  (uber  der  Evang.  S.  380)  remarks  in  reference  to  the 
 Gospel  and  the  Apocalypse  :  "  Here  as  there  we  find  the  deve- 
 lopment of  a  great  conflict,  in  which  the  idea  of  Christianity  is 
 realized.  There  the  conflict  is  with  antichristian  heathenism,  in 
 which  the  idea  of  Christianity  is  realized ;  here  the  conflict  is  with 
 unbelieving  Judaism,  which  Jesus  Himself  had  to  maintain." 
 This  antithesis  establishes  a  close  relation  between  the  two  writ- 
 ings. But  that  relation  is  made  closer  when  we  discern  that 
 even  in  the  Gospel  there  is  a  background.  The  victory  of  our 
 Lord  over  the  Jews  is  the  pledge  of  His  future  victory  over 
 the  heathen.  The  Apostle,  by  his  exhaustive  delineation  of 
 the  warfare  of  Christ  against  the  Jews,  which,  in  the  eyes  of 
 all  the  world,  was  ended  by  their  utter  downfall,  cries  out  to 
 heathenism,  Mutato  nomine  de  te  f alula  narratiir,  and  fills  with 
 courage  the  hearts  of  all  those  who  had  to  continue  the  war 
 with  heathenism. 
 
 The  result  at  which  we  have  arrived  by  an  examination  of 
 the  Johannean  writings  themselves,— that  the  Gospel  of  John 
 bears  a  polemical,  or,  if  it  be  preferred,  aims  at  an  apologetic 
 design,— is  confirmed  by  the  testimony  of  antiquity.  Of  special 
 importance  in  relation  to  this  is  the  declaration  of  Iren^us,  a 
 man  in  whose  character  truth  in  opposition  to  tradition  is  a 
 fundamental  trait,  whose  home  was  in  the  scene  of  St  John's 
 labours,  who  stood  in  intimate  connection  with  many  eminent 
 men  who  had  known  the  Apostle  himself,  and  who  in  all  his 
 assertions  concerning  the  Johannean  writings  shows  himself  to 
 be  always  trustworthy  (compare,  for  the  confirmation  of  his 
 remarks  upon  the  date  of  the  Apocalypse,  the  introduction  of 
 my  commentary  on  that  book). 
 
 He  says,  iii.  11,  that  John  wrote  his  Gospel  to  root  out  the 
 error  which  had  been  propagated  by  Cerinthus,  and  before  him 
 by  the  Nicolaitanes  :  «  Announcing  this  faith,  John,  the  dis- 
 ciple of  our  Lord,  desired  by  the  publication  of  his  Gospel  to 
 abolish  that  error  which  Cerinthus  had  sown  arnono-  men,  and 
 
520  CONCLUDING  OBSERVATIONS. 
 
 long  previously  those  who  are  called  Nicolaitanes,  a  fragment 
 of  falsely  called  science,"  or  Gnosticism. 
 
 Coincident  with  this  statement  is  the  well-known  narrative 
 of  Irenaeus,  iii.  3  (comp.  Eusebius,  iii.  28,  iv.  21),  touching  the 
 encounter  of  John  and  Cerinthus  in  the  bath,  and  John's  pre- 
 cipitate departure  with  the  words,  "  Let  us  flee,  lest  the  bath 
 fall  in,  Cerinthus,  the  enemy  of  truth,  being  in  it."  Irenaeus 
 refers  this  story  back  to  those  who  heard  it  from  Poly  carp,  who 
 had  known  John  himself.  If  we  doubt  the  literal  truth  of  the 
 account,  we  cannot  deny  that  it  so  far  historically  holds,  that 
 John  stood  in  decided  opposition  to  Cerinthus,  as  the  great 
 enemy  of  the  truth  in  his  time. 
 
 Irenaeus  thus  describes  the  error  of  Cerinthus,  i.  26  :  "A 
 certain  Cerinthus,  in  Asia,  taught  that  the  world  was  not  made 
 by  the  Supreme  God,  but  by  some  power  very  distinct  from  that 
 which  is  over  all  things,  and  ignorant  of  the  God  who  is  above 
 all.  He  said  that  Jesus  was  not  born  of  the  Virgin  (that  seemed 
 to  him  impossible),  but  that  He  was  the  son  of  Joseph  and  Maiy 
 after  the  manner  of  other  men,  and  was  pre-eminent  among 
 men  for  justice  and  prudence  and  wisdom ;  that  after  His 
 baptism  Christ  descended  upon  Him,  from  that  sphere  which  is 
 over  all  things,  in  the  figure  of  a  dove ;  that  He  then  announced 
 His  unknown  Father,  and  wrought  miracles ;  but  that  Christ 
 departed  again  from  Jesus  in  the  end,  and  Jesus  died  and  rose 
 again,  Christ  remaining  impassible  as  a  spiritual  existence." 
 The  lost  Greek  text  of  this  passage  in  Irenaeus  may  mainly  be 
 recovered  from  Theodoret  (Hasret.  Fab.  ii.  3),  who  drew  from 
 his  sources.  Cerinthus,  according  to  this  account,  denied  the 
 proposition  which  John  in  his  Gospel  and  Epistles  laid  down 
 with  such  decision,  "  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God." 
 He  denied  the  perfect  incarnation  of  God  in  Christ,  which  is 
 the  essential  pillar  of  Christianity,  and  thus  gave  occasion  to 
 the  theme,  "  The  Word  was  made  flesh."  He  placed  Clu'ist 
 and  Jesus  in  a  very  loose  connection,  which  was  only  the  pre- 
 lude to  the  entire  dissolution  of  the  relation  between  the  two, 
 and  from  which  there  was  only  one  ?tep  to  the  assertion  that 
 Jesus  was  a  mere  man.  Before  the  baptism,  and  from  the 
 beginning  of  the  passion  onwards,  Jesus  was  without  Christ ; 
 even  from  the  baptism  to  the  passion  there  was  no  real  union 
 between  them,  only  a  loose  connection,  merely  a  stronger  form 
 
CONCLUDING  OBSERVATIONS  521 
 
 of  that  which  is  the  privilege  of  other  pious  men.  Thus  was 
 the  stone  of  stumbHng  set  aside  ;  the  offence  was  removed 
 which  the  wisdom  of  this  world  found  in  the  perfect  incarnation 
 of  God,  and  the  bridge  was  formed  between  the  Church  and 
 the  world.  The  difference  between  Jesus  and  Socrates  was  no 
 longer  essential,  but  only  one  of  degree.  The  miraculous  birth 
 of  Jesus,  this  offence  to  the  natural  reason,  was  done  away  with. 
 Men  might  now  say  many  beautiful  things  about  Jesus,  without 
 Avounding  the  Gentile  consciousness,  whose  motto  was,  "  Live 
 and  let  live,"  and  was  hard  only  upon  exclusiveness.  He  still 
 remained  in  reality  on  the  same  level  with  those  great  ones 
 whom  the  heathen  marvelled  at  and  reverenced ;  on  the  same 
 level  with  those  also  Avho  could  not  tolerate  that  a  son  of  man 
 should  be  placed  absolutely  above  them,  and  arrogate  to  him- 
 self Divine  honour  and  unconditional  obedience,  with  the  denial 
 and  suppression  of  all  the  dearest  passions  of  their  soul. 
 
 As  it  respects  the  doctrine  of  Cerinthus,  we  must  confine 
 ourselves  to  Irengeus.  Later  authorities,  especially  the  untrust- 
 Avorthy  Epiphanius,  have  made  him  into  a  thorough  scarecrow. 
 According  to  Epiphanius,  he  declared  the  Jewish  law  to  be 
 good,  and  the  observance  of  it  necessary.  Then  there  was  attri- 
 buted to  him  a  coarse  millenarianism,  which  certainly  must 
 have  sprung  from  Jewish  sources.  These  representations  are 
 not  consistent  with  the  doctrine  of  Cerinthus  as  exhibited  by 
 Irengeus.  According  to  the  latter,  he  taught  that  the  world  was 
 not  made  by  the  Supreme  God,  but  by  a  power  subordinate  to 
 Him,  who  knew  Him  not.  (Theodoret :  "  He  taught  that  there 
 was  one  God  of  all  things,  but  that  He  was  not  the  framer  of 
 the  world,  which  was  made  by  certain  powers  widely  sundered 
 from  Him,  and  knowing  Him  not.")  All  Jewish-Christian 
 tendencies  are  shut  out  by  this.  The  judgments  of  the  Gnostics 
 upon  the  Demiurge  were,  according  to  Baur  (Gnosis,  S.  28),  so 
 many  judgments  upon  the  internal  worth  of  Judaism,  and  its 
 religious  laws  and  institutions.  "  The  Christian  religion,"  he 
 says  elsewhere,  "  was  represented  by  Christ ;  the  Jewish  by  the 
 Demiurge."  "  The  Demiurge  was  declared  by  the  Gnostics 
 generally  to  be  the  God  of  the  Jews."  Assuredly  there  are 
 men  of  confusion,  who  unite  things  the  most  irreconcilable  ; 
 but  they  are  not  dangerous,  and  not  worthy  of  study  or  refuta- 
 tion.    The  earnest  consideration  wliich  John  vouchsafed  to 
 
522  CONCLUDING  OBSERVATIONS. 
 
 Cerintlius  presupposes  that   he  y\as  a    thoroughly  dangerous 
 enemy  of  the  truth, — a  man  Avho  might  be  regarded  as  the 
 actual  representative  of  heathenism  pressing  into  the  Christian 
 Church.     Theodoret  also  exhibits  Cerinthus  as  a  pure  philo- 
 sopher.    He  says  :  "  This  man  having  lived  a  long  time  in 
 Egypt,  and  having  studied  the  philosophers,  afterwards  came 
 into  Asia."     The  later  disfiguration  of  the  historical  character 
 of  Cerinthus  may  be  traced  to  two  reasons  :  first  to  the  fact, 
 that  Irengeus,  in  the  passage,  i.  36,  which  lies  at  the  foundation 
 of  all  the  later  accounts  of  Cerinthus,  immediately  after  men- 
 tioning him,  speaks  of  the  Ebionites.     The  reason  he  does  so 
 is,  that  both  taught  falsely  concerning  the  Lord's  person  :  con- 
 similiter^  ut  Cerinthus  et   Carpocrates   opinantur.      But  the 
 connection  was  pushed  further,  and  it  was  thought  that  the 
 other  Jewish-Christian  errors  were  also  common  to  Cerinthus 
 with  the  Ebionites,  that  what  was  said  of  the  Ebionites  held 
 good  of  Cerinthus  also :    "  They  persevere  in  those  customs 
 which  are  according  to  the  law,  and  in  the  Jewish  mode  of  life." 
 A  second  occasion  of  the  mistake  was  furnished  by  a  passage  of 
 Caius,  communicated  in  Eusebius,  iii.  29.     Caius  justified  his 
 deep  disinclination  to  the  Apocalypse,  which  he  did  not  under- 
 stand, by  denying  the  authorship  of  John,  and  attributing  it  to 
 Cerinthus ;  and  this  latter  for  no  other  reason,  than  because 
 Cerinthus  bore  a  particularly  hateful  name  as  a  heretic,  and  was 
 specifically  opposed  to  the  Apostle.    He  says  of  Cerinthus,  that 
 he  sought  to  make  his  name  imposing  by  supposititious  revela- 
 tions, written  by  him  as  by  a  great  Apostle,  and  which  angels 
 had  been  sent  to  teach  him.     This  passage  was  rightly  under- 
 stood by  Dionysius  of  Alexandria  (Eusebius,  iii.  28,  vii.  25). 
 He  said  that  Caius  pointed  to  the  Apocalypse  of  John.    Others, 
 however,  referred  it,  in  its  designedly  ambiguous  wording,  to  a 
 writing  of  Cerinthus  distinct  from  the  Apocalypse ;  and  thus 
 arose  the   notion   about  Cerinthus'  millenarianism, — a  notion 
 altogether  untenable,  from  the  very  fact  that  the  doctrine  of  a 
 thousand  years'  reign  never  occurs  apart  from  the  Apocalypse, 
 from  which  Cerinthus  could  not  yet  have  drawn  it.     Massuet 
 
 ^  So  must  we  read,  instead  of  non  similiter.  This  is  evident  from  the 
 connection,  and  from  the  passage  referred  to  in  Theodoret.  There  we  read 
 of  Cerinthus:  "  Tdv  'Introiv  Is  ro7s  'Efipxtois  ■Trot.pxT^^.naiag  'i<p/)(n  x.xr» 
 (pvatv  g|  duhpog  yiysvu^adxi  x.cci  yvvxiKO;.^^ 
 
CONCLUDING  OBSERVATIONS.  523 
 
 (in  his  Dissertationes  praevioe  in  Irenoeum,  pp.  64,  65)  was  in 
 the  right  track  with  regard  to  the  later  misrepresentations  of 
 the  historical  character  of  Cerinthus.  But  he  did  not  pursue 
 the  track  to  the  end  :  even  he  held  that  Cerinthus  was,  "  if  not 
 by  nation,  at  least  by  religion,  a  Jew."  Baur  (Gnosis,  S.  404) 
 has,  altogether  lost  the  clue.  He  follows  Epiphanius,  but 
 withoiit  applying  criticism  where  it  is  wanted. 
 
 The  doctrine  of  Cerinthus  concerning  the  Demiurge,  and 
 his  doctrine  concerning  Christ,  stand  in  strict  internal  connec- 
 tion. By  the  former,  the  Old  Testament,  with  its  hateful  Jews 
 presenting  so  many  stumblingblocks  to  the  cultivated  heathen, 
 was  set  aside ;  by  the  latter,  the  God-man  was  abolished,  who 
 so  deeply  abased  heathenism,  and  laid  claim-  to  such  absolute 
 subjection  and  devotion  at  their  hands. 
 
 The  later  authorities,  however,  agree  with  Irenaeus  in  exhi- 
 biting it  as  a  settled  fact,  that  the  Gospel  of  John  had  a  polemic 
 aim.  Jerome,  for  example,  says  in  the  Prooem.  in  Matt. : 
 "  John,  when  he  was  in  Asia,  and  already  the  seed  of  the 
 heretics  began  to  germinate,  was  constrained  by  almost  all  the 
 bishops  of  Asia,  and  deputations  of  many  churches,  to  write 
 profoundly  concerning  the  divinity  of  the  Saviour." 
 
 From  the  investigation  of  the  design  of  the  Gospel,  we  now 
 turn  to  the  relation  it  bears  to  the  first  Gospels,  as  their  com- 
 plement. 
 
 It  has  been  shown  in  the  Commentary,  that  John  every- 
 where assumes  the  existence  of  the  first  Gospels,  and  especially 
 connects  his  Gospel  with  that  of  Luke  ;  that  his  relation  to  his 
 predecessor,  however,  is  not  that  of  a  corrector,  but  of  a  corro- 
 borating witness  and  supplementer ;  that  his  design  is  always 
 and  most  manifestly  to  make  his  Gospel  with  the  former  one 
 whole.  He  who  will  ponder  the  multiplied  evidences  which  we 
 have  adduced  in  support  of  this  point  during  the  course  of  the 
 Commentary,  Avill  hardly  fail  to  yield  assent. 
 
 The  result  arrived  at  by  an  investigation  of  details  is  con- 
 firmed by  a  view  of  the  Gospel  as  a  whole.  His  entire  cha- 
 racter shows  that  it  was  designed  to  serve  only  as  a  topstone ; 
 and  that  it  was  constructed  on  the  assumption  that  the  others 
 were  already  in  being.  Weizsacker  (in  his  work  on  the 
 Characteristics  of  John's  Gospel)  makes  here  some  pertinent 
 
524  CONCLUDING  OBSERVATIONS. 
 
 remarks :  "  We  must  put  the  question  to  ourselves,  what  we 
 should  have  if  the  Gospel  of  John  were  our  only  source  of  the 
 life  of  Christ.  We  should  possess  in  it  a  sublime  sketch ;  but 
 it  would  be  without  a  clear  and  definite  view.  We  should  have 
 information  as  to  the  great  deeds  of  Jesus,  but  no  notion  of  His 
 usual  and  common  course  of  life  and  action.  We  should  have 
 the  most  profound  declarations  of  His  nature  and  mission ;  but, 
 strictly  speaking,  no  examples  how  He  approved  that  mission 
 in  the  teaching.  The  many  individual  statements  could  not 
 hinder  our  having  only  a  very  dim  apprehension  of  the  whole. — 
 As  John  passes  over  the  whole  Galilean  life  of  Jesus  with  few 
 excej)tions,  he  gives  us  no  luminous  picture  of  our  Lord's  ordi- 
 nary commerce  with  men ;  we  do  not  see  how  He,  in  particular 
 matters,  influenced  their  moral  life,  how  He  led  His  disciples 
 into  the  way  of  faith,  and  the  discipline  of  religion,  and  the 
 exercises  of  prayer.  We  lack  here,  so  to  speak,  the  wealth  of 
 the  common  real  life  in  the  Gospel. — Thus  the  Johannean  pic- 
 ture is  of  itself  almost  ideal  and  cloudy ;  it  is  like  a  centre  with- 
 ,out  a  plainly  defined  circumference ;  a  manifestation  of  great 
 sublimity,  but  without  clear  concomitants ;  the  exhibition  of  an 
 internal  nature,  but  without  those  confirmatory  traits  that  should 
 proceed  from  it.  Hence  Jesus  ever  speaks  with  the  deepest 
 pathos,  and  His  manifestation  lacks  that  character  of  natural- 
 ness which  that  of  the  Synoptists  displays.  On  this  account 
 the  Johannean  picture  demands  such  a  complement  as  those 
 other  Evangelists  supply." 
 
 In  this  Gospel  we  find  Jesus,  as  we  find  Him  in  the  first 
 three,  surrounded  by  multitudes :  ch.  vi.  2,  22,  xii.  12.  How 
 did  He  attract  these  crowds  ?  What  did  He  say  to  attract  them 
 into  the  way  of  salvation  ?  In  the  Gospel  of  John  we  find  no 
 traces  of  a  popular  style  of  speaking.  This  fact  of  itself  throws 
 us  back  upon  the  first  three  records. 
 
 But  as  John  refers  back  to  his  predecessors,  so  also  they 
 seem  to  have  written  in  the  expectation  of  a  future  supplement. 
 Why  do  they  confine  themselves  so  almost  entirely  to  Galilee  ? 
 Why  do  they  abstain,  until  the  Lord's, last  journey,  from  touch- 
 ing upon  events  of  great  importance  in  the  metropolis,  wdiich, 
 according  to  their  own  statements,  He  must  have  often  visited? 
 comp.  e.g.  Luke  xiii.  34.  AVhy  do  they  omit  those  momentous 
 discourses  which  were  connected  with  the  feeding  of  the  five 
 
CONCLUDING  OBSERVATIONS.  525 
 
 thousand  ?  Why  do  they  say  nothing  of  the  resurrection  of 
 Lazarus  ? 
 
 The  following  observations  will  serve  to  place  in  its  true 
 light  the  relation  of  John's  Gospel  to  those  of  his  predecessors. 
 
 Our  Lord  expi-essly  assigned  it  to  His  Apostles  as  their 
 vocation  to  bear  witness  of  what  they  had  heard  and  seen  in 
 their  intercourse  with  Himself:  ch.  xv.  27,  "And  ye  also  shall 
 bear  witness,  because  ye  have  been  with  Me  from  the  begin- 
 ning :"  comp.  Luke  xxiv.  48  ;  Acts  v.  32.  And  He  had  declared 
 this  testimony  to  be  a  power  for  the  conversion  of  the  unbe- 
 lieving world.  The  functions  of  this  vocation  they  discharged 
 at  first  by  oral  announcement.  And  this  was  in  the  case  of 
 John  all  the  more  important,  as  the  sphere  of  his  labour  was 
 first  Jerusalem  and  afterwards  Ephesus,  each  a  centre  of  the 
 Christian  Church.  Pliny  (Hist.  Nat.  v.  29)  terms  Ephesus 
 Ivmen  Asice ;  Strabo,  i/xTropcov  fxeyiarov  twv  Kara  Trjv  ^Acrlav 
 rrjv  ivro^  rov  ravpov;  Seneca,  Ep.  102,  compares  Ephesus,  for 
 extent  of  space  and  multitude  of  inhabitants,  with  Alexandria ; 
 and  a  coin  of  the  time  of  Vespasian  bears  the  inscription, 
 E(f)eaca)v  irptcrccv  Acna';} 
 
 In  the  nature  of  the  case,  John's  Gospel  was  published  from 
 the  time  of  the  resurrection  and  ascension,  and  known  as  far  as 
 the  Christian  Church  extended.^ 
 
 Doubtless  the  Apostle  had  from  the  beginning,  and  apart 
 from  any  polemical  or  contemporaneous  requirements,  purposed 
 to  commit  his  Gospel  to  writing;  and  the  whole  Christian 
 world  must  have  looked  for  it.  The  importance  of  writing  was 
 firmly  established  by  the  Old  Testament ;  and  the  Apostle  had 
 grown  up  in  the  experience  of  its  salutary  influence.  What 
 gave  its  stability  to  the  Old  Testament,  could  not  be  wanting  to 
 the  New.  It  was  obvious  that  oral  proclamation  would  be  valid 
 only  so  long  as  the  "  witnesses  of  the  word  "  were  alive ;  and  that 
 
 ^  Lampe,  p.  50  :  Ephesus,  as  the  meti'opolis  of  Asia  Minor,  was  a  noble 
 emporium,  -well  adapted  by  situation  for  commerce,  being  on  the  coast  of 
 Asia,  and  in  the  heart  of  the  Mediterranean  Sea,  central  to  the  three  regions 
 of  the  habitable  globe,  Asia,  Africa,  and  Europe ;  whence  passage  was  easy 
 into  Syria  and  Egypt,  and  so  into  Greece  and  Latium. 
 
 -  Eusebius,  Hist.  Eccl.  iii.  25,  appealing  to  tradition,  mentions  the  oral 
 Gospel  of  John  :  "  It  is  said  that  John  the  whole  time  made  use  of  an  un- 
 written Gospel  in  his  preaching ;  but  that  at  the  last  he  committed  it  to 
 writing." 
 
526  CONCLUDING  OBSERVATIONS. 
 
 the  Christian  Church  would  be  in  the  greatest  danger  if  these 
 "  eye-witnesses "  did  not,  before  their  departure,  take  care  to 
 secui'e  their  testimony  in  writing.  John  had  been  called  at  the 
 very  outset  of  the  Lord's  ministry ;  he  had  been  His  inseparable 
 attendant ;  he  had  been  one  of  three  elect  Apostles ;  he  was 
 the  only  witness  for  many  isolated  occurrences,  such  as  the 
 examinations  before  Annas,  Caiaphas,  Pilate ;  and  he  could  with 
 special  truth  and  meaning  say  what  we  find  him  saying  in  1  John 
 i.  2.  But  what  is  more  than  this,  the  Apostle  knew  well  that 
 he,  with  his  }>rofound  knowledge  of  the  heart  of  Jesus,  had 
 received  a  special  commission  for  some  portions  of  the  evan- 
 gelical history,  especially  for  a  certain  class  of  the  longer 
 discourses  of  our  Lord.  This  specific  vocation  was  so  fully 
 acknowledged  in  the  Church,  that  neither  of  his  predecessors 
 ventured  to  occupy  this  region,  all  expecting  his  future  supple- 
 ment. This  held  good  especially  of  the  discourses  delivered  in 
 Jerusalem.  In  the  centre  of  Jewish  culture,  at  the  same  time 
 the  chief  seat  of  Pharisaic  opposition,  Jesus  had  taken  occasion 
 to  enter  into  the  profoundest  discussions,  to  reproduce  which 
 in  their  connection  John  alone,  in  the  apostolic  centre,  was 
 adapted.  Even  Peter,  the  first  of  the  Apostles,  must  recede  in 
 this  province.  That  his  gift  extended  not  to  this,  is  evident 
 from  the  fact  of  a  Gospel  having  been  written  by  Mark  under 
 his  influence.  But  the  discourses  delivered  at  Capernaum  after 
 the  feeding  of  the  multitude,  and  preserved  by  John,  show  that, 
 in  the  Galilean  work  of  Jesus,  there  were  departments  which 
 none  of  the  first  Gospels  ventured  to  occupy,  but  which  were 
 regarded  as  the  reserved  province  of  John.  That  the  unfit- 
 ness of  the  others  referred  not  merely  to  the  discourses,  but 
 that  there  were  also  works  of  our  Lord  which  they  abstained 
 from  recording  in  deference  to  John's  claims,  we  see  in  the 
 narrative  of  the  resurrection  of  Lazarus,  which  is  peculiar  to 
 John,  and  would  wear  a  strange  aspect  in  any  of  the  others. 
 John  would  have  been  unfaithful  to  his  vocation  if  he  had  not 
 always  contemplated  the  .final  committal  of  his  Gospel  to  writ- 
 ing. But  as  to  the  accomplishment  of  this  design  he  was  not 
 in  haste.  The  oral  communication  which  filled  up  a  large 
 sphere  was,  to  his  nature,  altogether  given  up  to  the  person 
 of  Jesus,  the  most  engaging  part  of  his  duty;  and  this  oral 
 communication  would  have  been  much  interfered  with,  or  dis- 
 
CONCLUDING  OBSERVATIONS.  527 
 
 paraged,  if  the  Gospel  had  first  been  written  and  circulated. 
 He  had  not  to  fear  being  surprised  by  death.  The  Lord  had 
 assured  him  of  continuance  until  a  certain  definite  term.  He 
 awaited  a  Divine  call,  which  would  appear  in  the  shaping  of 
 circumstances.  This  call  came  in  the  time  of  the  first  great 
 heathen  persecution,  in  which  the  words  of  our  Lord,  in  ch. 
 xxi.  22,  had  assigned  him  an  important  work  to  do.  The 
 preparation  of  the  Gospel  was  one  of  the  means  by  which  he 
 executed  that  mission.  To  delay  longer  after  that  would  have 
 been  impossible,  inasmuch  as  the  same  word  of  Christ  had  inti- 
 mated to  him  that  not  long  after  this  catastrophe  the  Apostle's 
 own  departure  would  take  place. 
 
 The  written  Gospel  coincided  in  substance  with  the  un- 
 written, since  in  both  the  Apostle  declared  what  he  had  heard 
 and  seen  with  his  eyes,  1  John  i.  1.  In  his  Epistles,  John 
 makes  it  very  prominent,  that  in  his  contest  with  the  deceivers 
 of  the  time  he  brought  nothing  forward  that  they  had  not 
 heard  "  from  the  beginning,"  1  John  ii.  7 ;  2  John  5,  6.  Yet 
 there  would  be  found  differences  not  unimportant  between  the 
 written  and  the  oral  Gospel.  These  were  occasioned  first  by 
 the  presence  of  the  first  three  Gospels,  which  John  did  not 
 desire  to  render  superfluous,  but  only  to  supplement ;  the  first 
 of  them  having  been  written  by  a  fellow-Apostle,  and  the  two 
 others  with  the  co-operation  of  two  fellow- Apostles,  Peter  and 
 Paul.  Probably  these  Gospels  themselves  had  already  exerted 
 considerable  influence  before  his  own  oral  communications.  Then 
 a  regard  to  the  perils  of  the  Church  led  to  a  certain  difference 
 between  the  written  and  the  oral.  John  would  complement 
 the  first  Gospels ;  but  with  this  predominant  object,  and  under 
 this  particular  aspect,  that  he  must  communicate  all  that  which 
 would  serve,  besides  their  contribution  to  the  same  object,  to 
 demonstrate  that  Jesus  was  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God.  Un- 
 doubtedly John's  eye  had  been  fixed  upon  this  even  in  his  oral 
 communications.  But,  in  view  of  the  troubled  circumstances 
 of  the  time,  he  would  strike  a  bolder  chord ;  the  rather  as  he 
 discerned  the  end  in  this  beginning,  and  foresaw  that  the  stone 
 of  stumbling  on  which  Judaism  was  ruined  would  one  day 
 prove  ruinous  to  the  Gentile  Church  also.  In  order  to  this,  the 
 discourses  delivered  by  Christ  in  Jerusalem,  which  the  other 
 Evangelists  passed  over,   offered  abundant  material.     It  was 
 
528  CONCLUDING  OBSERVATIONS. 
 
 natural  that  in  the  metropolis,  the  seat  of  antichristian  Phari- 
 saism, opposition  to  Jesus  and  His  claims  was  systematized; 
 that  this  opposition  would  concern  itself  mainly  with  tlie  claims 
 of  Jesus  to  be  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  making  this  its 
 cardinal  point ;  and  that  Jesus,  in  His  defence  against  this 
 attack,  would  thoroughly  and  clearly  lay  down  the  evidences  of 
 His  Divine  mission.  But  we  should  exaggerate  if  we  were  to 
 refer  all  that  the  Gospel  contains  to  one  design,  the  demonstra- 
 tion that  Jesus  was  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God.  This  must  be 
 regarded  only  as  the  main  scope.  It  would  have  been  unnatural 
 if  John,  the  eye-witness,  had  not  communicated,  out  of  mere 
 joy  in  the  history,  and  pleasure  in  the  remembrances  which 
 made  up  the  fibre  of  his  life,  much  that  stood  in  no  direct 
 relation  to  that  leading  scope.  The  very  exactitude  with  which 
 he  treats  the  chronology  of  Christ's  life,  shows  that,  by  the  side 
 of  his  polemical  or  apologetical  aim,  he  pursued  one  generally 
 historical.  To  the  same  result  we  are  led  by  a  number  of  other 
 individual  historical  traits.  The  passion-history,  in  particular, 
 cannot  be  understood  if  we  fix  our  attention  too  rigidly  upon 
 the  Apostle's  design  to  demonstrate  that  Jesus  was  Christ,  the 
 Son  of  God. 
 
 John  could  not  appropriately  write  until  other  exhibitions 
 of  the  evangelical  history  had  given  him  a  foundation  on  which 
 to  rest  his  own.  The  first  Gospels  are  the  necessary  preliminary 
 to  his ;  as  the  Apostle  himself  acknowledges,  in  that  he  always 
 adjoins  his  narrative  to  theirs,  and  passes  over  all  that  they  had 
 exhaustively  recorded.  The  vocation  and  gift  of  the  Apostle 
 were  directed  only  to  one  aspect  of  the  manifestation  and  work 
 of  Christ.  The  popular  aspect,  so  important  and  indispensable 
 to  the  Church,  had  been  represented  by  others,  who  had  the 
 gift  for  it  in  a  larger  measure  than  he. 
 
 The  results  thus  obtained  are  supported  by  the  testimonies 
 of  antiquity. 
 
 Eusebius  (Hist.  Ecc.  iii.  24),  expressly  appeahng  to  tradi- 
 tion, records  that  John  acknowledged  the  writings  of  the  first 
 three  Evangelists  which  he  had  received,  and  bore  witness  to 
 their  truth  (aX^jOeLuv  avTot<;  eTniiaprvprjaavra)  ;  but  that  he 
 completed  the  first  three  Gospels,  having  described  the  first 
 beginnings  of  Christ's  preaching  omitted  by  them;  that  he 
 passed  by  the  human  genealogy  of  Christ,  as  having  been 
 
CONCLUDING  OBSERVATIONS.  529 
 
 already  recorded  by  Matthew  and  Luke,  but  made  his  own 
 commencement  witli  the  Divine  nature  of  Christ,  to  present 
 which  clearly  had  been  reserved  by  the  Holy  Spirit  as  his  pre- 
 rogative (t^9  Se  66o\.oyui<i  airdp^aaOai,  ct)9  av  avTut  irpo^  tov 
 deiov  TTvevfiaro';  ola  Kpelrrovt  irapaTrecpvXa'yfxevT]';).  John's 
 aim  to  supplement  is  too  much  circumscribed  here,  when  it 
 is  referred  only  to  the  beginnings  of  Christ's  teaching.  But 
 Eusebius  may  have  intended  this  only  as  a  specimen  ;  just  as, 
 when  he  refers  to  John's  design  to  set  Christ's  divinity  in  a 
 steady  light,  he  adduces  only  the  prologue,  to  which,  however, 
 he  certainly  would  not  limit  the  Apostle's  design. 
 
 Clemens  Alexandrinus  has  this  second  point  exclusively  in 
 view,  when  he  says  (Eusebius,  vi.  14)  that  "  John,  seeing  that 
 things  earthly  had  been  fully  set  forth  in  the  Gospels,  passed 
 by  what  was  already  known,  and,  inspired  by  the  Spirit,  com- 
 posed a  spiritual  Gospel."  A  spiritual  Gospel,  that  is,  in  which 
 the  attention  is  mainly  directed  to  the  Spirit  indwelling  in 
 Christ,  His  Divine  nature  :  compare  on  ch.  vi.  63. 
 
 These  witnesses  are  followed  by  later  ones,  whom  we  may 
 now  pass  over. 
 
 "  These  four  Gospels,"  says  Credner  (Gesch.  der  neutest. 
 Kanon,  S.  87),  "came  at  length  to  be  regarded  as  together  the 
 perfect  and  sealed  witness  and  voucher  of  the  Gospel,  as  to 
 evaryyiXiov  itself ;  so  that  each  one  of  them  contained  an  indivi- 
 dual view,  not  exhaustive,  but  apostolically  accredited,  of  the 
 Gospel  (to  eva^'yiXiov  KaTo) :  the  Gospel,  which  in  itself  was  one, 
 is  presented  in  a  fourfold  form,  according  to  the  presentation  of 
 Matthew,  etc. — It  was  from  the  beginning  firmly  held  that  the 
 four  Gospels  were  to  be  regarded  as  one  whole.  Irenseus  says, 
 iii.  11,  8:  T€TpdfjLop(f)ov  to  eva/y<ye\iov  kvl  re  irvevfiaTi  avve'^6- 
 fievov. — Eusebius  (vi.  25)  declares  the  acceptance  of  only  four 
 Gospels  to  be  a  fundamental  law  of  the  Catholic  Church  ; 
 recording  of  Origen,  that  he,  '  guarding  the  ecclesiastical  canon, 
 knew  only  the  four  Gospels.'  xVccordingly  he  terms  our  four 
 canonical  Gospels  ttjv  dylav  TOiv  eva'yyekicov  TeTpa/cTvv. — 
 Clemens  Alexandrinus  rejects  a  saying  of  Christ,  which  Julius 
 Africanus  had  adduced  from  the  Gospel  of  the  Egyptians,  with 
 the  remark,  '  In  the  four  Gospels  handed  down  to  us  there  is 
 no  such  word.'"  The  unanimity  of  the  early  Church  in  its 
 view  of  the  four  Gospels,  which  Credner  establishes  by  a  series 
 VOL.  II.  2  L 
 
530  CONCLUDING  OBSERVATIONS. 
 
 of  other  testimonies,  must  have  had  its  ground  in  this,  that 
 John  closed  the  canon  of  the  Gospels,  In  the  time  of  Luke  it 
 was  otherwise.  According  to  his  ch.  i.  2,  there  were  many- 
 Gospels  in  the  Church.  All  doubt,  all  uncertainty,  all  capri- 
 cious choice,  was  utterly  shut  out  by  the  authority  of  the  last 
 of  the  Apostles,  the  disciple  whom  Jesus  loved. 
 
 But  we  must  not  limit  ourselves  to  this  conclusion.  John 
 is,  by  the  old  ecclesiastical  writers,  described  as  the  Apostle 
 "  from  whom  the  collection  of  our  four  canonical  Gospels  pro- 
 ceeded, in  such  manner  that  his  own  Gospel,  the  last,  and 
 therefore  placed  at  the  end,  should  serve  as  the  complement 
 and  seal  of  the  rest.  This  view  soon  rose  into  ecclesiastical 
 supremacy;  as  Eusebius  (Hist.  Ecc.  iii.  21),  Jerome  (Catalog. 
 ix.),  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia,  and  many  others  prove"  (Credner). 
 
 For  ivhat  readers  did  John  design  his  Gospel?  That  he 
 wrote  for  Christians,  is  plain  from  the  general  analogy  of  the 
 books  of  the  New  Testament,  which  have  collectively  an  inward 
 reference  to  the  Church.  It  was  the  province  of  the  oral  preach- 
 ina;  to  secure  its  first  entrance  to  those  who  were  not  Christians. 
 Luke,  in  his  dedication  to  Theophilus,  ch.  i.  4,  defines  the  scope 
 of  his  Gospel,  "  that  thou  mayest  know  the  certainty  of  the 
 things  wherein  thou  hast  been  instructed."  In  John's  prologue, 
 the  ideaadfxeda,  "  we  beheld,"  ch.  i.  14,  combining  the  writer 
 and  readers  in  one,  intimates  that  the  book  was  written  for  the 
 Christian  world,  which  had  either  directly  or  indirectly  (comp. 
 1  John  i.  3)  beheld  the  glory  of  the  Lord.  So  also  "  of  His 
 fulness  have  all  we  received,"  ch.  i.  16.  If  we  discern  the 
 internal  connection  between  the  narrative  of  Thomas  and  ch. 
 XX.  30,  31,  we  shall  come  to  the  conclusion  that  those  there 
 addressed  are  such  as,  like  Thomas,  stood  in  a  lower  degree  of 
 faith.  To  them  the  Apostle  furnishes  in  his  Gospel  weapons 
 against  doubt,  for  their  furtherance  in  the  faith.  "We  know," 
 also,  in  ch.  xxi.  20,  embracing  in  one  the  Apostle  and  his  readers, 
 suggests  that  the  latter  belonged  to  the  Christian  fellowship, 
 and  that  the  Apostle  writes  for  the  "  brethren,"  ver.  23.  This 
 term  the  Apostle  could  apply  to  Christians,  only  if  he  were 
 writing  to  Christians.  It  is  an  appellation  that  belongs  to  the 
 inner  circle.  That  the  whole  Gospel  bears  an  esoteric  character, 
 that  those  without  could  not  understand  it,  that  to  them  it  was 
 
CONCLUDING  OBSERVATIONS.  531 
 
 a  sealed  book,  needs  no  proof.  Many  have  thought  that  the 
 Gospel  was  intended  specifically  for  the  "  Johannean  Church  in 
 Asia."  That  there  was  a  circle  of  Johannean  churches,  and  that 
 the  personal  labour  of  the  Apostle  was  not  limited  to  Ephesus, 
 is  evident  from  the  seven  epistles  in  the  Apocalypse,  the  second 
 and  tliird  Epistles  of  John,  and  the  current  of  ecclesiastical 
 tradition.  Clemens  Alexandrinus  (Euseb.  iii.  24)  testifies  to 
 John's  official  activity  in  all  the  district  round  Ephesus,  and  says 
 that  he  travelled  round  it,  instituted  bishops,  raised  churches, 
 and  introduced  into  the  ministry  men  marked  out  to  him  by 
 the  Holy  Ghost.  It  is  obvious,  in  the  nature  of  things,  that 
 John,  in  the  preparation  of  his  Gospel,  had  this  circle  primarily 
 in  view ;  the  rather  as  the  epistles  in  the  Apocalypse,  and  his 
 own  second  and  third  Epistles,  show  that  this  district  was 
 especially  beset  by  the  false  teachers  and  false  doctrine  that  he 
 stedfastly  opposed.  But  it  would  be  altogether  wrong  to  limit 
 the  design  of  the  Gospel  to  this  region.  In  sti'ict  truth,  the 
 personal  work  of  John  was  itself  not  restricted  to  this  circle. 
 He  was  not  a  bishop,  he  was  an  Apostle.  Had  his  physical 
 strength  permitted,  he  would  have  occupied  the  same  position 
 throughout  the  world  which  he  assumed  in  the  churches  round 
 Ephesus.  No  such  limitations  were  thrown  I'ound  the  written 
 Gospel.  It  bears  in  itself  no  trace  of  restriction  to  any  one 
 region  in  particular.  The  "we  all,"  ch.  i.  16,  decidedly  opposes 
 such  an  idea.  The  book  was  meant  for  the  whole  Christian 
 world.  This  is  plain  from  its  being  an  adjunct  of  the  first  three 
 Gospels,  and  from  its  aim  to  be  their  complement,  forming  with 
 them  one  whole.  The  universal  design  of  the  Gospel  concurs 
 with  the  universal  character  of  the  Church  :  comp.  "  I  will 
 draw  all  men  unto  Me,"  ch.  xii.  32,  x.  16.  The  Apostle,  whose 
 mission  was  to  the  whole  world.  Matt,  xxviii.  19,  John  xvii.  18, 
 would  have  denied  his  own  characteristic  if  he  had  not  from  the 
 first  intended  a  document  of  such  importance  for  the  universal 
 Church. 
 
 At  icliat'time  did  John  compose  Ids  Gospel? 
 
 Doubtless  it  was  written  after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem. 
 It  is  true  that  the  reasons  adduced  by  Ev/ald  and  others — 
 "  When  the  Gospel  was  written,  Jerusalem  was  destroyed,  as 
 we  may  see  in  the  description  of  localities,  ch.  xi.  18,  xviii.  1, 
 
532  CONCLUDING  OBSERVATIONS. 
 
 xix.  41" — are  not  of  any  weight.      These  passages  do  not  estab-  ' 
 
 lish  the  affirmative,  any  more  than  eh.  v.  2  the  negative.  The 
 use  of  rjv,  "  was/'  may  be  explained  in  all  those  places  by  the 
 fact  that  the  Evangelist  and  his  readers  were  interested  only  in  , 
 what  existed  at  that  earlier  time,  whether  still  continuing  or  not  I 
 being  in  itself  matter  of  indifference.  But  in  all  three  cases 
 local  relations  are  pointed  to,  which  could  have  been  little  if  at 
 all  affected  by  the  destruction  of  the  city.  Bethany  exists  to 
 the  present  day,  so  also  the  garden  of  Gethsemane. — But  there 
 are  other  adequate  reasons  for  our  conclusion  that  the  Gospel 
 was  written  after  the  fall  of  Jerusalem. 
 
 According  to  the  testimonies  of  history,  the  Apostle  as  such 
 had  his  proper  abode  only  in  two  places :  first  in  Jerusalem, 
 and  then  in  Ephesus.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  his  Gospel 
 was  written,  not  in  Jerusalem,  but  in  Ephesus  :  for  the  Apostle 
 beholds  everything  Jewish  as  from  a  distance ;  and  we  every- 
 where see  that  he  lived  amidst  a  predominantly  Gentile  popu- 
 lation, for  whom  he  explains  that  which  was  Jewish :  ch.  ii.  6, 
 iv.  9,  vii.  2,  xi.  18,  55.  But  if  it  was  composed  in  Ephesus, 
 it  must  have  been  after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem ;  for  the 
 Apostle,  of  whom  a  pious  feeling  towards  all  existing  relations 
 was  characteristic,  would  not  certainly  have  left  the  sphere 
 of  his  first  work  until  facts  themselves  had  so  interpreted  to 
 him  the  Divine  will.  According  to  Gal.  ii.  9,  John  held 
 himself  bound  primarily  to  the  circumcision.  The  limit  of  that 
 obligation  the  Lord  Himself  had  prescribed  to  him,  in  Luke  xxi. 
 20,  21.  When  Jerusalem  was  surrounded  by  armies,  flight 
 was  not  only  permitted,  but  enjoined  ;  for  tlien  its  condition 
 was  hopeless.  During  the  whole  period  of  Paul's  labours  in 
 Asia,  we  find  no  trace  there  of  John.  Acts  xxi.  18,  "And  the 
 day  following  Paul  went  in  with  us  unto  James ;  and  all  the 
 elders  were  present,"  cannot  prove  that  John  was  then  no  longer 
 in  Jerusalem ;  for  the  Apostles  themselves  were  included  among 
 the  elders.  John  so  terms  himself,  2  John  1 ;  3  John  1.  James 
 soon  afterwards  died  by  martyrdom.  Of  the  three  pillars,  in 
 Gal.  ii.  9,  John  alone  remained.  It  is  not  probable  that  he 
 would  have  abandoned  the  important  post  assigned  him  by  God, 
 before  the  last  hour  of  Jerusalem  was  come.  The  character  of 
 John's  phraseology  and  composition  points  also  to  a  long  abode 
 in  Palestine.     It  is  entirely  Hebraistic  in  its  colouring.    Ewald 
 
CONCLUDING  OBSERVATIONS.  533 
 
 rightly  remarks :  "  In  its  true  spirit  and  tone,  no  language  can 
 be  more  thoroughly  Hebraistic  than  that  of  our  author."  This 
 goes  so  far  as  the  frequent  use  of  Hebi'ew  words ;  but  it  shows 
 itself  especially  in  the  great  simplicity  of  the  construction  of  his 
 propositions. 
 
 Its  composition  after  the  fall  of  Jerusalem  is  attested  also 
 by  the  care  with  which  many  sayings  of  our  Lord  referring 
 to  that  catastrophe  are  introduced.  Remembering  the  apolo- 
 getic scope  of  the  work,  this  is  to  be  explained  on  the  ground 
 that  these  utterances  had  been  confirmed  by  their  accomplish- 
 ment, and  thus  helped  to  establish  the  great  conclusion,  that 
 Jesus  was  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God. 
 
 There  are,  however,  many  other  facts  which  lead  to  the 
 inference  that  the  Gospel  was  composed  in  the  extreme  age  of 
 the  Apostle. 
 
 It  must  have  been  written  after  the  first  Epistle  of  Peter; 
 for  ch.  xxi.  9  refers  back  to  1  Pet.  iv.  16.  The  same  passage 
 establishes,  that  when  it  was  written,  Peter  had  already  suffered 
 death  on  the  cross.  What  death  Peter  should  die,  was  certainly 
 involved  in  the  words  of  Christ ;  but  without  the  commentary 
 afforded  by  the  event,  it  would  have  been  hard  to  detect  it  with 
 certainty.  The  prophecy  was  to  have  light  shed  upon  it  by  the 
 fulfilment.  A  similar  remark  is  made  by  the  Apostle  in  ch. 
 xii.  33,  xviii.  32,  with  reference  to  the  sayings  of  Christ  point- 
 ing to  His  own  death.  There  also  history  has  already  come  to 
 his  aid. 
 
 The  Gospel  Avas  constructed  at  a  time  when  the  division 
 between  Christianity  and  Judaism  was  already  perfectly  accom- 
 plished, comp.  on  ch.  i.  19 ;  at  the  same  period  in  which  the 
 Apocalypse  moves,  which,  in  ch.  ii.  9  and  iii.  9,  describes 
 Judaism  as  the  "  synagogue  of  Satan." 
 
 The  relation  to  the  first  three  Gospels  shows  that  these,  at 
 the  time  of  its  composition,  were  extant,  and  in  common  use 
 among  Christians. 
 
 That  the  Gospel  cannot  be  sundered  from  the  Apocalypse 
 by  a  long  interval,  is  shown  by  references  to  the  latter  in  ch. 
 xvi.  13  and  xxi.  22,  this  last  all  the  more  notew'orthy  as  stand- 
 ing at  the  close  of  the  Gospel,  and,  as  it  were,  forming  a  kind 
 of  transition  from  this  to  the  Apocalypse. 
 
 The   appearance  of   Cerinthus,  whose   errors    the   Gospel 
 
534  CONCLUDING  OBSERVATIONS. 
 
 opposes,  Theodoret  (Hseret.  Fab.  ii.  3)  places  in  the  time  of 
 Domitian. 
 
 Tlie  entire  works  of  John  bear  a  unique  character,  and  have 
 one  end.  They  were  designed  to  withstand  the  ruinous  effects  of 
 the  Gentile  world's  incursions  on  the  Church.  The  Apocalypse 
 treats,  in  reference  to  the  heathen,  and  specially  the  Koman 
 dominion,  the  theme,  "  Be  of  good  courage,  I  have  overcome 
 the  world."  It  describes,  for  the  inspiriting  of  dejected  souls, 
 Christ's  victory  over  heathenism.  The  Epistles  and  the  Gospel 
 confront  the  relaxing  influences  which  the  heathen  admixture 
 had  exerted  upon  the  doctrine  and  life  of  Christians, — upon  the 
 former  directly  and  the  latter  indirectly, — by  bringing  forward 
 the  historical  demonstration  of  the  faith,  which  these  heretics 
 gainsaid,  that  Jesus  was  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God.  But  the 
 heathen  oppression,  which  the  Gospel,  and  also  John's  writings, 
 assume  as  present,  did  not  come  upon  the  Church  until  the  time 
 of  Domitian.  How  wide-spread  and  how  severe  was  his  perse- 
 cution, we  have  established  at  length  in  the  Introduction  to  the 
 Commentary  on  the  Apocalypse.  The  only  earlier  persecution, 
 based  upon  public  authority,  that  of  Nero,  bore  only  a  local 
 character,  and  did  not  extend  over  Asia ;  it  had,  moreover,  only 
 a  brief  duration. 
 
 The  Gospel  of  John  is  distinguished  from  those  of  the  former 
 Evangelis'ts  by  its  pre-eminently  systematic  character ;  as  also 
 by  its  more  artificial  arrangement.  It  consists  of  prologue  and 
 epilogue,  and  the  main  body  divided  into  seven  groups.  These 
 groups,  again,  are  divided  into  four  and  three :  at  the  end  of 
 the  four  there  is  the  boundary  of  a  final  word ;  as  also  at  the 
 end  of  the  three,  ch.  xx.  30,  31,  a  conclusion  which  separates 
 the  main  body  from  the  epilogue.  At  the  close  of  the  epilogue 
 there  is  an  identification  of  the  author,  with  the  intimation 
 that  the  book  lays  no  claim  to  perfect  completeness.  Concur- 
 rent with  this  systematic  character  and  artificial  arrangement, 
 there  are  the  precision  and  exactitude  in  historical  statements 
 which  betray  an  author  who  is  everywhere  set  on  preparing 
 his  work  for  critical  eyes.  So  also  the  accurate  chronology 
 carried  throughout  the  whole,  by  means  of  which  we  are  able  to 
 regulate  the  chronological  relations  of  the  historical  matter  con- 
 tained in  the  first  three  Gospels.  These  peculiarities  of  the 
 Gospel  refer  its  composition  to  a  late  period,  in  which  Chris- 
 
CONCLUDING  OBSERVATIONS.  535 
 
 tian  doctrine  had  to  encounter  the  doubts  of  tliose  who  had 
 been  cultivated  in  the  school  of  Greek  science.  The  rich  genius 
 of  the  Apostle  had,  in  its  intercourse  and  conflict  with  these,  had 
 opportunity  to  develop  itself.  The  contest  with  the  Gnostics, 
 who  ever  had  deep  things  on  their  lips,  promising  to  lead  all 
 into  the  depths  (comp.  Rev.  ii.  24),  had,  as  it  were,  armed  his 
 spirit,  and  prepared  him,  in  contrast  with  their  false  depth,  to 
 disclose  the  true  deep  things  of  the  Church,  now  more  sus- 
 ceptible to  those  revelations  than  at  an  earlier  period.  His 
 glowing  love  to  Christ  filled  him,  the  only  Apostle  left  alive, 
 the  only  bulwark  against  the  great  temptation  and  peril  of 
 the  time,  with  an  urgent  impulse  to  meet  to  the  utmost  all  its 
 exigencies.  The  Gospel  and  the  Apocalypse  show  that  the 
 Apostle,  at  the  time  of  their  composition,  Avas  no  longer,  as 
 formerly,  in  the  sphere  of  the  "  unlearned  and  ignorant  men," 
 Acts  iv.  13.  They  are,  even  in  their  human  aspect,  perfect 
 works  of  art.     Every  word  in  them  is  in  its  place. 
 
 With  the  results  which  we  have  independently  gained,  tra- 
 dition here  also  entirely  accords.  According  to  IrenjEus,  ch. 
 iii.  1,  the  Gospel  of  John  was  issued  during  his  residence  in 
 .  Ephesus  ("  John,  the  Lord's  disciple,  who  lay  in  His  bosom, 
 sent  forth  himself  a  Gospel,  living  at  the  time  at  Ephesus,  in 
 Asia"),  which  extended,  according  to  xi.  22,  down  to  the  time 
 of  Trajan.  Jerome  and  others  repeat  this  statement.  Later 
 writers,  who  represent  the  Gospel  as  written  in  Patmos,  never- 
 theless ao-ree  with  Irenasus  that  it  was  the  production  of  the 
 Apostle's  late  age.  According  to  the  Chronicon  Alexandrinum 
 (p.  246),  John  came  to  Ephesus  at  the  commencement  of  the 
 reif^n  of  Vespasian,  and  composed  there  his  Gospel,  during  the 
 closino-  years  of  his  life.  Epiphanius  states  that  he  wrote  it 
 when  he  Avas  more  than  ninety  years  old,  and  therefore  in  the 
 reign  of  Domitian,  Haer.  li.  12 :  eVt  rfj  yrjpakea  avrov  rfkiKia, 
 [xera  err]  iuev7]K0VTa  t%  kavrov  ^o)^?. 
 
 We  are  led  to  the  assumption  of  a  comparatively  late  period 
 for  the  authorship  of  the  Gospel  by  the  order  of  the  Gospels, 
 and  the  fact  that  John  takes  the  last  place  among  them. 
 Credner  says :  "  Simultaneously  with  the  reception  of  the  four 
 Gospels,  as  containing  together  the  entire  Gospel,  the  order  of 
 these  Gospels  also  has  been  very  firmly  established  from  the 
 beo-innino-;  and  that  order  is  the  one  we  now  have."     "  In  the 
 
536  CONCLUDING  OBSERVATIONS. 
 
 oldest  list  we  have  (Muratori),  and  in  the  Epistle  to  Diognetus 
 (ch.  xi.  12),  the  last  place  is  assigned  to  John's  Gospel." 
 
 We  shall  not  enter  into  any  discussion  of  the  genuineness  of 
 the  Gospel.  Multiplied  evidences  of  an  external  character, 
 however  strong  and  sufficient,  have  but  little  attraction,  as  the 
 matter  is  at  once  decided  by  the  testimony  of  Eusebius,  who,  in 
 Hist.  Ecc.  iii.  25,  terms  the  Gospel  one  of  the  "  writings  not 
 controverted"  of  the  Apostle,  and  describes  it  as  accepted  by 
 all  the  churches  under  heaven.^  But  internal  reasons  have 
 been  exhibited  during  the  progress  of  the  commentary,  which, 
 for  all  who  can  and  will  see,  are  abundantly  convincing.  May 
 all  others  cease  their  laborious  frivolity!  Rev.  xxii.  11.  We 
 shall,  however,  enter  at  some  length  into  the  question,  whether 
 John  has  communicated  the  discourses  of  Christ  in  the  form  in 
 which  they  were  delivered,  or  whether  he  has  dealt  with  them 
 after  a  freer  fashion.  We  maintain  the  former ;  yet  with  the 
 unessential  and  self-evident  limitation,  that  the  verbal  coinci- 
 dence extended  only  so  far  as  that  the  word  is  faithful  to  the 
 thought.  That  we  cannot  go  further,  is  shown  by  all  scriptural 
 analogies,  and  by  the  citations  of  God's  word  which  John  him- 
 self gives.  Absolute  literalness  is  excluded  at  once  by  the  fact 
 that  our  Lord  spoke  in  Aramaean. 
 
 The  arguments  alleged  against  John's  fidelity  in  the  repro- 
 duction of  Christ's  discourses  have  no  force. 
 
 It  has  been  urged  that  His  discourses  bear  a  quite  different 
 character  in  the  first  three  Evangelists.  But  the  difference  is 
 really  not  so  absolute.  It  has  been  shown  in  the  commentary, 
 that  there  are  everywhere  the  finest  points  of  union  between 
 John's  record  and  theirs.  But,  so  far  as  the  difference  is  real, 
 and  may  be  established,  its  reason  is  plain,  viz.  that  our  Lord 
 had  two  manners  of  teaching :  that  the  second  or  more  pro- 
 found was  adopted  specially  in  Jerusalem,  the  capital  of  Jewish 
 culture  and  science ;  and  tliat  John  from  the  beginning  had  this 
 vocation,  to  provide  for  the  conservation  of  this  kind  of  our 
 Lord's  discourses.  It  was  essential  to  the  Redeemer's  character 
 that  He  should  be  able  to  pay  its  tribute  to  every  kind  of  cul- 
 ture, and  to  change  His  voice  according  to  the  dispositions  and 
 tendencies  of  His  hearers.     This  was  known  to  His  "  brethren," 
 
 ^  Those  who  desire  to  enter  more  fully  into  this  question  would  do  well 
 to  consult  the  little  work  of  Schneider,  Die  ^cluheit  der  Joh.  Evang. 
 
CONCLUDING  OBSEliVATIONS.  537 
 
 who,  in  ch.  vii,  4,  address  to  Him  the  cliallenge,  "If  Tliou  doest 
 these  things,  show  Thyself  to  the  world."  He  was  to  come  out 
 of  the  Galilean  corner,  and  approve  His  mission  in  the  presence 
 of  intellect  and  science.  Moreover,  there  are  not  wanting 
 traces,  even  in  the  first  three  Evangelists,  of  a  profounder  style 
 of  teaching,  such  as  was  needful  for  the  disciples  in  order  to 
 exercise  their  spiritual  senses :  comp.  for  example.  Matt.  xi. 
 27-30,  xxi.  21 ;  Luke  x.  41,  42  ;  even  as  in  John's  Gospel  we 
 meet  with  the  popular  style  of  teaching  occasionally,  when  cir- 
 cumstances rendered  it  desirable :  comp.  for  example,  ch.  iv. 
 48-50,  xviii.  23. 
 
 An  argument  has  also  been  based  upon  the  similarity  be- 
 tween our  Lord's  discourses  in  John  and  John's  own  Epistles. 
 But  the  disciple  whom  Jesus  loved  had,  in  a  sense  in  which  no 
 other  had,  eaten  the  flesh  of  Jesus,  and  drunk  His  blood.  He 
 had  become  entirely  fashioned  and  moulded  into  Christ,  and 
 how  could  he  have  done  otherwise  than  employ  the  Lord's  style 
 of  speaking  ?  Of  the  two  kinds  of  discourse  adopted  by  Christ, 
 John's  appropriation  would  be  limited  to  that  one  which  was 
 most  in  unison  with  his  own  nature,  and  which  found  most 
 response  in  his  own  spirit,  with  its  affinities  for  deep  things ;  so 
 that  the  assumption  of  such  an  assimilation  cannot  tend  to  the 
 disparagement  of  the  former  Evangelists'  fidelity  in  tlieir  repro- 
 duction of  our  Lord's  discourses. — But  there  is  another  reason 
 for  the  harmony  between  the  Gospel  discourses  and  the  Epistles. 
 Those  Epistles,  especially  the  first,  stand  in  close  connection 
 with  the  Gospel.  They  run  parallel  with  it  as  a  kind  of  com- 
 mentary. They  place  the  Gospel  in  the  light  of  the  contem- 
 porary age.  And  if  they  were  to  fulfil  this  function,  they  must 
 needs  as  closely  as  possible  adapt  themselves  in  their  expression 
 to  the  discourses  recorded  in  the  Gospel.  Literal  contact  with 
 the  phraseology  of  tliose  discourses  of  Christ  served  the  purpose 
 of  direct  reference.  Especially  in  regard  to  the  three  main 
 points,  around  which  the  warfare  of  the  time  revolved — faith 
 in  Christ,  the  keeping  of  His  commandments,  and  brotherly 
 love — we  clearly  perceive  an  endeavour  as  closely  as  possible 
 to  adhere  to  Christ's  words  in  the  Gospel,  in  order  to  facilitate 
 their  application  to  the  evils  of  the  present  time.  But  we  also 
 find  certain  peculiarities  in  the  phraseology  of  the  Epistles,  of 
 which  the  Gospels  furnish  no  parallel.     We  long  ago  pointed 
 
CONCLUDING  OBSERVATIONS. 
 
 out  that  the  Logos,  which  we  meet  in  the  first  Epistle,  as  also 
 in  the  prologue  of  the  Gospel  and  the  Apocalypse,  never  occurs 
 in  the  Lord's  discourses,  although  they  contain  the  express 
 doctrine  which  found  its  expression  in  this  word.  But  it  is  not 
 less  remarkable  that  there  is  such  a  difference  in  the  use  of  the 
 words  light  and  darkness.  In  the  Gospel  discourses  of  our 
 Lord,  the  word  light,  after  the  precedent  of  the  Old  Testament, 
 means  salvation  (comp.  on  ch.  i.  4),  while  darkness  describes  an 
 unsaved  state.  But  in  the  first  Epistle  light  designates  that 
 which  is  morally  good ;  darkness  that  which  is  morally  evil,  ch. 
 i.  5,  6,  ii.  9,  11.  This  phraseology  was  first  fashioned  in  oppo- 
 sition to  the  Gnostics,  who  had  the  word  light  for  ever  in  their 
 mouths;  who  fancied  that  in  the  "light"  of  their  intellectual 
 contemplation  they  possessed  access  to  God,  whom  they  loved 
 to  designate  as  Light,  in  the  sense  of  the  supreme  Intellect. 
 John  sets  against  their  light  of  error  the  true  liglit.  The  word 
 light  is  everywhere  in  the  first  Epistle  to  be  understood,  so  to 
 speak,  within  quotation  marks.  This  is  specially  evident  in  ch. 
 ii.  9 :  "  He  that  saith  he  is  in  the  light,"  ev  t&>  ^wrt  elvai. 
 Similarly  as  the  light  in  these  passages,  the  ambitious  gnosis  of 
 the  Gnostics  is  parodied  by  John  in  1  John  ii.  3  :  koX  ev  rovrut 
 yLvaxTKo/xev  on  iyvooKafiev.  This  polemical  use  of  light  and 
 darkness  is  unknown  to  the  Gospel ;  and  its  exposition  has  been 
 much  damaged  by  a  neglect  of  this  distinction. 
 
 Stress  has  been  laid  on  the  impossibility  that  such  long  dis- 
 courses could  have  been  reproduced.  But  length  has  nothing 
 to  do  with  the  matter.  Between  the  discourses  of  Jesus,  and 
 the  Gospel  as  compiled  and  written,  there  lies  the  oral  Gospel. 
 The  question,  therefore,  can  only  be,  whether  John  was  capable 
 of  making  the  discourses  of  Jesus  his  own.  In  favour  of  his 
 ability,  and  his  actual  retention  of  the  entire  discourses,  we 
 need  only  appeal  to  the  high  degree  of  John's  receptivity,  the 
 aid  of  other  Apostles,  to  whom  he  might  have  recourse  at  need, 
 the  assistance  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  promised  by  the  Lord's  words, 
 ch.  xiv.  26, — with  which  we  may  find  some  slight  analogy  in 
 the  fact,  that  believers  often  find,  and  especially  in  times  of 
 sorrow,  long  forgotten  utterances  of  holy  writ  recurring  with 
 marvellous  clearness  to  the  soul.  But  that  John  was  in  a  posi- 
 tion faithfully  to  reproduce  the  Lord's  discourses,  follows  simply 
 from  the  circumstance  of  his  having  undertaken  to  communi- 
 
CONCLUDING  OBSERVATIONS.  539 
 
 cate  them.  The  Apostle  who,  beyond  all  others,  lays  stress 
 upon  truth,  whose  whole  nature  breathed  truth,  who  held  all 
 lies  in  such  abomination,  and  excluded  whosoever  loveth  and 
 maketh  a  lie  from  the  new  Jerusalem,  1  John  ii.  21,  27,  Rev. 
 xxi.  27,  xxii.  15,  could  not  possibly  have  put  into  our  Lord's 
 lips  imaginary  and  invented  words.  Let  it  not  be  urged  that 
 such  freely  I'eported  discourses  would  belong  to  Christ,  inas- 
 much as  the  Apostle  had  the  Spirit  of  Christ.  For  the  Apostle 
 does  not  give  us  discourses  which  might  in  some  certain  sense 
 be  attributed  to  Christ :  he  gives  us  discourses  which  the  Son 
 of  man,  in  the  days  of  His  flesh,  delivered ;  and  with  these  to 
 introduce  any  admixture  of  his  own  would  have  been  deception, 
 even  though  his  own  had  sprung  from  the  suggestion  of  the 
 Spirit  of  Christ.  It  could  not,  however,  in  that  case  have  pro- 
 ceeded from  the  Spirit  of  Christ,  for  that  Spirit  could  never 
 minister  to  deception.  Nor  should  reference  be  made  to  the 
 speeches  of  antiquity  interwoven  with  the  narratives  of  classical 
 historians  ;  for  here  we  have  to  do  with  the  "  words  of  eternal 
 life,"  not  with  such  as  were  designed  for  the  entertainment  of 
 the  reader,  or  were,  in  a  lower  domain,  for  his  instruction.  The 
 Apostle,  whose  reverence  towards  Christ  was  supreme,  who  so 
 constantly  presents  the  discourses  of  Christ  as  His  own  sole  pre- 
 rogative and  as  evidences  of  His  eternal  divinity,  would  surely 
 have  counted  it  blasphemy  to  have  put  these  or  any  discourses 
 into  His  mouth.  Throughout  the  entire  Scriptures  generally 
 there  is  no  room  for  the  analogy  of  classical  authors.  There  is 
 something  in  them  too  solemn  and  too  true. 
 
 Finally,  it  has  been  already  shown  in  the  Commentary,  that 
 the  arguments  which  have  been  adduced  in  favour  of  John's 
 freer  treatment,  from  ch.  iii.  16  seq.  and  ch.  xii.  41,  have 
 absolutely  no  force. 
 
 For  his  entire  fidelity  in  the  communication  of  our  Lord's 
 discourses,  we  may  bring  forward,  among  others,  the  following 
 reasons. 
 
 The  Evangelist  represents  himself  to  be  conscious  of  his 
 own  truthfulness  in  this  matter.  According  to  ch.  xxi.  24,  his 
 Gospel,  as  a  whole,  was  a  testimony ;  he  I'ecords  only  that  which 
 he  had  heard  and  seen,  for  that  is  the  simple  province  of  a 
 witness.  He  gives  there  the  express  assurance  that  his  Avitness 
 was  true;  and  therefore  that  he  recorded  nothing  which  he  had 
 
540  CONCLUDING  OBSERVATIONS. 
 
 not  seen  and  heard.  He  communicates,  in  cli.  xv.  27,  a  saying 
 of  Christ  that  assigns  to  His  Apostles  the  task  of  testifying 
 concerning  Him,  "  because  ye  have  been  with  Me  from  the 
 beginning," — a  reason  which  would  have  force  only  on  the  sup- 
 position that  the  Lord  meant  historical  fidelity  to  be  observed 
 in  the  communication  of  what  they  had  seen  and  heard.  He 
 opposes  himself,  in  the  first  Epistle,  to  the  phantasts  of  his  time, 
 as  one  who  declared  only  what  he  had  heard  and  seen  with  his 
 eyes.  How  could  he  have  said  this,  if,  in  the  record  of  our 
 Lord's  discourses,  he  had  himself  strayed  into  the  region  of 
 imagination  ? 
 
 In  ch.  xiv.  26  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit  is  said  to  be  the 
 bringino;  to  their  remembrance  all  that  Christ  had  said.  This 
 shows  what  importance  the  Lord  attached  to  the  true  and  un- 
 adulterated delivery  of  His  own  words. 
 
 In  ch.  XV.  3  our  Lord  says,  "  Now  ye  are  clean  through  the 
 word  which  I  have  spoken  unto  you."  The  word  of  Jesus,  to 
 which  John  owed  his  sanctification,  he  certainly  would  not 
 have  dishonoured  by  any  additions  of  his  own. 
 
 In  ch.  XV.  7  Jesus  declares,  "  If  ye  abide  in  Me,  and  My 
 words  abide  in  you,  ye  shall  ask  what  ye  will."  There  the 
 faithful  maintenance  of  the  words  of  Jesus  is  represented  as  the 
 condition  of  a  state  of  grace.  Those  words  were  a  power  ruling 
 the  Apostles,  to  which  they  must  entirely  and  unconditionally 
 be  in  subjection. 
 
 The  most  rigid  criticism  has  failed  to  detect  a  single  word 
 which  Jesus  might  not  have  spoken,  and  in  which  the  later 
 relations  of  John  are  reflected.  That  would  have  been  in- 
 evitable, if  the  discourses  of  Christ  had  not  been  faithfully 
 reproduced. 
 
 Evidence  may  further  be  found  in  the  multitude  of  points 
 of  contact  between  the  discourses  in  John  and  the  discourses 
 in  the  three  Evangelists,  as  these  have  been  indicated  in  the 
 Commentary. 
 
 John's  exactitude  in  the  specification  of  time,  place,  and 
 occasion  of  the  individual  discourses,  is  a  guarantee  of  a  similar 
 exactitude  in  the  communication  of  the  discourses  themselves. 
 Compare,  for  example,  ch.  viii.  20  :  "  These  things  He  spake  in 
 the  treasury ;"  vii.  37,  "  in  the  last  and  great  day  of  the  feast ;" 
 vi.  1  seq.,  where  the  historical  basis  of  the  discourse  on  the 
 
CONCLUDING  OBSERVATIONS.  511 
 
 eating  of  His  flesh  and  blood  is  given  with  great  care ;  ch.  x. 
 22-24.  To  the  same  result  we  are  led  by  the  rigidly  historical 
 bearing  of  the  whole  Gospel,  as  it  is  exemplified,  for  instance, 
 in  the  description  of  characters.  The  woman  of  Samaria,  the 
 man  born  blind,  Mary,  Martha,  Pilate, — what  life-like  forms 
 are  these  ! 
 
 John  is  so  exact  in  the  record  of  the  discourses  of  others, 
 that  he  often  even  retains  the  Hebrew  word,  and  adds,  for  the 
 benefit  of  his  readers,  the  Greek  translation,  ch.  i.  39,  42,  iv.  25, 
 XX.  16, — evidence  that  to  his  historical  fidelity  the  translation 
 into  Greek  was  itself  a  matter  of  solicitude. 
 
 The  historical  truth  of  our  Lord's  discourses  appears  in  the 
 effects  which  were  connected  with  them  :  e.g.  in  ch.  x.  19-21, 
 31-33,  where  the  Jews  would  stone  Christ  because  He  arrogated 
 to  Himself  divinity,  ch.  viii.  59. 
 
 John's  faithfulness  in  the  reproduction  is  attested  also  by 
 ch.  xxi.  23,  where,  over  against  a  misinterpretation  of  one  of 
 our  Lord's  words,  he  simply  sets  the  word  itself,  without  addition 
 and  without  explanation  ;  by  the  illustrations  which  he  adjoins 
 to  hard  and  mysterious  words,  ch.  xii.  33,  vii.  39,  xxi.  19  ;  by 
 the  intimations  he  gives  when  certain  words  were  unintelligible 
 to  the  disciples,  ch.  ii.  21,  22,  xvi.  17,  18,  comp.  ver.  29, 
 which  show  that  these  words  had  for  the  Apostles  an  objective 
 character  (in  ch.  xi.  11-13,  we  first  have  a  word  of  Jesus; 
 then  it  is  recorded  that  the  disciples  misunderstood  it ;  then  the 
 Apostle  corrects  the  misapprehension)  ;  by  the  expressions  of 
 the  hearers,  evoked  by  Christ's  words,  e.g.  in  ch.  iii.  8,  vi.  28, 
 34,  60,  viii.  13,  33,  xiv.  5,  22,  xvi.  29,  30,  which  John  must 
 also  have  invented,  if  the  sayings  of  our  Lord  were  not  re- 
 produced as  He  uttered  them  ;  finally,  by  the  references  to  the 
 word  of  Christ  ch.  ii.  19,  which  is  found  in  Matt.  xxvi.  61, 
 Mark  xiv.  58,  and  to  the  word  of  ch.  xxi.  18  in  2  Pet.  i.  14, 
 1  Pet.  V.  1.  The  charge  brought  against  Christ  before  the 
 Council,  that  He  had  arrogated  to  Himself  a  divine  iSonshij), 
 points  back  pre-eminently  to  the  discourses  of  our  Lord  in 
 John's  Gospel. 
 
 The  author  closes  this  work  with  devout  thankfulness  to 
 Almighty  God,  whose  strength  has  been  made  perfect  in  his 
 weakness,  and  who  has  enabled  him  to  finish  his  task  under  the 
 pressure  of  a  heavy  cross.     To  His  name  be  the  glory  ! 
 
MUKUAV  AND  GIBB,  PRISTEES,  EDINBURGH. 
 
WlovU  ^uUi^\)cii  bv  Z.  &  E.  Clarfe,  eninbursTj. 
 
 lu  demy  8vo,  price  10s.  Cd., 
 
 THE    EARLY   SCOTTISH    CHURCH: 
 
 THE  ECCLESIASTICAL  HISTORY  OF  SCOTLAND  FROM  THE  FIRST  TO 
 THE  MIDDLE  OF  THE  TWELFTH  CENTURY. 
 
 BY     THOMAS     M'LAUCHLAN,     LL.D.,    F.S.A.S. 
 
 '  The  author  has  given  it  an  air  of  thoroughness  and  originality,  which  will  justify  its 
 claim  to  a  permanent  place  in  literature.  We  do  not  now  undertake  to  analyse  the  work, 
 but  we  are  able  to  bear  witness  to  its  genuine  character.'— Jo^w/ia^  of  Sacred  Literature. 
 
 '  To  those  who  delight  to  trace  in  the  distant  past,  the  germs  of  the  present,  "  The 
 Early  Scottish  Church"  will  afford  gratification  and  instruction.'— 7?ea(/er. 
 
 '  We  regard  the  work  before  us'as  the  most  important  contribution  which  has  been 
 made  for  many  years  towards  the  illustration  of  Early  Scottish  Church  History.'— Z7»ii^e(/ 
 Presbyterian  Magazine. 
 
 'An   able,  honest   work,  conscientiously  executed,    after  extensive  reading,  with   a 
 thorough  knowledge  of  the  ancient  language  and  history  of  Scotland.'— /wwrwess  Courier. 
 'A  work  marked  by  sound  judgment,  great  candour,  and  extensive  reading.'— iVoricwi- 
 jormist. 
 
 In  Two  Volumes,  demy  8vo,  price  21s., 
 
 A    HISTORY   OF   CHRISTIAN    DOCTRINE. 
 
 BY    WILLIAM     G.    SHEDD,    D.D., 
 
 PROFESSOR  OF  THEOLOGY,  UNION  COLLEGE,  NEW  YORK. 
 
 '  The  high  reputation  of  Dr  Shedd  will  be  increased  by  this  remarkable  work.  The 
 style  is  lucid  and  penetrating.  No  one  can  master  these  volumes  without  being  quick- 
 ened and  strengthened.'— ylmerzcaw  Theological  Review. 
 
 'We  do  not  hesitate  to  pronounce  the  work  a  great  improvement  on  anything  we  have 
 had  before.  To  the  young  student  it  will  be  valuable,  as  a  guide  to  his  critical  reading, 
 and  to  the  literary  man  it  will  be  indispensable  as  a  book  of  reference.'— Biblioiheca  Sacra'. 
 
 '  We  hail  the  appearance  of  the  volumes,  as  being  much  wanted  at  the  present  time  in 
 our  own  country.' — Clerical  Journal. 
 
 In  demy  octavo,  price  10s.  Cd.,  Second  Edition, 
 
 PROPHECY, 
 
 VIEWED   IN   ITS   DISTINCTIVE  NATURE;    ITS   SPECIAL   FUNCTIONS 
 AND  PROPER   INTERPRETATION. 
 
 '  Its  completeness,  its  clearness,  its  thorough  investigation  of  the  whole  subject  in  a 
 systematic  way,  will  render  it,  I  think,  the  standard  work  on  prophecy  from  this  time."- 
 Rev.  Dr  Candhsii. 
 
 In  demy  octavo,  price  10s.  6d., 
 
 A   CRITICAL  AND   EXEGETICAL 
 
 COMMENTARY   ON    THE    BOOK   OF   GENESIS. 
 
 WITH  A  NEW  TRANSLATION. 
 BY    JAMES    G.    MURPHY,    LL.D.  T.C.D. 
 
 '  Dr  Murphy  has  conferred  a  great  service  on  a  diflicult  department  of  scriptural  learn- 
 ing.'— Clerical  .Journal. 
 
 'A  work  of  most  massive  scholar.'^hip,  abounding  in  rich  and  noble  thought,  and 
 remarkably  fresh  and  Hv^i^es.i'wc.''— Evangelical  Magazine. 
 
 '  This  is  emphatically  a  great  work  ;  the  subject  is  great,  and  so  is  the  management ' 
 — Christian  Witness. 
 
In  crown  octavo,  price  Cs., 
 
 THE    REDEEMER: 
 
 DISCOURSES  BY  E.  DE  PRESSENSE,  D.D. 
 
 WITH   INTRODUCTION   BY   W.    LINDSAY   ALEXANDER,   D.D. 
 
 '  The  whole  volume  is  marked  by  a  I'are  richness  of  thought  and  illustration,  and  by 
 a  high  and  fervid  eloquence.' — Evangelical  Magazine. 
 
 '  De  Pressensd  stands  forth  as  one  of  the  most  zealous,  fearless,  and  eloquent  defenders 
 of  evangelical  truth  and  the  claims  of  the  Bible  ;  a  man  of  high  culture  and  large  intellec- 
 tual resources,  gifted  with  remarkable  powers  of  clear,  pointed,  and  eloquent  discourse, 
 he  has  ever  shown  himself  ready  to  consecrate  his  best  energies  to  the  defence  and  pro- 
 pagation of  the  Gospel  of  Christ.' — Dr  Lindsay  Alexander. 
 
 BY    THE    SAME    AUTHOR. 
 
 In  demy  8vo,  price  7s.  6d., 
 
 THE    RELIGIONS    BEFORE    CHRIST: 
 
 BEING  AN   INTRODUCTION   TO   THE    HISTORY  OF   THE    FIRST   THREE 
 CENTURIES    OF    THE   CHURCH. 
 
 '  Stamped  with  the  true  genius  of  a  historian,  and  imbued  with  the  devoutness  of  a 
 Clu'istian.' — Patriot. 
 
 In  crown  8vo,  Fifth  Edition,  price  7s.  6d., 
 
 CHRIST'S   SECOND   COMING; 
 
 WII^L      IT      BE      PREMILI,  ENNIALP 
 
 BY     DAVID     BROWN,     D.D. 
 
 '  This  is,  in  our  judgment,  one  of  the  most  able,  comprehensive,  and  conclusive  of 
 the  numerous  works  which  the  millenarian  controversy  has  called  forth.  We  do  not 
 know  any  single  volume  which  contains  so  full  and  satisfactory  a  digest  of  the  reason- 
 ings and  interpretations  by  which  the  advocates  of  the  side  of  the  question  on  which  Dr 
 Brown  has  arrayed  himself,  are  accustomed  to  defend  their  position.' — Watchman. 
 
 In  two  volumes,  demy  octavo,  price  21s., 
 
 MEDIATORIAL   SOVEREIGNTY: 
 
 THE  MYSTERY  OF  CHRIST  AND  THE  REVELATION  OP  THE  OLD  AND 
 NEW  TESTAMENTS. 
 
 BY    GEORGE     STEWARD. 
 
 'A  large  and  exhaustive  work,  with  great  fulness  of  argument.' — Christian  Rernem- _ 
 brancer. 
 
 '  Certainly  one  of  the  books  of  the  age, — we  might  say,  of  the  century.  Anything  more 
 massive,  comprehensive,  and  thoroughly  theological  we  cannot  name.  The  author  has 
 achieved  a  noble  triumph  on  behalf  of  the  cause  he  loves.' — Christian  Wit7iess. 
 
 '  Tlie  author  has  thrown  fresh  and  interesting  light  upon  many  points  of  scriptural 
 theology.' — Erangelical  Jtlagazine. 
 
BS2615.H513V.2 
 
 Commentary  on  the  Gospel  of  St.  John 
 
 Princeton  Theological  Seminary-Speer  Library 
 
 1    1012  00067  7346 
 
 DATE  DUE 
 
 JBM  7r 
 
 ;  l9Qfl 
 
 ■  -  ""^c 
 
 Demco,  Inc.  38-29 
 
 3