m r Ml 1 1 'i , YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY THE LIBRARY OF THE DIVINITY SCHOOL NOTICE TO SUBSCRIBERS. "]\ IT ESSRS. CLARK have much pleasure in publishing the last issue of the Foreign Theological Library for 1877, viz. : — St. John's gospel Described and Explained according to its peculiar character. By Ch. e. Luthardt, Vol. II. ; AND GODET'S COMMENTARY ON ST. JOHN'S GOSPEL, Vol. III. The ist issue for 1878 will be Luthardt's St. John, Vol. 111. (completion), and Gebhardt's Doctrine of the Apocalypse. They have in preparation the following works : — Hagenbach's History of Doctrines. Translated from recent edition, and edited, with large additions from various sources, by Rev. Prebendary Clark. Haupt on the First Epistle of John. Philippi's Commentary on the Romans. Weiss' New Testament Theology. Steinmeyer on the Passion and Resurrection of Our Lord. New edition, prepared by the Author solely for the English transla tion. Hagenbach's History of the Reformation. They beg anew to thank the Subscribers for their support, and to respectfully request a continuance of it. May they ask for an early remittance of the Subscription for 1878 — 2 is. Edinburgh, 38 George Street, November 1877. CLARK'S FOKEIGN THEOLOGICAL LIBRARY. NEW SEEIES. VOL. LV. __.utl)ar-.t on tlje ©oSpel of dt. jJioI)i.. VOL. II. EDINBURGH: T. & T. CLARK, 38 GEORGE STREET. 18 77. PRINTED BY MUREAY AND GIBB, FOR T. & T. CLARK, EDINBURGH. LONDON, HAMILTON, ADAMS, AND CO. DUBLIN, . . ROBERTSON AND CO. NEW YORK, . SCEIBNER, WELFORD, AND ARMSTRONG. ST. JOHN'S GOSPEL DESCRIBED AND EXPLAINED ACCORDING TO ITS PECULIAR CHARACTER. BY CHRISTOPH ERNST LUTHARDT, PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY AT LEIPZIG. TRANSLATED BY CASPAR RENE GREGORY, DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY, LEIPZIG. VOL. II. EDINBURGH: T. & T. CLARK, 38 GEORGE STREET. 13X7. PREEACE. WHEN I revised the first volume for this new edition, I had just completed the treatment of the critical question, which I presented in my hook on St. John's authorship of the fourth gospel. It will be easy to under stand that, after busying myself for some time with the assertions of the critics, I was eager to sink into the very words of the Scriptures, and to let them speak to me as well as to the readers. For this reason, the attention paid in that volume to the later works of the so-called critical party was perhaps scarcely so great as it should have been. That, however, is hardly to be charged 'upon the second volume. It is true that, with the most hearty desire to learn even from them, I cannot say that I owe them much help in understanding our gospel. In my opinion, these scholars would further the understanding of the Scriptures in general much more if, instead of making them so exclusively the object of merely historical-critical inquiries and observations, they would occupy themselves more with the exposition of them. Wieseler complained lately, and with justice, of the cessation of the true exegetical activity. "Were exegesis more practised, there would be more loving devotion to the Scriptures. This would prevent many strange and incom prehensible fancies, which now throw various stones in the way, stones that must always be disposed of hefore we can »Vmove forward in the path of the real understanding of the ^wScriptures. ^S If this new edition of my work upon St. John's gospel 5 VI PREFACE. be compared with the first edition, it will easily be seen that, although the fundamental view and the essential understanding of it remain the same, yet it has undergone a thorough revision and working over in details. The very increase in size, which I did not know how to avoid, shows that. And every page can testify to it, for probably no single one stands unchanged. The proof-reading and the verification of the numerous citations were attended to by Dr. Gregory. I have also to thank him for an English translation of my hook on the origin of the fourth gospel, which he has enlarged greatly in the literature : St. John the Author of the Fourth Gospel. Revised, translated, and the literature much enlarged. Edinburgh, T. & T. Clark, 1875. May my book, then, be to many a welcome expositor. Dr. Luthardt. Leipzig, 14 June 1876. NOTE. The list of hooks in volume first, pages ix.-xiii., which the translator neither prepared nor saw, having been inadver tently inserted by the publishers, will he replaced by another list in volume third. Caspar Rene" Gregory. Leipzig, 15 October 1877. CONTENTS. EXPOSITION. JESUS THE SON OF GOD. chapters I. -iv. (continued). 3. Jesus' first public Testimony to Himself as the Son of God: Unbelief, Half-Belief, Belief, ii. 12-iv. 54, A. Jesus in Jerusalem and Judea, ii. 12— iii. 36, (1.) Jesus and the Judaism of that day, ii. 12-22, Ver. 15, purging the temple, . Ver. 19, ' Destroy this temple, ' Ter. 20, 'Forty and six years,' (2.) Jesus and the half-belief of the Jews, ii. 23-iii. 21, Jesus and the half -belief of Nicodemus, iii. 1-21. Ver. 2, Nicodemus, Ver. 3, 'The kingdom of God,' TivniiUvai _.i>_...» ('to be born again '), Ver. 4, Nicodemus does not understand, Ver. 5, ' Water ' and ' Spirit, ' . Ver. 13, 'No man hath ascended,' Ver. 16, ' God so loved the world,' Ver. 21, 'He that doeth the truth,' (3.) Jesus in Judea, and the Baptist's testimony, iii. 22-36, Ver. 23, ' Aenon, near to Salem, ' Ver. 25, John's disciples and the Jew, . Vers. 27-30, Christ and the Baptist, . Vers. 31-36, relation of Christ to world, Ver. 36, 'He that believeth on the Son,' B. The Belief of Samaria and Galilee, iv. 1-54, . (1.) Jesus and the Samaritan woman, iv. 1-26, Ver. 5, Sychar, . Ver. 10, Living water, . (2. ) Jesus and the Samaritans, iv. 27-42, Ver. 35, 'White already to harvest,' (3.) Jesus and the Galileans, iv. 43-54, Conclusion of First Part, 345 7 10 11 13 1517 182022 2330 3339 41 44 45 46 485152 5556 597374 80 85 vni CONTENTS. II. JESUS AND THE JEWS. CHAPTERS v.-xii. 1. Jesus the Life. — Beginning of the Contest, chap, v., vi., A. The God-like activity of Jesus the Son of God, and the Beginning of the Opposition, v. 1-47, . (1.) The occasion, v. 1-9, Ver. 1, 'a feast,' Ver. 2, Bethesda, (2.) The antagonism, v. 10-18, Ver. 17, ' My Father worketh hitherto, (3.) Jesus' self-witness, v. 19-47, Vers. 21-23, Jesus' future work, Ver. 24, belief and life, Vers. 27-30, judgment entrusted to the Son of man, Vers. 31-47, the testimony to Jesus, . Vers. 33-35, the Baptist and salvation. Vers. 36-39, Jesus' own testimony, Ver. 39, ' Ye search the Scriptures, ' Vers. 40-43, they will not believe, Vers. 45-47, judgment on unbelief, Summary, ..... B. Jesus the Life in the Flesh. The Progress of Belief and of Unbelief, vi. 1-71, (1.) Feeding five thousand. Walking on sea, vi. 1-21, Ver. 7, 'two hundred pennyworth,' Ver. 13, fragments that remained, Vers. 16, 17, disciples on sea, . Ver. 21, ' the ship was at the land, ' (2.) A discourse, vers. 22-59, . (a.) Jesus gives to belief the true bread, vers. 22-40, (6.) Jesus the bread of life, vers. 41-51, Ver. 51, 'I am the living bread,' . Does this refer to the Lord's Supper ? (c. ) Jesus repeats the lesson, vers. 52-59, Summary of this discourse, (3.) The crisis, vers. 60-71, . Ver. 60, disciples offended, Ver. 62, the ascension, . Ver. 63, the Spirit and the flesh, Ver. 69, ' we have believed and known, ' 2. Jesus the Light. — The Struggle at its Height, chap, vii.-x, A. Jesus' Meeting with the Unbelief of the Jews at Jerusalem, vii. 1-52 (1.) The situation, vers. 1-13, . . . , . Ver. 8, 'I go not up,' .... (2.) Jesus speaks at the feast, vers. 14-39, Ver. 28, ' Ye both know me, and ye know whence I am PAGE 89 91 919293 98 100 104107112 116123 124 126 130 132 137 139 140 142146 148 152154 157 157 169 174177179 185185185187189193 197199199 207 211224 CONTENTS. IX Ver. 37, ' If any man thirst,' . Ver. 39, ' But this he spake of the Spirit,' (3.) The success of Jesus' words, vers. 40-52, . Ver. 46, ' Never spake man,' Ver. 50 f., Nicodemus, .... [The adulterous woman, vii. 53-viii. 11], This paragraph not genuine, .... B. The Antagonism between Jesus and the Jews in its Greatest Sharp ness, viii. 12-59, ..... (1.) Jesus' testimony to himself, vers. 12-20, Ver. 12, ' I am the light of the world,' Vers. 17-19, Jesus' testimony twofold, (2.) Whence Jesus came, vers. 21-29, Ver. 23, 'beneath 'and 'above,' Ver. 25, twv upzfo, .... Ver. 28, ' When ye shall lift up the Son of man,' (3.) The severest antagonism, vers. 30-59, Ver. 33, 'we were never in bondage, ' . Vers. 37-47, (a.) Vers. 37, 38, Abraham's seed only historically, (6.) Vers. 39-41(1, actions test origin, (c.) Vers. 416-47, their relation to God, . Ver. 44, children of devil, Vers. 48-59, their future, Ver. 56, Abraham saw Jesus' day, Ver. 59, Jews would stone him, C. Jesus the salvation-bringing Light of the World ; to the Jews unto judgment, chap, ix., x., . (1.) The blind man healed, ix. 1-41, . (a. ) The healing, vers. 1-12, Ver. 2, 'Who did sin,' Ver. 7, the pool of Siloam, (5.) Healing doubted, vers. 13-34, Vers. 13-16, man led to Pharisees, (c. ) The blind man believes, Vers. 39-41, Jesus come for judgment, (2. ) Jesus the Shepherd, x. 1-21, (a.) The picture, vers. 1-5, Ver. 3, 'sheep hear his voice,' (b.) Jesus the mediator, vers. 6-10, Ver. 7, Jesus the door, Ver. 8, 'All that came before me,' (c.) Shepherd giveth his life, vers. 11-18, Ver. 11, ' I am the good shepherd,' Vers. 14-16, Jesus applies parable to himself, Ver. 16, 'other sheep,' Ver. 18, ' I lay it down of myself,' (3. ) Hostility renewed, x. 22-42, Ver. 23, ' Solomon's porch,' Vers. 27, 28, ' My sheep hear my voice, ' X CONTENTS. PAGE Predestination, . . 378 Ver. 30, 'are one,' . . .379 Ver. 32, 'good works,' . . 382 Ver. 34, 'your law,' ...... 384 D. Jesus, given up unto death, is the Life and the Judgment, chap, xi., xii., 393 The raising of Lazarus, xi. 1-57, ..... 399 (1.) The preparation, vers. 1-16, . 399 Ver. 2, Bethany, ... ... 400 Ver. 11, death a sleep, ...... 407 (2.) The event, vers. 17-44, .... 412 Vers. 25, 26, ' I am the resurrection and the life, ' . 417 Ver. 27, Martha's confession, ... . 420 Ver. 33, ip^fipxnixi, ... . . 424 Ver. 35, 'Jesus wept,' .... . 428 Ver. 44. the dead comes forth, . . 437 (3.) The effect, vers. 45-47, . . . 439 Ver. 47, Sanhedrim meets, . . . 440 Ver. 49, Caiaphas' words, . . 443 Ver. 51, high priest of year, . 445 Vers. 54-57, conclusion, 449 Ver. 54, Ephraim, . . . 450 EXPOSITION. I. JESUS THE SON OF GOD. Chapters I.-IV. {Continued.) LUTH. II. A. JOHN. JESUS THE SON OF GOD. Chapters I.-IV. — {continued). II. 12-IV. 54. Jesus' First Public Testimony to Himself as the Son of God : Unbelief, Half-Belief, Belief. WE have already seen that the fourth chapter closes a section. The fifth chapter begins the opposition, which in this part only shows itself from a distance, though an expectation of it is excited at the first appearance of Jesus. Yet the section now before us is made up of two parts. Jerusalem and Judea on the one side, and Samaria and Galilee on the other side, are contrasted with each other. It is true that Jesus began to reveal his glory by miraculous signs in Galilee, as we understand from ii. 11. Still this was but a single miracle which took place in a limited circle. In Jerusalem, on the contrary, he works many miracles, ii. 23, iv. 45, and that openly, before all the people, at the feast, and with clear testimony to him self as the Son of God. When he returns to Galilee he works one miracle only, upon an urgent prayer, when he is again in Cana itself. This is in all the second Galilean miracle ; till now he has done so little in this land, iv. 54. Still less can his activity in Samaria he compared with that in Judea. And yet here he found belief; there, unbe lief, or at most half-belief. This section moves in the most manifold contrasts, and hence is unmistakably double. In ternal and external history, thought, and geography meet in it. 4 JESUS THE SON OF GOD. [CHAP. I.-IV. II. 12-111. 36. Jesus in Jerusalem and Judea. We have here the first public self-revelation of Jesus as the Son of God. It is, however, kept more general than the later self-witness, from chap. v. onwards. Here all has the stamp of opening, of beginning, of foundation-laying. His appearance in the temple announces him only as the one that he is, rather than testifies to him as such in a detailed and instructive way. So likewise the talk with Nicodemus is of an introductory character. Hence it has often "been compared to the sermon on the mount. The circumstance that Jesus is brought forward as baptizing in Judea, shows him more in a foundation-laying than in a completing activity. At the same time, as we shall see, all has a universal comprehensive meaning. All announces the new time which begins with Christ. This gives a peculiar mark to the whole of this section. The single paragraphs of this section correspond to the preceding ones in a reverse order. The contrasted analogy between the cleansing of the temple and the miracle at the marriage has already been noticed. In what succeeds, it is said that Jesus knew what was in man, ii. 25, and the talk with Nicodemus follows that directly. This recalls the displays of such knowledge reported at his first meeting with his disciples, i. 43, 48, and the words which he exchanged with them. In these words, just as to Nicodemus, though in a different way, he announces the new time of the Spirit, which he brings. The testimony of the Baptist closes this section, as it began the preceding, only that in com parison with that it is enlarged by what has happened in the meantime. Thus this circle closes and completes itself. What has heen said contains at the same time the justi fication of the triple division 1 of the first half of this section into (1.) ii. 12-22;— (2.) ii. 23-iii. 21 ;— (3.) iii. 22-36. 1 See vol. i. p. 203. IX 12-22.] JESUS AND JUDAISM, VER. 12. 5 (1.) II. 12-22. Jesus and the Judaism of that day. Jesus and the Judaism of that day, the Son of God and the Jewish authorities, the new temple of the New Testa ment and the polluted temple of the Old Testament church, are here set over against each other. Verse 12. This leads over to what ' follows, and is to be understood as a comprehensive account. Jesus must have gone to Nazareth hefore he went down {tcare^r), because to the sea) to Capernaum with his mother, his brethren, and his disciples. The question as to the brothers of Jesus has been much dis cussed.1 Four brethren are called by name, James, Joses, Simon, and Judas, Matt. xiii. 5 5 ; Mark vi. 3. Two of these names, James and Jude, occur also among the apostles. Are these identical, so that James the brother of the Lord and James the son of Alphaeus, the apostle, were one and the same person ? Then the brethren of Jesus would be his cousins. The two are clearly distinguished in John's gospel. According to vii. 5, the brethren, who at that time did not yet believe, cannot have belonged to the apostles. But the union with the mother of the Lord in which they here occur, makes their sonship of Mary and their bodily brother hood of Jesus appear the most natural thing, and this is confirmed by the other statements of the Scriptures and by the oldest tradition. The family of Jesus is named here, to which the disciples of Jesus now also belonged. Mary's husband is not named. Probably he was no longer among the living. The visit in Capernaum was a passing visit, ov iroX- Xao- r)/u,epacr ('not many days'), in distinction from the later abiding residence of Jesus at Capernaum ; this is a conscious reference ofthe evangelist to the synoptic account, Matt. iv. 13. It was a friend's house in which they stopped on the way before wandering towards Jerusalem to the passover-feast. 1 See Winer, Biblisches Realwiirterbuch, 3d ed., Leipzig 1847, vol. i. p. 525 ff., where the remaining literature is noted ; and Lichtenstein, Lebens- geschichte des Herrn Jesu Christi in chronologisclier Uebersicht, Erlangen 1856, pp. 100-124. JESUS THE SON OF GOD. [CHAP. I.-IV. Verse 13. Jesus is to appear publicly and announce himself as the one who he is. Where can he do this better than in Jeru salem . When, better than at the time of the passover ? At the beginning of the history we lighted upon deputies of the authorities in Jerusalem, who advanced to meet the Baptist. This, as we saw, was already a hint as to, and a reference to, the future. Doubtless we are to think of like persons in the Jews, vers. 16 and 20. They are called Jews here, as they were there, because they represent this nation, which has become hostile to Christ. There is no need of recalling further how this first meeting of Jesus with the Jews is an index to the future development of their mutual relation. He begins his public career at a passover in Jerusalem. He is to close it at a passover in the same place. Thus, the end contrasts itself with the beginning. The words of Jesus and of the evangelist, vers. 17, 19, and 22, point clearly to the end, as we shall see- To tiy to make out from this that the evangelist has put the end at the beginning, is only one of Baur's1 many hasty conclusions. It has already been remarked 2 that, according to the synoptists also, Jesus must have often been in Jeru salem before his end. And if he wished to appear as a prophet in Israel, where else should he appear first, than in the religious centre of Israel, and at the time of the chief feast? All internal probability speaks for this. If, however, he wished nothing further than the elevation of Judaism or the like, he must begin with a judgment upon the existing condition of religious life. They would then have wished to say that the existing Judaism corresponded to its Old Testament ideal. What was fitter for him in such a case than to speak out his condemnatory judgment in an act of the kind here reported ? 1 Baur, Krilische Untersuchungen iiber die hanonischen Evangelien, Tubingen 1847, p. 126 ff. 2 See Luthardt, Der johanneische Ursprung des vierten Evangeliums. Leipzig 1874, p. 163 f.; English edition, St. John the Author of the FowrOi Gospel, T. & T. Clark, Edinburgh 1875, p. 206 f. II. 12—22.] JESUS AND JUDAISM, VEHS. 13-15. Verse 14. Wherein lay the fault on account of which Jesus carried out this act of judgment ? He found in the temyfle, namely, in the outer court, the so-called court of the Gentiles, those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting. That selling served the convenience of the sacri fices. This exchange business was to make easier the change of the double-drachma, which must be paid as temple tax. Verse 15. And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, etc. Why ? Some like to lay stress on the hindrance which this traffic must have been to devotion (Liicke, Baumgarten-Crusius). This is hardly given to us by the text. Jesus contrasts Father's house and house of merchandise. This is a contrast which goes beyond that of the common and the sublime (Baumgarten- Crusius and others). It rather agrees with that other saying kept for us hy the synoptists : a man cannot serve God and mammon. This idolatry which is carried on in the house of God must be condemned. Whether his cleansing did not disturb the devotion more than the traffic, and whether the same thing did not soon find its way back, these and like matters did not come into consideration, and did not trouble Jesus. He had simply to do with a testimony against the idolatrous perversion of the holy place. He was only bent on giving this testimony. Without giving it, he thought that he could not enter his public office, and we may well add, could not close it. The judicial zeal is the same against all parts of this idolatry. Some, indeed, have found a greater mildness in the treatment of the doves, according to De Wette and Liicke because they belonged to the poor, according to Baumgarten-Crusius because per haps they did not cause such a disturbance. Could not a piece of gold be changed as quietly as a dove could be bought? He treated all alike. He throws the money- table over, and throws the money on the ground ; he drives the oxen out; and he bids them take the doves away. 8 JESUS THE SON OF GOD. [CHAP. I.-IV. Ought he to have made them fly in the temple, so that at the end the seriousness should have been turned into a jest ? It is not necessary to repeat that it was not the whip which did it, but that it was the impression of the personality before which sin involuntarily bowed. Thus this fact is a proof of the uncommon personality. First of all, it is the power of the holy personality. But there is still something different which forces even external obedi ence. It is a deed of the Son of God. Verse 16. To this he himself appeals : Make not my Father's house a house of merchandise. ' My Father's.' ' Wonderful authority,' says Bengel.1 He brings to bear the right of a son in his father's house. A right of zealots has often been spoken of, because of the %fj\oo- ('zeal') in ver. 17. This is wrong. There was a right of reformation in Israel, hut that was no other than that of the prophets and of the Spirit of God which moved them. Baumgarten-Crusius speaks of ' a mere act of Old-Israelitic zeal.' 2 But aside from that prophetic right, the right of such a zeal never existed. Hence Jesus could as a prophet act as he did act. Here, however, he does not appear as a prophet. It is true that in the synoptists, who paint him in general as the prophet of Galilee, it is the prophet who carries out that act, and carries it out on the ground of a prophetic right. There, he protects the place of prayer in its rights (Matt. xxi. 13, oIkoc Trpoa-evx^o). Here, as the son of the father to whom the house belongs, he exercises the right of the house against the disorder. That is the reason he speaks purposely of his father's house. Hence the two facts differ essentially, much alike as they may seem externally. Least of all has anybody a right to talk of the identity of the act, and from that to charge with error either the fourth evangelist (thus Strauss, Baur, Hilgenfeld) or the first three evangelists (thus 1 Bengel, ' Admiranda auctoritas,' Gnomon, 3d ed., Tubingen 1773. 2 Baumgarten-Crusius, Theologische Auslegung derJohanneischen Schriften, Jena 1843, vol. i. p. 88. II. 12-22.] JESUS AND JUDAISM, VERS. 16, 17. 9 De Wette, Liicke, Neander, Bleek). On the contrary, this testimony is alike suitable and convenient at the beginning and at the end of his activity. In that Jesus thus appears as the Son of God in the house of his Father, the old promise has hegun to be ful filled, that Jehovah would come to his house. But, of course, if the time for the salvation of Israel was therewith to dawn, there was need of belief, so that it should not stumble at the humbleness of the Son of God, in whom Jehovah visited his people. This belief, however, presup posed that Israel, ready for repentance, bowed itself to the judicial testimony which Jesus here gave against the dis tortion of Old Testament truth. Israel could well know from the prophetic words of the Old Testament that this was necessarily presupposed. But it was only too clear that those punished, though they yielded indeed to the power of Jesus' personality, be cause they could not withstand it, yet did not, as their very yielding showed, inwardly own and bow before it. The chief of the people, the people in its representatives, desired a miraculous sign in justification of his deed, so as to be satisfied with the deed on that account and to acknowledge him. This showed that they wished to believe without repenting, and wished to believe, not for his sake, but for the sake of sensible miracles, and so really did not wish to believe at all. Therefore, as neither the former nor the latter showed either repentance or belief, it was clear that the hour of visitation would be in vain for Israel as a whole. The feeling pressed itself involuntarily on the disciples, that Jesus would waste himself in useless work. Verse 17. Hence the remark : His disciples remembered1 that it was written, The zeal of thine house will eat me up, Ps. Ixix. 1 0. Whether the psalm be Davidic, as the heading says, or Jeremianic, as Hitzig thinks, it portrays a suffering in the service of Jehovah, and so points out beyond itself to the fulfilling of all suffering in the final servant of Jehovah. 1 Namely, then, and not after the resurrection of Jesus ; Olshausen. 10 JESUS THE SON OF GOD. [CHAP. I.-IV. Hence no psalm, except the twenty-second, is so often referred to in the New Testament as the sixty-ninth.1 KaTa^ojyeral pe (' will eat me up,' Hellenistic future from io-dlm) is not to be understood of the future death, as I explained it formerly.2 The disciples could not have thought of that then, and that would not fit the psalm. The thing that struck them in Jesus, was the impression of Jesus' devouring zeal for the house of God. This will consume him before the time (thus also Liicke, Meyer). The scene Mark iii. 21 may be compared with this. Verse 18. The gaze of Jesus went farther. To him the picture of Israel's future, as well as of his own, came to him from the situation of the present. The question and demand to prove his authority for such a deed by a miraculous sign, disclosed to him the whole abyss of the opposing will. This opposi tion of unreadiness to repent and of unbelief, which he found, showed him that the judgment of God must first pass over Israel as God's house before it would reach the goal of its history. Verse 19. Hence he speaks those words as to the breaking and building of the temple. The evangelist has often been accused (as by Liicke and De Wette) of not understanding these words, because of the way in which he interprets them. The accusation is unfounded. Jesus speaks of ' this temple.' It is unquestionable (so Bengel) that tovtov ('this') could not refer to his body. And yet the evan gelist refers it to his body. Jesus' words refer to the one while referring to the other. Avaare ('destroy'), not hypo- thetically (Liicke, Baumgarten-Crusius, De Wette), but imperatively: go on and break. That implies that they will surely do it. 'This temple'-.— that is, not the Old 1 See Delitzsch, Biblischer Commentar iiber die Psalmen, 3d ed., Leipzig 1873, vol. i. p. 486. 2 With Bengel, Olshausen, and Hofmann, Weissagung und Erfullung im alten und im neuen Testamente, Nordlingen 1844, vol. ii. p. 111. II. 12-22.] JESUS AND JUDAISM, VERS. 18-20. 1 1 Testament religion in general, in whose place Christ will put a new religion (thus say many), but the temple which they see. Yet that is meant not simply as a stone build ing, but as the dwelling of God. As such, however, the temple is a type of Christ, in whom the glory of God has, and was intended to have, its dwelling bodily. This con trasted figurative relation is at once allowed by Jesus, in his enigmatical words, to enter in thought upon the place of the external temple. It was clear to him from the first opposition which he found, that the authorities of Israel would go to the most extreme refusal of belief, and so to the rejection of his person. But when they bring him to death, they thereby break the temple. It ceases therewith to be the dwelling of God. It is thereby broken in its essential importance. But Jesus will raise the temple up again : after three days, in his resurrection. His glorified body is the right place of the presence of God. From that, then, shall the temple of the New Testament church build itself, Zech. vi. 12. As the real meaning of Jesus' words aimed at this, the evangelist lays stress on this sense as the substance of those words. Verse 20. It was natural that the Jews should not understand this mysterious saying. They were not intended to understand it. Forty and six years was this temple in building (till now : and it was not nearly done then). Herod had begun the rebuilding in the eighteenth year of his reign, and it was only finished under Herod Agrippa II. in the year 64 after Christ. It is not entirely certain how the forty-six years are to be counted. Herod's eighteenth year runs from the 1st of Nisan 734 to the 1st of Nisan 735. If this be the first year of the building, the forty-six will end with Nisan 780. Hence the passover of the cleansing of the temple falls in the year 780, and not 782, as Meyer assumes, referring to Luke iii. 1, or 781, as Godet and others assume. 12 jesus the son of god. [chap. i.-iv. Verse 22. Nor do the disciples understand the words of Jesus. But they keep them in heart, and they become clear to them after the resurrection of Jesus. They believed the Scripture ; not as to the resurrection of Jesus, say Ps. xvi 10 (Meyer). That was not the point. It was as to the raising up of the new temple, Zech. vi. 12. Thus this first appearance of Jesus is comprehensive and decisive as no other fact is. The whole history of Israel is in question. It is decided that the spiritual house of God must be built upon the ruins of the condemned people of God. This is decided because it is decided that Jesus will first be brought to death by his people before he will be glorified, and before his glorified body can be changed into the temple of God. The fact of the glorification of Jesus' body made the disciples understand the words of Jesus and the promise of the Old Covenant. And the disciples believe the former for the sake of the agreeing testimony of both sayings and of the fulfilling history. That word, however, which the disciples believe, is the word of him who had here owned and testified to himself as the Son of God in his Father's house. And he, in his resurrection and glorification, and in the thereon conditioned founding of his church, is proved, because Lord of the house, also to be the Son of God. Hence everything here treats of the Son of God, and of belief on him. His self-witness in the word is the first object and ground of this belief, and the con clusive facts of his life are the confirmation and reward of this belief. In the case of the Jews, as we see, Jesus' words of self- witness produce only the opposition of unbelief, which has as its consequence, judgment. But Jesus witnesses to himself also by signs of a mira culous character. These cannot remain entirely without impression. They call forth a certain kind of belief. Yet this is not the right kind. The great point is, whether or not this half-belief permits itself to be raised to the right belief by Jesus' self-witness in his word. This forms the contents of the next section. II. 23-IH. 21.] HALF-BELIEF OF THE JEWS, VERS. 22-24. 1 3 (2.) II. 23-111. 21. Jesus and the Half-Belief of the Jews. The half-belief of the Jews, as it is called out by the miraculous signs of Jesus, is here brought before us. Verse 23. As it appears, Jesus wrought not a few signs at the pass- over in Jerusalem. 'Ev t§ eoprfi is, for closer definition, in the feast. Meyer's explanation, ' in the act of celebrating the feast,' would be better expressed by the participle or the like ; it would also bring a useless point into the connec tion. For the result also, outwardly considered, is no small one : ttoXXo. iirio-reva-av el is neither a play on the word (De Wette, Liicke) nor a mere coincidence in sound (Baumgarten-Crusius). It is a real analogy. It is not hard to see what is meant when it is said that in the case of such as did not enter into the moral relation and bearing of belief towards him, he on his part did not enter into the corresponding moral relation. The relation of communion is meant, into which relation he ought to have entered with Israel as his people, but could not enter. We may recall, such passages as Hos. ii. 20 : fivqarevaofial, o-e ifiavrm iv nrla-rei Kal eirir/vdjari rbv Kvpcov { ' I will even betroth thee unto me in faithfulness; and thou shalt know the Lord'). The relation here, however, is taken from the other side, and is designated the less with a sensible expression. There is not a word here of prudence, or of public conversation, or of plain-dealing, and the like. It is the moral devotion, as it existed, for example, between Jesus and the disciples, as it existed between him and Nathanael at the very first meeting. The reason is the same here as there, namely, that Jesus possessed a know ledge of the internal position of the hearts of men who came into contact with him. No absolute knowledge on the part of Jesus is here meant, as our old dogmatists understood this word. All of the knowledge and power of Jesus is determined in accordance with his calling. The calling of the Baptist involved his recognising in those who came to his baptism, whether they came with a disposition ready or not ready for repentance. And thus Jesus' calling involved III. 1-21.J THE HALF-BELIEF OF NICODEMUS. 15 his recognising the internal position of the hearts of all in reference to the kingdom of God. He himself, that is, without needing to to be taught by another. Verse 25. This negative point brings in the next : He needed not that (.'iva in the weakened sense of later Greek, against Meyer's forced holding of the strict telic sense), etc. For he himself, without foreign help, recognised what was in man ; the internal posture of the heart towards the king dom of God or towards his person. In this sense, however, this knowledge was a testimony to his divine Sonship, for the point is the posture towards him, and it affects all men. Therefore it is a witness to his absolute importance. The supernatural direct knowledge of Christ is often made pro minent in the gospel of John : i. 49 ; iv. 17 ; vi. 64 ; xi. 4, 14 ; xiii. 11 ; xxi. 17 (Meyer). Look also at the Bevelation, ii. 2, 9, 13, 18, 19, 23, etc. III. 1—21. Jesus and the Half-Belief of Nicodemus. When the apostle reports the conversation with Nico demus in chapter third, he certainly does not do it merely to lay stress on a particularly weighty story from that first time of residence at Jerusalem (Meyer). He did not compose his gospel so externally as that. The connection is more internal. Nor is the conversation with Nicodemus meant as a single example of that complete knowledge, or ' of the complete wisdom ' (Liicke). To say this, ruins beforehand the right understanding of what follows. De Wette, and likewise Hengstenberg, are more correct in wishing to explain the conversation by reference to the belief in miracles, of which Nicodemus was an example. Baur has tried still more decidedly to develop the under standing of it from this thought. Nicodemus, says Baur, represents the believing Judaism, whose belief is but the cloak and form of unbelief. Hence this talk forms the first point in the process of belief and of unbelief which develops itself thence onward. In presenting this, the evangelist intends to reveal the fact, that the unbelief, 1 G JESUS THE SON OF GOD. [CHAP. I.-IV. which comes out more and more openly, is and has been from the beginning the contents of the external belief of the Jews.1 But this conception is opposed by the fact that, in the course of the gospel, Nicodemus appears as a believer, and indeed as believing not without the effect of this talk.2 Hence the evangelist cannot well have used him here as a type of the absolutely unbelieving and ' unsus ceptible ' Judaism. Besides, he seeks the words of Jesus, and though he reaches the understanding of them only with difficulty, yet he does not gainsay them. At the close of the talk, the matter stays in suspense, and so in the real possibility and in the easy beginning of belief. It certainly, however, is an example of belief, which is not yet belief, but which is a possibility of the right belief if it tries to pass beyond itself. Accordingly, we have here a sketch of the other side of the Jewish belief in miracles. At the same time, as the question at the end remains in suspense, it also shows how hard it is to come to the right belief in Judea. At this conversation, we still remain within the realm of not yet believing. This, as well as the really unbelieving belief in miracles, is touched by the words of the Baptist, iii. 32 : Kal ri)v fiaprvpiav avrov ovBelo- \afi- fidvei {' and no man receiveth his testimony '). Verse 1. Stier3 was right in calling attention to the fact that iii. 1 is connected with ii. 2 5 by the repetition of avOpmirocr {' man '). By the repetition of the word, Nicodemus is held up as a single one, from the collective whole, of whom it was also true that Jesus knew what was in man. That shows us one side in the progress of the history. The people as a whole will remain unsusceptible. But single ones will turn to Jesus, joining him and freeing themselves from the mass. The evangelist here brings in this cutting loose of single persons which is just beginning. 1 Baur, Kritische Untersuchungen uber die hanonischen Evangelien, Tubingen 1847, pp. 143, 145. a See vol. i. p. 104 f., and see vii. 50. 8 Stier, Eeden Jesu, 3d ed., Barmen and Elberfeld 1870, vol. iv. p. 22, note. IIL 1—21.] THE HALF-BELIEF OF NICODEMUS, VERS. 1, 2. 17 Verse 2. In the Talmud, a Nakdimon, also called Bunai, is men tioned. He was very rich, and survived the destruction of Jerusalem. And this name is at another place given to a disciple of Jesus.1 , But nothing is said of his being a master in Israel. Nicodemus belonged to "the strict legal and national party of the Pharisees, and was apyvsv r&v ,Iovhaimv (' a ruler of the Jews '), that is, a member of the high council, see vii. 50. This one came to Jesus by night. We are hardly to look for a special emphasis in the ovroa {' this one/ Stier says, ' this one, a Pharisee and a ruler !'). It is a simple repetition, in hastening to what follows, on which the whole gaze ofthe evangelist is directed.2 NvKrov {' by night ') is not a symbol of his benighted disposition- (Hengstenberg) ; it served to characterize him. He chooses the night, not to be able to talk with Jesus without inter ruption, but from fear of his colleagues, and seeks Jesus in the circle of his disciples, for we must think of him as in that circle. Still he, the learned, comes and salutes Jesus the unlearned as a teacher sent from God. Indeed, he also joins himself here with others : o'iSafiev (' we know '). That fits his whole nature. The most natural thing here is to think of colleagues of like mind; see xii. 42. Hence Jesus' appearance has not failed of a certain impression in the highest circles. But while the most were wanting in that moral earnestness which let itself be led farther, and while they thus lost the blessing, Nicodemus was forced to reach full certainty. He therefore frees himself internally from his colleagues. Of course, he still stands on quite the same ground as they. His recognition of Jesus rests only on the arj/ieia ('signs') which Jesus does. Because he works uncommon things, he is also a teacher in the uncom mon sense. Indeed, he is a teacher with a divine com mission, for his uncommon deeds can only be traced to 1 See Delitzsch, Talmudische Studien, III., Zeitschrift fur die gesammte lutlierische Theologie und Kirche, 1854, pp. 643-647. s As to Nicodemus in general, and as to his coming at night especially, see vol. i. p. 104 f. LUTII. II. B JOHN. 18 JESUS THE SON OF GOD. [CHAP. I.-IV. uncommon help from God. The belief which he here confesses, is belief as it is described in ii. 23 ff., but it has the tendency to a progressive development. Thus he is the representative of half-belief, which forms the transition from unbelief to belief. Verse 3. Jesus' return to this address is called an answer {aireK- plQrj). A question lies in the address. Jesus does not let him go on far enough to express it. We do not need to presuppose gaps in the account. Nor have we a right to fill out the question as we like; as, for example, when Meyer says : What must we do to come into the kingdom of the Messiah ? or when Baumlein says : Does the baptism of John suffice for membership in the Messianic kingdom ? As a matter of course, Nicodemus has the Messianic king dom in mind. Jewish thoughts were directed to that above all. Jesus' answer confirms this. Nicodemus em phasizes the teacher and his divine miracles. That con tains the question, whether this be the opening and the founding of the Messianic kingdom. In that case, it would be enough for membership therein to acknowledge the miracles of Jesus and his calling as a teacher. To this Jesus answers with the demand for the new birth. That is as much as to say : It does not come so externally in the external miracles, but internally ; and it is not mediated to separate persons by that external recognition, but by this internal experience. Hence it is certainly right (against Meyer), though it is not everything, when De Wette, Bruckner, and Ebrard, following Augustine, assume that Jesus wished to lead Nicodemus from the belief in miracles to the belief which brings a moral change ; or when Godet says that Jesus contrasts the new birth with works. Jesus speaks of the kingdom of God.1 It has often 1 T_. wpxM, is not sufficiently attested. Justin cites thus in the well- known passage, Apologia, i. 61 (Opera, ed. Otto, Jena 1842, vol. i. p. 258) ; but that is clearly according to the common use of speech ; on this point, see vol. i. p. 219 f., and Luthardt, St. John the Author qf the Fourth Gospel (Edinburgh, T. and T. Clark, 1875), p. 61 ff. III. 1-21.] THE HALF-BELIEF OF NICODEMUS, VER. 3. 19 been remarked that this expression is found nowhere else in the gospel of John (xviii. 36 is specially occasioned), and that it is therefore a testimony to the historical character of the account. ' Kingdom of God ' is the popular expression for the Messianic state of salvation. The gospel of John likes in its own way to characterize this more really as life and the like. 'Kingdom of God' rests on the Old Testament prefiguring and prophecy. Jehovah was the real king of Israel, and his will was the law of the nation. To this was added the prophecy of the final position of things, when, after the time of the worldly kingdoms, Jehovah and his will should come to full dominion.1 Nicodemus thought of this kingdom of God. All the hopes of Israel aimed at it. When will the dominion of the earthly kingdoms come to an end and Jehovah set up his dominion in Israel, and the Kaipol ava-^-v^ewa- airb ¦n-poa-wiTov rov KvpCov (' times of refreshing from the presence of the Lord,' Acts hi. 1 9) begin ? That was the constant question of Israel. Israel thought of an external change of things by means of a revelation of power. But Jesus pointed from the outside to the inside. That is the sense and the progress of his discourse. It is true that he speaks also of a seeing {IBeiv, and afterwards in ver. 5 elaekdelv, ' a coming in'), but it is not with a wish to confirm the thoughts of the externality of the kingdom of God; see Luke xvii. 20 f. Nicodemus thought that he had already beheld in the miracles the dawn of the kingdom of God. Hence Jesus chooses this word, which is an expression for an experience which a man goes through with. It is, however, a .correct principle of the ancient philosophy, that like can only be recognised by like. How could the eye behold the sun, were the eye not fitted for the sun ? A man must bear in himself the manner of the kingdom of God if he wishes to see it- — that is, to experience it. 1 On the Old Testament doctrine concerning the kingdom of God, see Oehler, Theologie des Alten Testaments, Tubingen 1874, vol. ii. p. 215 ff. On the New Testament, see Schmid, Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testa ments, Stuttgart 1853, part i. p. 324 ff. ; and Weiss, Lehrbuch der biblischen Theologie des Neuen Testaments, Berlin 1868, p 19 ff. 20 JESUS THE SON OF GOD. [CHAP. I.-IV. Tevvrjdrjvai, avadev. This influence, which must come to us to make us fit for the kingdom of God, is called by Jesus yevvrjdrjvai avadev (' to be born again, or from above '). As is well known, it is an old question whether avadev is to be understood of time or of place ; whether it means ' anew ' (really ' from the beginning on '), or ' from above.' It is taken in the first way by the Syriac version, Augustine, the Vulgate, Luther, and Calvin ; and among later scholars, by Tholuck, Olshausen, Neander, Stier, Hengstenberg, Godet, Hofmann,1 and Weiss.2 But by far the larger number of later exegetes follow Origen, Cyril, Theophylact, Erasmus, and Bengel, in holding to the other sense ; thus Liicke, Baumgarten-Crusius, De Wette, Baumlein, Meyer, Lange, Baur, and Hilgenfeld. In the three other passages in this gospel, which they quote here, iii. 31, xix. 11, 23, avadev only occurs in this meaning. Besides, yevvaadai e/c deov (' to be born of God ') is a more familiar idea and expression for John. Should they, however, at once assert that John only knows this idea and does not know that of the new birth (De Wette, and Weiss too, though it is true with a distinction between new birth and second birth), they are at fault ; because in this place the thing in point as to matter no less than as to expression {Sevrepov yevvrjdrjvat,, ver. 4, see ver. 6) is a new birth which takes place from the Spirit. It seems to me (Stier, Hofmann, and others think so too) to be decisive against that view that Nico demus must then have failed to hear this sentence (thus Bengel), which nevertheless stands at the emphatic part of the sentence, and expresses the chief point of the thought. Had he heard it, he could not well have put the question which he then puts. The e'/e deov ('from God') must otherwise have solved the riddle for him, or at least have made him put that question in this direction. Thus we see him moving entirely in the circle of thought of a second birth. In this case, Jesus would only emphasize 1 Hofmann, Der Schrifibeweis, 2d ed., Nordlingenl859, vol. ii. parti, p. 11. " Weiss, Der Johanneische Lehrbegriff, Berlin 1862, p. 94. III. 1-21.] THE HALF-BELIEF OF NICODEMUS, VEE. 3. 2 1 the essential difference between this second and the first birth, in what follows. If it be objected that avadev never means 'again,' but only 'from the beginning' (see Luke (i. 3 ; Acts xxvi. 5 ; and Gal. iv. 9, ttuKiv avadev), the objection has no force ; since ' from the beginning ' is exactly what it is said to mean here, and just for that reason ievrepov {' second time ') or the like was not chosen. As to the usage of the language, look at Josephus i1 « ; but the latter is supported by two good mss. — C. R. G.] 22 JESUS THE SON OF GOD. [CHAP. I.-IV. to Nicodemus. On the other hand, the new beginning of life could not be so entirely strange to him, when he thought of the promise of the new heart and of the new spirit, Ezek. xi. 19 f., xxxvi. 26, 27, of Ps. Ii 12 (English version 10), and the like. Verse 4. In spite of the accord with the Old Testament, Nicodemus does not understand Jesus. The reason probably is, that he was before this accustomed to understand the word as to a new birth, only figuratively of a changing about or of a transposition, while he thought that Jesus decidedly seemed to take the matter exactly ' from the beginning on.' Hence his answer refers to this point (et'cr rigv KoCKlav K.r.X., ' into the womb '), and Jesus gives him information about it. A multitude of hypotheses arise from this reply of the ' Israelitic scholar:' they frame from them an accusation against the evangelist (Bruno Bauer) ; they put it at least to the charge of the narrative (De Wette) ; they determine the possibility that ' John emphasizes somewhat too strongly' Nicodemus' want of understanding (Liicke) ; they assume real want of understanding (Keuss) ; x they explain the pre posterous character of his question from the natural mental narrowness of the man, as well as from the confusion of the moment (Meyer) ; they explain the question by the excitement of his disposition at the moment, owing to the strange answer of Jesus (Bengel, Stier) ; they explain it in the sense of irony (Godet), which does not suit his charac ter; or they interpret (Baumgarten-Crusius and Schleier macher) Nicodemus' words more ingeniously than the)' sound (the words about the womb are only a figure to denote the change in age), so as to free him from the charge of narrowness. If we hold fast to the real meaning of the words, Nicodemus is not charged with asking about the possibility of a second bodily birth. Nor does he merely say what Liicke makes him say : If the repetition of bodily 1 Reuss : ' All attempts to save the sound understanding of Nicodemus have been wrecked on the palpable absurdity of his objection.' Histoire de la thiologie chritlenne, 2d ed., Strassburg and Paris 1860, vol. ii. p. 413, note. III. 1-21.] THE HALF-BELIEF OF NICODEMUS, VERS. 4, 5. 23 birth is such an absolutely impossible thing, how am I to understand the avadev yevvrjdrjvai {' to be born again ') . He asks how this avadev yevvvdi)vai can take place without a second bodily birth. He takes the avadev yevvr]di)vai rightly of a new beginning of personal life. But the inward life seems to him so closely chained to and depend ent on the natural life, that he cannot think of a new and real (not figurative) beginning of the former without a new and real beginning of the latter. He does not say, as some have imputed to him, that the second coming out of the womb is one and the same with the avadev yevvrjdijvat, of Jesus, but that it is the necessary natural presupposition, in and with which alone he is in a position to think of the new beginning of personal life. This is verily a novelty in the whole arrangement of things, that there shall hence be a new beginning of per sonal life, which does not presuppose, but is followed by, the new beginning of the natural life. This finds its actual and conceivable possibility only in the typical and causal fact and knowledge of the birth of Christ the Son of God, the beginning of whose personal life is also independent of the beginning of his earthly natural life. The Old Testa ment did not know of such a Son of God, but of such as were in a certain sense raised to be sons of God by their position in their earthly life. To that degree, also, it does not know of the new birth, in the New Testament sense, which was first given by Christ. It knows only of a conversion, and that only as a not understood fact of the future. Hence, therefore, Nicodemus cannot understand the saying as to the new birth. He sees in Jesus only a human teacher, who, though divinely gifted and endowed, is not thereby removed from the common order of things. He cannot understand this saying, because he takes it seriously and exactly, and because the person of Jesus, not being understood by him, does not give him the key to it. Verse 5. Jesus assures him that the point is a new birth in the real sense. It is as real as the first birth. As in the one 24 JESUS THE SON OF GOD. [CHAP. I.-IV. the man comes from the earthly element and from the divine creative Spirit of the natural life, so in the other he comes from the earthly element and from the divine crea tive Spirit of the new time and new order of things. Hvevfia ('spirit') is contrasted with crdp% ('flesh'), and not with irvevfia rijo- aapKoa- (' spirit of the flesh'). This birth must be produced by the irvevfia in the real sense, because it is produced for the time of the irvevfia, which time has dawned in Jesus the Son of God. Jesus here joins what the Baptist had contrasted: water and Spirit; see i. 26, 31, 32, 33. He adds the Spirit to the water, for He bears the Spirit without measure in himself, because He is the incarnate Word and the Son of God. We are not to take vBap ('water') as the figurative designation of the cleansing of the heart, and irvevfia (' spirit') as an unfigurative expression (Liicke1), or vBap as a figurative expression for the Spirit (Calvin), or for the human soul (Olshausen). Both words are alike exactly meant, and both are to be so joined in thought, that the baptism with the Spirit by Jesus is to be added to the baptism with water, which Nicodemus knew from John.2 Both points, the water of the Baptist and the Spirit of Christ, are well known to him ; the first, from the immediate history, and the second, from the promise. When Christ combines them to the united divine act of the new birth and human act of believing obedience, the account remains strictly within the bounds of historical possibility and pro bability. On the other hand, to understand the words in the mouth of Jesus as a direct designation of Christian baptism, as Meyer does, neglects too much the historical connection in which they are spoken. They were not meant to make what had already been said to Nicodemus still more unintelligible by a fact of the future that was necessarily unknown to him, but to make it more intelli gible. We may, however, well infer from the words of Jesus, that when the Baptist is no longer living, and yet the entrance into the kingdom of God is to be continually 1 Liicke, Commentar Uber das Evangelium des Johannes, 3d ed., Bonn 1840, vol. i. p. 621 f. 2 Hofmann, .Der (Sc/w./. be weis, 2ded., Nfirdlingen 1860, vol. ii. part ii. p. 12. III. 1-21. J THE HALF-BELIEF OF NICODEMUS, VER. G. 25 mediated by the new birth produced through the two elements of the water and the Spirit, that these two points shall be combined into one act. Therefore, for us this saying speaks in the second ,place of a water baptism, which at the same time is a Spirit baptism. It is true that Nicodemus could not understand this, but he was not meant to understand it. He was merely to combine that which in time lay separated, that which is united for us by the fact of the Christian baptism into \ovrpbv iraXiyyeveatao- (' washing of regeneration,' Tit. iii. 5). In this, however, the Christian baptism is nothing else in reality than that which Jesus here intends by the irvevfia, only it is in a form different from that in which Nicodemus had occasion to think of it. Verse 6. But man needed such new birth because he is o-dpl; {' flesh'), while the f3aaCKeia rov deov {' the kingdom of God') is spiritual, and so man must become of the same kind as this in order to enter into it. As a matter of course, this does not refer merely to a part of men, as Hilgenfeld asserts from his presupposition of Gnostic dualism in the gospel of John,1 but to men in general. All men are adpl-. Weiss2 thinks that i. 13 is decisive for the meaning of this word in this passage, in the sense that we are to understand it merely of the bodily sensuous side of human nature, and to reject all reference to the sinful character thereof as a Pauline addition. That is not right. The Old Testament circle of ideas which Nicodemus brought with him, and the whole connection in which the word here stands, must also speak. In the Old Testament, the statement that man is flesh does not designate merely the sensible existence of man, aside from all moral reference. According to the whole Old Testament conception, this is closely linked to the fact that man also morally is not what God would have him be.3 In the context of the passage before us, the 1 Compare against him, Weiss, Der Johanneische Lehrbegriff, Berlin 1862, p. 128 ff. 2 Ibid. p. 130. s See Hofmann, Der Schriftleweis, 2ded., Nordlingen 1857, vol. i. p. 503 ff. ; andOehler, Theologie des Alien Testaments, Tubingen 1873, vol. i. p. 253 ff. 26 JESUS THE SON OF GOD. [CHAP. I.-IV. necessity of the new birth is based upon the o-dp% of man. Clearly that cannot be intended to express merely the cor poreality. It must mean the moral character of his human nature, which excludes from the kingdom of God. Indeed, this alone can make that divine influence upon him neces sary.1 The question is not merely about a difference between a lower and a higher stage,2 but about an opposi tion.3 The first birth of the flesh to the flesh has happened to the man, and thus too the second birth of the Spirit to the Spirit is something which happens to the man. Hence it is not identical with the fierdvoia ('repentance') (against Meyer), which the man has to perform himself {fieravoeire), but is an influence e/e rov irvevfiarocr, namely, from God's Spirit. The effect corresponds to the cause. There the man is flesh, namely, in kind ; here, he is Spirit in kind. The substantives are more emphatic than the adjectives a-apKiKoa-, irvevfiariKoa- {' fleshly,' ' spiritual') would have been. Verse 7. This circumstance, that it is an act of the irvevfia {' Spirit') which is to happen to him, is to help Nicodemus under stand, as far as he needs to, the demand for a new birth, which seems strange to him. This is to show him how a new beginning, of life in the Spirit can be spoken of with out a new beginning of the natural life. In order to under stand the spirit of the ethical life, he is referred to its analogue in the natural life. Verse 8. It is as free as the wind in its motion, and as undis- coverable in its origin, although perceptible and recognisable in its effects. Ovrao- earlv {' so is') : this is the case with every one, etc. That is to calm Nicodemus. This work ing of the Spirit {iraa- o yeyevvrj fievoa- eK rov irvevfiaroo -, 1 See Luthardt, Lehre vomfreien Willen, Leipzig 1863, p. 393. * Thus Julius Muller, Lehre vom der Siinde, Breslau 1844, vol. ii. p. 367. 3 See Hofmann, Der Schriftbeweis, 2ded., Nordlingenl857, vol. i. p. 512 f. ; and also Meyer. III. 1-21.] THE HALF-BELIEF OF NICODEMUS, VERS. 7-9. 27 ' every one that is born of the Spirit') is a fact of experi ence which he likewise can and is to experience in himself. That closes the first circle, vers. 3-8, of the instruction of Jesus. Its thought is : The wonderful fact of the new birth must happen to every one who wishes to belong to the kingdom of God, whose time had dawned in Jesus the Christ. The second circle, vers. 9-15, follows with: The said fact happens to him who believes on Jesus the Son of God, whose person and testimony are to be accepted in belief. And the third circle, vers. 16-21, continues : For whosoever believes on this one has therewith eternal life, while he who does not believe remains subject to judgment. The discourse falls into these three parts of like extent, the development of three sentences joining closely together logically. These sentences, the contents of the discourse, show nothing different from that which is the contents of the whole gospel. Verses 9-15. The point here is belief on the Son of God. The matter in general, and Nicodemus' question, lead Jesus to speak of this. Nicodemus does not ask so as to comprehend the necessity and possibility of this (Liicke). He wishes to know the manner and the way in which this fact of the new birth can complete itself. Jesus then takes occasion to refer him to the belief on His person. Verse 9, As a rule, the questioner has been wrongly treated ; because commentators have only found here a repetition of the first failure to understand, and of the first want of understanding. On the contrary, he lets the fact of the new birth stand in some measure as believed, although not comprehended : he only wishes instructions as to the way it is to be completed. He still fails here, in that he stands objectively towards it, instead of asking how he himself can come to experience it, and what he has to do on behalf of it. 28 jesus the son of god. [chap. l- iv. Verse 10. Jesus reproaches him with a wondering question for not knowing this. ' Art thou the master ? ' This means, the well-known, recognised (thus commonly), not the ideal person of the teacher, which had become concrete (Heng stenberg), or the representative of the Israelitic teaching office (Godet) : these would make too much out of Nico demus. And then, in nice contrast to ' the teacher,' stands : Kal ravra ov ywaaKeia- {' and knowest not these things ?'). As a teacher of Israel, he ought to know these things. As such it must be known to him from the Old Testament and from the history of salvation, that the only way to the com munion of salvation from the very outset has been that of a believing obedience towards God's word and messenger. Thus also this New Testament saving fact of the new birth can only be experienced by believing obedience towards him who has the Spirit of the new birth and the divine testimony of this New Testament salvation. Jesus re proaches him for not coming to Him in such right believing obedience, and for not bearing himself thus towards Him even now in this conversation. Verse 11. He can do that the better, the more He has a right to demand belief in His testimony. If Nicodemus deserves to be called 6 BiBdo-Kakoo- rov 'lo-parfh, {' the master of Israel'), Jesus was the same in an entirely different way. In ver. 11, Jesus contrasts himself with that teacher. The con trast here is like the one in vii. 15, where the Jews ask in wonder : iruxr ovroa ypdfi/iara olSev fii) fiefiadrfKaa- (' How knoweth this man letters, having never learned ?'). Nico demus and his friends whom he represents (' ye ') have a knowledge as far as study goes. Jesus has a knowledge based on direct acquaintance with that of which he gives witness. We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen. Who are the ' We ' ? De Wette, Liicke, Meyer, and Stier make it a rhetorical plural. This, however, does not occur elsewhere in the words of Jesus or of John, not III. 1-21.J THE HALF-BELIEF OF NICODEMUS, VERS. 10-12. 29 even in iv. 38, to which Meyer appeals. Some call it the plural of category: 'such teachers as I' (Meyer). But there were no other ' such teachers.' There is no need of proving that we are not to think of God (Chrysostom and others), or of the Holy Ghost (Bengel). The Old Testament pro phets (Tholuck) are too distant. The disciples (Hengsten berg and Godet) do not ' speak' and ' testify' yet. Only the Baptist is left (Knapp, Hofmann, Weiss1). He also testified of the Spirit of the new time on the basis of direct divine revelation. Jesus had just recalled the Baptist by the water. Nicodemus knew that the Baptist had an nounced the Messianic baptism with the Spirit. So it must have been easy for him to think of the Baptist in this 'We.' The first thing we are to think of here is the Spirit of the new time, which came upon Jesus at the baptism, so that he should impart it. That explains the 'we know' and 'we have seen;' the second is presupposed in the first. Jesus does not speak of his premundane perception, but of the revelation of God which he had received in the midst of men. If Jesus speak with such direct certainty and per ception, they ought to believe him. And ye receive not our witness. The Pharisees believed neither in the Baptist nor in Jesus. In this Nicodemus is like the 'IovBaloicr {' Jews'), * ye' ov \afij3dvere (' do not receive '),.he is wanting in right belief. As long as Nicodemus has not right belief in the person of Jesus, he belongs to those Jews, although he may already have taken steps towards belief. He still ever has this in common with them, that he does not answer the real demand of Jesus. Hence Jesus in this paragraph presses throughout upon belief, and to this end testifies to himself as the Son of God. Verse 12. But the testimony which is to be received in belief has hitherto had ra. iiriyeia (' earthly things') for its contents. There is another contents that he must also proclaim, that is, rh eirovpdvia (' heavenly things '). He names his testi- 1 Weiss, Der Johanneische Lehrbegriff, Berlin 1862, p. 111. 30 JESUS THE SON OF GOD. [CHAP. L-IV. mony as to the heavenly things not as a possibility, which remains only in thought, and perhaps will not be fulfilled, but as something which will be realized. Otherwise the hypothetical form with idv would not be used. These two contrasted things, the earthly and the heavenly, have been explained in the most different ways, but the reference to the connection has been neglected, especially in the case of the last. The article in eiriyeta K.rX. (' earthly things') shows that we are here to think of something distinct, namely, of the testimony as to the kingdom of God. ' Earthly things '' designates, not the whole category of the things to be found on earth, to which ' also the birth from above belongs' (Meyer), but the shape and realization of the kingdom of God as it belongs to earth, which completes itself in this very new birth. Jesus had spoken of that until now {el . . . elirov, ' if I have told'). Hence ra eirovpdvia (' heavenly things') does not betoken merely divine decrees for redemp tion (Meyer, Godet, and others). Still less is it to be generalized to the higher ideas of the gospel as a whole (Liicke, Beuss). Nor is it to be limited to the divinity of Jesus (Hengstenberg), or to the Trinity (thus often the popular interpretation of the gospel for Trinity Sunday). Nor is it to be extended to ' very many and manifold things' (Stier1). It is the heavenly reality which the kingdom of God has in its relation to the Father. That is to say, it is the Christological contents of his preaching, in distinction from the anthropological or moral, before treated of. Verse 13. And yet (/.at) they must believe on him, for He alone can give testimony thereto. No man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, the Son of man. ' No man hath ascended up to heaven,' so that he could speak from his own perception of those heavenly things {ra eirovpdvia). It is true only of the Son of man that he was in heaven, and can speak from his own perception of these heavenly things. It does not mean : will ascend to 1 Stier, Beden Jesu, 3d ed., Barmen and Elberfeld 1870, vol. iv. p. 22, note. III. 1-21.] THE HALF-BELIEF OF NICODEMUS, VER. 13. 31 heaven (Bengel), the tense is against that ; or : has raised himself in spirit to God (thus commonly ; Liicke, Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, De Wette, and even Beyschlag and Weiss1), for this tropical way of taking it is excluded by the verb and the contrast to Karafidcr {' came down'), and would not hold exclusively of Christ (see Hengstenberg and Meyer) ; or : he was by ' raptus in ccelum' (' a being caught up into heaven') taken away to God, as the Socinians fantastically explained. He ' ascended up,' which would be necessary for the men living on earth, is intended only as the necessary presupposition for the direct perception and the testimony made possible by it. At the transition to Jesus {el fir], ' but'), therefore, this point (direct perception as a basis of eye-witness) is to be emphasized. This holds good only of him, for he alone has come down from heaven — that is, has come out from a being with God. At Karaftda (' came down') we think naturally of the incarnation. He became thereby the goal of the history of humanity : the Son of man. The phrase 6 av iv ra ovpava (' which is in heaven') is not to be taken as a present, so as to mean his then being present, and to be referred to his internal relation of communion with God (thus most later commentators). That would not suit the exact way of taking KarafSda-, or the whole thought. On the contrary, it would confuse the thought. It must be understood as an imperfect, and resolved into bo- ijv (Bengel, Hofmann, Weiss2). This ba ijv iv ra ovpava ('who was in heaven') would not be 'unbearably useless' (Liicke). Jesus would emphasize his being iirovpdvioo- (' heavenly'), so as to confirm his knowledge and hint at his future. Since, how ever, these words are lacking in B L as well as in the Sinaitic manuscript, the right thing certainly is to leave them out, especially as the addition of them would be very easily explained, and the leaving them out would be much harder to explain. At the same time, the dogmatic use made of them falls away. The old doctors used this passage as a proof of their doctrine of the participation of the human 1 Weiss, Der Johanneische Lehrbegriff, Berlin 1862, p. 213 f. 2 Ibid. p. 214. 3 2 JESUS TIIE SON OF GOD. [CHAP. I.-IV. nature of Christ, in the omnipresence of the divine Logos, in the state of humiliation, on the basis of ' genus majesta- ticum communicationis idiomatum'1 ('the majestic genus of the communion of attributes'). Verse 14. As now that fact, that He has come down from heaven, must be believed, so also is his exaltation an object of belief: for only he who believes on Him has eternal life. The connection with what precedes- has been taken in very- different ways : before, it spoke of the necessity ; here, it speaks of the blessedness of belief (Meyer) ; but the wording of ver. 14 is against that ; Jesus now goes to the iirovpdvia (' heavenly things') (Tholuck and others) ; he passes from the possibility of the revelation through him to the neces sity thereof (Liicke) ; or he passes from his divine person to his work of atonement (Hengstenberg). All this is arbitrary, because the progress of the discourse is evidently completed by the vyjradrjvai ('be lifted up'), in contrast to the preceding (see also Godet) ; yet not to designate the cross of Christ as the means of redemption (Godet), but to own the exaltation as an object of belief. If vtyovv (' lifted up') stands also in that contrast, it is first of all the exaltation on the cross as the step to the exaltation on the throne. If Jesus, as is likely, used the Aramaic *!£., this served for the hanging of ill-doers on the stake. That suits also the comparison with the lifting up of the serpent in the wilderness, Num. xxi. 8, to be the means of salva tion for those who directed their gaze unto it in belief. The ' tertium comparationis ' (' middle term of the com parison ') lies in this. Jesus does not compare the subjects, himself and the snake, so that we should have a right to seek out all possible points of comparison between the two.2 1 See Luthardt, Compendium der Dogmatilc, § 49, 4th ed., Leipzig 1873, p. 160. [According to the old dogmatists, the ' communicatio idiomatum' was divided into three classes : 'genus idiomaticum,' 'genus majestaticum, ' and ' genus apotelesmaticum. ' — C. R. G.] 2 Bengel, Gnomon, in loco, 3d ed., Tubingen 1773, ' ut serpens ille fuit ser pens sine veneno contra serpentes venenatos ; sic Christus homo sine peccato contra serpentem antiquum' ('as that serpent was a serpent without venom III. 1-21.] THE HALF-BELIEF OF NICODEMUS, VER!?. 14— le. 33 That leads to a play of wit that has no right to a place in exegesis at least. The lifting up is what Jesus compares ; in both cases a paradoxical means unto belief for salvation. He will indeed be lifted up, but so that his lifting up also demands belief. He will be lifted up on the cross ; if he then be lifted up to God, it will be invisibly. Jesus leaves that continua tion of the thought unspoken. This is a divine necessity: Bel (' must be') by divine decree, Matt. xvi. 21 ; Luke xxiv. 26. Verse 15. This is the aim : That whosoever believeth in him. That is, reading ela- avrov with the received text and the Sinaitic, which is the simplest and the best suited to John's use ofthe words. 'Eir' avra (T) and iv avra (B) have this usage against them, whence Meyer would join iv air a with eyrj K.rX, which does not fit the order of the words so well. The following words : fir) diroKryrai, dWd (' should not perish, but '), which are lacking in N B L, could certainly be taken up from ver. 16 (Meyer). The gift of eternal life (see on i. 4), the gift of the essential life of divine communion, is designated by exv (present 'has') as one given at once with belief. It is given in Him because he is the Son of God, and so includes in himself the fulness of the divine life. Thus the close of ver. 1 5 leads us over from the necessity to the saving character of belief, that is, to the third para graph of the whole discourse. Verses 16-21. Thus far the discourse has turned on the necessity of belief, and on the right of Jesus to demand it ; now it turns on the saving character of belief, according to the will of God, for salvation. Verse 16. God aims at £__•.) alavioa ('eternal life') for the world, which life begins with the new birth, and is granted to faith. For God so loved the world. This will of God unto against venomous serpents, thus Christ was a man without sin against the old serpent ') ; see also Menken, Olshausen, Jacobi, Stier, Lange. LUTH. II. C JOHN. 34 JESUS THE SON OF GOD. [CHAP. I.-IV. salvation is designated as a will of love, because it realized itself by devotion {r)ydirrjo-ev). We are not to supply eicr ddvarov {' unto death') (Olshausen) to eBaKev ('gave'), but Ta Koo-fia (' to the world'). The man Jesus is this gift : all else is but the historical consequence. In order, however, to enhance the greatness of the divine love, he is called the only-begotten Son; see on i. 14. The man Jesus is the Son of God by reason of his origin from God and of his communion with God, standing as ' the only-begotten' in a relation to God which no one else holds. God gave this one to the world. The emphasis lies, not on the greatness of the offering (in the death), but of the gift (in the incar nation). The design of God is to save the world from the destruction to which it would otherwise irremediably fall a prey, and to give it eternal life in Jesus as the Son who bears the fulness of life in himself. The destruction is the future, eternal diraXeia (iva fii) airoKryrai, ' that . . . should not perish' : the subjunctive instead of the optative demanded by the preceding praeterite, because this latter mood in general was less familiar to the speech of common life, and so also to the Hellenistic speech). With this design He was given to the whole world. We are not to make the ' uni- versitas electorum' (' body of the elect') out of that, as Lampe does.1 The whole Koafioo- ('world') is the object of God's loving will. Jesus, however, is such salvation to the world under the condition of belief, or in belief. By the union of Son of God, eternal life, and belief, we easily per ceive that the last is the essential appropriation of the person of Jesus, and therewith the possession of the true life which is in Him, and which he himself is. If he who does not believe is thereby condemned, it is clear that the world is first of all under the 6pyr) rov deov {' wrath of God'), iii. 36. The decision is given in the person of Jesus, so that whosoever believes on Him is taken from destruction, and made a partaker of salvation ; while whosoever does not believe, is thereby under judgment. We see that the essential relation between man and the 1 Lampe, Commentarius . . . Evangelii secundum Joannem, Amsterdam 1724, vol. i. p, 615. III. 1-21.] THE HALF-BELIEF OF NICODEMUS, VER. 17. 35 person of Jesus consists in belief. The evangelist names nothing else. Whatever things he mentions as forming communion or bringing salvation, are but as explanations or necessary consequences of the one iriano- ('faith') in which all is given and decided. Again, we see that the whole decision as to the possession of salvation rests in the person of Jesus on the one side, in belief on the other side, and on nothing else. It is true that John likes to name salvation itself, life. As we remarked above, he gathers the whole of salvation in this word. Here, where he has spoken of the fact of the new birth, he chooses this expression of necessity. But we remember that he who believes unto eternal life is thereby taken from the wrath of God and put into loving communion with him, ver. 36. The life too is first of all communion in grace. Verse 17. When Jesus goes • on, that he is not come to condemn but to save the world, we recall those passages in which he names the judgment as a thing kept for him until the future, as v. 22, 27 ff. He will do that when he comes the second time. It is true that we read in ix. 39, elo- Kpl/ia iya eicr rbv Koo-fiov rovrov rfkdov (' For judgment I am come into this world'),1 and Kptfia ('judgment') here refers, not to a future, but to a present thing. These words, however, do not mean to say that he is come to hold a judgment, but that a decision completes itself in him, namely, by the self- decision of men for or against him, in belief or in unbelief, to salvation or to judgment. The judgment itself, therefore, ever remains a future matter. That which now completes itself is that Kpio-io- (' judgment') of which he speaks in vers. 18 and 19 as present ; while his condemning judgment, as the external historical completion of that which now completes itself inwardly, always remains a thing of the future. This is the sense in which he denies the judgment as the aim of his mission. Liicke is wrong2 when he says 1 See Liicke, Commentar uber das Evangelium des Johannes, 3d ed., Bonn 1840, vol. i. p. 547. 2 Liicke, ibid. See also De Wette and Baumgarten-Crusius. 36 JESUS THE SON OF GOD. [CHAP. I.-IV. that he denies it in the sense ' in which the Jewish parti cularism asserted it, namely, with exclusion of the aarrfpia rov Koo-fiov (" salvation of the world") ... as a condemning judgment in the Jewish sense over the not-Jewish world, before this has made its decision as to believing or not believing.' What would justify us in seeking the chief point in such nearer determinations and contrasts that were only thought out and added afterwards . Hence we cannot supply the words ' for this time' here. It is never said of the second coming unto judgment, that the Son will be sent} We can easily see how he comes to speak of his being sent, not to judgment, but to salvation, if we remem ber that he is speaking to a teacher of Israel. The moment Jesus testifies to himself as the Son of God who has been sent, he must think of the Messianic prophecy of the Old Testament according to which the day of Jehovah was to be joined with- a great judgment upon the world. Nico demus is to know that this judgment will remain a thing of the future. The presence of the Son is for the salvation of the world. Yet that future judgment is already decided internally by the relation which each man assumes towards the person of Jesus, and towards his self-revelation. Verse 18. He that believeth on him is not condemned : but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only-begotten Son of God. The world in itself is lost, and salvation is decreed alone in the person of Jesus, and is joined to his self-revelation {ovofia). Hence, therefore, belief is the only way of salvation, and the judg ment is already decided {KeKpirai) for unbelief. Verse 19. This verse states, first, wherein the internal judgment' consists, as to essence {avrrj icrrlv on). It is, that a man shuts himself out from the light which has appeared in Jesus Christ. Instead of subordinating the first to the second grammatically, the evangelist put the contrasted phrases 1 See Stier, Reden Jesu, 3d ed., Barmen and Elberfeld 1S70, vol. iv. p. 113. III. 1-21.] THE HALF-BELIEF OF NICODEMUS, VERS. 18, 19. 37 side by side, for the sake of emphasis : the light appeared, and man loved, etc.1 The idea of light comes in here, instead of the idea of life, because Jesus wishes to pass to the moral sphere.2 The point is a moral decision between the two great moral antagonists, between light and darkness. The light has appeared in Jesus Christ, in his incarnation, and in his entrance on his calling. Yet men loved the darkness more than the light. It might seem strange that Jesus should speak of the relation of men to him as of a completed fact : rjydirrfaav ol avdpairoi K.r.X. (' men loved,' etc.). This is not meant as ' a general experience of history,' as Liicke has it,3 but as the historical bearing towards Jesus, with which men answered God's deed of love.4 He desig nates this just as the Baptist does afterwards in ver. 32, when he says : Kal rrp fiaprvplav avrov ovBelcr \afif3dvet, {' and no man receiveth his testimony'). This is settled, although Jesus still is only at the begin ning of his activity. The beginning decides as to the general bearing of Israel, and so of men, towards Him. In general he stands in contrast with unbelief, and there are but few believing exceptions. Thus the disciples are chosen, thus the church of Jesus is chosen out of the world, xv. 1 9. The world as a whole has closed itself to the light. This is essen tially decided from the first. The relation of Jesus to the world became at once an opposition. The decision consists in the fact that men preferred {fiaXXov) the darkness in which they lived to the light which came to them and wished to draw them to itself. It is true that fiaXXov (' rather ') is not an expression of opposition, but of comparison (Bengel, Stier) ; but here it does not point merely to a difference of degree in the ayairav {' love ') ; it does not belong to this verb, but to the substantive rb o-kotoct (' the darkness '). Their love {t}ydirr]o-av put first for the sake of emphasis) was directed rather {fiakXov, ' potius,' not ' magis ') to the 1 See vol. i. pp. 36 f., 43. s See the discussion of i. 5. 3 Liicke, Commentar uber das Evangelium des Johannes, 3d ed. , Bonn 1 840, vol. i. p. 550. 4 On riyxTwiv, ver. 16, and riyx'Tna-xv, ver. 19, see Stier, Beden Jesu, 3d ed., Barmen and Elberfeld 1S70, vol. iv. p. 117. 38 JESUS THE SON OF GOD. [CHAP. I. -IV. darkness than to the light. 'Darkness' indicates the ungodly, sinful, worldly essence, to which they originally belonged. Hilgenfeld (so also Baur' and Keim), with the notion of a metaphysical dualism, which he brought in so arbitrarily, thinks that this applies merely to a single class of men.1 He is wrong. It is clear that the sentence is true of men in general. If they choose the darkness instead of the light, there must be a possibility of deciding for the light. They must have had historical experience of the light, not by the testimony of the conscience or the like, but, as what precedes shows us, in the appearance and words of Jesus Christ. The deeper reason for this unbe lief is a moral one ; the religious conduct has a moral root. The reason, namely, is given, that their deeds, that is, their whole action wherein their moral disposition and character proved itself in detail, were evil. The contrast, iroieiv rrjv dXrjdeiav {' to do the truth,' ver. 21), shows that ra epya and av\a irpdo-creiv {' doing evil ') as well as at the iroieiv rrjv akrjdeiav {' doing the truth'), is not with reference to degrees of natural morality in the pre-Christian sphere, but with reference to moral self-decisions as they are called forth by the revela tion of and by the words of Christ ; upon these decisions the religious conduct depends. To love the darkness is to do evil ; to love the light is to do the truth. In the former, the man shuts himself up selfishly in himself against the light ; in the latter, he opens himself to Christ, devoting himself to Him. 'That his deeds may be manifest that they are wrought in God.' The internal decision will come out. The moral posture being towards God, and therefore belonging to God and agreeable to his will, presses on to the union, by belief, with the revelation of God in Christ. Belief has as its base the moral self-decision for God in Christ ; and moral self-decision for God in Christ has belief as its necessary effect and phenomenon. Such is the thought of this passage, which sounds difficult, which has been often treated, and which has commonly, though as we have seen probably incorrectly, been understood of a pre paratory stage of belief or of conversion.1 The conversation closes fitly with the reference made by Jesus to the innermost moral root of belief. It goes from the objective to the subjective, from without, within. Jesus had passed from the new birth as the presupposition for participation in the kingdom of God, to belief as the presupposition for the new birth. This he did in order to show the necessity and the blessing of belief, and finally to reveal the moral presupposition of belief and of unbelief, thus leading Nicodemus to the subjective sphere of his life within — to his conscience. The objective side of the dis course corresponds to that subjective side : it is the testi mony to the divine Sonship of Clirist. Both are meant to 1 See Luthardt, Lehre vomfreien -Willen, Leipzig 1863, p. 418 f. III. 22-36.] THE BAPTIST'S TESTIMONY. 4-1 knit a personal relation that shall take the place of the mere external amazement at his miracles. This compre hensive and peculiar character of the discourse gives it a fundamental value for John's gospel and its testimony. Hence the evangelist picked out this very discourse, put it at the head of his account of the public activity of Jesus, and so reproduced it as to make it exactly fit to serve this purpose. We therefore need not assume that the evan gelist, in the progress of the discourse from ver. 16 on, has passed from the report to his own reflections and explana tory considerations (for example, Neander, Tholuck, Olshau sen), or at least has joined these to the account more strongly than before (Liicke, De Wette, Briickner, whom Meyer rightly opposes). We have only to acknowledge the subjective character in the form of the reproduction, as we have to admit it in the discourses of John's gospel in general.1 (3.) III. 22—36. Jesus in Judea, and the Baptist's Testimony. Jesus widens the circle. He turns from Jerusalem to the whole land of Judah, from the few to the many. He begins the foundation of the kingdom of God, in the form which the Baptist used. It is true that his baptism is not essentially different from John's, and is not yet the real Christian baptism in the name of Jesus, for he is not yet glorified. Yet it is more than if he were merely active at the side of the Baptist, and in just the same way. We can already recognise the progress of the realization of salva tion in the fact that, while those ready to repent must go out to John to show their readiness, Jesus on the contrary comes to them to bring salvation near to them. In conse quence, John pointed to the Son of God who was to come ; Jesus points to himself as being the Son of God. Thus he begins to gather about the present Eedeemer, from separate 1 See vol. i. p. 144 ff., and my Der johanneische Ur sprung des vierten, Evangeliums, Leipzig 1874, p. 196 ff. English edition, St, John the Author of the Fourth Gospel, Edinburgh 1875, p. 246 ff. 42 JESUS THE SON OF GOD. [CHAP. I.-IV. persons of Judea, the church of the kingdom of God, which kingdom was now revealing itself. It is the third attempt Jesus makes to win Israel to repenting belief in his person, so that he could go on with the revelation of the kingdom of God. Yet, though they came to him in greater numbers than to the Baptist, the latter could not but say : Kal ri)v fiaprvplav avrov ovBelcr \afif3dvei (' and no man receiveth his testimony '). The matter is commonly put as if the Baptist's testi mony were the only thing really meant to be reported here, and the rest were brought in only to make it possible to give the former. This can hardly be right. The evan gelist is here busied with the historical progress, and this testimony forms a part of the history which he is reporting. Every particle of it is historical Instead of saying him self that Jesus, with such an extended and heightened activity, has gradually taken the place of the Baptist, that the Baptist's time had begun to yield to Jesus' time, and that the former had not yet reached the right belief in Jesus' person and word, he gives us a testimony of the Baptist's which contains all this. He relates the history in the Baptist's words, because they at once help us to under stand the historical position. If the relation of ver. 22 ff. to ver. 27 ff, and the meaning of the last, were not such as is here alleged, how could the evangelist, iv. 1, go on with the history, with ovv (' therefore '), drawing a conclusion from what precedes ? If this be the case, then we shall have to explain ver. 22 f. from the words of the Baptist. He designates Jesus as a bridegroom, who is already on the way to take His bride home ; he already hears His voice as He calls the bride, ver. 29. Hence his great joy, and hence he knows that his own time is almost at an end. According to this, the design of Jesus' deeds here will need to be taken as more comprehensive and more far-reaching than is commonly assumed. It is no longer mere preach ing and preparation, but the beginning of founding and gathering. But why does not Jesus appear to baptize after this ? III. 22-36. J THE BAPTIST'S TESTIMONY, VER. 22. 43 It was not on account of the lack of faith,1 nor because it was enough to have put his baptism once by the side of John's.2 The real reason is that he took up another plan, and gave up the thought of gathering his church about himself in such a definite way during the days of his flesh. That is the very cause for the Baptist's mistake. He now saw the gathering of the church already beginning. But later he could see nothing more of such a beginning, and, on the contrary, found again mere preaching and prepara tion, like a simple continuation of his own activity. But, it may be objected, the Baptist knew by this time that the right belief was not afforded. Of course he understood the present, but not the future ; and afterwards, when in prison, he did not understand even the later present, because the time of his calling was over. He might easily think that Jesus would reveal His kingdom in spite of the lack of belief. In fact, he saw Him busy therewith in the begin ning of His activity. This gives us the clue both to the account of Jesus' activity, and to the dispute between the Baptist's disciples and the Jew named in ver. 25. Verse 22. Mera ravra (' after these things '), a familiar way of continuing in John's gospel,3 joins what follows to what precedes, only as a general matter of time. Jesus went from Jerusalem (that he was in Galilee in the meantime is not absolutely impossible from the account, but is impro bable) into the land of Judea. 'lovBaia yij is to be under stood thus of the country in contrast with the capital. The imperfects Bierpifiev and i/3dirri%ev (' tarried ' and ' bap tized ') express longer continuance. We see by iv. 2 that the disciples, and not Jesus himself, performed the baptism. 1 Liicke, Commentar iiber das Evangelium des Johannes, 3d ed., Bonn 1840, vol. i. p. 559. * Hofmann, Weissagung und Erfiillung im alten und im neuen Testamente, Nordlingen 1844, vol. ii. p. 90. 3 See voL i. p. 26. 44 JESUS THE SON OF GOD. [CHAP. I.-IV Verse 23. John was active at the same time. *Hv fiairri^wv, he was busy baptizing ; more than a mere paraphrase for the finite verb : in JEnon, near to Salem. Whether we explain ..Enon as |V py, Dove-Fountain (Meyer), or as the intensive or ad jective form of PJJ, fountain, the name cannot but suggest a region that was rich in fountains, and therefore in water. Eusebius and Jerome put SaXelfi {' Salem ') eight Eoman miles (about 8 English miles) south of Scythopolis, at a place where the Jordan was quite broad, towards the borders of Galilee. But according to the account here it must have been in Judea. Probably we should refer to Josh. xv. 32, pin Br\ (' eternal life ') is especially to be understood in this latter sense, as may be seen from the contrast between vers. 14 60 jesus the son of god. [chap. I.-IV. and 13. Yet even in this he distinguishes the t,arf (' life '), as an attribute and effect, from the vBap {' water ') itself, as a different thing. It seems unquestionable that he means by this the spirit of the new life which he proclaimed to Nicodemus ; thus also Calvin, Baumgarten-Crusius, and Hof mann. Least of all could it be belief (thus Liicke) ; that would not suit the figure and its use at all, for the thing in question is an objective gift which we are to receive (by belief). It must, however, not be generalized to ' tota reno- vationis gratia '" (' the whole grace of renewing,' Meyer, after Calvin), since the water betokens something definite, which is then followed' by the renewing. The fact that he does not name the thing definitely, and that he speaks more largely as to its effect than as to it itself, is explained by the respect paid to the woman. If the master in Israel could not grasp the 3aying about the spirit of the new birth, how should this woman grasp it ? Be sides, she lacked the connection given by the Old Testa ment prophecy, seeing that the prophets did not exist for the Samaritan woman. Therefore, in speaking only of the effect, he connects himself with her share in the general human need. This life of need makes men desire and recognise as prophecy a life of the fullest satisfaction. This will serve as a measure of the gift which effects it. The unchanging foundation of the former life is the spirit of God the creator. The unchanging foundation of the latter life will therefore be the spirit of God the redeemer. Verse 11. The woman stumbles at Jesus' words. She has received a certain impression : Kvpee (' Sir ! '). What does he mean ? Thou hast nothing to draw with, and the well is deep ; from* whence then hast thou that living water ? Verse 12. Her curiosity passes over into a certain feeling of national sensitiveness : Is not the water of this well good enough for you ? Art thou greater than our father Jacob, which gave us tlie well ? Like a woman, her speech becomes IV. 1-26.] JESUS AND THE SAMARITAN WOMAN, VERS. U-14. 6 1 diffuse : he drank thereof himself, and his children, and his cattle. But for that very reason this cannot be the true water. 'Verse 13. Jesus impresses this upon her in the 13 th verse. Wlw- soever drinketh of this water shall thirst again. This water does not even satisfy the needs of the present life. Verse 14. But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst, but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of flowing water unto everlasting life. Such a one shall have essential and lasting satisfaction ; for this gift is not merely accompanied by a temporary effect, but becomes a source of life dwelling in the heart. This gift, namely, the new spirit which he gives, Jesus designates as the abiding foundation of the new life by iv avra ('in him'), and as the source of life by dXXo/ievov (' springing up '). The word ' spring, bubble up,' in the figure, is not intended to express essentially anything else than the vBap tjav (' living water ') above mentioned. The living essence in its constant driving motion is so called.1 But then it is a conception complete in itself, and -does not need to be completed by eicr t/arfv alaviov (' unto eternal life ') (against Meyer and others). What would be the idea of the phrase in that case ? It has been explained as the thirst which is excited by the Holy Ghost (Starke, in his Synopsis), or by the fact that this stream .flows back thither whence it proceeds (Besser) ; the former explanation is refuted by the fact that the matter in question here is vBap {' water '), and the latter is refuted by dXXo/ievov (' springing '), For my part, I cannot conceive what is meant, and what the repre sentation is, when it is said that this fountain springs up into everlasting life.2 If, in order to make sense of it, ' with the earthly life,' or the like, be added (Liicke), that is merely an 1 See Hesychius : ae) futru 3 fixi^ovreir (' ever running or flowing '). 2 Liicke, Commentar iiber das Evangelium des Johannes, 3d ed., Bonn 1840, vol. i. p. 585. 02 jesus the son of god. [chap. I.-IV. arbitrary interpolation. De Wette and Baumgarten-Crusius abandon all more detailed explanation, and call the whole passage a mere emphasizing or strengthening of vBap £&>_> (' living water '). It therefore is allowable to connect elo- f. al. (' to eternal life'), not with dXX. {' springing up '), but with irrjyr) iiB. dXX. (' fountain of bubbling water'). In vi. 27 it is said of the aproa t,av (' living bread ') that it is a lasting food, eicr f al. ; and thus here it is said of this living water that it is a fountain of bubbling water unto eternal life — that is, sufficient for it, bestowing it. The extent of the need of redemption is the measure of the extent of the new life, and therefore also of the effect of the spirit. It touches the whole man in soul and body. The woman, it is true, understands by the eternal life only a potentiating of the present life. Accordingly, the gift also appears to her to be a potentiating of that natural gift of God. Verse 15. In this sense she desires it of Jesus : Sir, give me this water, that I thirst not, neither come hither to draw. Hence Jesus must, in the next part of the discourse, vers. 16-19, display to her the internal presupposition and the inward human beginning of that which she desires. This he does by leading her to recognise and to confess her sins. Verse 16. Jesus bids her call her husband. It does not mean that He now wishes to talk to her husband and direct the gift of salvation to him (Liicke). Jesus speaks of her husband only for her sake. The demand is not earnestly intended, but only serves Jesus' purpose concerning the woman ; he wishes to touch her upon a sore spot (Meyer). Jesus knew the circumstances of the woman, as well as what he himself intended , he did not need to learn about her gradually in the course of the conversation. Verse 17. The woman is hit. She becomes sparing of her words : I have no husband. Jesus repeats these words to her, so as IV. 1-26.] JESUS AND THE SAMARITAN WOMAN, VERS. 15-18. 63 to let her feel their full force : Thou hast well said, I have no husband. Verse 18. For thou hast had five husbands ; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband (but thy lover) : in that saidst thou truly. These five husbands have been interpreted symboli cally of the idol- worship of the five nations of Samaria, upon which the reception of the worship of Jehovah followed,1 in the interest of the mythical explanation (Strauss), and as mere poetry (Bruno Bauer), or as an unhistorical use of sym bols by the evangelist (Keim), or as a typical conception of the evangelist's based on history (Weizsacker), or as a divine ordering (Hengstenberg), or as a Jewish byword against the Samaritans which Jesus applied to the woman (Baumgarten- Crusius). Whatever turn be given to it, the allegory still remains, not merely indistinct, but also out of place.2 On the one hand, the Samaritan heathenism would be repre sented as marriage, and the service of Jehovah as whoredom. And on the other hand, the heathen deities were worshipped simultaneously, while the woman had the five husbands one after the other. The fact is, that Jesus, by calling this up, intends to bring the woman to a consciousness of her sins. Whether the dissolution of the marriage had been brought about by death, which is hardly probable for all five cases, or by other causes, this fivefold repetition of marriage was a token of sinful lust. And the context shows unmistakably that she is living with the sixth man in an illegal manner. Jesus bids the woman think of all this. This knowledge on the part of Jesus has been declared to be different from his essential knowledge, and subordinate to it.3 But it is arbitrary to try to make a distinction in 1 See 2 Kings xvii. 24 ff. ; compare also Josephus, Antiquitates, IX. xiv. 3, Opera, ed. Bekker, Leipzig 1855, vol. ii. p. 291 : [five nations] !«..™ xara 'ifoos .-.-v foov tiff t«v 2x/Aaipiiav xopitruynff (' each nation having brought its own god into Samaria '). 2 See Liicke, Commentar iiber das Evangelium des Johannes, 3d ed., Bonn 1840, vol. i. pp. 663 and 661. 3 Liicke, ut supra, voL i. p. 591. 64 JESUS THE SON OF GOD. [CHAP. I.-IV. the objects of knowledge, as to whether they be external or internal. In the case of Jesus, the knowledge, which stood related to his calling and to his necessary activity in his calling, was at every time essential, and therefore real, whether it touched upon the thoughts of the heart or upon the facts of the external life. It is, in fact, impossible to see why a knowledge in relation to the former should be more easily reconcilable with Jesus' human consciousness than a knowledge in relation to the latter (De Wette) ; unless, indeed, any one should think he might or could escape the impression of something miraculous more easily in the former than in the latter case. To assume that Jesus named a round number which fitted in a miraeulous way (Ewald), or that Jesus at once observed in the woman the impressions (like the year-rings of a tree) of the various matrimonial relations (J. P. Lange), is all a mere additional fantastic indecision, which is of no avail. The knowledge is removed from mere chance and from magical immediateness by its connection with the saving activity which Jesus is exer cising towards the woman. And that he really had the intention (against De Wette) of touching her conscience is shown by the result. Verse 19. It is true that there are not many who are willing to find a confession in the woman's answer : Sir, I perceive- that thou art a prophet. Even Ebrard thinks she wished to interrupt the conversation, or to avoid the point (thus Meyer and others), and De Wette calls it a ' piece of feminine artfulness.' Stier urges rightly the fact that these words, deapa on irpotp^r^a- el crv (' I perceive that thou art a prophet '), contain the most decided and most earnest confession of sin.1 She expresses it indirectly, in accordance with her manner and her position. Her succeeding question must be connected with this. Verse 20. Our fathers worshipped in this mountain, and ye say that 1 Stier, Beden Jesu, 3d ed., Barmen and Elberfeld 1870, vol. iv. p. 149. J.V. 1-26.] JESUS AND THE SAMARITAN WOMAN, VERS. 19-22. 65 in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship. That is to say, is Gerizim or is Jerusalem the proper place for worship ? She points to Mount Gerizim, for the well is in the valley between Gerizim and Ebal. When the Jews returned from the exile they shut out the Samaritans from a share in the temple at Jerusalem, on the plea that they were of heathen origin, or, at least, because of certain con stituent parts of their nation. Then the Samaritans built a temple for themselves upon Mount Gerizim, which they held to be holy by reason of the blessing spoken from it in preceding ages. See Deut. xi. 29, xxvii. 12, and xxvii. 4, where the Samaritan text has Gerizim instead of Ebal. Even after John Hyrcanus destroyed this temple, the place continued to be for them the holy place of worship. Who is right ; our fathers, — namely, our Samaritan forefathers, not the fathers of Israel, — or you? For the woman this question has not only a national but also a personal interest. She intends to seek forgiveness of her sins by prayer at the holy place. But where is that place ? Is it upon Gerizim or in Jerusalem . Jesus has shown her her sin, and now he must show her whence she is to obtain righteousness. , Jesus answers this question in vers. 21-24, by pointing out to her the true internal character of the relation to God. Verse 21. Woman, believe me, the Jwur cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship tlie Father. He begins by emphasizing his personal authority. He does not wish to free her from himself while he points her to the future. The future will bring freedom from all outward local obligation. In the Old Testament, Zion is the place of God's presence, BHP "if., ' holy mountain ;' compare Ps. lxxiv. 2, 7, lxxvi. 3. They expected salvation from this point. The new era brings in a worshipping of the Father, which is independent of that place ; ra irarpi {' the Father ') in the New Testament sense, proleptically. Verse 22. Israel, indeed, is right, however, and Samaria is not right, LUTH. II. E JOHN. 66 JESUS THE SON OF GOD. [CHAP. I.-IV. as to the what in the worship. Ye worship what you do not know, we worship what we know. That is to say, the God whom they worship is one whom they do not understand, and one who is better known to the Jews. Although it is not ov (' whom ') (De Wette), still 6 (' what ') is the object of irpoo-Kvvelv (' to worship '),' since irpoo-Kvveiv is construed with the accusative as well as with the dative. God is here spoken of as neuter because it is not He, in and for him self, whom the Samaritans do not and the Jews do know, but the circumstance that he is a God of salvation, a God of redemption. Prophecy, which the Samaritans rejected, taught this of God. Such proper knowledge of God, there fore, is only found in Israel. That is the place of salvation. There dwells the future of salvation, and there it must be sought so long as it is not yet revealed. Yet it is now about to dawn, and that in his person. Therefore the importance of that place of worship ceases herewith, and Jesus takes its stead. The due relation to God from this time forth is to be mediated not locally, but personally ; namely, through him, and through the communion with him in the Spirit. Jesus hints at this new relation to God by calling him the Father. Some 2 have counted it strange that Jesus should here reckon himself as one with the Jews, whereas he elsewhere places himself in contrast with them. It is a matter of course that the rffieio- ('we') is to be understood of the Jews, and not of the Christians, as Hilgenfeld thinks. Were the Christians meant, the evangelist would have fallen too completely out of his role. The fact that the evangelist writes thus proves that the gospel is not so anti- Judaistic as it is commonly represented to be by Tubingen and other critics. The evangelist, of course, appropriates to himself this saying of Jesus. But Jesus speaks thus, not because He was born among the Jews, and lives among them, and belongs thus to their party (De Wette) ; nor 1 Liicke, Commentar iiber das Evangelium des Johannes, 3d ed., Bonn 1840, vol. i. p. 594 ; and Baumgarten-Crusius. * Baumgarten-Crusius, Theologlsche Auslegung der Johanneischen Schriften, Jena 1843, vol. i. p. 156 ; Liicke, ut supra, vol. i. p. 597. IV. 1-26.] JESUS AND THE SAMARITAN WOMAN, VER. 23. 67 because he wishes to refer to the corruption of Samaritan life (Baumgarten-Crusius), all of which is simply forced. He speaks thus because, after he has freed the woman from her sins, he must also free her from the untruth of her nationality, and bring her to acknowledge the essential truth of Israel, so that she may have a share in the his torical salvation. We possess the essence of salvation only in its historical character, and its historical character is settled for all time as Jewish.1 Hence he adds with strong emphasis : For salvation is of the Jews. We must all agree to that, however hard it may be to own it. Salvation does not consist merely in ideas or general truths of reason. It was accomplished in a historical way, and had its historical growth upon Jewish ground. The woman must accept that. It was no little thing that the Lord asked of her. How many threads of national connection must she break to appropriate to herself these words of Jesus ! These words, moreover, contain nothing else than Paul's instructions in the eleventh chapter of Eomans, that the heathen must all be incorporated in the holy root-stem of Israel, only with the removal of national limitation. Not until He has secured this truth does Jesus announce that with Him the time has come for the general human communion with God in the Spirit. Verse 23. It is true that the communion of salvation is to be free from Jewish limitations. That is the contrasted progress in the twenty-third verse : But the hour cometh, in the New Testament time, and now is, having begun with him, when the true worshippers — dXifdivoi (' true '), in whom the idea of worship is realized — shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth. It is a question whether iv irvevfian ('in spirit') is to be understood subjectively or objectively, whether it means the human or the divine spirit. It is contrasted with iv opei k.t.X. (' in this mountain,' etc.) not only in form 1 See Stier, Beden Jesu, 3d ed., Barmen and Elberfeld 1870, vol. iv. p. 154 f. 68 JESUS THE SON OF GOD. [CHAP. I.-IV. (Baumgarten-Crusius), but also in substance. The former was a irpoo-Kvvelv iv aap/cl ('worshipping in the flesh') because it was still mediated cosmically. And although the Jews, as compared with the Samaritans, had the truth of God's worship, nevertheless, because this was bound to external things, and therefore mediated in a fleshly way, in accordance with the stage of preparation, it was not the essential truth. Only now, when the worship shall stand and consist in the irvevfia ('spirit'), shall it be a worship of God in truth ; no longer a type, and therefore unreal worship, but one which corresponds to the essence of worship. Hence iv nveifiari ('in spirit') is contrasted with the fleshly exter nality of the worship, which is dependent upon place and the like. It is a designation of inwardness, and therefore of subjective inwardness, and not of the objective spirit of God (thus Stier, Bruckner, Baumlein, and I in my earlier edition). The place for worship is here, in the spiritual internality. Yet the inner man must, of course, previously become by the Spirit of God a place of worship, so that when the worshipper retires within himself, he thereby enters into communion with God, and stands in the Spirit of God. Augustine says : ' We had gone out of doors, we are sent within. ... Go entirely within. And if perchance you seek some lofty place, some holy place, show yourself within a temple for God. For the temple of God is holy, which ye are. If you wish to pray in a temple, pray in yourself. But first be a temple of God, because he will hear the one who prays in His temple.' ' It is therefore not the spirit in its natural character, but in its renewal by the Spirit of Jesus Christ; not in its natural communion with God, but in a communion mediated and effected by the historical salvation. By this the worship 1 Augustine, In Johannis Evangelium, cap. iv. tractatus xv., Opera, edit. Benedict., Antwerp 1700, vol. iii. part 2, p. 302 b, c: 'Foras ieramus, intro missi sumus. . . . Intus age totum. Et si forte quseris aliquem locum altum, aliquem locum sanctum, intus exhibe te templum Deo. Templum enim Deo sanctum est, quod estis vos. In teniplo vis orare, in te ora. Sed prius esto templum Dei, quia ille in templo suo exaudiet orantem.' IV. 1-26.] JESUS AND THE SAMARITAN WOMAN, VER. 24. 69 becomes a true worship, namely, removed from the o-Kid (' shadow ') and the rviroa- (' type ') (Olshausen and Meyer), and raised to its truth, in that it corresponds to God himself. For the Father seeketh also those who worship him in this way} Meyer refers Kai ('also') to 6 irarrjp ('the Father ') : the Father also seeks, etc. But the progress of the thought cannot lie in o irar.jp, because He was spoken of before. The progress must lie in what is new, that is, in ty\rei ('seeks') (against Meyer): for he seeks also, etc. The designation of God as the Father is to indicate the New Testament relation of God to the world, which has entered, by way of fulfilment, into the place of the preceding exclusive relation of God to Israel. If God pre viously chose a nation to himself for his son, now he seeks in all places such as shall and can enter upon a filial relation to him in spirit. The faet that God seeks such as are willing to enter upon a moral relation of that kind to him, teaches us that communion with God is no longer conditioned upon nationality. Tova irpoo-Kw. (' those wor shipping ') is, as the article shows, the object, and roiovrova- {' such ') is the predicate. Verse 24. Such a character in the worshippers corresponds to the will of the Father, for it corresponds to the essence of God : God is a Spirit : and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. Spirit is in contrast with cor- porality ; therefore it is in the first place negatively meant. Isaiah xxxi. 3 : Egypt is man and not God, and its horses are flesh and not spirit. With this, however, is given at the same time the positive point of inwardness. That which corporally exists has the place of its existence in sensible externality. But God is Spirit in himself, ' in se ubique et totus,' 'everywhere and entirely within himself.' Hence he is not bound to this or that space ; but when we stand 1 [The English version has : ' such to worship him.' Professor Luthardt translates : 'those who worship him, as such,' a sentence alike awkward in German and in English, but necessarily added here in explanation of a gram matical remark below. — C. R. G.] 70 JESUS THE SON OF GOD. [CHAP. I.-IV. in the spirit, we are near to him. According to the whole context, irvevfia {' spirit ') is here meant in this sense of inwardness, of being in and with oneself. It does not betoken the perfection of God identical with itself,1 nor, finally, does it express ' power, life, knowledge, will, action,' as Stier 2 arbitrarily heaps up the statement. This knowledge of God, irvevfia 6 deov ('God is a Spirit'), was, however, nothing new, as De Wette has acknowledged by referring to the passages concerned in the Old Testa ment ; for example, 1 Kings viii. 2 7. It lies at the base of the whole Old Testament by presupposition, as a matter of course, and a matter of necessity. Liicke is guilty of a gross misconception when he inclines to believe 3 that the Samaritan conception of God was more spiritual than that of the Old Testament. If that idea of God belongs to the Old Testament, it is clear that Kostlin4 and Lutz5 are quite wrong in finding in this the specific characteristic of Chris tianity according to John's representation, and in thinking that this saying was something utterly new in contrast with the Old Testament.6 But the conclusion drawn from it is new. And this conclusion is only now drawn for the first time, because the time of the essential and adequate divine revelation, and therefore also of the essential and adequate divine communion in the Spirit of Jesus the Christ, is now for the first time present. Verse 25. The woman gives occasion for Jesus' testimony to him- 1 KSstlin, Der Lehrbegriff des Evangeliums und der Briefe Johannis, Berlin 1843, p. 78. 2 Stier, Beden Jesu, 3d ed., Barmen and Elberfeld 1870, vol. iv. p. 159. 3 Liicke, Commentar iiber das Evangelium des Johannes, 3d ed., Bonn 1840, vol. i. p. 599. This Liicke bases on Gesenius, De Samaritanorum Theologia, Halle 1822, p. 12 ; and De Pentateuchi Samaritani origine indole et auctoritate, commentatio phihlogico-critica, Halle 1815, p. 58 ff. 4 Kbstlin, Der Lehrbegriff des Evangeliums und der Briefe Johannis, Berlin 1843, p. 77. 5 Lutz, Blblische Dogmatil; Pforzheim 1847, p. 45. 6 Compare against this view, Hofmann, Der Schriftbeweis, 2d ed., Nord lingen 1857, vol. i. p. 68 f. ; and Weiss, Der Johanneische Lehrbegriff, Berlin 1862, p. 54 f. IV. 1-26.] JESUS AND THE SAMARITAN WOMAN, VER. 25. 71 self as the Christ by her words: I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ : when he is come, he will tell us all things. This has been explained as an endeavour of the woman's to put Jesus off with a question (De Wette). Liicke x thinks that it was not agreeable to her that Jesus had not decided the debated question in her favour, and that, therefore, she wished to break off with the remark that all this will be taught one day when the Messias comes ; there is always time for that yet. And did Jesus nevertheless see her to be so near a Messianic belief that he revealed himself to her as the Messiah ? 2 Or is the woman so deeply impressed with Jesus' words, that she feels deeply the need of the Messianic appearance (Meyer) ? But what brought her to the Messiah, if Jesus' person and the impression from it did not draw this thought near to her ? Baumgarten-Crusius declares at least the possibility that this question was the utterance of a presentiment as to the higher personality of this Jew. Such is the case. This woman has already advanced to such a point that she is not only free from Gerizim, but also from the pre-Christian externality of divine worship in general. The divine com munion that henceforward presents itself to her hopes will be, if anything, a matter of the Messianic time. Might not this Jew, then, himself be the Messiah, since he has given her this freedom of relation to God ? Some think that this Samaritan reference to a Messiah is perhaps a new and essential step in advance, because the Samaritans rejected the Messiah as well as prophecy.3 But even if there were no other proof, this story, in my opinion, is decisive as to a Messianic expectation in this nation — an expectation, it is true, only of a general character. The woman, indeed, uses a thoroughly Jewish form in expressing her belief, as was to be expected from her confessing the salvation which is from Israel Yet, nevertheless, the 1 Liicke, Commentar iiber das Evangelium des Johannes, 3d ed., Bonn 1840, vol. i. p. 600. * Ibid. a Bruno Bauer, Entile der evangelischen Geschichte des Johannes, Bremen 1840, p. 415 ff., especially p. 433 f. 72 JESUS THE SON OF GOD. [CHAP. I.-IV. matter was her own before, otherwise she would have said irta-reva (' I believe '), and not olBa {' I know ')} Thus, again, in ver. 42, 6 crar-hp rov Koa-fiov (' the Saviour of the world') is spoken of as a known and looked-for person. This last phrase also shows us the shape of her expecta tion. The later Samaritan Messianic belief, as Gesenius has presented it, allows an inference back to its existence at this time as to substance, though not as to form,2 since the latter before then would have been exposed to too many influences. Nor can I believe, with Hengstenberg,3 that the Messianic hopes had come over from the Jews. Eeligious antagonism was too active for that, and the later prophetic element of the kingdom was wanting in its conception of the Messiah. The ruling view is that this is connected espe cially with Deut. xviii. 15, and that it saw in the Messiah the higher antitype of, Moses the prophet. The Samaritan name 3n$n is taken either of the one bringing again (Ewald) or the one returning again (Hengstenberg), and in the last case is understood of the returning Moses (Meyer). The passage before us is too general to allow definite conclusions. If we might lay stress on ' the Saviour of the world,' in ver. 42, that would lead us to a somewhat different concep tion from that of the returning Moses. We should be forced rather to think of such utterances and thoughts as Lamech expresses at Noah's birth, Gen. v. 29. One who should free us from the neediness of life in general, and therefore a Saviour of the world, as Noah was typically ; this would accordingly have been the hope of Samaria. This woman had let herself be led so far by Jesus' self- witness as to believe on this Saviour of the world, and that as the Christ prophesied by the prophets of Israel, in the person of this Jew. 1 See Stier, Beden Jesu, 3d ed., Barmen and Elberfeld 1870, vol. iv. p. 165. 2 See Baumgarten-Crusius, Theologisclie Auskgung der Johanneischen Schriften, Jena 1843, vol. i. p. 161 ff. 3 Hengstenberg, Beitrdge zur Einleitung ins Alte Testament, vol. ii., also entitled, Die Authentic des Pentateuchs, Berlin 1836, vol. i. p. 28 ff. iv. 27-42.] jesus and the samaritans, vers. 26-29. 73 Verse 26. Jesus could testify to himself as the Messiah before her, with a short decisiveness which he could not use towards the Jews : I that speak unto thee am he. This is the great iya elfii (' I am '), which recurs throughout John's gospel. What follows shows us that the woman accepted this self- witness of Jesus in belief. (2.) IV. 27—42. Jesus and the Samaritans. We take these verses together as one section, in spite of Stier's opinion.1 Stier thinks that Jesus' conversation with the woman is followed by an explanatory supplement about his relation to his disciples, corresponding to the preceding about his relation to the Baptist, so that Jesus himself is put in between his forerunner and his deputies. But the conversation with the disciples has no independent value. It is only a part of the rest of the history, although Jesus gives the latter at the same time such a turn as makes it serve for the instruction of the disciples. Verse 27. The disciples had come back from Sychar, and were amazed to find their master talking to a woman. The rabbinical customs forbade such conversations in public places, especially about questions of law, and above all with a Samaritan woman. In their feeling of reverence, however, they did not dare to ask or to say anything. Verse 28. The woman, however, full of what she has heard and experienced, hurries to the city, leaving her water-pot so as to go faster. Verse 29. She calls on them to come and see the wonderful man who had revealed to her her sinful life. 1 Stier, Beden Jesu, 3d ed., Barmen and Elberfeld 1870, vol. iv. p. 169. 74 jesus the son of god. [chap. i.-rv. Verse 30. The people of the city, at the woman's call, start towards him. Verses 31-34. Meantime, the disciples' invitation to him to eat of what they had brought, gives Jesus occasion to utter weighty words about his calling, and the inward satisfaction which he finds in it, — a satisfaction which makes him superior to bodily needs. It does not mean that he in general had not the bodily need of eating ; but this need retires into the background for him in comparison with the divine and rich-futured calling of his life, when that calling fills his whole soul. Verse 35. He adds to this a reference to the future of his work, which looks forth beyond his day unto the time of the apostles' activity. A wide range spreads itself before him here from this single point and this narrowly limited occasion. Jesus had closed the conversation with Nicodemus by a reference to the inward religious life. Now he has passed beyond that, and can close with the most decided self- witness as the reward of a believing disposition. Nicodemus went forth silent and reflecting. This woman speeds forth in joyful certainty of belief, and with a burning heart, to be the herald of his name. In the former case, Jesus himself widens his sphere, and going out from Jerusalem passes through all Judea, teaching, baptizing, and exciting atten tion, and yet he does not find right belief. Here the multitudes come out to him and beg him to stay ; and after two days they believe on him. In both cases the sphere is widened ; in the former, from the centre of Israel within the bounds of Judea, in the latter from a chance point outside of the nation of promise. Thus we have two spheres. The kingdom of God is to be planted first in Israel, and then outside of IsraeL These two sections of IV. 27-42.] JESUS AND THE SAMARITANS, VERS. 30-35. 75 the gospel are a prophecy of these future events. In this sense Baur's x statement is true, namely, the present history presages the conversion of the Gentile world. Israel and not-Israel are to be called to the kingdom of God. Jesus is not merely the fulfilment of all the history of Israel, but is also 6 a-arijp rov Koafiov (' the Saviour of the world,' ver. 42). In the first case above, a few indeed believe, but on the whole, 17 bpyr) rov deov fievei eir [avrova], iii. 36. In the second case, the present case, on the contrary, Jesus sees a wide grain-field ripe for the harvest. Say ye not, There are yet four months, and then cometh harvest ? Behold, I say unto you, Lift up your eyes, and look ' on the fields ; for they are white already to harvest. It was still {en) four months to harvest {rerpd/ievoo- iariv, sc. o Xpovoa) when Jesus spoke these words. The harvest was in April, therefore these words and this event fall in Decem ber. Accordingly, it cannot have been a proverb (against Liicke, Tholuck, De Wette, Krafft2), since the sowing took place in November. Nor is there the slightest trace of such a proverb to be found. Hence Jesus journeyed back from Jerusalem to Galilee through Samaria in December. While the fields of the land, however, are but just beginning to show the new green, the fields of men's hearts are already ripe for the harvest. The multitudes who came to the Lord from Sychar reminded him of a waving harvest-field. But the Lord's words are not exhausted in the present (against Godet). The present is to him only the pledge of the future, — first of Samaria, and then of men in general (Meyer). Hence he can say tjBt] (' already ') of the latter also. For ifBrj is most simply (Meyer) taken with verse 35 (against Tischendorf, Godet, and others). The statement that it never stands at the end in John (Godet) is refuted by 1 John iv. 3. Here it corresponds by contrast with en. Were it taken with what follows, it would put the harvest- work in the very present, notwithstanding that the further 1 Baur, Kritische Untersuchungen iiber die hanonischen Evangelien, Tubingen 1847, p. 147, and note. 2 Krafft, Chronologie und Harmonie der vier Evangelien, Erlangen 1848, p. 73. 76 JESUS THE SON OF GOD. [CHAP. I.-IV. declarations make it belong to the future, namely, to the time of apostolic work. The field, which the prophets, the Baptist, and Jesus himself worked, is the world, though they limited themselves in the first place to Israel's borders. Now this field is to be harvested. He alone knows that at first. It is a mystery to the disciples how he can talk to and teach those who are not Jews, and above all a woman who is not a Jew, and even testify to her of himself as the Christ. This is a mystery, because they do not yet know the general human mission of the gospel, and likewise they know nothing of that future of the kingdom of God. This future comes to Jesus' soul like a comfort, after the experi ence he had in Judea, and fills him with that joy and satisfaction which made bodily satisfaction unnecessary. Verse 36. He expresses his joy that the field stands already ripe before the eyes of his spirit : He that reapeth receiveth tvages, and gathereth fruit unto life eternal, that both he that soweth and he that reapeth may rejoice together. The union by xai (' and,' the received text, against N B etc.) would certainly suit John's style better, though it is not absolutely necessary. Was it perhaps left out on account of the false reference of rjBr) to what follows ? But a slight sadness mingles with this joyful outlook. He distinguishes between the sower and the reaper. He indeed has sowed, but others will reap. Had Israel showed at once a believing obedience, the harvest could have begun at once. But the gospel must go over from Israel to the Gentiles, and the time of the Gentiles is to begin thus. Jesus can only sow. Others will enter upon his work and gather the fruits. His very disciples, however, will begin this harvest, and his experience in the present case is a surety of that. That makes this experience of his a joyful one, and the tone of joy prevails in these utterances. He shows his disciples therewith what a blessed activity awaits them. It will consist in their gathering men into the church of Christ unto eternal life, and their reward will consist in their success. I say 'unto eternal life,' for IV. 27-42.] JESUS AND THE SAMARITANS, VERS. 36-38. 77 Baumgarten-Crusius is right in rejecting the local explana tion of elo- (De Wette, Meyer), which would make it mean the same as 'into the barns' of eternal life. That figure can only be made possible by adding something to the account. Jesus rejoiced at the success of their activity, although he had to content himself with sowing. 'Ofiov is not to be taken temporally, but materially, as Baumgarten- Crusius has paraphrased it with ' as well ... as also.' Verse 37. For, to confirm the distinction between the sower and the reaper, herein is that saying {6 Xoyoa = rb Xeyo/ievov) true — that is, finds the reality which corresponds to its thought ; — or, if we should read o dXvdivoa, is that which corresponds to its thought ; dXrfdivoo; according to John's constant use of the word, is different from dXr)dr)o- (against De Wette) : one soweth and another reapeth. Verse 38. I sent you to reap that whereon ye bestowed no labour. He emphasizes the fact that he is the sender. The send ing stands before his very eyes as a fact. Although it was implied in the choice to the apostolate (Meyer), yet in itself it was still a future fact, which Jesus handles here as at present complete. Other men laboured, and ye are entered into their labours. Almost all the later commentators (not Olshausen) agree that Jesus thinks of himself in speaking of those who as sowers have prepared the harvest for the reapers. He also had had the ' toil and work,' and the disciples then began to bring in the ripe fruit at the day of Pentecost. Hence even Chrysostom put that fact as an explanation of these words. Nevertheless, I cannot agree that Jesus meant himself alone by the plural aXXoi (' others '), although most of the later writers explain it thus (Tholuck, Liicke, Baum garten-Crusius, Meyer). Stier x asserts it with great zeal, and designates it as ' the most wretched thing,' and ' most thoroughly false,' and ' opposed to the whole of sacred 1 Stier, Beden Jesu, 3d ed.. Barmen and Elberfeld 1870, vol. iv. p. 177. 78 JESUS THE SON OF GOD. [CHAP. I. -TV. Scripture,' to think of Moses and the prophets as the sowers. Of course we do not hold that they are the only ones, but certainly they belong to the sowers. Christ is put with them only under a special point of view, namely, in so far as he did not himself in the days of his flesh, any more than they, gather the church of God, but merely prepared for it ; at the same time, it is of course not thereby denied that he is the fulfilment of the Old Testament. Therefore as many of them as were busied with such preparatory work, which closed with the glorification of Christ and with the day of Pentecost, are meant in the dXXoi. Verse 39. And many of the Samaritans of that city believed on him for the saying of that woman which testified, He told me all that ever I did. The preliminary fruit, which is a prophecy of the real fruit, is the coming of the Sama ritans to Jesus. It is occasioned, indeed, by the words of a stranger, and that in an account of Jesus' wonderful knowledge. Verse 40. So when the Samaritans were come unto him, they besought him that he would tarry with them. And he abode there two days. The belief shows itself to be a real longing, and does not stop at mere belief in authority. Verses 41 and 42. And many more believed because of his own word; and said unto the woman, Now we believe, not because of thy say ing ; for we have heard him ourselves, and know tlmt this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world. The belief perfects itself, and that in the hearts of many, by the reception of Jesus' self-witness, and by the experience they therewith make of him as the one he testified himself to be. And thus it rises to the true and right belief, namely, to belief on Jesus in his word, begotten by his word, and realized as an inward experiencing of Jesus. IV. 27-42.] JESUS AND THE SAMARITANS, VERS. 39-42. 79 The story here spoken of is prophetic of the future, and therefore Baur x holds it to be an invention ; he thinks it was formed from the after fact of Samaria's conversion, and then transferred backwards.2 But, as we have already seen, what is said about Jesus' success in Judea is prophetic, and the two sections correspond to each other, and therefore belong together. The same thing would in consequence have to be said of this previous statement, and yet Baur takes it to be only a transfer of the later activity of Jesus himself to an earlier time. Moreover, it is said that Luke ix. 52 does not agree with our account.3 It is true that Jesus is there refused admittance to a Samaritan city, not merely because he is a Jew, and is travelling towards Jeru salem (thus commonly), for the usual course of pilgrims from Galilee was through Samaria; but also because he wished to be the Messiah, and as such owned his allegiance to the temple at Jerusalem. That, however, was in an altogether different part of Samaria. If they had heard there of the events in Sychar, the opposition would be more easily explained. Jesus, the Messiah from the Jews, had already found belief among other Samaritans, and antagonism had been excited by such apparent denial of the national Samaritan honour. That, too, explains more easily the success of Simon the sorcerer, which Baur uses likewise as an argument against our gospel, but which is rather an argument for it. If the Messianic hopes of the Samaritans had been once excited, and then had this Messiah of the Jews come to an end which did not seem directly to confirm him as Messiah, those hopes could the more readily fall upon one who flattered their national pride as a great miracle- worker and as a Samaritan Messiah. And just so much the better could they be won again for Jesus the Christ when it turned out that the miraculous power of that Simon was thrown quite in the shade by the deeds of Jesus' disciples, and that Jesus had been proved to be the Christ by the resurrection. * Baur, Kritische Untersuchungen iiber die kanonischen Evangelien, Tiibingen 1847, p. 147. 3 TOM. p. 147. sIbid. p. 143. 80 JESUS THE SON OF GOD. [CHAP. I.-IV. (3.) Verses 43-54. Jesus and the Galileans. Jesus had found work and fruit in Samaria, contrary to what was to be looked for. Still he knew that this ought to be to him only a prophecy of the future, and not a direc tion for the present. Hence he holds fast to his determina tion to withdraw into privacy. The evangelist intends to indicate this by the words found in the first two verses. Verses 43 and 44. Noiv after tivo days he departed thence and went into Galilee. For Jesus himself testified that a prophet hath no honour in his own country. Jesus went to Galilee after two days, because, as Jesus himself testified, — not at that time (Meyer), but on some other occasion, nor do we need in this case to take ifiaprvprjaev (' testified ') as a pluperfect (Tholuck, Godet), — no honour is shown to a prophet in his own country. The first meaning of these words evidently is, that he went to Galilee exactly because there, in his own country, he could expect no honour. This thought, how ever, has been often regarded as an impossible one, and hence irarpia (' own country ') has been understood of Judea, either as the country of the prophets (Origen, Baum garten-Crusius, Baur), or as the land of Jesus' birth, the country containing Bethlehem (Liicke and Ebrard earlier). But, in the first place, in spite of this, Judea is not his irarpia; since in the gospel history he is the Nazarene ; compare i. 46. Again, this does not' suit the connection. He is here leaving {iKeWev, 'thence,' ver. 43; yap, ' for,' ver. 44), not Judea, but Samaria, in which he had found belief. As little are we to understand by irarpia- Nazareth in con trast with Galilee, so that it would here be told why he went to Galilee, yet not to Nazareth, his old home (Calvin, Bengel, Olshausen, Hengstenberg). Indeed, this is utterly impossible, because the evangelist in no wise hints at such a distinction between Galilee and Nazareth. The appeal to the ' land of Judea,' iii. 22 (Hengstenberg), is not avail able ; in that case the capital had been previously men tioned, and the ' land ' is clearly distinguished from it. IV. 43-54.] JESUS AND THE GALILEANS, VERS. 43, 44. 81 Tap (' for ') has not lost its confirmatory force, and assumed instead the force of an explanatory introduction (Liicke), since this would correspond neither to the New Testament nor to Johannean diction. Nor is it intended to tell here the reason why he went to Galilee only at such a late date, namely, to obtain from foreign parts the honour he could not expect at home (Meyer). Nothing is said about his going there at a ' late ' date, nor are Judea and his miracles there, mentioned directly before this ; here we also oppose Godet's: only now, and not right after the baptism. Nor can the meaning be, that just because he could expect no honour he intended to try to obtain it (Bruckner), for the succeeding context does not relate an activity in Galilee ; he works but one miracle, and that only when compelled. The evangelist's counting, at the close in ver. 54, expressly calls attention to this. Tap gives the reason for his going to Galilee, although he had found in Samaria such a hopeful field of activity ; for that very reason, because he could not count upon honour there. Hence he could hope there not to be observed, but to be able to remain in rest and quiet.1 He wished to withdraw a while from that scene of public activity. This would most probably be possible in Galilee. The difficulty, therefore, of this passage is not so utterly inconceivable.2 The following sentence is connected with this one by ovv {' then '), and not by Be (' and ') ; not because the reception Jesus found is to be contrasted with his word (Tholuck, compare De Wette), although both as to substance are in contrast with each other, but because it is only to be added, by way of conclusion to what precedes, that he has accord ingly now come to Galilee. Therefore ovv refers not to ver. 44, but to ver. 43. 1 See Hofmann, Weissagung und Erfullung im alten und im neuen Testa- mente, Nordlingen 1844, vol. ii. pp. 86, 87 ; Der Schriftbeweis, 2d ed., Nordlingen 1859, vol. ii. part i. p. 171 f. 2 Sehwegler, Theologische Jahrbucher, Tubingen 1842, I. i. pp. 164-166 ; compare Baumgarten-Crusius, Theologische Auslegung der Johameischen Schriften, Jena 1843, vol. i. p. 173. LUTH. II. F JOHN. 8 2 JESUS THE SON OF GOD. [CHAP. I.-IV. Verse 45. Then when he was come into Galilee, the Galileans received him, having seen all the things that he did at Jerusalem at the feast ; for they also went unto the feast. We here find the same contrast between Jesus' design and the reality that appeared in the journey through Samaria. He had hoped to be able to remain unnoticed, but he met with a joyful welcome. Yet he had not worked his miracles among them, but in Jerusalem. Verse 46. So Jesus came again into Cana of Galilee, where he made the water wine. He had it in mind to withdraw for a while into stillness. Hence he went to Cana, to the retirement of that house" the founding of which he had consecrated. This is probably what the evangelist means to say when he recalls the miracle of changing the water into wine. And there was a certain nobleman whose son was sick at Capernaum. Verse 47. When he heard that Jesus was come out of Judea into Galilee, he went unto him, and besought him that he would come down and heal his son; for he was at the point of death. Baur and others have made this nobleman a heathen, so as to be able to identify him with the centurion in Matt. viii. 5 ff., and then to refute or correct either John by Matthew (Strauss, Bruno Bauer, Baur, Hilgenfeld), or Matthew by John (Weizsacker). But this is all arbitrary, since the two incidents are in every respect different. The unyielding belief of this f3ao-iXiKocr (' nobleman,' namely, an officer in the service of Herod Antipas at Capernaum) com pels Him to do a miracle, although He at first answered the request unfavourably, and with a reproof. Verse 48. Except ye see signs and wonders, ye will not believe. The belief of the Galileans and of this man of Caper naum was at first only a belief like the Judean belief IV. 43-54.] JESUS AND THE GALILEANS, VERS. 45-53. 83 in miracles, ii. 23. They received him joyfully, ver. 45, because of the signs which they had seen. And Jesus must utter, the reproof to this man, that their belief is never willing to have any other foundation than miraculous signs. Yet they were inclined towards Him though He had hitherto done miracles, and wrought, not among them, but only in Jerusalem and Judea. And this man holds so confidently to his belief in Jesus' person, that His word is enough to make him sure of the thing he wished for. Verse 49. Unmoved by Jesus' reproof, the father continues : Sir, come down ere my child die. Verse 50. This urgency of the father's prayer, born of anxiety, decided Jesus to consent : Go thy way ; thy son liveth. And he went his way. As a reward for this, even before he reaches his home he learns the certainty of the answered prayer. Verses 51-53. On the way he receives the joyful news from his servants, Thy son liveth, and at the same time finds that the beginning of the recovery dates from Jesus' words : Yesterday at the seventh hour the fever left him. Accord ing to the Jewish reckoning, which we have no right to exchange with the Eoman (Ewald: seven o'clock in the evening), that was one o'clock in the afternoon. Since Cana is about three geographical miles distant from Caper naum, we must either assume an unknown delay, or else put the meeting in the evening, which begins a new day for the Jews (Hengstenberg, Bruckner). Jesus had so arranged his miraculous help, that he freed the belief from the miraculous activity and referred it to His word.1 It is said of the Samaritans in ver. 41 : enrio-revaav Bia rbv Xoyov avrov (they ' believed because of 1 Compare Baur, Kritische Untersuchungen iiber die hanonischen Evan gelien, Tubingen 1847, p. 152. 84 JESUS THE SON OF GOD. [CHAP. I.-IV. his word'), and here, in ver. 50, we read enia-revaev ra Xoya (he 'believed the word'); in both cases alike, the ground and object of belief is Jesus' word. This is the progress of belief, which the evangelist intends to depict by the two examples from Samaria and Galilee. He pre sents it as contrasted with the Judean belief in miracles, which concealed within itself real unbelief. The last words of Jesus quoted by the evangelist, which denote the true constitution of belief, apply entirely to the man before us, xx. 29 : fiaxapioi ol fir) IBovrea Kal iria-revaav- reo- {' blessed are they that have not seen and have be lieved '). The whole gospel is so planned as to enable us to behold the development of belief towards this end. Verse 54. The incident in Samaria, however, had an importance not simply as standing alone, and in reference to that day, but also as prophetic of the future. The case is the same here. Jesus does not yet open a' course of Galilean activity. His action on this occasion is only an exception. The evangelist calls attention to that fact: This is again the second miracle that Jesus did, when he was come out of Judea into Galilee. Tovto ('this') is the subject, Bevrepov arffieiov ('second miracle') is the predicate, and irdXiv ('again') lays special emphasis on the point con tained in Bevrepov {' second '). The first miracle was upon the occasion of the marriage, this second miracle is again in Cana. We therefore have not a miraculous activity, but only these two miracles, both of a private character. The whole scene, however, is a prelude to the future. That man from Capernaum represents Galilee in general. Christ speaks to him, ver. 48, in the plural ; and what is true of him is true of all. In Galilee, as in Judea, it is only by miraculous signs apparent to the senses that Jesus can hope to awaken belief. But the result in Galilee is a different one from that in Judea. Here he will succeed in finding a larger circle of disciples, who no longer need the sensible miracles for their belief, but who hold simply to his word. This presupposes, it is true, that the one IV. 43-54.] CONCLUSION OF FIRST PART. 85 who begged the favour from Jesus was not a heathen, as many have made him out to be. Jesus, in ver. 48, does not mean this man alone, nor the nation aside from this man (Baumgarten-Crusius), but both, and therefore the man is a Galilean, and is a Jew. Although he came with belief, yet it was a lack in his belief (against Baumgarten- Crusius) that he asked Jesus to come with him and heal his son. The centurion spoke very differently, Luke vii. 2 ff. : ver. 7, elire Xoya Kal ladryra 6 irai. fiov {' But say in a word, and my servant shall be healed '). Hence Jesus could say in ver. 9: ovBe iv ra 'laparjX roaavrrfv irto-riv evpov (' I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel '). Yet, on account of this lack of belief, the noble man does not deserve the accusations Stier 1 makes against him. For, in the first place, he clings to the Lord like the wrestling Jacob, as if he would not leave him till he blessed him. And, in the next place, he at once sustains the trial of belief — no small trial — which Jesus lays upon him by commanding him to believe without seeing, ver. 50. In the renewed life of his son, he and his household themselves find eternal life in belief, iii. 36. Thus Jesus rewards belief on his word, while the wrath of God remains upon the unbelievers of Judea. Conclusion of First Part. With this, the first part of the gospel closes. Jesus, the Son of God, the incarnate Word, the truth and the fulfilling of the Old Testament and of all Old Testament revelation, the essential satisfaction of human need, is introduced and introduces himself as such, is witnessed to and witnesses to himself. On the other hand, we have seen belief and unbelief, and half-belief, which contains unbelief in itself or which develops into true belief — a belief needing miracles no longer, but holding only to the word, and finding its reward in living communion with 1 Stier, Eeden Jesu, 3d ed., Barmen and Elberfeld 1870, vol. iv. p. 183 ff. 86 JESUS THE SON OF GOD. [CHAP. I.-IV. Jesus. The first swift beginning and comprehensive attempt of Jesus, his limiting himself to special persons, and his return into quietness, — all this is brought before us in a movement which is spirally progressive, and which displays the most various contrasts. One phrase, however, is the centre and union of the whole : Jesus, the Son of God, must be believed in; He is believed in by God's decree, and unto eternal life ; and men are to believe in him for the sake of his self-witness. In the last event, however, a self-revelation of Jesus is reported which is not so general and comprehensive as the preceding, but more special. In ver. 53 he speaks the words 6 vlba aov %f) {' thy son liveth '), and thereby revealed himself as the one who gives life. This forms the transi tion to the next section. Hence Stier x has connected this account with the fifth and sixth chapters as one section ; but that is because he does not understand the peculiar constructionytof our gospel. After what was said above, we hardly need aJny further proof that vers. 46—54 necessarily belong to what precedes. We have, however, already seen that in this gospel the close of one section is usually at the same time the transition to the next section. We do not need, therefore, to be led astray in our division by the certainly apparent relation of these verses to the fifth and sixth chapters. Jesus reveals himself as the life, then as the light ; both in a rising climax, and both in contrast with and under the contradiction of the unbelief of IsraeL The fifth chapter leads us directly into this contest. 1 Stier, Beden Jesu, 3d ed., Barmen and Elberfeld 1870, vol. iv. p. 181. EXPOSITION. II. JESUS AND THE JEWS. Chapters V.-XII. II. JESUS AND THE JEWS. Chapters V.-XII. V., VI. Jesus the Life. — Beginning of the Contest. THE evangelist leaves the thread of continuous historical narration. He has, indeed, led Jesus to Galilee. But he is silent as to His stay there, and likewise at the beginning of the next section, chap, vii, as to His activity there. He simply ranges one upon the other, single frag ments, chiefly from Jerusalem, as a clear sign that the history serves him as a means of instructing, as a demon stration of the doctrine. The instruction and doctrine have, however, other con tents than what the history contains, namely, Jesus the Son of God. And so the evangelist ensures at the same time the correct understanding of the history, and thereby arms belief against attacks upon, and aspersions of, Jesus the Christ on the part of unbelief. And since the church of Jesus Christ is entirely conditioned upon Him, and has a similar form with Him, the evangelist, in the same act, teaches men how rightly to understand the form and position of Christ's church in the world, and secures those who belong to that church against the hostility especially of Jewish unbelief. The characteristic thing in the church, as in Jesus, in the former because in the latter, is that they stand in opposition to the contradiction of unbelief and disobedience, while the salvation which they give is only imparted to the obedience of belief. 89 9 0 JESUS AND THE JEWS. [CHAP. V.-XII. Each of these has its history, the exhibition of salvation and the contradiction against it and against its offer. The part of the gospel with which we here have to deal contains both of these ; the exhibition of salvation in its various essential sides, and the course of Jewish contradiction from its occasion and its first utterance, to its completion in the decree of the Sanhedrim and to the last judicial words of Jesus. Previously, his finding belief outside of Judea was not sought by him, but was ordered by God, and brought to him by God. And thus the contest with Israel's un belief in which he now becomes entangled, is not sought by him, but is introduced without his will. Previously, the opposition to his self-witness as the Son of God found a semblance of legal foundation in his form of flesh, and this foundation will ever remain in so far as he testifies to himself as the Son of God. But still other seeming foundations for opposition will be added from the letter of the law, or from the Old Testament Scriptures in general, in so far as Jesus exhibits his divine Sonship as the fulfil ment of all Old Testament revelation in its various sides. This will at once be clear to us in the fifth chapter. The fifth and sixth chapters form the first section of this second part. For, as we saw above,1 there is a break in the historical narrative at the sixth chapter. This section is of two parts, moreover, because Judea and Galilee are to be brought together and to be contrasted with each other, on account both of the similarity of Jesus' conduct and claim and of his experience. We here find ourselves still in the first stage of the contest, which reaches its height in chapters vii.-x. The fact that Jesus reveals himself first as the life, and then in the second section as the light, corresponds to the course of the state ments concerning him in the opening of the gospel. In that opening, however, the evangelist's proclamation returns again to the true life of the new birth which is bestowed on believers, i. 12 f . ; and here the revelation of Jesus returns from light to life. The third part of the gospel has also a certain analogy 1 Vol. i. p. 204 f. V. 1-47.] THE GOD-LIKE ACTIVITY OF JESUS, VER. 1. 91 with the third paragraph of the opening. In the latter, the glorious revelation of grace in the only-begotten Son is praised ; and in the former, chapters xiii.-xx., we find at heart nothing but a magnifying of Jesus' love, or an announce ment of the glory which he has revealed to his disciples in the revelation of his unending love. Attention may further be called to still another phase of the analogy. The second paragraph of the opening moves entirely in the contrast between the revelation of Jesus and his reception in the world, between believers and un believers ; the same is the case with the second part of the gospel. And as the evangelist forsakes this contrast in the third paragraph of the opening, and only announces the blessed experience which they, his own, have had in communion with him, in the same way the third part of the gospel passes from the contrast between Jesus and the Jews to the announcement of Jesus' love to his own, who stood in the communion of belief with him. These mani fold references and analogies permit us to recognise the deep internal unity of conception, which is based upon the energetic self-limitation of the evangelist to that which is essential in the revelation and proclamation of Jesus. V. 1-47. The God-like Activity of Jesus the Son of God, and the Beginning of the Opposition. This is the subject of the fifth chapter, and it is treated in three paragraphs. (1.) Vers. 1-9 report the deed which becomes the occasion of opposition ; (2.) Vers. 1 0-1 8 relate the growth and intensifying of the antagon ism; (3.) Vers. 19-47 contain the declaration as to him self and as to the right of his claim, made by Jesus in view of the opposition. (1.) Verses 1-9. The Occasion. Verse 1. After this there was a feast of the Jews; and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. The evangelist does not say how 92 JESUS AND THE JEWS. [CHAP. V.-XII. long after. The continuation of the narrative by fiera ravra (' after this ') is quite customary in John's gospel.1 Liicke's distinction between fiera tovto, as denoting im mediate, and fiera, ravra, as denoting more distant sequence, is entirely incapable of proof (see Meyer), and is also arbitrary linguistically. The Feast. A feast, without closer definition. The Sinaitic, it is true, has the article r) eoprrj ('the feast'). But the authorities, A B D etc., on the other side are too strong. The addition of the article is easy to explain from the old exposition, which made this a passover ; see Meyer. Jesus . goes thither on account of the feast, and not, in the first instance at least, for the purpose of renewing his former activity in Judea. The latter is certain, from the fact that we after this behold him active in Galilee again. We therefore conclude that the former was the case, and hence that the feast was not the feast of Purim, celebrated on account of the deliverance from Haman's murderous plans. Purim is, however, commonly taken to be the feast meant (Hug, Olshausen, Wieseler, Baumlein, Meyer, Godet), be cause it falls in March (14 and 15 Adar), and thus seems most easily to fit the last statement of time, iv. 35, and the next one, vi. 4. The worldly character of this feast, the celebration of which was not bound to the temple, makes it improbable that Jesus went to Jerusalem on account of it (see Hengstenberg, Liicke, De Wette, Bruckner). And if he went for the sake of working, why should he not rather have chosen the passover, which came but a month later, vi. 4 ? But if it be not Purim, it is one of the great feasts, and the passover at vi. 4 falls in the next year. It is then not possible to say which feast it was (Liicke, De Wette, Tholuck, Bruckner), since the evangelist has not defined it. It is labour lost to guess the passover (Lampe, Hengsten berg), or Pentecost (Bengel), or Tabernacles (Krafft,2 Lich- 1 See vol. i. p. 26. 2 Krafft, Chronologie und Harmonie der vier Evangelien, Erlangen 1848, p. 98. V. 1-47.] THE GOD-LIKE ACTIVITY OF JESUS, VER. 2. 93 tenstein,1 Eiggenbach2), though the last is the most probable. The evangelist did not define it, because he wished to em phasize only this point, namely, that Jesus did not go to Jerusalem without being occasioned to go by a feast. Verse 2. There is— it doubtless still existed after the destruction of the city — at Jer-usalem by the sheep-gate a pool. This is at least what is commonly understood by the reading iirl rfj {' at the '),3 irvXy {' gate ') being supplied after irpofiariKf) (' sheep '). Meyer emphasizes KoXvfij3r]dpa, and connects it with irpofiariKfj : there is at the sheep-pool Bethesda. But then the evangelist would not tell his readers what Bethesda was. The sheep-gate |NXn "W is mentioned, at Neh. iii. 1, 32, xii. 39, as near the temple. Whence its name came we do not know. Probably it was connected with the sheep appointed for sacrifice. Bethesda. At this place was a pool, called {iiriXeyofievv introduces a characteristic name of this very pool) in the Hebrew tongue Bethesda, with five porches. Bethesda is commonly explained as &nDn iva, ' domus benignitatis ' (' house of grace '). Delitzsch 4 explains it as beth {e) stdw (VBD, VBDK. aroa, porch), house of porches, which is less probable. The name, doubtless, is connected with the use of the place for poor sick people, for which purpose five porches, with vaulted arches, surrounded the little pool. Where we are to look for Bethesda now it is not easy to say. The pool may have been filled up 5 (Godet). The fountain of the pool may be identical with the present Mary's fountain,6 a 1 Lichtenstein, Lebensgeschichte des Herrn Jesu Christi in chronologischer Uebersicht, Erlangen 1856, p. 198. 2 Riggenbach, Vorlesungen iiber dasLeben des Herrn Jesu, Basel 1858, p. 408. 3 The omission of these words in the Sinaitic manuscript is evidently a correction, intended to make the sentence easier. 4 Delitzsch, Talmudische Studien, Zeitschrift fiir die gesammte lufherische Theologie und Kirche, 1856, pp. 622-624. 5 Ritter, Erdhunde Asiens, Berlin 1852, vol. viii. part 2, pp. 329, 443. 6 Robinson, Palastina, Halle 1841, vol. ii. p. 148 ff. 94 JESUS AND THE JEWS. [CHAP. V.-XII. thought which Tobler 1 discusses at length without noticing Eobinson's suggestion. At any rate, we may with Tobler say, that it is doubtful whether we can find the pool again at all or not. Lieutenant Warren made excavations and found water- reservoirs and porches in the neighbourhood of Birket- Israel, a large, dry, grass and shrub overgrown, square hollow, north of the Haram, whither tradition puts the pool of Bethesda. This can hardly be Bethesda. These things are probably connected with the water-supply for Jerusalem, and for the temple-worship.2 Verses 3, 4. On the floors of the porches lay a multitude {iroXv, ' great/ after irXrjdoo- is to be struck out, according to the testimony of the manuscripts) of impotent folk : blind, halt, withered, — namely, with withered limbs, — waiting for the moving of the water. For an angel came down into the pool from time to time, and troubled the water. Whosoever then first, after the troubling of the water, stepped in, was made whole of what soever disease he had. The words iKBe^pfievav . . . voaiffiari (in the English ' waiting ... he had ') are wanting in x B C ; the last words of the third verse in A L ; and only the fourth verse is lacking in D. Besides, there are many dif ferent readings in the text. Hence this whole passage is critically more than suspicious. It is no less doubtful as to its substance. The first part, it is true, — the close of the third verse, — is a correct gloss as to the fact ; this appears 1 Tobler, Die Siloahquelle und der Oelberg, St. Gallen 1852. 2 Instead of HnhiiWi$_.. Keim, Geschichte Jesu von Nazara, Zurich 1871, voL ii. p. 177, points to the city-quarter Bezetha or New City, at Jerusalem, as if the pool were named from it. It is true that tradition places it on the northern slope of the temple, where the hill Bezetha rises and the new city begins (see Josephus, De hello judaico, V. iv. 2, Opera, Amsterdam 1726, vol. i. p. 328 ; V. v. 8, ibid. p. 336). This combination has, however, little to support it. It would be easier to find in the name a confirmation of Delitzsch's suggestion that the name is to be traced back to beth (e) stdw. The readings are so uncertain that it will scarcely be possible to decide upon the right one. The safest thing will be to keep to the reading of A and C. Not understanding it, they have made Bezetha, or still worse, Bethsaida, out of it. V. 1-47.] THE GOD-LIKE ACTIVITY OF JESUS, VERS. 3-5. 95 from the seventh verse. But the conception which lies at the base of the words in the fourth verse goes beyond the bounds of the Biblical mode of viewing things. That the common and constant phenomena of nature should be called forth by the special activity of angels, finds no support in the Scriptures.1 Although, according to the Scriptures, the spirits do rule in the life of nature, still they belong not to the sphere of the ' causae efficientes ' (' efficient causes '), but to that of the ' causae finales ' (' final causes '). They mediate the teleological connection of the life of nature with the kingdom of God. That is a different thing from the simple fact of an ordinary healing fountain. If this passage were genuine, it would find its analogue in no other. Besides, the later age would have been much more inclined to put in such a peculiar addition, than to leave the words out if they were genuine. The last words also, a Brjirore ('of whatsoever'), are somewhat extravagant. In short, everything speaks for the striking out of the whole passage. Verse 5. Among the sick people at this place there was one who was calculated to excite sympathy more than the others. The evangelist mentions the long continuance of his disease not as a merely external remark, but as the motive for Jesus' action. He desires to urge the point that Jesus worked the miracle, not for the purpose of beginning a con tinuous activity, but only out of pity, as an exception. This is clear, partly from the detailed way in which the place is designated, and partly from the citation of the thirty-eight years. Jesus healed the sick man at a place of suffering and of pity {Brjdea-Bd 'locus benignitatis '), and among the many afflicted men, he healed one who already had thirty-eight years in his infirmity, that is, who had been ill thirty-eight years. But at the same time, Jesus performed this miracle both as a testimony to and as a trial for Israel. This appears from the fact that Jesus heals an infirm man, and that without having been asked, and above all on the 1 Against Hofmann, Der Schriftbeweis, 2d ed., Nordlingen 1857, vol. i. p. 327. 96 JESUS AND THE JEWS. [CHAP. V.-XII. Sabbath. He seems to have sought this place, and to have intended to heal one of the sick. At least the narrative gives such an impression. Verse 6. For Jesus, in that He himself asks the sick man a question, which must have excited a wish and a hope in him, directs his longing and hoping thoughts at once to His person. Wilt thou be made whole ? The man did not know at all who it was that addressed him; see ver. 13. Jesus contents himself with this small measure of dawning belief. Hence the healing was not the reward of belief, but had the ground for its consummation in Jesus himself. Verse 7. To the long continuance of the illness was added the helpless forsaken state of the sick man, as a motive for Jesus' decision. I have no man, when the water is troubled, to put me into the pool : but while I am going, another steps down before me. It was an intermittent healing fountain, not enclosed by itself, and hence its water soon mingled with the rest of the pool. Therefore, if a sick man would experience its healing effect, he must hasten to come into the first flow. Perhaps, too, the way to the water, probably down steps, was narrow. The infirm man had no friends and acquaintances to care for him and put him quickly in the flowing water, — hence (SaXy exactly : ' throw,' to cast him in, — and he himself was too helpless to be able to reach the right spot at once. All this is spoken with a certain tone of resignation. &*¦ Verse 8. So much the more does Jesus direct His helpful, power ful sympathy to him. Rise, take up thy bed and walk. And Jesus' words at once fulfil themselves. The repetition of Jesus' words gives this impression. Verse 9. The testimony concerning himself which Jesus here V. 1-47.] THE GOD-LIKE ACTIVITY OF JESUS, VERS. 6-9. 97 offered was easy to understand for all who saw the healed man. They could, and they should, recognize in this, that the power of a new and healing life was given in Him, a life which He offered even without being solicited. This healing was therefore a question put to Jerusalem. The question which he asked the sick man was meant for the whole nation. Thus the man is in a measure, it is true, a type of the nation. But it seems to me far-fetched to say that there is a reference to the thirty-eight years of wandering in the desert (Krafft). The emphasis rather lies on the on iroXvv rfBrf yjpbvov eyei (sc. ttjv dcrdeveiav, ' that he had been ill a long time '). This is also true of the nation. If, however, the question was especially meant for the nation, we understand, in the first place, why Jesus did not demand that decided belief should come to meet Him, but Himself awakened it, and why little is said about the man, because he recedes in comparison with the general meaning. And, in the second place, we see that Jesus offers Jerusa lem a new opportunity. He makes a new trial. Yet the possibility of belief must become more difficult to the degree in whieh belief is refused. Israel had to believe on the Nazarene, because it would not hear of the one born in Bethlehem, and the same law repeats itself on every further stage in the history of salvation. .Previously Jesus, testified to as the Son of the Father by the last and greatest prophet, came to his temple with open self-proclamation and with rich manifestation of his miraculous power. Now, Israel must believe on the simple feast-pilgrim, — which He from this time forward is and continues to be for Jerusalem, — who, moved by pity, healed that one sick man, and that upon the Sabbath, but otherwise did not testify to himself at all. He who wished to be recognized as the Saviour of Israel, seemed to offend against the very fundamental law of the government of God's church. How much more was it now necessary to hold firm to the essence which appeared in Jesus, and to free oneself from the letter of the law ? The more offensive Jesus became, the more difficult was belief, and just so much keener and more compelling grew the dilemma ; that they must behold in Him a sinner LUTH. II. G JOHN. 98 JESUS and the jews. [chap, v.-xii. worthy of death, or a man who in a God-like manner effects life in the world, unfettered by the limits which the law of the Sabbath traced. The fact of the healing by his mighty word, witnesses to his Lordship over the Sabbath as well as over the temple. What an importance must this one event have gained in this way ! It is conceivable that it became the starting-point of all further transactions between Jesus and the Jews, and we shall have no occasion to be surprised when at a much later date we see that both come back to it, vii. 21 ff. The point, however, was this, how the act was viewed, namely, whether they laid stress on the healing or on the apparent breach of the Sabbath which Jesus committed and caused the healed man to commit. We see both sides of these views represented in a character istic manner in what follows. (2.) Verses 10-18. The Antagonism. Verses 10, 11. The Jews therefore said unto him that was cured, It is the Sabbath-day : it is not lawful for thee to carry thy bed. He answered them, He that made me whole, the same said unto me, Take up thy bed and walk. The healed man having been informed that it was the Sabbath, and that his deed was unbecoming the day, justifies this deed by the authority of the one who had made him whole. Verse 12. Then asked they him, Wliat man is that which said unto thee, Take up thy bed and walk ? It is characteristic that the Jews only ask who had told him to do this on the Sabbath, a deed forbidden by the law. They do not inquire who had healed him, the fact to which the man had referred in the eleventh verse, and one which they might well have found worthy of the first attention. Verses 13, 14. And it is again characteristic that, on the other hand, the man questioned does not reply that Jesus had bidden him V. 1-47.] THE GOD-LIKE ACTIVITY OF JESUS, VERS. 10-15. 9 9 do it, the answer apparently required by the Jews' question. Instead of this, he waits till he again meets Jesus, who had retired to avoid attracting attention, and learns who he is. Then in the fifteenth verse he replies to the Jews, that Jesus has made him whole. [The Jews speak of the sup posed sin ; the man speaks of the healing.] All this shows the mood of both. Verse 15. It is true that if the announcement in this verse is a token of deep hard-heartedness and reprobation (Schleier macher), then this difference of moods does not exist. But even the characteristic difference of utterance and of con ception which lies in the words is a testimony against such a view : this was observed by Chrysostom, and Liicke un justly calls the remark too acute.1 Nor do we, therefore, need to leave the reason for the announcement undecided (Baumgarten-Crusius). It is to be sought, with Bengel and De Wette, in the design to justify himself before his spiritual rulers. For, on the one hand, we meet the cured man in the temple. This is doubtless not a mere matter of chance, though most of the later exegetes (except Meyer and Godet) have failed to observe it. It was certainly for the purpose of thanking God for the healing. And, on the other hand, we perceive that Jesus is able to speak to him the words in the fourteenth verse : ' Behold, thou art made whole : sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee.' It is true that He reminds him of his sin, the punishment of which he should behold in his illness, and for which he had to expect heavier, probably eternal, punishment in case he renewed the sin. But this presupposes an already existing repent ant and thankful disposition, and is not intended to awaken such a state of mind. These two things, the fact that the man was in the temple, and that Jesus addressed these words to him, show that the blessing he had experienced had not failed to make the proper moral impression upon 1 Liicke, Commentar iiber das Evangelium des Johannes, 2d ed., Bonn 1843, vol. ii. p. 32. 100 JESUS AND THE JEWS. [CHAP. V.-XII. him. In this the Jews are contrasted with him, since the event made the opposite impression upon them, because of the offence which it contained for the unbelief of those who clave unto the obedience to the letter. Verse 16. And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, because he had done these things on the Sabbath-day. With this begins the conflict, which grows more ardent step by step until its final tragic issue. 'EBlaKov {' persecuted ') here means only the hostile disposition, and not a legal process yet. The healing on the Sabbath does not seem to them an isolated event (we do not read : iiroirjo-ev, ' did '), but one charac teristic of Jesus' general posture towards the law of the Sabbath {iirolei, ' was in the habit of doing '). Verse 17. Jesus' justification only serves to increase their anta gonism. The words, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work, place him in his activity in such a manner on a level with God, that the opposition of unbelief, especially against the supposed Sabbath-breaker (compare ver. 18), could only be the more intense. In what sense does Jesus make him self equal to his Father ? Baumgarten-Crusius and Meyer are right in declaring themselves against the explanation offered by Olshausen and De Wette, namely, that Jesus intends to say of himself, that, as God combines repose and activity in the Sabbath's rest, so he combines religious con templation with moral, benevolent activity. The text gives as little support to this as it does to De Wette's view con cerning an assault here made upon false notions as to the rest intended on the Sabbath. When Jesus called God his Father, this title only received a distinctive sense by the circumstance that he made himself equal to God in a special respect. Hence it is that the Jews draw the former as a conclusion from the latter. This is evidently the grammatical relation of the two sentences to each other in ver. 18, and not the reverse ; nor are they two parallel sentences (Baumgarten-Crusius). But it is true that he V. 1-47.] THE GOD-LIKE ACTIVITY OF JESUS, VERS. 16, 17. 101 can only put his activity on a level with the divine activity because he can call God his Father in a specific sense. For this is not said of, and intended to refer to, those related to God in general in the freest sense (Baumgarten-Crusius) ; it bears exclusively upon the relation of the one Son to his Father. It seems to me that there has been one very common error in the explanation of this passage. They have con ceived in too general a way the contrast of rest and activity,, which they have placed at the foundation of the words as a religious presupposition. God did not contrast the Sabbath with his action in general. . He contrasted it with, and set it at the end of, his act of creation.1 At that point began a new activity on the part of God, and its Sabbath has not come yet. We may therefore say that a day of rest has not yet been appointed for the human activity which corre sponds to that second divine activity, but only for the one corresponding to the creative. We may learn what the work of God is, which he effects from that point onwards; from the fact that Jesus came to do and to' complete God's work ; see for example iv. 34. Hence all the action of God since the creation, or rather since the Sabbath of God i which concluded the creation, is essentially related only tO' Christ and his work. Therefore it is of a salvation- bringing, a redeeming kind. The execution of the will of God unto salvation is Christ's- work, because it is God's work. The gradual realisation of this saving will is the substantial contents of the divine action since its Sabbath began. And for this work there is no Sabbath either for him or for the Son, whose action wholly coincides with that work of God. In this sense, then, Jesus speaks these words. The redemptive working and executing God's saving will still continues, and is not yet at an end. Its Sabbath has not yet come. And the same is true of his corresponding action, or rather of that action of his which performs the work in question: This is similar to, though deeper in conception than, Matt. xii. 1 See Hofmann, Der Schriftbeweis, 2d ed,, Nordlingen 1857, vol. i. pp. 267, 280. 102 JESUS AND THE JEWS. [CHAP. V.-XII. 1 0-1 3, where he justifies the healing on the Sabbath in the synagogue by other acts of deliverance which they unhesi tatingly allowed themselves to perform on that day. He emphasizes the right of redemption, since it has not yet reached its conclusion, but still stands in the course of its history. The ordinary explanation is, that God's rest does not exclude his activity. This alters the specific meaning of the Sabbath. But in particular it leaves the expression eW apn (' hitherto ') unexplained. We should expect, ' in spite of the rest of the Sabbath,' or something of that kind, but not an expression which evidently includes the thought that the time of rest is not yet come (against Meyer). Since God the creator rests from creating, God the redeemer works through the Son. The new Sabbath came with the day of the glorification of Christ in his resurrection. That closed the fact of redemption. That day stands as a divid ing wall between the time of the redemption and of its acceptation, just as the old Sabbath stood between creation and preservation or ruling. Since then, the Holy Ghost is the active, immanent principle of sacred history, as Christ was in the time of redemption. This last thought is also contained in these words of Christ. For the connection is not intended in such a way as that the epyd^eadai {' to work') should be said of both in exactly the same sense, and that the working of the Son should only come forth at the side of that of the Father. The thing said here must be like what the context presents in the succeeding para graph, ver. 19 ff, namely, that the action belongs to the Father in so far as it proceeds from God, and to the Son in so far as it completes itself in the^ world. Jesus here designates himself as the continuing organ of all divine redeeming activity. Verse 18. The keenness of the dilemma to which the matter is at once brought upon this first occasion of the contest, a con test intensifying and developing itself from this time on wards, calls forth also opposition at once in all its keenness. V. 1-47.] THE GOD-LIKE ACTIVITY OF JESUS, VER. 18. 103 In the sixteenth verse it says iBiaKov (' they persecuted '), but in the eighteenth we find fidXXov etfyrovv avrov diroK- reivai (they ' sought the more to kill him ')} It is not as if we were so to understand it that fidXXov, with the mean ing ' now indeed,' should indicate the advance from BiaKeiv (' to persecute ') to ^rjrew diroKreivai (' to seek to slay'), as Bengel and Baumgarten-Crusius would persuade us. MdXXov belongs to itfyrow, and BiaKeiv already includes in itself the wish to slay (Meyer). Baumgarten-Crusius regards this as essentially improbable. But he did not consider the funda mental importance of the command touching the Sabbath, the strictness of the law of the Sabbath. It was the appa rent offence against this law that made Jesus' words unen durable, the words in which he called God his own special QBiov, ' proprium,' belonging peculiarly to him) Father, in that he at the same time made himself equal to God. The former point lay in the 6 narr\p fiov {' my Father'), the latter in the making the ipyd^eadai (' to work ') the same for both.2 "Itrov eavrbv iroiav k.t.X. {' making himself equal ' etc.) is neither a conclusion from (thus Liicke), nor a presupposi tion for, that which precedes. If the Jews saw in Jesus a transgressor of the law, such a speech must excite them in the extreme. There is, however, nothing here about external ' tempta tions ' (against Baumgarten-Crusius), but only about their disposition and their inward desire {ityfrovv, ' they sought '), as it was made more intense by Jesus' reply. Thus, as we see, at the very beginning the issue is already settled. Of necessity, the psychological fact transplanted itself into the external reality. Previously, however, the disposition and the desire must become a persistent psychological character, and this character must grow clear and decided, so that the desire may become a settled purpose, and that purpose ripen into a formal resolution. In what follows we see the un- 1 [It will be observed that the like phrase in the received text, and in the English version of the sixteenth verse, is rejected as spurious by Tischendorf, Tregelles, and Westcott and Hort. — C. R. G.] 2 Compare Hofmann, Der Schriftbeweis, 2d ed., Nordlingen 1857, vol. i. p. 133 ; and Meyer. 104 JESUS AND THE JEWS. [CHAP. V.-XII. belief of Israel pass through this development. Jesus' self- witness, which is to perfect the belief on miracles by making it a true belief on and in the word, is also the thing which causes the first offence at the healing on the Sabbath to grow to the peremptory death resolution. (3.) Verses 19-47. Jesus' Self-Witness. The declaration Jesus here makes is nothing but a development of the words in the seventeenth verse, which had only increased the offence. They treat of his relation to his Father, as a relation not only of dependence, but also of equality and of union in regard to working. Verse 19. Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do. It is first a rela tion of dependence. For a preparatory movement of the Father's precedes every act of the Son. He receives the direction and the impulse for his action, not from himself, but from the Father. But that which in the case of the prophets was a temporary influence and excitement is here a continuing essential relation, and that of communion. He is not so humanly dependent that he must first be instructed on each occasion. On the contrary, he beholds the movements of the Father's will : fSXeirrj is the designa tion of inward direct vision — that is, of inward intercourse of life. In the first place, therefore, he speaks of a constant communion, and after that of a communion the basis and contents of which are not of a human kind and of a human origin, but lie beyond them. He is here called dependent, not as man, but because of the essential communion with the Father which is peculiar to him. Oi Bivarai (' cannot') contains not an external but an internal necessity. He is conditioned upon this relation to the Father, only because that communion essentially belongs to him. The beginning of all motion of the will is not isolated in him, but proceeds from the one, the standing in communion with whom com pletes his being. We therefore shall not find in d(j> eavrov {' of himself) V. 1-47.] THE GOD-LIKE ACTIVITY OF JESUS, VERS. 19, 20. 105 a popular abstraction, namely, that the Son is considered abstractly in his human appearance,1 or that the words are spoken with a ' dim, one-sided reference ' to what is human in Christ (De Wette). The whole divine-human subject is intended (Meyer). The only thing is, that the first point in question is his earthly historical condition of being. This, however, is but the appearance and completion of a heavenly historical condition upon which he has entered, and upon the analogy of which this earthly condition is formed. Therefore this self-witness also bears upon the heavenly condition. And hence it is as well an exact as an essential declaration concerning Christ. The expression corresponds to the thing itself, and is true no less of God with God than of the man Jesus. For these reasons we shall also not be inclined so to weaken d eavrov as to refer it to knowledge (De Wette), since it really touches upon the most internal life and life- motion. Nor shall we understand by the (SXeireiv (' to see') and BeiKvveiv ('to show') a gift of power and a making something possible (Baumgarten-Crusius), since they denote the innermost, essential communion of life. Hence the negative statement is expressly followed by the positive as its support : For what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise. 'Ofioiao- (' likewise ') is an emphasized repetition of that which lies in the ravra (' these '). He does not say, I ; but designedly says, ' the Son,' so as to characterize his relation to the Father. If that communion belong essentially to him, then he indeed came forth from God into the world, then he is 6 vlocr (' the Son ') in the exact sense. Verse 20. For the Father loveth the Son, and showeth him all things that himself doeth. Such exceptional equality of working does exist, and therefore he is Son in the exact sense, for the relation between the Father and him is an unlimited one. It is true the relation of the Father to the Son is desig- 1 Liicke, Commentar iiber das Evangelium des Joliannes, 3d ed., Bonn 1843, vol. ii. p. 37. 106 JESUS AND THE JEWS. [CHAP. V.-XII. nated as a communion of love, such as perhaps might also occur in the case of every man {