V

r-^Si

?.v5i3iii'

¦..riV '
•E^'U
m^»<-if ',M
^f^.:
:w> 3S^ s*fe*i^::SfSssSKKi
¦WiWiiuutum.ii*.iM

Gift of 190 G.

„t^'

,c/ )^  '^ d-'pt^ '

/^.

x^f^' :)

/.

(^<"^7y-/^.#^^'

(^¦/ li'Q Y '^^ " y ^^

COMMENTAEY

GOSPEL OF JOHN.

DR. AUGUSTUS THOLUCK.

TRANSLATED FROM THB GERMAN.

CHARLES p. KRAUTH, D.D.
PEOPBSSOK OF THBOLOGT IN THE EVAN&ELIOAL LUTHBEAN TKE0L08I0AL SBMINAET,
PHILADELPHIA, PA.

NEW YOEK:
PTIBLISHED BY SHELDON AND COMPANT.
BOSTON: GOULD AND LINCOLN.
1867.

Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1859, by
CHARLES P. KRAITTH,
in the Clerk's OfBce of the JDistrict Court of the United States for the Western IMstrict of Penn'a

¦ rSBBOTTPBD BV W. S. HATBV, PITTBBITXaB, PA.

£2.73^

TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE.

One of the most eminent Biblical scholars, not alone of our coiintry,
but of our age, in imparting some of the impressions derived from a
sojourn in Europe, says : " To the American Christian -who travels on this
part of the Continent, Tholuok is undoubtedly the most interesting person
¦whose acquaintance he -will make. He possesses a greater personal influ
ence and reputation than any other theologian in Germany."' Prof. Park
in his Sketch of the Life and Character of Tholuok, makes these remarks :
"As a Commentator he has many excellencies. This -Would be anticipated
from the fact that his reading has been so various, and his memory is so
retentive ; from his almost unequaled facility in acquiring language, and
his peculiar intimacy with the Hebrew and its cognate tongues. He is
able to write and converse in a great variety of languages, as the English,
Italian, Dutch, French, Spamsh, Latin, G-reek, Arabic, Persian and
others. He is, of course, qualified to illustrate the sacred texts by a
multiplicity of references; and he quotes with peculiar pertinence and
effect from the Oriental, and especially from the Eabbinical writings.
For a single specimen, read his comment on John vii. 37-39. The
classical quotations, too, in his Commentaries, are eminently valuable." '
Kaufman observes iti the preface to his translation of the fourth edition
of Tholuck's John : "Nothing is perhaps more wanted in the theological
domain than a good Commentary on the G-ospels. On this part of the
Bible our language affords the student little that is valuable in A critical
and doctrinal view-.^^In commenting on St. John particularly — the Plato
of the inspired circle-^— it requires a mind of a peculiar order. This mind
Tholnck possesses : a happy combination of deep and meditative thought
with a Christian heart ; a quick apprehension, a glowing imagination, an
accurate acquaintance with language, and a nice perception of its force,

IV Translator's Preface.
nor indeed upon the literary arena of any nation. He stands forth pre
eminent among the learned ones of that learned people ; he yields to none
in versatility of mind, in depth and compass of thought, or in variety of
knowledge. . . But a lustre is thrown over all these attainments by his
deep and earnest piety. Such a fervor and glow of Christian devotion as
everywhere breathe in his writings, are scarcely to be met with in any
writer since the days of Leighton. Amid the doubters and infidels of
Germany, it is truly delightful to discover such a spirit as Tholuck's ;
learned and eloquent as the proudest among them, he still preserves the
meek simplicity of a child, and brings all his learning and his laurels and
lays them down at the feet of Christ."
Miiller' says : "Every thing presents itself to the mind of Tholuok in
large outline. . . Bold and brilliant images are always at his command.
Not only does the Holy Bible open to him its treasure-chambers, but the
sages of Greece, the ancient and modern teachers of the Church, the
Christian lyric poets, present him their most beautiful flowers, and lay at
his feet the most apposite expressions. There is given to Dr. Tho-
liUCK THE PQ-WER OF ENCHANTMENT OVER MIND."
Not one of the Commentaries of this illustrious scholar has passed
through so many editions, and found such universal favor, as the one
which it is our privilege, in this volume, to offer the reader. To the
illustrious Neander, whose "life and whose instructions had taught him
to understand the Gospel of the Spirit," Tholuck dedicated the first
edition of his Commentary on the Gospel of John. His original plan had
been to present an epitome of the exegetical works of the Fathers and of
the Eeformers, which, upon the Gospel of John, are extraordinarily nu
merous and rich. In performing this labor, he felt constantly the necessity
of marking and correcting the mistakes into which these illustrious men
had sometimes been drawn by false or imperfect principles of interpreta
tion. The materials grew under his hand, and took the shape rather of a
history of the hermeneutics of the Gospel, than of an exposition of it.
He was led, in consequence, to the determination of preparing a com
pressed Commentary, in which the most valuable portions of the ancient
Expositors should be presented in their own language — not so extended
indeed in its compass, yet on the general plan which he had pursued in
his Commentary on the Komans, (a Commentary which De Wette remote
as he was from its distinctive theological position, pronounced to be
superior to any which had appeared on that Epistle.) The only reason
for hesitating as to the prosecution of this purpose, was his sense of the
peculiar merit of the' Commentary of Lucke. A work characterized by
1 Stud. a. Kritik, viii. 239, quoted by Pro£ Park, Sketch 31.

Translator's Preface. v
such "marked exegetical talent, thorough study of the aids, and impartiality
of judgment," might have been supposed to render another unnecessary.
But not only were the plan and extent of the work he proposed to himself
different from those of Liicke's, but it seemed to him that no one work upon
such a book as John could render all others superfluous. The Commentary
of Liicke is a very ample exegetico-critioal treatment of the Gospel, Tho
luck's was meant to be a Manual for the student and the scholar. The
Commentary which was given to the public in 1826, met with such favor,
that within a few months after its appearing it. became necessary to make
preparation for a second edition, which, with a number of corrections
on particular points, but with no essential changes, appeared in 1828.
Though many desired that he should give more breadth to his handling,
the earlier judgment of Tholuok remained unchanged — ^he felt that a more
imperative want was met by a Manual than would have been supplied by
any other form he might have given his work. It would have been easy to
enlarge the work, but he aimed at the more difficult task of compression —
the task of furnishing a work which should be comprehensive without
being bulky, and which, while it avoided superficiality, should not run
into excess of detail. The evangelical character of the Exposition, its mild
fearlessness in the defense of Christian truth, and especially its views of
inspiration, which rose so far above those maintained by the old Kation-
alism, exposed the work to violent assault. Tholuck was willing to learn
from foeS as well as from friends, and the severity of the antagonism
only made him more thorough in investigation and more deliberate in
judgment. Thus the opposition of enemies not only helped to give a wider
diffusion to his works, but served to render them more and more worthy
of the distinguished favor with which they were received. A third edition
appeared in 1831. It was marked by increasing definiteness, fullness,
and precision. The interpretation of our Saviour's discourses was almost
entirely rewritten, and various improvements of less moment were made.
In the preface he expresses his sense of the defects of his work — defects
which he would desire and hope to relieve, were he thoroughly to remodel
it. To explain Scripture more largely by Scripture, to bring to bear upon
each part of the Bible a mind enlarged by a study of the whole, to unite
with the exquisite accuracy of Bengel the profoundness of Calvin — these
he felt were necessary to the formation of an Expositor of the highest
order, one who would fully meet the wants of the Church and of the times.
He closes the preface with the hopeful words : "Despite all the clamorers,
the edifice of a Christian theology is rising, our ancient faith is justified
on the side of scientific theology, of Church history, of exegesis, of
criticism, and the unction of the Power will procure for all these strivings
an entrance into hearts prepared to receive them. Soli Deo gloria 1"
1*

vi Translator's PREFAcSi
The changes in the fourth edition,, which appeared in 1833, were ipoon-
siderable. This edition found a translator in the Kev. A. Kaufman,
Mimster of the Episcopal Church in Audover, (Boston : Perkins and
Marvin, 1836.) The notices of Mr. Kaufman's translation, in the leading
religious periodicals of our country, were, with the exception of the review
in the Biblical Kepository, generally rather unfa-vorable, and in some cases
severe. The obtrusion into the translator's preface, of private opinions in
regard to various points, which seemed to have no very natural con
nection with Tholuck's work, or with his own labors upon it, gave sjiecial
offense, and in some cases seemed to lead reviewers to an unjust estiinate
of the general merits of his work. It would indeed be easy to point out
serious mistakes into which Mr. K, has fallen as to the meaning, of his
author, and the translation is throughout rather hard and mechanical.
But it is no small honor to have performed so difficult a work, even
tolerably well. The translation shows everywhere conscientious care,
and is generally correct. Whatever its imperfections might be, it still
met a wide-felt want, and has been largely used by theological scholars
in this country and in England. It has for a number of years been out
of print.
A fifth edition of the original was issued in 1837, the year after the
appearance of the translation. In the four years which had intervened
between the fourth and fifth editions, so much that was important in the
interpretation of John had made its appearance, that Tholuck felt it a
duty to remodel his work, especially in the portion extending from the
thirteenth chapter to the end. The number of pages, however, was reduced
by the greater compression of the style, and the omission of some of the
citations. In 1834, the second edition of Liicke's Commentary had been
published, bearing on every page the evidence tha,t the ten years which
had elapsed since the appearance of the first had been faithfully used by
its author. There was less fire, but far more light and clearness in the
work in its new form. There was a general thoroughness, acuteness
and finish of treatment displayed in it, yet it was less independent
than the earlier edition, not reverential enough in its estimate of
Divine revelation, and very unequal in the exposition of different parts.
A second edition of the second part of Olshausen's Biblical Commentary
had also appeared in 1834. The peculiar charm of this work which
is as familiar now to the English student as to the German is that
it is one otagushing of the inmost soul of its author — ^it tas a unity
and freshness, which have made it dear to many who would turn with
indifference from works which might justly lay claim to more thoroughness.
In the preface to the fifth edition of his Commentary, Tholuck gives
what he regards as its distinctive character in its relations to these

Tbakslator's Peefaoe. ..-rfi
masterly works : " Were I to express what I regard as fche outward r«la-
tioB of my Commentary to the tw« with which its spiiriit ia most in affinity^
I mean the Oommenta^ies of Liicke and of Oishausen, my statement
wouldi be this : the Comm^iitary of Liicke parsnes at Itarge the learned
iluveatiga,ti,oa of many poimtSj especially of criitical ones; mime limits itself
to Qieeting the most imp(»ative -wants of the p%acher, the candidate, and
the studeftt, with the effort in every part to present the very largest
amonnt of' naatter in a, small space. To the work of Olshausen, mine
stands in this relation, that while in his the grand aim is to present the
thought in its unfoldiifbg, mine to the same degree has xegard te the his
torical and phiLologieal needs of the classes of readers just mentioned.
Their labor as Httle makes mine siipeiSuous, as mine does theirs. And
though in general we exhibit a unity of theological tendency, yet there ia
an individual diversity, so that one part of the .world of theological
readera -will feel more drawn to one of ns, and another part to another."
With all their various changes, these editions were nevertheless not so
radically different as to affect the identity of the work. But between
the appearance of tbe fifth editi^it (1837,) and of the sixth, (1844^) a
revolution in the criticism of the Gospel had taken place. The works of
Strauss (1835,) and of kindred writers, the masterly vindications by
Neander and others, which they calledl foiftl^, and the appearance of an e^tta-
ordinary number of books of high merit, bearj(ng on the interpretation of
John, had made it necessary that the sixth edition should be newly
elaborated from beginning to end. Not only did Tholuck perform this
labor thoroughly, but he enriched his work by new researches in neglected
portions of the ancient minqs, so as to make it an ampler store-house of
the old, even while he was bringing to it fresh treasures of the new.
Though much of the matter of the other editions was dropped, and what
was retained was compressed as much as possible, yet the new edition
embraced nearly fifty pages more than the latest of the old. This edition
the writer was induced to translate at the request of the publishing house
of Smith, English & Co., Philadelphia. Kegarding the work as one of
science, not as one of art, he has believed that the mere graces of style
should be freely sacrificed where such a sacrifice seemed to be demanded
by exactness in reproducing the author's meaning. The work of Tholuck
has been revised throughout, his references of almost every kind have
been verified, and in a number of cases corrected. As a convenience even
to the scholar, and as an indispensable aid to others who may use the
work, the numerous citations in the learned languages are accompanied
by a translation. The writer has made various additions, which will be
found indicated at the points at which they are introduced.

viii Translator's Prefacb.-
The translation was commenced in 1854, and was sufficiently advanced
to have been furnished for the press in 1855. Various causes led, how
ever, to a postponement of its publication to the present time. Mean
while a seventh edition of Tholuck's John made its appearance. It will
not be necessary to state its distinctive features, as the author's preface to it
¦will be given. From this edition important additions have been made,
¦which are indicated by the bracket, [ ]• Two Appendices of valuable
matter have also been made from it, for the first of which the writer is
indebted to the kindness of Prof. T. F. Lehman, of this city. As the
translation comprehends the whole of the sixth, and so much of the
seventh edition, it claims, in this combination, an advantage over either
edition of the original, as in the seventh much of the most valuable matter
of the sixth is omitted, nnder the supposition that the reader has access
to the earlier editions.
Though the labor of translation has been carried on amid the duties
and interruptions connected ¦with the pastoral office, yet it is hoped that a
conscientious care has so far overcome these diffioulties that the defects
will be found rather in the form than in the substance of the work.

CHARLES P. KRAUTH.
BQH, Penn'a. \
Maroh 17th, 1859.

122 Centre Avenue, FiTTSBunaB, Penn'a. l

AUTHOR'S PREFACE TO THE SIXTH EDITION.

Since the appearance of the fifth edition of this Commentary, theo
logical literature has been enriched to such an extent with works which
have exercised an influence on the exposition of the Gospel of John, that
we could not avoid the labor connected with a new elaboration in every
part of our Commentary, in the earlier editions of which the changes had
been bnt occasional. In the preparation of this sixth edition, we have used
and have had special regard to the following recent works : Neander, Life
of Jesus, 3d ed.; Strauss, Life of Jesus, 4th ed.; Krabbe, Life of Jesus;
the critical ¦writings of L'iitzelberger, Schwegler, Bruno Bauer ; Liicke's
Commentary, 3d ed.; De Wette's Commentary ; Ebrard, Soienti&c Critique
of the Evangelical History ; Mau, on Death, the wages of sin ; and others.
We could not use the Commentary of Banmgarten-Crusius, nor Kostlin's
System of John, in the body of our work, but have noticed them in a
supplement. Among the older interpreters, of whom the other Expositors
have hitherto made no use, or but an occasional one, we have consulted
throughout, especially the following : Luther in his Sermons, Bucer,
Crell, Maldonatus. We have used Bengel with even more frequency than
before. In this way the work has been extended beyond the size of pre
vious editions. May it be destined in this new form also, to secure a
favorable hearing and to promote science.
Dr. A. THOLUCK.
Halle, Nov. 4th, 1843. Px)

PREFACE TO THE SEYENTH EDJTIOJIt.

In permitting this Commentary, after an interval of twelve years, once
more to ge forth to the world, the lapse of so considera,blte a time, during
which so many meritorious works upon this Gospel have made their appear
ance, has rendered it necessary that this new edition should be elaborated
anew. It will be found that in preparing it we have not consulted merely
aids of recent date, but also a number of the older Expositors, hitherto
little used or not used at all, Origen in scattered passages in his works,
and some other Greek Expositors, Luther, Brentius, Tarnov, Gerhard, the
ingenious Buoer, Bullinger, Muscuhis, and others. I conld not use in the
earlier part of my work, the 3d ed. of Meyer, rior the Danish Commen
tary of Klausen, 1855. — The expressions bearing on dogmatics, have also
been more thoroughly discussed. As regardis the critieal question which
has grown into such magnitude, I must confess that after renewed investi-
tigation, during which it has been my constant effort to give dne weight
to the ¦views of those who diff^ from me, I ffeel constrained to abide by my
earlier judgment, not excepting even the Passover question. If it should
seem to some of the reviewers, that various points of the exegesis have
not been handled suffioiently at large, I would remark, that brevity was
an element of the original plan of this work, and that consequently the
reader is not to look in it for such extended discussions as he finds m my
Commentaries on Romans and on the Sermon on the Mount.
When'I began to elaborate anew the three Commentaries, (on the Epistlo
to the Romans, on the Sermon on the Moun.t, and on tbis G-ospel,) the
prospect seemed but slight, in the feeble state of my eye-sight, that I should
be able to complete them, yet God has helped me, and given me strength to
carry the work through. Should I still be blessed with the same aid, I
shall with heightened pleasure, and Vith fresh love for the work, enter
on a continuation of the preliminary History of Rationalism, in which
my next task will be the delineation of "the ecclesiastical life" of the
seventeenth century.
A. THOLUCK.
July 2d, 1857.

[CONTENTS.*

LraEODuoTioir —
Fogs
1. Life aud Character of John, - - - 1, 6
2. The Author as a personal witness, - - 431
3. Literary Characteristics, - - . - 18
4. "Where and when he wrote the Gospel, - 9
5. The Arrangement,  17, 433
6. Object and Occasion,  11
7. Genuineness oe' the Gospel on external grounds, 37
8. Genthneness on internal grounds —
1) DEPFtOTnLTT OP HABMONIZINO THB GoSPEL -WITH THB HISTOBICAL
EVEDENOES OF IBB JUDAISTIO OEABAOTBB OF THB ApOSTLB, 86
2) DinTOUI.TT OF HARMONlZINO THB GOSPEI, WITH THB S-TNOPTISTS
ON THB GBOUND OF EISIOSY, ESPBOIALLY IN THE FaSSOVEB
(JT3EBTI0N, .--.-.-.. 302
8) DlPFICtrl.TY OF EARMONIZINQ THB DlSCOUBSES OF ChEIST IN
John with those given by the Stnoptists, - - 26
9. The most important Expositors, - - - 49]
The Commentary,  --57
Appendices,  431
1 The arrangement of the matter differs to some extent in the two editionB. To
facilitate comparison, that of the 7th is given, irith the pages on which the matter
wOlbe found in the Translation.

INTRODUCTION.

§ 1. Particulars ob the Lipb of John the Evangelist.
The father of the Evangelist -was Zebedee, a Galilean fisher
man; his mother's name -was Salome. His birth-place -was
probably Bethsaida, (nys n'| "fishing place,") a fishing village
on the sea of Galilee, the native place also of Peter, Andrew and
Philip. This seems to be a natural inference from his intimate
acquaintance with them, and from his being with them, Matt.
iv. 18-21, John i. 40. The parents of John could not have
been altogether poor: Zebedee had "hired servants," Mark i.
20; Salome was one of the women who provided for the
Saviour's wants, Matt, xxvii. 56, and who purchased spices to
embalm him, Luke xxiii. 55 ; and our Sa-nour, when he was
dying, commended Mary to the care of John, and requested
him to. take her elg ra idia, to his own house. That Zebedee
was in good circumstances, and in a respectable social position,
may perhaps also be inferred from the fact that John was
known by the high priest, John xviii. 15. Under these circum
stances, the supposition is natural that the Evangelist had
received some education. He is, indeed, enumerated (Acts iv.
13,) among the "ignorant," (tdtwrotf ,) but the Pharisees regarded
all persons as such who had not pursued the Ea,bbinic study of
the law, all who were not a'pjn n'pSn, pupils of the Rabbins.
It is probable that from his earliest years he had a religious
bent. His mother Salome appears to have been a woman of
piety, such was the devotion -with which she attached hefself
to Jesus ; her mind, too, was probably occupied -with the
Messianic hopes, as we infer from the narrative in Matt. xx.
20, from which we gather also her devoted love to her children.
2 (1)

2 Introduction, § 1.
Such a mother would be likely to exercise at an early period a
hallowed influence on her children, and this would be fostered
in John by his mode of life as a fisherman, -which often led him
to pass the quiet watches of the night on the waters, amid the
enchantments of a region resembling that which encircles the
Lake of Lucerne. (See Seetzen in "Winer, Reallex. in the article
Genezareth; Clarke in Raumer's Palastina, 2d ed. p. 58.)
When, therefore, John the Baptist made his appearance and
announced everywhere the near approach of the kingdom, of
God, it was natural that John, at that time a youth, should,
under the impulse of a hallowed aspiration, attach himself to
this herald of Christ. "We find in Theophylact the tradition,
that John's father, Zebedee, was an uncle of the Baptist. The
Baptist, in prophetic intuition, depicted the exalted destination
of Jesus. From himself, as the one who was to prepare the
way, he referred men to him who was the true light of the
world. The docile Disciples turned to Jesus, and among these,
together -with Andrew, was John, who, from the very first
interview, was so attracted, that he remained with the Messiah,
whom he had now found, from the fourth hour of the afternoon
until in the night. ^Nevertheless, Jesus did not at once take
bim as a constant companion, though John probably accom
panied him for a few days. (See on ch. ii. 2.) It was charac
teristic of the divine -wisdom of the Saviour as a teacher, tbat
he placed the germ in the soul and allowed it little by little to
unfold itself. John retumed to his occupation, and some time
after, when Jesus was wandering by the sea of Galilee, he called
to constant companionship -with him the Disciple whose soul
had been aroused at an earlier period, and the call was at onoe
obieyed, Luke v. 10, Matt. iv. 21. This Disciple, then, by the
whole course of his life, is a representative of tha-t class of Chris^
tians who, by a gentle and gradual unfolding of their inner life,
have become what they are, as Paul, on the other hand, is a
representative of those who have been transformed by a sudden
conversion. In his intercourse -with the Redeemer, John now
revealed such a tenderness of heart, a disposition so susceptible
of moulding, an attachment so profound, as to render him
peculiarly dear to Christ, to which John himself alludes, though
•without mentioning his own name, John xiii. 28, xix. 26, xx.

Introduction, § 1. 8
?, xxi. 7. It is evident, too, from some narrations of the
^Evangelists, that Jesus conferred certain tokens of distinction
on three of his Disciples, of whom John was one. Matt, xvii^
1, xxvi. 87, Mark v. 37. After the ascension of Christ, John
resided in Jerusalem, where Paul finds him (Gal. ii. 9,) on his
third journey, (about A. D. 5-2,) though no mention is made of
him on Paul'^ first visit, (Gal. i. 19.) As he took the mother
of Jesus to his o-wn house, that in accordance -with the request
of Jesus he might sustain to her the part of a son, (John xix.
27;) and as this house probably was in Jerusalem, tradition has
drawn the inference that he did not leave Jerusalem before
Mary's death, which according to Eusebius took place A, D. 48.
This much is certain, that John at the time when Paul was in
Ephesus, that is A. D. 58 or 59, was not yet in that city which
became the scen-e of his later labors ; for not only would not
Paul labor in places which had been occupied by others, and
therefore would not have intruded upon the territorj' occupied
by John, but besides there is a scene (Acts xx. 17,) in which
mention of John could not have been avoided, had he then
been in Ephesus. When, too, Paul -wrote his Epistles to
Timothy at Ephesus, John was not there. Yet when Paul
afterward comes , to Jerusalem, (Acts xxi. 18,) he does not find
John there ; his absence, however, can hardly have been more
than temporary, like the one mentioned, Acts viii. 14. The first
occasion for John's leaving Jerusalem, was probably furnished
by the death of Paul, as Asia Minor, where especially th^
Chrfetian Churches were very numerous, but where also doc
trinal errors of the most dangerous character germinated, was
the very region to demand the oversight aud fostering care of
an Apostle. This would bring us to about A. D. 65 or 66. In
Palestine, as we learn from Gal. ii. 9, the Apostle still had the
stricter legal tendency. Even the Apocalypse, at least rests
decidedly on an Old Testament back-ground, and several men
who spruug from John's school, (if that expression be allowable,,)
Pa,pias, Hegesippus and Irenseus, were Chiliasts ; Hegesippus,
ih fact, had Sbionitish tendencies. As regards the Easter
festival, John and his disciples followed the Jewish usage. If
we consider the type of his Epistles and Gospel as that -which
is distinctively characteristic of John^ we can hardly speak witb

4 Introduction, § 1.
propriety of John's school, since the Letter of Polycarp, the
Epistles of Ignatius, and the Epistle to Diognetus, have more
points of accordance -with Paul thau with John, though instances
of the latter are by no means wanting. How is this to be
explained ? ' Liitzelberger has on this ground denied that the
Apostle resided in Asia Minor ; Schwegler (see § 6,) and other
theologians of the school of Dr. Baur, are the more ready to
receive the Revelation as the work of John, that they may
regard the Gospels and Epistles as spurious. This is a mere
cutting of the knot. We may perhaps say, that what is charac
teristic of John does not in general find imitators to the same
extent as that which is distinctive of Paul, (a fact to which the
later periods of the Church also add their confirmation ;) that
in addition we must bear in mind the more limited energy of
this Apostle in practical life, (even in Acts iii. 6, Peter is the
one who speaks and acts ;) that the Churches in Asia Minor,
moreover, were not founded, but simply taken care of, by him ;
that the Gospel and Epistles were the work of his closing years ;
that the more Judaizing type had already obtained predominance
through the agency of a majority of the other Apostles — in Asia
Minor especially, both Andrew and Philip had labored.
During the period of the labors of the Evangelist in these
portions of Asia Minor, he was banished by one of the empe
rors to Patmos, one of the islands of the Sporades in the ^gean
sea, where, according to Rev. i. 9, he wrote the Apocalypse.
Irenseus (Adv. Hseres. v. 30,) and Eusebius following him,
(Hist. Eccles. 1. iii. c. 18,) say that the Apocalyptic vision
was given to John at the end of the reign of Domitian. If this
account may be credited, (see § 3,) the banishment must have
occurred under Domitian, (died A. D. 96.) We find in addition
in TertuUian, (Prescript, adv. hseret. c. 36,) and in Jerome, who
adopts his statement, (adv. lovin. 1. i. c. 14, in Matt. xx. 28,)
and in other writers, an account of John's being taken to
Rome under Domitian, of his being cast into a vessel of boiling
oil, of his miraculous deliverance from it, and of his being
subsequently removed to Patmos. As this statement, however,
rests on the authority of no ancient vmter except TertuUian,
1 See p. 86.

Introduction, § 2. ' 5
who was not very critical, and as this sort of capital punish
ment was unknown iri Rome, no importance can be attached
to it. (See Mosheim, Dissertat. ad Hist. Eccles. vol. i. p. 497,
seq.) There is an independent testimony that John suffered
for the faith, in the fact that Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus,
(about A. D. 200,) calls him [idprug, "a martyr," (Euseb. His.
Eccles. V. 24.) The return from exile is to be dated under
Nerva, (Euseb. His. Eccles. 1. iii. c. 20, 23. Jerome, Catal.
Scriptor. Eccles. c. 9.) In the ecclesiastical tradition he appears
as the centre of the Church-life in Asia Minor, insomuch,
that in the controversies, as for example the one about Easter,
and in the struggle -with the Gnostics, he is referred to, and
frequent mention is made of his disciples dfhd hearers. When
upward of ninety years of age, (according to Jerome, he was a
hundred, according to Suidas, a hundred and twenty years old,)
he died at Ephesus, in the reign of Trajan.
§ 2. Character of John the Evangelist.
If we connect the image of John which his Gospel and
Epistles give of their author, with certain traits of his life,
which antiquity has preserved to us, he appears to us as a
tender, affectionate, rather feminine character — a character
which already displays itself in the diffluent and hovering
recital, and especially in the passages where, with elegiac
sadness, he speaks of the unbelief of the world; chap. i. 10,
xi. 3, xix. 32, xii. 37. Originally, this tenderness was not
destitute of a certain susceptibility to sudden flashes of anger,
as is by no means rarely the case in this class of feminine
dispositions; they are repelled as vehemently as they are
attracted. Of this kind is the trait recorded, Luke ix. 54.
From the Old Testament point of view, the anger of the
Disciple in the case we have alluded to, was just, for it wae an
anger directed against -wicked men ; but our Lord leads him to
observe that such a frame of mind is not the proper one for a
disciple of the New Testament. (We must notice in v. 55, the
position of the viieig.') There is another aspect, also, in which
1 The prevalent opinion, that this incident had led to the application of the sur
name " sons of thunder," to John and his brother, (Mark iii. 17,) is rendered less
a 2*

6 Lntroduction, §2.
he appears in the narrative of the Evangelists in an unsanctified
character. Selfishness reveals itself in the trait, Mark ix. 38,
where he utters expressions of jealousy toward those who,
without leaving all to follow Christ, as the Apostles had done,
had become partakers tn the power of working, the miracles
which attended the Gospel. Selfishness also appears, Mark x.
85, (see Matt. xx. 20,) where he and his brother, through their
mother, solicit Christ for an earthly distinction in the kingdom
of the Messiah. We are led, then, to the supposition that the
characteristics of love, humility, and mildness, the expression
of which we find in the writings of the Evangelist and in his
later history, were the result of the renewing grace of God, of
the influence of tha spirit of Christ on the Disciple who yielded
himself to it. We must not forget,- however, that the tender
ness of John, when he became penetrated by the spirit of
Christ, was in no sense an enervate softness. With all the
diffluence of his descriptions, a severe moral earnestness reveals
itself in his Epistles: 1 John i. 6, iii. 9, 20, v. 16, 2 John 10, 11.
Polycarp' (in Irenseus,) mentions a judgment expressed by John
toward the close of his life, in which we recognize the Disciple
of whom Luke tx. 54, tells -us. John fled from a bath in which
he found the heretic Cerinthus, saying that he feared that it
would fall upon their heads. We have also had, however,
preserved to us narratives, on which there is an impress of the
character of love which reveals itself in his Gospel and Epistles.
Clemens Alexandrinus, in his book, rig 6 au^Sfievog -nXovaiog,^
(what rich man can be saved,) c. 42, narrates the following:
" Listen to a story, or rather to a genuine tradition, of the
Apostle John, which has been faithfully treasured in memory.
On his return from Patmos to Ephesus, he -nsited the neighbor
ing regions to ordain bishops and organize Churches. While he
was engaged in exhorting and comforting the brethren in a city
probable on the -rie-w -we take of that occurrence, for there is not then in the -words
of Christ an absolute reproof, and they lose something of their severity. The
nam«, at least, would not then be entirely one of reproach, but -would merely mark
the strength of their natural fervor. [The name " sons of thunder" can have no
¦ reference to theic eloquence ; for at the time it was conferred on them, they could
not have given proofs of their eloquence. The most natural explanation of it is
afforded by their manifestation of violent emotion, as in Mark ix. 38 Luke ix. 54,
(Here, however, the text is not settled beyond the word iireTi/iTiaev.) 'vtli ed.] '
1 The original is given in Olshausen's Monum. Prsecip. i. 17-20. .(Tranal.)

Introduction, § 2. 7
near Ephesus, whose name is given by some, he noticed a
handsome, spirited young man, toward whom he felt himself
drawn so powerfully, that he turned to the bishop of the con
gregation with the words: 'I commit him to you, before
Christ and the congregation, who are witnesses of my heartfelt
earnestness!' Thie bistiop received the young man, promised
to do all in his power, and John, at parting, repeated the same
charge. , The elder took the youth home, educated and watched
over him^ and finally baptized him. After he had given him
this seal of the Lord, however, hei abated in his solicitude and
watchfulness. The young man, too early freed from restraint,
fell into bad company. He was first led into lavish habits,
and finally drawn -on to rob travelers by night. Like a spirited
steed that springs from the path, and rushes madly over a
precipice, so did his vehement nature hurry him to the abyss
of destruction. He renounced all hope in the grace of God;
and as he considered himself involved in the same destiny vsdth
his companions, was ready to commit some startling crime.
He associated them with himself, organized a band of robbers,
put himself at their head,' and surpassed them all in cruelty
and violence. Some time after, John's duties again called him
, to that city. When he had attended to all the other matters,
he said to th^ bishop : ' Well, bishop, restore the pledge which
the' Saviour and I entrusted to thee, in the presence of the
congregation !' The bishop at first was alarmed, supposing
, that John was speaking of money, and charging him with
embezzlement. . But when John continued : 'I. demand again
that young man, and the soul of my brother,' the old man
sighed heavily, and with tears replied : ' He is dead !' 'Dead ?'
said the Disciple of the Lord ; ' in what way did he die ?' ' He
is dead to God,' responded the old man; 'he became godless,
and finally a robber. He is no longer in the Church, but, with'
his fellows, holds the fastnesses of a mountain.' The Apostle,
when he heard this, with a loud cry, rent his clothing and
smote his head, and exclaimed: 'To what a keeper have I
committed my brother's soul!' He takes a horse and a guide,
and hastens to the spot where the band qf robbers was to be
foun^. He is seized by their outgiiard ; he makes no attempt
to escape, but cries out: .'I have come for this very purpose.

8 Introduction, § 2.
Take me to your captain !' Their captain, completely armed,
is waiting for them to bring him, but, recognizing John as he
approached, flees, from a sense of shame. John, nevertheless,
forgetting his age, hastens after him with all speed, crying:
' Why, my child, do you flee from me— from me, your father,
an unarmed old man ? Have compassion on me, my child ; do
not be afraid. You yet have a hope of life. I will yet give
account to Christ for you. If needs be, I will gladly die for
you, as Christ died for us. I vsdll lay do-wn my life for you.
Stop ! Believe, Christ hath sent me.' Hearing these words,
he first stands still and casts his eyes upon the ground. He
next throws away his arms, and commences trembling and
weeping bitterly. When the old man approaches, he clasps
his knees, and with the most vehement agony pleads for for
giveness, baptizing himself anew as it were with his own tears :
all this time, however, he conceals his right hand. But the
Apostle, pledging himself, with an appeal to God for his truth,
that he had obtained forgiveness from th^ Sa-viour for him,
implores him even on his knees, and the hand he had held
back he kisses as if it were cleansed again by his penitence.
He finally led him back to the Church. Here he pleaded -with
him earnestly, strove with him in fasting, urged him -with
monitions, until he was able to restore him to the Church — an
example of sincere repentance and genuine regeneration." To
this narrative from the life of the holy Disciple, which bears so
strikingly the impress of his heart, Jerome (Comm. ad Galat.
vol. iii. p. 314, Mart.') adds the following trait: "When John
had reached his extremest old age, he became too feeble to
walk to the meetings, and was carried to them by young men.
He could no longer say much, but he constantly repeated the
words: 'Little children, love one another!' When he was
asked why he constantly repeated this expression, his answer
was: 'Because this is the command of the Lord, and because
enough is done if but this one thing be done.' "
At a recent date, Neander, and specially Liicke, have designa
ted "vehemence and choler" as " the individual temperament "
of the Apostle ; but certainly no other vehemence is supposable
1 Migues ed. vii. 433.

Introduction, § 3. 9
than one which stands to tenderness as the opposite pole in the
one orb of character. Some just remarks on this point will be
found in Br. Bauer, Kritik der Evangelischen Geschichte dea
Johannes, p. 400, f. and a comprehensive exhibition in From-
mann, Johann. Lehrbegriff, p. 22.
§3. Language, Period and Place in which the Gospel op
John was composed.
The unanimous testimony of antiquity is, that the Apostle
¦wrote his Gospel in Ephesus. We are led to the same conclu
sion by internal marks, as for example, that the author has regard
to the Hellenistic Jewish theosophy, and for the most part to
readers out of Palestine. (John ii. 6, 13, iv. 9, v. 1, 2.) Another
mftrk of the same kind, is his skill in the use of the Hellen
istic Greek. This is so great, when we compare it with the
style of the Apocalypse, that if the Evangelist John be the
author of the latter, the Gospel, to all appearance, must have
been -written at a considerably later period. According to
Irenseus, adv. hser. v. 30, 3, the Apo'calypse was seen {iupd'&rf)
by John toward the end of the reign of Domitian, (who died 96.)
If we suppose that the -vision was committed to -writing about
the time of its appearance, it would fix the date of the Apoca
lypse at about A. D. 95 ; if we now place the composition of the
Gospel at about A. D. 100, (and we can hardly put it later,) we
shall only have an interval of five years between the writings, a
space of time which seems too brief to account for the great
diversity in their language. If we might, in accordance with
the highly plausible internal marks, fix the time of -writing
the Revelation under Gallba, (A. D. 68 or 69,) the time thus
obtained would be all-sufficient. See Dannemann, Wer ist der
Verfasser der Offenbarung Johannis ? 1841. , The recent investi
gations of Dr. Paulus, Hug, Credner, (1841,) have rendered it
probable that the Greek language was extensively used in
Palestine. James himself, (the brother of our Lord,) who
never was out of his native land, in his Epistle writes, com
paratively speaking, good Greek. John, then, may have had
some knowledge of the Greek even during his residence in
Jerusalem ; if he was banished soon after his entrance on his

10 Introduction, § 3.
new sphere in Asia Minor, he could at that time have had little
practice in it;' the interval, on the contrary, of from ten to
twenty years subsequent to his return, must have had ai
essential influence. ' (See Tholuck's Glaubwiirdigkeit der Evan
gelischen Geschichte. 2d ed. 283.) The style of the Gospel.
too, leaves on the mind a general impression that its author
was not a j5racticed vsriter, for the structure of the sentences is
defective to a very unusual degree. As much as John falls
below Paul in this respect, its solution nevertheless is to be
found not so much in his want of practice in the management
of language, as in the diversity of the peculiar genius of each;
for the dialectic mode of thinking is entirely foreign to John,
w^hose turn of mind appears to be very plain and simple.
With a uniformity which has few exceptions, his words arrange
themselves between the particles 6e and ovv ; the extent to whi(5h
the latter is used, is in fact quite striking. Such is the case
for instance,' chap. xix. 20, 21,' 23, 24, (twice,) 26, 29, 30,
31, 32, 38, 40, 42.. Quite as common is the simple connection
with Koi, iii. 14, v. 27, viii. 21, 49, xvii. 11. In a single case,'
however, we find ^jiug — fievroi, xii. 42, Kalroiye, iv. 2, the simple
nevToi, vii. 13, xii. 42, as also Kal — re, vi. 51, -viii. 16,' 17, xv. 27,
bI vvv-^Se, ix. 41, xviii. 36. The uniformity in the use of certain
fixed words and phrases, of which the three Epistles especially
present examples, is no less to be referred as a general matter to
the peculiarities of his genius, to a certain meditative simplicity,
all whose ideas reduce themselves to a few comprehensive terms,
such as [lapTvpia, 66^a, aXri^ua, ^Sg, OKorog, l^<,ir\ aluviog, [leveiv,
(see chap. v. 37.) Still we must admit,' that the facility of
expression in John falls short of that in Paul, and is indu
bitably below that of the Epistle to the Hebrews. T>f departures
from pure Greek, there are no examples which excite more diffi
culty than many of Paul's deviations from classic usage, though
Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. vii. 44, goes too far, when he asserts
that John wrote dTTTaiarug, (without slips of style.) Of barbar
isms may be mentipned, eyvuKav xvii. 7, and according to Cod.
A. D. iupoKev, also in v. 6, according to some MSS. ; also
Joh. XV. 20, iixoaav for etxov, xapi^aofiai xyi. 20, 22, for x"-p&',
dXfr&ivog iv. 37, vii. 28, if we talse it in the sense of dXT]&rjg.
Of solecisms,' ov firj, in the dependent question, xi. 56, and in

Introduction, §4. li
the direct question, xviii. 11, Iva after the demonstrative, xv.
8, xvii. 3, the Hebraistic construction, vii. 4, &c. to which may
be added viii. 39, if with Griesbach we read tfare for jjiTs.
As specimens of good Greek, we may cite the forms oi ttepl'
M.dp-&av, xi. 19,. the use of vvv, xi. 8j npb e| ^ftepwv, xii. 1,
TjWep, xii. 48, ojxoiog, with the genitive, viii. 55, (of which there'
is no other instance ih the JSew Testament,) 'lepoaoXviia, in
flected after the Greek, while in the Apocalypse it is written^
'lepovaaXfifi,kc. As peculiarities, we may mention the frequent
use of the pronoun, vi. 71, vii. 7, ix. 39^ the demonstrative with
'Lva, XV. 8, xvii. 8, 1 John iv. 17, the repetition of & positive
thought in a negative form, i; 28, xv. 6, 1 John ii. 27, 2 John
9.' Winer would have done a desirable thing, had he given
in his Grammar ofthe ISTew Testament the characteristics of the-
language of the different authors ; Liicke has neglected this in
the 3d ed. of his John also. See in regard- to the mode in which
the thought is presented in John's Gospel, Seyffarth, Beitrag zur
Special eharakteristic der Johann. Schriften, Lpz». 1833; as
regards the language,. Schott, Isagoge in M". T. p. 150.
The unanimoustestimony of antiquity designates this Gospel
as the one which- was -written last, a statement which internal'
criteria of various kinds conspire to sustain. It already pre
supposes the synoptical report, (see this point treated more at
large below,) it stands to the others in the relation of a supple
ment, it gives us the discourses of Jesus with less verbal ex
actness, &c* § 4. Design and Plan.
In the question in regard to olject, we must distinguish the
general design fromi the subordinate one. Every thing which
the Gospel history has recorded, has the general design of
extending and establishing faith in Christ and his saving
doctrine. With this view, Luke prepared his narrative for
Theophilus, as he mentions at the beginning of his Gospel.
This was also John's general purpose, as he says himself, xx.
Sl. The question now rises, whether we are obliged besides
t To the pe(iuliarities in the formation of sentences belong the construction with
nai — nai, as in vi. 36, ix. 37, etal., .and that the second period of a sentence
embraces more than the thought in the first, v. 41, 42, ix. 41, xiv. 10, 1 John i. 3.

12 Introduction, § 4.
this to suppose a special design. This Gospel is of such a
nature as to lead us readily to that supposition. It has through
out a special didactic character, offers a different circle of truth
from that of the synoptical Gospels, and continually recurs to
it. It would seem from this, that he had a distinct, heterogen
eous dogmatic tendency to oppose. The arrangement and
matter of his history differ from those of the other Evangelists
in respects which are not without significance. This might lead
us to suppose that his design was to furnish a supplement
to the other Evangelists. The idea of a polemical dogmatic
design besides the general one, is held by Irenseus, (adv. haer.
1. iii. c. 12,) who says it was John's purpose to confute the
errors of the Gnostic Cerinthus. Many of the ancient and
modern theologians concur in the view of this ancient father:
some of them, however, suppose a more general polemical aim
against Gnostic and Docetic errors at large, whilst many think
that they discover in the Gospel besides this, a polemical aspect
toward the sect of disciples of John or Zabians, (Baptizers.)
So the Socinians, Schlichting and Wolzogen ; so too Grotius,
Herder, (Erlaut. zum N. T. aus einer neueroffn. morgenl.
Quelle, p. 11,) Overbeck, (E'eue 'Vers. iib. d. Ev. Joh.) who
regard the aim as specifically polemic against the Zabians;
besides these, Michaelis, Storr, Schmidt, Hug, Kleuker, who
regard the aim as polemic toward both Gnostics and Zabians.
Some, as for example Kleuker, and more recently L. Lange,
(Beitrage zur altesten Kircheng.) think they can detect a
polemical purpose against carnal Judaizers. The most recent
negative criticism of Liitzelberger returns to the idea of a
polemic aim against the disciples of John the Baptist, (p. 275,)
and that of Schwegler, (see § 6,) which grants that the Gospel
was written toward the end of the second century, discovers in
it a relation partly irenical, partly polemical, toward the Gnosis,
and also toward Ebionism. If now the question be, whether
in the Gospel of John expressions occur which can be employed
in confuting Gnostic, Zabian, or Judaic errors, no one -will deny
it. This, however, is not sufficient to establish a distinctively
polemic aim on the part of John, for a pure Christianity,
constantly and in its ovsti nature, is in conflict with those errors.
The characteristics of the Gospel can force us to the idea of an

Introduction, § 4. 13
aim so definitely polemic, only iu case tlie didactic character
peculiar to it can be accounted for in no other way than by
equally definite considerations grounded on the history. This is,
however, not the case. As to the opinion of Irenseus, it is well
known that the Fathers in their contests with the heretics were
ready to imagine things of this sort, to represent the Apostles
as distinctly opposing the particular heresies of their day.
Irenseus in the same passage maintains that John designed to
combat the errors of the Nicolaitans, which is certainly uot the
case. Irenseus, moreover, from the fact that several passages
in John could be employed against the Gnostics, might, with
out being led to it by any historical data, conie to the conclusion,
that it was the distinctive object of the Evangelist to controvert
the Gnostic views. To this may be added, that those places
which are regarded as polemic against Cerinthus, (6 Xoyog aap^
iyevETo, &c. Storr, fiber den Zweck des Ev. Joh. § 48, seq.)
and those which are supposed to ha-ve a controversial aspect
toward the disciples of John the Baptist, (John i. 8, iii. 28,
seq.) do not strictly answer their polemic intent, as Dr. Paulus
has shown in his Introd. in I^. T. Capita selecta, lense, 1799 ;
in fact, that Cerinthus might employ for his own purposes
certain passages in John, cf. same, p. 112. It cannot, moreover,
be shown at all that this polemical character pervades the whole
Gospel. Under these circumstances, we cannot concede that
John, in the composition of his work, had a distinct polemic
dogmatic aim before his eyes, still less that this was his grand
aim. It is, nevertheless, probable that cursorily here and there,
(xix. 34, 35,) especially in the Introduction, he has an eye to
erroneous opinions and doubts, which just at that time were
current. (This is Rettberg's view. An Jesus in Exhibenda, etc.
p. 9.) It is natural to all authors to have an occasional regard
of this sort to their relations to their own times. This tendency
is more obvious in John's first Epistle than in his Gospel,
about which the judgment of Liicke, in hi^ Introduction to the
first Epistle of John, is very just.
If there be then no pervading controversial aim, did John
perhaps design to place his Gospel in a definite relation to the
other Gospels ? He might have intended to present a more
spiritual delineation of the doctrine and life of the Saviour.

14 Introduction, §4.
This thought readily occurs to him who has been attracted by'
the wonderfully sublime simplicity, and the heavenly gentle--
ness, which pervade this whole work, as well as by the many
expressions in regard to the higher nature of Christ. The
Alexandrine writers, who generally embrsice the idea that there
is a twofold spiritual point of viesv existing among Christians,
express this thought. Clemens, in a fragment (preserved by
Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 1. vi. c. 14,) of his lost vnorvwuGsig, says:
Tov jxevTOi 'ludvvTji^ eaxarov avvi66vra, on rd aodfiarLKa iv rotg
evayyeXtoig 6EdrjXuiraL, TrpoTpanevra v-rrb tS>v yvupLp.(,iv, nveviiart.
deo^opr]Mvra, TTvevfiaTiKov TtoLrjaai svayyeXcov. "Biit John, last
of all, perceiving that -what had reference to the bodily, was
sufficiently detailed in the Gospels, encouraged by his friend's,
and divinely incited by the Spirit, composed a spiritual Gos
pel." Of the same stamp the earlier view of LiLcke was,
that the first three Gospels were to be regarded as proceeding
from the position of the •n-iartf, (faith,) that of John from the
position of the yvuaig, (knowledge.) (Comm. 1st ed. Thi. i.
p. 160, seq.) Since in addition Jolin generally recounts those
discourses and miracles of Christ which are not mentioned by
the other Evangelists, many writers, both ancient and modern,
have sopposed that John had a general purpose of completing
the earlier Gospels, especially of supplying what was wanting
in their delineation of the divine in Christ, (Trjv ¦&eoXoyiav.) This
is the view of Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 1. iii. c. 24, and also of
Theodore of Mopsuestia in the Catena ih Ev. loh. ed. Corder.
Antv. 1630 : aXX" ol mpl ttjv 'Kaiay ¦rigto'I d^iomcjtOTepov tuv
XoinZv elg rrjv tov ivayyeXtov iiaprvpiav ^loddvvqv Kplvavreg stvac
TOV im'cppinv, npoarjveyKav fiev avTU rag ptpXovg, fia'&eiv rjv Tiva
mpl uitCv "x^i ifjv do^av xap avrov (iovXajxevoi. 'O 6i eTxyveae
jitv rTjg dXijdeiag Tovg yeypatpoTag, S(j)7]ae Si jSpaxea ij,iv aiJTotg
TTapaXeXel(j)SM, Kal tSv fidXtOTa dvayKaiuv Xex^rjvai ¦^avnaTUV to
diSaoKaXiKii dnavra [iLKpov. EZra Kal delv etpaoKe rovg Trent Trig iv
aapKl ¦napovaiag tov Xpiotov SoaXtyofievovg jUjyiie tov^ nepl Trig deoTriTog
Xoyovg napaXnrelv ktX. "When the believers in Asia judging
St. John to be the most credible of all witnesses, solicited
him to write the history of Jesus, and laid before liim the other
Gospels to have his judgmerij upon them, he pronounced them
all to he truthful records ; but said that some miracles of a very

Introduction, §4. 15
instructive character were omitted. He said, besides, that the
facts about the deity of Christ should be written as well as those
that related to his appearing in the flesh, &e." Jerome, also,
(Catal. de vir. illustr. c. 9,) speaks of the historic design of
furnisHmg a complement to the other Evangelists. So likewise
Sto'T, Hug, Feilmoser. The contrast in question to wit : that
the fourth Gospel is more pneumatic than the others, certainly
belongs to a later period, which reflected from its own point of
¦view on the two classes of records. The Apostle himself would'
in all probability, have judged in the matter as Herder does,^
vom Gottessohn nach Johannes, p. 34: "If you insist on calling
this a Gospel of the Spirit, be it so, but the other Gospels are
not therefore fleshly. They also contain living words of Christ,
and build on the same foundation of faith." The object of
completing the three synoptical Gospels which we have, cannot,
then, in this specific sense be admitted. That this cannot have
been the grand design, is shown by the unity of form in the
Gospel; "this Gospel," says Hase, "is no mere patchwork to
fill up vacant spaces ;" and not even as a distinct subordinate
purpose kept in view by the Evangelist throughout, can we
perceive a design of filling out what had been omitted by the
others. It is in conflict ¦with such a ¦view, in fact, that so much'
has been embraced in the fourth Gospel which is Also found in
the first three ; that not a few of at least apparent contradictions
to them occur, which might have befen harmonized ; that, on the
other hand, the apparent coritradicfions between the synoptical
Gospels themselves are not cleared up ; that at chap. xx. 30, some
statement of this aim might justly be looked for ; and finally,
that to embrace ttis view strictly,' -would force us to think of a
literary assiduity of a comparatively modern stamp. In addition,
at that period the Churches were acquainted with the history
of our Lord less from the ¦written records of the three Evan
gelists than from ¦fcraditioh. Nevertheless, there is some truth
tying at the b'ottoin of this theory. If John in his instructions
imparted much, wfiicli passed beyond the ciMe of the ordinary
oral tradition, and consequently beyond the syiioptical Gospels
which fl(^wed from it, we can hardly think otherwise than that
among his friends a longing would be excited to possess a
history of the Lord in accordance with his delineation. If he

16 Introduction, § 4.
yielded to this desire, his work must of itself take the charac
ter of a complement, and only thus can we account for it, that
so many significant facts are passed over, such as the baptism
of Jesus by John, the temptation in the wilderness, the trans
figuration, the institution of the Lord's Supper, the agony in
Gethseniane. That the reader is presupposed to le familiar with
the ordinary traditional circle, is very clear from chap. iii. 24, xi.
2, and also from i. 32.' (See Hug's Introduction, ii.§ 53.) If
he has, notwithstanding, given partly in a similar way with the
others, large portions, as for example the history of the Passion
and Resurrection, this is not to be wondered at, for wdthout
these no Gospel could be written ; nevertheless, John maintains
his own peculiar character in this division of his work. Besides,
the only passages that coincide with the synoptical Gospels are
chap. vi. 1-21, and xii. 1. The historical portion in chap. vi. is
connected with the discourse that follows, although it may have
also been introduced on account of the miracle ; the narrative,
xii. 1, may be introduced on account of the trait it presents of
Judas, of whose deed of blackness John designs to give a
history in which results are traced to their causes. This view
of the origin of the Gospel, so natural in itself, is confirmed by
the Ecclesiastical Tradition : the account quoted above from
Clement is expressly referred by him to the tradition of the
dvEKa-dev wpeafivTepoi, (the earliest presbyters.) The intimation
of the Apostle himself, chap. xx. 30, 31, serves at least to show,
that out of the mass of material which lay before him, he had
made a selection with distinct objects in view — what they were
he does not tell us.
If he made a selection, the question arises, whether he merely
intended to present something more, or whether this additional
matter is placed under some definite point of view also. The
earlier period reflected little about the literary character of the
Gospels ; the most recent, especially in the Criticism of Dr. Baur
and his followers, has carried this tendency to extremes. Since
Strauss especially, they find throughout this pseudonymous Gos
pel, as they regard it, the most obvious intent, the most distinct
1 Add to these xiii. 27, xviii. 2, (where the concerting of Judas with the council is
presupposed,) xviii. 19, (where the chief point in the hearing before Caiuphaa is
unnoticed,) xix. 7, xxi. 15.

Introduction, §4. 17
designs and categories, to which the discourses and histories
are adapted, the foUo^wing up of a distinct plan, even to the
minutest detail. The result naturally is : that to the degree to
which we impute this reflective plan to the pseudonymous
¦writer, we detract from his historic truthfulness. Bruno Bauer
proceeds, most of all, in an arbitrary, irrational manner. After
returning from the perusal of these recent critics, we feel afraid
that we shall read the Evangelist with confused eyes — as Liicke
(Comm. i. p. 188,) says, " will put meanings into him that he
never had." Especially has criticism directed attention to the
fact, that this Evangelist has made it his business to depict
Jesus in constant conflict vsdth the Jewish officials. Since this
has been brought before the eye, those also who acknowledge
the authenticity of John, as for example Liicke in his 3d ed.
(see De Wette,) have obtained new insight into the composition^
of the Gospel. We, too, feel free to affirm that from its very
commencement the Gospel pursues this theme: The eternal
conflict hetween the divine light and the corruption of men, exhibited
in the opposition between the inimical Jewish party and the appear
ing of the Son of God, and protracted until the Ught is victorious
As the overture expresses the idea of a musical composition, so
the very Prologue embodies, this theme, for it speaks of the
contest of the world -with the Logos before he became flesh ;
and as the theme of the Epistle to the Romans lies in chap. i.
17, so the idea which animates the Gospel of John is expressed
in chap. i. 11-13. Two main di-sdsions even of an outward
character undoubtedly present themselves. The first, to chap.
xii. embraces the Public Work of Jesus, and closes -with a resumfe
of it, V. 44-50. For the second division, the History of the
Passion and Resurrection, we are prepared by the discourse of
Jesus, chap. xii. 23-82, in which the leading thought is : the
setting of the sun is necessary, for without it there can be no
rising. Chapter xiii. begins the History of the Passion, and at
the outstart, as it were, v. 8, the Disciple points to the final
glory. The exclamation of Thomas: "My Lord and my God,"
the sublimest acknowledgment of the risen Saviour, closes the
second part, and by the words to which it leads : "Blessed are
they that have not seen, and yet have believed," forms the
transition to the closing expression : " These are written, that
8*

18 Introduction, §5.
ye might believe that Jesus is the Son of God." In the first
main dj-dsion is delineated the gradual rise of the opposition of
the Jewish rulers up to the decisive event of the resurrection of
Lazarus, a,nd the open outbreak of their hatred -which foUowe^d.
This recital closes -with the official judgment of Caiaphas, chap.
xi. 50, and involuntarily his decree becomes a prophecy of the
significance of Christ's death. At an earlier period the religious
pragmatism [disposition , to exhibit the causes, relations and
results of events. Tr.] haql been noticed in the Gospel, that
John everywhere sees a divine connection, and now and then
refers to that course of providence which at time lingers, at
others rushes on, chap. vii. 30, viii. 20, xiii. 1. In our -view of
the plan of the work, these intimations appear not simply as the
casual effusions of a religious spirit, but as designed to subserve
John's aim as a writer; nevertheless, we are decidedly under
the conviction, that the history presented itself after this form
to the Evangelist ,as he -wrote it, and not as the result of pre-sdous
reflection. Had such a plan been before the eyes of the Apostle
from the beginning as a scheme of which he was conscious,
would he not have expressed it in that closing formula, chap.
XX. 31, where the Evangelist has reached the end of his recital ?
§ 5. Contents and Form of John's Gospel as compared
with the first three Gospels.
With reference to its contents and form, , this Gospel is
throughout peculiar, and in this peculiarity lie a charm and a
power of attraction, which have not only caused it to be pre
ferred to the other Gospels, but have led many to rank it above
all other books of the Bible. [This Gospel speaks a language,
to which no parallel whatever is to be found in the whole compass
of literature ; such childlike simplicity, with such contemplative
profundity; such life and such deep rest; such sadness and
such serenity; and above all, such a breath of love  "an
eternal life which has already dawned, a life which rests in
God, which has overcome the disunion between the world that
is and the world to come, the human and the divine." (Hase
Kircheng. p. 89, 7th ed. translated by Blumenthal & Wing,
IJ^ew York, 1855.) • If we cast our eyes over the whole body of

Introduction, §5. 19
religious literature, there is certainly none whom we would
feel tempted to place by John's side, unless, perhaps, it were
Thomas .d-Kempis ; yet such a comparison would involve as
complete a mistake, as to place in parallel the siinplicity of
Xenophon -with. that of Plato. In the Apostolic men, cited
as scholars of .John, in Polycarp, Ignatius, the author of the
Epistle to Diognetus,. there are, indeed, here and there, tones
of assonance with John, but not the to,uch of John's pencil,
while to Paul so many parallels, even besides Luther, present
themselves.] .All the . leSiders ,of the vo.ice of the Church have
been full of its praises. . Chrysostom (Prooem. in Hom. in loh.)
¦writes thus: d,8e pi/jropfxcav .abhjTcxcHv zs xal d.d-hjztxmii dvdpdjv,
zwv [lev d-sazal,,z(i)v dh ofiou ¦&£(!) pyjz at xa\ dxpoaz.ac fiBza. zoaauz/j:;
,.xd,^rjvzat zyj<;jtpod-Of^a<;,.3:6arjv -fjiuv xal anou^rjV.. xal npod-upiav dv
EiTjzs dixaioi T^apaxiy^sXv.,, ohx auhjzcxou zcvoz, ouds aofcazcxou wv si^
dymva xad-ikvzoz, d^A' dv^poz dno zmv phpavmv f&syyopspou, xal
.^povzT^Z XapLnpozipav dfdvzoz (patvijv ; Ttaaav yap z^v ocxoupsvvjv
iTtea'j^e xal , xariXa^e, xal ivsnhjas z^ ^oy, ou jip pAya dvaxpayeTv,
.dXXa zip pszd t^c ^siai; ^dpizoc xivr/aai zvjv yXwzzav. xal zb .dij
d^aupaazbv, 5zc ouzco psydhj obga ^ ^oij aux sazi zpaitid ztz, oi^de
dTfjSyjz, dXkd TtdoTjz pouao^i; d-pptoviat; ijdcaiv xal no^sivozepa xal
^iX^at im'ffzapevTj rcXeov xal.Ttpbz i^ouzoic; dnaacv dyicDzdzv/ xal
tppcx(od$ffzdzyj, xal zoao6za)v yepooera dno^^i^zmv, xal zoaaura
xopi^ooaa.dya&dy 8. zohi, pszddxpc^scai; xal npod-opiaz Xa^ovza^ xal
ScafoXdzzovza/; aux svi Xoijibv dv^pmTtoui; eivac, ouds inl zrj<;.yrj<;
fjLsvscv, dXX! di,V(ozipoj jrdvzmv hazdvac zmv ^leozixwv, xal npbz zv/V
dyyeXcx^v pe^ctppoaafdvou(; X^^cv xad-dnep zbv oupavbv, ouzm zijV
y^v ojxecv. ¦ 'f If the spectators of the Athletes, or those who ^re
at once auditors and spectators, of rhetoricians and pipers, sit
¦with so great readiness ; wl;iat readiness and, earnestness dpes it
become you to, manifest, when you are sumnioned to ; the
.spectacle, not; by a piper, not, by. a sophist, but by a, man who
sp.eaksi .from; heaven and . emits a voice clearer than thunder ?
He has pervaded anid embraced the whole world, he has filled
it with his cry, not, by .the greatness of :the sound, but by a
;tpngue moved, by. divine grace. And, -what is .wonderful, is
.that ithis great cry is not.Jiarsh, not d^stit]iite of sweetness,, )jut
.sweeter, 3,nd more ch,arming, endpwed with, more power. to
.attract than allthe harmony of music: and besides all thesCj it

20 Introduction, § 5.
is most holy and awe-inspiring, filled with such secrets, con
veying such good things, that those who receive and guard it
with diligence and earnestness, are no longer men, no more
abide upon earth; they have placed themselves above the
things of time, they are partakers of the state of angels, and
thus dwell upon earth, as if it were heaven." In a similar
manner Augustine (Tract. 36, in lohan.) declares : in quatuor
evangeliis seu potius in quatuor libris unius evangelii sanctus
Johannes apostolus, non immerito secundum intelligentiam spirit-
alem aquiloe comparatus, altius multoque sublimius aliis trihus
erexit prcedioationem suam, et in eius erectione etiam corda nostra
erigi voluit. Nam cceteri tres evangelistce tanquam eum homine
Domino in terra ambulabant, de divinitate eius pauea dixerunt,
ipsum autem quasi piguerit in terra ambulare, sicut ipso exordia
sui sermonis intonuit, erexit se non solum super terram et super
omnem ambitum ceris et coeli, sed super omnem etiam exercitum
angelorum, omnemque constitutionem invisibilium potestatum, et
pervenit ad eum, per quem facta sunt omnia, dicendo : Jn prin
cipio erat verbum, etc. JIuic tantce sublimitati prineipii etiam
ccetera congrua prcedicavit, et de Domini divinitate quomodo nullus
alius est locutus. Hoc ructabat quod biberat. Non enim sine
causa de isto in illo ipso Hvangelio narratur, quia et in convivio
super pectus Domini discumbebat. De illo ergo pectore in secreto
bibebat, sed quod in secreto bibit, in manifesto eructavit. "In the
four Gospels, or rather in the four books of the one Gospel, the
Apostle St. John, not undeservedly ¦with reference to his
spiritual understanding compared to an eagle, has lifted higher
and far more sublimely than the other three his proclamation,
and in lifting it up he has wished our hearts also to be lifted.
For the other three Evangelists walked, so to speak, on earth
with our Lord as man, of his divinity they said but few things,
but John, as if it oppressed him to walk on earth, has opened
his words as it were -with a burst of thunder, has lifted himself
not only above earth and every sphere of sky and heaven, but
even above every host of angels, and every order of invisible
powers, and reaches to Him by whom all things were made, as
he says : ' In the beginning vs^as the word,' &c. He proclaims
other things in keeping ¦with this great sublimity with which he
begins, and speaks of the di-vdnity of our Lord as no other person

Introduction, § 5. 21
has spoken. He pours forth that into which he had drunk.
For not without a reason is it mentioned in his own Gospel,
that at the feast he reclined upon the bosom of his Lord. From
that bosom- he had in secresy drunk in the stream, but what he
drank in secret he poured forth openly." And Origen (Comm.
p. 6, ed. Huet,) says : zoXprjzsov zoivuv sinscv dnap^T^v phv itaamv
ypaipmv scvai zd euayysXia, zmv 8s suayyeXcmv dnapy^v zb xazd
^Imdvvyjv ou zbv vouv oudsl^ duvazai Xa^siv pyj dvartsamv irtl to az-^S-Oi;
'Irjaou . . xal zfjXcxouzov 8s yevsad-ac 8s7 zbv iaopevov dXXov 'IwavviyVj
wars olovsl zbv ^Imdvvrjv 8ecY^&^vac ovra "Irjaouv dnb ^l/jaou. " We
may presume then to say that the Gospels are the first fruits of
all the Scriptures, and the first fruits of the Gospels is that of
John, into whose meaning no man can enter, nnless he has
reclined upon the bosom of Jesus, . . he must become a second
John, and take John as a Jesus from Jesus." (Origen means
to say, the expositor must so enter into the spirit of John, that
John, as one filled by Jesus, appears as the counterpart of
Jesus himself.) The devout Ernesti styles this Gospel, the heart
of Christ. Herder exclaims : " It is ¦written by the hand of an
angel." This impression is a result as well of the literary form of the
Gospel as of its substance. As regards the substance, it is
more detached from special Jewish references than the others,
and appeals in a more lively manner to the sensibilities than do
the instructions mostly bearing on pra'ctical life, which are
recorded in the synoptical Gospels. The superhuman in Christ,
the necessity of faith in him, regeneration, the mystical union
of believers vsdth him and with one another, the commandment
of love and the blessing attached to it, these are the chief
themes of John's teaching, and many of the facts recorded by
him and peculiar to his Gospel, correspond ¦vsdth them ; among
these are presented the condescending love of Christ, shown in
his seeking men, his tender relation as a man to John, his
position of earnestness yet of forbearance toward his betrayer,
his superhuman knowledge, his glorification in suffering, and
the obstinate unbelief of the world. To this substance, the
peculiar character of the author's spirit impressing itself on the
language, has imparted a form which enlists the sensibilities in
a high degree. The noble simplicity on the one side, on the

22 Introduction, § 5.
other, the hovering nature and the dim mystery of the narra
tion, the tone of grief and of longing, with the light of love
shedding its tremulous beam on the whole, these impart to the
Gospel a charm, a peculiar originality, to which, .out of the
writings of John, no parallel can be found. To these is to be
added, the plastic power of the narrative to bring its scenes
vividly before the eye ; the localities are fully marked, chap. i.
28, iv. 5, V. 2, vi. 59, x. 28— the dates, iv. 6, v. 9. vi. 4, vii. 2—
personal traits, xi. 5, xii. 29, xviii. 10, vii. 25— manners, ii. 6,
iv. 9, xviii. 39, xix. 31 — gestures and passions, xviii. 6, viii. 11,
35, 88. The fact too, that Christ's discourses rather than out
ward occurrences, are given at large, that the Disciple not only
stands before the history of the Lord, but in it and over' it, and,
as is the method in every work of art, reproduces it from a
noble subjectivity, and accompanies it with remarks of his own,
(ii. 21, iii. 16, 31, vi. 64, vii. 39, x. 6, xii. 33 and 35-50, xix.
35, XX. 80, 31,) contributes to impart to this delineation a life
and vivifying character beyond that of the other Evangelists.
The sense of the first mentioned peculiarities has been ex
pressed in a manner singularly striking by Claudius : (Wands-
becker Bote, Th. i. p. 9, A.) "I love best of all to read in St.
John. There is in him something so perfectly wonderful — dusk
and night, and the quick lightning throbbing through them !
The soft clouds of evening, and behind the mass the big ftiU
moon bodily ! — something so sad, so high, so full of presage, that
one can never weary of it. When I read John, it always seems
to me that I see him before me, reclining at the Last Supper ou
the bosom of his Lord, as if his angel held the light for me, and
at certain parts would place his arm around me, and whisper
something in my ear. I am far from understanding all I read,
yet often John's idea seems to hover before me in the distance ;
and even when I look into a place that is entirely dark, I have a
presension of a great, glorious sense, vs^hich I shall some day
understand, and hence I catch so eagerly at eveiy new exposition
of the Gospel of John. 'Tis true — most of them only ruffle the
evening clouds, and never trouble the moon behind them."
What is said of him, who learned from the "tender, gentle
disciple of love himself, thus to depict him, -what is said of
Claudius by Hamann, might have been written of the Gospel of

Introduction, § 5. 23
the disciple of love : " On thy harp rests a light ethereal essence,
which, even wh§n the strings have ceased to tremble, moves
in waves at freedom in the air, and fills the heart with gentle
sadness." Precisely these peculiarities, nevertheless, in the substance
and form of the Gospel, which have excited the praises of the
leading spirits of all ages, have furnished the points on which
in recent times the most formidable attacks have been made
on its genuineness and authenticity. The more -widely the
fourth Gospel deviates from the type of the first three, the more
.diverse the history and the discourses both in form and sub
stance; the more readily could doubt be excited, first, of its
.authenticity, and then of its genuineness. But even if the
latter -be left at rest, the former may be shaken. If we reflect,
for example, ^st on the strong impress of subjecti-vity in this
delineation of the life of Christ, in the arrangement of the
work and the order of the matter in general, and especially in
the relation of the discourses ; if we call to mind the late period
at which it was consigned to writing — more than forty years
after the events ; if we remember that this same John, when
Paul met with him in Jerusalem, (Gal. ii. 9,) appears as a
Judaist, while the Gospel occupies a thoroughly free position ;
if we consider especially the great affinity between John's
diction in his Epistles and that of Christ's discourses in his
Gospel, yea, that it seems as though the Evangelist had even
put his o^wn words into the mouth of the Baptist, (ch. i. 16, iii.
31,) must we not come to the conclusion, that if John may be
-regarded in a general way as its author, his Gospel is for the
most part a free product of the imagination in the latter years
of his life, when the remembrance of events that had occurred,
¦and of discourses he had heard more than forty years before,
'had grown faint, while in the meantime, in the circle of
Asia "Minor, with its Hellenistic culture and Gnostic influences,
a freer, more ideal mode of contemplation had been aroused in
the Disdple ? Recently Sohweizer (das Ev. Joh. nach sein.
inn. Werth. u. nach sein. Bed. krit. unters. — ^the Gospel of John
critically examined as to its internal value and meaning, p.
¦239, -seq.) has instituted an examination of those events, in
^hieh we may jegard the Appstle as seeing or hearing for

24 Introduction, §5.
himself, and those in which he could not have been present,
but must have received his information through another
medium,' as for example the conversation with Mcodemus, the
one with the woman of Samaria, the scene in the Sanhedrim,
the hearing before Pilate, &c., and this examination also leads
to a relative uncertainty of the detail. What can stand as
historic after all the deductions which must ensue from this
process, is the total to which, in De Wette's judgment, the
authentic in the Gospel is reduced, as the result of the attacks
of Strauss and Weisse. And even this remnant has been called
into dispute by those who think the authenticity must be
rejected ; in fact, the enthusiastic judgment pronounced by the
earlier centuries on its substance and form, has been completely
reversed. The era of illumination at the beginning of our
century had already pronounced this judgment, (Vogel, Joh. u.
sein. Ausl. &c. — John and his Expositors before the last judg
ment, part 1, p. 26 :) " Our Gospel is adapted to the infirmities
of men who have had no effusion of the philosophic spirit. It is
¦of little use to Christians of our day." Bretschneider, in his
Probabilia, c. i. § 8, has attempted 'to make a comparison to
their disadvantage, of the discourses of Christ in the fourth
Gospel -with those in the synoptical ones; on this point, he
complains of the "loquacity" -with which Christ speaks of the
dignity of his person, of the " obscurity of the words and their
artificial ambiguity," of the "great repetition of the very same
things," of that "sublimity so foreign to human sympathies,
so chilling, and calculated to repel rather than attract the
mind," and as the opposite of this, praises highly the practical
fruitfulness and nervous style of the first Gospels. The most
recent criticism since Strauss has adopted this esthetic judg
ment ; and the matter has reached such a point, that in some
issues of the Halle Litteraturzeit, (e. g. 1841, No. 15, 16,) the
Christ of John has been denounced as but an unworthy, vaunt
ing thaumaturgist, unfit to serve as a moral ideal. It is con
tended, that the narratives and dialogues of Jesus are formed
after one and the same manner in John, that one and the same
tone runs through every thing, the misapprehension on the
part of the hearers, the presentation of sublime truths tran
scending the sphere of the speaker, the long and tautological

Introduction, §5. 25
spinning out of simple ideas — in all of which there is evidence
of the unhistorical character of the events as well as of the
discourses. We -will first take up the events, afterward the
discourses. When dialogues like the one with Nicodemus and that with
the woman of Samaria are designated as presenting internal
marks of improbability, it must be done primarily upon a
basis of exegetical views, the correctness of which cannot be
conceded, as when, for example, it is insisted upon — as Bauer
and Schwegler especially have done — that according to John's
account, Nicodemus actually understood the expression of
Jesus in regard to the new birth in a physical and literal
sense; and so in other cases of the same kind. A correct
exposition of such portions will prove that they contain in
them internal marks of historical authenticity. It is true,
John was not present when these things occurred, but did
not Nicodemus after his conversion attach himself to the
Apostles? And as to the conversation with, the Samaritan
woman, did she not herself, according to chap. iv. 39, inform
her own people of what Jesus had said to her? Besides, Jesus
remained there two days with his Disciples, so that if he did
not himself acquaint his Disciples with what passed at the
interview, they nevertheless had abundant opportunity of
reaching a knowledge of it. That the idea of a distinctive
mannerism, running through all John's dialogues, is groundless,
has been sho-wn by Schweizer, in the work quoted, p. 30, seq.
No proof is needed^ as regards the events, that the matter of
them could be impressed upon the memory ; the common order
of things leaves us no room to doubt it. As evidence that they
actually have been retained with great fidelity, we may in our
Evangelist appeal to the great degree in which our intuitive
perception confirms his narrative. It cannot be denied that to
innumerable defenses of Christianity, we may apply what
Gibbon said of the Athanasian creed : " It was rhetoric con
strued into logic." Yet on the other side, too, it is a mere
rhetorical artifice, when Strauss (Leben Jesu, Th. i. p. 60, 1st
ed.) tries to meet Heydenreich's declaration, that the individual
character stamped upon the biblical history, sufficiently demon
strates that it is not mythical, by the statement, that a couple
4

26 Introduction, § 5. q
of pages further on we encounter in this same ¦writer exactly
the opposite argumentation, to wit: that in the legends that are
framed, every thing becomes more circumstantial and more
ornate. Both these views are beyond question perfectly true,
and it looks as though Strauss tried to array these two truths
against each other, because he did not feel himself strong
enough to undertake to meet them himself. In the myth which
is formed unconsciously and involuntarily from common report,
you miss as a general rule the individualizing; on the other
hand, jilst to the degree to which reflection consciously works
upon the common report, the individualizing takes place, but
in a way that is designed, and therefore untrue. Has not the
effort been made on the one side to establish the mythical
character of the feeding of the six thousand, and of Jesus'
walking on the sea, because the power of coming home to our
intuition, which characterizes fact, is -wanting in them? And
who, on the other side, does not already know from the
Apocryphal Gospels, the designedly individualizing character
bf the legend ? Is it not adduced as proof on the one side,
that the Epistle to the Hebrews is not from Paul, because there
is a want of indi-^idual references in it ; and on the other, is not
that very touch of individuality in 2 Peter i. 17, 18, because of
"its ob-nous designedness," adduced as proof against the
genuineness of that Epistle ? We may, it is true, be asked to
furnish the criteria by which we may distinguish this designed
individualizing from that which is natural and really historical.
This demand we may be in a position up to a certain point to
satisfy, but suppose that we could not do it, we need be as
little embarrassed by this as a painter would be, who, without
being able to give the specific rules by which he judges, yet
with unerring tact, decides what is portrait, what study, and
what a fancy sketch. We can confidently maintain that the
historian will at once recognize in John not an air-drawn ideal,
but a portrait after the original.
The difficulties connected -with the discourses are greater.
It is undoubtedly true, that the discourses of the Sa-yiour in
John have something hovering and diffiuent in their character,
and are consequently less easy to retain in the memory, so that
the difficulty which exists sit the very first, of impressing such

Introduction, § 5. 27
discourses word for word on the memory, seems to become an
impossibility, when we think of the long interval. If we
co^sidex besides the difference of the contents from those of
the synoptical discourses, since in it the thoughts are connected
and expressed in a diffluent manner, while in the others we
meet wdth parables and pointed sentences ; if we notice, more
over, the similarity between the thoughts and style in John's
Epistles and those of Christ's discourses in the Gospels, and
especially the circumstance, as some maintain, that the Baptist
has been made to speak in the Evangelist's own style, the
authenticity of these discourses appears to be in the very
greatest peril. Let us weigh these different points one by one.
This last circumstance has been pronounced by Strauss him
self (3d ed. i. p. 713,) the " thing of chief moment in the whole
matter." There are three, passages in which John apparently
attributes twice to the Baptist and once to Jesus words of his
own, (chap. i. 16, seq. iii. 16, seq. iii. 31, seq.)
We commence vsdth the flrst passage^ ch. i. 16, seq. I think
that it -will be conceded that if the author of the fourth Gospel
has consciously foisted these words upon the Baptist, he cannot
¦with truth be regarded as a man of talent, which Strauss how
ever concedes that he is. The expression "of his fullness have
we all received," is indicative most clearly of a member of the
Christian Church, while in the mouth of the Baptist it would
be perfectly inexplicable. We must not neglect to notice, too,
that the 16th v. is not linked to the 15th, but to the last words
ofthe 14th, "full of grace and truth." The historical narrative
of the witness of John comes in flrst at v. 30 ; here his -witness,
as at V. 7, also, is introduced to confirm the Evangelist's own
declarations, on which point we must bear in mind that for
him, as one who had been a disciple of the Baptist, his words
possessed a double weight "Of his fullness," manifestly is
connected with the "full of grace and truth," to which words
again " the grace and truth," v. 17, refer. We have here also
an indubitable voucher for the fact, that the Evangelist, without
distinguishing them in any marked way, passes from the remarks
of another to his own. Let us now look at ch. iii. 16-21. That
Jesus could not have spoken these words, ¦will only be main^
tained ¦svith positiveness by those who have already made up

28 Introduction, § 5.
their minds that he cannot have spoken in general in the way
in which John represents him as speaking. We will concede
thus much, that in these words, more than in other discourses
of Jesus, the Evangelist's mode of expression makes its appear
ance. What well grounded objection, however, can be urged
against the •new that from v. 16 he consciously expands the
thought which had just been presented by the Sa-sdour ? The •
example from the first chapter has already given us a voucher
that he does not strongly mark the transitions of the dis
course. The first Epistle of John shows throughout, that
it directly belongs to the peculiar features of the Evangelist
not to designate fully transitions of thought. But is it really
necessary in the case before us to appeal to a characteristic of
the Evangelist ? Does not every preacher among us connect in
the same way his own inference with the text he quotes from
the Bible ? ^ If we desire an instance yet more specific, we have
it in Gal. ii. 14 ; after Paul had mentioned in the direct course
of his remarks, what he had said to Peter in Antioch, these
remarks from the 15th v. without any observable transition,
blend ¦with what he has to say to the Galatians. Certainly
similar vouchers could be adduced from various points, one for
example which I meet in Jerome, Comment, on Isaiah Iiii. (ed.
Vallarsii, p. 612.) He there says : " Clement, a man of tho
Apostolic age, writes to the Corinthians: the sceptre of God,
our Lord Jesus Christ, came not in the pomp of pride, though
he had all power, but in humility — in so much that being
smitten by a servant of the high priest, he answered : If I have
spoken evil, give testimony of the evil, &c." If we had not the
Epistle of Clemens Romanus, we would have regarded all this
as his words, as Martianay has actually done ; but the text of
the Apostolic Father demonstrates, that from the words " in so
much" we have Jerome's own reflection. To this must be
added, that John is accustomed to attach reflections of his own
» To this example Bauer (Kritik des Joh. p. 105, see what Strauss, 2d ed. i. 705,
objects to the instance from Jerome,) has replied, that the preacher has before him
an acknowledged, distinctly concluded sentence of another. Certainly, yet these
sentences are some more, some less familiar. When the critic says, that no one
should include any thing of his own, where the remark he quotes is not likely to be
recognized nor the point at which it stops known, it may be a very good rule of
style ; but docs John offend against none of the rules of style ?

Introduction, § 5. 29
to the discourses of Christ. As in chap. xii. 44-50, he recapit
ulates ifi a comprehensive form the key-notes of Christ's
discourses, might he not in the same way, when an opportunity
offered, attach to some declaration of Christ himself a state
ment in the third person of those same fundamental doctrines ?
We come, then, to the third passage, iii. 31-86. That the
Baptist himself uttered these words, is very improbable. The
conclusion, however, that the Evangelist designed them to be
regarded as the words of the Baptist, is, to say the least, equally
inadmissible. In the very first place, to establish the position
thoroughly that the Evangelist has incorporated reflections of
his own, it would be necessary to show that portions of dis
course occur mingled with discourses of the Baptist, which can,
¦with the same plausibility, be referred to the Evangelist, as vs.
31 aud 36 apparently can. N"ow the direct reverse is the case ;
that vs. 27-30, throughout accords with the tone of the Baptist's
mind, cannot be denied ; the Gospel of John accords here, at
least, with the synoptical ones. Matt. iii. 11-14. Much stress
has been laid upon the fact, that the parabolic element is so
foreign to the author of the fourth Gospel, yet in these few
¦words of the Baptist we have, v. 27, a gnome, and v. 29, a
parabolic sentence; v. 30, is also expressed in a sententious
Old Testament manner, at least is not worded after the style of
the Evangelist. If, now, the Evangelist in the first chapter,
having connected ¦with an earlier declaration of his own a
sublime expression of the Baptist, pursues his own remarks
without anything intermediate, who can take offense that in
this place the words of his beloved teacher of a former day;
"He must increase, but I must decrease," are taken as a point
of transition to a further delineation of the preeminence of
Christ ? In the first chapter, after mentioning the Baptist, he
adds, V. 8 : "He was not that light, but was sent to bear witness
of that light;" in the same vein with that remark he here says,
V. 31 : "He that is ofthe earth, is earthy," &c. As, finally, in
the first chapter, a strange hand smuggling itself in would have
betrayed too great a clumsiness if it had put v. 16 in the mouth
of the Baptist, so equally in this passage would it have been
the case if, after his disciples, v. 26, had said to him :- " All
men come to him," after he had acknowledged it too in what
4*

30 Introduction, §5.
he says in reply, the contradictory words had been put in his
mouth which closely follow in v. 32 : " And no man ]*eceiveth
his testimony." Do not these words, just as clearly as chap. i.
16, betray the emotion of the Disciple, who in the midst of
the feeble Church stands over against an unbelieving world, in
whom still resounds that word of the Master which we read in
iii. 11, V. 38 ? (See xii. 37.)
We turn now to the second instance, and consider the
diversity in the contents of the discourses of Jesus in the
synoptical Gospels and in that of John. " The Christ of John
differs from that of the synoptical Gospels to such a degree,
that it would be easier to imagine two faces to one head, than that
these two images can be equally faithful likenesses of the same
individual." In these words of Weisse we have the doubt pre
sented in its most glaring colors. Inasmuch as for the present,
as we have said, we leave the form out of question, we simply
ask whether the contents of Christ's discourses, according to
John, cannot be authentic equally with those in the synoptical
account ? Before our day, the difference in the delineation of
Socrates in Xenophon and in Plato had already been adduced
as a parallel. In Xenophon, Socrates appears as a man desti
tute of a speculative turn, and thoroughly practical ; according
to Plato, as a profound spirit, who sought to refer practice
itself for its ultimate basis to the speculative necessity. Against
this parallel, which I have expanded and argued more at
large in my Credibility of the Gospel History, (Glaub^wiirdigk.
der Ev. Ges. 2d ed. .p. 319,) Bauer, in his work before
quoted, p. 412, alleges that so long as we cannot prove that
Plato designed in his Dialogues to give historical notices of
Socrates, and so long as it is clear from other history that the
philosophical pupil recognized constantly as his teacher that
very man, whom, according to that principle, (of the value of
speculation,) he surpassed, the judgment must be valid, that
Xenophon alone has given a true image of Socrates. We
think it sufficient on this point, to make our defense ¦with the
authorities of which we have availed ourselves in the I)art of
our work alluded to above, (Glaubw. p. 319.) An entirely
different view from that of Mr. Bauer, in relation to the
partially historic character of Socrates in Plato, is held by

Introduction, § 5. 31
Schleiermacher, Brandes and Hegel. Brandes, in his disserta^
tion in the Rhenish Museum, Elements of the Socratic
Doctrine, (Grundlinien der Lehre des Socrates, H. i. p. 122,)*
says.: "It was by no means usual in antiquity, as in recent
times, to consider the picture of Socrates sketched by Xeno
phon as a true portrait, the Socrates of Plato, on the
contrary, as an ideal, something as completely destitute of
reality as Plato's theory of ideas itself." And. yet Plato did
not at all design a purely historic delineation, -while the fourth
Evangelist did so design. We can apply to the subject before
Us the pertinent language of Bengel, (Harmonie, p. 615 :)
"The same person may narrate the same thing on different
occasions in a different way, and yet in each case with the
fundamentals of truth. Compare Acts ix. and xxvi. with each'
other, and of the same kind chap. x. and xi. where the
conversion of Paul and Cornelius is told twice. If a drawing
is made of a city first from the east side, then from the west,
though in both cases the tallest and most striking towers
and edifices are presented, yet in all other respects the two
sketches not only can, but must differ widely. And yet both
are faithful copies of the original." We, will not urge that the
character and value of many of the expressions charactoristic
of John are of such a nature that it is utterly out of th-e ques
tion to regard them as the voluntary invention of any Jewish
Christian of that day, though De Wette himself has decided
for the authentic character of a number of John's expressions
on the ground "that they glow with a lustre more than
earthly." May we not suppose, that among the twelve
Apostles one man could be found of as much originality as
Paul ? If we think of John as one of those mystic spirits, a
homo desideriorum, as Am. Commenius expresses it, of a class
rarely occurring, from his youth diverted from practical life
a,nd directed toward the in-visible world, (Appollonian souls,
these elect ones of our race were styled by the ancients,) and
think of the other Apostles as possessing the traits still
common to fishermen and publicans ; surely the image of Christ
which impressed itself on John, the discourses which had
I See Hegel, in his History of Philosophy, in his -works, Th. iv. p. 124.

32 Introduction, § 5.
peculiar value to him, would not be the same we find iu the
other Evangelists. We are speaking here for the most part
hypothetically, but the evidence which sustains our hypothesis
offers itself readily to the eye. For all the doctrinal matter
characteristic of John, (and on this argument the greatest
weight should be laid,) some parallels at least can be found in
the synoptical Gospels and in the New Testament Fpistles. The
most scrupulosity may be directed against the authenticity of
the many discourses of Christ in regard to his mysterious
relation to the Father ; yet we have an expression of Christ, in
regard to his relation to the Father, in Matt, which in its form
sounds so much like John, that frequently persons not familiar
¦with the Bible, have looked for it in John, (Matt. xi. 25.)^ A
second instance of this sort is not to be found in the synoptical
Gospels, yet be it marked, that Christ in his discourses even in
them designates himself as the Logos, who already has -n^rought
under the Old Testament, Matt, xxiii. 37, (this cannot refer to
Christ's repeated presence in Jerusalem,) Luke xiii. 34, com
pare with Matt, xxiii. 84. The mysterious communion of the
Redeemer with those who believe in him, is spoken of in
Matt, xxviii. 20 ; the promise of the Paraclete appears to be
peculiar to John, yet Luke, chap. xxiv. 49, has it also. Of
love in^ that universal sense in which John employs it, Christ
does not speak in the first Gospels, but Paul does, as he does
also of that mystical "being in Christ," whose tones pervade
John. Whether Paul is indebted for this knowledo-e to
expressions of Jesus, transmitted orally, or to the direct
operation of Christ within him — in either case he confirms the
doctrinal type of John as genuinely Christian. On the other
side, let us not in the difference of contents forget the agree
ment. Where John does not report discourses of a doctrinal
character where tlie discourses are connected with the history
of Christ, there is almost an agreement to the letter, as in
the narrative of Peter's denial, in that of the woman who
anointed Christ's feet, (compare chap. xii. 7, 8, with Matt.
1 In Matt. xvii. 26, is nn expression which has not been noticed as it deserves
iu which Christ speaks of his higher relation to God in a manner as original aa
it is profoundly spiritual— he is no subject in God's kingdom, he is the only
begotten Son. "My Father" is used in its emphatic sense in Luke ii 49
Matt. XV. 13, xviii. 10, xix. 35, xx. 23, xxvi. 29, et al. as it is in John. * *

Introduction, § 5. 33
xxvi. 10-12,) and in that of Pilate. Jhe narrative of the
woman who was taken in adultery, chap. viii. reminds us of
the type of the other Gospels, even though we suppose it to
be a record from the Apostle's narration, by another hand.
Notice the argument ¦with the Pharisees, x. 84, the practical
confutation of them, v. 89, 42, 45, vii. 19. K we add to this,
that the Evangelist in all probability had the contents of the
other Gospels before his eyes, and designed to give chiefly what
they had not, the difference of contents can excite no further
scruple. — The ¦writings which were occasioned by Bret-
schneider's Probabilia belong here: Rettberg's An Johannes
in exhibenda Jesu natura reliquis canonicis scriptis vere
repugnet? Gott. 1828; Reineke's work on the same subject,
1826, of less value ; an essay in Heydenreich's Zeitschrift fiir
Prediger-wissenschaft. 1 B. 1 H. ; coEfipare, also, Schott,
Isagoge in ISoy. Test. p. 129.
We come now to the form. We ask, in how far the narra
tion of the discourses may be considered a verbal one ? That
it should be absolutely word for word, is made impossible by
the fact that it translates from the Aramaic into Greek ; even
in the synoptical Gospels the different narrations of the very
same discourse run into contrarieties in form. 'What judg
ment are we to form of the similarity of language in the
Epistles of John and the discourses of Jesus given in his
Gospel? Origen in his day, and more recently the work of
Stronk, (de doctrina et dictione lohannis ad lesu magistri
doctrinam dictionemque exacte composita. 1797,) go upon the
supposition that the Disciple had formed himself thoroughly
upon the style of the Master. How much^f the same sort
has occurred even in our own time, I have in my Glabwiirdig-
keit der Evang. Gesch. p. 337, attempted to show by instances
from the most recent literature. John stood in the very
sort of relation to Christ which makes a dependence of this
character credible; between the Disciple and the Master on
whose bosom he lies, must exist a close personal relation.
Gi'otius makes the happy remark that John was more (piXcqaouz,
Peter more <piXoxpiazd(;, (John loved Jesus, Peter loved Christ,)
as Plutarch, Vita Alex. c. 47, says of Hephsestion andCraterus,
Alexander's two friends, that the former loved Alexander,

34 . Introduction, § 5.
the latter the king. If such a relation could effect as regards
the substance, that he took up what was profoundest and most
essential, so could it cause as to the form that he might take up
what was adventitious, especially if we may suppose a certain
iBoftness and feminine character in him. Yet we cannot maintain
this dependence as regards the casual elements of speech ; the
hovering nature and diffluence of these in John point rather
to the character of the Disciple than of the Master. Still we
are justified in supposin.g that the phraseology and certain
leading terms are to be referred to the Master's account, and
even Strauss has conceded more than we could have ventured
to hope, when (Thi. i. p. 676, 1st ed.) he grants that the
antitheses of "fiesh" and "spirit," "light" and "darkness,"
".above " and " beneath," that moreover the mystic expressions
"bread of life," "living water," — of which not one occurs im, the
synoptical Gospels — are constituents of the original discourses
.of Christ, which the author " has only developed further in an
Alexandrian or in a general Hellenistic spirit." But how
could the Disciple remember these discourses after the lapse of
from forty to sixty years ? and if he was in Jerusalem all this
time in the thrall of a gross Judaism, how can that fkct be
harmonized vsdth his holding such discourses as these of Christ
in his memory ? K we concede that the diffluent form is the
Evangelist's own peculiarity, that only the thoughts lying ,at
the bottom of it belong to Christ, all that is essential as to the
difficulty of his remembering vanishes. The more ardent his
nature, the more profoundly must every thing impress him.
We are reminded in this connection, how many examples
there are in our own time of persons who attribute their
awakening to some particular sermon or sermons, and who are
able to repeat what impressed them, ¦with tolerable fullness,
even after they reach old age. Irenseus, in a passage preserved
in Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. v. 20, and which will be given in full
in the next §, declares, that in his old age he could remember
very fully the discourses of Polycarp, which he had heard
when a young man, and uses two expressions which we can
employ here : "What we learn in our youth, growing -with our
minds', unites -with them firmly," and : " Constantly by the grace
of God I carefully ruminated on the things he. said." It is not

USTTRODUCTION, § 5. 35
probable, indeed, that John at an early period took notes for
himself, but the impossibility of his doing so cannot be
established. Who would imagine that the tanners and shoe
makers, -with whom Socrates conversed, would make notes?
and yet this very fact is recorded of Simon the shoemaker.
Of the pupils of the Rabbins (on'oSj?) it is now and then
mentioned, that they -svrote down sentences from the lips of
their masters. Finally, we must remember the promise of our
Lord, that the Spirit should recall to the memoiy of the
Disciples what they had heard, John xiv. 26. If the Spirit of
the Lord touched the soul of the Disciples in general, like an
electric stroke, all the intellectual faculties, and of course the
memory of the truths they had heard, must have shared the
animating influence. He who believes that in accordance
with God's purposes, Christ has appeared in history as a
Redeemer, believes at the same time, by necessary implication,
in a transmission of his discourses and acts faithful in all
essential respects. E-vidence, too, derived from the character
:of the discourses before ils, present themselves that they are no
invention from the Disciple's hand, and that De Wette goes
too far whenhe speaks of ".an intoxication of soul," in which he
has mingled things of his own with the expressions of Christ.
Christ in his discourses does not designate himself by the name
of the Logos, and with all the greatness which he affirms of
himself, there are expressions even in John which seem to lower
him, (chap. xiv. 12, 28, x. 34.) If it can be shown that the dis
courses of the Baptist are narrated in all respects faithfully and
in unison -with the synoptical Gospels, would not this be
a ground for a favorable inference, a posteriori, as to the dis
courses of Jesus ? Now with the exception of a single passage,
(the contested " he that cometh after me is preferred . before
me," i. 15,) there is nothing in the discourses of the Baptist which
is not either given in the first Evangelists, or susceptible of explana
tion from his Old Testament prophetical character. Compare
chap. i. 19-36, iii. 27-30. We have been supposing a complete
discrepancy of form, yet this, like the discrepancy of matter,
allows of limitation. As regards the gnomologic and parabolic
form, compare chap. v. '35, iii. 8, iv. 34-^38, ix. 39, x.' 1, seq. xv. 1,

36 Introduction, § 5.
seq. xvi. 21 and 25. A number of sentences are coincident in
the reciprocal accounts of the Evangelist : John xiii. 16, xv. 20,
cf Matt. X. 24 ; John xii. 24, xxv. 26, cf Matt, x.' 38, 39 ; John iv.
44, cf. Matt. XV. 57; John xiii. 20, cf Matt. x. 40; John xiv. 31,
cf Matt. xxvi. 46. Again, the first Gospels have expressions
which even in respect of form remind us of John : Matt: xi.
25-30, viii. 22, vi. 22, xix. 17, xxvi. 29, Luke vii. 35, 45, cf
Matt. X. 39, with John xii. 25, the use of dXrjd-ivbz and dXXbzpto(:
Luke xvi. 11, 12, ulol zoo ipmzbz Luke xvi. 8, with John xii. 36.'
It yet remains for us to clear up the last scruple, which is
how the discourses of our Lord, which exhibit a position of
such freedom, could have lain dormant and inactive in him
during the time he continued in a rigid Judaism ? (Lutzelberger,
fiber d. Ap. Joh. p. 179.) The scruple sounds like a very
important one, but it presupposes more than can be proved.
For in what consisted the difference between James, John and
Peter, on the one side, and Paul on the other ? Both parties
were united in the view that Gentiles were to be admitted to
the Church ; the only point on which a scruple was entertained,
was whether they were to be exempt from the observance of
the Mosaic law.- Paul himself never designed to abrogate it
at once among^the Jewish Christians. The question then arose,
whether, for the sake of unity among Christians, the Gentiles
also should not be obligated to keep it. An agreement was
effected at Jerusalem, which, from a spirit of accommodation
toward the Jews, (Acts xv. 21,) imposed upon the Gentiles the
avoidance merely of the grossest causes of offense. Now in all
the discourses of Christ given by John, is there anything
inconsistent with this ? Can the scruple of the Disciples occa
sion surprise, when Jesus himself during his life subjected
himself to the demands of the law? The case would have
1 John xi, 11, where a pause observed in the discourse of Jesus is marked
may serve as a proof of accuracy as to form in recollecting the discourse of
Jesus; so may viii. 23, "and he said unto them." Yet on the other side we
may observe a carelessness to a remarkable extent, as regards verbal agreement,
in XU. 34 XI. 40 x. 28, vi. 36. The verbal fidelity of the narrative is made
moat evident where the Evangelist interprets the words of Christ chap ii 20
vii. 88, xviii. 9, xii. 32, on the last of which passages, De Wette' himself savs-
"It must be accepted as a fact, that Jesus used this expression." But vet
the expression xii. 33, vii. 37, has the coloring peculiar to John!

Introduction, § 6. 37
been very different had John made the justification of man
dependent on the observance of the law. Nor have the other
Apostles done this in a single inst.ance. On this point compare
Schweizer, in his work before quoted, p. 238.
§ 6. On the Genuineness and Authenticity of John.
In the early Church no opposition to this Gospel found vent,
except that of the sect of Alogians, who also urged indeed
difficulties from the historical difference between John's Gospel
and the synoptical ones, but especially as they rejected the
doctrine of the Logos, were led to object to it on doctrinal
grounds. After them — not to mention some anonymous Eng
lish deists — the first doubts of its genuineness were raised at
the close of the last and beginning of the present century ; its
genuineness was contested byEckermann, (1798,) Vogel, (1801,)
Horst, (1808,) Ballenstedt, (1812.) The great difference in
Christ's method of teaching, and the aspumed coincidence -with
Philo's theology, were then the grand stumbling block of doubt.
These assaults were, however, destitute of foundation in
various respects, especially of a historical sort. Bretschneider
sought to furnish* this in his Probabilia de Evang. et Epist.
lohannis apostoli indole et Origine, 1820; and that, too, on
grounds and presumptions of many of which the most recent
period has again availed itself According to Bretschneider's
theory, the author of this Gospel belongs to the first half of the
second century, and is a writer -with a doctrinal drift, who
composed this work -with the design of propagating the meta
physical doctrine of the deity of Christ. At that time, especially
because of the partiality of the school of Schleiermacher for the
Gospel of John, these arguments obtain no currency. The
author retracted his doubts. The most important writings
against his work, are those of Calmberg, de Antiquiss patrum
pro Evangelii loh. authentia testimoniis, 1822, Hemsen, 1823^
and Crome, 1824. The attachment to this Gospel only in
creased the more, while on the other hand the synoptical
ones, by obvious prejudice, were lowered. Suddenly, Strauss
appeared, and preeminently with arguments drawn from inter
nal criticism, impugned the authenticity and historical basis of

38 Introduction, § 6.
the fourth Gospel more decidedly than those of the first three.
While the first three were a confused, but natural echo of the
original history of Jesus, John's was but an artificial resonance,
produced in part -svith skill and taste. It might have been
supposed that with this verdict, the age of brass for this Gospel
had come ; but it was only the age of iron. It was but the
beginning of the end, for at once various persons began to make
various uses of the separate materials out of which Strauss had
built his #ieory, and, in part, applied them to the erection of
new edifices ; or should we rather say, of castles in the air. First
appeared Weisse, (die Evang. Geschichte kritisch bearbeitet,
1888, 2 Th.) with the following so called essay toward medi
ation : John himself (though with too strong an imagination,)
had written " Studies for a biogi-aphy of Jesus," one or more
laborers had reduced these studies to the dialogue form, and
had added historical data, yet all this "has been spun out so
awkwardly," that predicates like the foUo-sving are heaped upon
ttie delineation : " insipid, whimsical, incongruous, obscure,
ambiguous, bordering on nonsense." The new hypothesis
found a solitary adherent in Schenkel, (Stud, und KJitik. 1840,
H. iii.) and has been attacked by Frommann, (Stud, und Kritik.
1840, H. iv.) and Lucke, 8d ed. Gfrorer, who, in his History
of Early Christianity, has wholly surrendered the genuineness
and authenticity of the first Gospels, refers to the fourth as
"the Sanctuary and the truth." Here now we learn the
following : The Gospel belongs to the Apostle John, but partly
owing to the feebleness of an old man's memory, partly to his
fancy, the history and discourses have in great measure beeu
falsely detailed ; for example, Lazarus is only the young man of
Nain, the history of the man that was boru blind is merely an
embellishment of the same thing that Mark viii. 22, narrates,
&c. De Wette, as is his wont, on this question hesitates
between Yes and 'Eo, -svith a predominance of the Yes, however,
though with a decided limitation of the authenticity. Lutzel
berger (Die Kirchliche Tradition, &c. — The Tradition of the
Ohurch in regard to the Apostle John and his writings proven
to be groundless, 1840,) thinks that he has shown that the
A-postle never was in Asia Minor, and that he died before
¦"•aul. H-is examination of the historic proofs of the genuine-

Introduction, § 6. 39
ness of the Gospel embraces much that is worthy of attention,
but his positive idea is the most baseless that could well be
imagined : that the unknown author (this is inferred from ch.
iv.) was probably a Samaritan, who relied upon the Apostle
Andrew for his information, and wrote the Gospel beyond the
Euphrates. To Bruno Bauer (Kritik der Evang. Geschichte
des Joh. 1840,) we owe the discovery, that the Gospel is
throughout the pious reflection of the later Church, twined
about some historic fragments so slender as hardly to be per
ceptible, and the whole thing done so awkwardly and sense
lessly, that the falsifler, for instance, thinking himself of Christ
as ascended to heaven, commits the blunder, chap. iii. 18, of
making Qhrist while yet living speak of himself as one who had
already ascended to heaven. If the iron age, as regards the
contents of the Gospel, may be regarded as having been reached
in Bruno Bauer — for in a literary point of view the charge of
want of sense degrades a -writer more than that of deception —
the age of brass as regards the estimate of the external grounds
of genuineness seems to have come with Schwegler, (comp. the
Dissertation on John's -svritings in his book: der Montanismus,
&c. — Montanism and the Christian Church of the second cen
tury, 1841.) According to him, the Gospel was -written about
the year 170, in Asia Minor, in the circle of the adherents of
the elder ApoUinaris, and imputed to John to secure the favor
of the Jewish-Christian readers; it embraces allusions to the
prevalent disputes in regard to Easter, and designs to compose
the difference between the Ebionite and Gnostic parties.
Schweizer has made a new essay with a theory which makes a
division in the Gospel, (das Ev. Joh. nach seinem innern Werthe
und seiner Bedeutung, &c.— ^the Gospel of John according to its
internal value and its importance for the life of Christ critically
examined, 1841.) The supplemental chap, xxi., some particular
verses, and the history of the healing at Capernaum, of the
miracle at Cana and of the miraculous feeding, he supposes to
be interpolations.
We -will adduce first the external testimonies of tradition which
establish the genuineness of the Gospel. We may here remark,
that there has been up to this time an agreement in the senti
ment, that the Gospel and first Epistle must have proceeded

40 Introduction, § 6.
from the same author, that the testimonies for the use in the
Church of the Epistle are an argument for the Gospel also,
though it does not necessarily follow from this that John was
its author.
Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. iii. 39, says of Papias, who must have
been cotemporary with Aris'tion, an^ the presbyter John, who
were Disciples of our Lord, that he cited testimony from the
first Epistle of John ; Polycarp also, ad Philipp. C. 7, cites 1
John iv. 3. The fourth Gospel must then at the time im
mediately subsequent to the death of the Aposlile, have been
regarded as a Christian document. We would certainly sup
pose that Polycarp, a .pupil of the Apostles, or at least since his
Epistle is a brief one, that Ignatius, another of their pupils, who
has left seven Epistles, would have some citations from the
Gospel or allusions to passages in it. Yet the Letter to the
Romans affords but >one certain allusion, chap, -vii.: "I desire
the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ — and I
desire drink, which is his blood," comp. John vi. 33, 54, 55.
But it should be observed that in Letters, in hortatory writings,
less occasion offered for quoting the Gospel : in the letters of
Ignatius we have only some five citations from the Gospels,
whilst there are twenty-five or thirty from the New Testament
Epistles ; in the Letter of Clemens Romanus, only two from
the Gospels, and some twenty-three from the Epistles of Paul
alone ; in the nine chapters of the Letter of Polycarp, some five
from the Gospels, and about twenty from the Epistles ; in the
Letter to Diognetus, a solitary expression from Matthew, and
about nine from the Epistles. The next -witness is Justin
Martyr, in the middle of the second century, who says : " Christ
said, except ye be born again (dvayevvi^zs) ye cannot enter
into the kingdom of heaven, but that those who have once
been born cannot enter a second time into their mother's womb,
is evident to^ all." Comp. iii. 8-5. The grounds on which it
has been denied that there is a quotation in these words, are not
sufficient; Credner and Schwegler maintain that the passage is
borrowed from the x/jpuypa /7er/)oy, because the "verily, verily"
characteristic of John is wanting, because he has dvayevyjd^^vae
and not dum^ev ysvvrj'&TJvac, because he has "kingdom of heaven"
and not "kingdom of God," and because this same passage

Introduction, § 6. 41
occurs in Homil. Clem. xv. § 26, but in these Homilies not
John but the xjpufpa Hezpou was employed, (Schwegler, Mon
tanismus, p. 184 ;) but these Homilies (Hom. iii. § 52,) cite the
expression which is undoubtedly John's: "My sheep hear my
voice," ef John x. 27, and the Recognitiones, 1. vi.. § 9, quote
these words : " Verily I say unto you, except a man be born
again of water he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven."
Since in this place, too, where the citation from John is yet
more unmistakable, the expression used is " kingdom of
heaven," and not "kingdom of God,"' it proves that in quoting
from memory the more current expression derived from the
first three Gospels had been substituted for the " kingdom of
God," peculiar to John.
With the mention made by Justin Martyr, we connect, that
in the letter to Diognetus, which assuming the latest date must
be referred to this time, if not to the Apostolic, (compare
Semisch, Justin der Matyrer, p. 185 — Justin Martyr, his life,
writings and opinions, Tr. by J. E. Ryland, Edinburgh, T. k T.
Clark, 2 vols. Bib. Cab.) In this, c. 10, occurs, the expres
sion : to whom (men) he sent his only begotten Son," and
immediately after : " or how shouldst thou love him who before
so loved thee ;" they stand in precisely the same connection in
1 John iv. 9, 10, compare, too, v. 19 : " We love him because
he first loved us." From the middle of the first [second. Tr.]
century we have also the testimony of the Valentinians
(Valentinus died 160,) for the use of the Gospel. Irenseus
expressly testifies (adv. hser. iii. 11, 7,) that the Valentinians
used the Gospel of John in order that they jpight be able to
appeal to a Disciple of Jesus. There is not, indeed, explicit
evidence that Valentinus himself used it, but his pupil, Herak-
leon, -wrote a commentary on it, and Ptolemy and Theodotus
have also employed it. As this sect had their own Gospel,
Evangelium Veritatis, they could have added the Gospel of
John, only because it was anciently acknowledged in the
Church, and in order to employ it in recommending their own
views. After the middle of the second century, the indubitable
witnesses increase. First of all are to be mentioned the
Montanists, (Montanus flourished about 160;) they rested
5*

42 Introduction, § 6.
their appeal on the fulfillment in their sect of Christ's promise
of the Paraclete. Schwegler has indeed pretended to main
tain that this sect did not derive the name "Paraclete" from
the Gospel, (in his work already cited, p. 188,) but in this
position no one will concur with him. Valentinus himself, who
enumerates as aeons the products which originated from the
union of dv&pmnoz and ixxXrjaia, to wit: napdxXyjzot;, Hcaztc,
'EXniz, 'Ayartr], &c. has undoubtedly derived these terms from
Christianity, and not, as that critic insists, from Philo. The
Letter, also, of the Church of Lyons and Vienna, in the year
177, applies the term Paraclete to the Holy Ghost, Euseb.
Hist. Eccles. v. 1 ; we find in it also a citation from John x-sd.
2. Yet earlier must we place Tatian, the scholar of Justin,
who in his Apology, c. 18, undoubtedly quotes the Gospel:
This is what was said : zouzb iazev dpa zb ecprjpsvov ij axorta zb
(pmz ou xazaXap^dvst, " The darkness comprehended not the
light," and c. 19 : ndvza un ahzou xal y^mpl^ auzou ysyovsv ou8s.
sv. "All things were by him, and wdthout him was not any
thing made." That the Diatessaron of Tatian opened -with
the first words of our Gospel: "In the beginning was the
word," has been disputed by Credner, but, as Daniel has
shown in his work, Tatianus der Apologet, p. 89, without
good grounds. The Apology of Athenagoras, -svritten about
177, embraces also (c. 10,) some words from John i. 3, and
allusions to John xvii. 21, 22, 23. References to the Gospel,
which can scarcely be denied, are to be found after the
middle of the second century, in Celsus ; see Origen, cont. Cels.
V. 52, i. 66, 67. In the last of these passages he speaks of the
demand which the Jews made of Christ in the temple, which
Jesus declined to satisfy by an explicit sign. It is impossible
here to mistake the reference to John ii. 18. There is nothing
singular in the circumstance that none of the ¦writers hitherto
mentioned quote John by name, and that ordinarily there is
not a literal agreement in the words, for it is well known that
the citations by name, of the biblical writers, begin vsdth the
second half of the second century, and the citation by book
and chapter still later. The first citation of the Gospel of
John by name, appears in the Apology of Theophilus of
Antioch, written about 180, (B. ii. c. 22 ;) Irenteus belongs to

Introduction, § 6. 48
the same period, (died 202,) in whom we have repeated citations
by name, of the Gospel, the Revelation, and the first Epistle.
His e^vidence derives greater weight from the fact that he was
a native of Asia Minor, that he had known and heard Polycarp,
though only as a.7tdi(; iv ztj Ttpmzrj -fiXtxia "a mere boy," and that
the Gospel, from its suiting the purposes of the Valentinians, as
well as on the account of the opposition in which it appeared
to stand to the Chiliasm entertained by Irenseus, must have
been less consonant -with his inclinations as an individual. In
a remarkable document he refers Florinus, his friend and
former fellow pupil with Polycarp, to the fact that the com
munications of the venerable Bishop of Smyrna, in regard to
John's doctrines, coincide with the -writings of John, (Eusebius,
Histor. Ecclesiast. v. 20 :) " I saw thee in my youth in Lower
Asia with Polycarp — for I remember the events of those times
much better than those of recent occurrence — what we learn in
fact in our youth, grows with our soul, and grows together
-with it so closely, that I can even yet tell the place where the
holy .Polycarp sat when he discoursed, his entrance and exit,
the peculiarities of his mode of life, his bodily figure, the
discourses which he addressed to the people, how he told
of his familiar intercourse with John and with the rest who
had seen the Lord, how he narrated their discourses, and what
he had heard of them in regard to the Lord, about his miracles
and doctrine, all of which, as Polycarp had received it from
those who were eye--witne8ses of the word of life, he narrated in
harmony with the Holy Scriptures — these things, by the mercy
of God then granted to me, I attentively heard, and noted
down, not on paper, but in my heart, and by the grace of God
I continually repeat it faithfully."
This very document, nevertheless, has been adduced by
Lutzelberger as an e-vidence that Irenseus not only received no
testimony from Polycarp in regard to the Gospel, but that
Polycarp himself knew only of oral communications from the
Apostle ; that in general the witness does not deserve much
regard, since Irenseus was at that time a boy, (Credner even
says, " a child.") Dodwell, we admit, goes too far when he
attempts to show that the term Ttouz in Irenseus embraces the
age of twenty-five years ; but that it cannot well indicate any

44 Introduction, § 6.
thing short of the sixteenth year, may be inferred from th6
improbability that a boy younger than this would have given
the strict heed to the instructions of the Bishop, which this
father of the Church represents himself to have done. Lutzel
berger maintains, that Irenseus would have been under the most
urgent necessity of establishing the genuineness of the Gospel,
for to conclude from the title which Irenseus has attached to
that polemical Epistle, Florinus must have been attached to
the principles of Marcioii, and must have held with them that
the Gospels had been corrupted by Jewish Christians ; in plaoie
of this, we find only an appeal to an oral communication of
Polycarp, and that too but a repetition of what John had orally
taught. To this may be opposed the following : That Florinus
was at that time a Marcionite is incorrectly inferred by Lutzel
berger from the superscription of the letter mentioned; (see
Neauder's Kirchengesch. i. 3, p. 11, 47 — History of Religion
and the Church, Tr. by Joseph Torrey, Boston, i. 677, 680;)
tiat he possibly had doubts of the genuineness of the Gospel
is conceded, although he might then, as he did at a later
period, when a Valentinian, have derived support for his errors
from an artificial exposition of the Gospel. The assertion,
however, that Irenseus was unable to give any historical proof
bf the genuineness of the Gospel, can be supported by the
fragment we have quoted only on the supposition that this
father could have had no other object than to convince Floriniis
of his heresy by means of John's writings. But in our opinion
this was not his Object. Irenseus rested much more upon the
hope that the testimony of the -svritings in question, which
eould not be eluded without some movement of a better con
sciousness, would appeal irresistibly to the consciousness of
the heretic, when he reminded him of what he had heard
with his own ears from the gray disciple of the Apostles,
and had at that time listened to -svith confidence.  To trace the
tradition further than Clemens Alexandrinus and Orio-en after
the testimonies adduced, would be superfluous. We may
iuention, however, that the learned Origen, who commented
On the Gospel about 222, and who has mentioned every attack
on the New Testament writings, even that on the 2d and 3d
Epistles of John,'vrith<)ut the shadow of a scruple uses the

' Introduction, § 6. 45
G<)spel as genuine, and that Eusebius, the man who seoms to
have been acquainted with the entire Christian literature in
existence in hie time, speaks of it at the beginning of the
fourth century as " a Gospel &miliar to aH Chnrches under
the heavens."
Let Us yet glance at the testimony presenised in c. xxi. 24, 25.
Until the time of Tittmann, these words were regarded by a
large majority as the words of the Evangelist, Theodore of
Mopseustia was the first who regarded them as a testimony
from another hand ; subsequently some Catholic writers whom
Maldonatus teproves ; and besides these, Grotius, Basnage, and
all the recent theologians. They cannot be ascribed to John.
If they came from the same author as chap, xxi, then this
whole chapter must be referred to another hand, and this is a
perilous avowal, inasmuch as it would involve a concession
that at that time others, besides John, knew so well how to
¦write in John's style. But the contrast even between the sim
plicity of John in what precedes, and the hyperbole in v. 25,
shows that this testimony alone proceeds from another hand.
The expression " we know, '.' also points to the fact, that the
¦writer offered his testimony as the representative of a number
of persons. What then does he testify ? What is the force of
the zouzmv and zauza ? Do they refer merely to the narrative
immediately preceding ? This is not at all improbable. Since
that narrative is a mere appendix, this witness may have
felt himself called on to attest ¦svith his own hand that the
Apostle was the author of it, and may have been led in this
way to the remark, that many other things might have been
added. We should, however, bear in mind the fact, that the
writer of this verse apparently had in his eye the closing jerses,
30, 81, of chap. xx. so that it is probable that in the zouzmv and
zoajza he designs a reference to the entire Gospel, and purposed
by the addition of these closing words to designate, as it were,
the appendix as a part of the entire Gospel. In this view, then,
what does he attest? The authenticity and credibility of the
Gospel. Weisse, Ev. Gesch. p. 100, and Liitzelberger, p. 187,
seq. object, that a Gospel which needed the appending of a tes
timony of this sort could not have been acknowledged to any
great extent. "Are these words which indorse it," asks

46 Introduction, § 6.
Weisse, " of such weight as to counterbalance the suspicious
circumstance, made obvious by their very existence, that pre-
¦Vious to the publishing of the Gospel it must have passed
through other hands? — through hands, too, which imagined
that they could, by -svritten additions made at their o^svn pleas
ure, impart a higher credibility than it possessed in itself?"
Do these words, then, presuppose a doubt of the authenticity ?
Is it not more probably the case, as Schweizer, p. 59, has
already observed, that this attestation, like that of chap. xix. 35,
rather had a practical aim — ^to give an urgent call upon the reader
to lay the book to heart ? Besides, how strange is this testimony
of a person appearing in the name of a number of others, yet
totally omitting the mention of any name ! I regarded myself as
justified in drawing from this the conclusion, that this testimony
could not at least have originated with a forger, (Glaub^wurdig-
keit der Ev. Geschichte, p. 273, 2d ed.) "Had any unauthorized
transcriber or forger of a later period desired to stamp upon the
authenticity of the Gospel an apocryphal seal, would he have
added this seal ¦without associating the name with it, and
thereby have deprived it of all its force ?" Can this inference
be disputed on valid grounds ? Cannot this, at least, be inferred
•with certainty : that an honest and conscientious cotemporary of
the ApQStle has attested the genuineness of the Gospel ? When
Lutzelberger, p. 195, meets this with the remark : " That only
forgers of the clumsiest kind invent every thing ¦vsdth great
preciseness, and by this very circumstance are detected at Cjnce,"
we would put but one question to him, whether he ever heard
of a forger so " clumsy" as to suppose that he was doing great
service to a friend by a brilliant testimony — to which no name
whate-ij^r tvas subscribed ? Did not this testimony proceed from
an honest man, and from a sensible one too ? But of what use
would such a testimony be ? — "it is," says Lutzelberger, p. 195,
"under the circumstances in which John must have stood
unnecessary, amounting to nothing, in fact, absurd and sense
less." But how was it, if the first readers were generally
acquainted with the man from whose hands they received the
Gospel, if they were in fact famihar with his handvsrriting ?
There is nothing at the beginning or close of the first Epistle
of John to designate the writer more clearly. Grotius already

Introduction, § 6. 47
raises the query, whether this wdtness may not have been the
presbyter of the Church of Ephesus, in fact the presbyter
John? We might perhaps suppose a circle of disciples, like
Aristion, the presbyter John, and Andrew, who were in Ephesus
in the second century, as Credner does, Einleit. p. 237. If per
haps this Gospel was first of all in use in the Church- of Ephe
sus, and at a later period was circulated from this among the
neighboring Churches, we have a still better solution of this
subscription. There is, too, an ancient tradition that this was
the case to which Usteri gives his assent in his Comraentatio in
qua Ev. lohannis genuinum esse, &c. Zurich, 1823, p. 125, as
also recently Baumgarten-Crusius in his Commentary on John,
p. xxv. where he declares confidently that the writing of the Gospel
was not immediately followed by its publication. Thus much then
is established, we have from cotemporaries and acquaintances of
John a testimony for the genuineness of his Gospel.
Certainly we might make yet further demands on the external
testimony. Let it be added, however, to this, that (with the
exception ofthe Alogians, whose objections were derived from
doctrinal interests,) from the beginning no opposition and no
difference of ¦views was expressed, and nothing but the extremest
dogmatic prepossession can doubt the genuineness of this Gos
pel. We shall yet allude to but one point where doubt can
readily find something on which to fix, and that is the testimony
of Irenseus. On that same historical testimony, to wit : on thai
of the elders' of Asia Minor, on which rests his belief that
John composed the Gospel, rests also his belief that the Apostle
was the author of the Apocalypse. Since the latter, however, iu
the judgment of Credner, Lucke, Neander, is not genuine, since
Credner, the zealous defender of John's authorship ofthe Gospel,
presumes, in reference to the Apocalypse, to speak of the wit
nesses "of whom Irenseus boasts," what value can we attach
to those statements of the elders in regard to the Gospel ? To
this add the questions with which . Lutzelberger presses the
Apologists, how a man can deserve credit, who, from the tradi-

1 It is usual to speak of the "presbyters" of Asia Minor, to whom Irenseus was
indebted for his intelligence, but the word is more correctly translated by " elders;"
of. the expression dito/ivij/iOvevfiaTa diroaroXiKov two; irptajivTspov, (the commentaries
of a certain apostolic elder,) Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. v. 8.

48 Introduction, § 6.
tion of Churches of Asia Minor, communicates nothing but
marvels and accounts manifestly false such as, 1) that the
Apocalypse was revealed at the' close of the reign of Domitian ;
2) the strange prediction he has put in the mouth of Jesus in
regard to the monstrous grape clusters in the kingdom of God;
3) the tradition, that Jesus was fifty years old, (comp. Liitzel
berger, p. 150, 151.) It is true that the things stated call for a
cautious testing of the historical tradition of Irenseus. To
commence with the last point, Credner (Einl. i. 1, p. 215,) has,
relieved the Church father of the reproach cast upon him. The
prediction of our Lord which was transmitted by the elders,
and referred to John as authority, (Iren. c. hser. v. 33 :) "Days
shall come, in which vines shall grow, of which each shall
have ten thousand shoots, &c." which according to the declar
ation of Irenseus, has been embraced by Papias also in his book,
can certainly not be adapted to the discourses of our Saviour in
John's Gospel — compare, however, the xatvbv in Matt, xxvi 29.
May not some expression similar to this very word of Christ in
Matthew lie at the bottom of the tradition, some expression
grossly colored and exaggerated by those who held Millennarian
sentiments? K these ingredients of oral tradition tend to
destroy its value, we ask : does not, on the other side, this very
circumstance exalt the value of that which has been delivered in
writing, and which is free from every element of that sort ? As
regards John's authorship of the Apocalypse, confidence rests
upon something more than the niere testimony of the elders ;
if it be not genuine, internal and external reasons force us to
the conclusion, that, at the least, John the Presbyter must be
regarded as its author. But to refer the Gospel to this man
hitherto unknown, would enter the mind of no one. The author
of a work like our Gospel, says Lucke, must have had a "shape
far m(5re like life " than pertained to this enigmatical presbyter.
That the Apocalyptic vision was assigned by the elders of Asia
Minor to Domitian's time, when the internal marks of the book
seem to establish the claim of the time of Galba, would certainly
detract from the historical authority of those witnesses; never
theless, so little that is satisfactory has been contributed as yet
to the interpretation of the Apocalypse, that we are not justified
in drawing any confident conclusion in this case. We have

Introduction, ^ 7. 49
entered into these argumen-ts concerning the historical authority
of the testimony to which Irenseus appeals, only from an un
willingness to pass by the strong side of the negative criticism
without reference. The genuineness of the ^Gospel would not
be in any more peril if we totally overlooked the testimony of
Irenseus.

§ 7. The most important Commentators on the Gospel.
As an Introduction to the Gospel: Dr. Wegscheider, voU-
standige Einleitung in das Evangelinm Johannis. Gott. 1806.
Bertholdt, Verosimilia de origine Ev. loh. in- Opusc, ed. Winer,
1824. "(Introduotion to the New Testament, by S. Davidson,
LL.D. London, Bagster, 1847. 8 vols. 8vo. i. .225-372. Tr.)
[I. The Patristic jExjoositors."]
Origem,, (died 253,) Comm. in Ev. loh. In Jerome's time
thirty-nine tomes or divisions of Origen's Exposition were
extant; Eusebius says tlmt only twenty-two bad reached his
time. Of this great work we have but portions, though not
inconsiderable ones, (Opp. Orig. ed. de la Rue, T. iv. Opera
Exegetiea Orig. ed. Huet. T. i.) Important as this commentary
is for Origen's doctrinal views, and beautiful as are passages of
its matter having a general bearing on Christianity, those which
in the stricter sense subserve the exegesis of the Gospel :are but
meagre. [Rather speculative emanationes script, than exrpo-
sition.] Theodorus of Mopsuestia, (d. 428,) ApoUinaris, (400,) Am-
monius, (250,) 'C^n7Z of Alexandria, (400.) Important fragments
of all these are to be found in the Catena Patrum in Ev. loh.
ed. Corderius, Antwerpise, 1630. They are to some extent
exegetical aids of value, especially the observations of Am-
monius. [A. Cramer, Catense in Luc. et loh. Oxon, 1841.
An abridgment of Chiysos. Scholia lies at the basis, -with selec
tions from Apollinar. Cyr. Orig. and especially Ammonius.]
(Catena Aurea : Commentary on the Four Gospels, collected
out of the works of the Fathers, by S. Thomas Aquinas, vol.
4, St. John. Oxford, 1845. Tr.)
Chrysostom, (d. 4,07,) Homill. 87, in Ev. loh. Ed. Morelli, T.

60 Introduction, § 7.
ii. ed. Montf T. viii.) (The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom
on the Gospel of St. John. Library of the Fathers, Oxford.
Tr.) These homilies are specially distinguished by great rich
ness in practical observations. Chrysostom in addition explains
the text in accordance with a sound grammatico-historical
mode of apprehension. Even here, however, the purely exe
getical value is diminished, by an undue propensity on the part
of Chryspstom, to give the text a poliemic direction against
heretical ¦views.
Theophylact, (d. 1107,) Comm. in Ev. (ed. Venet. 4 voU, vol.
ii.) He has collected the choicest portions of Chrysostom and
other Fathers, usually combining them after his own judgment,
and for the most part foUo^sving the grammatico-liistorical
method of exposition.
jEuthymius Zigabenus, (about 1118,) Comment, in 4 Ew. ed.
.Matthise, Lips. 1792, 4 voU. in vol. iv. This commentary also
is collected from the more ancient Fathers ; a good deal is from
Chrysostom. The collection has been prepared ¦with discrimi
nation, and very much of it is useful.
Augustine, (d. 430,) Tractatus 124, in loh. (ed. Antw. T. iii.)
(St. Aug. on St. John. Library of the Fathers, Oxford. Tr.)
These are homilies in which Augustine explains the text very
diffusely, with many digressions. They present only here and
there a gleam of light in the exposition of the Gospel itself on
the principles of grammatico-historical interpretation, but as a
compensation for this they offer a treasure of profound Christian
thoughts, which has not yet been sufficiently drawn upon.
[H. Expositors of the Catholic Church."}
^Erasmus, in the Critic, sacr. and paraphr.]
Maldonatus, (d. 1583,) Comm. in 4 Evv. Par. 1688, 2 vols.
[New edit, by Martin, 2d ed. 1852.] One of the best exposi
tors of the Romish Church. His erudition, especially in pa-
tristics, is great, as is his exegetical talent, which reluctantly
endures the shackles of the Church, yet wears them neverthe
less. lEste, Menochius, Tirinus, Cordoni, in the Bibl. sacr. Ven.
1756, Corn, a Lapide, Comm. in 4 Ew. 1670. Ad. Maier, Comm.
zum Ev. Joh. 1848, 2 Th. refers to and uses the recent aids.]

Introduction, § 7. 51
[HI. The Reformers.}
Luther has commented on this Gospel from chap, i.-xx. in
part however, in a fragmentary way only. (Walch's ed. vols.
¦vii. and ¦viii.) Where Luther in this commentary lays aside the
polemic, he does not comment on the Gospel — ^he lives in it
and conducts it to the soul of the reader like a di^vdne well-
spring of life, for every one who thirsts for life. In the
exposition he usually strikes the true point, although his
exegetical -view may not always be properly established and
carried through.
Melancthon, Enarratio in Ev. loh. (Opp. ed. Viteb. T. iv.) a
collection of Lectures published by Caspar Cruciger. In a
dedication to Duke Maurice, Cruciger claims this as his own
work. (He used the MS. notes which Melancthon had given
him. See Mel. Opera, ed. Bretschneider, vol. xv. 1, Transl.)
The expositions are natural. In general the dogmatic interest
predominates to the detriment of the exegetical. The briefer
Annotationes by Melancthon, [Opera ed. Bretschneider, xiv.] ,
which Luther issued in 1528, is a distinct work.
\Bucerus, Enarratio in Ev. loh. 1528. Musculus, Comm.
m loh. 1545. Brentius, Comm. in loh. 1558. Opp. T. vi.
the dogmatic preponderating. Aretius, (in Bern,) Comm. in
loh. 1578 ; acute.]
Calvin, Comm. in Ev. loh. (Opp. ed. Amstel. T. vi.)
(A HarmOnie, &c. of M. John Cal-sdne, Transl. by E. Piaget,
whereunto is also added a Commentarie on St. John by the
same author, London, 1584, 4to. Comm. on John in Calv.
Tfansl. Society's Publications. Tr.) Calvin's Commentaries
on the four Gospels are less elaborate than those on the Epistles,
nevertheless, this great Reformer in this work also' distinguishes
nimself as an interpreter, by easy, natural, and at the same
time profound expositions. As regards exegetical talent, we
must concede his preeminence over his colleagues.
Beza, Comm. inN. T. Gen. 1556.— Tig. 1653. (5th ed. 1665.)
On the Gospels, yet more largely than in his commentary on
the Epistles, Beza developes the philological knowledge and
exegetical tact which he possessed. He nevertheless does not

52 Introduction, § 7.
elucidate all the difficulties, nor enter thoroughly enough into
the spiritual meaning.
Zwingle, Annotatt. in plerosque N. T. libros. Tig. 1581.
Many characteristic conceptions.
A sort of Catena of the Reformers is presented in the valu
able collection of Marloratus, Expoedtio CathoUca N. T. Viviacj,
1605, in which the best portions of Cal-sdn, Melancthon,
Bucer, Musculus, Brentius and others, are eombined.
:[IV. Seventeenth Century."}
Grotius, (d. 1645,) Comm. in IV. Ew. Par. 1644. Halse,
1769, ed. Windheim, 2 vols. His Commentary on the Gospels is
marked by an exegesis which is unforced, and by a richness in
antiquarian and philological observations, as also in parallels
from profane authors, which, it must be granted, are not
always in their right place here.^
{Joh. Piscator, Comm. in libros N. T. 1613. Paul Tarnov,
Ev. loh. 1629, in syllogistic scholastic form, polemico-dogmatic.
Chemnitz, (d. 1586,) Harmonia Evang. (continued by Pol.
Lyser, J. Gerhard,) 1704, 3 voll. carefully after the aids of the
period. Aeg. Sunnius, (d. 1608,) Thesaurus Ev. ed. ult. 1705,
brief dogmatic explanation. Cocceius, (d. 1669,) Opp. T. iv.
Enters into dogmatics, but deficient in clearness and acuteness.]
[V. Eighteenth GentUfry.}
Lampe, (d. 1729,) Comm. exegetico-analyticus in Ev. loh.
Amst. 1735, 3 vols. 4to. This Lamp, it is true, has been set in
a huge frame, hewn shapelessly out of abstract logic and
unaccommodating theology, but has nevertheless been em
ployed by subsequent commentators to a large extent as a
light to their feet. Under the syllogistic coat of mail there
throbs a heart of sensibility, and the erudition is so respectable
as to make it doubtful whether any one of those who followed
him, has devoted to the Gospel an equal amount of original
labor. Bengel, (d. 1752,) Gnomon N. T. 1773, (edited anew by Dr.
1 Crell, Opp. Bxeg. T. ui. 1656, (to chap. 13,) is to be added, who has much
peculiar to himself.

Introduction, § 7. 53
Steudel. 1885.) [New edit. Stuttg. and Berlin, 1855.] (B.
Gnomon, translated by Fausset. T. & T. Clark, Edinburgh,
1858. Tr.) The pointings of his fingers are sunbeams, and
his hints gleams of lightning. When he treads the beaten
path, what others employ wearisome pages in saying, he com
presses into two or three words, often, too, through crag and
forest he opens up new prospects.
[VI. Nineteenth Century.}
Charles Christ. Tittman, (d. 1820,) Meletemata sacra sive
Comm. exegetico-critico-histor. in Ev. loh. Lips. 1816. (Trans
lated by J. Young. Clark's Biblical Cab. 2 vols. Edinburgh,
1844. Tr.) Upon the whole, an exegesis quite easy and natural ;
but it fails in the depth required to develope the ideas, and in
precision. Paulus, Comm. zum. Evangel. Joh. in the 4th vol. of 2d
ed. of his Comm. zu den Evangelien. The Gospel of John is
only commented on to the xi. chapter, to the history of the
Passion. This commentary is not quite so full as that on the
synoptical Gospels. The present time is perhaps more con
scious of the defects of this commentary, than of that which
may be regarded as its merit. If the commentator were as
thoroughly at home in the things of heaven as he is in the
matters of earth, his book would be admirable. The author
would doubtless have handled the legal technicalities of Pales
tine with more success than he would the history of His life
in whose mouth was found no guile, and who was bruised for
our iniquities-.
Kuinbl, Comm. in Ev. loh, 8d ed. 1826. This commentary
may yet have its use as a repertory of the views expressed iu
the exegetical period from 1750 to 1820, when the exposition
of the words was as destitute of exactness as that of the things
was of depth.
Liicke, Comm. zum Evang. Joh. 3d ed. vol. 1, 1840, vol. ii.
1843. In the first edition of this work, a youthful enthusiasm
welled up, which yet, like that of Herder, was not clearly con
scious of its object; this was, however, the first exegetical
work in which the believing spirit of the more recent theology
expressed itself in a living form. The second and third
E 0*

54 Introduction, § 7.
editions have undergone important changeSj and are distin
guished alike by clearness and finish of expression, and thor
oughness of investigation. [This commentary, which among
recent ones is justly distinguished as the raost excellent, has
nevertheless, even in comparison with De Wette, several defects ;'
it is defective in not referring to more of the previous writers,
especially the Reformers, in not using several of the rarer aids ;
it wants independence of likes and dislikes. Expositions
which have been generally received in the Churches of almost
all confessions, are not regarded as worthy of an examination
even, as for example, the Explanation of John iii. 5. There is,
moreover, a want of independent philological research, and of a
thorough penetration into the thoughts. On the other hand,
the merits of this commentary, are a varied and thorough
examination of the aids used, clearness and easiness of expo
sition, careful handling of the critico-historical questions.]
Olshausen, Biblischer Commentar zu sammtlichen Schriften
des Neuen Testaments, Th. v. ed. 3d. 1888. (Commentary on
the Gospels, translated by H. B. Creak. Edinburgh, T. & T.
Clark. Revised after the fourth German edition, by A. C.
Kendrick, D. D. New York, Sheldon, Blakeman & Co.
1858. Tr.) The distinctive excellence of the exposition arises
from the effort to evolve the substance of the thought in the par
ticular biblical writers, and that, too, with reference to its uni
son with the Bible system of faith in general. It seems to us,
however, that the exposition of the first three Gospels has beeu
more carefully labored, and possesses higher claims to original
ity, than that of John.
Fikenscher, biblisch-praktische Auslegung des Ev. Johan. 3
vols. 1831-1833. This work is a biblical exposition for edu
cated laymen, but embraces many valuable hints for the learned
interpreter. IT. A. W. Meyer, kritisch-exeget. Commentar liber das N.
5. Th. ii. 1834.' The commentary of the author increases
in value in the subsequent volumes; the exposition of John
must be regarded as scanty. [Independent and linguistic-logi
cal acuteness, but wanting in unity of doctrinal position, and in
the internal element of interpretation.]
I Second edition, 1852.

Introduction, § 7. .55
Be Wette, Kurze Erklarung des Ev. Joh. 2d ed. 1839. The
most important materials of exposition are compressed together
in a judicious manner, and with independent judgment,
though the mass of diversified notices, crowded together in so
narrow a space, makes the impression indistinct ; the brevity,
too, of his own exposition, is such as to make it impossible to
gain from it anything like a satisfactory insight into the more
important passages. The criticism of Strauss has also had its
influence on his exposition of this Gospel, though far less than
on that of the first three Evangelists. [4th ed. much enlarged ;
edited by Bruckner, 1852. With all the vaccillation of its
doctrinal position, concise and full of spirit, and essentially
enriched by the additions of the editor.]
\B. Crusius, 1843, 2 Th. Fuller use of his predecessors than
Lucke has made ; views peculiar in many respects.]
Frommann's Johanneischer Lehrbegriff, (System of John,)
1831, and Neander's Geschichte der Pflanzung, &c. 3d ed.
1841, p. 757, seq. (Planting and training of the Christian
Church. Tr. by J. E. Ryland, Bohn, 1851, vol. i. 384,) may
be used with great advantage as a preparation for the reading
of the Gospel.
{Luthardt, Das Johann. Ev. nach seiner Eigenthum-lichkeit,
2 abth. 1852. An Introduction, in which various parts may
be used to advantage, an independent revision of recent expo
sitions, not without arbitrariness in its own assumptions.]
[Practical Expositions. 0. v. Gerlach, N. T. 2r Th. Stier,
Reden Jesu, 4r Th. (Stier : Words of the Lord Jesus. Trans
lated by Pope. T. & T. Clark, Edinburgh, 1855.) Fr. Besser,
Bibelstunden fiber das Ev. Joh. 1852.]
(Sumner, 3d ed. London, 1838. Hutcheson, Edinburgh,
1840. Jacobus, New York, 1856. Tr.)

CHAPTER I.

THE LOGOS.
I. Doctrine op the Logos in its Historical Aspect.
While the other Evangelists commence -with the history of
the God-man when he appears in the nature of man, John
passes beyond his earthly manifestation, and shows that before
his incarnation he had revealed Deity to men internally, that
from eternity, indeed, he had constituted the principle of the
revelation of God to himself. What value he attached to faith
in the eternal existence of that Redeemer who appeared in
time, is apparent from the fact that he commences his first
Epistle, also, with the words, "that which was from the begin
ning." By John only is Christ designated as the incarnate Logos.
We feel that he employs the expression in this place, as a term
not unknown to his readers, for he uses it not only here, but in 1
John i. 1, and Rev. xix. 18. In the more recent time, con
sequently, (with the exception of L. Lange in Stud. u. Krit.
1830, H. 3,) the merely grammatical exposition of the word,
according to which the interpretation was either with Valla,
Beza, Ernesti, Tittmann, 6 Xbyo^ = iirayyeXia and this = 6
inayyeXd-siz (the promised one) or as abstr. for concr. for b Xsymv,
the Bevealer of God, or as some shallow expositors expressed it,
"the Teacher," has been abandoned. Elsewhere in the New
Testament, and out of it, we find doctrines which we may
believe John had in his eye in this place ; in fact, we find the
word Xbyoz used in a similar sense. The doctrines which exhibit
this affinity must be considered, partly that we may understand
the meaning ofthe Evangelist better, partly that we may judge
(57)

68 Chap. L — The Logos.
how far he has had regard to them, or even been dependent
upon them.
That the distinction between God as concealed and as re
vealed, has a certain necessary basis in the nature of thought,
might be already deduced from the fact that the East, under
various modifications, acknowledges it, and that it has pene
trated even into the blank Monotheism of the Mohammedans,
(see Tholuck's Abh. fiber die spekul. Trinitatslehre, &c. — Treatise
on the speculative doctrine of the Trinity in the East, 1826.)
We commence with the analogies to the doctrine of the Logos
which present thems,elves in the Old Testament, and afterward
in the Apocryphal Books. Although the Old Testament faith
in God, as contrasted -with the heathen polytheism, is a strict
Monotheism, yet it cannot, like the religion of Mohammed, be
termed an abstract Monotheism. Only by supposing a complete
want of thorough acquaintance with the Old Testament, can
we account for it, that those who are of the Hegelian philosophy
in religion have maintained, for a long time, that the God of
the Old Testament is one not immanent to the world, but
merely transcendent; even the one passage, Ps. civ. 29, 30,
expresses the opposite -view most strongly. But undoubtedly
the Old Testament points to a distinction between God in his
immanence and ih his transcendence. Just that far is there
a certain truth in the theory. Does he appear and work in
the world, especially for his people, then is the "Angel of
Jehovah" " ij^bn his representative, of whom it is said, Exod.
xxiii. 21, "My name i& in him." The opinion embraced by
the older theologians cannot, indeed, be sustained, that this
"Angel of Jehovah" is always to be regarded as a peculiar
person, distinctly separate from other angels, (see the ample
discussion of that view by J. A. Michselis, de Angelo Dei, Halse,
1702. De Angelo interprete, 1707. Hengstenberg's Christologie,
p. 219, seq.' (translated by Reuel Keith, D. D., vol. i. 164.)
1 Hengstenberg's Christologie, ii. 1 abth. p. 23, (Keith's Tr. ii. 23,) should also
be corapared, whore he discusses the "Angel of JehOTah" in Zechariah. Since in
that place (as--Dr. Hongstenberg argues, and as we also think is most probable,)
this angel of God differs from the Angelus interpres, the delineation of Zechariah,
which in so many points of view is iraportant for Christology, coincides best with
the older theological view of the "Angel of Jehovah." (See also Geschichte des
Alton Bundes von J. H. Kurtz, 2te verb. Aufl. Berlin, 1853, i. ? 50 and Genefis
V. F. Dolitzsch, 2te Ausg. Leipz. 1853, i. 380-337. Tr.)

The Doctrine oe the Logos. 59
Steudel has pffered, indeed, in his "Whitsuntide Programme
of 1830: de J)eo occulto et rq^mfesto in libris V. T., some
striking remarks, against that view, although his own explana
tion is . unsatisfactory. At present, most concur in the view
that in the use of the word 'iixSi? by the Old. Testament writers,
there exis^ a certain indeterminateness, that sometimes (as the
word does, not properly designate a personal being, signifies
legatio, not legatus,) they entitle a concrete appearance of
God ^nSd, at others give th6 name to. a personal created being.'
(Hitzig on Jsaiah, p. '622,, v. Coelln*s Bibl. Theol. i. p. 190,
seq. Baumgarten-Crusius, Bibl. Theol. p. 307.) But in the
former case even, God, in as far as he reveals himself to men,
is distinguished from God in liimself; he speaks of him, refers
to him,, he is his representative. — The expression. Is. bdii. 9,
"the angel of his face,", is peciiliar, ,a name given here to an
angel who is the mediator of what God does for Israel. We
could hardly explain the term as SteudeLdoes, by Matt, xviii.
10 ; rather : " the angel in -svhom I am by my active providen
tial presence." — We must consider, also, the exceedingly re
markable passage, Exodus xxxiii. 12-23. Here, first of all,
Moses implores the ' Lord to make known to him, Tiim who is
to be sent with him. ¦ The answer, v. 14, is : " My face shall go
-w;ith thee," and he adds: "I will bring thee to rest." 'There
upon Moses repeats his request : "Yea, thy face, yea, i^ow must
go with us," and God replies: "The veiy thing thou askest I
will do." Moses, now emboldened, desires to see the glory of
God. The answer is : " My beauty ('iiiB) thou shalt see. I will
pass by thee ; when I am by, thou shalt look after hie, (''!!ilK) but
mj face ('JS) thou canst not see." First of all, it is necesssiry
to observe, at this point, that the 'JS is used here in different
senses. For where it stands in opposition to 'I'nx, it desig
nates ^e profundity of the Godhead, as the face is the nobler
part of man. Where, on the contrary, the face of God is
said to go -with them, it is a circumlocution iov person, as in
many other places. There is, besides, a distinction made
1 Only in this way can the contradiction be harmonized, that in Exodus xxiii. 20,
seq. the sending of the angel, in whom is the name of God, is represented as au
evidence of the grace of God, while On the contrary, ch. xxxiii. 2-5, the sending with
them of au angel only, is regarded as a sign of the withdrawal of his favor.

60 Chap. L — The Logos.
here between an inner and an outer side of God, his essence
and his appearance ; the form'er remains closed to man, the lat
ter is opened. It is called the glory, the beauty of God. This
glortf of God, at other times, appeared also to the people,
('" Tua) Exod. xvi. 10, xxiv. 16, xl. 34, 1 Kings -viii. 11.' —
The word of God is also mentioned as mediating the creation
of the world, Ps. xxxiii. 6, (see 2 Pet. iii. 5 ;) and in Ps. cxlvii.
15, Is. Iv. 11, as mediating the government of the world, the
manifestation of the di-vine energy. (See the Festprogramm
of Olshausen on Hebr. iv. 12, in his Opuscul.) — The Spirit of
God, from the very beginning of the world, appears as the
fructifying, motive principle, and is, furthermore, the princi
ple by which all animated creatures have life, (Ps. civ. 29, 30,
Job. xxxiv. 14,) and by which men have wisdom and sanctify
ing power, (Ps. li. 13, cxliii. 10.) — Wisdom, also, that is, the attri
bute of God which assigns to things their objects, appears in the
Old Testament -with a certain independency, even in Job xxviii.
12. seq. more distinctly Prov. -viii. 22, seq. She is called the
daughter of God, who arose as the firstling of his work, (n'^K^
i3nn) before the foundation of the earth she was anointed
queen of the world ; at the creatiqn of the world, she was by
God's side as the artificer by whom he arranged the whole.
" The relation between God and the world, and between wisdom
and the world, is contemplated as that of a tender parental
love."» (Ewald Poet. BB. d. A. T. iv. p. 76.)
Yet more clearly does this distinction of God appear in that
working out of Old Testament views which we find in the
Apocrypha. According to Ecclesiasticus i. 1-10, wisdom is
from eternity with God, before all that is finite she proceeded
from God, and was poured out upon all his works; accord
ing to xxiv. 14, (Eng. Tr. xxiv. 9,) created from the begin-
1 Steudel's mode of treating this part , of Exod. xxxiii. in the dissertation we
have cited, is very unsatisfactory. He understands it that the vision of the glory
and beauty of God is here refused to Moses, (p. 29;) the whole narrative, in his
opinion, means that the attributes of God, either singly or collectively, cannot be
known by man in their essence, that man can only afterward recognize therein the
traces of the divine mercy, (see xxxiv. 6, in which there is certainly a reference
to xxxiii. 22.)
2 The older theologians used Prov. xxxi. 4, to prove that wisdom is also called
the Son of God. That expression, and indeed- the -Whole passage, has certainly
never been satisfactorily explained.

The Doctrine of the Logos. 61
ning before the world, and enduring to the end, she has
entered into the children of Israel, and has founded her glory
in Jerusalem, and poured herself forth in the Book of the Law,
(Ecclesiasticus xxiv. 10, seq.) According to Baruch, also, wis
dom has been given to Israel, and has been made known in the
Book of the Law for all eternity, (ch. iii. 37, 38, iv. 1.) In
the Wisdom of Solomon, written in Alexandria, wisdom, from
ch. vii. 7, to ch. xi. is depicted as the reflected splendor of the
eternal light, the breath of the power of God, the effluence of
his glory ; in her is an understanding spirit, holy, one only,
going through all rational spirits, (ch. vii. 22-26,) in all ages
entering into holy souls, she prepares them to be prophets of
God, (ch. -vii. 27.) An approximation to what John teaches of
the Logos, is presented in these Apocryphal writings, in this,
especially, that they speak of a certain embodiment of wisdom
in the people of Israel, in its law, and in its prophets. — The
question, whether in the expressions used in Ecclesiasticus and
the Wisdom of Solomon, -wisdom (aofia) is simply a poetical
personification, or is regarded by the authors dogmatically as a
distinct hypostasis, has for a long time been variously answered.
The -view to which Lucke assents, which is now most com
monly entertained, and in our judgment is the true one, is
this, that in the Book of Proverbs, and in Ecclesiasticus, there
is merely a personification, but that this personification in the
Wisdom of Solomon, from ch. -vii. 22, passes over into a dog
matic hypostatizing. See also Dahne, Alexandrinische Reli-
gionsphilosophie, ii. p. 184, seq. 154, seq.
We must further trace the doctrine after the type of the Jews
of Palestine and those of Alexandria. The Chaldee paraphrasts,
from whom we ascertain the former, never speak of God as opera
ting immediately, but constantly represent him as acting through
the mediation of the N"iD'n. or "ust the word of God. In them
we have. Gen. iii. 8, Deut. iv. 12, " The voice of the word of God
spake ;" Gen. xlix. 18, the Jerusalem Targum translates : "I wait
not for liberation through Samson or Gideon, but for salvation
through thy word." Jonathan, in particular, in place of the
xnn'D frequently employs the term Shekinah, "the habitation
of the splendor, the glory," corresponding to the "glory" in
7

62 Chap. L — The Logos.
which God revealed himself under the Old Testament, (cf the
Septuagint, Deut. xii. 8, and see 2 Peter i. 17.) The Memra
is also employed in a sense parallel with angel of the Lord,
Judg. 11, seq. (J. H. Michaelis, de usu Targumim anteju-
daico, Halse, 1720. Keil, Opusc. ii. p. 526.) Under the cooper
ation of the Oriental and Greek philosophy, these tendencies
of the doctrine of the hidden and revealed God were carried
out further by the Cabbalists. Two leading works of this liter
ature, the Book Jezira and the Book Sohar, are, to appearance,
of so late an origin, that the latter, at least, can only be regarded
as an interpolated writing of the Rabbi, Moses Leon, (see Tho
luck'^ Commentatio de ortu Cabbalse, 1837,) of the thirteenth
century, but they follow more ancient speculations. In Sohar is
found only the distinction between a great and small counte
nance of God, (T^J.^ ''^Pl T1^) an open and closed eye ; in the
Book Jezira, the Revealer is called the brightness of the unity
of God, (nnnKnnnn.)
As to Philo, it is this Alexandrian Jew, so conversant witb
Plato, in whom the inmost affinity of the Greek with the He
brew wisdom meets us, for the God of Plato, the ov, the auzb to
dya^ov, does not himself appear in this world of becoming, but
is mediated through the ideas ; Plato had also spoken of a vouf
^aatXixbt; iv Z7j zou Jibi; <puaec, (a regal principle of intelligence in
the nature of Jove,) (Philob. p. 30. d. Steph.) Thus did a more
perfect doctrine of the Logos evolve itself to the Alexandrian.
The absolute God begat his counterpart in the Logos, (though
only a relative, not an absolute one, for the Logos is only ¦&sbz,
not 6 d-ebz,) who is the sum, the pyjzpoTtohi; of the divine Suvdpstz
or ISsat, the xoapoi; voijzbz ; after this was the xoapoi; atad-rizbz
formed, through it he operates in the world. This sum of the
di-vine 8ovdpecz Philo calls Xbyoc, which term he prefers to
that of aofia, partly because in the sense of reason, it is closely
connected with the Platonic voui:, and in the sense of word,
with the Old Testament, partly because the word as thought
rendered external, presents a designation conformable to the
xbapoz vofjzbz stamped upon the actual world. This Xbyoz he
also denominates b npsa^uzazoz ulbz zou ^sou, (the eldest son of
God,) b Ttpmrbyovoz, (the first born,) and even b SsuzspoQ d-sbz, (the

The Doctrine of the Logos. 63
second God,) although, as he adds, iv xaza^pijaet. He sometiraes
uses aofia, too, in the same sense as Xoyoz. (Dahne, Alexandri
nische Religionsphilos. i. p. 220.)
If we seek for the term b Xbyoz before John, we find it pre
dominant only in Philo. Out of his -writings, to -wit : it occurs
but once, Ecclesiastic, xxiv. 26, (28,) as a designation of the
creative word of God, and Wisdom viii. 15, as a designation of
the punitive power of God, which, in poetical personification, is
represented as an angel. This fact might easily lead to the
idea that John's doctrine, if not directly, yet mediately, might
be connected with that of "Philo. This opinion, first maintained
by Ballenstedt, (in the book "Philo and John," Gottingen,
1812,) has recently been embraced by the major part of the
theologians. De Wette and Lucke also concur in it ; the latter
says : " It is impossible to mistake as to the immediate historical
connection of John's doctrine of the Logos with the Alexan
drian in its more perfect form, as it is presented in Philo." In
fact, since G^'orer's work on Early Christianity, the belief has
been embraced, that even the Pauline form of the doctrine of
the Logos is connected with the Alexandrian Wisdom, (Col. i.
15, 16, 2 Cor. iv. 4, 1 Cor. i. 47,.viii. 6 ;) in regard to the Epistle
to the Hebrews, (ch. i. 1, seq.) this was believed still earlier,
(see, opposed to this, Tholuck's Commentary, 2d ed. p. 67. Eng.
Trans, i. 129.) On this point, also, De Wette and Lucke are
in harmony with Gfrorer, (Lucke, Komm. 3d ed. i. Thi. p.
284, seq. 290.) For proof, Lucke appeals to Gfrorer, Philo, &c.
ii. p. 280, seq. and Dahne in his work before quoted, ii. p.
287, seq.
We will first glance at the question, whether it is probable
that the Alexandrian Gnosis had also found an entrance among
the Jews of Palestine. Of that wMch Gfrorer advances, much
needs a sifting before it can be received ; much is unsound, or
at least precarious. Proceeding on the supposition that the
Essenes were, beyond doubt, an offshoot of the sect of
Egyptian Therapeutse, he would, from this fact, derive the
date at which the Alexandrian Gnosis was transplanted. But
at the very beginning, that derivation of Essenism from
Egypt is very precarious; Neander, too, in the most recent
edition of his Church Histoiy, 1842, 1 Thi. p. 105, ex-

64 Chap. I.— -The Logos.
presses an opinion adverse to it. The establishing of that
date rests throughout on error. Gfrorer's strongest argument is
the passage adduced, p. 349, from a Karaite author, according
to which, Simeon Ben Schetach, a Rabbi of Palestine, who had
been banished to Egypt some eighty years B. C. is alleged to
have brought with him out of Egypt a Kabbala, that is a Tradi
tion "of which not the remotest trace is said to remain in
the written law." This passage, which is given in full in
Trigland Notitia Karseorum, p. 87, seq. does not, however,
refer at all to what we call the Cabbala, that is, the metaphysical
speculations of the Jews, but to the Talmudic doctrine, whose
genuineness the Caraite writer attempts to invalidate, inasmuch
as it was derived from Egypt. The Babbinic writers, too, who
make us acquainted -with Ben Schetach, say no more, than that
through him, on his returij from Egypt, the " oral tradition"
was invested -with new brilliancy. (Liber. Cosri. edit. Buxt. p.
240.) It is true, other learned men, Brucker, especially, in his
Hist. Philos. ii. 706, have advanced the opinion, that the
statement of the Jews to which we have alluded, is inaccurate,
and that Simeon more probably introduced into Palestine the
Alexandrian metaphysics. This opinion, however, is a mere
hypothesis. Gfrorer, Dahne, and in unison with them,
Lucke, appeal further to the traces of Alexandrian views in
Josephus, and to the fact that -the Jewish -writers complain of
the influence of the Greek -wisdom in Palestine, and that
Gamaliel also was acquainted with it. Whatever is to be estab
lished by Josephus, is exceedingly precarious ; in the passages
cited from the Talmud, the point is : what are we to under
stand by the " Greek -wisdom, the n^^r riDjn?" It is certainly
too hasty, without anything further, to understand by it, "the
allegorical exposition." See in addition what I have remarked
on this expression in the Treatise before alluded to, de Ortu
Cabbalse, p. 8. Although from the beginning we have been
far from regarding as impossible, an influence on Palestine
derived from the Alexandrian theosophy, yet we feel ourselves
forced to declare, that what has hitherto been urged to sustain
it, does not, in our judgment, warrant the confldent language
that has been employed. Lucke himself is disposed to think
that with the theosophic views of the Chaldee paraphrasts, and

The Doctrine op the Logos. 65
of Simon Magus, there has been a > cooperation of Gnostic
elements, which were brought back on the return from the
exile. In this case, the necessity is still less of supposing an
influence derived from Alexandria. As it is granted that
Alexandria itself, in the centuries immediately preceding
Christ, was influenced from the East, is not the remark at once
suggested, that Palestine, also, may have been touched from
the East? Compare here the weighty language of Neander
used by him with reference to Simon Magus, in the Pflanzung
der Christlichen Kirche, 3d ed. i. p. 80.' That John had
adopted his doctrine of the Logos during his residence in
Palestine, is nevertheless not maintained, but rather the belief
that the Palestinian-Gnostic type of this doctrine is to be met
•vsdth only in Paul and in the Epistle to the Hebrews." John,
on the other hand, in Ephesus, a city where, as in Alexandria,
various religious elements were mingled, might (not indeed by
the study of Philo's writings,' but from the circle of his own
intercourse,) have become familiar with the Alexandrian type
of the doctrine of the Logos, and adapted it to Christ. To
the adoption of this -view, in the flrst place, we are urged by
no necessity whatever. If we bring together the points of the
Old Testament to which the doctrine of the Logos can be linked,
if we connect -with those passages which Lucke has enumerated
those that he has passed over, (he has made no reference to the
"Angel of Jehovah," and to Exod. xxxiii. while Nitzsch, in his
Dissertation " On the Essential Trinity of God," in the Stud.
u. Krit, 1841, 2 H. p. 316, seq. attaches great importance to
them ;) little in fact remains to b^ done to develope it to the
point at which we meet it in the Prologue of John. Nor is the
fact to be passed over, that in its connection in the doctrine
^ In this place Neander cites from a Palestinian Apocryphal work, a passage
overlooked by Gfrorer and Dahne, which yet, more than any thing before
adduced from Palestinian authors, embodies a spirit allied to the Alexandrian
theosophy. » Strauss, also, Glaubenslehre, i. p. 419, seq. supposes the Christology of
Paul to proceed from an acquaintance with "the Hellenistic Apocrypha, that of
John from a direct adaptation of the doctrines of Philo.
' Gfrorer alsci thinks that the Apostle did not derive his views from the
-works of Philo, but from a widely extended circle. The circulation of the
¦writings of these theosopbists must have beeu Umited indeed, if it be true, aa
Valokenaer thinks he can show, that even Philo had never read the writings of
his great predecessor, Aristobulus. See Valckenaer de Aristob. p. 95.
7*

66 Chap. I. — The Logos.
bf Philo, the Logos has a different meaning from that whicb
it has in its connection in the Christian doctrine of the Trinity.
In Philo it is not so much the principle of the revelation of
God with God himself, as that of revelation to the world.'
(Bruno Bauer, in his Zeitschrift f spekul. Theol. i. 2, in the,
Dissertation "fiber den alttestamentl. Hintergrund des Ev.
Joh." — On the Old Testament background of the Gospel of
John.) Be the question as it may as ' to whether the Evangelist is
indebted mediately to the influence of Philo for the doctrine
of the. Logos in this shape, yet is the point of essential im
portance this, whether he and Paul have associated only in an
incidental manner, their Gnosis with their faith in Christ.
Against this we must declare ourselves in the most decided
manner. We fully subscribe to what has been said by Neander
in his Pflanz. 8d ed. ii. p. 690, (Planting and Training, i. 505 :)
" Certainly it could be nothing merely accidental which induced
men so differently constituted and trained as Paul and John,
to connect such an idea with the doctrine of the person of
Christ, but the result of a higher necessity, which is founded
in the nature of Christianity, in the power of the impression
which the life of Christ had made on the minds of men, in the
reciprocal relation between the appearance of Christ, and the archer-
type that presents itself as an inward revelation of God, in the
depths of the higher self-consciousness. And all this has found its
point of connection and its verification in the manner in which
Christ, the unerring witness, expressed Jiis consciousness of the
indwelling of the divine essence in him." ' In fact, the -witness of
Christ of himself, that he is the Son of God, which is found not
1 Frommann, Joh. Lehrbegriff, p. 142, alleges also, as a distinction, that the
Logos of Philo came into being, while on the contrary, the Logos of John "wm
in the beginning." But as John also regards the Father as the Original, as
God /car" Hoxvv, the " was " employed by the Evangelist cannot exclude the
idea of generation from God. Though Philo, on the one side, calls the Logos
"first born," on the other he designates him as "without beginning." A8 he
makes time to coraraence with the world, he could not regard the being begot
ten as a temporal relation.
' 2 Compare with this, Neander's Eirchengeschichte, i. 8j). 989: "Providence had
BO ordered it, that in the intellectual world in which Christianity made its first
appearance, many ideas, apparently at lea«t, closely related to it, should be current,
in which Christianity could find a point of connection for the doctrine of a God
revealed in Christ."

The Dogma of the Logos. ' 67
only in John, but in Matt. xi. 27, xviii. 35, ("¦My heavenly
Father,") xxii. 44, xxiii. 37, xi. 10, (c£ Mai. iii. 1,) and xxviii.
18, 20, is quite sufficient to explain the application ofthe doctrine
of the Logos to him. And if no other necessity for supposing
a connection with Philo can be established, the whole matter
is narrowed to this, that the Evangelist, from the circle around
him, borrowed the designation by the name Logos, " in order to
lead those who busied themselves with speculation on the
Logos, as the centre of all theophanies, to lead them from
their religious idealism to a religious realism, to the recognition
of that God who was revealed in Christ."' Neander, same work,
p. 549, (Eng. Tr. 402.) In the same manner entirely, Nitzsch,
(in his work already quoted,) p. 821, expresses himself, and
protests against the idea that the Christology of Paul, of John,
and of the Epistle to the Hebrews, presents merely a concep
tion which was the growth of time, (p. 305.) Frommann, (in
his work quoted,) p. 146, says : " We do gross violence to the
exalted and simple Christian spirit of our Apostle, if we repre
sent him as an immediate disciple of that Alexandrian scho
lasticism which, -with all its show of monotheism, was close
upon the .borders of pantheism." Bruno Bauer himself, in his
Kritik der evang. Geschichte des Joh. p. 5, declares that the
doctrine of the Logos is to be ascribed to existing elements
only thus far: " that they invested -with new importance, and
advanced to a more decided form, views already flrmly established
in the mind of the Disciple of the Lord ;" the Apocryphal books,
he remarks, might already have excited reflection upon the
internal distinction of the Godhead, and adumbrated the doc
trine of the Logos. Cf. also, Olshausen's Comm. p. 80, seq.
n. The Dogma contained in the Doctrine of the Logos.
The view widely embraced at the end of the eighteenth cen
tury, and defended by Teller, Lbffier, Stolz, Eichhorn, Am-
mon and others, that the Logos in this place is but a personifi
cation of the divine reason, as in the Wisdom of Solomon, ch.
1 As early as Count Lynar, in his Paraphrase of the Gospel of John, Halle, 1771,
we have the remark: "The Logos, a term under which, as every one knows, both
Jews and "Gentiles of. the present time understand something more than human,
under which name I propose to describe Jesus, who is not yet sufficiently under
stood." Moras takes the same view.

68 Chap. L — The Logos.
vii. 27, X. 16, 17, may be regarded at this day as superseded ; a
confutation of it may be found in an Essay by Susskind, in
Flatt's Magazin. f Dogmatik u. Moral St. 10. As at this time
a dogmatic hypostatizing is acknowledged in the Wisdom of
Solomon itself, there is the less hesitation in conceding it here.
It is now the problem of Theology to grasp the relation of
this hypostasis to God, or rather in God. Exegesis cannot well
avoid linking itself here to the results of Dogmatik.
In place of the term imoazaatz, abstractive zponoz Ozdp^emz,
t8tbz7jz, commonly employed in the East, the Western Church
used the term person. Yet this term is not applied to the hy
postases of the Godhead in the sense in which it is used of human
individuals. The unsatisfactory character of the expression was
felt, in fact, very strongly already, by Augustine, who says :
"Tres — quid tres?" (three — three what?) and elsewhere: "per-
sonse, si ita dicendse sunt," (persons, if they may so be called.)
Person applied to men, designates the human indi-vidual as an
impress of the conception of the human species under an incom
municable modification of being in the single one. In this
sense, the term cannot be applied to the Godhead, partly be
cause Godhead is not a conception of a species, but exists once
only, and partly because the same essence belongs to all the
persons, ajid the formula of the Church runs : Una essentia in
tribus personis. It is very certain that the Aristotelian Boe
thius, whose definition became the current one in the Occi
dental Church : " Persona est naturse rationalis indi-vidua sub
stantia," by no means proposed in that way to define the divine
persons, but designated the divine Trinity as diversitas relati-
onum, (de trinitate, c. 5, p. 159, seq.) And thus the specula
tive theologians of the West commonly used the expression,
subsistentise, relationes subsistentes, (Thomas, Summa. qu. 40,
Art. 2.) The persons then of the Godhead, are: real dis
tinctions, having a necessary basis in the essence of the Godhead,
and at the same time are relations. God has knowledge of him
self in a triple action of self-consciousness ; he knows himself as
subject, as object, and at the same time as the identical in sub
ject and object. ' As an analogy, the human spirit may be
1 See Nitzsch, (in place already cited,) who shows that the reference of the
Trinity to a necessary internal Modality, if you choose to call it so, cau by no means
be denominated Sabellianism.

The Dogma of the Logos. 69
referred to in its self-distinguishing, as thinker, and as thought
of itself, and again, as act of thinking. God as object of him
self is the Word, for in the Word (that is, regarded as an in
ternal thing,) the spirit becomes objective to itself The Word
is consequently the principle through which God is revealed to
himself. The Word is distinct from him, and at the same time
the distinction is taken away, for God would not have perfectly
rendered himself objective, had not (so to speak,) his thought of
himself been as great and as substantial as he is.' As he now
contemplates himself in the Word, he beholds the fullness of his
own essence, and in this the archetypes of the world, for the works
of God which, according to Rom. i. 20, mirror "the eternal
power and Godhead" of God, must have been thoughts of God.
In the Word, therefore, lies the xbapoz voijzbz, (the intelligible
world,) and so far the counterpart of God. The other coun
terpart of man, by which he is conscious of his individuality,
is external to him, God has it in himself, in his Word. First,
in having reference to this counterpart, he is also love. As
the abstract One, he would be without love, for it pertains to
the notion of love to find oneself in another. In his distinction
from his counterpart, and in his reference to it, he is love.
This love, accordingly, has reference also eternally to the
world — ^but not to the world in its limited being, in its actually
entering on existence, but as it is rendered objective to him in the
Word, in his own essence. It is, then, not a counterpart for
itself, but only for him. In virtue of his love, it attains now
also existence for itself, that is the xbapoz voijzbz becomes real
ized in the xbapoz ata&rjzbz ; the creation of the world ensues.
Hence we have the Bible formula, that the world was created
of the Father, by the Son. (John i. 3, 1 Cor. viii. 6, Eph. iii.
9, Col. i. 16.) This explains, too, why every revelation of God,
avhether in the Old Testament, (John xii. 41,) in the conscious
ness of the human soul, (John i. 5-9,) or in Christ, is referred
to the Logos. What does the expression, " God reveals him
self," mean, but this: he imparts the thought, the knowledge
1 Luther also calls the Logos " a discourse," or a " thought of God of him
self;" the dissimilarity in human analogy he traces profoundly to this, that God i»
causa sui, and then adds : "although in fact our word gives a Uttle information, in
deed gives cause for meditating ou the thing."

70 Chap. I. — Prologue.
of himself? God's thought of himself, God objectively con
ceived, is the Logos. In Christ, however, the Logos has be
come man, inasmuch as this man is the archetype of humauity,
which was contemplated in the Logos, which archetype, in virtue
of that, views God with the same absoluteness of knowledge, is
participant also of the love of God, in the same way as the Logos-
in his preexistent state.' Luther says strikingly : " The other
sons of God first become such through this Son, who, therefore,
is the only begotten " — their creation, like their new creation,
he says further, is founded in the Word, to wit : through the
original man.
Among the theological discussions of a very recent date,
in regard to the Trinity, the greatest interest is claimed by
the missives of Lucke and Nitzsch, the fiijst of whom presents:
-with plainness the considerations opposed to the doctrine of an
immanent divine Trinity, the latter, with an equal absence of
reserve, meets these scruples, (Stud. u. Kritik. 1840, H. 1, 1841,,
H. 2.) The Dissertation by Dean Mehring, in Fichte's Zeit
schrift fur Spekulat. Theol. 1842, 5 Bd. H. 2, also deserves
notice. Among the philosophical dissertations, Billroth's^
Religionsphilosophie, p. 57, seq. and Erdmann, Natur oder
Schopfung, (Nature or Creation,) p. 70, seq. may be referred to.
Prologue. — v. 1-18.
The train of thought in the Prologue is now to be explained.
The grand thought which stands before the soul of the Evangel
ist is, that the Logos has appeared as a human person. The Evan
gelist, however, starts from a remoter point, and commences
with the thought, that from eternity the Logos has revealed
God to himself, (v. 1, 2,) that through him the world has been
brought into existence, as also the consciousness of God in man,
(v. 3, 4.) But mankind have not had the proper disposition of
1 As regards the question, whether the Logos only, and not the Godhead, became
man, the answer is to be found in the formula eraployed by Bernard : Credimus.
ipsara divinitatem sive substantiam divinara sive naturam divinam dicas, incarnatam
esse, sed in filio, ( "we believe that the Deity itself, call it divine nature, or divine
substance, as you please, became incarnate, but in the Son.") It is further to be
remarked, in regard to Christ, that the sphere of his earthly being does not present,
the incarnation of the Logos in its copiplete unfolding ; that follows the condition
of exaltation.

Prologue. 71
mind for this light, (v. 5.) As John purposes to make a tran
sition to the personal appearing of the Logos, he prefaces it
with a mention of the testimony of the Baptist, which was
designed to produce faith in him that was to come, (v. 6-9.)
He that was to come was, in fact, already present, but had
been rejected, (v. 10.) He now came to his own peculiar
people, and these also rejected him, (v. 11.) But the richest
blessing became the portion of those who acknowledged him
that had appeared, (v. 12, 13.) Thus he prepares for the
delineation of the appearing of the Word in flesh, so abun
dantly rich in blessing, -whose two grand benefits, designating
them in the strongest manner, are called the grace and the
truth, (v. 14, 17.)
V. 1. 'Ev dp'j^, in the -view of most expositors, is connected
¦with the n'B^ia (" in the beginning ") of the Old Covenant, to
carry on, as it -were, to a higher point, the beginning there
mentioned. It may be so ; nevertheless, if that iypv^. means
the beginning of the creation itself, dp'^^ must here have
another meaning, for the Logos was not merely at, but before
the creation bf the -world. It is most probable that John, by
iv dp^fj here and dTt" dp^^z, 1 John i. 1, means dn atmvoz, which
is used, Prov. viii. 23, (Septua.) in regard to wisdom, in place
of which Ecclesiasticus xxiv. 14, (9,) has dn' dp^rfi. " We show
unto you z. ^mrjv z. aimvtov," says the Evangelist, 1 John i. 2.
Our conception cannot grasp an infinite range of time. When
we wish, therefore, to speak of eternity; we fix a beginning,
which we csill original beginning. — John says : " He was in the
beginning;" but according to the doctrine of the Church, the
Son is begotten. But as the Church in this conception denies
the prius and posterius, it follows that the existence of the Son
is to be regarded as posterior to that of the Father, only in the
cSrder of apprehension, not of time. The sunbeam is dependent
on the sun, and yet is not later than it. In fact, there is a
reciprocal condition, since the Father without the Son cannot
be Father, in fact, not self-conscious God ; the effect is thus, on
the other side, cause also.
Ilpbz with the accus. here in the sense of with, cf Winer,
§ 53, h. and the napd aoi, xvii. 5 ; so too (^ l^mrj) ^ztz ^v npbz zbv
nazspa, 1 John i. 2. By the word "with" as indicative of

72 Chap. I.— Prologue. — v. 2-9.
space, is designated that idea which we call distinction, which
is, however, annulled by the d^sbz 7jv which follows, as Luther
expresses it: "That sounds as if the Word were something
different from God, he resumes, therefore, and closes the ring."
dsbz is not to be regarded as the subject ; the ouzoz, v. 2, which
again is connected with 6 Xbyoz, shows that the latter is the
leading idea. 6sbz -without the article, designates God as the
divine substance ; on the other hand, 6 ¦&e6z is meant to desig
nate God as subject and (in connection with what precedes,)
the Father himself. The consubstantiality of the Logos with
the Father, is thus expressed, as Erasmus remarks. Those
who maintain in general a close connection of the EvangeHst
-with Philo, suppose that d^ebz "Vidthout the article signifies> as
in Philo, God in a subordinate sense, 6 Ssuzspoz. The bear
ing of this on the doctrine of the Trinity would not be un
essential, for the Son would in that case no longer be the
absolute image of the Father.
V. 2, 3. The discourse again takes up the first words of v.
1, as the thought of the creation of the world connects itself
with that of the eternal existence of the Word. Only in -virtue
of his eternal existence could the Logos effect the temporal
existence of the world. The temporal beings are the thoughts
of God which have become existent, and which were contained
in archetype in the Logos ; according to Col. i. 16, all things
were created in the Logos. The proposition ¦xo^pk auzou x. z. X.
is not to be regarded as merely rhetorical, repeating in a
negative form the thought which before had been expressed
positively. That a special emphasis is attached to it, is clear
from the fact that we have not the mere oh8iv. But why this
express testimony, that everything existed through the media
tion of the Logos? According to Lucke and Olshausen, to
exclude the Philonic view of the uXvj, (matter as a principle of
being.) But the testimony is designed to assure us, not of the
dependence of everything on God, but of its existence by means
of the Logos. Must not, then, the purpose of the Evangelist
rather have been to represent the 'Logos as exalted above all
orders of spirits, as Paul expressly gives prominence to the
very same idea to the Colossians, Col. i. 16.
V. 4, 5. Luther: "John now sharpens the pin and makes a

Prologue. 73
new point, as he designs to bring in the thread of the human
race," (an allusion to lace-weaving. Tr.) As the existence of
beings has its root in the Logos, so also has their life. This
life, however, was in men a self-reflected life, a consciousness
of God effectuated by self-consciousness. That (p&z does not
strictly designate the self-consciousness, is manifest from v.
5 and 9, (cf Matt. vi. 23,) yet the consciousness of God pre
supposes a capacity of self-consideration. KazaXap^dvetv can
not idiomatically signify "suppress," (Origen, Chrysostom,
Schulthess,) it means "comprehend," in the spiritual sense, too,
in expressing which the middle voice is usual, cf. v. 10, eyvm,
and iii. 19. In unison with this, Paul says, Rom. i. 19, that
God was manifest in the heart of the heathen, and was not
acknowledged. The abstract axozia designates the concrete col
lective idea of humanity not penetrated by the consciousness
of God. With the Aorist, we have <paivst in the present, as the
Evangelist has before his mind an act yet in continual progress.
V. 6-8. The thought that mankind did not comprehend the
Logos at that time, already excites in the mind of the Evangel
ist a reflection on the unbelief ; that attended his appearing in
humanity. He thus had occasion for the admonitory remark,
that by God's arrangement through the Baptist, John's cher
ished teacher, preparation for faith in the incarnate Logos had
been made, and so far rendered easy — " that all men (are the
heathen already embraced in this, as Luther supposes ?) through
him might believe." The explicit assurance in v. 8, appears
superfluous, nevertheless, v. 20 and ch. iii. 28, show (cf. Paul, Acts
xiii. 25,) that the establishment of what is here asserted, seemed
of importance to the Evangelist ; the earliest traces of disciples
of John the Baptist, who regarded him as the Messiah, are
found in the second century, but there might already exist an
occasion for these remarks of the Evangelist, in the fact that
even after the appearance of Jesus, a secluded circle of John's
disciples remained. — The construction with Iva serves for the
circumscribing of the idea of should, (cf ix. 3, xiii. 18, Mark
V. 23.)
V. 9. The point of time is now specifled at which that
witness resounded. The translation of Luther, which is also the
one of the Vulgate, Syriac, Chrysostom, Calvin, (and the English
8

74 Chap. I. — Prologue.— v. 10-13.
authorized version. Tr.) cannot therefore be aUowed, since
to justify it, an ouzoz would be indispensable before the ^v. We
must connect the ^v with ip'jrbpsvov, and ^v ipxbp. is susceptible
of two interpretations. It may mark the imperfect: "He
came .just then into the world," (De Wette, Lucke, 3d edit.)
On this -view, indeed, the thesis cannot well be connected with
what precedes, which would seem to make zbzs necessary,
although this objection may be met by the consideration, that
the following theses also are pretty abrupt. There is yet
another difficulty, however. If we take it in this way, v. 10
must be understood of Christ after his appearing, and would
not the i]v then be out of place ? since De Wette and Lucke
themselves cannot avoid translating: "was (appeared.") We
prefer, therefore, with Theodorus of Mopsuestia, Grotius,
Lampe, Schott, Olshausen, to understand the partie. pres,.
ip-^bpsvoz of him who was shortly to enter the world, and tg
translate : erat venturum ; the proposition is then more closely
connected -wdth v. 8, as an elucidation. ' A),rj-d-ivbz, " that which
answers to its idea," (iv. 23, -vi. 32.) A share of the light is
indeed ascribed to the Baptist, but the true light illumines all
men. V. 10, 11. With the thought that the Light was first to come,
is connected by reference to v. 5, what obviates a possible
misunderstanding, and by which, at the same time, the thought
expressed in v. 11 is strengthened. As v. 9 has already
referred to the personal appearing, we now have the masculine
auzov. Instead of a conjunction making a clear logical deter^
mination, we have, like the Hebrew, merely xai, the first xai
having an augmentive, the second an adversative sense. V. 11
can only be understood of the personal appearing of the Logos,
as is sho-wn by the ^X&s and by v. 12 and 13 ; though Luther
interprets ^X&s as referring to Christ's appearance subsequent tp
his baptism. Td Idea, his own, that is his own property,
peculiar possession, not essentially different from the concrete
ol Idiot. If this designated no more than the previous xbapoz,
it would be the men in general, who belonged, in a more
specific sense than other beings, to the Logos, since they are
conscious life, inasmuch as they bear in them the conscious
ness of God; but the impression is irresistible, that l'8eoc »

Prologue. 75
meant to express more than b xbapoz. In this light, the view
of Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, Beza, and the recent writers, com
mends itself, that Israel is referred to bjz dfolvtapa xXrjpovoptaz
adzou, (" as the portion of his inheritance,") Ecclesiasticus xxiv.
13, Exod. xix. 5. If we take I'bioe in this sense, can we not
say that the whole Gospel is an expansion of this theme, since
the party in opposition is always designated by John as o?
"^louddtotl (see on i. 19.) — The rejection of Messiah expressed in
as unqualified a manner as in iii. 32, receives, nevertheless, in
V. 12, its limitation. The Baptist had designed to lead " all "
to faith, (v. 7,) but the great mass had been blind.
V. 12-13. The Evangelist depicts the more copiously the
richness of blessing shared by the few. 'E^ouaia has, in the
classics, the meaning of prerogative, ^ dSia)ai<^, (Beza, cf. 1 Joh.
iii. 1,) but certainly not in the New Testament, nor can that of
8uvapt^, internal power, (1 Cor. i. 18,) be supposed here ; better,
therefore, according to the classic usage, where it has the mean
ing of ability, as Erasmus : ut liceret filios Dei fieri, (that they
might become sons of God.) In what way is this ability
brought about ? We may answer in the words that follow : by
the %c?/>fC and dX^'&sia, (the "grace" and "truth.") Ts^tva d-sou
cannot here have the derivative sense "proteg6, favorite;"
the thought, rather, as v. 13 shows, is that of a regeneration, a
participation of the divine fuatc, (2 Pet. i. 4,) so that Christ
is preeminently the ulb<: z. d-sou, cf 1 John iii. 9, 1 Pet. i. 22, 28.
At the same time the condition or mediation of the new birth
is given, Faith. The idea of spiritual birth is then, v. 18, ren
dered more distinct by putting it into antithesis -with natural
birth. We may regard the three members as distinct designa
tions ; Luther^ the corporeal descent, the adoption, the sonship
as a title of honor, or the second and third as subdivisions of
the first, though in that case ouzs — oure Would be required.
The blood through which the chyle is distributed to the differ
ent parts of the body, is the seat of life, hence the connection
between child and parents is called blood relationship, and in
classic usage, also, we have the expression "to spring from the
blood, that is from the seed of any one," (Acts x-vii. 26.) The
plural is used in the classic poetry for the singular. The idea
of the older theologians that these words have a controversial

7G Chap. I. — Prologue. — v. 14.
aim against the Jewish pride of Abrahamic descent, cannot be
well allowed in this connection. The lowliness of bodily descent,
is depicted in antithesis to spiritual generation, yet more par
ticularly in the expression, " the lust ofthe flesh," (Eph. ii. 8,) that
is, the natural impulse, and the " desire of man," that is, a more
particular limitation of the fleshly desire. Over against this
stands the "divine counsel of love." '£? marks in Greek, not
merely the point of material origin, but also the efficient cause,
cf. on iii. 6.
V. 14. In V. 11, the incarnation of the Logos was already
presupposed. Linked with the thought of the regeneration,
effected thereby, that incarnation is now depicted with an en
thusiasm inspired by its glory. The Evangelist speaks with the
enthusiasm of an eye-witness, and with like fervor he speaks in
the beginning of his first Epistle, written in extreme old age.
Kal, as in the Greek classics, and like the Latin atque, serves for
the continuation or elucidation of a discourse, cf. v. 16, 19, 24.
2'<£/)f, like the fuller phrase adp^ xal aJpa, (Heb. ii. 14,) desig
nates humanity with reference to its character, as endowed with
the senses and passions, cf. Heb. v. 7, 2 Cor. xiii. 4. We are
not to understand by it the body merely, which would lead us
into the error of ApoUinaris, which was, that Christ had not a
human soul, but that in its place was substituted the Logos.
The word adp$ is selected by the Evangelist to mark the incar
nation as an act of humiliation, perhaps, too, with a glance
toward the docetic denial of the sensuous nature. (1 John iv.
2.) In men, in general, the Logos was divine consciousness as
potential, but not come to energy in will or cognoscence;
in Christ, the divine consciousness alike in will and cognos
cence attains to absolute energy, and therefore unites itself
with the self-consciousness in personal unity. Ixyjvbm, pro
perly "to pitch tent," in a wider sense, "to dwell." The ex
pression is used solemnly in the first sense, to express the reality
of his abode among men; (Luther: "not like the angel Ga
briel,") cf povTjv noieiv, John xiv. 23 ; though the image of
pitching a tabernacle may serve to express the transientness of
the abode of God's Son in the lowly condition of humanity.
(PhU. ii. 7.) According to Olshausen,, Meyer and Lucke, there
is an allusion to the name Shekinah, (that is, dwelling,) see above.

Prologue. 77
p. 62, as too, the mention of the 80^ a, which properly formed the
Shekinah, immediately foUows. That the Evangelist was indu
ced to the selection of the Greek axtjvouv by the mere similarity
of sound with the Hebrew word, is not to be supposed, and if
he designed an allusion to that idea, the expression "he pitched
a tabernacle" is not distinct enough; yet the mention of the
8b$a certainly favors the -view. Ab^a designates, first of all, in
the Old Testament, the radiance (ti'33) the sensible token of the
presence of God; to this a reference might be found, as though
the Evangelist would say : " the sensible manifestations of God
under the old covenant are now completed," for in them that
which appeared, and he who appeared, were distinct, but this is
the case no more. According to New Testament phraseology,
the 8o^d is imparted to Christ, and them that are his, only in
the other world, (vii. 39, xii. 28, xiii. 32, xvii. 1, 5, 24.) To
this 8b^a pertains also the immediate dominion of the spirit
over nature ; since this, however, is averred of the Saviour
even in this world, John here, and ii. 11, already ascribes to
the Son of God a 8b^a in this world. It is nevertheless possi
ble that in this he had in his mind the spiritual glory, also, of
Christ. Luther has less fitly everywhere translated do^d^eiv by
verklaren, (transfigure,) instead of verherrlichen, (glorify.) 'i?c
is to be taken as the falsely so-called 3 veritatis, (this was
thought to stand merely for asseveration,) in Hebrew, i. e. the
object is attached to its idea, "such as is due one who is the
only begotten," cf Is. i. 7, Neb. vii. 2, Matt. vii. 29. Movoyevrji:,
"that which exists once only, that is, singly in its kind."
Would the others become what Christ is, (John xvii. 22, Rom.
viii. 29,) they become such through the s^ouaia bestowed by
him. Ilapd nazpb<^ may be construed with 8bia, but it is
better to connect it with povoysvdix:, in which lies the verbal
conception of yevvyjd-ivzot:. Olshausen thinks that here only the
Logos in itself is denominated povoysvij<^, and appeals to the
Sjv ei<: z. xbXnov z. Ttazpb<z, v. 18, but as we shall show, not with
justice. nXrjpyjz: may, by anacoluthon, be referred to povoysvou<^,
as Eph. iii, 17, but it is better to take xal id-eaadpt^a — nazpbq as
a parenthesis called forth by strong emotion, so that nXrjp-q^ refers
to iax^vmaev. All that Christ has been to the world, is com
prised in the two blessings of salvation, ^dpn: and dX-ji)eta; what
8*

78 Chap. I.— Prologue. — v. 15-17.
they embrace is brought out more clearly in the antithesis,
V. 17.
V. 15. He again returns to the testimony of his beloved
instructor, and inserts it parenthetically in the same way as the
exclamation in v. 14 ; the mention of the x^P^^i ^* -^^j ^^ again then
connected with v. 14. The -vivid feeling, as though what he
speaks of were actuaUy present, causes him to use the present, and
even xsxpaye belongs to the perfects, that have the force of the
present ; the expression cited is the one employed by the Baptist
on the occasion mentioned in v. 30. "Ov elnov with the accus.
of the person, of whom we speak, Matthise, ii. 162, cf. bv iypmps,
V. 46. The discourse of the Baptist has the pointed antithetical
character which is displayed in the prophetic expressions in
the Old Testament. The exposition must be determined by
the force of 'ipnpoad-sv. According to the current usage, this
designates only before with reference to space or time, but not
precedence ; it is accordingly interpreted of preexistence, among
the more recent writers, by Wahl, Bretschneider, Lex. 3d ed.
Meyer, Hengstenberg, (Christol. iii. 490) ; in the proposition
which specifies the reason, they then understand npdJzo<z also as
referring to the preexistence. If with this conception we were to
translate yiyovsv, "he has become," it co^uld not well be taken
except in an Arian sense — the Arians, indeed, make their appeal
to this interpretation ; but we may also translate, " he has been."
In that case, however, it is impossible to deny the tautological
character of the proposition, and if, to avoid this, we understand
Ttprnzoq of dignity, why have we ^v, and not iazt ? We must,
then, proceeding from the signification which relates to physical
space, adopt the meaning of precedence, as in Genesis xlviii. 20,
(Septuag.) thus: "he has been preferred before me, has obtained
a higher position" — ^which meaning may also be justified by
V. 27, where the Baptist acknowledges himself as filling but
the position of a slave in relation to Christ. The npmzo<:
which follows, has likewise been referred to the dignity by
Chrysostom, Erasmus, Calvin, Maldonatus, Lampe, in which
case, however, as we have already remarked, we -would expect
iazi, and prefer, therefore, to refer it to the preexistence, (Lu
ther, Beza, Calovius, Le Clerc, Lucke.) The eternal being of
the Logos, or Messiah, is the reason of his precedence. As the

Prologue. 79
language here relates only to a comparison of two persons,
Ttpmzoq is used in the sense of npbzspoz: ; the genitive is used in
consequence of the comparison. (Winer, 4th ed. p. 222.) The
criticism of Strauss and Bauer, as this expression is one that
could not have been anticipated from the Old Testament posi
tion of the Baptist, regards it as a fiction of the Evangelist,
derived from his own point of view. In reply to this, we ob
serve : 1,) that the historic notice in v. 30, in regard to the
expressiouj is an argument for its authenticity; 2,) so, too, is
its pointed antithetical character ; compare the language of the
Baptist, iii. 27-30 ; 3,) that the view of the preexistence of the
Messiah was not foreign to the Jewish conception, (Bertholdt,
Christ. Judseor. p. 131. Schmidt, Bibl. f. Kritik. u. Exeg. i. p.
38. Justin Martyr, Dial. c. Tryph. p. 226, 386, ed. Col.) and
especially, that a man like the Baptist might have been led to
it by an examination of such passages in the Old Testament,
as Mai. iii. 1, Micah v. 1, Daniel vii. 13. It cannot, indeed, be
demonstrated that John represented himself as that messenger,
that Elijah, who is spoken of in Mai. iii. 1, 23,' but it had been
done, according to Luke i. 16, 17, 76, by Zacharias, his father;
Christ himself designates him in the same way. Matt. xi. 10,
Mark ix. 12, 13 ; the passage of Isaiah which the Baptist ap-
pUes to himself, is like that in Malachi, in fact, according to
Hengstenberg, the basis of it; how probable is it, then, that
the Baptist himself had observed and applied to himself spe
cially, the words in Mai. iii. 1, and that is the very passage in
which the Messiah is designated as the Lord and Angel of thi
Covenant. May he not also have referred the xupioz: in Mai. iii.
23, (Eng. Tr. 4, 5,) to Christ as Jehovah?
V. 16, 17. The jj/isi'c Travrsc clearly points to the members
of the Christian Church, the nXijpwpa to nX-^prjc;, and xdpiv to
'j(dpizo(z, V. 14 ; we cannot, therefore, regard these as words of
the Baptist, as Origen, Erasmus and Strauss suppose. Kal be
fore x'i-P'^ is epexegetical. 'Avr'i, "instead of," that is, one in
place of the otiier, alternatefy, as we say, "one after another,"
thus ever new gifts of grace; the fullness is consequently
an exhaustless one, sufficient for all. Instead of this use of
1 What Hengstenberg, in pass. abv. ref. to, advances, to establish a reference to
Moi. iii. 1, in the -words i dmao jjuni hpX; does not seem to me to be convincing.

80 Chap. I. — Prologue. — v. 18.
dvze in Greek, it is more common to employ napd -with the
accusative. — V. 17 proves this ;fflE/*;c to be the distinctive quality
of the New Covenant. The antithesis which is made in this
place by John, as in Paul, too, between v6po<^ and X'^P"^> is
worthy of remark. The x^P"^ is the leading idea, but the
dX^&sta also forms an antithesis to vbpo<:. Bengel : Lex iram
parans et umbram habens, (the law preparing wrath, and hav
ing the shadow.) By the legal relation, condemnation falls
upon men ; the law, indeed, in its sacrifices and ceremonies,
had grace also, but only symbolically, (Col. ii. 17, Heb. x. 1,) as
opposed to which, the unveiled, absolute truth now appears.
For iysvsTo, John could not well have written i8bd-rj ; it is the
historical fact of the appearing of Christ in humanity, by which
grace and truth have become the portion of mankind. Cf the
iysvvjd-r], 1 Cor. i. 30.
V. 18. Now follows a detailed statement in relation to the
dX-jd-eia. The proposition, that God cannot be looked upon,
stands in the Old Testament, Exod. xxxiii. 20 ; the mode, how
ever, in which even in that passage the -view of the back of
God is spoken of, leads to the belief that in that proposition
not merely a sensible vision, but an adequate knowledge also
was contemplated. Cf dopazoz. Col. i. 15. A decided distinc
tion is supposed, John vi. 45, 46, between hearing God and
seeing him, and the first is attributed to men in general, the
second to the Son alone. Hearing causes us to have percep
tion of the object in motion, consequently in communication with
us ; vision perceives the object in the condition of rest, is
consequently better adapted to express that knowledge which
springs from personal unity with God. That sole absolute
knowledge of God, Christ also claims for himself in Matt. xi.
27. That in the passage before us, 6 povoyevijz f^ibz designates,
as Olshausen thinks, the Logos only, is shown to be untenable
by the ixetvoz i^rjy^aazo ; the language is employed to mark the
Logos personally united wdth the humanity. 276c ¦d-sou, used
of Christ, refers in the profoundest sense to the unity of
essence, as Christ himself intimates, Matt. xxii. 48. We have,
consequently, in this chapter, v. 50, 6 ulbz zou ¦&sou and 6
^aatXehz zou 'lapa^X associated, as also xi. 27, and Matt. xvi. 16,
xxvi. 63. — Eiz has reference to the corporeal idea "to be on the

Testimony of the Baptist. 81
breast.". In oriental usage, the one best beloved lies in the
bosom of the host, so that his head rests on his breast, and he
can impart and receive confidential communications, (John xiii.
28.) In Latin proverbially: in gremio, sinu, alicujus esse;
Calvin : " Sedes consilii pectus est," (the breast is the seat of
counsel.) 'E^yjy^aazo requires as an object " it," (Eng. Tr. him,)
which is not expressed in Greek and Hebrew.
Accrediting of Christ by the Testimony of the Baptist.
v. 19-34.
The preparatory thoughts have been expressed: the only
begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth, has appeared,
but — his own have not received him. The history which begins
at this point, gives the amplification. The ol 'Iou8am first
appear here, under which name John, throughout the entire
Gospel, designates the party inimical to the Son of God.
This national appellation is ordinarily regarded as a designa
tion of the representatives of the people, hence, members of
the Sanhedrim. These certainly are so designated in specie,
cf. for example, vii. 13, 'where the dpxtspstz and of 'Iou8a7ot are
identified ; but on the other hand, the people are called 'Iou8a7oe,
so as specifically to distinguish them from the dpxtspscz, (xii. 10,
11 ;) by the name 'Iov8atoe are meant, in general, all -with whom
Jesus had to deal, whether high or low, enemies or friends, cf.
viii. 81. A reason for the use of this generic name of the
people by John, must be sought for ; we find it, as has already
been remarked, p. 17, (of the translation,) in this, that he ex
hibits the conflict between the divine light and the corruption
of men in the Je-wish nation, where, in consequence of their
election, it presents itself in the most glaring form.' — The
intimate connection of the author of this Gospel with the
Baptist, displays itself here also in his thorough acquaint
ance, -with his testimony. So complete was his familiarity
1 By an independent process I have reached the same conclusions, especially
in reference to v. 11, -with those presented in the treatise by Fischer, on the
expression ol 'lovdatoi in the Gospel of John, in the Tub. Zeitschr. 1840, H. 2.
As for tho rest, the -writer, who is dependent on Strauss, thinks that from the
data specified, the conclusion is justified that the Gospel was composed from a
later Gentile-Christian point of -view.

82 Chap. I. —v. 19-28.
with it, that he here does what elsewhere occurs Only in the his
tory of the passion, he follows in chronological order the succes
sion of the days, (ztj inaupeov, v. 29, 35. ii. 1,) and the day on
which the deputation came forms the starting point. "The
narrator must indeed bave a personal and historical interest in
that day, as was actually the case, since he, as that Disciple whose
name is not given,, who at that time left the Baptist for Jesus,
had found in those days the influences that determined his
whole course of life." (Schweizer.)
V. 19-23. By the 'loudalot, we are evidently here to under
stand the Sanhedrim, which necessarily watches the more closely
a teacher appearing in an extraordinary form, as uo prophet
had appeared for almost four hundred years. This superior
tribunal was also under special obligation to prevent the ap
pearing of false prophets, (Matt. xxi. 23.) In addition to tins,
the Messianic baptism performed by the Baptist could not
but excite mistrust and solicitude, (John xi. 48-50,) for which
reason the question, v. 25, bears specially upon his baptism.
We are not, indeed, to suppose that the Various opinions men
tioned here prevailed in the Sanhedrim itself, it is more pro
bable that the popular -views had reached their ears. Among
the people, the intense longing for the Messiah, connected
with the extraordinary features in the appearing of the Bap
tist, had aroused, during the first excitement, surmises whethei*
he might not be the Messiah. (Luke iii. 15, Acts xiii. 25i)
The importance which the Evangelist attached to the refusal of
any such dignity on the part of the Baptist, is shown by his
expressing it, not only in a positive, but in a negative form. — "Oze
is used not only in the New Testament, but in the classics also,
to introduce the orat. directa, Plato Critias, p. 52^ a. It was'^
very natural to think of Elias,- as Mai. iii. 23, was usually taken-'
in a literal sense, (Matt. xi. 14, Mark ix. 12.) Now, although;^
the Baptist, as was remarked on v. 15, probably had referred-
to himself the expressions in Malachi, yet he must respond-
negatively to their question, since those who inquired, intended
not Elias in the ideal, but Elias in the literal sense. (Cf the
popular notions, Mark vi. 14, 15.) Besides this, some special,
distinguished prophet was expected by the people, as precursor
of the Messiah, by some, especially Jeremiah. (Matt. xvi. 14,

Testimony of the Baptist. 83
cf 2 Mace. XV. 13, 14, 4 Ezra xvi. 2-18, 2 Mace, ii.) In vii.
40, also, we are to understand hj b npofT^zijt:, a great prophet,
preeminently the objtect of expectation ; probably from the in
terpretation given to Deut. xviii. 15. The brevity of the Bap
tist's answers may be accounted for, by the compendious char
acter of the narrative, but v. 22 shows that he, in accordance
with his rugged, ascetic character, actually answered no more
than the question demanded. In other places, also, his dis
courses are brief and pointed. His positive answer he gives by
quoting the verse, Isaiah xl. 3, in which, according to the report
of all the Evangelists, he found a delineation of his own mission.
The meaning of "making straight the way," is brought out
more clearly in the expressions derived frora Malachi, and
applied to the Baptist, (Luke i. 17.) The prophet in the pas
sage quoted, speaks of the manifestation of God, yet the
Baptist may have understood, by the xupeo<: and amrjptov zou
¦d^eou, (Luke iii. 6,) in a direct sense, the Messiah.
V. 24-28. For the question as to the right to baptize, the
Evangelist seems to design furnishing a motive, when he states
that those who were sent were Pharisees ; this sect was ex
tremely rigid in matters pertaining to the ritual. A lustra
tion of the people in the time of the Messiah was expected,
in accordance with Ezek. xxxvi. 24, 25, seq. Mai. iii. 2, 3, and
as this was ascribed in the Old Testament, in part to the Mes
siah himself, in part to his legates, we have, with the Messiah,
the prophets also here mentioned who were to prepare the
way for his advent. Instead of o3re— -oure, the best evidence
sustains the reading ou8s — ob8s. What John means by bap
tism in, that is, with water, is made clear by the antithesis
which he had in his mind in connection with it. In v. 33, the
antithesis is ^anzi^sev iv nvsupaze &yi(p ; thus the merely ritual
symbolical baptism, and the real baptism, which imparts the
Spirit, stand opposed to each other. But in the account given,
Luke iii. 16, with ev nvsupaze dyicp, we have also nupL If this
nupi is not to be regarded as merely an explanatory addition of
the narrator, if it is the Baptist's own phrase, (perhaps a remi
niscence from Mai. iii. 2, 3,) we have the more special antithe
sis of a purification from outward, gross offenses, which
operates more in a negative way, and an internal purification

84 Chap. L— v. 29.
working positively through the impartation of the Spirit ; the
same antithesis would then meet us which lies in the words
e/c pezduoeav and iez neazev xal dfsaev dpapzemv. The expression
piaoz — o'i8azs presupposes. that Christ was no longer in private,
that he had already appeared, cf Luke x-vii. 21, if ivzbz bpmv
there means "among you;" had the Baptist himself not yet
known Jesus as the Messiah, would he have said: "ov hpslz oux \
otdaze^ (Jacobi, in the Studienu. Kritiken, 1838, p. 851.)
It appears, then, that we are to suppose the baptism of Jesus to
have taken place before this language was used, on which point,
see what is said at the close of this division. "Oc — ydyovev is to
be regarded as spurious, as perhaps, also, auzb<: iazev. The fig
urative, concrete expression, by which the Baptist designates
his inferiority, was fixed, as Acts xiii. 25 shows, in the Evan
gelical tradition. The untieing and bearing the sandals, was
the duty of slaves; how highly above himself must he then
have esteemed Christ ! On the construction of d^eoz with cva
instead of -with the infinitive, see Winer, 4th ed. p. 812. (Agnew
and Ebbeke's Transl. p. 264.) Origen supposed that for iv
Bvj^avia, the reading should be iv Brjd^a^apa, as tradition in his
time assigned the latter place on the Jordan as that at which
the baptism had been performed, and no other Bethany than
the one near Jerusalem was known to him. But we must fol
low the unanimous testimony of the Codices, and it is just as
supposable that there were two Bethanys as two Bethsaidas, to
which there is probably an allusion in the nepav zou 'lopddvou.
V. 29. From the solitude in which Jesus, after his baptism,
had abode, he comes again to the Jordan. Of the object of
Jesus' coming, nothing specific is mentioned, since the Evan
gelist is concerned only -with the testimony of the Baptist. If
the words be not, as most regard them, a sudden prophetic in
spiration, they are yet uttered -with a design presupposed, espe
cially V. 86, of directing the Disciples to Jesus. The grand
significancy of Jesus, he finds in his propitiatory office. In the
expression 6 dpvbz zou ¦d-sou, it is an ob-vious inference from the
article b, that a designation already well known is alluded to,
somewhat like -^ pi^a zou 'Isaaae, (Isaiah xi. 10, Romans xv. 12,)
and 3t is most natural to think of Isaiah Iiii. 7. By the genitive
TOO ¦&SOU, this Lamb is more particularly characterized, either as

Testimony of the Baptist. 85
destined by God, or as well-pleasing to God, cf epya zou ¦&eou,
(¦vi. 28.) Atpstv dpap^i]; m: is in many connections, equivalent
to dfoepsTv, "to take away sins." But atpeiv also means, in the
Septuagint, to bear, (Lamentations iii. 27,) hence aipeev dpap. for
pi? '730. If the Baptist had in his eye tlje prophecy in Isaiah Uii.
we must adopt the latter meaning, since in Isaiah Iiii. 11, we
have expressly Sbq: x?n onjij^, xal zdz dpapziat: auzmv dvoease. The
bearing of the sins of the world is, therefore, the suffering for
the sins of the world, which, indeed, is the basis on which the
taking away is accomplished. It is true, lambs were only used
under certain circumstances for sin offerings;' but the more
readily could the Baptist designate Christ as the expiating
lamb, if he intended, at the same time, to direct attention to
the feature of patient suffering, which had been held up by
Isaiah. That the words of the Evangelist are to be explained
in the mode mentioned, is confirmed, too, by this, that in Rev.
V. 6, 12, xiii. 8, Christ, with reference to his expiatory death, is
called dpviov iaipaypkvov, cf. also, 1 Peter i. 19. The difficulty,
however, now arises, that the Baptist, on this view, must have
known something of a suffering Messiah, and yet this idea was
one which remained wholly unknown to the most intimate Disci
ples of Christ, in fact, to those very ones, also, who, like John, had
had intercourse with the Baptist, (Matt. xvi. 21-28.) Strauss
and Bauer draw the inference that the Evangelist here also im
putes his own creed to the Baptist. Were we compelled to
concede that Jewish antiquity knew absolutely nothing of a
suffering Messiah, yet even then he who concedes to the Baptist
an extraordinary inspiration, such as v. 33 expressly testifies of,
can have no difficulty in allowing a similar one here. Do we not
find a similar prophetic glance of the spirit in Simeon, Luke
ii. 25 ? (Krabbe, Leben Jesu, p. 155.) Had not the Baptist
already announced that the Messiah would establish his king
dom only by conflict -with the portion of the people whose
minds were alienated from God, (Matt. iii. 12, Neander, Leben
Jesu, 3d ed. p. 66, M'Clintock and Blumenthai's Tr. § 40.)
Even though he speaks here of redemption in its -widest extent
1 Levit. iv. 32, Numbers vi. 14. Nevertheless, Bahr, SymboUk des Mos. Kultus, ii
p. 364, seq. shows that the daily morning and evening sacrifices of lambs had also
on expiatory force.
0 9

86 Chap. L— v. 30-34.
— zou xbapou — yet this cannot appear strange upon the lips of
one who had declared that God could raise up children to him
self from the stones that lay by Jordan. But the position
which has been taken anew by De Wette, and falsely grounded
on John xii. 34, that the times before the Christian era were
entirely unacquainted with a suffering Messiah, cannot by any
means be conceded. Numerous passages from the Rabbins
argue the very opposite. See Martini, Pugio fidei ed. Carpzov,
p. 852 ; Hulsius, in his instructive work, with which few are ac
quainted, Theol. judaica. Bredse, 1658, p. 309 ; Schmidt, Bibl. f
Ejrit. u. Exeg. i. p. 43-49 ; Hengstenb. Christol. I. i. p. 252-292,
I. ii. p. 291, seq. It is true that the age of the Rabbinical
authors, from whom these testimonies are adduced, is uncertain;
yet, supposing that the whole of them wrote subsequently t6
the birth of Christ, would this doctrine, so hateful to a carnal
Judaism, be brought out at the very period when the Chris
tians were everywhere proclaiming a crucifled Messiah in that
preaching, which was unto the Jews a stumbUng block?
Would the Jews have taken refuge in the figment of a two
fold Messiah, one a suffering, the ofher exclusively a glorious
one, if the doctrine of a suffering Messiah had not found con
firmation in their ancient exegetical tradition ? The opinion
defended formerly by many, (Herder, Gabler, Paulus,) that the
Baptist only meant to allude to the gentleness with which the
innocent martyr bore the sinful treatment ofthe world, (cf.
ex&pav aipeev, 1 Macc. xiii. 17,) need no longer be confuted, as
it has been universally abandoned.
V. 30, 31. We have here the expression of the Baptist
which has already been introduced, v. 15, The nspl ou elnov
refers to an expression which he had already employed in re^
gard to the appearing of Jesus, as in v. 27 the b dneaeo poo
ipxbpsvoz alludes to an earlier application of the same phrase.
In V. 31, the baptism of Christ is already presupposed to have
taken place, for although the ^X&ov ^unzi^mv embraces John's
whole work, yet the baptism of Christ must be regarded as in
cluded, in fact, must be preSminently the object of allusion,
since, not by the activity of John, as preparatory to the future
appearing of the Messiah, but by the baptism of Jesus, did
Jesus become <pavepbz before Israel. If we think now, a«eord-

Testimony of the Baptist. 87
ing to Luke iii. 21, of the people as present at the baptism of
Jesus, and of the grand aim of the Baptist, as that of con-vin-
cing the people, the (pavepoua&ae may be explained with refer
ence to those facts. But that John could have not meant this,
that he , ra;ther regarded the con-viction to be wrought in the
Baptist himself, as the grand aim, is clear from v. 83, and also
here from the antithesis oux f8stv ahzbv. - We must, then, take it
in this way : tlie Baptist had baptized, in order that he might
learn to know the Messiah, and that consequently, the people
might also. Kaym, not "I also," but " and I." It is proper to
consider how the oux ^8eev ahzbv is to be harmonized with Matt.
iii. 14, in which passage it is presupposed that prior to the bap
tism of Jesus, the Baptist acknowledged in him, if not spe
cially, the Messianic dignity, at least, a very high one. Diffejj-
ent modes of conciliation have been adopted : 1,) the journey
from Nazareth to the hill country of Judea, and back, would
take six days — the young kinsmen had, therefore, visited but
once or so, or not at all ; John, therefore, did not know Jesus
personaUy, (so recently again. Hug.) 2,) in Matt. iii. 14, the Bap
tist tes-tifies that he had already known the holy innocence of
Jesus, but not Ms digmty as Messiah, (Hess, Tittman, Kuinol,
Kern.) 3,) first at the approach of Jesus, he had a presentiment
that this was the Messiah, which presentiment was- exalted to
an infallible divine certainty by the baptismal act, (Bengel,
Kuhn, Leben Jesu, p. 116,) or as Neander (1. c. p. 80,) expresses
it, " the words oux ^deev are to be understood relatively of a
knowledge not yet confident; in the light of the divine inspi
ration, all earlier knowledge seemed to him as ignorance."
V. 32-34. As the repetition at the beginning of v. 33 shows,
we have not here a testimony from another date ; the Evangel
ist stops only because, as in this di-vision in general, so also here,
he is concerned withthe papzopia. The aet of baptism itself, the
Evangelist presupposes as kno-wn; the statement is peculiar to
John that the Baptist was prepared by a revelation for the
manifestation at the baptism of Jesus. The dove, the symbol
of innocence and purity, (Matt. x. 16-;) the abiding and the
tranquil hovering over Christ, expressed the tranquil and equa
ble .movemfintof .the power of the, Spirit in him, in contrast with
the detached impulses given to the prophets, (Isaiah xi. 2.)

88 Chap. L— v. 34.
According to the description in John, and also in Matthew, this
baptism had a significance preeminently for the Baptist himself,
he, and no other spectator, beheld the opening^eavens and the
dove; for had others seen it, why the emphatic "J saw," "the
same said unto me?" This -view does not at all exclude the
supposition that Jesus also had the same vision, as Mark i. 10
compels us to believe.' But does it not seem from Luke iii. 21, as
though the people assembled at the time, also saw the miraculous
sign ? But in the condensed phraseology there used, there lies
properly no more than this, that Jesus came to the baptism, and
that the miracle attending it happened at the same time when
all the people came to John's baptism, (TTsteri, Studien u. Krit.
1829, 3 H. p. 444.) What, then, did John and Jesus, respectively,
behold ? Did all occur outwardly or inwardly ? Origen supposed
that only an emotion of the mind occurred, in virtue of which
the Baptist supposed hiraself to see outwardly what was revealed
to his internal eye; Theodore of Mopseustia, also, explains
the occurrence as a nvsupazexij ¦&empia. What is said of the
heavens being opened, must, of necessity, be taken in this way;
those who resist a conclusion of this sort here, are nevertheless
obUged, in Acts vii. 56, to concede an internal -vision, where
Stephen, in the hall of the Sanhedrim, sees the heavens opened,
and Jesus at the right hand of God. That Luke, in speaking
of the Holy Ghost, uses the expression ampaztxq) elSse, is not op
posed to this -view, for in -visions of this sort, that which is seen
internally presents itself under the same form in which it is an
object of sight. According to 2 Cor. xii. 2, Paul saw and
heard, and yet knew not whether it occurred in the body or out
of the body. With this the question connects itself, whether
the act of baptism had for Christ merely a symbolical signifi
cance, or whether an impartation of the Spirit in the act, is to be
thought of? K we regard the grand object of the miracle at
the baptism, to be the certification to the Baptist of the Mes-
siahship of Jesus, there is no necessity for supposing, in addi
tion, a special operation of the Spirit on Jesus beyond that
which, in the nature of the case, would be induced by an act
of inauguration of this kind, (Neander, Kern.) A solemn con-
1 Hoffman, 1. c. p. 894, asks what can be brought against this vie-w, since th«
fact was the same for both, andthe laws of the soul's life are the same.

Testimony of the Baptist. 89
secration of this kind was undoubtedly the soliciting agent for
the nvsupa in Jesus, (John iii. 84, Acts x. 38 ;) by that solicita
tion, however, of the power, it was, in a certain measure, -vivified
in him, in that sense, namely, in which it is said, Hebrews v. 8,
that Christ learned obedience, since the solicitation to the act
authenticated the propension to bnaxoij which lay in him.
V. 84. The perf. pspapzuprjxa presents the testimony as
closed and firmly established in its validity. ^ What the idea of
ulbz ¦d-eou comprehended in the Baptist's mind, cannot be deter
mined -with certainty, yet from what has been observed on v.
15, it may be inferred that he meant more by the expression than
the Messianic dignity in general, cf on v. 15 and 18.
We have yet to ask, in what relation the testimony presented
by John to the legation stands to that of a similar character
uttered before the people, of which Luke iii. 16, and Matt. iii.
11, give an account. It is certainly very arbitrary criticism,
when from this harmony is drawn the inference that John's ac
count is a mere arbitrary remodeling of the narrative of Luke,
when De Wette regards Luke's narrative as a corrupted tradition,
and Bauer sets down both narratives as inventions. The legation
certainly was sent after the Baptist had already been in his work
for some time ; if now, at his first appearing, the people were
ready to see in him the Messiah himself, (Luke iii. 15,) must he
not have explained himself? And is there anything surprising
in the fact that before the authorities he explains himself in re
gard to his work and destination, in the same pregnant expres
sions in which he had addressed the people ? Is it not evident
from V. 30 and 36, that he was in the habit of repeating certain
pregnant expressions? The expressions, moreover, coincide
only in a single dictum. — ^We must inquire further, how the bap
tism of Christ is chronologically to be arranged in John ? The
opinion of Olshausen, that it followed on the evening of the
day on which the legation arrived, or on the morning of the
following day, in whose later hours the Baptist gave the testi
mony, V. 32, cannot be entertained, for the temptation of the
forty days is immediately connected with the baptism, and that
could not possibly be brought into the arrangement here.
With entire unanimity, the recent critics and interpreters fix
the baptism at a period prior to the legation of the Sanhedrim.
9*

90 Chap. L — v. 35-45.
For this, arguments may be drawn from the two circumstances,
that the Baptist must have been engaged in his work for some
time, before we can imagine that an investigation by the au
thorities would take place, and especially that we have the
expression psaoz — olSazs, v. 26. In the third edition, Olshau
sen, also, has changed his earlier opinion.
Gathering op the First Disciples of Jesus. — v. 35-52.
V. 35-37. John again is standing at the Jordan, waiting
for those who are to be baptized, his two disciples with him ;
they can hardly be supposed to be other than those who, on the
previous day, had received the significant testimony ; for the
addition b dtpmv — xbapou is wanting here, without which the
mere 'ids b dpvbz zou -d-sou is not intelligible ; we must, therefore,
suppose a reference to something preceding. One of the Dis
ciples, according to v. 41, is Andrew ; the one whose name is
not given, is probably the Evangelist himself, since in other
passages it is usual -with him to omit his own name, (xiii. 23,
xviii. 15, seq. xix. 26, xx. 2-4 and 8.) This feature answers most
perfectly, alike with the other historical traits preserved of John,
and -with his literary character, in which- a certain delicacy and
virgin reserve appear. Characteristic, also,' is the reverential
timidity with which these two Disciples walk in silence behind
Jesus. V. 38-40. Jesus tenderly draws them on to open their hearts
to him, they respond -with the question as to where he dwelt —
probably as to his abode for the night ? (cf psvsiv. Judges xix. 9,
Septuag.) They will not trouble him on the way, they wish to
speak with him alone. The formula employed by the Saviour in
his answer, is very common among the Rabbins, especially when
attention is to be aroused to something ; John, too, has it again
in V. 47. Christ then invites them forthwith to accompany him.
They go, and feel interested to such a degree, that they remain
to the close of the day. According to the Jewish computation,
which reckoned to the day twelve hours, which were longer oi
shorter according as the day broke earUer or later, the tenth hour
would be about four o'clock in the afternoon. The z^v -^pipav
ixsivy]v would then be limited to about two hours. In this

First Disciples of Jesus. 91
passage, however, as also (iv. 6,) xix. 14, it answers better to take
the Roman computation of the hours. According to the in
vestigations of Hug, (Bemerk, zur Leidensgesch. — Observations
on the History of the Passion, in the Freiburger Zeitschr. H.
5, p. 91,. cf Rettig, in the Stud. u. Krit. 1830, H. 1,) the
Romans, in the time of the Republic, divided the hours from
midnight to midnight, yet in the time of Horace, in common
life, they reckoned the hours from daybreak, without dropping
the other computation, however. That both modes of compu
tation were usual among the Jews, we know from Josephus,
who in his de bell. jud. 6. ix. 3, employs the Jewish, and in
Vita. c. 54, the Roman division. The present psvse in v. 40, as
in iv. 1, V. 13, vi. 24, is explained by the rule, that the
Greeks, when they narrate that a person has heard or said
something, place themselves in the point of time at which it
happened. Winer, 4th ed. p. 244.
V. 41-43. Between the readings npmzoz and npmzov the
e-vidence fluctuates. If we read npmzoz, the sense is: both
Andrew and John went to seek Simon, and to make the com
munication to him, and his brother found him first, cf. npmzoz,
John XX. 4. "Ideoz, in the later Greek usage, like proprius al
times in the later Latinity, does not differ from the possessive
pronoun. Peter here appears as one of those who belonged to
the circle described in Luke ii. 38, of those who looked for the
redemption of Israel ; he had probably, also, been one of the
Baptist's disciples. The Hebrew name Messiah occurs, iv. 25,
also. In this beautiful scene, we behold the commencement
of all Christian activity in missions. The Saviour, with that
piercing glance which tested men, and to which the Evangelist
so often gives prominence, (v. 48, ii. 25, iii. 3, -vi. 71, cf. Luke
V. 22,) looked through the Disciple brought to him. It is a
custom of the Arabians and Hebrews to derive significant sur
names from peculiar events in life, or from personal character
istics ; the Rabbins, also, have attached to them certain stand
ing surnames, (Bashuisen, Clav. talmud. p. 52.) Christ now
selects for Peter one of this kind, he names him Mock, in Aram.
X3'5. But it is a question whether this appellation, like that
given to the sons of Zebedee, Mark iii. 17, can be given to the
character of Peter ? Would it not rather presuppose a firm

92 Chap. L— v. 48-52.
character Uke that of Paul ? In fact, the subsequent conduct of
Peter is in such contrast with this appellation, that the penetration
of Christ can only be vindicated, by referring it less to the char
acter of the Disciple, than to that which he became historically
for the Church, and this is also the prominent reference in Matt.
x-vi. 18. '0 ulbz 'Imvd, the full name, serves only to give so
lemnity to the language, (Matt. xvi. 17, John xxi. 15.)
> V. 48, 44. If iid-sXfjaev is designed to express no more than
the mere design of leaving the country about Jordan, we can
see no reason why prominence is given to this. We are led,
therefore, to suppose that Philip, after the journey had com
menced, was found by the way, on the road, where also was
the fig-tree under which Nathaniel was sitting, (Matt. xxi. 19.)
The remark, v. 45, seems to point to the fact, that the two
brothers had brought about the acquaintance of Jesus with
Philip. This confirms the presupposition which -would natu
rally exist, that more words had been exchanged between Jesus
and Philip than are here given. An earUer acquaintance with
Matthew, must also (Luke xi. 13,) have preceded the " Follow
me," (Matt. ix. 9.)
V. 45, 46. It is not, indeed, absolutely necessary that this
scene with Nathaniel should have taken place immediately, yet
it is most natural to suppose that Philip, who had now attached
himself to the little society, found his friend on the way. Na
thaniel seems also to have been one who had previously hoped
for the Messiah; in heart-stirring words Philip utters the joy
of longing fulfilled. For ov, cf i. 15. Since Nathaniel himself
was a native of Cana, (xxi. 2,) it may be asked whether he here ex
presses himself from a sense of the contempt with which Galilee
was regarded, (vii. 52,) or whether it was the village of Nazareth
merely, which, on account of its smallness, (cf Hengsten
berg, Christol. ii. 1, p. 1, seq.) appeared to him so contempti
ble. In either view, it is characteristic of the whole Christian
interest, that Christ arose from a small, despised town, of a
despised pro-vince, of a despised people, and -we may apply here
what Paul says, 1 Cor. i. 27. PMlip appeals to the test of ex
perience. V. 47-50. Nathaniel had been resting under the fig-tree,
and now comes to meet Jesus, who also here exhibits that

First Disciples op Jesus. 93
power of looking into the soul, which our Evangelist is wont
to present as marking him. That ' laparjXizyjz is an honorary
title, cannot be satisfactorily proven, and 'Iou8a'ioz might have
been used with the same force, (Rom. ii. 29.) Christ recognizes
in the man an ideal of his people, a mind to which all hypoc
risy is foreign. It is not what Christ acknowledges him to be,
that surprises the young man, it is that he shows himself able
to read his heart. In the words that follow, dvza — auxrjv are to
be connected with ei8ov, and not with the fwvJjaai, as v. 51
shows. Under the shade of the fig-tree, the Jew was wont to
repose, as beneath a leafy roof, occupying himself with reading
of the law, (Winer, Realw. at the word Feigenbaum.) It can
not be meant that Jesus supernaturally, by a far glance, had
known the outward occupation of the man, for how could he
have drawn from this merely, a safe conclusion as to what was
passing in his mind ? Nor is the impression made, that Philip
went far from the way to seek Nathaniel. The miraculous
feature which surprised Nathaniel so much, is consequently to
be found in the fact that his state of mind was known by Jesus.
As nothing impresses a man more profoundly, than to find that
even the tenderest and most sacred emotions of his heart are
penetrated, this simple-hearted man breaks forth in an ac
knowledgment of allegiance to Jesus, (1 Cor. xiv. 25.) It cor
responds with the internal emotion which might be anticipated
in him, that over an official title he gives precedence to a des
ignation which expresses the inner character of the Messiah.
If Olshausen's "doubtless" be too strong, we may nevertheless
regard it as highly probable, that Nathaniel, in his heart, per
haps, had just been praying for the coming of the redemption
of Israel, and these very prayers mark the true Israelite.
V. 51-52. The introduction of v. 52 with the special xal
Xiyse airrip, is designed to throw into yet greater prominence
what is said in that verse, which is connected with v. 51, cf. on
V. 32. As the Redeemer, in the history of Nicodemus, leads
on to a higher and more spiritual degree, the faith which had
been excited by miracles, so he does here. We find here, for
the first time, the name "Son of man," which, with the exception
of Acts vii. 56, occurs only in the Gospels. That this appella^
tion is derived from Daniel vii. 13, is put beyond question,

94 Chap. I.— v. 51-52.
especially by Luke xxi. 27, Rev. i. 13 ; on the other hand, it is
certain that among the Jews the Messiah was not designated by
this name, (John xU. 34.)' Why, then, would Jesus, if he meant
to designate himself as Messiah by it, select so unusual an ap
pellation ? The opinion that it is simply equivalent to Messiah,
(thus Chemnitz, Beza, Scholten, Lucke, Strauss,) must, there
fore, be abandoned, as Matt. xvi. 18 also shows. We have
then to choose, either with De Wette, to hold that he designs
to mark his humiliation in humanity, or -with Harduin, Mosche,
Schleiermacher, Olshausen, Neander, that he so calls himself as
the one who expresses the idea of humanity, in whom it becomes
glorified, (Matt. ix. 8.) We confess that the remarks -with which
De Wette, on Matt. viii. 20, has met our earlier view, have
caused us to waver in it, and have inclined us to prefer what is
properly the most ancient opinion, which is, that prominence is
given by the predicate to the point of the manifestation in
humanity, in antithesis, consequently to the higher nature, (Jus
tin Martyr, Dial. c. Tryph. ed. Thirlb. p. 855 ; Irenseus, c. hser.
1. 8, c. 19 ; TertuUian, de Carne Christi, c. 5.) If we explain
the predicate "the mortal, the incarnate," the appellation is, in
fact, more closely connected with the Old Testament. Ezekiel
gives himself this name in contrast -with God, and in Daniel,
too, this meaning is the basis of the appellation ; it is also thus
taken in Heb. ii. 6. The antithesis which then exists between
"Son of God" and "Son of man," is more after the analogy
'of Holy Scripture than the other view, according to which the
true humamty and the Deity are opposed to each other, as two
diverse aspects of the same thing ; and it offers, too, a far more
satisfactory solution -Cf the abandonment of the expression by
the Apostles after the exaltation of Christ.'' De Wette does
not, indeed, seem to have reflected that by his admission, that
Jesus, even in the synoptical Gospels, continually designates
himself as a higher being, -who has appeared in humanity,
John's delineation of Jesus, against which the rationalistic
» (" I cannot, with Tholuck, draw frora John xii. 84, the inference that the Jews
were unacquainted with the term by which Daniel designates the Messiah." — Do
Wette, 3d ed. On Matt. viii. 20. Tr.)
2 Neander, indeed, Leben Jesu, p. 144, seq. has applied in an interesting way,
his idea on the different passages, but especially in John iii. 13, does the second
view decidedly commend itself more.

First Disciples of Jesus. 95
view is directed, is confirmed. The opened heaven here, as at
the baptism of Jesus, can only designate the rich impartation
of divine- power, and the efficient succor from on high; the
angels, of whose appearing we first read in the history of the
Passion, can be regarded only as a symbol of the mediating
divine powers — as, indeed, iu the Old Testament, ^xSd designa
ted originally, not a personal being, but " di-vine mission," (Ps.
xxxiv. 8, Sack, Comment. Theol. p. 19. See Colin. Bibl. Theol.
I. p. 191. ) In all probability, Jesus had before his eyes the image
of the ladder reaching to heaven, on which the angels of God
ascended and descended. Gen. xxviii. 12, and in that place, also,
it designates the agency of the powers of God in the welfare
of tlje patriarch. It is remarkable that the xaza^aivecv, like
nS.5? in Genesis, is placed first, for the intercourse between
heaven and earth is represented, not as something which is to
begin, but as already begun, and therefore an uninterrupted
one, (De Wette.) The meaning, then, of this sublime passage
is, -tiiat Nathaniel should come to recognize in that Messiah
who had appeared as a feeble mortal, the unbroken revelation
of heavenly powers. Luther:. "We must, therefore, explain
this history in a spiritual way. When Christ became man,
and had entered on the office of preacher, heaven was opened,
and it remains open, and since that time never has been closed,
nor shall it ever be closed, though with our bodily eyes we
behold it not. Christ bends over us, but invisibly. Christ means
to say : Ye are now citizens of heaven, ye have now your citi
zenship above in the hea-venly Jerusalem, ye are in communion
with the blessed angels, who, -vrithout intermission, ascend and
descend for you. Heaven and earth have now become one,
smd it is as if ye sat on high, and the blessed angels served
you." Calvin, also: "Mulfum autem errant meo judicio, qui
anxie qucerunt tempus et locum, ubi et quando Nath. et reliqui
eoelum apertum viderint. Potius enim quiddam continuum
designat, quod semper extare debebat in ejus regno. Fateor
qtddem aliquoties diseipulia vims fuisse angelos, qui hodie non
apparent. — Sed si probe reputemus, quod tunc factum est, perpetuo
mget. Nam qwwm prius elauaum esset regnum Dei, vere in
Christo apertum fuit." "In my opinion they make a great mis
take, who are solicitous as to the time and place, the when and

96 Chap. L— v. 51-52.
where, Nathaniel and the others beheld heaven openesd. For
he rather designates something which was to continue, some
thing meant to be permanent in his kingdom. I admit that to
the Disciples angels sometimes appeared, who no longer ap
pear. — ^But if we look at it aright, what was then done, con
tinues forever. For the kingdom of God, which was before
closed, was in Christ truly opened." It might already be in
ferred from this promise of Christ to Nathaniel, that at a later
period he would be received into the number of Apostles, as in
ch. xxi. 2, he is actually found among them, and from the
connection of ch. i. and ii. we must suppose him to be em
braced among the padrjzai of ch. ii. 2. As his name does not
occur in the enumeration of the Apostles, Matt. x. and Luke -vi.
but a Bartholomew is coupled with Philip, the inference is
correctly drawn, that under that name, equivalent to son of
Ptolemseus, we have a surname of Nathaniel.
In what relation does this calling of the Disciples stand to
that detailed in Matt. iv. 18, seq. Mark i. 16, seq. Luke v. 1,
seq. according to which the two pairs of brothers, Peter and
Andrew, James and John, were called from their occupation as
fishermen, to Jesus, and received, as we must beUeve, especially
from Luke v. 11, permanently into association with Jesus?
The usual answer, that here, only the first meeting, while in the
synoptical Gospels, the entrance into an enduring connection,
may be narrated, has been met by Strauss with the objection
that in John, from the time of this first gathering, and in the
synoptical Gospels, from the time of the calling they mention,
the Disciples just named constantly appear as attendants ofthe
Saviour, and besides this, the difficulty that if we suppose subse
quently to .the miracle at Cana a new and temporary dispersion
of the Disciples, the overwhelming effect produced by the
miraculous draught of fishes on those who had witnessed the
turning of water to -wine, would be whoUy unaccountable.'
Neander meets the difficulty by the supposition, that between
the caUing of Nathaniel and that of Philip, and consequently
between v. 44 and 45, a longer space of time is to be put, during
which the Disciples had again dispersed, and during which the
1 Bauer, 1. c. p. 58, seq. is specially vigorous in pointing out contradiction and
•bsurdity in the evangelical narrator at this point.

First Disciples op Jesus. 97
miraculous draught of fishes occurred. T^ ^P^pa rg rptz^, ii. 1,
must then be dated from the calling of Nathaniel. ' The follow
ing conciliation seems to us more plausible. From Perea, whither
the Disciples had been drawn only by the call given through
the preaching of the Baptist, since they now had given up this
association, they must return again to Galilee ; this ;they did in
company -with the Master whom they had recently found. The
way to Capernaum and Bethsaida lies through Cana, there they
stop with Jesus ; having reached home, they again pursue their
occupations. Jesus, however, before he takes his journey to
the Passover, calls them to be his constant followers. Luther
already has the remark : " The Evangelist is not speaking of the
caUing of the Apostles, but that they alone went about -with
him as companions." This holds good until the first journey
to the Passover.

CHAPTER II.

The First Miracle in Galilee.— v. 1-12. Purificatiojs of
the Temple. — ^v. 12-22. Faith of many of the citizens
OF Jerusalem. — v. 23-25.
V. 1, 2. So -vi-vidly does the Evangelist move amid the
events of the time in which his first calling occurs, that he
also mentions in this place the date : three days after the com
mencement of the journey to Galilee. The mother of Jesus
had already come from Capernaum to Cana to the wedding
feast; Jesus, who went by the road from Jordan through Cana,
(on his journey from Jerusalem to Galilee also, he first comes
to Cana, iv. 45,) was, together -with his new Disciples, in-vited to
the feast by the family of friends. In two days he could readily
pass over the road from Bethany on Jordan to Cana, which
makes the reference to i. 44, of the statement of time, the more
easy. V. 3-5. It was, indeed, usual to keep up wedding festivals
for several days, (Gen. xxix. 27, Judges xiv. 14,)' but verse 10
shows that the want occurred toward the end of the supper, so
that the celebration could not have been prolonged, as some
suppose, beyond one day. The mother of Jesus applies to him
— ^perhaps only in order to obtain from him assistance of some
sort in the emergency, [Lucke : something extraordinary,] if
not exactly a miraculous one ? Or, shaU we say, that Mary, in
order to spare their hosts the mortification, only designed to
ask Jesus to give to the guests a sign to break up, (thus Bengel,
Hoffman.)'' But the answer of Christ, in which he puts her off,
[' See Winer's Eealw. 7th ed.]
[2 Calvin : That he should say something to hush the guests. 7th ed.]
(98)

The First Miracle in Galilee. 99
can hardly be explained except on the supposition that his mother
urged him to a miraculous assistance. Bnt how was his mother
led to do this ? Had Jesus previously performed in the domestic
circle ' much that was wonderful, or was the power of miracles
first aroused when he had entered on the exercise of his Mes
sianic vocation? We do not feel disposed to take ground
against those who, like Hase, (Leben Jesu, 8d ed. p. 91, ef.
Lucke,) embrace the first of these views. Yet Mary's desire
does not necessarily decide for this -view. For the exhibition
of extraordinary power on the part of her di-vine son, she -was
beyond doubt prepared. She expected them -with Ms entrance
on his public career.^ He had just returned from his solemn
baptism at the Jordan, for the first time -with Disciples attending
him. His philanthropic disposition was kno-wn to Uer ; might
she not expect some pToof of that disposition under these cir
cumstances, when on it was depending the happiness of a pious,
poor family, and the sparing them fhe mortification on their
festal wedding day? Tet to Jesus the occasion may have
seemed less fitting, and in this way the answer in which he puts
off the request may be explained. Or shall we say that he de
sired to appear ffrst in Jerusalem in his miraculous endow-
anents, (see on iv. 45.) The time determined on by himself had,
at all events, not come, as the oi)na) Tjxet ^ Stpa pou shows. This
expression designates, in general, th-e entrance of a " decisive
point, (John xvi. 21, iv. 28 ;) John uses it, elsewhere, with refer
ence to that point in the life of Jesus most decisive of all, the
hour of his death and his glorification, (-vii. 30, xii. 23, 27, xiii. 1;)
in Matt, also, xxvi. 18, Christ says 6 xaepbz pou i-yyuz iaztv.
Here is the decisive point of the public appearance as Messiah.
The pres. ^xm has in Greek usage the meaning of the preterit, as
also in -viii. 42. The phrase ze' ipol xal aoi is a literal translation
of the Hebrew ixi '^"^'? (Jos. xxii. 24, Judges xi. 12, 2 Sam. xvi.
10, 1 Engs xvn. 18, 2 Kings iii. 13, Matt. viii. 29, xxvii. 19,
Mark i. 24.) It is also found in the classics,^ (Bemhardy, Synt.
p. 98.) The radical idea appears to be: "What have we in
common ? Oux relations are wholly different." The formula
[1 So Hunnius and Le Clerc. 7th ed.]
p Chrysostom: She wished to glorify herself through her son. 7th ed.]
[» Arrian, dissert T. iii. in the index, p. 468. 7th ed.]

100 Chap. H.— v. 6-11.
there is used to express unwillingness to be disturbed or hin
dered by any one. It always impUes reproof, although some
times a friendly one merely, (2 Sam. xvi. 10,) here: "Mingle
not thyself in my concerns ; we pursue different aims and thou
comprehendest me not." K Christ, then, did not consider this
as a suitable occasion for the performance of a miracle, why
does he, nevertheless, follow his mother's suggestion ? Because
it could not, on the other hand, be regarded as an unsuitable
one, for it offered him an occasion for proving his philanthropic
disposition. As Messiah he uttered the reproof, as a son he
complied with the request.^ The address yuvae is not disrespect
ful, but solemn, cf. the address from the cross, xix. 26. In
Dion Cassius Hist. li. 12, Augustus thus addresses Cleopatra:
"¦&dpaee, (L yuvae, xal -d-opbv l^e dyad-bv," ("Take courage, O
woman, and keep a good heart,") cf. Wetstein. That the look
of Jesus expressed more than his words convey, may Ise gath
ered from the address of his mother to the servants.
V. 6-8. By the purifying, we are to understand the usual
washing of the hands, Matt. xv. 2, Mark vii. 3. The Attic
metetres contained 21 Wurtemberg quarts, (about 8| gallons
English. Tr.) so that the entire capacity of the vessels, supposing
all the water to have been converted into -wine, would give 13
ahms(Strasburg,)of wine, (about 53 J gallons English. Tr.) The
ea)<z dvm serves to augment the miracle ; by it, moreover, the pos
sibility of deception is excluded. Triclinium, a room with three
xXivok:, three sets of cushions. The person who presided
over this, and arranged the feast, was called by the Romans,
triclinarches,' (see the Dissertation by J. E. Walch on the Tri-
clinarches, Jena, 1753.) He is not to be confounded -with the
aupnoatdp^rjZ, modimperator among the Romans and Greeks,
who was elected from the guests, to preserve order during the
meal. V. 9, 10. The master of the feast supposed that the wine
had been provided by the bridegroom, and half sportively
gives him an admonition. Msduaxopat, like the Hebrew 13^
P According to Besser; (compare Bullinger,) for this reason especially, that in her
¦words to the servants he perceives the evidence of her faith. 7th ed.]
[2 The architriklinos, or archon of the triklinion, bearing among the Greeks the
name trapezopoios also, is defined by Athenaeus as " one who superintends the
tables, and preserves order." 7th ed.]

The First Miracle in Galilee. 101
means not merely to become drunk, but also to drink largely;
as we say; "to have well drunk," (Septuag. Gen. xliii. 34,
Hagg. i. 6, Rev. xvii. 2.)
V. 11. The first words, -vritii which iv. 54 is to be compared,
can only be translated as Luther has done: "this miracle, the
first which Jesus wrought, he performed in Cana of Galilee."
During the brief abode in Capernaum, v. 12, no miracle (iv.
45,) was wrought ; in iv. 54, therefore, prominence is given to
the fact that the second Galilean miracle was wrought in this
very Cana again. The impression produced on the guests is
not mentioned, but only the aim which it attained, as regarded
the Disciples. Heazsusev is used of the different degrees of a
weaker or stronger faith, (v. 22, xi. 15, xiii. 19, xx. 8.) In re
gard to 8b^a, see on i. 14.
As the miracles which Christ wrought on irrational nature
are in general more remarkable than the miracles of healing,
since in the latter a psychologic mediation is possible, which is
entirely wanting in the former, it is precisely this miracle which
is designated by Strauss as the very acme of the miraculous,
since it involves a qualitative transmutation of an elementary
substance, a transubstantiation proper. The period of illumina
tion had naturally already stumbled at this miracle.' Paulus'
exposition of it may claim a notice in commentaries even
for the future, at least as a characteristic voucher for the
tendency of the mind from which it proceeded. The event
reduces itself to a happy wedding jest, as Jesus, by means of
-wine privately brought with him, intended to give the company
an agreeable surprise. The earnest solemn address of Jesus, v.
4, is therefore " spoken in the tone of one who jests, and who
checks his mother lest her precipitancy should spoil the joke
he has in -view." The 8b^a is "the frank humanity of Jesus,"
in which they were "won to confide," (imazeuaav) since a serious
ness which would lay men under constraint had been anti
cipated on the part of the Messiah.'' The exposition of the
P Ventuiini, Langsdorf, Gfrorer, explain it as natural. 7th ed.]
p Strauss finds the mythical basis in Moses' conversion of the bitter water
into sweet, Exod. xiv. According to Br. Bauer, "mine hour" refers to the time
of our Saviour's passion, when he should for the first time distribute the trjie
miraculous wine. Baur, in accordance vrith the pragmatic character of (hia
Gospel, would explain .this miracle as a symbol Uiat the time had come for
H 10*

102 Chap. IL.^r. 6-11.
miracles from the " genuine historical " position of Gfrorer, has
not been able to go much beyond this. The miracle at Cana,
we learn from this writer, is, to be sure, historical ; only we must
not at all suppose that Jesus had bewitched the -wine, when he
might easily have bought it for a few pieces of money, but the
mother of Jesus had brought it with her as a present to the poor
couple, and during the meal, when the right time had come, gave
her son the sign to present the gift.' So long as the genuine
ness of the Gospel is fixmly established, the aversion to miracles,
has in the case of miracles like this, no other refuge than such as
have been mentioned. Even Strauss, when for a little while he
assumes the air of one about to concede the genuineness of the
Gospel, finds relief (in his essay : " The transient and permanent
in Christianity,") in the frivolous remark: "The transmutation
of the water — ^how often has wine been drawn in the most
natural manner from a vessel which previously contained
water." Schweizer regards this narrative as one of the interT
polated parts of the Gospel. His hypothesis of interpolation,
in spite of the acuteness with which he has labored to maintain
it, does not, as a general thing, sustain itself. If, then, the
historical character of the miracle is firmly established, how is
it as regards the way it is to be conceived of? The ultimate
cause of a miracle lies in God, who, as the absolute power over
nature, operates through the doer of the miracle. As the
cause of nature's conformity to law, or as it has in more recent
times been expressed, as the absolute and universal law of
nature, God must also have power over the particular laws, as
of gravitation, organic life, &c. that is, within subsisting nature.
He can put forth a particular and immediate operation. Such is
the case, when after the entrance of death into the organism,
the -vital function begins anew. In the contest with the most
recent rejecters of miracles, the question is reduced to this:
Jesus, the true Bridegroom, to make the transitibn from the water— the pre
paratory position of the Baptist — to the wine of the higher Messianic glory. In
the older writers we find allusions to the antitheses between the Old Testament
and Ne-«^r Testament positions, thus Erasmus, Luther, and so, also, Luthardt, con
formably to the sense of ar/fielov, as au indication of something higher ; according
to Hofman, (Schriftbew, II. 2, 381,) " a predelineation of the marriage' Supper in
heaven, Rev. xix. 8." 7th ed.] * ^^
1 Kern, also, has not been able to come to any more satisfactory account than
this. Tubing. Zeitschrift. 1839, 2 H. p. 26. ^ »i-i-uuui wian

The First Miracle in Galilee. 103
Would a -will in unison with God desire in this way to operate
on the laws of nature ? — ^would it be willing to do it, since
these very things are the general -will of God for nature?
(Strauss, Streitschriften, 3 H. p. 116, Glaubenslehre, 1, p. 245.)
Against this, only the counter question need be urged : How is
this absolute universality established? So established, that
even in an ethico-teleological interest no exception can be
allowed ? Tet even he who holds that an immediate creative
acti-vity in the God-man is admissible, -will ask in these particu
lar cases, whether there is any occasion to fall back upon that,
whether an activity mediated by the nature given be not suffi
cient, that is, whether the doer of the miracle has not been
merely the agent in soliciting an extraordinary process condition-
aryin the object. Augustine had already applied in this sense
to the miracle before us, the categorj'^ of " an accelerated process
cf nature." The change of substance of the water, which year by
year is taken up into the -vine, appears here only in an accele
rated form ; thus Hase, Leben Jesu, § 58, 2d ed., Olshausen. The
more rational and insinuating this formula sounded, the more
energetically did Strauss direct his ridicule against it, and it
actuaUy seemed as though its glimmer of philosophy had been
at once extinguished by the dry remark, that in the transmuta
tion of water in Cana, it was just the most important thing of
all that was wanting, to -wit : the vegetable agent, the vine.
Nevertheless, this objection of his has not prevented Hase, in
the 3d ed. p. 92, nor Olshausen, 8d ed. from persisting in what
they had said, without, indeed, making any reply to the objec
tion of the critic' If the Apologists by their analogy intend the
identity of the process, they are certainly wrong; if, on the other
hand, they mean, as in fact the expression seems to imply, only
the similarity, if they mean a smaller and yet similar miracle,
(this plus and minus need not seem strange, even Strauss has
not only spoken of degrees of the miraculous, but of degrees of
the impossible itself, H. p. 155, 1st ed.) they are right. Can, then,
Strauss deny the transmutation of inorganic matter into organic
' When Olshausen there remarks, that Strauss himself had since in his Streit-
eohriften, 3, p. 113, acknowledged the formula of an accelerated process of nature,
it is in this connection calculated to mislead. T,he critic makes the ooncession,
indeed, p. 115, that in miracles of healing especially, this category is applicable, but
not in transmutation of substances.

104 Chap. TL.—v. 6-16.
by the organic process ? Must we not, in the assimilation of
nutriment, speak of transmutation — ^in the case of the plant,
of the transmutation of the elementary matter of water (more
strictly of carbonic acid and nitrogen.) in the plant? ' The
critic, indeed, speaks as though the elementary matter did
nothing more than excite an activity in the plant, but in this
he will find nobody to agree with him. In his fencing, his
hardest coup is, that the accelerated process of nature -wiU not
answer, because not must but wine was made, that there must
be an accelerated artificial process of the wine-press also, &c. —
as though a process of nature could not produce results like or
identical with those of art.' In general, nothing compels us
in the case before us to assume a transmutation of substance.
The miracle becomes intelligible on the supposition of such a
change in the chemical qualities of the water as would impart
to it the color and taste of -wine; so Neander, who refers to
instances mentioned by Athenaeus and Theopompus, of springs
of water which had the intoxicating property of wine, to which
may be added the example in Vitruvius, viii. 3, which Lampe
q^uotes from Casaubon.
But not merely the possibility, but the conformity to any good
purpose, and the propriety of this miracle particularly, have been
called into question. While the miracles of Christ on other
occasions were worthy of honor as the emanation of his mercy,
this which was an abetting of the luxury of a banquet, seems
almost immoral. But we have already intimated, that we
must suppose that a family with which the mother of Jesus
was on intimate terms, was a poor and pious one, and for their
poverty there is a palpable evidence in the want of wine on an
occasion when in Palestine such a ^deficiency could scarcely oc
cur, except with very poor persons. " This is now the second
honor, (the first was his presence,)" says Luther, " that he pre
sented to the poor couple at their wedding good -wine — ^he had,
perchance, no gold nor jewel to give them." Maldonatus:
" Voluit Christus non solum prcesenti inopice subvgnire, sed multum
etiam vini sponso remanere, tum ut illius ipaupertatem sublevaret,
[1 P. Lange, (Leben Jesu, H. 1, p. 307,) says that the elevated frame of mind on
the part of the Master of the feast and of the guests, caused them to taste tie
water as wine.]

The Purification of the Temple. 105
tum ut diuturnum testimonium ac monimentum esset facti mirac-
uli." " Christ desired nOt only to relieve a present necessity,
but that a quantity of wine might remain for him who had just
married, alike that He might assist him in his poverty, and leave
a lasting -witness and memorial of the miracle that had been
wrought." In fact,, under the circumstances stated, the vast
quantity of wine is accounted for in a very satisfactory man
ner. Thus, then, this miracle is an expression of love on the
part of Christ, and to his Disciples, as we read, a stimulus of
faith. The Purification of the Temple. — v. 12-22.
V. 12. From the southern and higher side of the region
which lay around the sea of GaUlee, Jesus repaired to Caper
naum, which lay on the north, consequently xazi^yj. As his
mother and brethren accompanied him thither, and as Caper
naum is called. Matt. ix. 1, his own city, we may conclude that
the family had gone to settle there,' or at least, that Jesus was
in the habit of sojourning there for considerable periods of
time ; yet at this time he remained but a little while, and, as
it appears, without any display of miracles, (see iv. 44, 45.)
He purposes to make Jerusalem the first theatre of his activity
as Messiah. As the Disciples accompanied him on the journey
to the Passover which he was now about to make, we are to
suppose that in the interval he had united them with him in a
permanent manner.
V. 13-16. Ha-ving arrived in Jerusalem, Jesus at once ap
pears in that holy place, which he had once, as a boy, declared
to be the house of his father, and performs the act of a prophet
and judge in it, by which he, as it were, takes possession of it,
(Calvin.) In addition to the three courts of the temple,
there was yet a large space outside, which embraced a place
which was paved, open at the top, and surrounded by a great
colonnade ; this was the Court of the Gentiles ; and this we
must regard as meant here by tbe general appellation, Ispbv.
Lattice-work, to which there was a flight of four steps, separa^
ted this place from the inner temple, and on the entrance of
P 'Wioselcr, ChronoL Synopse. p. 169. Luther : There in Capernaum, Christ
had been Pastor, and bad labored in the word of Qod. 7th ed.]

106 Chap. H.— v. 17-19.
this lattice, was an inscription which forbade any dXXofuXoz
(foreigner,) to advance further. The traffic may originally
have been pursued without the precincts of the temjDle, and only
by degrees have insinuated itself into it. It certainly promoted
the object for which the temple was resorted to, and found an
excuse in this fact. The occasion may have been given by
persons from other lands, who came to the feasts, who would
desire to purchase sheep and oxen for sacrifice, and in doing
so, find it necessary to exchange their foreign money, and
would also embrace this opportunity of discharging the temple
tribute, (Exod. xxx. 13, seq.) which could not be paid in foreign
money. The rebuke of Christ, as we read in this Gospel, was
directed to the business to which the temple was now exclu
sively devoted ; the stronger expression. Matt. xxi. 13, points at
the same time, to sinful practices in the commercial transac
tions. The scourge which he lifted served, without being
used, to direct greater attention, on the part of the rude mass,
to his words. That Christ should have used it, is opposed to
our conceptions of his dignity ; but independently of this, we
would be the less inclined to such a view, as confessedly (even
by Strauss, 8d ed. retracted, 4th ed.) such means would not have
sufficed for the end in view ; this, the overpowering personal ma
jesty of Christ alone could effect, which created the impression
that here one had appeared -with divine authority; cf. what is
said of the impression produced by the appearance of Jesus, ch.
¦vii. 46, and xviii. 6. An interference in God's name in the
reform and regeneration of civil and reUgious institutions, was,
indeed, aUowed to the position of the Old Testament prophets.
Nor must we confine our vi^w exclusively to the special prac
tical aim of this temporary purification of the temple; the
Saviour certainly contemplated in this single transaction the
symbol of his entire work — ^purifying the house of God. If the
sellers of doves are treated with more mildness than the others,
the reason, perhaps, is to be found in the nature of that bird, or
probably in the fact that doves were offered by the poor.
V. 17. This same formula ipvija&^aav is found also in v. 22
and chap. xii. 16, but -with the addition, "after the resurrection
of Jesus ;" as this addition is wanting here, we are left to infer
that the passage of the Old Testament occurred to them at the

The Purification of the Temple. 107
time. As David in Psalm Ixix. 10, is speaking of himself, we
can of course suppose no direct prophecy, and can only say
with Luther:, "the individual is an inference from the genus."
In the fact, to wit : that such a consuming zeal is predicated of
the Old Testament saints in general, the Disciples find a justifi
cation for the zeal of the Lord ; cf. on quotations of this soi*t,
Tholuck's work, "Das Alte Testam. im N. T. (The Old Testa
ment in the New,) 2d ed. 1839." (3d ed. 1849. Tr.)
V. 18. The "Jews" are here, as in i. 19, members of the
Sanhedrim. They do not deny, in the general, that an act of
such zeal is admissible, but they desire evidence of the right of
Jesus to do it. According to v. 28, Jesus at this first presence
performed many miracles, but as his entrance: into the temple
had occurred before these, th.e demand ,of the Jews is, easily ex
plained. Asexmsev Uke d^ro^ewv.' and imSsmv, exhibere, to show,
x. 32, 1 Macc. -vi. 34. "Oze like the German dass, (Engl, that,
seeing that,) is used in similar connection, equiv. to eiz zouzq 5w,
vii. 35, ix. 17,
V. 19. The imperative Xyaaze is the permissive imperat, as
in Matt, xx, 32, Toqzov must have been spoken 8sixzixmz,
(pointing with the finger,) and as. the Saylour had just purified
the temple, there has been an inclination to take the folfo-wing
¦view ofthe meaning of his words : " Carry on your desecration
of the sanctuary, of which you have just been gi'vin^ an exam
ple, carry it on to th«, destruction of the temple itself, the cen
tre of your symbolical worship, and in a little space of time
I will establish a new spiritual temple in its place;" thus
Henke, Herder, Lucke, Bleek., A similar -view was held
^mong the ancient writers, by Athanasius, Opera, i. 545. Since
iti is unmistakably the case, that the Disciples havp. applied
many passages of the Old Testament (without, indeed, deny
ing the historical reference,) in a different sense from that which
the historic, exposition demands, and since, moreover, they
were accustomed to tbe symbolic character of the discourses of
Jesus^ it cannot be regarded as singular, that at a laterperiod they
may have felt themselves obliged to seek a deeper meaning in
such an expression as that before us, and consequently have ex
plained it incorrectly. A meaning which is not historically

108 Chap. H.— v. 19.
exact, is attached to expressions of Christ, in xviii. 9 ; cf xvii. 12,
as also, vii. 39. Nevertheless, we feel compelled, after repeated
reflection, to persist in the opinion, that no important objection
can be urged against the interpretation which the Disciple him
self gives ; that, on the contrary, there are many difficulties in
the way of that more recent exposition mentioned above.
This, too, is the -view of Flatt, Symbolse in Ev. loh. p. 1 ; Hey-
denreich, in Huffell and Heydenreich's Zeitschrift. f. Predigerw,
2 bd. 1 H. ; Meyer, Kling, in the Studien u. Kritiken, 1836, H.
1 ; Neander, (1. c. p. 400.) We begin ¦with the difficulties which
conflict with the modern ¦view. The argument used by others,
that the New Testament kingdom of God would not have been
designated as a resuscitation of the temple, we do not consider
valid, for in substance both economies certainly form a unity,
as in John x. 16, the "fold," and Hebrews iii. 2-6, the house
of God in the Old and New Testament are considered as iden
tical. We would rather urge the following : 1) Even Strauss,
Liicke and De Wette, now concede what was urged by me in
earlier editions, that the vouchers for iv zpialv ijpspaez, mean
ing in a short time, do not seem to answer their object; the
proverbial expression, Hosea. vi. 2, Luke xiii. 32, is only
analogous. 2) The declaration of the witnesses, Mark xiv.
58, Matt. xxvi. 61, is called by the- Synoptists a false wit
ness. We cannot, indeed, impute to these witnesses the
spiritual apprehension of which we have spoken; by the "tem
ple made without hands," they probably, in a material sense,
understood an ethereal temple to descend from heaven. Some
of the people, nevertheless, understood the false testimony as
implying that Jesus had promised a reformation of the temple,
as we see. in Acts -vi. 12-14. When Lucke and De Wette say
that the falsehood lay in this alone, that they had imputed to
Jesus the design of destroying the temple, while in fact he had
said: "Destroy ye this temple," this difference has no essen
tial bearing on the matter. As to the main point, the ¦witnesses
¦who are called false had repeated correctly, as also Lucke' him
self subsequently declares : "On historical grounds, I do not
shrink from regarding the apprehension, or rather the explana
tion of the false witnesses in Mark, as more correct than that

The Purification of the Temple. 109
of the Apostle," (John.) 3) Had Christ, when he used zouzov,
pointed to the building, the Jews must have supposed that a
destruction of that building was meant, and almost unavoid
ably must the expresssion have appeared to them as a boaet,
(Matt, xx-vii. 40.) So far the difficulty. That, on the other
hand, the explanation of the Evangelist gives a pertinent sense,
cannot be denied. He who, Matt. xii. 6, used the expression :
"I say unto you. That in this place is one greater than the
temple," might well in this place reply : Destroy, as this is in
keeping with your unhallowed disposition, this temple, in
which in a far more real manner than in yours, the Deity has
made his habitation, and I will raise it up again. The answer
to this is indeed urged, that such a reply must have been abso
lutely unintelligible to those who put the question ; but is it
more so than when Jesus refers the Samaritan woman to a
period when men should worship only in spirit and in truth —
an expression whose authenticity is expressly conceded by De
Wette himself. This argument, of which we hear so much,
"with which, however, the very interpreters who use it rarely
remain consistent, we cannot in general acknowledge as valid.
How many expressions of our Lord, which were originaUy un
intelligible, at a late period bore fruit not only in his Disciples,
but beyond doubt in his very opponents who were susceptible
¦to the truth. And besides, do not exalted spirits utter many a
thought out of their own self consciousness, without calculating to
what extent it may le comprehended by those who hear them ? To
this may be added, that even in Matt. xii. 38-41, and xvi. 4,
Christ proceeds in entirely the same manner. On the other
aide, they who make the reply, that if Christ in using these
words pointed to his own body, his words could not at least
have been referred to the temple-building, leave out of the
account that ill-will which the superiors of the people displayed
in all particulars, (viii. 22, 57.) — ^How widely this expression of
our Lord must have been circulated, is clear, not only from the
aUegation of it by the false witnesses, and by the accusers of
Stephen, but from the mockery of those persons at the cross.
Matt, xxvii. 40; and as John is the only Evangelist who has
narrated it in a congruous, historical connection, and in its
11

110 Chap. H.— v. 20-25.
original form, we have in this fact an important evidence of
his historical fideUty.
V. 20. As they refer Christ's words to the external temple,
the mention especially of the space of three days makes on
them the impression of a boast. In the 18th or 15th year of
Herod, the rebuUding of the temple erected by Zerubbabel had
commenced ; it was not entirely finished until under Agrippa
n., A. D. 64 ; we may suppose that at this time, probably after
the completion of some main part of the edifice, a cessation in
building had taken place.
V. 21, 22. It is clear from v. 22, and from xx. 9, cf with
Luke xxiv. 46, that the Apostles and our Lord himself found
prophecies in the Old Testament in regard to the resurrection.
Luke xxiv. 26 shows, too, that in doing this, passages were had
in mind, in which the " glory" of Christ was spoken of, there
fore, especially Isaiah Uii. In addition, the mode in which
Christ, John iii. 14, establishes in the Old Testament in a
typical manner the idea of expiation by one crucified, gives us
an important hint as to how we are to understand these
authentications of the resurrection. Cf. on v, 46.
A purification of the temple when Jesus last repaired to the
Passover, is also recounted in Matt. xxi. 12, Luke xix. 45. The
identity of these two occurrences was first maintained by some
English theologians, Pearce and Priestiy, and subsequently by
a majority of the recent writers, (by Krabbe himself, 1. c. p.
248.) After most writers (even Strauss, 1st ed.) had contended
at first for the correctness, chronologically, of the position it
held in the synoptical Gospels, the opinion now is that the
position in John is the correct one, as also Strauss held in the
3d ed. though decidedly on the other side in the 4th ed. The
Synoptists, it is supposed, had probably got an account of our
Saviour's driving the dealers out of the temple, but without a
complete historical detail, and as they knew of no other Pass
over, at least furnish an account of no other than the last, they
"have disposed of it " in this place- We ask, first, has the
repetition of the action during Christ's last entry into the
temple any improbability? We can find none. We should
not be surprised if the dealers had by the very next Pass-

Effect of the Miracles in Jerusalem. Ill
over renewed their evil course; in fact, the opposite could
only be anticipated in the degree to which this extraordinary
appearance in the department of religion, made an impression
on their consciences. Perhaps, however, the disorder was
abated for the second year ; if, however, in the third year, the
impression from the earlier period did not remain in sufficient
strength to prevent its repetition, there is nothing in this to
occasion surprise. Christ, in the Synoptists, does not allude to
his having acted in a similar manner before, but the tradition
transmits in all cases only the more striking characteristics of
the discourse. To these would especially belong what Christ
says, V. 19, as we see by the repeated allusions to it, of which
mention has already been made. If, now, what the Evangelists
recount, is the same fact mentioned by John, would we not
expect to find in them this important expression of Christ ?
We would lay no weight upon the other points of dissimilarity
in the narratives, but that this expression is wanting in the
Sjmoptists, we must regard as an evidence that they narrate a
different occurrence. It has, indeed, been thought that in Matt.
xxi. 23, Luke xx. 2, we have the same thing that John ii. 18
mentions, but the question of the superiors there refers to the
teaching, and occurs, according to Matthew, on the foUo-wing
day, according to Luke, on one of the following days.
Effect of the Miracles in Jerusalem. — ^v. 23-25.
V. 23-25. On the following days Jesus performed a num
ber of miracles, which are also aUuded to in ch. iv. 45. Jesus,
nevertheless, penetrated the hearts of men, and did not con
sider those his true Disciples who had been moved to the recog
nition of him merely by miracles or even by superficial impres
sions, (-viii. 81.) On the importance attached by Christ him
self to miracles, cf especialty Neander, 1. c. p. 273, seq. Most
of all under the bondage of the senses, was that class for whom
miracles had no other than a sensuous and selfish object, (John
vi. 26 ;) those were a step higher, who demanded the miracle,
indeed, from personal interest, but who allowed themselves to be
led by it to a loftier aim, (iv. 53 ;) of a yet higher grade were
those who felt the need of faith, but who required the media-

112 "tlHAP. H.— V. 25.
tion of such proofs of divinity as addressed the senses, (iii.
2;) highest of all, those w^ho, by the word and appearing of
Christ, were enabled to believe, (x. 88, xiv. 1.) — John loves to
give prominence to our Lord's profound knowledge of men,
(ch. vi. 61, 64, V. 42 ; cf also, Matt. ix. 4.) The article before
dvdpmnoz, designates each particular man whom he meets, each
one -with whom Christ has to do, (Winer, p. 103, Agnew and
Ebbeke's Tr. 95.) His not committing himself to them, can
not, indeed, mean that he refrained from disclosing himself
further, for Nicodemus also was of this number, but that he felt
a distrust in their actual discipleship, (-vi. 61-66.)

CHAPTER III.

Christ leads to a higher position of Faith one whose
belief had been excited bt Miracles.' — ^v. 1-15.
V. 1, 2. The Evangelist gives an example of one of those
who have attained to what Luther calls "the milk-Mfih," an
example in which Christ revealed deep insight into the human
breast. The ordinary -view assigns Nicodemus too low a place.
The impression which Nicodemus had already received, must
have been a strong one, for there was no little for him to over
come before he could go, even by night, to Jesus. He was a
distinguished member of the highest judicature of the land,
and, as we may conclude from that fact, a man of property, and
advanced in life, (v. 4 ;) as a Pharisee, he was specially exposed
to temptations to self-righteousness. Luther : " Here we have
a pretty spiritual play presented to us, how the best reason and
most beautiful piety upon earth stumbles at genuine truth and
spirituality.' He is assisted, so should we paint it, by power,
the highest piety and prudence, all combined, and yet more,
even by love to Christ; yet see how he stjimbles." That, nev
ertheless, some of the prominent men had received like impres
sions, may be concluded from the oi8apsv, from the example of
Joseph of Arimathea, and from what the Evangelist says, (xii.
42.) To what now does Nicodemus confess? To faith in
the prophetic dignity of our Lord, cf. -with the " come from
God," the "sent from God," i. 16. And for the superhuman
origin of what Jesus did, he draws an inference in regard to
1 On this division, cf. the Dissertation in Enapp, Scripta varii argumenti. No. vi.,
on V. 14, 15, Oie Dissertation by Jacobi, in the Studien u. Eritiken, 1835, H. 1,
trhich enters thoroughly into the author's meamng.
11* (113)

114 Chap. IH.— v. 3,4.
what he taught, and acknowledges God as the common author
of both. '
V. 8. Luther: "That might be thought, forsooth, an un
friendly answer to a friendly salutation." If we presuppose the
insight of Jesus into the heart ofthe Pharisee, the abrupt charac
ter of the answer will not surprise us. Of a similar nature in
this respect is the answer vi. 26. The full discussion of the
conception of "kingdom of God," (for which Matthew has "king
dom of the heavens,") belongs to Matt iii. 2. See Tholuck's
Commentary on the Sermon on the Mount, on Matt. v. 3. As a
designation of the kingdom of the Messiah, the expression is
found, Daniel vii. 14, xviii. 27. It bears this name, because, in
this kingdom to whose final consummation we are pointed, 1 Cor.
XV. 28, all the powers which oppose God shall be overthrown.
According to the different degrees of enlightenment, the expres
sion was naturally understood by the Jews in a more or less
spiritual sense. — The expression iSetv, according to Hebrew
usage, ^'to experience, participate in," (iii. 36, viii. 51.) Whether
dvmdsv here is equivalent to 8suzepov, (a second time, again,) or
to ohpavbdev, (from heaven, from above,) has "been up to the
most recent period a matter of dispute ; Origen, Cyrill, Non-
nus, Erasmus, Lucke, Meyer, De Wette, take the latter view;
the Syriac, Vulgate, Coptic, Olshausen, Neander, the former.
It is certainly worthy of notice, that in v. 31 and xix. 11,
dvmd-sv is equivalent to obpavbd-ev, and that in i. 13, 1 Job. ii.
29, iii. 9, iv. 7, v. 1, iv. 18, we have only the conception of " being
born of God," which is equivalent to obpavbd-ev. Nevertheless,
the fact that Nicodemus puts this counter-question, and that in
this question he uses the words "to be born the second time,"
is decisive for the first mode of taking the expression, which
has, in the New Testament, the paraUels, "begotten again,
born again," 1 Pet. i. 3, 28, "regeneration," Titus in. 5, "new
creature," Gal. vi. 15. ^Avm^dev, however, is not exactly the
same as ndXiv, but means over again,- that is, anew; Gal. iv. 9,
we have ndXiv dvmd-ev together. Nicodemus -was thus referred
at once to the centre of the Christian faith. The sixth verse
indicates more clearly what our Lord meant by the new birth •
that it is the origin of a condition, in which the Spirit of God
is throughout the deciding principle. The Babbins were not

Nicodemus. 115
anacquainted with this image; they call a proselyte a new
creature, r\mn np3 (Schbttgen, Horse Talmud. I. 704 ; Light
foot, Horse Talmud, p. 984;) it is possible that Paul presup
posed the expression as familiar, even if Christ did not, iu
this place.
V. 4. That a man familiar with Scripture, and advanced in
years, should have been so little versed in figurative expres
sions as Nicodemus appears in this place, and in a yet higher
degree in the question Tepeated, v. 9, (when at the same time
it was common to call proselytes new-bom, or new creatures,)
has to the most recent criticism appeared so incredible, that it
regards the conversation as a fiction, in which the contrast has
been puiposely depicted in the moBt glaring light, in order to
represent the Je-wish master as a fool, (Strauss, Bauer;) it is
cUaracteristic of the author's manner, too, say they, to spin out
the dialogues of Jesus by carnal misapprehensions on the part of
the hearers. This last position, in its general application, as well
as in reference to this passage, has been criticised by Schweizer,
1. c. p. 32. He endeavors to show that Nicodemus throughout is
not speaking of understanding, but of believing. If understand] ng
were the thing involved, why does the scribe, v. 9, repeat. the
question, since then he could have been thinking of none but a
"Spiritual birth, and why does Christ, v. 12, reproach them that they
did not believe ? The language, v. 4, is to be understood as com
parative, urging a parallel case ; Nicodemus doubts whether so
great a thing can be accomplished, and answers, therefore, that
this demand would be as difficult to fuMU as for a man to enter
the second time into his mother's womb, and be born. To
this idea, which had presented itself to me also, at an earlier
period, I am now inclined to give the preference. We must,
then, take the first question in v. 4 as purely figurative, the
second, on which Bengel finely remarks : animosius objicit Nico
demus, we must take as an explanation by comparison : " Cau
one who is old be born anew ? It is as impossible as it would
be^ &c." There, is then, also, a better occasion for v. 8 in the
connection of the discourse ; v. 5 and 6 confirm, in figurative
expressions, the necessity of the new birth ; v. 8 shows the pos-
sibiUt^ of it, namely, by the Spirit of God freely working. If
it still be thought necessary, however, to find in these ques-

116 Chap. IH.— v. 5.
tions the language of one who does not understand, they may
be thus taken : " You cannot mean to be understood literally ;
what, then, is your meaning?" (Lucke, Olshausen.) — By
the yspmv Sv, Nicodemus applies to himself the words of Christ,
(Beza.) V." 5. First, the necessity is once more confirmed, then the
nature of this birth explained — the same antithesis as in i.
13. By the statement of the begetting principle, the mode of
generation is also characterized. But what means the specifi
cation i? u8azoz ? Chrysostom already explained it of baptism,
and ingeniously after the analogy of physical generation, the
paternal principle was found in the Spirit, the maternal in the
water, (Theodorus of Mopsuestia, Ammonius, Maldonatus,)
thus, too, the Catholic and Lutheran interpreters ; Bucer, also,
and subsequently, Tittman, Knapp, Fikenscher. For this an
argument is found in the connection in which elsewhere in the
New Testament, regeneration and baptism are placed, (Eph. v.
26, 1 Pet. iii. 21, Titus iii. 5,) and iv 58aze xal depaze in John
himself, 1 John v. 6, which Lucke even, interprets of baptism.
It is f^bably the dogmatic difficulty that in this way Christ's
own -words would ascribe to baptism a like share with the
Spirit in regeneration, which has led especially the Reformed
expositors to abandon this interpretation. Zwingle interprets
" water " as a figurative designation of " knowledge, clearness,
heavenly light," (cognitio, claritas, lux ccelestis.) Calvin, as
epexegesis : " aquse spirituales, non fluviales," (waters of the
spirit, not of the river ;) so, also, Beza, with a reference to the
addition nupi, Luke iii. 16. A reference of a comparative nature
to the baptism of John is assumed by Beausobre and Herder,
the former says : " Si quelqu'un n'est ne non seulement de I'eau,
mais aussi de I'esprit," (unless a man be born not only of water,
but of the spirit also.) Recently, however, an effort has on the
one side been made to reach a fuller meaning, and on the other,
with no dogmatic aim, to fix the meaning. The former by
Olshausen. Cal-vin^already mentions, that some regarded water
as an elementary symbol of tiie tender disposition, and the spirit
or wind of the facile, movable disposition of mind -without
which conversion is impossible. Thus, also, Olshausen inge
niously regards the water as the .symbol of the soul yielding

Nicodemus. 117
itself up in love ; the spirit designates, as it were, the masculine
potency by whose cooperation the new birth is effected. But
in the compass of the New Testament usage such a symbolical
meaning of water has no analogy ; on the contrary, the refer
ence to baptism has the greatest analogy. To this view, con
sequently, even the negative critics have returned. But in the
very fact, that in the juxtaposition of "water" and "spirit,"
we must by the former understand baptism, and that mention
of it at this time and to this man is improbable in the last
degree, Strauss and Bauer think they have found a new
evidence of the fictitious character of the whole interview.
But the idea of an intentional interpolation of. this reference
to water, from a doctrinal interest for the sacrament, (to give
additional authority and value to baptism,) is the less tenable,
as the expression is dropped in iii. 8. (Neander's L. J.,
M'Clintock and Blumenthal's Tr. 175.) It would be more
plausible to say, that the Disciple, from the later conscious
ness in which baptism and regeneration are brought into closer
mutual relations, had involuntarily inserted, the expression, "of
water." Is it, however, true, that Christ himself could not have
spoken of baptism ? His Disciples certainly baptized, see chap.
IV. 2. In addition, could not the Saviour express from his own
consciousness what his hearers at the time would not under
stand ? see on ii. 19. We ask further, is it true that if we refer
" water " to baptism, it can be apprehended only in accordance
with the Catholic or -with the Lutheran doctrine of baptism ?
The mention of the spirit alone, in v. 8, already contradicts
such an opinion. It may still be said in accordance with the
Reformed doctrine, that baptism is mentioned as a pignus,
signaculum, (pledge, seal.) Or we may say with Neander and
Lucke : " The water may have already been known to Nicode
mus from the baptism of John, as a symbol of the purification
of the inner man." Nevertheless, should not the mode in
which elsewhere " of water " and " of the spirit " are placed in
opposition, (i. 26, 81, 88, Acts i. 5,) make it probable, that our
Lord actually had John's baptism, and by consequence, the
baptism of repentance in his mind, so that precisely these two
points are made prominent, on which, according to the
doctrine of the Church, regeneration rests ? The i^ here and

118 Chap. HI.— v. 6-12.
in V. 6, does not, indeed, as in i. 18, designate the "causa
efficiens," but the element from which, according to the per
ception of the senses, the birth proceeds.
V. 6. The dignity of this birth is stated as in i. 13. The
antithesis here, too, is simple : bodily and spiritual birth. The
neuter more general than the masculine. From the act of
begetting on the natural side of humanity, originates a product,
in which nature preponderates, and which, first by a new act
of grace from above, becomes genuine spirit. That the
nveupa. " Spirit," means nveupa zou ¦d-eou, " Spirit of God," is
shown by v. 8. The product which in a spiritual generation
proceeds from this Spirit, is of like kind.
V- 7, 8. These verses rigidly taken, do not lead to the view,
that Nicodemus, v. 4, had expressed an inability to understand,
but that he had declared his doubt of the possibility of such an
extraordinary change. They show, namely, that the Spirit of.
God exhibits an uncontrolled acti^vity surpassing all under
standing. Hvsupa and nn mean both wind and Spirit. The
first time, as the ouroic shows, we are not to understand the
Spirit, (Origen, Augustine, Bengel,) but wind, which is used
also in Ecclesiastes xi. 5, as an image of the inexplicable, and in
Xenophon, Memorab. iv. 3, 14, as an image of the Deity who is
invisible in his essence, and is to be traced only in his operations.
There is a threefold point of comparison : the ¦wind blows ¦with
a strength which man cannot resist ; its operation is perceptible ;
but its mode is incomprehensible — we know in fact in but few
cases, the causes of the disturbance of the equilibrium of the
atmosphere.' It is a question whether the last member is to be
understood yet more strictly in its particulars, whether by it is
intimated that the first beginnings and preparation for regene
ration, and its last goal reaching into eternity, are incompre
hensible to man.
V. 9, 10. The words do not compel us to suppose that
Nicodemus does not yet understand : they have not the charac
ter of a -question, but of an exclamation. In this way, Luther
regards it in one of his expositions of the Gospel, (B. xi. p.
1 Luther: "David has hit it, Psalm cxxxv. 7. He bringeth the -wind out of his
secret places, (Eng. Tr. treasuries) consequently so that no man knoweth and
seeth it."

Nicodemus. 119
2974,) in the other, however, he says of Nicodemus, "the
longer he listened, the less he understood," (p. 1556.) — ^Even
now, Nicodemus cannot comprehend the greatness of such a
change. Christ had spoken ofthe power ofthe Spirit of God.;
of this, a teacher of the Old Testament law must have known,
(Ps. U. 12, Ezek. xvui. 31, xxxvi. 24-28, Jerem. xxxi. 33.)
The article before 8t8. is rhetorical, (Bernhardy, Synt. p. 815,
Passow, ii. p. 811,) which is e-vident, too, from the solemn zou
'lapaijX. Erasmus, Bengel, Knapp : "tu ex eruditione notus ille
et clarus Israelitarum doctor es," (art thou that teacher of the
Israelites, known and distinguished by thy learning ?) Whether
we translate "knowest not," or "understandest not," it amounts
to the same thing.
V. 11. The 12th and 13th verses have inclined expositors to
the view that the plural is to be taken as the rhetorical plural
for the lingular, (Theoph.;) especially as Christ specifically
attributes the bpav to himself, (John vi. 46.) But common as
this use is in epistolary style, it is not found in ordinary dis
course. ¦ But it does not seem admissible to regard the prophets
as included, or John the Baptist, (Knapp,) since no such refer
ence is hinted at. Or, as v. 10 had referred to the testimony
of the prophets, in regard to the operation of the Spirit, did
Christ mean to designate himself and the prophets together as
witnesses for the tranbforming power of the Spirit of God ?
Maldonatus, with a view peculiar to him : de omnibus bonis
testibus, (all good witnesses are included.) — The plural Xap^dvszs
may be compared with ol'dapev in v. 2.
V. 12. Td iniysea and zd enoupdvea,. 1 Cor. xv. 40, Phil. ii.
10, mark the antithesis of nature between earthly and heavenly
things and beings. The sense, then, may be thus taken : " I haye
now spoken to you in earthly illustrations, how would^youbelieve
if I had imparted heavenly things -witiiout a veil," (Luther,
Beza, Maldonatus,) — ^but to this, v. 13 is opposed. It would
be much more natural to expect, in this connection, that the
" earthly" would have reference to the regeneration pre-viously
mentioned, and then by the "heavenly" most writers under
stand the redemption spoken of in v. 14. Tet it appears
impossible that Christ would have uttered "the heavenly" in
the presence of those who were not in a condition to receive in

120 Chap. HI.— v. 13-15.
faith " the earthly ;" the view, therefore, may be held that v. 14
has no immediate reference to v. 12, since, also, the redemption
by the cross is likewise an earthly fact. So Olshausen, accord
ing to whose opinion Christ did not impart the "heavenly
things " to Nicodemus and those who attended him, for from
the use of the plural, Olshausen infers that he brought such
with him. Bengel: Causa, cur scriptura de multis rebus sileat,
(the reason why Scripture is silent ou many points.) But what,
then, can be the meaning of these "heavenly things?" Could
Christ give other communications than those from the sphere
of religion ? Is it not intimated, also, v. 31, that he expressed
" the heavenly things." According to Olshausen, it is the proper
nmz (how) of the new birth, in regard to which our Lord is
silent, " because it would have to be sought in the ultimate prin
ciples of the spiritual world." But the question of Nicodemus
certainly had not this metaphysical purport, in fact it is, as we
have already remarked, less a question than an exclamation.
"M or can we acknowledge the validity of that difficulty, that
the expiatory death, as over against the fact of the new birth,
cannot be termed inoupdveov. As regards the new birth, it
can be said of it without scruple, that it is ineystov, for it is an
earthly fact, which hardly requires the ingenious remark of
Bengel, that it occurs in margine cceli, (on the verge of heaven.)
The crucifixion, it is true, equaUy occurred on earth; but as
this mere fact, it is not an object of faith, this it first becomes
by the significance which attaches to it by its connection -vrith
the divine counsel, but this counsel is inoupdveov. Thus in
Wisdom ix. 16, zd inl y^z and zd sv oupavoiz are contrasted, and
the latter is explained, v. 17, as the ^ouX>j of God. Relying
upon that very passage, Lucke would thus express the antithe
sis: "the easily understood — the hard to be understood," (of
the simUar view in" CyriU and Beza.) But in v. 13, standing
in immediate connection, there is an express antithesis of y^
and oupavbc:, cf v. 21, so that in v. 12 the meaning deduced
cannot be adhered to.
V. 13. K men will not believe Christ, it is impossible that
they should understand the inoupdvea, (i. 18.) As the " descend
ing from heaven " cannot be taken literally, just as little can the
"ascending;" and "heaven" can only be the designation of the

Nicodemus. 121
sphere of that absolute knowledge which proceeds from unity
with God, (cf. i. 52.) "Yet more clear does this become from
the addition 6 cov iv zip oupavip. The participle cannot be taken
as the partie. imperf. and be resolved into o<r ^v, for a perfectly
idle tautology would thus arise. It follows, also, from this
proposition, that in Christ's judgment heaven and earth are
no self-separating opposites. We see from these words, that
the figurative style predominates far more in the discourses of
our Lord, than is acknowledged by most.
V. 14, 15. If Christ, now, notwithstanding the refusal in v.
12, designs here to make known to Nicodemus " the heavenly
things," we would certainly anticipate in an author exact in
the use of the particles, some other particle of transition than
the mere xai ; either xal — 8s, or merely 8s, or at any rate obv.
Nicodemus had been placed in the subjective centre of the
kingdom of God, the new birth had been announced to him.
Christ judges him worthy to be introduced into the objective
centre also, the doctrine of redemption. He lets himself down
to the scribe's feeble measure of knowledge, by pointing out
to him in a well known Old Testament fact, the appearance of
that very idea which would be actualized in Christ's own death.
The Israelites bitten by .poisonous serpents, could be cured by
looking in faith upon the brazen serpent, (Numb. xxi. 8, 9,
Wisd. xvi. 6, 7.) We have here, also, a proof of the profound
manner in which the Old Testament was interpreted by our
Saviour, and an intimation of the way in which he is to be
understood, when he finds even in Moses prophecies in regard
to himself, (v. 46.) Precisely those two features of the doctrine
of redemption, against which the opposition of carnal'Israel was
directed, justification by faith, and that, too, a faith in a crucified
one, (1 Cor. i. 23, Rom. ix. 32,) are typified in this Old Testa
ment fact. Many have, indeed, given the type a yet more
special application. That which healed was (without poison,
indeed,) the same that had slain; the crucified one, who
deUvers, is, likewise in appearance only, a sinner and male
factor, (Rom. viii. 3 ;) thus Luther, Bengel, Olshausen, Jacobi.
The purpose of the Saviour, at least with reference to Nicode
mus, was not to enter into such minute doctrinal details. — The
meaning of 6^ouv must be determined by reference to viii, 28,
12

122 Chap. IH.— v. 16-21.
cf xii. 32, 33. In the latter passage, the exaltation to heaven
is the subject of discourse, but John finds in it an allusion to
the crucifixion ; when Christ says, chap. viii. 28 : " When ye
have Ufted up," he had in his mind, no doubt, their crucifying
him. In Chaldee, too, Ip.t also means "to raise, to hang,",
in Syriac, ao) (ipi) "to crucify." A double sense may lie in
it, (see p. 228,) but the phrase "lifted up the serpent," which is
in opposition with it, presents no argument for it. Death on
the cross is presupposed, also, in Matt. xx. 19, x. 38. In thC'
words, "every one that believeth on him," the universality of
the redemption is intimated. — Was, now, this profounder
intimation lost upon the mind of the scribe? The history
proves the reverse, and thus justifies the Saviour in judging
fit to utter the "heavenly things" in the aars of Nicodemus.
He who then came to Jesus by night, ventured, ch. vii. 51, to
offer a word for Jesus in the high council, and when we seet
that after Christ's crucifixion, when all earthly expectations
had vanished, Nicodemus was still active in honoring the
crucified Saviour, even in the grave, (xix. 39,) does it not seem
as though especiaUy this word in regard- to the expiatory death
tiad, in the end, disclosed its meaning to him. It may be, that
on this night the words made upon the scribe the impression
(as Jacobi expresses it,) as of a speaking in an unknown tongue,
but they were not utterly lost upon him.
The Evangelist continues the thought, that the mission
OF Christ into the World is the work of God's love,
AND that unbelief CONDEMNS BUT ITSELF.  V. 16-21.
V. 16, 17. K the observation made ii. 19, be considered
just, that Christ expressed from his own consciousness what
far transcended his hearer's point of -view, this division might
be regarded as a continuation of the discourse with Nicode
mus ; at least, the correction of the idea that the Messiah had
appeared only as a judge to the GentUes, was exactly in place
in a conversation with a scribe. Thus it is taken, also, among
recent writers, by Knapp, Meyer, Hug. Since Erasmus, how
ever, most interpreters have supposed that the EvangeUst con
nects an independent train of thought of his own, enlarging

Christ's Mission into the World. 123
on the theme presented by the Saviour's discourse. If we could
doubt that such is the case here, yet we could not as regards
V. 31-36 ; and if the matter be indubitable there, there can be
no further scruple here. In opposition to the carnal view,
which imagined a judgment on the heathen world to be a
prominent design of the Messiah, the Evangelist gives a spe
cial emphasis to " every one that believeth," and shows that by
the appearing of the only begotten Son, life has also been
offered to the "world." That in i8mxsv the're is a reference to
the death on the cross, may more readily be admitted, as such
a reference has preceded it ; nevertheless it is not necessary to
complete it by adding siz zbv ¦ddvazov, (Olshausen,) nor with
Meyer, z. xbapip, but it corresponds with "resign, give up," vi.
51, Luke xxii. 19, at other times nap£8mxsv ; it is consequently
parallel with the subsequent dnoazsXXsadat siz rbv xbapov, but
with prominence given to the idea that this was connected with
humiUation and suffering, (Phil. ii. 7.)
V. 18, 19. A highly spiritual conception of the idea of the
judgment, which also Ues at the basis of the words in xii. 46-
48, (cf Acts xiii. 46, Titus iii.ll, ^ohn ix. 41.) If in the appear
ing of Christ, forgiveness of sins, life and salvation, are offered
to men, and if faith be the .channel through which these bless
ings are conferred on men, unbelief is a judgment of one's
self Luther: "To have sin is not what does the harm, but
the insisting that we have no sin does the great harm." The
Evangelist derives the unbelief, not merely from ignorance,
but also from love of darknessi That man should love dark
ness appears incomprehensible, but v. 20, 21, assign the
causes. V. 20, 21. The more man abandons himself to e^vil, the
more does he regard it as his proper self, and loves it as him
self. As that which is holy is in opposition to him, and
reproves his evil works, he feels himself mortified in that char
acter which is proper to him, and begins to hate what is holy.
Christ presents this as the reason, ch. vii. 7, why he was hated
by the world. Man begins to love the objectively holy, in the
degree in which he recognizes that the evil attaching to him
is something alien from him, and, therefore, does not fear the
reproving of it. He then feels himself attracted by the object-

124 Chap. ni. — v. 21-24.
ive appearance of the holy, as his efforts are thereby sanctioned
and promoted. If we compare in Rom. xiii. 12, 1 Thess. v. 8,
and in John xi. 9, 10, how the spiritual and physical meanings
of -^pspa and ipwz play allusively into one another, we shall
be inclined to think that in v. 20 there is an allusion to the
fact that evil seeks the shroud of night. 'AX^deea, in the prac
tical sense of nnx, like the expression, "das rechte," ("what
is right,") in German, expresses at once the theoretical and
practical, (1 John i. 6.) — 'Ev -dsip, that is, so that the works have
God as their source. It is in John we find direct expressions,
according to which even those not yet converted can stand in
a fellowship ¦with God, (viii. 47, xviii. 37.)
Strauss has pronounced the whole scene with Nicodemus a
fiction, originating in the fact that the reproach that the Gospel
was confined in its operations to the lower classes, goaded the
souls of the early Christians. But with historical, as well as
Christian penetration, Neander, in reply, has pointed to the
fact, that the Christians of those earlier times gloried, on the
very contrary, in this, that the humble had been exalted by
Christ to so high a point, (1 Cor. i. 26, 27.) According to Bauer,
too, the conversation must be a mere fiction, because, through
the whole of it, the reflective point of ¦view of the later Church
can be recognized. Weisse does not go so far, who, though
he remarks that the conversation held without the presence of
others, and first communicated by Nicodemus to the Disciples,
could not be very faithfully detailed, yet directs attention to the
fact, that from this very conversation originate allusions in
Justin Martyr, Clemens Romanus and Ignatius, which, if they
be independent of John's Gospel, prove that John was not
advancing mere inventions of his own; the presumption,
indeed, is made without good cause, that those passages are
independent of our Gospel, (see above, Introd. § 6.) The
privacy of the conversation has, in general, given a support to
the doubt of its genuineness. De Wette says : "The depth
and spiritual fullness of the discourses detailed, we can, as
regards their essence, derive only from the original soiwces;
the delineation of them, we cannot regard as the work of con
scious invention, but as a Spirit-drunken, poetical, free reproduc
tion." But no unprejudiced person can deny, that everything to

New Testimony for Christ. 125
V. 15, which was said by Christ, was properly adapted to a scribe
Uke Nicodemus, and the subsequent spiritual growth of the
scribe confirms this. To assume with positiveness that not one
of the Disciples of our Lord could havQ been present at the in
terview, would involve a presumption which has nothing to
establish it, for Nicodemus had reason, indeed, to fear the Jews,
but had no reason to fear the Disciples of our Lord. The possi
bility, then, that John had direct knowledge of what passed,
must be conceded. Nevertheless, if it be granted that John got
his knowledge of it through Nicodemus, yet if the conversation
made that profound impression upon Nicodemus, which, from
the subsequent history, it is evident it did, he would have been
in a situation, at a later period, in his close relations with the
Disciples, to give them an account faithful in all essentials.
A NEW Testimony of the Baptist for Christ. — v. 22-80.
¦ V. 22-24. From the metropolis, Jesus went into the pro^vince
of Judea. Through his Disciples, as ch. iv. 2 informs us, he
baptized; meanwhile the Baptist also continued his baptism.
We have here additional matter, exciting no little difficulty.
First, this, that according to Matt. iv. 12, Mark i. 14, it seems
as though Jesus had first made his appearance in Galilee in his
active vocation, subsequently to the removal of John from the
stage. That John should have continued his work at the same
time ¦vrith Jesus, appears also surprising in a high degree.
Should the morning star continue to shine after the sun has
risen ? On the contrary, we would even have anticipated that
the Baptist himself would unite with the circle of the Disciples
of Jesus. The difficulty, indeed, goes yet further — that Christ
should have caused baptism to be administered during the
time of his life on earth, is difficult to credit, since in fact he
had not yet estabUshed a Church, (Bretschneider, Weisse.) Thus
one difficulty attaches itself to the- other. The following, how
ever, may be advanced in reply. If the Baptist continued,
simultaneously ¦with Jesus, to work independently, he must have
done so because his position was regarded by himself as the Old
Testament one, to ¦wit : to baptize into " one that was to come,"
and thus to extend among the people in ever widening circles,
12*

126 Chap. HI.— v. 24-30.
a penitent mind and the longing after the Messiah, (Kern, Tfib.
Zeitschr. 1836, ii. 11, p. 54.) If we may regard the procedure
of the Baptist, ch. i. 35, as exhibiting his rule, he was not in
every case urgent in insisting on fellowship with Christ, but
confined himself to gi"ving hints to the more susceptible spirits ;
even in ch. i. 26, he merely intimates that the Messiah is
present, without specifically designating Jesus as such. His
expressions here, too, v. 29, 30, confirm the relation in which
he stands, just as the history narrates it, for they speak not of
his retirement, but of his decline; they speak not of his attaching
himself to the Saviour, but only of his calm inward sympathy
with Christ's self-dependent activity. As regards Christ's bap
tism, it certainly could not at this period have the character it
had subsequently to his resurrection, ascension and outpouring
ofthe Spirit, (Matt, xxviii. 19.) To say, nevertheless, as Tertul-,
lian already does, that it was only John's baptism, is not correct ;
for there was connected with it a confession of faith, a con
fession of Christ as Messiah who had already appeared, while
John's baptism required only a penitent confession in order to
participate in the .kingdom of Messiah to come. As regards,
finally, the difference between John and Matt. iv. 12, we can
certainly perceive from v. 24, that the oral tradition fixed the
imprisonment of John pretty nearly about the same time ¦with
the appearance of Jesus. But the passage in Matthew does not
necessarily lead to this view, if we bear in mind the very com
pendious character of the narrative of that EvangeUst. The
special activity of Jesus in Galilee, according to John, first
falls, also, in the period after the return fi'om the first Passover,
(iv. 45 ;) after his return from his baptism at Jordan, he had
remained but a short time in Galilee, (ii. 12.) That point of
time was also in Matthew's eye, but as he was not acquainted
with the intervening occurrence, it gives an appearance as if
he differed from John. — -^non and the larger Salim, according
to V. 26, lay on this side Jordan, and according to Eusebius,
(Onomas.) the place was still pointed out at Jordan, and Robin- .
son found a village of Salim in the neighborhood of Nablous.
On the motive assigned for baptizing at this place, in the
words "because there was much water there," Bauer makes
merry: "had not the Jordan, on whose banks we must picture

New Testimony for Christ. 127
to ourselves the scene as taking place, abundance of water at
other points, too?" But the precise fact had in ¦view, is tltat
the Baptist had abandoned his usual place of baptism at the
Jordan.' V. 25-28. The odv has reference to the fact previously stated,
that Jesus and John were baptizing at the same time. Z-jn^ez,
Acts XV. 2, a question, hence disputation, called by the Rabbins,
N'tffp. By the connection, it would seem that the Jew^ gave a
preference to the baptism of Jesus. The excitement of John's
disciples displays itself, also, in the hyperbolical expression:
"aU men come to him." IMapzupstv, with dative,, to offer testi
mony in any one's favor. The language of the Baptist bears
to a remarkable extent the stamp of genuineness in its Old
Testament gnomologic form, v. 27, 30, connected with the
figurative expression, v. 29. The general sentiment, v. 27, can
either be placed in close connection ¦with v. 28, "I can arro
gate nothing to myself, but can only assume the position
allotted to me by God," (Cyrill, Bengel, Lucke, Neander,) or
¦with V. 26, " Jesus would not have it in his power to maintain
such a position, if God had not assigned it to him," (Chrysos
tom, Olshausen, De Wette.) The Baptist may, however, have
uttered the general sentiment, with reference to their mutual
relation. The reasoning of Gamaliel, Acts v. 38, seq. is of a
similar character. — ^AXX dzt is a mingling of two constructions,
(Winer, p. 552.) 'Exstvoz, in v. 28, is by Bengel and De Wette
not referred to 6 xpto^oz, as in that case auzou would be required,
(cf however, vii. 45, Acts iii. 13,) but to Jesus, v. 30.
V. 29, 80. The Baptist now declares what is the position
assigned him. The Old Testament frequently designates God
as the husband of his people, (cf in the New Testament, 2
Cor. xi. 2, Eph. v. 32, Rev. xxi. 2, 9.) As the Messiah is the
representative of God, a similar affirmation can be made of him.
Maldonatus thus expresses the sense of the first words in v. 29 :
quam vis in nuptiis multi sunt, non omnes sponsi sunt, (although
' Neander, Lucke and De Wette, following Rosenmuller, observe that 1^1? is an
intensive form, with the signification of "abounding in springs." It is, indeed, not
an intensive form, but an adjective form, (Ewald, Hebr. Gramm. 3d ed. § 341,)
nevertheless the etymology justifies the observation of the Evangelist, [k'lvm/,
equiv. to ']iy 'jlj-'i? adj, from y$ "place rich in springs," Ewald, Lehrbuch, 6th
ed. p. 365. 7th ed.]
' (The critical authority for 'lovialov is considered now as decisive. Tr.)

128 Chap. HI.— v. 31-84.
many are at the wedding, not all are bridegrooms.) The
expression, "friend of the bridegroom," has a technical mean
ing, as according to Hebrew usage, a pw-it napavupiptoz acted as
mediator in the marriage suit and contract. ^Eazrjxmz, he stood
without interfering, as a spectator who sympathizes, but takes no
part^As regards the "voice of the bridegroom," Meyer was the
first who referred to the passages in the Old Testament, in which
the voice of the bridegroom and the voice of the bride are a de
signation of the festal joys of the wedding, (Jer. vii. 34, x^vi. 9,
xxv. 10.) Subsequently, De Wette and Lucke also understood
by the joyous voice of the bridegroom, the jubilee of the
wedding festivities. But in this sense it presents itself in the
Old Testament passages, only in the distinct phraseologic con
nection ; the difficulty, too, is suggested, that then the com
parison has no proper applicability to the thing compared.
We reach this much better, when we have in our mind the
interview of the bridegroom with the bride, during which the
friend who has brought about the connection stands aside as a
sympathizing listener. Understood in this way, the expres
sion is in perfect correspondence with the position which the
Baptist assumed after the appearance of Jesus. Xaipeiv 8id,
instead of with ini or iv, is an unusual connection, is found,
however, also, 1 Thess. iii. 9; cf. daupd^eev Sed, vii. 21. The
dat. modi, 3fa/>a, instead of the accus. is also unusual, cf. how
ever, Septuag. Is. Ixvi. 10. The last words in v. 29 express,
definitively, in what the destination of the Baptist consisted.
The expression, "my joy is fulfilled," belongs to the phraseology
peculiar to John, (xv. 11, x^vi. 24, 1 John i. 4 ;) yet the sense
here is somewhat different, and has a historical reason, for the
Baptist had hitherto rejoiced in hope. V. 30 is intelligible only
on the supposition that the Baptist continued to labor at the
same time with Christ.
The Evangelist pursues the thought, that Christ is the
^ ABSOLUTE Teacher and Mediator between men and God.
i V. 31-36.
, V. 31, 32. It is true that even recently Hug has characterized
the position of Strauss, that the Baptist could not have uttered
the foUo^wing words, as> "more impertinent than true," and it is

Christ the Teacher and Mediator. 129
undeniably the fact, that the leading thought, v. 31, 32, coincides
in essentials with i. 30 ; but v. 35, 36, especially, are too specifically
of John's (the Evangelist,) type of Christianity; v. 32, also, is in
opposition to v. 26 ; it is to be noticed, too, that the Old Testa
ment figurative mode of expression only goes to v. 80. That
the Disciple should, with nothing interposed to mark it, have
added, to use Bacon's words, an emanatio concionis lohannese,
is to be accounted for only from his peculiar mystical ten
dency, which did not separate so rigidly between objective and
subjective. Conformably to the fact that the Baptist had
established the distinction between Christ and himself, espe
cially in the preexistence of Christ, the Evangelist here also,
has established the specific distinction from the Baptist and all
others in this, that the origin of the Redeemer cannot be
referred to a merely human descent. The first, ix z^z r^C,
designates the origin, the second, the kind and character, and
•vrith the character corresponds the doctrine. The antithesis in
indvo) ndvzmv iazi corresponds to the ix z^z T^Z i<^re, and the xae
— papzupsi to the ix z^z y^Z XaXei. Christ, indeed, ch. vi. 46,
claims for himself exclusively the seeing, and ascribes to man
only the power of hearing the Father ; but in other places this
distinction is not observed, (ch. v. 80.) We can, moreover,
in the hearing, suppose the distinction that in Christ the hear
ing does not consist in a single act. In the plaintive words
xal — Xap^dvee, we recognize the voice of the Evangelist, (i. 11,
xii. 37.)
V. 33, 34. The accountability which attaches to unbelief is
pointed out, (Chrysostom.) As the words of Christ are the
words of God, the rejection of his testimony is also a rejection
of the testimony of God, (1 John v. 10.) — "Ov bd^. dn. used of
the Messiah, v. 38, xi. 42, xvii. 3, xx. 21, ¦with eiz r. xbapov, x.
36, xvU. 18, cf. xvui. 37, xi. 46. Nearly Uke it ix z. dsou ipx-t
sometimes with eiz r. xbapov, viii. 42, x^vi. 28, xiii. 3. The
question rises, whether these formulas have the same meaning,
and merely designate the prophetic dignity, (thus the Socinians,
Grotius.) The phrase, "whom God hath sent," is certainly
applicable to every prophet, but in John it designates not
merely the outward sending, but the inward calling, see vii. 16,
viii. 42, Isa. xlviii. 16 — used of Christ, the internal calling to

130 Chap. HI.— v. 84-36.
Messiahship. With the addition, "into the world," the phrase
already implies more, De Wette : " the appearing in the visible
world;" Baumgarten-Crusius, on ch. i. 9: "an extraordinary
entrance into life," it is used only of the Messiah, (cf. xii.
46, also, -vi. 14.) Yet more decided is the reference to the
preexistence in dnb or napd -dsou ipx- It is used, indeed, iii. 2,
of the di-vine call in general, but differently, -vui. 42, x^vi. 28,
xiii. 8, as the antithesis nopsuopae npba z. n. shows, as alsd the
motive assigned, -viii. 42, by ou8s ydp an ipauzou iX-^X. Augus-
tin?, on viii. 42, distinguishes between processi a Deo, that is,
the eternal generation, and veni, that is, the incarnation ; so,
also, Ammonius, Hilary. On the other hand, Origen, Euthy-
mius, Maldonatus, refer both to the incarnation. Among the
recent writers, compare especially Tittmann, on xiii. 3, and
Frommann, Joh. Lehrbegr. p. 388. — Ou ydp-8e8o)ai, in ¦virtue of
the present, and the want of auzip, stands as a general propo
sition, and the expositor, therefore, if he take it in a general
sense, (as was abeady done by Bucer,) must see that he gives it a
conformable signification.
Bucer : " By God's giving his Spirit to any one, thus, to the
prophet, the Baptist, He is not rendered poorer, so that He can
not impart it to the others." A superfluous observation, for
which there is no sort of necessity. Bauer presses the pres.
8t8mai, and the want of the auzip, to such a degree as to find
therein the evidence of the consciousness of the later Church
forcing itself in. But why should not the thought that lies in
it be, that God can and will do it, and (as the connection would
lead us to conclude,) has here done it ? The direct reference
to Christ is as tenaciously to be adhered to as if aurm were
supplied, and this would be so much the less arbitrary, since,
as Calvin observes, v. 35 is to be regarded as determinative and
explanatory. Erasmus had already made the remark in gene
ral, that the Greeks frequently omit the pronoun where we
would expect it, John vii. 17, after 8i8ax^z, so also, ch. x. 29,
xvi. 8, cf simUar cases, 2 Cor. xi. 20, Eph. ii. 10, (see Eritzsche
on Matt. p. 138,) iU. 18, 1 Pet. ii. 11. The Rabbins say that
the prophets obtained the Spirit only ''ptyoa "by measure."
'Ex designates the rule and periphrases adverbs, (2 Cor. •viii.
13.)

Christ the Teacher and Mediator. 131
V. 35, 36. Love is the principle of impartation, we need not
be surprised, therefore, that with the absolute love of the
Father to the Son, He imparts to him not only the Spirit, but
absolutely all things, (xiii. 3, xvii. 1, 2, Matt, xxviii. 18, xi. 27 ;)
in ch. V. 20, also, the absoluteness of religious knowledge in
the Son has its origin in the love of the Father. If, now, the
Son be the medium for all the blessings that proceed from the
Father, it follows that " eternal life," also, can only be attained
through his mediation, and the organ for possessing it is faith,
by which the thing hoped for is already possessed as a thing
present. Here, indeed, eternal life is regarded, first, as a
present thing, as in v. 24, xvii. 3, then, in its consummation,
as something future; that, nevertheless, the oux oiperat pre
supposes an obx opa, may be inferred from the antithesis psvse
^ dpyj. The condition of man without faith, is a condition in
dpyij, (Eph. ii. 3,) and the correlative of it is misery, the
d-dvazoz, (1 John iii. 14.) 'Anstdstv alternates ¦with dniaze'tv,
Rom. xi. 30. 'Eni cum ace. embraces, as i. 33, rest and motiou.

CHAPTER IV.

Ministry op Christ among the Samaritans. — ^v. 1-42.
V. 1-4. From v. 35 of this chapter, it may be inferred that
the Redeemer at this time remained about half a year in the
surrounding country. His appearance as a reformer excited
the opposition of the Pharisees more than did the Old Testa
ment activity of the Baptist ; as Christ, however, regarded it
as yet too soon to arouse more violently the spirit of persecu
tion, he repaired to Galilee. On pres. noiet, ^anze^ee, cf. on i.
40 ; on the baptism of Jesus, see on iii. 22. Why did Jesus not
perform baptism himself? It is best simply to say: because
this was a matter which could be attended to by others, which
was not the case with preaching, (thus Thomas Aquinas,) cf. 1
Cor. i. 17. The scrupulous Jew, in order to avoid Samaria,
was accustomed to make the journey to Jerusalem by the right
side of the Jordan in Persea ; Christ, however, was above this
prejudice, (Luke ix. 52,) for which reason, also, the command
to the Disciples, Matt. x. 5, cannot have originated in mere
prejudice. V. 5. ^oxdp, an unusual appellation of the city Dgts', which
elsewhere is called luxsp or zd lixepa, and lay on the direct
road to Jerusalem, (Eusebius, Onomast. p. 143, ed. Bonfrere.)
The form Soxdp is regarded by some as a derisive name given
by the Jews, equivalent to ip.t? "falsehood, idolatry," as the
Samaritans were regarded as idolaters, (Sir. 1. 26, [28.]) On
the other part the Samaritans called the B'^psn n'3 in Jerusalem
uniBn n''3 domus percussionis, (house of smiting.) Perhaps,
however, the change of the p into the p is accidental, as the
liquids are elsewhere interchanged, as Nebuchadrezzar in Jere
miah, BeXiap and BeXiaX. — What is here said of Jacob's field
(132)

Christ among the Samaritans. 133
and the present of it to Joseph, rests upon a traditional work
ing out of the material in Gen. xxxiii. 19, Joshua xxiv. 32,
Septuagint, Gen. xlviii. 22. In Jacob's field, near the south
east entrance, lies a vale bordered by high mountains, and on
the narrow base it supplies, rises Sichem, and there yet exists
a well, ¦with plantations of olive and fig trees near it, which
Jews, Christians, Mohammedans and Samaritans point out as
Jacob's Well, (see Robinson ;) Schubert arrived at this spot
about the same time [spoken of here,] just about noon, and
found that a poor family had pitched their tent and were
spending a holiday by the cool spring. To the left, Gerizim
rises in sight to the altitude of some eight hundred feet, with
its springy base covered with lively green ; on the right the
somewhat steeper and less watered Ebal, from which the words
of the curse were spoken, (Schubert's Reise, &c. — Journey in
the East, iu. p. 187.) '
V. 6-8. The well in its present condition is nine feet in
diameter, and one hundred and five feet deep ; when Maun-
drell visited it in the month of March, it had fifteen feet of
water. The present city (under the modern name of Nablous,)
lies about half an hour distant ; as there are a number of
springs in its immediate ¦vicinity, it may be asked why the
woman came here for water ; the ancient city may, however,
have been nearer, nor is it said that the woman came out of
the city, (ix zrjz Sapapsiaz is equiv. to lapape'tziz.) She may,
perhaps, have come from the neighborhood of the city, (Rob
inson's Palestine, iii. 322, seq.') — The sixth hour, according
to the Jewish computation, was about noon. Rettig, who pre
supposes that the woman was dra^wing water for the cattle,
thinks that from this passage he can make it probable that
John followed the Roman computation, that it was conse
quently the sixth hour of the morning, since it was usual to
travel through the night, and this was the hour at which cattle
were watered; but v. 15, 28, render it difficult to suppose
that the woman had drawn water for the cattle. According to
V. 35, too, this journey occurred in autumn, when it was rarely
hot, (Buhle, Calendar. Palasst. p. 52,) and when traveUng by
night was uncommon. No positive evidence, therefore, for
1 (Biblical Researches, vol. iii. p. 111. Last edit. (1856,) ii. 285. Tr.)
K 13

184 Chap. IV. — V. 9-15.
the Roman computation can be derived from this passage.
Since Erasmus, ouzmz has been regarded as anaphora of the
partie. as is exceedingly common in the classics, cf. also. Acts
XX. 11 ; Josephus, Antiqq. viii. 11, 1 ; de bell. jud. ii. 8, 5. But
Fritzsche (HaU. allg. Litteraturz, 1839, Erganzungsbl. No. 28,)
has shown that in all examples of this sort, ouzmz stands before
the temp. fin. Consequently, we must take ouzmz equivalent to
auzmz, in the sense ot dnXiHz, &'Z iruxev, as Chrj'sostom,. CyriU,
Bengel, do, which will imply that Christ made no further
preparations, that he reposed under the open sky. To this
amounts, too, the observation pecuUar to Erasmus and Calvin :
" Cum dicit sic sedisse, quasi, gestum hominis fatigati expri-
mit," (where it says he sat thus, the air of a weary man is
expressed.) V. 9, 10. The woman recognized the man of the Je^wish
land, probably by his accent ; perhaps, too, there was a differ
ence in the clothing ; perhaps the question implies not merely
surprise, but a slight contempt. How violent the hatred of the
Jews to the Samaritans was, is expressed in Tr. Sanhedr. foi.
104 : " He who receives a Samaritan into his house, and enter
tains him, deserves to have his children driven to exile ;" the
hatred of the Samaritans to the Jews is shown, Luke ix. 53.
This hatred matured to its full strength from the time of the
building of the temple on Gerizim. — Forgetting his o^wn bodily
need, Jesus enters into the spiritual need of her who asks the
question. He draws her attention to the fact, that Se, the
maker of a request, can bestow a far greater thing than he asks.
The greatness of the gift is conditioned by the dignity of the
giver ; yet the gift appears most prominently as the main idea,
because of the antithesis to that which he himself had just
desired, (cf CaMn, Piscator.) He calls his gift, living water,
to wit : xaz i^oxrjv, dXrjdivmz, (by preeminence, truly,) cf xiii.
14, and on vi. 32. By the gift he means the life, emanating
from him, and the point of comparison is its freshness and
perennial character. Calvin : "Aquam, meo judicio, bonorum
omnium vacuitati, qua laborat ac premitur humanum genus,
opponere voluit." (He designs, in my opinion, to contrast the
water with that void of all good under which mankind labors
and is weighed down.) The aorists, jizrjaaz and sdmxsv, not

Christ among the Samaritans. 135
with Luther, "thou wouldst ask," but with the Vulgate, " thou
wouldst have asked."
V. 11, 12. The woman, taking the words of Christ liter
ally, sees in them only an unseemly depreciation of the well,
hallowed by ages ; he cannot draw spring water from this well,
she concludes, therefore, he would give her water from some
other source than the well. The address, xupte, was in that
day the usual form of courtesy, (xii. 21.) With ours, a change
of construction is made, as 3 John v. 10.
V. 13, 14. He justifies the promise, that Ee in the true
sense can give living water. The water from the spring
refreshes but for a time. The exception might be taken, how
ever, that the life emanating from Christ must be constantly
made our own anew, and then that appears to be true which
Sir. xxiv. 29, (Ecclesiasticus xxiv. 21,) says of wisdom : " They
that drink me shall yet be thirsty." But the true sense is to be
determined partly from vi. 35, partly by v. 14, which here
follows. The figure means, this water will once for all be
received into tiie inner nature, will be immanent in man, and
will attend him through every stage of his being, even to
eternity. The need of an increase of this water is not there
by excluded. Rather has the image been explained fully and
correctly by Calvin, thus: Spiritum sanctum scatebram esse
perpetuo fluentem, ita non esse periculum ut exarescant, qui
spirituali gratia renovati sunt, (the Holy Spirit is a gushing
spring ever flowing, so that they who have been renewed by
spiritual grace are in no danger of becoming completely dry.)
To take another image : the spark which goes forth from the
fire of the Redeemer becomes in every human breast a self-
existent flame. After Christ has brought into being to individ
uals the communion ¦with God, it advances in all these individ
uals to a consummation. The same thought is found in ¦viii.
12, cf ¦vii. 38. " Springing up into everlasting life " expresses,
that death not only does not interrupt this life, this communion
with God, (xi. 25,) but that it rather brings it to perfection.
Bengel : Vita seterna confluens talium fontium imo oceanus,
(eternal life the confluence of' such springs, yea, an ocean.)
V. 15. The woman has again missed the spiritual sense,
except that she has so far been reached by the words, v 14,

136 Chap. IV.— v. 16-22.
that she infers from them that a water is spoken of, after using
which thirst shall no longer be felt. Analogous is the request
of the people, ch. vi. 84.
V. 16-18. Why did Jesus ¦vrish the husband also to be
called ? Shall we say, that he anticipated that he would prove
more intelligent? If we consider that, according to v. 18,
Jesus knew that it was not her husband, we will be led to the
view that he did so to afford an opportunity to the woman of
making a confession, -with the design of arousing in her a
feeling of guilt, which, when aroused, even in ruder natures,
calls forth soonest the desire and susceptibility for higher
truths, (Z^wingle, Calvin, Melancthon.) It nevertheless has
been obj ected by Strauss, that the procedure of our Lord seems
to fail of its aim; for the woman, v. 19, (as is assumed in
Strauss' exposition,) diverges from the ungrateful theme, and
instead of pursuing the contemplated aim further, Jesus enters
upon her question. This certainly seems to throw doubt upon
the -view mentioned, but what if Christ regarded the question of
such a character as that by its answer a yet higher aim might be
reached ? — as by it, indeed, the conversation was actually put
upon a spiritual basis. Besides, may we not say, that in the " all
things that ever I did," there lies a confession of guilt ? It may,
indeed, be understood as a mere exhibition of her astonishment
at Christ's prophetic endowment, yet the expression rather leads
to the supposition that a consciousness of her evil actions had
been aroused in the woman. In what, then, did her guilt con
sist ? It seems clear that xal vuv ov sxetz xzX. refers to an illicit
connection. But how is it with the five husbands, were they
separated because of her disorderly life? or were they also
paramours, as Chrysostom and Calvin suppose, (cf the exposi
tion which is given by Matthies, in his commentary on 1 Tim.
iii. 2.) The latter view is not favored by the expression, since
in that case it would rather be xal auzbz 8s ov vuv sxstz xzX.
Probably Grotius is right, in thinking that the woman herself
had deserted the first ones, (an abuse in opposition to the law,
which first spread itself in the later time,) and the sixth was
not her husband, because she was not legally divorced fi-om the
earlier ones. KaX&a, perhaps, ironical. 'AXvjdia as predicate
of zouzo, in the sense of the adverb, Winer, § xvii. 9. We

Christ among the Samaritans. 187
have here an instance of a prophetic knowledge of Christ,
which enters into details, somewhat like Mark xiv. 13. To
what extent we are to suppose in the Redeemer a prophetic
knowledge of this sort in regard to particulars, is difficult to
determine. V. 19, 20. That the woman makes such a sudden transition
to this remote subject, may be accounted for, as already re
marked, by her wish to avoid an unpleasant topic. It is possi
ble, however, that she was actually concerned to see a reliable
settlement of that mooted question on which the enmity of the
two nations rested. Gerizim, lying by the road and meeting the
eye, would the more readily prompt the query. The " fathers "
are the immediate ancestry back to the time of Nehemiah.
John Hyrcanus, about 129 B. C. had destroyed the temple, but
an altar had again been reared, and the Samaritans of the
present day stUl pray upon this mountain. (Robinson.)
V. 21, 22. While Christ maintained the law to the end of
his life, and enjoined obedience to the commands of the
scribes, (Matt, xxiii. 3,) his prophetic glance beheld in the
future the time when the spirit would throw off these fetters
and create a new form for itself Analogous with this is the
prohibition laid upon the Apostles of extending their opera
tions beyond Israel, (Matt. x. 5,) together with the prophecies
of the reception of the Gentiles, (see on x. 16.) The abroga
tion of the Jewish law is also intimated by the Synoptists,
Luke V. 86, seq. Mark ii. 28. It is surprising, to be sure, that
Jesus presents in explicit terms before this woman the highest
point of view, yet we must confess that the occasion offered by
this question was not less fitting than that given by the ques
tion of the scribes, Luke v. 33, and 'can it be properly said that
the position of those scribes was much higher than that of this
Samaritan woman ? Certainly the reply of our Lord at that
time must have sounded in their ears, as well as m those of the
Disciples, like words in an unknown tongue. Yet who would
deny that those very words, after they had long slumbered in
the souls of the hearers uncomprehended, may have become
things of life at a later epoch of development ? — Our Lord com
mences his discourse in an exceedingly solemn manner. By
the prefatory words: "believe me," the object is characterized
13*

138 Chap. IV.— v. 23-26.
as one in which the natural course of things would be in the
highest degree improbable and unexpected. Tip nazpl, Bengel :
familiarissime ad arcem fidei admittit mulierem, (he admits the
woman most familiarly to the citadel of the faith.) The God
whom the Samaritans worship is designated in the same way
as in Acts xvii. 23. The Samaritans acknowledged the Penta
teuch only, and as they were destitute of the Prophets and
Psalms, they wanted not only the complete development of
theological truth, but especially also the entire compass of the
Messianic prophecies. God was consequently for them in a
certain degree an unknown God, hence also the neut. 5, "a
Being whom ye know not." De Wette pronounces this exposi
tion "entirely false," and gives (as Bengel had already done,)
this sense, "ye worship, and thereby do ye know not what."
But how can this lie in the words ? — Under the :jp£7z, Jesus
embraces himself as well as the Jews — could he be man in
fact, without belonging to a distinct nationality 1 Ilpoaxuvetv
here with accus., subsequently, v. 23, with dative. Salvation
was to come from the lineage of David, and by consequence
from the Jews ; they could not, therefore, remain ¦without an
accurate knowledge of God. Christ speaks to foreigners in a
more exalted way of the national importance of the Jewish
people, than he does to that people itself.
V. 23, 24. As V. 21, 22, havg expressed negatively the
essence of the future worship of God, it is now expressed with
equal solemnity, in v. 23, 24, in a positive manner. This time
is yet future, but to the same extent to which the spiritual life
has already begun, (ch. v. 25,) the spiritual worship also has.
Dveupa, as what follows proves, presents itself as the leading idea.
Some take it objectively, as designating the Holy Spirit as the
elemental principle of worship, dX. then, according to some,
Christ, the absolute truth, (Athanasius, Ambrose, BasU, Ben
gel;) according to others, "spirit and truth,'' designates the
frame of mind in which the worship is offered, the spirit of
faith and prayer, and the uprightness of the intention, (Luther,
Melancthon, Bucer, Calvin.) But the axiom, v. 24, that the
mode of worship must correspond with the essence of God, as
also V. 21, 22, clearly shows that to the outer sanctuary the inner
sanctuary of the human spirit is opposed, as Augustine says :

Christ among the Samaritans. 139
In templo vis orare, in te ora, (you wish to pray in the temple,
pray in yourself.) So also Chrysostom. And yet more un
mistakably is this apprehension of it justified by dX-rjdsia pre
senting itself epexegetically, which just as strongly as in ch. i.
17, designates as the absolutely highest, this species of divine
worship, in antithesis to the Old Testament axtd, (shadow.) It
certainly seems now as though these words authorized a mysti
cism which rejects every species of outward worship. But we
are to distinguish between an external cultus, which has been
enjoined withthe design of a preparatory discipline to advance
men toward that which is internal, and train them for it, (such
a cultus is certainly superfluous in the measure to which Christ
is formed in believers,) and a cultus which can' only be
regarded as piety representing itself outwardly — and such a
cultus will not be wanting, even in the most spiritual Christian.
While the cultus of the former kind pertains to the legal point
of ¦view, the latter corresponds ¦with the spiritual point of view
of the New Testament, (2 Cor. iii. 6.)
V. 25, 26. The language of the woman shows, that foj
the time this word also of our Lord remained closed to her.
Nevertheless, the Redeemer had opened up a sublime religious
prospect in the future, on this she keeps her thought, and con
nects it ¦with the instruction which was to be obtained from
the Messiah. As the Samaritans acknowledged only the books
of Moses, they may perhaps have linked their Messianic ex
pectations with Deut. xviii. 18, in accordance with which they
would be obliged to regard the Messiah rather in the light of a
divinely illuminated teacher. He is, in fact, delineated more as
a prophet, than as a king, in the letters sent to England in 1718,
by the modern Samaritans, (Repert. fur bibl. u. morgenl. Lit-
teratur. B. ix. p. 28.)' As the Sa-viour but rarely discovers
himself in his Messianic character, (cf. John ix. 37, with Matt.
xvi. 20,) yet in this particular case has no scruple in doing so,
he acts, perhaps, ¦with a reference to this very disposition of
the Samaritans to intermingle less of political anticipation.
Lucke maintains that the form iym si pi is in classic style iiicon-
1 If we could regard the Carmina Samaritana, edited by Gesenius, Leipzig, 1824,
as expressing their ancient -views, they would argue in general for a spiritualistic
direction on the part of the Samaritans. But traces of Mohammedan speculation
and theosophy can be shown in these poems.

140 Chap. IV. — v. 27-37.
ceivable, and would derive it«from the Hebrew, although else
where he observes that it differs from Nin 'JX. But how could
"ich bin es," (I am he,) be expressed in Greek and Latin oth
erwise than by iym eipt, ego sum ?
V. 27-29. The Oriental contempt for woman appears vrith
special strength in the Rabbins ; the tract, Kidduschin, f 17,
says: "R. Samuel observes: No man salutes a woman," aud
tract. Sota, f 20 : "He who instructs his daughter in the law is
as one who plays the fool." — The reverential timidity of the
Disciples, mentioned in v. 27, furnishes a hint as to the relation
in which they stood to our Lord ; we see their consciousness
of their distance from him, (xxi. 12.) That the impression
made upon the woman was no ordinary one, may be seen in
the fact that she, in her zeal, forgot her occupation, as Jesus
in his had forgotten his need, and leaving her water-pot she
hastens to the city to associate others with herself in the bless
ing of which she had been made partaker. We see, too, what
part of the conversation had made the greatest impression upon
her, to wit : that this man had disclosed the course of her life.
That she still did not trust her own judgment as to his Mes
siahship, cannot seem strange, after that ignorance of divine
things which she had previously made so manifest.
V. 80-84. The act of going out is in v. 80 expressed in the
aorist; the act of coming, in the imperfect, as during the
coming the conversation which follows took place. The Disci
ples here display precisely the same incapacity of soaring from
the sensuous to the spiritual, which had been displayed by the
woman. Already, while in conversation with the Samaritan
woman, and yet more, when he beheld the Samaritans stream
ing forth from the city, the prophetic glance in the spirit df
the Redeemer opened upon the future .spiritual harvest among
this people. With this thought he strengthened his soul. It
now throws into the background his need of food, as it had
previously his need of water. — ^In Iva the final idea is adhered
to, in so far as it can express the striving to do the divine will,
but in the later Greek it undoubtedly is used as a mere cir
cumscription of the infinitive, as Origen also, has here zou zot-
^aae, see on i. 27.
V. 85. In the kingdom of nature there lies a great interval

Christ among the Samaritans. 141
between seed time and harvest. Christ's sowing, short as is
the time, commences already to ripen. T/iss'c Xsyeze, "Say
ye," points to a proverbial expression, so that the present tense
expresses the habit, (Matt. xvi. 2.) The proverb is usually re
garded as a comforting assurance for the waiting husbandman,
that the harvest is not far off; but on this view tho antithesis
is less clear, which, nevertheless, is strongly indicated by the
"behold." Maldonatus more correctly considers it a phrase
with which the farmer averse to labor comforts himself, like :
adhuc seges in herba est, (the crop is still in the blade ;) the
izt shows, too, that the interval is to be regarded as long. The
so-wing in Palestine went on from the beginning of November ;
the harvesting of the barley did not take place till in the
middle of April, consequently about four months lay between
seed time and harvest. As our Lord points them to the fields,
it is highly probable that it was just then seed tii^ne ; and we are
thus furnished with the date, to wit : that Jesus had remained
in Judea from April, when the Passover occurred, until in
November. "I say" forms the antithesis to "ye say." In a
spiritual sense, the seed fields are already ripe, for the Sichemites
are approaching through them.
V. 36, 37. Beyond doubt, the approaching Samaritans them
selves were, v. 35, already designated as a harvest; just as clearly
evident, however, is it from the words that follow, that the
Saviour regarded this harvest only as the beginning ; in rela
tion, consequently, to the far greater harvest which was close at
hand, and which was allotted to the Apostles, (cf. xiv. 12, xii. 24,)
he designates himself rather as the. sower. It is, indeed, in other
cases true, that higher joy is destined for the reaper than for
the sower, but not in this instance, for as the fruit falls to the
share of Christ himself, he shares in their joy as he had shared
in the labor with them, yea, preeminently for them had under
taken these labors, (v. 88.) "Iva designates the objective aim,
and consequently characterizes this result as designed of God.
Men are the grain ; eternal life, in which the redeemed are, as it
were, placed in security, the granary, (ch. xv. 16, Matt. xiii. 30,
Rom. i. 13.) The thought expands itself into a glance at the
relation of the entire operations of the Apostles to those of our
Lord ; in the entire work of the Apoatles his appearing and his

142 Chap. IV.— v. 38-45.
work in humanity were necessarily presupposed, (xiv. 12.) 'Ev
in V. 37, equivalent to "in," as ix. 30, "in this department of
the spiritual harvest." Abyoz denotes proverb; among the
Greeks, also, we have the same one which is mentioned here,
dXXoi psv aneipbua', dXXoi 8'al) dp-fjaovzat : " Some sow, others again
reap." — The article before dXrjdivbz presents a difficulty, and as
in C6d. G K L it is probable that on account of this very dif
ficulty it is omitted, we must seek an explanation of it. If it
is a predicate, we must translate : " here is that proverb true,
that is, verifies itself." If it is adjective, we must interpret it:
"here that true proverb is in place," (2 Peter ii. 22.) In both
cases dXrjd-tvb^ appears to be used for dXr^dijz, as in xix. 35, yet it
may be made a question whether the Evangelist did not per
haps mean to say : " here only, that is under these circumstances
of a spiritual nature, that proverb verifies itself in the highest
sense," (Olshausen.)
V. 38. The Saviour regards the. impression which would be
left among this people by his meeting the Samaritans, as the
basis of their subsequent conversion and introduction into the
Church. From Acts viii. 14, their willingness appears to have
been unusually great, and as it ^as John who was deputed to
go from Jerusalem to them, we can the more readily under
stand that this expression of our Lord had in his eyes a special
importance. The use of the plural dXXot creates some surprise,
but is sufficiently explained by the reference to the preceding
proverb. V. 39^2. We witness here among the people an extraor
dinary impulse toward faith, and a readiness for it, by which
the strong and joyous hopes previously expressed by the
Saviour are justified. It is worthy of notice, that no miracle
on the part of Christ is "mentioned, that on the contrary the
mere word leads them to recognize in him the Redeemer;
XaXia is perhaps -with design employed instead of Xbyoz — (though
Beza contends for the contrary,) as Cal-vin says: "videntur
jactare, sibi solidius jam esse fundamentum, quam in lingua
mulieris, quae ut plurimum futilis esse solet," (they seem to
glory that they have now a firmer basis than a woman's
tongue, which is usuaUy very unreliable.) In the expression
b amzYjp zou xbapou, "the Sa-viour of the world," is signified the

Second Miracle of Christ in Galilee. 143
univei-sality of the Messiah's destination. That the people
actually employed this expression, cannot be maintained posi
tively ; nevertheless, this very destination of a universal char
acter was, on the ground of the Old Testament prophecies,
acknowledged by every pious Israelite, (Luke u. 32.)
The mythical exposition which in this narrative is a complete
failure, was dropped by Strauss in his third edition, (in the
fourth taken up again !) The delineation of the woman's char
acter is in fact so individualizing, her various expressions which
are detailed are so consonant with her character, that they alone
are enough to induce us to the recognition of a historical
fact. As regards, however, the remarks made by Jesus in this
conversation, the scruple may be raised against their historical
truth : first, that the Disciples were not present when they were
uttered ; in the next place, that the woman had not the capacity
to repeat words which she did not at all understand ; and finally,
that there appears no motive why Christ should repeat them
to his Disciples. In spite of this difficulty, even De Wette
acknowledges features of psychological truthfulness, and that
very declaration of Christ, whose meaning must have been
most inaccessible to the woman, v. 21-23, he declares to be
"indubitably genuine." We suggest the question, whether v.
27, which implies a desire on the part of the Disciples to know
what had passed in the conversation, does not give support to
the opinion that Jesus himself made the communication to his
Disciples ? As the woman had narrated to her countrymen the
part of the conversation which was most striking and intelligi
ble to her, as this very communication, moreover, had produced
a great impression upon them, (v. 29, 39,) the desire of the
Disciples must have been increased the more, and there seems
accordingly to have been a sufficient motive for Christ's repeat
ing what had passed.
Second Miracle of Christ in Galilee. — v. 43-54.
V. 43-45. The sentiment which in Luke iv. 24, Matt. xiii.
57, was expressed by the Saviour, with special reference to
Nazareth, rests upon an observation of the fact, that men ai-e
altogether disinclined to acknowledge anything extraordinaiy

144 Chap. IV.— v. 43-63.
in those whose devolopmeot in tlie iiiita'-al wnj- t!. -e
witnessed, and whom they have been jiccustomed to v '' as
equals. While, however, the observatiDU of this i... .i;dt
have deterred Jesus from returning to Galilee, it is. ii<n-er-
thele.'^.s, as it seems, adduced as a reason for his returi'. 'I'he
foUo-wiug may be specially mentioned as u isatisfactorj expedi
ents of the older writers to get rid of the difficult}-: First,
Ilazpiz is taken as native town, so that the meaning i.-^ : " he
went to Galilee, to wit: to Oana, (v. 46,) but not to Nazai-eth,
for a prophet, &c." — (Cyrill, Calvin, Beza, Piscator, Grotius,
Olshausen.) Second, Ilazpiz is Judea, where Jesus was born,
(Origen, Maldonatus, Lucke, 2d ed., Ebrard, Kritik d. ev.
Gesch. i. 350.) Amid the many exceptions to which these, in
common with each and all the expedients resorted to, were
open, arose even a doubt whether these words could have pro
ceeded from John. Strauss, in the extremest perplexity, has
advanced the assertion, that the anonymous \Evangelist having
learned something by hearsay of Christ having expressed such
a sentiment, has here at random inserted it, "in such a way, to
be sure, as to show that he could have no definite idea in his
mind." To impute a proceeding so perfectly senseless to an
author whose taste and talent are conceded by Strauss himself,
was certainly a conclusion too monstrous. Schweizer thinks that
Judea is here presupposed as the no.zpiz, "country " of Jesus;
but this is so different from the genuine John, that it would give
some justification to the idea that the paragraph which follows
is a Galilean interpolation in the Gospel of John. According to
Bauer, also, the Evangelist considers Judea as the "country" —
but only "from an esthetic mode of viewing history, according
to which Judea alone was worthy to be regarded as the native
country of Jesus." A solution has, however, been suggested by
Neander, against which neither Strauss (3d ed., retracted iu the
4tli ed.) nor Schweizer knows what objection to urge. Neander's
view is, tbat iu v. 44 it is assigned as a reason for the return of
Jesus, that the Galileans had become more inclined to faith,
through the miracles which had been witnessed in Jerusalem,
a view which goes on the presumption that Jesus during his
abode in Galilee, mentioned ii. 12, had performed no miracle.
The Evangelist in this case certainly expresses his meaning.

Second Miracle of Christ in Galilee. 145
very obscurely; the objection, too, may be urged, as Bauer has
done, that according to iv. 12, the return to Galilee seems
to have been brought about by the danger which threatened
him in Judea. A solution was first given by myself in the
fifth edition of this Commentary, which has since, -with some
modifications, been adopted by De Wette and Lucke. In
Greek, ydp, whether used as argumentative or as explanatory,
sometimes precedes the sentence wJiich contains the argument
or explanation, (Hartung, Patikellehre, i. p. 467.) If we now
translate ydp, "namely, to wit," v. 44 then serves to indicate
why the EvangeUst attributes the faith of the Galileans to
their ha'ving seen the miracles performed in Jerusalem, namely,
to show that this readiness was not in contradiction with the
earlier words of Christ. 'Epapzuprjaev is to be taken as plu
perfect; auzbz shows that this observation was not a merely
derisive one made by others.
V. 46-53. Those who had been at the feast had extended
the fame of Jesus so widely, that a certain functionary of the
king's court, or military officer, (for the word ^aaiXixbz can
mean either,) was induced to seek his aid. This man appears
to have been one of the officers of Herod Antipas, and was
either a Jew or a proselyte to Judaism. The words addressed
to him, as the man already possesses a degree of faith, seem the
more harsh, as Jesus in the case of a man hitherto unknown to
him, could not well utter the reproach of want of faith in his
words, as he does in the case of the Jews, (x. 38.) But as the
faith of this man rested merely upon hearsay in regard to, the
miraculous works of Jesus, it was naturally weak, and it was
not a reUgious want, but simple necessity, which had led him
to Jesus; that faith in the proper sense was a result of the
miracle, is shown by v. 53. Our Lord consequently reproaches
him, that he had been led to como to him, not by the need
of the heart, but by the need of a miracle. The words of
reproof looked Uke putting him off; the man, therefore, begs
that Jesus would not interpose a longer and critical delay.
Yet more wonderfully than the suppliant anticipated, did the
miraculous power of our Lord display itself; Jesus performs
the cure by a power operating at the distance between Cana
and Capernaum ; cf. on miracles of this class, Krabbe, Leben
14

146 Chap. IV.— v. 54.
Jesu, p. 285, seq. In this very way, however, a severer test of
the father's faith was made. He endures the test, goes his way,
and the rejoicing servants, unable to wait for the time of
his arrival, announce to him what has occurred, and in'the very
same words in which it has been foretold by the Lord. The
question of the father, v. 52, proves that he was concerned
not merely about the result of the curing, but also about the
confirmation of his faith in Jesus. The fact, also, that he leads
his family to acknowledge the Lord, speaks for the liveliness
of the impression he had received. — Impartial critics Uke
Lucke and Neander have acknowledged that this narrative is
not identical -with the one in Matt. -viii. 5, and Luke vii. 2, as
Strauss, Weiss, Gfrorer, have recently maintained, and that it is
not, appears especially from this, that in Matt. (¦viii. 10, 11,) and
Luke, the centurion is designated as a model of faith, while on
the contrary, the royal officer here is represented as one whose
faith is weak. Nor would John have been likely to narrate
this particular miracle, with which no discourses are Unked, had
it been identical ¦with one already familiar from the tradition.
V. 54. * ndXiv Seuzspov is meant to refer adjectively to arjpsiov,
(xxi. 16.) According to the explicit observation in ii. 11, the
meaning of the Evangelist must be, that this is the second
miracle in Galilee, which harmonizes with the presupposition
which V. 45 presents, that during his first appearance in
Galilee no other miracle than the one in Cana was performed.
The Evangelist, moreover, regards it as worthy of note, that
this Galilean miracle also occurred, in Cana. That meaning
is, indeed, not clearly expressed ; by forcing the words the
meaning may be put upon them, that Jesus designed to make
Galilee alone the theatre of his miracles. Induced by his
interest in making out this narrative to be a Galilean interpo
lation, Schweizer has actually maintained this.

CHAPTER V.

The Healing of the Sick Man at the Pool of Bbthesda
ON THE Sabbath. — v. 1-15.
V. 1. While in John pezd zouzo marks the immediate
consecution of events, pezd zauza links together facts more
remote from each other in point of time, (Lucke.) The weight
of testimony for the reading kopzi] ¦without an article is deci
sive, (Griesbach, Lachmann.) Were the article genuine, we
would be compelled to regard the chief festival, that is the
Passover, as the one meant. If it is not genuine, the Passover
may be meant, but so also may some other feast. As, namely,
the genitive ziav 'Iou8aemv is already sufficiently definitive, the
article may be dispensed -vrith before iopzij, (Winer, p. 118 ;) it
is wanting even without such a genitive in Matt, xxvii. 15,
Mark xv. 6, where, nevertheless, the Passover is meant. If the
Evangelist here means the Passover, then four Passovers are
mentioned by him, (ii. 13, v. 1, ¦vi. 4, xiii. 1,) and the time of
Christ's ministry is made to extend over more than three years.
The majority of expositors think the Passover is meant, thus
Irenseus, [Eusebius,] Luther, Scaliger, Grotius, Lightfoot, [Heng
stenberg.] Against this view, however, the foUovring difficulties
may be urged : 1) that then too contracted a range of events
falls between the two Passovers, ch. v. 1 and ¦vi. 4 ; 2) that as
Jesus, when the Passover mentioned, ¦vi. 4, was observed, did
not go to the feast, and not till he again, ch. ¦vii., goes to the
feast of Tabernacles, a year and a half would have elapsed
¦without his appearing at the feast, a thing hardly to be
supposed, (Hug.) Hardly to be supposed — and yet it is not
impossible, see on vi. 4, and vii. 1, 2. The first argument
would have weight only in case the Evangelist had intended to
(147)

]48 Chap. V.— v. 2-4.
give a full biography. As Christ returned to Galilee at the
beginning of the winter, the supposition is most natural that
this feast was the Passover which occurred the following
spring. Since Kepler, the feast of Purim is the one which haa
been specially advocated, (Hug, Meyer, Olshausen, Neander.')
But the positive arguments of Hug will not stand the proof, and
against this view are these facts : 1) that this feast falls a month
before the Passover, and it is not probable that Jesus, if he
attended the Passover mentioned, vi. 4, then returned to Galilee ;
or if he did not attend it, that he neglected the leading festival,
and repaired to a feast not established in the Old Testament,
but only in the ordinance of the later Judaism. It is true, the
reply may be made, that he attended the feast of Dedication,
chap. X. 22, which was not required by the law ; but it is to be
observed that he was on that occasion already in Jerusalem,
and did not go there for the purpose of attending that feast ;
2) as the feast of Purim was not necessarily kept in the
capital, but could be observed any where, there would seem to
be so much the less motive for a journey to this feast. The
supposition that it was the feast of Pentecost, (Cyrill, Chrysos
tom, Erasmus, Bengel,) or the feast of Tabernacles, (Cocceius,)
is irreconcilable with the date which iv. 35 furnishes, since
the former occurs fifty days after Easter, and the latter in
autumn. V. 2. A learned dissertation on this passage by Joh. Conr
Hottinger, may be found in the Thesaurus Novus Philol. et
Theol. T. ii. p. 476. The Evangelist says " now there is," from
which the inference might be drawn that Jerusalem was stand
ing when he wrote, (thus Bengel ;) the explanation, however,
is that this pool remained after the destruction of the city, in
fact it was still pointed out in the time of TertuUian and even
of Eusebius.^ IluX-rj is to be supplied after npo^aztxfj, Nehem.
iii. 1, 32, xii. 39. ^HintXeyopsv/j, for which Cod. D reads
X.eyopivT], indicates an additional name, and such the word
Bethesda shows itself according to its meaning ^^OU* A.^
» Neander feels that every thing else favors the supposition that it was the Pass
over, and is led to the supposition that it was the feast of Purim only by the want
of the article, (Leben Jesu, 3d ed. p. 434 ; Tr. 217.)
2 Might not the present, perhaps, be used simply for the vividness with which the
object is present to the mind's eye? of. 1 Johniv. 17.

The Healing at the Pool of Bethesda. 149
(Syr.) "house of mercy, place of grace." By porches we ara
not to understand mere colonnades open at the sides, but along
the one side might run a wall, as was the case with the porch
(notxiXij,) at Athens ; we may either suppose them to have beep
covered rows of columns inclosing the pooi, in the form of a
pentagon, and giving shelter to the sick, or possibly in accord
ance with the later usage of'azod, suppose them to have been
bathing houses close by the pool. The identity with the an
cient Bethesda, of the deep reservoir in Jerusalem, which in our
day bears the name of Bethesda or sheep-pool, Robinson re
gards as improbable, and is more inclined to find it in the inter
mitting Fountain of the Virgin, on the south-eastern slope of
the Temple Mount, (Palastina, B. 2, p. 136, seq. 158, seq.; Bib-
Ucal Researches, (1856,) vol. i. 293-, 380.) From v. 7, and the
close of V. 3, it appears that this spring probably was gaseous,
and bubbled at intervals ; nothing is said to show whether xazd
xatpbv refers to regular periods. There is a gaseous spring
of, this kind in Kissingen, for example, which after a rush
ing sound about the same time every day commences to bubble,
and is most efficacious at the very time the gas is making its
escape. Eusebius, in his Onomasticon, ed. Bonfrere, p. 41,
mentions that in his time two pools by the name of Bethesda
were pointed out, the water of one of which at times became
red in a singular way ; this would indicate mineral properties.
V. 3, 4. Not merely persons afflicted with diseases of the
lighter sort, but even the blind were found there — among the
blind, however, are to be included the various classes of suffer
ers vrith ophthalmic diseases ; the gas spring at Kissingen, of
which we have just spoken, is especially used in diseases of the
eye. Among the "withered" we are to comprehend the par
alytic, a class to which, indeed, the sick man whom Jesus cured
belonged, for paralysis is sometimes produced by extraordinary
debilitation of the muscles, that is by a dwindling of them.
Cod. B & C* omit v. 4 and the close of v. 3 ; some Coptic
MSS. also, and Nonnus, Cod. C, and some of the less important
MSS. omit V. 4. Most of the Minuscc. mark it with aste
risks, that is, with the sign of its being suspicious, or with the
obelus, the sign of spuriousness ; the last words of v. 3, ix8sx-
— xivTjatv, are wanting in A. L. 18. On the other hand, this
14*

150 Chap. V. — v. 5-13.
passage is found in the ancient Vulgate and Peschito versions,
and so early as TertuUian. In recent times, Bretschneider in his
Probabilia, and Bauer, in order to help out the position that
the Gospel is spurious, have been decidedly for the genuine
ness of this passage, and De Wette has been inclined to the
same view; since Mill, the other expositors have decided
for the spuriousness of it. Notwithstanding the antiquity
of the witnesses which accredit the passage, we must adopt
the latter view, particularly when regard is had to the numer
ous variations in those which have the passage, and to the fact
that no reason for the omission can be given, (compare what
Lucke, 3d ed. urges against De Wette and Bauer.) As Ter
tuUian, Chrysostom, and others, find a symbol of the baptismal
water 'in this water so wonderfully impregnated ¦vrith divine
power, a dogmatic interest would rather have led to the reten
tion than to the exclusion of the passage; we think, therefore,
that the addition originated ¦with some reader in Palestine, who
held the opinion that angels preside over the particular pow
ers of nature. The idea of angel, and the modern idea of
power, run into each other in the Old Testament, for originaUy,
^k'2d is an abstract form, legatio, a beaming forth of God ; cf. Rev.
xvi. 5.
V. 5. Luther and, most others unite ^x^lv iv zJj dadeveiq.
equivalent to dadevcuz exstv, ".who had been sick thirty-eight
years," to which De Wette objects, that then the part, prses.
iX^ov would not be proper. But the participle present stands
with the perfect, when the action is considered as continuing,
(Buttman, 15th ed. p. 433; 18th ed. translated by Edward
Robinson, p. 400.) The interpretation of De Wette, is however,
certainly admissible : " wh.o had passed eight and thirty years.
in the sickness," {that sickness;) the article "the" (that) car
ries in it a reference to the diseases mentioned in v. 3.
V. 6, 7. IIoXuv xpbvov ixei cannot, according to the usage of
the language, refer to the age of the man, but refers to the
time' spent in a certain condition, either in sickness or in lying
there. Moved with compassion, Christ asks him whether he
wishes to be healed, a question designed either to arouse and
thereby fix the attention of the sick man, perhaps of the by-
Btanders also, or designed also to mediate the healing efficacy

The Healing at the Pool of Bethesda. 151
of Jesus ; cf. Mark x. 51. Among the curiosities of interpre
tation, that of Dr. Paulus deserves mention, which supposes
the man to have been a beggar too lazy to work, to whom
Jesus says : Are you really willing to be cured ?
V. 8, 9. The miraculous character of the cure is made
more apparent by the ability of the cripple at once to carry his
couch vrith him. In order to make the reader feel more viv
idly the greatness of the miracle, the result is related by the
EvangeUst in the very same words which Jesus had employed.
It wag this carrying of the couch, too, which furnished the
occasion for the charge of a breach of the Sabbath.
Against the internal probability of the whole narrative, Bauer
has urged ¦vrith great assurance a series of difficulties, in which
he had been preceded by Bretschneider, in his Probabilia, in
fact by the audacious Woolston. One of these is so startling
as to deserve ^ome notice. It is asked, whether it is credible
that no one should, for so long a time, have exercised compas
sion, and put the man into the water ; whether, in fact, the man
must not have had persons to carry him daily to the place, and
who might, consequently, have helped him into the water ? K
the text asserted that for thirty-eight years he had found no such
helping hand, the whole matter would certainly be rendered
incredible. This is not said in the text, however, and many
circumstances suggest themselves by which the difficulty is
relieved. We are not told how long the sick man had been in
the habit of lying near the pool, and whether he did so daily,
nor whether the fountain gushed up daily, or only after long
intervals; it is not necessary to suppose that he was always
carried, for according to v. 7, he could move himself Was this
perhaps a place where those who went to the temple were in
the habit of giving alms, so that for this reason many sick per
sons staid there ? &c.
V. 10-18. The Gemara forbids healing on the Sabbath,
except where life is in peril, (Matt. xii. 11, 12,) much more the
carrying of a bed. By " the Jews " it would seem (v. 15, 33,)
we are to understand members of the Sanhedrim, those who
had just ¦witnessed the healing and heard the ¦yrords of Jesus.
The answer of the sick man who had been healed, v. 11, shows
that he recognized in the worker of the miracle a prophet ; he

152 Chap. V.— v. 14-20.
attaches more importance to his word than to tiiat of the
rulers. In the cases of healing narrated in the synoptical
Gospels, Jesus frequently ¦withdraws from the multitude or
forbids the making known of what he has done. Were the
Disciples of Jesus perhaps not present, so that the man healed
could obtain no account from them in regard to Christ's
person, or was it that Christ withdrew himself so quickly from
his eyes ? ^
V. 14, 15. As the man who had been healed repairs to the
temple, we may conclude that his soul was under religious
impulse ; it is possible that the warning of Jesus had in view
some definite moral delinquency of the man, from which his
disease had proceeded as a natural result, (Luke v. 20 ;) as, how
ever, all sickness and all evil has for its object the " chastening"
of man, the warning of the Saviour can be explained without
that assumption. From what has preceded, it is to be inferred
that the man who had been healed did not make mention of
Jesus' name to the authorities with a bad motive ; he only
desired to show them the obedience which was due them,
(Bengel,) and perhaps indulged the hope of making a better
impression upon them (Euthymius, Calvin, Bucer,) thereby.
Vindication of Jesus in regard to the Cure on the
Sabbath.— V. 16-30.
V. 16-18. In consequence of this, the members of the
Sanhedrim again appear upon , the stage, to caU Jesus to
account. The observance of the Sabbath was grounded upon
God's resting on the seventh day, by which, however, was only
meant that God ceased to create any thing new. With pro
found truth the Sa-riour now points to the fact, that therein
is involved no cessation of activity, (Psalm cxlvii. 8,) which
daily, and consequently on the Sabbath too, is renewed. As
Christ, elsewhere in John, in what he does exhibits himself as
the mirror of the Father, so he does here. Although in the
Old Testament, in some few passages, God is designated as the
father of the people, it was an unusual thing for an indi-ridual
Israelite to employ this name; wherever Christ uses it, he-
alludes to a special relation to the Father, Luke ii. 49, Matt

Vindication of Jesus. 163
xviii. 35, hence the charge of blasphemy which the Jews
briug. On 'e8eoz, cf Rom. viii. 32.
V. 19, 20. As in the discourses of Christ recorded by John,
it is usual with our Saviour to confirm what has given offense
to those who opposed him, and then to state it still more
strongly, (viii. 58, x. 32, seq.) so is it here. Luther says: "An
admirable apology, which makes the matter worse." What
he affirms of himself, v. 17, in a single respect, in v. 19 he
maintains of himself in all respects ; confirms if, v. 20, by the
thought that the bond of love between the Father and Son 'is
the ground of the continued communication, and strengthens it
by the prospect that this connection with the Father would be
made manifest by yet higher operations than the healing which
just occurred, (Zwingle.) It is to be observed here (see i. 51,
iii. 13,) how much the thought is accommodated to the sphere
of the image, the sphere of the figure. In the words, "of
himself," De Wette finds "an obscure, partial reference to
the human in the incarnate Logos, for inasmuch as the Sou
unites in himself divinity and humanity, his bent and will are
also divine, and the antithesis ' of himself ' with God, cannot
take place." But as the term " Son " designates the human
individual absolutely united with God, so is there a possibility,
though purely an abstract one, that this individual will may de
tach itself from its basis and oppose it ; comp. rii. 17. The " can
do nothing " is a moral inability based in the vrill of the Son.
Bengel : hoc glorias est, non imperfectionis, " this is a feature
of glory, not of imperfection." Touzmv, "those," v. 20, refers
to the cure which Christ had just wrought under the impulse
and after the likeness of the Father- It may be doubted (see
Beza,) whether tva is not merely ecbatic, Rev. xiii. 3, (see
Tholuck on Romans iii. 19,) yet certainly its use as telic cau
also be justified.
From the separate manifestations of miraculous power, the
discourse leads to the great and peculiar work of Christ, the
quickening anew of man, with wbich the judgment is to be
regarded as eonneeted, (v. 21-23.) This internal requickening,
which is the communication of an eternal life, has already
commence^ (v. 24-27.) Its full realization wUl accompany
the resurrection and the final judgment attending it, (v. 28,

154 Chap. V.— v. 20-25.
29.)i Either because it was thought incongruous that two
operations so diverse as bodily and spiritual quickening, should
be immediately connected vrith one another, or because no
meaning could be derived from the proposition in regard to
Christ as the raiser of the dead, the majority have interpreted
the whole passage of the resurrection of the body only, (Beza,
Bucer, Storr, Schott, Kauffer, de bjblica ^mrjc aimviou notione,
Dresd. 1838,)'' or only of the spiritual . moral resurrection,
(Eckermann, Amnion, Eichhorn ;)' on the other hand, the best
expositors, Lucke, Neander, Olshausen, De Wette, have re
turned to the view of Augustine, Calvin, Hunnius and Calovius,
that both references are to be retained. Olshausen has, how
ever, on this point, a -riew peculiar to himself, inasmuch as he
refers verse 25 to the so-called resurrection of the righteous,
to the raising of the bodies of those who have heard the word
of God and attained to regeneration, so that not until v. -28,
29, does the discourse turn upon the general resurrection. — Not
merely in this passage, but in Paul also, surprise may be excited
by the close connection and reciprocal dependence in which the
bodily and the spiritual resurrection are placed. The question
hinges upon the idea which we form of the resurrection of the
body ; were it a purely outward occurrence in the way in which
the words of v. 28 depict it, the bond of union between the
spiritual and the physical resurrection could here be sought
only in the creative omnipotence; but starting from the declara
tion, Rom. viii. 10, 11, which on this point is of such weight,
the new investiture -with the body is to be regarded as the
ultimate point of the working of the principle of redemption.
As the soul in the formation of the embryo is the "prius" of
it and its shaping principle, thus the spirit of man fiUed by
1 In the Freiburger Zeitschr. fur Theologie, 2 B. 2 H. there is a treatise, in
its essential features worthy bf commendation, directed more immediately against
Gfrorer, by Maier, entitled: " Exegetico-dogmatic development of the New Testa
ment conceptions fui?, dvaaraaig, Kpiai^." In regard to the biblical doctrine of the
^uri, the treatise of Mau: "on death the wages of sin," 1841, is worthy of special
note, particularly the second part, which treats of life.
» The words " and now is," this view supposes to be uttered with reference to
Lazarus, &o. See the refutation in Frommann, 1. c. p. 639, and Lucke 8d ed
» On the opposite side, of. Suskind "on the expressions of Jesus, in which he
attributes to himself the resurrection of the dead," in the Maeazin fur Doem u.
Moral St. 10. *

Vindication of Jesus. 155
Christ forms its new externality. If this view be correct, and this
is no place to argue it, the transition from the spiritual to the
physical resurrection, and such passages, also, as vi. 39, 44, are
still more satisfactorily explained. It is true it must then be
conceded, that in vss. 28, 29 the figurative character predomi
nates in the very strongest manner. Yet it does not answer
altogether to take the literal meaning, since a hearing of the
voice of the Son of man is something which cannot, in the
proper sense, be ascribed to the dust which is lying in the
graves ; cf on v. 20.
V. 21-28 express also, in general, the thought, that in
Christ is the quickening principle, the negative side of which is
designated by the " raiseth up," the positive by the " quicken-
eth." "Whom he will "gives prominence to the perfection
of the power, which, however, in the Son as in the Father, is
rational and conformed to law, so that it would be but a fur
ther explication of the sense to interpret : " and this takes
place according to definite laws." This now finds its elucida--
tion in what immediately follows, in regard to " the judgment,"
for a judgment -without a rational rule would be inconceivable ;
it is, however, here and in v. 27, regarded as the higher thing.
in its relation to the resurrection, for the quickening is but ono
of the acts embraced under the judicial functions. And when
it is denied that the Father judges, it is done in the same way
in which, v. 19 and vii. 17, it is denied that the Son can do any
thing of himself — to -wit : in isolation from the Father, (cf v.
30.) It imports that the entire activity of God for the human
race reveals itself alone through the mediation of the Son.
.From such a unity of power must result an equal recognition
of the Father and of the Son on the part of men. What is
-withheld from the Son, is therewith withheld from the Father
also, cf John xiv, 6, 1 John ii. 23. The older expositors
found a difficulty in the designation, " which hath sent him,"
as if in this connection it expressed too little; cf. however,
what is said on ch. iii. 34.
V. 24, 25. After a repetition of the thought, (iv. 14, iu. 36,)
that by means of faith the principle of a life is received, which
cannot be interrupted by death, -with a solemn asseveration the
assurance is given, that in this sense the new quickening haa

156 Chap. V. — v. 26, 2i.
begun. The " condemnation " is here, as in v. 29, the antithe
sis to the true life, ex notione adjuncta, consequently xpiveiv is
equivalent to xazaxpiveiv. That immediately after death the
believer participates in the absolute blessedness, (of heaven,)
cannot therefore be deduced from these words, but only this,
that he is sure of "everlasting life." The older expositors
observe that the "passing unto life " is only a present thing to
faith, (Zwingle, Beza, Maldonatus ;) the more recent, as Calvin
had already done, suppose that it already has begun in reality,
(Heb. vi. 5 ;) the latter view certainly is found in 1 John iii.
14, but the former is also correct, insomuch as the absolute
realization of " everlasting life " pertains to the world to come,
(see on iii. 36 ;) as too, the " coming into condemnation" is also
regarded as future. " The voice," in v. 25, is certainly not
equivalent to "my word," in v. 24 ; it is the resurrection call as
in V. 28, but this latter can also be regarded as spiritual. Those
are spoken of who by inward sympathy prove themselves
Jesus' "own sheep," (x. 3, 14.)
V. 26. As in xi. 25, xiv. 6, vi. 57, xiv. 19, Christ designates
Lis own person as the bearer of life. The first question to be
asked is, whether the Father and Son are equal as regards the
possession of life Or as regards the mode of its causation. As
"baring anything in one's self" usually precludes the causality
of another, the proposition is almost universally taken in the
latter sense, (Euthymius, nvjyd^st, "he is the fountain;" Bucer,
¦ritam a nuUo alio pendentem, " a life dependent on no other
person;") and the only difference in the ¦riews is as to whether
the words refer to the Son as Logos, (i. 4,) (Augustine, Am
brose,) or in his human nature, (Athanasius, Cyrill, Calvin,
Beza, Lampe.) The latter question must be decided in favor
of the last named view, or at least in conflict wit\x the opposite
¦view, forthe term "Son" never designates the Logos in the
abstract, (see on i. 18.) And as regards the meaning of the
phrase: "to have life in himself," the interpretation : "he is
himself the principle of life," is favored not so much by ch. x.
18, to which Lampe refers, as by the analogies of iv. 14, vii.
38^, where it is said of believers even, that the life received
from Christ becomes an independent principle in them. This
th«aght, too, suits the connection, for a prerogative of the Son

Vindication op Jsstis. 157
is to be expressed, which is stated yet more strongly in v. 27.
Thus the meaning is presented: "The Son is able to con
summate this qiiickening process, inasmuch as he, thongh
conditioned by the absolute causality of the Patker, is the
self-dependent principle of a creative-spiritual Ufe." Neither,
however, is the other interpretatioti to be i'ej ected, according
to which Christ ascribes to himself a possession of life co
extensive witii that of the Father. This view is favored byi
the usage of the Evangelist, in which iv kauzip is connected
with ex^iv to indicate an imillanent spiritual possession, ch. v.
42, -vi. 53, 1 John iii. 15^ v. 18. Cf the Dissertation by
Marck in Exercitationes Scripturarum ad loca N. T. n. xii.
V. 27. Here, as in v. 22, the power to execute "judgment"
is exhibited as the higher idea, under which falls also the im
partation of life. The clause with oze, in which the reason is
stated, deserves consideration. It is first of all to be observed,
that the omission of the article before ulbz dvdpmnou, decides
nothing as to its meaning, as that term, like xupeoz and ulbz dsou,'
has become a fixed designation; the article is also omitted
before 6edz t?ioo. Matt. xiv. 38, xxvii. 43, Luke i. 35, John xix. 7.
This causal connectioii will be differehtly understood, as difer-
ent views are held as to the tneaning of 6ibz d. as a predicate of
Christ, (see on i. 62.) If we hold that it means "Messiah," we
interpret thus : " because the judgment is an essential part of the
Messiah's office," as also it is ascribed in that case to the Messiah,
Dan. vii. 12^ 13, (Wolf, Lucke, Kuinolj) whilst Grotius, Lampe,
give prominence to the idea "because he humbled himself to
become incarnate," in accordance with Philip, ii. 9. As iu
Hebrews ii. 17, 18, the necessity of having a merciful high-
priest is assigfled as the reason for the incarnation, several
have supposed that here also, where the Judge is spoken of, we
are to interpret in sleeordance with' that passage : " because the
incarnate Messiah will judge men most mildly," (Wetstein,
Scholten,) — and this is the view even of sueh expositors as
explain ulbz dvd-p. ofthe ideal man, (Olshafisen, 3d ed., Neander.)
This would certainly be then a strong accommodation, of the
same kind as the childlike artless expressions in ch. xiv. 16,
which against such opposers would be so little in place that we
might rather ¦vrith Swingle say : " He gives prominence to his
15

158 Chap. V.— v. 28-32.
humanity, that they might be reminded that he who was then
speaking with them would one day be their judge." The
views just mentioned (with the exception of the very first,) all
presuppose that directly or indirectly there Ues in the term a
reference to the incarnation. We have already, on i. 52, ex
pressed our concurrence in this view, and would with De Wette,
with a reference to v. 22, interpret : " because the entire activity
of the Father is mediated through the incarnate Logos."
V. 28, 29. A looldng forth into the future still further, in
which the words " and now is " are not repeated. The res
toration of life to the body is one day to take place, in virtue
of the immanent principle of the new life which proceeds from
Christ ; this thought is expressed in the form of an image in
prevalent use, a form which is the less to be urged, since else
where another mode of presenting the same idea is employed,
1 Cor. XV. 52, 53, 2 Cor. v. 4. The image which " ithe voice "
conveys, is expressed in a manner yet more marked by the
"trumpet," 1 Cor. xv. 52, which sounds for the decampment —
the, intimation, consequently, of a grand catastrophe. The
deciding principle is not faith, as might be anticipated, but
works, in the same way, however, as in Matt. xxv. 35. From
the doctrinal point of riew, what Bucer says is correct:
Quisque, ut est, ita et operatur, opera de animo testantur, (" as
a man is, so he acts, works are the witness of the soul.")
Viewed, however, from the position of historical exegesis, it
must be added, that the eschatology especially is presented by
our Redeemer himself more after the Jewish mode of contem
plating it, (Luke xri.) and that the general idea of future retri
bution is expressed under various images, which the Apostles
then explain in a concrete manner. The genitives ^w^z and
xpiaemz express what is closely connected ¦with the dvaazaatz and
is the sequel of it. If in (^m-^ there lay simply the idea of durar
tion, the force of xpiatz would be that of annihUation ; as, how
ever, !^m-^ ex adjuncto ' designates that which corresponds -with
the true idea of life, and consequently, happy Ufe, (the true life on
its subjective side, as it enters into self consciousness,) the idea
1 When Mau, 1. c. says, that in using fu^ oWviof, the vita beata is so far from
being a notio secundaria, that on the contrary, the idea of life would be but an
imperfect one without this notio, he is correct as regards the Neia Testament idea of
Con-

Unbelief of the Jews reproved. 159
of the xpiatz is that of misery, 2 Maccab. vii. 9, aimvtoz dva^iwaez
^mrjz, "everlasting (resurrection of) life," and in the same
chapter, v. 14, dvdazaaez eiz C,<^o-rjv, "resurrection to life." As
only at this dvdazaaez a higher perfection is attained, it is
called by way of preeminence ^ dvaazaatz, (the resurrection,) and
in Philip, ni. 10, 11, cf Luke xiv. 14, appears as something
given by divine mercy. There is no other passage except Acts
xxiv. 15, in which the "resurrection" of the "unjust" is
spoken of; cf Tholuck, Komment. zu Hebr. ri. 2. (Comraent.
on Ep. to Hebrews, transl. by J. Hamilton, vol. i, p. 246.) The
" unjust " are indeed already in this world devoid of the " life,"
but it is brought to perception only in a negative way ; the
judgment consists in the perception of this want, as an antith
eses to that which should be. Herein, first of all, is grounded
the distinction between the "judgment" in this world, and
that in the world to come ; vrith the internal discordance will
then also harmonize the external.
V. 30. The aim of the discourse to this point has been to
give prominence to the superhuman powers of the Son, and as
Christ throughout John, gives prominence to the thought, that
in all that he does the Father is the ultimate cause, that conse
quently, whatever he affirms of himself serves only to glorify
the Father, so here he returns to the thought that even in
those greatest works the Father is the ultimate cause.
The Unbelief of the Jews reproved. — v. 81-47.
V. 31, 82. Although the following discourse treats of a
different subject, yet a transition is observable. It lies in v.
30, in his effort to repudiate all self-glorification ; with this
design our Lord places himself on the same point of view as
that of his opposers, who must have been disposed to apply the
principle of the ciril law to the testimony of the religious self-
consciousness. In a happy accommodation to this notion, (which
is, however, something more than mere accommodation, see for
example ch. xvi. 32,) he shows that in a certain measure he is
prepared to satisfy this demand, although on the other side,
when his opposers raise the objection in their own person, he
rejects it as invalid, (viii. 14 ;) nevertheless, in that very passage

160 Chap. V. — v. 33-88.
he afterward condescends to the same accommodation, (viii. 16,
18.) Already in accordance with the analogy of the passage
just quoted, the inclination would be felt to understand by the
" other witness," the Father, (Cyrill, Augustine, Bengel.) Chry
sostom aj.d De Wette prefer, however, here also to understand
the allusion as made to the Baptist; the latter writer urging
this reason, that otherwise the train of thought would be in
terrupted by the testimony of the Baptist, when on the con
trary we would anticipate an advance from the lower to the
higher; the words too, "and I know, &c." applied to the
Father, would be insipid. On the other hand, this powerful
expression of self- witness, (in ch. viii.) resembling the one in
•rii. 29, argues for the reference to the Father, (iii. 11.) With
entire propriety could Christ still further increase the weight
of this testimony of the Father, by a juxtaposition of it with
that of the Baptist.
V. 33-35. They had themselves desired a testimony, for they
had taken the Baptist for the Messiah, and on that account
interrogated him ; he had only borne a witness of the truth in
favor of the truth, (dative commodi.) The Saviour gives him
self a place above all prophets, inasmuch as he declines human
testimony ; Bengel : Ego, quicquid sum, id sum citra humane
auctoritatis beneficium, " whatever I may be, I am such without
the aid of human authority." As, however, there was a divine
testimony iu that of the Baptist, Olshausen thinks that Christ
declines that testimony only so far as it is to be' considered
human. He naturally declines it in that sense in which it had
been desired by the Jews ; they had sent to John as to a
prophet. Christ, nevertheless, for the benefit of the people,
wished to mention this testimony. That this testimony ac
tually might have produced great blessings, the words that
follow attest. — "He was" impUes that the Baptist had already
left the stage. The article before Xuxvoz, according to Bengel,
has reference to Ecclesiasticus xlviu. 1, where it is said of Eli
jah, with whose character the appearing of John corresponded :
" Then stood up Elias the prophet as fire, and his word burned
like a lamp." But the expression in that passage does not
correspond accurately enough with the one in this, nor was it
sufficiently known to justify us in expecting any such referenc«

Unbelief of the Jews reproved. 161
to it. Liicke, however, starts the question : " Whether from
similar descriptions of EUas, a characteristic expression like
the on« before us may not have been formed with appUcation
to John, to which Christ here refers ?" De Wette, however,
interprets it : " He was the burning light, that light, namely,
which should have guided you in the way," The '* burning"
refers not to tiie ardent zeal, but designates that condition of
ignition whose result is the " shining," (Luke xii. 35.) diXeev,
not merely "ye were willing," but "it pleased you," (Mark ix.
18, xii. 38.) The emphasis lies not merely on " for a season,"
but also on "to rejoice." The preacher of repentance should
have aroused earnest resolutions ; but men sought him from
mere curiosity, (Matt. xi. 7.) It is a question to what th.e
words "for a season" refer; we suppose it to allude to the
fact, that the throng about John gradually diminished, espe
cially alter he had directed attention to Jesus ; cf. Mark ix. 18.
V. 36-38, The discourse returns to what had been said in v.
32. In the comparative peil^m too 'Imdvvou, " greater than— ^of
John," is a breviloquence for t<Sv epyeov zou '/, ^'the works of
John," as is common in Greek and Hebrew, (Matt. v. 20.) Chap.
X. 25, likevrise designates the "works " of Christ as the "wit
ness " ofthe Father, Do the " woitfks" embrace the entire sphere
of the Messiah's activity, and consequently comprehend his
teaching and his life so as to correspond to the collective zb
ipyov, xrii. 4 ? (Stark in the first Excursus to his Paraphr. et
CommentaiT. in Evang. Idhan. eliap. 13-17, Jena, 1819 ; Schott
Opuscul. i. p. 216. Lucke, De Wette.) Or are only the miracles
meant, as also Olshausen recently, appeaUng to x. 25, xxxU.
38, xiv. 11, maintains ? The 20th verse already establishes the
first view, as does xiv. 11. The whole work of Christ is accord
ingly, to the soul that is illumined, a witness that he is from
God. In V. 20 he has declared that the greatest works are yet
to come, yet there is in the present already a testimony. The
ix<i> is not emphatic, and is wanting in Cod. A B D L. —
Great difficulty is connected vrith the decision of the question,
whether the witness of the Father, v. 37, is different from that
furnished in the works, and how many -witnesses consequently
are mentioned altogether. Luther and Chemnitz designate as
the first witness, v. 36, the Baptist ; as the second, v. 86, the
15*

162 Chap. V.— v. 36-40.
works ; as the third, v. 39, the Scriptures ; as the fourth, v. 45,
Moses. Augustine, Hilary, Maldonatus, Grotius, acknowledge
only a two-fold witness, the one in the works, the other in the
Scriptures. We first ask, whether the witness, v. 37, is to be
regarded as distinct from that in the works ? To this is opposed,
that the sentence then seems superfluous, and by the words,
"which the Father hath given me," the very same thought has
been sufficiently expressed, that moreover the abzbq appears to
designate a direct witness in distinction from the Spya ; perhaps,
too, it is in point to direct attention to the perfect tense
pepapzuprjxsv, while previously papzupsi had been used. But in
what, then, consists this direct testimony ? According to Cyrill,
Theophylact, Calrin, Cocceius, it is the vritness of the prophets,
so that V. 39 is a further expansion of the thought, and the inter
mediate words, according to Calrin, are to be taken thus : " Ye
are blind to all the dirine forms of revelation, and have not
received his word in you." According to Chrysostom, Lampe,
Bengel, the allusion is to the direct testimony of God at the
baptism and transfiguration of Jesus: "Ye have heard and
seen voices and shapes in which the Father m.a^e himself
kno-wn to you, and have not considered, nor have ye at all the
word of Scripture in your heart." Lucke (3d ed.) and De
Wette regard the word of God as the direct testimony. " For
none of the modes of divine revelation have ye the tone of
mind, although in my work ye might, as it were, hear God and
see him, (Lucke compares xiv. 9,) and ye have not appropriated
the direct witness of God in his word." Yet De Wette hesi
tates very much whether the preference is not to be given to
the view of Olshausen, which is, that the ¦witness is not that of
Scripture, but of the direct operation of the Spirit of God in
man, {^. 45, 1 John i. 10.) " Neither your internal ear, nor
your internal eye is opened to God ; ye can have no internal
theophanies, as the prophets had, neither have you in you, in
an internal manner, that light of God which iUumines aU
men." First of aU, we must declare ourselves as opposed to
the view that the voice and form of God at Christ's baptism
are meant. The expression ei8oz abzou would be inappropri
ate ; it is, on the whole, a matter of doubt whether spectators
were present at the baptism ; the nmnozs would, on that view,

Unbelief of the Jews reproved. 163
be used without any motive. But in addition, we cannot bring
ourselves to view ipmvfj and sldoz in the way assigned as a des
ignation (Crell says "proverbial,") of internal revelation; we
believe that then neither the perfects nor the nmnozs would
have been used ; cf the perf. in iii. 18, Rom. ix. 19. We must
therefore take "voice" and "shape" as the designation of sen
sible revelations of God, as Neander: "It is an unheard of
thing, that the voice of God should be sensibly perceived, or
his shape sensibly seen." That the fleshly mind of the Jews
actually longed for this sort of revelation, is evident from John
xiv. 8 ; the Sariour does not here mean to deny the theophanies,
but simply to show what they really are — ^manifestations,
which are not coincident with the reality. For the reasons
assigned, we cannot, however, agree with Neander, when by
the witness of the Father he understands that which is given
in the works, (Leben Jesu, 3d ed. p. 440. 4th ed. Transl. by
M'Clintock and Blumenthal, p. 221,) but we foUow those inter
preters who regard it as the testimony given in the divine word,
yet so, however, that in accordance ¦with the ¦riew peculiar to
John's Gospel, it is regarded as a thing which has already
passed over into subjectivity, as 1 John i. 10 (cf. with v. 8,)
indisputably shows. We accordingly paraphrase the passage
thus: "But the Father has also given a direct witness in
regard to me. Think not in this of palpable testimony, such
is not furnished, and ye have never received such, neither have
ye embraced his word in your heart, otherwise ye must have felt
yourselves impelled to faith in him whom he has sent." It is
true that on this supposition the syntactical construction does
not correspond with precision to the thought, for we would
expect zbv 8s Xbyov abzou 8uvaads ex^iv iv bpiv, but syntactical
defects of this kind are frequent in John, thus, (v. 43,) vii. 18,
viii. 28, xiv. 10, xvi. 10, 1 John i. 6, 7 ; especially is xvi. 10 to
be compared.
V. 39, 40. 'Epeuvaze, according to Cyrill, Erasmus, Beza,
and most interpreters, is in the indicative ; according to Chry
sostom, Augustine, Calrin, in the imperative. A positive
decision for either view cannot be derived from the words;
either interpretation is consistent with the sense we give ; but
ipeuvdv in the indicative means " to indulge in subtle inquiries.

164 Chap. V.— v. 41-47.
to analyze by the letter," (according to Josephus, De Bello
Judaic, ii. chap. ¦riii. § 14, Antiq. xvii. 2, 4, the Pharisees boasted
pezd dxpt^eiaz i^7jys7adai zd vbptpa, " of the exact skill they had
in interpreting the law," but how zanstv&z (humbly) they pro
ceeded in it, we may gather from the keen reproach of Justin
Ma,rtyr, Dial. c. Try. who says, they searched out trifles, zd 8k
peydXa xal d^ia ^¦rjz-^paza pijnoze zoXp&ae Xsyetv pin8s i^T^yeiadae,
" but they neither dared to speak of nor to investigate great
and important questions.") Christ says, 8oxstze, "ye think,"
because the sense in which they supposed they possessed eter
nal life in the Scriptures, was a perverted one ; they strove after
a dead vrisdom of the letter, cf. Romans ii. 18-21, and in the
Talmud. Tr. Pirke Aboth : n";in na-i i'? njip Nan uhSy ".n 'h njip.
" He possesses eternal life who comes to the possession of the
words of the law." Compare also, "in whom ye trust," v. 45.
If our views be cori'ect, that the word of God, v. 88, is to be
regarded as that which has passed over into the subjecti^rity, it
follows that by the witness of the Holy Scriptures we are to
understand not merely detached prophecies, but the whole spirit
of the Old Testament, which passing over into the indiridual
must beget a longing after Christ. That Christ reproves their
want of solicitude in regard to religion, is shown by the words,
"that ye might have life." With this corresponds the charge
in V. 42, that they were destitute of the love of God, so too,
¦rii. 17. The xai in v. 40 is both adversative and copulative,
"and yet."
V. 41-44. They had been reproached because they had not
the word of God living within them ; this is expressed in other
words, when it is denied that they have love to God. It is
also, however, made conspicuous in their selflsh ambition, in
which especially their alienation from God displayed itself
The older Commentators lose here the thread of the closer con
nection of ideas. We would state it thus : " The real ground
of your not coming to me is, that you do not understand my
appearing. I am free from all selfishness, but I perceive of you
that ye have no such love of God in you. As only like is
drawn by Uke, ye have not received me ; when, on the contrary,
others come in their own interest, ye will receive them.
Where there is a selfish striving after personal honor, and not

Unbelief of the Jews reproved. 165
the pure love of God, faith is impossible." A similar train of
thought is found in vU. 16-19. Ab^a in v. 41-44, vii. 18, viii.
60, Bretschneider translates "applause;" in this sense 8b^a
¦dsou is also used in the writings of the Apostolic Fathers, and it
runs indeed into the other, cf. however, viii. 50, 54. To the striv
ing after human glory is opposed the love of God, for this, as v.
44 points out, involves the striving after glory with God. The
foretelling of false Messiahs, corresponding with Matt. xxiv. 23,
seq. is deserving of remark. In the course of history, sixty-
four of these haye appeared ; a Bar Cochba found twenty-
four thousaud adherents. It shows a profound insight into the
human heart, when the Sariour deduces the adhesion to false
Messiahs from the fact that affinity begets sympathy, when he
considers the striving after human glory as the chief cause of
unbelief, as following this language of his the Evangelist also
does in xii. 48. — The adjective pbvou is used as an adverb.
V. 45-47. As in v. 88, vii. 17, 19, Christ points out that
the genuine spirit of the Old Testament must also lead to faith
in his person. Kaztjyopsiv is to be taken ideally, like xpiveiv in
Matt. xii. 41, 42. K the spirit and the word of Moses lead to
Christ, the unbelieving are already judged by Moses. On
eypaipev the commentators refer to the different Mosaic prophe
cies, especially to Deuteron. xriii. 18. But the train of thought
in our passage leads us to take it in a universal sense, by rirtue
of which Bengel adds to eypaipev a "nusquam non," "he
writes everywhere." If v. 46 is interpreted in accordance with
V. 38, 39, our Saviour means to say, that a love of God such as
the law requires would recognize an affinity in Christ, and
would feel itself drawn to him ; Bengel : Fide explicita opus
erat, "an explicit faith was needed." There is certainly, how
ever, no necessity for interpreting v. 43 in such strict connec
tion with 88, 39. Christ may have had in his eye the indirect
and typical prophecies of Moses, as well as the direct ones.
It is conceded by Strauss, that the matter of this Discourse
is in keeping vrith the character of Christ, as we learn it from
the other Evangelists, and vrith the attendant circumstances;
but the form and style become for this very reason the more
suspicious, as they have the very closest analogy with the First
Epistle of John and with those parts of the Gospel in which the
M

166 Chap. V.— v. 47.
author speaks, (Leb. Jes. 8d. ed. § 80 ; 4th ed. § 81.) Weisse's
theory is, that we are to regard as an original element all which
,has affinity to the discourses in the Synoptists, but that even this
has been expanded in a theoretical form by the author of this'
Gospel ; according to Bauer, the discourse is a pure invention.
Adhering to what we have said in the introdudtion to this
Commentary, we do not contend for the verbal accuracy of the
details, but nevertheless would remark, that since the Evange
list, xii. 43, adopts the words used by Jesus in this chapter, it
shows that elsewhere, where John's own phraseology corres
ponds with that in the discourses of Christ which he reports,
we may be allowed to believe that he has adopted Christ's
modes of expression.

CHAPTER VI,

The Miracle of the Feeding. — v. 1-13.
As the EvangeUst here, deviating from his general rule,
narrates a miracle which the other Evangelists have related, we'
may find the occasion for it in his design of reporting the dis
courses connected with it. (So already Calvin.) He advances
in mediam rem, for the return of our Lord from Jerusalem to
Galilee is not mentioned. If the festival, ch. v. 1, is the Pass
over, there lies (as v. 4 of this chapter speaks again of a Pass:
over,) the interval of a whole year between chapters v. and vi.
According to the account of Mark vi. 30, seq. Luke ix. 10, seq.
the Disciples had returned to Christ from their first missionary
journey ; scarcely could they give an account to Jesus of what
they had experienced, for the throng of people increased so
greatly that they could not find time even to eat. Hereupon,
our Lord retires into solitude with them, to the eastern side of
the sea, according to Luke ix. 10, to Bethsaida Julias. The
people, however, followed him on foot, attracted bythe heal
ing of the sick, and in v. 4 there lies, perhaps, the intimation
(cf. obv, V. 5,) that the crowd of people had been still further
swelled from the caravans of tiavelers on their way to the feast.
The discourse's bf our Lord chain the attention of the people,
the third hour has arrived, (Matt. xiv. 16,) the villages that lie
around are too remote for food to be bought. The Saviour
under these circumstances performs one of those miracles in
which he displays his tender philanthropy.
V. 1-4. Two names are given this sea, probably for the
benefit of the Greek reader. It is singular that John (cf. v.
15,) uses the indefinite to dpoz, which we find in Matt. v. 1,
Luke ix. 28, Mark iii. 13. I have in my Commentary on the
(167)

168 Chap. VL— v. 5-13.
Sermon onthe Mount, thrown out on Matt. v. 1 the conjecture,
that ro opoz, as in Hebrew and in the Septuagint, is used for
)J dpeivrj, (see Ebrard, Kritik d. Ev. Gesch. i. §. 71,) for the sea
of Tiberias lies in a hollow surrounded by hills, from which
the traveler must ascend at either side to get into the country.
My conjecture is confirmed by what Robinson says, iii. part, 2
abth. p. 499: (BibUcal Researches Ui. 253, (1856,) n. 499.)
" The lake presents indeed a beautiful sheet of limpid water, in
a deep depressed basin, from which the shores rise in general
steeply and continuously all around. The hills are round and
tame." — It would not be safe to draw the inference from v. 4,
that Christ did not go to this feast ; see, however, the remarks on
ch. vii. 1, 2.
V. 5-9. Criticism has expressed itself in the strongest
terms in regard to the improbability that Christ, on seeing such
a crowd, should at once have been struck with the idea of feed
ing them. Even if we had not the accounts of the first three
Evangelists, (of this miracle,) an impartial critic, in view of
the way in which the Evangelists narrate other occurrences,
would feel obliged to admit that in every case much may have
preceded, which the Evangelist John, restricting himself to
certain topics, omits as he hurries to his theme. But it appears
also from Matt. xiv. 15, seq. that the people had been vrith
Christ a considerable time ; that they had been instructed, and
their sick had been healed, and that the Disciples had com
menced to draw the attention of our Lord to the need of food
for the people.^ Matthew agrees, too, with John in the state
ment that Jesus, first of all, asked th« Disciples to provide
food. That Philip was specially addressed, is accounted for by
Bengel, on the supposition that the arrangements of domestic
matters had been committed to him, and by Chrysostom and
Theodore of Mopsuestia, by supposing him specially weak in that
faith which soars above the external, (xiv. 8.) The nsipd^eiv
"proving" referred not to the question, whether the Disciple had
the faith of miracles, but Christ would test how he would relieve
himself from the difficulty. He immediately makes an accu-
1 Ebrard, l..c. I. 477, supposes that Jesus ascended the mountain, after perform
ing the cures mentioned in v. 2, and it was when the people instead of dispersing,
streamed thither, that he thought of feeding thera.

The Miracle of the Feeding. 169
rate computation ; the sum of two hundred denarii, equivalent
to eighty florins,' exceeds the amount of money they had in
common. As here, and so likewise in xii. 22, Andrew appears
in close relation to Philip. "Ev, if it be genuine, gives promi
nence to the fact, that there was only one boy. Barley bread
was the coarsest food. The Talmud. Tr. Pesachim. f 3.
" Jochanan said : The barley is fine. The answer was : Tell
that to the horses and asses." 'O^dptov, properly npoaipdyiov,
anything eaten with bread, but particularly, as Plutarch, Sym-
pos. iv. 4, already observes, fish, which were used by the poor
as a relish ; those here offered for sale were probably already
cooked. V. 10-13. There was grass in the place, for it was about
spring time. 'Avaninzetv and dvaxXlvsadai, to recline at table.
EbxaptazTJaaz, indeed, designates only the prayer before taking
food; but V. 23 shows incontestably, that the Evangelist saw
in this prayer the medium through which the miracle was
wrought. Luke (ix. 16,) has, " looking up to heaven he blessed
them," (the loaves and fishes,) cf John xi. 41. (On the contro
versy, whether the sbXoyia used 1 Cor. x. 16, in speaking of the
Lord's Supper, designates the blessing merely, cf Maldonatus
on Matt, xiv.) Atidmxe, according to Matthew, xiv. 19, includes
the assistance of the Disciples. These, after the conclusion of
the miracle, had to collect the fragments, and perhaps for the
very purpose of gi^ring more prominence to the miraculous
character of the transaction, (cf 2 Kings iv. 43.) The number of
the baskets corresponds ¦with that ofthe Apostles ; the fragments
of the fishes are, for reasons easily imagined, not mentioned
again, cf however, Mark vi. 43.
The natural occurrence to which Dr. Paulus, by the aid of
an artificial exegesis, would reduce this mira6le, (a hospitable
sharing with one another the prorisions brought with them, to
which they were induced by Christ's benevolent example,) is
still regarded by several of the most recent expositors as the
basis of tiie account, which, as is wont with a legend, took the
shape of a narrative of a miracle, and in this form was
delivered to the writers of the Gospels, (thus Gfrorer, Kern,
1 From thirty to thirty-four dollars, American currency. Tr.
16

170 Chap. VI.— v. 13-20.
Hase.) To hold this ¦riew would make it necessary to pre
suppose that the first two Gospels are not genuine, and that
the author of the fourth Gospel was accidentally absent from the
scene. If the latter -riew, (the twelve baskets may be borne in
mind,) Uke the former, is to be regarded as baseless and arbi
trary, neither legend nor myth (according to the canon recog
nized by Strauss, 4tii ed. i. p. 62,) can have any thing to do
vrith this case. Among those who recognize the historical
character of the narrative, Olshausen, as he has done with the
miracle of the water changed into wine, attempts by the
appUcation of the category of an accelerated process of nature
to this feeding, to bring it near to what ordinarily occurs, and
consequently near to our conception. In reply to this, Strauss
had also shown his abiUty to make tUe thing ridiculous, for he
.enumerates one after the other, first, the steps of the natural
process through which the seed matures to grain, then the
stages of the artificial process through which the miller and
baker carry the grain and the cook takes the fish to make them
fit tb be eaten, and then puts the question, whether it is suppos
able that Christ by the most rapid acceleration caused all these
processes to follow each other. On this point, however, it will
be enough to ^ive the remark of Krabbe: (Leben Jesu, p.
273,) "If we here see a manifestation of di^rine causality going
forth from Christ, the different human acts are not to be
brought into any sort of comparative reference. That which
human actirity produces in a succession of time, we grant to
the divine causality as a thing wrought at once in its totality."
Certainly, the formula of an accelerated process of nature may
be applied here, as the divine causality produces a similar result
in a natural way, (for example, the bread-fruit tree,) to that
which human art does in its way. It is, however, peculiar to this
miracle, that it is not merely the internal process which is with-
neld from view, but the external also. And not only is it diffi
cult to determine the outward how, whether, to ¦wit: as Hilary
already asks, the miracle occurs in the hand of Christ or of the
Apostles, (Chrysostom, Calvin,) or of the people, but \he what
also, that is, whether we are to suppose that the increase of the
loaves and fishes took place in their number or in their sub
stance. ' In regard to the former, the more obvious view, accord-

Christ walks upon the Sea. 171
ing to V. 11, Mark vi. 41, is, that the blessing and influence of
God, to which euXbyrjas, ebxapia-p^aaz refer, were manifested while
Christ held the food in his own hand, (cf. also, Mark viii. 19.)
Beyond that point, however, the process is withheld from our
conception, so that we must confess ourselves unable to solve
the questions which go further.
Christ walks upon the Sea. — v. 14-21.
V. 14, 15. The miracle at first makes such an overwhelm
ing impression upon the people, that they regard Christ as the
prophet promised in Deuteronomy xviii. 15. Under the do
minion of earthly expectations regarcUng the Messiah, they wish
now to take him (dpnd^sev,) with them to Jerusalem, in order
to make him a king, — a fact which makes it clear why Jesus
frequentiy prohibited persons from noising abroad his miracles.
When in Luke, immediately after the account of this miracle,
Jesus lays before his Disciples, in soUtude, the question, " Whom
say the people that I am?" i(Luke ix. 18,) it might seem as if
this stood in connection ¦with the fact mentioned by John, but
according to Matthew, Jesus did not dismiss the people until
the Disciples had departed by ship. According to Matthew and
Mark, moreover, Jesus after performing the miracle withdrew
to a mountain, to be alone with God. When in Matthew
he commands the Disciples to go before him unto the other
•side, while he sent the multitudes away, there lies in it an inti
mation that he would follow, and meet them in Capernaum.
John gives Capernaum as the point to which they crossed;
Mark says Bethsaida, the places lying close to each other;
Matthew says Gennesaret — the name of the entire region.
V. 16-20. ThB i3{5/a mentioned here, is the d(/fea deuzepa,
between seven and nine o'clock, cf. Matt. xiv. 15, with v. 23.
"Ep^etrdatf, according to the Greek and Hebrew usage, has
the sense, '" to go, to take a direction to a point ;" the imperfect
presents the action as in progress. The sea measured, aceord-
;ing to Josephus, at its greatest width, forty stadia, that is
about a Genmaai mile,' and could consequently be crossed in a
1 About fiye miles and three-qnacters, English. Tr.

172 Chap. VI.— v. 21.
short time ; but when tney were about the middle, (according
to Matthew,) a storm arose, which detained them till toward
morning, for when Jesus reached them, (Mark vi. 48,) about
the fourth watch of the night, which was reckoned from four to
six o'clock, they had just passed over two-thirds of it. When
they unexpectedly saw Jesus near the vessel, they were terrified
at his appearance, as if he had been a spirit.
V. 21. This passage, considered without reference to the
other Evangelists, seems to affirm that Jesus was not taken
into the vessel, because they were already so near the shore.
As according to the others, however, he was received, the ques
tion is raised, whether the two statements can be harmonized ?
Beza already remarks that d-eXsiv in the verb. fin. united with
tiie infinitive, imparts to it the idea of willingness, and accord
ingly translates : volente animo eum reciperunt, " they received
him with willingness." In the nature of the case, it was to be
expected that they would be represented as "willing," in con
trast with their previous fear, and certainly there is no philo
logical objection to this riew. See Buttman's Greek Gram
mar, 10th ed. p. 744 ; Sturz. Lexic. Xenoph. under the word
-dsXsiv; cf also, Ast on ^ouXeadae, in Plato, de Legibus. xii. 9 ;
Winer, 4th ed. p. 438. In John, too, ¦riii. 44, dsXeze has this
meaning, so also in Luke xx. 46, 1 Cor. x. 27 ; the actual per
formance of the action need not be mentioned, as the passage
last cited shows, (cf i. 43.) Kat before sudsmz does not express
antithesis, but introduces a new feature ; after sudimz, supply :
" After they had received him." If the ¦wind had subsided,
and but a third of the passage remained, it is e^rident that they
must soon have reached the land, and the sooner if the point
of landing was Bethsaida Julias, (Luke ix. 10,) for in that
case they had not the entire width of the sea to cross. ¦
The view which was maintained con amore in the days of
"enlightenment," (Lange, Stolz, Paulus,) that inl z^z d^aXdaa-rjz
meant by the sea, that Jesus went by land round the sea, and
thus appeared to them suddenly, is especially incapable of being
harmonized ¦with the account in Matthew, and has in general
been abandoned at the same time ¦vrith the explanation of the
miracles as natural events, although so far as the language is
concerned, it may at least be harmonized with the account in

Christ walks upon the Sea. 173
John, for ini with a genitive can in many cases be translated
"by," where the banks, especially of streams, are referred to,
which lie above the waters ; 2 Kings ii. 7, Septuagint, (inl zou
'lopSdvou,) Dan. viii. 2, John xxi. 1. Since rationalism has
abandoned this exposition, nothing, really, but the mythical
theory is left — ^but that a mere emanation of the fancy should
have obtained in both classes of the Gospels the very same
carefully designated historical position, does not seem . pro
bable even to those who are favorable to the myth ; Kern
persuades himself, therefore, that John only supposed that Jesus
walked upon the water ; Hase helps himself out by supposing
that John was accidentally absent ; De Wette (on Matt, xiv.)
stands perfectly at a loss. Some of the defenders of the mira
cle, Damascenus for example, supposed that the miracle was to
be explained as an influence exercised on the waters ; most,
however, as an operation, and that a transient one, on the
bodies, (for Peter is not to be left out of consideration.) Ols
hausen, on the other hand, foUowing the Valentinians, has
supposed a quality specially inherent in the Saviour's body:
"That a more exalted physical nature, teeming with the powers
o:^ a higher world, should rise above the earthly level, is less
surprising;" according to him, the process of glorification of
Christ's physical nature begins during his earthly Ufe. But
how are we to understand this ? If a diminution of the spe
cific gravity of Christ's body was a part of this process, so that
at last it became lighter than the air, does it not then seem to
be another miracle, that he could walk upon the earth ? This
riew applied to the earthly existence of the Saviour, leads, in
more respects than one, to strange results. In proof of the
power of the will to overcome the principle of gravitation, an
appeal has been made to our daily experience that the hand or
foot can be lifted by the mere exercise of the will, (Twesten,
Dogmatik, i. p. 880.) This theory assumes, that between Christ's
walking on the sea and the lifting of an arm, there is simply a
quantitive distinction ofthe will ; but the latter operation, in fact,
which is the result of muscular contraction, cannot be regarded
as annulling the law of graritation. Nothing analogous then
would remain except the fact, which Kieser and Kerner (die
Seherin v. Prevorst, i. p. 94. — Seeress of Prevorst,) assure us fre-
16*

174 Chap. VI. — V. 22-27.
quently occurred, that persons under the magnetic influence did
not sink in the water. But this would prove nothing, except that
in a sphere different from that occupied by the miracles of
Christ, things inexplicable like them occur. We ha^ve, therefore,
in this case also, to adhere to the oanon, which is applicable
to all Christ's miracles: that the will, whi'ch is in absolute unity
with the Ground of all the laws of nature, is likewise the Power
over all the particular laws of nature. — The teleological objec
tion is yet to be considered, that the miracle is aimless, and
appears merely as ixnXvjxztxbv, "astounding." To this may be
replied: Does not every action which establishes in the
Disciples a consciousness of Christ's unity in power 'with the
Father, (chap. xi. 22,) attain its moral end? Hess: "Thus did
he convert before them into a tiling of rision, that image under
which the devout olden time represented God : ' Who treadeth
on the waves of the sea as on dry land,' " (Job ix. 8.) Such
actions of the Saviour have besides, however, their subjective
reasons. In the present instance, the reason, according to Mark
Yi. 48, was that Christ from the mountain looked down upon the
peril to which his Disciples were exposed by the storm, and
hastened, consequently, to help them. The danger could have
been no ordinary one, for the Disciples, as we remarked
before, had been obliged to contend for six hours •with the
storm. The occasion for this miracle, consequently, offered
itself in an appeal to his compassionate love.
Discourse to the People in the Stna&ogue at Capernaum,
IN REGARD TO THE. TRUE BbeAD OF LiFE. — ^V. 22-59.
V. 22-24. There is no reason for thinking that every indi
vidual of the five thousand who had been fed, returned on the
following morning; but a part had assembled again, and others
probably united with them. As regards the construction, the
Cod. A D L have in v. 22, the reading eI8ov, and the struc
ture of the sentence is then regular; but v. 23 has pretty
clearly the character of a parenthesis, for which reason it is
preferable with Cod. B to read i8mv, so as to take v. 24 as an
interruption of the sentence commenced, which completed
would have been: "They concluded that Jesus had gone by

The True Bread of Life. 175
land to Capernaum, and hurried, therefore, to follow him in the
ships." The sense of 5ze nXoedpeov xzX. may then be this : "When
they saw that there was but one ship, that is, the one in which
the Disciples departed, and whicli had returned toward morn
ing, that consequently Jesus could not have followed them by
ship, (in whicli case, also, the one in which h-e went would have
returned,) and as they knew that, &c.'' This Was probably the
way it was understood by the glossarists, who interpolated in
V. 22 the words : ixeivo eiz o ivs^-^anv ol padifjzal auzoii ; thus
Meyer takes it. But the presumption tha/t the ships must
necessarily have returned, would have been too unwarranted.
Better, therefore : " As they knew that on the day before but
one vessel had been there, in which the Disciples alone left,
and now found that Jesus, too, was no longer there;" the
aorists l^v and auveta^Xd-s are consequently, in accordance vrith
the Grecism mentioned in i. 40, iv. 41, to be taken as pluperfect.
When Strauss speaks of a fleet as necessary to transport the
five thousand, he only displays his determination to fix impos
sibilities on the Evangelist. Who would think it even probable
that every man of that entire multitude returned, and that they
all, witUout exception, would determine to pass over ; besides,
if the nXoedpea embraced not merely skiffs, but trading ships
also, (zd nXo7a is substituted in the next verse for nXoedpea,) they
might hold a large numlrer.
V. 25. As the close of v. 24 already informed us, they had
the distinct object of finding Jesus, and they now found him at
the very place it would have been most natural to seek him —
in the synagogue. Here, too, whoever wishes to press the
letter, can bring out the contradiction, that according to this
verse tiiey met him by the sea-shore. Their question about the
time, involves the question as to the way in which Christ had
crossed over ; they assume that Jesus came by land. As the
confirmation of the miracle is presented in so incidental a
manner, it -is a proof tow little the Evangelist is disposed to
give it special prominence.
V. 26, 27. Just as in the case of Nicodemus, the answer of
Jesus is designed to meet the mental wants of the questioners ;
they occupy the lowest position, for they are merely concerned
about the temporal advantage of the miracle. The charge

176 Chap. VI.— v. 28-86.
seems to be contradicted by the readiness of the people to take
him as Messiah, but might not this enthusiasm quickly be
dissipated ? 'Epydrsadae, in the classic and Hellenistic ¦writers,
"to earn;" without longing on their part, this food could not
be obtained. Sippayi^eadat has the same meaning as in iii. 38.
V. 28, 29. The people have an indistinct perception that
the words of Jesus demand a performance of the works of the
law, works pleasing to God, (Jerem. xlviii. 10.) Christ opposes
to the many works that one which Paul especially designates
as the source of righteousness.
V. 80, 81. This demand of a new miracle, as if the feeding
of the five thousand had been wholly insignificant, is regarded
by Kern, Bauer and Weisse, as historically impossible; accord
ing to Schweizer, no part of the discourse had reference to the
preceding history of the feeding, which has been foisted in by
the Galilean diceuast. Already Bucer and Grotius remark,
that the speakers here can hardly be those who were witnesses
of that miracle. That in v. 24 the SxXoz (people) is regarded
as identical ¦with that of the previous day, cannot, in fact, be
urged against this explanation ; where is the warrant that no
other persons had joined them, and who expects of John such
a nice discrimination of the speakers ? But there is no neces
sity for resorting to this supposition, for what Lucke says is
certainly justified on psychological grounds, that: "The carnal
belief in miracles is insatiable, it craves miracle after miracle,"
and Grotius quotes the words : pezd z. 8baiv zdxtaza -yy^pdaxse
X'^P'Z, "After the gift, the thanks soon grow old." When
Jesus spoke, v. 27, of an enduring meat, might not these
words excite in the carnal multitude the hope of a new and yet
more marvelous supply of food ? Luther remarks, also, perhaps
with justice, that we may suppose them to have been irritated
by the reply of Jesus. This would explain the contemptuous
zi ipydc,-/), "what dost thou work," or it may have resulted also
from the selfish motive of urging Christ to do yet more. A
similar motive explains the selection of the expression, " bread
from heaven," Ps. Ixxriii. 24, to depreciate yet further the
earthly bread of which they had partaken. In Matt. xvi. 1,
we have the same view, that a brilliant miracle must be " from
heaven."

The true Bread of Life. 177
V. 32, 33. As elsewhere in the discourses of Chnst in John,
our Saviour adopts and confirms in a profounder sense the
words of his opponents, so here he styles his appearing on earth
a bread from heaven, for by it not merely nourishment in
general, but the true life, was imparted to mankind. As Moses
had not in the fullest sense given bread from heaven, there is a
total negation of his baring given it. Kaza^aivmv here and
in V. 50, stands in the participle present ; on the contrary, in v.
41, 51, it is in the participle aorist ; only in the latter case is
there a reference to the historical appearing in Christ of the
bread of heaven, here consequently the sense is : " That only de
serves the name ofthe bread of God which descends from heaven,
and has the power of imparting life to the whole world."
V. 34-86. The request in v. 34 recaUs to mind the very
similar one, iv.- 15. Bucer, Calvin, Maldonatus, who had
regarded those words (of the Samaritan woman,) as irony, fiud
also in these an expression of scorn. Luther supposes that
they had in their mind, food for the body. We suppose that
although they did not comprehend in its proper sense what
was promised by the Lord, they might, nevertheless, with a
dim presension of something exalted, ask of him a gift whose
promise was clothed ¦vrith such sublime predicates. Christ now
tells them who is the subject to which the category expressed
in V. 33 is applicable. As bread and water satisfy bodily need,
so he satisfies spiritual need, and adequately, too, so that in him
the satisfaction is absolute and there is no need of seeking any
other. The condition is, the coming to him — evidently, as the
connection shows, under the presupposition of need ; that this
coming designates faith, is shown by v. 36, 40, 47. In v. 36,
the first xai has created difficulty ; it is the result, in fact, of
an idiom peculiar to John. The Evangelist partly unites
adversative periods, where the Greek writers would use zs — 8s,
or xai — 8s, and coordinate periods also by the double xai, as in
vii. 28, ix. 37, xii. 28, xv. 24 ; see the remark on xvii. 25.
'^Opdv like dempetv, v. 40, 1 John iii. 6, referring to their per
ception of what he had done. Christ had not used precisely
this language, either to this Galilean multitude or the people
in general ; there is consequently here an inexactness, like tha<
in X. 26, XU. 34.

178 Chap. VI. — v. 37-50.
V. 37-40. The style here has a certain breadth. Luther
says : " John describes this sermon vrith great diligence and
pleasure." Why did they not believe? Because they were
destitute of the inward sense of want, and came to him out
wardly indeed, but not inwardly. This inward sense of want
is represented as the gift of the Father, (cf 8s8ozae, Matt. xix.
11,) is more particularly described, v. 44, 45, and afterward
especially in the prayer, ch. 17, is frequently made prominent.
The Son of God has appeared in order to satisfy the divinely
originated wants which lie in the very nature of man, aud acts
therefore in constant unity with the Father. Grotius supposes
that 8e8bvae is used here cum effectu aliquo, like xXyjzoi in Paul's
Epistles, but xvii. 12 shows that those committed to him by
the Father may yet be lost by their own fault. Christ com
prehends all his gifts in the one gift of true life, and casting
his glance, as it were, over the course of the development of
that life, points to its final aim, when the outward shall become
like the inward, cf. the remarks on ch. v. 21, seq.
V. 41, 42. Foyyu^m, according to the Greek usage, implies a
murmuring of disdain. The human birth of Christ seems to
exclude the supernatural origin, cf. on vii. 27.
V. 43-47. The point of our Saviour's reply is, that all dis
pute about his person is fruitless, until the internal sense of
want is experienced. In what this consists, we are told, v. 45, 46.
Luther: "You wish to subject me to measure and square, and
judge my word by your reason, but I say to you, that is not
the right way and path — you will not come to Him till the
Father opens to you his great mercy, and himself teaches
you that from his fatherly love he sent Christ into the world.
(For) the drawing is not as a hangman draws a thief to the
gallows, but it is a friendly alluring, and drawing to himself"
Ammonius : oux laze zb zuxbv )J siz ips neaziz, dXXd zrjz dvmdev
8etzai po-n^z, tva yvipz zd 5nsp vow. "Sianep i'i~; ip npozdysi b
nazYjp z. Xptazip z. dadeveiz dvdpmnouz. ("Faith in me is no
thing of chance, but there is need of an influence from above,
that you may know the things that pass understanding. The
Father conducts sick men to Christ, as to a physician.") — In a
free citation from the Old Testament, he shows by Isaiah liv.
13, that there is the promise of a time when all shall permit

The true Bread of Life. 179
themselves to be taught of the Father. This teaching of the
Father consists in an internal guidance to the Son, for, as
Schleiermacher expresses it, human nature is put to the Re
deemer. Didymus: "He therefore who hears xazd z. xotvdz
ivvolaz, according to the conception which men have in
common, and learns from the Father, cometh by faith to the
Lord." If the expression be not taken in a false sense, it
might be said that the Christian truth is an " engrafted word,"
(Jas. i. 21.) Theophylact observes that as the magnet does not
attract every thing, but only iron, so also to be attracted by
Christ, there must exist a certain frame of mind, (the feel
ing of what we should be, and are not.) There is a parallel,
therefore, in the thought, ch. viii. 47, x. 27, xviii. 37. Since
Christ speaks not merely of the teaching, but adds the pa-dmv,
it follows that men may act contrary to the voice of that inter
nal, need, as in the case of Judas, (xvii. 12.) Since Christ else
where imputes to himself also a hearing of the Father, (ch. v. 30,
viii. 40,) it is added by way of Umitation, that the hearing
which believers have is not like the hearing which the Son has ;
that the Son has in addition the vision of the Father, which
presupposes in his self-consciousness the unity with the Father,
(see on ch. i. 18.)' Hereupon the high importance of faith in
lum is again made prominent. — "EXxeiv, kXxuetv, different from
aupsev, is chosen with reference to the " come " which is used
tropically, and designates even in the Old Testament the
mighty internal and external operations by which God arouses
the attention of men to divine things, Jer. xxxi. 3, Song of
Sol. i. 4. In Paul's Epistles the external and internal activity
of the Father, by which he leads to the Son, is embraced in
the word xaXetv. The genitive deott with de8axzol designates
God as the emanating point of the teaching, cf. Matt. xxiv. 35,
1 Thess. iv. 9.
V. 48-50. Repetition of the thought in v. 32, 35. If the
antithesis adduced in e^ridence be taken in perfect strictness,
the inference from it is either that believers do not even
1 Colvin and Luther take it in a sense entirely different ; the Father never draws
apart from Ohrist, but only ,iD and through the preachiQg of Christ  How, more
over, Bauer can say that the original germ of this declaration is to be found ia
Matt. xi. 27, would be inteUigible, only in case it were there said: "No one knows
tho Son, but he to whom the Father -vnll reveal him," but it says just the reverse.

180 Chap. VL — v. 51-59.
physically die, or that all who are unbelievers are to expect
either in general no existence, or at least no full life after they
die. That thei former is not meant, is proven by xi. 25, and by
the dvaaz-jao) xzX, v. 54 ; the latter, consequently, is meant, as
then it foUows at once that nothing but faith in Christ can give
true life even in this world. That the hearers should have
connected this meaning with it at this time, is not, indeed, to
be expected. In order that he may take the Iva more strictly,
De Wette proposes to translate ouzoz, "of such a kind is the
bread, to wit : that it can impart immortality," but his view is
opposed to V. 33 ; Iva, consequently, is rather to be taken here
in accordance with the same usage by which it elsewhere stands
after the demonstrative, (Winer, p. 314. Tr. p. 257.)
V. 51-59. For the exposition of this passage, which from
its actual or supposed reference to the Lord's Supper has
occupied the attention of commentators to a large degree, cf.
the Zeitsch. of Heydenreich and Hiiffel, 2 B. 2 H. p. 239 ; the
very excellent observations of Kling, Stud. u. Krit. 1836, H. 1 ,;
F. E. MuUer, numne locus Io. vi. 51-58, idoneis argumentis
ad verum et proprium s. ccense usum trahi queat. 1839 ; Tisch-
endorf, de Christo pane ritse s. de loco Io. vi. 51-59, coense
s. potissimum ratione habita. 1839 ; the history- of the ancient
exposition is given by Lucke in the 2d Excursus, (left out in
the 3d edition ;) the modern views are to be found in Lindner,
die Lehre, &c. The doctrine of the Lord's Supper, p. 241, seq.
What is expressed antithetically in v. 50 is explained in v.
51 in a direct manner. Zmv is not precisely equivalent to
^monotdiv, it only expresses the possession of the life, v. 57, iv.
10. Kat — 8i designates a more detailed statement, as in John
i. 3, or a correction, as in xv. 27. Zwingle : Dixi diu me panem
esse vitse, sed nondum quo pacto id fiat, hoc iam aperiam,
"I long ago called myself the bread of life, but have not
defined the sense in which I am such ; this I will now explain."
"Hv iyd) 8mam is wanting in so many of the authorities, that
Lachmann omits it, but it can hardly be dispensed with
grammatically, (MuUer, Lucke.) The future already shows in
the first part, that not the appearing of Christ in human life
in itself, but the offering up of this Ufe for the world possesses
the nourishing power, as it is also expressed in chap. xi. 24.

The true Bread of Life. 181
Yet at the first 8mam, the question may arise, whether it applies
to the historical institutory act of this food which took place in
the expiatory death, or to the continued exhibition in the con
tinued appropriation of which v. 53 speaks, (thus Calvin takes
it.) The hearers see clearly that Christ cannot, in the literal
sense, give his " flesh " as food, and confer together, there
fore, with one another as to the real meaning of the word.
2dp^ cannot essentially differ from ij j/'o^iy, Matt. xx. 28, but
the preceding image of bread naturally led to the use in this
place of pdp^ instead of <poxj, (1 Pet. iii. 18, Eph. ii. 15.) As
Christ in his answer to the question of the Jews, now declares
that his flesh and blood must be partaken of and be in reality
food and drink, the habit of our Redeemer of giving promi
nence to the very tiding which has given offense to his hearers,
and of conflrming it, sometimes though not alw^s ¦with
"verily, verily," (v. 19, vi. 32, viii. 58, x. 1,) leads to the
presumption that the eating of his flesh is here to be taken in
a stricter sense than before. This would be the case, if Christ
had reference to the Lord's Supper. The usual objection, that
such a reference would at that time have been entirely unintel
ligible to his hearers, has no force, (see what we have said on
ii. 19 ;) on the other hand it serves to strengthen that view, and
to confute the latter, which assumes that there is a mere
repetition ofthe same thought here, that our Saviour no longer
speaks of his " flesh " merely, but of his " blood " also, that
the strong expression zpmyeiv (manducare) is used, and (a fact
on which Scheibel lays' all stress,) we have in v. 55, dXrjdmz.
This exposition, then, after Chrysostom, Cyrill, Ammonius, has
become the current one in the Catholic Church, (Cajetan,
Jansen, and some others deriating, however;) on the opposite,
the earlier Lutherans (probably from an apprehension that
otherwise they could not escape the doctrine of transubstantiar
tion,) would not concede that there was any reference to the
Lord's Supper ; in fact, Calixtus, who supposed that there was
such a reference, was on that very account charged by Calorius
¦vrith heresy. But in recent times. Dr. Scheibel, in sustaining
the Lutheran doctrine, has dwelt ¦vrith the greatest emphasis on
this passage, in his work : " The Lord's Supper. Breslau,
1823," and Olshausen and Kling have maintained, that if not
M 17

182 Chap. VI. — v. 59.
the rite, yet at least the idea from which has proceeded the
institution of the Supper, is here the subject of discourse, cf.
MuUer, 1. c. p. 89, seq. Bretschneider, Strauss and Bauer,
also think that a reference to the Sacrament is to be con
ceded, and with it, consequently, one proof more that the dis
course is not genuine; according to Hase, (Life of Jesus, 3d
ed. § 80,) this turn at least of the discourse belongs not to the
Redeemer, but to the doctrinal system of his Disciple.— We
proceed to weigh the conflicting exposition. The answer to a
misapprehension introduced by "verily, verily," is not always a
strengthened assertion, but sometimes a mere bringing out of
the thought previously expressed, as in ch. v. 19. In this place
it is a bringing out, and is a strengthening only so far as the
negative form of the proposition imparts to it the character of
reproof Several of the ancient Greek interpreters, Calvin, and
among modern •writers, Schulz,' and at an earlier date, Lucke,
discover in the words simply the declaration in a stronger form
that the earthly appearing of Christ must be received into inmost
union with the believer ; the discourse, says Clemens Alexandri
nus, is about the ivazepvi^eadat zbv Xpiazbv, (taking Christ into
the heart,) and Basil, Ep. 141, says : jJ adp^ xal zb aTpa zou Xpiazou,
ndaa abzou ¦j puaztxr] ini8vjpia, (the flesh and the blood of Christ,
his whole mystic sojourning.) According to Augustine on this
passage, it is the Church as Christ's body which imparts the
food and the drink ; Calovius designates Eph. iii. 17 as parallel.
In support of this may be adduced the fact, that v. 57, 58, cer
tainly revert to the thought in its more general form in v. 51.''
But it would be in conflict with the constant character of
Christ's replies in John, if this reply did not connect itself
with the sharper pointing of the thought at the close of v. 51.
It must consequently be said that Christ designates his propi-
atory death as a true food of believers, as is acknowledged by
Luther, Melancthon, Beza, Calovius, Grotius, and more recently
especially by Kuinol and Lindner, and afterward by De Wette,
1 D. Sohulz : Die Christi. Lehre vom h. Abendmahl nach dem Grund-text des N.
T. Leipzig, (1824,) 1831, Svo. Tr.
2 Augustine, who considered the Lord's Supper as an image of the mystical com
munion, directs attention to the difference, that the spiritual bread of which our text
speaks imparts salvation to all who partake of it, whUe the Lord's Supper is
received by some to condemnation, (1 Cor. xi. 29.)

The true Bread of Life. 183
Lucke, 8d ed., MuUer, p. 31, cf also, Sengler, fiber das Abend
mahl, p. 136, seq. Already in Augustine we find the remark,
(not indeed on this passage, but in his De doctrina Christi, 1.
iii. c. 16.) — ^Edere ejus carnem et bibere ejus sanguinem ....
figura est, praecipiens, passioni dominicge esse communicandum
et suaviter atque utiliter recondendum in memoria, quod pro
nobis caro ejus crucifixa et vulnerata sit ; (to eat his flesh and
drink his blood, is a figure teaching us that we are to have
communion in the passion bf our Lord, and are to treasure in
our memory sweetly and to our use, that for us his flesh was
crucified and wounded.) Luther : " Wherever Christ the Lord
is preached, that for our sins he gave his body to death, and
shed his blood for us, and I take it to my heart, believe it
firmly and cling to it, that is, to eat his body and drink his
blood. To eat, means in this place, to believe : he that believ
eth, also eats and drinks Christ." Melancthon : Ego hanc con-
cionem nee de ceremonia coense domini nee de manducatione
ceremoniaU intelligo, sed sicut supra Christus prsefatus est de
fide, qua credimus placatam esse iram dei morte filii, corpus
suum offerentis pro nobis et sanguinem suum fundentis — ita
csetera de eadem fide intelligo-. (I do not understand this
discourse as baring reference to the ceremony of the Lord's
Supper, or to ceremonial eating, but as the words of Christ
which preceded above were about faith, whereby we believe
that God's wrath was . propitiated by the death of his Son,
who offered his body and shed his blood for us — so I under
stand the other words of the same faith.) By this exposi
tion, too, the addition of the zb alpa is more satisfactorily
accounted for, since this, as the designation not merely of
a natural death, but of a supplicium, expresses elsewhere,
and especially in the institution of the Supper, the propiatory
death, (Beza.) The gradation now presents itself more clearly.
K the choice of the word adp^ before, was occasioned merely
Dy the trope of dpzoz, the addition of the alpa is made in order
to designate more properly and more nearly as a nourishment,
the bodily nature of the Son of man, which was made a sacri
fice, and the necessity of this participation is expressed in the
form of a threatening. As in this faith, faith in the propiti-
tion \\hich is in Christ has its point, it mediates preeminently

184 Chap. VI.— v. 59-62.
the communion -with him,, (v. 56,) and the life everlasting, (v.
54.) After this thought has been expressed, the more general
reference of the believer to Christ is made prominent from
V. 67.
We shall now reply to the arguments by which it is pro
posed to verify the position, that this discourse must be about
the Lord's Supper, and inquire, finally, if such be the case^
which of the three views expressed in the Confessions of the
three Churches, (Catholic, Lutheran, Reformed,) is most favored
by its language. 1) The expression zpmyeiv has no special
weight ; the word had lost the strict idea of manducare, as we
can see from John xiii. 18, Matt. xxiv. 38, Polybius, Fragm.
XXXU. 9, 9. The trope is scarcely stronger, when Wisdom,
Ecclesiasticus xxiv. 21, says of herself: ol iadiovzsz ps eze
nstvdaouat xal ol nivovzsz ps eze. Stipijaouae, (they that eat me,
shall yet be hungry, and they that drink me, shall yet be
thirsty,) cf Prov. ix. 2, 5, Eccles. xv. 3. 2) On the external
eridence, dXrjd-fjz, v. 55, would be the preferable reading, though
in accordance with John's usage, we would rather have antici
pated d),rjdivri, 'AXrjdiliz and dXfjdiqz bring us, however, to the
same sense; the latter, "a food which is not deceptive,"
(Luther: the true food,) which actually appeases the want;
the former, "a food indeed," that is, a food which imparts what
we would expect from food. Even in his '3d edition, Olshau
sen thinks he discovers in dXrj^diaz a point of evidence for the
Lutheran -riew ; he explains it : " This is no empty image^ but
it is so to be taken in truth" — more correctly: "it corresponds
in truth to the idea of food." 3) The fact that in v. 64 the
resurrection is made dependent on the participation of the
flesh and blood of Christ, would certainly accord vrith that
¦riew of the Lord's Supper which makes it the basis of the
new corporiety of believers.' ^ But this •riew (which has also
been adopted by the Catholic theologian Maier, in his treatise
mentioned on v. 21,) has more than one difficulty. It is devoid
of a scriptural foundation, (2 Cor. v. 1, has been without war-
i Luther (Walch. Th. xx. p. 1094 :) " If yo eat him spiritually through the Word,
he remains m us spiritually ia the soul ; if we eat him bodily, he remains in us
bodily ; as we eat him, he abides in us and we in him. For he is not concocted and
changed, but without intermission he changes us, the soul into righteousness, t\e bfdy
into ivimorialiiK."

Offense given to the Disciples. 185
rant used to sustain it,) is rather, indeed, in conflict ¦with the
view of the resurrection, which may be deduced from Rom.
viii. 11 ; it leads to a superstitious use of the Lord's Supper,
as for example that of the Greek-Catholic Church, which,
foUo^wing authorities of the ancient Church, gives the Lord's
Supper to infants ; finally, according to v. 40, 57, 68, faith in
Christ is a cause of the re-av(rakening, a cause which in itself
is operative. 4) Kling has thought that he has discovered a
cogent argument in this, that adp^ and alpa can designate the
earthly person of our Lord, only when they are united in one
formula, but not when, as is the case here, they are separate.
But the separation arises, of necessity, from the fact that Christ
could not say: adpxa xal dlpa focysiv, (eat flesh and blood.)
What we maintain, moreover, is not that alpa is connected with
frdp^ merely to amplify the same idea, but rather to give
prominence to the fact that the discourse turns on the cor
poreal nature ^ven in death. — ^If the discourse were about
the Supper, the Catholic doctrine, to close on this point, would
have the advantage in it; yet the Reformed doctrine might
appeal to v. 67, as proof against a corporeal participation in
the Supper.
Aid cum. accus. in v. 67, designates the ground, and so far
the instrumental cause, (cf Winer, p. 339.) — The locality of
this discourse is first given here, probably to account for the
appearance of the Disciples mentioned v. 60.
The Offense given to the Disciples by the preceding
Discourse. — v. 60-71.
V. 60-62. The Apostles, as we see from v. 67, are not in
cluded in these padrjzat, nor can the people who flocked thither
be meant ; we are led to the supposition, then, that they were
followers from Capernaum, whom he knew before this, and
who had assembled themselves there in the synagogue — they
are designated more particularly in v. 66, as persons who had
been in the habit of attending Jesus on his journeys through
Galilee. SyiXijpbv p'^pa designates, in 'other places, a rough^
and therefore disagreeable, word. In Euripides Traj. inc. 74,
17*

186 Chap. VI.— v. 62, 63.
the axX-qp dX-^drj stands in antithesis to the paXdaxd (peuSvj Xiym.^
In correspondence with this is the question zouzo bpdz axav8aX-
i^ei; 'Axouetv, not "understand," (Bretschneider,) but, as dxouaa-
vze<z abzou, and the genitive abzou indicate, is, as in x. 20, "to
listen to " — they may have stopped their ears, (Acts vii. 56.)
From what arose the offense ? Most of the older ¦writers sup
pose from the discourse in regard to eating his flesh being
taken in a fieshly [xazd xuptoXe^iav,) sense — hence the dogmatic
phrase, manducatio Capernaitica — but we cannot regard these
multitudes as so coarse as this, (the question, v. 52, proves, at
least, that the coarse sensuous apprehension of the words seems
to them inadmissible,) to say nothing of these Disciples. Kuinol,
Lucke, De Wette, find then the offense in the declaration that
the Messiah is to die. But this thought had been expressed only
mediately, not directly, and the expression, " who can listen to
him," cannot well be explained on this theory. Does not this
expression bear in it an intimation that Jesus had, in their
opinion, spoken with too much assumption and severity ? We
find the offense consequently in this, that Christ, in a different
form, has continually renewed the declaration, that there can
be no life if we do not partake of him, his flesh and blood,
(in same way, Bucer, Lampe.) In the sentence broken off iu
V. 62, zi ipetze is first to be supplied ; cf. the aposiopesis in the
conditional sentences, Luke xiii. 9, Mark vii. 11. According to
several ofthe critics, he means to say: "how much easier, then,
would it be for you to believe !" Erasmus : " When the sensible
appearing is glorified, how easily then will the misunderstanding
of sense be removed." Calvin: "When I shall be glorified,
how shall the offense which is taken at my lowly appearing
then cease ;" Lucke, 2d ed." — How shall the richer impartation
of the Spirit put aside the offense." But obv shows clearly
enough that we have rather to expect a strengthening of the
proposition, (Kling,) and must therefore add mentally : "How
much harder will that be to you, how much more offense
1 Dante says, (entirely in the same sense as here, in the sense of " offensive,")
when he reads the well-known inscription on the portal of Hell: "il sense lor mi
i duTO," (these words import hard moaning,) which the commentators on the poet
explain by dispiacevolo, (unpleasant, offensive,) cf. canto xxxii. 14.

Offense given to the Disciples. 187
¦will that give you !" According to Meyer, De Wette, Lucke,
3d ed. who have fouud the offense in the declaration in regard
to the death of the Messiah, this harder thing, which is yet to
come, lies in the experience that this death is a mournful real
ity. But we are constrained to ask, whether the expression
dva^aivstv, connected as it is with the onou rjv zb npbzspov, (cf.
xvii. 5,) does not necessarily direct us to the circumstance of
his glorification ? That this includes the reality of the death,
is conceded, yet on the other hand again, it cannot be denied
that this designation gives prominence to the side of the glori
fication. If in V. 60 we must find the offense in the emphatic
and apparently arrogant manner with which Christ urges the
participation of his essence, the connection of this question
would then be: "Do ye think I have gone too far in, what I
have maintained as to partaking of my essence, what then
would ye think if I entered on my original glory ?" — Olshausen
is confident that the difficulty is to be found in the fact, that
the glorified corporeal nature of Jesus was to be taken up into
heaven ; by which mode of apprehending it, the reference of
the preceding discourse to the Lord's Supper would receive
farther confirmation, cf. however, against this riew, Lucke.
V. 63. The various significations of the words nvsupa and
adpS have also in this verse led to diversity in the ways of appre
hending them, which, however, fall into two classes, the point
of division being the question whether we are to maintain in
the first half of the verse a reference to Christ's discourses, or
only to his person. On the former supposition : " The Spirit
must be •within the Disciples, the fieshly sense can aid nothing
in understanding; (Augustine, Sermo 2, de verb, ap., Bucer,
Melancthon,) in the discourse the spirit is to be retained, not
the outward covering of the figure," (Euthymius, Mosheim;)
on the latter supposition : " My earthly appearing does not in
itself give life, but only in so far as it is the vehicle of the
Spirit," (CyriU, Augustine, Calovius, Bengel, vrith a special
reference to the adp^ in the Lord's Supper,) and the latter mode
of apprehending it in, De Wette, Lucke, (8d ed.) is so modified
that in it lies a consoling thought for the Disciples, who were
not willing to let go of his earthly covering. But if we are to
think exclusively of the adp$ of Christ, would it not have been

188 Chap. VL— v. 64, 69.
more specifically marked by the addition of pou ?' Besides, is
not the application of the generic proposition to the ad.p^ of
Christ particularly out of keeping here, where just before so,
great an affirmation had been made about this very adp^^.
When Lucke remarks : " The holy offering up of the flesh was
essentially life-giving, but not the flesh of Christ without the
holy offering," he affirms what can only be said conditionally,
and here at least that antithesis of the living and of the
offered flesh is not made prominent. We think the design of
this addition is to reprove the want of a deeper insight into the
preceding discourse ; the first half of the verse expresses the
general principle, the second makes a specific application of it
to that discourse : " in that discourse is spirit and life, but you
have allowed yourselves to be frightened away by its form and
fashion, withotit penetrating to its depths." We have yet, in
regard to the reading, to observe, that the testimony predomi
nates for XeXdX/jxa, which we would refer, not to the instruction
in general which Jesus gave, but to the discourse he had just
uttered ; Lucke, indeed, supposes that then there must be zauza
cd p-^pnra, but is not the idea sufficiently defined by the S..
XsXdXrjxa ?
V. 64, 66. The more faith there is in the person of the
Redeemer, the more there is of the interest whicn goes with
faith, the more earnest will be the striving to pierce into the
depth of his words. That faith, however, that interest in his
person, can spring alone from the needs of a nature in affinity
with God ; the Sariour, therefore, refers back to v. 44. As the
Evangelist already has in his mind's eye what he designs men
tioning in V. 70 with this observation in regard to the glance
of the Lord which looks within them, (ii. 25,) he interweaves
a reference to Judas, on which cf what is said in v. 70. 'E^
apxfjz cannot well refer to the beginning of his office as teacher,
John is speaking of persons who attached themselves to the
Saviour at various dates ; it means, therefore, at the beginning
of his acquaintance ¦with each individual.
' Those expositors say, indeed, that a generic proposition is the most direct sense.
Liicke: "The absolute antithesis of the divinely spiritual, eternal, and of the
humanly sensuous, transitory principle of life:" is not, however, this antithesis so
extensive, and its application to the odpf of Christ so strange, (and this is a point
which the expositors have first to clear up,) that on tliis very account we would
desire the iiau 1

Offense given to the Disciples. 189
V. 66-69. That these Disciples had been led to the Lord by
no inward sense of need, they prove by leaving him in a way
which had so Uttie to justify it. Calrin: Certe, quid utile
esset, optime tenebat filius Dei, videmus tamen eum non
cffugere, quin multos ex suis offendat. Ergo utcunque multi
abhorreant a pura doctrina, supprimere tamen eam fas non est,
(Surely, the Son of God knew best what would be useful, yet
we see that he did not escape giving offense to many of his
Disciples. Though very many, therefore, shrink back from a
pure doctrine, it is not right to suppress it.) The question put
to the Apostles is a question of trust, not of mistrust ; p'q pre
supposes a negative reply; the ardent Peter, of all who are
addressed, is the first to speak. fi[is words show us clearly
what deep root, in spite of all their dullness and weakness, the
word of our Lord had taken in them, so much so, indeed, that
even in xv. 3 he could make the declaration that they were
already clean through the reception of this word. The excla
mation, too, of Thomas, John xx. 8, gives evidence how the
depths of the soul of that very Disciple, in whom reflection was
the predominating faculty, had been kindled by the ray of the
Spirit which emanated from the Saviour. The confession of
Peter gives the confirmation to v. 35. It may be asked, whether
Peter considered the Z,(»ri aimyeoz only as the future goal to which
these words conducted the mind, (Euthymius, Luther,) or whether
he would designate by it the impression already received. If
we may assume a retrospective glance to v. 63, the latter is the
more probable view; in the Jewish conception, and conse
quently mostly in the synoptical Gospels, the reference to the
world to come predominate, and is, therefore, the more prob
able in Peter's mouth. Faith here stands before knowing, as
in xvii.' 8 ; the reverse is the case in x. 88, 1 John iv. 16 ; chro
nologically the two points are not to be held apart from one
another ; yevmaxetv, however, refers to the entrance into the con
sciousness of an assurance which is felt, and in so far embraces
in it the evidence, not merely the" outward, but also the inward
experimental eridence: when John, 1 Ep. v. 20, speaks of a
Sedvoea, iva yivmaxmpev, this 8idvota lies in faith. Instead of
ulbz rou -deou, the external authority favors the reading b dyeoz
zou -dsou, as in Mark i. 24, Luke iv. 34 ; the further addition of

190 Chap. VI.— v. 70, 71.
zou ^divzoz in some Codices, shows that the original expression
had been altered ; thus ulbz deou has come into the text from
Matt. xvi. 16: the appellation, "the hallowed one of God,'*
is more general than that of "the Son;" in John x. 36, it ia
paraphrased. V. 70, 71. This question of Jesus justifies the question which
in V. 67 had been put 'with at least a slight sound of mistrust.
Even in the narrower circle ofthe twelve, there was one unworthy
of trust, (cf. xiii. 18.) It is a question that may be mooted,
whether dtd^oXoz means a devil or an opposer, (cf. Septuag. Ps.
cix. 6, Esth. vii. 4, viii. 1.) In opposition to the first ¦riew,
Olshausen urges that the name 8td^oXoz in the New Testament
is applied to but one individual, the prince of derils, and con
sequently always, has the definite article ; from him are dis
tinguished ol dyyeXoi abzou, zd 8aip6via, "his angels," "the
derils." But the meaning "enemy, opposer," which Luther,
Grotius, Lucke, De Wette, also prefer, gives too languid a sense,
and requires, moreover, some addition to define it more paiv
ticularly. Olshausen, 3d ed., has consequently abandoned this
¦riew, and gives this explanation: "Is there not among you,
who are the children of God, one who is Satan himself? (der
Satan") (?) As Christ in Matt. xvi. 28, to Peter as the organ of
Satan, gives the name Satan itself, he can surely the more
readily here give to Judas, who has abandoned himself to
Satanic influence, the name of a deril, that is, a man resting
under diabolic influences. It is not, to be sure, involved in
this designation itself, that Jesus at this period already foresaw
that Judas would betray him, but this does follow from the in
timation of John, V. 64. But in advance we must concur in what
Neander, 1. c. 625, (transl. 379,) says : "But it need not appear
strange to us if John, after so many proofs of the superhuman
prescience of Jesus, attributed to the indefinite intimations of
Christ, given by him to Judas in order to make him know
himself, more than they, strictly taken, contained." Add to
this, that John is the very writer in whom that i$ dpx^z cer-,
tainly cannot be urged, as if it must imply in the very strictest
sense the beginning of acquaintance. We indeed maintain
what has not hitherto been brought to notice, that the question
of Christ himself contradicts, as also does xvii. 12, the strict

Offense given to the Disciples. 191
reference to the first beginning. When our Saviour, to ¦vrit :
expresses his surprise, or his displeasure, that in that little
circle chosen by himself there should be a 8id^oXoz, does not
this show that it was unexpected and painful to him ? To this
is to be added, that Judas, in ch. xvii. 12, is included in the
number of those whom the Father had drawn to the Son.
With entire propriety, therefore, we may concur in the ¦riew
presented especially by UUmann, (Sundlosigkeit, 4th ed. p.
140, Sinless Character of Jesus, translated by E. A. Park, in
BibUc. Cabinet, vol. xxxvii. Edinburgh, T. Clark, 1841.) Kern,
Neander, that he had brought with him a susceptibility for the
good. We are not to forget that when the Saviour made this
declaration, Judas had been more than a year in association
with him : it was in intercourse ¦vrith Jesus which we know
must have had a general tendency to mature the moral decision
of his Disciples, that the impure element in his nature was
brought out.'
1 Lucke : The germ of evil as little as the genu of good, could escape the eye of
the Holy One. But not umtil this critical moment, when so many were forsaldng
him, does his prophetic eye distinctly see iu Judas the enemy that is to be. At au
earlier date he had spoken nothing, probably had thought nothing, in regard to this

CHAPTER VII.

Jesus goes to the Feast of Tabernacles.^ — v. 1-9.
V. 1. On this verse Strauss and Bauer have believed that
they could establish the important position, that John knew
only of Judea, as Matthew knew only of Galilee, as the proper
theatre of the active life of our Lord. This ¦riew certainly has a
good deal of plausibility, which vanishes, however, if we may
be allowed to suppose that Jesus did not repair to the feast
but at the time of the Passover, ch. vi. 4 ; this observation then
serves to complete what has been said in vi. 4. The multitudes
who had been miraculously fed continue, after the discourse in
ch. vi., their journey to the capital, but Jesus does not go with
them at this time ; the supposition that he did notrisit the last
Passover is favored by the fear of snares which our Lord con
tinued constantly to feel, furthermore by the demand which his
brethren urged, finally by the aUusion in v. 21 to the miracle
which he had wrought at the Passover before the last. The
omission to visit the leading feasts is not entirely inconceivable,
as the character of the deraand on the part of his brethren in v.
3, and the question xi. 56, allow us to infer.
V. 2-5. The feast of Tabernacles — in commemoration of
the journey through the desert, and of the abode in tents during
that tirae, observed also as a festival of the first gathering and
of the vintage — is called by Josephus -^ kopzij ¦^ dyimzax-q xal
peyiazT], (the most holy and the greatest of festivals ;) by Plu
tarch, sympos. iv. 6, 2, kopzrj psyiavrj xal zeXeeozdzTj zdiv 'loudaimv,
(the greatest and most perfect festival of the Jews.) It occur
red in October, with which consequently, it corresponds to
allow about six months for the sojourn of Jesus in Galilee.
No mention is made of a subsequent return to Galilee ; accord-
(192)

Jesus goes to the Feast of Tabernacles.
ing to X. 22, Jesus remains in the metropolis during the feast
of the dedication also, then goes to Persea, x. 40, and in ch. xi.
again appears in Bethany. The starting out on this journey is
therefore to be arranged in the harmony with Luke ix. 51. —
If the brethren appear in this place as unbeliering, this is in
accordance with Mark. iii. 21, and •with the fact that on the
cross Jesus committed not to them, but to John,, the care of his
mother; yet after the resurrection they appear with the Apos
tles as believers. Acts i, 14. In relation to the question,
which seems inextricably involved, in regard to these brethren
of Jesus, nothing can be inferred from the passage before us
but this : that no one of the d8sX^oe could have belonged to the
Apostles, that consequently James, the son of Alpheus, who
was one of the Apostles, (Matt. x. 8,) cannot be regarded as
d8eXfbz zou xupiou, though Hug, Kuhn, (Giessener Jahrbb. fur
Theolog. (1834,) H. 1,) still insist that he may have been, resting
on the fact that niazeueev designates feebler and stronger degrees
of faith.' In this narrative of the unbelief, in fact of the scorn
of our Saviour's nearest connections, there lies a very import
ant argument against the imputing to John, that he made it
a rule always to be glorifying Christ— neither an unhistorical
legend, nor a Disciple gi-ring play to his fancy, would have
invented this trait. We would be compelled to concede
its psychological correctness, did it rest on no other ground
than that of the proverb, iv. 44, to wit : that it is so much
harder to acknowledge an extraordinary mission to mankind,
in the case pf one whose natural development we have wit
nessed. This conduct of the brethren of Jesus becomes yet
more intelligible, if we accept what Schaf, in his work cited in
the note, says, p. 90, seq. in regard to the internal development
of James. As the piety of James partook of a strict Old
Testament character, we may easily believe that h,e clung to a
conception of the Messiah with which the manner of Christ's
appearing was in conflict. He expected him to ¦wield a power in
ciril matters, to make a brilliant display of himself in the central
city of the theocracy. That his works had been done in a
iThCL whole question, and the passages of our commentary, with reference to it
are examined in full, iu a very valuable treatise by Schaf, the latest which has
appeared: "das 'Verhaltniss des Jakobus, Bruder des Herm,. zu Jakobus Alph'ai,"
Berlin, 1842, p. 50, seq. 18

194 Chap. VH. — v. 6-9.
corner of Galilee, awakened distrust in their character, a dis
trust to which, perhaps, the si has- reference, though it does not
necessarily involve a doubt of the mere fact of their ha-ring been
done, (v. 23.) He demands then, not without irony, that Jesus
should appear in the metropolis — and here in the interest of
apologetics, it is worthy of notice that our Evangelist, in these
words makes an allusion to an important activity on the part of
Jesus in the working of miracles in GaUlee, though he has
given no account of it. The pad-qzai can hardly be other than
those who were in the metropolis ; we must explain as one of
the instances of the inexactness in the style of John, (see on
iii. 35, vi. 36,rii. 17, xix. 12,) that this is not expressed more
precisely. — ^As regards the construction, v. 4, Liicke observes :
" It agrees well ¦with the more polished Greek style, as abzbz is
the impressive resumption of the subject in ou8siz," (Matt. xii.
50, Mark xv. 48 ;) this usage of abzbz is, to be sure, common
enough, but not the structure of the sentence 'vvith xai ^yjze'c xzX,
for which the Greek would have substituted the participle ; on
the other hand, the sentence in Hebrew can be in correspond
ence with it, cf on i, Ewald, Hebr. Gr. p. 252. 'Ev napprjaia, cf
xi. 54. Luther : [the corresponding German phrase,] auf dem
Plane, (on the field.)' XJIapprjata, not "frankness," (Beza,
Meyer,) but "pubUcity," v. 10, 11, 54.]
V. 6, 7. Great as is the want of respect shown in the words
of his brethren, the reply of the Redeemer displays the wonted
character of elevation. The older expositors, Chrysostom,
Lampe, and again recently Bauer, Ebrard, in v. 6 and 8,
Bengel only in v. 8, interpret 6 xaepbz b ipbz of the time of the
passion. When against this view the recent critics urge the
difficulty, that the conformity between the two parts of the
sentence in v. 6 would thus be destroyed, Bauer might be
justified in .maintaining that it is sufficient, if the parts of the
antithesis have a point of contact in the thought, that he and
they appear publicly before the world, that our Lord may
nevertheless have regarded the fact that the trial of his passion
had not yet come, as the reason why he would not appear;
such a reference, certainly, imparts additional significance to
the proposition in v. 8, cf v. 20. But on the other side the
question arises, if Christ would not go up at the beginning of

Jesus goes to the Feast op Tabernacles. 195
the feast, " because the, time of his passion had not yet come,"
would he have gone up at the midst of it ? Would there not
lie in the words a declaration, that he would no more visit a
festival until the last Passover? We have, consequently, to
explain the phrase 6 xaepbz nenXjpmzae or ndpsaze, as in ii. 4.
(Calvin, Piscator, Calorius,) " The proper time to do a thing,"
or in specie, "The proper time to go to the feast." They have
no need to be so careful in the selection of the time, for
kindred does not repel kindred, for they, as Luther expresses
it, " are hale fellows well met, they are hand in glove with the
high priests." — "If I," continues Luther, "would speak what
the Papists like to hear, I would be very glad, too, to take
lodgings with the Bishop of Magdeburg or at Rome." Christ
in words of reproof places himself over against the world, (iii.
19, xvii. 14.)
V. 8, 9. As regards the reading, the first zauzrjv in v. 8 is,
according to the authorities, to. be omitted ; on the other hand,
a majority of the authorities give before dva^divm the ounm of
the received text, (Knapp, Lachmann.) Despite the external
authorities, however, this reading of the received text is suspi
cious, as there is no difficulty in understanding how it may
have arisen from an explanatory or apologetic gloss, the object
of which was to remove from Christ's lips the apparent
untruthfulness — ^the fickleness of purpose; the reproach of
fickleness resting on obx as the reading, had been brought
against Christ by Parphyry already, (Jerome, Cont. Pelag. ii.
17.) In vi. 17, also, where accuracy would require ouTtm
instead of oux, we have in the Cod. B D L the explanatory
ounm. If obx is to be regarded as the authenticated reading,
how can the Sa^riour be •rindicated from the charge of a want
of truthfulness ? Chrysostom, Lucke, Olshausen, urge the strict
idea of the present in dva^aivco, which involves the vuv, (I go
not, i. e. yet.) Meyer supplies the words : " With you, in the
caravan ;" the solution of Wolf, De Wette, is better, that this
obx is limited by the ounm which follows. Obx certainly occurs
frequently in inexact usage where ounm should be the word, as
in Mark xi. 13, Ezra iu. 6, cf Mark vU. 18 witii Matt. xv. 17.
At an earlier period this mode of relieving the difficulty
seemed to me to be incompatible with the words eiz r>;v kopzyjv

196 Chap. VH.- v. 10-16.
zauz-i/jv, (this feast,) which seem to be antithetical to journeys
to other feasts; it also seemed to me that the 5ze b xaepbz xz/,
must refer to the time of the passion, in which case we would
be the more obliged to suppose that he declined going to the
feast altogether. The former difficulfy expressed by me has
been adopted by Bauer, and pushed to the last extreme. My
opinion now, however, is that it is capable of the foUovring
solution : " At other times Jesus invariably appeared at the
beginning of the feast; here he declares that he vrill not yet go
to this feast, because the proper time had not yet come ; if he
came unexpectedly, and did not appear until in the midst of
the feast, the disturbance would be less." That the fear of
disturbance was not groundless, is seen in the picture given us
of the state of feeling at Jerusalem.
The Controversial Discourses of Jesus in the midst of
the Feast of Tabernacles. — v. 10-36.
V. 10-13. Had Jesus appeared in the caravan vrith his con
nexions, and the people of his 'country, attention would have
been directed to him from the beginning. On 6jz, De Wette
correctly observes: "It marks the subjective character of the
opinion, persons might say it was done in secret, or they might
not, just as they chose to regard it; it is not used as it is i. 14."
'Exetvoz, without mentioning his name, contemptuous, like the
Latin, iste ; so in riii. 10, Matt, xxvii. 73. [Not exactly con
temptuous, but as a designation of an absent person whom
they all know.] 'Ayadbz, after the old classic usage ; "good for
its purpose, honest," so here in antithesis to nXdvoz, (Matt.
xxvii. 63.) The authorities remain in a state of irritation,
from the time of the Passover in ch. v. in consequence of the
words of reproof in which Jesus had addressed them, (cf on
V. 16,) so that they are cherishing the purpose of murdering
him, (v. 19, 25.)
V. 14-16. The feast lasted eight days ; on the fourth con
sequently, when he was no longer expected, Jesus made his
appearance. We are not told whether his Disciples accompa
nied him, or had gone on before ¦with his brethren. In either
case, whether he went with them or was entirely alone, he

Jesus at the Feast of Tabernacles. 197
could journey without attracting the same attention as if he
had gone with the caravan. He appears in the temple at once
— ^in what part of it ? Was it in the ifliran n'3, which was in
the great colonnade which encircled the fore-courts, where we
suppose the scene in Luke ii. 46 to have occurred, or was it in
the fore-courts ? To the latter supposition, viii. 20, Mark xii. 41,
John X. 23, would lead us. Among the hearers, according to v.
20, 82, we are to suppose there were scribes and persons from the
populace. Whether these 'loudaiot belonged to the former, or
to the latter class, cannot indeed be determined with certainty,
yet the* calm manner of the question may be regarded as
favoring the idea that it was put by persons from the populace.'
The fact that Christ, v. 19, charges on those whom he ad
dresses, a desire to put him to death, does not prove the reverse,
for he is speaking to the multitude in the mass. Christ's
teaching in the temple, and this marveling on the part of the
people in particular, bring up the question : whether it was
allowed to every one to appear in the character of a public
teacher ? The reverse is shown by Matt. xxi. 23. From the
Talmud, we learn that no man could appear as a teacher who
had not for some years been tdSb and I3n (coUega,) of a Rabbi,
then followed the act of promotion, [avs^ op; i^ouaiav Xap^dvetv,)
cf the thorough treatise by Pacht, de eruditione Judaica, Gott.
1742, and Jost, Gesch. des Judenthum, vol. 3, p. 108. We
certainly do not know, indeed, whether so early as the time of
Jesus these matters were regulated in this way, but under
Hillel and Schammai, the Rabbinical schools had already in
all essential respects taken their shape. Fpdppaza, not "the
Holy Scriptures," (Syriac, Luther, Meyer, JBretschneider, lex.
3d ed.) otherwise it would be qualified by lepd, but " learning,"
(Acts xxvi. 24 ;) if the people said this, the appellation is stiU
more easily accounted for, for to the people every religious
discourse appeared to give evidence of such a learning as the
Rabbins possessed.
1 Meyer, who, like most of the critics, supposes the scribes to put the question,
and translates : " How comes it that this man understands writings, without having
learned them ?" knows not what motive to assign for a question so devoid of pas
sion, except this : " This question was designed to divert the interest of the hear
ers from the matter of the teaching of Jesus, and to diminish respect for him per
sonally, as one who was unlearned." The first aim would have been entirely too
subtle, the latter would not have been presented in ihis form of discourse.
18*

198 Chap. VH.- v. 16,17.
V. 16, 17. The antithesis is that between a self-conscious
ness which is isolated from God and one which is in union with
him, so that certainly no more is affirmed in these words than
what even a prophet might have uttered ; but prophets have
but single illuminations, while Christ speaks of his entire
doctrine ; he never speaks and acts from his own isolated self-
consciousness, (v. 28, viii. 16, 28.) Herein there also Ues in
directly a setting of them right in relation to that question
of surprise ; for he who knows himself to be one with God
immediately, does not attain to truth by mediated modes, and
consequently, therefore, neither by the gradual way of reflec
tion nor by what other men impart and teach. On chap. iii.
34, was shown that the nSpnetv of God is the internal mani
festation of God. In what then consists that criterion of the
divine character of his doctrine, which our Lord here fur
nishes? As we who are Christians are wont to regard the
operation of the doctrine of Christ upon us as an evidence of
the most universal character, that it is of God, the attempt has
been made in various forms to verify in these words, also, an
allusion to this power of Christian truth to form its own testi
mony. Those theological systems which regard Christ's teach
ings as preeminently moral teachings, as the giving of moral law,
might understand this ¦dsX-fjpa zou dsou as meaning this divine
law, and might find the criterion of its dirinity in the perfec
tion imparted to the spirit by following that law, (thus Semler,'
Lange, Herder, Kuinol, and also Ebrard.) But to conceive of
Christ after the Socinian manner as a new lawgiver, is to ignore
his character as a Redeemer, and if we cannot conceive of his
8t8axy] as vbpoz, it cannot well be designated by the expression
zb diX/jpa zou dsou. Proceeding from the juster perception, that
1 Mea doctrina, says Semler, divinam voluntatem optime describit. Quicunque
igitur experiri vult ipse animumque omnino adjioit rebus illis, quas commendo, etc.
(My doctrine best exhibits the divine will. Whoever, therefore, wishes to test it,
must by all means apply his mind to the things ^hich I commend, &c.) The
Socinians do not appear to have explained it in this way, at least Crell (Opp. Ex. T.
iii. p. 80,) follows the exposition which we have preferred. In Episcopius, the
Arminian divine, who elsewhere is wont to give an acute exposition of the ethical
expression, I have found no exposition of this expression. (Such a passage, how
ever, is to be found in Episcopii Opera Theolog. Amstel. MDCL. 1. 3. "Sioloh.
Cap. vii. f 7. Siquis velit, &c. id est facere quod, secundum reetam rationem, aut legis
Mosaicce prescriptum fieri decet, &c." The whole in illustrating the position that
" probitas " is essential to a student of theology. Tr.)

Jesus at the Feast of Tabernacles. 199
faith in Chri'st is the grand feature of Christianity, Augus
tine, Luther,' Melancthon, Lampe, Storr, Tittmann, Weber,
(opuscul. comm. iv.) referring to vi. 29, (Ernesti refers to \i.
40,) have understood by the divine ¦deX^.pa xaz' i^ox^v, the
demand" of faith in Ohrist: where this demand is satisfied,
con^riction of the divinify of the doctrine is produced. And
indeed, several ¦writers again have understood the ytvmaxuv, of
the proof from its operation, the experimental evidence; by
Augustine, however, the idea of the intellectual yvSaiz in con--
tradistinction to niazez is urged, and consequently, from this
expression also is deduced the significant principle, " nisi cred-
ideritis, non intelligetis," (unless ye believe, ye cannot under
stand.) If, however, the expression notslv zb dsXijpa zou deou
were meant to designate specially faith in Christ, we would have
the phrase authenticated by its use elsewhere in this distinct
senBO, but not even in vi. 29 is it to be found. Nor could such
a faith as this, a faith adopted by way of trial, be the true
faith ; it would be the fides carbonaria, and a mere assensus
intellectualis. On the other hand let it be noticed, that in the
kindred passage, v. 38-44, and in viii. 42, 47, the earnest, moral
and religious striving of piety of an Old Testament type is
represented as a medium through which men are led to faith
in Christ ; that exposition then of this passage is least forced
which by the ¦dsXtjpa. zou ¦deou understands the acknowledged
will of God, first of all revealed in the Old Testament, (Chry
sostom, Erasmus, Calvin, Bucer, John Gerhard, and the recent
critics;) this ¦riew, besides, is favored by the connection in v. 18,
19. The principle which lies at the basis of the words of
Christ, and which recurs in various forms in the discourses of
Jesus as given by John, is that significant principle of Plato,
ro ^paeov zip hpoixp ^Seziu, (like delights in like ;) il faut aimer
les ehoses dirines pour les connoitre, (di^rine things must be
loved in order to be known,) says Pascal, i. 3. ^7 using ¦deXj}
Ttoielv iinstead of idv rez a»«^, the whole weight is still more
definitely laid on the bent of th© ¦vrill. If now Christ urges
tile earnestness of moral stri^ring, of the fulfilling of the law,
1 "If ye would do that, (listen to me,) and not make resistance, the Holy Spirit
¦would enBghten and^ teach you that the will of the Father is in Christ. This is the
beginning, if a^man would be learned in divine things : the beginning is, to believe the
word of God."

200 Chap. VH. —v. 18-23.
the expression can be so taken as to guide us to precisely the
same affirmation which Paul makes in regard to the vopbz as a
nat8aymybz siz Xpiazbv : " He who earnestly strives to satisfy the
law of God, will be led to a knowledge of his inabilify, and
thereby be led to the faith that my doctrine, and specially the
doctrine of the atonement, is of God." But as the vbpoz in
this sense is not spoken of in John, since rather, in the par
allels cited from John, the law is designated as mediating to
faith in the Gospel, inasmuch as its contents in their spirit are
similar to the contents of the doctrine of Jesus, this side is to be
held in this passage also ; cf. also, iii. 21, riii. 47. It is yet to
be noticed, that the pronoun is wanting with 8i8ax^z ', this may
be explained by a designed antithesis between 8i8ax^z and
nots~tv, cf. however, what is said on iii. 34. Luther takes the
article as demonstrative: "this doctrine."
V. 18. We have first to look at the form in which the sen
tence is constructed. There is no conformity between the two
members of the sentence, cf. the observation on ch. v. 41.
The first half embraces the major, the second the minor and
the syllogism ; the syllogism, however, which should be obx ^9^
kauzou XaXet, presents that thought in another form. He who
through a mediate activity has attained to a doctrine, gives the
credit of it to his own activity and his own acuteness ; he who,
on the other hand, comes to a knowledge of the truth in vir
tue of his immediate unity with God, refers back throughout
to God. As herein full freedom from self-seeking is revealed,
Christ had already, ch. v. 44, declared that the basis of unbe
lief in him is the striving after our own glory, which makes us
incapable of acknowledging the dirine in such a manifestation
as is free from self-seeking. Here Christ attributes to a char
acter thus free from self-seeking, the predicates of truthfulness
and of moral purity. 'A8ixia, might indeed, like "ipsj, designate
the theoretic side, error, (Grotius,) so that the same thought
would be expressed positively and negatively ; but no necessity
exists for taking it in this way. According to the general
opinion, v. 18 directly connects a second proof with what has
preceded. Yet, with Schott and Neander, we might regard
this verse as continuing the thought expressed in v. 17. "He
who is free from ambition, and makes the will of God the rule

Jesus at the Feast of Tabernacles. 201
of his conduct, will acknowledge the divinity of my doctrine,
for — he will recognize in me also one who is not striving after
his own glory, and who is therefore true." Thus the transition
would correspond withthat which takes place in passing from
ch. V. 38-40, to V. 41. But this connection of the thoughts has
too little to mark it, and leaves too much to be read into the
text. Yet so much may be true, that the thought in v. 18 is
not connected with the other in a merely outward manner, but
is brought in by this, that the holy principle of the doctrine of
Christ finds expression also in that relation which he shows he
sustains to the Father.
V. 19, 20. The hearers are designated as those who do not
make even the doing of the will of God their law, entirely in
accordance with ch. v. 45, as we interpret it, cf also, viii. 37,
seq. As a proof of this, the extremest transgression of the
law is adduced, the murderous designs of the officials ; but the
multitude of those who are at the feast (cf the antithesis, v.
25,) regard this suspicion as so extravagant, that they attribute
it to the inspiration of the Spirit of lies. There is no necessity
indeed, for supposing that in the 8atpovi^eadat, the paiveadai is
involved, though the latter is certainly regarded as a conse
quence of the former, (x. 20.) In ch. viii. 48, there probably
lies a retrospective reference to this reproach.
V. 21-23. Christ considers the rancor occasioned by the
healing, ch. v., as the principal cause of the enmity of the
rulers. We can hardly imagine that he would have referred to
that occurrence which took place at the Passover before the
last, had he also been present in the metropolis at the last
Easter festival, vi. 4. Yet this argument cannot be considered
as decisive. For might not Jesus — even if other signs no less
striking had succeeded that miracle — ^might he not go back to
the beginning of that public hostility ? Let it be remembered,
too, that in that miracle there was the additional offense that
it took place on the Sabbath, and that it is this very offense to
which prominence is here given. The Vulgate, Euthymius,
and others, begin v. 22 with 8id zouzo, ^hich however cannot
be justified ; we must construe it with daupd^eiv, cf. Fritzsche
on Mark vi. 6, and Rev. xvii. 7. Baupd^siv has the accessory
idea of terror, like nnn and ClloZ, which means horrore per-

202 Chap. VH.— v. 23-27.
fundi, ohstupescere^ Septuag. Eccles. v. 7, Ecclesiasticus xxvi.
11, Chrysostom: zouzsazt, zapdzzsade, ixdopu^siads, (that is,
are troubled, are disquieted.) The reasoning of Christ gives
evidence of that acute use of the Old Testament in his dis
courses, of which we find a number of instances in the synop
tical Gospels, for example in Matt. xii. 5. The circumcision
must be performed on the eighth day, (Lev. xii. 3 ;) if that day
comes on the Sabbath, this rite, though it brought so much
labor with it, the washing, binding, applying the plaster, &c.,
was to be attended to on that day, despite the sanctity of the
Sabbath. The parenthetic proposition in v. 22, is not designed
to claim for the law of the Sabbath a higher authority than
for circumcision, (Chrysostom,) but-is to be regarded merely as a
limitation having reference to the antiquity of the rite. Kai
expresses the sequence of the actipn, "and so:" Luther trans
lates it "noch," equivalent to "und doch" — (yet, and still.)
^0 vbpoz Mmuasmz refers, according to our interpretation, to the
ivzoX-fj, enjoining circumcision ou the Sabbath, (let James ii. 10,
be weighed, however;) according to Bengel, Semler, it refers
to the ivzoX-fj of the Sabbath, and Xva p-/j means : " so that it is
not," "without being." But thus the inference loses in point,
and ha without necessity is regarded as equivalent to &azs, cf
however, ch. v. 20, vi. 50. The question now arises, however^
what is the antithesis in oXovt It seems to rest upon the
assumption that circumcision insured medical advantages,
(cf. Winer, Reallex.) But is not Bauer correct in the remark^
that circumcision, as the law contemplated it, is a purely reli
gious symbol ? Would we not, therefore, rather suppose a refer
ence to the symbolic spiritual meaning of it ? But if this be
so, the antithesis does not present itself, nor does it even when,
with Augustine, Bengel, Olshausen, we refer hXov to body and
soul ; still we hold fast to the religious significance of cireum^
cisiou as a sign of the covenant, but derive from bycfj notslv the
general idea, and interpret: "Ye transgress the law to perform
a sacred, beneficent work, on that one portion of man ; will
you be angry at me, when I perform a work with the same
characteristics, on the entire man?" By the want of distinct
ness in the antithesis, we might be inclined, with Kling, (Ben
gel, in his German translation, presented the same vievt before

Jesus at the Feast of Tabernacles. 203
him,) to lay the emphasis on 6yi^, and to give prominence in
nspizipvsiv to the infliction of the wound^ but the expression is
not nspizipvstv at all, but nspezop^v Xap^dvsiv, ¦which utterly pre
cludes any prominence of the idea of wounding. On the other
side, as circumcision was accompanied by healing, some have
been inclined to bring out this point from the nepezopijv Xap^.
so that the healing of one member and the healing of the
entire man are contrasted, (Cyrill, Lampe, Meyer,) but this also
is inadmissible. Not to enlarge on this point, the position of
the bytrj inottjaa does not allow the emphasis to be laid on it.
V. 24. We might be tempted to give to xpiveiv xaz' 5(ptv the
sense of npbamnov Xap^dvetv, (Lampe, Bretschneider, Lex. 8d
ed.) as well because of the antithesis ztjU 8txaiav xpiatv, as
because of the connection: "Judge righteously, and not in
such a way as to excuse a transgression in yourselves, and con
demn it in me." " Otfuz, indeed, means the same as npbamnov,
but the distinct phrase Xap^. dipiv is wanting here. Kaz' bipiv
consequently can only designate, like viii. 15, the judgment
based upon the outward appearance, and thus the righteous
judgment is that which is in accordance with the internal
essence. This internal essence is the intention: in their
transgression of the Sabbath, the intention respecting another
positive commandment; on Christ's part in the miracle of
healing, the intention of pitying love, the fulfilling of the most
primitive of all commandments. The article zi^v designates
either the righteous judgment in this ease, or the absolute rule
of a righteous judgment. Bengel: judicium verum unum est;
base ris articuli, (true judgment is one ; this is the force of the
article.) V. 26-27. The residents of Jerusalem were, aware of the
determination of the rulers to put Jesus to death. The con
jecture which they express, seems to be serious, not ironical.
Yet they confute that opinion of their own, by the assumption
that the itbdev of the Messiah is not to be known^ whereas they
do know the nbdev of Jesus. Do they mean by nhdsv, the
birth-place or the parents ? From vi. 42, we would suppose the
latter, and in reply to the question nw 'k there follows in the
Hebrew a statement of the parentage, 2 Sam. i. 13. Let it be
observed, however, that according to ix. 29, the nbdev embraces

204 Chap. VH.- v. 28-34.
the characteristics in general, (cf. also, xix. 9.) We may
therefore give as the sense : " We are acquainted with him, we
know what sort of a person he is !" In addition, the answer
of Christ refers to the character of his person as well as to his
origin. Their opinion, as it would seem, has its basis in the
passage of Daniel, (cf. also, Mai. iii. 1,) in which the Messiah
appears in the clouds. The question may indeed be put, whether
his birth in Bethlehem, and his descent from David, did not
designate clearly enough whence he came; but nbt unfre
quently the popular consciousness allows opinions which con
tradict each other, to stand side by side unharmonized, at
least we do not know how to harmonize them ; in v. 42, some
of these very people (probably the more intelligent ones,) speak
of Messiah's descent from David. I had directed attention to
the fact that the Jew in Justin Martyr, Dial. c. Tr. p. 226 and
336, ed. Colon, expresses a similar thought; Lucke acknowl
edges that such is the case in the former passage ; Olshausen,
3d ed. and Bauer, deny it. I believe that I must myself con
fess, that these ideas can hardly be said to be related, yet they
show what manifold shapes the anticipation of the Messiah
took in the popular mind.
V. 28, 29. With a loud voice, consequently with special
emphasis, (vii. 37, xii. 44,) Jesus speaks of the contrast between
what he knew of himself and what they knew of him. In
these words, as in viii. 14, 23, the majesty and the indignation
of a king whom his subjects refuse to recognize, find utterance.
They know not his nature, (Matt. xi. 27,) how can they know
his origin. The double xai is to be taken as in vi. 36. The
words are certainly not to be regarded as a simple confirmation
of their knowing his earthly origin, as De Wette supposes, but
as holy and earnest irony. Kai before dn' ipauzou must be
regarded as antithetical: "and yet." The unity •with God, of
which self-consciousness assures him, forms the antithesis to
the earthly nbdev, cf on vii. 17, iii. 84. 'AXXd, equivalent to
imo. 'AX-^divbz either in the sense of genuine, (i. 9,) as Lucke,
De Wette, take it, or synonymous with dXrjd^z, as most critics
take it, in accordance with the use of dXrjdtvbz in (iv. 37,) xix.
85, Rev. in. 14, xix. 9, 11. Luther : ".Though I preach the truth
to you over and over again, I must yet Ue to you. Our Lord

Jesus at the Feast of Tabernacles. 206
God must in the world always be a learner and a liar, and let
himself be mastered by its reason. Wherefore, Christ com
forts himself here : ' Though I must be before you as a liar,
nevertheless God sent me, and I know that he is true.' " If
with, the first named expositors we 'interpret : "He who sends
me is a genuine, true sender," that is, he who alone properly
can send, the sense, indeed, is very appropriate, but this
thought would have been expressed in a different way: 6
&Xr]dtvbz nepnmv, or in some similar manner. We therefore
take dXr^dtvoz as equivalent to dX-r^dr^z, and find the explanation
of this title in the Uving witness to himself, which the Saviour
bore within him ; from this same witness proceed the words ov
xzX. which follow, expressing the contrast. So also does v. 29.
V. 80, 81. Some of the magistrates desire to arrest Jesus at
once, but their courage fails them. " Qpa here means the grand
point of time in the life of our Lord, the time of his passion
and death, (xvii. 1.) Lucke : " This is the religious pragmatism
of history, ¦with which no pious mind can dispense. At the
same time we must not forget that it is John who more than
any of the other Evangelists unveils the natural connection
and the train of the development of that great hour, as it now
hastens, and now lingers, and has thus ^skillfully united the
religious view of the hour of Jesus with the intellectual." It
may be asked, whether the faith to which, according to v. 31,
many of the people attained, was a faith in Christ's work 'as a
prophet, or in his work as Messiah. It seems to us that the
former alone is the conect view, (Maldonatus, Heumann,)
though most critics declare themselves for the latter, cf. how
ever, also, V. 40. How perverse it is to impute, as has become
the fashion in our day, so much design to the Evangelist ; how
little he aims at placing in the foreground the working of
miracles, is manifest also from the cursory manner in which he
here makes mention of the great number of the miracles.
Besides, one might also most believe that these people out of
the bxXoz were persons who had come from Galilee to the
feast, (v. 20,) at least these would most naturally have ex
pressed themselves in this way.
V. 32-34. 'Apxtepetz, the heads of the different classes of
priests, dpxovzez zcHv nazpimv zihv lepemv, (1 Chron. xxiv. 6, 2,
19

206 Chap. VH. — v. 32-36.
Chron. xxxri. 14;) ipapiadloi is the name of the party, not of
the calling, the. dpxepeiz could also have been embraced under
the term ; since there were also Sadducees in the Sanhedrim,
(Acts xxiv.) it may perhaps be merely intimated that the per
secution proceeded from the party of the Pharisees alone,
(v. 48,) or — may the ipaptadlot designate the voptxot and
ypappazelz, who under those names do not appear in John ?'
(Cf in the dirision which is not genuine, viii. 3, there indeed
the ypappazelz are mentioned together with the Pharisees.) It
is not clear whether the Pharisees who heard what was said,
made report to the Sanhedrim, who then gave the order to
arrest Jesus, or whether they made the arrangement themselves
on the spot. But v. 45 is decisive for the former view, on
which verse it is to be noted, that the Sanhedrim usually.
convened in the temple itself, in the n'nn nst?'?, the stone
chamber between the fore-court of the Gentiles and the inner
court, (tr. loma, f. 25.) We see that Jesus knew of their
determination. In explaining the difficult expression which
occurs here, we must have in our eye the parallel passage,
viii. 21, and the partial repetition of the expression before the
Disciples, in xiii. 33. The different interpretations diride them
selves first of all into two classes : according to the one, ^¦/jze'iv
designates an inimical seeking, the laying of a snare, (Origen,
Grotius, Crell,) according to the other it designates a seeking
out "in order to obtain help, (Chrysostom, Erasmus, Calrin,
Zwingle, Meyer.) Had the former been the case, a different
structure of the sentence would be looked for, perhaps ptxpbv
xal ^-/jzijaezs pe xal obx sdpijaeze, (xvi. 17 ;) the expression,
" seek and not find," has in it, moreover, something of the
character of a phrase, and serves to designate a seeking of aid
when the right time has passed away, cf Amos riii. 12, Prov*
i. 28, Hos. ii. 7, Isa. Ixv. 1. To this is to be added that in
riii. 21, instead of 'dux si>p'rja. we read dnodavsiade iv rg dpapzea
^pihv, and that in xiii. 33, (^¦^zsiv cannot be taken at all in an
inimical sense. Does it mean then, a seeking from a sense of
penitence and of longing ? (John xix. 37.) In chap. ¦riii. '28,
xii. 32, xvi. 10, conversions are spoken of which were to take
1 Cf. Winer, Reallex. at the word Schriftgelehrte ; Gfrorer, das Jahrhundert dea
Heils, 1 Abth. p. 140, seq.

Jesus at the Feast of Tabernacles. 207
place in consequence of the lifting up of Christ ; and Eusebius,
Hist. Eccles. iii. 36, tells us that in consequence of the fearful
judgments of God on Jerusalem, pupioi ix nspizoprj^: (innumer
able persons of the circumcision,) became believers. But of
these it could not be said, that they had not found him, that they
had died in their sins, (viii. 24.) Under the ps, consequently,
we would have to regard as contemplated, not the person of
Christ, but the Messiah in the Jewish sense : " Then shall ye
seek that Messiah, whom, in my person, ye have despised,"
(Luke xrii. 22, Matt. xxiv. 23,) thus Zwingle, Lampe, Kuinol,
Neander, 1. c. p. 531, (Trans, p. 294.) But the iym and xiii.
33 are against this view. Nothing remains, then, but as Theo
dorus Heraclese, Maldonatus, Grotius, De Wette, Lucke, 3d
ed., have done, to regard the expression as a formula to desig
nate the complete separation, the entire disappearance, (Ps. x.
15, xxxrii. 10, Isa. xU. 12;) in this case, indeed, we mrst also
again reduce the contents of onuu — iX.deiv simpl/ t.o the
thought of the absolute separation, (by Christ's death and
ascension,) a ¦riew in which riii. 21 is specially in the way, but
which is favored by xiii. 33. It must, consequently, be said,
that on the one side Christ, from his self-consciousness, speaks
of the exaltation on which he would then enter, an e.'^altation
above all that men could attempt against him, and on ilic other
side warns them to use the time with which tbey were yet
favored, (xii. 35.) Without any necessity, Nonnus and The
ophylact already, have the reading sipi iustead of sipt, ("I go,"
instead of "I am;") the formula ortou eipi is also found in xii.
36, xiv. 3, xvii. 24, the present tense serves merely to give it
the vividness of a thing present: "where I then am."
V. 36, 86. The question proceeds from the arrogance of
hatred, as in viii. 22. Ataanopd is taken by most as concrete,
for ol 8eaanapivzez, the genit. "^EXXijvcov then points to the place
of the dispersion, more correctly, however, is it interpreted per
melon., the place of those who are scattered among the Gentiles,
(Syriac, Cyrill, Grotius,) as the eiz also shows, thus Judith, ch. v.
21, (19,) ix z. dtaanopuz, ou 8ieandprjaav ixei, (from the place
where they were scattered.) They ask, whether Jesus ¦will
betake himself to those Jewish congregations, in order from

208 Chap. VH. — v. 37-39.
thence (as the Jews would not accord him their faith,) to
operate upon the Gentiles ?'
Discourse on the Last Day of the Feast — Transactions
IN THE Sanhedrim. — v. 37-52.
V. 37-39.^ The feast of Tabernacles lasted, strictly speak
ing, seven days, (Lev. xxiii. 84, Deut. xvi. 13,) yet in the law
there is mention already made of an eighth day, (Lev. xxiii.
36, cf Nehem. riii. 18, Numb. xxix. 35.) On the question
whether the seventh or eighth day was the great day of the
feast, (cf xix. 31,) the evidence is wanting; according to the
current tradition of the Rabbins, the pouring of the water, to
which there seems to be an allusion here, took place only on
the seven days of the feast, yet Rabbi Juda, tr. Sukka, iv. 1, 9,
speaks also of a pouring of water on the eighth day; and as in
Numb. xxix. 35, and in Josephus, Archseol. iii. 10, 4, the eighth
day, together with the first, is designated as a special day of
rest, and of the festal assembling of the congregation, this may
be regarded as the peydX-rj ¦^pspa. A universal jubilee of the
people (Plutarch calls it a bacchaualian one,) and various pom
pous ceremonies took place at this feast, so that the Rabbins
were accustomed to say : " The mau who has not seen these
festivities, does not know what a jubilee is," cf. H. Majus, dis
sert, de haustu aquarum. On every day of the feast, at the
time of the morning sacrifice, a priest brought into the fore
court, in a golden vessel, water from the spring of Siloah, which
rises within the mount on which the temple stood, and poured
it, mingled with the sacrificial wine, into two bowls which
stood upon the altar, and in which there was an opening by
which it made its escape. During the performance of this
rite, the priests caused trumpets and cymbals to be sounded,
and the words of Isaiah xii. 3, were sung: " With joy shall we
draw water out of the wells of salvation." The exegetical
1 Neander, 1. c. p. 531, supposes that the Jews may have begun to surmise the
tendency of Christ's teaching to embrace mankind universally.
a Cf. on this division, the Dissertation of Nosselt, Opuscul. diss. iii. p. 48 ; Flatt.
Opusc. diss. ii.

Last Day of the Feast. 209
tradition has ascribed a special Messianic reference to these
words of the prophet, which he in fact does utter in a song of
thanksgiving, having reference to the times of the Messiah.
Jonathan translates those wordsfTnaD xnoa mn faVs ['''apn;
^'j^'^'^X, "ye shall receive the new doctrine with joy from the
elect righteous ones." Later Rabbins call this festivity, r\r\pW
nifpn, (joy of the law,) because the water was a symbol of the
divine grace. It is assumed then by the expositors with entire
probability, that the Redeemer cried thus, just at the point of
time when the priest was carrying that sacred water through
the fore-court, and the people were abandoning themselves to a
jubilant joy at the sight of this symbol. It is noted by John,
that on this occasion Jesus stood, (he usually sat when he
taught,) and with a loud voice cried in the midst of the multi
tude. — The exalted words, testifying of the highest self-con
sciousness, announced that in him was actually imparted what
was there expressed in symbol. We have an instance of a
similar exalted testimony vrithin himself, ch. •riii. 12. He rep
resents here also the sense of the need of redemption as the
condition of participation in the blessings which proceed from
him, and represents faith as the organ by which that participa
tion is effected. KoiXia like 1B3 and 3'np., for that which is
¦within man, in general, cf. Ecclesiasticus xix. 22, Prov. xx. 27 ;
in Arabic, also, -Jm stands for ,^JS> "body " for "heart" — ^yet
would Christ have used this expression, and not rather simply
have said if abzou, if he had not designed an allusion to the
xoiXia of the golden vessel from which the water was poured out?
(Bengel.) — Though Christ, iv. 14| declared that the water of
life which he should give would be a self-dependent spring
¦within the heart, yet this expression goes beyond that; on
others also shall the streams of this spring pour themselves
forth. (Chrysostom.) The reference to the Old Testament
creates a difficulty ; a passage literally corresponding is not to
be found, though abundance of water is in various forms pro
mised, as an image of energies which impart life, cf. on the
one side, Isa. xliv. 3, Iriii. 11, on the other, the passages which
speak of a spring of water which is to go forth from the tem
ple, Joel iu. 23, (iv. 18,) Zech. xiv. 8, Ezek. xlvu. 1-12.— As
regards now the interpretation given by the Evangelist, he has
19*

210 Chap. VH.- v. 39-49.
taken psuaouae as the future absolute, on the ground that not
until Christ was glorified was the Spirit to be poured out upon
the Disciples, (Luke xxiv. 49, Acts ii. 33 ;) in consequence of
this interpretation, when Christ appealed to the Old Testament,
John thought of Joel iii. 1. What are we to. think then of
this explanation which the Evangelist furnishes ? F-hrst of all,
if the watcE, as in iv. 14, designates metaphorically energies of
life, such had certainly already, through our Lord's words as
their medium, been conferred on the Disciples, (iv. 14, vi. 68,
v. 26.) Is not such a communication of life also a communi
cation of the Spirit t It certainly is, for the language is : " My
words are Spirit and life." But Jesus himself, not only in the
passages we have cited from Luke and Acts, but also in John,
ch. xiv.. and xvi., designates the sending of the Spirit as a thing
of the future. If now quickening be a necessary consequence
of the impartation of tbe Spirit, it would be entirely in accord
ance vrith the fact, if the Disciples dated the proper fulfilling
of the promise from the time of the subsequent outpouring of
the Spirit, and so much the more since vrith that event the life
first began to flow forth from the Disciples. If the eu^nm ^v is
to be explained by reference to the outpouring of the Spirit,
the Evangelist is not giring a declaration in regard to the
existence of tte Holy Ghost, but is speaking of his manifesta
tion in his operations, on which account, so far as the fact is
concerned, the addition of 8e8opivov (Lachmann,) by a num.-
ber of authorities is correct; in Acts xix. 2, si nveupa Kyebv iazti.
is also probably to be taken in the same way. But the ques
tion then rises, why the operation of the Holy Spirit is dated
from that period, though he had wrought already under the
Old Testament, and during the life of Christ ? Does the ex
pression designate merely the strength of the distinction as tio
the amount of activity and power? Thus especially it is re
garded by the Lutheran interpreters, who use it in maintaining
the similarity between the operations of the Spirit under the
Old and under the New Covenant. Or is there also a distinor
tion in the character of the outpouring ? Certainly the latter.
The Holy Spirit in the specific Christian sense is that spirit
which, was wrought, in rirtue of the unio mystica, with the glori
fied Christ, the new spirit of adoption which rests on the con-

Last Day of the Feast. 211
Boiousness of the finished propitiation, the spirit in the power of
which the redeemed man knows himself more and more as the
organ of that Christ who works in him and through him. This
Spirit could descend upon the Disciples only after the propitia^
tion had actually been accompUshed, and Christ spiritually
glorified. He then made the Church the body for his manifes
tation, (Eph. i. 23,) and in it continued his work upon earth.
The faith of the Disciples then no longer had its centre in the
sensible manifestation of Christ, but in his spiritual internal
testimony, in the unio mystica, in the strength of which a Paul
could now speak (cf. John xiv. 19, 20,) ofthe 8oxtpyj z. XaXouvzoz
iv ipoi Xpeazou, (2 Cor. xiii, 3,) of the xazspyd^sadae zoti Xptazou
8i ipoi), (Rom. xv. 8.) There first was verified, that the living
water which he had given them had become a self-dependent
spring within them, (iv. l4.)
V. 40-44. The expression <^ Xoiyoz allows us to assume, that
in what has preceded the Evangelist has merely given us the
theme, as it were, of a discourse of Christ. On 6 npoip-rjZTiz, see
i. 21. Fdp in th,e question v. 41, is to be explained by the
presupposition of a negative reply, Winer, p. 417. The objec
tion, V. 42, resting on the popular opinion that Jesus was of
GaUlean origin, is urged by the more intelligent ones, who
had in their eye, Micah v. 1, Isa. xi. 1, Jer. xxiii. 6. Under
the ztvsz, it may be that we are to understand those very
i)7rr]pez(u, who had mingled themselves among the people.
V. 46-49. The officers return to the authorities, to wit : in
the assembly of the members of the Sanhedrim, and confess
that they have been held back from any act of force by the
transcendent power of Christ's words. It was, indeed, particu
larly the higher authority with which Christ appeared, by which
they were struck and paralyzed, (Matt. ¦rii. 29.) .Besides, as
Augustine says : Cujus ¦rita fiilgur, ejus verba tonitrua, (" his
words are thunder, whose life is Ughtning.") If now, in perus
ing the words of Christ, the reader is led to confess what those
hearers then confessed, there Ues in this the true proof of the
inspioation of the EvangeUsts, to wit : the proof of the fidelity
of their narration. The arrogance of these hierarchical doctors
of the faculty is characteristic, who, because of their* knowledge
of the Scriptures, regard themselves as the sole rule of the

212 Chap. Vn.—v. 60-52.
truth; on the way in which this arrogance had gradually
strengthened, see Gfrorer, das Jahrh. des Heils. 1 Abth. p. 240,
seq. The unlettered populace were called y'!i»^ Dj?, (people
of the land,) and j'pt?, (worms,) and in the Talmudic tr. Pirke
Aboth. (ii. 5,) which contains many expressive sayings of the
Rabbins, we have the words Ton y^xn oy s*?, " he that hath not
studied is never pious."
V. 50-52. Pleasingly, and at the same time in a mode
psychologicaUy correct, are presented the tokens of the grow
ing faith of Nicodemus. Still fettered in part by that same
fear of man which had allowed him only ¦with caution and by
night to come to Jesus, he confines himself to requesting a
procedure in accordance vrith the principle of legal rectitude,
(Deuter. xix. 16.) To dxouarj and yvq), Meyer and De Wette
supply "the law itself," which is personified in the Judge;
were the judging the thing spoken of, there would be no
objection to this view, but as the thing spoken of is the judicial
hearing, the verbs must be taken impersonally or 6 xpiz^z be
supplied from the connection, Winer, p. 339. To their blinded
passion this love of rectitude on the part of Nicodem:LS is
at once a suspicious matter; they express in their scornful
question the idea that none but a man from the despised
province would be among the followers of Jesus. In their
haughty contempt toward this province, (the Talmud tr. Erubin.
f. Uii. 1, says : " Because of their wretched pronunciation, the
law has not been intrusted to the Galileans,") and in their
blind anger they overlook the fact also, that at least two
prophets, Jonah and Elijah, were of Galilee, and probably also
Nahum and Hosea. Luther: "Nicodemus had touched their
consciences and confused them, so that they did not know
what they, were saying." _ According to Bretschneider, in his
Probabilia, the mistake was not made by the scribes, but by
the Evangelist, who, as Bauer thinks, in his extreme fondness
for contrasts, forgot the historical data. But who is more likely
to have been guilfy of such forgetfulness, the Evangelist, who,
according to Bauer, composed the Gospel from his own reflec
tions, or a passionate hierarchy in the heat of conflict ?'
1 Ebrard, 1. o. i. p. 493, relieves the difficulty by understanding it of the province
of Galilee in antithesis to Judea, in which case the language would refer only to
prophets after the exile.

CHAPTER VIII.

The Woman taken in Adultery. — Chap. vn. 63 -vm. 11.
The genuineness of this section is more than doubtful, inas
much as there is a concurrence of strong reasons for suspecting
it, derived from various sources. As regards the Codices, we
indeed find the narrative in Cod. D G H K M U, and in nearly
two hundred of the Minuscula, but it is wanting in A B C, on
which fact, however, it is to be observed, that the Cod. A is
defective from John vi. 50 to viii. 12, (though the relative size
of the space proves that this history was wanting from the begin
ning,) and Cod. C is defective from chap. vii. 3 to riii. 34. As
regards the testimony of Cod. D, its authority is weakened by
the fact, that in some other places it has apocryphal additions.
Matt. XX. 28, Luke vi. 5. Several Codices mark the passage with
the obelus or asterisk as the sign that it is to be rejected or is
suspicious, others put it at the end of the Gospel, others after vii.
36, and even after Luke 21. Euthymius on chap. viii. remarks :
Xp^ 8e yivwaxeiv 5zi zd ivzeudev vii. 53 dxpi rou viii. 12 napd
zdiz dxpe^saiv dvztypdipoez 7] obx ^^P^rat tj m^eXeazof 8tb <paivovzae
napeyypanza xal npoadijxT], (it is needful to know, that the words
between vii. 53 and viii. 12 are either not found at all in the
accurate manuscripts, or are marked vrith an obelus.; hence,
they seem to be interpolated and an appendage,) to meet
which, indeed, the assurance is given us on the other side by
Jerome, c. Pelag. ii. 17, that this passage is found in multis et
grsecis et latinis codd, and some scholia assert that they are
embraced in dpxaeoez dvzeypdipoe::. On this point, however, the
additional circumstance presents itself, that, as is usual in the
case of interpolations, there is in this passage speciaUy an
extraordinary number of variations; in fact, three divergent
1 (213)

214 Chap. VH. 53— VEH. 11.
texts in all are found. The testimony of the Church fathers,
moreover, is unfavorable to the genuineness of the section,
since it is at least not mentioned by Origen, Appolinaris,
Theodore of Mopsuestia, Cyrill, Chrysostom, Basil, TertuUian,
Cyprian and others ; and is likewise wanting in the most
ancient manuscripts and editions of the Syriac translation, in
most of the Codices of the Coptic, &c. The first citations
from the Greek text occur in the Apostolic Constitutions
at the end of the third century, and in Ambrose, Augustine
and Jerome ; the oldest testimony for it, to wit : in the second
century, is given by the Itala, yet in this translation too,
th.e Cbd. Vere. and Brix. omit 'the division. Can the omis
sion, perhaps, be explained on doctrinal grounds? Ambrose,
Apol. Dav. thinks, siquis ea auribus otiosis accipiat, enoris
incentivum incurrit, (if any one receives it with idle ears,
he encounters an incentment to error,) and Augustine, de
adulterinis conjugiis, ii. 7, expresses the conjecture, that it may
have been omitted, because it might give occasion to lightness
of sentiment on the subject of adulter}' ; the polemical writer,
Nikon, moreover, in the thirteenth century, maintains that
the Armenian Church arbitrarily erased the narrative, because
it might be pernicious. But what Augustine says is merely
conjecture, (credo ;) this solicitude, too, is found for the first time
in the fourth century in Augustine, and then already the
narrative had been omitted in many Codices, but subsequently,
after this solicitude had been expressed, it was never on that
account omitted. — To these external grounds of suspicion are
yet to be added the internal. According to (Le Clerc,) Olshau
sen and Strauss, it embraces contradictions which are incapable
of explanation ; this we cannot concede. On the other hand
it is manifest, that in its style it is remote from that of John,
and that it has no connection with what precedes it. When, for
example, in v. 53, riii. 1, it says that Jesus went to the Mount
of Olives, and that on the following day he again taught the
people in the temple, we can hardly suppose otherwise than
that Ixaazoz refers to the dxXoz, and that inopeudy] speaks of
these people going to their houses. But immediately previous,
the SxXoz, the people, are not the subject of discourse. Nothing,
consequently, would remain but to suppose that it speaks of

The Woman taken in Adultery. 215
the going out of the members of the Sanhedrim, and as the
mention of this without some further motive would seem to
be rather superfluous, the sense would have to be : " With the
matter undecided, vrithout coming to any conclusion, they
went home." As regards the language, the first thing which
strikes us is the ;rac o Xab<^, an expression occurring in the
Synoptists, but for which John habitually substitutes 6 oxXoz ;
the phrase xadiaaz iSidaaxsv auzouz, and the words opdpou and
ypappazsuz, occur in the Synoptists but not in John ; finally, we
have here several times the connection ¦vrith 8s, while John uses
o5v and xai. — The state of the critical data being such, it
impUed even in Heumann's day great assurance to venture the
observation which he makes : "I confess that I doubt, if we
consider all the critical marks of interpolated writings, whether
a solitary one of them ¦vrill be found in this history," (!) but
yet more amazing is it that even in our day Ebrard can
assure us, (1. c. i. p. 494 :) " The external testimony against the
genuineness is entirely insignificant." After Erasmus, Calvin,
Beza, had expressed simply doubt, Grotius, Le Clerc, Wetste;n,
Semler, and almost all the recent writers, have expressed them
selves decidedly against the genuineness of the passage. But
the most recent negative criticism of Strauss, Bauer, (Weisse
judges more impartially,) again pleads for its genuineness,
(Strauss does so in his 4th ed. after passing by the section in
silence in the 8d ed.) in order in this way more effectuaUy to
defend the position, that the entire book is spurious. Yet apart
from these, the genuineness has been maintained in the most
recent period by Staudlin, (in a Progr. 1806,) Kuinbl, Schul
thess, Scholz. — The question of authenticity, however, is entirely
distinct from that of genuineness ; it is a magisterial sentence
vrithout ground, when Hase, 1. c. p. 148, declares that the authen
ticity cannot be maintained, when the genuineness is denied.
Neander, with mature historical tact, makes the remark :
"Only, to make the largest concession, could the spirit of the
Marcionite system have originated such a narrative, if we
suppose that it is not from a true tradition we derive it ; yet
on that supposition it would have taken a different form, would
have taken shape in a more decided opposition to the Mosaic
point of view, and in that case could not have obtained such

216 Chap. VH. v. 53— VTH. v. 2-5.
general acceptance in the Catholic Church." In fact, the nar
rative bears something of that spirit in it which is so peculiar
to the Gospel — and which, therefore, through all ages, has been
understood by so few, so. that even the Church ofthe first
century had already begun to ignore it — the spirit of a free
pitying love, over against a legalistic ascetic piefy. The
conduct of our Lord in this situation is depicted also with
a detail marked by peculiarities, which a legend certainly
would not have invented. We believe, therefore, that it
belongs to the circle of the synoptical tradition of the Gos
pel ' — the traces of the citation of it extend, as we have said,
back to the period when the Itala was translated. But if
the narrative belongs to the circle of the synoptical tradition,
how did it get into this place in John ? K we may be allowed
to suppose that our Saviour's spending the night outside the
city, during the last Passover, (Luke xxi. 37, xxii. 39,) was
occasioned by the danger impending over him, we must also,
because of v. 2, place this incident in the time of the last Pass
over, and those manuscripts have consequently followed a true
tact, which have put this narrative at the close of Luke 21.
For its insertion here, we know of no other reason than that
now received by most, that it appeared to give a striking con
formation to the words iym ob xpivm ob8sva, in v. 15.
Chap. vii. 53 — viii. 2. The remark has already been made,
that the words, v. 53, can of course be understood only of a
departure for their homes, at the close of a day, when Jesus
had been teaching in the temple, (Luke xxi. 88.)
V. 8-6. It has been thought that three internal improba
bilities may be detected in these words, and these Olshausen,
especially, has felt himself obliged rigorously to urge : 1) If
these persons came under the commission of the Sanhedrim,
how could they afterward, vrithout anything further, permit
the woman to go ? If they came on a prompting of their own,
how could they, as if they were official persons, claim the car
rying out of the Mosaic law ? 2) In the Pentateuch, stoning
1 When Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. iii. SiO, mentions that Papias narrates what is also
found in the Gospel Ka-8' 'Efipatovs, the history of a woman who was accused, im
TTO^^ajf &iJ.apTiai,c, (of many sins,) a number, even Olshausen among them, have
found in this a trace of the narrative here ; but the M no^^alt; a/iapriaic points
rather to the narrative in Luke vii. 47,

The Woman taken in Adultery. 217
is indeed appointed as the punishment in certain cases of for-
nicatio, but in cases of adultery, merely death in general,
(Deut. xxii. 22, Lev. xx. 10 ;) the Talmud, indeed, expressly
designates strangulation as the punishment in such cases. 3)
How could the question be supposed to tempt Jesus ? Whether
he advised severify in accordance vrith the law, or advised
mildness, in either case, it could do him no injury, as he would
simply be expressing a private opinion. Besides, they could
hardly expect from Jesus a sentence in direct conflict with the
explicit direction of the law, (Strauss.) — ^None of these difficul
ties seem to us so formidable. Our reply to the first, is : the
scribes, by whom the members of the Sanhedrim are also
meant, (v. 9,) act as private persons ; their arrogant self-right
eousness displays itself in some measure in their dragging
offenders to legal punishment. Their design was to take the
woman before the court, which, as was observed on •rii. 32,
was sitting in a hall of the temple; as they pass by Jesus,
the thought is started, of bringing him, who as the friend of
sinners was so odious to them, into difficulty by this case, and
they therefore request a decision from him.' — As regards the
tecond question, it is first of all to be observed, that the confir
matory statement from the Mischna is by no means to be cou-
tidered decisive. It proceeds, in fact, from a canon of inter
pretation whose incorrectness can be demonstrated, to wit : that
where merely the words nor nin are found, the death is always
by strangling ; but cf. Exod. xxxi. 14, xxxv. 2, with Numbers
XV. 32-84. Even in Christ's time, moreover, the Mosaic law
was no longer carried out in all points, as for example, the bit
ter water was no longer given to the adulteress as a test, (Num.
V. 11, seq.) and after the destruction of the city, the changes
•were many and great, (cf. Michselis, Mos. Recht, § 262.) Still,
even in the case before us, a consonance with the Mosaic law
1 Since according to v. 9, members of the Sanhedrim are included, it might be
supposed there was a deputation of the Sanhedrim, (Meyer,) but this surely could
not have been officially sent. If the supposition is o,llowable, that, because of the
frequency of adultery, the legal penalty was 1.0 longer enforced, (Ebrard,) it would
certainly be easier to understand how it would come to pass, that a teacher might
be consulted as au individual ; yet in such a case, his position of variance toward
Moses would have had in it nothing offensive ; but that they, in case t^ had decided
with the law, would have reproached him with •' unheard uf severity, ' iJ, vnth their
reverence for the law, not very likely. 20

218 Chap. VIH.— v. 5-8.
can be proven. First, we may consider the supposition by
which Selden, Lightfoot, and Meyer, meet the difficulty, to wit:
that the woman was betrothed; in the case of such a woman, if
•riolation occurred in the city, where she could cry for help,
(the case was different when it occurred in the field,) she was
to be stoned to death, (Deut. xxii. 23, 24,) and Philo thinks
that the term potxeia is applicable to this form of crime also.
Yet we are forced to ask : Had this been the case here, would
there not, in order to characterize the crime, have been added,
that it occurred in the city ? On the other hand, Ebrard, as it
seems to us, has made the agreement between this transaction
and the law highly probable, (especially if we connect with what
he says the remarks of Michselis.) His ¦riew is this : "In Deut.
xxii. 20-25, four cases of fornicatio are mentioned : for the first
and third, v. 20 and 23, stoning is designated as the mode of
execution ; in the cases of the second and third, v. 22 and 26,
only the word "die " is used; but as in v. 25 it says, "the man
only shall die," in opposition to v. 24, where it is said, " both shall
be stoned," it clearly follows that in the second and fourth cases
also, no other penalty than that by stoning is contemplated." —
As regards the third question, there certainly lay something
ensnaring in the matter, in as far as Christ might decide against
the law, as in that case he would be marked as one who despised
the law. Only in case he decided for the stoning, is it difficult
to see wherein the point of the testing would lie. Luther,
indeed, following Augustine, says : " If he answers yes, he
contradicts his preaching; if he says no, he contradicts Moses."
Calvin even thinks that the temptation consisted in the incite
ment to legal rigor, and as the result, to inconsistency vrith his
ordinary, mild manner of acting; as, however, Christ never
declared as a rule, the release of the sinner from punishment —
especiaUy from that determined by the ciril law — it is not prob
able that the Pharisees had drawn such an inference from his con
duct and his teachings. We prefer, therefore, with Euthymius,
Crell, Neander, to suppose that the netpd^^stv does not involve
the idea of reducing him to a dilemma, but rested on their fixed
presumption, that Jesus would in this case also, display that
mUdness toward sinners which was so hateful to them, cf
Luke rii. 49, xv. 1, 2, Matt. xxi. 31.— In xazeiX-ijipd^, let the

The Woman taken in Adultery. 219
augin. perf. in aor. 1, be noticed, which occurs elsewhere only
iu eiprjd-fjv, (Buttman, Ausfuhrl Gramm. ii. 415.) According
to the law, the adulterer was also to be put to death, but he
seems in this instance to have made his escape. They place
the woman in the midst of the crowd which had gathered
around Jesus, so that the eyes of all were turned upon her.
' Enauzofmpcp is added, that no room for doubt about the
truth of the accusation may be left.
V. 0-8. Some Codices add npoanoioupevoz, others pij npoan.
both evidently glosses. To eypa<pev various expositors have
supplied, and even some Codices have actually added: Ivbz
kxdazou zdz dpapziaz ; had Jesus, however, written any particu
lar words, the Evangelist would have mentioned what they were
— besides, this was hardly possible on the floor, which was a
paved one, and probably kept clean. If we may not urge the
words that were written, yet the act of writing may be signifi
cant ; the meaning of it according to Bengel and Michaelis is :
"Why do you question me? What stands written suffices."
Obscurely enough would this have been expressed, and cer
tainly if this had been the meaning the act would not, in v. 8,
have been repeated. Rather is the explanation completely
satisfactory which imputes to it the same significance which it
still has among us. The writing or drawing (ypdfstv signifies
either,) on the ground was in the ancient world, as among us,
the sign of profound meditation and of abstraction from all
that is going on around, also of irksomeness, which, occupied
with nothing external, is absorbed in the train of thought
which passes ¦within. See the Scholion on Aristophanes,
Acharn. v. 31, in which passage come one after the other the
words, xaz' ineiSdv iL pbvoz, dnopiH, ypdipm, napaziXXopai, Xbyi^opai,
(afterward when I am alone, I hesitate, I write, I twitch my
hair, I calculate,) so that one word explains the other. In the
Talmud also, tr. Gittin, f vii. 1, are found traces of a similar usage
among the Jews. Jesus, consequently, expresses in this way,
first of all, that he is gi^ring no heed to the question. And
wherefore ? Probably on the same ground as in Luke xii. 14,
because he is not willing to interfere in decisions on questions
of civil law ; thus Neander, Lucke, Olshausen. This is also
Luther's ¦riew, who adds these words : " Our Lord means to

220 Chap. VHL- v. 9-11.
say, why do you question me ? and will not favor them with a
word, turns himself in another direction, and will not attend to
them nor answer them." But can it then be said that the
mere expression of a judicial sentence is here involved? Such
a sentence, in fact, the Sanhedrim alone could give. The law
(a fact which must not be overlooked,) was a re%io-political
one, aud what it affirms they themselves adduce, they conse
quently wish merely to know what religious attitude toward
the law Jesus would assume. We cannot, therefore, well sup
pose any design in the writing other than in its repetition, v.
8. We, consequently, coincide vrith Bengel : Silenti actione
cogitationes adversariorum vagas, festinantes et securas fixit et
conscientiam eorum excitavit, (by a silent action he fixed the
wandering, hasty, self-reliant thoughts of his enemies, and
aroused their conscience.) If we dared not assume, a priori,
that they became accusers with a self-righteous and malignant
satisfaction, yet v. 7 would prove that they did. On such
accusers that deportment- of the Saviour must have had the
effect we have intimated. What passed in the mind of Jesus
while he was silent, is shown by v. 7. The word of Christ is
not to be regarded as demanding an abrogation of judicial
punishment, but as a more concrete expression for xazaxpiveiv.
Thus this word of his strengthens the infiuence upon the
thoughts of the people, which his silence had already been
calculated to effect, and his relapse into silence gives free play
to the chastening of conscience. There is evidence that at this
period many of the Rabbins, high in position, were" living in
adultery, (Wagenseil on the Sota, p. 526, seq., Justin Mart.
dial. c. Tryph. p. 363, ed. Col.) yet it is hardly necessary to
demonstrate this to justify the result of which v. 9 tells us.
V. 9. Musculus : Fuit procul dubio tantopere hoc Christi
response illorum verberata conseientia, ut primum prorsus
obmutuerint, nee habuerint, quod in speciem regererent.
Delude, ne ulterius quid, quod minus vellent, ubi se denuo
erexissit, audirent, confestim se ex medio subducunt, (beyond
doubt, their conscience was severely smitten by this answer of
Christ's, so that at first they were entirely silent, nor had they
anything specific to reply. Afterward, when he lifted up him
self a second time, they feared they might hear something

The Woman taken in Adultery. 221
further, which might be still less pleasant, and hurriedly with
drew,) cf the admirable remarks of Calvin. — Eiz xad' eiz, a sole
cism for xad' sva ndvzez, Mark xiv. 19, Rom. xii. 5, 3 Maccab. v.
34. "Emz riov iaxdzmv does not seem to belong to the original
text. Some interpret npea^uzepoi and iaxazoe as having refer
ence to age : " Old and young," (Grotius, Seller,) but if we
read smz iaxdzmv, the eaxazoz compels us to refer the npsa^. to
the rank; (Aristophanes: 6 iaxazoz 8^poz, the lowest of the
people,) as in Latin, primores and homines postremi, (1 Cor.
iv. 9.) A withdrawal in the exact order of rank is of course
not intended, but merely that the one class withdrew, as well
as the other ; yet the remark may be made, that when the
principal persons departed, their inferiors would have the less
courage to remain.
V. 10, 11. Olshausen discovers in the course here pursued
by Jesus, a threefold difficulfy. First, that Jesus, by making
the exercise of the penal authority dependent on the moral
character of the judge, undermines the foundation of civil
law. Secondly, that in an unseemly manner he \rithdrew the
criminal from her judge. Thirdly, that an exhortation to re
pentance, so necessary under the circumstances, is wanting.
Yet he himself observes in part, what serves to resolve these
scruples. The main point to be kept in view is this : Christ
fixes his eye not so much on the act of the adulteress, as on
the intention of her accusers; regarded in this aspect, which is
so entirely in keeping ¦with the character of Him who had
come into the world as its Redeemer, (iii. 17,) the conduct of
Christ is perfectly intelligible. The sad mingling of what
belongs to religion with what is demanded by civil order in his
own day, led Luther especially to take that view, from which
also this conduct of our Lord, as regards its relation to the law,
is to be explained. In the Mosaic institutes, the State and the
Church, the legal and the religious point of view, coincide ; in
the Christian system, they are separate. The conception of the
state rests upon that of the law, and retribution, that is, punish
ment is needed, that the law may be carried out ; Christ on the
contrary, and the Church with him, works upon the mind, and
this is done through nurturing love ; the discipline of the Church
consequently, is not a xbXaaez, but simply a nae8eia, which ceases
20*

222 Chap. VI[I. — v. 12-16.
where there is penitence, (2 Cor. ii. 6, 7.) In consonance with
this, Luther says: "He does not take from their right, he lets
Moses stand untouched, he says to them neither nay nor yea, yet
in a masterly manner he says both. Why do ye not what Moses
has commanded ? But if ye wish to judge her in accordance
with my kingdom, commit her case to me. For my judgment
is : This adulteress is not alone; there is not one of you that is
not as bad and wicked as she is." That the exhortation to
penitence is wanting, cannot be maintained — it lies in the
prjxezt dpdpzave, Augustine : ergo et dominus damnavit, sed
peccatum, non hominem, (therefore, our Lord did pass con
demnation, but on the sin, not on the person.) The exhorta
tion is a brief one, but how mightily had the circumstances
spoken ! In her fears, the woman had already passed under
the sentence of death, she had endured the public disgrace ;
the question : " Where are thine accusers," had made her feel
how much she owed to Jesus, and that Jesus who but a moment
ago with his searching words had thrilled the hearts of her
accusers, turns now upon her the look of pitying love ! Was
it in the power of words to strengthen the impression — would
they nbt have weakened it ?
A second Testimony of Christ to himself. — v. 12-20.
V. 12. Was this discourse, also, uttered during the last day
of the feast ? If v. 12 is connected with vii. 52, we must sup
pose it to have been uttered after those transactions, and in that
case it can hardly belong to the same day. Although the first
mention of the departure from the temple is made in viii. 59,
there is yet a change of place supposed in v. 20. These dis
courses naturally fall then into the time succeeding the feast.
The testimony of Christ to himself in this passage has an
analogy with that in vii. 87 ; after the analogy of that and the
character of these figurative discourses of Christ elsewhere, it
has been thought necessary to search for some distinct occasion
for this comparison of himself with Ught, ahd such an occasion
has been found in our Lord's being supposed to cast his eyes
on the two tall golden candlesticks, which during the feast of
Tabernacles were lighted on either side of the altar of burnt

Second Testimony of Christ to himself. 223
offering, where also was the ya^oipuXdxtov — according to Maim-
onide.-^, they were lighted every day. If the discourse, however,
was uttered after the feast, the possibility of such an allusion
falls to the ground. Lyser and Heumann suggest that the
rising sun gave occasion for the metaphorical language. We do
not feel ourselves able to decide anything definitely on this point.
As Ohrist in vii. 37 had designated himself as the fountain of
the powers of life, so here he designates himself as the fountain
of that illumination from which life comes,' life for the whole
world. By speaking of following him, he introduces the image
of a guiding star, by which we are led on our pathway, and he
who follows him receives this light of life into his soul.
V. 13, 14. Such exalted representations in regard to his
person must in the nature of the case excite opposition ; no
man could receive a testimony of this sort, given of himself
by the ¦witness, unless he were in affinity with him, so as to feel
it at the same time within himself. Having no such affinity,
they at once charge him with falsehood, but the Redeemer, in
the power of a self-consciousness closely conjoined with God,
was able to maintain the truth of what he had affirmed, (vii. 28,
29.) Augustine : Lumen et alia demonstrat et se ipsum. Tes
timonium sibi perhibet lux, aperit sanos oculos et sibi ippa testis
est, (Light, which brings other things to view, brings itself to
¦view. Light furnishes its own testimony, it opens healthful
eyes, and itself is a witness to itself.) The inference of his
adversaries was indeed conceded by Christ in the discourse,
chap. V. 81, but only by accommodation, and the same accom
modation follows here in v. 18.
V. 15, 16. He animadverts on the tone of mind from which
that judgment proceeded. 2dp$ may be the outward appear
ing of Christ, (cf xaz' 6(piv, vii. 24,) or it may mean the adp^
of those who judged him, in antithesis to the pneumatic tone
of mind from which an acknowledgment of his witness to him
self would have to proceed. The iym — oudeva, Bauer regards as
absolutely out of place, and ascribes it entirely to the disposition
of the Evangelist to exaggerate. Cyrill, Flatt, Kuinol, supply, to
complete the sense, xazd zrjv adpxa, (according to the flesh,) but
in this way the resumption in the proposition xai — iym, which
is clearly absolute, is falsified, (De Wette ;) it is better, there-

224 Chap. VIH.— v. 17-24.
fore, to take xpivm in the connection in the sarae evil sense in
which we find it used in the connection in Matt. vii. 1 also.
Christ has no pleasure in judging, and where pleasure is felt in
it, it is the infallible sign of a heart of impurity; that he
judges, however, is shown by v. 16, but he does it only in
fellowship with the Father ; it springs, therefore, from motives
which are objective, and consequently, pure.
V. 17, 18. The thought expressed in v. 16 leads to an
accommodation similar to that which we have in ch. v. 81, 32.
We see from expressions like these, and like those in verse 29
and in xvi. 32, that the identity of the self-consciousness of
Christ with that of God has not abrogated the distinction
between them. — Cf. Deut. xix. 15.
V. 19, 20. That the Jews knew very well whom he meant
by the Father, we see clearly from chap. v. 18, x. 33, but they
deride after the manner of men who cling to what seems to be
the evidence of the seuses. In correspondence vrith the state
ment elsewhere made, that the knowledge of the Father is indis
pensable to the acknowledgment of Christ, the converse as
regards the relation may be affirmed. " If cannot be determined
with entire certainty what is here meant by the ya^o^uXdxtov,
see Liicke on this passage, and De Wette on Luke xxi. 1.
According to the Talmud, there were in the Sanctuary thirteen
boxes for the reception of offerings, which are, perhaps, here
named collectively ya^otpuXdxiov ; from Mark xii. 41, seq. we
must suppose they were placed in the fore-court of the women.
'Ev designates place, (Luke xiii. 4.) The designation by John
of the locality may be incidental, but may be designed to mark
the fact that Jesus taught in a place where multitudes assembled,
in order that the extraordinary fact that obdelz iniaasv abzbv (no
man laid hands on him,) may be made more prominent, in
which case xai must be taken as adversative, (and yet.)
Jesus warns them — Discourses of his Dignity — v. 21-29.
V. 21, 22. Whether this discourse immediately followed, or
is given without respect to the order of time, cannot be deter
mined. On one of the middle days of the feast, Christ had
uttered something of the same kind, vii. 33, 34; here obx

Jesus warns them — Discourses of his Dignity. 225
ebpijaeze is omitted, and xal iv zrj dpapzia hpihv dnodavsiade is
added. ''Apapzia cannot, as Calvin supposes, have a different
sense from the plural in v. 24. The thought is consequently
this: "Ye shall die in an unredeemed condition." It would
seem on this ¦riew, in conflict with the exposition we have
adopted on vii. 34, as if l^^^zelv. must designate the longing after
the Messiah, and hnou — iXdsiv the result of dying vrithout a
Redeemer. But such a conception of the meaning of ^i^ze'v
has nothing whatever in its favor, and in this very connection
V. 24 is also against it, for as unbelief is the reason why they
die in their sins, the l^rjze7v cannot be a longing after Christ ; we
are forced, therefore, with Calrin, to Umit it to " a seeking for
aid from necessity, without faith, and consequently no seeking at
all." If, however, we make this distinction, must not the lan
guage refer to calamities at least? But if we admit .this, we
are the more necessitated to interpret the expression in conso
nance with vii. 33, xiii. 33. In this way we are led to the
sense : " Use the present moment, for soon I shall be no more
with you ; ye shall seek me in vain, and shall pass away in your
sins, but I shall be forever delivered from your snares." There
need be no difficulty in adopting this view, because it would
require us to insert the words "in vain," since they must be
added, even if we assume that ^rjzetv means the seeking of help.
In John, least of all, can we be surprised at inexactness of
phraseology, (cf. the remarks on vii. 3, xri. 10, &c.)
V. 23. Calvin: Pergunt non modo in secure contemptu,
sed etiam in proterria, (they persist not only in their con
temptuous security, but even in wantonness,) as in rii. 35. As
the Jewish abhorrence of suicide was very great, and as the
opinion prevailed among them that the self-murderer was con
demned to the lowest hell, (Josephus, De bello Judaic, iii. 8, 5,)
the words imply the most unmitigated scorn, and intimate be
sides, why they would not wish to follow him — to ¦wit : into hell.
V. 23, 24. Verse 23 may be regarded either as a solemn re
joinder to their scoff, or merely as a continuation of v. 21. The
former would undoubtedly be the preferable view, if zd xdzm
meant the world below, ''«!?, but the words ix zou xbapou zouzou
show. that it refers to the earth, (Acts ii. 19 ;) the transition to
V. 24, would consequently, if that supposition were correct, be

226 • Chap. VHI.- v. 26.
difficult to explain. The connection, therefore, as Crell already
gives it, is this: "Ye are earthly minded, I am heavenly; if
therefore ye be not justified by taith in me, ye must perish in
your sins." On iym sipi, compare remarks at iv. 26.
V. 26. Luther : " A sarcastic reply, as if they said : Pretty
well, that is very likely. And who are you then, good Master
Jesus?" This sentence, especially because of the ztjv dpx'^v at
the beginning of it, has been a crux interpretum, and has given
rise to the most diversified interpretations and fancies. , As zijv
dpx^v even in a philological respect has been explained in ways
very different and sometimes in conflict with the usages of the
language, we have first of all to specify what it may mean and
what it cannot mean, cf De Wette and Lucke. On this point
it is considered as understood that 5, zi is to be taken as relative,
that xai is not to be removed from the text, and that x~^v dpxfjv
is not substantive, but adverbial, like dxp-fjv. This adverb cannot
mean " truly," (Kuinol, Lucke, 2d ed.;) it can hardly mean, "to
begin with, first of all," (Erasmus, Luther, Bucer, Grotius,
Paulus, Olshausen;) "first of all, I am he whom I also tell you
I am, that is, he who admonishes you," (Paulus ;) " first of all —
and I speak it openly — I have much to censure, and to rebuke
lU you, and am, therefore, he who earnestly admonishes you,"
(Olshausen ;) " in the first place, I am what I have just declared
myself to be — the light of the world," (Grotius;) "first, I am
your preacher," (Luther.) All these ways of taking the expres
sion suppose that our Saviour's design was primarily to lead
the Jews to a different view of himself, so that when they
stood on this point of view, he might reveal to them one yet
higher. But on the one hand, the trailing character of these
explanations, on the other, their inaptness, is manifest; it is
besides questionable whether z-qv dpxrjv is ever used in the sense
of "first of all." According to ordinary usage it signifies, 1)
in the beginning, equivalent to formerly, aforetimes ; 2) from
a former period, from the beginning, that is, altogether, and this
is almost always its sense in negations ; 3) from the beginning,
Herodotus, i. 9. (Schweighauser, Lex. Herod, i. p. 105. Her
mann on Sophocles, Antig. v. 92.') The exposition most widely
, 1 Although the philologists we have named are sulEcient authority for so under
standing the word in that passage, yet the meaning of "altogether" might perhaps
answer. Liicke has overlooked that meaning.

Jesus warns them — ^Discourses of his Dignity. 227
embraced (Nonnus, Melancthon, Beza, Camerarius, Calvin, Le
Clerc, Heumann,') is that which rests on this third signification
of the word, and which takes XaXm in the sense of the prse-
terite : " What I told you already in the beginning, (or from the
beginning,) that am I;" Eisner adduces as a parallel the passage
in Plautus, Capteiri iii. 4, 91 : Eho, die mihi : quis igitur ille est ?
— quem dudum dixi a principio tibi, (come, then, tell me who
he is ? — He whom I've told you all along from the beginning.
Riley's Translat. Bohn, 1852.) The present tense XaXdi, as in xiv.
24, viii. 58, includes the preterit. To the view just presented De
Wette objects, on the follo^vring grounds : 1) Because the colloca
tion of the words is arbitrarily changed. But does not the empha
sis lie on T^v ^PX/j^ ? 2) AaXio is taken as if it were iXdX^/jaa. But
has not De Wette himself, in vi. 63, acknowledged that the pres
ent tense may include time past? The xai, moreover, whether it
be translated " also " or " even," is entitled to its due weight, and
should this be met with the objection, that XaXio cannot stand
for Xsym, the reply may be made, that here, either would be in
place, cf. Xsym in v. 26, with XaXdt, xrii. 13, and in addition, vi.
63, xii. 48, -s^i. 26. We consequently still maintain that our
interpretation is entirely admissible. De Wette, on the other
hand, insists that the proposition is to be understood in this
way : "To the question of the Jews, Jesus does not vvish to
make the reply : I am the Messiah, because they adhered so
strongly to a dead, positive idea, and as they would not find
this verified in him, they would only have been the more
hardened against him : he refers them, therefore, to his dis
courses ; first of all in these discourses was he to be recognized."
This way of taking it is ingenious, but I object at the very out
start to translating "first of all," "preeminently;" the word
cannot be equivalent to inprimis, although it has been proposed
by some to take it in this sense even in Herodot. i. 9. Liicke,
3d ed., following Euthymius, and especially Locella, (Xen.
Ephes. Annot. p. 164, seq.) renews the conception of it as
interrogative: "Why am I yet speaking to you at all?" so as
to make it a dismissal of the matter like that in x. 26, stnov
1 Some of these expositors, without any thing further to justify it, translate in
the preterit, others in the present ; Beza, however, justifies the present, and Heu
mann also makes a remark upon it.

228 Chap. VHI. — v. 26-32.
bpiv xal ou niazsuezs. On linguistic grounds, certainly no objec
tion can be urged against this view. "0, ze frequently occurs aa
absolute, in the sense of "wherefore," and that too by an
elliptic usage, so that a scire velim must be supplied, (Stallbaum
zu Euthyd. 271, A.) Kai m the gradation ad infra, "yet,
still," is also familiar, (Rom. ¦riii. 24.) But the want of con
gruity between this answer and that question, creates a serious
difficulty, which would, however, be somewhat relieved if " at
all" were left out; on this ¦riew, moreover, the connection of
V. 26 is not a good one.
V. 26. With the complaint of their refusing to listen to an
explanation oft repeated, are naturally connected the censure
that Ihey gave so much occasion for reproof, and the comfort
which under the circumstances of the case is found in the
thought, that the eternal fountain of truth, the Father himself,
had imposed on him an internal necessity for uttering all these
reproofs, (v. 15, 16.) " Exm with the infinitive, designates the
objective ability. Acts iv. 14, (I could,) it here refers to the
past time and the present. The two propositions, dXX — xbapov,
are to be regarded as premises from which the hearer is left to
draw his own conclusions. Eiz rbv xbapov for zip xoapw, (Mark
xiii. 10, Luke xxiv. 47,) so that eiz in an expression of more
vivacity, indicates the direction and the extension of what he
speaks, (Lucke.)
V. 27-29. On v. 27, De Wette makes the remark, that their
not understanding him seems highly improbable — certainly,
especiaUy as in v. 19, they understood the word ; therefore, were
it merely said obx iyvmaav zbv nazipa, hv iXsyev abzo'z, (they knew
not the Father, of whom he was speaking to them,) we would
fain say with Liicke, , that the words refer to the recognition
of the matter, and consequently to unbelief, but the words are,
"thai he spake to them of the Father;" on the construction,
cf. what is said on i. 46. — This want of openness of heart on
their part, leads our Lord to reflect on the effect which his
death would have, (xii. 24, 32, xvi. 7.) As we have ixpwarjzs,
and not the passive as in xii. 32, iU. 14, it is perfectly clear that
the reference is to the crucifixion, which however, as the tran
sition to the glorification, (xiii. 31,) embraces the latter in it,
( Calvin, Piscator, De Wette ;) then under the co-working

Christ rebukes his Opponents. 22!>
of the Holy Spirit, would it become manifest to many that
Christ had acted and spoken in unity with God. In the
opposition of the more general notdj, and of the more special
XaXd), we miss the syntactical congruency, (see on ch. v. 38, p.
161.) He begins with the words xal b nsptpaz xzX. to compose
his soul, as to the misapprehension in regard to him which
prevailed. Instead of the aorist dipijxe, the present might have
been anticipated; (Luther translates it "leaves,") but it has a
retrospective regard to the b niptpaz, so that the act of the send
ing and of the obx diptevai is to be regarded as one thing, (Lucke.)
The causal relation indicated by on is not obrious, and it may
be asked : Is it not rather his not being left alone by the Father,
that is the ground of the ¦nostv zd dpsazd ? (" I do always those
things that please him.") Maldonatus consequently takes 5«
here, in the direct sense of ideo, (therefore,) and Olshausen and
Meyer insist on taking 8rf, not as a designation of the causa
essendi, but of the cognoscendi, " as is known by the fact that
I do, &c." Better thus: dfdvat carries in it the idea of aban
donment, but the di^rine protection is over those alone who
have a godly walk, (xv. 10.) The moral self-^witness in this
declaration would supply the place of one in v. 46, if from exe
getical considerations no such witness could be acknowledged
in that passage.
Christ severely rebukes his Opponents, and sets forth his
EXALTED Dignity. — v. 80-59.
V. , 30-82. From this self-testimony also, as in vii. 40, we
see that susceptible natures were subdued by the direct impres
sion made by words like these. The power of the word
received internally, is also recognized by Christ as a principle
of internal transformation, but in order to this, the word itself
must be firmly adhered to. On v. 80-46, cf. Kling, Studien u.
Kritik. 1836, H. 8, vrith pivetv iv zip Xbycp, cf. pSvsev iv z. 8e8ax^,
2 John 9, iv ipoi, vi. 66, xv. 7 ; the opposite of this is illustra
ted in the persons mentioned in vi. 66. Fevcliaxeev, as in ri. 69,
is primarily the insight into the truth, which is imparted by
the operation of the word ; it is in addition the scientific in
sight to which that experience impels cultivated minds, this
4 21

2C0 Chap. VHI. — V. 33-86.
at least is not excluded, even though no direct regard was had
to it. The truth here, however, is not so much the truth of the
doctrine, as the doctrine of the truth, (xviii. 37,) the truth of
which Christ was the bearer to men was to become recognized
by its operation.' As the fundamental part of this doctrine,
however, is that which pertains to Christ himself, we have in
V. 36, b ulbz instead of )J dX-jdeia. The idea of the Christian
iXeudepta, Bengel already correctly defines : Immunitas fiUorum
Dei ab omni potestate contraria, (the freedom of God's children
from every power which is against them.) This Christian idea,
which is thoroughly peculiar, is found to a remarkable extent
in all the Apostles, nbt excepting James even, cf. 2 Cor. iii. 17,
Rom. vi. 18, vn. 6, vin. 21, Gal. v. 1, 13, iv. 26, 31, 1 Pet. u. 16,
James i. 26, ii. 12 ; it embraces the freeing of the understanding,
(2 Cor. iii. 17,) and the fi'eeing of the •vrill from sin, and by
consequence, from the law also. Christian truth, experienced in
its wholesome effect, is acknowledged and loved by men as the
only power authorized of God, and connection with it in love,
is the might which overcometh sin.
V. 38. Are those who make this reply the believers whom
Christ had addressed ? (Maldonatus, Bengel, Kling, Olshausen.)
If this be so, how could Christ, v. 37, charge them •vrith pur
poses of murder, and direct against them what may be consid
ered altogether one of his severest discourses? Olshausen
urges the dXtjddJz, v. 31, the force of which is not : " Ye are
disciples who are not yet perfect," (dXrjdtvmz,) but "ye are
impure disciples." He supposes that in v. 37 no conscious
purpose is ascribed to them, but simply, " the sinful element
in general." But this answer is not very satisfactory, nor is
that of Kling: " They had by their answer in v. 33, put them
selves back again into the Jewish xbapoz, and were conse
quently treated by Jesus as those who belonged to this mass
which was in a state of enmity against him." We haye there
fore, •with the majority of the interpreters, to decide for the
¦riew, that those persons resume who, from v. 21 on, had been
the speakers. Calrin : ego ita sentio, ut in promiscua turba
fieri solet, confuse responsum fuisse Christo, (I suppose, that as
> Augustine, who abstractly separates cognosoere and credere, believes that the
future -yvaaetr^e has reference to the world to come.

Christ rebukes his Opponents. 231
is common iu a mixed crowd, a confused response was made to
Christ.) What he said of freedom, they referred to political
freedom, of which they had been jealous from the time of the
Maccabees downward, and to which they supposed themselves
to have a claim, as Abraham's seed, (Gen. xriii. 18.) "The
most ordinary laborer," says the Talmud, " who is of Abra
ham's seed, is the peer of kings," (Lightfoot.) But the question
rises, can we suppose their passion to have blinded them so
far, that they could forget, not only the earlier captivities, but
the fact that they were then under the dominion of Rome ?
As this seems impossible, we might, ¦with Lightfoot and Lucke,
3d ed., suppose that they mean personal, civil liberty, inas
much as the Jew by birth, might not be' a slave ; would not the
language, however, if this had been the design, rather have
been : obdeiz ^piiiv ob8svl 8s8ouXsuxev ? (None of us has ever
been a slave to any man.) Or might the assertion be ventured,
that they said this with the intention of claiming that they
had still maintained a certain independence all along? (Kling.)
V. 34-36. The truth so odious to them, expressed in v. 31,
32, is solemnly confirmed still further. T^z dpapziaz is omitted
in Cod. D, in Clemens Alexandrinus, and in some Latin
Codices, and certainly looks like an explanatory gloss. If,
then, it.be omitted, the connection of v. 35 is closer; if it be
retained as genuine, v. 35 is to be explained as giving prominence
to the generic idea of 8ouXoz. In considering v. 35, an answer
is first of all to be given to the question as to the justness of the
proposition, taken in its literal sense. If we regard it as the
affirmation of a fact, it seems to be incorrect, for a servant is
not necessarily either sold or cast out ; we have, therefore, to
confine ourselves to the conception of the family ; with this
conception the servant has no necessary connection, but the
son has. Furthermore, it may be asked whether the obv in v.
36 involves a strict sequence, for if this be the case, we are
tempted to adopt the view of the Greek expositors, and regard
the words pivei eiz rbv aiiUva as embracing also the right pos
sessed by the head of the family, the right of manumission, and
consequently already, in v. 36, understand b ulbz as referring
to Christ himself On the other hand, if v. 36 be not closely
connected ¦with v. 36, the obv may be referred to the 8ouXbz

232 Chap. VIH.— v. 37-40.
iazi zYjZ dpapziaz, and v. 36 is then an incidental remark in
regard to the mournful consequences of such a douXeia. But
we think that in v. 36, b ulbz must be taken as a resumption
from V. 85, (Crell: a generall significatione ad specialem
descendit — he descends from the general meaning to the
special,) and would give the sense thus : " The sendee of sin is
bondage ; such bondsmen now as ye are do not properly belong
to the family, but may be cast out at any moment ; only the
child of the house, in whom the spirit of the family has sway,
as is the case with me, is unchangeably a member of the
family : if now the child of the house makes you also freemen,
as he is a freeman, then are ye free indeed," To this the reply
is urged, that the right of manumission was vested in the
master of the household, and not in the son; but the objection
falls away, on the supposition that the application our Sariour
designed to make pf the figure had an influence on the phrase
ology, for in that case we think of iXeudepoz as the reciprocal
idea of b ulbz, and of the general proposition as presupposing
that only a freeman can make others . free. Calrin : Quod
natura proprium habeat (filius,) nobis adoptione communicat,
dum fide inserimur in ejus corpus ac efficimur ejus membra,
(what the Son has by nature as his own, he imparts by adoption
to us, when by faith we are inserted into his body and made
members of him.) " Ovzmz, as dXtjdiv&z does in other passages,
points to the fact, that no other species of bondage so enslaves
man in his genuine nature, as the abandonment to the blind
power of the impulses, (Rom. ¦rii. 17,) of that rational ¦vriU of
his, which was designed for communion with God.
V. 87, 38. As descendants of Abraham, they had claimed the
prerogative of being , freemen, but as vii. 19 demonstrates that
the very persons who boasted that they were Moses' disciples,
flew in the face of the law of Moses by their murderous pur
poses, so here our Saviour demonstrates to them, that in spite
of that prerogative they claimed, they were the grossest servants
of sin, they cherished murderous purposes against their feUow
man, and this, too, from obtuseness toward the word of God, (v. 40.)
Inippa here, probably, in contradistinction from zixva, v. 39,
is used simply to design physical derivation. Xmps'cv means: 1)
to have space for, hence cum. accus. " to contain ;" 2) to make

Christ rebukes his Opponents. 233
room for another, that is, "to give away, to yield;" 8) to make
room for one's self, that is, "to move onward, make progress,
succeed." It may, consequently, be taken in two ways : 1) Uke
Tzpoxbnzeiv, npox<opeiv, "to advance," and iv bpiv, "among you."
(Luther, Eisner, Kypke, Lucke.) To my objection, that this
sense is flat and vulgar, Lucke replies: "If it be the correct
sense, we are not concerned as to its being flat and vulgar," a
hermeneutical remark,' which could only be justified if the
vulgar and flat were wont to be found in our Saviour's dis
courses. On p. 353, Lucke argues against an interpretation, on
the ground that it makes the proposition sound "too feeble."
2) " To make an entrance, penetrate," so that by iv the conse
quence of the abiding is anticipated, as Nonnus expresses it,
8uvst ic, (enters in,) thus Grotius, Kuinbl, Meyer, [Luthardt.]
Thus the lust of murder appears still more detestable, since it
originates in obtuseness in regard to God's word. — Total con
trast between them and himself; their mode of acting mad6
them like the devil, in whom likewise the lust of murder
sprung from hatred to the truth, (v. 44.) The primary, concep
tion of the Father connects itself with the idea of dependence
on the part of the child, but there is also a reference to the
similarity between them, as the verse immediately following
shows. In regard to bpdv, as designating the mode in which
God was manifest to Christ, cf. what is said on i. 18. Import
ant critical authorities have the reading, ijxouaazs napd zou
nazpbz, but probably only because it was regarded as offensive
to apply also to the relation which our Saviour's opposers sus
tained to the devil, the expression bpdv napa z. nazpi. AaXio is
in apposition ¦with notsiv, for in the XaXetv the notetv of Christ
consisted. Ouv, " as ye show such a thirst for blood."
V. 89, 40. Without even yet seeing our Saviour's drift, they
wish to turn off any unpleasant allusion he may be supposed
to intend. Christ uses the term: "children of Abraham," in
the sense in which Paul subsequently employed it as a meta
phorical designation of those who are "in spiritual affinity"
with him, (Rom. iv. 11, 12, ix. 8.) In German we can express
the conception in the pun, " Waret ihr Abraham's Nachhommen,
so vviirdet ihr auch seinen Werken nachkommen," (were ye
descendants of Abraham, ye would follow his works ;) in this
21*

234 Chap. VIH.- v. 41-45.
passage, as in v. 37, the lust of murder is characterized further
by a reference to its motive, only through this motive does it
attain to the character of the diabolical.
V. 41-43. They now perceive this much, that Jesus char
acterizes them as illegitimate children in religion, and to this
they make the rejoinder, that God alone is the Father, the
founder of Israel, (Isa. Ixiii. 16, Ixiv. 8, Deut. xxxii. 6.) But
were this the case, the kindred would recognize the kindred,
(v. 42, vii. 17, 18.) "Hxm in the sense of the prefer, as in ii.
4 ; consequently, as the completion of the action which lies in
i^^Xdov ; a doubt may be felt whether no more lies in it than in
dneazetXev pe b debz according to the explanation given iii. 34,
yet were such the case, the proposition obde xzX. would be purely
tautological ; moreover, xvi. 28, xiii. 3, shows that i^spxeadat
ix zou d-sou has reference to the preexistence. As the thought
unfolds, it presents the additional fact that the appearing of
Christ is the result of his coming forth from God, and is not a
thing of his isolated individuality. — Had there been that affin
ity with God on their part, the whole character of Christ's
discourses would have been to them a demonstration of their
origin. AaXia, XaXetv, the externals of language ; Xbyoz, Xsyetv, of
discourse as the bearer of thought, Tittmann, de synon p. 92.
Because the contents of the discourses had no influence on
their souls, the external characteristics of them possessed no
interest to them, and here it is natural to recall to mind that
i^ouaia, that "authority" with which Christ spake, (Matt. vii.
29, John vii. 46,) and perhaps, too, of the impress which love
gave to his language. The inability expressed in "ye cannot,"
isto be regarded as a natural, moral inability; Melancthon:
Qui veri sint Dei filii et doniestici, non possunt patfernje domus
ignorare linguam, (they who are truly sons of God and mem
bers of his family, cannot be ignorant of the language of their
father's house,) cf what is said on x. 27, of the ipmv^ of the
good Shepherd.
V. 44, 45. Not until now is the aim of that discourse iu
regard to their father disclosed. The devil is their father, for
from the beginning he had displayed the murderous spirit and
the enmity toward the truth which they now display, (v.
37, 40, 47.) dsXetv has reference to that condition of eril

Christ rebukes his Opponents. 235
in which it is no longer the mere sin of haste, but where, on
the contrary, the individual has ¦willfully fettered himself in
it. What, then, were those plans of murder which the devil
cherished originally? The majority of interpreters, ancient
and modern, refer the predicate dvdpmnoxzbvoz to his seducing
the first of mankind into sin, whereby the ddvazoz was origi
nated. But how can this be ? If this ddvazoz be spiritual
destruction, how can it be placed in parallel with these plans to
put Christ to death. This difficulty, derived from the connec
tion, led CyriU, and has led several of the recent writers, to
regard the allusion as made to Cain's fratricide, which was
occasioned by the instigation of Satan, to which, in fact, John
refers also in 1 John iii. 12, 15 ; thus Doderlein, Nitszch, (Berl.
theol. Zeitschrift, 3 H. p. 52, seq.) Liicke, Kling, De Wette.
We would direct attention to an additional circumstance which
gives support to this view : 1 John iii. 12 gives special promi
nence tu the hatred of the righteousness, the dX-qdeia, of Abel,
as furnishing the motive to his brother for murdering him —
the very same thing is done by Christ here ; d;r' dpxr^z creates no
difficulfy, for it has no reference necessarily to the original
beginning of the history of man. Nevertheless, this exposition
has serious difficulties. First of all, let it be observed, that
the citation from 1 John iii. 12 does not present a perfect
parallel, for there Cain's fratricide is by no means designated
as instigated of Satan, but Cain is called a child of the
deril, because he killed his brother — a crime which, according
to 1 John iii. 8, can be charged on every sinner. If Christ,
without anything more, declared that the devil was a mur
derer from the beginning, must we not presuppose that he
had reference to some well known Je^vrish tenet? Still further,
a genuine parallel is furnished by John himself, to wit : in 1
John iii. 8 : 6 noimv zrjv dpapziav, ix zou dta^bXou iaztv, ozi dn'
dpxrjz b did^oXoz dpapzdvst, (he that committeth sin is of the
devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning.) Why has
neither Lucke nor De Wette noticed the last words of this
passage ? It is conceded that they refer to the temptation of
our first parents, and this analogy with the expression before
us is so decided, that Lucke has been driven to the inconsist
ency of citing this passage as a parallel to that. In fact, the

236 Chap. VIH.— v. 45.
derivation of spiritual and bodily death from the deception of
our first parents by Satan, is in the Jewish theology also, a
prevalent doctrine, a doctrine which we find in Wisdom of
Solom. ii. 24, Hebrews ii. 14, and in the Rabbinical writings, cf.
Tholuck's Kommentar zu Rom. v. 12, (4th ed.) p. 264. It is
certainly most natural then to think of this reference. But it
may be asked, how does this reference suit in the connection ?
Very well, in our judgment, even if under dvdpmnoxzbvoz we
were to suppose an allusion to spiritual death merely, and to
that solitary fact, (of the temptation,) since it is acknowledged
that the ideas of spiritual and of bodily death and dying, through
the Scriptures in general, and especially in that very passage iu
1 John iii. 12, 15, run into each other. We do not regard it as
in the least surprising, that in John the Jevrish lust of murder is
placed in paraUel with the spiritual murder of our first parents
by Satan. But let it be remembered, that the derivation of
bodily death from that deceiving of the first pair, was also an
estabUshed doctrine, (cf. Wisd. of Sol. ii. 24, Heb. ii. 14,') and
what then, if Christ preeminently had allusion to that? (Thus
Luther, Th. xxii. p. 1094, Lyser, Gerhard, Loci T. xvii. p. 32,
Tittmann, Krabbe, die Lehre von der Sunde und vom Tode, p.
134, seq.'') — ^Yet further, it would in John, least of all, occasion
surprise, if, after the analogy of the dpapzdvst, 1 .John iii.
8, (cf. Liicke,) the words dvdpmnoxzbvoz 7jV dn dpxrjZ bore iu
them a reference to more than one incitement to murder,
and included the instigation to fratricide,' (thus Nonnus,
1 In those Rabbinical passages, to bo sure, as also in the passage from Sohar
Chadasch, (which by the way may not be older than the fifteenth or the sixteenth
century, cf. Tholuck's Dissert, de ortu Cabbalse, p. 15,) f. xxvii. 3, tynj"! '1J3
n'ja i-;nN'1 I'ns - hsh'^ DnNS Vapn ¦'jnij^n " the children of that old serpmt who
has slain Adam and all his posterity," — in these passages, we say, bodily de.ath is not
expressly mentioned, yet it certainly is, if not exclusively, yet mainly what is
meant, (see Tholuck's Kommentar zum Br. an d. Hebr. 2d ed. p. 174, and zum Br.
an d. Rom. p. 247.)
2 In the controversy with Krabbe, Mau, 1. c. p. 94, opposes to this view the argu
ment, that the mode in which the devil wrought the death of our first parents does
not correspond with the mode in which the Jews sought to put Jesus to death ; but
is there not a sufBcient parallel in the fact that both parties were impelled by hatred
of the truth, in their desire to destroy ?
' In the familar passage in Theoph. ad Autol. ii. 29, in Satan's seduction of owe
flrst parents, the physical murder is also regarded as his proper intent, and his
drawing Cain on to the murder of his brother is regarded as a sequel to the seduc
tion of Adam, to wit : that as Adam, despite the fall, lived and begat children, he
might in thit way bring death into the world.

Christ rebukes his Opponents. 237
Euthymius, Theodorus Heraklese, in Catena patrum.) To
bring out that parallel clearly, it certainly would have been
noticed that this murder of Satan's was occasioned by his
hatred of the truth ; instead of which it simply says, that he was
an enemy to the truth, and that this enmity formed his proper
character. — 'AXijdeta, with retrospective regard to the beguiling
of our first parents by falsehood, and vvith prospective regard to
the words which immediately follow, has ordinarily been under
stood of truth in opposition to falsehood ; by Origen, however,
Augustine, Beza, Heumann, and by recent writers, it has been
taken in the philosophic sense of John, the sense of real being,
so as to embrace at once theoretic and practical truth. "Eaztjxev,
by the Vulgate, Luther, and all the expositors down to Bengel,
(by V. Coin also, Bibl. Theolog. ii. 71,) is taken as the preterit,
and the passage has consequently been used as a dictum probans,
(proof text,) for the fall of the deril, (2 Pet. ii. 4 ;) only by Marck,
(Exercitat. textual.) was brought put this idea, that if dX. desig
nates not metaphysical truth, but moral truth alone, the eazv/xev
must be referred to the fact of the beguiling in the fall of man.
But in all passages of the New Testament, the preterit is used
in the sense of the present, just as it is in the classics, (John
i. 26, ui. 29, xi. 56,) thus already the Syriac, ^o')^|!^]?^.ji£k
(has not stood in the truth,) the Ethiopic, Origen, Theophylact,
Euthymius. "Eazrjxev, however, is not entirely synonymous
with kazi, but has the force of " keeps not himself, does not
persist,"' (see Tholuck on Rom. v. 2.) As regards dX. the con
nection (v. 40, 45,) would already excite the expectation, that
it would designate the objective element of truth, that is truth
in the metaphysical sense, as it is styled ; this view is confirmed
by the oze xzX. which follows, and which created the greatest
difficulty in the way of those who found in eazfjxev a reference
to the fail of Satan, so much so, indeed, that Augustine, Pisca
tor, Lampe and Lyser, regarded it, as in v. 29, as a designation
of the ratio cognoscendi, "for it is certainly present," &c. Our
opinion is that dX. is here the subjective truth, the love of truth ;
I It is worthy of note that in the book cited by Schottgen, the Book Jalkut Rubeni,
f. 136, 4, this identical expression is used by Adam : niJl3XJ3 IDJ? N7t5f. " who
stood not in the truth." Yet it must also be noted that this book was written in
Prague, at the close of the seventeenth century 1

238 Chap. VIH.— v. 46.
the subjective in affinity with the truth, conducts to tfie objective
kingdom of the truth, (v. 47.) Origen thinks he, must here
enter on the knotty question, whether we can deny that the
devil has truth in this, that is, in the formal sense; but the
connection, (v. 45,) directs us to religious truth ; according to
James ii. 19, the demons believe in truth, to ¦wit : the truth of
the existence of God ; but it is only His abstract existence in
which they believe — had they the truth of the knowledge of
God, they would not tremble before him. — The 5ze xzX. is now
unfolded further. In the case of him whose subjectivity does
not bear the truth in it, falsehood pertains to his personal char
acter, (zd i'8ta, zb i8impa,) and his conduct bears the stamp of it.
It has been supposed that we must of necessity regard the 5ze
which follows as causa cognoscendi, but this is a mistake ; that
the devil from his very nature originates nothing but lies, fol
lows from the conception of him as ^euazvjz ; abzoi) refers to the
abstract which lies in (peuazijz, cf on Rom. ii. 26. This passage
particularly, decides the question whether our Saviour's dis
courses involve the personality of Satan. But the view is
still held by v. Colin, that "Jesus adopts the prevalent
opinions of the Jews, in order to impart in the minds of his
hearers an additional weight to his moral teachings," (in Bib.
Theol. ii. 74 ;) against this view, see Neander, Leben Jesu, 3d
ed. p. 286. With a regard to verses 87, 40, 47, we apply to the
opposers of Jesus the language in this way: "Ye prove
yourselves to be of the devil's kind, ye have pleasure in his
works, for he plotted the murder and ruin of man from the
beginning ; lying is his most specific characteristic, and there
fore ye, too, for the very reason that it is truth I speak, do
not believe me."
V. 46. Chrysostom, Augustine, Luther, (Th. xii. p 1721,)
Grotius, Heumann, take dpapzia in the sense of " sin," while
on the other side, a large majority, induced by the connection,
have preferred taking it in the sense of </isu8oz in its various
shades of meaning, "lie, error, deceit," thus Origen, Cyrill,
Erasmus Schmid, Beausobre, Bengel, Kypke, Mosheim, Titt
mann, Kuinbl, Lucke, 1st ed., Hase, (Leben Jesu, 3d ed. § 32.)
Since, however, in the theology of Schleiermacher, the doc
trine of the sinlessness of Christ has taken the place of

Christ rebukes his Opponents. 289
the Church's doctrine of his deity, a new effort has been
manifest to retain for the doctrine of the sinlessness of the
Redeemer this grand dictum probans. XJUmann (Sundlosig
keit, 3d ed.) would only maintain, as at an earlier period Crell
and Lampe had done, the general idea, "fault," that is, practical
and theoretical ; but for fhe meaning " sin " in specie, we have
the judgment of Olshausen, Lucke, 2d and 8d ed., De Wette,
and even UUmann, in the 4th ed. p. 67 ; against his exposition
particularly, Christ. Fr. Fritszche has protested in tho pro
grams which are now collected in the Opusc. Fritzschiorum.
After a renewed investigation, I must confess, that for the pres
ent I cannot agree with the expositors last named. I have
consulted all the expositors to whom I could have access, who
defend the meaning " sin," but have not been able to convince
myself that a satisfactory connection can be made out if their
vie^-T be adopted. Let us examine Lucke, for instance : " As
Christ elsewhere says in positive terms: If ye vrill not believe
my words, yet believe my works, so here he says in negative
terms : Ye do not believe me, though I speak the truth ;
wherefore do ye not? Can you perchance demonstrate that
instead of doing the spya zou dsou, (the works of God,) I have
been doing the works of sin? if ye cannot do this, why then
do ye not believe when it is truth which I speak to you ?" But
against this stands the fact, that this very thought, " if ye cannot
do tliis," is not expressed, and that if this were meant we would
look for an ei 8s pyj instead of si 8s dXr^dsiav Xsym Chrysos
tom and Euthymius apprehend it in a manner whi^'h grasps the
connection vrith yet more clearness and acuteness : "The reason
^vhy ye do not believe me, is none other than downright hatred
of the truth, si 8k pvj, einaze zb eyxXrjpa, (if this be not so, bring
your accusation ;)" but were this the meaning would we not
expect ydp after ziz, and as there is -none, must not the second
question be taken as antithetical to the first ? We are forced,
therefore, to look for some other mode of apprehending it.
"Apapzia has in classic usage the meaning of "error," (see Raph-
eleng. Annotat. ex Herod., and Kypke, in loe.) and Bretschnei
der, Lexic. 3d ed., cites from the New Testament itself several
places, as properly belonging to this definition ; Fritszche makes
special reference to 1 Cor. xv. 34. But the meaning, "fault,

240 Chap. VIH. — v. 47-56.
error," will not answer at all, siuce in that sense it would give
an appearance as if the dX-qdeta of Christ were the product of
meditation and of reflection, while it is in fact rather the
immediate emanation of the unity of his self-consciousness with
God, (v. 28, ch. rii. 17.) We believe that Melancthon and Calvin
have hit the true point, when they ritain indeed the significa
tion "sin," but comparing 1 Cor. iv. 4, interpret the expression
only of transgression within the sphere of his pffice, and so far
only of error. If, as Tittmann especially does, we might
take the dX-fjdeia in specie of the doctrina Christi de Christo, (cf
56,) the expression would be rendered yet more clear; but
embracing the practical Messianic actirity, it may also be
interpreted: "Have I in any case acted in confiict with the
ivzoX-q of the Father?"
V. 47. The 8id zi in v. 46 is answered here. There is a
weight laid anew upon the motive of the lust of murder and
of the opposition in general ; the great truth which had already
in iii. 20, 21, beeu intimated, is now expressed in so many
words, cf V. 42, ch. vi. 44, 45, x. 27, xriii. 37.
V. 48-^51. The ijpetz and au may show that a retort was
made on the • part of the Jews. The reproach of illegitimacy
they meet with the counter one, "thou art a Samaritan," one
of a nation a majority of whom were originally heathen, and
whose worship was impure. He had called them " children of
the devil," they declare him to " have a devil," the result of
which would be insanity. The Xeyopsv has perhaps a reference
to V. 27. — The answer of Jesus touches merely the severest
accusation, that of diabolic possession. The ztpio has reference
to the testimony given by his words, to the dXJjdstav Xsyetv, in
which the testimony of himself is regarded as the main feature,
(v. 55.) In place of the simple xai, either 8s or opmz might
be anticipated. The glory of him who glorifies the Father
will be vindicated by the Father. — In Calrin, we find the
thought, that in v. 61, Christ addresses those whose suscepti
bilities were alive to the truth, and with him coincides De
Wette. It is possible that in those words he had in his eye the
hearts of the more susceptible, and that in a certain sense he
recurs to the promise in v. 81 ; but we must nevertheless think
of tho words as addressed to the multitude, so that whoever

Christ rebukes his Opponents. 241
was willing to embrace them, might do so. T-qpetv, according
to Kuinol, Wahl, Bretschneider, "to observe," in the sense of
"perform," which puts the Xbyoz consequently in the category
of prescription. This conception of it is admissible, and indeed
seems almost enjoined in xiv. 21, and faith may be looked upon
as something prescribed by Christ for us to perform ; neverthe
less, Lucke and De Wette explain it as equivalent to pivetv iv
z. Xbyip, (31,) consequently equivalent to asservare, condere, and
Meyer even unites the two meanings, " to liold fast as the rule
of life." Our word "keep," (bewahren,) can in fact embrace
both ; if now the Xbyoz and the ivzoXai cannot properly be under
stood of mere prescriptions, but designate doctrine, then zijpetv,
both here and in xv. 10, can the more readily be taken in the
sense of "keep," cf. also, zr^peiv z. ivzoXijv, 1 Tim. vi. 14. The
promise, "he shall not see death," as in vi. 59, means he shall
not abide in death, but shall be partaker in the true life, (cf.
xi. 25.)
V. 62, 53. In his putative assumption, they see the e^ridence
that he is insane. ° Oaztz differs from the simple 5c, in that it
includes the idea of character.
V. 54-56. The Father is 'the ultimate cause of all that
Christ is, consequently the ground of his abilify to affirm of
himself what is so exalted. As the Jews are the servants of
falsehood, inasmuch as they pronounce the dXjdeia of Christ to
be ^su8oz, Christ would be a ^suazrjz, if contradicting his pro
foundest consciousness, he would speak of himself othervrise
than he did. The thought that in that knowledge of God,
which Christ, because of its being grounded upon his conscious
ness, imputes to himself, is also involved the dirine volition,
this thought is expressed in the additional words, xai zbv Xbyov
abzou TTjpio, cf. z. ivzoXdz z. nazpbz pou zez^jprjxa, xv. 10. After
haring thus shown his right to affirm of himself what was so
great, he expresses yet more distinctly that very thing which
was so offensive to them, his superionty over Abraham. Abra
ham received prophecies in regard to the Messiah, Gen. xvii. 16,
xriii. 18, xxii. 16, seq. and from these proceeded his rejoicing ;
?va is not equivalent to 5zi, but is used to express the idea
"that he was to see it," (see i. 8, and cf the use of tva, xii. 28,)
22

242 Chap. VIH.- v. 56-69.
(Winer, p. 314. Agnew and Ebbeke's Transl. p. 367.) The day
of the Messiah, a Jewish term of solemnity, used to express
the appearing of Christ Luke xvii. 22 ; in Paul we have ¦^pipa
zoi) xupiou, to express his appearing in glory at his second com
ing. It is possible that the expression is based upon a current idea
of the Jews ; when, for example, after the promise. Gen. xvii.
16, it is said : " Then Abraham fell upon his face and laughed,"
Philo elucidates it thus : petdiov zfj 8iavoia, noXX^z xal dxpdzou
Xapdz siaotxiaapivYjz, (laughing in his mind, over the great and
pure joy which entered it.) But what is the nature of that
actual seeing and rejoicing, of which the words that follow
speak? With Maldonatus, Lampe, Mosheim, Kuinol, Lucke
and De Wette, we would say, that such a sympathy is ascribed
to Abraham as that spoken of in 1 Pet. i. 12, where the angels
are said to look down with joy upon the redemption which
has been wrought out ; in Luke ix. 31, Moses and Elias speak
¦vrith the Redeemer of his decease at Jerusalem. On the other
.side, all the more ancient expositors, and among the recent
ones, Olshausen, refer it to a seeing in prophetic vision, while
Abraham was yet on earth. Olshausen argues on these
grounds : 1) the preterit si8s would not answer, for as Christ's
work was a thing yet in progress, the present would be indis
pensable ; 2) if in v. 56, the joy of Abraham in a Saviour who
had actually appeared, is alone spoken of, v. 58 would not
cohere ¦with it. To this, the answer may be given: 1) the
preterits e78e xal ix'^pfj-, refer to the circumstance ofthe mission
of Christ into the world; 2) v. 58 does not directly cohere
with V. 56, but is only called forth by the objection of the
Jews. The objections of a positive kind to the view against
which we argue, are as follows : 1) the question as to the
nature of that seeing, of which the elds speaks. Olshausen
says it was like John's seeing, in the Apocalypse, the coming
of Christ — consequently, a prophetic vision, as opposed to the
promise in the word. But we ask, in what then had Abraham
a prerogative beyond that of other prophets ? Is it not said,
xii. 41, of Isaiah : et8e zr^v 8biav abzou 1 And again in Matt.
xiii. 17, Luke x. 24, that the prophets longed to see the day of
Messiah, from which it may be inferred, that those visions

Christ rebukes his Opponents. 243
insured them no full and perfect enjoyment. 2) An apocalypse
so inspiring, must have formed a grand era in the life of Abra
ham, and could not well have been passed over ¦without men
tion. Olshausen attempts, indeed, in his 8d ed., to meet these
difficulties, but not, as it seems to us, vrith valid reasons.
V. 57-59. In order to bring home their sarcasm, they give
a turn to the words of Christ, as if he pretended to have seen
Abraham. They mention fifty years as the term of a full human
life, (Josephus does the same,) a term at which also the Lerites
vacated their office : " You who have not yet lived out the half
century, pretend to have seen Abraham!"' That very thing at
which they direct their scorn and ridicule, Jesus could in a cer
tain sense affirm of himself. 'Eym eipt might, as in other places,
mean: "It is I," but in this place the connection demands: "I
am." Eipi is used to express a former condition which is con
tinued in the present, as in xiv. 9, xv. 27, Luke xv. 29, Colos. i.
17, (cf. Bahr,) Jer. i. 6, Septuagint: npb zou ps nXdaat ae iv
xoiXia iniazapai ae, cf. what is said on riii. 26, and in the Greek,
the formulas dxoum, ddtxio, (Bernhardy, Syntax, p. 370,) in Latin,
audio, video, and in English, I understand. Feviadat forms,
as i. 6, 15, the antithesis. In this is involved the preexistence,
as in vi. 63, viii. 42, xiii. 3, nvi. 28, xrii. 5, and in the Synop
tists, Matt, xxiii. 37 and 84, cf Luke xiii. 34. Crell, Grotius
and Paulus interpret the expression of the previous destination
of the Messiah; but there would have been nothing in this
peculiar to him, and it would not have implied that there was
some truth in what the Jews had so scornfully deduced from
his words.'' This putative arrogance seemed to involve blas
phemy, in ¦riew of which the spirit of fanaticism suggested the
idea of stoning him, (x. 81, Acts vii. 59.) A disposition might
be felt as regards ixpu^iq, connected as it is by xai with i^r^ldsv,
1 Heumann: "The journeys and the other hardships which Jesus underwent,
account for his looking so old." (!)
2 As a matter of history merely, the exegesis of F. Socinius yet requires mention.
He says : (contra Volanum, p. 37,) Antequam Abraham fiat Abraham, i. e. pater
multarum gentium, ego sum Messias. Sic monet, antequam gentibus ooncedatur,
ut populus Dei sint, credendum esse Christo, (before Abraham shall become Abra
ham, that is, father of many nations, I am Messiah. Thus he reminds them that
before the Gentiles can become the people of God they must believe iu Christ. ) A
confutation of this view may be found in Calovius, Ex. 1, in Triga exercitat. Anti-
Booin., and in Episcopius, Instit. theol. \. iv. o. 3-3.

244 Chap. Vm.— v. 59.
to take it as determining adverbially the meaning of the latter
and equivalent to xpuiprj, (secretly,) but such an interpretation
has not an adequate ground ; Jesus withdraws himself into the
crowd, and is thus able to pass out unobserved, (Winer, p. 349;)
there is not in this the intimation of a miracle indeed, in the
strict sense of the word, but there is of a special providence,
(Jer. xxxri. 26.) AisXd^mv — ouzmz is, on external and internal
grounds, to be thro^wn out of the text, and is evidently copied
after the words in Luke iv. 30.

CHAPTER IX.

Healing op the Man that was born Blind. — v. 1^1.
V. 1. Though the closing words of viii. 59 be spurious, yet
the connection of this verse is such, that what is here narra
ted, and consequently also the discourses in chap. x. which are
so clearly united ¦with it, appear to have occurred immediately
afterward, and napdyeiv seems to mean "to depart," (Matt. ix.
9 ;) this ¦riew is favored besides by the fact, that beggars were
accustomed to stay in the vicinity of the temple, ( Acts iii. 8,)
and that the pool to which the blind man was sent lay in the
Tyropoeon, not far from the mount on which the temple stood.
Yet if Jesus concealed himself in the crowd in order to go out
of the temple ¦vrithout being observed, it is improbable that
the Disciples would at once have gathered around him again ;
it is possible, therefore, that this occurrence is to be referred
to another day, and that napdystv vnea-ns "to pass by," in which
case John would connect the occurrences with the same disre
gard of chronological sequence which is shown in some cases
by the Synoptists. — The narrative of this miracl* has a special
value in Apologetics. How often do we hear the expression
of a ¦wish, that the miracles of Christ had been put upon docu
mentary record, and had been subjected to a thorough judicial
investigation. Here we have the very thing that is desired;
judicial personages — and those, too, the avowed enemies of
Christ — investigate the miracle in repeated hearings, and — it
holds its ground : a man blind from his birth has been made to
see; besides this, the credibility of the narrative derives a
special confirmation from the highly significant delineation of
the characteristics of the man who was born blind, a sturdy,
blunt man of the people; According to Strauss (2d part, p. 75,
22* (245)

246 Chap. IX. — v. 2-5.
4th ed.) and Bauer, the virid delineation and careful authentica
tion are purely fabricated. — When the Apologist finds himself
cut off in this style from escape alike by land or sea, he has
nothing left on which to build an argument, unless indeed he
builds one on the animus, in which it is very clear this sort of
criticism originates. Cf. on this narrative, Zorn, Opuscula
sacra, i. p. 252, seq.
V. 2. The fact that the Disciples know at the outstart that
the man was born blind, is considered by Bauer as sufficient in
itself to show that this history is a mere fabrication — but may
not the Disciples have learned this fact previously, or even have
heard it from bystanders ? If tva be urged, it would be neces
sary to translate : " that it was of need he should be born blind,"
cf what is said on iv. 34. As the idea of a man's being born
blind on account of sinning in person, appears to have no
meaning, Crell and Lampe have taken the sentence thus:
"Has he, or (as this cannot be,) have his parents grievously
sinned?" In the judgment of Calvin, Beza, Grotius, the
belief of a metempsychosis, according to De Wette, the belief
of the preexistence of souls, according to Lightfoot and Lucke,
a belief of the possibility that the embryo could sin, is to be
imputed to the Disciples ; but it is doubtful whether we have
good reason for supposing such opinions to be current among
the people.' It seems to us that v. 34 puts us on the track to
1 Among the Jews of the Middle Ages, especially among the Cabbalists, the doc
trine of the metempsychosis was widely received; according to Beer, (Lehren and
Meinungen, der Juden, ii. p. 135,) the Cabbalists teach, in so many words, that
¦ blindness is to bo accounted for, by adopting the view of a metempsychosis. But
the learned Manass'e Ben Israel, (at the end of the seventeenth century,) who main
tained that this doctrine has been universally received, could appeal to nothing
except the Sohar, a book which was written in the later part of the Middle Ages.
Josephus, however, renders some aid. The well-known passages in Josephus, de
bello jud. viii. 8, 14, aud xviii. 1, 3, certainly allow of an interpretation which
would find in them a reference to the resurrection ; but on the other hand, the passage
viii. 8, 5, hardly allows of a natural interpretation, which would deny that it gives
evidence of an adoption of the doctrine of metempsychosis. — The doctrine of the preex
istence of souls is found in Philo and iu Wisdom of Solomon, viii, 19, (for the explana
tion given by Baumgarten-Crusius, Bibl. Theol. p. 101, is inadmissible, and what more
over is said by Bauer, 1. c. p. 343, is not to the point,) but this does not throw light
upon the passage before us, for this Platonic doctrine of preexistence, of which we
find a trace in Josephus also, (adv. Ap. ii. 24, ) hardly justifies the inference that
evil souls were thought to have preexisted, though Dahne (Alex. Beligionsphil. ii.
p. 168,) has adopted this view, in which he follows Eichhorn. What the Rabbins
(quoted by Lightfoot and Schottgen,) say of sinning on the part of the embiyo iu
the womb, (Gen. xxv. 22,) is perhaps merely to be regarded as the private opinion
of particular indi-viduals.

Healing op the Man that was born Blind. 247
the true view ; the Pharisees, in that verse, say that the man
was "altogether (pXoz,)" and consequently, in soul and body,
"born in sins." As among us, the people have the phrase,
" such a man was born vrith a mark on him," may not this,
though indeed not clearly expressed, (Neander,) — for the term
is ^papzsv — may not this have been the meaning of the Disci
ples ?
V. 3. As to the judgment we are to form regarding the
teleological import which our Lord assigns to the misfortune
of this man, so much may be safely affirmed, that as nothing in
the universe stands isolated, but everything is connected with the
whole, each single existence, and each single condition, has as
many aims as there are relations between it and other things ;
the aim, therefore, which our Lord here mentions, cannot be
regarded as the only one, (cf. on Rom. xi. 11,) but the aim here
spoken of was one which God contemplated, (xi. 4.) "Epya
zou d^sdi), "the works vrilled and wrought of God," and here in
specie, those performed by the Messiah. "Iva as in i. 8, xiii. 18.
V. 4, 5. This declaration would seem to have an object
only iu case the hearers may be presumed to have had in their
minds some obstacle which might be interposed in the way of
the healing; its performance on the Sabbath may have been
such an obstacle, though this circumstance is not brought up
till V. 14. It is possible that the Sariour contemplated only
the approaching hour of death. "^Hpspa and vu^, the time of
toil, and the time of rest ; vrith this time of toil, the lifetime is
made paraUel. "Ozav is translated by the Vulgate and Luther,
" as long as," and this translation has been the received one up
to a very recent period, until Fritzsche, in his Comm. in Marc,
p. 86, questioned whether such can be its meaning; he pre
fers the causal signification, " quandoquidem," "since indeed,"
(in which sense Zwingle already had taken it;) Wahl, Meyer,
Liicke, De Wette, have since taken the same ¦riew. It does
not fit very well in the connection, and — ^has it the linguistic
vouchers ? Fritzsche makes a reference to Plato, Euthyd. § 56,
ed. Heind. or p. 295, Steph., but in that passage, Szav certainly
means no more than "when," cf. Schleiermacher; onthe other
hand, it certainly seems justified by the passage which Viger
cites from Aristotle, de Mundo, c. 4. ed. Becker, T. i. p. 395,

248 Chap. IX. — v. 6, 7.
but Kapp, iu his edition, objects to -that reading, and pro
poses to read ozi dv. We think that the temporal meaning
is entirely in place ; quo tempore, as Bretschneider interprets
it, the sense of which is quamdiu, (so also Kling takes it.) (Pwf
glances back at viii. 12, but here has a more special reference to
the natural light, which was to be restored to the blind man,
cf V. 39.
V. 6, 7. In other instances, also, external means were
employed in miraculous healings, 2 Kings iv. 41, Isa. xxxriii.
21, Mark vii. 33, and in the case of a blind man, Mark viii.
23. That in saliva there was not only in general a healing
virtue, but that it had a specific efficacy in diseases of the eye,
is mentioned by Pliny, Hist, natur. xxviii. 7. Serenus Sam-
monicus, Carmen de medicina, c. 13, v. 225, says: Si tumor
insolitus typho se toUat inani, turgentes oculos riii circumline
coeno, (if an unwonted tumor rise in empfy pride, besmear thy
swollen eyes all o'er with loathsome mire;) the same fact is
shown by the history of the curing of a bUnd man by the
Emperor Vespasian, see Suetonius, vita Vespas. c. 7, Tacitus,
Histor. iv. 81, likewise, cf the Rabbins in Lightfoot on this
passage. That therapeutic power was of course limited, how
ever, to the mere alleviation of inflammations, tumors, &c.
Even Dr. Paulus has an insight into the fact, that a man
born blind could not have obtained his vision through the
external means employed by Jesus, and his way of getting out
of the difficulty is too characteristic to be omitted here. "Per
haps Jesus, while he was mixing other ingredients to make
something to spread on the man's eyes, accidently spat, and the
blind man imagined, consequently, that the eye-salve was made
with the spittle." (!) For the very reason, however, that these
outward means appeared in themselves unnecessary, the fathers
have tried their strength in allegorical explanations of them,
or, like Chrysostom and Theophylact, (Melancthon and Calrin
do the same,) assume that some moral object was contemplated,
the object of arousing the popular observation more thoroughly
by the man's going to the pool, or of putting the blind man's
faith to the test, or of giving his faith, yet feeble, some out
ward action to which it might cUng. We suppose that as in
several Cases, the look, the hand, the spittle of the Saviour

Healing op the Man that was born Blind. 249
serves as the medium, (analogously to cases of magnetic influ
ence,) the healing power of Jesus in these particular cases
employed, in fact, certain "conductors," cf Tholuck's Ver-
mischte Schriften, Th. i. p. 80. As regards the washing in the
pool, even some of the Rabbins, (see Schottgen,) as also some
recent travelers, attribute to the pool medicinal qualities, see
Robinson, ii. p. 155, (last edition in English, i. 341 ;) we think,
however, that the blind man was dispatched to the pool with
no other object than that he might cleanse himself after the
application to his eyes had done its work. The eiz after vi(pai
is perhaps to be explained by the formula, Xoueadai iz XouzpiUvaz,
"to go to the bath-house to bathe," (Passow,) or even "wash
ing off therein;" the article zou is neuter, as in Luke xiii. 4,
and in Josephus, de bello Jud. ii. 16, 2, vi. 7, 2, where he
speaks of the country around the fountain. The pool lies at
the entrance of the Tyropceon, south of the temple-mount.
The interpretation which John gives of the name 2iXmdp has
at a recent date been pronounced ungrammatical ; Lucke, 1st
ed., says : " One is reluctant to believe that John understood
his own vernacular no better than this." I have, however, in
my contributions to the philology of the New Testament,
(Spracherklarung des N. T. p. 120, seq.) directed attention to
the fact that the yod in ni'S'tJ is to be regarded as dagesh forte
resolved, and that the word is, consequently, to be regarded
either as the abstract, equivalent to nSaj, effusio,' that is, aque
duct, or may even be like the form ^1^'^ 31'k, passively, equiva
lent to "the one sent;" the former view is approved by Gesen
ius; Hitzig has brought out the latter, Komm. z. Jes. p. 97.
The question now arises, what is the Evangelist's object in
making this remark ? Is it a purely etymological gloss ? (Ols
hausen.) But such a gloss here would be entirely without an
object, and no such gloss is given even in ch. v. 2. The Evan
gelist, consequently, must be supposed to have discovered in that
denomination a significance, something providential. This he
has found either in reference to the blind man who was sent,
Bengel: Et ab hoc tempore nomen loci erat monumentum mi-
raculi facti, (and from henceforth the name of the place was a
memorial of the miracle that had been done ;) or he meant
1 This word also allows of a passive translation, gush, that is, the fluid emitted.

250 Chap. IX.— v. 8-84.
to intimate that while the fountain whose name was equivalent
to Messiah, accomplished the heaUng, it was nevertheless Christ
himself who was the effective operator of it, (Theophylact,
Beza.) — No mention is made of the man's being led to the
pool, but the connection leads us to suppose that it was done.
V. 8-12. It is erident that the man had often been tha
object of notice on the part of passers-by, and was conse
quently well known. If the text does not lead to the infer
ence that the desire to seek out Jesus (v. 12,) arose from a bad
motive, yet we are compelled to suppose a motive of that sort
as haring prompted their laying of the matter before the
Pharisees. V. 13-16. The people fix their attention on the collateral
circumstance that by this healing the Sabbath had been broken ;
in this the n-/jXbv inoirjaev is the main fact, and on this the ques
tion of the Pharisees, in v. 15, turns. According to Lightfoot,
it was expressly forbidden by some of the Rabbins, to apply
saliva to the eyelids on the Sabbath ; others, on the contrary,
did allow this to be done in the case of inflammation of the
eyes. In this respect even, we see that not all Pharisees were
in the bonds of prejudice to the same degree. Ilapd zou deou,
a designation of a prophet, cf. v. 17, 29, 33, dpapzmXbz here in
specie, contemner of God, cf. v. 31.
V. 17-23. As the argument to sustain the charge that
Christ had broken the Sabbath was not satisfactory to all the
members of the Sanhedrim, the very man who was healed
must be brought to sustain it, but the man proves to have cour
age enough to express his convictions. "Ozt, in v. 17, used as
in ii. 18. As the man who had been healed, gave no support
to what they had in view, they imagine that by summoning his
parents they can make out a case of deception. In the answers
of the parents, a character like that of their son is exhibited, a
certain bluntness in conjunction with prudence. "^HXixiav ix^s,
to vrit : an age at which he is competent to testify in court for
himself Just as in ch. xi. 57, the ivzoX.ij is not dated, so in this
place, no mention is made of the time at which the high coun
cil had made the auvdi^xyj, (not so much decree as agreement,)
of which V. 22 speaks.
V. 24-27. During the examination of the parents, the man

Healing op the Man that was born Blind. 261
had been dismissed ; he is now recalled, and the attempt made
to excite his fear by the authority of the hierarchy. Abz Sb^av,
we give God the glory, which is His due, when we acknowledge
his attributes, especially his omniscience, (Jos. vii. 19, Ezra x.
11,) by our acts. The answer of the man is more reserved in
its character this time. In the hope of discovering a contra
diction, or of finding some reason for suspicion, they repeat the
question as to how it was done, but at this juncture the indig
nation of the plain, sturdy man appears in such strength, as to
pass over into scorn. Obx ijxouaaze, "ye have had no ears."
V. 28-33. They retaliate his sarcasm •with abuse, and desig
nate it a shame in itself to be a Disciple of Jesus, whose char
acter nobody knew, (see on vii. 27,) while, on thei other hand,
Moses was the receiver of a revelation from God. The man
that had been healed, rejoins with irony indeed, (daupaazbv
iaztv,) but vrith the energy of simple-hearted straight-forward
ness. Fdp, elliptical, " speak not thus," like the German " denn
doch," (still, nevertheless,) cf. the usage in answers, Acts viii.
31, 1 Cor. ix. 9. 'Ev zouztp, " in such a case as that before us," (iv.
37.) The nbdev he explains in v. 33 by napd deou. — ''ApapzmXbz,
as is clear from the antithesis, means a contemner of God. Cf.
Isa. i. 16, Ps. Ixvi. 18. Homer's Iliad, i. 218 : oz xe deotz
inenei^dijzae, pdXa z' ixX.uov abzou. The courage of the man had
grown strong in the contest, (v. 25.)
V. 34. Grotius explains o^oc as a hyperbole, "from youth
up ;" Maldonatus and De Wette regard it as equivalent to oXmz,
but if that had been its sense, iyevvqdrjz would not have been
used; more correctly, "in body and soul," so that the defect
of the body revealed the pollution of the soul, (this is what
Chrysostom means, though he seems to coincide with Grotius.)
A hierarchical haughtiness, such as displayed itself in vii. 49,
must have been thoroughly aroused by this kind of treat
ment. 'Ex^dXXm, simply conjoined with Ifo), (;vi. 37, xn. 31,)
seems to imply no more than the casting out from the hall of
their sessions, (Fritzsche,) but the importance attached by
Jesus to this occurrence, v. 22, leads us rather to suppose that
the word involves an exclusion from the congregation, (Ols
hausen, De Wette;) in the Christian Church, the formula,
ix^dXXetv zijZ ixxXijaiaz, was used.

262 Chap. IX. — v. 35-41.
V. 36-38. As in ch. v. 14, Jesus in this case also had con
ferred the benefit, without connecting instruction with it ; this
he now does, when the experience gained by the man has
heightened his tendency to faith. On account of the courage
which, prompted by his faith, he has displayed, Christ regards
him as worthy to hear the whole truth. The question embra
ces the more, inasmuch as it already presupposes faith, though
no more than the willingness to believe could be counted upon.
Cyrill and Chrysostom think that au may be emphatic, "art
thou he who believeth, &c." but this is itself inadmissible, and
au in other places comes first, without being emphatic, (viii. 33,
xviii. 34.) Shall we say that the man knew who was speaking
with him? Theophylact, Erasmus and Lampe, not without
reason, deny that he did ; when Jesus sent him to the pool, he
was yet unable to see, and on his return, it seems that he did
not find Jesus. But would a blunt man, such as he, addressed
in this manner by a stranger, meet him at once with a ques
tion involving confidence in him? The conjecture is indeed
more probable, that he recognized Jesus — we will not say by
his voice, but would prefer the supposition that some further
words, not mentioned here, were exchanged. Till now he
had seen but the prophet in Christ, (v. 33, 17.) Kai in v.
36, used when questions are put suddenly, as the xal connects
more closely with what has just been said, (xiv. 22.) The
doubtful xai in v. 37, is to be explained as in vi. 36. It is not
improbable that bpdv in the kmpaxaz, refers to the man's having
the eridence of experience regarding the Messiah, (xv. 24, vi.
36.) The lowliness, and the yielding spirit of the man toward
Jesus, is in touching contrast with the defiant bearing he main
tains toward the leaders of the people.
V. 39. This language, like that in Matt. xi. 25, is to be
regarded as the words uttered aloud in soliloquy by our Lord,
and suggested by what had occurred immediately before. The
man who had been blind bodily, a member of the lowest
class, had also been in ignorance, and had come to his natural
and to his spiritual sight at the same time. With reference to
this fact, Jesus speaks of his own work as the light of the
world ; in affinity with the substance of what he here says is
Luke V. 32, xv. 7, Matt. xi. 25, 1 Cor. i, 20 ; a simUar playing

Healing op the Man that was born Blind. 253
over of the bodily into the spiritual is found in Matt. xix. 23, 24,
xi. 5, viii. 22. In xpipa, here, as in xpiatz, iii- 19, there might be a
temptation to give prominence merely to the idea of separation.
Zwingle: "Entscheid," (decision,) and so also Wahl, but
according to the usage xpi^ia means only "judgment," and
indeed vrith this separation is linked that also which constitutes
the judgment, to wit : retribution. In the Iva we are to regard
as marked, the purpose, yet (according to the anti-calvinistic
mode of apprehension,) not the direct but the indirect purpose,
cf. Luke xii. 51. In p-j ^Xenovrez and ^Xsnovzez, some adhere
solely to the subjective side, cf. v. 41 : Xsyeze ozi ^Xsnopev, con
sequently, "who regard themselves as seeing or not seeing."
But this very thing, as a general rule, takes place in the case
of those who actually are either seeing or blind, we therefore
add also the objective side, as is done in Matt. xi. 25, with
vi^niot and auvezoi, although indeed the ^Xinetv and auvtsvat is but
a relative one, and the vrjntot who believe in Christ, in relation
to that knowledge, are those who truly see.
V. 40, 41. Taking zuipXoi with strict reference to zuipXoi in
V. 39, we see that the Pharisees have observed that they are
designated as the ^Xsnovzsz, but at the same time also, as the
zuipXoi, (Matt. XV. 14.) In what Jesus utters, the zuipXoi are not,
indeed, those who had become blind, but those who were origi
nally blind, but there is nothing that need surprise us in the
interchange of these references. The construction with si —
vuv 8s occurs in the classics, as it does several times in John also,
chap. viii. 40, xv. 24. The proposition obx — dpapziav is diffi
cult. As we have it in xv. 22, 24, also, we naturally desire to
understand it in the same way in both cases; now in that
passage it is a question whether dpapzia designates sin or
guilt in general, or the specific sin and guilt of unbelief;
it is, however, beyond dispute that there the formula means,
"they would have been (relatively) exempt from guilt or
exempt from punishment." We might, according to that,
accept Tittmann's interpretation here: "If ye were unlearned
people, your unbelief in me might be forgiven, but as ye are
learned in the Scriptures, your sin remains unforgiven." But
would not this ¦riew entirely lose sight of the subjective side,
to which, however, such special prominence is given by the
23

254 Chap. IX. — v. 40, 4L
Xsyeze, which here means "ye boast," (Acts v. 36.) -We would,
consequently, be obliged with Lucke to interpret the latter part
thus : " Were you without the capacity for knowledge, there
would be in your unbelief, no sin involring culpability, for in
that case ye could not discern and believe ; so long, however,
as you do not put off your arrogant self-infatuation, your unbe
lief ¦will not yield." But taken thus, the two members of the
sentence are not in correspondence. There has been an incli
nation, therefore, to abandon the special reference to the sin
of uubelief. " If ye were of the number of the more ignorant,
who are wont to feel the need of redemption, your sins might
be forgiven and your guilt taken away by me," (Calvin,
Zwingle, Maldonatus, De Wette.) But in this way the connec
tion would be destroyed with v. 39, in which the j3Xineiv means
no more than "to perceive Christ." We, therefore, despite
what has been said, unite with Meyer in interpreting it of
unbelief: "If ye belonged to the number of the ignorant, ye
would, like them, have been believers, and thus would have been
guiltless ; as, however, ye presume upon your seeing, ye abide
in your sin." The more comprehensive :j dp. psvst in the an
tithesis, instead of ix^zs dptapziav, as in iii. 36.

CHAPTER X,

Parabolic Discourse in regard to the Qualification op
THE TRUE Leader of the People, and the conduct op the
Sheep toward him. — v. 1-6.
V. 1, 2. With a consciousness of belonging to those who
see, these scribes presented themselves as leaders of the people,
(Rom. ii. 19;) the blind man had given proof that a profounder
need of the soul could not be inl rusted to the guidance of
such leaders ; thus occasion was given for the following parable.
With reference to form, however, the parable is imperfect, for
the explanation is wanting, or rather where it would naturally
come in, to wit : at v. 7, we have a new turn and a further
expansion of the similitude ; we have not, moreover, as else
where in the parable, some progressive occurrence f\:oTa. common
life, but a relation is brought out; in the form, therefore, in
which the discourse is presented, it is not so much a parable as
an allegory, like xv. 1, seq.,' cf Strauss, 4th ed. i. p. 680, and
Tholuck's Glaubw. d. ev. Geschichte, 2d ed. p. 340. These
false leaders of the people (this is the main thought,) do not
approach the theocratic fiock in the right way, consequently
they lead it not aright, and it does not commit itself to them.
— ^A reference to the shepherd-life of the East is essential to an
understanding of the images here used, cf. the learned descrip
tion in Bochart, Hierozoicon, 1 B. i. chap. 43 and 46. In the
evening the flock was conducted to a roofless inclosure, sur
rounded with a low wall of stones, hence the "climbeth up;"
1 Lucke contends that it cannot be called an " allegory," but what he s lys does
not bear upon the point. Calvin had already said on v. 7: (on the view, however,
that it is on explanation of v. 1,) — nisi addita fuisset hsec expositio, tota oratio
aUegorica esset, ("if this explanation had not been appended, the entire discourse
would have been allegorical.") Cf. Unger, de parab. p. 22. (255)

256 Chap. X. — v. 1-5.
sometimes watch was kept at the door by a servant furnished
with arms, the "porter." In the moruing the shepherd comes,
is admitted by the "porter," and calls the bell-wether;' the
particular animals in the flock had, and in our own day still
have their own names, zd ^ouxo?.ixd intfmvijpaza, (the shepherd-
cries ;) Longus, Pastor. I. iv. ed. Schsef p. 138 : zdz alyaz
npoaetns xal zouz zpdyouz ixdXeasv dvopaazi, " He spoke to the
she-goats, and called the he-goats by name." Robbers often
scaled the low wall at night. Cf for interpretation, WoUe, 'de
introitu in ovile, Lips. 1748 ; Voretzsch, de loco Joa. x. 1-18,
Altenb. 1838 ; especially Chr. Fr. Fritzsche, in Fritzsch. opusc.
comm. I. — By the "fold," abXij, is designated the theocracy of
Israel, (Mich. ii. 12, Ezek. xxxiv. 14,) which is identical essen
tially with the Christian Church which proceeded from it, (v.
16.) The comparison of Israel with the flock, and of God with
the shepherd, is a standing one in the Old Testament, yet the
leaders ofthe people, princes and prophets also, have the name of
" shepherds " assigned to them, (Jer. xxiii. Ezek. xxxiv. Zech.
X. 2, Isa. xl. 11, Ps. Lxxx. 2, Ecclesiastic, xviii. 13.) As points of
similitude, the following maybe adduced: the care ofthe shep
herd on the one side, on the other the defenselessness of a flock,
particularly of a flock of sheep, the close connection especially
of a flock of sheep, &c. As regards, first, the meaning of the
door, those expositors who allow no turn in the parable in v. 9,
must here understand by it Christ himself, (Cyrill, Augustine,
Calrin, Beza, Bengel, Kuinol.) Will the connection allow it
to be apprehended in this way? With reference to the fact
that the Pharisees had tried to hinder from believing in Christ,
him that was born blind, Christ might say: "Only those are
genuine shepherds of the people, who attaching themselves to
me, work in the theocracy," (Beza.) Independently, however,
of other considerations, the fact that the comparison in v. 14-
16, and in 27, 28, in v. 9-11, also, proceeds on the idea that
Christ already, v. 2-4, has contrasted, if not exclusively yet
preeminently, himself with the "thief," this fact raises the ques
tion, what can be meant by his entering in by the door ? The
idea of the dupa, " door," would then have to be extended as far
at least as has been done by Lampe, according to whose exposi
tion Christ designates himself, v. 7, 9, as the door, inasmuch as

Qualification of the true Leader of the People. 257
he confers the true righteousness of the kingdom of God, and
6 siaepxbpevoz 8id z^z dupaz, "he that entereth in by the door"
is that leader of the people who is previously prepared by this
righteousness. But this conception of the righteousness to be
obtained through Christ pertains to the definite dogmatic con
nection of the Epistles of Paul, and cannot be introduced here.
A^lready, therefore, Chrysostom and Theophylact here under
stood by the door the Holy Scriptures, inasmuch as the genuine
she'pherd must be acquainted with them ; Theodorus of Herac-
lea, inasmuch as Christ is prophecied of in them ; but Maldo
natus and Crell first hit the true sense. The question is not
what does the " door," dupa, taken by itself mean, but what is
meant by the entering in through the door and the not entering
in by it, and these can only be, on the one hand, the regular
dirinely ordained avenue, that is, the divine calling, (Maldon
atus : dirina auctoritas,) and on the other, a presumptuous intru
sion, (Jer. xxiii. 21.) He, consequently, who though uncalled,
undertakes to lead the flock of God, comes to it not as a
leader, Imt (impeUed by self-interest,) as a thief and robber, who
turns off the stream of true life from the Church and causes its
spiritual death, (v. 10, Ezek. iii, 18, xxxiv. 8 ;) he, on the other
hand, who called of God, undertakes its guidance, proves him-
seK a shepherd of the sheep.
V. 8-5. When the true shepherd comes in the morning, the
door is opened to him, the sheep recognize his voice, he calls
each of them by its name, leads them out to pasture, goes be
fore them as a guide, and they readily follow him. In explain
ing zd i8ia, it is not necessary, with Fritzsche and Lucke, to sup
pose a reference to the fact, that different flocks are sheltered in
the same drove, rather the 't'8ia, v. 12, and l;fai, v. 16, imply that
the idea of proprietorship is to be made prominent ; his own
sheep he knoweth by name, (v. 14 ;) the knowing by name
implies the most intimate acquaintance, cf. Isa. xliii. 1. From
what follows, it is very clear that the Redeemer in this descrip
tion of the shepherd, had in his eye himself, as the shepherd
ordained of God, (cf. on v. 11 ;) this is deducible from the con
nection too, for what Jesus says has respect to the haughtiness
with which the man that had been born blind encountered the
23*

258 Chap. X.— v. 6-8.
leaders of the people, and to the ready obedience •with which
he followed the Sa^riour's commands. It is a question whether
6 ¦dupmpbz dvoiyei, " the porter openeth," serves without peculiar
signification only " to represent the regular manner of theo
cratic fellowship," (Grotius, Lucke,) or whether it has a special
signification. If we have regard to the expression often recur
ring in John, ndv, b 8i8mai poe b nazr]p, npbz ips ^?ee, " all that the
Father giveth me shall come to me," (vi. 36, x. 29,) we might
understand by "the porter," God, (Maldonatus, Bengel;) that
the porter is a subordinate person, argues nothing against this
view, for the master of the fold could not be mentioned, as
this was the shepherd himself, we must therefore suppose the
allusion to be made exclusively to the circumstance of the
openi-fig. The dxouetv is to be regarded as preceding the lead
ing forth, the ot'Saat ztjv <pmvfjv takes place on the way to the
pasture, and during the pasturing ; on the spiritual tenor of the
expression, see v. 14. Instead of zd i8ia npb^aza, Lachman,
foUovring Cod. B D L, Copt, and some others, reads zd i8ta
ndvza, and it certainly looks as though npb^aza had been added
by a transcriber,, by way of explanation, (Fritzsche.) — ^The
"stranger," dXXbzptoz, in v. 6, is not designed to take up
again the idea of the " thiSf," xXsnzrjz, in v. 1, nor is it taken
up again by the "hireling," piadmzbz, in v.- 12, it only serves to
characterize the sheep, (Lucke,) and the fsu^ovzac (will flee,)
refers to the conduct toward the leaders of the people, on the
part of the man.that was born blind.
V. 6. The word napoepia in Greek usage, "proverb," and as
proverbs are usually figurative, also means figurative discourse ;
Basil, hom. in prov. Sal. init.: napd 8s -fjptv napoepia iazi Xbyoz
dxpsXipoz pez' intxpu<pemz pezpiaz ix8s8opivoz, "But by a pro
verb we mean a useful expression, in terms of moderate ob
scurity," cf in John ch. xvi. 26, 29. hm, and in Arabic, ^
signifies proverb as well as comparison, as also on the other
hand, napa^oX^j, Luke, iv. 23, means proverb. John then
comprehends under the expression, any figurative discourse,
whether the parable proper or the allegory. The "understanding
not," does not so much exclude every degree of comprehension,
as a proper, thorough understanding.

Further unfolding op the Parabolic Discourse. 259
Further unfolding op the Parabolic Discourse. — v. 7-18.
V. 7, 8. We may suppose a pause in the discourse at this
point, during which the Pharisees were talking •with one
another about the meaning of the "door," and as Jesus is
wont in John, to augment the strength of his declarations, and
as this augmentation is connected vrith the very expressions
which give offense, (vi. 56, viii. 57,) thus, in this place, the
thought preriously expressed is augmented by Christ's affirm
ation of something yet higher iu regard to himself, when he
designates himself as the door. As those expositors, who do
not allow a turn in the parable, induced by this expression,
explained dupa in v. 1 in accordance with the present passage,
so we might allow the foregoing parable to have its influence
on the interpretation of verses 7 and 9 ; the reference to the
leaders and teachers would have to be retained, and the gen
itive zdiv npo^dzmv accordingly explained, "the door to the
sheep," Luther, Erasmus, Bengel, Meyer ; but already in v. 9,
and yet more unmistakably from v. 11 on, the reference of
Christ, not to the shepherd, but to the flock, is prominent, and
in this point of view we conceive that there is a turn in the
similitude, and interpret ¦vrith Beza : Ostium, quo ingressus in
caulam patet o-ribus, (the door, by which the sheep enter the
fold.) — ^V. 8, clear as the words are in themselves, appears to us
one of the most difficult sentences in the New Testament. As
regards the genuine reading, it is true that Cod D omits ndvzez.
Cod E M G S and some others omit npb ipoi), which latter Ben
gel and Matthsei have also rejected; but the presumption is too
obvious, that those words have been omitted, because the Ma-
nicheans relied upon this passage in arguing against the divine
legation of the prophets under the Old Testament; besides
this, the omission only makes the sentence more obscure, leav
ing the existing difficulty in its interpretation precisely the
same. According to the simple meaning of the words, Christ
here declares all the leaders of the people who had appeared
before him, to have been uncalled, the ministers of selfishness,
(Matt, xxiii. 13.) The remark, to be sure, may, vrithout rio-
lence, be restricted to the cotemporaries of Jesus, and the

260 Chap. X.— v. 7-10.
present eial may be appealed to, to sustain such a view, although
the present allows of being taken thus : " all who ever appear
ed are, &c." But the ndvzez, strengthened yet further by 5aoi,
would still express this imputation ¦vrith an unaccountable gen
erality, as there were also among these leaders of the people
such men as Nicodemus and Gamaliel; it would be a matter
of surprise, too, that our Lord should give a prominence to
their having come before him. It is difficult under these cir
cumstances to see no more in the words than the meaning that,
" he, Jesus, was the first of his time, who felt a genuine solici
tude for the people," (thus Ebrard, Matt. ix. 36,) and we might
almost feel tempted to limit it, by supposing that epxeadat, ac
cording to Jer. xxiii. 21, is to be understood of an appearing on
their own authority, as Clemens Alexandrinus, Stromata, i. p.
311, Augustine, c. Faust, 1. 16, c. 12, Jerome, in c. 7 Hos., Eu
thymius and Tarnov take it ; but that secondary notion does not
lie in the mere ipxeadat. To this is added the difficulty that
we find no strong antithesis to v. 7, which, however, could exist
only in case Christ had there designated himself as the shepherd.
As he calls himself the door, we anticipate here the idea : " all
those who have not acknowledged me as the ' door.' " Those
too have attempted to reach this idea, who, with Augustine (tr.
45, in Joan,) and Camerarius, interpret npb by prseter, me neg-
lecto, (vrithout me, neglecting me,) or with Eisner, Baier, (in
thes. nov. phil-theol, in the learned dissertat in T. ii. p. 523,)
and Kling, take ipxeadai npb in the sense, "pass me by, neg
lect me." But in place of this, the language would demand
nap ips nap^Xdov. Those who, like Chrysostom, Beza, Calvin,
Grotius, -understand the expression of false Messiahs, have
obtained in a different way a limitation, and, as it seems, a
more precise reference to v. 7. And in this it is not necessary,
with Zwingle, (he says, that in German also, vor and fur, before
and for, are interchanged,) Luther, (Walch, xi. p. 1520,) Me
lancthon, Lampe and Wolf, to take npb in the sense " instead
of," (this only occurs when it is equivalent to unep, in commo-
dum, for the advantage of,) but as Christ in calling himself the
door of the sheep, designates himself indirectly as the Messiah,
he might in this connection continue : " Those who have ap
peared before me in my character." According to Bucer, we

Further unfolding of the Parabolic Discourse. 261
already find even in v. 12, a reference to false teachers and
pseudo-Messiahs; according to Maldonatus, only the latter.
But in this way of apprehending it, the expositor once more
has history against him, which speaks of false Messiahs only
after Christ. Even if we admit that Josephus has passed over
some such appearances in silence, and if we could venture •with
Bauer to use the expression of Christ, Matt. xxiv. 24, as proof
that the appearing of false Messiahs was at that time a famiUar
idea, still the objection could not be relieved, that the expres
sion ndvzez oaoi points to a greater historical importance of
such false teachers. We confess, therefore, that we cannot
relieve in any way which is entirely satisfactory, the difficulty
raised by the expression.' — Td npb^aza is, indeed, indefinite, so
that it might be taken in a universal way, in which case it
would lose its historic accuracy, but v. 3, in which we first have
the indefinite ra npb^aza, afterward makes it specific by 'idta.
V. 9, 10. The thought is again made emphatic, that only
through the mediation of Christ can a man belong in a saring
way to the theocracy. If it has been held that the reference in
V. 7 is to the leaders of the people, it should not be abandoned
here, and Lucke, even in the 3d edition, retains it to the
exclusion of any other; others, who cannot deny that the sheep
are designated as the subject, seek to help themselves by the
remark, that the shepherd of Christ's flock must necessarily at
the same time be a member of the flock. It appears to
me that if there be a turn acknowledged in the parabolic dis
course with reference to the "door" in v. 7, we ought to feel
the less reluctant to acknowledge the same thing in regard to
those that enter in. The leading idea is expressed by the first
words, "shall be saved by me," 8i ipou amd-fjaezat ; within this
"fold," abXrj, is the source ofthe "salvation," amz-rjpla, this fold
is here, however, already regarded in the New Testament light,
(see on v. 16 and v. 1.) With a backward glance at v. 3, 4, the
benefit is further depicted in figurative form as the enjoyment of
pasture, "he shall go in and out;" eiaipxeadai and i^spxeadai,
according to Fritzsche, taken in its proper sense, expresses the
two features : Admittetur in locum munitum, et aperientur ei
1 The interpretation of Olshausen (that of Placseus ia like it,) we pass over, as it
has too much against it.

262 Chap. X.— v. 11-16.
fores eo eventu, ut pascatur, (he shall have entrance given to
him into a secure place, and the doors shall be opened to hira
that he may be fed ;) in our judgment the expression is chosen,
that by it the siaiXdrj may be amplified, cf. Numbers xxvii. 17,
where undoubtedly the shepherd is spoken of; whether with
the trope there be at the same time a distinct thought of the
Hebrew phraseology in which "going in and out" designates
"traffic and trade," (Deuter. xxviii. 6, Ps. cxxi. 8,) may be
questioned. With v. 10, the comparison of the shepherd in
stead of that of the door again comes in, and in fact, from the
words, "I am come," iyd) ijXdov, on to v. 16, we regard the dis
course as an amplification of what has been said, v. 9, of the
welfare of the sheep. He who appears uncalled robs the sheep
of their possession and of life itself, on the contrary, Christ
gives them life and all fullness.
V. 11-13. The predicate which the Sariour had already
appropriated, v. 2, now comes out with complete definiteness.
Luther inaccurately translates : " a shepherd," the article rather
proves that our Lord expressed ideally what pertains to the
true shepherd; dXrjdtvbz might, without an essential change
of the meaning, be substituted for b xaXbz, (the true, cf. xaXiz
azpaztmri^Z, 2 Tim. ii. 3.) The Messiah is indeed predicted of
Ezek. xxxvii. 24, as the true shepherd, nevertheless it cannot
be affirmed that the article refers to one already known from
the prophecies, (Maldonatus, Bengel;) rather does our Lord
justify the application of the predicate to himself by a refer
ence to his consummate love for the sheep. It is true, as
Fritzsche has endeavored to show, that the conception of the
shepherd is not exhausted by that of teacher, especially if we
consider that according to v. 12 the sheep belong to him, he
has purchased them as his possession with his own blood,
(Heb. xiii. 20, Acts xx. 28.) Alone by what Christ has done
and sufiered for those that are his, are they truly united with
him. The expression zrjv (puxijv ztdivat unsp has no exact corres
pondent analogy either in Greek or Hebrew, for in the formula
e]3| itfg.} D^ty, the meaning of o^ir is "to take," but Homer uses
i/ioxijv napazideadai, (to hazard life,) Polybius, <poxrjv xarazidsvae,
(to lay down life.) ' Tnip does not in itself express the idea of
substitution, (xi. 60,) yet in the thing a correlation has place,

Further unfolding of the Parabolic Discourse. 263
for he who dies for another saves him from dying. It is
worthy of note what importance is attached in v. 12, 13, to the
fact, that already per se, and therefore apart from their acqui
sition by that love which endured every sacrifice, the sheep
belong to Christ, cf. e;f(u, v. 16. A speculative apprehension
of the doctrine of the Logos and of redemption, causes a
recognition of that profound truth which lies at the base of this
expression, (see above, p. 70.) The mention of the hireling
hardly involves an allusion to the Pharisees, it serves merely
by way of contrast to give prominence to the idea of the genu
ine shepherd. The abzd appears strange, if xal 6 Xuxoz dpnd^ee
abzd X. axopni^et zd npb^aza'he the genuine reading. Sentences
like that in Xenophon, Cyrop. 1, ^, 2, xal ydp dadev^aavzoz
abzou obdenozs dneXtns zbv ndnnov, ("Cyrus, when his grand
father fell ill, never quitted him,") cannot be compared, since
here, only a participial period is thrown in, (Fritzsche, and also
Fr. A. Fritzsche, conjectanea in Nov. Test. p. 12.) We may,
perhaps, say with Fritzsche, that abzd designates a part of the
sheep, the part killed, and zd npb^aza, the whole flock, which is
scattered. The hireling who serves merely for wages, and
whose interest does not coincide with that of the flock, has
nothing to gain by offering himself for them.
V. 14, 15. In virtue of the fact that the flock is the posses
sion of the good shepherd, he stands also in a closer relation
to it than the hireling can ; there exists a reciprocal sympathy
as between the Father and the Son, in which expression, as in
chap. xrii. 21, seq. the immanence of the Father in the Son,
and of the Father and the Son, in the Church, is presupposed,
(xiv. 23.) On the part of the Son, this sympathy of love dis
plays itself especially in his offering up of himself.
V. 16. Here, as in ch. xvii. 20, the glance at the little host
immediately about him, expands itself into a prospect of gene
rations to come. All the Evangelists corroborate the fact, that
the Redeemer, who during his life never passed the borders of
Israel, and confined his Disciples to the same limits, (Matt. x.
5,) in the most distinct manner prophesied the calling of the
Gentiles, (Matt. xxi. 43.) As in the prophecies, so here too,
the reception of the Gentiles into the kingdom of God is

264 Chap. X.— v. 17-28.
represented as a reception into the Old Testament theocracy,
just as Paul speaks of it, (Rom. xi. 17, cf Heb. iii. 5, 6.)
The propiatory death is the bond of unity between the two
kinds, (John xi. 62, xU. 24, 26, Eph. u. 14-18.) Many of the
Gentiles also, are " children of God," (xi. 52,) in •rirtue of that
internal sympathy with Christ, by which they ¦will be enabled
to know his " voice." The asyndeton pia ¦nolpvr], eTz noipijv, is
also used in the classics, when two ideas are closely connected,
as dvSpiov, yuvatxmv, Kiister on Aristophanes Ranse, v. 156,
Schafer on Longus, p. 403.
V. 17, 18. The thought in v. 15 is again entered into, the
loVe of the Father to the Son rests upon the unison of will, riii.
29, XV. 10. "Iva designates not the subjective, but the objective
design, the condition, see on iv. 36, cf. zrjv ivzoXjv at the close
of V. 18. The atoning feature lies not in the physical event,
but in the spiritual fact of the death of Jesus, cf. Rom. v. 19,
Heb. ix. 14. Does this voluntary dying present an antithesis
to all powers exterior to Christ, only, or also to the tendency to
death, whose basis was in himself, in other words: does he
mean to say that he might have remained untouched of death,
as he was untouched of sin ? See the discussion on this ques
tion in Mau, on Death, the wages of sin, p. 20, seq. in opposi
tion to Krabbe, cf also, Tholuck's Comment, on Heb. ii. 14.
The connection, however, as well as the words dn ipauzou, " of
myself," and obdelz, "no man," shows that here the antithesis
is confined to other persons, (cf. also, v. 28.) Lucke was led iu
his earlier riew to a forced exposition of this passage, by the
fact, that elsewhere the resurrection of Christ is designated as
the work of the Father ; after such expressions as v. 30, there
is, however, no room to doubt that the i^ouaia, "power," ofthe
Father is also that of the Son, though in such a way, of course,
that the Father is always to be regarded as the absolute cause
in the works of Christ. Christ calls himself, xi. 25, "the Res
urrection," )^ dvdazaatz, and ascribes to himself, v. 21, a partici
pation in the work of raising the dead ; that nevertheless as
regards his death and resurrection, as for every other act, the
canon laid down, ch. v. 19, is available, that is, that the Father
is to be regarded as the absolute cause, (cf v. 38,) is intimated*

Discourses at the Feast of the Dedication. 265
by the closing words of v. 18. That expression, too, is worthy
of note as a proof that Christ, according to John also, prophe
sied of his resurrection, (ii. 19.)
V. 19-21. Here also it is plain, that John does not delin
eate the opponents of Jesus as utterly unsusceptible ; in part his
words, in part his works, have made an impression upon some
of the hearers who were Pharisees — it is remarkable that these,
as it appears, recognize no (beneficent) demoniacal miracles.
Discourses at the Feast of the Dedication of the Temple.
V. 22-39. AV
V. 22, 23. Perhaps confiding in the division among the
guides of the people, Jesus remains in the city or in its envi
rons, (? see Neander, p. 638, Trans, p. 303 ;) thus, some three
months later the feast of the Dedication draws near, which was
annually celebrated in the month of December for eight days,
in commemoration of the second consecration of the temple,
after it had been desecrated by Antiochus Epiphanes, (1
Maccab. iv. 56, (59,) 2 Maccab. i. 18.) As it was the rainy
season, our Saviour di4 not teach in the fore-courts, in the open
air, but in that eastern porch of the fore-court of the Gentiles,
which had continued to stand at the destruction of Solomon's
temple by the Babylonians ; in the very same place we subse
quently find the Apostles, Acts v. 12.
V. 24, 26. By the "Jews," 'loudatoi, we are probably to
understand (cf. also, v. 26,) the Pharisees, and particularly
members of the Sanhedrim ; we may from this fact already
draw the inference, which is sustained by the sequel, that im
pure motives alone prompted the question. Al'petv (and espe
cially inaipeiv, enapaez,) is used in the classics and Septuagint
in the sense, "to raise, agitate," in Philo it is used with
pezempi^eev, (cf. Lucke.) On epya, see v. 36.
V. 26-28. The fact that Christ refers back to the similitude
at the beginning of the chapter, although three months had
intervened, and the persons addressed were perhaps not the
same, is used by Strauss as eridence that it is here not so much
the Saviour who speaks as tfie Evangelist, who still had the
words from the beginning of the chapter in his memory. But
24

266 Chap. X.— v. 29-33.
if Christ observed here and there among those present but one
or two who had heard the similitude, would it not have been
proper, even after a yet longer interval, to make reference to it ?
Kadmz elnov bptv is wanting in Cod. B K L M*, and some other
authorities ; yet although it is supposable that a glossator might
have introduced the reference, the omission, on the other hand,
may be explained by the fact that the words ob ydp — i^iuv do
not occur just in that form in the earlier discourse; there are
besides weighty authorities for the retention, (Fritzsche.) With
Meyer, we divide by a comma merely, xaddiz elnov bptv, from
what precedes, and after bptv insert a colon. For the very
reason that he had not expressly uttered the words ob ydp —
ipiov in a negative form, our Lord adduces the positive prop
ositions from which that negative consequence is derived.
References to something prior, which are not, precise, are found
also in v. 36, chap. xi. 40, xii. 34, vi. 86. The marks of bis
true sheep are partly subjective, partly objective : 1) They
understand his call; 2) Christ knows them by, their sympathy;
3) They direct themselves by his will ; 4) He gives them eternal
life ; 5) They never lose it ; 6) No power can snatch them away
from him. The Reformed Church (the Calvinistic,) bases on
V. 28 the doctrine, that the regenerate can never apostatize.
Christ undoubtedly says, that no power can snatch away his
sheep from him, (Romans viii. 37-39;) but he furnishes also
the marks of his sheep, and only so far as the stipulations con
tained in V. 27 and 28 are fulfilled, so far consequently as the
disciple of Christ continues with Christ, (riii. 31,) is he inrin-
cible. See Tholuck, Komm. zum Br. an d. Rom. (4th ed.
1842,) p. 466, (on Rom. vin. 28.)
V. 29, 80. Our Lord, in confirmation of what he has said,
refers to the unity of his power vrith that of the Father.
Stripping the thought of its veil of imageiy, we have the same
idea that is presented in Rom. viii. 28, 36. The world is so
established and will be so ordered, that to him who remains
with Christ, all that comes from without, though apparently an
obstacle, vrill in fact promote his welfare. The connection
justifies what is maintained by Lampe and Bengel, for ex
ample, that the word "all," ndvzmv, in this place does not
comprehend the Son too, (it is othervrise in chap. xiv. 28,) it

Discourses at the Feast of the Dedication. 267
only embraces the power inimical to the sheep. The thu-tieth
verse has been used since the Nicene Council as the grand
proof text for the metaphysical unity of essence between the
Father and Son, though it was not so used previously.' Euthy
mius, Calrin, Grotius, and even the Socinians, admit that the
connection leads to the unity of power — they add: "and of
will." Calorius, Bengel, and others do not deny this, but the
latter remarks, as Chrysostom had already done : Unitas po-
tentise adeoque naturce, nam omnipotentia est attributum natu-
rale. Per sumus refutaturSabelUus, per unum Axitxa. ("TJnity
of power, and therefore of nature, for omnipotence is an attribute
of nature. The "are" refutes SabelUus, the "one" refutes
Arius.") Against the validity of this conclusion the Socinians
appeal to xvii. 21. It is enough for us to direct attention to
the fact which has usually been overlooked in these controver
sies, that the discourse is not of the unity of the first and of the
second "person," unbazaaiz, of the Godhead, but of the union
of God with this particular human individual, hence we subse
quently have as equivalent, the formula, iv ipol b naz^p xayd) iv
abztp, "the Father is in me, and I in him," v. 38; "in me the
Father entered into human consciousness, and I have in Him
the ground of my existence and of my actions," (De Wette.)
V. 31-33. Already, ¦riii. 69, the opponents of Christ, in order
to execute vengeance against the blasphemy, which the law
punished by stoning, had snatched up stones in a tumultuous
manner — stones brought there by the building of the temple,
which was not yet completed, may have been lying about.
The reply of Jesus seems not without sarcasm. On sdei^a, cf.
ii. 18, xaXd Spya, either useful, beneficent, (1 Tim. vi. 18,) or
noble, glorious, (1 Tim. iii. 1.) The present Xtdd^opsv as temp.
inf. of the action had in view. De Wette thinks that accord
ing to the usual type of John, the language of the Jews is to
be regarded as the result of a misunderstanding, but how ?
Could they not say with justice of him who ascribed to himself
Uke power with God, noiet aeauzbv debv, "he maketh himself
God?" 1 The polemic interest against the SabeUians led e. g. Novatian de trin. e. 22, to
say : " Unitas ad concordiam et charitatis societatem pertinet," the oneness relates
to harmony and the union of love.

268 Chap. X.— v. 34-36.
V. 34-36. ,The reply of the Redeemer is a conclusion from
the less to the greater, cf e. g. Matt. xn. 27. "Li the law,"
vbpoz, that is in the Old Testament, (xii. 84, xv. 25,) more par
ticularly in Ps. Ixxxii. 6, the judges (and those moreover,
wicked ones,) are addressed as "gods," deoi, and "sons of the
highest," ulol btpiazou, it cannot, therefore, be absolutely blas
phemy, if a man caUs himself "son of God," ulbz zou dsou.
But we are not to regard the citation made by Christ as merely
an external argument from the usage of the language. Christ
certainly presupposes a truth in this usage of language in Scrip
ture. We have to inquire, therefore: Why tbose judges,
(according to others, princes,) legitimately bear the title of
"gods," dsoil The answer depends upon the meaning at
tached to the words, "to whom the word of God came," npbz —
iyivszo. According to Cyrill, Luther, (Walch, iii. 1168,) Bucer,
Calvin, Lampe, Grotius, Olshausen, v. Colin, (Bibl. Theol. ii.
96,) the " word," Xbyoz, is either the command of God by which
they are constituted,' (so that npbz signifies "with regard to,")
or it means the word of revelation, by which they were illu
mined. Conceived in this way, we have a climax in the rela
tion of God to the Jewish judges on the one side, and to
Christ on the other; the former receive God's word, Christ as
the Messiah, is the absolute revelation of God: But can it be
shown that all the particular judicial sentences are to be re
garded as prophetic decisions, as divine revelation? Perhaps
so in the case of Moses himself, (Ex. xviii. 15, 19 ;) but is this
true also of those judges whom he appointed, (v. 25,) and of
the priestly judges in the central sanctuary ? (Deut. xvii. 8, xix.
17.) Lampe even remarks that the latter may have judged by
Urim and Thummim. Olshausen may have been impelled by
feeling the difficulty connected with this point, to embrace
the prophets also under these words. The same difficulty had
already led Crell to doubt the correctness of this meaning, and
to think that "the word of God" referred only to the address
contained in the Psalm, and this view has been followed by the
more recent critics. Christ, therefore, presupposes an acquaint
ance vrith the Psalm, and as those addressed in it were judges,
1 In Gerhard's Loci T. xiii. p. 250, the expression is adduced as a proof passago
for the divine right of the magistracy.

Discourses at the Feast of the Dedication. 269
there is a climax of official dignity. The judge, as does also
the prince, represents by his plenipotence the omnipotent God ;'
Christ possessed a far higher power, could consequently lay
claim in a far higher measure to that predicate, and yet more
cogent would be this conclusion, if our Lord had in his eye, that
the persons addressed in the Psalm are unrighteous judges. If
it be the official dignity, on which is based the justification of
the predicate "Son of God," the view, which discovers no
more in that term than a title of office, can certainly appeal
for confirmation to this passage, and already Camero remarks
that this had been done by the hodierni Photiniani, (the Pho-
tinians of the present day ;) but then, in the first place, the fact
would be overlooked, that even here the official name must
refer, at least, on the one side to the essence, that it bases itself,
namely, upon the plenipotence, and in the second place, that
V. 38 defines more particularly the meaning of " Son of God."
In the words, "J said I am the Son of God," elnov, ulbz deou
eipt, there is again an absence of exactness, as Christ had not
said this explicitly ; it is an ingenious remark of Theodore of
Mopsuestia, that there is a designed climax in the antithesis
between "gods" and "Son of God," and that, too, a climax
from the greater to the less. The predicates with which, v. 36,
the dignity of Messiah is designated, are certainly not distinct
ive enough, as others besides the Messiah may be sanctified,
(consecrated,) and sent, (Jer. i. 5,) still it is like vi. 27, iii. 34,
(cf remarks on latter passage.) It is impossible to mistake the
affinity between this argument and the character of the reason
ing in the synoptical Gospels, in which Christ often proceeds
with an indirect argument, (Matt. xii. 27, xxii. 43.) The pro
cedure of Jesus forms a remarkable contrast with the other
cases mentioned by John, in which he only states anew more
strongly what had given offense. — The xai ob — -^ Tpa-(p^ remains.
to be considered. The subject of elne is b. vbpoz, or ^ Ypatprj ; the
1 Cf. Jehoshaphat's address to the judges appointed by him, 2 Chron. xix. 5-7.
Seneca (de dementia, 1. i. c. i.) Introduces Nero speaking in the following way :
electus sum, qui in terns Deorum vice fungerer ; ego vitse neoisque gentibus arbiter,
qualem quisque sortem statumque habeat, in manu mea positum est ; (" I have been
chosen to perform in the world the part of the Gods ; I am arbiter of life and death
to the nations, to me has been committed the decision of the lot and condition of
every man.") — According to the current view, the judges, Exod. xxi. 6, xxii. 7, are
called DTI 7K, see on the other hand, Gesenius, Thesaurus, i. p. 96.
24*

270 Chap. X. — v. 37-42.
argument is strengthened by the remark, that the Scripture is
confessedly, in all its constituent parts, incontestible. In this
very declaration of Christ, there would certainly be a proof for
the most rigid doctrine as to the nature of inspiration, (Storr,
Lehrbuch d. Dogmatik von Flatt, p. 199; transl. by S. S.
Schmucker, D. D., 2d ed. p. 160,) did not, as the Orthodox
exegesis admits, the entire demonstration partake of the char
acter of an accommodation, and an argumentatio e concessis.'
V. 37-39. What are the Jews to believe ? That he is " the
Son of God," a conception whose purport is unfolded in v. 88,
cf. V. 25. This they were to regard him as being, and to be
lieve therefore in his word, and in the impression which it pro
duces, (viii. 43.) If they cannot, however, dispense with the
mediation of something which addresses the senses, his works
can furnish testimony, corresponding to ch. xiv. 10, 11. These
can lead to an acknowledgment that Christ works in unity
with the Father, cf. on v. 80, and ch. v. 19, 80. The stoning
had been arrested by this discourse, they now again attempt to
seize him, but (probably in the same way as viii. 59,) he escapes
from their hands. — On this division, v. 23-89, Weisse says : (ii.
256,) "Were it not for the reverence felt for a writing, which
we have been accustomed to regard as most intimately con
nected with what is most sacred, what reader could keep his
gravity during the scene which he is here expected to briug
before his imagination !" As no reader probably vrill be able
of himself to answer wherefore, he will have to glean it from
that author. Ministry in Per^a. — ^v. 40-42.
Y. 40-42. To avoid the danger vrith which he was threat
ened by this outbreak, Jesus retires to the department of Herod
Antipas, to Bethany, in fact, in the district in which John had
commenced his ministry, and had uttered the testimony given,
ch. i. 19, seq. These, and other declarations of John, lingered
in the memories of the people, and there are traces of a sus-
1 Schweizer, 1. c. p. 47, seq. has in an acute manner attempted to prove from
John, and especially from this passage, that Christ, in his citations from the Old
Testament, consciously proceeded throughout on the principle of accommodation.

Ministry in PERiEA. 271
ceptibility, which had been aroused by them, for the reception
of Jesus. A very important testimony against those who
would explain the miracles of Jesus as fables, springing from
the morbid love of marvels, is found in the observation, that
the Baptist, though it might certainly be looked for from him
as a prophet, performed no miracle. — How long Jesus remained
here, depends on the time we allow for his staying in Ephraim,
xi. 54, from whence he journeyed to the Passover. His op
erations were interrupted by the me^snge from the fnmily of
Lazarus.

CHAPTER XI,

The Raising of Lazarus. — v. 1-46.
The great vividness of delineation, the genuine feeling, and
the simplicity of this narrative of a restoration from death, fur
nish the probable solution of the fact, that such importance
has always been attached to this miracle ; at the very time of
its occurrence its results were of the most important character,
(xii. 9-11, 17, 18.) Bayle (Diet, article Spinoza, Trans, v.
216,) says of Spinoza: On m'a assure, qu'il disoit k ses amis,
que s'il eut pu se persuader la resurrection de Lazare, il auroit
brise en pieces tout son systfeme, il auroit embrasse sans repug
nance la foi ordinaire des Chretiens, ("I have been assured that
he said to his friends, that if he could be conrinced of the
reality of the resurrection of Lazarus, he would dash to pieces
his entire system, and would embrace without reluctance the
ordinary faith of Christians.") And wherefore was it that the
Jewish philosopher believed not this narrative ? When Strauss,
even iu the 3d ed. ii. p. 184, in the preparation of which, never
theless, he had stipulated for a truce in regard to John, declares
that he regards the narrative of this miracle as that "which
has the greatest internal improbability, and the least external
confirmation," we can look upon his expression only as a coun
ter-trump called forth by the strong trump of the defenders,
but resting on no solid reason, as the sequel will show. If the
authenticity of the Gospel be established, it is impossible to
refuse an acknowledgment of the miracle, except by an arbitrary
treatment of the text. The arbitrariness with which a Gfrorer
regards the history of this resuscitation, as identical with that
of the young man at Nain, a painting filled out from the fancy
of John, whose mind was enfeebled by age — the arbitrariness
(272)

The Raising of Lazarus. 273
¦with which Weisse maintains that it is a mere transmutation
of a sentence of Jesus into a history — ^this arbitrariness can only
be paralleled by the willful unbelief of those Pharisees who
saw what was done, yet did not believe. A- milder judgment
is due to the shift resorted to by Hase, Leben Jesu, § 99, and
Schweizer, I. c. p. 168, seq. who think the difficulty can be
escaped by adopting the supposition that the faith of Christ an
ticipated that the death would prove only an apparent one ; that
is to say, the reality of the death of Lazarus cannot of course
be established from v. 89 so as to force conviction. But then
just so much the more cogently in consequence of the judicial
examination does the heaUng of the man that was born blind,
chap. 9, bear with it an apologetic force, which would indeed
extend over this particular case also, for if a single act of this
sort on the part of Jesus is conceded, it avails nothing to keep
open an effugium, a way of ¦escape in others. Who, more
over, can maintain in the face of a sentence like that in v. 25,
the hypothesis of an apparent death ? This hypothesis of an
apparent death, as is well known, was already at an earlier
period canied out as well as it could bear it, especially by
Paulus and by Gabler, (though under the presumption that
John had not been perfectly faithful in his report,) Journal, f.
auserl. theol. Lift. B. 8, St. 2, and on the other hand has been
confuted by Flatt, in the Magazin f Dogm. u. Mor. St. 14, p.
91, and by Heubner, miraculorum ab Evangelistis narratorum
interpretatio grammatico-historica, Viteb. 1807, as also by
Strauss. V. 1-3. It is worthy of note at the very beginning, that the
Evangelist presumes his readers to be acquainted with this
family, he subsequently, indeed, designates Mary more particu
larly, (he has also placed her name first,) yet so as to show that
he supposes her work of love to which he alludes, already
known. By the words "whom thou lovest," dv tptXetz, Lazarus
is designated as the intimate friend of Jesus. 'Anb and ix do
not differ in meaning. The close relation of friendship to the
family is also deducible from the fact, that in their emergency
they send at once for Jesus, whom, as is obvious, they already
know as one who wrought miracles, (v. 22.)
V. 4, 5. Upbz ddvazov, equivalent to davdaipoz, (1 John v.

274 Chai-. XI. — v. 6-10.
16,) like eiz ddvazov, 2 Kings xx. 1, Septuag. It is not de
signed to exclude altogether the idea of dying, but (as the
words " but for the glory of God," dXX' bnip zrjz 8b^rjz zob -deou,
show,) the remaining in death, (Chrysostom, Augustine, Cal-
¦rin.) The dying, however, was to prove only the means to the
glory of God, or more strictly, to the glory of the Son of God,
(ix. 3.) Verse 11 shows that Jesus knew of the death of
Lazarus. The enigmatical character of the reply still left to
the sisters a gleam of hope even after the death of their
brother, as v. 22 shows. The Disciples might see in it an act
of healing at a distance, (Ebrard.) The affectionate purpose
which can be traced in the expression, v. 4, has its spring,
according to the Evangelist, in the love which Jesus bore to
the whole family. 0iXetv, as distinguished from dyandv, like
amare, designates the natural affection, while dyandv, like
diligere, marks the esteem which is based upon reflection ; in
this place, consequently,- when the relation to the sisters is
spoken of, we have dyandv, while ipiXetv had preriously been
used of the brother.
V. 6-8. Verses 6 and 7 stand in antithesis, as after Ineiza
a 8k corresponding with the pkv should follow, which is omitted,
however, after elza, Insiza, (Schafer, Meletemata, p. 61.) The
Evangelist, therefore, means to say that despite some delay,
Jesus took his departure. Why did he delay for these two
days ? We reply : Had he arrived while Lazarus was yet sicik,
he might have found it impossible, in the bosom of the family
he loved, to resist the entreaty to restore him to health ; his
special reason for delay then was his design of glorifying himself
by raising Lazarus, and of revealing the "glory of God," 8b^a
zou deou, (v. 15, 40, 42, 45, Chrysostom, Michselis,) at the same
time with the disciplinary aim of testing the faith of the sisters,
(Heumann, Matt. xv. 26,) and thus perfecting their faith — does
not his very purpose lie at the root of the promises concealed in
verses 23, 25, 26 ? Strauss, to be sure,/pronounces it immoral
in Christ to let his friend die, in order to glorify himself by a
miracle, but Ebrard has very justly replied : " He, to whose
omnipotence it was just as easy to raise a dead man as to heal
a sick one, performed not only no less an act of goodness, in
permitting the sickness of Lazarus to run to a fatal termina-

The Raising of Lazarus. 275
tion, and then raising him, but did in fact the very same thing
\rith only a change of form." — ^V. 8 shows that the impression
made upon the minds of the Disciples by the recent commo
tion in Jerusalem, was yet virid. Nuv, as in classic usage, in a
more extended sense. Acts ¦rii. 52.
V. 9, 10. The answer is clothed in the form of a question,
which serves to make it more impressive. In explaining the
parabolic language, the question rises, whether the same image
is pursued in v. 10, or whether there is a turn in the thought.
The former is the more simple, and vrith Melancthon, (Lucke,
also, 3d ed., and Schweizer,) we explain it thus : Day and night,
the opposition of the period in which business is to be trans
acted and of that in which it cannot be done, consequently
the time for one's calling and that not devoted to our caUing.
The time for our calling has its determinate measure — the day
in Palestine was divided into twelve hours, varying somewhat
in length according to the season of the year, (see on i. 40.)
During the day, that is, during the life spent in our calling, the
sun is visible, so that we do not stumble, that is, we incur no
danger. Outside the calling there is danger — ^the iv in v. 10,
(iv abzlp,) which is so singular, may be translated by " before,
with," (Winer, p. 168, 1 John ii. 10,) yet it is not impossible
that Christ, or the Disciple who reports his words, had given
to the thought the turn, "there is no light in himself"' The
Sariour, therefore, first of all, quiets them with the thought,
that if, as in this case, there be indisputably a dirinely appoint
ed day's work, the man to whom it is assigned will always be
protected. — ^By many others, "the day," ijpspa, is regarded only
as the designation of lifetime, (Zwingle, Bucer, Le Clerc, Titt
mann, Maldonatus, Meyer,) by which ihis advantage is gained,
that the interpretation of the first half is approximated to the
meaning of the expression ix. 4 : " Even to the closing hour
of the day appointed me, the dirine protection will not fail
me ;" but if the latter half can, in this view, be explained in no
other way than either vrith Heumann : (¦with perhaps an appeal
to xii. 35,) " the night of death is coming, when my work will
1 Schweizer: "The man who shuns the way of God, betakes himself to darkness,
and first falls into real danger, because the true light is not in him " — " an expies-
don which forsakes the image, and belongs only to the counterpart."

276 Chap. XI. — v. 11-19.
be broken off;" or with Meyer: "I shall not fall until the
appointed period of my death has come ;" this would be doing
violence to the language, nor can the passage, xii. 36, be
brought in with propriety here. In the main point, De Wette,
by another way, coincides vrith our interpretation : " The twelve
hours of the day are an image of the space in which a morally
pure and prudent business has its play ; the light of this world
signifies the light of the Spirit, from which purity springs ; the
night, in part, want of prudence, partly impurity;" but the
taking of -fjpipa in this sense, has this against it, that then the
limitation to the twelve hours does not suit, and the exposition
of fdJz TOU xbapou is unnatural. According to Chrysostom,
Lampe, Neander, by the " day," we are to understand the time
of Christ's presence, by the "light," Christ himself, so that the
words contained a comforting assurance for the Disciples ; so
long as he was present, no eril could befall them.
V. 11, 12. The xal pezd zouzo Xeyet indicates a pause. As
Christ in v. 4 spoke of Lazarus as still sick, but here speaks
of him as dead, it is probable that in the interval he had died ;
the acquaintance of Christ ¦with the fact is obviously referred
to his supernatural knowledge. The solicitude of the Disciples
had, in v. 9, been allayed by pointing out to them that in the
path of his vocation no eril can befall a man ; and now they
are encouraged yet more by having their sympathy aroused in
the lot of Lazarus, for which reason, too, he is styled 6 fiXoz
^ pSv, (our friend.) What is the Saviour's reason here, as well
as in the case of the daughter of Jairus, Luke viii. 52, for
designating death as sleep ? As it was his purpose speedily to
call back his friend to life, it was a natural and at the same
time a more tender expression, which lends no aid to the mod
ern imputation, that "the Christ whom John paints is osten
tatious in his miracles." The Disciples would still more readily
think of a deep sleep superinducing a crisis in the disease, if
they had regarded what was uttered in v. 4 as an intimation of
Christ's intention to heal him at a distance.
V. 13-15. The language of tender indirectness is now
exchanged for an explicit declaration, and our Sariour's pur
pose in permitting the sickness to go on to death is expressed
in direct terms, to wit : the strengthening of their faith — for we

The Raising of Lazarus. 277
I
are here to understand ntareustv, of a more exalted measure of
faith, see on ii. 11.
V. 16. dmpdz, equiv. to DN'ri, "twin." John in but three
instances furnishes us with traits of this Disciple, namely, here
and in xiv. 5, and in xx. 24, seq.; but they are in such harmony
as to furnish a picture of character. Intellectual reflection pre
dominates in this Disciple, immediateness of self-surrender and
of trust .was in defect ; here, consequently, he is unable to lift
himself up to Christ's word, he gives proof, indeed, of some
devotion, as for love of him he will not shrink from death, but
he shows faint-heartedness enough to doubt whether their lives
will be saved.
V. 17-19. Jesus does not enter the village, he waits until
Martha comes, in fact, has Mary also to come out to him, (v.
28, 30.) Why was this ? Was it that he desired to avoid dis
play ? According to the ordinary view, it was simply because
of the fact that the place of sepulture was outside of the
village, and this view is favored by v. 31. — Since Chrysostom,
the four days have been computed thus : On the day on which
the messenger started Lazarus died, and he was buried on the
same day, (for proof that this was usual, see Acts v. 6, 10, and
Jahn, Archaol, i. 2, p. 427.) Jesus still remained two days in
Persea, one day was needed for the journey of from twenty-
three to twenty-nine miles from Persea to Bethany, thus Jesus
would arrive on the fourth evening — but could that which
follows occur then on the same evening ? According to our
view, (expressed on v. 11,) Lazarus was still alive on the day on
which the messenger arrived ; the fact, moreover, has been lost
sight of, that according to the zszapzatoz, " the fourth," v. 39,
Lazarus at the time of the arrival of Jesus could have lain in
the grave three days only, and here in v. 17 the fourth day, yet
incomplete, is counted with them. We may regard it as cer
tain, that Jesus did not make the whole journey in one day,
for he went to the sepulchre the day he arrived, as a compari
son of V. 17 and 39 shows, and he must, consequently, have
spent parts at least of two days on the road ; we may, there
fore, suppose that Lazarus died in the night which followed the
arrival of the messenger and was buried the day after, and that
this part of the day on vvhich he was buried, and the fourth,
26

278 Chap. XL — v. 20-34.
which was not completed, are included in the computation of
V. 17. — The nearness of Bethany to Jerusalem' is mentioned
to show that it was easy for the friends who testified their sym
pathy, to ¦risit the sisters ; according to Maimonides, de Luctu, c.
13, § 2, the stated condolences lasted for seven days. The dnb
gives this force : " lying at the end of fifteen stadia," (ten stadia
are equivalent to the modern geographical mile of sixty to the
degree,) Winer, p. 513. The al nepi in ancient Greek, desig
nates the principal person and the company surrounding him,
but in Plutarch and his cotemporaries it is a paraphrastic ex
pression for one individual. Acts xiii. 13, is an instance of the
older usage ; here, however, we have the later usage, as the zou
ddeXfoi) abzmv shows.
V. 20-22. The similarity of the character of ¦ Martha and
Mary in John, (connect vrith this narrative, chap. xii. 1-8,) ¦vrith
the depicture of the same character given in Luke x. 38^2, is
very remarkable. Martha (probably the elder sister,) appears
here also as the active one, expressing her thoughts, (v. 89 ;)
Mary is more completely absorbed in her anguish. As the
tidings of Christ's arrival become known, Martha goes out for
the purpose of meeting him, while Mary remains at home. Of
Mary it is said, that she sought to indulge her sorrow by risit-
ing the grave. While Martha is at once disposed when she
meets Jesus to converse vrith him, Mary sinks at the feet of the
Master weeping and uttering but a word, (v. 82.) Both sisters at
the glimpse of Jesus express in their first words a regret which
breathes their confidence in him ; a regret that he had not ¦been
present. Bengel: Ex quo colligi potest, hunc earum fuisse
sermonem.ante fratris obitum: utinam adesset dominus Jesus !
(from which may be gathered that before their brother's death
this had been their language : 0 that the Lord Jesus were here !)
In the minor of the conditional proposition the pluperfect is here
connected with dv ; in v. 32, the aorist has a similar meaning,
(see iv. 10.) The assuredness of the conviction that the pres
ence of Jesus would have prevented the death, is in itself no
little e^ridence of strength of faith, but a greater one is found
I The village is still in existence, and is three-quarters of an hour's ride from the
Damascus Gate of Jerusalem; Robinson, i. p. 130, (ii. 99-101, of the 1st ed., i.
481, last ed. Tr.)

The Raising of Lazarus. 279
in V. 22, if what is there uttered is, as it appears to be, an
expression of the hope of a restoration from death, which may,
it is true, have been excited by the assurance which Christ had
given, V. 4.
V. 23-27. Jesus testing her faith at first, still speaks inde
terminately; this indeterminate declaration is regarded by
Martha as a repression of her ardent hopes, v. 22. With sub
limity and power, Jesus directs the glance of her faith upon
his own person as the centre. In his own person lie the powers
of the resurrection, (negatively,) and the ^mij, "the life," (posi
tively,) see ch. v. 21, and Deut. xxx. 20. He is the vanquisher
of death for the dead and for the living, faith is in both cases
the condition; "though he were dead," xdv dnoddv/j, and
"whosoever liveth," ndz 6 (^div, stand in opposition. It is im
possible to mistake here as to the use which the Redeemer
makes o^ the event for the promotion of faith on the part of
the sisters. Martha, like Peter, vi. 69, confesses her faith in
that Messiah who is the raiser of the dead.
V. 28-31. Filled with joyous hope by the words of the
Sa^riour, she hastens to her sister, and (only to arouse her to
make haste, shall we say?) tells her that the Master calls her;
she does it " secretly," Xddpa, desiring that the interriew should
be confidential, mindful too perhaps, in her love, of the peril
which had recently threatened Christ in Jerusalem. The Ori
entals, to this day, |Niebuhr, Journey to Arabia, i. p. 86,) repair
frequently, as in ancient times, to the graves of their loved
ones, see Talmud, tr. Semachoth, c. 8. "For three days the
grave of the dead is ¦risited ;" as Mary hastens to the ricinity
of the place of burial, the Jews who were present suppose that
she is about to perform that duty, and hasten after her.
V. 32-84. With the same words which her sister had used,
she meets Jesus, casts herself reverentially at his feet, and
weeps in silence. What is the meaning of ive^ptp-^aazo — eauzbv ?
'Ep^ptpdopae, like ^pepdm, ^pepaivm, means in the predominant
usage, "to be moved with indignation, to threaten vehemently,"
(Suidas, Hesychius, Etymol. magn., Passow,) and is so used in
the New Testament, Mark xiv. 5, i. 43, Matt. ix. 30. Retain
ing this signification, taking a ¦wrong view at the same time of

280 Chap. XI. — v. 34-37.
the true human nature of Jesus, Chrysostom and Euthymius
interpret : " he reproved his own rising emotion," (zw nveupaze ;)
Cyrill, Theophylact: "through his divine nature he chided the
human;" Theodore of Mopsuestia, Lampe: "he was angered
at the unbelief of the Jews, (v. 38,) and of the sisters also."
Reverting to this latter way of taking it, the most recent critics,
Strauss and Fritzsche, maintain that it is entirely in keeping
with Christ's character, as John delineates him, that as a thau-
maturgus easily aroused, he should fly into a passion at every
exhibition of a refusal to believe, in fact, should quiver ¦with
indignation, (cf Fritzsche, in the Allg. Litteraturz, 1840, Nro.
100, and 1841, Nro. 115.) Jesus, it is true, weeps, and aska
sadly : Where have ye laid him ? — ^but his question, according
to Fritzsche, is rather put in anger; his tears, according to
Strauss, prove no more than that the passion of anger had
passed over into that of sorrow. The Jews indeed, according
to V. 36, see in the. tears of Jesus a token of his love, but
Strauss sees in this only an illustration of the type of John's
representation, according to which, the enemies of Jesus put a
false interpretation on all his actions. In this case, the ancient
enemies of Christ certainly made no such misinterpretation ;
that was reserved for his enemies of modern times, and they
have made it with a perverseness to which we shall not pay
respect so far as to involve ourselves in a controversy with it.
We proceed to a more particular examination of the meaning
of ipj3pipdopat : the analogy of the language, if not the usage,
justifies the adoption of the meaning, "to be moved with
grief" Bptpdopat designates the noisy manifestation of emo
tion, not only of indignation, but also of fervor; Ppipdaam, which
is related, designates a shaking ¦with petulance ; ^pdaam, when
intransitive, means "to ferment," when transitive, "to shake
riolently " — ip^pipdopat could therefore be used of the shaking,
of the groaning produced by grief It is related to fremere,
which is also used in speaking of sorrow, Virgil, JEn. vi. 175,
Orid, Metam. iii. 628, (628, tr.) Gesenius, Thesaurus, takes
fremo as the primary definition of '\:?l, and as special senses
"vrith indignation," "with sorrow." Tip nveupazt may be con
sidered parallel vrith iv kauzcp v. 38, and we compare in addi-

The Raising of Lazarus. 281
tion, Mark •vui. 12, dvaazevd^az rip nveupazt, that is, internally,
though perhaps accompanied by a suppressed sound.' Tapdaaip
with, laurov, paraphrastical for the middle zapdaaeadat, yet with
a prominence of the spontaneity, (Winer, p. 234 ;) according to
Lucke, it is spiritual agitation, as in ch. xiii. 21, izapdxd-tj zip
nveupaze, but the reflexive form would then be less easj"- to
explain; let the fact rather be recalled, that it is this vehe
ment, deep-seated, inward sorrow by which, more than by any
other, an agitation of the upper part of the body is produced,
(Euthymius.) If, then, the language marks the profoundest
emotion of sorrow, the question arises, what was its object?
According to Augustine, Olshausen, sorrow over death in gen
eral, over the mournful features of human life ; according to
De Wette, it was, "that the sisters whom he loved could not
have been spared this sorrow," (compare, however, verses 4, 15,
42.) By Calrin and Maldonatus was already made the just
observation, that the reason is clearly expressed in v. 33, the
tears of Mary drew forth the tears of the Jews who followed
her, and the sympathizing Saviour enters into this sorrow,
(Rom. xii. 15;) yet a general sympathy with the griefs of
human life may also be comprehended, (Calvin.) But, if it be
asked, why weep, when the next moment life is to be restored
to the dead ? we reply vrith Neander : the sympathizing phy
sician in the midst of a family drowned in grief — will not his
tears flow vrith theirs, though he knows that he has the power
of giving immediate relief? The same agitation is exhibited a
second time, when the Saviour is standing by the grave, (v. 38.)
V. 36-37. On the way to the grave, which was at hand, the
internal agitation finds vent in tears; the love of Jesus to
Lazarus leads some of these Jews who seem to have been well-
meaning, but who were not aware of what had passed between
him and the sisters, to put the question with surprise, why
Jesus had not brought help at an earlier period. If they
had appealed to the earUer raisings of the dead in Gal
ilee, the suspicion of the critics would have been excited,
that this narrative was a fiction of a later author, who had
1 Under the word " ergrimmte," Luther embraces both meanings, in Acts xvii. 16,
that of anger, and in this passage, that of mournful emotion : see Walch, B. vi. p.
1097. 26*

282 Chap. XE.— v. 38-46.
those accounts before him ; now, however, as these citizens of
Jerusalem (very naturaUy) make their appeal to the last great
miracle which was fixed in their memories, Strauss . urges Luke
•rii. 17, and presumes they must necessarily have known of any
other restorations from death, had there been such.
V. 38^0. The rich Orientals buried their dead in sepulchres
hewn in the rocks, (Matt, xxrii. 60,) through which were pass
ages of the kind that may be seen to this day in the Cata
combs at Rome ; on both sides of these passages were openings
(io?3,) in which the bodies were deposited; many of these caves
entered into the earth horizontally, others perpendicularly;
inexeizo, therefore, may just as well mean laid upon as laid
against, cf. Nicolai, de Sepulchris Heb. c. x. 11. — What is
Martha's object in the words, v. 39? Would she deter Jesus,
because it is now too late ? (Schweizer.) Or would she with
hold from Jesus what could not but be physically revolting ?
(Bengel.) We think that our Lord's answer shows that in her
mind despondency was predominant, which was not necessarily
entirely relieved by the hope which had been aroused, (v. 28.)
That corruption had actually taken place, it must be admitted,
cannot be satisfactorily proven from her language, for the ydp
shows that she does not speak from direct knowledge.' The
Apologists attach all weight to the fact, that putrefaction in
Oriental countries takes place sooner than with us, and it is
unquestionable that in warm climates the corpse in a relaxed
condition goes into decomposition without the intervening
condition of rigidity usual with us, Burdach, Physiol, iii. § 634.
But we should not forget that the occurrence must have taken
place in winter, (see on x. 22, and 40-42.) She is aroused
from her despondency by a reference to the promise, v. 23,
where indeed there is a verbal difference in the phraseology,
(cf V. 4, and on x. 26.)
V. 41, 42. Jesus solicits the Father for the miracle, as in vi.
11, yet he himself performs it, according to v. 11, 24, 43, and
and so in ri. 6 also ; but chap. v. 19, 26 and x. 18 have already
shown that in every thing that is done by Christ, the Father is
to be regarded as absolute cause ; we have, moreover, on the
1 It is a matter of some surprise that Lazarus had not been embalmed, as iha
Ksters had nard at least in the house, (iii. 3.)

The Raising op Lazarus. 283
part of Christ, perhaps, to imagine only a soliciting factor, to
whom a process in the dead person, reducible to a divine caus
ality, is respondent. What now occurs is an answer to, a
prayer of Christ — ^when did Christ make that prayer ? Bengel
thinks it was in v. 4, but if we could suppose that the Redeem
er may have called every internal reference to the absolute
ground of his own proper being, a prayer, this question could
hardly be raised. Strauss finds something to stumble at in that
the words addressed to God are interrupted by a reflection de
signed for those that stood by, and thus the prayer becomes, as
Weisse styles it, a prayer for show. But does there not lie in
this so-called refiection a monition to those that hear, and can
we then allege that the reference to God, and the reference sug
gested by love to those that hear, exclude one another ?
V. 43, 44. Does the act of restoration to life commence
¦\rith this call? .John appears to have thought so, but the
thanks expressed in v. 41, permit the supposition that the
moment of awaking was earlier, and that the call only effected
the coming forth of him who had already been restored to life.
In the interest of the natural explanation, Hase, 1. c. § 99,
remarks : death can only so far be brought into the question,
"as in the mysterious approximation of death and life, life
again by the interposition of Jesus overcame death," and
Kern: (Tubing. Zeitschrift, 1889, 1 H. p. 182,) "Except that
here also, the possibility must be admitted, that life had not
been absolutely interrupted, but had only vanished to that
point at which, without the rirific influence of Christ, it would
have been separated from these earthly relations."' But can
this view of the case be reconciled with verses 14 and 25 ? — In
the same way as the Egyptian mummies, every limb was sepa
rately wrapped; the linen cloth, aouddpiov, on the mummies
extends down to the breast.
V. 45, 46. It might be.anticipated from what has preceded,
i Were it otherwise, it has been asked, why did not Lazarus speak of that whicb
is beyond the grave ? But had he even done so, we would have had no reason
whatever for surprise, that John should say nothing of it. We should remember,
moreover, the cases of persons apparently dead, who, though on waking, they have
declared that they experienced something extraordinary, yet with a sacred reserve,
have refused to give any account of it.

284 Chap. XI.— v. 46-52.
that among tne friends of the family there would be suscepti
ble hearts, and the sequel confirms this ; in some of the others,
however, in this case, as too frequently elsewhere, was verified
what Calvin says : " Those who have not a strong fear of God,
and reverence for him, though they should see heaven apd earth
mingling together, with infiexible ingratitude would never
cease to reject sound doctrine," (apud quos non viget Dei metus
et reverentia, etiamsi eoelum videant terrse misceri, prsefracta in-
gratitudine sanam doctrinam respuere numquam desinent.)
The pretended internal grounds opposed to the credibility of
the narrative, have been considered in the preceding remarks ;
in closing, we return to the difficulty which has been urged
among recent writers, especially by Schneckenburger, fiber den
Ursprung des ersten kanon. Ev. (" On the Origin of the first
Canonical Gospel,") p. 10, seq. — the silence of Matthew in
regard to the raising of Lazarus, a difficulty which has been
met by Kern, fiber den Ursprung des Ev. Matthai, (" On the
Origin of the Gospel of Matthew,") only so far as rather to
cast the' shadow of the suspicion on John. It is urged that
not only must the other Evangelists have mentioned this rais
ing from the dead, as one of the greatest of miracles, but they
had the additional reason that it had. the most direct part in
bringing about the final catastrophe, the death of Jesus. The
opinion (Grotius, Olshausen,) that the silence of the other
Gospels, was occasioned by a foresight which desired to shield
Lazarus, is encumbered with too many difficulties. Hase pre
sents the correct solution : " The secret lies in the circumstances
common to the synoptical Evangelists, and which have led to
their silence in regard to all the earUer events in Judea," thus
Kern, Lucfe, Neander. If the synoptical Gospels have resulted
from a uniting together of single groups of narrative in the
oral or written tradition, if especially, the history of the pas
sion was transmitted as a whole, w.e can comprehend how a
single particular, and especially this narrative, which is only
preparatory to the catastrophe, may haye been omitted; Mat
thew and Mark are silent, too, in regard to the raising of the
young man at Nain.

Determination to put Jesus Tcf death. 285

The Determination op the Sanhedrim to put Jesus
DEATH. — V. 47-57.
V. 47, 48. The Sanhedrim perceived that the decree of ex
communication did not suffice to deter men from beliering in
Jesus. In order to terrify those that were favorable to him —
and, as Calrin, correctly regarding the springs of mental action,
has observed, — ^in order to tranquilize their own consciences,
the matter was represented in such a way, as to create the im
pression that political danger threatened, in case Jesus was
generally recognized and proclaimed as king of Israel, Calrin :
Sceleri obtenditur speciosus color, boni publici studium — ita
hypocritse, etiamsi intus coarguat eos conseientia, postea tamen
vanis figmentis se inebriant, ut videantur peccando innoxii,
interea manifeste secum ipsi dissident, (" a specious color, the
desire to promote the public welfare, is put upon their crime —
thus hypocrites, though conscience is inwardly reproving them,
intoxicate themselves with empty fancies, that they may seem
guiltless of sinning, meanwhile they are clearly in conflict with
themselves.") "Ozt, which is left untranslated by Luther, is
elucidative of the thought which remains to be supplied:
"something must be done, for this man, &c." Tbnoz may
designate either the land, the city, or the temple ; connected
with dytov, it is used of the temple, Acts vi. 13, Matt xxiv. 15,
¦without dyioz, 2 Maccab. v. 19, Acts xxi. 28, where, however,
it has ouzoz with it. We might suppose that o zbnoz xal zb
Idvoz, was phraseologic, like the German "Land und Leute,"
"land and people," (Eras. Schmid, Bengel,) but there are no
examples of such a use. Al'petv, " to destroy," used both of
men and things ; -^piUv, however, may be connected with al'petv,
and be taken as the genitive of separation, (Luke vi. 29,) and
then oiepeev laeans "to take away."
v. 49-62. The passionate reproach of the high priest: "Te
know nothing at all," obx ol'daze obSev, censures them in gene
ral for debating on a matter where the proper course was so
obvious. It was certainly remarkable that the man who bore
the office of high priest the year that Jesus was put to death,
and who consequently cooperated in producing his death, shc)uld

286 *Chap. XI. — v. 53-57.
in these words involuntarily express the purpose ®f God in that
death, (Schweizer;) he thus became like Balaam, as it were, a
prophet against his ¦will, (see Tholuck's Supplem. to comm. on
Epis. to Hebrews, Beilage, 2d ed. p. 21.) Paulus, Kuinol,
Liicke. De Wette, supposed that the Evangelist regarded the
gift of prophecy as connected ¦with the office of high priest,
and find this thought expressed in the words, v. 61, "being
high priest," dpxtepeuz &v ; but Lucke himself, 3d ed., now con
fesses, that no express warrant for that opinion can be fur
nished ; moreover, why on that supposition would the words,
"that year," z. ivtauzou ixeivou, be added? The Evangelist
could not have meant it merely to fix the chronology of the
event, after v. 49 this would have been superfluous ; we have in
xviii. 13 the same formula again, where De Wette is satisfied
with the answer, that the z. ivtauzou ixeivou is a " mere mechan
ical repetition." We vvould be much more near the truth in
finding in it this meaning : " Who precisely in this memorable
year was high priest," (Lampe, Schweizer.) Let ua now ditect
our attention more closely to the interpretation which the
Evangelist puts upon his words. Caiaphas had only spoken
of the theocratic people, John gives tp his words a reference to
the genuine people of God, and with a retrospect to x. 16,
speaks of a union of all nations, which is to be effected through
the death of Christ. On the expression, " the children of God,"
zixva zou d^Eou, Chrysostom observes : " Those that were to
become such," dnb zou piXXovzoz iaeadae, Calrin: "Erant in
Dei pectore filii," "in the bosom of God they were already
sons." V. 63-56. Christ now escapes into the region of Jordan
lying north of the Dead Sea, as in chap, x., after the commo
tion, he went to Persea. Jerome says that Ephraim lay twenty
Roman miles north of Jerusalem ; Eusebius makes the distance
eight Roman miles, (the Roman mile was about 1614 yards.)
It is difficult then, however, to see how it could have lain near
to the wilderness, to vrit : of Judah ;' it seems, therefore, that
1 This Ephraim is by Lightfoot, Beland, and others, regarded as the same with
the one mentioned iu 2 Chron. uii. 19, and by Josephus, de bello Jud. iv. 9, 9, and
with some probability, as both passages point to a site north of Jerusiiem. It
\roald have lain then in the neighborhood of Bethlehem ; ou the way flrom Jericho

Determination to put Jesus to death. 287
another Ephraim must be intended. The wUderness of Judah
not ouly stretched to the north corner of the Dead Sea, but
beyond it as far as Gilgal, cf Tholuck's Exposition of the
Psalms, Ps. Ixiii. On this view, the synoptical Gospels repre
senting Jesus as coming from Jericho to Jerusalem, and John
representing him as coming from Ephraim, are in harmony, for
by that site of Ephraim runs the road to Jericho. — The x^i'P"-^
V. 55, is the vicinity of Jerusalem. Those who were unclean
were obliged to purify themselves previously to the Passover,
by sacrifices and other ritual observances, (Numb, ix, 10, seq.
2 Chron. xxx. 17, seq.)
V. 56, 57. Ti 8oxet bptv is connected with what follows by
the Vulgate, Ethiopic, Erasmus, Wahl, and is translated by the
latter as a prseter: "WTiat think you, that he has not come?"
Ti doxet aoi, however, usually serves as a preliminary question,
and as regards the tense, the aor. conj. after ob prj but '^oldom
marks past time, (Hartung, Partikell. ii. p. 166 ;) nor had the
time for coming completely expired, so that it is better with
Beza to translate: "That he will not come?" Thus the sus
pense on the part of those who repaired to the feast is brought
before our eyes, and by the xai, v. 57, the expectation of the
rulers of the people that he would come, is made coordinate
with it.
to Bethel, Robinson, found a frightful wilderness, (ii. 560.) Where, however,
il Iprifios stands without any thing additional, it either means the desert of Arabia or
of Judah, perhaps the desert of Jericho. — As for the rest, the road from Jericho to
Bethel is a day's joumey.

CH'APTER XII.

Jesus anointed by Mary. — ^v. 1-8.
V. 1, 2. A week before the feast Jesus makes his appearance.
The genit. zou ndaxa is to be resolved into npb zou ndaxa, and
npb ef -^pspmv is equivalent to Sf ijpspaz, as we say in German :
" vor drei Tagen geschah es," (literally, " before three days it
happened,") meaning on the third day. Amos i. 1, Septuag.
npb 8uo izmv zou asiapou, Thucydides, Hist. ii. 34; npbzptza,
equivalent to triduo ante, three days before. It has been made
a question, how these six days are reckoned, whether they in
clude the terminus a quo and ad quem, or only the term, a quo,
or exclude both ? (cf Jacobi, in the Stud. 1838, 4 H. p. 894,
and Neander, I. c. p. 693.) It is not probable that the journey
and arrival took place on the Sabbath, they occurred perhaps,
therefore, on Friday late in the evening, the meal-time would
then be that which was observed at the beginning of the Sab
bath.' We should have expected from the traits -of Martha's
character given in chap, xi., and in Luke x. 88, seq., that she
would attend to the domestic arrangements, and give expres
sion in this way to her love for our Lord ; according to Matt.
xxvi. 6 and Mark xiv. 3, the entertainment was given at the
house of Simon, who formerly had been a leper — a circum
stance which, when we consider the similarity which aside from
this exists in the other particulars, is not of sufficient import
ance to justify the supposition that two distinct facts are de
scribed ; the question might be asked, whether he may not have
been Martha's landlord, or even her husband? (Heumann.)
1 According to tr. Schabbath. c. xvi. 2, cf. Maimonides, three raeil-times were
observed, Friday evening. Sabbath morning and Sabbath evening.
(288)

Jesus anointed by Mary. 289
Mention is made of Lazarus sitting at the table ¦vrith them, as
evidence of his complete restoration.
V. 8. This Buperabounding token of love which our Sa^riour
accepted in such a way as fully to acknowledge its merits, is in
perfect keeping with the character of Mary. It was not un
usual to connect the anointing of the feet vrith the ablutions
which took place previous to entertainments, cf. Luke vii. 46,
the Talmud tr. Menachoth, f. 82 ; Aristophanes, Vespse, v. 605 :
xat npitiza psv rj duydzrjp ps dnoviCrj xal zd) noS" dXsif/j xai npoaxu-
<I>aaa ftX:jarj, "and first my daughter washes me and anoints
my feet, and stooping oVer me gives me a kiss." The nard,
precious in itself, is here further characterized by the addition
of niazixbz. Fritzsche on Mark xiv. 8, defended the derivation
of that word from nivw, "potable," the opposite is maintained
by Winer, p. 90, and Bretschneider, but in the review of
Bretschneider's Lexicon in the Hall. Litteraturz. 1840, p. 179,
seq., Fritzsche maintains his opinion in such a way as to com
pel up to the present time a suspension of judgment. Whether
the word mean "genuine" or "potable," it marks in either
case the preciousness, which is also clear from the considerable
price mentioned, (300 denarii are worth about $45.00.) The
bestowment of an entire pound of this oil does in fact seem to
be a great piece of luxury, yet the high price and the auvzpi<paaa
in Mark xiv. 3, show that we could not well, with Meyer, main
tain that only a part of that quantity had been bestowed.
Matthew and Mark speak only of an anointing of the head,
not of the feet ; according to Luke vii. 46, the former was the
usual, the latter the more extraordinary mode, which is the
reason that John gives prominence to it. To the xazsxssv used
by Mark, TjXsitpe corresponds, for dXetppa is the fluid, and XP^'^P"-
the tenacious ointment. The fact seems conclusively to prove
that the family -were in good circumstances, if the inference
may not, perhaps, be drawn from the zez^prjxev, (she hath kept,)
that the oil by some chance or other obtained long ago had
been preserved as a treasure. *
V. 4-6. This one trait of Judas unlocks his soul to a glance,
which renders clear all that follows. He has been put in charge
of the money, which served at once for the wants of Jesus,
and for the poor, and which was supplied entirely by charity,
26

290 Chap. XH.— v. 7-13.
(Luke ¦riii. 3.) He could prevail upon himself, not once only,
but repeatedly to purloin from this money, and yet present him
self in the presence of Jesus, and was so hypocritical withal, as
to vrish to seetn the friend of the poor at the very time he was
robbing the poor. Such a man had already smothered con
science — such a man had no longer power to pray. To such a
man, even the paltry reward offered him by the Sanhedrim
must have been a lure, especially if he believed that Jesus could
liberate hiniself again. Two perplexing questions now, indeed,
arise : How did John know of the treachery of this Disciple ?
Why had Jesus suffered the money still to be in his charge ?
Had John marked it from certain symptoms, and was Christ,
still cherishing hope, unwilling to remove him ? That Christ
had not even yet given him up, may perhaps be inferred from
the narrative • of the feet washing. Baazd^etv, according to
Theophylact and most of the recent ¦writers, means here to
"take away," (John xx. 15,) equivalent to "steal," but in the
passages of the ancient authors, where it might be translated
" steal," that meaning only can be a deduction from the former
sense ; Heumann (Lucke also, 3d ed., Bretschneider,) has conse
quently insisted, that it should be simply translated, " he bare,"
as has been done by the Vulgate, Syriac, Arabic, Persic, Luther,
(Eng. Transl.,) yet the words then seem rather idle.
V. 7, ,8. The coincidence vrith Mark xiv. 8, and Matt. xxvi.
12, is remarkable. Filled with a presentiment of that which
was now close at hand, our Lord gives to the action a meaning
as tender as it was judicious ; according to which, that which
seemed prodigality, answered a noble end. Is it atall probable
that this trait could have been invented, and these words put in
the mouth of Jesus. Does it not harmonize completely with
those other expressions of his, which (in opposition to the
Jewish formal piety,) bear on them the stamp of a piety
genuinely human. We must connect it with such words as
those in Luke xii. 33, to obtain the complete image of Christ.
Over against a narrow, contracted piety, the Christian system
of morals might make its appeal to this language of our Lord,
to prove that earthly wealth, though it be employed but in
subserving an idea, as in Art, for example, is likewise employed
in accordance with the mind of Christ.

Christ's entrance into Jerusalem. 291

Christ's entrance into Jerusalem. — v. 9-19.
V. 9-11. During the Sabbath, the inteUigence of the Sa-
•riour's arrival was spreading in the capital, especially had the
account of the raising of Lazarus increased the intensity of
interest on the part of those who had come from a distance to
the feast ; as soon as the law of the Sabbath permitted, or even
early on Sunday, many streamed forth. The shameful design
against Lazarus was only spoken of, but not generally approved.
V. 12j 13. It would seem, according to the other Evange
Usts, as though Jesus, vrithout passing the night in Bethany,
had gone at o&ce ¦with the caravan which was traveling to the
feast, by a day's journey from Jericho to Jerusalem. But this
merely seems to have been the case. Mark xi. 1, especially,
shows very clearly that the Evangelist does not give the course
of the journey by stations,' but is only concerned to mark the
place from whence the entrance took place ; the eye is not di
rected to what lies between Jericho and the entry into Jerusa
lem.' " It is possible, too," says Hase, " that tradition, which felt
little solicitude about exactness in distinguishing the dates,
regarded as a single whole the entire journey from Jericho."
The common •riew is, that Jesus remained over the Sabbath in
Bethany,, and made his entrance into Jerusalem on Sunday,
(palmarum. Palm Sunday.) According to Mark xi. 11, the city
was not reached until late in the day." Especially among those
who had repaired to the feast, probably, therefore, among the
Galileans, the sympathy exhibited itself so strongly, that with
out regarding the interdiction of the Sanhedrim, (ix. 22,) they
went forth to meet him on the morning of Sunday, with the
tokens of honor which it is usual to offer to Eastern kings, 1
Mac. xiii. 51, 2' Mac. x. 7. The Targum, Esther x. 16, says:
" When Mordecai went forth from the gate of the king, the
1 If in Mark xi. 1, the three places, Bethphage, Bethany and the Mount of Olives,
are mentioned in the order in which Jesus came to them, and if, with the later
legendary tradition, we could locate Bethphage between Bethany and the Mount of
Olives, (Raumer, Palastino, p. 305,) Bethany would then seem to be marked as the
place whence he set out; but the whole of this is uncertain. Least of all, can the
reading proposed by Fr. in loe. be correct.
» What is urged by Ebrard, ii. p. 588, ogainst Strauss, does not entirely meet its
object. ^

292 Chap. XH.— v. 14-24.
streets were covered vrith myrtle, and the porches with purple,"
cf also, Herodotus, 1. 7, c. 54. Branches of the palm were
broken off and strewed upon the road, others "spread their
garments, (Mark xi. 8.) The artic. zdiv in v. 13, either refers
to the palms that stood there, or to the fact that palm branches
were generally used on such occasions. They sing a jubilant
call from Psalm cxviii. 25, 26, which was also sung at the feast
of Tabernacles, and in the great Hallel at the Passover, and
which had a Messianic interpretation attached to it.
V. 14-16. When Jesus had reached the vicinity of the
Mount of Olives, he met the crowds that were coming forth
toward him, and he now causes the ass' foal to be brought. As
regards the object of his triumphal entrance, we adopt the
words of Hase, 1. c. p. 173 : " He received what by divine right
belonged to him, and showed the world that he had the power
of reigning, had he been willing to reign by force. The
political hopes connected with the Messiah, had incited this
tnumphal reception ; in the near prospect of his death, there
existed no longer a reason why he should shun such a reception.
On one occasion, at least, Jesus must openly proclaim himself
Messiah, and this is the significance of this entrance." Nean
der, 1. c. 596 : " This was the result, caused by divine dispensa
tion, of his prerious labors. — ^It was the answer to many ques
tions ; the answer which annihilated the last doubt, and thus
took its place as one of those events in history which interest
the whole race." Jesus desired to declare himself the king of
Israel, but only as the king of peace ; he selected, therefore, the
animal that was usually ridden in time of peace, while the horse
was reserved for war, (Hos. xiv. 4, (3,) Prov. xxi. 81, Jere. xrii.
26,) and points directly to that prophecy (Zechariah ix. 9,)
which likewise depicts the Messiah as king of peace. The dif
ference in Matthew's account, which speaks of a she-ass and
her foal, has been elucidated by Ebrard, p. 590, seq. in a man
ner worthy of notice. On v. 16, cf. ii. 17. It may be ques
tioned, whether the oze ido^dadrj has reference to the impart
ation of the Spirit, (Acts ii. 33.) Kal 5ze xzX. — they were
reminded of this, and consequently of the fulfillment, at the
same time with the prophecy; it wias they, too, who had
brought the ass (Matt. xxi. 7,) to him.

Desire of Gentiles to see Jesus. 293
V. 17-19. The Jews who had come out earlier, formed the
one chorus, those who met them, (the xai in v. 18, must be
regarded,) the other; Luke xix. 37 seems, as Gfrorer also
observes, to poiut to a reminiscence of this fact. — It is not the
friends of Jesus, (Chrysostom,) but his enemies, who desired
energetic measures, who utter the expression, v. 19, "behold
the world is gone after him."
Discourse occasioned by the desire of Gentiles to see
Jesus.- V. 20-36.
V. 20-22. As this, according to v. 86, is one of the last dis
courses, or the very last, and as of the discourses of Jesus in
the temple in the last week in which his passion occurred,
nothing more than this is narrated, it is the less to be supposed
vrith Ebrard, that the occurrence took place on the same day.
Filled ¦with the fundamental thought of the obstinate unbelief
of the chosen people, with which the depicture of the public
life of our Lord closes, (v. 37, seq.) John paints oue scene more,
to present the longing of the Gentiles in contrast ¦with this
unbelief. The present dva^atvbvzmv shows, that we are to sup
pose that there were proselytes among them. Their reverence
for a teacher so honored is too great to permit them to address
him directly ; but their request appears so extraordinary even
to Philip, (Matt. x. 5,) that he first consults with Andrew, his
friend, (i. 45.) 0sXm is used, also, to designate a desire, (1 Cor.
xiv. 5.)
V. 28, 24. The answer of Christ cannot well be looked
upon as a refusal of the request — at any rate, if v. 23 could
be so regarded, v. 24 could not. If it could be urged that,
strictly speaking, they desired only to see Jesus, not to speak
¦with him, it might be supposed that he was ready to comply
¦with their desire, and on that occasion made to his Disciples
the address that follows. The leading thought in that dis
course is this, in fhe longing of these Gentiles is an anticipation
of the future conversion of the world. Bengel: Prseludium
regni Dei a Judseis ad gentes transituri, (a prelude to the speedy
transfer of the kingdom of God from Jews to Gentiles.) Zvrin-
gle already makes reference to iv. 35, where, too, the first fruits
u 26*

294 Chap. XH.--v. 25-28.
excite anticipations of the harvest. The "glorifying," 8o$aa-
,pbz, therefore, both here and in v. 28, has a more special
reference to the acknowledgment of Jesus in the world, (v.
¦32,) in connection with which at the same time "the glorify
ing," 8o^aapbz, of God was 'brought to pass, (xvii. 2, 4.) Inas
much, however, as subjection to death was the medium of that
glorious rising, as v. 25 immediately expresses that sublime
thought, we may here suppose the death also to be included.
The dying seed, which only throws off the risible integument,
in order to unfold the inner germ to a tree, is a striking image
of the Redeemer, who laid off all the external characteristics
separable from him, that he might rise again as a spiritual
principle in the great congregation, for which the path of
deepest humiliation is the path of exaltation — as Heumann so
significantly said : " The cross is but a star shorn of its beams;"
corresponding with this is ¦riii. 28.'
V. 25, 26. The law, whose force he acknowledges for him
self, is the law for all his foUowers. That life which hesitates
to lift itself into the divine, in which alone the ovzmz ^m^, (1
Tim. ri. 19,) can be found, destroys its own true existence. In
the language of poetic inspiration, this truth is with special
frequency set forth in the East, but just as commonly in a pan
theistic mode of apprehension ; the Oriental mysticism and phi
losophy demand that the form should be destroyed, which should
rather be transfigured.' — ^t^xV^ ^^^^ '°'^v> nieans both ".self" and
" life," for the self is the life. The usage of the EvangeUst
alternates between kauzbv dnoXsaat and z-rjv (puxrjv dnoXSaai, (losing
himself, losing his life,) Matt. xri. 26, Luke ix. 26, cf. the
Greek fiXotpuxetv. In both instances here the meaning of
"life "is to be retained. Mtaetv, in accordance with the Hebrew
1 From my Anthology of Oriental Mysticism, which certainly presents many yet
unused parallels to Biblical phraseology, Olshausen cites the words of Dschelaleddin,
to. 109.) "¦¦yridely sow the wheat deep in tho lap of earth.
Soon the golden, rich, large ears of grain have Inrth;
When again the flail shall smite the ears in t-wain,
rrom the beaten ears comes bread to nourish man."
> Dschelaleddin, 1. c. p. 102 :
"Know fhe world of -mm is Ind a glass, my son,
MUed with drops which fr&m. Go^s fount of iteitig rtm.
Is the wide world, then, with the streets of heaven,
But a single glass firom His life stream rireli,
Hasten^ break the glass upon the stone in twain,
That thc'drop may mingle wSh the stream again^

Desike of Gentiles to see Jesus. 295
usage, is comparative, as in Luke xiv. 26, " to value less." Our
life like ourselves should plainly not be the object fixed on as
the highest aim, but should be subordinated to that which is
the truly highest aim. By this subordination it is lifted up,
(toUere,) already in the contracted sphere of time becomes lim
itless and eternal, and is thus lifted up too in such sense as to
be above all danger, (conservare ;) cf. with ipuXd^ei the Qmoyovstv,
Luke xvii. 33. The Sariour was about to give up his mortal
life to promote the highest aim, and in this his Disciples are
to follow him, and like him they shall be partakers in that
"glory," do^aapbz, (xrii. 21-24.) On sipi, cf vii. 34.
V. 27, 28. But the path to the rising lies through the set
ting, in the presence of which, considered in its isolation, the
natural life is stricken vrith fear. We have in this struggle of
choice, the prelude of the struggle in Gethsemane, (Bengel.)
The two petitions, between which the choice is suspended, in
expressing the two correspondent propositions, commence
each vrith the address, " Father," ndzep. The first is vrithdrawn
—why ? Aid zouzo refers to something present in the Saviour's
thoughts, but under the emotion of his soul not expressed in
language — it is, as most think, the consummation of the dirine
decree of atonement, through his passion. According to the
older expositors, (Luther, also,) aiHaov — zauzrjz is not connected
¦with the question zi si'nm, but forms an independent question;
this opinion has been renewed by De Wette, and Lucke agrees
with him. But after the expression of a doubt even in the
zi el'nm, as to what prayer should be offered, a positive petition
could only accord vrith the laws of mental action, if it pre
sented itself as the result of a decision ; but this could not be
the result here, for the prayer is at once again corrected. We
decidedly, therefore, prefer the other view, (Theophylact, Gro
tius, Le Clerc, Kling, Schweizer.) Chrysostom already exhib
its the logical relations of the propositions thus : ob Xiym,
dndXXa^bv pe ix z. &paz zauzrjz 'dXXd. zi ; ndzep, db^aabv aou zb dvopa.
Kaizoi z. zapa-^z rouzo dvayxa^ouaijz Xsyetv, 'zb ivavziov Xsym,
db^aaSv aou z. dvopa. ("I do not say. Save me from this hour,
but I say. Father, glorify thy name. Though agitation should
force the utterance of the former, I say the reverse. Glorify thy
name.")

296 Chap. XH. —v. 28-30.
V. 28-80. The voice of God declares that the sublime
prayer, which had resulted from so great a conflict, is answered.
(On the double xai, cf. what is said on vi. 36.) Three grada
tions in the way in which it was understood are noted : some
regarded it as a natural phenomenon, some thought they heard
a being of a higher sphere speaking, and others understood
the words that were uttered. If we direct our attention, first
of all, to the purport of the heavenly voice, we must explain
8o$dam with immediate reference to verses 24 and 32; if
i86Saaa be regarded as strictly corresponding with this Future,
it concerns the recognition of Christ, which had been brought
about up to this time, (xrii. 10.) The different apprehensions
of the voice were accounted for by the earUer expositors, on
the supposition that it sounded immediately over Christ, and
was consequently regarded by those who stood at some dis
tance as only a heavenly language without ¦words, and by those
very remote, as a noise like thunder — or they fell back upon
the tone of mind, in rirtue of which the " carnal," aapxixoi,
must speedily have lost an accurate impression of what they
heard, (Chrysostom, Ammonius.) How are we to understand,
in general, the voices from heaven, not merely in the ISbvr
Testament, (Acts ix. 7, xxii. 7, x. 13, 15,) but in Josephus also,
(Antiq. xiii. 3, de bello jud. vii. 12,) and in the early Christian
Church, (Ep. de Martyrio Polyc. c. 9,) and the "toUe, lege,"
(take, read,) when Augustine was converted ? It is well known
that vivid bodily sensations, and spiritual feelings also, under
strong excitement, shape themselves, in the fancy, to forms
which create sensuous impressions, to something that is heard
or seen, see above on i. 32, 33. If that in which they originate
be merely subjective, they form subjective visions, or (to give
them their medical designation,) hallucinations; if that which
they contain is objectively true, they are then objective
visions. The vision here spoken of cannot have been subject
ive, as the multitude, who were indifferent, also perceived
something. A sound like thunder must be presupposed, but
according to the view of Lucke, De Wette, the distinct lan
guage which was heard pertains to the internal vision. The
former commentator says — ^the voice of the thunder is a word
of God, first of all, for Christ only ; others, whose attention had

Desire op Gentiles to see Jesus. 297
been arrested by the prayer, gave to the outward sound a higher
significance, but it spoke nothing definite to them ; the unsiis-
ceptible perceived only the physical phenomenon. It has been
usual since Grotius, to appeal at the same time to a notion
common among the Rabbins, that of the Bath-kol, '7ip~n3, a
phrase which means, Daughter of the Voice, that is, an internal
second voice, evolving itself from an outward sound, and among
others, according to Paulus, Lucke, De Wette, thunder was
one of these outward sounds.' The interests of religion do not
demand that this view should be absolutely rejected, for the coin
cidence of natural phenomena ¦with Christ's word, and the frame
of mind excited by them in the Disciples, could still not be
regarded as mere accident. But if, as Lucke contends, Jesus
alone gave that meaning to the natural phenomenon, are we to
suppose that he afterward explained it to his Disciples? If
this were the case, then the Disciples would here be compre
hended under the "people," o;f^oc, and the "others," dXXot.
We adhere, therefore, to the opinion, that an outward sound
was heard, which, by divine influence, shaped itself in the
minds of the susceptible to the words mentioned, but in the
less susceptible, only produced the impression that something
had been uttered, (ISTeander, Kling, Olshausen.) That an actual
occurrence, and not a mere fiction of the narrator is detailed, is
clear, when we consider that the purposes of a writer of that
sort would have been better subserved by inventing a heavenly
voice, which all understood, and by which all were impressed.
The comparison of Acts ix. 7, with xxii. 9, shows also, that the
attendants of Paul heard a voice, whose words Paul alone under
stood. — ^Finally, in v. 30, the Redeemer declares that he needed
not this voice of God for his own exaltation.
1 On the other hand, it has been observed by me, that in none of the yarious pas
sages in Vitringa, Observat. Sacr., Meuschen, N. T. ex talmude ill. (here cf. the
Dissertation by Danz, de inaugural. Christi, p. 445, seq.) Buxtorf, lex. talm. s. h. v.,
is the term applied to thunder or any natural phenomenon, of which no more than
an interpretation could be giveUj but is always applied to an actual voice of God or
men. Lucke and De Wette controvert this, but with a citation, not to the purpose,
from Lightfoot on Matt. iii. 17, for Lightfoot there merely explains as thunder, (toni-
tm,) the Bath-kol Slp"^? in dispute, which may be an actual voice. Liibkert:
" Etwas uber Bath-kol," in the Stud. u. Kritiken, 1335, iii. H. has collected a large
number of passages, which confirm our view; he doubts, moreover, whether that
conception was formed before the time of Christ. Neander, also, 1. c. p. 619, seq.
agrees ¦with our view.

298 Chap. XH. — v. 31-41.
V. 31-33. In sublime anticipation, the Saviour already
beholds the realization of the divine promise. The non-mes
sianic world, that is, "this world," b xbapoz ohzoz, is powerless
against his kingdom ; the Ruler of it is overcome ; all^ that is,
both Gentiles and Jews, (Chrysostom, Calvin,) are exalted to be
citizens of the Empire; analogous is the triumphant exclama
tion, Luke X. 18. Olshausen employs this in connection with
Rev. xii. 11, 12, to attach to the words "shall be cast out,"
ix^X-jdrjaezat i$m, the force, "from heaven," but if that had
been meant, either heaven would be mentioned, or this repre
sentation must be a perfectly well known one. "E^m may
have xbapoz supplied, " cast out of the world," but it is better
to refer it to the 6 dpxmv, supplying -j dpx^, " cast out of his
dominion," (Euthymius, Grotius.) "If I be lifted up from the
earth," b^mdd) ix zrjz yrjz, leads immediately to that to which
V. 34, 35, point, to his removal from the world, or more defi
nitely, to his glorification in heaven, (Luther, in Walch, viii. p.
38 ;) as, however, in iii. 14, and in riii. 28, the same expression
denotes the crucifixion, and as v. 24, to which this probably
glances back, speaks of the glorification through suffering, we
must here, with Erasmus, Beza, Heumann, suppose a two-fold
signification, of which the Evangelist, v. 33, makes use, (xriii,
32.) The drawing unto him may, according to vi. 44, be simply
the reception into communion ; if there' be, however, a back
ward glance to v. 26, it means communion with the Sariour in
his exaltation.
V. 34. The people lay hold only on the idea of Christ's
removal from the world, his words, therefore; seem to them in
conflict vrith Isa. ix. 7, Dan. vii. 14, and like passages. " Wo
have heard," -ijxouaapev, as they were acquainted with the Old
Testament, which is meant here by "the law," vbpoz, only by
hearing it read, (Matt. v. 21.) The expression, " Son of man," uloz
zou dvdpd)nou, and "must," 8et, had not been used by Christ, v.
32 ; it appears that the Evangelist has given this reply with pre
ciseness,, but had not on the other hand' quoted the previous
words of Christ ¦vrith preciseness. From their language^ Who is
1 If there be a hesitation in conceding that -Kavre; has reference to Ocntiles and
Jews,, (Rom. xi. 32, John x. IG,) "still an absolute universality does not necessarily
follow, for it must always be firmly held, that only the susceptible are intended, of,
•vi. 45 with 44.

Close of the Public Labors of ouk Loed. 299
this Son of man ? ziz — avdpmnou, may be inferred that this
predicate was not a current designation of the Messiah, see
on i. 52.
V. 85, 36. Without giring a direct answer to the question,
which was not indeed necessary, as the beginning of v. 34
shows that they were able to furnish it themselves, the Sariour
exhorts them to make a faithful use of his presence, (riii. 21.)
" Darkness," axozia, the period when the Salvation is no longer
personally among them — the result of which is that the foot
step is no longer secure. " Children of light," ulol ipmzbz, used
also, Luke xvi. 8, a Hebraistic designation of the relation of
dependence, as the child is dependent on the mother. " Did
hide himself from them," ixpu^rj dn abziov, is meant to desig
nate only his withdrawal from public labors.
Close of the Public Laboes of oue Loed. — v. 37-50,
V. 37-41. The reader should recall what was observed in,
the Introduction to the Gospel, p. 17, in regard to the leading
purpose of the Evangelist. The miracles would exercise the
most striking power in convincing men, (x. 38.) In such
appeals to the prophetic prediction of the people, as for exam
ple in Matt. xiii. 14, xxvi. 24, John xvii. 12, Rom. xi. 8, &c.,
lies apparently the doctrine of predestination. But in regard
to this, it must be borne in mind, that according to the biblical
view, as well as by the acknowledgment of philosophy, a divine
decree is consummated in e^ril also, vrithout thereby destroying
human accountability,' (Matt, xriii. 7, Acts iv. 27, 28.) l^ot
incorrectly in regard to the aim of such appeals to prophecy,
De Wette says, " that thereby merely a lowly submission to
divine rule is denoted;" still more correctly we may say: inas
much as the prophesying verifies the divine &piapivov, (deter
mination,) (cf. Luke xxii. 22, and Matt. xxvi. 24,) the looking at
it exalts faith above the events which seem destructive to the
dirine plan of the world. Thus John tranquiUzes himself and
1 Pot it is true, as Chrysostom here remarks : oiii y&p iirsidij slncv 'Uaata^, oix
imarevov, tSAA' iireii^ abn i/ieXhiv TnarevBiv, did ropro elir^v 'Maatag. " For it was not
because Isaiah said so, that they did, not believe, but because they would not believa
Isaiah said this."

300 Chap. XH.— v. 42-50.
his readers, v. 37, 38, by showing that even the unbelief of the
people of God in the promised one was ordered in the divine
plan of the world, and therefore what is in Isaiah Uii. 1, had
been predicted. In v. 39 it is continued: not only was this
hardening foreseen and ordained, but it also occurred under
divine causality, hzi goes back to 8id zouzo. The way of appre
hending it adopted by Luther, Grotius, De Wette, is syntacti
cally different, they referring 8td zouzo to what precedes, so
that ozt introduces a new ground : " Because that divine proph
ecy must be fulfilled, they could not believe, for — ." De Wette
observes that 8td zouzo occurs elsewhere, vrith a reference to
what precedes, yet still when there is a new ground, an ozt is
added, (Matt. xxiv. 44.) The citation from Isaiah vi. 10 is not
exact, inasmuch as that which God there enjoins on the, prophet
is here expressed in the third person as an act of God, and only
at the close does the first person again appear. As the caus
ality of the hardening, God naturally can only be designated in
a relative manner, dfopprjztxiitz and 8txaazixd)z ; see as regards the
doctrinal aspect, Tholuck's Comm. on Rom. i. 24, xi. 7, seq. —
The application of the passage from the Old Testament to the
case before us, will be justified by but a single observation.
Isaiah beheld the 8b^a, the glory of God ; in the theophanies
ofthe Old Testament, Jehovah unveiled himself to men through
the Logos alone, (cf. the introduction to ch. i. p. 58, seq.) that
glory then, 1U3, was consequently the glory of the Logos, and
as the words "spake of him," iXdXrjae nepl abzou, allude to Isa.
vi. 8, seq. the judicial hardening is also to be traced to the
Logos. According to 1 Cor. x. 4, also, the revelations under
the old covenant proceeded from the Logos.
V. 42-43. This limitation shows that the Evangelist was not
interested, as has recently been urged as a reproach against
him, in exaggerating the unbelief of the Jews. Referring to
Jesus' own words, chap. v. 44, John assigns a genuinely prag
matic reason why there was a defe6t of open confessors of
Christ. The y^nep, originally poetical, passed at a later period
into the xotv:^, the common usage.
V. 44-50. The older interpreters found in these words a
resumption of the public discourses of Jesus ; Chrysostom,
indeed, thinks that the arjpeta (v. 37,) refers to miracles which

Close of the Public Labors of oue Loed. 301
occurred in the interval, but are not mentioned. As, however,
what follows, in great part expresses only reminiscences of
earlier discourses, most writers since Michselis, Morus, (Bengel
also,) have regarded what follows as recapitulation, and have
taken the aorists epyaipe, elne, as pluperfects. After Strauss, how
ever, had objected, that " to give this retrospective signification
there ought to be a corresponding indication in the words them
selves, or in the context," (i. p. 683, Eng. Trans, ii. 171^) De
Wette also supposes that " the recollection of the contents of
Jesus' discourses shaped itself under the hand of the Evange
list to an actual discourse.'' On the other hand, Schweizer, 1.
c. p. 18, justly lays weight on the fact, that in contrast with the
invariable habit of the Evangelist, a discourse of the Saviour
would here be presented without any thing specific in regard
to the circumstances under which it was delivered, which is so
much the less admissible, " as a position of things previously
existing had been expressly specified as terminated." ISTot the
sUghtest difficulty can exist about taking the aorist as pluper
fect, especially in recapitulating, yet the aorists may unhesita
tingly also be regarded as narrative ; it is in fact acknowledged
that the Greeks, to use the language of Kuhner, (ii. p. 76,)
" employ the aorist when they speak of some appearance fre
quently observed in time past." — On v. 44, cf. x. 38, xiii. 20 ; on
v. 45, cf xiv. 9 ; on v. 46, cf viii. 12, xii. 35-37 ; on v. 47 and
48, cf iii. 17 and 18 ; on v. 49, cf vu. 16-lS ; on v. 50, cf
vui. 30.

CHAPTER XIII.

Jesus washes his Disciples' feet, the last token of
LOVE. — V. 1-20.
V. 1. This repast of the Lord with his Disciples is the.last^
for immediately after the discourses which follow it he left the
city. IsTow the Evangelist seems to say in these words, that
the token of love given by the Sariour, the washing of his
Disciples' feet, took place before the feast. The kopz:^, the
Passover, commenced on the fourteenth of Msan, at six o'clock
in the evening, with the eating of the PaSsover ; it would seem,
therefore, that the meal here described took place on the thir
teenth of that month, in the evening. According to the
synoptical Gospels, however, our Lord partook of the Passover
with his Disciples on the same day with the Jews, (Matt. xxvi.
17, Mark xiv. 12, Luke xxii. 7.) Thi^ difference is one- of the
most litigated questions in the criticism of the Gospels. Yet
more unequivocally than in the passage before us, John desig
nates the day on which the Passover should have been eaten, as
that on which Christ was crucified, ch. xriii. 28, xix. 14, 31.
The contrary date fixed by the Synoptists, which would make
the crucifixion fall on the fifteenth of Nisan, that is, on the
first day of the feast, is encumbered with great difficulties,
which lie in the very nature of the case : would Jesus, contrary
to the law, have left the city on the night of the Passover?
could the Sanhedrim have undertaken on that holy day to
arrest, arraign, give a hearing to and sentence him ? Is there
not throughout, merely the exhibition of a fear of desecrating
the following Sabbath ? (xix. 31.) All the four accounts concur
in the statement, that the Redeemer was crucified on Friday,
(802)

Jesus washes his Disciples' feet. 303
and lay in the grave on the Sabbath, (Saturday,) but the dif
ference is this, that according to John this Friday seems to
have been the fourteenth of N'isan, on the evening of which
the Passover was eaten, but according to the Synoptists, on the
contrary, seems to have been the fifteenth, consequently the
first day of the feast. We regard it as most iu keeping with
a scientific love of truth, to confess at once that the union of
the two accounts is encumbered vrith very great difficulties.
A full statement of these difficulties is the less likely to prove
detrimental to the faith, since, even granting that theological or
historical reasons make a contradiction in this matter a thing
not to be imagined, such a statement only gives an impulse to
a more radical investigation. The larger portion of the mod
ern critics have been led by an examination of this subject to
the ultimate result, that there must be a mistake on one or
other side, either on the part of John or on that of the first
tiiree Evangelists ; while Bretschneider, in his Probabilia, and
Weisse, charge it on John, by far the larger part, Usteri, De
Wette, Theile, Liicke, N'eander, find the mistake in the first
three Gospels ; Strauss, however, winds up vrith the observation,
that no decision is yet to be hazarded as to which statement is
the correct one, (4th ed. p. 400, Eng. tr. iii. 152.) Should we
now disregard every thing that antiquity has told us of the
authors of the first three Gospels, and regard these Gospels
merely as a product which originated toward the close of the
first century, from a wavering popular tradition, then certainly
the statement as regards the time of the Last Supper of Christ
has flowed from a troubled source. K, however, so arbitrary a
procedure must be styled uncritical in the highest degree, if
but this be fixed, that the Greek of Matthew is in harmony
in the main points with its Aramaic original, that we are to
regard Luke, the friend of Paul, as the author of the third
Gospel, then to charge upon these first Evangelists an enor in
date is attended with difficulties not less serious than those
connected with the resolution of the difference mentioned.
Beginning witk the very year of our Lord's death, his last
love feast, together with the Supper which was linked with it,
was repeated by his Disciples. Will it be maintained that at
the time of this earliest repetition a chronological en'or had

304 Chap. XIH. — v. 1.
crept in ? Is there not an unbroken chain of tradition founded
in facts, according to which, Mark must have known wheu
Peter commemorated the death of Christ, Luke must have
known when Paul, Polycarp must have known when John did
so? Irenseus, the pupil of Polycarp, mentions also, that in
the controversies regarding the Easter festival, Poly6arp had
appealed to the fact that the Apostle had observed Easter on the
same day as the Jews, (Eusebius, 1. v. c. 24;) Polycrates, also.
Bishop of Ephesus, in the middle of the second century, (quoted
in the same passage in Eusebius,) in his letter on the Easter
festival, appeals to seven kinsmen of his, who were bishops
before him, whose tradition in regard to Easter he followed,
and declares that John observed the same usage as regarded
Easter.' There is yet another point of view in which these last
witnesses are to be considered. If John celebrated the Supper
at the same time with the Jews, can that conception of the
passages in his Gospel be correct, according to which Christ was
crucified on the day on which the Passover was observed? So
improbable is this, that the most recent criticism, (Schwegler's)
apprehending the passages in John in this way, supposes that
the genuineness of the Gospel itself must be called into doubt.
What, however, can be opposed to these objections ? Shall it be '
said : This last meal on the thirteenth of Wm&n must have been
more important to the Disciples than the Passover itself; that
perhaps on the day of our Lord's crucifixion they had tasted
nothing ; that perhaps at a later period the Passover was united
with the Supper, which was instituted at that meal ; that Matthew
consequently, when some twenty years later he wrote his Gospel,
may have mistaken one fbr the other ? (Theile " on the time of
Christ's Last Supper," in Winer, ^ E"euem Krit. Journ. ii. p.
171.) ShaU we add, vrith Lucke, 3d ed. p. 738 : " As regards
too, the day of the Saviour's death, the tradition was, per
haps, satisfied with settling this, that Jesus had been crucified '
on the napaaxeu^fj {the preparation) of the feast. The day of
the resurrection was alone more accurately designated. From
1 This passage contains as for the rest, some obscure places; cf. Neander, 1. o. p.
636, (Eng. tr. p. 885.)
2 In the Talmud, also, it is affirmed that Jesus, nD3.~3'JJ?3 "on the day before
the Passover," was stoned and h-ung ; (1) Iken, diss. ii. p. 295. (Eisenmenger, Jud.
Bntdeok, 1. i. 179. Tr.)

Jesus washes his Disciples' feet. 305
defect of chronological interest in an event wMch presented
features of so much greater moment, which did not depend on
the chronology, the absence of some definiteness was n6t at
first felt, and the indefinite was propagated." If we had merely
statements to do ¦with, this might perhaps answer, but is there
not a continuous train of tradition resting on facts ? Do not
Polycarp and Polycrates appeal to facts of their own time?
And what shall we say of the fact that John himself kept
Easter vrith the Jews ? Is it sufficient, vrith Lucke, to see iu
this a mere accomnaodation to the usage of the Churches in
Asia Minor, which usage arose independently of John ? The
matter would certainly be clearer, if we could suppose with
Zander: (p. 636, Eng. tr. 885,) "That the Jewish Christians
kept up the Jevrish usage of the Passover, giring it, however,
a Christian import ; while the congregations of purely Gentile
converts originally kept no festivals at all." From what time,
however, is to be dated the enor which originated in that usage,
the error, that Christ, on that evening, partook of the Paschal
Supper ¦with his Disciples? According to Il'eander, Lucke,
and even TTsteri, (Comment, p. 19,) Paul was aware of the cor
rect view, and intimates it when (1 Cor. xi. 23,) he does not
say, " on the night of the Passover," but " the same night in
which Christ was betrayed;" and when in 1 Cor. v. 7, he
opposes to the Jevrish Passover the offering of Christ — conse
quently, the spiritual Passover, as sacrificed at the same time
vrith the Jewish Paschal lamb. Now it is confessed that precisely
in the account of the Lord's Supper, Paul stands in connection
¦with Luke, consequently Luke at least cannot have gone
amiss. We put the general question: Would any of the
Apostles who had been in the scenes of those great days, be at
all likely to forget which had been the day of crucifixion ; and
if this could not be, could a Paul, a Luke, a Mark, be mistaken
— ^to say nothing of Matthew.?
Under an improbability so great, of any mistake having been
made, we feel absolutely obliged to essay a reconciliation. The
Christians of the earliest period were acquainted with a method
of doing so ; Polycrates, in the passage cited, appeals to the
Gospels as harmonizing with the practice observed by John in
regard to the Easter festival; and ApoUinaris, in the fourth ceu-
27*

306 Chap. XHI.— v. 1.
tury, in the Fragment Chronic, pasch. p. 6, where he combats
the practice of the Christians of Asia Minor, who celebrated
Easter at the same time ¦with the Jews, and placed the day
of our Lord's death upon the fifteenth of iNisan, observes by
way of reproach, that according to their idea the Evangelists
would appear to have fallen into a contradiction. Either a
false' interpretation is put upon the first Gospels, when accord
ing to them we transfer the last Supper to the fourteenth of
]!^isan, or upon John, when we put it, according to him,
upon the thirteenth. The former was, until in the last
century, the most general view, and the oldest and most
common attempt at producing a harmony, was the suppo
sition, that the Hedeemer himself had anticipated the eating
of the Passover, thus TertuUian, the auctor qusest. in N. T.
(Pseudo- Augustine,) Clement, Origen, Chrysostom,' ApoUi
naris, Euthymius, those numerous Greek theologians who de
fended the Greek usage of leavened bread in the Lord's Supper,
(see Usteri, 1. c. p). 37,) various members also of the Church of
Rome, as Lamjj Calmet; of the Protestant theologians, Cap-
pellus, Lampe, Deyling, Gude, (in his very learned treatise,
Demonstratio quod Chr. in ccena sua araupmaiptp agnum
paschalem non comederit, "Demonstration that Christ did not
eat the Paschal lamb at his last Supper," Lips., 1742, 2d ed.)
Ernesti, Kuinol. The mere extent to which this particular
manner of reconciliation has been adopted, makes it proper to
examine it ; it has again found in the learned Movers a de
fender,^ (in the Zeitschr. f PhU. u. kathol. Theolog. 1833, H. 7
and 8.) In relation to the ground of an anticipation of the
Passover on the part of the Redeemer, this most recent Apolo-
. gist adopts the view already extensively received in the Greek
Church, (see Usteri,) that in the Lord's Supper, which was united
1 He is uncertain; on chap, xviii. 28, he says: ?ro£ o-lv rb iraexa ttjv ioprfiv
jratrav TieyEf ^ 6ri Tore ^ttolovv to irdaxa, aitrdf 6^ irpd fiidg aind itap^dune,
rripSv TTJv iavTov aipa-y^v ry -KapaoKevy, Sre Kal rd -iraKaibv iylvero rd irdaxa. " Either
he calls the whole feast the Passover, or they then kept the Passover : but he (Christ)
observed it the day before, reserving the sacrifice of himself for the parasoeue,
(preparation,) on which day formerly the Passover was kept." On Matt. xxvi. hie
adopts the idea of a delay of the feast on the part of the Jews.
2 This treatise, although even in other respects not without importance, has been
overlooked in almost all the recent works, even by Liicke, p. 717. Movers is een-
Burable for presenting his exposition as a novel one without mentioning Grotius, Jley-
liug, (obss. sacrse, i. p. 277, seq. ) and others.

Jesus washes his Disciples' feet. 307
with the Passover, it was designed to give the spiritual aatitype
to the symbolical Paschal Supper, as the Redeemer, at the
very hour at which the typical Paschal lamb was slain in the
temple, offered himself as the true Paschal lamb. The circum
stance, that the Evangelists call the day when the Passover was
made ready, the first day of unleavened bread,' (Matt. xxvi. 17,
Mark xiv. 12,) he, as Grotius had already done, obriates thus,
that we are not to suppose that thereby is meant the hours of
the day of the fourteenth of Nisan, on the evening of which it
was usual to slay the Passover, but that the eventide of the thir
teenth is meant, from which it was already usual to compute the
fourteenth, to which Luke also (xxii. 7,) alludes by using JjXde,
whereby the end of the thirteenth of Nisan is designated as the ¦
period when the command was given. In Matt. -xxvi. 18, our
Lord, by using the words, "my time is at hand," 6 xaipbz pou
i-yyuz iazt, pointed " clearly" to his intention of keeping the Pass
over at an extraordinary time.^ But it may be objected, if our
Lord had arranged for the Supper at the approach of the dusk of
evening, could it have been got ready the same evening ? But,
says the Apologist, let it be noted : The large dining-room was
already prepared for the meal, (Mark xiv. 15,) and that un
known friend to whom Jesus sent the Disciples, appears to have
had every thing requisite already in readiness.' First of all, as
a grand objection, arises this : Is it credible that such an extra
ordinary Passover would have been allowed to pass ly the priests
in the temple, that they would have consented to the offering,
to the outpouring of the blood by the altar ? If not, then the
idea of a Passover must be altogether abandoned, and a return
made to the ¦riew of those Greeks who regarded the Lord's
Supper as a substitute for the Passover — this, too, in complete
opposition to the text. Tet besides this, the text creates addi
tional difficulties. From the connection in which in Mark
xiv. 12, the words xai — iduov stand with the question of the
1 As the leaven was removed as early as the fourteenth of Nisan, this was also
counted among the days of Unleavened bread.
' Qrotius already has this view; Neander appears by an independent process to
have reached the same view, 1. c. p. 685, (Eng. tr. 385.) Could not Luke xxii. 15
be used with still more tilausibillty for thils view ?
» It remainsto 'be noticed that the person interested did not need to be presei(t-at
the killing of the lamrb, that this also could be done by substitution.

308 Chap. XHI. — v. L
Disciples, we must believe that when they put the question they
also took it for granted that the Saviour would keep the
Passover at the usual time. Had he designed to make an
exception in this particular case, must he not have expressly
mentioned it in his reply? In addition, Mark xiv. 17, (cf
Matt. xxvi. 20,) undoubtedly points to the fact, that the
arrangement was made by the Disciples in the earlier part
of the day ; to be sure, Luke xxii. 14 has, " when the hour
was come," oze iyivezo -fj &pa, which accords more nearly
with the solution we are now discussing. But besides, diffi
culty has been excited by this view, because it imposes a
necessity of supposing that the Redeemer deviated in that holy
festival from the legal appointment. The view consequently
has been defended, especially since the period of the Reforma
tion : that rather on the part of the Jews, in order to avoid the
strictness of a Sabbath-keeping on two consecutive days, there
had been a transfer to the Sabbath of the first feast day, which
this time preceded the Sabbath, and in the e8ei, Luke xxii. 7, it
was thought there was evidence that our Lord, in his own cele
bration of the Passover, had remained faithful to the legal time.
Among the Reformed, as well as among the Lutheran exposi
tors, Calvin, Beza, Bucer, Flacius, Gerhard, Calovius, and many
others, this is the prevalent expedient, which is defended also by
Scaliger and Casaubon. The oldest trace of it is referred by
Gerhard (Harmon Ev. ii. p. 934,) to Rupert, and by him to Paul
Burgensis. ISTow it is certainly correct, that an expedient of
the sort mentioned is practiced by the modern Jews, (see par
ticulars in Iken, Dissert, iii. 417 ; Bynaus, de morte Christi, 1. i.
c. i.) but it has been shown by Cocceius, not. ad Sanh. c. i. § 2,
Bochart and others, that passages occur in -the Talmud which
prove it not to have been the usage of that period. — A new
path has been struck out by the learned men who attempted to
show, that according as the new moon was determined either
astronomically by the conjunction of the moon with the sun, or
by its appearing in the heaven, the Jews themselves might fix
the fifteenth of Nisan about a day earlier or later, and that the
Karaites, whom Jesus followed, actually had fixed it by the
appearing of the moon, (and thus indeed, at that time, one day
earlier,) and the Rabbinical part fixed it by the calculus in con-

Jesus washes his Disciples' feet. 309
nection vrith the appearing. This latter view has been main
tained with a very great expenditure of erudition by Iken, Dis
sertat. ii. With all the acuteness and learning, however, which
have characterized this defense, it rests upon too many unsafe
premises. Nothing is known of any such dissension in the
time of Christ ; according to Josephus, the Paschal lamb was
slain by all Israelites on the same day; the very existence of
the sect of Karaites in Christ's time, is more than uncertain,
and it would be more natural to expect that the Rabbinists, who
computed astronomically, would fix the new moon earlier, and
the Karaites fix it later, than the converse. — The essay at expla
nation which had already been presented by Frisch, " On the
Paschal Lamb," 1758, and combated in that day by Gabler,
(Neues theol. Journal, Bd. 8, St. 6, 1799,) has been again
brought out and invested with great plausibility at a very
recent period, (Rauch, Stud. u. Kritik. 1832, H. 3.') The view is
this : The legal determination, by the fourteenth of Nisan, means
not the end ofthe day, but its Je^mniw^'j.consequentiy the evening
of the thirteenth. This is beyond dispute deducible from Jose
phus, Antiq. 2, 14, 16, where we read that the Jews were obliged
to select a lamb on the tenth' of Nisan, and to keep it until the
fourteenth, and ivazdarjz rrjz zsaaapezxatdexdzrjz " at the beginning
of the fourteenth," to kill it. The day of the crucifixion would
consequently fall on the fourteenth of Nisan. After it has been
furthermore shown that in the strict sense the Passover lasted
only seven days, from the first day of the feast, the npb kopzrjz rou
ndaxa, xiii. 1, is interpreted, " before the Passover properly so
called" — which commenced, to wit: twenty-four hours later,
on the fifteenth of Nisan. It is shown further, that on this
view, John xix. 14 and 31 allow of a very satisfactory
explanation, since then in xix. 14, the napaaxeurj zou ndaxa
is the day before the Passover proper, and in v. 31, that
Sabbath is called perydX-q, (high, great,) because the first day
of the festival fell upon it, which, just as much as the last,
was regarded as a grand day. In ch. xix. 28, however, there
remains no other resource than the supposition that zb
ndaxa there is meant to designate not the Paschal lamb, but
(1 Translated by Eobinson, BibUcal Repository, vol. iv, 1834. Tr.)

310 Chap. XHI. — v. 1.
,the ,^n,leavened bread, zd d^upa, wUich.was eailien," tbrQughout
.¦the festival proper. In examining this view, we mustj, first lof
all,; look more narrowly at the expressionSj in,jr(egai;d" to the
jlegal, participation in the Paschal Supper; such an examination
eatablis^ies the fact, that even in the Pentateuch itself there as
on. tills point a want of certainty in the .spqcj^cations. iTo
the ide^, that it was eaten on the evening. of jthe {thirteenth,ris
cepj;ainjy opposed the fact, that the Israelites, according- to
Nunibejjs xxxiii. 3, went forth on the fifteenth, of :Nisan, and
if the departure, according to Ex. xii. 80,, seq, followed in the
same night, on the evening preceding which the .Passoyer- had
been,, eaten, it follows that it must have, been eaten on the
eyeifing ofthe fourteenth. But with this- again it conflicts,
|:hfit |iu the very same passage. Num. xxxiii. 3, the day of de-
partui-;e is called the "morrow of the Passover;," ,nor does it
sce]pg,,to,jfit in properly with that view, th^t in iEx.rxU.'22,rit
is said that none shall go out until the mormng. , , This uncQn-»
necfed exhibition in the Pentateuch renders it specially neces
sary to jl,ook at the later practice. In that practice,, the, time > of .
the ^upper fell upon the evening of the fourteenth, of .iNisa^y
and the passage adduced by Rauch, from Josephus, , shows
nothirig to the contrary, for the expression, ivfrrda-^z T^f/TSffffori
pszxa^8e^(izrjz, 'Would, only necessarily mean : "at ithe -day-break
o|j the , fourteenth day," in case these words formed an ,antither,
sis to another time of day ; as it is, however, jmerely. the dai»~ of
a day. to which they are opposed, as namely, the . fourteenth
4ay,i3,p,pposed to the thirteenth, the only pepper translation, of
theij^ i|Sj."atthe beginning ofthe fourteenth day." .To, this
must, be added, that it is not at all credible, that between the.
Paschal, meal, at which already unleaveijed bfead was used,
an(J the, (Jay of which was counted with the fea^t,,tha|; between,
^l,iisj and, the first day of the festival proper, 3, : day- haying j no
co.npeetion with the feast would be thrown in. — The, last attempt
to h,ar,monize the Synoptists with what is apparently the meaur
ing, , of ¦ John, has been made by Ebrard, who mP'intains that as
tl^e ^^pj600 lambs, which, according to Josephus, were usually
kjUed , ,\n the space of two hours, from three to five o'clock,
must have required a longer time and more room, the Passover
must have been slain and eaten as early as the thirteenth of

Jesus washes his Disciples' feet. 311
Nisan) especially by the poorer classes, and the Galileans, (1. c.
iii p. 631, seq.) Capellus, (in his Epis. ad Cloppenb. de die,
ite. p. 112,) in order to establish his theory that the Paschal
lamb'dbuld also be slain at home, had already made reference to
a vvatit pf time, as also of space in the fore-court, for the num-
ber-^of 'offerings. Ebrard has indeed carried out his view learn-
isdly and acutely, but even more than that of Iken it rests on
insecu're*' hypotheses. He is mistaken in attempting to prove
from ' 2 Chron. xxxv. 11, that the priests (the Levites rather !)
slew' the' lambs, the opposite is proven by 2 Chron. xxx. 17, and
by the Mischna ; it was the duty of the priests merely to burn
th6 fat, and pour out the blood by the altar, (see Bynaus, p.
88; 'G&bler, neuest. Journal, ii. 1 St. p. 483; Winer, Realw.
ii. p. 234.) Ebrard does not seem to have compared the Tr.
PeSachifn, in the fifth chapter of which there is a complete
description of the whole series of occurrences, from which we
leai'ia, that the people in three successive companies came into
the 'fo¥6^court, that the priests themselves did not slay the
lambs-; indeed. Rabbi Jehudah expressly declares, in his time,
vvh6n%hfe third company was there, as it was but a small one,
theile' Was no time even to get through with the singing of the
Hallel, '{ch. V. § 7.) We pass by yet other observations that
might b& opposed to this theory, and only remark that, accord
ing to Maimonides, in case of necessity, they might help them
selves through by taking the night also.
' In'the more recent period an effort has been made to refer
Mdk'thfe data in John to the exegetical inferences from the
Is^bptical Gospels, thus Lightfoot, Bochart, Bynaus, Reland,
Ghferike, in Winer's krit. Jour. B. 3, St. 6 ; Hemsen, Authentic
deis • Jdhimnes, p. 279, seq.; Kern, Tub. Zeits. 1836, 8 H. p. 1;
Hengstenberg, in the Evangel. Kirchenzeit. 1888, p. 98, seq.
We wiir consider what shape, according to this view, is taken
b^ the'pfassages of John involved in this discussion.
I. Chap. xiii. 1. — ^If ^ydn-^aev is here meant to designate the
sefitimfent of love, it is surprising that it is connected vrith a
deterifiining of time, and we might, therefore, understand by
it' iafi attestation of love connected with a deed, as Gerhard
aire'adjr'bbserves: "non amor affectivus sed actualis," (not love
'^^'a'A fehiotion, but love as an act ;) vrith this, however, the siz

312 Chap. XHI.— v. 1.
ziXoz is in conflict, which Lucke would translate " finally " —
rather might it be rendered " wholly" (Cyrill ?) The thought
of the Disciple is certainly, however, only this: When the
Sariour, previous to the last Passover, had the end of his life
vividly before him, the love which he had previously felt was
aroused in its full strength in this last hour — he is thinking at
the same time of such declarations of love as that in Luke
xxii. 15. Therewith this narration of the attestation of his
love by this action of his connects itself. Fsvopivou cannot
mean "when it had been made ready," for v. 4 is opposed to
this, but only "during the meal." It is in itself improbable
that the proper translation is a supper, as in that case the
language would rather have been, xal iitoirjaav auzip dstnvov.
The Evangelist seems to presume that it is a supper already fa
miliar to the reader, to which also xxi. 20 refers. Under these
circumstances, it is probable in the very highest degree that the
designation, npb zrjz kopzrjz rou ndaxa, points to this very same
meal. With the second " evening," dtjiia, began the fifteenth of
Nisan, and the Paschal Supper took place, (Mark xiv. 17;) Winer,
p. 116, (tr. 106,) also thinks that the omission of the article is au
argument that it was the well known Supper. The Evangelist,
consequently, means to say this: "Previous to the beginning
of the feast, Christ still bore himself among his Disciples iu
the most loving manner, and during the Supper he gave a
positive proof of this love."
H. Chap. xiii. 29. — The "feast," lopzi^, it is alleged, is here
mentioned as still impending, the Disciples suppose that Judas
is ordered to purchase the things needed for the feast, or to
give something to the poor for the same object; that " supper,"
8etnvov, consequently, is not the Paschal meal ; had it, however,
even been after it on the night of the first great day of the feast,
it would no longer have, been allowable to carry on traffic. This
proof, also, has great plausibiliiy, to which, however, is already
opposed .the weight of v. 1, 2. Even after the feast had com
menced, might he not have been told, reference being had to the
seven following days, to purchase things necessary for it ? We,
ourselves, would indisputably use such language on the morn
ing of the first day of a festival. As regards the admissibility
of traffic, we have only to recall the manifold casuistic limita-

Jesus washes his Disciples' feet. 313
tions of the Talmudists. The school of Hillel regarded the
night preceding the feasi^day as less holy than the day itself,
as Tr. Pesachim, c. 4, § 5, proves. Furthermore, a purchase
could be made even on the Sabbath, by leaving a pledge and
afterward settling the account, (Tr. Schabbajth, c. 23, § 1 ;) gifts,
too, could be made to the poor under certain limitations, (Tr.
Schabbath, c. 1, § 1,) and we may speciaUy bear in mind on this
point, that there was an obUgation to furnish to every poor man
the means of procuring four cups of wine, (Tr. Pesachim, c. 10,
in. The main passage is chap, xviii. 28. — On the day of
Christ's crucifixion the Jews would not pollute themselves by
entering the house of a heathen, (tva tadymai zb ndaxa.) Follow
ing the lead of Lightfoot, Bynaus, and others, it has been held
that by the ndaxa we are here to understand the Chagiga, that
is, the peace-offerings appointed foi* the feast days. On the
part of the opponents, this view, that these are called nos., has
been contested, and by none so thoroughly as by Iken, whom
Lucke and De Wette should not have passed here without
mention. Even after the thorough contesting of the point by
Iken, the fact remains, that in the Talmud some Rabbins have
by nt?!?. understood the peace-offerings. On the other side, he
and those who follow him have not let pass undisputed the
places cited in evidence, Deuteron. xvi. 2, 2 Chron. xxxv. 7, 8,
9. Ne*rertheless, it is certain that in both passages the word
nog embraces all the sacrifices connected with the feast of the
Passover ; that no^, Deuteron. xvi. 2, designates merely the
lamb, (De Wette,) cannot be granted, since it has not the
article, the v*?!? in v. 3 is also decidedly against it. Cf also, 2
Chron. xxx. 22, where it is said : "they did eat throughout the
feast seven days, offering peace-offerings, &c." Mosheim, con
sequently, whom Strauss follows, had very properly already
reduced the objection to this ; "if the oftering of the Chagiga
together with the Paschal lamb could be called nt?3, it certainly
could not be so called without it." On this point Hengsten
berg, 1. c, following the riews of the older writers, has ex
pressed himself with such solid judgment that it is a matter of
surprise that no mention even of his Dissertation is made by
Liicke or De Wette. If in the usage of the language with
28

314 Chap. XHI. — v. 1.
more latitude, the whole feast is called nog., and if oni the. fol
lowing days also the sacrificatory feasts were partaken of,
namely, the thank-offerings for the Passover, then there- -ap
pears to be no reason why the expression tpayetv ndaxa might ^not
be used of these offerings also, which stood in the niQst;.ii.^ti-
mate relation with the Paschal lamb ; if the term be used vrith
reference to the first day, it designates the eating of ithe Pasr
chal lamb, if with reference to the following daySj^* it designates
the eating of the other offerings which in connection with the
Paschal lamb formed the feast. Thus, no-J, " to keep the Pass
over," occurs in the Rabbins with specific reference to eating the
unleavened bread, (Reland, Antt. sacr. ed. Vogel, p. 270.,) That
we have zb ndaxa here, makes no difference, (Winer, Real wort.
ii. p. 241, Anm. 3.) Lightfoot and Bynaus direct attention to
the fact, moreover, that the entering of the house of a heathen
produced one of those defilements which only lasted until
sun-down. As now the time of the Paschal Supper proper
came after sundown, the entrance into the house of aiheathen
could in this particular case have had no infiuence, and, we must,
therefore, suppose the Chagiga to be meant ; that this argumep,t
is entirely valid, has been established by Hengstenberg^ against
the more recent objections.' A doubt still remains after,, this
explanation, and at the first glance seems to have fpjroe, and
can likewise be turned in utramque partem, (against pithe?-
side,) yet to the present time has not been thoroughly ejjamined
and cleared up from the Jewish antiquities, the doubt,, jv^hpther
on the first day of the feast, which according to Exod, iXii,.16
was probably to be kept like a Sabbath, all the occupations
involved in the trial, crucifixion and interment of Jesus,, Gpul(i
have been carried on ? Among those who consider the ^.talje-
ment of the Synoptists as wrong, Lucke has thought itenpi^gh
as regards the proof passages from the Talmud, simply tpmako
reference to some of the recent Dissertations. Mo vers j, for the
most part, indeed, after Lightfoot, has collected most ^iUgentiy
the various examples. When now he shows from thcTalmwd
that it was forbidden on the Sabbath to bear arms, fo hffld
court, to carry wood, to go through the streets with spieop,,,and
1 The opposite view has been defended most thoroughly by Movers ; 'Ve^ reWe't
that want of space compels us to forego an examination of his objections in, detoil.

Jesus washes his Disciples' feet. 316
vvhen ¦we see the servants of the high priest ou the night on
whieh our Saviour Was betrayed bearing arms; the high priest
sitting in judgment,' the condemned persons bearing the cross,
Nicodemus bringing no less than one hundred pounds ef spice,
who can persuade himself that all this occurred on the first day
of the high? festival ? Above all other considerations, we- would
direct attention -tci. the fact, that with all the sanctity of that
first day, according to the law and the Talmud, the distinction,'
nevertheless, betio^en-a Sabbath and a feast day held good through
out. In relation precisely to the first and the last day -of the
Passover, permissJdn was given to prepare food upon them, a
thing -dbt at' all allowed upon the Sabbath, (Exod. xii. 46 ;) the
Tr. Be'za, orTomtob, presents, moreover, manifold examples of
things allbWed on feast-days which were prohibited -on the
Sabbath, 'and the 'school of Hillel especially, gave still wider
license- in' these matters, (Tr. Be'za, ch. 5, § 2.) But; apart
from thi^, aU the instances cited lose their force when we-
i^emember that those ordinances were expressed only in general
terhi^, that ofi the other hand, in reference to particular kinds
of ' transactions, special prescriptions were given, as fbr; ex-
amplie;' in' the'caSe of a circumcision or of a funeral; much
¦W^as allowed that nnder other circumstances was forbidden,
(Schabbalih, c. 23, §'S;) Movers himself proves that criminals
might be arrested, '(Acts xii. 3, 4 — and this could hardly be
dohe! Mthout arins ?) as he has also with Lightfoot obviated
the argument Mduce'd by Lucke, that no one after the' Paschal
SUppe'r' could IfeaVfe the city, by proving that the neighborhood
of Bethphage ' was ' Counted in the city. Strauss, therefore,
over against the various Talmudic examples, pro et ^ dontra,
has "vrisely reduced this objection to the one point,! that in
the interraediate 'ffeaSt days indeed, but probably not on thei
fij-St and last,' Priminals might be executed. We have^ accord-
i'nglj^, these tW() questione to answer: 1) Was it in general
perniitted tb ' h6ar causes, and have executions during the
feast? '2) And if this were the case, could they also be attend
ed to" bn the? first 'aiid on the last day of the feast?; With
regard to" thb' first question, Lucke traverses the indictment,
duly h^ qfi'bting' from Tr. lomtob, c. 5. Movers addd' Tr.
Schabba'th, ' c. 1, '§' 2, and out of Lightfoot, a passage from'

316 Chap. XHI.— v. 1.
the Babylonian Gemara, and from Maimonides, according to
which latter, no judicial proceedings cpuld be commenced on
the evening before the Sabbaths and feast days. These very
passages, however, prove that judicial action could be had.
The passages, Schabbath, i. 2, and lomtob, v. 2, merely give
particular directions in regard to the court to be held, and
indeed in the latter, the prohibition of holding a court is not
embraced in the category of the nisn, the commandment proper,
but of the nityn, that is, what may be done on certain conditions.
The extract from the Gemara treat? merely of criminal cases,
and expressly declares, that this does not hold good of cases in
which money is involved, and what is the reason? Because
the sentence of condemnation could not be pronounced till the
following day, and that too after it had been reduced to writing,
(Lightfoot, Opera, ii. 384, the passage too, p. 465, shows that
the sentence of death could be passed on the Sabbath.) Nor
can the fact be lightly passed over, that the Jews, (Matt. xxvi.
5,) as the reason why Jesus should not be seized and executed
during the feast, allege, not the sanctity of the feast, but the
danger of an uproar. But it is decisive, that the Gemara Tr.
Sanhedrim, ch. x. ed. Cocc. p. 297, says in downright terms :
" The Sanhedrim assembled in the session room of the stone
chamber, from the time of the morning offering to that of the
evening, but on the Sabbaths and feast days they assembled them
selves within ''"na, which is the lower wall, which surrounded the
greater, in the vicinity of the fore-court of the women." Movers
makes use of Lundius, p. 460, according to whose opinion this
place was rather a law school, used for instruction in the law.
But this is the isolated exposition of the Rabbi Salomo, the
text clearly .enough expresses the opposite, and it is moreover
to be noted, that according to Sanh. c. 10, § 2, and Bartenora
on the passage, at this very place was to be found one of the
two courts of session for the twenty-three men — ^the locality
probably which was then used by the Sanhedrim. Another
passage, whose testimonj'- is just as positive as to the directions
for the feast, is the Mischna Sanh. x. 4: "An elder, who does
not subject himself to the judgment of the Sanhedrim, shall
be taken from the place where he lives to Jerusalem, shall be
kept there until one of the three feasts, and shall be killed at

Jesus washes his Disciples' feet. 317
the time of the feast, for the reason stated, Deut. xvii. 13."
Movers has nothing to meet this but the hypothesis, that per
haps nothing more is meant than the day before the feast. No
distinction is made in any of these passages between the first
day of the feast and the others. We consider it, therefore, as
certain, that judicial proceedings were also held on the feast
days, perhaps under certain legal prorisos, (cf. Selden, de Syn.
p. 806,) and that this very period, when large assemblages of
the people came together, was, for the reason mentioned Deut.
xvii. 13, selected for the execution of notorious criminals — a
¦riew attended with still less difficulty in the case before us, as
it concerned the punishment of a blasphemer, the execution of
whom was doing God se^rvice, (John xvi. 2,) and what per-
¦tained to the service of God never broke the Sabbath. Besides,
it was not the Jews themselves, but the Rranan soldiers, who
actually executed the crucifixion.
IV. John xix. 14, 31. — Those who maintain a discrepancy
between John and the Synoptists, suppose that in both these
passages, napaaxeui^ must be taken for " the day of preparation
for the Passover," and the more so, as the word psydXrj in v. 31
probably designates the concunence of the first day of the
feast with the Sabbath. Now it is maintained by Bochart,
Reland, Hengstenberg, that napaaxeu-q never means the prepa
ration day to a feast, but always the one to a Sabbath ; on the
other hand, Ebrard will not concede that it may have designa
ted merely a week day. The word corresponds to the Hebrew
nr3D, prseparatio, and designates originally the afternoon from
three o'clock, when the cooking, &c., was done for the Sabbath,
and is used in exactly the same way in the imperial proclamation
in' Josephus, Antiq. xvi. 6,- 2 ; but like the German ^onnabend,
(literally, sun-evening for Saturday,) Weihnacht, (Christmas
night for Christmas,) it was also a designation of days.. This is
certain from Mark xv. 42, John xix. 42, hence also the Chal
dee Nfjan^, for the week day, Friday. The possibility that nap-
aaxeuTJ may also have been used for the preparation days of the
feast, we might not in itself deny perhaps, although, as De
Wette himself confesses, there is a complete want of examples
of such use ; but in the passages in John, this interpretation is
completely excluded by the absolute use of )J napaaxeurj zdiv 'lou-
28*

318 Chap. XJH.— v. 1-5.
Sa'tmv, ch. xix. -42. T. 31 shows, too, that the importance Is
attached to the .Sabbath, and not to the first day of the' feast,
so. that there we can by ndpaaxeuij understand none other than
the day preceding the Sabbath. As regards the grarhinatical
admissibility in ch. xix. 14 of Luther's rendering, " the prepara
tion day in the Passover," no difficulty whatever exists. This
isi shown by' Ignatius, ad Phil. c. 13, ad^^azov zoi) nd<Txa,&nd.
by Socrates, Hist. Eccles. v. 22, ad^^azov z. kopzrjz. The excep
tion of Ebrard may seem to have more weight: " Why should
the ' Evangelistf-fiii^ xix. 14, instead of simply saying the first
day of thePassP^vfer, designate this day as a Friday occurring
in- the 'feast of the Passover ? What reasons can be assigned for
this very peculiar appellation ?" But it is preferable to trans
late "the preparation day in the Passover feast," by which this
day will be desigrfated as belonging to the feast, and John
uses this expression, partly because it had become usual to
designate the- day of our Lord's death as a preparation day,
partly because he already had in his eye, at this point, the fact
mentioned in V. 31.' '
V. 1-3. Although .the attempt has been made by a few
writers, (LightfPot^ Hess,) to show that this ^sotvov was'nbt'the-
Paschal Suppei*, 'yet at present all unite in the opposite ¦vifew, to
which, as has' been shown, the words of v. 1 lead us, as do the
closing discourses, and especially xiii. 38, (Strauss.) That John
passes by the institution of the symbolic action of the Lord's
1 [The Discussion of the Passover Question, has, in the 7th ed. of Tholuck's
John, been trahsferred from the opening of the thirteenth chapter to the Ititrodud-
tion, J 8, 2; p. 38-52. The history of the views entertained upon the different ques- '
tions here involvedj is arranged under the following heads : I. The Passover Ques
tion in the Ancient Church. II. In the Romish and Protestant ChuTches, down to
the time of Schleiermacher. III. Since Baur. At the close of this historic sketch,
Tholuok says : "We (jonfess, that in this 7th ed. we still feel ourselves obliged to
l^eep to that view whicli<has been defended in the .earlier editions of our CoiVimenJ
ta,ry. As the judgment in regard to the authorship of the Apocalypse has experi
enced suth a revolutidn,'it may perhaps not be among historic impossibilities that a
revolutipu of judgment pn this question may also take place."
ihe most importunt discussions of the Passover question, in English, are to be
found in Kobihaon's' Harmony of the Four Gospels, in Greek, p. 220, and in an article
in the Bibliotheca Sacra for 1845. Davidson's Introduction tb the New Testament.
Loiiiioh: Bagster, J848, p. 102-111. No discussio i of the quesUon we h,ave yet
seein from an English iharfd, equals in interest, oi* surpasses in value, the ' one fur-
nished.in.Pi. Fairbiurn's Hermeneutical Manual, or Introduction to the Exe^reticnJ
stu'dy of the New Testament. Clark & Co., Edinburgh, 1858; reprinted, Philadel
phia : Smith, English & Co., 1859, p. 368-389. Dr. Fairbairn's conclusion is, " that '
our Lord kept the Passover with his Disciples on the fourteenth of Nisw, on th«
da^' prescribed by the Jaw." Tr.]

Jesus washes his Disciples' eebt. 319
SiUipper, yet mentions the feet washing, serves to confirm the fact
that he presumed the ample Evangelical narration of th-e Synop
tists ;tOi be known, and designed to present what was newi — iThe
parentiietieal sentence, v. 2, renders prominent the thought, that
ithisr;fr!§;m,e, of Judas' mind had not prevented this act; of love
from being jperfprmed to him also ; the agreement with tiie high
council ha.d. already been entered into, (Luke xxii. 8, .seq.) but
.might yet havei'beflu broken; v. 27, therefore, designates the
determination actually to fulfill it by delivering up Christ, as
the acme of the. crime. Eidwz is to be resolved .into '-' al
though," for th.e words that follow are designed to give .prqmr
irneujce. tojthei&ontraist between the consciousness whioH Jesiis
had of [his. dignity and the lowliness of the action. .In.Matt.
,xi,: 27, the^ Saviour , employs similar language of himseU); ;" that
he was. coma from God," dnb dsou i^^X&e, is to be explained in
^he isa.roe;Sense a? viii- 42. This observation of the Evangelist
proves ithatito jhim ajso the scene that foUows, appeared' as. one
of thelsubUmestjin.ihe life of our Lord. In fact, we might, in
jQontemplating this scene, say with Claudius : " Such aij Idealiof
man, as presentsnifeelf here, never entered the heart of iman.
Whatever ofigreatness and glory antiquity may present— a, dying
Epaminoadaa, a, dying Socrates — vanishes before this ideal of
Deity in humiliation, and of a divine form of a servant.''
.Even. Schweizer, 1. c. p- 160, declares that no where else "can
be, found a more .beautiful narrative, full of such intriusjo.tru.tb.','
Weisse , alone,. wherCi others have been pervaded by reverential
astonishment, has taken offense -and :^und fault, (ii.-, p. ,2,72.)
. Y., 4, .5. .D)id not. the feet-washing at other times , precede
thcisupper? We. remark in reply, that the fact that. they. had
already. gone, to the table, by no means implies necessarily that
this washing did not precede their eating; it was customary, to
washithe outstretched feet as the guests lay upon the cushions, as
in Luke vii. 3§.v Npw, there has been the most decided recog
nition on all -sides* -.that what is uttered Luke xxii. 26, 27, has
(reference to, the, transaction here under consideration, (Olshau-
.^en,/ Gfrorer, Neagder ;) supposing this view to be correct, we
ace toj' suppose .^an order in the events like the following:
.Christ hadi already (lain down ; as they had no servants, the feet-
washing', should ihaiv.e been done by one of the Disciples; the

320 Chap. XHL — v. 6-11.
things necessary for it are at hand ; the Disciples are still dis
puting who shall undertake to do it; Jesus no longer remains
dvaxeipevoz, (Luke xxii. 27,) but rises himself to perform this
duty of a servant. With such a depicture of minutise as love
would suggest, we have brought before us even his taking upon
him the apparel of a servant : " laid aside his garments and
took a towel and girded himself;" the word " began," rjp^azo,
paints the gradual course of the action, the wiping of the feet
points to its completion.
V. 6-9. The words do not involve the idea that Peter was
the first. So characteristically and so consonantly with the pre-
¦rious delineation of him is this Disciple here depicted, as De
Wette also acknowledges, that it would involve gross blindness
to regard scenes like this as fictitious. That feeUng of distance
from the Lord, that at the very beginning displays itself in
Peter in so heart-moving a form, (Luke v. 8,) is aroused here
also, when he beholds at his feet the " Son of the Uving God."
Iu is emphatic, the present vinzeiz is employed in regard to the
contemplated action, as x. 33. Mszd zouzo may refer to the ex
planation given in v. 14, but Grotius, Lampe, not without
probability, suppose it to refer to a later period of his life,
when in the light given by the Holy Ghost the action in all its
significance will become clear to him. If this utterance waa a
natural one, there mingles nevertheless in Peter's second ex
clamation something of self-will. Calvin : Laudabilis quidem
modestia, nisi quovis cultu potior obedientia esset apud Deum,
"A praiseworthy modesty, were it not that with God obedience
is better than all service." The answer of our Lord is not so
excessively severe as to make it necessary with Olshausen to
refer vlcfim to a spiritual washing. The meaning of the formula,
pspoz sxetv pezd zivoz, which is to be explained less by reference
to Luke xii. 46, than by the Hebrew phrase 2 "h p^n ty;, (Gesen
ius, Thes. s. V. p'^n,) is this : " to participate with any one in
something." De Wette in adopting the sense : " Thou hast no
fellowship ¦with my lowly frame of mind," is neither sustained
by the usage of the Hebrew phrase, nor by the context. Gro
tius more correctly : Non eris particeps meorum bonorum,
"thou shalt not partake in my blessings." Maldonatus:
Eenuncio amicitiee fuse, "I renounce thy friendship." The

Jesus washes his Disciples' feet. 321
change to an expression of the very opposite character per
fectly corresponds with the sanguine-choleric vehemence of
Peter. Chrysostom : xal iv zfj napaevrjaee atpoSpbz, xal iv zfj
auyxmp^ase afo8pbzepoz yivezae, kxdzspa 8s if dydnrjz, "In his
deprecation he was vehement, m his yielding more vehement,
but both came from his love." As this expression reveals that
no thought was so fearful to him as that of being sundered
from the Lord, v. 10 now presents a recognition of his devotion
on the part of Christ.
V. 10, 11. Eirst of all let it be noticed, that Xouadae, in
contradistinction from vinzsadae, signifies not "washing," but
"bathing," nVao, and refers, therefore, to the purification of
the entire body, and not of a portion merely. Sometimes a
bath was taken before a meal, and on leaving the bath the feet
again became soiled ; now if Jesus and his Disciples had bathed
that evening, these words may be regarded as simply furnishing
the reason why the feet only needed to be washed at thab time,
(Heumann, Tittmann, De Wette,) and the figurative language
first comes in with xal bpstz xzX. But if the words, "clean
every whit," xadapbz SXoz, are to be taken in a physical sense,
does not the direct linking on of the thought, "ye are also
spiritually pure," seem too abrupt? Most writers, therefore,
give also to the first words of the sentence a figurative sense,
either exclusively or at the same time with a literal one. In v.
8 already, some had found a symbolical meaning intimated and
the washing designated as a sacramental action : " If I wash
thee not by baptism, from sin," (Origen, Augustine, Lampe;)
in this place, where we have not merely vinzeev but Xoueadae,
this mode of apprehension is yet more obrious ; the Eeformed
expositors, however, as Lampe, Cocceius, substitute for baptism
the regenerative operation of the Holy Spirit, the washing of
the feet is then the daily forgiveness of the sins of infirmity,
or according to the Catholic apprehension, the sacrament of
penance, poenitentia. But as the words are at the same time an
answer to v. 9, the proper sense cannot be abandoned. It is, to
be sure, merely problematical that Jesus and his Disciples had
bathed, but there is no difficulty in supposing a reference to
what usually occurs, as when a person comes from the bath it
is common for him to have need afterward to wash his feet,

322 Chap. XHI.— v. 12-19.
yet is .otherwise clean, thus the heart of the innel'' man is pure
jji you,;(N'eander.) K even the action had not been intended
to h^ve. the symbolical meaning, yet this very exclamation of
i.Peter which preceded it, in which were so beautifully revved
.tb^pijire depths of his soul, and at the same time was' bronght
pyit; the contrast between this genuine Disciple and the be-
t:^ay§r--ithis very exclamation must have given occasion to this
turn,,pfj it. His declaration had shown afiew how' thbrough
was the internal hold which Christ had upon him, (ri. 68, 69;)
now he who had received Christ's word so deeply into his iiiner
;nature.,y?'as pure, (xv. 3,) only the extremities ¦were 'yet to be
purjfi^ji,. it was only needful that the internal principle should
unfold, ijself further and penetiate the whole mafi, while in the
case qf ft Judas this principle was wholly wanting.- In- these
wprds, ,as in the whole scene of love in' which he too was
allowed; jto be a partaker, there was for Judas a final persuasion
and, jwaigiing. ' , '
, Yj.,.Jj^--17. IS'ow follows the meaning strictly h'a^d in view in
tbe feet washing. In the mouth of the Disciples, b xupeoz eori^s-
ppnded^jyith the title 1*1, and 8t8daxaXoz with n^d ; how* decidedly
Christ,^,claimed this high position among thena, is shown by
Maj±. :^^iii. 8. The nominative in Greek rand Hebrevt^' is' also'
us,ed,for,_,the vocative. The unwillingness- to pelrform the feet
washing. had been on the side of the Disciples an "example,"
bnbdeiypa, of selfishness, the action of Jesus was an "example,"
bnb8etyfia, of condescending love; it is not therefore' the deed
in itself considered, which is the grand thing; btit the tone of
mind exhibited in it, and the explanation given by Chrysostom,
Augu9^i,ne, that humility is the hardest, and- at the same- tim b'
lhe njpst characteristic rirtue of Christianity, is confirmed by
theexljiprtation in v. 17, as our Lord directs attention to that
great elf asm, which especially in the case- of thia "rirtue, lies"
betwe.ei^^ knowing and doing. It is clear that the idea that a
sacrameiit is instituted here, is entirely out of the question, nor,
furthermore, is the action linked with a promise. "As long as
fe^t washing was rendered necessary by the use of sandals, it'
was practiced as a work of love, (1 Tim. v. 10,) at' a -later'
period, it was retained as a suggestive symbolical rite-j-first. df
all, in conformity with a reference of v. 10 to baj)tism, it was'

Jesus washes his Disciples' peet. 323
annexed to the ceremony of baptism,' then as a repetition in the
strict sense of the original symbolical action, was used in the
Church of Rome, in which the Pope and Catholic monarchs, on
Maunday Thursday, performed it on twelve poor; old'men. The
remarks of Bengel may always have a fitness as regards this :
Magis admirandus foret pontifex, unius regis quam duodecim
pauperum pedes seria humilitate lavans, "the Pope would do
a more remarkable thing, if in unfeigned humility he washed
the feet of one king, than he does in washing the feet of twelve
poor men," and yet there glides into the mmd what Claudius so
beautifully says of ceremonies that have become empty : " They
are the'little flags which reach forth over the water, and mark
Where a ship with her rich lading has sunk." Luther on Gen.
xliii. 24, commends in a case of actual necessity, the ¦washing
df feet, as an act of love ; in the Moravian fraternity, the ques
tion whether it shall be performed, or not, is left to the deci
sion of the, stewards of the particular dirisions, (Chore.)
Vi'lS, 19. The thought preriofisly aroused in regard to
Judas once more strikes our Lord, but why and for what end
is Xeyti^ introduced? Does it point to the paxdptoe ? (Maldon
atus, Bengel.) Tet this expression is used conditionally and of
'the future. It has in riew the entirely reciprocal relation of
ministering love, which could have no applicability in -the case
of Jsudas. The recent expositors pass too lightly over the
igisX^dfojv. Does Christ intend to say, that one of them does
not belong to the chosen ? But he says the reverse in chap. vi.
.70: "Have I not chosen you twelve, and one of -you is a
deril'?"' It would seem at first view as though the idea ot
Augustine, Calvin, Zwingle, was justified; it looks as though
ixUyeev was here employed in an emphatic sense, " to choose to
trae fellowship, to salvation." But would the citation that
follows be iu that case introduced with dXX! 1 The divine ordi
nation, would then in fact be a notion coordinate with the pre
ceding. We would then be compelled with Maldonatus to
interpret: Quomodo ignorare possum quales sint, quos elegi,
'.'how could I be ignorant what kind of persons, they would
be whom I have chosen ?" The reflection on the dirine ordi-
J After the fourth century, the feet of the newly baptized were washed, Augus
tine, Ep. 119, ad Jan. c. 18, Bingham, Antiq. Eccles. iv. p. 394

324 Chap. XHI. — v. 20-26.
nation would then serve to produce a tranquilizing influence,
(see on xii. 38.) After dXXd we must supply iyivezo, in the
same way exactly as in xv. 26, 1 John ii. 19. The quotation
from the Psalm, (Ps. xli. 10,) speaks of a treacherous revolt ou
the part of a table companion, that is, of a most intimate
friend ; the lifting up of the heel refers to the kick of a horse,
(an image of similar character is used in Gen. xlix. 17.) Here,
in fact the language is used of one who arose from the supper
of love to consummate an act of betrayal, who so far from
washing the feet of his Master, lifted up the heel against him ;
hereby, too, Christ has become like Darid his type and ances
tor. 'Andpzt, in classic usage "just now," so the Ethiopic.
The fulfilling of prophecy a seal of the Messiahship, xiv. 29,
also. V. .20. So little connection subsists between this and the
preceding sentence, that there has been a -disposition, with
Gabler, Kuinol, to regard it as a gloss taken from. Matt. x. 40,
but — ^laying aside the want of eridence — it is too decided a
difference in the expression. Marked sentences, too, of the
same sort, as may easily be shown, were repeated by Christ on
different occasions, (see on xii. 25, Matt, xriii. 4, cf. here, also,
V. 16 with XV. 20.) The prevalent opinion, in confirmation of
which Olshausen appeals to xv. 20, seq. (?) is, that as the trial
mentioned in v. 18 pertains to the Disciples as well as to the
Master, it was his design to furnish encouragement, (Melanc
thon, Grotius ;) but on that supposition the thought seems to
be too isolated and abrupt, so that it might be said with
Lucke : " The thought of the betrayer, of which Jesus, by the
train of thought entered on v. 20, would rid himself, agitates
and interrupts him anew." Zwingle, Heumann, regard it as
his aim in presenting this glorious aspect, to keep back the
other Disciples from an imitation of the apostasy ; according to
Piscator, Calvin, it is shown : Injustum esse, ut quicquam ex
dignitate apostoUca imminuat quorundum impietas, qui in
officio perperam versantur, " that it would be unjust to detract
from the apostolic dignity, because some who held it were
guilty of acts of wickedness."

. Departure op the Betrayer. 325
Departure- op the Betrayer from the circle of the
Disciples. — v. 21-80.
V. 21-26. It is in keeping with Christ's character, that the
thought of the faithless Disciple mightily agitates his inmost
soul. It comes out yet more distinctly in v. 21 than in v. 10
and 18, and in v. 26 is expressed in the most direct manner.
We must suppose from v. 27 that the presence of the betrayer
was oppressive to the Holy One of God, and that the declara
tions were indirectly designed to cause him to depart. The
question rises, did he leave before the institution of the Sup
per ? The other EvangeUsts make no mention of his depart
ure, but what Matthew says, xxvi. 30, 31, and the fact that
Judas does not until a later period (v. 47,) return again to the
circle of the Disciples, implies that he did. In Matthew and
Mark, the scene of the conversation in regard to the betrayer,
which corresponds with the account in John, precedes the Sup
per, but Luke, who, however, has much that is not precise in
the history of the Passion, places it after the Supper, (Luko
xxii. 21.) As we must suppose the feet-washing to have taken
place at the beginning of the meal, and these discourses are
closely connected ¦with it, we must, in consonance with Matthew
and Mark, suppose that they preceded the institution of the
Sacrament, a view which is confirmed by the fact, that v. 31,
seq. form a suitable introduction to the institution. A conclu
sion could le^ safely be drawn from what is said in tr. Pesa
chim, c. 10, and Maimonides in Lightfoot, on Matt. xxsi. 26,
in regard to the order of eating the Passover. After partaking
of the Passover, two of the bread-cakes were solemnly conse
crated, and wrapped about with bitter herbs were dipped into
the sauce, with which part of the meal the breaking of the
bread in the Lord's Supper would most naturally connect itself
If the (pmpiov, v. 26, is to be interpreted by reference tp this,
that feature of the institution certainly would not be very
remote. Tet even in advance of the eating of the Passover,
herbs and parsley were dipped in the sauce and handed about.
The guests lay at the table supporting their heads with the left
arm, which rested on the cushion, enabling the next person to
29

326 Chap. XHI.— v. 27-85.
lean the back of his head upon the breast of the one who
reclined by him. Just as characteristic of Peter as the delinea
tion is rivid, is the curiosity of this Disciple to know to whom
the Saviour alluded as his betrayer. When Strauss, from the
preeminence assigned to John in this picture, draws proof that
the author of this Gospel was an intriguer, who designed to
give by it a preponderance to the party of John over that of
Peter, we can only designate the author of such a fancy as a
EabuUst, (pettifogging pleader.) The reading in v. 24, found
in Cod. B C L and Origen, is worthy of remark : xal Xiyee auzip-
sink, ziz ifztv, nepi ou Xsyst, which implies that Peter presumed
that John was already in the secret.
V. 27-30. Up to this moment we may suppose that there
was a vacillation in the soul of the betrayer, whether he should
execute his agreement or not ; the increasing distinctness of the
declarations of our Lord may have been in correspondence
¦with the increasing distinctness of the purpose within the heart
of Judas, and not until now, when his determination to give
up his Lord, fully ripened, is fixed in his soul, (James i. 16.)
can Jesus no longer endure his presence. On the comparative
zdxtov, where we would look for the positive, (1 Tim. iii. 14,
Acts x-rii. 21,) see Winer, p. 219, (Eng. tr. p. 191.) If we
are to imagine not merely that the words of Jesus, v. 27,
but his declaration • also, v. 26, were spoken aloud, we must
interpret v. 28 under the supposition that the Disciples did not
anticipate so speedy a perforniance of the deed of darkness,
or at least did not dare to suppose that these words of the Lord
which summoned Judas to the deed, were to be refened to it.
On V. 29, see above, p. 313. It was night when the betrayer
departed — certainly before midnight, for the Paschal Supper
could not be prolonged beyond midnight, (tr. Pesachim, x. 9.)
Olshausen observes, that the words, "it was night," ^v 8s vu^,
arouse in the reader a reflection on the afiinity between the
deed of Judas and the time and hour, but had the Evangelist
designed this, he certainly would have uged the word axozia,
(darkness.)

Discourse of Jesus after Judas' departure. 827
Discourse pp Jesus after the departure of the Betrayer.
v. 31-38.
v. 31-33. Now the decisive moment has been reached as
regards the cup of suffering, and at the same time as regards
the gloriflcation of God through Christ in humanity ; Olshau
sen truly says : We are entering into the Holy of Solies in the
Passion history. To what a pitch of exaltation we must sup
pose the Saviour's mind to have risen, is shown by the antici
pation of the entire future which lies in the word " now," vuv, a
future which, as v. 33 renders still more clear, already stood
before his soul as a thing of the present, (cf. x-rii. 11,) al
though immediately afterward the future is again used. In
what consists the being " glorifled ?" Must we not regard the
8o$aapbz, which is here spoken of in the proleptic aorist, as the
same of which v. 32 speak^ in the future ? Most assuredly —
here, too, chap. xii. 28 is to be compared. Bengel : Jesus
passionem ut breve iter spectat et metam potius prospicit,
" Jesus regards his sufferings as a short journey, and loves to
look at the goal." As now he who becomes partaker of that
gloriflcation is the same person who utters in regard to him
self the expressions, xiv. 11, xrii. 21, it is pf course not the
glorification of the human subject isolated from God that is
meant, but rather this subject that is reflected in God himself.
The glorification of God in Christ is God's becoming manifest
in the world through him ; the glorification of Christ in God is
Christ's becoming hidden in him. According to Coloss. iii. 3,
also, Christ is "hid in God," according to Acts iii. 21, he is at
present hidden in heaven, according to both passages there is
to follow upon this latency the yet higher grade of " appearing
in glory," favepmd^vai iv Sb^rj. — The napd, chap. xrii. 5, is in
substance the same as iv in this place.' — On v. 33, cf what we
have said on viii. 21. In this expression we do not perceive a
special object, but simply the utterance of sorrow over the neces
sity of separation.
V. 34, 36. The question arises, whether we can find a point
in this discourse at which to introduce the institution of the
Lord's Supper. The expositors remark a grooving between
1 Olshausen feels himself obliged in v. 31 to give the preference to that inter
pretation of the phrase, " Son of man," 6 vlbg rov dv-S-pwirov, which has been main
tained by us on chap. i. 62.

328 Chap. XLH.— v. 35-38.
V. 32, 34, 35 and 36, yet it is possible to exhibit a connection,
and the supposition that all was uttered in immediate succes
sion, is admissible. The presumption, however, is pressed
upon our notice, that v. 34 may refer to the Lord's Supper and
may be connected ¦with the institution of it, (IS'eander, Krabbe.)
— When the expositors confined their view merely to the first
half of V. 34, they felt a doubt as to the sense in which a com
mand could be called new, which was found in the Old Testa
ment, and pronounced by Christ to be the greatest in the Old
Covenant, (Matt. xxii. 36, 38.) Some attempted to meet the
difficulty by giring to xatv^ the unusual sense of "excellent,"
(Suicer, Wolf,) or of "ever becoming new," (Olshausen, who
appeals to 1 John ii. 8, 2 John 6,) or adverbially, " renewed-
ly," (Maldonatus;) others vindicated it by narrowing the sphere
to which the commandment refers, regarding it as given exclu
sively for the circle of the Christian Church, (Grotius,) or ex
clusively for the Apostles, (Heumann,) or with reference to the
obligation of the Christians both of Gentile and Je^wish origin
to love one another, (Le Clerc.) It was acknowledged already
by Cyrill and Theophylact, that the newness lies in " as I have
loved you," xaddtz ijydnrjaa bpdz, cf. xv. 12, but there is a want
of justness in this interpretation, if it is understood to mean
that this command is antithetical to the Old Testament com
mand of love to our neighbor, Cyrill : psXXmv dva^aivstv ¦ siz
obpavouz, depsXtbv ztva navzbz dyadou zbv z^z dydnrjz npoxazaj3dXXe-
zojt vbpov, dydnrjz 8s ob z^z xazd vbpov, dXXd zrjz bnsp vbpov. 'Exst
pkv ydp zb 'Ayanijaetz zbv nXrjaiov &)z hauzbv, ivzauda 8k zb, xadojz
¦ijydnrjaa bpdz, obx "^f kauzbv dXX' bnsp kauzbv, "Being
about to ascend into the heavens, he lays as a foundation of
all good the law of love, of a love not according to the law,
but of a love above the law. Eor there it stands : ' Thou shalt
love thy neighbor as thyself,' but here, ' as I have loved you,'
not then as thyself, but above thyself." But is it not rather true,
that alike in an impure and a pure self-love exists a desire that
others should be ready to sacrifice themselves for us, so that
"to love our neighbor as ourself " embraces on our part an act
of sacrifice of this very sort ? There lies then in these words
no antithesis to the Old Testament command, but if Christ in
applying in general this word " new " to the " commandment,"
as he does to the " covenant " in the Lord's Supper, has used

Discourse of Jesus after Judas' departure. 329
it with a reference to the Old Covenant, it expresses distinction
merely, not antithesis. The Old Testament may be diversely
interpreted, the objective ideal of absolute love has first given
it concrete shape. Here absolute self-renouncing love appears,
the love of the high and holy for the lowly and sinful, (Eom. v.
6, 1 John iii. 16,) the love which regards it as more blessed to
give than to receive, (Acts xx. 36,) the aZZ-embracing love.
Though the discourse points merely to the love of the Disciples
to one another, yet their love was to be like that of Jesus to
sinners, a love, therefore, which was to extend itself beyond
their own narrow circle. It may be a matter of inquiry, how
ever, whether Christ did not at the same time, if not exclusive
ly, refer to his own earlier instructions, (Bengel, Knapp, !N"ean-
der ;) his death, which was so close at hand, would furnish the
very occasion for speaking of that which had not previously
been the subject of discourse, (xvi. 4.) — Brotherly love in this
form had never been seen in the world, as it presented itself
among these earliest confessors, cf. Acts iv. 32, ii. 46, seq.
Neander's Denkwiird. Th. 1, p. 97, (Memorials of Christian
Life, &c. translated by J. E. Eyland. London : Bohn, 1852,)
Arnold, Abbildung der ersten Christen, B. 3, and the remarks
on chap. xvii. 23. The heathen often exclaimed in amaze
ment : (Tertul. Apol. c. 89,) " See how these Christians love
one another, and how ready they are to die for one another I"
In Minucius Felix, a heathen says of the Christians : " They
love ere they know each other," and Lucian, in Peregr. says
derisively of the Christians : " Their Paw-giver has persuaded
them all to be brethren."
V. 36-38. The question of Peter seems to be connected
with V. 33! Although the following is, according to the con
nection, simply a following into blessedness, yet we are led by
ch. xxi. 22 and 18, to find in it an aUusion to the death by
martyrdom, so that the 8uvaaat, perhaps, embraces also an
ethical reference. Without a clear idea of the na.ture of the
foUowing, Peter simply thinks that danger is in the path, and
is confident that he can brave it. Earnest yet forbearing is the
tone of the question addressed to the Disciple who speaks so
confidently, cf in the synoptical Gospels, Matt. xxvi. 30, seq.
Mark xiv. 26, seq. and especially Luke xxu. 31, seq.
29*

CHAPTER XIV.

¦ Comporting Discourses in reference to His death.
V. 1-31.
It is worthy of attention, that the manner of expression in
ch. xiv-xri. has a decided and peculiar impress, whose prominent
traits are a childlike tone, and a certain suspension and diffuse-
ness in the character of the delineation. Not only do we fre
quently miss the connection and progress of the sentence, but
even in the separate sentences, the thought, or at least the ex
pression, (especially in xvi. 10,) is often not clear. As the
peculiarity of character in these discourses renders them less
easy to remember, so they actually give token that they have
received from John that impress peculiar to him, which we
observe in his first Epistle. The conversation of a charac
teristic sort, however, which is intermingled, xiv. 6, viii. 22,
xvi. 17, and especially the misapprehension, xvi. 29, which
could not have been invented, proves that we have not before
us a mere fanciful subjective composition. Throughout the
whole, too, is kept up a reference to the separation, and it is
comprehensible psychologically, that this point of his history
would be the very one at which Christ (to use Knapp's expres
sion,) would begin to speak ¦with the Apostles, remissiore
animo et familiarius, ("with a freer mind and in a more
familiar tone.") No where throughout the entire Gospel h^
the language of Christ such perfect artlessness, a character
so adapted to the minds of his Disciples, as here, (xiv. 2, 3, 16,
18, 21, 23, xvi. 23, 24, 26,) as Luther says: "He speaks, as he
must, who would charm and win the simple ;" in using these
(380)

Comforting Discourses in *efbrbnce to His death. 331
very expressions, then, for the purpose of doctrinal theology,
there must not be too anxious an adherence to the letter.
V. 1. The Disciples were not indeed aware that their Lord
was approaching a violent death, but they now knew and were
troubled at the thought (xvi. 6,) that a separation, though it
were but temporary, was before them. On the words ntazebsze
xzX. Erasmus already remarks that they may be taken in four
ways, ntazeueze may be taken both times as imperative or as in
dicative, or the first time or the last as imperative or indicative.
Luther translates both as indicative, Olshausen takes the second
one as indicative and as a consequence of the first, in whicli
case, however, the future would have been used; the Vulgate,
Beza, Grotius, with more justice, regard the first as indicative ;
nevertheless, whether it be taken as a question or not, the second
half cannot, ¦without some violence, be attached to the first.
It is better, therefore, to take both as imperative. Faith in
God is faith in God's guidance Ind care, faith in Christ is
faith in his word, (v. 11,) with a prominence of trust, (e:c.)
V. 2, 3. At this very point where the discourse has so child
like an air, the reader has been led to take up a false impres
sion by overlooking this very artlessness. We put a period after
elnov dv bptv; because, however, the Greek and Latin expos
itors could not conceive of an assurance so childlike as would
then lie in the sentence, (Calvin : si me unum maneret ccelestis
gloria, noUem vos frustrari, " if glory iu heaven awaited me alo^ie,
I would not have deceived you,") they connected ei 8k prj — -
zbnov bptv, and the reading of a number of important ¦witness
es, by which an ozi is put before nopeuopat, has arisen from this
interpunction, and from the interpolation of an oze relativum
after elnov, to give a clearer meaning. This reading, however,
gives no clear sense whatever, see Lampe, Knapp. The dis
course perhaps glances back in a comforting manner to xiii. 88 ;
the assurance that there is room enough there, belongs to the
domain of childlike conception, and cannot well be resolved
into a distinct thought, as is the case also with the words, "I
¦will come again," ndXev epxopae, which the old interpreters
referred to the general judgment, here represented aS close at
hand, at which Christ was to come for those raised from the
dead, and Olshausen and Lucke interpret of his coming again

332 Chap. XJV.— v. 4-9.
by the Holy Ghost: "every advance in spiritual communion
with the glorified Eedeemer augments in his Disciples the surety
of the Ufe of heavenly blessedness." On the other hand, in the
words "to prepare a place," zbnov kzoepdaax, we may observe a
fundamental idea, as Christ also is the mediator of the heavenly
bliss, Calvin : naturS exulat humanum genus a regno cmlorum,
" mankind by nature live in exile from the kingdom of heaven."
V. 4-6. They might now have known that the Father in
heaven was the goal, and death the path to that goal, but ac
customed as they were to the figurative character of Christ's dis
courses, they are not certain as to his meaning here, and Thomas,
intelligent and reflective, expresses this not without some agita
tion, in the words, "K we knew the goal we might perhaps
surmise the way." The fourth verse had indeed spoken merely
of the path and goal of Christ; as the Disciples, however,
have the same path and the same goal, and as the question of
Thomas, too, perhaps, also carried an allusion to this, Christ an
swers by giving a new turn to the thought, and now designates
the Father as the goal, and himself as the way — to wit : for the
Disciples.1 Many regard !^mrj as the leading idea, as for exam
ple, Grotius, who explains b8bz as the exemplar, dXijdeta as the
doctrine, Qmrj as the goal and issue; according to the connection,
however, the leading idea is rather -J bbbz, as the explanatory
ob8stz xXz. shows ; too strong a distinction is drawn between the
three ideas, when with Luther (riii. p. 71, ed. Walch,) and
Calrin we interpret: "Ego sum principium (rudimenta fidei,)
medium (perfectio fidei) et finis (beatitudo,) " I am the begin
ning, (the elements of faith,) the middle, (the perfection of faith,)
and the end, (blessedness in heaven.)" On the other hand,
however, it blends them too much, with Tittmann and Kuinol,
to connect dX.^deea merely adjectively with bdbz, "the true way
to life," Augustine : vera et ritalis via, "the true and life-giving
way." ' AX-fjdeta and H^m-rj rather express the mode in whieh
Christ is the way, so that we may compare Hebrews x. 20,
where Christ is called b8bz C^Staa, inasmuch as he is the life-
giving way to the Father. Zwingle : Qui in Christo ambulat,
I Fritzsche, Opusc. p. 105, in order to avoid the supposition of a tum in the dis-
courso, takes a wholly different view, according to which the connection between v. 5
and 0 is this: "He who is the way to God, as I am, clearly must, when he departs
from men, go to God, and this can only come to pass by his laying off mortality."

Comforting Discourses in reference to His death. 883
nee falli nee mori potest, "he who walketh in Christ can
neither be deceived nor die." From this then it foUows, that
true union with God must always be through Christ as its con
dition, (1 John ii. 23, 2 John 9 ;) De Wette, not improperly,
adds: "The particularistic principle, that no man cometh to
the Father but through Christ, in its bearing on those who have
never known him as an historical personage, is softened by the
fact that he is also the Eternal (ideal) Logos."
V. 7. 'Eyvmxetzs, not, with Luther and Kuinol: "if ye
knew," but "if ye had known." It is indeed singular that
immediately on this our Lord seems to ascribe this knowledge
to them. When indeed we compare the prces., e. g. in verses
17, 19, the presumption offers itself that here, too, yivmaxezs
and kmpdxazs are to be taken in the sense of the future, that
dndpzi means "from henceforth," and that the xal before dndpzt
is adversative ; but in kmpdxaze the perfect excites a doubt, so
that Chrysostom and Lampe, though they take yivmaxeze as
future, yet in kmpdxazs adhere to the meaning of the perfect,
Chrysostom : " Soon ¦will ye know him, and ye have abeady
seen him, (to wit : ¦without knowing him.)" Maldonatus, and
more recently Fritzsche, decide that the taking the meaning as
futm'e, is entirely inadmissible ; but is a prophetic prolepsis of
this sort less admissible here, than with 8o^aad^, v. 13 ?
(Kuinol, Lucke.) Still there is another mode of taking it
which answers better, not indeed as it is presented in Olshau
sen, but as we have it in Calvin, Maldonatus, Grotius : dzdpze
in the sense of "even now," Calvin: Deum illis jam nunc
conspicuum patere, si modo aperiant oculos, " God would now
be revealed to them, if they would but open their eyes." An
addition of this sort conveying a reproof, connects better with
the preceding, than a promise full of hope would, and 6
impaxmz — nazipa, v. 9, may then be regarded as a resumption.
V. 8, 9. As the Disciple does not understand in what sense
the Father had already been seen by him, he desires such a
manifestation as the prophets had ; the dpxei -ijptv has not indeed
the same depth of meaning as Ps. Ixxiu. 25, but exhibits au
artless pious heartiness. In virtue of the unity with God,
expressing itself in Christ's will, knowledge, and power, our
Saviour had already, ch. viu. 19-42, pointed to the fact that

334 Chap. XIV. — v. 10-14.
the inrisible Father was to be seen in him, Bengel: Sicut
anima, quse per se non cernitur, cernitur ex eo, quod ilia per
corpus agit, etc., " as the soul, in itself invisible, is seen by
what it does through the body."
V. 10, 11. In regard to the reciprocal relation in this unity,
see on x. 38. Christ points to the two manifestations by which
they should recognize the unity, to wit: the words and the
works. The want of congruity between the affirmative portion
of the proposition and the negative is striking, as instead of
noiet zd ipya we would expect XaXst zd p^paza. Calvin, Nosselt,
and others, have from this circumstance understood ipya to mean
doctrina, but we have already recognized it as a peculiarity of
John, that his counter propositions do not always exactly cor
respond, (cf. on viii. 28,) at times the substance of the second
proposition goes beyond that of the first and embraces it, see
especiaUy 1 John i. 6, 7 ; it is, consequently, allowable -with
Bengel, Lucke, De Wette, to suppose that zd ipya comprehends
the XaX^stv. But a difficulty by no means slight presents itself
in V. 11, where the ipya are mentioned in antithesis to the doc
trine, and abzd, "the very works," seems to strengthen the
assumption that ipya in v. 10 must have exactly the same
meaning, (compare besides x. 38.) Although now we are will
ing to allow their full force to the objections urged by Fritszche,
(opusc. p. 109-114,) against a strict Umitation of the idea, (in
opposition to Lucke, who appears, however, completely to have
overlooked them,) yet we cannot assent to the interpretation
given by him, (and still earlier by Grotius :) " I speak not of
myself, but the Father doeth the miracles which serve for con
firmation ;" for, 1) 8i, which clearly marks an antithesis, is thus
looked upon as merely a connecting word; were it so used
here, then the epya, in order to be perspicuous, would absolute
ly require the addition of something, as perhaps, divinse lega-
tionis documenta, (proofs of a divine mission ;) 2) for consist
ency's sake, then, the meaning of "miracle" is retained by
Fritszche in v. 12 also, and pei^ova would then express a
promise of more extraordinary miraculous acts. We suppose
that even in a writer unlike John it would not seem too strange
entirely, that the same word should be used successively, in a
broader, aud then with an allusive particle indeed, in a narrow-

Comforting Discourses in reference to His death. 335
er sense, but stUl less can this excite surprise in the case of a
style -vv'hose character is so blending as John's.
V. 12-14. The discourse takes anew the direction of conso
lation, and the childlike form, as at the beginning of the chap
ter. The going to the Father corresponds to the sitting at the
right hand of God, which, in accordance with the Old Testa
ment usage, occurs in the first EvangeUsts, (Mark xvi. 19.) It
designates, consequently, the entrance on the fullness of divine
power, from which results the enlarged influence of Christ
upou the world through the agency of his Disciples, a thought
which had been expressed before, iv. 38, xii. 32, and is found
again, xvi. 10, while the thought, that the Disciples would one
day do more remarkable miracles, has nothing analogous else
where. We would say, therefore, that epya has the same mean
ing here as in v. 11, " miraculous works," nevertheless, (in the
same i=ease in which Lessing once said, that we are amiiily in
demnified for the want of Christ's miracles, by seeing his
prophecies in regard to the Church fulfilled,) the foundation
of the Church itself may be designated as the greatest of
miracles. If we only recall to our minds, that the number of
Disciples whom Christ left upon earth hardly comprehended
more than six hundred and twenty, (one hundred and twenty
in Jerusalem, five hundred in Galilee,) that on the other hand,
the result of the preaching on Pentecost alone was the conver
sion of three thousand souls, this expression does not seem
surprising. Thus Luther : " The Apostles and Christians
would advance further in their operations than Christ did, and
bring more to him than he had done while in the body on
earth. — ^Every single Christian is (through faith) such a man as
Christ the Lord himself was npon earth, and executes such
great things that he can govern the whole world in divine
.matters." — The medium of such great operations is the prayer
ful exaltation of believers to God in the name of the ascended
Saviour. On iv dvbpazt zou Xptazou, compare Harless, Brief au
die Epheser, p. 483, seq. "Ovopa is the sum of a personality,
Wahl interprets zb dvopa 'Irjaou: "Jesus, with all the ideas and
all the memories connected with his name." To speak, pray
in the name of any one, that is, haring him present to the
mind, having reference to him, and in the case before us the

336 Chap. XIV.— v. 15-19.
reference may be of a subjective sort: "in trust upon Christ,
and having his mind," and of an objective sort: "looking to
the aim he had, and to his kingdom." The designation of the
object of prayer by o, zt dv, is, indeed, altogether a general one,
nevertheless, all the objects of life should be settled with a
reference to the kingdom of God. Already by his desire that
prayer should be offered in his name, on which still more stress
is afterward laid in chap. xvi. 24, Christ claims for himself the
mediation through which prayer is heard, a claim still more
strongly put forward in the words, " that will I do," iyu) norrjam.
The necessity for this mediation is apparently excluded in chap.
xvi. 26, 27, but this appearance is simply the result of the
childlike mode of expression, for in fact the mediation lies in
that which in v. 27 of that very passage is given as the reason
for which they will be heard.
V. 15-17. Another fruit of the departure to. the Father, is
the sending of the Spirit mediated ("I will ask," ipmzrjam,) and
conditioned by it, (xvi. 7, Acts ii. 38, cf on John vii. 39.) This
Spirit is designated here, and in xv. 26, xvi. 13, as the Spirit of
truth, nvsupa zrjz dXrjdsiaz, that is the Spirit who is the principle
of truth and imparts the truth, (xvi. 13,)° consequently the gen.
vessess. et effect.; this truth, however, is not a power for the
intellect merely, but for the feeUngs and the will also, and this
Spirit is consequently called, v. 26, "the Holy Spirit," ro nv. zb
dyiov. Bengel: Veritas omnes in nobis rirtutes veras facit,
"truth makes all true virtues in us." This Spirit is distinct
from the personality of Christ, is "another comforter," dXXoz
napdxXrjzoz, and yet in v. 18 he is again conceived of as iden
tical with Christ, for he is the power emanating from the
personality of Christ, ix zou ipou X-rj^szax, says xvi. 14. This
Spirit will become so immanent in the Disciples, that he, as we
are told in Matt, xxviii. 20, of Christ himself, shall be with them
"forever," eiz rbv aiiuva. This promise is enhanced in v. 17, by
the observation, that as man is partaker of this Spirit only by
fellowship of Ufe, the world has no means of receiving him ; as
ytvmaxst is definitely distinguished from dsmpsl by obdi, we may
understand by the latter the perception, by the former the
knowledge. That the present tenses follow immediately on
this, is singular ; the future eazaji, it is true, according to Gries-

Comforting Discourses in reference to His death. 337
bach, alternates with them, but testimonies by no means light,
read eaziv, it is therefore probably the so called absolute prses.
which is here used, which expresses the circumstance, without
reference to a -particular time. On the idea expressed by
napdxXrjzoz, the Treatise by Knapp (Script, var. arg. p. 128,)
deserves a reference. The first signification of napaxaXetv, is to
call hither, then to call to one, to exhort, to comfort. Theodorus
Mopsue., Ernesti and Michselis, adopted the meaning of instruc
tor, Erasmus and Luther introduced that of comforter, a meaning
which has also been defended by Van Hengel in his adn. ad
Nov Testamentum, Amsterd. 1824, p. 40, seq. The former is
philologically inadmissible, the latter certainly suits very well
here, cf v. 18, but does not suit in v. 26, xv. 26, xvi. 7, 8. In
1 John ii. 1, the meaning of "helper" is the acknowledged
one, which is deduced from the originally passive form of the
word, (compare the Latin advocatus ;) it is current in the legal
phraseology of the Greek, (see Eeiske's Index to Demosthenes,)
is found in Philo, (see Losner,) and must have been very widely
in use in the time of Christ, as the word has gone over into the
Eabbinic also. This meaning suits in all the other, passages,
and here suits throughout, especially when we keep in view
that Christ calls himself their previous napdxXrjzoz, and in v.
18 says, he ¦will not leave them orphans.'
V. 18, 19. The words sound as though the distinction be
tween the Paraclete and Christ is removed, for inasmuch as he
returns, in order that they may not be left orphans, he returns as
a Paraclete. There are three modes in which ipxopat may be
taken, and it is important to adopt the right one. At v. 3, some
writers had already thought that a return to the final judg
ment is meant, and the same view is entertained here by
Augustine and Maldonatus, although the latter does not deny
the difficulty lying in the fact that v. 23 indisputably must
be understood of the adventus gratise. Most of the Greek
expositors, as well as Erasmus, Beza and Heumann, under-
1 Since Herder, (Christi. Schriften. SammL, iv. p. 86, seq.) this possession of
the plenitude of the Holy Spirit has been reduced to the idea of an inspiration, a
¦word, however, which designates every exaltation of emotion, whether that emotion
be ptire or false, so that in using it we still remain in the sphere of subjective
humauity ; but the Holy Ghost is the emanation from Christ in his exaltation, and
his utterance is not merely that of exalted emotion; the expression sjpiriiuating
-will correspond better -with the idea. 30

338 Chap. XIV,— v. 20-26.
stand the return of Christ at his resurrection, a riew favored
by the pixpbv, and still more by xvi. 16, 20, 21. Nevertheless,
we feel ourselves compelled to declare decidedly for the view,
in which we are preceded by Luther, Calvin, Lampe, Flatt,
(Symbolse ad ev. lohn. p. U.,) the ¦riew which refers it to the
spiritual coming through the Paraclete, and (for the present
learing out of ¦riew the reasons derived from ch. -xvi.) we would
merely observe, 1) that the connection with v. 21, 23, 28,
leads to this ¦riew, 2) that ^i^aeade, v. 19, on the opposite
view would not aUow of an explanation equally satisfactory, 3)
that the dogmatic development of the idea of the Holy Spirit
does not readily allow any other mode of apprehension. There
comes then in the Paraclete another than Christ, and yet also
Christ himself Bengel: Venio, non redeo, adventus primi
continuationes sunt csateri potius quam iterationes, "I come, not
I return, the other advents are rather continuations of the first,
than repetitions of it." J^txpbv xai, after the Hebrew ) 13;?d, so
that xai is for Sre, as in the classics also xai in similar connection,
(Viger, ed. Herm. p, 109.) Zd) first only of physical life, the
present not in place of the future, but as a designation of time
present, including the past, (see on viii. 25;) we may most
appropriately compare Eevelations i. 18, where the emphatic
predicate, " he that liveth," b ^mv, is explained by the words, ^div
eiz '^ouz aimvaz zdiv aimvmv, "I am alive forevermore ;" ^ijasade,
too, is then to be taken in the same sense, though here the
spiritual reference may also be included.
V. 20, 21. A view of the effect of his exaltation, similar to
that which our Lord had given, viii. 28, in speaking of its in
fluence on his enemies ; the promise that we have here, how
ever, embraces more than that, for it implies that they should
know him by experience as an internal principle, and v. 21
gives prominence to the conditions of the internal perception
of Christ. Although the love which John defines is common
ly considered as only a bliss of sensibility, yet it is in John
preeminently that the moral feature of love, the unity of ¦will
with the' object beloved, is constantly made prominent in the
strictest manner, (1 John iii. 18, 24;) e;f(uv, Augustine: Qui
iiabet in memoria et servat in vita, " he that hath them in his
memory and keepeth them in his life."

Comforting Discourses in reference to His death. 339
V. 22-24. Another of the interruptions which testify to the
historical character of these communications. Judas Thadde
us, (Matt. X. 3,) who did not understand the spiritual nature of
that revelation, and conformably to the current view, expected
a manifestation of Messiah in glory before the whole world, is
astonished that this revelation is to be confined to the limited
circle of the Disciples who serve him. Kai in a question, as in
ix. 36. On the phrase, zi yiyovev dzi, Lucke remarks, that the
Hebrew character has been falsely imputed to it by Grotius,
but the eridence that such is its character is found in Ecclesias.
rii. 10 ; for the Greek, cf. Kypke, Observ. The reply of our
Lord, which especially in the negative part is devoid of formal
exactness, is properly only an impressive repetition of v. 21,
that his manifestation does not take place in an external man
ner, as that of a spirit perhaps, but by an internal appropriation.
V. 25, 26. The discourse already verges to its close, (v. 30.)
What yet remains, our Lord commits to the teaching of the
Spirit, who wiU come "in his name," iv zip dvbpazt abzou, that
is, as his representative. As the words, 8t8d^si, "he will
teach," and bnopvrjast, "bring to remembrance," are placed
here side by side ¦with each other, it seems that the Spirit will
also teach something new, in the same way, xvi. 12, 16, with
which XV. 15 is not in conflict. Now on the one side the
Church of Eome, on the other, as Calvin has observed, the
Fanatics and Pantheists, have with this word of our Lord sup
ported themselves in the assumption, that a promise has been
given of a continued revelation, whether through the Church
as its organ, or through indi^riduals. To cut off this interpre
tation, Grotius has referred the & slnov to the ndvza, which
. 8t8d^st governs, Calrin and Gerhard have taken xai as explan
atory. First of all let it be noted, that ndvza is not to be taken
in a perfectly universal sense, but refers only to what has gone
before, cf on xvi. 13, xv. 5, and it may be then conceded that
the 8t8d^et designates a distinct feature from that regarded by
bnopv^aei, but after all, it merely amounts to the question,
whether the blade in its relation to the seed, the stalk in its
relation to the root, is to be called something else, or the same.
This much is fixed and follows especially from xvi. 14, that the
Spirit ¦will only unfold what Christ has already given in prin-

340 Chap. XIV. — v. 27-29.
ciple, cf. also, 1 John ii. 27, and observe how Paul, in opposi
tion to those who would complete Christianity from without by
philosophical tenets, urges the fact, that all the treasures of wis
dom Ue hidden in the counsels of redemption, (Coloss. ii. 8.)
Hence, also, especially the controversial attacks of the Lutheran
theologians upon the Church of Eome were directed not so
much against the novelties of teachings as such, as against
these novelties in so far as they were out of harmony with the
original ground. We say, therefore, that 8i8d?et certainly refers
to the doctrines of the propitiation, of the Church, &c., which
were not stated in detail by Christ himself, and bnopvijaei to
that invigorating influence, in virtue of which, what they had
heard at an earlier period presented itself in new freshness
to the souls of the Apostles.
V. 27. Amid the storms which lowered before them, their
inward peace would prove abiding, resting as it did on this,
that Christ had overcome the world, (xvi. 33 ;) when then, after
his resurrection, as it were with a peace won by struggle, he
stood among them, it was with the words so full of significance,
eipijvrj bptv : Peace be unto you, (xx. 19, 21, 26 ;) in virtue of
the peculiar fountain of this peace, its own nature is peculiar,
a fact pointed out by the words, "not as the world giveth,"
ob xadmz xzX. So peculiar was this very blessing esteemed, that
"grace and peace," X'^P"^ ^"' ^^P'j^^i became the form of saluta
tion among Christians. It is possible that the form was usual
in bidding farewell ; in the Old Testament, it is true, " peace be
to you," ufi Di'7t^, was used as a form of comforting, but in the
Eabbinical, "to give peace," Dibty ]n\, means "to greet," tr.
Pirke, Aboth. c. 4, in Arabic, ,^«XwJf JlS, "he spoke the
peace," is equivalent to, "he took his departure," and in the
Syriac, ^|,m^ V^^^Ql^OI,^, "thej gave each other peace,"
(Assem. Bibl. Orient, i. p. 376.)
V. 28, 29. In the preceding verses Christ had expressed
the thought, that his departure to the Father was something to
be desired for the Disciples' sake, (xvi. 7,) now he mentions the
consequence of that event as to his own person, cf. the expres
sion of his longing after a retum to the Father, in chap. xvii.
5. The words, " my Father is greater, pei(^mv, than I," has been

Comforting Discourses in reference to His death. 841
made an important support for the Arians and Socinians. The
orthodox polemical theology has repUed in three modes; a
number of the Anti-Nicene fathers, and Athanasius himself,
vindicate the inferiority from the relation of the Father as
"unbegotten," dyevvrjaia, and of the Logos as generated, and
with them, of recent date, Olshausen concurs; Augustine refers
to the distinction between God incarnate and God in himself;
Chrysostom justifies the expression as one of accommodation
to the infirmity of the Disciples. When, however, after the
Eeformation, the doctrine of the status exinanitionis and exal-
tationis was developed more fully, the interpretation of Augus
tine was opposed, on the ground that the inferiority must con
sist in something which the return of Christ to the Father
would fully rempve, consequently, not in the humanity itself,
but only in the humanity in its state of lowliness, thus Luther :
" For the kingdom which I shall receive at the right hand of
the Father is over all, and it is better that I should pass from
the earthly condition of meanness and infirmity into the power
and dominion in which the Father is." Calvin : Non coniert hic
Christus patris divinitatem cum sua, nee humanam suam naturam
di^rinse patris essentise comparat, sed potius statum prsesentem
ccelesti glorise, ad quam mox recipiendus sit, " Christ does not
here compare the God-head of his Father with his own, nor his
human nature with the divine essence of the Father, but rather
his present condition with that heavenly glory, into which he
was soon to be received." [According to the sense, Storr cor
rectly makes psi^mv equivalent to beatior. There is no refer
ence in it to the ample protection which his Disciples and his
cause would thereby gain, (Theophylact, Euthymius, Lucke,
DeWette,) for the subject of discourse here is, that which is
gladdening as to his own person. — The Protestant interpreters
explain it either exclusively of his subordination according to
the human nature, inasmuch as this alone could go to the
Father, (Hunnius, Gerhard,) or of his subordination according
to the status exinanitionis, (Luther, Calrin, Beza, Luthardt,)
or by a reference to both, (Eras. Schmidt, Calorius, Quenstedt.)
Cf Suicer, Thesaurus, ii. 1368 ; Quenstedt, Theol. didac-
polem. i. 374. Only the humanity as humbled can be spoken
o^ for of the exalted humanity the psi^mv in this sense no
X 30*

342 Chap. XIV.— v. 30, 31.
longer holds good. Augustine : Quia naturse humanse gratu-
landum_ est eo, quod sic assumpta est a Verbo Hnigenito, ut
immortalis constitueretur in coelo.] — The repetition of the ex
pression, xiii. 19, does not seem here in v. 29 to have its fit
occasion, but we have probably to gather from the entire con
text of the discourse, that the revelation of the power of Christ
in his glory would furnish testimony to his dignity. .
V. 30, 31. The Eedeemer perceives in spirit the approach
ing steps of the betrayer, and sees in what he does the influ
ence of the Prince of the world, who through him wishes to
overthrow the kingdom of truth — xai is adversative. 'Ev ipoi
— obdsv would be most easily interpreted if, with De Wette, we
could venture to make the phrase, "he has nothing in me," (er
hat nichts an mir,) interchangeable with "he cannot harm
me," (er kann mir nichts anhaben,) which, 'however, is not
allowable even in German ; Meyer tries to reach the same idea
by resolring the phrase thus : " in me, that is, within reach of
my personality, he has nothing," equivalent to saying, "he has
no power over me." As this interpretation also is violent, the
exposition which takes ixeiv in the sense, " to have influence,"
would suggest itself, were it not that the cases are rare in which
it has this meaning without being followed by an infinitive, see
Passow, 4th ed. ii. p. 588. If this difficulty be regarded as
weighty, nothing remains but to take exeiv as meaning "to
possess," and then either with a majority of the older writers,
supplying nihil juris, (no right,) or to take ob8sv in the sense
of ob8kv i'Stov, " nothing that he can call his own, that is, noth
ing sinful," thus Augustine, Olshausen. But it may well be
questioned whether we are here to look in John for the
thought expressed, Heb. ii. 14, that by means of sin the
deril has the power of death over men. We would much
more naturally expect here the thought expressed in x. 18, that
Christ in encountering death rested under no outward neces
sity to do so. To this view v. 31 leads us, where the ivzoXij
" command " is the same mentioned in x. 18.

CHAPTER XV.

The Allegory of the Vine. — ^v. 1-6.
The discourses that follow to chap xviiii. are connected with
each other; that they were uttered on the way as they went by
night out of the city (Grotius,) is hardly supposable, at least in
the case of the prayer, ch. 17. It thus' seems probable, that in
the very intent of going, it happened, as is wont with persons
about to depart, the impulse to communicate more still detained
the Sariour in the room, (Gerhard.) We may compare the
repeated forms of closing in Paul's Epistles, for example in the
Epistle to the Eomans.
V. 1. To everything that is uttered in this chapter,- as in the
allegory with which it opens, the feeling that the hour of
separation has come, imparts its tone. Departing, yet remain
ing — ^this is the thought that lies at the root of this beautiful
allegory. We may imagine that it was suggested by some
outward occasion, a ¦rine perhaps trailing by the side Of the
window. In Psalm lxxx. 9-12, also, the congregation of Israel
had been compared to a rine nurtured by God, and sending its
tendrils far and ¦wide. The natural relation between this plant
and its branches shooting forth in all the glories of their noble
fruit, is realized in its most perfect sense ( )^ dXrjdtvij ) in the
spiritual relations between Christ and those that are his. That
which Paul says of the mystical unity of the Eedeemer ¦with his
Church, has found its most beautiful expression in this passage
in John ; it is impossible here to be mistaken in referring this
discourse to a higher relation than that which subsists between
teacher and pupil in general ; it epeaks of *n essential unity

344 Chap. XV.— v. 2-6.
mediated through faith. The drapery is not that of the para
ble, it is no event in history, but a relation in the world of
nature which is spoken of, and this is employed from the com
mencement, to express a spiritual relation, so that the literal
and figurative meaning run over into each other, cf. iv ipoi, v.
2 and 4. Under yempybz, equivalent to dpneXoupybz, Luke xiii.
7, we have here at the same time to find the idea of a possessor ;
the Father, who hath sent the Son into the wPrld, is the
possessor and fosterer of the vine together with its branches.
V. 2. There is a distinction made between two kinds of
branches, unfruitful and fruitful, the al'pei in relation to the
former is explained in v. 6. 'Ev ipoi cannot express the rela
tion as it is in fact, but only as it seems to be, since a real
connection ¦with Christ must of necessity bring fruit with it.
The fruit-bearing of the genuine branches is subject to the law
of gradual progression, and presupposes the fostering care of
God. This is figuratively designated by xadaipetv, " to purify,
purge," (verbal play with ai'petv,) by which in the language of
vine-dressers is understood the " deputatio," the pruning away
of the suckers, "that is the bastard or false shoots which bring
no fruit and do nothing but waste the sap, which the good
fruitful branches should have," (Luther.) In the application,
the image may be taken yet more strictly, and by giVing prom
inence to the feature of pain which cutting brings, may be
referred to purification through affiiction, (James i. 1-4.) It
may be asked, whether the fruit-bearing is to be understood
ad extra or ad intra, whether of the extension of the Gospel
(Eom. i. 13, John iv. 36,) or of gro^wth in spiritual life. As
regards the thing, the two are inseparable, for he that is in tho
light, will also shine; to sustain the second of the meanings
we might cite notetv ou8sv, (in v. 5,) and v. 8 ; and on the other
hand for the first, v. 16 — but it is in general best not to separate
them. It is very probable that the Eedeemer had been led by
the imperfection which was then characteristic of these very
Disciples, to point them to growth under the fostering care of
the Father. And this is the thought which leads to v. 3.
V. 3, 4. As the Eedeemer, in xiii. 10, 11, had already declared
that his Disciples were in the main already pure, and needed
but the purifying of the extremities, he here returns to this

The Allegory of the Vine. 345
ground. In Coloss. iii. 9, 10, it is also said that they who have
already put on the new (viov) man, must continually become new,
(dvaxatvoupevov.) The word received in faith, is a principle
ever purifying more and more, ( v. 7, xvii. 17, Acts xv. 9.)
According to Paul's explication of the doctrine, we are to
understand by this "word," Xbyoz, especially "the word of the
righteousness of God," Xbyoz z^z dtxatoabvrjz zou &eou. As v. 4
refers to the necessity of remaining in Christ, (viii. 31,) it con
tains at the same time an allusion to the necessary unfolding
of that principle. Kayd) iv bptv at first seems to be capable of
no other construction than as a promise, (Euthymius, Calvin,
Lucke,) but if we consider v. 5, the sense of the Evangelist
seems to be that which is given by Bengel : Facite, ut maneatis
in me et ut ego maneam in vobis, " so act that ye may remain in
me and that I may remain in you." Augustine thus expresses
the diversity in their mutual relation : Ita in vite palmites sunt,
ut riti non conferant sed inde accipiant, unde vivant; ita vero
¦ritis est in palmitibus, «.t vitale alimentum subministret eis,
non sumat ab eis, " the branches are in the vine not so as to
impart anything to it, but so as to derive their life from it ; the
¦rine IS in the branches in such a way as to minister to them
the vital aUment, not in such a way as to receive it from them."
V. 5, 6. A strengthened expression of the same thought.
The abiding in Christ through faith is so necessary a condition
to the bringing forth fruit, that the one is not possible without
the other. That ob8iv is not to be taken as absolutely universal,
but is to be limited to the sphere of reUgion, and particularly
to inward and outward activity in the kingdom of God, is self-
apparent in this passage, as in a similar restriction of ndvza in
1 John ii. 20. The result of not abiding in him is made yet
more obvious than it had been by al'psi m v. 2. The withered
branch is used as fuel, (Matt. vi. 30,) in which may lie an allu
sion to the fire of hell, similar to that in Heb. vi. 8, and then
the words "he is cast forth," ^Xrjd^vat e^m, correspond with the
separation of the bastard wheat mentioned in Matt. xiii. 41.
The aor. i^Xijdrj and i^rjpdvdrj, explained by Grotius as designa
ting "what is usually done," are rather, as also i8o$dadrj, v. 8,
to be interpreted, as has been done by Kiihner: (ii. p. 78,)
" The aorist like the perfect, but with far greater emphasis, is

346 Chap. XV. — r. 7-17.
used to designate future events, of whose impending occurrence
the speaker is as firmly conrinced as he is of facts that have
already occurred."

Further Promises and Exhortations in regard to abiding
IN Christ. — ^v. 7-17.
V. 7, 8. If a connection between v. 7 and 8 is to be established,
it must be this, that v. 8 subjoins the reason of the promise in
V. 7. The medium through which the fruit-bearing of the
Disciples is brought about is faith, and prayer is an essential
exhibition of that faith, (xiv. 18.) The hearing of prayer is
promised to the widest extent, but nevertheless has its limita
tion, in the fact that only such prayer is spoken of as proceeds
from inmost union with Christ, and herein consequently lies
also a direction how to pray. In iSo^dadrj, as we have observed
on V. 6, there is a prolepsis of the future. If we take I'va after
the relative more strictly, we must find in the verb the idea of
striving ; see, however, v. 12, and what is said on vi. 50. Instead
of yevrjaeade, Lachmann reads yivrjade, which is supported,
however, by testimony so slight as to stamp it at once as a
mere marginal correction; the xdi is the xai of sequence, "and
so will ye be." On the dative ipoi, cf. Winer, p. 198.
Vk 9-11. An explanation more at large in regard to the
nature of remaining in Christ, and in v. 11 a statement of the
object of the previous discourse. The relation of love between
Christ and his Disciples is, acccording to v. 10, an ethical one,
it rests on the same ethical basis as the love of the Father to the
Son, (riii. 29,) for dydnrj -fj ip-fj cannot mean amor mei, "love of
me," (Grotius,) consistently either with philology or with the
connection. In regard to zrjpstv, see remarks on viii. 61. —
V. 11. What had been said of their remaining one with the

departing Eedeemer, was under these circumstances a source
of joy ; in the same way xvii. 13, by which passage, too, the
¦fj X'^P^ 'h ^/"y ^®^® ^^ *° ^^ interpreted, cf also, -^ ^ip'rjvrj j ipij^,
xiv. 27. As it is with the peace which he imparts and which
proceeds from him, so also is it with his joy, (Calvin, De
Wette.), 'H X"-?"- ^^pobzai, is a phrase peculiar to John, 1

Further Promises and ExIhortations. 347
John i. 4, 2 John 12, found also in his Gospel, xvi. 24, xvU. 13,
and expresses the absolute character of this joyousness.
V. 12, 13. Among the " commandments," ivzoXae, men
tioned in V. 10, that all-embracing "commandment," ivzoXij,
which was delivered, chap. xiii. 34, is made prominent, and by
the words, "As I have loved you," xadd)z -ijydnrjaa bpdz, v. 13
is developed to its highest capacity. The final proposition with
"va in V. 13, dependent on zauzrjz, serves here, as in 3 John 4,
to periphrase the infinitive. To bring the expression into con
sonance with Eom. v. 7, 8, 10, we might say, that by the
offering up of Christ, the »Disciples were first converted from
enemies into true friends; yet John had not this reference dis
tinctly in his mind, and the discourse certainly had in ¦riew
only the relation of friends which already existed.
V. 14-16. An intimation that they were not yet to the
fullest extent worthy of the exalted name of friends, but were
to render themselves more and more worthy of it, cf. v. 10,
they obtained this name for the time, only because of the con
fidential relation in which they were united with Christ. The
words, " all things that I have heard of my Father I have made
known unto you," ndvza — bptv, at first seem to be in conflict
with xvi. 12, but rather are the words, "that I have heard,"
8. rjxouaa, to be limited to what the Eedeemer had received to
impart to them at that time, (xvii. 8.) The formation of this
relation of friendship had originated with our Lord. The
ixXo-yj is not simply " a choosing " to the Apostolic office, but
at the same time "the choosing out of the world," ixXoyij ix
zou xbapou, (v. 19;) the words, "that ye should go," bndyeiv,
pertain only to the picturesque delineation, (Matt. v. 24, xviii.
15,) the fruit (whether in them, or in others,) is of such a sort
as to continue in life eternal, and by it is brought about so
intimate a relation with the Father, that their prayer finds
hearing, cf. remarks on v. 7.
V. 17. Tauza (instead of zouzo, see Boissonade, on Aristsen.
p. 436,) might be referred to the subsequent proposition tva xzX,
so that this love among one another, would, as it were, be com
mended as a compensation for the enmity they would encoun
ter in the world, and of which v. 18, seq. speaks, but zauza in
John always refers to what has preceded, (v, 11, 21, xiv, 25,

348 Chap. XV. — v. 18-27.
xvi. 1, 25, 33, xrii. 1, xvui. 1.) Thus then it is rather the pre
ceding discourses (and commandments,) which are once more
summed up according to their main scope.
Enmity of the World toward the Disciples. — v. 18-27.
V. 18-20. As the principle which -wrought in the Eedeemer
continues to work through his Disciples, (xrii. 14,) and as for
the reasons mentioned, chap. rii. 7, the world encounters hira
in a hostile manner, this experience is one which the Disciples
can not be«spared. The expression in xiii. 16, is here brought
to remembrance in a ditterent application. Ei, vnth the indic
ative, V. 20, supposes two cases, without any further indication
which of the two will occur, v. 21 first shows that the occur
rence of the negative case is anticipated.
V. 21-26. By dpapzia, v. 22-24, is understood by the ex
positors, as in ix. 41, the sin of unbelief, against which view
De Wette urges the objection, that it is self-apparent that this
sin could not have been charged upon them if Jesus had not
come and preached. We think, that it follows from v. 23, that
by dpapzia, in v. 22, is intended the guilt of hatred against
divine things in general, so that the connection of the thought
is this : The hatred toward you rests upon aversion to me, and
this rests upon ignorance of the Father. Had I not appeared,
this ignorance, and the aversion to what is dirine connected
with it, would have been comparatively guiltless, but after I
have revealed the Father by my appearing and by my in.struc-
tions, they are the more culpable. As in x. 37, xiv. 11, the works
are introduced as a yet more striking testimony, (zd epya forms
the climax to iXdXrjaa,) and these are regarded as at once a tes
timony for the Father and the Son, (xvi. 3.) In regard to the
double xai in v. 24, see on ri. 36. The quotation from Ps. Ixix.
6, in V. 25, answers the same end as the one in chap. xiii. 18.
V. 26, 27. As -riii. 28 points to the future for consolation
against the prevaiUng unbelief, so also here, (xvi. 8.) That the
words, "which proceedeth," ixnopeuezae, can not be understood
of an immanent process in the God-head, consequently, can
neither be used for nor against the doctrine of the Greek
Church in regard to the " procession of the Holy Spirit," Beza

Enmity of the World toward the Disciples. 349
had already observed. [According to the Ancient Church,
this ixnopsusadai involves the origin within the Trinitarian
relation, of the essence of the nveupa; the Greek Church taught,
consequently, that 8ia z. ulou, ix z. nazpbz ixnopebezai z. nv.
(Damascenus, de fide orthodox, i. 12.) The Latin Church, on
the contrary, as she transferred to the procession of the Holy
Ghost what is said of his sendirig from the Father and the Son,
believed herself justified in adding thefilioque, (Gerhard, Loci,
i. 127.) It may certainly be a question whether the ixnop. is
to be conceived of as a metaphorical designation of relation
without reference to time, as the Lutheran interpreters, (with a
few exceptions,) and also in our day, Olshausen, Lucke, Baum
garten-Crusius, regard it, or is to be taken as parallel histori
cally with nipnetv, (Beza, Cocceius, Lampe.) Neither the argu
ment of Gerhal-d for the former view, nor that of Lampe
against it, renders a decision secure, (Twesten, Dogmatik,
ii. 241.] — Although the " testimony," papzupia, of the Spirit
is mediated through the human " testimony," papzupia, of
the Disciples, yet the latter is here made coordinate with
the former. Luther : " When ye shall have been comforted by
the Holy Ghost, and your mind has been supported by fixed
truth, he will impel you to testify of me. For first, he will
give testimony internally in your hearts, and then outwardly
by miracles and through your confession and preaching."
Kai — 8i, " but also," the present papzupetze, expresses the
enduring character, and is equivalent to pdpzupsz iazs, (Acts i.
18,) the present, pez' ipou iazs, includes the past, as viii. 26 ;
with dn dpxrjz, cf Acts i. 21, 22, John himself bears this
testimony, 1 John i. 1. We have here then both the historical
argument, from which the fides humana proceeds, and the
testimonium spiritus, on which the fides divina rests.

81

CHAPTER XVI.

Christ announces more distinctly the persecutions to which
his Disciples would be exposed, and comforts them by point
ing them to the working of the Holy Spirit. — v. 1-16.
V. 1-3. Tauza alludes to xv. 18-27, (cf remarks on xv. 17,)
there follows, however, an expanding repetition of the same
train of thought ; in v. 2-4 is depicted the opposition of the
world, and then is given the comforting reference to the operas
tion of the Holy Spirit. In v. 2 the Eedeemer, as the words,
" sKall put you out of the synagogues," " think that he doeth
God service," dnoauvaydiyouz and Xazpsiav npoatpipetv zip deip
prove, had in his eye the species of persecution which would
shortly threaten his Disciples, persecution on the part of the
Jews. The less important is the exclusion from the syna-.
gogue, (ix. 22,) with dXXd, "yet more," (Acts xix. 2,) the
severer one is added. "Iva, periphrasis of the infinitive, as in
xii. 23, xiii. 1. Ilpoaipipeiv, the solemn term for the offering
of sacrifice, so that Xazpeia does not thereby obtain the mean
ing of sacrifice, but only a more special reference to it. Inas
much as heretics were persecuted for the sake of God, the per
secution itself appeared as a serrice, a worship of God. But
this blindness was not guiltless, inasmuch as the true know
ledge of God must have led them to acknowledge the cause of
Christ, (xv. 23.)
V. 4-6. But — that is, although this, in their defect of dirine
knowledge, might be expected. That Christ had not spoken
" at the beginning," if dpxrjz, of these persecutions, appears to
be iu conflict with Matt. v. 10, x. 16. When Bengel replies :
(350)

Christ comforts his Disciples 361
Dixerat de odio mundl sed -minus aperte et parcius, " he had
spoken of the hatred of the world, but less openly and more
sparingly," and when I observed : " Our Lord now dwells upon
it," De Wette gainsays the view, and says: "This belongs to
the hushing up style of harmony so much m favor." Such a
dejclaration, however, cannot be made without the grossest mis
apprehension of the character of these last discourses, and
without hermeneutic inconsequence. This expositor himself
has repeatedly acknowledged the hovering character and the
inexactness in John's style, especially in these last discourses,
for example, in x. 26, xv. 14, 15, xvi. 5, 10. It was most natu
ral at the time of Christ's departure, that his glance should be
particularly directed to the sufferings yet impending, and no
where else has he spoken so repeatedly and at large of the
opposition of the world to his Disciples, as in chap. xv. to xvii.
That it is the departure which leads to these thoughts is shown
by the ozt — ^p'/jv. In the same way, too, on v. 5, De Wette
remarks, that there is a contradiction to xiii. 36, xiv. 5, and as
a solution of the difficulty in this place, where the Evangelist
seems to come in conflict with himself, merely makes the
remark : " There is a want of precision of statement, as in x.
26, &c." Chrj'sostom already attached to the question of
Christ, the sense : Hitherto ye could ask me so many questions,
and now ye are dumb and plunged into sorrow. Yet Christ
does not merely reprove them in a general way for asking no
questions, but — proceeding on his own ¦riew of the glorious
issues of his " going his way td the Father," bndyeiv npbz rbv
nazipa — he encourages them to allow themselves.to be absorbed
in this thought.
y. 7-11. He gives prominence to that result, which would
furnish the most direct comfort to his Disciples, as in xiv. 12,
seq., XV. 26. Instead of the dp-ijv, dp-^v, "verily, verily," of the
first of those passaged, there is here an assurance, in a childlike
form, of the truth of what he utters, as in xiv. 2. For the
reasons why the coming pf the Spirit has been connected with
his departure, see remarks on vii. 37. Augustine : Si alimenta
tenera, quibus vos alui, non subtraxero, solidum cibum non
esurietis, "if I should not take away the. tender aUment on
which I have fed you, ye would not hunger after solid food."

352 Chap. XVL — v. 11.
The beneficent working of the Spirit, is first of all that exten
sion of truth in the world, of -which mention is made in xv. 26,
since the world will be convinced of its own unbelief, of the
innocence of Christ, and of the absolute triumph which Christ
is to gain over the kingdom of evil, (this "reproving," eXeyxoz,
continually moves on through the history of the world, cf. the
present ntazeuouai,) the beneficent operation mentioned in
verses 12, 13, is consequently the same spoken of xiv. 26, the
development of the truth in the Disciples themselves. 'EXdmv
giring clearness to the representation, as in Eph. ii. 17. 'EXi-
yX^f^ designates a conviction on a charge of wrong, which, iu
as far as it has that character, is to be conceived of as not
without a certain pain. Since Beza, Bengel, it has been usual
to get the more particular aim of the three substantives in v. 8,
by adding to complete the sense, the subjects derived from v.
9 to 11, consequently "of the sin of the world, of the right
eousness of Christ, of the judgment of the prince of this
world," nspl dpapziaz zou xbapou, nepl dtxcuoauvrjz zoi) Xptazou,
nepl xpiasmz rou dpxovzoz zou xbapou, according to which inter
pretation the iXiyxeiv embraces the begetting of faith in the
persecutors. Another exposition, in which pou is not added td
Stxatoauvrjz to complete the sense, has again, at a recent date,
been maintained by De Wette. 'EXiyxeiv, according to this
view, designates in part externally the triumphant preponder
ance of the truth, so that its opponents are brought to shame,
in part internally the effecting of a clear consciousness of guilt ;
the words: "of sin, because they believe not on me," nepl
dpapziaz ozt ob ntazeuouaiv siz ips, are intended to express the
idea, that the world over against the growing mass of believers, is
to be exhibited more and more as standing under the wrath of
God, and for the very reason that it believes not ; " of righteous
ness," nepl dtxatoabvrjz, designates the light and Ufe which Christ
has brought into the world, (the righteousness, therefore, both
of Christ and of believers,) and which will be carried on
by the Spirit, to victory ; the "judgment," xpiatz, is the result
of the conviction alike as regards the "sin," dpapzia, and the
"righteousness," 8txatoauvrj. Calvin, also, gives a similar expla
nation : " The Spirit, conformably to the order of salvation, will
first work the knowledge, that out of Christ sin reigns in the

Christ comforts his Disciples. 353
world, then he will work the hungering after true righteous
ness, that is after justification by faith, (Matt. v. 3, 6,) then
finally the conviction, that only through Christ this want of
harmony may be removed." This interpretation can plead for
itself, especially the fact that on the view it presents it is easier
to account for 8txatoauvrjz standing absolutely, than if after the
ordinary -riew we understand by it the personal innocence of
Christ, in which case a pou could hardly be dispensed ¦with.
Not a few of the older expositors have for this reason under
stood 8txatoauvrj, in Paul's sense, of the 8txatoauvrj ix zou -deou,
the justification by faith, Cyrill, Augustine, Erasmus, Luther,
Melancthon, Lampe and Storr. Melancthon says : Hanc ipsam
rationis humanse opinionem accusaturum esse spiritum affirmat,
quse fingit homines esse justos, id est habentes remissionem
peccatorum propter propria honesta exercitia et virtutes, "he
declares that the Spirit will accuse this very opinion of human
reason, which feigns that men are righteous, that is have remis
sion of sin, on account of creditable actions and rirtues of their
o^wn." In this case v. 10 has the meaning: "for after my
propitiating death I will ascend to my Father, to make a way
of access for believers into my kingdom." TUe fact that
Christ does not speak of his death, but of his glorification, as
the origin of the righteousness, is not in conflict with this mode
of understanding it, since his death, only by victory over death
becomes a death with propitiatory power, (John viii. 28, Eom.
iv. 25.) Nevertheless, the doctiinal type connected with this view
of "the righteousness," is entirely peculiar to Paul, and stands
in connection vrith an entire circle of expressions, (Storr, de
voce dixatoz et cognatis, Opusc. ii.) Where John uses the word
dtxatoauvrj, it designates unblamableness of conduct, (1 John
ii. 29, iii. 7, 10,) and it is worthy of note, that he is the very
author who has given to Christ the predicate b 8ixaioz, (1 John
ii. 29, iii. 7.) This circumstance stiengthens the expositor in the
conriction, that in v. 10 in the case of Stxatoauvrjz the subject is
to be drawn from the explanatory proposition following ozt, as
in the two other sentences, v. 9, 11. • Against the view of De
Wette, however, remain besides the special objections : 1) " The
statement that the world out of communion with Christ, is
unredeemed, and so long as it believes not, rests under the
31*

854 Chap. XVI. — v. 12,18.
wrath pf God, belongs to the doctrinal preaching of the Gospel
to those yet unacquainted with the Gospel, not to the eXeyxoz,
of the world which actually persecutes the Gospel." 2) "The
words, 'because they beUeve not,' 5zi ob ntazeuouaiv, do not
state the operation of the unbelief, but the fact that the world
is unbelie^ring," (Lucke.) That the Stxatoauvrj designates the
unblamableness of Chnst, is the interpretation of Chrysostom,
Euthymius, Beza, Bengel, Tittmann, Lucke and Olshausen,
though the last author connects with it a reference to the
dtxaioauvrj in believers : " The Spirit con^rinces of the righteous
ness, for he reveals how the Sariour, who no longer is the object
of corporeal vision, yet works invisibly and perfects the internal
life." The absence of the poi) after dixouoauvrj, will excite less
surprise, when we compare vii. 17, x. 29, and other passages.
To the view maintained by us, no slight support is given by the
analogous thought in 1 Timothy iii. 16 : " was manifest in the
flesh, justified (i8txatd)drj,) in the Spirit." — The explanatory
proposition, v. 10 : " because I go to my Father, and ye see me
no more," Zzt — ¦^dsmpstzi pe, certainly makes some difficulty in
the way of our exposition ; we must agree ¦with De Wette, that
instead of the negative xal obxizt -dempetzi pe, we would rather
:have looked for xal bpstz dempetzi pe, (xiv. 19,) inasmuch as the
experience of the operation of the Spirit with and in the Disci
ples, must certainly confirm the faith in the 8ixatoauvrj, whether
we understand by it his personal holiness, or the life which
emanates from him. There is certainly in the case of John a
special temptation to suppose, that while he wrote this nega
tive proposition, he actuaUy in thoue;ht included with it the
positive bpetz 8k dempetzi ps, as xiv. 19. If this be regarded,
however, as untenable, it may be enough to say, that the
expression merely conveys in a negative way what is presented
positively by npbz zbv nazipa bndym, (I go to my Father.) In
asmuch as the departure to the Father is the condition on which
depend all the operations of Christ glorified, there Ues in it,
also, the reason whereby the Spirit will convince the world that
Christ died as a spotless -offering. — On the tenor of v. 11, cf
remarks on xii. 31.
V. 12, 18. From the efficacy of the Spirit on the world, the
discourse makes a transition to his efficacy in the Disciples.

Christ comforts his Disciples. 365
The greatest truths, which formed the centre of the Aposties'
doctrine, as that of the propitiation, that of the Church, of the
abrogation of the law for believers, and various other truths,
had been indeed intimated by Christ in detached sentences, or
had been expressed in principle, but the Disciples were not
ripe for a full comprehension of them. BaazdQeev, used also
in Epictetus, Enchir. xxix. 5, of sufficiency of power, and not
merely of intellectual power, but also, as this lies in the nature
of religious intelligence, sufficiency of the ethico-religious
development, cf X'^P^^^i Matt. xix. 12. The reconciUation with
XV. 16, lies in the fact that the things which they could not yet
bear, Christ had not heard for them. Ildaav zrjv dX-jdetav,
(Cod. A B, Origen, eiz '^v dX. ndaav,) should not have been
translated by Luther, [so EngUsh version, also. Tr.J "into
all truth," (Markv. 12, he translates correctly,) but should have
been rendered, "into the whole of the truth." It is the domain
then of Christian truth, which through Christ has come into the
world, (i. 17,) ¦which has been opened through its whole extent to
the Apostles. There is included here all that is communicated
in regard to the expansion of the kingdom of God, (according to
CaMn, only what is taught of its spiritual nature,) and in regard
to the eschatology, Bengel: Maxime hue spectat- apocalypsis
scripta per loannem, "the Eevelation of John pertains most
of all to what is here spoken of." In the proposition whose
form is so childlike, ob ydp — XaX^aee: "He shall not speak of
himself, but whatsoever he shall hear that shall he speak," the
thought, as also in v. 14, obviously is, that the communication
shall not be ' something absolutely new, but the unfolding of
that given to them by Christ, cf. on xiv. '26. As a matter of
course, too, the "things to come," ipxbpzva, are included in
"whatsoever he shall hear," ^aa dv dxoua-rj, (cf. dvayyeXst, v. 14,
15, 25.) According to Lucke, after " whatsoever he shall hear,"
dxoua-rj, we should supply ix zou nazpbz, "of the Father," to
sustain which, he appeals to xv. 15, 26 ; aciording to Kling and
Olshausen, because of v. 14, 16, we should supply ix zou ulou,
"of the Son." Luther says.; "There is a holy conversation
between the Father and the Word, and the Spirit is the hearer."
The words in v. 16, ndvza — iaze, " all things that the Father
hath are mine," would lead to the belief that ix zou nazpbz

356 Chap. XVI. — v. 14-21.
should be supplied after dxouarj, and that v. 14, 15, are designed
to expand this thought and to include the Son. According to
the doctrine of the Eoman Catholic Church, this b8rjf^aee is
continued in the Church of Eome also, since even of the
Apostolic times it was still true in a certain measure: ob
8uvaade ^aazd^eev dpze, "ye cannot bear them now ;" according
to the Quakers and Mystics, this revelation of the Spirit goes
on iu the illuminated in general or in particular theosopbists,
according to the Hegelians, in the entire Christian world, in
which the principle of free subjectivity is ever unfolding
more widely. That Christ had the Apostles alone in his mind,
is proven, especially by xiv. 26, and xv. 26, 27 ; inasmuch then
as the ndaa ¦^ dX-fjdeea is promised to them, there cannot exist
between the Church and the Apostles that relation of further
development which existed between the Apostles and Christ.
In consonance with this, is the consciousness of the oldest post-
apostolic teachers, for the Epistles of Barnabas, of Clemens
Eomanus, and of Polycarp, prove that they acknowledged a
specific difference between themselves and the Apostles, and
acknowledged the Apostolic teaching as the absolute rule for
themselves and the whole Christian world, see the passages in
Tholuck's Comment, z. Br. an d. Heb. 2d ed. p. 96. Conse
quently the further development in the Church through the
Spirit, can only be regarded as one pertaining to the form, cf.
the fuller discussion in the introduction to Ep. to the Hebrews,
chap. vi.
V. 14, 16. All religious truth within Christianity, as regards
its centre, rests upon Christ himself, what, therefore, the Spirit
receives and reveals more fully, must serve to glorify Christ,
and must proceed from Christ as its source.
V. 16. This communication of the Spirit, in which Christ
himself returns, is soon to follow, cf xiv. 19. Although the
ndltv pixpbv, and especially the description of the joy at behold
ing him again, perhaps, also, the dipopat bpdz, v. 22, have led
expositors to refer these words yet more decidedly than xiv. 19,
to the time of the resurrection,' yet this verse stands in such
I Not merely those expositors who took xiv. 19 in that way, not merely all the
Greeks explain this passage of the resurrection, bnt even Augustine does so ; and
Luther himself, who interpreted xiv. 19, of seeing him again both at his resurrection

Christ comforts his Disciples. 367
a connection with the earlier and with the foUowing ones, as
to compel us to refer them to a seeing him again in the Spirit.
In the verses immediately preceding, the sending of the Spirit
was the subject of discourse, and v. 21-26 Unk with this seeing
him again, the promise of a spiritual change such as was not
wrought by the resurrection. It might certainly be possible
that the resurrection of Christ, (inasmuch as when he had
risen he could be looked upon as belonging to earth no more,
and as he indeed appeared but transiently with the Disciples,)
may be considered the beginning of the So^aapbz, and conse
quently embraced in one ¦with the coming of the Spirit, and be
represented as a continuous thing with it, in which case xx. 22
could properly be compared. It would be au analogous rela
tion if John designated not merely the new birth, but the sus
ceptibility for the Gospel also, as an elvat ix zou deou, (viii. 47,)
or if he represented the fioz in men as an indwelling of the
Xbyoz in men. Verses 20, 21, might especially induce to the
adoption of this view. But considered with reference to the
Disciples, Christ risen had throughout a different signification
from Christ glorified, and according to Luke xxiv. 49, Acts i.
8, we must believe that the outpouring of the Spirit presup
posed the ascension as a thing accomplished.
V. 17, 18. Some of the Disciples confer together in regard
to the enigmatical discourse, in which the words, pixpbv —
dipeadi pi, are as obscure to them as the last part of it. "EXeyov
obv seems to imply that ptxpbv gave them special difficulty.
V. 19-21. It certainly seems obvious here, that we are to
think of their seeing him again after his resurrection, not so
much because the period of time corresponds with the doubled
ptxpbv, (from midnight, about which time this discourse falls,
to the hour of the afternoon at which Christ died, was about
eighteen hours, and from his death to his resurrection, about
thirty,) but especially, also, because the resurrection was cer
tainly a joy to the Disciples, and it would be surprising if this joy
were wholly unmentioned, and we were compelled to see only a
reference to that spiritual joy which proceeded from the posses-
and in the Spirit, giving predominance to the latter reference, here makes the former
predominate. The most recent defense of the reference of xiv. 18, seq. and of this
passage to seeing Christ again personally, is that of Siiszkind, Tib. Mag. fur Dogm.
u. Moral. St. 7, p. 184, seq.

358 Chap. XVE.— v. 22-27.
sion of the Holy Ghost. For this reason, as has been observed,
there has been a disposition to regard as included the seeing
him again after the resurrection. Yet it cannot be the main
feature in the matter, as the last words in v. 21 already prove.
The similitude now draws a parallel first of all between the
sharp but brief pains of a woman in travail, and the transient
mourning of the Disciples over the death of their Lord, and
then between her joy over the new life and their joy in behold
ing him again. But the comparison may be taken yet more
strictly. As in the case of the ¦woman in travail, the anguish
is the condito sine qua non, in fact, the cause of the joy, so
here, the anguish at the separation from the bodily appearing
of the Eedeemer, may be regarded as the operative, or at least
the cooperative cause of the subsequent joy, inasmuch as the
spiritual possession of the Eedeemer necessarily presupposed a
separation from the possession of him in his bodily presence.
Furthermore, the words, "that a man is born into the world,"
ozt iyevvfjd-q — xbapov, seem also designed not merely to depict
the greatness of the joy on the part of the woman in travail,
but to have an independent significance. If we refer the ex
pression to the seeing Christ after he arose, the new born man
directs our thought to Christ given back from the dead, in
which case, indeed, there is an inconcinnity in the comparison,
as the mourning Disciples were previously regarded under the
image of the woman . in travail ; if the seeing again spiritually
is the subject of discourse, we may preserve an exact coherence
with the illustration, and introduce the spiritual life of the
Disciples newly aroused by the internal struggles and the pain,
(Maldonatus, Lucke, De Wette.) When the new life of the
Disciples should be brought into being by their separation from
the visible presence of the Eedeemer, they would certainly
remember no more that transient pain. This depicture of the
ardent maternal joy over a new human life, may be classed
with those expressions of our Saviour, in which he exhibited a
healthful feeling for what is purely human. The present
zixz-rj, as temp, inf , expresses what is about to happen, (x. 33,)
ij wpa abz^z, "the decisive moment."
V. 22-27. The effects of seeing him again are mentioned,
which indicate that the Disciples will possess the Holy Ghost,

Christ comforts his Disciples. 359
and which confirm the reference to a spiritual seeing of him
again: 1) The steadfast abiding of the joy obtained. 2) The
possession of the understanding necessary. 3) The rich experi
ence of prayer answered. 4) The communication to their
spirit made by the Eedeemer without figurative expressions.
5) The relation of the expiatory work to the Father. — V. 22.
The promise of eternal joy, as well as the assurance that in
that day there should be nothing more to ask, certainly seems
so strong as to make it pardonable in Augustine, when in con
tradiction to his own explanation of v. 16, which he referred to
the resurrection, he here thinks that the seeing again in eter
nity is spoken of, and shows that he is inclined, even in v. 16,
to interpret the ndXtv ptxpbv thus: "Modicum est hoc totum
spatium, quo prsesens pervolat sseculum, "brief is this whole
period through which the present world hastens." But over
against the possession of the earthly appearing of Christ, which
was to be removed, the new independent possession of Christ
obtained in the Spirit was actually an abiding one, and they
actually no longer sought the truth out of themselves from any
teacher whatsoever ; ipmzdv is retrospective to v. 19. — ^V. 23,
24. The spirit of the Apostles united with Christ, will offer
prayer in conformity with the mind of Christ, and will behold
its fulfillment, (xiv. 13, 14.) — ^V. 25-27. In a certain sense it
may be said of all the instructions of Christ, that they were
uttered iv napoipiatz, since that which he revealed of God, he
expressed only in the form in which it can have access to us;
but it was specially true of his discourse in regard to his
departure, of their seeing him again, and the result of it. If
the truth was begotten independently in the Apostles through
the Holy Spirit, there could remain for them none of the
obscurity of figurative language in that truth which was so
begotten as to be their own. In virtue of this possession of
the truth, most eminently their own, they stood in an immedi
ate relation to the Father, and needed no more a mediation
for their prayers. This relation, however, is not to be under
stood as absolute, but as relative only, it is more and more
brought to pass^ until it reaches the period of time designated
in 1 Cor. xv. 28. This self-dependent possession of God is
mediated on the part of the Disciples through love and faith

360 Chap. XVI. — v. 28-33.
in Christ. Bengel : Amor et posterior est fide et prior : nam
se inricem sustentant. Hoc loco amor prseponitur, ut eo
magis inter se respondeant hsec verba amat, amavistis, " love is
both prior to faith and subsequent to it : for they mutually sup
port each other. In this passage love is put first, that these
words, ' he loves, ye have loved,' may accord the more with each
other." According to xiv. 16, Christ mediates the impartation
of the Spirit, but the richer the possession of the Spirit, the
more does the necessity for the continuance of that mediation
cease. That is designated as the centre of their faith, to which
also the prayer of the Eedeemer (xvii. 8,) gives prominence.
V. 28-80. The thought at the close of v. 27 leads back to
the one expressed in v. 16. On the form, i^^Xdov xzX. cf. on iii.
34. The misapprehension of the Disciples is of such a nature,
that if it were not recorded in history, an invention of it would
be inconceivable. Augustine : IIU usque adeo non intelligunt,
ut nee saltem, se non intelligere, intelligant, " so little do they
understand, that they can not even understand that they do not
understand." The explanatory answer which Jesus had given,
commencing with v. 19, had probably not been much clearer
to the Disciples than the mysterious language in v. 16 ; it is
hard to say what meaning they supposed they saw in it, but
the collateral circumstance, that Christ had anticipated them
¦with his answer, (v. 19,) makes such an impression upon them,
that this glance which penetrates their hearts .becomes to them
corroborative proof that he came forth from God, (on mazeueiv,
see remarks on ii. 11.) There is no occasion for supposing
that they also misunderstood v. 23, and referred the promise
to the present moment, (Liicke, De Wette ;) it is only necessary
to consider, that the entire discourse from y. 20, was the
answer with which Jesus anticipated their question, so that
vuv, V. 30, is to be paraphrased : " Now, since thou givest us
the answer to the question we intended to put."
V. 81, 32. The analogy with xiii. 38, would allow dpze
ntazeueze to be taken as a doubting question, (Euthymius,
Olshausen, De Wette.) It is true, the objection of Maldonatus
may be urged, that the dpzi would be without meaning, and
that the Disciples were actually at this moment pervaded ¦with
faith. Tet, if with Luther, Meyer, Lucke, we take it as asser-

Christ comforts his Disciples. 361
tory, an dXXd would seem to be required in the following sen
tence. The announcement here made by Christ is in conform
ity with Matt. xxvi. 31, cf. 56. Jesus closes by consoling him
self with a thought similar to that in viU. 28, 29.
V. 33. ¦ " The three ideas, the spiritual return of Christ in
the souls of his Disciples, their emancipation to independence
of life ¦with the Father, and the rictory over the world, form
the thread which runs through all the farewell discourses,"
(Schweizer.) Thus all these discourses serve to give the Disci
ples peace in Christ, yet the language also glances back to the
announcement he had made of the troubles that awaited them.
The consolation in the words vevixrjxa zbv xbapov, " I have over
come the world," is of course not that of the example, (Grotius,)
but according to xvi. 11, this, that Christ has broken the
diabolical power which sways in a godless world, (Luke x. 18 ;)
he who has faith in him, knows, in virtue of his redemption,
that in this faith he possesses the ¦rictory, that he that is in him
is greater than he that is in the world, (1 John v. 4, iv. 4.)
Jerome: Propter fidei certitudinem in me debetis pacem
habere, non sentiendo prsesentia, sed certo sperando futura,
" on account of the certainty of your faith, ye ought to have
peace in me, not from what sense offers of the present, but
from what hope makes sure of the future." Augustine: Non
¦ricisset Christus mundum, si ejus membra ¦rinceret mundus,
" Christ would not have overcome the world, if the world could
overcome his members." — The tranquil clearness with which
these discourses terminate, forms the transition to that exalta
tion of the soul of Christ in prayer, which now follows.

82

CHAPTER XVII.

Hitherto the glance of the Eedeemer has only been directed
sympathetically toward his Disciples, and the trials that awaited
them, now those which he himself must encounter, present
themselves anew to his soul. He prays — his prayer in its
largest portion is intercession, and, therefore, beyond doubt
directed to the consolation of the Disciples. Augustine : Tanti
magistri non solum sermocinatio ad ipsos sed etiam oratio pro
ipsis discipulorum est sedificatio, " not only the preaching of so
great a master to them, but also his prayer for them, edifies his
Disciples." How mighty in its effect upon the Disciples must
have been the memory of that prayer I Our Lord himself
intimates this in v. 13. "It is," says Luther, " assuredly be
yond measure an ardent, heartfelt prayer, in which he opens
both to us and to his Father the depth of his heart, .and pours
it all forth. — Plain and simple as it sounds, it is so deep, rich
and broad, that no man can fathom it." Before the sainted
Spener departed this life, he had this discourse read to him
three times, " meaning thereby to intimate," says his biographer,
(Canstein, Life of Spener, p. 146,) "that this chapter was
peculiarly dear to him, yet he never had been willing to preach
upon it, declaring that he did not comprehend it, and that the
full understanding of it transcended the measure of faith
which the Lord was wont to dispense to his people in their
pilgrimage. [Bretschneider, with whom Strauss concurs, pro
nounces the prayer an oratio frigida, dogmatica,metaphysica.]
The name which the prayer bears in the Church, " the sacer
dotal prayer," oratio sacerdotalis, is based partly upon its
intercessory character, partly on the fact that in v. 19 Christ
consecrates himself to his expiatory death.
(362)

The Prayer of the Saviour for himself. 363
In the first part of the prayer, the Saviour speaks of his
relation to mankind, and supplicates for that elevation of
himself to glory which is associated with the consummation
of the Father's glory in mankind, (v. 1-8 ;) in the second part,
he beseeches that his Disciples may be watched over in the
world and sanctified through the word of truth, (v. 9-19 ;) in
the third part, he embraces in his prayer the believers of all
time to come, " who are represented germinally in the Apos
tles," (Olshausen,) and implores for them perfect unity with
himself, with one another, and with the Father, and at the
same time a fellowship in glory, (v. 20-26.)' [The calm
assurance and triumph of this prayer, have been urged against
its genuineness, as if the agony of Gethsemane proved that it
could not have been uttered. But the same assurance and
triumph are involved in the institution of the Lord's Supper —
and yet_ Gethsemane followed that, cf. John xii. 27. Between
the prayer here and the agony in the garden, hours elapsed.]
m The Prayer of the Saviour for himself. — v. 1-8.
V. 1, 2. The lifting up of his eyes to heaven does not prove
that our Lord uttered this prayer in the open air ; the eyes of
a person in prayer must be turned in some direction, the
upward turning of them rests on that natural symbolism, in
accordance with which even that mau who possesses a clear
view of the omnipresence of God, imagines to himself the
heavens, in view of their brightness, height and illimitable
extension, as the habitation of God. It is possible that through
the window, simply closed ¦with a lattice, the look of Christ
extended out upon the nocturnal sky, bright with the Easter
moon. — The glorification of the Father and of the Son are
reciprocally conditional, as in xiii. 31, 32. Ab^aabv aou zbv ulbv,
has a different meaning from dbSaabv aou zb dvopa, xii. 28, as v.
1 Melancthon : Primum de se ipso precatur, postea de tota ecclesia et de hac petit
quatuor res prsecipuas ecclesise, conservationem verae doctrinse, concordiam ecolesiee,
applicationem sui sacrificii et ultimum ac summum bonum, ut ecclesia cum Christo
ornetur vita, Isatitia et gloria seterna, "first he prays for himself, then for the whole
Church, and for it he implores the four principal things of the Church, the preser
vation of true doctrine, concord in the Church, the application of his sacrifice, and
the last and highest good, that the Church with Christ may be invested with life,
joy and eternal glory."

364 Chap. XVH. — v. 3,
5 proves. It is the glorification of Christ, in rirtue of which the
limitations of the earthly condition cease and the Spirit pro
ceeds from him, and so far this 8o^aapbz of the Son is also a
8o^aapbz of the Father. The operations of the Sariour had
commenced on but a narrow point. They were, as v. 2 declares,
to extend over all mankind, cf. also, xv. 8, the Disciples, also,
Were to be more thoroughly grounded, see yvmpiam, v. 26.
Kadmz is causal, proceeding from the idea of fitness, conse
quently as, because, inasmuch as, cf. Matt, xxviii. 18. As the
rhetorical ndv which precedes is a collective, the abzotz which
refers to it is in the plural.
V. 3. Ai introduces the explanation of the way in which
the impartation of life takes place. "Iva conveys the idea of
the infinitive, cf. on iv. 34. The modern exegesis considered
the knowledge as the condition and mediation of the possession
of eternal life, so that iaziv, taken metonymically, was explain
ed: "hoc modo paratur," "in this way is brought to pass,"
(Grotius.) Yet more abstractly were the yivd)axstv and the
aiibvioz ^mij kept asunder, by those who understood the " life
eternal" exclusively of the world to come; already some of
the Church-fathers wished to prove from this, that the blessed
ness of the world to come consisted only in the vision, the
clear knowledge of God, against which Maldonatus- says:
Vita seterna hic appellatur inchoatio qusedam vitse ccelestis,
"life eternal is the name here given to a beginning of the
heavenly life." Knowing is in John's style of thought invari
ably to be regarded as simultaneous with believing, (see on vi.
69,) but in believing, the object of belief becomes the posses
sion of man, passes over into his subjectivity, (see on Heb. xi.
1, iv. 2.) In faith and knowledge, consequently, eternal life
is embraced, cf iaziv, xii. 50.' The object of faith is God, the
true God, that is, not God as the heathens know him, c£ 1
John V. 20, Eev. v. 7, 1 Thess. i. 9 ; the pbvoz expresses that
none other than he is the true one, (Eomans xvi. 27, 1 Tim.
vi. 16 ;) Christ is coordinate with God, as the one in whom this
1 Irenseus, adv. hser. iv. 20 : ^aai avev fu^f oix olov re 'iaH' r/ di tiTrapf jj- r^f f(j?f
i« Ttjg TOV iJeoC ifeqi-yivETai /ierox^c' /ierox^ Si -^eov hart, ro -yivuoKetv -&sdv nal
d-rroTiavciv r^c Xpv^roTrjTo^ a-brov. "To live without life is impossible, but the ex
istence of life is derived from the participation of God ; but the participation of God
is to know God, and to enjoy his goodness."

The Prayer of the Saviour for himself. 365
absolute knowledge of God has been unveUed. " This passage
presents a combined expression of Christian truth as opposed
to Polytheism and Judaism," (Lucke.) From the fact that
the Father is represented exclusively as the true God, and that
Christ is mentioned together with him, the Arian, Socinian
and Eationalistic expositors have drawn inferences opposed to
the doctrine of the Church in regard to the deity of Christ.
But God is said to be pbvoz, not in antithesis to Christ, but to
false gods ; Nicolaus De Lyra : Est sensus, quod ilia est sola
deltas vera, quse est in patre, et sic non excluditur filius, " the
meaning is, that the only true deity is that which is in the
Father, and the f^on, consequently, is not excluded;" nor is the
coordination of Christ in conflict with the Church doctrine,
which does not maintain the absolute identity of the ideas,
God and Christ, but rather, that Christ is that human individual
originating in time, in whom God linked himself and human
ity in an absolute manner. Had it been otherwise, Christ could
not have offered prayer. [So far is the phrase, " the only true
God," from excluding Christ from the predicate of God-head,
that rather in him only the absolute God appears, and Bengel,
on the words dv dniazetXaz,}ns^j remarks : missio prsesupponit
filium cum patre unum, cf. on the idea involved, what is said
on iii. 84.] A like coordination of God and Christ is found
in xiv. 1. The Evangelist, moreover, 1 John v. 20, in all prob
ability has applied to Christ also the predicate, b dXrjdtvbz debz.
From a polemical interest, the older expositors (Ambrose,
Augustine, Hilary,) construe thus : Ut te et quem misisti cog-
noscant solum verum deum, " that they may know thee and
him whom thou has sent, as the only true God." — Nevertheless,
the question is to be weighed, whether Xpiazbv is not to be
construed with yevmaxmae, "as the Christ," just as zbv dX-rjdtvbv
¦debv is the predicate of ai, (Le Clerc, Nosselt, Kuinol, Meyer.)
But doubt is at once thrown upon this by the fact that in
the Gospels Xptazbz usuaUy has the article; in the Epistles,
after it had become a current predicate, it has not the article,
(Winer, p. 104, 4th ed.) Out of eighteen passages in John
where it occurs with the addition of 'Irjaouz, there is but one
(ix. 22,) in which the article is wanting ; the article is found,
too, in 1 John u. 22, iv. '3, v. 1, 6, 2 John 9. Nor wUl the
32*

366 Chap. XVH.— v. 4-r9.
predicate be missed at all if, as in i. 17, 1 John i. 3, 7, we
connect ' I/jaouz Xp., since it indirectly Ues in Sv dniazeeXaz.
Christ's speaking of himself in the third person is in rhetor
ically solemn style; yet there is in it, perhaps, a glimpse ofthe
Evangelist writing at a later period.
V. 4, 5. The petition in v. 1, is here expressed yet more
specifically. In the epyov, the death which was before him
may be considered as proleptically included, (v. 19 ;) especially
striking is the prolepsis, v. 11, but as the further expansion of
the thought, v. 6, T, makes no mention of the death, it seems
hazardous to presume a reference to it. The gathering and
institution of the Church seem rather to be designated here as
the ipyov. The "being with the Father," slvae npbz zbv nazipa,
had already, xiv. 28, been designated as the condition of
"glory," ob^a, and so also here, cf on xiii. 32. This "glory"
is that which he possessed before he appeared on earth, and
which by coming to earth he surrendered ; entirely correspond
ent are Philip, ii. 7, 2 Cor. ¦riii. 9, ^ stands per attract. It
appears to come in conflict with this, that according to v. 22,
i. 14, ii. 11, Christ already possesses this glory in this world.'
But we need but reflect in what this glory possessed by Christ
consists, and we at once see that this conception, like others,
as for example, "being in God," "believing," sJvae iv deip,
ntazeuetv, has a narrower and a more extended meaning ; while
the Evangelist, by the "glory" he predicates of Christ during
his sojourn on earth, means his power of working miracles ; that
glory which Christ anticipates in the world to come, is a free
dom from every earthly limitation. On the "glory" which
the Eedeemer gives the Disciples, see remarks on v. 10, 22.
[By this glory we cannot understand merely the gloria media-
toria, (Lampe,) nor simply, according to. the analogy of the
glory of God in the Old Testament, the attributes of God,
which was the earlier ¦riew of Thomasius, (Christol. Beitrage,
p. 93,) but as V. 22, and Heb. i. 8 show, it means "the mar
jesty," that in rirtue of which God is God; Gerhard, Loci. i.
1 Kostlin, Lehrbegriff des Ev. uud der Briefe Johannis, "System of the Gospels
and Epistles of John, 1843, p. 151," thinks he can venture so far as to say, " that
no where in John is there a trace of the idea, -that there was a humiliation in the
adp§ iyivcTO, ' becoming flesh' " — according to John, Christ is eidofof , iz7i4p7ic, and not
KCTof, as in Philip, ii. 7, 8.

Intercession for the first Disciples. 367
243; Liebner, Christol. i. 322; Thomasius, Person Christi, i.
135 ; Gess, Person Christi, p. 295.] We might the more readily
believe, that elxov here implies only the possession in the
divine fore-ordination, (Grotius, Wetstein, Gabler,) as the
language is not: "before I came into the world," npb zou pe
iX.detv siz rbv xbapov, but "before the world was," nph zou
zbv xbapov Itvai, cf Ephes. i. 4. But napd aoi is parallel with
napd asauzip^ which no one would be willing, with Eckermann,
to translate : " Glorify me now according to thy counsel ;" the
words, " before the world was," are placed in antithesis to the
transient limitations of time. There is, consequently, here, as
in vi. 62, viii. 58, a continuity of the consciousness of the his
torical Christ with the Logos. Among the Arminians, Episco
pius already expressed a doubt about that way of understand
ing it, (of his having it in the divine fi)re-ordination,) since it
makes Christ affirm of himself what could with equal truth be
affirmed of every one ; Semler felt the same difficulty. In
Philip, ii. 6, Heb. xii. 2* the glorification appears as the reward
ofthe " obedience," bnaxo-rj, he displayed, a thought which does
not appear here, nor can it be found in v. 22, 24.
V. 6-8. The epyov is further unfolded, it consists in the
estabUshment of the Church, the dvdpmnot are first of all the
band of Apostles, see v. 14, 20. The Church has been formed
through the true knowledge of God, through the knowledge
of the name of God, that is, of all that God is ; the members
have been brought into the Church through their afiinity with
God, through the internal calling of God, (viii. 47, vi..45.)
Led by the Father through the internal drawing, they have
made the "word," Xbyoz, of Christ committed to them by God,
their own possession, see on zrjpstv, remarks on viii. 51. The
grand constituent of this "word," is the doctrina de Christo,
the acknowledgment of the full revelation in Christ, (xiv. 10,)
cf. on dXrjdeta above, remarks on viii. 46, on napd aou i^r^Xdov,
see remarks on iii. 34.
Intercession for the first Disciples. — ^v. 9-19.
V. 9. The preceding declarations had exhibited the close
relation in which the Disciples stand to the Father, and now is

368 Chap. XVH.- v. 10-16.
added the intercession for them, and the peculiar motive on
which it rests. The person who prays is wont to strengthen his
assurance by giving prominence to those parts of the objects
of his petition which warrant that he will be heard ; in accord
ance with this we are to explain in this place the exclusion of
"the world," xbapoz. A father whose pious and cherished
child is at the point of death, will say : " I pray not for ungodly
children, but for this child, who served thee before all others,"
without meaning to imply that the others are not to be prayed
for. The passage, 1 John v. 16, which might otherwise be
compared, presents accordingly, no suitable parallel. But in
V. 16, there is a like motive assigned for granting the petition,
and in v. 20 there is an indirect prayer for those yet belonging
to the "world," xbapoz,'ei. the last words of v. 21, 28. Calrin
and Melancthon both find in the words a committing of the
non-elect to the judgment of God, the opposite view is ex
pressed in a pleasing manner by Luther: "How squares his
refusal to pray for the world with his teaching us, Matt. v. 44,
that we are to pray even for our enemies ? This is in brief the
answer : to pray for the world and not to pray for the world,
must both be right and good. For soon after he says himself:
^Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which sliall
believe on me through their word.' These very persons must yet
be of the world, he must therefore pray for the world for the
sake of those who are yet to come forth from the world. St.
Paul was certainly of the world, when he persecuted and
killed Christians, yet St. Stephen prayed for him, and he was
converted. Thus, too, Christ himself prayed on the cross,
(Luke xxiii. 34.) It is then true, that he prays for the world
and does not pray for the world ; but this is the distinction :
In the same way and the same degree in which Christ prays
for them that are his, he does not pray for the world."
V. 10. In the fact that the Disciples belong to the Father,
is embraced their belonging to the Son, the Son consequently
is glorified in them. What species of glorification is meant ?
Verse 22, perhaps also v. 24, xv. 8, is to.be brought in. As in
v. 22, the conferring of the "glory," 8b^a, on the Disciples is
mentioned as the completion of the unity, we cannot imagine
that any detached manifestations of glory, such as were pre-

Intercession for the first Disciples. 369
sented in the miracles, or in the great operations of the Spirit,
are there meant, but the expression must be taken with a
compass wide enough to embrace in it the glory of the eternal
world. That "glory" in its principle, was in the Disciples
who had received the word with susceptible hearts, just as
really a present thing as, according to xv. 3, the purity was.
The full unfolding of it is reserved for eternity, (Col. in. 3, seq.)
V. 11-13. The intercession is first directed to the preserva
tion of the Disciples in that which they already possessed. As
preservation from seduction into sin is spoken of, the Father
has the predicate "holy," dyie, applied to him. The difficult
reading u) in the dative, which has arisen from the noun just
used being in that case, is placed alike by the external testimony
and by its own difficulty, beyond doubt, and is preferable to
the received ouz, as well as to the reading S. Instead of the
"word," Xbyoz, of Christ, in which they were to be kept, the
subject of that word, the "name of God," zb dvopa z. deou, is
here mentioned, (v. 6.) — In his very prayer there is a glimpse
of ¦ a sad remembrance of his betrayer. That the Scripture
might be fulfilled, he is lost, and that, too, although he had
been given by God to the Eedeemer, that is, had been led to
him by an inward dra^wing of the heart, and although every
thing had been done by the Saviour for his preservation — thus
it appears that Judas was not an involuntary instrument of a
di^rine decree. "That the Scripture might be fulfilled," Iva
nXrjpmd^^ -fj yp., a general reference to the Scripture, and the
Scripture is the concrete expression for the divine decree, cf.
Matt. xxvi. 24, and Luke xxii. 22, with each other. We are
perfectly justified in adducing this passage as proof, that a
susceptibility may be presupposed in the case of Judas. The
expression ulbz trjz dnmXeiaz, 2 Thess. ii. 3, used of Anti-Christ,
designates him to whom dnmXeia pertains, he has incurred it,
and the dnmXezo shows that dnmXsta does not here mean moral
corruption, but the misery which is the result of it, (John vi.
39.) — ^V. 18 shows that Christ is conscious of the effects which
will be ¦wrought by the reminiscence of this prayer; on ^ X"^P^
nenX-fjpmzai and fj ;fajOa -fj iprj, see on iii. 29, xv. 11.
V. 14-16. The motive of the prayer for their protection is
that they bear the same principle within them as our Lord

370 Chap. XVH. — v. 17-21.
himself, a principle confiicting with the world and rebuking .it,
(iii. 20, vii. 7,) and that they, therefore, cannot escape persecu
tion. Persecution, however, is not to be overcome by faint
hearted flight, but by manly strength is to be overcome.
Calvin: Vult Deus, suos certare, sed non patitur lethaliter
vulnerari, " God wills that his people should do battle, but he
permits them not to be wounded unto death." Luther: " They
are not to depart from the world with me, for I have more work
for them to do, to wit : that they make my little flock larger."
Beza, Bengel, De Wette, appealing to 1 John ii. 13, v. 19, take
ix zou novrjpou as masculine, ("from the evil one,") but there is
nothing in the connection to favor that viev7.
V. 17-19. To the negative intercession for their preserva.-
tion is attached the positive one for their conflrmation. Ac
cording to V. 18, it has become their high calling to continue
the work of Christ on earth, in the midst of an opposing world,
(xx. 21.) For this they need a consecration, and this consecra
tion they receive through the principle of the Xbyoz, "word" of
Christ imparted to them, (xv. 3 ;) we are consequently to take
dX-qdsia, as that which the word of Christ contains; the second
dX-fjdeia, in v. 17, equivalent to -fj dXrjdeia, may designate the
absolute truth. To this sanctiflcation through, the word is
added here another means of consecration, to wit : the sacrifi
cial death of Christ. "Ayid^m in the present with bnip can only
be understood of Christ's self-consecration to his sacrificial
death, the Epistle to the Hebrews represents him indeed as at
once sacrifice and priest. Over against this dytd^m the dyid'
^eadat on the part of the Apostles designates the consecration,
their official consecration, (x. 36,) which, however, comprehends
sanctiflcation. On the other side, also, the self-consecration of
Christ rests upon his moral holiness ; by this fact we explain
the xai. To this xai and the conformation in love expressed
by it, Theophylact and Euthymius attach the meaning presented
in the proposition, " so that they also in the service of the truth
may be consecrated to death." Olshausen, too, now says that
the most obvious meaning certainly is: "Christ consecrates
himself, in order that they through him may be consecrated,
that is, may be hallowed," but the thought is then connected
with it, that at the same time, they in common with himself.

Intercession for all (including future) Believers. 371
are to lay down their lives out of love. But there is certainly
nothing that offers any intimation of an idea of this kind, in
fact by the addition of iv dXrjdsia it is excluded. But how are
we to understand iv dXrjdeta ? As the article is wanting, Chry
sostom, Luther, Calvin, Zwingle, Meyer, take it adverbially in
antithesis to the Old Testament sacrifices. The retrospect,
however, to v. 17, cannot well be mistaken, a fact in view of
^which the article can be dispensed ¦with here. 'Ev must not be
translated " through " in this passage, since the sacrificial death
of Christ is here represented as that which consecrates ; if it
be translated "in," it designates either the sphere of their
activity, (Gerhard,) or the element of their life, " so that they
may be sanctified in their possession of the truth," thus the
death of Jesus Christ, which mediates the sending of the Holy
Ghost, is designated as the highest agent of sanctification
through the word, Bucer : Ego hac causa ut illi per veritatem
sanctificati sint — meipsum modo sanctificabo tibi in cruce immo-
latum, " that they may be sanctified through the truth, J now
sanctify to thee myself sacrificed upon the cross."
Intercession for all (including future) Believers.
V. 20-26.
V. 20, 21. The hosts of all those, who not until after his
own death, (xii. 24,) shall enter, through the preaching of the
Apostles,' into the kingdom of God, rise before the conscious
ness of Christ, his desires for them are summed up in the
single petition for their unity with him and the Father. And
this unity is infinitely more than mere unanimity, since it rests
upon unity of spirit and life, and the perfect communion of all
good things pertains to its manifestations ; according to v. 22,
even the unity of the " glory." We are, therefore, compelled
to say, that although that unity of doctrine of which the
1 Calvin : Vae Papistis, quos non pudeat, execrabilem blasphemiam vomere, nihil
nisi ambiguum et flexiloquum haberi in scriptura, itaque sola ecclesise traditio illis
credendi magistra est. Sed nos meminerimus, solam a filio dei unico judice probari
fidem, quse ex apostolorum doctrina concipitur, " woe to the Papists, who are not
ashamed to vomit forth the execrable blasphemy, that the Scriptures contain noth
ing that is not ambiguous and capable of distortion, and that, consequently, the
tradition of the Church is sole mistress of what they are to believe. But we should
remember, that the Son of God, our only judge, approves of that faith alone which
is received from the teaching of the Apostles.'

372 Chap. XVH.— v. 22-24.
Catholic Church makes so much, (though it is not even a unity
of individuals in faith,) must be looked upon as an element
pertaining to this unity of faith among believers, yet such a
unity of doctrine, without the unity of life and of faith on the
part of all the indiriduals, comes amazingly short of a fulfill
ing of this solemn prayer of our Lord. If we apprehend the
unity as possessing a profundity like the one described, then
love is an essential manifestation of it, and the declaration
that the world shall recognize his Disciples by their love to one
another, (xiii. 86,) is comprehended in the words, "that the
world ma,y 'believe that thou hast sent me," i'va 6 xbapoz
niazeua-rj xzX. and in those of v. 23, Iva ytvd)axrj xzX. " that the
world may know that thou hast sent me, &c."
V. 22, 23. The unity of the principle in the Father, the Son
and believers, creates the presumption that there is also a unity
of endowments, their "glory," 8b?a, itself is alike. The con
nection, therefore, neither allows us, ¦with Augustine, to refer
Sb^a abstractly to immortality, nor with Chrysostom, Grotius,
Brentius, to the power of working miracles, nor with Calovius,
to the glory of unanimity, (Chrysostom also gives prominence
to this,) nor with Calvin, merely to internal glory ; it is rather
to be understood, by way of eminence, of the perfect unfolding
of the 8b?a in the eternal world, as also the further expansion
of the thought in v. 24 shows. The idea of unity is expressed
in a yet stronger way in v. 23, it is perfect unity, mediated
through a communicatory love of God, which pertains with no
less strength to believers than to Christ, their first-born brother,
(Eom. viii. 20.) As the emphasis is laid upon the unity, the
zszeXstw pivot eiasv must be understood adverbially, "completely
one." The Evangelist, in his first Epistle, too, frequently
uses the verb, zezsXeimzat, where we would look for the adject
ive, 1 John ii. 5, iv. 12, 17, 18, cf elvae eiz sv, 1 John v. 8.
Since here also, the remoter aim, that of making an impression
on the unbeliering world, is mentioned, a doubt might be ex
cited whether 8b^a extends to the glory of the heavenly world,
but the scruple is removed by the observation, that it is not in
fact a heavenly one merely. Mention has been made in the
remarks on xiii. 86, of the strong impression created in the
minds of the heathen by the mutual love of the early Chris-

Intercession for all (including future) Believers. 378
tians ; there is remarkable testimony given by the Dominican
Lilenstein, the bitter enemy of the Waldenses, in regard to
their spiritual 8b^a, "glory:" Boni in moribus et vita, veraces
in sermone, in caritate fraterna unanimes tantum quod fides
eorum, etc., "pure in their morals and life, truthful in speech,
of one accord in brotherly love, only that their faith, kc, (Leger,
Gesch. der Waldenser, p. 602.) Many in that period were led
to the faith by contemplating a testimony of this sort. As
regards the extent of the conception of unity, Luther says :
" Thou and I, he would say, are one, in one divine essence and
majesty ; after the same example they shall also be one among
one another, and that, too, in such wise, that this same unity
shall be one in us, that is, be incorporated in me and thee ; in
brief, that they all be one, and one only, in us both, yea, so
completely 'one bread,' that they have all that thou and I
are able to have ; consequently he prays that we also may
become partakers of the divine nature, as St. Peter says, 2 Peter
i. 4; for although the Father and Christ are one in another
way, a way more sublime and incomprehensible, in virtue of
the divine essence, yet we so possess all this that it is ours and
IS enjoyed by us."
V. 24. According to our view, there is in this verse a
further expansion of what had been said in v. 22, in regard to
the "glory." 6iXm is not always an expression of the controll
ing will, but also of the wish, (1 Cor. xiv. 5,) but a mere velim
would not be strong enough here, the Son wills — but in unity
with the Father. We might feel tempted to take dempetv, as
iSefv has already been taken, (¦riii. 51, vi. 40,) in the sense, " to
experience, become conscious of;" but as the being together in
space is mentioned, it is preferable to adhere to the image, and
to regard believers as the beholders. A dependence of their
blessedness on that of the Son is thereby established, but it
may be asked whether there also be a distinction of degree.
Ambrose : volo, inquit, ut sint mecum, non ut sedeant mecum,
ubi ego, non quomodo ego, ut videant claritatem meam, non ut
habeant, "I will, he says, that they be with me, not that they
may sit with me, where I am, not as I am, that they may see my
glory,' not that they may have it." On the contrary Euthymius :
Iva (Lae iv zfj ^aaeXela aou, SrjXovbzt aup^aatXeuovzez, "that
33

374 Chap. XVR, — v. 25, ^6.
they may be in thy kingdom, clearly, reigning with thee." This
has also the analogy of Scripture for it, 2 Tim. ii. 12, Rev. iii.
21. Does not the elvai pez' abzou, also, hint at this ? We may
say then with Bengel : ut spectent fruentes, " that they may
behold it in fruition." What befalls the "Captain of our
salvation," dpxrjybz z^z amzrjpiaz, is also consummated in them
that are his, through their connection with him. Luther : " We
should make this sentence our pillow and a bed of down for
our souls, and with a glad heart repair to it when the happy
hour draws nigh," cf also, 2 Tim. ii. 12, Eph. ii. 6, 1 Pet. iv. 13.
V. 25, 26. At the close there is yet one more glance at the
opposition between the world and the Church. Jixatoz, as a
predicate of God, designates in all other places his retributive
justice, how then are we to understand xai before 6 xbapoz "i
1) Lampe and Augustine : " Thou art righteous, therefore thou
hast withdrawn from the evil world a knowledge of thee."
Eisner: "Although the world knows thee not, yet, &c."
2) According to Chrysostom and Winer, adversatively, "and
yet." Chrysostom : 8oxet Suaxepaivmv zahza Xiyetv, 5zt zbv ouzmz
dyadbv x. bixatov obx ijdiXrjaav iniyvS)vu.t; "he seems to utter the
words as if unable to endure it, that they were unwilling to
know Him who was so good and righteous;" according to
Winer, p. 416, (tr. 347,) the discourse breaks off, Christ would
say : "0 righteous Father, thou hadst designed this glory for all,
and — yet the world has not known thee." .But would we
expect the predicate "righteous " in such a case, and not rather
"gracious?" 3) According to Meyer, za/ means "even," aud
a reference to xaza^oXrj xbapou is designed, but who would
expect such a reference here, when xbapoz in this passage is
used in a moral signification, and in the other in a physical one.
Neander consequently decides for the meaning "holy,"' and
appeals to xvi. 10, 1 John ii. 29, iii. 7, 10. " 0 Father who art
holy, and whora the world knoweth not;" but the sentence
cannot be regarded as capable of being resolved into the
adjective phrase, " O Father, holy, and by the world unknown,"
the iyd) 8i xzX, at once excludes such a possibility. The Vul
gate, Luther and Beza, wholly omit the word which gives the
difficulty. Heumann first struck upon the right track of e.xposi-
tion, and recently De Wette : " I beUeve that by the xai-^xai the

Intercession FOR all (including future) Believers. 375
Evangelist meant to unite things dissimilar, as in vi. 36, xv. 24,
but afterward changed the construction." Lucke has there
upon drawn attention to the fact, that in the classics, also,
re — 8i and xai — 8i are used, and in exactly the cases in
which there is a negation in one of the two propositions,
(Hartung on the Particles, i. p. 92 ; Eost, Greek Grammar, 6th
ed. p. 725.) There lies then in the words, an appeal to the
retributive justice of God, to decide judicially between the
two generations opposed to each other, between the world and
the children of God. The upward looking to the God who
rules in righteousness, excites at the close of the prayer the
assurance of the final triumph of the kingdom of truth.
After this triumphant elevation, soaring over all conflict, it
certainly is surprising to witness the following of an hour of
dejection Uke that in Gethsemane The criticism which is
adverse to the Gospel of John, has regarded itself, therefore, as
justified the more in calling into question the genuineness of
this prayer, and the historical apprehension ofthe frame of our
Sariour's mind which it gives.' In fact, the credibility of the
narrative of the agony in Gethsemane, has just as little been
acknowledged by it, as that of the delineation of this triumph
ant exaltation. (Strauss' Life of Jesus, ii. 454, 4th ed.) That
the delineation of John originated with a ¦writer whose concern
it was to "embellish," and at a time when the terrible features
of the death of Christ had receded far behind its glorious ones,
of course (according to this criticism,) allows of being made
out quite a probable matter. If, however, the prayer given by
John, and his silence in regard to the agony, are simply to be
set to the account of an author intent upon embellishment,
how is it that the same author, chap. xii. 27, seq. has men
tioned an agony of soul entirely similar to the one in Geth
semane ? ' Does not, too, the hour of suffering which pressed
upon the Saviour, appear, according to xiii. 27, as something so
fearful, that he longs for the hastening of the catastrophe ? On
the other hand: "Does not that which the synoptical Gospels
detail, the institution of the Lord's Supper as a pledge of his
abiding communion with the Church founded by him, does it not
testify of the very same predominant thoughts in which the soul
I There ia an evidence of the genuineness of the prayer in xviii. 9, which see.

376 Chap. XVH. — v. 25, 26.
of Christ found repose, the same which are testified of in John
by these, his last discourses with his Disciples, and by his last
prayer ?" (Neander.) Does he not immediately after the agony
in Gethsemane, appear before his judges in the greatest eleva
tion of soul ? We dare not, however, in ¦rindicating this fluctua
tion of his frame of mind, draw in that unphilosophical and
untheological conception of the lamented Olshausen, that there
was an involuntary ebbing and flowing of divine power — a
conception which he also applies to the narrative of the temp
tation. It is enough simply to refer in part to the fact, that
where no stoical eradication of the affections has taken place,
the change of outward situation ¦will also beget an internal
succession of frames of mind, and in part to the fact, that a
certain necessity, at once physical and psychical exists, of
giving way momentarily to grief in order to overcome it. Cf.
Dettinger, "The Agony of Jesus in Gethsemane," in the
Tubing. Zeitschr. 1838, p. Ill, seq.; Neander, Leben Jesus, p.
669, 3d ed. (M'Clintock and Blumenthal's tian. § 279.)
We shall only add in closing, a paraphrase of this prayer :
" Father, the decisive hour is come, glorify thy Son, that he
may yet more perfectly glorify thee in the entire human race,
as thou, indeed, hast given him power over the entire human
race, the power of imparting to it everlasting life. For in this
consisteth life that passeth not away, to wit : in the knowledge
of thee as the only true God, and of him who reveals thee.
As far as I have hitherto been able to glorify thee upon earth,
I have done so, in gathering a Church unto thee, and now
glorify thou me ¦with that glory which I possessed eternally,
and but for a brief time laid aside. What thou art, I have
made known to those whom thou hast brought to me, and who
have received thy word ; they have now known thee in me.
For these I now pray also, for them who are thine, and at the
same time mine, as I am glorifled in them; I rise to thee, but
they still remain in the world, preserve them now in the know
ledge of thee. While I was among them I kept faithfully all
whom thou ledst to me, except that one devoted to destruction,
in whose fate also, however, thy fore-knowledge hath been con
summated. Now come I to thee, and these, my intercessions,
are designed to consummate their joyousness in me. In the

Intercession for all (including future) Believers. 377
world persecution awaits them, they, indeed, belong as little to
it as do I.. But from this affliction they may not be withdrawn,
for they are to convert the world, and I, therefore, pray only
that thou mayest not permit them to sink under it, that thy
word of truth may become to them a fountain of sanctiflca^
tion ; yes, they are sent forth into the world to continue my
work. In order that they may receive the consecration in the
truth, I consecrate myself to death for them. But I pray also
for all who shall through them attain unto faith, that unity may
exist between them, thee and me, as thou, Father, art in me
and I in thee : thus shall the world recognize that it is thou
who hast sent me. Yea, my own glory have I imparted to
them, that perfect unity may exist in them, and that the world
may be made conscious that thou embracest them and me in
the same love. Yes, Father, I pray that those whom thou hast
brought to me may also be with me in the world to come, and
there behold my eternal glory. Eighteous Father, adjudicate
between us ; there is the world which knows thee not, here am
I who know thee, and those whom I have taught, and shall
still teach to know thee, that thou mayest embrace them in the
same love in which thou embracest me, and that I may abide
in them."

88*

JHAPTER XVIII.

Jesus seized in Gethsemane. — v. 1-11.'
V. 1. At the last feast Jesus had spent his nights outside of
Jerusalem, probably in order to secure himself against the
snares that might be laid for him. He now leaves the city to
repair to his usual place of resort, (v. 2i) In the vicinity of
the city he had followers, (Matt. xxi. 3 ;) to one of these
belonged the garden here spoken of, and which was probably
connected with the farm. The brook Cedron flowed through
a deep vale to the east of the city. It is true, most of the
MSS. give the accent Ki8pmv,. "Brook of Cedars," probably,
however, from ignorance on the part of the transcribers, instead
of zoi) Ke8pmv, or zou Ke8pd)voz, as Josephus declines it.
V. 2, 3. The transaction of Judas with the Sanhedrim is
passed over by the Evangelist as a matter already known to the
reader. As the matter was one in which the Jewish superiors
were concerned, the Levitical temple-watch were taken along ;
the military attendance is mentioned only in Mark xiv. 51,
where the veaviaxoi are soldiers. Inetpa, the Greek name for
the cohort, which formed the tenth part of a legion, whose
number varied at different times, as did that of the cohorts ; in
the time of Vegetius, the cohorts (with the exception of the
first,) consisted of 666 men. On account of the possibility of
an insurrection, the Sanhedrim had found it advisable to call
out the Eoman cohort, also, from the castle of Antonia. The
1 On this last di-vision (the history of the passion of eur Lord,) are specially to be
compared, among the older writers, BynsBus, De morte Jesu Christi, Amst. 1G96, 2
vols.; among the more recent, Hess' Lebens geschichte, " History of the Life of
Jesus," 3 vols. On Ch. 18, Gurlitt's Leotiones in N. T. Snec. iv. Hamb. 1805, may
be used. (878)

Jesus seized in Gethsemane.. 379
way, v. 29, in which PUate comes out to fiieet the members of
the Sanhedrim, seems to indicate that he was aware of their
design. We are not, of course, to suppose that the entire cohort
is meant; it is just as we would say: "he called in the poUce
and the military." In consequence of the responsible nature
of the transaction the Chiliarch, also, was with the detachment,
as in Acts xxi. 32. 0avbz in the older dialect, means torch, in the
later, lantern, hence Xap-nddez is here used for torches. There
was full moon, it is true, at Easter, still there were particular
localities which were dark.
V. 4, 5. According to the Synoptists, the sign which Judas
gave ¦fo indicate Jesus to them, was a kiss; Strauss, De Wette,
consider this irreconcilable with John, according to whom Jesus
offers himself for recognition, while the kiss of Judas is passed
over by the Evangelist in silence. But without any violence
the circumstance may be taken thus: the expression, "went
forth," iSeXdciv, shows that Jesus, when he put the question,
eame from the bottom of the garden to the front part of it, (v.
26 shows that the scene did not occur outside of the garden.)
Judas had caused the troop to stop, and had taken several steps
toward the bottom of the garden, in order to mark Jesus ; he
then returns to the company to encourage them to advance.
The Sa^riour regards it as in consonance with his dignity to
advance of his own accord to meet his enemies. In this mode
of conciliation the slatijxee may certainly lead us into a mis
take, for in accordance ¦with it Judas might be regarded as an
idle spectator. The question rises, what general object tad the
Evangelist in this remark — we suppose he meant to intimate
thaf Judas no longer considered himself as one of the Disciples.
If he then, after giving the token by which Christ was to be
Recognized, returned to the company, the Evangelist might
write, as he did, to intimate the part which Judas- played.
V. 6. The older view, which saw in the faUing of the com
pany a mifacle of the omnipotence of Jesus, haa recently been
defended by Meyer, Stranss; Ebrard, but erroneously. 'AnrjXdov
eiz'^d dniam means- that the immediate effect of Christ's coming
forth^ was simply a recoil in consternartion :: the most natural
way to take it is, that the wbrds "they recoiled, and fell,"' relate
to different subjects, that those in front recoiled, and some of

380 • Chap. XVHL— v. 7-14.
those in the hindmost ranks fell down. When Strauss observes
that it is hard to think of this with a serious face, it is no doubt
true that silly people, all the world over, laugh when any one
gets a fall, on the other hand, however, those that are serious
will in the scene here presented certainly think less of the fall
than of the cause that brought it about. Other cases may be
cited from history, in which the dauntless stepping forth of a
man has produced a great impression upon his persecutors, the
terrors of whose guilty conscience were aroused. Such cases
were those of Mark Antony, (Valerius Maximus, viii. 9, 2,)
Marius (Vellejus, ii. 19, 3,) and Coligny, (Serranus, Comm. de
statu religionis et reipubl. in Gallia, t. iii. p. 32.) We are
reminded in this passage of the overwhelming 'impression pro
duced by Christ, at an earlier date, on the watch of the temple,
(ch. vu. 46.)
V. 7-9. A friendly solicitude for his Disciples is shown by
our Lord in the midst of his own danger, so that in this
respect also, John means to say, the word of our Lord, xvii.
12, received a fulfillment. It is impossible that the Evangelist
could have been ignorant that spiritual protection is the subject
of the language of that passage, but he means to say, that the
words had providentially their fulfillment in this sense also.
He treats the expression, therefore, as he does that of Caiaphas,
xi. 60, and there lies in this an interesting hint as to the mode
in which Old Testament expressions are cited by the Evange
lists. It is also to be noticed, that had that prayer of our Lprd
been the invention of the Evangelist, he could not have refer
red in this way to that expression.
V. 10, 11. The other Evangelists mention the name neither
of the Disciple who did the violence, nor of the servant who
was wounded ; we would most readily expect from Peter this
rash act, originating in vehement love to his Lord, and the
fact that John knew the name of the servant, coincides with
tha notice taken in v. 16 of the fact, that he was acquainted
in the house of the high priest. Tb d)ziov, equivalent to obz,
is nsed, from the partiality of the later Greek for diminutives.
According to Bengel and De W.ette, the expression, zb nozijpiov,
is retrospective to what had passed iu Gethsemane, (Matt
xxvi. 39.)

Christ before the High Priest — denied bt Peter. 381
Christ before the High Priest — is denied by Peter.
V. 12-27.
¦V. 12-14. According to the Synoptists, Jesus had a hearing
in the house of Caiaphas, in whose house also Peter's denial
occurred ; in John, a hearing before Annas is spoken of, in
whose palace, consequently, the first denial by the Disciple
would have taken place, and the first mention of Christ's being
sent from Annas to Caiaphas, is in v. 24. Erasmus, therefore,
takes V. 24 from its place and inserts it after v. 18, Cyrill and
Beza read it twice, putting it after v. 18, and retaining it in v.
24. Of the recent writers, some attempt to bring the other
Evangelists into unison with, John, the majority interpret John
in accordance with the Synoptists. According to Schleier
macher and Olshausen, all three denials took place in the court
of Annas, and the reproving glance of our Lord, of which Luke
speaks, occuned after the third denial, just as Christ was led
from Annas to Caiaphas. It is the opinion of Schweizer also,
that John alone gives the narrative correctly, and the fact that
the second and third denial are detailed after the mention of
Christ's being led away, v. 24, he accounts for, by supposing
Peter still to have remained behind, in the house of Annas,
after Jesus had been led away to Caiaphas. But if Peter would
have placed himself in so perilous a position in the court of
Annas, for the mere purpose of seeing what the issue was
going to be, (Matt. xxvi. 68,) would Peter, after Christ had
again been taken out to be led to Caiaphas, have remained
quietly standing by the fire ? Furthermore, if the dpxiepeuz,
whose servant, according to v. 10, Peter wounded, is in the
serrice of Caiaphas, would that relative of his who is men
tioned in V. 26, have been in the serrice of Annas ? Besides,
can it be supposed that the Synoptists could have been so com
pletely in enor in regard to the locality of a fact, such as the
denial of Peter, which, beyond doubt, was universally known
at that time? One thing certainly favors that view, to wit:
that in the hearing described in this place, there is no mention
made of that which was the main thing in the hearing before
Caiaphas, that is, of the question of the high priest which led

382 Chap. XVIH.- v. 15-24,
to the sentence of death. Nevertheless, we feel satisfied that
the following -riew is the correct one. The Evangelist, by the
incidental notice in regard to Caiaphas, in v. 13, 14, was not
led to make express mention of the taking away of Christ to
Caiaphas, and first brings it up in v. 24, so that here the aorist,
as is often the case, especially in bringing in something that has
been omitted, is to be taken iu the sense of the pluperfect,
(Calvin, De Dieu, Meyer, Lucke, De Wette, nor is Strauss dis
inclined to this riew.) It will certainly be granted, that as
Caiaphas in v. 13 is called dpxiepeuz, the dpxeepeuz in v. 15
can hardly be another person ; why, too, is there this fuller
characterizing of Caiaphas, if it was not he, but Annas, who
conducted the hearing? It may in fact be questioned, whether
V. 24 may not be regarded as a gloss, since other parenthetic
insertions hardly ever occur without some particle like obv 8i
or ydp. Cf v. 5, 14, ch. vi. 23, Lx. 14, xi. 2, 30, 51, Matt. xiv. 3.
That John simply mentions the preliminary questions in the
hearing before Caiaphas, is to be explained by the fact, that he
presumed the confession of Jesus in regard to his dignity as
Messiah, to be already known from the common tradition ; that
confession made before Pilate, which Paul mentions as com
monly known, is in fact the same, to wit : that he is the King'
Messiah, (1 Tim. vi. 18.)' If, now, John has mentioned noth
ing that occurred during the hearing before Annas, it is
made the more clear, that this presentation before Annas- is to
be regarded as a mere subordinate act, which was done, per
haps, because his palace was at hand, and there was an inten
tion of showing honor to a man who had himself been high.
priest for several years, and who is mentioned in Acts iv, 6,
before Caiaphas, as dpxtepeuz, Pr it may have been done while
they were waiting for the Sanhedrim to assemble with Caiaphas.
v. 15-18. According to the otiier EvangeUsts, also, Peter
foUows at a distance ; John alone, who here, also, designates
himself indirectly, makes mention of what more immediately-
concerned himself, that he also went in with the crowd, and
that he secured an entrance for Pigter. Among the Hebrews,.
WPmen were the porters at the doors, (Acts xii. 13.) The four'
I Chap. xix. J presupposea it as a. kno-wn fact, that Jesus had' been condemned
because he declared hitnself' the Son of God'.

Christ before the High Priest — denied by Peter. 383
Evangelists harmonize in the narrative of a threefold denial on
the part of Peter, but designate in different ways the persons
who put the questions, and the respective localities. Dr. Paulus,
in order to do full justice to the difference, runs the number
of denials up to eight ; most recently, Ebrard (ii. p. 671,) has
brought forward the facts in such a combination, as apparently
to justify the varying statements, each in its kind. At his very
entrance the Disciple seems to have betrayed himself by his air
of ai.xiety. The lax morality of rationalism has completely
wiped away the guilt of the Disciple in his denial. In Dr.
Paulus (Comm. iii. p. 649,) we have this: "Peter of course
told untruths, but not lies, because none of the persons who
questioned him had any business to take him to task.- Nothing
is less applicable (!) to him than the command of Jesus to
'confess him before men.' " Still in the judgment formed of
the Disciple it is too often left out of account, that although his
Me proceeded from a cowardice whose origin was want of faith,
nevertheless, his entrance into a company where certain death
threatened him if he were discovered to be the person that had
wounded Malchus, resulted from a courage which only heart
felt love to Jesus could impart. For admirable practical
reflections on Peter's denial,, consult Melancthon in his Disser
tation, De Infirmitate nostra, and Luther and Calvin. — The
elevated situation of Jerusalem renders it so cold about Easter,
as to make a watch-fire at night indispensable. According to-
Matt, xxri. 58, Peter merely followed to- know at onqe what
was the issue; according to Luke xxii. 64, we may, however,,
suppose that the hearing occurred in an open room in the lower '
story, so that besides, what was said could be heard.
V. 19-24. It is natural that the judicial examination should
begin ¦with preliminary questions like those here mentioned.
Christ, who left Herod and Pilate without reply, (Luke xxiii. 9,.
John xix. 9,) here,., also, regards it as beneath hie dignity to
answer more particularly,, as- theue was no- disposition on the
part of the inWrogators to know the trutk. His answer, which
put aside the qoiasifcion, appeaseds to them aa an offense against
the reverence due the highest Jewish authority, and there
foUows a maltreatment of the holy one, a* which Chrysostom)
bmfsts forth imi tiie words i ippi^ov obpmh,, Bxazrj^e yrj, zj}t tou.

384 Chap. XVIH.- v. 26-32.
deanbzou paxpodupia xal zrj zdiv douXmv dyvmpoauvrj ! " shudder 0
heaven, be astounded 0 earth, at the long-suffering of the
master, and the crime of the servants." Christ simply appeals
to the justice of his cause ; there lies in this a proof that Matt.
V. 89 is not to be taken by the letter.^On v. 24, see above.
V. 25-27. According to Matthew, Peter first confirms the
second denial with an oath, and the third with repeated
forswearing. According to the Synoptists, he was recognized
on the third occasion by his Galilean dialect, which does not
exclude John's statement. According to Luke, the cock
crowed at the third denial, and at that moment our Lord,
probably as he was conducted through the fore-court after the
hearing, cast on the Disciple a mournful and reproving glance.
First hearing before Pilate. — v. 28-40.
V. 28-32. The sentence of death passed by the Sanhedrim
could not be executed ¦without permission from the Governor
of the province, the procession therefore goes to him. The
Pretorium lay, perhaps, at the fortress of Antonia, and was
possibly the former palace of Herod, see Winer on the word
Eichthaus. Ilpmt, (as Griesbach and Lachmann read,) the fourth
watch of the night before morning twilight ; about six o'clock
the judge took his seat, (xix. 14.) On Iva tpdymae, see what is
said on xiii. 1. — Pilate now makes his appearance in the history,
and is depicted more fully by John than by the other Evan
geUsts — in a way so striking in its psychological features, so
consonant with what we know from other sources, of Eoman
men of rank, that this single delineation furnishes in itself a
remarkable evidence for the historical character of the Gospel.
The character of the governor is given in our remarks on v.
38. — Jesus, attended by a guard, was conducted into the interior
of the palace, Pilate in concession to the religious scruples of
the Jews, comes out to make the examination ; we may perhaps
infer from this question, that intimation had been given him of
the contemplated seizure of Jesus. If the authorities had not
regarded him as worthy of death, they would not have brought
him to the procurator, as none except sentences in criminal
eases needed confirmation by him. In conformity with the

First hearing before Pilate. 385
Eoman legal usage, which was followed even in the most cor
rupt period, (Acts xxvi. 16,) and because he was aware of the
base designs of the Je^wish superiors, (Matt, xxvii. 18,) Pilate
demanded a statement of the accusation. Fearing that he
would not comply with their wishes, they refuse to give it. In
keeping "with his character, as we know it from other sources,
he returns their insolence with a sneer, (cf. xxxix. 19, vi. 19.)
This challenge of Pilate's fias been misunderstood by some
writers, who have inferred from it that the Jews must have had
the jus ¦ritse et necis, " authority to inflict capital punishment,"
(Selden, de synedr. I. 2, c. 16 ; Wagenseil, Confut. E. Lipm. p.
299 ; Bynseus, De Morte Christi, I. 3, c. 1 ; cf on the other side,
Iken, Dissert, ii.;) they help themselves out of the difficulty
presented by the answer, "it is not lawful for us to put any
man to death," -^ptv obx e^eaztv xzX. by giring them the force
that on high feast days the Jews could not inflict capital
punishment. But, to pass over other proofs, the opposite is suffi
ciently clear from Josephus, (Antiquit. xx. 9, 1,) who says, that
Annas had taken advantage of the absence of the procurator,
to have James, 6 dixaioz, "the just," executed, and that the
charge made against him to the prseses Albinus, stated that " it
was not lawful for Annas without his consent to convoke a
council of judges," Oxz obx i^bv ^v 'Avdvip x<^p'"^ '^^c ixeivou
yvmprj(z xa-diaai auvidpiov. The Jews were compeUed by the
sneering reply of Pilate, to bring a distinct charge, as the ques
tion of the governor, v. 38, shows, and at this point comes in
Luke xxiii. 2. — By the political accusation, that Jesus had set
himself up for a Mng, they hoped soonest to succeed ; they were
induced, indeed, subsequently to turn to the reUgious aspect of
the accusation, (xix. 7,) but, neverthess, go back again to the
former, (xix. 12,) and as sedition by the Eoman law was punish
able ¦with crucifixion, by so doing they bring about the fulfill
ment of the prophetic declarations of Jesus in regard to his
death on the cross, (in. 14, vui. 28, xn. 82, especiaUy is Matt.
xvi. 24 remarkable,) since in case the religious accusation had
been carried through, his death would have been by stoning.
But the words stiU present a difficulty— John already traces
the fulfillment of the prophecy to the fact that the Jews were
entirely destitute of the jus gladu, the right to inflict capital
34

386 Chap. XVIH. — v. 33-37.
punishment. Are we to suppose that a Eoman procurator
never would have passed sentence of death on an o^pfense which
was capitally punishable by the Jewish law merely ? So Nean
der (p. 686,) thinks. But, xix. 7, they urge upon him, in fact,
their Jewish law ; Annas was reproved by Albinus, not because
he had passed the sentence of death, but because he had
executed it on his own authority ; the Eomans might, as they
actually did, guarantee them their ancestral laws, ¦without
wananting them to inflict on criminals the punishment enjoined
by law?' That the Jews preferred urging with Pilate the
political accusation, seems then to have originated in the hope
of attaining their object more quickly, and thus, also, John seems
to have had in mind, as his nanative implies, though he does
not mention it, that they were obliged to bring the political
accusation in order more easily to obtain the Eoman sanction.
V. 33-85. The accused is to be compelled to make his own
confession. "Art thou the King ofthe Jews," asks Pilate, and
means', therefore : the well known, expected one, the Messiah.
Some doubt may be felt as to the precise point of the Saviour's
counter-question. According to the view of the more recent
writers, Christ ¦wished to ascertain whether Pilate used the
term in its Eoman, that is, its political sense, or in its Jewish
theocratic sense, that he might be guided by the reply, in
giring an affirmative or negative to the question, (Meyer,
Olshausen, Neander.) But can this thought lie in the words ?
Was not "the King of the Jews," in the Jewish sense also, a
political ruler? According to Le Clerc, (Heumann takes a
similar view,) Christ wishes to ascertain whether his "question
originated in a striving after truth, or was merely inquisitorial.
It is better with the ancient writers, (as early as Chrysostom,)
to regard the object of the question as this, whether Pilate
himself had seen Christ presenting himself in any such way,
as he would expect from that King of the Jews ; it is an indi
rect reference to the fact, that the governor well knew the base
lessness of the charge. Calrin: Eesponsum Christi hue tendit,
in ea accusatione nihil esse coloris, "the point of Christ's reply
1 "In accordance vrith the Romish policy, a govemor was certainly not directed to
rescue from the religious fanaticism of a subjugated people, a -victim regarded apart
from this, witb indifference," Hase, Leben Jesu, g 117, 8d ed.

First hearing before Pilate. 387
IS, that this accusation was without any color of truth." 'With
this corresponds also the rejoinder of the governor, that he had
never troubled himself about the Messiah. Bengel: Hanc
(posteriorem qusestionis) partem voluit lesus observari a Pilato,
Pilatus priorem partem arripit non sine iraoundia, " this latter
part of the question Jesus wishes to be noticed by Pilate ;
Pilate, not without anger, catches at the flrst part."
V. 36, 37. Jesus confesses to his regal dignity, but not in
the worldly sense. " Of this world," ix z. x. z. can only desig
nate dependence on, connection with, and means, consequently,
"bears not the character of earthly relations to the world," or
with a yet stricter sense, to which ivzsudsv alludes, " has not
descended from these relations to the world, has not come to
me according to the laws of the world." ' Hymvi^ovzo, not with
Beza, certassent, they would have fought, but : they would fight
— from the present moment, and with respect to the fact, that
the moment for surrendering Jesus had not yet come, (v. 31,
xix. 16.)— The inference drawn by the judge is probably not to
be regarded as a stroke of irony against the abject appearance
of Jesus. Obxouv means therefore, ouxouv means nonne and
nonne ergo, not and not therefore. (Sophocles, Ajax, v. 79,
cf. Passow. 4th ed.) (and LiddeU and Scott's Greek English
Lexic. based on Passow. Tr.) In all the grandeur of his con
sciousness, the Sa^riour now claims for himself a kingdom, but
— in the realm of truth.. To reveal the absolute truth in the
highest of all spiritual spheres, the religious, is the calling of
his life. Luther has taken the 5zt demonstratively, in the sense
of "that," and has not expressed it, but it is causal. Eiz r. x.
ipX; in its fullest significance, (as we explained it on iii. 34,)
pointing, indeed, to his higher origin, so that it serves to make
complete the ysyivvrjpat. " To be of the truth," elvat ix z. dX.
(1 John ii. 21, iii. 19,) is equivalent to ix d-eou, " to be of God,"
see ¦riii. 47, x. 24, 27. Does there lie in this call what is found
in it by Chrysostom? iniaicdzat did zouzmv xal neidei ysviadai
zmv Xeyopivmi^ dxpoazrjv, "he draws him by these words, and
persuades him to become a hearer of the things spoken." Or
shall we say with Bengel : Provocat a csacitate Pilati ad captum
fidelium, "he appeals from the bUndness of Pilate to the dis-

388 Chap. XVIH.- v. 38-40.
cernment of believers " — in the same way as in the last clause
of Matt. xi. 19
V. 38. Our judgment in regard to the personal character of
the governor, depends especially on the way in which this ex
pression is taken. The most favorable judgment for Pilate is
that of Olshausen, who finds in these words "the melancholy
expression of heartfelt wretchedness," the plaint of a seeker
after truth, who had searched all systems in vain ; Winer, also,
(Eealworterbuch,) defends Pilate. It would be a complaint,
then, like that expressed with resentful sadness by the elder
Pliny, that truth is so dark, ut solum certum sit, "nihil esse
certi nee miserius quidquam homine nee superbius, "that noth
ing is certain, but this, that all is uncertain, and that man is at
once the most miserable and the most proud of all beings." To
this view is at once opposed in some measure, the analogy, for
such earnest searchers after truth were certainly rare among
the high officers of the Eoman government, (cf. the words of
Felix with which he breaks off the conversation ¦with Paul,
Acts xxiv. 25.) Again, if this man felt any concern about the
truth, why does he at once turn his back, and with the excla
mation he has made, take his departure ? Why does he not
ask ? It may be said, it was no part, of his duty as the exam
ining magistrate, to engage in the investigation of questions
of doctrine, (Schweizer,) but what prevented his doing so in
this private audience ? might he not. in fact, in his very charac
ter of examining magistrate, have gone further than he did ?
Besides, would so earnest a friend of religious truth have had
such lax moral principles as Pilate had ? Would a truly earnest
Eoman, out of mere dread of men, hsjve sacrificed an accused
person, of whose innocence he was convinced ? And finally,
when in xix. 9 he puts to the Eedeemer the question concern
ing his origin, would Christ have met it ¦with silence had he
presumed that the interrogator felt an earnest want ? We con
cur, therefore, in judgment with Neander : (cf Calvin, Meyer,
Lucke,) "He was the representative of the tone of thought
common to a large part of the cultivated men, especially men
of rank in the Eoman world of that day, who were too com
pletely under the bondage of a worldly mind to allow a germi-

First hearing before Pilate. 389
nation of any feeUng of need which transcended the Umits of
the earthly."' With this, the scorn he exhibits toward the
Jews, and toward Jesus himself, in the question, v. 37, and in
xix. 6, is in consonance, cf what is said above on v. 31. Nor
is there any thing incompatible with such a character, in the
impression made upon him by the declarations of Jesus, chap.
xix. 7, 8, 12, as little as in the good nature which impels him
to wish to liberate the enthusiast — ^the sequel shows how pliant
is this kind of good nature when unattended by principle. As
regards the testimonies about this man from other historical
sources, Philo (leg. ad Caj.) calls him: zrjv tpuatv dxapnrjz x.
pezd auddSouz dpeiXtxzoz, "a nature infiexible and implacable
in its arrogance ;" Josephus and Philo mention a number of
things done by him willfully and out of hatred to the Jewish
people, by which insunections were excited. It was for this
reason he was deposed, and as Eusebius, Hist, eccles. ii. 7,
referring to Greek historians, mentions, died by his own hand.
— As he supposed that he saw traces of the enthusiast in the
Saviour's reply, he expresses his judgment that he is innocent.
V. 39, 40. Pilate gathers from the further accusations of the
members of the Sanhedrim, that Jesus belongs to the juris
diction of Herod, and seeks to throw off the burden from his
own conscience. In vain — it is thrust back upon him, for
Herod returns to him the accused person. In vain does he
resort to a custom, of whose origin we are ignorant, of releas
ing a prisoner at the Passover ; the Holy One of God and a
robber, are presented to the people, that they may choose
between them — ^persuaded by the fanatical priests, they choose
the robber.
1 Cf. Neander's Kirchengesch, Bd. i. p, 15, (Torrey's tran. vol. i. p. 8.) In the
same vein, the heathen Caecilius said to the Christians : (in Minutius, Oct»"ios, o.
xii. J 7, c. xiii. § 1, 11, 12,) "Would you be wise, or even modest, ceas(« so ra/jk
your brains about the zones of heaven, and the secrets and destinies of th» world.
If they loolc before their feet, that is enough for such illiterate, unrefined, p«di and
rustic people, who have not even sound sense in common things, to say no>*Jag of
spiritual ones."

34*

CHAPTEE XIX.

Scourging of Jesus. — v. 1-6.
V. 1-3. John introduces this scourging without stating the
motives that led to it ; we first learn from verses 5-7, that the
design was, by this severe maltreatment, to satisfy in some
degree the thirst on the part of the people fbr blood, and thus
to release Jesus ; Luke xxiii. 16, points to the same reason. On
the other hand, however, it would seem, according to Matthew
xxrii. 26, Mark xv. 15, as though the scourging, as in many
other cases, had merely been preparatory to the crucifixiPn,
(Heyne, Opusc. Acad. vol. iii.: Cur rirgis csesi Eomano more,
qui mox securi percutienda essent, "why it was the Eoman
custom to scourge persons preriously to beheading them.")
The apparent contradiction is relieved by the fact that this
scourging, which was executed as the milder punishment, (Hug,
Freib. Zeitschr. v. p. 4, thinks, as an inquisitorial torture,) as
it failed of the object for which it was designed, took the place
of the scourging which preceded crucifixion. As the procura
tor had no lictors, which were assigned only to the prseses of
Syria, the punishment is here inflicted by soldiers ; it might be
supposed that they would execute it not without severity, death,
indeed, was sometimes the result, (Cicero, Act. 10, in Verr. c.
64.) They unite mockery with it, as the men of war of Anti
pas had done;. the mantle (Luke xxiii. 11,) was still at hand,
and they mimic the ceremonial of homage paid to Oriental
kings.' And the image which the brutal insolence of soldiers,
1 A similar instance is related by Vopisous, of Proculus, § 2 : quum in convivio
quodam ad latrunoulos luderetur, atque ipse decies imperator exisset, quidam non
ignobilis scurra Ave, inquit, Auguste ! allataque lana purpurea humero eius ingessit
eumque adoravit, " when he was playing chess at a party, and had come out imperator
ten times, a certain, not ignoble, member of the guard, said to him, Hail Augustus,
and the purple clotli being brought, placed it on his shoulder and did him reverence."
(390)

Scourging of .Jesus. 391
as if by the sport of accident, here creates, has become the
most touching representation of divine majesty in the form of
a servant, and consequently, also, the subUmest subject of
Christian ar,t ! How great would have been the loss to our
race had they been deprived of tiiis image of majesty in its vol
untary humiUation ! How calmly, yet mightily has it preached
through aU time, in palace, cottage and ceU I A Christ stoned
— how different the impression !
V. 4, 5. According to Hug, Pilate by producing Christ to
the people after his shameful scourging, wished to create in
their minds the impression, that he had undergone the qusestio
per tormenta, "the trial by torture," without any evidence of
guilt being brought to light. But there is no intimation of this
in the words, and Luke xxiii. 16 is opposed to the supposition
of a qusestio per tormenta. The design of the governor in
producing him is certainly not to be gathered from the text,
the antithesis to it is the leading away to the place of execution.
^/5e 6 dvdp. Luther translates : " see what a man," and Augus
tine says : si regi inridetis, iam parcite, quia deiectum videtis ;
flagellatus est, spinis coronatus est, amaris conviciis .illusus est ;
fervet ignominia, frigescat inridia, " if you hate the king, yet
spare him now that you see him cast down; he has been
scourged, crowned ¦with thorns, taunted with bitter reproaches;
the ignominy burns, let the hate grow cold." This is the
ordinary view, and according to Olshausen, the language
"expresses the deepest sympathy." — According to Grotius and
Neander, on the contrary, the meaning is : " can you believe
that such a man as that would set himself up for a king ?"
We regard this latter interpretation as inadmissible, for even
the most insolent rebel must have submitted to the scourging
and derision. On the other hand it is certainly possible that
Pilate designed to excite sympathy by the exclamation, and the
language is not opposed to this, for i8s can also refer to the
character of the person brought forth, as in v. 14. The excla^
mation may, however, simply intimate his presence : " There
he is once more."
V. 6, 7. As the superiors and their people again urge that
Christ be put to death, a sarcastic reply, like that of xriii. 31,
is made by the governor. They now catch at the reUgious

392 Chap. XK. — v. 8-16.
ground of complaint, and demand the infliction of the punish
ment allotted to false prophets, (Deut. xui. 1-5, Lev. xxiv. 16.)

Second hearing before Pilate — Sentence is pronounced.
V. 8-16.
V. 8, 9. Amid all the indifference of a man of the world,
the presentiment of a supernatural world is not wholly sup
pressed ; the appearance of Christ had already made an extra
ordinary impression on him, and when they now designate this
Jesus as a Son of God, Pilate recalls to memory the myths of
appearances of the Deities on earth. The new hearing has not
reference to the place of Christ's earthly birth, he already knew
that Jesus was a Galilean, the question nbdev, embraces, also,
as iu ix. 29, (cf ivzeudev, x-riii. 36,) the nature of his origin.
Arrian, Dissert. Epictet. I. 3, c. 1 : "Epictetus has not told me
this — for whence (nbdsv) was he — but a god has told me."
As Jesus is silent, we must conclude that he had no confldence
in the susceptibility of the mau for the answer.
V. 10-12. In the answer of Christ, i^ouaia is regarded by
Calrin and Piscator as a designation of official authority:
(Eomans xiii. 1-4,) " Thy power is derived from the ordinance
of God, therefore, the Jews, who have -wished to subserve their
own arbitrary ¦will by means of the magistracy which God haa
instituted, incur the greater guilt." But this causal connection
of ^^a zouzo, is a very hidden one. Since Chrysostom, a
majority, by e^ouaia understand the authority de facto to pass
sentence on Jesus, which -riew is favored by the neuter 8e8opivov.
The 8td zouzo is then difficult, Heumann explaining it as mean
ing "nevertheless," Lampe: "therefore, since the Jews have
no such power," Grotius : " since God so specially cares for me,
as the Jews might know from the prophecies." Neander and
De Wette present the best view : " because thou almost with
out a will of thine own, and constrained by the intrigues of
the Sanhedrim, condemnest me." There lies then in these
words something calculated to humble tl^f arrogance of Pilate,
(Chrysostom : xazaanmv abzoi) zb tppbvrjpa x. zbv zutpov, " depress
ing his pride and arrogance,") but there is in them, also, an
extreme mildness in the distinction they draw between the sin

Second hearing before Pilate. 393
of inflrmity and the more wiUful blindness. Who wiU believe
that such an answer as this is drawn from the fancy of the
Evangelist, not from Christ himself? ' 1 napa8t8ouz, coUectively
of the Jews, (Bengel : Caiaphas.)— Pilate appears to have felt
in some measure the exalted character of the reply, the accused
seems as it were to sit in judgment on his judge, there is con
sequently no rising of irritability on the part of the governor,
but an increase of the feeling of kindness. But the crafty party
of the priests knew how to approach the man on his weakest
side. He that does not fear God supremely, is condemned to
tremble before men. Amicus Csesaris, "friend of Csesar," was
the honorary title of legates and prefects, and Tacitus (Annal.
iii. 38,) says of the suspicious Tiberius: majestatis crimen
omnium accusationum complementum erat, "the charge of
offense against his majesty was the burden of every prosecu
tion." 'AvztXsyetv, also of factious opposition. That very danger
which Pilate now escapes by abandoning the innocent, he actu
ally fell into a few years later.
V. 13-16. The sentence was pronounced sub divo, "in the
open air," not de piano, or ex aequo loco, " a place on a level
with the audience," but ex superiori, "from an elevation."
There stood the judgment seat upon a Mosaic pavement, pavi-
, mentum tessellatum, (Suetonius, Caesar, c. 46.) If in the word
Fa^^add the reading with one ^ be correct, the most probable
derivation is from Nn34, the back, because of its arched form,
(see Tholuck's Beitr. zur Spracherkl. des N. T. p. 119-123.) On
napaaxeurj z. ndaxa, see above, on xiii. 1. According to Mark,
XV. 25, Jesus was crucified about the third hour, (nine o'clock,)
¦with which could not be reconciled the pronouncing of the
sentence at the sixth hour, that is, about noon. The harmony
is most easily established by the supposition which already
commends itself at i. 40, that John follows the Eoman compu
tation of time, and that, consequently, the sixth hour of the
morning is here meant. De Wette is ¦wrong in maintaining
that this is "palpably too early." As the members of the
Sanhedrim urged the accusation, npmt, that is, between three
and six o'clock, (it is clear from Mark i. 35, John xx. 1, that
npmt means before sunrise,) it is entirely credible that the sen-

394 Chap. XIX. ^ v. 17-27.
tence followed at sunrise.' In order also to avoid too gi'eat a
sensation among the people, they must have sought to have the
sentence pronounced as early as possible. Even now the earnest
ness of Pilate does not go far enough to suppress his sarcasms.
The Crucifixion and Death of our Lord. — v. 17-30.
V. 17, 18. The crucifixion, according to the Eoman law,
was executed outside of the city, (so Plautus and Cicero,
quoted by Hug, Freib. Zeitschr. v. p. 11 ;) the Jewish usage as
to the place of execution, was the same. The custom of com
pelling the persons sentenced to bear their own cross, is also
mentioned by Plutarch, De sera numinis vind. c. 9. FoXyodd,
by euphony, for the Chaldee, n^^J^'J, "the skull."' The usual
explanation is, "place where the skulls of criminals were
lying," the genitive, xpaviou, forms then the comp., (Fritszche,
on Mark xv. 22,) though in that case we would expect the
genitive plural, and in the Aramaic, rhhi^ n^g.. Bengel, there
fore, (ad Matth.) understood it of the skull-shape, and Thenius,
in Illgens, Zeitschr. f. Kircheng, 1842, 3 H. shows that a hill
of that shape lay to the north of the city. Lipsius, de Cruce,
first published Antwerp, 1596, is still the most instructive
work in regard to the cross and the sufferings connected with
it. The condemned persons were stripped, with the exception
of an apron about the body, were drawn up with cords upon
the cross, which was about a man's height, and the hands and
feet first tied and afterward nailed to it. The nailing of the
feet was contested by Dr. Paulus in so plausible a manner, that
a majority abandoned the idea, but we may regard it as com
pletely estabUshed by Hug, 1. c. and Bahr, (see the literature
in Hase, Leben Jesu, § 120, and Lucke, on xx. 25.)
V. 19-22. An inscription, titulus, over the head of the
criminal, pointed out his offense, and " the first public recogni-
1 Ni Roman sentmee before sunrise -was valid. Gellius,' Noctes Att. xiv. 7: Senatus
consulta ante exortum solem aut post soUs occasum facta, rata non esse, " the de
crees of the senate passed before sunrise, or after sunset, were not valid."
' We would expect the form XP7J74, but Buxtorf, Lex. Talmud, was acquainted
•with no other than SO'^j'^i ; the Taraum 2 Kings ix. 85, also has XljSji'jU.

The Crucifixion and Death of our Lord. 395
tion of Jesus was made through the ironical lapidary style of
the procurator in the three languages of the -world," thfe
Hebrew (or strictly speaking, the Chaldee,) for the natives of
Palestine, the Greek for the many foreigners, the Latin as the
language of the commanding authority. The impemtive present
ypdfe, which stands at other time's with the negative; when
something commenced is to be interrupted, is here to be
explained by the fact, that the action is stiU regarded as capable
of being revoked. To this in the mouth of Pilate,- is opposed
the perfect.
V. 23, 24. The only earthly property which the Saviour left
fell not to his Disciples,, but in conformity with the Eoman law,
to the executioners. In the Ipdzta are included the upper gar
ment, the girdle, the linen shirt, &c., the under garment was
woven in one piece^ like the garment of th« high-priest,
(Joseph. Antiq. in. 7, 4;) according to a statement in Isidor.
Pelus. Epp. i. 74, it was especially the poorer classes in Gali
lee who wore this kind of garment. The clothes were dirided-
into four parts,, as the Eoman detachment usually consisted
not of three, but of four men, (Acts- xii^ 4;) lots were cast
on the under-garment, that it might' not be inj tired by tear
ing. This incident recalls to memory the depicture of suffering
in the twenty-second Psalm^ It is indeed of his own sonows
Da^rid speaks in that Psalm, but the- hopes to which he soars
from the 24th verse, are so extraordinary, and historically con
sidered so inexplicable, (when he speaks of his deliverance as a
banquet of which rich andpoor shall partake, as a consequence
of which all the kindreds of the nations shall tiim unto the
Lord,) that we cannot but recognize' in' him a condition of
prophetic ecstasy. The same prophetic spirit caused him iu
separate particulars to use expressions which were literaUy
fulfilled in the sufferings of our Lordi In the passage which
he has cited exactly from' the- Septuagint, the Evangelist by
Ipaziapbz understand* the under garment.
V. 25-27. The women from Galilee, who followed Jesus to
Jerusalem;. (Matt.: xxvii. 55,)igatiier here, also, at the place of
anguish. According tb the common ¦riew, KXmndz is equivalent
to 'AXfatoz,''shU}'(i& however^ the work of Schaf,. quoted on rii.

396 Chap. XIX. — v. 28, 29.
2-5. ouWieseler's hypothesis,' see Ebrard in loe. Of the seven
words on the cross we find one in Matthew, three iu Luke,
three in John. That touching scene, which shows that in the
midst of his last agony the Eedeemer forgot not his personal,
earthly ties and duties, is recorded by that Disciple only whom
it immediately concerned. So slight was the elevation of the
cross, that the mother had it in her power for six fearful hours
of anguish, to read in the countenance of her Divine son his
agony and his triumph ; the less right she had, in moments like
these, to expect from his lips a word in regard to his personal
relations, the more affecting must have been his address to her.
That Joseph, her husband, was not liring, may be gathered with
certainty from these words of the Eedeemer ; but it has been
thought strange that the sorrowing mother was not committed
to the ddeXipotz, whether we regard them as brothers or as
cousins of Christ. But these ddeXtpoi were at that time still
unbelieving; the external circumstances of John may have
rendered him the very one to whom this duty was easy, and
finaUy — what if he preeminently possessed a filial disposition ? —
If we suppose now that siz rd tdta refers to the house of John's
father in Galilee, we must infer that the words dn' ixeivrjz z^z
&paz, are to be taken very vaguely, for the Apostles remained
in a body at the capital through the entire week of the festival,
(xx. 26.) Does the acquaintance of John with the high-priest
warrant, perhaps, the supposition that he had a house in Jeru
salem also ? It is certain, nevertheless, that eiz rd 'idea need
not always be understood of a man's own property, and the
meaning may be : " he received her, and at a later period kept
her with him, where he resided."
V. 28, 29. The common interpretation connects the telic
proposition, tva xzX. ¦with Xiyei, (Jesus said, "I thirst" — in order
that, &c.) cf xiv. 31. The telic proposition expresses then the
subjective judgment of the Evangelist, who designs to direct
attention to the fulfillment of Psalm xxii. 16: (16,) "My
tongue cleaveth to my palate.'"' Not until he had drunk to its
1 His theory is, that Salome was the sister of Jesus' mother, and John a cousin of
Jesus, and consequently already bound by ties of blood to care for Mary, Stud. u.
Kritik. 1840, p. 669, seq.
» According to the current view, there is a reference to Psalm Ixix. 22 ; eif t^i>

The Crucifixion and Death of our Lord. 397
dregs the cup of suffering, does the dying Saviour allow him
self any thing to refresh him, and thereby fulfills a touch of the
picture of suffering in Ps. xxu. The only objection to this
view is, that the scriptural allusion is vaguely expressed, when
we might naturally look for reference to a particular passage,
see vss. 24, 36, 87, U. 17, xu. 87, seq. We cannot appeal to xvii.
12 for counter evidence, since there no single passage of
Scripture is had in view. Semler has, consequently, given this
interpretation : Postea cum sciret Jesus, i^m omnia ista in ipso
completa esse, quibus opus esset, ut Scripturse oracula eventu
non carerent, dixit : sitio, " when Jesus knew that all things
needful to the fulfillment of the prophecies of Scripture were
completed in him, he said : 'I thirst.' " The final proposition
on this view, serves to define more clearly the preceding one,
as in chap. xi. 4. In the same way Van Hengel (Annotatio in
N. T. Amst. 1824,) construes it, and in accordance with this
sense brings in v. 30 : " Conscious that all was fulfilled, he
speaks of his thirst, and after he had drunk and obtained
strength, he cries aloud." This sense is neither indicated, nor
does it seem very appropriate; yet it is a question 'whether the
preference should not be given to this construction. As soon
as the criminal arrived at the place of execution, we are told in
the Talmud, it was the custom to offer him a cup of drugged
wine, which served to stupefy him. This had been refused
by Christ after he had tasted it, for he wished to suffer and die
in the full possession of his consciousness. At a later period
there is mention made, Luke xxiii. 36, of rinegar being offered
in mockery, but this seems to be different from the fact here
under consideration. More probably the fact here mentioned
by John coincides with Matt, xxvii. 48, Mark xv. 36 ; if the
drink was brought, on our Saviour's exclaiming: Eli, Eli,
&c., in Matthew, it is not easy to see how that should give
occasion for bringing it, and perhaps the words, "I thirst,"
followed soon after the exclamation .mentioned by Matthew.
The Oriental hyssop, which grows to the length of a yard, could
be conveniently used to support a sponge. As one whose
Sl-ibav fiov l-rronadv fit o^oc, " in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink." The
(5(^(5, however, does not here present itself as the leading idea, and the giving of
the vinegar to Christ was a kindness ; in the Psalm, on the contrary, it is an image
of grief, neither should Matt, xxvii. 34 be referred to Psalm Ixix.
35

398 Chap. XIX.^v. 31-8S.
dying was nbt passive, but active, not a thing endured, but an
act, (John x. 18^) the Eedeemet', with a clear cPnsciPUsness of
the moment at Which his life ends, encounters death, and testi
fies that his work on earth has been performed.
The taking down from the Cross and the Burial. — v. 31-42.
V. 31-85. According to the Jewish law^ the" person hanged
was to be taken down the same day, (Deuteronomy xxi. 28,)
especially on feast-days, and this feast-day was specially holy;
on the words, " for that Sabbath day, &c." see above, on xiii. 1.
On this point the Eomans were compliant. llapairxeui^, means
the day of preparation, not for the feast, but for the Sabbath,
(v. 42.) The breaking of the legs has been regarded by many
as a means of putting to death. But that it was not designed
in and of itself to product death, Neander (p. 709, tran. p.
426,) shows by a reference to Polyb. Hist. i. c. 80, § 13, and
to Ammian Marcellin. Hist, xiv.' 9, where it is- expiressly said:
fractis cruribus, occiduntur, " after their legs have been broken,
they are killed." The breaking of the legs' was not always
connected with the crucifixion, (the Jews, consequently, had-
first to get Pilate's permission,) but was a special aggravation
of the punishment, (Hug, 1. c. p. 64.) As those who had been
suspended but a few hours on the cross might be restPred, this
barbarous act ¦was performed to prevent such a restoration;
they were probably left to languish away in this miserable
condition. Approaching on both sides, the soldiers performed
their work on the two who were crucified with him ; in the
case of Jesus himself, the act appeared superfluous, as they
discovered in him the signs of death; in order, however, to
make yet more sure of his death; one of them thrfist his lance
into the side of our Lord, cf an' instance of such a finishing
blow "with a lance, in the Martyrblogy of the Acta Sanctbrum,
quoted by Neander, (p. 709, tran. p. 426.) TLat ih the case
of Christ, this thrlist must ha-TO produced dfeath, liad not death
previously taken place, is clear frpm- tlie' magnitude of the
wound, for Thomas was told to put,.not his finger, but his hand
into the sidb, (xx. 27,) the body must, consequently, have been
pierced not only by the point of the lance,- but-- by the broad

The taking down from the Cross and the Burial. 399
part of it also. — The fact of the gushing forth of blood and
water, already creates in itself an anatomical difficult}-, and yet
greater is the difficulty coimected with the answer to the ques
tion, fpr what object the Evangelist adduces it, especiallj'^ when
we consider the earnest asseveration, v. 35. Neander (p. 712,
tran. 427,) limits himself to a brief remark, Lucke leaves the
whole matter undetermined, and without reply pksses by the
objections urged by Strauss. We will commence with the expla
nation of V. 35. First of all, as to the construction, we may, as
in XX. 21, consider the Iva xzX. as dependent on pspapzuprjxe,
and regard what lies between them as parenthetical. It is
preferable, however, to insert something before 'iPa, " and writes
this," as in i. 8, (De Wette.) As to the apprehension of this
testimony as a whole, Weisse, (ii. 326, seq.) Lutzelberger, (p.
19£,) Schweizer, (p. 60,) consider it as in the highest degree
sinn-ui.ir and equivocal; the preterite pepapzuprjxe, and the
i'xe'v.)-, clearly argue, in their judgment, that the author of
this testimony either distinguishes himself from the EvangeUst,
or betrays himself as distinct from him. It is said in reply,-
that the perfect pepapzuprjxe, may; as in chap* i. 34, mean :
" wi.slies to have it testified." We may, besides, oppose to it
tho present nl8iv, the force of which Schweizer sees no other
way of obviating than by the remark, that the later writer,
although John was in heaven, conceived of himself as joining in
with him. These words have, undoubtedly, a certain circum
stantiality, but why should not the Evangelist have appealed
first to his authority as a witness of the truth, and after that to
his inmost consciousness of the trlith? — What then is it which
he so soleranly testifies, aud by which be designs to give strength
to the Christian faith of the reader ? If it be simply the flowing
of blood and water from the wound, what is the element of
faith ? The most obvious supposition is, that in opposition to
the assertion of a death in appearance merely, he certifies the
reality of the death of Jesus, (Beza, Semler, EosenmuUer,
Kuinol, Neander.) But at the very outstart is opposed to this
the fact, that no doubt of the reality of the death of Jesus ever
rose in the early Churchj which, according to Weisse, is the
strongest of th,e evidences against the supposition of an appa
rent death. Besides, does the flowing out of blood and water

400 Chap. XIX.— v. 31-35
confirm the death which had ensued ? Already in Calvin we
have an aUusion to the fact, that " coagulating blood resolves
itself partly into water." But it has been urged by Strauss,
that only without the body is the blood decomposed into clots
and water. But how, if the author of the Gospel, together
with these soldiers, was mistaken as to having seen such a
decompounding in what flowed from the wound? or if he, as
Strauss will have it, taking that error as the basis, has invented
the whole statement " in order to get a certain proof of the
death of Jesus ?" But when the EvangeUst writes : " forthwith
came there out blood and water," it does not look as though he
meant coagulated clots of blood, he seems rather to speak of
running blood, and if this be the meaning, it cannot be the
Evangelist's object to prove that Jesus was actually dead.
Could he, perhaps, have assumed that death was produced by
the thrust, and have mentioned the water and blood as a proof
against the Docetse of the reality of Christ's body ? (Hammond,
PaiTlus, Olshausen.) But why, then, is water brought into the
question ? Is not the matter thereby pushed to the miracu
lous ? Indeed, the ancient Church downward even to
Calovius and Bengel, considered the fact a mysterious one.
Ambrose (in Luc. c. 23,) says : In corporibus nostris sanguis
post mortem congelascit, sed hoc loco adhuc fluidus est, "in
our bodies the blood congeals completely after death, but here
it is still fluid," in the same way, Origen, Contra Celsum, ii.
36, and Euthymius : ix vexpou ydp dvdpmnou, xdv pupidxtz vu^rj
ZIZ, obx i^eXsuaezai alpa, "from the body of a dead man, though
it should be pierced ten thousand times, blood wduld not
issue." With 1 John v. 6 to appeal to, they found therein
symbolically typified the two fountains of salvation flowing
from Christ for the Church, the baptismal water and the euchar-
istic wine. The very converse has been maintained by Weisse :
that in this mystical understanding of the passage, 1 John v.
originated the invention of this pretended fact. But how ? Is
it a correct view, that v. 85 refers only to the last words of v.
34 ? The ydp, v. 36, proves the very reverse ; verses 36 aud
37 show that the testimony of the Evangelist attaches weight
preeminently to the fact, that by divine dispensation the body
of Jesus remained in every respect unmutUated. Under these

The taking Dovrs from the Cross and the Burial. 401
circumstances, it must remain undecided, whether the Evange
Ust mentions the flowing forth of the blood and water with a
special object, or merely in view of its historical importance in
connection ¦with the mention of the thrust with the lance. — In
what way, now, is the fact to be regarded anatomically ? The
view might be taken, that Jesus was kUled by the thrust with
the lance. Assuming this view, it might be said, that the
"blood and water," alpa xal u8wp, was a reddish lymph,
(Paulus,) (which is contradicted, however, by the depth of the
wound,) or it is what is called the lymphatic humor, which, in
cases of bleeding to death in the open air, follows the blood,
(Hase, 3d ed.) But it is far more probable that the Evangelist
coincides in the opinion he imputes to the soldiers, that death
had already taken place. The question then comes up : can
blood and water flow from corpses ? The statements on this
point are conflicting. Krabbe (Leben Jesu, p. 508,) asserts
that anatomists conflrm the separation of blood in corpses, into
clots and serum ; Hase (2d ed. p. 258,) says, that precisely at
the time that a corpse begins to putrefy, blood and water flow
out ; Winer, (Eealworterb. i. 673,) that blood and water flow
from the parts where the great veins lie ; Strauss and De Wette
mention the testimony of anatomists, that within an hour
after death the blood coagulates and ceases to flow out, and
this is certainly the statement of anatomists in general; the
varying testimonies arise from the fact, that a difference is
made by the time of dissection, by the influence of climate,
and especially by the character of the disease. And at this
point the question comes up, as to what portion of the body
the spear came in contact with. Already CaMn and Grotius,
and subsequently the physician Gruner, held the view, that the
part struck was the pericardium, in which, especially during
powerful anguish, a vapor collects, which changes into water
on coming in contact with the air, (Hildebrand, Anatom. iii. p.
308.) The explanation is, however, a highly precarious one,
(Strauss, ii. 549, Eng. tran. iii. 292.) The question has been
brought to a new and apparently satisfactory result, by the
learned investigation of Ebrard, (ii. 698, seq.) On the basis
of medical observation, he directs special attention to the
influence exercised by stretching of the muscles, and by extra-

402 Chap. XIX.- v. 36^2.
vasation, on the condition of the blood of persons in suffering,
and of the dead, and closes his examina.tion ¦with this result :
'•' The lance might strijse several blood-vessels, it might come
in contact with points at which ejctravasated blood was col
lected, where serum and placenta were in a state of separation,
and the former aloiie flowed out, and as the lance entered more
deeply, it migUt touch places in which the blood was fluid."
V. 36, 37. That the body of Jesus did not suffer that mu-
tilatipn, and was but pierced, with a lance, was an exemption
of such a character that in this incidental feature, also, Christ,
the true ]plaster lamb of the spiritual Church, was conformed to
the Paschal lamb of the Old Testament, (Exod. xii. 46 ;) thereby
also, was fulfilled a prophecy of Zechariah, which seems to
speak determinately of ¦the death of the Messiah, although its
interpretation, as indeed the exposition of this remarkable
prophet, in general, is still veiled in mystery. That we cannot,
with Calvin, Grotius, EosenmuUer, understand in Zechar. xii.
10, the word "'pT metaphorically , in the sense, "to wound,"
(hurt the .feeUng% or the character. Tr.) has recently not only
been established by Hengstenberg, but has been acknowledged
by Hif^ig and Ewald ; for certainly the person pierced, who is
introduced as speaking, cannot be Jehovah, but is that myste
rious angel of the Lord, who appears repeatedly in this very
prophet. Both the prophet and Evangelist, by the expression
"they shall look," oipovzat, design to indicate a penitential con
templation, (riii. 28.) It is worthy of remark that the literal
translation of the Old Testament passage h^re, coincides with
that in Eev. i. 7, while the Septuagint expresses the metaphori
cal meaning: ine^Xiipovzae npbz pe, dvd' div xazmpx^aavzo, "they
shall Ipok upon me, because they have mocked me."
V. 38-40. The prpof of the reyerence which these twp men
of rank, secretly adherents of Jesus, pay tp his lifeless body, is
the more remarkable, as by this ignominious death of his the
faith which they had in him, and the hopes which in their
minds were linked ¦with him, seemed to. have been proved to be
groundless. With how much more strength does Nicodemus
seem invested here, than in ch. vii. 51 ! Now he has reached
the meaning of the declaratioi;i iii. 14. From Luke xxiii. 58,
we might be led to suppose that Jps.eph himself had effected

The taking down from the Cross and the Burial. 403
the taking down of the body from the cross, against which
view it appears, according to John, that this had already been
done by the soldiers, for aepeev must here be understood differ
ently from V. 31, (there referring to the taking down from the
cross, here meaning) "to take away." The body, then, which
had been taken down by the soldiers, was committed to
Joseph, cf Matt, xx-rii. 68, Mark xv. 48, seq.' — The large
quantity of pulverized myrrh and aloes which was scattered
between the ¦wrappings, is in keeping with the greatness of the
veneration _felt by Nicodemus.
V. 41, 42. According to the Synoptists, the grave belonged
t/j Joseph himself, and John also leaves this to be infened, for
they could not have laid the body of a crucifled man in any
new family sepulchre they might please. As, however, the
vicinity of this sepulchre is assigned as the reason why the
interment took place in it, it is to be supposed that Joseph may
not at first have intended to give up his family vault for this
purpose. 1 Unless, indeed, it be understood in this way, that after the breaking of the legs
they waited a while, although no one asked foi^ the body ; in that case aipsiv can be
taken In the same sense in v. 31 as in 38.

CHAPTER XX.'

The resurrection of our Lord is not less a postulate of
history than of doctrinal theology. Without it, the Christian
Church is inconceivable. The greater the importance of the
fact, the clearer the testimony of history for it, the more have
the enemies of Christianity been tempted to make their assault
upon it, and the more unsuccessful have their assaults been.
There could be but a single election : Christianity was either
to be despoiled of her Good Friday or of her Easter; it was
either to be made good that the Saviour rose, but had not really
died, or that he really died but did not rise. The latter alterna
tive was the one embraced so early as the time of the Jewish
opposers of Christ (Matt, xxriii. 13,) and of Celsus, and at a
later period by the English Deists : Woolston, (Discourses on
the Miracles of the Saviour, 1727-1729,) Chubb, (Posthumous
Works, 1748, i. 380, seq.) and " The Eesurrection considered,"
1744, (attributed to Morgan,) and the author of the "Wolfen-
buttel Fragments," (in the fourth Contribution.) These older
assaults sacrificed to the aversion felt by their authors toward
miracles, the character of the Apostles for honesty, but they
could not solve that mystery of a falsehood which could have
been invented for no advantage but that of bonds and martyr
dom, a falsehood which was defended ¦with a joyousness of
faith and with an enthusiasm which overcame the world, a
falsehood for which, after all, no other motive could be assigned
than the improbable wish of avenging the delusion practiced
on themselves, by deluding others. German rationalism has
given up this mode of getting out of the difficulty, and has
acknowleged that something must have occurred between the
1 A good dogmatioo-historioal monograph on the resurrection of Christ is furnished
in the work : De Jesu in vitam reditu, b/ Doedes, Utrecht, 1841.
(404)

The Eesurrection. 405
period when the Apostles were Uke frightened deer, and
gathered with closed doors in Jerusalem, and that period when,
threatened by the authorities of their country, they boldly
proclaimed : " We cannot but speak the things which we have
seen and heard," (Acts iv. 20.) "If," says Dr. Paulus, (Komm.
iii. p. 867,) "if we take in, with a historic glance, the account
of the origin of Christianity, from the last evening of the life
of Jesus to the end of the fifty days that followed, it is undenia
ble that in this brief interval something of a wholly extraordi
nary character in inspiring their courage, must have occurred
to have brought the Apostles, who timorously fled on that night,
who were to the last degree destitute of self-reUance and help
less, to have brought them to the point at which they stood,
when exalted above all fear of deatii inithe presence of the
judges of the murdered Jesus, judges eJxaSperated to the last
degree, they exclaimed: 'We ought to obey God rather than
men.' " " Something extraordinary must have occurred," so
Strauss, also, declares, (ii. p. 631, 4th ed., Eng. tr. iii. 3'66.)
But that extraordinary occurrence is not, as one might iit.
accordance with the laws of the mind expect, to be sought in ai.
impulse from some external source, not (as rationalism supposed,,
m the resuscitation of one, who, while apparently dead, had been
interred, but in an internal process of the imagination which
embodied into a personal appearing that Jesus whom faith
knew as glorified with God, and whose spiritual nearness it
experienced. The death of Christ and Good Friday with it,
belong to reality, but Easter morning lies in the domain of the
fancy. Without entering into a reply to what has been leveled
against this point in the warfare upon it, (and it has justly been
styled the Achilles heel of the whole mythical treatment of the
life of Jesus,) we would merely remark, that it stands or falls
with the historical credibility of the narrative in regard to
Thomas, stands or falls, consequently, with the genuineness of
the Gospel of John. The hypothesis mentioned, has remained
the undirided property of its author. Weisse, indeed, has
employed himself in reshaping those fancies in regard to the
risen Christ, with which Strauss would have nothing to do, by
explaining them as ghost-like influences of the Eedeemer after
his death. — The negative criticism has derived here also, the
2b

406 Chap. XX. — v. 1,2.
external support for its attacks from the discrepancies of the
Evangelists. They are undoubtedly more numerous on this
i;)oint than on others in the history, though (with two exceptions
perhaps,) not of any more importance. The most serious diffi
culty, is that which rests on Matt, xxviii. 7, 10, cf xxvi. 32,
inasmuch as Matthew seems to know of no other appearings
of Jesus to the 'Disciples, than those in Galilee. If we consider
ourselves authorized to judge in a general way of that passage
without reference to th'e character of the Gospel of Matthew,
we might with Doedes, 1. c. 128, and Ebrard, ii. p. 728, say that
Christ's language referred to his appearing in the presence of
the mass of his Disciples ; it is self-evident, too, that he did not
command his Disciple|,,to depart immediately, but only at the
close of the week of the feast. But it is better to bear in mind
in addition, that the Gospel of Matthew is, as a general thing,
an account especially of what was acted on the theatre of
Galilee. We would only direct attention, then, further to the
fact that in Matt, xxriii. 16 mention is made of a mountain
designated by Jesus as a spot where the Disciples were to
assemble, which shows that there were appearances of Christ
which Matthew left unmentioned. On the patristic attempts to
reconcile the discrepancies, see Niemeyer de Evang. de narran-
do in Christi reditu dissensione, 1824, on those of a more
recent date, see Griesbach, who (in his Dissertation de fontibns
unde Evang. suas de resurrectione domino narrationes. Op. ii.,)
carries out the view that each EvangeUst records the reports
about the risen Sariour in the order in which they came to
him. The most recent attempts will be found noticed in
Ebrard. The enemies of the Eedeemer were to see him no more
when he had risen, this was the privilege of his friends alone,
but he no longer makes his abode even in their circle, but
appears only at intervals. The forty days preceding the Ascen
sion, are a period of transition to our Lord himself, who was
no longer bound by the ordinary conditions of earthly being ;
they were also a period of transition for the Disciples, who
were to be weaned from the relations of outward sense to
him.

Christ appears to Mary Magdalene 407
Christ appears to Mart Magdalene after his Eesurrec
tion. -^ v. 1-18.
V. 1, 2. Just at this point we find the three Synoptists
differing from one another, and from John. Before entering
in detail upon these differences, on which critics have in recent
times laid such stress, it must first of all be made clear, why
such differences are inevitable in all historical writings, in the
next place, that they are found in all profane authors, and
finally, what their relation is to the interests of religion ; here
belongs my dissertation " on the relation of differences in
detail, to truth upon the whole," in my Glaubwurdigkeit der
ev. Geschichte, " Credibility of the Evangelical History," p.
370, seq. 2d ed. (p. 466, seq.) The raost recent criticism has
banished all attempts at reconciliation " to the lumber-room of
antiquated harmonistics." But as there is no department of
history where the very same thing must not be employed, it
can only be regarded as the result of enmity to the evan
gelical history, when men repel, just in its case, all efforts at
reconciUation. It is possible that in the events here detailed, it
may be as Olshausen, following Griesbach and Hess, represents
it : " The accounts of the Synoptists, (and of John,) form two
parallel series; John relates merely what he witnessed, the
Synoptists probably heard what they relate, from one of the
women. By simply assuming now, that Mary Magdalene sepa
rated herself from the women, first came to the sepulchre alone,
and then called Peter and John thither, the parallel character
of the two accounts becomes clear and palpable. The course
of events is then the following: Early in the morning, Mary
Magdalene with the other women, repairs to the sepulchre^but
hastens in advance of them, and to her amazement finds the
sepulchre empty. Mary at once goes in haste to Peter and John,
meanwhile the other women come up, see the angels, and hear
their words. After the women have gone, Mary comes back
¦vrith the two Disciples, who after examining the grave return
home, while Mary still remains at the grave weeping, and here
the angels show themselves to her also, and then our Lord
himself appears. After this appearing, which was confined to

408 Chap. XX.— v. 3-13*
Mary, our Lord revealed himself to the women also on their
way back." (Translation of Olshausen's Comm. vol. iv. 273,
Clark's For. 'Theol. Libr.) The absence of a solicitous exact
ness on the part of the Evangelists in their narratives, which
makes it so easy to show contradiction in them, is here proven
by the use of the plural o'i8apev, in v. 2, which, as Strauss can
not deny, (ii. p. 578, Eng tr. iii. 314,) removes the main point
in the difference, since it is apparent from the use of the plural,
that John also knew of several women, though he only men
tions the Magdalene. Id^^aza here means week, and the car
dinal number (ptd) is used instead of the ordinal in accordance
with the usage of the later Hebrew, and especially of the
Aramean, (Winer, p. 224, 4th ed., Eng. transl. 196.) The fact
of the taking away of the stone, leads to the inference of the
taking away of the body — not exactly with an inimical design,
as the question of Mary to the gardener, v. 15, shows. The
woman hastens not to her female, but to her male, friends. It
may be asked whether she must not necessarily encounter her
female friends as she retumed ; but on the other side it may be
asked : what if these were going by the usual road, and Mary,
as the means of returning more quickly, struck into a by-way ?
What if it was necessary for her to take a different path from
theirs to get to Peter? Cf. what Hess (Th. iii. p. 465, seq.)
adduces from Josephus. — ^From the repetition of the npbz, Ben
gel concludes that John was not in the same place as Peter.
V. 3-10. The imperfect fjpxovzo, is used of an action in
passing. The inquisitiveness prompted by love, perhaps, also,
his more youthful years, caused John to run in advance of
Peter ; he sees, ¦with what could have been no slight surprise,
the linen clothes lying, a fact which contradicted the supposi-
tioi^ that the body had been taken away. The more courageous
Peter enters the vault, (cf. on xi. 38,) and now notices that the
different parts of the burial clothes are laid apart as carefully
as if the person on whom they had been had done it, John
also sees this, and ventures to believe in a resurrection. That
the iniazeuaev refers to faith in the account given by the Mag
dalene, V. 2, (Erasmus, Grotius, Heumann,) is inadmissible,
since the very fact that the linen clcthes were carefully laid
aside would, on the contrary, put a robbery out of the question.

Christ appears to Mart Magdalene. 409
But neither can we, with Ebrard, refer the iniazeuaev to the
same object as sl8s, to wit: the linen laid off with regularity,
for then the connection with v. 9 is broken, nor is it said that
Peter had given John an assurance about it, on the contrary,
according to v. 5, John had seen the things himself It is true
the ntazeuetv here, also, (see on ii. 11,) expresses a lower degree
of faith, the mere faith in a probability, like that faint hope
expressed by the Disciples who went to Emmaus, Luke xxiv.
21. The account of the same fact in Luke xxiv. 12, mentions
Peter only, to whom wonder merely is attributed; a similar
absence of care on the part of the narrator is very clearly seen
there, moreover, since from the ziviz, v. 24, it is manifest that
Peter did not go to the grave alone. A faith in the resurrec
tion of Christ based on Scripture, John represents as the higher
grade, the Scripture here, also, representing only the objective
divine counsel, cf. i8st, Luke xxiv. 26. As to the difficulty
often urged, of understanding how the Disciples should not
have remembered the predictions of the resurrection so dis
tinctly made, we have but to bear in mind, that while they
easily comprehended the verbal meaning of the announcements,
they may have regarded the expressions as figurative, (cf. Luke
ix. 45, Mark ix. 10.)
V. 11-13. The hurrying Disciples had been slowly followed
by Mary ; it may be asked then : why did she still weep when the
Disciples must have comforted her ? It is questionable;' whether
they met her on her return. But if they did, the reason of
their hope, which was still far from certainty, might not at
once comfort her woman's heart which had been so deeply
agitated. Luther makes some fine suggestions in regard to the
unbounded character of her sorrow. He directs attention, for
exaraple, to the fact that the other women, when they see the
angelic appearance, fly, (Mark xvi. 6,) but not so Mary: "so
full of devotion, longing and love toward the Lord Jesus Christ
is she, that she neither sees nor hears." The angelic appear
ances cannot well be transferred to the realm of mere fency,
although the Apostles themselves supposed that the women
were susceptible of an illusion of the fancy, (Luke xxiv. 23,)—
"none but the angels at the resurrection seem to belong to
history," (Hase, ev. Dogm. p. 115, 2d ed.)— but just as little
38

410 Chap. XX. — v. 14-18.
have the writers of the Bible apprehended such appearances as
ordinary facts of the world of sense. They several times con
nect with angelic appearances, the terms dnzaaia and opapa,
(Luke i. 22, Acts x. 3;) the angels, consequently, may have
been perceived only when the mind was in an exalted condition,
and by the inner sense.
V. 14, 15. The woman turning round perceived Jesus, with
out recognizing him — was this the result of her sorrow merely ?
See in answer to this question, what is said on v. 19. — The
sepulchre lay in a garden, and whom would she more naturally
expect to see at this early hour of the morning than the
gardener ? Hug has directed attention to an additional circum
stance which may strengthen this conjecture, (Freib. Zeitschr.
H. 7, p. 162, seq.) When persons were crucifled they were
stripped with the exception of the subligaculura, the cloth about
the loins ; Jesus had no other covering than this when he was
interred. But this was also the solitary piece of clothing worn
by laborers in the field : and thus Mary's conjecture is made
natural. Abzbv, 'Bengel: putat, hortulano statim constare, quem
velit,. "she thinks that the gardener will at once understand
whom she means." 'Apdi, Bengel : parata est novum sepulcrum
quserere, "she is prepared to seek a new sepulchre," but there
lies more in her words than this : Luther, "In sooth, she would
have had a goodly burden, a woman undertaking to carry a
dead body. But just so every Christian heart, which truly
loves Christ, is ready to think that it has strength enough to
do whatever it wills to do."
V. 16-18. It seems as if while she speaks to the gardener,
as she supposes, she turns her eyes away from him, and not
until he speaks to her again turns herself round ; that tone in
which she as a penitent sinner had heard herself addressed iu
the most important moment of her life, she now recognizes
once more ; she breaks forth into the wonted address and per
haps sinks at the feet of the risen Eedeemer, or places her hands
upon him to be satisfied of his reality. Cod. 18 adds: xal
npoziSpapev dipaadai abzou, "and she ran to touch him." The
language of our Lord, p-j pou dnzou, has seemed so difficult to
understand, that a change in the reading itself has been pro
posed. Even Lucke is disposed to read ou pou djtzou, as Schul-

Christ appears to Mart Magdalene. 41J
thess had suggested. The main question in forming our
estimation of the numerous efforts at explanation is, whethei
they harmonize with the meaning of dnzeadai ztvoul We
would make the foUowing classification of them: l)8.nzeadat^
to touch, to finger, to feel, a) Dr. Paulus : " Do uot lay a finger on
me for my wounds stiU smart." b) Weisse: "Do not lay a
finger on me, for I am stiU spiritual and have a body yet to
attain." c) Schleiermacher, Olshausen, (1st and 3d ed.) "Do not
touch me, for I am still passing through the process of glorifi
cation, and my flesh is stiU susceptible of injury." But thus the
process of gloriflcation would be preposterously represented
after the analogy of a cicatrizing wound, d) Fr. v. Meyer,
Fikenscher: "Thou needest not touch me — to wit: to test
whether I am a spirit or not, (v. 27, Luke xxiv. 39,) — for I
have not yet been taken from the earth." — 2) To lay hold of,
cling to any one, here especiaUy of clinging to the knees or to
the feet to kiss them, as in Matt, xxriii. 9. a) Beza, Piscator,
Gerhard, Maldonatus, Heumann, Mosheim: "Do not delay
¦with me, thou wilt have time enough for intercourse with me,
for I will remain several weeks with you, hasten rather, &c."
b) Camero, Kypke, Kuinol, Meyer : " Embrace not my knees,
for I am not yet glorifled, and this dirine reverence to me is
not yet proper." c) Chrysostom, Luther : " Do not kiss and lay
a finger on me so familiarly as in former days, for although I
have not yet ascended, I am soon to ascend." d) Augustine,
Calvin, Melancthon, Grotius, Lampe, Olshausen, (2d ed.) Nean
der : " Thou must not so cling to my earthly appearance, for I
am not yet in that glorified condition in which thou mayest
abide with me." 3) To dwell upon a thing spiritually. De
Wette : " Be not absorbed in my present appearance, the aban
donment of yourself to this feeling cannot truly satisfy you."
This third mode of apprehending the expression, has this
especially to favor it, that it dispenses with the necessity of
supposing some gesture on Mary's part to give completeness to
the narrative of the EvangeUst, a gesture of which he has made
no mention, and yet of ¦which had it occurred we would expect
some mention in a method of nanation so plastic as his.
Against it lies the objection that the usage of dnzeadai ztvoz in
this sense is not sufficiently established; used of things, it

412 Chap. XX.— v. 18-20.
certainly means, " to engage in, trouble one's self with, and pf
persons, in a bad sense, to designate a violent assault, (Plato,
Pol. v.. 465, B. Menex. 244, A.) but is it used also in a good
scKse? Passow certainly, in the 4th ed. of his Lexicon, admits
that it may be used of persons with whom one has to do, either
in a good or in a bad sense. Against the second interpretation
may be urged, that it seems to make the expression mean too
much. Nevertheless the very expression Knzeadai no8div, yovdzmv,
is connected with, npozxuvetv in Pindar, Nem. viii. v. 22, in Ho
mer, and in the Septuagint, 2 Kings iv. 27, and expresses a
supplicatory embracing of the knees, nor is it easy to beUeve
that Mary, under the impulse of the vehement emotion excited
by seeing our Lord, would have refrained from expressing her
feelings by a gesture, and supposing her to have made one, we
are reminded very naturally of Matt, xxviii. 9, where it is said
of the women : al 8k npozeXdouaat ixpdzrjaav abzou zouz Ttb8az, xal
npozsxuvrjaav abzlp, " they came .and held him by the feet and
worshiped him." If we decide for this meaning of dnzeadai,
the method of taking it suggested under d, would desen'e the
preference ; for the first has against it, that if it were correct,
the reason for forbidding the touching, would have been differ
ently stated, perhaps by ounm ydp dva^aivm, or something of the
sort ; to the view under b, is opposed the fact, that Christ, Matt.
xxviii. 9, does not prevent the adoration, and that the npoaxuvrjcez,
as it was not a divine adoration, was not rejected by him even at
an earlier period, (Luke v. 8, Matt. xvii. 14, Mark x. 17 ;) to the
view under c, the meaning of the word is opposed. In the first
class, the most tenable view is that of Fr. v. Meyer, although
the thought oL yiip nveupd eijie, is certainly not expressed with
sufficient clearness by ounm ydp dva^i^rjxa. Liicke adduces as
an additional reason against it, that Christ himself, Luke xxiv.
39, John XX. 27, invited a test by the touch, but to this the
reply may be made : that supposing Mary to have placed her
hand upon him to assure herself of his reality, the words p-j pou
dnzou are not to be regarded as prohibitory, but, as what follows
shows, as a tranquilizing address, " Thou needest not feel me,
for, &c." In our judgment, more than one of thp views offered
may claim a character of probability, but we are not prepared
to decide which is entitled to the preference,^- Th§ words

The risen Saviqur appbabs to the Apostles. 413
dvaBaivm, &c., which recall the promise in the last discourses
of Jesus, comprehend in them something consolatory. They
express the triumphant exaltation of the Eedeemer himself to
glory, and a participation on the part of the Disciples in that
love of the Father, which he, the first-born enjoys ; of both
these, his farewell discourse had spoken, (xiv. 28, xvii. 20-26.)
The risen Saviour appears to the Apostles. — v. 19-23.
V. 19, 20. It would seem that this is the same appearance
after the resurrection, detailed in Luke xxiv. 36, seq.; there is
a similarity not only in the facts, but in the words of Christ, (v.
48, 49.)' As to the reading, we would observe, that according
to Cod. A B D, auvrjypivoe should be rejected from the text.
In the opinion of the Fathers, and the theologians of the
Lutheran Church, it is a just inference from the text, that Jesus
passed through the closed doors, and consequently must have
risen in a glorified body." This view seems to be favored by
the fact that his Disciples did not recognize him, v. 14, ch. xxi.
4, Luke xxiv. 13, seq., by the express declaration, Mark xvi.
12, the sudden appearing, John xxi. 1, and the vanishing, Luke
xxiv. 31, to which is to be added the doctrinal argument, that
the resurrection of Christians in glory is designated as a repeti
tion or continuation of the resurrection of Christ, (1 Cor xv.
20, Col. i. 18.) Thus it is viewed at a recent date, by Olshau
sen, Krabbe, ("The Doctrine of Sin," p. 299, seq.) F. Kuhn,
("How did Christ pass through the door of the grave?" 1838.)
Eeasons, not destitute of weight, are in conflict with this view«
The fact, indeed, that Christ after his resurrection partook of
earthly nourishment, (Luke xxiv. 42, John xxi. 13,) may be set
aside by the distinction, that the capacity to assimilate food
does not necessarily presuppose its necessity; but when the risen
Saviour attributes to himself flesh and bones, Luke xxiv. 39,
f Neander compares, also, the appearing before the SudsKa, f twelve," 1 Cor. xv.
5 • he thinks in general, that Paul there brings in the appearances of Christ after
his resurrection m chronological order, a supposition which would render it neces
sary to transpose frow Galilee, to Jerusalem, the appearing before the five hundred.
2 Cf Suicer, Thes. eccles. i. p. 141.3 ; Whitby, de interp script, e patr. p. 288, s j
Gerhard, Harm. Ev. sect. 212 ; Quenstept, Syst. Theol. I'. 11 I.p. f34. A lutherm dispu
tation for this view, armed at every point, was prepared by Gunther, Leipzig, 1693
36*

414 Chap. XX. — v. 21-23.
can this body be that ampa zrjz 8b^rjz, which is ascribed to him in
his present condition ? (Philip, iii. 21.) Can this be harmonized
with the fact that according to 1 Cor. vi. 13, there shall be in
the glorified state no questions either about the xoeXia, or about
the ^pcbpaza, and that "flesh and blood" are excluded from
the perfected kingdom of God? (1 Cor. xv. 60.) On the other
hand: were there no analogy between the risen Christ and
Christians when they shall rise, how could Paul parallel them ?
Again : if Christ remained subject to all the earlier conditions
of his earthly being, how, during the fifty days that followed
his resurrection, could he keep aloof from the circle of his
Disciples, when he must, on this supposition, have been
impelled to seek in it to allay their agitation ? We, conse
quently, find ourselves compelled to take an intermediate view,
to suppose an essential change potentially in bodily organism,
¦which did not, however, come to its completion until the act of
ascension. It may be rendered veiy doubtful whether the
passages in John compel us to suppose that a miracle took
place. A decided conclusion could be drawn from the iazrj siz
zb piaov, V. 19, 26, only in case it had not been preceded by
^Xdev and epxezai, cf. Luke xxiv. 36. The fact that zdiv dupdiv
xexXstapivmv is repeated in v. 26, without the addition of 8id
zbv fbj9ov zdiv 'loudaimv, could be strictly demonstrative only in
case it were connected, not with epxezat, but -with eazrj eiz tb
piaov. Granting, however, that John speaks of a miraculous
appearing when the doors were closed, this would be far from
compelling us to think of a body of flesh and bones impenetra
ting the wood of the door. The remark is already made by
Bucer and Calvin, that John does not write 8 id dupdiv xexXet-
apivmv; we may rather then, on the supposition that John
speaks of a miracle, imagine a miraculous opening of the door,
which is not mentioned, however, because the Disciples did not
perceive the mode of entrance. — The risen Saviour presented
himself in their midst ¦with the salutation of peace, (see on xiv.
27.) After he had vanquished death, and obtained the forgive
ness of sins, there was peace : the repetition in v. 21 and v. 26,
shows that something emphatic lies in this salutation. On v.
20, cf further the remarks on v. 25.
V. 21-23. They are comforted by a reference to that exalted

The risen Saviour appears to 'Ihe Apostles. 415
destination, which had also been spoken of in ch. xvii. 18. The
breath is the syrabol of the Spirit, as is the wind, ch. iii. 8; it
is Jesus who breathes on thera, that is, through him the Spirit
is mediated. Only by the power of the Holy Ghost can a judg
ment be formed as to the moral position of men and its relation
to the kingdom of God; so far the promise in v. 22 is connected
with that in v. 28. This judgraent of the Spirit, however, is
not an indistinct emotion, but is connected with the rule of
faith and life; so far the jus eluvium, "the power of the keys,"
is in the later Church a right of the clergy.' It is an imp.ortaiit
question, whether the breathing is to be regarded as the syrabol
of an endowment yet to be conferred, or of one imparted at the
time. The latter view is the prevalent one ; but as the pouring
out of the Spirit took place at Pentecost, we already find that
Chrysostom discriminates between diverse operations of the
Spi''it, in unison with whose view Gerhard says: Dicenclam,
quod spiritum sanctum jam ante acceperint ratione sanetifioa-
tionis, hic accipiunt eum ratione ministerii Fvangelici ; in die
Pentecostes accipiunt eum ratione miraculosorum donorum,
" it may be said, that they had already received the Holy Spirit
in respect of sanctification, here they receive him in respect of
the ministry ofthe Gospel; on the day of Pentecost they r-^ceive
him in respect of the gifts of miracles." These diverse qualities,
however, are all grounded in the same spiritual substance, we
must, consequently, regard the whole of them as from the be
ginning imparted potentially, and only becoming operative by
degrees, or we must bring them into a gradual relation. Cal-
¦rin, Bengel, Lucke, Olshausen, regard the outpouring of the
Spirit at Pentecost as a quantitive climax of the Spirit, as the
culminating point ; but if the Spirit had been imparted before
Pentecost, why not, also, before this breathing on the Disciples?
Olshausen, in fact, supposes that there was an impartation of the
Spirit at the time of the sending forth of the Apostles, men
tioned in Matt. x. In what, then, does this solemn act differ
from that continued impartation of the Spirit which took place
without any such act? Moreover, had this act been one of
1 The promise. Matt. xvi. 19, is related; it would not merely be related, but
would correspond with it, if the "finding" in that passage could be taken as equiv
alent to the Koardv, " the retaining," in this.

416 Chap. XX. — v. 24-29.
essential moment to the Apostles, could Thomas, who was ab
sent at the time, be deprived of it without detriment ? Again,
does not the expression, vii 39, compel us to regard the specific
impartation ofthe Spirit as a consequence of Christ's do^aapoz,
"glorification," and does not his "glorification" begin with
his " sitting at the right hand of the Father ?" Finally, it is
to be noted that in Luke xxiv, 49, also, reference is made only
to the future. We must return, then, to the view of Grotius
and Lampe, according to which the symbol typifies something
future. Lucke employs as an argument against this, Ezek.
xxxvii. 9. But what can that passage decide in this question ?
The prophet calls to the wind, which becomes a breath of life
in the dead. We cannot even affirm that there is here a sym
bolic, prophetic action, the wind itself is considered as the breath
of life.' In fact, most of the symbolical actions of the prophets
are typifieutions of something future, (of this we have a New
Testament example in Acts xxi. 11.) With more justice^
Strauss, (ii. p. 646,) adduces the laying on of hands for the im
partation of the Spirit, an appeal, too, might be made to the
imperative XdjSeze, But an absolute present time must not be
inferred from the use of it, since it must be conceded that the
Apostles were at that time in no condition to exercise those
functions of spiritual judgment of which v. 23 speaks.
Christ appears to Thomas and the other Apostles.
V. 24-29.
V. 24, 25. In proportion as we have marked the disposition
of recent times to consider the Apostles as credulous, in that
proportion is there something striking in the appearance of a
Disciple with so much critical reflection as Thomas displays.
Evidence is afforded in his language, ch. xi. 16, that the inmost
soul of this Disciple had been arrested by the truth pertaining
to Christ's person, and still further evidence is furnished by the
exclamation in which he breaks forth in v. 28 of this chapter.
In virtue of this impression, he, too, must have felt that cerr
' If it be not better on the whole, with Hiiverniok, Komm. zum Ezek. in loe, to
take no in the sense of Spirit, in which case the passage is still less adapted to
prove what Liicke would use it for.
2b

Christ appears to Thomas and the other Disciples. 417
tainty which the Disciples who went to Emmaus expressed, that
all could not be at an end -with this Jesus. But the reflection
of his intellect suppressed the ¦wishes and anticipations which
were aroused in his feelings. His disposition to doubt trans
cended in fact the limits of mere caution. It is not enough for
him to see the prints of the nails, he will feel them, and even this
¦\rill not satisfy him, he desires in addition to thrust his hand
into the Saviour's side. It seems almost inconceivable that
from the omission of a mention in this- place and at v. 20, of
prints in the feet, the inference could be drawn that the feet
were not pierced with nails in cruciflxion, yet even Lucke con
fidently draws this inference. If Thomas, after feeling the
Saviour's hands and side, had insisted on feeling his feet also,
would not this doubting mood leave upon the mind the impres
sion of an absurdity ? Besides this, for any one whom the tes
timony of Luke xxiv. 39, seq. does not satisfy, the fact that the
feet, also, were nailed in crucifixion, may certainly be regarded
as placed beyond all doubt by the investigations of Hug and
Bahr. V. 26-29. On the eighth day of the week of the feast, (the
feast days may be reckoned as seven and as eight,) we again
find the Apostles together, probably shortly before their depart
ure from Jerusalem. "Eam seems to intimate that they usually
met in one and the same place. Our Saviour's language to
Thomas, which seems to give proof of an extraordinary know
ledge, testifies of his disapprobation, yet he kindly complies,
at the same time, with the demands of this extreme doubt.
But the mere appearing and word of the risen Sariour arrest the
doubting Disciple in his inmost soul, so that he omits the appli
cation of the very test he had desired,' and breaks forth with an
intensity of exclamation, which is to be regarded not as the
result of the momentary impression, but as the exponent of all
the impressions cherished in the preceding period. The elnev
auzd), "said unto him," shows that his expression was addressed
to the Saviour, and was not, as Theodore of Mopsuestia and
Dr. Paulus understand it, a mere exclamation of amazement.
To avoid misapprehending the answer .of our Lord, we must
1 The words Sti lapandi /le, " because thou hast seen me," show that Thomas did
not place his hands upon Christ

418 Chap. XX.— v. 30, 31.
bear in mind, that what he says is meant only to have ref
erence to the domain of religion, but it is essential to re
Ugious faith, in antithesis to the outer world, to hold fast
to that which is invisible, nap' iXniSa in' iXni8i, "against
hope in hope," Eom. iv. 18 ; the language here, indeed, per
tains to a historic fact lying in the sphere of the senses,
but, as De Wette very truly remarks, this fact has a truth con
nected with it pertaining to the sphere of ideas, (xiv. 18, seq.
xvi. 21,) and the recognition of that truth inclines the mind to
the reception of the historical fact. Had the later times which
follow Christ's departure from our earth, been, like Thomas,
¦willing, only on the evidence of the senses, to believe in him
who had risen from the dead, the Christian Church could have
no existence. — As the Evangelist closes his Gospel with these
words of our Lord, he insists upon the basis of them, as it were,
that his readers should confide in the testimony here given, and
thus V. 30, 31 are attached to the close. The aorists i8bvzez
and niazeuaavzez are to be explained by the use of the aorist in
general propositions and proverbs, as in James i. 11, 24, Luke
i. 52. V. 80, 81. There are two ways in which these closing words
may be construed. The majority refer zauza to arjpsta, and con
nect V. 30, 31 very closely : " Jesus truly had done — but these
arjpeta," &c. Mkv ouv may, however, as in some other places, be
used as a formula of closing, (Luke iii. 18, Acts v. 41,) where
we would use "but yet," and then the verses are more com
pletely separated, and zauza is equivalent to z. ^t^X. zouzo. The
meaning of arjpeta will be determined by the one or the other
of these constructions. We can hardly, in accordance with
John's usage elsewhere, (ix. 16, x. 41, xi. 47,) apply the expres
sion a-/jpeta notetv to any thing except the miracles of Christ.
Yet the first construction seems to force us to understand by
arjpeta, the miraculous appearings of the Sariour after his
resurrection, which indeed are called zexpijpta, " proofs," Acts i.
3. This view is confirmed by John's language : " in the pres
ence oi his Disciples," ivmniov zdiv padrjziov ai5ro5, while the
miracles were performed before all the people, (Luke xxiv. 19.)
This view is the one held by Chrysostom, Euthymius, Maldo-

Christ appears to Thomas and the other Disciples. 419
natus,' Semler, Olshausen, Lucke, and many others. It is a
view, however, which we cannot adopt. First of all is opposed
to it, that the text does not express the " auch" (also) which
Luther adds, and which we would naturally expect, " also many
other things;" it does not read as in xxi. 25, xal dXXa noXXd, but
we have merely the increasing xai, which is not expressed in
German, (Kuhner, ii. 422.) (In English, "and indeed, and
truly.") The proposition, consequently, is not connected Math
what precedes. Further, we ask, could John have known of
many other appearings of Christ after the resurrection ? In ch.
xxi. 14, he speaks of a third appearing only, which took place
before all the Disciples. Again, how could he have been led to
use arjpeta notetv in speaking of miraculous appearings ? Final
ly, does not the expression iv z. ^ij3X. z., "in this book," show
that he had the entire book in his eye ? in which case it is not
credible, that here at the close of his entire work he raeant only
to speak of the last things narrated in it, and on them especial
ly to establish the faith and life of the Church. It is no doubt
possible that zauza refers to the miracles narrated in the earlier
parts of the Gospel, in which case the first construction may be
retained, without deviating from the ordinary meaning of
arjpeta notetv. Nor -will it be thought incredible, after compar
ing ch. xii. 37, that he meant to furnish a ground for faith, in
the miracles he has detailed. On the other hand, if the second .
construction be followed, (cf what Beza already notices in regard
to pkvouv,) then zauza covers the entire contents of the Gospel,
exactly as in xxi. 24, and the observation, v. 30, forms so much
more natural a close, as John is the very Evangelist who has
narrated but few arjpeta. The fact that he has written : ivmntov
zdiv padrjziov, "in the presence of his Disciples," we explain by
supposing that he here names the padrjzai, "Disciples," as the
¦witnesses, through the medium of whom the faith of the Church
arose, that very faith which the Evangelist designed by this
Gospel to exalt. Besides, the padrjzai, "Disciples," were al
ways the most immediate witnesses of the miracles, cf vii. 3.
1 Maldonatus urges that mode of understanding it, as a proof that John did not
close his Gospel here, but only the materials in regard to the first manifestations
after the resurrection ; so, too, Heumann.

CHAPTER XXI.

With the close of ch. xx. the Gospel was closed. We have
now an appendix, which bears throughout the characteristics
of John's spirit and style, and which closes with a testimony
from some other hand. Supplements like this are found, also,
in the historians, as for example, in Nepos' Life of Atticus.
But the recent and most recent criticism judges in a wholly
different way in regard to this chapter. The opponents of the
genuineness of John's Gospel have made this appendix, and
especially its closing verses, a point from which they have
proceeded to contest the authenticity of the Gospel itself. Cf.
the Introduction, § 6. But we see that those, also, who have
defended the genuineness of the Gospel, unite, with hardly an
exception, in the judgment that this chapter is not genuine, as
for example Credner, Lucke, Neander, De Wette and Schwei
zer ; of recent writers, only Meyer, Olshausen and Guericke, can
be mentioned on the other side. Lucke thinks that "the entire
chapter, as respects language, delineation and matter, presents
the most singular phenomena," (ii. p. 805,) "the style of
thought, the language, the mode of recital throughout the chap
ter, betray an author wholly different from the Evangelist," (p.
825.) To the exaggeration in this judgment — ^which in Schwei
zer, p. 120, seq., goes almost even further — we would put a
limitation by the declaration of Credner, who has appUed him
self ¦with special diligence to the investigation of the peculiari
ties of the New Testament style : (Einleit. ins N. Test. i. 1,
p. 232,) " There is not a single external testimony against the
21st chapter, and regarded internally, this chapter displays almost
all the peculiarities of Johns style." The differences of style
are in fact so inconsiderable, that they can hardly be regarded
as having weight in the face of the numerous coincidences with
(420)

Genuineness of the Chapter. 421
John, which Guericke, (in his Introduction, p. 310,) following
Credner, has gathered together. Now, this harmony with John,
m point of style, furnishes at once a very strong proof of the
genuineness of this chapter, for if it were designed, (and unde
signed it could not be,) where does there exist in the ancient
Church an example of a falsarius making so happy a counter
feit ? We cite the words in which Lucke states what he has to
confirm his doubt: (with which cf Schweizer, p. 67,) "The
authenticity of this chapter stands or falls with the originality
of the last two verses ; these in structure and in contents cohere
closely with the preceding ones. On the other side, as the
point of view from v. 1 to 14 is abandoned at v. 15, the appen
dix requires some sort of a conclusion, v. 24 at least. The
writer of v. 24 also wrote what precedes it. And, as there
is no reason for separating v. 24 from v. 25, as on the contrary
the latter verse corresponds closely with the hyperbolical tone
of narration in v. 11, it follows that if v. 24 and 25 were not
written by John, neither is he the author of verses 1-23." In
addition to this : " If v. 23 presupposes the death of the Evan
gelist, there can no longer be a dispute as to the author ; if
John himself had written the sentence, there would have been
a much more natural way of correcting 'the saying,' Xoybz,
than by emphasizing the conditionating ^ if I will,' kdv diXm."
Schweizer finds in these last words " a verbal trifling unworthy
of the Evangelist." We enter, flrst of all, our most decided
protest against this imputation of a verbal trifling, and ask,
whether the child-like tone of John's mind does not reveal itself
in the very fact that he clings in perfect simplicity to the words
of his Master, and repels an inference which, however flatteringj
was yet unsure ? We are inclined to think that the occasion
for this appendix was furnished by the saying that was in cur
rency about him, that he would not die. A lowly, child-like
man would be the very one to feel a hearty desire to repel an
expectation of that sort, and it is our opinion, that partly to
give a -vivid picture of the circumstances under which this last
expression was uttered by our Lord, partly to Unk it with the
appearings after his resurrection, which had been previously
detailed, he gives the complete account of this delightful inter
view in Galilee. If this be the occasion of the appendix, and
2o 37

422 Chap. XXI. — v. 1-17.
if this chapter be but an appendix, we are at a loss to know how
Dr. Lucke can, with justice, insist that the Evangelist must yet
have added a closing word. The Evangelist had, in fact, already
closed, ch. xx. 80, 31. The necessity, therefore, is by no means
clear, " that the author of v. 24 must have also written what
precedes it." If it be further affirmed, that the hyperbole in
V. 25 corresponds with that in v. 11, we do not apprehend that
any such correspondence exists, for while in v. 25 every one
acknowledges a hyperbole, we cannot comprehend why the
number of the fishes, one hundred and fifty-three, must be, not
historical, but hyperbolical. We beUeve that with far better
conscience the question may be started : Is it credible that the
same pen which wrote v. 25 could have written that simple
narrative which is found in this chapter ? — There are no doc
trinal interests for whose sake an earnest defense of John's
authorship in this last chapter is necessary ; if, with Neander
and Lucke, the view is held, that the account flowed from the
oral tradition of the Evangelist, it amounts to the same thing.
But the unprejudiced testing of the points involved in criticism,
compels us, as regards the authorship of this chapter, to differ
fi'om the highly esteemed expositors we have just mentioned.'
Jesus appears in Galilee. — Miraculous draught of Fishes.
V. 1-14.
V. 1-3. After the festival had ended, the Disciples had
returned to Galilee, where, in the brief interval which yet remain
ed until Pentecost, they stayed and again pursued their calling.
The expresssion ipavepouv iauzbv, "he showed himself," impUes
that there was in his appearing something wonderful, (Mark xvi.
12.) 'Enl z. daX., " on the shore of the sea," that is, " at the
sea," cf on vi. 19. They had cast their nets during the night,
as at this tirae, as Aristotle already mentions, fishing could be
conducted to the best advantage. On Nathaniel, see above on
i. 62. V. 4-8. The question of Jesus implies a design on his part"
of taking a meal in company with his Disciples, (v. 12.) The
1 The literature of the earlier controversial writings on this point, is specially
designated in Lucke, ii. p. 824.

Conversation of Christ with Peter. 423
Disciples may, however, have taken him for a stranger, desiring
to purchase food for his breakfast. The Disciple who loved the
Lord is distinguished by a profounder sympathy, in virtue of
which he at once, partly by the miracle, partly by his form and
voice, recognizes him. Peter, on the other hand, here also is
the swifter of the two in forming a resolution. Fupvbz, as is
well known, does not always designate a coraplete nakedness,
yet we may suppose that Peter had on nothing besides the sub-
ligaculum, of which mention has been made on xx. 15. As to
the inevduzTjz, Euthymius speaks of a light garment without
sleeves and coming only to the knee, and which we should
probably fancy as narrow, like a kind of shirt, which he says
was in common use by fishermen; Theophylact speaks of a
light garment which the fisherraen either wore over the other
clothes, or next to the skin. The raiment mentioned by
Euthymius would at least have been a hindrance in swimming,
and 8ie^maazo may then be translated, either "he girded up,"
or "he girded around him." — Tip nXotapiw is the dat. instr. '
V. 9-14. How the fire of coals and the food had been pre
pared is not clear, for they could not have been got ready by
Peter in such haste. There is nothing improbable in the state
ment, that the Disciples, astonished at the large number of fishes
taken, counted them, and just as Uttle in the fact that the num
ber impressed itself on their memory. — The recent writers regard
the tenor of v. 12 as strange and obscure, but what else can be
the intention of the Evangelist than this, that the Disciples, far
from the familiarity which had been their wont, refrained from
expressing the joy they felt at beholding their Lord again?
How natural is this in the position in which the Lord places
himself to them after his resurrection, and how artlessly is it
expressed by the Evangelist ! — The appearing to the women is
not included in v. 14, but merely the two appearings in the
ch-cle of the Disciples, mentioned in ch. xx.
Conversation of Christ with Peter. — v. 15-23
V. 16-17. They are still sitting at the meal, which, to draw
an inference from v. 12,* had been passed through more silently
than usual. The reproring look which the Eedeemer had cast

424 Chap. XXI. — Y. 18, 19.
on Peter after his denial, (Luke xxii. 61,) was stUl burning in
his soul; he was deposed as it were from his earlier official
dignity, and must be restored to it again.' The mode in which
this is done, is one so full of spirit, so far beyond the reach of
invention, that any presumption of a mere fiction in the case is
put to the blush: Love to Ohrist is the grand essential for feeding
his flock. With the threefold denial corresponds the triple
hammer-stroke of this question on the heart of Peter. ¦ The
first question is a remembrancer to him of his language, when
he was guilty of the assumption of ascribing to himself a love
stronger than that of all the rest, (Matt. xxvi. 33.) The words,
"Simon, son of Jonas," with which Christ addresses him, have
a character of solemnity, (Matt. xvi. 17.) In his reply the
Disciple no longer ventures to glance aside at the rest ; yet far
from a sickly humility, he has the courage, despite his confusion,
to reply affirmatively, and to appeal to the witness of Him, in
whose power to search the depths of the heart he had confidence.
The questions which follow and which pierce yet more deeply,
drop the aUusion to the other Disciples. Bbaxeiv and noipaiveiv,
npb^aza and dpvia (Matt. x. 16, Luke x. 3,) are synonymous,
the diminutive dpviov had, like d)ziov, lost its diminutive signi
fication, (see xviii. 26 ;) fiXetv and dyandv have here the same
meaning, (see xi. 6.) The object of the humiUation is sufficiently
attained at the third question, but the Disciple, despite his grief,
cannot refuse to do justice to the assurance of his own self-
consciousness. The conviction ah ndvza oldaz, "thou knowest
all things," might be deduced from experiences like that in
Matt. xvii. 27. The argument for the primacy of Peter, is in a
forlorn condition if the defenders of it are compelled to attach to
this passage the importance that Maldonatus does : Qusero, cui
universa ilia (ecclesise) cura, nisi Petro, qusero ubi, nisi hic,
commissa sit? "I ask, to whom was that entire care of the
Church committed except to Peter, I ask, where but here was
it committed to him?'"'
1 Zwingle : Petrus de novo quasi inauguratur apostolico muueri ex Christi gratia,
a quo negando culpa sua merito exciderat, ut superabundet gratia, ubi delictum
abundaverat, "Peter is inaugurated, as it were, anew into the Apostolic office, by
the grace of Christ, (from which at his denial his own fault had deservedly cut him
off,) that where sin had abounded, grace might much more abound."
' He sustains himself especially by the argument, that in the general expression,
' my sheep," the other Apostles must be included.

Conversation of Christ with Peter. 425
V. 18, 19. An intimation of the serious trial the office would
bring with it ; what our Lord, ch. xiii. 86, had already intima
ted to the Disciples, he here repeats in an expression, which
after the style of the prophetic expressions, has a figurative
character, aud presents the future, but with a veil over it. We
assume that the explanation John gives in v. 19, with which cf.
xii. 33, xriii. 32, is the correct one ; the expression 8o$d^eiv z.
d. for the death by martyrdom, is in keeping with the partiality
which John has all along shown for the idea involved in
do^d^eiv. — ^V. 18 presupposes that Peter was no longer a youug
man — we know that when he came to Christ he was already
married; it is also presupposed that he would reach old age —
he actually labored for more than thirty years after. The most
obvious sense offered by the sentence, is that first given by
Fikenscher: "In thy youth thou didst dispose of thyself at
thine own pleasure, with thine advancing years thou shalt be
more and more dependent on another, who will gird thee and
do with thee as he pleases." Olshausen interprets in a similar
way : " In the vigorous fullness of thy youthful strength thou
hast done as it pleased thee, in thine old age this vivacious
spirit shall be broken." To adopt this idea and yet allow the
claims of John's interpretation, would require us to say, that in
the crucifixion of Peter the language of our Lord was verified
in a higher and more definite sense. We approach more clearly
to the meaning John gives, when we regard the girding in old
age simply as a figurative prophetic designation of binding, as
in Acts xxi. 11, (Beza, Calvin, Heumann, Meyer.) 'Exzeivm
would then mean "to stret6h out," and would refer to the
fettering or binding of the hands, and o'iaei to the leading away
to execution. But persons sentenced to be crucified, at least
when they were compelled to carry their cross, could not well
have been led to execution with their hands bound; but
ixzeiveev can also refer to the spreading out of the hands, and
certainly if John did not give it this interpretation then a
reference to the manner of death cannot be found in the
expression. The most probable riew will always be that John
discovered in the words ixzevet<z zdz x^tpaz, the distinct allusion
to crucifiidon. In this case, however, the o'iaee xzX. seems to
make a hysteron-proteron, which has been obviated in an

426 Chap. XXL — v. 20-23.
inadmissible way, by Casaubon, when he refers the words
ixzevetz — l^maee, " thou shalt stretch forth thy hands and
another shall gird thee," to the Eoman custom of stretching on
the furca and carrying it about, and byT^engel, according to
whom the tying to the cross and the nailing respectively took
place before the cross was set up. The hysteron-proteron must
be acknowledged, but may be defended on the ground that the
words ixzevetz rdz X^~'-P'^'^i "tUou shalt stretch forth thy hands,"
present the main idea, and the words "shall gird thee," i^dyaee
ai, may be understood of the binding with the subligaculum,i
(see on xx. 16.) As regards the testimonies in Church history
with reference to the close of the life of this Disciple, it will be
sufficient to cite Hase : (Church History, § 58,) " According to
the witnesses since the middle of the second century, who are
not indeed perfectly good authority, yet are independent of
Eomish influence, he was crucified at Eoine." His martyrdom
in Eome is firmly estabUshed, the specific death of crucifixion
is mentioned by TertuUian and Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. iii. 1. —
Great difficulty has been felt in the exposition of the words,
dxoXoudee poe, "follow me," as it would seem especially when
we refer to xiii. 86, as though it must be understood of follow
ing in the death of martyrdom ; yet we find ourselves compelled
by the dxoXoudobvra, v. 20, to take in its literal sense, the follow
ing spoken of. In our judgment, the preceding conversation
(cf. zouzmv, V. 15,) took place in the presence of the Disciples.
Jesus now rose, in order to speak aside with Peter, whom he
commands to follow him.
V. 20-28. Whether from curiosity or the sympathy of
attachment, John feels urged to follow them. He designates
himself here, not merely as the Disciple 5v ijydna b 'Irjaouz,
"whom Jesus loved," but by referring to a particular circum
stance, in which his intimate relation to our Lord was specially
displayed. This- fuller designation is not, indeed, merely.
designed to render the words " whom Jesus loved," more clear,
but rather serves to intimate how Peter found occasion for tbe
question, v. 21. Peter had understood that serious and painful
1 In the Evang. Nicod. c. x. p. 582, ed. Thilo, in narrating the crucifixion, are these
words: h^i&vaav r.'l^aovv rd Ifiuna airot, Kal irspie^uaav a-lirbv XevHi^, "they
removed from Jesus his ganneata, and girded him (irspis&joap.) with a cloth."
3C*

Conversation of Christ with Peter. 427
trials awaited himself, and there now rises in his mind the
desire, not wholly a pure one, of knowing whether a like des
tiny awaited that Disciple who had been in such intimate
confidence. The reply of our Lord is, therefore, severe, and
dismisses Peter's question.' In a similar spirit to that in which
Paul, Gal. vi. 4, says : zb ipyov kauzou doxepa^izm ^xaazoz, " let
every man prove his own work," our Lord wishes that all
glancing to one side or the other should cease, and that the
Disciple, in rigid earnestness, should keep before his eye his
own calling alone. When Christ himself, in the Gospel, speaks
of his coming, the expression embraces also all his manifesta
tions in the course of history, (Mark ix. 1, Matt. xxvi. 63,) but
in the language of the Apostles, the coming of the Lord desig
nates his last coming to judge the world, as the close of all the
judgments which take place in the lapse of time, (Eev. ii. 6,
iii. 11.) The childlike Disciple will not allow that interpreta
tion of the words which is most glorious for himself, to pass, he
simply abides by the conditional " if 1 will." Should he remain
alive until the consummation of the kingdom of God and the
resurrection of the dead, he would wholly escape death, for
which would be exchanged that metamorphosis of which Paul
speaks, (1 Thess. iv. 17, 1 Cor. xv. 61.) "This saying" was
not, however, entirely suppressed even by this authentic con
tradiction. Augustine narrates the legend, that while yet
liring, the Disciple had caused a grave to be dug, into which
he had descended, and apparently expired, though in fact his
death was only a slumber, for the earth which covered him still
moved lightly as he breathed. In the Greek Church this
legend was embellished in various ways, and was yet extant in
the period of the Byzantine historians, (John Muller's Works,
vol. vi. p. 74, 82.) The EngUsh sect of "Seekers," under
Cromwell, expected the reappearance of the Apostle as the
forerunner of the return of Christ.
1 The posture of matters is apprehended by Chrysostom ip a different way. The
fuller designation "who also leaned on his breast, &c." is designed, he thinks, to
give prominence to the confidence which Peter had now attained, so that he who
formerly had directed to our Lord, tlirough John, a question relating to Judas, now
himself interrogates the Lord — and about John i The question of Peter is a ques
tion of sympathizing love ; he is not willing to be separated from his friend.

428 Chap. XXI. — V. 24, 25.
, Supplementary Testimony. — v. 24, 25.
V. 24, 25. We have already in the Introduction, § 6, ex
pressed ourselves at large in regard to the character and object
of this testimony, whieh has such importance on- the question
regarding the authenticity of this Gospel. We offer here but
a remark in regard to the singular. Oe8apsv, as it is followed
by otpat, leaves it in doubt whether a single individual is speak
ing of himself. In the Greek epistolary style, the singular
and plural interchange, but does this take place in the historical
style? It is more probable that an individual speaks in the
name of a number of persons. "Oaa, (Lachmann, d) " all which,"
almost relative. Kad' ev, one after the other' without omission.
Abzbv zbv xbapov, the world itself, great as it is. The infinitive
aorist instead of the future after the verb to believe, as well as
after the verbs to hope, to wish, Winer, p. 306, Agnew and
Ebbeke's transl. p. 261.

SUPPLEMENT.

While this Commentary (the German original of the 6th edi
tion,) waB passing through the press, two- works on this Gospel,
deserving of notice, made their appearance : The Commentary
of Baumgarten-Crusius, 1st vol., 1st divis., (ch. 1-8,) Jena, 1843 ;
and Kostlin's Lehrbegriff — Doctrinal System of the Gospel
and Epistles of John, as also the related New Testament
Systems. Berlin, 1843.
The work of the Jena theologian, now deceased, presents in
the text, for the most part, only the interpretation peculiar to
the author, and indicates the interpretations of others, (chiefly
in notes,) with greater brevity than we find in Lucke. It may
claim the merit of an independent exposition which enters into
the spirit of the Gospel. The position which the author, who did
not belong decidedly to any of the present theological schools,
takes as regards the question about the genuineness and
authenticity of this Gospel, is deserving of notice. With
freedom, firmness, and historical tact, he presents briefly the
reasons why its genuineness must be acknowledged; knd, as
regards the authenticity of the facts, he adheres firmly, in a
general way, to those views which the extreme criticism of our
day hoped to render antiquated, by imposing on thera the name
of " antiquated systems of harmonistics and of apologetics ;"
only as regards miracles the lamented author takes a negative,
but exceedingly obscure, position. He defends the originality
of the discourses of the Eedeemer in John, though he will not
deny the influence of the hand that committed them to writing.
We shall merely touch here on what he says in regard to the
doctrine of the Logos. This doctrine, according to the view
of the author, cannot ,be regarded as a gradually heightened
• (429)

430 Supplement.
hypostatizing of the Old Testament doctrine of the Word and
Wisdom of God. It is rather in Judaism an exotic growth,
devised in Alexandria with the design of forming a connecting
link with the Grecian philosophy. " The probability is against
the idea that the doctrine of the Logos had found an introduc
tion and obtained weight among Jews and Christians out of
Alexandria, at the time the prologue to John's Gospel was com
posed." Only individuals had introduced it into the immediate
circles of the Evangelists; Apollos, perhaps, was one of these.
John has not made it the subject of any speculations of his
own, but has merely adopted it to secure an expression corres
ponding with his exalted opinion in regard to Christ.
The author of the new " System of John," which originally
appeared in Tubingen as a prize dissertation, takes, as a basis,
the views of Dr. Baur and Schwegler. The Gospel had its
origin in the second century, and was composed with the
irenico-apologetic object of harmonizing the conflicting parties
in the Christian community. Throughout the discourses of
Christ, and even through John the Baptist as an organ, none
other than the unknown Evangelist himself speaks in this Gos
pel. From the basis of Judaism he has completely sundered
himself. The fundamental idea of his book is to be found in
the thought that Christianity is the absolute religion. This
absolute religion has appeared personally in the incarnate
"Logos," with whom, for the flrst time, light and life have
been imparted to the world, so that out of him is nothing but
death and darkness. The author claims that by his labor, con
sidered as an objective historieal exhibition, he has lifted himself
far above the position occupied by Frommann, but his claim
cannot be allowed, unless the presumption may be justified
that the vievr taken by Dr. Baur of the history of doctrines in
the first and second centuries, is the only one historically estab
lished.

APPENDIX FIRST.

I.
FROM THE seventh EDITION. INTRODUCTION, | 2.
The Author's witness of himself.
On two occasions has the Evangelist pointed directly to him
self as a ¦witness of the events which he relate^ i. 14, xix. 35 ;
on a third, xxi. 24, Disciples testify of him the same thing. In
those passages where he introduces a Disciple without naming
him, with the predicate bv itpiXet b 'Irjaouz, he points indirectly
to his own person. From the following it appears clearly that
the Apostle John is understood^: in ch. xiii. 25, the oue to
whom that honorable predicate jnist mentioned is given, ia
called 6 dvaxeipevoz iv zip xbXntp zou 'Irjaou; now the same person
who was dvaxsipsvoz inl zb azf/doz is, xxi. 20, according to the
connection, no other than John ; and Polycrates the Ephesian
(Euseb. V. 24,) also calls him in his letter, 6 inl zb azrjdoz zou
xupiou dvansamv. Baur, it is true, has persuaded hiraself that
the Evangelist thereby wished to designate himself only as the
one who wrote the Apocalypse, as him who with a spiritual
insight had written the history of Jesus, as that apocalyptic
writer had written the history of the Church's future. 'The
timid delicacy in this half-veiled designation, which in a modi
fied form, is also found in i. 40, will appear to an unprejudiced
reader as a distinctive trait a£ the literary idiosyncrasy of the
whole Gospel. — In i. 14, and 1 John i. 1, he makes himself
known as a witness with others : if Baur will have us to under
stand this as an inward seeing only, it can be considered as
nothing but an expedient to avoid an accusation of literary
deception. A similar inward seeing, a hypophetic seeing in
(431)

432 Appendix First. — I.
the spirit of the Apostolic disguise, which was adopted by
Anonymus, is to be understood also in the other passage, xix.
35, where it is expressly stated that the author was standing by
the cross, and that his nanative is that of an eye-witness. In
this theory (of the position of later writers, as the hypophetic
priests of acknowledged authorities,) Kostlin' imagines that
he has found the key to a large part of the pseudonymous
Church-literature — certainly a more spiritualistic and more
suitable turn for certain times and circles, than when Hilgen-
feld simply suggests for consideration, (Evang. Joh. p. 368,)
that at the period in question " no such tbing as literary property
was known." He seems, however, not to have been entirely
wrong, for Dionysius of Corinth, at the time of the supposed
origin of the Gospel, under Marc Aurelian, complains : " By
request of the brethren I have written some letters which have
been filled with weeds, and otherwise changed by taking from
and adding to them by the apostles of the devil; woe wiU
befall them. It is therefore not astonishing at all, that some
persons should have dared to falsify the Scriptures of the Lord
also, since they have laid hands on inferior writings," (Euseb.
iv. 28.) We may compare with this an expression by Serapiou
of Antioch, at the end of the second century, when he found
in a congregation of Cilicia a spurious ebayyiXeov Ilizpou, con
taining heretical doctrines : " My brethren, we accept Peter and
the other Apostles as well as Christ ; but the pseudo-epigraphic
writings that are circulated under their names, we as judges
d)z ipnsepot reject, knowing that writings of that sort have not
been transmitted to us," (Euseb. vi. 12.) Also TertulUan's
statement, derived from an occurrence in the Church of Asia
Minor, de bapt. 17 : quod si, qui PauU scripta perperam legunt,
exemplum Theclse ad licentiam mulierum docendi fingendique
defendunt, sciant, in Asia Presbyterum, qui eam scripturam
construxit, quasi titulo PauU de sno cumulans, convictum atque
eonfessum id se amore PauU fecisse, loco decessisse.
I "Tiber die pseudonyme Litt. der altesten kirche," Zeller Jahrbuch, 1861.

Appendix First. — H. 433
II.
FROM the seventh EDITION. INTRODUCTION, J 6.
Construction.
By those who preceded Liicke, and by himself, 2d ed., the
days of the feast are regarded as the fixed data on which the
related events occurred. In a character so meditative as that
of the Evangelist, we might be led to expect, from the begin
ning, a systematic arrangement, by which the progress of the
history is conditioned. De Wette first points out the existence
of an internal plan : the introductory history, and the history,
aud two divisions again of these, which represent the opposite
phases in the history of Jesus, viz. how, during his sojourn
upon earth, his glory, 8o^a, became apparent, but was mostly
rejected by a callous world, and how, by his death, he was glo
rified, ch. ii.-xii.; the other, the glorification of Jesus through
death, (ch. xiii.-xrii.,) his internal glory in his humility, love,
calmness of soul, in his consciousness of rictory, and ch. xviii.-
XX., the history of his external glorification." The history of
his public labors finds, unmistakably, a final resting-place in
ch. xii. 37-50. The sorrowful complaint about the mass of his
people, who were unbelievers, with but a few timid exceptions,
forms the theme of this closing part. Casting a glance back
to the beginning, we find the final result already expressed in
the prologue, y. 11, 12 : " He came unto his own, and his own
received him not, but as many as received him, to them gave
he power to become children of God, even to them that believe
on his name." If we consider the peculiar circumstance, that the
adversaries with whom Christ had to deal are mostly introduced
as ol Iou8dioe, whereby we are to understand the nation as a whole,
(iv. 22, xi. 19, 38, xii. 9,) but especially as representatives of
the people, and at the same time as the centre of opposition,
the Jewish Elders, (i. 19, ii. 18, ix. 16-22, xvin. 12, 14,) it fol
lows that, V. (5) 11, 12, the theme of the foUowing historical
narrative may be considered to be : the history of the divine life,
which appeared personally in humanity, how it was rejected by its

484 Appendix First. — H.
own people, but became to the small number who received it, a
source of life. The fact that the history of the Eedeemer is
presented in this point of view, imparts to the depicture the
tinge of sorrow which it bears. — There is some truth in
the reproach made, that the opposition is not introduced
genetically in its gradual development. In the first four
chapters it merely makes its appearance in iv. 1, but at once
in ch. V. reaches its full extent, ripened into a plot to commit
murder, v. 16. Tet such expressions are not to be solicitously
urged, " they are to be understood from the tendency erincing
itself by many indications." (Eeuss, Denkschrift, p. 52.)
Just as that, which according to the Evangelist, was from the
first germinating in the heart of Judas, finally burst forth, so
the Evangelist saw, also, from the beginning, in the yet waver
ing opposition, the principle destined finally to appear openly,
under the direction of that God who had foreseen his &pa, (rii.
30, riii. 20, xiii. 1,) and over against this opposition is gathered,
unintenuptedly, the small fiock of God's children, to whom the
oaoe 8k iXa^ov abzbv pointed. But, as the grain of wheat cannot
produce much fruit without dying, so, also, during his life the
period has not anived when he can draw, all to himself, (riii.
28, xii. 32,) — the road to perfect glory passes by the cross ; hence
the opposition reaches the climax in the face of a most striking
arjpstov, performed before the very eye of the Sanhedrim, the
raising of Lazarus. What before had been merely a plan of the
Elders, now becomes a firm determination, ch. xi. Then fol
low, ch. xii., the prophetic anointing for his burial, his entrance
into the city, where by the altar of God is erected the altar
upon which God's prophet is to be sacrificed, (Luke xiii. 13.)
Here the pre-announcement of his approaching 8o^a is made in
the act of the Gentiles, who are anxious to have a glimpse of
him, then in the word pronounced by himself, v. 24, and,
finally, by the divine voice, v. 31. — The succeeding events,
including the death and the resurrection, (comp. xiii. 31,) are
presented in ch. xiii.-xx. See Luthardt, i. 255, in his thorough
examination of the different opinions on the construction. Ht
thinks himself able to show three subdivisions within each of
the three main dirisions.

APPENDIX SECOND.

from the se^venth edition, p. 61-66.
The Logos.
The Evangelist introduces the Logos as an idea not unknown
to his readers. It must have been familiar to himself, conse-
quently, also, to the circle of his readers ; for he has also intro
duced it with substantially the same meaning in Eevelat. xix.
13, and in 1 John i. 1. — It must seem most natural to the
expositor to presuppose that the Old Testament revelation
would furnish the point with which this idea would link itself.
Now there certainly is already in the Old Testament an appre
hension of the distinction between God as he is in himself, and
as he is to the world, a distinction which may be recognized iu
Exodus xxxiii. 12-28, a passage which deserves a profounder
investigation than it has yet received, cf. Kurtz, Gesch. des
Alten Bundes, ii. 1866, p. 321.' In the revelations under
1 Maimonides, More Nevochim, i. 21, has put upon it the rational construction :
Thou shalt discern my thirteen attributes, but not my essence. The tenor of the
paraphrase given in the two Palestinian Targums (about 500, A. D.) is very myste
rious. In the Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, v. 23 is thus interpreted : " I will remove
the hosts of my ministering angels, (thus it takes the words " my hand," the Poly
glot incorrectly transire faciam,) and thou shalt see the knot of the phylacteries of
the brightness of my shekinah, ( nrpt? ) but the face of the brightness of my
shekinah thou canst not see." This passage proves to what an extent the transla
tions of these Targumists are affected by tradition, for in the Talmud this notion
of the divine phylacteries occurs as one generally received. Gemara Beraoh. f.
vii. 1 : " R. Chana, in the name of R. Simeon, the holy, said in regard to the
words" 'm Exodus xxxiii; 23 : ' and I will take away my hand and thou shalt see
my back,' — this teabhes us that God showed to Moses the knots of the phylac
teries, r'7''Sn '7ty Ityp." The same work, f. vi. 1, treats more at large of these
phylacteries of God. The knot is tied ou the back of the head. That in this there
is an intimation given of insight into the mysteries of God, is pointed out by the
Targum Jeruschalmi: "I will remove my angels and thou shalt see the adytum
NT'31, for the brightness of my shekinah thou canst not see." — The difference be-
tween'the new view presented by Hofmann, with which Kurtz also concurs, (1. c. p,
(435)

436 Appendix Second. ' »•
the old covenant it is the °" ^n'jd, through whom they are
mediated, and of him it is said. Exodus xxiii. 21: "my
name is in him." This embassy of God, (for such in ac
cordance with its form, is the proper meaning of the word
ijk^^d) or appearing of God, is also named (in Exodus xvi. 10,
xxiv. 16,) "" 1133, the glory or the reflected splendor of God;
it is called in Isaiah Ixiii. 9, the angel of the face, (or presence,)
that is the angel through whom God becomes manifest to the
finite world, and in Mai. iii. 1, is called the angel of the cove
nant. Wherever now in the Old Testament, Jehovah, or the
Maleach Jehovah, (as for example in Judges vi. 11,) is men
tioned, the Targuniists substitute for these names, the terms
"T Nnp'D or even NJ^^j't?, that is habitation, tabernacle of God, (see
Gfrorer, Jahrhund. des Heils, 1 Abth. p. 806, Lutterbeck
"neutest. Lehrbegriffe," i. 196.) Now Onkelos and the Tar
gum of Jonathan on the prophets, belong, according to the most
recent critical investigations, to the first half of the first century
after Christ, (see Zunz, " gottesdienstlich. Vortrage der Juden,"
p. 62,) they were constantly read at the time of the discourses
in the synagogues. Were we now to confine ourselves to this
point and keep ourselves within the limits of an explanation
which would suppose a merely natural genesis of the idea, it
certainly could occasion no surprise if the Apostles, in accord
ance ¦with the impressions made upon them by the person and
the works of Christ, and by his testimony in regard to himself,
should have seen in Christ the appearing of that very word of
the Old Testament, of that very angel of revelation, should in
fact have seen in him the culminating point of the revelations
made to the fathers, (Heb. i. 1.) It allows of proof, moreover,
that not alone did the Apostles do this, but that Christ also
considered himself in identity with that Old Testament princi
ple of revelation : and here belong not merely John xii. 39, 1
Cor. X. 4, 1 Peter i. 11, but also Matt. xxUi. 34, 37.
But how came the Scribes, whose theologumena are comprised
in the Targum, to employ the term " Word " as a designation of
817,) and that of Hengstenberg (Christologie, i. 125, 2d ed.) is rather an exegetical
than a doctrinal one. In advance of a discussion of the detached passages which
present diffioulties, the question might arise, whether an angel, in whom, according
to Kurtz, " there is a personal and eternal presence of God," is to be regarded as a
creature, and not rather as a theophany.

Appendix Second. 437
the Mediator of revelation ? The support for it was likewise
furnished in the Old Testament in which, on the one hand, the
"Word of God" is the Mediator of the divine will to the
world, (Ps. xxxiii. 6, clrii. 15, 18, Isaiah Iv. 11, Ecclesiast. xliii.
26, Wisdom of Solomon xvi. 12;) and on the other hand, of
the knowledge of God, (cf. Ps. xxxiii. 6 with v. 4, Ps. cxlviii. 19
with V. 16, and Ps. cxlriii. 8 ;) the Word of God is deposited in
the law, and is received by the prophets through the revelations
made to them. Inasmuch, however, as not merely the omnipo
tence, but also the knowledge of God manifests itself in his
"Word," the transition was an easy one, by which, under this
term the divine wisdom was made a parallel thought. She it is
who " in the beginning of His ways," projected and carried out
the divine plan of the world, (Prov. viii. 21, seq. iii. 19,) she is
consequently "the thought of the world itself, the thought
which has a creative working and ordering, which emanated
from God, and from which is derived all proportion and law in
nature," (Oehler, "Grundzuge der alttest. Weisheit," 1854, p.
6.) As the knowledge of God, she is of herself, also, the
instructiess of men, (Prov. ¦riii. 32, Job xxviii. 28.) It has been
her constant striving to embody herself in mankind; according
to Sirach, she has been a wanderer even among the Gentile
nations, has made her habitation among the peculiar people, and
has entered into the book of the law, (Ecclesiasticus xxiv. 12,
seq., Baruch iii. 37, 38, iv. 1.) In Ps. xxxiii. 6, the word of the
Lord, with a certain self-dependence, is presented in a paraUel
delineation ¦with the spirit of the Lord; in Proverbs and in
Sirach, (Ecclesiasticus,) wisdom is personified ; in the Book of
Wisdom she is hypdstatized by imputing to her a spirit which is
rational, holy, one only, penetrating all rational spirits, (Wisdom
vii. 22-26.) — While the wisdom of God is thus bending herself
to enter into a closer union with finite spirits, the shape of Mes
siah on the other side, as prophecy advances, lifts itself more
and more to a dignity which is dirine. According to Micah,
(v. 1,) the going forth of the Messiah is from eternity ; accord
ing to Malachi, (iu. 1,) he is the angel of the covenant ; accord
ing to the Septuagint, Isaiah ix. 6, he is the dyysXoz zrjz peydXrjz
^ouXrjZ, (the messenger of great counsel ;) according to Daniel vii.
it is he who cometh in the clouds, into whose kingdom of God,
2d 88*

438 Appendix Second.
the last of all kingdoms, those which have risen in the history
of our world pour themselves, as rivers into the sea. The book
of Enoch, whose most ancient fi-agraent is as old as the period
A. 110-130 before Christ, (Dillmann, Buch Henoch, 1853, p.
xxiv.) furnishes eridence that these representations of Daniel
must have exercised a wide influence in the century before
Christ. In this book of Enoch it is said of Messiah that he
was elected before the creation of the world, that the angels
know him and praise his narae, and that it was to hira in his
state of preexistence that Enoch was taken up into heaven.
Were we allowed now to presuppose such a preparation as
existing, why may not that Christologie advance, whieh criti
cism thinks can not be earlier than the second century, why
may it not have been complete in the time of the Apostles, and
adequate to contemplating in Christ the incarnation of the
world-creating Logos ? Let us only, in addition, bring to mind
that although the Apostles were iduozat, unlearned, yet the
manner in which they use fhe Scriptures shows that we are to
regard them as men whose habit it was thoughtfully to search
the Holy Scriptures. One of them, Paul, was moreover a
Scribe, and it is in him especially, and in the author of the
Epistle to the Hebrews, that we find, ¦with nothing but a change
of terms, John's doctrine of the Logos, (Col. i. 15, 16, 2 Cor.
iv. 4, Hebrews i. 2.) But not alone on considerations of a
natural character do we maintain our position r would not that
Spirit promised to them; the Spirit who guides into all truth,
(xri. 13, 14,) under whose operation that Christologie view in
the sphere of the Old Testament was matured -to the point at
which we see it when Christ appeared, would he not complete
his operation in the Apostles by turning those preparatory rays
on that very Personage to whom they in truth pertained ? — V/e
consequently, then, discover no necessity for resorting to other
sources than the Bible, in order to explain the origin of the
doctiine of the Logos. It has, to be sure, been customary since
Semler, to resort to Philo for this purpose, and in connection
¦with this to institute an investigation whether the Logos of
Philo is to be regarded merely as a dirine principle of revela
tion in the world, or also of revelation to himself, that is,
whether he imagined the Logos himself to be a hypostasis.

Appendix- Second. 439
Cf. theliterature pertaining to this subject, in Dorner, Lehre von
der Person Chrifiti,. i. 1, p. 22. But even in Baumgarten-
Crusius we already have a sounder judgment : (Dogmengesch-
ichte, p. 1080,) " It must be acknowledged, ttat faith in the
deity of Christ derived its origin far less from surrounding tesr
timonies or opinions, than from a profound and a sublime
emotion, which sprung from a contemplation of what Christ had
been." Thus also Dorner, p. 102, Neander, Schmid, Bibl.
Theol, ii. 369, Meyer. The neoessity of deriving from Philo
the Logos of John,, has been expressly contested by Hofmann
and Luthardt, but we would be just as far from assenting to
the ¦riew, which sets aside the entire speculative basis and the
Old Testament development of doctrines, and understands by
¦the Logos simply the historical Christ, the appearing of him
who is the subject of the "Apostolic annunciation," or accord
ing to Luthardt, of the revealing word of God in general : " He
who (as the incarnate) is a Logos of God for the world of men,
has become man." Cf. the criticism relating to this point, by
Weitzsacker in Eeuter's Eep. 1864, p. 111.
Lucke and even Gfrorer, have also found that it is improbable
that a direct use was made of the writings of Philo : there is
no proof that these ¦writings were circulated out of Palestine in
the first century, cf Kostlin in Zellers Jahrb. 1864, p. 418.
That in John's circle in Ephesus there may have also been
Jews of Philonian culture, is not to be denied. If an influence
from this source may have actuaUy been exerted on the Apos
tle's circle of ideas, it would perhaps be most natural to
suppose, as Neander does, (Pflanzung, p. 637,) no more than
that the Unk was of an antithetical character: "what hitherto
has been the object of your speculative musing, I mean the
Logos, has now appeared in the body as man." But when we
discover even in the Apocalypse, and in 1 John i. 2, that the
Apostle gives prominence to the very sarae view, where there
was no occasion for any antithetical reference of this kind, does
not such a connecting appear in the highest degree improbable ?
On the basis of the bibUcal expressions in the Old and New
Testaments consequently, we obtain this as the substance of
the doctrine : the being of God is to be regarded as one haring
a distinction in itself In his Son, his Word, his Wisdom, he

440 Appendix Second,
himself has placed his counterpart, in which he has revealed
to himself and personally loved the fuUness of his o^wn being.
In this Word, in which he has" expressed himself to himself, lay
the xbapoz vorjzbz, the system of the world, and as in this was
grounded the creation, that is the actual coming forth of the
idea, of the world in a distinct existence, it follows that the
entire relation of God to the created world, aU revelation in it,
and consequently, also, the highest, the incarnation of God) is
mediated through this Word.
(Cf. on the doctrine of the Logos, Lectures on the History
of Christian Dogmatics, by Dr. A. Neander; edited by Jacobi.
Translated by Eyland. London : Bohn, 1858, vol. i. 130-171.

3 9002 08837 4948

'^:ri-i|^j^''rS'^|ji;^$Sji^jfS