Chapter VI…

Chapter VI

Ch. 6:1-15. FEEDING OF THE FIVE THOUSAND.--THE GRACE, THE BOUNTY, THE POWER, AND THE METHOD OF CHRIST ILLUSTRATED.

Of this miracle accounts are given by the four Evangelists (Matt. 14:13-33; Mark 6:32-52; Luke 9:10-17); and it is the only miracle recorded by them all. There are some differences in their records; for details see notes below. In the main the three Synoptics agree, while the differences between them and the Fourth Gospel are more considerable. According to the Synoptics Jesus and his disciples crossed the Sea of Galilee to the east side; the people, going round by land, outran them, and apparently were waiting for them on the shore (Mark); Christ therefore abandoned his original design of rest, and devoted the day to instruction (Mark) and healing (Matthew and Luke). When evening was come the disciples asked him to send the people away to the villages to get necessary food; Jesus replied, Give ye them to eat; the disciples answered that they had nothing but five loaves and two small fishes to give; and from these Jesus fed them. According to John, Jesus crossed over the sea with his disciples, went up into the hills, and there sat with them; while sitting there he saw the people coming round by land, proposed to feed them, asked Philip where they should get the bread, and apparently going down to the plain to feed the people, took the five loaves and two small fishes and distributed them among the people. All agree, however, as to the main facts: the feeding of five thousand on five loaves and two small fishes, and the gathering of twelve baskets of fragments, are narrated by all four Evangelists; the subsequent departure of Christ into the mountain for solitude and prayer, the embarkation of the disciples by boat, and his walking to them upon the sea are recounted by all but Luke; Matthew alone gives the account of Peter’s attempt to walk upon the water to meet Jesus. Harmonists have endeavored to combine these accounts in one consistent narrative; this is the work, however, rather of imagination than of criticism; any such harmony is necessarily hypothetical. The attempts have succeeded in so far as to show that the accounts are capable of combination. It may be added that the variations are just such as we might expect in narratives coming from independent eye-witnesses, and not such as we might expect in different fictitious accounts, or in different versions of a myth, derived from the same tradition. The miracle took place immediately on the return of the twelve after executing the commissions given to them in Matthew, ch. 10; the immediate object of Christ in retiring to the eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee was to secure quiet for a personal conference with the twelve respecting their work (Mark 6:30). For further statement of the chronology of the event, and the most probable harmony of the four accounts, see Matt. 14:13-27, note. A topographical difficulty is presented by an apparent but not real inconsistency between Luke 9:10 and Mark 6:45. According to Luke, Christ took the twelve with him into a desert place belonging to Bethsaida, whither the multitude followed him; according to Mark, after feeding the multitude he told the twelve to sail across to the other side unto Bethsaida. Thus Luke seems to place Bethsaida on the eastern, and Mark on the western shore of the lake, and this has led to the hypothesis that there were two Bethsaidas, an hypothesis generally adopted by the commentators, without, it seems to me, sufficient inquiry. It has no historical confirmation, was invented to harmonize Luke and Mark, and is needless. Let the reader compare the map of the Sea of Galilee (Vol. I, p. 342) with the accompanying illustration, in which he looks down on the Sea of Galilee from the north. The ruins in the foreground are those of Bethsaida; the river is the Jordan. Probably in ancient times the town of Bethsaida reached to or near the shore of the lake. The mountains in the distance are those on the eastern shore of Galilee, and the plain at their foot is the plain of Butaiha, where the five thousand were fed. Christ was at or near Capernaum; sailed with his disciples across the Sea of Galilee to the plain of Butaiha, at the foot of the hills on the northeastern shore of the lake, not far from Bethsaida. After the attempt of the multitude to make Jesus king, he bade them embark and row along the shore toward (πρός) Bethsaida (Mark 6:45), where he proposed to meet them. A sudden wind rising and blowing down the Jordan valley from the Lebanon range (see on verses 16-18), drove the disciples’ boat out into the lake; and it was while they were rowing back, against the wind, toward Bethsaida, where their Lord had promised to meet them, that he came out upon the waves for that purpose. Thus it is true that when they left Capernaum for the plain of Butaiha in the morning, they were going over to a plain belonging to the city of Bethsaida, as Luke reports; and also true that when they started back in the evening in the direction of Capernaum, as John reports (ver. 17, εἰς indicating the ultimate point they had in view), they were also going toward Bethsaida, which lay on the northern shore, and not far from midway between the eastern and the western shores. See further, Mark 6:45, note.

1 After[206] these things Jesus went over the sea of Galilee, which is the sea of Tiberias.

[206] Matt. 14:15, etc.; Mark 6:34, etc.; Luke 9:12, etc.

2 And a great multitude followed him, because they saw his miracles which he did on them that were diseased.

=1, 2. After these things.= Not a definite note of time. It was subsequent to the healing of the impotent man at the foot of Bethesda. But many and important events had intervened. See Tabular Harmony of Gospels, Vol. I, p. 44.--=Which is the Sea of Tiberias.= John, writing for Gentile readers, gives the name by which this body of water was best known in the Gentile world. For map and description, see Vol. I, p. 342. The eastern shore was not populous; it is to this day comparatively a solitude; Christ went thither with his disciples partly for rest and a quiet conference (Mark 6:30, 31), and partly in consequence of the death of John the Baptist, perhaps to avoid the possibility of danger to himself and to them from Herod. After the sermon which followed this miracle of feeding, reported in this chapter by John, he engaged no more in any public ministry in Galilee. See Matt. 15:29-39, note.--=Because they saw his miracles which he did.= John has not recorded any miracles done at this time in Galilee, and only two performed at any time in Galilee. This is one of those incidental references which makes it clear to my mind that John wrote not only with a personal knowledge of the writings of the other Evangelists or some of them, but with a recognition of the fact that their writings would be familiar to the readers of his own Gospel. The miracles referred to here are those performed in Christ’s Galilean ministry subsequent to his return from the second Passover at Jerusalem. They are recorded in Matthew, chaps. 8-13; Mark, chaps. 2-5; and Luke, chaps. 5-8.

3 And Jesus went up into a mountain, and there he sat with his disciples.

4 And the passover, a feast of the Jews, was nigh.

=3, 4. And Jesus went up into the hill country.= Up from the shore of the sea to the quiet of the hills. These, on the eastern shore, rise to a height of nearly 2,000 feet above the level of the sea, which is however itself depressed some 600 feet below the level of the Mediterranean.--=The Passover, a feast of the Jews, was nigh.= This affords both a note of time and an explanation of the multitude present. The month was Nizan (our March). The grass was green; the trees were in full leaf; the palm trees were laden with blossoms; the orange and lemon trees with fruit; the barley was ripening in the fields. At such a season and in such a climate, to spend a night without shelter is no hardship, and is not unusual. The leisure of the Oriental is partly a characteristic of the people, partly an incident of a climate which compels less labor than ours. The fifteen days preceding the Passover were largely devoted to various preparations for it; the roads, streets, and bridges were repaired, and the caravans began to move toward Jerusalem. The gathering at such a time of a congregation of 5,000 men, besides women and children, attracted by the fame of such a prophet, is not at all incredible. The reader must also remember that Galilee was then the home of a large population. According to Josephus, there were six cities of considerable size on the thirteen miles of coast-line along the northern and northeastern shores of the Lake of Tiberias.

5 When Jesus then lifted up his eyes, and saw a great company come unto him, he saith unto Philip, Whence shall we buy bread, that these may eat?

6 And this he said to prove him: for he himself knew what he would do.

=5, 6. When Jesus then lifted up his eyes.= According to Mark the people going round by the shore outran Jesus, and he found them there upon his arrival (Mark 6:33). There is no irreconcilable inconsistency in the two statements. It may be that Jesus found a few of his disciples, those that knew his probable destination, and took them up with him and the twelve into the hills; for the term disciples (ver. 3) is not in the Gospels confined to the twelve apostles; that the larger multitude followed, looking for the Lord; and that their gradual congregating moved his compassion (Mark 6:34) and led him to descend from the retirement of the hills to teach and to heal them.--=He saith unto Philip.= He spent the greater part of the day in teaching and healing (Matt. 14:14; Mark 6:34; Luke 9:11). The people, absorbed by their interest, took no note of the passage of time. As the afternoon drew on, the disciples proposed to Christ to send the people away to procure food (Matthew, Mark, Luke); it was probably as a result of this proposition that Christ addressed to Philip the question here, Whence shall we buy? This question is reported alone by John. Why did Jesus address this inquiry to Philip? Some commentators have supposed that he was the purveyor for Christ and the apostles; others that his faith was especially weak and needed strengthening; still others that the question was addressed to him because he belonged to Bethsaida (ch. 1:44), and therefore would be the one to know where food could be procured; but there is no evidence to support either hypothesis. Christ frequently questioned his disciples in order to bring out to their own consciousness the measure of their faith (Matt. 9:28; 16:13; 19:17; Luke 24:17, etc.).--=For he himself knew what he would do.= A statement made by the apostle to emphasize the truth that Jesus himself was not in perplexity, and taking counsel with his apostles for his own guidance. This he is never recorded to have done. According to Matthew the question of providing for the multitude was not raised until “it was evening” (Matt. 14:15). Yet both Matthew and John say that “when evening was come” Jesus was left alone in the mountain (ver. 16; Matt. 14:23). The explanation of this discrepancy lies in the fact that there were two evenings recognized by the Hebrews, as by the Greeks, one beginning with the declining sun at or about three in the afternoon, the other with the setting sun. It was during the first evening, i. e., between three and six, that the people were fed; at the second evening, i. e., about sunset, they had departed and left Jesus alone.

7 Philip answered him, Two[207] hundred pennyworth of bread is not sufficient for them, that every one of them may take a little.

[207] Numb. 11:21, 22; 2 Kings 4:43.

8 One of his disciples, Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother, saith unto him,

9 There is a lad here, which hath five barley loaves, and two small fishes: but what are they among so many?

=7-9. Two hundred pennyworth of bread.= The penny, or denarius, was equal in value to seventeen cents American coin; but it was the day’s wages of a common laborer (Matt. 20:2); two hundred pennyworth therefore would be practically equivalent to $200 worth in our time.-- =One of his disciples said unto him.= Christ bade them ascertain how much they had on hand for themselves (Mark 6:38). Andrew ascertained and reported in response to Christ’s direction. The lad here mentioned was therefore probably some one in attendance upon Christ and the twelve, and carrying their simple store for them. How much blessing the Lord can impart to the service of a little child. Comp. 2 Kings 5:2, 3. Here a little boy (παιδάριον) had but five loaves, and they of barley, and yet when given to the Lord, and blessed by Him, they feed five thousand.--=Five barley loaves.= The loaves of the Jews were thin round cakes or crackers; for illustration and description, see Mark 8:3-5, note. Barley was the food only of the lower classes. “One in the Talmud, speaking of barley bread, says, ‘There is a fine crop of barley.’ Another answers, ‘Tell this to the horses and asses.’ A Roman soldier who had quitted his ranks, had for part of his punishment that he received barley bread instead of wheaten.”--(Geike’s Life of Christ.) Thus we have here (1) an indication of the simplicity of the living of our Lord; without a place to lay his head, i. e., a permanent home, and with the plainest possible food for his fare, the bread of the peasant classes; (2) a suggestion of true benevolence; he did not create wheaten bread for the multitude; he gave such as he had. To share what we have, not to aspire to give what we have not, is true benevolence.--=And two small fishes.= The word here rendered small fishes (ὀψύριον) denotes any relish eaten with bread; hence, because fish was a common accompaniment, the most common from the animal kingdom, it came to be used for fish, generally salt fish, prepared for and used as a relish.

10 And Jesus said, Make the men sit down. Now there was much grass in the place. So the men sat down, in number about five thousand.

11 And Jesus took the loaves: and when he had given thanks, he distributed to the disciples, and the disciples to them that were set down; and likewise of the fishes as much as they would.

=10, 11. Make the men sit down.= It requires little imagination to picture to the mind the wondering surprise with which the disciples prepared to obey a direction the object of which they could not conceive, and the perplexity of the people as they prepared to take their places, wondering what was to occur next. They sat down; Mark tells us in ranks, literally garden plats (πρασιαὶ πρασιαὶ; the repetition without καί denotes distribution). With their bright-colored Oriental dresses, these men sitting cross-legged on the ground in groups of fifty each (Mark 6:40), so that their number was afterward easily estimated, presented an appearance which recalled a brilliant garden in the early summer. The picture thus presented by Mark, but lost in our English translation, is one of the pictorial characteristics of his Gospel, and is thought to have been derived by him from Peter, the most effective and therefore probably the most pictorial of all the apostolic preachers.--=There was much grass in the place.= This is not inconsistent with its description by the other Evangelists as a desert place, the word desert implying simply solitude, not an arid soil. The location (Thompson’s Land and Book, Vol. II, p. 29) was probably the rich level plain of Butaiha, forming a triangle, of which the Eastern mountains make one side and the lake shore and the Jordan the other two. It was at the southeastern angle of this plain, near the point where the hills abut upon the lake, that the feeding took place. “From the four narratives of this stupendous miracle we gather: 1st, that the place belonged to Bethsaida; 2d, that it was a desert place; 3d, that it was near the shore of the lake, for they came to it by boats; 4th, that there was a mountain close at hand; 5th, that it was a smooth, grassy spot, capable of seating many thousand people. Now all these requisites are found in this exact locality, and nowhere else, so far as I can discover. This Butaiha belonged to Bethsaida. At this extreme southeast corner of it the mountain shuts down upon the lake, bleak and barren. It was, doubtless, desert then as now, for it is not capable of cultivation. In this little cove the ships (boats) were anchored. On this beautiful sward, at the base of the rocky hill, the people were seated.”--(Andrews.)--=About five thousand.= Besides women and children (Matt. 14:21), who perhaps sat separately from the men, as Oriental custom would require them to do.--=When he had given thanks.= The same act is differently expressed by the other Evangelists as blessing the bread. Asking a blessing upon food before meals was a universal custom among the Jews, and was practised both by Christ and by the apostles (Luke 22:17, 19; 24:30; Acts 27:35).--=He gave [to the disciples and the disciples] to them that were set down.= The words which I have put in brackets are not in the original according to the best manuscripts. They have been added from Matt. 14:19. They undoubtedly represent the actual fact, viz., that the bread was distributed by the hands of the twelve.

12 When they were filled,[208] he said unto his disciples, Gather up the fragments that remain, that nothing[209] be lost.

[208] Neh. 9:25.

[209] Neh. 8:10.

13 Therefore they gathered them together, and filled twelve baskets with the fragments of the five barley loaves, which remained over and above unto them that had eaten.

14 Then those men, when they had seen the miracle that Jesus did, said, This is of a truth that[210] prophet that should come into the world.

[210] Gen. 49:10; Deut. 18:15-18.

15 When Jesus therefore perceived that they would come and take him by force, to make him a king, he departed again into a mountain himself alone.

=12-15. Gather up the fragments that remain, that nothing be lost.= “It was a custom and a rule (among the Jews) that when they ate together they should leave something to those that served. ‘Every one leaves a little portion in the dish, which is called the servitor’s part.’”--(Lightfoot.) The fragments thus gathered up by the apostles were probably preserved for their own use. The practical lesson is important: “He likewise exhorts his disciples to frugality when he says, ‘Gather the fragments which are left, that nothing be lost’; for the increase of the bounty of God ought not to be an excitement to luxury. Let those therefore who have abundance remember that they will one day render an account of their immoderate wealth, if they do not carefully and faithfully apply their superfluity to purposes which are good, and of which God approves.”--(Calvin.) This gathering up of the fragments demonstrates also the reality of the miracle. See below.--=They filled twelve baskets= (κοφίνος). These baskets were the common baskets used universally by the Jews in traveling to carry their food. See for description and illustration, Matt. 16:9, 10, note. Christ there distinguishes between this miracle and that of the feeding of the 4,000, which are evidently not to be confounded as one event.--=That prophet that should come into the world.= Foretold in Deut. 18:15, 16, and referred to by the delegation sent from Jerusalem to inquire of John the Baptist as to his character and authority (John 1:21). By some Rabbis this prophet was regarded as a forerunner of the Messiah; by others as the Messiah himself. Here apparently the people regarded the two as identical; this at least is indicated by their desire to take Christ at once and crown him as king.--=Jesus knowing that they were about to come and seize him that they might make him king.= Either by reading in their hearts the half-formed design; or perceiving it in their whispered conference; or informed of it by the apostles, who doubtless shared the enthusiasm of the multitude, and who may have been as eager as any for the coronation of their Lord. This attempt of the people to make Christ a temporal king was a renewal of Satan’s endeavor to tempt him to secure the kingdoms of the earth by Satanic methods (Matt. 4:8-10, note). The Jews anticipated a realm of material marvels and miracles with the advent of the Messiah. “Drought and famine should then be known no more. The prophecy of Isaiah (Isa. 65:13), ‘My servants shall eat, but ye shall be hungry,’ should be literally fulfilled. Israel should be gathered together. The young men should feed on bread, the old men on honey, the children on oil. Every palate should be pleased, every appetite satisfied, and the prolific profusion of the Garden of Eden should repeat itself in the land of the Messiah. These prophecies of the scribes, with which constant repetition in the synagogue had made the common people familiar, seemed to them about to be fulfilled.”--(Abbott’s Jesus of Nazareth.)--=He departed again into the mountain.= For solitude and prayer (Matt. 14:23; Mark 6:46). He first constrained his disciples to embark for Bethsaida, a fact which Matthew and Mark state (Matt. 14:22; Mark 6:45) without giving the reason for it; John alone tells of the purpose of the multitude to make Christ a king. There is significance for us in Christ’s refusal of their homage. They desired to make him king, not to accept him as king; to give him a sceptre, not to own allegiance to the sceptre he possessed; to secure his power and authority in aid of their designs, not to recognize his royal authority and be obedient to his will. When they found out what that will involved, from his discourse on the following Sabbath at Capernaum, they would have him for their king no longer. It is one thing to attempt to make Christ serve our wills; it is a very different thing to make our wills obedient to his.

Various attempts have been made to explain this miracle on rationalistic principles. The two principal explanations offered are: (1) that the people were so satisfied with Christ’s instruction that they did not feel the claims of hunger (Schenkel); (2) that they had their hearts opened by the beneficence of Christ, so that those who possessed food themselves provided for those that had none, and thus all were furnished by a miracle of love, operating not by the literal creation of new supplies, but by the inspiration of a new spirit of benevolence in the people themselves. This, if I understand him aright, is Lange’s explanation. See his Life of Christ, Vol. II, p. 140. For a more elaborate classification of rationalistic theories, see Lange’s Commentary on Matthew, Am. ed., p. 266. Neither interpretation deserves serious refutation. The first is inconsistent with the fact that twelve baskets of the fragments were gathered up after the meal was ended; the second is contradicted by the language of the disciples, who plainly imply that the people are without food (Matt. 14:15; Mark 6:36; Luke 9:12), and by the enthusiasm of the people after the miracle has been performed. They were not of a kind to be ready to crown a prophet as king, merely because he had opened their hearts and inclined them to benevolence. It is, however, to be noted that here as elsewhere the Evangelists simply state the facts, leaving the reader to make his own deductions. These facts are that over 5,000 people were upon a plain, without provisions; that all the food which Christ had for them was five loaves and two small fishes; that he distributed this to the twelve, and they to the multitude; that all had enough; and that when the meal was over there were twelve baskets full of fragments remaining. Assuming these to be the facts, the explanation of a miraculous creation of bread is the only reasonable explanation; any other hypothesis impugns the historical verity of the four Gospels. The attempt to explain the miracle as an acceleration of the processes of nature (Olshausen), to which, as Dr. Schaff well says, “must be added an accelerated process of art, or the combined labors of the reaper, miller, and baker,” gives no help in understanding the process by which Christ provided for all. We can accept the fact without comprehending the method, which is indeed as entirely incomprehensible as are God’s methods in the ordinary phenomena of nature, e. g., the multiplication of a single kernel of corn into the many kernels upon the stalk. The parallel and contrast between this miracle and the analogous but different multiplication of food wrought by the O. T. prophets Elijah and Elisha (1 Kings 17:16; 2 Kings 4:42-44) are instructive. Like all of Christ’s miracles, this multiplication is a parable. (1) It illustrates Christ’s method: the way to men’s hearts is often through ministering to their bodies; in the recent famines in India and China (1877), the missionaries have found the way opened for the gospel in many districts by their ability to provide the starving with food or employment. (2) It manifests the miraculous grace of God: “everything wastes in the hands of men; but everything multiplies in those of the Son of God.”--(Quesnel.) (3) It rebukes distrust: “He who feeds here five thousand men in an extraordinary manner and by a visible miracle, cannot He find means to support this numerous family, which raises in the mind of this father and mother so many unceasing and distrustful thoughts?”--(Quesnel.) (4) It is an inspiration and a prophecy of Christian love. It is “the brilliant inauguration of that fruitful miracle of Christian charity which has ever since gone on, multiplying bread to the hungry. The heart of man once touched, like the rock in the desert touched by the rod of Moses, has gone on pouring over thirsty crowds the inexhaustible stream of generosity.”--(Pressense.) (5) It is a symbol of the inexhaustible love of Christ himself; a symbol of that miraculous multiplying of sacred influences which, from one brief life of three active years, and one body pierced and broken on the tree, feeds innumerable thousands, a love which Christ imparts to his disciples, and which they in turn convey throughout the ages and to all lands.

* * * * *

Ch. 6:16-21. JESUS WALKS ON THE SEA.--CHRIST THE LORD OF NATURE: LIGHT IN OUR DARKNESS; PEACE IN OUR STORMS.--HE COMES TO THOSE WHO ARE TOILING TO COME TO HIM.--HIS MESSAGE TO ALL HIS DISCIPLES: FEAR NOT.--THE GROUND OF THAT MESSAGE: HE IS THE I AM. Compare Matt. 14:22, 23; Mark 6:45-52, and see Prel. Note at beginning of this chapter.

16 And[211] when even was now come, his disciples went down unto the sea,

[211] Matt. 14:23; Mark 6:47, etc.

17 And entered into a ship, and went over the sea toward Capernaum. And it was now dark, and Jesus was not come to them.

18 And the sea arose[212] by reason of a great wind that blew.

[212] Ps. 107:25.

=16-18. And when even was come.= This was the second evening, which began at sunset. See on ver. 6.--=His disciples went down unto the sea.= From the plain where the five thousand had been fed. By the disciples here is meant the apostles. They went reluctantly, yielding to Christ. This is implied by the language of Matthew and Mark, he “constrained his disciples.” While they departed by sea Jesus sent the multitude away.--=And entered into a ship.= A fishing-boat; large enough to carry Christ and the twelve; not too large to be propelled by oars. See for description, Mark 6:36, note.--=And went over the sea unto Capernaum= (εἰς Κ.). Mark says toward Bethsaida (πρός β.). John indicates the final aim of their journey; Mark the direction in which the boat was steered. They started for Capernaum via Bethsaida. See Prel. Note above, and Mark 6:45, note.--=Jesus was not come to them.= An evidence that they expected to meet him along the shore; probably (this is implied upon a comparison of the three gospel narratives) at Bethsaida, i. e., at or near the entrance of the Jordan upon the lake.--=The sea arose by reason of a great wind that blew.= It is a common occurrence for the winds to arise suddenly upon this lake, drawing down the Jordan valley from the Lebanon range in the north. See Mark 4:37, note. “My experience in this region enables me to sympathize with the disciples in their long night’s contest with the wind. I spent a night in that wady Shukaiyif, some three miles up it, to the left of us. The sun had scarcely set when the wind began to rush down toward the lake, and it continued all night long with constantly increasing violence, so that when we reached the shore the next morning the face of the lake was like a huge boiling caldron. The wind howled down every wady from the northeast and east with such fury that no efforts of rowers could have brought a boat to shore at any point along that coast. In a wind like that the disciples must have been driven quite across to Gennesaret, as we know they were. To understand the causes of these sudden and violent tempests, we must remember that the lake lies low--six hundred feet lower than the ocean; that the vast and naked plateaus of the Jordan rise to a great height, spreading backward to the wilds of the Hauran, and upward to snowy Hermon; that the water-courses have cut out profound ravines and wild gorges, converging to the head of this lake, and that these act like gigantic funnels to draw down the cold winds from the mountains.”--(Thompson’s Land and Book, 2:32.) Dr. Thompson adds a testimony to the suddenness with which these winds arise: “I once went in to swim near the hot baths, and before I was aware a wind came rushing over the cliffs with such force that it was with great difficulty I could regain the shore.”

19 So when they had rowed about five and twenty or thirty furlongs, they see Jesus walking on the sea, and drawing nigh unto the ship: and they were afraid.

20 But he saith unto them, It is I;[213] be not afraid.

[213] Ps. 35:3; Isa. 43:1, 2; Rev. 1:17, 18.

21 Then they willingly received him into the ship; and immediately the ship was at the land whither they went.

=19-21. So when they had rowed about five-and-twenty or thirty furlongs.= Stadia; that is, a little over three miles. The lake at this point is about six miles across; they had therefore rowed about half way across the lake; but they were unable to make head against the wind, and could not reach the northern shore to keep their appointment with Jesus. It was while they were endeavoring to come to Jesus that he came out upon the sea to meet them.--=They see Jesus walking on the sea.= That he was really walking on the sea, not standing on the land and supposed to be on the sea because only dimly discerned through the storm and darkness (Bleek), is evident from the facts, (1) that Peter went out to meet him (Matt. 14:28-31); (2) that on receiving him into the ship they were immediately at the land “unto which they were going” (εἰς ἣν ὑπῆγον). This was the plain of Gennesaret, on which Capernaum was situated, and was two or three miles away from the point where they met Jesus; for they had as yet rowed only about half the distance across the lake.--=He saith unto them, It is I.= Literally, I am. The same language used by Jesus in Jerusalem (ch. 8:58), for which the Pharisees would have stoned him, and in the O. T. to designate Jehovah (Exod. 3:14). Here I should prefer to give it this meaning. Christ says not merely, “It is I, your Friend and Master;” he says, at least implies, It is the “I am” who is coming to you, the Almighty One who rules winds and waves, who made them, and whom they obey.--=Be not afraid.= This is the message of Christ to his people in the hour of his advent (Luke 2:10); of their tempest experiences of temptation and struggle (Matt. 14:27; Mark 6:50; 1 Pet. 3:14); their sorrows (Matt. 28:10; Mark 5:36); and their hour of dangerous duty (Acts 18:9).--=Then they willingly received him.= Literally, Thereupon they willed to receive him. If this account stood alone we might perhaps doubt whether he actually did enter the ship, as some rationalistic commentators have done; but Matthew and Mark are explicit in their statements that he did so.--=And immediately the ship was at the land to which they were going.= That is, the shore at Capernaum. This, coupled with the statement of ver. 19 that they had only rowed twenty-five or thirty furlongs, i. e., about half way, seems clearly to imply a further miracle, unless indeed we give to the word immediately (εὐθέως) a large latitude of expression, understanding it merely to mean that since the wind at once ceased (Matt. 14:32) they had no further difficulty in reaching their destination. Matthew adds that they that were in the ship came and worshipped Jesus, saying, “Of a truth thou art the Son of God;” and Mark that they were amazed beyond measure, “for they considered not the miracle of the loaves, for their heart was hardened,” rather dull, stupid. They had been amazed at the miracle of the loaves, but they had not deduced from it the natural conclusion that Christ was the Lord of nature, so when a new manifestation of his power was made they were as much surprised as if they had never seen any previous manifestation. In this they were very typical of Christians in all ages of the church.

* * * * *

Ch. 6:22-71. SERMON ON THE BREAD OF LIFE.--THE CONDITION OF ETERNAL LIFE: FEEDING ON CHRIST.--THE TRUE NATURE OF FAITH SYMBOLIZED.--THE MEANING OF THE LORD’S SUPPER.

PRELIMINARY NOTE.--Before entering upon this discourse in detail, some preliminary considerations are necessary. 1. The report. There is no reason to believe that we have a verbatim report of Christ’s discourse, but good reason to believe the reverse. John makes no claim to give the sermon in full. The language of ver. 59 implies that he does not. The whole sermon occupies in deliberate reading less than five minutes. We can hardly suppose that an actual discourse delivered in the synagogue would have been compressed in so brief a space. We have then, here, John’s subsequent report written out from memory, though from memory quickened by divine inspiration, of a discourse very much longer than the report. It embodies in John’s language the substance of Christ’s thoughts. 2. The circumstances and connection. After the feeding of the 5,000, the apostles embark in their boat; Christ goes up into the hills to pray; the people linger a while for his return, then conclude that he has returned to Capernaum, and go back to Capernaum themselves; on the following Sabbath morning he enters the synagogue; their astonishment at his approach is great; they break out in questioning, How did you get here? His answer diverts them from mere astonishment to a serious consideration of spiritual truth: “Ye are seeking me, not because of the evidence I have given of my divine commission, but because ye did eat of the loaves and were filled. Labor not for the meat that perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life.” Their response indicates some seriousness of desire: “What is the work which God would have us to do that we might have this bread of life as our reward?” This is the question of all religious aspiration, and Christ’s answer is the response of Christianity to the soul-hunger of the ages: “This is the work of God, that ye have faith in him whom he hath sent.” This I believe to be the text of the sermon which follows; it gives the subject; it is the key to its mysticism. The object of the discourse is to give Christ’s definition and interpretation of faith. This definition appears and reappears, first in metaphor, then in interpretation: My Father is giving you the true bread, which is coming down from heaven. I am the bread of life; he that cometh to me shall never hunger; he that believeth on me shall never thirst. This coming is not a literal physical coming; it is a coming of the spirit; a coming drawn by divine influence; a coming of those who are taught of God. To thus believe in me, to thus eat my flesh and drink my blood, is to have everlasting life; for to thus eat my flesh and drink my blood is to dwell in me and have in me an indwelling life. Finally, to guard his followers against that literalism which has since converted this metaphor into a stone of stumbling and a rock of offence, Christ adds to his discourse the decisive words of ver. 63, “It is the Spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing; the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life.” 3. Meaning of the metaphor. I believe then that the key to the metaphors of this sermon is to be found in the question and answer of verses 28, 29; that it is Christ’s metaphorical interpretation of the declaration that faith is a condition of spiritual life; that it is mystical, because experience is always mystical except to those that know it experimentally; that it is expressed in metaphor, because a spiritual experience can never be expressed in any other way; and that Christ has emphasized the importance of the metaphor by subsequently making it a permanent symbol in the Lord’s Supper. To eat his flesh and drink his blood is to have faith in him, to come unto him; to partake of his character and imbibe his spirit (verses 35, 40, 47, 54, 57). Faith, according to Christ, is not then merely believing what is revealed in the Word (Westminster Confession); nor merely receiving what God says to be true and resting on it (George Muller); it is feeding on Christ. It is interpreted (a) by the physical phenomenon of eating and drinking. The food enters into us, becomes a part of us; builds us up; makes us what we are; different food going to different parts of the body--some to brain, others to muscle, etc.; different natures and different avocations needing different food. It is Christ in us who is the hope of glory. (b) By our own use of the same metaphor. We recognize in common language a higher than mere physical feeding; other gateways to the nature than the mouth and the stomach; other means that modify, develop, and make the character. Men are made by what they receive through interior faculties. So Christ’s metaphor constantly reappears in the language of our common life; we drink in a picture; imbibe ideas; devour books; e. g.,

“My ears have not yet drunk a hundred words Of that tongue’s uttering.”--(Shakespeare.)

“Longing they look, and gaping at the sight, Devour her o’er and o’er with vast delight.”--(Dryden.)

(c) By the Rabbinical use of the metaphor, common in Christ’s time, and well understood by the Jews. “There is nothing more common in the schools of the Jews than the phrases of eating and drinking in a metaphorical sense.”--(Lightfoot.) “To eat of my bread” was a phrase equivalent to partake of my doctrine. Christ borrows a common metaphor to emphasize a deeper truth; to have faith in him is not to “eat of my bread,” but to “eat of my flesh;” that is, it is to receive not merely the influence of Christ’s teaching, but yet more that of his life and character itself, an influence which could be imparted to the world only through his passion and death, through the literal rending of his flesh and shedding of his blood. (d) By the experience of faith in a lower sphere, our faith in each other. The highest faith of a child in his mother is not believing something about her, nor merely believing what she says; it includes an intellectual belief that she is his mother, and a filial trust in her, but it also includes such a reverence for her, an uplooking to her, an admiration of her, a feeding upon her, that all her best characteristics are reproduced in the worshipping child. So the character of the best teachers ever reproduces itself in the character of their admiring pupils. (e) By the actual record of the experience of faith contained in the O. T. and the N. T. (e. g., Ps. 42:5, 11; 63:5-8; 73:23-26; 2 Cor. 3:18; Gal. 2:20; Phil. 3:8-14). (f) By other metaphors in the N. T. in which Christ is compared to a way on which we walk, a garment which we are to put on, a vine on which we are to be engrafted, a husband to whom we are to be married, a head from which we as a body are to derive all our life, the ground in which we are to be rooted, the foundation on which we are to be built, and the Spirit which is to dwell in us as in a temple. Faith in Christ then, as defined by Christ himself, if I have rightly interpreted this discourse, is not belief about him, nor trust in him, but appropriation of him. It is not mere belief in what the Bible teaches respecting him, though it is certainly founded on historical Christianity; it is not mere trust in his word or power or grace, though it involves the highest personal trust in him as a divine and gracious Saviour. It is making him the soul’s spiritual aliment, following after him, coming to him, dwelling in him, so drinking in his words, life, and spirit as to be conformed to his image. The soul enters into eternal, that is spiritual life, not by believing any teaching respecting Christ, not by trusting that Christ will bestow that life, but by so fastening its love and aspirations and desires upon Christ that he becomes the All and in all to the soul, and at once the model for and modeler of its future and final character.

22 The day following, when the people which stood on the other side of the sea saw that there was none other boat there, save that one whereinto his disciples were entered, and that Jesus went not with his disciples into the boat, but that his disciples were gone away alone;

23 (Howbeit there came other boats from Tiberias, nigh unto the [214]place where they did eat bread, after that the Lord had given thanks;)

[214] verse 11.

24 When the people therefore saw that Jesus was not there, neither his disciples, they also took shipping, and came to Capernaum, seeking for Jesus.

=22-24. The day following=, etc. A part of the people undoubtedly had dispersed to the villages about; others of them remained, hoping for the reappearance of Jesus; when he did not reappear they thought it possible that he had returned to Capernaum, and went thither themselves. The other side of the sea indicates the eastern shore, i. e., the opposite side from Capernaum. In ver. 25 the same phrase indicates the western shore, i. e., the opposite side from that on which the multitude had left Christ. The construction of these verses is complicated and involved, but the original is fairly well rendered in our English version. The facts here stated, together with the surprise of the people (ver. 25) at Christ’s appearance at Capernaum, afford an additional though incidental evidence of Christ’s miraculous passing from the eastern to the western shore.--=Tiberias.= A town on the southwestern shore of the Sea of Galilee; mentioned in the N. T. only by John; built by Herod Antipas, and named in honor of the emperor Tiberius. The present city, Tubanyeh, contains about two thousand inhabitants.

25 And when they had found him on the other side of the sea, they said unto him, Rabbi, when camest thou hither?

=25. And when they had found him.= The greater part of the discourse which follows was apparently delivered in the synagogue (ver. 29), and presumptively on the Sabbath day. Maurice supposes that “the conversation commences on the borders of the lake of Tiberias, with the people who had just crossed and found Jesus there,” and is afterward continued in the synagogue, and he makes the synagogue discourse commence with ver. 43. This is certainly possible, though I should think it more probable, from the close connection between the beginning and close of the colloquy as reported, that all occurred at one time and in the synagogue. It is not at all incredible that such interruptions as are here reported should have occurred in the synagogue service.--=Rabbi, when camest thou thither?= “The question when includes how.”--(Bengel.) Wordsworth’s comment on the mysterious manner in which Christ crossed the sea and presented himself in the synagogue affords a curious illustration of the allegorizing method which he pursues throughout in dealing with this chapter. “By walking on the sea, invisibly to the eyes of the multitude, and suddenly presenting himself to them in the synagogue at Capernaum, in a manner unintelligible to them, he instructs us that, though he does indeed come by water in holy baptism, and is verily and indeed present in the holy eucharist, yet the manner of his presence is not to be scrutinized by us. * * * * Let us not speculate inquisitively into the time and manner in which he is present in the holy eucharist, but let us receive him joyfully in our hearts, as the disciples received him into the ship; and then we shall soon be at the haven of peace where we would be.”

26 Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled.

27 Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that[215] meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him[216] hath God the Father sealed.

[215] verses 54, 58; ch. 4:14; Jer. 15:16.

[216] ch. 8:18; Ps. 2:7; 40:7; Isa. 42:1; Acts 2:22; 2 Pet. 1:17.

=26, 27. Verily, verily, I say unto you.= See Matt. 5:18, note.--=Ye seek me, not because ye saw the signs, but because ye ate of the loaves and were satisfied.= Christ leads the people from the lower to the higher, from the earthly to the spiritual, making, as was his wont, a simple incident the text of a deeply spiritual discourse. See Matt. 11:7; 16:6; Luke 13:1; 14:7; John 4:10. The meaning here is this: You are not seeking me because you have seen and recognized the evidences of my divine commission, and really desire to put yourselves under me as your Lord and Master; you are seeking my gifts, and because you have eaten and been satisfied. He thus characterizes and impliedly rebukes those who seek not Christ but Christ’s, because they want not him, but something external to himself, which they think he can give them.--=Busy not yourselves about the meat which perishes.= It is not literally true that we are not to labor for the meat that perishes (Acts 18:3; Eph. 4:28; 1 Thess. 4:10-12); it is true that the meat which perishes is not to be the object of our life-work (Matt. 5:24). “If any be idle and gluttonous, and careth for luxury, that man worketh for the meat that perisheth. So, too, if a man by his labor should feed Christ, and give him drink, and clothe him, who so senseless and mad as to say that such an one labors for the meat which perisheth, when there is for this the promise of the kingdom that is to come, and of those good things? This meat endureth forever.”--(Chrysostom.) Comp. with Christ’s language here Isa. 55:2, to which perhaps he refers, and John 4:13, 14, where an analogous metaphor is used to enforce the same teaching.--=But about the meat which abides unto everlasting life.= Unto (εἰς) indicates the purpose for which it remains, namely, that it may nourish eternal life, i. e., the life which continues unto, not which begins in, eternity; for eternal life is a present possession (vers. 47, 54). This food abides in us. Chaps. 5:38; 6:56; 8:31; 15:4, 7; 1 John 2:6, 27; 4:12, 15; 2 John 2 indicate both what is the meat and what the abiding of which Christ speaks.--=Which the Son of man shall give to you.= The phrase Son of man is here, as everywhere in Christ’s use of it, equivalent to the Messiah (Matt. 10:23, note), and would be so understood by his hearers. This food of the spiritual life is the gift of God through the Messiah (Rom. 5:17; 6:23). We might well wonder that Christ’s characterization of it here as a gift should not have prevented the question of the multitude in the following verse, but for the fact that, despite the explicit teaching of the N. T. that eternal life is given, even the disciples of Christ have ever been seeking to earn it as wages by labor. Christ says shall give (future) because the great sacrifice was not yet offered, and so the unspeakable gift (2 Cor. 9:15) was not yet perfected.--=For Him hath God the Father sealed.= In the East the method of authenticating a document is not, as with us, by a signature, but by the impression of a seal (1 Kings 21:8; Esther 3:12; 8:8, 10; Jer. 32:10). The meaning here then is that Jesus’ commission as the Messiah of God is authenticated by the Father, by the works given him to do (John 5:36).

28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?

=28. What can we do that we may work the works of God?= Observe can, not shall; subjunctive, not future. The works of God are not works wrought by God, but works pleasing to God (Jer. 48:10; 1 Cor. 15:58). The meaning is not, What are the works of God which we shall do? but, What can we do in order that we may please God by our works? This is the question which humanity has ever been asking, repeated in the pilgrimages and the self-mutilations of the Oriental religions, in the penances and appointed prayers of the mediæval religions, and in much of the so-called Christian activity of modern Protestantism. This was the question which Loyola asked by his vigils, and to which Luther found an answer when, climbing Pilate’s staircase on his knees, he heard the words, “The just shall live by faith,” and fled from the religion of works to that of faith. That the questioners of Christ were seeking, not guidance to devout activity, but to divine rewards, is clear from the sequel (ver. 31).

29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This[217] is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

[217] 1 John 3:23.

=29. This is the work of God, that ye have faith in him whom he hath sent.= They ask respecting the works of God (plural), he replies concerning the work of God (singular); they ask what they shall do, he replies have faith; they ask respecting work to be done for God by them, he replies that it is a work of God in them that is required. The condition of eternal life is not doing any work for God, it is having a work of God done in ourselves. See John 3:5; Titus 3:5-7. The condition of this work is faith in Christ. The nature of this faith it is the object of the discourse which follows to explain; it is certainly not equivalent to belief, and the use of the word believe is an unfortunate necessity from the poverty of the English language, which contains no verb corresponding to the noun faith. Of this faith I know no better nor more comprehensive definition than that of Webster’s dictionary, “That confiding and affectionate belief in the person and work of Christ which affects the character and life, and makes the man a true Christian.” See Heb. 11:1, and notice that it is there defined not only as the evidence of things unseen, i. e., the power of seeing and realizing the invisible world, which would include the imagination, but also as the substance of things hoped for, which clearly includes the activity of the desires and affections. The germ of all Paul’s subsequent teaching of justification by faith is contained in this one single sentence. The Epistles are but an amplification of the gospel as proclaimed by Christ himself. “I know not where we can find any passage, even in the writings of the apostles, which says more significantly that all eternal life in men proceeds from nothing else than faith in Christ.”--(Schleiermacher.)

30 They said therefore unto him, What sign[218] shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work?

[218] Matt. 12:38; 1 Cor. 1:22.

31 Our fathers[219] did eat manna in the desert; as it is written,[220] He gave them bread from heaven to eat.

[219] Exod. 16:15; Numb. 11:7; 1 Cor. 10:3.

[220] Neh. 9:15; Ps. 78:24, 25.

=30, 31. What therefore doest thou as a sign that we may see and believe thee?= This response of theirs brings out the contrast between faith and belief. Christ has said, Believe in him whom God hath sent; the people, recognizing his reference to himself, reply, Why should we believe you? or, as Norton renders it, “give you credit.” He calls for an affectionate and confiding belief in his person and work, they decline to give him simple credence.--=What dost thou work?= This is not, as Maurice seems to interpret it, the language of a spiritual yearning, but, as Alford, Stier, Meyer, the language of unbelief and opposition, a sarcastic retort of his own words. “Thou commandest us,” say they, “to work; what dost thou work thyself?” This demand, coming so soon after the feeding of the five thousand, has given rise to some perplexity, and rationalistic commentators cite it as an evidence that no such miraculous feeding took place. If not, why should the people refer to the manna? The fact is that, though the five thousand were fed, no explanation was made to them of the way in which the food was provided; they were commanded to take their seats; the barley cakes, the bread of the poorest peasantry, were distributed among them; they were doubtless astonished; but no conclusions were drawn for them, and they were not in the habit of drawing conclusions for themselves. When, therefore, on the Sabbath, Christ met in the synagogue some of those who had been fed, together with others who had not been present, nothing was more natural than this demand, impliedly for both a repetition and an explanation of the miracle. This is the significance of the reference to the O. T. account of the miracle of the manna, “He gave them bread from heaven to eat” (Ps. 78:24). It was as if they said, The Psalmist has explicitly pointed out the way in which the commission of Moses was confirmed; leave us not in the dark respecting the feeding of the multitude, which was, indeed, strange, but which has not been interpreted.--There is also implied a contrast between the work of Moses and the work of Christ; the manna came down from heaven, the bread was distributed upon the earth; the manna was given day by day as needed for forty years, the bread had been given but once; the manna was a sweet and delicate food, “the taste of it like wafers with honey” (Exod. 16:31), and it was among the rabbinical prophecies that the Messiah would cause manna to descend which would please all tastes, “bread for the young men, honey for the old, oil for the children;” but the bread which Christ had distributed was barley bread, the commonest fare of the poorest people.

32 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my[221] Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.

[221] Gal. 4:4.

33 For the bread of God[222] is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.

[222] verses 48, 58.

=32, 33. Verily, verily, I say unto you, not Moses gave to you that bread from heaven; but my Father is giving you that which is the true bread from heaven.= The people have referred to the manna as the authentication of Moses; though they do not in words refer to him, the spirit of their response is analogous to that of ch. 4:12, Art thou greater than our father Jacob? Compare ch. 8:53. To this Christ replies (1) that Moses did not give the manna; it was given by God; Moses had nothing to do with bestowing it; the Israelites found it in the morning after the dew had dried off the ground (Exod. 16:4, 14). (2) This manna was not the true bread, but merely a type or shadow of the spiritual antitype; so the Red Sea, the rock, the brazen serpent, were mute prophets of spiritual verities, to be fulfilled through Christ (ch. 4:14, 15; 1 Cor. 10:1-11). (3) Hence, the bread of God was not a past, historic gift fulfilled in the days of the wilderness, but a present and a perpetual gift, which the Father is ever giving. The practical contrast suggested is that between the faith which reveres only a past religion, a providence and an inspiration in the days of the patriarchs and prophets and apostles, and that which holds fast to a present providence, an ever-living Spirit, and a continuous inspiration, a living bread ever given throughout all ages.--=For the bread of God is that which comes down from the heaven and gives life to the world.= Christ here lays down a general principle in which he defines the essential characteristics of God’s spiritual gift. That alone is the true bread (1) which is evermore descending from the heavens, a perpetual bestowment; (2) which bestows life; (3) which is for the world. The manna did not last over a single day (Exod. 16:19, 20), and finally ceased to fall when the Israelites entered the Holy Land (Josh. 5:12); they that ate it all died (ver. 49); and it was given only to a single nation. The type was brief in its duration, limited in its effects, confined to a few recipients. The antitype is for all mankind, confers everlasting life, and is bestowed evermore.

34 Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread.

=34. Lord, evermore give to us this bread.= Comp. ch. 4:15, note. Not spoken ironically (Calvin), nor with a definite idea of some miraculous kind of sustenance, a magic food or means of life from heaven (Alford, Meyer), nor with a serious comprehension of his spiritual meaning and a sincere desire for his spiritual gift (Maurice, Lucke). The people were shallow and superficial; without comprehending the meaning of Christ’s words, they yet saw in them the offer of something desirable, they knew not what, and asked for it. In the minds of some there may have been a dim sense of the value of the inner life, such as is sometimes borne in upon sensual and superficial natures by the mere power of the presence of a great soul. Comp. Luke 14:15. There, as here, Christ by his teaching rebukes the superficial and ignorant desire for an uncomprehended blessedness; there, by showing parabolically how the spiritual food is declined by those to whom it is offered; here, by interpreting the nature of spiritual food. The rejection of Christ by the people here, illustrates the parable uttered by Christ there.

35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he[223] that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he[224] that believeth on me shall never thirst.

[223] Rev. 7:16.

[224] chaps. 4:14; 7:38.

36 But I said unto you, That ye[225] also have seen me, and believe not.

[225] verse 64.

=35, 36. I am the bread of life.= They say, Give us this bread. His reply is, The bread is already given; it is for you to accept and feed upon it. And this is always the answer of the gospel to every soul that cries out for a Saviour and a salvation. How the soul is to accept this bread he then goes on to say.--=He that cometh to me shall not hunger, and he that hath faith in me shall never thirst.= It is clear that the “coming” and “believing in” here are equivalent to the eating and drinking of ver. 54. See notes there. The coming is a continuous coming (present participle with πρός); a coming into Christ’s likeness, and therefore into spiritual unity with him; a coming perfected only by the process of feeding upon him, drinking in his spiritual power so as to be transformed by it. It is the coming which David describes in Psalm 63:8, “My soul followeth hard after thee,” and Paul in Phil. 3:13, 14, “Forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before, I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.” Comp. with the promise here Matt. 5:6; Rev. 7:16. All spiritual hunger and thirst are not ended when Christian experience begins, because in this life we are ever coming toward Christ, we have never come fully into him. This coming is consummated when we are one with Christ as he is one with the Father (John 17:21, 22); the promise of the gospel is then fulfilled in the glorious satisfaction of a perfected redemption (1 John 3:2; Ps. 17:15). We are not satisfied till we awake in his likeness.--=Ye also have seen me and ye have not had faith.= See ch. 20:29. The reference here may either be to words actually uttered in this discourse, but not reported by John, or to what he has said by implication though not by exact words, or to rebukes uttered on some previous occasion, e. g., John 5:38, 40, 43.

37 All[226] that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him[227] that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

[226] verse 45, ch. 17:6, 8, etc.

[227] Ps. 102:17; Isa. 1:18; 55:7; Matt. 11:28; Luke 23:42, 43; 1 Tim. 1:15, 16; Rev. 22:17.

38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but[228] the will of him that sent me.

[228] ch. 5:30; Ps. 40:7, 8.

=37, 38. The all which the Father has given to me shall come toward me, and he that comes toward me I will in no wise cast out.= Toward, not to me. The original (πρὸς) indicates the object toward which anything is directed, not ordinarily the goal actually reached. The promise then is that he who sets out in the direction of Christ shall not be rejected by him. He does not wait till we have come to him; he receives us when we start toward him. In this and the next verse all (πᾶν) is in the neuter gender, indicating, not that the body is included with the soul (Maurice), but that the whole is given by the Father in its totality, but is received by the Son separately and individually. “In Jesus Christ’s discourses, that which the Father hath given to the Son himself is termed, in the singular number and neuter gender, all; those who come to the Son himself are described in the masculine gender, or even the plural number, every one, or they. The Father has given to the Son the whole mass, as it were, that all whom he hath given may be one; that whole the Son develops individually in the execution of the divine plan.”--(Bengel.) Christ’s language here indicates his dependence upon the Father’s will and power, and is analogous to that in many of his discourses, especially in those reported by John. He has come to do his Father’s will; the works which he does are those which his Father has given him to do, and are done by his Father’s power; the words which he speaks are his Father’s words; his whole life is represented as the incarnate expression of his Father’s will; and those whom he saves are saved not by his own independent power, they are those whom his Father has given him (ch. 10:28, 29). Here then I understand Christ neither to limit his salvation nor to declare it to be without limit. He simply asserts on the one hand that his saving power is efficacious only over those whom the Father has given unto him, and on the other that there is nothing lacking in his grace or power which shall cause those thus given to fail of a perfected salvation. As a Saviour he is the representative of the Father’s gracious love and power. Here there is no indication who are the all thus given to him. From other Scripture, however, it appears clear that it includes many among the heathen nations (Ps. 2:8 with Matt. 8:11), and that it does not include the entire human race (ch. 17:6, 9, 25). This interpretation is confirmed by the verse which follows, which further expresses the subjection of the Son in his mediatorial work to the Father.--=Because I came down from heaven, not that I might do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.= The catholicity of Christ’s love is a disclosure of the love of the Father toward us. In these words Christ gives us a suggestion of the reason of his receiving sinners and making them companions and associates. His own earthy inclinations, tastes, and sensibilities, had he followed them, would all have been against such society; but all were subordinate to, and overridden by, his great controlling purpose that the world through him might be saved (ch. 3:17; 1 Tim. 1:15). For every Christian disciple there is a practical lesson in these words of Christ. We are all sent into the world as Christ also was sent into the world (ch. 17:18); and it is ours to see to it that no pride, or social taste, or moral irresolution, induce us to cast out those who would otherwise come to us for help; but we are also to remember that our power to help does not extend beyond those whom the Father in his own gracious wisdom has seen fit to give to us as the seals to our apostleship (1 Cor. 9:2).

39 And this is the Father’s will[229] which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.

40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that[230] every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will[231] raise him up at the last day.

[229] chaps. 10:28; 17:12; 18:9; Matt. 18:14; 2 Tim. 2:19.

[230] verses 47, 54; ch. 3:15, 16.

[231] ch. 11:25.

=39, 40. And this is the will of him that sent me, that the all which he has given me, from it I should lose nothing, but shall raise it up in the last day.= In omitting the word Father from verse 39 and inserting it in verse 40 I follow the best MSS. See Alford. The resurrection here spoken of is the resurrection of life, i. e., unto eternal life (ch. 5:29), which is given only through Christ (ch. 11:25; Phil. 3:10, 11).--=For this is the will of my Father, that every one= (πᾶς, not πᾶν), masculine, not neuter; the whole is given to the Son; but each one must come by and for himself to the Son.--=Seeing the Son.= Looking unto him, as those bitten in the wilderness looked unto the brazen serpent (ch. 3:14, 15; Numb. 21:9; Isa. 45:22).--=And having faith in him.= Making Christ the substance of his hope as well as the object of his faith (Heb. 11:1; ver. 29, note).--=May have eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.= These verses clearly imply (1) that there is nothing in any secret decree or election of God, or in the nature or extent of the provisions of divine grace, to limit the gift of eternal life or prevent any one from receiving it through faith in the Son; (2) that the only condition required is one inherent in the nature of the case, namely, a sincere belief in, and desire for, that spiritual life which alone is eternal and of which Christ is the supreme manifestation; (3) that whoever has once thus looked to Christ with living faith has an absolute assurance of preservation from the weakness of his own will, as well as from external temptation, an assurance afforded by Christ’s declaration, “Of all which he has given me I shall lose nothing.” It does not imply a literal bodily resurrection. The literalism which so reads this promise is akin to that which misinterpreted Christ’s language respecting eating his flesh and drinking his blood. The whole spirit and tone of this discourse is poetic and metaphorical.

41 The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven.

42 And they said, Is[232] not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?

[232] Matt. 13:55; Mark 6:3; Luke 4:22.

=41, 42. The Jews then murmured at him.= The Jews are in the usage of John the Judeans; here, those who had come from Jerusalem, or who, dwelling in Galilee, partook of the character of the more bigoted and superstitious dwellers in the southern province.--=Because he said, I am the bread=, etc. Their reference is to what he has said in verses 33, 35, 38. Envy was the real cause of their murmuring. This claim to superiority offended their pride.--=Is not this Jesus the son of Joseph=, etc. Comp. ch. 7:27; Mark 6:3. The Christ they knew was the Christ according to the flesh, whom Paul declared he would not know (2 Cor. 5:16); the Christ who came down from heaven, that is, the divine Spirit working in him and manifesting itself through him, they did not know. He is known and only can be known by spiritual apprehension.--=How then saith this fellow= (λέγει οὗτος). There is implied in the original Greek a contempt which may fairly be expressed by this translation. The same expression is so translated in Matt. 12:24; 26:61; Luke 23:2; John 9:29.

43 Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves.

44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw[233] him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

[233] Cant. 1:4.

45 It is written[234] in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man[235] therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.

[234] Isa. 54:13; Jer. 31:34; Micah 4:2.

[235] Matt. 11:27.

=43-45. Jesus therefore answered=, * * * * =No one= (not, no man) =can come unto me except the Father which has sent me draw him=. Parallel to this declaration is that of Matt. 16:17; the true knowledge of Christ is revealed to the soul by the Father. There has been much theological discussion as to the proper interpretation of this passage. On the one hand, Calvin declares that “it is therefore a false and profane assertion, that none are drawn but those who are willing to be drawn, as if man made himself obedient to God by his own efforts; for the willingness with which men follow God is what they already have from himself, who has framed their hearts to obey him;” on the other hand, Adam Clark, representing the Arminian school of theology, thus interprets the divine drawing: “A man is attracted by that which he delights in. Show green herbage to a sheep, he is drawn by it; show nuts to a child, and he is drawn by them. They run wherever the person runs who shows these things; they run after him, but they are not forced to follow; they run through the desire they feel to get the things they delight in. So God draws man; he shows him his wants--he shows the Saviour whom he has provided for him.” The true interpretation of the declaration involves the long disputed and yet unsettled problem of the psychology of the will, what is the nature of and what are the limits to its freedom of action, a problem which belongs rather to the domain of mental science than to that of theology or Biblical interpretation. In interpreting this passage, however, the student should consider: (1) the literal meaning of the word draw (ἕλκω). This primarily carries with it the idea of force, and is used by Homer of carrying one away captive; by Luke, of dragging persons before a court (Acts 16:19; comp. James 2:6); and by John himself of dragging a net (ch. 21:6, 11). Thus the metaphor involved in the word implies at least a certain resistance to the divine love and a certain difficulty to be overcome by the divine drawing. (2) Parallel teachings in the O. T. and N. T. (comp. Sol. Song 4:1; Jer. 31:3; Hos. 11:4; Luke 14:23, note; John 12:32; 1 Cor. 1:9), where the word called is parallel to the word draw here (Phil. 2:12, 13). (3) Christ’s own interpretation of the Father’s drawing, afforded by ver. 45. They that have learned of the Father are they that are drawn by him. (4) The nature of that coming to Christ which is the object of the divine drawing. “We do not come to Christ by walking, but by believing; not by the movement of the body, but by the free will of the heart. * * * * Think not that thou art drawn against thy will, for the mind is drawn by love.”--(Augustine.) Interpreting this passage in the light of these considerations, I understand not that God drags the unwilling by an irresistible grace, nor merely the willing by placing before the will in its natural condition such objects--a sense of its needs and a revelation of its Saviour--as attract the unsatisfied heart to himself; but that he makes the soul willing in the day of his power, working in us both to will and to do of his good pleasure (Ps. 110:3; Phil. 2:13).--=It is written in the prophets= (Isa. 54:13), =They shall be all taught of God=. The all here appears clearly from the reference in Isaiah to be all the children of God, not all humanity.--=Every one, therefore, hearing from the Father and learning, comes unto me.= Emphasis is placed by the structure of the sentence in the original Greek on the word learning. The Pharisees heard, but they did not learn. He that does not reverently recognize the divine glory in the life and character of Christ, who sees no beauty in him that he should desire him, does not possess true piety, has not heard and learned of God.

46 Not[236] that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God,[237] he hath seen the Father.

[236] ch. 5:37.

[237] Luke 10:22.

=46. Not that any one has seen the Father.= The object of this verse, which is parenthetical, seems to be to guard the Jews against an unspiritual interpretation of his words.--=Save he which is from God.= Evidently Jesus refers to himself. Comp. ver. 35, and observe how habitually he distinguishes himself from man, never classing himself with men. “Imagine a human creature saying to the world, ‘I came forth from the Father--ye are from beneath, I am from above;’ facing all the intelligence and even the philosophy of the world, and saying, in bold assurance, ‘Behold, a greater than Solomon is here’--‘I am the light of the world’--‘the way, the truth, and the life;’ publishing to all peoples and religions, ‘No man cometh to the Father, but by me;’ promising openly in his death, ‘I will draw all men unto me;’ addressing the Infinite Majesty, and testifying, ‘I have glorified thee on the earth;’ calling to the human race, ‘Come unto me’--‘follow me;’ laying his hand upon all the dearest and most intimate affections of life, and demanding a precedent love: ‘He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me.’”--(Bushnell.)

47 Verily, verily, I say unto you,[238] He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.

[238] verse 40.

48 I[239] am that bread of life.

[239] verses 33, 35, 51.

=47, 48. Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that hath faith hath eternal life.= The words on me are wanting in the best manuscripts, are omitted by Tischendorf and Alford, and are queried by Schaff; internal evidence is against them. The declaration is generic; faith in the largest sense of that word--the power which lays hold upon the invisible and the hope which reaches after it (Heb. 11:1), a faith which may be and is exercised by those who have never known Christ (Rom. 2:7), is the essential condition of spiritual life. This life is not, as in our English version, merely “everlasting life,” but life eternal, i. e., the spiritual life which is created in the soul when it is born from above, which is nurtured in the soul that follows after that it may apprehend Christ Jesus (Phil. 3:12), the fruits of which are love, joy, peace, etc. (Gal. 5:22, 23). This eternal life is a present possession; he that hath faith already hath this life.--=I am the bread of that life.= Faith may exist without Christ, as it did in the O. T. prophets and patriarchs, and as it does in greater or less measure in some at least of those in heathen lands; but Christ is the bread of that life; by him it is fed, strengthened, and made to grow; by him faith in invisible things is made rich and strong. The universal effect of a pure Christianity has been to turn the mind away from material things to unseen realities (2 Cor. 3:18).

49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and[240] are dead.

[240] Zech. 1:5.

50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and[241] not die.

[241] verse 58.

51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: it any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh,[242] which I will give for the life[243] of the world.

[242] Heb. 10:5, 10, 20.

[243] ch. 3:16; 1 John 2:2.

=49-51.= In these verses Christ marks the contrast between the bread given in the wilderness through Moses, to which the people had referred (ver. 31), and for a repetition of which they had asked, and the spiritual bread of which this material manna was but a type. That manna was temporary in its effects, the fathers were dead, of this spiritual bread if one eats he shall not die, it is eternal in its effects; that bread was material, dead, this is a living and immortal bread; that was given to a few, the Jewish nation, this descends from heaven, that any one may eat of it, it is for universal humanity; that bread was bestowed without suffering, this bread is a divine sacrifice given for the sake of saving others from suffering.--=This= (fellow) =is the bread=. They had said (ver. 42), “How then saith this fellow?” He replies, repeating their language of contempt, This (fellow, οὗτός) is the bread which descends from heaven. Observe that his language here, as throughout this discourse, implies his pre-existence, if not his supernatural birth.--=In order that any one may eat of it and may not die.= Not merely “that one may eat;” his language, “that any one may eat,” implies the universality of divine grace; the bread is for whosoever will.--=I am the living bread.= Not equivalent to life-giving, for which another Greek word (not ζόω, but ζοωποιέω) would have been used. Here, as in John 4:10, is signified the spiritual life of the food itself which Christ affords by the bestowal of himself. It is true that Christ is life-giving, but he is so because he is ever-living. He is the life, therefore he gives life.--=If any one eat of this bread.= Again the universality of divine grace is implied. Comp. Acts 2:38, 39, note and refs. there.--=He shall live unto eternity.= Not merely forever. The idea here, as everywhere throughout the N. T., is not merely an endless existence, which might be no boon, but an immortal, a divine life, the very life of God, making the new-born soul a true son of God.--=And the bread which I will give.= Observe the future tense. He speaks therefore of a gift yet to be perfected by his passion and death.--=Is my flesh, which I will give for the sake of= (ὑπὲρ) =the life of the world=. Comp. ch. 3:16. It seems to me that these enigmatical words are added to guard the church from falling into the error of supposing that Christ’s doctrine is the bread of life, and that to hear and believe his words as a divine teacher is to secure the life eternal of which he speaks. This bread is not merely the teaching nor the example of Christ; the sacrifice is an essential principle of that spiritual food which he has provided for the world’s life.

52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How[244] can this man give us his flesh to eat?

[244] ch. 3:9.

=52. How can this= (fellow) =give us his flesh to eat=? The Judeans here interpret Christ’s words with precisely the literalism with which the church of Rome has interpreted them since. The rest of the discourse Christ devotes to guarding his hearers against this misapprehension of literal and prosaic natures, and to emphasizing the mystical doctrine to the elucidation of which the whole discourse is devoted. Verses 53-55 reiterate and re-emphasize the truth that the soul must feed on Christ, receive him, his life, his death, his character, as the supply of its own spiritual life; verses 57-59 and verses 61-63 interpret what he means by the metaphor. In the interpretation of Christ’s symbolic language here we are to guard ourselves against simplifying it, either by a literal rendering on the one hand, or, on the other, by that process of rationalism which, under pretence of interpreting a metaphor, does away with it altogether. If there were nothing mystical in the doctrine, we may be sure that Christ would not have clothed it in language seemingly so full of mysticism.

53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except[245] ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

[245] Matt. 26:26, 28.

54 Whoso[246] eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

[246] verse 40.

55 For my flesh is meat indeed,[247] and my blood is drink indeed.

[247] Ps. 4:7.

=53-55. Therefore Jesus said unto them.= Therefore connects what follows with what has preceded; he emphasizes and explains the eating and drinking, in response to their interruption in ver. 53.--=Verily, verily, I say unto you.= These words give a solemn emphasis to the declaration which follows.--=Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man.= That is, of the Messiah (Matt. 10:23, note).--=And drink his blood.= The use of animal blood in any form was prohibited to the Israelites as food (Gen. 9:4; Lev. 3:17; 7:26, 27; 17:10-14; 19:26; Deut. 12:16, 23; 15:23), and was exceedingly odious to the Jewish thought. Moreover, to touch even the corpse of a man rendered the Jew unclean. It is not, therefore, strange that Christ’s language here should have offended many even of his disciples (ver. 60).--=Ye have no life in you.= The mere physical life is accounted in the N. T. no life at all. The true life is that of God in the soul, the absence of which is death.--=Whoso eateth my flesh.= The Greek verb rendered in both places eat is different from that used above. The word here (τρώγω) signifies literally to chew or masticate, and seems to me to have been substituted by Christ for the more general one (φαγεῖν), in order to add still further emphasis to the doctrine which he is expounding.--=And drinketh my blood, hath eternal life.= A present possession. See ver. 47, note.--=And I will raise him up at the last day.= This is one of the passages on which the advocates of the doctrine of conditional immortality base their belief. The promise of resurrection here certainly is limited to those who through faith have received the gift of eternal life.--=For my flesh is true meat and my blood is true drink.= To Christ the material universe was but a shadow, and the realities were those things of which the material universe is a type. “Food and drink are not here mere metaphors; rather are our common material food and drink mere shadows and imperfect types of this only real reception of refreshment and nourishment into the being.”--(Alford.) In the interpretation of Christ’s language here, the student must remember the declaration respecting him, “Without a parable spake he not unto them” (Mark 4:34); unquestionably the language here is parabolic. It is also true that the phrases eating and drinking were used among the Jews in a metaphorical sense, and that bread especially was employed among them as a symbol for doctrine (Isa. 3:1; Jer. 15:16; Lightfoot on John 6:51; Geikie’s Life of Christ, ch. 44, note c). It seems to me, however, very clear not only that Christ here means something more than receiving his doctrines, but that he employs his peculiar language for the express purpose of emphasizing the truth that it is not merely enough to receive him as a teacher. If this had been his meaning, it would have been easy to correct the misapprehension of his Jewish hearers, and remove the offence which they felt at his discourse. This he does not do. On the contrary, he declares, not that they must eat the bread of the Son of man, but that they must eat his flesh and drink his blood (ver. 53); in a slightly different form, he reiterates this declaration in ver. 54; and finally, to avoid the possibility of the misinterpretation which substitutes his teaching for his personal presence and influence, he adds the emphatic declaration of ver. 55. If something more than accepting and following the teaching of Christ is not meant by these verses, then it would seem that Christ has embodied a very simple truth in very unnecessarily mystical language. That more than this is meant I take to be declared unmistakably by verses 53-55; what more than this is meant it is the object of verses 56-58 to show. The commentators have discussed at great length the question what relation the solemn assertions of these verses bear to the Lord’s Supper. There are three general opinions: (1) that no reference to the Lord’s Supper is intended; (2) that the whole passage exclusively relates to the Lord’s Supper prophetically; (3) that the idea involved in the Lord’s Supper, but not the ordinance itself, is referred to. For discussion of these opinions, see Alford’s note. To me it seems clear that Christ here teaches by a word-parable the same truth which he subsequently embodies in a parable in action in the ordinance of the Supper; whether he prophetically refers to it or not is a question of no great importance.

56 He that eateth[248] my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth[249] in me, and I in him.

[248] Lam. 3:24.

[249] ch. 15:4; 1 John 3:24; 4:15, 16.

57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so[250] he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.

[250] 1 Cor. 15:22.

58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers[251] did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.

[251] verses 49-51.

=56-58. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abides= (μένω) =in me and I in him=. This result of the eating and drinking interprets the kind of eating and drinking signified. The same truth is elsewhere interpreted by other metaphors, ask by that of being engrafted on Christ (John 15:4, 5); being rooted in him (Ephes. 3:17); being joined to him as the body to the head (Ephes. 4:15, 16); being married to him (Ephes. 5:23); receiving him as a temple receives and is made sacred by the Spirit of God (1 Cor. 3:16); being clothed with him (Rom. 13:14; Gal. 3:27).--=And I in him.= As Christ is in the Father and the Father in Christ, so the disciples are to be one in them (John 17:21).--=As the living Father hath sent me and I live by the Father, so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.= This one verse should have prevented the three current errors of interpretation in this chapter: (1) that spiritual life is dependent on a literal feeding on Christ’s body and blood; (2) that it is dependent on a sacramental feeding on the sacred symbols of his body; (3) that it requires only a belief in him as a religious teacher. How did Christ live by the Father? Certainly not by any literal eating of the Father’s flesh or drinking of the Father’s blood; nor by any symbol or ceremonial whatever; nor yet by any mere hearing and obeying of the Father’s words. The Father was personally present in Christ; Christ, by his words and his acts, manifested the indwelling glory of the Father; so Christ fed on the Father because the Father was the source and supply of his spiritual life. In like manner we feed on Christ, not when we merely accept and endeavor to follow his precepts, but when, under the direct personal influence of his spiritual presence, we manifest his glory unto the world, having not merely a spirit like Christ, but having the very spirit of Christ himself in us (Rom. 8:9, 10).--=This is that bread which came down from heaven.= Christ thus interprets his own previous metaphor.--=Not as your fathers did eat and are dead.= Again he guards the Jews against their literal interpretation; the eating of which he has spoken is not the physical eating for the supply of the body; this can never give true life.

After this chapter had gone to press a remarkable article from the pen of Dean Stanley appeared on “The Eucharist” in the Nineteenth Century (May, 1878), in which he arrives at substantially the same conclusions that I have arrived at in these notes, and enforces them with his usual eloquence and learning. He urges that in all religious ordinances we ought to try to get beneath the phrases we use, and not to rest satisfied with the words, however excellent, till we have ascertained their meaning; that Christ’s words here and in the appointment of the last supper as a permanent memorial ordinance are evidently metaphorical; that the very strangeness of the metaphor should turn our thoughts from the outward form to the inward essence; that the body and flesh signify the personality and character of Christ; that we must incorporate in ourselves, that is in our moral natures, the substance--the moral substance--of the teaching and character of Jesus Christ; that this is the only true transubstantiation; that the blood of Christ is his spirit, the inmost essence of his character, the self of his self; and that to drink his blood is to imbibe this inmost spirit; that this spirit is love or charity, which is throughout the New Testament represented as the fundamental essence of the highest life of God, and therefore of his children; and he interprets verses 53-56 here, in accordance with these principles, as follows: “This is one of those startling expressions used by Christ to show us that he intends to drive us from the letter to the spirit, by which he shatters the crust and shell in order to force us to the kernel. It is as if he said: ‘It is not enough for you to see the outward face of the Son of man, or hear his outward words, or touch his outward vesture. That is not himself. It is not enough that you walk by his side, or hear others talk of him or use terms of affection and endearment toward him. You must go deeper than this; you must go to his very inmost heart, to the very core and marrow of his being. You must not only read and understand, but you must mark, learn, and inwardly digest, and make part of yourselves, that which alone can be part of the human spirit and conscience.’ It expresses, with regard to the life and death of Jesus Christ, the same general truth as is expressed when St. Paul says, ‘Put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ’--that is, clothe yourselves with his spirit as with a garment; or again, ‘Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus.’ It is the same general truth as when our Lord himself says, ‘I am the vine; ye are the branches.’”

59 These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.

60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?

=59, 60. In the synagogue.= I believe the whole discourse to have been delivered in the synagogue. See Prel. Note above.--=Many of his disciples.= Not of the twelve, but of those who had been theretofore inclined to accept him as a teacher.--=This is a hard saying.= Rather, an impious saying, or at least hard in the sense of harsh and repulsive, rather than in that of merely difficult. To the Jews then, as to the world ever since, a system of religion which proposes an amelioration of condition only by a revolution of moral character, by a new and divine life, seemed not only not attractive, but repellent.--=Who can hear it?= That is, Who can stay and listen to such teaching as this?

61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?

62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend[252] up where he was before?

[252] ch. 3:13; Mark 16:19; Ephes. 4:8-10.

63 It[253] is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

[253] 2 Cor. 3:6.

=61-63. When Jesus knew in himself.= Either miraculously or by a subtle sense which the delicately organized often possess.--=Doth this offend you?= Stumble you. See Matt. 5:29, note; 11:6, note. The teaching of the disciple, as the teaching of Christ, will sometimes be to men a stumbling-stone and a rock of offence.--=What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?= Another admonition that they are not to take his words in a material sense, for in his glorified body he is to ascend into heaven before their sight. The language is a strong testimony to the historical verity of the ascension.--=The spirit is the life-giver, the flesh profiteth nothing whatsoever=; i. e., It is my spirit in your spirit which will give eternal life, not my flesh in your flesh. This is the natural meaning of these words, and they are to be taken in their material sense, not with such qualifications as that of Augustine, “The flesh alone and by itself profiteth not,” i. e., without the blessing of the spirit; or such as that of Alford, “He does not say my flesh profiteth nothing, but the flesh.” The flesh is my flesh; for it is only of his own flesh that he has spoken at all in this discourse. The flesh of Christ, if it could be miraculously reproduced by the benediction of a priest, would still be of no profit.--=The words which I have spoken to you, they are spirit and they are life.= The meaning is not that Christ’s words are themselves life-giving, though this is true; but that the words which he has just spoken to them respecting his flesh and his blood relate to the spiritual realm and the eternal life, and are to be so interpreted.

64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew[254] from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.

[254] Rom. 8:29; 2 Tim. 2:19.

65 And he said, Therefore said I[255] unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

[255] verses 44, 45.

=64, 65. But there are some among you who have not faith.= Such could not receive the teaching of Christ, for it is true in spiritual as in physical gifts, according to one’s faith, so is Christ’s blessing (Matt. 9:29).--=For Jesus knew from the beginning=, etc. Compare this distinct statement of Christ’s foreknowledge with Christ’s own statement of the limitations of his knowledge in Mark 13:32. The contrast illustrates one of the inexplicable mysteries of Christ’s nature, whose knowledge transcended that of man, yet in his earthly condition was less than that of omniscience. To the question, Why, if he foreknew the betrayal of Judas, did he ordain him as an apostle? there is no satisfactory answer. The problem of divine foreknowledge and human free-will, of that divine law the inflexibility of which science has in these later days so strikingly demonstrated, and that freedom of moral action to which universal consciousness testifies, is one which transcends the limits of the human intellect.--=Therefore said I unto you that no one can come unto me except it were given unto him of my Father.= Judas and the withdrawing disciples had, in a sense, come unto him; they had followed him, accepted him as their Master, and had given him for a time their allegiance. Yet they had not really come to him, for no one truly comes except he is drawn by a divine influence. Therefore connects the declaration of ver. 44 with the fact here stated that some of the disciples were without true faith. The practical warning to us here is this, that we have need to examine ourselves that we may know whether our coming to Christ has been merely that of a natural inclination or that of obedience to the impulse of the Spirit of God.

66 From that time many of his disciples went back,[256] and walked no more with him.

[256] Zeph. 1:6; Luke 9:62; Heb. 10:38.

67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?

=66, 67. From this many of his disciples went back.= From this indicates both, as the English version represents, the time from which this withdrawal dated, and also the cause from which it proceeded. Observe that faithful preaching will drive some apparent disciples away from Christ. The minister, like his Master, will ever have the fan in his hand, and the gospel which he preaches will in some measure separate the chaff from the grain. This was illustrated in the experience of the apostle Paul. See Acts 13:44-46; 14:4; 17:12, 13, etc. “It will never be possible for us to exercise such caution that the doctrine of Christ shall not be the occasion of offence to many; because the reprobate, who are devoted to destruction, suck venom from the most wholesome food and gall from honey. The Son of God undoubtedly knew what was useful, and yet we see that he cannot avoid offending many of his disciples.”--(Calvin.)--=Then said Jesus also to the twelve, Ye do not also wish to go away?= The tone is one of pathetic protest; the language that of one who felt keenly the desertion, and yearned for an expression of the fidelity of his immediate friends, not as an assurance, for he knew from the beginning who believed not, and therefore who believed and would endure, but as an utterance of loyalty and love. At the same time he leads them to a confession which draws them more closely and binds them more tenderly to himself.

68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the[257] words of eternal life.

[257] Acts 5:20; 7:38.

69 And [258]we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.

[258] chaps. 1:29; 11:27; Matt. 16:16.

=68, 69. Then Simon Peter answered.= As in Matt. 16:16, he speaks quickly, for all.--=Lord, to whom shall we go?= To go away from Christ is to go out even here into the darkness; unto loneliness, hopelessness, despair.--=Thou hast the words of eternal life.= As Martha’s utterance of her faith in John 11:27, so Peter’s declaration here is not wholly responsive to the discourse that has preceded. He does not fully comprehend the meaning of that personal feeding on Christ of which the Lord has been speaking; but he believes that Christ’s words, though he does not fully understand them, are words of, that is full of, eternal life, and that he is the Messiah and the Son of God. And in this faith he is content to await humbly till the full meaning of Christ’s enigmatical discourse shall be revealed to him, as it could not be till Christ’s death, resurrection, and ascension, and the descent of the Holy Spirit.

70 Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a[259] devil?

[259] ch. 13:27.

71 He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve.

=70, 71. Have not I chosen you twelve?= Chosen them, not to be heirs of eternal life, but to be apostles; in the inner circle of his disciples; receiving his most sacred influence and intimate instruction.--=And one of you is a devil.= Not the devil; not merely devilish; but belonging to the kingdom of the devil; one of his ministers and agents. To Christ all men belong to either the one or the other kingdom. He here, as it were, looks forward to the time when Judas should have gone to his own place, forecasts his future, and characterizes him in the present by what he is to be when the germinal sin, now in him, has brought forth its final fruit. On the character of Judas Iscariot, see Vol. I, p. 307, Note on character and career of Judas Iscariot.

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us

Chapter VII

Ch. 7:1-52. JESUS AT THE FEAST OF TABERNACLES. THE DEMAND OF THE UNBELIEVER FOR AN EXHIBITORY CHRIST.--THE WORLD NEVER READY FOR ITS REFORMERS AND REGENERATORS; ALWAYS READY FOR THOSE WHO HAVE FOR IT NO MESSAGE.--THE TRUE AUTHORITY AND ORDINATION OF THE CHRISTIAN TEACHER.--LAY PREACHING SANCTIONED BY THE EXAMPLE OF CHRIST.--THE LAW OF THE CHRISTIAN SABBATH AND THE LAW OF CHRISTIAN JUDGMENT.--WHENCE CHRIST COMETH; WHITHER HE GOETH.--THE POWER OF FAITH: TO RECEIVE; TO IMPART.--THE MORAL POWER OF CHRIST ILLUSTRATED.

PRELIMINARY NOTE.--Between the close of ch. 6 and the beginning of ch. 7 occurred a period of retirement, employed by Christ in giving to his apostles especial instructions concerning the kingdom of God. The fullest account of these instructions is afforded in Matthew, chaps. 15, 16, 17, 18. During this time occurred the healing of the Syrophenician woman’s daughter and the transfiguration. The public ministry of Christ in Galilee was substantially brought to an end by his sermon in the synagogue at Capernaum and his consequent rejection by the people. The ministry in Judea begins with this chapter and continues to ver. 39 of the tenth chapter, verses 40-42 affording a concise statement of that ministry in Perea, of which Luke alone gives any extended account. The journey to Jerusalem mentioned below (ver. 10) is, I think erroneously, identified by some harmonists with that described by Luke, ch. 9:51, 52. That journey was immediately before his passion, and was notably public, messengers going before his face to prepare the way for him; this was “as it were in secret,” and six months of instruction in Judea and Perea intervened between it and his death. See Luke 9:51-56, Prel. Note, and Tabular Harmony, Vol. I, p. 45.

1 After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for he would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him.

2 Now the Jews’ feast[260] of tabernacles was at hand.

[260] Lev. 23:34.

3 His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judæa, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest.

4 For there is no man that doeth anything in secret, and he himself seeketh to be known openly. If thou do these things, shew thyself to the world.

=2-4. Now the Jews’ feast of Tabernacles was at hand.= This was one of the three greater festivals to be observed by Israel. It was also called the feast of Ingathering, from the fact that it was held at the year’s end, when all the labors of the field were consummated. It thus resembled nearly our own Thanksgiving Day. It commenced on the fifteenth of the seventh month, answering to our October, and lasted seven days. It was instituted to commemorate the dwelling in tents when in the desert; accordingly, while the feast lasted the people dwelt in booths or tents placed on the flat roofs of the houses, in the courts of the temple, and in the squares and open places, and the streets when their width allowed. The particular sacrifices to be offered are detailed in Num. 29:1-38, and notices of the observance are to be found in Neh. 8:13-18; Hos. 12:9; Zech. 14:16-19.--=His brethren.= Their names are given in Matt. 13:55. I believe his half brothers, children of Joseph and Mary, are intended. See Note on Brethren of the Lord, Vol. I, p. 187.--=That thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest.= This was after the commission, the missionary tour, and the return of the twelve (Matt., ch. 10), through whose ministry probably many had become in a certain loose sense disciples of our Lord, regarding him as a Jewish rabbi, and perhaps as an inspired prophet, who had never seen him personally. The language of Christ’s brothers is that of contempt. Leave this province, said they, and go up into Judea, the religious centre of the Holy Land, and show yourself to those who have heard of you, and exhibit to them what you can do. Additional significance is given to this language if we remember that it was used after a period of retirement of more than six months. See above.--=For no one does anything in secret, and yet seeks himself to be frank and open= (ἐν παῤῥησίᾳ). The intimation is that the reason why Jesus does not make more public exhibition of himself and his work is that he is deceiving the people. His brothers attempt to compel him to adopt their policy by imputing to him, because of his course, a lack of frankness and fearlessness.--=If thou do these things, show thyself to the world.= If implies a doubt. In a worldly view the policy of these brothers would seem wise; but it was really, in a more subtle form, the policy suggested by Satan in the second temptation (Matt. 4:5-7). Christ would be accepted by faith and love, not by wonder and fear; for the sake of his truth, not because of his miracles. These he persistently refused to show to the world as a means of compelling allegiance.

5 For neither did his brethren[261] believe in him.

[261] Mark 3:21.

=5. For neither had his brethren faith in him.= This verse seems to me quite conclusive that none of the brethren here mentioned were among the twelve, and therefore that James, Simon, and Judas, the brethren of the Lord, cannot be the apostles who bore the same name. They afterward became believers (Acts 1:14; 1 Cor. 9:5). They may at this time have recognized that Jesus possessed extraordinary powers, without recognizing in him the Messiah, or even an inspired teacher, whose instructions they were willing to follow. “They expected him to make a startling exhibition of his power to the eye. They did not believe in HIM; for faith rests upon that which is not seen; it confesses an inward vital power.”--(Maurice.)

6 Then Jesus said unto them, My[262] time is not yet come: but your time is alway ready.

[262] verses 8, 30; chaps. 2:4; 8:20.

7 The[263] world cannot hate you; but me it hateth, because I testify of it, that the works thereof are evil.

[263] ch. 15:19.

8 Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast; for my time is not yet full come.

9 When he had said these words unto them, he abode still in Galilee.

=6-9. My time is not yet; but your time is always prepared.= The context indicates the meaning. They had urged him to show himself to the world; his answer is, My time to show myself to the world is not yet. This manifestation of himself is gradual and successive; he partially manifested himself in the discourse delivered in Jerusalem at this very feast (see vers. 16, 18, 28, 29, 37, 38); more fully by his subsequent discourses in the temple during the Passion week (Matthew, chaps. 21, 22, 23); still more fully by his crucifixion, in which was disclosed that love which is the wisdom and power of God unto salvation (1 Cor. 1:24), and in which, even at the time and by the manner of his death, his divine Sonship was revealed to the Roman centurion (Mark 15:39); yet again by his resurrection from the dead (Acts 2:32-36; 3:15); increasingly in the ages since, by his personal presence and power in the church (Matt. 28:18, 20; Rom. 1:3, 4); a manifestation to be finally consummated when he is revealed from heaven in his second coming (Matt. 24:27; Col. 3:4; 2 Thess. 1:7). For this final coming the church is ever preparing the world, casting up a highway for him; and not till this highway is completed and he comes again shall all flesh see the salvation of God (Luke 3:4-6). The time of his brothers was always prepared; for the world is always ready for him who has no message for it. “If I,” said Luther, “would speak what the Papists like to hear, I would be very glad, too, to take lodgings with the Bishop of Magdeburg at Rome.” “The Son of man feels all the difference between those whose time was always ready, who could go up to the feasts whenever it pleased them, merely with the expectation of meeting friends and mixing in a crowd, and him who had the straitening consciousness of a message which he must bear, of a baptism which he must be baptized with.”--(Maurice.)--=The world cannot hate you=, etc. Comp. chaps. 15:18; 17:14; 1 John 3:13; Luke 6:26. He that would preach the gospel of salvation to the world must first testify of it that its deeds are evil. The Holy Spirit convinces the world of righteousness only after convincing it of sin (John 16:8, 9). For illustrations of Christ’s preaching against the works of the world, see Matt. 5:20; 6:1, 2, 5, 16; 7:22; 11:16-24; 12:39-15; Luke 6:46; 10:12-16; 11:45-54; 12:54-57, etc. A study of the preaching of Christ and the apostles, and of the writings of Paul, will show that the divine method is always to convince of sin as a preparation for proclaiming the good news of salvation from it.--=I go not unto this feast.= The word yet is not in the original, though it probably correctly interprets the real meaning of Christ’s answer. This was not, =I shall not go= (future), but, =I am not now going= (present). Perhaps Christ did not know whether he should go or not; he who acted constantly under the guidance of the Divine Spirit may not have received guidance on this point. It would at all events have defeated his purpose to have gone up with those who were determined that he should make an exhibition of himself and his work. There is no ground for either the reproach that he deceived his brethren, or that he acted in a fickle manner in subsequently going up to the feast.

10 But when his brethren were gone up, then went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret.

11 Then[264] the Jews sought him at the feast, and said, Where is he?

[264] ch. 11:56.

12 And[265] there was much murmuring among the people concerning him: for some said, He is a good man: others said, Nay; but he deceiveth the people.

[265] ch. 9:16.

13 Howbeit, no man spake openly of him, for fear of the Jews.

=10-13. Not openly, but as it were in secret.= Not secretly, but as if in secret, that is, quietly, unostentatiously, incognito, in contrast to the way in which his brothers wished him to go up. “Not in the company of a caravan of pilgrims or in any other way of outward observation, but so that the journey to that feast is represented as made in secrecy, and consequently quite differently from his last entry at the feast of the Passover.”--(Meyer.) The description of this journey to Jerusalem renders it improbable that it is to be identified with the journey described in Luke 9:51, 52. See Prel. Note.--=Then the Jews sought him.= By the Jews John generally if not invariably means the inhabitants of Judea, in contradistinction to the other inhabitants of the Holy Land. See ch. 6:41, note.--=Where is that fellow= (ἐκεῖνος)? The language is derisive. “Thus contemptuously can they speak of the man, that they cannot name him.”--(Luther.)--=And there was much murmuring.= The original (γογγυσμός) implies suppressed discourse.--=Some indeed said.= The Greek particle which I have rendered indeed (μέν) implies a concession, at the same time pointing forward to something antithetic. The implication is that among the Judeans the believers were a minority.--=No! but he deceiveth the people.= He that is popular with the multitude is generally looked upon with aversion by the hierarchy.--=No one spoke openly.= “Both mistrusted the hierarchy; even those hostile in their judgment were afraid, so long as they had not given their official decision, that their verdict might be reversed. A true indication of an utterly Jesuitical domination of the people.”--(Meyer.) Hostility to Christianity fears nothing so much as free discussion; and it quite accords with human nature that the consideration of Christ’s claims by the people at all should be dreaded by the priesthood. The interpretation of Alford, Godet, Tholuck, and others, that only the friends of Christ feared to speak openly, is in direct conflict with the explicit language of the narrative. Maurice pictures the scene well: “It is a hum of voices. There is a fear of something, the people do not well know of what. It is a fear of the Jews; the apostle says each fears the other. There is a concentrated Jewish feeling in the Sanhedrim, among the rulers, which all tremble at. Till that has been pronounced--above all, while there is a suspicion that it will come forth in condemnation--it is not wise for any to commit themselves. Brethren, do we not know that this is a true story? Must it not have happened in Jerusalem then, for would it not happen in London now?”

14 Now about the midst of the feast, Jesus went up into the temple, and taught.

15 And[266] the Jews marvelled, saying, How knoweth this man letters, having never learned?

[266] Matt. 13:54.

=14, 15. About the midst of the feast.= Bengel calculates that on this year the middle of the feast would be the Sabbath; the temple would in that case be especially crowded, and the day would suggest the remarks respecting the Sabbath.--=Jesus went up into the temple and taught.= He came to Judea privately, he went into the temple publicly; he would not exhibit himself, he would not conceal his doctrine.--=And the Judeans marvelled, saying.= The form of the question which follows indicates a hostile spirit; but it may have been raised, not by the scribes or teachers (Meyer, Alford), but by the people (Tholuck).--=How knoweth this fellow learning, never having been taught?= “A rule analogous to that which still prevails in most church communions forbade any rabbi to teach new truths except he was a regular graduate of one of the theological schools. He might catechise, but he could not preach. This rule the Jews cited against Jesus. ‘How,’ said they contemptuously, ‘does this man know anything of sacred literature, being no graduate?’”--(Abbott’s Jesus of Nazareth.) Letters (γράμμα) is here the sacred writings of the Jews, i. e., the sacred Scriptures and the comments thereon. This question affords the key to the interpretation of the discourse which follows, which is upon the authority, primarily of Christ, secondarily of every Christian teacher, an authority derived, not from theological schools or clerical ordination, but from the indwelling Spirit of God. Christ was himself a “lay preacher;” his example and his precept alike sanction unordained preaching.

16 Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not[267] mine, but his that sent me.

[267] chaps. 8:28; 12:49.

17 If[268] any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.

[268] ch. 8:43.

=16, 17. My teaching is not mine, but his that sent me.= For doctrine read teaching; for not merely the subject-matter taught, but the power with which it was presented, was divine. My teaching is not mine is not a hyperbole. It is not merely equivalent to “not acquired by any labor on my part in learning” (Bengel), or “not an invention of my own” (Geikie). Neither in origin nor in aim was Christ’s teaching his own. Ever about his Father’s business, he was ever teaching his Father’s words and doing his Father’s works (ch. 5:19, 30). In a sense every true Christian teacher should be able to repeat this saying of Christ (chaps. 14:26; 16:13). It does not follow that the Christian teacher need not be a Christian student; but it does follow that he should be a student only of those things which enable him better to understand and interpret the Father’s will and nature. Only so far as schools of theological thought help him to do this are they truly Christian schools.--=If any one wills to do his will, he shall know concerning the teaching, whether it be of God or whether I speak of myself.= An often misunderstood declaration. The promise is not that if any man does God’s will all theology shall be made clear to him, nor even that he shall be brought to a correct apprehension of the most important truths of the Christian system. The last clause qualifies the first; the declaration is that if any man purposes to do God’s will, makes that his ultimate and supreme choice (1 Tim. 6:11-16), he shall know respecting Christianity whether it is of divine or human origin. The declaration is both a promise and the enunciation of a spiritual law. The purpose to do God’s will itself clarifies the spiritual sight, so that the soul recognizes the Spirit of God in the life, the character, and the teachings of his Son. The degree of advancement which one subsequently makes in comprehending the full significance of those teachings will depend partly upon the purity of his spiritual purposes, but partly upon other conditions. Not the mere outward obedience to God’s commandments, but a true spiritual purpose, is declared to be the condition of spiritual light; and to that purpose is attached, not a promise of all light, but only of so much as will enable the soul to know the source from which it may obtain constantly increasing illumination. Nevertheless, the first step toward the solution of any theological difficulty whatever, is repentance of sin and practical obedience to the voice of God in the soul. Except a man be born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.

18 He[269] that speaketh of himself seeketh his own glory: but he that[270] seeketh his glory that sent him, the same is true, and no unrighteousness is in him.

[269] ch. 8:50.

[270] Prov. 25:27.

19 Did not Moses[271] give you the law, and yet none[272] of you keepeth the law? Why go ye about to kill[273] me?

[271] John 1:17; Gal. 3:19.

[272] Rom. 3:10-19.

[273] ch. 5:16, 18; Matt. 12:14.

=18, 19. He that speaketh from himself seeketh his own glory.= From (ἀπό) represents the remote cause; out of (ἐκ) represents the more immediate cause. The former refers to what is general, the latter to what is special. See Rob. Lex., ἀπό. Every Christian teacher must speak out of himself, i. e., out of his own experience of truth internally possessed and become a part of his nature; but no Christian teacher may speak, from himself, i. e., of his own notions and by his own authority. The inward experience out of which he speaks is powerful only as it is derived from the Spirit of God. Egotism is the natural expression of him who speaks from himself, and has not the rhetorical skill to conceal the inherent weakness.--=But he that seeketh his glory that sent him, the same is true, and no unrighteousness is in him.= This is a general proposition. In so far as any one seeks the divine glory he is preserved both from error and from unrighteousness (Rom. 8:1, 2; 1 John 1:5, 7; 3:6). Christ is the only one who is absolutely true, and in whom is no unrighteousness, because he is the only one in whom there is no self-seeking.--=Did not Moses give you the law=, etc. The connection is well given by Alford: “There is a close connection with the foregoing. The will to do his will was to be the great key to a true appreciation of his teaching; but of this there was no example among them; and therefore it was that they were no fair judges of the teaching, but bitter opponents and persecutors of Jesus, of whom, had they been anxious to fulfil the law, they would have been earnest and humble disciples” (ch. 5:46).--=Why go ye about to kill me?= The reference is to the purposed assassination at a previous visit to Jerusalem (ch. 5:18), a purpose from which the Pharisees had evidently not relented (ch. 7:1).

20 The people answered and said,[274] Thou hast a devil: who goeth about to kill thee?

[274] ch. 8:48.

21 Jesus answered and said unto them, I have done one work, and ye all marvel.

22 Moses[275] therefore gave unto you circumcision; (not because it is of Moses, but[276] of the fathers;) and ye on the sabbath day circumcise a man.

[275] Lev. 12:3.

[276] Gen. 17:10.

23 If a man on the sabbath day receive circumcision, that the law of Moses should not be broken; are ye angry at me, because[277] I have made a man every whit whole on the sabbath day?

[277] ch. 5:8.

24 Judge[278] not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.

[278] Deut. 1:16, 17.

=20-24. Thou hast a devil; who goeth about to kill thee?= It is evident from ver. 25 that some of his auditors knew the secret design which had been formed for Christ’s assassination. Their language here is that of foulest abuse. I judge then that they were startled by Christ’s sudden revealing of the secret designs against him; and with that inconsistency which is common to the self-condemned, they in the same sentence denied that his death had been compassed, and implied that the fact that it was compassed had been disclosed to him by an evil spirit which possessed him.--=Jesus answered * * * * I have done one work, and ye all marvel.= The work referred to is that described in the fifth chapter of John, the only miracle in Jerusalem up to this time which is described in detail; not the only one which he had wrought (chaps. 2:23; 3:2), but presumptively the last one. They wondered not at the miracle, but at the fact that he had performed it on the Sabbath day (ch. 5:16). It is not necessary to give to the word wonder here any accessory idea, as of doubt (Bengel) or disquietude (Chrysostom); Christ begins with the mildest characterization of their sentiment as that of mere surprise. Here, as habitually, he does not proceed to severe language till milder language has proved unavailing.--=Moses therefore gave unto you circumcision.= There is some doubt whether the word therefore belongs to this or to the preceding verse; i. e., whether Christ says, I have done one work, and ye all therefore marvel, or, Moses therefore gave unto you circumcision, not because it is of Moses, but of the fathers. The latter reading is preferred by the later scholars, e. g., Bengel, Meyer, Alford, against Olshausen, Tholuck. Either is grammatically possible; and the purely grammatical considerations appear to me to be about equally balanced. The latter interpretation is preferable, because it gives a better meaning to the sentence. Accepting this rendering, the meaning appears to be, Moses gave unto you circumcision for this reason, viz., because it was patriarchal, not because it originated with him. And this statement of the reason of the Mosaic law respecting circumcision affords a basis for the argument which follows. It was a saying of the rabbis “that circumcision drives away the Sabbath,” and they held that the rite, notwithstanding the work which it necessarily entailed, might be performed on the Sabbath day, because it was of patriarchal origin, and so antedated the Mosaic institution of the Sabbath. Christ, referring to this fact, convicts the Jews of inconsistency in being angry with him for placing the law of mercy above the law of the Sabbath. For the law of mercy was older than either; it belongs to the eternal law of God’s nature.--=That the law of Moses should not be broken.= That law prescribed that circumcision should be performed on the eighth day (Lev. 12:3); to allow that day to pass by, therefore, without circumcision would be a breach of the law.--=Because I have made an entire man= (ὅλον ἄνθρωπον) =well on the Sabbath day=. We can hardly suppose, with Bengel and Olshausen, that the entire man here signifies the healing of both soul and body; for there is no evidence in the original account that the physical was accompanied with a spiritual healing, and no likelihood that Christ’s auditors would have understood him here to refer to spiritual healing. The contrast rather seems to be between circumcision as an act of wounding, which brought only ceremonial cleanness, and the miracle at the pool of Bethesda, which gave relief from the consequences of sin (ch. 5:14), and gave health to the whole body.--=Judge not according to appearance, but judge righteous judgment.= See Zech. 7:9. One of Christ’s Sabbath laws; we are ourselves to avoid, but we are not to condemn in others, the appearance of evil. What is Sabbath observance and what Sabbath transgression is to be determined, not by the external act, but by the inward motive and the ultimate end.

25 Then said some of them of Jerusalem, Is not this he, whom they seek to kill?

26 But, lo, he speaketh boldly, and they say nothing unto him. Do[279] the rulers know indeed that this is the very Christ?

[279] verse 48.

27 Howbeit[280] we know this man whence he is: but when Christ cometh, no man knoweth whence he is.

[280] Matt. 13:55.

=25-27. Then said some of them of Jerusalem.= Residents of Jerusalem, who were therefore more likely than the pilgrim strangers to know the designs of the hierarchy.--=Whom they seek to kill.= See chaps. 5:18; 7:19, 32.--=Surely= (μήποτε) =the rulers do not know that this is indeed the Messiah=? The form of the sentence is an inquiry, strongly implying a negative answer.--=Howbeit as to this fellow, we know whence he is; but when the Messiah cometh, no man knoweth whence he is.= It is true that prophecy foretold that the Messiah should be born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2; Matt. 2:6); but according to the Rabbinical teaching he was straightway to be snatched away by spirits and tempests, lie hidden for a while, and unexpectedly and supernaturally reappear to enter upon his miraculous mission (Lightfoot on Matt. 2:1). The people here bore an unconscious testimony to the Messiahship of Jesus; for they neither knew his earthly nor his heavenly origin. They believed him who was born in Bethlehem to be a native of Nazareth, and the Son of God to be the son of a carpenter.

28 Then cried Jesus in the temple as he taught, saying, Ye both know me, and ye know whence I am: and[281] I am not come of myself, but he that sent me[282] is true, whom[283] ye know not.

[281] ch. 5:43.

[282] Rom. 3:4.

[283] chaps. 1:18; 8:55.

29 But[284] I know him: for I am from him, and he hath sent me.

[284] ch. 10:15; Matt. 11:27.

=28, 29. Then Jesus cried aloud teaching in the temple, and said, Ye do indeed know me, and ye know whence I am; and I am not come of myself, but it is the True One who hath sent me; him ye do not know. I know him, for I have come from him, and he it is that hath sent me forth.= As I read it, this is one of those outbursts of indignation with which we occasionally meet in the teachings of Christ. The obduracy and resoluteness in evil of the Jews aroused his indignation and elicited his stern rebuke. Comp. chaps. 8:41, 44; 9:41; Matthew, ch. 23. I understand then his language to be neither ironical nor interrogative, but affirmative, and not to refer to his human nature and origin, but to his divine character and mission. In his miracles and his instructions they had seen and heard enough to assure them that he was from God (chaps. 3:2; 11:47, 48). Their contemptuous declaration, We know this fellow, he transformed into an indictment against them. They had whispered it; he proclaimed it aloud. “Ye do know me,” he says, “and ye know whence I am, for the authentication of my divine mission is ample. Ye do know that I am not come of myself, for my whole life is a conclusive demonstration that I am not a self-seeker.” The True One is not equivalent to the Truthful One nor the Really Existent One merely, but the One True God (2 Chron. 15:3; Jer. 10:10; John 17:3; 1 Thess. 1:9; 1 John 5:20). Him they did not and could not know, because the knowledge of God is only for the pure in heart (Matt. 5:8). Jesus knew him, for he had been his companion from eternity. In a sense we are all from God, but not in the sense in which Christ here indicates that he is from God. The preposition used (παρά) has the sense of from beside, from near, French de chez (Rob. Lex.). The declaration is interpreted by ch. 1:1; Phil. 2:6. The public exposure of their whispered contempt, the equally public exposure of the secret thought of their own hearts, which they had not themselves read as clearly as Christ read it for them, and the tone of fearless assumption in which he at once claimed to be the companion of the Only True God and declared that they did not even know Him, whose peculiar people it was their peculiar boast to be, angered the Judeans, and especially the hierarchy, and led to the unsuccessful attempt to arrest Jesus recorded in the succeeding verse.

30 Then[285] they sought to take him: but no man laid hands on him, because his hour was not yet come.

[285] ch. 8:37; Mark 11:18; Luke 20:19.

31 And many[286] of the people believed on him, and said, When Christ cometh, will he do more miracles than these which this man hath done?

[286] ch. 4:39.

=30, 31. They sought therefore to arrest him.= An arrest for the purpose of bringing him before the authorities, not a mere lawless act of a mob, is indicated by the original (πιάζω). The attempt, however, was probably made by some of the people, acting without special authority; this is implied by the account of the official action subsequently taken (ver. 32).--=Because his hour was not yet come.= The hour appointed in the divine counsel for his passion and death. The immediate cause of the failure to arrest may have been a fear of the Galileans and others with whom Christ was popular; but John passes this wholly by to speak of the real reason in the divine counsels. Predestination is quite as strongly marked in John as in Paul.--=But of the multitude many believed on him.= The degree of faith is not indicated. Its spirituality may have been very slight; yet the rest of the sentence certainly indicates that they were inclined to think that this might be the promised Messiah.--=More miracles than these which this one hath done.= To those which had been wrought in Jerusalem were probably added, in their thought, those which had been wrought in Galilee; some of these had doubtless been witnessed by many of the Galileans present.

32 The Pharisees heard that the people murmured such things concerning him; and the Pharisees and the chief priests sent officers to take him.

33 Then said Jesus unto them, Yet[287] a little while am I with you, and then I go unto him that sent me.

[287] chaps. 13:33; 16:16.

34 Ye[288] shall seek me, and shall not find me: and where I am, thither ye cannot come.

[288] ch. 8:21; Hos. 5:6.

=32-34. The Pharisees and the chief priests sent officers to take him.= This was an official act on the part of the Sanhedrim or its officers, carrying out the design of certain of the people, as indicated in ver. 30; and it is the first official endeavor to arrest him, the beginning of a course of action consummated in his final arrest, trial, and crucifixion.--=Therefore said Jesus unto them.= A break evidently occurs between verses 31 and 32. The discourse up to ver. 31 is continuous, and took place about the middle of the feast, that is, the third or fourth day; the discourse in verses 37-39 was on the last day of the feast; between the two the orders for Christ’s arrest were given. Verses 33, 34 are founded on Christ’s knowledge of those orders, and it is a reasonable surmise that the presence of the officers suggested it to him and interpreted its meaning to some at least of his auditors.--=Yet a little while am I with you.= About six months after this address he was crucified.--=And I go unto him that sent me.= With this explicit statement of his meaning, interpreted as it was by the previous declaration that it was the true God who had sent him, it is difficult to understand how the Jews could have been perplexed respecting his meaning. De Wette’s explanation that they knew not the One who had sent him, and therefore that this saying was a dark one to them, is not wholly satisfactory, for surely they did know who was meant by the phrase, he that sent me, and as surely they could not fail to understand that going to God was equivalent to death. Meyer supposes that the words him that sent me in this verse were not a part of Christ’s discourse, but added, perhaps by John himself; but they are not wanting in any of the manuscripts; and that is both a doubtful and a dangerous kind of criticism which removes a difficulty by the summary process of removing the difficult words, without any external authority for so doing. I believe therefore that Christ was explicit, that he was understood, and that the assumed perplexity of his hearers was a piece of hypocrisy. See on verses 35, 36.--=Ye shall seek and shall not find me; and where I am ye cannot come.= The key to the true interpretation of this passage, is afforded by Luke 17:22; John 8:21; 13:33. Christ does not refer to an inimical seeking; the search here is the same as the desire to see one of the days of the Son of man in Luke 17:22; i. e. the Jewish desire for a manifestation of the Messiah. He does not refer to a true spiritual seeking, for in ch. 8:21 he declares, to the same Jewish auditors, Ye shall seek me and ye shall die in your sins. Eusebius declares that many Jews in consequence of the judgments of God on Jerusalem became believers; such did indeed seek Christ, but they found him. The meaning then is that in the coming days of travail and sorrow, when many should go out after false Christs (Matt. 24:23, 24), the Jews would earnestly desire a Messiah for their deliverer, whom, however, they could not have, because with their own hands they had put him to death. They would seek, but theirs would be a temporal, not a spiritual seeking; the seeking of fear and self-interest, not of repentance, faith, and love. This verse affords no authority whatever for the opinion that any earnest spiritual soul ever seeks Christ in vain.

35 Then said the Jews among themselves, Whither will he go, that we shall not find him? will he go unto the dispersed[289] among the Gentiles, and teach the Gentiles?

[289] Isa. 11:12; James 1:1; 1 Pet. 1:1.

36 What manner of saying is this that he said, Ye shall seek me, and shall not find me; and where I am, thither ye cannot come?

=35, 36. Then said the Jews among themselves.= Their utterance has been by some regarded as the utterance of a genuine perplexity. So apparently Maurice: “He had broken down the barriers between different classes of Israelites--between Galileans, Samaritans, and Jews. Why might he not carry his designs further? Why might he not go to the dispersed tribes in heathen lands? Why might he not preach to the heathen themselves?” By others it is regarded as the language of scorn and contempt. So Meyer: “An insolent and scornful supposition, which they themselves, however, do not deem probable (therefore the question is asked with μή), regarding the meaning of words to them so utterly enigmatical. The bolder mode of teaching adopted by Jesus, his universalistic declarations, his partial non-observance of the law of the Sabbath, would lead them, perhaps, to associate with the unintelligible statement a mocking thought like this, and all the more because much interest was felt among the heathen, partly of an earnest kind, and partly (comp. St. Paul in Athens) arising from curiosity merely, regarding the Oriental religions, especially Judaism.” The latter view seems to me the more probable, because (1) it is inconceivable that the Jews should have misapprehended Christ’s meaning (ver. 33, note); (2) his analogous language in the next chapter they clearly did understand to refer to his death (ch. 8:22); (3) the fact that what was said was “among themselves” indicates that it was not an honest perplexity, in which case they would have asked Christ for an explanation, but of the same quality as the murmuring reported in verses 26, 27.

37 In the last[290] day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If[291] any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.

[290] Lev. 23:36.

[291] Isa. 55:1; Rev. 22:17.

=37. In the last day, that great day of the feast.= The feast of the Tabernacles proper lasted for seven days (Lev. 23:34, 41, 42), but on the eighth day a solemn assembly kept as a feast-Sabbath was directed to be held (Lev. 23:36; Numb. 29:35; Neh. 8:18); and though the people dwelt in the booths only the seven days, this eighth day was reckoned by the Jews as a part of the feast. Whether the seventh or the eighth is intended here by the “last day of the feast” is a little uncertain, as it also is whether the drawing of water from the brook Siloah, which was a characteristic ceremonial of the other days of the feast, took place also on the eighth day. This ceremonial recalled the miraculous supply of water in the wilderness from the riven rock; it was connected by the more superstitious of the people with the notion that at this time God determined the amount of rain which should fall during the year; and the more spiritual saw in it a symbol of the time when the promised gift of the Holy Spirit should be bestowed upon Israel (Isa. 12:3). Whether the words of Christ were uttered, as Dr. Geikie supposes, during this ceremonial, or, as Alford supposes, the day after this service had come to an end, the reference to it is unmistakable. Dr. Geikie’s supposition certainly makes this reference more striking, and gives, if not peculiar significance, at least peculiar force, to Christ’s words. “The last day of the feast, known as ‘the Hosanna Rabba’ and the ‘Great Day,’ found him, as each day before, doubtless, had done, in the temple arcades. He had gone thither early, to meet the crowds assembled for morning prayer. It was a day of special rejoicing. A great procession of pilgrims marched seven times round the city, with their lulabs, music, and loud-voiced choirs preceding, and the air was rent with shouts of Hosanna, in commemoration of the taking of Jericho, the first city in the Holy Land that fell into the hands of their fathers. Other multitudes streamed to the brook of Siloah, after the priests and Levites, bearing the golden vessels with which to draw some of the water. As many as could get near the stream drank of it amidst loud shouting of the words of Isaiah--‘Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters,’ ‘With joy shall we draw water from the wells of salvation’--rising in jubilant chants on every side. The water drawn by the priests was, meanwhile, borne up to the temple, amidst the boundless excitement of a vast throng. Such a crowd was, apparently, passing at this moment. Rising as the throng went by, his spirit was moved at such honest enthusiasm, yet saddened at the moral decay which mistook a mere ceremony for religion. It was burning autumn weather, when the sun had for months shone in a cloudless sky, and the early rains were longed for as the monsoons in India after the summer heat. Water at all times is a magic word in a sultry climate like Palestine, but at this moment it had a double power. Standing, therefore, to give his words more solemnity, his voice now sounded far and near over the throng, with soft clearness, which arrested all: If any man thirst, let him come unto me and drink.”--(Geikie.)--=If any man thirst.= This is not an unconditional promise; it is conditioned, not merely on desire, but on a fervent desire. Comp. Isa. 55:1; Matt. 5:6; Rev. 22:17. “None are called to obtain the riches of the Spirit but those who burn with the desire of them. For we know that the pain of thirst is most acute and tormenting, so that the very strongest men, and those who can endure any amount of toil, are overpowered by thirst.”--(Calvin.) An illustration of this spiritual thirst is afforded by David in Psalms 42, 43, and by Paul in Phil. 3:8-14.--=Let him come unto me.= If one can imagine these words spoken to the throng while the procession is marching into the temple, or even just after the solemn service is over and the minds of the people are still full of it, he will form a faint conception of the divine assumption implied in them; and if he further considers the effect produced, both on the multitude (verses 40, 41) and on the officers sent to arrest Jesus (ver. 46), he will form a faint conception of the divine dignity with which those words were uttered.

38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out[292] of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.

[292] ch. 4:14; Prov. 18:4; Isa. 58:11.

=38. He that hath faith in me.= As in ch. 6 to eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ is to have faith in him and live by him, so here, to come unto him and drink is to come with the affections and receive him into the soul.--=As the Scripture hath said.= There is no passage in the O. T. which directly sustains this citation, and no reason to suppose that Christ refers to any lost book. Alford refers to Ezek. 47:1-12, where the river of the water of life is described as flowing from under the temple, which Alford regards as a symbol of the believer; similarly Olshausen; but both this reference and that to Zech. 14:8 are remote and unnatural. We are either to suppose that the phrase “as the Scripture hath said” refers only to the preceding clause, “he that believeth on me,” so that the meaning is, He that according to the O. T. believeth on me; or else we are to suppose that John by the following verse (39) not only interprets the meaning of Christ’s promise, but also the meaning of his reference, and that we are to look for the Scripture in those passages which refer to and promise the gift of the Holy Ghost. The former of these interpretations is that of Chrysostom, the latter that of Meyer, who refers to Isa. 44:3; 55:1; 58:1; Joel 3:18; Zech. 13:1.--=Shall flow rivers of living water.= This declaration is not to be limited so that it shall be simply equivalent to the promise in John 4:14, “Whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst.” The language out of his belly clearly implies something received that it may flow from the recipient unto others. The water which he drinks becomes in him a spring from which living waters flow, as the light which illuminates him makes him in turn one of the lights which illuminate the world (Matt. 5:14; Phil. 2:15). That this is the meaning is clear, not only from the language here, but from John’s interpretation in the succeeding verse. “The mutual and inspired intercourse of Christians from Pentecost downwards, the speaking in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, the mutual edification in Christian assemblies by means of the charismata even to the speaking with tongues, the entire work of the apostles, of a Stephen and so on, furnish an abundant historical commentary upon this text.”--(Meyer.)

39 (But this spake he of the[293] Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

[293] ch. 16:7; Isa. 44:3; Joel 2:28; Acts 2:17, 33.

=39. But this spake he of the Spirit.= This declaration of John makes the second chapter of Acts and the succeeding history of the Church of Christ the true commentary on Christ’s promise.--=For the Spirit was not yet.= The meaning cannot of course be that the Holy Spirit had no existence, for “this would be not only in flat contradiction to chaps. 1:32, 33; 3:5, 8, 34, but to the whole O. T., in which the agency of the Spirit in the outward world is recognized even more vividly than in the N. T.” (Alford.) And it is not only in the outward world that the O. T. recognizes the Holy Spirit, but also in the hearts of individual prophets, who thus became the ministers of divine grace to others (Gen. 41:38; Exod. 4:11, 12; 31:3; 2 Chron. 15:1; Ps. 51:11; Isa. 63:11, 14). Nor does the addition by the translators of the word given adequately represent the meaning, for the Holy Ghost was given before the glorification of Christ, but not to all men; he was not a universal gift. The meaning is that the dispensation of the Holy Ghost had not yet begun; he had not yet been so given that whoever had faith in the Son of God received the gift of the Holy Ghost and became one of the Lord’s prophets (Acts 2:38). See Acts 2:4, note.--=Because Jesus was not yet glorified.= The death and resurrection of Christ were the conditions precedent of the outpouring of the Holy Ghost (ch. 14:16, 17; 16:7; Acts 1:7-9).

40 Many of the people therefore, when they heard this saying, said, Of a truth this is the Prophet.[294]

[294] ch. 6:14; Deut. 18:15, 18.

41 Others said, This is the[295] Christ. But some said, Shall[296] Christ come out of Galilee?

[295] chaps. 4:42, 6:69.

[296] verse 52; ch. 1:46.

42 Hath not the scripture said, That Christ[297] cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem,[298] where David[299] was?

[297] Ps. 132:11; Jer. 23:5.

[298] Micah 5:2; Luke 2:4.

[299] 1 Sam. 16:1-4.

43 So there was a division among the people because of him.

44 And some of them would have taken him; but no man laid hands on him.

=40-44.= These verses give the impressions produced on different auditors by Christ’s discourses at the feast. The word many is wanting in the best manuscripts, and is omitted by Lachmann, Tischendorf, Meyer, Alford, Schaff; for it read some. Some regarded Jesus as the prophet foretold in Deut. 18:15 (comp. ch. 1:21; Matt. 16:14); others thought that he might even be the Messiah. See ver. 31. The opponents of Christ based their opposition not upon his character or that of his teaching, but upon their Jewish prejudice to his supposed Galilean origin. There is no good ground for the conclusion, arrived at by some rationalistic critics from John’s language here, that he did not know that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Writing his Gospel many years after the main facts of Christ’s birth, life, and death were known throughout the church, he here simply narrates as an historian the objections which the Judeans made to the claim that Jesus was the Messiah; to have pointed out their mistake would have been a work of supererogation. Alford’s note on this point is quite conclusive: “De Wette’s ‘probability that John knew nothing of the birth at Bethlehem’ reaches much further than may appear at first. If John knew nothing of it, and yet the mother of the Lord lived with him, the inference must be that she knew nothing of it--in other words, that it never happened.”

45 Then came the officers to the chief priests and Pharisees; and they said unto them, Why have ye not brought him?

46 The officers answered, Never[300] man spake like this man.

[300] Luke 4:22.

=45, 46. Then came the officers.= Not Roman soldiers, but temple police, answering to the modern constable or the Roman lictor or the English beadle. They had been directed by the officers of the Sanhedrim to arrest Jesus (ver. 32). Presumptively this return of the officers occurred several days after their commission to make the arrest. They had been watching him during the feast.--=Never man spake like this man.= They were not overawed by the multitude, but by the words of Christ himself. There is no stronger testimony, even in the Gospels, to the marvellous moral power of Christ’s personality and words than this declaration of the temple police, who were probably ignorant but also simple men, without the culture, but also without the religious prejudices, of the rulers. In the life of Whitefield are several illustrations of analogous moral power over roughs who had come to the preaching to break it up, but who remained spell-bound under its influence. To have elicited such testimony as this from such men as these, Jesus must have possessed the power of a true oratory.

47 Then answered them the Pharisees, Are ye also deceived?

48 Have any of the rulers[301] or of the Pharisees believed on him?

[301] ch. 12:42; Jer. 5:4, 5; 1 Cor. 1:26.

49 But this people, who knoweth not the law, are cursed.

=47-49.= The language of the Pharisaic rulers is that of unbounded scorn for Jesus and for the multitude. The latter are declared to be under divine wrath and cursed with moral blindness because they have an admiration for such a Sabbath-breaker. “All here is wonderfully living and characteristic. The faint effort of the officers to execute the command of their masters; the awe which held them back; their simple confession of the power which they found in the words of Jesus; the surprise of the Sanhedrim that the infection should have reached even their servants; their terror lest there might be traitors in the camp, lest any Pharisee or lawyer (probably some eyes were turned on Nicodemus) should have been carried away by the impulse to which the crowd, naturally enough, had yielded; their scorn of the people, as wretched, ‘accursed’ men, utterly ignorant of the law--who does not feel as if he were present in that convocation of doctors? as if he were looking at their perplexed and angry faces? as if he were hearing their contemptuous words?”--(Maurice.)

50 Nicodemus saith unto them, (he[302] that came to Jesus by night, being one of them,)

[302] ch. 3:2.

51 Doth[303] our law judge any man before it hear him, and know what he doeth?

[303] Deut. 17:8; Prov. 18:13.

52 They answered and said unto him, Art thou also of Galilee? Search and look: for out of Galilee[304] ariseth no prophet.

[304] Isa. 9:1, 2.

=50-52.= On the character of Nicodemus, see notes on ch. 3. The impression which Jesus had made upon him in that interview was an abiding one. There is a covert sarcasm in his question here, Doth our law judge the man except it first hear him and know what he doeth? They themselves knew not the law, and were openly disregarding it. The Rabbinical laws explicitly required that every accused person should have a hearing, with an opportunity to confront the witnesses against him and to cross-examine them. See Vol. I, p. 298. That Nicodemus’ rebuke was felt by the Pharisees is shown by the tone of their answer. They replied, not by argument, but by a sneer, Art thou also of Galilee? and by a falsehood, Out of Galilee hath arisen (perfect, not present) no prophet. Jonah was of Galilee (2 Kings 14:25), Elijah very probably so (1 Kings 17:1;--Alford), and Nahum either of Galilee or of Assyria, a heathen land (Nahum 1:1). The prejudices of the Pharisees led them to forget their history as well as their law. In lieu of doth our law judge any man? read the man, i. e., this man; Nicodemus refers specifically to Jesus. In lieu of ariseth read hath arisen; though there is some uncertainty. Alford gives the present tense, ariseth; Lachmann, Tischendorf, and Meyer, with greater probability, the past tense, hath arisen. With either reading the meaning is substantially the same; not, as Godet, The promised prophet is not now arising, but, as Meyer and Alford, No prophet ever ariseth from Galilee.

53 And every man went unto his own house.

=53.= This verse belongs with the next chapter.

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us

Chapter VIII

Ch. 7:53 to 8:11. THE WOMAN TAKEN IN ADULTERY.--ILLUSTRATES: THE TACT OF CHRIST--THE PRECEPT, JUDGE NOT, THAT YE BE NOT JUDGED--THE POWER OF CONSCIENCE--THE CHRISTIAN TREATMENT OF THE FALLEN.

PRELIMINARY NOTE.--Verse 53 of ch. 7 belongs unquestionably with the first eleven verses of ch. 8. Whether the whole passage is really a part of John’s Gospel or no is one of the most difficult and doubtful questions in Biblical criticism. The weight of critical authority is against it; the weight of internal evidence is in its favor. For a complete discussion of the considerations pro and con, the student must be referred to the commentaries of Alford, Meyer, Luthardt, and Godet, the last being, of the three, the most comprehensive in its treatment. Here I give briefly (1) the facts, (2) the different opinions, (3) my own conclusion.

I. The facts. (1) The passage in question is wanting in many if not most of the best MSS.; pre-eminently the Alexandrian, the Vatican, the Ephraem, and the Sinaitic. Of the great manuscripts, the Cambridge alone contains it. (2) It is transposed in some documents; one places it in John after 7:36; ten at the end of John; four in the Gospel of Luke, at the close of ch. 21. (3) In those MSS. which contain it there are great variations. Griesbach distinguishes three entirely different texts; the ordinary text, that of the Cambridge MS., and that resulting from a collection of other MSS. Alford gives these three in his Greek Testament. Sixty various readings are found in these twelve verses. “No genuine apostolic text has ever undergone such alterations.”--(Godet.) (4) The style and character of the narrative is strikingly unlike John. These differences are partly verbal, and are apparent only to the Greek scholar. Ten expressions are given by Meyer as non-Johannean. They are partly structural, and as easily recognized by the English reader as by the Greek scholar. Such are the propounding of a question concerning the law to tempt Christ, and the departure of Christ at night from the temple, both of which agree rather with the Synoptics’ account of the last sojourn in Jerusalem than with John’s account of this period of Christ’s ministry. If the account is omitted altogether, the discourse in ch. 7 and that in ch. 8 appear to be in close connection; the interruption of this incident is not very clearly cognate to either discourse; and it is not John’s habit to narrate incidents that are not connected with and do not lead to some discourse of the Lord. (5) Among the fathers Origen, Chrysostom, Theophylact, and Tertullian are altogether silent about the passage; Jerome, Ambrose, and Augustine recognize it as authentic; among critical scholars Lucke, Tholuck, Olshausen, De Wette, Luthardt, Hengstenberg, Schenkel, Godet, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Alford, and Schaff apparently agree in regarding it as an addition by some other hand to John’s Gospel; Bengel and Hilgenfeld are the only scholars of widely recognized reputation who defend its Johannean authorship. (6) But though the narrative is unlike John, the act is very like Jesus. The whole scene possesses an air of historic reality: the arrest of the woman, the demand on Jesus, the Pharisaic contempt for public morality in obtruding the crime and the criminal on public attention in the temple courts; the attempt to entrap Jesus; the skill of his reply; the subtle recognition of the woman’s shame and despair, and the gentle avoidance of adding to it, in turning the public gaze from her to himself by writing on the ground; the final confusion of the Pharisees and release of the woman. It is impossible to believe that any monkish mind conceived of this and added it to the narrative. The deed is the deed of Christ, whether or no the record is the record of John.

II. Opinions. These are three: (1) That the narrative belongs here; was written by John, and was expunged from the Gospel at an early date because it was feared that an immoral use would be made of it. This was Augustine’s opinion. But this hypothesis does not account for the variety of readings, nor for peculiarities in character and diction which make it unlike John’s Gospel. (2) That it is an interpolation of a later age, for a purpose, by some early copyist. But the copyist who could have conceived this incident must have possessed the moral genius of Christ himself. “It is eminently Christlike, and full of comfort to penitent outcasts. It breathes the Saviour’s spirit of holy mercy, which condemns the sin and saves the sinner. It is parallel to the parable of the prodigal, the story of Mary Magdalene, and that of the Samaritan woman, and agrees with many express declarations of Christ that he came not to condemn, but to save the lost (John 3:17; 12:47; Luke 9:56; 19:10; comp. John 5:14; Luke 7:37, etc.). His refusal to act as judge in this case has a parallel in a similar case related in Luke 12:13-15.”--(Schaff.) (3) That it is a tradition of the apostolic age, and was incorporated in the present evangelical narratives, probably in the second or third century, but in different forms and in different places. It may have been originally part of one of the lost Gospels. Eusebius relates that the work of Papias contained “the history of a woman accused before the Lord of numerous sins, a history contained also in the Gospel of the Hebrews.” This opinion, which is substantially that of Godet, Meyer, Luthardt, and Alford, accounts for the existence of the narrative, the apparent truthfulness of it, the variations of form, and the non-Johannean characteristics of style. It seems to me inherently the most probable. On internal grounds it seems to me clear that the narrative is historical; on critical grounds that it is not John’s; who was its author and how it became incorporated in John’s Gospel is a matter only of conjecture.

1 Jesus went unto the mount of Olives.

2 And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them.

=Ch. 7:53 to 8:1, 2. Every man went unto his own house; Jesus went unto the Mount of Olives.= The force of the contrast is impaired by the unfortunate and unnatural break between the two clauses of what should be printed as a single sentence. The auditors had homes; Jesus had no where to lay his head; and if, as is probable, this incident belongs to the Passion week, it was not safe for him to spend a night within the city walls. He either spent it on the mount or went beyond it to Bethany, the home of his friends Martha and Mary.--=He sat down and taught them.= One of the indications that this passage is not from John; for “it is not in John’s manner to relate that Jesus taught them, without relating what he taught” (Alford).

3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,

4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.

5 Now[305] Moses in the law commanded us that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?

[305] Lev. 20:10.

=3-5. Brought unto him a woman.= There was no reason why they should have brought her to him, except for the purpose of involving him in difficulty.--=When they had set her in the midst.= This public exposure to shame was itself a terrible punishment, and aroused the pity, the shame, and the indignation of Jesus. It was not done in the interest of public morals. They were flagrantly disregarded in this obtrusion of a public scandal into the midst of the temple worship, by accusers who cared not for her, nor for the general public, if they could but involve in perplexity and bring into disrepute the Rabbi whom they so bitterly hated.--=In the very act.= The man was equally amenable under the Mosaic law to the death penalty (Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:22). But the man they had let go; for then, as now, society punished the guilty woman, but not the guilty man.--=That such should be stoned.= Stoning was only commanded by Moses for unfaithfulness in a betrothed virgin (Deut. 22:23, 24). But infidelity in a wife is made by the preceding verse punishable with death, and perhaps, by implication, the same form of death.

6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.

=6. This they said tempting him.= The commentators have been needlessly puzzled to explain how Christ’s answer to this question could have furnished matter for accusation. The Pharisees would have accused him to the people, not to the Roman government. The law of Moses was a dead letter. There is no authentic instance in post-Mosaic history of an execution under it. Divorce was easy, and the injured husband generally avoided public disgrace by simply separating from his unfaithful wife. Could Christ refuse to adjudge the case? He had claimed to be King of Israel, in the Sermon on the Mount, had put his own precepts above those of Moses, and had proclaimed a far more stringent law of purity than Moses ever enacted (Matt. 5:27-32). Could he acquit her, and so set aside the Mosaic law? He had declared that not one jot or tittle of it should pass away till all was fulfilled, and that whoever relaxed the least of its precepts should be least in his kingdom. Could he condemn her? He would thus revive an obsolete statute, and enforce it against a hapless and defenceless woman--he who had come to seek and to save the lost, who had received the publican and harlot among his disciples, and had accepted the homage of a notorious woman of the town (Luke 7:36-39). It often happens that people are unwilling to have a teacher set aside in theory a law which they are equally unwilling to see enforced in practice. Only a small minority is willing in our own day to abolish capital punishment; but only rarely is a jury willing to inflict it. There are comparatively few persons who are willing to live according to the Sabbath law which they wish their minister to preach.--=But Jesus stooped down and with his finger wrote on the ground.= The words as though he heard them not are an addition of the translators, though at least one manuscript contains the idea. What was the meaning of this action? Various opinions have been suggested, e. g., a usual act signifying preoccupation of mind (Alford); to hide his own confusion, the shock to his own moral sensibility by the grossness of the Pharisees’ public abuse of the woman (Geikie); as a judge, for a judicial sentence is not only pronounced, but written (Godet); as a refusal to interfere, a sign that he paid no attention to their question (Meyer, Luthardt). His object in this writing seems to me to be interpreted by its result. It turned all eyes from the wretched woman, in an anguish of shame and terror, to himself. She stood alone and forgotten; all eyes were then and have ever since been fixed on the figure of Christ, wondering what and why he wrote in the dust. It is not fanciful to note the contrast between this writing and that prescribed in case of the trial of a suspected adulteress by the Mosaic law (Numb. 5:23). The priest was to write certain curses in a book, then wash them with bitter water, which the accused was required to drink, that the curses might enter into her if she were guilty. Christ, on the contrary, writes his sentence on the sand, where, in a moment, it will be effaced by the pardon, “Neither do I condemn thee; go, and sin no more.” What he wrote has been made a matter of ingenious rather than profitable conjecture. The most probable conjecture is that he wrote the sentence, “He that is without sin amongst you,” etc., thus enabling the Pharisees, if they had not been too passionately intent on their design, to avoid his public rebuke.

7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you,[306] let him first cast a stone at her.

[306] Deut. 17:7; Rom. 2:1, 22.

8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.

9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.

=7-9. So when they continued asking.= They would not take the rebuke of his quiet contempt. Had they stopped to think, conscience would have answered their inquiry; but they were too eager; they did not hear what it had to say to them; Christ must interpret its voice; and he did so with a poignant rebuke.--=He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.= Christ puts on them the problem with which they had sought to perplex him. In their vindictive haste they had forgotten the provision of the law that the witnesses on whose testimony the accused was condemned should cast the first stone (Deut. 17:5-7). They had also forgotten the provision of the Rabbinical law that, in case of accusation, if the husband was not guiltless, the wife could not be condemned (Lightfoot). Christ recalls these two principles, and leaves them to solve their own problem. Go on, he says in effect, and try and condemn the accused according to your own law. Let the sinless cast the first stone. But a deeper meaning is in his words. Unchastity was a universal sin in the first century. Its extent in Palestine is illustrated by the licentious lives of the Herods, father and sons. Nowhere was this vice more flagrant and unrestrained than among the priests, whose licentiousness was no secret to the common people (see Matt. 12:39; James 4:4). It was this revelation of their own guilt, implied in the words and easily understood by the people, which stung them, and drove them, self-condemned, one by one, from the presence of both the accused and the judge.--=And again he stooped down.= To give conscience in them an opportunity to assert itself, with as little resistance as possible from pride. He gave them no opportunity to answer; he did not look to see who was first to withdraw.--=Beginning with the elders.= The word rendered eldest (πρεσβυτέρων) is almost universally rendered elders, generally as an official designation, and frequently in connection with the word ruler (e. g., Matt. 15:2; 16:21; Mark 8:31; 15:1; Luke 7:3; 22:52). Here it seems to me more probably to designate rank (Lucke, De Wette) than age (Luthardt, Godet). The leaders in the accusation were the first to withdraw. The words “even unto the last” are wanting in most MSS.--=Jesus was left alone.= The circle of accusers had all withdrawn. The people and the disciples may have still remained; hence the woman is described as “standing in the midst;” that is, of the auditors who, before this interruption, had been listening to the teaching of Jesus (ver. 2). The woman remains waiting, as if to receive the sentence of Jesus. The people remain waiting to hear the end of this strange episode.

10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?

11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn[307] thee: go, and sin[308] no more.

[307] ch. 3:17.

[308] ch. 5:14.

=10, 11. Hath no man condemned thee?= They had then _all_withdrawn?-- =Neither do I condemn thee.= He contrasts himself with the accusers; they could not, he will not. He does not, however, pronounce her forgiven. There is no evidence of repentance or of faith, as, for example, in the case of the woman that was a sinner in Luke 7:37. His language condemns the sin, and it gives opportunity for repentance to the sinner. “It is a declaration of sufferance, not of justification.”--(Godet.)--=Go, and sin no more.= Comp. ch. 5:14. The object of divine forgiveness is a divine life in the forgiven.

* * * * *

Ch. 8:12-20. CHRIST’S DISCOURSE CONCERNING HIMSELF.--HE IS LIGHT, LIBERTY, LIFE.--HE GIVES LIGHT TO THOSE THAT FOLLOW HIS EXAMPLE, LIBERTY TO THOSE THAT OBEY HIS WORD, LIFE TO THOSE THAT PUT THEIR FAITH IN HIM.--HE IS ATTESTED BY HIS OWN CHARACTER AND BY HIS FATHER’S WITNESS.--HE IS MADE KNOWN IN AND BY HIS PASSION AND DEATH.--HIS FATHER IS THE SOURCE OF HIS TEACHING, HIS WORKS, AND HIS CHARACTER.--HIS CHARACTERIZATION OF WILFUL OPPUGNERS OF THE TRUTH: CHILDREN OF THE WORLD; CHILDREN OF THE DEVIL.--CHRIST’S SHORT METHOD WITH DEISTS (ver. 46). See note at end of chapter.

The exact chronology of the events from this point to the close of the tenth chapter is very uncertain and quite unimportant. One characteristic feature of the feast of the Tabernacles was the illumination of the temple; the two great candelabra of the Court of the Women were lighted, and it is said in the Rabbinical hooks that the light shone all over Jerusalem. Since Christ was accustomed to take his text from passing events, it is a not improbable surmise that this illumination afforded the suggestion for the discourse on the divine light which follows. The illumination of the temple commemorated the pillar of fire, as the ceremony of drawing water (see ch. 7:37, etc., notes) commemorated the striking of the rock in Horeb and the gift of water from it, and the dwelling in booths recalled the time when Israel dwelt in tents and booths in the wilderness. We may therefore see in Christ an antitype of the fiery cloud that guided Israel in their pilgrimage, and in the Shechinah filling the Tabernacle (Exod. 40:34, 35), an illustration of the light which Christ imparts to those that follow him.

12 Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I[309] am the light of the world: he that[310] followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.

[309] chaps. 1:4; 9:5.

[310] ch. 12:35, 46.

=12. I am the light of the world.= The illumination of the temple lighted Jerusalem; that of the fiery cloud, Israel. Christ is the light, not merely of his disciples, or of the Jewish nation, but of the world, a word which here, as always in the N. T., stands for the whole human race. Comp. ch. 1:4, 9, notes. He is the light as well as the life, coming to instruct as well as to revive; a Saviour from ignorance as well as from wilful sin. Therefore no ignorance or doubt need keep the soul that desires light away from Christ. He need not wait for instruction, any more than for reformation, before he comes to Christ.--=He that follows me need not walk in darkness.= The best reading is subjunctive, not indicative. Following Christ, not believing something about him, is the way out of darkness into light. Comp. ch. 7:17, and note the fact that in no single instance did Christ call on any one of his disciples to form correct opinions about him before becoming his follower. They followed first and learned afterward. Even he who doubts whether Christ is not a myth can still follow the ideal life.--=But shall have the light of life.= That is, the light which guides and nourishes the true, the spiritual life. Comp. ch. 6:48, “bread of life.” See Ps. 119:105, where the Bible is compared to a lantern carried to light the path on a dark night. He is a light not for the illumination of doubtful questions in science or metaphysics or abstract theology, but for the solution of practical problems in the moral and spiritual life.

13 The Pharisees therefore said unto him, Thou[311] bearest record of thyself; thy record is not true.

[311] ch. 5:31.

14 Jesus answered and said unto them, Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true: for I know whence I came, and whither I go; but[312] ye cannot tell whence I come, and whither I go.

[312] chaps. 7:28; 9:29, 30.

=13, 14. Thou bearest record of thyself; thy record is not true.= See ch. 5:31, note; perhaps the Pharisees here refer to Christ’s declaration there.--=Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true; for I know whence I have come= (my origin) =and whither I go= (my destiny). In general no man can bear testimony of himself, however truthful he may be, for no man understands his own mission. He may faithfully do from day to day the work which God gives him to do, and yet not comprehend the relation which that work bears to the great problems of life and destiny which the Eternal Spirit is working out in the race. But Christ could bear record of himself, for he knew himself; he knew the Father; he knew his own origin and his own destiny; and he knew the relation which his life and death sustained to the world’s life.--=Ye know not= (not merely cannot tell) =whence I am coming and whither I am going=. Christ knew whence he had come (ἠλθον, past tense), i. e., from the glory he had with the Father from the beginning of the world (chaps. 1:1; 17:5); the Pharisees did not know whence he was ever coming (ἔρχομαι, present tense), i. e., they had no spiritual sense to perceive and appreciate that divine grace of which he was ever the recipient, and that constant communion with the Father from which he was ever bringing divine light and life wherewith to bless his followers.

15 Ye judge after the flesh; I[313] judge no man.

[313] chaps. 3:17; 12:47.

16 And yet if I judge, my[314] judgment is true: for[315] I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me.

[314] 1 Sam. 16:7; Ps. 45:6, 7; 72:2.

[315] verse 29; ch. 16:32.

=15, 16. Ye judge according to the flesh.= They therefore rejected Jesus Christ as the Messiah, because he did not come with the earthly pomp, or bring the earthly deliverance, which they had expected.--=I judge no one.= Yet his fan is in his hand; and even while he lived he was sifting the wheat from the tares. He judges not; the world is self-judged and self-condemned. Every soul that rejects the light doth thereby write its own condemnation. “Light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil” (John 3:19).--=Yet if I judge, my judgment is true; for I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me.= Comp. ch. 5:30. The Spirit of the Father, given without measure to Christ, makes his spiritual judgments absolutely without error. In the measure in which this spirit is received and followed by the disciple, it similarly makes the disciple’s judgments true. See Matt. 16:19, note; John 20:22, 23.

17 It is also written[316] in your law, that the testimony of two men is true.

[316] Deut. 17:6; 19:15.

18 I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father[317] that sent me beareth witness of me.

[317] ch. 5:37.

19 Then said they unto him, Where is thy Father? Jesus answered, Ye[318] neither know me, nor my Father: if[319] ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also.

[318] verse 55; chaps. 16:3; 17:25.

[319] ch. 14:7, 9.

20 These words spake Jesus in the treasury,[320] as he taught in the temple: and no man laid hands on him; for[321], his hour was not yet come.

[320] Mark 12:41.

[321] ch. 7:30.

=17-20. Also in your own law.= Not in our law; Christ never classes himself with the Jews, nor counts himself as under their law. He obeys it, not because it is binding, but by a voluntary subjection, for example’s sake (Matt. 3:15; 17:27). The reference here is to Deut. 17:6; 19:15.--=I am one that bear witness concerning myself.= Not merely nor mainly by words; for Christ said comparatively little in public concerning his character; but by his life and works. See John 14:11.--=And the Father that sent me beareth witness of me.= By direct declarations to his divine character and mission (Matt. 3:17; John 12:28); by the testimony of prophets and apostles, especially of John the Baptist (Luke 2:28-32, 38; John 1:32-34, 36); by the voice of angels (Luke 2:9-14); by the miracles wrought (John 11:42); but still more by that manifestation of the divine presence which made itself felt in many ways in Christ’s person, as in his attraction of publicans and sinners to himself, his expulsion of the traders from the temple, his passing through the mob at Nazareth, etc. Godet tells a story in illustration of the power of this witness of the Spirit. About 1660, Hedinger, chaplain to the Duke of Wurtemberg, took the liberty of censuring his sovereign, at first in private, but afterward in public, for a serious fault. The latter, much enraged, sent for him, resolved to punish him. Hedinger, after seeking strength by prayer, repaired to the prince, the expression of his countenance betokening the peace and the presence of God. The prince, after looking at him for a moment, asked, in agitation, “Why did you not come alone?” and dismissed him unharmed. The vital communion of this servant of God with his God was a sensible fact, even to one whom anger had exasperated. Comp. Acts 4:13; 6:15.--=Who is your Father?= Asked, not in perplexity, for Christ’s reference to God as his Father had been so frequent at Jerusalem that they could not have misunderstood his meaning, but in scorn. Christ’s reply is adapted to the spirit of their inquiry.--=Ye neither know me nor my Father.= They gloried in being the peculiar people of God; but they as little apprehended him as they did Christ his Son.--=If ye had known me ye would have known my Father also.= For the Son is the way to the Father. The converse of this proposition is also true, He that knows the Father will know the Son. Both are known by the spiritual sense; and the same faculty which appreciates the divine qualities resplendent in the Son will answer to and be ready to receive and be impressed by the divine qualities in the invisible Spirit, the Father whom no one hath seen or can see.--=In the treasury.= See Luke 21:1, note. The thirteen trunks or chests placed for the reception of the gifts of the worshippers, and properly called the treasury, were in the Court of the Women. Each bore an inscription, indicating the use to which the money placed therein was devoted. Probably either that part of the Women’s Court where these chests stood, or, more probably, an adjoining apartment used in connection with them, perhaps where the money was kept, was also designated the treasury, and it is this apartment that is indicated by the word here.--=For his hour was not yet come.= See ch. 7:30, note.

21 Then said Jesus again unto them, I go my way, and ye[322] shall seek me, and[323] shall die in your sins: whither I go, ye[324] cannot come.

[322] ch. 7:34.

[323] Job 20:11; Ps. 73:18-20; Prov. 14:32; Isa. 65:20; Ephes. 2:1.

[324] Luke 16:28.

=21. I go away.= Not my way, a translation for which there is no authority whatever in the original.--=And ye shall seek me, and shall die in your sins.= In your sins means not, by reason of your sins, but, while continuing in a state of sin. This verse is not to be taken as an evidence that a sincere and contrite seeking of Christ as a pardoning and redeeming Saviour will ever be in vain. It is interpreted by many a so-called death-bed repentance, in which deliverance from a future penalty is sought, without any real contrition of heart for past sins. But, coupled with the next clause, it seems to me strongly opposed to the doctrine of a universal restitution.--=Whither I go ye cannot come.= Compare ch. 7:34, “Ye shall seek me and shall not find me; and where I am, thither ye cannot come,” and contrast ch. 14:3, “I will come again and receive you unto myself, that where I am, there ye may be also.” See also ch. 17:24.

22 Then said the Jews, Will he kill himself? because he saith, Whither I go, ye cannot come.

23 And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.

24 I said[325] therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for[326] if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.

[325] verse 21.

[326] Mark 16:16.

=22-24. Will he kill himself?= This they said to each other, partly in perplexity, partly in scorn. Contrast their different interpretation but similar spirit in ch. 7:35. Christ, in his reply, repels the idea that he had referred to his death; they cannot come where he is going, because he is going to that heaven from which he first came, and they are of the earth earthy. Comp. 1 Cor. 15:50, “Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God.”--=Ye are from beneath, I am from above.= This statement is interpreted by the clause which follows.--=Ye are of= (from, ἐκ) =this world, I am not of= (from, ἐκ) =this world=. Man is born of the flesh, and therefore is flesh, needing to be born anew and from above in order to enter into the kingdom of heaven (ch. 3:5, 6). Christ was born, even in his earthly nature, of the Spirit (Luke 1:35), was from his birth the Son of God, and therefore did not need to experience the new birth. Though John does not describe his supernatural birth, he recognizes it. Christ’s language here would be incomprehensible but for the interpretation afforded by the narratives of his advent in Matthew and Luke. The declaration “Ye are from beneath” here is not equivalent to the declaration of ver. 44, “Ye are of your father the devil.” Here he speaks only of the earthly nature inherited; there of the wilful sin superadded.--=If ye believe not that I am, ye shall die in your sins.= In the phrase “I am” there is a reference to Exod. 3:14, and the language implies the divinity of Christ, and would be so understood by his Jewish auditors, and was so understood by them. See ver. 38 and note. But it is not equivalent to a general statement that belief in the divinity of Jesus Christ is essential to salvation. It was addressed to men who had abundant reason to believe that Christ was the divine Messiah of prophecy, and who were wilfully ignorant of the truth. We must not give the words any wider application than our Lord gave to them himself. To reject Christ is fatal; to be ignorant of him is not.

25 Then said they unto him, Who art thou? And Jesus saith unto them, Even the same that I said unto you from the beginning.

=25. Who art thou?= A question asked possibly partly in perplexity and partly in scorn, but more for the purpose of evoking an answer which would give them a point for an attack upon Christ.--=Even the same that I said unto you from the beginning.= The grammatical difficulties in the correct rendition of this passage are almost insuperable, and no two scholars give exactly the same shade of meaning to it, while none of the interpretations afforded are altogether satisfactory, even to the interpreter. The principal interpretations are: (1) What I from the beginning am teaching you? do you ask that? An interrogative expression of surprise. According to this view Christ does not answer the question at all. (2) Why indeed do I still speak to you at all? A language of reproach. (3) Even the same that I said unto you from the beginning, the rendering of our English version. (4) Essentially that which also I discourse to you; i. e., You are to ascertain my nature by a study of my discourses. Neither one of these interpretations, it will be seen, affords a direct answer to the question.

26 I have many things to say and to judge of you: but[327] he that sent me is true; and I speak to the world those things which I have heard of him.

[327] ch. 7:28.

27 They understood not that he spake to them of the Father.

=26, 27. Many things I have which I might say, and many sentences which I might pronounce concerning you.= The meaning and the connection is obscure, and the translation which I have given is not so literal as that of the English version. But Christ elsewhere declares that he has not come to judge the world (ver. 15; chaps. 3:17; 12:47), and to understand him here to assert the contrary makes his utterances contradictory. Moreover, if we interpret his declaration as the English version does, it is difficult to see any connection with the preceding or the subsequent clause. I understand therefore that he means that he has many things to say, and many judgments formed in his own mind, which he might pronounce, but that he will only speak those things which he has been commissioned by the Father to speak; and his commission at this time is not to judge, but to save the world.--=They understood not that he spake to them of the Father.= Strange! Less strange, perhaps, than it now seems to us, for we read this discourse in the light of eighteen centuries of Christianity. So far, too, Christ had not designated by any title the One who had sent him. He had veiled his meaning, as he did in the parables, that he might not be fully understood at once; for he could hope to get lodgment for the truth only by gradually unfolding it. “There is no accounting for the ignorance of unbelief as any minister of Christ knows by painful experience.”--(Alford.)

28 Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up[328] the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.

[328] chaps. 3:14; 12:32.

29 And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him.

30 As he spake these words, many[329] believed on him.

[329] ch. 10:42.

=28-30. When ye have lifted up the Son of man.= The phrase Son of man was used by the rabbis, who borrowed it from David, for the Messiah (see Matt. 10:23, note). The Greek verb here rendered lifted up (ὑψόω) is used by John only with reference to the crucifixion (chaps. 3:14; 8:28; 12:32, 34), but everywhere else in the N. T. is used in the sense of exalted, and is so translated except in James 4:10. See Matt. 11:23; Luke 1:52; Acts 2:33; 5:31, etc. This fact is of itself an indication that John’s Gospel was written after the cross had been seen to be the means by which Christ was himself exalted, his glory, not his shame. It is the cross which has led to his recognition among men as the Son of God (Mark 15:39; 1 Cor. 1:23, 24); to his exaltation by the Father (Phil. 2:8-10); to his adoration in heaven (Rev. 5:12).--=Ye shall know that I am.= See on ver. 24. The passion and death of Christ is the attestation of his divinity (Mark 15:39).--=I do nothing of myself; but as the Father hath taught me I speak these things.= In Christ’s time the things done, i. e., the miracles, were recognized as signs of divine presence and power; more and more the words spoken are recognized as still greater signs of the divine presence and power. The word is more than the external work, the truth is greater than the miracle.--=He that sent me is with me.= The Son is a manifestation of the Father, because the Father is ever in and working and speaking through the Son. He is not merely an ambassador sent by, he is a tabernacle in which dwells, the Eternal King. So Christ, who sends forth his disciples (ch. 17:18), is ever with them (ch. 14:17, 23; Matt. 28:20).--=The Father hath not left me alone; for I do those things that please him always.= Always is emphatic. In this uniformity of obedience to the Father’s will is the secret of the abiding of his presence; it is true for us, as for Christ, that doing the Father’s pleasure secures the divine fellowship (chaps. 14:21; 15:10).--=Many believed on him.= Comp. ch. 12:42. Faith, like knowledge, is of different degrees, and the quality of this faith is not indicated. It may have been like the seed received on stony places (Matt. 13:20, 21). But beware of understanding here, or anywhere, by this phrase a mere intellectual belief in Christ as either Rabbi, Prophet, or Messiah. To believe on always signifies an emotion or heart action. “Our Lord’s words did not appeal to the understanding; they were not argumentative; we cannot account for their influence by any processes of logic. So far as we can judge from a very simple statement, they went straight to the heart; the faith which they called forth was a faith of the heart.”--(Maurice.)

31 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue[330] in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;

[330] Rom. 2:7; Col. 1:23; Heb. 10:38, 39.

32 And ye shall know[331] the truth, and the truth shall make you free.[332]

[331] Hos. 6:3.

[332] ch. 17:17; Ps. 119:45; Rom. 6:14, 18, 22; James 1:25; 2:12.

33 They answered him, We be Abraham’s seed, and were never in[333] bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free?

[333] Lev. 25:42.

=31-33. If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed.= A promise and a condition. The thing promised is discipleship. “They should be--what? Saints? divines? doctors? No; but what is much better than any of the three--what all the three should wish to be raised into--disciples. They will then be learners, learners sitting continually at the feet of the true Teacher.”--(Maurice.) The theology of Christ is a progressive theology; the promise to his followers is not that they shall be learned, acquiring the truth once for all, but learners, ever acquiring it more and more. This promise is conditioned on--what? Receiving his word? defending his word? No; but abiding in his word, i. e., living, moving, and having their being in it. The word of Christ cannot be accepted once for all; the soul, to be nourished on it, must abide in it, as the body abides in and is nourished by the atmosphere (comp. chaps. 5:38; 6:56; 15:4-10; 1 John 2:6, 10, 14, etc.; 3:6). To be Christ’s disciples indeed, we must continue (Matt. 13:20, 21; John 6:66; Col. 1:23; Heb. 10:38; Rev. 2:7-11, 17) in (John 15:1-7; Rom. 8:9; Gal. 2:20; Col. 1:27) the word of Christ (Matt. 11:29, 30; 1 Cor. 3:11; Gal. 1:8).--=And ye shall know the truth.= Living according to the word of Christ is the condition precedent to a true apprehension of the truth. Christ teaches that life precedes creed; the church has too often reversed this, making the creed precede life. But a creed that does not grow out of spiritual experience is dead. There is no virtue in the doctrine of native depravity except as an outgrowth of personal humility; nor in belief in a personal God, except as it is rooted in a living experience of faith in him.--=And the truth shall make you free.= This, too, the church has often reversed, bringing men into bondage unto a creed, instead of using the creed as an instrument to enlarge their intellectual independence.--=We be Abraham’s seed, and were never in bondage to any one.= This is the language of pride, and it is not more true than the language of pride is ordinarily. Politically the nation had been in bondage to Babylon, Persia, Greece, Rome. Spiritually it had been in bondage to idolatries in past times, e. g., the reign of Manasseh, and was now in bondage to the rabbis, literalists in interpretation, and without spirituality or sympathy (Matt. 23:4). Christ, however, rarely enters into argument; he makes no attempt to refute their statement, pays no heed to their interruption, but goes on with his discourse.

34 Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever[334] committeth sin is the servant of sin.

[334] Rom. 6:16, 20; 2 Pet. 2:19.

35 And the servant[335] abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever.

[335] Gal. 4:30.

36 If[336] the Son therefore shall make you free, ye[337] shall be free indeed.

[336] Isa. 61:1.

[337] Rom. 8:2; Gal. 5:1.

=34-36. Whosoever committeth sin= (lives in the commission of sin) =is the slave= (not servant) =of sin=. He is in bondage to sin. For action forms habit, and habit becomes second nature. Thus every sinful act tends to bring the soul into bondage to the law of evil habit. Striking illustrations of this law of human nature are afforded by self-indulgence in appetite; but the same principle is involved in all evil-doing--it tends to fasten evil habits on the soul. See Rom. 6:16-18; 7:9-24. And this law belongs to human nature; it is equally operative in Jew and Gentile, in church-member and in man of the world. Every sin helps to weld a chain.--=The slave abideth not in the house forever, but the Son abideth ever.= The language is parabolic; the meaning seems to me to be this: The world is in bondage; it seems to be under Satan; his promise to Christ, “All these things will I give thee if thou wilt fall down and worship me,” appears not like a vain promise. But this bondage is short-lived. The kingdoms of the world are in truth the kingdoms of the Lord and of his Christ. He shall reign forever and forever (Rev. 11:15). He, therefore, who yields to the yoke of bondage by conforming to the world gets only a brief advantage, for the period of bondage to sin and Satan will soon be over. He that accepts Christ as his Lord, and acknowledges allegiance to him, will have an eternal freedom in the house which God has built, and over which Christ is to have eternal rule (Heb. 3:2-6). The world is God’s house, not Satan’s.--=If the Son therefore shall make you free.= From past penalty, by himself bearing it for us; from the bondage of sin, by giving us power to become the sons of God; from the law, by imparting to us a new spiritual life. See Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians, especially chaps. 4 and 5, which may be regarded as his sermon on this text.--=Ye shall be free indeed.= Made free by the truth (ver. 32) as it is in Christ Jesus. For freedom is not independence of all law--that never is and never can be; God himself is not thus free; it is the comprehension and the right use of law. We are free when we perfectly comprehend the laws of nature, i. e., of God, perfectly and cheerfully comply with them, and so know how to get the advantage and profit of them. All progress in material civilization has been attained by increasing knowledge of the divine laws, and consequently an increased use of them. We have yet to learn the gain that there is in a similar comprehension of and obedience to the intellectual and the spiritual laws of the universe. Thus it is that the truth makes free (ver. 32).

37 I know that ye are Abraham’s seed: but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you.

38 I[338] speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father.

[338] ch. 14:10, 24.

=37, 38. I know that ye are Abraham’s seed.= Not equivalent to I know that ye regard yourselves as Abraham’s seed. The reference is to the covenant with Abraham (Gen. 12:1-3; 17:4-8), which involved a promise of divine protection and blessing to the nation. The Pharisees adhere to the idea of political freedom. Christ assents to their declaration that they are the seed referred to in that covenant, but returns to the spiritual idea which underlies his discourse, and emphasizes the extent to which, in character, they have wandered from the pattern set by Abraham.--=Nevertheless= (ἀλλὰ, notwithstanding you are Abraham’s seed) =ye seek to kill me= (chaps. 7:1, 19, 32; 8:59; 10:31, 39). To whom were these words spoken?--to the believing Judeans mentioned in ver. 30, or to enemies? The true answer is that believers and unbelievers were intermixed in the crowd, and that it is as little possible for the reader now as it would have been for the observer then to distinguish between them.--=Because my word makes no progress in you.= They heard it--nay, crowded round him to hear it, were willing and interested listeners. But the truth did not get entrance into their hearts, nor permeate their character. It was not like the leaven hid in three measures of meal. They were thus a type of many modern hearers who listen to the truth, but in whom the truth does not work. The words rendered hath no place (οὐ χωρεῖ) signify, literally, does not work, spread, go forward.--=I do that which I have seen with my Father, and ye do that which ye have heard with your father= (ἠκούσατε, heard, not ἑωράκατε, seen, is the better reading). Christ approaches a truth whose depths, in our ignorance of the spirit world, we cannot sound. This is that every soul draws its inspiration from an invisible world--either belongs to the kingdom of light and is taught of God, or belongs to the kingdom of darkness and is taught of evil spirits. The unseen companions of the soul are the most influential. Demoniacal possession is only an exceptional fruitage of a universal demoniacal inspiration. See below, on ver. 44.

39 They answered and said unto him, Abraham[339] is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If[340] ye were Abraham’s children, ye would do the works of Abraham.

[339] Matt. 3:9.

[340] Rom. 2:28, 29; 9:7; Gal. 3:7, 29.

40 But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this[341] did not Abraham.

[341] Rom. 4:12.

=39, 40. Abraham is our father.= They recognize, as we all recognize, that there is a source from which are drawn the ideas and the influences which mould our character. This fountain is, according to their conception, Abrahamic. It is true that character is moulded by national influences; but these are not the profoundest nor the most potent.--=If ye were Abraham’s children ye would do the works of Abraham.= Seed they are, children they are not. Descendants? yes! disciples? no! They do not do that which they have heard from Abraham. We are the children of a noble ancestry, the Reformers, the Puritans, and the like, only as we show their spirit in dealing with the men and the problems of our own time.--=This did not Abraham.= Called of God to leave his country, and his kindred, and his father’s house, he did not resist, but left all to go out, not knowing whither he went. Abraham obeyed the divine message; the seed of Abraham would kill the divine messenger.

41 Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we[342] have one Father, even God.

[342] Isa. 63:16; 64:8.

42 Jesus said unto them, If[343] God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but[344] he sent me.

[343] Mal. 1:6; 1 John 5:1.

[344] ch. 17:8, 25.

=41, 42. Ye do the deeds of your father.= A generic truth; the spiritual paternity of any soul may be known by its deeds; the source of its life is witnessed by the life itself.--=We be not born of fornication.= It is a Jewish legend to this day that Jesus was born of adultery. This is the Jewish explanation of his premarital birth. I believe that this legend had been invented in Christ’s own time to account for his supernatural birth, and that the expression here is a scornful allusion to this dishonoring report. This, at least, though I do not find it suggested by any of the commentaries, seems to me the most natural explanation of the language of the Pharisees, which has given the scholars no little difficulty. Other explanations suggested--e. g., that Sarah was not an adulteress, and therefore the Jews were certainly children of Abraham (Meyer), or that, unlike the Samaritans, there was no taint of heathen blood in their veins (Alford, Godet)--seem to me unnatural and far-fetched, and are apparently not very satisfactory even to those who suggest them.--=We have one Father, even God.= They abandon their claim to have derived their life from Abraham, and substitute a claim to derive it from the God of Abraham. Or we may suppose that, the first interlocutors being silenced, others make this assertion.--=If God were your Father ye would love me.= The practical and present application is that every soul whose life is truly rooted in God will be drawn toward Christ by spiritual sympathy.--=For I came forth and am here from God.= The first verb (ἐξῆλθον) indicates Christ’s coming forth from the glory which Christ had with the Father from the beginning of the world (John 17:5); the second verb (ἥκω, present formed from a perfect) indicates the perpetual presence of the Father with Christ, and Christ’s continuous manifestation of the Father to the world.--=Neither came I of myself.= Therefore that phase of theology which represents the Son as interceding to make a just God merciful, and thus induce him to forgive the sinful, is thoroughly false. The mercy of Christ originated with the Father; the mission of Christ was wrought out by the Father. Christ came not of his own will, but of the Father’s. See chaps. 3:16, note; 6:38, note.

43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my[345] word.

[345] Isa. 6:9.

44 Ye[346] are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode[347] not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

[346] Matt. 13:38; 1 John 3:8.

[347] Jude 6.

=43, 44. Why do ye not understand my speech?= He has thus far spoken parabolically, as though reluctant to characterize them openly as children of the devil. He now abandons the dark saying, and speaks plainly.--=Even because ye cannot hear my word.= Word is the doctrine taught, speech is the form in which it is clothed; to hear is to receive with the heart, as in Matt. 13:16, 20; John 5:24; 8:47, etc.; to understand is to comprehend intellectually. The implication then is that he who is unwilling to receive and act upon the doctrine of Christ in his heart and life cannot comprehend the forms in which it is couched. The declaration is thus the converse of ch. 7:17.--=Ye are from your father the devil.= God is the Father of Christ, and of all those who through faith in Christ are born again; they become by adoption his children (Rom. 8:15-17), are sent into the world by their Father (ch. 17:18), and manifest their Father unto the world (Phil. 2:15). In like manner they that resist the truth are children, by their own choice, of the devil, commissioned by him, serving him, and manifesting his spirit, in their selfishness, cupidity, malice, and all uncharitableness. In each case the soul derives its spirit from its own chosen father. The whole contrast would be almost meaningless if by the devil Christ understood only a poetic personification of evil in human nature. There are two households, one of God, the other of Satan; two churches, one of truth and love, the other of falsehood and malignity. “This verse is one of the most decisive testimonies for the objective personality of the devil. It is quite impossible to suppose an accommodation to Jewish views, or a metaphorical form of speech, in so solemn and direct an assertion as this.”--(Alford.)-- =The will= (lusts is too narrow a word; the original signifies earnest desire, but generally of a bad sort) =of your father ye are determined to do=. Literally, will to do. Resolute determination to evil is clearly indicated by the form of the sentence (θέλετε ποιεῖν). The language of Christ here, therefore, does not apply to sins of ignorance and inattention. He is speaking to wilful opposers of the truth.--=He was a murderer from the beginning.= Not because he inspired Cain’s murder of his brother Abel, but because, from the very outset, he endeavored to seduce into disobedience, and so to destroy, the human race. His declaration “Ye shall not surely die” (Gen. 3:4) was not merely a lie, but a lie having for its object the death of mankind.--=Stood not in the truth.= It seems to me that there is here a reference to the fall of the devil. So Augustine and the Roman Catholic commentators generally; contra, Meyer, Alford, and the moderns. Satan was in a high position, but he did not stand, because truth was not his foundation, and--=Because truth is not in him=. No definite article is appended to truth here. Satan did not stand on the truth of God, because in him, in his inner character, truth found no place. We can only stand by the truth when truth is in our inward parts (Ps. 51:6), i. e., in our desires and our affections. The truth must be in us to be under us.--=He speaketh of his own.= Out of (ἐκ) his own treasury of evil things. So the evil man, out of the evil treasure, bringeth forth evil things (Matt. 12:35).--=For he is a liar, and the father of it.= Or of him; either the father of lying or the father of the liar. Either rendering is grammatically possible. The latter better fits the context.

45 And because[348] I tell you the truth, ye believe me not.

[348] Gal. 4:16; 2 Thess. 2:10.

46 Which of you convinceth[349] me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me?

[349] Heb. 4:15.

47 He that is of God heareth God’s words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.

=45-47. But because I tell you the truth ye believe me not.= “A thoroughly tragical because; it has its ground in the alien character of the relation between that which Jesus speaks and their devilish nature, to which latter a lie alone corresponds.”--(Meyer.) Truth has not always its evidence in human nature; for human nature may be so warped as to be more ready to believe a lie than the truth (Rom. 1:21; Ephes. 4:18; 2 Thess. 2:11). If Christ had told a lie they would have believed him, just as many of those who now rejected him did subsequently believe the false Christs of a later date.--=Which of you convinceth me of sin.= Not of error (Calvin), but of sin (Alford, Godet, Meyer). Indeed, error in Christ’s teaching in this matter would be sin; for if his declaration respecting himself, that he came not from the earth but from above, from the Father, and was the long-anticipated Messiah, was not true, it would have been false and fraudulent--not merely a mistake, but a lie. By this question he asserts, by implication, his sinlessness; he defies his opponents to point out a single sin in his life, a single flaw in his character. And they were speechless, as scepticism has been ever since, before his incomparable character. The argument is this: If I am not the Son of God, find out some human defect that indicates a human origin and kinship. And this has never been done. I imagine a pause, a moment’s expressive silence, no answer from the Pharisees, and then the crushing words that follow, calmly uttered:--=If I say the truth, why do ye not believe?=--=He that is of God=--as the Pharisees had claimed to be (ver. 41)--=heareth= (receiveth) =God’s words; ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God=. This is Christ’s method with deists. Point out a single flaw in his stainless character. You cannot? Then at least listen with reverent attention to the words of the sinless man. To refuse a hearing to such an one demonstrates hostility to purity and truth, and so to God.

48 Then answered the Jews, and said unto him, Say we not well that thou art a Samaritan, and[350] hast a devil?

[350] ch. 7:20.

49 Jesus answered, I have not a devil; but I honour my Father, and ye do dishonour me.

50 And I[351] seek not mine own glory: there is one that seeketh and judgeth.

[351] ch. 5:41.

=48-50. Say we not well thou art a Samaritan and hast an evil spirit?= The Jews take to the common resort of men silenced and convinced against their will; they reply to argument by calling names. Devil is an unfortunate translation, giving the English reader the impression that they use the same word which Christ has used in ver. 44. Their word is demon (δαιμόνιον), and signifies primarily, in classic usage, a tutelary demon or genius; in N. T. usage, an evil spirit. These spirits are represented as fallen angels (2 Pet. 2:4; Jude 6), subject to Satan (Matt. 9:34; 25:41; 2 Cor. 12:7; Rev. 12:9), possessing the power of working miracles (Rev. 16:14), dwelling in the idols of the heathen and uttering the heathen responses and oracles (Acts 16:17; 1 Cor. 10:20; Rev. 9:20), and the authors of evil to mankind (2 Cor. 12:7; 1 Tim. 4:1). See Rob. Lex., art. δαιμόνιον. The charge had before been made by the Pharisees that Christ cast out devils by Beelzebub the prince of devils (Matt. 12:24). It is not necessary to trace any connection between the two epithets a Samaritan and possessing a demon. Passion is never coherent. The language is wild, bitter, passionate, but illogical and inconsequential.--=I have not a devil * * * * ye do dishonor me.= He passes by the charge of being a Samaritan in silence, for the author of the parable of the Good Samaritan refuses to recognize opprobrium in it; he calmly denies the charge of having a demon, and declares that by the discourses which they attribute to a demon he honors the Father, while they dishonor him. Peter’s declaration (1 Pet. 2:23), “Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again, but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously,” is illustrated by Christ’s response here. Contrast his indignation at the wrong done to others (Matt. 23:14, 15, 23, etc.) with his mildness when wrong is done to himself. And the next verse gives the secret reason of his calmness.--=I am not seeking my own glory.= Therefore he is comparatively indifferent to public abuse and dishonor.--=There is one who seeks and judges.= Because God cares for the honor of his children, they can well be unconcerned respecting it; because God judges them righteously, they can well disregard the unrighteous judgments of men.

51 Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death.

=51. Verily, verily.= With Calvin and Godet, I regard Christ’s discourse to his opponents as ended with the preceding verse. Recognizing the fact that some of his auditors have been inclined toward him, though with but a feeble faith, he addresses them in the words that follow, that he may strengthen their faith. The connection which Alford and Meyer endeavor to trace between this and the preceding verse I cannot perceive: e. g., “Ye are now the children of the devil; but if ye keep my word ye shall be rescued from that murderer.”--(Alford.) The very words with which Christ begins the sentence, “Verily, verily” (ἀμὴν, ἀμὴν) indicate a new topic.--=If any one.= Emphasis is put on the pronoun. The promise is universal; it embraces Jew and Gentile.--=Keep my word.= Keep, as a guard his prisoner, with watchfulness (Matt. 19:17, note), against all seductions and assaults; Christ’s word, that which he had taught, and therefore pre-eminently that faith in him as a divine Saviour which had been the pre-eminent theme of his teaching. We are to keep not merely the sayings in memory, or the teaching in the heart, but, with sentiments of reverence and affection, the truth in our life, both in the inward experience and in the outward conduct.--=Shall not see death for ever.= Not, Shall not see eternal death, but, Shall never see death. “The death of the body is not reckoned as death, any more than the life of the body is life, in our Lord’s discourses. See ch. 11:25, 26.”--(Alford.) Christ puts himself in contrast with the devil, whose slaves, by evil-doing, the Jews have become (ver. 34). The devil is a murderer, a life-taker (ver. 44); Christ is a life-giver, even to those that are dead in trespasses and sins (Ephes. 2:1).

52 Then said the Jews unto him, Now we know that thou hast a devil. Abraham is dead,[352] and the prophets; and thou sayest, If a man keep my saying, he shall never taste of death.

[352] Zech. 1:5.

53 Art thou greater than our father Abraham, which is dead? and the prophets are dead: whom makest thou thyself?

=52, 53. The Judeans.= Not the believers of ver. 30. The opponents of Christ reply to words which were not addressed to them.--=Abraham is dead.= * * * * --=Art thou greater than our father Abraham?= * * * =Whom makest thou thyself?= Their argument is, as Chrysostom interprets it: “They who have heard the word of God are dead, and shall they who have heard thee not die?” Their perplexity was real, for the unspiritual never comprehend either spiritual natures or spiritual teaching. They are literalists, and understand Jesus to speak of natural death. They are dull and will not comprehend his declaration that he is the Messiah in hope of whom Abraham and the prophets had lived. Compare with their question here that of the Samaritan woman (ch. 4:12), “Art thou greater than our father Jacob?” but contrast their spirit with hers. She is in doubt; they are scornful. See also Christ’s declaration in Matt. 12:42, “Behold, a greater than Solomon is here.”

54 Jesus answered, If[353] I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my Father[354] that honoureth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God:

[353] ch. 5:31, 41.

[354] ch. 17:1.

55 Yet ye have not known him; but I know him: and if I should say, I know him not, I shall be a liar like unto you: but I know him, and keep his saying.

56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he[355] saw it, and was glad.

[355] Gen. 22:13, 14; Heb. 11:13.

=54-56. If I glorify myself my glory is nothing.= To honor or glorify (δοξάζω) is to attribute honor, generally by words. Christ’s reply to the question, Whom makest thou thyself? is that he makes nothing of himself; he leaves others to interpret his character from his life and teachings. And this is singularly true; Christ is to each soul what its spiritual sight is able to discern in him. He does not declare himself.--=It is my Father that glorifieth me.= He leaves his reputation in the hands of his Father, an example to his followers when belied and misrepresented. See on ver. 18.--=Ye have never learned him, but I know him.= There is a double contrast in the two verbs (γινώσκω and οἶδα), the one signifying acquired, the other direct intuitive knowledge; and in the tenses, the one signifying a past act, never have known, the other a perpetually present possession, I always know. The sense may be expressed: Ye have never acquired any knowledge of God, but I am always in fellowship with him.--=I should be a liar like unto you.= To boast of one’s spiritual experience is to glorify one’s self; such glory is nothing. To deny it, under pretence of humility, is to become a liar. There may be hypocrisy in disavowing the sense of God’s presence and love, as well as in falsely pretending to it. The true method is that of Christ, who showed it by his life, not by his professions.--=Your father Abraham exulted that he might see my day= (i. e., that it was promised to him); =and he has seen it and was glad=. There is some difficulty in the interpretation of this passage, to which I have given a literal translation. Some scholars regard it as wholly prophetical, “Abraham rejoiced in anticipation of Christ’s advent;” others as historical but typical, “He rejoiced, seeing in the birth of Isaac a type of the advent of the Messiah,” and they even suppose that Christ refers to Abraham’s laughter (Gen. 17:17); still others interpret it as partly prophetic and partly historical, “He rejoiced in anticipation of the promised advent; he has since seen it from his home in paradise, and was glad.” The latter view seems to me best to accord with the original and with the context. So Godet, Meyer, Alford. For a statement of different views, see Meyer. The declaration is responsive to the question, Art thou greater than our father Abraham? The answer is, Your father Abraham rejoiced because he was promised that he should see my advent, and the realization of his hope has given him new joy in the heavenly kingdom. If this interpretation be correct, the language incidentally confirms the doctrine that the saints in heaven are cognizant of what passes upon earth.

57 Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?

58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you. Before Abraham was, I[356] am.

[356] ch. 1:1, 2; Exod. 3:14; Isa. 43:13; Col. 1:17; Rev. 1:8.

59 Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.

=57-59. The Judeans therefore said to him, Thou art not yet fifty years old.= No indication of his actual age. The fifty years was specified because this was the age of a perfected maturity, according to Jewish notions (Numb. 4:3, 39; 8:24--Lightfoot).--=And hast thou seen Abraham?= He did not say that he had, but that Abraham had seen him. They pervert his words, partly through stupidity, partly through wilfulness.--=Verily, verily.= The precursor of a specially solemn declaration.--=Before Abraham was born, I am= (γίγνομαι-εἰμί). Two Socinian explanations are afforded of this passage: (1) Before Abraham was born I (Christ) existed in the divine counsels, i. e. I was purposed by God and foretold by him; (2) Before Abram can become Abraham, a spiritual father of nations, I (Christ) must be sent forth as the Messiah. They both seem to me to be shifts devised to accommodate Scripture to a theological preconception. All independent Greek scholars (Meyer, Luthardt, Alford, Godet, Tholuck, etc.) agree substantially in their interpretation of the language. Its meaning is made clear by a consideration of the original Greek, in which the contrast is strongly marked between Abraham, who began to be, and Christ, who eternally is; by the context, in which the pre-eminence of Christ above Abraham is clearly implied; by the unexpressed but hardly doubtful reference to the appellation given by the O. T. to Jehovah as the I AM (Exod. 3:14; comp. Matt. 14:27; Mark 6:50; 14:62; John 8:24, 25); and by the interpretation which was put upon Christ’s words by his auditors, who understood them as a claim of divinity, and took up stones to stone him as a blasphemer. Christ, then, by these words, as I understand him, identifies himself, as the N. T. manifestation of the unseen God, with the I AM of the O. T., the One who had manifested the Invisible to Israel in all their history.--=Then took they up stones to cast at him.= The building of the temple was still going on, and stones were probably lying about in the temple court. Stoning was the O. T. punishment for blasphemy, but it could not be lawfully inflicted without trial and judgment.--=Jesus hid himself.= There is no good ground to suppose any miraculous escape, either here or in Luke 4:30. And there is good reason to believe that there was not a miraculous interposition, for Christ never availed himself of any miracle for his own benefit. See Matt. 4:6, note. The clause “going through the midst of them, and so passed by,” is wanting in the best MSS., and is omitted by Alford, Meyer, Godet, Luthardt. The latter traces a curious analogy between this typical expulsion and the final crucifixion of Christ. He hides himself from the eyes of those whom the God of this world has blinded; he leaves the Pharisees apparent victors and in possession of the field; in taking up stones to stone him they show themselves to be murderers at heart, as they afterward became in outward act.

In this discourse, or these discourses, for it is not quite clear whether it is one or more, the connection is sometimes obscure, and the meaning accordingly difficult. The student must remember (1) that Christ addresses a very different audience from that in Galilee. There he spoke to willing but ignorant disciples; in Jerusalem he speaks to obstinate and perverse enemies. (2) Hence the difference in spirit. In Galilee gentleness is predominant, in Jerusalem severity. (3) The continuity of the discourse is affected by the sudden transitions of feeling in Christ, which are great, as in all natures of deep and ready sympathy. He speaks now with great pathos, as in the question, a semi-soliloquy, Why do ye not understand my speech? (ver. 43), then with indignation, Ye are of your father the devil (ver. 44); now with self-abnegation, I judge no man (ver. 15), If I honor myself my honor is nothing (ver. 54), again with divine self-assertion and the power of an unconcealed divinity, I am from above (ver. 23), Before Abraham was I am (ver. 58). (4) The continuity of his speech is constantly broken in upon by rude interruptions (verses 19, 22, 39, 41, 48, 52, 53, 57), and by changes in the direction of his discourse, which is sometimes addressed to his disciples (ver. 31), and sometimes to his opponents (verses 42, 49, etc.). (5) Nevertheless we may say generally that the discourse embodies Christ’s teaching respecting himself, and embraces the following points: He is (a) the light, i. e., the moral and spiritual illuminator, of the world (ver. 12); (b) superhuman in his origin (ver. 23); (c) the manifestation of the Father, because the tabernacle (ch. 1:14) in which the Father dwells (ver. 29); (d) the emancipator of all those that accept and obey the truth as manifested by him (verses 31-36); (e) sinless (ver. 46); (f) the life-giver (ver. 51); (g) the great I AM (ver. 58). To receive the benefit of the light which he confers, we must follow his example (ver. 12); to receive the benefit of the freedom he brings, we must live habitually in the truth which he teaches (verses 31, 32); to receive the life which he bestows, we must be born from above (ch. 3:3) by faith in him as our Messiah (ver. 24).

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us