Chapter IX…

Chapter IX

Ch. 9:1-41. THE HEALING OF THE MAN BORN BLIND.--A MIRACLE OF CHRIST ATTESTED BY A JUDICIAL INVESTIGATION.--A PARABLE OF REDEMPTION.--A LESSON IN FAITH. See note at ver. 38.

PRELIMINARY NOTE.--This miracle is reported only by John. There is nothing peculiar in this, since John alone reports Christ’s Judean ministry, in which it occurred. The place was Jerusalem; the time is uncertain; it was on a Sabbath (ver. 14), in the fall of A. D. 29 (Vol. I, p. 45), between the feast of Tabernacles in October (ch. 7:2) and the feast of Dedication in December (ch. 10:22). Some identify it with the last day of the former feast (ch. 7:37), which was a Sabbath, supposing ch. 7:53 to 8:11 to be an interpolation. It is not probable that it occurred at the time which seems to be indicated by its place in the report furnished by the Evangelists. That Christ stopped on escaping from a mob who threatened to stone him, in order to work this miracle, is not probable; that under such circumstances his disciples should have asked him the abstruse question of ver. 2 is still more improbable. I put it therefore at some other time in his Judean ministry, which lasted a little over two months. See ch. 7, Prel. Note. In studying this chapter the student will do well to observe its natural division into three parts: (1) the miracle (verses 1-7); (2) the investigation (verses 8-33); (3) the result (verses 34-38).

1 And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth.

=1. And passing by, he saw a man blind from birth.= To the ordinary reader the connection of this verse with the last verse of the preceding chapter indicates that this miracle was wrought as Jesus passed from the temple driven by the mob. But the latter clause of that verse is of doubtful authenticity. The phrase “passing by” appears to be used here simply to indicate that the miracle of mercy was called forth by the occasion, not by the blind man’s petition nor by any previously formed purpose. “It was he who saw the blind man, not the blind man who came to him; and so earnestly did he look upon him that even his disciples perceived it.”--(Chrysostom.) Compare this case with that in Luke 18:35-43. There the blind man appeals to Christ, here Christ heals without being appealed to. There, in the stillness of the country, the noise of the multitude awakens the attention of the blind man. Here, in the crowded city, there is nothing to announce to the blind man a healer until Christ speaks to him. There, therefore, he awaits the petition; here he does not. Congenital blindness is incurable by modern science. How it was known to the Evangelist that this man was blind from his birth has been questioned. The man appears, from the following narrative, to have been a well-known mendicant. Perhaps he proclaimed the nature and extent of his misfortune as a means of awakening charity.

2 And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?

=2. Who did sin?= It was not only a Jewish opinion that such afflictions were a divine punishment for sin, it is the teaching of experience that special diseases are frequently the natural consequence of sin either in the sufferer or in his ancestry, and the teaching of Scripture that all disease, and even death itself, is the fruit of sin. This truth Christ had already recognized in at least two instances (Mark 2:5; John 5:14), and it is enforced both by warnings and by historical illustrations in the O. T. (Lev. 26:16; Deut. 28:22; Numb. 12:10; 2 Kings 5:27). The Jewish error consisted in believing that all special afflictions were divine visitations for special sins (Job 4:7; 8:6), an opinion which was not confined to the Jews (Acts 28:4). This error Christ here corrects. The form of the disciples’ question has given rise to some needless perplexity. How could they, even in imagination, attribute a blindness from birth to the blind man’s own sin? All such explanations as that some among the Jews believed in the transmigration of souls and others in a pre-existent state, and therefore in sins committed in a previous life, and still others in the possibility of sin committed by the unborn babe in the womb, a doctrine deduced by the rabbis from such passages as Gen. 25:22 and Psalm 51:5, are inadmissible, because these refinements in theology, even if actually entertained among the Jewish rabbis, certainly were not accepted among the common people, from whom Christ drew his disciples. The question appears to be in spirit this: What is the explanation of this man’s blindness? his own sin? That cannot be, for he was born blind. Is he then punished for his parents’ sin?

3 Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that[357] the works of God should be made manifest in him.

[357] ch. 11:4.

=3. Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents.= That is, his blindness is not a punishment for his or their sin.--=But that the works of God should be made manifest in him.= Manifest to us by his miraculous cure; but this is not all. The work of God is to believe on him whom he hath sent (ch. 6:29), and to this belief the blind man was brought by his cure (ver. 38). Thus the work of God was made manifest, not only through him to us, but in him. Thus Christ gives the key to the Christian doctrine of suffering. It is inflicted sometimes as a special punishment for special sins (see references above), but more frequently it is a means of grace, inflicted either that by our endurance we may manifest the grace of God to others (2 Cor. 12:9), or may be taught of God ourselves (Heb. 12:6, 11). Compare with Christ’s language here his declaration concerning the sickness and death of Lazarus (ch. 11:4).

4 I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work.

5 As long as I am in the world, I[358] am the light of the world.

[358] chaps. 1:5,9; 8:12; 12:35, 46.

=4, 5. While it is day; the night cometh.= The day is life; the night is death. Christ in his human estate was subject to the law under which all his disciples are placed. Death cut short his human work. The day for work is short, the night is at hand; therefore the greater need of earnest and urgent labor. Sleep is a parable of death (Ps. 104:23) that should perpetually remind us that our day is short.=--The light of the world.= It was prophesied that the Messiah should open the eyes of the blind (Isa. 29:18; 35:5; 42:7). The direct reference is to Christ’s fulfilment of these prophecies (Luke 4:18, 21). But it is true, in a larger sense, that just so far as Christ is in the world, and accepted by the world, he becomes its light, intellectual, moral, and spiritual (ch. 1:9, note).

6 When he had thus spoken, he spat[359] on the ground, and made clay of the spittle, and he anointed the eyes of the blind man with the clay,

[359] Mark 8:23.

7 And said unto him, Go, wash in the pool of Siloam,[360] (which is by interpretation, Sent.) He[361] went his way therefore, and washed, and came seeing.

[360] Neh. 3:15.

[361] 2 Kings 5:14.

=6, 7. Spat on the ground * * * * and he anointed the eyes with the clay.= Clay and spittle were both believed in ancient times to possess curative properties. Why Christ used them here is a matter only of conjecture. Certainly not as remedies, for one blind from birth could not be cured by a remedy so simple, and he who healed the blind men at Jericho by a touch (Matt. 20:34) had no need here to resort to other means. Not to conceal the miracle, as may have been the case in analogous instances (see Mark 7:33; 8:23, notes), for here his object was to manifest the works of God, and the result was a public and protracted investigation of his own character. It is noticeable, however, that Christ never cured without giving the healed something to do, as a test of his faith and obedience. Even in the three cases of raising from the dead he called on the mourners, to indicate by their obedience to his direction their faith in him (Matt. 9:24, 25; Luke 7:14; John 11:39, 40). When he was asked to heal, the simple request served as an indication of faith; when, as here, he volunteered the cure, he seems always to have required some act as an evidence of faith. Comp. ch. 5:6-8.--=Go, wash in the pool of Siloam.= One of the pools in the vicinity of Jerusalem, entitled also Siloah or Shiloah (Neh. 3:15; Isa. 8:6). It is identified with a pool or tank still found in the vicinity of Jerusalem, which stands to the south of the Temple mount, and consists of an oblong tank, partly hewn out of the rock and partly built of masonry, measuring about fifty-three feet in length, eighteen feet in width, and nineteen feet in depth, with a flight of steps leading down to the bottom. Several columns stand out of the side walls, extending from the top downward into the reservoir, the design of which it is now difficult to conjecture. The water passes out of this reservoir through an open channel cut in the rock, which is covered for a short distance, and a few yards off is partly dammed up by the people of the adjoining village of Siloam, for the purpose of washing their clothes, and then divided into small streams to irrigate the gardens below. The water flows into this reservoir from an artificial cave or basin under the cliff. This cave is entered by a small archway hewn in the rock. It is irregular in form, and decreases in size as it proceeds from about fifteen to three feet in height. It is connected with what is known as the Fountain of the Virgin by a remarkable conduit cut through the very heart of the rock in a zigzag form, measuring some seventeen hundred and fifty feet, while the distance in a straight line is only eleven hundred feet. This remarkable fact was discovered by Dr. Edward Robinson, who had the hardihood to crawl through the passage.--=Which is by interpretation Sent.= The meaning of this addition has been doubted, but does not seem to me to be doubtful. The pool, by its very name, was a symbol of Him who was sent into the world to work the works of God (ver. 4), and who gives light to the world by providing a fountain in which not only all uncleanness is washed away, but all ignorance and blindness of heart.--=He went therefore=, etc. Compare with the cure of Naaman (2 Kings 5:11, 13), who was in like manner bid to wash in Jordan, and only reluctantly and after angry resistance consented. Observe how great the trial to this blind man’s faith, directed to take so considerable a walk, in his blindness, as a condition of cure. Observe, too, in the miracle a parable of redemption. The whole world lieth in darkness from the beginning (Ps. 107:10; Matt. 4:16; 1 John 5:19); Christ, the light of the world, comes to call us out of darkness into marvellous light (Acts 26:18; 2 Cor. 4:6; Col. 1:13; 1 Pet. 2:9); the condition of receiving that light is faith, exemplified by obedience, without which the soul remains in darkness (chaps. 1:5; 3:19); and he often calls us to prove our faith by walking, in obedience to his direction, in the darkness for a while, in order that we may come into the light (Mark 8:22-26, notes).

8 The neighbours therefore, and they which before had seen him that he was blind, said, Is not this he that sat and begged?

9 Some said, This is he: others said, He is like him: but he said, I am he.

=8, 9. The neighbors therefore, and they which before had seen him that he was a beggar.= The best manuscripts have beggar, not, as in our English version, blind. So Alford and Tischendorf.--=Is not this he that sat and begged?= Apparently he was a well-known beggar, like the one described in Acts 3:2, 10. Comp. Luke 18:35. He is described as one that sat and begged, in contrast with such as beg from door to door. Beggars of this description having a regular place, where they may always be found soliciting alms, are a not uncommon sight in the East.--=Some said, This is he. Others, No! but he is like him. He himself said, I am he.= This is the correct rendering of the best reading; it varies slightly from our English version. His own response seems to have settled the question of his identity among the common people. That some should have at first doubted is not strange, considering the alterations in appearance made by the clear eye in place of the sightless eyeballs, and the fact that he was no longer to be found in his accustomed place, begging.

10 Therefore said they unto him, How were thine eyes opened?

11 He answered and said, A man that is called Jesus made clay,[362] and anointed mine eyes, and said unto me, Go to the pool of Siloam, and wash; and I went and washed, and I received sight.

[362] verses 6, 7.

12 Then said they unto him, Where is he? He said, I know not.

=10-12.= The first investigation is made informally, and without prejudice, by the common people. It is curiosity alone which inquires, and it is easily convinced of the facts in the case.--The man’s reply to his questioners is more laconic in the original than in our English version. It is literally, “And going and washing, I saw.” It reminds one of Cæsar’s famous report, “I came, I saw, I conquered.” The verb rendered I saw or I received sight (ἀναβλέπω) is literally, I saw again. Sight being the prerogative of humanity, he speaks as though it were really once his prerogative (though in fact he never possessed it), had been lost, and was now recovered to him again.--The question, Where is he? appears to be asked, not in a spirit of enmity, but simply from a natural curiosity and interest to see him who had wrought the cure. Christ’s escape from the blind man and the multitude is analogous to his course on other occasions (comp. ch. 5:13), and is characteristic of one who ordinarily avoided all occasions of public triumph and enthusiasm (ch. 6:15; Matt. 8:4; 9:30; Mark 5:43).

13 They brought to the Pharisees him that aforetime was blind.

=13.= Verses 13-34 report a semi-official investigation by the Pharisees, instigated not by a sincere desire to ascertain the truth, nor by mere curiosity, but by a determination to break the force of the miracle that had been wrought. For this purpose they first examine the man (verses 15-17) and his parents (18-21), in hope to prove an imposture; next they subject the man to a further cross-examination in an unsuccessful endeavor to break down his testimony (verses 24-33); failing in that, they do what they can to discredit his testimony by excommunicating him (ver. 34).--=The Pharisees.= It is generally supposed that this phrase indicates the Jewish court formally assembled, either the Sanhedrim, i. e., the supreme court of the nation, or the lesser Sanhedrim, i. e., one of the local courts in Jerusalem. But the passages cited to show that John uses the term “Pharisees” to designate a court rather indicate the opposite. In both John 7:32, 45-47 and John 11:46, 47, he distinguishes between the “chief-priests and Pharisees” who constituted the council, and the Pharisees who constituted not a body, but a party. I judge then that the investigation which follows is an informal one. It must be remembered that in that age, and even to the present time in that country, no such clear line was drawn as with us between an official and an unofficial trial.

14 And it was the sabbath day when Jesus made the clay, and opened his eyes.

15 Then again the Pharisees also asked him how he had received his sight. He said unto them, He put clay upon mine eyes, and I washed, and do see.

16 Therefore said some of the Pharisees, This man is not of God, because he keepeth not the sabbath day. Others said, How[363] can a man that is a sinner do such miracles? And[364] there was a division among them.

[363] verse 31; ch. 3:2.

[364] ch. 7:12, 43.

=14-16. The Sabbath day.= For analogous case of Sabbath healing, see ch. 5, notes.--=Then again the Pharisees also asked him.= Not that they had asked him before; the “again” refers to the question by the people in ver. 10.--=Some said * * * * Others said.= It is a mistake to suppose that all the Pharisees were hypocrites. Among them were such men as Nicodemus, Joseph of Arimathea, Gamaliel, Saul of Tarsus. See Matt. 3:7, note. But the honest Pharisees were timid, and were easily overborne by their opponents. For account of a similar conflict, see ch. 7:47-52. Observe the inherent vice of Pharisaism, ancient and modern; it puts the ceremonial above humanity; it is of the essence of Christianity that it regards all ceremonials and observances as for humanity (Mark 2:27; note on Matt. 12:8).

17 They say unto the blind man again, What sayest thou of him, that he hath opened thine eyes? He said, He is a prophet.[365]

[365] ch. 4:19.

18 But the Jews did not believe[366] concerning him, that he had been blind, and received his sight, until they called the parents of him that had received his sight.

[366] Isa. 26:11.

19 And they asked them, saying, Is this your son, who ye say was born blind? how then doth he now see?

20 His parents answered them and said, We know that this is our son, and that he was born blind:

21 But by what means he now seeth, we know not; or who hath opened his eyes, we know not: he is of age; ask him: he shall speak for himself.

=17-21. What sayest thou of him because he hath opened thine eyes?= They ask for the man’s opinion, each party perhaps hoping to get support for its own views.--=He is a prophet.= At first to the blind man Christ was only “a man that is called Jesus” (ver. 11). The discussion has not only deepened, it has clarified his convictions.--=But the Jews did not believe * * * * until they had called the parents.= The Pharisees make a twofold endeavor to break the force of the miracle, first by questioning the identity of the man, second by questioning the method of his cure.--So they ask the parents if this is their son, and how he was cured.--=His parents answered them=, etc. The answer of the parents was probably literally true, but it was evasive.--Their knowledge of the cure was probably derived from their son; hence they justify themselves in referring the inquirers to him. But duty, both to truth and to their son, required that they should have sustained his testimony by their own expressed belief in the miraculous cure.

22 These words spake his parents, because they[367] feared the Jews: for the Jews had agreed already, that if any man did confess that he was Christ, he[368] should be put out of the synagogue.

[367] chaps. 7:13; 12:42; Prov. 29:25.

[368] verse 34; ch. 16:2.

23 Therefore said his parents, He is of age; ask him.

=22, 23. Because they feared the Jews.= The term “Jews,” as John uses it, generally means the Judeans, i. e., the inhabitants of Judea, as distinguished from the Galileans or other dispersed Israelites. Living in the vicinity of Jerusalem, they were most attached to its ritual, and most intolerant of any departure from Jewish ceremonials or any fellowship with the Gentiles. Through their influence the Sanhedrim had resolved that any one who acknowledged Jesus as the Messiah should be excommunicated. When this resolution was arrived at does not appear. It clearly indicates that even in Judea there was growing a feeling, if not a faith, that Jesus of Nazareth was the Promised One.--=He should be put out of the synagogue.= That is, excommunicated. According to the Jewish scholars, there were three kinds of discipline known in the ancient synagogues, all of which are entitled excommunication or cutting off. Excommunication in the slightest degree involved separation from the synagogue, and the suspension of intercourse with all Jews whatever, even with one’s wife and domestics. A person who had exposed himself to excommunication was not allowed to approach another nearer than a distance of four cubits. This separation was continued for thirty days; and in case the excommunicated person did not repent, the time might be doubled or tripled, even when the transgression, by means of which it was incurred, was of small consequence. The second degree of excommunication is denominated the curse, and was more severe in its effects. It was pronounced with imprecations, in the presence of ten men, and so thoroughly excluded the guilty person from all communion whatever with his countrymen, that they were not allowed to sell him anything, even the necessaries of life. The third degree of excommunication was more severe in its consequences than either of the preceding. It was a solemn and absolute exclusion from all intercourse and communion with any other individuals of the nation; and the criminal was left in the hands, and to the justice of God. It is probable that in the time of Christ the second degree of excommunication was not distinguished from the third. It is uncertain what degree of excommunication was here threatened; but it is quite unimportant, since the first was sure to be succeeded by the others, unless the condemned repented, and made confession of his wrong-doing; in this case retracted his confession of Jesus as the Messiah.

24 Then again called they the man that was blind, and said unto him, Give God[369] the praise: we know that this man is a sinner.

[369] Josh. 7:19; Ps. 50:14, 15.

25 He answered and said, Whether he be a sinner or no, I know not; one thing I know, that, whereas I was blind, now I see.

=24, 25.= The Pharisees attempt to overawe the blind man. The conference with his parents has been held in his absence. They then summon him into their presence with the declaration that they have discovered the imposture, and call on him to confess it.--=Give God the praise= is not equivalent to Give to God the glory of your cure; they do not admit that any cure has been wrought. It is a solemn form of adjuration to confess the fraud which they pretend to have discovered (Josh. 7:19).--=We know that this man is a sinner=, indicates that their investigation has discovered the imposture. The man’s reply is shrewd and wise. He will not undertake to dispute the conclusion which these doctors of the law pretend to have reached; but neither will he abate in the slightest his testimony to the miraculous cure.--=One thing I know, that being blind, now I see.= No testimony to Christ is more pertinent or potent than this personal experience of his grace. Comp. Gal. 1:23; 1 Tim. 1:12-18.

26 Then said they to him again, What did he to thee? how opened he thine eyes?

27 He answered them, I have told you already, and ye did not hear: wherefore would ye hear it again? will ye also be his disciples?

=26, 27.= Defeated in an attempt to overawe the blind man, the Pharisees resort to the common artifice of cross-examination; they call on him to repeat his story, in the hope of detecting some real or imaginary discrepancy in his two accounts, by which they may discredit him. He refuses to be cross-examined; grows impatient at their manifest injustice; answers defiantly.--=Ye will not hear.= Equivalent to, Ye will not heed, will not accept. It is useless to repeat testimony which they have resolved to reject. He thus illustrates Christ’s precept, Neither cast ye your pearls before swine (Matt. 7:6).--=Will ye also be his disciples?= Ironical. The man affects to misunderstand their object, and to think that they are inquiring for the purpose of becoming Christ’s disciples. The mere suggestion elicits an indignant disclaimer, and so brings out clearly that they are not honestly seeking to get at the truth respecting Jesus, but are attempting to discredit him. The word also scarcely indicates, as some suppose, that the man is resolved to become Christ’s disciple. We know too little concerning him, as yet, to come to that conclusion (ver. 36).

28 Then they reviled[370] him, and said. Thou art his disciple; but we are Moses’ disciples.

[370] 1 Pet. 2:23.

29 We know[371] that God spake unto Moses: as for this fellow, we[372] know not from whence he is.

[371] Ps. 103:7; Heb. 3:5.

[372] ch. 8:14.

=28, 29.= A curious illustration of the inconsistency of bigotry is afforded by a comparison of the language of the Pharisees here and in ch. 7:27. There, because they suppose they know the parentage of Jesus, they say he cannot be the Messiah; here, the pretence that he is an unknown, affords an equally satisfactory reason for rejecting him.

30 The man answered and said unto them, Why[373] herein is a marvellous thing, that ye know not from whence he is, and yet he hath opened[374] mine eyes.

[373] ch. 3:10.

[374] Ps. 119:18; Isa. 29:18, 19; 35:5; 2 Cor. 4:6.

31 Now we know that God[375] heareth not sinners: but if[376] any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth his will, him he heareth.

[375] Job 27:9; Ps. 66:18; Prov. 28:9; Isa. 1:15; Jer. 11:11; Ezek. 8:18; Micah 3:4; Zech. 7:13.

[376] Ps. 34:15; Prov. 15:29.

=30, 31.= The argument of these verses is, (1) founded on the Pharisees’ doctrine that man is made acceptable to God by his good works. The Pharisees could furnish no reply to it, because they believed that God only heard the prayers of the pious (see Neh. 13:14, 22, 31; 2 Sam. 22:21). The doctrine that he hears and answers the prayers of the penitent, though abundantly taught in the O. T. (Ps. 25:11; 32:5; Isaiah 55:6, 7), they wholly ignored; (2) It is founded on the Scriptural doctrine that God does not hear the prayer of deliberate, willful and persistent sinners, while continuing in their sins. If this “man that is called Jesus” was the impostor that the Pharisees declared him to be, God would not accompany his ministry with such manifestations of divine blessing (Isaiah 1:11-15; 59:1, 2; Prov. 15:8, 29; 21:27; 28:9; Jer. 14:11, 12; Amos 5:21-23; Micah 3:4); (3) It accords in fact with the N. T. doctrine of prayer, which teaches us to pray in the name and for the sake of Jesus Christ, in and through whom we are heard, though sinners (chaps. 14:13, 14; 15:16; 16:23, 24). Observe the double condition of prayer, as indicated by this man: (1) a true reverence of God, (2) a sincere practical obedience to his will. Comp. ch. 15:17; Heb. 11:6; James 5:16. In the failing of one or the other of these conditions we may find one principal reason why so many prayers are not answered.

32 Since the world began was it not heard that any man opened the eyes of one that was born blind.

33 If this man were not of God, he could do nothing.

=32, 33.= It was prophesied of the Messiah that he should restore sight to the blind (ver. 5, note). This peculiar form of miraculous cure is not narrated to have been performed by any one except Christ, unless 2 Kings 6:18, 20 be regarded as an instance; it was performed by Christ on several occasions (Matt. 9:27-30; 11:5; 12:22; 20:30-34; Mark 8:22-25); but this is the only case of the cure of one blind from birth.--=If this man was not from God he could do nothing.= The man now openly confesses his conviction, which in his previous answer he has concealed. Observe that he enunciated the same principle as Nicodemus, and in almost the same words. The declaration is spiritually true of Christ (ch. 5:19-30) and of every one of Christ’s disciples (ch. 15:5; comp. Phil. 4:13).

34 They answered and said unto him, Thou[377] wast altogether born in sins, and dost thou teach us? And they cast him[378] out.

[377] verse 2.

[378] Isa. 66:5.

=34.= Failing in their attempt to break the force of the man’s testimony, the Pharisees endeavored to discredit it by excommunicating him. Religious persecution is generally the last resort of intellectual weakness and defeat. Their declaration Thou wast altogether born in sins is a reference to the fact that he was born blind. Thus they become themselves unconscious witnesses to the miracle; for their language here shows their belief that he was born blind, and the man himself affords ocular demonstration of the cure. The declaration They cast him out means, not they drove him out of the court-room, as interpreted by Chrysostom, Tholuck and others, but they excommunicated him, in conformity to the resolution previously taken (ver. 22).

35 Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe[379] on the Son of God?

[379] 1 John 5:13.

36 He answered and said, Who is he, Lord, that I might believe on him?

37 And Jesus said unto him, Thou hast both seen him, and[380] it is he that talketh with thee.

[380] ch. 4:26.

38 And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him.[381]

[381] Matt. 14:33.

=35-38. When Jesus heard that they had cast him out.= Perhaps he purposely waited, that the man’s fidelity to the truth might be fully tested. This trial of the blind man symbolizes the trial to which Christ subjects his church (1 Pet. 1:7). When men cast the faithful witness out, Christ comes to him (Ps. 27:10). Thus the man realizes the promise of Luke 6:22.--=Dost thou believe on the Son of God.= There is an emphasis on Thou in the original, which cannot well be repeated in the English. Christ contrasts his belief with the disbelief of the Pharisees. “Believest thou, whilst so many others are disbelievers” (Trench).--=Who is he, Sire, that I might believe on him.= The word translated lord (κύριος) is only a general term of respect. It is sometimes translated Sir (Matt. 21:30; chaps. 4:11, 15, 19, 49; 5:7; 12:20; 20:15). It does not imply here that the man recognized in Jesus the Son of God. But his language, That I might believe on him, indicates that he was ready to believe when the Messiah should be made known to him. This spirit of desire always brings the answer of disclosure (Matt. 5:6; Acts, ch. 10).--=Thou hast both seen him.= A reminder of the benefit which has been conferred upon the man.--=And it is he that talketh to thee.= To no one did Christ disclose his divine nature more clearly than to this blind man, whose fidelity to truth showed him worthy to receive the disclosure of further truth, and one which even the disciples but imperfectly apprehended.--=Sire, I believe. And he reverenced him.= Not necessarily worshipped. The original does not necessarily signify anything more than a form of salutation paid by an inferior to a superior, by falling upon the knees and touching the forehead to the ground. For meaning of both words, “lord” and “worshipped,” see Matt. 8:2, note. It is clear, however, that the man accepted fully Christ’s declaration respecting himself, though not so clear that he fully comprehended his meaning.

* * * * *

THE CURE OF THE MAN BORN BLIND. It is safe to assume that John has narrated no event at such length as this miracle and its subsequent investigation without a definite purpose. The general lessons taught by this account, apart from those incidentally conveyed in single utterances, appear to me to be three. (1) This is the only one of Christ’s miracles which was subjected to a judicial or quasi judicial investigation. That investigation originated not with the disciples, but with the people, and was carried on before a hostile tribunal. The identity of the blind man was established by his own testimony and corroborated by that of his parents. That he was born blind was established by the same indisputable evidence. That he was cured was ocularly demonstrated. The cure necessarily involved a miracle, since congenital blindness is not curable by natural means. The value of the evidence is increased by the facts that the parents were reluctant witnesses; that the man himself had no interest to further the cause of Christ, since he did not even know who he was; that the Pharisees themselves were forced to the unconscious admission that a miracle had been wrought (ver. 34, note); and that, defeated in their attempt to browbeat the witness, they endeavored to discredit his testimony by excommunicating him. (2) There is an instructive contrast in the characters so briefly but graphically portrayed. (a) The people, moved by mere wonder, investigate curiously but not earnestly, reach no conclusion, and so learn nothing of Christ; (b) The Pharisees, instigated by malice and religious bigotry, investigate thoroughly, and are compelled to adopt the conclusion that a miracle has been wrought, but refuse to accept the Worker as even a man sent from God, and so learn nothing of Christ. (c) The parents, honest but timid, accept the facts, but are unwilling to risk persecution for truth’s sake, and so learn nothing of Christ. (d) The man himself, who is faithful to his convictions, and whose convictions grow by reason of his fidelity, is brought to a knowledge of Jesus as the Messiah, the Son of God. Thus is illustrated the principle that to find the truth as it is in Christ Jesus it is not enough to investigate curiously, earnestly, honestly; it is necessary also to confess fearlessly the truth so far as it is apprehended. (3) The history of the blind man illustrates the growth of faith, as well as its conditions. At first he knew nothing of Jesus; but without knowledge or definite hope he obeys Christ’s direction, goes to the pool of Siloam, washes, sees. He still knows nothing of the Healer but that he is “a man that is called Jesus.” Despite the timidity of his parents, and the threatening of the Pharisees, he maintains the truth, defends the unknown, asserts him to be a prophet, and a man of God. Finally, he finds in him the Messiah, the Son of God. Fidelity, in that which is least, is the condition of receiving larger gifts in knowledge and faith.

39 And Jesus said, For[382] judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not[383] might see; and that they which see might be made blind.[384]

[382] ch. 5:22, 27; 12:47.

[383] 1 Pet. 2:9.

[384] ch. 3:19; Matt. 13:13.

=39. For judgment am I come into this world.= Contrast chaps. 8:15; 12:47. Christ does not hesitate to state truths at different times in forms which make his statements apparently contradictory. He does not come to announce judgment or condemnation, but to provide mercy; nevertheless, he has come for judgment, since he draws to himself all that love the divine character and the divine life, and repels all that are worldly and selfish. He does not condemn, but they that reject him are self-condemned, testifying that they love darkness rather than light because their deeds are evil.--=That they which see not might see, and that they which see might be made blind.= The meaning is not, That they which see not their own blindness might be made to see it; this interpretation makes the second clause of the sentence either a mere repetition of the first, And that they which think they see might be made aware that they are blind, or unmeaning. Nor is it to be rendered, That they which see not spiritual things might be made to see them, and they which see the world might be made blind to that as a preparation for seeing Christ; for though this would be in analogy with Paul’s metaphor (Rom. 6:11; 7:9), it would not interpret Christ’s declaration that he has come for judgment. The two clauses of the sentence are to be interpreted alike. Christ’s coming gave moral and spiritual sight to the publicans who were without moral culture, but opened their hearts to receive Christ’s instructions; and it darkened such moral sense as the Pharisees already possessed, since they closed their eyes to the clear revelation which Christ brought. Thus Christ is both savor of life unto life and of death unto death (2 Cor. 2:16), both the corner-stone and the stone of stumbling (1 Pet. 2:6-8; comp. Matt. 3:12, note).

40 And some of the Pharisees which were with him heard these words, and said unto him, Are we[385] blind also?

[385] Rom. 2:19; Rev. 3:17.

41 Jesus said unto them, If[386] ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see: therefore[387] your sin remaineth?

[386] ch. 15:22, 24.

[387] Is. 5:21; Luke 18:14; 1 John 1:8-10.

=40, 41. Some of the Pharisees which were with him.= That is, who happened to be present. But their presence as auditors, coupled with their question, perhaps implies that they were of that class which were inclined to regard Jesus as a prophet (ver. 17; ch. 10:21).--=Are we blind also?= The form of the original implies a strong expectation of a negative reply. It might be rendered, Surely we are not blind also.--=If ye were blind ye should have no sin.= This is not to be interpreted away, as equivalent to, Your sin would be less. It is literally true, that sin is in the proportion of knowledge, so that one who is, by no fault of his own, absolutely ignorant of moral distinctions, is absolutely free from moral responsibility.--=Ye say, We see; therefore your sin remains.= They had the law and the prophets which foretold the Messiah (ch. 5:39), and they had the knowledge of his works and the moral capacity to judge them, and did adjudge that God was with him (ch. 3:2), and that he could not be a sinner (ch. 9:16). This was enough to render them guilty in not following out their convictions by a public confession of Christ as a prophet, which they really saw him to be. Comp. ch. 15:24; and with the entire passage (vers. 39-41), Rom. 2:17-24.

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

Chapter X

Ch. 10:1-21. THE PARABLE OF THE SHEEPFOLD AND THE SHEPHERD.--THE CHURCH OF CHRIST AS ONE FLOCK.--TO THIS FLOCK THERE IS BUT ONE DOOR, JESUS CHRIST.--THIS DOOR IS OPENED TO THE SOUL BY THE HOLY SPIRIT OF GOD.--EVERY ONE WHO ENTERS IN BY THIS DOOR IS SAVED.--AND BECOMES A MINISTER OF GRACE (A SHEPHERD) TO OTHERS.--THE PATTERN IS JESUS CHRIST, THE GOOD SHEPHERD.--EVERY TRUE SHEPHERD LIVES FOR THE FLOCK.--HE WHO DOES NOT IS A HIRELING, AND IS RECREANT IN TIME OF DANGER.--THE LIFE OF THE FLOCK IS ASSURED BY THE DEATH OF THE GOOD SHEPHERD.--THAT DEATH WAS NOT COMPELLED; IT WAS VOLUNTARY. This parable was probably uttered in Judea, and in the immediate vicinity of Jerusalem. The figure is drawn from the spectacle, likely at any evening to be witnessed on the hillsides of Judea, a flock of sheep gathered from the different fields in which they had been wandering, and following their shepherd, who conducts them to the sheepfold, which they enter, one by one, for protection, the shepherd going before and leading them in. To understand aright its meaning, two facts, often forgotten, must be borne in mind: (1) that the metaphor is used in the O. T., and for a double purpose; sometimes the shepherd is the religious teacher of Israel, whose unfaithfulness is rebuked in the prophets (Jer. 23:1-4; Ezek., ch. 34); sometimes the shepherd is the Lord, who leads, defends, and feeds the soul which trusts in him (Ps. 23; Isaiah 40:11); (2) the parable is closely connected with the discourse concerning blindness, growing out of the cure of the blind man, and is given for the purpose of emphasizing and carrying out the warnings therein contained against the Pharisees as blind leaders of the blind (Matt. 15:14). I understand, then, that it is a parable with a double application. First, Christ compares the Pharisees to shepherds, himself to the door, and declares that they alone are true shepherds who enter into Israel through, i. e., under command from, and with the authority of, Christ as the Messiah--all others are thieves and robbers (vers. 7-10); he then changes the application, retaining the figure, declares himself to be the shepherd, whose praises David and Isaiah sang, and indicates the nature of the service which he will render to his sheep, namely, giving his life for them. The parable itself embraces verses 1-6; the first application, a lesson against the false Pharisaical teachers, verses 7-10; the second application, a lesson concerning himself as the good shepherd, verses 11-18. The first application is interpreted by Ezekiel, ch. 34; the second, by Psalm 23 and Isaiah 40:11. The ordinary interpretation, which regards Christ as referring to himself throughout as shepherd, necessarily supposes that he employs a mixed metaphor, in which, without any apparent reason, he alternately represents himself as the door and the shepherd.

1 Verily, verily, I say unto you,[388] He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber.

[388] Rom. 10:15; Heb. 5:4.

=1. He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold.= Sheepfolds, as usually constructed in the East, are low, flat buildings, erected on the sheltered side of the valleys, and when the nights are cold, the flocks are shut up in them, but in ordinary weather they are merely kept within the yard. During the day, of course, they are led forth to pasture by the shepherds. The folds are defended by a wide stone wall, crowned by sharp thorns which the wolf will rarely attempt to scale. The leopard and panther, however, when pressed with hunger, will overleap the thorny hedge, and make havoc of the flock. In Greece, folds are sometimes built merely of a parapet of bushes or branches, placed at the entrance of caves, natural or made for the purpose, in the side of hills or rocky ledges. A porter guards the door of the larger sheepfolds. See Thompson’s Land and Book, I, 299, and Smith’s Bible Dict., Art. Sheepfold. The sheepfold, in this parable, answers primarily to Israel, the then visible and organic church of God, but secondarily to the church of Christ in all ages, the visible and external organization, in which the professed disciples of Christ, his sheep, are gathered for better protection. He that enters not by the door, but furtively climbs up some other way, marks himself thereby as evil disposed.

2 But he that entereth in by the[389] door is the shepherd of the sheep.

[389] Verse 7, 9.

=2. He that entereth in by the door the same is a shepherd of the sheep.= Not, as in our English version, the shepherd. The definite article is wanting. Christ does not declare that the evidence that he is the Shepherd consists in the fact that he entered through the door, for he is himself the door. He declares to the Pharisees, who reject him as their Messiah, that there is a double test of the religious teacher: (1) he must enter into the church by the way by which he directs the sheep to enter. There is not one salvation for the teacher and another for the taught; the door is the same to all; and (2) he must enter by the one only door, Jesus Christ. Whoever comes in the name and with the authority of Jesus Christ is a shepherd of the sheep; whoever comes to preach any other Gospel, comes to rob the sheep of their Saviour and salvation (Gal. 1:8, 9; 2 John, ver. 10).

3 To him[390] the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth[391] his own sheep by name and leadeth[392] them out.

[390] Rev. 3:20.

[391] Ezek. 34:11; Rom. 8: 30.

[392] Isa. 40:11.

=3. To him the porter openeth.= “The Holy Spirit is especially He who opens the door to the shepherds; see frequent uses of this symbolism by the apostles (Acts 14:27; 1 Cor. 16:9; 2 Cor. 2:12; Col. 4:3); and instances of the porter shutting the door (Acts 16:6, 7).”--(Alford.) There is the implication here of a truth elsewhere abundantly taught in Scripture, that the teacher has access to the heart of the church only through the influence of the Spirit of God, who opens and closes the heart of the hearer (1 Thess. 1:5; 2:1), and the door of opportunity (Acts 4:7, 8; 16:9; 17:10, 11).--=And he calleth his own sheep by name and leadeth them out.= This figure exactly corresponds with the actual facts of shepherd life in the East. “As we eat and looked, almost spell-bound, the silent hillsides around us were in a moment filled with life and sound. The shepherds led their flocks forth from the gates of the city. They were in full view, and we watched them and listened to them with no little interest. Thousands of sheep and goats were there, grouped in dense, confused masses. The shepherds stood together until all came out. Then they separated, each shepherd taking a different path, and uttering, as he advanced, a shrill, peculiar call. The sheep heard them. At first the masses swayed and moved, as if shaken by some internal convulsion; then points struck out in the direction taken by the shepherds; these became longer and longer, until the confused masses were resolved into long, living streams, flowing after their leaders. Such a sight was not new to me, still it had lost none of its interest. It was, perhaps, one of the most vivid illustrations which human eyes could witness of that beautiful discourse of our Lord recorded by John.”--(Porter.)

4 And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice.[393]

[393] Cant. 2:8; 5:2.

5 And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee[394] from him: for they know not the voice of strangers.

[394] 2 Tim. 3:5; Rev. 2:2.

=4, 5. And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him.= The true pastor is an example and leader as well as a teacher of his people (1 Cor. 11:1; Gal. 4:12; Phil. 3:17; 1 Thess. 1:6).--=A stranger will they not follow.= The stranger is not the shepherd of another flock, but one who is a stranger and a foreigner, outside the fold and separated from the great flock of the Israel of God. The true Christian is never a stranger to the disciples of Jesus Christ (Ephes. 2:19).--=They know not the voice of strangers.= The shepherd knows his own sheep by name, and they know his voice; but the stranger’s voice they do not know. The figure is all true to the life. “The shepherd calls sharply to them from time to time to remind them (the sheep) of his presence. They know his voice and follow on; but if a stranger calls, they stop short, lift up their heads in alarm, and if it is repeated, they turn and flee, because they know not the voice of a stranger. This is not the fanciful costume of a parable; it is a simple fact.”--(Thompson’s Land and Book, I, 301.) This personality of relation between the true religious teacher and the taught, abundantly illustrated by Christ’s personal love for his disciples, and by Paul’s love for the converts gathered under his ministry, is in strong contrast to the distance which was maintained between the Pharisees and the common people. It is not then a fanciful deduction that, under ordinary circumstances, the pastor should have a personal acquaintance with his people, should not have so large a charge that he cannot know his people by name, and should ordinarily depend for his influence upon his personal acquaintance with them, and their personal confidence in him.

6 This parable spake Jesus unto them: but they understood not what things they were which he spake unto them.

=6. This parable spake Jesus unto them.= Rather allegory or obscure saying. The original word (παροιμία) is different from that in the other Evangelists translated parable, and the structure of the teaching is somewhat different from that of the parables narrated by the other Evangelists. See on the nature of the parable, Matthew, ch. 13, Prel. Note. This, however, more nearly approximates a true parable than any other of Christ’s instructions reported by John.--=But they understood not what things they were which he spake unto them.= That is, the Pharisees to whom he was speaking did not understand the meaning and application of his imagery. “They did not feel the application of it; they did not see what shepherds and sheepfolds had to do with them. They could hardly have given a greater proof how little they understood the things which were written in the books they prized most--how their worship of the divine letter had destroyed all commerce between their minds and the realities which it set forth.”--(Maurice.)

7 Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I[395] am the door of the sheep.

[395] Eph. 2:18.

=7.= Verses 7-10 inclusive, contain the first application of the parable, primarily to the Pharisees as religious teachers of Israel, and secondarily to all that claim to be shepherds of God’s people, then or now.--=I am the door.= “That is, through me all the truths and blessings of religion are to be communicated to the flock, or people of God. Whoever addresses them as an authorized teacher must enter through me.”--(Norton.) It is the Holy Spirit (the porter, ver. 3) who opens Christ to the heart and the heart to Christ, and makes it possible for either the sheep (the learners) or the under-shepherd (the teacher) to enter into the fold through him (chaps. 6:37, 44; 14:26; 15:26).

8 All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers: but the sheep did not hear them.

=8. All whosoever came before me are thieves and robbers.= This verse is declared by Tholuck to be “one of the most difficult sentences in the N. T.” If before (πρό) be taken as an adverb of time, as is generally done, then Christ’s declaration is that all religious teachers who preceded him were thieves and robbers, and this would on its face include the long line of prophets from Moses to Malachi; or if the sentence is modified, as some propose, by the fact that the verb is in the present tense, are thieves and robbers, so that Christ embraces only the then living teachers, still this would include such instructors as Gamaliel and Nicodemus, if not John the Baptist, who belonged to that generation. The qualification of this, by the supposition that Christ did not include true teachers but only the false, not only falsifies his declaration which points out the way in which the true may be distinguished from the false, but reduces the sentence to a truism, viz., All false religious teachers who came before me, are thieves and robbers, i. e., teachers of falsehood, depriving men of the truth. The other proposed qualification, All who have come claiming to be Messiah, are thieves, etc., not only adds an important qualification to Christ’s declaration, but is historically an anachronism, inasmuch as there is no historical evidence that any false Messiah preceded the time of Christ. I am inclined, therefore, to take before (πρό) as an adverb signifying precedence in rank or authority, as it does in Col. 1:17, James 5:12, and 1 Pet. 4:8, and to understand the passage, All whosoever come claiming precedence above me are thieves and robbers. The verb come (ἦλθον) is in the aorist tense, and does not necessarily indicate a coming in the past only, but would be properly used for the enunciation of a general principle. The prophets of the O. T. claimed no such precedence above Christ; on the contrary, they were but his heralds; and John the Baptist distinctly disavowed such precedence (Matt. 3:14; chaps. 1:26, 27; 3:30). The Pharisees, on the other hand, denied Christ’s right to teach, because he did not belong to their schools (ch. 7:15), and in their conference with the blind man had put themselves above Christ (ch. 9:16, 24). Where there is no general agreement among scholars, I hesitate to offer an interpretation which differs from all, but this appears to me on the whole more consistent with the context, and with the teaching of the N. T. elsewhere, than any other, and not inconsistent with the original. If this be a correct interpretation, Christ’s claim here is directly antagonistic to those who would make an eclectic religion, by selecting truth from all the world’s religious teachers, including Christ among the rest. For he declares all to be robbing the world of truth, not imparting it, who deny him the pre-eminent rank as a religious teacher. On the other hand, he does not stigmatize genuine moral teachers, such as Buddha or Socrates, as thieves and robbers, for they had no knowledge of Christ, and claimed no precedence above him.--=But the sheep did not hear them.= This has been eminently true of all teachers in the church who have put themselves above Christ; it is the preachers of Christ who alone have secured the world’s attention. This is illustrated by the history of Paul (2 Cor. 4:5), Luther, Wesley, and in our own times Spurgeon, Moody, and others.

9 I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.

=9. I am the door; by me if any enter in, he shall be safe.= Christ is not only the door by whom the shepherd (the teacher) can alone enter in to feed the flock, he is also the door by which alone the sheep (the disciples) can enter into the church and into security (Acts 4:12). The extent and assurance of this safety is expressed below (vers. 28, 29). And observe, the promise is not merely shall be saved in the future, but shall be safe, i. e., from the time of entering the door (ch. 3:18, 36; Rom. 8:1, 28, 31, etc.)--=And shall go in and out and find pasture.= To “go in and out” was a common Hebraistic phrase to denote the whole life and action of man (Deut. 28:6; Psalm 121:8). Here, therefore, the meaning is that he who thus enters the door, shall be blessed in all his ways. His pasture is the bread of life and water of life, promised in chaps. 4:14; 6:48-51. So that Christ is at once the door, the shepherd, and the pasture; the entrance, the guardian and guide, and the food of the disciple.

10 The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.

=10. The thief cometh not but for to steal * * * * I am come that they might have life=, etc. A contrast between false religion and the true, heathenism or Pharisaism and Christianity. The false religion comes to deprive men of their liberty, their property, their earthly happiness, to kill their natural and free life, and to destroy, finally, the soul. The true religion comes first to give this present life more abundant development, and then through that to give eternal life. Hence, whatever form of religion tends to deprive mankind of its free, natural, and joyous life is anti-Christian; the constant tendency of Christ’s teaching and influence is to make the whole life, social, intellectual, moral, and spiritual, more abundant.

11 I[396] am the good shepherd; the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.

[396] Heb. 13:20; 1 Pet. 2:25.

12 But he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth[397] the sheep, and fleeth: and the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep.

[397] Ezek. 34:2-6; Zech. 11:17.

=11, 12.= With these verses Christ gives a new direction to the preceding parable. He has thus far spoken of religious teachers in general, and of himself as the door by which they alone can enter in to feed the flock, and by which alone the flock can enter in to find safety. He now speaks of himself as the Great Shepherd and Bishop of souls (1 Pet. 2:25), under whom are all the shepherds, and in contrast with whom are the hirelings.--=I am the Good Shepherd=, more literally the beautiful Shepherd; but this word (καλός), though strictly speaking esthetic, was used by the Greeks to designate moral beauty, and referred to the most symmetrical and perfect goodness. Throughout the O. T. the church of God is regarded as a fold, Israel as a flock, and Jehovah himself as the Shepherd (Ps. 23; Isa. 40:11; Ezek., ch. 34; Jer., ch. 23; Micah 5:3; Zech., ch. 11). It is impossible but that Christ’s auditors should have understood him as claiming to be this Shepherd of Israel. Observe the difference between the phraseology here and in verse 2; here the good Shepherd; there a Shepherd.--=The good shepherd layeth down his life for the sheep.= This is not a prophecy, equivalent to, I am about to die for my sheep; it is the enunciation of a general principle by which every good shepherd can be distinguished from the hireling; for every good shepherd is ready to sacrifice his life for his sheep because they are his; the hireling flees when danger threatens, because he is an hireling and has no real interest in the sheep. Neither is the expression to lay down the life a circumlocution for die. Christ rarely uses circumlocution of any kind. The good shepherd may or may not be called on to die for his sheep; but he always lays down his life for them. To lay down the life is to consecrate it, devote it to the flock; as a mother, who is always ready to die for her children, but who, living or dying, belongs to her children and surrenders herself to them. So we ought also to lay down our lives for the brethren (1 John 3:16), though comparatively few are ever called on to die for them. Wickliffe and Luther as truly laid down their lives for the flock as Huss and Tyndale. The sacrifice of Christ consisted not merely in his death--which was indeed in its mere physical aspects the least part of it--but in his whole incarnation. His entire life from his advent to the grave was laid down for his sheep. This laying down of his life includes his death; but it includes much more. The whole thirty years was a living sacrifice for sinful humanity (Phil. 2:5-8).--=But he that is an hireling, not being a shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep and fleeth.= Every clause in this sentence must be carefully weighed by the student; for every clause is full of weighty significance. There is nothing in the sentence, if the whole be considered, adverse to a paid ministry. Not every one who is hired is an hireling (1 Tim. 5:18); only he who serves for hire, whether emoluments or reputation; who accordingly is not a shepherd, i. e., has none of the shepherd’s instincts and none of the shepherd’s love for his flock; whose own the sheep are not, i. e., who has none of that sense of ownership in his flock which Paul experienced and expressed (1 Cor. 4:14, 15; 1 Thess. 2:11; 1 Tim. 1:2; Titus 1:4; Philemon 10); who, therefore, careth not for the sheep (ver. 13), but only for himself. Here, as everywhere in Christ’s instructions, it is the evil spirit which he condemns and the right spirit which he exalts. The hirelings of Christ’s day were those among the chief rulers and the priests, the religious teachers of Israel, who believed on Jesus, but would not confess their faith for fear of the hierarchy (ch. 9:22; 12:42, 43; 19:38). The hirelings ever since have been those in the church, whether paid preachers or no, who have feared to withstand falsehood and danger, and have suffered popular sins to pass unrebuked lest they should bring obloquy upon themselves, or loss of friends, or personal peril, or any martyrdom, large or small. The hireling, too, does not merely flee; the true shepherd has sometimes to do this (Matt. 10:23); Christ himself did this repeatedly (Matt. 14:13; Luke 4:30; John 8:59; 10:39). It is characteristic of the hireling that he leaveth the sheep and fleeth. Caution may lead the true pastor to avoid a conflict which will bring greater disaster on the flock than battle; but his caution is always to be exercised for the sheep, not for himself. It is caring for one’s self more than for the church that marks the hireling.--=The wolf catcheth them and scattereth the sheep.= Any and every willful and determined opponent to truth and righteousness is a wolf; whether he is a persecuting power like that of pagan and papal Rome, or a false teacher, a wolf in sheep’s clothing (Matt. 7:15; Acts 20:29). The wolf at this particular juncture was the Pharisaic party, which was ravaging the church of God, and binding heavy burdens on the people, whom Christ denounced, and in battle with whom he suffered death.

13 The hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep.

14 I am the good shepherd, and[398] know my sheep, and am known[399] of mine.

[398] 2 Tim. 2:19.

[399] 1 John 5:20.

15 As[400] the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and[401] I lay down my life for the sheep.

[400] Matt. 11:27.

[401] ch. 15:13; Isa. 53:4,5.

=13-15. The hireling * * * careth not for the sheep * * *=--=I know my sheep.= Christ reiterates the contrast between the hireling and the good shepherd; and indicates anew points of distinction between the two. The hireling careth not for the sheep; he cares only for his wages; the good shepherd knows his sheep and is known by them. In a limited way this is true of the good pastor or shepherd; he knows his flock personally and sympathizingly; he is not merely a preacher to them; he is their best friend and adviser (ver. 3, note). But this knowledge is never perfect, and never can be, in the under shepherd. His insight is imperfect; his sympathy is partial. It is only Christ who can say I know my sheep. “If you would think rightly of the Son of Man, think of the Person who knows thoroughly everything that each one of you is feeling, and cannot utter to others or to himself--every temptation from riches, from poverty, from solicitude, from society, from gifts of intellect, from the want of them, from the gladness of the spirit, from the barrenness and dreariness of it, from the warmth of affection and from the drying up of affection, from the anguish of doubt and the dulness of indifference, from the whirlwind of passion and the calm which succeeds it, from the vile thoughts which spring out of fleshly appetites and indulgences, from the darker, more terrible suggestions which are presented to the inner will. Believe that he knows all these, that he knows you. And then believe this also, that all he knows is through intense, inmost sympathy, not with the evil that is assaulting you, but with you who are assaulted by it. Believe that knowledge, in this the Scriptural sense of it--the human as well as the divine sense of it--is absolutely inseparable from sympathy.”--(Maurice.)--=And am known of mine.= Christ’s knowledge of the Christian is the basis of the Christian’s knowledge of Christ. Both are sympathetic and personal, the knowledge of love. It is because the Good Shepherd knows his sheep that he is known of them. It is because by his knowledge he is able to enter into our innermost experience, and to give us comfort and strength when all human helpers fail, that we come to know him as our Helper and our Strength. We know him as the Good Shepherd only as we follow his guidance, accept the food and water he gives us, are restored by him when wandering, and delivered by him from danger and death.--=As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep.= The connection is not very clear between this sentence and the preceding one, or between the different clauses of this sentence. It seems to me, however, that Christ refers to this knowledge between himself and the Father, not merely to illustrate the knowledge between himself and his disciples, but to turn their thoughts from himself to the Father. Christ has been accused of blasphemy by the Jews; that is, of endeavoring to deflect the reverence and allegiance of the people from God to himself. It must be confessed that there has often been a tendency in his disciples to substitute the Saviour for the Father, to believe in the sympathy of Christ, but not in the sympathy of God, to believe in the love of the Redeemer, but to attribute justice and wrath to Jehovah. Christ guards against this tendency, and refutes this accusation, by the declaration that he knows perfectly every wish and will of the Father, and in the whole course of his self-sacrifice, in all the laying down of his life for humanity, he is carrying out that will. Thus the declaration of this verse leads one to that of verse 17: “Therefore doth my Father love me because I lay down my life.”

16 And[402] other sheep I have, which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and[403] there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

[402] Isa. 49:6; 56:8.

[403] Ezek. 37:22; Ephes. 2:14.

17 Therefore doth my Father love me, because[404] I lay down my life, that I might take it again.

[404] Isa. 53:7-12; Heb. 2:9.

18 No man taketh it from me, but[405] I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I[406] have power to take it again. This[407] commandment have I received of my Father.

[405] Phil. 2:6-8.

[406] ch. 2:19.

[407] ch. 6:38.

=16-18. Other sheep I have which are not from= (ἐκ) =this fold=. Not, Which are in other worlds; for the Bible does not anywhere recognize this world as the fold of God: nor, Others from among the dispersed Jews scattered among the Gentiles; for these were already in “this fold,” none the less belonging to Israel because they were geographically separated from their brethren. The reference is to those whom Christ has among the Gentiles, and, as I believe, still has among the heathen (Acts 10:35; 18:10). They are not, however, in a flock or fold, but scattered (ch. 11:52). Observe, Christ does not say I am to have--the present is not used in lieu of the future. He already has them; they are his sheep; he recognizes as his own those whose spirit is akin to his, though they do not recognize him as theirs (Matt. 25:37-40).--=Them also I must lead.= Not bring, i. e., to the Jewish nation, but lead as a shepherd. He must be leader to all who will follow him, whether Jew or Gentile.--=And there shall be one flock, one Shepherd.= Not one fold, as unfortunately translated in our English version (μία ποίμνη, not μία αὐλή). “Not one fold, but one flock; no one exclusive enclosure of an outward church--but one flock, all knowing the one Shepherd, and known of Him.”--(Alford.) And one flock because one Shepherd; one not in creed, or organization, or method of worship, but one in Christ Jesus (see ver. 30).--=Therefore doth my Father love me because I lay down my life.= Not because I have laid it down, as though the love of the Father were caused by the earthly love and sacrifice of Christ, but because I lay it down. That is, because Christ’s Spirit is one of self-sacrificing love, manifested by, but not alone embodied in the incarnation, he is loved by the Father. See Phil. 2:9; Heb. 1:9.--=In order that I may take it again.= Beware of understanding this, as many of the commentators seem to do, as equivalent to, I die in order that I may rise from the dead. The meaning is interpreted by Christ’s declaration to his disciples: “He that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.” Christ lays down his life by his humiliation, his incarnation, his passion and his crucifixion, that he may take it again in the life of the myriads whom he has redeemed from death by his own death. He takes it again when he sees of the travail of his soul and is satisfied (Isa. 53:11), which he does when those who have been washed and made white in the blood of the Lamb stand before him (Rev. 7:14, 15). So every mother, laying down her life in continued self-sacrifice for her children, takes it again in their developed manhood and womanhood.--=No one taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself.= No one is not equivalent to no man, a translation which weakens if it does not destroy the sense. The sacrifice of Christ, the whole experience of humiliation and suffering, commencing with the laying aside of the glory which he had with the Father and culminating in the crucifixion, was not imposed upon him by any one, neither by man, nor by Satan, nor even by the Father; it was self-assumed. This fact is the answer to all those objections to the N. T. doctrine of the atonement, which misrepresent it as portraying a God who inflicts on an innocent victim the punishment which was deserved by others.--=I have power to lay it down and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.= The word rendered power (ἐξουσία), includes both power and right (see ch. 1:12, note); the word rendered commandment (ἐντολὴ), is not equivalent to authority; the original word always means law or command. Christ’s disciples have no authority to frame self-sacrifices for themselves; doing this is always characteristic of a corrupt and quasi pagan religion. They are to bear with cheerful heroism whatever self-sacrifice the providence of God may lay upon them. So also they have never a right to seek death, but are always to seek to live to the glory of God and for their fellow-men. But Christ voluntarily chose his life of humiliation and cross-bearing; voluntarily sought its privations; and finally went, not to an inevitable death, but to one which he might easily have avoided by flight, if he had acted according to the directions which he gave his followers, and on which the apostle subsequently acted. He might have fled from Jerusalem on the fatal night of his arrest, as he had done before, and this without leaving his sheep to be seized or scattered by the wolf; or he might have been protected by supernatural power (Matt. 26:53). He did not because he had a peculiar authority given to him, which his followers do not possess, to lay down his own life, both in the self-assumed humiliation of the incarnation, and in the final tragedy of his death. And this peculiar authority he possessed because in all his incarnation and passion and death he was carrying out the will and obeying the command of his Father. To us the divine command is interpreted by providence; Christ needed no such interpreter, for he knew the Father’s will, knowing the Father even as he was known by the Father.

19 There was a division therefore again among the Jews for these sayings.

20 And many of them said, He[408] hath a devil, and is mad; why hear ye him?

[408] ch. 7:20.

21 Others said, These are not the words of him that hath a devil. Can a devil open[409] the eyes of the blind?

[409] ch. 9:6, etc.

=19-21. There was a division therefore again among theJews.=--Christ’s fan was in his hand. His teachings were tests of the character of his auditors.--=He hath a devil.= Rather an evil spirit (see ch. 8:52, note).--=Why hear ye him?= Why listen to him at all? The words were addressed by the opponents of Jesus to those who were inclined to believe on him, and indicate the uneasiness with which the Pharisees observed the impression which Christ was making on the less prejudiced and better disposed among the people (comp. ch. 7:46-49).--=These are not the words of one possessed by an evil spirit.= A pregnant saying. Infidelity must afford some explanation of the teachings and life of Christ; and they are not the teachings and life of either a fanatic or a deceiver.--=Can an evil spirit open the eyes of the blind?= These words show that the whole discourse of this chapter was not distant in time from the healing of the blind man narrated in Chapter IX, and was probably closely connected with it.

* * * * *

Ch. 10:22-42. DISCOURSE AT THE FEAST OF DEDICATION.--THE GIFT OF CHRIST: ETERNAL LIFE.--THE POWER OF CHRIST: THE POWER OF THE FATHER.--THE CONTRAST BETWEEN THE O. T. PROPHETS AND CHRIST.--THE EVIDENCE OF CHRIST’S DIVINITY; HIS WORKS.

There is no reason to suppose that Christ left Judea during the time which elapsed between the feast of Tabernacles (ch. 7:2) and the feast of Dedication; on the contrary, the intimate connection between the discourse here reported and the preceding parable of the Good Shepherd (see vers. 26, 27), indicates that this discourse followed almost immediately after that one; certainly while the latter was still fresh in the minds of the people. I believe that the ministry in Judea, reported in John, chapters 7, 8, 9 and 10, was a continuous one, unbroken by any departure into Galilee or Perea.

22 And it was at Jerusalem the feast of the dedication, and it was winter.

23 And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomon’s porch.[410]

[410] Acts 3:11; 5:12.

24 Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly.

=22-24. The feast of the Dedication.= A Jewish feast instituted by Judas Maccabeus, in commemoration of the cleansing of the second temple and altar, after they had been polluted by Antiochus Epiphanes. The profanation took place B. C. 167, the purification B. C. 164. The festival commenced on the 25th day of the ninth month, Kislev, answering to our December, and lasted eight days. It was also called the feast of Lights, from the fact that the Jews illuminated their houses as long as the feast lasted. Instituted by the Maccabean dynasty, and observed chiefly by the more rigid Judeans, it afforded to Christ an audience only of the more narrow-minded and bigoted of the Jews, a fact which must be borne in mind in studying his teaching on this occasion.--=It was winter.=--The fact is stated to explain our Lord’s walking in Solomon’s portico. For description and illustration of this portico, see Acts 5:12, note. This minute detail, the exact locality where he gave this instruction, is one of the many indications which this Gospel affords of being written by an eye-witness.--=The Judeans therefore surrounded him.= The verb (κυκλόω) is generally used in a hostile sense, e. g., of armies encompassing a city (Luke 21:20; Heb. 11:30; Rev. 20:9). This is the meaning here; an excited and threatening crowd hedged about Jesus as he was quietly walking in the porch. “Their fixed design was, not to leave him at liberty till he should have uttered the decisive word.”--(Godet.) This was the earliest manifestation of that design which was finally accomplished when the oath was administered to Jesus by the High Priest, and he was adjured to say whether he was the Son of God (Matt. 26:63, note).--=How long dost thou keep our souls in suspense?= This English idiom almost literally answers to the Greek idiom (τὴν ψυκὴν αἴρεις), which is still more exactly, How long dost thou keep our souls lifted up? i. e., with expectation and uncertainty. Commingled and contradictory feelings in the crowd were probably represented by this question; some hoped that Jesus was the Messiah and desired to compel him to declare himself; others were enraged with him, and desired to extort some utterance which would give them the opportunity to condemn him for blasphemy, or to excite the mob against him.

25 Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not; the[411] works that I do in my Father’s name, they bear witness of me.

[411] ch. 5:36.

26 But[412] ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.

[412] ch. 8:47.

27 My[413] sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:

[413] verse 4.

=25-27. I told you * * * the works * * * bear witness of me.= He had told them (ch. 5:19; 8:36, 56, 58, etc.), not it is true as plainly as he had told the Samaritan woman (ch. 4:26), but more plainly than he had told his own disciples previous to Peter’s confession of faith, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matt. 16:16); and he now answers them as he answered John the Baptist, who, in a very different spirit, preferred the same request for a definite answer to the question, “Art thou He that should come?” (Matt. 11:2-6.) He refers them to his works. The evidence of Christ’s divinity is not in his declaration about himself, nor in the declarations made concerning him by others, but in his life, his character, and the work which he has done and is still doing in the world. Works (ἔργα) includes his miracles but is not equivalent to miracles. See ch. 14:12, note. The reason why he did not answer more directly is well given by Godet: “He could not answer ‘I am,’ for the meaning which they attached to the word Christ had, so to speak, nothing in common with that in which he used it. Still less could he reply, ‘I am not;’ for he was indeed the Christ provided by God, and in that sense he whom they expected.”--=Because ye are not of my sheep, as I said to you.= The reference is either to the implied teaching of the parable of the Good Shepherd, or to some specific statement not reported by the Evangelist. The genuineness of the words as I said to you is doubted by some, but they are regarded as authentic by most critics. What does he mean by ye are not of my sheep. If we look back we shall see that the sheep of Christ are those that hear (i. e., accept and obey) his voice, and follow him (i. e., imitate his life and example). See verses 3, 4, 14, 16, 27. The declaration, then, Ye believe not because ye are not of my sheep, is that those who do not spiritually recognize the beauty of Christ’s teaching, and do not attempt to follow his incomparable example, are not to be expected to be convinced of his divinity by purely intellectual arguments.--The answer to the skeptic is generally, You cannot believe in Christ as your personal Saviour till you begin to recognize and to follow his teaching and example as a prophet and a man. The declaration is the converse of John 7:17. Comp. 2 Peter 1:5-8, where the possession of the Christian virtues is declared to be the efficient cause of a sound Christian knowledge. The creed does not precede but follows spiritual life.

28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they[414] shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

[414] ch. 17:12; 18:9.

29 My[415] Father, which gave[416] them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand.

[415] ch. 14:28.

[416] ch. 17:2.

30 I[417] and my Father are one.

[417] ch. 17:11, 22.

=28-30. And I give unto them eternal life.= Life is the gift of God through Jesus Christ (ch. 1:12; 4:10, 14; 6:27, 32, 51; Rom. 5:17; 6:23; Eph. 1:17), but the necessary condition of receiving it is faith in his Son, i. e., the ability to appreciate spiritual life in its highest and most perfect manifestation, and a readiness to follow after it, by leaving all things else to attain it, as did Paul (Phil. 3:13, 14).--=And they shall never perish, neither shall any pluck them out of my hand.= The word rendered perish is literally destroy themselves (ἀπόλωνται, middle voice); and this seems to me to be the meaning here; otherwise there would be a repetition, the second clause of the promise only reiterating the first clause. The word man is not in the original; any includes all powers, human and superhuman. I, then, understand Christ’s declaration to be that the souls which trust in him shall never destroy themselves, and no one shall pluck them out of his hand; i. e., he promises to protect his disciples both against their own weaknesses and also against the strength of assailants; from fears without and foes within; from treachery in the soul, and from assaults on the soul. See 1 Cor. 10:13; 15:10; Phil. 4:19; Col. 1:11, etc.--=My Father which gave them to me, is greater than all.= There is some uncertainty as to the reading, but the best critics agree in sustaining the received text.--=No one is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand. I and my Father are one.= Without entering into any doubtful disputations respecting the relation of the Father and the Son, a problem which I believe transcends human knowledge, it is evident that the connection here requires us to understand Christ as declaring himself one with the Father, not merely in will or desire, as the disciple is to be one with his Lord, but also in spiritual power. The argument is, “My sheep shall never perish, since my Father who gave them into my hand is greater than all, and I who hold them, am one with him.” This argument would be without force if the meaning was not that Christ’s power is equal to that of the Father. His will might be perfectly in harmony with the divine will, he still could not be trusted as a divine Saviour unless his power was commensurate with his will. So all the best expositors, Alford, Godet, Meyer, Luthardt, Tholuck.

31 Then[418] the Jews took up stones again to stone him.

[418] ch. 8:59.

32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?

33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because[419] that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

[419] verse 30; ch. 5:18; Ps. 82:6; Rom. 13:1.

=31-33.= The moral power of Christ is singularly illustrated by the manner in which he restrains the mob by his voice and compels them to answer his question. That question implies that punishment is due only to wrong actors, and he asks them before they execute sentence, to designate any wrong that he has done. The question is thus analogous to that of ch. 8:46, “Which of you convinceth me of sin.”--Blasphemy was a regularly recognized crime under Jewish law; it consisted in any endeavor to draw away the allegiance of the people from the one true God, and answered to treason with us, Jehovah being under the theocracy, the Supreme head of the nation (see Matt. 12:32, note). The reply of the Jews to Christ’s question plainly shows how they regarded his declaration, “I and my Father are one,” not as indicating mere unity in spirit and purpose, but also in power and essential being. This is not indeed conclusive, for the Jews constantly misunderstood Christ; but it is an indication of his meaning. One practical lesson of the unity of the Godhead, of Christ and the Spirit with the Father, is eloquently presented by Maurice: “The unity of the Father and the Son is the only ground of the unity between the Shepherd and the sheep; undermine one and you undermine both * * * *. Do you think sects would last even for an hour, if there was not in the heart of each of them a witness for a fellowship which combinations and shibboleths did not create, and which, thanks be to God, they cannot destroy. The Shepherd makes his voice to be heard through all the noise and clatter of earthly shepherds; the sheep hear his voice and know that it is calling them to follow him into a common fold where all may rest and dwell together; and when once they understand the still deeper message which he is uttering here, and which the old creeds are repeating to us, ‘I and my Father are one;’ when they understand that the unity of the church and the unity of mankind depends on this eternal distinction and unity in God himself, and not upon authority or decrees of any mortal pastor, the sects will crumble to pieces, and there will be in very deed, one flock and one Shepherd.”

34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified,[420] and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am[421] the Son of God?

[420] ch. 6:27; Isa. 11:2, 3; 49:1, 3.

[421] Phil. 2:6.

=34-36. Is it not written in your law.= He does not say in our law, nor in the law, but in your law. Christ does not identify himself with the Jews, nor regard himself as subject to the law, though made under it, and yielding himself to it for a season. Comp. ch. 7:19; 8:17. The reference is to Psalm 82:6. There is no passage in the law, i. e., in the Pentateuch, which corresponds exactly to Christ’s words here, or to those of the Psalmist; but in Exodus 22:28, the title of “gods” is given to the judges. The Psalm in question is believed to have been written on the occasion of Jehosaphat’s reform of the courts and re-establishment of the law (2 Chron., ch. 19), and it contrasts the unjust judges of Israel, who had been called gods in the law, with God the Judge of all the earth.--=Unto whom the word of God came.= The word of God is not the mere saying, “I have said ye are gods” (Meyer); it is never used in the N. T. in so limited a sense, to signify merely a particular phrase or utterance. It is either, The Spirit of God, i. e., God revealing himself to and through the prophet, as in ch. 1:1 (see note there) and Heb. 4:12; or it is the word given to the prophets by the Holy Spirit and by them repeated to the nation, i. e., nearly equivalent to the O. T. Scripture, as in Mark 7:13; Luke 5:1, etc.--=And the Scripture cannot be broken.= Literally loosened (Matt. 5:19, note). This parenthetical declaration is a very significant testimony to the inspiration of the O. T.--=Whom the Father hath sanctified.= The original (ἁγιάζω) may be rendered either made holy, in the sense of made clean and pure in character, or made holy in the sense of set apart to a holy use. It is evidently in the latter sense that it is employed here.--=And sent into the world.= The sanctifying of Christ preceded the sending into the world. Evidently, therefore, the reference is not to any act recorded in the life of Christ, as the descent of the Holy Spirit at the baptism, but to a consecration in the will of God to the work of redemption, and which preceded the Advent.--=Thou blasphemest.= That is, art guilty of diverting the allegiance of the people from God to thyself.--=Because I said I am a Son of God.= The article is wanting in the Greek, and ought not to be added in the translation.

These verses (34-36) have been sometimes regarded as a partial retraction, or at least a material modification of the declaration, “I and my Father are one;” as indicating that Jesus Christ is a Son of God only as every obedient soul is a child of God (1 John 3:1). If this passage stood alone, such an interpretation might possibly be given to it; but if the audience, the circumstances, the effect, and the other utterances of the speaker be taken into account, it cannot be fairly so understood. This sentence is spoken to a mob for the purpose of checking their rage. They have understood Christ to claim divinity. He does not in terms explicitly disavow it. On the contrary, when his explanation is ended, they resume their design (ver. 39), and he is obliged to flee for his life. We should not look in such an utterance for a disclosure of the profoundest truths respecting Christ’s character, not because Christ would conceal or modify the truth to save his life, but because an angry mob is not the sort of an audience to whom he would choose to reveal it, or indeed could reveal it, a certain receptiveness of soul being necessary to the comprehension of spiritual truth. The argument of these verses seems to me to be this: He to whom the Spirit of God comes, and who receives it and becomes in so far an exponent and manifestation of God, is in a sense divine; he becomes partaker of the divine nature; a sharer of the divine life (Rom. 8:29; Heb. 12:10; 2 Pet. 1:4). This is the testimony of the Scriptures which cannot be set aside. He, then, who is not of this world but from above (ch. 8:23), and whom the Father consecrated above and sent down into this world, is not guilty of blasphemy in calling himself a Son of God. In other words, Christ compares himself with inspired men only to contrast himself with them; he shows that, even according to the principles of the O. T. Scriptures, by which the Jews pretended to condemn him, he was not guilty of blasphemy, even if, being but a man, he had made himself a son and so a representative of God, while he, at the same time, clearly claims to be other and higher than the O. T. prophets and judges. But for the full disclosure of Christ’s character, we must look to his quiet conferences with his own disciples, who were at least willing, if not able, to understand him.

37 If[422] I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.

[422] ch. 14:10, 11; 15:24.

38 But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.

=37, 38. If I do not the works of my Father, put no faith in me.= Works which show forth his power and glory and are in accordance with his will and character (ch. 17:4).--=But if I do, though ye put no faith in me, put faith in the works.= Beware of understanding faith, rendered in our English version by believe, as a mere intellectual act. The idea is, If prejudice against the person of Christ prevents an affectionate regard for him, the soul may still have respect and reverence for the work he has done, and is doing in the world. =That ye may perceive and know= (γνῶτε καὶ γινώσκητε) is the best reading.--Alford, Meyer. To perceive, or recognize, denotes the outward act; to know denotes the permanent state.--=That the Father is in me and I in the Father.= A spiritual unity, such as cannot be predicated of any other son of God. The Father is in the Son because he lives and moves in him; is the spirit which animates and controls and makes divine the man Jesus. The Son is in the Father because his thoughts, wishes, purposes, desires, all centre in Him. The argument of these verses is substantially the same as that addressed by Christ to the Jews in verse 25 (see note there), and that addressed to his own disciples in ch. 14:11. The best evidence of the divinity of Christ is his own character; next is a consideration of the divine work which he has done and is doing in the world.

39 Therefore they sought again to take him: but he escaped out of their hand;

40 And went away again beyond Jordan into the place[423] where John at first baptized: and there he abode.

[423] ch. 1:28.

41 And many resorted unto him, and said, John did no miracle: but all things that John spake[424] of this man were true.

[424] ch. 3:30-36; Matt. 3:11, 12.

42 And many believed on him there.

=39-42. They sought again to take him.= To arrest him. Their passion had time to cool, and they abandoned the idea of mob violence, which would have brought, as in Paul’s case (Acts 21:31, 32), the interference of the Romans. Instead, they endeavored to seize Christ and bring him before the authorities for trial.--=But he escaped out of their hand.= There is no reason to suppose a miracle. In the throng were some at least who believed in him, and under cover afforded by them he could have escaped.--=Where John at first baptized.= See ch. 1:28, note.--=All things that John spake of this man were true.= Being dead he yet spake. Gave his testimony to Christ. See ch. 1:15-34. This was the end of Christ’s Judean ministry proper, which had lasted three months. It had been one of continuous storm. Twice during this period he had been mobbed (ch. 8:59; 10:31); once an attempt was made to arrest him (ch. 7:32, 45); secret plans for his assassination were laid (ch. 7:19, 25; 8:37). All that we know of this ministry is contained in John, chapters 7, 8, 9 and 10; though it is not improbable that the parables of the Good Samaritan and the Pharisee and the Publican, and the incidents at the house of Mary and Martha belong to the same era (Luke 10:25-42; 18:9-14).--=And many believed on him there.= A period of a little over three months, from some time in December to the first of April, intervened between the retreat of Christ from Judea and his final entry into Jerusalem at the Passover week. I believe that this time was devoted to his ministry in Perea, the district beyond Jordan; a ministry of which John here gives a hint, to which Matthew and Mark also refer (Matt. 19:1, 2, etc.; Mark 10:1, etc.), but of which Luke alone gives any full account. See Luke, ch. 10, Prel. Note. Many thronged his ministry there (Luke 11:29; 12:1; 14:15, 25; 15:1). This ministry was broken in upon by the message from the sisters of Lazarus, as recorded in the next chapter. See Prel. Note there.

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

Chapter XI

Ch. 11:1-44. THE RESURRECTION OF LAZARUS.--THE DIVINE OBJECT IN ALL SEEMING EVIL: NOT HUMAN DEATH BUT DIVINE GLORY (4).--THE MYSTERY OF THE DIVINE SILENCE IN OUR SORROW ILLUSTRATED AND PARTIALLY INTERPRETED (6, 12).--THE CONDITIONS OF DIVINE PROTECTION AND THE CHRISTIAN’S SAFETY (9, 10).--THE CHRISTIAN’S DEATH A SLEEP (11).--THE ANGUISH OF “IF” (21, 32).--THE PHARISAIC CREED AND THE CHRISTIAN’S FAITH CONCERNING DEATH AND THE RESURRECTION CONTRASTED (23-27).--CHRIST’S INDIGNATION AT HUMAN FALSEHOOD (33, 38).--CHRIST’S SYMPATHY WITH HUMAN SORROW (35).--THE RESISTANCE OF FAITHLESSNESS; THE OBEDIENCE OF FAITH (39, 41).--THE PRAYER OF ASSURANCE OF FAITH (42).--THE RESURRECTION AND THE LIFE (43, 44).--A PARABLE OF HUMAN SORROW AND DIVINE COMFORT.--A PARABLE OF HUMAN SIN AND DIVINE REDEMPTION. See Supplementary Note.

PRELIMINARY NOTE.--There is nothing in John to indicate the time at which this miracle took place; and there is no general agreement among harmonists respecting it. Robinson places it immediately at the close of Christ’s Judean ministry and prior to his ministry in Perea; Andrews and Ellicott place it at the close of the Perean ministry and immediately preceding the Passion week. The reasons for so doing are: (1) It seems the immediate occasion both of the triumphal procession accorded to Jesus by the spontaneous action of the common people, and of the more deliberate determination on the part of the ecclesiastics of Jerusalem to put him to death. It does not seem reasonable, therefore, to suppose that a long period of active service in another part of the Holy Land intervened between this the greatest miracle wrought by Christ and the effects which it produced, both upon the church party and upon the common people. (2) Immediately after this miracle, and in consequence of the excitement produced by it, Christ retired into the wilderness, and is said by John to have continued there with his disciples; and the implication is that he remained in this retirement until after the Passover (vers. 54, 55). To suppose that the Perean ministry, which lasted something like three months, was interjected into this period of retirement, which is Robinson’s supposition, breaks into the continuity of John’s narrative, and does violence to its order and symmetry, without any adequate reason. (3) Jesus was at a considerable distance from Bethany at the time when Lazarus was taken sick. The sisters sent unto him at once; after receiving their message, he remained where he was two days; but when he reached Bethany, Lazarus had been four days dead (comp. vers. 6 and 39). Presumptively, therefore, he was at least one day’s journey from Bethany, even if we assume that Lazarus had died before the messengers had reached Jesus; more probably he was two days’ journey distant, for verse 11 indicates that the death of Lazarus took place after Jesus had received word of his sickness. Thus the narrative of this miracle tallies with the supposition that Christ was carrying on his ministry in the region beyond the Jordan, rather than with the supposition that he was anywhere in Judea; the more so that we have no intimation in the Gospels of any ministry in Judea except in and about Jerusalem, of which Bethany was practically a suburb. (4) In Luke 13:32, Christ uses the following language: “Behold I cast out devils and I do cures to-day and to-morrow, and the third day I shall be perfected.” This occurs in the Perean ministry, and the “two days” here referred to, have been hypothetically identified with the “two days” during which, according to John’s narrative here, Jesus tarried where he was after receiving the message of Lazarus’s sickness. The coincidence between the two passages is at least curious, though it may be nothing more than a coincidence. These reasons make the chronology of Andrews and Ellicott more probable than that of Robinson. I believe, then, that the resurrection of Lazarus took place in the latter part of February or the early part of March A. D. 30, and that it was followed, after the brief retirement at Ephraim, by the triumphal march of Christ and his disciples up to Jerusalem, and by his Passion and his death there. See Tab. Har., Vol. I, p. 45; for some general considerations respecting this miracle, see Sup. Note, ver. 44.

1 Now a certain man was sick, named Lazarus, of Bethany, the town of[425] Mary and her sister Martha.

[425] Luke 10:38, 39.

2 (It was that Mary which[426] anointed the Lord with ointment, and wiped his feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was sick.)

[426] ch. 12:3; Mark 14:3.

=1, 2. Now a certain one was sick named Lazarus.= The only historic person of this name mentioned in the Bible; the indications are that he was a younger brother. From the incident in Luke 10:38-42, we judge that Martha was the head of the household. Simon, probably the father, though possibly the husband of one of the sisters, was a leper; he had probably died or been banished by the law, because of his leprosy (Matt. 26:6). The family appear to have been one of wealth and social distinction; this is indicated by the facts that they owned their house, had their tomb in their garden, and were able to give three hundred dollars worth of ointment as a costly token of honor to Jesus (John 12:5). I say three hundred dollars worth because the penny, or denarius, was a day’s wages, and therefore equivalent to our dollar. How and where the household first became acquainted with Jesus, we do not know. An ingenious writer in Smith’s Bible Dictionary endeavors to identify Lazarus with the rich young ruler who had great possessions, and went away from Christ sorrowful because he was bid to sell all that he had to give to the poor (Matt. 19:16-22); but this ingenious hypothesis has only its ingenuity to commend it. Of Lazarus’s life after his resurrection, nothing whatever is known; there are traditions respecting him, and his bones were discovered by some of the credulous relic-worshippers of the ninth century in the island of Cyprus; but the traditions are as little to be trusted as the relics.--=Of Bethany.= This village lies on the eastern slope of the Mount of Olives, less than two miles (ver. 18, note) southeast of Jerusalem. See for description and illustration, ch. 12:1, 2, note. Its present name is El-Azarieh, derived from, and memorializing the resurrection of Lazarus. Of course, the house of Simon and of Lazarus, and the tomb of the latter are pointed out to the traveler by the accommodating monks, and of course, nothing is known about either of these sites, except that the tomb cannot possibly be the real one. It is a deep vault partly lined with masonry, entered upon by a long, winding, half-ruined staircase; the masonry is comparatively modern, and the situation of the tomb in the centre of the village is inconsistent with the Gospel narrative; the genuineness of the site is repudiated by Porter, Robinson, Thompson, and defended by no scholar.--=The town of Mary and her sister Martha.= It is so characterized because their home served as a retreat to Jesus during his ministry in Jerusalem, and it is thus distinguished from the Bethany beyond the Jordan mentioned in ch. 1:28, note. There is no reason whatever for identifying this Mary with Mary Magdalene or with the “woman which was a sinner,” or the anointing referred to here and described in ch. 12:1-8 with the anointing performed by that unnamed woman and described in Luke 7:36-50; see note there.--The designation of Bethany as the town of Mary and her sister Martha, whom John has not before mentioned, as well as his incidental reference in the parenthetical sentence following, to the anointing of the Lord by Mary, are indications that John wrote not only with a knowledge of the other Gospels, or at least with the main facts, incidents, and characters described in the other Gospels, but also with the assurance that they were familiar to most of his readers. The fact that Mary’s name is mentioned first, would, taken by itself, imply that she was the elder sister, and the head of the household; but the fact that Martha took the responsibility of providing for the guests in the two instances recorded in Luke 10:38-42 and John 12:1-8, indicates that Martha was the elder sister and the housekeeper.

3 Therefore his sisters sent unto him, saying, Lord, behold, he[427] whom thou lovest is sick.

[427] Heb. 12:6; Rev. 3:19.

4 When Jesus heard that, he said, This sickness is not unto death, but[428] for the glory of God, that the Son of God might be glorified thereby.

[428] verse 40; ch. 9:3.

=3, 4. Lord, behold whom thou lovest is sick.= They have complete confidence in the sympathy of their Lord; they do not urge him to come; they do not present any petition; they simply report their trouble to him.--=He said, This sickness is not unto death.= That is, has not death for its object; (πρὸς with the accusative, marks strictly the object towards which anything is directed.) Christ does not say that Lazarus will not die, but that death is not the end for which this sickness is ordained of God.--=But for the glory of God, that the Son of God might be glorified thereby.= Comp. ch. 9:3, note. He was glorified, (1) perhaps by the development of a higher spiritual life in Lazarus through his sickness, death and resurrection (Trench), though of this the Evangelist gives us no hint; (2) by the manifestation of the divine power of Jesus Christ, as one whom the Father always hears (ver. 42); (3) by the Passion and death of Jesus Christ, to which the resurrection of Lazarus directly led (vers. 47-53). This saying of Christ seems to have been uttered not merely to his disciples; it was apparently his message to the sisters, and to it he refers in verse 40 (see note there).

5 Now Jesus loved Martha, and her sister, and Lazarus.

6 When he had heard therefore that he was sick, he abode two days still in the same place where he was.

7 Then after that saith he to his disciples, Let us go into Judæa again.

=5-7. Now Jesus loved Martha=, etc. This statement is made in explanation of verse 6, that the reader may not fall into the error of supposing that Christ’s delay was due to any indifference or unconcern on his part.--=He abode two days in the same place where he was.= Why? Either because this delay was necessary to complete the work in which he was engaged, and from which he would not suffer himself to be drawn away even by considerations of personal sympathy, he himself acting on the principle “Let the dead bury their dead, but go thou and preach the kingdom of God” (Luke 9:60); or because this delay was necessary to the consummation of the miracle of the resurrection of Lazarus in such form as to forever prohibit the impression that death had not really taken place. The former is the better hypothesis, since in no case does Christ seem to have wrought a miracle for the mere purpose of producing by it a profound impression, and it is therefore hardly consistent to believe that he would have delayed merely for the purpose of making the miracle more startling and marvelous.--=Let us go into Judea again.= This plainly implies that Jesus and his disciples were not then in Judea, and thus incidentally confirms the supposition (see Prel. Note) that the resurrection of Lazarus was subsequent to the close of the ministry in Perea, and that he was summoned from Perea.

8 His disciples say unto him, Master, the Jews of late[429] sought to stone thee; and goest thou thither again?[430]

[429] ch. 10:31.

[430] Acts 20:24.

9 Jesus answered, Are there not twelve hours in the day? If[431] any man walk in the day, he stumbleth not, because he seeth the light of this world.

[431] ch. 12:35.

10 But if a man walk in the night,[432] he stumbleth, because there is no light in him.

[432] Eccles. 2:14.

=8-10. The disciples say to him, Master, the Judeans were just now seeking to stone thee.= On the chronological hypothesis adopted above, the mob in Jerusalem had threatened the life of Jesus about three months previous. But he had not been in Judea since. The disciples attributed Christ’s remaining in Perea to the fear of the Jews, and remonstrated against his again braving them.--=Jesus answered, Are there not twelve hours in the day=, etc. In interpreting Christ’s enigmatical saying here, the student must remember that it was his habit to speak in parables, and that he rarely gave any interpretation of them. This is to be regarded as a condensed and uninterpreted parable. John has himself given us the key to its interpretation by his use of the same metaphor in his Epistle (1 John 1:5-7). God is the light. As he has appointed the hours of activity for the human race, the twelve hours of the day, so he has appointed the hours of service for each individual man. What was true of Christ is true of every one; he cannot die until his time has come (John 7:6, 8, 30; 8:20). He therefore who walks with God in the path of duty, fulfilling the divine will, cannot stumble; no harm can come to him; not a hair of his head can be injured (Psalm 91; Matt. 10:29-31; Luke 10:19; 21:18). He may and must come to his death; but not until his twelve hours have passed away.--But if a man work in darkness, i. e., not with God, not in the path of duty, not endeavoring to fulfil the divine will, for him there is no assurance of protection; he is always liable to stumble and fall. This is the general principle which Christ parabolically asserts; its immediate application here is that to Christ there is no danger in going into Judea, for he will not die until his appointed time has fully come. Comp. ch. 9:4, note.

11 These things said he: and after that he saith unto them, Our friend Lazarus sleepeth:[433] but I go, that I may awake him out of sleep.

[433] Deut. 31:16; Acts 7:60; 1 Cor. 15:18, 51.

12 Then said his disciples, Lord, if he sleep, he shall do well.

13 Howbeit Jesus spake of his death: but they thought that he had spoken of taking of rest in sleep.

=11-13. Our friend Lazarus sleepeth.= An interval is indicated as having taken place between the previous discourse and the present declaration, by the words, after that he saith unto them. Our friend, implies that Lazarus was loved by the disciples as well as by their Lord. This language, coupled with that of verse 3, indicates that he possessed a peculiarly lovable character. Sleep is used both in the O. T. and N. T. as a metaphor of death (2 Chron. 14:1; Ps. 13:3; Jer. 51:57; Job 14:12; Dan. 12:2; Matt. 27:52; Acts 7:60; 13:36; 1 Cor. 7:39; 11:30; 15:6, 18, 20, 51; 1 Thess. 4:13, 14, 15). Some of the rationalistic critics think that the disciples were extraordinarily stupid, not to understand Christ’s metaphor; and yet they are guilty of a similar but greater stupidity. Thus, the author of Supernatural Religion says (Vol. II, 460): “The disciples reply with the stupidity with which the fourth Evangelist endows all those who hold colloquy with Jesus: (Lord, if he has fallen asleep he will recover;)” and yet, on the immediately preceding page, he interprets Christ’s similar declaration respecting the daughter of Jairus (Matt. 9:24): “The maid is not dead but sleepeth,” as “an express declaration” that the case is “one of mere suspension of consciousness.” The misapprehension of the apostles here was not extraordinary; certainly not more so than that afforded by some analogous instances in the first three Gospels (see Matt. 16:7; Luke 22:38). They had understood from verse 4, that Lazarus was to be restored; they had interpreted Christ’s words as a promise of healing; they had witnessed cases of miraculous healing in at least two instances, wrought by a word on an absent patient (Luke 7:10; John 4:50-53); so when Jesus said, “Lazarus is sleeping,” they thought the crisis of the disease had passed, and that there was no reason why their Master should brave the dangers of a Judean mob to go to the bedside of a convalescent friend.

14 Then said Jesus unto them plainly, Lazarus is dead;

15 And I am glad for your sakes that I was not there, to the intent ye may believe; nevertheless let us go unto him.

16 Then said Thomas, which is called Didymus, unto his fellow-disciples, Let us also go, that we may die with him.

=14-16. Then Jesus said unto them plainly= (παῤῥησίᾳ). That is, dropping all metaphor.--=And I am glad for your sakes that I was not there.= He accompanies the declaration of the friend’s death with words of consolation and inspiration. Plain as those words are to us, they must have been inexplicable to the disciples. They did not forecast the resurrection; how could they understand why Christ should not have been present to prevent so great a sorrow. The sympathy of Christ with us in our sorrow does not prevent him, who sees the end from the beginning, from rejoicing even when he sees our tears. He sees the sheaves brought home with joy even while the seed is sown in tears, and rejoices at the tears because of the harvest. To him, faith wrought in the soul is worth immeasurably more than all the sorrow which soul-culture involves (Rom. 5:1-5; 8:18).--=Then said Thomas which is called Didymus=, that is, the twin.--=Let us also go that we may die with him.= With Christ, not with Lazarus. The little that we know about Thomas shows him to have been a man of strong passions and of little faith and hope; to such a man life is full of pathos. He could not believe that Christ could with safety go into Judea again; in this, indeed, he really forecast the result, which was the crucifixion of his Lord; but neither could he bear to be separated from him. Chrysostom notes the power of Christ on this timid nature: “The very man who dared not to go in company with Christ to Bethany, afterwards traveled with him through the inhabited world, and dwelt in the midst of nations that were full of murderers desirous to kill him.” On the character of Thomas, see further, Vol. I, p. 149; John 20:24, note.

17 Then when Jesus came, he found that he had lain in the grave four days already.

18 Now Bethany was nigh unto Jerusalem, about fifteen furlongs off:

=17, 18. He had lain in the grave four days already.= Various explanations are made respecting these four days; they are given in detail in Andrews’ Life of Our Lord. Since, however, we do not know definitely where Christ was, except that it was some point apparently beyond Jordan, and we do not know at all what engagements and duties detained him there, surmises as to the way in which these four days were taken up are decidedly unprofitable. The narrative seems to me clearly to imply that Lazarus was not dead when the messengers first reached Jesus. Probably of these four days, two were occupied by Christ in completing his ministry where he was when he received the message, and two, or part of two days, in a leisurely journey to the home of Lazarus.--=Bethany was nigh unto Jerusalem.= The use of the past tense was, not is, indicates that Bethany had ceased to exist at the time when John wrote his Gospel; it thus incidentally confirms the opinion that he wrote a considerable time after the destruction of Jerusalem, and when that city and its environs were lying waste.--=About fifteen furlongs off.= Literally, stadia. The stadium, is about six hundred feet; fifteen stadia or furlongs were, therefore, about nine thousand feet, or a little less than two miles.

19 And many of the Jews came to Martha and Mary, to[434] comfort them concerning their brother.

[434] 1 Chron. 7:22; Job 2:11; 42:11; Rom. 12:15; 1 Thess. 4:18.

=19. And many of the Judeans came to Martha and Mary.= The word Jews, as used by John, indicates always the inhabitants of Judea, as distinguished from those of other provinces in the Holy Land, and therefore generally those who were prejudiced against, if not absolutely hostile to Jesus. The fact that most of those who were present at the scene about to be described were these Judeans, is an important one, and must be borne in mind by the student, for it gives a peculiar color and significance to the entire narrative.--=To comfort them concerning their brother.= The Jewish mourning rites were most carefully defined by the Rabbinical law; they included rending the clothes, dressing in sackcloth, sprinkling of ashes or dust on the person, fasting, loud lamenting. Professional mourners were employed to increase the noisy demonstrations of grief (see Mark 5:38, note). The days of mourning were thirty, which were divided into three for weeping, seven for lamentation, and twenty for less demonstrative mourning. During the first three days the mourners were forbidden to wear their phylacteries or to engage in any servile work, or to bathe or anoint themselves; during the seven days they fasted or ate nothing but an occasional egg or some lentiles. After the funeral services were over (for account of which see Luke 7:12, note), friends and professional mourners came and sat with the afflicted ones upon the ground, no one speaking until the bereaved ones had done so, but every sentence of theirs was followed by some word of sympathy and comfort or by the wail of the mourners. Everything was done according to a prearranged system; in Phariseeism there was no liberty, even in the hour of grief.

20 Then Martha, as soon as she heard that Jesus was coming, went and met him: but Mary sat still in the house.

21 Then said Martha unto Jesus. Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died.

22 But I know, that even now, whatsoever[435] thou wilt ask of God, God will give it thee.

[435] ch. 9:31.

=20-22. Then Martha * * * went and met him.= Jesus did not enter into the village, but stopped without and sent some one to let the sisters know that he had come. Geikie supposes that he thus remained without from fear of the Jews; but Christ never stopped in the performance of a duty from considerations of fear; his reply to the remonstrances of his disciples (vers. 8-10) should have prevented this prosaic interpretation of Christ’s action. To him the conventional mourning customs of Oriental society were exceedingly distasteful. He who put all the noisy mourners out of the room in which the daughter of Jairus lay dead (Mark 5:40), and who so gently rebuked the noisy and ostentatious lamentations of the women of Jerusalem at the time of his own crucifixion (Luke 23:27-31), might naturally be expected to decline to enter into the circle of formal mourners, with the alternative of either violating the precedents and rules of good society, or of submitting himself in such an hour to the bondage which they imposed.--=But Mary sat still in the house.= It would appear from verse 29, that she did not know that Jesus had come; yet the contrast between the two sisters, the one of whom with bustling activity waited upon her Lord, the other of whom, in the quieter offices of love, sat at his feet to listen to his words, or anoint those feet with precious ointment (Luke 10:38-42; John 12:1-8), reappears here. Martha, who was probably the head of the household, was naturally the first to hear of Christ’s coming, and even in her grief found comfort in activity; to Mary, in the solitude of her sorrow, no one at first reported Christ’s approach.--=Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died.= This is the language both of reproach and of lamentation, though the reproach is implied rather than asserted. Her language expresses the very essence of soul torture at such times. We are slow to believe that our sorrow is “for the glory of God that the Son of God may be glorified thereby,” and in our affliction continually echo Martha’s “if,” saying to ourselves, if we had not done this, or if we had not done that, if it had not been for our blunder or that of our friends or our physician, our beloved would not have died. Chance is the God of Atheism, and is a comfortless God in the time of our trouble.--=But I know that even now whatsoever thou shouldst ask of God, God will give it thee.= This is interpreted by Meyer and Godet as an expression of Martha’s faith that Jesus is able to raise even the dead to life again; but in order to sustain this interpretation, they are obliged to depart from a natural and simple interpretation of Christ’s declaration in vers. 25, 26, to suppose that Martha desired or was anticipating her brother’s resurrection, and yet was so obtuse as to entirely miss the meaning of Christ in that declaration, and, finally, to suppose that the faith which she possessed when she first beheld Christ disappeared when she reached the tomb, where she remonstrated against opening it that the resurrection might be accomplished. I understand Martha’s utterance here to be that simply of an undefined hope. She had counted so much on Christ; he had not come in the hour of her need; all was over now; and yet now that he had come, although too late, she went out to him with a vague, restless hope of some succor or consolation, she knew not what. In our own experience in the unreasonableness of grief, like vague and delusive hopes are not uncommon. Calvin’s interpretation of Martha’s experience better accords both with what we elsewhere know of her character and with the narrative here, than does that of those who eulogize her extraordinary faith: “When she assures herself that her brother would not have died if Christ had been present, what ground has she for this confidence? certainly it did not arise from any promise from Christ. The only conclusion, therefore, is that she inconsiderately yields to her own wishes, instead of subjecting herself to Christ. When she ascribes to Christ power and supreme goodness, this proceeds from faith; but when she persuades herself of more than she had heard Christ declare, that has nothing to do with faith. * * * Martha’s faith, mixed up and interwoven with ill-regulated desires, and even not wholly free from superstition, could not shine with full brightness; so that we perceive but a few sparks of it in these words.”

23 Jesus saith unto her, Thy brother shall rise again.

24 Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the[436] resurrection at the last day.

[436] ch. 5:29.

=23-24. Thy brother shall rise again.= Evidently these words were not understood by Martha to contain a promise of immediate resurrection, and therefore we are not justified in saying that they were so intended by Jesus. They are vague, and are intended to be vague and suggestive, in order to lead on the mind of Martha, and to evoke an expression of her faith. This method of calling out the experience of his pupil was a customary one with Jesus in all his instruction.--=I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day.= This statement of Martha’s faith is to be interpreted by the belief of the orthodox Jews. This was that all the dead departed to Hades or the Under-world, where they dwelt in a shadowy prison-house; the righteous in Paradise; the wicked in Hell; and awaited the coming of the Messiah, who would call all the righteous from the Under-world, while the wicked would be thrust back into it again. Martha believed that her brother had gone to this abode of the dead, and there was awaiting a day of judgment and of resurrection; but she found in this faith very little consolation. Her brother, to her thought, was as if he were not, and dwelt among the dead. A vague hope of a far-distant revival did not comfort her. It is in contrast to, and in correction of this creed, that Christ utters the declaration of verses 25, 26.

25 Jesus said unto her, I am the[437] resurrection, and the life;[438] he that believeth in me, though[439] he were dead, yet shall he live;

[437] ch. 6:40, 44.

[438] ch. 14:6; Isa. 38:16; 1 John 1:2.

[439] Job 19:26; Isa. 26:19; Rom. 4:17.

26 And whosoever[440] liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?

[440] chaps. 3:15; 4:14.

=25, 26. I am the resurrection and the life. He that believeth in me even if he could die= (κἄν ἀποθάνῃ) =yet he should live, and every one that liveth and believeth in me never can die.= The various and conflicting interpretations afforded by the commentators of this declaration of Christ agree only in being complicated and abstruse. It is essential to comfort that it should be simple truth simply expressed; and that Christ should offer as a consolation to Martha a truth so subtle and involved in so much mystery that skillful scholarship can scarce unlock its meaning, seems to me utterly incredible. I understand these words as an embodiment of Christ’s creed respecting life and immortality. Jesus is the source of the resurrection, and the fountain of life. Whoever, therefore, by faith in Christ, has Christ in him the hope of glory, never knows death; to him there is no Hades, no dark and dismal abode of the dead, no long and weary waiting for a final great jail delivery--a judgment and an acquittal. He passes at once from the lower to the higher state; he has already come to the general assembly and church of the first-born (Heb. 12:22-24). What we call death summons him simply to depart and be straightway with Christ (Phil. 1:23; Luke 23:43). The eternal life which Christ here and now gives to those who are by faith united to him (John 5:24), is never suspended. So immortal and potent is this life principle which Christ offers to those who have received him, that, if it were possible that one having died should receive it, he would by it be made to live again. Against the conception, common now as then, of death as a long sleep or a long and dreary waiting for a final resurrection, is Christ’s teaching here that “There is no death; what seems so is transition.” In confirmation of this view, observe, (1) That Christ’s declaration is present, not future: “I am the resurrection,” not, I shall by-and-by become so. (2) The conditional clause though he were dead, is literally even though he should die, and is fairly rendered by the phrase adopted above, even if he could die. (3) Thus interpreted, Christ’s declaration is responsive to Martha’s confession of faith, and leads on to and agrees with the event which follows, the restoration of Lazarus to his earthly life. (4) It accords with the general teaching of the N. T., in which Christ is represented as the source of eternal life, and the death of the saints as a doorway into his immediate presence (Acts 7:59; Rom. 14:8; 2 Cor. 5:8; 1 Thess. 5:10; 2 Tim. 4:8; 2 Peter 1:11, etc.). It is not necessary to give here other interpretations, for they are complicated, incongruous, and almost impossible to classify. They are the results of various and unsuccessful endeavors to bring Christ’s declaration into accord with the Pharisaic faith, which still lingers in the Christian church, of a resurrection and an eternal life postponed to the future, and an abode in death, meanwhile, in some sort of an intermediate state.

27 She saith unto him, Yea, Lord; I believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of God, which should come into the world.

=27. Yea, Lord; I have believed that thou art the Messiah, the Son of God, he who was to come unto the world.= I have believed (πεπίστευκα), the perfect tense, indicates the expression of a well-established faith; perhaps of one which Christ well knew that she had entertained. Martha still adheres to her Pharisaic creed; we do not give up our religious beliefs easily. At Christ’s question, “Believest thou that I am the Resurrection and the Life, and that they that believe in me shall never die?” she replies in effect: “Yea, Lord; I believe that thou art the Messiah of the prophets at whose word all the dead shall come forth from Hades unto judgment.” And in this faith she does have some comfort, because she supposes this day of general resurrection cannot, in the nature of the case, be far distant.

28 And when she had so said, she went her way, and called Mary her sister secretly,[441] saying, The Master[442] is come, and calleth[443] for thee.

[441] ch. 21:7.

[442] ch. 13:13.

[443] Mark 10:49.

29 As soon as she heard that, she arose quickly, and came unto him.

30 Now Jesus was not yet come into the town, but was in that place where Martha met him.

=28-30. She went her way and called Mary her sister secretly.= Evidently, from her words The Master calleth for thee, she did this in obedience to Christ’s direction. She went secretly because she did not desire the presence of the Judeans at the quiet conference between Jesus Christ and herself and sister.--=The Master is come and calleth for thee.= She represses the name, perhaps because she does not desire it to be overheard by those who are present. The general designation, however, the Master or the Teacher is enough. To Mary there is no one else worthy to be called the Teacher.--=As soon as she heard that, she rose quickly.= Therefore presumptively, Mary had not before heard that Jesus had arrived.--=Jesus * * * was in that place where Martha met him.= Not at the grave where Lazarus was buried (ver. 34), but at some point a little outside the village.

31 The Jews[444] then which were with her in the house, and comforted her, when they saw Mary, that she rose up hastily and went out, followed her, saying, She goeth unto the grave to weep there.

[444] verse 19.

32 Then when Mary was come where Jesus was, and saw him, she fell down at his feet, saying unto him, Lord, if[445] thou hadst been here, my brother had not died.

[445] verses 21, 37; ch. 4:49.

=31, 32. She goeth unto the grave to weep there.= It was the custom of Jewish women often to visit the graves of their dead, especially during the first days of mourning. These too obtrusive mourners could not comprehend that Mary might desire solitude in her sorrow. They would not allow her to retreat from them. Thus the private interview which Jesus desired with the two sisters was denied him. Consequently there was no real conference between Jesus and Mary; as soon as she came he asked to be shown the grave.--=She fell down at his feet.= With a more passionate nature than that of Martha, her action and her attitude were both more strongly indicative of her uncontrollable emotion. Possibly she threw herself prostrate at his feet in the form of salutation ordinarily paid by an inferior to a superior in the East; yet, with her face upon the ground, she could hardly have carried on any conference whatever. More probably, therefore, she flung herself at first at his feet, then partially raised herself again to break forth in her reproachful complaint.--=Lord, if thou hadst been here my brother would not have died.= Her language is nearly the same as that of Martha, but she adds no expression of hope; her profounder nature refuses to entertain a hope for which she can give herself no reason.

33 When Jesus therefore saw her weeping, and the Jews also weeping which came with her, he groaned in the spirit, and was troubled,

34 And said, Where have ye laid him? They said unto him, Lord, come and see.

35 Jesus wept.[446]

[446] Isa. 63:9; Luke 19:41; Heb. 2:16, 17.

=33-35. When Jesus therefore saw her lamenting and the Judeans also lamenting which came with her.= The word translated in the English version weeping, but which I have rendered lamenting, is not the same as that employed in the declaration of verse 35, “Jesus wept.” It implies not only the shedding of tears but also every external expression of grief--the loud outcries, the rending of garments, and the whole vociferous and ostentatious manifestation of mourning.--=He groaned in the spirit and was troubled.= There seems to be no doubt that the Greek word rendered groaned, necessarily involves in it the idea of anger or indignation; it is so rendered in the Vulgate and in Luther’s translation. “The words brimaomi (βριμάομαι) and embrimaomi (εμβριμάομαι) are never used otherwise than of hot anger in the classics; the Septuagint and N. T. (Matt. 9:30; Mark 1:43; 14:5), except where they denote snorting or growling proper.”--(Meyer.) With this agree both the lexicons and the critics generally. What was the cause of this indignation? According to some of the older commentaries, Christ was indignant with himself for his weakness in yielding to his emotions; his divinity was irritated at the emotion of his humanity, and violently repressed it. This opinion needs no refutation with those who believe that Christianity tends to intensify, not to suppress the natural affections--that Christian sympathy weeps with those that weep as well as rejoices with those that rejoice; and who find in the tears of Christ at the grave of Lazarus, not a manifestation of human weakness, but an expression of divine sympathy which draws God very near to every sorrowing heart. Others suppose that Christ saw in this scene a type of the woe that sin has wrought in the world; seeing its effects his indignation was aroused. Thus Trench: “He beheld death in all its dread significance, as the wages of sin; the needs of the whole world, of which this was but a little example, rose up before his eyes; all its mourners and all its graves were present to him.” We may certainly believe that this profound sense of the significance of this scene of sorrow affected Christ and intensified his sympathy; that the tears that he shed were tears of sympathy, not only with Mary and Martha, but also with all sorrowing households. This, however, interprets rather his sorrow than his indignation. A simple and natural interpretation of this indignation is afforded by a consideration of the circumstances and surroundings. He was indignant at the display of the affected grief of those who were bitter enemies of the truth, and who would, as he well knew, make use of this very miracle to promote his death, and would even join with those who would seek to put Lazarus himself to death again (ch. 12:10). He was indignant when he saw the Jews also lamenting, and again when he heard the sneer uttered by them (see ver. 37, note). To this effect is Meyer: “He was angered, then, at the Judeans, when he saw them lamenting with the deep-feeling Mary, and professing by their cries (of condolence) to share her feelings, whilst at the same time aware that they were full of bitter hostility to him who was the beloved friend both of those who mourned and of him whom they mourned.”--=And was troubled.= Literally, he troubled himself. The words “indicate a physical emotion, a bodily trembling, which might be perceived by the witnesses of this scene.”--(Godet.)--=Lord, come and see.= They did not anticipate his purpose; they simply invited him to come to the grave, as would be natural in such circumstances.--=Jesus wept.= The Greek (δακρύω) signifies simply shedding of tears, weeping silently. This silent dropping of the tears from his eyes is in contrast with the weeping over Jerusalem (Luke 19:41, κλαίω). That was a public lamentation of a prophet; this was the expression of the personal sympathy of a friend. Beware of that false philosophy which represents Christ as weeping only as a man. In this, as in every utterance of his nature, he was God manifest in the flesh. By his tears at the grave of Lazarus he interprets to us the divine sympathy which shares all our sorrows, however much the great Sympathizer, with his clear view of final results, may, like Christ, be glad of the brief experience of grief that is soon to produce so much joy (ver. 15).

36 Then said the Jews, Behold, how he loved him!

37 And some of them said, Could not this man, which[447] opened the eyes of the blind, have caused that even this man should not have died?

[447] ch. 9:6.

=36, 37. Then said the Judeans, Behold how he loved him; but some of them said, Could not this fellow who opened the eyes of the blind have caused that even this man should not have died?= Some, touched by Christ’s genuine though silent sorrow, in striking contrast with the noisier demonstrations of grief of the less sincere mourners, expressed their sense of the Rabbi’s love for his friend; others replied with a sneer. This is indicated in the original by the Greek particle (δέ), which our English version renders and, but which should be rendered but; and by the phrase This fellow, which fairly represents the spirit of the original (see ch. 6:42, note). They referred, not to previous resurrections, for these had taken place in Galilee, and with them they were not familiar, but to the healing of the blind man, which had only a little previously taken place in Jerusalem, and which had led to a formal investigation by the Sanhedrim, and no little public excitement (ch. 7).

38 Jesus therefore, again groaning in himself, cometh to the grave. It was a cave, and a stone lay upon it.

=38. Jesus therefore, again indignant in himself.= He is indignant at the sneer, and his manner gives some expression to his indignation, though it is not uttered in words.--=Cometh to the grave. It was a cave, and a stone lay upon it.= The grave was sometimes cut perpendicularly in the rock, but the declaration that it was a cave implies that the tomb of Lazarus was in a horizontal chamber. The phrase A stone lay upon it, may as well mean that a stone was laid against the open doorway as upon a perpendicular opening. “The family vaults of the Jews were sometimes natural (Gen. 23:9), sometimes, as was this, artificial, and hollowed out from a rock (Isa. 22:16; Matt. 22:60), in a garden (John 19:41), or in some field, the possession of the family (Gen. 23:9, 17-20; 35:8; 1 Kings 2:34), with a recess in the sides (Isa. 14:15), wherein the bodies were laid, occasionally with chambers one beyond another. Sometimes the entrance to these tombs was on a level; sometimes, as most probably here, there was a descent to it by steps. The stone which blocked up the entrance and kept aloof the beasts of prey, above all the numerous jackalls, which else might have found their way into these receptacles of the dead and torn the bodies.”--(Trench.) For further description and illustration of Jewish tomb, and the manner of closing it with a circular stone, see Mark 16:2-4, note. Presumptively, in this case, the stone was rolled away from the door of the cave, and Jesus and the friends stood in the doorway, while from the inner chamber or recess where the body of Lazarus had been laid, he issued forth at the word of the Lord. The accompanying illustration (p. 146) better represents the nature of the scene than it is possible to do by description only.

39 Jesus said, Take ye away[448] the stone. Martha, the sister of him that was dead, saith unto him, Lord, by this time[449] he stinketh: for he hath been dead four days.

[448] Mark 16:3.

[449] Ps. 49:7, 9; Acts 2:27.

40 Jesus saith unto her, Said[450] I not unto thee, that, if thou wouldest believe, thou shouldest see the glory of God?

[450] verses 4, 23.

=39, 40. Martha * * * saith unto him, Lord, already he stinketh.= This is taken by Alford as the statement of the plain fact, and he apparently believes that it was made sensible by the ill odor which proceeded from the cave. Trench objects that this supposition gives to the miracle almost “a monstrous character.” The text seems to me to determine the question. Martha asserts the decomposition of the body, not as a fact known, but as a conclusion deduced from the length of time that had passed since the death. With her it clearly was an opinion--whether correct or not is purely a matter of surmise. Apparently the body had not been embalmed; no explanation is offered of this singular fact. In the East it was usual to embalm the corpse at once.--=For he hath been four days= (dead). We may supply either the word dead, as the translators have done, or the word buried; it will make little difference, for burial in the warm climate of the East usually took place on the day of the death. It was a Jewish notion that for three days the spirit wandered about the sepulchre hoping that it might return unto the body; but on the fourth day it abandoned this expectation and left the body to itself. Thus Martha’s expression involves the idea that all hope of resuscitation was past, and negatives the interpretation of Meyer that her language in verse 22 implies her hope of a present resurrection.--=Said I not unto thee.= The reference is probably to the message sent to the sisters as reported in verse 4.--=If thou wouldst believe, thou shouldst see the glory of God.= The faith of the sisters was to be displayed, not in any definite expectation of the work which their Lord was about to accomplish, but in obedience to his directions; and in fact Martha tacitly withdraws her remonstrance, and the stone is rolled away from the grave. The performance of the miracle was itself dependent on the fulfillment of the condition, If thou wouldst believe. The New Testament throughout treats faith as the power of moral and spiritual discernment, and therefore the fundamental condition of receiving the divine blessing. “To unbelieving Martha, Jesus could no more have restored the dead brother, than to the unbelieving Jairus his child (Luke 8:50), or to the widow of Nain her son, if her attitude toward his compassion and his injunction ‘Weep not’ (Luke 7:13), had been one of unbelief.”--(Meyer.) Observe the order in which Christ put seeing and believing. Men are always desirous to see in order to believe. Martha is called upon to give an example of the contrary course: to believe that she may see.

41 Then they took away the stone from the place where the dead was laid. And Jesus lifted up his eyes, and said,[451] Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard me.

[451] ch. 12:28-30.

42 And I knew that thou hearest me always: but because of the people which stand by I said it, that they may believe that thou hast sent me.

=41, 42. They took away therefore the stone.= The words where the dead man was laid are wanting in the best manuscripts.--=And Jesus lifted up his eyes.= Toward heaven; not because God is in heaven more truly than upon earth (Ps. 139:7-12), but because the visible heaven is ever suggestive to the human mind of the invisible God; and Jesus thus quickened his own faith in the Father, as we may well do. He prayed toward the heavens as the devout Jew prayed toward the temple (1 Kings 8:30; Dan. 6:10).--=Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard me.= It is not necessary to suppose, as Alford does, a reference to some previously uttered prayer, in Perea, for example, when the message respecting Lazarus’s sickness was brought to Jesus. The language is that of the assurance of faith--faith in a God who hears the desire before it is expressed in prayer, who teaches the believing soul how and for what to pray, and who thus continually answers our prayers by anticipation. Christ regards his prayer as answered before it is presented.--=And I knew that thou hearest me always.= Alike when the prayer is granted and when it is denied; at the grave of Lazarus and in the agony in Gethsemane. God hears us when his providence says No to our petition none the less than when it says Yes. The true Christian’s faith, like Christ’s faith, rests not on the answer but on the direct personal consciousness of spiritual communion with God.--=But because of the people which stand by I said it.= Thus Christ on occasion violates the letter of his own rule which prohibits men to pray “that they may be seen of men” (Matt. 6:5, 6), just as in Gethsemane he seemed to violate the letter of his rule against repetitions in prayer (comp. Matt. 6:7 with Matt. 26:44). Here his prayer was public in order that men might know that he did pray, and that his resurrection power was not his own but was given to him by his Father, and thus might glorify not him, but the Father in him.--=That they may have faith that thou hast sent me.= Not merely that they might believe intellectually that he was a messenger or representative sent by the Father, but that their thoughts might be turned from him, who was but the instrument, the voice of God, to the invisible Father himself, who spoke in him and wrought through him. This prayer of thanksgiving is in instructive contrast with the prayer of Elijah when he raised the dead (1 Kings 17:20, 21). There was the earnestness of an anxious faith; here is the assurance of a restful faith; there the importunity of request intensified by a fear of denial; here the calmness of thanksgiving already assured of a favorable response. The simple grandeur of this prayer has not prevented it from being criticised as artificial (Supernatural Religion), “a show prayer” (Weisse), “a sham prayer” (Baur). If prayer were only petition there would be ground for this criticism; but if prayer is the frank and free communion of the soul with its Father, there is none. It will seem artificial only to those who are unable to comprehend the filial relation between a Son and his heavenly Father.

43 And when he thus had spoken, he cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth.

44 And[452] he that was dead came forth, bound hand and foot with graveclothes; and his face[453] was bound about with a napkin. Jesus saith unto them, Loose him, and let him go.

[452] 1 Kings 17:22; 2 Kings 4:34, 35; Luke 7:14, 15; Acts 20:9-12.

[453] ch. 20:7.

=43, 44. He cried with a loud voice.= The previous prayer had been spoken in a subdued voice; apparently, this is implied by the suggested contrast, was only heard in Christ’s immediate vicinity. The others knew that he was praying, and thus recognized the miracle as a result of his appeal to his Father; but they did not hear the words of the prayer. The “loud voice” was a type, a suggestion of that voice like the sound of many waters (Rev. 1:15), at which all who are in their graves shall come forth (John 5:28; 1 Thess. 4:16).--=Lazarus, come forth.= Literally Here! out! “The simplicity of these two words, are in glorious contrast with their efficacy.”--(Godet.)--=And he that had been dead came forth, bound hand and foot with grave-clothes.= Literally swathing-bands (χειρία). The supposition of Chrysostom, Lightfoot and others that this coming forth bound necessitated a new miracle is entirely unnecessary. It was the Jewish custom to wrap the dead comparatively loosely in a winding sheet or shroud, which would have impeded though not prevented arising and walking. The exact nature of the swathing-bands does not appear to be known. The word occurs nowhere else in the N. T. There is, however, no reason to suppose that the limbs were so tightly bound that motion would be impossible. The same word is used in classic literature to signify a flounce worn about the bottom of the dress of the living. The accompanying cut, which in its representation of the tomb and grave-clothes, is produced from a careful study of the best archæological authorities, illustrates the probable appearance of Lazarus better than descriptive words could do. --=His face was bound about with a napkin.= A handkerchief; probably, as sometimes with us, to prevent the falling of the lower jaw.--=Loose him and let him go.= Christ gives them something to do. This is partly to recall them from their speechless and dazed astonishment, partly to prevent the too great and dangerous revulsion of feeling, partly because he has done his work and would bid them to do what in them lies to be sharers with him in the restoration of the loved one to life and liberty. In this is a moral significance; we cannot raise the spiritually dead; but we can bring Christ to their grave by our prayers, and we can aid in their perfect liberation when the divine voice has called them from their sleep of death.

* * * * *

NOTE ON THE RESURRECTION OF LAZARUS.--This miracle is recorded only by John. Why? It was not only the climax of all Christ’s wonderful works, but it also led directly on the one hand to the triumphal procession into Jerusalem, which is recorded by all, and on the other to the final plans for Christ’s arrest and crucifixion. Several explanations have been suggested for the silence of the synoptists: (1) That the miracle aroused hostility to Lazarus and his sisters, and involved them in danger (ch. 12:10), and that therefore all mention of it was omitted (Godet, Olshausen). But this hostility could hardly have continued to threaten any real danger to Lazarus for twenty-five or thirty years; and if it did, we can hardly think that he or his sisters would have shrunk from being designated as living witnesses to the resurrection power of their Lord. They would rather have gloried in being permitted to suffer for him. (2) That the narration of the resurrection would have made the household “the focus of an intense and irreverent curiosity” (Farrar). But it would also have made them the focus of an intense and reverent desire to know something with greater certainty respecting Jesus and his work. And if the miracle were wrought for the glory of God, to keep silence respecting it was to weaken if not to destroy its intended effect. (3) That the Synoptists confine themselves to a narrative of Christ’s Galilean ministry and exclude all the events in Judea prior to the Passion week (Meyer). But this does not explain the omission of this miracle; it simply reiterates the fact, and leaves the perplexing problem unsolved. Why should the Synoptists avoid all mention of miracles and teachings in Judea, especially one so notable as this? I agree with Trench in saying that to this question it is now difficult to find a satisfactory answer. Possibly Peter, from whom Mark is believed to have derived all his information, and Matthew were not present, and each may have limited himself to facts actually witnessed by them. This still leaves Luke’s omission of the miracle unexplained.

The significance of this miracle as an evidence of Christ’s divine character, authority and mission has always been felt, even by the more resolute unbelievers in historic Christianity. Thus Spinoza declared that “could he have persuaded himself of the truth of the raising of Lazarus, he would have broken in pieces his whole system, and would have embraced without repugnance the ordinary faith of Christians.” Various rationalistic explanations have been attempted, of which the chief are the following: (1) The mythical (Strauss), i. e., that the story is a myth which grew up out of some slight foundation, assumed its present form in the second or third century, and then was embodied in this narrative by an ecclesiastical forger, who used John’s name to give sanction to his story. (2) That the story was created by the writer for the purpose of illustrating the truth that Christ is the resurrection and the life, and that it was developed by him out of some conversation of Jesus, or perhaps out of the parable of Lazarus and the rich man, or possibly out of some incident in the life of Lazarus. It is even suggested that Nain is an abbreviation of Bethany, and that the narratives of the resurrection of Lazarus and of the widow of Nain’s son have a common origin (Schenkel). To such straits is naturalism reduced in dealing with the miraculous. (3) That the death of Lazarus was apparent, not real; that the resurrection was a fraud contrived by the friends of Jesus in order to give eclat to his anticipated entry into Jerusalem, and that to this fraud he lent himself, in a moment of intense fanatical enthusiasm (Renan). The various explanations are stated more in detail by Meyer, but may all be reduced to these three: a denial that John wrote the account; a suggestion that he invented it, building on a very slight foundation; and a suspicion that it was a fraud perpetrated by Lazarus and the sisters and acquiesced in by Jesus. The only alternative is belief in the miracle. The evidence of John’s authorship of the Fourth Gospel (see Introduction) refutes the first hypothesis; the simplicity of the narrative and the character of John, the second; the character of Christ himself, the third. The narrative itself is neither ideal nor dogmatic, neither an artistic picture nor a concealed argument. It is a perfectly colorless narrative of events concerning which there was no possible room for mistake. The writer does not draw from the narrative any conclusion; he does not say that any miracle was wrought or even that the dead was raised. He simply tells his readers what he saw and heard, and leaves them to draw their own conclusions. He was with Jesus beyond Jordan; word came to them that Lazarus was sick; Jesus remained where he was two days; then he told the disciples that Lazarus was dead; when they reached Bethany they found a scene of mourning; the friends had come according to Jewish custom to console the sister’s family; both sisters stated impliedly and reproachfully that Lazarus was dead; when they arrived at the grave, one of them said that he had been dead four days, and that corruption--though this apparently was only her presumption--had already commenced; Christ directed the stone to be rolled away, commanded in a loud voice, “Lazarus, come forth,” and he came forth bound in his grave-clothes. A scientific commission could not have reported the facts with more absolute impartiality. The writer expresses no opinion whatever respecting the occurrence. This is not the method of an idealist who has invented the occurrence for the purpose of glorifying his Master, or of a dogmatist who has written it to prove a doctrine; it is the language of a pre-eminently honest, fair-minded and impartial witness. And upon this narrative the great mass of readers and students have come to but one conclusion--that to which both friend and foe came at the time--that it was a genuine resurrection of the dead, a great and notable miracle.

An instructive parallel may be traced between the experience of these sisters in their sorrow and that of many a Christian household since. (1) The burden of grief. When the sisters first sent for Christ to come, he delayed. Still he often delays to answer our petitions. The house of mourning is sometimes a Christless house, not only because of our infirmity (Psalm 77:10), but also because of his will. We, like our Master, seem sometimes to be forsaken of our God (Matt. 27:46). (2) The aggravation of grief. Both sisters approach Christ with an “if”:--“If thou hadst been here my brother had not died.” But his death was not the result of an “if,” but for the glory of God. There is no “if”; nothing ever happens. Even the cup which Judas, Caiaphas, Herod and Pilate mingle for Christ is the cup which his Father gives him (ch. 18:14; Acts 2:23; 4:27, 28). (3) The sympathy of Christ. The tears of Jesus are a witness to the breadth and depth of the divine sympathy. He feels the anguish of our present sorrow though he stands by a grave so soon to be opened, perceives prophetically the resurrection so soon to take place, and knows that weeping is but for the night and joy cometh in the morning. See Heb. 4:15, 16. (4) The true and false conception of death. We too often imagine, as Martha, the believer awaiting in Hades a future resurrection and a remote restoration to life. Our hearts are dead because buried in the grave of our loved ones. To us Christ declares here that the believer never dies, but steps at once from the lower to the higher life, through the grave into heavenly companionship (Luke 23:43; Phil. 1:23). (5) The power of Christ. This scene is a witness to the truth that all the dead shall hear his voice and come forth in resurrection. Death is but a sleep; from it he will awaken all that sleep in him (Dan. 12:2; John 5:21-29; 6:39; 1 Cor. 15:26, 54; 2 Cor. 4:14; Col. 3:4; 1 Thess. 4:14-17; Rev. 1:18; 20:14). (6) A parable of redemption. Sin a spiritual death; Christ the spiritual life-giver.

* * * * *

Ch. 11:45-57. THE EFFECT OF THE MIRACLE.--IT PRODUCES FAITH IN SOME; IT INTENSIFIES ENMITY IN OTHERS.--AN UNPRINCIPLED MAN AN UNCONSCIOUS PROPHET.--CHRIST’S SACRIFICE: VICARIOUS; FOR SINNERS; FOR ALL PEOPLE.--CHRIST FEARS NEITHER TO FLEE FROM NOR TO FACE DANGER.--FALSE SEEKING FOR CHRIST ILLUSTRATED.

45 Then many of the Jews which came to Mary, and had seen[454] the things which Jesus did, believed on him.

[454] chaps. 2:23; 10:41, 42; 12:11, 18.

46 But some of them went their ways to the Pharisees, and told them what things Jesus had done.

=45, 46. Many of the Jews * * * believed on him.= Not necessarily were spiritually converted. They recognized in him a prophet, perhaps even the Messiah.--=But some of them went to the Pharisees.= But (adversative) marks the contrast between the two classes, and indicates their hostile purpose. The term Pharisees here, as frequently with John, indicates the rulers of the Jews, the Jewish hierarchy.

47 Then[455] gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council, and said, What[456] do we? for this man doeth many miracles.

[455] Ps. 2:2.

[456] Acts 4:16.

48 If we let him thus alone, all[457] men will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation.

[457] ch. 12:19.

=47, 48. A council.= A meeting of the Sanhedrim. On its constitutional character and methods of procedure, see Vol. I, p. 298. Geikie gives us no good reason for accepting his dogmatic statement that the Sanhedrim had before this time been broken up by Herod.--=What do we? for this man doeth many miracles.= Not, What shall we do? but, What are we doing? They reproach themselves for their inaction. There is an ellipsis in the sentence; the meaning is, Something must be done, for this man, etc. For similar instance of perplexity see Acts 4:16. It always exists where conscience gives a clear command which ambition and selfishness refuse to obey.--=If we let him thus alone.= This was a causeless self-reproach; for they had already condemned him without trial (ch. 7:30, 50, 51), and determined to excommunicate all his followers (ch. 9:22). It indicates a purpose which the speaker dared not put in words, to proceed to more extreme measures.--=The Romans shall come and take away both our place and our nation.= Our place, it seems to me, designates neither the city, the land, nor the temple; but the office of these rulers. They were placemen, and feared the loss of their dignities and authority in the utter overthrow of the nation, which did, indeed, subsequently take place. But why should they fear this from any increase of Christ’s popularity? Not, as Augustine interprets, because he would persuade all men to live peaceful lives, and so prevent any successful revolt against the Roman government. In common with all the Jews, they expected in the Messiah a temporal king; the people had already attempted to crown Christ as king (ch. 6:15); the council did not believe that he was the Messiah, did not believe that any attempt by him to emancipate the nation would succeed; and yet his popularity was such, and the popular movement which they anticipated was likely to be such, as to provoke from the Romans the destruction of what little national life was left. Their selfishness blinded them utterly to the true nature of Christ’s mission.

49 And one of them, named[458] Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all,

[458] ch. 18:14; Luke 3:2; Acts 4:6.

50 Nor consider that it is[459] expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.

[459] Luke 24:46.

=49, 50.= Caiaphas puts boldly into words thoughts which others less unscrupulous dared not phrase. He overrules all scruples, whether those of conscience against the murder of an innocent man and evident prophet, or those of the Pharisaic party against appealing to the Roman government to put a prophet to death, which was necessary to carry out their purpose (Matt. 27:1, 2, note).--This he does by a Jesuitical casuistry: It is better that one innocent man should die than that the nation should be destroyed. Thus a pretended patriotism is made to cover a proposed judicial murder. The argument is that of an unprincipled politician: the end justifies the means. The signification here and in verse 51 of the phrase “high priest that year” is somewhat uncertain. Caiaphas, the son-in-law of Annas, really held the office from A. D. 27 to A. D. 36 or 37. The high priesthood was originally a life office. It was now bestowed and taken away by the Romans at their will. In 107 years there were twenty-seven appointees. I am inclined to think the language here a sarcastic reference to the degenerate nature of the office; John refuses to give to Caiaphas the honor once but no longer due to the high priesthood. Prof. Fisher (Beginnings of Christianity) explains it “on account of the supreme importance which ‘that year’ of the trial and crucifixion of Jesus had in his (John’s) mind.” The language of Caiaphas here agrees with his course in Matt. 26:62, 67. He was an unscrupulous, vehement, and self-seeking ecclesiastical politician, such a leader as is often produced by a degenerate and turbulent era.

51 And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation;

52 And not[460] for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered[461] abroad.

[460] Isa. 49:6; Rom. 3:29; 1 John 2:2.

[461] ch. 10:16; Ephes. 2:14-17.

=51, 52.= The meaning of the Evangelist is plain. It is not merely that by accommodation a prophetic reference to Christ’s sacrifice can be put upon the words of Caiaphas, but that, unwittingly, he prophesied of that death and its signification. So Balaam prophesied blessing to Israel despite himself (Numb., ch. 23). “He who believed in no angel or spirit was compelled to be the spokesman of the Divine Word, even when he was plotting his death. Strange and awful reflection! And yet so it must be--so experience shows us continually that it is. Our words are not our own; we are no lords over them whatever we may think.”--(Maurice.) Observe the two truths connected with the atonement here indicated: (1) that Jesus Christ dies for the nation which by its constitutional rulers is plotting his death; he dies for sinners, not for the righteous (Rom. 5:6-8); (2) by his death he gathers into one, i. e., into one nation or kingdom (see Matt. 21:43, note) the children of God from every nation under the heavens (Matt. 8:11; John 10:16; 17:20, 21; Ephes. 2:16-18; Col. 3:11; Rev. 5:9). “The cross was emphatically a message to mankind, to all tribes and races within the circle of the empire that had appointed this punishment for rebels and slaves. It is a thought which possessed the minds of all the apostles--of none more than St. John. The cross was to do what the eagle had tried to do. It was to bind men in one society.”--(Maurice.)

53 Then from that day forth they took counsel together[462] for to put him to death.

[462] Ps. 109:4, 5.

=53.= The speech of Caiaphas was successful; it united Pharisee and Sadducee in an agreement to do whatever might be necessary to compass the death of Jesus. The effect of this agreement is seen in their subsequent course (Matt. 22:15, 16, 23; 27:1, 2).

54 Jesus therefore walked no more openly[463] among the Jews: but went thence unto a country near to the wilderness, into a city called Ephraim,[464] and there continued with his disciples.

[463] chaps. 7:1; 18:20.

[464] 2 Sam. 13:23; 2 Chron. 13:19.

=54.= The site of Ephraim is involved in some uncertainty. The “wilderness” probably designates the wild uncultivated hill country northeast of Jerusalem, lying between the central towns and the Jordan valley. Dr. Robinson identifies Ephraim with the Ophrah referred to in Josh. 18:23; 1 Sam. 13:17, the Ephraim or Ephram referred to in 2 Chron. 13:19, and the modern et-Taiyibeh, and Ewald supposes it to be the same Ephraim near which occurred the murder of Amnon (2 Sam. 13:23). Taiyibeh is four or five miles east of Bethel and sixteen from Jerusalem, is situated on a conspicuous conical hill, and commands an extended view over the whole eastern slope, the valley of the Jordan and the Dead Sea. But the identification with Taiyibeh is only hypothetical. See Andrews’ Life of our Lord, p. 385. Christ must have returned to this place immediately after the resurrection of Lazarus, and his place of retirement was evidently unknown to the public (ver. 57). The “disciples” who abode there with him undoubtedly included the twelve, but may have also included others. The length of his stay is uncertain. If the chronology which I have adopted (see ch. 11, Prel. Note), be the correct one, it could only have been for two or three weeks, not five or six weeks as supposed by Andrews and Ellicott. It is not improbable that the special instructions concerning prayer, reported by Luke, were given during this period of retirement (Luke 11:1-8: 18:1-14). There is nothing in Luke to fix the time or place of these instructions; but as Christ was accustomed to draw his illustrations from circumstances and events occurring about him, it is probable that at least the parable of the Pharisee and the publican was given in or near Judea. From Ephraim Christ went up to Jerusalem to attend the last Passover, and to his passion there. See ch. 12, Prel. Note.

55 And[465] the Jews’ passover was nigh at hand: and many went out of the country up to Jerusalem before the passover, to purify themselves.

[465] chaps. 2:13; 5:1; 6:4.

56 Then[466] sought they for Jesus, and spake among themselves, as they stood in the temple, What think ye, that he will not come to the feast?

[466] ver. 8; ch. 5:16, 18.

57 Now both the chief priests and the Pharisees had given a commandment, that, if any man knew where he were, he should shew it, that they might take him.

=55-57. Out of the country.= From different parts of the country: not only from Palestine, but from remote provinces where the dispersed Jews were scattered. (See Acts 2:9-11.)--=To purify themselves.= No special purifications were required by the O. T. before the Passover, but the people were commanded to purify themselves before any important event (Gen. 35:2; Exod. 19:10, 11), and were accustomed to go through certain special rites of purification prior to the Passover (2 Chron. 30:13-20).--=Then sought they for Jesus=, etc. “Verse 56 graphically describes the restless curiosity of these country people, who were collected in groups in the temple and discussing the approaching arrival of Jesus.”--(Godet.) His miracles and teachings in Galilee and Perea, and above all the resurrection of Lazarus, led his friends and quasi disciples to expect his immediate revelation of himself as the Messiah (Luke 19:11); while the fact that the Sanhedrim had pronounced against him and given orders for his arrest coupled with his sudden disappearance, led others to think that he had fled from the country, or at least would for the present conceal himself (comp. John 7:11, 12).--=But the chief priests and the Pharisees=, etc. (δὲ οἱ ἀρχ.; the first καὶ is spurious). This is stated as an explanation of the doubt of the people whether Christ would appear or no. Godet’s suggestions that the order was given to intimidate Christ and his disciples is reasonable; for it could not have been difficult to ascertain Christ’s place of retreat, and when he emerged from it, and came up with peculiar publicity to the feast, no attempt was made to arrest him. According to a Hebrew tradition, as reported by Lightfoot, an officer of the Sanhedrim, during the forty days preceding this Passover, “publicly proclaimed that this man, who by his imposture had seduced the people, ought to be stoned, and that any one who could say aught in his defence was to come forward and speak. But no one doing so, he was hanged on the evening of the Passover.” To some such public proclamation John here perhaps refers.

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