Chapter XVI
Ch. 16:1-33. CLOSE OF CHRIST’S DISCOURSE.--THE PRESENCE, OFFICE, AND WORK OF THE HOLY SPIRIT MORE FULLY DESCRIBED.
1 These things have I spoken unto you, that ye should not be offended.
2 They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever[603] killeth you will think that he doeth God service.
[603] Acts 26:9-11.
=1, 2. These things have I spoken unto you that ye should not be offended.= Scandalized; caused to fall into sin. See Matt. 5:29, note; 15:12; 17:27; John 6:61; 1 Cor. 8:13. The object of Christ’s teaching in these chapters is not merely to impart consolation to the apostles in their impending sorrow in his death, but to impart strength to his disciples throughout all time in their experience of temptation.--=They shall put you out of the synagogues.= Excommunicate you. This was not in that age a mere ecclesiastical censure; it involved the most serious consequences, in exclusion from all business and secular relations with men. See ch. 9:22, note.--=Yea, the hour cometh that whosoever killeth you will think that he is offering a sacrifice to God.= Illustrated by Saul of Tarsus (see Acts 25:9), and by the proverb found in the Rabbinical books, “Whoever sheds the blood of the impious does the same as if he had offered a sacrifice;” not less illustrated by the history of religious persecutions, in which the persecutor has very generally believed that by slaying the heretic he was appeasing God’s wrath against the community and the church. Such an experience, if it came without forewarning, would endanger their faith. “It would be a strange result; fellowship with their brethren destroyed because they proclaimed the ground of fellowship; death inflicted upon them because they preached that death was overcome. Might not poor Galileans, conscious of folly and sin, often say to themselves: ‘We must be wrong; the rulers of the land must be wiser than we are. Ought we to turn the world upside down for an opinion of ours?’”--(Maurice.) This is always a temptation in times when Christian principle seems counter to public sentiment, a temptation not merely to abandon Christian principle in order to conform to public sentiment, but to think the principle which commends itself to so few and arouses the hostility of so many cannot be sound. [The Greek student will find in Alford’s and Meyer’s interpretation of ἵνα, that, a curious illustration of the straits to which the commentator is put who insists on giving it always its accurate (telic), never its more popular (ecbatic) signification. They are compelled, in order to be consistent, to read this declaration, The hour cometh in order that whosoever, etc., that is, that which shall happen in the hour is regarded as the object of its coming; it is ordained for that purpose.]
3 And these[604] things will they do unto you, because they[605] have not known the Father, nor me.
[604] ch. 15:21.
[605] 1 Cor. 2:8; 1 Tim. 1:13.
4 But these things have I told you, that when the time shall come, ye may remember that I told you of them. And these things I said not unto you at the beginning, because I was with you.
=3, 4. And these things will they do unto you because they have not known the Father nor me.= The root of all religious intolerance is a narrow, false, pagan conception of God. Intolerance is impossible in a heart which rightly appreciates God as manifested in Christ Jesus, and sincerely seeks to please him by imbibing his Spirit and imitating his example and method. On the other hand, a conscience uninstructed by a measurably correct conception of God becomes itself an instigator of the most remorseless cruelty. The cause of the wrong is in not receiving as a little child the teaching of Christ, and even of nature (Matt. 5:45), respecting the comprehensiveness of the Divine love. All intolerance is rooted in self-worship, making a god of our own self-will.--=But these things have I told you that when the hour has come ye may call to mind these things, that I have told you them. But these things I have not told you from the beginning, because I was with you.= What are these things? Most commentators understand Christ to refer to his prophecies in verses 2 and 3, and they understand his meaning to be, I have forewarned you of those persecutions, that when they come upon you you may remember that I did forewarn you of them. But this interpretation is not consistent with the added words, These things I have not told you from the beginning; for the prophecies of future perils which threatened them are quite as clear in Matt. 10:17-22, 28; Mark 13:9-13; Luke 21:12-17, as they are here. Meyer and Godet even suppose that Matthew has inserted the warnings in his Gospel (ch. 10) out of their place, taking them from Christ’s discourse here; and the explanations given by other commentators, if they violate the text less, violate its meaning more. Luthardt gives them all briefly. These things, I think, are not merely the prophecy of the persecutions which are to fall upon the disciples; they are the whole comforting and inspiring instructions of this discourse respecting the person, advent, presence, and indwelling grace and power of the Spirit of Truth and Holiness. The phrase is used here as in ch. 14:25; 15:11, 17; 16:1, 6. Combining these verses, we get Christ’s object in this whole instruction in the truth of the Divine Immanence, namely, that the disciples may be prepared for the progressive teaching of the Spirit of Truth; that their Master’s joy in the Holy Spirit may be theirs, and so their joy may be full; that their lives may abound in the fruits of a love that is nourished only by the indwelling of the Spirit; that in trial and persecution they may not be offended and induced to abandon faith in him as their Master; and he urges them when this trial hour comes upon them to recall to mind this teaching respecting the indwelling and ever-abiding Comforter, teaching not given before except in hints and suggestions, rudimentary and fragmentary, because while he was yet with them in the flesh they could and notably did depend upon him.
5 But now I go my way to him that sent me; and none of you asketh me, Whither goest thou?
6 But because I have said these things unto you, sorrow[606] hath filled your heart.
[606] verse 22.
=5, 6. But now I go away.= Not my way; the idea of departure simply is conveyed by the original.--=And no one of you asketh me, Whither goest thou? but because I have said these things unto you sorrow hath filled your heart.= The first clause is not literally true. Peter directly, Thomas indirectly, had asked, Whither goest thou? (ch. 13:36; 14:5). It is to be interpreted by the latter clause. The meaning is, Instead of turning your thoughts towards me and my future glory, and asking after my Father and my home, which you would do with rejoicing if you loved me supremely (ch. 14:28), your thoughts are on your own loneliness in the future when I shall have left you, and because of it sorrow has completely filled your heart, that is, to the exclusion of every other thought. My words should bring you comfort; they bring you pain. There is a pathetic reproach in Christ’s language, easily comprehended by every pastor who has attempted to point sorrowing souls to the invisible world, only to see their grief burst out afresh at the awakened recollection of the earthly loss. Notice, your heart, not hearts; the singular is used, as in Rom. 1:21, because they are so thoroughly a unit in their common feeling of sorrow. Stier notices the contrast between the experience of these same disciples now and at the subsequent parting at the ascension: “These are the same disciples who afterwards, when their risen Lord had ascended to heaven, without any pang at parting with him, returned with great joy to Jerusalem (Luke 24:52).” A practical lesson to every mourner here, as in ch. 14:28, is that he should not allow a selfish sorrow to fill his heart so completely that he cannot follow in his thoughts the loved one to his heavenly home.
7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.
=7. Nevertheless I tell you the truth; it is for your benefit that I am going away.= The original is stronger than our English version; the implication is plainly, as Alford gives it, “that the dispensation of the Spirit is a more blessed manifestation of God than was even the bodily presence of the risen Saviour,” and the reasons why it is so are intimated in previous parts of this discourse. See especially ch. 14:16, 17, notes.--=For if I go not away the Comforter will not come unto you.= He does not say will not come, but will not come unto you. Hitherto the Spirit had been given only to men especially fitted by their spiritual nature to receive its teachings and to become in turn teachers to others. After the death and resurrection of Christ the Spirit was given to the church universal, to all believers. See Acts 2:8. The language therefore does not prove, according to Alford, that “the gift of the Spirit at and since Pentecost was and is something totally distinct from anything before that time.” The difference consisted in its universal bestowal, whereas before it was limited to a few. Why could not the Spirit be sent until Christ had first gone away? Because it is impossible for men to live at the same time by faith and by sight. So long as the disciples had a visible manifestation of God with them, they would not and could not turn their thoughts inward to that more sacred but less easily recognized manifestation which could not be seen, and therefore could be known only by spiritual apprehension.
8 And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:
=8. And coming, that one shall convince the world respecting sin and respecting righteousness and respecting judgment.= In this and the three succeeding verses Christ describes briefly the office and work of the Holy Spirit. As the advent of Christ was itself a preparation for the dispensation of the Spirit, and as in his departure he points his disciples to the indwelling of that Spirit as the source of their hope, their joy, their love, their entire spiritual life, these verses, in which he points out specifically the manner in which the Spirit will develop this spiritual life, may be regarded as the heart of this discourse. To attempt to give the various opinions of conflicting commentators on this passage would almost inevitably entangle the mind of the student in a mesh of contradictory interpretations, and would obscure rather than clarify the meaning. I have therefore, with Alford, “preferred giving pointedly what I believe to be the sense of this most important passage, to stringing together a multitude of opinions on it, seeing that of even the best commentators no two bring out exactly the same shade of meaning, and thus classification is next to impossible.” Much depends on the right reading of the five words rendered in our English version reprove, world, sin, righteousness, and judgment, and I believe that very much of the difficulty in interpretation has grown out of imputing to these words a theological and scholastic meaning instead of taking them according to their most simple and natural meaning. (1) The word reprove, which I have rendered convince, properly signifies to convince one of truth in such a way as to convict him of wrong-doing. It is rendered tell him his fault (Matt. 18:15); reprove (Luke 3:19; John 3:20); convict (John 8:9); convince of sin (John 8:46; 1 Cor. 14:24); rebuke (Titus 2:15; Rev. 3:19). Here, then, the meaning is that the Holy Spirit will so bring to the world’s consciousness the spiritual truths respecting sin, righteousness, and judgment that the world will stand self-convicted. (2) The world is here, as always with John, the great mass of humanity, not necessarily excluding believers, but in contrast with the distinctive body of believers. This world cannot receive the Spirit of Truth, for it seeth him not, neither knoweth him (ch. 14:17). Nevertheless it is this unseen and unknown Spirit who can alone convince and convict the world. The disciples “are to despair of its ever coming from them; they are to be sure it will come from the Spirit with which He will endue them. Not they, but He, will convince the world; because, though the world may not receive Him neither know Him, it has been formed to receive all quickening life from Him; it must confess His presence, even if it would hide itself from His presence.”--(Maurice.) (3) Sin is primarily a miss or wandering, but in the N. T. only in a moral sense, that is, a wandering or turning away from the line of truth and righteousness. It is the first office of the Holy Spirit to show the world how this turning away from righteousness is the great folly, the mistake in comparison with which all other mistakes are as nothing (Prov. 1:32; 8:36). (4) Righteousness is primarily rectitude, uprightness, perfectitude of character. John’s use of the term is indicated by his employment of it in 1 John 2:29; 3:7, 10, “He that doeth righteousness is righteous.” To understand the language here to refer to any doctrine of an imputed or transferred righteousness is to import into the simple language of the Master theological ideas born of scholasticism and belonging to a later date. The meaning is that he who convicts the world of having departed from righteousness will also bring to the world’s consciousness a realization of the elements of true righteousness of character. (5) Judgment is primarily moral discrimination, whether exercised by God or man; its use, to signify a tribunal, whether human (Matt. 5:21, 22) or divine, as in the frequent use of it to signify the day of judgment (Matt. 12:42; Luke 10:14; Heb. 9:27), is secondary. John always uses it in the primary sense of moral and spiritual discernment, except in 1 John 4:17, where he defines his meaning by employing the phrase day of judgment. The third truth of which the Holy Spirit will convince the world will be the true divine canons of moral judgment. The general declaration, then, is that the Holy Spirit when he comes will convict the world, by bringing to its spiritual consciousness the truth respecting sin, or wandering from God and his law; righteousness, or the divine ideal of character; and judgment, or the true principles of spiritual discrimination.
9 Of sin,[607] because they believe not on me;
[607] Rom. 3:20; 7:9.
10 Of righteousness,[608] because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more;
[608] Isa. 42:21; Rom. 1:17.
11 Of judgment,[609] because[610] the prince of this world is judged.
[609] Acts 17:31; Rom. 2:2; Rev. 20:12, 13.
[610] ch. 12:31.
=9-11. Concerning sin, because they have not had faith upon me.= Because indicates, not the reason why the Spirit shall convince of sin, but the nature and evidence of the sin itself. It may be rendered in that. The meaning is not, The Holy Spirit will convince of sin because they have not had faith, but, That they have sinned in that they have not had faith. The fact that the character of Christ does not call forth the moral and spiritual affections of the soul is the strongest evidence of that soul’s insensibility; and the fact that the offer of free pardon and the impartation of a new spiritual life is not accepted, demonstrates that continuance under condemnation and in sin is the soul’s free choice. Thus the sin of the world both consists in and is demonstrated by its rejection of Christ (ch. 3:18-21); not by any intellectual opinion entertained respecting him, but by the lack of spiritual appreciation and the failure to give to him and his teaching the welcome of an affectionate and obedient faith.--=Concerning righteousness, because I go away to my Father and ye see me no more.= Christ is himself the ideal of human character, the divine righteousness interpreted by a human life. But this righteousness was not, and could not be, comprehended while Christ still lived in the flesh among men. The eyes of men were fastened upon the apparent ignominy of his position and circumstances, and the divine love which is interpreted to us by his humiliation was to his contemporaries obscured by it. It was necessary that he should go away to his Father before the world could begin to appreciate the sacred meaning of a life which was so wholly laid down for others. So, habitually, the world learns the meaning of a life after it has ended, and honors after death those whom it has despised while living, and forgets after death those whom it has honored while living. The Holy Spirit convinces the world respecting true righteousness of character, by spiritually interpreting to it, through the ages, the glory of one who could only be understood after he had gone away to the Father and the world saw him no more. To appreciate his righteousness they must look on him by faith and not by sight. The more common explanation (see Godet and Meyer) that he who was put to death as a sinner was proved to be righteous by his resurrection and ascension is inadmissible, because Christ here says nothing of his resurrection or his ascension; he uses the same phraseology which he has previously employed in this discourse in speaking of his death (ch. 13:33, 36; 14:28; 16:5); and because he adds emphasis to the truth that it is his departure from them, not his visible exaltation or ascension to which he refers, by adding to the words “because I go to my Father” the explanatory clause “and ye see me no more.”--=Concerning judgment, because the prince of this world is judged.= Comp. John 12:31. In the history of the race, the methods, principles, and policies of the world and its prince are being perpetually tried and perpetually proved false by their results. Thus the world and its prince are ever being judged, and humanity, by the progressive teaching of the Holy Spirit, interpreting the book of God’s Providence, are being taught the divine canons of moral and spiritual judgment. This work is represented here, as in ch. 12:32, as being completed in the death of Christ (κέκριται, perf.), because the crucifixion of Christ, the consummate work of the Evil One, was at once his apparent victory and his real defeat. In the crucifixion he pre-eminently had his own way, and by the crucifixion he is defeated throughout the ages. Thus it is in and by the cross that he is pre-eminently judged. On the phrase prince of this world, see John 12:31; 14:30; and comp. Ephes. 2:2. Interpreting it to mean Christ is contrary to all N. T. usage. In all this threefold work the Holy Spirit glorifies Christ (ver. 14); it convicts the world of sin, by showing what a Saviour it has rejected; it teaches the world of righteousness, by showing the world in Christ the divine ideal of sanctified humanity; and it educates the world in judgment, by the perpetual contrast between the policies of the world and the enduring and peace-bringing principles of Christ, demonstrating in the cross that the weakness of Christ is stronger than the strength of Satan, and the defeat of Christ is a victory over Satan. See 1 Cor. 1:23-25.
12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye[611] cannot bear them now.
[611] Heb. 5:12.
=12. I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.= This was Christ’s last conference with his disciples, and in his interviews with them after the resurrection he added very little to the instructions previously given to them. Clearly, therefore, he here implies a progressive teaching to be afforded by him through the Spirit to the church in the future ages. It is of this future teaching he speaks in this and the next three verses. These truths the disciples could not then bear, that is, lift up and take away with them (βαστάξω), because they had not yet the mental and spiritual strength. Among the truths which were thus too much for them, and which were mercifully concealed from their knowledge, was the long period which must intervene before the spiritual work of the church could be completed and the world be ready for the Second Coming of its Lord. Christ’s language clearly implies that he held back phases of truth for which his disciples were not ready, and thus affords a clear example and divine authority for the religious teacher, who may never suppress the truth because it is unpopular--this Christ never did--but who may and should adapt his teaching of the truth to the spiritual capacity of his hearers.
13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he[612] will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he[613] will shew you things to come.
[612] ch. 14:26.
[613] Rev. 1:1, 19.
=13. Howbeit when that one= (ἐκεῖνος, emphatic), =the Spirit, is come, he will guide you into all the truth=. “The term guide (ὁδηγέω, to show the road) presents the Spirit under the image of a guide conducting a traveler in an unknown country. This country is truth.”--(Godet.) This guidance is given to the church throughout all ages, leading them by gradual processes into ever higher and broader conceptions of divine truth.--=For he shall not speak from himself.= From (ἀπό) marks the remote or ultimate origin or cause. As Christ traces all the source of his own authority back to the Father, who dwelleth in him (ch. 5:19, 30; 7:28; 14:20), so he traces back to the same source the authority of the Holy Spirit. Thus he guards his disciples against that subtle tritheism which regards the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as practically three deities. See ch. 15:26. Both the Son and the Spirit take those things which they receive of the Father and give to the believer, and the object of their ministry is to bring the believer into fellowship with the Father.--=And he will show you things to come.= Rather the coming things. As the coming one (ὁ ἐρχόμενος) (Matt. 3:11; Rev. 1:4) is the Messiah, and as the coming world (Mark 10:30) is the Messiah’s kingdom, so the coming things (τὰ ἐρχόμενα) are those things which are connected with the future advent and the final kingdom of the Messiah. The Holy Spirit shall not merely bring all things which their Lord has taught them to the disciples’ remembrance (ch. 14:26), but shall also teach them concerning the things of the future; he shall inspire their hope as well as clarify their memory. This promise of Christ was primarily fulfilled in the prophetic hopes and anticipations inspired in the early church, and in the prophetic character given to many of the apostolic utterances, e. g., Rom. 11:25-32; 1 Cor. 15:50-53; 1 Thess. 4:13-18; Titus 2:11-14. But this office of the Spirit was not consummated in apostolic times; those who submit themselves to his guidance and instruction will still press forward toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus, ever looking for that blessed and glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ. “He will not allow us to be satisfied with our advanced knowledge or great discoveries, but will always be showing us things that are coming; giving us an apprehension of truths that we have not yet reached, though they be truths which are ‘the same yesterday, to-day, and forever.’”--(Maurice.)
14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.
15 All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you.
=14, 15. He shall magnify me.= That is, the office of the Spirit shall be to magnify Christ, his character, his work. See above on verses 9-11. Any pretended dispensation of the Spirit which draws the thought of the world away from Christ to some other and independent authority is spurious, whether it be that of ecclesiastical tradition as of the Church of Rome, or that of the mysticism which substitutes an inner light for the word and authority of Christ, or that of spiritism, introducing in lieu of that word communications with the spirit world. That only is the message of the Holy Spirit which tends to magnify Christ.--=He shall receive of mine, and shall it show unto you.= To receive of Christ (λαμβάνω) is to accept, acknowledge, and follow his instructions as a teacher. This use of the word is especially marked in John’s employment of it in respect to Christ, e. g., ch. 1:12; 5:43; 13:20. The declaration, then, is that the Holy Spirit comes not to gainsay or cancel, and not even, in strictness of speech, to add to the instructions of Christ, but to accept them, and accepting, interpret them, giving to them in the future apprehension of the church a profounder significance than they had or could have in the apprehension of his own contemporaries.--=All things that the Father hath are mine; therefore said I=, etc. We are not, however, to imagine that Christ’s teaching is confined to the words uttered by him in the flesh and reported to us in the Gospels. All things that the Father hath are his; the book of nature and the book of Providence are his as truly as the spoken and reported word. And in receiving and spiritually interpreting the testimony of nature and life, the Holy Spirit is receiving from him and showing to us. If we understand his teaching aright, we shall always see in it Christ magnified.
In these verses (7-15) Christ points out more specifically than he has previously done to his disciples, and through them to us, the office of the Holy Spirit and the nature of his dispensation. It is for our benefit that the manifestation of God in the flesh and to the sense has ceased, in order that the inward manifestation to the faith--profounder, broader, and more universal--may take its place. This invisible but indwelling Spirit comes that he may teach the world the reality and greatness of its sin, the true conception of righteousness, and the canons of a divine spiritual discernment. This work of the Spirit is a perpetually progressive work, guiding, by successive steps, the church into the way of all truth. In it the Spirit speaks from and by authority of the Father, and concerning the future, turning the thoughts of the believer ever toward a larger knowledge and a higher and diviner life; albeit in all he acts not as a revealer of a new Gospel, but as an interpreter of the teachings of Christ, in the written word and in all the things of God, in nature and life, which are themselves the things of Christ; so that the dispensation of the Spirit is not an addition to but an essential part of Christianity, the revealing in its fullness to the ever-growing spiritual apprehension of the church the truth of and from Christ.
16 A little while, and ye shall not see me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see me, because I go to the Father.
=16. Yet a little while and ye shall not see me= (θεωρέω), =and again a little while and ye shall perceive me= (ὁράω), =because I go away to the Father=. There is some doubt respecting the last clause, because I go to the Father; it is omitted by Alford, Meyer, Luthardt, and Tischendorf, queried by Lachmann, retained by Godet. But the fact that the phrase reappears in the disciples’ expression of their perplexity, in the next verse, seems to me to furnish very nearly conclusive evidence that it belongs here. Those who omit it here suppose that the disciples put with what he has just now said, what he had previously said in ver. 10. Observe the contrast between the first and second seeing; two different verbs are both rendered see; the one signifies properly an external perception by the senses; the other is also used to indicate a mental or spiritual perception, and that appears to be its meaning here. In a little while Christ should be no longer visibly present with his disciples; a little while more, and, in the dispensation of the Spirit inaugurated at Pentecost, they should again perceive him by spiritual apprehension. It is evident that Christ does not refer to his Second Coming, both because he changes the form of the verb, so indicating another and unsensuous seeing, and because not a little but a long while was to elapse between the departure of the Lord and his Second Coming.
17 Then said some of his disciples among themselves, What is this that he saith unto us, A little while, and ye shall not see me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see me: and, Because I go to the Father?
18 They said therefore, What is this that he saith, A little while? we cannot tell what he saith.
19 Now Jesus knew[614] that they were desirous to ask him, and said unto them, Do ye inquire among yourselves of that I said, A little[615] while, and ye shall not see me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see me?
[614] ch. 2:24, 25.
[615] verse 16; ch. 7:33; 13:33; 14:19.
=17-19.= The disciples, however, had no other thought of any second advent of their Master than that in which they should sensuously see as well as spiritually perceive him. They therefore ask among themselves what he means by this distinction between seeing and perceiving him. Their difficulty was the same as that previously expressed by Judas, with the analogous declaration of Christ that he would manifest himself to them (ch. 14:22). It was enhanced by Christ’s statement that this new manifestation to the spirit should be in a little while; for in his discourse on the Last Day (see Matt., ch. 24, notes) he had plainly implied that a long interval of trial and persecution must intervene before his Second Coming in power and glory. They therefore inquire in whispers of one another what he means by this, “Ye shall not see me, and ye shall perceive me,” and what by “A little while.” Their fear to ask Christ is one of the many indications of the peculiar awe which his presence inspired in them; their love was reverential, not familiar; the love of a child for an honored teacher, not that of an equal (Mark 9:32; Luke 9:45). See further, note on verses 29, 30, below.
20 Verily, verily, I say unto you, That ye[616] shall weep and lament, but the world shall rejoice: and ye shall be sorrowful, but your sorrow shall be turned into joy.
[616] Luke 24:17, 21.
=20. Ye shall weep and lament * * * ye shall be sorrowful.= These three different words are used to express the same substantial idea; not to convey different shades of meaning, but to give emphasis, and to indicate the largeness and breadth of the impending anguish of the disciples. To weep (κλαίω) is a general word including every external expression of grief; to lament (θρηνέω) is somewhat more specifically to wail, and is used respecting the lamentation of hired mourners (see notes on Mark 5:38; Luke 23:27); to be sorrowful (λυπέω) is more spiritual, and expresses the feeling of the heart rather than any outward expression. The disciples lamented the death of Christ at the time of his crucifixion, and their lamentation was in striking contrast with the malignant joy of the world (comp. Matt. 27:39-44 with John 19:25-27). They experienced in the apparent shame of their Master’s ignominious death a deep, heartfelt sorrow, but it was turned into joy when later they saw in the cross the manifestation of the wisdom and glory of God (1 Cor. 1:23-25).
21 A woman[617] when she is in travail hath sorrow, because her hour is come: but as soon as she is delivered of the child, she remembereth no more the anguish, for joy that a man is born into the world.
[617] Isa. 26:17.
22 And ye[618] now therefore have sorrow: but I will see you again, and your[619] heart shall rejoice, and your joy[620] no man taketh from you.
[618] verse 6.
[619] ch. 20:20; Luke 24:41, 52.
[620] 1 Pet. 1:8.
=21, 22. A woman when she brings forth hath sorrow.= The figure of a woman in travail is used in the O. T. to illustrate sudden and great anguish (Isa. 21:3; 26:17; 66:7; Hos. 13:13; Micah 4:9, 10). Christ lays hold upon this familiar figure and gives it a new signification, indicating that the pain is but a preparation for and a presage of a greater joy. And this is generally the N. T. use of the figure (Matt. 24:8, note; Rom. 8:22). The contrast is an instructive illustration of the difference between the O. T. and the N. T. We are not mystically to interpret the figure here by saying that the travail of the Son of God was necessary in order to bring the Messiah forth as a King and lawgiver. However true this may be, it is not the truth here enforced. Christ speaks not of his own suffering for sinners, but of the suffering of the disciples in and because of him; and this suffering he declares will be forgotten when it has accomplished its purpose and brought forth its fruits in and for them. See the same general truth illustrated by Rom. 5:3-5; Heb. 12:11. Observe that, as above, the sorrow is not merely displaced by joy, but is turned into joy; the travail is not merely followed by gladness, but brings forth that which is the cause of the gladness. Comp. Rom. 8:18, where the glory is represented as revealed in us because of the sufferings, and Heb. 12:11, where the fruits of chastening are promised only to those that are “exercised thereby.” Comp. Rev. 7:14.--=I will see you again, and your heart shall rejoice.= But he does not say, Ye shall see me again. He is speaking not of his second and visible coming, but of his spiritual and invisible presence. His words are interpreted to us by history, and the distinction between the two is plain; to the apostles they were not so interpreted, and upon the traditional report of such words as these the apostolic church may have built its hope of Christ’s Second Coming in their own time. I will see you expresses Christ’s sympathy for his church in all their experiences, whether of joy or sorrow. See Rev. 1:12, 13; 2:1. He weeps with those that weep, and rejoices with those that rejoice; not a hair of the head perishes, not a sparrow in the church falls without his knowledge. Your heart shall rejoice foretells such experiences as those of Peter and other apostles (Acts 5:41), Stephen (Acts 6:15), Paul and Silas (Acts 16:25), etc.--=And your joy no one taketh away from you.= Because it is Christ’s joy (ch. 15:11), a joy in God (Phil. 3:1; 4:1), which is in the new-born soul, not merely given to it, and therefore cannot be taken from it by any experience whatever (Rom. 8:28, 37-39).
23 And in that day ye shall ask me nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you.
24 Hitherto have ye asked nothing in my name; ask,[621] and ye shall receive, that your[622] joy may be full.
[621] Matt. 7:7, 8; James 4:2, 3.
[622] ch. 15:11.
=23, 24. And in that day ye shall inquire nothing of me. Verily, verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father he will give it to you in my name.= In our English version two different Greek words are rendered by the word ask in this verse, suggesting a contrast which does not exist in the original. Christ does not distinguish between two epochs in Christian experience; in the earlier and more imperfect one prayer being offered to Christ, in the later and perfected one prayer being offered directly to the Father. He specifies two distinct blessings which shall attend upon the dispensation of the Holy Spirit. The disciples, perplexed by Christ’s enigmatical language, had desired but feared to ask an explanation (verses 17, 18). Christ tells them that when the Holy Spirit shall have come with his illuminating and quickening influences, they shall no longer be perplexed by truths which now they cannot understand. In that day they shall no longer need to interrogate him for an interpretation. Then he adds that this dispensation shall be one of great power in prayer: Whatsoever ye shall request the Father he will give it you. “There is not in this verse a contrast drawn between asking the Son, which shall cease, and asking the Father, which shall begin; but the first half of the verse closes the declaration of one blessing, namely, that hereafter they shall be so taught by the Spirit as to have nothing further to inquire; the second half of the verse begins the declaration of a new blessing, that whatsoever they shall seek from the Father in the Son’s name, he will give it them.”--(Trench.) And in fact one of the first and most notable influences of the descent of the Spirit was to make clear to the minds of the apostles those spiritual truths concerning the character of Christ and his kingdom which had theretofore been hidden from their eyes. And ever since, growth in spiritual life has made clear sayings which are dark and incomprehensible to the unspiritual. The reading, He will give to you in my name, is preferable to the reading of the Received Text, Whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, (Tischendorf, Meyer, Alford.) But the fact that the Father gives in the name of Christ, by whom He made, sustains, and governs the world (Col. 1:16-20; Heb. 1:1, 2), and through whom all his redeeming love is manifested to his earthly children, presupposes that they present their requests through him as their Mediator, that is, in His name.--=Until now ye have asked nothing in my name; ask and ye shall receive, that your joy may be full.= Not until the descent of the Holy Spirit did the disciples recognize Christ as a Divine Mediator and Intercessor. Prayer out of Christ is offered to a God from whom the soul is separated by a consciousness of sin (Isa. 59:2). Such prayer is often one of wrestling and of anguish; and the deeper the consciousness of sin the greater the mental and spiritual stress. Christ lays emphasis here upon the fact that his disciples are to pray in his name, that is, standing in his stead, the prophecies of the O. T. fulfilled and their sins and iniquities blotted out as a thick cloud (Isa. 44:22), and they themselves brought into filial relations with the Father, reconciled unto God, and receiving the Spirit of Adoption whereby they cry Abba Father (Rom. 8:15). Thus prayer, which in the O. T. was often characterized by fear and wrestling (Gen. 18:27, 30, 32; Exod. 32:31, 32; Psalms 42, 43), is in the N. T. almost always characterized by joy and thanksgiving (Ephes. 3:14-21; Col. 1:9, 12; 2 Thess. 1:11, 12). In the reading of this direction of Christ respecting prayer we are to interpret the direction to ask in Christ’s name and the declaration that the Father will give in Christ’s name by the experience of the apostolic church, who did all things in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ (John 20:31; Acts 2:38; 3:6; 5:28; 9:27; 10:43; 16:18; Rom. 1:8; 1 Cor. 6:11; Ephes. 1:21; Phil. 2:9, 10; Rev. 2:3, 13; 22:4).
25 These things have I spoken unto you in proverbs: but the time cometh, when I shall no more speak unto you in proverbs, but I shall shew you plainly of the Father.
26 At that day[623] ye shall ask in my name: and I say not unto you, that I will pray the Father for you:
[623] verse 23.
27 For the Father[624] himself loveth you, because ye have loved me, and have believed that I[625] came out from God.
[624] ch. 14:21, 23.
[625] verse 30; ch. 17:8.
=25-27. These things have I spoken unto you in figures; * * * but I shall show you plainly of the Father.= In the imperfection of human language all teaching respecting spiritual things is of necessity in figures. Christ’s teaching, not only to the multitude, but to his own disciples, and in this last interview, was figurative. See for example ch. 14:2, 16, 18; 15:1; 16:21. But he foretells a time in which these spiritual truths shall be spiritually revealed (1 Cor. 2:9, 10). “The entire human language is a parable, as it does not admit of adequate expression concerning some things. The Lord therefore contrasts with the use of this feeble medium of communication the employment of one more internal and more real. By the impartation of his Spirit, the Lord teaches the knowledge of the nature of God freely and openly (παῤῥησίᾳ), without any fear of a misunderstanding.”--(Olshausen.)--=At that day ye shall ask in my name; and I say not to you that I will request the Father on your behalf, for the Father himself loveth you, because ye have loved me and have had faith that I come from the presence of the Father.= Or from God; there is some uncertainty as to the reading. Christ does not say that he will not request the Father on behalf of his disciples; but if we take the whole sentence in its connections he does clearly teach, not only that no intercession is required to win the love of the Father, but also that they who have loved Christ, and have spiritually recognized the divine life manifested in him, are thereby brought into direct personal communion with the Father, and need no intercessor. “While their hearts are the temples of the Holy Ghost and they maintain communion with the Father they will need no other advocate; but ‘If any man sin we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous’ (1 John 2:1).”--(Watkins.) Beware of supposing that this passage impliedly teaches that the Father’s love depends on the prior faith and love of the disciple. The contrary doctrine is abundantly taught in the Bible, and nowhere more clearly than in the writings of John (ch. 3:16; 1 John 4:9, 10, 19). But love has many inflections, and the fullness of the Divine love is possible only to those who by love and faith enter into the adoption of the children of God. The love of the father to the prodigal in the far country is not the same as the love to the same son, clothed and in his right mind, sitting at his father’s board.
28 I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave the world, and go to the Father.
=28.= “This verse,” says Bengel, “contains the most important recapitulation;” “a simple and grand summary of Christ’s entire life, his origin, his incarnation, and his destiny,” Meyer calls it. It is this, but also more than this. The disciples have believed that Christ came from the Father; Christ seizes on this belief that he may awaken their hope by leading them to see that in going from the world he must return to the Father. Thus he leads back their minds to the declaration, “If ye loved me ye would rejoice because I go unto the Father” (ch. 14:28).
29 His disciples said unto him, Lo, now speakest thou plainly, and speakest no proverb.
30 Now are we sure that thou knowest all things, and needest not that any man should ask thee: by this we believe that thou camest forth from God.
=29, 30.= These verses clearly show a change in the spirit of the disciples. They had begun the supper by a contention for the first place at the table. They had almost scouted at Christ’s prophecy of their desertion (Matt. 26:33-35). The questionings of Thomas, Philip, and Judas (ch. 14:5, 8, 22) indicate not only perplexity, but a state of semi-skepticism, removed from absolute disbelief on the one hand and from unquestioning faith on the other. This spirit is abated as the conference proceeds, and it is because the disciples are ashamed to confess it that they question with bated breath among themselves the meaning of his words, “A little while and ye shall not see me, and again a little while and ye shall perceive me” (verses 17-19). Now they declare their doubts allayed; there is no need to question him further; they are convinced that he knows all things; they are willing to take his declarations without questioning; this absolute credence they declare as the evidence of their faith that he came forth from God. They do not profess fully to understand their Master, only fully to believe him. Augustine’s remark, therefore, is more epigrammatic than just: “They so little understand that they do not even understand that they do not understand. For they were babes.”
31 Jesus answered them, Do ye now believe?
32 Behold,[626] the hour cometh, yea, is now come, that ye shall be scattered, every man to his own, and shall leave me alone: and yet I[627] am not alone, because the Father is with me.
[626] Matt. 26:31; Mark 14:27.
[627] ch. 8:29; Isa. 50:7, 9.
=31, 32. Do ye now believe?= Most of the commentators take this affirmatively, Ye do now believe, and the original is capable of either construction. Our English version seems to me preferable. Christ does not indeed deny their faith, but he questions it, that he may lead them to question themselves. He cautions them that their faith in his divine origin, sweet as it may be to them in this hour of quiet conference, is not sufficiently strong to stand in the hour of treachery, peril, and death. So many a disciple has had faith in divine principles and truths in the hour of his quiet meditation upon them, which he has deserted when holding fast to them would involve suffering.--=And ye shall leave me alone; and yet I am not alone, because the Father is with me.= This sentence is one of those parenthetical asides which give us a glimpse of the inmost heart of Christ: his spiritual loneliness, and the temper of his solitude. See Robertson’s Sermon on the Loneliness of Christ.
33 These things I have spoken unto you, that in me[628] ye might have peace. In[629] the world ye shall have tribulation; but be of good cheer: I have overcome the world.
[628] ch. 14:27; Rom. 5:1; Ephes. 2:14.
[629] ch. 15:19-21; 2 Tim. 3:12.
=33. These things I have spoken unto you that in me ye might have peace.= By these things is meant the whole discourse contained in chaps. 14, 15, and 16. Comp. ch. 14:27; 16:4, notes.--=In the world ye shall have tribulation; but be of good courage, I have conquered the world.= Thus Christ ends as he began this discourse, with encouragement. In Christ we have peace, because in Christ we are more than conquerors (Rom. 8:37. Comp. 2 Cor. 4:7; 6:4-10). Meyer well remarks that Paul’s whole life is a commentary on this verse; and Luther, whose life was a scarcely less eloquent interpretation, thus paraphrases it: “The game is already won. Do not be afraid that I will send you thither to venture it at your own risk. The victory is already there, only be undespairing and hold fast to it.”
Chapter XVII
Ch. 17:1-26. CHRIST’S INTERCESSORY PRAYER.--HIS PRAYER OF PREPARATION FOR THE PASSION.--HIS PRAYER OF INTERCESSION FOR HIS CHURCH.--HIS MISSION AND ITS FULFILLMENT.--THE MISSION OF HIS FOLLOWERS.--HIS FOURFOLD PETITION FOR THEM: PRESERVATION; CONSECRATION; SANCTIFICATION; GLORIFICATION. See on ver. 24.
PRELIMINARY NOTE.--We rightly hesitate to analyze or criticise any prayer; the language of devotion is too sacred. How much more when the prayer is the intimate communing of the only begotten Son with his Father, a prayer which no soul can ever comprehend, and none can therefore ever interpret. Nevertheless, it would not have been recorded if it had not been intended for our profit; and it can only be for our profit as it is made the theme of our reverent study. In this exposition of it I avoid as far as possible verbal and textual criticism, giving results rather than discussions. These the student can find in other commentaries, especially Tholuck and Meyer. For the same reason I eschew theological polemics. Socinian, Arian, and Trinitarian have fought over the words and phrases of this sacred prayer, each, and perhaps the one not more than the other, evolving from it arguments for his philosophy of the character of Christ, and of life here and hereafter. Into such conflicts I have no heart to enter. The student will find them indicated, and even illustrated, in Alford. I have sought by meditation to enter into the spirit of this, the most sacred utterance of our Lord, and I seek with simplicity to aid others in meditating upon it; if through such meditation the spirit of the believer is brought into unity with the Spirit of his Lord, it is enough. The prayer is not didactic; certainly not dogmatic. The office of public prayer--and by giving to his church a record of this prayer our Lord has made it public--is not to teach a system of theology, but to deepen the springs of spiritual life, by leading the sympathetic soul into the presence of God. This prayer has a twofold aspect. It is a revelation of the communings of the only begotten Son with the Father; it thus presents to the church Christ as the Son and Intercessor, pleading for his church, and shows us what are his most secret and sacred desires for us. These are four: election out of the world and preservation from its evil; sanctification and consecration unto and in the truth; the perfect unity of love, in God and with one another; and spiritual appreciation of and participation in the glory of the Father and the Son in the eternal life. But since we are all brought through Christ into the adoption of the sons of God, this prayer is also an example and inspiration for us. It is, in a sense, Christ’s second and fuller answer to the request of his church universal, “Lord, teach us how to pray.” The Lord’s prayer is given at the outset of our Lord’s ministry to those who are just learning the Fatherhood of God. This prayer of intercession is given at the close of our Lord’s ministry, to those that had learned from him both what were their own wants and what their heavenly Father’s grace had provided for them. The former is the model for the universal church, young and old in Christian experience; the latter is an inspiration to those who, through the teachings of their Lord, have come into fellowship with God and his Son Jesus Christ. It is not without significance that it follows close upon the teaching that Christ is the vine and we are the branches, that we see the Father in seeing the Son, that after Christ is gone and is seen no more, he will yet be really present and spiritually perceived, and that we are to ask in his name of the Father, who has himself loved us. It is thus the Holy of Holies to which the preceding instructions have been as outer courts conducting us. The key to its true interpretation I believe will be found in two facts: (1) that it immediately precedes and is a spiritual preparation for the impending Passion, which in a measure the disciples shared with their Master; and (2) the only glory which the N. T. recognizes is a glory of character, not of circumstance or condition. Thus Christ’s prayer here is that he may be sustained by divine grace in the hour of trial, so that the character of the Father may be manifested by him in his patient fidelity to the end, and that, through his example and his Father’s influence, his disciples may be made like the Father and like the Son in the glory of their love. See further on ver. 1.
There is some question whether we have the exact words of the Lord or no. Alford goes beyond the declaration or even clear implication of the sacred narrative, in saying, in opposition to Olshausen and the German commentators generally, that we have here “the very words of our Lord himself, faithfully rendered by the beloved apostle, in the power of the Holy Spirit.” We can only say that the Lord has just promised his disciples that the Holy Spirit will bring all things to their remembrance which he has said to them (ch. 14:26); that on no heart would these sacred words be more deeply impressed than on that of the apostle who was leaning on Jesus’ bosom at the supper; that we cannot conceive any utterance in the rendering of which that promised inspiration would be more likely to be sought by John and vouchsafed by the Lord; and that if we cannot be sure that we have the very words of our Lord, we can be sure that no modern commentator has the right to sift out the prayer and tell us what were Christ’s words and what were the Evangelist’s. That the Holy Spirit did not consider the very words essential to our profit is evident from the fact that, while the prayer was almost certainly in Hebrew, John’s record is in Greek, and our version of it is in English; but that we have in these words the very spirit of the prayer, expressed as the Holy Spirit would have it expressed for the guidance and inspiration of the church universal, is as certain as the doctrine of inspiration itself.
1 These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour[630] is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:
[630] ch. 12:23; 13:32.
2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he[631] should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.
[631] verse 24; ch. 5:27.
3 And this[632] is life eternal, that they might know thee[633] the only[634] true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou[635] hast sent.
[632] 1 John 5:11.
[633] Jer. 9:23, 24.
[634] 1 Thess. 1:9.
[635] ch 10:36.
=1-3. And lifted up his eyes to heaven.= See ch. 11:41, note. This is not an indication that he and his disciples had gone out from the chamber and were now in the environs of the city, though Godet even undertakes to fix the exact location: “Jesus had spoken the preceding words on the road from Jerusalem to Gethsemane; he was therefore on the point of passing the brook of Kedron.” In fact, these words indicate nothing as to locality. “The eyes may be lifted to heaven in as well as out of doors; heaven is not the sky, but the upper region, above our own being and thoughts, where we all agree in believing God to be especially present, and which we indicate when we direct our eyes or our hands upward. The Lord, being in all such things like as we are, lifted up his eyes to heaven when addressing the Father.”--(Alford.)--=And said, Father.= Not our Father, for Christ never identifies himself with his disciples; nor my Father, for that would too strongly emphasize the separation between him and them; without identifying himself with his disciples, he yet uses language on which their spirits too can ascend towards God.--=The hour is come.= The hour of the Passion, to which all prophecy had pointed, for which all the O. T. dispensation had prepared, and from which all redemptive influences proceed. Comp. Matt. 26:45; Mark 14:41; John 7:30; 8:20, etc.--=Manifest thine own Son in his glory, that thy Son also may manifest thee in thy glory.= The changed position of the words, in the two clauses, in the original (σοι τὸν υἱὸν in the first clause, υἱὸς σοι in the second), justifies the rendering thine own Son. To glorify (δοξάζω) in N. T. usage nearly if not quite always signifies to manifest glory. The authorities which Robinson (Lex., δοξάζω) cites in justification of the definition to make glorious are at best of doubtful interpretation. The glory of Christ is his self-sacrificing love. The noblest manifestation of this glory is his patient and peaceful endurance of the Passion. In the cross of Christ alone would Paul glory (Gal. 6:14); it is the Lamb slain that is the glory of heaven (Rev. 5:6). Christ here prays that the Father will so enable him to endure the cross that it may become glorious, and so a manifestation of the Father’s glory; it is Jesus Christ “lifted up” who draws all men unto him, and this in order that through him they may be drawn to the Father. He prays that every knee may bow and every tongue confess him Lord, but only to the glory of God the Father (Phil. 2:11). Throughout this prayer the thought is always the same; glory is of character, not condition; the glory of a divine love manifested in self-sacrifice; making the Son worthy to receive the peculiar love of the Father; making all that, through Christ, become partakers of the same divine nature, participators also in the same divine love, sons of God, and therefore one with the Father and with his Son.--=Inasmuch as thou hast given him power over all flesh, in order that= (for the very purpose that) =unto the all which thou hast given to him, to them he should give eternal life=. Maurice’s criticism on our English version is just: “Our translators would have appeared to themselves and to many of their readers to be using an uncouth and strange form of speech, if they had rendered the words literally. But I think they were bound to encounter any apparent difficulty of construction, rather than to incur the risk of contracting or perverting the sense.” Christ has authority (the original implies both power and authority; see ch. 1:12, note) not merely over all mankind, but over all terrestrial life and the earth itself, the abode of flesh and the realm of his redemptive work (Col. 1:14-18); but this authority and power is conferred upon him by the Father (ch. 5:19, 30) for a purpose, namely, that out of the world he may gather a kingdom, receiving the entire body which God has given to him, and conferring on each individually, in that body, eternal life. Thus here, as in ch. 6:37 (see note there), Christ speaks of the all (πᾶν, neuter singular) as given to him in a body by the Father, but of each one as receiving individually (αὐτοῖς) the special, personal gift of eternal life. Observe on the one hand that Christ declares himself, by implication, Lord of all, not of Jews, or elect, or Christendom merely; but on the other hand he also declares, by implication, that not all will receive from him the gift of life eternal. There is implied a redemption universal in its offer, but not in its results. The whole is given to him, but only that he may impart eternal life to the chosen. Who are thus chosen is indicated in ch. 6:40, namely, every one that seeth (spiritually) the Son and hath faith in him. Because the Father has thus conferred divine authority on the Son, for the work of redemption, the Son pleads with the Father to so carry him through the Passion hour that this redemptive work may be consummated and eternal life imparted to the believer. Beware of reading eternal life here as equivalent to everlasting life or age-abiding life. The duration is merely incidental; spiritual life is everlasting; but that which is essential is its spirituality, not its endurance. The nature of this life is indicated in the next sentence.--=But this is eternal life, that they may know thee the only true God, and him whom thou hast sent forth, Jesus the Messiah.= That (ἵνα) cannot here be rendered in order that, and curiously both Alford and Meyer, who insist that it is always telic, i. e., always signifies intention, here render it without that signification. “This knowledge of God here desired is the eternal life” (Meyer); “is, not is the way to” (Alford). Spiritual knowledge and spiritual life are in so far the same that neither is possible without the other. We become like God only as we know him (2 Cor. 3:18; 1 John 3:2); we know him only as, becoming like him, we become sharers of his life (Matt. 5:8; John 3:3; Heb. 12:14; 2 Pet. 1:5-9). For this knowledge (γιγνώσκω) is not intellectual understanding of the truth about God, but a personal and spiritual acquaintance with him; it is not psychological, but sympathetic. See Jer. 9:24; Ephes. 3:19; Phil. 3:10; comp. 1 Cor. 8:2. The connecting particles are important. Christ prays that the Father will glorify him in the approaching Passion, in order that he may be able to give eternal life to those whom the Father has given to him, for this life can be given only by giving them a true apprehension of the one God, and he can be made known to them only through him whom he hath sent into the world, Jesus the Messiah. The knowledge of the only true God is in contrast with polytheistic paganism; knowledge of Jesus as the Messiah is in contrast with Jewish pride and prejudice. The first was the burden of Paul’s preaching at Athens; the second of Peter’s preaching at Jerusalem (Acts 2:22-36; 17:22-34). The use of the third person here, and the phrase Jesus Christ, often found together in the Epistles, but never in Christ’s previous discourses, have been cited by rationalistic critics as an evidence that this prayer was the work of a later writer, who with doubtful dramatic license put it into the mouth of Christ. The answer is (1) that the time had now come for Jesus to declare in unmistakable language his Messiahship, and that no more natural or suitable form could be employed than that of such a prayer; (2) that the very fact that the names appear so frequently in conjunction in the Apostolic writings, and in the early church, is itself a reason for believing that the apostles derived them from their Master.
4 I[636] have glorified thee on the earth: I[637] have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.
[636] ch. 14:13.
[637] ch. 19:30; 2 Tim. 4:7.
5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me, with thine own self, with the glory which I[638] had with thee before the world was.
[638] ch. 1:1, 2; Phil. 2:6; Heb. 1:3, 10.
=4, 5. I have manifested thy glory on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.= By anticipation Christ regards that as consummated, the consummation of which is so near at hand. In fact, not the least part of his work was the endurance of the Passion of the next twenty-four hours. Comp. Paul in 2 Tim. 4:7, “I have finished my course,” etc.--=And now glorify thou me, O Father, with thyself, with that glory which I have always had with thee before the world was.= That is, Manifest my glory in and with thee, that glory which I have always possessed. The word glorify is used throughout this prayer, I believe, always with the one signification, viz., to show forth glory, not to confer it (see on ver. 1), and that the glory of inherent character, not of circumstance or condition. I have had (εἶχον, imperfect) is, as above rendered, equivalent to always or habitually had. The language before the world was clearly implies Christ’s pre-existence with the Father from the creation of the world. It is not, and by no candid interpretation can be made, the language of a merely human experience. God is said to have chosen his saints (Ephes. 1:4), but not to have loved and glorified them, from before the beginning of the world; but Christ’s grace was prepared and his glory was manifested before the foundation of the world (Col. 1:17; 2 Tim. 1:9; Titus 1:2). Christ declares that he has manifested the glory of the Father by the fulfilling of the Father’s work thus far; and he prays the Father to remember the glory of love which bound the Son and the Father together in the eternal life of the past, and to so sustain him in the trying experiences of the present, that this divine glory, which he has had with the Father from before the beginning of the world, may be made manifest.
6 I[639] have manifested thy name unto the men which thou[640] gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy[641] word.
[639] verse 26; Ps. 22:22.
[640] verses 2, 9, 11; Rom. 8:30.
[641] Heb. 3:6.
=6.= Christ here passes from the prayer for himself to the intercessory prayer for his disciples, with whom, by the request in ver. 20, he includes all who have faith in him, through all time.--=I have manifested thy name unto the men whom thou entrusted to me out of the world. Thine they were, and thou entrusted them to me; and they have guarded thy teaching.= To manifest is literally to cause to shine (φανερόω, from φαίνω). The name that was enveloped in darkness, of him whom no one by searching can find out, who was, and apart from Christ ever is, the unknown and unknowable, Christ has made to shine forth out of the darkness. The name represents all that which lies back of and gives meaning to the name, here the power and character of God. See Matt. 28:19, note. Especially his name of Father Christ has made to shine out upon a before orphaned world, both by manifesting in himself the character of God the Father, and by his life, and notably by this prayer, manifesting also the relation which may and should subsist between the children and the Father to whom Christ gives access (Rom. 5:2; Ephes. 2:18; 3:12). The verb rendered gave, here and below (δίδωμι), is equally capable of being rendered entrusted or committed (Rob. Lex.). This is clearly its meaning in Matt. 16:19; 25:15; John 5:22; and I think represents the meaning here and in John 10:29 better than the word gave. The Father entrusts his children to the guardian keeping of his Son, but will at the end receive them again unto himself when the Son delivers up the kingdom to God, even the Father (1 Cor. 15:24). They were the Father’s (thine) before they were entrusted to the Son, not because they were Israelites; for Christ includes all, Gentiles as well as Jews, in this prayer, and elsewhere makes it clear that he does not regard any one as of God because descended from Abraham (ch. 8:37, 39, 40; comp. Luke 3:8); nor because they were chosen by God from the foundation of the world; for there is no distinct declaration nor any necessary implication of election, either absolute or conditional, here. The disciple of Christ is the Father’s, because he is born from above, by the Spirit of God, before he can see the kingdom of God, certainly therefore before by faith he can enter it. Thus he is of the Father before he hears Christ’s voice; he is given by the Father to the Son before he comes to the Son (John 3:5; 6:37, 44; 8:47). Teaching or word (λόγος), a different Greek word from that rendered words in ver. 8, indicates the whole system of divine truth entrusted by the Father to Christ and by him taught to his disciples, and pre-eminently that truth of God which was embodied in the Son’s life and death even more than in his verbal instructions (ch. 7:16; 12:48, 49). It is called the Father’s word or teaching because the words of Christ were not his, but the Father’s (ch. 14:24). To keep (τηρέω) is to guard watchfully, as one guards a prisoner; it therefore includes the idea both of watchful attention to the word and solicitude to preserve it by obedience in the life and heart (ch. 8:51, note). Christ then declares that he has made luminous the name of God, by interpreting the divine Fatherhood, not to the whole world, but to those selected out of the world and entrusted to his guardian keeping; and that those thus entrusted to him by the Father, to whom they owe the first impulse of divine life that sent them to Christ for light, have been attentive to hear and careful to preserve the instructions they have received from him. In the succeeding two verses he indicates what was the heart of this divine instruction.
7 Now they have known that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee.
8 For I have given unto them the words[642] which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.
[642] ch. 6:68; 14:10.
=7, 8. Now.= Already; the word is emphatic.--=They know.= Assuredly know; the perfect tense has the present signification, but indicates completed knowledge; not that the disciples were perfect in knowledge of Christian truth, but they were fully convinced of the fundamental truth of Christianity, viz., that it is a divine revelation, not an earth-born and human philosophy.--=That all things whatsoever thou hast entrusted to me are bestowed by thee.= Are of thee (παρὰ σοῦ ἐστεν) signifies bestowed by thee; the former is the more literal, the latter is the truer translation, because it renders the Greek idiom into its English equivalent (see Rob. Lex., παρά, I:2). Christianity is a gift of the Father through Christ.--=That the words which thou hast entrusted to me I have entrusted to them.= This clause, like the preceding one, is dependent on the first clause; the disciples have assuredly known that whatsoever truths are possessed by Christ came from the Father, and that whatsoever the Father has entrusted to him he has in turn entrusted to them, keeping nothing back for fear or favor. Comp. Acts 20:20, 27. I see no reason for translating the same Greek particle (ὅτι) that in ver. 7, for or because in ver. 8, first clause, and that again in the last clause of the same verse. Christ before spoke of doctrine or teaching (λόγος), i. e., the system as a whole; he now speaks of words (ῥήμα), thus emphasizing the truth that each specific word in his teaching, whether of promise, commandment, or instruction, is from the Father. These words were entrusted by the Father to Christ, and now that Christ is about to leave his disciples he entrusts these words in turn to them, sending them forth, as he himself was sent forth, to teach only what they are commanded. See ver. 18; Matt. 28:20. He does not merely give these words to us for our own behoof; he entrusts them to us to be used for others.--=And they have received= (not them, an addition by the translators which the context does not warrant), =and known assuredly that from thee I came forth=. They have just declared their reception of this central truth of Christianity, that Jesus Christ came forth from the Father (ch. 16:29, 30). They not only have known that Christ has taught only what the Father imparted to him, i. e., is a teacher sent from God (ch. 3:2, note), but they have gone on from this knowledge to the spiritual reception by faith of the truth that Christ himself has come forth from the Father. Their faith has laid hold on not only his divine teaching, but also his divine character. Whosoever begins by accepting Christ as a divine and authoritative teacher, and holds fast to that faith, grows into the experience of continuous acceptance of him in his person and character as a manifestation of the Father from whom not only the words, but he himself, came forth.--=And have had faith that thou didst send me.= “That I came out from thee is more a matter of conviction from inference, hence they have known; whereas the other side of the same truth, thou hast sent me forth, the act of the Father unseen by us, is more a matter of pure faith, hence they have had faith.”--(Alford.)
9 I pray for them: I pray not for the world,[643] but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.
[643] 1 John 5:19.
10 And all mine[644] are thine, and thine are mine; and I[645] am glorified in them.
[644] ch. 16:15.
[645] Gal. 1:24; 1 Pet. 2:9.
=9, 10. I am praying for them; I am not praying for the world.= It is monstrous exegesis to conclude from this that Christ never prays for the world; he simply says, I am not now praying for the world, but for my own disciples. He enjoined on his followers to pray for the unbelieving (Matt. 5:44); he prayed upon the cross for them, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do” (Luke 23:34); in this very prayer, in ver. 23, he prays “That the world may know that thou hast sent me,” etc. The tense here is present, and the above translation accurately represents the original. In asking for those who have accepted him as a manifestation of the glory of the Father, that they may be kept even unto the end, he is praying for his own. “The most he asked for the world is that it may be converted, not that it may be sanctified or kept.”--(Luther.) To the same effect are Godet, Alford, Meyer, and the modern commentators generally.--=But for those whom thou hast entrusted to me; for they are thine; and mine all are thine, and thine mine, and my glory is manifested in them.= All is emphatic; the only begotten Son has nothing in reserve from the Father. What Luther says is true: “Any man may say, What is mine is thine, but only the Son can say, What is thine is mine;” nevertheless there are few that can utter with the whole heart, and without any reserve, even the first clause, “Mine all are thine.” Christ pleads for his own on two grounds: (1) They are the Father’s in the ownership of love; thus the covenant mercy of God for his own is plead as one ground of intercession. Comp. Ps. 51:1; 69:13, 16. (2) They are entrusted to the Son’s safe-keeping, and their preservation and sanctification will manifest the Son’s glory, i. e., the glory of his redeeming love and power; thus the Father’s love for the Son is plead as a second ground of intercession. Thus also his example indicates what it is to pray to the Father in the name of the Son, viz., in order that his glory of redeeming love may be manifested. While this declaration, “Mine all are thine and thine mine,” is to be taken in its more comprehensive sense, as indicating the unity of the Son and the Father in all things, yet the context gives a peculiar and spiritual significance to it. All that come to Christ by faith, so becoming his, are born from above and are the children of God; and all that are truly born from above and are the children of God come to Christ by faith, and so become his (ch. 6:44, 45; 8:42, 47).
11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep[646] through thine own name[647] those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.
[646] 1 Pet. 1:5; Jude 1:24.
[647] Prov. 18:10.
12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture[648] might be fulfilled.
[648] Ps. 109:8; Acts 1:20.
=11, 12. And now I am no more in the world, and these are in the world, and I am coming to thee.= An additional plea for those whom he is leaving behind. He can no longer be with them, their guide and guardian; therefore he pleads for the guidance and the guardianship of the Father.--=O Holy Father, guard them in that name of thine which thou hast entrusted to me, in order that they may be one in like manner as we are.= There is some uncertainty as to the reading; (ὅ, and οὕς and ῶ are all found in MSS.) Some manuscripts give authority for our English version, Keep those whom thou hast entrusted to me; others give as above, Keep those in thy name which thou hast entrusted to me. The latter is sustained by the best critics (Alford, Meyer, Bengel, Groesback, Tischendorf). Every word in this sentence is weighty. The meaning of holy is pure, clean, without blemish. The divine holiness is ever going out of itself, imparting of itself to others, aiming to make all other natures holy; thus by the appellation Holy Father Christ appeals to the cleansing nature of the Father. To keep is to guard with watchful care. See above on ver. 6. In (ἐν) is instrumental; as the life of the flower is preserved in the sunshine, so the life of the soul in the name of the Father, in whom we live and move and have our being. The name stands here, as above (ver. 6), for all which that name represents: the paternal God. This name was not given to Christ, he does not bear it; but it was entrusted to Christ, that he might manifest it to his disciples, by teaching them the Fatherhood of God; and it is to this name that Christ commends his disciples, for it is by faith in this name, i. e., in the essential fatherly character of God, that the disciple receives the spirit of adoption whereby he becomes a child of God (Rom. 8:15-17), and it is this faith in his Father’s holy keeping which is a shield to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked (Ephes. 6:16). In order that may grammatically express either the object for which the Father’s name was entrusted to Christ, or the object of the holy keeping which Christ seeks for his disciples. In fact, the object of the manifestation and of the fatherly guardianship is the same, namely, that the disciples who have by faith received that name, and are protected by it, may become partakers of the divine nature, and so become one with the Son and the Father, not only in general purpose, but in all essential elements of character (Heb. 12:10; 2 Pet. 1:4).--=While I was with them I guarded them in that name of thine which thou didst entrust to me.= The reading here, as above, is involved in some uncertainty, but this is the better reading. The words in the world are a gloss, and are needless.--=And I preserved them.= Our English version obscures the meaning by rendering two different Greek words (τηρέω and φυλάσσω) by the same English word (keep) in this and the preceding verse. Christ declares above that he has kept watch, here that this watch has been successful, and that he has preserved those over whom he has watched.--=And no one of them has destroyed himself.= This, which is the sense of the middle voice in Greek, it is important to preserve. “Christ did not lose Judas, but he lost himself.”--(Alford.) But the language implies that every one might have destroyed himself but for the guardian care of Christ.--=Except the son of destruction, that the Scripture might be fulfilled.= See John 13:18; Acts 1:20; Ps. 41:9. It was predetermined, not that one who might have been saved should destroy himself in order to fulfill prophecy, but that one who would destroy himself should be among the twelve. Judas was not lured to destruction in order to fulfill prophecy, but prophecy was fulfilled in his self-destruction. See ch. 19:28, note. “Judas fell that the Scripture might be fulfilled. But it would be a most unfounded argument if any one were to infer from this that the revolt of Judas ought to be ascribed to God rather than to himself, because the prediction laid him under a necessity. * * * Nor was it the design of Christ to transfer to Scripture the cause of the ruin of Judas, but it was only intended to take away the occasion of stumbling by showing that the Spirit of God had long ago testified that such an event would happen.”--(Calvin.) It is a noticeable fact that the phrase son of destruction, here employed to designate Judas, is employed by Paul in 2 Thess. 2:3 to designate the Anti-Christ.
13 And now come I to thee; and these things I speak in the world, that they might have my joy fulfilled in themselves.
14 I have given them thy word; and the world[649] hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
[649] ch. 15:18, 19.
15 I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but[650] that thou shouldest keep them from the evil.
[650] Gal. 1:4.
16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
=13-16. But now I am coming to thee.= and therefore can no longer be an earthly guardian. As a mother dying entrusts her children to God, so Christ his disciples.--=And these things I speak in the world that they may have my joy filled to overflowing in themselves.= These things include not only the prayer now offered for the disciples, but also the whole course of instruction given to them and immediately preceding the prayer. The object of both instruction and prayer is the same, that his disciples may be brought into that oneness with the Father, that life in him, and that consequent consecration to his will and service, which filled the Son with an abiding peace and joy, and that so they might be filled to the full with the same joy. See ch. 14:27; 15:11, notes.--=I have entrusted to them thy teaching.= Not given, but entrusted. See above on ver. 6. The teaching which the Father entrusted to the Son, the Son in turn entrusted primarily to the apostles, secondarily to his disciples throughout all time, that they may become lights of the world as he was the Light of the world, teachers of the truth of God as he was the Great Teacher (Matt. 5:14; Phil. 2:15). That this is the meaning is indicated by what follows. It is only as the disciples become, by their life and words, teachers of the truth, that the world hates them.--=And the world has hated them, because they are not from= (ἐκ) =the world, in like manner as I am not from the world=. The disciple of Christ is born from above (ch. 3:3; Gal. 6:15; 1 Pet. 1:3), and thus is spiritually like his Master (ch. 8:23). The origin of the divine life in Christ and his followers is the same; in both it proceeds from the Father.--=I pray not that thou shouldest take them from the world, but that thou shouldest guard them from the Evil One.= Not as Norton renders it, and as our English version implies, from what is evil, though that is included by implication; but from the Evil One, i. e., Satan. The original is, indeed, capable of either meaning; but the latter interpretation agrees best with John’s usage elsewhere. See 1 John 2:13, 14; 3:12; 5:18. The Evil One is treated by Christ as the source, or at least the representative, of all that is evil, as the prince of the kingdom of darkness and sin. Compare Matt. 13:25, 38, 39, where the tares, i. e., the children of the wicked, are represented as sown by the enemy, i. e., the devil.--If Christ does not desire for us that we should be taken out of the world, we are not to desire it for ourselves. Temporary retreat from the world, the better to prepare us for it, is legitimate; so Christ sometimes retreated, seeking strength in solitude and communion with his Father. But Christianity is not asceticism. The disciple is sent into the world that he may be a light to the world, and the measure of his Christian life is not his experience in hours of retirement from it, but the fidelity of his life in it.
17 Sanctify[651] them through thy truth: thy word[652] is truth.
[651] Acts 15:9; Ephes. 5:26; 2 Thess. 2:13.
[652] Ps. 119:151.
=17. Consecrate them in thy truth; thy teaching is truth.= The original (ἀγιάζω) may be rendered either consecrate or sanctify. It means both to set apart from a common to a sacred use, and also to make holy for that use; in other words, it may mean to make holy in mission or in character. But the former is evidently the meaning here; for it cannot be said that Christ made himself holy in character for the sake of his disciples (ver. 19). Christ prays that the Father will set apart his disciples to a life of divine service, as priests unto God (Rev. 20:6). This consecration of the disciple involves his sanctification; for the sinner cannot be set apart to a holy work while yet in his sins. It does not involve sanctification in the Son, because he had no sins to be cleansed away. This consecration of the disciple is effected both by imparting to him through the Holy Spirit the truth of God (ch. 14:26), and by commissioning him to serve that truth by bearing witness of it unto others (Matt. 28:20; Acts 1:8). In thy truth (ἐν, dative) expresses the idea that the truth is both the instrument by which and the service to which the disciple is consecrated. We are consecrated unto the truth as we live in the truth; so Samuel was consecrated to the temple by being brought while yet a child to live in the temple. Christ designates the teaching or word which he has imparted, and which the Holy Spirit will further impart to his disciples, thy teaching, because all that comes through the Son and the Spirit comes from the Father (ch. 14:10; 16:13).
18 As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world.
19 And[653] for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth.
[653] 1 Cor. 1:2, 30.
=18, 19. In like manner as thou hast sent me into the world, I also have sent them into the world.= Full weight is to be given to the phrase as, i. e., in like manner as (καθὼς). This is the most weighty and solemn declaration of the mission of the disciple, I think, in the N. T., albeit it corresponds with the universal teaching of both Gospel and Epistle, viz., that Christ is the first-born among many brethren, and that those who are his disciples are also to be in all things his followers; like him teachers of the truth; like him manifesting the life and character of God in the world, by the divine life begotten in them from above; like him bearing the sins of others in their own person, and so filling up what is behind of the sufferings Of Christ (Phil. 3:10; Col. 1:24; 1 Pet. 4:13). Christ does not merely leave his disciples in the world, he sends them into it, as he was sent, each disciple to be in his narrower sphere a saviour of others, and the whole discipleship to be the body of an ever living, ever incarnate, ever teaching, and ever atoning Lord. Thus, too, not only because they are left alone, but yet more because they are sent forth to complete his work, does the Son ask the Father to be to them what he has been to their Lord in his earthly mission.--=And for their sakes I consecrate myself, in order that they also might be consecrated in the truth.= As above, both in, i. e., by means of, and unto, i. e., to serve the cause of the truth. The definite article is wanting, and Meyer reads the phrase consecrated in truth, as simply equivalent to “truly consecrated”; but the other interpretation is warranted by Greek usage, and better accords with the context. While Christ identifies himself with his disciples in his prayer that they may become one with him, in his declaration that they are in the spiritual life born of the same divine Father, and in his commission to them to carry out his work, he distinguishes between himself and them; for he consecrates himself; they must be consecrated by a higher power. The consecration which the Lord made of himself was not made, though it was consummated, at Calvary. His death was a crowning act, not the whole act. “Our Lord possessed a human nature like our own, endowed with inclinations and dislikes as our own is, though of such only as are perfectly lawful. Of this nature he was continually making a holy offering; he constrained it to obedience; negatively by sacrificing it when it was in contradiction with his mission; positively by devoting to his divinely appointed task all his powers, all his natural and spiritual talents. It was thus that ‘He by the Eternal Spirit offered himself without spot unto God’ (Heb. 9:14).”--(Godet.) So also substantially Calvin, Alford, Hengstenberg. Comp. John 10:11, note.
20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
21 That they all may be one;[654] as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
[654] Rom. 12:5.
=20, 21. Not for these only am I praying, but also for those who have faith upon me through their teaching.= The statement is not general, I am accustomed to pray for believers, but special, It is for all believers that I am now praying. His intercessory prayer is for us no less than for them.--=That all may be one; in like manner as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee, that also they in us one may be; that the world may have faith that thou hast sent me.= The emphasis of the Greek is partially represented in this nearly literal rendering. Observe the close connection with what has gone before. The burden of Christ’s prayer has been that his disciples may be preserved in the world, and consecrated for their mission as truth-bearers to the world; he now adds, I ask this in order that they may be one in us. His prayer is not merely that they may be one, but that they may be consecrated in and to the truth, so that they may become one. The implication is that whenever Christians are thoroughly consecrated to the service of Christ all differences so disappear that they work together in unity of the spirit and of faith; and this truth history abundantly confirms. This unity is not in creed, ceremonial, or ecclesiastical organization, but in the Father and the Son, i. e., the unity of personal devotion to, and love for, and spiritual communion and fellowship with the Father and his Son Jesus Christ (1 John 1:3). This spiritual union in and with God will finally lead to but it is not founded on unity in opinion. It is a union that is apparent as well as real. The world will see it, and seeing will be led to believe that the Father has sent the Son, i. e., that Christianity is of divine origin, so marvellous will seem to be the power of love uniting in one kingdom elements, opinions, and nationalities so diverse. This spiritual unity of the discipleship of Christ is almost the consummation of Christ’s prayer. He has only one higher request to prefer for his church, namely, that through this unity in him and the Father who has sent him, the church may come to a true spiritual appreciation of the Son’s eternal glory with and in the Father (ver. 24).
22 And the glory[655] which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
[655] 2 Cor. 3:18.
23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.
=22, 23. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them, that they may be one in like manner as we are one.= I is emphatic. The Father has given glory to the Son; the Son makes all his followers participators in that glory. In what does this glory consist? Not in the power of working miracles (Chrysostom), for this he has not given to all those that believe in his name. Not the glory of the heavenly state (Meyer), for this he will give, but had not given to his disciples when he uttered this prayer. Not the glory of unity with the Father and the Son (Hengstenberg), for the glory is given in order that this unity may be attained; this unity with the Godhead is not the glory, but the result of it. The glory which the Father gave the Son was the glory of being the Son of God (Matt. 3:17; John 1:14; Heb. 1:5; 3:6). This glory Christ imparts to his followers, who through him are received into the adoption of God by faith, and become themselves sons of God (ch. 1:12; 1 John 3:1). And it is as we become thus sons of God that we become one with each other because one in him, one household of faith only as we are united to one Father (Rom. 8:29; Ephes. 1:10; 2:19). This glory of sonship involves not only filial relations with the Father, but the possession of a divine life begotten by the Father, and therefore a nature akin to that of the Father, who is love, and whose children we are only as we dwell in love (1 John 3:9, 10; 4:8, 16).--=I in them and thou in me.= And therefore the Father in them through the Son, by whom they have access to the Father.--=That they may be perfected unto unity.= This unity of love with the Father and the Son, and therefore with one another, is the culmination of the divine life, as well as the disclosure of it. Comp. Ephes. 4:11-13: “Till we all come in the unity of the faith of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man.”--=In order that the world may know that thou hast sent me forth.= It shall no longer have faith merely; it shall know assuredly the divine origin and authority of the Christian religion, and this conviction shall be compelled by the moral and spiritual power of a spiritually united church.--=And that thou hast loved them in like manner as thou hast loved me.= Comp. ch. 16:27. With a love not merely of compassion, but now, all quarrels with one another ended because all separation and estrangement from God are at an end, with a love of cordial approbation. Then the voice shall speak to the universal discipleship, Behold my beloved sons in whom I am well pleased; and the whole world shall hear and acknowledge him who has wrought this redemption (Phil. 2:10; Rom. 14:11).
24 Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be[656] with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.
[656] 1 Thess. 4:17.
=24. Father, whom thou hast entrusted to me, I will that where I am they also may be.= (The sense is the same whether the reading ὅ or οὕς be adopted.) Christ changes his expression; he no longer says I pray, but I will. “He demands with confidence as a Son, not as a servant.”--(Bengel.) There are two Greek verbs which are capable of being rendered I will; the one (βούλομαι) expresses an inclination, the other (θέλω) a positive purpose. The latter is the word used here. It might justly be rendered It is my will. It is nowhere else used by Jesus. With the close of his prayer there comes such assurance of his own unity with the Father that he no longer prefers a request; he declares his purpose. In this declaration of his purpose he recurs to the promise which he had made at the opening of this most sacred interview, “I will come again and receive you unto myself, that where I am, there ye may be also” (ch. 14:3). In this expression I will, Christ’s prayer can hardly be a model for his followers. We may say to our Father, I wish; but we can never be so sure of his gracious purposes and of our union with him in them, that we can safely say to him, Father, I will.--=That they may behold my glory, which thou gavest me, because thou lovedst me before founding a world.= Observe, not before the foundation of the world, but before founding any world; the definite article is not in the original. On the significance of this declaration as a testimony to the pre-existent glory of Christ, see on ver. 5. To behold (θεωρέω) is primarily to be a spectator of, and in its primary signification includes the idea of attention, wonder, admiration. It is, however, here used certainly of spiritual apprehension; we shall be filled with wonder and surprise when the veil drops from our eyes and we see him as he is. The glory which Christ had with the Father from the beginning is the glory of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world (Rev. 13:8), the glory of a character whose radiance is infinite love, of which the sacrifice of Christ, purposed from the remote past, is the highest manifestation; and this is the glory which the saints, redeemed by his blood, behold in heaven (Rev. 5:8; 7:9; 21:23). Christ’s will, then, for his disciples is that they may be so spiritually exalted that they may be able to apprehend the full glory of that self-sacrificing love which now they look upon with so feeble appreciation, and which to the unbelieving world is inglorious (1 Cor. 1:23). This is the consummation of his prayer; what a climax in what an ascending scale! First that his disciples may be guarded in his absence by the divine care in which he himself has trusted (11-13); then that, guarded in the world, they may be consecrated to their Christly mission, to teach, to manifest God, to suffer (15-19); then that, with all believers, they may be brought into spiritual unity with the Father and his Son Jesus Christ, being made sons of God, and so sharers in the glory of him whose greatest glory it was and is to be the well-beloved Son of the Father (20-23); and finally that, thus preserved, consecrated, adopted, they may be able to realize the glory of that love of self-sacrifice, to which we all sometimes find it difficult even to submit without rebellion, and in which only the most consecrated are ever able to rejoice.
25 O righteous Father, the world hath not known thee: but I have known thee, and these have known that thou hast sent me.
26 And I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare it: that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them.
=25, 26. O righteous Father.= Christ first appealed simply to the Fatherhood of God (ver. 1), then to his holiness (ver. 11), now at last even to his righteousness or justice. For since the Son has finished the work which the Father gave him to do, he may ask of righteousness itself to complete it. Thus justice and purity compete with love in pleading for the fulfillment of redemption. So in 1 John 1:9 it is said that “he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins.”--=Though= (καὶ) =the world has not known thee, I have known thee, and= (καὶ) =these have known that thou hast sent me forth=. The world, the Son, and the disciples stand here in a triple contrast; to the world God is the absolute unknown; to the Son he is known; to the disciples God is manifested in the Son, who comes forth from God and goes to God again.--=And I have made known thy name to them, and will make it known.= And with the name all that the name represents--the justice, the holiness, and pre-eminently the Fatherhood. See on ver. 6. These words attest the consciousness in Christ that an answer has been vouchsafed to his prayer. He began by asking the Father to glorify the Son, that the Son might glorify the Father. He closes by declaring, not only that he has thus far made known the name of the Father (ver. 5), but that in the impending hour of passion and death he will make the Father known, and so will glorify him. It is true that the whole work of the church ever since, and of Christ in his church, has been making known the name of the Father; but it has been by interpreting the meaning of the cross of Christ, by preaching Christ and him crucified, as the wisdom and power of God (Rom. 1:16; 1 Cor. 1:23, 24; 2:2). Thus this prayer ends, as it began, with an implied reference to the impending Passion; but it begins with petition; it ends with assurance of victory.--=In order that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them.= That is, both that they may possess an experience of the Father’s love for them, and may possess a love like the Father’s, being made perfect in love, even as their Father in heaven is perfect (Matt. 5:48); so also that the Spirit of Christ may dwell in them, and that by this indwelling their own spirit may be conformed unto his (2 Cor. 3:18). In this simple and sublime sentence the Son embodies the object of his mission as the Divine Teacher, the Divine Revealer, and the Divine Sufferer. The object of his teaching, incarnation, and atonement is that he may make known the Father to those that will learn of his Son; and this that he may make them one with the Father and his Son--one in spiritual fellowship, because one in spiritual character.
It is a shallow criticism which imagines an incongruity between this prayer recorded by John and the prayer in Gethsemane which immediately followed, and which John has not recorded. Here Christ asks that he may be enabled to glorify the Father’s name to the end; there he asks that the same results may, if it is possible, be accomplished without the terrible ordeal of the betrayal, the desertion, the mock trials, the mob, the crucifixion, the veiling of the Father’s face. But in the agony of Gethsemane, as portrayed by the other three Evangelists, the Son never for a moment wavers from the supreme wish that the Father’s will may be accomplished and the Father’s name made manifest. The power, not merely to resign himself to the Father’s will, but affirmatively to pray, “Not my will but thine be done,” was a part of that very glory with which he besought the Father to invest him. The devout student will recognize in the prayer of Gethsemane a partial answer to the prayer in the upper chamber; for in Gethsemane, no less than in the court of Caiaphas, the judgment hall of Pilate, and the death on Calvary, the Father glorified the Son and the Son glorified the Father.
Chapter XVIII
=Ch. 18:1-11.= THE BETRAYAL AND ARREST OF JESUS.--THE DIVINE MAJESTY OF OUR LORD EXEMPLIFIED.--Narrated by all the Evangelists: Matt. 26:47-56; Mark 14:43-52; Luke 22:47-53. As usual where the four Evangelists narrate the same events, John gives particulars omitted by the others--the falling back to the ground of the guard, and Christ’s interposition for the disciples (ver. 6-9)--and omits events recorded by the others--the conference between Jesus and Judas, and the traitor’s kiss (Matt. 26:49, 50; Mark 14:44, 45). That John wrote with the other accounts before him, and to supply their omissions, is the most reasonable explanation of these and like variations in their accounts. He does not describe the agony in Gethsemane, because he can add nothing to what is already told; he narrates of the arrest only what is not already known. Even in describing the attempted resistance to the arrest, this peculiarity is to be seen; for he alone of the Evangelists mentions the name of the disciple who drew the sword and of the servant who was wounded by it. The discrepancies in the four accounts of the arrest are such as we should expect in four individual accounts of a scene of such confusion. The probable order of events, as indicated by a comparison of the accounts, I have given in the notes on Matthew, which consult throughout. Here I treat only what is peculiar to John’s account.
1 When Jesus had spoken these words, he went forth with his disciples over the brook Cedron,[657] where was a garden, into the which he entered, and his disciples.
[657] 2 Sam. 15:23.
=1. With his disciples.= That is, with the eleven. Judas was with the priests, consummating arrangements for the arrest of Jesus.--=Beyond the brook of the Cedars.= Or the black torrent, which is the meaning of the Hebrew, from which the Greek is derived. The word rendered brook (χείμαῤῥος) indicates a winter torrent, flowing in the rainy season, but dry in summer. It flowed through a ravine to the east of Jerusalem, and between it and the Mount of Olives.--=Where was a garden.= Rather an orchard. The original signifies any place planted with herbs and trees. This was called Gethsemane, and was a customary resort of Christ and his disciples. See next verse; and compare Luke 22:39. On its location, see Matt. 26:36 and illustration there. On the agony in this garden, see notes on Matt. 26:36-46. It occurred between Christ’s entering the garden and the arrival of Judas and the guard.
2 And Judas also, which betrayed him, knew the place: for Jesus ofttimes resorted thither with his disciples.
3 Judas[658] then, having received a band of men and officers from the chief priests and Pharisees, cometh thither with lanterns and torches and weapons.
[658] Matt. 26:47, etc.; Mark 14:43, etc; Luke 22:47, etc.
=2, 3. Judas then, having received the band, and, from the chief priests and Pharisees, temple officers= (ὑπηρέτης), =cometh thither=. The band was composed of Roman soldiers; the officers were temple police; the former were armed with swords, the latter with staves. Servants of the priests, and some of the priests themselves, accompanied the force. See Matt. 26:47, note; Luke 22:52.--=With lanterns and torches.= “The fact of its being full moon did not make the lights unnecessary, as in searching for a prisoner they might have to enter dark places.”--(Alford.) They appear also to have had a fear of attempted flight or rescue. See Matt. 26:48, note. I doubt whether any definite distinction is intended between lanterns and torches. The annexed cuts give illustrations of two kinds of night torches used among the Romans. The one (fax), (Rich., p. 280) was made out of a piece of resinous wood, cut into a point and dipped in oil or pitch, or of inflammable materials enclosed in a tube. The other (lampas), (Rich., p. 365) was in the nature of a candlestick, with a handle beneath and a large disk above, to protect the hand from the drippings of the pitchy or resinous matter of which the torch consisted. This lampa was carried by the youth of Athens in a peculiar race, in which the winner had to outstrip his competitors without extinguishing his light. The ancient Oriental lantern, like those still employed in Egypt (see Lane’s Modern Egypt), consisted of a wax cloth, strained over a sort of cylinder of iron rings and a top and bottom of perforated copper. Both the Roman torch and the Oriental lantern may have been used on this occasion.
4 Jesus therefore, knowing[659] all things that should come upon him, went forth, and said unto them, Whom seek ye?
[659] ch. 10:17, 18; Acts 2:28.
5 They answered him, Jesus of[660] Nazareth. Jesus saith unto them, I am he. And Judas also, which betrayed him, stood with them.
[660] ch. 19:19; Matt. 2:23.
=4, 5. Jesus, therefore, knowing all things that should come upon him.= Not merely knowing that the guard had come to arrest him (Matt. 26:45), but with the full consciousness of all the agony of the morrow (Matt. 20:17-19; Luke 18:31-34). Of his own will he submits to the Passion (Matt. 26:53; John 10:18).--=Went forth.= Possibly from the shadow of the trees into the moonlight, or from the garden walls, or perhaps simply advanced to meet the guards. His object in so doing is indicated by ver. 8. He put himself between the guards and his disciples to prevent the arrest of the latter. Judas preceded the band (Luke 22:47), and Christ’s questions addressed to the apostate, and the traitor’s kiss (Matt. 26:49, 50; Luke 22:48), seem to have taken place before Christ spoke to the guard.--=Jesus the Nazarene.= Jesus, or Joshua--the names are the same--was a common one among the Jews, and the term “Nazarene” was a customary appellation, especially by his foes, to designate our Lord. Its tone, to the Judeans, was one of contempt (Matt. 2:23; John 19:19).--=And there stood Judas, he that betrayed him, with them.= If we suppose that Jesus hurried forth from the garden, before the three disciples were well awake, to the spot where the others had been sleeping, then, not improbably, John did not see the traitor’s kiss, but, arriving after, saw Judas standing with the guard, who had meanwhile come to the spot; thus he narrates only what he personally witnessed. His language, by its very simplicity, suggests to the imagination the contrast between Jesus and Judas, the betrayed and the betrayer.
6 As soon then as he had said unto them, I am he, they[661] went backward, and fell to the ground.
[661] Ps. 27:2; 40:14.
=6. They= (the guard) =went backward and fell to the ground=. That this states a literal fact will not be questioned by any who believe in the historical trustworthiness of the Gospel narratives. That it describes a miracle, that is, a sign of the superhuman character of Christ, is equally certain. Whether it is to be regarded as an effect produced by the will of our Lord, or by the mere majesty and dignity of his mien, and his reply, is the only question which believers in the N. T. have to consider. I think the latter. The scene is interpreted, though not fully explained, by similar instances of moral power excited by noble over savage natures. History records several analogous cases, as when before Mark Antony, Marius, and Coligny, the murderers recoiled panic-stricken. So Avidius Cassius, “springing to the door of his tent in nightdress, quelled a mutinous army by his mere presence.”--(Farrar.) Lange cites Matt. 28:4; Luke 4:30; John 7:44-46; 8:59; 10:39; Acts 5:5, 10, as partially parallel. The historical cases above referred to illustrate the human power of a noble soul; this case differs from them in that it shows the divine power of Him who not only spake as never man spake, but who carried in his person the evidence that he was in very deed the image of God and the brightness of his glory. This view is confirmed by the reflection that he came forth to meet the guard from an hour of sacred and solemn communion with God, of ecstasy unfathomable by us. “I regard it,” says Alford, “rather as a miracle consequent upon that which Christ said and did, and the state of mind in which his enemies were, than as one in the strict sense wrought by him; bearing, however, always in mind, that to Him nothing was unexpected or a mere result, but everything foreknown.” Thus interpreted it is a striking testimony, one of many, to the personal glory of Him who was ever full of “grace and truth,” and gives a solemn significance to such passages as Matt. 25:31; Rev. 1:7; 6:15-17. “If he did this when about to be judged, what shall he do when he shall sit in judgment? If he did this on the eve of death, what shall he do when reigning?”--(Augustine.)
7 Then asked he them again, Whom seek ye? And they said, Jesus of Nazareth.
8 Jesus answered, I have told you that I am he: if therefore ye seek me,[662] let these go their way:
[662] Isa. 53:6; Ephes. 5:25.
=7, 8.= I surmise that the attack on the guard followed their sudden terror. The disciples were eager to make it (Luke 22:49), though Peter was the only one who carried the will into action. Only one other disciple was armed (Luke 22:38). The request of Christ, “Let these go their way,” was interpreted by the disciples as a direction for them to flee, which they did. That there was anything cowardly or wrong in this flight is by no means clear. To sanction it, both Christ’s precept (Matt. 10:23) and his example (Luke 4:30; John 8:59; 10:39) might be quoted. Nothing would have been gained for Christ or his cause by the disciples subjecting themselves to arrest.
9 That the saying might be fulfilled which he spake,[663] Of them which thou gavest me have I lost none.
[663] ch. 17:12.
=9. That the saying might be fulfilled.= The saying is quoted from Christ’s prayer, John 17:12. The present deliverance of the eleven from physical danger was not a final fulfillment of the saying, but was itself a historical prophecy of its further spiritual fulfillment, as God’s providential care of us in respect to present and temporal wants is a testimony of the love that provides even more abundantly for every spiritual want. See Matt. 2:15, note.
10 Then[664] Simon Peter, having a sword, drew it, and smote the high priest’s servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant’s name was Malchus.
[664] Matt. 26:51; Mark 14:47; Luke 22:49, 50.
11 Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup[665] which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?
[665] Matt. 20:22; 26:39, 42.
=10, 11.= Christ follows his rebuke of Peter by healing Malchus (Luke 22:51). John alone gives the name of either assailant or assailed. See for reason, note on Matt. 26:51. Compare Christ’s language here with Matthew’s report.--Observe that the evils brought upon us by wicked men are yet recognized here as given by God. The sufferings inflicted by Judas, Caiaphas, and Pilate, and rendered necessary by the sins of the world, are yet to Christ’s faith the cup which his Father hath given him.
* * * * *
=12-27.= THE PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION OF JESUS BEFORE CAIAPHAS, AND THE DENIALS BY PETER.--This examination, narrated by John, is distinctive from the trial reported by the Synoptists (Matt. 26:57-68; Mark 14:53-65; Luke 22:63-71). For a general consideration of the harmony of the Gospel narratives, and of their lessons, see notes on Matthew. If John is the other disciple referred to in verses 15, 16, he is the only one of the Evangelists who was an eye and ear witness of these events, and his order is presumptively the correct one. For reasons appearing partly in the notes on Matthew, partly in the notes below, I believe that Jesus was sent at once from Annas to Caiaphas, though the two may have occupied different apartments in the same palace; that the preliminary examination was conducted by Caiaphas; that while it proceeded Peter was in the adjoining courtyard, and there denied his Lord; that at its conclusion Jesus was conducted to the Sanhedrim, where the formal trial reported by the Synoptists took place; and that this trial is not described by John, perhaps because he was not present, and wrote only of the events which he personally witnessed.
12 Then the band and the captain and officers of the Jews took Jesus, and bound him,
=12. Then the band * * * bound him.= John alone describes the binding. This it was, probably, which called forth the remonstrance and rebuke of Christ recorded in Matt. 26:55, 56; Luke 22:52, 53. “To apprehend and bind One, all gave their help: the cohort, the chiliarch, and the Jewish officers. This the Evangelist brings prominently forward, to show how deep the impression of that previous incident still was: only by the help of all did they feel themselves secure. And thus it was ordered that the disciples might escape with the more safety.”--(Luthardt.)
13 And led him away to Annas[666] first; for he was father in law to Caiaphas, which was the high priest that same year.
[666] Luke 3:2.
14 Now Caiaphas was he, which gave counsel[667] to the Jews, that it was expedient that one man should die for the people.
[667] ch. 11:49, 50.
=13, 14. Annas first.= Annas was appointed High Priest of the Jews A. D. 7, but had been removed by the Roman Procurator several years previous, and Joseph Caiaphas, his son-in-law, had been appointed in his stead. In Luke 3:2 both are designated as high-priests, and in Acts 4:6; 23:2, the title is given to Annas. The probable explanation is that while Caiaphas held the office, he was really controlled by his father-in-law, who may have been regarded by the Jews as their true high-priest, notwithstanding his deposition by the Romans. He seems to have been one of that class of politicians who are willing that others should possess the honors and offices, provided they may wield the powers of the state.--=Caiaphas.= See Matt. 26:57, note.--=That same year.= The high-priest was originally appointed for life, but the office was now filled by appointees of the Roman government. There were no fewer than twenty-eight high-priests from the reign of Herod to the destruction of the temple by Titus. Of these, five besides Caiaphas were sons of Annas. It is possible that there is a delicate sarcasm in John’s incidental allusion to the transitoriness of the office. This, at least, seems to me better than to render the original (ενιατός) era instead of year, though that is a possible translation, or to suppose, with Prof. Fisher, that John thus simply emphasizes the supreme importance which that year, of the trial and crucifixion of Jesus, had in his mind.--=Which gave counsel.= See John 11:49-51.
15 And[668] Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another disciple: that disciple was known unto the high priest, and went in with Jesus into the palace of the high priest.
[668] Matt. 26:58, etc.; Mark 14:54; Luke 22:54.
=15. Another disciple.= Who this other disciple was is not certainly known, though Alford says “there is no reason to doubt the universal persuasion that by this name John intends himself, and refers to the mention in ch. 13:23 of a disciple whom Jesus loved.” The notion that it was Judas Iscariot is refuted by the language of this verse. Judas did not follow Jesus, but accompanied the band; and that Peter should have entered the palace under the protection of Judas after the betrayal is incredible. Some manuscripts have the reading the other disciple, which would identify him with John (ch. 20:2, 3, 4). But it seems more probable that the article was added by some copyist to give definiteness to the expression, than that it was subsequently omitted.--=Was known unto the high-priest.= How, we have no means of ascertaining. John 19:27 is, however, thought to indicate that the apostle John had a house in Jerusalem.--=Into the palace of the high-priest.= Since John describes Caiaphas as high-priest, this verse clearly indicates that Jesus was taken at once from Annas to Caiaphas. See on ver. 24.
16 But Peter stood at the door without. Then went out that other disciple, which was known unto the high priest, and spake unto her that kept the door, and brought in Peter.
17 Then saith the damsel that kept the door unto Peter, Art not thou also one of this man’s disciples? He saith, I am not.
=16, 17.= See Matt. 26:69, note, and illustration there. The doorkeeper was not unfrequently a maid (Acts 12:13). The language here, Art not thou also one of his disciples? indicates that John was known to her as a disciple, and that Peter’s first denial was uttered on entering, and for the purpose of gaining an entrance. Observe that it is not being in bad company, but fellowship in it, that is dangerous. Peter and John were both in the same company, but one concealed his discipleship, the other did not.
18 And the servants and officers stood there, who had made a fire of coals; for it was cold: and they warmed themselves: and Peter stood with them, and warmed himself.
=18. The servants * * * had made a fire of coals.= Probably an open fire in a portable stove or brazier, in the open courtyard around which the Jewish house was customarily built. It is doubtful whether chimneys were known to the ancients; they were certainly very rare. Fires were built sometimes in a little brazier or chafing-dish, sometimes in a small portable stove or fireplace. The fire was always carried from one room to another in a fire-basket made of iron, with perforated sides, to create a draft of air. Bellows and tongs were also in use among them. The accompanying illustrations, taken from ancient bronzes and paintings, will give the reader an idea of these articles. Peter, by joining the group around the fire and concealing his true character, identified himself with the persecutors of Christ.
19 The high priest then asked Jesus of his disciples, and of his doctrine.
20 Jesus answered him, I spake[669] openly to the world. I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and[670] in secret have I said nothing.
[669] ch. 7:14, 26, 28; 8:2; Luke 4:15.
[670] Acts 26:26.
21 Why askest thou me? ask them which heard me, what I have said unto them: behold, they know what I said.
=19-21. The high-priest then asked Jesus.= It was customary among the Jews to subject an accused person to an examination analogous to that practised at a later day in the Inquisition. Witnesses concealed behind a screen reduced his replies to writing. To such an examination, preliminary to his formal trial, Jesus Christ was now subjected.--=Of his disciples and of his doctrine.= The object of the first question was to get evidence against his adherents, the object of the second to get evidence against Jesus himself. To the first Jesus pays no attention; to the second he interposes a calm and dignified protest.--=I spoke openly.= Rather freely, boldly. The original (παῤῥησία) signifies literally speaking out all, that is, free-spokenness. Observe that boldness and frankness of utterance are essential qualifications of the true preacher.--=In secret have I said nothing.= Some truths he had reserved because they could not be understood (John 16:12, 25), and others which he had taught were not understood (Matt. 13:13; 1 Cor. 2:7, 8); but there were no mysteries in his religious teaching which he had sought to conceal and for which he was amenable.--=Ask them which heard me.= Not improbably some of the very officers so strangely affected by his preaching were present. If so, this appeal to their own subordinates would have incensed the priests, by making manifest their own injustice.
22 And when he had thus spoken, one of the officers which stood by struck[671] Jesus with the palm of his hand, saying, Answerest thou the high priest so?
[671] Job 16:10; Jer. 20:2; Acts 23:2, 3.
23 Jesus answered him, If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil: but[672] if well, why smitest thou me?
[672] 1 Pet. 2:19-23.
=22, 23. With the palm of his hand.= Or with a staff; either meaning is admissible. Contrast with Christ’s calm rejoinder Paul’s response to similar maltreatment (Acts 23:3).--The commentators note in Christ’s course here his own interpretation of Matt. 5:39. “An angry man may turn in sullenness the other cheek visibly to the smiter; better is he who makes a true answer with mildness, and prepares his heart in peace to endure great sufferings.”--(Augustine.) “Christ forbids self-defence with the hand, not with the tongue.”--(Luther.) “Christ’s precept does not exclude the remonstrance against unjust oppression, provided it be done calmly and patiently.”--(Alford.)
24 Now Annas had sent him bound unto Caiaphas the high priest.
=24. Now Annas had sent him bound unto Caiaphas.= Some scholars (so Alford, Lange, and Meyer) render this verse, Sent him bound, and suppose that Jesus was sent from Annas to Caiaphas at this time; but Winer (p. 275, § 40, 5_a_) and Buttman (p. 200, § 137) show that the aorist is sometimes used for the pluperfect, as rendered by our English version, and that the sentence may be accordingly regarded grammatically as parenthetical. I believe (see ver. 15, note) that this is the true construction, and that the parenthesis is introduced at this place for the purpose of showing that Jesus was still bound when the indignity here described was inflicted upon him.
25 And Simon Peter stood and warmed himself. They said therefore unto him, Art not thou also one of his disciples? He denied it, and said, I am not.
26 One of the servants of the high priest, being his kinsman whose ear Peter cut off, saith, Did not I see thee in the garden with him?
27 Peter then denied again: and[673] immediately the cock crew.
[673] ch. 13:38; Matt. 26:74; Mark 14:72; Luke 22:60.
=25-27. Peter stood and warmed himself.= In apparent indifference to his Lord; concerned only for his comfort, and absorbed in his curiosity.-- =Did not I see thee?= This question was apparently put to Peter after he had retreated to the porch. It must be remembered that Peter’s danger was real and imminent; for his assault on Malchus had rendered him amenable to legal penalty. On the denial and its lessons, see notes on Matt. 26:69-75.
* * * * *
Ch. 18:28 to ch. 19:16. TRIAL OF JESUS BEFORE PILATE.--THE CONSCIENCE OF THE CEREMONIALIST (28).--JESUS A KING; HIS KINGDOM TRUTH; ITS DEFENCES NOT WORLDLY; IT CONQUERS ONLY THE WILLING (33-38).--IN CHRIST NO FAULT (38; ch. 19:4, 6).--THE WORLD CHOOSES BARABBAS AND REJECTS CHRIST (39, 40).--CROWNED SUFFERING (ch. 19:1-3).--BEHOLD THE MAN (5).--BEHOLD YOUR KING (14).--THE TESTIMONY OF THE JEWS TO THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST (7).--THE SILENCE OF JESUS (9).--THE END OF REJECTING CHRIST IS REJECTING GOD: WE HAVE NO KING BUT CÆSAR (15).--THE CRIME OF COWARDICE ILLUSTRATED BY PILATE.
This trial is reported also in Matt. 27:11-31; Mark 15:1-23; Luke 23:1-25. John’s account is the fullest, and has indications of being by an eye and ear witness; but he does not mention Pilate’s wife’s dream and Pilate’s washing of his hands in attestation of his innocence, recorded only by Matthew, nor the accusation preferred by the priests and the sending of Jesus to Herod, recorded only by Luke. For chronological order of events, see Matt. 27:11-31, Prel. Note. For a consideration of the character of Pilate, the reasons for his vacillating course, and the practical lessons to be drawn from it, see note below, ver. 16. The place of this trial I believe to have been the tower of Antonia; the reason for the trial is explained in ver. 31 (see note there).
28 Then[674] led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgment; and it was early; and they themselves went not into the judgment hall, lest[675] they should be defiled; but that they might eat the passover.
[674] Matt. 27:2, etc.; Mark 15:1, etc.; Luke 23:1, etc.
[675] Acts 10:28.
29 Pilate then went out unto them, and said, What accusation bring ye against this man?
=28, 29. Unto the hall of judgment.= Literally Prætorium--the name given among the Romans to the headquarters of the Roman military governor, wherever he happened to be; here it is the residence which Pilate occupied in Jerusalem. Whether that was the palace of King Herod, as Farrar and others have supposed, or the tower of Antonia, is uncertain; more probably the latter, which was at the time and long afterwards the citadel of Jerusalem, the headquarters of the army, and the residence of the Roman governors. It was built upon the same broad platform of solid rock upon which the temple stood, and so adjoined the walls of the latter that the Gentile camp seemed a part of the Jewish sanctuary. Four towers at its four corners gave it the appearance of a castle and the strength of a fortress. One of these towers looked down into the broad courts of the temple, and thus subjected all the gatherings there to the oversight of the hated heathen, while its gates, opening directly into those courts, rendered it easy, at a moment’s notice, to quell any disturbance which might occur there.--=And it was early.= The original (πρωΐᾳ) properly signifies the period between daybreak and sunrise (John 20:1), but it is also used in a more general sense to signify the early part of the forenoon (Matt. 21:18), and that must be its meaning here, for this trial before Pilate occurred certainly after the cock-crowing, and probably the formal trial of Jesus before the Sanhedrim and the subsequent deliberations of the Sanhedrim to secure the execution of the death-sentence intervened between the cock-crowing and their conducting Jesus to Pilate.--=Lest they should be defiled.= According to the Pharisaic ideas they could not enter a Gentile house without defilement, and this precluded their participation in the passover, which in such case must be postponed by those who were defiled (Numb. 9:6-11). A curious illustration of the fallibility of conscience is this superstition of the Pharisees, who feared defilement from entering the house of a heathen, but none from the endeavor to secure by fraud and violence the condemnation of their Lord.--=That they might eat the Passover.= Here not the paschal supper, but the festival which followed it, and which lasted for seven days. See Note on the Lord’s Supper, Matt. 26:30. The paschal supper itself I believe to have been observed the night before. An incidental confirmation of this opinion is afforded by Wieseler, quoted in Lange, who asserts that chronological calculations show that in the year 30, the 14th of Nisan, on the evening of which the supper proper took place, actually fell on a Thursday; and it is certain that the crucifixion of Christ occurred on Friday. If Wieseler is correct, the Lord’s Supper must have been the true paschal supper.--=Pilate went out unto them.= Pontius Pilate was the Roman procurator or resident governor of Judea at this time. On his authority, see Matt. 27:2, note; on his character, career, and course here, see note below, ch. 19:16. His going out to them was itself a concession.--=Against this man.= Probably he knew something of Jesus (Matt. 27:18, 19); for a guard had been furnished from his headquarters for the arrest of Jesus (John 18:3, note).
30 They answered and said unto him, If he were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered him up unto thee.
=30. They answered=, etc. It seems to have been their endeavor to secure the ratification of the death-sentence without any hearing, partly because they knew that the Roman governor would be indifferent to the charge of blasphemy (Acts 18:14-17), and partly because their pride revolted against submitting the decision of their court to the hated Gentile.
31 Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye him, and judge him according to your law. The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us[676] to put any man to death:
[676] Gen. 49:10; Ezek. 21:27.
=31. Then said Pilate, Take ye him and judge him. * * * It is not lawful for us to put any man to death.= It seems to have been the custom of the Romans to take into their own hands in conquered provinces the power of life and death, as one of the principal attributes of sovereignty. There is no good reason to doubt that this had been done in Palestine, and that the Sanhedrim had no longer power to execute the death-sentence. The execution of Stephen, though in a certain sense sanctioned by the Sanhedrim, was the act of a mob (Acts 7:57, 58). Pilate’s answer to the demand of the priests is ironical, a bitter reminder to them that they had no longer the power of sovereignty. Other interpretations, such as that they had no power to crucify, or none to execute on the feast-day, or none to punish crimes against the state, are both unnecessary and improbable.
32 That the saying of Jesus might be fulfilled, which he spake,[677] signifying what death he should die.
[677] Matt. 20:19; Luke 18:32, 33.
=32. That the saying of Jesus might be fulfilled, signifying=, etc. See ch. 12:32, 33; Matt. 20:18, 19, where Christ foretold his crucifixion. It was also hinted at in O. T. prophecy (Numb. 21:8, 9, with John 3:14; Ps. 22:16, 18; Isa. 53:8, 9). Death was inflicted under the Jewish law by stoning (Deut. 13:9, 10; 17:5-7). Calvin observes the indication in this that Christ’s death in all its particulars fulfills the eternal purpose of God. Comp. Acts 2:23.
33 Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, and called Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews?
=33. Then Pilate entered into the judgment-hall again.= Meantime the priests had framed and presented their accusation of sedition (Luke 23:2). This accusation may well have perplexed Pilate. Christ had claimed to be King; promulgated laws; organized in the heart of Cæsar’s province the germ of an imperishable kingdom; entered Jerusalem in triumph, hailed by the throng as King of the Jews; and his arrest had been forcibly resisted by one of his followers. These facts a wily priesthood could easily pervert and exaggerate so as to give color to their accusation. How unscrupulous they were is evident from a comparison of Luke 23:2 with ch. 20:22-25.--=And called Jesus.= For a private examination apart from the priests and the gathering mob.
34 Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me?
35 Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own[678] nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done?
[678] ch 19:11; Acts 3:13.
=34, 35. Jesus answered him=, etc.--This question is not asked for information as to the nature of the charge preferred against him and the character of his accusers, for evidently Jesus was present when they preferred it; nor as a means of ascertaining in what sense Pilate used the title king, whether in the Jewish sense, to signify the promised founder of the kingdom of heaven, or in a Roman sense, to signify a political kingdom antagonistic to Jewish authority. For he who knew what was in man, understood Pilate’s character and mind. It was the most forcible possible reply to the accusation. Who, he asks, has preferred this charge? The Jews. Pilate’s mind instantly grasps the conclusion. “If it had been preferred by a Roman centurion, it would have been worthy of examination. But when was it ever known that the Jewish priesthood complained of one who sought the political emancipation of the nation? None knew better than Pilate how uneasy were the people under the Roman yoke. The voices of the mob before the judgment-seat crying out for Jesus’ blood were unwitting witnesses of his innocence.”--(Lyman Abbott’s Jesus of Nazareth.)--The reply had the desired effect. Pilate’s response, “Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me,” shows how quickly he filled out the argument which Christ by a question suggested to his mind.--=What hast thou done?= An honest question. He rejects the testimony of the priesthood to the sedition of the prisoner (Luke 23:2), and appeals to Jesus himself to explain their enmity.
36 Jesus[679] answered, My[680] kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.
[679] 1 Tim. 6:13.
[680] ch. 6:15; Ps. 45:3, 6; Isa. 9:6, 7; Dan. 2:44; 7:14; Zech. 9:9; Luke 12:14; Rom. 14:17; Col. 1:13.
=36. Jesus answered.= Honest perplexity he would not refuse to answer. Contrast his silence before Caiaphas (Matt. 26:62), Herod (Luke 23:9), and later before Pilate himself (John 19:9).--=My kingdom is not of this world.= Its origin is not from the earth. The preposition of (ἐκ) signifies the source or origin from which anything springs. Christ’s kingdom is in the world and over the world, but not from the world nor maintained by worldly means.--=If my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight.= Not angels, of which Pilate knew nothing; nor the twelve, of whom it is doubtful whether he knew anything. The argument was one which readily addressed itself to Pilate’s understanding. If Jesus were an earthly king, his followers would have defended him from arrest by his enemies and theirs. It is true Peter had done so (ver. 10), but he had been rebuked, and the wound he inflicted had been miraculously healed, so that the priesthood could not appeal to this resistance in support of their charge, except by misrepresenting it.--=That I should not be delivered to the Jews.= Jews generally in John means the Judeans, the inhabitants of the southern province of Palestine, who were Christ’s especial opponents.--=But now is my kingdom not from hence.= Now is not here a particle of time, but of connection. That is, the meaning is not, My kingdom is not now of this world, as though its temporal power and glory was to come by and by, but, Thus you see my kingdom is not, etc. The former meaning has been given to the word by some Roman Catholic commentators, to break the force of the declaration as a testimony against the temporal power of the Pope and the priesthood. For similar connective use of the particle (νῦν) now, see Acts 12:11; 22:16; 1 Cor. 14:6. Observe in this verse: (1) A distinct declaration of the supernatural origin and character of Christ’s kingdom. Christianity is not a development of human thought, but a gift to man from God. Comp. John 3:3; 8:23; 13:3; Rev. 21:2. (2) It is to be defended by spiritual, not by earthly or physical means. With the spirit of this declaration all attempts to maintain the church or its truth by civil enactment or the power of the sword are inconsistent. How little the spiritual nature of Christ’s kingdom was understood in the middle ages is indicated by the fact that even Calvin, on this passage, argues that kings and princes may “employ all the power they possess in defending the church and maintaining godliness.” (3) The strength and permanence of Christ’s kingdom as compared with kingdoms built up on or defended by might of arms. “Here he sheweth the weakness of kingship among us, that its strength lies in servants; but that which is above is sufficient for itself, needing nothing.”--(Chrysostom.)
37 Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear[681] witness unto the truth. Every one[682] that is of the truth heareth my voice.
[681] Isa. 55:4; Rev. 1:5; 3:14.
[682] ch. 8:47; 1 John 4:6.
=37. Art thou then not a king?= Or perhaps, with a touch of irony, Thou art then a king. Either rendering is admissible (see Winer, p. 512).--=Jesus said unto him, Thou sayest= (truly); =for I am a king=. This is truer to the original than our English version. The first clause of the sentence, “Thou sayest,” is a common form of Jewish affirmation, and was not confined to the Jews (Matt. 26:64, note). The second clause gives emphasis to this affirmation, and the reason for it, for I am a king. Observe how the solemn testimony of Christ to his divine Messiahship before Caiaphas is here, in a different form, reiterated before Pilate.--=To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world.= The first clause does not necessarily imply a pre-existence, because, in a sense, every creature is born to fulfil a divine purpose; but the second clause would be tautological, a mere repetition of the first, if it did not indicate a coming into the world from a pre-existent state and for a particular purpose. And Pilate seems to have partially, at least, so understood it (ch. 19:9, note).--=Every one that is of the truth= (ἐκ τῆς ἀληθειάς). Proceeding from the truth; that is, who has so far come under the influence of truth, is so far born anew by the power of the truth on his own soul, as to be a sincere seeker after truth, and hence, in a deeper sense, so far under the influence of the Spirit of God, who is the Truth, as to be seeking to know Him who is the Truth incarnate in human life. Parallel to this declaration are John 6:45; 8:47. Observe, (1) Jesus Christ is not only a teacher, an example, and a Saviour, but a King; and we can accept him as a Saviour only as we accept him as our King (John 15:10; 1 John 3:22-24); (2) the object of his incarnation is to testify to the truth, which he does by his words, and yet more by incarnating the truth in living forms, perfectly in his own life, imperfectly in the lives of his followers; (3) they only hear (receive) him, in whom the spirit of truth-seeking already exists. Comp. Matt. 13:13-15.
38 Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find in him no fault at all.
=38. What is truth?= This famous inquiry of Pilate is certainly not the inquiry of an honest seeker for truth (Chrysostom), for he does not even wait for an answer; nor apparently the disconsolate question of one who despaired of ever arriving at a standard of truth (Olshausen), for there is no evidence that he had ever sought to know the truth, either in philosophy or in religion; nor the scoffing question of one who believes that truth can never be found (Alford), and whose modern type is the positivist who believes that all creeds are false, and God, immortality, and the soul are unknowable, for there is nothing to indicate that such problems had any interest for him. It is rather asked, half in pity, half in contempt, the question of the practical man of the world, to whom this conception of a kingdom built on truth and maintained without army or exchequer seemed but the baseless phantom of a harmless religious enthusiast (Ellicott).
39 But ye have a custom, that I should release unto you one at the passover: will ye therefore that I release unto you the King of the Jews?
40 Then cried they all again, saying, Not this man, but Barabbas. Now Barabbas was a robber.
=39, 40.= It is apparently at this point in the trial that Pilate sends Jesus to Herod; on his return the demand is made by the people for the customary release of a prisoner (Mark 15:8), and in reply to this demand he makes the proposition, reported by all the Evangelists, to release Jesus.--On the character of Barabbas, see note on Matt. 27:15-18. On the contrast between Barabbas and Jesus, see Acts 3:14. The origin of the custom here referred to is not known. It is difficult to conceive why John should omit the sending of Jesus to Herod (Luke 23:5-7) and Pilate’s wife’s dream and Pilate’s washing of his hands (Matt. 27:20-25), unless he wrote with the other Gospels before him, and therefore omitted what they had sufficiently described.--=At the Passover.= Not necessarily on the day of the paschal feast, but during the Passover week.
Chapter XIX
1 Then[683] Pilate therefore took Jesus, and scourged[684] him.
[683] Matt. 27:26, etc.; Mark 15:16, etc.
[684] Isa. 53:5.
2 And the soldiers platted a crown of thorns, and put it on his head, and they put on him a purple robe,
3 And said, Hail, King of the Jews! and they smote him with their hands.
4 Pilate therefore went forth again, and saith unto them, Behold, I bring him forth to you, that ye may know that[685] I find no fault in him.
[685] verse 6; ch. 18:38.
5 Then came Jesus forth, wearing the crown of thorns, and the purple robe. And Pilate saith unto them, Behold the man!
=1-5.= The scourging of Jesus is recounted by all the Evangelists except Luke, and the mockery more fully by Matthew than here. See notes on Matthew. Scourging was a common precursor of the death-sentence; here, however, it appears to have been proposed by Pilate as a compromise (Luke 23:16).--=And said, Hail, King of the Jews.= Some manuscripts insert the words they came unto him, and this reading is approved by Tischendorf and Alford. It indicates a mock reverential approach as to a crowned king, with obeisances and pretended homage.--=Behold the man.= Pilate’s own sympathies were awakened by the sight of this patient sufferer, and he made one more attempt to release him by appealing to the sympathies of the people. In this act the commentators see an unconscious symbolical teaching parallel to that of Caiaphas (John 11:51, 52); Jesus is the man, the only perfect man, the ideal toward which all aspiration is to strive (Ephes. 4:13). The scene has been a famous one in art, and the picture of Christ thorn-crowned receives its customary title, Ecce Homo, from two Latin words meaning Behold the man.
6 When the chief priests therefore and officers saw him, they cried out, saying, Crucify him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Take ye him, and crucify him: for I find no fault in him.
=6. When the chief priests, therefore, and attendants.= The original here signifies an officer answering to the modern constable or policeman.--=They cried out.= The priests mingled in and joined their voices with those of the crowd. The sight of blood, so far from appeasing, only whetted their revengeful appetite.--=Take ye him and crucify him.= This was not a sentence, but rather an endeavor to cast the responsibility of its execution upon the priesthood. Comp. Matt. 27:24; Luke 23:25. That they felt the reproach is indicated by their reply.
7 The Jews answered him, We[686] have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because[687] he made himself the Son of God.
[686] Lev. 24:16.
[687] ch. 5:18; 10:33.
=7. The Jews answered him, We have a law=, etc. Not because their previous accusation had failed, and they wished to present a new one (Lange); but because, the death-sentence being already pronounced and ratified by the act of scourging, they felt safe in disclosing their real animus. The object of their reply is to justify themselves to his rebuke.
8 When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he was the more afraid;
9 And went again into the judgment hall, and saith unto Jesus, Whence art thou? But[688] Jesus gave him no answer.
[688] Ps. 38:13; Isa. 53:7; Matt. 27:12, 14; Phil. 1:28.
=8, 9. He was the more afraid, * * * and saith unto Jesus, Whence art thou?= But Jesus gave him no answer. Pilate’s was not a superstitious fear, but a genuine awe produced by the personal presence of Jesus, the power of which was conspicuously manifested on other occasions in his life (Luke 4:30; 5:8; John 7:45, 46; 18:6). It was doubtless enhanced by the report of his wife’s dream (Matt. 27:19). His question, Whence art thou? is to be interpreted by this awe; not from what province, for he knew this (Luke 23:6, 7), nor of what parents, for this was a matter of indifference. The question indicates that even skeptical Pilate vaguely felt that the prisoner before him--the King of a kingdom of truth--was no ordinary man. Christ’s silence was a bitter rebuke. Pilate was no longer an honest seeker after truth. Christ “kept silent, in fine, because he knew as well when to hold his peace as when to speak, and no word that he ever uttered was fuller of inspiration than that silence; no, not even does that lofty declaration to Pilate, ‘Yes, I am a King, and every true man is my subject,’ show a more regal dignity of mind. From every feature, from his whole person, it spoke--spoke of a world of power in him, power to rise above all personal considerations, and, under the most terrible circumstances, to find entire serenity in the perfect possession of himself.”--(Furness.)
10 Then saith Pilate unto him, Speakest thou not unto me? knowest[689] thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and have power to release thee?
[689] Dan. 3:14, 15.
=10. Then said Pilate unto him.= His pride is piqued by the silence of the prisoner. He boasts of his power, and so seeks to extort an answer from the prisoner’s fears. Observe that power he had, but right he had not. “This very boast was a self-conviction of injustice. No just judge has any such power as this to punish or to loose (see 2 Cor. 13:8), but only patiently to inquire and give sentence according to the truth.”--(Alford.)
11 Jesus answered, Thou[690] couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above:[691] therefore he[692] that delivered me unto thee hath the greater[693] sin.
[690] ch. 7:30; Luke 22:53.
[691] Ps. 39:9.
[692] ch. 18:3; Mark 14:44.
[693] Heb. 6:4-8; James 4:17.
=11.= The connection of Christ’s answer here is difficult. It appears to me to be as follows: All civil and political power comes from God (Rom. 13:1; comp. Ps. 75:6, 7; Dan. 2:21). Even on earth kings are recognized as the administrators of the divine will (Isa. 44:28; 45:1). Caiaphas and the priesthood, therefore, in delivering Jesus to Pilate, are endeavoring not only to accomplish a deed of injustice, but to induce a divinely appointed minister of God to prove false to the trust reposed in him. Therefore their sin is greater than his; they are the instigators, he the partially ignorant and unwilling instrument. Comp. Luke 12:47, 48. Stier observes that Pilate’s ignorance includes him in the Lord’s prayer, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do” (Luke 23:34). That most wonderful declaration of the O. T., “He knoweth our frame, he remembereth that we are dust” (Ps. 103:14), receives its most wonderful illustration in Christ’s compassion for the perplexed but guilty Pilate.
12 And from thenceforth Pilate sought to release him: but the Jews cried out, saying, If thou let this man go, thou art not Cæsar’s friend: whosoever[694] maketh himself a king, speaketh against Cæsar.
[694] Luke 23:2; Acts 17:7.
=12. From thenceforth.= Or rather, on this account. The original is capable of either rendering; but Pilate had already sought to release Jesus; he now made a new effort, moved thereto apparently in part by his awe for Christ, and in part by Christ’s expression of compassion for him.--=Thou art not Cæsar’s friend.= Of all the Cæsars, Tiberius was the most suspicious and exacting; and of all crimes, that of indifference to his interests was in his eyes the worst. In these words of the priesthood there is implied a threat of an accusation to Tiberius against Pilate if he release Jesus.
13 When[695] Pilate therefore heard that saying, he brought Jesus forth, and sat down in the judgment seat, in a place that is called the Pavement, but in the Hebrew, Gabbatha.
[695] Prov. 29:25; Acts 4:19.
=13. Upon the judgment-seat in a place called Pavement.= The judgment-seat was probably a small elevated platform, such as was used among the ancients, on which orators stood to address a concourse, generals to harangue their troops, or magistrates to hear causes. The accompanying illustration from a bas-relief represents Trajan sitting on such a judgment-seat to receive the submission of a Parthian king. The employment of a similar platform both by Pilate and by Florus is referred to by Josephus (Wars of Jews, Rom. II: 9, 3; 14, 8). The Pavement was probably a tessellated or mosaic square in front of the tower of Antonia, on which the judgment-seat or bema was placed.
14 And[696] it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King!
[696] Matt. 27:62.
=14. It was the preparation of the passover.= That is, the preparation for the Passover Sabbath. The strictness of the Mosaic law respecting the Sabbath necessitated special preparations for it on the previous day, and in process of time the whole day prior came to be known as the preparation (Mark 15:42). If we so understand the passage, there is nothing in it inconsistent with the fact indicated by the other Evangelists that the paschal supper was taken by Christ and his disciples, in common with the rest of the nation, on the evening preceding.--=About the sixth hour.= But according to Mark it was the third hour (Mark 15:25); and this is sustained by the whole course of the transactions and the circumstances, as also by the statements of Matthew (27:45), Luke (23:44), and Mark (15:33), that the darkness commenced at the sixth hour, after Jesus had for some time hung upon the cross. Of this discrepancy many explanations have been proposed, but only two are worthy of any consideration. One that by an early error in transcription the sixth was substituted for the third hour here; the other that John here only indicates that the sixth hour was approaching, or, as Lange renders it, it was going on towards the sixth hour; that is, the third hour, which closed the preceding watch into which the day was divided, had already passed, and that Mark’s language simply implies that the third hour had already passed before the crucifixion. It is certain that the ancients did not fix the time with as great precision as we do, and that in particular, as Godet says, “the apostles did not count with the watch in their hands.”--=Behold your King.= The previous appeal (ver. 5) had been to the pity of the people; this was to their national pride.
15 But they cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him! Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We[697] have no king but Cæsar.
[697] Gen. 49:10.
16 Then[698] delivered he him therefore unto them to be crucified. And they took Jesus, and led him away.
[698] Matt. 27:26, etc.; Mark 15:15, etc.; Luke 23:24, etc.
=15, 16. We have no king but Cæsar.= This was true. By this very act they disavowed allegiance to Jehovah as their King (1 Sam. 12:12). They were thus emphatically guilty themselves of the crime of blasphemy, for which they had condemned Jesus. Some of these very men subsequently perished in rebellion against Cæsar, thus by their death testifying to the hypocrisy of their pretended zeal. He who refuses Christ as his King subjects himself to the despotism of worldly authority.--=Then delivered he to them to be crucified.= Giving them a guard of soldiers to execute the decree. Thus Roman and Jew shared in both decreeing and executing the sentence.
* * * * *
ON THE CHARACTER OF PONTIUS PILATE.--Concerning Pilate’s life before he became procurator nothing is known, except that his name indicates a probability that he was a freedman, or the descendant of a freedman, connected with the Pontian house. He succeeded Valerius Gratus as procurator of Judea and Samaria, about the year 26 A. D., and he held the appointment for a period of ten years. Secular history shows him to have been unscrupulous in the exercise of his authority; and instances are recorded by Josephus of his contempt of the Jews. His behavior was equally tyrannical toward the Samaritans; and on their complaint to Vitellius, president or prefect of Syria, Pilate was ordered to go to Rome to answer for his conduct before the emperor. His deposition must have occurred in A. D. 36, most probably prior to the Passover. Before he arrived in Rome, however, Tiberius was dead. According to tradition, Pilate was banished by Caligula to Vienne, in Gaul; according to Eusebius, he died by his own hand.
Though in the oldest Christian creed his name is indissolubly linked with the crucifixion, in the phrase “suffered under Pontius Pilate,” and though he was directly responsible for it, since it could not have been consummated without his judicial approbation, yet that approbation was wrested from him by a mob, and he yielded only when further resistance would have hazarded his office, if not his life. The story of the trial of Christ before Pilate is the story of a conflict between a judge who appealed in vain to the moral sense of the priesthood, and a priesthood who appealed not in vain to the fears of the judge. First he scornfully bids the Jews try Jesus according to their own law, knowing that they cannot put their prisoner to death (ch. 18:31); then catches, in the clamor, the word “Galilee,” and endeavors to rid himself of responsibility by sending the prisoner to Herod (Luke 23:4-12); on the return of the prisoner to his custody, proposes to release him, as a customary act of good-will, to the populace (Matt. 27:19-23; Mark 15:8-14); orders the scourging, in an idle hope so to satisfy the clamor of the mob (Matt. 27:26-30; Mark 15:15-19; John 19:1-3); having appealed in vain to their pity, appeals, also in vain, to their patriotism (John 19:4-15); and finally pronounces sentence of death only under an implied threat of complaint to the jealous Tiberius Cæsar (John 19:12, 16). But it would be a mistake to suppose that in this pitiable conflict with a mob, which it was Pilate’s first duty to quell, he was influenced by considerations of either humanity or justice. The contempt which a Roman soldier would naturally feel for the Jewish priesthood was intensified into a bitter personal hate by the fact that their cunning had twice overmatched his strength--once when, immediately after his inauguration, they had compelled him to remove the hated Roman standards from the city of Jerusalem to the old-time Roman military headquarters at Cæsarea Philippi; once when they had secured orders from Tiberius Cæsar directing him to take down the Roman shields from the vicinity of the temple. The one sentiment which was strong in a Roman soldier was that of justice; to be compelled by a Jewish mob, instigated by the Jewish priesthood, to assume the judicial robes only to do flagrant injustice in them, and that in executing the Jewish will, angered him. He was a tool in the hands of an unscrupulous and despised hierarchy; knew it, and fought against the humiliation weakly, and therefore in vain. He was also powerfully affected by the personal bearing of Christ. “If there is any power in the human countenance, in the eye, in the voice, in the whole air and manner of a man, that power must have been manifested in Jesus in the very highest degree. * * * Not that he (Pilate) had the slightest insight into the lofty nature of that power. His very ignorance of it served, by creating a feeling of mystery, only to heighten the effect of it upon his mind.”--(Furness.) And this effect was still further increased by the dream of his wife; for skepticism and superstition are twins, and the skeptical Pilate was not above the universal superstitions of his times. All these elements made Pilate angry with himself and with the hierarchy, but they did not serve in lieu of a noble resolution, which alone could have enabled him to resist the threatening danger of an emeute. So he dallied, argued, appealed, yielded. The crime of Pontius Pilate was the crime of moral cowardice. It was more appalling in its results, but it was not different in its nature, from the many manifestations of that crime which we all often witness, and which most of us sometimes have experienced.
* * * * *
Ch. 19:17-42. DEATH AND BURIAL OF JESUS.--A FALSE JUDGE WRITES A TRUE EPITAPH (19).--A WEAK JUDGE PROVES HIMSELF OBSTINATE (22).--THE INHUMANITY OF MAN (24).--THE SYMPATHY OF CHRIST ILLUSTRATED (27).--THE FULFILLMENT OF ALL SCRIPTURE (28).--REDEMPTION A FINISHED WORK (30).--THE HYPOCRISY OF CEREMONIALISM (31).--THE NATURE, MEANING, AND CERTAINTY OF CHRIST’S DEATH (34, 35).--THE POWER OF THAT DEATH TO MAKE COWARDS COURAGEOUS (38, 39).--THE SEPULCHRE IN THE GARDEN; THE TOMB AMID FLOWERS (41, 42).
The accounts of all Evangelists should be compared. For chronological harmony and for full notes on what is common to them all, see Matt. 27:32-56. Several incidents are peculiar to Luke; some to John. The latter gives more fully the division of Christ’s garments among the soldiers (verses 23, 24); alone speaks of Christ’s parting words to his mother (verses 25-27), and of the piercing of his side (ver. 34).
17 And he bearing his cross went[699] forth into a place called the place of a skull, which is called in the Hebrew, Golgotha:
[699] Numb. 15:36; Heb. 13:12.
18 Where they crucified him, and two other with him, on either side one, and Jesus in the midst.
=17, 18.= The cross was usually borne by the condemned. In this case it was transferred from Christ to Simon the Cyrene. See Matt. 27:32, note. The Hebrew word Golgotha is the same as the Latin word Calvary (Calvaria), and means a skull. The location is uncertain. For statement of different hypotheses and picture of most probable site, see Matt. 27:33, note.--The two others crucified with Christ were brigands, one of whom joined in the taunts of the multitude; the other rebuked his companion, and sought and obtained the blessing of the dying Redeemer. See Luke 23:39-43, notes.
19 And[700] Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. And the writing was, JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS.
[700] Matt. 27:37; Mark 15:26; Luke 23:38.
20 This title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin.
21 Then said the chief priests of the Jews to Pilate, Write not, The King of the Jews; but that he said, I am King of the Jews.
22 Pilate answered, What I have written I have written.
=19-22. And Pilate wrote a title.= It was customary to bear before the condemned an inscription which designated his crime; this was subsequently attached to the cross, as a warning against similar offences.--The inscription in this case was written in the three languages of the time--that of the court (Latin), that of the Gentile population (Greek), and that of the Jews (Hebrew or Aramaic).--It really affixed a stigma rather upon the Jews than upon Jesus. Hence their attempt to have it altered, and Pilate’s refusal. The Jews were insulting Jesus; Pilate took a petty revenge upon them for their victory over him by insulting them. The inscription is reported by the four Evangelists, in all of them substantially, in none of them verbally, the same. Thus:
This is Jesus, the King of the Jews.--(Matthew.) The King of the Jews.--(Mark.) This is the King of the Jews.--(Luke.) Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews.--(John.)
Apparently there were three inscriptions, in the three different languages; some commentators suppose that they differed slightly, and that the variations in the language of the inscription indicate the variations in the original. See this ingeniously argued in Townsend’s N. T. But the better opinion is that the inscription was the same in the three languages, and that the verbal differences are such as we might expect from individual narrators, who, in minor details, were left to their own recollection. So Robinson, Alford, Greenleaf, etc. Analogous verbal differences are to be constantly met with in the Evangelists: Matt. 3:11; Mark 1:7; Luke 3:16; John 1:27--Matt. 9:11; Mark 2:16; Luke 5:30--Matt. 15:27; Mark 7:28--Matt. 16:6-9; Mark 8:17-19--Matt. 20:33; Mark 10:51; Luke 18:41--Matt. 21:9; Mark 11:9; Luke 19:38--Matt. 26:39; Mark 14:36; Luke 22:42--Matt. 28:5, 6; Mark 16:6; Luke 24:5, 6. Pilate illustrates the difference between firmness and obstinacy. In yielding the crucifixion of an innocent man, Pilate showed a pitiable lack of firmness; in insisting on retaining an insulting inscription, he showed a petty obstinacy. In this inscription he was an unconscious prophet of the truth to all on-lookers--Greek, Roman, Jew. Comp. John 11:51, 52.
23 Then the soldiers, when they had crucified Jesus, took his garments, and made four parts, to every soldier a part; and also his coat: now the coat was without seam, woven[701] from the top throughout.
[701] Exod. 39:22.
24 They said therefore among themselves. Let us not rend it, but cast lots for it, whose it shall be: that the scripture might be fulfilled, which saith,[702] They parted my raiment among them, and for my vesture they did cast lots. These things therefore the soldiers did.
[702] Ps. 22:18.
=23, 24.= The account of John of this incident is fuller and more exact than those of the other Evangelists. Comp. Matt. 27:35; Mark 15:24; Luke 23:34. There were four soldiers--a quaternion--detailed to watch the execution of the sentence of the procurator. The clothing of the convicted was the perquisite of the soldiers. The outer garments of Christ were divided among them, one to each. The inner garment, or tunic, was a seamless robe, woven in one piece, probably of wool. There is no ground for the fanciful comparison of this robe with those worn by the priests, as though it indicated a priestly function on Christ’s part. There is more reason in the surmise that it was a gift to him by some of the women who had followed him from Galilee (Luke 8:1-3).--But this is a mere surmise, having no other support than the fact that the soldiers seem to have recognized in it a peculiar value, a garment which it were a pity to destroy. Dice were in Rome what cards are in modern life. One of the soldiers took a set out of his pocket; the helmet would have served as a dice-box; and thus, under the shadow of the cross, they gambled for this seamless robe. The incident affords a most striking illustration of the inhumanity of man, and scarcely less of the indurating influence of the passion for gambling. “No earthly creatures but gamblers could be so lost to all feeling as to sit down coolly under a dying man to wrangle for his garments, and arbitrate their avaricious differences by casting dice for his tunic, with hands spotted with his spattered blood, warm and yet undried upon them.”--(H. W. Beecher.) The twenty-second Psalm, to the prophecy of which John refers, was regarded by the Jews, as it has been universally regarded by all Christian critics, as a Messianic Psalm. A curious illustration of fanciful interpretation is afforded by Wordsworth’s treatment of this scene, though he quotes Augustine as his authority: The parted garments is an emblem of the church in its universality, to be sent out into the four quarters of the globe; the unparted garment is emblematic of the church in its unity, to be kept whole and unparted; the gambling soldiers are an emblem of those who treat the unity of the church of Christ as a matter of indifference.
25 Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas,[703] and Mary Magdalene.
[703] Luke 24:18.
26 When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by,[704] whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman,[705] behold thy son!
[704] ch. 13:23.
[705] ch. 2:4.
27 Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother![706] And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own[707] home.
[706] 1 Tim. 5:2.
[707] ch. 16:32.
=25-27. Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother=, etc. There is some question whether we are to understand by this verse that there were four women there, or only three. Some scholars read the phrases “his mother’s sister” and “Mary of Cleophas” as in apposition, and suppose them to refer to the same person; but the better opinion regards them as different persons, the mother’s sister being identified with Salome, the mother of James and John, who, if this interpretation be correct, were own cousins to Jesus. See Note on the Twelve Apostles, Matthew, ch. 10, Vol. I, p. 148, where this question is more fully discussed. It is important only in its bearing on the question of the relationship of Jesus to James and John.--=Woman, behold thy son; * * * behold thy mother.= Some doubt has been thrown on this incident by rationalistic critics, who have thought it improbable that these women could have been standing near enough to the cross to hear the words of Jesus; or that they could have been willing to do so; or that the incident, if it really occurred, could have escaped the other Evangelists; for it is peculiar to John. The answer to this criticism is admirably given by Dr. Furness: “Unquestionably it must have been agonizing to her to witness that awful sight. And it would have been no less agonizing to her to keep at a distance from him. May she not have thought within herself, ‘It kills me to see him suffer so, but I cannot lose a word that may fall from his lips; perhaps he may speak to me’? The women friends of Jesus stood looking on at a distance; but if there were one among them who stood nearer to the cross than the others, it must have been his mother. Here again the words of Jesus to his mother and the beloved disciple lose the living truth of nature in our Common Version, which gives them in the form of complete sentences, ‘Woman, behold thy son,’ and to John, ‘Behold thy mother.’ But in the original it is ‘Woman! look! thy son!’ and to John, ‘Look! thy mother!’ brief as possible, ejaculatory, broken, and in the fullest accord with the physical condition in which he then was--a state of extreme torture, admitting only at the moment of such imperfect utterance. His mother was not very near the cross, but near enough to allow Jesus, by a strong effort mastering his agony, to gasp out these few words, leaving it to the keen sense of his mother and John to make out his meaning. Indeed, if I could suspect such an incident as this to be an invention, I should not know what limit to assign to the inventive power of the authors of the Gospels.”--(Notes on Schenckel’s Character of Jesus.)--=And from that hour that disciple took her to his own.= The words from that hour are not to be taken literally, as though John and the mother of Jesus did not remain till death had brought the lingering tortures of the crucifixion to an end. The words his own are more significant without the addition of the word home, added by the translators. John took the mother into his own circle, and as his own mother, from that time. The language does not imply that he had a fixed domicile in Jerusalem. This is not inherently probable, for he was a Galilean; and certainly nothing recorded had occurred to make any of the disciples prior to this time inclined to take up a permanent residence in Jerusalem.
28 After this, Jesus, knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture[708] might be fulfilled, saith, I thirst.
[708] Ps. 69:21.
29 Now there was set a vessel full of vinegar: and they filled a spunge with vinegar, and put it upon hyssop, and put it to his mouth.
30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It[709] is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave[710] up the ghost.
[709] ch. 17:4.
[710] Isa. 53:10, 12; Heb. 2:14, 15.
=28-30.= See Matt. 27:47-49, notes. The incident is common to all the Evangelists, but their accounts are quite different. John alone repeats the utterance, “It is finished,” which is to be regarded not merely as a presage of death, equivalent to, The era of suffering is ended, the era of joy begins; but as triumphant and prophetic: The work which thou gavest me to do is finished (ch. 17:4); and this because Christ died once for all, thus perfecting a sacrificing which needs never to be repeated (Heb. 9:28), and because by it he offers to the believer a redemption which is finished, and which needs not to be supplemented to make it efficacious. The cry of almost despair, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” was followed by the cry of triumph, uttered with a loud voice (Matt. 27:50; Mark 15:37; Luke 23:46); and then, with the prayer, “Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit” (Luke 23:46), he bowed his head and gave up the ghost. Some scholars (Chrysostom, Hengstenberg, Godet, etc.) hold that the reference to prophecy here is to Psalm 69:21, and that the meaning is that Christ said “I thirst” in order to fulfill prophecy; others (Meyer, Luthardt) make the phrase “that the Scripture might be fulfilled” dependent on the preceding clause, and the meaning to be that all things were accomplished that the Scripture might be fulfilled. This seems to me to be the better interpretation. The other makes Christ utter the expression of thirst for the purpose of calling forth in others the fulfillment of a prophecy. It may be remarked here that the constant use of the phrase that the Scripture might be fulfilled gives to a casual reader the impression that a multitude of minor incidents were ordered by God, and unimportant acts were performed by Christ, merely to fulfill O. T. prophecy. The reader must, however, remember that the Gospels were written primarily for Jewish readers in large measure, and that the test by which every Jew determined whether or no Jesus was the Messiah was by asking the question, Does he fulfill the ancient prophecies? While, therefore, it is true that Christ’s life does fulfill, even in marvellously minute details, the prophecies of the O. T., it is also true that these fulfillments are pointed out by the Evangelists with an emphasis which in our time seems excessive, but which was not so in their age and for their immediate purpose. Compare the apostolic speeches to Jewish audiences, as reported in Acts, which are almost wholly devoted to proving that Christ’s life and death were in accordance with ancient Jewish prophecies.
31 The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation,[711] that the bodies should not remain[712] upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for[713] that sabbath day was an high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away.
[711] verse 42.
[712] Deut. 21:23.
[713] Lev. 23:7, 8.
32 Then came the soldiers, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other which was crucified with him.
33 But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs:
34 But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came thereout blood[714] and water.[715]
[714] Heb. 9:22, 23; 1 John 5:6, 8.
[715] 1 Pet. 3:21.
35 And[716] he that saw it bare record, and his record is true; and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe.
[716] 1 John 1:1-3.
36 For these things were done, that the scripture[717] should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken.
[717] Exod. 12:46; Numb. 9:12; Ps. 34:20.
37 And again another scripture[718] saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced.
[718] Ps. 22:16; Zech. 12:10; Rev. 1:7.
=31-37. Because it was the preparation.= That is, for the Sabbath. At first the hours, then the entire day, immediately preceding the Sabbath, was called by the Jews the Preparation. See on ver. 14, and more fully on Mark 15:42. The Jews, who had no hesitation about compassing by the most unscrupulous methods the death of an innocent man, were scrupulous about leaving his corpse to hang on the cross over the Sabbath--a notable illustration of Sabbatical ceremonialism. It was the Roman custom to leave the corpse to putrefy; this was forbidden by the Jewish law, which, partly as a sanitary, partly as a ceremonial regulation, required immediate burial. See Deut. 21:23.--=That their legs might be broken.= A barbarous but not uncommon method of accelerating death, adopted in order to enhance rather than mitigate the horrors of the execution.--=Then came the soldiers and brake the legs=, etc. The implication is, of course, that this was done under the orders of Pilate. Nor is there anything inconsistent in this account with that in Mark (Mark 15:44), that Pilate was surprised to learn that Jesus was dead, and inquired into the certainty of the fact before giving permission to Joseph of Arimathea to remove the body. For when the death of Jesus was reported to him, the circumstances would also have been reported; and thus Pilate would have known that the soldiers found him already dead when they came to break the legs of the three.--=But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came thereout blood and water.= On the physical significance of this fact, see below, Note on the Physical Cause of Christ’s Death. From it the spiritualizing commentators have drawn many mystical lessons, most of them of very doubtful profit; e. g., the comparison of the drawing of Eve from the side of Adam and the drawing of the church from the side of Christ; the necessity of both blood and water to regeneration (ch. 3:5); the use of both as emblems of the sacraments, etc. All such uses of this incident belong at best to the poet, not the commentator, and its use even by the poet must be cautious, or it becomes unprofitable. The object of the spear-thrust was not to determine whether death had actually taken place so much as to ensure death, if there were any doubt. The record is given partly to set at rest the ancient Gnostic skeptical whim that the death took place only in seeming; it equally does set at rest the suggestion of more modern skepticism that Christ merely fainted from exhaustion and was subsequently restored by the disciples.--=And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true=, etc. The use of this phraseology shows the importance which John gave to this particular fact; partly, perhaps, because it established the all-important fact of the actual death of the Lord, the culmination of his life of self-sacrifice, and equally the foundation of that proof of his divinity which is afforded by his resurrection from the dead. But I believe that it also gives emphasis to the real cause of the death of our Lord--a broken heart, broken for the sins of the world, which he bore on the tree. It is also a water-mark of authorship. “The testimony thus declared to be veracious is just the record itself which the narrator was setting down; and, as he says it comes from no other than the eye-witness, he certainly gives us to understand that he, the Evangelist, is also the disciple whom Jesus loved.”--(James Martineau.)--The prophetic Scriptures referred to are Exod. 12:46 and Zech. 12:10. The first passage, “A bone of him shall not be broken,” refers primarily to the paschal lamb; but that lamb was regarded by the Jews, and is treated both by the Old Testament and the New, as a type of the Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world.
* * * * *
NOTE ON THE PHYSICAL CAUSE OF CHRIST’S DEATH.--The immediate cause of Christ’s death is veiled in obscurity; for a brief statement of various critical opinions on this subject, see Meyer’s notes on this passage. I believe that there is at least good reason for the opinion that he died of a literally broken heart. Crucifixion produced a very lingering death. No vital organ was directly affected. The victim rarely died in less than twenty-four hours. Instances are recorded of his lingering a full week. It was customary to dispatch the condemned after a few hours of torture by speedier means. This was done in the case of the thieves. Pilate was surprised at the intelligence that Jesus was already dead. The guard seems to have shared that surprise. Up to the last moment there was no sign of weakness, no decay of power or vitality. Jesus conversed with the thief and spoke to his friends. His last cry was not that of exhausted nature; he cried with a loud--literally great, i. e., strong--voice. His death was instant. There was something remarkable in it--something that attracted the attention of the centurion and his band. It followed immediately after the cry, “My God! my God! why hast thou forsaken me?” This agony succeeded that of Gethsemane. In that midnight struggle the heart and blood-vessels were affected. The palpitation of the heart was so intense as to cause bloody sweat--a phenomenon rare, but not unknown, and produced by intense mental excitement. That this was a truly bloody sweat, see Luke 22:44, note. The heart would probably have been weakened by such an experience. A repetition of the agony then endured might truly rupture the membrane of the heart. Such an experience has been known to produce such a result. If it did, death would instantly ensue. The blood would flow into the pericardium, an outer sac in which the heart is enclosed; there it would be liable to separate very rapidly into clots of extravasated blood and water. When the soldier thrust the spear into Jesus’ side, it was probably with a double purpose: to ascertain whether Jesus was dead; to ensure his death if he were not. For this purpose he would aim at the heart. The spear would pierce, of course, the left, not the right side, as portrayed in nearly all art representations of the crucifixion. The water, followed and accompanied by the clots of blood, would flow from the wound. It is impossible to account for this phenomenon, not only recorded by John, but evidently regarded by him of considerable importance, except upon the hypothesis of a broken heart, or of some organic disease. Andrews’s hypothesis that it was supernatural has nothing but a devout surmise to sustain it. The reader who desires to investigate this subject more thoroughly will find by far the fullest and ablest discussion of it in Stroud’s Physical Cause of the Death of Christ, London, 1847, especially ch. iv, pp. 73-156, and notes iv and v, pp. 389-420. If this is not within his reach, he will find a brief but adequate statement of the argument in M’Clintock and Strong’s Biblical Cyclopædia, art. Crucifixion.
38 And after this Joseph of Arimathæa, being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for[719] fear of the Jews, besought Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus: and Pilate gave him leave. He came therefore, and took the body of Jesus.
[719] ch. 9:22; 12:42.
39 And there came also[720] Nicodemus, which at the first came to Jesus by night, and[721] brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound weight.
[720] ch. 3:1, 2; 7:50.
[721] 2 Chron. 16:14.
40 Then took they the body of Jesus, and wound[722] it in linen clothes with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury.
[722] Acts 5:6.
41 Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden; and in the garden a new sepulchre, wherein was never man yet laid.
42 There[723] laid they Jesus therefore because[724] of the Jews’ preparation day; for the sepulchre was nigh at hand.
[723] Isa. 53:9; 1 Cor. 15:4.
[724] verse 31.
=38-42. After this came Joseph of Arimathea.= Of him nothing is known except what may be gathered from the accounts of the Evangelists concerning him in this connection. Mark implies that he was a member of the Sanhedrim (Mark 15:43), and Luke that he had nothing to do with the condemnation of Jesus; probably was not present (see Luke 23:51, note), either because he knew what was coming before them and that his resistance would be in vain, or because the others knew his character, and did not summon him. Luke also describes him as a “good man and just.” His act in requesting the body of Christ after the crucifixion was one requiring some courage. In later martyrdoms such a request cost men their lives; in this case it must at least have cost Joseph much obloquy. The site of Arimathea is entirely uncertain. The effect of Christ’s death to make the cowardly strong is noticed by all commentators.--=Pilate gave him leave.= After making sure that Christ was really dead (Mark 15:44, 45). --=Took the body of Jesus.= This taking down from the cross was probably done by the loving hands of the disciples; this is more probable than that it was done by the Roman soldiers. Their last duty was performed when they made sure of the death of the condemned.--=There came also Nicodemus.= It was now even, that is, the early evening, probably between four o’clock and sunset. See Matt. 27:57, note. On the character of Nicodemus, see ch. 3:1, note.--=Brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred pounds weight.= “Myrrh-resin and aloe-wood; these fragrant materials (Ps. 45:8) were placed, in a pulverized condition, between the bandages. But the surprising quantity (comp. ch. 12:3) is here explained from the fact that superabundant reverence in its sorrowful excitement does not easily satisfy itself; we may also assume that a portion of the spices was designed for the couch of the body in the grave” (Meyer); or to be burned. See below.--=As the manner of the Jews is to bury.= There is no evidence that the Hebrews ever practised systematic embalming, as the Egyptians did. In the O. T. there is but one mention of any such practice, that of the case of Asa, and he was not properly embalmed, but laid in the bed which he had prepared for himself “with perfumes and spices” (2 Chron. 16:14). It appears to have been the custom in the time of Christ to wash the body and anoint it, then to wrap it in fine linen, with spices and ointments enveloped in the folds, and afterwards to pour more ointment upon it, and sometimes to burn spices. In the case of Christ, the approach of the Sabbath hurried the preparations of the body, which were not yet completed at sunset, and were left to be finished the day after the Sabbath.--Comparing the four accounts of the burial, it appears that the body was wrapped in fine linen, with some of the spices, and laid hurriedly away in a rock-hewn sepulchre in a garden near the place of the crucifixion, one in which no previous burial had ever taken place. According to Matthew, it belonged to Joseph (Matt. 27:59, 60; Mark 15:46; Luke 23:53, 54). For illustration of the body prepared for burial, see Acts 5:6, note; for illustration of Jewish tomb, see Mark 16:2-4, notes. For a striking sermon on the Significance of the Sepulchre in the Garden, sorrow amid flowers, see Harper’s edition of H. W. Beecher’s sermons.