Chapter XX…

Chapter XX

Ch. 20:1-31. THE RISEN LORD.--THE TESTIMONY OF EYE-WITNESSES TO THE RESURRECTION.--THE INTUITIONS OF LOVE (8).--THE CONSOLATION OF LIFE TO GRIEF AT THE EMPTY TOMB.--THE POWER OF CHRIST’S VOICE.--THE COMMISSION OF CHRIST’S DISCIPLES: SENT AS CHRIST; THEIR ENDOWMENT: THE GIFT OF THE HOLY GHOST; THEIR AUTHORITY: TO SAVE, TO JUDGE.--MODERN UNBELIEF IN AN ANCIENT EXPERIENCE.--CHRIST’S ANSWER TO THE RELUCTANT SKEPTIC.--THE OBJECT OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL.

The accounts of the resurrection and the incidents in the life of our Lord between the resurrection and the ascension given by the four Evangelists are very different, and in some respects seemingly inconsistent. The discrepancies have been magnified, and dwelt upon by rationalizing critics as a reason for regarding the accounts as unhistorical. For a comparison of the four narratives, a statement of the differences between them, and a hypothetical harmony, see Note on the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, Matthew, ch. 28, Vol. I, p. 330. Alford goes too far in saying that all attempts at harmony are fruitless, though certainly all harmonies are hypothetical, and perhaps at best only show that there is no radical and essential inconsistency in the four narratives.

1 The[725] first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.

[725] Matt. 28:1, etc.; Mark 16:1, etc.; Luke 24:1, etc.

2 Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom[726] Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him.

[726] ch. 13:23; 19:26; 21:7, 24.

3 Peter[727] therefore went forth, and that other disciple, and came to the sepulchre.

[727] Luke 24:12.

=1-3.= Matthew says the women came “as it began to dawn,” Mark “at the rising of the sun.” John is the one most likely to have been well informed, as he was the first one to whom the women reported the facts; and his language, therefore, is probably the most minutely accurate. The time indicated by a comparison of the three accounts is the early dawn, before the sun was fairly up.--With Mary Magdalene came Mary the mother of Joses, Salome, and apparently Joanna, the wife of Chuza, Herod’s steward (Matt. 28:1; Mark 16:1; Luke 24:1, 10). That John recognized that there were more than one is indicated by the use of the plural here in the report made to the other disciples of the disappearance of the Lord’s body: “We know not where they have laid him.” Meyer, indeed, argues that the reason borrowed from we know, in verse 2, for the plurality of the women at the grave, is outweighed by I know, in verse 13; but this is fallacious, for the fact that Mary was alone at the grave when Jesus spoke to her would not prove, nor even indicate, that she was alone when she first came to it. On the contrary, it is evident that she, with the other women, returned to the city when they found the grave empty (ver. 2; comp. Matt. 28:8; Luke 24:9), and it is probable that she returned again to the tomb, following Peter and John, to sorrow there. For illustration of sepulchre and rolling stone door, see notes on Mark 16:2-4. For account of the rolling away of the stone, see Matt. 28:2 and note. The report of the women, They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him, shows that they had no expectation of the resurrection of their Lord, such as rationalism has imputed to them in explaining their belief in the resurrection appearances as freaks of a sanguine and excited imagination. They supposed that the grave had been robbed by Christ’s enemies, and the body hidden; and, in fact, this method of accounting for the disappearance of the Lord’s body is to be found in some of the later Jewish writings, though it has never gained credence even among rationalistic critics.

4 So they ran both together: and the other disciple did outrun[728] Peter, and came first to the sepulchre.

[728] Luke 13:30.

5 And he, stooping down, and looking in, saw the linen clothes[729] lying; yet went he not in.

[729] ch. 19:40.

6 Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulchre, and seeth the linen clothes lie,

7 And the napkin,[730] that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself.

[730] ch. 11:44.

8 Then went in also that other disciple, which came first to the sepulchre, and he saw, and believed.

9 For as yet they knew not the[731] scripture, that he must rise again from the dead.

[731] Ps. 16:10; Acts 2:25-31; 13:34, 35.

10 Then the disciples went away again unto their own home.

=4-10.= This narrative bears the unmistakable impress of coming from an eye-witness, and all the commentators recognize its striking accordance with the well-known characteristics of the two disciples. The information, which from Matthew’s and Luke’s accounts we should suppose to have been given to all the disciples, appears from John’s more minute narrative to have been given only to Peter and John, for there is little doubt that John refers to himself in the phrase “the other disciple whom Jesus loved.” See ch. 13:22, note. They were both greatly excited by the news of the supposed desecration of the tomb, and hastened to the spot to see for themselves. Mary Magdalene, as the sequel shows, followed them more slowly.--John, who there is reason to believe was the younger, and therefore not improbably the more agile of the two, reached the sepulchre first, but was awed at approaching the grave of his Lord, and waited without, simply looking in through the open door to assure himself that the tomb was really empty.--Peter, who was never hindered by his sense of reverence, entered the sepulchre boldly as soon as he arrived, and John followed him. They found the tomb empty, but the winding-sheet in which the body was wrapped (ch. 19:40, note), and the napkin that was about the head, were folded and laid in so orderly a manner as to negative the opinion that the grave had been rifled.--The moment John saw the contents of the tomb the truth flashed upon his mind. His quick intuitions recalled and interpreted Christ’s misunderstood prophecies of his own resurrection: he saw and believed. To interpret this phrase as meaning simply “he saw that the body of Jesus was not there, and believed that it had been removed, as Mary Magdalene had said” (Bengel), is to do violence to the original, for John habitually uses this word believed (πιστεύω) of spiritual apprehension. Nor is there any boast in the implication that he alone believed; the fact is important, for we thus learn when the faith in a risen Saviour first dawned on humanity; and John could not state it more modestly.

11 But Mary stood without at the sepulchre weeping: and as she wept, she stooped down, and looked[732] into the sepulchre,

[732] Mark 16:5.

12 And seeth two angels in white, sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain.

13 And they say unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? She saith unto them, Because they have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid him.

=11-13.= Mary, who apparently had followed Peter and John to the sepulchre, remained after their departure, to weep. She also stooped and looked into the sepulchre, but she was so preoccupied with the conclusion which she had already hastily formed, that the orderly arrangement of the grave-clothes produced no effect upon her mind.--For her some further disclosure of the truth was necessary; to her, therefore, the angels appeared. Mary is not startled either at their appearance or their words (comp. Luke 1:29); perhaps she is too entirely absorbed in her grief at the disappearance of the Lord’s body.--In answer to their question she repeats what she had reported to the disciples: “They (the Lord’s enemies) have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid him.” It is by a very forced accommodation that this text is applied to or used to illustrate that philosophy which denies the divinity and atonement of Christ; for here it was the outward crucified tabernacle which had been taken away, that the victorious Spirit might be more effectively imparted. The objection of rationalistic critics that the angels had not been seen by Peter and John is well answered by Godet: “Angels are not visible and immovable, like stone statues.”

14 And when she had thus said, she turned herself back, and[733] saw Jesus standing, and knew not[734] that it was Jesus.

[733] Matt. 28:9; Mark 16:9.

[734] ch. 21:4; Luke 24:16, 31.

15 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? whom seekest thou? She, supposing him to be the gardener, saith unto him, Sir, if thou have borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and[735] I will take him away.

[735] Cant. 3:2.

=14, 15.= Mary turned back from looking into the tomb, not attracted by any sound of Christ’s approach--at least of this there is no intimation in the narrative--but more probably in the very restlessness of grief. Her failure to recognize Jesus is best explained, not by any natural cause, as the dimness of the morning light, or her inattention to the person of the supposed stranger, but by the analogous experience of the disciples in their walk to Emmaus, when Christ appeared to them “in another form” (Mark 16:12), and “their eyes were holden, that they should not know him” (Luke 24:16).--Mary’s surmise that the unknown was the gardener was a natural one. “Who else could it be in the garden so early in the morning?”--(Meyer.) The elaborate discussion of the question whether he had on the clothing of a gardener is a somewhat striking illustration of the profitless and wholly fruitless debate which is unhappily only too common in Biblical interpretation. In the wildness of her grief she surmised that the gardener might know what had become of the body, might even have taken part in its removal--a wild surmise, since the tomb and the garden both belonged to a disciple of Christ (Matt. 27:60). Her assurance, “I will take him away,” is made in the strength of a love which promises without reflecting whether it can perform.

16 Jesus saith unto her, Mary.[736] She turned[737] herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master.

[736] ch. 10:3; Isa. 43:1.

[737] Cant. 3:4.

17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren,[738] and say unto them, I[739] ascend unto my Father, and[740] your Father; and to my[741] God, and your[742] God.

[738] Ps. 22:22; Rom. 8:29; Heb. 2:11.

[739] ch. 16:28.

[740] Rom. 8:14, 15; 2 Cor. 6:18; Gal. 3:26; 4:6, 7.

[741] Ephes. 1:17.

[742] Gen. 17:7, 8; Ps. 43:4, 5; 48:14; Isa. 41:10; Jer. 31:33; Ezek. 36:28; Zech. 13:9; Heb. 11:16; Rev. 21:3.

18 Mary Magdalene came[743] and told the disciples that she had seen the Lord, and that he had spoken these things unto her.

[743] Matt. 28:10.

=16-18.= Christ’s utterance of her name in well-remembered accents disclosed him to her. She had before but listlessly regarded him; she now turned fully toward him, instantly recognized him, responded to her name with a word full of reverential affection--“Rabboni, Master”--and would have thrown herself at his feet and embraced him but for his prohibition. In an instant she was translated from the profoundest grief to the most exalted ecstasy of love, but her intended expression of that love did not accord with that spiritual communion which the risen Lord proposed to vouchsafe to his disciples. The original rendered touch (ἃπτω) signifies literally to hang upon some one. “She desired to seize, grasp, hold Jesus, in order to enjoy his society and to satisfy her love (comp. Luke 7:36).”--(Luthardt.) Or, perhaps, to convince herself that she was not under an illusion, and to hold fast to the Christ whom she had already twice lost--once in the crucifixion, once in the disappearance of the body from the tomb. There appears to be an inconsistency between Christ’s prohibition here and the statement in Matt. 28:9 that the women “came and held him by the feet.” I believe the account there to be an imperfect report of the event more accurately reported here. See note on Matt. 28:9, 10. Why the fact that Christ had not yet ascended to his Father should be assigned as a reason for not embracing him has given rise to much discussion among the commentators. An account of the explanations which have been afforded, some of which are fanciful to the verge of absurdity, may be found both in Luthardt and Meyer. The true interpretation seems to me to be this: Christ had promised to his disciples that after he had gone to his Father he would return to be with them, that they might be in him and he in them, as he was in the Father and the Father in him. This interpretation of his death as a departure to be with the Father, and this accompanying promise to return and be with them, form the burden of his discourse in John, chaps. 14-16. He restrained Mary from embracing him by declaring that he had not yet gone to the Father, that the time for the fulfillment of this promise of his fellowship had not yet come, and that she must yet look forward to the future for that intimacy of intercourse which he had foretold. He did not stop to enter into fuller explanations, but his words point to that spiritual acquaintance with Christ to which Paul gives expression in the declaration, “Though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more” (2 Cor. 6:16). But though refusing to allow Mary to embrace him, he conferred upon her a far greater honor in commissioning her to be the first preacher of the resurrection. By characterizing his disciples as his brethren, he indicated that he was still in the flesh. The body with which he had risen was the same in which he was crucified. See Luke 24:39, note. The language of his message, “I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God,” indicates certainly that the sonship of the disciple is not the same as the sonship of the only begotten Son of God. He does not say our Father. Cyril’s interpretation, “My Father by nature; your Father by adoption,” is just, though attributed to rather than found in the words. The Father is by Paul called “the God of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Ephes. 1:17).

19 Then[744] the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus, and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.

[744] Mark 16:14; Luke 24:36; 1 Cor. 15:5.

20 And when he had so said, he shewed unto them his hands and his side. Then[745] were the disciples glad, when they saw the Lord.

[745] ch. 16:22.

=19, 20.= Of this interview Mark gives a briefer, Luke a quite different report (Mark 16:14-16; Luke 24:36-49). As John was the only one of the Evangelists present who has given any account of the interview, it may be assumed that his is the more accurate. It is possible that Luke’s account of Christ’s eating broiled fish and a honeycomb, to convince them that he was in the flesh, may have been derived from the subsequent interview in Galilee, reported by John in ch. 21:12-14. The event here recorded took place after the appearance of Christ to the two disciples in their walk to Emmaus (Luke 24:13-35). This was the first appearance of Christ, after the resurrection, to the apostles in a body. The doors were probably not only shut, but locked, as a protection; the fear of the Jews was natural, for it was reasonable to expect that the crucifixion of the Master would be followed by an attempt to pursue and punish the disciples; and this natural expectation was increased by the prophecies of persecution which formed a part of Christ’s final instructions. The fact that Jesus entered through the closed door does not indicate that the body was other than the natural body which had been laid in the grave; and Christ’s language at this very time, as reported by Luke, “A spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have,” appears to be conclusive that his resurrection body was his physical body. It is as futile to ask how, with a natural body, he could enter through the closed door, as to ask how he could walk upon the water. Miracles defy explanation. It is to be observed, however, that the Evangelist does not state that Jesus entered through the closed door. He simply states the two facts which came within his own observation: the doors were closed, and while so closed, suddenly Jesus was seen standing in the midst of the disciples, within the room. The greeting, “Peace be unto you,” was a common Jewish salutation. Like the salutation “It is I, be not afraid,” with which Christ greeted the frightened disciples in the storm-tossed boat on the Sea of Galilee (ch. 6:20), it was addressed to calm their natural perturbation at the sudden apparition. This it must have done the more effectually in that it recalled to their minds the benediction of his final discourse, “Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you; not as the world giveth give I unto you” (ch. 14:27). The showing of his hands and side was further to convince them of his identity; and it appears probable, from the language of Thomas (ver. 25), from the report of Luke (Luke 24:39), and from the language of John in his Epistle (1 John 1:1), that the disciples handled as well as looked upon the body of their Lord.

21 Then said Jesus to them again, Peace[746] be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so[747] send I you.

[746] ch. 14:27.

[747] ch. 17:18; Matt. 28:19; 2 Tim. 2:2; Heb. 3:1.

=21.= This is John’s report of the commission given by Christ to his disciples after the resurrection, and should be compared with that of Matthew (28:18-20), which, however, appears to have been given later. Mark’s report of the apostolic commission (Mark 16:15-18) is of doubtful authenticity, and Luke’s account (Luke 24:45-49) is to be regarded rather as a summary of Christ’s post-resurrection instructions than as the report of any single commission. It is, as Meyer well remarks, significant that the mission of the disciples previously implied was formally and solemnly ratified at the first meeting after the resurrection. On the significance of this commission, see ch. 17:18, note. It was his response to their exhibition of gladness upon seeing him again, and implied that their joy in their Lord was not to be consummated until they had followed him in his ministry of humiliation and sacrifice.

22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive[748] ye the Holy Ghost.

[748] Acts 2:4, 38.

23 Whose soever[749] sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

[749] Matt. 16:19; 18:18.

=22, 23. He breathed on them and said, Receive ye the Holy Ghost.= Breath is a natural symbol of life; in the Bible it is used as a symbol of the divine life. God breathes into man the breath of life (Gen. 2:7); in the vision of Ezekiel the wind breathes on the dry bones and clothes them with life (Ezek. 37:9, 10); in Christ’s conversation with Nicodemus the life-giving power of God is compared to the breath of wind (ch. 3:8); and it is significant of the extent to which this symbol underlies Scripture that the Greek word used for spirit is the one also used for wind, which is poetically represented as the breath of God. Here, by breathing on the apostles, Christ symbolically imparted to them that divine life which man never acquires, which God alone can give. Receive ye the Holy Ghost is not to be regarded as a promise to be fulfilled at Pentecost--it is not equivalent to, Ye shall receive the Holy Ghost; nor as a full bestowal of the power of the Spirit, which came not till Pentecost; but as an earnest of the gift yet to be more fully bestowed in successive endowments through all the future ages of the church. This gift of the Holy Ghost is to be connected with the commission which precedes: “As my Father hath sent me, even so I send you.” It is given to all who accept this Christian commission, that is, who believe in Christ through the word of the apostles, and, believing, become true followers of him. It is also to be connected with the authority conferred in the verse which follows. See below. There is a possible significance in the omission of the definite article in the original, which, if literally translated, would read, Receive ye a holy spirit. We receive a spirit of true holiness only as the divine life is breathed upon us by the inspiration of God (Titus 3:4-6).--=Whose soever sins ye put away, they are put away from them; whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.= This passage is confessedly difficult of interpretation. In considering it I endeavor, first, to put the English reader in possession of the exact meaning of the original; next, to suggest to him what seems to me to be the true interpretation of the passage; and finally to give him briefly other interpretations. (1) The word rendered remit signifies primarily and properly to dismiss, put away, get rid of. As applied to sin in the N. T., it indicates not a mere release from the threatened penalty of transgression, but redemption from the power of the sin itself. See Matt. 6:12, note. The divine forgiveness of sins is interpreted by such promises as those of Micah 7:19: “He will subdue our iniquities, and thou wilt cast all their sins into the depths of the sea;” and Isaiah 44:22: “I have blotted out as a thick cloud thy transgressions, and as a cloud thy sins.” In the first clause of this verse, therefore, there is no hint of any power in apostle or apostolic successor to forgive sins, or to declare with authority sins forgiven, or to declare under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost to what character and on what terms sins shall be forgiven. There is simply the declaration that when the disciple of Christ, acting under his Master’s commission and with the power given by the inbreathed gift of the Holy Ghost, does in fact put away, dismiss, get rid of sin, in the individual or the community, the work shall not be in vain in the Lord--the devil so cast out shall not return to find the house swept and garnished and take possession of it again (Matt. 12:44, 45). The work shall abide. Thus the first clause of this verse embodies a promise like that of Isaiah 55:11, and is interpreted by its fulfillment in Paul’s experience, as in 1 Thess. 1:4-7. The second clause, Whose soever sins ye retain shall be retained, is more difficult of interpretation. The word rendered retain primarily signifies to possess power, then to exercise it. It is employed both in classic and later Greek, with many derivative significations--to rule, conquer, subdue, seize, keep, hold fast. It is translated in the N. T. by the terms hold or hold fast, keep, lay hand on, obtain, take, and, here only, retain. It is sometimes used in a material sense, that is, of the exercise of physical power, as in Matt. 9:25, he took her by the hand, or Matt. 26:48, hold him fast (comp. verses 50, 55, 57); sometimes it is used in an immaterial sense, that is, of the exercise of a mental power, as in Col. 2:19 of Christians who fall away from grace not holding the head, or Mark 7:3 of the Pharisees who hold the traditions of the elders. But it never loses wholly its primary and germinant significance of the possession and exercise of power. It cannot therefore here be rendered, without a violation of the original, Whose soever sins ye permit to retain their hold on the sinner shall be allowed to be retained; some real exercise of power on the part of the person receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost is indicated. There is also an antithesis apparent in the original, as in our English version, between the two clauses of the verse, i. e., between remitting or letting go and retaining or not letting go. We have the same antithesis, between the same words, though there used in a physical sense, in Mark 12:12, They sought to lay hold on him, * * * but they left him and went their way. It seems to me that by this latter clause a power is conferred, the more awful that it is not clearly, and perhaps cannot be by any possibility clearly defined--a power to fasten sin on the sinner by sentence of condemnation, as there is power to put away sin by the proclamation of the salvation. This power is given upon the conditions implied in the commission, As the Father hath sent me, even so I send you, and in the gift, Receive ye the gift of the Holy Ghost; that is, it is conferred, not on the apostles merely, all of whom were not present (ver. 24); nor on them and their successors, for of successors the N. T. furnishes no limit; nor on an ordained priesthood or ministry; but on all who accept Christ’s commission, and in that commission seek and obtain the gift of the Holy Ghost; and it is theirs just in the measure in which they receive and act under his divine influence. (2) I read, then, in this language of Christ, the bestowal of a twofold spiritual power--one of salvation, the other of judgment. The disciple is sent into the world as his Master was sent into the world, like him to become a teacher of divine truth, an example to others, a manifestation of the divine character, a bearer in his own person of the sins of others. See ch. 17:18, note. But also like him he is to be a judge. The Master’s fan is to be in his hand. He who has power to proclaim salvation has also authority to pronounce condemnation, and the one declaration no less than the other, when uttered under the influence of the Holy Spirit of God, is uttered with divine authority. Instances of this judgment against wilful and determined sin are afforded by Christ’s denunciation of the Pharisees; by Peter’s condemnation of Ananias and Sapphira, and of Simon Magus; by Paul’s judgment against the offender in the church of Corinth. Illustrations of perversions of this power are afforded by the anathemas of the church of the middle ages, and perhaps by some of the severe denunciations of the Puritans. It has been variously illustrated by preachers of judgment from the days of Jeremiah to those of John Knox. Such a sentence, when uttered, as it often has been, under the influence of malign passion, or of ecclesiastical ambition, is but an ill-spent breath; but when it is the voice of a spirit of truth and holiness, aroused to righteous indignation in the presence of inveterate sin, and is uttered by a soul acting under the conscious influence of the Divine Spirit, the sentence becomes an awful one, because it is an echo of the inaudible sentence of God himself. I must add emphasis to the statement that, as I read this passage, this power belongs, not to a hierarchy, priesthood, or ministry, but to the Christian soul, by virtue of its direct life in and with God, and to such soul only when acting in its highest moods and with the direct and conscious influence of the Spirit of God upon it. This authority, here bestowed on all who are inspired by a divinely imparted spirit of holiness, interprets and measurably explains the power of a holy soul, before which often, in the history of the race, the most august personages have trembled, they knew not why. Of course this interpretation will be at once rejected by those who would abolish judgment from eternity, much more from this present life, and treat sin only as an immaturity or a disease; but possibly the church would be more efficient in its proclamation of the gospel to penitent sinners, if its spirit of holiness were sometimes aroused to pronounce the sentence of God against persistent sin; perhaps it would call to the Lord more of the publicans and sinners, if it had more of his spirit of judgment against the temple traders and the Pharisees. (3) The principal other interpretations of this passage are the following: (a) That the Lord gave power to the apostles to absolve men from sin and fasten sin upon them, but that this was a purely personal power, belonging to the apostolic age, and ceasing with the gifts of miracles, of tongues, etc. But this interpretation dissociates the power here conferred from the accompanying commission and gift, or confines the latter to the apostles, while the general teaching of the Scriptures gives both to all believers. See ch. 17:18, 20; Acts 2:38, 39. It would exclude Thomas, who was not present at this interview, and Paul, who was not one of the eleven. (b) That a power of infallibly absolving and anathematizing is here conferred, but that it belongs exclusively to the apostles and their successors, the self-perpetuating hierarchy. This is the ecclesiastical view, held very generally by the Roman Catholic church, and in a modified form by many among the hierarchical denominations generally. But there is neither here nor anywhere else in the N. T. any hint of any power in the apostles to appoint successors, nor any hint that they ever did so. And indeed the very nature of their office, which was to bear personal witness to the facts of Christ’s life and death and resurrection, was such that in the nature of the case no successors were possible (ch. 15:27; Acts 1:21, 22; 1 Cor. 9:1; 15:8). On this point the dictum of an English dean is significant: “This gift belongs to the church in all ages, and especially to those who by legitimate appointment are set to minister in the churches of Christ: not by successive delegation from the apostles, of which fiction I find in the N. T. no trace, but by their mission from Christ, the bestower of the spirit for their office, when orderly and legitimately conferred upon them by the various churches. Not, however, to them exclusively, though for decency and order it is expedient that the outward and formal declaration should be so; but in proportion as any disciple shall have been filled with the holy spirit of wisdom is the inner discernment his.”--(Alford.) (c) The power here promised is one which in a very general way accompanies the preaching of the gospel; that it is a promise that “they should be taught by the Holy Ghost to declare on what terms, to what characters, and to what temper of mind God would extend forgiveness of sins.” This, which is Mr. Barnes’s interpretation, seems to me entirely inadequate. It reduces a definite and positive promise of divine ratification of human judgment, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to a mere enunciation of the general principle that the ministers of Christ shall be ministers of the truth. (d) That the two clauses of the sentence are, the one a promise, the other a warning; that Christians remit sin when, by their influence, their example, or their teaching, they induce sinners to repent of sin and abandon it; that they retain sin when, by their negligence, their acquiescence, or their approval, they directly or indirectly help to fasten sins on the individual or the community; and that Christ promises his disciples great results if they are faithful, and warns them of equally great but terrible results if they are remiss or culpable. The original does not seem to me capable of this rendering, for it ignores the fundamental meaning of the word rendered retain (κρῦέω), which always indicates some real exercise of power, never a failure or a neglect to exercise it. See above. The view which I have adopted is not very widely different from that of Alford, Meyer, Ryle, Calvin, Watkins, and the best of the Protestant commentators generally, except that, with Godet, I regard the promise as conferring on the moral judgments of the disciple a real efficacy, while the commentators generally regard it as simply a promise of wisdom spiritually to perceive and declare judgments which shall be in accordance with the divine will. This interpretation is also adopted by some of the more evangelical of the Roman Catholic divines, e. g., Quesnel in modern and Chrysostom in ancient times, both of whom regard the priest as an ambassador of God, and as speaking by authority only in so far as he is filled with the Holy Ghost. “But why speak I of priests? Neither angel nor archangel can do anything with regard to what is given him of God; but the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost dispenseth all, while the priest lends his tongue and affords his hand.”--(Chrysostom.) “That such a judgment may be pronounced upon sinners as is fit to be approved of God, and to be confirmed in heaven, it must be such as is according to the Spirit of God, who is given for that purpose, and to the rules prescribed by Christ to sinners, of which the priest is only the minister.”--(Quesnel.)

24 But Thomas,[750] one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came.

[750] ch. 11:16.

25 The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he[751] said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.

[751] Ps. 78:11, 32.

=24, 25.= Didymus is the Greek equivalent of Thomas, which is of Hebrew origin. Very little of his life is known; but the two other occurrences recorded in the N. T. (John 11:16; 14:5) indicate an affectionate spirit but a skeptical intellect, a man who loved much, but believed and hoped but little. He has been well called “the rationalist” among the twelve; but he was a rationalist with a warm heart. The incident here recorded shows that the fact of the resurrection was so attested that it was accepted by one who could only be convinced by the clearest and most convincing proof. The reason of Thomas’s absence is not stated, nor even implied; but the conjecture that he had abandoned hope, and therefore the companionship of the disciples, is not unreasonable.--His language, Except I thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe, is that not merely of dejection, but also of defiance. His position is that of modern positivism, which refuses to believe anything not verified by actual sensuous observation; his demand is that of M. Renan, who, to substantiate the doctrine of the resurrection, calls for the successful raising of the dead before a commission composed of physiologists, physicians, chemists, and skilled critics. See Life of Jesus, Intro. But Thomas’s spirit was very different.

26 And after eight days, again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace[752] be unto you.

[752] Isa. 26:12.

27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand,[753] and thrust it into my side: and be[754] not faithless, but believing.

[753] 1 John 1:1.

[754] 1 Tim. 1:14.

=26, 27.= This meeting after eight days, i. e., on the eighth day, is the first intimation in the N. T. of a commemoration by the disciples of the resurrection; and there is nothing to show that the disciples had not kept together in a continuous meeting during the entire week, which, it will be remembered, was the Passover week. But it is certainly significant that Christ chose the first day of the week, on which he rose from the dead, to make his second appearance to his infant church, and thus gave an impulse to, if not a suggestion of, that apostolic commemoration of the day, which by insensible degrees led to the transfer of the Christian’s weekly festival from the seventh to the first day of the week.--Christ appears as suddenly and mysteriously as before, and in his address to Thomas echoes his words, a severe yet a tender and loving rebuke. The evidence which he would have refused to the Pharisee he grants to the disciple; the inimical demand of the determined skeptic he always disregards; for the intellectual difficulties of a reluctant skeptic he shows great compassion. But he shows this compassion for unbelief that he may rescue the unbeliever from it, and bids him become not unbelieving, but believing. Through his doubt of the actual occurrence of the resurrection, Thomas was in danger of becoming a disbeliever generally, and against this danger of lapsing from a state of faith to one of unfaith Jesus warned Thomas, and through him warns the feeble and vacillating believers of all ages.

28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My[755] Lord and my God.

[755] ch. 5:23; Ps. 118:28; 1 Tim. 3:16.

29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed[756] are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

[756] 1 Pet. 1:8.

=28, 29.= Thomas was overpowered and convinced by the grace of his Master, not by the physical evidence which he had demanded, and which was vouchsafed to him; not because he handled, but because he saw, he believed (ver. 29). In this appears the difference of his spirit from that of the modern rationalists; his faith finally rested, not in the sensuous evidence, but in the invisible love and mercy of his Lord. The mere fact that Jesus rose from the dead did not demonstrate his divinity, nor give ground for Thomas’s appeal; for Lazarus, too, rose from the dead. “It was an evidence addressing itself not to his eyes, but to his heart, which forced him to cry, My Lord and my God.”--(Maurice.) To interpret this utterance as a mere expletory outcry is the shallowest of criticism. It reduces a sublime and exalted confession of faith to an irrelevant and semi-profane exclamation. It is grammatically, psychologically, and spiritually untenable; grammatically, because it is expressly said that Thomas addressed the words to Jesus--he said “unto him”; psychologically, because it is equally irrational to suppose that Thomas, just convinced of the resurrection of his Lord and Master, should break out into a mere meaningless exclamation, or that John should have reported it if it had been uttered; spiritually, because Christ on the strength of this confession of Thomas recognizes his faith: “Thou hast believed.” Equally untenable is the suggestion of Norton (Notes on the Gospels), that “the name God was employed by him, not as the proper name of the Deity, but as an appellation, according to a common use of it in his day,” for no such common use existed, and its existence would have been utterly inconsistent with the Hebrew laws against the use of God’s name in vain. The fact that Thomas recognized Jesus as both Lord and God might not of itself be conclusive; there would be possible ground for Norton’s argument: “Considering into how great an error he had fallen in his previous obstinate incredulity, there would be little reason for relying upon his opinion as infallible”; but Christ not only accepts, he distinctly approves and ratifies Thomas’s confession, and the faith of the church rests not on the words of the disciple, but on their approbation by his Lord. Thomas’s words here, then, are to be read in the light of Christ’s words in chaps. 13-17; the disciple accepts in a single sentence Christ’s teaching respecting himself as the one sent from and manifesting to the world the eternal Father. It is the answer of a suddenly awakened faith to the before ill-comprehended declaration, He that hath seen me hath seen the Father. In his response, Blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed, Jesus recognizes two kinds of belief, one which rests on seeing or on the witness of those that have seen, the other and higher that which rests simply on spiritual apprehension. Parallel to the implied contrast here is that in John 14:11, “Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me; or else believe me for the very work’s sake.”

30 And[757] many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:

[757] ch. 21:25.

31 But[758] these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and[759] that, believing, ye might have life through his name.

[758] Luke 1:4.

[759] ch. 3:15, 16; 5:24; 10:10; 1 Pet. 1:9.

=30, 31.= These verses constitute the formal close of John’s Gospel, ch. 21 being an appendix. See Prel. Note there. The “many other signs” referred to are not necessarily only or chiefly those wrought after the resurrection, but include those recorded by the other Evangelists, as well as such as have not been recorded.--On the object of John in his Gospel as here indicated, see Intro., p. 11. That object was threefold: (1) That the readers might have faith that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah of prophecy; (2) that they might spiritually recognize in this Messiah the well-beloved Son of God; (3) that, believing in his Messiahship and divinity, they might become partakers of his life. Life (ζωή) in John’s usage always signifies spiritual life, and the name of Christ, in which this life is to be attained, stands for Christ himself in all the gracious offices which his names indicate, as Jesus or Saviour, Christ or Messiah, and Emmanuel or God with us.

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

Chapter XXI

Ch. 21:1-25. APPENDIX TO JOHN’S GOSPEL.--WAITING FOR CHRIST WHILE WE WORK (3).--THE POWER OF THE LORD OVER NATURE (6).--LOVE SEES MOST QUICKLY; ZEAL ACTS MOST QUICKLY (7).--CHRIST PROVIDES FOR OUR SIMPLEST WANTS; FIRE FOR THE COLD, FOOD FOR THE HUNGRY (9).--A TRUE PROOF OF LOVE FOR CHRIST: SHEPHERDING HIS SHEEP (15-17).--SERVICE AND SUFFERING ARE BOTH FOLLOWING CHRIST (18).--THE IMPERTINENCE OF CURIOSITY REBUKED (21-23).--THE LAST WORD AND THE FIRST WORD OF CHRIST THE SAME, FOLLOW ME.

* * * * *

PRELIMINARY NOTE.--All modern critics agree in regarding this chapter as in the nature of a supplement, the original Gospel having been brought to a close in the last verses of the preceding chapter. This opinion is based chiefly upon the formal close afforded by those verses. That this supplemental chapter was written at a very early period, and probably before the Gospel itself was given to the public, is indicated by the fact that it is found in all the manuscripts. Whether it was written by John himself or by some disciple or friend is not altogether clear, and certainly not very important; but the evangelical critics generally agree, from a careful consideration of its internal characteristics, in attributing it to John himself. Thus Alford: “The reader will have perceived in the foregoing comment on the chapter a manifest leaning to the belief that it was written by John himself. Of this I am fully convinced. In every part of it his hand is plain and unmistakable; in every part of it his character and spirit is manifested in a way which none but the most biassed can fail to recognize. I believe it to have been added some years probably after the completion of the Gospel; partly, perhaps, to record the important miracle of the second draught of fishes, so full of spiritual instruction, and the interesting account of the sayings of the Lord to Peter; but principally to meet the error which was becoming prevalent concerning himself.” To the same effect Meyer: “In accordance with all that has been advanced, the view is justified that John, by way of authentic historical explanation of the legend in ver. 23, some time after finishing his Gospel, which he had closed with 20:31, wrote ch. 21:1-24 as a complement of the book, and that this appendix, simply because its Johannean character was immediately certain and recognized, already at a very early period, whilst the Gospel had not yet issued forth from the narrower circle of its first readers, had become an inseparable part of the Gospel.” Similarly, though somewhat more doubtfully, Luthardt and Godet. See also Ezra Abbot, in Smith’s Bib. Dict., Vol. 2, p. 1430, note b.

1 After these things Jesus shewed himself again to the disciples at the sea of Tiberias; and on this wise shewed he himself.

2 There were together Simon Peter, and Thomas called Didymus, and[760] Nathanael of Cana in Galilee, and the sons[761] of Zebedee, and two other of his disciples.

[760] ch. 1:45.

[761] Matt. 4:21.

3 Simon Peter saith unto them, I go a fishing. They say unto him, We also go with thee. They went forth, and entered into a ship immediately; and that night they caught nothing.

=1-3.= The departure of the disciples into Galilee is not to be regarded as an abandonment on their part of hope; for Christ’s direction to his disciples after his resurrection was to go into Galilee and meet him there (Matt. 28:7; Mark 16:7). We are rather to regard it, therefore, as an evidence that they were convinced by his repeated appearances of the resurrection of their Lord, and went into Galilee in anticipation of meeting him there. For the same reason we are not to regard Peter’s declaration, I go a fishing, as an indication that he had abandoned his sacred for a secular calling. His restless temperament did not allow him to wait in inactivity, and he sought relief in work. The response of the other disciples, We also go with thee, has been rightly used by the homiletical commentators as an illustration of the influence of example. John was one of the sons of Zebedee. Assuming that the 21st chapter is from his pen, we have in it the description of an eye-witness. There is nothing to indicate who were the two unnamed disciples, but the fact that they are unnamed has been regarded as an indication that they were not two of the twelve. The ship was, of course, simply a fisherman’s boat, probably not very different in shape and size from those to be seen in the Sea of Galilee at the present day, as represented in the accompanying illustration.

4 But when the morning was now come, Jesus stood on the shore: but the disciples knew[762] not that it was Jesus.

[762] ch. 20:14.

5 Then[763] Jesus saith unto them, Children, have ye any meat? They answered him, No.

[763] Luke 24:41.

=4, 5.= The night of labor spent in vain might naturally have recalled to the disciples that other night of toil after which Christ first called some of these disciples to be his followers (Luke 5:1-11). In the gray twilight they saw a stranger on the shore; that they did not recognize him may have been due in part to the dimness of the early light, but more probably to the fact, illustrated by other post-resurrection appearances, that he was recognized only as he chose to reveal himself (ch. 20:14; Luke 24:16). Certainly it indicates that the disciples had no such expectation of his appearance as would lead them, according to the theory of M. Renan, to conjure up a spectre. There is nothing in the words, and we may presume there was nothing in the tones of Jesus, to quicken their perception. His language is that of a fisherman: Boys (παιδία), have ye no fish? The word rendered meat (προσφάγιον) is literally what is eaten therewith, i. e., with bread, and here is equivalent to fish, which in Galilee was a common accompaniment of bread in the peasant’s meal.

6 And he said unto them, Cast[764] the net on the right side of the ship, and ye shall find. They cast therefore, and now they were not able to draw it for the multitude of fishes.

[764] Luke 5:4-7.

7 Therefore that disciple whom Jesus loved saith unto Peter, It is the Lord. Now when Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he girt his fisher’s coat unto him, (for he was naked,) and did cast himself into the sea.

8 And the other disciples came in a little ship; (for they were not far from land, but as it were two hundred cubits,) dragging the net with fishes.

=6-8.= There was nothing to the disciples especially suggestive in the direction to cast the net on the right side of the ship. They might naturally suppose that he had perceived indications of a school of fishes there.--In the effect produced on the two disciples, Peter and John, by the miraculous draught of fishes which followed, the character of each is strikingly illustrated. John, with his quicker intuitions, recalling that other fishing scene, recognized the Lord first; Peter, with his greater boldness to act, leaped into the water, and partly swam and partly waded ashore. Comp. ch. 20:6, 8, notes. The distance was about two hundred cubits, that is, about three hundred feet. The fisher’s coat, which Peter girt unto him, appears to have been a sort of loose garment, like the workmen’s blouse of to-day, which Peter had laid off during his night’s work. This he put on, counting it unseemly to appear without it in the presence of his Lord, at the same time drawing it up and tucking it in about the waist, that it might not impede his swimming to the shore.--The accompanying illustration shows the probable style of the fisher’s coat, in contrast with the long robe worn by one not engaged in manual labor. The net itself was so full of fishes, and they so great, that the disciples abandoned the attempt to bring them into the boat, but dragged them in the net to the land.

9 As soon then as they were come to land, they saw a fire of coals there, and fish laid thereon, and bread.

10 Jesus saith unto them, Bring of the fish which ye have now caught.

11 Simon Peter went up, and drew the net to land full of great fishes, an hundred and fifty and three: and for all there were so many, yet was not the net broken.

=9-11.= On coming to the shore the disciples found a fire of coals already kindled, and some fish laid thereon, and some loaves of bread--in short, preparation for a simple meal. There has been some unprofitable discussion among the commentators respecting the manner in which this provision had been made. It is attributed by different commentators to the ministry of angels, to the activity of Peter, to the forethought of Jesus. Alford, following Stier and the older commentators, insists that it was miraculously provided. Trench rightly and briefly disposes of this question: “By what ministry, natural or miraculous, has been often inquired, but we must leave this undetermined, as we find it.” The provision apparently was not sufficient for the company, for Christ bade Peter add to the stock from the fish just caught. Peter went, therefore, to aid the others in bringing the net to shore. The fish were counted, and the exact number is recorded by the Evangelist. The attempt to draw some spiritual lessons from this number affords a curious illustration of the absurdities into which the allegorizing method is liable to carry the student. The exact enumeration is important only because it is an indication of accuracy in the historian; in such an enumeration there is no opportunity for the exaggeration of imagination. To me Augustine’s allegorical interpretation of the contrast between this and the analogous yet widely different miracle recorded in Luke 5:1-11 is scarcely more profitable than the spiritualizing interpretation of the meaning of the one hundred and fifty-three; the curious in such matters will find it fully reported in Trench on the Parables. It might be possible to account for each single feature in this narrative without assuming a miracle; but in a candid consideration of all the features combined--the fruitless fishing all night, the sudden and extraordinary success in the morning, the number of fish, their size, the unbroken net, though dragged full of fish to the shore--it is impossible to doubt that we have here, what evangelical critics have always seen in the narrative, the account of a miraculous manifestation of the Lord’s power.

12 Jesus saith unto them, Come and dine. And none of the disciples durst ask him, Who art thou? knowing that it was the Lord.

13 Jesus[765] then cometh, and taketh bread, and giveth them, and fish likewise.

[765] Acts 10:41.

14 This[766] is now the third time that Jesus shewed himself to his disciples, after that he was risen from the dead.

[766] ch. 20:19, 26.

=12-14.= There is a verbal, but no real inconsistency in the statement that none of the disciples durst ask him, Who art thou? knowing that it was the Lord. “But seeing that His form was altered, and full of much awfulness, they were greatly amazed, and desired to ask somewhat concerning It; but fear, and their knowledge that He was not some other, but the same, checked their inquiry.”--(Chrysostom.) The careful student will observe that the Evangelist does not characterize this as the third appearance of Jesus, but as the third appearance to his disciples, i. e., the apostles. This excludes the appearance to Mary (ch. 20:16), and to the two disciples on the walk to Emmaus (Luke 24:13-35); the two preceding appearances referred to were that to the ten on the evening of the day of the resurrection (ch. 20:19) and that to the eleven in the week following (ch. 20:26). Without following the allegorizing commentators into any of their extravagances, we may reasonably see, with Alford, Trench, and others, a spiritual significance in the fact that Christ provided a meal for the apostles at the same time when, by this new miraculous draught, he reminded them of their first call to become fishers of men, thus suggesting to them the spiritual truth involved in the Lord’s Supper, and symbolically represented in the feeding of the five thousand, that they who minister in the things of Christ are themselves dependent on Christ for their spiritual support; perhaps also suggesting that when the labor of life is over there will be for them that have wrought for Christ a feast with him in the kingdom of heaven. But certainly Trench goes too far in saying that “the character of the meal was sacramental, and it had nothing to do with the stilling of their present hunger.” It is much more reasonable to see in this provision for the disciples’ commonest needs--food and a fire at the end of a night of sleepless toil--a new illustration of the tenderness of Christ’s consideration for his own.

15 So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more[767] than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed[768] my lambs.

[767] Matt. 26:33, 35.

[768] Isa. 40:11; Jer. 3:15; Ezek. 34:2-10; Acts 20:28; 1 Pet. 5:2, 4.

16 He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep.[769]

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

17 He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved[770] because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou[771] knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

[770] Lam. 3:33.

[771] ch. 16:30.

=15-17. So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I have affection for thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs. He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I have affection for thee. He saith unto him, Shepherd my sheep. He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, hast thou affection for me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Hast thou affection for me? and he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I have affection for thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my little sheep.= This translation will suggest to the English reader, though inadequately, points of difference in the original which our English translation wholly fails to preserve, possibly through the inattention of the translators, but more probably through the inadequacy of the English language to represent delicate shades of meaning which are represented by the Greek. (1) Two different Greek words are rendered indiscriminately love (φιλέω and ἀγαπάω). I have attempted to indicate the difference by rendering the one to love and the other to have affection, though this rather suggests that there is a difference than indicates in what it consists. The word which Christ uses in his question, Lovest thou me? (ἀγαπάω), signifies, if not the higher, at least the more thoughtful and reverential affection, founded on an intelligent estimate of character, and accompanied by a deliberate and well-considered choice. Peter’s I love thee represents rather the personal instinctive love, the activity of feeling rather than of will, the affection which, being spontaneous and instinctive, gives no account of itself, and no reason for its existence. We are bid in the N. T. to exercise the first form of love (ἀγαπάω) towards God, but never the second; while the Father is said to exercise both forms towards his own Son. Two different Greek words are also rendered indiscriminately feed. To indicate the difference I have rendered one by the rare but indispensable verb shepherd. Finally, three words are used to represent the flock which Christ commends to Peter’s care--lambs (ἀρνία), sheep (πρόβατά), and little sheep (προβάτιά). There is some uncertainty as to the reading, but the one I have followed is accepted by the best critics--Alford, Meyer, etc. To feed the sheep is simply to nourish them; to shepherd them is not in contrast the ruling activity (so Meyer), but the whole shepherd care of the flock--watching, tending, leading--as illustrated in Psalm 23 and in John 10:1-18. The term lamb is never used in the N. T. except of Christ himself (John 1:29; 1 Pet. 1:19; Rev. 5:6, 8, 12, etc.), or of the followers of Christ (Luke 10:3). By the lambs here, then, I understand Christ to mean his professed followers; Peter was to show his love for the Master by teaching them. The term sheep is more general, and includes in the figurative language of the Bible those who have wandered away from the fold of God (Matt. 9:36; 12:11, 12; 15:24; Luke 15:4-6). Peter is to show his love for the Master, not only by teaching the Lord’s disciples, but by shepherding the sheep, whether in the fold or wandering from it, as a good shepherd going before them, going after them, giving his life, if need be, for them (John 10:1-13). The little sheep are the young, who have not yet wandered away, and whom he is to keep in the Master’s fold by feeding them there with the herbage of life. Christ calls them my lambs, my sheep, because the Father has given all to him, and he is, as Redeemer and Saviour, Lord of all. The most superficial student will not fail to see in this thrice-repeated question an indirect and implied reference to and recall of the thrice-repeated denial of his Lord by Peter. In his request for permission to walk on the water, in his protest against the feet-washing, in his assertion “Though all men shall be offended because of thee, yet will I never be offended” (Matt. 14:28; 26:33; John 13:8), there are indications of an overweening self-confidence in his love for the Lord as greater than that of the other disciples. It was this self-confidence in the strength of his love which had proved his danger. Christ addresses him, not by his new name of Peter, but by the old name which he bore before he knew the Lord, and asks him, Hast thou for me a greater love than these? Peter, saying nothing of the love of the others, not even venturing to claim for himself the intelligent and deliberate love which rules the life and molds the character, answers in humility: Thou knowest my affection for thee. Show it then, says Jesus, not by assuming pre-eminence over my flock, but by becoming their shepherd (= servant, ch. 13:12-17). He then repeats the question, Lovest thou me? Peter answers as before: Thou knowest my affection for thee. Show it then, says Christ, by shepherding my sheep; by seeking the lost, restoring the wanderer. A third time he asks the question, now changing it and adopting Peter’s own language: Art thou sure of thine affection for me? Peter is grieved, at the change in the question as well as at its repetition, “because he said unto him the third time, Hast thou affection for me?” and appeals to him as the Searcher of hearts to witness for himself the depth and reality of his affection. And Christ finally bids him show his love by feeding the little sheep--the young, the feeble, those most needing care. Meyer well notes the fact that Christ does not question Peter’s faith, but the love which proceeds from faith and shows itself by its work; and Godet notes the curious resemblance between the present situation and that of two scenes in the previous life of Peter with which it is related. He had been called to the ministry by Jesus after a miraculous draught of fishes; it is after a similar draught that the ministry is restored to him. He had lost his office by his denial beside a fire of coals; it is beside a fire of coals that he recovers it.--(Godet.) The ecclesiastical commentators see in this scene a reinstatement of Peter in his apostolic office, to which Alford well replies that “there is no record of his ever having lost it.” The R. C. divines find in it a proof-text for their belief in the primacy of Peter; to which Peter himself furnishes a quite adequate reply in 1 Pet. 5:1-3. The shepherd is not a lord over God’s heritage, but one who follows the Chief Shepherd, goes before the flock, is their example and their leader, by his own life showing them the way to live, and, if need be, by his own death for their sakes showing them how to die. It must strike one, too, as curious that Peter should be grieved at words which constitute him the head of the church and the vicar of God upon earth. The true lesson of this scene is for all the disciples of Christ. We are all, through Peter’s experience, admonished to show our love for our Master, not by asking permission to do great things (as to walk on the waves), not by refusing to accept his humiliation for us (as by refusing to allow the feet-washing), nor yet by professing what we will do in the hour of difficulty and danger (as by the assurance, “I will not deny thee”), nor even by entering into fierce battle against his foes (as by drawing the sword on Malchus), but by laying down the life in quiet, humble, self-denying service for the Master’s sheep--the followers of Christ, the wanderers from the fold, and the weakest and feeblest in the fold.

18 Verily, verily, I say unto thee,[772] When thou wast young, thou girdedst thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest: but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird[773] thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not.

[772] ch. 13:36; Acts 12:3, 4.

[773] Acts 21:11.

19 This spake he, signifying by what death[774] he should glorify God. And when he had spoken this, he saith unto him, Follow[775] me.

[774] 2 Pet. 1:14.

[775] ch. 12:26; Numb. 14:24; 1 Sam. 12:20; Matt. 19:28.

=18, 19.= In this language, when thou wast young thou girdedst thyself, there is perhaps a reference to Peter’s act in girding himself and casting himself into the sea (ver. 7). The prophecy foretells the manner of his death, which, according to an early and apparently trustworthy tradition, was by crucifixion at about the same time with Paul, in the persecutions under Nero. According to Origen, Peter was crucified with his head downwards, either by his own request, because in his humility he was unwilling to suffer the same death as his Lord, or by order of Nero, as matter of wanton and ingenious cruelty. The contrast between Peter’s experience in his youth and in his old age is one common in Christian experience, a contrast between doing and suffering, between active, energetic service of the Lord and the patient endurance of his cross. Both are involved in following Christ. To interpret this command, Follow me, literally, as Godet: “Jesus began to move off, and commanded Peter to follow him in the literal sense, and John followed them without any express invitation,” seems to me a shallow interpretation, which is not helped by supposing it to be a symbolical act, a sort of childish object-teaching. Peter had gone back to his fishing; in saying Follow me, Christ calls him again to become a fisher of men, by the same phrase which he had employed three years before on the shore of the same sea and after a similar miracle.

20 Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved, following; which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee?

21 Peter, seeing him, saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do?

=20, 21.= It is not necessary, and it is hardly reasonable, to impute Peter’s question to a feeling of jealousy; it is rather to be attributed to the natural and almost universal tendency to inquire into the duty and destiny of others. The Lord’s reply indicates what is the answer which he would make to us whenever we, following Peter’s doubtful example, pry curiously into his purposes respecting others.

22 Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come,[776] what is that to thee? Follow[777] thou me.

[776] Matt. 25:31; Rev. 1:7; 22:20.

[777] verse 19.

23 Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?

=22, 23.= It is curious to see how Christ’s language here, notwithstanding John’s interpretation, has been misconstrued, even down to the latest time, as a promise, or a quasi-promise, that John should tarry until the second coming of Christ. Ancient legends report that after his interment there were strange movements in the earth that covered him, that when the tomb was subsequently opened it was found empty, that he was reserved to reappear again in conflict with Anti-Christ; so late as the sixteenth century an enthusiast was burned at Toulouse who gave himself out as St. John; and even so sober a commentator as Godet submits, though hesitatingly, the hypothesis that, as the primitive epoch of humanity had its Enoch, and the theocratic epoch its Elijah, neither of whom knew death, so also the Christian epoch may have had its deathless representative. Two other interpretations are: (1) That Christ refers here to his coming to his own in their death, and that by the phrase If I will that he tarry till I come he means, If I will that he meet a natural death instead of martyrdom. This interpretation Alford justly characterizes as frigid and inapplicable here, since martyrdom is as truly a coming of the Lord as natural death. (2) That by his Second Coming, Christ refers to the destruction of Jerusalem, an interpretation strangely adopted by Alford. That destruction was an historical prophecy, but in no wise an historical fulfillment of the promise of the Lord’s Second Coming. There is no reason for regarding this language of Christ as anything else than purely hypothetical, equivalent to, Suppose that I were to will that he should remain upon the earth unto the end; what would that be to thee?

24 This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and[778] we know that his testimony is true.

[778] ch. 19:35; 3 John 12.

25 And[779] there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the[780] books that should be written. Amen.

[779] ch. 20:30.

[780] Amos 7:10.

=24, 25.= There is uncertainty respecting the authorship and authenticity of these verses. For discussion of this question, see Smith’s Bib. Dict., p. 1430, note b; Godet’s Commentary, Vol. III, pp. 362, 363. The verses are found in all the manuscripts, except that Tischendorf believes that ver. 25 was originally wanting in the Sinaitic MS.; he thinks that the color of the ink and a slight difference in the handwriting show that it did not proceed from the original scribe, but was added by a contemporary reviser. But though there is no external evidence for setting either verse aside, the internal evidence seems to me decisive against verse 25. “This inharmonious and unspiritual exaggeration” (Meyer) is entirely inconsistent with John’s scrupulously simple and truthful narrative. The authorship of ver. 24 is more uncertain. Whether written by John, or added almost immediately after by some companion, it affords a very strong attestation of the apostolic authorship of the Fourth Gospel. On a careful examination of the different authorities, it seems to me that Godet’s conclusion, though hypothetical, is in accordance with probabilities, and his deduction respecting the authenticity of the Gospel as a whole is irresistible: “1st. That the narrative (verses 1-23) is from the hand of the Evangelist. 2d. That ver. 24 is a declaration emanating from the friends of John, who had called forth the composition of his Gospel, and to whom he had committed it after its completion. 3d. That ver. 25 is written by one of them, with whom the work was deposited, and who thought himself bound to close it thus, to the glory, not of the author, but of the subject of history. By these last words the entire work becomes a whole. Accordingly we are shut up to hold either that John is the author of our Gospel, or that the author is a forger, who, 1st, palmed himself off on the world with all the characteristics of the apostle; who, 2d, carried his shamefulness so far that he got made out for him, by an accomplice of his fraud, a certificate of identity with the person of John; or who, more simply still, to save himself the trouble of finding a companion in falsehood, made out this certificate for himself in the name of another, or of several others. And he who had recourse to such ways was the author of a writing in which lying is blasted as the work of the devil (ch. 8:44), and truth glorified as one of the two essential features of the divine character! If any one will believe such a story, * * * let him believe it” (1 Cor. 14:38).

* * * * *

Two years have elapsed since the publication of the preceding volume in this series of Commentaries on the books of the New Testament. A considerable part of the Commentary on John was then already written; all that part of it which was common to the Four Gospels was substantially ready for the printer; little else remained to be written except that portion which dealt with the larger discourses of our Lord, and not all of that; and a life-long study of the Four Gospels, part of the results of which had been given to the public in a Life of Christ, and others of which were in manuscript notes, had made me measurably familiar with the ground that lay before me. But the discourses of Jesus, as recorded by John, can be studied only meditatively. A certain quiet restfulness of mind is essential to any spiritual apprehension of their meaning. And I have believed that those to whom this volume had been earlier promised, and whose impatience at the delay has reached me in letters that have always been kindly and courteous and full of encouragement, would easier pardon delay than despoiling haste in preparation. I can ask no leniency of any critic on the ground that time was wanting to do adequately the needful work.

I have stated in the introduction the reasons which have led me, after a careful, and I believe a measurably impartial, study of the question, to believe that the Fourth Gospel is the work of the apostle John, and that he is the one designated in that Gospel as “the disciple whom Jesus loved.” I wish to add here, emphatically, that the meditative study of the discourses which John has reported has strengthened that conviction. Either we have here the truths which Christ taught, reported by one who lived after the spiritual and catholic character of Christianity had begun to show itself by its actual development, and who therefore comprehended his profounder instructions as they were not comprehended during his lifetime; or else we must believe that the centuries immediately succeeding the first of the Christian era produced a spiritual genius whose insight into the profoundest truths of human experience, when inflamed into more than merely human life by the inbreathing of God, makes him the equal if not the superior of the Jesus portrayed in the three synoptic Gospels, and yet one who has been utterly unknown to fame, and who has left no other monument to his memory than a document that is a fraud if not a forgery. The skepticism that asserts this lays too heavy a tax on human credulity. It asks us to believe not only in a Socrates who had no Plato to reveal his teachings and his influence, but in one who did not hesitate to employ a petty and useless fraud as a setting for the most transcendent spiritual truth.

This truth may be expressed in two words as that of the Divine Immanence. Around this the whole Gospel of John centres; to illustrate this the whole Gospel was written. That there is in man the possibility of a more than merely earthly life; that in him has been planted the germ of a divine life; that this life, when divinely developed, brings with it a new light and power; that God is in the soul and the soul may live in perpetual consciousness of its God; that Christ is not merely a Memory and a Hope, but a Presence; that the Supernatural is not a past phenomenon, but a present and a perpetual experience; that miracles--that is, signs of the divine, All-mighty love--are forever going on in human experience, on a transcendently grander scale in the nineteenth century than they did in the first; that the evidence of Christianity is not to be sought in dingy and doubtful records of past events, but in the personal observation and witness of present occurrences; that revelation was not completed with the Apocalypse, but every devout soul has the promise of an inner light, and the invisible and Catholic brotherhood and household of faith, which is the true church of Christ, has in it an everlasting Shechinah, which reveals with perpetually increasing clearness the truth of God both to it and through it; and that fidelity to the sacred and sweet duties of love is at once the condition and the result of this living experience of an ever-living God, in the spiritual realm as in nature, every fruit being the seed vessel of new growths for the future:--this I believe to be the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ according to John. And I believe there is no better protection against that skepticism of the present age, whose vice is not that it demands a reason for every faith, but that it denies the witness of the spiritual sight to spiritual things, than the patient, meditative study of this Gospel, except the patient, persistent pursuit of the life to which it invites. To those that have no faith in such a life and such a light, to whom Christ is only a mist-covered mountain seen across the intervening eighteen centuries, and God only an hypothesis made probable by the Paleyrian argument from design, this Commentary will probably give no aid, and this Gospel will even appear to be uninterpretable in its mysticism. To those that have this faith in a perpetually present Immanuel, a Christ who is ever a God with us, however dim the faith may be, these pages are commended in the prayer and hope that they may help to make the Gospel clearer, the faith stronger, and the Christ nearer and dearer.

INDEX.

NOTE.--The abbreviations M., Mk., L., and J. refer respectively to the four gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; the figures refer to the pages.

A.

Adultery, Laws against, M., 55.

Anise, M., 250.

Almsgiving, M., 98.

Andrew, M., 148.

Angels: Bible doctrine of, M., 215, 323; L., 7. Message to the Shepherds of, L., 19, 20, 21.

Anointing at Bethany, Mk., 58.

Annunciation, The, L., 11, 12.

Antonia, tower of, J., 216.

Apostles: Call of the, Mk., 14. Commission of the, Mk., 27. Office of the, Mk., 14.

B.

Baptism: Ceremony of, M., 72. Doctrine of, M., 327, 328; J., 47.

Barabbas, M., 310.

Bartholomew, M., 149.

Baskets, M., 198; J., 80.

Beatitudes, The, M., 85-87; L., 41, 42.

Bed, Old Jewish, Mk., 10.

Beelzebub, M., 166.

Bethabara, J., 23.

Bethany, M., 51, 280; L., 122; J., 136, 151.

Bethesda, Pool of, J., 64.

Bethlehem, M., 52, 58.

Bethphage, M., 53; L., 122.

Bethsaida, M., 51, 157; Mk., 30.

Betrayal, Prophecy of the, J., 167.

Blindness, M., 131.

Book, Old Jewish, L., 32.

Book-making, Ancient, M., 25.

Bread, Eastern, Mk., 36; J., 236.

Broker, Eastern, L., 121.

Burial customs, J., 227.

C.

Cæsar, Concerning tribute of, M., 241, 242.

Cæsarea Philippi, M., 51, 199.

Caiaphas, M., 280.

Camel’s-hair, M., 66.

Cana, M., 51; J., 29.

Candle-stick, An Eastern, Mk., 16.

Canon, M., 17-25.

Capernaum, M., 51, 80; L., 62; J., 34.

Care, Christ’s teaching concerning, M., 108.

Centurion, M., 117.

Children, Christ’s blessing of, M., 46, 225; L., 115.

Chorazin, M., 51, 157.

Christ: Activity of, Mk., 6. Agony in Gethsemane, M., 290-295; L., 135. Anointed by Mary, M., 280; J., 150. Anointed by the penitent woman, L., 48, 49. Atonement by, J., 24. Authority questioned, M., 53. Baptism of, M., 71-74; L., 31. Betrayal of, M., 59, 295-297; L., 136; J., 211-213. Birth of, M., 55, 56, 64; L., 7; J., 114. Bloody sweat of, L., 135. Burial of, M., 171, 321; Mk., 61; J., 221-226. Childhood of, L., 21-25. Church of, J., 185-190. Consecration of, L., 22, 23. Conversation of, J., 58. Crucifixion of, M., 279-281, 312-320; Mk., 60; L., 139-144. Death, Cause of, J., 225-6. Denial by Peter, M., 301-304; Mk., 59; L., 136. Discourses of, J., 11. Discourse on the end of the world, L., 126-130. Divine nature of, M., 13, 226, 327; J., 19, 39, 44, 68, 90, 111, 117, 134, 183, 184. Education of, M., 65. Enemies of, L., 131. Fame of, L., 117. First attack on, M., 234. Galilean ministry of, Mk., 5; M., 79-83. Genealogy of, M., 53; L., 31. Glory of, J., 203-4, 209-10. Growth of, L., 25. Herod’s interview with, L., 138. Home of, L., 59, 130. Human nature of, M., 118, 317; L., 18, 71. Incarnation of, J., 22. Intercessory prayer of, J., 201-2, 210. Interpreter of God’s law, J., 189-90. King, J., 218-220. Life of, M., 40-43. Light of the world, The, J., 17, 109. Limitations of his nature, Mk., 56, 57. Living One, The, L., 145. Lord of Nature, The, Mk., 20. Manifestation of the Father, J., 174-5, 205. Mission of, M., 128, 146, 160, 194, 216; Mk., 35, 49; L., 92; J., 66, 124. Mission in Perea, M., 222; Mk., 46. Names of, The, M., 57. Personality of, J., 104. Popularity of, M., 14; L., 74, 91, 131. Power of, J., 203, 211-13. Prayer of, defined, J., 178. Prayer in Gethsemane, M., 292. Passion of, Mk., 47; L., 56, 115. Resurrection of, M., 323-336, 330-333; Mk., 43, 47, 62; L., 115, 144-147; J., 227-230. Rejection at Nazareth of, M., 187; Mk., 26. Royal nature of, L., 122. Sacrifice of, The, J., 129. Satire used by, L., 84. Second coming of, M., 265, 266; J., 28, 97, 173-4. Sepulchre of, M., 321, 322. Servant, A, L., 133. Simplicity of His life, J., 79, 106. Son of David, The, L., 117. Son of God, The, M., 159, 300, 320. Son of man, The, M., 142, 143, 162, 200. Spiritual presence of (See Holy Ghost), J., 179-181. Subject to the Father, J., 183-8. Supremacy of, J., 128. Sympathy of, M., 133, 155; J., 124, 143. Synagogue, Preaches in the, L., 31. Temple, Found in the, L., 24. Temptation of, M., 74-79; L., 31. Trial of, M., 297-301. Trial by Caiaphas, L., 136; J., 213-216. Trial before Pilate, M., 309-312; L., 136; J., 216-221. Tribute demanded of, M., 211, 212. Triumphal entry into Jerusalem, M., 232, 233; Mk., 50; L., 122; J., 154.

Christian charity, L., 67.

Christian hate, L., 89.

Christian life: Conditions for, J., 41, 42. Nature of, J., 153. Christ’s sermon on, J., 84-93. Source of, J., 59. Suffering of, J., 119.

Christian, Mission of, J., 189, 205, 208.

Christian ministry, M., 138, 329.

Christian religion: Evidences of, J., 74, 176-7. Nature of, J., 45. Not asceticism, J., 208. Power of, J., 177.

Christian spirit, M., 140.

Christian work, M., 136.

Christology, J., 174.

Church: Authority of the, M., 246. Christ’s commission to, M., 326-329. Dangers of the, M., 259. Foundation of the, M., 201-203. Unity of, J., 209.

Circumcision, L., 15.

Cleophas, L., 145.

Clothes, Jewish, M., 261.

Coats, Jewish, L., 28.

Comforter, Nature of the (See Holy Ghost), J., 178.

Commandment, The great, Mk., 53, 54.

Commerce, in the temple,

Commission of the Seventy, L., 60-63.

Commission of the Twelve, M., 133; L., 55.

Corban, Rabbinical law of, Mk., 33.

Courage, Christian, source of, J., 201.

Courtyard, Oriental, M., 303.

Creeds, Necessity of, J., 112.

Crosses, Description of, M., 315.

Cyrenius, governor of Syria, L., 18.

D.

Dalmanutha, M., 51; Mk., 37.

Dead Sea, M., 51.

Death, Jewish conception of, J., 173.

Decapolis, M., 51.

Dedication, Feast of the, J., 131.

Demoniacal possession, M., 123-125; Mk., 6.

Denarius, Value of, M., 221, 242; J., 79.

Devil, The, M., 76.

Dining customs in the East, L., 86.

Disciples, Call of the four, L., 35, 36.

Divine presence: Condition of enjoying, J., 180, 81, 86, 87, 89. Power of, J., 187-88.

Divorce, Christ’s law of, M., 222, 225; Mk., 46.

E.

Elders, M., 205.

Election, Doctrine of, J., 89, 190, 203-4.

Emmaus, M., 51; L., 145.

End of the world, M., 258; L., 127-130.

Enemies, Christian treatment of, M., 96-98.

Enon, M., 51; J., 47.

Ephraim. M., 51; J., 149.

Epistles, Nature of, M., 11.

Espousals, Jewish, M., 55.

Essenes, M., 69.

Eternal life, J., 44, 75, 83, 86, 203-4.

Ewers, J., 31.

Excommunication, Jewish, J., 122.

F.

Faith: Christ’s exhortation to, Mk, 52. Nature of, J., 84, 145, 161. Contrasted with right, J., 234.

Falling from grace, J., 188.

Fasting, Laws for, M., 109, 129.

Fasts, L., 114.

Feeding of the five thousand (See under Miracles).

Feet-washing, Ceremony of, J., 165.

Feet-washing, Oriental, J., 163.

Fire: Biblical mention of, M., 183. Utensils, J., 219.

Fishing, Oriental, L., 37.

Forgiveness, Nature of, L., 141.

Frankincense, M., 62.

Free-will, Doctrine of, L., 95; J., 94.

Funerals of the East, L., 45.

Future punishment, M., 145, 277; J., 188.

G.

Gabriel, L., 10.

Gadara, M., 51.

Galilee: Christ’s circuit of, L., 35, 52. Sea of, M., 57; Mk., 8.

Gambling at the cross, J., 223.

Generation, Book of the, M., 53.

Gennesaret: Lake of, Mk., 8. Land of, M., 192.

Gerizim, Mount of, J., 55.

Gethsemane: Christ’s agony in, Mk., 58. Garden of, M., 291.

Gnosticism, J., 13, 14.

God: Kingdom of, M., 103, 225; L., 57, 110-112. Knowledge of, J., 175, 176. Nature of, J., 14, 15, 37, 74, 130. Trinity of (See Christ, Holy Ghost), J., 14-16.

Golgotha, M., 314.

Gospels: The four, M., 11. Harmony of the, M., 38-40, 44-66. Origin of the, M., 36-38. Relations of the, M., 34-36.

Gospel of the Infancy, L., 6.

Gospel of John: Authenticity of, J., 3, 6-8, 240. Object of, J., 12, 234. Supplemental chapter to, J., 235.

Gospel of Luke, Authorship of, L., 3.

Gospel of Mark: Authorship of, Mk., 3. Characteristics of, Mk., 4.

Gospel of Matthew: Author of, M., 49. Characteristics of, M., 49. Language of, M., 49. Object of, M., 49. Origin of, M., 36-38.

Grace, Meaning of, J., 21.

Grain, Oriental sale of, L., 43.

Grave, Jewish, J., 143.

H.

Hades, L., 105.

Heathen and the Gospel, L., 33.

Heaven: Christ’s teaching concerning, J., 173. Discourse on, Mk., 43, 44. Kingdom of, M., 66, 85, 90, 137, 154, 110-114. Place of, M., 102.

Hell, M., 91, 119.

Herod the Great, L., 7.

Herods, The, M., 58, 59.

Herod, Death of, M., 63.

Herod Archelaus, M., 64.

High-priest, M., 280; L., 27.

Holy Ghost: Bestowal of on disciples, J., 230. Blasphemy against, M., 169. Character and office of, J., 179-80, 195-197. Manifestation of, J., 182. Relation of to the Father, J., 192.

Holy of Holies (See Temple).

Housetop, Eastern, L., 74.

Humility, Commendation of, M., 214, 241.

Husks, L., 96.

Hypocrisy, Rebuke of, M., 109; L., 73.

I.

Idumea, Mk., 14.

Incarnation (See Christ).

Incense, Service of, L., 5.

Infancy, Gospel of the, L., 6.

Inn, Jewish, L., 19.

Issue of blood, L., 54

J.

Jacob, Well of, J., 52.

Jairus’ daughter, L., 54.

James, M., 148.

James the son of Alphæus, M., 149.

Joanna, wife of Chuza, L., 53.

Jericho, M., 51; L., 116.

Jerusalem: Conquest of, L., 141. Desolation of, L., 123. Road from Jericho to, L., 65. Siege of, M., 261. Site of, M., 278.

Jesus (See Christ).

John: The Apostle, M., 148; J., 4. Character of, J., 5. Gospel of (See Gospel of John).

John the Baptist: Character of, M., 65. Death of, M., 189; Mk., 29; L., 55. Embassy to Jesus, M., 152. Father of, L., 7. Imprisonment of, M., 150. Message of, L., 47. Ministry of, M., 69; L., 30; J., 50.

Jordan, M., 52, 67.

Joseph of Arimathea, J., 226.

Joy, Christian, J., 189.

Judas Iscariot: Character of, M., 150, 307. Destruction of, J., 207. Death of, M., 307. Repentance of, M., 306. Treachery of, M., 58.

Judea, M., 52, 65.

Judgment: Christ’s description of the, M., 275-277. Nature of the, J., 161.

Judgment seat, Roman, J., 221.

K.

Key, Description of ancient, M., 203.

L.

Lamps, ancient. M., 270.

Lanterns, J., 212.

Law and the Gospel, M., 80.

Lazarus, J., 136.

Lazarus, Resurrection of (See Miracles).

Lebbæus, M., 149.

Lepers, L., 109.

Leprosy, M., 118.

Levi (See Matthew).

Levite, L., 66.

Lilies, M., 107; L., 77.

Locusts, M., 67.

Lord’s Prayer, M., 101-105.

Lord’s Supper, The: Ceremony of, The, L., 131; J., 92. Institution of the, M., 283-288; Mk., 58; J., 162. Time of the, M., 286; J., 169, 217, 221.

Love: Commanded, M., 244. Test of, M., 146.

Luke, Gospel of (See Gospel of Luke).

M.

Magdala, M., 52.

Magi, The, M., 59, 60.

Mammon, M., 106.

Manger, Eastern, L., 19.

Manuscripts, M., 27, 28.

Mariolatry, L., 70.

Mark, Gospel of (See Gospel of Mark).

Marriage: Ancient form of, J., 118. Christ’s law of, M., 222-225; Mk., 46. Eastern ceremony of, M., 269, 272; L., 77. Jewish ceremony of, M., 129.

Martha and Mary, L., 67, 68.

Mary Magdalene, M., 320; L., 53; J., 228.

Mary’s hymn of praise, L., 14.

Matthew: Character of, M., 149. Call of, M., 125; L., 38; Mk., 125. Gospel of (See Gospel of Matthew).

Meals, Jewish, J., 168.

Medicine, Mk., 22.

Meekness, Nature of, M., 85.

Mercy, Nature of, M., 86, 251.

Messiah, The Jewish, J., 100.

Mill, Eastern, M., 266.

Minister, Meaning of the term, L., 5.

Mint, M., 280.

Miracles: Barren fig-tree cursed, Mk., 50, 51. Christ stills the tempest, M., 121; L., 53. Cure of the infirm woman, L., 81, 82. Cure of the issue of blood, Mk., 21-23. Feeding of the five thousand, M., 191; Mk., 30; L., 55; J., 76-81. Feeding of the four thousand, M., 195; Mk., 35. Blind Bartimeus healed, Mk., 119. Draft of fishes--first, L., 35, 36. Draft of fishes--second, J., 237. Healing of the blind man, Mk., 38; L., 115. Healing of the centurion’s servant, M., 117; L., 44. Healing of the centurion’s son, J., 61, 62. Healing of deaf and dumb, Mk., 34. Healing of the demoniac, M., 121, 211; Mk., 20; L., 35, 53. Healing of the leper, L., 37. Healing of the lunatic boy, M., 40; L., 56. Healing of the man born blind, J., 118, 124. Healing of the paralytic, M., 125; Mk., 9-12; L., 37. Healing of Peter’s mother-in-law, M., 119; L., 35. Healing of the ten lepers, L., 108. Healing of the withered hand, M., 163. Raising of Jairus’ daughter, Mk., 22, 24, 25. Raising of the widow’s son, L., 45. Resurrection of Lazarus, J., 135, 145-147. Water turned into wine, J., 30-33. Walking on the sea, M., 191; Mk., 30; J., 82.

Miracles: Christ’s use of, J., 62. Truth of the, M., 166.

Money-changers, M., 274; J., 37.

Mount of Olives, L., 123.

Mourning: Christian rites of, M., 85. Eastern ceremony of, Mk., 24. Rabbinical rites of, J., 139.

Murder, Laws against, M., 91-93.

Myrrh, M., 62.

N.

Nain, M., 52; L., 45.

Nathanael, J., 27.

Nazareth, M., 52, 64; L., 11, 34; J., 27.

New Testament: Authority of, M., 13. Canon of, M., 17-25. Composition of, M., 11. English version of, M., 28-31. Inspiration of, M., 14-17. Interpretation of, M., 31-34. Nature of, M., 11, 12. Origin of, M., 13. Text of, M., 25-28.

Nicodemus, J., 40.

O.

Obedience, M., 112.

Oven, An Eastern, L., 77.

P.

Palestine, Government of, L., 27.

Palsy, Mk., 10.

Parables, The: Barren fig-tree, The, L., 80, 81. Candle, The, L., 53. Drag-net, The, M., 185. Good Samaritan, The, L., 64-66. Great supper, The, L., 87. Hid treasures, The, M., 184, 185. Householder, The, L., 44. Laborers, The, M., 230, 231. Leaven, The, M., 181; L., 82. Lost coin, The, L., 94. Lost sheep, The, L., 92, 93. Mustard seed, The, M., 180; Mk., 18; L., 82. Pearl, The, M., 184, 185. Prodigal son, The, L., 95-99. Rich fool, The, L., 75, 76. Rich man and Lazarus, L., 103-106. Seed growing secretly, The, Mk., 17. Sheepfold and shepherd, J., 125-131. Sower, The, M., 175-179; Mk., 16; L., 53. Tares, The, M., 179. Ten pounds, The, L., 120. Ten talents, The, M., 272-275. Ten virgins, The, M., 268-272. Two debtors, The, L., 50, 51. Two sons, The, M., 235. Unclean spirit, The, M., 172. Unjust steward, The, L., 99-102. Unmerciful servant, The, M., 219. Vine and branches, The, J., 185-6. Wedding feast, The, M., 238-241. Wicked Husbandman, The, M., 236-238; M., 53; L., 125.

Paradise, L., 142, 143.

Passover: Day of, L., 131. Feast of, J., 63, 78.

Patience, Christian, L., 58, 128.

Peace, Christian, J., 182.

Penitent thief, L., 142, 143.

Penny, Value of Jewish, J., 79.

Pentateuch, Authorship of, J., 76.

Pentecost, Feast of, J., 63.

Perea, M., 52; L., 60.

Persecution: Foretold, J., 193. How to be borne, J., 191-194.

Peter: Character of, M., 135, 148; Mk., 7; L., 133. Commission of, J., 238-9. Confession of Christ by, Mk., 39; L., 55. Denial of Christ by, M., 301-304; L., 133. Founder of the Church, M., 201-203. Name changed, J., 26. Walking on the sea, M., 30; J., 121.

Pharisees, The: Sect of, M., 68. Baffled by Christ, M., 245. Discourse against, L., 71.

Philip, M., 149.

Phylacteries, M., 247.

Pontius Pilate, M., 305; J., 221-2.

Poor of the East, L., 88, 89.

Porter of the East, L., 72.

Pound, L., 121.

Prayer: Bible doctrine of, L., 112-114; J., 177. In the name of Christ, J., 177. Necessity of, M., 111, 99-105; L., 130. Promises to, J., 177-8, 199-200. True spirit of (See Christ), L., 68.

Preachers (See Christian Ministry).

Priesthood, The, M., 61; L., 7.

Prophecy: Office of, J., 184. Fulfillment of, in N. T., J., 225.

Proselytes, M., 249.

Publicans, M., 97, 126; L., 28, 91.

Purification of the Jewish mother, L., 22.

Purple and fine linen, L., 104.

R.

Rabbi, M., 247.

Rama, M., 63.

Religion: Fruits of, M., 113. Joyousness of, M., 239. Test of, M., 113.

Repentance: Law of, L., 96. Nature of, M., 65. Necessity of, L., 80.

Revelation, Book of, M., 11.

Resurrection: Nature of, Mk., 47, 64; L., 144; J., 69. Prophecy of, Mk., 43, 47.

Revenge, Laws against, M., 94-96.

Riches, Christ’s teachings concerning, M., 228; Mk., 47.

Ritualism, Christ’s teachings concerning, Mk., 31, 32.

Roofs, Jewish, Mk., 10.

Ruler, The rich young, M., 226; Mk., 46; L., 115.

S.

Sabbath: Christian use of the, L., 84. Laws of the Christian, M., 161-164; Mk., 13; L., 38. Pharisaic, The, M., 120; J., 66.

Sacrifices, J., 37.

Sadducees, M., 68, 69.

Sadducees silenced, M., 243; Mk., 53.

Salim, M., 52; J., 47.

Salutations of the Jews, L., 61.

Salvation, Conditions of, M., 276; L., 83.

Samaria: History of, M., 52; J., 51. Woman of, The, J., 50.

Samaritans: Character of, L., 66. Christ’s visit to, L., 57.

Sanctification, means of, J., 187.

Satan: Fall of, L., 63. Nature of, J., 158. Personality of, J., 115.

Scorpions, L., 69.

Scourging, M., 331.

Scribes, M., 61, 90. Denunciation of the, Mk., 54; L., 126.

Self-righteousness, Christ’s dealings with, L., 64.

Self-sacrifice commanded, M., 206.

Sepulchre, Jewish, J., 143.

Sermon on the Mount, L., 40.

Servants of the East, L., 107.

Sheba, Queen of, M., 171.

Sheep-fold, Eastern, J., 125.

Shekel, Value of, M., 281.

Shepherds of the East, L., 19, 93; J., 126.

Shoes, Jewish, M., 70.

Sidon, M., 52.

Sieve, Ancient, L., 133.

Siloam, Pool of, J., 120.

Simon the Canaanite, M., 150.

Simon Cyrene, M., 314.

Simon the leper, M., 280.

Sin: Christ’s laws for the prevention of, Mk., 45. Of rejecting Christ, J., 191-92. Power to remit and retain, J., 231-32.

Skepticism, L., 106.

Skiff, Ancient, M., 19.

Son of Man (See Christ).

Sorrow, ministry of, J., 199.

Soul: Distinction of the, J., 188. Nature of the, J., 157.

Sparrows in Market, L., 75.

Spikenard, J., 152.

Star of the East, M., 61.

Steward, L., 100.

Swaddling-clothes, L., 18.

Swearing, Laws against, M., 93.

Swine, Flesh of, M., 122.

Sycamore tree, L., 107, 118.

Sychar, M., 52; J., 51.

Synagogues, M., 81.

Synagogue, Uppermost seat of the, L., 72.

Syro-Phœnician woman, M., 34.

T.

Tabernacles, Feast of the, J., 63, 95, 102.

Talent, Value of the, M., 220, 273.

Tares, M., 179.

Taxation, Roman, M., 126; L., 17.

Temple: Description of, J., 34-37. Site of, L., 127. Pinnacle of the, M., 77. Veil of the, M., 319.

Temple of Herod, M., 256.

Thomas, M., 149; J., 133, 174, 233.

Threshing in the East, M., 71.

Tiberias: City of, J., 84. Sea of, J., 78.

Tithes, L., 114.

Title on the cross, J., 223.

Tombs, Jewish, M., 122; Mk., 21. 62, 63.

Traders cast from the temple, Mk., 51.

Transfiguration, The, M., 207-210; Mk., 40; L., 55.

Treasury, Jewish, J., 110.

Tribute, M., 211.

Triclinium, L., 85.

Trinity, Doctrine of the, J., 14-16, 133, 183.

Twelve Apostles: Commission of the, M., 134, 147-50. Inspiration of, M., 141.

Tyre, M., 52, 157.

U.

Unleavened bread, Day of, M., 282.

Upper chamber, L., 132.

Usury, M., 274.

V.

Vineyards of the East, M., 236.

W.

Wailing place, Jewish, L., 140.

Water-pot, J., 51.

Well, Ancient, J., 52.

Well, Jacob’s, J., 52.

Wine: Bible commands concerning, J., 32, 33. Christ’s teachings concerning, J., 32, 33.

Winnowing, Oriental, L., 23.

Woman, a Jewish, L., 52.

Word of God, J., 13, 14.

World, End of the (See End of the World).

Worship, True nature of, M., 116; J., 56.

Writing materials, L., 15, 101.

Z.

Zaccheus, L., 118.

Zacharias, M., 253; L., 7, 16.

Zebedee, M., 81.

Zebedee, Sons of, Mk., 47.

Transcriber’s Note:

Words may have multiple spelling variations or inconsistent hyphenation in the text. These have been left unchanged, as were obsolete and alternative spellings. Misspelled words were corrected.

Words and phrases in italics are surrounded by underscores, like this. Those in bold are surrounded by equal signs, =like this=. Footnotes were renumbered sequentially; those in the Preface were moved to the end of the chapter; footnotes in lines of scripture follow immediately thereafter. Obvious printing errors, such as backwards, upside down, or partially printed letters and punctuation, were corrected. Final stops missing at the end of sentences and abbreviations were added.

The text was rearranged so that each line of scripture, its footnotes, and its commentary are together as a unit. The index includes references to the author’s books on the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, as well as those included in this book. In the index, “Commerce, in the temple” has no page reference.

The following items were changed:

[103] “John 3:11” to “John 3:21” “ought” to “aught” to eat ...

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