A COMMENTARY
ON
The Gospel
According to John
BY
DAVID LIPSCOMB
EDITED, WITH ADDITIONAL NOTES,
BY
C. E. W. DORRIS
GOSPEL ADVOCATE COMPANY
Nashville, Tennessee
1971
Copyright by
GOSPEL ADVOCATE COMPANY
NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE
1939
PREFACE
I promised J. W. Shepherd and others to assist in preparing a complete commentary on the whole New Testament scrip-tures, being assigned the books of Mark and John. Since that time many untoward events have transpired to delay the fulfillment of the promise. Among the chief of these has been the lack of adequate leisure to bestow upon such an important task. But, I am thankful to say, through the providence of God, I have been enabled to bring the work to a close.
In this as in the former volume, I have been handicapped in introducing subject matter and carrying it to the limit of thought for the reason space in the printed volumes was limited. For this reason much I had hoped to include in these volumes has been omitted.
I have labored to stay free from the influence of particular scholastic tenets so as to meet the wants of those who desire to know the simple truth as it is in Christ Jesus, without having it formulated in the schools, or modified by special theories of religion. Most of the commentaries examined in connection with this work were written, it seems, to defend some particular religious theory or theories to which the authors held rather than to bring out the plain truths Jesus had expressed. The result has been that in mny places their works are a complete perversion of the truth and not an exhibition of it. From these writers I could derive no benefit except where their cherished doctrine was out of sight.
The work which I now send forth is an effort to supply, so far as the ability is possessed, the deficiency here complained of. I only wish I were able to feel that it is successful. But, since all present-day writers are human, and carry with them more or less the weakness of humanity, I fear, however, that the reader may find himself compelled to see in me the same fault which I have with constant reluctance seen in others. Still I am not without hope that this may not prove true for the reason that my sole aim has been to ascertain the exact sense of the scripture and to express it in terse, clear English so that the unlearned may comprehend the exact truths. How far this has been accomplished I shall not venture to say. Of what I have aimed to do, I feel that I am a competent judge, but of what I have actually done, I may be a poor one.
I hope the reader will observe that I have never at any time seemed to think whether my expositions were favoring any ism. And this is strictly true. I have been concerned solely with the sense of the scriptures, and neither the sense nor nonsense of others, for the reason that we are made free by the truth as it is in Christ Jesus. I could not feel safe in any other course.
In this volume the additional notes of the editor, added to those of David Lipscomb, are distinguished from his by being enclosed in brackets, thus H. Those not thus enclosed are the writings of David Lipscomb left by him in the care of J. W. Shepherd in the form of a commentary with the request that Mr. Shepherd add to and publish them in book form. Mr. Shepherd asked me and others to aid in this work. In addition to the above-mentioned notes of Mr. Lipscomb, I have included with them his comments on the Sunday Bible lessons found in the annuals as well as gleanings from his pen in the Gospel Advocate.
The American Revised Version has been used throughout this volume, both in the text and references to other parts of the Bible.
It remains to add only a few more items before closing this preface. The first of these is to acknowledge the valuable as-sistance rendered me by that godly servant of our Lord and painstaking man in all his work, J. W. Shepherd. While his head is white and his body is bending under the pressure of years and his natural strength abating, he has lost none of his ambition to render assistance to all who come his way.
It is again appropriate to extend to Mrs. Sarah Deen my sincere thanks and appreciation for the valuable services she has rendered in typing the manuscript and preparing it for the Printer. In this, she has done her work well.
I submit this volume to the public with the prayer that it may be blessed as a means of leading men to "believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye may have life in his name," and that it may strengthen and in-crease the faith of those who already believe.
C. E. W. DORRIS.
Nashville, Tennessee, December 28, 1938.
INTRODUCTION TO THE GOSPEL
ACCORDING TO JOHN
I. THE WRITER
John was one of the twelve apostles chosen by the Lord. He was the son of Zebedee, a fisherman on the Sea of Galilee, who was prosperous enough to employ hired servants (Mark 1:20), and was himself carrying on business with his brother James and Simon Peter as partners. He and his brother James worked with their father as fishermen until called by the Lord to follow him. Their mother’s name was Salome (; Matthew 27:56; Mark 15:40), who was probably a sister of Mary, the mother of Jesus (compare John 19:25 with above passages). If this be true then John and Jesus were cousins. He was first a disciple of John the Baptist, followed Jesus at a hint from the former (; John 1:35-40), and he and Andrew were the first of the apostles to have an interview with Jesus. Subsequently he was one of the first four who were definitely called to the apostleship. (Matthew 4:18-24; Mark 1:16-20; Luke 5:10-11.) Peter, James, and John seem to have been nearer to the Savior than the other apostles. They are mentioned as being with him on occasions of note. John, from the order of their names and from his living later than the other disciples, is supposed to have been the younger of the two brothers, and the youngest of the apostles. He and James were called Boanerges (sons of thunder). He was distinguished as "the disciple whom Jesus loved" (; John 13:23; John 19:26; John 21:7; John 21:20), notwithstanding which his impetuous disposition elicited rebuke from Jesus more than once (; Luke 9:49; Luke 9:54-55), and a request for high place in the kingdom excited the anger of the other apostles and was repelled by Jesus (; Mark 10:35-41).
It is supposed that it was John who leaned on the bosom of Jesus at the supper. Jesus honored him while on the cross by giving him the care of his mother. (John 19:25-27.) John is generally regarded as gentle and effeminate in character. The facts concerning him in the scriptures do not bear this out. He and James, when the Samaritan village refused to receive them, besought the Master to call down fire. Jesus reproved them, "Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of." (; Luke 9:55.) He stood nearest Jesus through his trials, was the first of the apostles to reach his tomb after his resurrection; and while he insisted much on love, and is called the apostle of love, no apostle has so emphasized the necessity of faithful and implicit obedience to God. He makes love the spirit of obedience and obedience the test of love. "If ye love me, ye will keep my commandments." "If a man love me, he will keep my word." "For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments." (1 John 5:3.) While insisting more than all on love as the essential spirit of service, he rejects all feeling or emotion or sentiment that does not lead to reverential and faithful obedience to the commands of God as love. John lived to a later date than any of the apostles and was foremost and active in all their works down to the end of his life. In addition to writing the fourth book of the gospel, he wrote first, second, and third epistles of John and also Revelation. He was a Jew. There can be no doubt that John removed from Jerusalem and settled at Ephesus, though at what time is uncertain. Tradition goes on to relate that in the persecution under Domitian he is taken to Rome, and there by his boldness, though not by death, gains the crown of martyrdom. The boiling oil into which he is thrown has no power to hurt him. He is then sent to labor in mines, and Patmos is the place of his exile. The accession of Nerva frees him from danger and he returns to Ephesus. Heresies continue to show themselves, but he meets them with the strongest possible protest. The very time of his death lies within the region of conjecture rather than of history, and the dates that have been assigned for it range from A.D. 89 to A.D. 120. It is said that he died in Ephesus and was buried there. He is the only one of the apostles who died a natural death. The others died martyrs.
II. SOURCE OF INFORMATION AND ITS TRUTHFULNESS
The author of the gospel by John declares himself an eye-witness of the transactions recorded by him. (John 19:35; John 21:24.) In his first epistle of John (; 1 John 1:1-3; 1 John 4:14) he again affirms that he was an eyewitness of the things done and taught by Jesus Christ. He was one of the first disciples called by our Lord and Master, and later, after he had developed sufficiently, the Lord called him to be an apostle. As a student he sat at his Master’s feet for about three and a half years, being schooled and trained for the great work before him. When he, together with the other apostles, were sufficiently schooled and trained for this work, their Teacher sent them into all the world to teach and lead others to the Lamb of God. (; Matthew 28:19; Mark 16:15.) In addition to this preparation Jesus told them that he would send them the Holy Spirit who would teach and guide them into all truth. (; John 14:16-26; John 15:26.) The Spirit came to the apostles on the day of Pente-cost and spoke to the world through them. (; Acts 2:1-4.) With these facts before us no one except an infidel could deny but that John received the things he taught firsthand and that what he wrote was genuine. Further evidence is unnecessary, for the one who would not believe these facts would not be-lieve were we to write a volume on the subject.
III. WHY WRITTEN
It is supposed generally that John wrote after the three other records had been written, and that what he wrote was supplementary to them--to give things done and taught by Jesus that the others had omitted, and to present a phase of the Lord’s character that had not been fully brought out by the others. This is true of his gospel whether it was the aim of John or not. It is thought by some that a heresy denying the divine nature of Jesus had arisen, and that John wrote to counteract and destroy this heresy. Whether this was the cause of his writing or not, he tells that Jesus was with God and was God before the world was, and that all things were created by him. Then John testifies near the close of his record: And "many other signs therefore did Jesus in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book: but these are written, that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye may have life in his name." (John 20:30-31.) The truth that he was the Son of God is given a prominence in the writings of John that is not given in any other of the apostolic writings. This is ex-plained that each wrote to meet the conditions before him, and that this question had been raised before the death of John and called forth his writings.
IV. WHEN WRITTEN
The gospel of John is held on seemingly good reasons to have been written later than the other three. It differs widely in several respects from them. It does not enter into facts and relate the same occurrences the others do. The scenes of the others are laid almost entirely in Galilee, those of John in Judea. The others say but little of the visits of Jesus to Jerusalem, or his attendance on the feasts. John lays emphasis on these. The chief data for determining the length of the minis-try of Jesus after his baptism is furnished by John in giving account of his attendance on the feasts.
As to the question whether the fourth book of the gospel was written by John, there is but one denial in the second century of its authorship, and this by certain heretics, founded on its contents, because those tenets did not comport with their views. Aside from this the external testimony of the century is unanimous in affirming or implying that John is its author and that he wrote late in the first century. As to the exact time we have no fixed date. It is generally agreed by scholars that a tradition which puts it while John was in exile to Patmos has no authority. Alford fixes the date between A.D. 70 and A.D. 85; Macdonald at A.D. 85 or A.D. 86; Godet between A.D. 80 and A.D. 90; and Tholuck at not far from A.D. 100.
V. PLACE WRITTEN
The later years of John were spent in Asia Minor and principally at Ephesus. Irenaeus was educated in the same region by a disciple of John and declares that the gospel by John was written at Ephesus and with him agree Jerome and later writers. Irenaeus also tells us that it was the latest written of the gospels. It was therefore written after the departure of the apostle from Jerusalem to this portion of the country, and there can be little doubt that its place of composition was the great metropolis of this portion of the world, and for a long time after the fall of Jerusalem, the chief center of Christianity. "After the destruction of Jerusalem Ephesus became the center of Christian life in the East. Even Antioch, the original source of missions to the Gentiles, and the future metropolis of the Christian patriarch, appears for a time less conspicuous in the obscurity of early church history than Ephesus, to which Paul inscribed his epistle, and in which John found a dwelling place and a tomb. This half Greek, half oriental city, visited by ships from all parts of the Mediterranean, and united by great roads with the markets of the interior, was the common meeting place of various characters and classes of men."--Conybeare and Howson.
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN.
B.W. Johnson
JOHN CHAPTER ONE
PRELIMINARY NOTE.
The reader who opens the Gospel of John at once notices a marked difference between it and the three preceding gospels. They begin with the times of Jesus Christ upon the earth, while the fourth carries the reader back to the unknown period that lies before the dawn of Creation. The question will at once arise why John introduces his history of Christ with the profound exposition of the WORD which occupies the first eighteen verses of this chapter. It must always be kept in mind that he wrote many years later than the authors of the other Gospels, wrote far away from Judea among a people deeply imbued with the philosophical spirit of Grecian civilization. At Ephesus he was in a center of Grecian culture, and even the church would be more or less affected by the prevalent speculations of the philosophers. In the earlier part of the century there lived at Alexandria in Egypt, a great center of Grecian learning where the greatest library of the ancient world was gathered, a Jew named Philo, born about B. C. 20, who, writing in the Greek language, had indulged in, or rather had gathered from various sources, a system of profound speculation upon the nature and essence of the Divine Being. He held that the absolute Deity was incapable of coming in contact with, or influencing matter, or manifesting himself to other intelligences, but that he gave forth certain divine powers or influences, which surround God as the members of a court surround an earthly monarch. The highest of these he called the Logos, or Word, a term that not only indicates Reason, but is the expression of thought in language. He also held that God was pure and absolute Light. His philosophy would possess little interest for us were it not for the fact that it was developed into a system called Gnosticism which reached its climax in the second century, and was already, before the close of the first century, a troublesome heresy. It took the idea of Philo of an absolute Deity, and taught that there were various emanations from God, among which were Reason, the Word, Power, Light and Life, which were all a kind of lesser deities. Even Jehovah, the revealed God of the Jews, was one of these inferior deities, and Jesus Christ was another, but a higher manifestation. These theories had begun to disturb the church before the death of Paul who refers to them a number of times (Colossians 2:18
He therefore, in the very outset of his Gospel, shows that these speculations do not harmonize with the revelation of Jesus Christ. The first eighteen verses are the profoundest exposition of the unity of the God-head, and the absolute divinity of the Word manifested in the flesh, that was ever penned. The first section (verses 1-4) contains a description of the essence of the Divine Word. He was before time began, was in association with God and was God. He was also the uncreated source of all created things, was the Power of God; and was also the Light, and the fountain of existence, the Life of men. He is not only these [25] things, but is shining in upon the darkness. This Word became flesh and dwelt among men in the person of Jesus Christ, who is, therefore, God, divine, the Power, the Light, the Life, the light and life of men. To him the prophets have borne witness, and most of all, John, who was not himself the Light, but came as a witness of the Light. These grand declarations, which cover the ground of the Gnostic heresy, and which show its errors, are kept in view in the whole Gospel. The Son of man is revealed as the Son of God, as Divine, the Light of the world, the Resurrection and the Life, the Bread and Water of Life, and as the manifestation of the Father, the whole reaching its climax in the declaration, "These things are written that you might believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."
This Word (logos), which John introduces without explanation, is not used in the sense of Philo and the Gnostics, as representing Reason, nor is it ever used in that sense by the writers of the Bible. Nor is it an attribute of God, but an acting reality, personal, instead of an abstraction or personification, a Person who appeared upon the earth in human form. Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is the Word of God, not because he speaks the word, nor because he is spoken of, nor because he is the author and source of the word as spoken in the Scriptures, but because the Word dwells in him, acts through him, and speaks from him. He is not only the Word, but the Light and Life, for similar reasons; the Light dwells in and shines from him, and the Life lives in and works from him. It is because he is the Light that he has filled the world with light; because he is the Life that the dead of the earth hear his voice, become new creatures, live a new life, and the world itself is regenerated. It is because he is the Word that he spake as never man spake, spoke in the morning of time, and at his voice order came out of the primeval chaos, spoke to the dead when he was upon the earth, and they rose from the tomb, and shall speak to those that are in their graves and they shall hear his voice and come forth in the resurrection. It was this Word which was pre-existent, before time, that was manifested in the fulness of time in the flesh to carry out the gracious ends of divine love.
THE WORD MADE FLESH.
1. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. This sublime preface of John carries us back to the account given in Genesis of the beginning of all things, when, "In the beginning God made the heavens and the earth." The passage declares that at that time, before creation, the Word existed, was with God and separate from him, but was God, or divine. What this Word is we learn from verse 14th, where it is stated that it became flesh and dwelt among men in the person of Christ. This deep disquisition upon the divine Word, almost too deep for human understanding, was penned by John on account of certain false philosophies which began to creep into and to trouble the church. Much has been written, very learnedly, upon those heresies and upon the Word and its relation to the Father, but I will pass by all speculation and [26] confine myself to what is the manifest meaning of the Scripture. This passage then affirms: 1. That the person afterwards manifest as the Christ existed before creation began; 2. That he was present with God; 3. That he was divine; 4. That he was the Word; 5. That by or through him were all things made that were made (John 1:3). The first chapter of Genesis helps us to understand its meaning. God said, "Let there be light," "Let there be a firmament," "Let the earth bring forth," etc., and it was done. God exhibits his creative power through the Word, and also manifests his will through the Word. Every careful reader of the Old Testament is struck with the prominence given to the Word of the Lord, and also with the frequent reference in the Pentateuch to the Angel of Jehovah through whom the Lord manifests himself. When Jesus came he was "the brightness of the Father’s glory, and the express image of his person," the manifestation of the Father, the "Word made flesh and dwelling among men." There are mysteries belonging to the divine nature and to the relation between the Son and the Father that we have to wait for eternity to solve. They are too deep for human solution, but this is clear: that God creates and speaks to man through the Word. As we clothe our thoughts in words, God reveals his will by the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ.
2. The same was in the beginning with God. John reiterates a part of his first statement, partly for emphasis, and partly to bring out the thought that there is a real distinction between the Word and the Father. He labors to make clear two thoughts, that the Word was divine, God, and yet had an individuality of its own. From the beginning, that unknown epoch, before creation began, he was with God.
3. And all things were made by him. Having affirmed the divine and uncreated nature of the Word, John next proceeds to tell of his relation to creation. All things, the world and all it contains, and the whole universe, were made by or through him. Paul declares (Hebrews 1:2), "Through him the worlds were made." The account of creation in Genesis helps us to understand. It was God who said, "Let there be light," and there was light. It was when the Word was employed that the sun, moon, and stars took their place in the sky. All things that were made were spoken into being, or made through the Word. The Word was not yet named Jesus Christ, for he had not yet been manifested as our Savior, nor is it certain that he was called the Son of God until he appeared upon earth as the Son of Man.
4. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. Here is a grand affirmation. He is a fountain of life from whence life flows like a river. From him life flowed in the beginning. Man can construct the statue, but he cannot breathe it into existence. The Word could create the form and endow it with life. And when the Word became flesh, he became a "fountain of living waters," a well springing up to eternal life. Because he had life in himself, the dead heard his voice [27] and lived, and when he was slain the grave could not hold him, but he came forth and brought to light life and immortality. Hence the sublime utterance, "I am the resurrection and the life." "The life was the light of men." Man was created in the divine image. In him was fuller life than in the brute creation. Hence he is intelligent, capable of reasoning, of learning, of progress. His life is light, in the sense that it enlightens him. Then, in him can dwell the Word, which is the true light that enlightens the world. As the sun chases away darkness, so Jesus, the light of the mind and soul, chases away error, ignorance and superstition. The Life will overcome death and the Light will fill the redeemed world with his glory.
5. And the light shineth in darkness. Now the apostle comes more plainly to the thought that Christ is the light of the world. He is the light that shineth in the darkness, has shone in it as the Word, and who continues to shine. The sun shines in the heavens, but bats and owls that hate the light hide from his rays. So, too, Christ shines, but men who love darkness rather than light, can reject him and abide in darkness. The darkness comprehended it not. The sun shines upon the darkness and the darkness disappears, but when John wrote the true Light was shining in the earth and the people in darkness understood it not. Christ, the Light of the world, came to his own and his own received him not. They had eyes and saw not, hence were not enlightened. The difficulty was not that there was not light, but they loved darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil. There is a sad tone running through this and the following verses to verse 14.
6. There was a man sent from God whose name was John. Having declared the pre-existence of Christ, the apostle now begins the history of the Word being made flesh and dwelling among men as the Light of the World. He first presents the messenger who preceded him and who came to bear witness of the Light. He was a man "sent from God," predicted by Isaiah and Malachi, and by the angel that appeared to Zacharias. Notice that John the apostle calls the great forerunner simply John, instead of John the Baptist, as do the other writers, as if the Baptist was the only John entitled to distinction.
7. The same came for a witness to bear witness of the Light. John came, not so much as a reformer, as a witness. His work, as declared by Malachi, was to be a messenger to go before the Lord. In all his preaching he testified of Christ. When he preached repentance he declared the Kingdom was at hand. When he baptized he declared that there was one coming who would baptize with the Holy Spirit and fire. He said, "I am not he that should come, but there cometh one whose shoes I am unworthy to loose." He pointed his disciples to Jesus and declared him the Lamb of God. That through him all men might believe. [28] That John’s preparation and testimony should cause men to believe upon the Light. The earliest disciples of Christ, including at least a part of the apostles, were men who had been prepared by John. John bore witness to Christ before he was manifested, The apostles bore witness after, for the same purpose, to cause men to believe. This too is the work of the church and of every preacher of the word.
8. He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness. An early heretical sect held that John the Baptist was the Messiah. The apostle is explicit in order to correct this error. It is said by the Savior, of the Baptist (John 5:35), that he was a shining light. It is well to keep in mind that the term here translated light is different. It is a word that means original, self-shining light, like the sun; in John 5:35 it is one that means a reflected light, like the moon. Christ shines by his own light; John shone by Christ’s light.
9. That was the true light, which lighteth every man that cometh into world. That was the real light who enlightens all men. Christ is the universal light. The Revision reads, "There was the true light, even the light which lighteth every man, coming into the world." Grammatically, both in the Greek and the English, coming may belong to the light, or every man. We believe that it should agree with light. That was the true or real light who, when he comes into the world, enlightens every man. Jesus says (John 12:46), "I am come a light into the world." Here John affirms that he came into the world to lighten every man. It should be kept in mind that the apostle is now about to treat of the personal coming into the world of the Light in the form of the Christ. As the Creator of natural things, as the Word that has been spoken to man from the beginning, and as God manifest in the flesh, he is the source of all the moral and spiritual light the world has ever known.
10. He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. John has just spoken of the personal coming of the Light of the world. Lest any one should forget that he was already in the world as the Word, he says that he was in the world and was its Creator, and had been in it from the beginning, though the world did not recognize him. There is a connection between this and the following verse. This declares that (1) he was in the world, (2) the world was made by him, (3) it did not recognize him. The next verse states (1) that he came, personally, to his own. He took upon himself a fleshly form and came to the race to which he was united by fleshly ties; (2) his own received him not. The world is humanity in general, which knew him not; his own is the Jewish nation, who received him not.
11. He came to his own, and his own received him not. It is stated above that he was [29] in the world, from the beginning. Here it is stated that he came, to his own, when he came to Judea as the son of Mary, and, therefore, of the Jewish race. This passage is full of pathos and is an epitome of the Savior’s earthly history. When the kingly babe came there was "no room" found even in the inn; a few days later he was carried to Egypt to save him from the murderous Herod; when he entered upon his ministry he was met by hatred, reviling and conspiracy; at last the Sanhedrim of the nation condemned him to death; and before Pontius Pilate, choosing a robber in his stead, they cried, "Away with him; crucify him!" His own people received him not. Even his townsmen of Nazareth sought to put him to death.
12. To as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God. The Revision reads, "Children of God," which is better. While the nation rejected him, some received him. To such as receive him in every age he gives power to become the children of God. The manner in which he is received is given; even to those who believe upon his name. It is not declared that they are made children by believing, but to the believer he gives the "power to become" a child. When one believes in Christ, his faith becomes a power to lead him to yield himself to God and to receive the Word into his heart. He can now repent of sin, surrender to the will of the Father, and then, "being baptized into Christ he puts on Christ," is his brother and a child of God by adoption, whereupon, "because he is a son, God sends his Spirit into his heart," enabling him to say: "Abba! Father." Wesley says, "The moment we believe we are sons." The Scriptures do not so teach, but that when we believe, Christ "gives us power to become children." Without "belief upon his name" the "power" to become a child is impossible.
13. Who were born, not of blood, nor by the will of the flesh. The Jews prided themselves on being Abraham’s children, and trusted in their blood for salvation. John declares that blood, or race, has nothing to do with becoming the children of God; nor has this new birth which makes one a child of God aught to do with natural generation (the will of the flesh), nor earthly adoption (the will of the man). It is not a fleshly birth at all, but the spirit of the subject is born of God. In John 3:1-8 the Savior explains this birth more particularly. Faith, repentance and obedience prepare us for the gift of the Spirit, and we are thus made new creatures in Christ Jesus.
14. And the word was made flesh, and dwelt among us. The Word assumed a human form and became incarnate as the child of Mary. It did not merely [30] manifest itself, but dwelt among us for about thirty-three years. There was already a heretical sect, the Gnostics referred to in 2 John 1:7, who denied that Christ had come in the flesh. The apostle here makes this positive statement to meet this heresy. And we beheld his glory. Peter, James and John not only beheld the sinless and godlike life of Christ, but they saw the glory of the Mount of Transfiguration, "the glory as of the only begotten of the Father." Full of grace and truth. The Word incarnate, Christ, was full of grace and truth; his mission was one of grace or favor to men, and he was the Truth, as well as the Way and the Life.
15. John testified of him. John 1:7 declares that John came to testify of Christ and here the substance of his testimony is given. When he saw Jesus he cried, "This is he of whom I said, He that cometh after me is preferred before me because he was before me."
16. Out of his fulness have we all received. It is John, the apostle, who speaks. The thought refers to the two preceding verses. John had seen the glory of Christ, who was "full" of grace and truth, and the Baptist declares that Christ existed before he came into the world, and then John declares, "We have all received of his fulness, and favor upon favor."
17. The law was given by Moses. It was not a system of grace, nor could it make men perfect; in contrast with it the system of grace and truth (see John 1:14) were given by Jesus Christ.
18. No man hath seen God, with bodily eyes, but he was manifested as the Word and at last the "only begotten Son hath declared him." "He that hath seen me," said Christ, "hath seen the Father. The Father is in me and I in him." Christ came in human form, in order to reveal the Father to a race who knew him not.
PRACTICAL OBSERVATIONS.
1. What wonderful condescension that so glorious a being as the Word should take upon himself our nature, dwell among men, suffer and die for us! "This is the love of God that he hath sent the Son into the world, not to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved."
2. How can any one treat lightly the Word of the Lord when he learns that "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God?" It is said that the Jews refused even to throw upon the earth slips that had printed or written upon them passages of Scripture. We have infinitely more reason for reverencing the Word than the Jews. Every passage of the inspired testimony has come to us through the medium of him who is the Word.
3. Christ is the light of the World. Take a map and delineate those countries which are most enlightened in bright colors, then shade others more and more as you approach barbarism and ignorance. Then make another map in which the countries that most truly receive the Bible and Christ are represented in bright colors, shade those lands that have a corrupted Christianity, shading according to the degree of corruption, and put those in darkest colors where nothing is known of Christ. Then compare the two maps. It will be found that there are not two maps, but two copies of one map.
4. The Word made flesh. God, the uncreated, the incomprehensible, the invisible, attracted few worshipers; a philosopher might admire so noble a conception, but the crowd turned away in disgust from words that presented no image to their minds. It was before Deity, embodied in human form, working among men, partaking of their infirmities, leaning on their bosoms, weeping over their graves, bleeding on the cross, that the prejudices of the synagogue, and the doubts of the academy, and the pride of the portico, and the fasces of the lictors, and the swords of thirty legions, were humbled in the dust.--Macaulay.
THE WITNESS OF JOHN.
19. And this is the record of John. The history now begins its sweep onward. All before is prefatory. The historian passes by the incidents connected with the birth of John and of Jesus, the early history, and even the account of John’s preaching and the baptism of Christ, given in the other Gospels. He wrote at a much later period and these facts are supposed to be well known. The witness here noted was given after the baptism and probably while Christ was in the wilderness at the time of the temptation. When the Jews sent priests and Levites. John uses the term "Jews" as though he was not of that race. He was now an old man and for many years had transferred his allegiance to another nation (1 Peter 2:9), and for a long time had been dwelling in Asia Minor, among Gentile Christians. That his Jewish feelings had gradually passed away is often shown in his language. Usually "the Jews" means the ruling classes of Judea. In this case it refers to the SANHEDRIN. As this court fills a conspicuous place in the New Testament history it will help the student to have a clear understanding of its nature. The Jewish writers claim that it originated with the seventy elders whom Moses (Numbers 11:16-17) was directed to associate with himself in the government of Israel, who, with himself, would make a court of seventy-one persons. Hence it was composed of seventy-one members. There is, however, no positive proof of its existence during the period of the Jewish kings, and it only appears in unmistakable form during the later days of the Hebrew commonwealth. Its very name, Sanhedrim, or more correctly, [32] Sanhedrin, is Greek, and this fact points to a period after the Macedonian conquest of the East, when it assumed shape. According to the Jews themselves (Jerusalem Gemara), forty years before the destruction of Jerusalem the right to inflict capital punishment was taken away from it, which agrees with the answer of the Jews to Pilate (John 19:31). It was a supreme court to which belonged the trial of a tribe fallen into idolatry, false prophets, and accused priests. As an administrative council its jurisdiction was still more extensive. Jesus was arraigned before this body as a false prophet (John 11:47) and condemned as a blasphemer (Matthew 26:65). Peter, John, Stephen and Paul were arraigned by it as false teachers and deceivers of the people. It was entirely in harmony with its prerogatives that it should send an official deputation to ascertain the character of John. He had produced a profound sensation and stirred the whole land, and it was the duty of the Sanhedrim, from its standpoint, to examine into his claims. There is nothing in the language to show whether this deputation was hostile or friendly, and it is probable that it was neither, but only one of inquiry. Its members were all of the sacerdotal tribe.
20. I am not the Christ. The idea had already begun to receive currency that John might be the expected Christ. In his preaching recorded by Matthew he denied this with great emphasis and explained his relation to the Coming One. Here he is equally emphatic. The stress which the apostle here lays on this denial shows that he had in mind that later class of the disciples of John, who in the latter half of the first century, asserted that he was the Christ.
21. They asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? Malachi (Malachi 4:5) had declared that Elias would precede the Messiah. Hence when John denied that he was the Christ, the next question was whether he was Elias. He said that he was not; he was not the literal Elias whom they expected; nor is it certain that God had revealed to John that he was the spiritual Elias. He was greater than he himself knew. He was, in many respects, in mission, manner of life, fearlessness and ruggedness, an Elias, and was the Elias foretold by the prophet (Matthew 17:12), though Elias did literally come on the mount of transfiguration. Art thou that prophet? They ask still another question. Moses had predicted a prophet like himself (Deuteronomy 18:15), but John denies that he is the fulfillment. It was later (Acts 3:22
22. Who art thou? The conjectures are exhausted and they demand an explicit answer, that they may carry the information to "them that sent them," or to the Sanhedrim. [33]
23. I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness. John answers this question by quoting Isaiah 40:3, where the prophet describes his mission. The passage is applied to John, Matthew 3:3
24. Of the Pharisees. The messengers were not only of the religious tribe, but of the strictest of Jewish sects. The Pharisees were far more attentive to external rites than any other class, and as the next question is concerning such a rite, the fact that they were Pharisees is noted.
25. Why baptizest thou then? This question shows that John’s baptism was, to them, a new rite. They could understand that Christ, or Elias, or "that prophet" might establish a new ordinance by the divine authority, but if John is none of these, why does he do so? Their perplexity shows that, in some way, the baptismal rite was new to them. It is claimed that Gentile proselytes to the Jewish faith were baptized (immersed according to all the Jewish authorities) before this time, but the only proof offered is the testimony of the Talmud, written two or three centuries later. Even if proselyte baptism had been instituted, John’s rite presented the new feature of baptizing Jews, those who considered themselves God’s people. In that it called the chosen people to baptism it was a new rite.
26. I baptize with water. The correct rendering is in water, and the preposition en is thus rendered by the American Committee of the Revisers, as well as by Canon Westcott of the Church of England and the most judicious scholars. Even in the Common Version, out of 2,660 times that en occurs in the Greek of the New Testament, it is rendered by "in" 2,060 times. There is no good reason why it should not be so rendered every time it occurs in connection with baptism. The translators of the Catholic Bible in English, the Douay Version, were more honest than King James’ revisers, and have always so rendered it. John does not answer the question of the Pharisees directly, but points to one already standing among them. The baptism of water connects itself with that pre-eminent being. Standeth among you. This points out that the Christ was already on the earth, in Judea, though unknown and unrecognized by the people. [34]
27. Whose shoe’s latchet I am not worthy to unloose. The latchet was the thong by which the sandal was bound on the foot. To loose or fasten it was the work of a menial. The dignity of Christ was so exalted, that John counted himself unworthy even to attend to this office.
28. These things were done in Bethabara, beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing. The Revision substitutes Bethany for Bethabara. Both terms are found in the manuscripts, but Bethany has the better authority. The Bethany named was not the one near Jerusalem, but a village, whose site is not now known, on the east bank of the Jordan. Bethany is said to mean "the house of the boat," and Bethabara "the house of the ford," both alike pointing to a ferry or ford of the Jordan. We have three allusions to the localities of John’s baptismal rite, all showing that abundance of water was an essential; Matthew 3:5-6
The sending of this deputation is a proof of the great stir caused throughout Judea by the teaching of John. That he exerted a profound influence upon the nation and was accounted a prophet are evident from Jewish writers. Josephus, a Jewish priest and general, a contemporary of John and Christ, says (Antiquities, book 18, chap. 5): "Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod’s army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and one who commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness toward one another, and piety toward God, and so to come to him for baptism; for that the washing with water would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away (or the remission) of some sins (only), but for the purification of the body: supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness. Now when (many) others came into crowds about him, for they were greatly moved by hearing his words, Herod, who feared lest the great influence which John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion (for they seemed ready to do anything he might advise), thought it best, by putting him to death, to prevent any mischief he might cause, and not to bring himself into difficulties, by sparing a man who might make him to repent of it when it should be too late. Accordingly he was sent a prisoner, out of Herod’s suspicious temper, to Machærus, the castle I have before mentioned, and put to death there."
CHRIST’S MINISTRY BEGINS.
At this point Jesus breaks suddenly in upon the narrative. The Fourth Gospel passes by all the details contained in the other three concerning the early life of the Savior; the miraculous conception, the birth at Bethlehem, the flight to Egypt, the return to Nazareth, the visit to the temple when Jesus was twelve [35] years old, and even his baptism a short time before in the Jordan. This is referred to, and a familiarity with it implied, but its history is not given. In these facts we have additional evidence that John wrote many years after the other evangelists and supposed his readers to be acquainted with the facts that they narrated.
Jesus was at this time thirty years old, had lived a singularly blameless life with his home at Nazareth, where he had worked at the trade of Joseph, and hence is spoken of as "the carpenter" and "the carpenter’s son." He had never attended the great schools of the Jewish law in which all the Rabbins obtained their education, but went from the carpenter’s bench to John’s baptism, was anointed with the Holy Spirit, retired to the desert for forty days of lonely preparation, and then reappears at this point, to begin his ministry.
29. The next day John seeth Jesus. The next day after the visit of the deputation of the Sanhedrim. It was not the first visit of Jesus to John. About forty days before he had presented himself and demanded baptism. He doubtless knew Jesus personally before this, for he testifies to the blameless purity of his life, but it had not then been revealed to him that Jesus was the Christ; only that the One upon whom he should see the Spirit descending was the King of whom he bore witness. After this baptism Jesus had retired to the wilderness to meet the tempter alone. It is at the period of his return that John points him out as the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world. The lamb was a very familiar object of sacrifice to the Jews. It was slain by every Jewish family at the passover, was commonly used for a sin offering (Leviticus 4:32); in the cleansing of the leper (Leviticus 14:10); at both the morning and the evening sacrifice (Exodus 29:38); at all the great feasts, and on special occasions. When John pointed out Jesus, not as a, but the Lamb of God, it can only mean that God had provided him as a sacrificial offering. Every lamb offered on Jewish altars pointed to him; Isaiah 53:1-12, points out that he was "lead as a lamb to the slaughter." In Revelation he is declared to be the Lamb, "as it were slain." There is no escape from the idea that Jesus became a sacrificial offering for the world. This is entirely in harmony with the class of passages which affirm that "his blood cleanseth from all sin." We may not be able to fathom all the mysteries of the atonement, but it is the part of faith to accept and trust fully, what is so clearly taught. It will be seen, also, that John, by inspiration, is enabled to grasp the magnitude of the Savior’s work. He is to take away the sin, not of Jews only, but of the world.
The reader should not fail to note, at the beginning of the Savior’s ministry, that the idea that he is more than a Jewish deliverer comes into prominence. He is the Lamb of God who taketh away sin, not the sin of Israel only, but the sin of the world. John, by inspiration, is enabled to rise above the idea of a Jewish Messiah, the sphere of whose blessings would be confined to the narrow limits of the race of Abraham, and at once points his followers to Jesus as the Messiah of man, the Redeemer of the world who taketh away the sin thereof. [36] Here, at the outset, is a divergence from the Messianic ideas of the Jews, and the germ of that disappointment of their hopes by seeing in Jesus the founder of a universal spiritual kingdom, rather than a worldly national empire, which led to their rejection of the Christ.
30. This is he of whom I said. In verse 27 the words he refers to are given. The One who will come after him in point of time, precedes him in eminence, for he was before him in existence. John might be first known on earth and older by human birth, but Christ had existed from eternity.
31. I knew him not. Knew not whom God had chosen as the Christ. He knew Jesus personally, but did not know he was the Christ until God pointed him out. Therefore am I come baptizing with (in) water. His whole mission of preaching and baptizing was to prepare for and reveal the Christ. In his baptizing the Christ became manifest in the way stated in the following verses.
32. John bare record. Gave witness to the fact, either at this or some subsequent time. I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove. See Matthew 3:16. At this time, as Jesus came up out of the water, the Spirit was seen descending in the form of a dove, and the voice of God was heard declaring, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." Thus Jesus was anointed with the Spirit, and was thenceforward the Christ, the Anointed. It is significant that this took place at the time of baptism. Why should any Christian disparage a rite the Lord has so honored?
33. And I knew him not. Knew not who was the Messiah. The Lord had however, given him a sign by which he could recognize him. Upon whomsoever the Spirit visibly descended and abode, the same would baptize in the Holy Spirit. The only one baptizing in the Holy Spirit is the Christ. The Spirit in its fulness abode with him, and hence he was able to impart its fulness in the baptism of the spirits of his disciples. Christ did not baptize in the Holy Spirit until after he had ascended, the first instance being recorded in Acts 2:1-4.
34. And I saw and bare record that this is the Son of God. While the apostle does not give the history of the Savior’s baptism, his allusions to it are very full and [37] can only be understood by comparing them with the accounts given in the other Gospels. John "saw" all that is recorded by Matthew (Matthew 3:13-17) and heard the Divine voice. Hence he "bare record that this is the Son of God." This language was spoken the "next day" after the deputation of the Sanhedrim had waited upon him, and that event is thus located after the baptism and temptation of Christ. The order of events, in the gospel history, up to this date, is about as follows:
1. The Annunciation to Mary;
2. The Birth of John the Baptist;
3. The Birth of Jesus;
4. Jesus in the Temple with the Doctors;
5. The Preaching of John
6. The Baptism of Jesus;
7. The Temptation in the Wilderness;
8. The Deputation of the Sanhedrim to John
9. The Return of Jesus to John.
THE FIRST DISCIPLES.
35. Again the the next day after, Jesus stood, and two of his disciples. In John 1:19-28, the account is given of the visit of the priests and Levites, sent by the Sanhedrim to John. "The next day" after this John sees Jesus and points him out as the Lamb of God, giving a discourse of which, in John 1:9-34, we have a synopsis. On the "next day" after this, the third day after the deputation of the Sanhedrim, and the second after the return of Jesus from the wilderness, John stood with two of his disciples. One of these two, we learn from John 1:40, was Andrew; the other, we have reason to believe, was John, the apostle. The statement that they were John’s disciples, shows that they had accepted his message and been baptized by him. All the earlier disciples of Christ had been prepared for him by the Forerunner. At first glance it might seem as if John was merely repeating the testimony that he had given in John 1:29, but there the testimony is general; it is not stated to whom it was spoken; here it is specific, and spoken to two disciples who were afterwards, almost certainly, apostles of Jesus.
36. Behold the Lamb of God! On the preceding day John had recognized Jesus in a public discourse as "the Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world." Now he personally points the disciples to him. The lamb, throughout Old Testament times, was commonly used as a sin-offering (Leviticus 4:32), at the morning and evening sacrifice (Exodus 12:21-27), at the great feasts (Numbers 28:11), and on special occasions (1 Chronicles 29:21). The paschal lamb was offered by every family in Israel at every passover. In pointing out Jesus as the Lamb of God, John declares that he is the great sin-offering of which all the lambs slain on Jewish altars were the types. "He taketh away the sins of the world;" he is the great sin-bearer, not for a single generation, but for all time; not for a single family or race, but for the world. These words teach a sacrifice and an atonement, but were not understood by John himself, as we learn by turning to Matthew 11:2-6. "Under the Old Testament were provided by the sinner, lambs, whose sacrifice took sins away from the individual or the nation, but for the time only, and therefore the sacrifice had to be continually repeated; under the New [38] Testament one Lamb is provided, the Lamb of God, whose sacrifice takes away the sin of the whole world, and therefore needs never to be repeated."--Abbott.
37. And they followed Jesus. As John intended, the two disciples at once left him and followed the footsteps of Jesus. They did not become followers in the religious sense, but literally followed him, possibly from curiosity, possibly from a yearning desire to know more of the Lamb of God.
38. Jesus turned . . . and saith, What seek ye? Jesus does not ask this in order that he may know their object, but to open a conversation and to draw them out. Such was his custom; for example, see the conversation with the woman at Sychar (Chap. 4:10-16). The Christian teacher may find a valuable hint in the example of the Master. His teaching was almost all by conversation and his methods are incomparable. Rabbi. A term of very ancient origin, signifying teacher, or master. Ahasuerus set a Rab, or master, over the tables of his feast (Esther 1:8). Among the Jews there are three degrees--Rabban, Rab, and Rabbi--the last being the lowest. It is by the highest that Mary addresses the Lord at the tomb after his resurrection. Where dwellest thou? The disciples dared not probably, from their timidity, to express fully their motives in following Jesus, but asked for his temporary abiding place and where he might be found. This question, which some might have regarded impertinent curiosity to be met by a rebuff, was met by a kind invitation that attached the disciples to Jesus for life. Here again we should note the effect of gentleness and hospitality. Note, too, that Jesus is not sought in vain. "They that seek shall find."
39. They abode with him that day, for it was about the tenth hour. The Jew commenced the hours with 6 A. M. and hence the tenth hour would be 4 P. M. As it was near the close of the day the disciples remained over night. The conversation of that evening is unrecorded, but the impression that it made upon the minds of the two guests is seen in their conduct the next day. All doubts had passed away and they were ready to seek their friends with the joyful message: We have found the Messiah.
40. One of the two . . . was Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother. Andrew and his brother Simon were sons of Jonas, of the town of Bethsaida in Galilee, and were fishermen by trade. The description of Andrew as Peter’s brother shows the importance assigned by John to the apostle who was to open the doors of the kingdom. Andrew was afterwards one of the Twelve. The other "one of the [39] two" is supposed to be John, the apostle, for the reason that he never mentions his own name, but invariably those of other disciples.
41. He first findeth his own brother Simon. Andrew sought and found Simon, before he sought anyone else. This is the true spirit. Unless one is ready to tell the joyful story to his own relatives and neighbors, we have a poor opinion of his zeal for the conversion of the Zulus or Congo negroes. Christ and the apostles began their work at home and extended it in an ever widening circle. We have found the Messias. The Anointed, the Hebrew term which corresponds to the word Christ. It was with the utmost joy that Andrew told this joyful story. It was the fruition of the long delayed hope of Israel. Andrew’s exclamation of delight on finding the Messiah is the same attributed to Archimedes when he made his discovery of the amount of adulteration in Hiero’s crown. The, cry of each was Eureka, "I have found." The grandest discovery ever made, greater than that of a continent, was the finding of Christ, the hope of the world.
42. Thou art Simon . . . thou shalt be called Cephas. There was no hesitation on the part of Peter to go at once to see him of whom Andrew spoke. He, also, as one of John’s disciples, was waiting for the King. To his name Simon, Christ added another by which afterwards he was known. Cephas is Hebrew, and means a stone; Peter means the same in Greek; not rock, as some have urged. The word for that in the Greek is petra, while the word anglicised as Peter is petros. In Matthew 16:18, Christ says, in response to Peter’s confession, "Thou art Petros (a stone), and upon this petra (a solid rock) I will build my church." The Rock was the "Stone cut out without hands." Peter was a fragment of rock built upon the Stone by the great confession. Christ is the Rock; Peter was a rockman.
43. The day following. The next day after Andrew brought Peter to Jesus. According to Meyer, the order of this interesting week is as follows: First day, John’s conference with the priests and Levites (John 1:19-28); second day, John’s testimony of Jesus (John 1:29-34); third day, the two disciples pointed to Jesus (John 1:35-39); fourth day, Peter brought to Jesus (John 1:40-42); fifth day, Nathanael brought to Jesus (John 1:43-51); seventh day, (one day intervening,) the marriage at Cana, (chap. 2). Findeth Philip, and saith unto him, Follow me. This is the first recorded instance of the Savior calling a disciple to follow him. Philip, it must be borne in mind, is [40] not Philip, "one of the seven," but "one of the Twelve," a citizen of Bethsaida, of Galilee, and a fellow-townsman of Andrew and Peter.
45. Philip findeth Nathanael. As we learn from John 21:2, Nathanael, like Peter and Andrew, James and John, and Philip, was a Galilean, his home being at "Cana of Galilee." His name only occurs in these two places. He is supposed to have been one of the Twelve, the same one mentioned in the other Gospels as Bartholomew, which is a patronymic, meaning son of Tolmai. The use of the name in John 21:2 favors this hypothesis. We have found him of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write. There was only one to whom this could refer, "The prophet like unto Moses," the Messiah; and when Philip names Jesus of Nazareth, Nathanael is at once skeptical whether the Messiah could come out of Nazareth. Note, 1. That although Cana was not far from Nazareth, so quiet had been the life of Jesus, thus far, Nathanael does not seem to have heard of him; 2. As soon as Philip becomes a disciple he at once begins to seek others, an excellent example for all young Christians. For references in the books of Moses to the Messiah, see Genesis 3:15
46. Nathanael said . . . can there any good thing come out of Nazareth? The Jews of Jerusalem despised Galilee and scornfully rejected the Galilean teacher, while the rest of Galilee seems to have despised Nazareth. From the manner in which the mob thrust Jesus out of the synagogue and tried to kill him, its population could not have been of high moral type. The Jews were wont to associate all moral and religious good with Jerusalem, and could hardly conceive that the King would come from elsewhere than the capital of David. Come and see. That is the best answer to the skeptic. Bring him to Christ, let him consider him, and what he has done for mankind. The strongest proof that Jesus is the Christ is Jesus himself. The unbelieving John Stuart Mill said that no one could find a better rule of virtue than "to endeavor to live so that Christ would approve his life." Renan pronounces him "the greatest and purest of the sons of men."
47. Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile! The Savior salutes Nathanael with a tribute to his honest, guileless character. He was a true Israelite, without hypocrisy, worshiping God with sincere soul, according to the light he had received. [41]
48. Whence knowest thou me? Nathanael, who had never met Jesus before, was surprised to hear himself spoken of as one known. When thou wast under the fig tree. There was Something about this answer that filled Nathanael with astonishment. Under the shade and shelter of the fig tree he had had some rare experience that is not recorded, and that he supposed unknown to man. That Jesus knew of it and read his soul startled him and dissipated his unbelief.
49. Thou art the Son of God; the King of Israel. Philip had said, "Jesus, the Son of Joseph," as he supposed, but Nathanael, convinced, declared him the Son of God. This is the first confession of the divinity of Jesus, and is the spirit, rather than the letter of Old Testament prophecy of the Messiah. Nathanael, devout, a devoted student of prophecy, living in the great hope, rises to the heights of the Messianic prophecies.
50. Thou shalt see greater things than these. Nathanael, as a follower of Christ, did see greater things than the revelation of hidden knowledge that convinced him. So, too, if all believers faithfully use their present opportunities they shall have greater. There is a growth in grace and knowledge.
51. Ye shall see the heavens open, and the angels of God ascending. Jacob, old Israel, in his dream at Bethel, saw the ladder that reached to heaven with the angels upon it (Genesis 28:12). Christ is that ladder, the way from earth to heaven, the way heaven sends messages to the world and the way we must go to reach it. Nathanael would be permitted to see that Jesus was the Mediator, that through him the Father speaks to man; that through him there is intercommunication between earth and heaven. Nathanael sees heaven open, not opened. It still stands open, and has been since the vail of the temple was rent.
PRACTICAL OBSERVATIONS.
1. Jesus is the Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world. He who refuses the sacrifice of the Lamb hath none other. There is "none other name under heaven, given among men, whereby we must be saved."
2. The best reply to the honest doubter is to bid him, "Come and see." If [42] he is a quibbler, it is vain to talk with him. If he is an honest skeptic, do not seek to argue, but get him to look at and study Christ. "I know men," said Napoleon Bonaparte on St. Helena, "and I tell you that Jesus Christ is not a man."
3. The examples in the lesson are well worthy of imitation.
1. As soon as Andrew found the Messiah, he at once sought his brother to bring him to Christ. Let every Christian, young or old, seek to bring the members of his own family to the Savior.
2. As soon as Philip was called, he sought, at once, for Nathanael and induced him to go and meet the Savior.
Every Christian should labor to bring all his friends to the Redeemer.
4. God’s ways are not man’s ways. When he called a leader to deliver Israel from bondage, he chose a shepherd of Midian; when he chose the founder of the line of Jewish kings, he took a shepherd boy of Bethlehem; when the "Word became flesh," it dwelt in the person of Jesus in the despised town of Nazareth, while the Jews all expected that the Messiah would appear in Jerusalem of the princes or great men of Israel. Still he chooses the weak and humble to confound the mighty; "the things that are not to confound the things that are."
NOTE ON "THE SON OF MAN."
In John 1:51 occurs for the first time in the Gospel of John the phrase "the Son of man." This remarkable designation is the one the Lord usually applies to himself. It occurs thirty times in the Gospel according to Matthew, thirteen times in Mark, twenty-five times in Luke, and twelve times in John. In the Gospels it is never used by the historians or disciples as a designation of Christ, and is used only by the Lord in speaking of himself. Hence, it only occurs once beyond the range of the Gospels, in Acts 7:56, and the Lord never uses it after his resurrection. It will be found that the passages in which the Lord uses the phrase may be grouped into two classes: 1. Those which refer to the earthly work of the Lord during the period of his humiliation, and 2. Those which refer to his future coming in glory. It is used in the present instance in the latter sense. Another striking example of this use is found in Matthew 25:31, "When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all his holy angels with him" to take his seat on the throne of judgment. Such passages show that the Son of man is a divine being who shall sit surrounded by angels upon the throne of eternal judgment. The phrase is not an equivalent to the word "Messiah," or Christ, but one that expresses the universal humanity of our Divine Lord. He describes himself, not as the Son of Mary, nor as the Son of Abraham, but as the Son of man. He appeared upon earth, not as the kindred of the family of Nazareth, or of the Jewish nation, but as the kindred of humanity. He is the brother of the Greek, the Roman, the Gaul, the American, the African, as well as of the Jew. Nor did he ever call himself a Jew, but in all his relations with the Jewish nation he held himself as one not of their race. He always spoke to them, not of our but of your law. And it is as the brother of our race that the Son of man shall judge the world.
GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN
B.W. Johnson
JOHN CHAPTER TWO
THE FIRST MIRACLE.
"On the third day" after the events narrated in the closing portion of the last chapter there occurred the first exercise of miraculous power on the part of the Savior. The scene was Cana of Galilee, the northern district of Palestine, to which he had returned immediately after the witness of John (John 1:43).
1. And the third day there was a marriage. It is well known that the marriage ceremonies of the Jews began at twilight. It was the custom in Palestine
"To bear away The bride from home at blushing shut of day,"
covered from head to foot in her flowing veil, garlanded with flowers, and dressed in her fairest robes. She was heralded by torchlight, with songs and music and dances, and led to the bridegroom’s home. She was attended by the maidens of her native village, and the bridegroom came to meet her with his youthful friends.--Farrar. Lightfoot says that among the Jews virgins were married on the fourth day of the week (Wednesday) and widows on the fifth day. The feast was at the home of the bridegroom after the marriage and was a joyous occasion, sometimes prolonged for a number of days (see Genesis 29:27 and Judges 14:14). In Cana of Galilee. The site is not certainly known. Dr. Robinson thinks it was a place, now called Kana, twelve miles north of Nazareth. Geikie also holds the same view. It is now a ruin and has not been inhabited for a considerable period. Farrar thinks it was a place called Kenna, five miles northwest of Nazareth. The mother of Jesus was there. John never mentions her by name. As Joseph is not mentioned, after the visit to Jerusalem when Jesus was twelve years old, he was probably dead. It is supposed from the presence of Mary, the great interest she exhibited and the degree of authority shown in commanding the servants, that the family where the marriage took place was related to her.
2. Both Jesus and his disciples were invited. He now had disciples, those called in the few days before, John, Andrew, Peter, Philip and Nathanael. As the invitation of Jesus is named apart from that of Mary it was probably sent after he and his disciples had returned to Galilee.
3. And when they wanted wine. The Revision says, "When the wine failed." From some cause, perhaps from a larger number of guests than was expected, the wine gave out. "None but those who know how sacred in the East is the duty of lavish hospitality, and how passionately the obligation to exercise to the utmost it is felt, can realize the gloom which this incident would have thrown over the occasion, or the misery and mortification it would have caused to the wedded pair. They would have felt it to be, as in the East it is still felt to be, an indelible disgrace."--Farrar. It has been supposed that this deficiency was due to the presence of the disciples of Jesus, who had been invited after all the preparations were made. The mother of Jesus saith to him, They have no wine. [44] The solicitude of Mary could hardly be expected from one not a relative, but why did she appeal to Jesus? In part, because it was natural to speak to him in her perplexity, and in part, likewise, because she hoped he would meet the difficulty. She knew who he was, and could not doubt his ability to do what had been done for the widow’s cruse of oil (1 Kings 17:14). Perhaps, also, she felt that the failure of the supply was due to his bringing his five disciples. If his "hour was come," why should he not create the supply needed?
4. Woman, what have I to do with thee? These words in our language sound harsh and almost rude, but the term rendered woman was so respectful that it might be addressed to the queenliest, and so gentle that it might be spoken to those most tenderly loved. It is used by servants to queens, and Christ uses it when he, from the cross, commends his mother to the care of John. The time, too, had come for Jesus to act no longer as Mary’s son; henceforth earthly ties of blood were not to bind him. "Whosoever did his will," the same was to be "mother and sister and brother." This is implied in his question. Mary must understand that, henceforth, he is the Son of man and the Son of God, rather than her son, and under her authority. Chrysostom says, "The answer is not that of one rejecting his mother, but of one who would show her that, having borne him, would avail nothing, were she not faithful," and St. Augustine adds: "As much as to say, thou art not the mother of that in me which worketh miracles." This language, partly a rebuke to Mary, shows very plainly that the Catholic fiction of Mary being immaculate, the "Queen of Heaven," and "the Mother of God," is all nonsensical. Mine hour is not yet come. The hour of his full manifestation, as the divine King of Israel. If his mother was rebuked for attempting to direct him in the days of his flesh, how absurd to address her as if she had the right to command him on the throne of glory!--Wesley.
5. Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it. The words of Mary to the servants show: 1. That the family where the wedding took place were in comfortable circ*mstances; 2. That Mary had some right to direct, being probably a relative; 3. That she understood from the manner of the reply, more than from the words, that Jesus would relieve the difficulty in some way.
6. There were set there six water-pots of stone. These water-pots were to supply water for the washings usual at feasts (see Mark 7:4). The Jews were regarded ceremonially unclean if they did not wash both before and after eating. This was done in a formal manner, and was, with the washing of cups, pots and brazen vessels, a ritual observance on which the Pharisees laid great stress. The six water-pots, on this occasion, each held two or three firkins, meaning, it is supposed, the Hebrew bath, a measure of seven and a half gallons. The pots would hold about twenty gallons each, and the whole capacity would be about one hundred and twenty gallons. [45]
7. Jesus said, Fill the water-pots with water. Some have commented on the amount of wine made by Jesus. 1. There is no proof that he made more than was needed for the number of guests and the length of the feast, where wine was the common beverage of the people. 2. It is God’s way to pour out his bounty in abundance. When the 5,000 were fed there was twelve baskets over.
8. He said, Draw out now, and bear unto the governor of the feast. They had poured in water and they took out wine. "He that had made wine that day in those six water-pots does the same every year in the vines. For as what the servants put in the water-pots was changed into wine by the operation of the Lord, just so what the clouds pour forth is changed into wine by the operation of the same law."--Augustine.
9. When the ruler of the feast had tasted. The ruler of the feast, and the governor of verse 8th, are the same. It was customary to choose, sometimes by lot, a president who regulated the whole order of festivities. The ruler of the feast on this occasion was a guest, chosen to this honorary office. As he presided at the banquet he had known nothing of the failure of the wine, or the source from whence the new supply came. Called the bridegroom. Probably called to him across the table.
10. Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine. The language of the ruler is sportive, but still he states a custom. The best wine was offered when the appetite of the guests was sharpest and most critical. After they were well filled and had entered fully into the spirit of the feast, poorer was offered. Are drunken. Not intoxicated, but have drunk considerable. The Revision says, "Have well drunk." Satan gives his good wine first; so the drunkard finds it; so did the prodigal son. Afterwards he gives the bitter; red eyes, pain, hunger, wretchedness. Thou hast kept the good wine until now. What meaneth Christ making wine. It must be borne in mind that among the Greeks and Romans and in Palestine there were three kinds of wine: 1. Fermented wines, which, however, were very unlike our fiery liquors, and contained only a small per cent. of alcohol. These were mixed with two or three parts of water. The laws of Zaleucus, the Locrian, put to death anyone who drank unmixed wine, except as medicine. The fermented wine, at first mild, and then diluted with water, was [46] a drink as used, that had no intoxicating power unless used in enormous quantities. 2. New wine, the fresh juice of the grape, like our new cider, not intoxicating. 3. Wines in which, by boiling the unfermented juice of the grape, or by the addition of certain drugs, the process of fermentation was stopped, and which had no intoxicating properties. We cannot surely determine which kind the Savior made here, but we agree with Whedon, who says: "We see no reason for supposing that the wine of the present occasion was that upon which Scripture places its strongest interdict, (Proverbs 20:1; Proverbs 23:31; Isaiah 22:13,) rather than that eulogized as a blessing (Psalms 104:15; Isaiah 55:1)." Even adopting the view that it was fermented wine, it was totally unlike the fiery and undiluted drinks sold as wines in saloons, used in many families, offered at hotels and wine parties, and even poured out at communion tables. In the use of the usual wine of Palestine there is not the slightest apology for drinking as a beverage the alcoholic drinks which are the curse of our times. With regard to them the only safe rule is "to touch not, taste not, handle not." They are the "cup of Devils." It is a shame that anyone should pretend to quote the example of Christ as an apology for being a modern tippler.
11. This beginning of miracles. This was the first miracle of Christ. The stories told in Catholic fables and in the Apocryphal New Testament are baseless. He had refused to make bread to feed his own hunger in the wilderness, but he was ready to supply the needs of others. A miracle is a supernatural act, in which a higher power employs, modifies, or suspends the laws of nature. Jesus did this by his own power; his apostles in his name. Peter says: "In the name of Jesus of Nazareth, arise and walk." Christ says: "Young man, I say unto thee, arise!" Manifested forth his glory. This was the first supernatural manifestation of his divine power; that he by whom all things were made controlled the powers of nature. His disciples believed in him. They already believed, but their faith was made firmer. The five named in the last chapter are meant.
PRACTICAL OBSERVATIONS.
1. See how marriage is honored! God solemnized the first marriage in Eden. Christ wrought his first miracle on a marriage occasion.
2. It is to be noted that he was not an ascetic, nor did he delight in asceticism. He not only attended the joyous festivities of the marriage feast, but he even contributed to the means of enjoyment. He would still rather see us bright, joyous and thankful, than long-faced, doleful and fault finding. His ministry was to be one of joy and peace; his sanction is to be given, not to a crushing asceticism, but to genial innocence; his approval, not to compulsory celibacy, but to a sacred union.--Farrar.
3. The first miracle of Moses was to turn the river of a guilty nation into blood; the first of Jesus to fill the water pots of an innocent family with wine.
4. The world giveth its best and richest first. At the board it spreads the [47] viands may not fail; nay, may even grow in number and improve in quality, but they soon pall on the sated appetite, and the end of the world’s feast is always worse and less enjoyable than the beginning. Who has found it so of the provisions of the Savior’s grace, of those quiet, soothing, satisfying pleasures, that true faith imparts? There the appetite grows with the food it feeds upon. . . . Of each new cup from the heavenly Provider we may say: "Thou hast kept the good wine even until now."--Hanna.
5. "Let no table be spread to which He who graced the marriage feast of Cana could not be invited; let no pleasure be indulged in that could not live in the light of his countenance." Then thou wilt be an invited guest to the marriage supper of the Lamb of God. Revelation 19:9.
THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD.
12. After this he went down to Capernaum. Capernaum was situated on the northern shore of the Sea of Galilee, and the road thence was "down" from the hill country where Cana was located. His mother and brethren according to the flesh went with him, and this city became his favorite abode during his earthly ministry. The "disciples" who accompanied him were the same who were present at Cana. His mother and his brethren. Who were the brethren of our Lord who are attending his mother? Before attempting to answer this question it is well to explain that as no mention is made of the presence of Joseph after Jesus was twelve years old he is supposed by all commentators to have died before the Lord began his ministry. This seems to be confirmed by his charge to John from the cross to provide for his mother and furnish her a home. As to the brethren there have been various views. The term is used in the Bible with some latitude, as it is with us. It sometimes means kindred, cousins, those of the same race, and also the disciples of the Lord. Still it is not used with greater latitude than among us, as we apply it in till these significations, and hence the apparent meaning to an English reader of the term "his brothers" is to be taken unless there are reasons for its rejection. The expression "his brethren" occurs nine times in the Gospels and once in Acts. Of these the first three (Matthew 12:46; Mark 3:32; Luke 8:19) tell of his mother and brethren coming to speak with him; the two next (Matthew 13:55; Mark 6:3), mention his brothers in connection with his mother and sisters; the sixth is this passage; in three more his brethren are represented as urging him to show himself to the world, and it is stated that they did not believe on him (John 7:3). In Acts 1:14 it is said that the Apostles "continued in prayer and supplication with the women, and with his brethren." In addition, Paul (1 Corinthians 9:5) speaks of "the rest of the apostles and the brethren of the Lord," and in Galatians 1:19 he speaks of "James, the Lord’s brother." These passages would seem to establish beyond doubt that [48] Jesus was the first-born son of Mary, and that she had four other sons, whose names are given, besides daughters.
To this it is objected (1) that early tradition, accepted by the Catholic and Greek churches, holds that Mary remained a virgin, and she is worshiped as the Virgin Mary. To this it may be answered that the tradition was not universally accepted in the early Church, and has none of the marks of authentic history. (2) It is urged that Jesus would not have committed Mary to the care of John if she had other sons. To this it may be replied that at that time his brethren were unbelievers (John 7:5), though after his resurrection their unbelief passed away. (3) It is further urged that they were all the Lord’s cousins, the sons of a sister of Mary, also named Mary, and of Alphæus or Cleophas. This argument relies on the fact that their names were "James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon" (Matthew 13:55); while there was also a "Mary the mother of James and Joses," (Matthew 27:56) and a "James and Judas were the sons of Alphæus" (Luke 6:15). To this we answer that, (a) While Mary had a sister (John 19:25), there is no evidence that she was named Mary; nor is there any parallel case of two Jewish sisters having the same name; nor is there any evidence that she was the wife of Cleophas; (b) It could not be true that his cousins are meant because "his brethren" were not apostles, nor believers, and he had cousins who believed and were among the apostles, if this theory be correct; (c) Nor does it prove anything that the names James and Joses occur as those of the children of another Mary, as the names were very common. There are five Jameses in the New Testament, several Judes, and Josephus, who lived at this time, names twenty-one Simons, seventeen Joseses, and sixteen Judes.
On the other hand the expression, first-born son, in Luke 2:7, implies that Mary had other and younger children, and Matthew 1:25, implies that what was true before the birth of Christ was not after. Common sense will indicate that if Mary continued a virgin, Matthew would have chosen different language. To these passages we may add the general tone of the Gospels in all the passages cited above. The "brothers" of Jesus are constantly represented as attending his mother, without a hint that they were not her children. These cogent facts cannot be set aside by a tradition or by conjectures. Alford well sums up the argument in a few words which we quote:
1. There were four persons known as the brethren "of him," or "of the Lord," not of the number of the Twelve.
2. That these persons are found in all places, but one or two, in immediate connection with Mary, the mother of Jesus.
3. That not a word is anywhere dropped to prevent us from inferring that the brothers and sisters were his relations in the same literal sense that we know his mother to have been.
4. All explanations which make them aught else than the children of his mother are mere conjectures.
5. The silence of the Scripture narrative leaves Christians free to believe that they were real (younger) brethren and sisters of our Lord. [49]
THE CLEANSING OF THE TEMPLE.
The Gospels are silent concerning any visit of Jesus after his twelfth year until the first passover after his ministry began. The Lord, after his baptism, the temptation, and the witness of John, had begun his work rather quietly in Galilee, but when the passover season came he joined the vast crowds who were seeking the city of David, and repaired to the national capital where popular expectation held that the Messiah would reveal himself. The following events have a fuller significance when it is borne in mind that it is the Lord’s first visit to the temple after his work began. The cleansing is an assertion of his Lordship, and authority over the temple, a declaration to the religious rulers that the Holy One of Israel had come.
13. And the Jews’ passover was at hand. Observe that John writes as one far from Judea and among Gentiles. He does not say the, but the Jews’ passover. For an account of the institution of this annual feast, see Exodus 12:1-51. There is no account that John the Baptist ever went to Jerusalem, but the Savior attended all the passovers but one during his ministry. A short time before he had been baptized and anointed for his ministry; since then his time had mostly been spent in Galilee. Now, first, since his work began he visited the capital of the nation and the Temple. His life had thus far been quiet, but it behooved him to assert his authority in the very center of national worship, and his collision with the corruptions of the times brought upon him immediately the antagonism of the priesthood and Pharisees. From this time onward his pathway is stormy.
14. And he found in the temple. The Jewish worship centered in the temple. There the nation gathered at the great religious festivals; there all sacrifices were offered and the priesthood were consecrated. First there was the Tabernacle, the movable temple of the wilderness; then the temple of Solomon, destroyed at the time of the Captivity; then the second temple built by Zerubbabel; lastly, the temple of Herod, a great enlargement of the second temple, one of the most costly and beautiful buildings on the earth. It was of white marble, with roofs of cedar, and was rather a collection of buildings, courts and porches than a single building, all within the temple enclosure covering nineteen acres. The plan on the following page will give a better idea of it than any description.
In the center was the Holy of Holies, only entered by the High Priest once a year, at the feast of the atonement; next without was the Holy Place, entered only by the priests; without the entrance of this was the Court of Israel; then the Court of Women; then still without, the Court of the Gentiles. It was in this last named court that the traffic was conducted that aroused the indignation of the Savior. Those that sold oxen and sheep and doves. These were for the sacrifices. It is stated that at the passover 200,000 paschal lambs were required, and as the vast throngs who came from distant parts could not bring them it was needful to buy them in Jerusalem. The traffic in these and the victims required for sacrifices, oxen, sheep, kids and doves, became an enormous one. Instead of being conducted at stock-yards it was installed in the temple itself, under the eye and patronage of a venal priesthood. The Court of Gentiles, designed as a "house of prayer for all nations" (Mark 11:15-19), was converted into cattle stalls, filled with their ordure, and noisy with their lowing and the din of traffic. And the changers of money sitting. The Jew was required to pay for the support of the temple service a half shekel annually (Exodus 30:13; Matthew 17:24). No heathen coin could be put into the temple treasury because they usually had images upon them which the priests regarded idolatrous; the Jewish shekels were not in general circulation, and hence it was needful that the current coin be changed before the temple tax could be paid. This money brokerage had also installed itself in the temple and much gain was made by the commissions charged.
15. Made a scourge of small cords. The original implies that it was made of rushes, which were carried in as bedding for cattle. It was not a formidable weapon of itself; was chosen more as a symbol, and was probably not laid in violence upon any one. Drove them all out of the temple. His indignation was aroused at the desecration. As the representative of the Father he had the right to cleanse the Sanctuary, and here, first, he asserts his authority. The traffickers fled before his glance; not in terror of his scourge, or of one man whom they might have defied, but there was something about him that struck consternation; an authority, a divine majesty, a mysterious power that could not be resisted. The act was superhuman. If any one [51] doubts it let him try to clean a market of thousands of greedy traffickers with a harmless scourge, and see how soon he will bite the earth. Along with the traders he drove out their cattle, and overturned the tables of the money changers.
16. Said unto them that sold doves. Cattle could be driven out, the money overturned, but the doves were in cages and could only be carried out, or released and lost. Christ’s object was to cleanse the temple, not to destroy any one’s property. Hence, he commands them to carry them out. Make not my Father’s house a house of merchandise. His authority for his act is that this is his Father’s house. He does not say our, but my Father, or in other words, he acts as the Son of God. His act is really a public proclamation of his divine authority. He still looks with indignation upon the desecration of his Father’s House. How often still it is converted into a house of merchandise! This cleansing of the temple must not be confounded with the later one that occurred on his last visit to Jerusalem. His ministry in the Holy city very appropriately begins and ends with a protest against the desecration of the temple.
17. His disciples remembered. As they beheld his flaming zeal and thought of the wrath that it would bring down upon him, they thought of the words in Psalms 69:9, "The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up."
18. Then answered the Jews. I suppose that "the Jews" has an official signification as in John 1:19. As soon as they have time to recover from their surprise, the officials demand his authority for these acts. They are evidently full of resentment. The enmity that grew more and more bitter until its object was nailed to the cross, had begun. They call for a sign, some miraculous demonstration of his rights. One had just been given.
19. Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. To the demand for a sign, made more than once during his ministry, this was his constant answer. Unbelief would do its work in destroying the temple of his body, and its argument would be overthrown by his resurrection from the dead. The temple itself was only a type of the spiritual body of Christ. His body contained within itself the spiritual temple that would be developed. It was appropriate to point to it as the temple, though the Jews did not comprehend his words. [52]
20. Forty and six years was this temple in building. It had been forty-six years since Herod the Great had begun his work. At this time the work was not fully completed and workmen were still engaged on some of its parts. It was eighty years from the time it was begun before it was fully completed by Herod Agrippa II. A. D. 64. The Jews did not understand him, nor is it certain that he designed they should. To the obstinate and hostile unbelievers he often spoke in parables. To honest seekers for truth his language was plain and simple.
22. When therefore he was risen from the deed his disciples remembered. They remembered and understood his words then; they did not now. Then "they believed the Scripture" which foretold his death and resurrection, though they had never understood it before.
23. Many believed in his name when they saw the miracles. The miracles that he worked at this passover season are not recorded, but this passage affirms them, as well as John 3:2. Their belief was rather an intellectual assent that he was a divine teacher than an obedient trust in him as the Savior.
24. He did not commit himself to them. He knew too well that theirs was not a heartfelt trust to reveal himself unreservedly to them.
25. He know what was in man. He knew their hearts, because he possessed the divine omniscience that could fathom the depths of every heart.
PRACTICAL OBSERVATIONS.
1. The Master still looks with indignation upon the conversion of the Temple into a house of merchandise. It is still done by a corrupt priesthood, a greedy ministry, or a membership who try to make gain by professed godliness. When a priesthood sells its offices, makes its set charges for absolution, extreme unction, the burial of the dead, masses and indulgences; or in Protestant churches the ministry become a set of hirelings, in the market for the highest bidder; or the membership convert the house of God [53] into a place for shows, festivals, raffles, etc., the Father’s House is made a house of merchandise. There is need of the whip of small cords to scourge out the traffickers.
2. When corruption and avarice enshrined themselves in the Jewish temple the time of its overthrow was near. Soon God departed from it and "their place was left unto them desolate." When the church becomes sordid instead of spiritual God will abandon it to destruction.
3. The Master still knows what is in every heart. He has no need to be told what is in mine or yours, but he sees every thought and motive every day. Our lives are naked and open to him with whom we have to do.
GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN
B.W. Johnson
JOHN CHAPTER THREE
CHRIST AND NICODEMUS.
This chapter relates another and a remarkable incident of this visit to Jerusalem, an interview with a member of the Sanhedrim, a prominent Pharisee. The last verses of the second chapter state that there were many who believed in Jesus when they saw his miracles, not with that unfaltering trust that commits everything to the Lord, but a belief that he was a man of God. One of this number was Nicodemus, who came confessing that Jesus must be "a teacher come from God," because no man could do such miracles unless God was with him, and who sought to learn more in a private interview. In order to understand the significance of the Savior’s words to him, the reader must inform himself as to the position of this "ruler of the Jews." He was a prominent member of the most influential sect of Israel, of an order who were in great repute on account of their reputation for holiness, a body of Hebrew saints elevated above the rest of the Jews by their devotion to the law of God. The body probably had its beginning about the time of the Captivity, but we discover it first as a power in Israel at the time of the great revival of the Maccabees, about two centuries before the time of this interview. At that time there was a determined effort to detach the Jewish nation from the religion of their fathers and to induce them to adopt the ways of the Syrian Greeks. Against this attempt the Pharisees set themselves with the sternness of Puritans and were a buckler to the Maccabees in their effort to re-establish the national freedom with the ancient religion. Seeking, at first, the preservation of the law of Moses with all its rites in their original purity, they gradually degenerated into a set of formalists who kept the letter of the law while its spirit was lost. In the time of the Savior the two fundamental rules were to pay tithes of everything, even to mint and cumin, and to keep rigidly every ceremonial required to secure legal purification. Hence, they made a great show of sanctity, were outwardly very religious, and esteemed themselves much holier than the rest of the people, but at the same time were proud, puffed up, and really corrupt at heart. My space will not allow me to go into details, but these would show in them one of the most conspicuous examples on record of the complete loss of the spiritual life in a slavish bondage to forms. At the same time they regarded themselves as the favorites of heaven, entitled to the approval of God by their righteousness, and the very nucleus of the [54] kingdom of God. Hence, when one of these holy ones, with the prejudices of his order, but more open-hearted, inquiring and teachable than his brethren, came to the great "Rabbi" from Galilee for information, the occasion is a remarkable one, and the Savior, in his first utterance, fells to the earth the Pharisaic pride when he declares: "Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." Nor need we wonder at the perplexity of Nicodemus concerning the "New Birth," when we realize that he deemed the natural birth of the race of Abraham together with a rigid observance of the law as the essentials to membership in that kingdom.
1. There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. Nicodemus is named three times by John, and not elsewhere; here, in chapter 7:50, where he protests against condemning Jesus unheard, and in chapter 19:39, where he aids Joseph of Arimathæa, in the burial of Jesus. There are untrustworthy traditions about him and an allusion in the Jewish Talmud to a Nicodemus who lived about this time, but it may have been another man. Two facts are here stated: (1) That he was a Pharisee of the powerful, self-righteous sect which laid such stress on ceremonial observances and Jewish birth; and (2) That he was a ruler, a member of the Sanhedrim, the congress of seventy persons who held the chief authority in Israel. The allusion to him in verse 10 as a "teacher in Israel," would imply that he was one of the prominent doctors of the law.
2. The same came to Jesus by night. He probably chose the night in order to escape observation. The radical act of Jesus in driving the cattle and the dealers, as well as the money changers, from the temple court, had excited the wrath of the priests who derived gain from the desecration. The holy and uncalculating zeal of the young Teacher on this occasion, like that of an old Hebrew prophet, his teachings and miracles in Jerusalem, had excited much discussion. Nicodemus was deeply moved, yet dared not provoke the scorn and opposition of his fellow-rulers by going openly to Jesus. Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God. Nicodemus confesses, not only his belief, but that of his fellow Pharisees and rulers. The miracles of Jesus convinced them, even if they would not admit it, that he was a teacher sent from God. No man whom God did not send could do such works. There is more in the words of Nicodemus than his words. He really intends a question. He was one of those who waited for the salvation of Israel. John had preached that the long expected kingdom was at hand. Now, while John was still preaching, this Galilean Teacher had startled all Jerusalem by his act of authority in the temple, by his teaching and miracles. Nicodemus wants to know what he has to do with, and to say about, the Kingdom. [55]
3. Verily, verily, I say unto thee. This form of expression was often upon the lips of Jesus to give emphasis to an unusually solemn and weighty declaration. See Matthew 5:18. It occurs twenty-four times in John. Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. The term translated "again" is rendered "anew" in the Revision, which is better. It is the great doctrine, so fundamental in the Gospel, of Regeneration, a new Birth, being made a new creature, the same doctrine spoken of in John 1:12-13. Nicodemus, like all Jews, supposed that all who were born as children of Abraham would, as Abraham’s seed, be citizens of the kingdom. John had rejected this idea and denounced the claim of special privileges because they had Abraham for their father, but Nicodemus seems to have had his breath fairly taken away by the declaration that no man could see (enjoy) the Kingdom unless he was born anew; that the Jew, ruler, Pharisee, priest and Levite were not exceptions, and stood on the same footing as the despised Gentile.
Life begins visibly with birth; the new life must begin with a new birth; no one can be a new creature in Christ Jesus unless he is born anew. We are born naturally into the kingdom of nature, to live the natural life; if we enter the kingdom of heaven, the kingdom of grace, it must be by a new birth. The doctrine that a man can bury his old sinful life, and begin a new one with the freshness of youthful hope, is foreshadowed in the Old Testament (Isaiah 1:18; Jeremiah 31:33; Ezekiel 11:19; Ezekiel 36:26), and taught in the New Testament (Romans 6:8; Romans 8:3; Romans 12:2; 2 Corinthians 5:17; Galatians 6:15-16).
4. How can a man be born again when he is old? The question of Nicodemus indicates his surprise and skepticism. He ought to have apprehended the meaning of Jesus better. The Jews were wont to admit Gentile proselytes to the Jewish religion and to speak of them as born again. They even insisted that the proselyte was no longer kin to his old relations and might marry his nearest kin without offence, because old relationships were destroyed by his new birth. This doctrine of naturalization ought to have given him a better conception of the Savior’s meaning.
5. Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God. Jesus does not reply directly to the question of Nicodemus, but proceeded to give a more explicit statement concerning the new birth. One must be born of water and of the Spirit. Whatever this may mean, it will be admitted by all, 1. That no one is a member of the kingdom of God until he is born again; 2. That the Savior declares the impossibility of one entering who is not born of [56] water and of the Spirit. One cannot enter by being born of water alone, nor of the Spirit alone, but must be born of water and of the Spirit. Otherwise he cannot enter. What, then, is the meaning of these two words? Concerning the birth of the Spirit we need say little, as there is little controversy about it. Concerning born of water we agree with Alford that it refers to baptism, while "of the Spirit " refers to the inward change. He adds: "All attempts to get rid of these two plain facts have sprung from doctrinal prejudices by which the views of expositors have been warped." Abbott says: "We are to understand Christ as he expected his auditor to understand him. The Jewish proselyte, as a sign that he had put off his old faiths, was baptized on entering the Jewish church. John the Baptist baptized both Jew and Gentile as a sign of purification by repentance from past sins. Nicodemus would then have certainly understood by the expression, born of water, a reference to this rite of baptism." Milligan, of Scotland, says: "John said: I baptize with water; the One coming baptizes with Spirit; but Christ says: The baptism of both is necessary. One must be born of water and of the Spirit." See also Titus 3:5 and Romans 6:4.
6. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; . . . of the Spirit is spirit. Our fleshly bodies are born of our human parents and are like them, endowed with carnal passions and are sinful; but it is the inward man, the spirit, that is renewed by the Spirit and the subject of the new birth of the Spirit. Like, in each case, produces like.
7. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. The necessity and reasonableness of the new birth is explained more fully below. It is implied in the word kingdom. No one born a citizen of England can become a citizen of the United States without complying with our naturalization laws. The kingdom of God has its naturalization laws and there is no other way of entrance than to be born of water and of the Spirit. We may not understand all the mysteries of the new birth, any more than we do those of the natural birth, but we can understand what has to be done and what is necessary. It is plain that a new spirit is essential to a new life.
8. The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit. No passage, probably, in the New Testament, has caused more bewilderment or controversy than this verse. Most commentators have held that it means: "As the wind moves mysteriously, so does the Spirit, and it breathes upon whom it will, effecting the inward change called the birth of the Spirit arbitrarily." This view we believe to be incorrect and caused by a wrong translation, sanctioned, not by the Greek, but by current theology. Let it be noted that, [57] 1. Exactly the same term is rendered "wind" and "Spirit" in this verse. It is a violation of all law that the same word should experience so radical a change of meaning in the same sentence. 2. That word (pneuma) is not translated "wind" elsewhere, although it occurs scores of times in the New Testament, but is always "Spirit." 3. Another word in the Greek, anemos, is usually used to represent "wind" in the New Testament. 4. This erroneous idea creates a confusion of figures. It makes Christ to say: The wind blows where it listeth; so is (not the Spirit, but) every one born of the Spirit. It affirms of him just what is affirmed of the wind, a thing the Savior never did. These facts are sufficient to show that the rendering "wind" is wrong. All we have to do is to translate pneuma here, as is done in the latter part of the verse and elsewhere in the New Testament. The verse then reads: "The Spirit breathes where it pleases and thou hearest the voice thereof, but canst not tell whence it comes nor whither it goes. So (by hearing its voice) is every one born of the Spirit." The meaning is: The Spirit breathes where it wills and you recognize its manifestation by its voice; by the words spoken by men of God as the Holy Spirit gives them utterance. You cannot tell whence the Spirit comes or whither it goes, but you can hear its voice when it does come. So, by listening to the voice of the Spirit, is every one born of the Spirit. He who receives by faith the communications of the Spirit is born of the Spirit. The birth of the Spirit is not the gift of the Spirit. To those who are born the Spirit is given. "Because ye are sons, God hath sent the Spirit of his Son unto your hearts, crying, Abba, Father." Galatians 4:6. Hence, in harmony with the above view, Peter says, "Being born again, not by corruptible seed, but incorruptible, through the word of God, which liveth and abideth forever."
9. How can these things be? His skeptical tone is gone and he is an humble inquirer. He has been sobered and awed by the earnestness and moral power of Christ, like the Samaritan woman, or Festus and Agrippa.
10. Art thou a master in Israel, and knowest not these things? The question implies that Nicodemus was one of the doctors of the law. These made very arrogant claims of superior knowledge. Christ intends to show their ignorance of the fundamental principles of the kingdom. Though the prophets had indicated the new heart and spirit as one of its conditions they had entirely overlooked it.
11. Verily, verily, I say unto thee. This is the third time these words have occurred. Each time they mark a new stage of the discourse. We speak that which we do know . . . ye receive not our witness. Why does Christ change to the plural? Various answers have been given, but we believe that the change of "thou" to "ye" explains it. "Ye" includes Nicodemus and all Jews who failed to confess him; "we" includes himself and those who should testify of him [58] as the Holy Spirit gave them utterance. They I knew and testified that they had "seen." This is closely connected in thought with John 3:8. The birth of the Spirit is due to hearing the "voice of the Spirit," to being "born of the word of God," to believing the things witnessed by the Spirit.
12. If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not. He had spoken of the things that belonged to the kingdom of God on earth, of the new birth. If Nicodemus could not understand and believe this, so plain, easily understood and connected with human life, how would he receive testimony concerning the heavenly kingdom, God, and eternal glory? He had said: "We know that thou art a teacher, come from God;" Christ now declares that he is not "a man sent from God" like John, but has come down from heaven, still is of heaven, and therefore, can bear witness of heavenly things.
13. For no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down . . . the Son of man which is in heaven. No man has gone to heaven and returned to bear witness of heavenly things and the counsels of God. The only witness is the Son of man who came down and is still in heaven, because divine and in constant communication therewith. This implies: 1. That he existed before he appeared on earth. 2. That heaven was his true abode. 3. That, on earth, his spirit was in communication with heaven.
14, 15. As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up. The reference is to Numbers 21:4-9. The Israelites sinned through unbelief and were bitten by fiery serpents and died. Moses, at the command of God, raised on a pole a brazen serpent and those bitten who looked in faith were healed. So the world is in sin and dying because bitten by the serpent of sin through unbelief. Christ, he declares, will be lifted up on the cross, and whosoever looks to the crucified Savior and believes upon him will not perish, but have everlasting life. This implies that those who reject the uplifted Christ win perish.
16. For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, etc. There is no sweeter verse in the Bible. It declares, 1. That God is love. 2. That he loved the world instead of hating it. 3. That he so loved that he gave his Son. The Son did not come to appease the Father’s wrath, but the Father sent him because he loved so well. 4. That he came to keep men from perishing;--to save them. 5. That those who believe upon him, so as to receive him, will not perish but have everlasting life. God’s love is not limited;--"he loved the world." Men limit its grace by refusing to receive its medium, "the only begotten Son."
17. God sent not his Son to condemn the world. Christ came to be the Savior. His mission was to "save his people from their sins." There is condemnation, but it is because of unbelief. "This is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil."
18. He that believeth on him is not condemned. "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." Faith in Christ is essential to salvation, because it is the power that leads to obedience to him. Belief in him must be strong enough to sway all the life and soul. Is condemned already. "He that believeth not shall be damned." The unbeliever condemns himself. He is lost and refuses to be saved by Christ. He is dead and refuses to be made alive. The judgment is already passed upon him; the day of judgment will only make it manifest. Hath not believed in the name. The name Jesus, which means Savior. To disbelieve that name is to reject the salvation of Jesus; the only name whereby we must be saved.
19, 20. This is the condemnation. The ground of condemnation. The light had come into the world, Christ, the true Light, but men chose to walk in darkness because they loved it rather than light. The evil doer shuns light because it exposes. Birds and beasts of prey, thieves and evil doers, love the night because it hides their deeds. There is nothing that frauds of every kind dread so much as investigation. They hate the light lest their deeds should be reproved. The fact that men love sin accounts for the unbelief and spiritual darkness of our race. Myriads do not want truth or light which condemns their evil deeds.
21. He that doeth truth cometh to the light. Truth is not an abstract idea; it is something that must be lived. Many a life is a false one, a lie; many a [60] life is a true one, an illustration of the truth. He that does the truth, is conscious of a true and genuine life, seeks the light, and is willing that his deeds should be manifest.
PRACTICAL OBSERVATIONS.
1. One cannot creep secretly into the kingdom of heaven. He must come out openly on the side of the Savior and publicly confess him.
2. Earthly birth, or station, does not entitle to spiritual privileges. The kingdom is not composed of sons of Abraham, or priests, or nobles, or princes, but of those who have been born again.
3. No one can enter the kingdom who is not "born of water and of the Spirit." To baptize a babe, or anyone without faith, cannot make it a member of the kingdom, because it is not born of the Spirit. Nor can one enter who may claim that he is born of the Spirit unless he is "born of water" also. The proof that one has received the "Spirit is that he receives the things of the Spirit."
4. The Spirit breathes upon whom he wills and then he "speaks as the Holy Spirit gives him utterance." His voice was heard. So, by hearing his voice and obeying, every one is born of the Spirit. Vain are the claims of men to the new birth who refuse to obey the Spirit’s commands.
5. Those who believe upon the Son are born of the Spirit, and have everlasting life. He that believeth that Jesus Christ is the Son of God is born of God, because his belief, if of the heart, leads him to a truthful and obedient acceptance of him who is the life.
JOHN AT ÆNON.
22. After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judea. Shortly after the passover and the interview with Nicodemus, he left the Jewish metropolis. It had refused to hear him and he retired to the country districts, probably on the banks of the Jordan. There he tarried with them and baptized. This is the first intimation of Christ administering the baptismal rite. He did not baptize in person, but by his disciples (John 4:2). His baptism at this time could not have been the Christian rite that he instituted after his resurrection, but was preparatory like John’s. Christian baptism could not exist until the Son had demonstrated his relation to the Father by the resurrection, and until the Holy Spirit was given. The baptismal formula recognizes the authority of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
23. John also was baptizing at Ænon near to Salim. The location of Ænon [61] was long in doubt, and it was left for Lieut. Conder, of the British Palestine Exploration, to settle the question so satisfactorily that the authorities on the sacred localities, Robinson, Stanley, Thompson, Schaff and McGarvey, have accepted his discovery. He, the only man who has made a scientific survey of Palestine, locates it northeast of Samaria, in a beautiful valley, not far from the Jordan. He says (Tent Work, p. 92): "The valley is open in most of its course, and we find in it the two requisites for the scene of the baptism of a large multitude,--an open space and abundance of water. Not only does the name Salim occur in the village three miles south of the valley, but the name Ænon, signifying ’springs,’ is recognized as the village of Ainun, four miles north of the stream. There is only one other place of the latter name in Palestine, Beit Ainun, near Hebron, but this is a place that has no fine supply of water and no Salim near it. On the other hand there are many other Salims all over Palestine, but none of them has an Ænon near it. The site of Wady Far’ah is the only one where all the requisites are met,--the two names, the fine water supply, the proximity of the desert, and the open character of the ground." Prof. McGarvey, who visited the locality, says: "The much water we found all the way, and although the season was exceptionally dry, pools well suited for baptizing were abundant. . . . Here, then, was the open space required, and a more suitable place for the gathering of a multitude could not be found on the banks of any stream in Palestine. . . . We cut an oleander cane apiece from the bank of the stream, and took a bath in one of its pools."--Lands of the Bible, pp. 508-9. Because there was much water there. This is assigned as a reason, not why John was at Ænon, or preached at Ænon, but why he baptized at Ænon. It explains "baptizing." "Much water" was essential to baptism in New Testament times, and Ænon provided it. It shows the stress of Pedobaptists when they insist that he chose Ænon because the great multitudes would require much water for domestic purposes. The Scripture explains its necessity otherwise. Nor does the criticism that polla hudata means "many waters" help their cause. The phrase is applied in the Septuagint to the Euphrates (Jeremiah 51:13), and in Revelation to the Tiber (Revelation 17:1). It may mean either "much" or "many" waters. There were many fountains at Ænon and many pools in the stream they created. Whatever polla hudata may mean it explains the reason why John was baptizing there, a fact that can be reconciled only with immersion. The reason why the historian gives this explanation is that all the other accounts of John’s baptizing locate him at the river Jordan. As it is here affirmed that he was baptizing at a place some distance from the Jordan, it is explained that there "was much water there" also.
24. For John was not yet cast into prison. This incident occurred just before the seizure of John. The testimony following is the last words recorded of the great forerunner before he was sent to prison and from thence to death. As the other Gospels omit this incident, and, after the baptism of Christ, [62] mention John next in prison, the author of the Fourth Gospel is particular to say "he was not yet cast into prison."
25. There arose a question between John’s disciples and the Jews. The Revision reads "a Jew" which is supported by the best manuscripts. We can only conjecture the nature of this dispute. "The Jew," evidently not a disciple of either John or Jesus, but perhaps a Pharisee (see John 4:1), associated baptism with the bathings of the Jewish law for purification. The context shows that in a discussion with disciples of John he gave preference either to Christ’s baptism, or to Christ himself, over John and his baptism. He probably also spoke of the great numbers who resorted to Christ.
26. Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond Jordan, . . . the same baptizeth. Full of jealousy for the reputation of their master, they rush to him with their complaint, as if the growing influence of Jesus and his practice of baptism were an infringement on the rights of John. Note that they had been impressed by the witness that John had borne to Jesus at Bethabara.
27, 28. A man can receive nothing except it be given him from heaven. This trial of John would have been a sore one had he been swayed by human feeling. To see his great popularity and influence gradually waning, and another coming up to take his place, was well calculated to arouse jealousy. But John, in the spirit of his mission, rose to a sublime superiority over carnal weakness. He declares, first, that what he is, and what Jesus is, is due to the will of heaven. Each will fill his appointed mission "given him from heaven." Next, he cites his own words before spoken, of which they were witnesses, in which he declared that he was not the Christ, but only the messenger who went before the King to prepare his way. The superiority of Jesus was only what he himself had predicted.
29. He that hath the bride is the bridegroom. This expressive figure is often used. The church, espoused to Christ, is the bride; Christ, the bridegroom. John, in the growing influence of Christ, already sees in anticipation the bridegroom united to the bride. As the friend of the bridegroom he rejoices [63] in the happiness of the bridegroom The good news that his disciples bring him of Christ, so far from arousing envy, causes him to rejoice. He feels that his own work is done: "My joy therefore is fulfilled."
30. He must increase, but I must decrease. As the light of the moon fades out before the rising sun, so John must decrease before the bright light of the Sun of Righteousness. His own decrease is, however, only a proof of the increase and fulness of Christ. These last words of John are in the spirit of Christian sacrifice and are a fitting close of his work.
31. He that cometh from above is above all. It is generally supposed that the following words are, not those of John the Baptist, but of the Apostle. There is a contrast of style, and a part of what follows contains references to the words of our Lord. The one that cometh from above is Christ, who is above every earthly teacher, prophets, apostles, and John the Baptist.
32. What he hath seen and heard, he testifieth. He hath no need for instruction, for the one from heaven knows personally of what he testifies. No, man receiveth his testimony. The world, in John the apostle’s time still rejected Christ. Here and there were churches who honored the Master, but mankind refused to receive his testimony.
33. Hath set his seal that God is true. A few, comparatively, had received his testimony, and these thereby demonstrated their conviction that God is true; that his promises have been fulfilled in Christ. To attach a seal to a document is to confirm it.
34. He whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God. So Christ affirmed of himself. It was the Father who spoke in him. He had the fulness of the Spirit. It is the testimony of the whole world, believing and unbelieving, that "he spake as man never spake." The reason of this is plain. It was the Father speaking through him.
35. The Father loveth the Son. Therefore he had the Spirit without measure, and in him dwelt the "fulness of the Godhead."
36. He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life. Eternal life and death [64] turn on the question of faith in Christ. They turn on this principle because "without faith we cannot please God," for we cannot live the life, while unbelievers, that pleases him. Faith is the mightiest power of earth to move men to action, and faith in Christ moves to the life that is needful to become the sons of God. He who believes with a heartfelt, obedient faith, a faith that trusts all and surrenders all to the will of Christ, is born again and "hath eternal life," while the unbeliever remains in disobedience and abides in death. It is not "faith alone" that gives life, but "faith made perfect" by obedience. See James 2:22.
PRACTICAL OBSERVATIONS.
1. Those who neglect, or disparage the rites which God has established, trample under foot the example of the Master. He obeyed, preached, and practiced John’s baptism. Much the more ought all his followers to regard that which the Lord has enacted.
2. The true servant of God seeks not his own honor, but the glory of Christ. A godly preacher will hide himself behind the Master and be forgetful of himself so that Christ is honored. "God forbid that he should glory, save in Christ and him crucified." It is no credit to a preacher that his hearers should go away from his preaching thinking and talking of himself. He only preaches effectually who fixes their thoughts on Christ.
GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN
B.W. Johnson
JOHN CHAPTER FOUR
JESUS AT THE WELL.
After the Savior’s Passover and the conversation with Nicodemus, he tarried in the land of Judea, probably until the late fall of the year (John 4:35). He had not yet called his apostles nor ordained his baptism, but he co-operated with John in administering his baptism, through his disciples (John 3:22). A question concerning this baptismal rite was raised with John’s disciples by the Jews, evidently to provoke jealousy of Christ, which led these disciples to come to John with a complaint. This gave him another opportunity to give a noble testimony to Christ. The jealousy of the Pharisees and the arrest of John, caused the Lord in the fall to return to Galilee. On the route occurred the memorable conversation with the woman of Sychar.
The Jews, whose discussion had thus deeply moved the followers of John, may well have been of the prominent Pharisees, and our Lord soon became aware that they were watching his proceedings with an unfriendly eye. Their hostility to John was a still deeper hostility against him, for the very reason that his teaching was already more successful. Perhaps in consequence of this determined rejection of the earliest steps of his teaching--perhaps also out of regard for the wounded feelings of John’s followers--but most of all because at this very time the news reached him that John had been seized by Herod Antipas and thrown into prison--Jesus left Judea and again departed into Galilee. Being already in the north of Judea, he chose the route which led through Samaria. The fanaticism of Jewish hatred, the fastidiousness of Jewish Pharisaism, which led his countrymen when traveling alone to avoid that route, could have no existence for him, and were things rather to be discouraged than approved.--Farrar.
The historic setting of the visit to Sychar is so entirely harmonized with the facts, that the account must have been penned by an eye-witness. "We are confronted with the historic antagonism of the Jews and Samaritans, which still survives in Nablus, the modern Shechem, where the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Samaritan synagogue are still shown to the stranger; here we see the genuine humanity of Jesus, as he sat ’wearied with his journey,’ though not weary of his work of saving souls, his elevation above rabbinical prejudices which forbade conversing with any woman out of doors, his superhuman knowledge and dignity, and his surpassing wisdom of parabolic teaching; here the life-like sketch of a sinful, yet quick-witted woman, full of curiosity and interest in the religious question of the day, and running to tell her neighbors her great discovery of the prophet who had touched her conscience, excited her thirst for the water of life, and led her from Jacob’s well to the fountain of salvation, and from the dispute about the place of worship to the highest conception of God as an omnipotent Spirit to be worshiped in spirit and truth. Truly, no poet could have invented such a story.
1. When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John. These verses explain why Christ left Judea and returned to Galilee. Evidently the controversy noted in the last chapter (John 3:22-27) had stirred up no little excitement. "The Jew" who disputed with John’s disciples was probably a Pharisee. This bitter sect was noting the increasing influence of Christ. There were, therefore, two reasons for departure; first, to avoid arousing the jealousy of John’s disciples, and secondly, to prevent a premature conflict with the Pharisees.
2. Though the Lord did not himself baptize, but his disciples. Christ’s message at this time was John’s: "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand," and his baptism was that of John. Hence it was needful that it be administered by servants, rather than the Master. His own baptism could not be observed until after the death, burial and resurrection, since it is a planting in the likeness of his death.
3, 4. He must needs go through Samaria. Samaria was between Judea and Galilee, and hence the route led through it. It seems probable from John 4:35, that it was in the latter part of the fall that he departed from Judea. See comment on verse 35.
The scene at Jacob’s well presents a most graphic, and yet most unartificial picture of nature and human life, as it still remains, though in decay, at the foot of Gerizim and Ebal, the most beautiful section of Palestine. There is still the well of Jacob, recognized as such by Samaritans, Jews, Mohammedans and Christians alike; there is the sanctuary on the top of Gerizim, where the Passover is annually celebrated by the remnant of the Samaritan sect, according to the prescription of Moses; there are the waving grain-fields, ripening for the harvest in the well-watered, fertile valley.--Schaff.
5. Then cometh he to a city of Samaria, which is called Sychar. Samaria was the district, embracing the ancient city of Samaria, which lay between Judea and Galilee. As it was interposed between, when our Lord would go from Judea to Galilee "he must needs go through Samaria," unless he would take a very circuitous route east of the Jordan. The district of Samaria comprised the country formerly occupied by the tribe of Ephraim and the half tribe of Manasseh. When the Ten Tribes were carried to Babylon the Assyrian king sent in other tribes to occupy the country. These, on account of calamities, and probably influenced by Israelites who had been left in the country, requested of the Assyrian king a Hebrew priest, and one was sent. Henceforth they had a religion partly Jewish and partly pagan. When the Jews returned from Captivity and began to rebuild the temple the Samaritans offered to aid them, but were sternly repulsed. Henceforth a bitter feeling existed between the two peoples. When Manasseh, a priest, was expelled from Jerusalem by Nehemiah, for an unlawful marriage, he fled to Samaria, took charge of their worship, and a temple was erected on Mt. Gerizim, in opposition to the one at Jerusalem. Henceforth the Samaritans, claiming to be the children of Israel (Jacob), insisted that Gerizim, the Mount of Blessing, was the place chosen by God for worship. As the later Jewish Scriptures recognized Jerusalem as the seat of divine worship, they were rejected by the Samaritans, who received the five books of Moses alone. Sychar. This place was the ancient Shechem, so famous in the early history. It was forty miles, north of Jerusalem, and was situated between Mount Gerizim and Mount Ebal, the Mounts of Blessing and Cursing (Joshua 8:30-35). Here Jacob built his first altar (Genesis 33:18); here Joseph was buried in the land given him by his father (Joshua 24:32); and here also the covenant of Israel was renewed with amens to the blessings and curses, after Joshua had conquered Canaan. Few spots in all Israel had a more interesting history. The word Sychar signifies a drunkard and a liar, and was, doubtless, first applied by the Jews in derision. It was afterwards called Neapolis, and at present a village called Nablous exists with a population of two thousand, about two hundred of whom are Samaritans and preserve their ancient worship. Near to the parcel of ground that Jacob gave to his son Joseph. In this parcel Joseph was buried when Israel came up out of Egypt, his bones having been carried with them in accordance with his dying wish. His tomb is still shown and it can hardly be doubted that his bones really rest in the place pointed out.
6. Now Jacob’s well was there. It is still seen by the traveller, cut through the solid rock, between eight and nine feet in diameter, and about seventy-five feet deep. When visited by Maundrel, two hundred years ago, it was over a hundred feet deep. The accumulation of rubbish at the bottom has lessened its depth and there is now no water visible. It is about two miles from Nablous. There is no account of Jacob digging the well, and it has been asked why he should have dug it when there was an abundance of springs within two miles. Probably because the springs belonged to others and were occupied. At any rate, someone did dig the well, and a tradition that Christ did not reject and which John seems to admit, ascribed it to the patriarch. Jesus . . wearied . . sat thus on the well. The wells were usually curbed around with stone and covered. On this curb the Savior sat sheltered from the sun at noon, the sixth hour being twelve o’clock. His body was human and subject to all the infirmities of ours. The morning journey had wearied him; he could hunger; he sank under the weight of the cross.
7, 8. There cometh a woman of Samaria. A Samaritan woman of the city of Sychar. Why she should come so far from the city for water is a matter of conjecture. It was the custom for women to work in the fields, and she was probably employed near, and came at the noon hour, the hour of rest and refreshment, to the well for water. She had lived a checkered and, in part, disreputable life, and this might account for her not being accompanied by any of her sex. The Savior had been left alone by his disciples, who had gone to the village to buy food, and he opened a conversation by asking the woman to give him a drink of water, a request that the children of the East regard it an obligation to comply with most cheerfully, even to strangers and enemies. In that parched land water is the chiefest of blessings; Jesus pronounced a blessing upon him who should give a cup of cold water; Mahomet enjoined that it should never be refused; the servant of Abraham had asked it of the daughter of Nahor; the request of Jesus, even to a strange woman, was the custom of the East.
9. How is it that thou, being a Jew, askest drink of me? She saw by his dress, appearance, and the direction whence he came that he was of the Jewish race. The antipathy between the Jews and Samaritans was so bitter that, although there might be some trade and they could buy food of each other on a journey, they were never wont to ask any hospitable rite. The woman’s reply is not a refusal of the Lord’s request, but an expression of astonishment that a Jew should ask a favor of a Samaritan. "The maxims of the Jews respecting intercourse with the Samaritan people varied much at different times and it is not easy to say what rules prevailed at the period with which we are here concerned. One precept in the Talmud approves their mode of preparing the flesh of animals, others commend their unleavened bread, their cheese, their food. Elsewhere, however, we find restrictions; and the wine, vinegar, etc., of the Samaritans were forbidden to every Israelite, their country with its roads and other products only being regarded clean. This narrative shows that it was held lawful to buy food in a Samaritan town, so that the words of this verse must be understood to mean that the Jews had no hospitable intercourse with the Samaritans."--Milligan. Dr. Robinson says: "If of old the Jews had no dealings with the Samaritans, the latter at the present day reciprocate the feeling, and neither eat, nor &ink, nor marry with the Jews, but only trade with them."
10. If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink. The gift of God is not water, nor even peace of soul, but Christ himself, God’s "unspeakable gift." "God gave his only begotten Son." She neither knew of God’s unspeakable gift, nor that the Son given was at that moment speaking to her. Had she known, the Savior declares: Thou wouldst have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water. Observe: 1. That Christ asks a favor in order to confer a greater one; makes a request in order to open up a conversation that will give access to a heart. 2. The well and the water suggest the thirst of the soul and the waters of life. With him natural objects, the sparrows, the lilies, the storm, the harvest, the water, the sower, the seed, etc., were constantly made texts for teaching spiritual truth. Living water meant, literally, "running" water, the water from a fountain or stream. It is known from the term used for well in the Greek of John 4:6 (pege) that it was a fountain fed by subterranean springs, not a deep cistern supplied with rainwater. The "living water," water that fails not while it quenches thirst, but flows right on perennially, is taken by the Savior as a symbol of himself, the one who quenches the thirst of the soul. Elsewhere he says: "The Spirit and the Bride say come; and let him that is athirst come and partake of the waters of life freely."
11. Sir, thou hast nothing to draw with . . . whence then hast thou that living water? She was deeply impressed by his manner and his words. This is shown by her calling him Sir (Kurie, Lord), but she fails to rise above the material meaning of his words. The well is a hundred feet deep; it, like the wells of the country usually, has no bucket; he has brought no vessel with him as, she has done; how then can he furnish her this water from the fountain? She cannot understand.
12. Art thou greater than our father Jacob? The question indicates still further her dawning conviction of the greatness of the stranger. It was from Joseph, the son of Jacob, that the Samaritans claimed descent. Jesus spoke of giving living water; Jacob, their great ancestor, had given this well; he, his flocks, his children and his servants had drunk of it; it was a sacred object of reverence; was Jesus greater than the giver of the well? Perhaps it was because the well was deemed holy that she had come there to obtain water. Often those least truly religious in life have most faith in relics.
13. Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again. Her own experience would confirm his words. Nothing earthly satisfies long. Raiment, food, drink, all have to be supplied again.
14. Whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst. The water of which he speaks is a gift which he gives to humanity. It is not given to him but is his own gift. No prophet ever spoke thus, no man, only Jesus Christ. His language is always that of the Son of God. He says, "I am the life;" "Come to me ye that labor and are heavy laden and I will give you rest;" "I am the bread of life;" "He that believeth on me shall never thirst;" "If any man thirst let him come and drink * * * from him shall flow rivers of living water." Such words could not fall from human lips. "The water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up to eternal life." Springing up into everlasting life. The water that Christ bestows, the living water, the water of life, not only satisfied the longings of the soul, but is the real "elixir vitae," and quickens it into a new life that never ends.
15. Sir, give me this water, that I thirst not. The mysterious words of the Jewish stranger she cannot yet understand, but she is deeply stirred, and one thing seemed plain--if she could have this water she would thirst no more, and would not be compelled to come to the well. She is bewildered, but eager to comprehend the nature of the gift. The tenor of the whole narrative shows that she was neither flippant, nor sluggish.
16. Go, call thy husband, and come hither. The woman has asked for the water; before she can receive it she must be fully conscious of her need, of her soul’s thirst, of her sinfulness and wretchedness. Hence Jesus makes a demand that will awake her to a sense of her condition. His abrupt words are designed to recall her past life.
17. I have no husband. The words have their designed effect. Probably with the deep blush and confusion of shame she admits that she has no husband. She has a man, but not a husband. The emphasis is on the word husband.
18. Thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband. The Lord accepts her statement as true in words, but reveals to her his knowledge of the real facts. She had been married five times; the easy divorce laws of the age, permitting a "divorce for any cause," would allow many changes without the death of either party. Some of her husbands may have died; a part were almost certainly divorced. Her sixth alliance did not even have the apology of such a marriage. It was illegal and condemned even by her unenlightened conscience as sinful. The Savior’s words are like a probe, keen, severe, but gentle.
19. Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet. Every word that Jesus had uttered had excited her wonder more and more, and when he lifted the curtain off her life, she was convinced at once of his superhuman knowledge. She had heard of the ancient prophets; he must be one.
20. Our fathers worshiped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship. Partly to turn attention from her sinful life, and partly to have him settle a great controversy, she appeals to him to say where men ought to worship God. The Jews went up to Jerusalem to the temple. From the time of Jeroboam the Ten Tribes had worshiped elsewhere. When the Israelites returned from the Captivity and repulsed the Samaritans, Manasseh, the renegade priest, conducted this worship on Mt. Gerizim, the "Mount of Blessing." In the reign of Alexander the Great, according to Josephus, a temple was erected there. At a later period it was destroyed by John Hyrcanus, the Jewish prince, but still the altar was kept up, and the Samaritans made it their holy place. Note that the woman worshiped there because "our fathers" did. The "fathers" were wrong. Many now keep up infant sprinkling and other corruptions because their "fathers" practiced it. Fathers are no authority in such matters; only Christ and the word of God.
21. The hour cometh, when neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem. Now comes the announcement of one of the grandest truths revealed by Christ. The Jews said that men must worship at Jerusalem to worship acceptably; the Samaritans contended for Mt. Gerizim as the true holy place; the Mahometan insists on a pilgrimage to Mecca; the Catholic on praying at some holy shrine, but Christ says that the time even then was at hand when no holy place need be sought for worship. A little later God emphasized this lesson by the destruction of the temple at Jerusalem. In verse 23d the reason is given.
22. Salvation is of the Jews. In the controversy between the Jews and Samaritans, the former were right on the great issue. The Samaritans, worshiped, but knew not what they worshiped, because they rejected the prophets who would have directed them. In this the Jews had the advantage, and the salvation of the world was to come through the Jews, through Christ of the seed of David. "Ye" refers to the Samaritans; "we" to the Jews.
23. The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshipers shall worship the Father in spirit and truth. This verse is linked with verse 21st. The time is at hand, says the Lord, when a worship of forms, or at holy places, will not meet the demands of the Father. He must be worshiped with the heart, in spirit and in truth. Spiritual worship can be offered in any land, wherever the soul can humble itself before God. God is seeking for such true, spiritual worshipers.
24. God is a Spirit. Rather, "God is Spirit." This declaration is fundamental. 1. God is not material, according to the gross conception of the pagans. 2. He is not a material force, nor an abstract force as some scientists urge. 3. Nor is he a kind of blind, impersonal power, "that makes for righteousness," as Matthew Arnold urges. 4. He is Spirit, fills the universe, is omnipresent, and hence can be worshiped anywhere, because he is everywhere. Since he is Spirit, he must be worshiped in spirit. A material worship, a worship of forms, is not in harmony with his nature. The heart and spirit must be lifted up.
25. I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ. Her heart had been made lighter with the great hope of the world. The words of Jesus carried her thoughts to that hope. He had told her much; the Messiah would tell her all things, and give light on every dark question.
26. I that speak unto thee am he. This is the first recorded confession of Jesus that he was the Christ. His disciples learned to believe the truth, but until Peter’s confession the last year of his ministry, there was no open admission. Perhaps we never can tell why he chose to make his first acknowledgment of his mission to a poor, wretched, Samaritan woman.
PRACTICAL OBSERVATIONS.
1. Christ’s followers should, like their Master, seize every opportunity to preach the gospel.
2. Natural objects and passing events should always impart religious lessons.
3. Earthly food cannot permanently satisfy any want. The soul’s wants can never be satisfied on husks. Only the "living Bread" and the "living Water" will sate its hunger and thirst.
4. One cannot partake of the "water of life" until he is athirst. He must be conscious of his sinfulness before he can be delivered from sin in Christ.
5. The customs of "our fathers" should not make us content to follow in their footsteps without comparing their course with the New Testament.
6. God is Spirit; everywhere we may meet him, and pray and worship; everywhere he sees us and takes note of our conduct.
7. Outward, formal worship, counting beads, genuflections, waving incense, pilgrimages, etc., are not worship, but an insult to God. He is not matter. He demands that those who worship him shall lift up their spirits.
8. Besides her individual character, there was also the circ*mstance that she was a Samaritan. It is the first time that Jesus comes into close, private, personal contact with one who is not of the seed of Israel; for though she claimed Jacob as her father, neither this woman, nor any of the tribe she belonged to, were of Jewish descent. "I am not come," said Jesus, afterwards defining the general boundaries of his personal ministry, "but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." When he sent out the Seventy, his instructions to them were: "Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans, enter ye not." And yet there were a few occasions, and this is the first of them, in which Christ broke through the restraints under which it pleased him ordinarily to act. I believe that there are just four instances of this kind recorded in the Savior’s life: that of the woman of Samaria, of the Roman Centurion, of the Canaanitish woman, and of the Greeks who came up to Jerusalem. All these were instances of our Lord’s dealings with those who stood without the pale of Judaism, and as we come upon them in the narrative, we shall be struck with the singular interest which Jesus took in each; the singular tact that he bestowed in testing and bringing out to view the simplicity and strength of the desire towards him, and faith in him, that were displayed; the fulness of the revelations of himself that he made, and of that satisfaction and delight with which he contemplated the issue. It was the great and good shepherd, stretching out his hand across the fence, and gathering in a lamb or two from the outfields, in token of the truth that there were other sheep which were out of the Jewish fold whom, also, he was in due time to bring in, so that there should be one fold and one shepherd.--Hanna.
The interview with the Samaritan woman marks a great epoch in the development of religion. While the Jews had been forbidden to make any graven image to represent the Deity, and had been taught his omnipresence and spiritual being, like other races, it had been hard for them to rise to any just conception of the Almighty. Hence Jerusalem was the Holy City of their race where they expected the peculiar presence of Jehovah, and forgetting the spiritual meaning of the ordinances given to their nation, their worship had degenerated into outward and, often, frivolous forms. The Samaritans had still lower spiritual conceptions than the Jews, and clung to the idea that on Mt. Gerizim alone could true and acceptable sacrifice be offered to the Almighty, while the heathen faith was either godless or given to the most materialistic, sensual and debasing forms of idolatry. It also had its sacred shrines where the gods must be met, its Delphos, Dodona, and seat of Jupiter Ammon, and seemed to have even in its most cultured philosophers, only the most vague conception of an omnipresent deity. Hence, it was new and revolutionary when Christ proclaimed the dawn of a spiritual religion, the worship of the only true God, an omnipresent Spirit, not content with outward sacrifices, gorgeous forms, counting beads, making signs, or going on long pilgrimages to supposed holy places, but demanding the heart, the worship of an uplifted spirit, and present everywhere to hear the prayers and bless the worship of those who gathered in his name. Only such a religion could be adapted to the whole race, as well fitted to Europe, America, and the isles of the sea, as to western Asia. Hence, in the words to the woman of Samaria there lies imbedded the Gospel for all nations.
SOWING AND REAPING.
The hearty reception given by the Samaritans to the Jewish teacher shows that their hearts were much more open to the reception of divine truths than the conceited and bigoted Jews. It seems strange, with such readiness to receive him on their part, that we do not hear more of our Lord’s intercourse with the Samaritans. His heart, full of the love of man, not of a single race, seemed bursting to reach out and embrace all the lost children of Adam. He is the "Son of Man," not of David or Abraham; he "came to save the world," not the Jewish race alone; he is "the Lamb slain for the sins of the world." Yet, when he gives his apostles their first commission, he forbids them to go to the Samaritans and Gentiles. Why is this? Because he was "born of woman, made under the law." The law of Moses was yet in force. He kept it in all points blamelessly. It was still the law of God, but when the "handwriting of ordinances was nailed to the cross," then the "middle wall of partition was broken down," the "Old Covenant was taken away to give place to the new," and then, under the New Covenant, a covenant that embraced mankind instead of the children of Abraham, the Lord directed his disciples to preach the gospel "in Jerusalem, and Judea, and Samaria, and unto the uttermost parts of the earth."
27. Upon this came his disciples and marvelled that he talked with the woman. His disciples had left him alone at the well, while they went to the village of Sychar to buy food. As they return they see him in the clear air of that country and on the elevated site of the well on the mountain side, engaged in conversation with a woman. They probably approached near before the conversation ended, and paused and wondered that he would talk with a woman, and especially with a Samaritan woman. It was considered by the Jews indecorous to talk with a woman in public, and the Rabbis held that to talk with such an inferior creature was beneath the dignity of a doctor of the law. Their surprise well illustrates the state in which woman was held before Christ lifted her to the side of man as his equal and companion. Among the Greeks, Socrates, their best and wisest teacher, thanked the gods daily, that he was born neither a slave nor a woman; the Roman law gave the husband absolute authority over the wife, even to put her to death; among the Jews the wife could be divorced "for any cause," their most renowned doctor, Hillel, insisting that for her to burn the bread in baking was a sufficient reason. It is in the New Testament, first, that woman stands forth as the minister of Christ and the helper in the gospel. Christ’s disciples had not yet been emancipated from their false teachings, and hence they were filled with surprise at the condescension of the Master. Yet such was their awe that none interrupted, or asked a reason for his departure from all that they had ever known. They soon learned better.
28. And the woman left her water-pot and went her way. Her soul was so stirred that she forgot the errand on which she came to the well. She had got a taste of the "living water," and forgot her need of the water of the well. The Savior had told her to call her husband. Her soul was so full of the strange, good news, that she wished to tell every one. What a touch of nature in her forgetting her water-pot in her excitement! Such little things prove the truth of the narrative.
29. Come and see a man who told me all things I ever did. He had told her some things about her own life, and conscience had told her more. She felt that all was known to him, and naturally exaggerates by saying, "He told me all my life." Notice that as soon as she believes she seeks to spread the tidings. Notice, too, her unconscious skill. Instead of asserting, she asks them to come and see for themselves. She believed him to be the Christ, but she asks: Is not this the Christ? Chrysostom speaks of her zeal and wisdom: "She said not, Come, see the Christ, but, with the same condescension with which Christ had netted her, she draws men to him; Come, she saith, See a man who told me all I ever did. Is not this the Christ? She neither declared the fact plainly, nor was she silent She desired, not to bring them in by her own assertion, but to make them share her opinion by hearing him." Had she asserted they would hardly have believed her, but her modest manner arouses their curiosity and makes them eager to see and hear. There is a good example here for all Christian workers.
30. And then went they out of the city. Her success was immediate. Their curiosity was aroused and they were eager to hear. It is evident, by the effect of her words, that they were not a skeptical people, but were waiting for the Christ.
31. His disciples prayed him, saying, Master, eat. While the woman was gone, spreading the tidings, this episode occurs with the disciples. They had returned with food, which they now pressed upon the Master whom they had left wearied and hungry. To their surprise, although it was now past the noon hour, he hesitated to touch the food.
32. I have meat to eat ye know not of. "Man shall not live by bread alone." The Lord who could go forty days in the wilderness without food, in the exaltation of soul caused by his baptism and the descent of the Holy Spirit, would forget the hunger of the body also, when he was pouring out the water of life to a poor, thirsty soul. He had been lifted above hunger by the eagerness of his spirit in his holy work. This forgetfulness of the needs of the body at such an hour was not surprising or supernatural. It constantly occurs to those whose spirits are deeply stirred.
33. Hath any man brought him ought to eat? Their ideas were still as gross as those of the Samaritan woman, who at first could not comprehend the "living water." They cannot think of spiritual food, heavenly manna, bread of life. Yet, long before, the prophet had spoke of this food and had said, "Ye that have no money, come, buy bread, and eat." They fancy, therefore, that he has received food, and wonder who has brought it.
34. My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work. It must be borne in mind that "meat" in the Scripture, means not only flesh, but any kind of food. The Savior then declares, in explanation of the perplexity, to his disciples, that to do the will of God is food to him; that is, discharges the same offices as food. 1. It was an enjoyment; 2. He longed for it, as the hungry long for food; 3. It refreshed and strengthened him. This is always true of doing the will of God. The character of his service is such that the faithful (1) Delight in it; (2) Are made better and stronger by it, all the time. His work does not weary, but refreshes the soul.
Some have insisted that Christ says: "My meat is in order to do his will, etc." or that his soul is fed that he may do it. Though the original may be thus translated it does not harmonize with John 4:32. He is explaining what the meat is that has taken away his hunger, not what it is for. The whole passage is one of many similar sayings. See Matthew 4:4; John 5:30; John 6:38; John 15:10, etc.
35. Say not ye, There are yet four months, and then cometh harvest? Harvest began about the middle of April in Palestine. The time when the Savior spoke would then be about the middle of December. This would indicate that he had passed eight months in Judea, as he had come from Galilee to attend the passover. Of this period of his ministry but little is recorded, save the incidents of the passover, the conversation with Nicodemus, and the fact that Christ preached and baptized (through his disciples) more converts than John. Now the idea of the harvest suggests, as the water and the food had done, another spiritual lesson. From their elevated position on the mountain side the road to Sychar is visible, filled with the throngs who are flocking to "see and hear" the Stranger of whom the woman has told. He points to them and says: "Lift up your eyes and look on the (spiritual) fields. They are already white for the harvest." The words, "Lift up your eyes," show clearly that he pointed to what was visible, the fields with a harvest of men ready to be gathered.
36. He that reapeth receiveth wages. The figure is kept up. The reaper in the harvest fields receives wages, and so shall those who reap the harvest of souls; not earthly pay in money, or fame, or position, but the happiness of doing the noblest work, and beyond, the crown of life shining with stars. "They that turn many to righteousness shall shine as stars forever and ever. In the reaping there is joy on earth and, on high, the joy of bringing sheaves to the Lord. Gathereth fruit. Souls, that are gathered as sheaves, into the eternal gainer. There, the saved souls and the reaper who gathered them "rejoice together."
37. One soweth, and another reapeth. This was a common proverb, growing out of constant human experience, true of worldly and spiritual things. How often has the patient pastor sowed, and then the evangelist has reaped in a meeting the results!
38. I sent you to reap that whereon ye bestowed no labor. The verb "sent" is past, and refers to some event before the present incident. It can only be explained by referring it to the events of the last eight months. The disciples had baptized multitudes, "more than John" (John 4:1); so many that John’s disciples reported "all men come unto him" (John 3:26). The disciples of Christ who baptized all of these (John 4:2), were reaping the fruit of John’s sowing, to a great extent, supplemented by the labors of Christ. John had sown; they were reaping. Other men labored. John and other holy men, but the disciples had entered in upon their labors. So, too, Christ sowed, and at Pentecost, in Judea, and in Samaria, they afterwards entered into his labors. See the reaping of what he had sowed in Samaria, at this time, in Acts 8:5-8.
39. And many of the Samaritans believed on him for the saying of the woman. She had borne witness, wisely, gladly, as best she could, and though a very humble creature, she had not preached Christ in vain.
40. So when the Samaritan were come. Because already faith was sprung up in their hearts, they insisted that he should tarry with them. A strange invitation for a Samaritan village to give to a Jew. It was also a strange thing for a Jewish teacher to accept the invitation.
41. Many more believed because of his own word. They saw and heard for themselves. He worked no miracles, but he poured the waters of life with the result that they recognized in him a divine teacher. He wrought miracles at Jerusalem, but how different the course of the self-righteous Pharisees!
42. Know that this is indeed the Christ, the Savior of the world. The Samaritan hearts were good soil, ready for the word, open and honest, and hence there was a wonderful result. To the woman Jesus had said, that he was the Christ. Now by his teachings, many months before Peter’s confession, the Samaritans pronounce him the Christ, the Savior, not of Jews only, or Jews and Samaritans, but of the world. It indicates a wonderful freedom from the narrow prejudices of their times that they should proclaim him as the world’s Savior.
PRACTICAL OBSERVATIONS.
1. God’s work does not fatigue and weaken. It refreshes and strengthens. It is meat for the soul. It is the idlers in the vineyard who are sickly. It is the workers who are fresh, vigorous, and full of rejoicing.
2. Harvest is a season of rejoicing. Pentecost, when the first fruits were waved, was a festival of joy. The "Harvest Home" has been an era of gladness in every land. What a time of heavenly rejoicing when the reapers in life’s harvest and their sheaves stand together in the presence of the Lord, and rejoice together!
3. The fields are now white for the harvest; the harvest is plenteous, but the laborers are few. Pray ye, therefore, the Lord of the harvest, that he may send laborers into his harvest.
4. Though wearied, he does not neglect the occasion and opportunity offered to him. He commences the conversation by a natural request. He opens the woman’s heart by requesting from her a favor. He passes, by a natural transition from the physical to the spiritual world, from nature to the truth of which nature testifies.--Abbott.
5. Had you but stood by Jacob’s well and seen the look of Jesus, and listened to the tones of his voice, or, had you been in Sychar during those two bright and happy days, hearing the instruction, so freely given, and so gratefully received, you would have had the evidence of sense to tell you with what abounding joy to all who are waiting and who are willing, Jesus breaks the bread and pours out the water of everlasting life. Multiplied a thousand fold is the evidence to the same effect now offered to the eye and ear of faith. Still, from the lips of the Savior of the world, over all the world the words are sounding forth: "If any man thirst, let him come to me and drink." Still, the manner of his dispensation of the great gift, stands embodied in the words: "Thou wouldst have asked, and I would have given thee living water." And still the other voices are heard catching up and re-echoing our Lord’s own gracious invitation: "And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take of the water of life freely."--Hanna.
6. In the temple, between the court of the Gentiles and the next inner court, was a marble screen or curiously carved fence, some two feet high, beyond which no Gentile could venture. Had a Samaritan put his foot inside of that "wall of partition," he would have been whirled away in a fury of rage and stoned to death in the twinkling of an eye. But Jesus was treading down that partition wall. This visit in Samaria is of singular importance, at the opening of Christ’s ministry, in two respects: First, as a deliberate repudiation and rebuke of the exclusiveness of the Jewish church; and secondly, and even more significantly, as to the humane manner of his treatment of a sinning woman. It was the text from which flowed two distinguishing elements of his ministry--sympathy with mankind, and the tenderest compassion for those who have sinned and stumbled.
THE NOBLEMAN’S SON.
This lesson, though it follows the last without a break in John’s Gospel, is thought to be separated in time by a short interval from the last. It will be noted that Jesus, on leaving Samaria, does not return to his old home at Nazareth, the home of his mother and brethren, but goes to Cana, where he made the water wine, the home of Nathanael or Bartholomew, one of his disciples. It is well known that John did not aim to give a full history of the words and deeds of Jesus (John 21:25), but rather to supply what had been omitted by Matthew, Mark and Luke. It is thought by many that the teaching in the synagogue of Nazareth, related in Luke 4:16-30, occurred at this time, immediately after his departure from Samaria. It certainly occurred early in his ministry, and it is probable that it was at this time. If this view is correct, Jesus passed a Sabbath, soon after his sojourn at Sychar, at his old home, and attended the synagogue where he had often worshiped; was handed the Scripture to read the lesson of the day, as a teacher of established fame; read from Isaiah and spoke words that were at first listened to with profound attention, but soon with disapproval; and when he rebuked sternly the implied demand that he should work a miracle for their gratification, they rose in an angry mob and endeavored to take his life. Passing from their midst, by the exercise of a power, either moral or supernatural, which he often exerted, he turned his back on Nazareth never to return. "For," says John, "Jesus himself testified, that a prophet hath no honor in his own country." Therefore he went into other parts of Galilee. This view is made more probable by the fact that in going from Sychar to Cana, Jesus would pass either through, or very near to Nazareth, it lying almost directly between the two former places. See also Matthew 13:57; Mark 6:4, and Luke 4:24, in each of which passages the same statement is made as in verse 44 by John, and in each case refers to the rejection of Christ by the people of Nazareth.
The return of Jesus brings him once more in that part of Palestine in which his youth was passed and where, until the last year of his ministry, he did most of his teachings and wrought most of his miracles. Though Nazareth might be filled with narrow prejudice against the exalted claims of the boy who had grown up in the humble carpenter’s family, whom it had seen so often playing on its hills, or had beheld in his manhood working at the bench, and who, it knew, had never attended any of the great schools of Jewish theology, yet the Galileans, as a body, were far more disposed to listen with favor to his teachings than the proud Jews of the national capital. Though Galilee was not free from its conflicts, yet it furnished Christ all the apostles but one, and that one proved a traitor, and we find evidence that his teachings exerted a profound effect on the Galilean mind in the fact that, after his resurrection, "five hundred brethren at once" were permitted to behold the risen Lord in Galilee. The Galileans, remote from the influence of the temple, and brought into closer contact with Gentile influences, were less prejudiced and narrow, more simple in their faith, and of more open hearts than the Jerusalem Jews. It was among this teachable people that the Savior seemed to love to linger; there was Capernaum "his own city," there he fed the five thousand who attended his ministry on two different occasions, there the transfiguration occurred, there the enthusiastic multitudes sought to make him a king by force, and when on the last Sunday of his earthly ministry he made his entry as a king into Jerusalem, the multitude who surrounded him were mostly Galileans.
43. After two days he departed thence and went into Galilee. Two days were spent delightfully in sowing the seed of the kingdom in the "good ground" of the Samaritan hearts. Then he went on to Galilee, for which he had started, and which he had left about eight months before. Luke 4:14-15, which probably refers to this time, makes it probable that he spent a short time teaching elsewhere before reaching Nazareth.
44. For Jesus himself testified that a prophet hath no honor in his own country. The "for" explains why Jesus did not tarry at Nazareth, but went to other parts of Galilee and stopped at Capernaum. This statement of Jesus is recorded four times and in three of these certainly refers to the rejection of Jesus by his neighbors and kindred at Nazareth (see Matthew 13:57; Mark 6:4; Luke 4:24). This must be its meaning here, and is evidently based on the incident recorded in Luke 4:14-30. It declares a general truth. Judea persecuted Isaiah and Jeremiah; Israel, Elijah; Columbus had to go to a foreign land to got help to discover America. The interpretation of this passage, suggested by comparison with the parallel passages, that it explains his turning aside from Nazareth to sojourn elsewhere, is so easy and natural that it is a surprise to the writer that so many commentators reject it for far-fetched and complicated explanations.
45. When he was come into Galilee the Galileans received him. He had honor abroad in Galilee, though rejected at his own home. The ready reception of the Galileans is explained in the statement that they had seen all that he had done at the feast, his cleansing of the temple, and his miracles. John explains, for the benefit of Gentile readers, that "the Galileans also attended the feast," as was customary with all devout Israelites. The hearty reception of the Galileans is in striking contrast with the opposition of the priests, Levites and rulers of Jerusalem. This helps us to understand why Jesus spent so large a portion of his ministry in Galilee and selected Galileans for his apostles.
46. So Jesus came again to Cana, where he had made the water wine. It was the home of Nathanael, who, there is reason to believe, had followed him in his journey to Judea, and some think that it was now the home of Mary, but this is mere conjecture. And there was a certain nobleman, whose son was sick. The Greek word translated "nobleman" is Basileukos, from Basileus, a king, and implies one connected in some way with royalty. "Origen thinks he may have been one of Cæsar’s household, having business in Judea at this time. But the usage of Josephus is the safest guide. He uses the word Basileukos to distinguish the soldiers, or courtiers, or officers of the kings (Herod and others), but never to designate the royal family. He may have been Chuza, Herod’s steward (Luke 8:3), but this is pure conjecture. This man seems to have been a Jew.--"Alford. He was probably a king’s officer of Herod Antipas, tetrarch of Galilee, and was stationed at Capernaum. Capernaum. The site of this city, so interesting as the "Lord’s own city," his earthly home for two years of his ministry, is certainly known. That of Cana is in dispute, but it was probably distant twenty or twenty-five miles from the former. Cana was in the hill country; Capernaum, "down" on the shores of the Sea of Galilee. Hence Jesus is besought to "come down."
47. When he heard that Jesus was come out of Judea. Either he had been to Jerusalem to the feast, or he had heard of the deeds of Jesus from others. The fact that he comes, as soon as he heard of the return of the Lord, shows that he was already regarded as a prophet in Galilee. Note that: 1. The nobleman has already "faith as a grain of mustard seed" in Jesus; 2. That faith moves him to seek the aid of Jesus; 3. To make sure of his help he comes in person, instead of sending servants; 4. While he thought he could heal his son, he did not comprehend that it could be done unless Jesus came to where he was; 5. He thought it would be too late if the son died before his coming. His faith was very imperfect.
48. Except ye see signs and wonders, ye will not believe. Jesus had just come from Sychar where, without a miracle, but because his words and character met the needs of their souls, the people believed on him and declared him "the Christ, the Savior of the world." The nobleman, in his sore distress, has some faith, caused only by the fame of the "signs and wonders" wrought. His faith is still imperfect, far below the holy trust of the Samaritans. He is the type of a class whose belief depended on outward signs, while a higher, nobler faith, is that which recognizes in Jesus the Bread of life, that satisfies the hunger of the soul. A "sign" was a miracle wrought as a proof; the term "wonder" does not demand such a motive for the miracle.
49. Sir, come down ere my child die. Fearing, by the Savior’s reply, that he did not intend to grant his request, he makes an impassioned appeal. "Not a moment was to be lost. Soon it would be too late. Come down, at once, before the child is dead." Christ is educating his faith. It is made more complete by the next utterance.
50. Go thy way; thy son liveth. These words were spoken like the Son of God. There was no hesitation; no doubt; the fact is as firm as the hills of Cana. The manner of the Lord at once carried conviction to the heart of the sorrowing father. The man believed. At the time of his coming he had a partial belief that Jesus was a prophet; now he believes upon him; believes his word; believes that at the moment he said, "Thy son liveth," his disease was arrested. He did not comprehend the Savior’s mission and character, but he now had such faith in him that he was ready to accept all his words.
51. And as he was going down. He did not hurry back. He might have reached Capernaum the same evening, as the Savior had dismissed him at one o’clock, but his anxiety was gone. It was on the next morning that his servants met him with the good news that his son was well.
52. Yesterday, at the seventh hour, the fever left him. At the exact hour that Jesus had spoken the fever disappeared. The seventh hour is one o’clock.
53. Himself believed, and his whole house. Henceforth this household was among the believers. It is a natural and pardonable curiosity that leads us to seek their further history. He was an officer of Herod, and the fact that "Joanna, the wife of Chuza, Herod’s steward," was one who ministered to him in his Galilean ministry, has suggested that he may have been the nobleman. Acts 13:1, names Manaen, "who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch," as a prominent Christian of Antioch. He may have been the man whose son was healed.
54. This is again the second miracle. The word is "sign" in the Greek. He had wrought other miracles in Judea, but this was the second wrought in Galilee. The seat of the first was Cana; the Lord was at Cana when he wrought the second, but the subject of it was at Capernaum.
PRACTICAL OBSERVATIONS.
1. Christ is the Great Physician; the healer of the sickness of our souls.
2. He hears our prayers on his heavenly throne and from thence can say when we pray that our children may drink of the "living water," "Thy son liveth."
3. "Blessed are they who, not having seen, have believed," because they have found in Christ Him who meets every want of the soul.
4. How often those who have the best spiritual opportunities are slowest to appreciate them. R. G. Ingersoll was the son of a preacher. We have known many other preacher’s sons who were wicked blasphemers. The people of Nazareth rejected Christ. ’He came to his own and his own received him not.’ "Many shall come from the east and the west (from afar off), and sit down with Abraham, and Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven; but the children of the kingdom shall be cast out."
GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN
B.W. Johnson
JOHN CHAPTER FIVE
JESUS AT BETHESDA.
Thus far in his history of Christ John has followed the chronological order closely, and there is little difficulty in assigning the approximate date of each event. While he aims to select those events that illustrate his great aim, and often to supply what the other writers have omitted, rather than to give a full history, yet we can locate each occurrence in its proper connection until we come to the miracle at the pool of Bethesda. It occurred at "a feast of the Jews," on the occasion of the second visit of the Lord to Jerusalem after he began his ministry. It was after the occurrence at the well of Jacob, or the latter part of the fall, and before the feeding of the five thousand, which was about the first of April. This fact has made most commentators think that the feast attended was that of Purim, in early March. I do not harmonize with this view because, 1. The rigor of the season would have prevented the sick lying on couches exposed in the open air (John 5:3); 2. The short interval of three weeks to the passover makes it improbable that he would leave Jerusalem for a journey to Galilee; and, 3. The feast of Purim was not one ordained by the Jewish law, but an observance based on human tradition. The whole spirit of the Savior’s teaching was opposed to such observances, and in the absence of testimony, I cannot believe that he ever came to Jerusalem to attend a feast of this kind.
There is far greater probability that the passover named in John 6:4, was a year later and that a whole year of the Lord’s ministry had intervened in the interval. This is the view of Irenæus, Eusebius, Lightfoot, Neander, Greswell, and of Andrews. According to their view, Christ went to Galilee in December and returned in the spring to Jerusalem to attend his second passover. The passover was, of all Jewish festivals, that in which Christ showed the greatest interest. He attended one at twelve years of age, another when he drove out the money changers, and probably the third, at this time, just one year later, on his second visit to Judea. John names two more passovers after this that the Savior attended, making, with this, four after his ministry began, and five including the one when he was twelve years of age. This much is certain, that it was our Lord’s second visit to Jerusalem after his baptism, and that it occurred about a year after his first visit, as he had spent eight months in Judea, and a considerable time in Galilee, before his return.
The location of the pool of Bethesda cannot be certainly determined. There were various pools around Jerusalem which were used for bathing, and more than one now fed by intermittent springs which agitate the water at intervals. The portion beginning with "waiting for the moving of the water" in the third verse and including the fourth verse, is omitted by the Revised Version, is not found in the best manuscripts, and is evidently an interpolation by some monkish scribbler who wanted to explain his ideas of how the water was moved.
This passage in the life of Christ, apart from other interest, is deeply significant as the first conflict between Jesus and the authorities at Jerusalem. At his visit one year before they had questioned his proceedings. The miracle at the pool of Bethesda causes them to seek to kill him (John 5:18).
1. There was a feast of the Jews. John did not think it important to indicate what feast this was and we cannot certainly tell. It is remarkable that John in this case alone of all his allusions to Jewish feasts should have failed to give its name. Dr. William Milligan, in the International Lesson Commentary, suggests the following explanation of this omission: "Why did John, whose custom it is to mark clearly each festival of which he speaks (see John 2:13; John 2:23; John 6:4; John 7:2; John 10:22; John 11:55; John 12:1; John 13:1; John 18:39; John 19:14), write so indefinitely here? The only reply that it is possible is that the indefiniteness is the result of design. The Evangelist omits the name of the feast, that the reader may not attach to it a significance that was not intended. To John,--through clearness of insight, not from power of fancy,--every action of his Master was fraught with deep significance; and no one who receives the Lord Jesus as he received him can hesitate to admit in all his words and deeds a fulness of meaning, a perfection of fitness, immeasurably beyond what can be attributed to the highest of human prophets. Our Lord’s relation to the whole Jewish economy is never absent from John’s thought. Jesus enters the Jewish temple (John 2:4). His words can be understood only by those who recognize that he is himself the true temple of God. The ordained feasts of the nation find their fulfillment in him. Never, we may say, is any festival named in this Gospel in connection with our Lord, without an intention on the author’s part that we should see the truth which he saw, and behold in it a type of his Master or his work. If this be true, the indefiniteness of the language here is designed to prevent our resting upon the thought of this particular festival as fulfilled in Jesus, and lead to the concentration of our thought on the Sabbath shortly to be mentioned, which in this chapter has an importance altogether exceptional." Two things ought to be added: 1. That the whole conflict that follows is about the Sabbath; 2. The feast of Purim, could not be celebrated on the Sabbath.
2. There is at Jerusalem . . . a pool. It has been held that this language proves that John wrote before Jerusalem was destroyed. It only proves that he knew of the existence of such a pool and as far as he knew it still existed. Even if the city was destroyed the pools would mostly survive, and many exist to this day.
3, 4. In these lay a great multitude. All that follows "waiting" to the beginning of the 5th verse is wanting in the ancient manuscripts and is an interpolation. The efficacy of the pool might have been due to mineral elements, or even to effect on the imagination.
5. And a certain man was there, which had an infirmity thirty and eight years. In the porches around this pool a great number of afflicted persons were gathered on account of a belief that the waters had a miraculous virtue. The Scripture does not say (leaving out the interpolation) whether they had or not, but the multitude thought so. One was, probably, a paralytic who had been diseased thirty-eight years and had now been long waiting at the pool.
6. Wilt thou be made whole? On the Sabbath day, while Jesus was attending the feast, he walked out to the pool of Bethesda, and seeing this poor sufferer and knowing that he had long been there without relief, he asked him the above question. He certainly knew that the man would like to be healed, but he asked the question to secure the man’s attention. In almost every miracle he requires attention and an act of the will on the part of the subject. So in healing of sin, the will of the sinner must be reached and act, in order that he may be saved. "Almost every miracle is a parable of redemption."
7. I have no man, when the water is troubled, to put me into the pool. His attention was excited, but his only thought was of being healed by the pool. He explains that he has no man to put him into the pool, and his movements are so slow on account of his infirmity that someone else always anticipates him. His answer reveals the ideas that prevailed. The water was agitated at intervals, probably by an intermittent spring, and they supposed that the first one to enter after would receive the benefit. Only one could be healed at a time. No doubt many were, even without a miracle. In nervous diseases faith is the great healing power.
8. Rise, take up thy bed, and walk. Then came the command to rise and walk. When the Lord commanded there was always prompt obedience. He spoke not as man, but as the Son of God. He healed not by some other power, as did prophets and apostles, but by his own. His commands are always imperative, whether to the winds, the waves, the dead, the sick and infirm, and are always followed by immediate obedience. The powers of nature recognize it as the same voice that said, "Let there be light, and there was light." Note, however, that while Christ speaks with divine authority, the act of obedience is required. The man must rise, take up his bed, and walk. The bed was either a mattress which served as a couch by night and a seat by day, or a low bedstead. He was commanded to take it in order to emphatically show that he was a perfectly cured man.
9. Immediately the man was made whole. Nature always recognized Jesus at once as her King. There was no slow process of healing, but the cure was immediate. Lazarus came forth at once; the lame walked at his voice. This man at once heard the command, was whole, took up his bed and walked. The result seems like an echo of the command. Observe the process: 1. Christ addresses the Prayer of Manasseh 1:2. He commands; 3. The man obeys. It is the obedience of faith. 4. In the act of obedience he is healed. Christ is the healer, but he is healed by the obedience of faith.
10. The Jews, therefore, said unto him. "Therefore," points to the fact that he was carrying his bed on the Sabbath day. The term, "the Jews," does not refer to the people, but to the authorities. John always uses it to signify, not the multitude, but the rulers. The man was officially stopped and questioned. The bearing of burdens on the Sabbath was forbidden, not only by Jewish tradition, but by the law. See Exodus 31:13; Jeremiah 17:21 and Nehemiah 13:15-19. The Pharisees, however, had carried the matter to extremes never designed. Their doctors had gravely decided that "on the Sabbath a nailed shoe could not be worn; it was a burden; but an unnailed shoe could be worn; that a person could go with two shoes on, but not with only one; and that one man could carry a loaf of bread, but that two men could not carry it between them." The spirit of love, rest, worship and peace in the original Sabbath had given way to the iron bondage of formality. It was needful for one who was "Lord of the Sabbath" to teach them that "the Sabbath was made for man." These rigid martinets who delighted in frivolous minutiæ and forgot the spirit of the law, at once interrupted the man who was healed and accused him of breaking the law.
11. He that made me whole said unto me. The defense of the man is that he was ordered to do it. He knew not who had healed him. Christ had suddenly appeared, spoken the words of healing and then disappeared in the crowd. He had never seen the Lord before, and he was little known at Jerusalem, only having visited the city once before, since he began his ministry.
12. What man is it that said unto thee, Take up thy bed, and walk? This question betrays the narrow bigotry of these officials. They do not ask, "Who healed thee?" but confine themselves to the charge of Sabbath breaking. They care nothing that the man is healed, and would far rather that he was lying on his couch, sick, and unable to move, than that he should carry it on the Sabbath.
13. For Jesus had conveyed himself away. It is explained why the man did not know who healed him. As soon as Jesus spoke the words he disappeared in the multitude, none of whom probably knew him. In the later portion of his ministry crowds attended his footsteps and the whole land rang with his words and deeds, but at this stage he was comparatively unknown in Jerusalem. Christ never worked his miracles for popular applause or seemed to seek observation. The man had faith in him who commanded him to rise and walk, but had no idea who he was.
14. Afterward Jesus findeth him in the temple. The man probably went there, moved with gratitude, to give thanks for the great mercy he had received. Still the temple was the great place of public resort in Jerusalem of all classes; great crowds gathered there, and he may only have wished to see and mingle again among his fellows, and to visit scenes from which he had long been excluded. Sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee. His own sins, thirty-eight years before, had brought on his infirmity. What was their nature we are not informed, but we know that often our fleshly ills can thus be accounted for. The words of Jesus show to the man that he knew his whole life, and brought up a flood of memories. His sins when he was young had ruined his health; now he is well, but is warned to beware lest a worse thing come upon him.
15. The man departed, and told the Jews that it was Jesus. The second time he saw him he learned that it was Jesus. The authorities had demanded to know who it was that told him to "carry his bed;" in obedience to the demand when he had learned he told "who had made him whole." He had probably been charged to carry word and did so to exculpate himself. The Jews thought of the violation of the Sabbath; he thought of being made whole.
16. The Jews persecute Jesus. The word is literally rendered "pursued Jesus." At once they hunted him and attacked him. They did not at first "seek to slay him." This is omitted by the Revision and does not appear in the old manuscripts. But the officials now come to Jesus to learn why he has done this act. It is the second time they have met him face to face; the first time after he had cleansed the temple (John 2:14); then he had claimed authority over the temple as his Father’s house. Now he has laid his hand on the Sabbath day and claims to be its Lord. He had wrought the miracle on the Sabbath; commanded the man to take away his couch on the Sabbath; and in the wonderful address that he makes "to the Jews" justifies his course by the example of God, and makes "himself equal with God."
17. My Father worketh hitherto, and I work. The answer of Jesus to his accusers goes to the very root of the matter. The basis on which the Sabbath rested was that God had ceased his creative labors on the seventh day. Jesus shows that God’s rest was not idleness. His government, providence, and direction of nature were not suspended on the seventh day, or ever since creation. The Father had continued his works of love and mercy. He worked in these works right on till Jesus came; "now," says the Son, "I work as my Father works. There is no suspension on the Sabbath of works of benevolence and mercy." The Father’s example is the pattern given to direct man. By this example the work of love is never a violation of the true Sabbath law. Comparing with Matthew 12:8 and Mark 2:27, we deduce as the Savior’s teaching: 1. The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath; above it; can modify or change it at his will. 2. It was made for man; for all men; for the poor, the bond as well as the free. What helps man is lawful on the Sabbath. 3. The Father’s example is the true rule. He worked right on, but with a change of work. Work, like his, to help and bless humanity, is proper. It is rest that should be activity; a change from secular toil for our own interests, to work for the benefit of man. There is rest by a change of work to a higher kind of activity.
18. Because he not only had broken the Sabbath. The Pharisees were horrified, not only at what they deemed the breaking of the Sabbath, but at the high ground on which the Lord placed his defence. They could not understand how the Sabbath could be kept without placing the soul under bondage to outward forms. Jesus broke these bonds and gave the soul liberty, pointing out the essential spirit of the law, which consisted in following the divine pattern. The Pharisee would have kept this poor man on his bed all day watching it to keep it from being stolen; Christ bids him to take it to its proper place that he may appear in the temple and worship. The Pharisee would have placed him under a bondage that would have made the day one of secular anxiety; Christ frees him and allows him to keep the day in the worship of God. But said also that God was his Father. This high claim seemed to them blasphemous. They understood his language to mean that he was personally God’s own Son, therefore of Divine nature, and equal with God. They understood him aright, but such a claim seemed to them astounding and blasphemous. They regarded him only as a man, however wonderful, and for a man to claim that he was Divine! Hence "they sought the more to kill him." They did not undertake to carry out his death at once, for that was not possible save by outright murder, but to prepare the way for his condemnation. Over two years later it was on this very charge that he was condemned. When all other charges failed the high priest asked him if he was the Son of God, and when he affirmed, he cried, "He blasphemes," and the Sanhedrim voted," He is worthy of death."
PRACTICAL OBSERVATIONS.
1. Like our Savior we should seek out objects who need our help. There are the needy all around us. We cannot excuse ourselves because we do not see them. We should hunt them up.
2. Christ is the great Healer. He can heal us of the diseases that paralyze our souls. In order that he may heal us we must (1) Listen to him; (2) Believe in his words; (3) Obey him. Whatever he bids us do must be done.
3. Sin is pregnant with evil. Our calamities are almost all born of our own sins. Those who live debauched lives destroy their bodies. Most of those who live in constant bodily affliction can trace the origin of the trouble to their own acts. Sin will curse in this life and curse in the life to come. Jesus will save from the eternal curse of their sins all who come to him.
4. A law may be kept in the letter and yet violated in the spirit. Outward forms alone cannot serve God. A bondage to frivolous forms cannot enable us to keep the Lord’s day right. There must be the free spirit that seeks in all things to glorify God and bless man.
5. As Christ followed in the footsteps of the Father, so we must follow Christ. "It is lawful to do good" on the Lord’s day. Works of mercy and love are pleasing in the sight of God. We may relieve suffering, journey to worship, or bear burdens that will free us from cares that keep us from divine worship. It is better to ride on the street cars in order to attend church, than to break the Savior’s law by staying away.
6. Why did Jesus choose the Sabbath day to walk in the porches of Bethesda? He chose that day, and he selected that man, and he laid on him the command he did, for the very purpose of bringing himself front to front with the Jewish rulers. To this miracle we are indebted for one of the most wonderful discourses of the Savior.
7. According to rabbinical authorities it was forbidden to travel more than two thousand cubits on the Sabbath, to kill the most offensive kinds of vermin, to write two letters of the alphabet, to use a wooden leg or a crutch, to carry a purse, or for a woman to carry a seal-ring or a smelling-bottle, to wear a high head-dress or a false tooth. Among other restraints laid upon animals, the fat-tailed sheep was not allowed to use the little truck on which the tail was borne to save the animal from suffering. These are a portion of thirty-nine prohibitions of the same kind.--Canon Cook.
THE GLORY OF THE SON.
19. Then answered Jesus. To their charge that he was guilty of blasphemy in making himself equal with God. In his answer he abates nothing from the high claims he has just made, but he meets their thoughts and purposes by a justification. The Son can do nothing of himself. He asserts his Sonship, but shows that the power of the Son comes from the Father. Perfect Sonship involves perfect identity of will and action, and hence, "Whatsoever the Father doeth, these also doeth the Son."
20. He will show him greater works than these. The miracle of healing that has just occurred shall be followed by greater works which, on account of the love of the Father, the Son will be permitted to do.
21. So the Son quickeneth whom he will. The Father is the fountain of life, and can restore life to the dead. The Son possesses the same power and will show it forth.
22. Hath committed all judgment to the Son. In the 20th, 21st and 22d verses are given three proofs of the exaltation of the Son, all introduced by "for." The Son is loved of the Father, shall quicken the dead, and shall judge the world.
23. He that honoreth not the Son, honoreth not the Father. Because the Son speaks the words, does the works, and is the manifestation of the Father.
24. Hath everlasting life. The conditions of eternal life are (1) knowledge of the revelation of the Son; (2) a belief of it such as to cause its acceptance.
25. The dead shall hear the voice . . . and live. Primarily the reference is to those spiritually dead. They shall hear and the Son will give them eternal life. It was already true that these heard his words and were made alive. It shall also be true of those in the graves at the resurrection (John 5:28). The power of Christ to give life was shown in Jerusalem a little later in the case of Lazarus.
26, 27. Son of man. These verses affirm that God has not only given to the Son to have life in himself, or to be a fountain of life, but has also made him, the judge of mankind, because he is the Son of man, a judge who can share the nature of those called to judgment.
28. Marvel not at this. What marvel that the Son should give spiritual life to those dead in sins and sit as Judge, when even those in their graves shall come forth at his command? He who had power to rescue Lazarus from the grave, surely has the power to give life to the soul and to confer immortality.
29. And shall come forth. At the general resurrection all shall come forth from the tomb; those who have wrought good to life eternal; the evil doers to damnation. It is clear from this passage that there is a judgment beyond the grave.
30. As I hear, I judge. The judgment of the Son is based on a perfect knowledge of the will of the Father. It is the Father’s will that moves him, his own will being merged in the will of the Father.
31. If I bear witness of myself. I is the emphatic word and is equivalent to "I only." He’ cites other witnesses that these Jews ought to heed.
32. There is another that beareth witness of me. I believe the reference is to the Father, referred to again in verse 37. I think that verse 34 shows that he does not mean John.
33, 34, 35. Ye sent unto John and he bare witness. See John 1:19. John had borne positive testimony and the Jews, in great part, believed him to be a prophet of God. Jesus did not receive human testimony, but referred them to John’s witness that "they might be saved."
36. I have greater witness. His works. Christ’s life and deeds were a proof that the Jews could not answer. See John 3:2.
37. And the Father himself . . . hath borne witness. God hath borne witness in the prophecies that were so wonderfully fulfilled in Christ, he also bore witness in the power he gave to Christ, and he bore witness by his voice at his baptism, and after this date, at the transfiguration, though these Jews had neither seen nor heard.
38. Ye have not his word abiding in you. The proof of it was that they did not believe the one whom God had sent, though the word bore continual witness to him.
39. Search the Scriptures. Or rather, "ye search the Scriptures" for eternal life. Yet those Scriptures were full of the testimony of Christ. Of him had all the prophets borne witness. He of whom the Scriptures spoke was the Life, yet they refused to come to him that they
40. Might have life. They turned away from the life that was in their own Scriptures. The word search implies painstaking, exhaustive examination.
41. I receive not honor from men. This seems to connect itself with a thought which he detected in their hearts that he had rebuked them from disappointment.
42, 43. I know you. He read their hearts. The love of God. Love of God is always manifest in obedience to his will. The rejection of Christ, who came in the Father’s name, was proof that they were without the love of God. They rejected the Christ of God, but would readily follow a human deceiver. This was verified in their history.
44. How can ye believe? They sought human glory and elevation, and hence could not be of the contrite and lowly spirit needful for belief.
45. Do you think that I will accuse you? Moses will be their accuser. They had failed to keep the spirit of the law, or to accept his testimony.
46, 47. Had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me. Moses recorded various prophecies that were fulfilled in Christ, and all the types, shadows and symbols pointed to him. Had they believed Moses they ought to have accepted Christ. The reader should note the reverence with which Christ always alludes to the writings of Moses. The fault that he charges upon the Jews is not that they reverence Moses too highly, but that they disregard his sayings. There is not the slightest intimation that he regarded the Pentateuch aught else but the genuine composition of Moses. Those critics of our times, who profess a profound reverence for the authority of Christ, but insist that the books assigned to Moses are frauds of a later age than his time, should learn a lesson from the example of Christ.
PRACTICAL OBSERVATIONS.
1. Unbelief is due to the heart rather than to the mind. The unbeliever chooses unbelief. Christ said of the Jews: Ye will not believe.
2. Sonship implies the reproduction of the Father’s will in the Son. If we are the children of God our will must be lost, in his. Every child of God will pray, "Thy will be done."
3. The prophets, John, the Father himself, his own sinless life, his divine wisdom, his superhuman power, and his ability to transform the souls of men and to give them a new life, all bear witness that Jesus is the Son of God.
4. Christ is our life. He has power to quicken the soul into new life, to make it a new creature and to give it a deathless existence. This stupendous and beneficent result is due to "hearing his voice." "They that hear shall live." They that "have ears and hear not" will remain in death. Every "one that hath ears let him hear."
GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN
B.W. Johnson
JOHN CHAPTER SIX
THE HISTORY OF A YEAR.
If the view that I have adopted concerning the time of the healing of the impotent man at the pool of Bethesda is correct, John leaves a whole year of the ministry of Christ, that between the Lord’s second passover and the third, which is named in the present chapter, to be supplied from the other Evangelists. That year was one of activity. Following the chronological table of Andrews, given in the Appendix, and referring to the three preceding Gospels, we trace the Savior from the passover in April to Galilee in the latter part of the month, where he enters vigorously upon his ministry, as though the fierce opposition from the religious authorities at the capital of the nation had only incited him to a more determined effort to win Galilee to the gospel. Making Capernaum his home, from thence he made the circuit of the province, teaching and healing. At an early period of the year occurred the miracle of the first draught of fishes in the Sea of Galilee. Immediately after it four fishermen, James and John, Andrew and Peter were called upon to leave their nets and follow him; the next Sabbath he healed a man with an unclean spirit in the synagogue of Capernaum; shortly after Peter’s wife’s mother was cured of a fever; and then followed many miracles of which the details are not given. Shortly after a leper was healed in a "certain city;" then one palsied who was let down through the roof, whose healing offended the Scribes because Jesus said to the paralytic: "Thy sins be forgiven thee." Next comes the call of Matthew, also called Levi, the publican, who left the receipt of custom to follow the Master, and then on a Sabbath the Pharisees were greatly offended because on that day he healed a man with a withered hand, and "they took counsel with the Herodians against him how they might destroy him." On this account he drew himself off into retirement for a season but was still sought by the multitudes. After a night of lonely prayer on a Galilean mountain he called the twelve Apostles, probably in the summer of A. D. 28, and soon after preached the wonderful sermon, known as the Sermon on the Mount, which has for fifteen hundred years been the basis of the moral systems of the world. Soon after he returned to Capernaum where he healed the servant of the centurion, and the day after went to Nain where be raised the dead son of a widow as he was on the bier being carried to the tomb. About this time John, who was now in Herod’s prison, sent disciples to Jesus to inquire of him concerning his mission, probably not so much to satisfy John himself as to direct his disciples to Christ. Afterwards, in the house of a Pharisee, a sinful woman anointed his head with ointment and washed his feet with tears, giving occasion to an impressive lesson. Then follows a circuit of Galilee, preaching and healing, in which he was attended by the twelve and certain women whom he had healed and who ministered to him of their substance. During this circuit he preached much, uttered many parables, and left many precious words of which we have a record. In the autumn he stilled a tempest as he crossed the Sea of Galilee to Gadara, and there healed the demoniacs. On his return to Capernaum he attended Matthew’s feast, healed the woman with the issue of blood, raised the daughter of Jairus, healed two blind men, and sent out the twelve to preach the coming kingdom. This probably occurred in the winter and later in the season occurred the murder of John the Baptist, the return of the twelve from their preaching tour, the news of Herod’s desire to see Christ, and then, probably in the latter part of March or early April, the Savior retired from Herod’s jurisdiction to a desert district belonging to Bethsaida, where the five thousand were fed.
This summary of the history of the year demonstrates its intense activity, the growing influence of Christ, and the growing intensity of the hatred of his enemies.
THE FIVE THOUSAND FED.
This miracle is the only one recorded by all the Evangelists, and as the details vary somewhat, a study of all the accounts (Matthew 14:13-21; Mark 6:30-44; Luke 9:10-17) is needful to get the entire history. At Jerusalem, in the last chapter, Christ revealed himself as the Giver of life; here in Galilee he shows himself as the Support and Guide of life.
1. After these things. If I am correct in regarding the feast at which the miracle of Bethesda was wrought, the passover, this incident is about a year after. We are aided in locating it by the account of Matthew. He declares that Christ had just heard that John the Baptist was put to death. It is agreed by the most judicious scholars that John was beheaded about the third year of Christ’s ministry. This began some months before his first passover, when he cleansed the temple; the miracle of Bethesda was at his second passover and in the second year of his ministry; this passover season (see verse 4) was in the third year. The date of this miracle tends to confirm the view that the feast of John 5:1 was the passover. Jesus went over the Sea of Galilee. Matthew (Matthew 14:13) says that he went because he heard that Herod had slain John. He wished to have a season of retirement, probably for reflection, and he went out of Herod’s jurisdiction. Mark indicates (Mark 6:30) that he retired for rest. Luke adds a fact that helps us to understand the reason. He says, "Herod sought to see Jesus." The news of the death of the Baptist, of the design of Herod to see him, the return of the Twelve from their mission (Luke 9:10), and the need of rest all co-operated to cause him to seek the wilderness over the sea. Sea of Tiberias. Another name of the Sea of Galilee at that time better known to Gentile readers.
2. And a great multitude followed. When the death of the Baptist occurred the popularity of Jesus was at its height in Galilee. Great multitudes follow him wherever he goes, and so throng him that he has no leisure even to eat. From every part of the land they come to listen to his teachings and to be healed. Nor may we ascribe this concourse merely to curiosity and selfishness.
3. And Jesus went up into a mountain. The mountains on the eastern shore of the sea rise to the height of nearly two thousand feet above the level of the water. The region was uninhabited, and therefore a quiet place for communing with his disciples, and rest.
4. And the passover, a feast of the Jews, was nigh. This statement gives us a note of time and shows that the country was green with the freshness of spring. It was not far from April 1st, and the trees were in full leaf. The proximity of the greatest of the festivals that were celebrated at Jerusalem (the passover, which began that year A. D. 29, on April 17th), would give occasion for a large increase of visitors around Galilee, as the crowds gathered for the journey. The gathering at such a time of a crowd of 5,000 men, attracted by so famous a teacher, is not incredible. The mention of the passover is an aid to the chronology of the Lord’s ministry. The feast named in John 5:1 could hardly be that of Purim, for then he would not have left Jerusalem before the passover, it following only about a month later. If that feast was a passover, we have now reached a period of two years from the passover at which he cleansed the temple (John 2:13). It is clear that the feast, now so near at hand, was not attended by the Savior, the only one that he seems to have omitted during his ministry. Perhaps the plots to kill him when last in Jerusalem explain his absence. "His hour was not yet come."
5. When Jesus lifted up his eyes and saw a great company. The other historians tell us that he was filled with compassion. They were destitute of teachers. They had no guides but the blind Scribes and Pharisees. They had no spiritual food but man-made traditions. Let us never forget that our Lord is the same yesterday, to-day, and forever. He never changes. High in heaven at God’s right hand he still pities the ignorant and them that are out of the way. Whence shall we buy bread? He had spent the greater part of the day in teaching and healing. As the evening came his disciples came to him asking him to dismiss the multitude that they might return to the villages and procure food, and probably as a result of their importunity he asked this question of Philip.
6. He himself knew what he would do. He was in no perplexity as to what would be done, though he asked the question. He often asked questions for the sake of their moral effect upon others.
7. Two hundred pennyworth of bread is not sufficient for them. This sum is mentioned mainly because it was an estimate of how much it would cost to give each one a little (John 6:7). Some have supposed that this is the amount of money they had in their common treasury, but it seems rather to be mentioned as a sum beyond their ability to pay. It was equal to $30, or £6, 5s.; a large amount of money then, since a denarius, or "penny," was the hire of a day’s labor. The penny, or denarius, was about seventeen cents, and was equivalent to about one dollar now, so that the whole sum would reach $200.
8. One of his disciples, Andrew, . . . saith. The answer of Andrew is to the question of the Savior reported in Mark 6:38. He bade them to examine and report what food they have, and Andrew replies that a lad has five loaves and two fishes.
9. Five barley loaves and two small fishes. The loaves here were of barley-meal made into small, thin cakes, baked hard on the side of the oven, so as to be broken. Probably this was the whole stock of provisions then at the command of the disciples--no more than enough for one meal to them. The fishes were salt and dried, and used for a relish, according to a common custom of the country. Plain common food. Barley was the food only of the lower classes. It was a very small amount, as is shown by the fact that a "lad," a "little boy" in the Greek, carried them. What were they among so many?
10. Make the men sit down. We learn from Mark that they sat down in companies. Our word parties, in its convivial acceptation, is, as nearly as possible, a reproduction of the original term. The multitude was to be arranged in a suite of parties, no doubt semicircularly adjusted, after the form of Roman triclinia, or Grecian symposia. Such a semicircular or three-sided style of parties had become common among the Jews, being adopted from the Greeks and Romans; and hence the frequent reference, in the New Testament, to reclining at meals. There was much grass there. It was in Nisan, "the month of flowers," and the slopes were rich with the soft green of the spring grass. About five thousand. Thus there was one loaf to every thousand men. Matthew adds, "besides women and children," of whom there were doubtless many. It was customary then, as now, in the East, for men to eat alone, reclining, and the women and children by themselves, sitting. It was easy to number the men, who were arranged in companies of hundreds and fifties; but not the women and children, who perhaps sat around promiscuously.
11. When he had given thanks. It was held by the Jews, that "he who partakes of anything without giving thank acts as if he were stealing it from God." The prayer of thanks was always pronounced by the father of the family; and Jesus never neglects it, nor ought any Christian.
12. Gather up the fragments that remain. God does not allow wastefulness. Nature wastes nothing, not an ounce of matter. It is the waste of man that causes want. There is food enough for all. The waste of our nation is appalling;--$800,000,000 per year on liquor; $50,000,000 on tobacco, besides all the extravagance of life. Christ bids us save; save the fragments. It is by wasting the fragments that the great wastes occur.
13. Filled twelve baskets with the fragments. Only one basket in the beginning, but twelve after all were fed. Baskets were taken by Jews on journeying, to carry their provisions, etc., that they might not have to depend on Gentiles, and so incur the risk of ceremonial pollution.
14. Of a truth this is that prophet. The long expected prophet, foretold Deuteronomy 18:15-16, and referred to by the delegation sent to visit John the Baptist (John 1:21). This expected prophet was to be the king of Israel, the head of the kingdom of God on the earth. In other words they said: "This is the Christ."
15. Perceived that they would come and take him by force, and make him a king. Convinced that he was Christ, they sought to proclaim him king, to raise his standard, and establish his government. This miracle worked up to the highest pitch their enthusiasm in behalf of the recognition of Jesus as the Messiah. Might not this, indeed, be taken as the commencement of his reign? Hitherto his acts had been those of individual beneficence. But here was a public act, performed in the sight of thousands, and of which thousands had shared the benefit. Who so fit to be their king as he who could banish want and labor from their borders, and revive the good old times when their fathers were fed by bread from heaven? To escape their well meant efforts Jesus retired to a mountain alone. We learn from Mark that he went to pray.
16. When even was come his disciples went down to the sea. They were sent down. See Matthew and Mark. The disciples were probably ready to join the people in an enterprise which would fulfil their remaining carnal expectations regarding the Messiahship of their Master. Hence our Lord dismissed them, sending them where they would feel the need of his presence.
17. Entered a ship. A fishing boat large enough to carry a dozen persons, but not too large to be propelled by oars. To Capernaum. Mark says to Bethsaida, but this was on the way to Capernaum. Mark names the first landing place, but John the end of the journey.
18. The sea rose by reason of a great wind. Sudden gusts are common on the Sea of Galilee. Prof. McGarvey reports one that caught his party on the same sea. The winds rush down from the mountains of Lebanon or up the Jordan Valley. Thompson says he encountered one of such fury that no rowers could row a boat across the lake.
19. Rowed five and twenty or thirty furlongs. About three or three and a half miles. The lake is here about six miles wide. They were about the middle of the lake. It was about three o’clock in the morning. They had toiled nearly through the night, but could make no headway against the wind and waves. Walking upon the sea. The words, "walking on the sea," are common to the Evangelists, and can have no other meaning here than that the Lord walked bodily on the surface of the water.--Alford. We may see in it something like an anticipation (not unconnected, it may be, with the intensity of that crisis in his life) of that spiritual body of which we see another manifestation in the transfiguration, and which became normal after the resurrection, reaching its completeness in the wonder of the ascension.--Ellicott. They were afraid. Mark says, They cried out in fright. They regarded the appearance seen through the darkness an apparition and thought it a harbinger of evil.
20. It is I; be not afraid. This is the gospel message of peace, on the ground--the simple ground--"It is I." Christ’s presence is peace to the soul.--Jacobus. How often has he to speak this word of encouragement, even to his own! almost always when they are brought suddenly, or in an unusual way, face to face with him! It is I. Literally, I am. The same language used by Jesus in Jerusalem (John 8:58), for which the Pharisees would have stoned him, and in the Old Testament to designate Jehovah (Exodus 3:14). Here I should prefer to give it this meaning: Christ says not merely, "It is I, your Friend and Master;" he says, at least implies, it is the "I AM," who is coming to you, the Almighty One who rules wind and waves, who made them, and whom they obey.--Abbott.
21. He went up . . . into the ship. John says, "they willingly received him;" and, on account of the wind abating, they came at once to port. Christ’s getting in the ship was their salvation. He can both calm the tempest round us, and carry us safe to heaven. Immediately the ship was at the land. Unless the word "immediately" has more latitude than is common with us, this implies another miracle.
PRACTICAL OBSERVATIONS.
1. He who could make the grain grow could also multiply the loaves.
2. Our duties and our privileges are not measured by what we can do of ourselves, but by what God is willing to do through us. We cannot turn the machinery of the factory, but we can let the water on to the wheel. We cannot push the steamship across the ocean, but we can let on the steam for the engine to do it.
3. By feeding the hungry bodies of men we often get access to their souls. This has been well illustrated in the famines of India and China.
4. Jesus had bidden the disciples to cross the sea. It ought to have comforted them, to remember that he himself had constrained them to enter into the ship. They were evidently in the path of duty. How, then, could any evil befall them? It is a great comfort to us when we can feel sure that we are doing the will of God; for, whatever trouble may threaten us, we can trust Jesus to bring relief in the storm.
5. We often learn more of faith in one month of darkness and storm, than in years of sunshine. When God would prepare us for higher work, for sweeter peace, for clearer light, he brings them by an increase of faith, and increases our faith by trying our faith.
6. Jesus sometimes leaves us alone, that we may know ourselves and our own weakness, but he never leaves us out of sight.--Quesnell.
7. There are often "contrary winds," even in the way of duty. We must expect them, and not be discouraged, nor turn out of the way.
JESUS THE BREAD OF LIFE.
The reader should note the progressive revelation of the divine majesty of Christ as unfolded by John. In the temple at his first passover, he asserted his authority over his "Father’s house;" at his second passover he demonstrated his power over diseases and gave intimation of his coming dominion over the grave; in his miracle of the loaves and fishes he revealed the secret that his hand gave the increase of the earth and seas, while the quelling of the storm on Galilee showed that the winds and the seas obeyed his voice. In the discourse that follows he proclaims himself the Bread of life.
After the feeding of the 5,000 the apostles embark in their boat; Christ goes up into the hills to pray; the people linger awhile for his return, then conclude that he has returned to Capernaum, and go back to Capernaum themselves; on the following Sabbath morning he enters the synagogue; their astonishment at his approach is great; they break out in questioning, How did you get here? His answer diverts them from mere astonishment to a serious consideration of spiritual truth: "Ye are seeking me, not because of the evidence I have given of my divine commission, but because ye did eat of the loaves and were filled. Labor not for the meat (food) that perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life."--Abbott. This gives occasion for one of the remarkable discourses that occur so frequently in John’s gospel. There is no reason to believe that we have more than a condensed report. The whole discourse can be read in five minutes, and it is likely that the Savior occupied much more time in its delivery.
22. The day following. The day after the miracle, when five thousand were fed, and after the night storm on the sea of Galilee. "The people who had stood on the other side and been fed," remained awhile because there were no other vessels, and the more willingly, because they raw that Jesus had not gone with his disciples.
23. There came other boats from Tiberias. Tiberias was the largest city on the sea, built by Herod, and named after Tiberius Cæsar. Herod Antipas usually occupied it as his capital. It was a place the Lord never entered, though often near it. It is explained that vessels came from there to the place where Christ had fed the five thousand, by which many of them returned to Capernaum. Others had probably dispersed to the neighboring towns and villages, but Capernaum was "on the other side of the sea."
24. Came to Capernaum, seeking Jesus. As they did not see the Lord longer on the eastern shore, they sought him at the place where he made his home. These seekers were deeply impressed by the miracle of the day before, and were among those who would have made him king. They were eager to again And him, follow him, be fed by him, and partake of his glory.
25. Rabbi, when camest thou hither? While they had come to Capernaum seeking him, they were astonished to find him there. He had not crossed the sea with his disciples; he had not come with them; how and when did he come? Of course they had not seen him walking the waves in the darkness.
26. Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles. The Savior reveals to them the true motives which induced them to seek him. They may not have been aware themselves of the fact that they were led by selfish purposes, a desire of temporal benefits. They followed him, not because they saw in him "that prophet who should come into the world," but because he supplied their lowest needs. Henry says: "Not because he taught them, but because he fed them; not for love, but for loaves. Thus do all who seek in religion secular advantages and follow Christ for the sake of secular preferments." People are more clamorous for earthly bread, than anxious concerning food for their souls.
27. Labor not for the meat that perisheth. The Savior does not prohibit laboring for food, but making the acquisition of food and worldly things the leading object of life. He means: Do not manifest a chief anxiety for bodily food, for the food that perishes with the using, but rather seek the meat that endureth to eternal life. The food of the soul; the Bread of Life. He had discoursed with the woman at Sychar of that which imparted eternal life to the soul under the similitude of water: he here speaks of the same things under the similitude of food. Our Lord bids us work for the food of eternal life. How few are doing it! This food he declares that the Son of Man will give. Him hath the Father sealed. Sealing is the mark of approval, of authority. A legal document must bear the seal of the State to give it force. The Father had commissioned, authorized, and stamped his seal upon the work of the Son. His miracles were a divine seal. In the East a document was always authenticated by the seal of the maker, instead of by the signature of a name, as with us.
28. What shall we do, that we might work the works of God. These seekers of Christ are eager for more information. He had bidden them work for the food of eternal life. What works then shall they do that they may please God and receive the divine gift? The word work had impressed their minds. They had been painfully keeping the law and the rabbinical precepts in the hope that thus they should do the works of God. If, however, there was something more, if Jesus had requirements that would impart to them a share in the kingdom, they wished to know of them. Their question shows a teachable disposition.
29. This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent. They are startled by hearing that to please God the first requirement is faith in Christ. This is "the work of God" that pleases him. "Without faith it in impossible to please God." It is not works, but one work, that is required, a faith that will enable them to lay hold upon, follow in all things, and appropriate to the souls, him who is the Bread of Life. From such faith would spring a Christlike life. Pharisees, Romanists and Pagans have ever sought to "do the works of God" by pilgrimages, penances, vows, and mortifications. So Luther thought to do as he climbed on his knees up Pilate’s staircase at Rome, and heard the words coming to him like the voice of God: "The just shall live by faith."
30. What sign showest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? He had pointed to himself as the object of faith, making his claim such as had never been made by mortal man. He had spoken of his seal, or sign. They ask now for a sign. The miracle of the day before had excited their surprise, but had not yet satisfied them that eternal life was to be found by believing in him as the Son of man sent by God. What mighty work can he do that will carry conviction?
31. Our fathers did eat manna in the wilderness. He may have fed a few thousands on the day before, but what was that to the feeding of the whole host of Israel for forty years in the wilderness? Is he as great a leader as Moses in whose time the manna fell? The sign they suggest shows that Christ had read their hearts when he said that they sought him because of the loaves and fishes.
32. Moses gave you not that bread from heaven. It was not Moses, with whom they were disposed to compare him, that furnished the manna in the wilderness, but the Angel of the Lord. This Angel of the covenant is supposed, from Malachi 3:1, to have been Christ. If so, not Moses, but "the prophet like unto Moses," was the dispenser of the bread from heaven, that sustained old Israel while journeying to the Promised Land. He still feeds the Israel of God on its way to the heavenly Canaan. My Father giveth you the true bread from heaven. The true bread is not the manna. That perished like all earthly food. The true bread is for the soul instead of the body. It satisfies the soul’s hunger and keeps it alive. The Father gives it by sending the Son, the true Bread of Life. Of the true bread the manna was a type.
33. The bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven. He here defines the marks of the true bread: 1. It comes from heaven; 2. It bestows life upon the soul and sustains it; 3. It is for the world, not for a single race. The manna did not last longer than a single day; all who ate it died; it was for a single nation. These things are not true of the bread of God. God feeds his people, not with bread made on earth, but prepared by his own hands from heavenly materials.
34. Lord, evermore give us this bread. One cannot fail to see the resemblance to the case of the woman of Sychar. There the emblem is water, here bread; there Christ offers water that will permanently satisfy the soul’s thirst, here food that satisfies its hunger; there the woman asks for this water, here they ask for this bread, not yet fully comprehending what it is. Like Ponce de Leon, who sought the fountain of immortal youth in Florida, they thought that this food would literally make them immortal and eagerly clamored for such a boon.
35. Jesus says, I am the bread of life. They ask for this bread. He answers, It is here; I am that bread. The work of God is that you receive it by believing upon him whom he hath sent. He that cometh to me shall never hunger. He that cometh shall not hunger; he that believeth shall not thirst. It is thus shown that faith is the power that brings us to Christ. We come to him by believing. They who thus come will have their souls satisfied, and they who abide with him shall not hunger or thirst more. "Coming" and "believing in" are clearly equivalent to "eating" and "drinking."
36. I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not. They had asked a work in order that they might believe, which was a confession of their unbelief. They ask for the bread of life, but they can only partake of it by believing in him. He therefore points out the one obstacle to obtaining what they had just asked for.
37. All that the Father giveth me will come to me. Christ here, as elsewhere, shows that the power is of the Father. The Jews may reject him, but all whom the Father gives, of every race, will come to him. The whole body of believers, Gentiles as well as the Jews, are given to the Son by the Father. Christ is God’s gift to men, but the believers are his gift to Christ. "The gift of the Father must not be understood of a predestinating decree. Here, and in other passages, when we read of God giving his Son to his people it is the moral and spiritual state of the heart that is thought of under the word. This state of heart by which they are induced to listen to the voice of Jesus is due to God alone." Schaff. I will in no wise cast out. Every one that cometh is sure of a hearty welcome. No suppliant, however humble or despised, is rejected.
38. For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will. Christ will refuse none who come to him; all such are given by the Father and he came to do the Father’s will. He did not come to choose such followers only as were congenial to him, nor to follow his own inclinations, but to do the Father’s will, which was that he should save the world. All was to be subordinated to this purpose.
39. That of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing. He would not cast out any one coming to him, for such were given of the Father, and his will was that the Son should lose none of those given, but should raise every soul at the last day. Whoever receives the Son hath life eternal, and at the last day the Son raises such because they have eternal life. Those "given," "come" to Christ, but they must "abide" in him, if they would continue to live.
40. This is the will of the Father. The will of the Father is paramount. That will is that "everyone who sees the Son and believes upon him," thus coming to, following and abiding in him, feeding upon him as the soul’s food, should have eternal life, and that in the resurrection day Christ should raise him from the grave. These verses show, 1. That there is not any secret decree of election. The will of the Father applies to every one who believes upon the Song of Solomon 2:1-17. The condition of eternal life is a faith that leads to and appropriates Christ; that makes him the Lord of the soul. 3. Christ hath brought to light immortality. He is "the resurrection and the life." He says, "I will raise him at the last day." He is the life of the world, and in eternity all will praise him as the true Bread of Life that came down from heaven.
PRACTICAL OBSERVATIONS.
1. Too many seek Christ for the loaves and fishes. Persons often choose a church to improve their social condition, or to secure a professional practice, or to build up a trade. It is said that A. T. Stewart, when starting in business, carefully selected out a church that he thought would furnish him patronage in business. Such motives are sordid and carnal.
2. The Lord has made it needful that we should labor for food, but this should not be the great object of life. The body and its food will perish; the soul can abide forever. We should work to procure the food that will enable it to enjoy eternal life.
3. God hath sent down the Bread of Life from heaven. Nothing else will satisfy the soul. It may feed on the husks of pleasure, or applause, or show and pride, and yet perish with hunger. Why should ye seek that which is not bread and satisfies not?
4. "If any man be idle and gluttonous, and careth for luxury, that man worketh for the meat that perisheth. So, too, if a man by his labor should feed Christ, and give him drink, and clothe him, who is so senseless and mad as to say that such an one labors for the meat that perisheth, when there is for this the promise of the kingdom that is to come and its good things? This meat endureth forever."--Chrysostom.
5. That is food which sustains life. Bread, as the great life sustainer, is called the staff of life. To the hungry nothing is so precious. Once a hungry Arab on the desert sought a spring of which he knew to quench his thirst. As he rose he saw a bag, dropped by some traveler, and he joyfully exclaimed, "Here is food." Eagerly he tore it open, and then in bitter disappointment he cried, "Alas, it is only pearls!" Nothing will feed the soul but Christ. To the hungry soul he is more precious than the gems of Golconda.
6. To feed on the Bread of Life we must come to Christ. We come by hearing and believing upon him. The evidence of our real belief upon him is the surrender of our lives to his will. Those who thus believe, he will never cast out; he invites all such to his arms; they feed upon him by faith and make his life their life. They have eternal life for he will raise them at the last day.
7. Bread is a dead thing in itself; the life it supports it did nothing to originate. But the bread from heaven brings with it the life it afterwards sustains.--Hanna.
FEEDING UPON CHRIST.
At this point our Lord’s discourse is interrupted. Hitherto he had been addressing the multitude; now for the first time we read "the Jews," which, as already explained, means adherents of the ruling party which was violently hostile to Christ. Whether these Jews were among the multitude hitherto addressed in this discourse we cannot tell. If so, they had not made themselves prominent and were lost in the crowd. It may be that the regular discourse in the synagogue ended with verse 40, that these official "Jews" were not present, but were soon informed of what he said, and came with their objections. Or, they may have been in the synagogue and kept silence to this point. They may have been sent from Jerusalem to watch Jesus. Mark 3:22 and Mark 7:1 distinctly intimate that Scribes came from Jerusalem to Galilee, and the phrase "the Jews" seems to convey a kind of official meaning. Since the term "Jews" describes, not Galileans, but natives of Judea, it is applied by John, almost without exception, to those connected in some way with the authorities at Jerusalem, and since also, we learn from the passages just cited that officials came from Jerusalem to take note of the words and acts of the Galilean prophet, it is probable that these "Jews" were representatives of the authorities at the Capital. If this view is correct, of which there can hardly be a doubt, it shows the jealousy with which the Sanhedrim watched over Jesus during his entire ministry in Galilee, as well as Judea.
41. The Jews murmured. They found fault and tried to raise discontent among those who had listened willingly to Christ.
42. Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph? If he was Joseph’s son, how could he have come from heaven, or be bread from heaven? Their argument is that he was human born and, hence, only a man. They were, no doubt, ignorant of the miraculous conception, and Christ never refers to it in his teachings. He did not bear witness of himself.
43. Murmur not among yourselves. The reply of Jesus is a rebuke. These men were not honest inquirers but cavilers.
44. No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him. Two elements are concerned in coming to Christ, the human will and the divine drawing. No man comes unless he wills to come. It was the charge of Christ against the Jews: "Ye will not come to me that ye might have life" (John 5:40). In Matthew 23:37 he exclaims to Jerusalem: "How often I would have gathered your children . . . but ye would not." A man can refuse to come and God does not compel, but he says "whosoever will, let him come and partake of the water of life freely." This is the human side. On the divine side God "draws," not so as to coerce the human will, but to induce the desire to come. "The gospel is the power of God unto salvation." It is the drawing power. It draws by its manifestation of the love of God, by its revelation of the crucified Savior, and his adaptation to the needs of the soul. God often mellows the human heart by his providences so that it becomes a fit soil for the Word, and by the gospel, the sword of the Spirit, his providence, the invitations of the Spirit, he "draws" men. If our will consents, and we yield to the drawing, we come. If we "will not," and refuse to be drawn, we do not come. The ball that I hold in my hand is "drawn" to the earth by attraction but is kept away by another force. So, too, the sinner may be "drawn" by the influence that the Father exerts, but, under the influence of other forces, refuse to be drawn to Christ.
No man comes to the Son unless he yields his own will and is drawn by the love of the Father. I will raise him. The Father draws the soul to Christ; then the Son takes up the work and will raise him from the dead.
45. It is written in the prophets, They shall be all taught of God. Christ makes more explicit how the Father draws. It is by teaching men. All taught of God, who "have heard and learned of the Father," come to the Son. It is what they learn from the Father that makes them willing to come.
46. Not that any man hath seen the Father. Men do not learn of the Father by seeing and hearing him personally, but they learn the Father’s will and words from the Son.
47. He that believeth. Here he returns to his former subject and affirms that belief in himself is the source of life.
48, 49, 50, 51. I am that bread of life. The multitude had spoken of the manna given to their fathers. They had all perished, for it was not the bread of life, and could not communicate life, but the true Bread was that which came from heaven, the appropriation of which would impart immortality because it had life in itself. He is that Bread. If a man eat of this bread, he shall live forever. He now goes one step further, and declares that that bread is his flesh.
52. The Jews strove among themselves. They could not comprehend what had just been said, and they discussed how Jesus "could give his flesh to eat."
53. Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. The Jews had already stumbled over the statement that his flesh must be eaten, but the Savior, as was his custom (see the case of Nicodemus and the woman of Sychar), reiterates his statement in still stronger language. Not only must his flesh be eaten, but they must drink his blood if they would have life, a startling statement to those who had not learned the lesson of the cross, and one that has caused no little discussion in the Christian world. Let us seek his meaning. He had revealed himself already as the Life. In some way he would give immortality to those who partook of his life. He had declared himself to the Samaritan woman as the giver of the Water of life, and in this discourse, as the Bread of life. He had plainly taught that the partakers of himself, the Water of life, the Bread of life, should have eternal life. But how shall that Bread be eaten, or in other words, how shall mortals so partake of Christ as to receive the life he had himself, and thus have eternal life? The answer is that they must eat his flesh and drink his blood, but how? Those who accept the doctrine of transubstantiation assert that this is done in the Lord’s Supper; that the bread and wine are literally transformed into the flesh and blood of Christ, and thus his flesh and blood are eaten and drunk. Others affirm that his language is parabolic, and that he means that the emblems that represent his body and blood must be appropriated. I believe that he means that every man must become a partaker of the benefits of his death, his slain body and shed blood, by an appropriation of them to himself, in order to live. It is only after his death that his flesh can be said to be eaten. The flesh of animals we eat is dead flesh, but this is living Bread; not dead flesh, but living Flesh. It is, then, not literally eaten, but is otherwise appropriated so that the living flesh of the Son of God becomes the sustenance and the life of those who partake of it. At death he shed his blood to wash our sins away; in his resurrection and ascension his glorified flesh was raised and ascended to heaven. As Alford says: "I cannot see how anything short of his death can be meant. By that death he has given his flesh for the life of the world." How shall one, then, eat his flesh and blood? Verses 47 and 48 show that the Bread of life is appropriated by believing. There must, then, be such a belief, not merely in Christ as a divine teacher, but in his death and resurrection, as will induce us to be planted in the likeness of his death and raised in the likeness of his resurrection. We eat the bread on our tables because we believe it to be bread and that it will sustain life; he that believeth upon the crucified Lord enters into the fellowship of his sufferings, is crucified with him by repentance, buried into his death, raised in the likeness of his resurrection with the new life to walk in newness of life. See Romans 6:1-8.
It is shown in verse 63 that it is not the literal flesh eaten that makes alive, but the spirit and the words of Christ are endowed with spirit and life. It is said, Hebrews 4:12, that the word of God is quick (alive, living) and powerful. By the appropriation of the words of Christ, faith in the crucified and risen Savior, and the incorporation of the will and life, as expressed in his word, into our lives, we are made alive.
55. My flesh is most indeed. Is food indeed. The body does not feed upon it, but the soul. Its hunger and thirst are satisfied, and by the appropriation of this, it becomes endowed with the vital principle of the Bread of life.
56. Dwelleth in me, and I in him. By this eating one enters into. Christ and partakes of his life. See Romans 6:1-8.
57. The living Father. The Father who is the fountain of life. He sent Christ endowed with his life. So Christ endows with life those who "eat" him. It was the meat of Jesus to do the will of the Father. We eat Christ, our meat, by making his will the will of our lives.
58. Your fathers did eat manna. That food might sustain life for a season, but could not impart it, for it was dead food. The Bread from heaven is endued with life, and hence, gives eternal life.
59. These things said he. This ends the discourses in the synagogue. There is a third discourse to his disciples. Synagogue. See note on the Jewish synagogue at the close of this chapter.
60, 61. Doth this offend you? His disciples could not take in what had just been said. They expected an earthly king, not a crucified Savior. Hence they murmured and were offended.
62. What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend? He points out a still greater marvel than eating his flesh and blood. He came from heaven and he will return there. This passage is remarkable as furnishing the only instance in which the Lord spoke in specific terms of his ascension during his earthly ministry. It is true that he often speaks of his return to the Father, but he does not explain whether it is a spiritual return or in what sense it was meant. Here he speaks positively of his ascension, and his words must be regarded a prophecy of his ascent from the heights of Olivet, in the presence of his disciples.
63. It is the spirit that quickeneth. These words we may paraphrase as follows: "I shall ascend to heaven so that my flesh cannot be literally eaten; the flesh literally profits nothing. It is the spirit that makes alive. The spirits of men must eat, or partake of me, and be thus quickened by my spirit. My words are spirit and life, and he who feeds upon them makes them his soul food, governs his life by them and will be made alive." He had spoken "in parables" to the Jews, but explains to his disciples his meaning as was his custom. See Matthew 13:10-11.
64. There are some of you who believe not. Had no living, appropriating, trusting faith.
65. Except it were given him. See, for explanation, verses 44, 45.
66. Many of his disciples went back. They were of the unbelieving. Their faith was not strong enough to accept the great doctrine of eating his flesh.
67, 68. To whom shall we go? Christ, apparently sad that these had turned away, asked the twelve whether they would go also. Peter, always prompt, even impetuous, answers: To whom shall we go? The world may well ask this question. If it turns from Christ, to whom shall it go? He only has the words of eternal life.
69. We believe . . that thou art the Christ. It is worthy of remark that the same confession made at Cesarea Philippi is here made by Peter.
70. One of you is a devil. Is "diabolical" comes nearer the idea. I chose you and one has fallen away. The shadow of sorrow is still upon his spirit. The word in Greek is diabolos, not daimonion.
71. He spake of Judas Iscariot. At that time none knew of whom he spoke. The words were well calculated to cause each one to examine himself. Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon. The Revision reads, "the son of Simon Iscariot," which is the proper rendering of the Greek. Simon, the father of Judas, is called Iscariot as well as his son, which shows the word is not a surname but evidently designates place. They were men of Kerioth, a place in Judah named in Joshua 15:25. Some have endeavored to identify the father of Judas with "Simon the Canaanite," one of the apostles, others with "Simon the leper," who lived at Bethany, but there is just as much warrant for identifying him with Simon Barjona, or Simon the Galilean Pharisee, or Simon, one of the brethren of our Lord. The name was a very common one and we have nothing particular about this Simon except that he was the father of Judas and a man of Kerioth.
In this remarkable chapter there are given three discourses of the Savior, or three separate sections of one discourse. The bread with which the five thousand had been fed furnishes the text, as the water of the well of Jacob did when he discoursed of the Water of life. An examination of his words will show the gradual development of his thought. He announces:
1. Verse 33, the Bread of God, which cometh from heaven, and giveth life to the world.
2. In verses 48 and 50 he declares: "I am the Bread of life." . . . This is the bread which cometh down from heaven that a man may eat of it and not die.
3. Verses 51-56 show that the Bread of life must be eaten by becoming partakers of his flesh and blood, or by becoming the kindred of Christ and dwelling in him and having him abide in us.
4. Verse 63 shows that eating his flesh and drinking his blood are not literal acts, but are symbolical expressions. The literal flesh profiteth nothing. The words of Christ are spirit and life. The spirit of man is quickened (made alive) by feeding upon those divine words which are endued with life.
PRACTICAL OBSERVATIONS.
1. "Man doth not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." The "Word became flesh and dwelt among men." That Word is the Bread of life of which, if a man eat, he shall have life, and "he hath given his flesh for the life of the world." Yet the flesh in itself "profiteth nothing." "It is the spirit that quickeneth." Christ’s words "are spirit and life." He who feeds upon his words shall live. Thus the lesson is brought out that we are made alive by hearing, receiving into our souls, incorporating into our being as life principles, the words of Christ. It is thus he is eaten. The spirit of man thus feeds upon the spirit of Christ.
2. A common life only exists in the most Intimate union. Christ hath the life of, because he is in the Father and the Father in him. So, too, Christ must be in us and we must be and abide in Christ in order to be partakers of his life.
3. The ordinances appointed by Christ symbolize the intimate union of his disciples with the Lord. They believe upon him, are baptized into him (Romans 6:3) and thus put on Christ (Galatians 3:27) and henceforth dwell in him (Romans 8:1) and are new creatures in Christ Jesus. In the Lord’s Supper the disciples partake of the symbols of his flesh and blood, and by faith enjoy "the communion of his body and blood."
4. We may not always understand the words of Christ; they may be too deep for us; but we can receive them in loving trust as the words of our Lord. If we were to turn from Christ where could we go? Not to Buddha, or Mahomet, or to the philosophers and theorists. When the children ask for bread they give them a stone. None other than Christ can feed to the soul the Bread of life and give it rest. He only has the words of eternal life.
NOTE ON THE JEWISH SYNAGOGUE.
It will be of service, in understanding the incidents at Capernaum, as well as the many passages of the New Testament which refer to the synagogue, to have a comprehensive idea of this peculiar Jewish institution. It is not known when the synagogue originated, but it is certain that, when the temple was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar and the remnant of the nation carried into captivity, the knowledge of the word was preserved by establishing in every community of Jews a place where the law was read and taught to the people. When the nation was again established in their own land, as their institutions emerge into the clearer light of the period near the beginning of our era, the synagogue is found existing in, not only the towns and cities of Palestine, but in every foreign city where there was a Jewish population. In them the Savior, in the earlier portion of his ministry, was a frequent teacher, and Paul in his missionary tours to foreign cities always first sought the synagogue of his own race.
It was a kind of Jewish local church, and permitted the worship of God on every Sabbath at places far away from the temple. Wherever ten Jews could be found it was permitted to, organize one. In it on the Sabbath the Scriptures were read, prayers were offered and instruction was given. No priest was required, there was no professional clergy; there was, however, a "Ruler" with his "elders," there were subordinate officers, and there was a regular prescribed course of reading. At one end of the synagogue was an "ark" or receptacle where the roll of the law was sacredly preserved and from which it was taken with the most profound reverence. On an elevated platform sat the "Ruler of the synagogue" and the elders; prayers were offered, and after these two lessons were always read, one from the Law, and one from the Prophets; these lessons might be read by any competent person who was designated by the ruler for the duty, and the reader might add his comment. When the Lord appeared in the synagogue at Nazareth he read from Isaiah 61:1-11, and then sat down to deliver his sermon, or comment. Any scholar in the law who might happen to be present could be called on for the comment, as there was no appointed preacher, and hence it frequently occurred that when Paul entered a Jewish synagogue in some Gentile city he was invited to deliver the address. The character of the address was more conversational than the modern sermon. Questions were not out of place, objections could be made, and often in the reports of discourses in the New Testament we see the marks of these interruptions.
The synagogue, in Its organization, in many respect’s like the Christian congregation, had also the power of discipline, but its penalties were not entirely spiritual. Scourging could be inflicted upon delinquents, and hence the Savior, in Matthew 10:17, speaks of his disciples being delivered to the synagogues to be scourged.
The following account of an attempt of the students of Newton Theological Seminary to reproduce the worship of the synagogue in the time of Christ, given by J. H. Garrison, will aid the reader to a correct understanding: "About a score of the young men performed this service. They were appropriately rigged with the conventional uniform, and went through their various parts with becoming reverence. The Law and the Prophets were read in Hebrew and translated by an interpreter into the vernacular of their hearers, which was the custom of the Jews in their synagogue service, after the Hebrew ceased to be the language of the people. The chanting was very good, perhaps much better than that heard in the average synagogue in the time of our Savior. The Law from which they read was a veritable Hebrew scroll, secured from a Rabbi in Germany. Various readers were called out from their number, and while one was reading several others carefully scrutinized each word to see that the reading was correctly done. Every action indicated the greatest reverence for their sacred Scriptures. When the portions of both the Law and the Prophets were read, a speaker was sought for, and the messenger of the ruler of the synagogue had no little trouble in finding someone to address the people. When he found one at last who agreed to ’say on,’ according to the invitation extended to Paul and Barnabas, the preacher took his seat in front of the congregation and proceeded to exhort his brethren to faithfulness in the observance of the law of their God. He evinced no little feeling when he alluded to their Gentile oppressors. The address, which was in English, being ended, he asked for questions. A number were asked, indicating by their character, and by the answers, the tendency of the Jews to split hairs on fine points of their law, at that period of their history, a characteristic which is brought out prominently in the gospel narratives. Some further responsive chanting, and a prayer, closed this interesting and instructive service, which was witnessed by a large audience. It explained how Paul would have an opportunity to speak in the Jewish synagogues wherever he went, and brought out very vividly that scene in the synagogue at Nazareth when Jesus read the wonderful prophecy concerning himself, and, when all eyes were fastened upon him, proceeded to announce its fulfillment that day. For the reader was sometimes, though not always, the speaker. The reading of the Scriptures was the main thing in the synagogue service; the speaking was only incidental. It may be safely questioned whether the reading of the word of God has the prominence in our Lord’s day service that it ought to have."
GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN
B.W. Johnson
JOHN CHAPTER SEVEN
THE FEAST OF TABERNACLES.
The discourse in the synagogue at Capernaum occurred, according to Andrews, in the spring of A. D. 29; the visit to Jerusalem at the feast of Tabernacles, took place in the early autumn of the same year. An interval of about six months lies between, concerning the history of which John is silent. In order that the reader may rightly locate the incidents of chapter 7. I will note the outlines of the Lord’s ministry, as given by the other Evangelists, for this period. After the discourse at Capernaum, the Savior visited the coasts of Tyre and Sidon, the only time in his ministry when he passed beyond the boundaries of Israel to a Gentile country. Here he heals the daughter of the Syro-Phoenician woman, and returning to the region of Decapolis, heals one with an impediment in his speech, and afterwards feeds 4,000 persons. At Capernaum he comes in contact with the Pharisees; soon after crosses the sea, and at Bethsaida heals a blind man. From thence he goes, accompanied by his apostles, to the neighborhood of Cesarea Philippi, and there occurs the remarkable conversation in which Peter declares that "Jesus is the Christ the Son of the living God," and the Lord, after commending Peter and declaring that he shall be a stone or splinter of the Rock, affirms, "On this Rock," the great foundation truth Peter had uttered, "I will build my church, and the gates of the unseen world shall not prevail against it." They were then in the vicinity of "a high mountain apart," Mt. Hermon, the highest peak of Syria, and, ascending it, his heavenly glory broke through the bonds of humanity, and he was transfigured in the presence of his disciples. Following this remarkable event, henceforth teaching his approaching death at Jerusalem, after healing a lunatic child, paying the tribute money at Capernaum, and traversing Galilee, teaching his disciples, he sets out to Jerusalem to attend the feast of Tabernacles.
Three times a year the whole adult population of Judea was required to assemble at Jerusalem to attend the great feasts. The finest seasons of the year, spring and autumn, were chosen for these gatherings of the people. Separated into the various tribes, these annual gatherings must have served to cement the bond of national unity and establish acquaintance and friendship. Another advantage was the opportunity of an interchange of sentiment on every subject of interest. Whatever was an engrossing topic was sure to be discussed in the great assemblages. Since the Savior had healed the paralytic at the pool of Bethesda, about eighteen months before, there is no account that he had visited Jerusalem, but the story of his wonderful teaching and works in Galilee was spread broadcast over the land, and at this gathering at the feast of Tabernacles the great question was whether he would come to the feast. Among the vast crowds a search was made to know whether he was not present, but when in the midst of the feast he suddenly appeared in the temple, not only the multitude, but the temple authorities, seem to have been startled.
The feast of Tabernacles was instituted to commemorate the time when the Israelites had dwelt in tents during their sojourn in the desert. To bring vividly to remembrance the forty years of tent life, the people were enjoined, during the seven days of the feast, to dwell in huts made of the branches of trees. The flat house-tops of the city were covered with these leafy bowers, which became the temporary home of the family; while the open places and surrounding hills were also occupied by the vast crowd of sojourners. The feast began on the fifteenth of the month of Tisri, which this year answered to October 11th, and continued eight days, seven of which were spent in the leafy huts. While it lasted the Jews gave themselves up to festivity and rejoicing. There is a proverb: "He who has not seen the rejoicing at the pouring out of the water of Siloam at the feast of Tabernacles has never seen rejoicing in his life." For the time, manner, and reason of this feast, see Leviticus 23:1-44.
It is a remarkable fact that after so long and systematic an absence from Jerusalem, as eighteen months prior to this feast, our Lord should attend every feast for the next six months, the last of his ministry, in their order.--Greswell.
This feast was the last of the Jewish year, and in some respects it was its crown of glory. Its characteristic was joyousness--(1) For deliverance from Egypt; (2) For care in the wilderness--fit emblems these, in every Christian experience, for deliverance from the bitter bondage of sin, and for care in the heavenly ways.--Vincent.
1. After these things. After the discourse in the synagogue at Capernaum. The report of "the Jews" to the authorities at Jerusalem had intensified the enmity that had been created when the man at the pool of Bethesda was healed, and the Savior refrained from rushing into danger until "his time" had nearly come. Six months passed, "after these things," before he went to the feast of Tabernacles, and during this time he traveled and taught in Galilee. The Jews sought to kill him. This illustrates the sense in which John uses the term "Jews." Christ’s disciples and friends were all Jews by race, but when John wrote all disciples had merged their race distinctions into Christ and were Christians. "The Jews" were still a hostile people, and when the word is used without qualification it has this hostile sense.
2. Now the Jews’ feast of Tabernacles was at hand. It is spoken of as a feast that belonged to a stranger people. This feast stood pre-eminent among the Jewish festivals. Josephus says that it "was the holiest and greatest of their feasts." Occurring at the vintage season, after the crops were garnered, it was a season of thanksgiving. It fell from the 15th to the 22d days of the month Tisri, covering the last part of September and first of October, and was about six months after and before the passover. Its date, therefore, shows us that six months of Christ’s ministry had intervened between the discourse at Capernaum and this time. Matthew gives some the details of this interval in chapters 12, 17 and 21.
3. His brethren, therefore, said unto him. His brethren according to the flesh, whose names were James and Joses and Simon and Jude (Matthew 13:55). For discussion of their relationship to him, see notes on John 2:12. The theory that they were his cousins, the sons of Alpheus and Mary, the sister of the mother of Christ, is disproved by this passage: "James, the son of Alpheus, and Jude the brother of James," were apostles and believers, but "these brethren" at this time were not believers and even seemed to be disposed to scoff. Depart hence and go into Judæa. A year had passed since the Savior had been at Jerusalem, and his brothers thought it inconsistent with his high claims that he should avoid the national center of religious culture and influence. That thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest. This language is partly ridicule and partly entreaty. His brothers were astonished and puzzled, but he was so different from their conception of the Christ that they refused to believe. They insist that he shall go to Judea and show what he can do.
4. For no man doeth anything in secret. No prophet and inspired teacher. Such a teacher, they urge, seeks the multitudes and there, in the most public manner, exhibits his supernatural power. If thou do these things. If implies that they were doubters. The next verse affirms that they were unbelievers. While the counsel of these brothers, from a worldly point of view, might seem wise, it is in another form the same counsel offered by the devil in the second temptation, and spurned by our Lord.
5. For neither did his brethren believe in him. It shows the stress to which those who hold the tradition that the mother of our Lord always remained a virgin are put that they should insist on a theory that requires three out of four of these unbelievers to be apostles! A clear distinction is made here between "the brothers of him" (Greek) and his disciples. The distinction is still clearer in Matthew 12:47. They afterwards became believers (Acts 1:14).
6. My time is not yet come. The time for the full manifestation of himself had not yet come. He had revealed himself gradually, step by step, until his apostles had recognized and declared him as the Christ, the Son of the living God (John 6:69; Matthew 16:16). He had satisfied the woman of Sychar that he was the Christ, and had revealed himself in the synagogue at [118] Capernaum, as the Bread of life. Three of his apostles had been eye witnesses of his majesty on the Mount of Transfiguration, but the time for the grand final lesson of the cross, the tomb, the resurrection and the Ascension had not come. His presence in the church, in the hearts of believers, as a power has gone on increasingly ever since, but his full manifestation to the world does not take place until his second coming, when "every eye shall see him." His disciples had to be prepared for the manifestation of his divine Christhood to them; and the church and world has to be prepared for his coming. Your time is always ready. Those who have no set work are always ready, and the world is always ready for those who have no message to it. He who has a work must make ready for it. He who has a message for the world must educate it to receive his message.
7. The world cannot hate you. In that case it would hate those who had its spirit and were of it. It will not hate itself. It only hates those who rebuke its sins and oppose its ways. Me it hateth because I testify . . . the works thereof are evil. It always hates those who expose and denounce its sins. Socrates had to drink hemlock because he rebuked the folly of the Athenians; Savonarola and Huss had to be burned because they exposed the corruptions of Rome; Isaiah, Jeremiah and John the Baptist all suffered because they denounced sin in high places; and when Jesus came exposing the corruptions of the priests, the hypocrisy of the Pharisees, the worldliness and debauchery of the Sadducees and Herodians, it was inevitable that he should be hated, persecuted and hunted to death. Still the world hates him. The hate of such men as Voltaire, Tom Paine and Ingersoll, and of their disciples, is due to the fact that Christ and his kingdom are a rebuke to, and condemnation of their lives.
8, 9. Go ye . . . I go not up yet to this feast. A more literal translation is: "I am not now going to this feast." He does not use the future but the present tense. We cannot be certain whether he had yet determined to go at all. It would have defeated his purpose to have gone with those who were determined that he should make an exhibition of himself. Hence, after the departure of his brethren and the great caravan of Galilean pilgrims, he yet remained in Galilee.
10. Then went he up also to the feast, not openly. After the departure of the multitude of Galileans he followed after, no doubt accompanied by his apostles, though we have no account of the journey, unless it be referred to in Luke 9:51-52. The journey was made quietly, not clandestinely, but unostentatiously and in such a way as not to attract observation. As Meyer says: "Not in company of a caravan of pilgrims, or in any other way of outward observation, but so that the journey to the feast is represented as made in secrecy, and consequently quite differently from his last entry at the feast at the passover." He seems not to have reached Jerusalem until after the feast was in progress.
11. Then the Jews sought him at the feast. His fame had become so great that his appearance at this feast was looked forward to with expectation, and the Jews were on the watch for him in order to observe his conduct and hear his words. These Jews probably sought him among the crowds who came from Galilee. They ask, as they seek: "Where is he?" or rather, "that man." Only one man could be meant, for all the land was busy with talk of the great Galilean teacher. The question was probably about half curiosity and half ill will.
12. There was much murmuring among the people. Muttering and secret discussion. By the people are meant the multitudes. They must be kept in the mind as distinct from "the Jews." This chapter brings out a vivid picture of Jewish life and of the various elements that composed the nation. We have "the disciples" or personal followers and believers in Christ; "his brethren," who were brothers according to the flesh but were yet unbelievers; "the Jews," officials, or those under official influence, and arrayed in opposition to Christ; "the people," the vast body of the nation who were fined with marvel, were not yet convinced, but were discussing the claims of Jesus; "the Pharisees" (John 7:32) here named by John for the first time as opposed to the Lord; "the chief priests," the Sadducean hierarchy who hated him, not for religious reasons like the Pharisees, but because they were sensual, time-serving materiaIists; "the Pharisees and chief priests" (John 7:32; John 7:45), evidently the Sanhedrim; "Nicodemus" (John 7:50), a member of the Sanhedrim, but inclined favorably to Christ. The contact with all of these is personal and direct. He deceiveth the people. While some insisted that he was a good man, others urged that he was leading the people astray.
13. No man spake openly. These discussions were private rather than public. The people all felt that "the Jews," the ruling powers, were intensely opposed to Christ, and they feared that open discussion would bring down evil upon themselves. Those who held both opinions "mistrusted the hierarchy; even those of hostile opinions were afraid, so long as the Sanhedrim had not given its official decision, that their verdict might be reversed. A true indication of an utterly Jesuitical domination of the people."--Meyer.
JESUS IN THE TEMPLE.
14. About the midst of the feast. About the middle. It lasted, altogether, eight days. This indicates the time, probably, when Jesus reached Jerusalem. Bengel calculates that on this year the middle of the feast would come on the Sabbath day; the temple would, therefore, be unusually crowded, and the day itself would suggest the remarks about the Sabbath which are found in John 7:22-23. Went up into the temple and taught. He had come secretly and had refused to make a show of himself, but he did not hesitate to proclaim his doctrine in the most public manner. He seems to flash upon the Jewish multitude on this occasion with the suddenness of the lightning flash. How he came to Jerusalem, whether he dwelt in a leafy booth as others, whether his voice was heard in the Hallel, we are not told. All we know is that suddenly he presents himself in the temple, the very stronghold of his enemies.
Eighteen months had passed since he was last in Jerusalem. Then, although the miracle at Bethesda had aroused a controversy and had called for teaching, he had not presented himself as the public teacher of Israel. Now, however, throwing off all concealment, and apparently passing from extreme caution to the very verge of daring, he plants himself in the temple and addresses the multitude in a capacity that was assumed only by the oldest and most renowned Rabbis of Israel. Olshausen, following Tholuck, thinks that the Savior on the Sabbath day, did not merely teach in the open court, but delivered a formal discourse in the synagogue which was situated in the court of the women. As the Lord appears suddenly in the temple, on this great festal occasion, as a public teacher, we are reminded of Malachi 3:1.
15. How knoweth this man letters? Jesus had never studied in the great Jewish schools of theology. In the preceding generation Hillel had presided over the school or university in which all who became doctors of the law were expected to take their course. At this time Gamaliel, a disciple of Hillel, had succeeded him in the supervision of this renowned school. Here "letters," the written law, and the unwritten interpretations and traditions, were made the subjects of study. No person was expected to become a rabbin, a public teacher of the synagogue or temple, until he had passed regularly through such a course. Yet Jesus, who had never learned of any of the doctors, never attended any of the rabbinical schools, now stood forth publicly in the temple as a teacher of religion. The Jews "marvelled" at this, but their question implies more. They question the right of one who had not a Doctor’s diploma to appear thus as a public teacher.
16. My doctrine is not mine. These words are an answer to the question of the Jews. The Rabbis were wont to proclaim of whom they "received" their teaching. Jesus declares that his is not human learning, was not learned in any of the schools of men, but came from God.
17. If any man will do his will he shall know the doctrine. Literally, "If any man wills to do his will," etc. A willing obedience to the will of God is essential to knowledge where Christ is a divine teacher. This does not promise that he who seeks to obey the will of God shall be able to solve every difficulty of theology, but it does promise that he will be able to know whether Christ taught divine truth and is therefore the Savior of mankind. In other words, the purpose to do God’s will so clears the spiritual insight that the soul will be able to recognize the nature and mission of Christ. If this be true, unbelief originates in an indisposition to do the will of God. The honest soul, eager to do God’s will, will recognize Christ as a divine teacher. I believe that the experience of humanity confirms this declaration. I have never heard of one who devoutly sought to know and do the will of God who remained in unbelief. As far as my observation has gone skeptics have been more anxious to follow their own will than the will of God. The antidote to unbelief is for the heart to say, not my will but thine be done. Indeed, the conscience is not right before God until there is a determination to do his will. Until that point is reached there is not "the good and honest heart" in which the seed of the word can germinate. In these words the Savior points out to the Jews the spiritual difficulty in the way of their understanding his claims. They were not willing, in spite of all their religious pretensions, to do the will of God.
18. He that speaketh of himself seeketh his own glory. The true teacher of men does not preach himself. Christ came to speak of and exalt the Father. The true preacher hides his own personality behind Christ. The general truth is stated. Whenever a preacher is met who keeps himself prominently before his hearers he is not a true man; but when one forgets himself in the message of his Lord "the same is true." Egotism and the spirit of Christ are not in concord.
19. Did not Moses give you the law? I take it that this remark is designed to convict the Jews of not "willing to do the will of God." The law of Moses was recognized by them as the will of God, yet they violated it. It commanded, "Thou shalt not kill," yet at that very time "the Jews" were plotting his death.
20. The people answered. This answer is not given by "the Jews," of whom the Savior’s words were just spoken (see John 7:15), but by "the people," the great multitude of the nation who were yet undecided. There were people standing there, "people of Jerusalem" (John 7:25), who knew of the plot to assassinate him, but the great body of the people were probably ignorant of it and, therefore, spoke honestly. It seemed to them so abhorrent that there should be a purpose to murder him that they think that the error must have been impressed on his mind by demoniacal influence. They mean nearly what we would say if we were to say of one that he is under a delusion, or is "mad." Hast a devil. See note on Demons at the end of this chapter.
21. I have done one work, and ye all marvel. Dropping the matter of their purpose to kill him, which time would reveal, the Lord cites them to the marvellous work, which had aroused the first purpose of "the Jews" to slay him. That work had taken place eighteen months before, on the occasion of his last visit to Jerusalem (see John Chap. 5.). It had been performed on the Sabbath day, which had, probably, caused them to marvel more, than that a man bound for thirty-eight years should be made whole.
22. Moses gave you circumcision. The rite of circumcision, given at first to Abraham, and therefore, "of the fathers," was a part of the Mosaic law. The child was to be circumcised on the eighth day and if this came on the Sabbath, the day was disregarded and the rite performed in order "that the law of Moses might not be broken."
23. Are ye angry at me? The Rabbis said, "Circumcision drives away the Sabbath." It was, they held, "of the fathers," a patriarchal institution, and therefore, of older date than the Sabbath, which was of Moses; therefore, the Sabbath gave way before the duty of attending to circumcision on the eighth day. The law of mercy was older than either circumcision or the Sabbath; the Jews were, therefore, inconsistent in their indignation against him because he had performed an act of mercy, "made a man every whit whole, on the Sabbath day." Mercy was God’s eternal law.
24. Judge with righteous judgment. They judged by "appearances" when they condemned Christ for healing on the Sabbath, and forgot the eternal principles of righteousness. Sometimes one law is broken in order to obey a higher law. They should always ask whether this was the case before they condemned, and then "judge with righteous judgment."
25, 26. Then said some of them of Jerusalem. There were hundreds of thousands of strangers in the city who would know little of the purposes of "the Jews," but these residents of the city would be more likely to know. They therefore express surprise that he "whom they sought to kill" is speaking boldly. Do the rulers know indeed that this is the very Christ? They are bewildered. They do not either condemn or approve the purpose of the rulers, but they cannot understand why it is not carried out. Is it possible that the rulers have found out that this is the Christ? Does that explain their neglect to carry out their purpose?
27. When Christ cometh, no man knoweth whence he is. There was an expectation, probably due to Daniel 7:13, that the Messiah would suddenly appear in Jerusalem without any one knowing whence he came. These men, therefore, reason that this cannot be the Christ because they knew from whence he was. They knew that he came from Galilee and probably that his early home was at Nazareth, but were ignorant of the fact that Bethlehem was his birthplace. Nor did they know of his heavenly origin, so that it was literally true that the Christ was before them and no man knew whence he came. It might be well to add that the Jewish tradition held that Bethlehem would be the Messiah’s birthplace, but he would be caught away by spirits and tempests and lie hidden until he should miraculously appear to enter upon his mission.
28. Ye both know me and know whence I am. These words are directly suggested by their argument against his being the Christ. There is a certain irony in the answer, as though he should say: "You profess to know all about me, whence I came; yet if this were true you would believe, for I came not of myself, but was sent by one who is true; you do not even know who sent me." Whom ye know not. They knew not God. Had they known him, recognized his true character, they would have known Immanuel.
29. I know him. His knowledge was not that of hearsay, but of experience, for he came from God.
30. Then they sought to take him. The charge that they were without the knowledge of God so angered them that they sought to lay hands on him. "They of Jerusalem" are referred to. It was the attempt of a mob. Because his hour was not yet come. They were in some way restrained, perhaps by awe, and no man could yet do him violence, for the set time had not come.
31. And many of the people believed on him. Not "the Jews," or "they of Jerusalem," but the multitude. They were convinced that he was a teacher from God and were ready to follow him, though as yet not certain that he was the Christ. Hence they asked, "When Christ comes will he do more miracles than this man does?" It must be remembered that Jesus did not proclaim himself to be the Christ. He demonstrated it by his works. His apostles already knew who he was; the multitude had not yet learned.
32. The Pharisees heard that the people. These active and watchful adversaries discovered that the people were being convinced and thought it time to act. The most powerful and most religious of the Jewish sects, they were the bitterest enemies of Christ. Great sticklers for ceremonials, worshiping the letter of the law while careless of its spirit, intensely Jewish and Mosaic, they were early alarmed by the teaching of Christ (John 4:1), though this is the first place where we have the positive declaration of the enmity of the sect in the headquarters of ritualism. The Pharisees and chief priests. This phrase describes the Sanhedrim, composed of the chief priests who were Sadducees, and the leaders of the Pharisees. It is apparent that the Sanhedrim was quickly called together, it was announced that Jesus was in Jerusalem and teaching in the temple, also that the people were moved by his doctrine and ready to acknowledge him; it was therefore determined to send at once "the officers," temple guards always on service within the sacred precincts and composed of Levites, to arrest him.
33, 34. Then Jesus said unto them. Now he gives another part of his discourse. His first words show that he is aware of the beginning of the end. He will not be arrested now for "yet a little while I am with you," but the triumph of his enemies will come shortly, for "I go to him who sent me," "and ye shall seek me and not find me." This is very plain to us in the light of subsequent history, but it is not strange that his hearers on the other side of the cross, did not understand.
35, 36. Then said the Jews. They could not comprehend. Did he mean that he was going also to the Jews dispersed among the Gentiles? Would he teach them and the Gentiles, as well as the Jews of Judea and the Galileans? Their perplexity was genuine, but as the Jews of Jerusalem looked with scorn on those dispersed abroad, the insinuation is designed for a taunt. The question indicates the scorn in which "the Jews" held all whose religious privileges were less than their own. There was only a less degree of contempt for foreign Jews and Galileans than for Gentiles. In John 7:52 the contempt of Galilee is indicated in the rebuke of Nicodemus. This contempt did not arise so much from pride of blood, as from pride of superior sanctity and religious learning. Jerusalem was then the great center of Rabbinical learning, while the outlying districts were regarded unlettered and scorned as the homes of ignorance. "If any one wishes to be rich, let him go north; if he wishes to be wise, let him come south," was a saying of the Rabbins. When Nathanael asked, "Can anything good come out of Nazareth?" he only spoke in the spirit of the times. Puffed up with the pride of Rabbinical learning, "the Jews" exhibited an offensive contempt for all who could not be measured by their standard.
JESUS THE CHRIST.
37. On the last day, that great day of the feast. Whether the great day, so emphatically mentioned, was the seventh, or the eighth day, is a point that has been much discussed and which cannot be certainly settled. There were seven active days of the feast and the eighth was a day of holy rest. It is probable that he to whom all the feasts of Israel pointed, chose this eighth day, the last day, for the proclamation of himself as the hope and joy of Israel. Seven days in tents commemorated the sojourn in the desert, but the eighth day, it is supposed, was devoted more especially to rejoicing and thanksgiving for the blessings of the year. It was a kind of "harvest home." If any man thirst, let him come unto me and drink. Every morning whilst the Israelites were gathered in the temple courts, one of the priests brought water drawn in a golden urn from the pool of Siloam, and amid the sounding of trumpets and other demonstrations of joy, poured the water upon the altar. This rite is not mentioned in the Old Testament; but, as a commemoration of the miraculous supply of water from the rock of Horeb in the wilderness, it was in harmony with the spirit of the festival. The chanting of the great Hallel (Psalms 113:1-9; Psalms 114:1-8; Psalms 115:1-18; Psalms 116:1-19; Psalms 117:1-2; Psalms 118:1-29) celebrated the past, but the Talmud declares that the Jews connected with this ceremony the words of Isaiah 12:3 : "Therefore with joy shall ye draw water out of the wells of salvation," and saw in it a type of the effusion of the Holy Spirit. It is held that it is with reference to this pouring out of water, the Savior cried, "If any man thirst, let him come to me and drink." Alford holds that for seven days the water was poured every morning, but that on the eighth there was a blank, and that then he invited them to the living water which would really quench the thirst of the soul and not leave them unsatisfied.
38. He that believeth on me, as the Scripture hath said. Notice that "believing" corresponds to "coming" in the preceding verse, showing that faith is the means that brings us to Christ. The reference is not to any single passage, but to the spirit of the Scripture, notably such passages as Isaiah 55:1; Isaiah 58:11; Psalms 36:8-9. Out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. Below the spot on which Jesus stood while speaking in the temple courts, was a vast reservoir of water. It is probably to this subterranean supply Joel referred when he spoke of a fountain that "shall come forth from the house of the Lord," and to which Zechariah alluded when he said that "in that day living waters shall go out of Jerusalem." Christ now shows that the living waters shall go forth because every one who drinks shall himself become a fountain. It will be observed that the promise takes a wider sweep. He who drinks shall not only never thirst but becomes himself a running fountain, an unfailing supply of the waters of life. Meyer says: "The mutual and inspired intercourse of Christians from Pentecost downward, the speaking in psalms, and hymns, and spiritual songs, the mutual edification of Christian assemblies by means of inspired gifts, even to the speaking of tongues, the entire work of the apostles, and the early evangelists, furnish an abundant commentary on this text." Christ is the living water; he who believes upon Christ has Christ formed within him, and hence must become a fountain to dispense the living water wherever he goes.
39. This spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive. This declaration of John makes the second chapter of Acts the best commentary on the preceding verse. Luther says: "So St. Peter, by one sermon on the day of Pentecost, as by a rushing of water, delivered three thousand men from the devil’s kingdom, washing them in an hour from sin, death and Satan." Because Jesus was not yet glorified. Let it be noted, 1. That the Holy Spirit was not given until after the death and ascension of Jesus. 2. The disciples of Christ did not become "fountains of living water" until the Holy Spirit was sent. This marks Pentecost as the beginning of the preaching of the gospel authoritatively by his disciples. The sermon of Peter was the first sermon under the great Commission, the first declaration of the conditions of the gospel, the first preaching by men as "the Holy Spirit gave them utterance." It was only after Jesus was glorified that he could send the Holy Spirit, and on Pentecost it was declared, "He hath shed forth the things which you do see and hear."
40. Of a truth this is the Prophet. There were conflicting views among those who listened to him. Some of these impressions are now given. Some said he was "the Prophet," spoken of in Deuteronomy 18:15, and referred to in John 1:15. All agreed that a prophet was to come at the Messianic period, but some held that he was to be the Messiah himself, and others that he was to be the forerunner. Hence the deputation of the Sanhedrim put three questions to John: "Art thou Elias? Art thou that prophet? Art thou the Christ?"
41. Others said, This is the Christ. Others asserted that he was the Christ. The opponents denied this and based their opposition, not upon his character, or his teaching, but upon the fact that he came from Galilee. Jesus, reared at Nazareth, coming to Jerusalem from Galilee, was supposed by the Jews to have been born there, and they were well aware of the fact that Christ was to be born at Bethlehem.
42. Christ cometh of the seed of David, and from Bethlehem. Even the Talmud explains Micah 5:2, as declaring that Bethlehem should be Christ’s birthplace. The wise men who came to Jerusalem seeking the young Babe heard the same thing from the priests. Nor was anything more clearly predicted than that he should be of the seed of David. See on this Isaiah 11:1; Jeremiah 23:5; Psalms 89:36.
43. So there was a division among the people. The Greek word for division is schism, or implies a violent split. They were rent into two parties and there was fierce contention.
44. Some of them would have taken him. In the heat and bitter animosity of the dispute some were eager to lay violent hands on him. For a year and a half the Jewish leaders had been looking for a pretext to seize him, and when he appeared at this feast they sought to carry out their purposes. Though officers were sent to apprehend him, and a mob was ready to seize him, yet "no man laid hands on him," "for his hour was not yet come."
45. Then came the officers to the chief priests and Pharisees. These were the temple police, Levites under the direction of the chief priests. In John 7:32 we are told that the chief priests, instigated by the Pharisees, had sent the officers to arrest him. This was the act of the Sanhedrim, and was the first official attempt to arrest him, the beginning of the course that resulted, six months later, in the final arrest, trial and crucifixion. These officers returned without the expected prisoner, and the reason was demanded by the Sanhedrim which was in session, apparently waiting for their return.
46. Never man spake like this man. The only answer the officers could make to the demand why they had not carried out orders was, "Man never spake like this man." The multitude had not overawed them, but the words of Christ. There is no stronger testimony to the moral power of the presence of Christ than this confession of the rough temple police. "To listen to him was not only to be disarmed in every attempt against him, but it was even to be half converted from bitter enemies to awe-struck disciples."
47, 48. Then answered the Pharisees. . . . . Have any of the rulers, etc.? The Pharisees, always the bitterest foes of Christ, charge the officers in language of scorn. Have any of the rulers believed? By rulers are meant the Sanhedrim. In the matter of deciding on the claims of the Messiah they hold that the judgment of the "rulers" must be decisive. They were not probably aware that Nicodemus was really in secret a believer, and that another "senator," Joseph, would reveal himself at the proper time. At this time the Pharisees controlled the Sanhedrim.
49. This people . . . are accursed. Their argument was, "Not the Sanhedrim, not the powerful and religious Pharisees, but the rabble are the believers upon him. They are utterly ignorant of the law and are accursed. On account of their ignorance they are easily led astray."
50. Nicodemus said. It was a "ruler" who now spoke. The impression made on Nicodemus in that night interview, long before, had been permanent.
51. Doth our law judge any man before it hear him? There is a keen sarcasm in this question. Of course it did not, yet they who boasted of their knowledge of the law, were breaking it in their blind rage. The answer of the Pharisees shows that the question of Nicodemus cut to the quick. Instead of a direct answer they reply with a sneer.
52. Art thou also of Galilee? Are you a follower of the Galilean? Then they assert, "Out of Galilee hath arisen no prophet;" a false statement. Jonah was of Galilee (2 Kings 14:25); Elijah probably so (1 Kings 17:1), and Nahum, also (Nahum 1:1). In their scorn of Galilee they held it impossible that a man of God could come out of that province. With such recrimination the session of the Sanhedrim broke up.
PRACTICAL OBSERVATIONS.
1. If any man thirst. In those hot and arid regions there is no fiercer want than thirst and no greater blessing than the cool draught of water. The Savior knew that there was a thirst no earthly fountain could satisfy, a deep inward thirst that dries up the spirit. Such he bids to come and drink.
2. A condition of coming to the living fountain is thirst. "Ho, everyone that thirsteth, come ye to the waters." "If any thirst, let him come." "Come ye that are weary and heavy laden." There must be a felt need of Christ, before anyone can come to him. If the world satisfies the soul it has no room for Christ.
3. Those who drink must become flowing fountains. Moses struck the rock of Horeb and it flowed in a living stream. Christ strikes our barren hearts and lives and they flow forth in his love, a stream of life to others. Those who have eternal life must lead others to eternal life.
4. There is no ignorance so deep as the ignorance that will not know; no blindness so incurable as the blindness that will not see. And the dogmatism of a narrow and stolid prejudice which believes itself to be theological learning is, of all others, the most ignorant and blind. Such was the spirit in which, ignoring the mild justice of Nicodemus, and the marvellous impression made by Jesus on their own officers, the majority of the Sanhedrim broke up, and went each to his own home.--Farrar.
5. When the Interpreter had done, he takes them out into his garden again, and led them to a tree whose inside was all rotten and gone; and yet it grew and had leaves. Then said Mercy, "What means this?"--"This tree," said he, "whose outside is fair, and whose inside is rotten, is it to which many may be compared that are in the garden of God; who with their mouths speak high in behalf of God, but in deed will do nothing for him; whose leaves are fair, but their heart good for nothing but to be tinder for the devil’s tinder-box."--Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress.
NOTE ON DEMONS.
While John does not give a single account of the casting out of devils, or demons more correctly, he refers in no less than four places to demoniac possession. In John 7:20, the multitude exclaim, "Thou hast a devil (demon): who goeth about to kill thee?" In John 8:48, his enemies insult him by declaring: "Thou art a Samaritan and hast a devil." In John 8:52, they exclaim: "Now we know thou hast a devil," and in John 10:20, they say, "He hath a devil and is mad." In all these places the Greek term is demon (daimonion), not devil (diabolos). It is the same term that is constantly used by the other Evangelists when they speak of demoniac possession. The subject is one that requires, to a correct understanding, more than a brief note, and I will add the substance, condensed, of what has been said by Trench (Miracles), Alford and Smith (Dictionary of the Bible) upon the subject. There has been presented no less than three theories of demoniacal possession:
1. Strauss and his school hold that there was nothing of the kind and that all language that seems to imply it is to be spiritualized. The possession of devils is only a lively symbol of the prevalence and power of evil in the world, and the casting out of devils is a corresponding symbol of our Lord’s conquest of evil by his spiritual power. This theory is a part of that mythical explanation of everything miraculous in the life of Christ of which Strauss is the expounder. It is a sufficient answer to say that it is utterly inconsistent with the plain, matter of fact narratives of the New Testament.
2. The second theory holds that our Lord found a general belief in demoniacal agency, which attributed to demons various diseases, including some forms of lunacy, and epilepsy, that he did not combat this belief, but healed the diseases by miraculous power, and that there is really no such thing as demoniacal possession. The principal argument advanced is that we are not able to discover demoniac possession now, and hence, we ought to conclude there never was anything of the kind. To this view I will let Alford answer: (1) The Gospel narratives are distinctly pledged to the historic truth of these occurrences. Either they are true, or the Gospels are false. The accounts are too explicit, the details are given too fully, and the recognition of the demons by the Savior is too clear to admit of doubt. (2) Not only are the "demons," "evil spirits," "unclean spirits" recognized by the writers of the Gospels, but by the Savior himself. He speaks of them, to them, and commands them. His recognition is such that he has given testimony to their reality. If they are unreal he did that which is wholly at variance with the Christian idea of truthfulness. (3) The possession by demons was more than bodily disease. It is distinguished from sickness, lunacy and palsy by all being mentioned together (Matthew 4:24). It is shown not to be epilepsy by the spirits recognizing Jesus as the Son of God, pleading with him not to torment them before their time, speaking of their number, and passing from men into a herd of swine. It is shown to be a demoniac power by emphasis of the need of great spiritual power to control it (Matthew 9:29). (4) As to the statement that there is no such thing now that cannot be proved. One of the miraculous gifts was "discerning of spirits," and it is possible if this gift was restored we would be able to explain many a mysterious case by reference to this cause. It is known that insanity often cannot be traced to any physical cause and there are cases that can be explained most easily by reference to such a possession. We often, too, meet with cases where there seems, as in the possessed of the New Testament, to be a kind of a double will power, a feeble struggling against some force that sustains the man and leads him to a life that his other nature abhors. Perhaps, too, there may sometimes be something in the claims of writing and trance mediums, who insist that they are controlled by spirits. There are millions who believe in spiritualism, and it may not be entirely delusion. If there is any basis for their belief the whole system is ancient demonology in our age. Still it is not strange if demons should have less power now than 1800 years ago. Then was the "hour and power of darkness." The leaven of Christianity has been infusing itself through the world and has, no doubt, immensely limited the power of Satan.
3. What is this possession? The demons are described as "evil spirits," "unclean spirits," "the powers of the air," etc. Satan, the same as Beelzebub, is spoken of as the "prince of demons." He, a fallen angel, drew after him "angels that kept not their first estate" and is the spiritual chief of a realm of wicked spirits. These, doing his bidding, when they find a human heart prepared for their reception, enter in, take possession, sway the will and control the actions of the unfortunate being. The possession sometimes manifests itself in physical, and sometimes also in mental infirmities, nor can we reject the existence of demons unless we deny the existence of the world of spirits altogether.
GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN
B.W. Johnson
CHAPTER CHAPTER EIGHT
THE ADULTEROUS WOMAN.
By referring to the Revised Version the reader will see that the last verse of Chap. 7, and eleven verses of Chap. 8. are omitted. It is not in harmony with the purpose of this commentary to enter into a critical discussion of the reasons why they are rejected, further than to say that they are wanting in most of the very ancient manuscripts, and terms are also used that John nowhere else adopts. On the other hand the account is so much in harmony with the spirit of Christ, so characteristic, and bears such marks of real history, that I am compelled to believe that it gives a real incident of the life of the Master. With the stern ideas that grew up in the succeeding centuries it would have been impossible to have invented such a story, and the suggestion of some of the early Fathers, Augustine for one, that it had been stricken from some of the manuscripts because it might be tortured into a license for sin, is more likely. Whether or not penned by John it is so full of, Christ that I believe it is true, though it might have been added to the Gospel after it was written.
"The whole scene, the arrest of the woman, the demand on Jesus, the Pharisaic contempt of public morality in obtruding the crime and the criminal on public attention in the temple courts; the attempt to entrap Jesus; the skill of his reply; the subtle recognition of the woman’s shame and despair,--and the gentle avoidance of adding to it by turning the public gaze from her to himself as he wrote upon the ground; the final confusion of the Pharisees and the release of the woman, bear the marks of real history. It is impossible to believe that any monkish mind conceived of this and added it to the narrative. The deed is the deed of Christ, whether or no the record is the record of John."--Abbott.
1. Jesus went to the mount of Olives. The last verse of Chap. 7 says that "every man went to his own house." Those who disputed with him had homes in Jerusalem to which they retired, but "Jesus went to the Mount of Olives," perhaps to the shades of Gethsemane where he rested under a leafy olive tree, possibly to the bower of some of his Galilean friends, constructed of branches as was the custom at this feast, possibly to the loved home of Lazarus and his sisters which was situated on the farther slope of the mount, about two miles from the city. This is somewhat remarkable as the only place where John mentions by name this hallowed mount, although it soon acquires a striking prominence in his history from its relation to the scenes of Bethany, Gethsemane and the triumphal entry into Jerusalem. It was separated from the city by the valley of Jehoshaphat, through which flowed the brook Kedron, and overlooked Jerusalem from the east. The road to Jericho, the Jordan, and Perea lay across, or rather around its brow. On its eastern slope were the sacred localities of Bethphage and Bethany.
2. Early in the morning. Of the first day after the feast had ended (see (John 7:37), if this narrative is in its proper place in his life. And he sat down and taught them. We learn from John 8:20, that he was now in "the treasury of the temple." John does not give the words of teaching for the reason, as I believe, that as soon as the Savior had taken his place as a teacher and the throngs were gathered, an interruption took place. The Scribes and Pharisees were awaiting his coming and at once obtruded upon him.
3. The scribes and Pharisees. This is the only place where John mentions the Scribes, though they are often named by the other Evangelists. From the time of Ezra they had been a distinct class. Gradually they became the most influential teachers of Israel, having far more to do in shaping the religious life of the people than the priests. To this order belonged the Rabbins, the great Doctors of the law, such men as Hillel, Shammai and Gamaliel. When Christ began to teach, at once the people began to compare his methods with those of the Scribes. They did not speak "with authority," but fortified their decisions with the opinions of great Doctors, "teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." He, on the other hand, spoke as one drawing upon a fountain of absolute truth within himself, "with authority and not as the Scribes." The phrase, "Scribes and Pharisees," has almost the same meaning as "the Jews," so frequently used by John. Brought unto him a woman. She had possibly been arrested during the night. As Jerusalem was crowded with strangers and this feast was a gay, joyous one, there was probably more license than usual. There was no reason why they should bring her to him. The law of Moses was clear and they could understand that Judea was a Roman province and the Roman civil law was now in force in Judea, which did not punish adultery with death. The man was equally guilty according to the Mosaic law, but pursuing the usual course of corrupt men they let him go and fastened upon the helpless woman.
5. Moses commanded such should be stoned. The Mosaic enactment is found in Deuteronomy 22:22, and Leviticus 20:10. It required stoning in the case of a betrothed virgin, and also made the infidelity of a wife punishable with death. It was no feeling of outraged purity that brought these learned Scribes, thoroughly posted in the Mosaic teachings, to Christ. Long since the rigid observance of the Levitical law had been laid aside in questions of morals, and the nation under the influence of association with heathen, had become corrupt. The Scribes and Pharisees were themselves "whited sepulchers." They only thought that, by means of this guilty woman whom they had entrapped, they could annoy, possibly entangle and gain ground for accusing the Prophet of Galilee.
6. This they said, tempting him. The dilemma corresponds to that of the tribute money. To affirm the binding validity and force of the Mosaic enactment, would be to counsel a course of action contrary to the Roman law, and would also be incongruous with the merciful spirit of him who had called publicans and permitted "sinners" to weep unrebuked upon his feet. On the other hand, to set aside the Mosaic judgment would make him liable to the charge of breaking the law of Moses and would be a powerful aid in breaking down his influence with the people. In one case they could accuse him to the Romans and place him under the ban of the civil power; in the other they could denounce him a setter aside of their cherished law. With his finger wrote on the ground. His act was a significant object lesson which said that he would pay no attention to them. When anyone speaks to me and I busy myself with something else it signifies that I do not consider him worthy of attention. It may be noted that this is the only record given that Christ ever wrote a line. It is vain to conjecture what he may have written with his finger in the dust, but if it had come down to us it would probably be found to have a marvellous adaptation to the circ*mstances.
7. He lifted himself up and said. As they were determined not to be foiled they kept pressing the question, "What sayest thou?" until he arose, looked at them with a look that seemed to pierce their very hearts, and to unveil their thoughts and lives, and then he said, "Let him that is without sin among you cast the first stone." They knew their lives were known; that he saw them polluted with impure thoughts and deeds; yet his answer bids the sinless one among them to step forth and, in accordance with the law of Moses, hurl the first stone at the poor, shame-stricken, agonized sinner who cowered before them. The answer was like a bolt of lightning. It affirmed nothing, but hurled them back on their own hearts and bade them thus decide. It said to them, "Thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest; for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself: for thou that judgest doest the same things."
8. Again he stooped down, and wrote. Resuming his former attitude he left them to ponder what he had said and to act upon it. There, for a little while, stood the silent scene; the stooping Lord slowly tracing characters with his fingers upon the earth; the crouching and weeping woman held by her accusers, and the haughty Scribes and Pharisees with shame upon their countenances, perplexed faces and eyes cast upon the earth; a scene worthy of a painter. They had forgotten that the Mosaic law provided that the witnesses on whose testimony the accused was condemned should cast the first stone (Deuteronomy 17:5-7), and also that a guilty husband could not demand punishment upon a guilty wife, according to their Rabbinical law. Before the judgment of the law of Moses could be carried out, therefore, they must settle the question of their own innocence, yet his language reveals a knowledge of their guilt.
9. Being convicted by their own conscience, went out. As he wrote and left them to their own thoughts, conscience began to do its work. "The word of the Lord was quick and powerful." In the presence of one who read their hearts they were helpless, and, one by one, they began to go quietly out, the eldest and guiltiest leading the way, and in a little while the only figures left of the group were Jesus, still writing, and the woman whom they had left behind. She might have followed, but I trust that she remained because her heart yearned for forgiveness and a new life in the presence of the Sinless One before her.
10. Woman, where are thine accusers? Then he lifted himself up, looked around and saw that his enemies were gone, and then addressed the woman. As Augustine says: "Misery was in the presence of Mercy." "Doth no man condemn thee?" Is there no accuser to prove thy guilt?
11. No man, Lord. . . . Neither do I condemn thee. He will not pronounce sentence upon her. He does not palliate her sin, but gives her the opportunity for repentance. In the words, "Go and sin no more," there is an implied rebuke of her past life, a charge to repent and live a better life, and an opening of the door of hope in case she heeded his words.
PRACTICAL OBSERVATIONS.
1. Men often do not know themselves. These Scribes and Pharisees regarded themselves very religious men, and very loyal to Moses. They kept the letter of the ceremonial law. They trampled under foot its spirit.
2. Men in their eagerness to entrap others often fall into their own snares. Many a man has fallen into the pit that he has digged for others. These Scribes and Pharisees in seeking to confuse Jesus brought confusion on themselves.
3. Before we condemn others we should examine ourselves and see whether we are free from the sin we condemn. "With what measure we mete unto others, it shall be measured unto us again."
4. "The merciful shall obtain mercy." On the one hand in the Scriptures stand the proud, religious, punctilious Pharisees, scorning to touch a publican or a "sinner." On the other hand stands the merciful Jesus, "the Friend of publicans and sinners," who had come to call, "not the righteous, but sinners to repentance."
5. Still our mercy must be like that of Jesus, sorrow for the sinner, but indignation for sin. It must not degenerate into indifference. Like Christ, our mercy should lead us to "seek to save men from their sins," to call sinners to repentance, to open the door of hope to the fallen if they will only "go and sin no more." Sin is not the less sinful that there is mercy offered to the penitent sinner.
THE LIGHT OF THE WORLD.
After this, "seated in the Treasury--either some special building of the temple so-called, or that part of the court of the women which contained thirteen chests with trumpet-shaped openings, into which the people, and especially the Pharisees, cast their gifts--he taught as recorded in the present section. In this court were two gigantic candelabra, fifty cubits high, sumptuously gilded, on the summit of which at night during the feast, lamps were lighted which threw their light over the city." In the presence of these lamps, so admired by the throng, probably because attention was just then drawn to them, he exclaimed: "I am the light of the world," in accordance with his custom of fixing his words indelibly by referring to surrounding objects. His statement, fitting from the grandest character the earth has ever known, seemed to the Pharisees presumptuous, but he declares that he had the support of his Father’s testimony. This statement led to various questions which resulted in their claim that Abraham was their father and the discourse that we now are called to study.
12. I am the light of the world. If the account of the woman is in the right place, it would seem that, after that case had reached its settlement, he began his discourse to the people. He had said to his disciples in the Sermon on the Mount that he was the light of the world; now he declares it to the Jewish nation in the temple. It is to be remarked that light was regarded as an accompaniment of the presence of the Lord. Moses beheld the burning bush in Horeb; when he returned from the presence of the Lord on Sinai his face was shining with heavenly radiance; the pillar of fire that lighted Israel on the pilgrimage was the emblem of the presence of God; the Shekinah descended into the Holy of Holies in a blaze of light. While the fiery cloud had lighted Israel Christ makes a more stupendous claim and asserts he is the light of the world. It is easy for us to understand that he is the Sun that chases ignorance, the clouds of doubt and the darkness of despair away, and who fills the soul with the light of heavenly knowledge and hope. When he uttered these words three of those who heard him must have thought of his radiance as they had beheld him shining on the Mount of Transfiguration. It is to be noted that Christ always rises above the thought of being only a national Savior. He bore on his heart the woes of humanity. Other religious teachers have come as "the Light of Asia," or of a particular race, but he came as the "Light of the world," and hence he bade, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature." He that followeth me shall not walk in darkness. The pillar of fire is referred to which lighted Israel on the march. So shall his followers be lighted by him, and shall have not only light, but "the light of life." "In him was life and the life was the light of men" (John 1:4). His disciples are not in darkness because be imparts to them the new life which fills the soul with light in the reception of the word of God.
13. Thou bearest record of thyself; thy record is not true. Perhaps these Pharisees have in mind what is recorded in John 5:31. Had they said, "The testimony is not sufficient to convince us," they might have merited more respectful treatment, but they bluntly affirm that his statement is false.
14. Though I bear record of myself, my record is true. A man is not usually competent to bear witness of himself on account of the frailty of human understanding and must have corroborative testimony. I suppose that Mahomet, Ellen Smith, and other enthusiasts really thought that they were inspired. But Christ was not subject to human limitations. He knew himself, what he was, whence he came, whither he would return, the secrets of his Father, was dowered with omniscience, and hence, was qualified to speak absolute truth. No man understands even his own being, but Christ knew all things, and hence never spoke doubtingly, or hesitatingly, never stumbled, or had to change his answers. "He spake as never man spake."
15. Ye judge after the flesh. They looked upon outward appearances, material forms, and judged, like the world, from a superficial examination. They had not the spiritual discernment that was requisite to the recognition of Christ as one that came from God. Some "have eyes and see not," because some things have to be "spiritually discerned." There must be a certain preparation of heart before one can receive or comprehend Christ. To coarse, sensual, worldly hearts he is an enigma; to "Greeks" of every age, "foolishness; and to Jews a stumbling block." I judge no man. Re knows men, but he lets their own deeds judge them. When he sits on the throne of eternal judgment and the "books" are opened and men see their lives, they will not need that he judge them. Their consciences will approve or condemn.
16. If I judge, my judgment is true. He came not into the world to judge the world, but to save it, but he does not refrain from judging because he could not pass a judgment that was infallibly true. His Father would judge in him, and all lives were "naked and opened" to the sight of the Father.
17. It is also written in your law. The Jewish law which they accepted as divine. It declared (Deuteronomy 19:15) that the testimony of two witnesses was to be accepted. In this case, besides his own witness, there was other testimony to confirm it. It will be noticed that Jesus does not say our law. He never classes himself with the Jews.
18. The Father that sent me beareth witness of me. There was his own testimony that he came from the Father. Then, there was in addition, the testimony of the Father. The witness of the Father was given in all the Prophets who spoke of Christ, was given at the Baptism by testimony from heaven, was given in the divine wisdom, sinless nature, and mighty works of Christ, for "no one could do these things unless God was with him." The divine presence was manifested in his life to such a degree that when Philip inquires for the Father (John 14:8) the Savior’s reply is in a tone of sorrow: "Have I been so long time with thee and hast thou not known me?"
19. Where is thy Father? This question is asked, not for information, but in a scornful spirit. They could not see his Father, therefore they disputed his words. The Savior strikes at the root of their difficulty in his reply: Ye neither know me, nor my Father. Had they known Christ this would have led them to a knowledge of the Father, for it is thus we learn to know God, by beholding him manifest in the flesh. The mighty Jehovah, clothed in majesty and sitting on his throne in the heavens, may be above our comprehension, but the Savior, weeping with tenderness and beaming with love, we can comprehend. On the other hand, it is a demonstration that men know not God who do not recognize Christ, for "in him is the fulness of the Godhead." By their rejection of Christ these Pharisees demonstrated that they "knew not God."
20. These words spake Jesus in the treasury. The treasury of the temple was in the court of the women, the most public part of the temple. See Mark 12:41; Luke 21:1. The mention of the locality shows the boldness of the Lord’s teaching. The Sanhedrim held its sessions, usually, in the hall Gazith, which was situated in the wall between the court of women and the inner court. Jesus was teaching within hearing of the very headquarters of his enemies, from whence had issued the orders, shortly before (John 7:32; John 7:45), for his arrest. "Yet no man laid hands on him; for his hour was not yet come." Until the passover, six months in the future, that the plans of his enemies should all fail, and "his hour should not come," was clearly known to the Lord.
21. I go my way, . . . ye shall die in your sins. We now pass to another stage in the discourse, either continued at that time, or resumed by a connection of thought, afterwards. His words are no longer confined to the Pharisees, but addressed to "the Jews," the whole class of official opposers, and he carries them forward to judgment. He will depart and they shall seek him when it is too late and shall not find him but die in their sin (see Revised Version), the sin of rejecting the only Savior who could save them from their sins, and the result will be that where he is they cannot come. The meaning of his words is plain in the light of subsequent events. 1. He went back to heaven from the cross, the tomb, and the Mount of Ascension. 2. These Jewish hearers will die in their sin. 3. Therefore, they cannot go where Christ will have gone. 4. In other words, those who die in sin cannot find entrance into heaven. Coupled with the next three verses it is strongly opposed to the doctrine of universal restoration, as it is also, to an effectual repentance upon the death bed. It teaches us to "seek the Lord while he may be found," for the time comes when men shall seek him and not find him.
22. Will he kill himself? I do not suppose that these "Jews" were so dull as their question implies. They probably asked this question in scorn. They did not understand the Lord because they did not want to understand. They mean that, as he proposes to go where they cannot come, he must be going to Gehenna, where all suicides go, rather than to heaven, where all Pharisees expected to go. The Jews placed suicides along with murder and held that the darkest regions of the under world were reserved for those who were guilty of the crime.
23. Ye are from beneath. Their words were full of mockery and the Lord increases his severity. Understanding their allusion to the world beneath in their question, he replies, "You are from beneath," earthly, fleshly, worldly, of a spirit that will cause you to go to your own place, but I am from above. Hence, when he "goes away," he will return whence he came.
24. I said therefore, ye shall die in your sins. Because "they are from beneath," "of the world." The only way that there is of escape from the fearful fate that he predicts is stated: "If ye believe not that I am, ye shall die in your sins." Their unbelief was due to their obstinacy and wilful blindness; there is still one door of hope; that is belief on him. He who dies in unbelief dies in sin.
25. Who art thou? He had said, "believe that I am;" they said, "believe that thou art what? Who art thou?" Their words were no doubt spoken with a sneer, as though they said, "Whom, then, dost thou fancy thyself to be?" His answer is not such as he was wont to give to honest, earnest seekers, but such as mockers merited: "Even the same that I said from the beginning." I refer you to my words and what they testify of me. His teaching was a demonstration of his character. This answer of Christ has provoked much discussion, not so much concerning its meaning, as its proper translation. The early Greek Fathers, such men as Chrysostom and Cyril, men who spoke Greek as their native tongue, held that the Savior said, "Why am I even speaking to you at all?" Or, in other words, Why will he condescend to speak at all to men upon whom his words are wasted? This gives a clear and harmonious idea.
26. I have many things to say and judge of you. Still he continues to speak. His words will only make them more bitter, but he represents divine truth and the message must be given to the world. He will only speak what he "has heard" of God, though he has much to say in the way of admonition and censure.
27. They understood not that he spake of the Father. They were so pre-occupied with thoughts of earthly things that they did not perceive what is so plain to us, that he declared that he would not speak his own words and judgments, but only what he "had heard of the Father." He had not designated by any title the One who had sent him. His meaning, to them, was partly veiled, as in his parables, in order that unawares, some seeds of truth should find a lodgment in their hearts. As Alford says: "There is no accounting for the ignorance of unbelief, as any minister of Christ knows by painful experience."
28. When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am. Though his Jewish hearers did not understand the import of his words, they are clear to us. The "lifting up" always points to the cross, and this victory of his enemies and humiliation of the Son of God, is always pointed to as the crisis in which his cause is won and his salvation made sure. Two years and a half before, in the interview with Nicodemus, he had said, "As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish but have eternal life." He taught in these and other passages that his "lifting up" would be the means of breaking down unbelief and leading men to "know him." The prediction was realized. His disciples were few in number until after he died, but the very act that his enemies fondly hoped would blot his name from history was the means of filling the world with believers. Fifty days after his crucifixion thousands of those who had "crucified and slain" him, cried, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" A few weeks after thousands more of those concerning whom Peter said, "I know that through ignorance you crucified the Lord of life and glory," became believers. Thus the work went on until the cross became a badge of honor, instead of a symbol of shame. The Lord, and indeed the whole Scripture, points to the death of Jesus as the central act of the Christian religion. It is his death that gives life to the world.
29. He that sent me is with me. He always has a sense of the presence of the Father. He was not so much an ambassador from God, as "the Brightness of the Father’s glory and the express image of his person," the manifestation of God. I do the things which please him always. "Always" is emphatic. He was completely resigned to the will of the Father. Even in Gethsemane his prayer was, "Not my will, but thine be done." Because his will was lost in the will of God, the "Father did not leave him alone." So, too, every child of God can have a consciousness of the presence of the Father if he will always do those things that please him.
30. Many believed on him. From the instructions that follow it is evident that they did more than give assent to the proposition that he was an inspired man of God. They were evidently moved in heart to trust and follow him.
JESUS AND ABRAHAM.
31. If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed. The words spoken by the Savior in the preceding discourse convinced many of his hearers. They "believed on him," but their faith was not yet made perfect by obedience. Hence he adds the conditions of discipleship. They must do more than believe; their belief must move them to accept his word and obey it. There is a condition, continue in my word; a promise, shall be my disciples. To abide in the word, is the condition of being Christ’s disciples. This harmonizes with the entire gospel. The New Testament nowhere teaches justification by a faith that does not lead to obedience.
32. And ye shall know the truth. Disciples are learners. Their object is to know the truth. The way to know the truth is, not to engage in study, but to obey the truth. He declares (John 7:17): "If any man will do his will he shall know of the doctrine whether it be of God." This shows that the best way to silence doubts is to practice the duties of Christian life. It is certain that the faithful doers of the will of God are not the doubters, and it is also certain that those who become skeptics begin by neglecting their duties. Those who walk devoutly in the footsteps of Christ are not troubled by doubts. And the truth shall make you free. The truth known through obedience to Christ’s words. Too often churches seek to bring those who would obey Christ into bondage to creeds, traditions of men and human forms. The gospel obeyed frees--frees from the yoke of Satan, from spiritual task-masters, from fear, fills the soul with hope and the free spirit of a man who serves the Father from love.
33. They answered. Probably not the Jews who believed, but the opposers in the throng. We be Abraham’s seed, and were never in bondage. It was the proud boast of the Jews that they were descendants of Abraham. They trusted in their blood rather than in obedience to the God of Abraham. Their proud language was false. Their nation had been in bondage for over six hundred years, to Babylon, to Persia, to Macedon, to Syria, to Rome. It had been in bondage to idolatry in past time and was scourged by God with the captivity. It was at that very moment in bondage to Rome politically, and spiritually to the Rabbis, to tradition, to human commandments, to spiritual pride, and to sin. Those are most deeply enslaved who call their bondage freedom.
34. Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin. According to his custom, Christ makes no direct argument in reply, but states a truth and leaves them to apply it. The sinner is the slave of sin. Action forms habit, and habit is a second nature. We say of the drunkard, the tobacco chewer, the opium eater, the swearer, or the gambler, that he is the slave of habit. The same principle is involved in all evil doing, which tends to fasten evil habits upon the soul. Whoever sins is binding upon himself the chains of slavery. This is a law of our being. How many there are who become conscious of their weak, sinful condition and sigh for deliverance. See Romans 7:9-24.
35. The servant abideth not in the house forever. The servant has no claim to remain continually in the same family, but may be changed at will. The son can remain because he is a son. Hagar, the bondwoman, was sent forth from the home of Abraham. The Jews, bondmen instead of children, who claimed that they dwelt in the house of God and enjoyed his favor, would soon be expelled; only those who were made free by the Son and thus become children would continue to abide in the Lord’s house.
36. If the son, therefore, shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed. Ye are not truly free, but servants of sin, children of the bondwoman who was cast out. If you would be free indeed you must have the freedom that the Son bestows and become children. In order to fully comprehend the figure read Galatians 4:19-21, which is the best commentary on this verse.
37. I know that ye are Abraham’s seed. He admits their boast that they are the fleshly children of Abraham, "but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you;" a proof that they were not spiritually Abraham’s children. Abraham had no such spirit. John the Baptist found it needful to rebuke the Jewish boast, and declared "God could of these stones raise up children to Abraham," a hint that the children of the promise should be Abraham’s children, not by fleshly descent, but by the will of God.
38. I speak that which I have seen with my Father. Jesus was the Son; he had dwelt in the Father’s house; he declared what he had seen and heard there; this they rejected, and did what they "had seen with their father;" not Abraham, whom they claimed, but the father named in John 8:44.
39-43. Abraham is our father. To Christ’s allusion to their father they again assert that they are Abraham’s offspring. This might be true according to the flesh, but spiritually they had another father. See John 8:44. Ye seek to kill me. A thing totally unlike Abraham, and showing that they are not his spiritual children. Ye do the deeds of your father. The father named in John 8:44. If God were your father. This is in reply to their claim that they are God’s children. Their assertion is disproved by their hate of him who was sent from God. God’s spiritual children would welcome "God manifest in the flesh." Cannot hear my word. They could not understand him, because they were morally incapable of hearing him. Satan, their father, had them captive, and their minds were so preoccupied, that they could not receive Christ’s truth.
44. Ye are of your father, the devil. He shows that there are two households on the earth; that of God, composed of his children; and that of the devil, composed of his children. All who hear the voice of Christ become God’s children by adoption (Romans 8:15-17), and all who refuse to hear him, do so because they belong to the devil’s household and hear his voice. He was a murderer from the beginning. Not merely because he inspired Cain’s murder of Abel, but because he seduced the human race into disobedience and sought to destroy it. The temptation in Eden was a case of attempted murder, and has resulted in all the murders of earth, and the spiritual death of myriads. They (the Jews) were the children of a murderer; hence they sought to kill Christ (see John 8:40).
45. Because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not. He has just declared that the devil is the father of liars and that they are his children; hence they would refuse to receive the truth. They had in them the spirit of their father which would lead them to reject the truth and to prefer falsehood. There are many such in the earth still, who fight against the truth and resort to every dishonest quibble in order to overthrow it. They do not love the truth and this has so warped their nature that they will believe a lie more readily than the truth.
46. Which of you convinceth me of sin? He points to his sinless character as a proof that there can be no falsehood in his words. The argument is: "If I am not the Son of God, find out some human defect or weakness that proves that I am only a man, and therefore, imperfect like all others." This is Christ’s method with deists. Point out a single flaw in his matchless character. You cannot. Then listen to the words of the sinless man as to a voice from heaven. "If I am not convicted of any sin, I speak the truth. Why then do you not believe me?"
47. He that is of God heareth God’s words. These Pharisees claimed to be of God, but proved they were not by rejecting the words of the Son.
48. Thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil? They resort to the language of passion and vituperation. Of all men they hated the Samaritans most and hence this charge; they next accuse him, not of having a devil, but being possessed with a demon, or evil spirit. The charge had been before made that he cast out devils by Beelzebub the prince of devils. See Matthew 12:24. The evil spirits, or demons, are represented as fallen angels (2 Peter 2:4); subject to Satan (Matthew 9:34); working miracles (Revelation 16:14).
49. I honor my Father. He passes by in silence their first charge; the second he denies, and shows that it cannot be true, for he honors his Father, which a demon could not do; and yet the Jews dishonored him, while he honored the Father.
50. I seek not mine own glory. He cared little therefore for their abuse, and sought not to defend himself. The "one that seeketh and judgeth" would take care of his reputation. God’s children may disregard the unrighteous judgments of men, but God will Judge righteously.
51. If a man keep my word, he shall never see death. Here again is a condition and a promise. Notice 1. Its universal character. If any one, Jew or Gentile, male or female, bond or free. 2. The condition: Keep my words. Again, obedience essential; no life without it; by obedience we are not only freed, but enter into life. 3. Shall not see death. Death of the body is not reckoned death, but merely the gate through which the believer enters upon a more perfect life. "They who live and believe upon him shall never die."
52. Abraham is dead, and the prophets. Everybody had died, even the best and greatest; how then could any one escape seeing death?
53. Art thou greater than our father Abraham? Their argument is: They that heard the word of God are dead, and shall they who have heard thee not die? Their question is asked in scorn. Compare with John 4:12.
54. If I honor myself, my honor is nothing. They had just asked: Whom makest thou thyself? The Father, who honoreth him, will settle that question by his resurrection from the dead and exaltation.
55. Ye have not known him, but I know him. They claimed to be worshipers of Abraham’s God. He now shows, that despite their claims, they did not know him, but that he knew and revealed him. Nor could he deny it, for he must tell the truth.
56. Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day . . . and was glad. Saw it in promise by prophetic vision; whether or not "Abraham was greater" he rejoiced in the hope of the revelation of Christ.
57. Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou soon Abraham? They do not attempt to give his age, but a round period that will cover it. It had been about 2,000 years since the time of Abraham. Jesus did not say he had seen Abraham, but they pervert his words.
58. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. A solemn and official declaration preceded by" Verily, verily." The utterance is a remarkable one. It does not merely assert that he was before Abraham, but, before Abraham was, I AM. It identifies him with the I AM of the Old Testament. Divinity has no past tense, nor future tense, but always the present. God is not eternity or infinity, but eternal and infinite. His hands are laid upon the past as well as the future.
59. They took up stones to stone him. They regarded his language blasphemy. If he had been only a man it would have been. Hence, in a sudden rage, without waiting for a trial, they sought to inflict the penalty of blasphemy by mob violence. Stoning was the legal penalty of blasphemy, but could not be inflicted without a trial and judgment. But Jesus hid himself. Quietly disappeared in the crowd and departed from the temple, while they were raging around to gather stones. It is not probable there was a miracle, as he never worked one for his own benefit.
PRACTICAL OBSERVATIONS.
1. This discourse embodies Christ’s teaching concerning himself in the following points: (1) He is the light, the moral and spiritual illuminator of the world; (2) He is superhuman in his origin (John 8:23); (3) The manifestation of the Father ( John 8:29); (4) The freer of those who obey his words ( John 8:31-36); (5) Sinless ( John 8:46); (6) The life-giver to those who obey him ( John 8:51); (7) The great I AM ( John 8:58).--Barnes.
2. To become his disciples we must abide in his words. We must not only receive them, but obey them and continue to live in them. No one is his disciple who continues in disobedience.
3. To secure life we must keep his words. There is no promise to any but those who seek to do his will. To those who make it their meat to do his will, the death of the body is only the opening of the portals of the eternal home.
4. There are two households, two armies, two churches; one of Satan, and the other of God. He who does the will of Satan is of the first; he who does God’s will as revealed by Christ, is of the second. It is easy for each one to determine where he belongs.
5. All true Christians are brothers and sisters of Christ, and heirs with him of God his father. His riches are their riches; his joys, their joys; his character, their character; his home, their home.
6. I AM.--The word "I am" in Hebrew is equivalent in meaning to Jehovah, and differs from it very slightly in form. This is much obscured by our substitution of Lord for Jehovah. The name, which Moses was thus commissioned to use, was at once new and old: old in its connection with previous revelations; new in its full interpretation and in its bearing upon the covenant of which Moses was the destined mediator.--Cook. And here we cannot but be reminded of the remarkable words of our Savior (John 8:58), "Before Abraham was, I am." The expression is so strikingly parallel that we know not how to resist the conclusion that there was a real, though mysterious identity in the essential nature of the two speakers; so that whatever was meant by Jehovah in saying to Moses, "I am hath sent me to you," the same was meant by the saying of Jesus, "Before Abraham was, I am."--Bush.
GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN
B.W. Johnson
JOHN CHAPTER NINE
JESUS AND THE BLIND MAN.
This miracle is reported only by John, a fact that is not strange when we remember that he alone gives a report of the ministry in Judea in which it occurred. The time cannot be certainly determined. Some have supposed that it occurred on the same day, only a few moments after Christ had escaped from the attempt to stone him; others regard it improbable that he should have stopped at such a moment to perform a miracle. All that is certain is that it was on the Sabbath day; a fact that intensified the animosity of his strict, sanctimonious, but unscrupulous enemies. We are, however, inclined to think that it occurred on the same day as the events of the last chapter.
1. And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth. The last verse of the preceding chapter states that Jesus, "going through the midst of them, so passed by." This chapter begins, "As Jesus passed by." When we remember that there was no break into chapters when John wrote the passage, it seems certain that he designed to say that this occurred immediately after. In this case it was Jesus who came to the blind man, not the blind man to him. Blindness from birth is usually incurable by modern science. Like most such unfortunates then, the man was a beggar. See John 9:8.
2. Master, who did sin? The disciples observed the Savior’s look, resting sympathetically on the sufferer. They ask the solution of a troublesome question. It was the current opinion of the Jews that such an infliction was a punishment for some sin. Traces of this belief are often found in the Scriptures. When Job was a sufferer from an unprecedented sorrow, his friends insisted that he must have been a great sinner. The prophet, describing the sufferings of Christ, declared that the people would say, "He is smitten of God and afflicted." When Paul placed the bundle of sticks on the fire after the shipwreck, and the viper came out and fastened on his hand, the barbarians decided at once that he was a murderer or, at least, a great criminal. The world still believes that great calamities are judgments. When a great misfortune comes on a nation or an individual, the question is asked, "How did they sin?" Even Christ had said to the paralytic at the pool of Bethesda, "Go, and sin no more, lest a worse thing come upon thee." This man. Usually our sorrows are the direct result of our own sins. Men are broken in health, reputation, or fortune, because they have transgressed. When the drunkard has delirium tremens, or the rake is on the rack of a ruined constitution, or an outcast woman is dying in shame, they are all reaping what they have sown. The disciples knew this to be true, and did not stop to consider that the man’s own sins could not have caused him to be born blind. Or his parents. The disciples knew well that the sins of parents are often visited upon the children. Many a child has received the legacy of a feeble constitution, or a hereditary disease, or of vicious habits, or of a shameful name, from its parents. Nor is such a question strange concerning a member of a race which has inherited the consequences of sin from Adam.
3. Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents. Jesus, does not affirm that they were sinless, but that their sins were not the cause of the calamity. We are not justified in asserting that the sufferer is a sinner. Job’s friends tried to prove his guilt by his calamities; the enemies of Christ, when he suffered on the cross, said, "He is smitten of God, and afflicted." Christ here shows that there may be other reasons for sorrow than personal or family sins. But that the works of God should be made manifest in him. By his miraculous cure the work of God shall be made manifest. It is the work of God to believe on Christ (John 6:29), and the blindness of this man was the occasion of faith being produced not only in him, but others. Thus Christ shows a nobler use of suffering. It is often a means of grace, and the saints are often called upon to suffer, that they may themselves be purified, or to show God’s grace to others. "The Father chasteneth every son whom he loveth." "If ye be without chastening ye are not sons." "The blood of martyrs is the seed of the church."
4. The night cometh, when no man can work. The works of God are to be made manifest in the blind man; Christ must work those works while the short day of life lasteth; the night of death soon cometh to everyone when no man can work. It is probable, when these words were spoken, the afternoon was moving toward night when the work of the day would be over. His night of death was near at hand, and he was diligent to finish his work. So, too, it soon comes to every man. What is to be done must be done first. If we have not "worked out our own salvation with fear and trembling," it will be too late.
5. I am the light of the world. He was the sun that caused the day of life and hope to the soul. He sheds moral and spiritual light upon the world. It was prophesied that he should give sight to the blind. He not only opened blind souls, but blind eyes. At that moment he was about to be light to one who had been wrapped in darkness all his life.
6. He spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle. Why he did this we cannot be sure. The ancients believed there was a virtue in saliva, but one way of healing was as easy to the Savior as another. It is probable that this means was adopted in order to send the man to the pool of Siloam to wash. It was Christ’s rule to give all who were healed something to do as a test of faith. He had volunteered the cure in this case; he therefore anointed the blind man’s eyes and bade him go and wash off the ointment.
7. Go, wash in the pool of Siloam. A pool in the environs of Jerusalem, called Siloah or Shiloah in Nehemiah 3:15; Isaiah 8:6. South of the temple mount is a basin hewn out of the rock in part and partly built of masonry, fifty-three feet long, eighteen feet wide and nineteen feet deep, which is identified as Siloam. A stream, rising in the fount of Siloam, passes through the reservoir, which is used for domestic purposes and irrigation by the people of the adjacent village of Siloam. Sent. The name of the pool was one of the titles of Christ. He was the Shiloah (Sent), it was Siloam. Came seeing. The man went in obedience, as Naaman went and washed in Jordan. The result in each case was the same. The divine power healed, but the act of obedience was demanded of the man.
8, 9. Is not this he that sat and begged? The only doubt arose from the fact that that was a blind beggar, but this man could see. Apparently, he was a well-known beggar, but their surprise was so great that it required his affirmation before they were sure of his identity. "Both beggary and blindness are much more common in the East than with us,--the former owing to unjust taxation, uneven distribution of wealth, and the total absence of public and systematized charities; the latter owing to lack of cleanliness, and to exposure to an almost tropical sun, and to burning sands."--Abbott.
10, 11. How were thine eyes opened? They were astounded. In surprise they demand an explanation. His reply is so laconic as to stamp him as a more than ordinary man. The literal rendering of the account of what he, himself, did is, "And going, and washing, I see."
12. Where is he? This question may have been asked out of curiosity. These questioners were the neighbors of the blind man.
13. They brought him to the Pharisees. It was a notable event that demanded investigation. Hence they brought him to religious men of great influence. These Pharisees were then the ruling sect, and the blind man is brought to leaders among them for an informal investigation of his case. The Pharisees, as a sect, were hypocritical, but there were upright men among them. Nicodemus, Joseph of Arimathea, Gamaliel and Saul of Tarsus, were of this sect.
14. It was the Sabbath day. Saturday, the Jewish Sabbath. We have found in the case of the miracle at the pool of Bethesda how they were angered by any apparent violation of the day. They tried to observe the day in the letter and constantly broke it in the spirit.
15, 16. This man is not of God, because he keepeth not the Sabbath day. The Pharisees questioned the man, learned that his eyes had been smeared with spittle, and then declared that Jesus had broken the Sabbath. The Jewish doctors of the law, while binding burdens that God had never imposed, declared that on the Sabbath no man could even anoint one of his own eyes with spittle. Hence, according to their logic, Jesus had broken the Sabbath, and was not a man of God. But on the other hand was the wonderful miracle. How could one whom God did not help open the eyes of one blind from birth! Hence, "there was a division among them."
17. He said, He is a prophet. They ask for each man’s opinion and, finally, in their perplexity and division, turned to the man healed. A little while before he had said that "a man called Jesus" healed him; now he declares that "he is a prophet;" a little later he is prepared to receive him as the Son of God. His convictions constantly deepened.
18. But the Jews did not believe . . . that he had been blind. In John 9:13-17, the examination of the blind man is conducted by the Pharisees; now not that sect alone, but "the Jews," the official influence of Jerusalem, including also the Pharisees, undertake the investigation. Their only way of escape from the admission that Jesus had wrought an unprecedented miracle is to insist that the young man had not been born blind. They begin this examination by calling his parents. It is to be noted that this is an official examination.
19, 20, 21. How then doth he now see? They ask two questions: 1. Was he blind from birth? 2. How was he cured? for the fact that he now sees is indisputable. The manner of asking the first question is designed to express doubts: "Is this your son, that you say was born blind?" The parents reply: 1. He is our Song of Solomon 2:1-17. He was born blind; 3. He now sees, but by what means he was cured we know not. They refer them to their son for further information as a competent witness. Being of age "he could speak for himself."
22. Because they feared the Jews. The parents were non-committal concerning how their son was cured from fear of those same official classes who were now questioning them. We learn that an agreement had already been reached that any one confessing that Jesus was the Christ should be excommunicated. Though Jesus had not openly proclaimed himself as the Christ this decision of the rulers shows that the people were considering that very question and that the opinion that he was the Christ was gaining credence. The terror of the parents shows that to be "put out of the synagogue" was a punishment of great severity to a Jew. There were, according to Rabbinical writers, various degrees of excommunication, the mildest of thirty days duration. The effect of even the mildest grade was to render the offender a heathen, to cut him off from religious privileges, from association with his Jewish friends and neighbors, and even from his own family. If, at the end of thirty days, the offence was not repented of, a severer punishment was administered. This resolution to expel all confessors of Christ from the synagogue became a fixed rule after the crucifixion, when the gospel began to be preached with such success. Christ predicts it in Matthew 10:17.
24. Give God the praise. Failing to obtain any satisfaction from the parents, they send for the son. They aim in this second interview to overawe him, and force him to the admission that there was some deception or mistake about Jesus having healed him. "Give glory to God" (see Joshua 7:19) seems to have been a formula used when a criminal, thought to be concealing a part of the truth, was urged to make a full confession. It means, "Remembering that the eyes of God are upon you," and therefore, honor God by telling the truth. The evidence that they urge as proof of a deception is we know that this man is a sinner. Their proof of this was that he healed on the Sabbath.
25. He answered. His answer shows that he was the wrong kind of material to be overawed. He enters into no dispute whether the Healer was a sinner or not, but of one thing there could be no doubt: he had been blind, but now he saw.
26. What did he to thee? They begin a cross examination in the hope that some flaw in the chain of proof might be developed.
27. I have told you already. See John 9:15. He had answered these questions to the Pharisees who were an important part of "the Jews." His answers show a growing impatience. Will ye also be his disciples? This question is sarcastic. They seem so interested, have insisted on him telling the story of his cure the second time, ask so many questions; is it that they wish to be his disciples? The "also" implies that he is a disciple. This was bold irony to the stately Sanhedrists.
29. We know that God spake to Moses. Hence they argue that they are on sure ground in clinging to Moses, but as to being the disciple of "this fellow, they do not even know whence he is."
30. Herein is a marvellous thing, that ye know not whence he is. Now follows a marvellous scene, a ragged mendicant who was only that morning begging his bread, in this conclave of great ecclesiastics, expounds theology to the very men who "sat in Moses’ seat" and shows a better knowledge of the Scriptures than the self-righteous Pharisees who prided themselves so much on doctrinal knowledge! He frankly declares it a "marvellous thing" that they do not know after the great miracle of opening his eyes. One who wrought such a miracle must be from God.
31. Now we know that God heareth not sinners. His argument was that of the distinguished "master in Israel," Nicodemus, who declared to Christ, "No man can do the miracles thou doest, except God be with him" (John 3:2). In the same spirit the man cured of blindness declares that God only hears true worshipers and those who do his will.
32, 33. Since the world began . . . one that was born blind. He was right. No similar miracle is recorded even in the Scriptures. Nor in ordinary cases of congenital blindness is there any cure even by the developments of modern optical science. However, in certain kinds of blindness, cures are not unknown, but usually a cure is hopeless. This unheard of cure, he insists, can only be due to the favor and power of God; hence Jesus must be a man of God.
34. Thou wast altogether born in sins. In John 9:2 it is asked: "Did this man sin that he should be born blind?" They, probably in reference to that belief, declare that he was born "in sins," yet he would presume to teach great doctors like themselves! In their rage there is an implied acknowledgement of the miracle. And they cast him out. Cast him out, not only from their presence, but also from their sympathy, and intercourse with them and the people. It is implied that he was made an outcast, and no doubt their act would be followed by exclusion from the synagogue of which he was a member.
Tholuck remarks: "The narrative of this miracle has a special value in apologetics. How often do we hear the wish expressed that Christ’s miracles had been put on documentary record; and had been subjected to a thorough judicial examination! Here we have the very thing desired; judicial personages, and these too, the avowed enemies of Christ, investigate a miracle of Christ in repeated hearings and they can find no flaw." If the reader will observe he will find that the people refer the case to a great religious order composed of enemies of Christ; that members of this order first examine the facts; then the case is referred to a higher tribunal, the official representatives of the nation, who cross-examine the parents, as well as the subject of the miracle. This judicial investigation shows by the testimony of both that the young man was born blind, that he now saw, and his own testimony was given that he was healed by Jesus. The attempt to disprove the miracle was an utter failure and the court sought to discredit it by excommunicating the chief witness.
35. Jesus heard that they had cast him out. Whereupon he at once sought him. The man had lost the world, but Christ was ready to give him heaven. Dost thou believe on the Son of God? Many manuscripts read, the Son of Man, but at any rate the man knew so little of Jesus that he did not know who was meant.
36. Who is he, Lord? He does not ask this question in doubt, but that he may receive the information which will lead to a complete faith. He has full confidence in Jesus, but has not learned that he is the Son of God, and probably waits to hear him affirm it.
37. Thou hast seen him. Those eyes that have been opened are permitted to see him in the person of the great Healer and he that speaks at that moment is the Son of God. It is a striking fact that this declaration of himself, spontaneously, to the outcast from the synagogue, only has one parallel case, the revelation of Christ to the outcast woman of Samaria (John 4:26).
38. I believe, Lord, and he worshiped him. At once there is an outspoken confession of faith, followed by an act of homage. The believer believes with the heart, confesses with the lips, and shows forth this faith by obedience.
39. For judgment I am come into this world. He came into the world to save it, but the effect of his coming is to reveal every man’s true condition. The light reveals the stains that would otherwise be unseen, and Christ’s presence reveals the presence and power of sin in the hearts of men. He is the touch stone. His coming not only gave sight to the blind but opened the eyes of those who were in the darkness of ignorance. Publicans and sinners were enabled to see, while "Jews" and Pharisees, who claimed to be enlightened, were left in darkness, because they closed their eyes.
40. Are we blind also? The form of the question implies that these Pharisees supposed that Christ would answer in the negative. He had spoken of two classes, those who did not see who should see; and those who saw, or had the highest spiritual opportunities, who should become blind by wilfully closing their eyes. The Pharisees think that they belong to neither class.
41. If ye were blind, ye should have no sin. If they were blind, utterly without knowledge, they would have no moral responsibility, but they claimed to see and had the highest opportunities for knowing; hence, when they closed their eyes and thus wilfully refused to see, they were guilty. To other sins was added the sin of the rejection of the light. Our responsibility is measured by our opportunities.
PRACTICAL OBSERVATIONS.
1. Sinners are blind to their own interests, to God, heaven, spiritual life.
2. They are not only blind, but beggars, unable to cure themselves, needing help from God and man.
3. The miracles are "parables of redemption." Observe: (1) The man is in darkness; the state of the sinner; (2) Christ is the light; (3) The condition of receiving the light is faith and obedience; (4) The man believes and obeys and "came seeing."
4. The sinner is blind to his best good, to God’s goodness and love, to Jesus, to the Bible, to heaven. He is blind and a beggar, needing help from others. Blind, and grinding in the mill, like Samson among the Philistines.
5. None are so guilty as those who boast that they are enlightened and yet refuse to receive the light. Moral responsibility is measured by opportunity.
6. Sometimes men are called to suffer that "the glory of God may be manifest." Bunyan could never have written the Pilgrim’s Progress had he not been cast into prison, nor Milton, Paradise Lost had he not been blind and forsaken by the world. So, too, God’s children are sometimes called to endure chastisem*nt in order that they might yield the peaceable fruit of righteousness. They that bear Christ’s cross shall wear his crown. They that wear the white robes on high are those who have come up through much tribulation and washed their robes in the blood of the Lamb. See Revelation 7:14.
GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN
B.W. Johnson
JOHN CHAPTER TEN
THE GOOD SHEPHERD.
This discourse undoubtedly immediately followed, and sprang out of the conflict with the Jews related in the preceding chapter. As Alford says: "The more we carefully study this wonderful Gospel, the more we shall see that the idea of this close connection is never to be dismissed as imaginary, and that our Evangelist never passes, without notice, to an entirely different and disjointed discourse." In the last chapter Christ had been in conflict with those who claimed to be the shepherds of the people, the Pharisees and Sanhedrists, the men "who sat in Moses’ seat," and boasted of their knowledge of the law of God. These professed shepherds had just cast out from their fold a poor lamb for the crime of refusing to believe that the person who had opened his eyes was a sinner. The last words spoken before this chapter begins were a rebuke to these haughty spiritual shepherds, who, while having the law and the prophets which pointed out the Christ, the best of opportunities, and who prided themselves on their great knowledge of divine things, still blinded themselves by their intense prejudice and obstinate rejection of the Holy One of Israel. Hence he continues and points out the characteristics of those who are real shepherds, in contrast with spiritual robbers.
"I understand this lesson to be a parable with a double application. First, Christ compares the Pharisees to shepherds, himself to the door, and declares that those only are true shepherds who enter through the door; that is, through Christ and his authority. All others are thieves and robbers. Then he changes the application and declares himself the good shepherd whose praises David and Isaiah sung, and indicates the nature of the service that he will render unto his sheep by giving for them his life."--Abbott.
The figure of the shepherd and his sheep is always a favorite one in the Scriptures. Abraham, the founder of the Jewish race, and the father of whom all Christians are children by faith, was a shepherd, as were Isaac, Jacob, the twelve patriarchs, and all the Jewish race up to the time of their settlement in Canaan. Upon the hills of Canaan the shepherd’s vocation was always a favorite employment, and David, the great king, was called from his flocks to the throne. It was David who sang, "The Lord is my Shepherd; I shall not want," and all through the Scriptures the Lord is presented in the position of the shepherd of his people. It is Christ who is the Good Shepherd.
1. He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold. The sheepfold is a figure of the church, the door into which is Christ. The sheepfolds of the East are large enclosures, open to the sky, but walled around with reeds, or stone, or brick in order to afford a protection against robbers, wolves, and other beasts of prey. There is a large door at which the shepherd enters with the sheep. Sometimes leopards, panthers and robbers clamber over the walls elsewhere in order to prey upon the sheep. At the doors of the large sheepfolds, where many thousands of sheep are protected, a porter, or doorkeeper, remains on guard, and this doorkeeper will only admit those who have the right to enter. (See Sheepfold, in Smith’s Bible Dictionary.) All those who climb into the sheepfold some other way than by the door are thieves and robbers.
"Those low, flat buildings on the sheltered side of the valley are sheepfolds. They are called marah; and when the nights are cold the flocks are shut up in them, but in ordinary weather they are merely kept within the yard. This, you observe, is defended by a wide stone wall, crowned all around with thorns, which the prowling wolf will rarely attempt to scale. The nimer, however, and the faked, the wolf and the panther of this country, when pressed with hunger, will overleap this thorny hedge, and with one tremendous bound land in the frightened fold. Then is the time to try the nerve and heart of the faithful shepherd. These humble types of him, who leadeth Joseph like a flock, never leave their helpless charge alone, but accompany them by day and abide with them by night."--Thompson’s The Land and the Book.
2. He that entereth by the door. The one who comes in by the door is the shepherd. The figure is very plain to those familiar with Eastern sheepfolds. The door is for the shepherd and the sheep, while those who get in otherwise are robbers who seek to prey upon the sheep.
3. To him the porter openeth. The gatekeeper, whose business it is to guard the entrance. This servant was furnished with arms to fight off intruders, but the shepherd he would let in. There has been much speculation what Christ signified by the porter. The sheepfold is the church, he is the door by which all enter; he is also the Good Shepherd; there are also the shepherds or teachers under him who enter by the door; the saints are the sheep; those who seek to become leaders of God’s people, but have not come in through Christ, are false leaders, thieves and robbers. It is not certain that Christ intended to make the porter a figure of any spiritual thing, but if so, he would represent God, who has decided who shall enter through the door. And the sheep hear his voice. "This is true to the letter. The sheep are so tame and so trained that they follow their keeper with the utmost docility. He leads them forth from the fold just where he pleases."--Thompson. The Eastern shepherds lead their flocks, while in our country we drive them. A traveler in the Holy Land says: "Two flocks were moving slowly up the slope of the hill, one of sheep, and the other of goats. The shepherd was going before the sheep, and they followed as he led the way to the Jaffa gate; we could not but remember the Savior’s words: ’When he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him; for they know his voice.’" He calleth his own sheep by name. This corresponds exactly with the facts of Eastern shepherd life. They give names to sheep as we do to horses, cows and dogs. "Passing by a flock of sheep," says Mr. Hartley, "I asked the shepherd to call one of his sheep. He instantly did so, and it left its pasturage and its companions, and ran to the shepherd with a promptitude and signs of pleasure that I never witnessed before."
4. The sheep follow him, for they know his voice. "As we ate and looked, almost spellbound, the silent hillsides around us were in a moment filled with sounds and life. The shepherds led their flocks forth from the gates of the city. They were in full view and we watched and listened to them with no little interest. Thousands of sheep and goats were there in dense, confused masses. The shepherds stood together until all came out. Then they separated, each shepherd taking a different path, and uttering, as he advanced, a shrill, peculiar call. The sheep heard them. At first the masses swayed and moved as if shaken with some internal convulsion; then points struck out in the direction taken by the shepherds; these became longer and longer, until the confused masses were resolved into long, living streams, flowing after their leaders. Such a sight was not new to me, still it had lost none of its interest. It was, perhaps, one of the most vivid illustrations which human eyes could witness of that beautiful discourse of our Savior recorded by John."--Porter.
5. And a stranger they will not follow. The sheep refuse to follow a strange voice. A traveler once said to a Palestine shepherd that it was the dress of the master that the sheep knew and not his voice. The shepherd asserted that it was the voice, and to settle the point, he and the traveler changed dresses and went among the sheep. The traveler called them in the shepherd’s dress, but they refused to follow him, for they knew not his voice. On the other hand they ran at once at the shepherd’s call, though he was in strange attire. The application of this is easy. The sheep of the Good Shepherd hear his voice, know it, and follow him. They will not listen to the voice of a stranger who would call them away. The proof that we are Christ’s sheep is that we hear his voice and follow him.
6. This parable spake Jesus unto them. The Greek word rendered here "parable," is not so rendered elsewhere. The above figure is not a parable in the same sense as the term is used elsewhere. There is not a true parable in the whole gospel of John. This is rather a simile. Christ’s hearers could not understand the application. Hence he explains in the following verses:
7. I am the door of the sheep. John 10:1-5, speak of shepherds in general. These shepherds enter into the fold and go out by the same door as the sheep. Christ is that door; the Door of the sheep, the one door for all, both sheep and shepherds, into the fold, into the company of God’s people, into the church of the living God, to the Father. There is no other way in, for "there is no other name, under heaven, given among men, whereby we must be saved."
8. All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers. This passage has caused much difference of opinion. Alford holds that Satan came before Christ in Eden to sway our race, and that the language refers to Satan and his followers. Abbott holds that the idea is, "All who came, not entering through the door, but claiming to be before me, having the precedence, independent of me, are thieves and robbers." Westcott says that he refers to false messiahs and teachers who had preceded him. I believe that the truth is to be sought by a combination of all these views. That he does not mean in point of time alone by "come before me" is evident because this view would assign Moses, the prophets and John the Baptist to the class of spiritual robbers. There was, however, the body of Jewish religious teachers, the Scribes, the doctors and the Pharisees, who had claimed for centuries before to be the spiritual shepherds but were "blind leaders of the blind," "devourers of widows’ houses," and these also in their pride turned away from Christ as too lowly to receive their deference. In point of spiritual precedence they placed themselves "before" him. The underlying principle is that all who claim to be religious and moral leaders and who turn away from Christ as their teacher are not real shepherds whose aim is to save the flock, but "robbers" who wish to prey upon it. This view includes the Jewish rabbis, the Greek philosophers, the pretended prophets, and the "Infallible Pope." These all refuse to bow to his authority. But the sheep did not hear them. The true sheep. It was the goats that wandered off after such leaders.
9. By me, if any man enter in, he shall be saved. Christ is at once the door, the shepherd and the pasture. His pasture is the bread of life and the water of life. They who enter by him, in the way he has appointed, are saved, and shall never be lost if they continue to hear his voice.
10. The thief cometh not, but to steal. All those who enter otherwise than by the door, wish to prey upon the flock. Their object is not to save the lives of the flock, but to destroy them. Christ came to give life, and to give it an abundant development. False religion robs men; true religion blesses and enriches. And to destroy. The false and selfish teacher is not only a thief who steals the substance and the opportunities of the flock, but a destroyer. This is a universal truth that any person of wide observation has seen illustrated too often. He destroys the spiritual life of the flock, leads it away from the Good Shepherd, fills it with false notions, destroys the faith that is in men’s hearts, and scatters the flock abroad until the sheep can no longer be found.
11. I am the good shepherd. This title, applied to Jehovah in Psalms 23:1-6 and in Ezekiel 34:12, Christ here applies to himself. The mark of the good shepherd is that he giveth his life for his sheep. In that unsettled country the shepherd had often to defend his flock. Dr. Thompson says: "The faithful shepherd has often to put his life into his hand to defend the flock. I have known more than one case in which he had literally to lay it down in the contest. A poor, faithful fellow, last spring, between Tiberias and Tabor, instead of fleeing, actually fought three Bedouin robbers until he was hacked to pieces and died among the sheep he was defending." Thus the Good Shepherd loves his sheep. So, too, does every faithful shepherd among his followers.
12. But the hireling . . . . leaveth his sheep and fleeth. It is not the bare fact of a man receiving pay that makes him a hireling. "The laborer is worthy of his hire." He is a hireling who would not work were it not for this hire. Such hirelings, who are moved by self-interest alone, will abandon the flock in the moment of danger. He only cares for his gains. Thus true and false shepherds are distinguished.
13. The hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling. Because he cares for his hire, but not for the sheep. He is bound to them, not by love, but by self-interest. When the yellow fever struck Memphis the hireling shepherds fled to the North.
14. I am the good shepherd. The Lord does not say that he is the only shepherd. God had in times past sent other shepherds to lead the flock of Israel who had led it to the best of their ability, though imperfectly, but he is distinguished from them as the Good Shepherd. He is the "True Vine" (John 15:1); the "True Bread" (John 6:32), as well as the Good Shepherd. The great characteristic of the Good Shepherd is indicated in verse 11, as his devotion of his own life to the sheep. I know my sheep. He knows every one of them, personally, tenderly, lovingly, by name. The very hairs of our heads are numbered.
15. As the Father knoweth me. As the Father knew the Son and the Son the Father, so is there a tender bond between the sheep of Christ and the Good Shepherd. For them he was then giving and would give his life.
16. I have also other sheep, not of this fold. Not Jews, of whom all his followers then were, but Gentiles who would soon be called to him. These would hear his voice, enter through the door, into the same fold as the Jewish Christians, so that there would be "one fold and one shepherd." There is only one Church and one door into it, and one Shepherd over it.
All through the Savior’s ministry there shines forth the grand truth that he is the Redeemer of the world, instead of a Jewish Messiah. To Nicodemus he declared, at the first passover of his ministry, that God had sent him, not to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved by him. At Samaria, shortly after, his teachings so overleaped the narrow bounds of Judaism that the believing Samaritans pronounced him "the Savior of the world." Here in no ambiguous language he announces the breaking down of the "wall of partition" between Jew and Gentile, and the gathering of his sheep "not of this fold" into the same fold where his sheep of the Jewish race were gathered, so that there would be "one fold and one shepherd." Some narrow critics have held that Paul gave to Christianity its impulse to become a universal religion, but not only the prophets, but the life and teaching of Christ, from the time when John pointed to him on the banks of Jordan as the "Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world," down do the world-wide commission given as he ascended on high, all declare that he came to be the world’s Savior.
17. Therefore doth my Father love me. The ground of the Father’s love was that Christ had given himself for man. The Father loves those of us best who are most like Christ in this respect.
18. I lay it down of myself. His life. He gave himself for man of his free will. He laid down his life on the cross; he took it again when he rose from the dead. The plots of men would have been of no avail had he not consented. Indeed his whole life from the time his ministry began was a laying of it down. While constantly bearing the cross he was marching straight to the cross. From the very beginning of his teaching there are references to the death he should die (see John 3:14).
19. There was a division, therefore, again among the Jews. In John 7:43, the division was among the multitude; in John 9:16, among the Pharisees; now among "the Jews," or ruling body. Some were wonderfully impressed by his miracles and teachings, while others were obstinately blind. We can hardly wonder at the perplexity of the more honest sort when we are reminded that Jesus did not in any respect, except power and wisdom, answer to their conceptions of the Christ. To accept him was to abandon their national hope, and to accept, instead, the hope of the world.
20. Many said, He hath a devil and is mad. It was a common belief among the Jews that the agency of demons could produce supernatural effects. See Matthew 12:24. It was a very convenient way, therefore, of explaining the miraculous power of Christ.
21. These are not the words of him that hath a devil (demon). No person under demoniac influence had ever taught like Christ, and hence the better sort assert that his teachings disprove the charge. Besides it had never been known that a demon could open the eyes of the blind. There had been a display of a mightier power.
PRACTICAL OBSERVATIONS.
1. There is no way to the fold of God but through Christ. Those who reject him reject eternal life.
2. Those who are Christ’s disciples will hear his voice; that is, obey him. All who live in disobedience are following other leaders.
3. Any teacher who teaches contrary to Christ, who sets aside his authority, or teaches falsely, is not a shepherd but a robber. His object is to prey upon the sheep.
4. There are robbers who will destroy the sheep and there are hireling shepherds. Robbers lead astray; hireling shepherds are those who work for pay alone. They are mercenary men. They will abandon the flock as soon as they can get better pay somewhere else.
5. Followers of Jesus should be like their leader in looking beyond trial to triumph.
6. It is almost universally agreed that by thieves and robbers we are to understand rapacious persons, intent on gain. That most of the high priests were such persons the history of Josephus abundantly testifies.--Bloomfield. He was teaching in Jerusalem and the thieves and robbers were in the temple.
7. God has only "one fold," one church. The division of the Christian world into warring sects is sinful.
END OF THREE MONTHS’ MINISTRY IN JERUSALEM.
An interval of more than two months passed between the time of the healing of the man born blind and the feast of Dedication, the date of the controversy recorded in the remainder of this chapter. Some have held that in the interval the Lord went to Galilee and made his last circuit of its cities. This is the view of Andrews, but I agree rather with those who hold that his ministry in Jerusalem was continuous from the time of the feast of Tabernacles until he retired just after the feast of Dedication. It was a last and supreme effort to lead the nation to salvation.
The feast of Dedication was not one of the divinely appointed festivals, and there is nothing in the Savior’s ministry to create the idea that he would observe it, but he was in Jerusalem and it afforded an opportunity to reach the people of which he availed himself. The feast was established by Judas Maccabæus, in the year B. C. 164, to commemorate the purification of the temple after its defilement by the Syrian Greeks under Antiochus Epiphanes, which occurred B. C. 167. It was observed for eight days, was a patriotic observance much like our Fourth of July in spirit, and was celebrated in all the towns and cities of Judea as well as Jerusalem. It was instituted by the Maccabees who were priests and of the most rigid caste, and was observed only by the more rigid Jews; hence it is not strange that the adversaries of Christ on this occasion display unusual bigotry.
22. It was winter. This feast came in December. This fact is probably mentioned to explain why the Savior walked in Solomon’s porch.
23. Waked in Solomon’s porch. A long, covered colonnade, or veranda, with the roof resting on pillars. It is generally supposed to have been in the southeast part of the temple inclosure, overlooking the valley of the Kedron. Josephus describes it as a stadium, or furlong, in length, and as having three parts, two of them thirty feet wide each, and the middle one forty-five feet. Its height varied from fifty to one hundred in different parts. He contends that it was built by Solomon, which is, at least, doubtful.
24. Then came the Jews about him. Jesus was in a place of public resort and an opportunity was afforded for a decisive interview. They were determined to bring matters to a focus and hence came and surrounded him. It must be remembered that these were men of official station. How long dost thou keep us in suspense? Their question represents the uncertainty and discussion that prevailed in Jerusalem, rather than their own feelings. Their act related in John 10:31, shows that they had made up their minds, but their demand that he should tell whether he was the Christ shows the extent of the discussion in Jerusalem.
25. I told you, and ye believed not. He had told them repeatedly (John 5:19; John 8:36; John 8:56; John 8:58), not as plainly, it is true, as he told the Samaritan woman (John 4:26) and the man blind from birth (John 9:37), but more plainly than he ever told his disciples before the confession of Peter (Matthew 16:16). He knew what was in their hearts and he simply pointed them to his works, as he had done John the Baptist when his messengers came asking, "Art thou he that should come?" (Matthew 11:2-6.) Indeed the profoundest evidence of his divinity is not his word, but his superhuman life, teachings and works, especially the work that he has continued to do in the world. Even if he had said he was the Christ they would not have understood him, as their idea of the Christ differed as far as the poles from the real Christ.
26. Ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep. The reason of their unbelief was not the lack of proof, but the lack within themselves. He means, in substance, until my teachings and examples attract you so that you will follow me like my sheep, ye will not believe, for you cannot be convinced by purely intellectual arguments. You cannot believe in Christ as your personal Savior until you recognize and follow his examples as a man and prophet. It is the one who "will do his will that shall know the doctrine, whether it be of God" (John 7:17). Had they been attracted by his voice to follow him like sheep they would have believed.
27, 28. I give unto them eternal life. I have omitted any special study of the phrase "eternal life" hitherto, although it has several times occurred in John. It occurs forty-four times in the New Testament, and of these occurrences seventeen are in the Fourth Gospel and six in the First Epistle of John, making twenty-three instances of its use by this single author. It never means simply endless existence, but always implies a blessed immortality. In Matthew 25:46, it is opposed to everlasting punishment, which is endless existence in a state of punishment, while eternal life is endless existence in a state of bliss. The word rendered life (zoee) means, in its primary sense, "existence" as opposed to non-existence or annihilation. In this sense it occurs thirteen times in the New Testament, of which (1 Corinthians 15:19), "If in this life only we have hope, we are of all men the most miserable," is a good example. It is also used in the sense of spiritual life quite frequently and especially by John; for instance, "Ye will not come to me that ye might have life." It is also used without the adjective for eternal life as in John 5:29 : "They that have done good shall come forth to the resurrection of life," or into a blessed existence beyond the grave.
The word life, as used by John when predicated of God, means absolute being. Man created in the image of God hath this being from God and "in him lives and moves and has his being." A man may have this life and yet in another sense be dead. "Let the dead bury their dead" (Matthew 8:22), "He that believeth . . . hath passed from death unto life" (John 5:24), "This my son who was dead is alive again" (Luke 15:24). The usage of the New Testament sanctions the following conclusions:
1. All humanity are endowed with existence (zoee), nor is there any indication that this existence ever comes to an end. At death man yields up the soul (psuchee, in classic Greek "the breath"), the spirit (pneuma) returns to God who gave it, but there is no indication that the existence (zoee) closes. When Christ said, "I lay down my life," he used psuchee instead of zoee. The same is true when he says, "He that loseth his life shall find it." Much confusion has arisen from not distinguishing these two Greek words of different meaning in the translation. The zoee, (life, existence) is never said to end, or perish. It is the psuchee (breath, or animal life), that is laid down, or perishes. Death and destruction are not used in the sense of non-existence.
2. Life, in the sense of spiritual being, spiritual life, is the gift of Christ, and in its origin differs from the natural life. Those only have the spiritual life who are in union with Christ. He is the Bread of Life, the Water of Life, and came in order to bestow life (spiritual life, not mere existence) upon the world.
3. Eternal life is the inheritance of all who have been born of water and the Spirit, who have the spiritual life, and who, "by a patient continuance in well doing, seek for glory, honor and immortality." It is the gift of Jesus Christ. It is a blessed immortality, and the phrase is never applied to an existence in a state of condemnation. The deathless angels that sinned do not have eternal life, but only those who have been freed from sin and delivered from the dominion of the grave by our Lord. It cannot be made too clear that eternal life is different from and higher than eternal existence and that therefore the fact that it is a gift does not imply that all who do not receive this gift are annihilated beyond the grave. The rich man in hades had existence beyond the grave but not eternal life; Lazarus, in Abraham’s bosom, enjoying "good things," had eternal life.
29. No man, etc. It has been held that these verses teach the doctrine of the "final perseverance of the saints," or "once in grace always in grace." They rather teach that Christ watches over his sheep as a good shepherd; the sheep hear his voice; none that continue to hear his voice will ever perish, nor be plucked out of his hand. The condition is "hearing his voice," and upon this condition is based the promise. All who hear him shall be protected against their own weaknesses and against the strength of assailants from without. None shall ever fall away from want of divine grace, or the power of adversaries, but because they cease to hear his voice. My Father . . . is greater than all. These words are intended to give further an absolute assurance of the perfect safety of those who hear the voice of Christ. Even the Father’s hand shall hold them, and out of his mighty hand none can pluck them. This safety rests upon the Fatherhood of God.
30. I and the Father are one. Not my, but the Father. Nor does he affirm that the Son and the Father are one, but here, in the presence of these Jews, he makes the statement that he and the Father are one, one in essence, one in purpose, and one in person, for he uses the plural verb. Since there is a unity of purpose and power the Father is pledged to protect the sheep that hear the voice of the Son. He says: "My sheep shall never perish, since my Father is greater than all, and he gave them into my hand, and I am one with him.
31. Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. The word "again" carries us back to John 8:52. These high ecclesiasts held that he had just been guilty of blasphemy in asserting that he and the Father are one, the penalty of which was stoning, and they proposed to inflict it without a trial. The stones used in the temple repairs, which were still in progress, would furnish material. The manner in which the mob was arrested shows the wonderful moral power of Jesus.
32. Many good works . . . for which of those works do you stone me? In John 8:46 he had asked: Which of you convinceth me of sin? Now he calls for the specifications of the crime for which they have sentenced him.
33. For blasphemy . . . thou makest thyself God. They reply that they would stone him for blasphemy in that he made himself divine. This charge was often made against him. When he said, "Thy sins be forgiven thee," or spoke of God as his Father, or said that he and the Father were one, or when on trial before the Sanhedrim he declared that he was the Christ, the Son of God, it was uniformly pronounced blasphemy and it was on this charge that the Sanhedrim condemned him to death (Matthew 26:65.) Had Jesus been only a man his words would have been blasphemous; they were appropriate to the Son of God.
34, 35, 36. Is it not written . . I said ye are gods. The quotation is from Psalms 82:1-8, which contains a reproof of unjust judges: "I have said that ye are gods, and all of you are children of the Most High, but ye shall die like men and fall like one of the princes." The argument of Christ is: If in your law judges are called gods, and allowed to have, in some sense, the divine characteristics, and are called children of God, why should you pronounce me guilty of blasphemy for saying that I am the Son of God? And the Scripture cannot be broken. This parenthetic declaration is a very significant testimony to the inspiration of the Old Testament. Modern theologues who deal so freely with it find no warrant for their course in the example of Christ. Whom the Father hath sanctified. The word sanctify means "to make holy, or to set apart." It is here used in the latter sense. Son of God. There is no article before Son in the Greek. Some have regarded this whole passage as an explanation of the Sonship of Christ in a way that would make it possible for any good man to be a Son in the same sense. If it were the only passage in the New Testament bearing on the subject it might be so explained, but if the circ*mstances are regarded, it will be seen that there is nothing that conflicts with the statements of his divine character elsewhere. The Jews were about to rush upon him in a mob to stone him to death, because of his affirmation that he was the Son of God, and one with the Father. He arrested them by an appeal to those Scriptures that they held in such sanctity. He neither affirms nor discusses the difference of his relation to God from those whom the Scriptures had spoken of as gods because they were appointed judges of men, as God is Judge of all the earth, but demands why they should pronounce him a blasphemer for declaring that he was the Son of God, when their Scriptures had called men gods. See Exodus 22:28 as well as Psalms 82:6. We would not look for a revelation of the highest truths concerning Christ’s nature to an angry mob, not that he would conceal or modify the truth to avert danger, but because they were in no condition to receive it, and he would only present such truths as their souls were in a condition to apprehend. For full information of Christ’s character we must look to his quiet conferences with his own disciples. See Chapter 14.
37, 38. If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. The passage just quoted from their law showed that those who did the work assigned to them by God were recognized, as in some sense, partakers of the divine nature. Christ, therefore, points to his own works as a test. If he does the works of the Father, then they should recognize in him the Sonship. He refers not to his miracles alone, but to his whole life, the effects of his ministry, and the divine mercy as well as power in his miracles. These works, of which they had ample knowledge, proved that "the Father was in him, and he in the Father." If they had prejudices against his person, they ought to consider the works without prejudice. The Father in me, and I in him. The Father is in the Son because he lives and moves in him; is the divine life that animates and controls the man Jesus; he is in the Father because a full partaker of the divine nature, filled with the divine will, purposes and desires, and animated by the one thought of doing the Father’s work.
39. They sought again to take him. Not to stone him, for their passion had cooled, but to arrest him. His escape was not probably due to miracle, but with many friends among the throng, he could readily withdraw through their aid. "They dared not stone him, but as he was alone and defenseless in their midst, they tried to seize him. But they could not. His presence overawed them. They could only make a passage for him, and glare their hatred upon him as he passed from among them. But once more, here was a clear sign that all teaching among them was impossible. He could as little descend to their notions of a Messiah, as they could rise to his. To stay among them was but to daily imperil his life to no purpose. Judea was, therefore, closed to him, as Galilee was now closed to him. There seemed but one district to be remaining in his native land which was safe for him, and that was Perea, the district beyond the Jordan. He retired, therefore, to the other Bethany (Bethabara), the Bethany beyond the Jordan, where John had been baptizing and there he stayed."--Farrar.
This ends three months of stormy ministry in Jerusalem. Twice there were attempts to mob him (John 8:59; John 10:31); twice efforts to arrest him (John 7:32; John 7:45; John 10:39), and in addition secret plans for his assassination had been laid (John 7:19; John 8:37). John is the only historian of this eventful period of the Savior’s life, though several incidents reported by other writers may belong to the interval.
40. Went beyond Jordan . . where John at first baptized. For the time the Lord retired before the threatening storm. His "hour had not yet come," and would not until the passover, three months in the future. In this region, where John had done his work of preparation so thoroughly, a more friendly reception might be expected.
41, 42. Many resorted to him. This Perean ministry was fruitful for "many believed on him," this being due to the fact that "all things John spake of this man were true."
What were the incidents of this last stay, or the exact length of its continuance, we cannot certainly know. We see, however, that it was not exactly private, for John tells us that many resorted to him there, and believed on him, and bore witness that John--whom they held to be a prophet, though he had done no miracle--had borne emphatic witness to Jesus in that very place (John 1:28), and that all which he witnessed was true.--Farrar.
In the other Gospels a number of incidents are recorded which are supposed to belong to this ministry beyond the Jordan. An example of these is found in the Savior’s teaching upon the subject of divorce, found in Matthew 19:1-12.
PRACTICAL OBSERVATIONS.
Christ and the Father are one; not one in person, but indissolubly blended in spirit, purpose, will and work, so much so that he that hath seen Christ hath seen the Father. This fact, that "he and the Father are one," is the basis of his prayer that all his followers shall be one, "even as he and the Father are one." Upon this, Maurice forcibly says: Do you think sects would last for even an hour, if there was not in the heart of each of them a witness for a fellowship that combinations and shibboleths did not create and which, thank God, this cannot destroy? The Shepherd makes his voice heard through all the noise and clatter of earthly shepherds; the sheep hear his voice and know that it is calling them into a common fold where all may rest and dwell together; and when once they understand the still deeper message which is uttering here, "I and my Father are one;" when they understand that the unity of the church and the unity of mankind depends on this eternal distinction and unity in God himself, and not on the authority or decrees of any mortal pastor, the sects will crumble to pieces, and there will be in very deed one flock and one Shepherd.
GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN
B.W. Johnson
JOHN CHAPTER ELEVEN
THE RESURRECTION OF LAZARUS.
The ministry of Christ was a manifestation of God in him; of the Father in the Son; of the Son by his own works and words. The miracles selected by John out of the great number wrought by the Redeemer, are chosen according to their bearing on this manifestation and reach their climax in the resurrection of Lazarus, the fitting prelude to the resurrection of the Lord himself from the dead. In this wonderful miracle he reveals himself as the Resurrection and the Life, the Conqueror of Death in his very dominions, while his own resurrection manifests him as having life in himself, the very fountain of life, and hence, divine. The other Gospels give no account of this part of the Savior’s ministry.
It was from a fruitful ministry beyond the Jordan that the Lord was recalled to Bethany near Jerusalem by the death of Lazarus. It is not in our power to determine certainly the exact time of the raising of Lazarus, but the order of the narrative shows that it was after the incidents of the last two lessons. In John 10:39-40, we are informed that the Jews of Jerusalem attempted to seize him, that he escaped from them and retired beyond the Jordan into the locality where John had at first baptized. Then for a few weeks he engaged in teaching, and from thence he was summoned by the call to aid his friend Lazarus of Bethany. The Lord waits two days after receiving the message of the sisters before he starts to Bethany. Tholuck thinks that he could not have made the journey (probably about 30 miles) in a single day, and hence parts of two days were required. He supposes, therefore, that Lazarus died the night of the messenger’s arrival, was buried the next day, and that Jesus reached Bethany on the fifth day. There was the day of death, two days of waiting, one of journeying, and the fifth day of arrival and his visit to the tomb. Abbott says: "I believe the resurrection of Lazarus took place in the latter part of February or the early part of March A. D. 30, and that it was followed, after a brief retirement to Ephraim, by the triumphal march of Christ and his disciples into Jerusalem, and by his Passion and death there." Why should John alone give the account of the resurrection of Lazarus? He alone gives the history of the ministry in Judea in which it occurred, though the other writers refer to that ministry. They alone give an account of the Galilean ministry, though John refers to it. Still there seemed to be special reasons why Matthew, Mark and Luke, who wrote many years before John, should be very reticent about the family of Bethany. All speak of it, but only Luke names the sisters. Farrar says: "There may have been special reasons for not recording a miracle which would have brought into dangerous prominence a man who was still living, but whom the Jews had sought to get rid of because he was a witness of Christ’s wonder working power. (John 12:10.)" Long before John wrote, Jerusalem itself had been destroyed, and the reasons that may have caused the silence of the earlier writers no longer existed.
1. Now a certain man was sick, named Lazarus. The name of Lazarus is not mentioned by any of the sacred writers but John, but his family is named or referred to by Matthew, Mark and Luke. With his sisters we know, from Luke 10:38, that Jesus had a previous acquaintance, and that is presupposed in John’s narrative. It would seem from Luke’s account that Martha was the head of the family, and therefore it is thought that Lazarus was a younger brother. Putting together John 12:1-11, and Matthew 26:6-13, and Mark 14:1-9, it seems certain that Simon the leper was in some way connected with the family, but just how is a matter of conjecture. The family was one of some property. They owned their house, had their tomb in a garden, and were able to give a costly token of honor to Christ in an alabaster box of ointment worth, when we compare with modern values, three hundred dollars. Bethany, the town of Mary and her sister Martha. It lies on the eastern slope of Olivet, about two miles from Jerusalem. It seems to have been the constant retreat of the Savior while sojourning at Jerusalem. It is distinguished from another Bethany beyond Jordan, and especially named as the home of the sisters who were such attached friends of Christ. Although John has not before named them, he speaks of them as well known. They had been named by Luke and were well known to the church at the late day when John wrote.
2. It was that Mary which anointed the Lord with ointment. There were a number of Marys distinguished in gospel history, Mary the mother of the Lord, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of Mark, Mary the wife of Cleophas. Hence, John, to distinguish this one, names an incident related by all the historians and known to every Christian reader. She was the one who anointed the Lord. For his own account of this, see John 12:1-11.
3. Lord, behold, he whom thou lovest is sick. In their distress the sisters turn to one whom they know to be a sympathizing friend. They have complete confidence in him and are assured he will do what is best. They do not urge any petition, but simply report their trouble.
4. This sickness is not unto death. Death was not its object. It had been permitted for another reason; viz., for the glory of God. He was glorified by the manifestation of the divine power of Christ in rescuing Lazarus from the jaws of death, as well as in the sublime teaching for which the case of Lazarus gave occasion.
5. Now Jesus loved Martha, and her sister, and Lazarus. This statement is made (1) to explain why the sisters sent to Christ such a message, and (2) to show that his delay was not caused by indifference.
6. He abode still two days in the same place. He did not hurry off at once, probably because his work beyond Jordan was not yet completed. His great personal sympathy could not induce him to abandon a work that was only half done. His ministry was above the claims of friendship. Besides, his delay, and the long interval it caused between the burial of Lazarus and his resurrection, would make the miracle more striking, and would silence every caviller who might contend that Lazarus was not really dead.
7, 8. Let us go into Judea again. His proposal to recross the Jordan, and to return to the locality where his enemies were gathered, was opposed by his disciples. They knew well that the authorities at Jerusalem had determined on his death; they therefore reminded him that he had just escaped from an attempt to stone him. Why should he return into the danger?
9, 10. Are there not twelve hours in the day? The Jews always divided the space from sunrise to sunset into twelve hours, whether the days were long or short, the hours varying in length according to the season of year. There were twelve hours of the daylight, and during this daylight a man could see clearly where he was walking. Christ loved to speak by simile, and he declares in this way that he knows just what he purposes to do. He is not stumbling in the dark. He is not groping in the night or walking uncertainly. He has a clear pathway on which the sun is shining. Whether it leads him to Judea, to Jerusalem, to his enemies, to death, he will walk in the light. What was dark to them was clear as sunlight to him. God’s true servants will have their twelve hours for walking and toil.
11. Our friend Lazarus sleepeth. It seems probable that an interval had passed after Christ’s last words. Christ was wont to speak of death as a sleep. See Mark 5:39. In the order of things over which he presides, death is death no longer, but assumes the character of a temporary slumber.--Godet. To speak of death as a sleep, is an image common, I suppose, to all languages and nations. Thereby the reality of death is not denied, but only the fact implicitly assumed, that death, will be followed by a resurrection, as sleep is by an awakening.--Trench. The term sleep is used as a symbol of death in 2 Chronicles 14:1; Psalms 13:8; Jeremiah 51:57; Job 14:12; Daniel 12:2; Matthew 27:52; Acts 7:60; 1 Corinthians 7:39; 1 Thessalonians 4:13.
12, 13, 14. If he sleep, he will do well. The disciples took the Lord’s words literally. They were all interested in the case of Lazarus and regarded him as a friend, but did not wish Jesus to return to the vicinity of Jerusalem; hence, they intimate that if he was sleeping the case was hopeful and there was little need for the Lord’s presence. Often a quiet sleep is the turning point of the disease and a presage of recovery. An ancient sage said: "Sleep is a remedy for every disease." Hence, it was needful for the Master to tell them that he referred to the sleep of death. Some skeptical writers have thought that the disciples were very stupid, not to understand him at first. Their mistake was a very natural one.
15. I am glad for your sakes that I was not there. Had he been at the home of Lazarus before his death he would have felt constrained to heal him. Such a miracle would have been less striking and less proof of his divine power than the one which would now take place. For the sake of his disciples, for the sake of their increase in faith, for a demonstration of his mastery of the realms of death, he was glad of the opportunity to do what he proposed to do, to the end that they might believe. To bring back from the shades of death a man four days buried, after decomposition began, was as mighty a manifestation of divine power as to create a world.
16. Then said Thomas, called Didymus. "Thomas the Twin," one of the apostles, the doubter after the Lord’s resurrection. See John 20:24-29. Let us go also, that we may die with him. He looked upon his return to Jerusalem, where the hate of him was so intense, where his death was already determined, where his enemies resided, as a return to certain death. The remark of Thomas shows a true-hearted fidelity and illustrates the power of Jesus to bind men to him. For him and with him Thomas was willing to die.
Christ might have reached Bethany on the evening of the first day’s journey, but more probably about midday of the second. On his arrival he paused without the village for some reason. He was close to Jerusalem, the seat of his deadly enemies; while he never shrank from danger, neither did he rush heedlessly into it, and it was therefore desirable that the Lord should act with caution.
17. He found that he had lain in the grave four days already. Christ had in Galilee raised two persons from the dead, one soon after death; the other from the bier on which he was carried to burial. Now, in Judea, right at Jerusalem, in the face of his enemies, and just before his own death and burial, a crowning miracle is to be wrought. He will demonstrate that he is "the Resurrection and the Life" by demanding back from the grave one buried, buried four days, a period so long that in that hot climate decomposition had begun. The miracle is to be wrought under circ*mstances such that the most captious cannot question the reality of the death, or the resurrection.
18. Now Bethany was nigh unto Jerusalem. It was on the eastern slope of Mt. Olivet, distant fifteen stadia, or furlongs. The stadium was 600 feet, so that the distance was 9,000 feet, or a little less than two miles.
19. And many of the Jews came to Martha and Mary. By "Jews" John distinguishes the inhabitants of Judea and usually means those of influence or official character. They came to "comfort." Pharisaism arranged that friends and professional mourners should, after the funeral, sit with the afflicted on the floor, silent, unless the latter spoke, but always ready to take up the word and add some instruction. Thirty days of mourning were prescribed, divided into three periods, with rigid rules for each period.
20. Martha . . . went and met him. Where Christ, either from caution, or because the mourning customs were offensive to him, or that the family might be prepared, had paused. The bustling, active sister, the type of all the Marthas, goes; the quiet Mary, so absorbed that she did not hear the message, remains.
21, 22. If thou hadst been here, etc. These words express a conviction, a lamentation and a slight degree of reproach, all combined. She cannot realize that "All things work for good to them that love God" and groans in her sorrow, but at the same time intimates a faint hope, that she hardly dares to express, in the words, "I know, that even now, whatsoever thou wilt ask of God, God will give it thee." She had a hope, probably hardly defined in her own mind.
23, 24. Thy brother shall rise again. Martha does not understand this as an assurance that Lazarus shall be raised now, nor do I know that the Savior wished her so to understand it. His object was to lead her to a higher faith in himself as the "Resurrection and the Life." She declares her belief that he will rise at the last day, a belief that she held in common with all Jews except the Sadducees.
25. I am the resurrection, and the life. She had declared her belief in the resurrection. Christ makes the grand, striking declaration that he is the RESURRECTION AND THE LIFE, words that never could have fallen from the lips of a sane mortal. They mean that he is the power which opens every grave, gives life to the sleepers, and calls them forth to a new existence; that the life that endows men with eternal being is in him and proceeds from him. In the light of his own resurrection they mean that when he burst open the tomb he did it for humanity and in him humanity has won the victory over death. His utterance was far above what mere man could utter; it proclaimed a divine being and power, but the resurrection of Lazarus, a few moments later, was the demonstration of the truth of his words. His utterance was grander than man, Godlike, but immediately followed by a Godlike act in demonstration. It is another mode of declaring the same truth uttered when he told the Samaritans that he was the Water of Life, or the Galileans that he was the Bread of Life.
26. Whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Those dead, who believed in him, shall be raised and live, and those living who believe, shall never perish. Death will only be a change to a better existence and is to be disregarded. Whoever has faith in Christ, has Christ in him the hope of glory, never knows death, but passes at once "to be with Christ," to join the "general assembly and church of the first born whose names are written in heaven." There is no purgatory, no dismal Hades, no long period of unconsciousness, no death, because there is no cessation of their life in Christ.
27. I believe that thou art the Christ, etc. He asks about her faith. She responds by the good confession that embraces all, Martha’s creed, Peter’s creed, the true "Apostles’ creed," the only creed of the Apostolic church.
28, 29, 30. Called Mary her sister secretly. The Lord had evidently directed her to do this, for she said, "The Master calleth for thee." At once, with a promptitude that shows her joy, Mary arose and hastened out of the town to the place where the Lord still tarried.
31. She goeth to the grave to weep there. The message to Mary was secret. When she suddenly arose and left hurriedly the only explanation that suggested itself to the Jews was that she had gone to weep at the tomb, a custom of Jewish women. They at once followed obtrusively, thus preventing a private interview of the Master with Mary such as he had had with Martha.
32. She fell down at his feet. Her act depicts her grief, her dependence, and her faith in Christ. Her words are the same that Martha had uttered. Had the Lord been there her brother would not have died.
33, 34. He groaned in spirit and was troubled. The word rendered "groaned," undoubtedly means "was indignant" and is so rendered in the margin of the Revision. Jesus was deeply moved by the grief of Mary, but the hypocritical weeping of the Jews who followed her and who were acting according to the rules, filled him with indignation. Instead of pausing to console Mary, he asked at once for the place of sepulture. Empty forms were odious to him.
35. Jesus wept. The shortest verse in the Bible and one of the most touching. I see in the Lord weeping over the sins of Jerusalem, the Prophet; but in the Lord weeping at the tomb of Lazarus, the Brother.
36, 37. Behold how he loved him! Some of the Jews were touched by his evidence of tender affection. Others, remembering the healing of the blind man right there at Jerusalem, asked if he could not have saved Lazarus from death. The latter, however, spoke sneeringly in all probability. The occurrence of the words "groaning in himself" (was indignant) in John 11:38, shows that there was something in their words to provoke his displeasure. The Greek particle rendered "And," means rather "but" and is so rendered by the Revision. Their argument is rather: "If he opened the eyes of a blind man, why could he not save a friend from death?"
38. Jesus . . . cometh to the grave. Graves were sometimes cut perpendicularly in the rock, as we dig them in the earth, and sometimes were horizontally cut into the side of the hill. Sometimes natural eaves were selected and sometimes artificial. This family vault was a cave, closed by a stone that covered the entrance. For references to graves see Genesis 23:9; Genesis 35:8; 1 Kings 2:24; Isaiah 14:15 and Isaiah 22:16; Matthew 27:60; John 19:41.
39, 40. Take ye away the stone. The large stone that closed the entrance and which several persons would be required to remove. The practical Martha at once interposes. The body had been four days in the tomb, a period so long that decomposition must have begun. It will be offensive. She seems to have thought that the Lord’s object was to look upon the dead body of his friend. He reminds her of his promise, conditioned upon their faith, contained in the message sent them (see John 11:4). Their faith was to be shown, not in expectation, but in faithful obedience to his commands. Martha, at once, ceased to object, and the stone was removed. Faith, manifested in obedience, is a fundamental condition of divine blessing.
41, 42. And Jesus lifted up his eyes. The Son always sought to honor the Father and to show that the Father was in him as he was in the Father. I thank thee that thou hast heard me. Constantly in communion with the Father he had the Father’s answer already and assent to what he was about to do. Thou hearest me always. Even in Gethsemane, when the cup was not taken away; but he was now thankful that God had assented to his prayer, because such a miracle would induce the people to "believe that God had sent him."
43. He cried in aloud voice. A suggestion of the "voice like the sound of many waters" (Revelation 1:15) at which all who are in their graves shall come forth (1 Thessalonians 4:16). It was the voice of authority. Lazarus, come forth. "Lazarus, here, out," is the literal rendering of the Greek; two words, simple, efficacious.
44. And he that was dead came forth. The earth had never beheld a more wonderful or startling sight. At once the sleeper arose, came forth from the dark and cold bed where he had lain for four days, bound with his grave clothes, with the napkin still upon his face that had been bound under his jaw to keep it from falling. The lookers on, astonished, dazed, were only recalled to themselves, when the Lord bade them "Loose him and let him go." The winding sheet would interfere with his motion. A being with whom to will is to do, is divine. God said, Let there be light, and there was light. Christ said to the buried Lazarus, Come forth! and he came. There was not a moment’s delay. So in all his miracles. Nature heard his voice at once. He spoke and it was done.
This miracle, the climax of the wonderful works of Christ, and the immediate cause of final plans for the arrest and crucifixion, is related only by John. The other Gospels describe the raising of the son of the widow of Nain, and of the daughter of Jairus, but are silent concerning the resurrection at Bethany. Much wonder has been expressed at this silence and I can find no better explanation than that, during the intense hostility that existed in Judea during the earlier years of Christianity, to have pointed out Lazarus by name would have endangered his life, but when John wrote the power of Judaism had been forever broken. The significance of this miracle, as an evidence that Christ is a divine being, has always been acknowledged, and those who dispute this have attempted various rationalistic explanations. There are three of these: 1. The mythical, of which Strauss is the author, which holds that the story is a myth which grew up out of some slight foundation, assumed its present shape in the second or third century, and was interpolated in this Gospel by some forger, who used John’s name to give sanction to the story. This theory, in substance, is that John did not write the account. The positive evidence that John wrote the Fourth Gospel (see Introduction) refutes this hypothesis. 2. The second theory is that the story was created to illustrate the truth that Christ is the resurrection and the life. The simplicity of the narrative, giving life-like details without the slightest air of fiction, or any attempt whatever to give a coloring or draw conclusions, is a refutation of this speculation. 3. Renan suggests that the miracle was a pious fraud, contrived by the Bethany family and the friends of Jesus to give eclat to his anticipated entry into Jerusalem, and that he lent himself to this fraud in a moment of intense fanatical enthusiasm. The folly of such an explanation is shown by its utter inconsistency with the character of Christ as portrayed by Renan himself, and as acknowledged by other skeptical writers, such as Rousseau and John Stuart Mill. The account recorded by John is plain, matter of fact, crowded with minute and natural details, exhibits no marks of painting and draws no conclusions. It is told as an eye witness would tell the story who had no opinions of his own upon the subject. He does not even say that a miracle was wrought, or the dead raised, but tells what he saw and leaves the reader to draw his own conclusions. Even a scientific commission could not report the facts with more absolute impartiality. Had the writer invented the story for the sake of glorifying his Master there would have been indications of his purpose in pointing out the power and glory of him at whose word, Lazarus come forth! the dead came forth wrapped in the robes of the tomb. Had he invented it in order to prove some doctrine, there would have been an indication of this in the application. Instead, it is just such a story as might be expected from an intelligent, honest, impartial eye-witness, and almost all readers, both friends and foes, have come to the only reasonable conclusion,--that it is a genuine and faithful account of a real resurrection from the dead.
PRACTICAL OBSERVATIONS.
1. In our troubles we should send a message for Christ, as did the sisters of Bethany.
2. Even if Christ delays his response we should not doubt that our troubles are for the glory of God and our own good. "All things work for good," etc.
3. We should look upon Christ always as an all-sufficient helper. If present he can always deliver. "If thou hadst been here my brother had not died."
4. We should always be assured of the tender sympathy of the Lord. "He can be touched with a feeling of our infirmities." He weeps with those who weep and rejoices with those who rejoice.
5. We should never forget that He is the Fountain of Life; the Resurrection and the Life. If we have eaten the Bread of Life, drunk the Water of Life, have Christ the hope of glory formed in us, we have eternal life. It is begun. We are immortal. We shall never die. What is called death
"Is only a narrow sea
That divides the heavenly land from ours."
6. We have been told that there is inscribed on the monument over the clay of the infidel Hume, at Edinburg, Scotland, I AM THE RESURRECTION AND THE LIFE. In that grand truth is the hope of mankind.
7. As he cried to Lazarus, Come forth, so shall he speak with the voice of an archangel to all that are in their graves and they shall come forth and live.
8. "I go, that I may awake him out of sleep." There seems to me to be contained in these few words one of the most powerful charms in the world to lull the bitterness of death, and to make us anxious to become such that we may humbly apply them to ourselves.--Thomas Arnold.
THE SANHEDRIN IN SESSION.
45. Many of the Jews who came to Mary. John 11:19 speaks of many Jews of Jerusalem who came to the house of Martha and Mary. John 11:31 speaks of them remaining in the house with Mary and following her when she went forth; now, therefore, they are named in connection with her. Believed on him. They had seen what had been done and were compelled to believe that Jesus was a man of God.
46. But some . . went to the Pharisees. They, as was usual, divided into two classes. Others, though unable to explain the miracle, were hostile and went at once to the Pharisees with a report. As this sect was now in declared enmity to Christ, this report was no doubt an unfriendly act.
47. The chief priests therefore and the Pharisees gathered a council. The chief priests, including Caiaphas, the acting high priest, and Annas, who had been high priest, as well as other great hierarchs, were Sadducees and the leaders of that party. The old feuds between them and the Pharisees were now forgotten and the two great sects unite in a call for a meeting of the Sanhedrim. This session is a notable event. It is the first case recorded in the Gospels where we meet with a formal account of the meeting of this great body. This meeting settles on the plans that are henceforth pushed with vigor and which lead a few weeks later to the arrest, trial and condemnation of Christ. For an account of the Sanhedrim see notes on John 1:19. What do we? They do not ask what they shall do, but reproach themselves that they are doing nothing. "This man," a designation intended to show contempt, is doing many miracles and yet we are idle, doing nothing to counteract their influence. This body admitted the miracles and was without excuse. As at least two of the members were afterwards Christians, Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus, it would be easy to learn what passed on this note-worthy occasion.
48. If we let him thus alone, all men will believe. They take it for granted that his miracles were calculated to produce belief. They also held that the people would regard him the Messiah and would rise in insurrection, or raise tumults that would induce the Romans to interfere. The Romans . . . will take away our place and nation. The Romans were already there, for Judea was a Roman province, there was a Roman governor, and also a Roman garrison was stationed in the tower of Antonia overlooking the temple itself. But they had their place still, were priests with great revenues, or members of the Sanhedrim with great power. If there were seditions they might lose "their place," as they did a generation later. To take away "their place" would be to destroy the ecclesiastical organization, while to destroy the civil organization would be to take away "the nation" in the sense they used the term.
49. Caiaphas, being high priest that year. John does not mean that the high priesthood was an annual office, but places the emphasis on "that year." With him the "year of our Lord" was the year of his death. In that ever memorable year Caiaphas was high priest. Caiaphas was a Sadducee, a crafty, powerful, unscrupulous man, who was high priest in all for eighteen years, from A. D. 18 to A. D. 36, an unusual tenure of office in those times when the Romans made and unmade high priests at will, there being twenty-five in the century preceding the fall of Jerusalem. Ye know nothing at all. "Ye" is the emphatic word. "Ye who dwell on these scruples and fears do not even know the simplest rule of statesmanship, that one must be sacrificed to the many." The proud Sadducee contrasts the timid, hesitating policy of others with his fixed, clear policy of putting Jesus to death. His language is bitterly sarcastic and he charges the Sanhedrim with blindness to its own interest.
50. Nor consider that it is expedient for us. What was "expedient for us" was the main thing to consider. This required "one man to die for the people (laos, Jewish race in its relation to God), that the whole nation (ethnos, the nation as a civil organization) perish not." The word "nation" is applied many times to the Jews, in the singular, but never in the plural. It is then translated "Gentiles."
51. This he spake not of himself. He thought he spoke it of himself, but unwittingly he uttered a prophecy. The high priest represented the divine headship of the Jewish nation and through him, of old, an inspired decision was given on questions of doubt. So Caiaphas by virtue of his office utters a prophecy, and like Balaam, while wickedly counseling the death of Christ, interprets the results of his death truly.
52. Should gather in one the children of God. Christ died for his enemies, for the Jewish nation, and not for it alone, but his death broke down the barrier between Jew and Gentile and made friends of the hostile clans and nations of the earth. Jew, Gentile, Indian, African and Anglo-Saxon;--all who are gathered into him, are brethren and are drawn to each other by the ties of universal brotherhood. What Rome could not do with the sword was accomplished by the cross when Christ was nailed there, and there was cemented in his blood the foundations of a universal empire in which there would be neither Jew nor Greek, bond nor free, male nor female, but all one in the Lord.
53. From that day they took counsel. From the time of this meeting they were brought over to the policy of Caiaphas and steadfast in carrying out their plans for the death of Christ. Here is the official culmination of Jewish hatred, and what had been a decree before (John 5:18) now becomes a settled plan. John points out the development and successive steps of this enmity and the reader can trace them by consulting John 5:16-18; John 7:32; John 7:45; John 8:59; John 9:22; John 10:39; John 11:47.
54. Jesus therefore walked no more openly among the Jews. The Savior once more retired from Jerusalem to avoid the blow that was ready to be struck and retired for a short time into a city called Ephraim. Its location is not surely known, but it is supposed to be an Ophrah named in Joshua 18:23, called Ephraim in 2 Chronicles 13:19, and now a village called et Taiyibeh. It is about sixteen miles northeast of Jerusalem on the borders of a wild wilderness region. To this place the Lord must have retired immediately after the resurrection of Lazarus, and here he remained until six days before the passover. His "disciples," meaning more especially the apostles, were with him in this retirement, and he was, no doubt, actively engaged in training them for their great work. This was his last retirement from Jerusalem and he went from Ephraim to attend his last passover and to die.
55. The Jews’ passover was near at hand. It could not have been more than a few weeks away when he went to Ephraim. Many went out of the country. They gathered to the great national festivals, not only from all parts of Judea and Galilee, but from the foreign countries where Jews were scattered abroad. To purify themselves. They came in advance of the time of the passover that they might have time to purify themselves from ceremonial uncleanness before the feast. Though no special rites of purification were enjoined before the passover, yet the people were expected to purify themselves before any important event (Exodus 19:10-11), and were accustomed to go through certain special rites of purification before the passover (2 Chronicles 30:13-20).
56. Then sought they for Jesus. There was a restless curiosity among these country people to know more of the wonderful Teacher of whom they had heard so much. As they gathered in groups in the temple they discussed the probability of his coming, and that the more eagerly as they knew that,
57. The chief priests and the Pharisees had given a commandment. The Sanhedrin had published an edict commanding any man who knew of his whereabouts to reveal it in order that they might take him. Godet is of the opinion that this order was given to intimidate Christ and his disciples so as to prevent their coming to the passover. They certainly could have traced him to Ephraim and when he did appear they had to lay their plans very carefully and nearly a week passed before they dared to arrest him. Lightfoot reports a Jewish tradition that, during forty days preceding the passover, an officer of the Sanhedrim "publicly proclaimed that this man, who by his imposture had seduced the people, ought to be stoned, and that anyone who could say aught in his defence was to come forward and speak. But no one doing so he was hanged on the evening before the passover." It maybe that John refers to some such proclamation.
GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN
B.W. Johnson
JOHN CHAPTER TWELVE
John shows a logical order in developing the causes of the hostility of the Jewish authorities to Christ, which is not found in the other Gospels. From the time when, at his first passover, the Lord drove the money changers out of the temple, their hatred had grown deeper at every fresh visit to Jerusalem, until, just before his retirement to Ephraim, the Sanhedrim had officially resolved upon his death as soon as it could be brought about on some charge that would be plausible in the eyes of the Roman rulers. The Lord knew full well that his "hour was at hand" and went into retirement before the storm, not to escape his fate, but to defer it until the appointed time at the passover. As that time approached he left Ephraim and, it seems, crossed over to the east of the Jordan, joined the crowds that were hastening to the feast, and crossing the Jordan near Jericho, passed through that city, where he healed the blind men, converted Zaccheus and abode at his house. From thence he went with his disciples and the crowds of pilgrims, who then thronged the thoroughfares, along the winding route that led through the mountain passes from the plain of Jericho up to Jerusalem. Reaching Bethany he parted from the throngs and stopped to rest in the home of friends who were among the truest he had on earth. There is a difference of opinion among scholars whether he arrived at Bethany on the evening of the Sabbath day or the day before. It is well to admit that there is much disagreement concerning the exact date of several of the momentous events of the week, extending from the arrival of the Lord in Bethany until his resurrection. Even the "six days before the passover" has been variously interpreted by the commentators. Andrews, whose chronology I have usually followed, and who is one of the best of authorities on chronological questions, adopts Friday as the date of the arrival at Bethany, and supposes that the Lord left Jericho, eighteen miles from Jerusalem, in the morning, reaching Bethany about sunset, and stopped with his apostles over the Sabbath. In the evening of the next day, the Sabbath, the feast was made at the house of Simon the leper. The events of this most wonderful week in the history of the world are tabulated as follows:
| Saturday. | Nisan 9. | March 31. | Supper at Bethany. |
| Sunday. | Nisan 10. | April 1. | Entry into Jerusalem. |
| Monday. | Nisan 11. | April 2. | Second cleansing of the temple. |
| Tuesday. | Nisan 12. | April 3. | Last visit to the temple. The prophecy of Matthew, chapter XXIV. |
| Wednesday. | Nisan 13. | April 4. | Savior resting at Bethany. |
| Thursday. | Nisan 14. | April 6. | The Savior eats the passover; the Lord’s Supper instituted. |
| Friday. | Nisan 15. | April 6. | The Lord crucified. The Jews eat the passover. |
| Saturday. | Nisan 16. | April 7. | The Lord in the tomb. |
| Sunday. | Nisan 17. | April 8. | The Resurrection. |
While I am sensible that there are certain difficulties in this arrangement I believe that there are fewer than are presented by any other scheme and I shall follow it, not as certain, but as supported by the best authorities and most probable. Reasons will be given, under different heads, for the date assigned to the events considered.
ANOINTED FOR BURIAL.
One cannot enter upon the study of the portion of the Gospel that now opens before us without feeling that he is entering upon the most tender, solemn and sacred portion of the sacred story. This journey to Jerusalem is the last journey, is the Lord’s last appeal to that untoward generation, is the history of the Lamb consciously going to the altar of sacrifice, the innocent and holy condemned one seeking his doom. A little later Paul went to Jerusalem "knowing that bonds and imprisonment awaited him;" but now the Lord goes knowing that he is certainly going the cross.
The account of the feast at Bethany is given by Matthew 26:1-75 and Mark 14:1-72. These accounts, although differing somewhat in details, no doubt describe the same occurrence that John narrates in the present passage. The anointing described by Luke 7:1-50, is regarded by all the commentators as a different affair which occurred in Galilee at the house of a Pharisee named Simon. The only serious apparent discrepancy between the accounts of John and the earlier writers is that they seem to locate the feast at Bethany two days before the passover. It should be kept in mind, however, that neither Matthew nor Luke adhere to the chronological order of Christ’s ministry, nor do they assert that the feast took place two days before the passover. That date is assigned to a meeting of the Sanhedrim held to devise means to seize the Savior by craft, and at this meeting an opportunity presents itself in the offer of one of the apostles to betray his Master by leading a band of armed men to his resting place at night. Then these evangelists naturally go back to give an account of the feast at Bethany where the disappointment of Judas developed his purpose to sell his Lord. This account they throw in as an episode, and then return to the plot of the Sanhedrim and the treachery of Judas. It is but just to admit that some judicious scholars hold that Matthew and Mark give the real date of the feast, and insist that John declares the time when Christ came to Bethany, but not the time of the feast. The attention John usually gives to the order of events, his language, and the probabilities are opposed to this view.
1. Then Jesus six days before the passover. The passover meal was the beginning of the feast of unleavened bread, which lasted for seven days. The whole paschal week was termed the feast of unleavened bread; the passover was, strictly speaking, the 15th of Nisan, "the great day of the feast." Jesus reached Bethany on Friday, rested the Sabbath day or Saturday, and the feast took place on Saturday evening, after the Sabbath ended. Bethany. A village about two miles east of Jerusalem (John 11:18), being on the other side of the Mount of Olives. It was the home of Mary and Martha, where Christ was wont to visit when in Jerusalem (Luke 10:38-41; Matthew 21:17; Mark 11:11-12). It was the scene of the resurrection of Lazarus (John 11:1-57), and of Christ’s own ascension (Luke 24:50). It is not mentioned in the Old Testament.--Abbott.
Then is rendered by the Revision more correctly "therefore." It marks a close connection with what precedes, and especially with John 11:55, which speaks of the approaching passover and the gathering multitudes. We have seen the Lord retiring for a season from the vicinity of Jerusalem, out of the immediate presence of the rulers who had now officially decided upon his death, and secluding himself in the quiet retreat of Ephraim in order to wait for this very passover. As he had been present at two preceding feasts, and as Jerusalem has been the principal seat of his ministry for about six months, it is not strange that the great topic of conversation among the pilgrims was whether he would come to the passover. Would the well-known purpose of the Sanhedrim keep him away? "Therefore, he came six days before the passover," though fully apprised of their designs, and conscious that they would be carried out at that very time. Nor was there any concealment about his coming. As we learn from the other Gospels, he crossed the Jordan from Ephraim and joined in Perea, the immense crowds who were hastening to Jerusalem, moved through Jericho in a kind of triumphal procession, with vast multitudes thronging his steps, and moving with them to Bethany, parted from them, not to seek seclusion, but to attend a public feast. The time for all concealment was now past, and in the scenes at Jericho, the feast at Bethany, the kingly march into Jerusalem, the second cleansing of the temple and the final appeal to Jerusalem recorded in Matthew 21:1-46., he not only seemed to seek publicity, but to invite the malice of his enemies to do its worst.
2. There they made him a supper; and Martha served. It is not said at whose house the feast took place, only that it was at Bethany, that Martha served, that Lazarus was one of those at the table, and that Mary was there. Matthew and Mark say that it took place at the house of "Simon the leper." Of him we know nothing and all is conjecture. He may have been the father of the three, or the husband of Martha, or some other relative. He may have been dead and Martha his widow. Christ may have healed him of his leprosy. The only thing certain is that the feast was at his house; the Bethany family were there, and Martha was active in providing the feast. The feast may have been made by the citizens of Bethany in his honor, in gratitude for the wonderful miracle that he had restored one of their townsmen to life. "They" has no antecedent expressed and is as likely to refer to the people as anyone else. In that case there is no need for supposing any relationship to the Bethany family. Martha, in accordance with all that we have learned of her active, practical nature, would be busy "serving;" Mary would naturally be forgetful of all else but her beloved Lord. We are told that a favorite time with the Jews for a feast was the evening after the Sabbath day had passed.
3. Then took Mary a pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly. Spikenard, from which the ointment was, made, was an aromatic herb of the valerian family. It was imported from an early age from Arabia, India, and the Far East. It was the costliest anointing oil of antiquity, and was sold throughout the Roman Empire, where it fetched a price that put it beyond any but the wealthy. Mary had bought a vase or flask of it containing twelve ounces. And anointed the feet of Jesus. We learn from the other accounts some additional facts. The ointment was contained in an alabaster vase which she broke. It was all for Christ. Nothing was kept back. She anointed first his head, and then his feet. She came up behind as he reclined at table and poured it on his head, and then stooped down to his feet. It must be borne in mind that the Jews did not sit but reclined at table with their feet extended behind. The anointing of the head was also a distinction which was conferred upon the guest of honor (Luke 7:46),--not only among the Jews, but generally in the East, and among the ancients. In connection with the anointing of the head, was the washing of the feet with water. Thus it was an elevation of the custom to the highest point of honor when the head and the feet were alike anointed with oil. Wiped his feet with her hair. The same is said of "a woman that was a sinner" (Luke 7:37). That occurrence took place in Galilee and is a different incident. That woman washed his feet with her tears of sorrow; those of Mary were tears of gratitude. The house was filled with the odor. The ointments were very fragrant. Perhaps the rich perfume was the first intimation to many of what had been done. Service to Christ is full of fragrance to all within reach of its influence.
4. Then saith one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot. Matthew (Matthew 26:8) states that "the disciples" had indignation; Mark reports that "some had indignation;" John (John 12:4), as knowing who had whispered the first word of blame, fixes the uncharitable judgment on "Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son." The narrow, covetous soul of the traitor could see nothing in the lavish gift but a "waste." His indignation, partly real, partly affected, was perhaps honestly shared by some of his fellow-disciples. His own soul was too narrow and sordid to rejoice over the honor done the Savior.
5. Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence? About $45. A penny here is the denarius, a Roman silver coin worth 15 to 17 cents. The wretch, who is just going to sell the only Son of God for 30 pence (pieces of silver), values at 300 a little ointment, perfume, and vapor.--Quesnel. As the penny, or denarius, was the price of a day’s labor then, and would buy as much as a dollar now, the whole sum would be equivalent to $300 now, a sum large enough to arouse the greed of Judas. So costly a treasure shows that the Bethany family possessed considerable wealth. Given to the poor. He cared nothing for the poor. This was only a pretext. Those who are the best friends of Christ will do most for the poor.
6. Because he had the bag. Judas was treasurer of the little company. They must have had a meagre purse; and it was too much for him to see all this money thrown away on the mere sentiment of love, when it might have gone into their treasury, from which he could steal it, for he was a thief. But he concealed his true motive, and gained the really good disciples over to his side by pleading the love of the poor. He was the type of all those treasurers, cashiers, etc., who steal trust funds.
7. Let her alone: against the day of my burying hath she kept this. Their indignation was roused against the poor, shrinking Mary as if she had robbed them. No doubt Judas felt as if he had been robbed. Then Christ interposed with authority and silenced them, adding a commendation, saying, "She has anticipated the hour of my decease; anointing my body before death, and thus preparing it for burial." It is worthy of note that this was all the anointing which our Lord’s body received from the hand of Mary or her female friends, inasmuch as he had risen before they reached the sepulchre with their spices. It was, therefore, in verity, an anointing beforehand, although she was not aware of the full import of her act of love.
8. For the poor always ye have with you. You will have plenty of opportunities to aid them; and the more they did for their Master, the more they would do for the poor, for the poor are left in his stead, and through them will be expressed the increased love of the Master. It is the want of love, not of money, that allows any poor to suffer; so that all gifts to Christ which increase our love will increase the gifts to the poor.
9. Much people of the Jews therefore know that he was there. The language indicates that he tarried there for several days, from Friday till Sunday, and throngs came to see him. He was not seeking privacy now.
10, 11. The chief priests consulted . . . . . put Lazarus to death. Lazarus was a living testimonial to the divine power of Christ and they desired to get him out of the way.
12. On the next day. This was Sunday, often called Palm Sunday, because on this day the multitude took the branches of palm trees. Much people that were come to the feast. Josephus says that from two to three millions attended a passover. All the Gospels give an account of this entry into Jerusalem and all ought to be read. See Matthew 21:1-11; Mark 11:1-11, and Luke 19:29-44.
13. Took branches of palm trees, and went out to meet him. They carpeted the Savior’s pathway with their garments and the gigantic leaves of the palm tree. The "branches of palm trees" are not strictly, branches at all, but the enormous leaves, twelve to sixteen feet long, which spring from the top of the tall, straight trunk. A few palm trees are still to be seen in Jerusalem. Combining the four accounts, we get the following features: Some took off their outer garments, the burnoose, and bound it on the colt as a kind of saddle; others cast their garments in the way, a mark of honor to a king (2 Kings 9:13); others climbed the trees, cut down the branches, and strewed them in the way (Matthew 21:8); others gathered leaves and twigs and rushes. This procession was made up largely of Galileans; but the reputation of Christ, increased by the resurrection of Lazarus, had preceded him, and many came out from the city to swell the acclamations and increase the enthusiasm. Hosanna. A Greek modification of the Hebrew words, "Save now, I beseech thee," in Psalms 118:25, the next verse of which formed part of their song, "Blessed," etc. It is used as an expression of praise, like hallelujah. That cometh in the name of the Lord. The words are taken in part from Psalms 118:25-26, a hymn which belonged to the great hallelujah chanted at the end of the Paschal Supper and the Feast of Tabernacles. The people were accustomed to apply it to the Messiah.--Godet. Christ came in the name of the Lord, because sent and appointed by the Lord,--his ambassador, proclaiming the message of the Lord.
14. And Jesus, when he had found a young ass, sat thereon. This was Christ’s triumphal entry into Jerusalem and the people expected him to become king at once. The outside of this triumph was very mean. He rode upon an ass’s colt, which made no figure. This colt was borrowed. Christ went upon the water in a borrowed boat, ate the Passover in a borrowed chamber, was buried in a borrowed sepulchre, and here rode on a borrowed ass. He had no rich trappings, but only the garments of others.--Matthew Henry.
15. Fear not, daughter of Sion: behold, thy King cometh. Each of the four evangelists goes back to the prophecy (Zechariah 9:9) as fulfilled in this remarkable event,--the only known instance in which Jesus ever rode upon any animal.--Cowles. Hitherto he had entered the holy city on foot: this day he would enter as David and judges of Israel were wont,--riding on the specially Jewish ass.--Geikie.
16. These things understood not his disciples at first. There was much connected with his ministry that never became clear until he had suffered and risen. Then in the clear light of the Holy Spirit all was like a sunbeam.
PRACTICAL OBSERVATIONS.
1. Affection desires to express itself in costly sacrifices for the loved.
2. The motive, the love, gives value to the deed; as Hermon and Pisgah were but common mountains till Christ was transfigured on the one, and Moses saw the promised land from the other.
3. The worldly heart can never understand the blessedness and power of enthusiasm, and gifts of love.
4. Bad men always put forward good motives for their bad deeds.
5. Expressions of affection are of great value. We all need sympathy, and that it be expressed, especially the poor, the sick, the sorrowing.
6. God does not need our gifts; he is rich enough without: but he wants the giving, the spirit of sacrifice.
7. The gifts for the gospel, for the church, for Christ’s sake, always increase the gifts to the poor.
8. Reasons for Triumphal Procession. Till then he had withdrawn from popular expressions of homage; but once, at least, he wished to show himself as King Messiah of his people. It was a last call addressed by him to the population of Jerusalem. This course, besides, could no longer compromise his work. He knew that in any case death awaited him in the capital.--Godet. He would have a public testimony to the fact that it was their King the Jews crucified. It is not merely the Messiah that saves, nor the crucified One that saves, but the Messiah crucified (1 Corinthians 1:23). An analogous commission to prepare the Passover was given to Peter and John (Luke 22:8). They may have been the two sent forth.--Abbott.
9. Celebration of Triumph. In September, A. D. 61, about 30 years after Christ’s triumphal entry, the most magnificent triumph ever seen in Rome was given to Pompey. For two days the grand procession of trophies from every land, and a long retinue of captives, moved into the city along the Via Sacra. Brazen tablets were carried, on which were engraved the names of the conquered nations, including 1,000 castles and 900 cities. The remarkable circ*mstance of the celebration was, that it declared him conqueror of the whole world. So the triumphant procession of Christ into Jerusalem was but a faint shadow of the coming of the Prince of peace, when all nations and the wealth and glory of them shall take part in his glorious triumph. And the day is fast approaching.--After Foster’s Cyclopædia.
GENTILES SEEKING CHRIST.
17. The people . . . bare record. John has just narrated a wonderful passage in the life of the Redeemer, his entry into the city of his enemies, who had resolved to slay him, in triumphal procession with vast crowds raising acclamations and shouting his kingly glory. He now pauses to observe that the miracle at Bethany had its effect on this demonstration. The people who had seen the miracle bore record.
18. For this came also the people met him. Thousands who had not seen the miracle were moved by the story of the eye-witnesses, and eagerly went out to meet him and joined in the acclamations. They could not be regarded as believers but belonged to the fickle throng who went with the tide; who would one day shout, "Hosannah to the son of David," and a few days later, would swell the cry, "Crucify him; crucify him!"
19. The Pharisees therefore said among themselves. These subtle opposers, were astounded and frightened by the proofs of the popularity of Jesus. They had joined with the Sanhedrim in a determination to put Christ to death; he had retired from the city and disappeared for a time from sight; an order had been issued that any one who knew his hiding place should point it out that he might be seized; yet now he had returned, entered Jerusalem as the old kings were wont to enter, with shouting crowds around him doing him homage. Hence these baffled sectarians exclaim: "Behold how ye prevail nothing; the world is gone after him." Matthew describes the commotion in the city that so stirred up the Pharisees: "And when he was come into Jerusalem, all the city was moved, saying, Who is this? And the multitude said, This is Jesus the prophet of Nazareth of Galilee" (Matthew 21:10-11). When the Lord came into the city he entered into the temple. Mark 11:11, declares: "Jesus entered Jerusalem, and into the temple: and when he had looked round about on all things, and now the eventide was come, he went out to Bethany with the Twelve." The interview sought by the Greeks, of which we next have an account, either occurred this afternoon, while the Savior was in the temple, or on Monday. John does not say when it occurred, and most scholars have referred it to the next day, when the Savior cleansed the temple a second time, made his final appeal to the Jewish nation, and retired from the temple forever, speaking his farewell in the wonderfully pathetic words recorded in Matthew 23:34-39. This discourse recorded by John seems to have contained his last words to the people, and after his words were uttered "he was hidden from them," to appear no more in person with the offer of salvation until they should say, "Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord."
20. And there were certain Greeks among them that came up to worship at the feast. A remarkable circ*mstance is related. The passover feast was for the Jews, and those who came there to worship were of the seed of Abraham, but on this occasion, "among those who came to worship" were Greeks, members of the great Gentile division of the race which embraced all that were not Jews. These were not Jews who spoke the Grecian language and lived in Greek countries; those are called in the original Greek, Hellenistoi. We find them in the Jerusalem church in large numbers. See Acts 6:1. These who seek to visit Jesus were Hellenes, a term only used of the Greek race. Where they came from we do not know. The Greek race was scattered all over the East from the time of Alexander’s conquests. Eusebius mentions a tradition that they were an embassy from the king of Edessa who thus sought to invite Jesus to visit his kingdom. It is probable rather that they belonged to the large class of "devout Greeks," met everywhere by Paul, who were sick of heathenism and were attracted by the grand Hebrew revelation of the unity of God. On this great national occasion they had accompanied Jews settled abroad as they returned to worship in the city of David.
The visit of these Greeks to Jerusalem indicates an unusual hunger for the truth which they had failed to find in heathenism. The aversion shown by a high caste Brahmin for an outcast is not greater than the Jews, in the age of the Savior, exhibited for Gentiles. Beyond the court of the Gentiles in the temple grounds was an inscription over the gateway: "Let no Gentile go farther under pain of death." No pious Jew could sit down to eat at the table of a Gentile (Acts 11:3; Galatians 2:12). If a heathen were invited to a Jewish house, we learn from the Mishna, that he could not be left alone in the room, else every article of food or drink on the table was to be regarded, henceforth, as unclean. Milk drawn from a cow by heathen hands could not be used. It was not lawful to let either house or field, or to sell cattle, to a heathen, and any article, however distantly connected with heathenism, was to be destroyed. In distant lands, or districts of Palestine where the Gentiles were numerous, the Jews became less intolerant, but in Jerusalem the aversion was most intense. An illustration of this is afforded in the address that Paul delivered from the steps, after he was rescued from the temple mob, which listened to him patiently until he spoke of the Lord sending him to the Gentiles, on which his listeners were at once transported into fury.
21. The same came to Philip. In the court of the Gentiles where the Lord then was waiting and "looking around." He observed much that required correction and on the next day, Monday, he again drove out the stock traders and the money changers. The name Philip is Grecian, as well as Andrew, and those of the seven deacons of Acts 6:1-15. It is not unlikely from this fact that Philip had been thrown under Greek influences and spoke the Greek language, as did Peter, John, Paul, and other apostles. This, probably, explains why they came to Philip. He had a Greek name and was acquainted with their race. We would see Jesus. They ask an interview. They had probably seen him as he came into Jerusalem in triumphal procession; they could see him every day as he taught publicly, but Jerusalem was ringing with the fame of the resurrection of Lazarus, his other miracles and the wonders of his teaching. They were seeking a better faith than that of their fathers and they wished to talk personally with the great Teacher. Possibly curiosity had something to do with their desire.
22. Philip cometh and telleth Andrew. Andrew was also of Bethsaida and he and Philip seem to have been inseparable friends. The fact that Philip wanted some one to go with him to Christ shows how his character had inspired with awe even those who were nearest to him. Perhaps the Greeks followed the two apostles to the presence of Christ. It is not said whether he granted the interview or not. He probably did. John reports the address of the Savior to which the application gave rise. That Philip should hesitate to make this request is not strange in view of the fact that Christ had told his disciples when they were sent forth to preach, to go only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. It has been noticed that Gentiles, the Wise men, came to honor his birth, and now Gentiles, the Greeks, do him homage as he is about to ascend the cross.
23. The hour is come, that the Son of man should be glorified. The answer of Christ may have been to Philip and Andrew, and the Greeks may have heard and understood it. The substance is that the time for his glorification had come and that glorification would draw all men, Greek, Gentiles as well as Jews, to him. After his glorification, accomplished by his death, there would be no wall of partition, but to him the Gentiles should seek, and there should be neither bond nor free, male nor female, Jew nor Greek, but all one in Christ Jesus.
24. Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone. This statement, prefaced by the verily, verily, that gives solemn emphasis, enforces a great truth. The grain of wheat may remain in the granary for a thousand years and be preserved, but it is useless there. It neither reproduces, nor is food. Grains were found in the wrappings of Egyptian mummies that were 4,000 years old, but they had never produced another grain. It is when it falls into the ground and undergoes dissolution, that it brings forth fruit. It is fruitful by giving itself up. So, too, Christ must give himself up. Must die, be placed in the ground, before he can be glorified and draw all men to him. His death was needful in order that he might impart life to the nations.
25. He that loveth his life shall lose it. Then he announces a principle that underlies all exaltation. He gave his life and found eternal exaltation; the grain gives its life and lives a hundred fold; those who consecrate their lives, give them up for others, dedicate them to their holy work, will live eternally. Those who seek to save their lives, live for this present life, live for pleasures and gains and honors, shall lose their lives. The man who says he will get as much out of life as possible, the worldling, is the one who "loveth his life." The one who disregards present pleasures, or worldly interests, but dedicates his life to Christ, is the one who hateth his life.
26. If any man serve me, let him follow me. This is Christ’s direct answer to the Greeks. His service is to be rendered, not by secret interviews, but by obeying him, for so the word "follow." is to be understood. If any man serve me, him will my Father honor. God demands that "every knee should bow and every tongue confess that he is Christ." The Christian’s ambition should be to follow Christ, to be Christlike, to serve him well, and leave all else to the will of the Father.
27. Now is my soul troubled. "Now a sudden change comes over the spirit of the Redeemer. His eye closes on the crowd without; he ceases to think of, or to speak with man; he is alone with the Father. A dark cloud descends and wraps him in its folds."--Hanna. It is the shadow of the cross and the tomb. The horror just before him falls upon his soul with terrific power. It is a foreshadowing of the struggle of Gethsemane. The best comment on this verse is to compare it with the account of the agony in the garden. Here he exclaims: Father, save me from this hour. There, "If it be possible, let this cup pass from me." Here he adds: But for this cause came I unto this hour. There "Nevertheless, not my will but thine be done." Here the perfect resignation that follows the struggle in his soul is in the prayer, Father, glorify thy name. It required a fearful struggle, but he "had hated his life" and given it for his work’s sake.
28. Then came a voice from heaven, saying, I have glorified it, etc. At Gethsemane the angel came to strengthen him; here the Father’s voice speaks in approval. Three times the Father’s voice was heard from the sky; first, when Christ was buried in Jordan, a type of his own burial; second, when Moses and Elias talked with him on the holy mount about his death; third, when he had his struggle of soul in view of death portrayed here and triumphed. These facts show the tender, agonizing interest the Father felt in the suffering of the Son. Will glorify it again. God had glorified his name by the wonders wrought by Jesus; he would glorify it by his resurrection, his exaltation, the scenes of Pentecost, and the triumphs of the church.
29. An angel spake to him. All heard the sound of the divine voice, but it was not clear to all what it was. Like those who were with Saul of Tarsus when on the way to Damascus, they heard, but did not comprehend.
30. This voice came not because of me. He had already won the victory before the voice came. It was rather to confirm the faith of his disciples who still stumbled over the prospect of his death.
31. Now is the judgment of this world. Now, "this hour," the "hour" referred to in John 12:23 and John 12:27, the hour for which he had come into the world, the hour of the cross; that was to be the hour of judgment, the crisis, which should determine who should rule the world. The cross became a throne. It gave him the crown. Because he suffered he was exalted to majesty and "all power in heaven and earth was given to him." The prince of this world is cast out. The great opposer, the worldly power, Satan as manifested in the pomp, power, and majesty of the earth. The cross cast him out, dethroned him; he is now a usurper and shall finally be cast into the lake of fire.
32. If I be lifted up from the earth, I will draw all men unto me. Lifted up, first, to the cross; second, from the grave; third, to heaven and the eternal throne. The crucified, risen and exalted Savior becomes a power to draw all men, Jews and Gentiles, all nations. Christ does not declare that he will draw every individual, but all races. The great thought is the power of his death and resurrection.
33. Signifying what death he should die. And the great events that followed it as a regular sequence.
34. We have heard out of the law that Christ abideth forever. The multitude were perplexed. They had cried, "Hosanna to the King of Israel who cometh in the name of the Lord." They believed Christ to be the king. Their idea of the Messiah was an eternal king. Now he spoke of death. They ask two questions: first, about the lifting up, and second, Who is the Son of man?
35. Yet a little while the light is with you. He refuses to answer their questions directly, but imparts to them needed truths. The light was then present with them. He was shining, teaching. Let them seek the light and walk in it while they had opportunity. The opportunity might soon pass away and the darkness come.
36. Believe in the light, that ye may be the children of light. That they might receive the light of the light of the world they must believe on him. Unbelief closed their spiritual eyes to his words. Unless there was belief and a reception of the light they could not become children of the light. With these words he retired from their midst.
PRACTICAL OBSERVATIONS.
1. Christ is the "Desire of all nations."
2. Though Christ came in person only to the "lost sheep" of the house of Israel, his mission was to all the world.
3. The "wall of partition" between Jew and Gentile, was broken down when "the handwriting of ordinances was nailed to the cross." The risen Savior said to his disciples, "Go and preach the gospel to every creature."
4. Self-dedication is a life-giving power. The old Romans told the story of Rome saved by Quintus Curtius and the Decii giving up their lives. The soldier often consecrates himself to save others. So Christ gave him elf to save a world.
5. The life that is given up is the life that is saved and becomes glorious. Judson gave up his and lives as the prince of missionaries; Howard, Florence Nightingale, Miss Dix, Oberlin, Clarkson, and a host of others gave up theirs and have an immortal fame. All who give up their lives by dedicating them to holy work will gain life eternal.
6. Christ himself had struggle of soul. He was tempted in all points as we are. The cross was as hard for him to endure as it would be for us. He fought the conflict in soul, he gave up his life, and the Father spoke his approbation. He gave up but he gained. First the cross and then the crown.
7. "With all his sufferings full in view,
And woes to us unknown,
Forth to the task his spirit flew;
’Twas love that urged him on.
Lord we return to thee what we can;
Our hearts shall sound abroad--
Salvation to the dying man,
And to the rising God."--Cowper.
THE CAUSE OF UNBELIEF.
If that view is correct which assigns the last discourse to the temple on Monday it belongs to Christ’s farewell words to Israel. From thenceforth he entered the temple no more. In the conflicts recorded in Matthew 22:1-46; Matthew 23:1-39, he had been finally rejected by Israel, and henceforth only awaited for the "Son of Man to be lifted up" that he might draw all races, the races whom Israel despised, unto him. In the closing words to the people, not to "the Jews," recorded by John, his last admonition was to seek the light and to walk in it. All the woes of Israel arose from the fact that they were averse to the light and preferred the darkness, rather than the true light. John, with this admonition in mind, next shows how they had turned away from the light.
37. Though he had done so many miracles before them. John only records seven of these miracles as types but often refers to the great number of them. See John 2:23; John 4:45; John 7:31; John 20:30. Believed not. Many of them had a kind of intellectual faith in him as a man of God, or as the "prophet of Galilee," but they did not have that faith which believes, trusts and devotes one’s life.
38. That the saying of Esaias the prophet. The saying here recorded is found in Isaiah 53:1. John means to say that God had by Isaiah predicted the very state of things in Israel and the Jews so acted that it might be fulfilled.
39. Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said. Isaiah 6:10. The Revision is clearer, which reads: "For this cause they could not believe, for that Isaiah has said again." The cause of their unbelief is not that Isaiah said thus and thus, but he points out the cause of their unbelief in what he said. The reason why they could not believe was not that God had decreed their unbelief and destroyed their free agency, but that, in the exercise of their free agency, they had made themselves, by the operation of God’s moral laws, incapable of belief.
40. He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart. This explains why they could not believe. Whether they were morally responsible for their unbelief depends on how God blinded their eyes and hardened their heart. If he did it by a direct act, regardless of their moral condition, then they were not responsible. If, however, he did it by a law of the universe that whoever turns from the light shall become blind, and whoever steels his heart against the truth shall find his heart hardened, then they were morally responsible if they had turned from the light and hardened their hearts. It is a physical as well as a moral law that he who turns from the light and seeks to abide in darkness will become blinded until he will "believe a lie and be damned." The men who are the champions of unbelief, such men as Voltaire, Paine and Ingersoll, are unbelievers because they did not wish to believe. Their moral condition was such that they could justify their course of life only by refusing to believe on Christ. They sought the darkness, and as a result, finally they became so blinded that they could not believe. They blinded their own eyes because they brought upon themselves the penalty. God blinded their eyes, because their blindness resulted from the action of his universal law. Thus it is said of Pharaoh that "God hardened his heart," but it is also said that "Pharaoh hardened his heart." He chose, in the exercise of his voluntary agency, to harden his heart, but it is God’s law that those who harden their hearts shall be hardened, and hence God, by this law, hardened his heart. By reference to Matthew 13:14 the reader will find this passage from Isaiah quoted and applied by the Savior to the Jews. In the application he shows how they were blinded: "Their eyes have they closed." The Savior’s words settle how God blinded their eyes. It was by the application of his invariable law to their own acts. Trench says: "The Lord, having constituted as the righteous law of moral government, that sin should produce darkness of heart and moral insensibility, declared that he would allow the law to take its course."
42. Nevertheless among the chief rulers many believed on him. These were members of the Sanhedrim. They had an intellectual faith, but it was not a power over their hearts. "With the heart man believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation" (Romans 10:10). These rulers, not believing with the heart, did not make open confession, because they feared the Pharisees. The fact that they did not confess him from fear, only added to their sin. They declined openly to take his side when they believed him to be the Christ. They were dishonest. Nor does the New Testament anywhere give a shadow of a hope to anyone who refuses to confess Christ openly. Put out of the synagogue. See John 9:22 for the determination of the Pharisees, and the consequences of being put out of the synagogue. The Pharisees were the leaders in inflicting the religious penalties.
44. Jesus cried a said. John does not say when, or where, but I think, gives a sort of summary of what he had said, now that his appeal to the Jewish nation was closed. In John 12:44 and John 12:46 he declares his oneness with him who sent him.
46. I am come a light into the world. It was the office of Christ to make all things clear. His mission and person illuminate the mysteries of our being and destiny when they are seen in their fulness. In many respects he is a Sun. Those who abide in his light will have their doubts solved, mysteries cleared up, and the clouds rolled away from the future. It is interesting and instructive to compare the various titles and symbols that the Savior applies to himself in this Gospel. In addition to the Son of Man, the Christ, and the Son of God, which are common to all the Gospels, he used the following designations: I am the Bread of Life (John 6:35); I am the Light of the world (John 8:12 and in this passage); I am the Door of the sheep (John 10:7); I am the Good Shepherd (John 10:11); I am the Resurrection and the Life (John 11:25); I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life (John 14:6); I am the True Vine (John 15:1). Each of these symbols conveys a different and vital truth concerning his nature or mission. Besides these he describes himself seven times, five in his public discourses, and twice to his disciples, by the profound and lofty phrase "I am," the significance of which I have discussed in another place. See note on John 8:58.
47, 48. I judge him not. In declaring that he judges not those who hear his words and believe not, he is not inconsistent. In the day of judgment he shall sit upon the throne, not to condemn the world that he came to save. It will always be either saved or condemned. The words that he left in it as his will shall decide the destiny of every man. "He that rejecteth me . . the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day."
49. I have not spoken of myself. Of my own mind and will, but it was the Father who had spoken in him. He gave a commandment what the Son should say. It will be seen that this summary repeats ideas that have been made prominent in discourses of the Savior that John has already reported.
50. I know that his commandment is life everlasting. The commandment of the the Father is not only directed to the bestowment of life on men, but it is life. There is life in the truth of God when it is received into the heart and becomes the law of life. His commandment is truth. Christ says: "My words are spirit and they are life." Thus closes John’s record of the Revelation of Christ to the world. In the discourses of the next five chapters there is a fuller revelation of himself to his disciples.
GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN
B.W. Johnson
JOHN CHAPTER THIRTEEN
THE LAST SUPPER.
The events of this wonderful week have passed rapidly. We have followed the Savior in his entry into Jerusalem upon Sunday and his visit to the temple. On Monday occurred the incident of cursing the fig tree, as he went from Bethany to Jerusalem, and a second time he entered into the temple to assert his authority to cleanse his Father’s house by casting out the traffickers and money changers, returning in the evening again to his beloved retreat at Bethany. Tuesday was one of the busiest, stormiest, and most fruitful days of his ministry. On his appearance at the temple he was accosted by the demand, "By what authority doest thou these things?" Then came the attempts of the various parties to entangle him, a succession of parables directed against the Jewish nation, the awful denunciation of its sins recorded in Matthew chapter 23., the final and sad farewell to the temple and the nation that closes that chapter, the discourse on the fate of the nation, the end of the world and the day of judgment recorded in the next two chapters, and, after these, a return to Bethany, where the next day, Wednesday, seems to have been passed in rest and preparation for the approaching struggle. From thence on Thursday afternoon he went into the city to eat the passover. This last interview with the disciples before his suffering is one of an unusually confidential and affectionate nature and is the occasion of the sweetest and most consolatory teachings of our Lord.
John passes over the second cleansing of the temple and the conflicts of Tuesday, and the prediction of the fate of Jerusalem, which we gather from the other historians, and takes his readers, at once to the little gathering in the Upper Room where the Master and his disciples had gathered to eat the passover, and where the Supper was instituted. John speaks of the Supper, but he, only, of the four historians, omits to give an account of its origin. He, only, gives a full account of the remarkable discourses that the Savior delivered on that memorable occasion. I cannot here enter into the discussion whether the Savior ate the passover before the real time or not, nor is it needful to settle that, in order to understand his teaching.
It was on the morning of Thursday,--Green Thursday as it used to be called during the Middle Ages,--that some conversation took place between Jesus and his disciples about the paschal feast. They asked him where he wished the preparation to be made. As he had now withdrawn from public teaching, and was spending this Thursday, as he had spent the previous day, in complete seclusion, they probably expected that he would eat the passover at Bethany, which for such purposes had been decided by rabbinical authority to be within the limits of Jerusalem. But his plans were otherwise. He, the true Paschal Lamb, was to be sacrificed once and forever in the Holy City, where it is probable that in that very passover, and on that very same day, some 260,000 of those lambs of which he was the antitype were destined to be slain.
It was towards the evening, probably when the gathering dusk would prevent all needless observation, that Jesus and his disciples walked from Bethany, by that familiar road over the Mount of Olives, which his sacred feet were never again destined to tread until after death. . . . We catch no glimpse of the little company till we find them assembled in that "large upper room,"--perhaps the very room where three days after the sorrow-stricken Apostles first saw their risen Savior,--perhaps the very room where, amid the sound of a mighty rushing wind, each meek brow was first mitred with Pentecostal flame.--Farrar. It is at this supper, at the very foot of the cross, that all believers are invited to sit down to angels’ food in enjoying the wonderful revelation of the Master in the next five chapters.
"It may be that the very act of taking their seats at the table had, once more, stirred up in the minds of the apostles those disputes about precedence which, on previous occasions, our Lord had so tenderly and carefully rebuked. The mere question of a place at table might seem too infinitesimal and unimportant to ruffle the feelings of good men at an hour so supreme and solemn; but that love for ’the chief seats at feasts,’ and elsewhere, which Jesus had denounced in the Pharisees, is not only innate in the heart, but is so powerful that it has, at times, caused the most terrific tragedies."--Farrar.
Matthew Henry points out that the paschal lamb was typical of "the Lord, our Passover," in the following features: (1) It was a lamb, as Christ was the Lamb of God. (2) A male, of the first year. In its prime. (3) Without blemish, as Christ was perfectly pure, without spot. (4) Set apart four days before, the 10th of Nisan. Christ’s triumphal entry was four days before the crucifixion, on the 10th. (5) It was slain, and roasted with fire, denoting the death and exquisite sufferings of Christ. (6) It was killed between the two evenings, three to six o’clock. Christ suffered at the end of the world. He died at this same hour, and at the passover feast. (7) Each person must have a slain lamb. So Christ died for all. (8) Not a bone was broken. (9) It was eaten with bitter herbs of repentance. (10) Its blood must be applied to be effectual. (11) It looked forward to future deliverance, and became, after the death, a feast of hope and joy. (12) It was a feast of separation from the world; and (13) of protection as God’s children.
1. Now before the feast of the passover. Immediately before, just as Christ was about to sit down with his disciples to the paschal feast. Jesus knew that his hour was come. The scenes of this hour, the passover, the Lord’s Supper, the washing of feet, and the solemn teaching were in immediate view of the cross. The Lord saw the dark and bloody path of suffering just before him. In this hour of sorrow the pre-eminent love that he had for "his own" shone forth resplendent. "He loved them to the end."
2. Supper being ended. The Revision says, "During the Supper," which expresses the meaning of the original. It is likely that Christ arose near the beginning of the feast, washed the feet, and then he sat down again to the feast. See John 13:12. For reasons that we will explain later, he arose after the feast began. The devil having already put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, etc. The devil planted the seed, but the soil of his heart was ready. The devil has no power except where there is preparation for him. The covetous disposition of Judas had prepared the way. His disappointment over the costly box of ointment had enraged him. John calls attention, to the fact that Judas was there, already a traitor at heart, and that Christ knew it, in order to show the wonderful condescension that would stoop to wash his feet.
3. Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands. It was with a full consciousness of his divinity, his divine power and majesty, of the glory that he had and would enjoy with God, that he stooped to the menial office that he was about to fill. John points out with care the wonderful sight of God in Christ washing the feet, not only of the apostles, but of the traitor. John’s astonishment at what followed finds expression in this verse.
4. He riseth from supper, and laid aside his garments. Shortly after they had sat down to the table, he arose, laid aside his outer robe, girded a towel upon him, and began the lowly office of washing the feet of twelve men, without a word of explanation. Something more than ordinary must have caused so remarkable an act. The fact that the cause has been lost sight of, has caused many to misunderstand the significance, and to think the Savior was instituting a church ceremonial, rather than giving a deep, practical, spiritual lesson for all ages. I will endeavor to explain the circ*mstances: 1. The disciples still expected the immediate manifestation of the kingdom. When they sat down to this Supper they felt that it was a kind of state occasion, and a strife arose among them for precedence. Each wanted the "chief seat at the feast." An account of this unseemly controversy over the, old question, "Who should be greatest?" is found in Luke 22:24-30. 2. The owner of the house had furnished the guest chamber for the feast, had provided table, seats, water and vessels, but his duties on a passover occasion had ended there. He had to arrange for the passover with his own family. Jesus and his disciples had come in hot and dusty from their walk from Bethany; their sandals had been laid off according to custom. They sat down to the table with dry and dusty feet, but no one brought water to wash their feet, an eastern duty of hospitality made necessary by their hot, dusty climate. No apostle volunteered to attend to the office, the duty of a servant. They were rather filled with angry, envious thoughts who should have the most honorable place. 3. Then, when they were filled with their ambitious, envious feelings, and had engaged in strife right at the Lord’s table, after waiting long enough to have it shown that no one would condescend to the menial, but needful duty, the Lord, the Son of God, full of conscious divinity, arose, girded on the towel, and began the office. A rebuke, an awful rebuke, to their ambitious strife, far more powerful than words could have spoken; such a rebuke that never again do we see a hint of the old question, "Who should be greatest?" It was Christ’s answer to their unseemly conduct, and a lesson to those Christians "who love the pre-eminence" for all time. It said, "Let him that would be greatest become the servant of all."
5. Poureth water into a basin. Girded as a servant the Lord does a servant’s work. The feet were not put into the basin, but water was poured from it on the feet and they were then wiped with the towel.
6. Lord, dost thou wash my feet? The language of Peter is that of confusion, of astonishment and of remonstrance. The emphasis is on the word thou. Dost thou, the Lord and Master, do the work of a servant?
7. Thou knowest not now; but thou shalt know hereafter. "You do not understand this matter fully now, but thou shalt know hereafter." There was much that was not clear to the dull understandings of the apostles that became clear later. Knowledge comes by submissive obedience if we will wait patiently.
8. If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me. Peter, not yet reconciled to the Master discharging the duty that he now feels he ought to have discharged, exclaims: "Thou shalt never wash my feet." It was his characteristic obstinacy. Christ replied as above, in substance, "If thou art not submissive to me, thou art not my disciple." Washing, with the Jews, was a symbolical act, signifying purification from uncleanness. That Christ referred to more than a washing with water was understood by Peter as is evident from his reply. Christ could only wash with blood the obedient.
9. Not my feet only, but my hands and my head. Peter, not yet content, continues the argument. If thou dost insist on washing me, why not my hands and head as well as my feet? His language is partly due to embarrassment and partly to his great repugnance to have the Savior perform such a duty upon him.
10. He that is washed needeth not save to wash his feet. The Lord first speaks of the material facts. It was only the feet that needed washing. After a tramp over the dusty roads they needed cleansing. It must be born in mind that only sandals were worn and that these were laid off when they entered the house. There is also a spiritual meaning. He who is once cleansed by the blood of Christ only needs, after this, to come to Christ for partial cleansing; for the forgiveness of the special sins that make him unclean.
11. Ye are not all clean. Not all who enter into his service ostensibly are cleansed. Judas was not. Some do not enter through the "Door of entire obedience," but are thieves and robbers (see John 12:1).
12. Know ye what I have done to you? When he had completed his task, he laid aside the towel, resumed his robe, sat down to the table, and asked, "Do you understand what I have done to you?" They knew the act, but did they comprehend its meaning? Hence the emphasis that follows.
13, 14. Ye call me Master and Lord. You recognize the fact that I am your Lord and Master, or rather the Lord and Master. Master is used in the sense of teacher, but Lord in the sense of ruler. He then draws his conclusion from the promise that they admit: "If I, your Lord and Master, wash your feet, ye ought also to wash one another’s feet." Ye ought to follow the example of humility, self-sacrifice, and service to others, that your Lord sets you. Instead of seeking the pre-eminence, disputing concerning the seats of honor, and shrinking from humble service to each other, ye should follow my example.
15. For I have given you an example. Christ gave an example, not a church ordinance. It is our duty to follow the example and render the same kind of service to fellow Christians. To make his example a ceremonial and follow it literally would be to lose its spirit. We wish every student to note the fact that not once elsewhere is it referred to in the New Testament as a church ordinance, and only once mentioned at all. In 1 Timothy 5:10, it is named as a mark of a godly widow. Nor is there any mention of it as a church ordinance until the fourth century when the tide of corruption was sweeping in. The Pope now washes the feet of twelve beggars once a year, the German Baptists (Dunkards), Mennonites, and a few other minor sects practice it, but with rare exceptions Christendom, from the days of the apostles to our time, has looked upon the Savior’s example as a sublime act of humility whose spirit must always be followed, but has rejected the idea of him establishing a church ordinance. There is a wide difference between an example and a church ordinance. When Christ wept with sympathy, or fed the hungry, or ministered to the sick, or taught lowly service by washing the feet of his disciples, he set an example, and happy are we if we know what he did, drink in his spirit, and follow the example. That feet washing belongs to the class of examples, rather than of church ordinances, is demonstrated by the fact that when we turn to the inspired history of the church as recorded in Acts and in the Epistles, it is silent concerning any such ordinance. The Savior, the night before he was crucified, established a church ordinance, the Lord’s Supper. We discover it just as soon as the church is organized on the day of Pentecost. The converts "continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine, and in the fellowship, and in the breaking of bread, and in prayers." In his commission, just before the ascension, he established another ordinance, baptism. This we find, also, to appear immediately. On Pentecost Peter commands it and "they that gladly received the Word were baptized." Thus it continues; these undoubted church ordinances are constantly named throughout Acts, through the Epistles, the Apostolic Fathers and early writers of Christianity, while feet washing is named only once more in the New Testament, and then in such a way as to show that it was observed as a private benevolence, not as a church ordinance, and is never mentioned in the latter aspect until the time of Augustine, the Bishop of Hippo, when the apostasy had been fully inaugurated and the Bishop of Rome was claiming to take precedence of all other dignitaries in the church. This silence during the ages of apostolic purity settles the interpretation we are to place on the Savior’s language. It is our duty to be always ready to do to others as he did, to serve them in a spirit of humility and self-sacrifice.
16. The servant is not greater than his Lord. If the Lord then should thus condescend, how much rather the servant. To follow the Lord’s example the necessary thing is not that he should gird on a towel and go through a form, but that he should drink in the Lord’s spirit. Spiritual pride has been one of the greatest perils of the church. The Lord seeks to guard against it.
17. If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do them. Know what things? Of course they knew that Christ had washed their feet. But did they know what it meant? The meaning is clearly, "If ye understand the meaning of my act, happy are ye if ye exemplify the same spirit in your lives." This language itself shows that his act was not to be taken in its literal form. Anyone can know that, but there are many who call themselves Christians who do not know its significance. Those who catch his spirit and obey it are happy in the Lord’s approval. The word translated, "Happy are ye" is the same one that is translated "Blessed are" in the opening of the sermon on the mount. Here, therefore, we have another beatitude.
18. I speak not of you all. There is one present to whom knowledge will not bring happiness. He had been alluded to in John 13:10. I know whom I have chosen. Christ refers to the choice to the apostolate, not to election to salvation. He declares that he knew Judas, but chose him that the Scripture might be fulfilled. Judas was no surprise to Christ. He had known his sordid nature from the beginning and to what it would lead him. The Evangelists do not conceal the fact that the traitor was one of their own number. Why was such a man chosen to be one of the twelve? (1) There was needed among the disciples, as in the Church now, a man of just such talents as Judas possessed,--the talent for managing business affairs. (2) Though he probably followed Christ at first from mixed motives, as did the other disciples, he had the opportunity of becoming a good and useful man. (3) It doubtless was included in God’s plan that there should be thus a standing argument for the truth and honesty of the gospel; for, if any wrong or trickery had been concealed, it would have been revealed by the traitor in self-defense. (4) It is a relief to modern churches to know that God can bless them, and the gospel can succeed, even though some bad men may creep into the fold.
19. Now I tell you before it come to pass. Hitherto the Lord had borne his sorrow alone, but now that the hour was at hand and the traitor would soon be compelled to show his hand, he would declare it to his disciples, before it come to pass, in order that the fulfillment, instead of being a crushing disappointment, might increase their faith. Believe that I am he. Rather, "Believe that I am." The reader can hardly have failed to note how frequently the Lord thus speaks of himself. He does not say, "I am he," the latter pronoun being an interpolation. The "I AM’S" of our Savior associate him with the burning bush of Horeb where, when Moses asked the name he should report to the children of Israel of the God who had appointed him as their leader, he was told to say, "I am that I am hath sent thee." The self-existent, uncreated Deity is revealed in these words and the similar terms used by Christ are an affirmation of absolute existence. He did not, like man, have a dependent being, but said, "I am," "I exist." This exalted claim was demonstrated when he laid down his life of his own will "to take it up again."
20. He that receiveth . . . receiveth me. They whose faith was made strong to believe in him would be commissioned as his heralds, sent from him, as he was sent from the Father. To receive them, the King’s messengers, would be to receive him; to receive him would be to receive the Father who sent him.
PRACTICAL OBSERVATIONS.
1. The desire to be greater than others is the cause of many quarrels and much evil.
2. Man’s way to be great is to seek to be greater than others,--self-seeking.
3. God’s way to be great is to serve others, to do all we can for them,--love.
4. It is Pharisaism to cling to a form, but to neglect the spirit.
5. Often spiritual pride clothes itself in humble forms. We have known a man very proud of a buckskin watch guard, or of the hooks and eyes that fastened his coat. Pride may put on a towel and wash feet. Once when Dr. Bethune preached against pride, a man went to him and pointed to leather buttons on his coat, saying, "See, I am not proud." "Yes," said the doctor, "you are proud of your leather buttons."
6. The great law of the kingdom of heaven is not this,--Use thyself for thyself. Still less is it this,--Use others for thyself. But it is this,--Use thyself for others.--Morison.
7. Voluntary service in the kingdom of love, and under the impulse of humility and self-denial, makes a man a spiritual power, gives him an unconscious and blessed greatness.--Lange.
8. Peter was always the chief speaker, and already had the keys given him; he expects to be lord chancellor, or lord chamberlain of the household, and so to be the greatest. Judas had a bag, and therefore he expects to be lord treasurer, which, though now he comes last, he hopes will then dominate him the greatest. Simon and Jude are nearly related to Christ, and they hope to take the place of all the great officers of state as princes of the blood. John is the beloved disciple, the favorite of the Prince, and therefore hopes to be the greatest. Andrew was first called, and why should not he be first preferred?--Matthew Henry.
WHEN CHRIST ATE THE PASSOVER.
It must be acknowledged that one of the most difficult questions of solution presented in the history of the Lord’s ministry is the time when he ate the supper which must have been, in some sense, at least, a passover. That the supper described by John in John 13:1-38, is not the feast at the house of Simon the Leper in Bethany, as Lightfoot insists, but the paschal feast described by Matthew, Mark and Luke at which the Lord’s Supper was instituted, is, I think, evident to anyone who makes a comparison of the accounts. As far as John gives an indication of the time, the supper was just before, or at the passover, and from this feast the Lord retired to the garden of Gethsemane. At this feast Judas was exposed and the fall of Peter predicted, events that took place, according to the other Gospels, the evening of the paschal supper. The authorities are therefore almost unanimous in the view that John describes the feast that took place at the guest chamber in the city of Jerusalem.
A far more difficult question is whether the Lord’s paschal feast was eaten at the regular time of the Jewish passover, or one day before. If we were to read only the first three Gospels we would conclude that he ate the Jewish passover at the regular time. If we were to read only John’s account we would be compelled to conclude that the Savior died on the day the passover lamb was slain, before the Jews ate the passover. Matthew, Mark and Luke each speak of "the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the passover," as the day when the disciples "made ready the passover." It is not to be denied, however, that there are difficulties even in their accounts. "The first day of unleavened bread" was strictly the Jewish day that began in the evening with the passover feast; that day was a legal Sabbath and it would have been unlawful to conduct judicial business upon it, for Simon Cyrenian to carry the cross, or for Joseph of Arimathea to bring a hundred pounds weight of myrrh and aloes to embalm and bury the body of Christ. These things were all done on the day on which the Savior was crucified.
In Exodus 12:16 it is said: "And in the first day (of unleavened bread) there shall be a holy convocation, and in the seventh day there shall be a holy convocation to you; no manner of work shall be done in them, save that which every man must eat, that only may be done of you." The prohibition of all regular work, except the dressing of food, shows that the first day of unleavened bread was a Sabbath, and it was always so regarded by the Jewish writers. I cannot believe that all the violations of the law could have been made by devout Jews, which have to be admitted, if the passover was eaten by the Jewish nation the evening before Christ was crucified.
I suspect, from these circ*mstances, that there is something in the language which alludes to the time in the first three Gospels that must be interpreted in the light of Jewish usages, which we do not fully understand. They were written with especial reference to Jewish Christians, who understood all the customs of the Jews in that age, and who, in view of that fact, would probably put a different interpretation on "the first day of unleavened bread when the passover was killed" from that which seems most probable to us, under] the conditions of our limited knowledge. It is objected, however, to the view that the Lord ate the passover before the regular time that this would not be in accordance with the Jewish law. It may be replied that, whether he kept the regular passover or not, he departed from the law. It enjoined that no one should go out until the morning. He sent Judas out from the supper table, and a little later went out himself with his disciples beyond the Kedron to Gethsemane.
I now pass to a consideration of the statements of John 1:1-51. From John 13:1 it seems that the supper took place "before the passover." 2. In John 13:29 the disciples suppose that the Lord told Judas to buy some things needed for the feast, which would be impossible if the real passover feast had begun. 3. In John 18:28 the Jews refuse to enter the presence chamber of Pilate lest they should be so defiled that they could not eat the passover, a passage irreconcilable with the view that they had eaten it the evening before. 4. In John 19:14, on the day of the crucifixion, it is stated that it was "the day of preparation of the passover," language irreconcilable with the fact that it had been eaten the night before. 5. It is said in John 19:31 that it was the "preparation," and that the next day, the Sabbath, "was a high day," a statement understood to mean that it was a double Sabbath, not an ordinary Sabbath, but one that coincided with the day following the eating of the passover, which was hallowed as an annual Sabbath.
From these premises I accept the conclusion of Alford, which I condense, as follows: 1. That on the evening of the 13th of Nisan (that is, the beginning of the 14th), the Lord ate a meal with his disciples, at which it was announced that one should betray him, and from which he went to Gethsemane; 2. That in some sense this meal was regarded as eating a passover; 3. That it was not at the regular time of the Jewish passover, but the evening before, since the disciples understood when Judas left that he went to buy something, which could not have been done during the first Jewish day after the passover feast began, as it was a Sabbath. 4. On that night the Lord was seized, and on the next day, before the Jews ate the passover, but the day the paschal lambs were slain, the Lord, our Passover, was crucified. "His hour," of the coming of which he so often speaks, was the hour when he should die, as the passover for man, on the very day when the paschal lambs were slain.
JUDAS EXPOSED.
In washing the disciples’ feet, Jesus had said, "Ye are clean, but not all. For he knew who would betray him; therefore he said, Ye are not all clean." So early, from the very first, did the thought of Judas and his meditated deed press upon the Savior’s spirit. When the washing of feet was over, and Jesus sat down, and the repast began, they all noticed that there was a cloud on the Master’s countenance, and the disciple who, sitting next to him, could best read the expression of his face, saw that he was "troubled in spirit." They were not left long in doubt as to the cause. Still sitting at the table and engaged in the solemn feast, he began to speak of his betrayer. Already Judas had been to the chief priests and agreed, for a certain sum of money, to betray the retreat of Jesus at night. The time of the deed had not been determined and the Savior brings it about that Judas, at once, leaves the company and perpetuates his dark crime that night.
21. When Jesus had thus said he was troubled in spirit. He had just closed his remarks on the lesson of humility and service, illustrated by feet washing, and now a cloud comes over his soul. The phrase, "troubled in spirit," occurs also in John 11:33 and John 12:27. The Greek word always implies indignation mingled with sorrow. Here there is deep sorrow but condemnation of the traitor. The "trouble of spirit" may be understood better by our own experience. If we have present a company of loving friends and one comes in whom we know to be false, a traitor, uncongenial in every respect, it throws a cloud. I believe that Jesus wanted to speak to his friends alone the glorious last words of John 14:1-31; John 15:1-27; John 16:1-33; John 17:1-26, and that he deliberately exposed Judas and sent him away. One of you shall betray me. Christ had before foretold his betrayal (see Matthew 17:22 and Matthew 20:18), but had not declared that one of the twelve should be the betrayer. Judas, led captive by his covetousness, had already agreed to betray him, immediately after his disappointment over the alabaster box of ointment. See Matthew 26:14-16. None else of course knew of it and it is no wonder the Savior’s words startled the apostles.
22. Looked at one another. In wonder and questioning. They did not venture to doubt the Savior’s prophecy, but it seemed to them impossible that one of their number could prove a traitor.
23. There was leaning on Jesus’ bosom one of his disciples. The party were reclining at the table in the Greek and Roman fashion. A wide couch was placed along the table and each guest reclined on his left elbow with his feet extended outward. The disciple next in front of the Savior would, therefore, be very near his bosom. He only needed to bend back a little to throw himself on his bosom. Whom Jesus loved. This phrase occurs seven times in John’s Gospel, twice in speaking of Martha, Mary and Lazarus, and five times as the designation of the one of the disciples who wrote this Gospel. Though John never declares that he is the one meant, it has always been so understood by the church. One reason for this view is found in the fact that he names all the other apostles freely, but never names himself otherwise. Some have insisted that it was egotism to thus designate himself. Rather, I suppose that it was such a joy to John to know and feel that one so glorious as Christ had loved "even him," that he could hardly suppress his joy. After long years of work and trial had passed and he was a gray-haired man, it filled his soul with transports to think that Jesus loved him and that he had reclined on his bosom.
24. Simon Peter therefore beckoned to him. All are eager to know more, for they are filled with anxiety. Peter, always impulsive, as usual is the one who acts. He does not speak but beckons to John who was next to Christ to find out whom he meant. It must be kept in mind that he did not speak, and probably none but John, whose eye he had caught, saw him beckon. Therefore none else knew what John would ask Christ, and as he asked in a low tone of voice, the answer was not understood by the company.
25. He then, lying on Jesus’ breast, saith . . . Lord, who is it? The Revision says, "leaning back." The reader must not forget their positions. As Lucke says: "Since the captivity, the Jews lay at table in the Persian manner, on divans or couches, each on his left side, with his face to the table, his left elbow resting on a pillow and supporting his head. The second guest to the right hand lay with head near the breast of the first, and so on." John, being the disciple next to the Lord, let his head drop back on the bosom of Jesus and asked in a low tone, unheard by the others: "Who is it?"
26. He it is to whom I shall give a sop. In a low tone also, in the ear of John, the Lord answers that he will show. There was upon the table a dish of bitter herbs, a kind of sauce that was always eaten at the passover. No knives, forks or spoons are used at an Eastern table, but the fingers only, which are always carefully washed before eating. These are dipped in the dish. The Lord took a piece of the unleavened bread, dipped it into the dish of sauce and handed it to Judas. John saw the act and understood what it meant. The rest did not yet comprehend that Judas was the traitor.
27. After the sop Satan entered into him. We learn by comparison with the other accounts of this scene that the apostles each asked when Christ declared one should betray him, "Is it I?" Judas, who knew what he had sold himself to do, at last asked the same question and the Lord answered, "Thou hast said." It is evident from John 13:28, that this was answered in the ear of Judas and was not understood by his companions. Startled to know that his treachery was exposed to the Master, as soon as he receives the sop, he casts aside an hesitation and gives himself up wholly to Satan’s work. This is what I understand by the statement, "Satan entered into him," for already he was under the devilish influence. Up to this time he had doubts and impulses to do better, but now he plunges headlong into the bottomless pit. That thou doest, do quickly. Judas understood these words. He was fully exposed. He had covenanted to do the wicked deed; Christ bids him do it at once. Christ wished the work done that night and he wished the traitor to leave at once that he might be alone to give a last sweet and loving charge to the faithful disciples.
28, 29. No man at the table know for what intent he spake. None but John knew that Judas was the traitor. Hence none could understand what the Lord charged Judas to do. They supposed that Judas was directed to spend some money for some purpose; for things needed for the feast week of the passover which began with the passover meal; or to give something to the poor. Judas carried the small purse of the company, and scanty as it was, the poor had a share in it. See John 12:6.
30. He . . . went immediately out. He ate the sop, Christ spoke to him at once, and he immediately arose and went out. The question has been much discussed whether Judas was present when the Lord’s Supper was instituted. I do not consider it vitally important that this should be settled, but I am of the opinion that he was not. We have just had the account of the passover; it was at the passover meal that Judas ate the sop; he went out immediately, leaving the Lord and the rest of the apostles at the table. After the passover meal the Supper was ordained; then followed the touching discourses recorded by John. It will be observed that this is the order of Matthew 26:17-30. Matthew was present and undoubtedly followed the chronological order. His order is, 1. The Passover; 2. The exposure of Judges 1:3. (Omitting to mention the departure of Judas which John records.) The institution of the Supper. Mark and Luke were not present, and neither follows closely the chronological order, as is done by the two apostolic writers who were present.
THE SON OF MAN GLORIFIED.
We have entered upon the Holy of Holies of the Gospel history. The farewell discourses of our Lord, extending from John 13:31 to John 17:26, are unique even in this unique Gospel of John who was nearest the heart of Jesus and best qualified to drink in those words of comfort and instruction before the great sacrifice of the cross. Lange calls them "the most mysterious and most holy of the sayings of Christ, and a spiritual ante-celebration of his own glorification and that of his people in the new celestial life opened up by his death and resurrection." The parting song and blessing of Moses (Deuteronomy 32:1-52; Deuteronomy 33:1-29), the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah, the evangelist of the prophets, and the farewell address of Paul to the Ephesian elders (Acts 20:17-36), bear a remote resemblance. We may also compare these last discourses with the Lord’s final discourses in Matthew, chapters 24 and 25, Mark, chapter 13, and Luke, chapter 21. In John the Lord revealed the inner consummation of his work and the spiritual revolution to be accomplished; in the other Gospels he prophesied the overthrow of the Jewish theocracy and the establishment of his kingdom. Such an evening as the 14th of Nisan in the year of the crucifixion occurred only once in the world’s history; the full meaning of eternity was condensed into a few hours. The last words of our Lord to his eleven disciples combine the deepest emotion with serene repose; they are unutterably solemn, weighty and comforting; they seem to sound directly from heaven, and they lift the reader high above time and space. We have more here than words; we have things, verities, acts of infinite love going out from God and going into the hearts of men. The main ideas are: "I in the Father; the Father in me; I in the believer; the believer in me; I came from my Father in heaven; I fulfilled his will on earth; I now return to my Father, and prepare a place for my disciples in the many mansions of my Father’s house that they may be where I am and share my glory."--Schaff.
31. When therefore he was gone out. When Judas had gone out the last disturbing element seems to have been removed from the mind of the Lord. The clouds of the world are lifted and there begins the most remarkable discourse recorded in history. The hour has come; the Master is about to part from his disciples; he will go through his bloody pathway to the presence of the Father; they will be left without him to meet the storms, trials and persecutions of earth. It is the time, therefore, for the Lord to pour forth the deepest feelings of his soul in their behalf. The discourse that follows, comforts, consoles, instructs and points them to the glory, power, and grace of their Lord. In it he apparently strives, as never before, to reveal himself to them so fully that every doubt of his divine majesty shall pass away. And when the gloom that gathered around his tomb was broken every doubt was forever dispelled in the deep knowledge of his glory. Now is the Son of man glorified. To him, now that Judas has gone, and he is at the foot of the cross, the struggle is passed, his weary ministry ended, and the glorification begun. There is an emphasis and exultation in "now." His disciples were not yet fully freed from their carnal ideas of his earthly glorification. They had expected its accomplishment in his coronation as King of the Jews in Jerusalem. He had, however, already pointed to the cross as the means of his glorification and as its shadow already falls upon him he anticipates the "lifting up" as a sacrifice, as a risen Savior, and as an ascending Lord to take seat upon a universal throne. It is his work now to more especially prepare his disciples for the disappointment of the false hopes that they had cherished, born of their Jewish education, by pointing them to his greater majesty, filling them with larger hopes and investing them with higher prerogatives and honors than they could ever have had in an earthly kingdom. The Lord’s Supper, instituted this night, pointed unmistakably to the cross; now he points to it as the beginning of his glorification. His glory, while engaged in his lowly ministry, had not been seen. Nor would it be seen on the cross. The world’s idea of his glory was different, but proceeding right from the cross would begin an honor and exaltation that even the world would recognize and from it he would ascend, after a few days’ instruction to his disciples, to enjoy the glory he had with the Father before the world was.
33. Little children, yet a little while I am with you. Observe the tenderness of the term applied to his disciples, a term applied nowhere else except in 1 John 2:1; 1 John 2:12. He had told the Jews (John 7:34; John 8:21) that he would go away and they could not follow him. So now he says to his disciples, but he comforts them by the assurance (John 14:3) that he will return for them.
34. A new commandment I give unto you. The commandment to love was not new, but such love as the Savior commanded was new. It was such love for each other as he had shown for them that he commanded. That love was one so intense as to give up all things. His love led him to leave heaven, to take our infirmities upon him, to endure a weary and painful ministry, to become a servant, even to wash the feet of his disciples, and it was about to show itself forth in the outpouring of his blood for the sake of his people. It was such love as he would inspire in the hearts of his disciples for each other; a self-denying, self-sacrificing love which is not of the earth, but carries its own demonstration that it is of heavenly origin. The "new life" is love.
35. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples. Such love as this excited the wonder of the heathen in the earlier ages of the church when it burned with such a heavenly flame, and they said, "See how these Christians love one another." But the presence of such love does more than cause those who behold it to marvel. It points them to Christ as its author, for all must admit, when it shines forth in its excellency, that it is of heavenly origin. Hence, when it is fully exhibited men know that those who possess it are the disciples of Christ. So it has been in all ages. The men who have loved their race, given themselves for it, have gone as missionaries to the wretched, have built the hospitals and refuges; the Oberlins, Judsons, Howards and Florence Nightingale, have been those who were filled with the love of Christ. When did an infidel build a hospital!
36. Simon Peter said unto him, Lord, whither goest thou? I believe that in the interval after the departure of Judas and before this question the Lord’s Supper was instituted. The Lord said, "Do this in remembrance of me until I come again." Peter, after the supper is eaten, not yet able to comprehend the Lord’s death, asks, "Whither goest thou?" Here begins what Olshausen calls the "Most Holy Place" in John’s Gospel; the last moments the Lord spent with his own before his suffering, a moment in which he speaks words full of tenderness and heavenly meaning; if possible, the most precious words of Christ himself. At first there is a conversation around the table; then they arise from it (John 14:31) and the discourse takes a higher form, culminating in the touching prayer of John 17:1-26. The Savior’s first words are to Peter in answer to his question. Whither I go thou canst not follow me now. The Lord’s way was to the cross, the sepulcher, the ascension, and to heaven. Peter might follow in due time, but the Lord had other work for him now. He does not, however, answer Peter’s question directly. According to tradition, Peter did follow Christ to the cross in death. He was also crucified.
37. Why cannot I follow thee now? It was very hard for Peter to give up. He was impetuous, generous and self-willed. His conduct now was characteristic of the man. Christ has spoken of death; Peter declares that he will die too for his Master’s sake.
38. Wilt thou lay down thy life? The Lord reveals to him his weakness. It was then night. Before the co*ck shall crow for the dawn of the next morning he will have thrice denied his Lord. For the fulfilment of this prediction, see Luke 22:54-60. Peter had bravely attempted to defend his Master with a sword when the company came, led by Judas, but when Christ was led away, he "followed afar off." His courage was departing. First, in the hall of the high priest, he denied to the maid servant that he knew Christ; then, a little while after, he denied to another man. About an hour later another said, "Of a truth this fellow was with him; for he is a Galilean." And Peter denied with oaths, declaring, "Man, I know not what you say." Just then the co*ck crowed for the approach of day.
PRACTICAL OBSERVATIONS.
1. The love of money is the root of all evil. If a man surrenders to a sordid desire for wealth he will be prepared for any deed.
2. The only way to deal with temptation is to say, "Get behind me, Satan!" If we cherish the thought of wrong doing, the desire will grow upon us until "Satan enters into us." "Resist the devil and he will flee from you."
3. Beware of the beginnings of evil. The seed may be small as a grain of mustard, but if nourished it becomes a great tree that overshadows a life. When Judas began to pilfer from the bag, he had no thought that he would ever sell his Master. When Nero first ascended the Roman throne, a tender youth, he mourned that he had learned to write, he shuddered so to sign a death warrant. He lived to become the bloodiest tyrant of the earth by the gradual growth of the evil within that he did not seek to repress.
4. Wouldest thou sell Jesus? Dost thou not? Dost thou forsake him for the sake of making money? or for pleasure? or for friends? Then for these things dost thou betray the Master. You sell him and your birthright for a mess of pottage.
5. Before the co*ck crow. Before three o’clock in the morning. Three crowings of the co*ck were distinguished,--the first between midnight and one o’clock, the second about three, the third between five and six. The mention of those two crowings, the first of which should have already been a warning to Peter, perhaps makes the gravity of his sin the more conspicuous.
GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN
B.W. Johnson
JOHN CHAPTER FOURTEEN
THE HOUSE OF MANY MANSIONS.
"No sooner had Judas left the room than, as though it had been relieved of some ghastly incubus, the spirits of the little company revived. The presence of that haunted soul lay with a weight of horror on the heart of the Master, and no sooner had he departed than the sadness of the feast seems to have been sensibly relieved. The solemn exultation that dilated the soul of their Lord--that joy like the sense of a boundless sunlight beyond the earthborn mists--communicated itself to the spirits of his followers. In sweet, tender communion, perhaps two hours glided away at that quiet banquet."-Farrar.
1. Let not your heart be troubled. The darkness of night had settled down on Jerusalem and Christ well knew that before the morning dawned he would be in the hands of his enemies. Just before him was Gethsemane, the betrayal, the denial, the mock trial, the scourging and the cross, but with these in full view, such are the wonders of his love that he does not think of himself. He does not ask comfort but he gives it. His heart is full of the sorrow of his disciples over his departure. It is a disappointment of all their hopes, for they cannot yet understand it, and the last moments of this sacred hour are devoted to cheering and instructing them. Believe also in me. They had believed in him, but they were so confused over the prospect of his death and departure, that they stumbled. He bids them to believe in him as they believed in God; to trust him even if they did not comprehend; to walk by faith rather than by sight through the darkness of that hour. To understand these words the confusion, sorrow and despair of his disciples over his death must not be forgotten.
2. In my Father’s house are many mansions. By the "Father’s house" is meant the heavenly abode. He is about to return there, from whence he had come. It was not a small, narrow place, where few could be admitted, but it had many "abiding places," room enough for all, room enough for them to follow him in due time and be with him, so that the separation about to take place would not be an eternal separation. Had it been otherwise he would have told. I go to prepare a place for you. If the separation was to be an eternal one he would have forewarned them. Rather, he goes before to prepare a home for them where they can all be together. The departure of Jesus was needful to open an entrance to them and us. From the cross he went to rend the vail of the temple "thus signifying that the way into heaven was now open." On the cross he shed the blood that cleanses us from sin, defiled with which we could never enter. He not only prepares a place for us, but prepares the way. It is a blessed thought that in heaven his thoughts are upon us and that he is preparing a congenial home for us. Just how he makes that preparation we may not understand but the fact is sure.
3. I will come again, and receive you unto myself. The reference is not to Christ’s return from the grave, but to a return from heaven, the second coming of the Lord, which is a part of the Christian faith. There is a presence of the Lord with his people, there is a call of the Lord to those who die in him to "depart and be with Christ," but there is also a personal coming of the Lord to summon all men to his presence and then, at the final judgment, every saint shall be "received to himself," when the Lord shall say, "Come ye blessed of my Father." Then shall they be "forever with the Lord" (1 Thessalonians 4:17). Death is simply a going home to be with Christ (Philippians 1:23).
4. Whither I go ye know, and the way ye know. The Lord probably made this statement to provoke questions, such as followed. He had stated so clearly before that it seems strange to us that the apostles did not understand, but they were wedded to the idea that Christ was to be an earthly king, like all the rest of the Jews. The place to which he was going was the presence of the Father from whom he came and the way by which he would go was the cross, the tomb, the resurrection and the exaltation. He had often spoken of these things. See Matthew 16:21, Matthew 17:22 and Matthew 20:17.
5. Thomas saith unto him, Lord, we know not, etc. Thomas, a plain, honest apostle, lost all hope when the Lord died; nor could he believe in the resurrection until he saw with his own eyes. Now he declares, "we do not know whither thou goest." We have heard thee talking of going away and dying when we expected thee to stay here and reign as the Christ. We cannot understand thy departure nor whither thou goest. Then, How can we know the way?
6. I am the way, the truth, and the life. The Lord only answers his difficulty in part. He points him to the way in which he must walk if he would follow him. He must follow Christ in his life if he would follow him to the Father’s house. He is the Way. The words of Christ here are words that could have only been spoken by a divine being. "I am the way," the exemplar, the living embodiment of what is needful to impart immortality. He who follows in his footsteps will tread the sure path. He is the Truth; not merely truth, but the Truth, truth embodied and speaking to men; the key of all truth, and in himself a revelation of all truth needful to lift men to God. And the Life. He is life itself , the living waters, the bread of life, the source from whence the germ of immortal being is imparted to the human soul. Without him there would be no Way revealed; no divine and saving truth, no immortal life. No man cometh to the Father, but by me. Not only can no one enter the Father’s house without him, but no man can come to the Father on earth so as to enjoy his favor. "There is no other name given under heaven among men whereby we must be saved." Hence all must cling to him as the way. "By me" is equivalent to "follow in the way that I point out."
7. If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also. After over three years under the ministry of Christ they did not yet know him, except in part. The great truth declared is that the way to study God and know him is to know Christ. The universe may reveal his matchless grandeur, the Old Testament may reveal his moral government, but it is only in Christ that he reveals his surpassing love, tenderness and mercy, his solicitude for the salvation of the race. It is in the Son that he reveals himself as a Father. Until Christ came men did not dare to bow upon their knees and pour out such a prayer as "Our Father who art in heaven," etc. From henceforth ye know him and have seen him. From the cross. On the next morning they would see Christ dying. From the sepulcher would burst forth upon their minds a new revelation of the character and mission of the Son whom they had up to this time supposed to be only an earthly, temporal king. Then, comprehending Christ, understanding that he would ascend a heavenly throne, that "all power" would be given into his hands, they would also know that "he was the brightness of the Father’s glory and the express image of his person." They would know that in Christ they had beheld the revelation of the Father.
8. Shew us the Father and it sufficeth us. Philip fails to comprehend that the Father was to be seen in Christ and when the Lord declares that henceforth they have seen the Father; he at once requests such a revelation. He perhaps expected such a manifestation as Moses saw on the holy mount and from whence he came with a face shining like the sun (Exodus 33:18). The disciples were not only confused but filled with wonder; almost stupefied with the immediate prospect of the death of the Lord, but still had some expectation of the manifestation, in some way, of the kingdom. Philip’s request is for a vision of God, of which he may have thought that Christ spoke. He wanted to walk by sight, instead of by faith.
9. He that hath seen me hath seen the Father. Philip, one of the chosen apostles, over three years an attendant on the ministry of Christ, seeing and hearing him daily, after such opportunities and "so long time, had not known" the Lord in his real character. He did not yet comprehend that the Son came to reveal the Father. He wanted a literal sight of God with the natural eyes, when God incarnate had been present with him for three years, manifesting the mind, the purity, the saving power, the fatherly tenderness, the unutterable love of the Father. Natural eyes cannot behold him who is "Spirit" no more than they can see the human soul; hence man "cannot see God and live," but we can see and understand "God manifest in the flesh." Let it be noted that Christ was not an ambassador from God, but "Immanuel, God with us," the "Godhead in bodily form." No man, nor any angel, nor any created being could say, "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father." Even the best, most Christlike Christian, would not dare to say, "He that hath seen me hath seen Christ."
10. Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? There was the completest union of the personalities of the Son and the Father. We may never on earth comprehend fully its nature, but we can understand it to be so complete that he was the manifestation of God in the flesh. In him was no sin and in him was the fullness of the Godhead bodily (Colossians 2:9). Hence his words were not his own but the words of God, and "the Father that dwelt in him did the works" that he wrought. The source of Christ’s authority, wisdom and power, was in the Father.
11. Believe me that I am in the Father. The Lord did not wish only that they would accept his statement but that they would rise to such spiritual discernment as to behold in him the revelation of the Father’s will and character. If needful to their faith they should believe for his works’ sake. These, such as man had never wrought, ought to convince them that the Father worked through him.
12. Greater works than these shall he do, because I go to my Father. Those who believe shall have power given to do works, in some respects greater; not greater miracles, but to effect greater moral and spiritual revolutions. At the time of his death, as far as we know, he had only about five hundred disciples, but he "went to his Father" and "shed forth the things seen and heard" on Pentecost, and the eleven apostles converted 3,000 in a single day. Paul made far more converts than the Master. It was needful that he go to the Father in order to enable his disciples to accomplish these "greater works."
13, 14. And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do. What man would dare to make such a promise? It will be noted that in order to enjoy the fulness of these glorious promises we must, 1. Believe. It is limited thus in John 14:12. Without faith it is impossible to please God. 2. We must ask in his name, or, in dependence upon the merit and intercession of Christ. 3. As shown elsewhere, we must come with a spirit of complete submission to the Father’s will, feeling that his will is best, and saying in our hearts, Thy will be done. Every prayer "in the name," must be in the spirit of Christ, and that always says, "Not my will but thine be done."
PRACTICAL OBSERVATIONS.
1. Never has earth seen a greater triumph of love than the Savior, about to be crucified, comforting his disciples. As he loved them then so he loves them still.
2. As he loves us so doth the Father, for the Father is in him as he is in the Father. The Father and the Son are one, and both love us with a love that passeth all comprehension.
3. Christ came down to earth on a mission of mercy, ministered mercy here, died in mercy, and ascended to heaven impelled by mercy and love. He has gone to prepare a place for us in the Father’s house; a Home.
4. Christ is the Way there. There is no other way. He that would seek to enter in some other way is a thief and a robber. To reject him is to reject the Truth and the Life; to turn from heaven and immortality.
5. There was but one place of safety when the flood came--the ark. There was but one man to whom the Egyptians could go for corn during the famine--Joseph. There was but one way to keep off the angel of death on the Passover night--the way of the sprinkled blood. There was but one word that could save the Ephraimites at Jordan’s ford (Judges 12:1-15)--the word Shibboleth. So there is but one name that hath power to save men now--the name of Jesus.--J. C. Ryle.
6. If men need not to go to heaven by the Cross, but by some other way, then the Cross may become an old, worn, unused way; no footfall of a traveler may cheer it, heaven may be filled through other avenues, and other songs than those of Praise to the Lamb may echo through the arches of the Upper Temple. If Christ is not the exclusive Savior, then other Saviors could be made without the Cross, and the Cross is all an idle waste. We are lost men outside of God’s kingdom. There is a way into it--Jesus Christ. There is a name, one name, given whereby we can be saved--that name is Jesus. There has come from the sweet heavens over us no other. It is enough. We need no other.--J. Drummond.
THE ADVOCATE PROMISED.
15. If ye love me keep my commandments. This is not a command, but a declaration that if his disciples love him they will obey him. See Revised Version. Obedience is the fruit of love. Disobedience is the proof that love is not in the heart. "This is the love of God," or proof of the love of God, "that you keep his commandments." 1 John 5:3. The faithful outward observance of the will of Christ is a proof of a heart filled with his love, and therefore fitted to enjoy the promise contained in the next verse that depends on the condition of faithful obedience.
16. And I will pray the Father. Rather "request" the Father. There are three Greek verbs used in the New Testament which mean respectively, "request," "ask," and "entreat." Christ never uses the last in his petitions to the Father. It belongs to the petitions of the creature to the Creator. And he shall give you another Comforter. The word rendered Comforter is not exactly translated by any word in our language. It comes from two Greek words that mean "to call to one’s side." It occurs four times in John’s Gospel and is rendered each time as here. It is used by no New Testament writer but John, who employs it also in 1 John 2:1 where it is translated Advocate, a term preferred by many scholars. Wickliffe first rendered it Comforter and has been followed by Tyndale, and all the authorized British versions down to the Revision. Some translators have preferred to transfer the Greek word Paraklete, rather than to adopt any English term that does not fully express its meaning. The Spirit promised is more than a Comforter. He is our Strength, our Peace-giver, a present help in time of need, a source of knowledge to the church, a witness, God and Christ with us. Probably no single term would more nearly express the meaning than the word Helper, which was probably nearly the meaning of Comforter in Wickliffe’s time. That word is derived from con and fortis, and means, etymologically, to encourage or strengthen. That he may abide with you forever. The Lord had been with them for about three years, but was on the eve of departure. He has been a Helper to his disciples, and in his absence will send another Helper, who shall always remain with his people.
17. The Spirit of truth. So called because he speaks the truth. The Comforter strengthens, guides, liberates, sanctifies by the truth. See John 17:19; 1 Corinthians 2:4; 1 Thessalonians 1:5. He also bears witness of the truth. See Acts 2:4; Acts 5:32; Hebrews 2:4. Whom the world cannot receive. The reason why the world cannot receive the Comforter is indicated in John 14:15; John 14:23. There must be a preparation of the soul for his indwelling. The heart must be purified by faith, the soul must be filled with love of Christ, this condition must be demonstrated by obedience to his commandments. This is in harmony with the entire teaching of the New Testament. "Except a man be born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." John 3:3. The necessity of a loving obedience in order to the reception of the Holy Spirit is taught emphatically. Peter said to the Jews (Acts 5:32), "We are witnesses of these things, and so is also the Holy Spirit which God gives to them who obey him." In John 7:39 it is declared that the Savior "spake of the Spirit which they that believe on him should receive." In Acts 2:38 Peter, in reply to the anxious inquiry of convicted sinners, answers: "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit;" the gift being made dependent upon repentance and obedience. The temple of the human heart has to be prepared by obedience for the indwelling of the Father and Son, and hence the world cannot receive the Comforter through whom they are manifested. The Spirit can convict the world of sin (John 16:8), the world can receive his testimony when he bears witness; hence the apostles were directed to "go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature," "baptizing them into the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit," and God "gives the Holy Spirit to those who obey him," but in its unconverted condition the world cannot "see" or "know" the Comforter. The world can only see with the carnal eyes and recognize material manifestations. The saints prepared for his presence by faith, love and obedience, have a spiritual perception of his presence.
18. I will not leave you comfortless. The word in the Greek is orphaned. It is applied to childless parents, or fatherless children, or any one bereaved. The term "desolate" used in the Revision probably expresses the idea. The disciples were bewildered and stupefied with grief at the thought of the Master’s departure, but he assures them that they will not be left desolate. He will come again; not only as the risen Lord who shall visit them for a little while on the earth, but he will come to be "with them always," as manifest in their hearts by the Holy Spirit after it is given. He does not refer to his second coming "without a sin offering unto salvation," for then "every eye shall see him," while now he speaks of a coming in which "the world shall see him no more," but in which his disciples shall see, or recognize him.
19. Yet a little while and the world seeth me no more. After the next evening the world would see him no more. When it took him and buried him out of sight it looked upon him for the last time. But ye see me. They would see him with the natural eyes after he had veiled himself to the world. This, however, does not exhaust the sense. There is a sight that is not of the natural eyes, such a sight as those old worthies had who walked "as seeing him who is invisible," and the living Christ would so dower with heavenly life his disciples that, because "he lived, they should live also," and should have a constant recognition of his presence. There is a promise of an unbroken communion with the Lord. The manner in which they should have his abiding presence is pointed out in verse 21, and more fully in verse 23.
20. At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father. "That day" began on the day of Pentecost. The apostles and brethren "waited the promise of the Father" until "the day of Pentecost was fully come," and then the risen and exalted Savior "shed forth" the Holy Spirit which he had promised should abide with his people forever. "That day" still comes to each soul which believes upon the Lord, repents of sin, and giving up all worldly lusts, surrenders himself unreservedly to the will of Christ and does his commandments.
21. He that hath my commandments. The conditions upon which Christ may be present in each soul, seen and enjoyed, are next shown. As before seen, obedience and love are essential. "Hath" the commandments implies more than a mere possession of them. It implies that they are clearly apprehended. This must be the case before one can be said to "keep" them. This verse gives the same idea as John 14:15, but in a converse form. There active obedience is seen to follow as the result of love. Love is the cause, and obedience the effect. Here the effect is placed first and traced back to its cause. The active obedience is a proof of love. He that loveth me. Having pointed out the test by which our love for Christ is determined, he shows the blessed consequences that flow from this love. The heart that loves the loving Savior is a heart that is pleasing in the sight of the Son and the Father. It is in sympathy with the great loving heart of the universe and fit for abiding communion with the Son. Hence he declares: I will manifest myself to him. He will come, as the Comforter, to make his abiding place in such a heart. There will be such a manifestation that his presence will be revealed. In other words, the loving and beloved disciple will have an abiding sense of a living Christ who will "never leave nor forsake him."
22. Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot. John is careful to state that this apostle was not the traitor who had gone out a little while before. What hath come to pass? etc. This question indicates the bewilderment of all the apostles. They had, in spite of his teachings, adhered to the Jewish ideas that had been educated into them from childhood, and assumed that as the Messiah he would manifest himself publicly to the world. The question implies that Christ had departed from his former purposes, in that he should determine to manifest himself to his disciples, but not unto the world. It indicates that, up to this time, Judas entirely failed to comprehend either the mission or the words of the Redeemer. This dullness on the part of all the apostles continued until after the resurrection, and was only finally dissipated by the "manifestation of Christ" in their hearts after the descent of the Holy Spirit.
23. If a man love me, he will keep my words. The Lord again compassionately states the conditions needful for his manifestation, as already pointed out, but adding another and a sweeter idea; that is, that the loving soul shall be a temple of God, and that as of old the Shekinah came and dwelt between the cherubim, so the Father and the Son will come and make their abode in the heart that is prepared for the divine fellowship by love. Observe the steps that lead to the glorious consummation: 1. Love of Christ; 2. Keeping his words; 3. The Father’s love bestowed; 4. The coming of the Father and the Song of Solomon 5:1-16. Their indwelling in the loving heart. Christ stands at the door and knocks for entrance (Revelation 3:20); he that hath his commandments hears the voice; he that keeps them opens the door; he enters in and sups and abides.
24. He that loveth me not keepeth not, etc. Disobedience springs from the absence of the love of Christ in the heart, and Christ only manifests himself in the heart that loves him. But he who refuses to obey Christ is disobedient to the Father also, because Christ’s word is the Father’s.
25. These things have I spoken, being present. "These things" is put in contrast with "all things" in the next verse. They were yet so dull that they could not fully comprehend even what he said, but the time would come when they would understand better. The next verse points out that time.
26. The Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost. The Revision gives, instead of "Ghost," which is not correct, "Spirit," as the word Pneuma should always be translated. The Savior now identifies the Comforter with the Holy Spirit, soon to be sent. Whom the Father will send in my name. What is done in the name of Christ is, not independent of him, but in recognition of his mission and authority. The Holy Spirit will be sent because the Son requests it (John 14:16), will be sent to carry on his work, bear witness of him, and to bring the world to recognition of his name. It is in Christ’s name that the Spirit was first shed forth; it is in his name that he acts, and it is to those believing upon his name that he is imparted. Shall teach you all things. He shall not only enable you to "understand the Scriptures" and my words that you do not now comprehend, but will reveal to you new truths by inspiration, and bring to remembrance all things that I have said to you. It is due to this gift of the Spirit that we have the privilege of reading and studying these memorable discourses of the Master. The Gospel historians had "all things brought to their remembrance." As Alford remarks: "It is in the fulfillment of this promise to the apostles that their sufficiency as witnesses of all that the Lord did and taught, and consequently the authenticity of the Gospel narrative, is grounded. While most of the promises in this grand discourse are of general application, there are some that the Savior himself limits and here declares that the Comforter shall teach "all things," and "bring all things to remembrance." Whatsoever I have said unto you. This limits the promise so that it contains no warrant for the doctrine of a progressive revelation through the ages, as advocated by Abbott in his Commentary on John (see this passage) and held by H. W. Beecher and others. Its only application to the saints in general is that the Spirit will aid their remembrance and understanding of the recorded word contained in the completed revelation of the Holy Scriptures.
27. Peace I leave with you. This is a solemn and affectionate farewell, in view of the cross, a parting benediction. As Isaac, about to depart, bestowed his blessing; as Jacob, "leaning on the top of his staff," blessed the twelve patriarchs, so the departing Lord will leave his peace to his disciples. My peace I give. Not such peace as the world gives; not an idle and empty form as were the wishes of peace in the salutations of the world, but his own peace, the peace he enjoyed; the peace that caused him to sleep sweetly while tossed on the billows of Galilee, to be calm and unruffled before the Sanhedrim and Pilate; the peace that is a deep and placid sea that the storm cannot disturb, such peace he will bestow. Such peace be did and does bestow. Such peace had Stephen when the stones crushed him down, Peter when in Herod’s dungeon, and Paul and Silas when they sang in the night at Philippi. Such peace may all have who love, obey and receive into their hearts the manifested Lord.
28. Ye have heard, etc. . . . If ye loved me ye would rejoice. This is a gentle rebuke. It declares that the desire of his disciples to prevent him from going away springs from selfish motives. They ought to rejoice because his own glory would be secured by his departure. He would return to his Father, whence he came, to be exalted to the right hand of God and to have "all power in heaven and earth." My Father is greater than I. Therefore, when I return to the Father, and my union with him is complete, all the earthly hindrances to the establishment of my kingdom and my exaltation to the throne of glory will be removed, and my work will be accomplished on the earth. There has been a vast amount of needless discussion concerning the words, "My Father is greater than I." It is not a statement that the Father is of a different nature, or that Christ is a dependent creature, but is in entire harmony with all the teaching of the Son during his earthly ministry. He teaches that he does the will of the Father, not his own will; that he speaks the Father’s words and does his works, not his own; that the Father sent him into the world, not that he came of his own will except in the sense that he always does the Father’s will; the Son proceeds from the Father, not the Father from the Son; there is a subordination of the Son to the Father, not of the Father to the Son. All his words on his relation to the Father declare the superior greatness of the Father; not that the Father is of different essence or nature in any respect, but possessing the natural precedence of Father over Son. Yet, as I write these words, I feel that the subject of this relation is too high for the human understanding, and that it is almost trenching "where angels would not dare to tread" to discuss it. It is one of the mysteries whose solution men have vainly sought for eighteen centuries and which eternity alone will fully reveal.
29. I have told you before it come to pass. Told you of my going away that "when it is come you may believe," by knowing that I foresaw it all the time and that it was a part of my plan that I should go away.
30. The Prince of this world cometh. Satan, who is regarded as the embodiment and contriver of the sins and iniquities of the earth. At the temptation of Christ he had offered the kingdoms of the world as if they were his own, and at the time the Savior came it must be admitted that these kingdoms were thoroughly loyal to the prince of evil. Who hath nothing in me. There was nothing in common whatever between the prince and spirit of the world and Christ, and hence no sympathy whatever. Nor does Satan ever make a capture unless he can find something in a man in common with himself. If he can find a sinful ambition or lust he will seize upon it and make it the means of ruining a soul. Satan, finding in all but Christ, something in common with himself, enforces death as his due, but as Christ was sinless he died voluntarily, and could not be holden by death, hence did not see corruption. Hence, the coming of the prince of this world did not force him to death, but he died.
31. That the world may know that I love the Father. His, death was a sublime act of self-sacrifice. In the prayer of Gethsemane the burden was, "Nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt." Hence, because in the mysteries of the divine government it was the Father’s will, he died in demonstration of his love of the Father, and "even as the Father gave commandment so" he obeyed. Arise, let us go hence. Immediately following these words the Lord continues his discourse as recorded in chapters 15 and 16, and then closes with the touching prayer of chapter 17. As soon as this prayer is closed it is stated that "When Jesus had spoken these words, he went forth with his disciples, over the brook Cedron, where was a garden, etc." Some judicious authorities hold that at the utterance of the words closing John 14:31, the Savior and his disciples left the upper room, that the rest of the discourse was delivered on the way, and that when it is said he "went forth" it is meant that he went out of Jerusalem. I cannot, however, think that the character of the next three chapters is consistent with the view that they were spoken on the way, when the narrow streets of Jerusalem were crowded by the presence of at least a million strangers in attendance at the great festival. Such a prayer as the Lord’s prayer in John 17:1-26 could not have been offered upon the street, amid the confusion of a noisy city. I cannot doubt that when the Lord "lifted up his eyes," he was in the quiet of a room and surrounded only by his disciples. It is far more probable, therefore, that the words, "Arise, let us go hence," were a signal to make ready for departure; that when all had arisen, he continued his discourse as he stood with the little group around him, with their sandals and outer robes girded upon them, and that, when he had closed with the prayer so graven on the heart of all who love him in every age, then "he went forth with his disciples," as is stated in John 18:1.
PRACTICAL OBSERVATIONS.
1. "Love is the fulfilling of the law." He that "loves God with his whole heart, mind, soul and strength, and his neighbor as himself shall live." Such a soul has passed from death unto life, is a partaker of the divine nature, and a fit abode for the indwelling of the living Christ.
2. The test of our love for Christ is "keeping his words," not some of them, but a complete surrender of our will to his. As he loved the Father and "pleased him in all things," so if we love Christ we must make his will supreme in all things. When there is no discord between our will and that of the Master, then our hearts shall be fitted for a temple of the Lord and the Son will make his abode in the heart.
3. The soul that is completely resigned to the will of Christ, can always pray "thy will be done," will enjoy the presence of Christ always and, with his presence and his peace such will ever feel, whatever may betide, that Christ is with them, that they are held in his hand, and that "all things shall work together for good to them that love God."
GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN
B.W. Johnson
JOHN CHAPTER FIFTEEN
THE TRUE VINE.
The solemnity of the moment, when the Redeemer rose to leave the Upper Room where he had eaten the Passover, must have produced a powerful effect upon the hearts of his disciples. Up to this period they had been a united and a peaceful band, and the beloved Master was yet with them; what a separation awaited them in a few hours! The anticipation of this arrested their steps; the assembly broke up but no one moved; they stood in silence around their Lord. Then it was that he again opened his lips, and delivered the following discourses, which made an indelible impression on the mind of the beloved disciple. It may be that some incidental circ*mstance led Jesus to begin the comparison; perhaps a twig stretched through the window into the room where he then was, or the apartment was decorated with the foliage of the vine. According to Josephus, on the door, 70 cubits high, which led into the Holy Place of the temple, an artificial vine was spread out, the branches and leaves of which were made of gold, and its clusters of diamonds and pearls. Rosenmuller thinks that it was this that led Jesus to institute the comparison before us.--Olshausen. I am of the opinion rather that the comparison sprang from the juice of the grape which had just been used to represent his blood. After the Lord choosing and distributing the fruit of the vine to represent the blood that should cleanse from all sin, and declaring, "I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God is come," what more natural than for him to say, "I am the true vine?" As before stated, the Lord did not pass out over the Kedron, until after the discourses of the 15th and 16th chapters and the prayer of the 17th. It is, then, almost certain that these were spoken in the Upper Room. It then becomes probable that the feast was broken up with the words that close chapter 14, the preceding discourse having been at table; that with the command, Arise, all arose from table to prepare for departure, but as they were standing the Savior, out of his full heart, spoke the words that are contained in the three chapters, closing with the 17th. The student is then to picture to himself the Master with the eleven apostles, in the dimly-lighted chamber, standing, girt for departure; and they, eagerly watching every look and gesture, and drinking in every word, while he begins, "I am the true Vine."
1. I am the true vine. On the table from whence they had just risen was the "fruit of the vine," and the Lord had said that he would never drink it again upon the earth. That may have been the occasion of the striking figure that he now uses, in which he exemplifies union with Christ. In the Old Testament the Vine is often used as the type of Israel, planted and tended by the Almighty as the husbandman. See Isaiah 5:1; Psalms 80:1-19; Jeremiah 2:21. Israel, however, had proved a wild and fruitless Vine. Instead of it, therefore, Christ had now been planted by the Father as the True Vine. He is the true Bread, the true Light, as well as the Good Shepherd. All these figures fitly express some of his relations to his people and the world. The Vine stands in a much closer relation to the branches than the Shepherd to the sheep. The latter cares for the sheep, but the Vine imparts its life to the branches and there is one life in the whole, the branch having no life except as it draws it from the vine. The relation is similar to that expressed by Paul when he describes Christ as the Head of the body, and the servants of Christ as the various members of that body, all pervaded by the life and will of the Head. See Ephesians 5:23
2. Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away. As the husbandman cuts off the unfruitful branches of the vine, so the Father severs the unfruitful branches from his Son. Judas, an unfruitful branch which did not have in it the life of the Vine, had just been severed and had gone forth. So any branch that ceases to have the life of the true Vine and bear fruit, that becomes lifeless and barren, is cut off. It often dies and drops off from the Church, which is the earthly representative of the True Vine, of its own weight and is lost sight of. Sometimes it is needful to cut it off lest it injure the other branches. Every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it. The husbandman prunes and dresses the branches in order that they may be more healthy and fruitful. The Father cleanses, purifies, frees from sin, all who become branches of the True Vine. This is done, not merely for their own sake, but that they may be fruitful branches. The means employed to cleanse them from sin and impurity is next described.
3. Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you. The spoken word is the instrument appointed by God for the cleansing of the soul. He who hears the word, believes it, receives it into his soul, obeys it and makes it the rule of his life, is "cleansed," or freed from sin. The "Word" tells the sinner what to do in order to the remission of sins. See Mark 16:16 and Acts 2:38. It is God in Christ who cleanses, but the means employed is the "Word," which must be received in obedient faith.
4. Abide in me, and I in you. The idea is, Abide in me that I may abide in you. Christ abiding in us is dependent on our abiding in him. We abide in him by keeping his words, or having his "word abide in us" (John 15:7), and all who "keep his sayings" (John 14:23) will have Christ abide in their souls. We must prepare for the presence of Christ by loving him, for he can find no congenial home in any heart that does not love him, but he says, "If a man love me he will keep my words, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him, and make our abode with him." See the steps: 1. Love of Christ; 2. Keeping the words of Christ; 3. The Father’s love; 4. The Father and Son come to abide with the one who loves and obeys. To abide in Christ and to have his life in us is needful, because "As the branch cannot bear fruit without the vine," as an its life and strength and fruitfulness comes from the vine, and it dies if severed, so No more can ye, except ye abide in me. We are dead, fruitless branches, without the Christ-life. The whole history of the world demonstrates that fruitfulness is only found in union with Christ. Where are the colleges, hospitals and benevolent institutions that have been reared by infidelity? What fallen and savage race has infidelity lifted up? What has it done for mankind? Where are its fruits, or the benevolent fruits of heathenism or false religions? There was not a hospital or benevolent institution in Rome, the capital of the world, when it was visited by Paul. The fruit of pure, holy, sweet lives, full of helpfulness to the race, is borne by abiding in Christ, living with his life, being moved by his Spirit.
5. I am the vine; ye are the branches. He has already declared (verse 1) that he is the True Vine, but he had not yet declared that every disciple is a branch of the Vine. Had he not declared, "Ye are the branches," they might have concluded when, a little later, separate congregations were organized in various portions of the earth, that these were the branches; or denominationalism might have a little warrant for speaking of "branch churches of Christ;" but the relation is a much nearer, sweeter one. Every Christian is a branch of the Vine. His life is drawn directly from the Vine. If he clings to the Vine, keeps Christ’s words, so that Christ abides in him, and has the life of the Vine, the same bringeth forth much fruit. But the branch that is severed from the vine is not only fruitless but dies. So the disciple, without Christ, can do nothing. Paul declared, "I can do all things through Christ who strengtheneth me."
6. If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered. The lifeless, fruitless branches in the vineyard are lopped off and carried out, and wither and are burned. So, too, any one who does not abide in Christ, is severed from the Vine, and they (the angels at the great day, not men as in the Common Version. See Revision.) cast them into the fire and they are burned. The Lord sweeps on over time to the eternal judgment and fate of the dead branches. Note 1. These have been branches of the Vine; 2. They did not "abide" in the Vine (Greek remain); 3. Hence they were cast forth; 4. Hence at the end they are gathered, by the angels, to be burned. Hence there may be a falling away by those who have been branches of the Vine, or "a falling from grace," and hence the need of watchful, prayerful diligence that we may abide in the Vine.
7, 8. Ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you. The condition of this blessed promise is that we abide in the Vine, by having Christ’s words abide in us. If we maintain thus the life union so that we are alive with the Christ life, from his presence in us, then whatsoever we ask will be granted. Do you ask whether God hears prayer? I answer, "If we abide in Christ and he in us." Has he heard your prayers? Are you thus united to Christ? But this "effectual prayer" is needful to our fruitfulness in Christ and the glorification of the Father. For herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit. The best comment on this is the Savior’s injunction, "Let your light so shine before men, that they, seeing your good works, shall glorify your Father who is in heaven." Those who are fruitful show that they have the life of the Vine and thus demonstrate that they are true disciples. "So shall ye be my disciples."
9. As the Father hath loved me, so I have loved you. The Father loved the Son and dwelt in him as the Son in the Father, because of their mutual love. Love opens the heart of the disciple to Christ that he may abide there (John 14:23) and hence the union of the disciple with Christ may be as close as that of Christ with the Father. Hence he enjoins: Abide ye in my love. This is the Revision and is better than the Common Version, the Greek word being that before rendered abide. The Lord next tells how they shall "continue" or abide in his love.
10. If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love. He abode in the love of the Father by a life of perfect obedience. So we must abide in his love. The wilful, disobedient disciple cannot dwell there. Only he in whose heart Christ is enthroned as King and who has an absolute empire over the soul. To keep Christ’s commandments is, not to obey those that suit us, but to follow him and obey all he says. Some set aside his commandment to be baptized. Such do not keep his commandments. Some obey it faithfully, but fail to observe the other things he has commanded, and especially the great law of love. Such do not keep his commandments.
11. These things have I spoken . . . that my joy might remain in you. Strange words, that one about to be crucified should speak of his joy! His joy was union with and the presence of the Father. He had "anointed him with the oil of gladness above his fellows." He desired his disciples to have that joy, the constant consolation of the sense of the presence of Christ. If Christ abode in them, his joy would remain in them. All spoken above was that they might have this joy. If this is realized their joy will be fulfilled. They "shall see the travail of his soul and be satisfied." The soul that has Christ in it is "full."
12. That ye love one another, as I have loved you. The greatness of his love for the disciples has been shown. Thus they must love one another. The thought developed is, 1. Love the bond that unites Father and Song of Solomon 2:1-17. Such love the bond that unites the Son and the disciples. 3. How much love must also exist between the disciples in order to unite them? Mutual love, instead of an iron chain of commands, binds them together.
13, 14. Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. The highest human exhibition of love that earth has ever seen was this. Damon had been ready to die for Pythias; fathers had died for their families; mothers for their children. Christ was about to exhibit this highest human type of love by dying for his friends. He did even more, as Paul shows us, Romans 5:6; he died for enemies, something that man had never done. The Lord here, however, points his disciples to his love for them. They are his friends, if they obey him. That is the condition. One may "lay down his life for another" without dying. If he lives to consecrate his life to his welfare, he gives, if possible, a higher proof of love.
15. I call you not servants . . . I have called you friends. Christ’s disciples serve him, but their service is not bondage, but that of love. Hence, they are friends instead of servants. They have his presence abiding in them and the will of the Father is made known to them.
16. Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you. Each one of the eleven apostles present had been chosen, called, by the Lord, from among his disciples. They did not choose him, but he them, in order that they might bring forth abundant fruit in the conversion of the world. The same is true, in part, of each disciple. Christ calls them by the gospel, and if they hear and obey, then they are called and chosen to his work. These words, however, have a special, rather than a general signification. The Lord selected every apostle, and called them to become his representatives in the church when he had ascended his heavenly throne. Peter, Andrew, James and John were taken from their boats and nets at the Sea of Galilee; Matthew from his place at the receipt of custom, the rest of the eleven from their various callings, and, last of all, Saul of Tarsus was arrested by the Lord himself on the way to Damascus and told that he was to become "a minister and a witness" to the Gentiles. As God chose Noah to build the ark, Abraham to found the Jewish nation, Moses to be its law-giver, David to leave his flocks and be its king, the Baptist to prepare the way for Christ, so the Lord chose out the apostles and ordained (appointed) them to their special work. So, too, I cannot doubt that he chooses servants in all ages to become the leaders in great works which are called for by the interests of his kingdom. Whatsoever ye shall ask in my name. They were ordained to "go forth and bring forth fruit." While engaged in that work they are promised the divine help. If at any time their own arms are too short they are authorized to call for the help they need in Christ’s name. This help is to the end that they may bear fruit, or be efficient in the work of converting men. The principle that underlies the promise is of general application. The men of prayer have in all ages been those that have been most abundantly fruitful in their labors.
PRACTICAL OBSERVATIONS.
1. The life of the branch springs from the life of the vine. The branch does not give life to the vine, but the vine to the branches. So Christ is our life.
2. If the connection between the branch and the vine is severed it will at once die. As the sap must flow from the vine into the branch to give it life and keep it alive, so the life of the True Vine must flow into our souls. Christ is not only the fountain of our life, but we must abide in him in order to maintain it. If we let sin come between and cut us off we are dead.
3. Whatever works of beneficence and love are done by the church, or by Christians, serve to honor and glorify Christ, because it is his life in us that works and bears fruit. Without him we can do nothing.
4. Christ and sin cannot abide in the heart together. If sin abides there, Christ will not enter; if Christ abides there, sin can find no room.
5. The beneficent work of Christ for man. Now, if there were to be made two maps of the world, one showing the happiness, comforts, morality, good deeds, benevolent gifts, means of innocent enjoyment, the light shades showing the countries in which a large degree of happiness is enjoyed, and the shades growing darker as the blessings grow less; the other map showing the prevalence of Christianity, the lands where the purest Christianity is most prevalent being represented in white, and the shades darkening as the lands have a less pure Christianity, or it is less prevalent, down to the blackness of utter heathenism,--it would be found that these two maps almost exactly coincide.
THE CHURCH AND THE WORLD.
17. These things I command you that ye love one another. "These things" are all the precepts the Lord had spoken since the interview began with John 13:1-38. It is remarkable how frequently and with what emphasis he enforces this duty. Indeed, to fill the heart with earnest, active love, love to God and to man, is the great end of the mission of Christ. "We know that we have passed from death unto life because we love the brethren." 1 John 3:14. See also Matthew 22:37-40
18. If the world hates you, ye know that it hated me. The world, as used by the Savior, means the unconverted, unspiritual, sensual, selfish and worldly portion of mankind, nearly all of our race at the time that he spoke. Of that world the spirit of evil was the prince, and the kings and rulers of the earth were his willing servants. When the Lord was about to begin his ministry the prince of the world tempted him with the offer of worldly glory and empire, and when the offer was rejected became his bitter enemy. The world hated him because he rebuked its sins, rejected him and crucified him. His disciples, who bear his likeness, have his spirit and speak his words, will also be a constant rebuke to the lusts and wrongs of the world and, hence, will not enjoy its favor. When they are hated they can remember that the world hated their Lord also.
19. If ye were of the world, the world would love his own. It is the nature of all intelligent persons to love best what is in sympathy with themselves. Christ loves most tenderly the disciples who obey his commandments and seek to be like him. The world loves those best that are in harmony with its ambitions, aims and pleasures. Hence, when the church lowers itself to a worldly standard, is complaisant toward sin, and full of the worldly spirit, it will not come into collision with the world. It is the servants who are "chosen out of the world," who are not of the world and who testify against it, that it hates. This has been illustrated in all ages. John the Baptist and Christ might have chosen smooth paths that would have secured worldly favor, but their rebukes of sin brought them to death, and in every generation the faithful servants, such men as Huss, Waldo, Wickliffe, Savonarola, Luther, Roger Williams, and the great army of martyrs, have been hated and persecuted. See John 7:7 where Christ shows that the world cannot hate those who act in accordance with its worldly policy and principles, and also, 1 Peter 4:12-13; 1 John 3:13-14, 1 John 4:4-5.
20. Remember the word, . . . The servant is not greater than his lord. For this admonition to which the Lord refers see John 13:16; Matthew 10:24; Luke 6:40. The servants who represent the Master, show his spirit, obey his commands and do his work, must expect similar treatment to that which the world would award to the Master himself. They represent a spirit and policy that comes into direct collision with the world. Those who would persecute the Lord will persecute the disciples also. Those who would receive the Lord’s words will also receive and keep their words also. Some will persecute; others will accept the gospel. The disciple must expect both results, persecution and glad reception. This has been the experience of all devoted proclaimers of the gospel, from Paul down to our own day. See in Paul’s experience, Acts 13:42-45.
21. All these things will they do unto you for my name’s sake. The name of Christ, so sweet to his followers, is an object of hatred to his enemies. Not many months passed after these words were uttered until those that now heard Christ were under arrest by the Sanhedrim and were asked by the high priest, "By what power, or by what name, have ye done this?" Then Peter answered, "By the name of Jesus Christ, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand before you whole." Then, after a conference, the Sanhedrim "commanded them not to speak at all, nor teach in the name of Jesus" (Acts 4:1-37). Again, Acts 5:28, "The high priest asked, Did we not straitly charge that you should not teach in this name?" And they departed from the presence of the council rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for his name (Joh 15:41). See also 1 Peter 4:14 and Revelation 3:8. What was true of the first age of persecution has been true of later ages. The Roman emperor, Diocletian, declared that he "would abolish the Christian name from the face of the earth." The infidel Convention of France, at the time of the Reign of Terror, tried to destroy all that would recall his name, and there is nothing that excites the animosity of the haters of Christ more intensely than his name. One ground of the intense hatred of the Jews to "the name" was that Jesus proclaimed himself to be the Christ predicted by the prophets, and the use of this "name" was a constant indictment of them for crucifying the "Holy One" of Israel. They had rejected him because they knew not God, God who had sent Jesus into the world, though they professed to honor him.
22. If I had not come and spoken . . . they would not have had sin. There are three principles involved in this declaration. 1. The degree of sin is determined by the measure of our opportunities. Those in total darkness cannot be blamed for not seeing unless they are responsible for being in the darkness. Those who have had no light from heaven will be lightly judged for breaking laws of which they could have no knowledge. 2. Increased opportunities bring the consciousness of sin. A ray of sunlight in the chamber reveals, but does not create, the motes. They were there before. So, too, the motions of sin in the soul are imperfectly recognized until the light comes, but in that light they are seen to be sin, and the conscience is alive to sin. "Without the law sin is dead. For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died." Romans 7:8-9. So the knowledge of Christ, flooding the soul with light, brings sin into full view and takes away all excuse for continuance therein. Henceforth it is known, conscious sin. 3. The sin of sins is the rejection of Christ. He is the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world. He has not only shed his blood to cleanse from all sin, but comes to men and pleads with them to let him be their Savior. He who refuses him chooses, deliberately chooses sin, as his portion. He declares by the rejection of Christ that he clings to his sins and will abide by their consequences. He not only willfully retains his past sins but he adds to them the fearful sin of rejecting heaven’s offer of mercy as embodied in the gospel. By the rejection of Christ he shows himself a stubborn and determined rebel against the King of kings. Had heaven offered no mercy, showed no love, sent no Lamb of God to take away sin, there might have been less, or even no responsibility for sin, because many were so in darkness that they knew not sin, but now they have no cloke for their sin. There is no excuse for it, no shelter, no covering, nothing that can extenuate sin. Ignorance might be an excuse, but when the offer of pardon is made and refused ignorance cannot be pleaded. Christ’s offer takes away every excuse and leaves the sinner at the judgment day to the sentence of condemnation. Men are lost because "they will not have life." Luther says: "No man shall die in his sins, except him who, through unbelief, thrusts from him the forgiveness of sin, which, in the name of Jesus Christ, is offered to him. This is the real sin that contains all others. For if the word of Christ was received every sin would be forgiven and remitted, but since men will not receive it this constitutes a sin which is not to be forgiven."
23. He that hateth me hateth my Father also. This follows from the fact that Christ is Immanuel, God with us, the manifestation of the Father. As Christ is revealed to us, so is the Father. Every one who hates God in Christ, hates the Father who sent him. The Jews thought they did not, but they did. They knew not God, but worshiped another god whom their own imaginations had created. Christ was the manifestation of the God of their Fathers, but when they saw him they hated him.
24. If I had not done . . . they had not had sin. The attestation of his divine mission was such that they were without excuse. His whole life work, including his sinlessness, his beneficence, his divine teaching and his superhuman signs, were such as no man had ever shown. They therefore demonstrated that he was more than man. Sometimes cavilers call for a scientific argument that Jesus is divine. The Savior here gives it. The syllogism is as follows: 1. No man that ever lived was sinless, was a teacher who never erred, or unlocked the portals of the dead, or made those whose souls were dead, live again as new creatures in a new and beautiful life. 2. Jesus of Nazareth did and does all these things. 3. Therefore, he is more than man and is divine.
25. They hated me without a cause. He had just stated that "they hated both him and his Father." This hatred was without any justifiable cause, and therefore fulfilled of Psalms 35:19. "These words (Christ’s words from
26. When the Comforter is come. For discussion of the Comforter, his nature and work, see notes on the preceding chapter. In John 14:26, he says that the Father will send the Comforter in his name, while here he says that he will send him from the Father. These passages are in harmony and merely show how intimate the union between the Father and the Son. What one does the other may be said to do, for the same mind is in each. Christ often emphasized the fact that what he did and said was done by the Father. In Acts 2:33, when this promise was first fulfilled, Peter declared that it was Christ "which hath shed forth this, which you now see and hear." Which proceedeth from the Father. Christ attributes all the blessed and redemptive powers to his Father as the final cause. As he came himself from the Father so the Holy Spirit is from the Father. He is called the Spirit of God, and also the Spirit of Christ (Romans 8:9; Galatians 4:6; Philippians 1:19; 1 Peter 1:11.) He shall testify of me. One principal office of the Spirit is to testify of Christ. See John 16:13-15. Nor is it difficult to ascertain how the Spirit testifies. Holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. On the day of Pentecost the apostles "spake as the Spirit gave them utterance." Testimony is given in words, or by acts, and the Spirit speaks through the saints whom he chooses as his agents. Hebrews 10:15-16, shows how the Spirit bears witness: "Whereof the Holy Spirit is a witness to us; for after that he said before, This is the covenant," etc. The words which the Holy Spirit "said before" and by which he became "a witness" were spoken by the prophet Jeremiah. There is not an example recorded in the Bible of the Spirit testifying otherwise than in words spoken by those moved by his power, and in the lives of those in whom he dwells. I emphasize this fact because there is much idle speculation and error on the subject.
27. Ye also shall bear witness. The apostles were double witnesses. They had been with Christ "from the beginning" and knew all the facts. If he had been a deceiver they would have known it. If he was true they knew it. When he was risen they were witnesses of the fact. If they had never received the Comforter they could have been witnesses of the facts of his life, death and resurrection. But when the Holy Spirit was given, the dark things made plain, the Scriptures understood, power from on high sent upon them, and when they could speak with tongues and work miracles, then also the Holy Spirit in them bore witness. There was their witness as men, eleven competent witnesses to every fact, and then in addition there was the divine witness through them. They still testify, and added to this, there are those in whom Christ dwells by his Spirit. Every true Christian life is a witness to the living power of Christ. It must be kept clearly in mind that there is not the slightest intimation in the Scriptures of a testimony independent of those who have received the Spirit through the acceptance of Christ.
GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN
B.W. Johnson
JOHN CHAPTER SIXTEEN
THE HOLY SPIRIT AND THE WORLD.
1. These things have I spoken unto you, that you should not be offended. "These things" may refer generally to all that the Lord has spoken in these discourses, as some have urged, but, in my judgment, refers more particularly to what he has stated in the last chapter about the hatred of the world, a subject that he now continues by pointing out how this hatred will manifest itself. The reader must keep in mind that there was no break in the Savior’s discourse between the 15th and 16th chapters and the same subject is continued without change. "These things" the Lord spoke that they should be forewarned, expectant, and hence should not be made to stumble (offended). The word "offended," or, more properly, "stumble," points out the danger of falling during persecution. The weak in faith are likely to give way before the storm, to fancy that the odds are too great, that it is useless for a small minority to contend against mankind. Hence the Lord reveals to his disciples that there is an irrepressible conflict between the sinful world and himself, points out the issues and shows how it will involve his followers, in order that they may expect it, be prepared for it, and when it comes only see in it the fulfillment of his prediction.
2. They shall put you out of the synagogues. The first persecutions shall come from the Jews, and hence the Lord speaks of these. The first punishment shall be excommunication. I have pointed out (John 9:22, note) the nature of this punishment. It was more than spiritual. It made its subject outcasts. Hence Paul, in speaking of the sufferings of the saints, declares they are made outcasts. But this is not all, for the time cometh that whosoever killeth you will think he doeth God service. No language could describe more forcibly the most intense fanaticism. Yet "the hour" was coming and close at hand when murder would be sanctified in the eyes of the murderer. Even Saul of Tarsus, as he afterwards confessed, thought he was doing God’s service when he sought to kill the saints. In the Rabbinical books is found a proverb: "Whoever sheds the blood of the impious does the same as if he offered a sacrifice," and the Jews held that those who accepted Christianity were traitors to God. The same spirit has been often manifested in religious persecutions. The cruel crusades of the French kings against the Albigenses were conducted in the name of religion; the Pope of Rome celebrated a Te Deum when the news of the barbarous massacre of St. Bartholomew reached him, the "Holy Inquisition" tortured men, broke them upon the rack or wheel in the name of religion, or burned them in Auto de Fes, as "Acts of Faith." Madame Roland, about to die on the scaffold, exclaimed, "Oh, Liberty, what crimes are perpetrated in thy name!" So many a martyr might have exclaimed of Religion.
3. These things they will do . . . because they have not known the Father or me. This ignorance of God and Christ lies at the root of all spirit of persecution. Could the tender love of God as revealed in the Son, his long suffering and compassion, be known, it would end all intolerance. The hard-hearted, cruel and exacting, whatever they may pretend, do not believe in the true God and the Son. They may believe in some being whom they call God, but it is not the God who "so loved the world that he sent his only begotten Son to save the world." They may believe in a being they call Christ, but it is not the tender, loving and compassionate Savior who taught, "Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy." All intolerance is born of spiritual pride, selfishness and self-worship. The Pharisees, the most bigoted and self-righteous sect of the Jewish nation, were the bitterest opposers of Christ. The Papal church, which has held that salvation was only found within its fold, has always been a persecuting body wherever it was in power.
4. These things have I told you . . . that ye may remember. When the hour of trial would come there would come also the remembrance that the Lord had foreseen it from the beginning, had promised to be with them, and even to give to them what they should say to their accusers. These things I said not in the beginning because I was with you. His instructions had been lesson by lesson as they were prepared to receive it. Only gradually had he unfolded to them the dark, rugged and bloody pathway that they should be called to tread. In the beginning of his ministry he did not teach of these things, in the second year of his ministry he began to present the lesson, but only in the hour of departure does he fully reveal the trials before his disciples. The greatest of all their trials, unless the promised Comforter came, would be the departure of the Lord. While he was upon the earth the bolts of hatred would strike him instead of his followers; but when he was gone and they represented him on the earth these bolts would strike them.
5, 6. Now I go my way to him that sent me. To the Father, by way of the Cross, the Sepulcher, the Resurrection and the Ascension. None of you asketh me, Whither goest thou? They had asked this question, but in the stupefaction of their sorrow they had ceased to ask. Their thoughts were fixed more upon their own disappointment and bereavement than upon what was before their departing Lord. He desires to turn their thoughts to the grand results that are to be accomplished "because he goes to the Father." They had, however, failed to look into these matters because sorrow had filled their heart.
7. It is expedient for you that I go away. What seemed then a crushing sorrow was a real blessing. His mission could never be accomplished unless he went away. These same apostles who were now so overwhelmed with sorrow, forty days later, saw the Lord depart, and a cloud receive him from their sight, and yet "they returned to Jerusalem with great joy" (Luke 24:52). How often the "dark clouds break in blessings on our heads!" For if I go not away, the Comforter will not come. By the Comforter is meant the Holy Spirit, which was first shed forth on the day of Pentecost. The Greek word (Paraclete) is also rendered Advocate, or Helper. The Holy Spirit fills all these offices. This Spirit, given only to a few inspired men, under the Jewish dispensation, was now to become the heritage of the church that Christ would soon establish on the earth. While Christ was present in person, in bodily form, the Holy Spirit, the representative of the Godhead, could not come. Christ, as King, must send it, and on the day of Pentecost Peter declared, "He hath shed forth the things ye do see and hear." For a universal kingdom, in which the King should everywhere manifest his presence by abiding in his subjects, it was needful that be go away in person and send, instead of his personal presence, the "omnipresent Spirit." Hence, ten days after his ascension, the saints, "waiting for the promise of the Father, that they should be endued with power from on high," enjoyed the fulfillment in the outpouring of Pentecost.
8. Will reprove the world of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment. The Revision more correctly renders, "Will convict the world of sin." There are three points concerning which the world would be convicted, concerning sin, righteousness, and judgment. The Holy Spirit would effect these important results through some means. If we would understand its methods we have only to turn over to the fulfillment of these predictions recorded in the Acts of the Apostles. In Acts 2:38, the Holy Spirit fell upon the eleven apostles and they spoke as "it gave them utterance." The words that they spoke were the words of the Holy Spirit. In the record of what it said by the mouth of Peter we find that it convicted (1) of sin, in that those who heard had rejected the Lord of life and glory; (2) of righteousness, in that it was demonstrated by the manifestations of that hour that God had exalted the Lord whom they had condemned to his own right hand, of which they had the proof in that "he had shed forth" what they saw and heard; (3) of judgment, in that they were assured of the "wrath to come" and warned to "save themselves from this untoward generation." Thus has the Holy Spirit, in every age, convicted; by the words of Holy Writ that it has spoken, or by the earnest stirring words of the saints, either spoken or written. It "convicts" by acting through those into whose hearts it is sent, "because they are the sons of God."
9. Of sin, because they believe not on me. In naming sin, the chief of all sins is singled out. All sin springs from unbelief. There was a lurking unbelief in the heart of Judas when he sold his Master; in Peter’s when he denied him; in that of Ananias when he lied to the Holy Spirit. It was unbelief that rejected Christ and nailed him to the cross; unbelief that rejects him still; unbelief that fills the land with vice. To destroy sin, the heart of man must be pierced with the sword of the Spirit. Hence the aim of the Spirit on Pentecost, and always, is to destroy unbelief. When the three thousand, convicted before their consciences of unbelief, cried, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" then the answer of the Holy Spirit was ready, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins."
10. Of righteousness, because I go to my Father. Human tribunals convicted him of blasphemy because he said he was the Son of God, and put him to death. God exalted him to a throne, thereby showing that the condemnation was wrong and that he was righteous. Of this the Holy Spirit bore witness in words and by miracles. Hence, when they "saw him no more," the Holy Spirit "convicted of righteousness." Now, all the world, Saint and sinner, believer and infidel, admit that he was the sinless One.
11. Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged. In John 14:30, he declared, "the prince of this world cometh." It was the prince of this world, the spirit of the world, Satan as the ruler of the world, who slew him. When he rose from the dead and all power was given into his hands, this was a judgment in the court of the universe against the prince of the world, a decree that he should be shorn of his power, and that all the kingdoms of the earth should become the kingdoms of the Lord and his Christ.
12. I have yet many things to say . . but ye cannot bear them now. All wise teachers give out truth as the minds of people are prepared for it. Jesus did not at once announce himself as the Christ, nor that he would be crucified. He added new lessons as the minds were prepared. Even yet there were lessons, after three and a half years teaching, that his apostles could not bear.
13. When the Spirit of truth is come, he will guide you into all truth. He is about to go away and his own personal teachings will be ended, but those things that he desires them to know will be taught them still. The Spirit of truth will guide them into all truth; the Holy Spirit will not be sent to testify of himself, but to represent Christ, as he represented the Father, and to continue his work. He will speak, not only what he has heard about Christ and his work, but of things to come. In the Acts, Epistles and Revelation we have recorded those things which the Spirit of truth taught the apostles, and to which Christ referred. Through John, especially, he showed "things to come" in Revelation.
14, 15. He shall glorify me. "All things that the Father hath are mine," and the Spirit "shall receive of mine and shew it to you." "These three are one;" a striking illustration of the unity of the Godhead. They are so united that what proceeds from one proceeds from all.
16, 17. A little while, and ye shall not see me: again, a little while, and ye shall see me. On the morrow he would die at the ninth hour; that evening he would be buried, and for "a little while," three days and nights, they would not see him; then he would rise, and for another "little while," a space of forty days before "he went to his Father," they would see him, while he remained on the earth. When he ascended to his Father they, in a spiritual sense, would "see him coming in the kingdom of God." This is all very plain to us, but the apostles, to whom it was yet future, could not understand it.
18, 19. What is this that he saith? They were so awed and amazed by the mysteries that were gathering around them that they hesitated to ask, but the Lord, observing their whispered words, took up their question.
20. Ye shall weep and lament, but the world shall rejoice. This was, in a few hours, fulfilled. How sad were the broken-hearted disciples, as they wept at the tomb! "We trusted that he would restore the kingdom to Israel," is the wail of buried hopes. At the same time their enemies were gloating over their triumph. Soon all was changed, for your sorrow, shall be turned into joy. The glad news came, "The Lord is risen." Then they heard that "all power was his," then they saw him ascend into heaven, then they "returned to Jerusalem in great joy." Their sorrow was turned into joy.
21. A woman when she is in travail hath sorrow, . . . for joy that a man is born. The figure of a woman in travail is one of frequent occurrence in the Old Testament to illustrate sudden sorrow and great anguish (Isaiah 21:3; Hosea 13:13; Micah 4:9). The Lord gives the figure a new application by showing that joy is born out of the pangs of travail. Thus the bitter anguish that his disciples will experience on account of the crucifixion and burial of their Lord will be followed by the greatest joy when they behold him risen and triumphant. While this is the apparent, many interpreters, notably Olshausen, hold that it has a deeper meaning. According to this view there is a reference to that which caused the sorrow of the disciples, the sufferings of Christ, a painful act of travail on the part of humanity as represented in the second Adam, as the result of which the new man in Christ Jesus is born into the world, a source of eternal joy to all, even to the angels who rejoice more over one sinner that repenteth than over ninety and nine just persons who need no repentance. "Thus the death of Christ becomes a fact in the history of the world, which everything before it was intended to usher in, and from which the entire development of succeeding ages is matured. This state of perfect joy and complete satisfaction is indicated by the words, ’Ye shall ask me nothing."--Olshausen. "The death of Christ is the agonizing travail of humanity, from which labor the God-Man issues, glorified, to the eternal joy of the whole body of mankind."--Lange. "The words are applicable also to the travails of the church in bringing forth children to God. Yet we should not overlook the immediate reference. A touching and comforting proof of the Savior’s tender sympathy with woman’s deepest trial."--Schaff.
22. Ye now therefore have sorrow. It was because the hour had come. The "therefore" shows that there was something in their position analogous to that of a suffering mother, something more than the mere change from sorrow to joy. The figure is that of suffering endured and comforted by the thought that it is the needful pathway to joy. The time of that transition state, of travail with their Master, was now come. This, therefore, was the hour of sorrow, but when new life for humanity was born into the world as Christ burst the bonds of death, then rejoicing would come. I will see you again. The Lord refers here to his own appearance to them after his sufferings, which would turn their sorrow into joy. That joy would be stable, permanent. Their enemies might assail them, but "no man could take it" away. This began to be realized as soon as they knew their Lord was not holden of the pangs of death, but was fully consummated only when they were "endued with power from on high" on the day of Pentecost.
23. In that day ye shall ask me nothing. When the new revelation is fully realized and they enjoy the fulness of the Lord’s glorified presence. "That day" refers directly to Pentecost when the new era of joy began. "Ye shall ask me nothing" does not refer to prayer, for the apostles always continued to pray, but means they shall ask him no questions because of their ignorance and misunderstanding. While attending his earthly instruction they were dull of comprehension and often ask questions because they did not understand him, but when the Comforter was come he would teach the apostles all things (John 14:26). Enigmas would be solved, mysteries would be clear. Or the passage may mean that they shall not ask directly of Jesus, as while he was on earth, but of the Father in his name. Either interpretation is in harmony with the context and the teachings of our Lord. All prayer now is to be offered in the name of Christ, and the answer is given in his name. I believe that both meanings are involved. In John 16:17, the disciples ask a question in bewilderment, and the Savior in his reply declares that in "that day" you will have no need to ask for explanations, and then he adds, that dispensation will be one of great power in prayer; "whatsoever you ask in my name of the Father, he will give it you."
24. Hitherto ye have asked nothing in my name. When he taught his disciples what we are wont to style the Lord’s Prayer, he did not direct that the petition should be in his name, for his relation to the Father was not yet unfolded. It was only as the end of his earthly sojourn approached that he directed prayer in his name. When he ascended on high he became our Divine Mediator, "our Advocate with the Father," our "High Priest who maketh intercession for us." His is not only the "only name whereby we must be saved," but through which we have access to the Father. Hence, if our petitions would carry any recommendation they must ascend in the name of the Son. Indeed "whatever we do, all must be done in the name of the Lord Jesus." See also Ephesians 1:21 and Philippians 2:9-10. God has determined that his name shall be exalted above every name.
25. These things have I spoken to you in proverbs. All that he said from the beginning of chapter 15. The term translated "proverbs" would be more correctly rendered "figures." The revelations had been partly veiled in figures, such as that of the True Vine, and the Woman in travail. A deeper meaning lay beneath his words than they could yet understand. All that he had spoken since the discourse began was in part enigmatical to his disciples, but the time would come when there would be no more enigmas, no more half understood sayings, but when he would "shew them plainly of the Father." The reference is still to that Spirit which he would send who would guide them into all truth. There is a kind of summary in what follows to the end of the chapter of all he has before promised.
26. At that day, the day when they were baptized with the Holy Spirit, Pentecost, and from that time on, ye shall ask in my name. This fullness of knowledge is connected with fullness of prayer. For days before the descent of the Holy Spirit "the apostles, disciples and brethren of the Lord, continued with one accord in prayer, with the women." The apostolic church founded on Pentecost "continued steadfastly in the apostles’ teaching, and the fellowship, and the breaking of bread and prayers." Those filled with the Holy Spirit engage in bolder petitions in Christ’s name. I say not . . that I will pray the Father for you. Their relation to the Father, who "has sent his Spirit into their hearts because they are sons," making them temples of God in which the Father dwells, as well as the Son, is so intimate that they may approach him themselves, and he does not need to say that he will pray the Father for them.
27. For the Father himself loveth you. This declares the reason why it is not needful for him to pray the Father for them, and should be read in immediate connection with the preceding verse. It must be borne in mind that Christ does not say that he will not pray the Father, but teaches that no intercession is needed to win the love of the Father. Christ elsewhere teaches that he is our Intercessor. Because ye have loved me and have believed, etc. This is the reason why the Father loves us. It is true that he loved the world even while in sin so well as to send his Son to save, but the fulness and sweetness of his love cannot be bestowed upon those who reject his love as manifested in his Son. Those can only enjoy its full fruition who by faith in, and love of, Christ enter into the adoption of the children of God. The love of the father to the prodigal in a far-off country, wasting his substance in riotous living, is very different from the love of the Father to the penitent, broken-hearted sinner who returns to confess his sins and ask forgiveness.
28. I came from the Father, . . . into the world; . . go to the Father. Meyer says that this verse contains "a simple and grand summary of Christ’s entire life, his incarnation, and his destiny." The disciples now fully believed that he came from the Father. In order to awaken their hopes he declares that he returns to his abode on high from whence he came. His near departure is only a return home.
29. His disciples . . . now speakest thou plainly. The last words uttered seemed to the disciples plain and simple. They thought that they gave the key to all the "proverbs" before spoken. He had come from God, into the world, now he would leave the world, and return to God. That seemed plain. Yet the disciples did not understand so well as they supposed. Their stumbling while the Lord was in the hands of his enemies, and their fear, and their despair while he lay in the tomb, shows that they did not understand. Augustine says: "They so little understood that they did not even understand that they did not understand. For they were babes."
30. Now are we sure that thou knowest all things. A little before he had read their thoughts and interpreted them (John 16:18). The fact that he had discerned them and answered their questionings so plainly as in John 16:28, confirmed their faith and they declare, "by this we believe that thou comest forth from God."
31, 32. Behold, the hour cometh, yea, is now come. The answer of the Lord shows that he recognized the incompleteness of the faith of his disciples. The words, "Do ye now believe?" question the power of the faith they had just affirmed. In the very hour that was now at hand it would be tried. Instead of clinging to him they would be scattered, everyone would look out for himself, and would leave him alone in the hands of his enemies. For the fulfillment, read all the accounts of the arrest, trial and crucifixion of the Savior. Yet I am not alone. Though men might desert him he would not be left alone, for be would have the Father’s help.
33. These things have I spoken. All the preceding discourse, especially from the beginning of chapter 14., was spoken to the end that they might have peace. "In this world ye have tribulation: but be of good cheer." Though the world may afflict them it will only be for a season, for the world in a conquered foe. Christ has overcome it. When he died in the conflict with the world on the cross he sapped the very foundations of its empire. Hence his disciples may carry on the warfare with hearts full of cheer and by faith they shall overcome the world. As Christ overcame the world by dying, so, too, the faith of the martyrs is often the faith that gains the victory.
PRACTICAL OBSERVATIONS.
1. Often our sorrows are big with blessings. They that sow in tears, reap in joy. The sorrow of the heart-broken disciples was soon turned into joy.
2. Often we do not know what is best. The disciples thought it a great misfortune for Christ to die. But it behooved him to die and to rise again from the dead. His rising was the burst of sunrise on a world dark with the shadow of death.
3. It would be a delightful thought that by going to Palestine we could look upon the face of Christ. It is a far sweeter thought that he is with us, wherever we are; "abides" with us. It was needful that he go away that all in every land might have his presence by the Spirit.
4. The Spirit is not only a Comforter, but a Conqueror. The Sword, by which he subdues, convicts and conquers to Christ, is "the Word of God." Every preacher, teacher and Christian should pray for the presence of the Spirit and that he may speak through him with power, as he tries to impart the word to sinners. Paul may plant, Apollos water, but God gives the increase. The words of the preacher need to be "in the Spirit" to have power.
5. "Resist not the Spirit." He who does, fights against God. The Spirit is resisted when idle and rebellious ears are turned to the words of the Spirit. When the preacher pleads with you to accept the Redeemer, it is the Spirit’s voice, for he impelled him to speak. The Holy Spirit still by the word and testimony "convicts of sin, and righteousness, and judgment."
6. As the body without the spirit is dead, so a church, or a professor of religion, without the Spirit is dead. The prayer should ascend, all over the land, from the inert, lifeless churches and Christians, that they may be endued with power from on high. Then, and then only, can they have power to convert men to Christ.
7. Death is often the travail from whence victory is born. Arnold Winkelreid swept ten spears within grasp at the battle of Sempach and as he died made a breach by which victory was won. Christ on the cross received into his bosom the weapons of the world’s hate and won a victory for us. The victory is won. The blows of death and hell fall upon him in vain. In spite of all he overcame death in the grave and rose triumphant. He fought the battle for all in him, and for all such the victory is won. "He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death."
THE HOLY SPIRIT.
In the three preceding chapters Christ presents the fullest delineation of the work of the Holy Spirit, or Comforter, that is found in the Bible. It will be profitable to recapitulate and systematize the teaching he presents upon this important and imperfectly understood subject. And, first, I wish to present the fact that while the Fourth Gospel has much more to say of the Holy Spirit than the three preceding, they are by no means silent upon the subject. Not to enter into a summary of passages that speak of his work I note these items: That Luke declares that the miraculous conception was due to the Holy Spirit; the other Gospels declare that Christ shall baptize in the Holy Spirit; they point out sin against the Holy Spirit as the sin that hath no forgiveness; they allude to the promise of the Holy Spirit, which was fulfilled at Pentecost, give the great Commission which commanded to "baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit," and leave the disciples waiting in Jerusalem "until they are endued with power from on high." In addition we have the significant and wonderful circ*mstance of the Holy Spirit descending upon the Savior at his baptism, and also the fact that he commands his disciples to pray for the Holy Spirit as God’s good gift to his children.
Nor is the doctrine of the Holy Spirit peculiar to the New Testament. Though more prominent as the period for the dispensation of the Holy Spirit, dating from Pentecost, approached, it is as old as the revelation of God; nay, as old as Creation. When first the darkness begins to lift from the chaos in which the original created matter first appears, "the Spirit of God is moving upon the face of the waters," and just before the Deluge God declares, "My Spirit shall not always strive with man." Frequent mention is made by the Old Testament writers of the "Spirit of God," "the Spirit of Jehovah," and the doctrine is fundamental in the Jewish Scriptures that "Holy men spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit."
It is, however, in the Gospel of John that the work of the Spirit is first fully outlined, while in Acts and the Epistles we see the influence and work of the Spirit as he dwells in the church and through it displays his power, and testifies to the world. Those who have followed the teachings of the Savior in these chapters have found, 1. That while the Holy Spirit might have seized upon and influenced certain ones chosen to present God’s will in past times, he had never been imparted to the people of God in general before the Savior’s ascension, as the heritage of all the children of God. Not even the Apostles enjoyed his influence, nor could they while Christ remained upon the earth. 2. It was needful that he go away in order that this permanent and universal manifestation of God should come. He would be "sent from the Father;" the Savior would "shed him forth;" he should be the possession of every heart prepared by faith, love and obedience; he should be an indwelling of the Father and the Son in the soul; his work in the heart of the believer would be to cheer, console, strengthen, to aid in bearing witness for Christ, and in bearing the fruits which glorify him, and prove that his followers enjoy his presence, while to the Apostles themselves, as witnesses of the resurrection of Christ, he should have an extraordinary operation, "teaching all things," "guiding them into all truth," and "bearing witness through them," "with signs and wonders" to Christ. 3. The time when this beneficent manifestation should begin is named as "that day," and the time is pointed out so unmistakably that it can never be overlooked. On the day of Pentecost the saints "received the promise of the Father," "were endued with power from on high," "baptized in the Holy Spirit," and from that epoch the dispensation of the Spirit began; from that time is dated the promise made to all who repent and are baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, "Ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."
"God who spoke at sundry times and in divers manners unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken by his Son." It was needful, however, that the Son should cease to speak in person, and go away in order that the Comforter might come. As Christ is a manifestation of the Father, so the Holy Spirit is the presence in the heart of the believer, the temple of God, of the Father and the Son (John 14:23). Nor will he dwell in any temple until it is prepared for his presence by love of Christ and an entire surrender to his will. The enjoyment of the Spirit is confined to the disciples of the Lord. "The world cannot receive or know him." He has no home in unconverted hearts, and yet he has an important office to effect upon the world itself. That office is fully pointed out in John 16:7-15. His work towards the world divides itself into two parts; he shall convict it of sin, establish the righteousness of Christ, and arraign it for judgment; he shall also testify of Christ. In the light thrown upon this passage by the rest of the Scriptures it is of easy interpretation. The Spirit does not act upon the world as a mysterious, abstract influence, but through the saints in whom he dwells and by whom he exerts his power. "That day" of the descent of the Holy Spirit illustrates his mode of acting upon the world. The saints on the day of Pentecost were "filled with the Holy Spirit," and then the Apostles "began to speak as the Spirit gave them utterance." As the result of the testimony of the Holy Spirit spoken by men in words that he dictated, three thousand men of the world were "convicted of sin., "were convinced of the "righteousness" of Christ, and of the danger of "judgment," and hence sought to "save themselves from that untoward generation." Thus, by the words spoken by the Holy Spirit and recorded, by the word of preaching and exhortation that saints are moved to speak, by the pure lives and kind words and deeds of those to whom the Spirit is a helper, he convicts the world, and testifies to it of Christ. It should never be lost sight of that the Holy Spirit testifies by words that are spoken and thus became a joint witness with the Apostles to the exaltation of Christ. See Acts 5:32, Hebrews 10:15-16, and Revelation 2:7; Revelation 2:11; Revelation 2:17; Revelation 2:29; Revelation 3:6; Revelation 3:13; Revelation 3:22. He still bears witness in the word of God that has come down to us in the Holy Scriptures, and those who resist this word "resist the Spirit." While he aids in the conquest of the world for Christ, the weapon that he uses, "the sword of the Spirit, is the WORD or GOD."
It only remains to ask what are the proofs of the Spirit’s presence? Not loud claims, nor fleshly feelings. "Spiritual things are spiritually discerned." The tree is known by its fruits. Whoever enjoys the indwelling of the Spirit will exhibit its fruits (Galatians 5:22) and will mind the things which the Spirit has commanded (Romans 8:5). The test that Paul enjoins in 1 Corinthians 14:37, is the one by which the claims of every man who asserts that he is "spiritual," or enjoys the presence of the Spirit, must be tried: "Let him acknowledge that the things I write unto you are the commandments of God." The person who ignores God’s ordinances, sets them aside, and does not "mind the things of the Spirit," or bear its fruits, deceives himself if he thinks he has the presence of the Comforter.
GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN
B.W. Johnson
JOHN CHAPTER SEVENTEEN
THE LORD’S PRAYER.
This prayer, so solemn and so tender, would never have been recorded had it not been intended for our study and profit, but I approach it with a feeling that it is almost too sacred for the usual verbal and textual criticism. It is the overflow of the full soul of the Lord in devotion to the Father, a fitting close to the wonderful discourses beginning in chapter 13; offered, standing, in the Upper Room, just before the Lord led his disciples out into the moonlit night, on the way to Gethsemane. This is the real Lord’s Prayer of the sacred word; the prayer of Matthew 6:9-13, is the disciples’ prayer, taught to them by the Lord. In order to drink in its spirit, the student must realize that the Lord stands at the foot of the cross, is about to suffer, and before the separation from his disciples and the agony and shame of the cross, he goes to the Father in their behalf and in his own.
Dr. Wm. Milligan, of Aberdeen, outlines this remarkable prayer as follows: "The chapter on which we now enter contains what is generally known as our Lord’s High-priestly Prayer. Such a name is appropriately given it; partly, because it is the longest and most solemn utterance recorded of the intercessions with which Jesus approached the throne of his heavenly Father on his people’s behalf; partly, because he was at this moment standing on the threshold of his especial work as their great High Priest. No attempt to describe the prayer can give a just idea of its sublimity, its pathos, its touching yet exalted character, its tone at once of tenderness and triumphant expectation. We are apt to read it as if it were full of sorrow; but that is only our own feeling reflected back upon what we suppose to have been the feelings of the Man of Sorrows. In the prayer itself sorrow has no place; and to think that it was uttered in a tone of sadness is to entirely mistake what must have been the spirit of Jesus at the time. It speaks throughout of work accomplished, of victory gained, of the immediate expectation of glorious reward. It tells, not of sorrow, but of ’joy,’ joy now possessing his own soul, and about to be ’fulfilled’ in his disciples (John 17:13). It anticipates with perfect confidence the realization of the grand object of his coming,--the salvation of all that have been given him (John 17:12), their union to himself and the Father John 17:21), their security amid the evils of this world while they execute in it a mission similar to his (John 17:11; John 17:15; John 17:18,) and, finally, their glorification with his own glory (John 17:24). . . . The prayer naturally divides itself into three parts; in the first of which Jesus prays for himself, in the second for his immediate disciples, and in the third for all who, in every age, shall believe in him. But the three parts are pervaded by one thought--the glorification of the Father in those successively prayed for, the accomplishment in each of the Father’s purpose, and the union of a in the perfect, the spiritual, the eternal bond of love."
"Here is holy ground; here is the gate of heaven. No such prayer was ever heard before or since. It could only be uttered by the Lord and Savior of men, the mighty Intercessor and Mediator, standing between heaven and earth before his wondering disciples. Even be could pray it only once, in the most momentous crisis of history, in full view of the approaching sacrifice for the sins of the world, which occurred only once, though its effect vibrates through the ages. It is not so much the petition of an inferior suppliant, as the dialogue of an equal, and a solemn declaration of his will and mission. He intercedes with the eternal Jehovah as the partner of his counsel, as the executor of his will of saving mercy. He looks back on his pre-mundane glory with God, and forward to the resumption of that glory, and comprehends all his present and future disciples in unbroken succession as a holy and blessed brotherhood in vital union with himself and his Father."--Schaff.
1. Father, the hour is come. After the discourses were ended, he "lifted up his eyes," the very attitude being stamped on the memory of John, and began his prayer. "The hour" of the great sacrifice, of the tragedy of the cross, the hour for which Christ came into the world had now come; in this hour he needs the Father’s presence. Glorify thy Son. He was about to stoop to shame. It was an unutterable humiliation for the Son to die as a malefactor. He prays that God may lift him from this humiliation to his former glory, that he may glorify the Father. Had he been left in the tomb, the shame would have been complete. Christ not only prays that he shall be "lifted up," but that he may so "drink the cup" that the cross itself shall be a glory. The glorification of the Son in his resurrection and exaltation demonstrates the glory of his self-sacrifice and humiliation.
2. As thou hast given him power over all flesh. This shows how the Son is to be glorified. It is by "giving him all power in heaven and earth," and "committing all things" to him, raising him from the dead so that "he should give eternal life."
3. This is life eternal, that they might know thee, etc. The knowledge of God as manifested in Jesus Christ is the first requisite to salvation and life eternal. When there is full knowledge, a recognition by the heart as well as the intellect, of God in Christ, then comes submission and eternal life. Man cannot know Christ by the intellect alone. That knowledge requires faith and love. Not God alone must be known, but Christ also, for he "is the way, the truth, and the life."
4. I have glorified thee on the earth. He had done this because he could say, "I have finished the work that thou gavest me to do." In a few hours he would cry from the cross, "It is finished."
5. And now, O Father, glorify me, etc. In this prayer the word Father occurs six times. Jesus never says, "Our Father," as he teaches us to pray, nor "My Father," which would separate him from us, but "Father." He repeats the requests to be glorified and explains what he means. He asks a restoration of his former glory, that he had before he took on himself human form.
6. I have manifested thy name to the men which thou gavest me, etc. In the first five verses he had prayed for himself. Now he prays for his disciples. The apostles are especially meant. To them he had "manifested the name by revealing the Father in himself and showing God’s matchless love.
7. That all things . . . given me are of thee. The Lord had taught with great emphasis that he and the Father were one, and that his words and works were of the Father. This the apostles were now learning. As all was of God it would stand firm and eternal, in spite of the cross.
8. They have believed that thou didst send me. The life, teaching and miracles of Jesus had wrought profound faith in his disciples, but they were startled and staggered when he told them he was about to die. Hence, we have these long and tender discourses for their preparation. They have the desired effect, for in John 16:29-30, they repeat their declaration of love, saying: "We believe thou comest from God."
9. I pray for them. The apostles. The prayer from verse 9 to verse 19 is for these. I pray not for the world. Not at this time; he came into the world to save it, and we are not to conclude that he would never pray for its conversion and welfare. Now, however, his petition is confined to the apostles, the little band who are hanging upon his words. He even bids us to pray for our enemies (Matthew 5:44), yet some rigid Calvinists have insisted that Christ would only pray for his chosen ones. Paul bids us pray for all men.
10. I am glorified in them. Christ’s glory here upon the earth is manifested by his disciples. These are all God’s, for "all mine are thine, and thine are mine." There are no separate interests. He therefore pleads for his disciples; 1. Because they are the Father’s; 2. To them is entrusted the work of manifesting the glory of the Son’s redeeming love. They are to proclaim the gospel to the world.
11. I am no more in the world, but these are in the world. He now goes to the Father; these are left behind to preach the gospel, establish his kingdom, manifest his glory. Hence, he pleads that he may "keep them through his name," or power and love. He especially pleads that they may be kept "one," united as the Father and the Son. They had often shown jealousies and ambitions, but in order to do Christ’s work they must be united as a band of loving brothers, of one family, with one interest and one work.
12. None of them is lost but the son of perdition. God had given him twelve; he had kept them in the name of the Father, and only one was lost, Judas, the traitor, the son of perdition, which the Scripture had predicted. See Psalms 41:9. So, even one of those that God had given him could be lost.
13. I speak these things in the world. I am now coming to thee, and about to leave the world, but before I leave it, I speak these things in order that my joy, the joy I feel over my completed work and return to my Father, might be fulfilled in them, by their being partakers of my joy.
14. I have given them thy word. I have entrusted to them the word of the Lord, to preach it, the gospel, to men.
15, 16. I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world. The world had hated the Master and was about to slay him, because he was not of the world. So it would hate the apostles, who were not of the world, and seek to slay them; he does not pray that they should be taken out of, the world, for they have a work to do, but that the Father would keep them from the power of the evil one. See Revision. Like him, they are to be "separate from sinners, and undefiled," but to remain that they may carry on the saving work.
17, 18. Sanctify them by thy truth: thy word is truth. To sanctify is to render holy, or to consecrate. Those sanctified are saints. The means of canonization is not a Pope, but the truth, and lest some should mistake, Christ adds, "Thy word is truth." He prays for their consecration by the power of the word in their hearts. Every disciple should be thus consecrated, but the means is not "the second blessing," a miraculous work of grace, but the reception of God’s word into our hearts and the complete surrender to his will spoken in his word. The apostles needed that consecration for the work named in John 17:18. They were to be sent into the world to work and suffer, as the Father has sent the Son.
19. For their sakes I sanctify myself. He did this when he came into the world, when he made it his meat to do the Father’s will, and when he gave himself to death. We sanctify ourselves when we "present our bodies as living sacrifices."
20. Neither pray I for these alone. We enter upon the third section of the prayer, that for all disciples in every age, a prayer for us, for all who should believe on the Lord through the preaching of the gospel by the apostles. Everyone who loves the Redeemer should reverently seek what the Lord prays for in his behalf.
21. That they all may be one; . . . that they my be one in us. This is a prayer for the closest union among the saints. As the Father and Son are one they are to be one. The Lord all through this discourse has shown the intimate union between the Father and himself. The Father is in him and he in the Father, all that is the Father’s is his, and his is the Father’s. They have no separate will, kingdom, or interests. Such a union is demanded among the disciples of Christ. It is impossible while they are divided into various denominations with separate work, property and interests, separate churches, colleges, papers and missions. Denominationalism is utterly opposed to this prayer, and every apologist for it is disloyal to the spirit of the prayer. Nor is it fulfilled in any church where there are factions, where "all are not perfectly joined together, of the same mind and the same judgment." If Christ abides in the heart, the one life will draw all who have Christ formed within them, into one family. This unity is needful and the Lord prays for it, That the world may believe that thou hast sent me. There is no other source of skepticism so fruitful as church quarrels and sectarian divisions. The consecration and unity of Christendom would speedily convert the world. The most potent argument of the infidel against the Kingship of Christ is that he has not power to unite his followers.
22, 23. The glory . . thou gavest me I have given them. God gave Christ the glory of Sonship and this resulted in their unity. So Christ gives to his disciples the glory of becoming the sons of God (John 1:12
24. I will that they . . . be with me where I am. That in due time all my disciples shall follow me to heaven, where they shall see the glory of Christ.
25. I have known thee. The world knew not God, and Christ came to reveal him. He had revealed him to his disciples and they would reveal him to the world.
26. I have declared unto them thy name. The character and love of God and the blessings of his service.
PRACTICAL OBSERVATIONS.
1. Our Lord prayed for himself, not for temporal benefits, but for eternal glory. So, too, we may pray, but not that we may have to spend upon our lusts. We may pray for consecration.
2. We should especially pray for what the Lord prayed, that we may be one as he and the Father are one. Every saint ought to speak, labor and pray for the unity of Christendom.
3. We cannot pray the prayer of Jesus and labor to build up sectarianism. In the spirit of love we should oppose it, and labor to destroy sectarian names, creeds, organizations and interests. As the Son and the Father are one, have one work, one kingdom, one spirit, one interest, so must all that are Christ’s. We must "keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace." There is "one body" and "one Spirit," as there is "one Lord."
4. Division is the shame of Protestants. The Catholics point to it and exclaim, "Is Christ divided?" Infidels point to it and say, "This is Babylon, confusion. All is uncertainty. These people cannot see alike or agree." As long as this division prevails the world will be unconverted.
5. It is one thing to preach union, and another to have the spirit of union. None have it unless the love of Christ abides in the heart. A church, rent with antagonism, defeats the Savior’s prayer. The man who preaches union with a narrow, exclusive, sectarian spirit in his heart, defeats Christ’s will. He who preaches union must be so filled with Christ’s love that he will extend his hand to all who love the Master.
THE LORD’S PRAYER FOR UNITY.
The most remarkable feature of this wonderful portion of the word of God is the Lord’s prayer for those who would believe upon him in the coming ages. It seems as if the very climax of earnestness is reached when he travails in soul for the saints who in after times, should be gathered to him from out of the world by the preaching of the gospel. Such a prayer uttered with such heartfelt fervency, right at the foot of the cross, should have a pre-eminent sacredness for every believer in every age; in other words, for every subject of the prayer, and no one upon whose heart rests the petition that came from the Savior’s heart can refuse to do all in his power to secure the results for which the Master prayed. Indeed, one who could harbor a thought in opposition to that for which the Lord travails in soul, certainly has some other spirit rather than that of Christ.
There is just one thought in this petition and that one thought is the unity of his people. Am analysis of the petition in their behalf will show how this burden rested upon his soul. He prays (1) "That they all may be one;" (2) "As thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they may also be one in us;" (3) He prays for the oneness "that the world may believe that thou hast sent me;" (4) "The glory which thou gavest me I have given them that they may be one, as we are one;" (5) "I in them, and thou in me, that they may be perfect in one, even as we are one." Four times the petition goes to the Father for their oneness, such unity as that of the Son and the Father, and as this divine unity is secured by a reciprocal indwelling, so he asks that believers may be in him and that he may dwell in them by the Holy Spirit, in order that they may keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. Hence, as the Father hath given him glory, he imparts the same glory to them that they may be one. Finally he asks for this oneness because without it the world will not be brought to the faith.
No true disciple can appropriate this prayer without the deep conviction that all that hinders the "oneness" prayed for, is sinful, in disobedience to the will of both the Father and the Son, and calculated to defeat the object of Christ’s coming into the world. What opposes this oneness is Anti-christ. It becomes him, therefore, to ascertain what this petition really asks for and to see that his own course is in harmony with the Lord’s will, as revealed in the prayer. While the word church is not named, all concede that in praying for the unity of believers the Lord prays for the unity of the body into which believers are gathered. It will aid in ascertaining his meaning to see the characteristics of the early church in which we know that he dwelt by his Spirit. Its history tells that "the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and soul" (Acts 4:32), and that "walking in the fear of the Lord and the comfort of the Holy Spirit they were multiplied" (Acts 9:31). Here, then, was oneness, oneness of heart and soul in one body, and the result is that the world believed upon Christ, and the believers were multiplied. These early Christians fulfilled the conditions of the Savior’s prayer and the results in behalf of which he prayed, followed.
These believers, though in a few years counted by tens of thousands, composed of Jews and Gentiles, bond and free, and scattered through western Asia and southern Europe, were only one body, and the different members of this body were bound to each other by the most indissoluble ties. A favorite figure of Paul is the likeness of the church to the human body, which is composed of various members but all with one life, interest and mutual dependence upon each other. No less than twelve times be speaks of the church as the body of which Christ is the Head, often emphasizing the fact that there is but one body. "In one Spirit ye are baptized into one body and all partake of one spirit" (1 Corinthians 12:13). Taking Jews and Gentiles Christ "makes in himself of two one new man, so making peace, that he might reconcile both to God in one body" (Ephesians 2:15-16). In the apostolic age there was no thought of bodies of Christians. The church was a unit. All the figures point to its unity. There is one kingdom; the Lord says, "I will build my church;" he is the Bridegroom and the church is the bride; "there is one fold, and one shepherd; the "one loaf" on the Lord’s table Paul tells us represents the "one body;" there is one Head even as there is one body, and
Paul (Ephesians 4:3-6) commands us to keep the unity of the Spirit In the bond of peace and names seven characteristics that imply and compel unity. "There is one body, and one spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all and through all; and in you all."
On the one hand we have these emphatic declarations of the unity of the church, and on the other the strongest rebuke of divisions, schisms and sects. The word hairesis occurs nine times in the Greek of the New Testament, is rendered four times heresies, and five times sect. It always means a split, or sect, and is condemned as one of the works of the flesh. Anything that divides God’s people is a hairesis, and a sect comes under the strongest condemnation.
It is clear from this examination of the Scriptures that the oneness prayed for by the Savior is inconsistent with the existence of denominationalism. It implies the breaking down of all divisions among the people of God as completely as those between Jew and Gentile were destroyed by the cross so as to mould them into one body. It implies such unity between all saints as exists between the various members of the human body. It implies oneness of life and of spirit, in one body under one Lord. Such a union, one that would unite all believers into one army, take away the reproach of Zion, and oppose a solid front to the adversary, would cause the world at once to believe that the Father sent Christ into the world. In order that this unity may have an effect upon the world it must be seen; hence there must be organic unity that it may be visible. Such unity did exist in the apostolic ages but then there were no sects; it has not existed since the apostasy and will not be restored until God’s people all stand together as one body, having one spirit, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one calling, one hope, one Father. The fiction of an invisible church and an invisible unity does not meet the demand.
A unity that introduces religious rivalry into every country village, that refuses to unite in combined effort to save the world, that breaks up the soldiers of the cross into guerrilla bands rather than combine them into one great and invincible army, and that breaks to pieces at the door of the church or the communion table, has none of the conditions of that oneness for which the Savior prayed. Those conditions will never be met, until "all the multitude of them that believe are of one heart and soul." For this consummation all who love the Lord ought to labor and to pray.
I am well pleased to give, as an evidence of the increasing sense of the need of unity, the following passage from a published discourse of Dr. John Fulton, a leading Episcopal minister: "Unless I have greatly misunderstood one of our Savior’s most solemn utterances, I suspect that our divisions are worse than negatively unchristian; in their effects they are decidedly anti-christian. What else can our Lord have meant when he prayed to the Father, ’that they may all be one, that the world may believe that thou hast sent me?’ If these affecting words mean anything, is it not that, in some way or other, the unity of Christ’s followers is a divine condition of the conversion of the world? If that is his meaning, then is not every needless division treason to the kingdom of Christ? And, to speak very practically, what can it be but treason to permit the helplessness caused by our divisions to hand over to perdition, so far as we are concerned, perhaps more souls than our divided ministry is saving? With what consistency are we spending millions of money in foreign missions, while the wasteful wantonness of our denominational divisions, together with the crippled inefficiency which is caused by them, is virtually and needlessly consigning more thousands of our own countrymen to heathenism in one year than all our missionaries put together have ever converted in five? God forbid that I should disparage any effort to spread his Gospel at home or abroad; but while we are rejoicing over the heathen whom we save, let us not forget the account we have to give of the heathen whom our divisions are making by the thousand in every great city of this land."--Christian Unity and Christian Faith, page 12.
GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN
B.W. Johnson
JOHN CHAPTER EIGHTEEN
THE BETRAYAL.
Leaving the Upper Room, Jesus and his disciples went out into the moonlit night, for there was full moon at the passover, and took their way through the streets out of the eastern gate, across the Kedron, to the garden of Gethsemane, about a half mile from the city walls, near the western base of Mt. Olivet. The Garden, or orchard, takes its name from a word meaning oil press, and doubtless was shaded by the olive trees, from which the hill takes its designation. Still the traveler meets on this slope with giant olives, no doubt the descendants of those under the shade of which Jesus reposed. Here the Lord endured the Agony of the Garden, that wonderful struggle, with its sublime victory, recorded in the words, "Not as I will, but as thou wilt." Immediately after this we may place the appearance of the band led by Judas. How wonderful the events of this night! It is the only night of the life of Jesus that we can trace. We see first, the Passover in the upper room, then the washing of feet, the exposure of Judas, the warning to Peter, the tender discourses to the disciples, the agony at Gethsemane, the betrayal, the arrest, the trial before the Sanhedrim, the trial before Pilate, the scourging, &c., &c.
1. He went forth with his disciples over the brook Cedron. The eleven apostles were with Jesus when he left the Upper Room and departed on this eventful journey, the most eventful in the history of the world. The brook Kedron, which he crossed, flowed through a ravine east of Jerusalem, between the city and the Mount of Olives. The name means the black torrent. It was dry during the dry, but a rushing torrent during the rainy season. Where was a garden. John does not give the name, but all the other writers designate it. Gethsemane means "oil-press." It was probably an enclosed olive vineyard, containing a press and garden-tower, perhaps a dwelling-house. It was at the western foot of the Mount of Olives, beyond the Kedron. The spot now pointed out as Gethsemane lies on the right of the path to the Mount of Olives. The wall has been restored. Eight olive trees remain, all of them very old, but scarcely of the time of our Lord, since Titus, during the siege of Jerusalem, had all the trees of the district cut down.--Schaff.
2. Judas . . . . knew the place; for Jesus ofttimes resorted thither. The movements of Judas, after the Last Supper, we may readily picture to ourselves in their outline. Going immediately to Caiaphas, or to some other leading member of the Sanhedrim, he informs him where Jesus is, and announces that he is ready to fulfill his compact, and at once to make the arrest. It was not the intention to arrest Christ during the feast, lest there should be a popular tumult (Matthew 26:5); but, now that an opportunity offered of seizing him secretly at dead of night, when all were asleep or engaged at the paschal meal, his enemies could not hesitate. Judas knew the place, for it was a frequent resort of Jesus with his disciples. He had been there ofttimes. No hallowed associations with that sacred spot deterred his treason for one moment.
3. Judas, then, having received a band of men. The multitude, guided by Judas, is described by Mark as "great." It consisted (1) of the band (John 18:3
4. Jesus, knowing all things that should come upon him. Knowing their objects and all that he had to endure on the morrow. He submitted of his own will, and after the troubled hour of Gethsemane, is as calm as the unruffled sea. Whom seek ye? Jesus "went forth" from the shadow of the trees into the moonlight, or from the garden walls, advancing in front of his disciples, in order to save them from arrest (John 18:8), and asked whom they sought.
5, 6. Judas, also, which betrayed him, stood with them. To the Lord’s question, his foes replying that they sought Jesus of Nazareth, he calmly replied, "I am he." Then follows a scene designed to show all the world that the Lord laid down his own life. His foemen were powerless in his hands. As he answers, either his majesty and their own terror so impressed them, that, awed, they fell backward to the earth, or his divine power was exerted to prostrate them. Then the Lord submitted himself "as a lamb to the slaughter," and his power is not again exerted until he rises from the tomb, except to heal the smitten servant of the high priest. John calls attention to the fact that Judas was with the band thus discomfited. The other writers mention, what John omits, that Judas betrayed the Lord with a kiss. See Mark 14:44-45. This probably occurred just before what John records in John 18:5-6.
7, 8, 9. Let these go their way. After the guard had recovered from its sudden terror, perhaps wondering how it could have been so smitten to the earth, but still standing as if they did not know what to do, Jesus again asks whom they seek, and on their answer, repeats that he is the one they seek, adding the request that, if their object is to take him, they should lot his disciples go. In this hour his thoughts were not on himself, but concerning the safety of his followers. In their safety the Scripture would be fulfilled, his own words, uttered in his prayer (John 17:12). The present deliverance of the eleven would be the beginning of the fulfillment of that promise, and the same power that protected them now, would protect them to the end.
10. Then Simon Peter . . . smote the high priest’s servant. We learn from Luke 22:38, that there were but two swords in the whole company of the twelve. One of these naturally was in Peter’s possession, as being the foremost of the whole band. Abbott surmises that the attack on the guard followed their sudden terror. All the disciples were eager to make it (Luke 22:49), though Peter was the only one who carried the will into action. In Luke 22:49, Peter first asks if they shall fight. He waits not for the answer, but impelled by the natural courage of his heart, and taking no heed of the odds against him, aims a blow at one, probably the foremost of the band,--the first that was daring to lay profane hands on the sacred person of the Lord.
11. Put up thy sword into the sheath. Matthew 26:52-53, is in some respects fuller, and is full of instruction: "Put up again thy sword into its place; for all they that take the sword shall perish by the sword." There is no possibility of advancing Christ’s kingdom in such worldly ways, by force, by depending on the rich, or on state patronage. And there is no need of such aid, either for Christ or his kingdom. God only can save them from worldly trouble if that were the best; for "thinkest thou I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me twelve legions of angels?" The same thought is expressed here: "The cup which my Father hath given shall I not drink it?" He was, by the will of the Father surrendering himself, for the time, to the power of his enemies. They could have no power over him without his consent.
12. Then the band, and the captain and officers of the Jews, took Jesus and bound him. The disciples "all forsook him and fled" (Mark 14:50), probably at this moment, and the soldiers of the Roman band, and the Jewish temple officers, rough, cruel men, seized and bound the Son of God. The terror inspired by the gentle but mighty Jesus is shown in the fact that all unite to seize him and to bind him. While they were binding him the disciples had an opportunity to escape.
13. And led him away to Annas first. The actual high priest at the time was Caiaphas; but this Annas had been high priest, and as such enjoyed the title by courtesy. Being also a man of great wealth and influence, and of active habits, he took upon him much of the business of that high office, as a sort of assessor to, or substitute for, Caiaphas, who was his son-in-law. Hence the evangelist describes them both as "high priests" (Luke 3:2), as they were in fact.
14. Now Caiaphas was he which gave counsel to the Jews, etc. Caiaphas had already committed himself to the policy of condemnation (John 11:50). He was appointed high priest by the Roman procurator about 27 A. D., held the office during the whole administration of Pilate, was deposed 36 or 37 A. D. Both Annas and Caiaphas were creatures of the Roman court; both belonged to the Saddusaic party; both, that is, were openly infidel concerning some of the fundamental truths of the Hebrew faith. Originally the high priest was appointed for life but the Romans set him aside and appointed a successor whenever they wished. Annas had been thus deposed, but was probably still regarded as the real high priest by many of the Jews.
The reader will observe, as in John 11:49-52, the statement that Caiaphas was priest "that same year" and "gave counsel that Jesus should die." I wish to emphasize the thought that John does not intend to intimate that the high-priesthood was an annual office, but that Caiaphas was the high priest that same remarkable year, and that he was instrumental in the death of Christ, by declaring "that it was expedient that one man should die for the people." "Every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices" and was wont to enter "the holy place once a year, not without blood, which he offered for himself and for the sins of the whole people" (Hebrews 9:7). Hence, John indicates not only that Caiaphas unconsciously prophesied, but unconsciously, also, "being high priest that year," sent the great Victim to the sacrifice who died for the sins of the world.
PRACTICAL OBSERVATIONS.
1. It is not strange that some bad professors creep into the church, since one in twelve, even of Christ’s own disciples, was false. The church can prosper in spite of some unworthy members.
2. We see the powerlessness of mere good example to save men. No one ever lived in better company than Judas.
3. Bad men will always find an opportunity to sin. God uses even bad men, and compels them to carry out his designs; but wrong-doing is none the better on that account.
4. THIS CUP.--When Jesus, in his prayer, said, "Not as I will, but as thou wilt," then he was "strengthened," his soul was at peace, and henceforth he was calm and dignified. He was brought into the perfect peace and calmness of a submissive will, so that every desire and feeling and choice was in harmony with the Father. He was enabled to go on with his work of redemption, to glorify God and magnify his love (see Philippians 2:7-10). The cross was changed to a crown, Gethsemane into Paradise, death into immortal glory. So perfect resignation to the will of the Father strengthens us, fills us with perfect peace, and fits us for every noble work.
5. I AM HE.--That answer, so quiet and so gentle, had in it a strength greater than the eastern wind, or the voice of thunder, for God was in that still voice and it struck them down to the ground. Instances are not wanting in history in which the untroubled brow, the mere glance, the calm bearing of a defenceless man, has disarmed and paralyzed enemies. The savage and brutal Gauls could not lift their swords to slay the majestic senators of Rome. "I cannot slay Marius!" exclaimed the barbarian slave, flinging down his sword and flying headlong from the prison into which he had been sent to murder the aged hero.--Farrar.
THE TRIAL BEFORE THE HIGH PRIEST.
"Reading the Gospels side by side, we will, with care and study, see how all they tell us falls accurately into its proper position in the general narrative, and shows us a six-fold trial, a quadruple decision, a triple acquittal, a twice repeated condemnation of Christ our Lord. We soon perceive that of the three successive trials which our Lord underwent at the hands of the Jews, the first only--that before Annas--is related to us by John; the second--that before Caiaphas--by Matthew and Mark; the third--that before the Sanhedrim--by Luke alone. Nor is there anything strange in this, since the first was the practical, the second the potential, and the third the actual and formal decision, that sentence of death should be passed upon him. Each of the three trials might, from a different point of view, have been regarded as the most fatal and important of the three. That of Annas was the authoritative pre-judgment, that of Caiaphas the real determination, that of the Sanhedrim, at daybreak, the final ratification. "--Farrar.
15. Simon Peter followed Jesus, and another disciple. At the time of the seizure of Christ all the apostles fled in panic (Matthew 26:56), but in a short time some of them recovered and followed (Matthew 26:58), one of them being Peter. The other "disciple" named is admitted by all commentators to be John. He was "known to the high priest," how we cannot say; some have supposed that he was a relative; others that he had a home in Jerusalem (John 19:27) and had thus become acquainted. As an acquaintance he was at once admitted through the gates of the high priest’s palace, while Peter was refused admission. High priest. In John 18:13 it is stated that Jesus "was led away to Annas first," while here he is taken into the "high priest’s palace," though we have just been informed that "Caiaphas was high priest that year." This may be explained in two ways. Annas who had been high priest for seven years, who was the father of four sons who were high priests, and whose son-in-law was high priest, was probably the most influential man among the Jews and was dignified with his old title of high priest. In Luke 3:2, both Annas and Caiaphas are named as high priests; in Acts 4:6, Annas is spoken of as high priest. Though his son-in-law was now by Roman appointment in the position, he was still called high priest, and from what we learn elsewhere, his counsels swayed the ruling party. It is, however, likely that he still had a home in the official residence of the high priest and that he and his son-in-law lived under the same roof. The band that had arrested Jesus brought him to Annas first, perhaps because at that midnight hour Caiaphas was asleep while the more active and vigilant Annas was on the alert. Perhaps because Annas, the power behind the throne, had directed them to do so; or, as some have urged, he held some high dignity that entitled him to examine Jesus and commit him for trial. His was a preliminary examination. It seems certain that he and Caiaphas lodged in the same palace and hence, that all that is recorded of Peter’s denials in the four accounts, occurred at the same place.
16. But Peter stood at the door without. The damsel who kept the door, for it was a common Jewish custom to have female porters, seeing that Peter was a stranger, refused to admit him. John went in, evidently expecting Peter to follow, but when he did not, returned and spoke to the maid, who at once, suffered him to pass, John being an acquaintance.
17. Art thou not also one of this man’s disciples? John was known to the maid as a disciple of Christ. The maid, fancying that Peter was another, from his acquaintance with John, asked the question, after Peter had gone in, from curiosity. There was no occasion for Peter to deny, but from sudden fear he said, "I am not." As some have insisted that there is a discrepancy in the four accounts of the denial of Peter it will be well to note, 1. That each Evangelist records the prediction of a three-fold denial; 2. That each Evangelist records three acts of denial; 3. That they all represent these to have occurred at the palace of the high priest; 4. That all declare that the first denial was in answer to a question of a maid servant; 5. All refer to the same place in the immediate connection, the court or inner open space around which the building was constructed, and where the fire was built on the pavement. This would be within the building, but outside of the rooms. Thus far, then, there is harmony.
18. Servants and officers stood there, who had made a fire of coals. As we learn from Mark 14:66, the fire was made in the court, the open space left in the center for light and ventilation around which the building was constructed, and which was reached by an arched way called (Matthew 26:71) "the porch." The court within, which was a common feature of great houses, was paved. The fire was of charcoal. It was cold. As a general rule the nights of Palestine at the season of the passover were warm throughout, and the cold is named as unusual. Peter, having denied his Master, probably thought he was less likely to be suspected if he threw himself in the midst of his enemies and hence he "stood and warmed himself," while John seems to have pressed on after his Lord.
19. The high priest then asked Jesus . . . of his doctrine. Is not certain whether this "high priest" was Annas or Caiaphas, but I agree with the opinion of Canon Farrar that it was Annas, and that John, therefore, gives an account of the informal examination by this great dignitary which he personally witnessed and which is omitted in the other Gospels. In the Common Version verse 24 reads that "Annas had sent him to Caiaphas bound," which has been supposed to mean that he was sent before the examination described just before. The Revision, however, reads, "Annas, therefore, sent him," etc., which is correct as the Greek verb is not in the past perfect, but in the aorist tense. This can only mean that Annas sent him after the examination that John describes. Since, as we have found, Annas is called high priest, as well as Caiaphas, there is no difficulty in the use of that term. Annas had now conducted his informal trial, decided upon the case, and delivered over the prisoner, "bound," for official investigation. The next investigation, which is described by Matthew and Mark, was not conducted by the whole Sanhedrim, but a portion. The Jewish writers speak of three Sanhedrims, of which two were, in fact, great committees of the Sanhedrim, twenty-three members being required for a meeting. This was probably such a section. On the other hand, Luke records the meeting of the great body, the whole Sanhedrim, at dawn of the day (Luke 22:66), since, according to Jewish writers, it could not condemn a man to death at night. The high priest’s examination of Jesus was in the hope that he could extort some admission on which a charge could be framed. The answer of the Savior, though calm and dignified, is a rebuke.
20, 21. I spake openly to the world. The Lord ignores the question concerning his disciples, but answers with reference to himself. He had taught openly in the synagogue and temple; he had entered into no conspiracies, as Annas himself had done; all his life and teaching could be learned by inquiry. Let them, if they wanted information, seek it of those who had heard him. There are several emphatic words, the I five times repeated in two verses, in contrast with you, and the ever. Jesus had no secret clique, but "taught the world." It will be observed that the Lord claims that the examination may proceed in the regular order by calling witnesses. "Ask them;" "Why askest thou me?"
22. One of the officers . . struck Jesus. This is the first blow that was laid upon him "by whose stripes we are healed." The word rendered "palm of the hand" is "rod" in the margin, which is probably the meaning. The officer, a courtier, was not accustomed to hear a prisoner, in plain and independent language, stand upon his rights, and hence insolently struck the prisoner, and exclaimed, as though to justify the act, "Answerest thou the high priest so?"
23. If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil. Observe the calmness and dignity of the reply. Paul, under similar circ*mstances (Acts 23:3), answers like a man, but Christ, like the Son of God. If there was evil in the words just spoken, let it be pointed out; but if not, to smite him was a crime. These words are spoken to the servant. Violence is the resort of those who are in the wrong.
24. Now Annas had sent him bound to Caiaphas. If this a correct translation, the Lord was sent to Caiaphas before the examination just recorded. The Revision, however, reads: "Annas, therefore, sent him," etc., indicating that he was now sent. The latter is the correct translation, and points out this as the time be was sent.
25. And Simon Peter . . . Art thou also one of his disciples? In John 18:18 Peter is described as among the enemies of Christ, warming himself. It is repeated in order to give the circ*mstances of the second denial. It is by a comparison of all the Gospels that we get the full facts. They do not contradict each other but relate different parts of the same story. "Another maid" (Matthew) saw him and spoke to the others about him. Then "a man saw him" (Luke) and accused him; then those to whom the maid had spoken also accused (John). To all he made his second denial, Matthew says, "with an oath." This occurred partly in the "porch" (Matthew and Mark), or passage way to the court, and partly in the court (John). John and Luke omit the aggravation of the denials which Matthew and Mark record.
26. One of the servants of the high priest . . . Did I not see thee? etc. There is no mention of where the third denial occurred. Some time had passed, "about an hour" (Luke), since the last denial. Matthew and Mark describe the charge by "them that stood by;" Luke as made by another man, and John as made by a kinsman of Malchus. From all these accounts it seems clear that the conversation had been going on, probably around the fire. Peter joined in it and his Galilean pronunciation was recognized. Attention was called to it, and then many brought the charge against him. One of the servants, also a kinsman of Malchus, asserted that he had seen him in the garden. To all of these Peter made his denial with an oath, even "cursing and swearing" as though in a great passion (Matthew). All the Evangelists then give the three acts of denial, but each has taken different circ*mstances that were most significant for his purpose. All three denials took place in the high priest’s house, in the court or the entrance to it, all within range of the light and heat of the fire kindled within; the first in the court, the second in the entrance, and the third again within.
27. Immediately the co*ck crew. As the oaths were sullying the lips of him who had declared that he would die for the Master, the co*ck crew the second time to herald the approach of day. At that very moment the Lord, probably now being led to the meeting of the Sanhedrim which Luke tells us met at daylight, turned and looked on Peter with a look that pierced his soul. The recreant disciple went out into the night, like Judas; broken down, however, by repentance instead of remorse, and "wept bitterly" (Matthew 26:75). "They upon whom Jesus looks mourn their misdeeds. Peter at first denied and wept not, for the Lord had not looked upon him. He a second time denied, yet wept not; for the Lord hitherto had not looked on him. He denied a third time, and Jesus looked on him and then he wept most bitterly."--Ambrose.
Following this, at dawn of day, the Savior was tried before Sanhedrim, as related in Luke 22:66-71, and as all attempts to prove him guilty of some crime or violation of the law had failed, in spite of false witnesses, he was called upon to answer, and upon his affirmation of divine majesty, they condemned him to die as guilty of blasphemy. To carry the sentence into effect the approbation of the Roman governor was needful. Hence, their prisoner is next sent to Pilate.
PRACTICAL OBSERVATIONS.
1. From the accounts of the trial before the Sanhedrim, given more fully by the other Evangelists, we learn clearly the ground of condemnation. Failing to convict Jesus of any capital charge by witnesses, they examined him and the high priest exclaimed, "I adjure thee, Art thou the Christ, the Son of God." When he replied "I am," the high priest rent his garments, as if in horror, and cried: "What need have we of further testimony?" and all affirmed, "He is worthy of death." He was condemned, not because he said he was the Christ, but for asserting that he was the "Son of God," the crime of blasphemy from the point of view that he was only a man. Hence, before Pilate, when he found the Savior guiltless, they brought the additional charge: "We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God." It follows, therefore, that Christ died on his own testimony that he was the Son of God. He heard the sentence of death passed by the Sanhedrim, on this ground, without a word of explanation. These facts are all consistent with his Sonship, his real Divinity, but are incapable of explanation if he was less than the Son of God. The only way to free his character to to accept him as the Son of the Highest.
2. Now with the eye of sense we look on Jesus an he stands before this Jewish tribunal. It is the Man of sorrows, despised and rejected of men; treated by those lordly judges, and the brutal band of servitors, as the vilest of felons, the very refuse of the earth. Again, with the eye of faith we look upon him, and he seems transfigured before us, when, breaking the long-kept silence, he declares, "I am the Son of God, and hereafter ye shall see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven." From what a depth of earthly degradation, to what a height of superhuman dignity does Jesus at once ascend! And is it not striking to notice how he himself blends his humiliation and exaltation, his humanity and divinity, as he takes the double title and binds it to his suffering brow: The Son of Man; the Son of God.--Hanna
CHRIST BEFORE PILATE.
John only gives the detailed account of the private examinations of Jesus by Pilate during the civil trial recorded in John 18:33-37. He probably went within Pilate’s palace as he would not be deterred by the scruples of the Jews, having eaten his passover, and he was therefore a personal witness. His account aids much in explaining Pilate’s language to the Jews and to Christ, which is recorded in the other Gospels. The trial before Pilate divides itself into the following acts: 1. Without the Prætorium. The Jews demand the death of Christ (John 18:28-32). 2. Within the Prætorium. Christ "witnesses a good confession." Christ a King (John 18:32-37). 3. Without the Prætorium. Jesus declared innocent. Barabbas proposed (John 18:38-40). 4. Within. The Lord scourged and mocked (John 19:1-3). 5. Without. Second and third declarations of innocence. "Behold the Man!" "The Son of God" (John 19:4-7). 6. Within. Authority (John 19:8-11). 7. Without. Pilate gives way before Jewish clamor and tramples on his convictions (John 19:12-16). In the appeal to Pilate the Sanhedrim, at first, concealed the real grounds on which they had condemned Jesus, and sought to have him put to death as a dangerous character who aimed to secure the kingly power.
The transference of the trial from the Sanhedrim to the "judgment seat" of Pontius Pilate was made necessary by the political condition of Judea. One badge of the servitude of the Jewish nation to the Roman yoke was, that while the Jewish courts were permitted to try and to punish minor offenses, the final judgment of all capital offenses was reserved for the Roman tribunals. A Roman judge must sign the warrant before the condemned person could be led to execution, and the punishment was then indicted by the Roman officials. These capital cases at Jerusalem were usually brought up at the great feasts, at which time the Roman Governor came up from his home at Cesarea to the Jewish capital. Pontius Pilate, at this passover occasion, had come up, and as he would probably return as soon as the passover was over, it was needful to make their appeal to him at once. Besides, after the passover began it would be unlawful for them to conduct civil business, and unless they were prepared to hold Jesus for a week as a prisoner the death warrant would have to be obtained this very morning, and the crucifixion follow immediately, in order that the bodies might be removed before the feast began. It is needful to consider these facts in order to understand the extreme hurry and urgency of the members of Sanhedrim. Hence, early upon that Friday morning, the great dignitaries of Israel were assembled before the hated judgment hall of Pilate, a building they could not enter at this time without defilement. No Jew was permitted, during the passover week to enter any house that had not been purged of leaven, under the penalty of death, and this would, of course, exclude them from all buildings occupied by Gentiles. Though the rulers could trample the law of justice to the earth, they were scrupulous in observing the ceremonial law.
28. Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgment. The first examination was at the house of Annas, where an officer had smitten Jesus. Then Annas sent him to Caiaphas. Still later he was tried before the Sanhedrim (see Matt. chap. 27) and condemned. Then he was led from Caiaphas to Pilate’s judgment hall. Pontius Pilate, now mentioned by John for the first time, made conspicuous before all the world by his connection with the crucifixion, was the Roman governor, or rather "procurator" of Palestine. The principal duties of his office were to preserve order, collect the tribute and, in certain cases, administer justice. Since A. D. 6 Palestine had been thus governed and Pilate had entered upon his office two or three years before. His usual residence was in Cesarea, but at the time of the great feasts he was wont to come up to Jerusalem to prevent tumult. His name indicates that he belonged to the warlike gens of the Pontii, of whom the great Samnite general, Caius Pontius, was most conspicuous. His history, as given by profane authorities, indicates that he was a bold, unscrupulous, cruel man. He was removed from office about A. D. 36 on account of his cruelties and banished. The traditions report that he killed himself from disappointment, or remorse, and Mt. Pilatus in Switzerland, is pointed out as his last earthly home. Justin Martyr, in his defence of Christianity, cites Pagans to the official report of Pilate to the Emperor Tiberius concerning the death of Jesus Christ, which he says, they could find in the archives at Rome. Tertullian, Eusebius and others also speak of it. A very ancient document, entitled the Acts of Pilate, is still extant, but the weight of scholarship is against its authenticity. It was early. Probably after the hour of sunrise, about six or seven A. M. The informal meeting of the Sanhedrim, held some time before dawn on this Friday morning, at the palace of Caiaphas, had adjourned, and the mob were mocking Jesus. But as soon as morning dawned, and it was lawful to condemn Jesus, the Sanhedrim assembled, probably in their own council chamber--either the hall Gazith, in the temple court, or a hall near by--and proceeded to pass formal sentence of death upon Jesus. But they could not inflict the death penalty. The Romans were now the rulers of Judea, and had taken to themselves the right to decide on all cases of capital punishment. Hence, it wasneedful for the Jews to go to Pilate, the Roman governor, to secure this condemnation of Christ. They themselves went not into the judgment hall. The judgment hall, or Prætorium, literally, was the name given to the headquarters of the Roman military governor, wherever he happened to be. These Jewish leaders, filled with the hate of Christ, and ready to secure his judicial murder by the foulest means, were yet so scrupulous that they would not enter the house of a Gentile lest "they should be defiled" (see Deuteronomy 16:4), so that they would not be able to eat the passover. The Pharisees held that contact with a Gentile, or to enter his house was a source of defilement. Hence, this deputation of the Sanhedrim waited without and Pilate "went out unto them" to ascertain their business. Men can be very religious and yet great sinners.
29. What accusation bring ye against this man? As a detachment of Roman soldiers had been furnished to assist in the arrest, he probably knew already that they regarded the prisoner an evil doer, but he did not know what were the specific charges.
30. If he were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered him up unto thee. Their reply shows that they had hoped that Pilate would take their verdict that Jesus was a malefactor, worthy of death, and would send him to death without a trial. They had condemned Jesus to death on the charge of blasphemy, because he declared that he was the Christ, the Son of God, but they knew well that Pilate would be indifferent to a charge of this kind. Such a claim on the part of Jesus would be no offence against the Roman law.
31. Take ye him, and judge him according to your own law. They had judged and condemned according to their own law and Pilate, on their refusal to state their charges, bade them proceed according to their own laws. They answered that this could not be done for "it was not lawful for them to put any man to death." The Roman laws forbade it. The power of life and death had been taken away from them as a subject people.
32. That the saying of Jesus might be fulfilled. Had the Jews been allowed to put Christ to death, he would have been stoned, as Stephen was, by a mob in Jerusalem, stoning being the usual Jewish method of execution, but he had "signified what death he should die" (John 12:32, and Matthew 20:18-19) and had declared that he should be crucified. This was the method of punishment that the Roman uniformly adopted towards conquered races.
33. Then Pilate entered the judgment hall again. Before Pilate returned into the judgment hall, where Jesus had been taken, the Jews had made a formal charge that must demand the attention of Pilate, that Jesus was aiming at the sovereignty of Judea and seeking to overturn the Roman government. See Luke 23:2. These charges were well adapted to perplex Pilate. Jesus did claim that he would establish a kingdom and had come into the world to be a King; he had a few days before entered Jerusalem, hailed by the throng as King of the Jews. It was not to be expected that Pilate would understand that his kingdom was spiritual, especially when a dishonest and wily priesthood was perverting every fact to give color to their accusation. Art thou the King of the Jews? This was a private investigation within the Prætorium, after the Jews, carefully suppressing the religious grounds on which they had condemned our Lord, had advanced against him a triple accusation of, (1) seditious agitation; (2) prohibition of the payment of the tribute-money, and (3) the assumption of the suspicious title of "King of the Jews" (Luke 23:3). This last accusation amounted to a charge of treason--the greatest crime known to Roman law. Of the three points of accusation, (2) was utterly false; (1) and (3), though in a sense true, were not true in the sense intended.
34, 35. Sayest thou this thing of thyself? or, etc. This question of Jesus is not for information, but it strikes right at the merits of the charge. Who made it? Did any Roman ever see me breaking the Roman laws? If a Roman had preferred the charge of insurrection, it might be examined, but when did the Jews find fault with a man who sought to free them? Pilate knew well how restive they were under the Roman yoke, how ready to rebel, and the very hate shown Christ was proof that he was not aiming to be such a King as they desired. Pilate comprehends the point, for he exclaims at once, "Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me." That disproves their charge. But what hast thou done?
36. My kingdom is not of this world. Jesus did not hesitate to relieve the honest perplexity of Pilate; still it would be hard for Pilate, with his gross ideas, to form any conception of a kingdom not of this world, a kingdom of which the subjects did not fight with carnal weapons to defend its king, or to extend its borders. But such was Christ’s. It was not of this world, did not spring from it, was heavenly in its origin, and hence his servants would not fight that he should not be delivered to the Jews. The fact that no resistance was made to his arrest was a proof that his servants did not propose resistance to worldly governments. Note what this remarkable declaration contains: 1. Christ’s kingdom is supernatural, not of human origin. It is in the world but not worldly. 2. It is maintained, not by carnal weapons, but by spiritual and moral means. All attempts to propagate Christianity by the sword are prohibited.
37. Art thou a king then? If Christ has a kingdom he must be a King. Some commentators have thought that Pilate asked this question in contempt of the poor, bound prisoner that was before him, but the gravity of the answer of Jesus shows that it was sincerely asked. The Lord did not reply to sneers. Hence he declares that he had come into the world to be a King, that he was a King, and that all who were under the influence of the truth would hear his voice, because he bore witness to the truth.
38. What is truth? Pilate’s inquiry was not answered in words, but Truth sat embodied and bound before him. It matters not whether his question was sincere, or in pity of one whom he may have thought an enthusiast, it is evident that he was profoundly impressed, for at once he stepped out of the hall to the street, where the priests were waiting, and declared, I find in him no fault at all. It is his formal acquittal in the face of the Sanhedrim. Unless he had been profoundly stirred, he, a bloody, unscrupulous man, would not have cleared a helpless prisoner in the face of the Jewish nation which sought to destroy him.
39. Ye have a custom, that I should release unto you one at the passover. By a comparison of the other accounts it is evident that, in the interval, before his effort to release Jesus according to the custom of the passover feast, he sent Jesus to Herod in order to shuffle off the responsibility, but Herod had sent him back. Then he asks whether he shall not release him, according to the custom. He was placed in a very trying position. Jesus was accused of treason against the Roman emperor; he declared that he was not guilty; the priests then accused Pilate of not being Cæsar’s friend, intimating that they would accuse him to Cæsar. Had he been accused of letting a man go who claimed to be King of the Jews it would have gone hard with him. Still he is intensely averse to being the instrument of the murder of Jesus, and he hopes that they will accept his liberty on account of the passover. The custom had arisen of the Roman governors always dismissing, as an act of favor at that time, one prisoner who had offended the Roman authority. There were only two such prisoners of note in Pilate’s hands. One was Barabbas, a man who had been engaged in sedition in Jerusalem as the leader of a band of robbers, a desperate man and a murderer; the other was Jesus, of whom he had said, "I find in him no fault at all."
40. Not this man, but Barabbas. He had not named Barabbas, but they, in their anxiety to reject Christ, at once name him. The people were stimulated to this choice by the bitter hatred of the priests. It is remarkable that this man Barabbas was confessedly guilty of the very crime with which the priests and rulers had falsely charged Jesus--that of sedition; and no plainer proof of their hypocrisy could be given to the watchful Pilate than their efforts to release the former and condemn the latter.
PRACTICAL OBSERVATIONS.
1. The practical, vital question for every mortal, is that which confronted Pilate, What shall I do with Christ? To every one comes Pilate’s hour, when he must make his decision.
2. The Jews carried Jesus to Pilate "because it was not lawful for them to put any man to death." That proved that the "scepter (power) had departed from Judah." But that was the proof that Shiloh had come. See Genesis 49:10.
3. Are you members of that kingdom which is not of this world? Then you cannot be filled with the spirit of this world. "Be not conformed to this world." "The friendship of the world is enmity to God."
4. Are you of the truth? The test is hearing the voice of Christ. "Every one that is of the truth hears" his voice. Those who can behold his sinless life, his matchless love, and hear his words such as man never spake, and then turn away from him, demonstrate that they do not love the truth. He is the truth itself.
5. What shall I do with Jesus? (1) Every person must do something with Jesus. He must accept or reject him. (2) Some try to escape this decision: (a) by refusing to decide, but that is deciding against him; (b) by substitution of other virtues in the place of believing in Christ; (c) by laying the blame on others, on circ*mstances, on temptations; (d) but it is all in vain. (3) To reject Christ is to reject the sum and soul of all goodness. (4) Rejecting Christ is the great sin of the world. (5) The time will come when those who reject Christ will have to ask," What can I do without Christ?"--P.
6. Jesus long since was nailed to the cross and hanged up against the Judean sky, but the old question, "What shall I do with Jesus?" is still the question of the hour. Barabbas, the robber, who was preferred to Jesus, sleeps in an unknown grave, but there are thieves and highwaymen still. There are moral Barabbases who would rob us of the religion that made this country great and free--that dotted it with school-houses, as the heavens are with stars--that comforts us in affliction and cheers us when our feet touch the dark waters. There are appetites and lusts to rob our hearts of peace, our homes of joy] and our souls of the crown of life. Behold! Jesus knocks at my heart’s door! Shall I receive and honor him? Shall I, with the multitude say, "Away with him! Release Barabbas?" It is the old question, "What shall I do with Jesus?" Like Banquo’s ghost it will not down at my bidding. I cannot evade it. I must be for him or against him. It is the old question still, "Jesus or Barabbas?"--J. B. Johnson.
GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN
B.W. Johnson
JOHN CHAPTER NINETEEN
CHRIST CRUCIFIED.
By a comparison of the four accounts of this momentous trial it is easy to trace its successive stages.
1. We have an account of the informal examination before Annas, recorded only by John (John 18:13-24), which terminates with the statement that Annas sent him bound to Caiaphas.
2. Next is the preliminary examination conducted by Caiaphas aided by a section of the Sanhedrin, of which accounts are given in Matthew 26:57-68 and Mark 14:55-65.
3. Luke gives an account of the formal meeting of the great Sanhedrin after the dawn of day (Luke 22:66-71).
4. Next comes the formal accusation before Pilate, recorded in all the Gospels.
5. The first conference between Christ and Pilate is recorded in John 18:33-38.
6. Pilate’s first acquittal; further charges; Christ’s silence (Matthew 27:12-14; Mark 15:3-5; Luke 23:4-5).
7. Case sent to Herod (Luke 23:6-12). 8. Before Pilate again; second formal acquittal (Luke 23:13-16).
9. Jesus or Barabbas (Matthew 27:15-18; Mark 15:6-10).
10. Message of warning from Pilate’s wife (while people are deciding) (Matthew 27:19).
11. Barabbas chosen. Cries of "Crucify him!" (Matthew 27:20-22; Mark 15:11-13.)
12. Efforts of Pilate to save Jesus (Matthew 27:23; Mark 15:12-14).
13. Pilate washes his hands; declaration of Christ’s innocence (Matthew 27:24-25).
14. Sentence of crucifixion (Mark 15:15; Luke 23:24-25).
15. Scourging and mockery (Matthew 27:26-30; Mark 15:16-19; John 19:1-3).
16. Further efforts of Pilate to save Jesus (John 19:4-16).
17. Led away to be crucified (Matthew 27:31; Mark 15:20).
The great tragedy moves rapidly on. The chief priests, members of the Sanhedrim, and Jewish leaders, had prepared their plans well; so well that Pilate, with all his well-meant endeavors, found himself unable to frustrate them. A great crowd of their creatures surrounded his palace and met every expostulation against the injustice of murdering Jesus with hoarse remonstrances, loud cries and ferocious threats. Accustomed to the inflammatory temper of the Jewish population he feared an uprising at a time when the passover had brought two or three millions of people to the city and when it would be easy to overwhelm the little Roman garrison of 600 men. He feared still more the accusations against him that they proposed to despatch to Cæsar, for he had already learned by their victory over him in a former collision that they were not without influence at Rome. Hence, rather than sacrifice himself, he begins to yield to demands to which he is bitterly opposed and knows to be cruel and unjust. His attempt to relieve himself of responsibility by sending the prisoners to Herod had failed.
1. Then Pilate took Jesus and scourged him. Scourging was the usual preliminary of the Romans to an execution, but Pilate still hoped to appease the Jews by the suffering and humiliation of Jesus, without his death. The Roman scourging was terribly cruel. The word used for scourging implies that it was done, not with rods, for Pilate had no lictors, but with what Horace calls the "horribile flagellum," of which the Russian knout is the only modern representative. The person to be scourged was bound to a low pillar, that, bending over, the blows might be better inflicted. The scourge was made of several thongs with a handle; the thongs were made rough with bits of iron or bone, for tearing the flesh, and thus fitted, it was called a scorpion. See Psalms 129:3; Isaiah 53:5. It was our sins that made Christ suffer thus. Paul was scourged also more than once. See 2 Corinthians 11:24.
It would not be difficult for us to draw from the description of ancient eye-witnesses accounts of the scourging inflicted by the Romans, which would give us some idea of the shame and torture now endured by the Son of man, but perhaps it is better to look beyond the purely physical sufferings of our Savior. It is well to keep in mind, however, that a more brutal soldiery never existed in the world than the Roman. Even the Indian savage is not more unfeeling than was the soldier of the Roman legion. The national brutality which could choose for its sports the combats of gladiators in the arena, or of prisoners with ferocious beasts in the amphitheatre, reached its climax in the men whose trade was war. The laws, made in self-preservation, aimed to protect Roman citizens, but the prisoner of a subject race might as well have appealed for pity to the tiger of an Indian jungle. It is true that Pilate had become strangely interested in Jesus. There was something about the prisoner that excited his wonder and awe; his conscience had probably been stirred as never before, and he had made strenuous efforts to appease the Jewish clamor and to release a prisoner "in whom he found no fault at all." But while averse to decreeing an act of injustice, he had not that stern rectitude that would make him willing to sacrifice himself rather than do wrong, and he had therefore weakly yielded, after an ineffectual struggle. The delivery of Christ to his soldiers for the preliminary scourging, the cruel Roman method of preparing a prisoner for execution, would therefore be a signal to the ferocious men of war in his palace to expend their natural love of brutality on the Lord. Hence, we learn, not only that he was subjected to the scourge, but to the additional shame of mockery. When he was covered with blood and torn with stripes, a most pitiable object to human eyes, in mockery of his kingly claims they array him in the robes of royalty, crown him with thorns, and while pretending adulation, heap indignity on indignity. Oh, the wonders of his love and long-suffering!
2, 3. And the soldiers platted a crown of thorns. The crown of thorns was probably a wreath of thorny leaves something like the common cactus. While presenting the appearance of a crown it would be an instrument of torture. To this emblem of royalty was added a purple, or scarlet robe (both colors are named and with the ancients differed little), which was thrown around him as a royal mantle. Matthew adds that a reed was placed in his hand as a scepter. Then, when they had thus arrayed their torn and bleeding victim, the brutal soldiers began to mockingly salute him and to cry, "Hail, King of the Jews!" Their whole conduct was designed to render his claims of kingly power contemptible. In order to make the humiliation greater they would approach him, as they saluted him as King, extending their hands as if to offer him royal tribute, and then strike him a blow. Whenever I think of one that could have called twelve legions of angels to his rescue, enduring these things, I am amazed beyond expression. Mark adds that they spit on him. In that vast hall were hundreds of ferocious soldiers and they would vie with each other in efforts to insult the prisoner whom they, in their ignorance, supposed to be a rebel seeking royal power.
4. Pilate went forth again. He went out of his palace to the crowd upon the street, preceding Jesus, and again affirming that he found no fault with him, although he had scourged him. From Luke 23:16, we learn that he had proposed to scourge him and then let him go. He seems now to hope that the pitiable condition of the torn and bloody prisoner, as well as his humiliation, will appeal to the better feelings of his enemies. As Jesus, wearing the painful crown and the mocking robe, is led out he exclaims, Behold the man! His own heart is touched. He no longer speaks of him as King, but points to him as a human sufferer. Pilate, unconsciously, described the sufferer aright. That mocked and despised prisoner, with the thorny crown and the streams of blood trickling down from his brow, humiliated, beaten and insulted, was THE MAN, the one perfect man of the human race, the type of ideal manhood. To him all ages point and exclaim, Ecce hom*o! Behold the man!
6. When the chief priests and officers saw him, etc. If Pilate had hoped to excite pity he was doomed to disappointment. Even his hard, heathen heart could not fathom the depths of Jewish hate. His repeated declaration that Jesus was guilty of no crime against Roman law, and the appearance on the porch, of the prisoner in so wretched a state, only provoked the cry, "Crucify him, crucify him!" This cry was evidently tumultuous and threatening. Pilate replies, "Take ye him and crucify him, for I find no fault;" not a permission to crucify him, but an angry answer: "If you want him crucified do it yourselves; I will not, for he has done nothing." This they had no power to do. Pilate’s reply is both a taunt and an accusation of the priests of a wish to crucify an innocent man.
7. We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, etc. We is emphatic. Pilate has decided that Christ is guilty of no crime against Roman law. Then they assert that he has merited death by the violation of their law. They refer to the law against blasphemy in Leviticus 24:16. Let it not be forgotten that the Sanhedrim condemned Jesus to death because he declared that he was the Son of God, and now when other means had failed they make the same charge before the Roman tribunal. Jesus died for the "good confession."
8, 9. When Pilate heard that saying, he was the more afraid. The calmness and majesty of the prisoner had profoundly moved the stern Roman. Man had never endured with such patience and kingly dignity. Now when he heard the statement that he had said that he was the Son of God, he thought at once of all those stories in his heathen mythology, of the gods taking human form. What if this marvelous prisoner was the son of one the gods? He was alarmed. He retired into the judgment hall with Jesus for a fresh examination. He asks, Whence art thou? Art thou of earth or of heaven, human or divine? No answer was returned. The motive of the question was not to know his claims that he might worship him, but to got some knowledge that would relieve his perplexity. Christ gave no answer that would tend to save himself.
10. Knowest thou not . . . that I have power to release thee? Pilate was baffled and piqued by Christ’s calm silence. To extort an answer he boasted of his power and appealed to the motive of fear. He had power to crucify or release. The prisoner would do well to seek to please him.
11. Thou couldest have no power against me, etc. Jesus breaks the silence and at once assumes the position of Pilate’s judge. His language shows that Pilate was the poor, powerless victim of his environment. He could have no power over himself unless it were given him. The divine majesty could blaze forth and smite at once Jew and Roman. Christ submitted because it was the Father’s will that he should drink the cup. Poor, helpless Pilate was not so great a sinner as the Jews who might have known better, who were filled with devilish hate, who were now forcing Pilate to the crime. The words of Christ are really words of compassion. The prisoner to be crucified pities the judge that sends him to the cross!
12. From thenceforth Pilate sought to release him. He continued his efforts, which John passes over with the statement. That they were persistent is indicated by the threatening reply of the Jews: If thou let this man go, thou art not Cæsar’s friend. This means that he will be accused before Cæsar’s tribunal of overlooking treason. The Cæsar then on the throne was Tiberius, dark, suspicious, cruel in character. Such a charge from the representatives of the Jewish nation at Rome would probably prove fatal to Pilate; would certainly end his career as a public man. The risk is too great. He would rather sacrifice an innocent man than himself. Hence he at once surrenders. The struggle is over.
13. Sat down in the judgment seat. He had sat in the judgment seat before and had acquitted Jesus. Now he is brought forth again and Pilate takes the judgment seat in order to condemn him. The judgment seat was a raised platform, a kind of throne, from whence judicial decisions were rendered. John marks the spot where this, the most momentous of earthly decisions, was rendered. It was a spot called the Pavement, probably a square with mosaic pavement in front of the tower of Antonia. Here the seat of judgment was placed.
14. It was the preparation of the passover, and the sixth hour. John marks the exact time when this remarkable judgment was rendered. It was about six o’clock in the morning, on Friday, the day of preparation for the passover. Mark says that the crucifixion began at the third hour, nine o’clock, as the Hebrews began to count at six. John wrote many years later, after Jerusalem had fallen, among people who began to count at midnight, as did all the Roman world, and he therefore used their language and called six o’clock the sixth hour, as we do, rather than the first hour as the Hebrews did.
Another difficulty occurs in the preparation for the passover. Christ and his apostles had eaten the passover already. How then could it be that that was the preparation day? Amid conflicting views I can only give what seems to me the best solution: 1. It is certain that Christ ate a meal the evening before in the Upper Room which was called a passover. 2. It is certain from John 18:28, that the Jews had not eaten the passover at that time. 3. It seems clear to me that Christ, anxious to eat this passover (see Luke 22:15), ate it in advance of the usual time, in order that he, the true Paschal Lamb, "Our Passover," might be offered on the same day that the passover was eaten. The priests hurried the trial and execution of Jesus so that they might proceed to the preparation for the passover that evening. As the Lord’s supper was anticipatory of the suffering on the cross, so was the Lord’s last passover.
15. Shall I crucify your King? Pilate had yielded. His decision was made, but he was full of resentment against the Jews and the words with which he presented Jesus, prepared for crucifixion, were designed to taunt them. "Behold your King!" When they reply with the cruel shout, "Crucify him, crucify him!" he asks with a sneer, "Shall I crucify your King?" To this they reply: We have no king but Cæsar. They had not now. They had rejected the divine King, had chosen Barabbas instead, for life, and now make choice of Cæsar as their king instead of the Lord’s Anointed. To Cæsar’s tender mercies they commit themselves, and in about a generation Cæsar will trample them in the wine press of wrath.
16. Then delivered he him . . . to be crucified. He gave to the Jewish leaders a guard of Roman soldiers ordered to take charge of the prisoner and to execute the sentence. The mob had triumphed, and the Roman had been forced to yield. Thus had been fulfilled the declaration of the prophet that his condemnation should be extorted (Isaiah 53:8). To be crucified. The death to which the Savior was now formally sentenced was regarded by the ancients as the most awful form of punishment known. Even burning was considered preferable. It was never inflicted by the Jews but was common among the Persians, Carthaginians, Greeks and Romans. It is spoken of by Cicero as "the most cruel and disgraceful of punishments," and was never inflicted upon a Roman citizen, though often upon slaves. It was preceded by scourging and the condemned was required to carry his own cross, or a part of it at least, to the place of execution. The place selected was outside of the gates, and on arrival, the sufferer was stripped naked, his clothing becoming a perquisite of his executioners, and the cross was so erected that his feet would only be one or two feet from the earth. Sometimes he was nailed to the cross after it was erected and sometimes before, being thrown upon his back upon the ground, and nails driven through each extended hand and through the feet. A medicated cup was usually given before the nailing out of humanity, in order to stupefy the sufferer and render him less sensible to the exquisite pain. This our Lord refused to take in order that he might meet his fate with his senses all clear. These details are gathered from Smith’s Bible Dictionary, which adds: "It only remains to speak of the manner of death, and the kind of physical suffering endured, which we shall briefly abridge from the physician Richter. These are, 1. The unnatural position and violent tension of the body, which causes a painful sensation on the least motion. 2. The nails being driven through parts of the hands and feet which are full of nerves and tendons (and yet at a distance from the heart), create the most exquisite anguish. 3. The exposure of so many wounds and lacerations brings on inflammation, which tends to become gangrene, and every moment increases the poignancy of suffering. 4. In the distended parts of the body more blood flows through the arteries than can be carried back into the veins; hence, too much blood finds its way from the aorta into the head and stomach, and the blood vessels of the head become swollen and pressed. The general obstruction of the circulation which ensues, causes an internal excitement, exertion and anxiety, more intolerable than death itself. 5. The inexpressible misery of gradually increasing and lingering anguish. To all of which we may add, 6. Burning and raging thirst."
When left to the effect of the cross victims usually lingered about three days and have been known to suffer nine, before death ended their agonies. Sometimes methods of hastening death were resorted to, in mercy, one of which was the breaking of the legs; others were to build fires beneath and stifle with smoke, or to turn wild beasts upon the victim. The first Christian emperor, Constantine, abolished crucifixion as a method of punishment.
PRACTICAL OBSERVATIONS.
1. Think of the love of Him who endured these things from those he came to save, and when he had the power to destroy them in a moment if he would!
2. While thou pourest down thy drunken carouses, thou givest thy Savior a portion of gall; while thou despisest his poor servants, thou spittest in his face; while thou puttest on thy proud dresses, and liftest up thy vain heart with high conceits, thou settest a crown of thorns on his head; while thou wringest and oppressest his poor children, thou whippest him and drawest blood from his hands and feet.--Bishop Hall.
3. They put a reed in his hands as a mock sceptre. Even in the midst of the mockery the truth made itself felt. Herod recognizes his innocence by a white robe, the Roman soldiery his royalty by the sceptre and crown of thorns; and that has become the highest of all crowns.--Cook.
4. Pilate consented to do a deed of injustice rather than suffer the loss of an office and perhaps of his life. Three years later he lost the office and was sent into exile. He tried to "save his life and lost it." For 1800 years he has been pilloried in the estimation of the world. But the prisoner he scourged, suffered to be mocked and crucified, has become the King of men, and rules over a world-wide and eternal empire. "I came to be a king," said he, and he is King forever.
CHRIST CRUCIFIED AND BURIED.
17. He went forth bearing his cross. It was customary to make the condemned carry the timbers of the cross to the place of execution. The cross was laid on Christ, but from weakness, perhaps caused by the scourging and abuse to which he had been subjected, he sinks under the burden. Simon, a Cyrenian who was met in the way, was then compelled by the soldiers to bear the cross. Called the place of a skull . . . Golgotha. A Hebrew word, meaning a skull. From its Latin equivalent, calvaria, comes our English word Calvary, which occurs in the English New Testament only in Luke 23:33, where it should be translated "a skull." The significance of the name is uncertain. Some suppose that it was the common place of execution, and that the skulls of those who were executed lay about; others that it was a bare rounded knoll, in form like a skull.--Abbott. It was, (1) apparently a well-known spot; (2) outside the gate (compare Hebrews 13:12); but (3) near the city (John 19:20); (4) on a thoroughfare leading into the country (Luke 23:26); and (5) contained a "garden" or "orchard" (John 19:41).
18. Where they crucified him. The cross was an upright pole or beam, intersected by a transverse one at right angles, generally in the shape of a T. In this case, from the "title" being placed over the head, the upright beam probably projected above the horizontal one, as usually represented. To this cross, the criminal, being stripped of his clothes, was fixed by nails driven through the hands, and not always, nor perhaps generally, though certainly not seldom, through the feet, separate or united. The body was not supported by the nails, but by a piece of wood which passed between the legs. A death by crucifixion seems to include all that pain and death can have of the horrible and ghastly--dizziness, cramp, thirst, starvation, sleeplessness, traumatic fever, tetanus, publicity of shame, long continuance of torment, horror of anticipation, mortification of untended wounds--all intensified just up to the point at which they can be endured at all, but all stopping just short of the point which would give to the sufferer the relief of unconsciousness. And two other with him. These two are called "thieves" and "malefactors" elsewhere. They may have been zealots who believed in a coming Judean kingdom, made their patriotism a cover for robbery and murder, and had finally been arrested and condemned. It is a reasonable hypothesis that they belonged to the band of which Barabbas was the chief. See Mark 15:7.
19. Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. It was the Roman custom to place on the cross over the criminal’s head, a placard, stating the crime for which he suffered. Luke (Luke 23:38) says that the title was written in Greek, Latin and Hebrew, the chief languages then spoken, and all spectators would be able to read it. The superscription is given differently by each evangelist. This is Jesus the King of the Jews (Matthew 27:37). The King of the Jews (Mark 15:26). This is the King of the Jews (Luke 23:38). Jesus of Nazareth the King of the Jews (John 19:19). Although no serious and sensible writer would dream of talking about "a discrepancy" here, it is very probable that the differences arise from the different forms assumed by the title in the three languages.
20. It was written in Hebrew, and Greek and Latin. The Greek was the universal language of literature; the Latin was the language of the Roman Empire; the Hebrew was spoken vernacularly by the Jews. The rabbins say there are three most powerful languages: The Roman for battle, the Greek for conversation, the Hebrew for prayers.
21, 22. Write not, The King of the Jews. This was the crime of which our Savior had been guilty they said. Pilate intended that the inscription should have a sting in it for the chief priests and elders and scribes. He had been frustrated and galled; and he took his revenge by flashing the idea before the public mind, that it was a crime, in the estimation of at least the chief priests and scribes and elders, to seek to have a Jewish king. Pilate’s shaft did not miss his mark. The chief priests wished him to amend the description thus: "He said, I am King of the Jews;" but he silenced them with the answer, "What I have written, I have written." Thus the cross proclaimed the Kingship of Jesus.
23. Then the soldiers . . . . took his garments, and made four parts. There were four soldiers at the cross and the garments were a perquisite of the soldiers. The outer garments were divided into four parts, one to each, but the coat, rather the "tunic," an inner garment, was seamless, woven in one piece, probably of wool. As it would have been spoiled by dividing it, the soldiers decided to cast lots for it, thus fulfilling another prophecy (Psalms 22:18). This has given occasion to the remark that Christians have, in their party divisions, paid less respect to their Master than the heathen soldiers did.
24. Let us not rend it, but cast lots for it. Romans did not gamble with cards, but dice. Gamblers will ply their trade even in the shadow of the cross, and in the presence of death. The 22nd Psalm, from whence a quotation was made, has been universally regarded by Christian critics as referring to the Messiah.
25. There stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, etc. While the apostles mostly were afar off, the women were near the cross. Some have held that there were only three, "his mother’s sister" being "Mary the wife of Cleophas," but the best Bible students think otherwise and suppose that Salome, the mother of James and John, is the sister meant. Matthew names among the women, "Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of Joses, and the mother of Zebedee’s children." The last, Salome, is supposed to have been the sister of the mother of Jesus (Matthew 27:56
26, 27. Woman, behold thy son! Agonizing as the sight was, it was the part of a mother to press as near her great suffering son as possible, and she, with other saintly women, were near the foot of the cross. Jesus, in that awful hour, thought of others rather than himself, and looking at John, the nephew of Mary if Salome was her sister, he said to his mother, "Behold thy son!" No doubt a widow, and now bereft of her son, he commends her to the watch-care of John, an example of filial affection most wonderful when we consider the agonies of the cross. The original is more graphic than our English Version. The Savior’s words are: "Woman, look! thy son I" and "Look! thy mother!" words brief, ejacul*tory, in perfect harmony with his state of mortal agony. From that hour, or time, John took Mary to his own home, and she, doubtless, remained there till her death.
28. After this, Jesus . . . . saith, I thirst. All things were now accomplished, the end was at hand, and in order that the predictions of the, Old Testament Scriptures might be fulfilled by his death, he comes to the last moment saying, "I thirst." I hold this to be the meaning, as there is no prediction that he should utter these words.
29. Now there was set a vessel full of vinegar. This was the sour wine used by the soldiers; not mixed with myrrh, as in the case of the stupefying draught Jesus had refused before crucifixion (Mark 15:23). The sponge had probably served instead of a cork to the jar in which the soldiers had brought the drink that was to refresh them in their long day’s work. Some one, probably a soldier, heard the cry, "I thirst," and, prompted by a rough pity, stretched out a cane or stalk of hyssop (John 19:29), with the sponge that had been dipped in the wine upon it, and bore it to the parched lips of the Sufferer. It was not now refused.
30. He said, It is finished. This is a cry of triumph. He had won the victory and had reached the end of his cruel pathway. It betokens a deep sensation of relief, relief from a crushing burden, rest after agonizing toil. The work of redemption was wrought. He had said, "I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how am I straitened till it be accomplished!" His baptism of suffering was now over. It is interesting to study all the words uttered by Jesus on the cross. By a comparison of all the Evangelists this will be found to be his sixth utterance. The three Evangelists all dwell upon the loudness of the cry, as if it had been the triumphant note of a conqueror. The last words from the cross were those recorded in Luke 23:46, "Father, into thy hands," etc. This cry of Jesus teaches us that his death does not proceed from the decay of his strength, but from the excess of his love; that his life is not taken from him by violence, but that he gives it up by his power. It is, on the part of the Jews, a Deicide and a sacrilege; but on his own it is a holy and voluntary sacrifice. He bowed his head and gave up the ghost. "Gave up his spirit" (Revision). The record does not say that he died. He, voluntarily, of his own act, surrendered up his spirit. He had declared, "I lay down my life to take it up again." He died by his own act; he was raised by his own power. If he died by his own surrender of his spirit, his death was not due to the effect of the cross. The two malefactors outlived him, and were put to death by other means in the evening in order that they might not be upon the cross upon the passover sabbath (see John 19:31-33), but Jesus was already dead. The physical cause of Christ’s death has been thought by many to have been rupture of the heart. (1) Crucifixion was generally a very lingering death; the victim lived seldom less than twenty-four hours, often three or four days. (2) Usually the victim died of sheer exhaustion; but Christ was not exhausted, as he cried with a loud voice. (3) John records that blood and water flowed from Christ’s side when pierced by the spear. This could only occur if the heart had been ruptured, and the blood, before death, had flowed out into the cavity which surrounds the heart. Christ then literally died of a broken heart. This theory draws our hearts away from the mere bodily tortures which Christ endured, to the mysterious woe that pressed upon him on account of imputed sin. For a full discussion of this question, see Hanna’s Life of Christ, vol. 3, in which the views of the most eminent British physicians are given. Dr. Simpson, whose reputation is world wide, declares that the cross could not have caused the death so soon, and the thrust of the spear was a rude post mortem examination, revealing the blood and water, which could only result from a rupture of the heart. For further information on this subject we refer the reader to Dr. Stroud’s Physical Cause of the Death of Christ, chap. iv., and also to McClintock & Strong’s Cyclopedia, art. on Crucifixion. Gave up the ghost. More correctly, gave up the spirit. The word rendered ghost (pneuma) occurs in the New Testament 393 times, is applied to the spirit of God 288 times, to evil spirits some 30 times, and to the human spirit 40 times, while it is applied to the disposition 17 times. "God is a spirit," and he created man in his own image, that is, gave him a spirit also. When death occurs the spirit, or deathless portion of our being "returns to God who gave it." Stephen said: "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit;" the Lord said: "Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit;" John says of the Lord’s death, "He gave up the spirit." We have a body, soul and spirit, and Paul, writing to the Thessalonians, prays God to preserve "their whole spirit, soul and body, blameless unto the coming of the Lord." The body perishes, the soul dies, but the spirit departs. The soul (psuchee) is never commended by the dying saint to God, but the never-dying spirit (pneuma). Nowhere in the divine volume is the spirit said to be destroyed, to die or cease to exist. Mortality belongs to the mortal portion of our being, but is never predicated of a spirit. The words applied here to the Savior’s death are those that apply to his death as a member of our race.
31. The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation. Some urge that this refers to the preparation for the Sabbath day, but John explains the meaning in which he uses the word "preparation," in John 19:14, where he says distinctly "it was the preparation of the passover." It is true that the next day was the Sabbath and "that Sabbath was an high day." It was more than an ordinary Sabbath. The annual Sabbath of the passover, "the first day of unleavened bread," which was set apart as a Sabbath by the law, coincided with the weekly Sabbath, making that Sabbath of unusual solemnity. That the bodies should not remain upon the cross. It was the Roman custom, as well as that of other Gentile lands, to leave the body on the cross to putrefy and be devoured by carrion eating birds and beasts, but this was forbidden by the Jewish law which, partly as a sanitary measure and partly as a ceremonial obligation, required immediate burial (Deuteronomy 21:23). Hence, in Judea, out of deference to Jewish prejudices the Romans yielded their custom. These Jews, who had no scruples about sending an innocent man to death on trumped-up charges, and who resorted to the most unscrupulous methods to defeat justice, were such sticklers for these ceremonials that they would have considered it an awful profanation of sacred things if the body of one whom they had murdered had remained on the cross over the Sabbath day! Their legs might be broken. Breaking the legs was a barbarous method adopted to hasten death, probably instituted as much to add horror as to terminate sufferings. The legs were crushed with a hammer somewhat like a sledge, and the shock would bring speedy death. The Jewish authorities simply request Pilate that he shall order the coup de grace to be administered in order that the bodies may be taken down from the cross.
32, 33. Then came the soldiers. At the orders of Pilate the soldiers, beginning with the two outside sufferers, broke their legs in succession, but when they came to Jesus, the central figure, they found him already dead, and, hence, "broke not his legs." Thus as the paschal lambs, slain at that very hour, and eaten that evening, were preserved with bones unbroken, so "the Lord our passover" descended from the cross, pierced and mangled, but not a bone was broken.
34. One of the soldiers . . . pierced his side. The object of this thrust is apparent. When they came to him to break his bones he was lifeless. It occurred to the soldiers that he might have swooned away, and to put his death beyond a doubt, he thrust his spear into his left side, the side of the heart. There came out blood and water. The blood and water that followed the withdrawal of the spear shows that the heart was pierced. The soldier, no doubt, aimed at the heart. The water, with clots of blood, can only be accounted for naturally by the previous rupture of the heart and the flow of blood into the pericardium, or outer sac of the heart, where it would be liable to separate very rapidly into water and clots of blood. Hence, as already stated, the Savior died of a broken heart.
35. He that saw it bear record. The writer here identifies himself as an eye-witness, as one standing near the cross, as in fact, John the apostle. The reader cannot but note the emphasis that he places upon what he has just recorded concerning the spear thrust and the blood and water. Already in the days of John there was prevalent an agnostic skeptical theory that Jesus did not really, but only seemed to, die; and John proposed to set this matter at rest. What he saw proves the death of the Lord beyond a doubt. His testimony equally sets at rest the suggestions of modern skepticism that Christ merely fainted from exhaustion and was taken down from the cross, and subsequently restored by his disciples. There has been much spiritualizing of the blood and water by a class of mythical commentators who see in everything a deep, mysterious, hidden meaning. The fact that in 1 John 5:8, it is stated that three bear witness, the Spirit, the water and the blood, furnishes some warrant for allowing a special emphasis upon the blood and the water, but not for some of the curious interpretations. If we seek aid from the epistle we find that there John declares that Christ came by "water and by blood;" that is, his work was inaugurated by his baptism and the great tragedy was ended when he shed his blood. Then he adds that the three bear witness, the Spirit, the water, and the blood. It must be kept in mind that John is citing these as witnesses to Christ, and to understand him we must seek how they bear witness. 1. We have already ascertained, in the discussion of the Comforter, how the Spirit bears witness and to this discussion I refer the reader. 2. Taking up the blood, it is also clear how it bears witness. The Lord himself appointed an institution, in which a chosen symbol represents his blood, and he has said, "As oft as ye do this (use this symbol in the appointed way) you do show forth my death." As the passover bore witness to the first passover in Egypt, so every celebration of the Lord’s Supper, a memorial institution appointed at the foot of the cross, bears witness to his death, and the "blood of the New Testament, shed for many for the remission of sins," to his blood shed on the cross. 3. It thus becomes clear that the water must refer to the other great positive institution established by our Lord. Every baptismal rite bears witness also. The burial in the water is emblematical of the Lord’s death and burial, and "we are buried by baptism into death," while the uplifting from the watery grave is "in the likeness of his resurrection." Hence, the water of the baptismal rite bears witness to the Lord’s death, burial and resurrection, or to the three great facts of the gospel (1 Corinthians 15:1-4). If, therefore, John attaches any deep meaning to "the water and the blood" it is because they symbolize the two great positive institutions established by our Lord, and which are two of the "three witnesses" which testify to the vital facts of his life, death, burial and resurrection.
36, 37. For these things were done that the scripture should be fulfilled. The prophetic Scriptures alluded to are Exodus 12:46, and Zechariah 12:10. The paschal lamb, the bones of which were not to be broken, was regarded by the Jews, and is spoken of both in the Old and New Testaments, as a type of the "Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world." As the writers of the Gospels were Jews and had in mind, to a great extent, while writing, a Jewish class of readers, they pay great attention to the fulfillment of prophecy in Christ. We find the same thing in the speeches of Peter and Paul to Jewish audiences, of which a report is given Acts. Nothing conveyed conviction quicker to a Jew than to see that, even in the minutest particulars, Jesus corresponded, not only with the predictions of the prophets, but the types of the law.
38. After this Joseph of Arimathea. Joseph of Arimathea is not named except in connection with the burial of Christ, and we know nothing of him save what is related in that connection. We learn by a comparison of statements that he belonged to Arimathea, a place now unknown, that he was a member of the Sanhedrim like Nicodemus, both of whom were absent or overawed during the trial of Christ, that he was a rich man, was a disciple "secretly for fear of the Jews," and in this respect, like Nicodemus, and that he had a new sepulcher "wherein no man had been laid" near where the Lord was crucified. The death of Christ seems to have given new courage to both him and Nicodemus. Coward before, be now boldly asks Pilate for the body, and the secret disciples do not hesitate to take the body from the cross and to bury it lovingly in the new-made, rock-hewn sepulcher. Pilate gave him leave. We learn from Mark that Pilate was surprised to hear that Jesus was so soon dead, and that he sent to ascertain whether it was really true. As soon as he learned, he gave assent. As the Savior died at 3 o’clock, the burial took place between that hour and sunset.
39. There came also Nicodemus. This is the third mention of Nicodemus, the first in John 3:1, the second Joh 7:50, where he enters a protest against the injustice of the Sanhedrim, and here he come to assist in the burial of Christ, bringing along an hundred weight of myrrh and aloes. The Sanhedrim had condemned Christ to death, but two Sanhedrists gave him a costly burial. Myrrh and aloes. These were fragrant materials, and placed, in a pulverized condition, in the linen grave-clothes with which the body was wrapped. They not only gave off a pleasant fragrance but delayed decomposition. The great quantity used shows that his very couch was formed of spices.
40. As the manner of the Jews is to bury. The Jews did not embalm as did the Egyptians, though in the case of King Asa there seems to be a hint of it, but it was the custom to wash the body, anoint it, and then wrap it in fine linen with spices and ointments enveloped in the folds. It is probable that the approach of the Sabbath hurried the preparation of the body, and it seems from the return of the women after the Sabbath that they did not consider the burial rites fully completed. Comparing the four accounts we learn that the body was wrapped in fine linen clothes with spices, and laid in a new rock-hewn sepulcher in a garden near the place of crucifixion, and that the sepulcher had never before been used. It was common in Palestine to cut vaults for the burial of the dead in the sides of the rocky cliffs and to close them with stones. It is probable that Joseph had built this for the sepulcher for himself and family. Thus is fulfilled the prediction of Isaiah (Isaiah 53:1-12), that though Christ was "numbered with the transgressors," "he was with the rich in his death."
42. There then because of the Jew’s preparation . . . and they laid Jesus. This probably is mentioned to explain that the burial was hurried and not fully completed, a fact that seems to be indicated in the Gospels. How much pathos in the words, "there they laid Jesus!" In the tomb of Jesus the Jews supposed his works to be buried forever. In it were buried the hopes of his disciples who had "trusted that he would restore the kingdom to Israel." In it, had he not risen, would have been buried the Gospel, Christian civilization, and the hopes of the world. The future of the world was sleeping in his tomb.
PRACTICAL OBSERVATIONS.
1. To the cross the Old Testament pointed. From the cross the New Testament histories radiate, and thence comes all the inspiration of the Christian life.
2. At the crucifixion scene, Rome, with her paganism, was represented in the executioners; Judaism with its formalities, in the rulers and the people whom they swayed; and Christianity with its tender fidelity, in the women, who with John, stood by.
3. The parted garments are an emblem of the Church in its universality, to be sent out into the four quarters of the globe; the unparted garment is emblematic of the Church in its unity, to be kept whole and unparted; the gambling soldiers are an emblem of those who treat the unity of the Church of Christ as a matter of indifference.--Wordsworth.
4. Christ crucified shows (1) the evil of sin; (2) the greatness of our danger; (3) the value of salvation; (4) the wonderful love of God; (5) it strengthens every motive for being good; (6) it is the culmination of our perfect example.
5. THE ATONEMENT.--We read in the introduction of the Holy Word that "he suffered for our sins, the just for the unjust;" "he was crucified for us;" "he was made sin for us;" "he made his soul an offering for sin;" "he put away sin by the sacrifice of himself by one offering he hath perfected forever them that are sanctified;" "he is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world;" "he hath reconciled us to God by his blood;" "he gave his life a ransom for many;" "he redeemed us to God by his own blood;" "his blood was shed for many for the remission of sins;" "he hath washed us from our sins in his own blood;" "his blood cleanseth from all sins;" "we are justified freely by God’s grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus;" "God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not reckoning unto them their trespasses;" "Christ purchased us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us." It is futile to say that all these passages are more or less figurative. So is nearly all language. Sir William Hamilton showed that most of the apparently literal terms used in logical discussions are faded metaphors. There are certain unmistakable thoughts conveyed in these sacred texts, and they are that the atonement made by Christ for the sins of men is a ransom, a propitiation, a sacrifice.--Joseph Cook.
6. THE RETRIBUTION OF HISTORY.--And now mark, for one moment, the revenges of history. Has not His blood been on them, and on their children? Has it not fallen most of all on those most nearly concerned in that deep tragedy? Before the dread sacrifice was consummated, Judas died in the horrors of a loathsome suicide. Caiaphas was deposed the year following. Herod died in infamy and exile. Stripped of his Procuratorship very shortly afterwards, on the very charges he had tried by a wicked concession to avoid, Pilate, wearied out with misfortunes, died in suicide and banishment, leaving behind him an execrated name. The house of Annas was destroyed a generation later by an infuriated mob, and his son was dragged through the streets, and scourged and beaten to his place of murder. Some of those who shared in and witnessed the scenes of that day--and thousands of their children--also shared in and witnessed the long horrors of that siege of Jerusalem which stands unparalleled in history for its unutterable fearfulness. "It seems," says Renan, "as though the whole race had appointed a rendezvous for extermination." They had shouted, "We have no king but Cæsar!" and they had no king but Cæsar; and leaving only for a time the fantastic shadow of a local and contemptible loyalty, Cæsar after Cæsar outraged, and tyrannized, and pillaged, and oppressed them, till at last they rose in wild revolt against the Cæsar whom they had claimed, and a Cæsar slaked in the blood of its best defenders the red ashes of their burnt and desecrated Temple. They had forced the Romans to crucify their Christ, and though they regarded this punishment with especial horror, they and their children were themselves crucified in myriads by the Romans outside their own walls, till room was wanting and wood failed, and the soldiers had to ransack a fertile inventiveness of cruelty for fresh methods of inflicting this insulting form of death. They had given thirty pieces of silver for their Savior’s blood, and they were themselves sold in thousands for yet smaller sums. They had chosen Bar-Abbas in preference to their Messiah, and for them there has been no Messiah more, while a murderer’s dagger swayed the last counsels of their dying nationality. They had accepted the guilt of blood, and the last pages of their history were glued together with the rivers of their blood, and that blood continued to be shed in wanton cruelties from age to age. They who will, may see in incidents like these the mere unmeaning chances of History; but there is in History nothing unmeaning to one who regards it as the Voice of God speaking among the destinies of men; and whether a man sees any significance or not in events like these, he must be blind indeed who does not see that when the murder of Christ was consummated, the axe was laid at the root of the barren tree of Jewish nationality. Since that day Jerusalem and its environs, with their "ever-extending miles of grave-stones and ever-lengthening pavement of tombs and sepulchres," have become little more than one vast cemetery--an Aceldama, a field of blood, a potter’s field to bury strangers in. Like the mark of Cain upon the forehead of their race, the guilt of that blood has seemed to cling to them--as it ever must until that same blood effaceth it. For, by God’s mercy, that blood was shed for them also who made it flow; the voice which they strove to quench in death was uplifted in its last prayer for pity on his murderers. May that blood be efficacious I may that prayer be heard!--Farrar.
GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN
B.W. Johnson
JOHN CHAPTER TWENTY
THE RESURRECTION.
At the request of the priests, Pilate sealed the door of the sepulcher with the Roman seal and placed a guard of sixteen Roman soldiers over it, lest "his disciples should steal away the body." There, upon the last seventh day Sabbath of the world, the torn and weary body of the Lord lay at rest. The faithful and loving women, who had stood at the cross, had followed the body to its resting place, and "Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of Jesus, beheld where it was laid," having observed it before the Roman guard was placed there. After the Sabbath was passed, they returned, early on the first day of the week, to embalm the body with sweet spices, a tribute not satisfactorily attended to amid the confusion of the hurried burial. They found no body in the tomb.
Farrar says with great force and justice: At the moment when Christ died, nothing could have seemed more abjectly weak, more pitifully hopeless, more absolutely doomed to scorn and extinction and despair, than the Church which he had founded. It numbered but a handful of weak followers. They were poor, they were ignorant, they were hopeless. They could not claim a single synagogue or a single sword. So feeble were they, and insignificant, that it would have looked like foolish partiality to prophesy for them the limited existence of a Galilean sect. How was it that these dull and ignorant men, with their cross of wood, triumphed over the deadly fascinations of sensual mythologies, conquered kings and their armies, and overcame the world? There is one, and one only, possible answer--the resurrection from the dead. All this vast revolution was due to the power of Christ’s resurrection.
THREE DAYS AND THREE NIGHTS.--There has been much discussion of the time that the Savior’s body was in the grave. As he had spoken of it being three days and nights in the earth, some have insisted that he was crucified on Thursday, buried Thursday evening, and was in the tomb Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights. If the passover had come that year on Thursday evening, there would be no inconsistency between this hypothesis and the facts, for Friday would have been an annual Sabbath. This view, which has been ably advocated by some learned writers, reconciles the four expressions that refer to the time of burial, (1) "On the third day," (2) "After three days, (3) "In three days," and (4) "After three days and three nights" as follows. It is said that "on the third day" may include a period beginning with the first minute of the first day and ending with the last minute of the third, embracing in all seventy-two hours. "After three days," it is insisted, means the same as "three days and three nights," while "in three days" may include the last minute of a period of seventy-two hours. It is, therefore, held that this is the exact period that the Savior’s body was in the tomb, extending from the time of burial on Thursday evening until the time of resurrection on Sunday, three days and three nights being the measure by which we are to settle the duration of the indefinite expressions. While all this seems plausible it labors under the difficulty that it does not harmonize with the facts. These facts should be noted: 1. The Savior was buried on the day he was crucified. He was crucified and buried on "the day of preparation," and "the next day that followed the day of preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees came together unto Pilate" to ask a guard. According to Matthew, then, the first day of burial is the day of the crucifixion. Mark also says that Christ was buried on the evening of the day of preparation. Luke also says that he was buried on the day of preparation. John says the same thing. This, then, is the first day, in the evening. The Savior is buried near the close of the first, instead of the beginning. If it was Thursday, Friday would be the second day, Saturday the third, and Sunday, on which all admit that he rose, the fourth day. The theory named above would require that the burial take place the very beginning of the first and the rising at the very close of the third, whereas the very opposite is true. If he was buried on Thursday and rose on Sunday, he rose on the fourth day. This view, therefore, is to be rejected, and we are to understand the expression "three days and three nights," not according to ours, but according to the Hebrew idiom. A day and a night was expressed by a single term meaning a day-night. Any part of the period was made to stand for the whole. The parts of Friday and Sunday that the Savior was in the tomb would stand for the Friday and Sunday "day-nights," while the whole of Saturday is, of course, included. See 2 Chronicles 10:5; 2 Chronicles 10:12, where the people sent away for three days returned on the third day. Also 1 Samuel 30:12-13, where three days is the same period as three days and three nights. These two references show that the "third day." "three days" and "three nights," according to Hebrew usage, means the same period of time.
1. The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early. The Sabbath ended at sunset, so that Jesus had been dead and buried Friday night, Saturday, and Sunday morning, beginning at the previous sunset, three days according to Jewish reckoning. See 1 Samuel 30:12-13; 2 Chronicles 10:5; 2 Chronicles 10:12. This visit John says was "early, while it was yet dark;" Mark says "very early in the morning;" Matthew says "As it began to dawn." John names Mary Magdalene as the important one of these women who visited the tomb, but does not say she was alone. From the other evangelists we learn that Mary, the mother of James and Joses, and Salome were with her, and that they came with sweet spices to embalm the body of Jesus, expecting to secure aid to remove the stone. The fact that they came to embalm the body shows that they were not satisfied with the coarser, but loving treatment of Joseph and Nicodemus, and that they did not expect a resurrection. To their astonishment they found the stone rolled away.
2. Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, etc. The reason that John mentions Mary Magdalene alone is shown in this statement. She was the one who ran and met Peter and himself. Her sad cry, "They have taken the Lord away out of the sepulcher, and we know not where they have laid him," shows that others were with her at the sepulcher. Her only explanation was that the enemies had taken away the body. While Mary had gone to seek the disciples the other women entered the sepulcher and saw an angel there. See Matthew 28:6-7.
3, 4, Peter . . . came to the sepulcher. As soon as Peter and John heard the story of Mary Magdalene they at once hurried out of the city to the sepulcher. They were intensely excited by the startling story, and ran with their utmost speed to the sepulcher. John seems to have been the swifter of the two and reached it first. The circ*mstantial details he gives are those of an eye witness.
5, 6, 7. And he . . . saw the linen clothes lying. Though John reached the sepulcher first he was so awed that he did not enter in, but through the open door he saw the tomb to be empty, but linen clothes that Joseph and Nicodemus had used for burial garments (see John 19:40) lying within. Peter, more impulsive and bolder, as soon as he reached the tomb, went within and also noted the linen wrappings, carefully folded, and even the napkin that was about his head, placed in such a way as to show that the tomb had not been rudely robbed.
8, 9. Then went in that other disciple . . . and he saw and believed. When John entered in, saw the careful attention paid to the grave clothes, and knew that rude robbers could not have taken the body, it flashed upon his mind, for the first time, that the Lord had risen. So dull had they all been, according to his confession, notwithstanding the clear, Scripture statements and the teachings of the Lord, that they had not before understood that he should rise from the dead. This is the first gleam of faith in the Lord’s resurrection. John was the first believer.
10. The disciples went away again to their own home. Probably to the house of John, which there is reason to believe was in Jerusalem. The tomb was empty; there was nothing more they could do but simply to await the developments that might come.
11. Mary stood without at the sepulcher weeping. She had followed Peter and John more slowly, and when all the other disciples departed she remained to weep at the place where the Lord had lain. She also stooped and gazed through her tears into the sepulcher, but without hope, when suddenly she
12, 13. Seeth two angels, clothed in white. It is not certain that she at first knew them to be angels; she was stupefied almost with grief, and they had the appearance of men, as did the angel seen by the other women whom she had not met since she ran for Peter and John. They asked her, Why weepest thou? and her answer shows that the stone rolled away from the door of the sepulcher has not been lifted from her heart; "Because they have taken away my Lord and I know not where they have laid him." To her, still, the broken tabernacle of clay laid in the tomb, is her Lord.
14. She turned herself back, and saw Jesus standing. As she spoke of her Lord her Lord was there, though she did not recognize him. Her failure to do so was due probably in part to her preoccupation and excitement of mind and to the dimness of the light. She saw a man, and paid little heed at first to his appearance, though it may be possible that her "eyes were holden," as in the case of the disciples on the way to Emmaus.
15. Woman, why weepest thou? The same question is asked, first, by the Lord that had been by his angels in the tomb. Mary, still heedless of all but her sorrow, without looking, takes it for granted that it is the gardener who has charge of the garden in which the sepulchre was placed, for who else would be likely to be there so early? She at once asks him about the body. As yet her hope is dead.
16. Jesus saith unto her, Mary. . . . Rabboni. Before she had been listless, but when she heard her name in the accents she remembered so well, she at once beheld her Lord, and crying out, Rabboni, Master, she attempted to throw herself at his feet.
17. Touch me not, for I am not yet ascended to my Father. She, in her gladness, sought to grasp her Lord about the feet. There has been much conjecture as to the reasons underlying the Savior’s prohibition. It seems to me that the explanation is about as follows: She desired to fling herself upon the Lord and retain him, but it was needful that he come and go, during the time he showed himself to his disciples, until he "ascended to his Father." Then would he come again by the Spirit to be with his disciples forever. Had he permitted her embrace he would have been compelled, in a moment, to escape from her, but since he has ascended to his Father he abides with the saints forever! Though Mary is not allowed to embrace him, there is assigned to her a higher privilege. She is told to go and tell the glad story to my brethren. He is still our Brother. I ascend to my Father. The time of the ascension is viewed as present. He has risen; he ascends; another step in his exaltation. The Father to whom he ascends is "your Father" also. The disciples are brethren of the Lord and children of his Father.
18. Mary Magdalene came and told the disciples that she had seen the Lord. The women were last at the cross; they followed the body to the tomb; they were first to see the open tomb; first to hear the story of the resurrection from an angel, and Mary was the first to see the Lord. Great is the faith and devotion of the sex; great is the honor with which the Lord has crowned the faith and devotion of women.
PROOFS OF THE RESURRECTION.
I have been used for many years to study the history of other times, and to examine and weigh the evidences of those who have written about them; and I know of no one fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better and fuller evidence of every sort, to the mind of a fair inquirer, than that Christ died, and rose again from the dead.--Dr. Arnold.
I. Proved by the enemies of Christ. (1) It was impossible for these enemies to deny that Christ had by some means left the grave. (2) It was impossible for them to give any other explanation than that which they now invented--that his disciples stole the body. (3) It was impossible for this, the only explanation they could give, to be credited; for the disciples could not have stolen him if they would.
II. Proved by the friends of Christ. (1) The apostles had the most powerful faith in the fact. They were unanimous in their declaration of it a few days after, on the very spot on which it occurred, and that to men who were prepared to do anything to conceal the fact. (2) This faith came in direct opposition to their previous beliefs and worldly interests. They had no expectation and no hope of such resurrection. (3) They had every opportunity for thoroughly satisfying themselves on the point. (4) By their declaration of the fact they induced thousands of the enemies of Christ to believe in it, and that close to the time and near the spot on which it occurred. The early Church universally believed in it; and it is incredible that a myth, a false story, should have So grown up without substantial foundation.--From Thomas’ Genius of the Gospel. (5) They attested this fact, not only by their lives, but by their death. (6) Only the fact of the resurrection can account for the marvelous change in the spirit and character of the apostles. The resurrection completely transformed them; inspired them with a new conception of Christ’s, kingdom as for all people, with a new courage to suffer for the sake of their risen Lord and his kingdom, and with a new purpose to preach Christ and him crucified everywhere as a spiritual redemption for sin (Acts 2:39; Acts 5:41; Acts 10:43). Neither fraud nor fiction is competent to account for the moral contrast. (7) A singular and significant testimony to the truth of the resurrection is afforded by the change in the Sabbath day. It was changed, not by any express command in the New Testament, but by the almost universal consent of the Church, which could not endure to observe as a day of joy and gladness that on which Christ lay in the tomb, nor forbear to mark as a weekly festival that on which he arose.--Abbott.
PRACTICAL OBSERVATIONS.
1. The most glorious hopes are sometimes born out of the womb of darkness.
2. The stone that was rolled away from the door of the sepulcher has been rolled from human hearts.
3. Those that seek Christ need not fear though they do not find him at first, and in the way they expect.
4. Go to the cross and tomb of Christ and perhaps there will be revealed to thee the risen Lord.
5. THE RESURRECTION.--(1) It demonstrates that Christ is the Son of God. If he could not conquer death, and come back from heaven, he could prove that at the first he came from heaven. (2) It is the proof of immortal life beyond the grave: that death does not end all, but the soul lives after the body dies. (3) It is the assurance of our own resurrection. (4) It shows that our Savior has power over every one of our enemies. (5) It teaches the moral resurrection, that being dead to sin we should be alive unto God.
6. THE DEATH OF CHRIST.--The death of our Lord is the most remarkable event of history, far more astounding in the development of the plans of God than his coming into the world. Yet it has a fitness that demonstrates it to be in harmony with the divine arrangement. Though the Jews could not understand, their own law with its sacrifices and its types, and their own prophets were pointing forward all through their history to the sacrifice of Calvary. Their Scriptures showed "that it behooved Christ to suffer and to be raised again from the dead." All prophecy points him out as one who came into the world to die, the only being who ever came with death as the principle object of his coming. Yet "it behooved him to die," 1. To demonstrate the exceeding sinfulness of Prayer of Manasseh 1:2. The surprising love of God; 3. To accomplish human redemption; 4. To bring to light immortality; 5. To achieve the victory of the cross. By the cross he conquered.
THE LORD SEEN BY THE APOSTLES.
After the Savior’s first recorded appearance, that to Mary Magdalene, he revealed himself at some time during this eventful day, the first Lord’s day in the history of the world, to Simon Peter, and late in the evening appeared to the disciples on the way to Emmaus. These hurried back at once to Jerusalem with the glad story, and found the eleven gathered, with others, discussing the account told by the women and by Peter. They added their testimony, but still there was such skepticism of the resurrection that many refused to believe. Then, while the company sat at meat, with the doors closed for fear of the Jews, suddenly the Lord appeared in their midst, with the salutation, "Peace be unto you." The following are the recorded appearances of the Savior after his crucifixion. There were ten or eleven in all.
1. To Mary Magdalene alone (Mark 16:9; John 20:11-18), near Jerusalem,--Sunday, April 9.
2. To the women returning from the sepulchre (Matthew 28:9-10), near Jerusalem,--Sunday, April 9. I suspect this is another version of the appearance to Mary Magdalene.
3. To Simon Peter alone (Luke 24:34), near Jerusalem,--Sunday, April 9.
4. To the two disciples going to Emmaus (Luke 24:13), etc.,--Sunday, April 9.
5. To the apostles at Jerusalem, excepting Thomas, who was absent (John 20:19),--Sunday, April 9.
6. To the apostles at Jerusalem a second time, when Thomas was present (John 20:26; John 20:29),--Sunday, April 16.
7. At the Sea of Tiberias, when seven disciples were fishing (John 21:1).
8. To the eleven disciples on a mountain in Galilee (Matthew 28:16).
9. To above 500 brethren at once (1 Corinthians 15:6), in Galilee, near the time of the last. It is possible that these two are identical.
10. To James only (1 Corinthians 15:7).
11. To all the apostles on Mount Olivet at his ascension (Luke 24:51),--Thursday, May 18.
19. Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week. John particularly marks the time of this important event. It is the third or fourth appearance of the Savior upon this memorable day, and the first one to the apostolic body. By a comparison with (Mark 16:14-16, and Luke 24:36, we learn that at the moment of his appearance they were discussing the story of the resurrection of which many refused to be convinced, so incredulous were they. The doors were shut . . . for fear of the Jews. Probably barred as well as shut. It was only natural to suppose that the vengeance that had fallen on the Master would also visit his followers. He had himself forewarned them of persecution. Peter’s fear had been shown by his repeated denial of Christ. Came Jesus and stood in the midst. They suddenly saw him among them. How he came, whether by miracle, or whether his body now had new conditions which freed it from material hindrances, it is useless for us to discuss, as it is an untaught question. It is enough for us to know and accept the fact. Luke states that they were "affrighted," which was only natural, and this explains the loving salutation that John records, Peace be unto you, the usual salutation of friendship and love.
20. He shewed unto them his hands and his side. The Lord showed his wounds to convince them beyond a doubt that it was not a fantasy or an apparition, but the crucified one arisen. A week later he shows his wounds to Thomas. The resurrected body still bore these proofs of his suffering and love. Sixty years later, when John, at Patmos, saw the Lion of the Tribe of Judah, he beheld "a Lamb as it had been slain." Perhaps our Lord in glory continues to bear the marks of the cross. Perhaps these will forever, as we gaze in glory, remind us of the story of our redemption. When the apostles beheld these marks they were glad. All doubt had passed away. The test was indisputable. The Savior had risen indeed.
21. Peace be unto you: as my father hath sent me, even so send I you. Now that they know that he is their Master, he again repeats his blessing, and then reminds them of their work upon earth. As he had come to the world because the Father sent him, and represented the Father, so they, the apostles, are now sent by him and will speak his will. They are the executors of the Testament of Jesus Christ, the New Testament, that comes into force after the Testator dies, (Hebrews 9:15-17), and are to be sent forth to proclaim its provisions. This is the first development of the Great Commission, more fully developed in Galilee a little later, and finally completed on Mt. Olivet, just before the Lord ascended. The Lord had trained the apostles for three years in order to fit them for this important work.
22. Breathed on them, and said, Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Breath is the symbol of life. God breathes into man the breath of life (Genesis 2:7), and Christ breathed upon his apostles as a symbol of the impartation of the Holy Spirit. I suppose that he imparted a measure of the Spirit at this time to guide and strengthen them during this preparatory period, but the baptism of the Spirit, "the power from on high," was not imparted until the day of Pentecost, after the Lord ascended.
23. Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them, etc. There is hardly a passage in the New Testament that has caused more discussion, which is more obscure, unless the proper key to its explanation is secured, or which is plainer from the right standpoint. It will be seen at once, by a comparison with Matthew 16:19, that the keys then promised to Peter are now given to all the apostles, and all have similar power to open and shut, to remit sin, and to bind. There are three explanations: 1. That of the Romish Church, which holds that to Peter as to the "prince of the apostles," and after him, to all the priesthood, is given the power to pardon sin. This is the basis of their doctrine that the priest can grant absolution to the sinner. 2. A kind of confused and uncertain view of Protestants, who deny to the priest individually, the power to absolve, but hold that the Church, acting through its officials, can remit penalties for sin, free from sin, on the one hand, and can anathematize upon the other. 3. The third and correct view is plain when we consider, first, the charge that the Savior was making, and, secondly, look forward and see how that charge was carried out, or, in other words, observe the apostles "remitting sins" and retaining them. It is the Great Commission to preach the gospel that the Savior gives for the first time in John 20:21. It is with reference to carrying out that Commission that he speaks in John 20:23. It was in order that they might present the terms of that Commission infallibly to the world that the baptism of the Holy Spirit was imparted, of which there is a foreshadowing in John 20:22. The great end of that Commission was to declare to men "repentance and remission of sins" in the name of Christ. The following facts are manifest: 1. The Savior gave to his apostles his Commission that they might make known his will. 2. He bade them preach "remission of sins." 3. He gave them a measure of the Holy Spirit, and bade them wait until "endued with power from on high" by the baptism of the Holy Spirit. 4. When the Holy Spirit fell they spoke as it "gave them utterance." Acts 2:4. 5. They then declared, under the influence of the Holy Spirit, the terms on which "sins could be remitted." To anxious sinners they answer, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins. " Here, then, they, directed by the Holy Spirit, "remit" and "retain" sins by declaring the terms on which Christ will pardon. Thus, also, they, do in their preaching recorded through the Acts of the Apostles, the very thing that the Savior gave them power to do. This power was not imparted to a hierarchy, nor to any ecclesiastical body, but to the apostles, and was fulfilled by them in declaring to the world the conditions of pardon and condemnation under the Commission of our Lord.
24. But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them. Didymus, which means the Twin, is the Greek for the Hebrew name, Thomas. He was one of the Twelve, of whom history has recorded but little. It is reported by tradition that he carried the gospel to India and died there. He seems to have been an honest, affectionate man, but of a rather skeptical turn of mind. This incident, as well as the unbelief of the others prior to the meeting of the Savior with the apostles, shows that they were very incredulous, and hard to convince, notwithstanding the Lord had said he would rise again. Only "infallible proofs" could convince them. The failure of Thomas to be present with the other disciples was probably due to his utter despair.
25. He said unto them . . . . I will not believe. At some time during the week they meet him and tell their joyful story, but he meets it with skepticism. He will believe no man, not even his eyes; he must feel the wounds as well as see them before he will believe. His language is not merely skepticism, but defiance. His position was nearly that of modern materialists and positivists who hold that no testimony will prove such a miracle.
26. After eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them. It was on the second Sunday after the resurrection; the second Lord’s day in the history of the world. Let it be noted: 1. On the seventh day the Lord was in the tomb and the hearts of his disciples buried with him. It was the last Sabbath of the old dispensation. The Sabbath institution went out in gloom. Its last memory is of the dead Savior and buried hopes. 2. It is on the Lord’s day, the first day of the week, that he bursts the tomb and brings life and immortality to light. 3. On that day occurs the first recorded meeting of the disciples of the crucified Lord and he meets with them. 4. During the entire following week, including the seventh day, there is silence; no appearance of the Savior and no meeting of the disciples. 6. But on the next Lord’s day, the first day of the week, they meet again, probably because he had directed it, and he appears again. 6. When we add that the meeting of Pentecost was on the first day also, that there are positive evidences in Acts and 1 Corinthians of the custom of the churches of meeting on the first day, and not a single account, after the resurrection of the Savior, of a church meeting for worship on the seventh day, and lastly, that church history shows it to have been the unbroken usage of the ancient churches to meet on the first day of the week, we may well wonder at the Sabbatarian folly.
27. Reach hither thy finger. The Lord suddenly appeared in their midst, as one week before, and uttered his salutation of peace. Then turning to the skeptical Thomas, he asks him to apply the tests that he had declared would be necessary before he could believe. His compassion for the unbelief of Thomas shows the patient tenderness of the Savior with the difficulties of an honest seeker. Christ never wasted words on the unsincere.
28. Thomas answered, . . . My Lord and my God. Thomas did not need to apply the test. Every shadow of doubt passed away, and from out of his full and astonished heart came forth the ejacul*tion, which was a confession of his faith: It is his Lord, and his divine Savior, God manifest in the flesh.
29. Blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed. Thomas "saw" (he did not need to handle), and believed. We have not seen, but nevertheless, believe upon the same Lord. Upon us he pronounces a special blessedness, because we walk by faith instead of sight.
30. Many other signs truly did Jesus. Not near all that occurred, either before or after the resurrection, is recorded. Each of the evangelists records some features that the others omit and they each reveal the fact that they only outline the wonderful story.
31. But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, etc. This is the object of all the gospel histories. They are to so reveal Christ as to produce faith in him. He is the one object of belief. He is the Christian’s creed. Faith in him, a faith that takes him as the Christ, saves the soul. All who have such faith wrought by the word of God will "have life through his name."
Here, with these words, John ends the great argument that he entered upon with the first chapter and which continues with unbroken connection until it reaches its culmination in the remarkable declaration of the purpose with which he had written. The chain of argument embraces the testimony of Moses and the prophets, the witness of John the Baptist, whom the Jews acknowledged as a man of God, the wonderful life of Christ, the supernatural wisdom and authority of his teaching, his supernatural works, and last and greatest of all, the fact of his death, burial and resurrection. The last is the crowning argument, and it is after he has established it beyond a doubt, if such a wonderful fact can be proven by human testimony, that he closes with the declaration, These were written that you might believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, etc.
The resurrection is so vital that, in addition to the condensed argument given at the close of the preceding section, I think it important, here, where the argument of John reaches its climax, to add some additional remarks. First, I will cite the admissions of great German scholars of the Rationalistic school, and then add the argument given by Dr. Philip Schaff in his history of Apostolic Christianity.
1. Dr. Baur, of Tubingen, who might well be called the head of the celebrated Tubingen school of rationalistic criticism, after the study of a lifetime, came at last to the conclusion, stated in revised editions of his Church History of the First Three Centuries, published shortly before his death, that nothing but the miracle of the resurrection could disperse the doubts which threatened to drive faith itself into the eternal night of death. While he adds that the nature of the resurrection itself lies outside of historical investigation, he states that "the faith of the disciples in the resurrection of Jesus becomes the most solid and irrefutable certainty. In this faith only, Christianity gained a firm foothold of its historical development. . . . No psychological analysis can penetrate the inner spiritual process by which in the consciousness of the disciples their unbelief at the death of Jesus was transformed into a belief of his resurrection. . . . We must rest satisfied with this, that for them the resurrection of Christ was a fact of their consciousness, and had for them all the reality of a historical event." Vol. I, pp. 39, 40.
2. Dr. Ewald, of Gottingen, while resolving the resurrection into a purely spiritual one, through long-continued manifestations from heaven, declares, "Nothing is historically more certain than that Christ rose from the dead and appeared to his own, and thus, their vision was the beginning of new, higher faith and of all their Christian labors."--Apostolic Age, p. 69.
3. Dr. Keim, of Zurich, a pupil of Dr. Baur, in his Life of Christ, expresses the conviction that "it was the crucified and living Christ who, not as the risen one, but rather as the divinely glorified one, gave visions to his disciples and revealed himself to his society." In his last work on the great problem which has defied all rationalistic explanations, he comes to the conclusion that we must either, with Dr. Baur, humbly confess our ignorance, or return to the faith of the apostles "who have seen our Lord." See last edition of Life of Christ, p. 362. To these might be added other testimonies, but these are enough to show the bewilderment and confusion of the rationalistic "higher criticism" of Germany. For further treatment of this subject, see Dr. Schaff on the Resurrection, in the Appendix.
GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN
B.W. Johnson
JOHN CHAPTER TWENTY-ONE
IN GALILEE.
This chapter is regarded by all modern critics as an appendix to John’s Gospel, probably written at a later day than the body of the work. The reason for this view is not that its subject matter or style is not in harmony with the preceding chapters, but the closing verses of the preceding chapter seem to draw the whole to a fitting close. Westcott says: "It is impossible to suppose that it was the original design of the Evangelist to add the incidents of chapter XXI. after the verses which form a solemn close of his record of the great history of the conflict of faith and unbelief in the life of Christ. And the general scope of the contents of this chapter is distinct from the development of the plan that is said to be completed in chapter XX. The manifestation of the Lord, which is given in detail in it, is not designed to create faith in the fact of his resurrection, but to illustrate his action in society; he guides, supports and assigns their parts to his disciples.
"On the other hand it is equally clear that the chapter was written by the author of the Gospel. The style and general character of the language alike lead to this conclusion; and there is no evidence to show that the Gospel was published before the appendix was added to it. The reason of the addition is probably to be found in the circulation of the saying of the Lord to John in John 21:23. The clear exposition of this saying carried with it, naturally, a recital of the circ*mstances under which it was spoken." Alford takes the same view, saying: "In every part of it his (John’s) hand is plain and unmistakable; in every part of it his character and spirit are manifested in a way which none but the most biased 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 Lord’s sayings to Peter; but principally to meet the error that was becoming prevalent concerning himself," referring to the saying that he should not die. As these incidents, the Feeding of the Five Thousand, the Night Storm on Galilee, and the teaching and incidents of Capernaum recorded in John 4:1-54 and John 6:1-71., all occurred upon the shores or waters of the same sea,
1. After these things Jesus showed himself again to his disciples at the sea of Tiberias. For some reason the Savior had desired to gather the whole band of his followers on the shores of Galilee, before his departure, and had directed (Matthew 28:7; Mark 16:7) them to repair to Galilee. There, after his resurrection, he was seen by the Twelve, and by about five hundred brethren at once (1 Corinthians 15:6). The apostles, having arrived at the appointed place, engaged in their old occupation of fishing, until they were interrupted by the appearance of the Savior. This is not to be regarded as an abandonment of hope or of their sacred calling, but rather as a determination to employ themselves usefully while they are waiting for the fulfillment of the promise of the Lord. We are not told how long "after these things" the appearance at the sea of Galilee occurred, and can only be certain that it occurred during the last thirty days of the period that preceded the ascension. Sea of Tiberias. A name of the sea of Galilee bestowed upon it because the capital of Galilee bore that name and was located on the margin of the lake. This name does not occur elsewhere in the Gospels. In the preceding chapter John has only noted the appearances of the Savior at Jerusalem; Luke notes those only; while Matthew mentions both those of Galilee and Jerusalem, he only speaks of the appearance to the "eleven" in Galilee. John, by the addition of this chapter, makes a record of both. Shewed himself. There is a significance in the words, "Jesus showed himself," or that he manifested himself after his resurrection, showing that he was visible only by a distinct act of his own will. From the time of his resurrection the disciples did not see him, in the usual sense in which we use that term, but he appeared unto them, or was seen of them when he so willed. The language is changed, and in language of this kind all his appearances after the resurrection are narrated. The same kind of language is applied to his appearances that is used of angels and all heavenly manifestations. Men do not see them, in the sense that it was a matter that lay in their will to do so or not, as we see any material object. Language that is appropriate to objects of sense is not appropriate to these manifestations. They rather appear to men and are only visible to those for whose sakes the appearances are vouchsafed, and to whom they are willing to show themselves. The risen Christ, therefore, though seen on many occasions by his disciples, and on one occasion by hundreds of them, does not reveal himself to his enemies. In his appearances to his disciples he leaves no doubt but that he is the risen Lord, yet there is a mystery, and an air of strangeness that inspires them with awe, and which restrains them from the former familiar fellowship.
2. There were together. Seven disciples are named, most of whom, and probably all, belonged to that very neighborhood. All that are named were apostles, unless Nathanael be an exception, who is only named in the first, second and last chapters of the Gospel. Most scholars regard him an apostle who appears, elsewhere, under the name of Bartholomew. The latter name is a patronymic like Barjona, a name applied to Peter, and means "the son of Tholmaius." John, one of the "sons Zebedee" was among the number.
3. Simon Peter saith, I go a fishing. Peter here is true to the character portrayed in all the Gospels as well as Acts. He is the leader. It is upon his proposition and example that the disciples resort to the calling once more from which they were taken to become "fishers of men." "They went forth" from the house where they were stopping, possibly at Capernaum or Bethsaida, entered a "ship," or fishing boat, and engaged in the work at night, the most favorable time for fishing, but "that night they caught nothing." We may learn from the readiness with which the other disciples follow the example of Peter the importance of correct leadership. The masses of mankind, in politics, in society, in church or family, are constantly moulded by the example and influence of leading men. A few lead; the multitude are led where these leaders point out the way.
4. When the morning was now come. The true reading, "When the day was breaking," gives a more vivid picture. As the dawn appeared they observed some one upon the shore whom they did not yet recognize, either because of the indistinct light, or because of his changed appearance. It will be noted that in all the appearances after the resurrection the Lord came and went suddenly, and was recognized or not as he desired. Still it may be that the reason the disciples failed to recognize him was their preoccupation of mind and the dim light.
5. Children, have ye any meat? The word translated "children" means, literally, "boys," and we take it that the Savior asked in the familiar, colloquial language of the locality, "Boys, have you caught any fish?" There was nothing in his question that made the disciples suspect who he was. It would be natural for them to suppose that the inquiry was made by one wishing to purchase fish. The word rendered "meat" is a general term applied to food of any kind.
6. Cast the net on the right side of the ship. This direction was promptly followed and resulted in the net being so crowded with fishes that they could not draw it into the boat. The command, itself, though promptly obeyed, did not suggest to the disciples that it was Jesus. They might suppose that he had seen some fishes playing on the other side of the vessel. The ship must be understood as a small fishing boat, propelled by either oars, or a sail, and capable of carrying about a dozen men, such as are still seen on the waters of Galilee.
7, 8. That disciple whom Jesus loved, saith, It is the Lord. John, with his quickness of perception, as soon as it was seen that the net was filled with an astonishing draught of fishes, remembering a former miracle of the same kind, exclaimed, It is the Lord! Peter, impulsive as usual, when he heard it, at once plunged into the sea in order to reach the shore. During the work of the night he had laid off his "fisher’s coat," a kind of loose blouse, and counting it unseemly to appear before the Savior half clad, he put it on. In a moment he was standing upon the shore by the Lord. The rest of the disciples, less impulsive, came more slowly. It was 200 cubits, 100 yards to the shore, and they, as they came in the boat, slowly dragged the net with its living load after them. This, Peter seemed to have forgotten, though the fish had been caught under Christ’s directions. We rather admire the course of those disciples who continued faithful to the duty of that moment.
9, 10. They saw a fire of coals there, and fish laid thereon. The preparations were already begun for a simple meal. The commentators have discussed, idly, the origin of this fire. As we are not told we have simply to leave it to conjecture. It might have been miraculous, which we prefer to believe, or it might have been built by human hands. There were fish already broiling, but still, Christ bids them bring of the fish just caught.
11. Simon Peter . . . drew the net to land. Peter, at once, at the Master’s command, springs back to duty and draws the net on the shore. The number of fish was carefully counted, one hundred and fifty-three large ones, and yet the net with such a strain, remained unbroken.
12, 13. Durst not ask, Who art thou? The disciples knew that it was the Lord, but there was something in his mien, his majesty, his altered appearance, that amazed them, filled them with awe, and prevented them from asking questions that they were curious to know. How many questions occur to us concerning which we would like to know! The Lord himself takes the bread and fish and distributes to his disciples. He is the host; they are the guests.
14. The third time that Jesus shewed himself to his disciples. John does not say that this was the third appearance of Jesus, but the third time he had showed himself to the disciples, or apostles, for that is the sense in which disciples is here, and often used. The first time was his appearance to the ten apostles, on the evening of the day of the resurrection (John 20:19). The second was to the eleven (Thomas was now present) one week later (John 20:26). The third is this appearance in Galilee. Besides these, he had appeared to Mary Magdalene (John 20:16), and to two disciples near Emmaus (Luke 24:13). At this appearance he furnishes fire and food to them after a night of sleepless toil; an illustration of his tender care of his own.
15. Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? At the close of the feast the Lord turned to Peter with this question, one that he repeated twice, and which has caused much perplexity. I think that it is easily explained in view of what had passed only a short time before. On the night of the betrayal, when Christ intimated that his disciples would forsake him in the trial he was about to suffer, Peter spoke up and asserted that though all others forsook him, he would never forsake him. What Christ had said might be true of the rest, but he was so loving, faithful and true, that he would die for him. Yet before the co*ck crow of the next morning he had thrice denied that he knew Jesus, even with oaths. Such was the collapse of the confident disciple who "loved the Master better than these" other disciples. Since that fall, Christ had met with Peter among the rest of the disciples but had not referred to this subject, but now has come the time for a restoration of Peter. Hence he probes him with the question, Lovest thou me better than these? That question would at once recall to Peter his boastful claim, his awful fall, and would pierce him to the heart. He no longer claims that he is the truest of the apostolic band, does not even affirm confidently, but answers, Thou knowest my heart; thou knowest that I love thee. Then said the Savior, Feed my lambs. The modesty of Peter’s answer is better indicated in the Greek than in our version. The word used by the Savior for "lovest" is a very strong term; that used by Peter for "I love" is far less strong. After his shameful denial he was ashamed to even claim the highest love. Christ then, once more, assigns a work to Peter. If he loves him he may feed his lambs, take care of the tender disciples of the Lord. The Good Shepherd will give him work as an under shepherd.
16. Feed my sheep. A second time the Lord probes Peter with the question. Let it be noted that he does not call him Peter, "the rock," any longer. So frail a disciple could only be called Simon. Again he uses the strong term for love (agapao). Again Peter answers as modestly as before. He not only cannot claim to love best of all, but can hardly claim to love, only "to have affection" (phileo). Then Christ again commissions him to work, "Feed my sheep." Not only the lambs, but he may look after the sheep of the fold, watch over the disciples of the Lord, young and old.
17. Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. The third time the Lord asks the question. Only once had he compared Peter’s love with "these." The third time the Lord himself drops the strong term for love and uses the weaker one, "have affection." Peter, pierced to the heart by these repeated questions, throws himself on the knowledge the Lord has of his heart. The third time the Lord charges him to act as a shepherd under him and to take care of the sheep. Three times Peter had denied the Master; three times the Master questions his love; three times he gives him charge concerning his work. The questioning was painful, Peter was grieved, but the grief was wholesome and Peter’s whole subsequent life bore proof of the discipline. His rashness was forever gone.
18. When thou wast young, thou girdedst thyself. Peter had denied his Master to save his own life. Now that he is reinstated in the old confidence and charged with the Master’s work, he is told that he will be called on to die for it. He will be girded, not with a girdle, but with bonds, and he shall be led where he would not, unto death.
19. By what death he should glorify God. These two verses can only be understood as declaring that Peter should die the death of a martyr. John wrote after Peter’s death, and may be understood as affirming that he did thus "glorify God." The universal testimony of the ancient Church is that he did thus die. It is asserted that Peter was crucified, a fact that is probable, as he was not a Roman citizen. Follow me. He had once forsaken Christ through fear of death. Now, with a prospect of violent death before him, he is bidden to resume the Master’s work and to follow him. He did this, from this time, faithfully and gloriously, whether threatened by the Jewish Sanhedrim, in prison, or dying as a martyr on the cross. He was to follow until he tasted the cup that his Master had drunk. It will be noted that at the beginning of the Lord’s ministry the command "Follow me," had a different, though analogous meaning to that which was now attached to it. Then it meant primarily to follow the Lord in his ministry, abandoning previous occupations, and sharing with him danger and disgrace. At the time of the seizure of Christ, Peter had ceased to follow and even had denied him. Now, with the certain prospect of death in the end, he is bidden to follow in a life of obedience to his will which would manifest Christ to the world. The special charge here given to Peter is one demanding work, activity for the Lord. It will be observed that, while the Lord emphasizes action to Peter, it is waiting that is made the special duty of John. Of Peter, Augustine, commenting on this passage, says: "This denier and lover of Christ has revealed to him this end: puffed up by presumption, prostrated by the denial of the Master, purged of his sin by weeping penitence, once more approved by humble confession, he is at last crowned by suffering for Christ.
TARRY TILL I COME.
20, 21. Peter, turning about, saw the disciple, etc. Three years before on the banks of the same sea, Jesus had called Peter and Andrew, and the sons of Zebedee to become fishers of men by the very same words that he had now just addressed to Peter. The latter, not unnaturally, thinks of his companions, and turning to look at John, asks: "Lord, what shall this man do?" It is probable that during the conference, Peter had been drawn apart, and that John, so intimate with Peter, and who had "leaned his head on the Savior’s breast at supper," had drawn near to them. By [omitting the words in Italics the reader can catch the laconic form of the Greek: "Lord, this man, what?" Peter understands the prophecy with regard to himself, but what shall become of his friend?
22. If I will that he tarry till I come. Observe (1) that each one must work in the place where the Lord wills; "If I will." (2) that as Peter’s duty was restless activity in following Christ, it is indicated that John’s work in part at least, is calm, trustful and patient waiting; tarry till I come. These words of the Savior here give rise to much discussion. It has been held 1. That they have no special signification but to rebuke Peter and to assure him that John’s future was the Lord’s business, not his. Such a view is disproved by the deep significance that always inheres in the Savior’s words. 2. That these words refer to a second coming at the destruction of Jerusalem. But all the weight of authority is to the end that John wrote his Gospel after the fall of Jerusalem; yet his language in the next verse shows that, while he pondered the Savior’s words, he did not understand their meaning. The prophecy was, therefore, yet unfulfilled, as far as he was concerned. 3. That the coming referred to was death. That would deprive the Savior’s words of any significance whatever, as they would be as true of every man as of John 4:1-54. That they refer to the promised second coming of Christ, and that John did not die a natural death. Even Godet suggests that the primitive epoch of humanity had its Enoch; the theocratic epoch its Elijah and that the Christian epoch may have had its John who was translated without seeing death. In the face of the fact that the grave of John was pointed out at Ephesus until the chaos of Mahometan invasion swept over the East, such a view is absurd. Discarding all these hypotheses as inadequate, I may be allowed to express my surprise that the commentators have not perceived that John did literally tarry until the Savior came, until he saw him, heard him speak, and recorded the last revelation of the Lord to the world. About sixty years from the time that Christ spoke these words, according to the testimony of the early Church, the aged John was an exile in, Patmos. There, upon the Lord’s day, he "heard a great voice," and turning, he says, "I saw one like the Son of Man" blazing with such glory that he fell, "fell at his feet as dead, and then he laid his right hand on me, saying to me, Fear not." Then follow the Seven Letters to the Church dictated to John by our Lord, and the sublime prophecies of Revelation. It is, therefore, a historical fact that John did "tarry" on the earth long after the other apostles were wearing crowns of martyrdom, and until the Lord came to him visibly to make the last inspired revelation of his will to man. This view, which is the only one in which the Savior’s words and the historical facts are in exact harmony, incidently shows that Revelation was not written when John penned this chapter. Had that been the case he would not have been at loss to understand just what the Savior’s words could mean, but would have referred at once to the wonderful "coming" he witnessed on Patmos. All the testimony of the ancient Church agrees that Revelation was the last book of the Bible written, but a class of modern expositors, solely in the interest of a preconceived interpretation, have dated its composition before the fall of Jerusalem.
23. This saying went abroad among the brethren. John corrects the mistake that had gone abroad. Christ had not said that he should not die, but simply, "If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee." His language shows that he was uncertain what the Savior might mean. The scenes of Patmos finally made all clear.
24. This is the disciple which testifieth these things. The one named just before, concerning whom Peter asked the question. Most of the critics hold that this verse and probably the next were added by another hand. The plural, "we know," seems to be a kind of attestation and the hypothesis is offered that they were added by the Elders of Ephesus to whom John committed his gospel. They are found in all the manuscripts and, if not written by John, were appended to the original copy before it was published.
25. Also many other things which Jesus did. "Many other things" are recorded by the three preceding gospels which John does not record. The ministry of Christ was so busy, his teaching so voluminous and his deeds of mercy so numerous, that the verse states that it would be impossible to make a minute record, and in order to convey this idea forcibly an oriental hyperbole is employed.
I will close this comment by an extract from Godet which treats of the authorship of this chapter, as well as the whole gospel. "1. The narrative in John 21:1-23, is from the hand of John 2:1-25. John 21:24 is from the friends of John, who had called forth the composition of this gospel, and to whom he committed it after composition. 3. John 21:25 was written by one of them, with whom the work was deposited, and who thought himself bound to close it thus in honor, not of the author, but of the subject of the 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, 1, palmed himself off on the world with all the characteristics of the Apostle; who, 2, carried his shamelessness so far that he got made out for him, by an accomplice in the fraud, a certificate of identity with the person of John; or who, more simply still, to save 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 treated as the work of the devil (John 8:44) and truth glorified as one of the two essential features of the divine character. If anyone will believe such a story . . . let him believe it." (1 Corinthians 14:38).
GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN
B.W. Johnson
APPENDIX.
DR. PHILIP SCHAFF ON THE RESURRECTION.
The resurrection of Christ from the dead is reported by the four Gospels, taught in the Epistles, believed throughout Christendom, and celebrated on every "Lord’s Day," as an historical fact, as the crowning miracle and divine seal of his whole work, as the foundation of the hopes of believers, as the pledge of their own future resurrection. It is represented in the New Testament both as an act of the Almighty Father who raised his Son from the dead, and as an act of Christ himself, who had the power to lay down his life and to take it again. The ascension was the proper conclusion of the resurrection: the risen life of our Lord, who is "the Resurrection and the Life," could not end in another death on earth, but must continue in eternal glory in heaven. Hence, St. Paul says, "Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him. For the death that he died he died unto sin once; but the life that he liveth, he liveth unto God."
The Christian church rests on the resurrection of its Founder. Without this fact the church could never have been born, or if born, it would soon have died a natural death. The miracle of the resurrection and the existence of Christianity are so closely connected that they must stand or fall together. If Christ was raised from the dead, then all his other miracles are sure, and our faith is impregnable; if he was not raised, he died in vain, and our faith is vain. It was only his resurrection that made his death available for our atonement, justification and salvation; without the resurrection, his death would be the grave of our hopes; we should be still unredeemed and under the power of our sins. A gospel of a dead Savior would be a contradiction and wretched delusion. This is the reasoning of St. Paul, and its force is irresistible.
The resurrection of Christ is therefore emphatically a test question upon which depends the truth or falsehood of the Christian religion. It is either the greatest miracle or the greatest delusion which history records.
Christ had predicted both his crucifixion and his resurrection, but the former was a stumbling-block to the disciples, the latter a mystery which they could not understand till after the event. They no doubt expected that he would soon establish his Messianic kingdom on earth, Hence their utter disappointment and downheartedness after the crucifixion. The treason of one of their own number, the triumph of hierarchy, the fickleness of the people, the death and burial of the beloved Master, had in a few hours rudely blasted their Messianic hopes and exposed them to the contempt and ridicule of their enemies. For two days they were trembling on the brink of despair. But on the third day, behold, the same disciples underwent a complete revolution from despondency to hope, from timidity to courage, from doubt to faith, and began to proclaim the gospel of the resurrection in the face of an unbelieving world and at the peril of their lives. This revolution was not isolated, but general among them; it was not the result of an easy credulity, but brought about in spite of doubt and hesitation; it was not superficial and momentary, but radical and lasting; it affected not only the apostles, but the whole history of the world. It reached even the leader of the persecution, Saul of Tarsus, one of the clearest and strongest intellects, and converted him into the most devoted and faithful champion of this very gospel to the hour of his martyrdom.
This is a fact patent to every reader of the closing chapters of the Gospels, and is freely admitted even by the most advanced skeptics.
The question now rises whether this inner revolution in the life of the disciples, with its incalculable effect upon the fortunes of mankind, can be rationally explained without a corresponding outward revolution in the history of Christ; in other words, whether the professed faith of the disciples in the risen Christ was true and real, or a hypocritical lie, or an honest self-delusion.
There are four possible theories which have been tried again and again, and defended with as much learning and ingenuity as can be summoned to their aid. Historical questions are not like mathematical problems. No argument in favor of the resurrection will avail with those critics who start with the philosophical assumption that miracles are impossible, and still less with those who deny not only the resurrection of the body, but even the immortality of the soul. But facts are stubborn, and if a critical hypothesis can be proven to be psychologically and historically impossible and unreasonable, the result is fatal to the philosophy which underlies the critical hypothesis. It is not the business of the historian to construct a history from preconceived notions and to adjust it to his own liking, but to reproduce it from the best evidence and to let it speak for itself.
1. THE HISTORICAL VIEW, presented by the Gospels and believed in the Christian church of every denomination and sect. The resurrection of Christ was an actual though miraculous event, in harmony with his previous history and character, and in fulfilment of his own prediction. It was a re-animation of the dead body of Jesus by a return of his soul from the spirit-world, and a rising of body and soul from the grave to a new life, which, after repeated manifestations to believers during a short period of forty days, entered into glory by the ascension to heaven. The object of the manifestations was not only to convince the apostles personally of the resurrection, but to make them witnesses of the resurrection and heralds of salvation to all the world.
Truth compels us to admit that there are serious difficulties in harmonizing the accounts of the evangelists, and in forming a consistent conception of the nature of Christ’s resurrection-body, hovering as it were between heaven and earth, and oscillating for forty days between a natural and a supernatural state, of a body clothed with flesh and blood and bearing the wound-prints, and yet so spiritual as to appear and disappear through closed doors and to ascend visibly to heaven. But these difficulties are not so great as those which are created by a denial of the fact itself. The former can be measurably solved, the latter cannot. We do not know all the details and circ*mstances which might enable us to clearly trace the order of events, But among all the variations the great central fact of the resurrection itself and its principal features "stand out all the more sure." The period or forty days in the nature of the case the most mysterious in the life of Christ, and transcends all ordinary Christian experience. The Christophanies resemble in some respects the Theophanies of the Old Testament, which were granted only to few believers, yet for the general benefit. At all events the fact of the resurrection furnishes the only key for the solution of the psychological problem of the sudden, radical and permanent change in the mind and conduct of the disciples; it is the necessary link in the chain which connects their history before and after that event. Their faith in the resurrection was too clear, too strong, too steady, too effective to be explained in any other way. They showed the strength and boldness of their conviction by soon returning to Jerusalem, the post of danger, and founding there, in the very face of the hostile Sanhedrim, the mother-church of Christendom.
2. THE THEORY OF FRAUD. The apostles stole and hid the body of Jesus, and deceived the world.
This infamous lie carries its refutation on its face: for if the Roman soldiers who watched the grave at the express request of the priests and Pharisees, were asleep, they could not see the thieves, nor would they have proclaimed their military crime; if they, or only some of them, were awake, they would have prevented the theft. As to the disciples, they were too timid and desponding at the time to venture on such a daring act, and too honest to cheat the world. And finally a self-invented falsehood could not give them the courage and constancy of faith for the proclamation of the resurrection at the peril of their lives. The whole theory is a wicked absurdity, and insult to the common sense and honor to mankind.
3. THE SWOON THEORY. The physical life of Jesus was not extinct, but only exhausted, and was restored by the tender care of his friends and disciples, or (as some absurdly add) by his own medical skill; and after a brief period he quietly died a natural death.
Josephus, Valerius Maximus, psychological and medical authorities have been searched and appealed to for examples of such apparent resurrections from a trance or asphyxy, especially on the third day, which is supposed to be a turning-point for life or putrefaction.
But besides insuperable physical difficulties--as the wounds and loss of blood from the very heart pierced by the spear of the Roman soldier--this theory utterly fails to account for the moral effect. A brief sickly existence of Jesus in need of medical care, and terminating in his natural death and final burial, without even the glory of martyrdom which attended the crucifixion, far from restoring the faith of the apostles, would have only in the end deepened their gloom and driven them to utter despair.
4. THE VN-THEORY. Christ rose merely in the imagination of his friends, who mistook a subjective vision or dream for actual reality, and were thereby encouraged to proclaim their faith in the resurrection at the risk of death. Their wish was father to the belief, their belief was father to the fact, and the belief, once started, spread with the power of a religious epidemic from person to person and from place to place. The Christian society wrought the miracle by its intense love for Christ. Accordingly the resurrection does not belong to the history of Christ at all, but to the inner life of his disciples. It is merely the embodiment of their reviving faith.
This hypothesis was invented by a heathen adversary in the second century and soon buried out of sight, but rose to new life in the nineteenth, and spread with epidemical rapidity among skeptical critics in Germany, France, Holland and England.
The advocates of this hypothesis appeal first and chiefly to the vision of St. Paul on the way to Damascus, which occurred several years later, and is nevertheless put on a level with the former appearances to the older apostles (1 Corinthians 15:8); next to supposed analogies in the history of religious enthusiasm and mysticism, such as the individual visions of St. Francis of Assisi, the Maid of Orleans, St. Theresa (who believed that she had seen Jesus in person with the eyes of the soul more distinctly than she could have seen him with the eyes of the body), Swedenborg, even Mohammed, and the collective visions of the Montanists in Asia Minor, the Camisards in France, the spectral resurrections of the martyred Thomas a Becket of Canterbury and Savonarola of Florence in the excited imagination of their admirers, and the apparition of the Immaculate Virgin at Lourdes.
Nobody will deny that the subjective fancies and impressions are often mistaken for objective realities. But, with the exception of the case of St. Paul which we shall consider in its proper place, and which turns out to be, even according to the admission of the leaders of skeptical criticism, a powerful argument against the mythical or visionary theory--these supposed analogies are entirely irrelevant; for, not to speak of other differences, they were isolated and passing phenomena which left no mark on history; while the faith in the resurrection of Christ has revolutionized the whole world. It must therefore be treated on its own merits as an altogether unique case.
(a) The first insuperable argument against the visionary nature, and in favor of the objective reality, of the resurrection is the empty tomb of Christ. If he did not rise, his body must either have been removed, or remained in the tomb. If removed by the disciples, they were guilty of a deliberate falsehood in preaching the resurrection, and then the vision-hypothesis gives way to the exploded theory of fraud. If removed by the enemies, then these enemies had the best evidence against the resurrection, and would not have failed to produce it and thus to expose the baselessness of the vision. The same is true, of course, if the body had remained in the tomb. The murderers of Christ would certainly not have missed such an opportunity to destroy the very foundation of the hated sect.
To escape this difficulty, Strauss removes the origin of the illusion away off to Galilee, whither the disciples fled; but this does not help the matter, for they returned in a few weeks to Jerusalem, where they were all assembled on the day of Pentecost.
This argument is fatal even to the highest form of the vision hypothesis, which admits a spiritual manifestation of Christ from heaven, but denies the resurrection of the body.
(b) If Christ did not really rise, then the words which he spake to Mary Magdalene, to the disciples of Emmaus, to doubting Thomas, to Peter on the lake of Tiberias, to all the disciples on Mount Olivet, were likewise pious fictions. But who can believe that words of such dignity and majesty, so befitting the solemn moment of the departure to the throne of glory, as the commandment to preach the gospel to every creature, to baptize the nations in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and the promise to be with his disciples always to the end of the world--a promise abundantly verified in the daily experience of the church--could proceed from dreamy and self-deluded enthusiasts or crazy fanatics any more than the Sermon on the Mount or the Sacerdotal Prayer! And who, with any spark of historical sense, can suppose that Jesus never instituted baptism, which has been performed in his name ever since the day of Pentecost, and which, like the celebration of the Lords Supper, bears testimony to him every day as the sunlight does to the sun!
(c) If the visions of the resurrection were the product of an excited imagination, it is unaccountable that they should suddenly have ceased on the fortieth day (Acts 1:15), and not have occurred to any of the disciples afterwards, with the single exception of Paul, who expressly represents his vision of Christ as "the last." Even on the day of Pentecost Christ did not appear to them, but, according to his promise, "the other Paraclete" descended upon them; and Stephen, saw Christ in heaven, not on earth.
(d) The chief objection to the vision-hypothesis is its intrinsic impossibility. It makes the most exorbitant claim upon our credulity. It requires us to believe that many persons, singly and collectively, at different times, and in different places, from Jerusalem to Damascus, had the same vision and dreamed the same dream; that the women at the open sepulcher early in the morning, Peter and John soon afterwards, the two disciples journeying to Emmaus on the afternoon of the resurrection day, the assembled apostles on the evening in the absence of Thomas, and again on the next Lord’s day in the presence of the skeptical Thomas, seven apostles at the lake of Tiberias, on one occasion five hundred brethren at once, most of whom were still alive when Paul reported the fact, then James, the brother of the Lord, who formerly did not believe in him, again all the apostles on Mount Olivet at the ascension, and at last the clear-headed, strong-minded persecutor on the way to Damascus--that all these men and women on these different occasions vainly imagined they saw and heard the self-same Jesus in bodily shape and form; and that they were by this baseless vision raised all at once from the deepest gloom in which the crucifixion of their Lord had left them, to the boldest faith and strongest hope which impelled them to proclaim the gospel of the resurrection from Jerusalem to Rome to the end of their lives! And this illusion of the early disciples created the greatest revolution not only in their own views and conduct, but among Jews and Gentiles and in the subsequent history of mankind! This illusion we are expected to believe, by the unbelievers, gave birth to the most real and most mighty of all facts, the Christian Church which has lasted these eighteen hundred years and is now spread all over the civilized world, embracing more members than ever and exercising more moral power than all the kingdoms and all other religions combined!
The vision-hypothesis, instead of getting rid of the miracle, only shifts it from fact to fiction; it makes an empty delusion more powerful than the truth, or turns all history itself at last into a delusion. Before we can reason the resurrection of Christ out of history we must reason the apostles, and Christianity itself out of existence. We must either admit the miracle, or frankly confess that we stand here before an inexplicable mystery.--Schaff’s History of the Christian Church.
SOME PECULIARITIES OF JOHN’S GOSPEL.
These have already been partly indicated in what has been said concerning its character, in the introduction, but there are a few features not yet noticed that can be most appropriately considered in an appendix.
1. John is the only one of the Evangelists who observes the chronological order of the events in the ministry of Christ. The earlier Gospels have been very appropriately styled "Synoptical," nor are they careful in their synopsis to regard the order of events. They might be called memoranda, or "Memorabilia" of Christ, while John writes a systematic treatise with a definite object in view. Since they take no note of time, if we were left to them alone, we could not be certain that the Savior’s ministry continued for more than a year, whereas John gives us data from whence we learn that it continued more than three. While he selects events, miracles and discourses, here and there, we may always be assured that they occur in the order of time. Thus the miracle of the water turned into wine is the "beginning of miracles;" the healing of the nobleman’s son is the "second miracle that Jesus did" in Galilee.
2. The Synoptical Gospels confine themselves mostly to the Galilean ministry of our Lord. If John had never written we would only have references that would lead us to wonder, "How often" the Lord "would have gathered your children (those of Jerusalem) together, and ye would not." But from John we learn of earnest and long continued work in the city of Jerusalem and Judea, sojourns of many months at the time, and such revelations of himself as left "no cloke for their sin." We trace right in Jerusalem, the heart of Judaism, the inception, development and culmination of the hatred of Christ, beginning at the first passover after the Savior began his ministry, growing with each succeeding visit and the accompanying typical miracle, and at last, after the resurrection of Lazarus, crystalizing into the official resolve of the Sanhedrim to put him to death.
3. A difference in the style of the Savior’s discourses, as reported by John and the other Evangelists, has been detected. It can hardly be supposed that any of the writers have reported verbatim. If that were true there would be no difference in their reports, but we find while there is a general agreement of the thought and often of the language, it is by no means true that the words are always the same. No believer doubts that the Spirit brought all things to remembrance, but not so as to make the writers machines. Their memories were strengthened, made accurate, and then they related what they remembered in their own words and style. While John has preserved to us the thoughts of Jesus, and in great part his very words, there can be no doubt but that his record is shaped by his own qualities of mind. It would be only natural that the style of report should change somewhat with the reporter, even if the substance of all the reports should be the same.
4. There is not a real parable in the whole of the Fourth Gospel, a fact partly accounted for by the principle that parables were delivered to unbelievers in the hope that thus a seed of truth might be received that would afterwards bring forth fruit, while the longest discourses of John are to the disciples, to whom Christ did not speak in parables. Nor does he give the sermon on the Mount, the Prayer taught the disciples, nor an account of the institution of the Lord’s Supper, or of Christian Baptism, or of the Ascension of our Lord. At the same time he presents the spiritual significance of both baptism (chapter 3.) and of the Supper (chapter 6.); nor does he give a list of the Twelve, though he often alludes to them; nor mention the prophecies of the fall of Jerusalem, probably because it had fallen before he wrote; nor use the word "church," though he alludes to it under other designations. These differences, as well as others that might be noted, show that John wrote at a later date, and while not aiming to supply a supplemental Gospel, was not careful to state facts that could be clearly understood from what had been already written by the other Evangelists. Nor should we fail to note that he does not give a single instance of the Savior casting out demons, a fact easily explained when we bear in mind that the miracles narrated were chosen bemuse of their bearing on the object before the writer’s mind. It has been inferred from this by some that John did not believe in demoniac possession, although it is plainly recognized by him on several occasions. We might just as well draw an argument from the fact that John gives no account of the healing of a leper, or of causing the dumb to speak.
5. Nor will any one study this "Crown of the Gospels" to the best purpose who loses sight of the fact that it was written for a specific purpose which the author himself has declared. Whatever heresies he may have sought to correct his great aim was to create faith that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God (John 20:31). The proposition that he sought to establish had two parts: (1) That he is the Christ of whom the Jewish prophets had spoken, and (2) That he is the Son of God, or God manifest in the flesh. This proposition is before him from beginning to end, and his selections from the words and acts of Christ all look toward the establishment of this double proposition. In support of it he arrays, (1) The witness of John; (2) The witness of the [322] Jewish Scriptures; (3) The witness of seven typical miracles of Christ; (4) The witness of the Father; (5) The witness of his own words, words of him "who spake as never man spake;" (6) The witness of apostles, himself and others to his resurrection from the dead. Then he closes the direct record with these words: "Many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written that you might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you might have life through his name."
COMMENTARIES AND STANDARDS
ON THE BIRTH OF WATER AND SPIRIT.
Inasmuch as there is some tendency, in the interest of a modern view of baptism, to reject the interpretation that the church, in all ages, has placed on John 3:5, "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God," I have taken pains to collate the views of a large number of authorities upon the meaning to be attached to the phrase, "Birth of water." I have quoted, in each instance, the words bearing on that feature.
Except he experience the great inward change of the Spirit, and be baptized (wherever baptism can be had) as the outward sign and means of it.--Wesley’s Notes.
Governing ourselves by the cardinal canon, that we are to understand Christ as Christ expected his auditor to understand him, it cannot be difficult to understand this declaration. . . . Nicodemus would then have certainly understood by Christ’s expression, "born of water," a reference to baptism.--Lyman Abbott’s Commentary on John.
Water signifies the baptism of John with Jesus Christ; by omitting this baptism, the colleagues of Nicodemus despised the counsel of God.--The Critical English Testament.
John himself declared that his baptism was incomplete,--it was only with water. One was coming who should baptize with the Holy Ghost. That declaration of his is the key to the understanding of this verse. Baptism, complete, with water and the Spirit, is the admission into the kingdom of God.--Alford’s Greek Testament.
The preposition used (ek--out of), recalls the phrase "baptize,"--plunge--in water, in Spirit . . Hence all interpretations which treat the term water as here simply figurative and descriptive of the cleansing power of the Spirit are essentially defective, as they are opposed to all ancient tradition.--Canon Westcott in the Bible Commentary.
The reference of the expression to baptism (especially according to Titus 3:5) certainly is clear.--Olshausen’s Commentary.
The mention of water was intended to assist Nicodemus in understanding the phrase, and to indicate its reference to baptism.--Tholuck.
This regeneration, which our church in so many places ascribes to baptism, is more than being admitted into the church. . . . This is grounded on the plain words of our Lord in John 3:5. By water, then, as a means, the [323] water of baptism, we are regenerated or born again; whence it is called by the apostle, the washing of Regeneration.--Doctrinal Tracts, M. E. Church Edition of 1825.
The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." John 3:5.--Westminster Confession of Faith, Art. Baptism.
Forasmuch as our Savior Christ saith, None can enter into the kingdom of God except he be regenerated and born anew of Water and of the Holy Ghost; I beseech you to call upon God the Father, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that of his bounteous goodness he will grant to these persons that which by nature they cannot have; that they may be baptized with Water and the Holy Ghost, and received into Christ’s Holy Church, and be made lively members of the same.--Book of Common Prayer, Art. Baptism.
"John said: I baptize with water; the One coming after baptizes with Spirit; but Christ says: The baptism of both is necessary. One must be born of water and the Spirit."--International Revision Commentary, Edited by Dr. Schaff.
As really, then, as salvation comprehends two facts, pardon and regeneration, so really did Jesus sum in two words, Water and Spirit, the whole of salvation, and consequently, man’s entrance into the kingdom.--Godet.
Then Jesus to explain his former meaning, answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, and again repeat it, that unless a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God, or in plain terms, whoever would become a member of it must not only be baptized, but as ever he desires to share in its spiritual and eternal blessings, he must experience the renewing and sanctifying influences of the Holy Spirit on his soul.--Family Expositor by Dr. Philip Doddridge.
That our Lord here speaks of baptismal regeneration, the whole Christian Church from the beginning hath always taught, and that with very good reason, for, 1st. Though water is sometimes put to signify or represent the purifying operations of the Holy Spirit, yet to be born of water is a phrase never used in Scripture for being born of the Spirit; but very properly it is used of that baptism which is the laver of regeneration and was by all the ancients called paligenesia or regeneration. See Titus 3:5.--Commentary on New Testament by Dr. Daniel Whitby.
THE WORD BECAME FLESH:
STUDIES IN John 1:1-51; John 2:1-25; John 3:1-36; John 4:1-54; John 5:1-47; John 6:1-71; John 7:1-53; John 8:1-59; John 9:1-41; John 10:1-42
Notes For Week One: In The Beginning
(John 1:1-18)
From the start, we can see that John’s account of the gospel has a different emphasis than the first three. John focuses even more intimately on Jesus the individual, and more sharply on how Jesus affects others. This is in part because John wrote his gospel much later, and most of his readers had not lived during Jesus’ lifetime. Thus John is of obvious importance for us today.
Word, Life, & Light
(John 1:1-5)
John uses the odd title of "the Word", which we usually associate with written Scripture, as his introduction to Jesus Christ’s nature. John also refers to Jesus as our source of light and life - associations that will be re-emphasized throughout the book. Rather than dealing with factual details, John would prefer us first to consider Jesus from a broader, more spiritual perspective.
The opening passage of John introduces several main ideas. For this week’s study, we shall use the first five verses as an introduction to the book; then we shall take a brief look at the background to the gospel of John. The following passage (verses 6-18) will then introduce several more ideas about Jesus.
The association between "the Word" and God re-appears often* in John’s gospel (John 1:1-2). When he tells us that the Word was with God, and also that the Word actually was God, John is being both simple and mysterious. His opening phrase deliberately parallels Genesis 1:1, calling us to think back not merely to the start of Jesus’ earthly life - as the other gospel writers do - but all the way back to the creation of the universe, before human sin had complicated so many things.
·John refers to Jesus as "the Word" again in John 1:14. Later, he will use the same term (in Greek, logos, "logos") to refer to God’s expression of his will through Jesus - for example, in John 5:24; John 5:38; John 8:37; John 8:51-55; John 10:35; John 12:48; John 15:3; John 17:6; John 17:14, and John 17:17. John and the other three gospels use the same term in different senses, though John more often uses it in a generalized sense that goes beyond the written Scriptures. No precise verbal definition matches the way that John uses the term, but we will be close if we understand it to be a general expression of God’s nature and will.
By referring to Jesus in this way, John calls us to think beyond Jesus’ physical nature, to make sure that we do not think of him as merely a human philosopher or moralist. Like the other gospel writers, John overtly presents Jesus as having a supernatural dimension. One difference is that John begins by basing Jesus’ identity not on covenant or law or history, but on his very nature. This is in part because of when John wrote (see below); but John’s portrait of Jesus is, from the beginning, a clear challenge to earthly minds of all types*.
·The Greeks usually used "logos" to refer to "reason" or "thinking" in a general way, yet John’s usage makes it impossible to interpret it that way here. Similarly, the Jews strongly associated the "word" with written (or spoken) Scripture - and again John goes out of his way to avoid this limited implication.
The Word’s light forms a sharp contrast with the world’s darkness (John 1:3-5). Yet here too things are not so simple, for John emphasizes that it was through him (Jesus the Word) that all things were made*. This in turn implies that the world in its ideal state must then be pure and perfect. But - recall also the contrast between Genesis 2:1-25 and Genesis 3:1-24 - the problem of human sin hinders God’s presence and necessitates the redemptive ministry of Jesus.
·See also Hebrews 1:2. Neither passage attempts to explain whatever precise role Jesus may have played in creation, just as Genesis 1:1-31 never explains any of the mechanics involved. John thus does not expect us to dwell on these unanswered questions - rather, he mentions this aspect of Jesus’ identity so that we will keep it in mind when we consider the world’s response to Jesus (for example, in verse 10 below).
Jesus brings both life and light to those who dwell in this darkened world. His life gives us light, and vice versa. Some of the best-known verses in John emphasize these ideas, yet the apostle also reminds us often of the world’s reluctance to accept these blessings. Here in his introductory remarks, John makes an interesting observation: much of the trouble arises specifically because the darkness has not understood the light.
Indeed, even many who believe in Jesus have remarkably little understanding of what he really came to do - and this often shows in our lives and ministries. John’s challenge to his readers is thus to set aside our preconceptions about Jesus, and even our usual frame of reference that sees him in terms of specific actions or statements. John wants to help us to develop a deeper faith in Jesus that can affect us in ways going far beyond outward actions or factual beliefs.
These ideas will make even more sense when we take a brief look at the background to the gospel of John. All of John’s writings* (the gospel, his epistles, and Revelation) date from a later era than the time of most of the other New Testament writings. John outlived just about everyone from the generation in which Jesus had lived his human lifetime**, and in the later years of the 1st century AD he had become a legendary figure, as the last physical link to Jesus.
·John does not identify himself by name in any of these except for Revelation. The strongest evidence for John being the author is that the early Christians universally understood him to have written all of these books. This is reflected in surviving sources from the late 1st century through the 2nd century.
·It is usually believed that John was still fairly young when he met Jesus, although commentators differ widely as to the details of John’s biographical details. Note his comments about himself in John 21:20-24.
The types of spiritual problems common then and common now are remarkably similar. Despite many obvious differences in the trappings of human society, human nature doesn’t change. In the era when John wrote his gospel - probably sometime between AD 80 and AD 95 - the church struggled a lot with divisions, disruptive influences, and false doctrines, amongst other ills.
By that time, the church had been established for long enough that many of its members thought of it as an institution or an organization, rather than an informal, spiritual fellowship of believers. It was becoming common to conceive of "what the church teaches" as an important factor in making decisions. Church hierarchies of increasingly authoritarian leaders were starting to impose uniform teachings and methods, while at the other extreme small groups rebelled against the mainline church and formed new sects.
John’s emphasis on Jesus is more personal than it is in the other gospels, and this is one of the sources of John’s distinctive style. Although it is hard to describe with precision exactly what the difference is, some familiarity with John can help us to see that much of his writing style comes from his emphasis on Jesus’ personal interactions with others.
Whereas the style and much of the material can be very similar in Matthew, Mark and Luke*, John’s style is immediately recognizable. As a generality, John often emphasizes the personal side over theological, doctrinal, or moral considerations. He wants us to get to know Jesus as intimately as he once did - as a friend and teacher, but also as Lord and Savior.
·These three books are sometimes called the "synoptic gospels", to distinguish them from John. Commentators often look for elusive theories to explain the similarities among them, sometimes claiming (without historical evidence) that there was a mythical source document they all used. The first three gospels were all written around AD 60 or shortly afterwards, and they each collected familiar teachings about Jesus. They drew much more from oral tradition than from any written documents. For more, see the notes from the 2009 class, "The Living Word Of God", along with the sources used for that study.
Setting aside John’s personal relationship with Jesus, the contrast with the first three gospels comes in part from it being written so much later than the others. The passage of time had changed the ways that Jesus was viewed, even by believers. John omitted much of the material in Matthew, Mark and Luke because these teachings had become such common knowledge. But the very teachings about Jesus had now made him seem less of a reality, and more of a ’subject’ to be studied and mastered. Here too we see one of the major spiritual needs in the church today.
In studying John, then, we can get even more out of the book when we remember the needs John is addressing. John is of course just as valuable as the other gospels are as a source of teachings on Jesus’ ministry. Yet we will find the book even more rewarding and challenging if we are willing to study it with a perspective that goes beyond logic and law.
If we can overcome our tendency to compare every teaching with our own beliefs and attitudes, if we can resist our fleshly craving to look at ourselves, if we can patiently allow our minds to hear a new perspective rather than merely looking for new facts, then we can find in John a chance to renew and strengthen our faith in him and our relationship with him. Even amongst the apostles, John had a unique relationship with Jesus; and his gospel shows us some wonderful insights into Jesus’ nature and ministry.
Questions For Discussion Or Study: Why does John call Jesus the ’Word’? Can we develop a precise definition of what he means? What does it mean that the Word "was God’? How does John’s introduction help us to study John? What might it tell us about his emphasis? What role should we expect ’life’ and ’light’ to play?
The Word Comes To The World
(John 1:6-13)
Jesus had many amazing qualities by nature, yet more amazing than any of these - and far more precious to us for the hope it brings us - was his choice to come to our earth. John’s affection for Jesus helped him to be keenly aware of what this must have cost Jesus; and the gospel writer was also intensely conscious of the many contrasts between God and his Creation.
God prepared human witnesses to the Light that came into the world (John 1:6-9). The first was another John, whom we often call John The Baptist. He was the messenger, foretold and long awaited, who cleared the way for the Messiah*. John himself brought no light into the world; he was only a witness to the true light of Jesus. We often forget what an extraordinary task John had, and how much he paid for it. God placed great trust in this human, and John consistently showed remarkable humility in drawing attention towards Jesus and God, not towards himself.
·Notice that John’s gospel does not refer to the other John as ’the Baptist’, although all three other gospels frequently use the term. (The NIV section heading between verses 18 and 19 is not in the original text.)
When the light of God came into our world, the world had a choice (John 1:10-13). Sad to say, Jesus was rejected by his own world. Many humans choose to deny, reject, or simply ignore their Creator and his Son. We can - and too often do - spend hours bemoaning the faithlessness of the world. Yet the reasons why the worldly reject Jesus openly are often the same things that cause us to ignore or explain away his more difficult teachings, even as our mouths claim to believe.
Of the things that Jesus gives to those who do believe, John mentions first of all the right to be born of God. This is both a blessing and a responsibility, as we know from Jesus’ famous conversation with Nicodemus in John 3:1-36. Notice that John does not try to sell us on what a wonderful blessing it is to be born again. To anyone who believes, there is no question of its incalculable worth.
Questions For Discussion Or Study: Why did God send John (the Baptist) as a witness? Why is it important to remember that he himself was not the light? What lessons ought we to learn from this perspective? Why did the world reject the light that Jesus brought? Are there things we can learn from this? What does it mean to be born of God? Why is it a good thing? Why do we so often fail to appreciate the importance of it?
The Word Dwells Among Us
(John 1:14-18)
Jesus did not merely make a royal visit to our world. He lived like one of us, and even lived among us. Jesus’ earthly form and ministry both emphasize God’s great desire to be with us and to have fellowship with us. The greatest blessings of the gospel are those that come directly from living in the presence of God - which would be impossible without the grace of Jesus.
Through Jesus, this earth has seen the glory of God (John 1:14). Glory is another of the concepts to which John will often return. We have seen Jesus’ glory, and Jesus in turn shows us God’s glory. He shows us God’s glory through his life here ("the Son is the radiance of God’s glory", Hebrews 1:3); and he also brings us the grace that will allow us to see God’s eternal glory when we are freed from the constraints of our mortal bodies.
Jesus is also the one and only* true Son of God, the only true Word. This is not a legalistic claim, for it rests on Jesus’ very nature. Again John will return to this idea later, as he contrasts Jesus’ true light with the attempts of self-important humans to set themselves up as authorities on God. Here again we have a spiritual struggle that characterizes both John’s era and our own.
·Literally, the only-begotten. The same term appears in John 3:16, and some versions translate the phrase literally in both places. John does not use the term in a literal, physical sense - Jesus is the "only-begotten" of God in a non-physical, spiritual sense: he is the Father’s only true heir and Son.
We also hear the testimony of the witness, the other John, who testifies to Jesus’ superiority over him and all human spiritual leaders (John 1:15). Though Jesus will come, by earth’s chronology, after John, he was already alive long before John lived. Thus, "he who comes after me has surpassed me, because he was before me." Once more we see that John does not want anyone even thinking about exalting a mere witness - John wants all the glory to go to the true light.
Jesus makes his Father known to us in ways that nothing else can (John 1:16-18). Because Jesus allows us to come into God’s presence, we can have so many more blessings in Christ than were possible under any law. Jesus brings us one blessing after another because God wants to give us one blessing after another. Here too we see an aspect of Jesus that John will often mention.
Amongst the things that Jesus shows us about God are grace and truth. The contrast between Jesus and Moses is hardly intended to belittle Moses*, but just to exalt Jesus. Because Moses was only a mortal, fallible human, his laws were limited in what they could show us about God - indeed, they mostly showed us how fallible and limited we all are. They did teach God’s grace by implication; but until Jesus came, God could never show us the full extent of his grace.
* Note the parallel now between John and Exodus, to go with the deliberate parallel with Genesis in Genesis 1:1.
Thus Jesus is essential as a source of grace and truth. For we can only fully see God’s truth when we see and accept his grace. God’s grace is an integral and essential part of his nature, and of his truth. Only Jesus has ever been at the Father’s side; only Jesus has ever seen his Father in his full truth, glory, and grace. All of these things can help us to see how much we have to look forward to if we are willing to take a new look at Jesus, looking beyond our fleshly perspectives.
Questions For Discussion Or Study: What is glory? Can mortal humans ever understand God’s true glory? Why does the apostle John quote John the Baptist here? What significance does his testimony have in this context? In what ways - whether mentioned by John here or not - does Jesus make God known to us? What other Scriptures point out this aspect of Jesus’ ministry? Why does John specifically mention grace and truth?
·Mark Garner, March 2011
THE WORD BECAME FLESH:
STUDIES IN John 1:1-51; John 2:1-25; John 3:1-36; John 4:1-54; John 5:1-47; John 6:1-71; John 7:1-53; John 8:1-59; John 9:1-41; John 10:1-42
Notes For Week Two:
The World Meets The Word
(John 1:19-51)
John has presented Jesus to us as the Word made flesh, the life that brings light into the darkness on this earth. We now follow Jesus as he first begins to draw attention in our world. First we shall see Jesus heralded as God’s Son by God’s messenger John the Baptist; and then we shall see some of Jesus earliest interactions with his future apostles.
Review Of Last Week’s Class - In The Beginning
Jesus is the Word, who brings life and light into this world (John 1:1-5). John emphasizes general ideas more than the factual details of Jesus’ life. This is partly due to the historical background. John wrote his gospel account much later than the other three inspired authors did, when the biographical details of Jesus’ life were established as common knowledge. But the church had become an institution, and Jesus was seen more as a topic of study than a living Savior. In studying John, it helps to remember the importance of Jesus as a living presence among us.
John tells us how the Word came into the world (John 1:6-13). John the Baptist was the first public witness, a faithful human who clearly understood that all he could do was to point others to the true light. The world was given a choice, and most persons in the world chose not to accept Jesus as the Father’s Son and heir. To those who in faith did acknowledge their Savior, Jesus gave no earthly riches, but instead enabled them to become children of God.
So the Word came to dwell amongst mortal humans (John 1:14-18). His life lets us see the glory of God reflected in his Son. Jesus the Son and Word makes known the Father. Jesus shows us everything about God that can be grasped by those living in this temporary world.
It is worth reflecting here on what we hope to get from studying the gospel of John. We should not expect to find methods or tactics, for John knows that these rarely, if ever, are what we really need. Nor should we expect to find facts or proof texts with which to win arguments. Even when these things ’work’, they rarely meet the true needs of unbelievers or erring Christians.
But there are many spiritual riches in the gospel of John, if we can accept his call to refocus and to reconsider our perspective. Each of us in our own way finds the true gospel mysterious, troublesome, or uncomfortable. John wants to help us with these things, if we will let him.
Who Is John?
(John 1:19-28)
Before Jesus became a source of speculation and controversy, John the Baptist was the subject of considerable rumor and discussion. The apostle John records for us a conversation between the Baptist and a group of religious officials who are eager to analyze and classify him. In his determination to stick to his given message, John is a worthy forerunner of the Messiah Jesus.
John the Baptist appeared on the scene as a voice in the desert, attracting attention for many different reasons (John 1:19-23). We know from the other gospel accounts that many Jews listened to John in sincerity and anticipation. But the Baptist’s ministry was also the subject of scrutiny; and here we see an investigation launched by the religious leaders into John’s activities.
These experts take little interest in John’s message (which emphasized repentance - see Matthew 3:7-12, Mark 1:4-8, and Luke 3:7-18). They only want to know who he is, what authority he thinks he has, or what credentials he can present to them. They know that the Scriptures foretell a Messiah, and they believe that the prophet Elijah is scheduled to return*, probably just before the Messiah. Many of them also speculated that a great prophet would also come sometime**. Yet John, when questioned, quickly indicates that he is ’none of the above.’
·See Malachi 3:1; Malachi 4:5. God did not literally plan to send Elijah himself (although those obsessed with literal interpretation sometimes claim that Elijah’s appearance at the transfiguration "fulfilled" Malachi’s prophecy). Jesus said of John the Baptist, "if you are willing to accept it, he is the Elijah who was to come" (; Matthew 11:14). Thus John was an Elijah figure in a non-literal sense, which explains why he says here that he is not Elijah - he knew that his questioners expected Elijah himself. See also Matthew 17:10-13.
·This was based on Deuteronomy 18:15-19, a subject of debate between those who understood it as a reference to the Messiah, and those who thought that it meant ’The’ Prophet, a separate special messenger. In its original context, could also refer to a succession of prophets. Note, though, that in Acts 7:37 Stephen implies that Moses was referring at least in part to the Messiah.
Asked for some description about himself, John quotes Isaiah, describing himself as the voice in the desert who prepares the way for someone greater. Even before Jesus himself arrives on the scene, John persistently and faithfully calls attention to his successor.
Because John does not fit into any of their pigeonholes, some of the Pharisees ask him what reason he could have for baptizing anyone (John 1:24-28). These Pharisees had apparently waited for the rest of the delegation to ask the routine questions, but now they feel they can speak up and request the explanation for John’s actions.
Notice that John doesn’t really answer their question, except perhaps by implication. "Among you stands one you do not know" is not literally true, but what John means is that the coming Messiah will not arrive in a spectacular or eye-catching manner. Jesus has already been in the world, living an ordinary (if sinless) life. John himself will soon point him out to the discerning.
John again openly confesses that he is unworthy to untie the sandals of his successor. He is not concerned with what the Pharisees think of him, for he knows his role well. Any time they spend analyzing John himself, whether to criticize him or to praise him, will be largely wasted. His role is to call attention to Jesus, for we must all decide for ourselves who Jesus is.
Questions For Discussion Or Study: Why does the apostle John tell us about John the Baptist’s conversation with the religious authorities? Why do the authorities question him about his identity? Is this an example for us (either good or bad) in any way? What do John’s statements about himself tell us? Why indeed did John baptize? Does his response to the Pharisees explain this? What should we learn from this passage?
Who Is Jesus?
(John 1:29-42)
John the Baptist knew and accepted his important but thankless role. He leaves no ambiguity that it is Jesus who is the Lamb of God. John openly proclaims who Jesus is, and then he continues by encouraging his own followers to begin following Jesus instead. This leads to a new series of events, as two of these persons in their turn seek to understand who Jesus is.
The time now comes for John, the witness to the light, to give his full testimony (John 1:29-34). He does not merely make the identification for himself, but rather calls out to everyone to "Look!" when Jesus comes to him. Those who heeded John’s appeal may have been a bit disappointed, for Jesus at this time did nothing remarkable himself. The sight of Jesus would at first have seemed thoroughly commonplace, one among many coming to be baptized - a humble example.
But John continues, describing how he saw the Spirit come down from heaven and rest upon Jesus*. The Baptist openly identifies Jesus as the Son of God, just as he had been called to do. No doubt there were many who did not understand or who did not pay attention, but we shall see that at least a few of them understood the implications of John’s testimony.
·This is also mentioned in Matthew 3:16, Mark 1:10-11, and Luke 3:22; yet in those passages it is not stated whether the crowds saw the Spirit and/or heard God’s voice. The account here in John seems to suggest that only John and Jesus may have observed these things.
The very next day, John again sees Jesus and tells his followers, "Look, the Lamb of God!" (John 1:35-39). Two of his own followers* immediately trail after Jesus, addressing him as "Rabbi" (that is, Teacher). He is indeed a new rabbi, though not in the sense the word would have normally been used. Jesus will teach them things on a far more profound level than they have ever encountered before. We are left to guess what they actually did in their first meeting with Jesus, but it seems safe to say that their lives would never be the same**.
·They can also be referred to as John’s disciples. The Greek word literally means simply a "learner".
·Compare the initial meetings with future apostles here with the ones in the other gospels, since both contain interactions with Andrew and Peter. It is impossible for this passage to be the same event as, for example, Mark 1:16-18. Thus it seems likely that Jesus may have first spent time with them as described here in John, and then soon afterwards came to their boats to call them away permanently. More complicated theories have been proposed, but they usually end up being even more convoluted.
The future apostle Andrew is one of these two (the other is unidentified), and soon after meeting Jesus he finds his brother Simon (John 1:40-42). He eagerly assures his brother that, "we have found the Messiah*", and this in turn results in Simon Peter’s first meeting with Jesus. Perhaps already seeing into Simon’s heart, Jesus at once gives him the enigmatic nickname of Cephas, or Peter**.
·Messiah is Hebrew for "anointed one", and Christ is Greek for "anointed one". These inter-changeable names are given to Jesus because he was chosen, or anointed, by God as the world’s Lord and Savior.
·The Greek word petros ("petros") and the Aramaic word "Cephas" (a transliteration) both mean a rock, in the sense of a small rock or pebble.
Questions For Discussion Or Study: Why might John’s two followers have so quickly decided to follow Jesus? What might they have understood about him? Are there ways in which we can emulate their response? How might John the Baptist have influenced them? What can we learn from this?
The Trusting & The Skeptic
(John 1:43-51)
Jesus’ small group of followers continues to grow. Jesus himself invites Philip to follow him, and Philip in turn brings his friend Nathanael to meet Jesus. The eager and seemingly trusting Philip forms an interesting contrast with the more skeptical, cynical Nathanael. Yet both of them will come to see the same important things in Jesus.
First, the enthusiastic Philip begins to follow Jesus (John 1:43-45). He responds at once to Jesus’ invitation, and like Andrew, Philip is already certain of Jesus’ special identity. So when, soon afterwards, he finds his friend Nathanael*, he tells Nathanael that, "we have found the One" who had been foretold for so long. But Nathanael is not so easily moved to excitement.
·Nathanael is not mentioned in the Scriptures outside of John (see also John 21:2). Because John depicts him as a future apostle, commentators usually assume that he appears in the other gospels and Acts under a different name (as is the case with some of the other apostles). He is usually, with some justification, considered to be the same as Bartholomew, who is mentioned in the other books. Some commentators have used some added guesswork to ’reconstruct’ his original name as Nathanael Bar-Tolmai.
So Jesus has to persuade a skeptic (John 1:46-51). Nathanael replies to Philip’s enthusiastic description of Jesus with sarcasm, mocking Jesus’ hometown of Nazareth without responding to the substance of Philip’s claims. In response, Philip simply asks him to, "come and see"; that is, to come and see Jesus for himself.
As simple as this episode is, Philip gives us a worthwhile example. He doesn’t argue with Nathanael, and he does not critique him or correct him for his unbelief. He knows that what Nathanael needs is Jesus, not correction or even logic. He knows that the best way for Nathanael to believe will be for him to see Jesus for himself. Philip needs no credit for ’discovering’ the Messiah, and he does not pretend that he himself can adequately explain the Christ.
Our desire, too, should not be to persuade anyone that we have the best church in town, or to pretend that we have the right answers to everything. It should be to get others to spend some time with Jesus, so that they can see him for themselves, and can decide on that basis whether to follow him on his terms, not on ours.
Jesus famously calls Nathanael a "true Israelite", commending him for his honesty, yet with the subtle implication that God has so often met with skepticism and cynicism from his own people. Aside from this ironical comment, though, Jesus sees no reason to criticize Nathanael personally. He displays his power simply but unmistakably, explaining that he could ’see’ Nathanael under the fig tree without being present physically. Suddenly the skeptic becomes an ardent believer!
Jesus downplays this too, pointing out that far greater experiences - some exhilarating and some fearful - await those who choose to follow their Messiah. He hints briefly at the great spiritual realities* that Nathanael cannot see now, providing no full explanations, but giving his followers the expectation of becoming part of something bigger than any earthly group or activity. So too, Jesus calls us not to a life of earthly excitement, but to a ministry that transcends this world.
The imagery of angels ascending and descending on the Son of Man closely parallels Jacob’s vision in Genesis 28:10-12. In both cases, the point is that there is an entire realm of spiritual reality that we can only dimly sense, much less be able to interpret or understand. In both cases, we are not being called to decipher the hidden meaning of the imagery, but rather are being called to a greater level of humility, acknowledging that mortal beings cannot begin to comprehend reality on the level that God knows it.
Questions For Discussion Or Study: What can we learn from Philip’s response to Jesus? Why might Nathanael have reacted as he did? How else could Philip have handled this? Did he make a good choice? How does Jesus’ handling of Nathanael help us respond to cynics and skeptics? Why might Nathanael have changed his attitude so quickly? Why does Jesus try to get him to refocus again? What "greater things" will we see?
Mark Garner, March 2011
THE WORD BECAME FLESH:
STUDIES IN John 1:1-51; John 2:1-25; John 3:1-36; John 4:1-54; John 5:1-47; John 6:1-71; John 7:1-53; John 8:1-59; John 9:1-41; John 10:1-42
Notes For Week Three: Transformations
(John 2:1-25)
Jesus transforms everything by his life and his light. During his earthly ministry, he frequently displayed the power to transform the physical world in any way that he saw appropriate. Yet physical miracles were only a prelude to the far deeper and more profound transformations that he wished to bring about in those who would believe in him and follow him.
Review Of Previous Classes
The story of Jesus goes back to the very beginning (John 1:1-18), for Jesus is the word, the life, and the light. When the world meets the Word, the world starts to ask questions (John 1:19-51).
First, the world asks who John the Baptist is. He has no title - he is simply a voice in the desert calling attention to the Messiah. When asked why he baptizes, he simply says to watch for the one who comes after him. When John points out Jesus, the world wants to know who he is, too. John twice calls out, "Look!", for he wants all attention focused on Jesus. Thus Andrew and another of John’s followers follow Jesus. They spend the day with Jesus, and are convinced he is the Messiah. Andrew brings his brother Simon to Jesus, a meeting that will lead to many things.
The small group is soon joined by the trusting Philip and the skeptic Nathanael. Philip responds enthusiastically to Jesus, assuring Nathanael that, "we have found the One!" Nathanael must be persuaded; but Jesus quickly turns him into an eager believer. Then Jesus tries to slow him down, pointing him towards things more important than mere predictions or foreknowledge.
What drew Jesus’ earliest followers to him? They have seen no miracles yet (see John 2:11 and John 10:41). They had John’s testimony about the Spirit, John’s statement that Jesus was the ’Lamb of God’ - and they had Jesus’ own words and actions. So too, we must be content with a lot of worthwhile, yet never quite tangible, reasons to believe. Yet we too, if we seek to know the truth, can be moved to the same devotion that we see in Jesus’ earliest disciples. Both then and now, personal interaction with Jesus is more valuable than miracles or factual knowledge.
Transforming Water
(John 2:1-11)
Until now, Jesus has performed no miracles. But now an occasion arises, perhaps unexpectedly, that gives him the opportunity to perform the first of his many public miraculous signs. It is an interesting setting in several respects, and the informal circ*mstances in their way form a suitable preview of Jesus’ ministry to come.
A wedding in Cana, apparently involving friends of Jesus’ family, becomes the site of his first display of miraculous power (John 2:1-5). Jesus, his mother, and his disciples had been invited to the festivities; and they are attending the celebratory feast* without attracting any special attention.
·This is the same custom that our society would call a ’reception’. Having a meal and/or similar social activities after a wedding ceremony is an ancient custom, going back well before the time of Jesus.
When the supply of wine runs out, Jesus’ mother points this out to him in such a way so as to suggest that he might be able to help. Jesus replies to his mother’s veiled request somewhat enigmatically*, emphasizing that his "time has not yet come" - that is, that the time for his public ministry has not quite arrived**. But it was apparently close enough - Jesus decides, whether out of affection for his mother or because he realizes that this time is as good as any, that he will go ahead and do something.
·His address to her is familiar but affectionate. The NIV translates it as "dear woman", which is non-literal, but it gives a slightly better idea of his tone than the NASB’s literal but more abrupt "woman".
·Here again, there are chronological questions about this episode in relation to the beginnings of his public ministry as they are recounted in the other gospel accounts. As before, see the recommended sources if you wish to do further study.
And so Jesus performs his first miracle, in somewhat impromptu fashion (John 2:6-11). Notice that he makes no real ceremony, simply pointing out the availability of some large water jars*, and asking the servants to fill them with water. Jesus does no ’magic’, and he says nothing special. But when the jars are taken to the banquet master, he is surprised to find more wine - and wine of much better quality than the wine that had been purchased for the meal.
·John notes that the jars were there to accommodate the many rituals involving water that the Jews of the time practiced. These rituals were for the sake of ceremony, not hygiene. These are the kinds of rituals at issue in passages such as Mark 7:1-5.
Although this miracle meets a less urgent need than most of the miracles that Jesus performed, there are still many similarities. His miracles are unaccompanied by hype or by pretense, and they accomplish things of practical usefulness. This miracle, like the others, was also unmistakable to those who saw the whole thing - yet Jesus is unconcerned that others may not grasp the whole significance. John tells us that this was an important point in the disciples’ understanding of Jesus. For the first time, they have seen a clear display of Jesus’ mastery over the physical world, and it gives them a new reason to have faith in him.
Questions For Discussion Or Study: Why might Jesus’ mother have expected him to help in this situation? Why did he say that his time had not yet come? Why did he go ahead and do the miracle anyway? What features of this miracle are similar to those of his other miracles? Does this one have any special significance?
Transforming Religion
(John 2:12-17)
Jesus now visits Jerusalem for the first time since John the Baptist had revealed him to the public. The selling and money-changing in the temple area was a long-established practice, challenged by no one. Yet Jesus not only questions it, but forcibly stops it. So too, his ministry will call his followers to transform the ways that they think of religious observance and practice.
Jesus goes to the temple* for the first time since being pointed out by John the Baptist (John 2:12-14). The selling and exchanging have been going on for many years, but until now even Jesus has done nothing about it; his "time had not yet come". Now, though, he makes an important point.
·Jesus seems to have followed all of the common Jewish religious observances, and this would have led him to the temple on various occasions, even though he did not reside in Jerusalem.
The abundant commercial presence in the temple courts is an example of how human logic and expediency can lead us astray without having any ill intentions. These practices had originated long before the time of Jesus, as a practical aid to out-of-town worshipers coming to Jerusalem. Originally, they had been based on commands from the old law plus additional observances that had become established over the years, regarding particular types of animal to sacrifice or specific values of coin* with which to redeem something.
·The law and/or historical religious practices sometimes specified a particular denomination of coin, and many persons stuck closely to the letter of the law. So the money-changers were relied upon to stock the various coins - sometimes obsolete - that were expected. Later, during the Roman occupation, many Jews refused to use Roman coins for religious transactions, even when the particular coin itself did not matter.
Starting as a convenience, the practice grew to where anything vaguely related to the temple and its activities could be sold or exchanged in the court area. Can we say that the whole practice was "good at the beginning, but it went too far?" We don’t know - but in any case, we know that human logic, desire for convenience, and sometimes overly literal use of Scripture combined over time with the profit motive to create a situation that Jesus found unacceptable. Yet we also sometimes accept and approve of cultural practices that run directly contrary to the teachings of the New Testament, if we are led astray by our own exaggerated sense of fleshly loyalty.
Jesus’ clearing of the temple courts* is a rare instance of him taking direct action to correct a problem. As such, we should try to understand why this was different from so many other ills of his time (John 2:15-17). From using a whip to driving off the sacrificial animals to scattering coins, Jesus kicks up a full-fledged ruckus. Yet there were other, seemingly far worse problems - violence, oppression, poverty, and many more - that he never addressed in such a way.
·Evidently Jesus returned to do the same thing some three years or so later. Unless we assume that at least one of the gospel writers was mistaken, there isn’t any way to harmonize John 2:1-25 with the accounts in the other gospels of Jesus doing something similar during the last week of his life (; Matthew 21:12-13, Mark 11:12-18, Luke 19:45-46). Human nature being what it is, there isn’t any reason to think that the same practices wouldn’t have been resumed, perhaps immediately. Jesus thus did the same thing at a later time.
Jesus’ disciples are impressed by his "zeal for his Father’s house"; that is, they realize that he sees the temple as a special place: it is holy*, belonging to God alone. Like us, they rarely saw Jesus do anything like this. Eventually, they could have seen that Jesus’ strong words and direct action were reserved for things that touched directly on areas involving holiness. He was gracious and patient with many kinds of sins, but he spoke firmly against those who used God (or things that belonged to God alone) as a pretext to pursue their own interests or agendas, just as he strongly denounced those who considered themselves morally superior or more spiritual than others.
·Recall from Genesis, Exodus, and Leviticus that ’holy’ simply refers to something belonging to God alone, something not belonging to this world. Because the temple was consecrated to God, Jesus firmly resisted uncleanness in its vicinity, just as God in the Old Testament consistently warned against the unclean and the holy coming into contact.
In applying Jesus’ example, then, we must set aside not only some commonly accepted erroneous beliefs, but also our own fleshly opinions and preferences. Jesus’ example does not give us grounds to reprove or correct anything we find sinful. It is, rather, a call to us, more than to the worldly, not to distort the gospel to serve earthly ends, whether economic, political, or otherwise.
Questions For Discussion Or Study: How might the commerce in the temple have grown from a mere convenience into the ’marketplace’ that Jesus denounces? Why did everyone accept it or tolerate it? Can we do the same thing? What other ills in Jesus’ time might seem ’worse’ by human standards? Why did he choose this one to oppose? How should we learn from his example?
Transforming Minds
(John 2:18-25)
Now that he has been revealed to the public, Jesus spends his time in Jerusalem teaching and performing miracles. His words and actions begin to attract both devoted belief and bitter opposition - a pattern that will follow him for the rest of his earthly life. Yet Jesus himself is not swayed by either of these, for he has a profound understanding of human nature.
In the aftermath of the temple clearing, the religious officials demand that Jesus prove his authority to do such things (John 2:18-22). The practice of demanding credentials, instead of seeking truth, is a common failing of human nature in every era and society - so we should not criticize these individuals alone. The problem is the same whether the credentials we seek are based on status, accomplishments, or miracles - none of these things are a reliable guide to truth.
Notice that they do not care why Jesus did it, or whether they may have done something wrong - to them it is strictly a question of who is ’in charge’. It is easy for us to fall into this habit also; yet genuine gospel ministry will always require patience and forbearance, not authoritarian or legalistic leadership. Jesus, for his part, could easily have performed a spectacular miracle that would have humbled them, but he chooses not to do so.
Instead, Jesus makes a new point, with his claim that he could rebuild a destroyed temple. He knows the authorities will take it literally, and they do*. He is less concerned with answering their questions than with giving his disciples something to think about later. Jesus is essentially giving the same sign of the resurrection that he would offer later when similar demands for a sign of authority were made - calling it, for example, the "sign of Jonah" in Matthew 12:39-41 and Luke 11:29-32. Whereas he would later openly tell his disciples that he would rise from the dead, in dealing with opposition he seems to prefer putting it in more figurative terms.
The 46 years (in their response) refers to the length of time since King Herod ’The Great’ had begun renovating and expanding the temple grounds in about 19 BC. The work continued gradually for all these years, long after Herod himself was dead.
These religious authorities, though, cannot stop others from believing in Jesus (John 2:23-25). Many persons in Jerusalem now believe in Jesus when they see the miracles he has begun to perform. Of course, along with this come the many expectations of Jesus that different persons start to have. But Jesus does not entrust himself to any human leader or human agenda. He knows what is in a human - that is, he thoroughly understands human nature and its limitations. He does not, and never will, allow any human to control him or to tell him what to do. Instead, he loves us unconditionally, and he will always stand ready to meet our genuine needs.
Questions For Discussion Or Study: Why do the religious authorities ask for a miraculous sign? What would be the equivalent in our time? Why doesn’t Jesus accommodate them? Why is he so obscure with his promise of the resurrection? What expectations might someone have had of Jesus at this time? What does it mean that he did not entrust himself to anyone? What were his reasons for this?
Mark Garner, March 2011
THE WORD BECAME FLESH:
STUDIES IN John 1:1-51; John 2:1-25; John 3:1-36; John 4:1-54; John 5:1-47; John 6:1-71; John 7:1-53; John 8:1-59; John 9:1-41; John 10:1-42
Notes For Week Four:
The Call To Rebirth
(John 3:1-36)
Jesus has shown the disciples that he is able to transform anything, from water to religious observance to human minds. Yet he has no desire to impose his power unilaterally on reluctant persons. He calls each of us to look to him and to choose whether to follow him. If we choose to follow, he further asks that we experience a rebirth, a deep change of perspective and allegiance.
Review Of Recent Classes
When the world meets the Word of God, it asks questions about John the Baptist and Jesus (John 1:19-51). Those who spent time with Jesus came to understand his real importance. Jesus then began to demonstrate his ability to transform things physically and spiritually (John 2:1-25).
In transforming water into wine, Jesus demonstrated his power over the physical world. The wedding feast formed an informal yet appropriate setting. His first miracle, like the others that followed, served a practical purpose, and it was done without pretense or hype. Jesus also desired to transform human ideas of religious observance. The commerce in the temple had long been accepted as a convenience, but Jesus deliberately created a disturbance to show his disapproval. His disciples noted his zeal for his Father’s house, his concern for holy things.
Jesus also desires to transform minds. When the religious officials demand proof of his authority, Jesus deliberately refrains from displaying his power, giving them only the promise of his resurrection. Later, many in Jerusalem saw his miracles and believed in him. Yet Jesus was swayed neither by opposition nor by popular approval. He knew what was inside a human being, and so he did not entrust himself to any human purpose.
Based on what we have seen in the gospel of John so far, what is important to Jesus? Despite his miraculous powers, he uses them sparingly, preferring to influence others by less forceful means. He is not interested in popularity so much as in developing closeness with those who understand who he is. He is concerned neither with opposition nor with popularity. He simply speaks and acts as appropriate, letting others form their opinions. If there is a common thread, it is that Jesus points us to his Father, just as John the Baptist consistently pointed everyone to Jesus.
You Must Be Born Again
(John 3:1-15)
This well-known passage opens with Jesus being sought out by a prominent religious official. Nicodemus is confused, but he is apparently quite sincere in his desire to understand. Yet Jesus is at first evasive, and then somewhat disapproving. Jesus is not acting out of annoyance, but out of compassion. If Nicodemus is to grow spiritually, then he must adopt a brand-new perspective.
This question and answer session between Jesus and the cautious Pharisee forms the springboard for some of the New Testament’s most familiar verses (John 3:1-3). The prominent Pharisee* Nicodemus comes to Jesus under cover of night, and makes a cautious statement of faith. He deserves credit for acknowledging something that the other religious leaders would not - Jesus’ ability to do miracles strongly suggested that he had come from God.
·Literally, "a ruler of the Jews" - that is, a member of the Jewish ruling council, the Sanhedrin. In practical terms, the Sanhedrin made most of the important decisions in the community.
Nicodemus tells Jesus that he understands this, implicitly seeking a response. Jesus’ answer is at best indirect. To see the kingdom of God - Jesus assumes that Nicodemus will accept the importance of this* - a person must be "born again". In a sense, this is the perfect response to Nicodemus’s opening statement. Jesus is not looking for persons who simply accept him intellectually as the Son of God, and then become satisfied with themselves. To those who do believe in him, he makes the even more challenging call to be born again, to start anew.
·Then, as now, there were many differing opinions about what the "kingdom of God" or the "kingdom of heaven" would involve. It is characteristic of Jesus that, though he frequently uses these terms, he never defines them. He does not want us to come up with a dictionary definition as much as he wants his followers to put together all of the ideas he shares. Here, in other words, he does not want Nicodemus to define the kingdom of God, but instead to realize that, whatever it may be, it requires us to be born again.
Even this simple idea confuses the learned Pharisee, who wonders how such a thing can possibly be (John 3:4-9). Like most humans, he has a literal perspective that makes it difficult for him to grasp spiritual truths. Like many spiritual concepts, being ’born again’ is only a phrase in human language that tries to communicate a concept that the mortal mind cannot fully comprehend. It ties together a lot of important ideas - including repentance, baptism, living a new life, having a new purpose, and much more - but its full meaning is beyond any of these.
Jesus provides the seeker with more detail, indicating that this rebirth involves water and the Spirit. Since both John the Baptist and Jesus were performing baptisms*, the reference to water naturally refers to this. But Jesus’ discourse on the Spirit’s work completely baffles Nicodemus. The comparison of the Spirit with the wind is useful for us as well. In both cases, the effects can be seen even though we cannot, and can never, put our hands on anything tangible.
·For baptism in Jesus’ ministry, see John 3:22 and John 4:1-2. Although the ancient Jews had many rituals involving water (some from the Law, and others of human invention), the form of baptism performed by John, Jesus, and the early Christians was new and distinct.
Jesus does not dwell on the immediate point, but instead points out the difference between understanding earthly things and understanding heavenly things (John 3:10-15). Nicodemus was one of the most educated men of his community, yet he has very little ability to understand the things that really matter to Jesus. Spiritual truth is equally baffling to the educated and uneducated alike, to those the world considers wise and to those the world considers foolish. God is truly just - the gospel is equally mysterious to all, and it is equally simple for all. If we teach a ’gospel’ that make it easier for some and harder for others, then it is probably no gospel at all.
Again, despite Nicodemus’s obvious desire to know the truth, Jesus criticizes him for being so slow to grasp even basic truths. If he has trouble with the basic idea of being born again, then how will he believe in the really challenging concepts of Christianity? The same is true for us - if we are not willing to set aside our personal preferences, fleshly biases, and side issues, then there is no way for us to understand the deeper truths of the gospel.
In particular, anyone who follows Jesus must learn and accept the necessity for the Son Of Man to be lifted up on the cross*, in order for us to have the hope of knowing God. In Jesus’ lifetime, his followers did not want to believe that their Savior was going to die. For us, it is difficult to accept that we follow a Savior who died for us, and who calls us likewise to die to our old selves.
·Jesus’ mention of the snake (in John 3:14) refers to the events of Numbers 21:4-9. Jesus is not drawing any detailed parallels - he is simply telling Nicodemus that the answers must be sought from above, and by looking above, as the Israelites did when seeking help using the bronze snake.
Questions For Discussion Or Study: What is significant about the way Nicodemus approaches Jesus? Does it affect how Jesus speaks to him? How do Jesus’ comments about being born again ’answer’ Nicodemus? Why does Jesus emphasize the work of the Spirit? What aspects of his teachings here are hard for us to accept? What kind of ’earthly’ (or simple) things do we need to understand before we can grasp harder things?
God So Loved The World
(John 3:16-21)
God’s love for humanity cannot be described in terms of our limited earthly ideas of love. As familiar as this passage is, it is full of profound ideas that our fleshly minds always struggle to understand. In sending his Son into the world, God acted with exceptional graciousness, and he revealed an extraordinary level of compassion. Yet we also have the responsibility to respond.
In giving his Son to the world, God displays his love for humanity in the greatest possible way (John 3:16-18). God has always had the desire to give life. In his Creation he combines this desire with his love, by creating beings who can choose whether or not to obey their Creator. Yet this also makes the Creation imperfect, since sin-stained human beings cannot live in the Creator’s presence by natural means. Only Jesus, God’s true Son and heir*, can bring this about by sacrificing himself. To be saved through belief in the Son is neither a doctrinal exercise nor a mechanical process - it is no less than the humble awareness of God’s very nature and will.
* This is what John means by the term ’only-begotten’. See the notes to John 1:14.
God’s light has come into the world, but the world does not acknowledge it (John 3:19-21). Indeed, men love the darkness, because the darkness covers over their misdeeds. Human nature opposes anything that brings its flaws to light, and thus prefers the darkness - over time, this becomes hatred of the light. In Jesus’ lifetime, enough persons hated his relentless truthfulness that they conspired to kill him. But today it is not only the pagans who hate the light. Many who call themselves Christians are only willing to follow selected teachings of Jesus that make them feel superior to others; and they do not want to listen to the rest of the gospel.
If we wish to come into the light, then we must do so altogether. We cannot select the teachings of the gospel that we like, and then explain away the rest. This is a universal struggle - no individual Christian, no congregation, no denomination wants to do this. But if we let the light shine completely upon us, if we humbly allow it to illuminate everything in our lives and everything around us, then we can be freed of our insecure, desperate human attempts to prove ourselves better or more worthy than someone else. The light shows us that everything we have comes from God, and everything good we can do is made possible only by God.
Questions For Discussion Or Study: How does God’s gift of Jesus show us his love? How can we learn to appreciate this? Why do humans not want the light that Jesus brings? Are there aspects of it that we do not like? How do we overcome this? What is necessary for us to come into the light? What is difficult about it? Why is it good?
The One Who Comes From Heaven
(John 3:22-36)
We now meet up again with John the Baptist. John has continued his own ministry, yet he retains a clear understanding of his role. He draws a clear contrast between Jesus, who comes from heaven, and himself, an earthly being who is merely Jesus’ friend and messenger. John provides for us a valuable example of the faith and humility that Jesus seeks in his followers.
Even after pointing the way to Jesus, and advising his own disciples to follow the Lamb of God, John the Baptist still retained some loyal followers of his own* (John 3:22-26). On this occasion, their loyalty to John brings them into a doctrinal dispute with another religious authority. We are not given the details of the dispute itself, since they are unimportant. We soon see that John’s disciples are really pre-occupied with their concern for the success of John’s ministry. They have seen Jesus attract many of John’s former followers, plus new ones. We can assume that these disciples of John are sincere, but they have really missed the whole point of John’s ministry.
·John himself simply continued his ministry of teaching and baptizing until he was jailed and then executed. Some of John’s disciples remained loyal to him even after he was imprisoned - see Matthew 11:2-10. A few of them apparently remained ’faithful’ to John’s teachings years later, as suggested by Acts 19:1-7. That passage, in fact, does not definitively answer whether John’s baptism ’saved’ someone, making this a favorite debating point of certain commentators who enjoy discussing issues that cannot possibly affect anyone living, so that they cannot possibly be challenged by the discussion.
The humble John remains true to his calling, assuring his followers that this is just as it was meant to be - Jesus must now become greater, and John must now start to fade from the scene (John 3:27-30). John describes himself as merely the friend of the bridegroom - the story is not about John; it is about the bridegroom Jesus. We too ought to learn to see our ministries and ourselves in this way. From a human standpoint, John was treated with great unfairness, as his faithfulness was repaid by obscurity and violent death. But, "for your sake we face death all day long; we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered" (Romans 8:36, quoting from Psalms 44:22).
All life comes from the Son himself, not from his messengers or servants (John 3:31-36). We are among those who come from the earth. Our perspective is naturally an earthly one - we cannot help this, and we should not feel guilty about it; but we must allow it to humble us. God the Father loves us, and he shows his love for us through his Son, whom he loves without limit. God has placed everything in his Son’s hands: Jesus alone reflects the full radiance of God, and Jesus’ ministry alone offers us a chance to be cleansed of our sins, so that we can live forever in God’s holy presence.
Questions For Discussion Or Study: Why would someone still be following John at this point? Is this bad? Can we learn anything from it? Why are they worried about seeing so many others follow Jesus? What perspective does John want them to have? How should we learn from this? Why does John use the analogy of a bridegroom? What does it mean that God has entrusted everything to Jesus? What implications does this have?
Mark Garner, March 2011
THE WORD BECAME FLESH:
STUDIES IN John 1:1-51; John 2:1-25; John 3:1-36; John 4:1-54; John 5:1-47; John 6:1-71; John 7:1-53; John 8:1-59; John 9:1-41; John 10:1-42
Notes For Week Five:
Testifying For The Word
(John 4:1-54)
The Samaritan woman whom we meet in this chapter provides us with a well-known example of the effect Jesus can have on someone who wants to know the truth. First we see her private conservation with Jesus, and then we can see how her faith is affected by being with Jesus. This is followed by the ways that she in turn encourages others to come and see Jesus for themselves.
Review Of Recent Classes
Jesus is able to bring about transformations to physical objects, to religious observance, and to human minds (John 2:1-25). He calls us to a rebirth (John 3:1-36). To see the kingdom of God, we must be born again, just as Jesus calls the learned but literal-minded Nicodemus to give up his old way of looking at things, so that he can see from a spiritual perspective. Nicodemus is genuinely baffled, not seeing how this could be, so Jesus patiently calls him to look to above.
"God so loved the world" is a familiar phrase, yet it is much deeper than earthly love. God’s compassion and his desire to give life are combined in his gift of Jesus. Sadly, many persons hate the light Jesus brings, for they do not want their weaknesses and mistakes exposed. When we come into the light, we are not made flawless - rather, we rejoice in knowing we live in grace.
John the Baptist is an excellent example of the humility that comes from allowing Jesus to be the light. Jesus is the (only) one who comes from heaven, and only he is flawless and perfectly wise. John knew that the time had come when Jesus would become greater, and John less. This is also what happens to us, if we are willing to live in the light that Jesus brings.
How does Jesus wish to use his light in this world? He wants to point us to the Father, and to do so he must also reveal our weaknesses and our mistakes. He wants to show us the world’s temporary, fragile nature, so that we can appreciate the eternal life that God offers us. Jesus’ own life was open to all, yet he did not give in to fleshly desires, whims, or folly as we so often do. He does not want to condemn us for being weak and foolish; he just wants to humble us.
Living Water
(John 4:1-26)
John records in detail the conversation between Jesus and a Samaritan woman whom he meets during his travels. Jesus gradually brings her mind around to spiritual subjects, and he gives her several things to think about. The woman, after some hesitation, senses that Jesus is someone unusual, and she begins to seek out his thoughts on some important questions.
Jesus has this eventful encounter while sitting by a well* (John 4:1-8). He has stopped at a Samaritan town** while travelling from Judea to Galilee. Tired from the long journey - we see here an example of Jesus enduring the same kind of physical fatigue that we experience - Jesus has his disciples head into town to get some food, while Jesus rests.
·John mentions that the well went back to the time of Jacob and Joseph. "Jacob’s Well" is usually associated with the land Jacob purchases in Genesis 33:18-20.
·In Jesus’ lifetime, most Samaritans (descendants of inter-marriages between Israel and foreign nations) lived in the region west of the Jordan River, about midway between the Dead Sea and the Sea of Galilee.
A Samaritan woman comes to the well to draw water, and Jesus casually and naturally asks for a drink of water. It is not a calculated tactic to try to guide the conversation, for Jesus does not need such things. For Jesus, the most mundane topics can lead back in some way to God and to spiritual truth, and so Jesus simply engages her in conversation in the most straightforward way. As they proceed, he simply ignores trivia and keeps coming back to a few important ideas.
The relation between physical thirst and natural water perfectly parallels our spiritual need to be filled by the living water that Jesus provides (John 4:9-15). The woman’s natural curiosity at first makes her wonder what kind of Jew would freely interact with a Samaritan, given the prejudice she has certainly encountered. But Jesus ignores this, and directs her curiosity to a deeper level.
Jesus’ comments about living water and springs of water confuse her, but she cannot help wanting to understand what this special water might be. Even if it is only physical water, it sounds pretty good. Soon, the conversation will turn to spiritual topics - this is, of course, thanks to Jesus’ patience and wisdom in guiding the conversation there; but it also says something about the woman. Jesus has looked past the surface to see her genuinely seeking heart.
Jesus leads her into a discussion of worship, teaching her what it means to worship in spirit and in truth (John 4:16-26). By revealing details about the woman’s personal life, Jesus convinces her that he is a prophet. With all her attention now focused on spiritual matters, the woman asks Jesus where he thinks one ought to worship, whether in Jerusalem or on Mount Gerizim* - a question considered very important (and sometimes controversial), especially for Samaritans.
·By "on this mountain", the woman means Mount Gerizim, near the ancient town of Shechem. Mount Gerizim and nearby Mount Ebal were the site of the ritual pronunciation of blessings and curses that God instructed the Israelites to perform upon entering the Promised Land (see Deuteronomy 11:29-30 and Deuteronomy 27:11-13, and Joshua 8:30-35). The Samaritans considered Mount Gerizim, not the temple area in Jerusalem, to be God’s chosen sacred site of worship.
Her concern with places of worship is hardly a quaint remnant of bygone times, and Jesus’ response has much to teach us as well. The kind of worshipers the Father seeks are not those who seek out a special place that makes them feel religious. Nor does the father seek worshipers who worry about rules and rituals. He wants us to worship him "in spirit and in truth". He wants our minds and our hearts both involved, for true worship transcends emotion, transcends physical sensations, and transcends intellectual conviction.
Questions For Discussion Or Study: Is it just a coincidence that Jesus meets this woman, or is there an element of design (either by God or by Jesus)? Did Jesus have a particular reason for starting out with a request for a drink? Are there parallel ways that we might be able to use everyday situations to teach about God? Or are we meant to learn different lessons from this passage? In what ways are we like this woman? What did Jesus most want her to learn? What does he mean by worshiping "in spirit and in truth"?
Sowing & Reaping
(John 4:27-38)
Intrigued by Jesus’ wisdom and his knowledge about her, the Samaritan woman eagerly returns to town and starts to tell everyone about Jesus. Meanwhile, the disciples return from their shopping - but rather than being interested in the woman, they want to make sure that Jesus gets something to eat. This simple situation, too, gives Jesus a new chance to teach them.
As the disciples return, the woman is just heading back into town (John 4:27-30). She has forgotten all about her errand to the well, for she realizes that this "living water" - whatever that turns out to be - is more important. Her willingness to focus on something spiritual, instead of being pre-occupied with the needs of the moment, is a good example to us. So is her eagerness to tell others about Jesus.
She runs through the town telling everyone to, "come, see a man who told me everything I ever did." We have no way of knowing her reputation - given her background (as described in John 4:17-18), it could be anything from an interesting oddball to a hated outcast - but we know that right now everyone listened to her. She has no special technique or training, just a real belief that Jesus is special and important.
John tells us that the disciples have little interest in the woman or in her conversation with Jesus - all they have to say is, "Rabbi, eat something" (John 4:31-38). In a sense, this simply shows their sincere care for Jesus, since he certainly is hungry and tired. But in this case, Jesus shows that they were overlooking something more important. His "food that you know nothing about" involves the chance to feed someone else spiritually. The disciples were genuinely focused on Jesus’ physical needs, but in so doing they were ignoring something more important.
And this lesson has to do with them, too, for "one sows and another reaps*". Someday, Jesus will send out the disciples to reap without him being present any longer. Yet even then they will be reaping where Jesus and others have sown. Indeed, we all reap what we have not sown - in many areas of life - and we are all inter-connected, whether we notice it or not. We should never ignore anyone we encounter, and we should never take credit for the things that God gives us. These are basic principles that come with living under grace.
·Jesus describes this as a ’saying’. It is not a direct quote from Scripture, although many Old Testament Scriptures uses the ideas of sowing and reaping as parallels of spiritual principles. (A good study topic!)
Questions For Discussion Or Study: Why might the townspeople have listened to the woman’s testimony? What might she have said or done? Why were the disciples uninterested in her? How might we do the same thing? What kind of ’food’ did Jesus already have? In what ways would the disciples reap where they had not sown? In what ways do we reap where we have not sown?
Testimony & Belief
(John 4:39-54)
These two separate incidents give us two examples of persons who develop faith in Jesus. Because the Samaritan woman has so effectively created an interest in Jesus, he decides to stay in her town for a couple of days. Soon afterwards, upon his return to Galilee he is asked to heal a seriously ill youth. In both cases, Jesus’ presence and his words lead help others build faith.
Jesus’ conversation with the woman leads to many believers in Samaria (John 4:39-42). Seeing the interest from everyone in her town, Jesus changes plans and stays with them two extra days. The perspective of the new believers is interesting - they clearly value the time with Jesus personally above the testimony of the woman. Their phrasing is interesting too - "now we have heard (not seen) for ourselves", implying that Jesus’ words, rather than actions, have persuaded them.
This short passage completes the story that began earlier in the chapter. John has shown us the effect that Jesus had on the woman, and then the ways that she affected others by the ways that Jesus affected her - and now it ends how it began, with the townspeople coming to Jesus himself, and being persuaded to have faith by their time with Jesus.
After this, Jesus returns to Cana (John 4:43-48). There is a homecoming of sorts for him, for he has acquired more recognition since the last time he was near home*. Yet we sense here, as at other times** when Jesus is near home, that Jesus perceives a lack of deep faith. For, when the royal official presents him with the request to heal his sick son, Jesus’ first response is the comment that, "unless you people see miraculous signs and wonders, you will never believe."
·Once more this incident does not exactly parallel anything in the other gospels, though it could be from roughly the same time period as Luke 4:14-30. Again, see the suggested commentaries for more details.
·See Matthew 13:53-58 and Mark 6:1-6, as well as Luke 4:23-24 from the passage mentioned above.
From anyone else, this would sound cold and cynical. But coming from Jesus, we know that he is sincerely disappointed with the lack of faith he finds in those who know him best. Yet we can do the same thing. Jesus’ life and teachings can easily become so familiar that we drift away from a personal closeness with him. If Jesus, his death, and his resurrection ever become mere doctrines to us, then we miss the entire point of the gospel.
But there is one group of believers in Cana, resulting from Jesus’ healing of the official’s son (John 4:49-54). After commenting on the lack of faith he has often encountered, Jesus does not grant the man’s request to come with him, but simply tells him that he may go home, for his son will be well. The father accepts this, and Jesus’ words are confirmed when good news arrives on the man’s way home: the boy is well, and he recovered exactly when Jesus had said he would.
We know that this is no coincidence, and indeed the official and his servants realize this too. Yet we should pause to take note of this father, for he too is testifying to us about Jesus. We often read the things that Jesus says - about how we should treat others, how we should trust him, the things we should leave to him - and we do not take him at his word. We fixate on minor factual matters and fail to put into practice the more important spiritual principles. And when God helps us out of trouble, we too often see it as the result of our methods, our zeal, or our intelligence. This humble, faithful official provides us with a helpful and convicting example of genuine faith.
Questions For Discussion Or Study: What convinced the Samaritan townspeople to believe in Jesus? What should we learn from this? Why does a prophet ’have no honor in his own country’ (verse 43)? How did this affect Jesus? Why does Jesus respond to the royal official with a comment about lack of faith? When Jesus tells him to go home, how might this parallel other things he tells us or calls us to do? What else can we learn from this father’s example?
Mark Garner, March 2011
THE WORD BECAME FLESH:
STUDIES IN John 1:1-51; John 2:1-25; John 3:1-36; John 4:1-54; John 5:1-47; John 6:1-71; John 7:1-53; John 8:1-59; John 9:1-41; John 10:1-42
Notes For Week Six:
The Word’s True Authority
(John 5:1-47)
When Jesus returns to Jerusalem, his ministry hits full stride. His teachings and actions become increasingly bold, and the opposition he arouses is ever stronger. He demonstrates his authority as the Word of God in more and more ways. This tells his listeners what they need to hear, and it increasingly points them to his Father, giving his Father all of the glory and praise.
Review Of Recent Classes
Jesus issues a call to spiritual rebirth (John 3:1-36). As the Word, he testifies for his Father, and he inspires others to do so (John 4:1-54). In his "living water" discussion with the Samaritan woman, Jesus uses the imagery of physical thirst and physical water to parallel our spiritual thirst for God, and the spring of living water that can provide eternal life. Jesus also teaches the woman about God’s desire to be worshiped in Spirit and in truth, rather than at a special physical place.
Jesus also uses imagery of sowing and reaping. The woman brings her whole town to, "come, see a man who told me everything I ever did." When Jesus’ disciples worry about him, Jesus explains that he has "food" - his Father’s work - they know nothing about. Indeed, they themselves will often reap the benefits of seed sown by others. Two examples of testimony and belief follow. The Samaritans can now tell the woman that, "we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this man really is the Savior of the world." Then, in Cana, Jesus declines to come with a man whose son is deathly ill. Instead, he tells him, "you may go - your son will live." By accepting this and finding that Jesus spoke the truth, this man testifies to his faith without words.
These examples show us events both mundane and dramatic that point to God. How can everyday events in our own lives point us to our need for God? Even the simple needs in life - food, water, air - should constantly remind us of our dependence on God. As with the events at the well, they can also show us that we have parallel spiritual needs that are even greater. Life’s "crises" should also help us to see the world and our lives from a more spiritual perspective. This world and everything in it is perishable and fragile. Only God is permanent and immortal.
The Authority To Heal
(John 5:1-15)
In healing the paralyzed man by the pool, Jesus claimed authority not only over natural forces, but also over standards of religious observance. His compassionate act of healing in no way violated God’s law of the Sabbath, but it did conflict with the policies of the religious authorities. It also reminds us that Jesus has authority to forgive sins, even when we may not wish him to.
Jesus’ question to the paralyzed man by the pool, "do you want to get well?", is another reminder that Jesus seeks those who understand their need for him (John 5:1-6). This particular man had been waiting* for 38 years to have the chance to be healed of his severe affliction.
·Some manuscripts include a legend about the pool being visited occasionally by an angel. We do not know the origin of this legend, or how it was included in some versions. It is interesting, but inconclusive.
For Jesus to say, "pick up your mat and walk" (John 5:7-9 a), might at first seem naive or insulting. The man could hardly have expected healing to come so easily or quickly after all those years of misery, and yet he is willing to do as Jesus says. Once more a person of very humble status demonstrates the kind of faith Jesus seeks. He is cured at once, and walks off carrying his mat.
There are two possible ways of learning from the healing (John 5:9-15). The religious authorities* ’learn’ the wrong lesson. They are fixated on their Sabbath regulations, which prohibit carrying a mat**. Because Jesus had told the man to carry it, the officials want to ’set him straight’. Such a perspective is laughable - overlooking the wonderful healing and the compassion it shows, and fixating on a trivial rule - yet it is no worse than our own frequent lapses into worldly thinking.
·This is what "the Jews" means (also in John 5:16 and John 5:18). It does not refer to the Jewish people as a whole, merely their leaders. We also often say that such-and-such nation has taken a certain action - it does not mean that the entire country is doing it, just that its leaders have done a certain thing.
·There is nothing in the Law against physical actions per se. The Sabbath prohibition against work was directed not against actions in themselves, but against the intent to pursue one’s own interests without rest.
The grace of Jesus is so strong that it makes all of us uncomfortable. We ourselves can struggle with accepting the grace that God gives to those whose offenses seem especially horrible or disgusting to us. It will always be easy to find pretexts for rejecting or denying the grace that he gives to the wicked and despised of the world. But it is always important to bring our thinking back to the forgiving and compassionate mind of Christ.
Jesus teaches the healed man the right lesson. Characteristically, Jesus addresses him bluntly, telling him not to sin so that ’something worse’ doesn’t happen. He is not trying to frighten him, but is simply calling him to be humbled by God’s power and authority. Instead of worrying about the authorities’ fussing, the man should do his best to live for pleasing God. Instead of fearing further illness, he should consider his need for God and his dependence on God.
This healing is a heart-warming and encouraging act of grace. What a joy it must have been to be relieved of suffering after all those years. Yet the man eventually passed away, and he has been dead now for many centuries. His spiritual condition is now a lot more important than his physical health. We would do well to contemplate the implications of this for ourselves. Our physical needs should remind us that we have even more serious spiritual needs. God’s grace in caring for our physical needs should convince us that he is even more eager to heal our spiritual wounds. He loves giving physical live, but wants even more to give eternal life.
Questions For Discussion Or Study: Why does Jesus ask the man if he wants to get well? How might the man have taken this? Why might the man have been so willing to try to get up? When we see the authorities criticize the healing, what should we learn from it? What did Jesus want the man to learn? What worse things was he warning him about?
The Son’s Authority To Judge
(John 5:16-30)
In the aftermath of the healing by the pool, Jesus encounters opposition from the religious authorities. They are still critical of his activities on the Sabbath, and they are even more displeased with his claims to be God’s own Son. Jesus takes these thoughts, and explains the inherent closeness between Father and Son - not just theologically, but also in practical terms.
Jesus responds to their fussing about the Sabbath by reminding them that God is always at his work (John 5:16-18). He is referring here not to the Creation, which ended with the Sabbath, but rather to God’s ongoing work of sustaining life and meeting needs. Do we really want God ever to stop doing this? But the religious authorities - like many of us from time-to-time - have forgotten this because they are fixated on their own preferences and agendas.
They are further offended by the truth when Jesus openly claims God as his Father. Their objections may have a genuine theological component, but their displeasure is mostly practical. They are very unhappy with the thought that someone could take away their jealously-guarded right to be the dispensers of truth and right. To some degree, we can understand this, because it is instinctive in all of us to be anxious when we hear things we consider to be false or misleading. Yet it is always more important to put our faith in God’s truth, not in our own thinking - and this also can give us comfort even when others truly are going astray.
The relationship between the heavenly Father and his only-begotten (or, one and only) Son is of significance to us in many respects (John 5:19-23). Jesus reminds us that the Son can do nothing by himself (in John 12:49, he indicates that the Son doesn’t even say anything by himself). This is not because of a legal requirement, nor is it because Jesus fears his Father’s anger. Rather, it is because Jesus and his Father are so close that the perspective of one is the perspective of the other, and the power and wisdom of the Son are exactly the power and wisdom of the Father.
Jesus also makes the remarkable statement that God the Father has entrusted all judgment to him, the Son. In other contexts, Jesus says that he judges no one (see John 8:15-16; John 8:50, and John 12:47-48)*; so what does he mean? This is the kind of spiritual topic that causes us to draw all kinds of erroneous conclusions if we try to analyze the issues forensically.
·The Greek words in all these passages are the same, so there is no subtle distinction in the text - sorting out the distinctions Jesus makes is entirely a matter of context. The verb used in all these passages is krinw ("krino"), which has roughly the same usage in Greek as our English word has. The Greek word used here for judgment is a form of this verb: krisis ("krisis"), from which we get our word crisis. Originally, a crisis meant a situation that reveals - or ’judges’ - our true character or nature.
Put simply, what Jesus says here is that his Father does not judge anyone by arbitrary standards - we shall all be judged by our responses to the person, nature, and ministry of Jesus. Elsewhere, Jesus emphasizes that he himself is not going to do any personal judging. He is going to teach the truth, and we will then have the responsibility to respond. In a sense, all of these passages are implying that in a way we are going to ’judge’ ourselves by our reaction to the gospel.
Jesus offers those who believe an opportunity to cross over from death to life (John 5:24-30). Later he will prove his authority over physical death, yet even this will only serve to demonstrate his power to prevent spiritual death, which is even more important. Someday, all of the dead will hear his voice at once, and there will be no more doubt about Jesus, his Word, or his authority. Yet in a sense, we who today are spiritually ’dead’* are hearing his voice too, and the question is different - will we take full advantage of his gracious offer of life from the dead.
·Rather interestingly, some commentators interpret John 5:25-29 as referring strictly to the spiritually ’dead’ and the chance Jesus gives them to be reborn. They take this viewpoint because they are worried about Jesus saying that the time has already come (; John 5:25) when the dead will hear his voice. To preserve the literal meaning of this phrase, they interpret ’dead’ and ’grave’ figuratively! The real point is that here is another passage that simply defies our attempts to interpret Scripture literally and forensically.
Jesus also works exclusively to please the One who sent him. By contrast, these religious leaders are not close with God, and so they seek to please themselves or those humans whose favor they seek. Indeed, this is the natural tendency of all of us. Only if we seek the same kind of personal closeness with Jesus - through prayer, reading his Word, meditation, and more - can we hope ever to rise above this strong fleshly tendency, even for short periods.
Questions For Discussion Or Study: Why do Jesus’ Sabbath actions upset the religious leaders? Why are they upset when he calls God his Father? Are these the real issues? What does this tell us about ourselves? Does Jesus’ reply answer their concerns? What does he tell us about his relationship with his Father? How is this an example to us?
The Source Of Truth & Light
(John 5:31-47)
As Jesus continues to instruct the religious authorities, he brings out the contrasts between their perspectives and God’s viewpoint. They see the same facts about John the Baptist, about Jesus, and about the Scriptures, yet they draw different conclusions. Because they are too concerned with human standards and human authority, they have great difficulty seeing divine truth.
Since the religious officials considered valid testimony to be important in any proceeding, Jesus enlightens them on this (John 5:31-36). John the Baptist, for example, gave testimony in favor of Jesus, and there was no reason to disregard him. John enjoyed a wide following for a time, but most persons simply found him interesting or ’controversial’, and never listened carefully to him.
Yet even John’s testimony is not essential to the ’case’ for Jesus being the Son of God. The testimony of Jesus’ own ministry says a great deal about him. By this he means not only the miracles, but also the compassion and wisdom that characterize everything that Jesus does. So too, his refusal to cater to human desires and arbitrary leaders also testifies that he did not come to pursue earthly goals, but rather that his kingdom is not of this world.
The testimony of Scripture also confirms Jesus’ relationship with his Father in heaven (John 5:37-40). These individuals have a great deal of factual knowledge about the Scriptures, but they actually understand very little. The Old Testament* is full of material about the Christ, or Messiah - not only factual prophecy, but indications of his purpose and priorities. Yet Jesus has to tell these so-called leaders that God’s word does not dwell in them - and this despite their diligent study.
·There was a general awareness that the Hebrew Scriptures provided only the foundation, and that God’s plans for Israel would be brought to completion through the Messiah or Christ. The widespread failure to accept Jesus as the Messiah was not due to a lack of factual knowledge, but rather it came from not appreciating that his ministry of forgiveness and grace was all-important (and was always meant to be).
Scripture emphasizes spiritual perspective, not facts or methods. If we wish to avoid falling into the error of these persons, then we should always remember that the Scriptures above all testify about Jesus - and Jesus, in turn, is above all about forgiveness, life, and compassion.
Faulty perspectives gave these officials a false security in the law (John 5:41-47). Jesus had truly come in his Father’s name, but they listened to persons who pursued human agendas. Even their hero Moses, in a sense, accuses them of error, since he knew the limitations of law. The Word of God - written, spoken and otherwise - is always in harmony with itself. The goal of everything God ever did with Israel is the same goal that he has for us: the cross and the empty tomb.
Questions For Discussion Or Study: Why does testimony matter here? Should it matter to us (if so, how)? What testimony does Jesus claim for himself? How is it valid? How could someone study Scripture diligently and still misunderstand or misuse it? How can this example teach us? How does Moses testify about Jesus? What does this mean to us?
Mark Garner, April 2011
THE WORD BECAME FLESH:
STUDIES IN John 1:1-51; John 2:1-25; John 3:1-36; John 4:1-54; John 5:1-47; John 6:1-71; John 7:1-53; John 8:1-59; John 9:1-41; John 10:1-42
Notes For Week Seven:
The Word Overcomes The World
(John 6:1-24)
Jesus continues to demonstrate power and authority over everything in this world. Yet he never displays his authority for its own sake. Every time that Jesus performs a miracle, there are other purposes in addition to the display of power itself. The feeding of the five thousand, for example, is a characteristic act of compassion that also teaches some important spiritual lessons.
Review Of Recent Classes
Jesus words, actions, and influence on others all testify that he is the Word of God (John 4:1-54). Jesus also brings with him the Word’s true authority (John 5:1-47). The healing by the pool shows his authority to heal both physically and spiritually. In telling the paralytic to pick up his mat and walk, Jesus parallels his call for us to follow him. While the religious officials fuss over the details of the healing, Jesus encourages the man to learn the real lesson: we have needs even more crucial and more persistent than any physical ailment or problem.
As the Son of God, Jesus has the authority to judge. His relationship with the Father is visible in all he does and says. It enables him to call humans to cross over from death to life. He is the source of truth and light, in a sense that the religious authorities neither understand nor accept. Jesus details how John the Baptist, God the Father, and Jesus’ own ministry give valid testimony for him. Finally, he has the testimony of Scripture. But these religious leaders have diligently studied the Scriptures without having any real understanding of what they read.
Jesus’ relationship with his Father is central to his ministry. So far in John, what qualities of God have we seen reflected in Jesus? We see his power over physical forces, his authority to teach, and Jesus’ confidence to speak the truth without being swayed by intimidation or manipulation. But beyond that, we see what God values. We have seen that Jesus prefers to be with weak outcasts who want to know God rather than with self-important persons. Also, Jesus - and thus God - wants to give life, healing, and help to those who need it, whether they ’deserve it’ or not.
The Need For Food
(John 6:1-9)
The feeding of the five thousand is not only a great miracle, but also another memorable parallel of our spiritual situation. The crowd’s physical hunger is much like the spiritual hunger that fills this earth. Jesus’ desire to feed them physically is surpassed by his desire to feed starving souls. The disciples’ feeling of helplessness is much like our own, when we look at the world’s needs.
Being followed by a great crowd is, in itself, not unusual for Jesus (John 6:1-4). This time, they have sought out Jesus* because of the miracles he has performed - some perhaps have come hoping to have their own needs met, while others may simply be hoping to see a miracle for themselves.
·The account in Matthew 14:12-21 places this right after Jesus has received the news of John the Baptist’s death. See also Mark 6:30-43 and Luke 9:10-17 for other parallel accounts.
This crowd appears suddenly, as Jesus is sitting with the disciples, seemingly having hoped for a little privacy (see also the note above). And yet Jesus never turns away anyone in need solely because he has other matters to attend to, or simply because it is an inconvenient time.
Apparently it was clear to Jesus and his disciples that this crowd was going without food, and so Jesus asks Philip to suggest where they might be able to buy enough bread for everyone (John 6:5-9). We have seen Philip’s eagerness and enthusiasm in John 1:43-46 - but this time Philip gives a pessimistic appraisal of the situation, focusing primarily on the enormous amount of money* that it would take to buy food for such a crowd.
·In the original text, the amount of money that Philip mentions is 200 denarii. A denarius was a common coin that at this particular time was often the standard daily payment for an average laborer. For this reason, the NIV translates the amount as, "eight months’ wages", while other versions may try different approaches to communicate the value of this amount.
Jesus had asked this only as a kind of test, to see what Philip and the other disciples might say. And so he also allows Andrew to speak up too. No doubt trying to be helpful, Andrew has found a boy with a few barley loaves* and a couple of small fish. He probably thinks that his own effort verges on desperation, but instead he has given Jesus the opportunity for one of his most celebrated miracles. This small amount of food will prove to be more than enough, thanks to the divine power and compassion that are combined in Jesus.
·The ’loaf’ referred to here is smaller and more compact than what we would refer to as a loaf of bread, so a boy would not have found it difficult to carry a few ’loaves’ around with him.
The world is always full of needs; and we humans, no matter how faithful, have little ability to meet them on any noticeable scale. Humanity has never-ending physical needs, some natural and some caused by our own carelessness or even our ill-treatment of one another. Yet as before, the spiritual needs run even deeper. Every human soul needs direction, purpose, love, nurturing, attention, and many other such things. The true answers to these problems are not found in methods or doctrines or programs, but in bringing suffering souls to Jesus, to let him work his miracles with whatever small scraps we supply him with.
Questions For Discussion Or Study: Find other times when Jesus is faced with a crowd that he did not seek out. What can we learn from these occasions? How is Jesus ’testing’ Philip and the others? What might the disciples have thought? How are the crowd’s needs parallel to needs around us? In what sense can we allow Jesus to meet their needs?
Bread Enough For Everyone
(John 6:10-13)
Faced with a need that seems impossible to meet, Jesus uses his transforming power to give bread and fish to everyone who needs it. This miracle is one of the few episodes in Jesus’ ministry that is recounted in all four inspired accounts of the gospel, and it must have made quite an impression on everyone. Yet its most important lessons lie beyond the miraculous aspects.
Jesus doesn’t make any ceremony about distributing the food, so we really can’t tell how soon everyone realized what was happening (John 6:10-11). He has them sit in groups on the grass, to make sure that the feeding is done in an orderly fashion. This also makes it clear who has eaten and who hasn’t. Jesus is able to feed everyone with the tiny amount of food he was given by the helpful boy whom Andrew had found*. Once again, Jesus demonstrates power and authority over natural forces, and once again he uses his power to perform an act of compassionate service.
·Even more so than some of the other miracles, the ’feeding of the 5,000’ (and also Jesus walking on water, below) has attracted the attention of skeptical commentators who seek rational explanations for the phenomenon. It is interesting that they do not deny the result, but only seek to explain it differently. So far, their efforts have been desperate enough that they are not really worth the effort to refute in detail.
But the miracle also extends to the leftovers of this large meal (John 6:12-13). Jesus makes sure that this is noticed when he instructs his disciples to make sure that nothing is wasted. We do not find out what they eventually did with the leftovers, but we do see that there are twelve baskets full of pieces left over. The exact number is not significant - the point, rather, is that they now have much more than they started with. The situation has been completely transformed by Jesus’ power and compassion working together.
·Jesus makes this point to the disciples in Mark 7:14-21, when he reminds them that something similar also happened during the feeding of the 4,000 (which came just a little later). He has them recall the numbers of baskets in each case, not because they have any numerological significance, but rather to emphasize that he could produce enough not only to feed everyone, but also to have a great deal left over (the passage in Mark explains why this point is important in context).
Once more, there are some important spiritual parallels. Just as the human needs around us are so over-abundant as to make us despair of meeting them, so also the grace and mercy of God are available in overflowing amounts. Jesus’ power and his compassion combine in the feeding of the 5,000; and they also combine in the availability of his grace to the entire world. The things our flesh desires are available only in limited amounts; but there is no limit to the availability of the grace and mercy that our souls and spirits need so badly.
Worldly persons always compete, debate, and fight with one another for the world’s treasures; and for those who seek fleshly rewards or distinctions, it must always be so. There simply will never be enough material objects or positions of prominence or fame or popularity to satisfy all of the humans who desire them. But there is plenty of grace to go around. We need never compete with anyone for God’s grace and love. The corollary to this is that anything we have to compete for, anything that can only come at the expense of others, does not come from God.
Thus, as we learn to value the things that come from God, we can also gradually relieve ourselves of the need to compete with others. We can begin to learn to live without jealousy or envy. And we can help others to do the same - but it starts with the appreciation of Jesus’ grace, compassion, wisdom, and power, not our own. We also need some patience - there are times when we have to ’sit on the grass’ and wait our turn while Jesus takes care of others.
Questions For Discussion Or Study: Is there a particular point to having the crowd sit down in groups? Is it for purely practical reasons, or for some other reason as well? What is accomplished by having the disciples pick up the leftovers? Is this purely practical, or for some other purpose too? Can we find parallels to this in our lives? How can we learn to have more confidence in the abundance of Jesus’ grace?
After The Miracle
(John 6:14-24)
A number of things happen after this miraculous scene. The crowd overreacts, inducing Jesus to slip away from them. This in turn separates him from the disciples, which leads to a new display of miraculous power. Then, the next day, the crowd is still intent on finding Jesus. Yet in most cases their reasons for seeking Jesus are different from the things he wants them to value.
Surprisingly, Jesus follows up an amazing miracle by withdrawing into the hills (John 6:14-15). Although he thus passes up an opportunity to teach the crowd further, he is all too aware that many of them have learned the wrong lesson from the miracle. They want Jesus to become their king*, not in the spiritual sense that he wishes to rule, but as an earthly ruler who would have the power to fulfill all of their pent-up desires and agendas. Jesus could in fact easily fill this role, but that it is not why he came to earth. He knows further that it would not really be a true blessing for them if he were merely to give them what they desire. Jesus loves us enough to offer us what we really need, even when we don’t appreciate it.
·Although the situations are much different, there are a couple of parallels with 1 Samuel 8:1-22, where the people of Israel reject the informal leadership of Samuel and demand a conventional, powerful king.
By the time Jesus is ready to rejoin the disciples, they have rowed partway across the Sea of Galilee; so Jesus takes a little walk to go out and meet them (John 6:16-21). Walking on the water is something of an unusual miracle for Jesus, because it does not directly benefit anyone except himself. As with all the miracles, though, it is based on a practical need, rather than being a display of miraculous power for its own sake.
Yet this miracle at first frightens the disciples*, rather than encouraging them. So it seems to have been done mostly for the disciples’ spiritual instruction. Their fear is eventually relieved, and they are left with another vivid memory of Jesus’ authority over the natural world.
·John does not include Peter’s short-lived attempt to walk on the water himself - see Matthew 14:22-33 and Mark 6:45-52. (Luke does not mention Jesus walking on the water.)
By slipping away after feeding the crowd, Jesus has not entirely avoided them, because they now continue to search for Jesus (John 6:22-24). When the crowd returns to the scene the following morning, they are confronted with a mystery. They know that the disciples had taken the only available boat, and yet Jesus is not there either. So the determined crowd gets hold of some boats of their own, and continues their search.
Of course, we like to see a group of persons so eagerly interested in Jesus. But the last part of the chapter will reveal that their motives are at best mixed; and they will be displeased at what Jesus tells them. But they are little different from us. We have all kinds of reasons for seeking Jesus, and all of them are all right as long as we are willing to set them aside whenever Jesus points out something more important. Indeed, as in this account, Jesus deliberately raises our awareness of his power by meeting needs that we were aware of - in the hope that we will then listen to him when he speaks of more important things.
Questions For Discussion Or Study: Why did the people respond to the miracle by wanting to make Jesus king? Why didn’t Jesus want this? How might this situation parallel our own responses to Jesus? What purpose did walking on the water serve? Why were the people so persistent in seeking Jesus? What should we learn from this?
Mark Garner, April 2011
THE WORD BECAME FLESH:
STUDIES IN John 1:1-51; John 2:1-25; John 3:1-36; John 4:1-54; John 5:1-47; John 6:1-71; John 7:1-53; John 8:1-59; John 9:1-41; John 10:1-42
Notes To Week Eight:
Resistance To The Word
(John 6:25 to John 7:13)
The crowd that watched Jesus feed the five thousand now catches up with him, eager to see what he will do next. But instead of capitalizing on this sudden popularity, Jesus teaches them some difficult lessons. As deeply as he cares about our physical needs, he knows that it is even more important to teach us about our spiritual needs - even when we do not wish to hear about them.
Review Of Recent Classes
As the living Word of God, Jesus comes to earth with true authority, not arbitrary human power (John 5:1-47). Jesus the Word overcomes the world, both by his actions and by his teaching (John 6:1-24). Jesus shows this when he meets a large crowd with a great need for food. To point out that their needs are desperate by human standards, he asks the baffled disciples where they might be able to buy enough bread for everyone. This has a spiritual parallel, because we are humanly incapable of meeting the world’s most important needs.
Jesus takes a small food supply and miraculously turns it into enough for everyone, with more left over than they had started with. Spiritually, just as Jesus took almost nothing and met everyone’s physical needs with plenty to spare, so also he took the horror of the cross and turned it into enough grace to heal the sins of the whole world. We never have to compete for God’s favor, grace, or mercy, because he loves us enough to offer all of us more grace than we need.
After the miracle, a new chain of events begins. Seeing the miracle, the crowd wants to make Jesus king, hoping that he will fulfill all of their desires and ambitions. But Jesus withdraws into the hills, while the disciples row across the lake; and later on Jesus takes a walk across the lake to catch up with them. This miracle is another vivid reminder of Jesus’ nature and identity.
What spiritual needs can Jesus meet in us, without limit? God meets our physical needs, and he is able to meet all of our soul’s needs. There is no limit to the grace, mercy, wisdom, and compassion available for us. If we learn to readjust our priorities and perspectives, and learn to look to God and not to the world for these things, then we can start to see what a blessing this is.
The Bread Of Life
(John 6:25-42)
Because the miraculous feeding of the five thousand is fresh in the minds of the crowd, Jesus uses the imagery of bread and hunger to parallel our spiritual need for God. In teaching this, he is well aware that the crowd is much more interested in physical satisfaction. Thus it is no surprise that they are somewhat disappointed, and soon they begin grumbling about him.
When the persistent crowd finds Jesus again, he exhorts them to seek food that endures, rather than focusing all their attention on temporary things (John 6:25-29). Jesus knows that they are looking for him because they see him as a means to have their desires fulfilled: "because you ate the bread and had your fill*." Jesus was happy to fulfill their need for food, whether they ’deserved’ it or not, because he cared for them. Yet precisely because he cares for them, he now will not give them what they desire - he will give them what they need.
* And they were present for this miracle because they had seen his earlier miracles, and sought him out.
When Jesus tells them to seek imperishable things, the crowd’s response is natural, and revealing. They want to know what they ’have to do’ to please God. Jesus responds that, "the work of God is this - to believe in the one he has sent" and thus he exactly answers them, though not as they expected. They cannot do enough good works to earn God’s favor or to deserve the blessings that God wishes to give the. They can only believe God’s Son and accept his blessings by grace.
The crowd does not wish to pursue this concept, though, and instead hopes for Jesus to give them bread from heaven - which he in fact will do, but in an unanticipated way (John 6:30-34). They were hoping for manna*, as in the days of Moses when God miraculously fed the Israelites each day. But Jesus is calling them to rise above earthly and physical needs, so that they can appreciate the true bread from heaven - Jesus’ body - that will meet the deeper needs of their souls.
·Although manna was not actually bread, it was most often thought of as a kind of bread, or at least thought of as bread-like. Exodus 16:31 and Numbers 11:7-9 describe manna, which was actually so unique that the Israelites simply called it by a Hebrew phrase that means, "what is it?"
Instead of promising to fulfill their earthly desires, Jesus offers the crowd the promise of lasting fulfillment through knowing him (John 6:35-42). He could give them more food and water, but they would become hungry again soon enough. Even the divinely-sent manna could fulfill someone’s needs only for a day. Jesus was always pleased to meet such needs anyway, just to show that he cares about us. But his real ministry was to fulfill our soul’s needs, so that we would never need to be hungry or thirsty spiritually. In particular, the promise of eternal life* assures us that our true selves cannot be confined to the identities we have on this earth.
·Note that the crowd has no inherent objection to the idea of eternal life. It is a misconception to think that the ancient Jews did not believe in eternal life - only certain groups of Jews questioned or denied eternal life and spiritual reality. The Old Testament lacks a comprehensive ’doctrine’ of an afterlife, but it is full of indications of the awareness of eternal life.
But the crowd does not appreciate this*. Since Jesus is not going to focus on the things they are interested in, they start to grumble. They do not want to let Jesus to tell them what is important (contrast them with the woman at the well, for example), and they are irked when he does. They are Galileans, and feel they know Jesus pretty well, so they refuse to accept any supernatural claims from him. Yet we can do the same thing - we can become so familiar with Jesus and with the story of his life that we downplay the more astounding aspects of his life and ministry. Jesus is always going to surprise us, and he is always going to call us to rise above the things that consume us at a given moment. When we let him do so, we shall always be glad we did.
·Since John has previously used the phrase "the Jews" to refer to the religious leaders and authorities, it could be that only they were unhappy at this point (see also John 6:52). In John 6:60 and John 6:66, we find out that eventually much of the crowd ("many of his disciples") becomes unhappy and turns away from him.
Questions For Discussion Or Study: How does the crowd’s motivation in finding Jesus affect how they respond to him? How can we avoid doing the same thing? In what sense does Jesus allow us never to hunger or thirst again? Why didn’t the crowd appreciate this? Do we appreciate it? In what sense is Jesus comparing himself with bread?
A Hard Teaching
(John 6:43-71)
Although Jesus is aware of the crowd’s disappointment, he does not change course. Indeed, he develops the concept of the "bread of life" even further, emphasizing the call to humility and complete dependence on God. His imagery confuses and disturbs many of his listeners, and even most of those who understand him are not enthusiastic about his teaching. Instead of allowing the crowd to influence his teaching, Jesus re-emphasizes his main point, by telling them that this bread from heaven is no less than his own flesh (John 6:43-52). If anyone is willing to ’eat’ this bread, then he or she will never have to ’die’ spiritually (or eternally). When we properly understand what Jesus is saying, then this is quite an assurance. The closer we are to Jesus, the more we embrace our dependence on his grace and compassion, the more we can experience the peace and hope that he promises.
Unfortunately, the crowd engages in literalistic debate about these teachings. This time, they are angrier with each other than they are with Jesus, because they have rival ideas about how someone might ’eat’ Jesus. In this respect too, they are much like us - indeed, many of our own church debates involve two equally wrong viewpoints, because we too often focus on literalism, technical details, human opinions, or obscure factoids that make us feel more intelligent or more virtuous than someone else. As a result, we can have entire discussions (or write entire books, or teach entire classes) that ignore everything that really matters about gospel ministry*.
·Indeed, this very passage sometimes illustrates this. Sometimes this text is cited as a "command" to partake of the Lord’s Supper, which in turn produces other discussions or debates. But this is not the point of what Jesus is saying. He is teaching something much more comprehensive and challenging, which is probably one reason why we might prefer that it just referred to the Lord’s Supper. (Note also that we certainly do not "need" this passage in order to "prove" anything about the Lord’s Supper - we just would prefer it to be a little more literal and a little less challenging, just as the original crowd did.)
Jesus continues to drive home his real point, now calling his flesh "real food" and his blood "real drink*" (John 6:53-59). Following him involves no less than "feeding" on him. To learn from him, we must see and accept our need for his grace and his mercy; and we must see and accept our own inability to gain his favor through wisdom or righteous acts. Further, he is less interested in perfecting our lives in this world than he is in showing us the way to live forever. Here too, Jesus’ will often conflicts with the will of our flesh - but it coincides perfectly with the needs of our souls and spirits.
* Literally, "true food" and "true drink".
It is at this point that many of Jesus’ followers - not just the leaders or authorities - have heard enough, and they decide to turn back (John 6:60-71). Many of his would-be disciples (followers or learners) simply cannot accept this kind of relationship with him. They do have a certain level of faith, for they have learned from his power and authority, and they believe that he can do more than they have seen already. But they stumble when it comes to letting Jesus use his power in the way he wants to use it, rather than the ways they think he should use it.
Characteristically, Jesus does not plead with anyone to stay. Indeed, he directly asks the Twelve whether they too are going to turn away. Not for the first time, Peter shows that, despite his many weaknesses and mistakes, he has some valuable spiritual qualities. He knows that Jesus offers the kind of true life, eternal life, that he will never find anywhere else. Yet even among the loyal Twelve, we have Judas, who later will betray Jesus. There simply is never a "level" of faith at which we can cease being completely humble and dependent on Jesus. To follow him faithfully means that we can never reclaim lordship of our own lives, or indeed of anyone else’s.
Questions For Discussion Or Study: Why does Jesus keep re-emphasizing his point that we must "eat" him? In your own words, what is his main point in this passage? In what ways do we see the crowd go astray in their response? Can we avoid making the same mistakes? Why does Jesus even question the willingness of the Twelve to remain loyal?
Jesus The Celebrity
(John 7:1-13)
By the time that the Feast of Tabernacles arrives, Jesus has become a kind of celebrity, the subject of much comment, speculation, and controversy. But Jesus is not at all interested in this kind of casual, meaningless attention. He is only interested in attention insofar as he can use it to refocus our minds on things that matter. Even his own family does not yet grasp this about him.
Jesus gets some advice from his half-brothers about the upcoming feast* (John 7:1-5). They have accepted that he is somehow important or at least noteworthy, yet they completely misunderstand what he is trying to do. They think that he ought to take advantage of such public functions by increasing his visibility, and reinforcing his reputation as a miracle worker. They are hardly the last, of course, to feel qualified to "advise" Jesus, or to think that he would do better to follow their human guidance.
·The Feast Of Tabernacles was the last of the autumn series of holy days. We’ll look at it more closely next week - see also Leviticus 23:33-43 and Deuteronomy 16:13-17.
Jesus’ perspective is, of course, quite different (John 7:6-10). He is not interested in fame, popularity, or celebrity for its own sake. And he is waiting for the right time to appear in Jerusalem, though not in the narrow tactical sense that today’s celebrities plan out their human careers. He knows that resistance to his message is already rising, and it will continue to do so the more that he teaches the message his Father has given him. Eventually, he will have to encounter the full force of the world’s hatred, when it realizes just how devoted he is to an agenda of grace and sacrifice, and when everyone sees that he will not conform himself to any human agenda.
Jesus does attend the feast, but quietly and unobtrusively (John 7:11-13). For most of the feast, he is much more noticeable as a topic of conversation than as a visibly active participant. Yet the discussions about Jesus are mostly unproductive. There is a lot of speculation about whether he will attend, and there is a lot of debate about his activities and teachings. Only a few persons seem yet to have any real awareness of his real message, but that will soon change.
As always, there are spiritual parallels for today. We can easily allow the world to drive not only our discussions of Jesus, but even our views of him. He does not wish us to see him as a celebrity, an opinion-maker, or an earthly ruler. Instead of trying to debate the world on its own fleshly terms, we would do better first to focus our understanding and appreciation on Jesus’ ministry of grace and forgiveness. Only when we ourselves accept his perspective can we affect anyone else in a way that really helps others spiritually.
Questions For Discussion Or Study: Why do Jesus’ half-brothers give him the advice about going to the feast? What is their view of Jesus right now? How might our view of Jesus resemble theirs? Why does Jesus decline their advice? How do the discussions about him at the feast parallel the ways Jesus is discussed today? How can we help others focus their attention on the more meaningful aspects of Jesus’ ministry?
Mark Garner, April 2011
THE WORD BECAME FLESH:
STUDIES IN John 1:1-51; John 2:1-25; John 3:1-36; John 4:1-54; John 5:1-47; John 6:1-71; John 7:1-53; John 8:1-59; John 9:1-41; John 10:1-42
Notes For Week Nine:
Opposition To The Word
(John 7:14 to John 8:11)
As Jesus’ teachings and miracles have become more widely known, he has attracted more followers and has also encountered heavier resistance. From time to time, this resistance hardens into direct opposition, with attempts being made to force him to stop proclaiming his message. The incidents in these passages are the forerunners of more serious such efforts later.
Review Of Recent Classes
Jesus, the Word of God made flesh, overcomes the world’s limitations and pitfalls by his actions and words (John 6:1-24). Yet in Jesus’ ministry he continually encounters resistance to the Word (John 6:25 to John 7:13). For those who follow him, Jesus is the bread of life. When the crowd who saw the feeding of the 5,000 hopes for more, Jesus exhorts them to seek food that endures by putting spiritual needs first. As the true bread from heaven, Jesus fed bread to the crowd because he loved them; and now he wants them to see their deeper needs, because he loves them.
Out of love and his awareness of their true needs, he presents a hard teaching. They must "eat his flesh" and "drink his blood" - that is, become dependent on Jesus to meet every need. This is too much even for many who had seen the miracle and had started to follow him - many of his disciples now turn back. Jesus has now become a celebrity, as shown by the ’advice’ he receives from his half-brothers about his ’career’. But Jesus is not interested in being famous, popular, or powerful in the world’s eyes. He instead focuses on sacrifice, humility, wisdom, and patience. He is uninterested in the speculation and debate about him amongst the crowds, for anyone who seeks the truth must find Jesus for himself or herself, and come to faith in spite of others’ views.
Is it possible for us to have the kind of perspective on life that Jesus is teaching? It is certainly difficult, and especially so if we pay too much attention to the opinions of others. Whether we are allowing others to do our thinking for us, or whether we are debating with them and trying to convince them of our viewpoints, we are wasting time that we all could be spending with Jesus himself. Being with Jesus, though, also calls for humility - we can only learn his perspective if we allow him to teach us, rather than telling him what he ought to do for us.
Teaching At The Feast
(John 7:14-31)
Once Jesus begins to speak publicly at the Feast Of Tabernacles, he becomes involved in an ongoing give-and-take with the crowds. In their responses, we can see some who are sincerely trying to understand who he is, while we see others who have already become hardened in their opposition to him. Indeed, some have already decided to use force to stop him.
When Jesus finally appears openly at the feast and starts to teach*, he emphasizes the need for his listeners to find out for themselves whether his teaching comes from God (John 7:14-19). He does not want to be believed solely on the basis of the miracles, and he does not want to be rejected solely because he does not fit their preconceptions of a spiritual leader.
·When Jesus said that "the right time for me has not yet come", he presumably had this plan in mind. Being seen at the beginning of the feast may have produced an unwanted kind of attention.
In particular, everyone realizes that his teachings have come without the ’benefit’ of formal study with the religious experts of the day. This made him unusual, and not only in Judaism* - the formalized versions of Christianity and the other major human religions all put an emphasis on learning from human leaders and from influential human writers of the past, so that a potential teacher will be attuned to the conventions and agendas of his group.
·The Jewish teachers of the era invariably quoted earlier rabbis to ’prove’ their opinions. Since there was plenty to choose from, there was never a problem finding precedents to ’prove’ what someone wanted to believe. By the time of Jesus, two sources - Rabbi Hillel and Rabbi Shammai - were most often used.
But Jesus exhorts his followers to seek truth from God instead of from other humans. This would have been unsettling to many of them for the same reason it unsettles us - we become so concerned about someone ’taking this the wrong way’ that we discourage others from relying on Jesus instead of human teachers. And indeed, many persons have abused the idea in order to create their own self-centered version of Christianity. But this is a risk that Jesus is willing to take, because of how much he desires to have an intimate relationship with each of us.
Most human teachers or leaders speak on their own behalf, or else on behalf of an organization they support. Their message can never be free of agendas or rationalizations, or at least personal quirks. Only Jesus is a fully reliable man of truth, for he speaks solely to please his Father.
Jesus then exhorts them to go beyond appearances in looking at the world (John 7:20-24). He uses the Sabbath as an example, because of what had happened the last time he was in Jerusalem. When he healed the paralytic at the pool (John 5:1-18), he attracted the wrath of the religious leaders, some of whom even wanted to kill him. The crowd has forgotten this (see John 7:20), so Jesus explains how this kind of basic misjudgment so often leads religious persons astray.
His audience accepts the need to circumcise a male child on the eighth day of his life, even if that falls on a Sabbath. Yet this is for the sole purpose of following a traditional practice, with no actual urgency involved. To object to an act of compassionate healing, solely because it is on the Sabbath, is an extreme loss of perspective in the name of following rules. Yet this is no worse than our own persistence in making rules that please our flesh and trying to force them on others.
Jesus’ latest discourse is met with speculation and aggression (John 6:35-42). Some listeners are curious to know what the religious authorities think - this is irrelevant in terms of the truth, but it is human nature to be influenced by such things. Others weigh Jesus against popular theories about the Messiah*, and decide that he doesn’t stack up. When Jesus points out the fallacy of the ’know where he is from’ theory, it provokes some of them to make an attempt to seize him** by force. All of these reactions, like our own similar behavior, reflect on the crowd, not on Jesus.
·It was a popular theory at the time that the Messiah (or Christ) would hide out for a time, and would suddenly appear with a band of followers to take over without any prelude (so, "no one will know where he is from"). This had no justification in Scripture, only in human logic. And it was only one of a number of popular beliefs that parallel today’s many oddball interpretations of Jesus’ ministry.
·The word that the NIV translates "seize" is actually the same word translated "arrest" in verse 32. Thus some versions translate both the same way. The contextual difference is that here an angry group wants to grab Jesus without official authority, while in John 7:32 an arrest warrant is issued by ’legitimate’ authorities.
Questions For Discussion Or Study: How could the crowds know that Jesus had no formal training? Why should they find out for themselves if his teachings come from God? Does he call us to do the same thing? Why does he risk us misunderstanding this? What should they learn from his example about the Sabbath? What should we learn?
Seeking & Finding
(John 7:32-53)
While some are trying to find out the truth about Jesus, others have decided to look for him in order to arrest him. With this in the background, Jesus presents a brief but memorable lesson about the living water that he offers to those who put their faith in him. While the crowds respond to this with increased speculation, the authorities hold their own discussions about Jesus.
Again we encounter persons looking for Jesus for different reasons (John 7:32-36). The Pharisees, disturbed by the crowd’s murmurings, issue an arrest warrant and assign the temple guards* to enforce it. Meanwhile, the crowds wonder why Jesus will be with them for only a short time - thinking he is going someplace else on earth, they want to know where**. Once more, we all have different reasons for seeking Jesus, which he uses to try to focus us on our true needs.
·The temple guards were specially chosen Levites who had wide authority within the temple court area. As long as Jesus was within this small area of town, he was at risk of arrest on an arbitrary charge.
·When some in the crowd speculate that he may be going to small Jewish communities in predominantly Greek areas, they might again be comparing his plans with what they expect of the Messiah.
While the temple guards look for him, and the crowds allow their speculations to run wild, Jesus makes his "streams of living water" promise (John 7:37-39). He has waited until the last day of the feast, when the festivities are at their height*. The feast included a daily ceremony in which a gold jug of water was brought from the pool of Siloam to the temple; and on the last day there was a special prayer thanking God for water and asking for rain for the crops in the coming year.
·The original Feast of Tabernacles was much more restrained, a period of thankfulness and humility, as outlined in Leviticus 23:33-43 and Deuteronomy 16:13-17. Everyone was supposed to live in a make-shift shelter for the week, as a reminder of how dependent we all are all on God. By the time of Jesus, the nature of the observance had changed considerably.
So, when Jesus calls out, "come to me and drink", he again uses the situation at hand to make a spiritual point. He overtly claims to be the source of life and sustenance - indeed, this is true literally, but his primary interest here is spiritual. This same imagery had earlier intrigued the Samaritan woman, and helped her to see her need for Jesus. Now John explains for us that Jesus also has in mind the promise of the Spirit, as a key part of the overall promise of "living water"*.
* Note also that Zechariah 14:8, for example, openly associates a flow of "living water" with the Messiah.
Whether or not they understood all this, the crowds are divided in their response (John 7:40-44). Some, even without grasping all that Jesus has said, are convinced that he is the Messiah, or at least "The Prophet"*. Yet others reject this, drawing an ironic conclusion: they are aware of the prophecy that the Christ will come from Bethlehem (see Micah 5:2), yet they associate Jesus’ home with Nazareth in Galilee. And so again we see the wide number of ways that it is possible to go astray in our conclusions about Jesus when we rely solely on our own logic and knowledge.
* In reality, "The" Prophet did not exist. See the notes to John 1:21 for an explanation.
Moreover, the religious officials are divided over Jesus and his message (John 7:45-53). The trusted temple guards return without fulfilling their warrant. They have never heard anyone speak as Jesus has - he never relies on arbitrary authority or credentials, never uses lawyer tricks to prove a point, and never wastes time on meaningless side-issues. Although the guards cannot be more specific, they have a strong sense that Jesus is someone who should be listened to, not arrested. Disagreeably surprised, the frustrated Pharisees resort to insulting the guards and the crowds. Though many in the crowds are also opposed to Jesus, they lump everyone together as an ignorant mob. When the thoughtful Nicodemus questions their judgmental attitude, they insult him too. This irrationality simply masks their sad jealousy of their own prominence and power.
Questions For Discussion Or Study: Why did the Pharisees decide now to arrest Jesus? What spiritual struggles do they have? Why does Jesus keep saying things he knows will be misunderstood? How might others interpret "living water"? How can we understand it better? How can we avoid the mistakes of the crowds and leaders in this passage?
A Trap For Jesus
(John 8:1-11)
With their attempts to use force temporarily thwarted, the religious officials decide to turn to deceit instead. They devise a situation that they think will present Jesus with two bad options, either of which will discredit him and his teachings. But Jesus responds with wisdom, grace, compassion, and truth. He thus provides us with a memorable example of his perspective*.
·There is no irrefutable answer whether John 7:53 to John 8:11 ’should be’ in the New Testament. It is highly possible that it is a later insertion; yet it is consistent with other passages showing Jesus’ perspectives and attitudes.
In laying the trap for Jesus, the religious officials also exploit some bystanders (John 8:1-6). They seize a woman who has been caught in adulterous behavior, and ask Jesus what to do, being careful to quote the Law’s stern provisions for such situations. They assume that Jesus will make a mistake - a harsh judgment will conflict with his emphasis on compassion and forgiveness; while pardoning her will open him to accusations of condoning a serious and unpopular sin (since the woman is undoubtedly guilty of the sin she is accused of).
Although Jesus is not really stumped by this, he avoids answering directly, busying himself in writing on the ground, building up suspense and anticipation. (Though some commentators love to speculate on what he was writing, it is utterly irrelevant - such speculation distracts from the powerful point of the passage. The absence of the equally guilty male is not the point, either.)
When they pester him for an answer, Jesus gives them a perfect reply that results in no one condemning the sinful woman (John 8:7-11). Knowing the hearts of his questioners, he leaves it up to them, inviting anyone to start the stoning - that is, anyone of them who is without sin himself. In so doing, he also reminds us of the spiritual danger involved in judging and punishing, no matter how guilty someone may be. The gospel teaches us to value grace above morality, and forgiveness above punishment. Jesus knows that this isn’t easy, but he knows that it is essential.
He then tells her to leave her life of sin. She is not innocent, but he will not condemn her - for she may still condemn herself if she is unwilling to give up her sin. Yet Jesus does not use open threats or guilt to persuade her - instead, by an act of compassion and grace, he hopes to motivate her in a much different and more positive way. Indeed, Jesus makes it easy for her to take advantage of him - and he does the same for us. He loves all of us enough to take this risk.
Questions for Discussion Or Study: Why is this situation a seemingly effective trap? Why does Jesus consume time idly (by writing on the ground) before answering? Why is his answer so appropriate? Why can’t anyone answer this effectively? Why does Jesus say so little to the woman about her actual sin?
- Mark Garner, May 2011
THE WORD BECAME FLESH:
STUDIES IN John 1:1-51; John 2:1-25; John 3:1-36; John 4:1-54; John 5:1-47; John 6:1-71; John 7:1-53; John 8:1-59; John 9:1-41; John 10:1-42
Notes For Week Ten:
Freedom & Truth
(John 8:12-59)
From now on, Jesus will be involved in a running conflict with the religious authorities. Jesus has no human authority, and he does not use his divine authority merely to win arguments. But he has the truth on his side, and with the truth comes freedom. Jesus also offers freedom to our souls, freeing them from the lies of this world and the false loyalties of the flesh.
Review Of Recent Classes
When Jesus teaches the truth, he often encounters resistance to the Word (John 6:25 to John 7:13). As he continues his ministry, it increasingly results in open opposition to the Word (John 7:14 to John 8:11). Attempts to silence Jesus by force occur when Jesus begins teaching at the Feast of Tabernacles. When the crowds notice that he speaks without any formal study, Jesus appeals to them to seek truth only from God, without worrying about human credentials. He also urges them to look beyond appearances when they seek to understand spiritual truth.
Humans seek Jesus for various reasons, and find different things in him, usually unexpected. While many speculate about his plans and others seek to arrest him, Jesus promises streams of living water to those who come to him. This assures us of the presence of the Spirit, who can bring us into a closer relationship with the Father and the Son. The crowds and officials are both divided about Jesus; and the trusted temple guards even refuse to fulfill the warrant for his arrest.
So the religious leaders plan a trap for Jesus, trying to get him to pass judgment on an adulterous woman. Jesus at first does not answer, but when they persist, he simply says that anyone without sin may freely start stoning the woman. After his frustrated accusers leave, he assures the woman that he does not condemn her, and exhorts her to leave sinful ways behind - allowing her to determine the course of her own spiritual future.
In John, we often see the emphasis on grace that characterizes the gospel. How does grace affect those who receive it? How does it affect those who give it? Grace gives both giver and receiver what they need. It makes us all more truly human, and it helps both to develop a more godly perspective. It gives each of us the individual responsibility for our lives - and it shows us that God thinks we are worth the risk he took in allowing his Son to die for us.
The Light Of The World
(John 8:12-24)
Jesus brings with him an entirely different perspective on everything. In human terms, he has no authority for teaching others this perspective - his justification comes only from God. Yet we ought to listen to him, for he brings us what we most need. He never appeals to us to listen on the basis of force or legal requirement, but rather because our souls need him and need his grace.
We are saved from the world’s darkness by Jesus, the light of the world (John 8:12-18). In the natural world, light allows us to see our way so that we do not stumble or harm ourselves on obstacles that we cannot see. Light also allows us to see the beautiful things in the world, which otherwise we might miss. So too, Jesus illuminates spiritual truths, so that we can see God’s presence in the world around us, and so that we can avoid pitfalls that catch the spiritually unwary.
Jesus is again challenged about testifying for himself*, and this time he answers more tersely. Rather than detail the evidence of John, the miracles, and the Scriptures, this time Jesus rests his credibility squarely on his relationship with the Father. Because he came from his Father, and soon will return to his Father, Jesus knows where he comes from and where he is going, in a way that is not possible for the religious leaders to grasp.
·See John 5:31-40. Jesus gave his earlier audience the benefit of the doubt, by presenting earthly or tangible evidence. But now, with their hearts more hardened, he does not bring this up.
Nor is it really possible for us to grasp, as long as we live in our mortal bodies. No human being, regardless of good intentions, factual knowledge, or leadership position, can ever have even a remotely eternal perspective. This is why we must learn to be ever humble in Jesus’ presence. He alone brings an eternal perspective, yet also knows exactly what it is like to live in our world.
All this is inherent in Jesus coming from above (John 8:19-24), and in his relationship with his Father. If we know Jesus, then we know God - an idea that we see throughout John. A new element here (in chapters 7-8) is his repeated warnings that he will be going elsewhere soon. He is returning to his Father, where he belongs eternally, and so we should get everything we can from his brief appearance here - instead of indulging in idle speculation, as some of his listeners continue to do.
Jesus also warns against the danger of spiritual death*, to "die in your sins". We can only prevent this through belief in Jesus. Meritorious actions cannot cleanse us; only belief can. And belief is not in itself meritorious; it is only through grace that belief in Jesus has any significance. Here is the real stumbling block that is faced by religious persons of every era. Nothing we can do, not even our ’correct’ beliefs, can save us. Being freed from sin can come only by grace.
·In John, Jesus’ references to death are often (deliberately?) ambiguous, and could refer either to physical death or to spiritual death. Here he is a little clearer in combining the importance of both.
Questions For Discussion Or Study: How is Jesus "light"? Has that changed since he left this earth? Why do the Pharisees challenge his self-testimony? What should we learn from this? In what sense do we see the Father when we see Jesus? Is this true in a different sense for us than it was for his original audience? What does it mean to die in our sins? How can faith in Jesus prevent this?
Freedom Or Slavery
(John 8:25-41)
Once more, Jesus finds at first a favorable response to his message, only to have his audience take exception when he elaborates. This time, his listeners struggle with his appeal for them to become free through the truth. Jesus values spiritual freedom above physical freedom, while the crowd takes pride in physical freedom, but cannot see that they are spiritually in chains.
As his audience’s resistance to his message increases, Jesus again emphasizes that he is saying just what the Father has taught him to say (John 8:25-30). He is not speaking on his own behalf, and is not adapting his message based on his personal preferences. He says this in many different ways, and sometimes this is not clear to his listeners, and perhaps it shouldn’t be. He is making a claim that is difficult or impossible for our mortal minds to grasp, and when we all too quickly make a show of ’agreeing’ with his claims, we may well be missing their powerful implications.
Jesus also calls himself the Son of Man, and in particular he emphasizes this identity when foretelling the crucifixion. Jesus is the Son and heir of God, for all the reasons he has taught already; but he is also the Son of Man* in that he will inherit the burden of sin that humanity has built up for centuries. He is Son of God by nature - but he is Son of Man by choice.
·The expression "son of man" is used throughout Ezekiel - see Ezekiel 2:1; Ezekiel 2:3; Ezekiel 2:6; Ezekiel 2:8; Ezekiel 3:1; Ezekiel 3:3-4, and many more - in a more limited sense. It emphasized Ezekiel’s mortality and his role as a prophetic representative of a sinful nation that needed spiritual discipline in order to be restored. Jesus fulfills the same roles in a deeper sense. He gave up his mortal life, and took the full burden of humanity’s sin upon himself.
As Jesus explains these things, some still resist or reject his message, but many put their faith in him. What he has said so far makes sense to them, and it appeals to the needs of their hearts. So far, they are showing a good sense of spiritual priorities, and they are also willing to accept his divinity, even though this requires them to move beyond some of their own preconceptions.
Yet Jesus’ call to full spiritual freedom will prove harder for them (John 8:31-36). He is pleased that they have put their faith in him, but this is only the start. To find spiritual truth and freedom, they must walk in humility and dependence upon Jesus and his Father. Only by accepting the whole truth of the gospel, not merely the facts, and not merely the parts that they ’agree’ with, can they be fully set free from the world’s tyranny and from their own fleshly chains.
The same crowd that has gladly accepted Jesus’ earlier teachings now opposes this. They insist that, as Abraham’s descendants, "we’ve never been slaves!" Even if this statement were not historically absurd*, they are still missing the point. Literal enslavement is awful, but being enslaved by sin is more hazardous spiritually. And we are all enslaved by sin until and unless we have accepted the unconditional grace of God through the blood of Jesus. Further, all who look to Jesus for salvation are all equally forgiven, regardless of what fleshly logic might tell us.
·Israel spent a great deal of its history either subject to or actually enslaved by larger nations: first in Egypt, and later by the Assyrians, Babylonians, Greeks, and Romans.
Jesus reminds them that to be Abraham’s true children takes more than natural descent (John 8:37-41). They are indeed physical descendants of Abraham, but this is no distinction. They did nothing to attain this status - they were just born. But to follow in Abraham’s steps as a person of faith, to trust God even when he teaches difficult lessons, this makes someone a true child of Abraham - regardless of whether or not someone was descended physically from Abraham.
Abraham was always willing - even eager - to hear what God said. But this crowd has no room for his Word, unless it tells them what they want to hear, or unless it backs up what they have already decided. Indeed for us it is a constant challenge to seek the perspectives and viewpoints of God, even when no human voice will support them.
Questions For Discussion Or Study: In this context, why does Jesus call himself the Son of Man? Why would his teachings here induce some of these persons to put their faith in him? If they have faith in him, why do they then object to his teaching about spiritual freedom? In what ways does the truth set us free? Is this true also in a worldly sense, or only in spiritual contexts? Are we slaves? Are we children of Abraham?
Truth Or Lies
(John 8:42-59)
Jesus now puts things in the most basic and challenging terms. The choice between truth and lies is no less than a choice between believing God and believing the devil. Being a descendant of Abraham - or a Christian, or an American - means nothing in itself, unless it is accompanied by a willingness to seek and heed the truth even when it is unexpected or disturbing.
Jesus is astonishingly blunt in referring to his audience as children of the devil, the "father of lies" (John 8:42-47). In so severely critiquing their lack of spiritual understanding, Jesus shows again his relentless commitment to the truth. Again and again* we see that he will not settle for a crowd simply ’agreeing’ with him, or even accepting him as the Messiah - out of his compassion for them and his respect for them as human souls, he needs to go deeper.
·Compare John 8:12-59 with John 3:1-15; John 4:1-26; John 6:25-66, and John 7:14-31. In all these cases, Jesus finds a crowd or person(s) initially responsive to him, yet instead of being satisfied with their ’agreement’, he persists in calling them to look ever deeper into things they hadn’t thought of.
Let us not misunderstand this. Jesus did not give anyone a detailed critique of his lifestyle or beliefs, nor did he fuss over methods or results. Instead, he persistently taught the same crucial basics of the gospel: Gods holiness, our sinfulness, God’s universal compassion, our absolute dependence on grace. Jesus encountered various responses to this, from the Samaritan woman’s humility to Nicodemus’s well-meaning befuddlement to numerous instances of angry rejection.
The devil and his prophets speak the language of lies. Factual lies are less dangerous than faulty perspective. We too often join the world’s infantile debates, when we should be the ones to step back and re-adjust our priorities. We should not be so anxious about correcting errors of fact, yet we should be ready to question even the most widely held perspectives and values. Only thus can we hope to understand the gospel, for it refutes and rejects all forms of earthly wisdom.
Freedom from death is one of the truth’s greatest blessings (John 8:48-53). Even before he openly revealed the details of his ministry of grace, Jesus made it clear that he offers something that will last beyond this earth. When we keep his Word, and begin to live as he teaches, we begin to see our need to transcend this world, and we learn the way that Jesus enables us to do so.
The crowd hates this. The very thought of Jesus offering something beyond this life provokes them to ask him, "who do you think you are?" In their minds, not even great figures of faith like Abraham could overcome death; and they persist in seeing Jesus as merely a young man* without any formal study behind him. Yet in one sense they are right, because if Jesus is merely a human philosopher or teacher, then his teachings are no more valuable than anyone else’s would be. It is only because he comes from the Father in heaven that we must heed him.
·When the crowd says that Jesus is "not yet fifty years old", this is just a rhetorical expression; it does not mean that they thought he was almost fifty. They knew, as do we, that he was just a few years over thirty.
So Jesus teaches them about true glory (John 8:54-59). During his earthly life, he will have no glory, nor will he seek it. Real glory is found only in his Father’s presence, and this can be experienced only by the purified. This in turn can come only if all sin is forgiven. This is why Jesus can say that even Abraham himself rejoiced at the thought of seeing God’s Son come to this earth, because for even the greatest figures of faith in the Old Covenant, "only together with us would they be made perfect" (Hebrews 11:40). Before Abraham was born, Jesus had already been sitting at his Father’s side - and Abraham was humble enough to accept the implications of this.
Questions For Discussion or Study: Why does Jesus keep challenging his audience when they started by accepting him? Are there any ways we should emulate this? Why does he say that the devil is their father? In what sense is the devil the father of lies? Is there anything we should learn from this? How is Abraham significant in this context?
Mark Garner, May 2011
THE WORD BECAME FLESH:
STUDIES IN John 1:1-51; John 2:1-25; John 3:1-36; John 4:1-54; John 5:1-47; John 6:1-71; John 7:1-53; John 8:1-59; John 9:1-41; John 10:1-42
Notes For Week Eleven:
Darkness & Light
(John 9:1-41)
This chapter is an extended illustration of some themes that have arisen throughout John. After Jesus gives sight to a blind man, the healed man finds himself in a lengthy confrontation with the religious authorities. As the authorities continually try to discredit Jesus, they gradually reveal their own flaws. The blind man, though, holds up under their harassment, and grows in his faith.
Review Of Recent Classes
Despite always speaking the truth, Jesus often encountered resistance and even opposition to the Word (John 6:25 to John 7:13). We see this again as he teaches about freedom and truth (John 8:12-59). He is the light of the world, because his truth and grace save us from the darkness of the world. If we know Jesus, we know his Father as well - Jesus brings us into a relationship with him.
We must choose between spiritual freedom and spiritual slavery. Jesus is by nature the Son of God, but by choice the Son of Man, who carried our sins with him. The gospel’s truth sets us free, for only its grace and wisdom can help us rise above the world’s anger, despair, and fear. But we must not make the mistake that these listeners do: they think that their heritage makes them free, and are ignorant of the chains that each of us creates in our souls because of our sins.
We must constantly choose whether to believe the truth of the gospel or the lies of those who are powerful and respected in this world. This choice will also determine our spiritual father. Believing the world’s prophets will make us children of the devil, who is the father of all lies. If instead we choose God as our Father, we will need to sacrifice our worldly opinions and loyalties, but we have a greater freedom, including above all the freedom from death.
Why is it hard for us to accept the truths Jesus teaches us? Will it ever be easier? For any specific teaching, there are specific reasons - but much of it comes down to perspective. We can never understand Jesus if we worry about what the world thinks, what our flesh desires, or what will happen in the short-term. It will never be easy to resist these tendencies, but it can be much easier if we love and trust Jesus as he loved and trusted his Father. This helps us to screen out the world’s folly, instead of being tempted and distracted by it.
From Blindness To Sight
(John 9:1-12)
Even without the valuable lessons from its aftermath, this miracle presents some worthwhile lessons in itself. Besides the compassion that Jesus once again demonstrates, it is also a perfect way to answer the question that the confused disciples have just asked Jesus. Giving light to the blind is a physical parallel for the spiritual enlightenment that Jesus wants to give to us all.
When Jesus and the disciples encounter a man who has been blind all of his life, the disciples’ reaction is to wonder who sinned to cause this misfortune (John 9:1-5). This is just a variation of a common question. It is human nature to wonder if something tragic or frightening has a specific cause, or can be blamed on a specific sin*. If we are unhappy, we wonder what we have ’done wrong’; if something good happens, we assume that we ’deserve it’ for something we’ve done.
·In Jesus’ day, most Jewish believers thought this, and many thought it was ’obvious’. Even today, many Old Testament commentators misinterpret large portions of the Old Testament, thinking that it teaches this.
Jesus’ answer is often misunderstood. This man’s sad misfortune is an opportunity to display God’s light and God’s love. This does not at all mean that God caused it, either to prove his power or for any other reason. Jesus does not really even address the question of why tragedies and misfortunes occur - he more-or-less assumes that we do not and could not understand this.
Instead, when we see others suffer, he calls us to focus on what we can do. Seeing opportunities for compassion and mercy is much more important than speculating and debating why bad things happen to others. He is hoping that the disciples will have the maturity to set aside the foolish speculation, and show compassion instead - and he will set this example himself.
In giving sight to the blind man, Jesus combines compassion with a spiritual parallel that becomes clearer later (John 9:6-7). Jesus also has a curious way of performing the miracle, combining his own physical action with an instruction to the man to go and wash himself, making it in effect a miracle by remote - at the actual moment of healing, Jesus was already gone. While we can rarely be certain why Jesus does different healings in different manners*, this has the practical effect of putting the man on his own when his eyes are opened. He must face the questions of his neighbors and the harassment of the religious leaders all on his own. This might have been too much for most persons, but this man will stand up well under the test.
·Other examples of healings involving more than a mere word or brief touch would include Mark 7:31-35 and Mark 8:22-26. See also the discussion questions below.
After the miracle, we see some familiar responses (John 9:8-12). Some are understandable - it is not surprising that the man’s acquaintances would wonder whether he is the same man. Yet it would not have been too hard to figure this out, and much of the ensuing speculation and discussion was doubtlessly unconstructive. And the crowd’s decision to take the man to the Pharisees for a ’decision’ was uncalled for. Yet this is human nature - speculation and debate can help us to avoid spiritual responsibility; and the decisions of ’expert’ opinion-makers gives us false security.
Questions For Discussion Or Study: Why did the disciples assume that someone had sinned to cause the man’s blindness? What similar assumptions do we make? Can Jesus’ answer apply to the sadness and pain in our own world? Why might Jesus have made this healing more drawn-out than most of the others? Is there any application for us?
CSI - Pharisees
(John 9:13-34)
The response of the Pharisees is sad yet revealing. For most of them, it is simply impossible to focus on the actual miracle or on the blessing God has given to the blind man. Because they have the wrong values, they draw the wrong conclusions. And as they interrogate the blind man, their efforts to intimidate him simply reveal their own insecurity and small-minded viewpoint.
When the situation is called to their attention, the Pharisees* treat it almost like a crime scene, demanding to know just the facts, and completely ignoring the more important aspects of the healing (John 9:13-17). Because the factual data is more important to them than the personal well-being of the blind man, it is almost certain that they will draw some erroneous conclusions.
·The Pharisees were one of two quasi-political, quasi-religious parties that dominated most of the debate and discussion of public issues and opinions in the Jewish community. The name Pharisee essentially means ’separatists’ - they arose in the period of Greek domination between the end of the Old Testament era and the first century AD. Originally, the Pharisees arose as the result of widespread concern that too many Jewish believers were adopting Greek cultural values at the expense of their faithfulness to God.
In their convenient conclusion that, "this man is not from God", we see also that most of the Pharisees are unable to look past their own agendas and insecurities. It is of some encouragement to see that a few of them saw the compassionate miracle as the kind of thing that only God could do*. Thus they are willing to look more closely at things, but they still end up merely going over the same ground, asking the blind man the same factual questions and getting the same facts in reply. To find spiritual truth always takes more than merely the visible facts.
·In this, they are very much like Nicodemus, who also could not quite see things clearly, but who was humbled enough by the miracles to want to know more about Jesus. (See John 3:1-15.)
When the Pharisees realize that they aren’t getting anywhere, they decide to look for some new witnesses (9:18-23). Unfortunately, what they need - if they are really interested in the truth - is not new witnesses, but new perspectives. Even in the secular world, a fresh look at a problem is usually a lot more constructive than digging up new factoids to bolster an existing viewpoint or theory. In Jesus, a new perspective is essential for those who want to know God.
The blind man’s timid parents fall victim to the Pharisees’ forensic mindset. They seem more concerned with their own security* than with their son, but they are in a no-win situation. There isn’t much they can say, other than to confirm that their son was indeed born blind. The Pharisees’ bullying is the kind of abuse of power common to human nature. Even believers who acquire a small bit of ’authority’ are often eager to exert it, and many who do not have authority fantasize about grabbing it for themselves, or else they strive to get someone who ’agrees’ with them into a position of authority. All such thinking is fleshly, and is alien to the gospel.
·The threat to throw them out of the synagogue - already indicated by the Pharisees as the penalty for anyone who believed that Jesus was the Messiah or Christ - was a severe social sanction. It would cut someone off not only from the activities in the synagogue itself, but also from many basic social connections. The parents are so afraid of this that they won’t even speak up for their son, much less Jesus.
Getting nowhere, the Pharisees recall the blind man and use new pressure tactics (John 9:24-34). Their criticisms of the man’s character and faith are cruel (as are our own similar tactics). But this behavior also shows us what the Pharisees were really like. They are not super-villains, for such a thing does not exist. They are weak, foolish, and insecure - like most of humanity.
In proclaiming, "we know this man is a sinner", the investigators show that they have already decided the issue, and all they are doing is looking for corroboration. Their insecurity starts to come out now, and by the end of the conversation, they will be exposed as petty bullies, not community leaders worthy of respect. The blind man, by contrast, simply reiterates what he knows. He does not claim to have all the answers; but the one answer he does know is powerful.
The blind man holds firm under increased bullying, even tossing in a bit of irony in asking the Pharisees if they’d like to follow Jesus along with him. This, of course, provokes a final outburst of anger and vengefulness. Although the man has done nothing to harm anyone, they throw him out of their synagogue*, viciously punishing a harmless man when they could simply have appreciated and enjoyed the grace God gave to him. The respective social positions of the blind man and the Pharisees are reversed in terms of their spiritual growth and well-being.
* Which is more severe than it might sound. See note above.
Questions For Discussion Or Study: Why do the Pharisees care more about the details of the miracle than about its effect on the blind man? Can we fall into this perspective? What do we see in their questioning of the man and his parents? What enabled the blind man to stay calm and faithful despite these tactics? What can we learn from him?
Rising & Falling
(John 9:35-41)
Jesus now returns to the scene, and puts what has happened into a broader perspective. The blind man has not only been given physical sight, but has also grown spiritually. The Pharisees, intending to condemn the failure of others to follow their standards, have in reality pronounced judgment on their own spiritual blindness. Their own flaws and weaknesses have been exposed.
Jesus knows that the blind man has been mistreated and unfairly kicked out of the synagogue, yet when he finds the man, Jesus simply asks him "do you believe in the Son Of Man?" (John 9:35-38). Jesus’ question seems at first to be insensitive, for he expresses neither sympathy nor encouragement. But, characteristically, he goes directly to the man’s need. The blind man has shown that he has faith, courage, and self-control. Jesus knows what he needs next on his spiritual journey, so he gives it to him right away - and the man eagerly accepts Jesus’ divinity*.
·Aside from this obvious implication, it is not possible to determine exactly what is included in the gospel account’s statement that the man worshiped Jesus.
This whole sequence of events has given us a lesson in sight and blindness (John 9:39-41). As Jesus himself says here, his coming into the world causes the blind to see, and it shows that many of those who think they can see are in fact blind, in the way that matters most. Jesus calls this a form of judgment, as indeed it is. Jesus did not even comment on the Pharisees’ behavior, because they revealed themselves for what they were. And he did not need to announce that the blind man had faith, for the man’s own attitudes and actions showed that he did.
The Pharisees even judge themselves one more time. Hearing Jesus’ simple statement that, "the blind will see, and those who see will become blind" - which made no direct reference to their own condition - the Pharisees cannot refrain from demanding whether Jesus is calling them blind. They are certain that they can ’see’ much better than Jesus can, and they are even more certain that their beliefs and opinions are more valuable than those of a blind beggar. Whatever offenses they have committed, we can even pity them for being so deluded and miserable.
Jesus does not seek those with perfect spiritual ’vision’. He looks for those who realize they are blind, so that he can give graciously them sight. If the Pharisees admitted their blindness, he could forgive them and help them. But since they claim to ’see’ well on their own, without Jesus, they are still spiritually blind, and must carry the burden of their own sin. They will always have the chance to change, but only through humility, not through debate or investigation.
So it is with us - Jesus does not expect us to be able to see things clearly on our own. Instead, he just wants us to come close to him. We need to see the folly of the world’s viewpoints, no matter how ’expert’, so that we can acknowledge our blindness and thus enjoy the true light of Jesus.
Questions For Discussion Or Study: Why does Jesus ask the blind man whether he believes in the Son of Man? Why does he use this term here to describe himself? Why might the blind man have responded so eagerly? Why did Jesus call these events a form of judgment? Why do the Pharisees react to his statement about sight and blindness? What is the lesson for us?
Mark Garner, May 2011
THE WORD BECAME FLESH:
STUDIES IN John 1:1-51; John 2:1-25; John 3:1-36; John 4:1-54; John 5:1-47; John 6:1-71; John 7:1-53; John 8:1-59; John 9:1-41; John 10:1-42
Notes For Week Twelve:
Shepherds & Sheep
(John 10:1-42)
Jesus’ description of himself as the ’"good shepherd" is another of John’s especially memorable passages. Jesus merits our loyalty and faith in a way that human leaders never could, because only Jesus can and does meet our deepest and truest needs. Our souls know this, and they respond to his voice, even when our flesh resists the things that he tells us.
Review Of Recent Classes
Just as freedom and truth are linked (John 8:12-59), the contrast between darkness and light has spiritual and practical implications (John 9:1-41). Just as Jesus gives sight to the blind man, he brings us spiritual sight. When his disciples ask whose sin caused the man’s blindness, Jesus dismisses this narrow-minded question, and focuses on giving light, sight, and life as he has opportunity.
The Pharisees investigate the healing as if it were a crime scene. They are blind to Jesus’ compassion, and focus on the mechanical facts of the miracle. They seek new witnesses and use pressure tactics, instead of adapting their perspective and discarding their preconceptions, which might have led them to the truth. The blind man remains calm and faithful despite their bullying.
Jesus brings about rising and falling, as Simeon once prophesied (Luke 2:34-35). The blind man now sees physically and has grown spiritually, but the Pharisees have been revealed as "blind guides" unworthy to lead others. Even now, if they humbled themselves, Jesus would give them life and light too - but their insistence on being ’right’ dooms them to carry their burden of sin.
What characterizes those who respond eagerly to Jesus? What about those who oppose him? Worldly possessions do not matter much, one way or another. Neither does one’s reputation, success, or popularity. One consistent theme is that Jesus brings out the difference between those who understand their spiritual needs and those who think they are "good enough" not to need the unconditional grace that he offers. Humility is essential to an understanding of grace.
The True Shepherd
(John 10:1-10)
Jesus is hardly the only one who asks for our faith and loyalty. In every era, the average person is besieged by pretenders who claim to have all the answers, or who claim to care about us. In this short passage, Jesus lays out some of the things that distinguish him, the true shepherd, from the false shepherds of the world. The distinctions are both positive and negative.
Jesus mixes together several images involving sheep and their shepherds, beginning with the simple metaphor of entering by the gate* (John 10:1-3). The literal illustration is simple - the true shepherd simply enters the straightforward way, through the gate; but anyone who has to sneak into the ’sheep pen’ cannot be the true shepherd - such persons can only be thieves or fakes.
·Soon afterwards, Jesus refers to himself as the gate (John 10:7). The soundest way to interpret this passage is to treat each image separately, without trying to force them all into one detailed scenario. Jesus is simply using the similar and familiar setting of a sheep pen for a series of images that teach various lessons.
This simple image merely reminds us that Jesus appeals to his sheep by telling the sheep the truth at all times. He tells the sheep the truth about himself, about God, about their nature, about their burden of sin, and everything else. Individuals who are sneaking in or climbing in without using the gate are trying to trick or deceive the sheep in some way, either by concealing their own weaknesses and agendas, or by making promises to the sheep that they cannot fulfill.
This is why the sheep know his voice* (John 10:4-6). In this case, the sheep represent not our earthly bodies but our souls. Although our minds often argue with Jesus’ teachings, the soul’s response to Jesus is always eager and positive. Our souls and spirits within us long to be released. They know that they must wait for a while to be released from the physical body, but they can bear this. What stifles our souls is our unwillingness to allow Jesus to determine our perspectives and priorities, when we choose to listen to worldly viewpoints instead of the values of the gospel.
·Jesus is relying on his audience’s familiarity with domesticated animals, most of whom seem to have an instinct for recognizing their true ’master’ as distinct from other human beings.
The sheep - our souls - do not recognize a stranger’s voice, for they know intuitively that the stranger cannot meet the soul’s needs. Even when our earthly natures embrace the world’s perspectives and behavior, our souls do not. When we feed the flesh and starve the soul, we usually feel uneasy and frustrated. Jesus’ imagery of sheep reminds us that our souls are vulnerable - they are meek, patient, and at the mercy of the flesh and its never-ending demands.
Our souls, like sheep, know that only Jesus is the true shepherd and the giver of life (John 10:7-10). Anyone else who claims to bring us life, regardless of the banner or slogan they use, is trying to enter the sheep pen under false pretenses. All humans are by nature sheep, and no one of us is worthy or even able to meet the deepest needs of our fellow sheep. Jesus can lead the sheep to safe pastures, but humans can at best remind their fellow sheep to follow the true shepherd.
Next Jesus gives us his promise of "life to the full". Both flesh and soul rejoice in this promise - but the flesh does so for the wrong reason*. Life to the full has nothing to do with pleasure or desire. We can see this by observing Jesus’ life and the lives of the Christians in the New Testament and in the 1st century. Our example of "life to the full" is Jesus himself, who as God made flesh experienced to the full everything that life offers, both ’good’ and ’bad’.
* Psalms 37:4 is a similar example of a promise that is often misinterpreted because of our earthly mindset.
More than anyone else, Jesus was able fully to appreciate the simple joys available in the world that his Father created. More than anyone else, Jesus fully felt the weight of sadness and fear that this world can instill in the unfortunate. More than anyone else, Jesus knew the full measure of joy that comes with helping someone in need. This is the nature of life to the full, and it is what Jesus offers to us. Our souls within us know that this is also what we were created to be.
Questions For Discussion Or Study: Why does Jesus so often use the imagery of sheep? How closely should we apply this image to ourselves? Why does he keep shifting the literal correlations in these images? What characterizes false shepherds? How should the sheep recognize them? What practical implications does this have for us? Why does Jesus want us to have the kind of "life to the full" that he had? Is this a good thing?
The Selfless Shepherd
(John 10:11-21)
Above all, Jesus is our true shepherd because he alone knows our most crucial needs, and always seeks to meet them. He can only do this by being completely selfless, to the point of laying down his life. In this, he is again in complete unity with his Father. He was not forced to give up his life, but rather he did so voluntarily. Both he and his Father were pleased to do this for us.
The distinction between the true shepherd (Jesus) and the hired hand (humans who claim spiritual authority over the sheep) is revealed in times of trouble (John 10:11-13). Using the image of a wolf attack*, one of the greatest hazards a real-life shepherd would face, Jesus compares the responses to the wolf: the true shepherd will not leave the sheep even in such times, but the hired hand will have no trouble convincing himself that he should flee.
·The image of a predatory animal is sometimes used to symbolize Satan’s methods. The image of a wolf attack, though, is more often used to symbolize trouble arising from earthly opponents of the church (see Matthew 7:16, Matthew 10:16, Luke 10:3, Acts 20:29). Indeed, this kind of human opposition often drives off a lot of the "hired hands."
It is in troubled times that we most need one another, yet the flesh provokes even believers to look to their own interests instead of caring for those in spiritual danger. Fortunately, even if humans ignore our needs we always have Jesus, who always listens and always cares. In Jesus’ earthly ministry, he devotes special attention to the weak, the outcasts, the suffering. This is true in a less tangible way now: he desires especially to be present for those with spiritual problems. "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick" (Matthew 9:12, Mark 2:17, Luke 5:31).
Our souls recognize Jesus, and Jesus also knows his sheep thoroughly and intimately (John 10:14-16). He knows our sins and he knows our needs - and nothing will ever change that. He offers his sheep the kind of relationship with him that he, the good shepherd, has with his Father. God has always desired for us to know the closeness that humanity once had with him before the fall.
In this connection, Jesus talks about his sheep "from another pen" that he also wishes to gather. This is foremost a reminder that Jesus had come to save Gentiles as well as Jews. Once the religious leaders of his day realized this, it would be one more reason for them to oppose Jesus (and later to oppose his disciples). For us too though, it should be a reminder that Jesus does not keep all of his "sheep" in the same "pen".
Yes, it is good to watch our teachings closely, and to avoid the silly human doctrines that characterize many other fellowships. But this does not save us - and a failure to do this, in itself, does not automatically lead to being lost - everyone in any fellowship can only be saved by grace. The specific body with which we worship and minister cannot in itself determine our spiritual condition - it cannot save us automatically, and it cannot disqualify anyone either.
As the good shepherd, Jesus has the authority to lay down his life for the safety of the sheep (John 10:17-21). At first, this might sound odd: who would need or even want the "authority" or the "right" to sacrifice his life? But no one other than Jesus has the ability to lay down his life for the specific purpose of saving the sheep. Humans can die voluntarily for many causes, but no one other than Jesus can lay down his life for the sins and salvation of the world.
Thus the Father loves the Good Shepherd Jesus for many reasons, not least of which is that Jesus willingly lays down his life of his own accord. His will is so intertwined with his Father’s will that even the physical torment of the cross, which he must bear on his own, cannot outweigh his desire for the sheep to be gathered safely to him.
Questions For Discussion Or Study: Whom does Jesus consider a hired hand? Is this necessarily bad or evil? What is the point of this distinction? What characterizes the Good Shepherd? Why can only Jesus have these qualities? Why should it matter to God that Jesus lays down his life of his own free will? Why should it matter to us?
Messiah Or Blasphemer?
(John 10:22-42)
Public opinion of Jesus always wavered considerably, yet now we can see signs that it is hardening. Speculation is rampant that me may be the Messiah, while the opposition to Jesus grows more determined and more likely to use force. Yet Jesus does not respond to either. Instead, he calmly gives those who follow him some valuable assurances.
While at the Feast Of Dedication*, Jesus says of his followers that, "no one can snatch them out of my hand" (John 10:22-30). As we have seen him do before, when he is asked a question that he does not wish to answer, he instead teaches his audience something that they need to hear. In this case, the crowds are constantly demanding that Jesus tell them whether he is the Messiah (Christ). Because their motivation rests largely on speculation and rumor, he instead speaks to them about his sheep, continuing some of the themes from his "good shepherd" lesson.
·Also known as the Feast of Lights, or more familiarly, as Hanukkah. The name Hanukkah comes from the Hebrew verb root êðç
("hanak"), ’to dedicate." It is not an Old Testament holiday - it was instituted in the 2nd century BC during the Maccabean period, as a celebration commemorating the cleansing and rededication of the temple after it was defiled by the pagan oppressor Antiochus ’Epiphanes’.
Jesus emphasizes that his sheep are safe with him, and thus they know his voice. Once the soul recognizes the grace of Jesus for what it is, the soul will not settle for anything less. And Jesus will not permit anyone to grab one of his sheep away from him - though he will allow a dissatisfied sheep to leave. He assures his sheep that they belong to him as long as they wish to, yet they are also free to leave if they really think they can find something better.
* That is, to the east side of the Jordan, with the river now between him and Jerusalem.
Mark Garner, May 2011
DEATH & RESURRECTION:
Notes For Week One:
Waking The Dead
Jesus increasingly looks ahead to his death, fully aware of the many spiritual implications that it will have. Yet he also knows that God will raise him from the dead - and in this passage, he provides us with a kind of preview, by raising Lazarus from death. Many of the emotions and perspectives present in this situation are paralleled in Jesus’ own death and resurrection.
Lazarus Falls Asleep
Once again, Jesus and his disciples are faced with one of life’s sad events - but this time it is even more personal, because it involves a family they all know well. Yet Jesus at first seems not to be deeply concerned, neither for his dying friend nor for his family. Amongst other things, this gives him a chance to see how the disciples react, both to the sickness and to the trip to Bethany.
·Although some versions translate the phrase as "the" one you love, this is an interpretation on the part of the translators - there is no definite article in the original text.
Jesus assures his disciples that, "this sickness will not end in death" - but literally, it does indeed end in Lazarus’s death. Just as Jesus had done with the blind man’s condition (John 9:3-5), he explains that this illness will be used for God’s glory. Again, this has nothing to do with God - or anyone or anything else - "causing" Lazarus’s illness. It is just another reminder for us to stop speculating about fault and assigning blame for the world’s ills, and instead simply do whatever we can to ease the suffering of others.
Yet Jesus’ compassion and his willingness to serve make it even odder that he waits for two more days to leave. Just as his compassion is far greater than ours ever will be, so also his wisdom and his sense of priorities is far better than ours ever will be. He could easily have rushed to Lazarus’s side to stop him from dying. But he has in mind a more powerful way of showing his friends what God’s heart is like.
After the delay, he calls his disciples to go back to Judea* with him, so that they can "wake up" Lazarus (John 11:7-16). The disciples have unpleasant (and probably frightening) memories of Jerusalem, because of the deadly threats Jesus has previously faced there. So the disciples cannot help expressing their concern. It seems as if Jesus is needlessly inviting danger now, after carefully avoiding the area for a time.
·See John 11:18. Bethany was close to Jerusalem, just east of the city, past the Kidron Valley and the Mount of Olives. Note that this Bethany is different from the town of the same name mentioned in John 1:28.
Using now-familiar imagery, Jesus talks about the need to bring light into the lives of others. He and his disciples are still "walking by day," in that his human lifetime has not yet run out. He knows that there is already a time set for his departure, and the plots and threats of humans cannot change the time his Father has set. When he does lay down his life, it will be entirely of his own free will - no human can take Jesus’ life from him unless he and the Father allow it.
The disciples accept Jesus’ priorities, but not his confidence. Thomas probably speaks for more than one of them when he pessimistically - but faithfully - says, "let us go, so that we can die with him." The attitudes of the disciples, and their responses to Jesus’ unexpected decisions, are always instructive. It would certainly be nice if Thomas could by now understand the powers that Jesus has; but even though he doesn’t really understand, he has enough faith in Jesus and love for Jesus to go along with him, no matter how dangerous Jesus’ plans may sound.
Questions For Discussion Or Study: How is Lazarus’s illness similar to other needs that Jesus has addressed? In what ways is it different? Why didn’t Jesus go to visit Lazarus earlier? How might Lazarus’s sisters and the disciples have interpreted the delay? What does Jesus mean that he "sees by this world’s light"? How might our attitudes parallel that of Thomas? How can we learn from his example?
If You Had Been Here . . .
(John 11:17-32)
Eventually Jesus goes to Bethany to see Lazarus’s family, and he finds that Lazarus is now quite dead. When Jesus talks with Martha and Mary, he hints at what he will do, but they do not really understand. In these sisters, we see regret that Jesus had not come earlier, mixed with a kind of resigned faithfulness. They are disheartened by what has happened, but still trust in Jesus.
First, Martha comes to talk with Jesus (John 11:17-27). Always a woman of action, Martha comes to Jesus as soon as she hears that he is nearby. Her first, instinctive comments to Jesus reveal her perspective: a mixture of regret and faith. She is sure that Jesus would somehow have prevented Lazarus’s death, if only Jesus had been there in time. All the same, she is sure that "even now" God will grant Jesus any request he may make. In Martha’s statements, we can see the same blend of sincere faith and confused uncertainty that so often characterizes us.
Jesus’ promise that, "your brother will rise again," is deliberately ambiguous. For her part, Martha hopes for the best, yet is not sure that she should. She decides to understand the promise in the most cautious way, assuming that Jesus is merely assuring her that Lazarus, like all the dead, can hope to be raised* at "the last day"**. Jesus does not clarify what kind of raising he has in mind, but instead asks whether Martha can accept Jesus as "the resurrection and the life."
·Like most Jewish believers of the time, Martha believed in an afterlife that would follow the end of the world, whenever that would come (see also next note). With the exception of certain sects such as the Sadducees, most ancient Jews anticipated a general resurrection of the dead - indeed, it would be strange if God’s own people did not, given that almost every other ancient culture believed in some kind of afterlife.
·This phrase was already known before Jesus, but it probably had a much vaguer significance to those who used it. Most of the ancient Jews did not presume to know the details of how the world would end.
For all her sorrow and her imperfect understanding, Martha’s belief stands firm. She is with Jesus, and she believes in Jesus - whether or not her brother dies, and whether or not Jesus fulfills her deepest earthly hopes.
Next, it is Mary’s turn to talk with Jesus (John 11:28-32). It is interesting that she does not at once go out to meet Jesus, as her sister did* - she needs to be told that "the Teacher" is asking for her. At this, she eagerly goes to meet Jesus, and now she too expresses the familiar lament that Jesus had heard from her sister: if only he had been there earlier. Though we know how different these sisters were in other ways, we can see spiritual similarities. Both have a deep trust in Jesus’ power, and both have complete loyalty to him, even in sadness and tragedy.
·Compare their responses to Jesus here with Luke 10:38-42, where Mary is the one eager to be with Jesus. This is not a contradiction, for in important ways the characterizations of the sisters are entirely consistent - their personalities are just not as easily reduced to stereotypes as we may expect them to be.
Questions For Discussion Or Study: What similarities are there in Mary’s and Martha’s responses to Jesus’ arrival? Are they examples to us? Do their differences hold any lessons for us? What did Jesus mean by "the resurrection and the life"? Did Martha understand it? Do we understand it? Why didn’t Jesus tell them at once that he was going to raise Lazarus from the dead? What can we learn from this?
Lazarus Wakes Up
(John 11:33-44)
Jesus is sensitive both to the sisters and to the ways that others respond to the death of Lazarus. Jesus is much calmer, yet he too is filled with emotion. Jesus first shows us that he has a much deeper understanding of death than we do; and then he demonstrates that he has a power over death that we never can obtain. Both of these will become even more significant later on.
Jesus is deeply moved by the entire situation (John 11:33-37). The sorrow of the sisters, combined with their still strong faith in him, the spectacle of the mourners* and all of the activity surrounding a death, plus Jesus’ own compassion for the dead man all make for an emotional situation. So, "Jesus wept". He lives life to the full, and experiences everything keenly.
·While some of these mourners were doubtlessly family and close friends, it was also common in funerals of the time to find ritualized mourning, practiced by experienced, semi-professional "mourners". This made for an odd combination of ’mourning’ at a typical funeral.
·Jesus makes no attempt to hide his emotions, which are thus quite noticeable to the onlookers. Some note how much Jesus must love Lazarus and his family, while others wonder - perhaps more cynically than Lazarus’s sisters have - why Jesus did not use his power to keep Lazarus alive. These are natural responses, yet simplistic. Jesus’ emotions likely come from several sources, not merely the loss of Lazarus; and his perspective on death and life is much more profound than anyone in the crowd can imagine.
For it is time for Lazarus to wake up from his "sleep" and to come out of the tomb (John 11:38-44). Jesus again makes relatively little ceremony, not even explaining what he is about to do, but simply directing that they take away the stone from the entrance to the tomb*. This makes the practical-minded Martha worry about the unpleasant condition of a body that has been decaying for several days - which in turn prompts Jesus to remind her of her own professions of faith, just as he must sometimes remind us of the implications of the beliefs we profess.
·Like the tomb that would later hold Jesus’ body for a time, this tomb has been cut out of natural rock, according to common practice. The usual tomb would hold up to several bodies, wrapped up individually like mummies, though with less permanent wrappings. The tomb entrance would then have a large stone or boulder pushed across it, to discourage grave-robbers and to keep the indications of decay inside.
Before performing the miracle, Jesus does one more thing. His brief request for help from his Father is "for the benefit of those standing here." For this special occasion, Jesus wants to make absolutely certain that everyone ascribes the power behind the miracle to his Father. Jesus’ own resurrection will be the most important miracle of all, for it will provide the final proof that his sacrificial death on the cross is indeed effective in cleansing sin (see, for example, Romans 1:4). The faithful Son of God insists that we know his Father to be the giver and preserver of all life.
And so Lazarus comes out, still wrapped in the mummy-like grave clothes, leaving behind an empty grave that will serve as convincing new evidence to the divine power that lives in Jesus. (Indeed, we shall soon see the tumultuous consequences of the miracle.) The waking of Lazarus is a simple but powerful demonstration of God’s power of life and death, and it serves as a prelude to the even more momentous raising of Jesus himself.
Questions For Discussion Or Study: What might those in the crowd have thought when Jesus went to the tomb and asked for the stone to be removed? Why does Jesus make a point of praying first? What parallels are there with Jesus’ own resurrection? What possible responses to the miracle may there have been? What overall lessons should we learn from Lazarus’s awakening?
Mark Garner, June 2011 ©2011
DEATH & RESURRECTION:
STUDIES IN John 11:1-57; John 12:1-50; John 13:1-38; John 14:1-31; John 15:1-27; John 16:1-33; John 17:1-26; John 18:1-40; John 19:1-42; John 20:1-31; John 21:1-25
Notes For Week Two:
The Dead Versus The Living
(John 11:45 to John 12:19)
It is ironic that the gravest threats to Jesus’ life come after he raises Lazarus from the dead. It is as if the spiritually dead religious leaders were jealous of life itself. In their blindness, they cannot see anything about Jesus clearly. Meanwhile, the crowds are in a frenzy of anticipation when Jesus enters Jerusalem. Yet they, too, fail to understand the meaning of Jesus’ ministry.
Review Of Last Week’s Class
Not long before his own death, Jesus wakes the dead (John 11:1-44). His good friend Lazarus "falls asleep", yet when Jesus hears the news, he responds oddly. He is in no hurry to visit Lazarus, telling his disciples only that "this sickness will not end in death." Jesus intends both to glorify God and to teach his disciples. Eventually it is time to go to Judea, and the disciples, remembering the threats Jesus received on previous visits there, expect to die with him.
When they reach Bethany, Lazarus has been dead for several days. Would things have been different if Jesus had been there in time? Both Martha and Mary, though their personalities were different, make this same observation. They are disheartened, but believe in Jesus no matter what. They believe he is the resurrection and the life, though they are unsure what this means.
Ultimately, of course, Lazarus "wakes up." Jesus has been deeply moved by the entire atmosphere surrounding the death of his friend, yet he has a much deeper understanding than the mourners do. His prayer for help is "for the benefit of those standing here", so that the glory for the miracle goes to his Father - and then he performs his greatest miracle to date.
What do we learn from the way Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead? Lazarus later died again, yet Jesus’ miracle lives on. We see again his extraordinary power over nature, even death. And we see his compassion and his concern for others. Yet he also sees things much more deeply than we do. He did not rush off, and he did not worry what anyone thought. Jesus never substituted superficial statements or frantic activity for genuine love and concern.
The Authorities Get Tough
(John 11:45-57)
The raising of Lazarus prompts the religious authorities to renew their efforts to stop Jesus. Once again, they are completely blind to Jesus’ compassion and to his power - they can think only of their short-term personal interests. There is unintentional irony in their perspectives, and there is a grim atmosphere of expectation as Jesus prepares to come once more to Jerusalem.
The Sanhedrin* assembles in the aftermath of the raising of Lazarus (John 11:45-53). Informers have kept them up-to-date on Jesus’ activities, and they are disturbed by this latest "problem". With their distorted perspective, the authorities can think only about trying to gain control of Jesus. They have made numerous efforts to slow him down, but have accomplished nothing.
·In different eras, the Sanhedrin took different forms and had varying degrees of power. During Jesus’ ministry, its power was at its height. The Sanhedrin in the New Testament was actually the Great Sanhedrin, as many cities had their own Sanhedrin for local affairs. The Great Sanhedrin was a kind of Supreme Court, with near absolute power over everyday legal questions in Jewish society.
The members of the assembly try to justify their murderous intentions with pious-sounding rationalizations that thinly cover over their self-interest. The members of the Sanhedrin wanted to maintain their status as the local authorities that the Romans trusted. The Romans generally gave local governments a fair degree of power if they could keep order* and would demonstrate their loyalty to Rome. But this could bring out the self-interest in local authorities, who often used rationalizations like this one to eliminate rivals in ruthless fashion.
·The Sanhedrin fears that, if the Jews were to recognize Jesus as their leader, then the pragmatic Romans might do the same. Their fear that the Romans would take away the temple ("our place") is not a concern for the temple itself, but rather for the lucrative benefits that the chief priests, the Sadducees, and the Sanhedrin received from being given charge of the temple.
Thus the high priest Caiaphas* takes charge of the proceedings. He says openly what everyone else was thinking - that they could only be certain of protecting their interests if they killed Jesus. Caiaphas adds an additional rationalization. By referring to his own "prophecy"** that one man would die for the benefit of the Jewish nation, he puts a veneer of religion on their plotting, and it probably made a few of the council members feel better.
·Caiaphas’s father-in-law Annas had previously been the high priest, and Annas was still accorded the title as a sign of respect. Besides Caiaphas, a number of Annas’s own sons would be high priest.
·The high priest’s formal prophecies are really no different from the attempts of today’s ill-qualified authorities and "experts" to predict things like the stock market, climatic conditions, sports competitions, wars, or the economy. The high priests weren’t any worse at it than most of our "experts" are.
As the Passover approaches, the tension between Jesus and the religious authorities will soon be resolved one way or another (John 11:54-57). For his part, Jesus withdraws once more to an area beyond the reach of the authorities in Jerusalem. At the Passover, a new round of speculation and debate begins. For the most part, it is harmless, with many persons just wanting to know what Jesus will do. But the authorities are on alert, eager to get any reports of Jesus’ activities.
Questions For Discussion Or Study: What reasons would the authorities give for their desire to eliminate Jesus? What were their real reasons? What are our real reasons for resisting things that Jesus teaches us? What parallels would Caiaphas’s "prophecy" have today? How can we learn to see our own agendas and rationalizations more clearly?
A Dinner In Bethany
(John 12:1-11)
Just before Passover week, Jesus visits Mary and Martha for a special dinner. Jesus and Lazarus are guests of honor, and each sister demonstrates her appreciation for Jesus in her own way. But we also see the first stages of the final plot that will end Jesus’ life. Judas Iscariot’s hypocritical criticism will soon form an unholy alliance with the irrational anger of the chief priests.
The two sisters both serve eagerly and generously, each in her own way (John 12:1-3). Martha did much of the work to set up this dinner in Jesus’ honor, and she visibly bustles about during the proceedings. Mary makes her own sacrifice, anointing Jesus* with expensive perfume. True to her character, she is less "practical", yet her gift is valuable too. Besides sacrificing a valuable possession, she shows considerable affection and humility towards Jesus at the same time.
·Matthew 26:1-75 and Mark 14:1-72 do not identify Mary by name, stating only that this happened in Bethany. Luke 7:1-50 describes an event earlier in Jesus’ ministry, when a different woman did something similar.
Jesus was often criticized by outsiders, but now he must contend with criticism from within (John 12:4-8). Why wasn’t the expensive perfume* sold? Mary could have used it as a donation to the poor, or at least for something practical. These questions come from Jesus’ own disciples, led by Judas Iscariot (John mentions only Judas, but see Matthew 26:8-9 and Mark 14:3-4). Like the members of the Sanhedrin, Judas allows his opinions to be determined by his self-interest. But his criticism would be misguided even if he truly would use the money differently.
·Nard is a perfume made from the oil of the spikenard plant. Spikenard comes from the Himalayan regions of China, India, and Nepal - in biblical times this made it quite scarce within Roman territory. Today, spikenard is sometimes used in herbal medications.
Sacrificial expressions of appreciation for Jesus are never out of place. Mary makes the sacrifice that God has enabled her to make, and like her sister she expresses her affection for Jesus. It would be different if she were choosing some selfish indulgence and passing it off as an act of appreciation, but she is not using her expensive perfume on herself.
Jesus reminds the disciples that, "you will not always have me." They have made their own sacrifices to show their appreciation of Jesus, and they should not judge the sacrifices of others. We do not have Jesus physically with us anymore, and so we must look for other ways to show our appreciation for him. But there are all kinds of sacrifices we can make, too. It doesn’t matter whether anyone else thinks they are worthwhile, or even notices - Jesus notices and appreciates it whenever we give up our time, our resources, or our personal advantage for him or his people.
Meanwhile, the chief priests are busy with their own plans (John 12:9-11). Noticing that the raising of Lazarus has drawn even larger crowds to Jesus, these religious leaders come to a "logical" conclusion: they decide to kill Lazarus, too! This is what happens when humans are unwilling to re-evaluate and adjust their perspectives. Closed minds and hardened hearts do not always lead to murder, but they can only cause harm, never good.
Questions For Discussion Or Study: What motivated Martha and Mary to serve Jesus? Why were both of their sacrifices pleasing to Jesus? What lessons should we learn from Judas’ criticisms? Could he have had other reasons besides a desire for money? Is Judas similar in any way to the chief priests? Why would the chief priests want to kill Lazarus? What does this show about their priorities? What warnings should we get from them?
The King Arrives
(John 12:12-19)
Jesus’ "triumphal entry" is a fascinating event. Most of us would have been fully caught up in the excitement and anticipation, without realizing that Jesus’ intentions were completely different from those of anyone in the crowd. Perhaps we would have been on the sidelines, plotting against Jesus. Only Jesus, though, disregarded both the superficial praise and the worldly plots.
On his way into Jerusalem, Jesus is greeted with joyful cries of Hosanna* (John 12:12-16). Most persons in the crowd are sincere in their joy, but none of them understand what Jesus really came to do. Yet they do inadvertently proclaim the truth when they call, "blessed is the King of Israel", because Jesus is their true king - though not the kind of monarch they desired.
·Literally, "hosanna" means "save", as if it were a request. But it was commonly used as a generic expression of excitement or enthusiasm, the way we might say something like "hurray" or "way to go".
This Messianic arrival was prophesied in detail*, though few at the time realized it. The prophet Zechariah, who gave us several significant prophecies about the Messiah, called for Israel (the "Daughter Of Zion") to rejoice at the sight of her true king coming on a donkey (the original prophecy can be found in Zechariah 9:9-11). Traditionally, a conquering king would parade before his subjects riding a horse - so the choice of a humble donkey instead symbolizes that Jesus’ kingdom is one of peace, not war.
·See also Matthew 21:1-6, Mark 11:1-6, and Luke 19:28-35, which bring out aspects of the entry into Jerusalem that John does not mention.
Despite all the enthusiasm, the crowd has misguided expectations. In just a few days, many of them will gladly watch him be crucified, and some of them will be among those demanding his death. Jesus does not allow himself to be carried away by their outward show of support, for, as John told us earlier, "Jesus would not entrust himself to them, for he knew all men" (John 2:24).
With all the excitement, word about Jesus continues to spread (John 12:17-19). The news about Lazarus certainly has helped draw even more attention than usual to him. The frustrated Pharisees are disgusted with the way that everyone has suddenly become so excited about Jesus. They wouldn’t have troubled themselves so much if they had understood human nature. Enthusiasms that develop so easily usually also dissipate easily.
What if we had been standing in the crowd as Jesus entered Jerusalem? Would we share the honest but shallow expectations of the crowd? Would we be annoyed at the attention Jesus was receiving? Or would we have enough genuine faith to ignore both the fleshly hype and the fleshly opposition, so that when Jesus revealed his true intentions, we would be ready for them?
Questions For Discussion Or Study: Why were the crowds so excited when Jesus arrived? How could their excitement disappear in less than a week? Why is it significant that there is a prophecy about Jesus riding a donkey? Is there anyone in this scene who really understands what is happening, or who has any genuine faith?
Mark Garner, June 2011
DEATH & RESURRECTION:
STUDIES IN John 11:1-57; John 12:1-50; John 13:1-38; John 14:1-31; John 15:1-27; John 16:1-33; John 17:1-26; John 18:1-40; John 19:1-42; John 20:1-31; John 21:1-25
Notes For Week Three:
The Word Foresees His Death
(John 12:20-50)
Jesus speaks openly of his coming death, indicating how and why it will happen. He alone understands the true significance of what will take place; and he alone will not be surprised by the chain of events leading to his death. Speculation and debate about Jesus continue to grow, yet Jesus takes no interest in either - instead, he is concerned about those who have faith in him.
Review Of Recent Classes
Jesus provides a preview of his resurrection by "waking up" the dead Lazarus (John 11:1-44). The spiritually dead religious leaders then attack the living Christ (John 11:45 to John 12:19). When they hear about Lazarus, the authorities get tough. They are simply motivated by self-interest, but they are full of religious-sounding rationalizations for disposing of Jesus. The ironic "prophecy" of the high priest Caiaphas gives them a further excuse for their murderous plotting.
Meanwhile, there is a dinner in Bethany in Jesus’ honor. Sisters Mary and Martha serve Jesus in different ways, but Mary’s sacrifice brings criticism from within due to its extravagance. Jesus is pleased with Mary, though, and he reminds the others that they will not have him much longer.
With the Passover now near, Jesus arrives in Jerusalem as a king would enter a city - but with important symbolic differences, as prophesied by Zechariah. The crowd is excited, but their "hosannas" are ironic, and their expectations are misguided. Jesus comes in peace - not to conquer, but to serve and die so that we all might come to his Father and know him. Amongst all those standing in the crowd, none really understood or appreciated why Jesus had come. Do we?
How do our own expectations of Jesus influence how we respond to him? It is difficult to keep returning to the forgiveness of sins, the chance to know God, and the security of eternity as the primary blessings we receive from Jesus. Yet otherwise we shall forever be confused by what God is doing; we are likely to be judgmental or stubborn rather than compassionate and gracious; we shall fixate on fleshly emotions and cravings rather than on the soul’s spiritual needs. We can help each other greatly by never forgetting the foundations of grace and hope.
Imagery Of A Death That Gives Life
(John 12:20-33)
Once again, we see Jesus respond to an inquiry with an apparently unrelated lesson. He describes the coming crucifixion with imagery and explanation, knowing that it will take a while for anyone to grasp what he says. Jesus also gives us a glimpse into his own heart, in which a fear of the impending torture is combined with anticipation of the blessings it will bring others.
First we meet some outsiders who are at the Passover feast (John 12:20-22). A group of Gentiles* approaches Philip - a Galilean who probably had numerous Gentile acquaintances - to say that they would like to see Jesus. When this request is brought to Jesus’ attention, he seemingly does not even respond directly, but instead turns the conversation in an entirely different direction.
·In the original text, they are literally referred to as Greeks, but it was also a common figure of speech to call any Gentiles or foreigners ’Greeks’.
Jesus first uses the image of a falling seed (John 12:23-26). A plant’s seed gives new life by dying to itself - that is, by ceasing to be a seed - and so also Jesus cannot give us a full measure of life and grace unless he first dies on the cross. There are several spiritual applications of this idea, most obviously in Jesus’ own ministry. He has the ability to do many good things, but none of them will save anyone’s soul unless Jesus’ life on this earth comes to an end. To do the most lasting good, he must cease to be a healer of damaged bodies and become a healer of damaged souls.
This also applies to those who seek God. We must be ready to give up our lives in this world - not literally, by being killed, but figuratively, by giving up our fleshly goals and ambitions - in order to live the greater, spiritual life that Jesus offers - what he called "life to the full." Only by discarding not only old habits but also old identities can we know God and rejoice in his grace.
Jesus’ hour has come, and he is ready to be "lifted up’ - an image of crucifixion (John 12:27-33). Jesus dreads the physical experience that he must endure, but he looks forward to glorifying his Father. Jesus reminds us that to glorify God means giving up self. By being lifted up physically on the cross, and giving up his life voluntarily, he will raise God’s name above his own desires.
Hence he asks the Father to "glorify your name" - he calls not for his own will, but for his Father’s will, to be done. And his selfless prayer is met by the Father’s voice thundering back from heaven* in reply. This powerful phenomenon overwhelms those who witness it, for they seek alternate explanations to the plain fact that God himself has spoken in this rare fashion.
·Compare (and perhaps contrast) this incident with the voice of God speaking at Jesus’ baptism (Matthew 3:16-17, Mark 1:11, Luke 3:21-22) and at the transfiguration (; Matthew 17:5-6, Mark 9:7, Luke 9:34-35).
Jesus’ death, and only his death, can draw humanity to himself, making us one with God and with one another. The goal is no different from the dreams of earthly leaders throughout history, but only Jesus understands how to bring it about- and only Jesus is willing to do what is needed.
We cannot bring humanity together by intelligence, methods, money, or words. The wounds and divisions are too deep to be healed by anything other than 100% grace. So many cultures or nations have hated and killed each other for centuries - not for lack of ideas, good intentions, or knowledge, but for lack of grace. Only by completely forgiving, and completely being forgiven, can humanity’s wounds be healed. Such an outpouring of grace can only come about by Jesus’ blood. The sacrifice has now been made - will we accept it and be healed? Will we help others to see that salvation is not a matter of doctrine or methodology, but of grace and mercy?
Questions For Discussion Or Study: Why might these Gentiles have wanted to see Jesus? Why doesn’t Jesus respond directly? Is it significant that this lesson comes in response to a request from Gentiles? How is Jesus like a seed? Does a falling seed symbolize us too? How will Jesus’ death "glorify" God? How will it draw humanity to him? Why did God speak from heaven on this occasion?
The Struggle To Believe
(John 12:34-43)
Jesus’ teachings and actions are often hard for others fully to grasp and accept - and his latest comments are no exception. Jesus and his Father knew it would be this way; for the struggle to believe has always been part of God’s relationship with his people. This is not a bad thing - God wants us to learn to strive against our fleshly tendencies, so that our faith can be deeper.
Jesus has used the term "Son of Man"* several times, and now the crowd would like to know who this "Son Of Man" is (John 12:34-36). And once more, Jesus does not respond directly. In part, this is because any direct definition would be misleading and misunderstood, yet the deeper reason is because they are again asking the wrong question. Their struggle is not in accepting who Jesus is, but in accepting the things he is teaching them.
·In reference to Jesus, the name "Son of Man" emphasizes his role as the heir (the one who will receive or bear everything) of humanity’s weaknesses, sins, and spiritual needs. See also the notes to John 8:25-30.
Thus Jesus calls them to walk in the light (his teachings and his presence) while they have the light with them. Of course, they can always change and come to him later, after he is gone, but Jesus knows human nature. Those who are ready to follow him should do so now, without delay. He will be patient with the others too - but all of us shall only walk in this world for a short time. Whenever the time comes for a person to choose to follow Jesus, he or she should heed the soul’s cry for help without argument or qualification.
John parallels some teachings from Isaiah with the ministry of Jesus (John 12:37-41). In their original settings, the quotations from Isaiah 53:1 and Isaiah 6:10 come from different contexts*; yet both point out that the struggle to believe and accept God’s priorities has always been present in his relationship with his people. Whether under law or grace, whether living in ancient times or modern, it will never be easy or pleasant to set aside our fleshly desires to fulfill the needs of the soul and spirit. Since we are blessed to live in a time of grace, let us accept it freely, and be grateful that we and all who respond can receive a knowledge of God that we did not earn.
·Isaiah 6:1-13 covers the occasion of Isaiah’s own call to ministry, and the verse John quotes emphasizes the resistance that Isaiah will encounter when he proclaims his prophecies. Isaiah 53:1-12 is part of a detailed foretelling of the Messiah’s own ministry of atonement and grace.
The prophet Isaiah saw Jesus’ glory long ago, because the old covenant and sacrifices - though holy in themselves - never pleased God. So God was already preparing a better covenant and a better, once-for all sacrifice. Isaiah and other prophets realized that they would not live to see this new covenant, but they rejoiced in knowing it would come. How the faithful men and women of the Old Testament would have rejoiced, if they could have been completely freed from the law by Jesus’ blood!
In our struggle for belief, we must often choose between receiving verbal praise from humans and receiving unspoken, but genuine, praise from God (John 12:42-43). John makes the astonishing observation that many of the religious leaders actually believe in Jesus, but they will not say so out loud because they are afraid of becoming religious outcasts*.
* That is, they did not want to be excluded from the synagogue - see also the notes to John 9:18-23.
Both aspects of this are noteworthy. Even as the religious leaders plot Jesus’ death, some of them actually believe in him. But they won’t say so, even if it could save Jesus’ life, because they are afraid of being punished or embarrassed. Yet before we critique them, we should remember how hard it can be for us to acknowledge Jesus openly, and to do so in a way that is sincere and meaningful, and not just an affectation, a political statement, or a social statement.
When we find ourselves struggling to overcome unbelief, we have not done anything wrong; nor does it mean that we are in immediate danger. It is an unavoidable consequence of inhabiting mortal bodies and living in a perishable world while worshiping a spiritual God. The struggle will not go away or become easy, but there are ways we can make it less complicated. The fear of changing our priorities and perspectives, the resistance to humility, and the insistence on turning the gospel into a doctrine or a method are all unnecessary obstacles. They do us no good at all, and it will not hurt us if we simply discard these things.
Questions For Discussion Or Study: Why does the crowd ask about the Son of Man? Why doesn’t Jesus answer their question? What does he want them to think about instead? Look up the quotes from Isaiah in their original contexts. How do they relate to Jesus’ ministry? How could some of the leaders have actually believed in Jesus but been unwilling to say so? What should we learn from this?
Jesus & The Father
(John 12:44-50)
As Jesus approaches the ordeal of the cross, he will put himself completely at the mercy of his Father. Moreover, he hopes to call his followers’ attention to the Father as the ultimate source of grace and hope. Jesus is not reluctant to describe and discuss his dependence on the Father, and he wants us also to put our entire faith, hope, and trust in God. His words will show us how.
Jesus reminds us again of the tight bond between him and the One who sent him (John 12:44-46). He knows we must constantly be reminded that looking at Jesus allows us to see God. This is one more way in which Jesus helps us come into the light. Mortal beings cannot see God physically, and the fleshly mind cannot even sense God amidst the cruder sensations of this world. But whenever we look at Jesus and listen to Jesus, we can see the heart and mind of his Father,
The very words Jesus speaks point us directly to the Father (John 12:47-50). For Jesus himself came not to judge*, but to save. Really, neither he nor his Father needs to judge anyone, for all of us have already judged ourselves by our sins. We are already self-judged and self-condemned - and the more we profess our innocence, the more we condemn ourselves (recall John 9:41).
·There is no contradiction between this verse and John 5:22-23 or John 5:26-27. Jesus does not intend any of these statements to be analyzed forensically, but to be considered in light of our relationship with him and his Father. Such passages are illuminating different sides of these relationships.
This is why Jesus says, "that very word which I spoke will condemn him." God’s judgment is impersonal, but Jesus’ salvation is personal. And because Jesus’ grace is personal, it also makes our knowledge of God personal. All the words that Jesus speaks came from the Father, and all that he does is in accordance with the Father’s will. Thus we do not need to prove ourselves to God - we need only follow Jesus’ example by humbling ourselves.
Questions For Discussion Or Study: What aspects of his relationship with the Father does Jesus mention here? Why are they important to us? Why does Jesus not need to judge anyone? What implications does this have for us? In what sense do his words judge us? Why is it important to know that Jesus’ words come directly from the Father?
Mark Garner, June 2011
DEATH & RESURRECTION:
STUDIES IN John 11:1-57; John 12:1-50; John 13:1-38; John 14:1-31; John 15:1-27; John 16:1-33; John 17:1-26; John 18:1-40; John 19:1-42; John 20:1-31; John 21:1-25
Notes For Week Four:
The Servants & Their Master
(John 13:1-38)
On Jesus’ last evening with his disciples before the crucifixion, he teaches them some powerful lessons. In washing their feet, predicting Judas’s betrayal, and foreseeing Peter’s denial, Jesus also leaves some important spiritual lessons for us. The life of a follower of Jesus should reflect Jesus’ own life in every possible way, and especially in reflecting his grace and his humility.
Although Peter is now fully convinced about the resurrection, he has not really gotten over his denials on the night of the crucifixion. Jesus knew how much Peter really loves him, and so he now takes the time to teach Peter some valuable lessons. In his characteristic manner, Jesus combines compassion with teaching, and assurance with exhortation.
After the breakfast, Jesus finally talks with Peter alone, and he asks Peter whether he truly loves his Lord (John 21:15-17). Jesus knows this - as indeed Peter acknowledges in his answer that, "you know that I love you." Jesus makes a point by asking three times* for Peter to affirm this, as a deliberate echo of the three times that Peter was asked whether he knew Jesus, and denied it.
·Commentators often point out that Jesus uses the verb agapaw ("agapao", to love selflessly) in his first two questions, while the third time he uses the verb filew ("phileo", to love as a brother), suggesting that this ’downgrade’ is the reason why Peter was hurt. But in practice, the two verbs were used more-or-less interchangeably in ordinary conversations. All three times, Peter answers with the verb filew (to love as a brother). So the verbs are not the real point here. Jesus is not asking Peter - or us - to analyze the degree of his love, but simply to confirm it again and again.
Jesus reminds Peter of this previous incident not to make him feel guilty, but to heal him - he knows that Peter still has not gotten over this, while Jesus never had condemned him to begin with. Peter cannot undo his denials, but henceforth he can simply re-affirm his love for Jesus again and again - and this will be more than enough for his gracious Lord.
Jesus adds a further point too - and it is a point worth remembering in our own ministries. One of the reasons for Peter’s denials was his confusion about the ways that Jesus wants his followers to show their love for him. In the garden, Peter was sincerely ready to launch a suicide attack to protect Jesus, yet for this apparent devotion he was corrected, not praised, by his Lord. Jesus teaches him now that a truer way of expressing love for Jesus is to tend, feed, and care for his sheep. Thus Jesus heals Peter of the guilt of his denials while also teaching him how to build a stronger foundation for the future.
Yet there is also a warning for Peter, because when he is old, he will indeed glorify Jesus with a martyr’s death (John 21:18-19). He will no longer be so eager to do so, but will be led where he does not want to go. And yet this death* - unlike his impulsive sword attack in the garden - will truly glorify God. "Martyrdom" in itself does not glorify God if it merely arises as a result of our own aggression or belligerence. Jesus’ death on the cross is our example of selfless, humble sacrifice.
Review Of Recent Classes
The spiritually dead religious authorities are determined to kill the living Messiah (John 11:45 to John 12:19). Jesus, the Word of God made flesh, foresees his death (John 12:20-50). When some Gentiles visit him at the Passover, he teaches them images of a death that gives life. Jesus will be like a falling seed that is transformed into new life. And when Jesus is lifted up on the cross, he will draw humanity to him. Only Jesus’ blood and grace can overcome our fleshly divisions.
Jesus knows that it is a struggle for mortal beings to believe the gospel of grace. Isaiah foretold not only some details about Jesus’ ministry, but also the trouble he would face teaching a world fixated on law, human opinion, and comparisons. Even in Jesus’ own time, it was a challenge for believers to set aside the craving for praise from humans, and instead to seek praise from God.
Jesus often reminds us of his relationship with the Father, for in many ways this sets an example for us. When we look at Jesus, we see God, too. Even the words Jesus speaks come directly from the Father - Jesus does not repeat them as an obligation, but rather he gladly teaches them because his will is so closely intertwined with his Father’s.
How is Jesus’ death essential to the gospel? We might desire to set aside the crucifixion to emphasize the more pleasant aspects of Jesus’ life, but the gospel is no gospel without the blood and the cross. Only thus could the grace be obtained to cover the flood of sins humanity has committed. And only by leaving the physical world could Jesus allow his followers to move past their dependence on him as a human, and grow into a dependence on his eternal Father.
An Example For The Servants
(John 13:1-17)
As he washed his disciples’ feet, Jesus knew that they would not fully understand what he was doing. And it is also easy for us to misinterpret the example he is setting. The emphasis is not on any literal action, but on his attitude and perspective. If it is true that no servant is greater than his master, then we can never claim any privilege or right that Jesus himself did not claim.
We know that Jesus always loved his disciples dearly, but now at the Passover meal* he shows them "the full extent of his love" (John 13:1-5). Judas Iscariot has already decided to betray Jesus to the authorities, and so Jesus’ suffering and death are imminent. But Jesus does not dwell on his own misfortune, and he does not even exclude Judas from the love he shows his disciples. Indeed, he will show Judas some extra grace and compassion.
·Jesus and his disciples were observing the traditional Passover meal described in the Old Testament. Some details would have differed from the original observance, but the main elements were the same.
Jesus makes himself a servant, performing a humbling task* without the slightest reservation or complaint. He washes their feet all by himself, not delegating anything and not holding back anything. Even when he comes to Judas, he shows the same humility and compassion that he shows all the others. This simple incident is a powerful reminder of how deeply Jesus loves everyone, even those we despise or fear. His own example takes away all of our excuses for hating, for seeking revenge, or for feeling that God approves of some of us more than others.
·The job of washing guests’ feet would normally have been performed, when it was done at all, by the lowest and least skilled servants in a home. For some studies that further expand on Jesus’ example here, see the book The God Of The Towel, by Jim McGuiggan.
The relationship between Jesus and Peter often provides insights into the ways Jesus thinks of us, and this is another example (John 13:6-11). Peter swings from one extreme to another. First he is embarrassed to have the great Teacher serving him; and then, when Jesus explains how important it is, Peter wants Jesus to wash his whole body. His understanding may be poor, but his determination to please Jesus in any possible way is a good example. Jesus’ own point is that it was just as important for the disciples to accept the washing as it was for Jesus to perform it.
Jesus uses the cleansing of physical dirt to teach Peter some important spiritual lessons. Just as Peter was uncomfortable with Jesus stooping down and cleaning his feet, so also we as believers can be uncomfortable with the lengths of sacrifice Jesus went to, in order to cleanse our souls. Part of us resists our need for pure grace and forgiveness, and part of us never quite believes that we are completely clean, without the need to perform any meritorious works of our own.
Jesus asks his disciples whether they understand what he has done for them (John 13:12-17). It is not just a simple act of practical service, or even a demonstration of his care for them. It is no less than a pronouncement of identity. By defining himself as a humbly sacrificial servant, Jesus has also placed an upper limit on the degree of self-importance that anyone following him may have.
No servant is greater than his master, and a messenger is no greater than the one who sends him - this is true then and now. Jesus teaches us that the world’s definitions of human greatness and importance are unacceptable for those who live by the gospel (see Matthew 20:25-28, Mark 10:42-45, and Luke 22:24-27). It is easy to come up with religious-sounding rationalizations when we desire privilege or special treatment, but that is all they are. No one was ever more important, more vital to our very survival, than Jesus the Son of God - but he never claimed privilege, authority, or position on this earth. He just served, loved, and sacrificed.
Questions For Discussion Or Study: Why was the Passover meal an appropriate time for Jesus to wash the disciples’ feet? Why did he do it while Judas was still there? What implications are there for us? Why was Peter uncomfortable? What lessons should we learn from Peter’s reluctance? What does Jesus’ example teach us about positions of responsibility or leadership in the church? What does it teach to all believers?
He Who Shares My Bread
(John 13:18-30)
Because we are so familiar with the accounts of Judas’ betrayal, it has lost its shock value. But the disciples’ horrified astonishment reminds us of the depths of treachery involved. Of course, it was a necessary step in Jesus providing the redemptive sacrifice for sin. Jesus has no animosity towards Judas, and he even declines the chance to embarrass Judas in front of the others.
Jesus tells the disciples about the betrayal ahead of time, so that it will not catch them completely by surprise (John 13:18-21). Jesus has known about it all along, and he explains from Scripture how it fits in*. It is a measure of his compassion for the traitor Judas that the other disciples have no idea who the betrayer is - not once in all their time together has Jesus shown any lack of respect or kindness to Judas, even though he knew long ago that he was the betrayer (see John 6:64).
·In its original context, Psalms 41:9 is a description of David’s struggles, probably when he was hunted by Saul and had to worry about being given away by someone eager to gain the king’s favor. It is not a direct prediction of Judas’s betrayal; rather, it is now ’fulfilled’ in the broader sense that Jesus exemplifies it more completely. Both David and Jesus were rightful rulers rejected by the establishment, and who were not safe even from their friends. David even faced rebellion and treachery from within his own family.
Thus the disciples, upon hearing the prediction, frantically ask which one of them it might be (John 13:22-26). The other gospel accounts tell us that some of the disciples even worry that they might be the one, without even realizing it (for example, see Matthew 26:22 and Mark 14:19). As John shows us, even those who may not be as concerned are certainly curious, and they want to know who it is. Jesus actually indulges the curiosity of "the disciple whom Jesus loved"*, yet neither John nor Jesus tips off the other disciples.
·John never uses his own name in his account, and refers to himself as "the disciple whom Jesus loved" several times. See also John 21:20-24.
As for Judas himself, Jesus does not criticize him or debate with him, simply requesting that, "what you are about to do, do quickly" (John 13:27-30). Jesus graciously protects Judas from having to face the anger of the other disciples, knowing that Satan has already "entered into* him." Throughout the Last Supper, Jesus shows that he cares for the treacherous Judas as much as he cares for the faithful eleven.
·Luke’s account adds a detail, saying that Satan entered into Judas somewhat earlier (Luke 22:3-6). So it seems possible that on both occasions Satan in some way provoked or incited Judas to act. Yet we are never told definitively whether or not Judas was at any particular time deprived of his free will. We can only draw our conclusions based on what we know from other Scriptures about God’s nature.
Questions For Discussion Or Study: Could anyone other than Jesus have realized how appropriate it was to have the Last Supper during the Passover? How might it have helped the disciples to have Jesus foretell Judas’ betrayal? Should it mean anything to us? Why does Jesus give Judas so much grace? What should we learn from this?
You Cannot Follow Now
(John 13:31-38)
While the other disciples would remain loyal to Jesus, most of them too would reveal their weaknesses in the coming crisis. Becoming aware of their spiritual frailty is an important part of their spiritual growth. Their mistakes would also add to Jesus’ glory. Jesus saves us because of his own compassion and grace, not because he had brilliant advisers or courageous assistants.
Once Judas leaves on his mission of treachery, the final chain of events has been set in action - hence Jesus says that, "now is the Son Of Man glorified" (John 13:31-35). He does not see the coming crucifixion as an injustice or a tragedy, but as the chance to become glorified along with his Father. It will be the capstone on a lifetime of compassion and service. Jesus knows that godly glory is not found in earthly victories, but in giving one’s all to God and his people.
Jesus continues to remind his disciples that he will be with them only a little longer. He knows that these warnings will not make it easy - indeed, nothing could make it any easier for them. Much of what he says now has a different purpose, because later they will remember his words.
The disciples’ response is pretty natural - they want to know where Jesus is going (John 13:36-38). Rather than reiterate what he has already told then, Jesus simply tells them that they cannot come with him now - but they will indeed follow later*. For the disciples, who for many months have spent almost every moment with Jesus, the hardest thing about the crucifixion might not be Jesus’ suffering, but their own separation from him.
·That is, their lives too will be imperiled for their faith. They can do nothing now to prevent the crucifixion; they can only remain faithful. Someday they too may be called on to lay down their lives.
Peter, for one, openly claims that he will go anywhere with Jesus, which prompts Jesus to give his prediction that Peter will deny knowing him before the rooster crows - that is, before the night is over*. Peter’s determination to be with Jesus is completely genuine, but it is still shallow. Jesus does not want Peter to die with him in a blaze of glory; he wants Peter to live a life of humility for him. Once again, Jesus will allow someone he loves dearly to go through a painful experience, in order to strengthen his faith so that he can know his Savior better.
·Other accounts refer to the rooster (or co*ck) crowing two times. But the meaning is the same - since roosters routinely crowed at various times of the day, anything happening "before the rooster crows" would happen quite soon.
Nobody finds it easy to accept our dependence on grace. We always hope to prove ourselves to be exceptions to rule, or at least to prove that we don’t need grace as much as someone else does. We want to think that we will be the ones who will get everything right, who will do it all, who will save the world. Many Christians never get past this, and they live all their lives trying to be something Jesus never asked them to be (or worse, they try to force others to be something Jesus did not ask them to be). But we can only be saved by grace completely, or not by grace at all.
We have a Messiah who washed the feet of Judas, and who prayed for the souls of the brutes who nailed his body to a cross. He doesn’t want us to try to save ourselves. He wants us to be humble and grateful in accepting the grace that he pours out on us so lavishly.
Questions For Discussion Or Study: How was Jesus "glorified" by being betrayed to death? Why does he keep telling the disciples that he will be going away? How does he want them to respond? Why does Peter want to follow Jesus now? Does he know what it would mean? What did he need to learn? What similar lessons do we need to learn?
Mark Garner, June 2011
DEATH & RESURRECTION:
STUDIES IN John 11:1-57; John 12:1-50; John 13:1-38; John 14:1-31; John 15:1-27; John 16:1-33; John 17:1-26; John 18:1-40; John 19:1-42; John 20:1-31; John 21:1-25
Notes For Week Five:
Comfort & Counsel
(John 14:1-31)
As Jesus spends one last evening with the disciples before the crucifixion, he has already given them some momentous things to think about: his example of extreme humility and service, the coming betrayal of Judas, and the coming denial by Peter. But he also offers them some deep comfort for the trying times ahead - and these thoughts will stay with them long afterwards.
Review Of Recent Classes
Jesus, the Word of God made flesh, foresaw his own death (John 12:20-50). Before he died, he taught his disciples some important lessons about the servants and their Master (John 13:1-38). He first set an example for them by humbly washing their feet at the table. This and his other actions at the Last Supper showed the full extent of his love. Reminding them that no servant is greater than his master, he called them to live with the same degree of grace and humility.
Jesus would soon be betrayed by one of those who had shared his bread and his life. Jesus told this to the disciples in advance, so that later they would realize it was meant to happen. To the treacherous Judas, Jesus shows only grace, shielding him from exposure and embarrassment. Knowing that Judas has made up his mind, he tells him only to do quickly what he is about to do.
The disciples will not be able to follow Jesus to the cross. It is time for him, the Son Of Man, to be glorified, and even Judas’s betrayal and Peter’s denial will merely enhance the glory and grace of Jesus. Naturally, the disciples want to know where Jesus is going; but Jesus merely warns Peter, the most eager of them all, that he will shortly deny even knowing Jesus.
Why does Jesus allow himself to be unappreciated, misunderstood and mistreated? All of this glorifies him and God - an idea of glory that contradicts our fleshly concepts of glory. Getting everything we desire does not glorify God - instead, it glorifies God when we show that he means more to us than the things we desire on this earth. Also, the injustice and ingratitude that Jesus faced was part of his redemptive sacrifice. Sinners "deserve" to be mistreated; but Jesus took all this on himself, so that God does not have to impose the penalties for sin on us.
The Father’s House
(John 14:1-7)
Jesus is about to undergo a horrifying ordeal, and the disciples themselves are going to face some severe trials in the days and years ahead. But all of them have a true home beyond this earth, and Jesus’ death is an essential part of preparing that home for them. Once again, he knows that this will be hard for them to understand; yet as always he carefully explains whatever he can.
After Jesus leaves, he will prepare a place* for those who believe in him (John 14:1-4). Like us, the disciples will soon have to face life without Jesus’ physical presence. And so he offers comfort for troubled hearts - both theirs and ours. Jesus’ description of a house with "many rooms" is not literal - it simply implies that there is plenty of room for us all to be with God.
·This could refer to Jesus preparing the means for us to be with God (by sacrificing for our sins) or it could refer to him waiting for us in heaven with God. Thus his "going" could mean his temporary absence for the crucifixion, or instead his permanent absence after the ascension. But in all cases the primary meaning is to re-assure us that we can later be re-united with him forever (and we can also be with God).
Thus the comfort comes not from knowing what heaven will be like, but from knowing that we can finally and forevermore be together with Jesus and with the Father. The New Testament consistently points to this as the reason why heaven will be worth seeking. The certainty of God’s presence (and the presence of those who love God) is more significant than physical descriptions* or details about heaven. Such other things may pique the curiosity of many humans, but God does not indulge our fleshly curiosity on them, because they miss the point.
·Any physical description of heaven would be misleading or inadequate. Such descriptions that we have (e.g. in Revelation) are figurative, using imagery to suggest what it will be like being with God forever.
Part of the comfort Jesus offers is that he will return to take us home. While being with God is integral to the purpose of the gospel, his promise of coming back is an extra measure of grace. He doesn’t really have to give us such a specific sign to watch for, yet he willingly does.
In this context, Jesus reminds us that he is the way, the truth, and the life (John 14:5-7). This is a response to the disciples’ question - and it is a natural question - asking how they can possibly know the way to the place where Jesus is going. Indeed, this is a question asked by almost everyone even remotely interested in seeking God. We want - and we ought to want - to know how to be saved, how to find God, how to know when (or whether) we have found the truth. The world makes all this extremely complicated and mysterious, but in Jesus we can know the way.
We can know the way if we remember that Jesus is the way. He provides the way, and he is the way. Our assurance rests on his divinity, his purity, his grace - not on our understanding of these things, or on our response to these things. Likewise, finding God does not require theological expertise or brilliant scholarship - we just need to look at closely at Jesus. Perhaps the flesh is disappointed with this, for it deprives us of the chance to prove our superiority to others in any way. But it puts us all on equal ground, for we can all be with Jesus and love Jesus.
Questions For Discussion Or Study: When Jesus talks of going away, what specifically does he mean? Why does he say that his Father’s house has many rooms? In what sense is Jesus "the way", "the truth", and "the life"? How does this passage compare with others that talk about our eternal home? What points in common do they have?
Jesus, The Father, & The Counselor
(John 14:8-21)
Responding to the disciples’ confusion about these ideas, Jesus reminds them again that he and his Father are one. When we see and hear Jesus, we are seeing and hearing God. Jesus now also mentions the Spirit, or Counselor, who will soon be sent in his place. He is also one with Jesus and with the Father. Notice how Jesus explains all this in terms of relationships, not doctrines.
Philip asks Jesus to show the Father to the disciples, implying that this would answer most of their questions (John 14:8-14). Again we can identify with Philip’s perspective. God’s intangibility is one of the biggest obstacles to our faith; and God’s intangibility is one of the main reasons why so many humans are tempted to turn to rules, methods, results, and laws for their religion instead of building a spiritual relationship with God. This will always be a struggle for believers.
But it does not have to be as hard as we often make it. Just as Jesus asks Philip, "Don’t you know me?," so also he calls us to look at him whenever we wonder about his Father. John’s gospel repeatedly reminds us that when we look at Jesus, we see the Father. Faith in Jesus is faith in the Father who sent him - and thus anyone who has faith in Jesus can follow in his steps.
Indeed, Jesus says that we can, in a sense, do even greater things than he did. We cannot do miracles or rise from the dead, yet our own much ’smaller’ acts of faith glorify God in a different way than Jesus’ miracles did. As long as we are on this earth, we can never have the certainty that Jesus had; and in this sense our own faithfulness is greater, even though our faith is so much more fragile. Once again, it is the relationship that is at the center; and it is also our relationship with Jesus that also give us assurance when we pray* to the Father.
·This also answers any confusion about the apparent ’guarantee’ in this verse. Prayer as an action or method is no more magical than any other action. But prayer as communication with God is invaluable.
To this, Jesus adds the new promise that the Counselor is coming (John 14:15-21). As with his teachings about the Father, Jesus’ teachings about the Holy Spirit are founded on knowing one another and being with one another. The Counselor comes first of all to live with believers, to be a constant presence. This is why, for example, Paul refers to him* as a "deposit guaranteeing our inheritance" (Ephesians 1:14), for the Spirit’s presence is a reminder and a promise that later we shall live forever in God’s direct presence, without any of the hindrances of our mortal form.
·In the text of the New Testament, the Holy Spirit is always referred to as "he", never as "it". In fact, in the original Greek text, the New Testament writers will even refer to the Sprit as "he" when grammatical conventions would normally dictate otherwise. The Holy Spirit is personal, like Jesus and the Father - and many misconceptions about the Holy Spirit can be cured if we remember this.
As the Counselor, the Spirit provides us with the security of love. He is a constant reminder that God wants above all to be with us, and that he asks above all for us to love him. We do not have to learn complex theological formulas to understand the work of the Spirit - indeed, such things lead us away from the Spirit, not towards him. Nor do we have to ’prove ourselves’ to the Spirit. He loves us just as unconditionally as the Father and Jesus love us. So, in any ministry that the Spirit may have, he gives freely to all regardless of ’spirituality’ or talent or accomplishments.
Questions For Discussion Or Study: Why does Philip want to see the Father? How does this parallel our own longings? How does Jesus’ answer help us? Can we do ’greater things’ than Jesus? How do all these ideas apply to prayer? Why does Jesus call the Spirit the "Counselor"? What does this tell us about the Spirit’s ministry? How can we learn to see the Spirit more personally?
I Am Going Away & I Am Coming Back
(John 14:22-31)
Knowing that there is a limit to what the disciples will grasp, Jesus still does all he can to explain why he will soon leave them. In the short-term, he must leave to provide forgiveness for sin. In the long-term, he must leave as part of their spiritual growth. In his place will come the Spirit - and although the Spirit’s presence will seem less tangible, he will have a powerful effect.
The link between loving and obeying is a frequent topic of discussion, and an even more frequent object of misunderstanding (John 14:22-24). Jesus often says* (and similar statements are made elsewhere in the New Testament) that if we love him, we will obey his teachings. If we keep these statements in context - seeing them in terms of knowing God, not filtering them through our fleshly craving for results, control, or comparisons - then we see that he is talking about the natural desire to follow in Jesus’ steps that comes from knowing him and loving God.
·Here, he says this in response to a question from the disciple Judas the son of James - Judas wants to know why Jesus won’t show himself to the rest of the world, the way he has to the disciples. Jesus’ answer indicates that the level of information one receives is not what determines faith (or lack of faith) - it is more important to love God, which eventually (not necessarily in the short-term) leads naturally to godliness.
Jesus’ point is that living in love makes it unnecessary to harp on obedience or outward behavior. His point is not, "obey me in order to prove that you love me" - this is a childish idea. Rather, he is telling us to learn to love God, to focus on our need to know God and to be with him - and doing this will allow God slowly to guide us into whatever outward paths that he desires for us.
The fleshly mind hates this teaching, and it concocts all manner of rationalizations to defend the ’obedience first’ model. But Jesus always tells us to clean the inside of the dish, to focus consistently on the heart, not outward things. So, for those who insist on viewing his wise advice as mere ’commands’, it is then his ’command’ that we change from the inside, even if it interferes with short-term results or actions that we desire (whether from ourselves or from others). God calls us to give up our desire to control others and our desire to compare ourselves with others.
This too ties in with the ministry of the Counselor, who will teach us what Jesus wants us to know and remember (John 14:25-27). The gospel is not an academic subject, which we can learn by committing facts to memory and then reciting them at appropriate moments. The gospel is not a mere list of facts - it includes a collection (for lack of a much better word) of principles and ideas that challenge and contradict the most basic assumptions and beliefs of the worldly mind-set. Thus we must constantly learn, re-learn, and remember the teachings of the gospel.
Jesus’ promise that, "my peace I give you", can be of considerable help if we let it. He does not give as the world gives, yet we often assume that he does - we project onto Jesus the same desire to control, the same euphemistic way of speaking, the same results-oriented mentality, that we see in worldly ’leaders’. But Jesus does really want, more than anything else, for us to know him and his Father. It truly will never matter to him whether we are worthy or whether we have ’done enough’ - it truly only matters whether this is what we also desire.
Jesus will soon go to the Father (John 14:28-31). He will be absent for a short time, then after a while he will leave for the rest of the disciples’ lifetimes. So that they will remember his words when all this happens, he continues to remind them that it will. Although Jesus knows that great suffering lies ahead*, he does what the Father has commanded him, not because he must follow a list of rules, but because he loves the Father and is completely attuned to the Father’s will.
·This is because "the prince of this world is coming" - that is, very soon Jesus will be exposed to Satan’s will. The horrible tortures imposed on Jesus show us what Satan would gladly do to any one of us if God allowed him to do so. Jesus did not have to endure this, but he chose to do so out of love, grace, and hope.
Jesus, the Father, and the Spirit are distinct personalities, yet they are in complete harmony with each other. They invite us to join them in this harmonious relationship. God wants this, and our souls want this - it is only our flesh that would prefer to indulge in human comparisons and control, rather than simply being with God.
Questions For Discussion Or Study: Explain in your own words what Jesus is saying about the relation between loving him and obeying his teachings. What other Scriptures address this? What do they have in common? Why does the Spirit have to teach us and remind us of things? What kinds of things would he tell us about? Why does Jesus keep saying that he will return to his Father? Can we learn anything from this?
·Mark Garner, July 2011
DEATH & RESURRECTION:
STUDIES IN John 11:1-57; John 12:1-50; John 13:1-38; John 14:1-31; John 15:1-27; John 16:1-33; John 17:1-26; John 18:1-40; John 19:1-42; John 20:1-31; John 21:1-25
Notes For Week Six:
The Source Of Life & Growth
(John 15:1 to John 16:4)
As he is waiting to be arrested, Jesus spends a good deal of time teaching the disciples about the relationship between him, his Father, and the Holy Spirit or Counselor. Their closeness is also an example to those who want to know God and be with him. Yet our relationship with God has a further dimension, in that we are completely dependent on him, even for life itself.
Review Of Recent Classes
At the Last Supper, Jesus taught his disciples that they, as servants, should have the humility and compassion that he, their Master, has (John 13:1-38). After teaching some hard truths about faithful living, Jesus offers comfort and counsel for the days ahead (John 14:1-31). In his Father’s "house", there will always be plenty of space for everyone. He must leave to prepare a place for them, but we can always get there if we remember that Jesus himself is the way to know his Father.
Jesus has often spoken of the Father, and now he tells us also about the Counselor, the Holy Spirit. When the disciples express a natural desire to be shown the Father, Jesus re-emphasizes that seeing him is the same as seeing the qualities of the Father. As long as they focus on remaining with Jesus, they can have the security of God’s love. The Father, Jesus, and the Spirit all love us and want to be with us - we do not need to prove ourselves in order to earn their love.
Jesus is going away and then coming back. He knows this is confusing to the disciples, and so he assures them that the Counselor will teach them and strengthen them spiritually. The Spirit will always be with us, and will always tell us what Jesus would have told us, had he been here.
What reasons does Jesus give us for keeping our main focus on knowing the Father? He provides positive reasons, and also takes away our reservations by dealing with things we might worry about. He keeps emphasizing how much God wants to know us, so that we know that we really can rely on his grace. When he heals and serves others, he reminds us that this is what his Father is like, too. He consistently appeals to our souls’ need for security, love, and peace.
The True Vine
(John 15:1-8)
The imagery of the vine and the branches teaches some vital lessons about our relationship with Jesus. Just as branches quickly wither and die if they are cut off from the vine, so also a person not connected with God is dead spiritually. But just as branches need only remain in the vine in order to produce good fruit, so believers need only remain in Jesus, and spiritual fruit will come.
Since Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life, he has every reason to call us to remain in him (John 15:1-4). He describes his Father as a gardener tending the branches that are part of Jesus the vine. Telling us that some branches will be cut off* is not so much a warning as a simple statement of fact, for no branch will be cut off due to poor performance. The only branches that get cut off will be the ones who did not care to remain in the vine. God won’t force them to stay.
·The phrase in the original text can also mean "taken up" (or "pulled up"), but not in a positive sense - only in the sense of being removed from something. Some commentators, because they misunderstand the passage as the whole, do not want to believe that God would actually cut off a branch, and so these commentators erroneously state that the branches are merely being ’raised up’. Observing the context of the passage can help us to avoid this well-meaning but misguided misinterpretation.
The branches must remain in the vine for several good reasons. Most obviously, the branches must remain closely connected with their source of life. We cannot remain spiritually alive without Jesus, because he alone is able to connect us with the Father. We can have ’religion’ without Jesus - we can do things that make the flesh feel superior, and we can produce doctrines or activity, without being connected to the vine. But we have no true life without Jesus.
Likewise, genuine growth is only possible by remaining close to Jesus. We can attain numerical results in any number of ways, but we can only produce "fruit that will last" by remaining closely connected to the vine. Worldly self-help courses can produce fleshly self-improvement, but only by remaining in Jesus can we understand the true nature of God, and only by staying in the vine can we learn to see ourselves and others from God’s perspective.
Yet this is not meant to be a warning, as much as it is a promise - that if we simply concentrate on remaining in Jesus, we can and shall bear much fruit (John 15:5-8). Spiritual "fruit"* comes naturally from remaining in him, without the necessity for planning or special effort. Being close to Jesus cannot help affecting the ways we think, talk, and act. If we need to force ourselves to do good things, then instead of figuring out a new method or motivational technique, we should simply set aside such playthings and spend more time with Jesus himself.
·Jesus deliberately avoids defining "fruit", but that unfortunately does not stop us from creating our own definitions. What Jesus means by spiritual fruit cannot be defined in any numerically quantifiable way, for he simply wants us to remain in him and naturally produce good things, which will vary from person to person. A more specific passage would be Galatians 5:22-23 ("the fruit of the Spirit is . . ."), which can be very helpful as long as we do not try to make it also just another restrictive definition.
Compare the branches that remain with the branches that wither away. These are not being "punished" for leaving the vine - they are simply experiencing the natural result of leaving the only source of life and growth. God does not have to punish someone for straying from the truth of the gospel, because such a decision brings its own, natural consequences. These consequences might bring little cost in outward or fleshly terms, nor should we expect them to do so. God does not force us to value the right things, any more than he forces us to know him.
It is to the Father’s glory that we bear good fruit, and here too we can see this more clearly from God’s perspective. Good fruit does not have to be dramatic, or even visible, to glorify God. God does not perceive glory in the cheap, flashy way that humans do. We’ve seen this before, when Jesus described his own crucifixion as bringing glory to him.
Questions For Discussion Or Study: In what sense is Jesus like a vine? Is this the same for us as it was for the disciples? Why do we need to remain in him? What does he mean by "remain"? Can we always tell if we have remained in him? Why does remaining in him naturally produce good fruit? What might "fruit" mean? What does it mean for one of the branches to wither? What should we learn from this?
Remain In My Love
(John 15:9-17)
Remaining in Jesus cannot be reduced to doctrines or results. Jesus simply equates it with remaining in his love - and genuine, godly love is greater than these other things. Jesus showed us what it means to love, and he calls us to do the same. Once we give up our desire to control other persons or compare ourselves with them, Jesus’ teaching gives us direction and confidence.
Remaining in Jesus involves above all that we love others as he loved us (John 15:9-12). When we again encounter Jesus’ statement that we will remain in his love if we obey his commands (see also John 14:15-21 and John 14:23-24), this time he clarifies what he means. His command is first and foremost that we love one another, with the same kind of selfless love that he has practiced in his life on our earth. Nor should we attempt to turn "love one another" into a mere rule, for it is a ’command’ only in an ironic sense. He is not calling us to outward behavior modification, but to a re-evaluation of our priorities.
John later addressed these principles at length in passages such as 1 John 4:7-21. To love one another shows love for Jesus, and it fulfills his ’commands’ at the same time. "Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law" (Romans 13:10). If we concentrate on outward behavior or results, then we may well accomplish what we set out to do, but this can be done without the kind of love that pleases God*. Love itself is the priority. If we have to offer proof that we love, then we probably do not love the way that God calls us to love.
·In the discussion on love in 1 Corinthians 13:1-13, Paul offers examples of very ’good’ things that we can do for others, but that in themselves can still be done without genuine love (see 1 Corinthians 13:1-3).
Jesus tells his disciples that they are his friends, not his servants (John 15:13-17). His relationship with the disciples - at least insofar as he treats them - is an example to us for our own relationships. Godly friendship is not a matter of mere common interests, and it is certainly much more than the events or activities we may share with one another. It is not measured only by what we do for each other outwardly, but also by the attitudes and perspectives behind this.
Genuine spiritual friendship always involves a mutual commitment, with Jesus’ own love being our example. Jesus always loved his disciples, despite all of their misunderstandings and mistakes. For Jesus, there was never an ’option’ to start over with a ’better’ group. This too is his commitment to us - he is always there, he will always forgive, he will always welcome us. Such a commitment involves a constant risk of pain and disappointment - it can only come from the sincerest love. Jesus calls us to show this same risky commitment to one another.
Spiritual friendship also involves sharing - especially sharing our lives and hearts. Since even Jesus never expected anyone to be his servant, neither should his followers ever take it upon themselves to dominate or evaluate others. This is a key to bearing the kind of genuine spiritual fruit that will last. Jesus does not call us to pursue flashy deeds of daring, but instead to build our relationships on the same ever-patient, ever-persevering, ever-hoping love that he shows us.
Questions For Discussion Or Study: Why is Jesus’ ’command’ simply for us to love one another? Why does he call it a ’command’? How does his idea of love differ from ours? What qualities of love does he show in his relationships with the disciples? How can we develop these same qualities in our own relationships?
Facing The World’s Hatred
(John 15:18 to John 16:4)
No matter how much we love God and humanity, we shall still face the hatred that sadly fills this fallen world. Jesus loved more perfectly than any of us can; yet he often faced anger, cruelty, even violence. We neither can nor should expect the world to stop hating - but Jesus teaches us to rise above hate and anger, so that our lives may testify that it is still possible to live in love.
Jesus does not pretend that we won’t face opposition from the world - instead, he reminds us that the world hated him first (John 15:18-25). The world has a strong tendency to love its own - that is, to love and admire those who adopt its priorities and perspectives. As long as we seek rewards, power, wealth, popularity, or other worldly prizes, then the world will give us attention, even if it does not like us or respect us.
Those who receive attention and gain prominence in this world may be ’good’ or ’bad’ in the world’s eyes, they may be ’successful’, ’great’, popular, or merely ’controversial’, but they all share a devotion to "the basic principles of this world"*: its devotion to things that can easily be measured, its commitment to shallow debates and self-glorifying competitions as a way of allotting its prizes, and other such short-sighted concepts.
·This is the NIV’s translation of the phrase that Paul uses in Galatians 4:3, Colossians 2:8, and Colossians 2:20. The NASB translates it as "elemental things of the world"/"elementary principles of the world". The KJV uses "elements of the world"/"rudiments of the world". This concept is even more basic than beliefs or opinions - it includes the underlying ways that we use to develop our beliefs and opinions.
We have been chosen out of the world, and we are called to leave behind the world and its lifeless ways of doing things. If we do this, then the world will show us the same kind of suspicion, annoyance, resistance, and occasionally outright opposition that it showed Jesus. Since no servant is greater than his master, we should not demand better treatment than Jesus received. Any blessings we do have in this life come through grace, not merit or entitlement.
Those who remain in Jesus testify to the world (John 15:26 to John 16:4). When the Counselor comes - and for us he has already come - he will testify to us, teaching and reminding us of the things Jesus himself taught. We in turn are called to take this testimony to the world. But our testimony is not in mere words, for he has just taught us to live in love, as a living testimony of Jesus’ love.
We must not go astray due to misguided expectations. If we have unrealistic expectations of the world, or even of the church or other believers, then disillusionment will soon cause us to doubt things we ought to be sure of. The worldly will often mistreat us, and even other believers will often disappoint us - and there will usually be little or nothing that we can do to change this. This is not a problem, and it does not mean that something basic needs to be changed.
The world will do such things because they do not know God. Their folly, sin, and hatred do not come from a lack of factual knowledge or theological expertise, nor can we solve their problems through morality, debate, fear, guilt, or other worldly methods. They need to know God. They are by nature no worse than us, and we ought not to treat them as if they were. We have the same deep-rooted need to be with God that they have, but we by grace have undeservedly had this need met, through the compassion and blood of the Messiah Jesus.
Questions For Discussion Or Study: Why did the world not accept Jesus? If it does not accept us, what might be the reasons? Are there right reasons and wrong reasons for the world not to accept us as its own? In what sense should we testify to the world? How does not knowing God lead the world to misunderstand or mistreat us? Can not knowing God also cause believers to do such things?
Mark Garner, July 2011
DEATH & RESURRECTION:
STUDIES IN John 11:1-57; John 12:1-50; John 13:1-38; John 14:1-31; John 15:1-27; John 16:1-33; John 17:1-26; John 18:1-40; John 19:1-42; John 20:1-31; John 21:1-25
Notes For Week Seven:
Grief, Joy, & Overcoming
(John 16:5-33)
As Jesus describes to the disciples what lies ahead of them, we can see numerous parallels with our own experiences following Jesus. When Jesus left, the disciples would feel grief and confusion, just as we must find our way to Jesus while living in a sad, sinful world. But their joy is also our joy, for God is still with us - and we, like them, can overcome this world.
Review Of Recent Classes
At the Last Supper, Jesus offers comfort and counsel for the days ahead (John 14:1-31). Jesus is the true source of life and growth (John 15:1 to John 16:4), the "true vine". Like branches of a plant, the disciples must remain in Jesus to have true life. And if they do, then the fruit of remaining in him will naturally follow. His Father, the ’gardener’, will remove the branches that do not wish to remain, and he will prune and condition the growing branches as they need it.
Remaining in Jesus means remaining in his love. This is the ’command’ (in an ironic sense) his followers need to obey. Jesus wants to establish spiritual friendship with his followers, so he asks us to make a mutual commitment to him and to one another, and to share our lives as well.
We shall need the spiritual strength and security of Jesus when we must face the world’s hatred. The world loves its own - it gives its prizes and its attention to those who follow its rules for competing. Jesus instead promises the Spirit, who will counsel us and testify to Jesus, enabling our lives to be living testimonies to a world that needs above all to know God.
What blessings in this life are available only if we remain in Jesus? The world’s most sought-after rewards do not require this; and in fact a genuinely Christ-like perspective will usually hinder us from obtaining them. But remaining in the vine allows us more fully to appreciate the good things we have now, for we can accept them by grace. And Jesus allows us to rejoice in the things others have and enjoy, without the envy that worldly perspectives produce. Moreover, we have the chance to know real love, real security, and a real purpose in life.
Filled With Grief
(John 16:5-16)
For a while, it will be hard for the disciples to think about anything but Jesus’ departure. So too, we all go through periods when we just cannot seem to get past some basic discouragements, confusion, or struggles. The Counselor comes to be with us so that he can help us through such things. His presence strengthens us, even as his testimony calls the worldly to repentance.
Knowing the trauma that his departure will cause, Jesus repeats that unless he goes away, the spiritual growth of the disciples can never be complete (John 16:5-11). Although they won’t realize this now, it is for their good that the Spirit will come to live with them, instead of having Jesus remain with them physically.
Before explaining this further, Jesus tells them that the Spirit will also have a ministry to unbelievers. The Spirit’s presence will convict the world of its sin, will remind them that God is present even if Jesus’ earthly body is no longer on this earth, and will point out to them the inherent emptiness of worldly living* - that is, he will condemn "the prince of this world" as a fraud. The disciples will soon be grieving for the loss of Jesus, but because of their love for him, they will never have to endure the far worse grief that comes from never knowing God.
·Jesus does not say explicitly whether the Spirit will directly influence unbelievers, or whether it is his presence within believers who will bring these things about as we follow the Spirit’s guidance. The ambiguity is deliberate, for Jesus has said (see John 15:26-27) that the Spirit and believers will testify together.
As for Jesus’ disciples, they will be guided into all truth (John 16:12-16). Their relationship with Jesus will continue with the help of the Spirit; and this relationship is also a model for us. The disciples have learned only a fraction of what they will someday come to know about God, and Jesus is in no hurry to tell them the rest - for the simple reason that it is "more than you can now bear." This is good to remember whenever we are in a rush to figure out everything all at once, to get all the answers today. The nature of the gospel makes this impossible and unnecessary.
If we slow down, and realize that Christianity is not about getting all the answers, then we can learn to appreciate the Spirit’s ministry to believers. Of course, the Spirit could tell us all kinds of things to satisfy our curiosity, but like Jesus, he* too puts our soul’s needs ahead of our idle curiosity. When he teaches us, he will above all help us to understand and appreciate the unity of Father, Son, and Spirit. The Spirit loves us, and he knows that this is the best way to heal us of the grief we suffer in this ungodly world. If we can understand the security and peace of knowing God, then we’ll never have to lash out at the world when it hurts or frightens us.
·Notice again that the Holy Spirit is always referred to as "he" (not "it") in the New Testament. See also the notes John 14:15-21.
Thus Jesus emphasizes that the Spirit will not speak on his own - he will not indulge himself in an independent plan of ministry, any more than Jesus himself would have. The Son and the Spirit are perfectly in accordance with the Father’s own priority of helping us to know him. The Father entrusted to Jesus the responsibility of bringing humanity into his presence, and the Spirit is now with us to remind us of this and of its implications, as often as we need these reminders.
Questions For Discussion Or Study: Why is it for the disciples’ good that Jesus is leaving? Is it for our good, too, that he did not remain here physically? Why will the Spirit convict unbelievers of sin? How might he do this? Why does he not speak on his own, even to believers? What should we learn from this? What things will he teach us?
Grief Will Turn To Joy
(John 16:17-24)
Jesus compares the struggles of this world to the labor pains suffered by a woman giving birth. The same analogy is also used in Scripture for other aspects of spiritual struggles on this earth. In our fallen world, new life can only come about as the result of sacrifice and suffering. But we do not have to endure the full weight of these labor pains, because Jesus has done that for us.
The disciples are understandably a bit confused by Jesus’ description of the Spirit’s ministry, and they instead focus on his statement that, "in a little while you will see me no more, and then after a little while you will see me" (see verse 16) - they want to know what Jesus meant by this (John 16:17-18). They are honestly trying to understand, but their perspective is muddled, so that even the ambiguous but innocuous phrase "a little while" confuses them.
In fact, Jesus is being pretty straightforward in telling them what will soon happen to him*. But we can sympathize, because to us also the simplest spiritual truths can become confusing when we are trying too hard to obtain outward results or to put things into an earthly perspective.
·This time, Jesus’ statement (in John 16:16) seems to refer specifically to the short-term, looking ahead to the crucifixion and the resurrection. Elsewhere in his Last Supper teachings, he has also previewed his subsequent, permanent departure to the Father.
Jesus then uses the experience of labor and childbirth as a parallel for the ways that upcoming events will affect the apostles (John 16:19-24). Because Jesus has aroused so much worldly opposition, his few true followers are going to mourn while the world rejoices over Jesus’ sufferings. But Jesus’ enemies will then have an unpleasant surprise when he rises from the dead, while the disciples will see him again - to their own great surprise.
The imagery of childbirth* reminds us that intense pain can be followed by great joy - and indeed, as in childbirth, pain is sometimes necessary for producing the joy that follows it. There is sometimes no other way to get to the joy without first experiencing the sorrow. This is not punishment, nor is it harshness on God’s part - it is an inevitable consequence of living in a perishable, fallen world. Jesus does not lie to us, nor does he try to pretend that it will be easy.
·The imagery of childbirth is also used for other spiritual truths that involve the theme of necessary suffering followed by joy. Other examples include Matthew 24:8 (and its parallel in Mark 13:8), Romans 8:22, Galatians 4:19, and Revelation 12:2.
What he does promise is that, if we remain in him, then our joy will be lasting. The worldly too must suffer for their prizes, but they usually find to their sorrow that their rewards and their joy are short-lived. Believers truly have "life to the full": we shall feel the world’s sorrows more keenly, but we shall experience spiritual joys that the worldly cannot even know.
These ideas help us understand what Jesus means when he talks about asking the Father in Jesus’ name. This has nothing to do with a method or a technique in prayer*, nor does it refer merely to the spoken words "in Jesus’ name" (though those certainly are appropriate). Jesus is telling us that through him we have our relationship with the Father. Through Jesus’ blood, the barrier of sin is removed, and through Jesus’ life on this earth, God understands what it is like to be human.
·Similarly, John 14:13-14 - which, if viewed as a technical statement, can seem somewhat inconsistent with John 16:23-24 - becomes much clearer when we see it in terms of a statement about our relationship with the Father and the Son, rather than as a procedure or a legal contract.
So this teaching about prayer - like so many other things Jesus teaches - is best understood in terms of knowing God, not in terms of actions or even beliefs. If we follow Jesus, then the Father sees us above all else as Jesus’ friends - "Let us then approach the throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need" (Hebrews 4:16). This aspect of our relationship with God can bring us both joy and security once we grasp what Jesus is saying.
Questions For Discussion Or Study: What exactly did Jesus mean in John 16:16? Why did he say it this way? Why did the disciples not understand it? How is the analogy of childbirth appropriate for what the disciples will experience? How is it a parallel for our own spiritual experience? What kind of joy is Jesus talking about here? How does this help us to understand what he means by asking the Father for something in his name?
Overcoming The World
(John 16:25-33)
Jesus promises a victory over the world, but not on the world’s terms. Those who follow Jesus do not conquer the world or subdue the world; rather, they overcome the world. And we do not overcome the world with superior intelligence or force, but with faith and compassion. Jesus himself sets the example for us, by rising above the world’s fleshly cravings and rivalries.
Jesus tells the disciples that he desires to use plain language to talk about the Father (John 16:25-30). He uses figures of speech because some of the most important aspects of God’s nature simply don’t make sense in terms of strict human logic. Elaborating on his previous comments, he emphasizes that the Father himself loves the disciples. Because of this, the disciples can speak directly to God, and can appeal directly to God, in Jesus’ name - again, referring not to a verbal formula, but to the basis on which we have the chance to know God and to be in his presence.
Jesus also restates his itinerary in a slightly different way, and this time it suddenly makes sense to the disciples. He really doesn’t significantly change what he says, but they are slowly coming to grasp that his emphasis on knowing the Father can help them to sort out a lot of other things.
And so Jesus continues to elaborate on events that are coming soon (John 16:31-33). To the disciples’ excited statement that they now believe that he came from God, Jesus expresses ironic astonishment*. For they really have believed in him all along, but they have been slow to put together the realities he has taught them. And this is not a bad thing - they are actually building their relationship with him the way that he has called them to do. They have always loved him, and they are slowly overcoming their confusion and their limited earthly perspectives.
·Jesus’ statement in John 16:31 can be translated either as, "you finally believe" or "do you finally believe?"; or it could also be rendered "so you believe now!". (Compare the translations in the NIV, NASB, and other versions.) In all cases, he is trying to point out that the real change is not as much in their acceptance of him as coming from God, so much as in their slowly growing awareness of his purpose in being with them.
Jesus does not hide the fact that his followers are going to have some trouble in this world. And we too will be healthier spiritually if we resist the tendency to assume that God’s main agenda is to make us successful on the world’s terms. If we follow Jesus and adopt his perspectives, then we shall always feel the weight of the world’s sorrows, needs, and hurts. Jesus never hardened himself to these things, nor should we.
Yet we can take heart, not because God will fix everything in this world, but because we can overcome the world by our faith. We can be certain of a permanent home with God, in a place unstained with sin that will never crumble or perish. To overcome the world is far different - and far greater - than conquering the world. We are neither to leave the world nor to defeat it - like Jesus, we are to rise above it; and by so doing we can also point the way for others.
Questions For Discussion Or Study: Why might the disciples have suddenly understood more clearly what Jesus was telling them? Are there any parallels for us? What kind of "trouble" should we expect in this world? How did Jesus overcome the world? How does this help us to understand how we are to overcome the world?
Mark Garner, July 2011
DEATH & RESURRECTION:
STUDIES IN John 11:1-57; John 12:1-50; John 13:1-38; John 14:1-31; John 15:1-27; John 16:1-33; John 17:1-26; John 18:1-40; John 19:1-42; John 20:1-31; John 21:1-25
Notes For Week Eight:
The Word’s Prayer
(John 17:1-26)
With his arrest and crucifixion imminent, Jesus turns from teaching to praying. His prayer illustrates the closeness and oneness he has with the Father, and his prayer also shows us how he feels towards those who believe in him. As he prepares to become the once-for-all sacrifice for human sin, Jesus prays about the hopes he holds for his followers.
Review Of Recent Classes
At the Last Supper, Jesus explains that he is the source of life and growth (John 15:1 to John 16:4). The disciples’ spiritual experience will combine grief, joy, and overcoming (John 16:5-33). There are times when Jesus’ followers will be filled with grief in this world; but we can always count on the Counselor to provide guidance and comfort. The Spirit has a ministry amongst unbelievers, to help them see their sin and their need for God. The Spirit also has a ministry to believers, helping us to become one with God in ways only possible if we look beyond the physical.
Although we shall often grieve because of the world’s sorrows and hurts, our grief can turn to joy. As the disciples struggle to grasp all this, they openly wonder what Jesus meant, even by straightforward phrases such as, "a little while." Jesus uses the imagery of labor and childbirth to explain that some of the greatest spiritual joys can come only after earthly struggles and sorrow.
Jesus’ followers are not to conquer or rule the world, but to overcome the world - to rise above its anger, despair, and prejudice. Jesus wishes to use plain language about his Father, but we struggle to grasp it because of our worldly perspectives. A time is coming when the disciples will scatter in fear, just as there will arise times for all of us when the world threatens to crush us. But we can take heart, because Jesus overcame the world, and he enables us to do so as well.
How can an "average" Christian know what it is like to overcome the world? Few of us will ever be acclaimed by the world, yet we can enjoy spiritual victories every day. When we hear the world’s anger or panic, and decline to give in to it, we have overcome the world. When the world wants us to give in to prejudice or blame, and we choose not to, we overcome the world. When we rejoice in someone else’s blessings instead of giving in to jealousy, we overcome the world. These things do not impress the world, but they put the world to shame and glorify Jesus.
Ready For Glory
(John 17:1-10)
Jesus has consistently lived to bring glory to the Father, and he is now ready to share in the full measure of the Father’s glory. But his prayer* shows us that his glory and his victory are far different from the things that the world would consider glorious or victorious. In his prayer, Jesus also speaks of his disciples as part of his glory - and in this too there is an instructive irony.
·John is somewhat ambiguous as to whether Jesus offers this prayer in the hearing of the disciples, or whether he prays privately in this passage. On the other hand, we can see that the prayer in John 17:1-26 is not the same prayer that Jesus offered shortly afterwards in Gethsemane (and which the other gospel accounts describe). The content is different, and Jesus has not yet gone to Gethsemane (he does this in John 18:1-2).
Jesus opens his prayer by asking his Father to, "glorify me in your presence" (John 17:1-5), through the crucifixion and resurrection. Jesus will be glorified by abandoning all thoughts of self-interest - his glory will be of another kind altogether. The greatest glory is God himself, and to be one with God - in his presence, completely in accord with his will - is to know true glory*.
·This and other aspects of spiritual glory can be seen throughout John - see also John 1:14; John 2:11; John 5:41-44; John 7:18; John 8:50-54; John 11:4; John 11:40; John 15:8; John 17:10 and John 17:22-24 (see also below).
Jesus’ Father has enabled him to be the giver of eternal life. This is one of the greatest promises Jesus gives us, yet what does it mean? We have a few New Testament descriptions of heaven*, yet they are primarily (sometimes completely) figurative. Jesus clarifies it here: "now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God . . ." Eternal life, like Christianity itself, is first and foremost about knowing God, living in his presence, and being made one with him.
·See also the notes to John 14:2. Descriptions of heaven such as those in Revelation 21:1-27; Revelation 22:1-21 are figurative, not literal. They use physical imagery to help us think about certain aspects of what it will be like to be with God forever. The nature of eternity makes it impossible to describe solely in literal terms.
Jesus’ promise is that we can know the father; his calling is for us to seek to know the Father; and our "very great reward" (as God also told Abraham in Genesis 15:1) is to know God. This too was Jesus’ motivation - he already had the glory of being divine (verse 5), so his time on earth was spent to bring us into the glory that he already knew.
Jesus has completed his work on this earth. In one sense, there is so much unfinished - the world is still full of sick, suffering, frightened persons who could be healed by Jesus’ powers. But he has met their needs more fully by making the Father known through his life and words. It is now time to meet humanity’s deepest need. Jesus will no longer concentrate on meeting earthly needs, but will sacrifice himself to meet our universal need for forgiveness, grace, and mercy.
With his own path known to him, Jesus prays for the followers his Father has given him (John 17:6-10). The belief of the disciples has been a joy to Jesus, because it has been the kind of belief he and his Father seek. The disciples are often wrong and often make mistakes, but they have always loved Jesus and have always remained with him, no matter what. These qualities are much more valuable spiritually than any human talent, genius, or method could be. The disciples belong to Jesus and also to his Father, again emphasizing the oneness he values so highly.
Glory has come to Jesus through the disciples, because each one of them has personally decided to leave behind his old way of life - and the disciples came from a variety of backgrounds - to follow Jesus and to be with him. They have not done anything dramatic, and have very little in the way of results to boast about - but those are not necessary in order to glorify God. The things that most glorify God are the things that any of us can do, the things that put us all on equal ground - humility, compassion, love, and selflessness.
Questions For Discussion Or Study: What does Jesus mean by being glorified in God’s presence? Why does he desire it? Why does Jesus equate eternal life with knowing God? Why was it now time for Jesus to leave the earth? How have the disciples brought glory to Jesus? What lessons can we learn from this?
Spiritual Safety
(John 17:11-19)
Just as Jesus’ concept of glory is much different from ours, so also his idea of safety and protection is not the same as that of the world. He cares deeply for those who seek the truth and follow him, yet he knows that problems must come to all of us in this world. Instead of eliminating all trouble, he prays for his Father to protect our souls and spirits from spiritual harm.
Before requesting his Father’s blessing on the disciples, Jesus reflects on the time he has been with them (John 17:11-12). While he has been here on earth, he has given them spiritual protection - they have been exposed to many physical hardships, but he has always kept their spirits safe with him, by virtue of his own oneness with the Father*. Only Judas has been lost, and that of his own choosing** - and even at that, Judas’ treachery became part of the process of redemption.
·This is essentially what Jesus means by keeping them safe through a "name". He does not refer to some kind of ritual pronouncement, but rather points to the fact that Jesus and his Father share an identity, a "name", with which the disciples have willingly associated themselves.
·As with the Pharaoh in Exodus and other similar examples, the Scripture does not tell us exactly how far their own free will carried them along their path to destruction before, for example, God hardened Pharaoh’s heart or Satan entered into Judas (see also the notes to John 13:27). We do know that in all such cases these persons had considerably hardened their own hearts in resistance or rebellion against God’s will.
When Jesus prays for the disciples he will leave behind, he asks his Father to sanctify them by the truth (John 17:13-19). They cannot follow him now (recall John 13:36), for they must stay in this world. Jesus prays neither for them to be removed from the world nor for God to make their lives here free of confusion or problems. He prays for God’s spiritual protection to continue, so that the devil cannot pull them away from God. They belong to God, and so are holy (regardless of their behavior); Jesus now wants them "truly sanctified", permanently given to God.
He calls for this ’true’ sanctification to take place not by sacrifice or offering, but by the truth, the Word of God. This is not so much a body of teachings from God, as it is the awareness that God’s will and God’s presence contain absolute truth. The more that the disciples experience the presence of God, the less likely they are ever to fall. The more that the disciples desire to know God and be with him, the more they will avoid any spiritual snares that Satan can devise.
Their spiritual safely - and ours - does not come from knowing a lot of facts, even from knowing how to ’deal with’ or ’respond to’ every possible problem - their spiritual safety comes from living in God’s holy presence. We cannot ever know a particular tactic to use against every possible specific problem or attack, but we can know that God’s words and will are always the truth, so that we never allow anyone to make us question or doubt them.
Questions For Discussion Or Study: How has Jesus protected the disciples during his time with them? From what has he protected them? Does the loss of Judas reflect on the ways he has cared for them? Why does he pray for his Father to sanctify the disciples? How does the truth sanctify them? What kind of truth does Jesus refer to? How does Jesus keep us safe? What, if anything, do we need to do?
That All Of Them May Be One
(John 17:20-26)
Finally, Jesus prays for all those who will believe in him, in every place and time. He wants us to experience the oneness and closeness that he has with the Father and the Counselor. We know from sad experience that this type of unity does not always characterize those who believe in Jesus; and none of us can change this by ourselves. But is there anything positive we can do?
Jesus is eager for his followers to share in the oneness he has with his Father: "may they be in us" (John 17:20-23). He desires this not only for the group of disciples who have been with him during his earthly ministry, but also for all those who will come to believe in him in the days and years ahead. It is implicit in Jesus’ thoughts that his current followers will do what they can to help others come to know God through Jesus, so that to Jesus it is a certainty that there will be many more who believe in him, even though they will never know his physical presence.
Jesus prays to his Father with the same kinds of imagery that he has taught to others, praying that Jesus could be "in" the disciples just as the Father is "in" Jesus. As when he has used this language before*, the ’direction’ of the word "in" makes no difference. We can be in Jesus and in the Father, while the Father is in Jesus and Jesus is in us. The point is not geometry but oneness and identity, union and unity.
* Compare this passage with others such as John 13:31-32; John 14:10-11; John 14:20, and John 15:4-5.
Christians throughout the ages have longed for unity with one another, only to find this ideal foiled by the fleshly loyalties and personal preferences that are endemic to human nature. And so, throughout the ages Christians have given up on finding true unity, and have settled for the superficial unity of denominations, creeds, methods, human leaders, and the like.
But true unity is not something that humans can create with their own devices. True unity comes from sharing in the desire above all to know God, the willingness to give up personal preferences and agendas out of love for God, and the humility that brings us to see how our own plans, ideas, and methods are never absolutely true or right. In one important sense, the less we try so hard to ’create’ unity, the easier it is for God to bring it about in spite of ourselves.
Jesus has always done everything he could to make God known (John 17:24-26). In his love and reverence for the Father, he wants to share God’s glory with everyone. He knows that it will never be possible to persuade every soul to seek God, but he would like for every soul to have the chance. Like Jesus, we should put these priorities ahead of our own activities and agendas (even if we are able to support our own desires with spiritual-sounding logic). When we try too hard to attract others to our church or our doctrines, it just gets in the way of them seeking God.
Then too, sharing God’s glory should call us all to be equal. God’s glory so far outshines any human talent or accomplishment that it makes our attempts at self-promotion or self-glorification look shabby and foolish. If we desire to make God himself known, and if we long to share in God’s own glory and to see others share in it as well, then we do not need to rely on human methodology or human heroism, since these glorify only the humans who practice them.
To be together in Jesus is a blessing that transcends our individual personalities and needs. It does not take away our individual identities, but rather fulfills the best that God has put within each of us. Genuine unity - as opposed to mere conformity - is a treasure that calls for us to sacrifice things that, by comparison, are of negligible value.
Questions For Discussion Or Study: Why does Jesus so strongly desire that we be one with him and his Father? Why are our human attempts at unity so often unsuccessful? How can God’s glory give us a basis for unity? What role can the Scriptures play in bringing us together? What must we set aside in order to experience genuine unity?
·Mark Garner, July 2011
DEATH & RESURRECTION:
STUDIES IN John 11:1-57; John 12:1-50; John 13:1-38; John 14:1-31; John 15:1-27; John 16:1-33; John 17:1-26; John 18:1-40; John 19:1-42; John 20:1-31; John 21:1-25
Notes For Week Nine:
On Trial
(John 18:1-40)
The arrest and trial of Jesus are notorious for the abuses of authority on the part of Jerusalem’s leaders, and for the mockery of justice that Jesus must endure. All the while, it is not really Jesus who is on trial, for no one on earth was fit to pass judgment on him. It is really everyone else who is on trial - so too, our own responses to Jesus reflect less on him than on ourselves.
Review Of Recent Classes
Following Jesus brings times of grief, times of joy, and the opportunity to overcome the world (John 16:5-33). As he waited to be arrested, Jesus the Word of God offered a prayer for himself, his disciples, and all those who would come to believe in him (John 17:1-26). Jesus is ready to be glorified, not in a worldly sense, but through sacrificing himself. His Father has allowed Jesus to become the giver of eternal life, offering to us the chance to know God. Glory has already come to Jesus through the humble love and faith of his disciples, who have accepted his message.
Jesus is greatly concerned about their spiritual safety. He has personally kept them safe, but now he is going home and they are staying in this world. We can understand their vulnerability, and thus we can benefit from his prayer for them. He did not pray for God to remove them from the world, but to sanctify them by the truth - by knowing God’s Word, will, and presence.
Jesus’ desire for his followers to be one is, sadly, rarely fulfilled in practice. It helps if we can remember that Jesus is not seeking a pattern, but a relationship: Jesus in us, God in Jesus, and all of us becoming one, so that we can share God’s glory. The true glory of God is so overwhelming that it ought to help us see the folly of trying to build on human methods, doctrines, or leaders.
What does it mean to glorify God? What does it mean to be glorified by God? Here too, a closer look at what Jesus teaches us can help us avoid some wrong turns. We have seen several times now that earthly forms of glory mean little or nothing to God. And to Jesus, glory often involves sacrifice and even suffering. But above all, the true meaning of glory revolves around knowing God, for it is by knowing God that we see and experience what glory truly is.
The Arrest
(John 18:1-11)
The arrest of Jesus is hardly a great moment for human justice. The cowardice, treachery, and brutality of Jerusalem’s leaders are easy to condemn, yet they also bring us face-to-face with our own spiritual weaknesses. In the chain of events that follows, only Jesus - who has the most to fear - truly puts his trust and hope in God. There is much we can learn from his calmness.
The story of Jesus’ arrest is so familiar that its sordid details often escape us - beginning with the callous setup that can be credited to Judas (John 18:1-6). Jesus comes to a predictable meeting place*, a site he has often used while staying in or near Jerusalem. Jesus calmly and willingly goes there "like a lamb to the slaughter" (Isaiah 53:7), ready for what comes next.
·The grove (or "garden" in the NASB) would be Gethsemane, which is mentioned by name in other gospel accounts. See also the notes to John 17:1.
In contrast with Jesus’ sincerity and courage, Judas comes to meet him guiding a formidable collection of armed goons. His sinister retinue includes both religious officials and Roman troops*, so as to minimize any possible resistance. Jesus willingly steps forward, but not out of any respect for this shabby crew. Unlike worldly leaders, Jesus does not rely on force, threats, or intimidation - nor does he put his personal safety ahead of his responsibilities.
·Some translations don’t make this clear, referring to the soldiers as a "detachment" or a "band". The word in the original text is a technical term, the Greek equivalent for the Roman military term "cohort", referring to a specific type of Roman unit.
True to his nature, Jesus goes quietly, courageously, and peacefully - the true Lamb Of God (John 18:7-11). His captors are much more frightened than he is, and even when they find him, they are uncertain how to proceed. Jesus’ ironic question, "are you looking for me?", not only protects the disciples, but is also an implicit call for the officers to ’do their duty’. The scene is remarkable as a reminder of the stark differences between Jesus and the authorities of this world. Jesus’ openness and integrity contrast sharply with their sneaky, covert actions. His compassion for others contrasts with their selfish agendas and dishonest methods.
Peter now decides to fulfill his promise at the Last Supper. He launches a desperation sword attack, sincerely ready to go to a heroic death in a vain attempt to protect his beloved Lord. He manages to deprive an unlucky servant of an ear*, before Jesus intervenes out compassion - both for Peter and for his intended victims. It is time for Peter to put his sword away - not just now, but forevermore. Jesus’ kingdom is not of this earth. Jesus does not want Peter or any other disciple to attack the world by force; he wants us to live in this world by love and grace.
·Although John does not mention it, we know from other accounts that Jesus healed the man whom Peter had struck - another extraordinary act of compassion and grace by a man about to suffer horrible torment.
Questions For Discussion Or Study: Why does Jesus so willingly go someplace where he would be vulnerable? Why does he twice ask whether he is the man the authorities want? What should we learn from these things? What does the manner of Jesus’ arrest show us about Judas and the authorities? What lessons should we learn from this? Why was Jesus not pleased with Peter’s defense of him? What example does this set for us?
What Next?
(John 18:12-27)
After arresting Jesus with surprising ease, the authorities have difficulty figuring out what to do next. Meanwhile, Peter and the other disciples are trying to respond in their own way to what has happened. The resulting strange assortment of characters and incidents makes us appreciate even more Jesus’ own great faith and his patient endurance of injustice and mistreatment.
The initial reactions to Jesus’ arrest show us that there is a lot of uncertainty and anxiety about what it means (John 18:12-18). Jesus’ first stop is with Annas*, an old high priest who clearly has no idea what to do with Jesus, and who will soon shuttle Jesus across to his more decisive son-in-law Caiaphas. Meanwhile, Peter and John are cautiously trying to watch events as they unfold.
·Annas was a former high priest whose abilities deteriorated to the point that he was eased out of office. Outside sources differ as to his status at this time: either he was technically still the high priest, with Caiaphas exercising the actual responsibilities of the office, or else he was still treated as a form of emeritus high priest, with the other religious leaders allowing him to retain some measure of privilege and prestige.
John apparently has "friend of a friend" status giving him access to the high priest’s courtyard, and Peter comes with him. But Peter has attained notoriety with his swordplay in the garden, and the doorman recognizes him. Peter is quick to deny it, and his overall anxiety plus the chilly evening are such that he does so without even realizing that he has fulfilled Jesus’ prediction.
In any case, things soon get more serious (John 18:19-27). Caiaphas*, probably skilled at causing frightened witnesses to make mistakes, grills Jesus about every possible topic. Jesus, for his part, reminds him that he has lived an open life. He has not stealthily built up a following, and he has not disseminated his beliefs in secret. He has always been glad when anyone of any status took an interest in his teachings, regardless of anyone’s reason or motivation.
·John 18:24 is slightly awkward in its phrasing and its position at the end of the passage, but it is meant to imply that the exchange in John 18:19-24 takes place after the weaker Annas had sent Jesus on to Caiaphas.
Since this explanation refutes most of the possible charges against Jesus, by clearing him of being involved in any kind of cabal or conspiracy, the authorities react by having Jesus struck in the face by one of their toadies. It is worth remembering that all this time Jesus is restraining his tremendous power, and he continually resists the temptation to give these foolish men what they deserve. He merely continues to speak the truth plainly and even respectfully. He knows that his persecutors are not strong, powerful super-villains - they are mere lost, sad, pathetic souls.
Meanwhile, there are further denials from Peter. There are more persons who saw him with Jesus - one is even related to the man whose ear he had impulsively sliced off. Peter can only give even stronger denials about knowing Jesus. After the third one, a rooster crows, and (as other gospels tell us) Peter realizes what he has done. The denial is sad, but there is another side to it - this is hardly the end of Peter’s relationship with God. Our own spiritual mistakes and weaknesses, likewise, never need to stand in the way of knowing God and serving him.
Questions For Discussion Or Study: Why did the officials shuffle Jesus from one authority to another? Does this have any spiritual parallels? Why did Peter feel that he had to deny knowing Jesus? What similar choices might we make? Why did the officials react violently to Jesus’ statements about his life and teaching being open? Does their reaction have spiritual parallels? What should we learn from Peter’s denials?
The Main Trial
(John 18:28-40)
Everything so far has merely been preliminary, because the real authority in Jesus’ case is the Roman governor Pilate. Initially, Pilate has no particular vested interest in the result, and at times we see in him a genuine desire to grasp what is going on. He makes an effort to dismiss the whole ’case’ against Jesus, but he is surprised by the determined opposition he encounters.
After all the preliminary rigmarole*, Jesus is finally brought to the Roman governor Pilate, the only one with authority to execute Jesus - the goal of the religious authorities (John 18:28-32). Their unintentionally hilarious response to Pilate shows that they realize this - when he asks what the charges against Jesus are, they simply assure him that they would not bother with bringing Jesus to him if he were not definitely guilty! Yet this ridiculously self-serving logic is no worse than our own contortions when we are emotionally committed to a position that makes no real sense.
·The hearings before Annas, Caiaphas, and Herod (see Luke 23:6-12) had no real purpose, as the leaders had already decided to execute Jesus, and everyone knew all along that only the Romans could authorize this. Were the other trials a public show, indecisiveness, or the leaders trying to convince themselves? We do not know - we can only try to be a little more self-aware when we waste time with similar nonsense.
·
Pilate and the religious leaders have an impromptu debate, with Pilate’s reluctance to take any action coming out very quickly. Pilate is known from secular ancient history to have been short-tempered and often impulsive*, and it is likely that he found their request merely irritating, without any regard to whether Jesus really was a criminal or not.
·Pilate had already on at least two occasions needlessly angered the public opinion of the Jews. His political career would come to an abrupt end not long after this, because the Romans realized that his basic character flaws made it impossible to give him any significant authority or important responsibility.
Pilate inadvertently asks the most important question: what is truth? (John 18:33-40). All Pilate knows about Jesus is that he is popularly called the King of the Jews. So Pilate naturally begins with this, and after some ironic comments, Jesus flatly tells the governor that "my kingdom is from another place." Jesus plainly and openly rules out any kind of fleshly or earthly kingdom in his name - he is not interested in competing with Rome or any secular nation, neither in the 1st century nor at any other time. Jesus’ followers have to adjust their own perspectives accordingly.
Jesus and his followers testify to the truth. This echoes some of his earlier promises about the Spirit or Counselor. Believers in Jesus should above all testify to Jesus’ grace and compassion by their lives, perspectives, and words. Testifying to the truth does not give us a license to judge, to punish, to make rules, or to do anything else that a kingdom of this earth would do.
Pilate’s famous rhetorical question is enigmatic, and it is less important to guess what he meant by it than to learn something from it ourselves. The right questions for Christians - individually and as a church - should never be "how can we accomplish our goals" or "how can we get someone to do what we want them to do". They are always: What is truth? Who is God? What is his nature? Such questions are always worth asking, even though in this mortal body we shall never be able to answer them perfectly or completely. As long as we simply have the faith to ask them instead of the things our flesh wants to know, then we can keep drawing closer to God.
Pilate is impressed enough to try to come up with a way to free Jesus. Mistakenly thinking that the crowd favors Jesus, he offers to free him as the traditional Roman gift of grace for the Jewish Passover. But the crowd - pushed by the religious leaders - makes a troubling choice, calling for the notorious Barabbas* to be released instead. Their choice is appropriate - Jesus is about to be substituted on the cross for all the sinners who have ever lived. To allow his blood to be poured out for our sins, there is no amount of pain or humiliation that our Savior will not gladly endure.
·From what we know about Barabbas, he seems to have been a quasi-revolutionary, probably of the kind who uses public grievances as an excuse to indulge his own desire for violence and crime. For an interesting perspective on Barabbas, see Pär Lagerkvist’s Nobel Prize winning novel, Barabbas.
Questions For Discussion Or Study: Are there spiritual parallels to the religious leaders’ using a Roman official to fulfill their desires? Why does Pilate act as he does? Can we say anything positive about him? Why is Jesus so restrained in his answers? What does he mean that his kingdom is from another place? How should this idea influence us? What should Pilate’s question about truth mean to us? What spiritual significance is there to the crowd choosing Barabbas? Should this mean anything to us personally?
Mark Garner, August 2011
DEATH & RESURRECTION:
STUDIES IN John 11:1-57; John 12:1-50; John 13:1-38; John 14:1-31; John 15:1-27; John 16:1-33; John 17:1-26; John 18:1-40; John 19:1-42; John 20:1-31; John 21:1-25
Notes For Week Ten:
The Word Is Crucified
(John 19:1-42)
The crucifixion of Jesus, the Word of God, combines the horror of human sin with the glory of divine grace. In the crucifixion, human self-will is apparently triumphant, and godly love is apparently destroyed - yet the spiritual reality is exactly the opposite. The crucifixion always gives us an emphatic reminder that Jesus understands humanity and that he cares about us.
Review Of Recent Classes
At the Last Supper, Jesus the Word of God prays in preparation for leaving this earth (John 17:1-26). He will first be put on trial (John 18:1-40). First comes the arrest, with Judas leading the authorities to Jesus. Although in great danger, Jesus steps forward and offers no resistance. When Peter zealously launches an armed attack, Jesus tells him to put his sword away - the time has come for Jesus’ followers to give up aggression and fighting, and to live instead by grace and truth.
After the sudden arrest, everyone wonders what to do next. The authorities shuffle Jesus around from one official to another, while Peter makes his first denial. Things soon get more serious, as the authorities are harsher and more threatening, while Peter’s denials get more desperate.
The main trial is with Pilate, who alone has power to execute Jesus. Asked if he is the king of the Jews, Jesus explains that his kingdom is not an earthly one, so he will not compete with other earthly rulers - he is devoted to truth alone. Pilate’s ironic question, "what is truth?" reminds us to set aside worldly perspectives and loyalties, to help others see Jesus’ grace, truth, and love.
How do the arrest and trial of Jesus teach us to respond to problems in this world? Jesus remains peaceful, not judging and not repaying evil for evil. He entrusts himself to God, renouncing worldly aggression or anger. Since we are unlikely to be crucified, we can practice these values more easily. We can bring glory to God and can overcome the world simply by renouncing the self-interest, bitterness, competition, and envy that characterize so many worldly affairs. Such spiritual victories cost us only our fleshly craving to control others, and a bit of our fleshly pride.
The Agonizing Preliminaries
(John 19:1-11)
Even before the actual crucifixion, Jesus endures a series of horrifying torments. The Roman soldiers gleefully torture Jesus without regard to whether he is guilty of anything. Meanwhile, Pontius Pilate agonizes over the case - but he cares less about justice than he does about his own political interests. Amidst it all, only Jesus remains faithful to God and to the truth.
Jesus is first subjected to flogging, ridicule, and other painful abuses that provide diversion for the Roman soldiers (John 19:1-5). Even if this were someone other than Jesus, it would be shockingly unfair to inflict such punishment on someone not yet found guilty*. Jesus is paying the price for our sins - he does not deserve this at all. Nor does he deserve to be mocked by the soldiers, who aggravate his physical suffering with their crass ridicule of his identity as "the king of the Jews."
·This was common in the Roman judicial system. The Romans valued ’keeping order’ more than true justice, and their system reflected this. They saw nothing wrong with inflicting ’undeserved’ punishment if it served a purpose. Since Jesus is a source of dispute and controversy, he is a problem, and so neither Pilate nor other Romans would have been bothered by the brutal treatment he receives even if not guilty.
This extensive physical and psychological torture illustrates the nature of human sin. The whole series of events has a double parallel. The gleeful cruelty of the Romans is merely an expression of the fleshly desires for superiority and retribution that we all share to some degree. And Jesus endures it as the rightful punishment for the world’s accumulated sins - our selfishness, envy, prejudice, and callousness merit this kind of punishment; but now we don’t have to endure it.
After these preliminary torments, Pilate shows Jesus to the crowd, announcing, "here is the man*." He hopes these bloody sufferings will soften the crowd’s attitudes, so that he will not have to make a tough decision himself. Like most of us, Pilate is not "evil"; he is just very weak. He knows what the right thing to do is, but he will not do it unless he can do so without trouble.
·This scene has long been popular with artists and authors. The Latin phrase ecce hom*o ("behold the man") is also used in a broader context, to call attention to the world’s senseless violence and suffering.
Pilate makes a last stand before giving in (John 19:6-11). The authorities’ loud, repeated loud calls for crucifixion cause Pilate to fear for his own interests. He is frustrated by the obstinate religious authorities, and baffled by Jesus’ peaceful silence. And so he points out to Jesus that as governor he holds the power either to release his prisoner or to inflict upon him the horrors of crucifixion. But Pilate’s power, like all human power and authority, is an illusion. Many humans do have the ability to inflict pain and suffering on others, but this is not genuine power or authority.
Using force is often tempting - but it is always contrary to the Spirit and the gospel. Whether seizing something we desire, inflicting punishment, or forcing others to do what we think they should do, force is not God’s way. Whether we use weapons, credentials, guilt, or the weight of numbers, force is force, and believers should renounce it. Pilate actually realizes - temporarily - that Jesus is right. Sometimes we, too, briefly see through the world’s haze of fear and lies to perceive the deeper truths of the gospel of grace. Such moments are quickly followed by fleshly doubt and rationalization - will we waver like Pilate, or remain true to God’s grace and peace?
Questions For Discussion Or Study: Why did Pilate allow Jesus to suffer even if he was not guilty? Why would the soldiers willingly torment someone who might be innocent? What should we learn from this? What does Jesus’ response teach us? Why does Jesus say Pilate’s power comes "from above"? How does this connect with Romans 13:1-7?
The Crucified King
(John 19:12-24)
After some final wavering, Pilate gives in once for all to the religious leaders’ calls for Jesus to be crucified. The gruesome process of crucifixion itself is made even worse by the many dehumanizing practices that accompany it. Meanwhile, Pilate himself deliberately continues to promote Jesus’ identity as a king, little realizing just how true this is.
Sensing that Pilate is close to giving them what they want, the religious authorities clinch things with their bold statement that they have "no king but Caesar*" (John 19:12-16). Their direct appeal to Pilate’s patriotism and his loyalty to Rome** overcome any remaining resistance he may have had, and he goes through a public show of judgment to satisfy anyone’s desire for legality.
·The name Caesar was used by all the Roman emperors, regardless of their own name. The emperor at the time of Jesus’ crucifixion was Tiberius, whose reign lasted from AD 14 to AD 37. See also the next note.
·This was especially important during the reign of the deeply paranoid Tiberius. The slightest suspicion of disloyalty could ruin even a capable administrator - and Pilate was already considered a bungler.
Pilate ironically proclaims, "here is your king." He alone acknowledges Jesus as Lord of Israel, yet he has no understanding of the implications. The chief priests’ proclamation that Caesar is their only king is ironic in a sadder way, for they don’t even mean this. In truth, these officials worship themselves, and they offer outward allegiance to anyone who allows them to pursue their true goals. Yet we should not harshly criticize, for we too have the habit of casually saying that Jesus is our Lord or king, only to speak and act in ways hardly consistent with the gospel.
And so we come to the Place Of The Skull* (John 19:17-24). Jesus undergoes the usual public procession**, adding to a prisoner’s humiliation prior to his execution. The Romans designed the procedures surrounding a crucifixion so as to minimize someone’s humanity, and they devised details in the process of crucifixion so as to maximize and prolong physical suffering.
·This is certainly an appropriate name for a site often used for executions. The text refers to it by the Aramaic name of Golgotha. Calvary, from its equivalent name in Latin, is also commonly used.
·Condemned men were required to carry their own crosses through a gauntlet of jeering spectators. Jesus weakened partway through the walk, and the cross was carried the rest of the way by Simon of Cyrene (see Matthew 27:32, Mark 15:21, and Luke 23:26).
The sign above the cross has a dual significance. Though intended to annoy the Jewish religious leaders, mocking their desire for independence, the sign also inadvertently tells the truth about the crucifixion. It was the custom to write a person’s crime on his cross - and Jesus is dying precisely because he is "the king of the Jews*." Yet there is more - Jesus is the true king of true Israel: his death not only announces him as king, but also shows what Israel’s true king is like. He is not a king who conquers by worldly means, but a king who lays down his life for others.
·The initials INRI, from the initials of the Latin phrase for "Jesus Christ King of the Jews", are often used as a symbol or shorthand for the sign or the proclamation on the sign.
Also in keeping with Roman practice, the soldiers divide up Jesus’ few personal possessions, as he watches and suffers. This practice further dehumanized the victim; yet here it continues the powerful symbolism of the crucifixion. Jesus gladly gave everything he had to a world that did not deserve his compassion, just as these soldiers randomly and undeservedly acquire his clothes.
Jesus shows us that he truly is both Son of Man and Son of God. We sometimes share in the human nature of the soldiers, accepting blessings from Jesus without acknowledging his grace in our hearts. Yet we are called to emulate the divine nature of Jesus - and indeed we do this on occasion - by not resenting or hating those who are blessed while we must struggle or grieve.
Questions For Discussion Or Study: What should we learn from the behavior of the religious authorities and Pilate? What does Jesus’ endurance of these sufferings teach us? How should we follow in Jesus’ steps? How is the written charge against Jesus significant? Is it significant to us that his possessions were divided so callously?
Death & Burial
(John 19:25-42)
After a few last words, Jesus dies on the cross. Subsequent events seem ordinary in some ways - first there is the routine Roman practice of making sure that a crucified person had actually died, and then there are the time-honored Jewish burial customs. It is hard for us to place ourselves in this brief period between Jesus’ death and resurrection, yet it holds some worthwhile lessons.
Death comes as the end of the awful ordeal of crucifixion, and for the moment few realize that things are going to be any different this time (John 19:25-37). Jesus’ last acts and words provide further meaning to his sacrifice. In his perfect compassion, he entrusts his mother to John, and in his complete humanity, he expresses his desperate thirst. Throughout the ordeal, "Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps" (1 Peter 2:21).
Jesus’ words to his Mother and to "the disciple whom Jesus loved" remind us of his concern for his followers, as he expressed in his prayer in John 17:1-26. Despite his own pain, he is more concerned with those he loves. Yet he still feels the full measure of human weakness: "I am thirsty" is a poignant addition to the "I am" statements throughout John. The wine vinegar* he now drinks also adds a small further measure of prophetic fulfillment to the symbolism.
·This is probably the cheap, sour wine often used by Roman soldiers. The exact drink and its purpose are uncertain, but it is most likely a mocking gesture to provide something bitter to someone in such agony. In any case, it was probably not a compassionate gesture. It is usually seen as being a prophetic fulfillment - more thematic than predictive - of Psalms 69:21. Jesus’ expression of thirst probably came about the same time as he called out in Aramaic "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me" (not mentioned in John).
So as not to cause offense by leaving the bodies hanging on the crosses during Passover, the Romans end the crucifixions earlier than usual. The pain and gore from the nails was only part of the suffering of crucifixion. The position of the body made it impossible to breathe normally, so a victim repeatedly had to push up on his legs to get a breath. Eventually the victim would weaken and die from suffocation. When expediency necessitated a quicker death, the Romans would break the victims’ legs* so that they could no longer support themselves to breathe.
·Other gruesome practices were often added to crucifixion. Sometimes victims would use such foul and angry language that the Romans would forcibly silence them, using various ghastly methods.
But Jesus was already dead. John remarks on the surprising flow of blood and water that comes when a soldier pierces Jesus’ side with a spear instead of breaking his legs. The sight of the dead Lamb of God is filled with new symbolism. Like the original Passover lamb (Exodus 12:46), Jesus’ bones will all remain unbroken even in death. John also reminds us of the prophecy in Zechariah 12:10-13 that associates an outpouring of grace with mourning for a pierced victim.
Jesus is given a respectful burial (John 19:38-42). Two sincere followers, Joseph and Nicodemus, accord his dead body a full level of reverence and care, wrapping it in spices and placing it in a new tomb in a garden. They needn’t have gone to such trouble, of course, but it is yet another reminder that even the most faithful do not always understand Jesus priorities or perspectives. The story of Jesus will by no means end with this simple, sincere funeral.
Questions For Discussion Or Study: What should we learn from Jesus’ words to his mother and John? Why is it significant that Jesus was thirsty? Are there important symbols or other lessons in the soldier piercing his side? Why did his followers observe all these burial rites? Was it necessary? What should we learn from it?
Mark Garner, August 2011
DEATH & RESURRECTION:
STUDIES IN John 11:1-57; John 12:1-50; John 13:1-38; John 14:1-31; John 15:1-27; John 16:1-33; John 17:1-26; John 18:1-40; John 19:1-42; John 20:1-31; John 21:1-25
Notes For Week Eleven:
Raised To Life
(John 20:1-31)
The crucifixion of Jesus opened the way for our sins to be forgiven, yet it was still not the end of the story. Jesus raised to life and showed us that his Father has power even over death itself. In so doing, Jesus proved that his blood sacrifice did have the power to remove sin; and at the same time he showed his followers the way to his kingdom, which by its nature is not of this world.
Review Of Recent Classes
Jesus, the Word of God, was arrested and put on trial (John 18:1-40), then crucified (John 19:1-42). Even the preliminaries to the crucifixion were agonizing. But Jesus’ suffering was symbolic, not senseless. It illustrates the true nature of sin, in all its devastation; and it shows God’s deep desire to forgive sin rather than punish it. Pontius Pilate guides events, thinking he has the power to release or crucify Jesus - but Jesus reminds him of the illusory nature of human power.
The crucified king is a somber sight. Pilate openly calls him "the king of the Jews", but only to annoy the religious leaders. The priests ironically claim Caesar as their only king, to get Pilate to do their will. Jesus’ life ends at the "Place Of The Skull", where he is subjected to more humiliation plus the horror of crucifixion. He endures it all for the sake of the world’s lost souls.
Jesus’ death and burial seem to end the story. His last acts and words remind us who he is. In his great compassion, he is more concerned for his mother than with his own pain. But being fully human, he also suffers from thirst along with his other woes. The Lamb of God is dead even before the Romans finish the crucifixions, so that the Passover Lamb’s bones will not be broken. Two caring believers reverently bury him in a new tomb, thinking the story is over.
What should we learn from the extreme suffering Jesus endured at the cross? The horrors were both physical and psychological, both gruesome and humiliating. Jesus endured them without complaint or retaliation, in his great desire to shed blood for our forgiveness. His innocent body and soul took the full punishment for humanity’s sins. No one is good enough to earn or deserve salvation, yet no one is bad enough not to be fully welcome to share in Jesus’ grace.
Mary, Peter, & John Visit The Tomb
(John 20:1-14)
Although Jesus’ closest friends did not expect him to rise from the dead, their devotion to him remained. First Mary, then Peter and John, visit his tomb and find it empty. They gradually realize that something astounding has happened. The surprise of these sincere, faithful believers is similar to our own astonishment when we too grasp that Jesus really did raise from the dead.
When Mary Magdalene goes to the tomb early in the morning the day after the Sabbath, she soon comes running to the disciples with some news (John 20:1-2). The stone has been removed from the entrance*, and she urgently seeks out the disciples hoping to figure out who moved the stone**.
·The tombs used at this time were above ground, and resembled small caves cut out of rock. After bodies were placed in a tomb, a huge stone would be pushed across the front of the entrance.
·Who Moved The Stone? is a book by Frank Morison, a journalist who sought to disprove the story of the resurrection. Instead, his investigation made him a believer, and his book describes the reasons why.
Mary’s response reminds us that the resurrection is not a mere doctrine, nor is it a mere ’proof’ to be analyzed forensically. It is the good news that proves the truth of the good news, and every believer ought to be eager to understand it. It can be helpful to know some logical evidence to support the resurrection, but it is even more important to see how the cross and the resurrection fit together in perfect harmony with God’s character of righteousness and grace.
Not only has the stone been moved, but the tomb itself is also empty (John 20:3-9). Peter and John hurry to the tomb with Mary, and look inside it. All they can see is the burial clothes in which Joseph and Nicodemus had wrapped up Jesus body with the traditional spices - the burial clothes are now neatly folded up. Jesus is no longer there*.
·Each of the gospels provides a different selection of the events that took place after Jesus rose from the dead. In our study, we shall focus only the ones that John mentions - reading the other gospel accounts can make a good study supplement. For a comprehensive summary and harmony of all the events following the resurrection, see The Fourfold Gospel by J.W. McGarvey and Philip Pendleton.
As Peter and John look at the evidence and remember what Jesus had said, they start to put it together. They realize that Jesus has risen from the dead, yet they do not yet understand the prophecies in Scripture. They wrestle with spiritual truths while acknowledging facts and logic.
We should not be reluctant to admit that it is hard to believe the resurrection and its implications. It is an extraordinary event that flatly contradicts logic and science. In fact, it is essential that we see how illogical and unscientific it is - the resurrection shows us that Jesus’ death was the death of God himself, not that of a mere moralist or philosopher. Likewise, its spiritual implications refute all human attempts to concoct theological systems or methodologies. The resurrection’s extraordinary nature rules out the effectiveness of such things in seeking the living God.
Meanwhile Mary, still overcome by her emotion and her affection for Jesus, looks for her Lord - that is, his body, for she still does not realize what has happened (John 20:10-14). She is the first to notice that she has more company in the tomb, for there are two angels now standing where Jesus used to be, trying to comfort her and help her. And Jesus himself is also now standing by in plain sight, though for the moment she does not recognize him in her grief.
Mary too is a sort of parallel for us. While Peter and John grasped the facts of the resurrection and struggled to put them into an overall picture, Mary senses spiritual reality (the angels and Jesus), yet in her sadness and anxiety she cannot quite see them clearly enough to calm her spirit. Jesus understands how hard it can be for us to see and understand spiritual reality with our mortal minds. He doesn’t ask us to see it all clearly - he just asks us to open our hearts in faith.
Questions For Discussion Or Study: What might Mary, Peter, and John have expected to find at the tomb? What do we expect when we study the resurrection? What are the immediate implications of the empty tomb? Do they mean the same thing to us as they would have meant to these three believers? What struggles do each of them have in believing the resurrection? How do these parallel our own struggles to believe?
The Risen Jesus
(John 20:15-23)
The risen Jesus now begins to reveal himself openly to his followers. He shows himself first to Mary, then to his disciples, and he convinces them that he is again alive. Jesus also helps them to understand what has happened - and he starts to hint at the things that lie ahead of them. Now that he is risen, many other things will also change in the days ahead.
Mary is the first of them to meet her Lord, and at last she recognizes him (John 20:15-18). At first she thinks he is working in the garden, and because she is still certain that the body has been moved, she asks this "gardener" where he put Jesus’ body. But when Jesus speaks to her by name, suddenly she sees what has happened. She must have instinctively taken hold of him, for Jesus’ next words are a request that she not cling to him just now, for he has to return to his Father*. Soon, he will be back, and for a time his friends and followers will again be able to touch and hold him - but for now, this is just an extra blessing of grace for Mary, who gets to see him first.
·Since the verb in John 20:17 can sometimes mean "touch", there are a variety of strange theories that have been concocted to explain Jesus’ request. But if we understand it to mean "hold on to" (NIV) or "cling" (NASB), then the reason is exactly what Jesus says - he needs to go back to his Father before he comes back and does anything else. He does not explain why he must first go, but he says clearly that he must.
So Mary excitedly returns to Jesus’ other followers with the news that she has seen the Lord and has spoken with him. No doubt this was hard for most of them to believe (see, for example, Mark 16:11). There’s no reason why our own belief in the resurrection should easily convince anyone else, yet we can always tell others, as best we can, what we know and why we believe.
Next comes Jesus’ appearance to the disciples (John 20:19-23). Appearing suddenly in their midst despite their location in a locked room, he lets them see his pierced hands and his side where the spear had poked a hole. He lets them satisfy themselves that he is alive, and he also has come to fulfill his promise. They can now receive the Holy Spirit*, who will remain with them even after Jesus leaves this earth for good. The Spirit will guide and teach them in the days ahead, especially in helping them to teach others about the forgiveness of sins**.
·Recall John 14:15-17; John 14:25-26, and John 16:7-15. Later (; Acts 2:4) they would be "filled with the Spirit" and enabled to speak in many different languages - but here in John, they are already given the Spirit as the Counselor; and he can begin his work with them at once.
·In John 20:23, Jesus does not give the apostles authority to make decisions as to whether a person’s sins are forgiven. Context is more helpful here than forensic analysis or language study, for such an interpretation would be fundamentally at odds with all that Jesus teaches about grace. No human can ever decide whether God will forgive someone else. But if we teach the gospel truthfully, then Jesus assures us that all who respond to this teaching respond to him - their sins are forgiven as surely as if Jesus had spoken himself.
Questions For Discussion Or Study: Why might Jesus have appeared first to Mary? Why did it take so long for her to recognize him? What can we learn from this? Why did Jesus choose this specific occasion for appearing to the disciples? Why is this the appropriate time for them to receive the Sprit? How can they receive the Spirit now and later be "filled with the Spirit"? Do Jesus’ words to the disciples mean anything to us?
Those Who Have Seen &
Those Who Have Not
(John 20:24-31)
Jesus’ next appearance is to Thomas, who had been absent when Jesus appeared to the others. Jesus gives Thomas the assurance that he desires, yet he also reminds us that he will not be making a personal appearance to every believer. The resurrection brings assurance of the truth of the gospel, yet it also brings a call to a greater faith, based not on the seen but on the unseen.
Jesus’ encounter with Thomas is known for Jesus’ admonishment to the disciple to "stop doubting and believe" (John 20:24-28). Because Thomas did not get to see, hear, and touch the risen Jesus, he insists that he will not believe the news unless he can personally see the marks that the crucifixion had left on his Master’s body. Almost every believer has at one time or another expressed a similar desire - we would all like some tangible sign, whether a miracle, a vision, or an emotional experience, to make it a little easier to believe the gospel.
Jesus is gracious to Thomas, and gives him what he asks for. Once his doubts are removed, Thomas fervently worships Jesus. No doubt, Jesus was glad to relieve Thomas’s doubts and anxiety; but he will not always do this - for the sake of our spiritual health, we must all learn to rely on the unseen, not only on the seen. Thomas, though, like all of the apostles, had left behind everything in his old life to follow Jesus. He had remained loyal even when the crowds deserted Jesus or turned against him. And he was still a follower of Jesus, even after the crucifixion. We should not be envious because Jesus decides to be gracious to him.
The narrator John shares these things with us so that we too may believe in Jesus (John 20:29-31). Thomas and the other disciples believed because they saw firsthand the risen Jesus and other miracles*. But "blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." Peter later told us that, "Though you have not seen him, you love him; and even though you do not see him now, you believe in him and are filled with an inexpressible and glorious joy, for you are receiving the goal of your faith, the salvation of your souls" (1 Peter 1:8-9).
·Yet Thomas and the other apostles also would soon have to do without the physical Jesus. After his ascension, they would have only the Holy Spirit, with no visible manifestation of God’s presence.
And so John makes no attempt to list all of the many other miracles that Jesus did. It is characteristic of God that he gives us many reasons to believe, yet he never turns belief into a mere logical exercise. God never asks for blind faith, yet he always asks for an element of faith.
Seeing a miracle does not in itself produce faith, and seeing a miraculous sign is not necessary for faith. Of the many who witnessed Jesus’ miracles in person, most of them never came to believe in him as the Messiah. Fleshly human nature is remarkably resourceful in coming up with reasons to explain away all the evidence that God has left us. We too see plenty of miracles, even if we do not usually acknowledge them as such.
God’s call to us is neither intellectual belief nor factual certainty. The goal is to know Jesus and to have life in his name, to have eternal life by knowing God. Knowing God cannot be reduced to a system or a method or a set of morals. It is a relationship - with all of the inherent challenges and responsibilities that any relationship involves. God’s Word is neither a textbook nor a rulebook - it is a communication from our Creator, who wants us to be with him.
Questions For Discussion Or Study: Why might Thomas not have believed the other disciples? In what ways are we like him? Why was Jesus so gracious to him? Did Thomas still have to have faith? Why doesn’t Jesus do the same thing for all of us? Does God give us anything "miraculous" to help us believe? Do we know exactly what God means by "believing"? How much evidence or ’proof’ should we expect?
Mark Garner, August 2011
DEATH & RESURRECTION:
STUDIES IN John 11:1-57; John 12:1-50; John 13:1-38; John 14:1-31; John 15:1-27; John 16:1-33; John 17:1-26; John 18:1-40; John 19:1-42; John 20:1-31; John 21:1-25
Notes For Week Twelve:
New Beginnings
(John 21:1-25)
The crucifixion and the resurrection complete Jesus’ earthly ministry of grace and atonement, yet this is not the end of the story. The gospel offers everyone who hears it a chance for a new beginning, and the gospel is retold and re-enacted every time someone comes to Jesus. Yet it is never easy for anyone to accept the change in perspective and attitude that the gospel brings.
Review Of Recent Classes
Jesus, the Word of God made flesh, suffered and was crucified for humanity’s sins (John 19:1-42). But then he was raised to life - for the resurrection is the good news that proves the good news (John 20:1-31). Mary, Peter, and John each went to the tomb; they all saw the stone removed and the body missing. As the two apostles tried to put things together in their minds, Mary kept looking for her Lord, thinking simply that someone had moved his body.
But soon each of them sees the risen Jesus. First Mary meets her Lord, at last recognizing him when he calls her by name. Later, Jesus appears to the disciples and fulfills his promises that they would receive the Holy Spirit. Just as God breathed life into Adam, so now Jesus breathes the Spirit into his disciples, emphasizing the personal, intimate relationship God desires with us.
Jesus knows that there are those who have seen him personally and those who have not. He shows grace to us all - he gives Thomas the reassurance he asked for, and he also gives us many forms of re-assurance. The apostles got to see miraculous signs firsthand, yet we too live in a world full of miracles great and small - and we can see this any time that we allow God to choose the miracles for us. Belief in the gospel of Christ is never blind faith, yet it also can never be based on logical certainty. The heart of the gospel is always personal, not forensic or doctrinal.
How does the resurrection change (or clarify) the meaning of the rest of the gospel? It is of particular importance in verifying and emphasizing the important features of the crucifixion. In his great compassion and grace, Jesus willingly endured the horrors of the crucifixion - and the resurrection proves that he didn’t have to, for he had power over death itself. Jesus’ gruesome sufferings show us the true, awful nature of human sin - and the power of the resurrection proves God’s authority both to object to our sin and also to forgive it according to his will.
A Net Full Of Fish
(John 21:1-14)
Although all of the disciples now understand that Jesus has risen from the dead, they still need plenty of assurance and direction. Jesus provides these in an unusual way, and in so doing he also teaches us some additional lessons. This miraculous catch of fish foreshadows the days of ’fishing for souls’ that the disciples soon, by God’s grace, would experience.
After the experience of the risen Jesus has come and gone, for the moment Peter and the other disciples can’t think of anything better to do than to go fishing (John 21:1-6). When we recall Jesus’ earlier promise that the disciples would become "fishers of men" (Matthew 4:19, Mark 1:17), there are some spiritual parallels to their wasted night of fishing and the events that follow. The disciples were, of course, doing nothing wrong by going out to fish on their own - but Jesus will give them a reminder that true fruitfulness can only come about by his initiative and his will.
In the morning, when Jesus stands on the shore and asks them, "haven’t you any fish?", the disciples - like Mary earlier - do not recognize him. Even when Jesus gives them a suggestion as to where they might throw their nets for better results*, they simply take this as a helpful gesture from a stranger, for they are intent on their own activities and the chance to improve their results.
·As a number of commentators have pointed out, it was not uncommon for a helpful observer on the shore of the Sea of Galilee to call out such a suggestion to local fishermen. It sometimes happened that a school of fish could more easily be seen from the shore than from a boat. Therefore there was no reason, based on this alone, for the disciples to think that this was anything unusual.
But after an unexpectedly huge haul of fish, the disciples realize that it is the Lord (John 21:7-14). Characteristically, perhaps, John is the first to recognize him - and characteristically it is Peter who is the first to act, jumping into the water and swimming earnestly towards Jesus. It is an unusual scene, and in some ways a humorous one, with Peter swimming ahead of the boat and the others no doubt feverishly rowing towards shore.
When they all reach shore, it is time for a fish breakfast with Jesus. After a fruitless night of fishing on their own power, in one moment Jesus has brought them a lavish catch*. This is just a simple symbolic reminder to us of how much more Jesus knows than we do, of how far superior his perspectives and viewpoints are than ours, and of how much different things can be when we have the humility to let Jesus direct us.
·There is no special (numerological) significance to the number 153. The precise number is given so that we can appreciate the scope of this minor "miracle" - in moments, Jesus has brought them a haul of fish that even under good conditions would normally have taken much longer to obtain.
Questions For Discussion Or Study: Why might the disciples have decided to go fishing? Was there anything else they could (or should) have been doing? Why might Jesus have appeared to them in this way? Why might Peter have jumped into the water? Is there special significance to the breakfast they shared? What overall lessons are there here?
Feed My Sheep
(John 21:15-19)
Although Peter is now fully convinced about the resurrection, he has not really gotten over his denials on the night of the crucifixion. Jesus knew how much Peter really loves him, and so he now takes the time to teach Peter some valuable lessons. In his characteristic manner, Jesus combines compassion with teaching, and assurance with exhortation.
After the breakfast, Jesus finally talks with Peter alone, and he asks Peter whether he truly loves his Lord (John 21:15-17). Jesus knows this - as indeed Peter acknowledges in his answer that, "you know that I love you." Jesus makes a point by asking three times* for Peter to affirm this, as a deliberate echo of the three times that Peter was asked whether he knew Jesus, and denied it.
·Commentators often point out that Jesus uses the verb agapaw ("agapao", to love selflessly) in his first two questions, while the third time he uses the verb filew ("phileo", to love as a brother), suggesting that this ’downgrade’ is the reason why Peter was hurt. But in practice, the two verbs were used more-or-less interchangeably in ordinary conversations. All three times, Peter answers with the verb filew (to love as a brother). So the verbs are not the real point here. Jesus is not asking Peter - or us - to analyze the degree of his love, but simply to confirm it again and again.
Jesus reminds Peter of this previous incident not to make him feel guilty, but to heal him - he knows that Peter still has not gotten over this, while Jesus never had condemned him to begin with. Peter cannot undo his denials, but henceforth he can simply re-affirm his love for Jesus again and again - and this will be more than enough for his gracious Lord.
Jesus adds a further point too - and it is a point worth remembering in our own ministries. One of the reasons for Peter’s denials was his confusion about the ways that Jesus wants his followers to show their love for him. In the garden, Peter was sincerely ready to launch a suicide attack to protect Jesus, yet for this apparent devotion he was corrected, not praised, by his Lord. Jesus teaches him now that a truer way of expressing love for Jesus is to tend, feed, and care for his sheep. Thus Jesus heals Peter of the guilt of his denials while also teaching him how to build a stronger foundation for the future.
Yet there is also a warning for Peter, because when he is old, he will indeed glorify Jesus with a martyr’s death (John 21:18-19). He will no longer be so eager to do so, but will be led where he does not want to go. And yet this death* - unlike his impulsive sword attack in the garden - will truly glorify God. "Martyrdom" in itself does not glorify God if it merely arises as a result of our own aggression or belligerence. Jesus’ death on the cross is our example of selfless, humble sacrifice.
·Ancient non-biblical sources record that Peter died in the persecution against Christians that emperor Nero launched in the aftermath of the great fire of Rome in AD 64. It is likely that he was crucified, and this would fit in with Jesus’ comment that Peter would stretch out his hands. Medieval church legends state that Peter was crucified upside down, but this cannot be verified historically.
Questions For Discussion Or Study: What spiritual needs might Peter have had at this time? Why did Jesus address them with these questions? What lessons did Peter learn as a result? What should these lessons teach us? Why does Jesus add a preview of Peter’s death? How does this fit in with the rest of the lesson? Does it mean anything to us?
Follow Me
(John 21:20-25)
While listening to Jesus, Peter becomes curious whether these same lessons might apply to the others as well. As happens so often, Peter is honestly expressing a thought that we all have from time to time. The impulse to compare our lives with the lives of others is a human tendency shared by believers and unbelievers alike. Jesus’ reply is concise, spiritual, and conclusive.
Seeing John walking behind him and Jesus, Peter asks, "Lord, what about him?" (John 21:20-23). It is human nature for us to compare our blessings with the blessings God has given others, our struggles with the things others struggles with, and our successes and failures with the ways others have succeeded or failed. This can become a compulsion when we get our comparisons tangled up with our fleshly views of ’justice’ and with distorted views of God. The compulsion for comparisons can lead to numerous worse problems such as envy, rivalry, and malice.
Jesus makes no attempt to explain to Peter why God’s plans for Peter were ’fair’ or ’deserved’. He simply says, "If I want him (John) to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?" Peter must simply follow Jesus one way or another; and he should not concern himself with the plans God has for John or for anyone else. This cuts through all of the false human logic that we use to convince ourselves that God owes us something, or to justify our resentment against those who have something that we desire. It also reminds us not to try to set ’standards’ for the faithfulness of others. Jesus and Jesus alone will decide the best ways for each of us to serve him.
True to human nature, the other disciples pay less attention to the real lesson than they do to the superficially intriguing detail that suggests that John might not die*. As for us, it is not important to be able to explain why they were in error in this interpretation, but it is important for us to realize the fruitlessness of our own silly speculations on minor details of Scripture or on ’controversial’ issues. None of these things ever matters nearly as much as Jesus’ call: follow me!
·In fact, historical sources indicate that John did live to be quite old, surviving into the decade of the 90’s of the first century AD, probably living long after the deaths of all of the other original disciples.
John himself has no interest in pursuing secondary matters, no matter how interesting they may seem - for he acknowledges that the whole world would not have room to write down all the things he has seen Jesus do and has heard Jesus say (John 21:24-25). John has given us a healthy sampling of reasons to believe, and now he leaves us with the clear, simple call to follow Jesus.
The apostle fully understands that we must combine his testimony with our own faith. John does not expect us to believe solely based on his testimony, nor does he think that he has proved the gospel beyond any doubt. He has shown us the Christ whom he knew and loved; he has shown us the struggles that he and the other disciples had in developing faith and belief in Jesus; and he has offered to us the same hope of grace and the same call to follow Jesus in which he himself has been so blessed to share.
And now John leaves us with the opportunity to build our own relationship with Jesus - and he leaves it to us and to Jesus to find out the path that our lives and ministries may follow in the days and years ahead.
Questions For Discussion Or Study: In what ways might we think in the same way as Peter did when he asked what would happen to John? How can Jesus’ answer help us? In this context, is there anything especially important about his call to, "follow me"? Why does John emphasize how many other things about Jesus he hasn’t written down? In what way is this comment a suitable closing to the book?
Mark Garner, August 2011
Coffman Commentary on John Chapter One
This chapter falls easily into five divisions: (1) the prologue, John 1:1-18; (2) the deputation from Jerusalem to John the Baptist, John 1:19-28; (3) the events of the next day after that deputation, John 1:29-34; (4) the events of the second day after the deputation, John 1:35-42; and (5) the events of the third day following the historic interview with John the Baptist, John 1:48-51. Thus, aside from the prologue, this chapter records the events of only four days of Jesus’ ministry. Appropriately, it begins with the words, "In the beginning," for a number of important beginnings appear in it, such as:
The beginning of all things, John 1:3.
The beginning of the recognition of Jesus as the Son of God, John 1:34.
The beginning of Jesus’ disciples, John 1:41.
The beginning of the apostleship, John 1:41 f.
The beginning of the use of the title, Son of Man, John 1:51.
The beginning of Jesus’ public ministry.
John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (John 1:1)
The eternal existence of the Lord Jesus Christ and his absolute identification with God and as God are unequivocally stated in the first line of this gospel; and this may be considered the theme of the whole Gospel, every word and every event of the entire narrative having been skillfully chosen by the narrator for the purpose of proving the Godhead of Jesus Christ and of persuading people to believe in him. From this opening word to the end of the Gospel, there is not the slightest deviation from the sacred author’s intention of presenting Jesus Christ as God come in the flesh for the purpose of human redemption, and to whom every person owes the uttermost worship and devotion.
In the beginning ... is like the opening words of Genesis; and, by such a choice of words, the apostle John evaluates the new creation through Jesus Christ in the same category of importance as the physical creation itself, and, in fact, being another creative act of the same Word which was active in the first. A bolder beginning cannot be imagined.
Was the Word ... The Greek word [logos] from which Word is translated was widely known in the world of John’s day, being found some 1,300 times in the writings of Philo, a Hellenistic Jew of Alexandria (30 B.C. to 40 A.D.). However, John owed nothing to Philo, who taught that "the absolute purity, perfection, and loftiness of God would be violated by direct contact with imperfect, impure, and finite things." He even went so far as to say that "God could not be conceived of as actively concerned with the multiplicity of individual things." Philo’s [logos] had no hard identity of any kind, being called the "reason of God" in one view, and in another, "a distinct individual, or hypostasis, standing between God and man." Philo’s [logos] did not create anything, for matter was viewed by him as eternal; and it is impossible to form any intelligent harmony out of Philo’s writings on the [logos], described in the Encyclopedia Britannica as "self-contradictory." It was the inspired genius of the apostle John which seized upon this word, applied it to Christ, and gave it a meaning as far above anything that Philo ever dreamed as the heavens are above the Nile Delta where Philo lived. The Word, as applied to Jesus Christ, is found only four times in the New Testament, twice in this prologue (John 1:1; John 1:14), in 1 John 1:1, and in Revelation 19:13.
John’s use of "Word" [Greek: logos] for Christ Jesus might have been suggested by Psalms 33:6, "By the word of Jehovah were the heavens made," a passage which, according to Hendriksen, represents the Word of God as a person. Whatever the source of the thought that led John to so designate Christ, it was truly inspired by the Holy Spirit and perfectly appropriate. A word, in the primary meaning of the term, is a vessel for the conveyance of an idea; and Christ was the vessel which conveyed the true idea of God to humanity. As Jesus stated it. "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father" (John 14:9).
And the Word was with God ... means that our Lord was intimately associated with the Father upon a parity and equality with him. Hendriksen’s bold translation of this place is:
He himself was in the beginning, face to face with God. The fully divine Word, existing from all eternity as a distinct Person, was enjoying loving fellowship with the Father. Thus, the full deity of Christ, his eternity, and his distinct personal existence are confessed once more, in order that heretics may be refuted and the church may be established in the faith and love of God.
And the Word was God ... This truth might have been deduced from either of the two preceding clauses, but the apostle left nothing to chance, categorically affirming in this third clause that the Word was indeed God, a truth reaffirmed at the end of the prologue (John 1:18), and again by the apostle Thomas (John 20:28). John’s estimate of the deity of Christ does not exceed that of other New Testament writers. For a detailed study of ten New Testament passages that call Jesus "God," see my Commentary on Hebrews, John 1:8.
The apostle’s doctrine of the [Greek: logos] is thus seen to differ from the [logos] of Greek philosophy in these particulars: (1) The New Testament [logos] is God; (2) is personal; (3) created all things, including matter; and (4) became flesh and dwelt among human beings. To presume that John got anything like that out of Philo’s [logos] is like supposing that Thomas Jefferson got the Declaration of Independence out of McGuffy’s Third Reader!
On the statement here that the "Word was God," Dummelow declared that this means that Christ was divine, and is therefore to be worshipped with the same worship as is due the Father.
John 1:2
The same was in the beginning with God.
The three propositions of John 1:1 are here reduced to a single declaration and re-affirmed. As Hovey said:
This emphatic repetition of the first verse prepares the way for the statement that follows in verse third; and the practice of repeating an important truth for the sake of emphasis, or of preparing the mind for connected truth, is characteristic of this evangelist’s style.
John 1:3
All things were made through him; and without him was not anything made that hath been made.
Other New Testament passages which attribute the creation of the universe to Jesus Christ are as follows:
For in him were all things created, in the heavens and upon the earth, things visible and things invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers; all things have been created through him, and unto him; and he is before all things, and in him all things consist (Colossians 1:16-17).
Yet to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we unto him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through him (1 Corinthians 8:6).
(God hath) spoken unto us in his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom also he made the worlds ... (And of the Son he saith) Thou Lord, in the beginning didst lay the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the works of thy hands (Hebrews 1:2; Hebrews 1:10).
Some seek to make a point of the fact that creation is not directly attributed to Jesus in the synoptics, claiming a "contradiction." The point fails in light of the fact that Matthew represented Jesus as having twelve legions of angels, that is, some 75,000 angels, at his command (Matthew 26:53), quoting his words that "All authority in heaven and upon earth" were his (Matthew 28:18-20). One wonders just how such an accumulation of power in Jesus’ hands is any less than the power of God! Mark 5:6 represents Jesus as having authority over the entire demonic creation; Luke 10:19 plainly presents Christ as a being capable of creating all things - hence, there is no conflict. Added to this is the fact that each of the synoptics records instances of Jesus’ raising the dead; and that is an act fully equal to the creation of the world in that only God could have done it. Also, the synoptics are filled with Jesus’ promises of eternal life, which, again, is just as wonderful as creation, or even more wonderful, since the creation itself is not eternal! Those who wish to open a conflict between John and the synoptics must do it upon other grounds than this.
REGARDING CREATION
Throughout the Bible, creation is declared to be an act of God and Christ, or God through Christ; and this Biblical explanation of how the universe came into existence is the only reasonable and intelligent explanation ever given. For the benefit of persons who might have fallen into the foolish and hurtful superstition that this universe merely happened, through chance, or the fortuitous concurrence of atoms, a little further study of the problem of creation is in order. Is it scientific to view the universe as having been created by God?
There is no better answer to this question than some of the statements of brilliant scientific minds; therefore we shall present a short anthology of what some of the greatest scientists of this age are saying with regard to creation. The men whose views shall be offered here hold the highest academic degrees from some of the greatest universities on earth and are as qualified to speak on this subject as any who could be heard. That some scientists are indeed atheists is of no consequence; so are some preachers. The point to remember is that no atheistic scientist holds any higher degrees, has any more intelligence, or possesses any more information pertinent to the question, than do the men cited here. Also, it should be remembered that one’s answer to questions of this kind does not depend upon intelligence alone, but upon spiritual wholeness also.
Frank Allen, Ph.D., Cornell University, Professor of biophysics, University of Manitoba, recipient of the Tory Gold Medal, Royal Society of Canada, commented on the ponderous protein molecule, the basic building block of all life, and noted that it has about 40,000 atoms arranged in an exceedingly complicated pattern. Regarding the possibility that even a single molecule, such as that, could have been produced by chance, he said:
The amount of matter to be shaken together to produce a single molecule of protein would be millions of times greater than that in the whole universe. For it to occur on earth alone would require almost endless billions of years (10 to the power of 243). But proteins as chemicals are without life. It is only when the mysterious life comes into them that they live. Only Infinite Mind, that is, God, could have foreseen that such a molecule could be the abode of life, could have constructed, and made it live.
Merritt Stanley Congdon, natural scientist and philosopher, holder of three doctorates from Webster and Burton Universities, and a member of several learned societies, stated that:
There are no facts yet wrested from the intriguing mysteries of this strange onrushing cosmos which can in any degree disprove the existence and intelligent activities of an unconditioned, personal God. On the contrary, when we as careful scientists analyze and synthesize the data of the natural world, we are observing only the phenomena of the operations of that unseen Being who cannot be found by mere scientific seeking, but who can and did manifest himself in human form. For science is indeed "watching God at work."
John Cleveland Cothran, Ph.D., Cornell University, mathematician and scientist, Chairman of Mathematics and Science Division, Duluth, University of Minnesota, said:
Lord Kelvin, one of the world’s greatest physicists, has made the following significant statement: "If you think strongly enough, you will be forced by science to believe in God." I must declare myself in full agreement with this statement .... Now the material realm, not being able to create itself and its governing laws, the act of creation must have been performed by some non-material agent .... That is to say, we unhesitatingly accept the fact of the existence of the supreme spiritual being, God, the Creator and Director of the universe.
Donald Henry Porter, Ph.D., University of Indiana, distinguished mathematician and physicist, declared that:
Whatever process of nature is considered, or whatever question of origins is studied, as a scientist, I derive satisfaction only by placing God in the leading role. God is the central figure in every picture. He alone is the answer to the unanswered questions.
Edward Luther Kessel, Ph.D., University of California, outstanding zoologist and entomologist, also editor of distinguished scientific publications, affirms that:
During recent years, scientific research has been yielding new evidence supporting the traditional philosophical proofs that there is a God. Not that this new evidence was necessary, for the old proofs were more than adequate to convince anyone whose mind was not encrusted in a capsule of prejudice.
W. O. Lundberg, Ph.D., Johns Hopkins University, physiologist and biochemist, noted writer in scientific fields, observed that:
The scientific method is founded on orderliness and predictability in natural phenomena. It is precisely this orderliness and predictability that constitute a revelation of God in nature. Order and predictability in the framework of non-existence of God is a meaningless contradiction.
Paul Clarence Abersold, Ph.D., University of California, member of National Research Council, specialist in nuclear physics, Manhattan Project, Atomic Energy Commission, an authority on neutron radiation and isotopes, wrote:
Although science can develop very plausible theories of a cataclysmic birth of the universe resulting in galaxies, stars, worlds, and atoms, it cannot explain where all this matter and energy came from and why the universe is so constituted and ordered. Straight thinking and clear reasoning demand the concept of God.
Marlin Brooks Kreider, Ph.D., University of Maryland, physiologist, member of American Society of Professional Biologists, said:
Both as an ordinary human being, and also as a man devoting his life to scientific study and research, I have no doubt at all about the existence of God. There definitely is a God.... I see at the beginning of the cosmic road, not eternal energy, or matter, not "inscrutable fate," not a "fortuitous conflux of primordial elements," not "The Great Unknown," but the Lord God Almighty.
George Earl Davis, Ph.D., University of Minnesota, a specialist in solar radiation, and widely known physicist, denied the popular notion that atheism is more prevalent among scientists, noting that such a thesis has never been proved. He then added:
Such a popular belief is, in fact, contrary to impressions gained at first hand by many of the scientists themselves. These revelations in the natural world of transcending intelligence ... are, for me, sufficient evidence of a God. They are sufficient even without the inference that no material thing can create itself.
John William Klotz, Ph.D., University of Pittsburgh, noted specialist in genetics, began his answer to this question with two quotations from the Old Testament:
The heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament showeth his handiwork. The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. This world of ours is so complex and intricate that it could hardly have risen by chance. It is filled with intricacies which require as their cause an Intelligent Being, not blind fate.
Irving William Knobloch, Ph.D., Iowa State College, Professor of Natural Science in Michigan State University, wrote:
I believe in God because mere chance could not account for the emergence of the first electrons or protons, or for the first atoms, or for the first amino acids, or for the first protoplasm, or for the first seed or for the first brain. I believe in God because His divine existence is the only logical explanation for things as they are.
There is no need to multiply scientific witnesses of the truth that there is nothing unscientific about accepting the Scriptural account of creation, which is indeed the ONLY account that makes any sense whatever. In Monsma’s impressive anthology from which the above examples have been taken, there are thirty others just as bold and emphatic; and, in this writer’s library, there are at least a hundred more. These few have been introduced here to refute the notion that any man, or any group of men, on earth has any knowledge or information disproving even in the slightest degree the Scriptural account of creation. The conclusion of this study of the creation might be summed up by the Lord’s word: "The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God" (Psalms 14:1).
With characteristic clarity and emphasis, the apostle stated the truth of John 1:3, first positively, and then negatively, to avoid any possible misunderstanding.
John 1:4
In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
In him was life ... Life was a favorite term with the author of John. "The noun occurs thirty-six times, and eleven are in conjunction with the adjective ETERNAL." The use of the past tense shows that true spiritual life was in Christ before the incarnation, emphasizing the truth that all of the hopes of worshipers under Israel’s law were actually in the Lord Jesus Christ, just as it is with all who ever lived. Physical life does not seem to be the subject here, but as the agent of creation, Christ contained all life of every kind. All life came through Christ, is sustained by him, and is responsible to him.
The light of men ... God’s revelation of Himself to sinful and fallen humanity appears in this. Beginning at the gates of Eden, God laid down the program of instruction and revelation designed for the enlightenment of all people, and the guidance of all people into the way of eternal life (Genesis 3:15). Although the Adamic fall is not mentioned here, it is implied through the identification of man’s source of light, being not within himself, but derived from the Saviour. Only they are enlightened who know the life in Christ; all others are in darkness.
John 1:5
And the light shineth in the darkness; and the darkness apprehended it not.
The dramatic shift to the present tense shows that John was not here dealing merely with a past phenomenon, but with a present reality. In the very nature of that ineffable light in Christ Jesus, it is at once past, present, and future, ever shining in the gloom of mortal darkness; and in the remarkable truth of this Gospel, that light was viewed as a blazing sun illuminating the night of human sin and rebellion against God.
And the darkness apprehended it not ... Some of the translations favor "the darkness overcame it not"; however, a comparison with parallel expressions: "the world knew him not" (John 1:10 b), and "his own received him not" (John 1:11 b), justifies the rendition here. Of course, it is also true that "the darkness overcame it not," nor will it ever do so. The basic hostility between light and darkness, good and evil, the kingdom of God and the kingdom of evil, appears in this verse. The unregenerated world hates God and the knowledge of his truth; but the hatred and opposition of evil men cannot prevent the light from shining. It shines of its own inherent glory regardless of how inadequate human response to it might be. The history of the last two millenniums is here summarized as the Light shining in darkness!
John 1:6
There came a man, sent from God, whose name was John.
The apostle John nowhere referred to the great herald as John the Baptist, but simply as John, as should have been expected, since the apostle himself was the only other John of Biblical significance in that entire era, thus supporting the conviction of apostolic authorship of this Gospel, and demanding the inference that the other John was the writer of this Gospel. Any forger would have been careful to explain which John he meant; but the apostle John had no need to do so.
Sent from God ... identifies John the Baptist as a true prophet with a valid message from God. This verse, and the two following, form a parenthesis in this prologue dealing with the mission of John the Baptist.
John 1:7
The same came for witness, that he might bear witness of the light, that all might believe through him. He was not the light, but came that he might bear witness of the light.
This parenthesis, including John 1:6, presents the following facts with reference to John the Baptist:
He came from God and was therefore a true prophet.
He was not the light.
His mission was to bear witness to the light.
To bear witness to the light was to bear witness to Jesus Christ.
It is true, of course, that Jesus himself said of John, "He was the lamp that burneth and shineth; and ye were willing to rejoice for a season in his light" (John 5:35); but the apostle John here made a distinction between the light of John the Baptist, which was a dim and borrowed light, and that true light which lighteth every man coming into the world. In no sense could John the Baptist be that light. As the true light, Christ was self-revealed, independent, pre-existent, and eternal. He was the perfect light, in that the source was in himself as identified with the Father.
That all might believe through him ... The purpose of God in sending John the Baptist was that all people might believe in Christ. His was the function of a herald who went ahead of a king to announce his coming and to prepare the popular mind to receive him. John the Baptist effectively discharged that responsibility. The fact that many would not believe was due to hardening and prejudice on their part and not to any fault of the noble herald who went before the Lord in the spirit and power of Elijah.
John 1:9
There was the true light, even the light which lighteth every man, coming into the world.
There was the true light ... coming into the world ... This speaks of the sudden appearance of Christ the world’s Redeemer, his "coming into the world" indicating his preexistence, and making his appearance among human beings an act of our Lord’s own volition. This corresponds perfectly with Luke’s account of the "Dayspring from on High" and his visitation among people (Luke 1:78). "Coming into the world" is here a reference to the light, not to "every man."
Which lighteth every man ... This could be viewed as hyperbole, of course, since that figure is often used in Scripture; but there seems to be something far more than mere hyperbole here. Hovey thought that:
It may signify that some knowledge of God is given to every man by the Word. We understand it, however, as a description of the normal relation of the Word to mankind, as an affirmation that, if one fails of true and saving knowledge, it is because he closes the eye of his soul to it, and not because the Word has failed to offer it to him.
The view maintained by this writer is that light from Jesus Christ has truly reached and benefited, in some degree, every person who ever was born after Jesus came. Whatever enlightenment there may be anywhere on earth, it derives finally from Christ. Wherever there is concern for the poor, the downtrodden, the helpless, the aged, the hungry, the bereaved, or whatever - there the light has dispelled at least some of the darkness. The great pity is that light even unto eternal life is available for every man, but not all avail themselves of it.
John 1:10
He was in the world, and the world was made through him, and the world knew him not.
These words bluntly state a near incredibility. That the very Creator of the world should cast aside the glory of His eternal existence and choose to enter earth life as a man subject to all the inconveniences and limitations of the flesh - that is a fact of awesome wonder; but added to that is the obstinate and rebellious refusal of the Lord’s creation to acknowledge Him when he came! As the prophet cried out so long ago, "Lord, who hath believed our report?" (Isaiah 53:1). God was not taken by surprise by man’s refusal to know the Lord, for His prophets had faithfully foretold it. The repetition of "world" in these lines dramatizes the marvel of humanity’s not knowing Jesus when he came.
John 1:11
He came unto his own, and they that were his own received him not.
Here is the same dramatic repetition of "his own," similar to the repetition of "the world" in the previous verse. The better part of a century had passed since Jesus came, when John wrote these words; and yet, in these words, the apostle seems still to be struck with the marvel that the Lord’s own people, the chosen people, who should have been the first to know and hail his coming, that even THOSE PEOPLE did not welcome him. The words of the apostle in this passage reveal a profound and pathetic grief on his own part that Israel, in its major aspect, had rejected the Lord - but not all of them. These words strongly remind one of Paul’s words (Romans 9:1-5). John, having registered the fact of the unbelief of the chosen people (in major part, that is), next turned to a consideration of those who had received him.
John 1:12
But as many as received him, to them gave he the right to become children of God, even to them that believe on his name.
As many as received him ... and "them that believe on his name" refer to the same persons, namely, to those who accepted the claims of Jesus Christ as the Son of God and believed the message that he delivered to mankind. Since the days of Martin Luther, many religious persons have believed that faith alone makes people children of God; but, in this verse, it is clear that believers are not sons of God merely because they are believers, but that believers have the right to become sons of God. As Johnson explained it:
It is not declared that they were made children by believing, but to the believer he gives the power to become a child. When one believes in Christ, his faith becomes a power to lead him to yield himself to God and to receive the Word into his heart. He can then repent of sin, surrender to the will of the Father, and, being baptized into Christ, he puts on Christ, becomes the Lord’s brother and a child of God by adoption.
The efforts to get rid of the plain teaching of this verse have resulted in some fantastic assertions, as, for example,
The right to become children of God is reserved for the future, when freed from every impurity, the life of God, his holiness and love, shall have become completely manifest in us.
But, of course, John was speaking here of the right, or power; that men enjoy now, the privilege of being children of God now. Absolutely nothing in this text warrants removing the privilege to some far-off eternity. That some should have recourse to such an explanation is proof enough that the text contradicts the popular notion of salvation by faith only.
Gave them the right ... The privilege of being a child of God is the greatest privilege afforded by life on earth; but even when people have complied with the conditions antecedent to the gift, no one can ever be considered as deserving or meriting so marvelous a gift. The disagreements of people regarding the terms of salvation should never obscure the truth that salvation CANNOT be earned or merited by mortal man. Conditions there certainly are, else salvation would have to be universal; but when all conditions are complied with, the sinner is still saved by grace.
John 1:3
Who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor the will of man, but of God.
New birth is a condition of salvation, and it was assumed by John that believers who received the right to become God’s children would exercise it by obedience of the gospel, thus being born again (see under John 3:5); and the burden of the thought in this verse is that the new birth is of God, spiritual, and from above, and that it does not derive from Abrahamic descent, that is, "of blood," nor "of the flesh" nor "of the will of man." The new birth is not caused by, nor does it follow, sexual activity, whether of men or of women. Two thoughts in this verse were developed later in the Gospel - that of the new birth in John 3:1-36, and that of the true children of Abraham in John 8:1-59.
John 1:14
And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us (And we beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father), full of grace and truth.
They greatly err who suppose that John differed from the synoptics regarding the virgin birth of our Lord, for it is in this verse recorded that the Word who was God did in fact become flesh, and that he was "the only begotten" of the Father! John’s terminology here is fantastic. He did not use any of the terminology employed by the synoptics, and yet he stated here the doctrine of the virgin birth in terms that were suggested by his presentation of Christ as the divine Word. That the author was an eye-witness of Christ’s glory is affirmed in the parenthesis. Significantly, the pronoun "we" indicates that others besides the author had opportunity to witness the Word incarnate; and thus the statement here has the weight of a confession by ALL the apostles of the deity and Godhead of Jesus Christ.
The Word became flesh ... connects with John 1:1-2 and means that God became a man. This is John’s statement of the doctrine of the incarnation, the central mystery of our holy religion. As Hendriksen observed, however,
The verb "became" has a very special meaning here. Not "became" in the sense of ceasing to be what he was before. When the wife of Lot "becomes" a pillar of salt, she ceases to be the wife of Lot; but when Lot "becomes" the father of Moab and Ammon, he remains Lot. So also here, the Word "becomes" flesh but remains the Word, even God.
Thus, our Lord was perfect in Godhead and perfect in manhood, and yet one Person.
Flesh ... as used here simply means human nature in possession of a body but does not imply any taint of sin (Romans 8:3). This assumption of a human body by our Lord was of his own volition, as attested in Hebrews 2:16 and Philippians 2:7. "Flesh," as used by John in this verse, carries with it none of the implications of Paul’s frequent usage of the term, a distinction that Paul himself carefully preserved. It means the genuine, perfect, holy, human nature of our Lord. Thus, in this single verse, John refuted all of the Gnostic disparagement of man’s physical nature.
And dwelt among us ... may imply a great deal more than the English words denote, because:
The Greek word (translated "dwelt") derived from the noun for "tent," is often used without any reference to its etymology; but so allusive a writer as John may well have been thinking of the tabernacle in the wilderness where the Lord dwelt with Israel (Exodus 25:8-9; Exodus 40:34), and more particularly of that pillar of cloud above the tent of meetings, typifying the visible dwelling of the Lord among his people.
On account of this, some translators, following the Greek more exactly, render it "tabernacled among us." The idea is that Christ’s earthly sojourn was not a fleeting, or illusory, appearance, but a sustained and continued existence as a man among human beings, giving his contemporaries every opportunity to observe and evaluate his life and mission.
And we beheld his glory ... The verb "beheld" does not refer to some casual or incomplete observance; but, as Tenney noted:
The verb "beheld" contains the root of the word "theater" and connotes more than a casual glance. It involves careful scrutiny of what is before one in order to understand its significance. The incarnate Logos was studied under all possible conditions, favorable, and unfavorable. All the information that human investigation could produce was made available by his willingness to be questioned and observed.
As of the only begotten from the Father ... There can be little doubt that John here referred to the transfiguration; but the glory of Christ included far more than that. As Dummelow said:
Not merely the visible glory of the Transfiguration and the Ascension, but the moral and spiritual splendor of his unique life, which revealed the nature of the invisible Father. (It was) not a reflected glory, as would have been the case had he been a mere human saint or prophet, but it was the glory of God’s only begotten Son, and therefore God’s own glory, for Christ and the Father are one.
Only begotten ... is unique to this apostle, and is used in John 1:18; John 3:16-18, and 1 John 4:9. As noted above, such a title could never have been used except by one who understood and accepted the doctrine of the virgin birth of Christ. The unique authority and glory of Christ also appear in this, because such a title excludes the notion that any human being, or any angel, could be the Son of God in the sense that Jesus is.
Grace and truth ... Commenting on these two words as reference to our Lord, Westcott wrote:
The combination recalls the description of Jehovah, Exodus 34:6, and is not infrequent in the Old Testament. As applied to the Lord, the phrase marks him as the author of perfect Redemption and perfect Revelation. Grace corresponds with the idea of revelation of God as love (1 John 4:8; 1 John 4:16) by him who is Life; and TRUTH with that of the revelation of God as light (1 John 1:5) by him who is himself Light
John 1:15
John beareth witness of him and crieth, saying, This was he of whom I said, he that cometh after me is become before me: for he was before me.
The principal purpose of this Gospel is stated in John 20:30-31; but this teaching on John the Baptist could have been included, partially at least, to refute the erroneous views of a sect which had continued to follow the Baptist, even continuing to be baptized in his name, as was the case with certain disciples mentioned in Acts 19:3. Although Paul had taught against such an error and had even required the re-baptism of those who held to John’s baptism, there could still have been some vestiges of the old error remaining until the time when this Gospel was written. Whether or not this could have been true, the apostolic author here stressed the fact that John the Baptist pointed away from himself and toward the Christ. As one of the great herald’s own disciples, originally, John was in a position to speak with the greatest authority on all matters pertaining to the relationship between John the Baptist and Jesus Christ. This verse shows exactly what the relationship truly was. Between the two, there was the difference between God and man, time and eternity, the finite and the infinite, between the sun and the reflected light of the moon, between the Lord and the servant unworthy to unloose his sandals. Furthermore, John the Baptist himself had faithfully borne witness to the difference.
The statement of the herald John that Christ was "before" him shows that the apostle’s understanding of the pre-existence of Christ and the eternity of the Word had begun with his own acceptance of the teaching of the herald John on those very subjects. The herald was six months older than Jesus, and, only in respect to Jesus’ eternal existence before the incarnation, could he have affirmed that Christ was before him. Westcott and others reject the meaning here attributed to BEFORE; but Dummelow thought the meaning valid, paraphrasing it thus, "He existed before my birth, and even before his own birth, as the eternal Son of God."
John 1:16
For of his fullness we all received, and grace for grace.
All blessings come from God. The wealth that people receive is invariably through the employment of God-given talents and opportunities; the vigor, strength, health, and intelligence of every person is given to him from above. The great artists have no cause for the vanity which often marks their conduct, since all skills and abilities are from the Lord. In his remarkable Essay on Experience, Emerson wrote:
Nothing is of us or our works ... all is of God. Nature will not spare us the smallest leaf of laurel. All writing comes by the grace of God, and all doing and having. I would gladly allow the most to the will of man, but I have set my heart on honesty in this chapter, and I can see nothing at last in success or failure, than more or less of vital force supplied from the Eternal.
John 1:17
For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.
Christ was not only greater than the mighty John the Baptist, but was also transcendantly above the great law-giver, Moses. This verse does not mean that grace and truth were not evidenced by the law of Moses, but that the grace and truth through the Lord Jesus Christ far exceeded anything in the old dispensation. The great heroes under the old covenant, all of the majestic ceremonial of the Jewish system, as well as all the burden of the great prophecies reached the zenith of their meaning and fulfillment in Christ. The true knowledge of God the Father of all creation came uniquely in the Lord Jesus who could truly say, "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father!" (John 14:9). The very next verse is even a more forceful statement of the same truth.
John 1:18
No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
Westcott observed that "truth" and "knowledge of God" throughout this passage, as well as elsewhere in John, have reference to one and the same thing. This verse reveals Christ as the true basis of all genuine human enlightenment concerning God, but it begins by pointing out the inherent human limitation of being unable actually to see God (in the highest sense) while still in the flesh. Thus, due to his limitation, man can enjoy true knowledge of God only through the revelation of the one who, as both God and man, is in a position truly to reveal him. This verse declares that Christ has indeed provided for man such a faithful revelation of the Father.
No man hath seen God at any time ... This is not a contradiction of Exodus 24:10, where it is recorded that a whole company of Israelites "saw the God of Israel"; nor is this a contradiction of Job 42:5, where Job said of God, "Now mine eye seeth thee." Of course the TERMINOLOGY of these passages is contradictory: no man hath seen ... they saw; but "seeing" is not used in the same sense in these passages. As Torrey observed:
We must remember that two statements which in terms flatly contradict one another may be both of them absolutely true, for the reason that the two terms are not used in the same sense in the two statements.
Language offers hundreds of examples of the same words used in different meanings. This writer has a friend who is blind; but on his recent return from Europe, he spoke of "seeing" some of the great cities. If one asks another if he ever saw the back of his head, the answer could be either affirmative or negative, depending on the sense of the verb. Obviously, God is a Spirit, eternal, immortal, invisible; and no man has seen God in the sense of seeing the invisible Spirit; but God has manifested himself in Jesus our Lord; and he that hath truly "seen" Jesus has seen God.
The only begotten Son ... The oldest and most reliable manuscripts of this Gospel read "only begotten God" in this passage, and it should be so translated." translation="">John 1:18."> Tenney declared that "The evidence for ONLY BEGOTTEN GOD is so strong as to be practically conclusive ... ONLY BEGOTTEN GOD makes an unequivocal affirmation of the deity of Christ." Archaeological evidence continues to strengthen the preference for ONLY BEGOTTEN GOD in this place. Frank Pack, in a critical study of Papyrus Bodmer II, P66, writing in 1960, stated,
P-66 here (John 1:18) contains the very interesting reading [@monogenes] [@Theos] (only begotten God) ... Thus, another early witness is given to [@monogenes] [@Theos] despite the fact that English Revised Version (1885) and the RSV continue to follow the second reading. [@Monogenes] [@Theos] (only begotten God) must be the original meaning.
In view of the practical certainty that Jesus is here called the "only begotten God," it may be inquired why so many versions and translations continue to render the passage, "only begotten Son"; and the answer lies in the truth that SON OF GOD, as applied to Jesus Christ, has exactly the same connotation, being in fact no less an unequivocal affirmation of our Lord’s deity than ONLY BEGOTTEN GOD. Thus, as Westcott said, "The common translation makes no difference in the sense of the passage.
Of course, what Westcott said is true, provided only that people understand all that is meant by the expression, SON OF GOD; but that is exactly where the problem is. Many people misconstrue SON OF GOD as meaning something less than absolute deity; and, since the apostle John here employed terminology incapable of being misunderstood, it is all the more regrettable that the translators in their wisdom (!) have violated the Received Text in their handling of this verse, a violation they would not have committed if the weight of it had been in the opposite direction.
In this magnificent verse, the apostle shows how human beings may know God, despite the fact that God may not be known through human sensory perception. God is revealed to mankind by Jesus Christ, the Holy One. The nature and attributes of God are revealed through Christ whose identity with the Father is complete and whose identity with man is also perfect. This verse is the climax of the prologue and the topic sentence of the entire Gospel. John carefully assembled and deployed his amazing material in this Gospel to prove that Christ is God come in the flesh and to induce faith on the part of man in the world’s only Redeemer.
Who is in the bosom of the Father ... suggests the most intimate union and identity with God on the part of Christ. The bosom of the Father is best understood, not as a literal place or location, but as a state of existence. In a similar use of this expression, Jesus declared that Lazarus was in Abraham’s bosom (Luke 16:22).
He hath declared him ... means far more than merely talking about God. Jesus said, "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father" (John 14:9). In Gnosticism, prevalent after John’s time, so-called wise men taught esoteric "knowledge" that was supposed to make one "wise," hence the name of the sect; and, in the Hellenistic mystery cults, there were all kinds of teachers of secret lore; but the revelation in Jesus Christ was not something whispered in a cave. His revelation of God to man was like the star that announced his birth, blazing forth the truth to all generations of human beings, his very life being the Light of people.
This verse concludes the prologue. Before passing on to a consideration of subsequent passages, there is one further comment regarding The Word. The Holy Scriptures themselves have been called the word of God in all generations; and, since Jesus is here designated the Word, a comparison of Christ and the Bible is suggested.
CHRIST AND THE BIBLE
1. Christ was both human and divine, and so is the Bible. The Lord identified himself as one with the Father, and yet he was also the son of the virgin Mary, of the posterity of David and of Abraham. Likewise, the Bible is in fact the word of God; yet, at the same time, it is the writing by men like Isaiah, Moses, Matthew, Luke, and Paul. That there is mystery here is certain, and it cannot be explained exactly how this is true; but every child of God knows that these dual qualities of humanity and divinity are found both in Christ and in the Bible.
2. Christ and the Bible are both "of the Jews." Jesus was born of Jewish ancestry, his forbears being the great worthies of the Old Testament; and also the Bible is Jewish, most of its writers being Jews. The parallel between Christ and the Bible even extends to this, that as there were a few Gentiles conspicuously among the Lord’s fleshly ancestors, such as Ruth and Tamar, there are also some Gentile writers of the Bible, notably Job and the evangelist Luke,
3. Both Christ and the Bible have been disbelieved, mocked, tried with false trials, and crucified. The passion and crucifixion of the Lord are well known; but some may not know that during the French Revolution the Bible was publicly tried and condemned, tied to the tail of a donkey which was ridden by a harlot, and dragged through the streets of Paris to the city dump. As John Macmillan wrote, "The Bible is like the Lord in its crucifixion, being crucified by many who are enemies of the cross of Christ."
4. Both the Lord and the Bible have triumphed over death, the Lord by rising from the new tomb of Joseph of Arimathea, and the Bible by rising from every grave to which it was ever consigned. One astonishing example of this is seen in the burning of Tyndale’s Bibles at the foot of St. Paul’s cross in London; and the more money that was received from the Bibles that were bought to be burned, the greater the output of presses making more Bibles. However, the Bible survived another type of death. As languages changed, there came a time historically when the Bible no longer existed in the language of common men; but with the coming of men like Wycliffe and Tyndale, the Bible cast off the grave clothes of the dead languages in which it was enshrouded; and today it is published in practically every language under heaven.
This subject is rather extensive, and only the barest suggestion of it is included here. John Macmillan’s book, The Crucified and Risen Bible, gives it full treatment.
DEPUTATION FROM JERUSALEM TO JOHN THE BAPTIST
This paragraph (John 1:19-28) takes note of the impact of John’s mission upon the religious hierarchy in Jerusalem, who were impressed with the thousands of people being baptized and with the bold and dynamic preaching of the great herald. A delegation was sent to investigate.
John 1:19
And this is the witness of John, when the Jews sent unto him from Jerusalem priests and Levites to ask him, Who art thou? And he confessed and denied not; and he confessed, I am not the Christ.
The apostle John had already referred to John the Baptist (John 1:6-8); and as it was he who had first turned the eyes of the apostle to Jesus, it was most appropriate that he should have developed that witness more fully. These events were placed in the holy record primarily because of their testimony to the divine Messiahship of Jesus; but, since these things resulted directly in his becoming a follower of Christ, John recorded them in detail. A great deal of time had intervened between the events and their narration; but their importance to the apostle made it natural that his vivid memory would have retained all the details, even apart from his inspiration. The four successive days with their remarkable chain of happenings changed the whole course of the apostle’s life. These four days were in the spring, about the first of March, of the first year of our Lord’s ministry.
The Jews from Jerusalem ... The word "Jews," by the end of the first century and the time John wrote this Gospel, had acquired a sinister meaning in the entire Christian society, resulting from official Israel’s rejection of the Saviour, and from the ensuing hardening of secular Israel, as had been prophesied by the Lord, and which had been treated at length in the writings of Paul, John’s use of this word throughout the Gospel was to designate the avowed enemies of Christ; and it should never be understood as including the whole race of Israel, despite the fact that the vast majority of Israel had followed their evil leaders in rejecting Christ. The notable exceptions, beginning with the apostles themselves, included many who were Israelites indeed, and who, along with many Gentiles, composed the true Israel of God, the spiritual Israel.
The Sanhedrin, the official religious hierarchy which condemned Jesus to death, was doubtless the body that initiated this inquiry; and why? The popular report of John’s success had reached Jerusalem; and, unthinkably, from their viewpoint he was even teaching that "Jews" needed repentance and baptism! Were they not the chosen people? What brand of teaching was this, then, that demanded repentance of Jews? Also, there had been whispers that this man might be the Messiah; and were not the lords of the Sanhedrin God’s chosen instruments for running down and foiling any false Messiah?
Priests and Levites ... Most of the high priestly class were Sadducees, and it is remarkable that some of the delegation were Pharisees (John 1:24). The mutual hatred of those sects raises a question of how the Pharisees came to have a part in the inquiry; but one obvious explanation is found in the invariable tendency of bitterest enemies to unite in a common opposition to Christ. These same two sects made common cause against Jesus (Matthew 22:23-40), despite the fact that Jesus had publicly triumphed over the Sadducees in their position on the resurrection, and despite the further fact that the Pharisees themselves also rejected the Sadducees’ position. Those who attribute any mistake to John in his identifying Pharisees as party to the investigation must do so upon an unjustifiable presumption.
Confessed and denied not; and he confessed, I am not the Christ ... The double use of "confessed" derives from the statement in the first clause that there was a confession and the identification in the second clause of what the confession was. The unique construction reflects Jewish idiom. Thus, Josephus wrote of King Saul, "Saul confessed that he was guilty and denied not the sin." Numerous little touches like this throughout the Gospel make it absolutely certain that the writer was Jewish.
John 1:21
And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elijah? and he saith, I am not. Art thou the prophet? And he answered, No.
John the Baptist was called Elijah by Christ himself (Matthew 17:12), and this raises the question of why John here denied it. This is another example of the kind of "contradiction" which so delights some of the critics. Literally, John the Baptist was NOT Elijah, and John’s literal answer WAS literally true. Typically and spiritually, John the Baptist was THAT Elijah foretold in Malachi 4:5; but there is no evidence that John the Baptist knew his own identity as that Elijah; and, if he did know it, his answer was still the truth. The angel’s annunciation of the birth of John the Baptist had clearly linked the great herald with the promised return of Elijah, a fact which the Sanhedrin should have known, since the announcement was made in the temple itself and to one of their priests in the course of his solemn duties therein. However, the popular notion was that the original Elijah would rise from the dead; and, if John the Baptist had given an affirmative answer to their question, it would have been, in the context, a falsehood. Therefore, he denied that he was Elijah, in the sense in which the question had been asked. Thus, even if John the Baptist knew that he was "that Elijah," and it may be assumed that he did know it, the gross literalization of the promised return of Elijah in the popular mind would have made it impossible for him to have answered affirmatively.
Art thou the prophet? ... is a reference to the prophet like unto Moses (Deuteronomy 18:15-18) who must be identified with the Messiah. This question therefore covers the same ground as the query, "Art thou the Christ?" which had already been answered. It was the old reporter’s trick of asking the same question again in different words, and John again answered it negatively.
John 1:22
They said therefore unto him, Who art thou? that we may give an answer to them that sent us. What sayest thou of thyself?
Them that sent us ... are identified as Jews (John 1:19), and Pharisees (John 1:24), that sect, due to the nature of their party, being far more concerned with the promised coming of a Messiah than were the Sadducees, and likewise with what they suspected might be the literal resurrection of Elijah. The Sadducees did not believe in any resurrection.
The manner and content of the questioning here, as well as the appeal to the prophecy of Isaiah, a moment later, are in full harmony with the apostle’s statement that the Pharisees had initiated this investigation. The supposition that the Sadducees made up the whole body of the Sanhedrin has never been proved; and for men to make such a supposition the grounds of declaring John in error here is illogical. People know too little about Democrats and Republicans in our own times to make any assumption that we have any thorough knowledge of the political intricacies of the Jewish Sanhedrin in the times of Christ. In fact, all that we really know is the information contained here in the Gospel, which came from inspired sources and not from contemporary human records, which, it may be assumed, have been colored and distorted in every conceivable manner through the bias or ignorance of uninspired writers.
Having answered their threefold question regarding Christ, Elijah, and that Prophet, negatively, John next responded with an affirmative statement regarding himself.
John 1:23
He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said Isaiah the prophet.
The prophecy mentioned here is Isaiah 40:3, and thus John laid claim to the office of the harbinger of the Messiah. The synoptics applied this prophecy to John the Baptist (Matthew 3:3; Mark 1:3; Luke 3:4).
John 1:24-25
And they had been sent from the Pharisees. And they asked him and said unto him, Why then baptizest thou, if thou art not the Christ, neither Elijah, neither the prophet?
From the Pharisees ... This mention of that sect was to explain why the investigation continued with such persistence. Had only the Sadducees been involved, it is inconceivable that those hypocrites would have proceeded any further than John’s admission that he was not the Messiah. Certainly, they would never have concerned themselves about any possibility of John’s being Elijah raised from the dead! They did not believe in the resurrection. Therefore, John the apostle explained the extent and duration of the interview by noting the Pharisees’ part in it.
It was the baptizing and not the preaching which caused the greatest perplexity in John’s questioners. The extensive mass cleansing of the whole nation through repentance and baptism clearly suggested the great cleansing that had been prophesied by Ezekiel of the times of the Messiah (Ezekiel 36:25; Ezekiel 37:23); why then was John doing it if indeed he was not Christ nor the kind of forerunner they expected to precede the Christ? This query shows that they had missed completely the implication of John’s quoting Isaiah 40:3, in which he made it clear that he was actually the forerunner of the Messiah, but not the literal Elijah they had expected.
John 1:26-27
John answered them saying, I baptize in water: in the midst of you standeth one whom ye know not, even he that cometh after me, the latchet of whose shoes I am unworthy to loose.
Hendriksen’s comment on this is:
Why does he baptize? He answers that while he administers the sign (water), he does not claim to be able to bestow the thing signified (the Holy Spirit). That is Messiah’s high prerogative, and that glorious One has even now arrived upon the scene of Israel’s history, though they have not recognized him.
Such a comment misses the point. John was answering the question of why he was baptizing; but, if Hendriksen’s comment is what John meant, he did not answer the question at all. The thought that "Well, my baptism is only a sign" is no reason at all for baptizing, but is rather a good reason for not baptizing! It will be noted that there is no reference to the Holy Spirit in this passage.
I baptize in water ... Note that it was IN, not WITH, water that John baptized, indicating immersion as the action which constituted baptism. John repeated the fact already mentioned by his questioners that he was baptizing people, and then he told them why he was baptizing. Why was it? The Messiah had already arrived but had not yet been publicly revealed. Hence, it was appropriate that the herald should be about the business of cleansing the nation through repentance and baptism, that being God’s way of making ready a people prepared to receive the Messiah. The concise answer of why John was baptizing is in the last clause of this verse, "In the midst of you standeth one whom ye know not."
John 1:28
These things were done in Bethany beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing.
The place names mentioned in John are so numerous, yet always incidental to the main narrative, that their very profusion compels the conclusion that the author was writing truth which belonged to his immediate knowledge and recollection. The scenes of John’s baptizing were Bethany, as here, and Aenon (John 3:23). Since there were two Bethanys, the other being only a couple of miles from Jerusalem, he distinguished this one as being "beyond Jordan." The exact location of this Bethany is not certain. Hendriksen placed it thirteen miles below Lake Galilee and twenty miles southeast of Nazareth and presented convincing arguments why the more southerly location near the Dead Sea, as shown on some of the old maps, is probably wrong. This verse concluded the apostle’s record of the first one of those four great days which lived in his memory.
John 1:29
On the morrow he seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith Behold, the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world!
EVENTS OF THE SECOND DAY
The previous verses of this chapter give the historical situation leading to the call of the first disciples, one of the key elements in that situation having been the delegation from the religious community in Jerusalem and the ensuing discussion with John the Baptist, which resulted in a clearer definition of the true status of John as the harbinger of the Messiah and the forerunner of one even greater than himself. The humble acceptance of the great herald of such a secondary and subordinate position was exceedingly significant in the eyes of his more perceptive disciples, especially to the deeply spiritual author of this Gospel; and their consequent awakening to the expectation of the Greater One paved the way for all that followed.
On the morrow ... the very next day following the events just related, John saw Jesus coming toward him, exactly at the most propitious moment. The Lord Jesus Christ was exactly on schedule; and his providential appearance before John and his followers at that precise juncture of events must have been due to the supernatural knowledge and wisdom of our Lord. The great Immerser was in exactly the right frame of mind to identify the Saviour, and his most able disciples had been fully prepared, emotionally and intellectually, to transfer their love and loyalty to Jesus Christ. Far more than merely accidental circ*mstances are evident in these momentous developments.
Behold the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world ... Thus John the Baptist hailed Jesus of Nazareth as the long expected Messiah of Israel and the Saviour of all mankind. From the gates of Paradise until that dramatic instant, the sacrificial lamb had been the paramount and dominating feature of the worship of God throughout both the patriarchal and Mosaic dispensations; and John’s thundering announcement which identified Jesus Christ as the antitype of the passover lamb, and even of the lambs slain previously from the foundation of the world, was as crucial and important as any utterance ever made on earth. The author of this Gospel, at that moment one of John’s disciples, heard that epic announcement in all of its dimensions and overtones. It was a truth that thundered and reverberated in his mind throughout a lifetime; and this narrative of the exact circ*mstances of its revelation is one of the richest heritages of our holy faith.
In this first announcement of the great office of the Son of God, it was his relation to man’s sin that was emphasized. He "taketh away the sin of the world!" Christ did not come to solve the political problems of Israel, nor to break the back of Roman tyranny, nor for bringing improvements in agriculture, trade, medicine, or education, nor for any similar thing. Christ came to redeem people from sin. This is the only problem incapable of solution by the race of man; but this problem is so malignant and pervasive that it requires to be solved first, before the final solution of all the other problems can be achieved, thus being the one great need of mortal man that it should be truly solved.
CHRIST AND MAN’S SIN
Sin is man’s worst enemy, his greatest problem, all human wretchedness issuing from a single fountain of bitter waters, that of sin. The glory of Jesus our Lord lies in what he does to sin.
A. He reveals sin. People would never have known their sin adequately had it not been for Christ. Paul could face his enemies and, speaking from a human standpoint, say, "I know nothing against myself" (1 Corinthians 4:4); but, when he contemplated the work of Jesus on the cross, he had a far different estimate of himself, saying, "Jesus came to save sinners ... of whom I am chief!" (1 Timothy 1:15). Every person who brings his heart to Christ will find it bleeding from a consciousness of sin; and this effective work of revealing man’s sin constitutes a step in their redemption.
B. Christ ransoms from sin. Wonderful is the word that Christ ransoms people from sin. In this world’s terrible night of darkness and despair, how grandly do the words go marching in the gloom: ransomed, redeemed, propitiated, bought with a price, saved by the blood of Christ (1 Timothy 2:6; 1 John 4:10; 1 John 2:1-2; Romans 3:25; 1 Peter 1:18-19; and 1 Corinthians 6:20).
C. Christ removes sin far away. He takes away the guilt, the penalty and the practice of sin. He is the sin-bearer for all humanity. God "laid upon him the iniquity of us all" (Isaiah 53:6). He bore our sins in his own body on the tree, thus accomplishing what no typical lamb ever achieved. Only in Christ Jesus is there an effective de-contaminator for human transgression. In the tragic sleep-walking scene from Shakespeare’s Macbeth, following the murder of the king, Lady Macbeth cried because of the blood on her hand:
Will all great Neptune’s ocean wash this blood Clean from my hand? No, this my hand will rather The multitudinous seas incarnadine, Making the green one red .... All the perfumes of Arabia cannot sweeten this little hand!
It is the blood of Christ alone which is able to do what all the oceans and the perfumes of Arabia cannot do - make the guilty innocent!
D. Christ overrules sin for the good of those who love him. "Where sin increased, there grace abounded all the more" (Romans 5:20). Under the great Mormon organ in the Salt Lake City Tabernacle, a great pit was opened up to give the organ deeper tones. Similarly, people who have been scarred and burned in the ugly pits of sin are often more conscious of God’s grace than some who have led more conventional lives. Perhaps in this is explained why the publicans and harlots entered into the kingdom of heaven before the Pharisees. Sin is overruled to the benefit of those who truly love God by increasing their appreciation for God’s holiness, and through the discipline of sorrows suffered because of sin. Through tragic experience, people learn what they should have known already, that God’s word is indeed true, and that "the wages of sin is death." God’s teaching with regard to sin is confirmed and verified by every sin ever committed by either saint or sinner. This endlessly-repeated proof and verification of God’s word is a strong inducement to fidelity.
E. Christ remits sin. He forgives it! This is the great difference between the new covenant and the old covenant (Jeremiah 31:31-35), that God indeed forgives sin, removing it as far as the east is from the west, as far as the bottom of the sea, forgiving sin so completely that God will not even remember it any more! How wonderful is the thought that God will remember sin no more, especially when people themselves are unable to forget it.
The technical question of which lamb John had in mind, whether the paschal lamb or the daily sacrifice, is resolved by including all of them. As Hendriksen stated it, "Were not all these types fulfilled in Christ, and was not he the antitype to whom they all pointed?"
It is particularly significant that Christ was thus presented as the Saviour of all people, and not merely as the Saviour of a class or nation. "The sin of the world ..." identifies the grand theater of our Lord’s redemptive service, making it encompass all mankind, but only in the sense of salvation’s being available to all, and not in the sense of the universal procurement of salvation.
John 1:30
This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man who is become before me: for he was before me.
Every line of the fourth Gospel is directed to establishing the identity of Christ as God incarnated, or God come in the flesh; and this verse can be true only in that context. John the Baptist was older than Christ, having been conceived six months earlier (Luke 1:36), and it could be true that Christ was "before" John the Baptist only with respect to his eternal existence, a truth John had already recorded in John 1:15.
John 1:31
And I knew him not; but that he should be made manifest to Israel, for this cause came I baptizing in water.
These words of John the Baptist are remarkable for a number of reasons. He was a cousin of Jesus and as well acquainted with him as it was possible to be, from the purely human standpoint; and the meaning here has to be that John did not know that Jesus was the Messiah. He did know, however, that the Messiah was soon to appear, that he would shortly be manifested to Israel, and that his own heavenly commission was definitely connected with the appearance and identification of the Messiah. The words here are the equivalent of saying, "I did not know who Jesus really is, any more than you did." This and the following verses reveal the means by which John himself was enabled certainly to identify Jesus Christ as the Messiah.
John 1:32-33
And John bare witness, saying, I have beheld the Spirit descending as a dove out of heaven; and it abode upon him. And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize in water, he said unto me, Upon whomsoever thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and abiding upon him, the same is he that baptizeth in the Holy Spirit.
In order for John to be able to see the Holy Spirit, it was necessary for the Spirit to assume a physical form; and, appropriately, it was that of a dove, long the symbol of peace and goodness. For a fuller comment on this symbolism of the dove, see my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 3:16. Of course, this was not a mere case of a bird lighting on Jesus for a moment, a phenomenon which, while rare, is occasionally experienced by men. Much more was involved. The heavens were opened, and the dove visibly descended from on high, an action totally dissociated from the invariable flight pattern af a dove, which is always horizontal. Also, there was a voice out of heaven (Matthew 3:17), the same being the testimony of God himself that "This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased." In addition to all this, the Spirit-dove remained visibly upon the Lord. Thus, Jesus was absolutely identified as the one who would baptize in the Holy Spirit, with the necessary deduction that the same was the Messiah. For discussion on the subject of baptism, see my Commentary on Matthew. Matthew 3:11, and my Commentary on Hebrews, Hebrews 6:1-2.
Without the witness of this Gospel, people might never have known how John the Baptist arrived at the conviction that Jesus was indeed the Christ. The apostle John, one of the great herald’s disciples at first, was enlightened on this by John himself, and was, moreover, an eye-witness of the fulfillment of the key prophecy of identification.
John 1:34
And I have seen, and have borne witness that this is the Son of God.
These words are the climax of the witness of John the Baptist and form here a direct quotation from him; but they also stand as the witness of the apostle John as well, being a part of the testimony which had convinced him that Jesus is the Son of God. The expression "Son of God" means the divine Messiah and was understood by all the Jews as having that unique and absolute meaning; and it was because Jesus confessed under oath that he was the Son of God (John 19:7) that the Sanhedrin condemned him to death. These and other considerations require, therefore, that "Son of God" be understood in its most exalted sense.
John 1:35
Again on the morrow John was standing, and two of his disciples.
EVENTS OF THE THIRD DAY
The actions described in this chapter occurred on successive days; and the memory of every word and action was indelibly engraved upon the apostle’s heart. The things here described changed his life, and every detail of those momentous events was ineffaceably etched upon the curtains of memory. He vividly recalled, in its starkest detail, the time when, the place where, and the manner, words, and attitudes of every participant in those epic scenes. From the clear vantage point of a near-century of life, the apostle clearly saw that all humanity had there made a pivot; and not one meaningful detail of all that occurred had been lost by the marvelous witness who authored this Gospel. God did indeed choose His instruments.
From the impact of these words, it is clear that John was recalling, through the power of memory, exactly where he and that other disciple had been standing, with their beloved teacher John the Baptist, on the day following that world-shaking identification of Jesus of Nazareth as God’s divine Messiah.
On the morrow ... that is, on the very next day, he and that other disciple were standing there with John the Baptist; and Jesus walked in that vicinity, not toward them, as on the previous day, but near them; and, once more, John the Baptist, perhaps a little sadly, due to the impending departure of some of his most discerning disciples, thundered the identification of Jesus as the Lamb of God, doing so as emphatically and bluntly as possible.
John 1:36
And he looked upon Jesus as he walked, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God!
It was as if John the Baptist had said, "There! I have identified him. There is no more for me to say. It is now up to you." John, the apostle-to-be, and that other disciple took the decisive step. They followed Jesus!
John 1:37-38
And the two disciples heard him speak, and they followed Jesus. And Jesus turned, and beheld them following, and saith unto them, What seek ye? And they said unto him, Rabbi (which is to say, being interpreted, Teacher), where abidest thou?
With reference to the identity of these two disciples, the words of Hovey are logical. One of them, of course, was Andrew, as revealed in John 1:40. Hovey said:
But who was the unnamed companion of Andrew? Probably the Evangelist himself. For: (1) the narrative in this place is very particular and graphic, making it probable that the writer was an eye-witness. (2) The writer of such a narrative would have been sure to mention the name of the other disciple, unless there had been some reason for withholding it. (3) The writer of this Gospel never refers to himself by name, and the same feeling which led him to withhold his name elsewhere accounts for his withholding it here.
What seek ye? ... was an appropriate response by Jesus to the fact of their following him; but their response was more timid and hesitant than we might have expected. Instead of declaring flatly that "We understand that you are the Messiah and would like to follow you," they politely addressed him as "Rabbi," and inquired where he lived! John’s explanation of the term "Rabbi" indicates that the greater part of the Christian world to whom this was written was Gentile. The hardening of Israel, as prophesied by Jesus and discussed in the writings of Paul, had long ago occurred; and thus the "Jews," as referred to in this Gospel, are to be identified as the unbelieving and antagonistic portion of Israel.
Rabbi ... By the use of this title, and by their inquiry as to where the Master lived, the two disciples clearly indicated a desire to know more of that Person of whom their beloved teacher had made such amazing statements. The Lord rewarded their interest and desire by his encouragement.
John 1:39
He saith unto them, Come and ye shall see. They came, therefore, and saw where he abode; and they abode with him that day: and it was about the tenth hour.
Jesus thus rewarded the two disciples by inviting them home with him, which resulted in their spending the whole day. From this statement, coupled with the information that it was about the tenth hour, it has been supposed that John was here using the Roman method of counting time, thus making it about 10:00 A.M. when this occurred. The Jews numbered the hours of the day from 6:00 A.M., and by their method of reckoning, the tenth hour would have been 4:00 P.M.; and it would appear inappropriate to refer to the time remaining as "that day." The significant thing to note in this place, however, is the fact that the author recalled so exactly the very hour of the day when these events took place. The reason for this was the fact that it was the very day and hour that brought him into the presence of the Holy One of God, a presence that changed John’s life and changed the world. No wonder the events and words of that day were burned into his memory forever.
John 1:40
One of the two that heard John speak, and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother.
It is incorrect to find in this prior mention of Andrew any diminution of the place and honor ascribed to the apostle Peter in the New Testament; because, despite the fact that the simple chronology of events required Andrew’s being named first; even so, he was introduced as Simon Peter’s brother. Also, the special recognition of Peter by the Lord is evident in this paragraph which records the giving of the new name to Peter.
Here in this chapter is recorded where it all began. The apostle John and Simon Peter’s brother Andrew were the first disciples of the Lord Jesus; and John’s detailed account of the events and circ*mstances of those four days which began with the deputation to John the Baptist from Jerusalem is of the greatest interest and significance. Like the tiny stream that issues from Lake Itasca, Minnesota, to become the mighty Father of Waters (the Mississippi River), this first hesitant and timid approach to Jesus reveals the intimate and personal beginning of that stream of numberless millions swelling the ranks of his disciples in all ages.
John 1:41
He findeth first his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messiah (which is, being interpreted, Christ).
He findeth first ... The exact meaning of the word "first" here is thought to be difficult; but the exact shade of various meanings is really of no great consequence. Hendriksen said:
The meaning is that two men (Andrew and John), having spent a day with Jesus, became so impressed with what they found in him that they became missionaries. Each started out to find his own brother. Andrew, as the first, found his brother Peter. It is implied that John as the second missionary found his brother James. However, in keeping with his delicate reserve, John did not say that directly.
We have found the Messiah ... implies that Andrew, Peter, James and John had been earnestly expecting and waiting for the Messiah and that they had been searching to find him, their attitude of expectancy having resulted from John the Baptist’s preaching, "Repent ye, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand" (Matthew 3:2). Thus, the prior attitude of those first disciples accounts for their rapid progress. They first addressed the Lord as "Rabbi"; and, after only a day with him, they affirmed that he was the Messiah. Note that John again interpreted the Jewish term "Messiah" for his Gentile readers.
CONCERNING ANDREW
Lockyer mentioned the old tradition that this apostle was crucified "because of his rebuke of Aegeas for obstinate adherence to idolatry. He was nailed to a cross in the form of an "X." hence the name St. Andrew’s Cross."
The greatest contribution of this apostle would appear to have been the exercise of his ability to enlist others. He enlisted his own brother, Peter; he discovered the lad with the barley loaves and fish; he, along with Philip, brought the Greeks to Jesus; and, upon at least one occasion, he was associated with the "inner three" in a private meeting with Jesus (Mark 13:3). There is no evidence that he ever resented the greater prominence of his brother Peter; and he never tried to parlay that relationship into any special privilege for himself, as did James and John. As one of the twelve apostles, his name is inscribed upon the foundations of the Eternal City coming down from God out of heaven (Revelation 21:14).
John 1:42
He brought him unto Jesus. Jesus looked upon him and said, Thou art Simon the son of John: thou shalt be called Cephas (which is by interpretation, Peter).
Thou art Simon the son of John ... These are the exact words Jesus used in his confession of Peter (Matthew 16:13 f), and the Lord’s use of them here appears to have been prompted by his divine foreknowledge of the great confession that Peter would make.
Thou shalt be called Cephas ... This new name assigned to Andrew’s brother means "stone" or "pebble"; and for the connection this has with the foundation of the church and such things as the so-called primacy of this apostle, reference is made to extensive discussions of these and related subjects in my Commentary on Matthew, pp. 246-253.
"Cephas" is a Syriac word, and is equivalent to the Greek word [@Petros], which we render "Peter." Both mean a stone, a portion of a rock. [@Petra] means a rock, [@Petros] a piece of rock. Peter was the latter, not the former.
The Lord’s perfect understanding of Peter’s character the moment he saw him was commented upon by Ryle, thus:
Our Lord here displayed his perfect knowledge of all persons, names, and things. He needed not that any should tell him who and what a person was. Such knowledge was supposed by the Jews to be a peculiar attribute of the Messiah. He was to be one of "quick understanding" (Isaiah 11:3) .... It is a peculiar attribute of God, who alone knows the hearts of men. Our Lord’s perfect knowledge of all hearts was one among many proofs of his divinity. His same knowledge appears again in his address to Nathaniel (John 1:47), and in his conversation with the Samaritan woman (John 4:18).
John 1:43
On the morrow he was minded to go forth into Galilee, and he findeth Philip: and Jesus saith unto him, Follow me.
EVENTS OF THE FOURTH DAY
On the morrow ... This indicates the fourth successive day of the epic events here narrated by John. Critics have sometimes alleged a lack of progression in John; but the progression of events that occurred in these four days was vividly presented in their exact chronological sequence. This verse brings us to the moment when Jesus was ready to leave Bethany beyond Jordan and go to Cana in Galilee where he would perform the beginning of his miracles; but, before his departure two more disciples would be added to the little company. It is not necessary to inquire how the Lord found Philip, who, in all probability, was one of that small select group of John’s followers who were expecting the Messiah. Jesus knew him, no less than he knew Peter and the other apostles; and therefore he called him.
CONCERNING PHILIP
Whereas Andrew and John found the Lord, the case of Philip was different in that the Lord found him; but the genuine nature of his discipleship was evidenced at once by his mission which resulted in the enrollment of Nathaniel in the sacred fellowship. Only Philip and Andrew of the Twelve had Greek names, which might explain the approach of the Greeks through these disciples (John 12:21). Lockyer noted that Philip was apparently slow to apprehend spiritual truth.
Philip experienced familiar friendship with Jesus, for did he not call him by name? Slow to apprehend, he missed much; Jesus had nothing but kind words for him (John 14:8). Tradition tells us that Philip died a martyr at Heirapolis.
There is no Scriptural reference to Philip after Pentecost, which leads to doubt that any great success attended his preaching. It would seem that he was more concerned with practical objections to spiritual projects than the others. It was Philip who counted up the cost of the bread that would have been needed to feed the five thousand. Like many in all ages, he failed to take into account the power of the Lord. The tradition that Philip was the man who wanted first to go and bury his father (Matthew 8:21) is not authentic, but it seems to fit his type of thinking. As Goodspeed said, "We know little or nothing about the fifth apostle except his name." It is known, however, that he was one of the Twelve, in fact the fifth in that sacred list, that he was a citizen of Bethsaida, the hometown of Peter and Andrew and James and John, and that he was faithful to the Lord. This is far more than enough to justify the inscription of his name upon one of the foundations of the Eternal City (Revelation 21:14). Added to that is the precious information revealed here regarding the enlistment of Nathaniel.
John 1:44
Now Philip was from Bethsaida, of the city of Andrew and Peter.
The first five of the Twelve came from Bethsaida, which means "place of fish," the same being one of the ten cities, "Decapolis," situated on Lake Galilee, and not far from Capernaum. The fact of there having been two Bethsaidas should not be confusing; because then, as now, the same names were often used for different places. There were two Bethlehems, two Bethanys, etc. There are a hundred examples of the same practice in the United States: two Dallases, two Nashvilles, several Plymouths, Concords, etc. Both Bethsaidas were located near the north end of Galilee on opposite sides of Jordan, the western city being called Bethsaida Galilee, and the other Bethsaida Julius. Peloubet says of the eastern city that "It was built up into a beautiful city by Herod Philip and named by him after Julia, the daughter of the Roman emperor Tiberius Caesar." It was one of the cities singled out by Jesus Christ for his condemnation (Matthew 11:21).
John 1:45
Philip findeth Nathaniel, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, wrote, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.
All that Philip here said of Jesus is true: (1) that Moses and the prophets wrote of him, (2) that he was of Nazareth, and (3) that he was the son of Joseph, although the latter was true legally, not actually. Thus, any effort to force a "conflict" between John and the synoptics is nothing but a device of unbelief. Being the legal son of Joseph, "the husband of Mary" (Matthew 1:16), Jesus was quite correctly called Joseph’s son, for it was through Joseph that Jesus was heir to the throne of David. Furthermore, Luke stated that "Jesus ... being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph" (Luke 3:23) was about thirty years of age when he began to teach, proving that at this time such a supposition was held by many. In the light of this, is it honest to say that John contradicts the synoptics, two of which (in the verses noted above) plainly refer to Jesus as the son of Joseph? The critics are wrong. Note too that this reference gives the words of Philip, not of the apostle John, suggesting the possibility that at the time Philip spoke he might indeed have thought that Jesus was actually Joseph’s son, and that he was then not aware of anything supernatural in regard to Jesus’ birth. On the very first day of Philip’s discipleship, it would be fair to assume that there were some things that he did not yet know regarding Jesus.
CONCERNING NATHANIEL
Nathaniel, meaning the gift of God, is thought to be another name for Bartholomew, one of the Twelve. Hendriksen wrote:
John never mentions Bartholomew; the synoptics never mention Nathaniel; and thus it is altogether probable that the Nathaniel of John is the Bartholomew of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, Nathaniel being his chief name and Bartholomew indicating his filial relationship, meaning son of Tolmai.
All Jewish names beginning with "Bar-" are patronymic, indicating parentage, such names including: Bartimaeus, Barabbas, Bar-jesus, Barnabas, and Bar-Jonah, the latter being the surname given Peter by Christ himself (Matthew 16:17). If, then, Nathaniel was the son of Tolmai, it would be no strange thing at all if the synoptics referred to him as Bartholomew. John, in going back to the very beginning of things, would naturally have used the name Nathaniel. This variation is no evidence at all against the apostleship of Nathaniel. As Ryle observed:
The objection that Nathaniel’s name is never mentioned by Matthew, Mark, or Luke, is of no weight. No one of the three tells us that Peter was called Cephas; and only Matthew gives Jude (the brother of James) the name of Lebbaeus.
If Nathaniel was not indeed an apostle, the same man as Bartholomew, how can it be explained that Christ appeared after his resurrection to a group of seven, and, of the five named, all were apostles except Nathaniel? That such a list of named apostles included one who was not an apostle is extremely unlikely (John 21:2).
Nathaniel was "of Cana in Galilee" (John 2:12); but this does not mean that he was the bridegroom at Cana when Jesus changed the water into wine, as tradition says, nor that he was one of the disciples on the road to Emmaus. As Goodspeed said of the sixth apostle:
Doubtless there was much to be said of him and his labors, but it had not struck the imagination or engaged the interest (of the Gospel writers). Yet it was precisely the quiet, patient work of such obscure figures that mainly won the gospel battle in the world of the first century as it does also in the twentieth.
Jesus called Nathaniel an "Israelite indeed," meaning that he was of the "seed of Abraham," that is, the spiritual seed, and not merely of fleshly descent. This distinction between the genuine children of Abraham and the fleshly nation that claimed the patriarch as their ancestor is overwhelmingly significant and formed the major premise of Paul’s letter to the Romans. By such a designation, Christ implied that it was something unusual and that the vast majority of the outward Israel were not true sons of Abraham.
John 1:46
And Nathaniel said unto him, Can any good thing come out of Nazareth? Philip saith unto him, Come and see.
Dummelow said that "Nazareth was an obscure place and not even mentioned in the Old Testament"; but it does not follow that Nazareth was extraordinarily wicked. Nathaniel’s question does not mean that Nazareth was any more sinful than other similar places; but it indicates that Nazareth simply did not fit the preconceived notions that people had about where to look for the Messiah. The popular proverb regarding Nazareth, as many popular proverbs are, was quite inaccurate and unfair. Gath-hepher, an adjoining village, was the home of Jonah, first of the Old Testament prophets and a conspicuous type of Jesus (2 Kings 14:25), but there is no evidence that anyone in that generation even knew it.
It was true, of course, that prophecy had named Bethlehem as the place where the Messiah would be born, but nothing was said about his continued residence there. Perhaps the obscurity and insignificance of Nazareth, more than other things, accounted for Nathaniel’s incredulity that so ordinary a village should be the home of the Messiah. If that is not the explanation of Nathaniel’s remark, then, as Adam Clarke suggested:
We may suppose that Nazareth at this time was so abandoned that no good could be expected from those who dwelt in it, and that its wickedness had passed into a proverb: can any good thing come out of Nazareth?
The passing centuries have not allayed the wonder that the Saviour of all people should have spent thirty years in a place like Nazareth. Horatius Bonar was impressed with the fact that many of the most distinguished places mentioned in the New Testament were unknown in the Old Testament, and that apparently Christ avoided the places like Hebron, Bethel, Shiloh, and even Jerusalem in the sense that he never spent a night there, except as a prisoner, retiring each night to Bethany. Regarding this, Bonar said:
In choosing these unknown places for his Son, God showed that it was not former privilege, nor ancient sanctity, nor a venerable name that could avail anything with him, or attract his favor. Christ was sent to new places, where, so far as we know, the foot of patriarch, judge, prophet, or king had never been; showing that no city was so favored as to exclude others, and that all cities, as well as all souls, had a share in his divine regards.
Come and see ... Nothing dispels prejudice and clears away misunderstanding like personal investigation; and, of all the challenges ever addressed to prejudiced or skeptical men, none was ever any more effective than this, "Come and see!" It is true now, as always, that the only unbelievers are those who have not made a fair and personal search of the evidence. Clarke’s profound statement on this theme is:
He who candidly examines the evidence of the religion of Christ will infallibly become a believer. No history ever published among men has so many external and internal proofs of authenticity as this has. A man should judge of nothing by first appearances, or human prejudices. Who are they who cry out, "The Bible is a fable"? Those who have never read it, or read it only with the fixed purpose to gainsay it.
John 1:47
Jesus saw Nathaniel coming unto him, and saith of him, Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile.
Israelite indeed ... See under John 1:45 for comments on this. The mention of Jacob’s dream at the end of this episode makes it likely that Hendriksen’s analysis is correct. He wrote:
In the light of the context ... Jesus is here thinking of Jacob ... The employment of trickery for selfish advantage characterized not only Jacob (Genesis 30:37-43), but also his descendants ... A really honest, sincere Israelite had become such an exception that at the approach of Nathaniel Jesus exclaimed, "Look, truly an Israelite in whom deceit does not exist"
John 1:48
Nathaniel saith unto him, Whence knowest thou me? Jesus answered and said unto him, Before Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee.
Many a person would merely have accepted the compliment and kept his thoughts to himself, but Nathaniel expressed his amazement and asked the source of Jesus’ knowledge. Christ’s answer convinced him that the Saviour’s knowledge was not casual or superficial, but that it was absolute and perfect. There are no secrets from God. "All things are naked and laid open before the eyes of him with whom we have to do" (Hebrews 4:13). The sacred writers made a great deal of this quality of omniscience on the part of Jesus. Even on the night of the betrayal, it was that quality in the Lord which evoked their confession of faith (Matthew 16:18-28).
John 1:49
Nathaniel answered him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God: thou art the King of Israel.
This confession hailed Jesus as the divine Son of God, which being true, also entitled him as the King of Israel. John’s introduction of this full understanding of Jesus’ Messiahship so early in his narrative does not contradict the subsequent failure of the apostles to maintain this high level of conviction. The examples cited in this chapter should be viewed as resulting from the generally accepted opinion which derived from the preaching of John the Baptist and his unqualified identification of Jesus Christ as the Lamb of God. Satan launched a counterattack at once; the Pharisees propounded plausible arguments why Jesus could not be the Messiah; and Jesus himself proved not to be the political figure most were expecting; in consequence of all this, the road to true belief grew very difficult as the years of the Master’s ministry unfolded. Despite this, there is no doubt at all that the divine Messiahship of Jesus was enthusiastically believed and confessed from the very first, notwithstanding the fact that many who so confessed him did not have the slightest understanding of the full implications of the truth they confessed.
John 1:50
Jesus answered and said unto him, Because I said unto thee, I saw thee under the fig tree, believest thou? thou shalt see greater things than these.
In this verse, Jesus seemed to hint of a trace of superficiality in so great a confession upon such limited evidence. The confession, true as it was, reflected the shallowness of the popular opinion regarding Jesus. See under preceding verse.
What are those greater things Jesus promised that Nathaniel would see? (1) He had seen an example of Jesus’ penetrating supernatural knowledge; but, in the future, he would see that knowledge employed in the achievement of human redemption, a far greater thing. (2) He had seen the truth that Jesus is the Son of God; but, in the future, he would see Christ also as the Son of man and the achiever of reconciliation between God and all humanity. (3) He had seen Jesus as King of Israel; but, in the future, he would come to know that Christ is not merely King of Israel, but King of all creation, King of kings, and Lord of lords (1 Timothy 6:15).
John 1:51
And he saith unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye shall see heaven opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man.
Ryle noted that the expression "Verily, verily" is unique to this Gospel, being used in it 25 times, always by Jesus, and having the equivalent meaning of "Amen, amen." It always implied a solemn and emphatic statement of some great truth. No other New Testament writer ever used this solemn double "Amen."
But what is the great truth enunciated here? The words certainly point to the vision of Jacob who saw the ladder from earth to heaven with angelic traffic in both directions; and, if a spiritual meaning is sought, which seems mandatory, Jesus here identified himself as the Ladder bridging the gulf between God and man. In Nathaniel’s confession, the prominence of "King of Israel" pointed to the secular and political views usually held regarding the promised Messiah, and in this verse Jesus emphasized the great spiritual objectives of his earthly visitation. (See Genesis 28:12.)
The emphasis upon "Son of man" here, rather than upon "Son of God" was probably due to Jesus’ purpose of reserving emphasis on the latter until the time of Peter’s confession (Matthew 16:13 f). The meaning of both titles carries the implication of Christ’s deity; but "Son of God," in the popular mind, was too closely associated with "King of Israel," in the exact manner of Nathaniel’s confession; and it was not time for Jesus to challenge the Pharisees by using "Son of God." A little further attention to the title Son of man is in order.
THE SON OF MAN
The title "Son of man" was used at least forty times by Jesus, twelve times in this Gospel; and, with the exception of Stephen’s use of it (Acts 7:56), it is found only in our Lord’s reference to himself. There are two questions of the deepest significance that arise from Jesus’ use of this title: (1) did he use it in such a manner as to diminish his claim of absolute divinity? and (2) why did he favor this title as distinguished from "Son of God," which was more popularly associated generally with the coming Messiah?
The answer to the first question is an emphatic negative. Jesus meant by the title "Son of man" to affirm his deity and Godhead just as dogmatically as the title "Son of God" could have done it, but with the additional advantage of stressing his unique relationship to the human race as well. It is evident that THE Son of man cannot be any mortal being. Dummelow pointed out that the Greek words so translated cannot mean "A Son of man," but definitely and emphatically, "THE Son of man."
In this conversation with Nathaniel, it is evident that Jesus intended the title "Son of man" to be understood in exactly the same sense as "Son of God." This follows from the fact that, taking the conversation as a whole, the two titles are used synonymously and interchangeably, without any suggestion whatever that Christ rejected either "Son of God" or "King of Israel" as being properly applied to himself. It is as though our Lord had said, "Yes, Nathaniel, you are correct; but for the present, let us use the title Son of man."
Why did Jesus prefer this title? "Son of God" was a title that carried with it; in the popular mind, the meaning King of Israel, a fact proved by Nathaniel’s usage of the two together just a moment before; and it would have been disastrous for the Lord to have allowed the multitudes to crown him "king," a thing many of them were eager to do. It was clearly for the purpose of preventing such a thing that Jesus so often used the other title, "Son of man," a title which was not generally known and understood by the people and which was thus free of the connotation of an earthly kingship of Israel. It was absolutely imperative for our Lord to have avoided any semblance of claiming the literal Solomonic throne of Israel; for, if he had been unsuccessful in such avoidance, the Pharisees might have been able to get him crucified for sedition. It will be remembered that that is exactly what they tried to do anyway; but so completely had Jesus thwarted them, that they finally admitted to Pilate that they desired his condemnation for claiming to be the Son of God (John 19:7). However, if Jesus had permitted the widespread use of that title earlier, some radical mob would have proclaimed him "King" and thus have provided sufficient grounds for a charge of sedition.
That Jesus did positively intend that "Son of man" should be understood in a unique and supernatural sense is proved by his own use of the title, as follows:
He used the title: (1) in connection with his power to forgive sins (Matthew 9:6); (2) of his lordship over the sabbath (Matthew 12:8); (3) of his second advent in glory (Matthew 19:28); (4) of his resurrection (Matthew 17:23); (5) of his seeking and saving that which is lost (Luke 19:10); (6) and of his coming in the final judgment (Matthew 26:64).
The frustrated hatred and enmity of the Pharisees at his trial before Caiaphas reached a point of frenzy over this very title. The Pharisees knew perfectly that "Son of man" was fully as adequate a title of the Messiah as was "Son of God"; but they were trying to trick Jesus into using the latter title, because of its popular but mistaken identification with an earthly kingship of Israel. At the climax of the trial, Caiaphas placed Jesus under oath, saying, "Tell us, art thou the Christ, the Son of God?" (Matthew 26:63). In his reply, Jesus used the other terms: "Thou shalt see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of power and coming on the clouds of heaven" (Matthew 26:64). The Sanhedrin accepted Son of man as equivalent to Son of God on that occasion and certified to Pilate that he had "made himself the Son of God" (John 19:7). From these and many other considerations, therefore, it must be concluded that the answer to the second question raised at the first of this analysis is that Jesus preferred "Son of man" because of that title’s being free of any possible misrepresentation. The very learned, such as the Pharisees, well knew it as a valid and proper designation of the divine Messiah; but it is clear that the multitudes did not so recognize it (John 12:34).
Emil Von Ludwig’s blasphemous biography, "The Son of Man," made this title the ground of his thesis that Jesus never claimed to be anything but a man; but his thesis is contradicted and disproved by the best of all judges of such a question, the Sanhedrin itself, which accepted the title, and so certified it to the governor, as equivalent in every way to "the Son of God." Besides that, Jesus’ own use of it leaves no shadow of doubt that it carried the utmost implications of deity and Godhead, as well as connotations of his perfect and unique humanity.
Before leaving this matchless first chapter of John, the observation of Aretius, as quoted by Ryle, should be noted:
This chapter is singularly rich in names (epithets) applied to the Lord Jesus Christ. He numbers up the following twenty-one: The Word, God, Life, Light, The True Light, The Only Begotten of the Father, Full of Grace and Truth, Jesus Christ, The Only Begotten Son, The Lord, The Lamb of God, Jesus, A Man, The Son of God, Rabbi Teacher, Messiah, Christ, The Son of Joseph, The King of Israel, The Son of Man
