8S4-^c v^3

/^'^

NOTICE TO SUBSCRIBERS.

TV IT ESSRS. CLARK have much pleasure in publishing the
First Issue of Third Year of Dr. Meyer's Commentary
(being the 7th and Sth volumes of the Series), viz. : —
St. Matthkw, Volume I.
ACTS, Volume II.
These volumes are translated from the latest Editions 5y special
arrangement with the German Publishers.
The extreme care which has been given to the editing of these
volumes will appear, the Publishers trust, inf their great accuracy,
and this will be a feature of the whole Series. It is evident that
the value of the Commentary very much depends on minute
accuracy. The translations of Mark, Luke, and Ephesian s have been com
pleted for some time ; but as new Editions are about to be published,
it is thought most advisable to delay for a little the printing, so that
any alterations may be incorporated. Messrs. Clark, however,
hope that the completion of St. Matthew and Corinthians will be
ready within six months.
May they ask a remittance of Subscription for Third Year — 21s. ?

38 George Street, Edinburgh,
Ncrvemier 1877.

CLAEK'S

EOKEIGN

THEOLOGICAL LIBRAET.

FOURTH SERIES.
VOL LVL

^oKtt on t!)e ©oSpel of ^t. 3loi)n.
VOL. III.

EDINBURGH:
T. & T. CLARK, 38 GEORGE STREET,
18 7 7.

PRINTED BT MURIIAT AND GIBE,
FOR
T. & T. CLARK, EDINBURGH.
LONDON, . . . HAMILTON, ADAMS, AND CO.
DUBLIN, . . ROBERTSON AND 00.
NEW YOEK, . . SORIBNER, WELEORD, AND ARMSTRONG.

COMMENTARY

GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN

a Critical Introduction,

TRANSLATED FROM THE SECOND FRENCH EDITION OF
F. GODET, D.D.,
111 ' '
PROFESSOE OF THEOLOGY, NEUOHATEL,
By S. TAYLOR and M. D. CUSIN.

VOLUME THIRD.

EDINBURGH:
T. & T. CLARK, 38 GEORGE STREET.
1877.

PREFATORY NOTE.
The first part of this Volume, embracing pp. 1-235, has been translated by-
Miss Sophia Taylor, the translator -of Luthardt's Apologetic Works, etc.
The remainder of the Volume has been translated by Mrs. CusiN, a translator
of the earlier part of this Commentary and of the "Commentary on St. Luke :"
and revised by the Rev. Alex. CUsin, M.A.
Edinburgh, November 1877.

?(»4^c V. 3

CONTENTS.

INTRODUCTION.
CHAP. PAQB
I. Preliminary Considerations, ..... 1
II. History of the DLscnssions relating to the Authenticity, . 8
BOOK L
the apostle ST. JOHN.
I. John in his Father's House, ..... 29
II. John in the Suite of Jesus, ..... 31
III. John at the Head of the Judaeo-Christian Church, . . 36
IV. John in Asia Minor, ... . . . . 41
V. The Death of St. John,  61
VI. Characteristics of John, ...... 64
\
B'O 0 K 1 1.
ANALYSIS AND OHARACTEBISTIOS OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL.
I. Analysis, ........ 67
II. Characteristics of the Fourth Gospel, . . . . . 84
1. Historiographical Characteristics, .... 84
A. The Facts, ...... 96
B. The Discourses, . . . . . 134
2. Theological Characteristics, .... 168
3. Literary Characteristics, . . . . .188
BOOK IIL
THE ORIGIN OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL.
I. The Time of the Composition, ..... 196
1. Baur, 160 to 170,  197
2. Volkmar, 155 ; Zeller aud Scholten, 150 ; Hilgenfeld,
130 to 140 ; Keim, 130, ..... 211
3. Keim, 110 to 115 ; Nicolas, Weizsaoker, Renan, etc., . 227
4. The Fathers, 80 to 100, ..... 241
II. The Author,  246'
III. The Place of Composition, ..... 284
IV. The Occasion and Aim of the Fourth Gospel, , . . 286
V. Summing up, ,....•• 295
Conclusion, ...#.•• 297
7

CONTENTS.

EXPOSITION.

INTRODUCTION,

I. The different Conceptions of the Plan of the Gospel,
II. Or the Preservation of the Text,
1. The Manuscripts, .
2. The Old Versions, .
3. The Fathers,
The Title of the Gospel, .
The Prologue (Chap. i. 1-18),
First Section (Vv. 1-4— The Logos;, .
Second Section (Vv. 5-11— Unbelief),
Third Section (Vv. 12-18— Faith),
General Considerations on the Prologue,
1. The Plan of the Prologue, .
2. Intention of the Prologue, .
3. The Idea and Term Logos, .
4. The Ti-uth and Importance of the Conception of the Person
of Jesus expressed in the Prologue,

PAGE 303
303312312
316318323326
329
339
352381 381382
386
394

FIRST PART.
(I. 19-IV. 54.)
First Manifestations of the Word — The Birth of Faith — First
Symfpoms of Unbelief, ......

405

FIRST CYCLE.
(L 19-11. 11.)

FIRST SECTION.
The Testimonies of J'ohn the Baptist (i. 19-37),
First Testimony (vv. 19-28),
Second Testimony (vv. 29-34),
Third Testimony (vv. 35-37), SECOND SECTION.
Beginnings of the Work of Jesus— Birth of Faith (i. 38-51),
First Group (vv. 38-42), ....
Second Group (vv. 43-51), ....
The Son of Man, ......

406 407
419 436

440 441447
457

CONTENTS. IX

CONTENTS OF VOLUME IL

FIRST CYCLE.

THIRD SECTION.
PAIJK
The First Miracle.— Strengthening of Faith (ii. 1-11), . l
On the Miracle of Cana, ... 14

SECOND CYCLE (II. 12-IV. 54).
FIRST SECTION.
Jesus in Judea (ii. 12-iii. 36), ... 18
The Brethren of Jesus, . . . . 20
SECOND SECTION.
Jesus in Samaria (iv. 1-42), . . . . 98
THIRD SECTION.
Jesus in Galilee (iv. 43-54), ... . . 132
SECOND PART.
(V.-XII. 50.)
The Development of Unbelief in Isp.ael, . . . .141
FIRST CYCLE (V.-VIII.).
FIRST SECTION.
First Outbreak of Hatred in Judea (v. 1-47), . . .146

: CONTENTS.
SECOND SECTION.
The great Messianic Testimony and the Crisis of Faith in Galilee (vi.
1-71), 

199

THIRD SECTION.
The Strife at its Climax at Jerusalem (vii. 1-viii. 59), . . 264
SECOND CYCLE (IX. and X.).
FIRST SECTION.
The Miracle (ix. 1-41), ...... 358
SECOND SECTION.
The First Discourse (x. 1-21), ...... 375
THIRD SECTION.
The Second Discourse (x. 22-42), . . 397

CONTENTS. xi

CONTENTS OF VOLUME IIL
SECOND PART.
THIRD CYCLE (XL and XII.).
FIRST SECTION.
PAGE
The Resurrection of Lazarus (xi. 1-57), . . 2
Of the Resurrection of Lazarus, ... .2
SECOND SECTION.
The Last Days of the Ministry of Jesus (xii. 1-36), ... 45
THIRD SECTION.
Retrospective Glance at the Mysterious Fact of Jewish Unbelief
(xii. 37-50),  82
THIRD PART.
(XIII.-XVII.)
The Development of Faith in the Disciples, ... 94
FIRST SECTION.
The Facts (xiii. 1-30), ....... 95
SECOND SECTION.
The Discourses (xiii. 31-xvi. 33), .... 119
THIRD SECTION.
The Prayer (xvii. 1-26), . . . - . . .191

xu CONTENTS.
FOURTH PART.
(XVIII. AND XIX.) PAGE
The Passion, ..... . 221
FIRST SECTION.
The Arrest of Jesus (xviii. 1-11), . . 222
SECOND SECTION.
The Trial of Jesus (xviii. 12-xix. 16), . ... 228
THIRD SECTION.
The Crucifixion of Jesus (xix. 17-42), . . . 262
Of the Day of Jesus' Death, . . . 283
FIFTH PART.
(XX. 1-29.)
The Resurrection, ... . 304
Of the Resurrection of Jesus, . 322

Conclusion (xx. 30, 31), ... . . 332
Appendix (xxi. 1-25), . . . 337

COMMENTAEY ON THE GOSPEL OE
ST. JOHN.

THIRD CYCLE.
CHAPTERS XI. AND XIL
ALL was now ripe for the catastrophe; the development
begun at ch. v. was accomplished. The national un
belief, now consummated, had only to produce its fruit : the
condemnation of Jesus, And this final crisis was entailed by
a third good worle (x. 32), the resurrection of Lazarus.
So true is it that this point of view, viz. the development
of Jewish incredulity, is the governing principle to which the
exposition of facts is in this whole section subordinated, that
the triumphal entry (xii. 12—19), the event which forms, in
the synoptic Gospels, the opening of the narrative of the
Passion, is here only brought forward as one of the factors of
this development.
This cycle is divided into three sections: —
I. Ch. xi. : The resurrection of Lazarus, with its direct
result : the condemnation of Jesus,
II, Ch, xii, 1—3 6 : Three facts forming the transition from
the active ministry of Jesus to His Passion.
III. Ch, xii. 3 7-5 0 : A retrospective glance by the evan
gelist at that great fact of Jewish unbelief, which has
occupied him since ch. v.
GODET III. A JOHN.

2 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
FIRST SECTION.
XL 1-57.  THE RESURRECTION OF LAZARUS,
L The Preparation— vv, 1-16 ; II. The Fact — vv. 17-44;
III. Its Consequence — ^w. 45-57,
I. The Preparation. — Vv. 1-16,
St. John first describes the general situation (w. 1,2);
then the behaviour of Jesus towards the sisters (vv. 3-6) ;
and lastly, His conversations with His disciples before depart
ing (vv, 7—16).
Vv. 1, 2. "Now a certain man vjas sicTc, Lazarus of Betliany,
the town of Mary and her sister Martha. It was Mary who
anointed the Lord loith ointment, and wiped His feet with her
hair, wliose brother Lazarus was siclt." — The stay of Jesus at
Perea (x. 40-42) was interrupted by the news of a friend's
sickness, which summoned Him to Judea. Lazarus being
introduced in his condition of a sick man, aaOevwv, sicJc,
stands first. The particle Se, now or hut, brings out . the
change which this circumstance brought about with respect to
Jesus, St. John immediately adds the name of the place
where Lazarus dwelt, because it was the situation of this
town (in Judea) which occasioned the conversation between
Jesus and His disciples which then took place. But why
should the author designate Bethany as the town of Maiy
and lur sister Martha, two individuals whose names have not
as yet occurred in this Gospel ? He evidently takes it for
granted that these two sisters were already known to his
readers by evangelical tradition, and especially by the fact
recorded by St, Luke (x, 38-42), Bethariy, now El-Azirieh
(from El-Azir, the Arabic name of Lazarus), is a small village
situate on the eastern slope of the Mount of Olives, three-
quarters of a league from Jerusalem, The supposed house
of Lazarus and his sepulchre have both been pointed out
since the 4th century. — The two prepositions aTro and ix,
here similarly employed, are regarded by Meyer as synony
mous (comp, i. 45) ; it would nevertheless be possible in these

CHAP. XL 1, 2. 3
passages to refer the first to the more external fact, that of
dwelling, and the second to the more inward relation, that
of origin : Lazarus dwelt at Bethany, whence he was. — The
name of Mary is mentioned before that of Martha, and the
latter is designated as her sister, and Lazarus as her brother
(ver. 2), not because she was the eldest, for vv. 5 and 19, and
Luke X. 3 8 scLq., seem to prove that Martha had the chief care
in the house. The precedence here given to Mary arises, no
doubt, from the fact, about to be mentioned (ver. 2), in which
she played the chief part. Hence the important place
accorded to her by tradition. Comp. the saying of Jesus, Matt.
xxvi. 13. Besides, tradition had not preserved the name of
Mary in the narrative of the anointing of Jesus ; comp. Matt.
xxvi. 6 sqq., Mark xiv. 3 sqq., where we read merely : a
woman. This omission or reticence in the tradition explains
the form of St. John's narrative at ver. 2 : " This Mary, of
whom I am now speaking, is the very woman of whom it
is related that she anointed . . . and wiped . . ." At the
close of the verse, St. John returns from this episode to the
fact which forms th3 subject of his narrative : It is she whose
brother La.zarus was sick.
Hengstenberg devotes twenty- six pages to prove that Mary,
the sister of Lazarus, was, according to the idea which gene
rally prevailed before the Reformation, the same person as
Mary Magdalene (Luke viii. 2), and as the woman which was
a sinner who anointed the feet of Jesus (Luke vii, 36 sqq.).
On this theme he composes quite a little romance, according
to which Galilee was the scene of Mary's dissolute life.
Martha, her sister, is said to have become acquainted, during
a visit to the feast^ with Simon, a rich Pharisee residing at
Bethany, and after marrying him to have received into her
house both her sister Mary, who had renounced her trans
gressions, and her brother Lazarus, who had fallen into
poverty. This is to account for the entrance of Mary into
the feast-chamber (Luke vii.), for she was at home in the
house of Simon, while the murmuring of the latter is regarded
as a brother-in-law's malicious mischief. There is nothing,
even to the parable of Dives and Lazarus, which may not
in this way be explained, etc. etc. This dissertation, how
ever, proves only one thing, and that is the facility with

4 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
which an intelligent and learned man can prove any
thing which he wishes to prove. The only argument of
any value is the similarity of the expressions in John
xi. 2 and Luke vii. 37, 38. But then, how different is
the scene ! On the one side, Galilee ; on the other, Judea :
there, the early days of Christ's ministry ; here, one of the
days preceding His passion : there, a discussion on the for
giveness of sin ; here, a conversation on the sum expended :
while the repetition of such homage is, according to Eastern
customs, so natural, that we cannot grant the least probability
to the double identity of individuals which Hengstenberg
seeks to establish.
Vv. 3, 4. " The sisters then sent to Jesus, saying : Lord,
behold, he whom, Tiwu lovest is sick. When Jesus heard, He
said : Tliis sickness is not to death, but it is for the glory of
God, that^ the Son of God might be glorified thereby!' — The
message of the sisters was full of delicacy, hence the evan
gelist reports it in their own words {Xiyovaai, saying). The
address. Lord, alludes to the miraculous power of Jesus ; the
term i'Se, behold, to the impression which this unexpected
intelligence would not fail to make upon Him ; lastly, the
expression ov ^tXet?, he whom Thou lovest, to the tender affec
tion by which Jesus was bound to Lazarus, and which made
it their duty not to leave Him uninformed of the danger to
which His ftiend was exposed. On the other hand, they by
no means urge Him to come ; as, indeed, how could they,
knowing, as they did, the perils which awaited Him in Judea ?
They merely state the case, leaving it to Himself to decide
how He would act.
The saying of Jesus (ver, 4) is not given as an answer to the
message ; we are told, not that He answered, but that He said. It
was a statement made as much to the present disciples as to the
absent sisters. It shows but very slight acquaintance with the
always originaland frequentlyparadoxical character of our Lord's
sayings, to be able to imagine that He really meant to say that
Lazarus would not die of this illness, and that He was only
subsequently convinced of His mistake on the reception of a
second message, which is assumed in the narrative (ver. 14).
Undoubtedly, Liicke observes with perfect justice, that the
' K repeats aXX« before int.

CHAP. XI. 6-7. 5
glory of Jesus did not imply omniscience. But His moral
purity did exclude the assertion of anything which He did not
know, and it is very evident that the evangelist himself did
not attribute such a meaning to this saying. The expression
made use of by Jesus was amphibological; and whether it
involved an announcement of recovery or a promise of re
surrection, it meant at any rate that the definitive result of
this sickness would not be death, ov Trpo^ Odvarov. — The glory
of God is the renown diffused in men's hearts by His power,
working for the sake of His holiness or His love. And what
would be more likely to produce such an effect than a victory
over death? — At- ver, 40, Jesus recalls this saying to Martha
in the words : "Said I not unto thee, that if thou wouldest believe,
thou shouldest see the glory of God ?" When, then. He spoke these
words. He already knew what He would do ; He had asked all of
His Father, and had obtained all from Him at the very moment
when He uttered this promise, and that even before the mes
senger had departed to carry his answer to Bethany (ver. 42).
But this manifestation of divine power was also to reflect its
splendour on Him who was its agent. In fact, God is only
glorified on earth in the person of His Son, in whom He
reveals Himself, so that the first end, the glory of God,
involves the second, the honour of the Son. "Iva, so that,
does not, then, indicate another end in juxtaposition with the
first {virep), but explains the manner in which the first is to
be attained. This passage shows how far the name Son of God,
in the mouth of our Lord, surpasses the title Messiah. — The
pronoun St' avTrj^, by it, may be referred to the glory, but it
is more natural to refer it to the sickness. — This saying recaUs
that of ix. 3, but excels it in greatness, in proportion as the
resurrection of Lazarus surpasses in power the cure of the
man born blind.
Vv. 5-7. "-Now Jesus loved Martha, and her sister, and
Lazarus. When, then. He had heard that he was sick, He re
mained yet two days in the place where He was ; then, after that,
He saith to His disciples : ^ Let us go again ^ into Judea." — To
understand the relation of these three verses, and the intention
of ver. 5 in particular, we must remember that the pev of
^ADKrAAn, 20 Mnn. add «utoi/ after pxhriei;.
' N omits traXH', A reads nXrj {to the Jewish city).

6 gospel OF JOHN.
ver. 6 supposes an understood Se in ver, 7 : " Jesus loved
Martha . . . ; when, then. He had heard ... He remained,
it is true {pAv) ; but then (Se') He saith : Let us go . , ." We
then feel that the remark of ver, 5 : He loved, bears not upon
the fact of ver. 6 : He remained, but upon that of ver, 7, the
order to set out. This very simple explanation overthrows
several forced suppositions ; that, for example, that St. John
meant to say : " Though Jesus loved . . .," or the still more
forced : " Because He loved, He remained, that He might still
longer try the faith of the sisters." St, John here uses the
more dignified term ayairav, instead of the affectionate one,
<j)iX€iv (ver. 3) ; not, as exegetes say, because he was speaking
of the affection of Jesus for women, — for the disciple of the
Lord is above such prepossessions, — but because the nobler
term better suits the pen of the evangelist, while the ex
pression of tenderness is more suitable in the mouth of the
sisters. — Martha here occupies, as also in ver. 19, the first
place ; she had precedence in the home by reason of her age,
and perhaps, too, of her social position as a widow and the
mistress of the house.
Baur explains the delay mentioned, ver. 6, by the desire of
Jesus to let Lazarus die for the sake of raising him, and finds
in this circumstance evidence of the non-authenticity of the
narrative. But nothing in the text hints at any such intention
on the part of Jesus ; and even ver. 15: " I am glad for your
sakes that I was not there," decidedly excludes it ; for Jesus
might, indeed, rejoice at a divine dispensation, but not at a cir
cumstance which He had willingly and purposely occasioned.
Besides, the sequel shows that when Jesus received the message,
Lazarus had already breathed his last. For if we reckon the
four days which, according to w. 17 and 39, elapsed between
the burial of Lazarus and the arrival of Jesus at Bethany,
these days can only be distributed as foUows. The fourth
was that on which Jesus travelled from Perea to Bethany
(a distance of from eight to ten leagues), the third and second
were the two days' stay at Perea, and the first that on which
the messenger brought Jesus the intelligence. Hence it was
at the beginning of this first day, shortly after the departure
of the messenger, that Lazarus died, and in the course of this
day that lie was, according to Jewish custom, buried. Thus

CHAP. XI. 8-10. 7
towards evening, when Jesus first received the news of
his sickness, Lazarus was already resting in the sepulchre.
The distance between Jerusalem and the Jordan being
seven leagues, it must have been a good day's journey
from Bethany to the actual abode of Jesus on the other
side of that river. — ^We see how incorrect is the calculation
of Keim (i. p. 495), that "it would take Jesus three days to go
from this country of Perea to Bethany," while nothing of the
kind results from St. John's narrative. Nor is Meyer less
mistaken in taking for the first of the f(mr days which elapsed
after the burial of Lazarus (ver. 17), that -^\{\QkL followed the
two days of waiting in Perea. For why should Jesus have
taken three whole days in going from the Jordan to Bethany ?
As to the cause which hindered His immediate departure, we
may undoubtedly conjecture, with Liicke and ISTeander, that it
was the work of His ministry in Perea, But would it not be
better to say, with Meyer, that He waited for the signal of the
Father, by which He always regulated His proceedings ? God
might act in such wise as the man Christ Jesus would not
of Himself have done, and might prolong this time of waiting
for the purpose of rendering the miracle more manifest and
more striking, with a view to His own glory and that of His
Son, The expression : htuTa pera tovto, literally, then after that,
is not a pleonasm, but tells how long this waiting at first
seemed to the sisters, and perhaps also to Jesus Himself. —
It should be noticed that Jesus did not say : Let us go to
Bethany, but : Let us go into Judea. It was an allusion to
the perils which threatened them in that country, and elicited
from the disciples an expression of that feeling of alarm which
He knew to be in their hearts, and desired to overcome before
setting out. With the same purpose He added the word
irdXiv, again, which recalled the danger He had incurred
during his last stay at Jerusalem. It is in vain that Meyer
protests against this purpose.
Vv, 8—10. " The disciples say unto Him: Master, the Jews
of late sought to stone Thee, and goest Thou thither again ? Jesus
answered: Are there not twelve hours in the day? If any
Tnan walk in the day, he stumbleth not, because he seeth the light
of this world ; but if a man walk in the nigJit, he stumbleth,

8 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
because there is no light in him." — At the word Judea, the
disciples, as their Master expected, expostulated. He profited
by their objection to give them sublime instruction with respect
to their future ministry. The answer of Jesus (vv. 9, 10) has
naturally a double meaning, Liicke and de Wette apply the
image of day to the purgly mibral idea of the task to be accom
plished : to quit the path of duty laid down, is to plunge into
spiritual darkness, and perish,. But the expression twelve
hours cannot, from this point of view, be well explained.
Bengel, Meyer, and Hengstenberg go to the opposite extreme.
In their view, the image day has a purely te-mporal sense, and
refers to the season of earthly life : " The time granted me has
not yet elapsed, and so long as it lasts no one can hurt me ;
when it has elapsed, I shall fall into the hands of my enemies,"
But the expression to stumble is too active a one to designate
a purely passive result ; and what can we do with the expres
sion, there is no light in him, as applied to Jesus ? Meyer
says it is a feature belonging to the image, and of no im
portance ; but such an expedient is only resorted to to save an
untenable explanation. The image day here designates both
the life-task and the life-time, the day of work, like ix. 4.
The whole imagery is taken from the situation in which Jesus
found Himself and His disciples. It was morning, the sun
was rising ; they had before them a good day's journey, twelve
full hours. During all this time we may travel without
danger ; it is only when walking by night, and when daylight
is past, that there is danger of stumbling. But this was unne
cessary, as they might before night reach Bethany, the end of
their journey. Taken in its moral sense, the similitude signi
fies : " I may fearlessly go wherever duty calls me. I know
that my twelve hours of work are not yet over. The dura
tion of my earthly life is meted out and secured to me by a
higher will. So long as it lasts, I may walk without fear on
the road prescribed by my mission. It is daylight to me, for a
greater sun than that of this world enlightens my path, even
that of the Divine will, which discloses our task step by step.
The danger of stumbling will not begin until, by basely elud
ing a foreseen danger, we arbitrarily prolong the time of our
life, and add, so to speak, a thirteenth hour's journey to the
twelve which are lawfully ours. From tbat time we cannot

CHAP. XI. 11-13. 9
fail to stumble. For the sun of the Divine will would no
longer shine within us ; an hour of life not given us by God
would be an hour without duty, and without a mission," The
application of this answer to the state of things at the time
is very obvious : " The Jews wiU not be able to shorten by
a single moment the time granted me for accomplishing my
work on earth ; real danger, that of walking without God, can
only reach me if, as you seem to propose, I should arbitrarily
endeavour to prolong my life, by refusing to go whither duty
calls me." This saying applies to the believer who, in a
time of persecution, should prolong his life by denying the
faith, to the physician who should flee at the approach of a
contagious disease, etc. A life thus lengthened would no
longer be illumed by the light of the Divine wOl. A man
in such a situation would in vain seek the direction of his
own by a higher wiU. He could no longer do aught but sin
and morally perish {-irpoaKOTrTeiv, stumble). Meyer objects
that this idea does not suit the context, because the disciples
merely desired that Jesus should not shorten His life, not that
He should prolong it. As though a desertion of duty did
not, by refusing to shorten, really seek to prolong it ! This
meaning is confirmed by the parallel passage, 1 John ii. 10, 11,
in which the analogy of the ideas and expressions is remark
able. St. John there applies to him who loves or does not
love his brother, what Jesus here says of His own yielding or
not yielding to the appeal of the sisters of Lazarus.
This saying is, both in form and matter, the pendant of
that which Jesus advanced (ix. 4) as a reason for the cure of
the man born blind. The only difference is, that then it was
evening ; and seeing the sun descending towards the horizon,
I cannot. He said, lose a moment of tbe short time which is
left me for giving light to the world. Now it was morning.
The time which is given me, said Jesus, is quite sufficient ; I
must not by cowardice try to add a single hour to the day of
my life as meted out to me by the Divine appointment. In
these two words : to add nothing, to lose nothing, is summed
up the whole duty of man with respect to the task and time
of his earthly life,
Vv. 11—13, "These things said He, and after that He saith:
Our friend Lazarus sleepeth, but I go to awake him. Then they

10 GOSPEL OF JOHK.
said^ to Him: Lord, if he sleep, he shall do well. But Jesus
spake of his death, and they thought that He had spoken of taking
rest in sleep." — The words ravra etire, he said these things, and
. . ., are by no means superfluous. They signify : having
uttered this truth. He immediately applied it to the actual
circumstances. — The epithet : our friend, appealed to their
affection for Lazarus, just as the expression: he whom thou
lovest (ver. 3), had done to His own friendship for him.- — Some
expositors have supposed that it was not till now that Jesus
knew, by means of a second message, of the death of Lazarus.
But ver, 4, rightly understood, shows that He had knowledge of
this event, in a supernatural manner, from the time when His
attention was drawn to the state of His friend by the message
of the sisters, and at which He pronounced that promise. —
Jesus delights to present death under the image of sleep, and
thus to transform it into a phase of life.
Strauss finds the misunderstanding of the disciples (at ver.
1 2) inconceivable, and Reuss is of the same opinion. But they
do not take into consideration how extremely desirous the
disciples were to find some excuse for dissuading Jesus from
going to Judea, After the promise of ver, 4, they no longer
thought it possible for the sickness to terminate in death, and
they represented this mysterious sleep, from which Jesus desired
to go and awaken Lazarus, as a favourable crisis, which would
of itself end in convalescence. What improbability, then, is
there in the circumstance stated ? — The general term /fot/iiijo-ts
(ver. 13) is derived from iceKolprjTat, (ver. 11),
Vv. 14—16, " Then said Jesus unto them plainly : Lazarus
is dead, and I am glad for your sakes that I was not there, to
the intent ye may believe; nevertheless let us go imto him.
Then said Thomas, which is called Didymus, unto his fellow-
disciples : Let us also go, that ive may die 'with Him." — Jesus
had (vv. 9, 10) dismissed the motive alleged against this
journey, and afterwards stated (vv. 11, 12) the positive
reasons which induced Him to undertake it : He now explained
Himself, and gave the order to depart. — Ilapprjcria, as at xvi. 25 :
loithout figure. — There would have been, as we have already
' T. R., with 10 Mjj. the Mnn. ItP'""i>» Vg., reads surov ov^i « ^a^. auTou.—ii B C
D K X read auru, either "before or after ci /mi., and omit xwrav. — A and 1 Mn.
which Tischendorf follows, omit « jaaC. olvtoo, and read a.uT-^.

CHAP. XL 14-16. 1 1
remarked, manifest dissimulation in our Lord's mode of expres
sion (ver. 1 5), if this death had been the consequence of His
own way of acting. — The words : to the intent ye muy believe,
are a comment upon the regimen : for your sakes. Undoubtedly
the disciples were already believers, but, as Hengstenberg says,
by growing, faith originates; and at each new stage which it
reaches, the preceding stage seems to it nothing but un
belief The increase of faith which they would obtain at that
grave -would soon be greatly needed, when they would be
called upon to behold that of their Master. — There is some
thing abrupt in the last words : nevertheless let us go to him,
which seem meant to constrain them, and to overcome the
last remains of opposition. They yielded, but not without
the unbelief, stUl lurking in the heart of some, becoming
manifest. In fact, the saying of Thomas to his feUow-disciples shows
more love to the person of Jesus than faith in the wisdom of
the step He was about to take. The meaning of it is : Well,
if He is resolved to perish, let us perish too ! The Thomas
who speaks thus is indeed the same Thomas whom we meet
with in xiv. 5 and xx, 25 — a man of great candour and resolu
tion, but one little inclined to subordinate the visible to the
invisible. This undesigned consistency in the part played by
the secondary characters is, as Luthardt has shown, one of the
most striking features in St. John's narrative, and one of the
best proofs of the historical truth of his Gospel. — The name
Thomas (from the Aramaic KIOXD, Hebrew Dxn) signifies twin.
The name Didymus, which has the same meaning in Greek,
was undoubtedly that by which this apostle was most generally
called by the Greek Christians among whom St, John wrote.
This explains the repetition of this translation at xx, 24 and
xxi. 2, Hengstenberg sees in this name twin an allusion to
the fact that there were in Thomas two men, a believer and
an unbeliever, a Jacob and an Esau !
What wisdom and what love are manifested in the man
ner in which Jesus prepared His disciples for a journey so
repugnant to them ! How sublime are the thoughts which
on this occasion He instilled into their hearts ! What beauty
and what fitness in the images by which He endeavoured to
make them intelligible !

12 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
II. The Miracle. — ^Vv. 17-44.
1st. Vv, 17-27. Jesus and Martha.
Vv. 17—19, " Wlien Jesus came. He found that he had been
in the grave four days already. Now Bethany was nigh unto
Jerusalem, about fifteen stadia off ; and ^ many of the Jews came
to ^ Martha and Mary, to comfort them concerning their brother." ^
— On the four days, see remarks on ver, 6, The expression :
He found, refers to the intelligence given Him on His arrival.
— It is well known that the Jews were accustomed to bury the
dead before sunset on the very day of their decease. — St. John
mentions the nearness of Bethany to Jerusalem for the sake of
explaining the presence of so large a number of Jews (ver. 1 9) ;
15 stadia are a walking distance of about 45 minutes. This
distance is reckoned from Jerusalem {iyyij? roi)v 'lepocrdkvpani),
which explains the use of the preposition airo. — The imperfect
was refers to the part played by Bethany in this narrative,
which was uo longer recent when St, John wrote ; it is un
necessary to suppose that he used the past tense because of
the destruction of this town in the Roman war. — The turn of
expression, al irepl Mdpdav (ver. 1 9), so usual with the Greeks,
is got rid of by the Alex, reading, but erroneously, as even
Meyer and Tischendorf admit. This form represents Martha
and Mary as surrounded by the members of their household,
and seems dictated by the notion of the etiquette which pre
vails in mourning ceremonies. It certainly implies that the
two sisters were in comfortable circumstances. These visits
of condolence generally lasted seven days (1 Sam. xxxi 1 3 ;
1 Chron. x. 12). — The sequel shows that the term Jews, here
used, preserves the tinge which it bears throughout this Gospel,
The connection of Martha and Mary with these people
did not hinder them from belonging, for the most part, to the
party hostile to Jesus (vv. 28, 37, 46),
Vv, 20-24, " WJien Martha heard that Jesus was coming,
she went and met Him, hut Mary sat in the house. Then said
Martha unto Jesus : Lordf if Thou hadst been here, my brother
' N A B C D L X : waXXo; Se instead of xxi .raXXm.
^ T. R. reads ¦rfs; tu; vipi UxpSxv «. M. with 12 Mj.j. (A r, etc.) and nearly all
the Mnn., while K B C D L X and 4 Mnn. read Tpm (or Tpas t»») Mxflxv x. M,
' N B D L omit xwrm. * B omits xK|Jii.

CHAP, XL 20-24. 13
had not died ; ^ but ^ I know that even now, whatsoever Thou
wilt ask of God, God will give it Thee. Jesus said unto her :
Thy brother shall rise again. Martha said unto Him : I know
that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day"
— Martha, who was undoubtedly occupied in domestic affairs,
was the first to receive the news of our Lord's arrival, and in
her eagerness ran to meet Him without thinking of her sister,
whom her grief was keeping in the inner apartment. Such as
the two sisters are represented in Luke x. 38 sq,, such exactly
do we here find them. The narrative of St, John seems to
allude to that of his predecessor, while on the opposite sup
position, the manner in which they harmonize is only the
more striking, — The saying of Martha (ver. 21) is not a
reproach. For how could she be ignorant of the fact that her
brother was dead before Jesus had received the news of his
illness ? And how, especially, would she have allowed herself
to complain of His mode of" acting, at the time when she
was about to make the very greatest of requests ? She merely
expressed her regret that Jesus had not been there at the
time of his illness, and this regret only helped to prepare for
the petition she was abont to make, — 'AXka koI vvv : But even
iiow, although so late ! She knew that there must be no such
thing as despair with a Being such as He, " Thou couldest
not come to cure my brother, but even in death he may ex
perience the virtue of Thy prayer." The aXKd, but, must
then be maintained in the text. — The indefinite expression,
whatsoever, leaves that which is too great to express to be
understood. The reticence of this indirect request is admir
able. The repetition of the word 0eo9, God, at the close of
both the propositions of ver, 22, was undoubtedly prompted
by the greatness of the expected work : " Thou art the well-
beloved of God ; God will give Thee the life of my brother,"
Martha was inspired with this confidence not only by the
resurrections effected in Galilee, but more especially by the
promise of Jesus, which her messenger would not have failed
to report, and above all by His sudden arrivaL
Martha's faith was more lively than enlightened. She
^NBCDKLXn read artSxnv instead of trienxu, which is the reading of
AEFGHMSUTAAand almost aU the Mnn,
2 N B C X omit the aXXa of T. R, before xiu wt.

14 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
believed in a prodigy to be effected by power, but was not yet
initiated into that spiritual sphere from which it was to
emanate. Before granting her desire, Jesus endeavours to put
her into a condition in which she may be capable of both
understanding and receiving. With this view He proceeds, as
in chs. V. vi, by first giving to His promise the most general
form : " Thy brother shall rise again!' Hengstenberg even
thinks that in these words He did not allude to the approach
ing raising of Lazarus, which, in His opinion, did not deserve
to be called a resurrection, because a return to this sad state
of existence is unworthy of such a name. But is it not doing
violence to the text, to refuse to recognise in this saying a
promise of the event which was about to take place 1 — A belief
in the resurrection of pious Israelites, as an inauguration of the
Messianic reign, already taught, Dan. xii. 2, and 2 Mace. vii.
9, 14, etc., was very general in Israel, especially in those
circles in which Pharisaic teaching prevailed.^
Martha certainly felt what Jesus meant to say, but, with a
view of making quite sure of it, she applied His saying to the
final resurrection, which she regarded as certain. This gave
Jesus occasion to explain Himself, and to declare expressly
what she hardly dared to hope. He.nce there is neither a
mournful resignation (Meyer), nor a relapse after a flight of
faith (Luthardt), in this answer of Martha, but the language
of this active and energetic woman constantly breathes a
masculine faith. But this faith was not as spiritual as it
was strong, nor was it as yet sufficiently flxed upon the person
of our Lord, whose answer was intended to develop it in both
these respects.
Vv. 25,26. "Jesus said unto her: I am the resurrection and
the life : he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall
lie live, and whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die :
believest thou this ? " — To this great future event of the resurrec
tion, of which Martha spoke, Jesus opposed His own person
{iy(o, I), and His person as present {elpi, I am). Victory over
death is not a purely physical fact, but a personal work, — an
act of which Jesus, then present, is the author, and which He
could, if He chose, as easily accomplish at that very moment
' Schiirer, Neutest. Zeiigesch, p. 395 sq. The differences of opinion, existing in
this general expectation of the resurrection, are fully shown hy this writer.

CHAP. XI. 25, 2G. 1 5
as after the lapse of ages. He thus concentrated the thoughts
of Martha upon Himself, and gave her faith its proper object.
He sought to exchange adherence to a doctrinal truth for
confidence in Himself. He acted in just the same manner
in chs, iv. vi,, when, after some moments of conversation. He
substituted Himself for the abstract notions of living water
and bread from heaven, — ^After declaring Himself to be the
Resurrection, Jesus proclaimed Himself the Life. It might
have been thought (see our 1st edit.) that He spoke thus from
the view-point of His relations with us ; for death is our natural
element, from which we must be rescued by Christ, in the
way of resurrection, before possessing life in Him. But it is
better to admit, with Luthardt, that our Lord here passes from
the physical resurrection to that deeper fact which is its con
dition ; if He is the Resurrection, it is because He is first
of all the Life. Jesus was striving to spiritualize Martha's
faith. He revealed to her that the impartation of Life, of
which He is the source, is the principle of that physical
resurrection which He will effect in His people. Hence they
who are united to Him by faith possess, notwithstanding
the temporary accident of death, a life which nothing can
interrupt, and in this life the pledge of the resurrection of
the body. This applied to Lazarus, who, though dead,
might in virtue of this life of faith be at any moment
recalled to earthly existence by Jesus. Besides, and this
applied to the living by whom Jesus was surrounded, every
believer is in reality and for ever shielded from death (ver.
26), To die with fuU light, in the clear certainty of the
life which is in Jesus, to die only to continue to live to
Him (ver. 25), is no longer that fact which huraan language
designates by the name of death (see rem. on vi, 50, viii,
54). It is as though Jesus had said: In me, death is
certain to live, and the living is certain never to die. The
epithet o ftSv, he who liveth (ver, 26), is the antithesis to kuv
aTTodavrj, though he were dead (ver. 25) ; and both expressions
should be taken in their proper meaning.
This saying, by leading Martha's thoughts from the isolated
act of resurrection which was about to be effected, to its
spiritual and permanent principle, gave the miracle its true
value with respect to Jier own religious life, made that act a

16 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
ray of the glory of Jesus, and was a means of uniting the soul
of Martha to Himself, the source of life. Before proceeding
to act, then. He asks her : " Believest thou this ? "
Ver. 27. "She said unto Him : Yea, Lord, I believe that Thou
art the Christ, the Son of God, which should come into the world."
- — To see, as some do, in this confession of Martha, only an
acknowledgment that she had not understood the words just
uttered by Jesus, and to make it mean : I do not comprehend
these deep matters, but my theology, in a few words, is,
I believe Thee to be the Messiah, is strangely to undervalue
it. Such a meaning would give to this solemn scene a puerile
and almost ridiculous character. By her answer : Yea, Lord,
Martha certainly appropriated all that Jesus had affirmed con
cerning His person. But being unable to find terms in which
to express her faith in things so new to her, she made use of
words with which she was familiar, to declare that Jesus was
to her all that was greatest, and that whatever He might say
concerning His person, He would never say too much for the
faith of her to whom He was speaking. The Christ : the end
of the theocratic revelations and dispensations ; the Son of
God : the individual in wbom God is manifested as in no
other, and who is in intimate and mysterious relation with
God, The expression : which should come into the world, is not a
third title, but an apposition, explanatory of the other two.
The present part., €p^6pevo<;, he that cometh, is the present of
the idea : He who, according to the divine promise, necessarily
comes. The world is the foreseen theatre of His Messianic
agency. There is a great psychologic truth in this answer of
Martha's ; by it she implicitly acknowledged that He was aU
that He said: the 7-esurrection and the life. 'Eyco, I, whom
thou art questioning ; ireiriaTevKa (perfect) : that is the convic
tion I possess.
2d. Vv. 28-37. Jesus and Mary.
Vv, 28-30. "And when she had said this} she werit away,
and called Mary her sister secretly, saying : The Master is come,
and calleth for thee. As soon as she heard, she riseth^ quickly
' N B 0 L X Cop. : Touro instead of tuutx, which is the reading of the 14
other Mjj., almost all the Mnn. It. Vg. and Syr.
' N B C D L X It. Sah. : nyipln instead of lyufiTcti.

CHAP. XL 31, 32. 17
and cometh^ to meet Him. Now Jesus was not yet come into
the toivn, but was^ in the place where Martha met Him." —
The words : He calleth for thee, are enough to prove that
Jesus had indeed given Martha this commission. He would
certainly desire to prepare Mary, as well as her sister, for the
miracle, which could only be really beneficial to either on this
condition. Perhaps the caution with which Martha delivered
this message (Kddpa, secretly) had been advised by Jesus
Himself; He had heard by whom she was surrounded, and
though He would not fiee from danger, neither would He
seek it.
Mary's lively emotion at the reception of the message is
depicted by the pres. iyeipeTai, riseth, which is certainly the
true reading, and by the adverb which accompanies it. — That
Jesus had not entered Bethany was not merely because the
grave was outside the town (Luthardt) ; some important
motive must have detained Him, or He would have gone at
once to the house of mourning, to which His heart called
Him. He certainly desired to avoid anything which might
attract notice ; and the purpose of the following verse is to
show how this desire was frustrated by a will higher than
His, which had resolved to give this miracle the greatest
publicity. Jesus acted as He ought ; God acted as He
pleased. That which now happened is somewhat similar to
what is related in Matt. ix. 31'; Mark vii. 24, 36.
Vv. 31, 32. "The Jews then lohich -were with her in tJie house,
and comforted her, when they saw her rise up hastily and go
out, followed her, saying : ^ She * goeth to the grave, to weep
there. When, then, Mary was come to the place where Jesus
was, she fell down at ^ His feet, saying : Lord, if Thou hadst
been here, my brother^ had not died!' — One and the same
thought had occupied the mind of the two sisters, and per
haps that of the dying man during his last hours : If Jesus
were but here ! But upon this common background of grief
and regret are depicted some significant differences between
1 The same (minus D) : yipx^'^' instead of spx^'^'i.
^ K B C X It. Vg. and Cop. . m £¦" {was still) in.stead of »» {was).
^ NBCDLX, 7 Mnn. Syr"''" and Cop. read Si>?««tss instead of Xi-yarTU.
' a : OTI Inirtv; vvayii {.lesus goefh!).
* X B C D L X : vpos instead of ti;.
'' N B C L A place fcou before xmtxy.v.
GODET IIL B JOHN.

18 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
the two sisters. We have remarked upon the masculine
character of Martha's faith. Mary seems, on the contrary,
entirely absorbed in grief; hers is a nature wholly. feminine.
And like all persons of sensitive disposition, she makes no
energetic effort to conquer the depression which overwhelmed
her, but lets herself fall, as Martha had not done, at Jesus' feet
— the place, moreover, in which she delighted (Luke x. 39 ;
John xii. 3). Nor does she add, as her sister had done,
a word of faith and hope to the expression of her grief.
Lastly, there are, in the exclamation which was common to
both, two shades of difference which are not accidental.
Instead of eTeOvrjKei, he is dead, (the actual state), she says :
direOave, he has performed the act of dying (the Aorist), as if
it were still the terrible moment when the separation took
place. Thus the pronoun pov, of me, is in her mouth placed
before o dhe\<^6^, the brother, and even, according to the Alex.
reading, before direOave; it is as though a part of herself
were gone.- — Then there is in Martha a practical character
and an elastic nature capable of energetic reaction against
an overwhelming sentiment; in Mary, a sensibility surren
dered to without a trace of reaction against the feeling which
absorbs her. How true is every feature of this picture !
Jesus knew the human heart too well to attempt to treat
Mary in the same manner which He had just employed with
Martha. A grief like hers needed sympathy and action, not
instruction and conversation,
Vv. 33, 34, " When Jesus, therefore, saw Mary weeping,
and the Jews also weeping which came with her. He shuddered
in His spirit, and troubled Himself} and said: Where have
ye laid him ? They said unto Him : Lord, come and see." —
The particle therefore establishes a relation of causality
between the grief of Mary and those who accompanied her
and the unusual emotion by which Jesus was at that time
overcome. This relation is confirmed by the words : when He
saw, and by the repetition of the participle weeping, with
which both propositions end, like a refrain. It is now
generally acknowledged that the term ip^pipaaOai (from
^pipd^eiv, to neigh, to roar) can only designate a shudder of
indignation. See the thorough demonstration in the article
^ D, soniG Mnn. and Sah, ; iTapx^Svi tu '^vivfia^t us tf.i.[lpi/.iuu..iiog.

CHAP. XI. 33, S4. 19
of Gumlich, Studien und Kritiken, 1862, pp. 260-269.
This sense is even applicable in such passages as Matt. ix. 30
and Mark i. 43, though with a special tinge. We must
first of all, then, reject the meaning : to be seized ivith grief
(Liicke), and : to sigh deeply (Ewald). But what could have
been the object of this indignation ? According to Chry
sostom, Cyril, and other Greek expositors, the very emotion
which He felt at the sight of the sorrow of those around
Him, with this difference, that, according to Chrysostom, rm
irvevpaTi, His spirit, designates the object of His indignation (He
was indignant at His own spirit, that is to say, at the emotion
which mastered Him) ; while Cyril sees in the Spirit the
agent of this indignation, and makes it the divine nature of
Jesus, hy means of which He sought to overcome this move
ment of entirely human sympathy. The explanation of
Chrysostom is reproduced by Hilgenfeld : " His divinity was
irritated at the emotion of His humanity, and violently re
pressed it." But this non-natural meaning would require, in
any case, the use of ¦^v)(t], soul, instead of irvevpa, spirit.
For the soul is the seat of the natural emotions — comp. xii
27; TTvevpa, spirit, designating the region of those higher
feelings which pertain to the relation of the soul with the
divine. Besides, if Jesus had really struggled against an emotion
of sympathy, how came He to resign Himself to it the very
next moment with such perfect simplicity (ver. 35)? Meyer
thinks that His indignation was excited by the hypocritical
tears of the Jews, as contrasted with the sincere grief of
Mary. But tho two participles, weeping,, stand in a relation,
not of contrast, but of agreement. Others (Keim, Strauss)
refer this indignation to the want of faith which He dis
cerned both in Mary and the Jews. But the. word weeping,
which is twice repeated to explain the emotion of Jesus,
contains, indeed, the notion of grief, but not that of unbelief
Besides, He wept also the next moment. Several exegetes
(Calv., Olsh., Luthardt) are of opinion that the Saviour's indig
nation was directed against the power of death, and against
Satan, who wields this murderous weapon against men (viii.
44). In fact, in the sight of Jesus, death is no more an
event than resurrection: these two facts are actions, the results
of a personal wilL If this explanation is adopted, we raust

20 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
admit that, while the indignation felt by our Lord (ver. 33)
concerned the murderer, the tears which He shed (ver, 35)
express His compassion for the victims. From this point of
view, however, it is very difficult to account for the words
which follow: He troubled Himself. The emotion of Jesus
seems, according to this remarkable expression, to have been
of a more personal kind than this explanation supposes. An
emotion of an entirely similar kind is mentioned xiii. 21,
Avhen Jesus saw the treason of Judas about to be perpe
trated : He was troubled in spirit. The spirit is the seat of
the religious emotions, as the soul is that of the natural
affections. Thus Jesus says (xii, 2 7) : My soul is troubled,
because the anticipation of His sufferings made His nature
shudder; while in the other passage (xiii, 21) it was in His
spirit that He was moved, because He found Himself in
immediate contact with evil in its most hateful form, and felt
horror at the proximity of the invisible being who had taken
possession of the heart of Judas. This parallel passage
throws light upon the shuddering of Jesus (ver, 33), The
sobs which He heard around Him urged Him to effect the
resurrection of His friend ; but, on the other hand. He well
knew that to jdeld to this impulse was to give His enemies,
and him who inspired their action, the signal for His own
death. They would make the most glorious of His miracles
the excuse for His condemnation, nay, some even of those
whose sobs were urging Him to perform it, would themselves
turn informers against Him. He was filled with horror at the
thought that He would have to pay with His life for the
crime of having vanquished deatli, and His holy sord was
stirred to its inmost depths at such diabolical perversity. —
The words : He troubled Himself, indicate a physical commo
tion, a bodily trembling, which might be perceived by the
witnesses of this scene. The expression chosen by the
evangelist is such as to obviate , any notion of an either
unreasonable or merely passive agitation. Hence it does not
denote, as Meyer and others think, the natural reaction of
the moral upon the physical feelings. On the contrary,
immediately after the emotion which had just seized Him,
He spontaneously formed a strong resolve, and overcame
the horror with which His prevision had filled His souL

CHAP. XL 35-37. 21
The physical agitation indicated by the words : He troubled
Himself, is an indication of the inward determination with
which He shook off the impression, and which was expressed
in the short and abrupt question. Where have you laid him ?
The repetition of Kai, and, brings out the close connection of
these different emotions, which followed each other in such
rapid succession.
Vv, 35-37. "Jesus wept} Then said the Jews: Behold,
ho-w He loved him ! But some of them said : Could not this
man, who opened the eyes of the blind, have caused that even
this man should not have died?" — The storm had passed,
and Jesus, in approaching the sepulchre, no longer felt any
thing but tender sympathy for the grief which had possessed
the heart of His friend at the moment of separation, and
that which the two sisters were at that very moment feeling.
The word SaKpveiv, to weep, does not, like Kkaieiv, indicate
sobs (ver. 3 3), but tears ; it is the expression for a calm and
gentle sorrow. Baur does not admit that it is possible to
weep for a friend so soon to be restored, and regards this
feature as a proof of the non-authenticity of the' narrative.
Assuredly, if this Gospel were, as he believes, the production
of speculative thought, it would not have contained this 35th
verse. Jesus would, as the true Logos, with nothing human
except the outward appearance, have raised His friend with
triumphant looks and unmoistened eyes. But the evangelist,
from the first, lays down the principle : The Word was made
flesh. "It is not with a heart of stone that the dead are
raised," says Hengstenberg; and Heb. ii. 17 teaches us that
he who would help the unhappy, must first of all surrender
his heart to feeling that very suffering from which he desires
to deliver them. It is a remarkable thing, that the very Gospel
in which the deity of Jesus is most clearly asserted, is also
that which makes us best acquainted with the profoundly
human side of His life. The very criticism of the German
scholar proves how little such a Jesus is the offspring of
speculation. — The solemn brevity of the sentences in these
34th and 35th verses is worthy of remark.
Even on the borders of the grave we encounter the inevitable
division produced by the person of Jesus whenever He mani-
' tJ D and some Mnn. read xcci before ilcc-A-funv,

22 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
fested Himself, whether by word or deed. Among the Jews
themselves, there were some whose hearts were touched at the
sight of these tears. Sympathy with misfortune is neutral
gi'ound — a purely human region, in which all hearts, not
utterly hardened, may meet. But some of them found in these
tears of Jesus a reason for suspicion. One of two things must,
they thought, be the case ; either He had not that friendship for
Lazarus which He was affecting to feel, or He did not really
possess that miraculous power of which He had pretended to give
a proof in the cure of the man born blind. In either case there
was something doubtful about His behaviour. Many exegetes
(Liicke, de Wette, Tholuck, Gumlich) give a favourable meaning
to the question of these Jews, ver. 3 7, But the evangehst, by
the very turn of the expression {some among them), identifies the
Jews of ver. 37 with those of ver, 46. Besides, it would be
impossible, with such a meaning, to understand the relation be
tween this question of the Jews and the fresh emotion manifested
by our Lord (ver. 38). — Strauss finds it strange that these Jews
should not here refer to the resurrections of dead persons effected
by Jesus in Galilee, rather than to the healing of the blind man.
And certainly no evangelist of the second century would have
failed to put into the mouths of these Jews allusions to these
resurrections, then so well known in the church through the
Synoptic Gospels ; while, on the other hand, so natural a cir
cumstance as that inhabitants of Jerusalem should rather refer
to the last striking miracle performed by Jesus in that city,
and under their own eyes, does but manifest the historical
truthfulness of St. John. A cure which had given rise to so
much discussion, and had been the subject of such opposite
judgments, was naturally the first to present itself to their
minds. 3d. Vv. 38-44. Jesus and Lazarus.
Vv, 38, 39. "Jesus therefore, again shuddering in Himself,
cometh to the grave. It was a cave, and a stone lay upon it.
Jesus said : Take ye away the stone. Martha, the sister of him
that was dead} saith unto Him : Lord, (by this time) already lie
stinketh, for he hath been there four days!' — This repeated feelino-
of indignation on the part of Jesus was evidently called forth
iThe Mss. are divided between nhtixcrts (T. R. aud the Byzantines) and
T:T2Xtt,x,T,i (K A B C D K L n).

CHAP, XL 38, 39. 23
by the malicious remark of the Jews (ver, 37), as St. John
gives us to understand by therefore (ver. 38). And in the
explanation which we have offered of the cause of this indig
nation (ver. 33), the relation between the two facts is easy
to understand. The emotion, however, seems to have been
less profound than on the former occasion, and more easily
overcome. This very natural detail is a fresh proof of the
faithfulness of the narrative.
The sepulchre was a cave hollowed out in the rock, either
horizontally or vertically. The verb i-rreKeiTo would signify in
the first case that the stone was placed at the entrance of the
cave, in the second, upon its opening. If the tomb now shown
as that of Lazarus is really such, it was of the latter of these
forms. It is a cave cut in the rock, and descended into by a
ladder of twenty-six steps. Robinson has, however, in this as in
so many other instances, proved that tradition is not authentic.
— The stones by which such caves were closed, being merely
intended to keep off wild beasts, might be easily removed. —
There is between this second feeling of indignation on the
part of Jesus, and His peremptory command : Take ye away
the stone, a relation analogous to that which we have already
remarked between His first emotion of the kind and the
question : Where have ye laid him ? The state of expectation
into which this command would throw the crowd may be
easily imagined.
Did the remark of Martha proceed, as many expositors
think, from a feeling of incredulity ? The expression : the
sister of him that was dead, which adds nothing to what the
reader already knows, leads us rather to think that Martha
was preoccupied with the painful sensation about to be ex
perienced by our Lord and His companions by means of one
so dear to her. As a sister, she would feel a certain amount
of perplexity and difficulty on this account ; besides, it must
be remembered how closely the notion of pollution was, among
the Jews, connected with that of death and corruption. We
have here, then, an exclamation dictated by a feeling of respect
for Him to whom she was speaking : Lord ; and a kind of
delicacy with respect to the person, so sacred to her, of him
of whom she speaks : the sister of him that was dead. It is
possible that the assertion of Martha: he stinketh already,

24 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
might have been a mere supposition on her part, which she
justified by adding : for he has already been there four days.
But it is more natural to regard these words as the expression
of a fact of which she had already had experience. The
explanation : for he has been there . . ., while pointing out
the cause of this fact, contains a slight allusion to the delay
of Jesus. But, it is asked, had not Lazarus been embalmed ?
Undoubtedly he had, but after the manner of the Jews, who
limited themselves to wrapping the body in perfumes, a pro
cess which could not prevent corruption. It has been supposed
that, the arrival of Jesus being expected, the body had been
placed in the tomb without the performance of this ceremony.
Ver. 44, however, which shows that the limbs of Lazarus were,
like those of any other corpse, enveloped in bandages (comp.
xix. 40), does not favour this opinion. If Martha's remark
did not arise from unbelief, it might nevertheless, by re
calling this fact, occasion some failure of faith at this decisive
moment. Vv, 40-42, " Jesus saith unto her : Said I not unto thee,
that if thou believest thou shalt see!- the glory of God ? Then
they took away the stone? And Jesus lifted up His eyes and
said : Father, I thank Thee tliat Thou hast heard me. As for
myself, I know well that Thou hearest me always, hut I said it
because of the people who surround one, that they may believe that
Thou hast sent me!' — Several exegetes refer the words : Said I
not unto thee . . .? to the conversation of vv. 2 3—2 7. And,
indeed, the words of Jesus : // thoit believest . . ., do remind
us of the expression: He that believeth in me (vv. 25, 26),
and the question : Believest thou this ? (ver. 2 7), But the
characteristic expression of the present verse: the glory of
God, is absent from these declarations, while it forms the
salient feature of the promise of ver. 4, It was, then, this
latter promise of which Jesus especially reminded Martha,
He well knew that it had been reported to the two sisters
by their messenger, and it had, indeed, formed the starting-
point of the conversation, vv. 23-27, which confirmed and
developed it. Hence, Said I not unto thee, stands for : Did
' 15 Mjj. read a-^'n instead of o'^u, which is the reading of T. R. with K U r n.
2 T. R., with 9 Byz. Mjj. (E G H, etc.), here adds the words : cu ,., c Tilrr'-^;
xiii.i.'.to;. A K n have quite shortly- ; au »».

CHAP. XL 40-42. 25
I not send thee word ? — The glory of God is here, precisely as
at Rom. vi. 4, the glorious triumph over death and corrup
tion (ver. 39) of God's omnipotence exerted for the sake of
His love. This is the sight Jesus promises to Martha, and
opposes to the painful sensations which she dreads for the
spectators and herself so soon as the stone is removed. — It
is not necessary to see a reproach in the words : Said I not
unto thee, that if thou wouldest believe . . .? as though Martha
had shown a want of faith in speaking as she had done at ver.
39, in presence of the manifest signs of decomposition which
had already begun. He exhorts her to a supreme act of faith,
giving her as a foundation His former promise. She had
already scaled the arduous steeps of the mountain ; one last
peak had to be gained, and the spectacle of the glory 'of God,
of life triumphing over death, would be displayed before her
eyes. Man always desires to see in order to believing.
Martha is called upon to give an example of the contrary
process : of believing in order to see. In expressing Himself
as He did, Jesus by no means made the fulfilment of His
promise depend, as Meyer supposes, upon the faith of Martha.
What He makes contingent upon this last act of confidence
which He demands from her, is not the miracle, but her
own enjoyment of it (to see the glory). The bodily eye
alone is not sufficient for the enjoyment of such a light.
The received reading : the stone from the place where tlie
dead lay, seems to be a paraphrase. The Alex, reading,
which is simply : tlw stone, does not explain the other two.
May not the third, that of A K iJ, -the stone from where it
was, be the original text 1 Its brevity {ov riv) accounts on the
one hand for the Byzantine gloss, and on the other for the
entire omission of the sentence by the Alexandrines. — Jesus
lifted up His eyes. To man, the visible heaA^en is the most
eloquent witness of the invisible power of God. And so
truly was Jesus man, the Word made flesh (comp. xvii. 1),
that it was by gazing upon that infinite exjianse that He
sought His Father's face and prepared Himself for inward
communion with Him. — The miracle was in the eyes of Jesus
already effected, hence He gave thanks for it as for a thing
accomplished : Thou hast heard me. He thus confirmed the
view of His miracles announced by Martha (ver. 22) : they

26 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
were just so many answered prayers. The difference, however,
between His position and that of others sent by God, who per
formed similar works, was the perfect assurance of being heard
with which He addressed God, As the Son, He drew freely
upon the divine treasury, and Besser well remarks : " Un
doubtedly He performed aU His miracles by faith, but by
a faith peculiar ¦ to Himself, that of being the Son of God
manifested in the flesh."
If Jesus, as in the present instance, expressed His gratitiide
aloud, it was not, as He Himself added, because there was any
thing extraordinary in the conduct of the Father towards Him
on this occasion. This act of thanksgiving is anything but an
exclamation extorted by surprise at being exceptionally heard ;
constantly heard by the Father, He is continually giving Him
thanks. That which urged Him at this solemn moment to do
so aloud was the sight of the people by whom He was sur
rounded. He had in private conversation prepared His dis
ciples and the two sisters to behold and understand the work
He was about to perform. He now desired to dispose the
people also, whom His Father had unexpectedly assembled
around this tomb, to behold the glory of God — that is, to see
in this miracle not merely a prodigy, but a sign. Otherwise
the astonishment they might feel would be unfruitful, and
would not terminate in faith. It was for this reason that our
Lord uttered in an audible voice that sentiment of filial grati
tude which at all times filled His heart. By addressing His
Father, He had just put God into the position of either
granting or withholding His co-operation. If Lazarus remained
in the tomb, let Jesus be acknowledged an impostor, and all
His other miracles attributed to Beelzebub ! If God, who
was thus solemnly invoked, should manifest His arm, let Jesus
be acknowledged as sent by Him ! Thus this act of thanks
giving before the still occupied sepulchre made this moment
one of solemn ordeal, like that of Elijah on Carmel, and
imparted to this miracle a supreme and unique character in
the Itfe of Jesus. — Criticism has called this prayer " a prayer
of pomp " (Strauss, Weisse, Baur), and found in this circum
stance a reason for suspecting the authenticity of the narra
tive ; but it has failed to grasp the whole bearing of the act.
The Jews had regarded the cure of the man born blind as

CHAP. XI. 43, 44. 27
startling and inexplicable, but, viewing it as a breach of the
Sabbath, had denied its divine character. By giving thanks
to God on the present occasion, before all the people, pre
viously to performing the miracle, Jesus positively makes
God participate in the work about to be effected. Jehovah,
the God of Isra.el, will be henceforth either the authenticator
of His mission, or the accomplice of His imposture. — It is
interesting to compare this expression : Thou hast heard me,
with the assertion of M. R^viUe, when, speaking after the
manner of Scholten, he says : " The fourth Gospel knows
nothing of Jesus praying as a man" {Rev. de Thiol., 1865,
vol. iii p. 316).
Vv. 43, 44. "And when He had thus spoken, He cried with
a loud voice : Lazarus, come forth. And ^ he that was dead
came forth, his feet and hands bound with bandages, a,nd his
face wrapped in a napkin. Jesus saith unto them : Loose him,
and let him'' go." — Jesus, having thus impressed its true cha
racter on the miracle, proceeded to accomplish it. The loud
voice with which He spoke was the expression of a decided
will, sure of being obeyed. As a man is called by name to
awaken him from sleep, so did Jesus rouse Lazarus from death,
which is but a sounder sleep (vv. 11, 12), by calling him
loudly. Undoubtedly these external signs were only, as
Hengstenberg says, for the individuals present, the power of
raising the dead dwelling, not in the voice, but in the will of
Jesus expressed thereby. — ^When speaking to the daughter of
Jairus, and to the young man of ]S"ain, He had said only : Arise,
or : Awake, because they lay in a bed or on a bier. In the
present instance He said : Come forth, because Lazarus was
within the sepulchre. The simplicity and brevity of these
two words : Seijpo e^m (hterally : here, out !), are in glorious
contrast with their efficacy.
The expression : he came forth, ver. 44, does not necessarily
indicate that he walked, especially if the sepulchre were dug
vertically, but simply that he arose, which he could easily do
notwithstanding the linen cloths in which he was enveloped ;
nor need we, on this account, suppose that each limb was
' Kai is omitted in B C L Sah., but found in all the other Mjj. (including
N) and Vss.
- B C L read avrs; after nfiru

28 GOSPEL OF JOHN,
separately swathed, according to the custom of the Egyptians. —
The detail : his face was hound about with a napkin, is the
touch of an eye-witness, and recalls the impression — an im
pression never to be obliterated — made upon the spectators
by the sight. While they remained motionless with astonish
ment, Jesus, with perfect calmness, and as though nothing
extraordinary had occurred, invited them to take their part in
the work : Every one to his office ; I have raised, it is for you
to loose him. The words : Let him go, mean quite simply :
Restore to him that power of motion of which, by this bind
ing, you have deprived him. — The term vm-dyeiv, to go away,
has in it a touch of triumph, like the command of Jesus to
the impotent man : Take up thy bed, and walk I
The resurrection of Lazarus is the miracle of friendship, as
the prodigy at Cana was the miracle of filial piety, and that
not merely because the affection of Jesus for the family at
Bethany was its cause, but especially because Jesus performed
it with the distinct consciousness that by restoring his friend
to life He was signing His own death-warrant (comp. vv. 8—1 6
and vv. 33-38). The self-sacrifice of friendship here rises to
the height of heroism, a fact well understood by St. John,
of whose narrative this thought, which is clearly brought out
by the passage next following, is the very soul.
III. The Effect produced hy this Miracle. — Vv. 45-57.
1st. And first, its immediate effect upon the spectators.
Vv. 45, 46. " Then^ many of the Jews, tliose who had come'''
to Mary, and had seen the things ' which He did, believed in Him.
But some of them went their ways to the Pharisees, and told them
what^ Jesus had done." — Again a division among the specta
tors, and a more far-reaching one than on preceding occasions.
It is indeed natural to oppose the words : many of ' the Jews,
to those of the next verse : hut some of them. The antithesis,
moreover, of the two verbs : believed (ver. 45) and ivent their
ivays (ver. 46), corresponds with that of the subjects. There
is, however, a difficulty in this explanation, viz. that the parti
ciples : who had come, and who had seen, do not in G reek agree
^ X : Ss instead of cuv, ° D : toih iXhvruv instead of si ikfitns.
^ B C D read o instead of « at ver. 45, as do also C D M at ver. 46.

CHAP. XL 47-50. 29
with the word Jews, but with the word -iroXKol, many (not :
many of the Jews . . ,, but : many, those who . . . ), so that this
turn of the phrase seems to imply that all those who had come
believed without exception. But in this case what are we to
do with Tivi'i, some, which seems, on the other hand, to con
stitute a part of the iroWoi, of those many who came to Mary ?
Meyer accepts the consequence of this construction, and main
tains (as Origen has done before him) that, as they already
believed, they took this step of going to the Pharisees vjith
a good purpose. But this opinion is incompatible with the
evident and double antithesis between vv. 45 and 46, already
pointed out. Hence I rather hold that the some, riveq, must
not be included in the category of those numerous visitors
to Mary and Martha who now believed, ver. 45, but that the
pronoun axn&v, of them, ver. 46, refers to the Jevjs in general
('louSatwi/, ver. 45). There were certainly other Jews pre
sent besides those who came to visit the sisters — Jews not
predisposed in favour of Jesus by sympathy for the mourners.
It was these who, faithful to their part of Jews, hastened to
carry the great news to the Pharisees, the most vehement
enemies of Jesus. This explanation is perhaps confirmed by
the expression : those who came to Mary (ver. 45), which
seems to make what is there said refer only to those who were
in the house with her (ver. 31).
2d. Vv. 47—53. The more remote effect of the resurrection
of Lazarus.Vv. 47—50. " Then gathered the chief priests and the Phari
sees a council, and said : What da we ? for this man doeth many
miracles. If we let Him thus alone, all will believe on Him,
and the Romans will come and destroy both ^ our place and
nation. But one among them, Caiaphas, being high priest that
same year, said unto them : Ye know nothing at all, and do not
reflect^ that it is expedient for us ^ that one man should die for the
people, and that the whole nation perish not!' — The resurrection
of Lazarus did not occasion the death of Jesus, but it did give
rise to the resolution to condemn Him, The vessel was full,
^ D K n, 10 Mnn. and some Vss. omit xui before to» to«».
^ X A B D L, some Mnn. and Or. read 'Ki,yiZ,iirh instead of 'oia.XsyiZ.xirh.
' The Mss. are divided between r,pi.f, (T. E. with AEG, etc.) and u/ti» (B D L M
X r). N omits both.

30 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
and this was the drop which made it overflow. — The Pliarisees
are specially mentioned as the instigators of this hostile meet
ing (ver. 46, ix. 15). — The absence of the article before avve-
Bpiov may be explained by admitting that St. John here treats
this word as a proper name (the Sanhedrin). It is, however,
more natural to take this term here in the general sense of
assembly, council, which it has also in classical Greek. — The
present iroiovpev, wlmt do we ? instead of the future, is inspired
by the imminence of the danger, and the certainty that some
thing must be done : " Why do we not act ? He is acting
{¦jToiei)." "On: because. The fear expressed, ver. 48, was not
without foundation. The slightest rising might have furnished
the Romans with an excuse for depriving the nation of those
last remnants of independence which it still enjoyed, and for
blotting out its name from the map of the world. And then
what would become of the power of the Sanhedrin ? Outoj? :
without opposing His action by our own. The minds of the
rulers, while recurring to the destruction of the nation, dwell
chiefly on that of their own power. This is emphatically
expressed by the position of the pronoun -^poov before the two
substantives. Jesus reproduced this expression in the words
of the husbandmen. Matt, xxi 38. Jerusalem and Israel were
their affair. Our place naturally means the capital, as the seat
of their government, rather than the temple, or the whole of
Judea. Taken in this sense, the term is more easily connected
with that which follows : our nation, tbat which we govern from
this place. Speaking from a political point of view, and opposing
one nation to another, they use the term e'^i-o?, instead of the
more honourable one Xaoi;, for the people of Israel.
The expression : one of them, does not allow us to suppose
that Caiaphas was presiding; for even though it now seems
proved that the high priest M'as, in virtue of his office, also
president of the Sanhedrin (Schiirer, Lehrb. der N. T. Zeitgesch.
p. 411), it must be remembered that the present was not a
regular meeting (ver. 47). — Amidst a host of irresolute spirits,
hesitating between conscience and interest, a man of energetic
character, who boldly denies the rights of conscience and
decidedly brings forward the claims of the state, always has a
chance of carrying his point. — If this circumstance had taken
place in the palmy days of the theocracy, the expression :

CHAP. XL 47-50, 31
being the high priest that same year, would be incomprehen
sible ; for, according to the Mosaic law, the high-priesthood
was held for life. But since the Roman supremacy, the rulers
of the land, dreading the power derived from a permanent
office, had adopted the custom of frequently exchanging one
high priest for another. According to Josephus {Ant. xviii.
2. 2), the Roman governor, Valerius Gratus, " deprived Ananus
of the high-priesthood and conferred it on Ishmael, and after
wards deposing him, made Eleazar, son of Ishmael, high
priest. A year after he also was deposed, and Simon nominated
in his stead, who, retaining the dignity for a year only, was
succeeded by Joseph, surnamed Caiaphas." The latter con
tinued in office from the year 25 till 36 of our era, and con
sequently throughout the ministry of Jesus. These frequent
changes justify the expression of the evangelist, and deprive
criticism of any excuse for saying that the author of this
Gospel did not know that the Jewish pontificate lasted for life.
But since Caiaphas was high priest for eleven consecutive
years, why did St. John three times over (vv. 49, 51, xviii
1 3) use the expression : high priest that year ? Certainly
because he desired to recall the importance of that unique and
decisive year, in which the perfect sacrifice terminated the
typical sacrifices and the Levitical priesthood as exercised by
Caiaphas. It devolved upon the high priest to offer every
year the great atoning sacrifice for the sins of the people, and
this was the office now performed by Caiaphas, as the last
representative of the ancient priesthood. By his vote he, in
some degree, appointed and sacrificed the victim, who in that
ever memorable year "was to bring in everlasting righteousness,
and to cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease " (Dan. ix. 24,
27), This vote was rendered more remarkable by the con
trast between the divine truth of its matter and the diabolical
intention of him who uttered it. The apostrophe of Caiaphas
to his colleagues exhibits a certain amount of rudeness. This
feature, as Hengstenberg observes, agrees with the conduct of
that Sadducean sect to which Caiaphas probably belonged (comp.
Acts iv. 6 and v, 17, and Joseph, Ant. xx. 9. 1). Josephus
says {Bell. Jud. ii. 8. 14) : "The Pharisees are friendly to each
other, and cultivate mutual harmony, with a view to their
common interests ; but the ^manners of the Sadducees are far

32 GOSPEL OF JOHN,
rougher, both to each other and to their equals, whom they
treat as strangers." Hengstenberg takes Bid\oyl^ea-9e in an
intransitive sense, and the on following in the sense of because.
After reproaching them for their general want of knowing how
to act : Ye know nothing at all, he brings forward the special
difficulty which they were unable to solve. The compound
BiaKoy^eade : you are incapable of clearing up by your present
discussion, is preferable to the simple Xoyi^eaOe, which is the
result of either neghgence or a mistaken correction. — The
reading rj/ilv, for us, has, in reality, the same meaning as the
variation: vpiv, for you; but it better disguises the selfish nature
of the deliberation (comp. the ripwv of ver. 48). — The choice of
the terms Xao'; and e^i^o?, which correspond with DJ> and iiJ, is
not arbitrary. The first designates the multitude of individuals
composing the theocratic nation, in opposition to the single
individual who was to perish, while the second signifies Israel
as a body politic, in opposition to the foreign nation of the
Eomans. Vv. 51, 52. " Now this he spake not of himself, but being high
priest tliat year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for tliat nation,
and not for that nation only, but also that He should gather together
in one body the children of God that were scattered." — Several ex
positors (Luthardt, Briickner) deny that St. John here attributes
the gift of prophecy to the high priest as such ; it was not,
tliey think, as high priest, but as high priest that year, that
Caiaphas gave utterance to this prophetic statement. But this
explanation gives the impression of being a mere expedient.
The relation between the participle wv, being, and the Aorist
'7rpoe(f>j]Tevcrev, he prophesied, naturally leads to the notion that
the evangelist refers the prophetic character of the words of
Caiaphas to his office, even if we regard this notion as only a
Jewish superstition. In the 0. T. the normal centre of the
theocratic nation was not the king, but the priest. In all the
great crises of the nation's fate, it was the high priest who
received, in virtue of a prophetic gift communicated for the
occasion, the decision of the Most High for the welfare of His
people (Num. xxvii. 21 ; 1 Sam. xxx. 7 sq.). St. John by
no means asserts that the high priest was generally endowed
with tliis prophetic power; He merely regards Caiaphas as
playing at this decisive moment the part assigned him in such

CHAP. XL 51, 62, 3 3
cases as God's accredited organ to His people, and that not
withstanding the contrast existing between his individual
character and the spirit of his office. In fact, when the heart
of the high priest was in harmony with his office, that heart
became the normal instrument of the divine decision. But if,
as in the present case, the heart of the individual was in
opposition to his office, it might be expected that the Divine
oracle would, as in the present instance, be uttered by that
consecrated mouth in the form of a most diabolical maxim.
And what could be more worthy of the Divine Spirit than,
while respecting his office, to make His degenerate instrument
thus condemn himself with his own mouth ? St. John has
already, more than once, called our attention to the fact that the
adversaries of Jesus, when deriding Him, were prophesying in
spite of themselves : No man knoweth whence he is (vii 2 7) ;
Will he go and teach the Greeks ? (viL 35). If the devil often
travesties the words of God, God sometimes chooses to parody
those of the devil, by bestowing upon them unintended truth.
It was such a " divine irony " that was, in the highest degree,
manifested in the present instance. For this was the central
point of human history, the moment at which the most Divine
of mysteries was to be accomplished in the form of the greatest
of crimes. According to several expositors, on is not the direct comple
ment of the verb which precedes it. Meyer : " he prophesied
as to the fact that Jesus . . ." Luthardt: "he prophesied
for truly Jesus was to . . ." They have been led to these
forced explanations by ver. 52, the words of which go beyond
the tenor of the saying of Caiaphas. But it is the close
of ver. 51 which alone is the object of he prophesied,
while ver. 52 is added by the evangelist to impress upon his
readers the unexpected extension acquired in its realization,
by the principle, one for all, laid down by Caiaphas. St. John
never forgets that he is writing with a view to Greek readers,
and never omits an opportunity of pointing out their share in
the fulfilment of the divine promises. If the parallelism
between the thought of this 5 2d verse and the saying x. 16
is considered, there can be no hesitation in applying the term
children of God to heathens predisposed to believe, in the same
sense in which St, John uses the expressions : to be of God
GODET IIL C JOHN.

34 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
(viii, 47), to be of the truth (xix. 37). The term children of
'God naturally involves an anticipation based upon the actual
moral condition of these future believers, and not, as Meyer
thinks, upon divine predestination,
Ver, 53. " Then from that day forth they took counsel^ to put
Him to death!' — The then gives us to understand that the
advice of Caiaphas was adopted (Luthardt). St. John brings
out the decided importance of this meeting, and hence, in
directly, that of the resurrection of Lazarus, which occasioned
it. Indeed, from that time a permanent conspiracy against
the life of Jesus was organized. The daily conferences of
His enemies became, to use Lange's expression, "meetings of
Messianic murder." There was no longer any hesitation as to
the end, indecision from this time forth being felt only with
regard to the means.
3d. The stay at Ephraim: vv. 54-57.
Jesus was forced to retire to a lonely place. The rulers, on
their part, took a fresh step on the road on which they had
already advanced so far.
Vv. 54—57. "Jesus therefore walked no more openly among
the Jews; but went thence into a country near to the wildern^s,
into a city called Ephraim} and there continued ' with His^ dis
ciples. Now the Jews' Passover was nigh at hand : and many
loent out of the country up to Jerusalem before the Passover, to
purify themselves. Then sought they for Jesus, and said among
themselves, as they stood in the temple : What think ye, that He
will not come to thefeast? Now the chief priests and the Pharisees
had also * given commandment^ that if any man heard where He
¦was, he should show it, that they might take Him!' — Ephraim
is sometimes spoken of in conjunction with Bethel (2 Chron.
xiii. 19 ; Joseph. Bell. Jud. iv. 9. 9). It lay some distance
north of Jerusalem — eight miles according to Eusebius, twenty
to the north-east according to Jerome. The place was, on
account of its retired situation, and its proximity to the desert,
' S B D, 4 Mnn. and Or. (once) read £/3ouA,£iiravro instead of i:mi?.i>uX%we.no.
^ S L It. Vg. Ir. read 'Efpi^i instead of 'E./ppxifi..
* X B L and Or. read £/«sjv£» instead of tiiTfifiiv.
' KBDILfa omit avTcii.
" 11 Mjj. (K A B, etc.) 35 Mnn. It. Vg. Syr, Cop, and Or, omit ;-.«,, which is
the reading of T, R, with D E G H I S r. Mnn.
'' N B I M, 3 Mnn. and Or. read svToXas instead of tmKnu

CHAP, XI. 54-.57. 35
favourable to the design of our Lord. He might there prepare
His disciples in solitude for His approaching end, and, if pur
sued, retire to the desert. This desert is, as Lange remarks,
the northern extremity of that barren strip by which the
table-land of Judah and Benjamin is separated in its whole
length from the valley of the Jordan and the Dead Sea.
From this locality Jesus might, at the time of the Passover,
either join the pilgrims from Galilee, who were going to
Jerusalem by the direct route through Samaria, or go down
to Jericho, in the plain of the Jordan, and put Himself in
front of the caravan from Perea. We know from the Synop-
tists that He took the latter step. — Merd (ver. 54) is not
synonymous with auv ; the meaning is : He there confined
Himself to the society of His disciples ; and not merely : He
was there with them.
^Ek t^9 '^wpai; (ver. 55) does not relate to the country
of Ephraim in particular (Grotius, Olshausen), but to the
country in general, as opposed to the capital (ver. 54) :
"They went up from different parts of the country." — The
law did not prescribe any special purifications before the
Passover, but the people were commanded, in several pas
sages of the 0, T., to purify themselves before any important
event (Gen, xxxv. 2 ; Ex, xix, 10, 11, etc.), and this principle
had naturally been applied to the Feast of the Passover (2
Chron. xxx. 16-20).
Ver. 56 graphically depicts the restless curiosity of these
country-people, who were collected in groups in the temple and
discussing the approaching arrival of Jesus ; comp, vii 12, —
'£crT»?«;oTe?, standing, in an attitude of expectation. — -On does
not depend on SoKei; it is more natural to separate the two
propositions and make them two distinct questions. — The
Aorist 'e\6r} may quite well refer to an act about to be
accomplished in the immediate future,
Ver. 5 7 adds a new and more special motive to those which
rendered the coming of Jesus improbable ; for thus is its con
nection by the particles Se Kai, now . . . also, explained. It
would not have been very difficult for the authorities to discover
His place of retreat. Hence the motive for this order must rather
have been a desire to intimidate our Lord and His disciples, and
to accustom the people to regard Him as a guilty and dangerous

36 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
man. It was another link in the series of hostile measures so
well detailed by St. John since the beginning of ch. v. Comp,
V. 16, 18, vii 32, ix. 22, xi. 53. — The chief priests were the
authorities from whom the command officially emanated ; the
evangelist adds the Pharisees because they were its actual
authors. Comp. vii. 45. — In the Babylonian Gemara (edited
from ancient traditions about 550) is found the following
passage : " Tradition reports that Jesus was crucified (hanged)
on the evening of the Passover, an officer having during the
preceding forty days publicly proclaimed that this man, who
by his imposture had seduced the people, ought to be stoned,
and that any one who coiild say aught in his defence was to
come forward and speak. But no one doing so, he was hanged
on the evening of the Passover" (Lightfoot, Hor. Hebr. et
Talm. p. 460). — It would be difficult to avoid comparing this
passage with that of St. John, In both there is a public
proclamation on the part of the Sanhedrin relating to the
approaching condemnation of Jesus, and at the same time
too marked a difference between them to allow it to be sup
posed that either gave rise to the other.
The history of the raising of Lazarus, says Deutinger, is
distinguished above all the narratives of the fourth Gospel by
its particularly vivid and dramatic style. The characters are
drawn by a hand at once firm and delicate. Nowhere are the
relations between Christ and His disciples so strikingly shown;
we are, as it were, initiated, by this history, into the confidential
intimacy, the affectionate interchange of thought and feeling,
which existed between the Master and His followers. The
disciples are portrayed in the most attractive manner ; their
simple frankness and noble devotedness are made manifest.
The Jews themselves, whose obstinate resistance to the efforts
of Jesus is what we chiefly hear concerning them in this Gospel,
appear in a more favourable light, as friends of the sorrowing
sisters, the man appearing even in the Jew. Especially, how
sharp and delicate is the sketch of the characters of the two
women ; with what refinement, and with what deep psycho
logical feeling, is the difference in their respective behaviour
detailed !^ In these characteristics of the narrative, so well
^ Das Seich Gottes, nach dem Apostel Johannes, 18G2, vol. ii. pp. 67 and 68,

CHAP. XL 54-57. 37
summed up by the German author, we find the first evidence
of its intrinsic truth : " it is not thus that fiction is written,"
and especially it was not thus that fiction was written in the
second century ; witness the apocryphal gospels.
The reality of the fact here narrated is also brought out by
its relation to the whole preceding and subsequent history of
Jesus, The evangelist is fully conscious of the consequences
of the fact which he is recalling, .he is continually pointing
them out during the course of the narrative : vv. 47 {there
fore) a.u& 53 {from that day forth). Comp. xii. 9-11, 17-19.
How should the author have assigned to a purely fictitious
occurrence so decisive a part in the organism of Christ's life ?
Moreover, not one of the explanations intended to eliminate
this fact from the circle of authentic narrntives in the life of
Jesus is tenable.
(1) The so-called natural explanation of Paulus, Gabler, and
A. Schweizer : In consequence of the message of ver. 3, Jesus
did not from the first think the malady dangerous; subsequently,
on receiving fresh information .(Paulus reckons four messages),
and malting more exact inquiries. He found out that it was but
a lethargy. Arriving at the sepulchre. He perceived some signs
of life in the supposed corpse, for which He gave thanks (vv.
41 and 42), and called upon Lazarus to come forth. The latter,
revived by the coolness of the sepulchre, the odour of the per
fumes, and, at the moment of the opening of the grave, by the
warmth of the external air, arose in full vigour. So Paulus and
Gabler. According to A, Schweizer, the confidence of Jesus
in the recovery of His friend was based upon His faith in the
Divine assistance promised to His cause ; and the pretended
miracle was only the fortunate coincidence of this religious
confidence with the circumstance that Lazarus was not really
dead. — This explanation has been condemned by no one more
severely than by Strauss ^ and Baur,^ The former shows,
against Paulus and Gabler, that the terms in which Jesus
announces the resurrection of Lazarus are too positive to be
anticipations founded on uncertain symptoms, and that the
meaning of the entire narrative is, and can be, according
to the intention of the narrator, nothing else than that
' Vie de Jisus, vol. ii. parti, pp. 151-165.
" TheoL Jalirh. yoL iii. 1814.

38 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
which every reader finds in it, viz. the raising of Lazarus
from the dead by the miraculous power of Jesus. The
opinion of Baur as to the manner in which the fourth
Gospel in general, and this passage in particular, is treated
by Schweizer, is as follows : — " Devoid of aU feeling for the
unity of the work, ho tears this Gospel to rags for the purpose
of eliminating therefrom, as superstitious interpolations, aU
which he is unable to explain in a tame and rationalistic
manner, and of leaving to the marvellous action of chance all
that he allows to remain." These last words, indeed, define
the opinion of Schweizer concerning this miracle.
But let us now consider the explanations brought forth by
these two critics in place of those of their predecessors.
(2) The mythical explanation of Strauss is as follows : — The
0. T. having related that resurrections of dead persons had
been effected by mere prophets, the Christian legend could do
no less than attribute similar miracles to the Messiah. But
can it really be supposed possible that a legend should attain
to the height of a narrative, with such wonderful shades of
colouring, and with characters so sharply and accurately drawn?
It cannot be understood, as Renan justly observes, how a
creation of the popular mind should get itself framed in such
personal remembrances as those which refer to the relations of
Jesus with the family of Bethany. Besides, legends idealize,
and would never have invented a Christ moved to the very
depths of His soul and shedding tears at the grave of the
friend whom He was about to raise from the dead ! And is
not Baur right, when, arguing against Strauss, he says : " If a
mythic tradition of this kind had really been propagated in
the church, it would not have failed to have been included,
with so many similar narratives, in the Synoptic history. It
is against all probability that so important a miracle, and one
to which a decisive influence on the final catastrophe is attri
buted, should have remained a local legend, restricted to a
very narrow circle.'' Notwithstanding these difficulties, M.
Reville, " for his part, feels no embarrassment " in explaining
the history of Lazarus by the mythic process. The legend
meant to represent by Lazarus the pariahs of Jewish society
(comp. Luke xvi. 20), whom Jesus rescued from their spiritual
death by loving and weeping over them. " He bent over this

CHAP. XL 54-57. 39
tomb (of Israelite pauperism), crying to Lazarus : Come forth,
and come to me; and Lazarus came forth, pale, . . . tottering."^
Such fancies are unworthy of discussion, and are judged as
severely by M. Renan as by ourselves ; he calls them expes-
dients of theologians at their last gasp, saving themselves
by allegory, myth, and symbol (p, 508). One circumstance
especially ought to prevent any serious critic from attributing
a legendary origin to this history. Myths of this kind are
fictions isolated from each other, but we have seen how integral
a part of the organism of St. John's Gospel the history of the
raising of Lazarus forms. The work of St. John is evidently
of one casting. With regard to such an evangelist, criticism
is irresistibly driven to the dilemna : historian or inventor ?
Baur's merit consists in having appreciated this situation, and,
since by reason of his doctrinal premisses he could not admit
the first alternative, in having boldly pronounced in favour
of the second.
(3) The speculative explanation of Baur, according to which
this history is a fiction, intended to give a body to the meta
physical thesis laid down, ver. 25:7 am the resurrection and
the life. This explanation suits the notion entertained by Baur
of this Gospel, wliich, in his opinion, is a composition of an
entirely ideal character. But is this, we ask, compatible with
the simplicity, the candour, the prosaic character, and, if we
may be allowed the expression, the hither and thither of the
whole work ? From beginning to end, situations are described
for their own sake, and without the least tendency to idealiz
ing (comp. e.g. the close of this chapter, the stay at Ephraim,
the proclamation of the Sanhedrin, the conversations with
the pilgrims to Jerusalem). Far rather does the narrative
present features which are entirely non-intellectual and anti-
speculative. The Jesus who shudders and weeps is certainly
not the creation of a theorist. The very offence which Baur
takes at these circumstances of the narrative proves it. The
productions of intellect are quite transparent to intellect. The
more mysterious and unexpected the circumstances, the more
manifest is it that they are taken from reahty. Besides, if
this narrative were the product of the idea, it ought to be
completed by a discourse in which the fact would be spiri-
1 Eevue Germanique, 1st Dec. 1863, p. 613.

40 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
tualized and the idea itself brought forward. Every reader Is
impressed with the fact that the writer himself believes in all
earnestness in the reality of the fact which he is relating, and
that he has no notion of creating. When Plato clothes his
deep doctrines with a veil of myths, his own self-projection
in his creations, and his spontaneous choice and use of this
form of instruction, are easily discerned. Here, on the con
trary, the author is himself under the power of the fact he
is relating ; his heart is penetrated and his whole self pos
sessed thereby. If, then, he created, he was himself the first
dupe of his own fiction. Lastly, we must remember that,
according to Baur's school, the author of the fourth Gospel
does not believe in a true incarnation, but regards the Logos
as having only assumed the appearance of humanity. And
yet he is said to have here invented a scene in which the
human nature of Jesus is in full force. Such a picture
would be diametrically opposed to the thought which is
said to have inspired the work. How is it possible to
impute such clumsiness to so skilful a person as Baur's pseudo-
John ?
(4) Hence we see modern critics turning more and more to
a somewhat different kind of explanation, Weisse had already
suggested the notion that this history was nothing else than a
parable transformed into a fact by tradition, and this notion
is now reproduced by Keim, Schenkel, etc. The parable
which gave rise to this history is said to be that of Dives and
Lazarus (Luke xvi), which the author of the fourth Gospel
worked up into this picture. Renan himself, to a certain
degree, adopts this mode of explanation. He at first regarded
the raising of Lazarus as a pious fraud, to which Jesus was
not entirely a stranger. "His friends," he says, "desired a great
miracle, for the conviction of the unbelieving inhabitants of
Jerusalem. . . . Lazarus, still pallid from his recent ilhiess, had
himself swathed in bandages, like a corpse, and placed in the
family grave. . , . Jesus desired to see once more the friend
whom He loved . . ," The rest may be understood, M, Renan
makes every excuse for Jesus, "Amidst the impurity of
Jerusalem, he was no longer himself . . , Desperate, driven
to extremities, ... He yielded to the torrent. He rather
submitted to than performed the miracles exacted by public

CHAP, XI, 54-57. 41
opinion." Now, however, M. Renan yields to the general
feeling, which revolts against this explanation, and loudly pro
claims its moral impossibility. The friends of Jesus, he now
says, desired a great prodigy : they wanted a resurrection.
Mary and Martha undoubtedly confided this feeling to Jesus.
If, said these pious sisters, a dead man were to rise, the living
would perhaps repent. "No," answered Jesus; " if Lazarus
himself were to return to life, they would not believe," This
saying subsequently became the subject of singular mistakes.
. . . The supposition was changed into a fact . , . ; tradition
attributed to Martha and Mary a sick brother, whom Jesus
raised from the grave. In a word, the misunderstanding in
which this history originated is just like one of those cock-
and-bull stories so common in small Oriental towns (13th
edit. pp. 372-374). — Our only refutation shall be that this
history tells us just the opposite of the saying which is said
to have originated it. The Jews do believe after witnessing
the fact, and the saying of Jesus, Luke xvi, which the narra
tive is said to illustrate, is : They would not be persuaded
though one rose from the dead. It is not so easy a matter to
get rid of a narrative of this kind by means of criticism^.
But if this is a real fact, why is it not related in the
Synoptic Gospels ?
And first let it be remarked, that the manner in which
the oral tradition, of which these books are the compilation,
was formed, is still in many respects an insoluble problem.
Hence it would be irrational to sacrifice reasons so positive
as those which speak for the reality of the fact, for a diffi
culty, to solve which the most necessary elements are absent.
M. Renan himself says : " The silence of the Synoptists with
respect to the episode of Bethany does not seem to me of
much account (p. 507). . . , If we reject this narrative as
imaginary, the whole edifice of the last weeks of the life
of Jesus is shattered by the same blow" (p, 514).
According to Liicke, the authors of the Synoptic Gospels
were ignorant of this miracle, the remembrance of which was
lost among so many similar occurrences. It may, however,
be asked, whether such a miracle was not marked by special
features which would prevent its being forgotten. Meyer
says that the Synoptists meant only to relate events which

42 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
transpired in Galilee. But how is so singular a selection to
be explained ? And do not their narratives include all the
last sojourn at Jerusalem ? Grotius, Herder, and Olshausen
suppose that they desired to spare the family of Lazarus,
which dwelt near Jerusalem, and might, by the open mention
of this miracle, have been exposed to the vengeance of the
still powerful Sanhedrin. Comp, xii. 1 0 : The chief priests
consulted that they might put Lazarus also to death. This
ingenious hypothesis might, indeed, apply to St. Matthew's
Gospel, which was written in Palestine, but it is difficult to
explain by it the silence of Mark and Luke, who wrote in
countries at a distance from the Holy Land. Hengstenberg
adopts the opinion that the raising of Lazarus belonged to a
series of more profound transactions which did not form part
of tradition, and were instinctively reserved for St. John,
This opinion approximates to that of Heidenreich, who
thought that no writer till John felt himself capable of
depicting such a scene. Few will, however, find this expla
nation satisfactory,
I do not deny that there is an amount of truth in some
of these suppositions, perhaps even in all. But if they are
really to contribute to the solution of the problem, they must
be placed in another light.
And first of all, we must start from the fact that in the
apostolic mind no one special fact in the ministry of Jesus,
not even the most striking of all, was of that supreme im
portance which we are now inclined to attribute to it. The
point of view taken up by the apostles in their preaching
was utterly different from that which we occupy when we
make their teaching the subject of critical study. They were
labouring to found a church and to save the world ; we are
endeavouring to reconstruct a history. No wonder, then, if
narratives, composed from the former point of view, should
contain much that is enigmatical to us. The death and
resurrection of Jesus — events more decisive, and, in a religious
aspect, incomparably more important, than the raising of
Lazarus — had succeeded this miracle, and must for a time
have eclipsed both this and every other single miracle of our
Lord's ministry. Apostolic preaching, in its first phase, con
fined itself to the announcement and demonstration of the

CHAP. XL 54-57. 43
supreme fact : The Lord is risen. This was the foundation
on which the church was built by the apostles. The time
was not yet come for the relation of anecdotes. Undoubtedly
the general miraculous agency of our Lord was referred to,
as we see from the discourses of the apostles in the Book of
the Acts (ii. 22, x. 37), but particular narratives were still
kept in the background. If the details of Christ's ministry
played any part during this first phase of Christian teaching,
it was in private conversations. The great official proclama
tion of the gospel found nothing to place side by side with
the death and resurrection of the Messiah, those great facts
by which the world's salvation was effected. It was on this
point also that the instructions of Jesus were concentrated
after His resurrection (Luke xxiv. 26, 45-47).
It was subsequently, and when the first gale had begun to
spend itself, that old memories were first disinterred. Under
the infiuence of that apostohc preaching which founded
churches, the ministry of catechists, whose office it was to
edify them by detailing the different facts of our Lord's life,
arose and was developed. Some of these narratives were
put in circulation by the apostles themselves — probably those
which constituted the permanent and universal stock of oral
evangelization, and which passed in a tolerably uniform manner
into the written tradition, into our Synoptic Gospels, Others
were first started by those members of the church who had
either been subjects or witnesses of the facts. These remained
a part of the oral tradition in, as far as possible, the form
given them by their first narrators, and, coming more or less
accidentally to the knowledge of the writers of the Gospels,
they formed the special treasure of each of our Synoptists,
A third kind, finally, were purposely and at first withdrawn
from public narration, or were only included in it with a
certain reserve of names or things. Such reserve was, in
different respects, required for the sake of those who had
played a part in these facts. Thus, in recounting the blow
with the sword given by St. Peter at Gethsemane, which
was really a criminal act, aud might have compromised the
cause of Christ, it was usually said in oral tradition : one of
those who were with Jesus (Matthew) ; or, one of those who
were present (Mark) ; or again, one among them (Luke) ; while

44 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
St. John, relating the same fact, long after the death of St.
Peter and the fall of the Sanhedrin, gives witliout hesitation
the name of Peter from his own remembrance.
It is possible that there might also be some special reason
for reserve with respect to the narrative concerning the family
at Bethany. St. Luke (x. 38 sqq.) speaks, indeed, of two
sisters, and designates them by their names ; but he omits
that of the town in which they dwelt, and says : " Jesus
entered into a certain village." Undoubtedly, because he was
himself ignorant of its name. And why, but because tradi
tion, having from the first omitted it, had not furnished him
with this information ? St. Matthew (xxvi. 6 sqq.) and St.
Mark (xiv. 3 sqq.) certainly name Bethany, but are silent as to
the names of the sisters : "A woman came," is the manner in
which they commence the account of the anointing by Mary.
Simon the leper, the only individual named by them, seems
to be brought forward to cast the rest into the shade. Is it
asked : What reason was there for such reserve on the part
. of tradition ? Perhaps fear of the vengeance of the Sanhe
drin, which, as long as that tribunal possessed authority,
might so easily reach the dwellers at Bethany. Perhaps,
also, the very close and personal character of our Lord's
relations with Lazarus and His family. There was a feeling
that the home at Bethany, that sanctuary still inhabited by
the family into whose intimacy the Lord had been received,
should be respected in public teaching, and in the preaching
of the gospel within the churches ; that if, notwithstanding,
general edification should occasion the bringing forward of
these individuals, this should only be done, as by St. Luke,
by leaving the name of their abode unmentioned. As to
the raising of Lazarus, it was here necessary to tell every
thing or nothing ; so the last alternative was chosen, and this
fact was excluded from the series of narratives commonly
recorded. Meyer objects that, at the time of the compilation
of the Synoptic Gospels, there was no longer any object in
such reserve, because the parties interested were no longer
living. This reason is, however, of no value, since the point
in question is the formation of tradition immediately after
the day of Pentecost, and not its compilation thirty or forty
years afterwards. It was not till towards the close of the

CHAP. XII. 1-35. 45
apostolic age, when St. John wrote from a single source, and
independently of traditional accounts, certain facts of the
history of Jesus, that he could lift the veil from this long-
hidden sanctuary, and bring forward before the eyes of the
whole church the revered beings by whom Jesus had then
been surrounded.
In any case, the mention or the omission of any single
miracle performed by the Lord, is too accidental a circum
stance to mislead a criticism under wise self-restraint, to
give more weight to the silence of one, two, or even three of
our documents, than to the plain, positive, and circumstantial
testimony of the fourth. No part of the gospel history is
better attested than the appearance of Jesus to five hundred
brethren, spoken of by St. Paul (1 Cor. xi.) ; and yet there
is no express mention of this appearance in our four Gospels.
Spinoza, according to the testimony of Bayle, declared to his
friends, that if he could have persuaded himself of the
raising of Lazarus, he would destroy his whole system, and
embrace, without reserve, the common faith of Christians.
And this is just what explains the fact of its being at
present as violently attacked as that of our Lord Himself.
But let the reader take up St. John's narrative, and read it
again without any previously formed opinion, . . . and the
conviction to which the pantheistic philosopher was unable
to attain will spontaneously and irresistibly arise within him,
and he will, on the testimony of this account, every particular
of which bears the stamp of truth, simply accept the fact
with all its consequences, rather than let himself be carried
hither and thither by a criticism, each new attempt of which
gives the lie to that which preceded it.

SECOND SECTION.
XII. 1-3C.  THE LAST DAYS OF CHRIST'S MINISTRY.
This section contains three divisions : — I, The supper at
Bethany, vv, 1-11; IL Christ's entry into Jerusalem, vv.
12-19 ; III, The last scene of His ministry in the temple, vv.
20-36.

46 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
These three facts are selected by the evangelist as marking
the transition from our Lord's public ministry to His Passion.
This tendency in the narrative comes out in the first portion,
in the discontent of Judas, which was the prelude to his
treason, and in the answer of Jesus containing the announce
ment of His own approaching death ; in the second, in ver.
19, which shows that, in consequence of the triumphal entry,
the rulers were reduced to the necessity of either doing
homage to Jesus or getting rid of Him ; and lastly, in the
third, in the whole discourse of Jesus in answer to the step
taken by the Greeks, and in His final adieu to the Jewish
nation, ver. 36. — In the two first portions, the evangelist, at
the same time, shows the influence exercised on the course of
the events which he recounts by the resurrection of Lazarus :
vv. 2, 9-11, 17-19. Thus there is an underlying connec
tion between the different parts of this apparently fragmentary
account. And this chapter is, as Luthardt justly observes, at
once a conclusion and an introduction,
I. The Supper at Bethany. — Vv, 1—11.
In presence of the great conflict now anticipated by all,
the devotion of our Lord's friends increases; while as a counter
poise, the national enmity, which has an instrument among the
twelve, breaks out within this inner circle, Jesus with perfect
gentleness announcing to the traitor the approaching result of
his hostility.
Ver. 1, " Therefore Jesus, six days before the Passover, came
to Bethany, where Lazarus was which had been dead} whom He
raised from the dead!' — We learn from the Synoptists, unless
their accounts are at variance with that of St, John, that Jesus
went from Ephraim to Jericho, to go up to Jerusalem with
the companies of pilgrims who were arriving from Perea.
He thus took the same road subsequently traversed in an
inverse order by Epiphanes, who tells us that he went up
from Jericho to the plateau with a man who accompanied
him across the desert of Bethel and Ephraim. 1 cannot
understand why this simple hypothesis should scare the im-
1 o <Tih>ixait is omitted by N B L X It^", Syr. Tisoh. (Sth edit.). These words
are found in the 14 other Mjj., all the Mnn. ItP''''-'^"", Vg. Cop. Tisch. (7th edit.).

CHAP. XIL 1. 47
partiality of Meyer. He brings forward in objection the
information in xi. 54 ; but the time of silence was now over
with Jesus. — We know from St. Luke, that even before enter
ing Jericho He was suiTounded by a considerable crowd (xviii.
36), that He passed the night at the house of Zaccheus (xix.
1 sq.), and that general expectation was excited to the highest
degree (xix, 11, and Matt. xx. 20 sq.). The distance from
Jericho to Bethany might be accomphshed in six or seven
hours. The body of the caravan continued its journey to
Jerusalem the same day, while Jesus and His disciples stopped
at Bethany. This halt is not mentioned by the Synoptists,
but this is no reason for calhng it in question. One or more
of the Synoptists often leave gaps which can only be filled up
by the help of the third. Two cases of the kind occur in the
account of the following days: Mark xi. 11-15 tells us that
a night elapsed between the triumphal entry and the expulsion
of the sellers in the temple, an interval which would not be
supposed from reading the other accounts. Again, according
to Mark xL 12 and 20, there was an interval of a day and
night betAveen the cursing of the fruitless fig-tree and the con
versation respecting it between Jesus and His disciples, while
in St. Matthew the conversation seems to have immediately
followed the miracle. These seeming contradictions arise from
the fact, that in the traditional teaching the moral and religious
importance of events greatly outweighed the chronological
interest. If such, notwithstanding their general parallelism,
are the mutual relations of the Synoptic narratives, we
need not be surprised if this phenomenon is reproduced upon
a still greater scale in the relation between the Synoptic and
the fourth Gospels,
The ovv, therefore, refers to xi, 55 : The Jews' Passover was
at hand. The turn of expression : irpb e^ ¦^p. r. ir., six days
before . . ., may be explained by a Latinism {ante diem sextum
calendas), in which the preposition is transposed (Baumlein) ;
or perhaps the most natural explanation of this phrase in
Greek is as follows : — To the definition of time : before (the
space of) six days, is added, under a genitive form, the point
from which the computation is made : the Passover (Winer, sec.
61, 5). Jesus knew that He should want aU that time to
strike a last and great blow in the capital. On what day.

48 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
then, must we, according to this expression, place the arrival
of Jesus at Bethany ? Opinions differ on this point, according
as the day of arrival or the first day of the Passover is
included or not included in the six days ; as the Passover is
considered to begin on the 15 th, the first great Sabbatic day
of the Paschal week, or on the 14th, the day of preparation
on which the lamb was slain ; and finally, as the Friday
on which Jesus suffered is, in the sense usually attributed to
the Synoptists, regarded as the 15th Nisan, or, in the sense
mostly — and, as I think, justly — given to St, John, as the
1 4th, the day of the preparation. It is impossible for ns to
follow out in detail all the different ramifications to which
these different issues give rise. The summarj' of their results
is as follows: — Some (Tholuck, Lange, Wieseler, Hengstenberg,
Luthardt, Liclitenstein, etc.) place the arrival of Jesus at
Bethany on Friday the 7th or Sth Nisan; others (Meyer,
Ewald), on Saturday the 8th or 9th ; others (de Wette, Andrese,
etc.), on Sunday the 9 th or 10th; while Hilgenfeld, Baur,
Scholten, and Baumlein make it Monday the 10th or 11th.
Among these possible suppositions, that which now seems the
most probable is that stated by Andrete in the excellent paper
entitled, " der Todestag Jesu " (in the Beweis des Glaubens, Nos.
July to Sept. 1870). The sixth day would be the 14th
Nisan — that is, according to the very lucid chronology of St.
John, the Friday on which Christ was crucified (see at the
close of ch. xix, the detailed discussion of the whole question).
Tliis would make the day of the arrival at Bethany to be
Sunday the 9 th Nisan. Jesus, after passing the Sabbath at
Jericho with Zaccheus, would, early next morning, travel with
the caravan- from Jericho to Bethany, where He remained while
the other travellers proceeded to Jerusalem. It was on the
evening of this day that the banquet, about to be related, was
given Him, and on the next day, Monday, that He made His
solemn entry into Jerusalem. In this manner everything is
clear and simple.
In my first edition, I left the 14th Nisan, the Friday on
which Jesus died, outside the six days, as one of the days of
the feast. In fact, this day does play a prominent part in the
institution of the Passover (Ex. xii.) ; and Josephus {Antiq.
xii. 15. 1) counts eight feast days, which shows that he includes

CHAP. XIL 1. 49
the 14th. But, on the other hand, it must be admitted that,
if thefeast of Unleavened Bread began on the 14th, the Passover,
properly so called, did not begin till the 15 th and ended on
the 21st. These two great Sabbatic days formed the begin
ning and end of the Paschal week. Another objection to this
mode of computation is, that by starting from Thursday the
13th, and counting backwards six days, we get Saturday the
Sth as the day of the arrival at Bethany. Now it cannot
possibly be admitted that Jesus would make so long a journey,
as that from Jericho to Bethany, on the Sabbath. Meyer, to
escape this objection, which applies to his calculation also,
supposes that Jesus on the preceding evening reached a point
sufficiently near to Bethany to leave only the distance which
it was lawful to travel on the Sabbath (20 minutes). But, in
that case, why did He not corae on that evening to Bethany?
I had proposed a somewhat different solution of this difficulty,
— viz., that Jesus arrived on the Friday evening near enough to
Bethany to allow him to reach it that same evening during
the first hour of the Sabbath, which began at about six o'clock
in the evening, this Saturday being the first of the six days
before the feast. The banquet would be given Him the next
evening, about the close of this Sabbath, and on the next
morning (Sunday) He would make His entry into Jerusalem.
But this combination seems to me less siraple than that pro
posed by Andrese.
Expositors who desire to impose upon the text of St. John,
the chronology generally supposed to be that of the synoptic
account, regard the 14th (according to their view, the Thurs
day of the Paschal week) as one of the days of the feast.
Hence they reckon the six days backwards frora Wednesday
the 13th, which brings them to the Sth Nisan (the Wednesday,
according to them, before the feast) as the day of the arrival
at Bethany. If the premises of this computation are admitted,
there is nothing to object to the result.
According to Hilgenfeld, Baur, etc., who make the 15 th the
starting-point of their computation, and include this day in
the six, the arrival at Bethany took place on Monday the
10th Nisan; and most of these expositors think that the evan
gelist was by this date seeking to establish a typical relation
between the arrival of Jesus and the Jewish custom of setting
GODET m. D JOHN.

50 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
apart the Paschal lamb on the 10 th Nisan, an intention which
would evidently compromise the historical character of the
narrative. But this pretended relation between the arrival of
Jesus and the setting apart of the Paschal lamb is a mere
imagination, of which the narrative does not afford the slightest
indication. And how should this coincidence have ever come
into the minds of the Greek Christians, for whom St, John
was writing, without such indication ?
Vv. 2, 3. "Therefore they made Him a supper there, and
Martha served ; and Lazarus was one of those^ who sat at table
with Him} TTien took Mary a pound of ointment of pure nard,
very costly, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped His feet
with her hair; and the house was filled with the odour of the oint
ment!' — When did this repast take place ? Naturally, according
to our hypothesis, on the Sunday evening, the expression next
day (ver, 12) designating Monday. — The subject of iiroiTjo-av,
they made, is indefinite, and hence cannot have been the mem
bers of the family of Lazarus, — a fact also brought out by the
express mention of tbe presence of Lazarus and the serving of
Martha, both circumstances which would have been self-under
stood, if the supper had taken place in their house. Hence
the unexpressed subject of the verb is more probably certain
inhabitants of the locality, who might feel impelled to testify
their gratitude to one who had honoured their obscure town
by so glorious a miracle. This connection of ideas seems
expressed by the therefore (ver, 2) placed immediately after the
striking detail : the dead man whom He had raised. The cir
cumstance by which they were especially urged at this time
to pay this public respect to Jesus, was the hatred on the part
of the rulers to which they saw Him exposed. This banquet
was a courageous answer to the edict of the Sanhedrim (xi, 57),
an honour done to the man whom it had proscribed.
The text does not tell us in whose house the repast took place.
But Lazarus being there as a guest, and not as host, it must
have been in another than his. This confirms quite naturally
the accounts of St, Matthew and St. Mark, who say pointedly
that the supper took place in the house of Simon the leper,
^ t? B L, It, Vg, read ix before tuw o!»a!<s(«.»».
" T. R. with only a few Mnn. : (ruta.tcixtift,ivi.»i a.vrm. All the Mjj. ; xvxxii//.iti>v
irvv CtltTbJ,

CHAP. XIL 2, 3. 51
undoubtedly one healed by Jesus, who claimed the privilege
of entertaining Him in the name of the rest. ¦ It is inconceiv
able how so simple a combination can seem to Meyer a process
of spurious harmonizing. Not every one could receive Jesus,
but every one desired to contribute, to the best of his ability, to
the homage now paid Him. The inhabitants of Bethany, by
the banquet given in their name ; Martha, by her personal ser
vice, even in the house of another; Lazarus, by his presence,
which glorified the Lord more than all that others could offer
— as is expressed by the epithet 6 redvTjKdo';, wrongly omitted
by some Alex.; and lastly, Mary, by such royal prodigality as
could alone express the feeling which animated her.
The general custom among ancient nations was to anoint
the heads of guests on festal occasions. " Thou preparest a table
before me ; Thou anointest my liead with oil ; my cup runneth
over," said David to the Lord, when describing, under the image
of a banquet given him by God, the delights of communion
with Him (Ps. xxiii. 5). The omission of this ceremony was
brought forth by Jesus as a lack of courtesy (Luke vii. 46).
Such an error was not committed at Bethany, where Mary took
upon her this office, reserving to herself the right of perform
ing it after her own fashion. — Mvpov is the generic name for
all kinds of hquid perfume, and vdpho<;, nard, that of the most
costly among them. This word, of Sanscrit origin, designates
a plant which grows in India, and of which some less esteemed
varieties are found in Syria. Its juice was enclosed in special
flasks {nardi ampullce), and it was used not merely to anoint
the body, but also to perfume wine. We have translated
TTto-TtKo? by pure. This word, which is ahen to classical
Greek, only occurs in the N. T. in the parallel passage
of Mark. Among the later Greeks it was used to desig
nate a person worthy of confidence, hence one to whom was
confided the care of a vessel or a flock. It would therefore
mean nard, which might be depended on as genuine. This
sense is the more applicable, because nard was liable to all
kinds of adulteration. Pliny enumerates nine plants by which
it might be imitated, and Tibullus uses the expression nardus
pura, which gives almost the character of a technical expres
sion to this iriaTiKrj'; in Mark and John. The meaning drink
able (from nlva, irnria-Km) is much less probable, not only

52 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
because the natural form would be Tnaro^ or iroTip6<i, but
especially because the notion of its being drinkable has no
reference to the context. An attempt has also been made to
derive the word frora the name of a Persian town Pisteira,
said to be sometimes shortened into Pista (comp. Meyer on
Mark xiv. 2), but this is an expedient of no value (comp.
Meyer, Hengstenberg, and especially Liicke and Wichelhaus).
The epithet iroXvTipov, very costly, can only refer to the
former of the two substantives, though Luthardt thinks
otherwise; for it was not the plant {vdpBov), but the perfume
{pi pov), that had been purchased, A it pa, a pound, answers to
the Latin libra, and means a pound of twelve ounces, an
enormous quantity for so expensive a perfume. But neither
quantity nor quality were to be lacking in Mary's homage.
These hermetically sealed bottles of nard were probably
brought from the East; to make use of their contents the neck
had to be broken, which was accordingly done by Mary, as we
are told in Mark xiv, 3. As there was something striking and
solemn in this action, she must have performed it in the sight
of the other guests, and consequently over the head of Jesus,
as already seated at the table. Thus His head received the
first-fruits of the perfume (comp. Matt, and Mark : she poured
it upon His head). But afterwards, as no ordinary guest was
in question, and Mary desired to give the Lord not merely a
mark of esteem and affection, but also of adoration, she united
to the customary anointing of the head, a homage altogether
unusual. As if the costly hquid had been only common water,
she poured it on His feet in such quantities as to bathe them;
and, beiug therefore obliged to wipe them, she used for that
purpose her own hair. This last particular brought the
homage to a chraax. She raight have heard of what the
woman that was a sinner had done in Galilee (Luke vii.), and
have desired that the friends of Jesus should not do less for
Him than a stranger had. It was regarded among the Jews,
says Lightfoot (vol, ii. p. 633), as a disgrace for a woraan to
loosen the bandeaux which bound up her tresses and to appear
with dishevelled hair.^ Hence Mary by this act testified, that
as no sacrifice was too costly for her purse, so no service was
' Sotali, fol. 5, 1 ; " The priest unbinds the hair of a suspected woman .
as a sign of reproach." Vajicra Rabba, fol. 188, 2 : " Kamith, who had had

CHAP. XIL 2, 3. 53
too mean for her person. The reason for the certainly not acci
dental repetition of the words tov? iroBa';, his feet, is easily
perceived. It was to this, the least noble part of His person,
that she paid such unusual homage. There is not in the
whole account a single detail which does not breathe with
the adoration which inspired this act.
The identity of this fact with that related in Matt, xxvi. 6-1 3
and Mark xiv, 3-9 is undeniable. The trifling discrepancy,
that in the Synoptics the perfume is poured upon the head and
not upon the feet of Jesus, may, as we have just seen, be easily
explained. After the anointing in the customary form, this
bathing of the feet with perfume, of which John has preserved
the memory, and which gives this scene its unique character,
took place, would it not be absurd to suppose that she poured
a whole pound of liquid on His head ? As to the place
occupied by the circumstance in the synoptic narrative, this
was evidently determined by its moral relation with the fact
related immediately afterwards, viz. the treachery of Judas
(Matt. V. 14-16 ; Mark v. 10, 11). This association of ideas'
had fixed the conjunction of these two facts in the oral tradi
tion, whence it had passed into the written compilation. The
relation of the anointing of Jesus at Bethany with the fact
narrated in Luke vii. is altogether different. We have already
mentioned (p. 3) the particulars which do not permit us to
identify the two narratives. Keim lays down the law, that an
act of homage of this kind could not have taken place twice.
But anointing, as well as bathing the feet, necessarily took
place at every repast to which an invitation had been given
(Luke vii. 44). The details in which the two scenes are
similar are purely accidental. What is there in common
between Simon the leper of Bethany and Simon the Pharisee
of Gahlee, except the name ? But, only in the small number
of individuals met with in the Gospel history, there are twelve
or thirteen Simons; and yet it is said that there could not be
two men with so common a name, at whose houses these two
similar scenes would take place ! The chief point of resem
blance is, that both women wiped the feet of Jesus with their hair.
seven sons who were high priests, answered those who asked her to what she
owed so gi-eat au honour: ' To the fact that the beams of my chamber have never
seen the hairs of my head.' "

54 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
But the sinner wiped away her tears with which she had
bedewed His feet, and after that spread perfume on them.
Mary, on the contrary, had no tears to shed at a time like
this, when she was enjoying the full satisfaction of possession,
and only wiped away perfume, thus anointing herself as well
as the Lord, This difference sufficiently separates the two
women and the two scenes. Besides, Christian feehng will
always protest against the identification of Mary of Bethany
with a woman of bad character.
Vv. 4—6. " Then ' saith one of His disciples, Judas, son of
Simon the Iscariot} which would {shortly) betray Him, Why
was not this perfume sold for two himdred pence, and the price
given to the poor ? Now he said this, not that he cared for the
poor ; but because he was a thief, and kept ^ the purse, and took
what was put in it." — This burst of indignation on the part of
Judas was undoubtedly occasioned by the reason pointed out
by the evangelist ; but, like his treason, it had a deeper source
than avarice. For a long time (vi. 70) a gloomy displeasure
at the part taken by Jesus (vi. 70, 71, corap, with v. 15) had
filled his heart, and this feeling was only waiting for an excuse
to show itself In the Synoptists it is His disciples (Matt.),
some (Mark), who remonstrate. It seems that on this, as on
so many other occasions, Judas played among his fellow-
disciples the part of the leaven which raises the flour.
In this passage we again find between St. John and the
Synoptists the same relative difference which so frequently
occurs. In the latter, the outhnes are obliterated, in the
former the individual and characteristic features are preserved.
— Judas knows the exact price of this commodity, as if he were
a trader. — On the value of the penny, see remarks on vi. 7. The
sum, in the tiraes of the emperors, was about ten guineas, and
is stated at exactly the same amount in Mark. Several
sirailar coincidences have already been noticed between these
two evangelists (v, 3, vi, 7, 10), — Even independently of the
fact of Judas' treachery, attested as it is by four evangelists,
1 N and B read Ss instead of sun.
2 There are many various readings in the designation of JudAs, N B and L :
Isi/Sa; a itxupiuxms ; T. R. with 10 Mjj. (A I K, etc.) ; louS. "s.if^mos irxxpiuTiis ;
P ; lou^. aTto KapuuTOV, etc,
3 N B D L Q have sx"' instead of si^-" ""'.

CHAP. XII. 7-8, 55
it would be a very rash proceeding to attribute the accusation
here made by St. John to the impure motive of hatred, as
modern criticism has thought fit to do, — The word yXcoaaoKopov
(properly r^XtoaaoKopeiov) literally means the case in which
musicians kept the mouthpieces of flutes ; hence : box. This
purse was probably a small portable cash-box, in which the
property of Jesus and the disciples was mingled with that of
the poor (xiii. 29). This fund was furnished by voluntary
gifts (v. 5 ; Luke viii. 1-3). — It may be seen from xx. 15
how easily the word ^aard^eiv, generally used in the N. T.
in the sense of to bear, changes its meaning for that of to
hear away, to purloin (de Wette, Meyer). The former sense,
without being absolutely impossible here, would nevertheless
furnish a tautology with the preceding proposition. But
why, it has been asked, did our Lord entrust Judas with an
office so dangerous to his morality ? We would not say, with
Hengstenberg, that He thought fit thus to call forth a mani
festation of his sin, as the only mode of effecting his cure.
In thus acting, Jesus would, as it seems to us, have put Him
self in the place of God in a manner unsuited to the reality
of His humanity. And what proof have we that Jesus directly
intervened in the choice of Judas as treasurer to the com
munity ? Might it not have been an arrangement between the
disciples themselves, with which He did not wish to interfere ?
Vv. 7, S. " Then said Jesus, Let her alone : against the day
of my burial ^ hath she kept this. For the poor always ye have
with you, hut me ye have not always." ^ — We translate according
to the reading of the T, R. ; a^e? is absolute: "Leave her (in
peace) ; cease to trouble her with your observations," According
to the Alex, variation, the proposition which follows might be
made the direct regimen of a^e?, whether in the sense of the
Vulgate, Meyer, Baumlein, etc.: "Let her keep it {aiiro, the rest of
the perfume of which she had as yet used but a part) to erabalm
me on the day of my death, and not to sell it for the poor,"
or in that of Lange, Luthardt : " Allow her to have kept this
perfume for this very day, which, by the act she has performed,
1 T, R., with 12 Mjj. almost all the Mnn. Syr""*, reads : «?£.- kutjiv- us mt
Kfi'.pa^o T. £>Ta?. i^au n-np'r.x'.i num. NBDKLQXo, 4 Mnn. Itfaii"' Vg.
Cop. : K^E? «i/TJjv iva. 11$ rv w^, T, ivruip. fLou Tripnirn tcvro.
" D omits ver. 8.

56 GOSPEL OE JOHN.
becomes, as it were, that of an anticipated burial" Rilliet,
while accepting the Alex, reading, takes a^e? in the absolute
sense, which we must do in the T, R, : " Let her alone, that she
raay keep it for the day of my burial," The sense of Lange is
grammatically forced ; it would have required : a^e? avrrjv
TerrjpKevai, the expression d^iivai "va necessarily relating to
the future. That of Meyer rests upon the idea that only a
portion of the perfume had been used, a notion incompatible
with the natural sense of ver. 3. And with what right can
avTo be restricted to the portion thus assumed to be unused ?
Besides, the saying of Jesus, thus understood, has no connection
with the objection of Judas, who had not disputed Mary's
right to keep all or part of the perfume for the purpose of
using it on sorae future appropriate occasion. The translation
of Rilliet does not remove these difficulties, and we can but
agree with Liicke and Hengstenberg, that this reading, how
ever translated, does not present any passable meaning. It
is an unfortunate correction by the hand of critics who
were occupied with the notion that no man is embalmed
before his death. The received reading, on the contrary, offers
a sense at once clear and refined, Jesus bestowed on the act
of Mary just what it lacked in the eyes of Judas — an aim, a
practical usefulness. It is not for nothing, as your reproaches
suggest, that she has poured forth this perfume. She has
embalraed me beforehand, and has thus by anticipation made
to-day, which precedes by so short a period that when thy
treachery will so suddenly consign me to the grave, the day
of my burial. 'Evra^iaa-p6<s, embalmment and the usual pre
parations for burial. The word TerrjprjKev, she has kept, is full
of subtle meaning. It is as though there had been on the
part of Mary a long-formed plan, in accordance with that cold
utihtarianism upon which the reproach of Judas was founded.
— The meaning to which we are thus led perfectly suits that of
the saying of Jesus in Mark : " She is come beforehand to anoint
my body to the burying!'
Ver, 8 is wanting in D ; hence, if this manuscript is alone
correct, in opposition to all the other documents, it must have
been imported by copyists from the Synoptists. But it is
much raore likely that this is one of the erroneous omissions
so frequent in D. Its sense is : " If the poor are really the

CHAP. XIL 9-n. 57
objects of your sohcitude, you wiU at all times be able to
exercise your liberality towards them ; but my person will be
soon removed frora your zealous and tender care." The first
proposition seems to contain an allusion to Deut, xv. 11. — The
present ey(^eTe, in the first proposition, results from iravroje,
always; the second is introduced by the first.
Beyschlag justly observes on this passage : " It is asserted
that the fourth evangelist delights in depreciating the twelve;
but why then does he here set down aU to the account of
Judas only 1 It is also said that he entertained a special
hatred for Judas ; but it is forgotten that a writer of the
second century could have had no reason for personally hating
Judas. — The slight modifications introduced into the synoptic
narrative by St. John are quite unmeaning from the ideal
point of view, and can only be explained by his more exact
knowledge of the fact, and by the more historical character
of his delineation. We thus see how erroneous is that idea
of dependence, with regard to the account of St. Mark, which
Weizsacker attributes to the fourth evangehst, because of the
three hundred pence common to both narratives, and the
coincidence of their expressions" {Untersuch. p. 290).
Vv. 9-11. " Much people of the Jews therefore knew that
He was there : and they came not for Jesus' sake only, but that
they might see Lazarus also, whom He had raised from the
dead. Now the chief priests consulted that they might put
Lazarus also to death; because m/xny of the Jews went away
and believed on Jesus." — The pilgrims who carae from Jericho
with Jesus, had, on arriving at Jerusalem, spread the news
of His approach. And those inhabitants of Judea, already
spoken of in xi 55, 56, who, many days before His arrival, had
made Jesus the subject of their conversation, could not, when
they learnt that He was staying in the neighbourhood, restrain
their impatience to see Him, as well as Lazarus, the living
monument of His power, — The term Jews here maintains
the meaning which it bears throughout this Gospel, viz, the
representatives of the ancient order of things. This was just
the point which exasperated the rulers ; the very people upon
whora they had always depended to make head against those
of Galilee, the inhabitants of Judea, and even of Jerusalera,
were beginning to fall away. — 'Tirdyeiv, to retire, but in a

58 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
private manner, for some caution accompanied these visits to
Bethany, — Thus was the solemn entry into Jerusalem pre
pared for. The people were quite disposed for an ovation, and
Jesus had but to give the signal, and cease to restrain the
enthusiasm of the multitude, and the hour of that royal
manifestation, so long desired by His mother (ii. 4) and
demanded by His brethren (vii. 14), would immediately strike,
II. The Entry into Jerusalem. — Vv. 12-19.
TUl this day, Jesus had on every occasion laboured to
repress all popular manifestations in His favour (vi. 1 5 ; Luke
xiv. 25-33, xix. 11 sq., etc.). He now gave free course to
the feelings of the multitude, and accepted the homage offered
Him. What reason was there any longer for precautions ?
Ought He not, at least for once, to be acknowledged and
saluted as the King of Israel ? The hour of His death was
at hand, hence that of His royal accession had arrived.
The tradition of the Christian church fixes our Lord's
entry into Jerusalem on the Sunday preceding His passion.
The most probable explanation of ver. 1 does not confirm
this view, and it is more likely that it took place on the
Monday. The evangehsts do not point out the time of day
at which it happened. But it seems to result frora Mark xi.
11:" And Jesus entered into Jerusalem, and into the temple :
and when He had looked round about upon all things, and
now the eventide was come, He went out unto Bethany with the
twelve" that it was during the second half of the day. This
verse in fact means that, after having entered Jerusalem, Jesus
did nothing of importance on that day, because it was already
too late.
Vv. 12, 13. "On the next day a great croivd of people that
were come ^ to the feast, ivhen they lieard that Jesus was come
to Jerusalem, took branches of palm trees and loent forth to
meet Him} and cried} Hosanna: Blessed is the King of
1 N and. .^ omit o before i\fai.
2 A K U n, 50 Mnn. read acravTcmv instead of uTa.tr-/i<rri (11 Mjj.). D C L X;
au^avTViiriv. ' K D L Q read iKpxtiyci.t,n instead of sx:«?o». i< A D K Q X n add
^.iyiVTii,

CHAP. XIL 12, 13. 69
Israel that cometh in the name of the Lord I " — The crowd
spoken of in vv. 9-1 1 meant only the Jews of Jerusalera and
its neighbourhood, whose defection had so alarraed the rulers.
But that mentioned in ver. 12 contained great numbers of
pilgrims, who had come from all parts to the feast, and who,
hearing that Jesus was at Bethany, and about to come to
Jerusalem, went out to meet and escort Him into the city.
Some of thera, as we have just seen, went as far as Bethany ;
others, who set out later, met Him on the road ; hence, as
He drew near. He was met by group after group of the
rejoicing multitude. It is thus that St. John's account
explains, completes, and gives preciseness to that of the
Synoptists. The latter, not having mentioned His stay at
Bethany, quite naturally represent Hira as entering the city
with the caravan of pilgrims who, like Himself, had arrived
from Jericho. These latter certainly formed part of His
escort, but St. John gives us to understand that it was
composed also of many other persons, — viz., of numerous
inhabitants of Judea, and all the pilgrims spoken of in xi,
55, 56, who had arrived long before our Lord.
This multitude seems to have been animated by a feeling
of heavenly joy. Their aspirations and rejoicing were ex
pressed by symbols and songs. — The palm was regarded in
the East as the emblem of strength and beauty, and its
branches as that of joy. In 1 Mace. xiii. 51, Simon returns
to Jerusalem " with thanksgiving and branches of palm trees,
and with harps and cymbals, and with viols and hymns and
songs, because there was destroyed a great enemy out of Israel."
In Lev. xxiii. 40 it is said, in the institution of the feast of
Tabernacles : " You shall take . . . branches of palms . . .
and ye shall rejoice before the Lord your God seven days."
There was, on each day of this feast, a procession, in which
palm branches were carried round the altar of burnt-offering.
But on this occasion all was done spontaneously (comp. Rev.
vii. 9). — The term ^atov alone, signifies branches of palm, but
the complement t&v (poiviKcav was added by St, John for
readers unacquainted with this technical term.
The cries of the multitude leave no doubt as to the mean
ing of this demonstration ; it was, indeed, the Messiah whom
the people welcomed and saluted in the person of Jesus.

60 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
The acclamations reported by St, John (ver. 13), and for
which equivalents are given by the Synoptists, are taken
from Ps. cxviii., especiaUy w. 25, 26. Numerous Rabbinic
quotations prove this psalm to have been regarded as
Messianic. Every IsraeUte knew these words by heart : they
were sung at the feast of Tabernacles, in the procession made
round the altar, and at the Passover, after the singing of
the great HaUel (Ps, cx'iii.-cxviii.) at the close of the repast.
Hosanna (from w nycin, save, I beseech Thee) is a prayer
addressed to God by the theocratic people on behalf of its
King Messiah; it is, if we may venture so to speak, the
IsraeUte God save the King. It is raore natural, as it seeras
to us, to refer the words in the name of the Lord to the verb
cometh, than to the participle blessed. The expression, that cometh
in the name of the Lord, designates, in a general and still a
very vague manner, that Sent One from God upon whose
person and work Israel implores the blessing of Heaven.
After this comes the great word, whose meaning all can
understand, the unequivocal title. King of Israel. — Of course,
all in this crowd did not cry out in exactly the same manner,
a fact which easily explains the differences in reporting the
acclamations of the populace in the different evangelists. — As
Jesus saw (vi. 5), in the arrival of the multitudes in the
wilderness, the call of His Father to give a feast to His
people, so does He now recognise the divine signal in the rush
of these crowds to welcome Hira with triumphant shouts. He
perceives that, as the very psalm from which their songs
were taken says : " This is the day which the Lord hath made"
and that it is a day on which to rejoice; and He responds
to the salutations of the people by a truly Messianic sign.
Vv. 14, 15. "Jesus having found a young ass, sat thereon;
as it is written, Fear not, daughter^ of Sion: behold, thy
King cometh, sitting on an ass's colt." — The conduct of Jesus
was necessitated by the nature of things. When once He
consented to accept this homage, it was impossible for Him
to continue any longer mingled with the crowd. On the
other hand. He desired to appear upon the scene in the
humblest manner, and in the form most appropriate to the
1 T. R., with 8 Mjj. (X E G, etc.), reads tuyxrip ; 9 Mjj. (A B D, etc.) :
Cvyainp.

CHAP, XII. 14, 15. 61
essentially spiritual character of His royalty. In the East,
the mule, as weU as the horse, is regarded as a noble animal ;
the ass, on the contrary, is despised there, as it is here.
Comp. Wisd. xxxiii. (xxxvi.) 25 (24). Hence the manner in
which Jesus was mounted must not be compared with that
of Solomon (1 Kings i. 38), when he made his regal entry
into Jerusalem upon the mule of David his father. The
prophet Zechariah has himseK furnished a commentary on
tliis symbol by saying (ix. 9) : " Behold, thy King cometh unto
thee : just, and having salvation, and lowly (Fr. poor)." But,
at the same time that the ass represented the poverty of the
Messiah, it also recalled the pacific nature of His reign : " I
will cut off the chariots of war ; and tliis King shall speak
peace to the nations" (Zech. ix. 10). These two notions of
peace and poverty easily combine, as do, on the other hand,
those of riches and miUtary power. — The expression evpcov,
having found, seems at the first glance incompatible with the
synoptic account, that Jesus sent before Him two of His
disciples with a special order to bring Hira the ass. But
evpmv by no means signifies finding without seeking ; witness
the evprjKa of Archimedes ! The word might be translated :
having procured; nothing can be inferred from it as to how
the finding was effected, and St. John might naturally intend
to summarize in this brief expression the synoptic account
which was already sufficiently known in the Church. He
equaUy abridges the quotation from Zechariah, his sole con
cern here being to prove the general relation between the
prophecy and its fulfilment. The expression daughter of
Sion designates either the town of Zion itself personified, or
the population of the town as protected by the royal hill.
John substitutes Fear not for the Rejoice of the prophet ; it
is the same sentiment in a lower degree, such a king could
not be a tyrant. — If Jesus had never entered Jerusalem in
this fashion, this prophecy would equaUy have been fulfiUed.
His whole ministry in Israel was its accompHshment. But
by literally realizing the image employed by the prophet,
Jesus desired to render the true and spiritual fulfilment of
the prophecy more evident. At the moment, however, the
disciples did not so remember the prophecy as to grasp its
reference to what was taking place before their eyes.

62 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
Ver, 1 6. " Now the disciples understood not these things at the
time : but after Jesus was glorified, then they remembered that
these things loere written of Him, and that they had done them
to Him!' — Hitherto, in fact, the disciples had not imagined
that this prophecy was to be accomplished in so simple and
natural a form. It was not tiU after the elevation of their
Master to heaven that they understood all the greatness of
the act that day performed. Hence there is no reason for
banishing, as Reuss does, the natural meaning of iSo^daOt],
was glorified, and referring this term to the salutary effects of
our Lord's sufferings, — What a charlatan is Baur's pseudo-
John, amusing himself by throwing into his narrative this
piece of information, for the sake of making himself appear
to have been one of those disciples whom the ascension had
enlightened ! — Exception has been taken to the expression :
they had done these things to Him, because, in the scene related
by St, John, the apostles did notliing to Jesus. Several take
eTToirjaav in the indefinite sense in which it is used in ver, 2,
and make the multitude its subject. But the subject of they
remembered cannot be entirely different from that of they had
done. If they are distinct, the first ought at least to be in
cluded in the second. What St, John means to say is just
this, that the disciples afterwards perceived that they had
themselves assisted in accomplishing a prophecy of which at
the time they were not thinking. The co-operation of the
disciples, hinted at in John, is described in detail in Luke xix,
29-36 and the paraUel passages. We find here a fresh proof
of the abridged character of the narrative, while its relation
with that of the Synoptists is clearly brought out, — The
words : they had done these things unto Him, show how mis
taken is the notion of Keim, who affirms that the tendency of
St. John's narrative is to represent Jesus and His disciples
as passive during this scene, and that out of repugnance for
the idea of the Jewish Messiah.
Vv. 17, 18. "The multitude therefore that was with Him
when ' He called Lazarus out of his grave, and raised him from
the dead, hare Him witness ; and for this cause also ^ the multi-
1 On (wUn) is the reading ofNAB6HMQSUXr.iA, 100 Mnn. and ?,
\Thile D E K L, ItP'=""i"» Syr. and T. R. read un {that).
^ B E H A A omit xai.

CHAP. XII. 17, 18. 63
tude met Him, because they had heard that He had done this
miracle!' — St, John does not give us a coraplete picture
of the triumphal entry, because his design in recording this
fact is solely to show its relation, on the one hand with the
raising of Lazarus (its cause), and on the other with the con
demnation of Jesus (its effect) ; and it is this connection
which he brings forward in vv. 17-19. If, with some im
portant Mss. and the most ancient translations, we read (ver,
17) OTI, that (bare Him witness that), the meaning is, that the
crowd, by accompanying Jesus, was celebrating among other
miracles the raising of Lazarus, and it is thus unnecessary to
suppose that the multitude of ver. 17 differed, as Liicke
supposes, from that of ver. 18. It might be the same at two
different moments, aud the prodigy it was now celebrating by
escorting Jesus (ver. 17) was the same which induced them
to corae and meet Him (ver, 18), But if, with the oldest
Mjj., we read ore, when {that was with Him when He raised
Lazarus), the meaning is quite different. Then the multi
tude of ver, 1 7 comprises only the Jews who were in Bethany
at the time of the raising of Lazarus, those said to have
" beUeved " in xi, 45, and here pointed out as the true authors
of the ovation now offered to our Lord. They were dispersed
among the crowd, relating to aU who would listen what they
had themselves heard and seen. The circumstance which
gives a preponderance in favour of this reading is the dramatic
amplification : when He called Lazarus out of his grave, and
raised him from the dead ; for the former case, the mere
mention of the fact would have sufficed. If we adopt the
latter, the therefore of ver, 1 7 is connected with vv, 1 0 and
11, and the verb epapTvpei must be taken in an absolute
sense : bare Him witness. Ver. 1 8 adds to ver, 1 7 the idea
that not only was this miracle the chief subject of conversa
tion among the crowd, but also that it induced the company
of pilgrims, to whose knowledge it had come on their arrival at
Jerusalem, to go and meet Jesus, — We find here a remarkable
resemblance to the account of St, Luke : " When He was
come nigh, even now at the descent of the Mount of Olives, the
vjhole multitude of the disciples began to rejoice and praise God
with a loud voice for all the mighty works that they had seen."
As usual, the synoptic narrative presents a vaguer picture,

64 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
with more undecided features, while that of St. John gives
sharper outlines,
Ver. 19. "Whereupon the Pharisees said among themselves.
You see that you prevail nothing ; behold, the whole world is
gone away after Him." — Vv. 17 and 18 brought out the in
fluence exercised by the raising of Lazarus in the scene of the
entry into Jerusalem ; ver, 1 9 points out that of this scene
upon the final catastrophe. — IIp6<; iavrov^, instead of tt/jo?
dWTjXous, because, belonging to the same body, they were, as
it were, speaking to themselves. — "IBe, behold, aUudes to the un
expected spectacle they had just witnessed. — There is distress
in the term 6 Koa-po'i, the world : all these people, both natives
and strangers ; and in the Aorist aTrrj'kOev, is gone away : it is
an accomplished fact; we are alone ! — ©ecopeiTe may be taken
either as a present indicative or an imperative. In either
case, these Pharisees are, with a certain amount of bitterness,
mutually reproaching each other with the uselessness of their
half measures, and encouraging themselves to adopt without
further delay the extreme measures advocated by Caiaphas.
It is by these last words in particular that this passage is
connected with the general design of this part of the Gospel.
" The raore closely the narrative of St. John is studied, the
more impossible is it to regard it as the accidental product of
tradition or legend. Instead of that juxtaposition of anec
dotes which characterizes the Synoptic Gospels, we find at
every step traces of profound connection even in the very
sUghtest detaUs. With regard to this book, the dilemma,
then, is : either it is a true history profoundly grasped and
reproduced, or a romance powerfully conceived and very
skilfully executed" (Baur).
IIL The Last Scene in the Temple.— V\. 20-36.
Among all the facts which took place between the solemn
entry and the Thursday evening before our Lord's death, St.
John has preserved but one, omitted by the Synoptists, — viz.,
the attempt of certain Greek proselytes to approach Him, and
the discourse in which He expressed the feelings to which
this unexpected circumstance gave rise.
If St. John so specially records this fact, it is by no means

CHAP. XIL 20-36. 6 5
because it was his design to complete the synoptic narrative
in this respect, but that, recognising in this raemorable scene,
on one side the close of our Lord's ministry, and on the other
the prelude to the agonies of His passion, it hence formed
an important link in his narrative. He does not tell us on
what day this event took place. According to Mark (xi, 11),
it could not have been on that of the triumphal entry. Be
sides, it ends with the decided rupture of Jesus with the
people. Now we know that, during the days which succeeded
the entry, Jesus dwelt in the temple, as in His palace, and
exercised in it a kind of Messianic sovereignty. On the first
of these days (Tuesday), He purged the temple from the presence
.of the sellers; on the next. He coped with the authorities,
who demanded an explanation as to the source of the authority
He assumed ; and then successively with the Pharisees, Sad
ducees, and scribes, who approached Him with captious
questions, putting to them in His turn, from Ps, ex., the great
question concerning the divinity of the Messiah, which was to
be the subject of His condemnation. In the evening, after
pronouncing the malediction upon the rulers of the people. He
retired to the Mount of Olives, where He unfurled before the
eyes of His disciples the picture of the threefold judgment of
the church, of Jerusalem, and of the human race. The words
of ver. 36 : " These things spake Jesus, and departed, and did hide
Himself from them',' give us reason to think that the scene
recounted by St. John also took place on the Wednesday even
ing, at the time when Jesus was leaving the temple to repair
to Bethany (comp. the solemn farewell. Matt, xxiii. 37—39).
In this case, Jesus would not have returned to Jerusalem on
the Thursday morning at the time when the people were ex
pecting Him in the temple, but have spent, the whole of the
day in retirement at Bethany {He hid Himself from them). If,
however, this seems to make the Wednesday too fuU of events, it
is possible, as the saying quoted by St. Matthew may have been
pronounced in Galilee (Luke xiii 34, 35), that Jesus returned
for a few moraents to Jerusalem on the Thursday morning, and
that the scene related by St. John took place then. But in
this case, the expression : He hid Himself from them, is not so
weU justified, assuming as it does a certain interval of voluntary
absence. GODET in, E JOHN.

66 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
Vv. 20-22. " Now there were certain Greeks among them that
came up to Jerusalem to worship at the feast, who came to Philip,
who was of Bethsaida in Galilee, and desired him, saying. Sir,
we would see Jesus. Philip cometh and telleth Andrew, and
Andrew and Philip tell^ Jesus!' — These Greeks belonged to
those numerous Gentiles who, like the Ethiopian eunuch
(Acts viii.), had embraced the Jewish rehgion, and came to
Jerusalem to keep its festivals. They must be carefully dis
tinguished from those Jews, speaking the Greek language, who
dwelt in heathen lands {eWTjvia-Tai). The spacious court of
the Gentiles was devoted to these proselytes, according to the
words of Solomon (1 Kings viii. 41-43). If these strangers
witnessed the entry of Jesus into Jerusalem, and were pre
sent at the expulsion of the sellers, — an act by which Jesus
restored to its proper use the only part of the sanctuary open
to them, — we can all the better appreciate their desire for
nearer acquaintance with such a person. Assuredly they did
not merely desire, lilce Zaccheus, to behold Jesus with their
bodily eyes (Bruckner) ; for such a purpose there was no
need of Philip's intervention, since they might have seen Him
as He passed through the court. Besides, the solemnity of
our Lord's reply obliges us to attribute a more serious inten
tion to this step. What they desired was to have a private
conversation with Him on religious subjects. How do we
know even whether, having witnessed the opposition He en
countered from the rulers of His own nation, they did not
desire to invite Him to turn to the Gentiles, who would
better appreciate such a sage and teacher than these bigoted
Jews ? The ecclesiastical historian (Eusebius, i. 1 3) has pre
served the memory of an embassy sent to Jesus by the king
of Edessa, in Syria, to invite Him to take up His abode with
him, and to promise Him such a royal welcome as should
compensate Him for the obstinacy with which the Jews re
jected Him. This fact is not without resemblance to that
which now engages our attention, and in which we behold,
in one of the first demonstrations of the heathen world in
favour of the Gospel, the first indication of that attraction
1 T. R., with 12 Mjj., reads, x^, ¦ra.x,', Av'Spix; xa, ¦t'lXi^r.^cs Xiyaiim.—A B L
reads, ipx^'"^' '^"V "• *''^- ""' >.iy'""'f. — N : xxi vhXim tpx^Txi AiSp. x iiX. xai
Xsynim-ii. — The Vss. also present several variations.

CHAP. XII, 20-22, 67
which its moral beauty was soon to exercise over the whole
human race. — Jesus was undoubtedly, at the time this request
was communicated to Him, in the court of the women, which
was entered after crossing that of the Gentiles, and in which
He frequently taught (vol. ii. p. 320). — The art. riov and the
part. pres. dva^aivovrmv indicate a permanent and well-known
category of individuals, the class of proselytes not merely from
among the Greeks (it is not necessary to understand 'EX\'^v(ov),
but of every nation, who were commonly seen at the festal
seasons. The term irpoariXdov, approached, has a certain tone
of gravity and solemnity. The address : Sir, shows the
respect they felt for the disciple of such a Master. — The
imperf. ¦^pwTcov, they desired, expresses an action begun and
awaiting its completion, the answer of Philip.- — Qekopev, we
have decided to . . .; procure us therefore the means ! The term
Ihelv, to see, derives its meaning from the context. These
strangers used the most modest expression : to see Him more
closely ! — The apposition : which was of Bethsaida of Galilee,
may serve to explain the reason why these Greeks applied to
Phihp. They came perhaps from some country near to Galilee,
Decapolis, for example, on the other side of the Sea of Galilee,
where were several entirely Greek cities. " It is remarkable
that PhHip and Andrew, the two disciples whose intervention
was used for these Greeks, are alone those whose names were
of Greek origin. Undoubtedly the Greek name went hand
in hand with Greek culture " (Hengstenberg).
We here again see the cautious character of Philip. He
feels the gravity of the step he is asked to take. According
to the principle He had Himself laid down in Matt, xv. 24 :
" I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel!'
Jesus had, during the whole of His earthly ministry, entirely
confined His agency to the Jewish people. Hence Philip
dares not take alone the initiative in a request which sought to
induce Jesus to deviate from His habitual conduct, and brings
the matter before Andrew. Andrew is that one of the four
disciples standing first in order in all the catalogues of the
apostles, who is always placed next to Philip ; we have seen
him twice mentioned with Philip in ch. i. and vi., and have
already pointed out, ch, vi, that these two apostles, so
speciaUy named by St. John, seem, according to tradition, not to

68 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
have been strangers to the composition of this Gospel After
deUberating, they decided jointly to present this request to
the Lord, It is probable that Andrew, the more vigorous and
decided character, was the spokesman, and that this is the
reason his name is placed first. — Of the three readings, that
of the Sinait. is evidently a mixture of the other two. That
of A B L is the most concise and probable (see Meyer),
Do we ask why this circurastance raade so profound an
irapression on Jesus 1 First, it aroused within Him the feel
ing of His sovereignty over the Gentile world. Religious
wants expressed by Gentiles, and to Him ! It is, as it were,
the first bursting forth of a new world. But this sovereignty
of Jesus over the Gentiles could only be realized so far as He
should Himself be freed frora His Jewish covering, and raised
to a new form of existence. Hence His thoughts turned directly
to the fact by which alone this new order of things could be
realized : the way of Calvary unveiled itself before Him. Did
He not know that it was from the height of a cross that He
ivould draw all men unto Him? (ii. 19, iii, 14, 15, x. 15, 16),
Hence, instead of answering yes or no to the question ad
dressed to Him, He was absorbed in the reflections it called
forth. The Gentiles were knocking at the door of the king
dom of God : it was the signal that for Himself (w. 2 3-3 0),
for the human race (w, 31-33), and especiaUy for Israel (vv.
34-36), a decisive hour had come.
This discourse contains an indirect reply to the request of the
Greeks : " The time for my intercoui-se with the Gentiles is in
deed at hand, but it is not yet come." This answer, however,
though implicitly a negative one, niay not have prevented Him,
in crossing the court of the Gentiles, from testifying' for these
Greeks the sympathy which He ever extended to those who
sought Him. St. John is sUent on this point, because the im
portance of the scene was in his eyes of a different kind. As
Luthardt says : In his history, it is not the external part, but its
moral significance, with which he is chiefly concerned ; and this
was in the present instance the impression made on Jesus,
and the discourse in which that impression was manifested.
Ver. 23. "Jesus answered^ them. The hour is come, that the
' X B L X : x'^raxprnrxi instead of a-rixpnuTu, which is the reading of T R
with 13 Mjj. It. Syr.

CHAP. XII. 24, 25. 69
Son of man should he glorified!' — 'ATreKpivaTo is not absolutely
synonymous with direKpiOri (see on ver. 19), This question
rather gave rise to a meditation than to a direct reply on the
part of Jesus. — The first words : The hour is come, contain the
germ of the whole discourse which follows, and which is
entirely devoted to disclosing the importance of the time then
present. First, to Jesus Himself, it was the hour of His
personal transformation, and of His return to the divine con
dition, by the painful passage of death. What had just taken
place made him perceive that this was now imminent. " It is
arbitrary here, as elsewhere, to apply the expression Bo^aadrj-
vai, to be glorified, to the acknowledgment of Jesus as the
Messiah, and to the extension of His kingdora among the
GentUes" (Liicke, Reuss). The last words of vv, 25, 26 show
that Jesus was thinking first of aU of the exaltation of His
Person to heaven : His agency among the Gentiles would be
only a consequence of this change (xvii 1, 2, 5), The term :
Son of man, is inspired by the feeling of His inseparable
union with huraan nature, which is to be raised in Him, its
representative, to the possession of the divine condition.
It is then that He will be able to communicate without
impediment with the Greeks and the whole world. At
ver, 24 Jesus expresses by a figure, and at ver. 25 in plain
terms, the painful condition upon which this glorification
depends :
Ver, 24, " Verily, verily, I say unto you. Except a corn of
wheat fall into the earth and die, it abideth alone : but if it die, it
bringeth forth much fruit." — Jesus states what must happen to
Him before He can respond to those needs of which the first
symptoms have just been manifested. As long as a grain of
wheat remains in the granary, it is indeed in safety, but is
without the power of reproduction ; as soon as it is cast into
the earth, its coverings decompose, and it perishes as a grain,
but only to be born again in a multitude of grains like itself.
This figure was perhaps the more apt, inasmuch as the grain
of wheat played a considerable part in the Greek mysteries,
— The strong affirmation, Amen, Amen, refers to the contrast
which Jesus knew to exist between this painful necessity and
the glory of which His disciples dreamed.
Ver. 25. Application of the figure : " He that loveth his life

70 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
loseth it ; ^ and he that hateth his life in this world sliall keep
it in life eternal!' — From the connection of ver, 23 with
ver. 24, and of ver. 24 with ver. 25, there can be no doubt
that Jesus applied this sentence to Himself He thereby
declared Himself to be subjected to that fundamental law of
human Ufe which He had so frequently applied to His dis
ciples (Matt. X. 39, xvi 25; Mark viii 35; Luke ix, 24,
xvii. 33), By the expression his life, yjrvxv, Jesus meant the
breath of natural Ufe, and all the faculties with which it is
endowed. This physical and psychical life was good, inas
much as it was the starting-point of human existence, and
Jesus HimseK possessed it. But it was not destined to main
tain and perpetuate itself as such ; it was to be transformed
by a divine force into a better life, a life spiritual and eternal ;
and to reach this it must be given, sacrificed, immolated, re
nounced. Otherwise, after having flourished for a moment
with more or less of satisfaction, it perishes and withers for
ever. This law applies also to a pure being, and to his law
ful tastes. AU that is not given to God by an act of volun
tary immolation bears within it the germ of death. Hence,
suppose that Jesus, seeking only His personal safety, had now
gone to the Greeks to play among them the part of a sage,
or to organize the state like another Solon, He might indeed
thus have saved His life, but would in reality have lost it.
Not having given it up to God, He could not have received
it from Him glorified (ver. 2 3). Thus kept by Him, it would
have remained doomed to sterility and earthly frailty. It was
by renouncing the part of a sage that He became a Christ,
by renouncing the throne of a Solomon that He obtained
that of God. Lange, with much depth of perception, points
out that this saying included the judgment of Hellenism.
For what was Greek civilization but human life cultivated
from the view-point of enjoyment, and withdrawn from the
law of sacrifice ? — It is more probable that the present loseth
{diroXXijei) was replaced by the future shall lose (aTroXecret)
than the reverse. This substitution would take place under
the influence of the foUowing proposition. The expression
loses it goes beyond that of ver. 24 : abideth alone. — The term
' N B L ; cc'n-oXktiii {loses it) instead of xcroXnTu {shall lose it), which is the
reading of T. R. with the other Mjj.

CHAP, XII, 2G-28. 71
picreiv, to hate, here includes the idea of a generous contempt,
and well characterizes the noble ambition which aims higher
than this world. The expression : in life eternal, opposed as it
here is to: in this world, refers not only to the superior
nature of this Ufe, but also to the future epoch in which it
shaU be perfectly developed. — This moral axiom, by which
the Master's life is ruled, applies also to that of the disciple :
Ver. 26. " If any man serve me, let him follow me; and
vjhere I am, there also shall my servant he : if^ any mxin serve
me, him will my Father honour." — Follow, i.e. in the way of
sacrifice, which is also that of glorious transfiguration. The
expression : where I am, is a present of anticipation, referring
to the Lord's state of heavenly glory, as the promise : there
also shall my servant be, does to the faithful disciple's partici
pation in that state (xviii 24).- — Tipi^a-ei, will honour, recaUs
the should be glorified, Bo^aaOfi, of ver. 23 with respect to
Jesus. The Father wiU as certainly honour the faithful servant
as He has glorified the Master. This is in both cases truly
to keep the life which they give. Perhaps Andrew and PhiUp
had felt some carnal satisfaction at the sight of these strangers
thus ready to do homa,ge to Jesus, But He, who was so con
stantly accustomed to repress in His own case even the
lawful aspirations of natural life, silenced them with a word
in that of His disciples. He thus revealed to them, as
Luthardt observes, the condition by which alone they could
extend His kingdom among all nations, and that condition
was their own death. But having thus announced the law
which obUged them to die. He immediately felt in His whole
being the reaction of this formidable thought.
Vv. 27, 28. "Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I
say ? Father, save me from this hour : hut for this cause came
I to this hour. Father, glorify Thy name!' — The soul, ¦^v^rj, is
the seat of the natural, as the spirit, irvevpa, is that of the
religious emotions (see on xi. 33). Jesus here used the first
of these terms, because it was the prospect of His personal
sorrows which at this moment moved Him. — The perf. rera-
paKTui, is troubled, indicates the condition into which the Lord
found Himself plunged. This inward trouble revealed itself
to Him especiaUy by the unusual hesitation which He ex-
' t< B D L X, It. Syr. omit xai before my 'tis.

72 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
perienced when about to pour out His feelings ih prayer.
GeneraUy, He had a distinct view as to what He should ask
of the Father ; now this certainty was absent. Like the
behever in the state described by St. Paul in Rom. viii. 26, He
knew not what to pray for, and asks Hiraself : What shall I
say ? This question was, properly speaking, addressed neither
to man nor to God, but to Himself. For His sacrifice was a
voluntary one ; He might yet, if He thought good, ask God
to release Him from it. And the Father would now, as ever,
have heard Him, even if He had had to send twelve legions
of angels. But would not the prayer which rescued Him
ruin the world ? Jesus did not feel Himself at liberty to
pray thus. He had advanced too far on the road to the cross
to stop so near the end. Renouncing, then, the cry of nature.
He gave utterance to the voice of the Spirit : Father, glorify
Thy name. This was His real prayer, the definite request
in which His filial heart entirely poured itself forth, and
which restored His serenity : " Do with me what .Thou wUt,
provided Thou art glorified thereby ! " The word now charac
terized His present anguish as an anticipation of that which
awaited Him in presence of the cross, nou) already, though the
hour is stUl distant. — After the question : What shall I say ?
there is nothing strange in the interrogative turn which we
have given to the prayer : " Father, save me from this hour."
This was the prayer to which nature prompted Him ; He
expressed it hypotheticaUy, to teach His disciples to silence,
in every similar position (ver. 26), the voice of the flesh,
and always to let that of the spirit prevaU before God.
Liicke, Meyer, and Hengstenberg regard these words as a
positive prayer : " Deliver me from the necessity of dying,''
But then how should we understand the next sentence,
which would in this case be an immediate withdrawal of this
request ? So abrupt a transition of feeling is impossible.
The prayer at Gethsemane is appealed to, but there Jesus
began by saying : */ it he possible, and also expressly desig
nated the contrast between the two cries by the word
ttX?/!', nevertheless, while here the contrast would be abso
lute and left unexplained, Luthardt feels this, and pro
poses to understand aSyaov, save me, not in the sense of:
" Save me from death," but in that of: " Bring me victoriously

CHAP. XIL 27, 23. 73
through it." This expedient is, however, excluded by the
adversative particle dXkd, but, which follows. For there is no
opposition between : " to have come to this hour," and : " to go
victoriously through it." — Thus, whatever turn we give to this
phrase, we cannot help seeing in it a hypothetical prayer ; it
was the cry of nature, if Jesus had suffered nature to speak.
In the words which follow He expresses, first, what really
hindered Him from addressing such a request to God — it
would be the negation of all that He had as yet done and
suffered ; — then the prayer in which His heart definitely
found repose, the cry of the spirit which alone remained
when once the moment of trouble had passed : glorify Thy
name. Nothing can be more instructive than the sight of
this contrast between the two factors which claimed the
empire over His wiU, The struggle is like one of those
fissures in its crust which enables science to fathom the bowels
of the earth. It lets us read the very inmost depths of the
Lord's being. And what do we discover ? Just the reverse
of that impassive Jesus attributed by criticism to St. John.
The expressions : for this cause and to this hour, seem to
constitute a pleonasm. This proposition might be taken as a
question : " Is it then for this cause that I am come to this
hour ? " — that is to say, to seek to defer it indefinitely ; or the
words for this hour might be raade an explanatory apposition
to for this cause : " It is for this cause that. I came (here below) "
— that is to say, for this hour. Both these meanings are
forced — the first, because of the interrogations which precede ;
the second, because ek is not a natural iteration of Sid, but
rather the direct regimen of ^XOov, in opposition to aiaaov sk.
Hengstenberg explains : " It is that my soul raight be troubled
that I came to this hour," which is stUl more forced. Liicke
and Meyer refer the words for this cause to the idea of the
prayer which follows : for the glorification of the Father's
name. But this is doing violence beyond measure to the
phrase ; whUe it seems quite natural to understand the neuter
rovTo, this, as a sUghtly mysterious expression of the something
which had just plunged His soul into so much trouble, the
gloomy and unspeakable events of the hour which was draw
ing near, and which He felt tempted to remove by prayer. It
is because of {Sid) this death which I am to undergo {tovto) that

74 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
I have held on to this hour. What He had done and borne
with a view to the cross would not suffer Him to relax at the
moment when the hour of this terrible punishment was at
length about to strike (comp. iii, 14).
M. Colani, in his criticism of Renan's Vie de JSsus, by a
strange inadvertence puts into the mouth of our Lord the
words : " Father, glorify my name," an expression which he says
is unmeaning, except from the view-point of the doctrine of
the Logos.^ Nothing is better calculated to show the differ
ence which exists between the profoundly human Jesus of St.
John and the fantastic and metaphysical Christ imputed by
criticism to this evangehst than this writer's involuntary
alteration of the text of this prayer. If, after this, M. Colani
can see in this subUme scene only " an erablematic and almost
simulated agony," whose is the fault ?
The most admirable feature in this passage is the perfectly
human character of the struggle between nature and spirit in
the heart of Jesus ; the next is the sincerity and candour with
which He expressed His inmost feelings. His weakness (Heb.
V. 2), before all the people, without fearing to let them witness
His distress at the prospect of His approaching sufferings. —
This scene was, as is generally acknowledged, the prelude to
that of Gethseraane. The only difference is, that in the latter
Jesus at the climax of His anguish reaUy utters the cry : " Save
me from this hour!" which He here hesitates to pronounce. This
slight shade of distinction, so suitable to the difference of the
two situations, proves the strictly historical character of both.
As to the view that St. John omitted from his Gospel the
scene in Gethsemane as incompatible with the divine character
of the Logos, it faUs of itself before the passage we are studying.
Lastly, how admirable is the gradation between Luke
xii 49, 50, John xu. 27, and the scene in Gethsemane! — a
gradation which so naturaUy depicts the increasing emotion
with which Jesus slowly drew near to the cross.
Renan observes on this passage : " Here are verses which
exhibit an unmistakeable historical stamp. They give the
obscure and isolated episode of the Greeks who applied to
Philip, Notice the part played by this apostle ; this Gospel is
the only one which knows anything of it,"
' Sevue de TMologie, third series, vol. i. p. 382.

CHAP, XII, 28, 29. 75
Vv, 28h, 29. " TJien came there a voice from heaven: I have
both glorified it, and will glorify it again. The people then,
that stood by and ^ heard, said that it thundered : others said, An
angel spake to Him." — Each time that the Son performed a
great act of personal consecration, the Father answered by a
sensible manifestation of approval. W^iat had happened at
the baptism and at the transfiguration was renewed. Now —
when the ministry of Jesus was ending, and He was devoting
Himself to death — or never was the time for the Father to affix
pubUcly to His work and person the seal of His satisfaction.
Liicke, de Wette, and even Hengstenberg, view this voice
from heaven as a mere clap of thunder, to which Jesus, by
reason of the coincidence of this natural phenomenon with
His prayer, gave a free interpretation in the sense pointed out
by the evangehst. The Rabbis gave to prophetic voices and
mysterious inspirations, sometimes arising in the heart on the
occasion of a word accidentally heard, the name of inp na,
daughter of the voice. But this name dates from an antecedent
era, and is appUed only to the human voice. Besides, accord
ing to St. John, this was not a stroke of thunder interpreted
by Jesus as a voice from heaven, but, on the contrary, a voice
from heaven taken by some of the bystanders for a clap of
thunder. And, finaUy, can it be supposed that St. John —
nay, that Jesus Himself (comp. vv. 31 and 32) — would trans
form a purely material sound into a positive divine saying ?
Some even among the crowd discerned articulate language in
this sound, and the text wiU not suffer us to regard this
phenomenon as other than supernatural. — The past, / have
glorified, refers to the Lord's ministry in Israel, now drawing
to its close ; the future, I will glorify, to the approaching
agency of Jesus upon the whole world, when from the midst
of His glory He would be a Ught to lighten the Gentiles.
Between these two great works which the Father effects by
the Son, lies that hour of suffering and death which is the
necessary transition from the one to the other. He would not
then draw back frorn this hour. — And was it not weU accom
panied ? " Before it . . . the name of God glorified in Israel ;
after it . . . the name of God glorified in the whole world ; "
this was indeed the most consoling answer to the fiUal heart
1 N D Cop, omit XU.I before axoura,-.

76 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
of Jesus (xvii. 1, 2, 4, 5). — The two kui, both . . . and, bring
out the close relation between the work done and the work to
be done : " I who have effected the one, shaU be able also to
accoriipUsh the other,"
The whole multitude heard a noise ; but the meaning of
the voice was only perceived by each in proportion to his
spiritual intelligence. Thus, the wild beast perceives only a
sound in the human voice ; the trained animal discovers a
meaning, a command, for example, which it immediately
obeys ; man alone discerns therein a thought. — "Ox^o^ : " the
greater number ; " aXKoi : others, " in smaller number " (comp.
Acts ix. 7 with xxii. 9, xxvi 13, 14), — The perf. XeXa-
XrjKev, instead of the Aorist, signifies that in their eyes Jesus
was from henceforth an individual in possession of a celestial
message. Vv. 30—32. "Jesus answered and said. This voice^ came
not because of me, but for your sakes. Now is the judgment of
this world : now shall the prince of this world ^ he cast out.
And I, when I have been lifted up from the earth, will draw
all^ men unto me!' — These words are the development of the
promise just made by God, to glorify His name by Jesus in
the future as He has glorified it in the past. — When Jesus
said this voice was not heard for His sake. He does not mean
that He had no need of being' strengthened, but that He had
no need of being so by a sensible manifestation. What the
step of the Greeks had been to Him in making Him feel
the gravity of the present hour to Himself, this heavenly
manifestation was to be to them, by reveaUng to them the
gravity of the present crisis to themselves, first with respect
to the world in general (vv. 31, 32), and then more particu
larly with respect to Israel (vv. 35, 36). — As to the world,
this hour was one of deepest revolution. It was the signal,
first, of its judgraent (ver. 31a), then of the expulsion of its
ancient master (ver, 316), and, lastly, of the accession of its
new Sovereign (ver. 32). The word vvv, now, at the beginning
^ T. R. with 11 Mjj. (E F G, etc.) : aurr, n ipun, instead of n ifun x-jrri, in
7 Mjj. (K A B, etc.).
' X omits the words tuv » "-pz'"' ¦•¦ ->. rovrou, and replaces them by xm (con
fusing the two TOV XOiriJLOv lOVTOu).
'•' Instead of trxtrccs, ^5 D, It. Vg. read ¦tcotx {each man or all things).

CHAP. XIL 30-32. 77
of the first two propositions, expressly brings out the decisive
nature of the present moment with respect to the human race.
To judge is to verify the moral condition. The judgment
of the world is based upon the cross, inasmuch as this dis
closes, as completely as possible, the moral condition of man
in his natural state. Man, by raising this throne for Jesus,
judged himself, and manifested that rebellion and enmity
against God which is in the depths of his heart. Having
erected it, he judges himself still more decidedly by his
relation thereto ; for either by faith he finds therein his salva
tion, or by unbelief his condemnation. And of this choice,
the final judgment would be only the ratification. Thus the
judgment of the world dates from Good Friday. Its first
external manifestation was the destruction of Jerusalem ; its
second will be the judgment of the church ; its third, the
last judgment. Comp. the discourses in Matt. xxiv. and xxv.,
delivered on the very evening of the day on which Jesus
uttered the words with which we are engaged.
But, whUe the crime of the cross disclosed the moral
condition of the world, it also filled up the measure of toler
ance granted to the perversity of its prince. The crucifixion
of the Son of God was the most odious and most unpardon
able transgression of Satan ; this crime put an end to the
long-suffering of God towards him, and consequently to his
dominion over mankind. The Rabbis habitually designate
Satan the prince of the world, but place the Jews outside his
kingdom, while Jesus includes them as well as the heathen
therein (ch. viii). Out signifies not only out of his office
and power, but chiefly out of the world, his ancient realm, as
is shown by the connection of these words with those which
precede them, and the opposition between vv. 31 and 32 {eK
TTJ'i 7979).
The overthrow of the throne of the forraer monarch co
incides with the accession of the new Sovereign. Jesus
declares Himself appointed to fiU this part: Kayco, and I.
But, strange to say, whUe substituting His power for that of
Satan, it is not upon this earth, whence Satan is cast out,
that He wUl establish His kingdom. He will not become, as
the Jews expected, the successor- of His adversary, and conse
quently another prince of this world ; He as well as His rival

78 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
will leave the earth ; He will be raised from it, and above
it, and it will be in a higher sphere that He will draw to
Hiraself His subjects and realize His kingdora. However
little familiar we may be with the language of Jesus, it is
easy to perceive that the expression to be lifted up must be
understood here in the same amphibological sense as at iii.
14 and viii. 28, His lifting up upon the cross, that throne
of love on which the eyes of believers throughout the whole
world are fixed, appears to Hira as the gloriously ironical
emblem of His elevation to the throne of glory. And this
comparison is based upon a deep truth. For was it not the
cross which created the abyss between Christ and the world
(Gal vi. 14), and rendered the purely heavenly form of the
kingdora of God for the present necessary ? The earth, after
being moistened with the blood of the Son of God, could not
be glorified till it had passed through destruction and renewal.
Meyer alleges against the double sense of the term to be
lifted up, the regimen sk rrj'i 7)79, fvm the earth, as proving
that Jesus was thinking not of His death, but of His ascen
sion. It is very evident that the expression from the earth
does not refer only to the small distance between the ground
and the feet of the crucified. From or out of the earth,
designates an ignominious expulsion from earthly existence
by any capital punishraent. It is the word to he lifted up,
which contains an allusion to the particular punishment of
the cross. But who can fail to feel that the expression out of
the earth would be out of place if referred only to the
ascension ? The natural regimen in this case would have
been : to heaven.
The cross and the ascension united freed Jesus from all
earthly ties and national obligations, and placed Him. in a
position to extend His agency to the whole worlds to become
the Lord of all (Rom. x. 12). "I will draw all to Me; '' all,
not Jews only, but all men, especially the Greeks. It is
this word all and this future will draw which evidently con
tain an answer to the request that elicited this discourse.
The hour for the call of the Greeks was undoubtedly at hand,
but another hour must strike first ! — Many restrict the all to
the elect ; others understand it in the sense of : " men of all
nations." Meyer, on the contrary, seems to find in it the

CHAP. XII. 33, 34. 79
notion of final universal salvation. But iXicveiv, to draw, does
not necessarUy imply effectual drawing. The word may
relate solely to the preaching of the cross in the whole world,
and to the agency of the Holy Spirit which accompanies it.
This heavenly drawing is not irresistible. — The last word, to
me, brings out the personal situation of Jesus as the supra-
terrestrial centre of the Divine kingdom. Once raised to
heaven, Jesu« will draw around Him a new people, strangers
to earth, and like Himself of heavenly nature. His spiritual
body. He will Himself be both the author and the end
of this divine attraction.
These two verses sum up the whole history of the Church,
whether from the negative and polemic point of view, the
destruction of Satan, or from the positive, the gradual estab
lishment of the kingdom of God.
Ver. 33. "Now this He said, signifying what death He
would die." — This explanation of St, John is declared in
correct by many modern interpreters (Meyer, Reuss, etc.) ; for,
in their opinion, the preceding saying refers not to the cross,
but to the ascension. But the apostle does not say SrjXwv,
declaring, but uses the term crrjpaiveiv, which signifies indi-
cating, giving to understand ; and we have just seen that, hj
giving His thought this form, Jesus really indicated the
kind of death He was about to die. Hence St. John's
remark attributes nothing to Jesus which was not reaUy in
His mind.
This passage, in which our Lord, after shuddering at the
view of His cross, encouraged Hiraself by portraying in broad
outlines the immense revolution it would effect, may be com
pared to the passage of St, Paul, Col. ii. 14, 15, in which
that apostle represents Jesus as making a show of the infernal
powers, despoiling them of their power and triumphing over
them upon the cross. Comp. also the passage, 2 Cor. v. 14-17,
according to which the death of Christ is the virtual prin
ciple of Ufe for the whole human race, and the means of
universal renewal : " It is a new creation : old things are
passed away ; behold, all things are become new."
Ver. 34. " The people answered Him} We have heard out of
the law that Christ abideth for ever : and, how sayest thou, The
¦ K B L X add em to uTixpi^n.

80 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
Son of man must he lifted up ? who is this Son of man ? " —
According to the Jewish programme, the Messianic kingdom
was simply a glorified earth, and the Messiah the perpetual
Sovereign of this new Eden, And now Jesus — who, as the
triumphal entry proved, aspired to Messianic dignity — was
transporting the kingdom, together with His own person, to
another sphere ! This was to the raultitude a contradiction
not to be solved, " How sayest Thou ? " .S^v, Thou, is here
opposed to the law and those who explained it. — The
passages to which the Jews aUude are those in which the
Messiah is represented as founding an everlasting empire upon
the ruins of the GentUe kingdoms (Isa. ix. 6 ; Ps. ex, 2-4 ;
Dan. vii. 14, etc.). — On the term the law, see vol. ii. p. 409. —
To solve this difficulty, the objectors themselves put forth a
supposition. Jesus was accustomed to caU HiraseK the Son
of man ; could this name, in His mouth, designate some other
individual than the Christ ? This supposition has some
resemblance to that which John the Baptist seems to have
entertained in prison (see vol. ii. p. 168). The Jews, then,
in asking : " Who is this Son of man ? " do not mean to say :
" Is it thyself, or some one else ? " (comp. ver. 2 3), but :
" What is the part to be played by this individual, thus differ
ing from the Messiah, in the final drama ? " Comp. the " Who
art thou?" of i 19. Meyer understands, "What strange
Messiah is this who is to depart ? " But in this sense we
should have had, not : "Who is this Son of man ? " but : " What
kind of Christ is this ? " — This answer of the people proves
that the title " Son of raan " was not used in Israel to designate
the Messiah, and that it must be regarded as originating with
Jesus Himself (vol. ii. p. 180). On this point we agree with
M. Colani.1
Vv. 35, 36. " Then Jesus said unto them, Yet a little while is
the light with you.^ Walk while ^ ye have the light, lest darkness
1 Jesus-Christ et les croyances messiaiiiques de son temps, p. 75 sqq. But
how can this author say : "We must go back at least four months (viii. 28) to
find this title of ' Son of man' in the mouth of Jesus " ? He forgets ver. 23, which
immediately precedes.
2 T. R., with AEFGHSVaa, Mnn. and Syr., reads : ^siC vf>.coy ; N B D K
L M X n, 20 Mnn. It. Vg. Cop. : £» u/ni.
¦'ABDKLXn, 4 Mnn. have ^; instead of ims, which is the readinf of
T. R. with 11 Mjj.

CHAP. XIL 35, 36, 81
come upon you : for he that walketh in darkness knoweth not
whither he goeth. Wliile ^ ye have the light, believe in the light,
that ye may be the childt'cn of light. These things spake Jesus,
and departed, and did hide Himself from them!' — It was no
longer the time for instruction and discussion. Hence Jesus
did not give a direct answer, but addressed a last appeal to
their Israelite consciousness, and made them feel the serious
ness of the present hour to themselves and the whole nation.
This is the reason why St. John says elirev. He said. He de
clared, instead of direKpidrj, He answered. The last hour of
the day of salvation had arrived, the sun was about to set for
Israel. Let each hasten to believe ; for, once deprived of
Jesus, the heavenly revealer, the nation would be like a tra-
veUer lost at night and wandering aimlessly. We have seen
that vv. 3 1 and 3 2 contained the history of the church, this (ver.
35) sums up that of Israel after the time when Jesus spake.
The preaching of the apostles was, it is true, yet granted to
this people ; but, when once launched upon the declivity of
unbelief, how could they as a nation change their direction ?
And this last favour, the apostolic preaching, after having been
welcomed by individuals only, was soon withdrawn from the
nation. Since then, Israel has wandered in the wilderness of
this world, like a caravan without a goal and without a guide.
— HepiTvaTeiv, to walk, to advance towards an end ; and that
by beheving. — Of the two readings, e(o<;, while, and to?, as,
Meyer and Luthardt prefer the latter as the best supported :
" Walk according as the light stiU enlightens you." Baumlein
justly declares this meaning forced. We must then either
give, as he does, the meaning of while to <<;9 (according to ,
Soph, Ajax 1117, andPAzY. 635, 1330), or, as these examples
are uncertain, prefer the reading eco9, which is supported at
ver, 35 by the Sinaiticus. The initial e of e(o<; may have
been confused with the final e of irepiTraTelre. The notion of
while naturaUy combines with that of : a little while, which
prevails throughout this passage. The same may be said of
ver. 36. — An equal solemnity pervades the statements both
of ver. 35 and ver. 36, but in the first a tone of compassion,
in the second a tone of affection, is in the ascendant. The
last saying of the Saviour to His people was to be an invita-
'SABDLn:w5 instead of las.
GODET in, F JOHN.

8 2 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
tion, not a threat : " WhUe you stUl possess in me the living
revelation of salvation (^w?), acknowledge it, believe in me,
and become {yevrjaOe) by me, the Light, children of light." The
man united to Christ is so saturated with light that he him
self becomes luminous.
Such was the fareweU of Jesus to Israel The words :
These things said Jesus, in this context, signify : " Jesus gave
them no other answer." He then retired, and did not reappear
on the morrow. This time it was no raere cloud which
obscured the sun, but the sun itself had -set.

THIRD SECTION.
XIL 37-50.  A RETROSPECTIVE SURVEY OF THE MYSTERIOUS FACT '
OF JEWISH UNBELIEF.
This passage, which closes the second part of St. John's
Gospel, is regarded by many expositors as a summary of the
history of our Lord's public ministry. Chs. v.-xU. are viewed
as depicting His public, and chs, xiii.-xvii. His private, agency.
But this mode of regarding them is superficial ; for there is
between these two parts a far deeper contrast, that of unbelief
and faith — of unbelief on the part of the people, of faith
on that of the disciples. Is it not very easy to see that the
real object of the epilogue, which is about to claim our atten
tion, is the fact of Jewish unbelief, and by no means our
Lord's public ministry in general? It is the unexpected
failure of the work of Messiah in Israel which engrosses the
attention of the evangelist, and becomes for the time the
object of his contemplation. In the first passage, vv, 37-43,
he explains the causes of the fact whose history he has just
recorded ; in the second, vv. 44-50, he describes its serious
ness and announces its eternal consequences.
I. The Causes of Jewish Unbelief. — Vv. 37—43.
If the Jews were the chosen people, destined by God to
receive the Messiah, and to convey the knowledge of salva
tion to other nations, did it not follow from their unbelief in

CHAP, XIL 37, 38. 83
Jesus Christ, that this individual was not really the Messiah ?
Or, if not, how was this great paradox of history to be ex
plained ? Chs. ix.-xi. of the Epistle to the Romans are
devoted to the solution of this problem, which was in fact to
be the great apologetic question of the ApostoUc Age. This
explains the fact that this passage of St, John contains so
many thoughts which also form the basis of St. Paul's
dissertation. Vv, 37, 38, " But though He had done so many miracles before
them, yet they believed not on Him : that the saying of Esaias
tlie prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake. Lord, who hath
believed our preaching ? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord
been revealed ? " — However unreasonable might be the fact with
which St, John was about to be occupied, it was neverthe
less inevitable, for it was predicted, and prophecy must be
fulfiUed. — How many motives had not the Jews for believing
in the appearance of Jesus, and especially in His miracles !
There was then, as it were, some fatality in such blindness.
ToaavTa, so many, in our Gospels, is always applied to
numbers and not to greatness (vi. 9, xxi. 11). This saying
assumes that Jesus had done a far greater number of miracles
than the six related in this book. Comp. also vii. 3, xx. 30.
Hence St. John did not intend to relate aU he knew. — The
term a-ripela, signs, recaUs the striking nature, and the words
epirpoaBev avTwv, before them, the entire pubUcity, of these
works. — The imperf, they believed not, brings out the duration,
the obstinate persistence of Israelite unbelief
An impartial exegesis would not weaken the sense of iva,
in order that, by making this word synonymous with ware,
so that. — The passage quoted, by John is Isa. lui, 1, The
prophet, when describing the humiUation and sufferings of the
Messiah, declares that this message, so out of harmony with
their carnal desires, will not be favourably received by the
people. Now, if the announcement of a suffering Messiah
was rejected by them, how much more this Messiah Himself !
It is on this a fortiori that the application made of this
text by the evangelist to his contemporaries is based. The
question : Who hath believed ? shows that there would un
doubtedly be believers, but in numbers so smaU that they
might be counted. — According to Hengstenberg, the expres-

84 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
sion aKori, our hearing, for the thing which we hear, signifies :
" what we- (prophets) have heard from the mouth of Jehovah."
A more natural explanation is : " what you (raen) hear frora
the mouth of us, the prophets." " It is then by no means the
people who are supposed to ask this question" (Hofmann,
Delitzsch, Luthardt), Otherwise, we should have to suppose
that they did so after turning from their unbeUef, which is
forced. It is Isaiah, as representing the other prophets, who
puts this question, — The first term : what we preach, is here
applied by the evangelist to the teaching of Jesus; that which
foUows : the arm of the Lm-d, refers to His miracles, those
acts of divine power which He performed in Israel
But Jewish unbelief was not merely predicted; it was
willed by God, who Himself co-operated therein,
Vv. 39, 40, "Therefore they could not believe, because that
Esaias said again. He hath blinded their eyes and hardened ^
their hearts; that they should not see with their eyes, nor
understand ^ with their hearts, arid he converted} and I should
heal* them." — The omnipotence of God was itself exerted to
realize what His omniscience had predicted, and to cause
Israel to commit the irapossible. The gradation between ver.
37 and ver, 39 is as foUows: They did not believe (ver, 37), and
they even could not believe (ver, 39). The word •TraXH' {again)
shows that we have here a second idea which serves to
explain and complete the first. The same logical relation
also exists between the two prophecies cited by St, John.
The Bid TOVTO, on account of this, bears, as it generally does
in John (v. 18, x, 17), upon the foUowing 6tl, because : "And
this is why they could not beUeve; it is because Esaias had in
another passage {vrdXiv) said . . ." The words are taken from
Isa. vi. 9, 10, but are not exactly quoted either from the
Hebrew or the LXX. According to the former, it is Isaiah
who, at the command of God, is to bhnd the eyes and
harden the heart of the people by His Ul-received prophesy
ing : " Harden the heart of this people!' In the latter, this
1 The Byz. (r a, etc.) read vfr^fuiKi, ¦ the Alex. (A B K L X) ; ivaipannv ;
X n : I'jeyipmfflv.
' K n, and Chrys, have irmoxriv instead of smiriarit.
' X B D : (rTpoifuiiriv instead of i'lriarfcti^uini, which is the reading of T, R. with
10 Mjj. ; 5 Mjj. (K L, etc.) have iTturTpi^aint.
* All the Mjj, except L r read ixrc/icci instead of laraiftm.

CHAP. XII. 39, 40. 85
hardening is mentioned merely as a fact which is laid to
the charge of Israel : " The heart of this people is hardened."
The text of John agrees in meaning with that of the prophet,
for the omitted subject of the two verbs. He has blinded.
He has hardened, can be none other than God. The command
intimated in Isaiah is represented in John as an accom
plished fact. The passage proves that St. John was not
dependent upon the Greek translation, and was acquainted
with the Hebrew text (vol. i p. 253). — Tv(pXovv, to blind,
sigrufies to deprive of inteUectual Ught, of a sense for the
true and even the expedient ; Trcopovv, to harden the skin, the
want of moral sensibility, of a sense for the good, UnbeUef
necessarUy results from the inactivity of these two organs ;
the people may witness miracle upon miracle, hear testimony
after testimony, but they wiU not recognise the Messiah.
'Idaopai, I will heal, the reading of almost aU the Mjj., may
signify : " and I wiU end by bringing them back to myself
by means of this very hardening." But the Kai, and . . .
and . . ., are too closely connected to admit of such a con
trast between the last verb and those which precede. The
influence of the formidable iva p-q, so that . . . not, evi
dently extends to the end of the sentence. If we object to
the indicative Ida-opai (depending on iva, which is not in
itself impossible), we may find in these last words an indica
tion of the result which would have foUowed in the opposite
case, but wliich is not to be : " lest they should be converted
. . . and I wiU heal them," for: "in which case I would
heal them,"
If such, then, is the meaning of the words both of the
prophet and evangelist, how is it to be justified ? Such
declarations would be inexplicable and profoundly revolting if
Israel had, at the time when God thus addressed and treated
this nation, been in its norraal condition, and regarded by God
as His people. But such was not the case ; God, when sending
Isaiah, said to him, " Go and say to this people " (Isa. vi, 9).
And we feel that a father, when speaking of his son as this or
that chUd instead of my child, means that the paternal and fiUal
relation no longer exists. This is the point of view which
we must occupy to understand the divine deaUngs, which here
enter into the category of chastisements. The creature who

86 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
has wilfully abused previous Divine favours, incurs the most
terrible of punishments. It is degraded from the rank of end
to that of means; from being person, it becomes matter. In
fact, though man can refuse freely to glorify God by his
obedience and salvation, he cannot hinder God from glorifying
Himself by an exemplary punishment, which shall publicly
show forth the hateful character of his sin. " God," says
Hengstenberg, " has so constituted man, that, when he does
not resist the first beginnings of sin, he loses the right of
disposing of Himself, and must obey to the end the power
to which he has surrendered himself" And God not only
permits this development of evil, but wills it and concurs in
it. But how, it wUl be said, is the holiness of God, thus
understood, to be reconcUed with His love ? This it is which
St. Paul explains to the Jews by an example in Rom, ix. 17:
Pharaoh refused to hearken to God, and to be saved. He
had a right to do so. But from that moment he was forced
to subserve the salvation of others. For this purpose, God
paralyzed within him both the sense of the true and the
sense of the good ; He rendered him deaf to the appeals of
conscience, and even to the calculations of interest rightly
understood; He gave him up to the suggestions of his insane
pride, that the world might learn, by the example of the ruin
into which he plunged himself, what are the consequences of
wickedly resisting the first caUs of God. Thus he, at least,
contributed to the salvation of the world. The history of
Pharaoh is exactly reproduced in that of the Jews. . As
early as the days of Isaiah, the mass of the people were so
carnally minded that the prophet foresaw their unbeUef in
the Messiah, the man of sorrows, as an inevitable moral fact
(Isa, liii,). Could such an Israel, without a change of heart,
recognise the Messiah, and become the nucleus of the Messianic
church? Certainly not; for that purely inteUectual adher
ence, of which we see examples during the ministry of
Jesus, not only would not have saved Israel itself, but
would have fettered the Divine work in the whole world.
God preferred total unbelief to this belief without moral
reaUty; for the rejection of the Jews might contribute to
the salvation of the world by more widely opening the door
to the Gentiles ; whUe we have only to remember their con-

CHAP, XII, 39, 40. 87
tentions with St, Paul to perceive what an insurhiountable
obstacle would have been placed in the way of the mission
to the Gentiles by the entrance of the bulk of a carnal,
legal, and Pharisaic Israel into the church. God, then, bUnded
Israel that the miracles of Jesus might be in their eyes as
though they had never taken place ; He hardened them, that
His preaching might be to them as an empty sound (Isa. vi).
Hence, carnal Israel rejected freely, and might be freely
rejected. This decided position did not really render Israel's
lot the worse, but it had, as shown by St. Paul in Rom. xi.,
most beneficial results on the salvation of the Gentiles.
Israel became by their punishment what they had refused
to be by their salvation, the apostles of the world ; and, like
Judas, their true type, they had also to fulfil, whether
wiUingly or unwUlingly, their irrevocable commission. It is
also evident that, amidst this national judgment, each indi
vidual was free to turn to God by repentance, and thus to
escape the general obduracy. The 13 th verse of Isaiah and
the 42d of St. John prove that this was the case.
As to the relation of Jewish unbelief to the Divine pre
vision (vv, 37 and 38), St. John does not point out the meta
physical theory by means of which he was able to reconcile
God's foreknowledge and man's responsibility, but simply
accepts these two data — the one of the religious sentiment, the
other of the moral consciousness. But if we reflect that God
is above time, — that, properly speaking. He does not foresee a
fact which, as far as we are concerned, is still future, but sees
it absolutely as we contemplate one present, — that, consequently,
when He announces it at any moraent as weU before as after
its accomplishment. He does not predict, but describes it as
a spectator and witness, — the apparent contradiction of the
two apparently contradictory elements vanishes. Undoubtedly
the fact, once predicted, cannot fail to happen, since the sight
of God cannot show Him as being that which wiU not be.
But the fact does not take place because God saw it ; but, on
the contrary, God saw it because it wiU be, or rather because
in His eyes it is. Hence the true cause of that Jewish
unbelief which God announced was not His foreseeing it. This
cause in its ultimate analysis was the moral state of the people
themselves. It was that state which, when it had once become

88 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
permanent, necessarily involved the final unbelief of Israel, as
being on the one hand its deserved punishment, and on the
other the condition of the salvation of the Gentiles.
Ver. 41. "These things said Esaias, when^ he saw His glory,
and spake of Him." — St. John justifies in this verse the appli
cation just made by him of the visions of Isaiah to Jesus
Christ. The Jehovah of the 0. T, the Adonai whom Isaiah
beheld in this vision, is the Divine Being who becarae incar
nate in Jesus. St. Paul says the same thing in 1 Cor. x. 4, by
caUing Christ the spiritual rock which followed our fathers, and
in Phil. ii. 6, by attributing to Jesus before His incarnation the
form of God, the Divine state. Some expositors have en
deavoured to refer the pronoun avTov not to Christ, but to God,
But the last words : and. spake of Him, would in this sense be
superfiuous, and the whole remark purposeless, in the context, —
The Alex, reading: "hecausehe saw . . . and spoke," has against
it the testimony of the most ancient versions and the general
tone of the verse, to which this because would give the far too
pronounced character of a dogmatic reflection. It might have
been concluded from vv, 37—41, that not a Jew either had
believed or could beUeve ; but vv, 42 and 43, while completing
the historical picture, remove this misconception.
Vv. 42, 43. "Nevertheless arnong the chief rulers also many
believed on Him ; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess
Him, lest they should he put out of tlie synagogue : for they
loved the praise of men more tlian^ the praise of God." — St.
John mentions this exception not to mitigate the severity of
his own and Isaiah's estimate of the condition of the people,
but to show that, notwithstanding the exception he is about
to point out, the truth of this general estimate is unimpeached.
Even where faith was evoked, cowardice repressed its confes
sion and hindered its development. These remarkable words,
which furnish the key to the parables of ch. x., show how
crushing was the yoke laid upon Israel by the Pharisaic
spirit. The spiritual obduracy and blindness spoken of in ver,
40, consisted precisely in the total surrender of the people
to the power of Pharisaic fanaticism. The words : lest they
1 N A B L M X, some Mnn. Cop. Sah. read cn, because, instead of oti, when,
which is the reading of 12 Mjj. (D r A, etc.), tl e Mnn. It. Syr. Chrys.
'^ X L X and 5 Mnn. read virsp instead of ^¦np.

CHAP. XIL 44-50. 89
should be put out of the synagogue, are an evidence of the
reality of the decree mentioned in ix. 22, — Ao^a, at ver. 43, is
used almost in its etymological sense: "opinion, approbation."
The difference of reading (inrep and riirep) is probably due to
itacism (the pronunciation of rj and v as i). If we read
v-rrep, we have here two forms of comparison combined to
bring out more strongly the odiousness of such a preference.
Undoubtedly, men Uke Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea
must not be reckoned, as they are by Liicke and Meyer,
among these cowards. It is of those who remained attached
to the Jewish system, of Gamaliel, and so many others who
were the Erasmuses of those days, that St. John meant to
speak. On the necessity of confession to salvation, see Rom,
X, 10

II. The Responsibility of Israel. — Vv, 44-50,
The gravity of Jewish unbeUef was directly proportioned
to the greatness of the Being towards whora it was displayed.
Now this Being was He whose person was the pure manifesta
tion of God (vv. 44-46), and whose teaching was the pure
expression of the mind and will of this same God (vv, 47-50).
If this were the case, to reject Jesus was nothing less to Israel
than to reject God Himself and His word. This rejection was
that supreme act of rebellion, which could not faU to draw
down an unexampled judgment.
Such is the meaning and spirit of this paragraph.
Criticism rightly disputes the historical reality of the fol
lowing discourse, alleging, and with good reason, the absence
of occasion and of definite locality, and the lack of any new
idea (see e.g. Keim). But it is a mistake to infer that it is
therefore a fictitious composition of the evangelist (de Wette),
a composition which proves that the discourses of Jesus in
the fourth Gospel are merely the expression of its author's
own ideas (Hilgenfeld).
How, indeed, can we admit that the evangehst could, at this
point of his narrative, have intended to give another discourse
of Jesus as actually delivered by Himself ? It is true that
this is admitted by those who make Him speak thus on quit
ting the temple (Lampe, Bengel), or when again returning to it

90 GOSPEL OF JOHN,
after the departure mentioned in ver. 3 6 (Chrysostom, Hengsten
berg), or in a private conversation with His disciples (Besser,
Luthardt, 1st ed.). But the first two suppositions clash
with ver. 36, which evidently indicates the close of His pubUc
ministry. A word of explanation would at least have been
necessary after the terms which conclude this verse. The
third, against which the term cKpa^e (he cried out) especially
testifies, has been withdrawn by Luthardt himself (2d ed.).
Moreover, the idea of this being a discourse reaUy delivered
by Jesus is excluded by the fact, that it would then be the
sole example in St. John of this kind of teaching without
indication of either occasion, time, or locaUty.
It must not be forgotten that at ver. 36 the evangelist
finishes his part of narrator, so far as this portion of the
history is concerned, and that after ver. 3 6 he is contemplat
ing the fact recorded, viz. the unbelief of the elect people, and
meditating on its causes and effects. As in w. 37—43 he
was chiefiy preoccupied with our Lord's miraculous agency, he
is here recapitulating His teaching, for the purpose of showing
to what they are exposed who reject the testimony borne by
Jesus to His own Person and word. Hence we have here
indeed a discourse composed by St. John, but solely as a sum
mary of the whole of Christ's teaching. And this is just the
reason that it contains, as has been said, no new idea. The
Aorists {eKpa^ev, elirev) recall all the particular cases in which
Jesus had uttered such statements concerning Himself; they
should be rendered : " And nevertheless He had told them
plainly enough. . . . He had cried out loudly enough. . . ."
Baumlein : " Jesus hatte aher laut erkldrt." This is, with slight
tinges of difference, the prevailing interpretation, the result of
which is that each of the foUowing statements, cited by St.
John, rests upon a certain number of passages contained in
the preceding discourses.
Vv. 44-46. "Now Jesus had cried, saying. He that believeth
on me, believeth not on me, but on Him that sent me. And he
that seeth me seeth Him that sent me. I am come a light into
the ivorld, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in dark
ness!' — In the appearing of Jesus no element of independent
and purely huraan will had hindered the revelation of God.
Hence to beUeve in Him was not to believe in man, as though

CHAP. XIL 47-50. 91
Jesus had come or had acted in His own name (ver. 43),
but reaUy to believe in God alone, since God alone appeared
in Him. It is not therefore necessary to take the negation
not in the dUuted sense of not only. — The sight spoken of in
ver, 45 is not that of the body ; it is that which is developed
together with faith itself, the intuition of the inward and raoral
being of the individual beheld with the bodily eye. It is by
this sight that Jesus, the living revelation of God, becomes the
light of the soul. He who does not attain to it remains in
darkness (ver. 46), Comp, for vv, 44 and 45 the following
passages : ver. 36, vi. 38, vu, 17, 18, viii 28, x, 38, etc, ; and
for ver. 46 the following: ui 19, viii. 12, xu. 5, 39. What
responsibiUty, then, is attached to such an appearing ! From
His Person He now passes to His doctrine.
Vv. 47, 48. " And if any man hear my words, and keep ^ them
not, I judge him not ; for I came not to judge the world, but to
save the world. He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words
hath one that judgeth him : the word that I have spoken, the same
shall judge him at the last day." — Jesus being the pure mani
festation of God, His word is the pure manifestation of God's
mind, for nothing of His own is mingled with it. Hence it
is to be the sole criterion at the day of judgment. It is true,
indeed, that it wUl be Jesus who wUl judge us; but He will
confine Himself to applying to each life the rule of His word
(comp. ui. 17, V. 24. viii. 15). What, then, wiU be the fate of
him who has rejected this instruction ! — The reading : (poXd^r/,
keep, seems preferable to the received reading : iriaTevar) {" and
believe not "), for the former term is less used than the latter,
and applies here to the act of internal appropriation, which is
nothing else than faith,
Vv, 49, 50. " For I have not spoken of myself ; but the Father
which sent me lias Himself commanded ^ me what I should say,
and how I shoidd say if. And I know that His commandment is
life everlasting ; therefore what I say, I say as my Father has told
me!' — These verses explain the absolute value attributed by
Jesus to His word as the rule of judgment. His teaching is
both as to its matter (ti e'lTrco) and form {ti XaXijaai), purely and
simply that of the Father. He receives in each case a special
' }{ A B K L X several Mnn. It'"'' Syr""* read ([vXx^tt instead of ¦ncTiusv.
* X -A. B M X and 30 Mnn. read it^axit instead of i^uxtv.

92 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
mandate (cVtoXtj), to which in teaching He faithfully adheres ;
and this obedience arises in His case from the perception
which He has of the quickening and regenerating power of
the word entrusted to Him by the Father, of the fact that
from it proceeds life eternal for every soul This is why
{therefore in 50&) He deUvers it to men as He receives it, with
out allowing Himself to make any alteration (corap, v. 30,
vUi 16-18, and the passages already quoted).
It would be impossible to summarize the absolute value
constantly attributed by our Lord to His Person and His
words in better terms than is done by St. John in these few
propositions. And it is said that such a summary is one of tbe
discourses composed by the evangelist himself ; that he drew
up this formidable accusation against Israel, here on the ground
of discourses which Jesus never delivered, and at ver, 37 sqq,
on the ground of miracles which He never performed ! Is not
such a proceeding morally impossible ? There is, however,
one thing which is perhaps stUl more so — viz., that the
evangelist should put into the raouth of Jesus the principle :
" I have said nothing of myself ; 'my Father lias commanded me
what I should say, and how I shoidd say it" after having
made Him speak throughout a whole book after his own
fashion, and continuing to make Hira speak thus in these very
words ! Was such deception ever before conceived ?
Lastly, we would remark that, in proportion as reflections
Uke these are in place from one who had himself witnessed
the development of Jewish unbelief, and who wrote at a time
when the recently consuraraated rejection of Israel was a sub
ject which still fiUed aU minds, would they be inappropriate
in a writer whom no personal circumstance would any longer
interest in the matter, and at a time when the ashes of Jeru
salera were cold, and the Jewish question relegated to the
second class by new discussions, important for very different
reasons, both to faith and the government of the church.
Before leaving this second part of the Gospel history accord
ing to St. John, let us take, as its author does, a retrospective
glance. We have followed, throughout its dramatically related
vicissitudes, the development of the national unbelief, and the
separation gradually effected between a small minority of
believers and almost a whole population excited to fanaticism

CHAP, XII, 49, 50. 93
by its rulers. Let us now try to reject in thought all this
aspect of the ministry of Jesus, all these journeys and dis
putes in the very centre of the theocracy, which form the
subject of chs, v,— xiii, as must be done by those who deny
the authenticity of this Gospel, We are now in view of the
final catastrophe, attested by the Synoptists as well as by St.
John. How are we to explain this sudden and tragical catas
trophe ? Only by the coUisions arising from some cures on the
Sabbath day in a remote province of the Holy Land ? No ;
an earnest historian, desiring to account for the events of the
life of Jesus, cannot, even allowing for the triumphal entry,
dispense with this whole series of scenes in Jerusalem which
we have lately been considering.

THIRD PART.
XIIL 1-XVII. 26.
THE DEVELOPMENT OF FAITH IN THE DISCIPLES.
THE third part of this Gospel relates the last moments
spent by Jesus with His disciples, and teaches us to
behold the full development of faith in their hearts, by show
ing us the supreme manifestations of His love to thera. St.
John here opposes to the dark picture of Jewish unbeUef the
bright one of faith, in the future founders of the church.
Christ effected this work in the heart of His disciples — 1st, by
two acts, the washing of their feet and the dismissal of Judas,
by which He purged the apostolic circle from the last
remnant of carnal Messianism ; 2dly, by a series of discourses,
by which He prepared His disciples for the approaching
separation, imparted to them the instructions necessary for
their future ministrations, and raised their faith in His Person
to the highest degree which it could as yet attain ; 3dly, by a
prayer of thanksgiving, in which He set the seal to His now
accomplished work. Under the power of these last raanifesta-
tions, their faith reached its relative perfection, as fruit ripens
under the warm rays of the autumnal sun. It underwent a
twofold test, that of humiliation by their Master's deep self-
abasement in washing their feet ; and that of sacrifice in the
prospect of a violent struggle to be encountered on the part of
the world, and of a victory to be gained solely by the spiritual
power of Christ. With such anticipations, what would become of
the earthly hopes which they cherished ? But the faith of the
apostles came out of this trial purified and triumphant; it
grasped the divine person of Christ, and exclaimed : " We believe
that Thou earnest forth from God" (xvi 30). To which Jesus
replied : " Ye do now believe " (xvi. 31), and poured forth abun-
94

CHAP, XIII. 1. 95
dant thanksgiving to God (ch, xvii,) for the eleven whom He
had given Him.
Hence this part is divided into three sections ; —
I. Ch, xiii. 1-30 : The purification of the faith of the
apostles by two definite facts.
II, Ch. xiii. 3 1-xvi. 3 3 : The strengthening of this faith
by those last instructions of Jesus which contain the supreme
revelations of His person,
III. Ch, xvii. : Our Lord's thanksgiving for His now termi
nated earthly ministry.

FIRST SECTION.
xm. 1-30.  THE FACTS.
I. The Washing of the Disciples' Feet — vv, 1-20;
II, The Dismissal of Judas — ^^vv. 21-30,
L The Washing of the Disciples' Feet. — Vv. 1-20.
This section contains a preamble (vv. 1-3), the fact (vv.
4—11), and the explanation of the fact (vv. 12-20).
1st. Vv. 1-3, The preamble.
We have already met with short introductions to certain
narratives, describing the moral situation in which the event
took place, e.g. U. 23-25, iv, 1, 2, 43-45, Each of these
preambles is, with respect to the narrative it precedes, what
the general prologue (i 1-18) is to the whole gospel. That
which we are now about to consider is composed after exactly
the same fashion as the chief prologue, its matter being
entirely borrowed frora the sayings of Jesus contained in the
narrative which foUows.
Ver. 1. " Before the feast of the Passover, Jesus knowing
that His hour was come} when He should leave the world to
go unto the Father, after having loved His own^ which were in
the world. He perfectly manifested all His love to them." — The
^1 The T, R, with the By;:. (E F G H, etc) reads iXnX^t^ ; the Alex. (N
B K L, etc.) ; »x^!..
* S : lo-jSa-mu; {the Jews) instead of iSm/s 1

96 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
words : before the feast of the Passover, are connected with the
previous particular six days before the Passover (xii. 1).
These two expressions raust then have nearly the same mean
ing. The Passover in xu. 1 designated, as we have seen, the
time of the Paschal meal, the evening of the 14th-15th
Nisan ; the feast of the Passover may hkewise include the
whole of the 14th. Hence the time indicated by St. John
in the terms " before the feast of the Passover," is the evening
preceding that on which the Paschal meal was eaten, viz. the
evening of the 13 th- 14th Nisan, This is quite in accord
ance with the language of the 0. T., which speaks of the
15 th Nisan as the day after the Passover. See Num. xxxiu,
3 in the LXX, (Meyer), Expositors who, for the sake of
identifying this last supper of Jesus with the Paschal meal
of the Israelites, try to harmonize the meaning of St, John's
narrative with that usuaUy attributed to the Synoptists,
understand these words : " before the feast of the Passover," in
the very narrowed sense : at the moment preceding the Paschal
supper, or even : at the beginning of this repast. But this is
doing violence to St, John's expression. For in this case he
ought to have said : before the Passover (the Paschal meal,
comp. xii. 1), or more plainly : irpo tov Sehrvov tov irdx^'ya :
before the supper of the Passover. What foUows confirms
the first explanation. — For upon what verb does this chrono
logical particular bear ? NaturaUy on the principal verb :
¦riydiTTjaev, He loved. But since this verb expresses a feeling
constantly present in the heart of our Lord, and not an
historical act, several expositors reject this relation, and assert
that St. John could not really mean to tell us that, before the
Passover , , . Jesus loved His own. Hence this particular
has been referred (Luthardt, 1st ed., and Riggenbach) to the
part. et'SaJ9, knowing, or to riya-n-rjaa';, having loved (Wieseler,
Tholuck). But this notice, standing as it does at the head
of the whole paragraph, can only refer to the principal action:
riydTrrjae, He loved ; and this relation, besides being the most
natural, is also that which offers the best meaning. • The
verb dyairav, to love, here means, as shown by the Aorist, not
merely the sentiment, but also its external manifestations,
especiaUy that about to be related : He riseth, etc. St, John
means to say that it was just before the day on which Jesus

chap, xiil I. 97
was about to leave His own that He perfected the manifesta
tion of His love, that He in some way surpassed Himself in
His manifestation of this feeling.
With this chronological data, St. John connects a particular
of a moral nature : " Jesus, knowing that . . ." These words
show the prevailing thought of our Lord's mind during these
highest manifestations of His love ; He knew that the hour
of His return to the Father, and His separation from His
own, was at hand. Hengstenberg and others paraphrase the
participle knowing in the sense of: " Though He knew . . ,,"
as though St. John had intended to say that the prospect of
His future exaltation did not prevent Him from testifying the
whole extent of His love to His disciples. But this is
self-evident, and what St, John would, on the contrary, teU
us is, that it was just because He saw that the time of parting
was at hand that He redoubled His tenderness towards those
whom He had so faithfully loved. It is to this meaning of
knowing that the relation between the expressions : " to go out
of this world!' ^¦iid "His own which were in the world," also
points, as weU as the antithesis between the terms : this
world, and the Father. — Meyer makes d/^a'jnfjcra'i, having loved,
refer to peTa^fj : " depart unto the Father . . . having loved."
This construction is clumsy, and the sense empty. The two
participles, knowing and having loved, are paraUel, and both
bear upon the principal verb Ttyd-rrriaev, which they qualify
each in its own maimer. — Luthardt justly points out the con
trast between the expression : " His hour was come" and that
which we have so frequently met with : " His hour was not
yet come." This contrast shows the gravity of the present time.
It was under the force of this contrast, which He so
keenly felt, between the state in which He was leaving them
and that which He was about to enjoy with the Father, that
aU His love at length overflowed,
St. John adds a third particular : "Having loved His own . . .,"
which does not raean : " as He had loved them. He continued
to do so," but : " if He had loved them before, it was now that
it was fuUy seen how much He loved them." — The expression
His own expresses the value His heart attached to these
beings given Him by the Father, whom He was about to
leave in so critical a position, — Et? TeXo'i does not seem to
GODET III. G JOHN.

93: GOSPEL OF JOHN,
have in Greek the meaning : unto the end. At least Passow
does not give this raeaning, nor does the N, T, seem to fur
nish an example of it. In the two passages Luke xviii, 5
and 1 Thess, ii, 16, we must translate: at last, or to finish,
a sense which this phrase has also in classical Greek (Passow),
but which is inappropriate here. The usual meaning of et?
TeXo9 in good Greek is : to an extreme, to the greatest dxgree ;
and this is also the most suitable in this verse. At these
last moments, the manifestations of His affection attained a
degree of intensity which they had not hitherto reached ;
they went so far as to completely pour forth this feeling,
and, in sorae sort, to exhaust it. This is the sense which
we have endeavoured to give in our translation.^
As we shall find in ver. 2 a fresh introduction relating
more particularly to the washing of the disciples' feet and the
departure of Judas related in this chapter, this ver. 1 must
be regarded as forming the preamble not of this chapter only,
but of the whole of this part of the Gospel in ch. xiii.-xvii. It
is in fact in the discourses in ch. xiv.— xvi, and in the prayer
in ch. xvii, rather than in ch. xiii, that the subjects filling our
Lord's mind, and summed up by St. John in the knowing that
of ver. 1 , are brought to light. Corap. xiv. 12: " T go to my
Fatlier ;" xv. 18 : " If the world hate you, know . . . ;" xvi. 28 :
" J leave the vjorld and go to my Father ; " xvi. 33: "In the
world ye shall have tribulation ;" xvii. 11 : "I am no more in
the world, hut these are in the world, and I come to Tliee!'
Comp. also xiii 34, xv. 9, 11, 14, xvii. 23, 24, etc.
Vv. 2, 3. "And a supper having taken place} the devil
having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, son of
Simon, to betray Him ;^ Jesus} knowing that tlie Father had
^ The saying of Penelope to Ulysses (Od. .^, 214) : " Be not angry that / did
not love you as much {Sf iyxTtiim) at the first moment that I saw you, as now
when I press you in my arms," may be cited as analogous to this sense of
2 Instead of ym/avov, which is the leading of T.R. with all the other Mjj. all
the Mnn. and Vss. and Or. (once); yivo/itvou is the reading of N {yuva/i.) B L X,
Or. (four times).
3 X B L M X It'i'i Vg. Or. (seven times) read, i-ov 3;«/3. nS>i liilix>i«. m r. xxph.
iva ^ezpa^ai ayrov lou^ag 2. Jffxccpiairtis. T. R., with 11 Mjj. the Mnn. ItPl*"'!"'' Svr.
Or. (three times), reads, tou §«t/3. wSx |3s/3x»«. us t. xapi. Unix 2. Irxxpiurou ivot
avTov vatpaSu ; X B D ; 'Tta.po^oi instead of vap^u.
¦* N B D L X do not here repeat o ir.aovt.

chap. xm. 2, 0. 99
put ^ all things into His hands, and that He was come from
God, and went to God; . . ." — This second preamble, relating
more especially to the two following scenes, also contains
three particulars calculated to throw light on our Lord's
mode of action.
And first a definition of time : " a supper having taken
place} for it is thus, as it seems to us, that the words Seiirvov
yevopevov should be translated. To translate, as many ex
positors do : " the supper being ended," we should need either
the article before SeiTrvov, or that the context should clearly
show that the supper par excellence, the Paschal supper, was
intended, in which case the article would be unnecessary.
But the first words of ver, 1 : " Before the feast of the Pass
over," are calculated to exclude rather than to originate such a
notion. The Alex, read yivopevov, which would mean : " When
the repast as a repast began." This reading, though approved
by Tischendorf and Meyer, is only a correction, intended to
place the washing of the disciples' feet, as seemed natural, at
the beginning of the repast, the time at which the perform
ance of this act was customary.
The second particular, relating to the treachery of Judas, is
expressed under two considerably differing forms in the Mss.
and Vss. The Alex, text reads : " 2%e devil having already put
into his heart that Judas Iscariot would betray him." Whose
heart ? That of the devil himself, says Meyer, by reason of
the Greek phrase, "to put into the heart," signifying to decide
to. But this meaning is insufferable. Wherever do we find
Scripture speak of the heart of the devil ? and how long
has the devil had men so entirely in his power that, if
he but decides to make one of them a traitor, he infaUibly
becomes one ? We must then understand : put into the
heart of Judas (Baiimlein, Luthardt) ; but the terra : into the
heart, cannot be used in this absolute manner, and without its
complement. Hence this reading must be rejected. It arose
from the idea that the diabolic impulse was only exercised at
the moment described in ver. 2 7. The Byz. reading says only :
" The devil having put into the heart of Judas to betray Him."
This makes everything harmonize, for ver. 27 assumes that
the treachery was already consuraraated in the heart of Judas ;
^ N B D K L Or, : iSuxm instead of ii^iox-.v.

100 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
while, according to the Synoptists, the bargain between Judas
and the Sanhedrim took place at least one day before this
repast, — What, we would next ask, is the purpose with which
this particular is here brought forward ? To bring out, ac
cording to Chrysostom, Calvin, and Luthardt, the long-suffering
and love of Jesus ; according to Meyer, to show the perfect
certainty of mind with which He advanced to meet His fate ;
according to Liicke, to indicate that tirae pressed. To us it
seems that St. John desired more especiaUy to show the
motive for the different aUusions which Jesus was about to
make to the presence of the traitor, during the whole of the
ensuing scene (comp. vv. 10, 18, 21, 26, 27, 30), and to exalt
the love which, notwithstanding the certain perception of this
revolting fact, suffered Him to wash the feet even of Judas.
The Alex, reading irapaSoi instead of trapaSay (T. R.) is
explained by grammarians as either a contraction of the
optative TrapaSoirj (see in Kiihner's Ausfiihrliche Grammatik
a multitude of examples from Plato and other waters), or as
a contraction of the subjunctive (as by Baiimlein, after
Buttmann). — As the first particular : " a supper having
taken place," answers to the first of ver. 1 {"before the
feast . . ."), so does the reflection : " the devil having put
into . . .,'' answer to that of ver. 1 : " having loved His own
. . ." The vUest malice is here the pendant to the tenderest
affection. The picture of both the external and the moral situation
is completed by a third hint, which affords us a view of the
inmost feelings of Jesus, and reveals the true meaning of the
act of abasement which foUows : " Jesus, knowing that . . ." This
knowing corresponds with that of ver. 1, and here, even more
frequently than in the latter passage, comraentators are wont
to paraphrase it as : " though knowing." But this is - in our
opinion a stUl graver misconception of the evangelist's mean
ing, as well as of that of Jesus Himself, than at ver. 1. It
was not notwithstanding His divine greatness, but because of
that greatness, that Jesus humbled Himself in the manner
about to be related. Feehng Himself the greatest. He also
felt that it was for Him to give the example of true greatness,
by humbling Himself to fulfil the office of the lowest; for
gi-eatness in the Messianic kingdom, as He had come to estab-

chap, xiil 4, 5, 101
lish it, would consist in voluntary abasement. This was a
kind of greatness hitherto unknown in the world, and which
His own were now to behold in Him, that His church might
never acknowledge any other. It was therefore, inasmuch as
He was Lord, and not though He was Lord, that He was
about to fulfil the office of a slave. St. John borrows this
idea from the succeeding discourse of Jesus (vv, 13, 14):
" You call me Master and Lord ... If then . . ," It is in
this sense that the accumulation of propositions, recalhng the
different features of His supreme greatness, is to be under
stood; His sovereign position: all things are put into His
hands ; His divine origin : He came from God ; His divine
destination : He is going to God (notice the repetition of the
word God!). And it was His consciousness of this incom
parable greatness {knowing) which induced Him to abase
Himself as none other had ever done. Hence His example
became decisive and irresistible to His own.
2d. Vv. 4-11. The fact
Vv. 4, 5. " {Jesus) riseth from supper, and laid aside His
garments ; and took a towel, and girded Himself. After that
He poureth water into the basin, and began to wash His dis
ciples' feet, and to wipe them with the towel wherewith He was
girded." — Ver. 3 has already taught us the purpose of this
act, and this alone might suffice to explain it. Hence Ewald
and Meyer abstain from seeking any external motive.
Generally, however, Jesus was not accustomed to act from
mere inward impulse, but to obey the Father's signal. Several
modern expositors (Lange, Hengstenberg) find this signal in
the fact that the ablution of the feet, which should, according
to custom, have taken place at the beginning of the meal, had
been omitted either through the pride or negligence of the
disciples. None among them had been wilUng to take the
place of the slave whom they were without. Peter, or one of
the others, had indeed, Hengstenberg thinks, washed the feet
of Jesus, but had then taken his place at tlie table, and waited
with his co-disciples of the higher order for some disciple of
inferior rank to perform the same service for them. This
provoked the dispute spoken of by St. Luke at the close of
the meal, as to which of them was greatest, and to which
Jesus put an end by rising and Himself fulfilling an office

102 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
disdained by all. Of course all this would occur before the
comraenceraent of the meal But the expressions : Seiirvov
yevopevov, " a supper having taken place " (ver. 2), and : " He
riseth from, supper " (ver. 4), do not favour this opinion, but
rather lead us to thinlc that the meal had already begun, and
even that it was nearly concluded. Besides, in this case, the
subject of dispute would have been, not who was the greatest,
but who was the least, the lowest, whose part it was to per
form the lowest office. Baiimlein's supposition, that the
dispute was provoked by the claim of each to occupy the
chief place at table, is more probable. To us it seems certain
that the dispute mentioned in Luke occasioned the washing
of the disciples' feet, as seems almost necessarily to follow
from the words of our Lord in that Gospel : " The kings of the
nations exercise lordship over them ; . . . let it not be so among
you. . . . For whether is greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he
that serveth ? . . . I am among you as he that serveth!' But,
according to these words themselves, this act must, Uke the
dispute itself, have taken place during the course or at the
end of the meal, which is also the natural meaning of the
text of John. Probably the washing of the feet, not being
commanded by the law (Matt. xv. 2), had, as no one had
volunteered to perform this office for our Lord and His com
panions, been omitted at the beginning of the meal, Jesus
had allowed this want of respect to pass unnoticed ; but
when, in the course of the repast, a dispute which pained Him
to the heart, brought out in full light the notions of earthly
greatness still prevailing in the minds of His disciples. He raade
use of the omission to give them the lesson they needed by
subsequently repairing the deficiency — He took the dress of a
slave : Nihil ministerii omittit, says Grotius. Each particular
is a picture, 'Ipdna, here the upper garment which He laid
aside, keeping on only the tunic, which was the vesture of
slaves. He girt Himself with the towel, to leave both hands
free for carrying the basin. NnrTrjpa, with the article : the
basin, that vessel which was in the room and formed part of
its furniture.
Vv. 6-11. " Then cometh He to Simon Peter : and lie^ saith
unto Him, Lord} dost thou wash my feet ? Jesus answered
1 X B b omit ixiDos ; x omits xvpu.

CHAP. XIIL 6-11. 103
and said unto him. What ^ I do thou knoivest not now ; but
thou shalt know soon. Peter said unto Him, No, never shalt
Thou wash my feet. Jesus answered him. If I wash thee not,
thou hast ?io part with me. Simon Peter saith unto Him,
Lord} not my feet only, but also my hands and my head.
Jesus saith unto him. He that is bathed needeth not save to
wash his feet} hut is clean every whit : and you, ye are clean,
but not all. For He knew who should betray Him ; therefore
He said} Ye are not all clean." — This conversation with St.
Peter is an unexpected episode in the transaction. Ovv, then
(ver. 6), in going from one to the other, in the order in
which they sat. The natural inference from this then, is
that Peter was not sitting next to our Lord (comp. ver. 24). —
The feeling of reverence which called forth this resistance is
expressed in the antithesis of the pronouns av, thou, and pov,
my, and in the title Lord. Here, as in Matt, xvi, 22, it was
respect which produced in this apostle's behaviour a want of
respect. — The antithesis of iyo) . . . av {I . . . thou) (ver. 7)
corresponds with that of o-v . , . po-ii {thou . . . my) (ver. 6). —
Merd TavTa, which we have rendered by soon, is referred by
Chrysostom to the future ministry of St. Peter. But the rela
tion between yvdia-ri, thou shalt know, and yivwaKSTe, knovj ye
(ver. 14), shows that Jesus was thinking of the explanation
which He intended to give, as soon as He had completed the
act in which He was engaged.
The gentleness of our Lord emboldened Peter : he had but
questioned (ver. 6) ; he now positively refuses, and refuses for
ever. Jesus answers him in the sarae categorical tone, and there
is certainly in His no part an echo of Peter's never. How then
is this threat to be understood ? Are we to see (with Hengsten
berg) a symbol of the forgiveness of sins through Christ's blood
in this washing ? There is nothing in the circumstances which
gave rise to this act, nor in the explanation given of it by our
Lord in ver. 12 sq., to lead us to attribute to it this meaning.
Must we then consider that the resistance of Peter induced

^ N reads x lyoi instead of o lyu. ' X omits xvpn.
' T. R., with AEGMSUrAA, reads, « rov, ¦aetx; yi-^oLnlxi (save to wash his
feet) ; B C K L n : .. |K» tou; vohas ¦ii.^.xirlxi (if not to wash his feet) ; K C :
nrl'tiirfc/ (needs not to toos/t but , . .).
«BCLadd.Ti.

104 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
Jesus to attribute to this act a bearing beyond what He had
at first intended ? Such a notion is improbable. Would it
not be more simple to suppose that Jesus regarded Peter's
refusal to accept the service which He desired to perform for
Him as a refusal to enter fuUy into the spirit of His work, as
He was at that time inculcating it, as a proof of his obstinate
persistence in that love of earthly greatness from which He
was at that very moment endeavouring by this act to purify
him ? In fact, by rejecting the humiUation wliich his Master
was imposing upon Himself with respect to him, Peter was
rejecting that which he was one day to impose upon himself.
Our Lord's answer, then, was a new and more forcible repro
duction of the truth which He had in another form ex
pressed to His disciples, on the occasion of a similar dispute :
" Unless ye be converted, and become as little children" not
only none of you shaU be greatest in the kingdom of heaven,
but " ye shall not enter it at all " (Matt, xviii. 1—4). — Mepo<;
e^eiv avv, to have part with, is an expression frequently
used in the 0. T. to indicate the participation of an inferior
in the riches and glory of his leader (Josh, xxii. 24, 25 ;
2 Sam. XX. 1).
Ver. 9 presents us with one of those sudden revulsions of
feeling in St. Peter which we so often find reported of him
by the Synoptists. We have here the same Peter who one
moment rushes into the water, and the next cries out, " I
perish ! " who now smites with the sword and now flees, who
goes even unto the High Priest's palace, and who denies his
Lord. The perfect harmony of these scattered features, and
the image so fuU of life which results from them, admirably
prove in this case, as in others, — as Luthardt has so well
shown, — the entire truthfulness of the Gospel history. — In
reality, what Peter was thoughtlessly demanding was the re
petition of his baptism. It is this which furnishes the key
to the answer of Jesus, This answer has naturaUy a double
meaning. As in His conversation with the Samaritan woman
He passed with a rapid transition from the material to the
spiritual; just as one who, having bathed in the morning,
considers himself clean and does not repeat this total ablution
at meal-time, but is contented with washing his feet on enter
ing, to remove such accidental defilement as he may have

CHAP. XIII, 6-11. 105
contracted by the way; so he who, by sincerely attaching
himself to Christ, has found pardon for his sins, needs nothing
else than a daily and continual purification from the moral
defilement of which he becoraes conscious during the course
of his life, Peter was clean because he sincerely beUeved in
Christ, The purpose, then, of what Jesus was now doing for
him was not to reconcile him to God, but to remove from him,
by such an example of humUity, that particular defilement, the
desire for earthly power and greatness, which Jesus at that
very moment observed in His own. With this evil tendency
Peter could not labour in the work of God, nor even sit down
one day at the table of Christ. Every Christian raust then
apply this saying to his daily purification from those evil
inchnations whose presence he discovers within him. The
word, the example, and the spirit of Christ are the means of
this increasing purification, which is the necessary complement
of preUminary justification. — The reading et pi^, if not, of sorae
Alex, is a correction of rj, which is slightly irregular ; ^, than,
for ovBevo<; dXXov ij, nothing else than. The omission of the
words i] Toiri TroSat in the Sinait. completely changes the
meaning : " He who is bathed needeth not to wash, but is
quite clean." This reading is a correction caused by the
difficulty of distinguishing between bathing the whole person
and a partial ablution. — The last words : hut is clean every
whit, must be explained as foUows : " but, far from needing to
bathe a second time, as thou dost request, his body is, generally
speaking, clean. He has only to remove any defilement which
his feet raay have contracted."
But was this happy state of reconciliation indeed the con
dition of aU ? No, there was one who had either broken the
tie which united him to Jesus, or in whose case it had never
existed. It was he who really needed to be the subject of
that inward operation whose symbol Peter had just demanded,
Tliis is the first hint at the treachery of Judas during this
repast. The Saviour, by expressing the grief which He felt
in thinking of the crime of Judas, made a last effort to bring
him to repentance. If He did not succeed. He would at least
show His disciples that He was not the dupe of his hypocrisy
(ver. 19),
3d. Vv. 12-20, The Explanation.

100 GOSPEL OF JOHK.
Vv. 12-17. " TVlien then He had washed tlieir feet} and^
had taken again His garments, and had sat down again} He
said unto tliem. Know ye what I have done to you ? Ye call
me Master and Lord .•* and ye say well ; for so I am. If I
then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet, ye ought
also^ to wash one another's feet. For I have given ^ you an
example, that ye should do as I have done to you. Verily,
verily, I say unto you. The servant is not greater than his
lord; neither lie that is sent (Fr. the apostle) greater than he
that sent him. If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye
do them." — The explanation just given of our Lord's conversa
tion with Peter, not attributing to the act of washing the
disciples' feet a meaning foreign to its primary intention, the
discourse by which it was foUowed no longer presents any
difficulty. Jesus feared nothing so much for His Church as
hier(",rchical pretensions. The disciples knew that their Master
was establishing a kingdom. The very word was calculated
to excite within them notions of superiority in a teraporal
sense. This was tlie reason why He sought to show them,
that in His kingdom the means of rising was to descend, and
that the way to the highest position was unhesitatingly to
choose the lowest. — At ver. 13, you call me properly signifies :
you thus designate me when you address me. The title
Master refers to teaching, that of Lord to His sway over the
whole life. They were the titles of Rabbi and Mar given by
Jewish pupils to their masters. It is from the words : for so
I am, that St. John rightly derived the knowing of ver. 3, The
Church has, since the fourth century, seen in vv. 14 and 15 the
institution of a rite, and it is weU known what this ceremony
has become where it is still literally practised. But neither
the term inroSeiypa, example, nor the plural, these things, in ver.
1 7, agree with the notion of such an institution ; while in this
case our Lord ought to have said in ver. 1 5, o, what, instead of
' X reads xurov instead of xu-tuv.
2 K A L, ItP'""i"« Syr. omit xxi before sXkjSsv.
' N B C, Syr. read xxi xnmo-tv, and A L, ItP'"'<i"» xxi x-ix^jnam, instead of
XVX'TTllttlll. " T. R. with 6 Mjj. (Byz.) reads o xup. xxi o l.ixix. ; all the others (12 Mjj.) :
0 5lS. X. 9 XVp.
' D, ItP'"'"'"' Syr. read *oiru ftxXXot before xxi u/m;.
^ K A K M n : Wiixx instead of i^uxx (13 Mjj.).

CHAP. xm. 18,19. 107
Kadd)'}, as. Self-abasement to serve, and service to save, these
are the moral essence of the act, and its permanent elements.
Its form was accidental, and derived, as we have seen, from
the actual situation ; hence it was but transitory. The wash
ing of feet mentioned in 1 Tim. v. 1 0 was a duty of hospitality,
and had only a moral relation to the precept of vv. 14 and
15, — The meaning of the sentence, ver, 16, which is also
found, with a different application, in the Synoptists (Luke vi.
40; Matt. x. 24, 25; comp. John xv. 20), is here, as in
Matt, X., that the inferior cannot find any act unworthy of
him which his superior has consented to perform. — But the
Lord knows that it is more easy to approve and admire
humUity than to practise it, and for this reason adds the saying
of ver. 1 7. Et, if, " if indeed," as was really the case, expresses
the general supposition; edv, in case, the more particular
condition. — The happiness here promised is not merely the
inward complacency which accompanies every act of volun
tary abasement, but a really superior position in God's sight ;
we are greater in His eyes, and nearer to Him, in proportion
as we humble ourselves to serve our brethren (Matt, xviii, 4).
Vv. 18, 19. " I speak not of you all: /' know those whom^
I have chosen : but it is that the Scripture may be fulfilled, He
that eateth bread with me ^ hath lifted up * his heel against me.
Henceforth I tell you before it come to pass, that when it is come
to pass you may believe that I a.m." — The thought of the happiness
of disciples walking in the way of humility calls forth in the
heart of Jesus the feeling of a contrast : there was one then
present whose unconquerable pride would deprive hira of this
happiness and bring a curse upon him. — 'E^eXe^dpijv, I have
chosen, has been referred to election to salvation. In this
sense it would not apply to Judas, but vi 70 shows that it
here signifies election to the apostolate and includes the
Twelve. — The words : I know, serve to justify the preceding
statement: I speak not of you all; hence, if the /o?" of 4 Mjj.
is a gloss, it is a correct one. — Tliat may be made to depend
upon the verb has lifted up : " That the Scripture may be
' N A K n, 30 Mnn. It""' Cop. Syr. read yxp a'fter lya.
^ X B C L M, Or. read tivxi instead of on;.
' B C L : fiov instead of /ut t/tou.
* K A U n : t^ufxiv instead of s^»ifs».

108 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
fulfilled, he that eateth bread with me hath lifted up . . ."
In this case our Lord would be identifying the scriptural
quotation with His own words. But it is more natural to
admit an ellipsis, and understand either, with Meyer : " Never
theless I have chosen him, that . . .," or, which seems simpler,
to supply : " This has happened that . . ." (comp. xix. 3 6 ;
Matt. xxvi. 36). This latter eUipsis refers the responsibility
of the choice of Judas to God, whom Jesus obeyed (see
remarks on vi. 6 4). Ps. xii., from the 1 0th verse of which this
quotation is taken, is but indirectly Messianic ; its immediate
subject is the just man in affliction, but this ideal is only
perfectly realized in the suffering Messiah. Among the
troubles which befall the righteous, the psalmist (David
according to the title, Jeremiah according to Hitzig) places
in the front rank the treachery of an intimate friend. In the
mouth of David, this would refer to Ahithophel. This last
stroke, Jesus would say, cannot fail to reach me also, in whom
all the sorrows as weU as aU the virtues of the righteous
sufferer are combined. This is, in the context, the meaning
of the formula : " That the Scripture might be fulfilled!' The
sing. dpTov, bread, in agreement with the Hebrew, while the
LXX. has the plural dpTovi, might speak in favour of the
use of the original text. The translation of the passage by
St. John seems, on the whole, independent of the LXX.^ To
raise the heel, to kick, is emblematic of brutal malice, and not,
as sorae have thought, of cunning. Foreseen and foretold as
it was by the Lord, this treachery, which might otherwise
have been a stumbling-block to His disciples, was afterwards
to be transformed into a support to their faith. This is
the fact brought out by Jesus in ver, 19. — The understood
attribute of iya> eipi, I am, is : aU that I have declared
myself, and aU that you believe me to be, your Lord and
Master. Ver. 2 0. " Verily, verily, I say unto you. He that receiveth
whomsoever I send receiveth me; and he that receiveth me
receiveth Him that sent me." — Tlie relation between this saying
and that which precedes is so obscure, that Kuinoel and
Liicke propose to regard this verse as a gloss derived from
1 The assent which I gave to Mangold's opinion on this question (Introd. p.
253) must be modified. Comp. the quotation, xii. 40.

CHAP. xm. 20. 109
Matt. X. 40. Others, as Lampe, connect it with ver. 16,
thus making what intervenes a mere parenthesis. Meyer
and Hengstenberg think that Jesus designed to encourage His
apostles, in prospect of the treachery of Judas, by reminding
them of the greatness of their mission. Baumlein caUs this
verse "a fragment of a larger whole, to which, perhaps,
belonged the institution of the Lord's Supper." If we
regard vv. 18 and 19 as a parenthesis occasioned by the
contrast between the fate of Judas and the happiness of
the faithful disciples (ver. 17), we can scarcely faU to see
in ver. 20 the saUent point of the paKapioTT]^ the happiness
promised in ver. 1 7 to the apostle who is humble and devoted
Uke His Master. He had just said : " 2'he servant is not
greater than his master ; " He now seems to say : " The
servant is not less than His Master." To receive Him is to
receive Jesus, and God HimseK (comp. Matt, xviii. 4, 5, and
paraUel passages). In Luke xxii 29, 30, Jesus said: "I
appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed
unto me ; and ye shall sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve
tribes of Israel." This promise remarkably agrees with this
20th verse. To have Jesus within, and God in Him, is
not this to reign and to judge in the deepest sense of the
words ?
Bretschneider and Strauss look upon this narrative of the
washing of the disciples' feet as of legendary origin. But,
as Baur observes on the raising of Lazarus, if such a fictitious
narrative, due to Christian consciousness, had really been in
circulation in the Church, it would infallibly have appeared
in the Synoptic Gospels. Baur therefore regards this par
ticular as purposely invented by the evangelist for the sake
of a moral idea. But it is very difficult thus to account for
so simple and vivid a scene, and especially for the composi
tion of the admirable dialogue between Peter and the Saviour.
Even Schweizer weU brings out the seal of historical truth
impressed upon the whole scene. Keim thinks that Jesus
would not on that evening have thus openly opposed the
feeUngs of His disciples. But the question was to teach
thera, in some manner which could never be forgotten, in
what spirit their future mission was to be fulfilled, and this
was the last opportunity for so doing. Exception has been

110 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
taken to this circurastance frora its omission by the Synop
tists. It is probable that the institution of the Lord's Supper,
a fact of such suprerae importance to the Church, may have
eclipsed it in the oral tradition of this last supper, Hilgen
feld suspects that the evangelist here substituted a narrative
of his own invention for the institution of the Lord's Supper,
which he was desirous of excluding (Introd. p. Ill), as
though there were such a relation between these two facts
that one could compensate for the other. In any case, the
discourse in Luke against false greatness, at the close of the
supper, assumes a fact of this kind, St, Luke found in his
documents the discourse reported independently of the fact.
He desired to preserve the sayings of Christ, and reproduced
this unconnected passage as he found it, without either adding
to or taking from it.
II. The Dismissal of Judas. — Vv. 21—30.
We have here another work perforraed by Jesus from love
to His disciples. So long as Judas was present. His feelings
were under restraint, and He could not give free course to
the Divine treasures with which His mind was filled. Ver. 3 1
vividly expresses the feeling of relief which He experienced
at seeing the traitor depart, and it was then that those full
effusions of His inmost heart, contained in chs. xiv.-xvii.,
took place. These last moments of friendly intercourse were
necessary to our Lord's work.
In the circle of the Twelve, Judas had been the repre
sentative of that spirit of carnal Messianism directly opposed
to that which Jesus had just sanctioned by washing the
disciples' feet (vi, 64, 70), If he would not humble himself
and renounce this spirit, he must depart ; and it was the spirit
of the false, of the Jewish Messiah, of antichrist, which departed
with him,
Vv, 21, 22. "When Jesus had thus said. He was troubled
in spirit, and testified, and said. Verily, verily, I say unto
you, that one of you shall betray me. Then ^ the disciples
looked one on another, doubting of whom He spake!' — The
emotion of Jesus arose neither from the feeling of wounded
' B C L omit ovv.

CHAP. XIII, 23, 24. Ill
affection nor from pity for the traitor. The regimen t&>
TTvevpan, in spirit, shows that it had its dwelUng in a higher
region than that of even the noblest natural sensibility.
Here, as at xi. 33-38, it was a shock of a religious nature,
a kind of horror felt by His pure heart at the sight of this
Satanic crime, and at the approach of its invisible author.
On the difference between -yjrvxn, soul, and irvevpa, spirit, in
this relation, see remarks on xii, 2 7. The words : " When He
had thus said" connect this emotion with the preceding dis
course, in which Jesus had twice aUuded to the treachery of
Judas. The expression : " He testified} opposes the positive
statement which follows to the vague indications of vv. 1 0 and
1 8 ; and the "Amen, amen',' denotes the Divine certainty of
this testimony. Accordingly, we find the apostles in ver. 22
doubting each other, aud their own hearts, rather than the
word of their Master, each of them, according to Matt, xxvii.
22, with a touching humUity asking : " Is it I ? " The same
evangelist tells us that Judas hiraself addressed this question
to Jesus, a circumstance which has been regarded as in
credible. But would he not have betrayed himself had he
alone remained silent ? The answer of Jesus : " Thou hast
said it " (Matt. xxvi. 2 5), is only a summary of the foUowing
scene related by St. John. It was by the act narrated in ver.
26 that Jesus answered his question.
Vv. 23, 24. "Now^ there was leaning on Jesus' bosom one
of His disciples} he whom Jesus loved. Simon Peter beckoned
to him, tliat he should ask who it was^ of whom He spake."
— The ancients rather lay than sat at table, each guest having
his left arm upon a cushion so as to support the head, and
the right at liberty for eating ; the feet were stretched out
behind. Thus the head of each was near the breast of his
companion on the left; and this was the place of John
with regard to His Master in this last supper. In fact, the
unanimous tradition of the primitive church points out John
1 B C L omit h.
' 11 Mjj. (X A B C, ete. ) add t» before tuv fixitiToiy.
' Instead of Tvh7lxi m xv uti {to ask who it was), which is the reading of
T. R. with 12 Mjj. (A D r A A n, etc.), most of the Mnn. Syr. Cop., we read in
B C I L X, If'"''!'^' Vg. Or., XXI xtyii xvtu tin ti; ihtiv {and he saith to him.
Say who it is). — X combines the two readings : whuSxi ti; xv un -mpi ou iXiyiv
XXI Xiyu xu-Tu ucrt ns iCTiv Ttpi ov Xiyu.

112 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
as the disciple to whom ver. 23 appUes. This Gpspel itself
leaves no doubt of it, as we have already shown in the Intro
duction (I. p. 259). This is brought out by ch. xxi, 2, com
pared with 7 and 20-23. Among the seven disciples spoken
of in ver, 2, Peter, Thomas, and Nathanael are naturaUy
excluded, as sometimes mentioned by name in the course of
this Gospel, whUe the disciple whom Jesus loved is nowhere
thus indicated. The two last unnamed disciples appear not
to have belonged to the circle of the Twelve, Hence there
reraain only the two sons of Zebedee, of whora, James being
excluded by his premature death (comp. ver. 22: " If I will
that he tarry till I come, what is that to tliee?"), John alone
is left. The Byz. reading : " to ask Him who it was} is very
preferable to that of the Alex, and Origen : "And he said
unto him. Say who it is." If, indeed, we interpret this last
expression as teUing us that Peter said to John : " Tell me
who it is," this he said unto him is in contradiction with
vevei, he made a sign, which assumes that the two apostles
were too far from each other for speaking. Besides, how
should Peter suppose that John already knew this secret ?
If we understand : " Peter said to John, Ask the Lord of
whom He is speaking," we are obliged to give to say the
unusual sense of ask, and to supply the pronoun avrS), to
him, as the regimen of this verb, which is forced. The
Alex, text seems to result from a gloss, at one tirae added
to {Sinait), at another substituted for {Vatican), the
priraitive text as maintained in most of the other docu
ments. — Ver. 24 shows that Peter was not seated next
Jesus, since in that case he could himself have asked the
question. Vv. 25— 27a. "He then^ lying '^ on Jesus' breast saith unto
Him, Lord, who is it ? Jesus answered. It is he to whom I
will give a sop, wlun I have dipped * it. And when He had
1 X D L M X A, several Mnn. ItP'«rti" Vg. read om instead of \ which is
the reading of T. R. with 7 Mjj. Mnn, It""!.— B and C entirely omit the
particle. 2 B C K L X n, 20 Mnn. Or. read xtx^s'itrm instead of iorfmriav. — 10 Mjj.
read outui; after s«- (or xvx-) mo-uv ; this word is omitted in the T. R. with X
A D n. — K S U r A read outo; instead of sxuvo;.
' B C L : fix-^'oi TO ¦^l^oipt. XXI luniii. T, R. with the others : flx^x; « ¦^u//,.
fVioufu.

CHAP. XIIL 26-27. 113
dipped^ the sop} He gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of
Simon? And after he had received the sop, then^ Satan
entered into him." — The received reading i-n-nreawv, leaning,
properly casting, indicates a sudden movement agreeing with
the strong feeling which inspired it. The Alex, reading :
dvuTrea-div, seems absurd, because sitting to table is not here
spoken of, and could only be received with the adverb ovtco's,
and in the sense proposed by Baumlein : " As he was thus
seated at table" (comp. ver. 23 : "leaning on Jesus' breast").
But it is far more probable that this is a mechanical correc
tion after xxi. 20, where dveireaev is perfectly in place. In
any case, the most inadmissible reading is that adopted by
Tischendorf (Sth ed,) : iinireacbv oinom. — In the course of the
Paschal meal, the father of the family used to offer to the
guests pieces of bread or meat dipped in a sauce composed
of fruit boiled in wine, representing the fruits of the Pro
mised Land. Jesus here recurs to this custora, and answers
John in language intelligible only to himself. As a sign of
feUowship, it was one more appeal to the conscience of Judas.
If he had been heart-broken at receiving it, he raight yet
have found pardon. Hence the raoraent was a decisive one,
and this is what we are given to understand by the rore,
then (ver. 27), a word of tragic solemnity. — The Alex, read
ing : " He takes and gives the morsel," can only mean : " He
takes it from the dish',' after having dipped it, which is super
fluous. — " Hitherto," says Hengstenberg, " Judas had, in the
interest of his passion, stifled his conviction of his Master's
"Divinity. But now the ray of Divine omniscience which, in
preceding warnings (ver, 10), had but grazed the surface,
penetrated to his inmost soul, when Jesus plainly told him,
both by this sign and the words which followed (Matt. xxvi.
25: 'Thou hast said'): It is thou who, having eaten my
bread, hast lifted up thy heel against rae ! But, at the same
tirae. He gave him to understand that he was stUl one of His
own. He could, therefore, even then have returned. But he
1 X B C L X Or. : /Ja-vJ-as ouv ; T. R. with the others : xxi ipofix'^^x;.
^ B C L M X Or. add Xxpo(3xvu xxi after .^ufj^iov.
' The Alex. (X B C, etc.) : lirxa/i;i!/Tou ; T. R. with the others (A r A, etc.) :
leyapieoTVi. * X D L ItP''"!"' omit Ton.
GODET m. H JOHN.

114 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
would not, and the violent effort which he made to close his
heart to the heavenly power opened it to the powers of evil
It was frora these even that he had to seek strength to
accomplish this last act of resistance. As it is said of David :
' he strengthened himself in God,' so did Judas strengthen
himself in Satan." — The indwelling of Satan in a huraan soul,
as weU as that of the Holy Spirit, has its degrees. In Luke
xxii. 3, the phases distinguished by St. John (comp. ver. 2)
are combined. The present moment was that at which the
wUl of Judas was at last confiscated by the power to which
he had gradually yielded himself. TUl then, he had acted
freely and tentatively. From this moment it would not have
been possible for him to recede. It has been asserted that,
according to St. John, this result was owing to the. magical
agency of the piece of bread, that this was a miracle by
which Jesus " demonized" the soul of a disciple.^ If St.
John had intended to express such a notion, he would have
written, not peTa to ¦^wpiov, after the sop, but rather peTO. tov
¦yjrcopiov, with the sop. It has been asked, moreover : Who
saw Satan enter into Judas ? ^ We might perhaps answer :
John ; for the terrible struggle which was at that moment
taking place within him could not be unperceived by the eye
of one who was anxiously observing the traitor, and some
thing infernal in the expression of his countenance may have
borne testimony te the decided victory just gained in his
heart by the devil — Keim would find an excuse for Judas in
the conduct of Jesus at this juncture, supposing it faith
fully related by St. John.^ But Jesus expressly spared Judas,
by making him known to John only.
Vv. 27&-30. " Then said Jesus unto him. That thou doest,
do quickly. Now no man at the table knew for what intent
He said -this unto him. For some of iliem thought, because
Judas had the bag, that Jesus meant to say to him. Buy the
things that we have need of for the feast ; or, that he should
give something to the poor. He then, having received the sop,
went immediately out : now it was night." — The saying of
Jesus to Judas was not a permission (Grotius), but a com-
1 Revue de Thiol. Sd series, vol. i. p. 255. 2 /Ji^.
3 "Freilich wenn Jesus ihn so prostituirte, wie bei Johannes, war Judas
einigermasseaentschuldigt," iii. p, 262,

CHAP, xm. 27-30. 115
mand. Our Lord has been reproached for pushing Judas
over the precipice by thus speaking. But there was now no
longer any reason for treating him with caution, because it
was no longer possible to him to recede. The evening was
already far advanced (ver, 30), and Jesus needed the Uttle
time which yet remained to Him, to finish His work with
regard to His own disciples, Judas, in his pride, supposed
that the Person of his Master was in his hands. Jesus lets
him feel that he, like the new master whom he now obeys, is
but an instrument, St. John says : " None of those who were
at table " (ver. 2 8), Keim objects that, if Jesus had reaUy
given John to understand who was the traitor, he at least
must have perceived the meaning of this saying. Undoubt
edly he did ; nor is there anything to say that John does not
except hiraself in using this expression, he only besides Judas
possessing the key of the situation. It is difficult to infer
from this passage anything decided respecting the day of
Christ's death. On the one hand, it is said that this could not
have been the day on which the whole nation was celebrating
the Passover. For how could purchases be made at that
Sabbatic season ? and how could they be made for the feast, if
the Paschal meal, the essential act of the feast, had already
taken place ? On the other hand, it is said : If this evening
were that of the 13th— 14th, there would be the day of the
14th left for purchases, and the supposition of the disciples
would be unmeaning. Neither of these arguments is de
cisive. — The skUl with which Judas must have concealed
his character and plans is surprising, for even at this last
moment his fellow-disciples were utterly in the dark about
him. As far as our Lord Himself is concerned. He could
not with safety have unmasked him more openly ; for, with
the impetuosity of Peter, what might not have taken place
between him and the traitor? — The whole of the scene re
lated in vv. 27-29 was but the affair of a moment. The
words : " having received the sop} ver. 30, are directly connected
by oSy with ver. 27:" and when He had dipped the sop!'
Hengstenberg places the institution of the Lord's Supper
between the participle having received and the verb he went out.
But the evdiaxi, immediately, makes the second of these acts
directly follow the first. — The last words : " it was night" help

116 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
to reproduce a perfect picture of the situation which was
indelibly imprinted on the memory of John, whose narrative
is everywhere interwoven with similar detaUs only to be
explained by the vividness of personal reminiscence, Comp.
i. 40, vi, 59, viii 20, x, 23, etc. The symboUcal meaning
which some, including Luthardt (2d ed,), have tried to attri
bute to these words by connecting them with xi 10, cannot
be accepted as the explanation of this detaU in so simple a
narrative. At which period of this repast are we to place the institu
tion of the Lord's Supper ? — In stating this question, we
are accepting the view that this was indeed the meal at
which our Lord, according to the Synoptists, instituted this
rite ? Bengel, Wichelhaus, and others, have, it is true,
atterapted to distinguish two repasts. The first, they say,
took place (John xiii.) at Bethany, John xiv. 31 indicating
the moment at which Jesus left this place to go to Jerusalem ;
whUe the second, that of the Synoptists, was on the foUowing
evening, at the time of the Jewish Passover, — But the predic
tion of Peter's denial in both, and the close connection between
the narrative of the washing of the disciples' feet and the
discourse Luke xxii, 24—30, make this hypothesis untenable,
— ^We admit, moreover, that though the institution of the
Lord's Supper is not mentioned in this Gospel, this was not
because its author was either ignorant of or denied it. For
we agree with Liicke, that either this author was St. John,
and that the existence of this rite being, according to 1 Cor. xi.,
an undoubted fact, could neither be ignored nor denied by
an apostle, or that the author was a pseudo-John of the second
century. Now at this epoch the First Epistle to the Corinthians
was universally known, and the Lord's Supper universaUy
celebrated in the Church ; so that the pseudo- John, by pre
tending to ignore this fact, or to deny it by his silence, would
only have made his narrative suspected. Its omission, then,
can be explained only by the idea that the author did not
relate it, because, as it was already sufficiently known in the
Church, he had no special inducement for introducing it into
his narrative.
If, then, this is the case, where must the institution of the
Lord's Supper be inserted ? According to Keim, after xiv.

CHAP. XIIL 27-30. 117
31, as the foundation of the discourse in xv. 1 sqq, : "/ am
the true vine" etc. ; but at this moment Jesus arose and gave
the order for departure, and this does not seem a suitable
situation for such a ceremony. — According to Olshausen and
Luthardt, after xui 38 (the prediction of Peter's denial), and
before the words : " Let not your heart he troubled." This opinion
might be accepted, but that the Synoptists are unanimous in
placing the prediction of the denial after the institution, whUe
two of them recount it as uttered on the way to Gethsemane.
— Liicke, Lange, Maier, and others place it in the interval
between vv. 33 and 34, after the words : " Yet a little while} etc,
and before the proclamation of the new commandment. And
certainly there is between this last expression and the idea of
the n£,w covenant, so strongly brought forward in the institu
tion of the Lord's Supper, a relation which gives some proba-
bUity to this view. But opposed to it is the direct connection
between the question of Peter : " Lord, whither goest Thou ? "
(ver. 36), and the saying of Jesus : "Whither I go, ye cannot
come" (ver. 33) ; a ceremony of such importance could hardly
be interpolated between these two sayings. — It is placed by
Neander and Ebrard in the interval between w. 32 and 33.
But ver. 33 is the direct continuation of ver. 32 (comp, the
straightway of ver. 32, and the yet a little while of ver. 33).
Indeed, the whole discourse in w. 31-35 forms so closely
connected a whole, that it is very difficult to insert in any
part of it so important a fact.
Paulus, Kahnis, and others decide for the interval between
vv. 30 and 31, immediately after the departure of Judas.
The words : " when he was gone out, Jesus said" (see ver. 31),
are unfavourable to this opinion. — That of Hengstenberg (ver.
30, before the departure of Judas) seems to us incompatible
with the expression : " he went out immediately." — Stier is for
the interval between vv. 22 and 23. But the sign made by
Peter, in ver. 24, is too directly connected with the anxious
questions of the disciples in ver. 22. — Baumlein proposes the
interval between w. 19 and 21, where the somewhat isolated
saying in ver, 20 is placed. And certainly the idea of receiving
Jesus and God, is in itself closely related to the Holy Supper ;
only it should not have been introduced by the totaUy aUen
idea of receiving Mm whom Jesus sends. — The notion of

118 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
Beyschlag is perhaps the most probable of the kind. The
first act of the institution (the bread) is by him placed before
ver, 1 8, and in this Judas would participate. The second act
(the cup) he places after ver. 30, and thus considerably later,
after supper, as it is said in Luke xxii, 20 and 1 Cor. xi, 25,
and in this Judas would not take part. This view requires
the admission that the repast lasted tUl this moment. The
objection to it is the very close relation between vv. 18 and
17, and the no less direct connection of ver. 31 with ver. 30.
— Meyer says : only after ver, 30,
The narrative of St. Luke, and certain hints in that of
St. John, lead me to place the washing of the disciples' feet
quite at the close of the repast. Hence the institution of
the Lord's Supper would precede this act, and it would be as
far back as ver, 1 that I should place this solemn transaction.
Perhaps there is an aUusion to this supreme pledge of Divine
love in the expression : " He perfectly manifested all His love
to them!' The saying of St, Luke : " after He had supped,"
which places the institution at the close of the meal, may be
objected, while John xiii, 26 (the sop given to Judas) seems
to assume that it was stiU going on. But undoubtedly they ¦
would remain at table after the supper properly so caUed
(comp. Luke xxii, 20, 27). And this sign, given by Jesus,
does not necessarUy imply anything more, Sieffert, in his
work on the first Gospel, is, as far as I know, the first author
who has spoken in favour of the solution here offered,^
On the behaviour of Judas we would add some remarks to
those already given at the close of ch, vi — It was not for the
satisfaction of his moral necessities (as a being given, taught,
and drawn hy God, vi, 39, 44, 45), but from political ambi
tion and gross cupidity, that Judas had become a foUower
of the Lord. For in his eyes Jesus was the Messiah, His
miracles proved it, and by joining his fortunes to His a
brUUant career seemed open to him. But when, as he soon
perceived, the way followed by this Christ was the very oppo
site of what he hoped and expected, he became from day to
day more irritated and exasperated. He saw himself at once
deceived concerning Jesus, and seriously compromised in the
eyes of the chiefs of the hierarchy by being His disciple.
1 Ueber den Ursprvng des ersten Jcanonischen Eva'ngeliums, 1832.

CHAP. XIII, 31-XVL 33. 119
Hence his treason proceeded both from resentment and a
desire to regain the favour of the rulers of the nation. As
soon as he perceived that this latter object had failed, despair
took possession of him. — Judas is an exaraple of the faith
which does not originate in moral wants.
Lastly, we would consider the relation of the narrative of
St. John to those of the Synoptists with regard to this scene.
Two principal differences are found in them : 1st. In propor
tion as the synoptic account is vague and obscure on the
subject of the indication of the traitor, is that of St, John
luminous, particular, and exact. As Beyschlag remarks : " The
obscurities of the synoptic narrative are dispersed by its
dramatic clearness." 2d. In the Synoptists, the relations
between our Lord and Judas are presented as a special narrative,
forming a separate picture. In St. John these relations form
an organic part of the description of the repast, and are pre
sented under the form of a series of historical shades and
gradations. They form a Uving element, mingling in the
whole course of events during this last evening, and accom
panying its different phases. Which, we would fearlessly ask
of any intelligent man, is the truly historical representation ?

SECOND SECTION.
XIIL bl-XVI, 33,  THE DISCOURSES.
Jesus has just bid farewell, an eternal farewell, to Judas :
"Do what thou hast to do I " He now turns to His own, and
the farewell which He addresses to them irapiies a future
meeting (Gess '), The departure of Judas has set His heart
at liberty. His love is now poured forth in a series of con
versations and instructions which complete the revelation of
His inmost soul to His disciples. Touched as they were by
the affection which He had just testified, humbled as they
had never been before by His humility, the apostles, not
withstanding their ignorance and weakness, were now disposed
to receive and to preserve these last words,
1 See his excellent work, Bibeletunden viber Ev. Joh., chs, xiii.-xvii., 2d ed,
1873,

120 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
A series of conversations (comp. the questions of Peter,
ver, 36 ; of Thoraas, xiv. 5 ; of PhUip, ver, 8 ; and of Jude,
ver. 22) open these communications upon the most famUiar
footing. They naturaUy turn upon the approaching separa
tion, which Jesus teaches them to regard as the condition of
a speedy and eternal reunion (xiii, 31, xiv. 31). Ver. 31 of
ch. xiv. divides these conversations from the discourses by
which they are foUowed. From this point onwards, the form
of instruction properly so caUed prevails ; Jesus transports
Himself in thought to the period when the promised re
union wUl be realized, and glances from this point of view
at the future career of His apostles in the midst of a hostile
world to be saved (xv. 1-xvi. 15). Then the form of the
dialogue reappears, and with it His mind reverts to the point
whence He started, the imminent separation. Here Jesus
now finds the decisive words (xvi. 16—33) to inspire them
with the courage which they need at this painful moment.
Thus does a dying father, when he has gathered his chUdren
about him, begin by speaking of his end ; then their future
career claims his regards, and he teUs them what they will
have to do here below, and what the world will be to them.
After which, returning to the present situation, ^he draws
from the depths of his paternal heart those last words in
which he bids them a long fareweU.
This course of things is so natural, that we are forced to
own that, if this situation reaUy existed, and if Jesus spake
therein, He could only have spoken thus. His tone is ever
on a level with the situation ; it is one of deep but repressed
emotion. The logical connection is not for a moment
broken, but it is never made prominent Distinctness of
intuition is united with inwardness of feeling, and we are
carried gently onwards by that gentle undulation of thought
which characterizes, in a unique manner, the sayings of our
Lord in this section. We know of only two passages of
Scripture which present any analogy with this, and they
originate in similar situations. These are the last discourses
of Moses in Deuteronomy, in which the great lawgiver takes
leave of his people, and the second part of Isaiah, in which
the prophet, transported in spirit beyond the future ruin of
Israel, unrolls the picture of its restoration, and describes the

CHAP, xm. 31, 32. 121
work of the true Israel in the midst of the world, — Hilgen
feld contrasts these discourses with those last instructions of
an eschatological nature given in the Synoptists (Matt. xxiv. ;
Mark xiii). According to John, he says, Jesus expects oiUy
the reign of the Spirit on earth, while, according to the
Synoptists, a visible return of Christ to this world is spoken
of But the notion of the reign of the Spirit is not absent
from the Synoptists (parable of the talents, or of the pounds
in Matthew and Luke, and that of the virgins in Matthew ;
also Matt, xxviii. 18-20 ; Luke xxiv. 48, 49, etc.). And, on
the other hand, the idea of an external and glorious con
summation is not, as we have seen, lacking in John. The
testing and the spiritual reign do but prepare for the judg
ment and the external reign.
I. After Separation, Meeting. — xiii. 31— xiv. 31.
After sorae sajdngs uttered by our Lord under the im
mediate impression produced by the departure of Judas (vv.
31-35), He replies to the questions of Peter (ver. 36— xiv. 4),
of Thomas (vv. 5-7), of Philip (ver. 8-21), and of Jude
(w, 22-24), and concludes with reflections inspired by the
present situation (vv. 25—31),
1st. Vv. 31-35.
Vv, 31, 32. "When, therefore} he was gone out, Jesus says,
Now has the Son of man been glorified, and God has been
glorified in Him. If God has been glorified in Him} God
will also glorify Him in Himself} and will straightway glorify
Him!' — These two verses sound like a shout of triumph from
the heart of Jesus at seeing the traitor depart in the dark
ness. Several documents omit the oSk, therefore, and connect
the words ore i^rjXOev with the preceding sentence : " It was
night when He went out." But this addition would be use
less, and would weaken the gravity of the short proposition :
"now it was night." Besides, the next verb \e7et, he says,
• T, R., withX B C D L X, several Mnn. It. Vg. Cop. Or., reads »« »«»; while
,-, with the other Mjj. 90 Mnn. Syr,, omits ouv.
^ X B C D L X n, 12 Mnn. ItPie^ii" omit the words u t ho; ^olxnh it xuru,
which are read in T, R. with 12 Mjj. (A F, etc) Mnn, It»"i Vg. ' Cop. Syr, Or.
' X B H A read iv xutu instead of iv ixutu.

122 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
must be connected with what precedes it. We must then read
0T6 ovv, and make the proposition : " when he had gone out}
bear upon : "Jesus says." The vvv, now, with which the follow
ing sayings begin, naturally connects them with the departure
of Judas. This is also shown by the past iBo^dadr], has been
glorified, which includes the whole past life of Jesus down to
the scene just terminated. Most expositors, on the contrary,
see in this verb an anticipative expression of the future glory
of Jesus, whether by His death (Meyer), or by His elevation
to the right hand of God (Luthardt, Gess). But if this is
the case, why did Jesus directly after pass to the future
(So^acret, will glorify) in speaking of this glorification to
come. At xvii. 10, Jesus Himself gives thanks that He is
from henceforth glorified {SeSo^aapai) in the hearts of His
apostles. The act of washing their feet had completed His
condemnation of that false huraan glory which had fiUed
their hearts, and with the departure of Judas the spirit of
carnal Messianism had at last disappeared from the apostolic
circle. Jesus now reigns there supreme, and the true glory
realized in His Person has definitely triumphed over the false.
This is also the reason that He here caUs Himself the Son
of man, for it was by His very humiliation that He obtained
this glory. Now, such a glory did not, like ordinary human
glory, make Him an appropriator of that of God. For it
consisted, on the contrary, in His ever giving, as He had done
that very evening, glory to God : "And God has been glorified
in Him." To glorify God by voluntary self-abasement is the
task of man, and such had been the work of the Son of man,
— a work now in some sort accomplished. The first words
of ver. 32 : "If God has been glorified in Him}' are omitted
by the Alex. This omission, wrongly approved by Luthardt,
arises simply — as the reading ev avrw instead of ev eavTw
in many of thera proves — from the confusion of the two ev
avTw by copyists. Examples of simUar omissions in the
Alex, text are very numerous, especially in X. The proposi
tion : "If God has been glorified in Him} is not only perfectly
appropriate, but even necessary to explain the transition from
the past has been glorified to the future will glorify in ver,
32. Jesus, the instrument of God's glory on earth, will be
glorified by God in heaven. Could God do less than the Son

CHAP. XIIL 33-35. 123
of man has done for Him ? If He has glorified God, God
wiU also {Kai) glorify Him, This Kai, also, stands at the
head of the sentence to give vivid expression to this cor
relation between the conduct of Jesus and that of God
(comp. xvii. 4, 5), Such, too, is the meaning of the evident
correlation between the two regimens : in Him (Jesus) and in
Himself (God), When God has been glorified by a being. He
draws him to His bosom and envelopes him in His glory. Thus
was His future illuminated in the eye of Jesus by the holy
Ught of His past. This future was at hand. The departure
of Judas had shown Him that it was imminent. Straightway,
said Jesus, aUuding to His resurrection and ascension. The
second kui is explanatory, "and that straightway," — And after
having thus given vent to His own feeling, Jesus next turned
to His disciples, and made them the sole objects of His care.
Vv, 33-35, "Little children, yet a little while ^ I am with
you. Ye shall seek me ,¦ and as I said to the Jews, Whither
I go, ye cannot come ; so now I say to you. A new command
ment I give unto you, that ye love one another. By this shall
all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to
another." ^ — The term of affection, TeKvia, little children, is
nowhere else found in the Gospels ; it was inspired by the
straightway, implying a speedy separation, of ver, 32. The.
disciples seem to Him like children soon to become orphans.
Indeed, what a void must be produced in any human heart by
the absence of Jesus ! He Himself vividly felt what they would
experience : " You shall seek me," you will desire to rejoin me.
And for Himself, how greatly He could wish to take thera
with Him into that world to which He was about to return !
But what He had six months before said to the Jews (vii, 34,
viu, 21) stUl applied to His disciples: they were not yet
ready to follow Him. There was, however, this difference
between them and the Jews, that in their case the impossi
bility was but temporary (comp. xiv. 3 : " I will receive you to
myself, that where I am there ye may he also "). Meantime He
leaves them a task, but one so pleasant that it wUl also be
their comfort. This new duty, conformable with the new
situation, is indicated in ver. 34.
' X L X It°''i add xf"" after /nxpiv.
' X reads foiT xXXnXtov instead of tv xXXnXois.

124 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
The expression ivToXrj Kaiv-q, new commandment, has per
plexed expositors, because we are commanded in the 0, T. to
love our neighbour as ourselves (Lev. xix. 18), and it does
not seem possible to love hira raore, — Or are we to say with
Knapp, in his celebrated discussion of this subject, that Jesus
taught us both by example and precept to love our neighbour
more than ourselves ? This is a notion more specious than
correct. Must we then give to Kaivq, new, some unusual
meaning : illustrious (Wolf), always new (Olshausen), renewed
(Calvin), renewing man (Augustine), unexpected (Seraler), latest
(Heumann), etc, ? This is unnecessary. The entirely new
character of Christian love is brought out first by the words
one another, and then stiU more clearly by the explanation
which foUows: "as I have loved you." This love does not
apply to the whole human family in general, as might be said
of the law of charity written on the conscience, nor speciaUy
to the members of the Jewish nation, like the commandment
in Leviticus, but embraces all believers neither more nor
less. This is an entirery new circle. But on what does its
existence depend ? Upon the appearance of an entirely new
centre of Ufe and affection upon earth. The love of a Jew
for his neighbour arose from his seeing in him a worshipper
.of Jehovah, a being beloved by Him ; thus every IsraeUte was
to him a second self So, too, it was from the love of Jesus
for the disciples that this love for each other resulted. From
this new hearth there issued forth the flame of an affection
very different from any which the world had hitherto known :
in Christ is the true explanation of this word new. It is a
famUy affection, and the famUy came into existence that very
hour, — The proposition : " asl have loved you}' is not, whatever
Meyer and Luthardt may think, an appendage to the first
proposition : " that you should love one another} which would
render the repetition of these words at the end of the verse
entirely useless. After saying in a general manner : " that you
should love one another',' Jesus again gives this command with
fresh emphasis, this time adding to it the characteristic defini
tion : " I mean to say that, as I have loved you, you should
also love one another." Comp. exactly the same construction
at xvu, 21. KaOoo'i, as, means more than a simple compari
son {wanep) ; it indicates a conformity, and characterizes the

CHAP, xm, 36-38. 125
mutual love of believers as of the same nature as that which
uiutes Jesus to the beUever (x. 15), each returning to his
brother the love with which Jesus loves him. To this
"pleasant duty Jesus adds the most exalted motive. His glory ;
for He weU knows that they who feel themselves beloved by
Him can have none more urgent. — 'Epol is perhaps stronger
as a dative than as a nom. plural : " disciples belonging to me,
the new Master." This promise of Jesus was reaUzed in the
history of the primitive church : " They love before they
know each other," said Minutius Felix of the Christians ; and
the raihng Lucian declared : " Their Master makes them be
Ueve that they are all brothers."
2d. xiu. 36-xiv. 4.
Vv. 36-38, "Simon Peter said unto Him, Lord, whither
goest Thou? Jesus answered him} Whither I^ go, thou canst
not follow me now ; hut thou shalt follow me afterwards. Peter
said unto Him} Lord, why cannot I follow Thee now ?^ I
will lay down my life for Thy sake. Jesus answered him}
Wilt thou lay down thy life for my sake ? Verily, verily, I
say unto thee, The cock shall not crow till thou hast denied ^ me
thrice." — What especiaUy struck St, Peter in the preceding
sayings was the thought : " Whither I go, thither ye cannot
come," His mind dwelt on the thought : Jesus is going to
glory ; Peter had no doubt about it (ver, 32). Why, then,
after having walked, like his Master, upon the waters, and
ascended with Him the Mount of Transfiguration, could he
not foUow Him to His glory, and return with Him to earth
when He should estabUsh His kingdora ? — Jesus declared the
separation to be for the present inevitable. Was He think
ing of the task which Peter had yet to accomplish by his
apostolic ministry ? The saying in xiv. 2, 3 leads us to thinlc
rather of reasons of another nature. In the first place, the
road is not yet open, redemption not yet effected ; then Peter
himself is not yet prepared for heaven, "On his part, Peter,
imagining that Jesus spoke as He did because He thought
' B C L ItP'^ii"' Vg. Cop. omit xvtu after xtrexeiSn.
^ X D U add tyu before v^xyu.
^ X, some Mnn. Vg. Cop. omit xvpic.
* C D L X read vuv instead of xpn.
^ X A B C L X : x-TroxpiviTxi instead of xvixpiin xvtu,
^ B D L X ; xpvYisYi instead of x'sapvvian.

126 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
him incapable of facing death, declared himself ready to
undergo martyrdom (ver. 3 7). Jesus then foUows him to this
region, and declares that even in this respect he is as yet
incapable of accompanying Him (ver. 38). — The prediction of
his denial appears to have made a profound impression upon
this apostle ; he seemed, as it were, overwhelmed by it, and from
this moment he did not speak again during these discourses.
xiv. 1,2. " Let not your heart be troubled. Believe in God,
believe also in me. In my Father's house are many dwellings :
if it were not so, I would have told you} I go to prepare a
place for you." — The division into chapters is here very faulty,
for these words relate to the preceding conversation, and
particularly to the saying of Jesus : " Thou shalt follow me after
wards." He now extends this promise to aU His disciples, and
explains it to them by showing them the manner in which He
wiU fulfil it. He wiU begin by preparing a place for them in
heaven (ver, 2), then He wUl Himself transport thera thither
(ver. 3). This explains the exhortation to fuU confidence,
notwithstanding the approaching separation, contained in ver, 1.
This event, far from plunging them into trouble of heart,
would, if they understood it aright, fiU them with the most
joyful hope. The two -TriaTeveTe agree better with the im
perative TapaaaeaBo) if they are both taken as imperatives :
Believe, than if the first or both are regarded as indicatives :
you believe. Besides, it would be very unmeaning to remind
them that they do beUeve in God. To dispel their trouble,
Jesus invites them to confidence, first in God, who has pro
mised them a glorious future, then in Himself, who wiU be
able to realize it. In the first member of the sentence, the
verb believe is placed before the regimen {in God) ; in the
second, the regimen in me precedes the verb, to bring out the
antithesis of the regimens in God and in me. The first
motive to confidence is pointed out in ver. 2 : the heavenly
home to which Jesus is going is destined also for them. The
image is derived from those vast oriental palaces, in which
there is an abode not only for the sovereign and the heir to
the throne, but also for aU the sons of the king, however
numerous they may be. The term iroXXai, many, by no
iXABCDKLXn, 20 Mnn. It"'"! Vg. Syr. Cop. insert »« between vfoiv
aud iropiuoy.xi {I would have told you that I go).

CHAP, XIV. 1, 2, 127
means refers to a difference between these abodes (as though
Jesus meant to allude to the different degrees of heavenly
glory), but solely to their number : there are as many as there
are believers ; in this vast edifice there is room for aU. — This
heavenly abode is before all a spiritual state ; it is the sublime
and fiUal position granted to Christ in the Divine glory, of which
He wiU make His faithful people partakers. But this state
wUl be realized in a definite locality, in the place where God
most conspicuously manifests His presence and glory, in
heaven, Lange thinks that Jesus, in uttering these words,
pointed to the starry sky; but xiv. 31 proves that both
Himself and His disciples were stiU in the upper room.
The words which foUow have been very differently ex
plained, but are easily understood if we adopt the reading
which places oti, that, after iiplv : " If it were not so, I would
have told you that I go to prepare a place for you;" or,
which comes to the same thing, if, rejecting oti, we translate :
" I would have told you, I go ... " But this meaning
seems to me incompatible with ver. 3, in which Jesus says
that He is really going, and that to prepare. AU the efforts
of the Fathers, who generally give this explanation, have not
succeeded in removing this contradiction. It has been
attempted to take the words elirov av vpiv in an interrogative
sense (so Ernesti, Lange, Ewald) : " Would I tell you ? " or,
" Would I have told you that I am going to prepare a place for
you ? " But this would make Jesus allude to a saying which
he had previously or at that moment pronounced, and we
find nothing of the kind either in this discourse or in the
Gospel. Some expositors, while rejecting the oti, also take
the proposition in the interrogative sense : " If it were not so,
should I tell you ? " In this form there would be a certain
touch of naiveti, harmonizing with the affectionate invitation :
" Trust in me!' But this raeaning would require the imper
fect eXeyov dv. As to the meaning : " Would I have told
you?" the same reason makes it inadmissible. We must
therefore return to the most simple interpretation : " If it
were not so, I would have told you." That is to say : " If
our separation were to be an eternal one, I would have fore
warned you ; I would not have waited for this last moment
to declare it to you."

128 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
It is not enough that the Father's house is spacious ; access
to it raust be open to them, and an abode there assured thern.
For this purpose Jesus wiU precede them. Comp. Heb. vi. 2 0,
Christ as the irpoBpopo'; {fwerunner). It is under this image
that He teaches them to regard His death, first, as that which
wiU open to them by its atoning efficacy an entrance into
heaven, and then as His elevation to that Divine condition,
in which He wiU make them sharers by the gift of Pentecost.
Meyer, reading with the Alex, oti before iropevopiai, gives to
this conjunction the sense of for, and makes this for bear
not on what immediately precedes it, but upon the propo
sition : " there are many mansions!' But this relation is very
forced ; the proposition : " If it were not so, I would have told
you} being certainly too closely connected with the principal
idea : " believe also in me} to be a mere parenthesis.
Ver. 3. "And if I shall go away and ^ prepare ^ a place for
you, I will come again and will receive you to myself, that where
I am, there ye may be also." — But how are they to reach that
abode when He has opened its entrance to them ? Jesus
will take care for this also. The omission of Kal, and, before
eToipdato {" and shall prepare ") in some documents, makes no
sensible alteration in the sense : " If I go ... I wUl prepare."
The and must nevertheless be maintained, as it prevents the
tautology between this and the preceding phrase. The reading
eToipdaai, to prepare, was an almost indispensable correction
when once this and was omitted. — The two verbs, I come again
and I will receive to myself, answer to the two verbs of the
principal phrase, / go away and I prepare. — The present,
I come again, indicates the imminence of the action. Several
refer this promise to the Lord's second and glorious coming
(the Fathers, Calvin, Lampe, Meyer, Hofmann, Luthardt).
But the promise in the context was a promise given not to
the Church in general, but to the disciples personally, to
comfort them in their present trouble ; and could Jesus have
meant to speak to them of an event stUl future when we now
speak of this promise ? We seem utterly to forget that Jesus
never affirmed that His second coming was at hand, but
rather stated the contrary. Comp. : " While the bridegroom
I Ka; is omitted by A E G K r a and 40 Mnn.
' D M, 60 Mnn, Syr, : iToipoxirxi instead of xxi iToi/itiroi,

CHAP, xrv. 3. 129
tarried " (Matt, xxv, 5) ; "If the master eome in the second
watch, or if he come in the third" (Luke xu. 38); and the
parable of the leaven. On the other hand, it is not possible
to apply this term come to the resurrection of Jesus (Ebrard) ;
for how, then, could we explain the close connection of the
ideas, " / eome again} and " I will receivz you to myself" ?
Grotius, Reuss, Lange, Hengstenberg, refer the word come to
the coraing of Jesus at death to every believer ; comp, the
vision of St. Stephen, But would this same term ep^opai, 1
come, be twice used in the same discourse in quite different
senses ? In ver. 18 it is applied, as even these exegetes aUow,
to the return of Jesus by the Holy Spirit. And this is also
the case in this passage. There are different distances in this
saying of our Lord, The first is His coming in the Spirit :
" I eome again " (vv. 3 and 1 8) ; the second is the immediate
effect of this return : " I will receive you to myself!' The close
¦and indissoluble union contracted between the behever and
the Person of the glorified Saviour {irpos epavTov), from the
time when he receives the gift of the Holy Spirit, is the
subject here spoken of The third is the final result, the aim
of that increasing union which comprises the whole life of
the believer, his entrance into the abode thus prepared, the
participation of the sanctified believer in the Divine glory of
his Lord: "that where I am, there ye may be also} xvu, 24.
This includes the death of the faithful as the commencement,
and the second coming of Christ as the completion, of this
participation. Identity of place {where, there) implies iden
tity of moral condition; otherwise the return of Jesus in
Spirit would not be the necessary condition of this future
reunion. — With what touching simplicity and what dramatic
force are these ideas, at once so novel and profound, of the
behever's heavenly glory, and of that spiritual union with
Jesus in this world, which is its indispensable condition, here
expressed ! "My Father's house} the preparation of a dweUing,
the return, the word: "I will receive you to myself;" this famUiar,
this almost chUdlike language, sounds like soft music by which
Jesus is trying to aUeviate the agony of parting. Thus closes
the first conversation elicited by the question of Peter: " Why can
not I follow Thee now ? " Not even his martyrdom would suffice ;
the life of the Holy Spirit in the heart was what was needed.
GODET UL I JOHN, ,

130 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
But Jesus perceived that many questions were rising
in their minds, and that they were agitated by raany
doubts ; hence He challenges, as it were, their ignorance, by
saying :
Ver, 4, " And whither I go ye know, and the way ye know!' ¦^
— The way, according to ver, 3, is communion with Him ;
and, according to ver. 6, it is Himself Uving in them. This
way the apostles knew, because they knew Him, And did they
not really know Him better than any one else ? This is what
.lesus meant when He told them that they knew the way.
But, on the other hand, they did not yet know Jesus as the
way, so that Thomas might with no less truth say: " We know
not." The Alex, variation attributes to the disciples the
knowledge of the way only, and not of the end : "And whither
I go, you know the way." But, first, this construction is some
what harsh, and then 14 Mjj., most of the Mnn., and the two
most ancient Vss. (It. and Syr.) are in favour of the received
reading ; it was probably the confusing of the two o'iSaTe
which, as in so many analogous cases, gave rise to the omis
sion. According to the T. R, which we have followed, Jesus
attributed to His disciples the knowledge of the end as well
as that of the way. • This end was, according to ver. 2, the
Father's house, or, as Jesus also said (comp. xiii. 32, 33), the
Father. The disciples might therefore have known whither He
was going, but that, their imaginations being stiU preoccupied
with another end, the earthly reign of Messiah, they had not
yet learned to transfer their hopes frora the world to God,
from earth to heaven. They thought, with the Jews (xu. 34) :
" We liave heard that Christ abideth for ever " (on the earth,
which He shall glorify) : " how sayest Thou, then. The Son of
man must be lifted up?" Corap. Acts i 6. And this false
end hid from their eyes the true, which they nevertheless
knew in a certain sense. These two you knoiv, which ex
pressed a relative truth, incited them to seek that clearer
knowledge on these two points which they were as yet
without. 3d Vv. 5-7.
Vv. 5, 6. " Thomas saith unto Him, Lord, ¦we know not
^ Instead of the words oHxt. xxi Tr.v o'iov oHxti, x B 0 L Q X read oHxti
Tr,v obov.

CHAP. XIV, 5, a. 131
tvhither^Thou goest ; and ^ how can we know the way ?^ Jesus
saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life : no
man cometh to the Father but by me." — The first conversation,
occasioned by the questions of Peter : " Whither goest Thou ?
Why cannot I follow Thee now ? " had turned upon the final
reunion, the end. The second, caUed forth by the question
of Thomas, turned rather upon the ability of Jesus to bring
them to the end, upon the way. It is Thomas who is here,
as he generaUy is, the exponent of the feehngs of doubt and
discouragement by which the apostles were possessed (comp.
xi. 16, XX. 24). He frankly declares that the end, as just
revealed by Jesus, is, so far as he is concerned, stUl enve
loped in obscurity, and that consequently the way by which
it is to be attained is also so misty as to be imperceptible. —
To explain the end, Jesus substitutes the Father Himself for
the Father's house. For it is not in heaven that we' are to
find God, but in God that we are to find heaven. And when
once God is pointed out as the end, it is easily understood in
what sense Jesus declares HimseK the way. Besides, He
Himself explains this by adding to this figurative expression
the two terms the truth and the life, which express its
meaning without a figure. The truth is God revealed in His
essential nature, — that is to say, in His holiness and in His
love (vv. 9, 10); the life is God communicated to the soul,
and imparting to it holy strength and perfect blessedness
(ver. 23). And as it is in Jesus that this revelation and
this communication of God to the soul are effected, it is also
by Him that the soul comes to the Father, and finds access
to the Father's house. To be in Jesus is to be in the Father,
because He is Himself God possessed and manifested. The
three terms, way, truth, and life, are not then co-ordinate
(Luther, Calvin : beginning, middle, end) ; neither do they
express a single notion : vera via vitce (Augustine) ; nor
does Reuss seem to rae to quite accurately express their
relation when he combines them, by defining the way as the
means of arriving at truth and life. Jesus raeans to say : I
am the means of coming to the Father (the way) ; because 1
am the truth and the life. M, Reuss, on the other hand,
' B C L It"'" omit XXI before orm;.
'BCD It"'"'' : oi^xfiiv Ttiv oSov instead, of "iuvxi^ilx Tni o%ov uoivxi.

132 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
makes the very just remark upon the word I am, that this
expression excludes the notion of any other parallel means.
Gess says : " A man can at most show the way to others ; he
can he neither the way, the truth, nor the life."
Ver. 7. "If you had known ^ me, you would have known ^
my Father also : and from henceforth ye know Him, and have
seen Him." — This verse reproduces the idea of the last pro
position of the preceding verse, that cf coming to the Father
by Jesus. If Jesus is the manifestation of God realized, to
have known Him is to have attained the knowledge of God
(pluperf eyvd)K€iTe). Jesus seems at first to deny that they
possessed this double knowledge ; in fact, it was not till Pente
cost that they fuUy possessed it (ver. 20), Then He partially
concedes it, and that from the present time. Meyer takes this
expression literally : " Since my preceding statement " (that
of ver, 6), which is too constrained, and almost insignificant,
Chrysostom and Liicke, on the contrary, see in it an anticipa
tion of the future enlightenment of Pentecost, a sense which
from henceforth does not allow. It was to all that had taken
place during this last evening that Jesus alluded ; the washing
of His disciples' feet, the departure of Judas, all that He
had already told them, was well calculated to throw light
upon the true nature of God and of His kingdora. Un
doubtedly the fruit of these last instructions would not
perfectly ripen tiU afterwards, but the germ of true know
ledge was already implanted within them. In disclosing to
them His inmost being, Jesus had revealed to them for ever
the nature of God. The reading of X D, admitted by
Tischendorf (Sth ed.) : " If you have known ms, you will also
know the Father," is well explained by Luthardt as arising
from the scruple felt by copyists at making our Lord say
that His disciples had not as yet known Him.
This last saying seems, like ver. 4, intended to evoke the
expression of some uneasy feeling which Jesus perceived in
their hearts. The words you have seen Him, in particular,
challenge this hidden trouble to show itself For was not
to have become beholders of the Father (perf empdKaTe) the
very utmost that the apostles could desire. This privilege
^ X D : lyvaxxri instead of lyvuxuTi.
B C L Q X have «» uSsjti ; X D ; yvu/rnrh, instead of tyvuxun xv.

CHAP. XlV, 8, 9. 133
had under the Old Covenant been to a certain degree granted
to Moses and EUas. If Jesus could bestow it on them, their
faith would be henceforth unassailable. For, had not Isaiah
said, when speaking of the times of Messiah : " The glory of
the Lord sliall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it " ? (Isa.
xl. 5). This furnishes a natural explanation of the request
of PhiUp ; " Thou sayest : you have seen ; we ask Thee :
show us ! "
4th. Vv. 8-21.
Vv. 8, 9. "Philip saith unto Him, Lord, show us the
Father, and it sufficeth vs. Jesus saith unto him, I have been
so long time^ with you, and yet thou hast not known me,
Philip I He that hath seen me hath seen the Father ; and ^
how sayest thou : Show us the Father ? " — Gess takes occasion
from these interruptions on the part of the disciples to point
out how much they felt at ease with their Master, and how
this kind of relation justifies His saying : " I have called you
friends} xv. 15. — The desire of beholding God is an aspira
tion implanted in man's heart by God Himself Comp, the
request of Moses in Ex. xxxiii. 18. Philip here makes himself
the exponent of this desire, v/ith a simplicity which recaUs
that which he manifested at ch. vi. Undoubtedly by this
request he denied what Jesus had just affirmed concerning
His Person in ver. 6, A dazzUng vision, a magnificent
spectacle in the atmosphere, seemed to him the best means
of so strengthening his faith as to make it henceforth im
moveable. It was the view-point occupied by those who
demanded of our Lord a sign from heaven. This request
would have been well founded if the Divine nature consisted
solely in power. But God is holiness and love, and hence
the true Theophany could not be a splendid phenomenon,
but must be a Person manifesting in word and act those
features of the Divine character, a human, fiUal Ufe, in which
is displayed that relation full of dignity and tenderness which
God maintains with the Being who calls Him His Father.
Now this unique spectacle, this only true Theophany, this
visible brightness of the Divine glory, had been before the
eyes of the disciples for three years, and Jesus beheld with
^ X D L Q : TouGUTu xpovoi instead of tosovtov ^pavov.
* X B Q ItP^ii" Vg. Cop. . ¦jTu; instead of -xxi ¦ttu;.

134 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
wonder and grief that they had not better appreciated the
privilege which had been granted them. The ground of His
human consciousness was in such wise the feeling of His
divinity, that He could hardly understand that a knowledge
of His true nature had not also been found in the heart of
His disciples. — The appellation, PhUip, served to bring thi.s
disciple to himself, for, as Hengstenberg remarks, he had by
thus speaking become alius a se ipso. His words must, as
Luthardt observes, be connected with the preceding phrase,
which was addressed to the disciples in particular, and not
with the subsequent one, which is a general maxim. The
perfects eyvooKw;, ia>paKQ}<;, empaKe, hast known, has seen,
oppose the permanent condition to the sudden and single
act expressed by the Aorist Sel^ov, show us. — It is impossible
to refer this answer to the mere moral union of Jesus with
God. No Christian, even if perfected, could say : " He that
has seen me has seen Christ." How much less, then, could a
Jew, though perfect, have said : " He that hath seen me hath
seen the Father " ! The expression can only be understood
inasmuch as the Son carries on in this world, and under the
human form, that revealing function which as the Word He
accomplishes under tlie Divine form.
Vv. 10, 11. "Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the
Father in me ? The words that I speak ^ unto you, I speak not
of myself: and the Father that dwelleth in me. He doeth these
vmrks? Believe me when I say that I am in the Father, and
that the Father is in me ; and if not, believe ^ because of tliese
vjorks!' — Jesus points Philip to two signs by which he should
have recognised and might yet recognise the presence of God
in Him. Jesus did not mean to say that He is one and the
same Person with the Father, for He often addressed Him in
prayer as Thou. The union of which He was speaking was
that in virtue of which they live One in the Other (comp.
Gess). Such a relation necessarily had the Logos life for its
background. The first sign of this community of life and
action is His teaching. The expression : " the words that I
' B L N X Cop. read Xiyoi instead of XxXu.
" X B D read uunu after ip^yx, and omit xut^; ; L X have ftoiu n-. tfyu.
auro;. ¦' AYe here omit ^m, according to X D L It"'-i Vg. Syr,

CHAP. XIV. 10, u. 135
say} might refer solely to the preceding statements, especially
that of ver. 9. But it is more natural to apply it to the
teaching of Jesus in general, that living self-manifestation
whose Divine character testifies to His intimate union with
the Father. Jesus would say : " Believe in my teaching,
especiaUy in my statements concerning myself, because I
have never spoken of myself And if you suspect them
because they have passed through my mouth, beUeve in my
works, because it is always God Himself living in me who
has wrought them," This, then, was the second sign to
which He appealed. The negative form of the first proposi
tion supposes an affirmative proposition understood ; and
the converse holds good of the second. Meyer is wrong
when he sees in the latter a proof of the former (as though
the works were to demonstrate the Divine nature of the
words), words and works simultaneously demonstrating the
intimate relation of Jesus with the Father. — "/ in the Father"
is the suppression, on the part of Jesus, of all thought, will,
and power of His own in the accomplishment of His work.
"The Father in me'' is the communication, on the part of God,
of all the fulness of His being to the Person of Jesus. The
reading XaXw is better than X6'7aj. Jesus is but the instru
ment ; it is God who speaks, Jesus who announces. — At ver.
11, Jesus demands faith in this relation with the Father, —
which makes Him the true Theophany, — on the authority of His
mere word, of the testimony He gives to Himself. In the
second proposition, the imperative believe is absolute (accord
ing to the reading of X B L) : "Believe {in me, not me) on the
foundation of my works," by which Jesus evidently means
His supernatural works. His miracles. The same thought
occurs in x. 37, 38. His miracles would be a proof to those
who did not beUeve in His words, because this Divine
testimony did not pass through His mouth, but was purely
objective. — Their true position in apologetics is assigned to
miracles by this saying. The part played by these super
natural facts is real, but it is secondary. — The meaning, then,
of our Lord's reply is : The true Theophany has long been
before your eyes. But, He adds, there is another and a
higher one, which, if you continue in the faith, shall soon be
granted you. To this it is that the following passage refers.

136 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
Vv. 12-14, " Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that be
lieveth on me, the works that I do shall he do also ; and greater
than these shall he do, because I go to the Father} And
whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the
Father may he glorified in the Son. If ye shall ask^ any
thing in my name, I myself^ will do it." — The marvels of
another Theophany, that which He was about to effect in
them, here begin to be displayed. Amen, amen, announces
the revelation of a new and unexpected truth. The expres
sion : "the works that I do shall he do} refer to those miracles
like their Lord's which were wrought by the apostles ; and
the words which follow : " greater than these shall he do} to
works of a higher nature than bodUy cures. That which
was done by St, Peter at Pentecost, by St, Paul all over the
world, that which is effected by an ordinary preacher, a single
beUever, by bringing the Spirit into the heart, could not be
done by Jesus during His sojourn in this world. For, that
such facts should take place, it was needful that the wall of
separation between God and man should be destroyed, and
that the Holy Spirit should be given to mankind (Gess), or,
as is said at the close of the verse, that the glorification of
Jesus should be accomphshed : " because T go to the Father."
The branch united to the vine may thus bear fruit, which the
vine alone could not as yet bear. The term greater does not,
then, designate miracles of a more astounding character, but of
a more exalted nature, and does not, as Liicke, Tholuck,
Olshausen, de Wette understand it, refer only to the extension
of the apostolic ministry beyond the limits of the theocracy,
— a distinction here occupying only the second place, — but to
the very nature^f the works accomplished.
But if the disciple effects such works, it is not by his own
might, but because his Master, having attained the fulness of
His power, accomplishes them through him. In fact, this
superiority of productiveness attributed to the disciples is
based upon the higher position of Christ Himself : " Because
I go to the Father." Jesus here says to the Father, not
to my Father. For God is presently shown to bo the Father
'XABDLQXnIt. omit i^ou after ¦!cxri;x.
' X B E H U r A, 30 Mnn. If'ii Vg. Syr. read ^s after xiTr,,„-t.
3 A B L It""i Vg. Cop. read touto instead of lyoi.

CHAP. XIV. 12- U. 137
of believers as weU as of Jesus Himself — The sentence
must not be made to terminate with these words, the foUow
ing proposition in ver. 13 being its necessary corapleraent.
Prayer is there declared to be the disciples' part in these
greater works. The believer asks, and the glorified Christ
works from the throne of His omnipotence. It is not, how
ever, to prayer in general, but to a special kind of prayer, to
prayer in His name, that Jesus attributes this power. To
ask in the name of another is, in ordinary language, to ask in
his stead, and, as it were, on his behalf This individual
has, by position, by service rendered or favour enjoyed, a
right to what is demanded ; he who asks in his name, asks
as if fiUing his place. To ask in the name of Jesus, is,
then, to come before God in the assurance of our recon
ciliation with Him, and our adoption in Christ, and to ask
as if we were the representatives of Jesus Himself This
formula has been very variously explained : invoking my name
(Chrysostom), through my merits (Calovius), in the element
of my life (Meyer), in my spirit and for my sake (de Wette).
All these definitions are true, but they are all included in our
explanation. Jesus so Uves, thinks, wills, desires in us, as
reconcUed believers, that our prayers are in God's sight as
His own. Hence, prayer in the name of Jesus necessarily
assumes the Pentecostal gift of which Jesus speaks after ver.
15. Comp. xvL 23, 24, 26. — Meyer objects to this explana
tion of the formula in my name, first, that we cannot in this
manner pray for the pardon of our sins, and, secondly, that
by reason of the words I will do it, we thus make Jesus hear
His own prayer. But does not Jesus, we ask, intercede for
the pardon of our sins ? And may He not, as the organ of
God's omnipotence, effect what He asks of God by the mouth
of His people thus closely united to Himself? Comp. ver.
16 : J will pray, and xv. 26 : T will send. — And all this
shaU be. He adds, for the glory of the Father in the Person of
the Son ; for the Son has no notion of establishing a kingdom
on earth which should belong to Himself alone, but disposes
of both Himself and His people in the interests of His
Father's kingdom. His motto is : Thy kingdom come ! not :
My kingdom come !
Ver. 14 is a confirmation of this astonishing promise. By

138 GOSPEL OF JOHN,
the words o ti av, whatever, Jesus gives an unlimited range
to the Christian ambition of His disciples. Hence this :
"Yes, I say it again, you have only to ask and , , ." The
received reading : iya> iroi-rjao), I myself will do it, is un
doubtedly genuine. Certain Alex, have mechanicaUy repro
duced the expression of ver. 13. But Jesus purposely
modified it by substituting eyi for tovto : I, who have
never deceived you, who shall be reinvested with omnipo
tence, and be with the Father, myself engage to do it. So
close will be the nearness effected by Him between earth and
lieaven, that while His disciples pray on earth in His name,
and, as it were, in His behalf. He wiU act in heaven in the
name and on behalf of God, " We feel certain," says Stier,
" when reading those frequently-recurring words at the be
ginning of St. Paul's epistles : ' I cease not to make mention
of you in my prayers,' that it was by prayer in the name of
Jesus that the apostles brought forth the Church." — Jesus
next explains what is the source whence this prayer in His
name, by which such great worlcs are to be effected, flows
forth. Vv. 15—17. "If ye love me, keep^ my commandments.
And for my part, I will pray the Father, and He shall give
you another support (Fr. soutien), tliat He may ahide^ with
yoxi for ever; the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive,
because it seeth Him not, neither knoweth Him:^ but^ you, you
knovj Him; for He dwelleth with you, and shall he^ in you!'
— And first, ver. 15, we have the moral condition of this
new state : In the name of the love you bear me, remain in
tlie road laid down by my directions, and you will be in a
position to receive that supreme blessing whicli I proclaim to
you. These commandments are the orders He had given, and
especiaUy the instructions of this last evening (xiii ],4, 15,
34, xiv. 1). The Aorist imperative keep reminds them that
they were free to keep or break this condition. The reading
of B L : you will keep, is a correction arising from the future
' Instead of Tnp-/i<rxT'. {heep), B L Cop. : Tnprifnr: (you shall keep), X : r/if/nrv-.r-..
^ S B L Q X ItP''''^"' Cop. Syr. : >, instead of ^s.i.
¦' X B a omit the second x^to.
•" X B Q omit Ss after vf^i,;.
¦' B D, 5 Mnn. It. Syr.: innv {is) instead of ¦.jt>li {shall be) in all the other

CHAP. XIV. 15-17. 139
which foUows : and I will pray. — Jesus next pointed out the
objective condition or efficient cause of the Divine gift. His
own intercession. As the future object of this intercession
is the Pentecostal gift, it is not difficult to reconcile this
saying with xvi. 26: " / say not unto you, that I will pray
the Father for you ; " this latter passage referring to the times
which will follow this outpouring of the Spirit, the season
when the disciples will be able theraselves to pray in the
name, and as though they were the mouth of Jesus. —
The term irapdKXrjTo^, literally called towards, was taken by
Origen and Chrysostom in the active sense of TrapaKXrjTmp,
Comforter (Job xvi. 2 in LXX.) ; and this sense has, under
the influence of the Vulgate, been transferred to our versions.
It is now, however, acknowledged that this word of passive
form should have a passive meaning: he who is called as a
support ; this is exactly the meaning of the Latin advocatus
and our word advocate, the defender of the accused before
a court of justice. The word always has this meaning
wherever it is met with outside the N. T., as in Demosthenes,
Diogenes, Laertes, Philo, and the Rabbinists (the Peraclith).
St. John himself gives it this meaning in his First Epistle, ii.
1 : " We have a Paraclete with the Father, Jesus Christ the
righteous." It is also that which is most suitable in these
last discourses of our Lord. The meaning teacher (Theod. of
Mopsuestia, Ernesti, Hofmann, Luthardt) has no phUological
basis to rest on ; and the expression : " Spirit of truth," ver.
17, is not sufficient to justify it. What Jesus wUl ask for
them from the Father is then another support, always witliin
reach, always ready to come to their assistance at the first
appeal in their confiict with the world. From this funda
mental meaning arise the following appUcations : support in
momtents of weakness, counsellor in the difficulties of life,
consoler in affliction. In a word, it is He who is, in all
kind's of different situations, to replace the beloved Master
who is about to leave them. By that word another, Jesus
by imphcation attributes to Himself also this title of
Paraclete; hence it is an error to see in 1 John ii. 1 a
doctrinal discrepancy between the evangelist and the author
of the First Epistle. This gift of the Father wUl be the
result not only of the prayer of Jesus, but also of His inter-

140 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
vention, Comp. xv. 26: " The Paraclete whom I will send
to you from the Father." As He prays for the Spirit on our
part, so does He send the Spirit on the part of God. And
He wUl not, like Jesus, come to depart some day, but wUl
dwell with them for ever. Meyer understands et? tov
alwva : " till the age to come." But the word aicov, both in
the N. T. and in classical writers (e'^ alwvo<;, Si' alcovo^, ek
aidova), denotes an infinite duration, and when used with the
article, eternity. — Can we conceive of the Holy Spirit, a
Divine Being, sent by the Father to replace a mere man ?
The apposition : " the Spirit of truth " (ver. 1 7), serves to
explain the term Paraclete, which was as yet obscure to the
disciples. Teaching by the medium of language could but
give a confused idea of Divine things ; however skUfuUy such
a medium might be used, it could only produce an image of
the truth in the raind of the hearer, hence Jesus compares
the instruction He has hitherto given in this form to a
parable (xvi. 25). The Spirit's teaching, on the contrary,
makes Divine truth enter the soul, gives it entire reality
within us, and makes it the truth to us. This is undoubtedly
the meaning of the expression : " the Spirit of truth." But to
receive this Divine teacher, a moral preparation is needed.
The soul in which He comes to dwell must have been with
drawn from the profane sphere. This is the reason that Jesus
said at the head of this passage (ver. 15): " Keep my com
mandments} and here also added : " who77i the world cannot
receive." It was by no arbitrary act that the Spirit came
down upon a hundred and twenty only, on the day of Pente
cost, and not on aU the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the former
having alone undergone the indispensable preparation. Jesus
explains wherein this preparation, which the world is without,
consists : before receiving, they must have seen and known
the Spirit. The Spirit identifies Himself too closely with our
individual life to be merely a bestowed gift ; if He is to dwell
in us. He must be desired and summoned by us. And this
is what we cannot do tiU we have beheld Him {Oewpelv) in
come one of His external manifestations, and then perceived
and acknowledged {yivaiaKeiv) His supreme excellence and
hoUness. This preparation had been effected in the disciples
during the three years they had passed in association with

CHAP. XIV. 18, 19, 141
Jesus ; His words. His life, had been a constant emanation of
the Spirit, and their hearts had done homage to the exalted
holiness of this manifestation. This had not been done by
the world, by the Jews, who, when they heard His words,
said : " He hath a devil," and when they saw His miracles
attributed them to Beelzebub, They had thus remained ahens
to the sphere and the influence of tbe Spirit, they were not
in a condition to receive Him. — The preparatory operation of
the Spirit upon the disciples is expressed by the words : "He
dwelleth with you;" and the closer relation into which He
would enter with them at Pentecost by : " He shall be in you!'
Hence we must be careful neither to read with the Vulgate,
peveZ (in the future), he shall dwell, in the first proposition,
nor with some Alexandrines, etrrt, is, in the second. The
whole meaning of the phrase consists in the antithesis of the
present dwelleth (comp, pevav in ver, 25) and the future shall
he. The contrast of the two regimens with you (eomp. vap'
vplv of ver, 25) and in you corresponds exactly with that of
the tenses. Nor must the last proposition : "and He shall be
in you} be made to depend on oti, because, which gives no mean
ing. This last phrase expresses, on the contrary, a consequence,
a progress. And thus (by reason of the knowledge of Him
wliich you have already attained by my presence among you)
He shaU be in you. — This distinction between the preparatory
operation of the Spirit upon man, by means of external
manifestations, and His actual dweUing in man, seems at
present almost effaced from Christian consciousness. — Hitherto
Jesus Hving with them had been their support ; henceforth
they were to have the support in their own heart (Gess), and
this support would again be Jesus Himself.
Vv. 18, 19. "J will not leave you orphans: I return to
you. Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more ;
but you see me ; because I live, ye shall live also." — The
term orphans refers to the address, " my little children " (xiii.
33) ; it is the language of a dying father. The close con
nection of feeling between these sayings and the preceding is
indicated by the absence of any logical particle between vv.
17 and 18. This alone would suffice to obviate any other
explanation of the words : "/ return to you} than that which
refers them to the return of Jesus by the Holy Spirit (vv.

142 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
1 6 and 1 7), and is adopted by most moderns (even by Meyer
and Lutliardt, 2d ed.). Those who apply this promise to
the appearances of Jesus after His resurrection (Chrysostom,
Erasmus, Grotius, Hilgenfeld) are unable to account for vv.
20, 21, 23. Those who apply it to His second coming
(Augustine, Hofmann, Luthardt, 1st ed.) cannot explain vv.
19 and 23. In fact, that seeing Him again, which is pro-
raised to believers, is to coincide with the fact of His non
appearance to tlie world; and, according to ver. 23, His
return to His disciples is to be a purely inward one, while
of His final coming it is said : " Every eye shall see Him."
Still, what may and must be granted is, that this spiritual
leturn was prepared for by the appearances of the risen, as
it will be consummated by the coming of the glorified Christ.
— The Spirit is undoubtedly another, a different support from
.Tesus ; but His coming is none the less the return of Jesus
Himself, otherwise the promise of the Paraclete would have
but imperfectly met the needs of the disciples, whose hearts
were demanding union with their Master Himself. Tholuck
concludes from the expression : "/ come again} that the Holy
Spirit is only the Person of Jesus spiritualized ; and Reuss
insists that, thougli literal exegesis pleads for a distinction of
persons (between Christ and the Holy Spirit), practical logic
forbids its admission. He has even ventured to express the
opinion, that in the discourses of Jesus the abstract notion of
the Word is replaced by the more concrete notion of the Spirit.
St. John is, however, innocent of so serious a confusion.
As no Old Testaraent writer would have used the terms
" Spirit of God " and "Angel of the Lord" for each other, so
neither can a confusion of the Word with the Spirit be
admitted in any writer of the New. St. Paul says (2 Cor.
iii. 17): " The Lord is the Spirit." But he does not there
fore confound the Person of the glorified Saviour with the
Holy Ghost. This is a sphere in wliich it is of consequence
to distinguish between different shades of meaning. Accord
ing to xvi. 14, the Spirit is not the Lord, but the power
which glorifies Him, which manifests Him, which makes Him
live and increase within us, and that by taking of what
is His and imparting it to us. Their parts are perfectly
distinct. And they are quite as much so in the work of

CHAP. XIV, 18, 10. 143
Pentecost as in that of the Incarnation. The Holy Ghost did
not become Christ by producing Him in the Virgin's womb,
nor does the Spirit become Jesus by glorifying Hira and
causing Him to live in us. The Word is the principle of the
objective revelation, the Spirit that of the subjective. Jesus
is the object to be assimUated, the Spirit is the assimilating
power. Without the objective revelation given in Jesus, the
Spirit would have nothing to fertilize in us ; without the
Spirit, the revelation given in Jesus would reraain exterior to
us, and resemble a parable which is not understood. Hence
it is in one sense true, that when the Spirit comes, it is Jesus
who comes again ; from one without. He becomes one within
us. The completed work of the Spirit is Christ formed in
the believer, or, to express the same idea in other words, it is
tlie believer come to the measure of the- stature of the fidness of
Christ (Gal. iv. 19 ; Eph. iv. 13).
The words: "Yet a little while" (ver. 19), are in accordance
with the present I come. They reduce, so to speak, the period
of separation to nothing. If Jesus, when He said : " You
shall see me again} were thinking of His appearances after
His resurrection, it was in any case only in a secondary
manner, His mind really dweUing at this time on another
fact. For these appearances were but temporary, while the
seeing Him, of which He was here speaking, was to be per
manent. It is that close intercourse described by St. Paul in
the saying so like the present passage (2 Cor. iii, 18): " We
with uncovered face behold the glory of the Lord} the inward
view of the glorified Saviour produced in us by the Holy
Spirit. While the world, which has known Jesus only after
the flesh, sees Him no more after His bodily departure. He
becomes from that time visible to His people in a spiritual
and Divine medium, to which tliey are transported by the
Spirit, and where they meet Him, This close intercourse is
the source of aU the Christian's strength in his conflict with
himself and with the world. The next phrase may be under
stood in three different manners. First, that of Meyer and
Luthardt : " And you, you see me because I live, and you
shall live also." " Christ and believers being transported, the
former by glorification, the latter by the work of the Holy
Spirit, into the same medium of life, they meet again, His

144 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
living people see their living Lord," The idea is a noble one,
but the contrast between the presents : you see me, I live,
and the future : you shall see me, cannot be weU explained
with this interpretation, though Luthardt endeavours to
account for it. It may be secondly explained : you see me
(then), because I live; and (by reason of this sight of me
who live) you shall live also. The spiritual sight of Jesus
which is granted us results from His heavenly life as glorified,
and bur life results from this inward vision. This meaning
is equally beautiful, but there is a third construction which
seems to me preferable : But you, you see me (in opposition
to the wmM seeth me no more), and because I live, you slmll
live also. They behold Him, and since He whom they be
hold is alive, their own life flows forth from this beholding.
— In any case, Jesus, by His use of these presents : I live,
I come, I come again (vv. 3 and 18), already transports
Himself to that approaching time, when, death being finaUy
overco.rae. He will live the perfect and indestructible Ufe;
from that time, beheld by His people in the light of the
Spirit, His life will become theirs. The relation between
/ live and you shall live is the same as that between I
come and / will take in ver. 3. The present denotes the
principle laid down once for all, the future its daily, gradual,
and eternal results.
The absence of any logical particle between the successive
promises of vv. 16—21, betrays the emotion with which Jesus
beheld and announced the decisive day of Pentecost.
Vv. 20, 21. "At that day ye shall know that I am in my
Father, and ye in me, and I in you. He that liath my com
mandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveili me : and
he that loveth me shall be laved of my Father, and I, I will
love him, and will manifest myself unto him." — Tlie expression :
" that day} indicates a definite time. And as all the great
events of His ministry were connected with Jewish festivals,
as the feast of the Passover was to be the period of His
death, and the time of great illumination was closety to
follow that event, there is no reason why we should not
suppose, whatever Liicke and de Wette, etc., may say, that
the day of which He was here speaking was already in His
view that of Pentecost. By the expression : " that day} Jesus

CHAP. XIV. 20, 21, 145
contrasted that time with the time then present, in which they
found so much difficulty in forming a conception of their
Master's relation to the Father (vv. 9 and 10). 'Tpei<;, you:
"'yourselves, by your own experience, and not only, as now,
by faith in my words." The object of this spiritual Ulumina-
tion of believers wiU be first the union of Jesus with the
Father ; they wUl know Him as a Being who lives and acts
in God, and in whom God Uves and acts as in a second self
This direct consciousness of the relations between Jesus and
God wUl proceed from the living consciousness they will
receive of their own relation to Jesus — they will feel Him
Uve in them, and wUl feel themselves to Uve in Him ; and
when they no longer know any other life than that which
they derive from Him {you in me), and feel at the same
time that all His life reaUy enters into them (/ in you),
they wUl thence understand what He has revealed to them
of what God is to Him, and what He is to God, The tran
scendent fact of the communion of Jesus with God wUl
become to them an object of direct perception in the experi
ence of their own coraraunion with Jesus, These were the
peyaXeia tov @eov, the wondrous things of God, which St.
Peter and the disciples celebrated in new tongues on the
day of Pentecost.
Ver. 21 defines the mode of this iUumination. Jesus had
briefly said in ver. 1 5 : "Keep my commandments, and I will
pray the Father." He here enumerates in detail each Unk
in this chain of graces. 1st, His word raust be resolutely
retained (e^etz/) and practicaUy observed {Ttjpeiv). This is
not done by the world, which hears but rejects it, and is
therefore unfitted to receive this higher favour, 2d, He
that does so (e'/cewos, this exceptional individual) gains by his
moral faithfulness the special character of a friend of Jesus (o
dr/airwv pe). 3d, He hence becomes the beloved of the Father,
for the Father loves aU who love the Son, the supreme object
of His love. This love of the Father is not that spoken of
in iii 16: " God so loved the world!' There is between these
two feelings the same difference as between a man's com
passion for his guilty and unhappy neighbour, and the affection
of a father for his chUd, or of a husband for his wife. 4th,
The Son, seeing the eye of the Father rest with loving com-
GODET m. K JOHN.

146 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
placency on His disciple, feels Himself united to the latter
by a new tie (" and I will love him ") ; whence ensues, 5th,
The perfect revelation of Himself: "I will manifest myself unto
him." This is the highest fulfilment of the words, you shall
know; in ver, 20, But this remarkable expression, cya^di'i^eti',
transposes the manifestation of the Messiah to the inward
(eV), the spiritual, and consequently the individual sphere.
And it was just this circumstance which caUed forth the
question of Jude. Thus this last word, whUe terminating the
conversation with PhUip, gave rise to the conversation with
Jude which now foUows, PhUip had requested a theophany,
Jesus had answered : " Thou hast long enjoyed one " (vv,
9—11). Then, justifying .the aspiration of the apostle, who
was longing for something stiU more glorious. He said: "And
thou shalt have that which is stUl better; a more exceUent
theophany awaits thee, that of my return within thee by
the Spirit" (vv. 12—21). This is the climax of the second
series of thoughts on the internal theophany, which the
answer of Jesus to Jude is about to bring before us, Gess
compares our Lord, in His raanner of treating these inter
ruptions on the part of His disciples, to a skUful pUot, who
does not suffer hiraself to be diverted from his course by the
waves which he encounters, but by a prompt stroke of the
rudder restores the ship each time to the direction he desires
to give it,
5th, Vv. 22-24,
Ver. 22. "Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, and^
what lias happened, that Thou wilt manifest Thyself unto us
and not unto the world ? " — The mode of revelation, of which
Jesus had just spoken, entirely perplexed the minds of the
disciples, constantly turned as they were towards some
external manifestation of the Messianic kingdom which should
be visible to aU. It was especiaUy in the secondary group
of the apostolic coUege, which was more or less influenced by
the carnal spirit of Iscariot, that such notions were stiU
maintained. The Judas or Jude here mentioned is only so
called by St. Luke (Luke vi. 16 ; Acts i. 13). In the lists
of Matt, X, 3 and Mark iu. 18, he is designated by the
names (surnames) of Lebbeus and Thaddeus : the bold or the
1 A B D E L X ItP'^ii"" (not X) omit xxi before ti.

CHAP. XIV. 23, 24. 147
beloved. He occupies one of the lowest places among the
apostles. The explanation, not Iscariot, is intended to obviate
the supposition of a return of Judas after xiii. 30. — By
saying, "What has happened?" Jude requests to know the
new fact which is the cause of so complete a change in the
Messianic programme — a change of which he thinks he sees
a proof in the saying of Jesus in ver, 21. The Kai, and,
before rt yevovev, is an expression of surprise ; it is omitted,
as superfluous, in several Mss, — To us here signifies : to
us alone. The objection of Jude is connected with, and
completes, the request of Phihp, The latter was thinking of
the great theophany which was to inaugurate the establish
ment of the Messianic kingdom ; Jude, of the reahzation of
the kingdom itself.
Vv. 23, 24. "Jesus answered and said unto him. If any
man love me, he will keep my words, and my Father will love
him, and we will come unto him, and will make^ our abode
with him. He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings; and
the word which ye hear is not mine, hut the Father's which
sent me." — Jesus continued His discourse as though He had
not heard the question of Jude ; for the first part of ver. 2 3
is but a reproduction of ver. 21, He nevertheless answered
the question by more forcibly reiterating the promise, as well
as the moral condition, which had caUed forth the objection.
Comp. an analogous kind of answer, Luke xiii, 41 sqq. To
love Jesus, to keep His word, to be loved of the Father,
these are the conditions of the promised revelation ; now the
world does not fulfil them, but is animated by opposite dis
positions (ver, 24), — As to the conditions of the manifesta
tion, Jesus abridges ver, 2 1 ; as to the manifestation itself. He
more gloriously develops it. The manifestation of Jesus to
the soul becomes an actual habitation, and this is a descent
of heaven to earth, a true dweUing of God Himself in the
believer. Here, as at x. 30, Jesus, speaking of God and
Himself, says we; this expression, under penalty of being
absurd, implies His consciousness of His deity. — The concep
tion of the kingdora of God here met with is one not ahen
to the Synoptists. Comp. Luke xvii, 20: " The kingdom of
God cometh not with observation; the kingdom of God is within
* X B L X read Tomioialx instead of roiwofnv.

148 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
you" {evTo<; vpwv):, and Matt, xxviii 18-20. A similar
image occurs in Rev, ui. 2 0 : "If any man hear my voice and
open the door, I will come in to him, and I will sup with
him, and he with me." The term povq, dwelling, connects
this verse with ver. 2. Here below, it is God who dwells
with the believer ; above, it wiU be the believer who will
dwell with God. The first of these facts (ver, 23) is the
condition of the second (ver. 3),
Ver, 23 explained the to us of Jude's question; ver, 24
answers the and not unto the world. The notion : "And it
is no slight thing to reject my word, for {kuC) it is that of
God Himself," must be understood between the two proposi
tions of ver. 24. The understood conclusion is: "How, then,
with such a disposition, hostile as it is to the word of both
the Son and the Father, is it possible to become their abode ? "
Comp, what is said of the world in vv. 15 and 17, — Thus
have the various encouragements brought forward by the Lord
gradually risen : " You shall be received with me into my
Father's house. ... In me you have already seen the
Father. , . . You shall carry on my work below. . . .
Aiiother divine support shall give you power. ... In this
inward support I wUl myself return within you, . , .
With me the Father Himself shaU dweU in you, . . ." Was
not all this enough to justify His "Let not yonr heart be
troubled " (xiv, 1) ? The next passage, with which this first
outpouring on the part of Jesus closes, returns to the starting-
point, but changes the Be not troubled into Rejoice !
6th. Vv. 25-31.
Vv. 25, 26, "These things have I spoken unto you, being
present with you ; but the support, the Holy Spirit, whom my
Father vnll send in my nxime, shall teach you all things,
and h-ing back all things to your remernbrance which I have
said unto you!' — These words might be directly connected
with the preceding, since it is by the gift of the Holy Spirit
that the great promise of w. 22-24 wUl be fulfilled. But
the perf XeXdXrjKa, I have told you, which denotes a teaching
now concluded, and the words being present with you, which
allude to the approaching separation, show that Jesus was
returning to the idea from which He started, and the first
discourse approaching its termination ; and this is confirmed

CHAP. XTV, 25, 26. 149
by aU that foUows, The sayings, then, of vv, 25-29 must
be regarded as beginning the conclusion of this dialogue.
What Jesus had just said concerning a future meeting above
(vv, 1-3), and here below (w. 12-24), is all that He
can as yet reveal to them. If this future is to them still
enveloped in obscurity, the instructions of another teacher
shaU dispel these mists, and explain all His promises by ful
filling them. Tama, these things, stands first, in opposition
to nrdvTa, all things (ver. 26): " This is what I can tell you
now, another shaU afterwards teU you all." — The epithet holy,
given to the Spirit in ver. 2 6, recalls that deep line of demar
cation just drawn by Jesus in vv. 17 and 24, between the
profane world and the disciples, already sanctified by their
attachment to Him. As holy, the Spirit can dweU only
with the latter, — The expression, in my name, should,
according to Luthardt and Meyer, be explained by the
general principle that aU that is done for the accompHsh
ment of the plan of salvation is done in Christ — that is to
say, for the manifesting and glorifying of the narae in which
salvation is coraprised. But is not this too vague ? Jesus
had just said that He who loved Hira should be loved of His
Father, and that the manifestation, which is the work of the
Spirit, should proceed from this love. The believer's title,
then, to this gift wUl be his love for Jesus, and the motive for
this gift on the part of the Father wiU be His love for Jesus,
and for him who loves Jesus. This is the exegesis of the
formula : in my name. The pron, eKeivo^, He, only brings into
strong reUef the instruction of the new teacher in opposition to
that of Jesus, who is about to leave them (ver. 25). He wiU
do two things : teach all things, and bring to their remem
brance what they have been already taught. The two
functions are closely connected : He wUl teach new truths
by recalling the old, and will recaU the old by teaching the
new. The sayings of Jesus, the remerabrance of which the
Spirit shall revive within them, wiU be the matter of His
instruction in all truth, the germ which He wUl fertUize
in their hearts ; as conversely this inward agency of the Spirit
wUl incessantly recaU to their memories some former saying
of Jesus, so that, in proportion as they partake of His
illumination, they wiU exclaim : " Now I understand this or

150 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
that saying of the Lord ! " Then, again, the brightness of
this Hght wiU bring from oblivion other long - forgotten
sayings. Such is even yet the relation between the teaching
of the written word and that of the Spirit, — Of the two
TrdvTa, all things, the first, the object of shall teach, embraces
more than the second. The Holy Spirit wiU make the dis
ciples understand all, by recalling to them one after another
all the sayings of Christ. Of course, this all includes only
the things of the new creation in Christ Jesus, of salvation.
The first creation, nature, is not a matter of revelation, but of
scientific study.
Vers. 27-29. "Peace I leave you, my peace I give you: not
as the world gives it, give I it unto you. Let not your heart be
troubled, neither let it be afraid. You have heard how I said
to you, I go away, and I come to you. If ye loved me, ye would
have rejoiced because I said} I go unto the Father, for my'^
Father is greater than I. And now I have told you these
things before they come to pass, that when they come to pass you
may believe." — The promises of vv. 25 and 26 aimed at tran-
quiUizing the disciples with respect to the obscurity which
hovered over their own, and their Master's future, Vv.
27—29 tend to reassure them concerning the difliculties to be
encountered in this future, Meyer takes the word elp-rjvq in
an objective sense : salvation {ph^, fuU prosperity). But the
close of the verse : Let not your heart be troubled, favours the
subjective meaning, which is also the natural signification of
elpTrjvt) : tranquiUity, inward repose. Peace is the inward
serenity based upon reconcUiation with God, This is His
legacy {dj>irjpi, I leave), a legacy derived from His own
treasury : m.y peace. Their faith was not yet strong enough
to produce in them a peace of their own, hence He invited
them for the present to enjoy that which they beheld in Him,
They were by faith in Him to make His calmness in the
presence of danger their own. The verb SiScopi, I give,
agrees with rrjv ip-ijv {my) ; it is of his own that one gives. In
Luke X. 5, 6, Jesus confers upon His disciples the power
which Ho here exercises, that of imparting their peace, — The
' X A B D, 10 Mnn. It. Vg. Syr. Cop. Or. omit n^ov between oti and
troptuofcxi {because I go, instead of because I said 1 go).
2 A B D L X, 8 Mnn, ItP'"''"'" Vg. omit p^ou after TXT>ip.

CHAP, XIV. 27-29. 151
contrast between the peace of Jesus and that of the world is
generaUy referred to their nature, — the world's peace consisting
in the enjoyment of a good which is but seeming ; that of
the Saviour in the possession of real and imperishable good.
But the omission of the object, peace, in the second pro
position {not as the world giveth give I), and the conj, Ka6di<;
{in the manner of), oblige us, I think, to place the contrast on
the verb give, and not on its object : " My gift is real and
efficacious, whUe the world, when it bids you farewell with
the ordinary formula. Peace be unto you, gives . you but
empty words, a powerless wish," I cannot see in what respect
this meaning is beneath the serious nature of the situation
(Meyer), It was the peace which He at that moment imparted
which was to banish from their hearts the trouble He stUl
perceived there {prj TapaaaeaQa), and to preserve them at the
same time from the danger of being afraid, BeiXiav, which
would result therefrom.
But it was not sufficient for Jesus to see that they should
be reassured and strengthened; He desired to see them even
glad (ver. 2 8). And this they would really be if they under
stood aright the meaning of His approaching departure. The
words : if you loved me, are exquisitely tender. The Saviour
uses them to make theu joy the duty of affection ; He calls
their attention to His approaching exaltation (comp. xui. 3,
31, 32). What friend would not rejoice to see his friend
raised to a position truly worthy of him ? And if they rightly-
understood the extent of this change in their Master's situa
tion, they would at the same time rejoice for themselves.
This second idea is brought out by the fact that Jesus, while
saying : " I go away, I go to the Father} adds : " and I come to
you." The first of these facts is the condition of the second.
It is because Jesus is, by His departure, about to share in the
omnipresence and the absolute Hfe of the Father, that He will
be able to manifest and impart Himself to His disciples, and
to live with them everywhere (vv, 21 and 23), Matt, xxviii,
18-20 expresses the same connection of ideas. To Jesus, to
go away is to come again in a truer manner. This meaning
of ver. 2 8 seems to us to result directly from the expressions
used and from the context. The explanation : God wiU be a
better protector to you than I could be by my visible presence

152 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
(Liicke and De Wette after older expositors), ignores the per
sonal character of the words : If you loved me.
The saying : The Father is greater than I, is in perfect
agreement, whatever M, Reuss may say, with the premises
laid down in the prologue ; or rather, the thought of the pro
logue is but an echo of this statement and of so many Uke it
in this Gospel, On the one hand, in fact, this saying assumes
in Him who uttered it the most vivid consciousness of His
participation in the divine nature. For how should nothing
ness institute a comparison between itself and God ? The
creature who should say : " God is greater than 1} would blas
pheme no less than one who should say : " I am equal with
God," God alone can compare Himself with God, Hence the
Arians have been guilty, to say the least, of great unskilful-
ness in relying on this saying. On the other hand, it is
impossible to admit that it is solely as man, and not as Logos,
that Jesus, as orthodoxy affirms, uttered these words. The
unity of Christ's person must be maintained, and two distinct
egos cannot be admitted in Him. The difficulty is solved by
aUowing that the ego of the Divine Logos fuUy entered into
the human condition, but that in the course of His develop
ment, Jesus, at a given moment (that of His baptisra), appre
hended Himself in His oneness with the Divine Logos, It
is, then, the Logos made man who, from the midst of His
limited and relative existence, contemplates that divine abso
lute state of being in which He found Himself before His
incarnation, and to the participation of which He is about, as
man, to be re-exalted. Nothing could be more consistent with
the views of the prologue.
At ver. 29 Jesus applies to His approaching departure
what He had said, ch, xiii, of the treachery of Judas. This
painful separation and this return of a purely spiritual nature,
which they find it so difficult to receive, wiU, when these facts
have taken place and the disciples remember the present say
ings of Jesus, conduce to the establishment of their faith.
And now at last He gives the order for departure, for which
He has thus prepared them,
Vv, 30, 31. "/ will say little more to you; for the prince
of this ^ world cometh, and hath nothing in me. But that the
I TiUTou in T, R, is supported by only some Mnn, and It.

CHAP. XIV. 30, 31. 153
world may knoio that I love my Father, and ^ that I act as the
Father hath commanded ^ me, arise, let us go hence!' — Jesus felt
the approach of His invisible enemy. He had a presentiment
not only of the arrival of Judas, but also of the conflict with
Satan himself which He was about to sustain in Gethsemane,
Two very different meanings may be given to these verses,
though the results are in either case fundamentally the same.
Either the Kai, and, before eV epoi must be taken in a con
cessive sense : and indeed : " He cometh, and indeed he hath
nothing in rae which can be a reason for his power over me ;
but for the love I have to my Father I willingly surrender
myself to hira. Arise ! " Or we may take this Kai in the
adversative sense, in which it is so frequently used in St,
John : " He cometh, but he has no hold upon me ; nevertheless
{dXXd), that the world may know , , . arise ! - and let us
depart hence, that I may yield rayself to this enemy." OvBev
e^etv signifies to have neither right nor power over the object
of his hatred. The saying impUed in Hira who pronounced it
a consciousness of perfect innocence. That raay be made to
depend on ttoiw, I do : " That the world may know , . ,,'I am
about to do aU that the Father has commanded me," But
this construction is a forced one, by reason of the Kai which
precedes Ka6di<s. Or that may be made to depend on a verb
understood : " It happens thus, that the world may know that
I love the Father, and that I do what He has commanded me."
So Tischendorf. But how much more effective is a third
construction, which makes that depend upon the two impera
tives which terminate the sentence : " But that the world may
know . , ., arise " .' This manner of speaking much resembles
the triumphant apostrophe of our Lord, preserved by the
three synoptists. Matt. ix. 6 and paraUel passages. To rise for
the purpose of going to Gethsemane was, in fact, wilHngly to
surrender Himself to the power of Satan, who was there pre
paring for a decisive conflict, the completion of that in the
wilderness, and to the treachery of Judas, who was about to
seek Him in that very place which he knew so well. Jesus
knew that no one would corae to take Him in the room which
He and His disciples at that moment occupied.
' A E It»"i omit XXI.
' B L X It, Vg. read tvToXnv tSmxsv instead of ivtruXxro.

154 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
The imperatives : arise, let us go hence, might certainly
have produced no immediate effect ; which is the supposition
of Meyer, Luthardt, and aU who consider that Jesus remained
in the room till after the priestly prayer. But in this case,
it is not easy to see why St. John should have so expressly
mentioned this order, without at least hinting at this delay by
a word of explanation, as in xi. 6. Hence Gess justly remarks :
" Jesus having in ver. 3 1 given the signal for departure, we
must regard the discourses of chs. xv. and xvi. as delivered on
the road to Gethsemane." The opposition of Meyer and
Luthardt to this view does not make us hesitate to do so,
Comp, reraarks on xvi, and xvii, 1.
According to M, Reuss, the questions of Thomas, Philip,
and Jude arose from misconceptions so strange, and mistakes
so gross, that it is impossible to regard them as having any
historical value. Exegesis has, on the contrary, confirmed
their perfect agreement with the view-point at that time
occupied by the apostles. So long as Jesus was with them,
they did not greatly differ from the rest of the people, except
in attachment to His person. InteUectuaUy speaking, they still
shared the generally received ideas. It was their Master's
death and ascension, and lastly, the gift of Pentecost, which
radically transformed their notions of the kingdom of God.
Hence there is nothing astonishing in the fact that Thomas
should, Uke the Jews in ch. xii, declare that he can under
stand nothing about a Christ who leaves the earth and speaks
of meeting His disciples in another world; or that PhUip
should, like those who demanded a sign from heaven, beg for
a sensible theophany as a pledge of his Master's and the
disciples' glorious future ; or," lastly, that Jude should inquire
with anxiety concerning the reality of a Messianic coming
from which the world would be excluded. — Undoubtedly, the
reproduction of the details of this conversation in so natural,
and at the same time so exact, a manner, coiUd only have
been the work of one who had, like the author himself, stood
on the confines of the two conceptions, that of Jesus and
that of the disciples, thus brought into collision. Nowhere
does the evangelist appear more completely initiated into the
internal relations and characters of the individuals composing
the apostolic circle. As to the answers of our Lord, they

CHAP. XV. 1-XVL 15. 155
are so perfectly adapted to the situation, they bear such
an impress of exquisite refinement of feeling and subhme
spirituality of thought, that it is impossible to attribute them
to any other than Jesus Hiraself, without making that other
the equal of Him whom the church adores as her Lord and
Founder.

II. The Position of the Disciples in the World after the Effusion
of the Holy Spirit. — xv. 1-xvi. 15,
The preceding conversations referred to the approaching
separation between Jesus and His disciples, and to the twofold
meeting, both heavenly and earthly, which would terminate
it. This meeting would take place by means of their future
dweUing with Him in His Father's house, and previously by
means of an event now close at hand, by His dwelling in
them by the Holy Spirit, At ch, xv. Jesus transports Him
self in thought to the period which wUl bind together these
two meetings — the period in which His spiritual return wUl
be consummated, but His people not yet exalted to His
abode. The glorified Christ, possessed of His divine condi
tion, has returned, and is living in His people. They are
united to Him, and by Him to each other. Under His
influence they work together like members of one body at the
Father's work. Such is the new position, in view of which
He now gives them the necessary directions, warnings, and
encouragements. Like the branches of a fruitful vine, they
are to offer good fruit to the world, which, instead of blessing
them, wiU take up the axe to destroy this noble vine, this
heavenly plant. This opposition, however, wiU have no other
effect than that of making conspicuous to all, that divine
power by which they are animated, and by which they wiU
confound the world. Thus we have three leading ideas : 1st,
The new condition of the disciples resulting from the Pente
costal gift, XV. 1—17; 2d, The consequent hostility of the
world, XV. 18-xvi. 4; 3d, The spiritual victory to be gained
over the world by the Holy Ghost, through their instru
mentality, xvi. 5-15. The actors in this future drama are
the disciples, the world, and the Holy Spirit, each of whom
is successively predominant in the foUowing discourse.

156 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
1st. XV 1-17.
After the words : "Let us depart hence} Jesus and His dis
ciples left the upper chamber, which had just been to them,
as it were, the vestibule of the Father's house. They passed
in sUence through the streets of Jerusalem, and soon found
themselves alone in some retired spot on the declivity which
descends into the vaUey of the Kedron. Surrounded by this
Httle band of disciples, in view of Jerusalem, in which the
Jewish people were assembled, and thinking of the human
race represented by Israel, Jesus reflected on the mighty task
which awaited His disciples in carrying on His work in the
world. And in the first passage He chiefly devoted Himself
to making them fiUly understand the nature of this new
situation and the obligations attached to it. In this, then,
we have first the position, in w, 1-3 {in me) ; then the duty
of this position, in ver, 4 {to abide in Him) ; and lastly, the
consequences of fulfilling or neglecting this duty, in vv. 5-8 {to
bear fruit, or to be burned).
Vv, 1-3. "I am the true vine, and my Father is the husband
man. Every branch that heareth not fruit in me. He taketh
away ; and every branch that heccrdh fruit, He purgeth it, that
it may bring forth more ffuit. And as for you, ye are
clean already because of theiword which I have spoken unto
you!' — The pronoun eyd>, standing first, and the epithet r]
dXrjdivri, the genuine vine, naturaUy lead us to suppose that
Jesus was here intending to contrast His person with some
other vine, which was not in His eyes the true. We ask,
then, "What external circumstance was it which led Jesus
thus to express Himself ? " Those who hold that Jesus had
not yet quitted the room decline to answer this question (De
Wette), or have recourse, in explaining this image, either
to the use of wine in the institution of the Lord's Supper
(Grotius, Meyer) ; or to the shoots of a vine whose branches
entered the room (Knapp, Tholuck) ; or to the golden vine
which adorned one of the gates of the temple, the remem
brance of which might present itself to the thoughts of Jesus
(Jerome, Lampe) ; or, finally, to the representation of Israel
under the figure of a vine, so frequent in the O. T. If it
be admitted, as by us, that after pronouncing ver. 31 of ch.
xiv. Jesus reaUy left the room and the city, the explanation

CHAP. XV. 1-3. 157
becomes more easy and simple. Jesus stops at a vine loaded
with branches ; His disciples gather around Him ; He finds
in this plant an emblem of His relation to them. This
natural vine is in His eyes an image, an earthly copy, of the
true, essential, spiritual vine, and He proceeds to develop
the thought of His future union with His people, by borrow
ing from the object before His eyes, expressions which may
render it intelligible to His disciples. " It is to be supposed,"
says Gess, " that on the decHvity of the vaUey of the Kedron
there were vines, before which Jesus stopped with His dis
ciples." The word vine here comprises both the trunk and
the branches, as the term o XpiaT6<; in 1 Cor. xii. 12 denotes
Christ and the church. The point of comparison between
Christ and the vine is that organic union by which the life
of the trunk becomes that of the branches. As the sap in
the branches is that which they draw from the vine, so wUl
Hfe in the disciples be the Hfe they wUl derive from Jesus
glorified. This comparison might undoubtedly have been
borrowed from any other plant. But the vine has a special
dignity, resulting from the nobleness of its sap and the ex
ceUence of its fruit, — The title of husbandman is given to
God. as at once proprietor and cultivator. He it was who
possessed the theocracy, and this theocracy seemed now to
be transformed into the little community by whom Jesus
was surrounded. He it was who watched over the preserva
tion of that divine organism, and directed its development on
earth. While Jesus is its essential life, the Father cultivates
it by His providential care, Jesus designs to impress upon
them the value of this plant, which God Himself tends and
cares for. What is here said by no means interferes with the
fact that God effects this work by the instrumentality of the
glorified Christ, only the figure employed does not aUow this
aspect of the truth to be brought forward. On the one
hand, Jesus Uves in His people by His Spirit, and it is in
this respect that He compares Himself to the vine. On the
other. He reigns over and /or them as the organ of the Father,
and His agency in this respect cannot be represented here by
reason of the figure employed, but is mingled with the agency
of the Father, St, Paul finds the means of uniting these
two aspects in Eph, i, 22. The culture of the vine embraces

158 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
two principal operations, — that by which every unfruitful
branch is cut off (the a'ipeiv), and that by which the fruitful
branches are purged — that is to say, freed from barren shoots,
that the sap may be concentrated in the cluster which is
forming (the KaOalpeiv). As this passage refers solely to the
relation of Jesus to the true or seeming members of His
church, the first of these images cannot be apphed, as
Hengstenberg thinks, to unbelieving Israel. If any historical
example were present to the thoughts of our Lord, it would
only have been that of Judas. But He was probably think
ing of the future of His church; and was contemplating
beforehand those professors of the gospel, who, whUe ex-
ternaUy united to Him, nevertheless Hve in a state of
internal separation from Him, whether in consequence of a
decree which prevents their genuine conversion, or of their
own neglect to sacrifice wholly their own life and to main
tain the spiritual tie which unites them to Hira. — 'Ev
epoi, in me, raay refer either to the word branch: every
branch in me (united to me), or to the participle <pipov :
which beareth not fruit in me. In any case, the term branch in
itself already- assumes that individuals who are in a certain
sense united to Christ are here spoken of. By fruit, Jesus
designates the spiritual life, with all its normal manifesta
tions, — that life which the believer is caUed upon to produce
and incessantly to develop, whether in himself, or, by the
power of Christ living (Rom. i. 13) in him, in the case of
his neighbour. It may happen that the behever, after a
season of fervour, suffers his own life to predominate above
that which he derives from the Lord, and that the latter
is about to perish. Then the arm of the Father interposes.
After tolerating for a time the presence of this dead member
in the church of Christ, God severs the deceptive tie, at one
time by allowing him to be subjected to a violent temptation,
at another by death and the judgment which is to foUow,
In describing the second operation, Jesus had in view
not only the eleven disciples, but all future believers
who should live in Him by the Holy Spirit, Ver. 3 teaches
that it is first of aU by the word of Christ that God wUl
purge thera frora the shoots of their own life, which show
theraselves in them ; then, when this proves insufficient, God

CHAP. XV, i. 159
wUl use other and more painful means, which will, like a
sharp pruning-knife, cut to the quick of the natural affections
and the carnal wUl, And thus the whole being of the dis
ciple wUl at last be devoted to the production of the divine
fruit which he ought to bear.
Jesus calms the minds of His disciples with respect to this
second operation, by reminding them (ver, 3) that in their
case it is, in principle, already accomplished. By their
attachment to Christ, and by the word which He has spoken
to them, " the old man has already received his death-blow "
(Gess), although he has yet to die. The moral training
which they had received frora Jesus had deposited in them
the principle of perfect purity. For the word of Christ is
the instrument of a daUy judgment, of an austere discipline,
which God exercises by it upon the soul which remains
attached thereto. On this part, attributed to the word of
Christ, comp. v. 24, viu, 31, 32, xii. 48. — Aid (with the
accus.) is not by, but because of. — 'Tpeit, you, in opposition
to those who were not yet in this privUeged position. — From
the nature of the position {in me), Jesus deduces the duty of
this position : to abide.
Ver. 4. " Abide in me, and I in you ; as the branch cannot
bear fruit of itself except it abide ^ in the vine, no more can ye,
except ye abide ^ in me." — For a branch to remain united to
the vine is the condition, the law of its life. AU the condi
tions of fruitfulness are included in this. The imperative
proves that this relation is maintained as it was begun,
freely, by the faithful use of the means divinely offered. Ver.
7 wiU show that the fundamental means is the word of Jesus.
— ^Ev epoi peveiv, to abide in me, expresses the continuous
act by which the Christian lays aside aU that he might draw
from his own wisdom, strength, or merit, to derive aU from
Christ by the inward aspiration of faith. And this is so
entirely the sole condition laid down for the agency of Christ's
life in him, that Jesus omits the verb in the following propo
sition. Hence the : and I in you, appears to be in such wise
the direct and necessary consequence of the forraer of these two
acts, that where the first is accomplished the second cannot
' X B L : fiivn instead of ^e;«ji (T. R. with 14 Mjj.).
° X A B L : fotvtiTi instead of ^i<».itj (T. R. with 13 Mjj.).

160 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
fail to be realized. Thus the agency of Christ is, no less than
our own, boldly placed under the control of our freedom.
The close of ver. 4 justifies the duty pointed out ; instant
unfruitfulness would be the imraediate result of the behever's
separation from the vine. Here, as in ver. 19, edv pij is a
simple explanation of the d(j) iavTov, and not a restriction
appended to the principal idea. — The thesis here laid down is
not that of the moral impotence of the natural raan, but that
of the unfruitfulness of the believer left to his own strength ;
stiU it is evident that the second of these truths is based
upon the first.
The following verses, vv, 5-8, are, as it were, the sanction
of the law of life and death which Jesus has just proclaimed.
We have first the contrast between fruitfulness and unfruit
fulness (ver. 5), with the terrible consequences of the latter
(ver, 6), and then the glorious resiUts of fruitfulness (vv, 7
and 8),
Vv, 5, 6, " / am the vine, ye are the branches; he that
abideth in me, and I in him, the same beareth much fruit, for
apart from me ye can do nothing. If a man abide -^ not in me,
he is cast forth as the branch and is withered ; then they gather
them ^ and cast them into the fire, and they bum." — The first
words of ver. 5 : " J am the vine, ye are the branches} are not,
as has been said, either an idle repetition or a tardy develop
ment of the truth expressed in ver. 1, WhUe continuing to
contemplate the actual vine before Him, an increasingly vivid
sense of the entire dependence of His disciples upon Himself
possessed our Lord's mind : " Yes, this is indeed what I ara
to you, and what you are to me ; I the vine, ye the
branches ! " The reason alleged : "for without me ye can do
oiothing} seems, as a purely negative one, at the first glance
illogical. But if Christ is in such wise all to the beUever
that he can do nothing without Him, does not this imply
that he can do much if he reraains united to his Lord ?
With the happy fruitfulness of the branch united to Him,
Jesus contrasts the sad and terrible fate of the unfruitful
branch. — The operation of pruning had just taken place in
Palestine ; perhaps, as Lange remarks, Jesus might at that
' X A B D : /Ksw instead of foutn.
" X D L X A n, 20 Mnn. It""' Syr. : xvto instead of xutx.

CHAP, XV, 7, 8. 101
very moment have been beholding the fire in which the
recently lopped branches were burning. It is impossible to
refer ver, 6 (as Hengstenberg does) to the Jewish natiou and
its destruction by the Romans ; a believer who does not remain
faithful is the sole subject of this saying, which is spoken
as a warning to the disciples when they should have received
the Pentecostal gift, — The aorists, i^ripdvOrj, e^rjdr], has been
withered, has been cast forth, are, according to Baumlein, to be
explained in this passage, as in numerous other cases where
this tense is employed to designate a fact of daUy experience.
Perhaps it would be better to say, with Meyer, that our Lord
transported Himself in thought to the moment of the judg
ment just uttered. 'E^X^drj, cast out of the vineyard, — The
subject of avvd^ova-i, they gather, is the vineyard labourers ;
in the application, the angels (Luke xii, 20 ; Matt, xiii, 41).
The fire is the emblem of judgment ; comp, another image in
Luke xiv. 34, 35. Kaierai, they burn, is the present of dura
tion, which here has its full force. The thought pauses at
this unquenchable fire, . . . and then turns to the fruitful
branch, which bears fruit to the husbandman's praise. Thus
w. 7 and 8 combine with ver, 5 in developing the glorious
results of the behever's communion with Christ,
Vv, 7, 8. " If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you,
ye shall ask^ what ye will, and it shall be done unto you.
Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit, and
thus shall ye become'^ my disciples!' — The paraUelism of the
two conditions in ver. 7 leads us to expect the expression :
" and if I abide in you!' For this, Jesus substitutes the reraark
able variation : " and if my words abide in you." In fact, it
is by constantly remembering and meditating on the words
of Jesus that the disciple reraains united to Him, aud that
He can continue to act on and by His disciple. Jesus next
adds an important idea, that of prayer, which is directly con
nected with the preceding. The words of Jesus, digested by
meditation, nourish in the soul of the beUever those holy
desires which urge it to prayer. By meditating on them, he
¦'ABDLMXr, 50 Mnn. It""'' : xiTturxa-h, ash, instead of xiTn(n<rk, you
shall ask (T. R. with X, 9 Mjj. etc.).
¦^ B D L M X A : ytvwlt, that you may become, instead of yitmnirh, you shall
become (T. R, with 11 Mjj. etc.).
GODET m. L JOHN.

102 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
better understands the holiness and beauty of God's work ;
he measures its length and breadth and depth and height,
and, moved by this contemplation, he more fervently suppH-
cates, in that definite manner which arises from actual wants,
the advancement of this work. A prayer thus inspired is a
chUd of heaven ; it is God's promise transformed into petition ;
as such it is certain to be heard, and the absolute promise :
"it shall he done unto you} is no longer surprising. — The
Alex, substitute the imperative ask for the future you sliall
ask, a correction which turns the promise into a moral precept.
— The result of this fruitfulness of the disciples wordd be the
glorification of the Father (ver. 8). What could more honour
the husbandman than the abundant fruitfulness of the vine
which he has taken care of with so much delight ? Now tbe
husbandman is the Father (ver. 1). 'Ev tovtw, in this, evi
dently bears upon Xva, so that, or that, which foUows ; this
conjunction taking the place of oti, because the idea of bearing
fruit presents itself to the mind as an end to be attained. —
The aorist iBo^daOrj, properly has been glorified, characterizes
this result as one iraraedlately attained whenever the condi
tion, the bearing of fruit, is present. Winer and others make
this aorist an aorist of anticipation, as in ver. 6. — Jesus, when
contemplating with filial satisfaction the glory of the Father,
which will from time to time be the result of His disciples'
work, seems to press these beloved beings with redoubled
ardour to His heart. By carrying on here below the work of
their Master, whose only care was to glorify the Father, they
wUl more and more deserve the title of His disciples. Kai, and
thus. The Alex, read the subjunctive, and that you may
become {yevrjcrde, dependent on 'iva), instead of you shall be
come. Tischendorf himself rejects this reading, which is only
a correction after ^ep7)Te. — The dative epoi is closer and more
affectionate than the genitive ipoO : " You shall more nearly
belong to me as disciples." We are not disciples once for all,
but must always be becoming such. — As the vine does not
itself directly bear fruit, and offers its clusters by the inter
vention of the branches, so Jesus will only diffuse spiritual
life here below by the instrumentality of those who have
received it from Him, By forming a church, He created a
body for the effusion of His life, and the glorification of God

CHAP. XV, 9-lL 163
upon earth. In this great work the Vine hides itself, aijd
lets only the branches appear ; it is for them in their turn to
hide themselves, and to do homage to the Vine for all that
they effect. The Epistles to the Ephesians aud Corinthians
show this same relation between Christ and His raembers
under an entirely original forra. The image of the head and
the body in these Epistles corresponds with that of the vine
and the branches in this passage. When St, Paul says of the
glorified Christ, that " in Him dwelleth all the fulness of the
Godhead bodily} and that " we have all fulness in Him} he
does but formulate the meaning of the parable of the vine
and the branches. This also explains why the diffusion of
spiritual life makes such slow progress in the world. The
vine effects nothing but by means of the branches, and these
so often paralyse instead of promoting the action of the vine
The condition of abiding under the influence of Christ's-
love is to persevere in obedience to His commandments, that
is to say, in brotherly love (vv. 9-17).
Vv. 9-11. "As the Father hath loved me, I have also loved
you ; abide in my love} If ye keep my commandments, ye
shall abide in my love, even as I have ^ kept my Father's com
mandments, and abide in His love. Tliese things have I spoken
unto you, that my joy might he ^ in you, and that your joy might
be full." — Jesus here substitutes the notion of abiding under
the influence of His love for that of abiding in Him. In fact,
it is the love of Jesus which forms the tie between Him and
ourselves. In Him the fountain of divine love has welled
forth upon earth : the love of the Father for Jesus, of which
He gave assurance at His baptism, and which includes that
wherewith He loved Him before His incarnation (xvii, 14),
and then that of Jesus for His people, which is of like nature
{Kadm'i, not &(nrep). In both these cases, the initiative of love
was taken by the more exalted Being. On what condition,
then, may the relation be maintained and strengthened ?
Solely by the inferior responding to this love. He has not
to evoke it, he has but to remain under its beams. To do
this he has only to abstain from forcing it, by unfaithfulness
¦• K omits the words ixv . . . iv .. xyxTti it.ou (confusing this with ver. 9.),
' X D It, : lyai instead of xxyoi.
' A B D It, Vg, read » instead of /tiivn.

164 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
and disobedience, to turn from him. Jesua points out that
He imposes upon the believer no other condition with respect
to Himself but that to which He had to subrait with respect
to the Father, His hoUness was an act of continual sub
mission to the divine injunctions, and without this submission
He would have instantly ceased to be the object of the
Father's complacence (viii, 29, x, 17). Such also is the
position of the believer in respect of Christ's love to him.
The expression my love can here, in fact, only denote the love
of Jesus for His people ; corap, the words : as I have loved
you, and the development, vv. 13-16. The second propo
sition of ver. 9 : and I have loved you, does not depend on
Ka0d)<;, as : " As my Father has loved me, and I have loved
you," For the principal verb would in this case be abide,
which is impossible, because this idea is in no logical connec
tion with the first of the two propositions of ver, 9 : As my
Father has loved me. — Jesus is certain that in thus speaking
He is not imposing a burden, but rather reveaUng to them
the secret of perfect joy (ver. 11). This constant enjoyment
of the Father's love in the way of obedience constitutes His
joy, which wUl in the same way be reproduced in His dis
ciples. It is, then, indeed His joy into which He initiates
them, and in the possession of which He associates them, in
the words : " These things have I spoken to you, that . . ." My
joy cannot then signify : the joy which I wUl produce in you
(Calvin), or : the joy which I feel on your account (Augus
tine), or : the joy which you feel on my account (Euthymius) ;
but the joy which He Himself experiences in feehng Himself
the object of the Father's love, Comp. the analogous expres
sion "my peace" in xiv. 27, — By obedience their joy wUl
grow to perfect fulness. For every act of faithfulness wUl
draw closer the bond between Jesus and themselves, as every
moment of His life did the bond between Jesus and the Father,
And is it not perfect joy to be included with the Son in the
Father's love ? The reading § seems preferable to peivrj. The
notion of being is enough, that of remaining superfluous ; comp.
xvii, 26,
This obedience to His commandments, to which Jesus
invites them, is concentrated in the exercise of brotherly love,
Ver, 12, "This is my commandment, that ye love one aiwther.

CHAP, XV, 13-15. 165
ns / have loved you,!' — Comp. xiii. 34, Hengstenberg finds
in w, 1-11 a summary of the first table of the law, and in
vv. 12-17 one of the second. The normal relation of each
branch to the others assumes first of aU its normal relation to
the vine.
In w. 13-16 Jesus exalts Christian love to its full height,
by setting before it His own for its model These four verses
are a commentary on the words : as I have loved you. And
first, ver, 1 3 states the point to which love carries its devotion,
death; then vv, 14, 15 show the intimate character of the
relation He has borne to them, the confidential intercourse
of a friend rather than the authority of a master ; and lastly,
ver. 16 declares the free initiative which He took in estab
lishing this relation : " If, then, you ask yourselves what limits
you are to lay down to your mutual love, first ask yourselves
what Hmits I set to the love I have shown to you ! " or : " and
if you want to know what it is to love, look at me " (Gess).
Ver, 1 3. " Greater love hath no man than this} that a man
lay down his life for his friends." — Our Lord's meaning is
clear; in the relation of friends there is no greater proof of
love than the sacrifice of life. Undoubtedly there is, absolutely
speaking, a greater proof of love, viz. to give it for enemies,
Rom, V, 6-8, "Iva preserves the notion of an end: "The highest
point to which love in this relation can aspire is . . ."
Vv. 14, 15. " Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever'^ I
comTnand you. I no longer call you servants, because the ser
vant knoweth not what his lord doeth : but I liave called you
friends ; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have
made known unto you." — ^At ver. 14 the accent is not on the
condition : if you do, but upon the statement: ye are my friends,
as though Jesus meant to say, " It was not without a reason
that I just now said: for his friends (ver. 13), for this is
really the relation I have borne to you." And what is there
more touching in domestic life, than a master who, finding a
servant really faithful, raises him to the rights and title of a
friend? — ^Ver. 15 proves the reahty of this statement. He
had bestowed upon them an unbounded confidence, by com-
* X D It. omit ns after ivx.
2 The Mss. read either o (B It»"i) or « 'K D L X It""'' Vg. Cop.) or with
T. R. o„x (13 Mjj. Mnn. Syr.).

166 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
municatin^ to them aU that the Father had revealed to Him
regarding the great work for which He sent Him. Undoubtedly
there were stiU raany things of which they were not yet
informed (xiv. 12). But it was not from want of confidence
and love that He had not revealed these also, but to spare
them in their state of weakness, and because another alone
could fulfil this task. The title : my friends, used in Luke
xii. 4, long before the present moment, has been adduced in
objection to this omeTi (I no more call you) ; as though the
tendency to make them His friends had not existed from the
very first, and could have failed to manifest itself from time
to time I It has also been objected that the apostles con
tinued to caU themselves servants of Jesus Christ, as though,
when the master chooses to make his servant a friend, the
latter is not aU the more bound to remind himself and others
of his real condition !
Ver. 16. "' You have not chosen me, but I have chosen you,
and appointed you, that you should go and bear fruit, and
that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever^ ye ask the
Father in my name. He may give it you." — Jesus is conscious
how great is the proof of love which He has given them in
caUing them of His own accord to the apostolate. It was
Himself alone who took the initiative in caUing them to
the highest office bestowed upon man. By the expression :
/ have chosen you, Jesus alludes, as in vi. 70 and xiii. 18, to
the solemn act of their election to the apostolate, narrated in
Luke vi, 12 sqq. The word edrjKa, have appointed, denotes
the endowment with spiritual Hght and power which accom
panied this act, and enabled them to exercise such an aposto
late. The expression vTrdyrjTe, that you may go, brings out
the kind of independence to which He had graduaUy raised
them : " I have put you in a condition to walk alone," Fruit
here, as throughout this chapter, denotes the communication
of spiritual Ufe to mankind ; this fruit, unlike that produced
by earthly labour, does not perish, but remains.
The second that is rather paraUel with, than dependent, as
Luthardt makes it, on the first; corap. the two 'iva, xiU. 34,
and for the meaning the two oti, xiv. 12, 13. To the end of
their election, Jesus adds the essential means by which the
' Instead of itx o ti xv and Sa (or ^un), X reads on xv and ^uru.

CHAP. XV. 17-20, 167
apostles are to accomplish their task — a means which also
enters into the end of their vocation, viz, prayer in His name.
This latter proposition — depending as it does on the words :
/ have appointed you — signifies : "And I have put you into
the glorious position of yourselves obtaining directly from the
Father aU that you ask of Him," This is the privilege which
they owe to the free initiative of His love.
Ver. 1 7. " These things I command you, that ye may love
one another!' — The pronoun TavTa {these things) can only refer
to the 'iva which follows : " I command this, so that you may
love, one another." For the plural proves that this expression
comprises and sums up all the preceding instructions and
exhortations since xv. 1. The work is aU love : love in its
hidden source, the love of the Father ; in its first manifesta
tion, the love of Christ ; and lastly, in its fuU outpouring, the
love of beUevers for each other. Love is its root, its stem,
and its fruit. It forms the essential characteristic of the new
kingdom, whose power and conquests are owing solely to the
contagion of love. This is why our Lord left no other law
than that of love to those who had by faith become merabers
of His body.
Luthardt points out that not a single connective particle
occurs in the first seventeen verses of this chapter. There is
special solemnity in this long asyndeton. We have here the
last wishes of Jesus as deUvered to His own (see xvU. 24).
Such a style could not be that of a Greek author, but must
have proceeded frora the Hebrew raind.
2d. XV. IS-xvi. 4.
In opposition to this spiritual body, whose inner life and
external agency He has just described, Jesus beholds a hostile
association arise, whose unifying principle is hatred of Christ
and of God, This association, of whose hatred to believers
Jesus gives a sketch, vv. 18—25, is the world, mankind in its
natural state, which will declare war against the church, and
was at that time represented by the Jewish people. Then,
after encouraging His disciples by a passing indication of the
assistance which will be afforded them. He reproduces in more
vivid colours, ver, 26-xvi, 4, a description of the hostiUty of
the world,
Vv. 18-20. "If the world hates you, know that it hated me

168 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
before you} If ye were of the world, the world would love its
own : hut because ye are not of the world, but I have drawn you
out of the world, therefore the world hateth you. Remember the
word that I have said^ unto you, The servant is not greater
than his lord. If they have persecuted me, tliey will also per
secute you; if they have kept my word, they will keep yours
also." — Jesus desired not only to announce to His disciples
that hatred on the part of the world of which they would be
the objects, but also to strengthen them against it ; and this
He did first by saying : " It will hate you as it hates me (vv.
18-20), and then it will hate you on my account " (vv, 21-25).
Nothing could better prepare for suffering than the certainty
of suffering Hke Christ and for Him. Tivma-KeTe is not indi
cative {you know), but imperative, like pvrjpovevere {remember),
ver. 20. Consider what has happened in my case, and you
will understand that all that happens to you is but natural.
— By their union with Christ, the disciples would henceforth
represent a new principle upon earth. This would be a
strange and a wounding phenomenon to the world, which
would try to get rid of it. — 'E^eXe^dprjv, I have chosen, here
refers to their having been called to be believers, not apostles ;
and by it Jesus raeans to designate the act by which He with
drew them from the world, and not divine predestination.
The idea of the close connection thereby formed between Jesus
and His disciples reappears at ver. 20 in the expressions ser
vant and lord. The axiom here cited by Jesus is used in the
same sense as at Matt. x. 24, but in one differing from John
xiU. 16. In ch. xiii. it was quoted as an encouragement to
humility, here as a reason for patience. — It is natural to
regard the two cases laid down by Jesus as both actual. The
mass of the people will no more be converted by the preach
ing of the apostles than by that of Jesus, But as He had
enjoyed the satisfaction of snatching individuals from ruin, so
wiU this joy be also granted to them. This meaning seems
to me to be preferable to that of Grotius, who gives to the
second proposition an ironical signification ; or to that of
Bengel, who takes fTijpeiv, to keep, in the sense of to observe
' X D ItP'"'"''"' omit vfioiv.
- Instead of tou Xoyou ou lya UTov, X reads Tn Xoyov ov 'XaXy.tTx; D: tou; Xo^ov;
o-j; iXxXn^x.

CHAP, XV, 21-25. 169
mahciously ; or lastly, to the interpretation of Liicke, Meyer,
De Wette, and Hengstenberg, who see in these two alternatives
only abstract propositions, of which the apostles must discern
which will be realized in their case.
Vv. 21—25. "But all this will they do unto you^ for my
name's sake, because they know not Him that sent me. If I
had not come and spoken unto them, they would not have sin ;
but now they have no excuse for their sin. He that hateth me,
hateth my Father also. If I had not done among them works
such as none other has done} they would not have sin : but now
they have seen and nevertheless have hated both me and my
. Fatlier. But this is that the word might be fulfilled which is
written in their law : They hated me without a cause!' — 'AXXd
(ver. 21) : " But be of good cheer, it is for my sake." — If Israel
has not in this case recognised God as Him who sent rae, it
is because they have not in general the knowledge of God,
Their idea of God is morally perverted, and this is why they
have stumbled at my appearing. Jesus speaks only of their
ignorance, but behind this ignorance He discerns hatred of
good — of Himself as manifested good, of God the living good.
Hence the following words, ver. 22, Their long resistance to
God through the whole course of their history would certainly
have been forgiven, as well as their individual transgressions,
if they had at last surrendered in presence of this supreme
manifestation. But rejection of Jesus characterized their
state as one of invincible estrangement, as hatred of God,
which is by its nature the unpardonable sin. — The idea differs
somewhat from ix, 41. — Ver, 23, Jewish wickedness by hating
Jesus clearly showed itself to be hatred of God, and was thus
distinguished from mere ignorance, like that of the heathen.
The words of Jesus (ver. 22), or if not these. His works (ver.
24), ought to have opened their eyes. He whose conscious
ness was not sufficiently developed to grasp the "divine cha
racter of His teaching, had at least eyes to behold His miracles.
On the two Kai, see remarks on vi. 36. I cannot attach any
value to the reasons adduced by Meyer against this meaning.
His, if I am not mistaken, amounts to : " Jf I had not come,
' B D L It'"'' Syr. : u; u/^x; instead of v/tiv. X omits the word.
2 The Mss. are divided between «t'!romx'.v (T. R. with E G II, etc.) and £!roi>ii7-s»
X A B D, etc.).

170 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
the Jews would not have rejected me and God in ms, and
would not, by this rejection, have filled the measure of their
resistance to God," This idea might suit ix, 41, but is too
weak for the present context, — Ver, 25, 'AXXd: But this is
not to be wondered at. The righteous man under the old
covenant had already complained by the mouth of David, Ps,
xxxv. 19, Ixix. 4, of being the object of the gratuitous hatred of
the foes of God. If their hatred was to be entirely laid to their
own account, notwithstanding the faults and follies of the im
perfect righteous man (Ps. Ixix. 6), how much more might the
perfectly righteous Saviour make this complaint, which was
at the same time His comfort as weU as the comfort of those
who suffer like Him and for His sake ! So that depends
upon : " This has happened," understood. — On the terra : their
law, see reraarks on vui, 17. De Wette sees a certain amount
of irony in these words : " They faithfully observe their law,"
But this seems rather far-fetched,
Vv. 26, 27. " But^ when the Support is come, whom I
will send unto you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who
proceedeth from the Father, He shall testify of me : and ye also
shall hear witness, because ye have been with me from the begin
ning!' — Jesus here points out, in only a passing manner, the
power which wUl sustain them in their conflict with the world.
This idea He develops in the following paragraph, xvi, 5-15,
but now hastens to show His disciples the authority which
they would have to oppose to that of the world. In saying :
/ will send, Jesus was necessarily thinking of His reinstate
ment in His divine condition; His saying, from the Father,
taught His own subordination to the Father, even when
He should have resumed that condition. — Jesus here desig
nates the Spirit as the Spirit of truth, in opposition to the
falsehood, the voluntary ignorance, of the world. The Spirit
wiU disperse the obscurity with which the world endeavours
to surround itself. It is difficult (with Luthardt, Meyer, and
most moderns) to refer the words : who proceedeth from the
Father, to the same fact as the former : whom I will send to
you from the Father, as this would be mere tautology. Besides,
the future irep-^w, I will send, refers to an historical fact to
take place at an undefined period, while the present e'«7ro-
' X B A omit Se after orair.

CHAP. XV, 2C, 27, 171
peveTai, proceedeth, seems to refer to a permanent, divine, and
therefore eternal relation. The divine facts of revelation are
based upon the Trinitarian relations, and are, so to speak, their
reflections. As the incarnation of the Son is related to His
eternal generation, so is the mission of the Holy Spirit to His
procession within the divine essence. — The Latin Church, start
ing from the words : I will send, is not wrong in affirming the
Filioque, nor the Greek Church, starting from the words : from
the Father, in maintaining the per Filium and the subordination.
To harmonize these two views, we must place ourselves at the
Christological view-point of St. John's Gospel, according to
which the homoousia and the subordination are both at the
same time true. — The pronoun e/cewo?, he, this Being, and He
only, sums up aU the qualities which have been attributed to
the Holy Spirit, and brings out the authority of this divine
witness. The expression : shall bear witness of me, must not
be referred to the miracles effected by the Holy Spirit in
attestation of the mission of Jesus ; in which case we should
have inrep epoi), in my favour, and not irepl epov, of me, con
cerning me. Does, then, this witness borne to the person of
Jesus consist in the presence of the Spirit in this world ?
Such a sense would suit neither the epithet Support, nor that
of Spirit of truth. Or is the witness to be borne by the Spirit
in the hearts of the apostles intended ? This cannot be when
the testimony spoken of is to be given before the world, and
in answer to its hostile attitude. We conclude, then, that
Jesus intended to speak of testimony to be borne by the
mouths of the apostles, like that of Peter and the one hundred
and twenty on the day of Pentecost. — But in this case, why
did He afterwards distinguish it from the testimony of the
apostles themselves : " And ye also shall bear witness to me" ver,
27? The difference is explained by the words which foUow :
" because ye have been with me from the beginning!' The apostles
are by no means to be the passive instruments of the Spirit ;
they are to remain free personal agents. Side by side with the
agency of the Spirit, they wiU have their special part in the
testimony to be given. For they possess a treasure which is
their own, and which the Spirit could not have imparted to
them, their historical knowledge of the ministry of Christ from
its commencement to its close. The apostles were to be the

172 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
witnesses of the historic Christ, Now the Spirit does not
teach historical facts, but reveals their true meaning. Hence
the apostolic testimony, and the testimony of the Spirit, form
but a single act, in which each contributes a different element,
— the one the liistoric narrative, the other the internal evidence
and the victorious power. This relation is reproduced in our
own days in all living preaching derived from Holy Scripture.
St. Peter equally distinguishes the two kinds of testimony.
Acts V. 32: "And we are His witnesses of these things ; and
so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey
Him." This shows us why, when the apostles desired to fill
up the place of Judas, they chose two men who had accom
panied Jesus from the baptism of John to the resurrection
(Acts L 21, 22). — Kat vpel<; Be then signifies: "And you too,
you shall bear your part in this testimony."
xvi 1—4. " These things have I spoken unto you that ye should
not be offe7ided. They shall put you out of their synagogues ;
yea, the hour cometh, that .whosoever killeth you will think he
offereth worship to God. And these things will they do unto
you ^ because they have not known the Father nor me. But these
things I have foretold you, that when their hour shall come, ye
may rememher ^ that I told you of them. These things I said
not unto you from the beginning, because I was with you." —
Having thus encoiiraged His apostles, Jesus coraes to the
most serious matter He had to communicate concerning the
subject of which He was speaking. The former picture
brought out especiaUy the guUt of the persecutors, the present
words dweU rather on the sufferings of the persecuted ; the
apostles, having always lived in expectation of the national
conversion of Israel, might have felt their faith shaken at the
sight of the impenitence of this people, and of their increasing
hatred to the church. — 'AXXd here, as frequently, is a term
of gradation (2 Cor. vii. 11): But you must expect more.
'Iva denotes that the contents of the hour are willed by God.
The fanatic zeal of Paul at the time of Stephen's martyr-
' T. R., with X D L, several Mnn. ItP'"ii"» Cop., reads t,/z,v after nmiroum ; 12
Mjj. Mnn. It""'' Syr. omit it.
'^ A B n Syr. read xutoiv twice, after upx {the hour of these things) and niter
fiv/ifioviunri. L. Mnn. It. Vg. read it after ufx and omit it after ^imi^ois^/^itj.
D omits it both times.

CHAP. XVL 5-15. 173
dora is a striking example of the spiritual state described at
ver. 2 ; comp. Acts xxvi 9. The notion of ignorance at
ver. 3 is introduced by the term So ^77, will think. Is it not
really the height of blindness to think to serve God by the
very act which is an expression of the most vehement hatred
against Him ? Ver, 4 returns to the thought of ver. 1, How
ever terrible might be their sufferings, the apostles, by remem
bering their Master's predictions, would no longer find in them
a reason for doubt, but a ground of faith ; comp, xiu. 9.
Hitherto Jesus had sought to spare them by not disclosing to
them this gloomy prospect. As long as He was with them,
it was upon Himself that the blow would faU. But now
that He was about to leave them. He could no longer conceal
from them the future that awaited them, — It seems to us
impossible to reconcile this saying : " These things I said not
unto you at the beginning} with the place occupied in the
discourse. Matt, x,, by the positive announcement of the
persecutions to which the church would be subjected. It
cannot be said, with Euthymius and Chrysostom, that the
sufferings here foretold are far more terrible (comp. Matt, x,
17, 21, 28) ; nor, with Bengel and Tholuck, that the present
description is more detailed ; nor, with Hofmann and Luthardt,
that Jesus at this season of leave-taking made the announce
ment of these persecutions the more exclusive object of His
discourse. AU these distinctions seem to us too slight. It
would be better to admit that St. Matthew, in the great dis
course given in ch, x., combines aU the instructions given to
the Twelve at different periods on this subject, as he does in
chs. v,— vu. aU the new Christian law, and in chs, xxiv, xxv,
all the eschatological predictions ; and that, because in the
composition of the Logia he attached more iraportance to
suljeef than to chronology. This characteristic is explained as
soon as the mode of composition of the first Gospel is under
stood, (See my Etudes Bibliques, II. pp, 18, 19, 3d edit,)
3d xvi 5-15.
Jesus now describes the victory which His disciples shall
gain over a world in arms against them. He first points out
the power which wUl gain this victory by their means,
w, 5-7; then describes the victory itself, vv, 8-11; and
lastly, speaks to His disciples of that inward operation by

174 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
which the Holy Spirit wUl prepare them to become His
instruments in this conflict with the world, vv. 12-15.
Vv, 5—7, " But now I go my way to Him that sent me: and,
none of you asketh me, Wliither goest thou? But because I have
said these things unto you, sorrow hath filled your heart. Never
theless I tell you the truth: it is eocpedient for you that I go away :
for if I^ go not away, the Support will not come ; hut if I go, I
will send Him unto you!' — Vv. 5 and 6 form a natural transition
frora the idea of separation to the promise of the Paraclete,
ver. 7 ; the departure of Jesus being the condition of the
mission of the Holy Spirit. De Wette and Liicke propose
placing ver, 6 between the two propositions of ver, 5, Such
a proposal is useless, for the connection is perfectly clear :
from the great conflict Jesus proceeds to the great proraise.
Grieved to see His disciples dwelling exclusively upon the
approaching separation, and not also upon the glorious end to
which His departure is to lead both Hiraself and them. He
reminds thera that if He goes away, it is to Hira who sent
Him ; and to raise them from the deep dejection into which
they had fallen. He invites them to ask the further informa
tion which He desires to give them concerning the glorious
state into which He is about to enter, and the new agency He
will then exercise. Jhe friendly reproof : " None of you asketh
me : Wliither goest W.ou ? " is not in contradiction with the
questions of Peter, (xjiii 36) and Thomas (xiv. 5), since which
some considerable time had now elapsed, and which, moreover,
related, one to jibe possibility of following Jesus, the other to
the difficulty pf knowing the way. As Hengstenberg says,
Jesus would a/t such a moment have rejoiced to find in them
the gl.ad/promptitude of hearts opening at the prospect of a
ne)jf-'era, and putting incessant questions concerning aU that
ife" promised. The words : Because I have said these things to you (ver,
6), after ver. 5, signify : " Because I have spoken of parting,
conflict, and suffering.'' At ver. 7 Jesus appealed, as He did
in xiv. 2, to their conviction of His truthfulness, and then
announced some of those causes of rejoicing concerning which
they had not been as forward as they should to inquire.
1 T. E., with X B D L Y It""', omits iyo>, which is found in 10 Mjj. 120 Mnn.
Ilplcrlque gyr.

CHAP. XVI. 8-U. 175
His departure was the condition of His restoration to His
divine state, and this would enable Him to send the Holy
Spirit. It is the same idea which we meet with in vii. 39 :
"The Spirit was not yet, because Jesus was not yet glorified."
That Jesus might send the Spirit, He must possess Hira as
His own personal Hfe, and that as man, since it is to men
that He is to impart Him. This supposes the complete
glorification of His human nature. — It is surprising that no
mention should be made in this passage of the sacrifice of the
cross, which seems to be the first condition of the gift of the
Spirit. Certainly, if it had been the evangelist who had put
these words into the mouth of our Lord, this deficiency
would not have existed (comp. the first Epistle of St. John ii,
1, 2, V, 6— S), That it does so is explained by the statement
of ver. 12 : "/ have yet many things to say unto you, but ye
cannot bear them now."
Vv. 8—11. "And when He is come. He will convince the
world of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment : of sin, because
they believe ' not in me ; of righteousness, because I go to my ^
Father, and you shall see me no more ; of judgment, because
the prince of this world is judged." — We have here a descrip
tion of the moral victory to be gained over the world by the
Holy Spirit, through the instrumentality of the disciples.
The preaching of St. Peter at Pentecost, and its results, are
the best commentary on this promise. The term eXiy^eiv
signifies to convince of fault or error, here of both at once. —
The world in which such conviction is to be produced is not,
as the Fathers, De Wette, and Briickner think, men decidedly
lost, to whom the Holy Spirit will demonstrate the righteous
ness of their condemnation. — Ver, 11 proves that the prince
of this world alor^p is actually judged. If the world is the
object of the Holy Spirit's reproof, this is because it is still
capable of "salvation. The effect of the apostle's preaching in
Acts shows that this reproof may lead the world to either
conversion or obduracy; comp. 2 Cor. ii 15, 16. The
apostles, the instruments of the Spirit's agency, are not
named. Their persons disappear in the glory of the Divine
Being who works by their means. The absence of the article
' Some Mnn. ItP'«'''i"« Vg. read oux iriirTiuiro.t.
' X B D L, several Mnn. Iti>'«"i"« Vg, Cop. omit piou after rxripx.

176 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
before the substantives sin, righteousness, and judgment, leaves
these three notions their most indefinite meaning. Jesus
defines their application by the three on, because, which
foUow, Generally, when sin was spoken of in Israel, shameful
crimes or gross infractions of the Levitical law were intended.
The Holy Spirit would reveal to the world another sin, of
which it thought nothing: that of not believing in Jesus.
This He did by the raou.th of St. Peter on the day of Pente
cost (Acts ii. 22, 23, 36, iii, 14, 16) ; and those Jews who were
sincere immediately acknowledged the truth of this reproof
(Acts ii. 3 7). — This office is permanent, Jesus is the Supreme
Good ; to reject Him is to prefer evU to good, and wUfuUy to
persevere in such a preference. This it is which the Holy
Spirit is, by His instruraents, continuaUy making the un
believing world feel. — 'ApapTia<i 'oti, not : wiU convince the
world of the sin which consists in unbelief, but : of sin in general,
and that because of its unbeUef.
If the world, and especiaUy the Jewish world, was in error
as to its notion of sin, it was not less so in its manner of
understanding righteousness. Its ideal of righteousness was
an unexceptionable Pharisee, honoured by God and men. The
Holy Spirit comes to show that this man, inasmuch as he
beUeves not, may be a type of sin (ver. 9). On the other
hand. He teaches the world what righteousness really is, by
making it see its new and only true type, in the Person of
One condemned as a malefactor by the righteousness of the
age, but exalted by God to His right hand, and who, from
the heaven into which He has vanished, acts with sovereign
power. The Holy Spirit, in this respect, exercises in some
sort the functions of a court of appeal. ,Good Friday had
attributed sin to Jesus, and righteousness to His judges;
Pentecost reversed the sentence. It was to the condemned
that righteousness belonged, it was His judges who were
malefactors. This meaning seems to us to result from the
contrast between the terms sin and righteousness, and from tbe
fact that, as in ver. 9 the Jews, the subject of the explanatory
proposition, are at the same time the individuals to whom
sin belongs, so in ver. 10 Jesus, the principal subject of
the explanatory proposition, must be the individual to whom

CHAP. XVL 8-11. 177
righteousness belongs. This righteousness cannot, then, be
(Augustine, Calvin, Luther, etc.) that which the believer finds
in Christ, or, as Lange thinks, that of God, who deprives the
Jews, as a punishment of their unbelief, of the visible pre
sence of the Messiah and of His earthly kingdom (^' you
shall see me r.o more"). — Jesus says: "because I go to my
Father." The ascension, as the principle of Pentecost, was,
indeed, the demonstration by fact of the righteousness of
Christ. He adds : " You shall see me no more." By the
disappearance of His body. His departure acquired the
glorious character of a heavenly exaltation. If the corpse
had remained below, ignominy would stUl have rested on
the supposed malefactor. The disgrace of punishment was
washed away by the glorification of His body. This is the
idea which St. Peter developes in Acts ii 24-26, combin
ing, as it were, in one view, the resurrection and ascension
(w. 32 and 33) as divine testiraony to the innocence of
Jesus. It would seem that when judgment is spoken of after the
contrast between sin and righteousness, it must be a judgment
which, emanating from righteousness, would strike the sin just
spoken of It is not, however, anything of the kind. The
judgment of which the Holy Spirit wUl give a demonstration to
the world is not that of the sinful world, but of its prince. For
the world may yet be saved, if it accepts the reproofs of the
Spirit, whUe the prince of this world has now fiUed up the
measure of his sin. TUl Good Friday, Satan had only dis
played his murderous hatred against the guilty. On that
day he directed his attacks against the perfectly Righteous
One. In vain had Jesus said : "He has nothing in me; " Satan
exhausted upon Him his murderous rage (vUi. 44 and 40).
This raurder, for which there was no excuse, brought forth
an iraraediate and irrevocable sentence against him. From
that moment he was actuaUy judged (perf. KeKpiTai), and his
ancient realm opened to the preaching of salvation. This
invisible revolution, of which the cross was the principle, and
whose results extend throughout the universe, was revealed
upon earth by the coming and the powerful language of the
Spirit ; and every sinner, snatched from Satan and regenerated
by the Spirit, is a monument of the condemnation hence-
GODET m. M JOHN.

178 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
forth pronounced upon hira who was formerly caUed the prince
of this world.
This passage differs only in form from xii. 31, 32; the
three actors mentioned, the world, Satan, and Jesus, are the
same, as are also the parts attributed to them. One idea
alone is added, viz, that it is the Holy Ghost who wiU dis
close to men the greatness of the invisible drama consum
mated on the cross. Henceforth, then, some will remain in
the sin of unbelief, and share the judgraent of the prince of
this world ; others will take the side of the righteousness of
Christ, and escape the judgment pronounced upon Satan, — But
if this victory of the Spirit is to be won by the apostles,
the work of the Spirit must first have been accomplished in
them. This is the reason that Jesus now passes from the
agency of the Spirit upon the world by believers, to His
agency in believers (vv, 12-15),
Vv, 12, 13, " I have yet many things to say unto you, hut
you cannot hear them now} When He, the Spirit of truth, is
come, He will guide you into all the truth ; ^ for He shall not
speak of Himself, but whatsoever ^ He shall hear * that shall He
speak, and He shall announce to you things to come." — Jesus
begins by making room for the teaching of the Spirit beside
His own. At that very time He had told His disciples so
many things, which they could but half understand ! Un
doubtedly He had, in respect of confidence, hid nothing from
them (xv, 1 5) ; but with regard to their spiritual incapacity.
He had kept to Himself many revelations which were re
served for the teaching of the Spirit, These higher revela
tions comprise all which in the apostolic writings goes beyond
the word of Christ in the Gospels: redemption by His
sacrifice, the relation of grace to the law, the conversion of
the Gentiles without legal conditions, the conversion of the
Jews, the final apostasy, the destiny of the church till its
consummation. In all these respects the teaching of Jesus
had only sown the germs, which the Spirit came to fertiUze,
^ X omits xpTi.
2 T. R. with 11 Mjj. Mnn.: u; orxuxv Tnv xXrhixv. A B Y Or. : u; ... xX.
¦axnxv. D L If''*"' : tv t»i xXnhix Txn. X : •" T!) xXuSux.
' Av is omitted by X B D L, 4 Mnn.
^ T. B, with 10 Mjj.: xxouirn. B D E H Y Or,: xxouou. X L : xxouu.

CHAP. XVI. 12, 13. 179
The term oBriyelv, to show the road, at ver. 1 3, presents the
Spirit under the image of a guide conducting a traveUer in
an unknown country. This country is truth. It is evidently
only essential truth, the truth necessary to salvation, of which
Jesus here spoke. That realm of the new creation, which
He had only been able to show them at a distance, and by
means of simiUtudes, should be disclosed to them by the
Spirit in a direct and perfectly true manner. This truth,
according to xiv. 6, is Jesus Himself, His person. His word.
His work, — The reading et? suits the verb oSrjy^aei better
than iv.
The infalUbiUty of this guide arises from the same cause
as that of Jesus Himself (vii, 17, 18): the absence of aU self-
originated and consequently unsound productivity. Satan is a
liar just because he speaks according to an entirely different
method, deriving what he says from his own resources (viii.
44), The term oaa av, all things that, leads to the notion
of a series of separate acts. Every time an apostle needs
wisdom, the Spirit will impart to him what is suitable. Of
the Father or of me raay be understood as regimen of the verb
shall hear. Ver. 15 proves that these two ideas must be
combined, and this raost naturaUy explains the expression
shall hear: He is present at the special comraunications
between the Father and the glorified Son ; He shares in the
revelation which God gives to Jesus Christ (Rev, i, 1), to show
unto His servants; and thus initiated into the divine plan.
He instructs the disciples according to their needs. It is
evidently an instruction in things as yet unknown upon
earth (ver. 12), a primordial revelation, which is here spoken
of It is by this characteristic that apostoUc inspiration is
distinguished from that of simple believers. The latter is
but a reproduction of the knowledge for which we are in
debted to the former, and is consequently but indirectly
included in this proraise. It is effected by means of the
word, in which the apostles deposited the wealth of the
original revelation, which was their prerogative. The expres
sion all the truth shows that, during the present dispensation,
no new word of Christ wiU be heard upon earth. — To this
teaching of the Spirit belongs also, as a speciaUy important
element, the revelation of the destiny of the church, the

180 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
things to come. — Kai, and even. As Jesus is not merely the
Christ who is come, but also the Christ coming (6 ip'^opevo^.
Rev. i. 4), these things to come {ip^opeva) are stiU contained
in His person. The saying xiv, 26 gives the formula of
the inspiration of our Gospels ; ver, 1 3 gives that of the
inspiration of the Epistles and the Apocalypse.
Vv. 14, 15. " He shall glorify me, for He shall take of what
is mine, and shall show it unto you. All that the Father hath
is mine ; therefore said I, He shall take ^ of mine and shall show
it unto you!' — The asyndeton between w. 13 and 14 shows
that Jesus does but reproduce in ver. 14, in a new and
stronger form, the thought of vv. 12 and 13. The definite
work of the Spirit wUl be the glorification of Jesus in the hearts
of the apostles. After the Father has personaUy exalted Christ
to glory, the Holy Spirit wUl beam forth from above His heavenly
image in the hearts of the disciples, and by their means in
those of all believers. We have here a mysterious exchange,
and, as it were, a rivalry of divine humUity. The Son
labours only to glorify the Father, and the Spirit desires only
to glorify the Son. — The close relation between ver. 14 and
what precedes shows that the revelation of the truth (ver. 13)
is nothing else than the glorification of Jesus in the heart.
Christ, His words and work, — this is the only text on which
the Holy Spirit will comraent in the souls of the disciples.
Thus He wUl, by one and the same act, cause the disciples to
grow in truth, and Jesus to grow in them. — To understand
this word glorify, comp. the experience so admirably described
by St. Paul in 2 Cor. Ui. 17, 18, In calling the source from
which the Spirit is to draw mine, Jesus uttered a paradox, of
which He gives the explanation in ver. 15, In fact. He adds,
" all that the Fatlier hath is mine." This wonderful saying
reveals, as none other does, the consciousness He possessed of
the greatness of His Person and His gospel Christian Jact
is, in the consciousness of Jesus, the measure of the divine for
human nature. There is nothing Christian which is not
Divine, nothing Divine which is not Christian. — " Therefore
said I unto you " here signifies : " Therefore I have been able
1 T. R., with A K n, some of the Mnn. ItP'="«i"« Vg. Cop., reads x^^^^itxi (shall
take). ButBDEGLMSUYAA Syr. and most of the Mnn. read Xx/^lixvu
{takes). X (confusing the two xvxyytXu u/nv) omits the whole of ver. 15.

CHAP. XVL lS-18. 181
to say," — There is inore documentary authority for the pres,
takes (ver, 15) than for the future will take. It is, besides,
in relation with the presents hath, is, the future seeming a
correction after ver. 14. He takes — this is His permanent
function, the principle of His agency, whence it results that
He wiU take in each particular case. — It is evident that
there is no reaUy divine inspiration which does not refer to
Jesus Christ. St, Paul, too, raakes the exclamation of adora
tion : " Jesus is the Lord ! " the criterion of aU true action
on the part cf the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. xii. 3). When it is
remembered that the glorification of the creature is in the
Scriptures the capital crime, it wiU be understood what is
implied by such words,
AU these discourses, and especially this mascuHne pro
noun eKetvo'}, He, in ver. 14, are based upon the notion of the
personaUty of the Holy Spirit.
IIL The Last Farewell. — xvi 16-33.
From these distant prospects Jesus returns to the event
which so engrossed the present moment, to His approaching
departure. It was natural that He should end with this, and
that the conversational form should reappear.
Vv. 16-18. "A little while, and you shall see me no more ;^
then a little while more, and you shall see me, because I go to the
Father} Then said some of His disciples among themselves :
What is this that He saith unto us, A little while, and you shall
see me no more ;^ then a little while more, and you shall see me ?
And, because I^ go to the Father. They said, tlierefore. What
is this * that He saith : A little while ? We do not understand
what He saith!' — If the seeing again promised refers to appear
ances of Jesus after the resurrection, there is no connection
between ver. 16 and the preceding verse. But the asyndeton
leads us to suppose that there is a very deep connection
' X B D L A read ouxin instead of ov.
2 X B D L It""'' Cop. omit the words ot; . . . vxTtpx, which are read in 13 Mjj.
most of the Mnn. It'"' Syr. etc.
^ X (confusing the two //.ixpov xxd) omits the words uixpov xxi . . . wxXiv,
* ¦Eyu is omitted by X A B L M A n, 11 Mnn. ItP'"ii''=.
* Instead of touto ti i. o Xiyu, B L Y It. Or. read t< £. tovto o x., and X D t/
iffTI TOVTO.

182 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
between them. This proves that this seeing Him again refers
to the iUumination of Pentecost, which being admitted, the
relation with what precedes no longer offers any difficulty.
FuU of the idea of His glorification by the Spirit in the hearts
of His disciples, Jesus called this return a seeing of each other
again (vv. 16, 22). It was by this Uving reappearance in the
souls of His disciples that their approaching separation would
be ended. — The first piKpov, a little while, is that which ends
at the death of Jesus ; the second terminates at Pentecost.
Four Alex, omit the words : Because I go to the Father. Pro
bably it was not understood how the departure of Jesus could
be the cause of His being seen again, especiaUy when this
seeing Hira again was understood of the appearances of His
risen body. But all is clear when this is referred to Pente
cost, It was because Jesus ascended to the Father that He
could manifest Hiraself anew by the Holy Spirit. StiU, by
expressing Himself as He did, Jesus proposed, as He was
aware, a problem to His disciples. Those two short delays
{a little while), which were to have opposite results, and that
apparently contradictory notion : " you shaU see me because I
go away . . .," could not faU to be enigmas to them. We here
again meet with the pedagogic process, which we have already
observed in xiv, 4, 7, By these paradoxical expressions. He
purposely provoked the disclosure of their last doubts, for the
sake of entirely removing them.
The kind of aside which took place between certain of the
apostles (ver. 17) could not be easily explained if they had
still been gathering round our Lord, as when He uttered the
discourse in xv. 1 sqq. It is therefore probable that at
ver, 16 He continued His journey, the disciples following at a
short distance. This explains how they could converse with
one another, as related in vv. 17 and 18. The words: I go
to my Father, were perhaps the signal to proceed. — The objec
tions of the disciples were, from their point of view, natural
That which is quite clear to us was to them aU mystery. If
Jesus were about to found an earthly kingdom, why should
He depart ? If not, why should He return ? Then how were
they to understand these contradictory sentences, which were
to be accomphshed one after another ? And, lastly : " I corae
because I depart . . . ! " Had they not some reason for ex-

CHAP. XVI. 19, 20. 183
claiming: "We do not understand what He saith" (ver. 18) ?
All this clearly proves the truth of the narrative ; for how
could a later author have ever thus placed hiraself in the
very quick of the historical reality ? The last words of ver.
17 necessarily assurae the reading of the T. R, at ver, 16,
Vv, 19, 20, "Jesus then^ knew that they desired^ to ask
Him, and said unto them. Do ye inquire among yourselves of
what I said : A little while, and ye shall not see me ; and
again a little while, and ye shall see me ? Verily, verily, I say
unto you, that ye shall weep and lament, but the world shall
rejoice ; and ^ ye shall he sorrowful, but your sorrow shall he
turned into joy." — Jesus here gives thera a last proof of His
superior knowledge, not only by showing them that He was
conscious of the questions which were engrossing their
thoughts, but also by solving in this last conversation all the
enigraas by which they were tortured. But being unable to
give them an objective knowledge of those great facts which
were about rapidly to transpire, He described the opposite and
sudden irapressions of which they would themselves be the
subjects. The greatest joy would succeed the greatest grief,
and the latter would be but short — as short as the hour of
travail to a woman; it would only last during the time of
going to His Father and returning. It would be a terrible
hour for them to pass through, but He could not spare it them,
and afterwards their joy would be unmixed, and their power
unlimited. These are the contents of vv, 20—24. — The tears
and lamentations of ver, 20 find their explanation at ch. xx.
in the tears of Mary Magdalen, and in the state of the dis
ciples after their Master's death. The appearance of the
risen Saviour only half healed this wound ; perfect joy was not
given tUl the day of Pentecost (ver. 22). The words : and
the world shall rejoice, are not the true antithesis of the words :
ye shall weep. They only form a kind of inserted contrast.
This is why Jesus reproduces them in the words : you shall
he sorrovjful, to introduce the originally intended antithesis :
But your sorrow shall be turned into joy. The Se, but, after
v/iets weU expresses this return to the former idea.
* X B D L omit »»» after iyvu.
' X : B^sXXai' instead of nhxov.
' N B D A ltpi"'"i»« Syr*'" Cop. omit 5i.

184 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
Vv. 21, 22. "A woman when she is in travail hath sorrow,
because her hour is come ; hut as soon as she is delivered of the
child, she remembereth no more the anguish, for her joy that a
man ^ is horn into the world. And ye also now have sorrow ; ^
but I will see you again, and your heart shall rejoice ; and your
joy no man taketh^ from you!' — The term of comparison is
the sudden transition from the extremity of grief to the ex
tremity of joy, and to this we must confine ourselves. The
notion of the bringing forth of a new world as the result of
this hour of anguish does not seem to have been in the mind
of Jesus. — The expression : her hour, aUudes perhaps to the
terrible hour through which Jesus had Himself to pass {my
hour). What they would experience would be but the
rebound of what He had to bear. The word a man brings
out the greatness of the event accomplished, and gives a
reason for the mother's joy.
Ver. 22 appHes the comparison. The connection of this
verse with the following clearly determines its meaning. It
is the event of Pentecost and not the resurrection which is
here spoken of. The meaning of the words : " I wUl see you
again," may be expressed as follows : " I will return to see
you, to revisit you, to live again with you." These words are
not exactly synonymous with : " you shall see me again." His
death not only separated His disciples from Him, but also
Himself from His disciples. He no longer held, as during
His life, the reins of their life. It is for this reason also that
He, in the prayer which follows, entrusted them to His Father,
so real was the separation on both sides. After Pentecost, on
the contrary. He again guided His flock with His crook,
and governed thera from His heavenly throne. It is this
change in His own situation which He expresses by: /
will see you again (a change which the resurrection alone
could not have effected). This explanation appears to Meyer
arfiflcial, and / will see you again is, in his opinion, iden
tical with you shall see me again. — The present a'ipei, takes, is
the true reading, Jesus transporting Himself in thought to
that time. ^ X reads o before xvipuTo;.
» A D L, 12 Mnn. It""" Cop. : .?it. instead of ixw.
' B D r It'"'' : xpu {will take) instead of aifu {takes).

CHAP. XVL 23-27. 185
Vv. 23, 24. "And in that day ye shall no more question
me on anything ; verily, verily, I say unto you, that whatsoever ^
ye shall ask the Father in my name} He will give it you.
Hitherto have ye asked nothing in my name ; ask} and ye shall
receive, that your joy may he made full." — This perfect joy
(ver. 2 2) wUl be based upon a double privilege, which they
wiU from that day enjoy, — fulness of knowledge (ver. 23a),
and fulness of power (ver. 23&). They wiU no longer need
to ask Him to explain what raight seem to them mysterious
or obscure, as they had but, just now desired to do, ver. 19 ;
they would have the Paraclete within. And, moreover, this
inward source of light would make thera participate in omni
potence, by conferring on them the new faculty of prayer in
the narae of Jesus (comp. xiv. 12-14). — The reading of A, 3, n
dv, all that, may well be the true one. After having changed
this o Tl into oti, because, it was necessary to add the pronouns
6 or oaa, and the on was next omitted as useless (Meyer). —
Ver, 24 does not absolutely require that the words in my
name (ver. ^3) should be connected with the verb you shall
ask, rather than with He will give. This is, however, not
withstanding the Alex., their most natural relation. — Before
the gift of Pentecost, the apostles could not pray in the name
of Jesus — that is to say, as His organs ; for this, it was
necessary that He should Uve in their hearts. By saying:
ask (pres. atretre), Jesus transports Himself to the great day
announced. Then, says Meyer, wUl the deliverance described
in ver. 21 be consuraraated, and perfect joy succeed extrerae
grief. Vv. 25—27, "These things have I spoken unto you in parables:
hut * the hour cometh when ^ I shall no more speak unto you in
parables, but I shall speak ^ to you openly of the Father. At
^ Instead of on ocx xv, which is the reading of T. E. with 10 Mjj. Mnn., A
reads on (probably o, n) xv ; B CD liY It. Or. : av t/ ; X : ot< o av ; X and some
Mnn. : #t/ a ixv ; Syr. : oirx xv.
^XBCLXYa Sah, Or. place iv t. ovofo. fiou after 'iuiiru upon {will give in my
name). ' X and some Mnn. read xnntxirh instead of xituti.
* X B C D L X Y ItPi«"i"« Or. omit xxxx.
' X reads o'xou instead of oti.
^ The Mss. are divided between x'xxyyiXoi (X A B, etc.) and xvx^jyiXu (E G H,
etc.).

186 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
that day ye shall ask in my name : and I say not unto you,
that I will pray the Father for you : for the Father Himself
loveth you, because ye have loved me, and have believed that I
came forth from God." ^ — ^Ver. 2 5 takes up again and deve
lopes the idea of ver, 23a (knowledge), vv, 26, 27 that of
236 (power), Jesus during His whole teaching made use
of figures ; He had done so that very evening (the vine, the
woman in travaU, His return, their seeing one another again),
because He could not just then express Himself plainly. It
is the office of the Spirit alone to speak in language reaUy
commensurate with the truth. All teaching in words is but
a parable, until the Spirit explains it, Ilapprja-ia here signi
fies, in appropriate terms, which do not compromise the idea
by exposing it to erroneous interpretation. On irapoipia, see
remarks on x. 6. — It is not easy to decide between the two
verbs dvayyiXeiv (Byz.), to declare openly, and aTrayyeXXeiv
(Alex.), to announce as news.
V, 26 and xiv, 16 are harmonized by the fact that before
Pentecost Jesus prayed for His disciples that He might
send the Spirit to them ; while after the Pentecostal gift, and
in proportion as it worked in thera, they theraselves prayed
in His narae, and consequently He needed no longer to pray
for them. As long, then, as they reraain in this state of union
with Him, the intercession of Jesus (Rom, viii 34 ; Heb. vii.
25) is unnecessary. But as soon as they sin, they need the
advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous (1 John ii.
1, 2). The expression : I say not that I will pray, is admir
ably adapted to this condition. He does-not promise that He
will pray, for as long as they remain in the normal condition
they wUl not need it. In this condition He prays by thera,
not for them. But He does not say that He wUl not pray,
for they may happen yet to need His intercession when sorae
separation takes place between Hira and thera, Grotius and
others understand the words: / say not that ... in the
sense : not to say that I also wUl pray for you. This is making
Jesus say exactly the reverse of His thought, as shown by
ver, 2 7, — On the words : the Father Himself loveth you, because
you have loved me, comp. xiv. 21, 23, By saying: and have
believed, Jesus coraes back from Pentecost to the present state
1 Instead of liou, B C D L X, 2 Mnn, Syr*^"" Sah, read TXT'fos.

CHAP. XVL 28. 187
of His disciples. This is also shown by the present, loveth, and
the perfects, have loved and have believed, as opposed to the
futures which precede thera. Jesus returns to the work
already effected, the condition of that which stUl remained to
be accompUshed (that of Pentecost). And, in fact, the supreme
moraent was at hand. It was time to set the seal to the
faith actuaUy formed. For this purpose Jesus clearly states
its essential contents : " You have believed that I came forth
from God!' Tischendorf hiraself rejects the Alex, reading: /i-om
the Father, instead of: from God (which is the reading of the
Sinait.). Indeed, it was the divine origin and mission of
Jesus, and not His filial relation to God, which it was needful
at that moment to hold forth as the principal object of the
apostles' faith. The case is quite different at ver. 28. The
prepos. Trapd, from with, and the verb e^XOov, I came forth,
express more than the mere mission, which would have been
designated by dm and eX'^Xv0a, and characterize that divine
sphere in general whence Jesus proceeds. They weU bring
out the heroism of the apostles' faith. They had recognised
in this Being of flesh and blood, this feeble and despised man,
one who came from the Divine abode,
Ver, 28. " / came forth^ from the Father, and am come into
the world: now I leave the world, and go to the Father." —
What the disciples could not previously understand was, that
Jesus should leave the world, where He was, as they thought,
to estabUsh His kingdom. They had, besides, no clear notion
of the place to which He was going. Jesus started from what
was raore clear, for the purpose of explaining to thera what
was less so. They believed and understood that His origin
was divine ; that behind His terrestrial existence was not
nothingness, but the bosom of the Father (ver. 27) ; that con
sequently this world was to Him only a place of passage ; that
He carae hither solely to perforra a work. What more
natural than that, having accomplished this work. He should
leave this world, to which He came only for a purpose, and
return to God, from whora He proceeded ? The ascension is
explained by the incarnation, and the divine future is illumi
nated by the divine past. The symmetry of the four pro
positions of this verse casts an unexpected light on the history
1 Instead of ^xpx (from with), B C L X, 2 Mnn. Cop. Or. read tx (out of).

188 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
of Jesus and on each of the four great phases in which it is
summed up : self-abnegation, incarnation, death, ascension. —
The Alex, reading Ik has, as Liicke himself observes, a too
decidedly dogmatic flavour to be genuine. Uapd, from, here,
as in ver. 27, includes both origin and mission. The idea of
this first proposition is the renunciation by Jesus of the divine
condition which He possessed with God. He here says the
Father, instead of God (ver. 2 7). He was no longer speaking,
as in ver. 2 7, of the contents of the apostolic faith. AU the
sweetness of His fihal relation to the Father was present to
His mind. The term irdXiv, again, which we have translated
by now, indicates the correlation between His coming and
returning, the former fuUy justifying the latter. The apostles
understand why He goes away: because He came; and whither
He goes : to God, because it was from God that He came,
Vv. 29, 30. "His disciples said unto Him} Lo, now speakest
Thou plainly, and speakest no parable. Now we know that Thou
knowest all things, and needest not that any should ask Tliee :
for this we believe, that Thou earnest forth from God." — At hear
ing this simple and exact recapitulation of aU the mysteries
of His existence, past, present, and future, the disciples felt
surrounded by unexpected light; a unanimous and spontaneous
confession was pronounced by them ; and the doubts which
had from the beginning of these conversations tormented
them, were dispersed. They seemed to have nothing more to
desire in respect of illumination, and to have abeady arrived
at that noonday of perfect knowledge which Jesus had just
promised. Not that they had the folly to affirm, in opposition
to the word of Him whose omniscience they were that moment
proclaiming, that the promised time had already arrived ; still
the light was so bright that they could not conceive one more
brilliant. By answering thus directly the thoughts which
were secretly agitating their hearts, Jesus gave thera a
standard whereby to estimate the truth of all His sayings,
and the certainty of all his promises. — They had just
experienced, like Nathanael in the early days of His
ministry, that He was omniscient, and like him, they thence
inferred that He was Divine. — The relation of the words : Tliou
needest not that any should ask thee, to those of ver. 19, Jesus
' X B 0 D A n, 2 Mnn, It'"'i omit aara.

CHAP. XVI. 31-33. 189
knew that they were desirous to ask Him, is indisputable ; but
it must be understood, as above, in a large sense, and one
worthy this soleran scene (against Meyer). — The two ideas of
Divine mission (aTro) and origin (ef^X^e?) are mingled in the
confession of the disciples, as they are in the expression
Son of God, i. 50.
Vv. 31—33. "Jesus answered them. Now ye believe. Be
hold, the hour cometh, and is already^ come, that ye shall be
scattered, every one to his own home, and shall leave me alone :
and yet I am not alone, because the Father is with me. These
things have I told you, that in me ye might have peace. In
the world ye shall have^ tribulation; but be of good cheer; I
have overcome the world." — The present was to Jesus a moment
of unutterable sweetness ; He had been recognised and under
stood by these eleven Galileans, That was enough ; the Holy
Spirit would complete the work of glorifying Him in thera,
and through them in mankind. He can now close this con
versation and give thanks, for His earthly work is finished.
St, John alone understood the greatness, and has preserved the
remembrance, of this moraent. We must be careful, therefore,
not to take the words : Now you believe, in an interrogative
sense, as though Jesus had cast any doubt upon the reaUty of
their faith ; nor must we set dpn, now, in opposition to what fol
lows : " Now indeed you beheve, but what wiU you do shortly? "
For how, in this case, could Jesus have poured forth such fer
vent thanksgiving to God for the faith of His disciples ? Corap.
xvu, 8. " They have known truly (aXi^^ws) that I came forth
from Thee, and they have believed that Thou didst send me} words
in which Jesus certainly aUuded to this, ver, 30. The word
now refers to the past, not to the future : " You have then
reached the point to which I have so long laboured to lead
you. At length you beheve,"
The tie, however, which is but just formed, is about to be sub
jected to a rude test (ver. 32). The bundle wiU be broken at
least externaUy. But the centre wUl remain firra, and aU the
scattered members will return and group themselves around
it. — Nvv, which we have rendered by already, may have been
'' X A B C D L X Cop, omit vm before iXnXuhv.
^ Instead of eIsts (you shall have), which is the reading of T, R. with D, several
Mnn. ItP'*''"'"'', the other documents have tx^Ti (you have).

190 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
omitted by the Alex., because it seemed as though the time
had not yet arrived. — The aor. pass. aKopiricrdr)Te, when you
shall be scattered, is more fitted to extenuate than to aggravate
the fault of the disciples announced by the words : ye shall
leave me alone. It is a violent blow, which wiU strike and
stun thera. This saying recaUs the quotation from Zechariah
in the Synoptists : "I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall
be scattered" (Matt. xxvi. 31). — E19 tu 'iSia, to their respective
dweUings. Gess remarks that this saying and that of ver. 33,
uttered as they were at the moment when the disciples were
about to forsake Him, contain beforehand the pardon of their
unfaithfulness. Ver. 32 reassured the disciples with regard to their Master's
Person ; ver. 33 aimed at setting thera at rest as to theraselves.
— All that Jesus said to them during this last evening tended
to inspire them with perfect repose by means of faith in Hira
(xiv. 1-xv. 17). Undoubtedly He could not conceal frora
them that they would have a conflict to maintain with the
world (xv. 18-xvi, 4), But in presence of the tribulation by
which this conflict would be accompanied, their peace must
acquire the character of assurance, and become courage {6dpao<i).
For Christ has vanquished beforehand that hostUe world with
which they have to contend, has resisted its seductions and
overcome its terrors. The cross which awaited Him, and
which His obedience accepted, showed that henceforth the
world had in Him its conqueror, — The two regimens, in me
and in the world, are opposed to each other ; they designate, the
one the sphere of the inner life : peace ; the other that of the
outer life : tribulation. The last proposition points to the
victory of the life in Christ over the changing fortunes of the
earthly life — a victory whose principle is that of Christ's over
the world. As yet this was only accomphshed in Him who
was speaking, but it would soon be so in their case also,
'Eyd>, I, emphaticaUy brings out the idea of that unique per
sonality whose victory is that of all the rest.

CHAP. XVIL 1-26. 191
THIRD SECTION.
XVIL 1-26,  THE PRAYER.
It was with a shout of triumph that Jesus concluded His
conversations with His disciples ; but this triumph was an
anticipation of faith. To transform the present reahty into
victory, nothing less than God's omnipotence was needed.
And to this Jesus appeals.
This prayer is generally divided into three parts: first, prayer
for Himself (vv. 1-5) ; secondly, prayer for His apostles (vv,
6-19) ; and thirdly, prayer for the church (vv, 20-26), But
when Jesus prayed for Himself, He had in view not His own
person, but the work of God (vv, 1, 2) ; when He prayed for the
apostles, it was as the instruments and continuers of this same
work ; and when He commended to God believers present and
future, it was as the objects of that work, and because their
souls were to be the theatre on which the Father's glory was
to be displayed. The framework of the prayer is indeed that
indicated by the generally received division, but the leading
thought which unifies it is the Father's work, or, which comes
to the same thing, the glory of God. This prayer of Jesus is
throughout inspired by His mission and His filial affection.
He thanks God for what has already been given Him to do
for His cause, and asks for the more effectual raeans which
are henceforth indispensable to the corapletion of the work
now begun.
This prayer is more than a mere meditation, Jesus had
acted (ch. xiu.) and spoken (chs, xiv,-xvi,) ; He now used that
language which is at the sarae time action : He prayed. But
He not only prayed. He prayed aloud ; which proves that
whUe speaking to God, He was also speaking for those around
Him. He desired to initiate them into that close communion
which He maintained with His Father, and, if possible, to lead
them to pray with Him. It is an anticipatory realization of
that communion of glory which He asked for them at ver. 24 :
" That they may behold my glory which Thou hast given me,
that they may be with me where I am." He raises them to
that divine sphere in which He Hiraself dwells.

192 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
This prayer has been caUed priestly. We have here, mdeed,
the act of the High Priest of mankind beginning His sacrifice
by offering to God HimseK and aU His people, present and
future. Beyschlag rightly brings forward a multitude of ex
pressions in this prayer which would be inappUcable to the
Logos as such, and which thus exclude the hypothesis that
the theory of the Logos was the parent of this Gospel (On
its true theory, comp. Introd. pp. 187, 189.)
Vv, 1-5 : Jesus prays for restoration to His divine glory,
Vv. 1, 2. " These words spake^ Jesus, and lifted up^ His eyes
to heaven, and said. Father, the hour is come ; glorify Thy Son,
that Thy Son^ also^ may glorify Thee : as Thou hast given^ Him
power over all flesh, that to all those whom Thou hast given Him,
He may give ^ eternal life." — Jesus had spoken the preceding
sayings on the road from Jerusalera to Gethsemane ; He was
therefore on the point of passing the brook of Kedron, At
this decisive moment He paused for reflection and prayer. —
He raised His eyes to heaven — a natural effort of the soul to
escape from the prison of the body, an aspiration towards the
Living God, whose glory shines in the majestic spectacle of the
heavens. How much better is this action understood out of
doors than in a room ! (comp, xi 41 ; Mark vu, 34). The
words : and He said, mark the moment when, beyond this
visible heaven. His heart met the countenance of God, and in
the God of the universe beheld His Father, The whole spirit
of the prayer which foUows is concentrated in this name of
Father by which He addresses God, The tone which dis
tinguishes it is that of confidence and iiUal affection. The
Aramean word X3X (abba). Father, which was generally used
by Jesus in prayer, and which expressed the holiest emotions
of His heart, became sacred to Christians, and passed as such
into the language of the New Testament (Rom, viu, 1 5 ; Gal
^ ^ : XtXxXnxiv instead of iXuXni7iv.
- X B C D L X, 7 Mnn. It^'i Vg. Cop : i^rxpx; . . . umv instead of I'unpi
, . . XXI il'XiV.
^ X B C It'^1 omit (TOV after vio; (the Son instead of thy Son).
* X A B C D, 3 Mnn. ItP'"'-'i°» Vg. Syr. Cop. Or. omit xxi after ivx.
* Alex. : iiioixx; instead of iiuxx; (this variation is almost constantly repeated
throughout this passage),
« Instead of Sairn xvtoi; (T. E. with 7 Mjj.), 9 Mjj. (B E H, etc.) have J!»<rii

CHAP. XVIL 1, 2. 193
iv, 6). — The hour of which St, John and our Lord Himself had
often said in the course of the Gospel, that it was not yet eome,
— ^the hour of death as that of a transition to glory, — had now
struck. But if this was to be its resiUt, the interposition of the
Father, the manifestation of His arm in the glorification of
the Son, was needed. Many, understanding by this glorification
of Jesus the moral perfection which, by the Divine assistance.
He would exhibit in His sufferings, give His prayer the
meaning of : " Strengthen me, that I may honour Thee in the
conflict which awaits rae." Others, like Reuss, think rather of
the power of attraction which Jesus would henceforth exercise
upon men, and of His spiritual glorification in their hearts.
These explanations are incompatible with ver. 5, which shows
that Jesus was thinking of His personal restoration to that
Divine condition which was His before His incarnation. This
glory of Jesus must not be restricted, as it generally is by
orthodox theologians, to the enjoyment of Divine happiness
and glory. The result of His exaltation, thus understood,
would not give any greater abihty to glorify the Father in the
future than He at present possessed ; and yet the aim of His
prayer was : " that Thy Son may glorify Thee." It was for an
increase of personal power, for new means of action, that He
petitioned. His restoration to the possession of Divine omni
presence, omniscience, and omnipotence, the participation of
His humanity in the Divine state (the pop<pr] ©eoO, Phil, ii, 6);
this was what He needed for continuing to glorify God, and
for consummating that work of salvation of which He had
already laid the foundation. He begged, therefore, for a very
real change in His personal condition. — He spoke of Himself
in the third person, as we do whenever we desire to draw the
attention of one whom we address to what we are to him.
There is, therefore, nothing suspicious in this third person
which St. John puts into our Lord's mouth. It is, moreover,
consistent with the manner in which He generaUy speaks of
Himself in the Synoptic Gospels, where He habitually desig
nates Himself the Son of Man, There would be more just
cause for suspicion in the expression given by the Alex, read
ing adopted by Tischendorf : " That the Son may glorify Thee,"
— a reading which has a manifestly doctrinal tinge, and is not
more probable than that of these Mss. at i, 1 8 : " God the
GODET IIL N JOHN,

194 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
only Son." — The particle Kai after 'iva, that also, must, in spite
of the sarae documents and of Tischendorf, be carefuUy main
tained in the text. This Httle word weU brings out the fiUal
sentiment by which the request was inspired : " Glorify me,
that I in my turn may glorify Thee."
Ver. 2 is an explanatory addition to ver. 1, In its first
proposition, Jesus mentions what it is that gives Him the
right to say to the Father, Glorify me. In thus praying He
was only asking what was in conforraity with the decree of
God Himself : " As Thou hast given Him . . ," This decree
is that by which God, when He gave Him His mission
(x. 36), granted to the Son the sovereignty over the whole
human race {all flesh; corap. Eph. i. 10). — The second pro
position of ver, 2 : " that He may give life," is parallel with
the second of ver, 1 : " that He may glorify Thee." The
true means of glorifying God is the communication of eternal
life. For this consists in knowing God (ver. 3). By pre
senting the aim of His supplication under this new aspect,
then, Jesus was urging it on more pressing grounds : " Glorify
me, that I, in conformity with the mandate Thou hast given
me, may give eternal life to all believers." As much as
to say ; " Grant me the ascension, that I may execute the
work of Pentecost." — Udv, all, designates the future body of
believers, the unity, the 'ev spoken of in ver. 33, xi. 52, and
by St. Paul, Eph. ii 14, which God beheld from eternity,
and gave to the Son (Rom. viii. 28). Udv is generally re
garded as nomin. absolute ; but is it not rather an inverted
accusative ? The writer was at the beginning of the sentence
aUeady conscious of the action of which this all would be
the object ; hence the accusative. Afterwards, when the verb
comes, — a verb requiring a dative, — he completed it by the
pron. avTol^ ; comp. vi. 39. This avToh, to the^n, individualizes
the contents of the totality, the Trdv, which is the object of
the giving. The act of giving refers to the whole ; the com
munication of life is an individual fact (plu. to them). — The
form Bmay in the T. R. is singular. It occurs in Rev. viii,
3 and xiii. 16, in some Mss, Is it a future conjunctive, a
posterior forra, of which some examples are, it seems, found in
the N. T. (Baumlem cites '6-^rjaee, Luke xiii. 28 ; Kav0^aopai,
1 Cor, xiii, 3 ; KepSrjdiriawvTai, 1 Peter iii. 1 ; evp^^arii}, Rev,

CHAP, XVIL 3, 195
xviu, 14) ? Or may it be the conjunctive of an aorist form,
eSma-a (a form unknown to the N, T.) ? The second supposi
tion is the more probable. In fact, it would have been
difficult to say Smk't]. The true reading, however, is probably
Sma-ei {Vatic), which it was thought necessary to correct on
account of the 'iva (comp. ver, 3, the reading yivdtaKCoai). The
reading Bdaam in the Sinait, is incompatible with the third pers.,
which is used throughout the passage. The reading avTw, to
it (the irdv), in the same Mss., is an evident correction. — The
meaning of the expression ; all that Thou hast given Him, is
far less extensive than that of the term all flesh. If Jesus
received power over every living man, it was in view of the
believers whom He was to save. Comp. Eph. i 22 : " He has
given Him to the church, which is His body, as head over all
things!' — Ver, 3 states the profound connection existing between
the two ideas of glorifying God and giving eternal life (ver, 2).
Ver. 3, " Now this is life eternal, that they might know Thee,
the only true God, and Him whom Thou hast sent, Jesus Christ!'
— Jesus pauses to contemplate that eternal life which He is to
bestow upon mankind ; He fathoms its nature, and describes
it in an expression of adoration. — Eternal life is a knowledge.
This knowledge is not simply verbal and rational. Scripture
always uses the word know in a deeper sense. When it is
applied to the relation between two persons, it denotes the
perfect intuition which each has of the moral being of the other,
their near mutual approach in the same luminous raedium.
Jesus described in xiv. 21, 23, the revealing act which
should, in the case of His people, result in this only real
knowledge of God, It is the work of the Spirit glorifying
Jesus, and with Hira God, in us. The epithet only bears, as
Luthardt says, upon the whole phrase : true God. The term
dXrjOivo'i shows that this God alone perfectly answers to the
idea expressed by the word God, One can hardly fail to see
here, with Meyer, the opposition to the many gods, unworthy
the name, of the dominant polytheism. Has not the term all
flesh called forth the image of those nations, aliens to Israel,
who compose the idolatrous portion of mankind ? And does
not the contrast of Jewish and Christian worship with that of
the heathen in the second part of the verse find its comple
ment in the contrast of the Messianic faith of the disciples

196 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
with the unbeUef of the Jewish people ? The knowledge of
the only true God and of Jesus the Messiah is thus that which
wUl distinguish the new faith from aU preparatory religions,
whether within or outside the theocracy. Compare a siraUar
contrast, iv, 21, 23, The opposition, then, of the expression :
the only true God, is not to the person of Jesus. Could
He be a mere creature, the knowledge of whom is in the
following sentence joined to that of God, as the source, the
very essence of eternal Hfe ? In the prologue the Logos is
also placed in juxtaposition with God in ver, lb, and the
solution of the contrast immediately given in ver. Ic: "And
the Word was God." Meyer is certainly wrong in making the
words : the only true God, the attribute of know : " to acknow
ledge Thee as the only . . ," We are thus led to give the
word know too inteUectual a meaning, in opposition to the
part attributed in this saying to knowledge (the source of
life). The expression : the only true God, is the apposition,
not the attribute of thee : " to knoio Thee, Thyself the only true
God ! " Thus the word know maintains the deep and vital
meaning which it ought here to have, while the contrast with
polytheism, pointed out above, is by no means excluded.
If Jesus had been praying with a view to Himself only,
He would have limited Himself to the words : "That they
may know Thee, the only true God ! " But He was praying
aloud, and consequently with a view also to those around
Him. And while worshipping God in their presence, as the
source of eternal Ufe, He was conscious of being the sole
medium by which they could have access to this source, for
it is in Him that God manifests and imparts HimseK (xiv, 6).
The enjoyment of eternal life, by aU that is caUed man, is
then identified in His eyes with the knowledge of Himself,
Jesus, no less than with that of God. FuU of gratitude
towards the author of such a benefit to mankind, He pro
claims Himself as the way prepared by God: Him whom
Thou hast sent, and sums up this supreme dignity in the title
Jesus Christ {Jesus Messiah). This form has been severely
criticised since Bretschneider, Would Jesus, it is asked,
have called Himself by His name, and that in prayer, and
with the use of the title Christ in the technical form sub
sequently in use {Jesus Christ) ? Is not this a proof of the

CHAP. XVIL 3. 197
fictitious composition of this prayer? The answer does not
seem very difficult. Hitherto Jesus had avoided giving Him
self the title of Christ before the people. Rather than use
this term, subject as it was to so much misconception, He had
had recourse, when He found the ordinary designation. Son of
Man, insufficient, to the strangest circumlocutions (viii. 24,
X, 24 sq.). He had acted thus in the circle of His disciples
(xiii. 13-19), Once only, and exceptionaUy, in Samaria, in a
non-Jewish land. He had openly taken the title of Messiah.
In the Synoptics He behaves in the same manner. Thus at
Matt. xvi. 20, whUe accepting the confession of Peter, He
takes the opportunity of forbidding the apostles to proclaim
Him pubhcly to be the Christ. But the time had now come
when the new word of command for mankind, the glorious
name formed by the union of the two words Jesus Christ,
was to be published throughout the world. Was it not, then,
necessary that the disciples should once at least hear it from
His own Ups ? Could they have repeated this symbol of
the new faith with such triumphant confidence to the very
ends of the world, if their Master had to the end persisted
in keeping apart the two words of which it was composed ?
And under what more favourable circumstances, in what more
worthy or solemn form, could Jesus utter it than at this
moment, in this last act of communion with His Father,
whUe adoring Him in their presence for all that this name
{Jeshouah hammashiach, Jesus Messiah) was about to becorae
to them and to the world ? St, John, then, is here guUty of
no inadvertence. He has reproduced that inexpressibly serious
and affecting raoraent in which he at length heard Jesus
HimseK consecrate, in a manner never to be forgotten, the
conviction which had never ceased to grow within hira since
the day when he approached Him for the first time (i, 42),
Would to God that aU confessions of faith in the church had
been as temperate as that contained in this verse, and that
they had always been produced, as in the mouth of Jesus,
under the forra of devotion ! — We must not translate : " That
they may acknowledge Hira whom Thou hast sent, Jesus,
as the Christ," by making bv direaT. 'I. the object, and
XpiaTov the attribute, of the verb know, which here also
has not so cold and intellectual a meaning. The expression :

198 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
Him whom Thou hast sent, is the object ; it is the pendant
of ae, thee, in the first proposition, and the name Jesus
Christ, or Jesus Messiah, is an apposition (as were the words :
the only true God) : " to know Him whom Thou hast sent,
Jesus Messiah."— "Ii'a is used instead of on, because know
ledge is brought forward as an end, as the suprerae good to
be obtained. — After this outpouring, Jesus returns to the
prayer of ver. 1 ; He raentions what He has already done
towards establishing in the world this twofold knowledge, the
source of eternal life to every beUever, and reiterates the
request of ver. 1, by asking for the restoration of His Divine
condition, from the midst of which He wiU be able to com
plete the work thus begun (ver. 5).
Vv. 4, 5. " I have glorified Thee on earth; I have flnished^
the work which Thou gavest me to do. And now, 0 Father,
glorify Thou me with Thine own self, with the glory which I
had with Thee before the world was." — Jesus would say : " I
have done what I could to glorify Thee in the world, in my
earthly condition (e'Trt TJ79 7'5?)- To carry on and complete
this work, I need more potent means of action." It is an
explanatory restatement of the words : " Glorify Thy Son, that
Thy Son may glorify Thee" (ver. 1). — Jesus here expresses
with subhme ingenuousness the feeling that His conscience
is perfectly pure. He does not, at this supreme moment,
perceive in His whole life any evil committed, or even any
good omitted. The duty of each hour has been perfectly
fulfilled. There has not been in that huraan life which is
now behind Him, any spot, or even any deficiency. — The
reading reXettuo-a? has the same meaning as that of the T. R.,
but aims too much at elegance.
These more potent modes of action. He can only obtain
by recovering the condition which was His prior to the
incarnation. This is the purpose for which He demands it,
and there is no boldness on His part in addressing such a
prayer to God, because this Divine glory is His own proper
nature, which He voluntarUy renounced to serve God here
below. — By the words: with Thine own self, Jesus opposes
the Divine sphere to that in which He at present Uves {upon
earth, ver. 4) ; xiii 32.— The expression : The glory which I had,
' X A B C L n, 5 Mnn, It^i Syr, Cop, : nXuuirxs instead of sTiXimirx.

CHAP, xvn, 6-19. 199
is opposed to another glory which He has now ; see remarks
on i. 14, — Reuss thinks that this verse does not imply
absolute pre-existence, eternity, but only a certain priority
with respect to the world. But in the scriptural point of
view, the world embraces aU that belongs to the sphere of
becoming, and beyond this sphere there is only being. Comp.
the opposition of yiveadai and elvai, i. 1-3, viu. 58 ; and Ps.
xc. 2. — Uapd aoi, with Thee, cannot have the purely ideal
sense given it by the Socinians, and recently in a slightly
differing form by Beyschlag : the ideal man existing in the
Divine inteUigence, and which, from the view-point of its
reahzation in Jesus, appears, to the consciousness of the
latter as clothed in personality.^ This theory, besides being
artificial, does violence to the words of St. John. He who
says : J had . . . with thee, lays no less stress upon His
personaUty than on that of God (ver. 24), See, moreover,
reraarks on vui, 58. — Because Jesus said: "before the world
was} and not : " before I came into the world," ScheUing con
cluded^ that the humUiation of the Logos began from the
creation, and not raerely with the incarnation. This conclu
sion is not exegetically tenable. For Jesus is here only
opposing this glory to a glory which would have had some
sort of beginning.
Vv, 6-19, Jesus prays for His apostles, and entreats the
continuance and perfecting of their consecration to the Divine
work. It was with a view to the work of God that Jesus soli
cited the restoration of His glory, but He wUl accomplish
this work only by means of the instruments whom He has
chosen and prepared. Hence prayer for them naturally
follows, and combines with that which He makes for Himself,
This prayer is at first of a general character : I pray for
them, ver. 9 ; but afterwards becomes more particular and
definite in the two distinct petitions : Ti^prjaov, keep them, and
dyiaaov, sanctify them, which are the pendant of Bb^aaov
pe, glorify me, vv, 1 and 5. — ^Vv, 6—8 prepare for the first
general petition, for which w, 9 and 10 give the full reasons.
' Beyschlag seems now to have modified his point of view, and to have adopted
that which perceives two contradictory theories in this Gospel.
2 In his oral courses.

200 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
Vv. 6-8. "I have manifested Thy name unto the men which
Thou gavest ^ me out of the world : Thine they were, and Thou
gavest them me; and they have kept" Thy word. Now they
have known^ that all things, whatsoever Thou hast given me,
are of Thee. For I have given unto them the words which
Thou gavest me ; and they have received them, and they have
known*" surely tliat I came out from Thee, and they have
believed that Thou didst send me!' — The general idea expressed
in these words is that of the value which the apostles have
acquired by the ministry of Jesus among them, and the
success of this work. This prepares for the prayer in which
Jesus comraends them to His Father's care. The aorist
ecjiavepcoaa, I have manifested, is connected with the similar
aorists of ver, 4. The most important part of the work, on
the accomplishment of which Jesus congratulated Himself,
was the preparation and education of the Eleven. The
name of God, which He revealed to them, denotes the reflec
tion of the Divine Essence in the consciousness of the Being
who knows it perfectly, in that of Jesus HimseK, This con
sciousness, revealed in His word, had already become that
of the disciples (Matt, xi. 25, 26). Jesus had revealed to
them the Father, by revealing to them Himself as the Son.
This is the reason that His testiraony concerning Himself
was, as we see in the Fourth Gospel, an essential element
of His teaching. — Having stated what He has done on their
behalf, Jesus proceeds to what God Himself has done for
them. The apostles were God's. This is not here said of
them merely as men, and as Jews, but by reason of the
relation they already bore to God by inward disposition;
comp, the expressions: to be of God (vii 17, viii. 47), to be
of the truth (xvUi. 37), to do the truth (iii 21), expressions
used to designate the moral state of Israelites or heathens
faithful to the lights of the law or of conscience. God had
given to Jesus these beings who belonged to Him, and that
by the drawing of the inward teaching so often spoken of,
vi, 37, 44, 45, 65. This spiritual tie once formed, they had
' Here and elsewhere the Alex, read i^oxx; instead of iiSooxx;.
^ X : iTyjpviffxv instead of TSTvipvixxo-i (B D L : t8tjiojjx«v),
^ X : syvojv instead of tyvotxxv.
* Ka; tyvoirxv is Omitted by X A D It""'!.

CHAP, XVIL 9, 10. 201
faithfully maintained. Jesus here passes to what the apostles
had themselves done for Him. They had kept intact and
unaltered that name of God which had by His words been
transmitted from His consciousness to theirs, Jesus says :
" They have kept Tliy word, not my word." This is explained
in ver. 7 : His word is only a faithful reproduction of the
Father's, The disciples had been able to discern this pro
found relation, and to recognise in the teaching which Jesus
had given them that which God HimseK had given to Jesus,
There is, at first sight, a tautology in the expressions : which
Thou hast given me, and : is of Thee. But the first is derived
frora the consciousness of Jesus ; the second is taken from
that of the apostles : " They have perceived that aU that I
have imparted to them concerning Thee really came frora
Thee," And, in fact (ver. 8), Jesus never added aught to
it from His own resources. From their perception of the
absolutely Divine character of His word, they had risen to
that of the Divine origin of His Person (J came from Thee),
and of His mission {Thou didst send me). These sayings
also breathe that sentiment of inward joy and lively gratitude
which Jesus had but a few moraents since experienced ; for
it was but quite recently that the glorious result for which
He gave thanks to His Father had been obtained (xvi.
29—31). The harvest seemed undoubtedly scanty: eleven
GalUean peasants after three years' labour ! But it is enough
for Jesus, for in these eleven He beholds the pledge of the
continuance of God's work upon earth. — "Tliey have received : "
upon the authority of my testimony ; " they have known : "
by their own moral discernment ; " they have believed : " by
the surrender of their whole being. The forms 'eyvwKav,
reTrjpr]Kav, are Alexandrine; and the question here, as in so
many other simUar cases, is to know whether they were used
by the apostles themselves or introduced by the Alexandrine
copyists. — Having thus prepared for His petition, Jesus next
states it, and then proceeds to bring forward further reasons
for its being granted,
Vv, 9, 10, " I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but
for them whom Thou hast given me ; for tliey are Thine. And
all mine are Thine, and Thine are mine ; ^ and I am glorified in
' Instead of xxi tx tfix , , , rx tfiix, X reads xui iftot xutou; tooixxs.

202 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
them." — Frora the infinite value imparted by faith to the per
sons of the disciples, Jesus draws the conclusion : "/ pray for
them." 'Eyco, I, stands first : I who have so laboured to bring
them to this point. Then immediately after, and before the
verb, Trepi avTiov, for them : For them, the fruit of my labours.
This general prayer is equivalent to : I commend them to
Thee. The antithesis: "I pray not for the world} is to be ex
plained thus : Jesus has not the same reasons to bring forward
in favour of the world, nor the same requests to make for it.
Luther justly says : " What must be asked for the world is, that
it raay be converted, not that it may be sanctified or kept."
Assuredly the statement of Jesus, that He prays not for the
world, is no absolute one. He HiraseK said upon the cross :
" Father, forgive them ! " Was not this to pray for the world ?
Only He did not then, as He does now, bring forward as a
reason : "they have known" (ver. 8), but on the contrary: "they
know not what they do." And instead of appealing, as in His
priestly prayer, to the care of God for beings precious and
belonging to Himself, He invokes His compassion for beings
guilty and perishing. The saying in ver. 2 1 : "that tlie world may
know that Thou hast sent me} contains an irapHcit prayer for
the world, Corap. also iu. 16, The stateraent of Jesus, that
He prays not for the world, only becoraes absolute in propor
tion as its moral characteristic of opposition to God is fixed,
and as it becomes the association of " those who are not only
enemies of God, but who desire to remain such " (Gess). —
Before proceeding to the more special petitions contained in
this general prayer, Jesus reproduces the two principal claims
possessed by his disciples to the Divine interest : 1st. " Thou
hast given them to me ; watch therefore over Thine own gift ;
and the more so since, in becoming mine, they have not ceased
to belong to Thee, but have even becorae more than ever
Thine. For what I receive frora Thee, I receive only to restore
it to Thee, and to ensure to Thee its possession," Luther:
" Any man may say : What is mine is Thine, but only the Son
can say: What is Thine is mine," The present etVt, "are Thine,"
is purposely substituted for the imperfect riaav, "were Thine,"
ver, 6, to express the idea that the gift of them to the Son has
only confirmed their being God's. 2d, The second motive which
comraends thera henceforth to the Father's care is, that they

CHAP. XVIL 11. 203
have becorae the depositaries of His Son's glory (perf. BeBo^aa--
pdi). The expression : I am glorified in them, has been
variously understood. There is no reason for departing from
the constant meaning of the term : to be glorified. Notwith
standing His form of a servant, Jesus had appeared to their
hearts in all His beauty as Son of God ; even before having
been restored to His glory. He had regained it in them by
the fact that they had recognised Him for what He truly was,
vv, 7, 8. — To this general commendation were added two
special requests. The first : Keep them, is prepared for by ver.
11a, stated lib, and the reasons for it brought forward in vv.
12-15. Ver. 11. "And I am no longer in the world, hut these ^ are
in the world, and I, I come to Thee. Holy Father, keep them
in Thy name, them^ whom Thou hast given me, that they
may he one as ^ we." — WhUe supplicating God's protection for
His disciples, the mind of Jesus naturally turned to the
dangers to which they would be exposed in the state of
desertion in which His departure would leave them : "' Keep
thera, these vessels so precious (w. 6-10), and henceforth so
exposed" (vv. 11—15). Jesus would no longer be with them
in the world to keep them, and would not as yet be with the
Father to protect them from the midst of His heavenly glory.
There would be a sorrowful interval during which His Father
must fulfil this office. This motive would be utterly incom
prehensible K the fourth Gospel reaUy taught, as Reuss insists,
that the Logos is insusceptible of either abasement or exalta
tion, or, as Baur asserts, that death was to Him only the
putting off of His corporeal semblance.
The appeUation : " Holy Father," is in relation with the
petition presented. With man, hoUness is the consecration of
his whole being to the task assigned hira by the Divine wUl
In God, holiness is the free, deUberate, calm and immutable
affirmation of Himself who is goodness, or of goodness which
is HimseK. The hoHness of God, then, so soon as we are

' X B read xutoi instead of outoi.
== T. R. with only the Mnn. It'"'' Vg. Cop. :»Ks;XABCEGHKLMSYr
A A n, several Mnn. : w ; D U X, 11 Mnn. Syr. : o ; ItP'«"i"" omits all from xi (ou;)
to viptu;.
3 B M S (J Y, 12 Mnn, read xxi after xxfoj;.

204 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
associated therewith, draws a deep Hne of demarcation between
us and those who Hve under the dominion of their natural
instincts, and whom Scripture caUs the world. The term :
Holy Father, here characterizes God as Hira who has traced
this line of separation between the disciples and the world ;
and the petition : Keep them, has in view the raaintenance of
this separation. Jesus begs His Father to keep the disciples
in this sphere of consecration, which is foreign to the world's
life, and of which God is HimseK the centre. The words : in
Thy name, make the revelation of the Divine character granted
to the apostles the enclosing wall, as it were, of the sacred
region in which they are to be kept, — The reading given by
almost aU the Mjj. would signify : " in Thy name which Thou
hast given me." But where does Scripture speak of the name
of God as given to the Son ? The saying : " My name is in
Him" (Ex, xxm, 21), is quite different. We should prefer the
reading o SeSw/ca?, "what Thou hast given me," in the Cantabrig.,
making these words the explanatory apposition of avTov?, them,
which foUows, exactly as at ver. 2 {Trdv o BeBcoKaf . . . avToisi)
and ver, 24 (if the reading o is genuine in this verse) : " Keep
them in my name, them, that which Thou hast given me."
This reading (oiJ?), while giving the same meaning as that of
the T. R, easily accounts for the Alex, reading {a for o, which
was referred to ovopuTi). The conjunction that may depend
either on BeScoKa?, or, which is the only possible sense with
the readings o and ow, on Keep them : " Keep them in the
sphere of the knowledge of Thyself (them whom Thou hast
permitted me to place therein), that they may remain one as
we are, and that none of them may be lost in isolation, by
breaking off from the bundle which my care has formed."
What, in fact, would have become of Thomas, if, after the
resuiTection, he had persisted in keeping aloof from his
brethren ? — The words as we signify that, as it is by
the possession of the Divine nature that the Father and
the Son are one, it is by their coraraon knowledge of this
nature {the name) that the disciples also may remain closely
united among themselves, and be each individuaUy kept in
safety, Vv. 12, 13. " While I was with them in the world} I kept
> X B C D L ItP'«!i"» Vg. Cop. omit tv too xoi!y.o>.

CHAP. XVIL 12, 13. 205
tliem myself in Thy name: I have watched over those whom
Thou hast given ^ me, and none of them is lost, but the son of
perdition ; that the scripture might be fulfilled. But now I
come to Thee ; and these things I speak while I am in the world,
that they may have my joy fulfilled in themselves." — The verses
which follow support the petition: Keep them}bj further develop
ing the motive already shortly indicated in ver. 11a ; They are
in need of Thy protection, — "When I was with them" takes up
the idea of ver. 11: "/ am no more in the world." — 'En^povv, I
kept them, shows the result obtained : e<f)vXa^a, I have watched,
refers to the means employed, — The reading S is stiU less
admissible in this, than in the preceding verse. — By the term
son of perdition, and its allusion to prophecy, Jesus desires to
discharge Himself from responsibUity, but not to lessen that
of Judas, Prophecy had frora tho first set a limit to the
effects of His vigilance, which it was not possible to pass over.
As to Judas, he had freely played the part which prophecy
had beforehand marked out. We may here compare what is
predicted concerning antichrist. We know from prophecy
that this individual will exist, yet this wUl not hinder the
man who takes this part from doing so freely. Comp., pp. 8 6
and 87, the remarks on the relation between Divine fore
knowledge and human freedom. In the Hebraic phrase : son
of . . ., the terra indicating the complementary notion of the
word son personifies the abstract principle (Hght, darkness,
etc.), which defines the moral Ufe of the individual thus desig
nated. The passage to which Jesus referred is Ps. xii. 10,
quoted xui. 18. Are we then to infer frora this saying that
Jesus reckoned Judas also in the number of those whom the
Father had formerly given Him ? The words et pi], if not, do
not oblige us to make this inference ; comp. Matt. xu. 4 ; Luke
iv, 26, 27.
The remark is parenthetical, and intended to justify the
Lord's vigUance in respect of the loss of Judas, Jesus after
wards returns to the idea of His approaching departure, and
declares that if he speaks these words aloud — for this is the
meaning of XaXelv — before His disciples, it is that they may
share in the joy with which He is Himself fiUed. It may be
' Instead of ous, B C L read oi (like ver. 11) and add xxi before sipuXx^x ; X reads
sxi lipvXxffffov instead of ou; "hiiuxx; . . . npuXx^x.

206 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
asked whether this joy was that caused by His assurance that
the Father would take them under His protection, or that
which He experienced from the expectation of His own speedy
return to the Father ? Both these grounds of rejoicing were
mingled in His heart, and they ought to combine in theirs,
and disperse, as in His, the last cloud of sadness. — The need
in which they stood of protection is more particularly and
urgently shown in the words which follow.
Vv. 14, 15. " I have given them Thy word ; and the world
hath hated them, hecause they are not of the world, even as I am
not of the world. I pray not that Thou shouldest take them out
of the world, but that Thou shouldest keep them from the evil." —
The word of Jesus, which they had faithfuUy received, had
made them as much strangers to the world as was Jesus
HimseK. Like Him, they had becorae objects of the world's
hatred. In such a condition, Jesus might easily have aUowed
Himself to entreat of God that they might be sharers in His
departure. But since it was for the very purpose of preparing
them for a mission to the world that He had separated thera
from the world (ver, 18), it was necessary that they should
remain in it after His departure, StUl the line of demarca
tion between them and the world must not be obliterated.
While remaining in the world, they must be kept from the
evil which prevaUs therein. Hence Jesus closes this passage
by reiterating the petition which forms its background. Tov
TTovepov must certainly be taken in the neuter sense oifrom
evil, and not from the Evil One. This is shown by the pre
position eK, out of, which relates to a realm out of which one
is taken, rather than to an individual. The case is otherwise
in the Lord's Prayer, where the prep, diro and the verb
pveaOai are used, two expressions which refer rather to a
personal enemy (Matt. vi. 13). Reuss, then, is wrong in
translating: "from the power of the devil," Hengstenberg
points out that the form TTjpelv eK only occurs again in Rev,
iii, 10.— From the prayer: Keep them, which refers to their
salvation, Jesus passes to the second petition, which concerns
rather their mission : Sanctify (or consecrate) them. This is
prepared for, ver, 1 6 ; uttered, ver. 1 7 ; developed and justified,
vv. 18, 19.
Vv. 16, 17. " They are not of the world, even as I am not of

CHAP. XVIL 16, 17. 207
the world. Sanctify them by Thy truth : ^ Thy word is truth!' ^
— Jesus had raised them to that sphere of holiness in which He
HimseK dwelt; hence that mission to the world wherewith
He could entrust them. Thus ver. 16 forms the transition
from the first to the second petition. According to x, 36, the
sending of Jesus upon earth was preceded by a consecration :
" Him whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the
world." The same thing must take place in the case of the
disciples. The word dyid^eiv, to sanctify, is not synonymous
with KaOapi^eiv, to purify. The holy is not opposed to the
impure, but merely to the natural (without any idea of im
purity). To sanctify is to consecrate to a religious use
anything pertaining to common Hfe, Comp. Ex. xxix. 1, 36,
xl 13; Lev. xxu. 2, 3; Matt, xxiii 17, From an Old
Testaraent point of view, consecration was an external and
ritual act; under the New Covenant, where all is spiritual,
the seat of consecration is first of all the heart, the will of
the person consecrated. In saying, then, "Sanctify them}'
Jesus solicits for thera a heart entirely devoted to the task
they will have to fulfil in the world. Their whole strength,
talents, life, raust be dedicated to this great work, the salva
tion of raen, which involves the renunciation of all self-
gratification, however lawful, the absence of all interested
aims and all seK-seeking. This is the sublime idea of Christian
holiness; but here, where the apostles are in question, it
is viewed as about to be realized under the special form
of the Christian ministry. Kept (now) themselves in this
sacred sphere, they are hereafter to become the representatives
and bearers of holiness araong raankind. — We have in our
translation given, as in i. 31, 33, the instruraental sense, by,
to ev. Divine truth is thus designated as the agent of conse
cration, Meyer and others translate in : " In this medium of
truth in which I have placed thera," But why, in this sense,
should Jesus have added: "Thy word is the truth"? Is it
not the aira of these words to represent truth as the means
by wluch this consecration may be effected ? Thy word desig-
' 'S.ou, which is the reading of T. B. with 12 Mjj., almost all the Mnn. Syr.
Cop., is omitted by X A B C D L ItP''*"' Vg. ; X omits the words tou. . . xXtthix,
confusing the two xXnhix.
^ B reads « before xXnHix.

208 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
nates that which Jesus had in His instructions imparted to
them (vv. 6 and 8). The pronoun crov in the first proposi
tion is wanting in the Alex. The testimony of the ancient
Vss. {Cop. Pesch.) is, on the other hand, in its favour, — Jesus
alleges, in support of this petition, two motives, — one taken
from the mission He had conferred on His disciples (ver, 18),
the other from the work which He had effected upon Himself,
— for the purpose of obtaining what He was now asking on
their behalf (ver, 19).
Vv. 18, 19. " As Thou hast sent me into the world, so have
I also sent them into the world. And for their sakes I^ sanctify
myself, that they also ^ may be sanctified in truth!' — If Jesus
asked that the spirit of their charge might be in them, it was
was because He had afready committed to thera the charge
itself (ver. 1 7). 'ATrea-TeiXa, I have sent, aUudes to the narae
of apostles which He had long ago given thera. But how
could He say that He sends them into the world, when they
were in the world already ? Because He had raised them to a
sphere above the life of the world (ver. 1 6), and it was thence
that He sent them into the world, as reaUy as He had been
Himself sent from heaven. And if He sent them thither, it
was that they might continue the work commenced by Hira
self. This is the first motive which He urges for His petition :
" Sanctify them." The second is stated in ver. 19. The sense
of Kai, and, at the beginning of this verse is : " And in order
to obtain for them this consecration which I ask, I begin by
effecting my own." Jesus asks nothing from the Father
without having done all that depends upon HiraseK for the
reahzation of His request. It is by effecting His own sancti
fication that He demands and prepares for theirs. The word
sanctify by no means involves, as we have seen, the removal
of impurity, for it is not a synonym of purify {Ka6api^eiv).
Hence those interpreters are mistaken who find in this verse
a proof of the existence of original sin in Jesus. On the
other hand, however, those too much restrict the meaning of
the word who apply it, like Chrysostom, Meyer, and Reuss,
to His voluntary consecration to death as the condition of the
gift of the Spirit, For this explanation obliges us to give to
' X A omit tyai.
' 10 Mjj, (X A B C, etc.) It, Syr, : un xxi xum instead of xxi xutoi am.

CHAP. XVIL 18, 19. 209
the word sanctify entirely different meanings in the first and
in the second proposition of the verse. We must confine
ourselves to the natural sense of the word to sanctify, viz, to
render holy (or sacred) by inward consecration to God, Our
Lord. possessed a human nature like our own, endowed with
inclinations and dislikes as ours is, though of such only as
are perfectly lawful Of this nature He was continually
making a holy offering ; He constrained it to obedience :
negatively, by sacrificing it where it was in contradiction with
His mission {e.g., in the cultivation of the arts and sciences,
domestic Ufe, etc.) ; positively, by devoting to His divinely-
appointed task all His powers, all His natural and spiritual
talents. It was thus that He, by the Eternal Spirit, offered
Himself without spot unto God (Heb, ix, 14), When the
question was to sacrifice a gratification, as in the desert, or
to endure sorrow, as in Gethsemane, He ever subjected His
nature to the work to which the will of the Father called
Him. And this was not effected once for all. His human
life received in an ever increasing degree the seal of consecra
tion, tUl the entire and final sacrifice of death, — The pronouns
/ and myself, as weU as the active sanctify, bring out the
energetic action He had to exert upon Himself to obtain this
result. — By such means did Jesus realize the perfect consecra
tion of human life, and thus did He in His own Person lay
the foundation for its consecration in His people. — " For their
sakes} He said, and explained these words by the next propo
sition : " that they also may be sanctified." The sanctification
of each Christian is nothing else than the communication to
him by Jesus of the huraan nature sanctified in His Person.
This is the truth developed by St, Paul in Rom. vi, 1-12, and
especiaUy in viu, 1-3, where he shows that Christ began by
condemning sin (condemning it to non-existence) in the flesh,
that the (moral) righteousness exacted by the law might be
realized in us, Jesus created a holy humanity in His Person,
and it is the office of the Spirit, who has also the power, to
reproduce in us this new humanity : " The law of the Spirit of
life, which is in Christ Jesus, has made me free from the law of
sin and death!' In this respect, as in all others, the part of
the Spirit is to take of that which is Christ's (that perfectly
holy human life) to give it unto us. If this holy life had not
GODET III. 0 JOHN.

210 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
been realized in Christ, the Spirit would have had nothing to
impart to us in this respect, and the sanctification of raan
would have remained a barren aspiration. We would remark
finally, that, according to ver. 1 7, the apostles are here regarded
not merely as Christians, but especiaUy as ministers (ver. 18),
Jesus HimseK, whUe sanctifying HimseK as man, and for the
purpose of realizing huraan holiness, at the sarae time sanc
tified Himself as Saviour, and for that of restoring Hfe to man.
So also the task of the apostles would not be merely that of
realizing that common consecration to which aU beUevers are
called. Jesus, by releasing them from every earthly vocation,
and sending them into the world as His ambassadors, in
tended that their personal sanctification should be effected under
the form of the apostolate. — This form is not more holy, but it
has the character of a special service. — 'Ev dXrjdeia, in truth,
must here be taken, seeing the article is omitted, in the ad
verbial sense of in a true manner, as opposed to the whoUy
external consecration of the Levitical priesthood, — Thus, from
the general petition : " / pray for them} have branched off
the two progressive requests, "Keep them in hoHness !" " Conse
crate them by holiness to become the instruments of the world's
sanctification ! " It was natural that Jesus should thence pass
to a prayer for the world itself, at least so far as its future
beUeving part was concerned (vv. 20-26). Jesus prayed for
believers, and asked for them spiritual unity, vv. 20, 21,
and participation in His glory, vv, 22—24,
Vv, 20, 21. " Neither pray I for these alone, butfor them
also who shall believe ^ in me through their word ; that they all
may be one, that as Thou, Father, art in me, and I in Tliee,
tliey also may be one ^ in us, that the world may believe ^ that it
is Thou vSho hast sent me!' — Having commended to God the
author and the instruments of the work of salvation, Jesus
prayed for its objects, the whole body of beUevers, We behold
in the mirror of His prayer, the Church exalted by faith to
unity in God and union with God, and thus rendered capable
of possessing the glory of the Son, This is the reahzation of
1 T, B. with D^ several Mnn. ItP'^rii"' Vg. Sah. : ¦nrTiurovTwv (who shall be
lieve). The 19 Mjj., all the other Mnn. Syr. Cop. ; ¦TriimuovTm (who believe).
2 Ev before miv is omitted by B C D It'"'' Sah.
^ X B C : ¦riirTiuvi instead of vricTiunn.

CHAP. XVIL 20, 2L 211
the end for which God created man, the contents of that
hidden wisdom which God ordained before the world unto our
glory (1 Cor. ii. 7). It is not, then, as is so often thought,
the union of Christians with each other which is here spoken
of, but above aU that union which is its foundation, the
union of the body of beUevers with Christ, and through Him
with God. The Lord was contemplating the society of be
lievers which would, by means of their preaching, gather
around the apostles, and in which He would HimseK dwell
The true reading is certainly the pres. Tria-TevovTcov. But this
present is anticipative, for as yet no beUevers had been won
by the word of the apostles. Jesus was bringing before His
mental vision aU behevers, absolutely speaking — beUevers of
aU times and places, whom in His prayer He was combining
into a single body and transporting to glory. — This saying of
Jesus assigned a capital part in the life of the Church to the
apostoUc word. Jesus did not recognise in the future any
faith capable of uniting man to God, and of preparing him for
glory, except that which should be begotten and nourished by
the teaching of these eleven apostles. The term word (X070?)
does not designate, as that of testimony {papTvpia) might do,
merely the narration of facts ; it includes also the revelation
of the rehgious and moral meaning of the facts, the contents
of the Epistles as weU as of the Gospels. There is no real
coming to Christ at any time but by this means.
The first proposition, ver. 21:" that they may be all one}
sumraarUy indicates the general idea. The words : as thou.
Father , . ., which foUow, depend, by an inversion siraUar to
that of xiii, 34, on the subsequent, not on the former, that.
The former word is returned to by way of explanation : " That
they raay be one, that, / say, as thou. Father . . . they also
raay be one in us." This construction has not the dragging
character of that which makes as depend on the former that.
Having thus petitioned for the unity of behevers, Jesus
describes it as a unity of the highest order, as sharing the
nature {Ka6d)<;) of that of the Father and the Son, As the
Father Uves in the Son, and the Son in the Father, so the
Son lives in behevers, and, by Uving in them, causes them to
live in one another. This sacred unity is the work of the
Spirit, who alone has the power of overthrowing the barrier

212 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
between different individualities without destroying them.
Instead of : " that they may be one in us," some Mss, read .
" that they may be in us." This reading is condemned by the
context, which here requires the idea of the unity of beUevers.
The ev has been lost in the ev r^plv which precedes it.
A spiritual orgaiusm of this kind exercising its functions on
the earth, is so novel a phenomenon, that the sight of it brings
the world to faith in Him from whom it proceeds. This is
the contents of the third that in ver. 21, the final end of the
two preceding and parallel. The word believe is never used
in the N. T. except in a favourable sense. Hence it cannot
designate a forced conviction like that spoken of in PhU, ii,
10 sq, Jesus knows that there are stUl, in what He calls
the world, elements capable of being won to the faith. And
wiU not the effect produced upon the Jewish people by the
sight of a local and transitory phenomenon, Hke that of the
primitive Church at Jerusalem (Acts xxi. 20 : ". Thou seest how
many thousands of Jews there are which believe "), be repeated
on a larger scale in the whole world by the same spectacle
magnified. It may be that Jesus had more specially in \'iew
the conversion of the Jews in the latter days, when they
should see the Church realized in aU its beauty among the
GentUes, This supposition is conflrmed by the words : " that
it is Thou who hast sent me} i.e., "that I, this Jesus of
Nazareth whom they have rejected, am indeed the Promised,
the Sent One whora they were expecting," Rom, xi. 25, 31,
Comp, 1 John i, 3; Eph. ix, 13. — Jesus now rises to His
highest request, a share in His glory for His disciples. This
petition is prepared for, vv, 22, 23, and then solemnly
uttered, ver. 24.
Vv. 22-24. " And the glory which thou hast given me I have
given them ; that they may be one, even as we are one ; ' I in
them, and Thou in me, that their oneness may be perfect ; and ^
that the world may acknowledge that Thou hast sent me, and that
Thou hast loved ^ them, as Thou hast loved me. Father, I will
that they whom * Thou hast given me may also be with me where
' B C D L omit ur/juv, and X " urpi-iv.
= X B C D L X It>"i Cop. Or. omit xxi before ivx y„uox^.
" D, 7 Mnn. It"'''' Cop, : viyx'rniTx (that 1 have loved them) instead of nyxTnox;.
^ X B D Vg""' Cop,_ : 0 instead of ou;.

CHAP, XVLL 22-21. 213
/ am; that they may behold my glory, which Tliou hast' given
me : for Thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world." —
Throughout this prayer, Jesus supports His petitions by what
He has already done Himself towards the attainment of the
end in view. Hence the eyco, I, stands first. He had already
begun that comraunication of His glory to the disciples of
which He was soUciting the completion. What, then, we ask,
is that glory which Jesus had already given to His own ?
Chrysostom understands thereby the honour of the apostolic
office and miraculous gifts. But the mind of Jesus takes a
higher flight, as is proved by the close of vv. 23, 24. Heng
stenberg refers the term glory to the participation of behevers
in the oneness of the Father and the Son, an explanation which
makes this tautological with the next proposition, Meyer
xinderstands by it the glory of the future kingdom ; but if they
did not as yet actually possess this, it was none the less their
assured property. The prayer in ver, 24 only demanded that
right should be exchanged for fact. This explanation is
accepted by Luthardt (2d ed.). But our Lord appears to
have had in mind a gift reaUy effected, as a point of departure
for a future gift. The end of ver. 2 3 leads us to a slightly
different meaning. As the essence of the glory of Jesus consists
in His dignity as the Son, and the well-beloved Son, so the glory
which He has bestowed upon believers is the fiUal dignity, the
state of adoption (L 12), whereby they have become what the
Son eternally is, children of God, and objects of His perfect
love. This glory Jesus bestowed upon His own, by bringing
matters to such a state that God could justly reflect upon
them aU the love which He has for Jesus Himself (ver, 26,
XV, 9, 10), Thus the proposition which foUows: "that they
may be one, even as we are one} is easily understood. Once
objects of the same Father's love, and bearing in coraraon the
image of their elder brother, they form among themselves a
closely united family (comp. Rom, viii 29 ; Eph, i. 10).
The foundation of this union is once more expressly recaUed
by the words : " / in them, and Thou in me} which are not a
new proposition, but, as Meyer says, an explanatory apposi
tion of the subject me in the preceding phrase ; or, as we would
rather say of the predicate of this phrase : " to be one as we!'
God living in Christ, Christ in each believer, — what is this

214 GOSPEL OF JOHfT.
but the Divine unity reproduced on earth ? Hence a new so
that. At the sight of this wonderful unity the world wiU not
only believe, as was said in ver. 21, but will acknowledge.
These two verbs cannot be synonymous. The term acknow
ledge undoubtedly includes the forced conviction of rebels as
weU as the faith of believers (ver. 21), The word K6a-pio<;, the
world, whatever Meyer (who here gives my explanation very
lamely) may say, cannot designate behevers only, but must have
a more extended signiflcation. In short, it is that universal
homage, whether voluntary or involuntary, described in Phil. ii.
10, Rom. xiv. 10-12, which is here intended.
At beholding the glorious results of the work of Jesus,
believers raised to perfect unity by that seal of adoption which
they aU bear, the whole intelligent universe wUl render
homage to the Sent One of God, who, by transforming them
into His own image, has succeeded in making them beloved
of God as He is Hiraself beloved by Him. Thus is the ultimate
end of God's deaUngs with the Church of Christ, the direct
contemplation and enjoyment of the glory of the Son of God,
who was willing to become its Head, prepared for. The
repetition of the invocation : Father (yy. 21, 24, 25), reveals
the increasing emotion of Jesus, in proportion as He draws
near to the close of His prayer. The reading o SeStoxa?, " what
Thou hast given me," by which expression Jesus would
designate the body of the elect, the ev of whora He had just
spoken (ver. 23), may here, as at ver. 11, probably be the
true one. — QeXca : Jesus no longer says, I pray ; but, I will !
This expression, which is nowhere else found in the mouth of
Jesus, is generally explained by saying that the Son thus
expressed Himself, because He felt HimseK on this point so
fuUy in accordance with the Father. But this He felt in
every prayer, and this unique expression must be taken in its
relation to the unique character of the situation. It is the
saying of a dying man : " Father, ray last will is . . ." It is
truly His testament which Jesus thus deposits in His Father's
hands. — In gathering disciples about Him, His one end had
been, as He mentions in vv. 22, 23, to accustom them to
the direct contemplation of His glory. This glory, according
to His own explanation, is the love wherewith the Father
eternally loves Him, and all its consequences. The words :

CHAP. XVII. 22-2L 215
" before the foundation of the world} necessarily indicate
eternity. This expression is, among all the sayings of Jesus,
that which leads us farthest into the depths of Deity. It
points out to Christian speculation the road by which it must
seek the solution of the Trinitarian relations ; love is the key
of this mystery. And this love being eternal, and therefore
equally without end as it is without beginning, can form the
permanent object of contemplation to beUevers who thus
become initiated into the mystery of the nature of the
Son and His eternal generation. And still more as being,
through the complete community which the Son has suc
ceeded in establishing, objects of a love like that which
the Son enjoys, are they theraselves thus introduced into
the eternal movement of the Divine life. This is what is
brought out by the word behold. A fact of this order is only
beheld by being shared in. This is the height to which Jesus
elevates the Church, Having drawn His spouse from the
mire, from the midst of a world immersed in evil, He intro
duces her into the sphere of the Divine life, and places her
with Himself upon the throne,
Meyer and Luthardt (2d ed,) deny that the glory of which
Jesus here spoke can be that of His Divine state prior to the
Incarnation, For that, they say, is not a gift of the Father's
love, but inherent in the Person of the Son, The intention
of the words : "for Tiwu lovedst me before the foundation of
the world} is not, they think, to explain wherein consists the
glory of the Son, but to indicate the motive for which the
Father is about to glorify Him by the ascension. The glory
which the Father has given Him is thus that of the glorified
Son of man. But the eternal love of the Father for the Son
could not be the motive for the glorification of the man
Jesus. According to the teaching of Jesus and His apostles,
the reason for the exaltation of the Incarnate Christ was His
perfect submission and absolute faithfulness to the wUl of God
during His earthly life : x, 17, xv. 10, xiii 32, xvu, 4, 5; Phil,
ii, 9 (" wherefore also . . ."). Hence, if there is a glory which
the Son owes to the eternal love of the Father, it is His
eternal glory. His dignity as Son, His Divine condition prior
to the Incarnation; comp, ver, 26 : "The Father hath given
Him to have life in Himself" It is this inner mystery of the

216 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
Divine nature to the contemplation of which the faithful are
to be admitted, "Oti is then explanatory : " the glory which
Thou hast given me, in that Thou lovedst me." Is not the love
of which any one is the object his glory ? The glory of the
Son is the eternal love through which He is the Son. — Jesus
has now come to the climax, and therefore to the close of His
prayer. But He feels a desire again to justify such petitions.
The righteousness of God is present to His mind. Does it not
bar the way to an answer ?
Vv. 25, 26, " 0 righteous Father, the world, it is true, hath
not known Thee : but I have known Thee, and these liave believed
that Thou hast sent me. And I have made known unto them
Thy name, and I will make it known : that the love wherewith
Thou hast loved me "^ may he in them, and I in them!' — In thus
transporting a church of sinners with Himself to His throne,
how could He fail to feel the need of justifying to the right
eous God the unlieard-of privUeges which He claimed for His
people ? The world had undoubtedly refused to know God,
and, if the disciples had stUl been of the world. Divine justice
would rightly have protested against His prayer. But He
who presented Himself at their head knevj God, and they too,
by recognising Him as the Sent of God, had been introduced
into the Hght of the knowledge of God. This light, it is true,
had but dawned in them ; but Jesus, who had caused its first
rays to shine upon them, engaged to communicate to them in
the time to come aU His own knowledge of the Father, that
thus they might become, with the same title as Himself, the
objects of the Divine love, and that when His work was
finished He might so truly live in them, that in loving tliem
the Father would be loving Him stiU, and Him always. Hence
Divine justice, far from having any pleas to raise against this
step, should rather join her voice to that of love to support
the petition of Jesus. — The title Righteous Father is not sub
stituted without a purpose for that of Holy Father. It is
not hoHness, the love of goodness for its own sake, which
is the property of this Divine attribute, still less the eqidty
of God, that is to say. His mercy, which is here spoken of.
The words : " but I have known Thee}' show that Jesus here
places Himself in presence of the retributive justice of God,
* X reads xutov; instead oi ftt.

CHAP, XVIL 25, 26. 217
which, in excluding the world from glory, might or must
have excluded the disciples also, if Jesus had not, by His
work in them, found the means of making justice itself plead
on their behaK, The Kai, and (which we have rendered by it is
true), before the word the world presents some difficulty. Meyer
explains it (according to the frequent use of Kai in this Gospel)
as indicating an opposition. This Kai would thus form an
opposition to the idea of righteousness : " righteous Father : and
nevertheless the world . . ." That is to say : " RighteoflS Father,
for such Thou truly art, even though the world has not recog
nised Thee as such." And Jesus would then proceed to
claim the favours which foUow in the name of this justice (so
also Luthardt, 2d ed.). But could the world's denial of God's
righteousness be of such gravity, that Jesus should feel He
could not greet His Father by the title of righteous, without
thus expressly justifying the statement? It seems to me
that, according to the general analogy of St. John's style, the
construction is quite otherwise, and the intention very different.
St. John delights in expressing contrasts by the correlation of
two Kai (vi 36, xv. 24, etc.): "both . . . and} for: "on the
one side ... on the other." Thus the first Kai, put in the
first place of the first proposition, before o Koapof, would
announce an antithesis, and this is actually found in the third
proposition : Kal ovtoi . . ., " and these have known . . ." The
contrast then is as foUows : " On the one side (/cat), the world
has not known Thee . . . ; on the other (wat), these have re
cognised me as sent of Thee, and through me have learnt to
know Thee." The relation of this moral contrast to the idea
of retributive justice {righteous Father !) is as clear as possible.
The world, it is true, deserves from Thee only rejection, for
it has misconceived Thee; but these, by receiving me, and
learning from me to know Thee, have becorae worthy of Thy
blessing. — But it was necessary to introduce between these two
terms of the contrast : " the world . . . these} an intermediate
notion, that of the part performed for the disciples by Jesus.
For otherwise they would be confounded with the world. It
was the appearance of Jesus which had given rise to the
contrast. The world, by rejecting this appearance, had mis
conceived God ; the disciples, by receiving Him by faith, had
begun to know God, and had now the prospect of the perfect

218 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
knowledge of Hira. This is the reason why our Lord inter
calates between the two terms of the original antithesis the
words : " But I, I have known Thee} which form a secondary
antithesis {eyw Si, but I, comp. xvi. 2 0). The Kai of the first
and that of the third propositions are then correlative ; but
the Be, but, of the second forming an indispensable contrast
with the first, the second Kai is consequently at once the
pendant of the first and the continuation of the Se, which
intervenes in a soraewhat unexpected manner.^ Such a con
struction could only occur in actual speech, and could not be
explained in an artificial composition. — Meyer applies the
words : has not known Thee, with regard to the world, to the
blindness of mankind towards the revelation of God in nature,
spoken of by St. Paul in Rom. i. 19, etc., a notion which has
not the slightest relation to the context. What is there spoken
of is unbelief with regard to the revelation of God in tbe
Person and teaching of Christ. — The future : I will make
known, refers to Pentecost and to the whole work of Christ in
the Church subsequent to that day. — The closing words of
the prayer : and I in them, act as a motive to the whole, but
especially to the last thought : " and that the love wherewith
Thou hast loved me may be in them." The love of God in
lighting on believers wUl not attach itself to aught that is
defiled. For it wiU in truth Hght only on Jesus Himself,
on Jesus living in them, and upon them as identified with
Him and reflecting His holy image.
What simplicity, what calmness, what transparent pro
fundity, prevail throughout this prayer ! " It is, indeed," as
Gess remarks, " the only Son speaking to His Father. All
here is supernatural, because He who speaks is the only Son
from heaven ; but, at the same time, all is natural, for He
speaks as a son to a father." The feeling which is the very
soul of this prayer, an ardent zeal for the glory of God, is
indeed that which is the soul of the whole Hfe of Jesus.
And are not these three petitions, that for .His personal
1 Meyer finds this explanation "contorted." It seems to me to defend and
justify itself. It approximates that of Baumlein (which Meyer treats no better) :
0 xoofio; (fch) . . . lya 8t . . . xxi oItoi {" tlie world Undoubtedly , . . but I . . .
and these also ").

CHAP, XVIL 25, 26. 219
glorification, that for the consecration of His apostles, and
that for the glorification of the Church, just the petitions in
which this feeUng must vent itself? In its detaUs not a
word is met with which exegesis cannot demonstrate to be
perfectly appropriate and exactly suited to the situation. How,
then, could it be possible to adopt Baur's view, that some
Christian author, after more than a century, thus succeeded in
recovering and reproducing the impressions of Jesus in all
their hoHness and exalted subhraity ? It is the same as
saying that there once existed another Jesus than Jesus
Himself. M. Reuss admits, as we do, that this composition is that of
an immediate witness. But he finds in certain passages, e.g.
ver, 3, a proof that the disciple freely reproduced the thoughts
of the Master. He asks whether John had pencU and
tablets in hand to take down word for word the prayer of
Jesus, But we ask again, if John reaUy regarded Jesus as
the Logos, how could the respect which he must have felt
for His words have suffered him to make Him speak, and
especially to make Him pray, after his own fashion ? Un
doubtedly he had not pencil in hand, but were not the words
of Jesus of such a nature as to engrave themselves more
deeply and more distinctly than ordinary speech ? Might
not St, John, some short time after this evening, have com
mitted to writing what he distinctly remembered of these
conversations and of this prayer ? Or, if not, might not his
constantly renewed meditation on these words, graven as they
were on the tablets of his heart, and continually refreshed by
the agency of the Holy Spirit, have compensated for the use
of external means ? Is not this internal miracle — if calUng
it such is insisted upon — less inexplicable than the artificial
composition of such a prayer ?
But, it is asked, how is the calmness which pervades this
prayer compatible with the agony of Gethseraane? Keim
insists that John, by this narration, annihilates the Synoptic
tradition. The conflict of Gethsemane exhibits the character
of a sudden crisis, of a violent shock in some sort of a
storm, after which calmness was restored to the mind of our
Lord as quickly as it had been disturbed. The cause of this
passing crisis was twofold; first, it was natural, viz, tbe

220 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
unique irapressionability of the soul of Jesus, of which we
have already seen so many proofs in this Gospel, especiaUy
ch. xL and xii. 27. By reason of the very purity of His
nature He was accessible, beyond any other man, to every
lawful emotion. His soul resembled a magnetic needle,
whose mobility is only equaUed by the perseverance with
which, in every oscillation, it tends to recover its normal
direction. Gethsemane was to our Lord not punishment, but
the acceptance of punishment, and therefore the anticipation
of the suffering of the cross. Such an anticipation is some
times raore terrible than the reaUty. The supernatural cause
is pointed out by Jesus HiraseK in xiv. 30 : "The prince of
this world cometh." Comp. Luke xxii. 5 3 : "This is your hour
and the power of darkness." The satanic origin of this agony
is betrayed by its very suddenness and violence. St. Luke
finishes his account of the temptation in the wUderness
with the words : " The devil . . . departed from Him, d^^^pi
Kuipov, tUl another favourable moment," The hour of Geth
seraane was, in the eyes of the prince of this world, this other
favourable raoraent.
The priestly prayer, which includes our Lord's act of
thanksgiving for the work He had effected on earth, is the
climax of the narrative of the development of faith in the
disciples (chs, xiii.— xvi). It thus forms, in this Gospel, the
pendant to the passage, xii. 37—50, in which St. John sum
marizes the history of Jewish unbelief (contained in chs.
v.-xii.).

EOURTH PART.
XVIIL 1-XIX, 42.
THE PASSION.
IT certainly was not the evangelist's intention to give, in
the account which foUows, as complete a narrative as
possible of our Lord's Passion as though no other history of
this event had existed side by side with his own. The most
determined opponents of the authenticity of this Gospel (Baur,
Strauss) are now in agreement with its most orthodox inter
preters (Lange, Hengstenberg) as to the point that the fourth
evangehst had constantly in view, the narratives of his prede
cessors. They only differ as to the intention to be attributed
to the writer. According to Baur and Strauss, the pseudo-
John derived from the Synoptists the materials indispensable
for giving some air of probabUity to his romance of Jesus-
Logos, According to the commentators of the opposite side,
St, John was simply endeavouring to fill up the vacancies
left in previous narratives, or to present facts already related
in their true light.
It seems ' to us, as to these latter, that his choice of
materials is often determined by a desire to complete the
narratives aUeady current in the Church. Thus, when St,
John relates the examination of Jesus at the house of Annas,
which is oraitted by the Synoptists, and omits His appear
ance before the Sanhedrim, so fuUy related by the former
Gospels, this intention appears evident. It is seen, also, in a
multitude of other examples. On the other hand, the narrative
of St, John has hitherto presented a character of too serious
meditation and too profound elaboration, to suffer us to admit
that the portion which now foUows is governed by no ruling
idea, but only obeys chance, as an account would do whose
only motive it was to relate what others had oraitted.

222 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
In St, John's history of the Passion, we again find that
threefold point of view stated in the Introduction. Jesus
raakes His glory beara through the veU of ignorainy with
which it is covered, and that especially by the freedom with
which He yields Himself to the lot awaiting Him. The
faith of His own gathers up these scattered rays, and grows
in the sUence of grief But especially — and this is, as we
shaU see, the ruling feature of the narrative — Jewish unbelief,
by a series of hateful acts and disloyal sayings, passes judg
ment upon itself, and is then consummated by the murder of
the Messiah,
There are three principal scenes : —
I. The apprehension of Jesus: xviu, 1-11.
II, His double trial, ecclesiastical and civU: xviu, 12-
xix, 16,
III. His punishment: xix. 17-42.

FIRST SECTION.
XVIIL 1-11,  THE APPREHENSION OF JESUS.
Though St. John here omits the agony in Gethsemane, he
clearly assigns its place to this fact by the words (ver, 1) :
" where was a garden, into the which He entered!' On reading
these words, no Christian in possession of the three first
Gospels could faU to think of their account of this scene.
The reason for this omission, as well as that of the trans
figuration, the institution of the Lord's Supper, and so many
other matters, is that St. John knew this scene to be suffi
ciently weU known in the Church, and that it had no special
reference to the end which he had in view.
Strauss exclaims : " Every attempt to intercalate the agony
of Gethsemane in the narrative of St. John between chs.
xvu. and xviii. is a treason against the moral elevation and
even the manly character of Jesus." ^ At this rate, St. John
would be himself the first author of a treason of this kind ;
witness the scene in the temple (ch, xii.), especiaUy the saying
in xu, 27. Strauss concludes that we have in the synoptic
^ Bas Leben Jesu, 1864, p. 553.

CHAP, XVIII. 1-3. 223
narrative " a simple fiction, in that of St. John a more con
sidered and calculating fiction." Thus, those who narrate lie
in narrating, and he who oraits lies in omitting ! Such is
the result at which criticism arrives by foUowing its course
to the end. It claims to restore the genuine edifice, it
destroys the very soil on which it is to be reared.
Vv. 1—3 : The arrival of the band. — " Having spoken these
words, Jesus went out with His disciples to the other side of
the brook Cedron} where was a garden] into which He entered,
as well as His disciples. And Judas, who betrayed Him, also
knew the place ; for Jesus had often met there ^ with His dis
ciples. Judas then, having received the hand with officers from
the chief priests and Pharisees, cometh thither with lanterns
and torches and arms!' — The verb e^XOe, He went out, con
nected directly as it is with the regimen irepav tov ^(eipdppov,
to the other side of the brook, can only signify: "He went
out from the town and suburbs of Jerusalem." This is
acknowledged by De Wette, though he and many others con
sider that the discourses in chs. xui.-xvu, were uttered in the
supper chamber, — The received reading toov KeSpcov would
raean the brook of the cedars, and would evidently be an
error on the part of St, John, for there are no cedars in the
country, and the name Cedron comes frora jmp (Kedron),
dark. In Josephus also the name KeSpcov is a nomin. sing.
{e.g. ¦^(eipappoi; KeSpaivo^, Ant. viii. 1. 5). But it is suffi
ciently proved that the reading twv KeSpcov, of the cedars,
originated with ignorant copyists, who, taking KeSpcov for a
genitive plural, placed the article twv before it. The true
reading is tov KeSpcov, of the Cedron, and this is preserved
in the Alexandr. and the SangaUensis, The tov has been
kept in the Sinait, and Cantabrig., but the gen. sing. KeBpov,
of the cedar, has been brought in after it. The same altera
tion is met with in several Mss, of the 0. T. (see 2 Sam. xv.
23 and 1 Kings xv, 13). — The brook of Cedron rises half a
league north of Jerusalem, and faUs into the Dead Sea after
a southward course of six or seven leagues. It is generaUy
' A S A It»"i Vg. and several other Vss. read tou xi^poov ; X D It^i Cop.
Sah. : TOU xi%(ou ; T. R. with BCEGHKLMUXYrAn, most of the
Mnn. Or, and Tisch, : tov xiSpoiv.
" 9 Mjj. (E G M, etc) read xxi after ruvn^h.

224 GOSPEL OF JOHN,
dry during nine months of the year, and we were told at
Jerusalem that for more than twenty years not a drain of
water had been seen in it. Its bed is at the bottom of the
vaUey of Jehoshaphat, between the temple hUl and the Mount
of Olives, After passing over the little bridge by which its
dried-up bed is crossed, there is on the right hand a tract
planted with ancient olive trees, and said to be the garden of
Gethseraane. There is no reason worthy of consideration,
whatever Keira raay say, against the truth of this tradition.
The word TroXXa^t?, often, at ver. 2, applies not only to the
days immediately preceding, but to previous sojourns of Jesus
at Jerusalem. This garden undoubtedly belonged to friends
of Jesus, and generally served as a place of meeting for
our Lord and His disciples {avvrixQri, the aorist : " the act of
raeeting ") when they were returning from Jerusalem to the
Mount of Olives and to Bethany, and desired to avoid passing
together through the streets of the city. Comp, Luke xxi.
37, xxu. 39. — The term aireipa always signifies in the N. T.
the legion or part of the Roraan legion which occupied the
citadel Antonia, at the north-western angle of the temple.
A detachment of Roman soldiers had seemed necessary to
support the servants of the Sanhedrira. It was comraanded
by the tribune hiraself, the chiliarch mentioned in ver. 12.
The art. Tr]v, " the band," is perhaps explained by the presence
of this superior officer, who represented the whole. Although
the Synoptists do not speak of this escort, the message of
Pilate's wife shows that the governor had had to busy hira
self in the matter since the previous evening, and this
circumstance confirms the participation of the Roman band
in the apprehension of Jesus, If Keim chooses to speak
ironicaUy of " half an army," this poor piece of pleasantry
is quite gratuitous. Baumlein opposes the appUcation of the
term cjirelpa to the Roman garrison. But an apprehension
could scarcely have taken place, especially during the residence
of the governor, without the participation of the Roman
authorities; — The virripeTai are, as in vii. 32, 45, the officers
of the Sanhedrira or guards of the teraple, — It was to them,
properly speaking, that the order for our Lord's arrest was
committed. Ver. 10 shows that servants belonging to the
households of the chief priests had joined the band. — The

CHAP, XVIIL 4-0, 225
meaning of the words <f>avoi and Xa/i7raSe? is questionable.
The former seems to us rather to designate lanterns, the
latter lamps placed at the end of a long handle (Matt. xxvi.
1). All this apparatus : " lanterns and torches and arms,"
casts, by its very needlessness, an air of ridicule upon the
scene. It was feared that Jesus might hide HimseK, but
He wilHngly gave Himself up ; that He might defend Him
self . . ., but where was the use of such arms if He had
chosen to use His power ? (ver. 6).
Vv. 4-9 : The meeting of Jesus with the band. — " Jesus
therefore} knowing all that shoidd happen to Him, went forth,
and said unto them} Whom seek ye? They answered Him,
Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus saith unto them, I am He. Now
Judas also, who betrayed Him, stood among them. When then
He had said, I am He, they drew back, and fell to the ground.
Jesus asked them a second time. Whom seek ye ? They said,
Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus answered, I have told you that I am
He : if therefore ye seek, me, let these go away : that the saying
might be fulfilled, which He spake : Of them which Thou gavest
me I have lost none!' — In advancing of His own accord to
meet the troop, our Lord had a purpose which the sequel
explains. He desired, by deUvering Himself up, to provide
for the safety of His disciples. The kiss of Judas, in the
Synoptists, which is said to be incompatible with the narra
tive of St, John, must be placed at the moment when Jesus
came out of the garden and raet the band, therefore iraraedl
ately before the question : " Whom seek ye ? " Jesus having
undergone this last act of treachery on the part of His disciple,
turned to the band and addressed to them this question con
cerning their mission. He desired thereby to oblige them
formaUy to declare what was the object of their search, for
the purpose of sheltering His disciples, " He went out " raight
signify : " He advanced /rom the midst of His disciples, or from
the depths of the garden" (Matt. xiv. 14). But the most
natural sense is that He went out of the garden itself. Un
doubtedly the kinsman of Malchus says at ver. 26:" Did not
I see thee with Him in the garden ? " But Jesus was walking
boldly forward, whUe the disciples were keeping behind Him
1 N D L X Itr'""'!"' Syr. Cop, have Ss instead of ouv.
2 B C D ItP>wiq»« Vg. : s|«x^iv xxi X;yu instead of 4iXim uriv.
GODET IIL P JOHN,

226 GOSPEL OF. JOHN.
in the garden. — The intercalation in this place (ver. 5) of the
remark concerning Judas has been variously explained.
Luthardt justly says : " These words are placed between the
saying : ' It is I,' and the effect it produced, because they are
intended to explain this effect." But how ? The terror produced
by the declaration : " It is 1} which seemed to contain a threat
from heaven, would first of aU be felt by the perfidious disciple,
and communicated by him to those who surrounded and fol
lowed him. — St. John has been accused of personal hatred to
Judas, yet it is he alone among the evangelists who does not
mention the kiss ! — The same moral ascendancy to which the
buyers and seUers in the temple yielded, caused the troop to
draw back, and this sudden backward movement on the part
of those who went first, caused the fall of a certain number
among those who were foUowing. The purpose of Jesus in
this imposing display of His miraculous power is still the
same ; what follows shows that He desired to save the disciples
from being apprehended. — In a mUder tone, which suraraoned
the officers to approach again, Jesus questioned thera a second
time. Their reply again showed that it was Himself alone
whom they were sent to arrest ; whereupon, ver, 8, He drew
the conclusion at which He was aiming from the first, and,
while giving Himself up as a prisoner, stipulated for the liberty
of His disciples, thus fulfUling the beautiful image he had
used, X. 12 : "The shepherd seeth the wolf coming, and fleeth
not, because he careth for the sheep." It was not only for
the safety, but for the salvation of His disciples, as St, John
truly felt, that Jesus was at this time soUcitous, a fact which
accounts for the remark in ver. 9. The example of Peter, the
most courageous among them, shows what would have hap
pened to the weakest if they had been at that moraent called
upon to share the fate of their Master, Jesus, who had before
said : " I have watched over tlwse wlwm Thou hast given me, and
none of them is lost " (xvii. 1 2), was to reahze aU that was
included in this saying, which bore upon the whole of His
work on earth. This quotation is instructive. No one can
suppose that St. John was ignorant of the spiritual meaning
of this saying of our Lord ; and yet he here applied it to a
material fact, which only indirectly contributed to the salvation
of the disciples.

CHAP, XVIIL 10, 11. 227
Vv. 10, 11: Peter's attempt at defence. — " Then Simon
Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest's
servant, and cut off his right ear} The servant's name was
Malchus. Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put thy ^ sword info the
sheath again : the cup which my Father hath given me to drink,
shall I not drink it ? " — ^Was not St. John alluding to the
natural character of Peter, by here giving him the name of
Simon? Comp. xxi 15-17.- — Luke, xxU. 38, shows that the
apostles had in fact brought arms with them. — Why, it may
be asked, did St. John repeat this fact already related by the
Synoptists ? He desired to restore to it that precision which
it had lost by oral tradition: the name of Peter had been
omitted, very probably on purpose (see on xi. 2), that of
Malchus forgotten. — These names are a constant source of
embarrassment to critics. Again, is the intention of humUiat-
ing Peter imputed to the writer, although the act attributed
to him is wanting in neither faith nor courage ! But as for
Malchus ? How can the sHghtest vestige of idealism be dis
covered in this name ? Keira objects : " If these names were
known, how could Mark and Luke have omitted them ? " But
because Mark and Luke were ignorant of them, was it impos
sible for one better informed to know them ? How can we
beheve that an earnest Christian of the second century, writing
at a distance from Palestine, either at Rome or Alexandria, or
in Asia Minor, would have clairaed a historical acquaintance
with the name of a servant in the high priest's household ! (ver.
26). Is such miserable charlatanism compatible with the
character of the author of the discourses of the fourth Gospel ?
The trifling detaU : " the right ear," found also in Luke, is,
according to Strauss, a legendary ampHfication. To what a
degree of chUdishness is not the evangelic narrative thus
degraded ? — The act of Peter, while testifying to a strong faith
and to the sincerity of his declaration in xiii, 37, none the
less by its imprudence compromised the cause of Jesus, Little
was wanting to its depriving Him of the power of saying before
Pilate (ver, 36): " If my kingdom were of this world, then would
my servants have fought." The answer of Jesus lays down for
' X B C L X Y It, Vg. : uTxpiov instead of omov.
2 lou, which is the reading of T, R , is only found in several Mnn. and

228 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
the Church its line of conduct under persecution, viz. that
passive resistance caUed, Rev. xiii. 1 0, the patience of the saints.
— The image of a cup, used to designate a lot to be subraitted
to, recalls the simUar expression in the prayer of our Lord at
Gethsemane related by the Synoptists. — St, Luke alone men
tions the miraculous cure of Malchus, If this fact had not
actuaUy taken place, one cannot see why Peter should not have
been indicted tor the act of rebeUion which he had committed.

SECOND SECTION.
XVIIL 12-XIX. 16,  THE TRIAL OF JESUS,
I, The Ecclesiastical Trial, xvm, 12-27; II, The Civil
Process, xvm. 28-xix, 16.
I. The Trial before the Sanhedrim. — xviii. 12-27.
The next portion contains an account of an appearance of
Jesus before Annas, the ex-high priest, an account which is
intermingled with that of the denial of St. Peter, This appear
ance is not mentioned by the Synoptists, who, on the other
hand, relate a meeting of the Sanhedrim at the house of
Caiaphas, at which Jesus was conderaned to death, which is
omitted by John, How, then, is this relation between the two
chief forms of the Gospel history to be explained ? Was St.
.lohn mistaken, as some think, in representing an appearance as
taking place before Annas, which, according to the Synoptists,
took place before Caiaphas ? Or were the Synoptists, as others
suppose, in error when they made the house of Caiaphas the
scene of an event which reaUy happened in that of Annas ?
We would first of all remark, that when St. John says,
ver. 13, that the band led Hira away to Annas, he adds,
'n-pwTov, firstly, thus letting it be clearly understood that this
appearance before Annas was foUowed by a second appearance.
This could not have been that before Pilate. For we are
positively told at ver, 24, that " Annas then sent Hira bound
to Caiaphas the high priest;" and at ver, 28, that "they led
Jesus from ("the house of) Caiaphas to the preetoriura." Could

CHAP. xvm. 12-27, 229
St. John more plainly indicate that a meeting had taken place
in the house of Caiaphas, even though he omitted giving an
account of it ? Besides, the appearance of Jesus before Pilate
necessarUy supposes that sentence of death had been previously
pronounced against Him by the Sanhedrim, the question being
to obtain from the governor, the confirmation and execution
of this sentence (ver, 31, xix, 7, 11, 16). Now nothing
approaching a condemnation took place in the meeting at the
house of Annas described by St. John, It was merely a
simple preliminary inquiry, and foUowed by no kind of sen
tence. The narrative of St, John, then, implies a subsequent
meeting of the Sanhedrim, as the high court of justice, for the
condemnation of the accused, and consequently that meeting
described by the Synoptists. If it is asked, what then was in
this case the purpose of the appearance before Annas, we
reply that not only might it serve to obtain from the mouth
of Jesus some compromising words of a nature to procure His
condemnation, for the lack of such was a matter of embarrass
ment, but that juridical usage absolutely required it. It is
known that a capital sentence could not be pronounced by the
Sanhedrim tUl the day which followed the appearance of the
accused.^ In the present case, this form could not be com
pletely observed, because it had been decided to shorten the
time. StUl, to save appearances as much as possible, a sem
blance of a first preUminary meeting, followed by a second at
which judgment should be given, was at least to be presented.
The Synoptists have, in conformity with the nature of oral
tradition, preserved only the remerabrance of the meeting,
which made a historical mark ; St, John, as he usually does,
has repaired the synoptic omission by relating the prehminary
raeeting, but has omitted the solemn sitting of the Sanhedrim
as abeady sufficiently known. In fact, however impossible it
is to deny that Jesus was condemned to death in the manner
recounted by the Synoptists, it is, on the other hand, equaUy
so not to admit that this condemnation was preceded by an
inquiry intended to impart to it an appearance of legaUty, as
related by St. John.
Langen' denies any appearance whatever of Jesus before
' Schurer, pp, 416 and 417, d'apris Sanhedrin, iv. 1, v. 5,
" Die letzten Lehenstage Jesu, 1864.

230 gospel of JOHN.
Annas, ahd insists that the scene recounted by St. John in w.
20-23 formed part of the meeting in the house of Caiaphas,
He says that St. John, having omitted to state that Jesus had
been led immediately from the house of Annas to that of
Caiaphas, repaired this omission at ver, 24, where we must
naturally translate the aorist by the pluperfect : " Now Annas
had sent Him . . ." Langen admits that K this translation is
impossible, his opinion is untenable. We defer this considera
tion till ver. 24, — M, Lutteroth settles matters in nearly the
same manner,^ solving the difficulty of ver, 24, however, by
an expedient of another kind (see on this verse). — Beyschlag
admits but one meeting at night taking place at the house of
Annas, as described by St. John ; then one in the morning
assumed by St, John, and rightly placed and described by St,
Luke in ch, xxu, 54, 66-71, St, Matthew and St, Mark, he
says, also mention this latter (Matt. xxvU. 1 ; Mark xv, 1) ;
but they have confounded the night meeting with that morn
ing meeting when the appearance at the house of Caiaphas
took place and Jesus was condemned by the Sanhedrim, an
error which woidd make the morning meeting in their narra
tives utterly useless. We shaU, I believe, see Beyschlag's
mistake upon this latter point (see on xviii, 2 8) ; and with
this mistake his entire hypothesis is overthrown,
Baur and Strauss see in the appearance before Annas only
an invention of the author of the fourth Gospel, for the
purpose of augmenting the guilt of the Jews by making the
condemnation of Jesus to be pronounced not only by one, but
by two of their high priests. But (1) St. John does not put
any sentence of condemnation into the mouth of Annas ;
(2) he keeps a profound silence concerning that pronounced
by Caiaphas ! — HUgenfeld thinks that the author, in his nar
rative, does but just glance at the meeting of the Sanhedrim,
because the Jewish Messiaship of Jesus was too strongly dwelt
upon in it for his anti-Judaic feeling. — But with the licence
with respect to history which, according to these critics, he
aUowed himself, nothing could have been easier for him than
to modify the narrative of this scene by making, e.g., the sen
tence of Jesus turn solely on His assertion of His dignity as
^ " Annas was informed in passing of the success of the apprehension,'' Essai
d'interin-itation cles derniires parties de I'JEv. de St. Matthieu, 1876.

CHAP, XVin, 12-14. 231
Son of God. Besides, if the idea of the Messianic office were
so repugnant to St, John, why did he so expressly recaU it
side by side with his quality of Son of God in the summary
of the Gospel with which this book concludes ? (xx, 31). —
Keim grows quite warm on the subject, and exclaims : " Who
can be bUnd enough to seek for truth in a narrative which,
after introducing the inquiry before Annas as a fact of a
decisive nature, ignores in the most unpardonable manner
that before Caiaphas!" (pp. 322, 323). But the raeeting in
the house of Annas had, according to St. John himself,
nothing decisive about it. Its juridical result, to the great
annoyance of the enemies of Jesus, who expected to derive
therefrom some complaint against Him, to be brought before
the great judicial meeting about to be held, was nil. Besides,
this latter meeting is, as we have seen, by no means ignored.
For St. John, whUe omitting its narration, most correctly
assigns it its place (ver. 24), exactly in the same raanner as
he had done in the case of the scene in Gethsemane (xviii. 1).
— Reuss, in his lately published work,^ thus expresses him
seK: " John says nothing, and we may add, without deceiving
ourselves, knows nothing, of the official inquiry and the trial
before the court, because all this took place with closed doors."
We have shown that St. John knew aU, and that he makes any
one who will read him carefuUy, clearly understand what it
does not suit his purpose expressly to relate. Renan is un
sparing in his admiration of this part of St. John's narrative.
" Our author alone," he says, " makes Jesus appear before
Annas, the father-in-law of Caiaphas, Josephus confirms the
correctness of this account, . . . This circumstance, of which
the two first Gospels afford not a notion, is a beam of light.
How should a sectary writing in Asia Minor or Egypt have
known of it ? . . . It is a strong proof of the historical value
of our Gospel" (pp. 522 and 407).
1st. Jesus led before Annas.
Vv. 12—14. " Then the band and the tribune and the off cers
of the Jews took Jesus, and bound Him, and led Him away ^
first to Annas ; for he was father-in-law to Caiaphas, who was
' Histoire ivangelique, 1876, p. 663.
2 X B D, 6 Mnn. have vyxy,v instead of xTnyxyov.—^ B C D X A It"«i omit

232 gospel of JOHN.
high priest that year} Caiaphas was he who had given counsel
to the Jews that it was expedient that one man should die ^ for
the people." — The word irpwTov, flrst, contains a tacit confir
raation of the synoptic account, according to which Jesus was
led directly to Caiaphas; comp a simUar remark, iii. 24. —
Annas had himself been high priest in the years 6—15 of our
era, that is, about fifteen years before. We see from Josephus
that he was the influential man of the times, St. John, how
ever, gives us to understand that the true reason for which
Jesus was at that tirae led before him, was rather his relation
ship to Caiaphas the high priest. In virtue of this relation
ship, these two individuals were, so to speak, regarded as one.
Comp. the expression in Luke ui. 2. — On vv. 13, 14, comp.
xi 50, 51. St. John would give us to understand by the
remark in ver, 14 what kind of justice Jesus had to expect
from such a judge.
2d. The flrst denial.
Vv. 15-18, " And Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did
another disciple ;^ and that disciple was known unto the high
priest} and went in with Jesus into the court of the high priest.
But Peter stood at the door without. Then went out that other
disciple and spake to her that kept the door, and brought in '
Peter. Then said the damsel who kept the door to Peter, Art
thou not also one of this man's disciples ? Peter answers, I am
not. Now the servants and the officers were standing there, having
made a brazier, because it was cold : and they were warming
themselves : and Peter ® was standing among them and warming
himself." — While the Synoptists relate consecutively the three
denials of Peter, probably because they were, in the oral
tradition of the Gospel, grouped in a single and separate nar
rative, forming one of the diropovevpaTa or traditional sub
jects, John separates them in the course of his history, passing
' Cod. 225 adds after •Trparov : xtixtuXiv ouv xvtov o Awx; ^i^tfAsvov orpo; Kxixipav
TOV xppf^npix. SyrP adds the same words in the margin, Cyril reads after sxehou :
xTeo^TuXxv d£ xuTov osoifiivov oTpo; Kxix:pxv tov xp^ispsx (comp, ver. 24).
¦ X B C L X, 13 Mnn, several Vss, have xoroSxvuv instead of x'jroXialxi.
3 X A B, 5 Mnn. and probably It. Vg. Syr, Cop, Sah., omit o before xXXo;
{"an other disciple").
* B C L X read o yv. tou apx,. * X : ua^viyxi instead of tmyxyiv.
« X B C L X, some Mnn. ItpH'ii'" Vg. Syr. Cop, read xxi before o n-.Tpo; (" and
Peter also "),

CHAP, xvm, 16-18. 233
alternately from Peter " to Jesus and from Jesus to Peter.
This less disjointed narrative certainly reproduces the real
course of events, and there is nothing in this Gospel which
more plainly discloses in its author the witness of the facts,
" The same superiority," rightly exclaims Renan, " in the
history of the denials of Peter ! All is more circumstantial
and better explained,"
The art. o, the, omitted by the Alex, before the words dXXo<;
piaOrjT'rj';, other disciple, ver. 15, must undoubtedly be rejected.
This omission is confirmed by ancient versions and by the
context. For nothing in what precedes justifies the use of
the definite article. We must then tran.slate : " another
disciple." Who, then, is it whom St. John thus designates ?
Himself? Such is the most usual answer. But the peri
phrasis used by St. John to designate himself, while main
taining his anonymous position, is : " the disciple whom Jesus
loved" (xui. 23, xix. 26). I endeavoured in my first edition
to justify the absence of this expression, in the present case,
by saying " that it was not the moraent for using it " after
the disciples had just forsaken their Master. I cannot, how
ever, conceal from myself that this explanation is somewhat
subtUe. Why should not John designate by this phrase sorae
other disciple, his brother James, for instance, whom ho
nowhere names in this Gospel any more than his mother ?
We do not know what were the relations which Zebedee and
his sons might have with the household of the high priest.
Perhaps the very caUing of Zebedee might have given rise to
them. Thanks to this relation, this disciple was allowed to
enter with the band into the high priest's palace, and soon
obtained admission for Peter also, who had undoubtedly
claimed his good offices.
But of what high priest is St. John speaking when he says,
ver. 15:" into the court of the high priest " {avXij, more pro
bably here the inner court than the palace itself) ? On the
one hand, after it has been said : " They led Him away to
Annas} it seems impossible to think of any other house than
that of this individual But, on the other hand, the title of
dpxiepevi, high priest, is not given to Annas either in this
chapter or in any other part of this book. Undoubtedly, as
Schiirer has weU proved, this term might designate, besides

234 -GOSPEL OF JOHN.
the high priest in office, all those who had previously fUled
this position, and even all the members of those few privileged
families from whom the high-priesthood was generaUy re
cruited. For this reason it is that high priests are spoken
of, and that Annas hiraself, though long since out of office, is
called dp'x^iepev'i in the Acts of the Apostles (iv. 6). Oidy
this is never done in this Gospel; and it would be difficult
to believe that St. John, after opposing the high priest Caiaphas
to his father-in-law Annas, as he does in ver, 13, should sorae
few lines later have designated the latter by the title of high
priest, without a word of explanation to his readers. If, then,
it is the house of Caiaphas which is spoken of, we raust
conclude that, since acquaintance with the high priest Caiaphas
and the members of his household opens the abode of Annas
to the disciple, these two individuals raust at this time have
inhabited one and the same palace. The close connection by
which they were united would explain this circumstance, and
it was perhaps for this very reason that St. John mentioned
this fact. Meyer, then, is certainly wrong in saying tbat the
text furnishes not the slightest indication in favour of this
opinion, to which, on the contrary, it directly leads.
The Hebrews very generaUy employed female doorkeepers
(see Josephus, Antiq. vu. 2. 1 ; Acts xii. 13 ; 2 Sam. iv. 6 in
the LXX.), — The Kai, also {" Art thou not also "), shows that she
well knew the anonymous disciple to be a disciple of Jesus,
— The three denials of Peter have, as Luthardt observes, three
distinct historical points of departure, which are in sorae sort
distributed among the evangelists: 1st, the introduction of
Peter into the court by a friend known to be a disciple of
Jesus ; 2d, the recognition of Peter by those who had seen
him at the time of his Master's arrest; 3d, his GalUean
dialect. But to these external circumstances, which called
forth his trial, was added an internal one, which facilitated his
fall, — viz., the remembrance of the blow which he had dealt,
and which exposed him more than aU the rest to be involved
in the condemnation of Jesus. Fear thus allied itself to pre
sumption, and the warning given him by Jesus : " The spirit
indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak} was verified.
The SouXot, servants, ver. 18, designate the private domestics
of the priestly palace ; the vTrrjpeTai, officers, are the official

CHAP. xvm. 19-2 L 235
servants of the Sanhedriin charged with the guardianship of
the temple. — The last words of ver, 18:" Peter was standing
with them and warming himself} are literaUy repeated at ver.
2 5, where they are placed as a stepping-stone to the approach
ing resumption of the account of Peter's denials. The verbs
in the imperfect are graphic, and signify that the situation
described remains during the investigation about to be described.
3d. Appearance at the house of Annas.
Vv. 19—21. " The high priest then ashed Jesus of His dis
ciples, and of His doctrine. Jesus answered him, I spake^
openly to the world; I ever taught in open synagogue} and in.
the temple, whither all^ the Jews resort ; and in secret have I
said nothing. Why askest * thou me ? ask them which heard
me, what I have said unto them : behold, they know what I
said." — Though this semblance of inquiry took place at the
house of Annas, it was not he, as is generaUy thought, but
Caiaphas, who directed the examination. The title of high priest
wliich is given him in ver. 13, and again in ver. 24, immedi
ately after, admits no other interpretation. This sitting was
not entirely private, as is often said. It had its necessary
place in the trial, and the terra officer in ver. 22 supposes its
official character. The duty of presiding over it therefore
devolved on the high priest as such. It has been supposed
that Annas acted here as Ab-beth-din (chief of the court of
justice). But this dignity belonged to the high priest hiraself
(Schiirer, p. 413). Keim rightly says (assuredly not in the
interest of John's narrative) : " If Caiaphas was reaUy the
acting high priest, and at the same time the soul of the move
ment directed against Jesus, it was for hira, and not for his
father-in-law, to take knowledge of the raatter and report to
the Sanhedrim" (iii. p. 322). What meaning otherwise could
attach to the description of Caiaphas in ver. 13? And when,
at ver, 2 2, the officer says to Jesus : "Answerest thou the high
priest so ? " can we think of another than the acting high priest,
the same who alone bears the title aU through the chapter ?
' XABCLXYa: XiXxXvixx instead of iXxXaox.
^ T. R. reads t>i before ruvxyayti solely with A and some Mnn.
' T. R. with only some Mnn. : orxvTohv ; «• with 10 Mjj. (Y r A A, etc.) :
^xvToTi ; X A B G L X n : otxvti;.
* T. K, with Byz, : iwi^uTx; and i-npuTviaov ; Alex, : spooTx; and ipcarttirov.

236 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
Ver, 24 does not contradict this interpretation. The only
change referred to there is one of locaHty, — The question put
to Jesus was intended to extort from Him some answer fitted
to be the ground of His condemnation. For embarrassment
was felt as to the course to be followed in this matter, as is
proved by the recourse had to false witnesses. — What is asked
of Jesus is not the names of His disciples, as if a Hst of His
accomplices was wanted ; it is information about the number
of His partisans, and the principles which serve as their watch
word. — Jesus, knowing that aU they seek is to drag from Him
some utterance which they may turn to His disadvantage,
simply appeals to the publicity of His teaching. He is not
the chief of a secret society, nor the propagator of principles
which fear the light of day, — Svvaycoy^, without article : in
synagogal assembly; the word lepov, temple, has the article,
because this edifice stands alone. When Jesus taught His
disciples in private, it was not to teU them anything different
from what He declared in pubUc, — The testimony of the
ancient Vss, decides in favour of the Alex, reading : " all
the Jews ; " not : " the Jews everywhere or always."
Vv, 22, 23, " When He had thus spoken, one of the officers
which stood by struck Jesus with the palm of his hand, saying,
Answerest thou the high priest so ? Jesus answered him. If I
liave spoken evil, bear witness of the evil ; but if well, why smitest
thou me ? " — The answer of Jesus certainly contained a tacit
rebuke. An officer, who wished to pay court to his master,
takes occasion to remind Jesus of the respect due. — 'Pdiriapia
signifies strictly : a blow with a rod. No doubt in Matt. v.
3 9 the verb pairi^eiv is taken in the sense of buffeting. But here
the strict meaning seems preferable, because of the term Bepeiv,
to flay, ver. 23. — MapTvprjaov : "prove by lawful witness-
bearing." — Jesus does not here HteraUy fulfil His own precept
(Matt. V. 39). His own innocence demanded this answer, so
fuU of gentleness and dignity.
Ver. 24. " Therefore^ Annas sent Him bound unto Caiaphas
the high priest!' — This verse has always perplexed those who
held that the previous sitting was that which took place at
the house of Caiaphas, and which is related by the Synoptics.
> T. R., with B CLX Alt""', some Mnn., reads: ouv (therefore); XSyi"'', some
Mnn,: Se {ili.en) ; s-, with 13 Mjj, (A, etc.), omits every particle.

CHAP. XVIII, 25-27. 237
This is what has led to the transposition of this verse in some
documents after ver. 1 3 (see the critical note on this verse) ; it
has also led several critics, such as Calvin, Lucke, Tholuck,
de Wette, Langen, to take direaTeiXev in the sense of the
pluperfect, had sent. And as the particle o^v, therefore, did
not suit this explanation, they have been led thereby either to
reject this particle or to transform it into Se : " Now Annas
had sent . , ." But the most probable text is certainly there
fore; and this particle evidently makes the following sending
the consequence of aU that has just been related, and especiaUy
of the appearance at the house of Annas, The evangeUst's
object in inserting this notice here, is to indicate that this
appearance must be distinguished from that which took place
later at the house of Caiaphas before the Sanhedrim, and to
assign its place to this weU-known sitting which he does not
relate. M. Lutteroth gives this verse a sentimental cast :
" Now this Jesus, thus struck by the officer, stood with His
hands bound, as Annas had [previously] sent Him to Caiaphas I "
But this meaning does not harmonize with the uniform sim
plicity of the apostolic narrative. Besides, also, it supposes
the meaning of the pluperfect given to the Aor., without any
valid reason (see Meyer). — Jesus had no doubt been unbound
during His examination ; this scene over, Annas had Him
bound anew to send Him to Caiaphas. Probably He was
unbound a second time during the sitting of the Sanhedrim,
and thus is explained why. Matt, xxvii 2 and Mark xv. 1,
He is bound anew when He is led away to PUate. — " Unto
Caiaphas " here signifies : " to the palace of Caiaphas ; " there
were the official apartments and a haU for the meetings of the
Sanhedrim. This body had been caUed together in the interval.
The members were at Jerusalem for the feast.
4th. Second and third denial,
Vv, 2 5—2 7, " And Simon Peter stood and warmed himself.
They said therefore unto him. Art not thou also one of his dis
ciples ? He denied it, and said, I am not. One of the servants
of the high priest, being his kinsman whose ear Peter cut off,
saith, Did not I see thee in the garden with him ? Peter then
denied again: and immediately the cock crew!' — TiU now,
according to John, all has passed at the house of Annas ; and
it was consequently in the court of his palace that the fire was

238 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
lighted beside which Peter denies Jesus. According to the
Synoptics, who do not mention the appearing before Annas,
the three denials took place at the house of Caiaphas. We
have already stated the reasons which in our view support the
supposition by which this contradiction is resolved, viz, that
Annas and Caiaphas inhabited the same sacerdotal palace.
This opinion is in keeping with oriental usage, according to
which palaces are not only inhabited by the reigning prince,
but also by all the members of his faraily. The marked con
nection of the first words of this verse with the last of ver. 18
shows that the second and third denials took place during the
examination, vv. 20-23. The sending of Jesus to Caiaphas,
therefore, followed immediately on this last denial And so
may be explained the look which Jesus cast on Peter, accord
ing to Luke (xxii, 61), Jesus was passing through the court
which He had to cross to get from the apartments of Annas
to those of Caiaphas. At that moraent He heard the cock
crow ; and it was then that His look met that of Peter. The
epithet SeSepevov, hound, serves to explain better the impres
sion produced on the faithless disciple by seeing his Master in
this condition.
The subject of elirov, tliey said (ver. 25), is indeterminate.
According to Matthew, it is a maid-servant who sees Peter
approaching the gate to escape from the court to the front of
the house. According to Mark, it is the same servant who
had already given hira trouble, and who denounces hira to the
servants gathered round the fire. In Luke, it is vaguely a
eTepo<;, another person. It is probable that the porteress spoke
of Peter to one of her companions, who denounced him to the
assembled servants. From this group there rose instantly the
question addressed to Peter, — After the second denial, Peter
seeras to have played the bravado, and to have set himself to
speak more freely with the persons present. His GalUean
accent was soon remarked, and drew attention more particu
larly from a kinsraan of Malchus, which occasioned the third
denial John does not speak of Peter's imprecations which
are related by Matthew. If, therefore, any one was animated
with iU-feeUng to Peter, it was not the author of our narrative,
as is alleged, but rather the first evangelist.
This whole narrative would suffice to prove: 1st, how close

CHAP. xvm. 28-XIX. 16, 239
is the relation which is sustained by this Gospel to the previous
Gospels ; 2d, with how rauch less Hfe and ease the facts were
related by oral tradition than they have been by the pen of
the eye-witness. The latter alone has reproduced the minutest
links of the history ; and M. Renan is not without reason in
speaking of " its undulating features and lifelike points,"
II, The Trial before Pilate. — xviii. 28-xix. 16.
Had the Romans, when they converted Judea into a pro
vince of the empire, taken away frora the Jews the right of
capital punishment ? Our narrative says so positively, putting
into thefr own mouths the words (ver. 31) : " It is not lawful
for us to put any man to death." To this have been objected
the execution of Stephen, Acts vii, 5 7 et seq., and the permis
sion granted by Titus to the Jews to put foreigners and even
Romans to death who passed beyond the enclosure of the
teraple court (Josephus, Antiq. vi, 2, 4). But the former is
an act of extra-legal popular fury, and the permission given
by' Titus is expressly an exceptional case. According to the
Talmud as well as John, the right of inflicting capital punish
ment did not now belong to the Sanhedrim. In the times
which had foUowed the conquest, the governors had probably
made use of concessions to the conquered people. But not
long before this, perhaps since the governorship of the despotic
PUate, the Jews had been reduced to the common provincial
law : the jus gladii had been withdrawn from them. " Forty
years before the destruction of the temple," says the Talmud,
"capital sentences were taken awaj' from Israel"^ It was,
therefore, about the year 30 of our era, the year of Jesus'
death. Hence the reason why the rulers were obhged to lead
Jesus before PUate, and to ask this Gentile magistrate to ratify
and execute the sentence which they had just pronounced. —
When we examine carefuUy the conduct of the Jews at this
hearing, we discover in it a maturely-concerted and skiKuUy-
foUowed plan. This circumstance proves, indeed, that after
the judgment pronounced on Jesus at the house of Caiaphas,
there must have been a new sitting, at which it was agreed
' Sanhedr. , foL 24. 2 : Quadraginla annis ante vastatum templum ablata sunt
judicia capitalia ab Israele.

240 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
what course should be followed to get the sentence of death
ratified by the procurator.^ Moreover, the sentence, having
been pronounced over night, required to be legaUy confirmed
at a regular diet.^ Finally, the Sanhedrim, wishing to conduct
Jesus in a body to the governor, must have had a meeting-
place somewhere. Such was the origin of the morning sitting,
which took place very early, probably in the faraous hall,
paved with raosaic Qisclikath haggazith), situated at the south
of the teraple. Comp. Matt, xxvii, 1 ; Mark xv. 1. Luke
(xxii. 66 et seq.) has also preserved to us the account of it,
perhaps mixing with it some details borrowed from the night
sitting, which he passes over in silence. In any case, the
examination and judgment of Jesus must have been summarUy
reproduced and ratified in this plenary {-n-avTe^, Matt.) sitting
of the Sanhedrim.
The Jews begin by asking Pilate to confirm their sentence
without examination (ver, 30). This he refuses. Such is the
first phase: vv. 28— 32. They then iiame a, political accusa
tion : He made himseK a king. Pilate judges this accusation
unfounded, after which he makes two attempts to deliver Jesus
with the support of the people, but without success. This is
the second phase: ver. 33— xix. 6. The Jews then advance
a new charge of a religious nature : He made himself the Son
of God. But, on hearing this accusation, Pilate endeavours all
the more to deUver Jesus. This is the third phase : vv. 7-1 2a.
At tliis moment, the Jews, seeing their prey on the point of
escaping from them, put aside all shame and employ the odious
means of personal threatening to bend the conscience of the
judge ; and in this way they allow themselves to be dragged
into the denial of their most cherished hope, that of the
Messiah ; they subscribe themselves vassals to Csesar, Such
is the fourth phase: vv, 126-16.
Ver. 28. "Then led they Jesus from Caiaplias unto the hall
of judgment : and it was early ; and they themselves went not
'¦ Comp. especially the expression : ciirTi 6xvxTuirai xItov, Matt, xxvii. 1, that
is to say : "to seek the ways arid means best fitted to secure from the governor
the execution of Jesus. "
2 Lightfoot, Hor. Hebr. in Matt, xxvii. 1. Keim: "The day sitting was
required in point of legality to complete the night one. For the sittings of
the Sanhedrim, especially in a case of capital punishment, required to be held
during the day and in the morning, before man has drunk or eaten."

CHAP. XVIIL 28. 241
into the judgment hall, lest they should be defied, that ^ they
might eat the Passover." — The prcetorium {judgment hall) was,
properly speaking, the place where the praetor sat at Rome
when he administered justice. This name had been applied
to the palaces of the Roman governors in the provinces. Most
critics hold that it denotes here the palace of Herod, which
stood on the hill of Zion, in the western part of the upper
city. They quote the passage of Josephus, Bellum jud. ii.
14. 8, but wrongly; for it is said there : "Floras at that time
(totc) dwelt in the royal palace," — a clear proof that the
Roman governor did not live there ordinarily. It is more
probable that PUate occupied a palace belonging to the citadel
Antonia, where the Roman garrison was stationed at the north
west corner of the temple. There, at least, tradition places
the starting-point of the Via Dolorosa. — Upcot (T, R, irpcoici),
early morning, comprises the time from three to six' o'clock
(Mark xiu, 35), In general, the Roman courts did not open
their sittings tiU nine o'clock ; but, as we have seen, Pilate was
forewarned the previous evening of what was passing, and he
had consented to receive the Jews at this unusual hour.
The scruple which prevents the Jews from entering the
governor's house brings us again face to face vidth the seem
ing contradiction between John's narrative and that of the
Synoptics, If, as the latter seem to say, the Jews had already
celebrated the Paschal feast on the previous evening, how are
we to explain their fear that, defiling themselves by contact
with leaven in a GentUe house, they should not be able to
eat the Passover that sarae day ? The defenders of what is
thought to be the synoptical view had no other resource than
to refer the expression eating the Passover, not to the Paschal
feast properly so caUed, but to those sacred feasts which were
celebrated daily during the festival, and which consisted of
unleavened bread and of the flesh of the peace-offerings. It is
in this general sense, they say, that the word Passover is taken,
Deut, xvi, 2,3: " Thou shalt sacriflce the Passover unto the Lord,
of the flock and the herd . . .: seven days shalt thou eat unleavened
bread therewith" (the Passover), Corap. the analogous expres
sion, 2 Chron. XXX. -22 (Hterally) : "And they did eat thefeast
(the sacrifices of the feast) seven days, offering peace-offerings and
' X A B C A reject the second ivx.
GODET IIL Q JOHN.

242 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
praising the Lord ;" 2 Chron. xxxv. 7-9: " And Josiah gave
to the people, of the flock, lambs and kids, all for the Passover
offerings, for all that were present, to the number of thirty thou
sand, and three thousand bullocks : these were of the king's
substance. , , ."
It is alleged further, that, according to the Talraud, the
defilement which the Jews would have contracted by entering
the prsetorium would only have lasted to the end of the day,
and woidd not have prevented them from eating the Paschal
feast, which fell whoUy on the following day. — But the
passages quoted do not prove what they would require to
prove. As in Deut. xvi. 5, 6 the term Passover is applied
exclusively to the Paschal lamb, it foUows that the expression :
"of the herd and of the flock} in ver. 2, is not an explanatory
apposition to the word pisach (Passover), but an appendix by
which there are added to the principal sacrifice aU the secondary
sacrifices required to complete it during the course of the holy
week. And in any case, even if the word Passover could
embrace along with the Paschal lamb aU tlie other sacrifices
of the feast, it would not follow that it could designate the
latter without the former, as would be the case in the passage
of John, — In 2 Chron, xxx, the name. Passover is applied,
vv, 15, 17, 18, exclusively to the Paschal lamb. Why does
the chronicler in ver. 22 substitute for this special designation
the general expression thefeast., except because. he now wished
to speak of the sacrifices of the feast, excepting the Paschal
lamb ? Besides, the reading : " and they did eat (vajokelou)} is
very doubtful. The LXX. had certainly read vajekallou, " and
they flnished ;" for they translate Kal avvereXeaav. — In the
third passage (2 Chron. xxxv. 7-9), the distinction between
lambs and kids intended to form the Passover, and the buUocks
consecrated to the other sacrifices and feasts, is obvious at a
glance. — But even supposing that in some passage of the
0, T. the term Passover had received from the context a wider
meaning than ordinary, would it foUow that so common and
technical a phrase in the N. T. as that of eating the Passover
could aU at once be applied to another than the Paschal
feast ? Here certainly Meyer has good right to protest against
forced harmanistic.
As to the objection taken from the duration of the defile-

CHAP. XVIIL 29-32. 243
ment which the Jews would have contracted : 1. It is impos
sible to conclude anything with certainty as to the times of
Jesus, from a passage of the Rabbin Maimonides about the
year 1200, 2. This passage refers to a case of defilement
arising from contact with dead animals, etc., and not to defile
ment produced by leaven, and speciaUy and directly connected
with the feast itseK. 3. The members of the Sanhedrim
might perfectly, without incurring the penalty of death, have
abstained from taking part in a sacrifice or feast of a general
kind ; for these acts were voluntary ; the Paschal feast properly
so caUed was the only one which did not admit of abstention.^
4. The defilement thus contracted would in any case have
prevented the members of the Sanhedrira from participating
in the slaying of the lamb in the afternoon.
For aU these reasons, it is impossible for me to hold the
view of the numerous and learned critics who refer the expres
sion: " eat the Passover " in our verse to the peace-offering (the
chagigah) which the Jews offered on the 16th Nisan (we
shall only name among moderns, Tholuck, Olshausen, Heng
stenberg, Wieseler, Hofmann, Lange, Riggenbach, Baumlein,
Langen, Luthardt, and Elirchner).
The pronoun avTol, themselves, contrasts the Jews, in their
Levitical purity, with Jesus, whom nothing could pollute more,
so poUuted was He already in their eyes. He was immedi
ately given over to the governor and led into the praetoriura.
From this time Pilate must thus go from the Jews to Jesus,
and from Jesus to the Jews. Keira judges this situation
historicaUy impossible, and is witty on the ambulant judge,
the peripatetic negotiator who is presented to us in John's
narrative. But the apostle himself clearly perceived the
exceptional nature of the situation, and explained it definitely
in ver. 28.
The first manoeuvre of the Jews :
Vv. 29-32. "Pilate then went out^ unto them, and said}
'What accusation bring ye against this man ? * They answered
' See the article of Andrese, already quoted (at xiii. 1), in the Beweis de
Glaubens, 1870.
' X adds s?<a after HiXxto;, B C L X Syr, before orpo; «uT»Kf, others after these
words. ' X B C L X : (ptiriv instead of utiv. * X B omit xxtx.

244 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
and said unto him. If he were not a malefactor} we would not
have delivered him up unto thee. Then^ said Pilate unto them.
Take ye him, and judge him according to your law. The Jews
therefore said unto him. It is not lawful for us to put any man
to death: that the sayingof Jesus might be ful filled, which He spake}
signifying what death He should die!' — PUate was the fifth
governor of Judea since the Roman domination. He was in
office from 26 to 36 A.D., under Tiberius and CaUgula. He
was subordinate to the proconsul of Syria. His residence was
Ceesarea ; he went up to Jerusalem at the feasts ; he loved on
these occasions to display before the people the pomp of Roman
majesty. PhUo {Leg. ad Caium) represents him as a proud,
obstinate, impracticable man. But it is probable that the
fanaticism of the Jews had also much to do with the endless
embroUments which they had with him, " AU Pilate's acts
which are known to us," says M. Renan, " show hira to have
been a good administrator." This portrait is assuredly flatter
ing ; but it is confirmed in some measure by the picture of his
government drawn by Josephus, Antiq. xviu, 2—4, Accused
of false testimony and murder before his chief, Vitellius,
governor of Syria, he was sent to Rome to answer for him
seK. Eusebius relates, on the testimony of pagan writers, that
he committed suicide under CaUgula. — Ovv, therefore (then) :
because the Jews would not enter his court.
The answer of the Jews to PUate (ver. 30) is clever. It is
easy to see that it is premeditated. It unveUs the attitude
which they had decided to take up at the outset : they have
judged; Pilate has only to execute. Thus the loss of the
jus gladii came really to little. Pilate was the executioner ;
they were stUl the tribunal PUate understands them. He
knows them. He plays check with them. Entering apparently
into their view, delighted at finding this raeans of getting rid
of the business, he answers them without hesitation : " Very
weU ! Since you wish to be sole judges in this matter, be it
so 1 Take the accused and punish him yourselves (of course
within the limits of your competency)." The Sanhedrim had,
indeed, certain discipHnary rights, such as excoraraunication,
1 X reads xxxov voiwx;, B L xxxov roiuv, instead of xxkotoios.
« B C omit oi-v ; A K 17 n read Se.
^ X omits ov uvtv.

CHAP. XVIIL 33-35. 245
scourging, etc. There was no need of Pilate to apply such
chastisements. Some critics have thought that PUate really
authorized them to put Jesus to death, bnt with this impUed
reserve : " If you can and dare " (Hengstenberg). But this
is to raake Pilate say yes and no at one and the same tirae.
xix. 6 proves nothing in favour of this meaning, as we
shall see.
This reply was not to the mind of the Jews, who wished at
any cost to have Jesus put to death. It forces them, there
fore, to avow their dependence in this case where capital
punishment is in question (ver, 31). And this circumstance
seems significant to the evangehst (ver. 32) ; for if they had
been their own masters, or if they had aUowed themselves to
be carried away, as they did later in the murder of Stephen,
to act as if they stUl were so, Jesus would have undergone the
Jewish, not the Roman punishment. He would have been
stoned, but not lifted up from the earth like the brazen serpent,
as He had foretold (iu. 14, xii. 32).
The second manoeuvre of the Jews :
Vv. 33-35. " Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall
again, and called Jesus, and said unto Him, Art thou the
King of the Jews ? Jesus answered him} Sayest thou ^ this
thing of thyself} or did others tell it thee of me? Pilate
answered. Am I a Jew ? Thine own nation and the chief
priests * have delivered thee unto me ; what hast thou done ? "
— In John's narrative there is evidently a blank here. For
there is nothing to explain the question of Pilate to Jesus :
"Art thou the King of the Jews ? " Such an inquiry supposes
a saying on the part of the accusers giving rise to it. This
supposition is changed into certainty when we compare the
synoptical account, especially that of Luke : " We found
him, say the Jews accosting PUate, perverting the nation, and
forbidding to give tribute to Ccesar, saying that he is the Christ
the King" (xxui. 2). Luke has oraitted the first phase of the
accusation, that which John has just related ; he begins his
narrative at the point where the Jews corae down to the
humble part of accusers, and recognise fully the position of
Pilate, It is evident that John, after supplying in the pre^
^ 9 Mjj. (A B C, etc. ) -omit «i;t«. ^ 45 : u^x; instead of Xtyu;.
"* X B C L : atro (TixvTou instead of xip' taurou. * X b e : o xp^npius.

246 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
ceding part what the Synoptics had omitted, supposes in ver.
33 that the accusation mentioned by them is known. It
comes out ever more clearly how intimate is the relation
between his narrative and theirs.
To his question Pilate no doubt expected a ready, frank
answer in the negative. But the position was not so simple
as he imagined. There was a distinction to be observed. In
the political sense which a Roman naturaUy gave to the
term : "King of the Jews} Jesus could repudiate the title ; but in
the religious sense given to it by every believing Jew, Jesus
must accept it, whatever might be the consequences of His
avowal. Otherwise He would have given occasion to the
report that He had denied being the Messiah, Everything
thus depended on the question whether the charge proceeded
from Jewish or Gentile Hps, Meyer's objections to this
explanation seem to rae of no weight. He sees in the
question of Jesus to PUate nothing but an explanation which
He had the right to ask, that He might know the origin of
the accusation. What ! without any object whatever ? Does
Jesus in this scene then lavish His sayings uselessly ? Ac
cording to Tholuck and Luthardt, Jesus simply raeans to
make Pilate aware of the suspected origin {others, the Jews)
of this information. But why in this case not rather answer
by a simple no ? The reaUy affirmative answer of Jesus in
vv. 36 and 37 becoraes a counter assertion. These two verses
are incompatible with the question of Jesus, except on our
explanation, which is that of Olshausen, Neander, Ewald, etc,
— It must be concluded from this saying that Jesus had not
Himself heard the accusation of the rulers, and that conse
quently He was already in the praetoriura at the tirae when it
had been uttered,
PUate does not in the least understand this distinction.
He gets out of patience : " What have I to do with aU your
Jewish subtUties ! " There is supreme contempt in the anti
thesis : eyco . . . 'lovBaioi . . . {I . . . a Jew ?). Then,
dismissing the Jewish jargon with which he had aUowed the
accusers to impose on him for a moment, he examines as an
open, straightforward Roman : " Come, to business ! What
crime hast thou committed ? "
Vv. 36, 37. "Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this

CHAP. XVIII. 36, 37. 247
world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my
servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews : but
now is my kingdom not from hence. Pilate therefore said
unto Him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered. Thou
sayest that I am a king} To this end was I ^ born, and for
this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness
unto the truth} Every one that is of the truth heareth my
voice!' — Jesus resumes the question (ver. 36) at the point to
which it was brought by ver. 34. Ver. 36 : in the Gentile
pohtical sense. He is not a king ; ver. 3 7 : in the Jewish
religious sense. He is. — The phrase Ik tov Koapov, of this
vjorld, is not synonymous with ev Ta> Koapco, in this world.
The kingdom of Jesus is certainly developed here below.
But it does not derive its origin from beneath, from human
wiU and earthly force. Jesus alleges in proof of this, the
way in which He has given Himself over to the Jews. His
servants are that crowd of adherents who had surrounded
Him on Palm day, and not merely, as they are understood
by Liicke and Luthardt, hypothetical beings : the servants,
whom in that case I should have. Of the meaning given
by Bengel and Stier : the angels, Pilate could not even have
had a gUmpse. — It has been sought to give to vvv, now, a
temporal sense : " My kingdom is not now, but it will be
later, of this world." But, at our Lord's advent. His kingdom
will no more be of this world than it is to-day. Now ought
to be taken, as it often is, in the logical sense : it contrasts
the ever present reality of truth with the non-existence of
error. If in ver. 37 we read ovkow, certainly not, this word must
be taken interrogatively : " Thou dost not then profess, as I
thought, to be a king ? " Pilate would thus make haste to
take advantage of the denial of Jesus, ver, 36, to get rid of
the business. But the end of ver, 36:" My kingdom . . . }
and the assertion of Jesus, ver. 3 7 : "Thou sayest} in which
He resumes and appropriates the contents of PUate's words,
rather favour the accentuation ovkovv : then. " Thou art a
king then I Thou confessest it ? " — The affirmative formula
^ X B L Y, 10 Mnn. It""' omit one of the two tyu read by T. R., the one
after u/n, the other before £» toi/t<u.
^ X : fitxpTvpviffti vspi Tvi; xXviffuxs.

248 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
used by Jesus : "Thou sayest} though unknown to classic Greek
and even to the 0. T., is common in the Rabbins. M, Reuss
gives these words an impossible meaning when he makes
Jesus say : " It is thou who sayest that I am a king ; as for
me, I have come into the world that , , , ," which would
signify : I am not a king, but a siraple prophet. For this
meaning, an adversative particle would have been required
between the two propositions ; and the weU-known sense of
the formula : "Thou sayest} does not admit of this explanation,
— '-'Oti might signify /or; "Thou art right in saying so; for
I am." But it is more natural to explain : " Thou sayest
well, that I am a king." The importance of the idea im
presses Jesus with the need of expressing it at full length.
— Hengstenberg entirely separates frora this declaration the
words following, which he appHes exclusively to the prophetic
office of Jesus Christ. But it is quite evident that Jesus
wishes to explain by them in what sense He is King. He
conquers the world by testimony borne to the truth, and His
people are recruited from aU men who have the sense of
truth. The first iym, I, should be rejected. Jesus certainly
did not say : " I am a king, / at least." The first no less
than the second et? toZto, for this end, bears on the following
'iva (in order that), in opposition to the translation of Oster-
vald and Arnaud : " For this (to be a king) was I born." —
" / was born " refers to the fact of His birth, which He has
in common with all raen, while the words : " I came into the
world} bring out the mission for which He appeared below,
— It is by His prophetic work that Jesus founds His kingdom
among men. The truth, the revelation of God, this is the
sceptre which He passes over the earth. The mode of
conquest which Jesus here unveils to Pilate was the opposite
of that whereby the Roman power was formed, and Lange
very justly remarks that, as xii. 25 contained the judgment
of the genius of Greece, this declaration of Jesus to PUate
contains the judgment of the genius of Rome by the Gospel.
Here is the normal accomplishment of Paul's saying : " The
spiritual man judges all things." — The phrase, " to he of the
truth} is similar to iu. 21, vu. 17, viii 47, x. 16, etc. It
denotes that moral disposition whereby one is ready before
hand to receive objective truth, as soon as it is revealed in

CHAP, xvm. 38-40. 249
Jesus Christ, By the word whosoever, Jesus was no longer
addressing the judge, but man, in Pilate (Hengstenberg),
Ver. 38. "Pilate saith unto Him, What is truth? And
when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and
saith unto them, I find in him no fault!' — Pilate's exclama
tion is neither the expression of an ardent thirst for truth
(the Fathers), nor that of the despair of a soul which has
long sought it in vain (Olshausen) ; it is the profession of a
frivolous scepticism, such as is frequently met with in the
man of the world, and especiaUy in the statesman ; witness
the manner in which Napoleon used to speak of ideologues.
If Pilate had seriously sought truth, this would have been
the time to find it. He would not have turned away so
abruptly from Jesus. But the conviction to which he has
come now is, that the person before him is either a dreamer
or a sage, but not a rival to Caesar. With " that broad senti
ment of justice and civil government which, as M. Renan
says, the most ordinary Roraan carried with him everywhere,"
he avows to the Jews his conviction of the innocence of
Jesus as to the pohtical accusation raised against Him. It
was his duty now to dismiss Jesus, purely and simply absolv
ing Him. But, fearing to offend the Jews, who had certain
reasons for accusing him before the supreme government, he
seeks to avoid such a measure, and has recourse to a series of
expedients. The first was remitting the matter to Herod, on
the pretext of the GalUean origin of Jesus ; it is described
by Luke xxiU. 6—12, and omitted by John, as a fact well
known, and as not having led to any result. The second
was that which John briefiy relates, vv. 39 and 40, and which
is given in detaU by the Synoptics.
Vv. 39, 40. "But ye have a custom, that I should release
unto you one at the Passover : will ye therefore that I release
unto you the King of the Jews ? Then cried they all ^ again}
saying. Not this man, but Barabbas. Now Barabbas was a
robber." — These words are immediately connected by John
with those of ver, 38, because the sending to Herod was
preceded as weU as followed (Luke xxiii, 4, 1 4) by a declara
tion of the innocence of Jesus, These two declarations
' X B L X, 15 Mnn. omit orxvTH.
'i G K U n, 50 Mnn, If'^'"!"' Syr, Cop. omit wa).iv.

250 GOSPEL OF JOHN,
might be blended in one. The very abridged account which
John gives of the episode of Barabbas serves as a link of
connection between his narrative and that of the Synoptics.
The origin of the custom referred to in Pilate's offer is un
known. It is probable, since the custora was connected with
the feast of Passover, that it contained an aUusion to the
deUverance of the Jews frora their Egyptian captivity, — The
words ev TO) irdcT'^a, at the Passover, by no means contain
the proof, as Lange, Hengstenberg, etc., allege, that the Pass
over feast was by this tirae celebrated. The 14th Nisan
already forraed part of the feast (see on xiii. 1). It is even
more probable that the deliverance of the prisoner took place
on the 14th than on the 15 th, that he might be able to
take part in the Paschal feast with all the people. — In
making this offer to the Jews, Pilate counted on the popular
syrapathy for Jesus which had appeared so remarkably on
Palm day. For it was to the entire people that the favour
was granted; and Pilate knew perfectly weU that it was
from envy that the rulers wished the death of Jesus (Matt.
XXVU. 18), and that the feeling of part of the people was
against them. — In the designation : "King of the Jews',' irony
prevaUs, as in ver. 14. Only the sarcasm is not addressed to
Jesus, for wliom PUate from the beginning feels a growing
interest and respect, but to the Jews. Their King ? What !
This, then, is the only rival whom this people with their
national pretensions have to set up against Caesar ! But it is
said in Mark xv. 11: " Tlie chief priests moved the people, that
he should rather release Barabbas unto them!' The friends of
Jesus remained mute, or their weak voices were drowned in
those of the rulers and their creatures. Some resolute
agitators imposed their will on the multitude. Thus is
explained John's irdvTe^, all, which corresponds to Luke's
TrapTrXTjOei. — The irdXiv, again, the authenticity of which is
established by the principal documents of both families, is
remarkable. Thus far in John's account the Jews have
uttered no exclamation. It was otherwise in the Synoptics,
Comp. Mark xv. 8 : dva^oijaa<; 6 o;^Xo9, and Luke xxiii. 5,
10: "They were the more fierce, saying . . . they vehemently
accused Him!' Here, again, John's narrative expressly
assumes that of his predecessors, — ^??crT»;? does not always

CHAP, XIX. 1-3. 251
signify robber, but a violent man in general. According to
Mark and Luke, Barabbas had taken part in an insurrection
in which a murder had been committed. The gravity of the
choice made by the people is indicated "by one of those short
propositions whereby John describes a crisis of peculiar
solemnity. Comp. xi. 35, xui, 30. — The name of the man
who was set up along with Jesus for the choice of the people
admits of two etymologies : Barabbah, son of the father
(either God or any Rabbi), or Bar-rabban, son of the Rahhin.
In the first case we must double the b, in the second the r.
The Mss, and Talmudic orthography (Lightfoot, p. 489) favour
the first etymology. The name is not infrequent in the
Talmud. According to Mark's narrative, there occurred at this point
something like a rush of people deraanding spontaneously
the appUcation of the custora whereby a prisoner was released
to them; and PUate sought to turn this incident to his
purpose, the Hberation of Jesus. In any case, whether this
incident was suggested or simply turned to account by PUate,
thus to deUver Jesus was to commit a denial of justice. For
He should have been released as innocent (ver, 38). This
first weakness was soon followed by a graver. We come to
Pilate's third expedient,
xix, 1-3. " Then Pilate took Jesus, and scourged ¦"" Him.
And the soldiers platted a crown of thorns, and put it on His
head, and they put on Him a purple robe} and said. Hail,
King of the Jews ! and they smote Him with rods!' — PUate
had ascended his tribunal to pronounce the liberation of
Barabbas. Then it was that he received his wife's raessage
(Matt, xxvii. 19). Hengstenberg thinks that the washing of
his hands ought also to be placed here. But this act mu.st
have accompanied the sentence of condemnation, which did
not take place tiU later (w. 13-16). After his two ineffec
tual efforts, PUate has recourse to a third attempt. Scourging
required legally to precede the death of the cross ; it was the
obligatory preliminary. This is proved by a multitude of
passages from Josephus and Roman historians, Comp. also
Matt. XX, 19, Luke xviii. 33, where Jesus, predicting His
^ X L X Cop. Sah. : Xxfioov . . , t/ixirTiyaJiri,
'xBLUXAn, 20 Mnn, ItP'^'i"' Vg, Cop, Sah, here add xxi npp^ovTo orpo; oi/tov.

252 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
Passion, does not disjoin scourging from crucifixion. Pilate,
seated on his tribunal, now pronounces the condemnation of
Jesus to the penalty of scourging. He does so in this case,
in the hope of averting the extreme punishment, by con
ceding a measure of satisfaction to the less violent among the
enemies of Jesus, and awakening the zeal of His friends and
the compassion of the crowd. — Scourging, as practised among
the Romans, was so cruel a punishraent that the prisoner
very often succurabed to it. The scourge was formed of
switches or thongs armed at the extremity with pieces of bone
or lead. The prisoner received the strokes while fastened
to a small post, so as to have his back bent and the skin on
the stretch. The back became quick flesh, and the blood
spurted out with the first strokes. — As to the maltreatraent
described, vv, 2 and 3, it is solely the doing of the Roraan
soldiers. The crown of thorns, the purple robe, the " Hail,
King ! " this whole raasquerade is a parody on Jewish royalty.
The thorny plant is probably the Lycium, spinosum, which
gTows in abundance round Jerusalem, and whose flexible
stalk, armed with sharp spikes, can easily be plaited. The
red robe was the soldier's common mantle, representing the
purple robe worn by kings. These caricatures do not so
much refer to Jesus personally, whom the soldiers do not
know, as to the nation despised and detested by the Romans.
It is its well-known Messianic hope which the soldiers ridi
cule in the person of one who passes for an aspirant to the
dignity. Pilate lets things take their course, and pursues his object.
Vv. 4—6. "Pilate went forth ^ again and saith unto them,
Behold, I bring him forth to you, that ye may know that I find
no fault in him} Then came Jesus forth, wearing the crown
of thorns, and the purple robe. And he saith unto them. Behold^
the man I When the chief priests therefore and officers saw
Him, they cried out} saying, Crucify, crucify him ! ^ Pilate
saith unto them, Take ye him, and crucify him : for I find no
fault in him." — The scourging took place in the court of the
^ X D r ItP'tritiue ; il„xhv simply ; T. E. with 9 Mjj. (E G H, etc.): ilnXhv
ovv; 6 Mjj. (A B K, etc.): xxi s|nx^£v.
" X : OTI xiTixv oux ivpKTxu. X B L X Y: liou instead of ihi.
¦* J< : ixf'i%xv, ° T. E, omits, with X B L, somo Mnn. Vg'''="i''«, xutov.

CHAP. XIX. 7-9. 253
praetoriura (Mark xv. 15, 16), probably so as to be seen from
without. As soon as it is at an end, PUate goes out, followed
by Jesus. This spectacle could not fail, PUate thought, at
last to -furnish him, through the favourable interposition of
the people, with the point of support which he needed to
resist the hatred of the priests. In the expression : "Behold
the man ! " there is a mixture of respect and pity for Jesus
Himself, and a bitter sarcasm on the impossible part which is
ascribed to Him, But once again PUate is out in his calcu
lation; no voice rises from the multitude in favour of the
victim, and he again finds himself face to face with the fixed
wiU of the rulers to push things to extremity, without con
tenting themselves with a half punishment. Concessions
have only served to embolden thera. At once indignant and
fuU of vexation, PUate then says to them: "Take ye him,
and crucify him ! " which in the context can only signify :
" Do it yourselves if ye wUl, at your risk and perU ; as for
me, I shaU take no part in such a murder ! " This emotion
was noble ; it was destined, nevertheless, to remain barren.
Thrice abeady PUate had left the sphere of strict right, on
which alone he could have kept his ground against the violent
pressure which was brought to bear on him.
Of course the Jews could not think of using the impunity
which was offered to them by Pilate. How could they pro
vide for the execution ? And without the fear with which
the Roraan power inspired the people, could the rulers hope
to conduct this great affair successfuUy ? The people might,
by a sudden reaction, turn round violently against them and
wreck everything. And so, prudently measuring the dangers
of the offer, they have recourse to another expedient.
This is their third manoeuvre,
Vv. 7—9. " The Jews answered him} We have a law, and
hy our ^ law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son
of God. When Pilate heard that saying, he was the more
afraid; and went again^ into the judgment hall, and saith
unto Jesus, Whence art thou ? But Jesus gave him no answer!'
— The Romans aUowed conquered peoples in general to enjoy
their laws and national institutions, precisely as the French
1 X ItPtoii'-e omit xuTui. * 10 Mjj. (X B, etc.) Ilpierii-"! Or, omit n/im.
* X omits ^xXiv,

254 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
do at the present day with the Mussulraans of Algeria, to
quote M. Renan's paraUel. The Jews, taking their stand on
this ground, appeal to the article of their code (Lev. xxiv. 1 6),
which conderans blasphemers to death, and demand frora
Pilate the application of this article. They do not atterapt
hereby to regain the position which they had lost at the
beginning; they state the offence, and submit it for the
governor's investigation : " He made himself the Son of God!'
Here there comes out palpably the difference, which is so
often denied, between the meaning of this title and that of
the designation King of the Jews, or Messiah. The inquiry
regarding this latter claim had taken place ; it was at an end.
Now the question is of something entirely new. — But these
words of the Jews produce an effect on PUate for which they
were not prepared. The saying gives strength to a dreadful
presentiment which was gradually forming within him. AU
that he had heard related of the miracles of Jesus, the
mysterious character of His Person, of His words, and of His
conduct, the strange raessage which he had just received frora
his wife, — all is suddenly explained by the term Son of God.
Was this extraordinary man truly a Divine being who had
appeared on the earth ? The truth naturally presents itself
to his mind in the forra of pagan superstitions and mytho
logical legends. But it is well known how rapid the tran
sition is from scepticism to the most superstitious fears.
Feeling, then, the need of conversing with Jesus in private,
Pilate leads Him back into the praetoriura. The question :
" Whence art thou ? " cannot refer to the terrestrial origin of
Jesus; PUate knows perfectly that He is of GalUee. It
certainly means, therefore : " Art thou of the earth or of
heaven ? " Wonder has been felt at the sUence of Jesus,
According to some. He keeps silence because He is unwilling,
in giving the true answer, to keep up a pagan superstition
in the mind of PUate; according to others. He refuses to
answer because here is a question of pure curiosity ; Luthardt
thinks that He wUl not, by reveaUng Himself to PUate, pre
vent the plans of God from being accomphshed. The true
answer seems to us to follow from what precedes : Pilate
knew enough of the matter as of himself to set Him free ; he
bad already declared Him innocent ! And besides, the Jews, by

CHAP, XIX, 10, u. 255
changing their accusation as they suddenly did at this point,
sufficiently condemned themselves. If, in such circumstances,
he did not set Him free as a simple man, he had deserved
the issue of crucifying Him as the Son of God, Such was at
once his crime and his punishment. Furthermore, Hengsten
berg rightly observes that His silence was in itself an answer.
If the claim which the Jews accused Jesus of making had
not been well founded. He would have expressly denied it,
Vv, 10, 11, "Pilate saith unto Him} Speakest thou not
unto me ? knowest thou not that I have power to crucify ^
tliee, and have power to release ^ thee ? Jesus answered} Thou
couldest * have no power against me, except it were given thee
from above : therefore he that delivered ^ me unto thee hath the
greater sin." — Pilate feels that this sUence contains a reproach.
He assumes all the hauteur of the Roman judge and governor.
Hence the epoi, unto me, foremost (" to me, if not to others"),
and the repetition of the words : " / have power!' — T. R. puts
the " to crucify thee " before the " to release thee." For the idea
of the imminent punishraent of death is that which prevails
in the conversation; but the opposite reading may also be
defended (see Luthardt). PUate speaks only of his power ;
Jesus reminds him of his dependence and responsibiUty.
With the word / have is contrasted the term given. This
time Jesus speaks. He also puts on His dignity ; He takes
the place of judge of His judges, and, as if He were already
seated on His tribunal. He weighs PUate and the Sanhedrim
in His infaUible judgment scales. The Sid toiito, therefore,
is explained by the preceding words : " Because the power
which thou exercisest is given thee, while the power of him
who delivers me to thee is usurped." God Hiraself, by sub
jecting His people to the Roman power, had placed the Jews
and their King under the imperial jurisdiction. But the San
hedrim, in taking possession of the Person of their King, and
giving Him over to the authority of the foreigner, arrogated
to themselves a right over Him which God had not entrusted
¦" X A, several Mnn. Syr. Cop. omit ouv.
^ X A B E Syr. read x'^oXvaxi oi . . . irTxvpoio-xi o-s.
3 X B L It»""i Syr. add xvto,.
*XALXYAn, 10 Mnn. Cop. : i^u; (thou hast not) instead of uxa (thou
wouldest not have).
* X B E A A It. Vg. : vxpxiovs instead of ^xpxiiitu;.

256 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
to them, and comraitted an act of theocratic felony. — "He that
delivered me to thee" is neither Judas — Jesus could not have
said in this case : " to thee " — nor Caiaphas, who acts only in
the name of the body which he represents, and who is not once
named throughout the whole scene. It is the Sanhedrim which
is meant, and the Jewish nation in whose name that body acts.
— The explanation wluch we have given of those words of
Jesus is nearly that of Calvin : "He who dehvered me unto
thee is the more guilty of the two, because he criminally
raakes use of thy lawful power," Some comraentators think
that Jesus means to distinguish between the function of
judging, which is official, and that of informing, which is
voluntary. This is less natural. The other explanations do
not account for the therefore. Thus : PUate is less guilty,
" because he sins from weakness rather than wickedness "
(Euthymius) -; " because he has less knowledge than the
Jews " (Grotius),' — Far from taking offence at this answer,
Pilate is struck with the majesty which it breathes. Hence
the fourth phase of the trial, PUate's last effort to deliver
Jesus, meeting with defeat from the fourth and last expedient
held in reserve by the Sanhedrim.
Ver. 12, "And from thenceforth Pilate sought to release
Him : but the Jews cried out} saying. If tliou let this man go,
thou art not Ccesar' s friend : for whosoever maketh himself a
king speaketh against Cassar." — 'Ek tovtov, strictly : " after and
in consequence of that word." Comp, vi. 66, — John seems to
say that aU PUate's previous efforts to release Jesus were
nothing in comparison with those which he made under the
impression of the words which He had just heard from His
lips. But the Jews had by them a weapon which they had
resolved to use only at the last extremity, that of personal
intimidation. The reigning emperor, Tiberius, was the most
suspicious of despots. The accusation of high treason was
always well received by this tyrant. Qui atrocissime exercehat
leges majestatis, says Suetonius. The most unpardonable charge
was that of having allowed his authority to be endangered.
Such is the peril which the Jews caU up before the dismayed
view of PUate. This equivocal term : " King of the Jews," with
I T. R. with 9 Mjj. (E H K, etc.) : sxpx'Ov ; A I L M Y n, 24 Mnn. Or.:
ixpxvyx^ov ; B, 13 Mnn. : ixpxvyxmv ; X : iX'-yov instead of ixpx^ov XiyovTii.

CHAP. XLX, 13-lC. 257
the political colour which it could not fail to have in the eyes
of Tiberius, would infaUibly make PUate appear as an unfaith
ful adminstrator who had attempted to screen from punishment
an enemy of the imperial authority ; and his trial would be
short. PUate knew this well True, to play this last move
was, on the part of the Jews, to deny the very notion of the
Messiah, and to subscribe themselves vassals of the Empire.
Such a victory was a suicide. And so it is easy to understand
why in their plan of operations they had kept this manoeuvre
to the last ; it was the stroke of desperation. Its effect was
immediate. Vv. 13—16. " When Pilate tlierefore heard these sayings} he
brought Jesus forth, and sat down in the judgment-seat, in a
place that is called the Pavement, and in the Hebrew, Gabbatha.
And it was the preparation of the Passover, and ^ about^ the sixth'''
hour : and he saith unto the Jews, Behold yo^ir King ! Tliey
cried out} Away with him, away with him, crucify him.
Pilate saith unto them. Shall I crucify your King ? The chief
priests answered. We have no king hut Ccesar. Then delivered
he Him therefore unto them to be crucified." — Before this threat
(the plur. tS)v Xoycov tovtcov brings out its gravity raore
forcibly than the sing, of T. R., tov Xoyov tovtov) the judge,
who had long since renounced ' his part, lowers his head and
gives in. Without saying a word more, he orders Jesus to be
led out of the praetoriura ; for the sentence must be pronounced
in presence of the accused ; and he ascends his tribunal the
second time. — The narae XiOoo-TpcoTov signifies a place paved
with stones. There, probably, there was one of those mosaic
pavements on which Roman magistrates were accustomed to
place their judgment-seat. The Aramaic name Gabbatha is not
a translation of the previous term ; it is taken from the natm'e
of the place. It sigiufies an eminence or hill.
John here inserts a notice of the day and hour when the
' T. R. reads, with K U A n, some of the Mnn. Syr., toutov tov Xoyov ; all the
rest : tovtoiv toov Xoyaiv.
^ T. E, with E H I S Y r A : apa Se ; 9 Mjj. (X A B, etc.) : o^px «v ; K : wpx
3 The Mss. are divided between w? and aiiru (T. B. with 4 Mjj.).
* Instead of ex-r«, L X A, 3 Mnn. read rpirn.
^ Instead of oi Se ixpauyeitraVf K Y II : u/ Se ixpscvycc^ov ; 6 L X ; tKpa.vyecirav k,vv
iKUvoi ] ^ : 0/ Ss iTiiyov,
GODET III. K JOHN.

258 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
sentence was pronounced. With what view ? Was it because
of the solemnity and importance of this decisive moment for
the lot of humanity ? Or would he explain thereby the
impatience of the Jews, which appears at ver, 1 5, to see this
long trial at last come to an end, and the punishment of death
exacted before the close of the day ? The first solution is the
more natural "It ivas tlie preparation of the Passover} says John.
The critics who try to bring John's narrative into accordance
with the meaning usually assigned to the synoptical account,
in regard to the question of the day of Christ's death, give to
•jrapacTKevrj, preparation, the technical signification which it
has sometimes in patristic literature, and even, according to
them, in the IST. T. : the Friday, as the day on which food was
prepared for Sabbath, "the preparation of the Sabbath." Comp,
Matt, XXVU. 62 ; Luke xxiii. 54; and especiaUy Mark xv, 42:
irapaaKevr) o iaTi irpoad^^aTov. They consequently explain
the phrase Trapaa.K.evT) tov wdcr^^^a, the Friday of the Paschal
week. But though irapaaKevr], taken alone {the preparation!),
became the name for Friday among the Fathers, it does not fol
low that when the word is succeeded by a complement like ToiJ
Trday(ci, of the Passover, it does not preserve its natural mean
ing : "preparation of the Passover." Why otherwise add this
complement : of the Passover, which carried absolutely no
meaning to the reader ; for what reader could fail to know
that it was the Paschal week which was spoken of ? How,
besides, could Greek readers, who did not know the Jewish
meaning of this word preparation, imagine on reading the
words : "preparation of the Passover} that they signified the
preparation of the Sabbath in Passover week, as we would say
the Friday of holy week ? It is evident that every one would
be led to think, on the contrary, of the day of the 1 4th Msan,
as it was generally known that on that day preparation was
raade to celebrate the Paschal feast by slaying the lamb. This
date agrees, therefore, with those of xiii. 1, 29, xviii. 28, and
leads us, like aU these passages, to the conclusion that the
Paschal feast was not yet celebrated, but was to take place on
the evening of this day (vv. 14, 31, 42).
According to John, sentence was pronounced on Jesus about
the sixth hour, that is to say, about mid-day. It is difficult to
harmonize this stateraent with Matthew's narrative, according

CHAP, XLX. 13-16, 259
to which at mid-day Jesus had been for some time on the
cross, and still more with Mark xv, 2 5, where it is said that
it was the third hour, that is to say, nine o'clock, when Christ
vjas crucified. And if it were thought to reckon John's sixth
hour from midnight, according to the Roman fashion, we
should get six o'clock in the morning as the hour when the
sentence was pronounced. But at this hour Jesus was only
being led to PUate. The sitting, far frora being at an end,
was beginning. The reading Tphrj, third, in some Mss, of
John, is evidently a correction intended to harmonize the two
narratives, Eusebius supposes that sorae old copyist had con
verted the gamma (r'=3) into a stigma (s-' = 6). This sup
position is far from probable. Some documents at least would
have preserved the true reading. Rather let it be remembered,
(1) that the day as a whole was divided, like the night, into
four parts of three hours each. This explains why mention
is scarcely ever made in the IST. T. of any hours except the
third, sixth, and ninth (comp. Matt, xx, 1-5), and why also,
as Hengstenberg remarks, the expressions almost or about are
so frequent (Matt. xxvU. 46 ; Luke xxui. 44 ; John iv. 6 ;
Acts X. 3, 9), The w?, about, is expressly added by the author
in our passage. It is therefore certainly aUowable to take the
mean here, both in Mark and John, especially if it be remem
bered that, as Lange says, the apostles had not watch in hand.
As Mark's third hour may extend' from eight to ten o'clock, John's
sixth certainly includes from eleven to twelve. But, above aU,
(2) account must be taken of an important circurastance, which
is also reraarked by Lange, viz. that Matthew and Mark have
given to the scourging of Jesus the meaning which it ordinarUy
had, and have regarded it as the beginning of the whole punish
ment. They have consequently identified the two judicial
acts which are strictly distinguished by John, that whereby
PUate conderaned Jesus to scourging, and that whereby he
delivered Hira over to the last penalty of death. It is easUy
conceivable that Mark, having lost sight of the entire interval
between the two conderanations, has dated the pronouncing the
sentence of death at the time which was properly that of the
sentence of scourging.
There is a savage irony in the words of Pilate : " Behold
your King ! " But it is aimed at the Jews, not at Jesus.

260 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
Towards the latter Pilate constantly shows himseK fuU of
respectful interest, which towards the end goes the length of
fear. Yet there is also a serious side to this sarcasm, PUate
perceives that if there is a man by means of whom the Jewish
people are to carry out a great mission in the world, this is
He, The rage of the rulers increases on hearing this declara
tion. The three imperative Aorists express their impatience
and haste to have done, PUate is henceforth resigned to
yield, but first he wishes to have the pleasure of once more
thrusting the dagger into the wound : " Shall I crucify your
King ? " He thus seeks to avenge himself for the act of base
ness to which they compel him. The Jews thus find them
selves driven to the decisive declaration whereby they pronounce
with their own Ups the abolition of the theocracy, and the
absorption of Israel into the world of the GentUes, They who
cherish but one thought, the overthrow of the throne of the
Csesars by the Messiah, allow their hatred of Jesus to carry
them so far, that they cry out before the representative of the
emperor : " We have no king but Ccesar."
After this they can say no more. Israel has denied herself;
this is the price at which she obtains the deUvery of Jesus to
her, AvTo2<i, to them, says John, and not to the Roman
executioners. For the latter are only the blind instiximents
of the judicial murder which is about to be comraitted.
Modem criticism (Baur, Strauss, Keim) regards this whole
description of PUate's conduct as fictitious. The author's
intention is to personify in PUate the sympathy of the GentUe
world with the Gospel, and to throw on Israel almost the
entire responsibUity of the crime. But, 1. It is not really
otherwise in the Synoptics, or the Acts, or the Epistles. In
Matthew the governor marvelled (ver, 14) ; he knows that it
is for envy that the rulers deUvered Jesus (ver. 18), and strives
to obtain His liberation from the people instead of that of
Barabbas (vv. 17, 22). He asks indignantly: " Why, what
evil hath he done?" (ver. 23), He sees that he prevails
nothing, and ends by giving in, whUe declaring himself, by a
solemn act, innocent of the blood of this just man (ver, 24).
Thus is the condemnation of Jesus by Pilate described in the
Judeo- Christian Gospel ! Has it not the same meaning at

CHAP. XIX. 13- IC. 261
bottom as that of John ? It is the same with Mark's account,
in which we see stUl more clearly than in Matthew the eager
ness with which PUate, in order to save Jesus, takes advantage
of the spontaneous desire of the multitude to release a prisoner
to them, and how he reckons confidently in his object on the
popular sympathy (w. 8-10), Luke adds to the other efforts
made by Pilate his sending Jesus to Herod, and his twice
repeated offer to let Him go at the cost of a simple scourging
(vv, 16, 22), "Wishing to release Jesus" is the express state
ment, ver. 20. Then at ver, 22 : "And he said to thera the
third time, Why, what evU hath he done ? " In the Acts,
whose concUiatory tendency is proclaimed in our day, Peter
Hkewise charges the Jews with the entire responsibUity of the
raurder : " Him by wicked hands ye have crucffied," ii, 23;
comp, iii 15. Even James, addressing the rich of his nation,
says to thera : " Ye have condemned and killed the just " (v,
6), FinaUy, the Apocalypse designates Jerusalera as " the
spiritual Sodom and Egypt where our Lord was crucified,"
xi 8, The place {where), in such a context, implies the notion
of causaUty and responsibUity, 2. The second century, from
Trajan to Marcus Aurehus, was a time of bloody persecution
carried on by the GentUe world against the Church, and it
would be very strange had an author at this epoch created a
Roman governor more or less imaginary, to personify the sym
pathy of the GentUe world, and especially of the Roman power
with the gospel ! 3, The scene depicted by John carries in
it its own defence. It is impossible to describe more to the
Hfe, on the one hand the astuteness, the perseverance, and
the sharaeless suppleness of the accuser, who is determined to
succeed at any price, and on the other the obstinate struggle
in the heart of the judge between conscience and interest,
between the fear of sacrificing an innocent victim, perhaps
more dreadful than He seeras to the eye, and that of
driving to extremity a people already exasperated by crying
injustices, and so to find himself accused before a suspicious
sovereign who with one stroke of the pen (Reuss) can hurl
him to destruction; finally, between cold scepticism and
the transient influences of natural religiousness and even
GentUe superstition. M. Reuss acknowledges that it is " the
fourth Gospel which gives the true key to the problem " of

262 GOSPEL OF JOHN,
PUate's inconceivable conduct : " Jesus was sacrificed by him
to the exigency of his position" (p. 675), Excepting the
natural blanks arising " from the fact that no witness saw the
whole from beginning to end," the Gospel account (including
John's) " bears, according to this author, the seal of entire
authenticity " {ibid.). These two figures, indeed, — the one ex
hibiting a cool and diabolical malignity (Caiaphas, representing
the Sanhedrim), the other a cowardice and vaciUation deserv
ing pity, and both contrasting with the calm dignity and holy
majesty of the Christ, — form a picture which we do not fear
to call the masterpiece of John's work, and which, taken by
itself, could serve, were it necessary, to certify its authenticity.

THIRD SECTION,
XIX. 17-42,  THE CRUCIFIXION OF JESUS,
1st. The crucifixion, w. 17, 18; 2d. The inscription, vv.
19-22; 3d. The parting of the raiment, w. 23, 24; 4th.
The Son's legacy, vv, 25-27 ; 5th. The end, vv 28-30 ; 6th.
The breaking of the legs and the spear- thrust, vv. 31-37;
7th, The burial, vv. 38-42.
John does not mean to present the full description of the
crucifixion of Jesus. He states some circumstances omitted
by his predecessors, and at once completes and gives precision
to their narratives.
The crucifixion :
Vv, 17, 18. " Then ^ tliey took Jesus, and led Him away?
And He, bearing His cross} went forth to the place called the
place of tlie skull, which is called in the Hebrew Golgotha :
where tliey crucified Him, and two others with Him, on either
side one, and Jesus in the midst!' — These two verses are the
very brief summary of the synoptical narrative. The subject
of they took is the Jews (ver. 16a); it was they who executed
the sentence by the soldiers' hands, — According to ancient
1 The Mss. are divided between Ss (T. R. with II Mjj.) and ouv (B L X).
° After TOV Inirouv, T. R. with A M U r : xxi xvnyxyov ; 9 Mjj., 130 Mnn. :
XXI nyxyov ; B L X, several Mnn. ItP'«''i»« Cop. reject these words ; x : »' Se
Xx^ovTl; TOV I. xfrnyxyov xutov.
8 T, B. with 11 Mjj, : xvtou (ixvtou) ; B X : xutoi ; X L n : ixuTo,.

CHAP, XIX, 17, 18. 263
testimonies, the condemned had themselves to bear their cross.
This is also implied by the figurative expression used by Jesus
Himself in the Synoptics : " If any man will come after me
. . . let him take up his cross" (Matt. xvi. 24 and paraUels),
John alone raentions this feature in the sufferings of Jesus,
And herein he does not contradict the Synoptics, who relate
that Siraon of Cyrene was required to fill the office. For the
participle ^aaTa^cov, bearing, is closely connected with the
verb e^Xdev, He went forth. When He set out, Jesus was
subjected to the coramon rule ; the episode relating to Simon
did not happen till later, when Jesus from exhaustion began,
no doubt, to delay the procession, — Moses had forbidden the
execution of capital sentences within the enclosure of the
camp (Lev. xxiv. 14; ISTum, xv, 35), And the Jews had
remained faithful to the spirit of this law, by putting criminals
to death outside the gate of their cities (1 Kings xxi. 13 ;
Acts vu. 58). On this custom is founded the exhortation,
Heb. xiu. 12, 13. ^E^rjXOev therefore signifies. He went forth
from the city. The holy sepulchre Hes now pretty far within
the interior of Jerusalem ; but the waU may have been dis
placed. Regarding the place of our Lord's execution and that
of His burial, there exists no certain tradition. — The narae,
place of the skull, does not come from the executions which
took place there (this would require the plural Kpavicov, skulls) ;
and such remains would not have been left uncovered araong
the Jews. The origin of the name was undoubtedly the
rounded form and bare aspect of the hiU. Golgotha : from rhi^l,
in Aramaic XD^jlsJ, skull, from 'phi, to roll. — The word e^paiari,
which occurs four times in our Gospel, appears again twice in
the Apocalypse, but nowhere else in the whole N. T,
The cross had the form of a T, It was of no great height
(see ver, 29), The condemned man was raised to the desired
elevation by raeans of cords {in crucem tollere) ; the hands
were naUed to the transverse piece of wood either before or
after he was raised. Keira quotes the foUowing words from
a Latin author : " Patibulo suffixus in crucem crudeliter erigitur}
which show that the hands were usuaUy nailed before its
erection to the top of the cross. That they raight not be
torn by the weight of the body, the latter rested on a block
of wood fastened to the shaft of the cross, and on which the

264 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
prisoner sat as on horseback. There has been great discussion
in modern times as to whether the feet were also naUed.
The passages of the ancients quoted by Meyer (see on Matt.
XXVU. 35) and Keim are decisive ; they prove that, as a rule,
the feet were naUed, Luke xxiv, 3 9 leads to the conclusion
that it was so with Jesus. Sufferers Hved usuaUy on the
cross for twelve hours, sometimes till the third day.
This sort of death combined in the highest degree the
pains and infaray of all other punishraents. " Crudelissimum
teterrimumque supplicium," says Cicero {in Verrem). The
growing inflammation of his wounds, his unnatural position,
the constrained immobiUty and rigidity of the Umbs caused
thereby ; the local congestions, especially in the head ; the
unspeakable anguish resulting from the disturbance of the
circulation ; a burning fever and thirst tortured the unhappy
victim without killing hira. — Was it the Jews who had
demanded the execution of two other prisoners, in order to
render the shame of Jesus raore coraplete ? Or are we to see
here an insult put by Pilate on the Jewish people, and repre
sented by the two companions in punishment set beside their
King ? It is hard to say.
The inscription :
Vv. 19-22. "And Pilate wrote a title, and put ^ it on the
cross. And the writing was, Jesus of Nazareth, the King of
the Jews. This title then read m/xny of the Jews : for the place
where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city : and it was
written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin} Then said the
chief priests of the Jews to Pilate, Write not, The King of the
Jews ; ^ but that he said, I am King of the Jews. Pilate
answered. What I have written I have written." — John here
completes the very abridged account of the Synoptics. Accord
ing to the- Roman custom, the cruciarius himself bore, or there
was carried before him on his way to execution, an inscription
{titulus, titXo';, eiriypacjii], aavi?, aiTia) which contained the
statement of his crime, and was afterwards affixed to his cross,
Pilate took advantage of the custom to stigmatize the Jews
by proclaiming this malefactor their king. — Tholuck and
' A K, 12 Mnn. : tni^jxiv for sSuxiv.
' Instead of s/3f., iXXnv., pu/i., B L X, 8 Mnn. Cop. Sah. read il2p.,feo/i., iXXm.
' X omits vv. 20 and 21 as far as xXX' oti exclusive.

CHAP. XIX. 23, 24. 265
de Wette have thought that the eypaijre must be explained in
the sense of had written; Meyer prefers to hold that PUate
wrote and sent this inscription afterwards, when Jesus was
already on the cross. But the Se Kai, now also, is a connection
sufficiently loose to admit of our placing the act of writing at
the time of conderanation, as is natural. The mention of the
three languages in which the inscription was composed is
found also in Luke, according to the ordinary reading ; but
that reading is uncertain. Hebrew was the national language,
Greek the language universally understood, and Latin that of
the conquerors. Jesus, in the lowest depths of His abase
ment, was thus proclaimed King in the language of the three
principal peoples of the world. — The expression : " the high
priests of the Jews," ver. 2 1, is remarkable. It occurs nowhere
else, Hengstenberg explains it as an intentional contrast to
the term : "King of the Jews." In reality, it was between those
two theocratic powers that the struggle lay. And yet this ex
planation is far-fetched; the expression signifies more simply
that they acted here as defenders of the honour of the theo
cratic people. — The imperfect: " they said} describes the attempt,
which faUs, The present : "JFirtYe too#," is that of the idea, PUate
repUes in the perfect, twice repeated: " I have written." It is
the tense of the accomplished fact. Here appears the Pilate
who is characterized by Philo as inflexible in character (Heng
stenberg), The parting of the raiment :
Vv, 23, 24, " Then the soldiers, when they had crucified^
Jesus, took His garments, and made four parts, to every soldier
a part ; and also His coat : ^ now the coat was without seam,
woven from the top throughout. They said therefore among
themselves} Let us not rend it, but cast lots for it, whose it shall
be: that the scripture might be fulfilled, which saith} Tliey
parted my raiment among them, and for my vesture they did cast
lots. These things therefore the soldiers did!' — Here again John
completes the account of his predecessors, as to the description
of the coat and the fulfilment of the prophecy. The Roman law,
De bonis damnatorum, adjudged the garments of the conderaned
^ Instead of ore iffrxvpoiixxv, X : oi sTxvpoioxvTi;.
2 X It"""* Syr""" omit xxi to» x>'^mx.
2 K : xutou; instead of xXinXou;. * X B ItP'^ii"' omit » Xiyourx.

266 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
to their executioners. It is usuaUy held that the entire com
pany was composed of four men.^ Keim thinks that each
cross had its own company.^ The soldiers perforraed two
operations. They divided among them the various pieces of
clothing, such as caps, girdles, upper garments, and the coats
of two of them. Then, as the coat of Jesus could not be
divided, and as it was too precious to go into one of the parts,
they cast lots for it. This coat was no doubt a gift of the
women who served Jesus (Luke vUi, 2, 3; Matt, xxvii, 55),
It was woven throughout its whole length, as was the gar
ment of the priests, according to Josephus, Hence the use of
the lot {therefore, ver, 24), Thus was realized to the very
letter the description given by the psalmist when he draws
the picture of Israel's King in the height of His sufferings.
Criticism, it is true, declares that the two merabers of the verse
quoted (Ps. xxii 18) are entirely synonymous, and that John
is the sport of his own imagination when he would distinguish
either between the verbs parting and casting lots, or between
the substantives ipaTia, garments, and ipaTiapo^, vesture, in
the LXX, But a more profound study of paraUelism in
Hebrew poetry proves that the second member always adds a
shade or a new idea to the idea of the first. Otherwise the
second would only be a needless tautology. It is not repeti
tion, but gradation. Thus, in this verse of the psalm, the
contrast between the plur. D''^^, garments, and the sing. t5'137,
vesture, is obvious. The first term denotes the various pieces
composing the upper dress ; the second, the vestments pro
perly so called, after the removal of which the person is
whoUy nalied, the tunic. The passage of Job xxiv. 7-10
confirms this most natural distinction. The gradation between
the two verbs is not less evident. It is a great humiUation
to the prisoner to see his garments parted. Thereafter he
may weU say there is nothing left him but to die. But what
humiliation greater than to see lots drawn for his garments,
and so to become like a worthless plaything ! David wished
to describe these two degrees, and John remarks that in the
sufferings of Jesus both of them are Hterally reproduced ; not
' Philo, m Flaceum.
^ Comp. Acts xii. 4, where we find four detachments, each of four men ; doubt
less one for each of the four watches.

CHAP. XIX. 2.5-27. 267
that the fulfilment of the prophecy depended on this detail,
but it came out the more clearly ; and that, above all, because
everything was done by the instrumentality of the rudest and
blindest agents, the Roraan soldiers. On this last idea John
wishes to lay stress when he concludes the recital of the scene
with the words : " These things therefore the soldiers did!' The
Roman governor had proclaimed Jesus the King of the Jews ;
the Roman soldiers, without meaning it, indicated Him to be
the true David,
Strauss thinks (new Leben Jesu, p, 579 et seq.) that when
the Messianic pretensions of Jesus had been belied by the
cross, the Church sought in the 0, T, the idea of the suffering
Messiah, and found it there, especially in Ps, xxU. and Ixix.
Thenceforth there was imagined in this programrae a whole
fictitious picture of the Passion. Thus facts first of all
created the exegesis ; then the exegesis created the facts..
But, 1st. The idea of the suffering Messiah existed in Jewish
theology before and independently of the cross (vol. i. pp. 421
and 439). 2d. It wiU always be difficult to demonstrate
that some unknown righteous man in the 0. T. could hope, as
the author of Ps. xxii does, that the effect of his dehverance
would be the conversion of GentUe peoples, and the estabhsh
ment of the kingdom of God to the very ends of the earth
(26-32). The fihal legacy :
Vv. 25-27. "Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His
mother, and His mother's sister, Mary^ the wife of Cleophas,
and Mary Magdalene. When Jesus therefore saw His mother,
and the disciple standing by whom He loved. He saith unto His
mother} Woman, behold thy son I Then saith He to the disciple.
Behold thy mother ! And from that hour^ that disciple took her
unto his own home." — John only relates this incident. Ma.tthew
and Mark simply say that some GalUean women stood at a
distance from the cross, " beholding afar off." It appears from
John that some of thera specially named, and particularly the
mother of Jesus, accompanied by John, who supported her,
I Syr"''' and the Persian and Ethiopic Vss, read xxi before Uxpix « t. K. (" and
Mary the wife of Cleophas ").
'^ X B L X It»'ii omit xutou.
' A E, 40 Mnn. Sah. : ti/nfx; instead of a>pxs.

268 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
stood nearer the cross. This fact might easily be omitted in
the synoptical tradition. Uapd does not mean at the foot, but
by the side of ; the cross was not very high (ver. 29), — ^We
have already said in the Introduction (vol, L pp, 30, 31), that
Wieseler, adopting the reading of the Peschito (see critical
note 1), finds four women, and not three, in this passage.
Thus the difficulty is evaded of two sisters bearing the same
name, the raother of Jesus and the wife of Cleophas, The
unnamed sister of Mary the mother of Jesus was (according
to Wieseler, Meyer, and Luthardt) Salome, the mother of
John, mentioned by Matt. xxvu. 56 and Mark xv. 40 as
present at the crucifixion. But (if at least the text of all
our Mss. without exception is authentic) the absence of the Kai,
and, before the words : " Mary the wife of Cleophas} renders
this explanation far from natural. If he omitted this word,
the evangelist expressed himself in a wholly ambiguous
manner. And how could it happen that throughout the whole
Gospel history there should not be a single trace of so close a
relationship between John and Jesus ? It is simpler to hold
that John abstained from mentioning his mother here, as he
constantly keeps silence about the person of his brother. If
he designates himself, it is only in an indirect manner. As
to Mary the wife of Cleophas, see vol u. pp. 20-25. — ^Why
do the Synoptics not mention the presence of Jesus' mother ?
It is difficult to say. Perhaps she left the cross immediately
after the incident related by John, The Synoptics do not
speak of the presence of the friends of Jesus and of the women
tiU the close of the narrative.
Jesus, despoiled of all, seemed to have nothing left to give.
Yet, from the midst of this deep poverty. He had abeady
made some precious gifts : to His executioners He had be
queathed the pardon of God ; to His companion in punish
ment, paradise. Could He find nothing to leave to His
mother and His friend ? These two loved ones, who had been
His most precious treasures on earth, He bequeathes the one
to the other, thus giving at once a son to His mother, a
mother to His friend. This word, so fuU of tenderness, must
have completely broken Mary's heart. She hasted to leave
this place of grief — Theword " fo his oum home," does not imply
that John possessed a house at Jerusalera, but simply that

CHAP. XIX. 28-30. 269
he had a lodging there ; comp. the sarae et? rd 'iBia appUed
to aU the apostles, xvi 32. From this time Mary resided
with Salome and John, first at Jerusalem, afterwards in
GalUee (Introd. vol. i. p. 37). — On the word: "Woman} see
at u. 4.
Keim, after Baur's example, regards this incident as an
invention of the pseudo-John, intended to exalt the Apostle
John and to make him the head of the Church, superior even
to Jaraes and Peter, M, Renan also ascribes this fiction to
the school of John, which yielded to the desire of raaking its
patron the vicar of Christ. In the eyes of the man who has
the sense of truth, a scene and sayings like these do not
admit of such explanations. Besides, is it not Peter whom
our evangelist describes as the great and bold confessor of
Jesus ? (vi. 68,6 9). Is it not to the same apostle that John
or his school (xxi.) ascribes the direction of the Church in a
magnificent and thrice-repeated promise ? (w. 1 5-1 7). Finally,
this supposition would imply that the mother of Jesus is here
the type of the Church, a supposition of which there is not a
trace either in the text or in the whole Gospel.
The death :
Vv. 28-30. "After this, Jesus knowing^ that all things were
now accomplished, . that the scripture might be fulfilled} said, I
thirst. Now^ there was set a vessel full of vinegar : and they filled
a sponge with vinegar, and put it upon hyssop} and put it to His
mouth. When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, He
said. It is finished : and He bowed His head, and gave up the
ghost." — John completes with some important details the
already well-known history of the last raoments of Jesus. —
MeTa TOVTO, after this, should be taken in a wide sense, as
everywhere in our Gospel, Between the preceding incident
and this one comes the unspeakable anguish of heart under
which Jesus exclaimed : " My God, my God, why hast Thou
forsaken me ? " — The phrase : "All is finished} refers to His
task as Redeemer, so far as He could finish ~it during His
earthly existence ; and even in this restricted sense the word
lEGHKSYr, 70 Mnn. Cop. : lioov instead of e/S^s.
= Instead of TiXuuh, X D'"rp', several Mnn.: ¦TrXnpoilvi.
3 A B L X It^'i omit ouv ; ^ reads ii.
* X B L X, some Mnn. Itaiiq Sah. read fTroyyov ouv pistTov t^ou; ujiru^oj vifihvTis,

270 GOSPEL OF JOHN,
all should be Hmited by what foUows, In fact, there remained
yet a point of prophecy which was not fulfiUed, Now the
scripture forraed part of that all which must necessarily be
finished. Many commentators (Bengel, Tholuck, Lange,
Meyer, Luthardt, and Baumlein) make 'iva, in order that, de
pend on TeTeXeaTai, " AU is finished that the scripture may be
fulfiUed." This meaning seems to us inadmissible, first, be
cause of the forced construction : " finished, that ; " and next,
because of ver. 3 0, where we find that Jesus could not declare
all was finished in relation to the Scriptures, because to this
fulfllraent there was wanting a last feature of the prophetic
description, that indicated in ver. 29. The that depends
therefore on Jesus saith, which foUows, So Chrysostom,
Liicke, de Wette, etc. The object of Jesus in saying : " /
thirst} was really to give occasion to the accompHshment of
this last unfulfilled incident in the Messiah's sufferings :
'' They gave me vinegar to drink" (Ps.'lxix. 21). The there
fore (ver. 29), which is probably the true reading, precisely
indicates the relation between this saying of Jesus and the
fulfilment of the prophecy. Unquestionably Jesus had for a
long time been tormented with thirst. This was one of the
most cruel tortures of crucifixion. But He might have been
able to restrain, as He had done up tUl now, the expression of
that painful sensation. If He does not do so, it is that the
last incident of the humiliations to which He was to submit
may take place without delay. John says TeXeicoOfi, and not
TrXrjpcodfi (which some documents wrongly substitute). The
subject in question, indeed, is the finishing of the fulfilment of
the Scriptures as a whole, and not the fulfilment of this par
ticular prophecy. — The drink offered to Jesus is not that
which He had refused at the beginning of His crucifixion.
The latter was a wine mixed with a bitter and stupefying
liquor, such as absinthe (Matthew) or myrrh (Mark). The
giddiness which this poison produced in the victim soraewhat
deadened the first pains. Jesus had refused it because He
wished to preserve the perfect clearness of His mind to the
end. The drink now offered to Him by the soldier is purely a
vinegar prepared for the sufferers themselves, as is proved by
the sponge and the stalk of hyssop. This last circurastance
sets aside the common opinion of comraentators who think

CHAP. XIX. 31. 271
that it was wine intended for the soldiers. — In the first two
Gospels it is the cry : " Eli, Eli ! ... My God, my God ! . . ."
which leads the soldier to offer Hira the vinegar. But John
completes their narrative by referring to the cry : " I thirst,"
which raore immediately determined the soldier's action. —
Hj'ssop is a plant not more than a foot and a half in height.
Since a stalk of this length sufficed to reach the lips of the victim,
it foUows that the cross was not so high as is usually repre
sented. — Ostervald and Martin are quite wrong in translating :
" They put hyssop round [the sponge] . . .," or " surrounding
it with hyssop . , ."
" / thirst " was the Saviour's fifth saying, and " It is finished "
the sixth. The first three had reference to His personal rela
tions : the prayer for His executioners (Luke) ; the promise
made to the thief. His companion in punishment (Luke) ; the
legacy made to His mother and His friend (John). The
foUowing three refer to His work of salvation : the cry : " My
God . . ." (Matthew and Mark), contains all the moral suffer
ings of the expiatory sacrifice ; the groan : " I thirst " (John),
sums up all its physical sufferings ; the triumphant saying :
"It is finished} proclaims its consumraation. The seventh
and last saying is expressly related only by Luke : " Father,
into Thy hands I commit my Spirit ; " but it is implied in John
by the word -irapeScoKe, He gave up. This word is by no means
rendered by our phrase : " to give up the ghost!' It expresses a
free, personal, spontaneous act. "No man taketh my life from
me} Jesus had said ; " / have power to lay it down, and I have
power to take it again" (x. 18), Here, too, we have the
meaning of that loud cry with which, according to Matthew
and Mark, Jesus expired, — The word KXiva^, " having bowed
His head," indicates that tUl then Jesus kept His head erect.
The breaking of the legs : w, 31-37,
Ver, 31, "The Jevjs therefore, hecause it was the prepara
tion} that ihe bodies should not remain upon the cross on tlie
Sabbath day {for tliaf, Sabbath day ^ was an high day), besought
1 The words loru ¦rxpxaxivn m are placed by X B L X V, 10 Mnn. ItP'"''i"« Vg.
Syr. Cop. Sah. immediately after oi ouv louixioi, and not after s» tu (fxji^xToi (T.
E. with 12 Mjj.).
^ Instead of txuvn, the reading of T. E. with some Mnn. It""'* Vg., ixuvau is
found in aU the other documents.

272 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be
taken away!' — John here traces a series of providential events
omitted by his predecessors, which passed one after another,
and which conspired to impress on the Person of Jesus, in
His state of deepest abasement, the seal of Messiahship.
The Romans usuaUy left the condemned to perish on the
cross ; their bodies became the prey of wild beasts. But the
Jewish law required that the bodies of criminals should be
put out of sight before sunset, that on the foUowing day tbe
Holy Land might not be poUuted by the curse attached to
the Hfeless body, a monument of condemnation (Deut. xxi.
23 ; corap. Josh, viii 29, x, 26 ; Josephus, Bell. jud. iv. 5, 2).
Ordinarily, no doubt, the Romans did not trouble themselves
about this Jewish law. But in this particular case the Jews
could not have borne the violation of it quietly, because, as
John observes, the foUowing day was not only a Sabbath,
but a Sabbath of exceptional solemnity. Those who think
that, according to John as weU as the Synoptics, the Jewish
people had already celebrated the Paschal feast on the previous
evening, and that thus it was the end of the great Sabbatic
day of the 15 th Nisan, here give to the word irapaaKevrj,
preparation, the meaning which it has in the Jewish calendar,
that of Friday, and think that the pecuhar solemnity of the
Saturday, which was about to "begin, arose simply from the
fact that this Sabbath belonged to the Pasclial week. Or
they refer to the fact that it was on this day (16th Nisan)
that the offering of the sacred sheaf feU to be made, a weU-
known act of worship with which the harvest opened yearly.
But neither the one nor the other of these reasons can
explain the extraordinary solemnity which John ascribes to
the Sabbath of the morrow. The 16 th Nisan was so Httle
of a Sabbatic day, that, before cutting the ears intended to
form the sacred sheaf, the deputies of the Sanhedrim were
obliged to wait tUl the people called to thera : " The sun is
set ; " this cry was the proclamation of the end of the 1 5th
and the beginning of the 16 th. Then only could they take
the sickle. For from that moment work was aUowed, So
the 16th is caUed, Lev, xxiU. 11-15, "the day after the
Sabbath." How, then, could the coincidence of the Sabbath
with this day, so purely a work-day, enhance the Sabbatic

CHAP. XIX. 31. 273
value of the Saturday which was about to begin ? Besides,
this technical meaning of irapacrKevrj, Friday, is here set aside
by the absence of the article. FinaUy, there is an evident
relation clearly indicated by the ydp, for, which foUows, be
tween the idea of preparation and that of the solemnity of
the Sabbath which was about to begin at six o'clock even
ing. We are therefore forced to hold that this exceptional
solemnity of the morrow arose from the fact that that year
the weekly Sabbath exactly coincided with the great and Hke
wise Sabbatic day of the 15 th Nisan. Hence it foUows
that, at the moraent when Jesus died, it was stUl the 14th
and not the 15 th. Thus are explained the -^Yords (HteraUy) :
"for it was preparation} on the one hand, undoubtedly pre
paration for the Sabbath (as being Friday), but, at the same
time, preparation for the great Paschal day, the 15th Nisan,
This day had in it, as it were, an accumulation of prepara
tion, as the foUowing had also in it an accumulation of
Sabbatic rest. The for refers to the idea : " that the bodies
might not remain . . .," as is indicated by the Alex, reading,
supported by that of the old Vss, The evangehst hereby
indicates indirectly that the essential act of preparation,
the slaying of the lamb, took place in the temple at this
moment, and that the Paschal feast was to foUow that very
evening. PUate, respecting the scruples of the Jews, consented to
what was asked of him. The breaking of the legs did not
produce immediate death, but its object was to make it
certain, and so to allow the removal of the bodies. For it
rendered aU return to Ufe impossible, because gangrene was
the necessary and imraediate result. The existence of this
custom {aKeXoKOTTia, crurifragium) among the Roraans, in
certain exceptional cases, is perfectly weU established (see
the numerous passages quoted by Keim himself). M. Renan
also says : " The Jewish and Roman archaeologies of ver. 3 1
are exact." If Keim, notwithstanding, stUl raises difficulties,
asking why the Synoptics do not mention the fact if it is
historical, it is easy to answer : Because Jesus HimseK was
not affected by it. Now His Person alone was of conse
quence to them, not those of the two malefactors. Neither
would John have mentioned it but for the relation of the fact
GODET IIL S JOHN.

274 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
to the prophecy which struck him so forcibly. Must we
understand the apdcHiai, might be taken away, of the taking
from the cross ? I doubt it very much. What concerned the
Jews in making this demand, was not that the bodies should
be unfastened, but that they should be removed out of sight.
The law, Deut, xxi, 23, which dictated their request, had no
reference to the punishment of the cross, a punishment un
known to Israel,
Vv, 32-34, "Then came the soldiers, and brake the legs of
the first, and of the other which was crucified with Him. But
when they came to Jesus, and saw that He was dead already}
they brake not His legs : but one of the soldiers with a spear
pierced His side, and forthwith came thereout blood and
water." — ^HxOov, they came, here signifies they approached;
for there is no reason to suppose that other soldiers are raeant
than those who had completed the crucifixion. — If the object
for which the legs of the victims were broken was what we
have said, this operation became useless in regard to Jesus,
from the fact of His death. The soldier's spear-thrust was
therefore a compensation, as it were, for the omitted operation ;
it meant : if thou art not reaUy dead, here is something
to finish thee. It would be absurd to demand precedents
for such a fact, which had nothing judicial in it. Yet the
saying of QuintUian may be quoted : " Cruces succiduntur,
percussos sepeliri carnifex non vetat," — The verb vvaaeiv
denotes a thrust of a greater or less depth, in opposition
to a cut. Homer uses it sometimes to denote even mortal
wounds. — The fact of the effusion of blood and water might
be regarded as a natural phenomenon. No doubt generally,
when a corpse is pierced, no Hquid comes from it; yet if
one of the large vessels happens to be touched, there may
flow from the wound a blackish blood with a coating of
serum. Could this be what John called blood and water ?
This is far from probable, Ebrard supposes that the spear
touched some deposits of extravasated and decomposed blood.
Gruner {Commentatio de morte Jesu Christi ver A, Halle 1805)
thinks that the spear first pierced some aqueous deposits
which, during the long suffering on the cross, had formed
round the heart, and then the heart itself WiUiam Stroud
' ^ : ivpov XUTOV »}3»] TlhvixoTa XXI ou, instead of w; , , . Ti0vriKOTX, ov.

CHAP. XIX 35-37. 275
(London 1847) has recourse to phenoraena observed in cases
of sudden death caused by crarap of the heart. These
explanations are not inadmissible, but they are all soraewhat
improbable. The phrase : " blood and water} which naturaUy
denotes two substances flowing simultaneously, but perfectly
distinct, in the eyes of the spectator, finds no natural ex
planation on any of these suppositions, Baur and Strauss
conclude for the necessity of a symbolical interpretation, and
here again find the purely ideal nature of the narrative. The
author meant, by this fact of his own invention, to express
the abundance of spiritual life which was henceforth to flow
from the Christ (Baur) ; the water represented more especiaUy
the Holy Spirit, the blood the Holy Supper, with aUusion
to the custora of raixing the wine of the sacraraent with
water (Strauss in his new Vie de Jisus). Are we entitled to
ascribe such absurdities to the evangelist ? And what notion
must we form of the morality of a man who should affirm
so solemnly that he saw (ver, 35) what he was conscious of
never having beheld except in idea ? In favour of this
aUegorical explanation there has been alleged the saying,
1 John V, 6 : " He came not by water only, but by water and
blood." But water here denotes the baptisra of John the
Baptist as opposed to the work of Jesus, who adds to the
water of the baptism of repentance the blood of expiation
and pardon. There reraains but one explanation : the view
that the fact lay beyond the laws of common physiology, and
that it is related to the exceptional nature of a body which
sin had never tainted, and which was destined to an im
mediate resurrection. From the very instant of death, the
body of Jesus must take another way than that of dissolu
tion, and enter upon that of glorification. Such is the
meaning which the evangehst seems to have ascribed to this
unprecedented phenomenon. Thus is explained the almost
oath-Uke affirmation with which he certifies the reality of it
in the foUowing verse, which does not, however, mean that
the affirmation of ver, 35 relates only to this fact. It
refers also to the other two events which were raentioned,
vv. 33 and 34 (the breaking of the legs and the spear-
thrust). Vv. 35-37, "And he that saw it bare record, and his record

-276 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
is true : * and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye also ^ might
believe} For these things were done, that the scripture should
he fulfilled, A bone of Him * shall not be broken. And again
another scripture saith. They shall look on Him whom they
pierced." — Several (Weisse, Schweizer, HUgenfeld, Weizsacker,
Keim, and Baumlein himself) hold that in the words in ver,
35 the author of the Gospel expressly distinguishes hiraself
from the apostle whose testimony he cites. The author speaks,
indeed, of the witness : " he that saw," in the third person,
consequently as of a third person. And thus this passage,
which had always been regarded as one of the strongest
proofs of the Johannine composition of our Gospel, would be
transformed into a positive denial of its apostoUc origin.
We have already exarained this question. Introduction, i, pp.
93—95. We offer here the following reraarks :
1. The school of Baur, whUe unable to refrain from
catching at the bait presented to it by the verse when thus
understood, has nevertheless felt the hook concealed beneath
it (see Hilgenfeld's embarrassment on this question, Einl. p.
731). If, indeed, as the critics of this school aUege, the
author wished throughout his whole treatise to pass himself
off for John the apostle, how comes he to distinguish hiraself
expressly from him in this passage ? HUgenfeld's answer
is that "he faUs out of his part" (p. 732). Singular un-
skUfuhiess ui a forger so able as the man to whom the
composition of our Gospel is ascribed !
2. Neither the forra of the phrase nor the pronoun eKeivo<s,
that man, obUge us to regard the author of the writing as
a different person from the apostle whose testimony he
relates. When a narrator wishes to avoid speaking of him
self in the first person, and regards himself objectively to the
extent of designating hiraself in the third person, as happens
so frequently, it is evident that he raay employ all the
forms which are used in speaking of another. So Jesus
1 X : xXnh; instead of xXmSiwi.
' 15 Mjj, (X A B, etc.), 25 Mnn, It, Vg. Syr. read xxi before upou; ("that ye
also might believe ") ; T. E. omits xxi with 7 Mjj. (E G, etc), and the other
Mnn, ' X B : oriffTiunTi, instead of ornrTiurrsTi.
* X, 60 Mnn. ItP'^'i"' : xt' xvtou instead of xutov (following Ex. xii, 46 in
the LXX,).

CHAP. XIX. 35-37. 277
does throughout the whole course of His ministry when
caUing Himself the Son of man. So Paul does in a remark
ably striking way, 2 Cor. xii 2 : " I knew a man in Christ
who . . ." HUgenfeld does not beUeve that this mode of
speaking admits of the use of the pronoun e/cetvo?, that man,
which refers to a remote subject. But Steitz^ has clearly
proved that this pronoun, and that in St. John's Gospel, has
a pecuHarly emphatic and exclusive sense, but one which does
not imply the remoteness of the subject to which it refers :
he, he precisely, he only. Comp, i. 8, 18, 33, v. 39, etc.
There is even a passage wholly analogous to ours (ix. 3 7) :
" Thou hast seen Him, and He that talketh to thee is He "
(e'/ceti/o? ea-Tiv, He precisely, and no other). Weizsacker and
Keim do not therefore insist on the phUological question, but
they appeal so much the more, as Keim says, to " rational
logic," which does not aUow us to hold " that a writer would
describe himself objectively at such length."
But, 3. "Rational logic" is precisely what absolutely forbids
our writer to afBrm of John, as one distinct from himself,
the fact which he attests here. What ! a disciple of John
declare to the Church that the apostle, his master, saith true,
that is to say, that he did not He or was not the dupe of an
illusion ! But the first of these attestations would be an
insult, and the second an absurdity. And in general, if one
may in certain cases become surety for the veracity of
another, he can never act as surety for the inner consciousness
which that other possesses of his own veracity, as would be
done' by the author here when he says of the apostle-witness :
" And he knoweth that he saith true." If the writer really
wished to distinguish hiraself frora the witness, he should
have said : " And I know that he saith true." Then he must
have foUowed this up by saying : " that we may believe} and
not: "that ye may believe;" for, excepting the witness who
alone saw, aU the rest, including the narrator himself, believe
in consequence of this ocular testiraony.
4. Hilgenfeld, Keim, and Baumlein quote, as an analogy,
xxi. 24: "This is the disciple (the loved disciple) which testi-
fieth of these things, and wrote of them : and we know that
^ See on the use of the pron. ixiivo; in the fourth Gospel, Steitz, Stud. it.
Kritik. 1859, pp. 497-606, and Buttmann, ibid. 1860, pp. 505-536.

278 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
his testimony is true." But there is a complete difference!
between the two passages. The attester, xxi, 24, is dis
tinguished not only from the witness, but likewise from the
author of the Gospel, whom he identifies with the witnessing
apostle. And because he distinguishes himself from him, he
uses the first person: "we know" (ver, 24), "/ think" (ver. 25),
and so does what the evangehst would have required to do in
our passage if he had reaUy wished to distinguish himself
from the apostle. — We are persuaded that the time wiU
come when this whole discussion will appear singularly un
necessary. MepapTvprjKe, hath testifled, and that by this very narration
which continues from that time forward (the perf). — 'AXr/-
divrj, not a veracious testimony {dXr]d^<;), but a testimony
which really deserves the name. — Kal vpeh, ye also: "ye,
as well as I myself, the witness." In fact, the raatter in
question is not faith in the particular facts which have just
been related, and to which the term faith would not apply in
relation to him who bore witness to them. The subject in
question is faith in the absolute sense of the word, faith in
Christ ; this ought in the case of all to derive confirmation
from the facts mentioned above, which had already strength
ened that of the witness himself It is to this meaning of
the word faith that the for of ver. 3 6 applies, since it refers
to the manifestation of the Messianic character of Jesus by
the fulfUment of the two prophecies quoted, vv. 36 and 37,
— It foUows, finaUy, from this connection of ideas, that the
TavTa, these things, of ver. 36 embraces not only the effusion
of the blood and water, but also the two facts which gave
rise to it, the omission of the breaking of the legs in the
case of Jesus, and the spear-thrust. The first prophecy is
taken from Ex. xu. 46, not from Ps. xxxiv. 20, as Baum
lein thinks ; for this latter passage refers to preservation of
life. — The Paschal lamb belonged to God, and typified the
Lamb of God. Hence the law sheltered it from aU profana
tion, from all violent and brutal treatment. This is also the
reason why the remains of it were to be burned immediately
after the feast.
If prophecy was fulfiUed by what did not take place in the
case of Jesus (the breaking of the legs), it was equally so by

CHAP. XIX. 3,5-; 7. 279
what actually took place (the spear-thrust), ver. 3 7. Zechariah,
xu. 1 0, had represented Jehovah as pierced by His people, in
the Person of the Messiah. The death of the cross had
reahzed this prophecy. But this fulfilment, to stand forth
clearly, must take a yet more Hteral character (see on xu. 15,
xvUi 9, xix. 24), The meaning of the Hebrew word (npl)
they pierced was considerably weakened by the LXX,, who
no doubt thought the expression too strong to be applied to
Jehovah, and translated it by KaTcopyfiaavTo, they insulted.
The evangelist goes back here to the Hebrew text, as the
author of the Apocalypse likewise does in the sarae quota
tion (i, 7), The term : " they shall look on} oyjrovTai, refers
to what shaU take place at the time of the Jews' conversion,
when in this Jesus rejected by them they shaU recognise
their Messiah. The look in question which they shaU then
cast on Him is one of repentance, supplication, and faith ; a
striking scene magnificently described in that same prophetic
view, Zech, xii. 8—14,
To understand what John felt at the raoraent which he
here recaUs, we must suppose a beUeving Jew, familiar with
the 0. T,, seeing the soldiers approach who are to break the
legs of the three victims. He asks himself anxiously what is
to be done to the body of the Messiah, which is still more
sacred than the Paschal lamb. And, lo ! simultaneously and
in the most unexpected manner this body is rescued from the
brutal operation which threatened it, and receives the spear-
thrust, thereby reaUzing the spectacle which repentant Israel
is one day to behold ! After such signs, with what feelings
wUl this man leave the cross ? Will not what he has seen
strengthen his faith, and soon also that of the whole Church ?
Such is the meaning of John. Olshausen thinks that the
water and blood are mentioned to prove the reality of Jesus'
body ; Liicke and Neander, to prove the reahty of His death.
But the Docetse did not deny sensible appearances in the
person of Jesus ; and these sufficed to explain what John
perceived. As to His death, the fact related no more confirms
than it invalidates its reality. The apostle therefore estab
lishes, as we have said, the exceptional state of the body of
Jesus, which was raanifested at this time by an unexampled
evidence. The Holy One of God was not to see corruption

280 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
(Ps, xvi,) ; and this promise must be fulfiUed perfectly in the
case of the perfect Holy One, Now it impUed the beginning
of the work of resurrection at the very moment when, in the
case of every other death, the crisis of dissolution begins.
The entombment of Jesus: vv. 38-42.
John here fiUs up, as in the preceding passage, the nar
rative of his predecessors. He exhibits the part which
Nicodemus took in the funeral honours paid to Jesus, and
brings out the relation between the advanced hour of the day
and the place of the sepulchre where the body was laid. He
thus accounts for facts whose relation was not indicated by'
the Sjmoptics,
Vv. 38-40. "After this} Joseph of Arimathaea, being a
disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews, besought Pilate
that he might take away the body of Jesus: and Pilate gave
him leave. He came ^ therefore, and took ^ the body of Jesus}
And there came also Nicodemus, which at the flrst came to Jesus
hy night, and brought^ a m.ixture* of myrrh and aloes, about an
hundred pounds. Then took they the body of Jesus and wound
it in^ linen clothes with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is
to bury!' — ^The request of the Jews, ver. 31, referred to the
three victims ; but, as John has observed, PUate's order was
executed only in respect of two of them. Joseph then appears
before him with an entirely new request, which appUes to
Jesus only. Baumlein : " Sometimes, especiaUy on occasion
of a feast, the corpse of the capitaUy punished was given up
to the relations. PhUo, in Flacc. § 10." Mark relates that,
on hearing this request, PUate was astonished that Jesus was
dead already ; a fact which, according to Strauss, would con
tradict the permission which he had himself given, ver. 31.
But this operation, whUe involving death, did not bring it
about immediately, as Strauss himself acknowledges ; it served
only to make it sure. And PUate could thus express his
astonishment that death had already taken place. Perhaps,
also, PUate's astonishment arose from the fact that Jesus was
' M is omitted by 7 Mjj. (N A B, etc.) It,
^ Instead of nXhv and xpiv, X It""' read nXlov and npxv.
' Instead of to (roiiLx tou I., B L X A read to trupix ai/Tsw, X xutov, ItP'«^q°« xuto.
* X reads ixi>>v instead of ipipm ; X B : iXiy/ix instead of //.lyp^x.
'XBKLXYO It""i Vg. omit, sv before oSovms.

CHAP. XIX, 38-40. 281
dead without the necessity of breaking His legs. For he
required a detaUed account of the manner in which the punish
ment had been carried out. This is attested by Mark himself,
XV. 44 : " And calling the centurion, he asked him." Arima-
thcea might be the city Rama, situated two leagues to the north
of Jerusalem, or another Rama, now called Ramleh, lying ten
leagues to the north-west of the capital, near Lydda. But the
place in question is more probably Ramatha'im (with the article
represented by the syUable ar), in Ephraim, Samuel's native
city (1 Sam. i. 1), In any case, Joseph was now settled in
Jerusalem with his family ; for he had a burying-place there,
but very recently, no doubt, as the sepulchre had never yet
been used.
In mentioning Nicodemus, John exhibits the contrast
between the boldness of his present profession and -the
cautiousness of his former conduct. This man's faith recog
nised at this moment, in the crucified one, the Saviour typified
by the brazen serpent which Jesus had explained to him
beforehand (iu, 14). It is remarkable that these members of
the Jewish aristocracy, Joseph and Nicodemus, are led to con
fess their faith in Jesus at the very moment of His deepest
humUiation, — To -n-prnTov here denotes, as at x. 40, the
beginning of the ministry of Jesus. If Nicodemus had been
to John, as M. Reuss seems to hold, nothing more than a
fictitious type (ch. ui), how could he make him reappear here
as a real acting person, and that while expressly recaUing the
scene of ch, iu, ! — Myrrh is an odoriferous gum ; aloes, a scented
wood. Aftet being pounded, they were made into a mixture
which was spread over the sheet in which the body was
wrapped. Probably this cloth was cut up into bandages to
wrap the Umbs separately. The words : " as the manner of
the Jews is . . .," contrasts this mode of embalming with that
of the Egyptians, who removed the intestines and secured the
preservation of the corporeal wrappings by processes much
more lengthened and complicated. — The hundred pounds
remind us of the profusion with which Mary had poured the
spikenard over the feet of Jesus, ch. xii. ; it is a truly royal
homage. The Synoptics inform us that the holy women
intended also on their part to complete this provisional
embalming, but after the Sabbath only.

282 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
Vv. 41, 42. "Now in the place where He was crucified there
was a garden ; and in the garden a new sepulchre, wherein was
never man yet laid} There laid they Jesus therefore because of
the Jews' preparation ; for the sepulchre was nigh at hand." —
According to the Synoptics, the sepulchre belonged to Joseph ;
and this was the reason of the use made of it. According to
John, this tomb was chosen on account of its nearness to
Golgotha, because the Sabbath was about to begin. These
two reasons, far from contradicting, complete one another.
What purpose would the proximity of the sepulchre have
served if it had not belonged to one of our Lord's friends ?
And was it not the circumstance that Joseph owned this
sepulchre near the place of crucifixion which suggested to
him the thought of asking the body of Jesus ? — John and
Luke (xxiii 53) observe that the sepulchre was new. Comp.
Luke xix. 30: "Ye shall flnd a colt tied whereon yet never man
sat." These are providential facts which belong to the royal
glory of Jesus. When a king is received, the objects devoted
to his service are such as have never yet been used. — Might
the phrase : " the Jews' preparation" signify (as is thought by
those who allege that, according to John as weU as according
to the Synoptics, the death of Jesus took place on the 1 5th) :
the Jews' Friday ? What would be the object of this singular
expression ? Rotermund " answers, to explain how it happened
that the morrow following the Sabbatic 15 th day was also a
Sabbath, But that has already been explained twice : vv, 14
and 31. Why this repetition and this new form: "the Jews"?
When, in the space of thirty lines, the same thing is thrice
repeated, there is not merely an afSrmation expressed ; there
is the negation of the opposite idea. As at iu, 24, ii, 11, and
iv, 54, John wishes tacitly to rectify some misunderstanding of
the Gospel history. It was the hour when the Jews (so this
supplement finds its explanation) prepared for their great
national feast by kiUing the lamb. And they made haste,
because with the setting of the sun the work day of the 14th
would close, and the doubly Sabbatic day (v. 31) of the 15th
begin; corap, Luke xxiii 56.
^ X B : nv Tiiupoivo; instead of it>6>i.
2 In the remarkable article, " Von Ephraim nach Golgotha," Stud. u. Kritik.
1876, first number.

OF THE TAY OF OUR LOED'S DEATH. 283

Of the Day of our Lord's Death.
The evangelists are manifestly at one as to the day of the
week on which the death of Jesus took place : it was a Friday.
But they seem to differ about the day of the month, and con
sequently about that of the Paschal feast on which this event
fell The Jews celebrated the Paschal supper, the opening of
the feast, on the evening of the 14th Nisan. This evening
formed, strictly speaking, part of the 15 th ; the first and great
day of the seven days of the feast, and one peculiarly solemn.
For the law assimilated the 15th to the weekly Sabbath, so far
as obligatory cessation from labour was concerned, with the
single difference that it permitted the preparation of necessary
food on this day (Ex. xu. 16), probably because on the even
ing before, the preparation of the Paschal feast having absorbed
attention, it was impossible to provide the food of the 15 th.
Now it is generaUy held that, according to the synoptical
narrative, it was on this Sabbatic 15 th day that the Friday
on which Jesus was crucified feU that year ; wliich irapiies,
of course, that on the evening before, Jesus had celebrated
the Paschal feast with His disciples, in conformity with
Jewish law and practice. And such seems really to be the
force of Matt. xxvL 1 7, and the parallel passages of Luke and
Mark. John's narrative, on the contrary, would lead to the conclu
sion, as we have seen, that the Friday of Jesus' death was the
14th Nisan, the day of the preparation of the Paschal supper
and of the Paschal feast in general. In this case, it is obvious
that He could not have celebrated the Paschal supper with the
people generaUy ; for He was dead some hours before this cere
mony, and the last supper described by John is nothing more
than an ordinary meal on which Jesus impressed peculiar
solemnity by instituting the Holy Eucharist and uttering His
last farewell.
Can these two forms of narrative be harmonized ? And, if
not, which is to be preferred ?
From a very early date this question -has occupied the
Church. In a dispute which broke out about 170 at Laodicea,
in Asia Minor, there were some who maintained that our Lord's
last meal was the real Paschal feast, celebrated at the hour

284 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
fixed by the law on the evening of the 14th, from which they
concluded that the Church ought also yearly to celebrate on that
evening the Holy Easter Supper, at the same time as the Jews
celebrate their Paschal feast. ApoHnarius, Bishop of HierapoHs,
who opposed them, declares in substance " that, according to
thera, our Lord ate the lamb with His disciples on the 14th,
and that He suffered death on the great day of unleavened
bread (the 1 5th) ; and that they thus explain the Gospel of
Matthew."^ We do not know what attitude was taken in this
matter by Melito, Bishop of Sardis, who, Eusebius tells us,
was the first to write a book on this controversy. But we
have in the sarae coUection sorae fragments of the works of
ApoHnarius and of Clement of Alexandria, which were caUed
forth by that of Melito. " The 14th," says the former, "is our
Lord's true Passover, the great sacrifice in which the Son of
God, put in stead and place of the lamb, was to be given up
to be crucified. . . ." These words are clear : they express
John's view. Jesus did not eat the legal Passover ; He died
on the day on which they were preparing to celebrate it.
Clement expresses hiraself to the sarae effect, but in a manner
stUl more explicit : " In previous years Jesus had celebrated
the feast by eating the Paschal lamb slain by the Jews, But
on the 13th {ly) He taught His disciples the mystery of the
type [the type of the lamb], when they asked Him, saying :
' Where wUt Thou that we prepare for Thee the Passover ? '
For that was the day on which took place the consecration of
the unleavened bread, and the pro-preparation {rrpoeToipua-ld)
of the Passover, . . . And our Saviour suffered on the foUow
ing day [the 14th] ; for He was Himself the true Passover,
. . . And hence the high priests and scribes, when bringing
Him to PUate, did not enter the prcetorium, that they might
not be defiled and might eat the Passover in the evening with
out hindrance." The disciples then asked our Lord, as is
related in the Synoptics, not on the 14th, but on the 13th;
and it was on the evening of the 13 th that Jesus instituted
the Supper, and consequently on the 14th that He died. This
' Fragments of ApoHnarius (not ApoUinarius) in the Chronicon paschale (a
compilation of extracts from ancient authors, carried on from the fourth to the
seventh century, and discovered in Sicily in the sixteenth ; see Le Jour de la
Preparation, by M. Lutteroth, p. 59).

OF THE DAY OF OUR LORD'S DEATH. 285
is reaUy John's view, and, besides, it is the first known attempt
to harmonize it with the synoptical narrative.
After such discussions, it is not surprising that Chrysostom
takes full account of the difficulty, and leaves his readers to
choose between these two solutions : either John understands
by the Passover the whole feast, which would aUow us to hold
that He was crucified on the 15th; or Jesus anticipated by a
day the celebration of the Paschal feast, which would aUow us
to hold that He was crucified on the 14th. In these remarks
Chrysostom has, as Meyer says, traced the programme of all
the subsequent discussions down to our day.
We have treated this question briefly (Introd, i. pp. 209-
211) in its bearing on the authenticity of our Gospel. We
resume the subject here more fully from the exegetical and
historical point of view.

The conclusion to which we have been led is this : Accord
ing to the fourth Gospel, Jesus was crucified on the lAth Nisan,
the preparation day of the feast of Passover.
The most decisive passages in favour of this conclusion have
been the foUowing : —
1st. xiu. 1. — Again quite recently Rotermund (in his very
interesting article, "Von Ephraim nach Golgotha," Stud. u.
Kritik. 1876) has alleged, as had been done before by Langen
(on untenable grounds) and some others, that in this verse the
feast of Passover meant the morning of the 1 5 th, and that the
phrase : " before the feast of Passover," must therefore mean the
evening of the 14th, and so the hour of the Paschal supper
(agreeably to the Synoptics). If John had said : " before the
feast of Unleavened Bread} this meaning would have been
admissible (Mark xiv. 1). But how can we for a moment
imagine John placing the Paschal supper &e/bre, and consequently
outside of, the feast of Passover? How can we hold that, writing
for Greek readers, he designated the Paschal feast by saying :
" Before the feast, a supper [or even : the supper] being ended,"
without designating this solenm feast more clearly ?
2d. xvui. 28. — All tbe learned efforts of Kirchner {Die
jUdische Passahfeier, 1870) appear to me insufficient to over
throw the natural conclusion from this passage, so clearly

286 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
recognised by Clement of Alexandria, as we have established
it by our exegesis.
3d. xix. 14, 31, 42, — Neither Kirchner nor Rotermund has
succeeded in convincing us that the translation in these three
passages should run : " the Paschal Friday . . . it was Friday
. . . the Jews' Friday . . ." That the day was a Friday is
evident. That the word paraskeui {preparation) sometimes
denotes in patristic language Friday cannot be disputed. But
all this does not prove, as we have seen, that in the context
John could give the word preparation this technical sense. As
to Matthew and Mark, we shall examine the question after
wards, Rotermund himself cannot help making the foUowing
confession : " In truth, it is very surprising that the Gospels
so expressly designate the day of the death as tliat preceding
the Sabbath, if this day was itself the first day of the Paschal
feast, , . ." So surprising, indeed, that it seems even im
possible, M, Lutteroth, in his pamphlet quoted above, is at one with
us as to this impossibUity, In his view, the preparation of
the Passover signifies the preparation for the feast. But the
Paschal feast began, according to hira, on the 10th Nisan, the
day on which the Jews set apart the lamb, five days before
that on which they killed it. And it was, according to hira,
on this 1 0th day of Nisan that Jesus was crucified. He rose
again after three full days and nights passed in the tomb,
between the 13th and 14th; and His first appearances took
place on the morning of the 14th, It is easy to see what super
human exegetical efforts are needed to bring the texts into
harmony with this whoUy new chronology. It is overthrown
especiaUy by Mark xiv. 12, Luke xxii, 7, and Matt, xxvUi, 1,^
After the observations of Kirchner and Luthardt, I do not
insist on ranking xiii, 29 among the decisive passages, though
' Mark xiv. 12 : " And thefirst day of unleavened bread, when they killed the
Passover ..." This expression may, according to M. Lutteroth, denote the
10th Nisan, because this day opened the period of the days of unleavened bread,
which, according to the author, began five days before the 14th ! As to the rela
tive when (or on which), it does not refer to the word day, but to the complement
of unleavened bread : the unleavened bread conjointly with which they killed
the lamb ! — Luke xxii. 7 : " Then came the day of unleavened bread, when, the
Passover must be hilled. . . ." This, he holds, is not a chronological determi
nation (notwithstanding the parallels), but an anticipation purely of feeling :
Fear not ; the day of unleavened bread came afterwards [the 14th], when Jesus

OF THE DAY OF OUR LORD'S DEATH, 287
it wUl always be difficult to understand how the apostles could
have thought of buying on the night of the Passover. What
shop would have been open in Jerusalem on that night, when
every family, rich or poor, was gathered round the Paschal
table ? IL
This Johannine date of tlie lAth Nisan is not positively con
tradicted by any of the documents in our possession; it is
confirmed by many of them.
1st, The Talmud. — We have quoted in full, vol i, p. 124,
the passage of the Babylon Gemara, which says that " Jesus was
suspended on the evening of the Passover (fieirev happisacK)}
an expression which certainly denotes the eve of the Passover,
as certainly as the evening of the Sabbath {6rev haschschahbath)
constantly signifies the eve of the Sabbath, No doubt against
the trustworthiness of this Tahnudic tradition there raay be
urged its late coraposition, and the erroneous statements which
are mixed up with it in other passages where it is reproduced,
for example, that " the son of Stada [Jesus] was stoned, and then
hung at Lydda, on Passover eve" {Sanhedr. 67. 1). Yet it
is remarkable that this point of time : Passover eve, reappears
uniformly in those different Talmudic statements. Of two
tilings the one or other : either a very positive tradition on
this point had been kept up among the successors of Caiaphas
and Gamaliel ; or the learned Jews had borrowed this notice
from our Gospels, which would prove that they understood them
exactly in the sense which has seemed to be the raeaning of
John's narrative.
2d, Saint Paul. — Keim thinks that this apostle is a con
vincing witness against the opinion which fixes on the 14th,
instead of the 15th, as the day of our Lord's death (i. pp. 127,
rose agaifl ; or, as M, Lutteroth now explains (Essai d' interpret, p. 410) : The
day was come when Christ, the true Passover, must be killed ! — Matt, xxviii. 1,
our author translates: "Now after these things, on tliat one of ihe Sabbaths
which dawns on the other of tlie Sabbaths, Mary . . . , " which signifies : on the
14th, a day of the Passover which reaches to a second Sabbath [the 15th]; as if
the 14th had been a Sabbatic day ! — But untenable as these explanations are,
M. Lutteroth's treatise nevertheless remains a monument of earnest investiga
tion and solid learning ; and it cannot be denied that even for views so eccentric
as the above, he has succeeded in discovering in patristic literature some
apparent points of support (comp. pp. 60 and 76-77).

288 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
128,iU. p. 476), His argument is as foUows : Paul envelopes
the institution of the Holy Supper in the forms of the Paschal
feast, which proves that in his view, as in that of the Synoptics,
this institution coincides with the Jewish feast; that conse
quently Christ's last feast took place on the 14th, and not the
13 th, This argument would teU if Keim could prove that
Jesus was unable, with the foresight of His approaching death,
to institute the Holy Supper, by borrowing the forms of the
Paschal feast, on the eve of the day when it was legally cele
brated. But this it wiU always be impossible to demonstrate.
Perhaps sorae indications are to be found even in Paul of a
view contrary to that which holds the 15 th as the day of Jesus'
death. In the narrative of the institution of the Holy Sypper,
1 Cor. xi, he says : " The Lord Jesus, the same night in which
He was betrayed." If this night had been the soleran Passover
night, would he not have characterized it a Uttle more speci
aUy ? When speaking of the different stages in the work of
resurrection, Paul designates Christ as the first-fruits {d-jrap'yf)).
The term is that used to designate the sacred sheaf, gathered
on the 16 th Nisan, as the first-fruits of the harvest. Now
this 16th day was precisely that of the resurrection of Jesus,
if He died on the 14th and not the 15th, The most elevated
spirituaUty did not prevent Paul from cherishing the most
pious attachment to Jewish symbolism. Comp. the allusion
to the Passover, 1 Cor. v. 7, 8, a passage written exactly at
the time of this feast (xvi. 8).
3d. The Synoptics. — ^We shall not renew here a detaUed dis
cussion which has been so often taken up with opposite views
in recent times, and at such length that it has become almost
-wearisome. — Could the priests and their officers go forth from
Jerusalem to lay hands on Jesus in Gethsemane at the very
time when the whole people were celebrating the Paschal
feast within their dweUings ? Yes, says the defender of the
Synoptics, they certainly could. No, answers the defender of
John, it was impossible. — Could sittings of tribunals be held
and foUow one another, one, two, three, during a Sabbatic night
when, according to the Talraud, " everything reprehensible on
Sabbath, such as climbing a tree, riding, holding a court, etc.,
is equaUy forbidden on the feast day"? (Beza, v. 2), Irapos
sible, says the one. Quite possible, answers the other; for

OF THE DAY OF OUR LORD'S DEATH, 289
the law of the feast day is always less rigorous than that of the
Sabbath ; for a judicial sitting is allowed, provided there be no
writing done at it ; for these severe prescriptions were not
formally set down tUl the Talmudic tiraes, and there is nothing
to prove that they were observed so early as the tirae of Jesus,
— Is it possible to hold that Simon came out of the country on
the morning of the Sabbatic day, the 15 th (Mark xv, 21) ;
that Joseph bought a winding-sheet that same day (xv. 46) ;
that the women put off embalming the body that evening in
order to rest, because the Sabbath was near (Luke xxiii 56),
if the very day on which these things took place was itself a
Sabbatic day ? No, says the one ; by all these facts the
Synoptics testify that the day of the death was a work day,
and thus do homage consciously or unconsciously to the date
of John, that of the 14th, Not at aU, say the others; all is
in perfect keeping with the 15th. Simon is a dweUer in the
country who is siraply repairing to the city. The purchases
are perfectly reconcileable with the Sabbatic rest, provided
payment is not made the same day. FinaUy, the sanctity of
the weekly Sabbath is always held higher than that of the
feast day.
With such ^skilful and learned pleaders before us, it is
prudent doubtless to pronounce no decision. Yet it is reraark
able that the judge who betrays the raost decided antipathy
to John cannot help declaring that the 15 th is the raost
difficult reading (Keim, iii p, 475).
Besides these facts, the Synoptics also contain certain say
ings which equaUy favour John's narrative ; they are especiaUy
the three foUowing passages : —
1. Matt, xxvi, 18, Jesus sends this message to the citizen
of Jerusalem, at whose house He intends to eat the Passover :
" My time is at hand ; I will keep the Passover at thy house with
my disciples." M. Reuss says with perfect frankness : " The
saying: 'My time is at hand} cannot well be interpreted
otherwise than as an aUusion to His death, though this com
munication has no very intimate relation to the commission
given to the disciples." The connection sought is not estab
lished, indeed, unless the Lord meant to say : " I must make
haste : to-morrow it wiU be too late ; prepare everything there
fore with my disciples, that I may eat the Passover at thy
GODET rtL T JOHN,

290 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
house to-day with my own whom I am about to leave " {ttoiSi,
the present). Thus understood, the raessage of Jesus has
meaning, but a meaning which implies on our Lord's part the
anticipation of the Paschal feast.
2. In Matt, xxvii. 62, the Saturday on which Jesus rests
in the grave is described by the evangelist as " the next day
that followed the day of the preparation." Supposing that the
word preparation was really used here in the sense of Friday,
would it not be as strange an expression as if Sabbath were
called the day that followed Friday ? That would be hke a
riddle put to the reader. Is it not rather Friday which should
be called the day which comes before Sabbath ? Of two days
which are related to one another, that which determines the
designation of the other is evidently the more important of
the two. There is in the case before us only one explanation
of so strange an expression : As the day of the death, it was
the so-caUed preparation day which for this time played the
decisive part, and from which the designation of the Sabbath
itself deserved to be taken. This phraseology therefore
implies that the day was naturaUy a work day, and that its
importance was entirely due to the fact that it was the day of
our Lord's death.
3. Mark xv. 42 is often quoted as one of the passages
opposed to John's date: "It was t!aB preparation {rvapaaKevri),
that is, the day before the Sabbath (rrpoad^^aTov)!' But does
it foUow that -irapacyKevr) reaUy signifies Friday ? What does
Mark mean ? That it was Friday ? There was no need of
two different terms to express this. The object of his remark
is to convey to his Gentile readers the thought that every
day having a Sabbatic character, whether the Sabbath or a
feast day, was preceded by a day bearing the name of pre
paration, that is to say, of pro-Sahbath, because on that day
everything was arranged so that the rest of the morrow
might not be disturbed. Now this remark, with the accom
panying explanation, was very important in the context. As
is weU said by Weiss {Marc. ad. h. 1.) : " All work — and
consequently also the taking down from the cross, which fell
under this category — must terminate before sunset, otherwise
the Sabbatic rest which was about to begin would have pre
vented its execution." Hence it foUows not that the day of

OF THE DAY OP OUR LORD'S DEATH. 291
Christ's death was a Friday (though it was so in reality), but
that it was a preparation day in relation to some Sabbatic day
or other which was about to foUow. Would a Jew ever have
characterized the 15 th of Nisan thus, that day so essentiaUy
Sabbatic, if, as is aUeged, Jesus reaUy died on that day ?
The only point at which the synoptical account seeras
reaUy to conflict with that of the fourth Gospel, is the date of
the disciples' question, Matt. xxvi. 17; Mark xiv, 12 ; Luke
xxii, 7. But here everything depends on the precise tirae of
the question put by the apostles. If it is supposed that it
was put on the morning of the 14th Nisan, aU possibUity of
harraony certainly disappears. For the evening which fol
lowed that morning, and on which the last supper of Jesus
took place, could have been no other than that between the
14th and 15 th, that of the Paschal feast among the Jews,
which inevitably places the death of Jesus on the morrow
foUowing that feast, and so on the 15 th, But Strauss has
remarked,^ that the procuring of the room and the articles
necessary for the Paschal feast could not have been put off till
the morning of the 14th. The number of pilgrims coming
to Jerusalem was too considerable to admit of waiting tUl the
morning of the day on which the feast took place to secure a
room. Also Clement of Alexandria, to designate the previous
day, that of the 13th, uses the term irpoeToipaaia, propre-
paration, or preparation for the preparation. The day of
preparation (for the feast) was the 14th, but that on which
the arrangements needed for this preparation were made was
the 13 th. Now, of these measures the raost essential was
to secure a roora. It is therefore probable, to say nothing
more, that it was on the afternoon of the 13th that the dis
ciples referred to the Lord the steps to be taken with this
view. Are the expressions used by the evangelists opposed
to this idea ? Luke says : " The day of unleavened bread was
come . . ." These terms apply to the afternoon of the 13th,
to the time of sunset, as well as to the morrow morning, and
even better. For it was exactly at this time, on the evening
of the 13 th, between six and seven, that lamps were lighted to
ransack the darkest comers of the houses, and to remove from
them the last particles of leaven (Kirchner, p. 1 2). — Matthew
> Das Leben Jesu, 1864, p. 533.

292 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
says : " On the first day of the feast of Unleavened Bread, the
disciples came to Jesus!' Mark says : " The first day of un
leavened bread, when they killed the Passover . . ." Mark's
somewhat raore detaUed expressions are solely intended to put
Gentile readers more completely in possession of the object of
the feast. They may, as weU as those of Matthew, with which
they are synonymous, refer to the last hours of the afternoon
of the 13 th, which, according to the Jewish mode of reckoning,
began the 14th.
It is objected (Rotermund) that, notwithstanding the official
mode of dividing days, reckoning from one evening to the
other, in popular language (which is that of our evangelist)
the evening of a day was always that of the day which was
closing. But the proof of the opposite appears in the common
expression : Erev haschschahbath. Sabbath evening, which denotes
not Saturday evening, but Friday evening; and in the fact
that the sacred sheaf of the 1 6th Nisan was cut not on the
morning of that day, but on the eve of it. The deputies of
the Sanhedrim arrived on the field accompanied by the people.
" Has the sun set ? they asked. — Yes, it has. Am I to cut ?
— Yes, cut ! With this sickle ? — Yes. Into this basket ?
— Yes." Then the work was accompUshed. It belonged to
the 16th, a work day, and not to the 15th, a Sabbatic day.
Finally, when Hippolytus puts into the mouth of the partisans
of the 14th this saying: " Christ celebrated the Passover on
tlie day on which He suffered, I ought therefore to do like
wise," is it not evident that they include in the 15th day
the preceding evening, when the last supper took place ?
The objection is therefore unfounded.
An interesting coincidence, which can hardly be accidental,
presents itself here. On the evening between the 13th and
14th Nisan, before the stars appeared in the sky, people went
from every house to draw water from the fountain with which
on the morrow to knead the unleavened bread. This custom
no doubt explains the sign which our Lord gives to His two
disciples, Peter and John, when, on sending them to the city.
He says : " Behold, when ye are entered into the city, there
shaU a man meet you, bearing a pitcher of water; foUow
him. . . ." This coincidence fixes at the same time the hour
when the disciples were sent ; it was evening, when the stars

OF THE DAY OF OUR LORD'S DEATH. 293
were about to appear. The 14th had therefore begun. In
reahty, it was the beginning of the first day of unleavened
bread. What was our Lord's intention in giving these orders to the
two disciples ? The latter had asked His instructions for the
morrow evening. In presence of the apostles, Jesus entered
apparently into their thought. For He required to be on His
guard against the treachery of Judas, who was watching aU
His steps. But when sending His two confidential disciples
to the city, and giving them the message, which we know
from Matthew, for the host on whora He reckoned. He gives
thera to understand that they were to prepare everything not
for the raorrow, but for that same evening. The mysterious
nature of this message did not aUow Judas to know before
hand the house where Jesus was to pass that last evening with
His own.
It wUl be objected that it was rather late to buy and pre
pare the lamb. But from the 10th Nisan it must have been
put aside and kept in a particular place. It was needed only
to take and roast it, which could certainly be done between six
and eight o'clock. The other necessary articles belonged to the
furniture of the room, or raight easUy be procured by the host
or His disciples.
But where, it will be said, is the ritual or sacerdotal killing
of the lamb, such as took place in the temple on the afternoon
of the 14th? It is to be remarked, first, that this whole
ceremony of slaying in the teraple was a human addition to
the law. According to the Paschal ordinance and the example
of the first Passover, every father of a household was himself
to slay the lamb in his house, without the intervention of a
priest. At this time, when the typical Passover was about to
take end, it was surely aHowable to return to its original sim
plicity. But more than this : the legal covenant verging to
its close, the sacramental feast of that economy, the Israelitish
Passover, resembled only a withered calyx, from the bosom of
which there was about to blossom the sacramental feast of
the new covenant, the Kaivi] Sia9i]K7], as Jesus Himself says
some hours later (Matt. xxvi. 28 and parall). The lamb in
the fea.st which was preparing had only a part to fill, that of
giving place to the true Larab, which was substituted for it

294 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
with the words : " Do this henceforth in remembrance of me."
In such conditions the sacerdotal consecration was useless.
A difficulty remains, that of the day. Could Jesus change
the legal day of the Paschal feast ? Impossible, answer Keim
and Luthardt resolutely, and this time in perfect harmony.
But if Jesus could boldly declare Himself the Lord of the
Sabbath, — and the transference of the Sabbatic day from Satur
day to Sunday in His Church has proved that this was no
vain word, — how should He not also be the Lord of the Pass
over ? The Sabbath was the corner-stone of the whole Mosaic
constitution. He who disposed of it freely, held in His hand
the whole edifice.
We conclude : Many things lead, and not one is absolutely
opposed in the Synoptics, to the date of John.
4. The Paschal Co7itrovcrsies. — The general fact on which
this last contention rests is the foUowing: The churches of
Asia Minor celebrated the Paschal feast by fasting during the
14th Nisan, and taking the communion the evening of that
day. The other churches of Christendom, with Rome at their
head, fasted during the days preceding the Passover Sunday
(the first Sunday after the 14th), and communicated on the
morning of that day. In both cases the communion terminated
the fast.
First phase of the discussion. About 155,^ Polycarp in a visit
to Rome converses on this subject with Anicetus. Each defends
the rite of his church, on the ground of an apostolical tradition
of which it is the depositary (proceeding at Ephesus from John
and PhiUp, at Rome from Paul and Peter). There is nothmg
to prove that on this occasion the disputants penetrated to
the exegetical and dogmatic domain of the question. The
peace of the church remained unbroken, " Diversity in rite
served rather, as Irenseus says, to establish harmony in faith," ^
Second phase. Fifteen years after, in 170, there breaks out
at Laodicea, in the very bosom of the church of Asia, a dis
cussion on the subject of the Passover. There are people —
who are they ? we shall have to study the point — who, whUe
1 Recent discoveries, due especially to M. Waddington, seem to prove that
the martyrdom of Polycarp took place in 155 or 166, and not later, as used to be
held. 2 "Letter to Victor" (Eus. H. E. v. 24).

OF THE DAY OF OUR LORD'S DEATH. 295
practising the Asiatic rite, found it expressly on the fact that
Jesus instituted the Supper on the evening of the 14th, while
celebrating the Paschal feast at the time prescribed by the law,
in proof of which they allege Matthew's account, according to
which our Lord celebrated the Paschal feast on the 14th, and
was crucified on tbe 15th.^ It is obvious that the controversy
escapes from the domain of tradition, and lays hold from this
time forth of the exegetical side of the question. Melito is
the first who writes on this subject, we know not on which
side. Then, on occasion of his treatise (e'^ alTia<;), — not in
opposition to hira, as is still aUeged by Schiirer, — ApoHnarius
and Clement of Alexandria take the pen. Both of thera,
judging from the fragments quoted in the Chronicon paschale,
hold that Jesus celebrated His last feast and instituted the
Supper not on the 14th, but on the 13th, and that He died
not on the 15 th, but on the 14th, They allege especially
John's account in favour of this view.
Who are the adversaries combated by these two writers ?
Baur, Hilgenfeld, Schurer, and Luthardt answer: Simply the
churches of Asia with their rite of celebration on the 14th,
ApoHnarius would thus be in Asia itself the champion of the
western rite. It is difficult to beheve this, 1st. Eusebius
represents the churches of Asia as unanimous : " The churches
of all Asia thought, according to an ancient tradition, that
they were bound to observe the 14th in the celebration of the
Holy Supper." If this consensus of aU the churches of Asia
had been broken by so considerable an exception as that of
ApoHnarius of HierapoHs, Eusebius, the declared adversary of
the Asiatic rite, would not have faUed to state it. But he
says nothing of the kind, TJndoubtedly Baur rehes on the
fact that a little later, Polycrates, when enumerating in his
letter to Victor of Rorae the illustrious persons who observed this
rite, does not mention ApoHnarius. But he names only the
dead, ApoHnarius might be included araong those numerous
bishops of whom Polycrates speaks without naming them,
and who surrounded him at the time when he wrote his letter,
* Comp, p, 539, the polemic of Apolinarius and the words which Hippolytus,
in his Philosophumena, puts into the mouth of his adversaries: "The Lord
celebrated the Passover and suffered on that day [that is to say, on the day
between the 14th and 15th] ; and therefore I should do as He did."

296 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
and gave it their assent, 2d. If Apolinarius had made a
division in Asia, it is probable that the dispute would have
broken out at HierapoHs in his own diocese, not at Laodicea.
3d, The adversaries of ApoHnarius supported their position
from Matthew, evidently in opposition to arguments drawn
from other sources. Whence, if not from the fourth Gospel ?
Now is it not known, is it not obvious from the letter even of
Polycrates, that John was constantly, whether from personal
tradition or by his Gospel, the light of the churches of Asia ? ^
And we should find them all at once making Matthew theh
patron, and that perhaps against John himself ! The thing is
impossible, 4th, The polemic of Apolinarius, in opposition
to his Laodicean adversaries, does not really imply either a
rupture with the Asiatic rite or adherence to the occidental.
He might perfectly well remain faithful to the former, while
justifying it otherwise than the Laodiceans, either exegetically
or dogmatically. For we have seen that the latter likewise
observed the 14th. As to the western rite, it is irapossible
to understand how the opinion of Apolinarius, which placed
the death of Jesus on the 14th rather than on the 15 th,
favoured the view which placed the celebration of the Passover
on the following Sunday ! 5th. Schurer is entangled in an
inconceivable contradiction : According to hira, if the churches
in Asia celebrated the 14th, it was without any relation to
any fact whatever of Gospel history (whether the institution
of the Supper or the death of Jesus) ; their rite arose solely
from their having transformed the Jewish Paschal feast of the
14th into the Christian Supper and a celebration of redemp
tion. Such is the result of his solid and remarkable work.
And yet, on the other hand, the polemic of Apolinarius forces
hira to acknowledge that, if the Laodicean adversaries of this
Father fixed the Supper on the 14th, it was to coraraemorate the
institution of the ceremony on that day by Jesus Christ. How,
then, can it be aUeged that the latter are no other than the
churches of Asia ?
Thus it is easy to understand how Weitzel and Steitz, with
1 See, besides the Asiatic literature of the second century, which rests on the
writings of John (Polycarp, Papias, Ignatius, Melito, Theophilus, and Irenaeus,
comp. Introd. i. pp. 199-246), the letter of Polycrates, in which there is foimd
indisputable allusion to John's Gospel,

OF THE DAY OF OUR lord's DEATH. 297
whom are associated Ritschl, Meyer, Reville, etc., have been
led to see in those Laodiceans a Judaizing party which arose
in the church of Asia with the intention of preserving the
Jewish Paschal feast, whUe adapting to it the Holy Christian
Supper. Then the polemic of ApoHnarius and Clement strikes
home. These people say : " We wish to do as the Lord did
[celebrate the Paschal feast on the 14th]." The two Fathers
reply : " The Lord did not do so. He replaced the Paschal
feast of the 14th by the Supper on the 13 th," — an opinion
which does not prevent Apolinarius from remaining faithful
to his church's rite ; for, as Schiirer hiraself acknowledges, the
church of Asia did not celebrate the 14th as the day of the
institution of the Supper, She celebrated the Holy Supper
on that day as a memorial of redemption, thus translating into
a sacramental Christian feast the Jewish Passover, which was
instituted in memory of the Israehtes' deliverance.
There are only two points on which I would dissent from
Weitzel and Steitz : 1st, The Laodicean adversaries of
ApoHnarius I should hold to be less an Ebionite sect than a
branch of the church of Asia with a more pronounced Judaiz
ing tendency, 2d, The rite of the churches of Asia arose
simply from the celebration of the 14th in IsraeUtish worship,
not from the thought of maintaining that this day was that
of Jesfud death. This consequence flows from the words of
Eusebius : " The churches of Asia thought they should cele
brate the 14th, the day on which the Jews were commanded to
kill the lamb;" and especiaUy from those of Polycrates : "And
all my relatives (bishops before me) celebrated the day on
which the people took away the leaven." The Asiatic rite is
expressly put into relation to the da^y of Christ's death only
in two passages of the fourth and fifth centuries, the one in
Epiphanius, the other in Theodoret (see Schiirer, pp. 57 and 58),
which shows that this point of view did not prevaU in the
beginrung. Third phase. Between 180 and 190 a certain Blastus
{Adv. heer. of the pseudo-TertuUian, c. 22) seeks to transplant
the Asiatic rite to Rome. Hence, probably, tbe reawakening
of the controversy between the two churches of Rome and Asia,
which are represented at this epoch by Victor and Polycrates.
The datter, in his letter to Victor, no longer defends his cause

298 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
merely by traditional arguments, as Polycarp had done thirty
years before. " Before writing, he went over all the Holy
Scriptures {irdaav dylav ypa(f>r]v BieXrjXvOd)';)." And he de
clares that " his predecessors also observed the 14th according
to the Gospel {KaTa to evayyeXiov)!' These words give rise to
reflection. It has been sought to get rid of them by subtleties
(see Schiirer's embarrassraent, p, 35). They evidently prove,
as the preceding do, that Polycrates and the bishops of Asia
had succeeded in estabhshing a harmony of the Gospels by
means of which not only did those writings not contradict
one another (to evayyeXiov, the one Gospel in the four), but
such that they also agreed with the law itself {all the Scrip
tures). Such sayings imply, therefore, that Polycrates and his
bishops had found the Asiatic rite confirmed at first by the
law (the raatter in question is the institution of the Passover,
Ex. xu., fixing the Paschal feast on the 14th), next by the
unaniraity of the canonical Gospels, which has no meaning
unless Polycrates harmonized the Synoptics with John by
interpreting them as we have done ourselves ; for to do the
reverse (to bring John to the apparent meaning of the Synop
tics) did not then occur to any one. Thus the words of Poly
crates and the censure which Apolinarius pronounces on the
opinion of his Laodicean adversaries are perfectly equivalent :
"Wherefore not only is their opinion contrary to the law
(which requires the lamb to be slain on the 14th), but there
would also be in this case a disagreement between the Gospels
[Matthew fixing the death on the 15th, John on the 14th]."
Polycrates therefore sets himself, in order to support the
Asiatic rite, exactly at the same exegetical standpoint as
Apolinarius does to combat the Laodicean party. This dis
pute was aUayed by the efforts of Irena3us and several others,
who interceded with Victor and stopped hira on the way to
violent measures.
Fourth phase. It is marked by the decision of the Council
of Nice in 324, which enjoined on the Orientals to fall in
with the western rite now generally adopted, " At the close
of the controversy," says Eusebius (in his nrepl t?)? tov "Trda-xa
eopTri<;, Schiirer, p. 40), " the Orientals yielded ; and thus," adds
he, " they broke finally with our Lord's murderers and joined
their co-religionists {6poS6^oi<;)!' The Asiatic rite, from the

OF THE DAY OF OUR LORD'S DEATH, 299
fact of the Holy Paschal Supper falling simultaneously with
that of the Jewish Passover, had become more and more the
sign of a secret sympathy with the unbelieving Jews. This
it was which decided its discontinuance. From this time,
those only who, like the Laodicean Judaizers, maintained as
the exegetical basis of their observation of the 14th the fact
that the Holy Supper had been instituted on that day, kept
their ground under the names of Audians and Quarto-decimans,
who figure in the Usts of heresies, Athanasius frankly con
fesses that they are not easily refuted when they advance the
words of the Synoptics : " On the first day of unleavened bread,
the disciples came to Jesus . . ." (Schiirer, p, 45),^ Here we
come upon the first symptora of that preponderance which
the synoptical narrative finaUy obtained over John's, and
which held its ground through the Middle Ages and the
Reforraation down to raodern times. The Synoptics, raore
popular than John, and apparently clearer, forming besides a
bundle of three against one, and especially no longer encoun
tering as a counterpoise the fear of mixing up the Christian
Supper and the Jewish Passover, carried the day in general
feeling. Of the Fathers, Jerome is the one who contributed
most to this victory.
How, then, are we to explain the origin of the two observances,
the Asiatic and the Roman, 'in the second century?"^ Paul had
no fear of bringing into the Church the celebration of the
Jewish Passover (Acts xx, 6 ; corap, 1 Cor. v. 7, 8, with
xvL 8). He transforraed and spiritualized its rites, that is
undoubted ; the Holy Supper was substituted for the Paschal
feast of the larab and the unleavened bread; but the tirae
was the same ; had not Jesus said, " Do this (the Passover)
in remembrance of rae " ? John did the same ; and thus it
was that, under cover of his authority, there was introduced
^ It is likewise to one of those obstinate and henceforth schismatic Quarto
decimans that we must apply the words of Eusebius in the treatise quoted above
(Schiirer, p. 40) : " But if any one should say, It is also written. On the first
day of unleavened bread , , ," It is easy to see that the same objection em
barrasses Eusebius as weU as Athanasius, But it no more proves the identity
of the ancient churches of Asia with the Laodiceans of the second century than
with the Quarto-decimans of the fourth (in opposition to Schurer).
2 Schiirer seems to us to have thrown real light on this important and difficult
point, p, 61 et seq.

300 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
into Asia Minor the practice of celebrating the 14th Nisan
by the Holy Supper. But the churcnes of the West, more
estranged from Judaism, no doubt felt a certain repugnance
to this close bond of unity in time between the Jewish feast
and the Christian, and to the sort of dependence in wliich
this simultaneousness placed the one in relation to the other.
They therefore cast off the yoke ; and, instead of celebrating
the Holy Paschal Supper on the evening of the 14th, as they
had already the institution of the weekly Sunday, this cere
mony was fixed for the Sunday morning which foUowed the
14th Nisan yearly, or, to speak more correctly, the fuU moon
of March.^ Thus arose, no doubt, the western observance,
which ended by carrying the day over the primitive observance.
The Church is free in such matters.
The result of this long and complicated history, so far as
concerns the subject before us, seems to be this : From the
time that the Church occupied herself with the exegetical
side of the question, she held to John's narrative. She made
use of it, on the one hand, to refute by the pen of Apolinarius
the exegetical basis which the Laodicean party pretended to
lay for the observance of the 14th (by making that day,
according to Matthew, the day of the institution of the Supper) ;
on the other, to defend against Rome by the pen of Polycrates
the Asiatic celebration of the 14th, by representing it as
the Jewish Passover spiritualized, as the Christian feast of
redemption, the counterpart of the Israelitish deliverance in
Egypt, For the church of Asia, then, there was no question
of celebrating the 14th Nisan as the day of the institution of
the Supper, nor even, strictly speaking, as the day of Jesus'
death (in opposition to Steitz), The meaning simply was to
christianize the Jewish Passover, If, therefore, this observance
contains any homage to John's narrative, it is not so of itself
undoubtedly (for it has no direct relation to any particular
fact in the life of Jesus) ; but it is so from the manner in
which it was defended by Apolinarius on the one hand, and
Polycrates on the other, for this double apology rests entirely
on John's narrative,
1 So it comes about, as Schiirer rightly observes, that the name Easter
(P&ques) is applied at the present day to the day of the resurrection rather than
to that of the death.

OF THE DAY OF OUR LORD'S DEATH, 301
5, Tlie year of our Lord's death. — This year cannot be
regarded as finaUy fixed. Science stUl oscUlates between the
year 29 (Ideler, Zumpt) and 35 (Keim), or even 36 (Hitzig).
Yet, excepting the year 33 (Ewald, Renan), it is the year 30
which is condescended on at the present day by the majority
of savants (Winer, Wieseler, Lichtenstein, Caspari, and
Pressens^), It is the year which has always appeared to us
also to combine the largest sum of probabUities on its side.
Two astronomers, Wurm and Oudemann, have sought to de
termine which of those different years were those on which
either the 14th or the 15 th Nisan must have faUen on a
Friday. They have found that in the year 30 the Friday of
the Paschal week was the 15th, and not the 14th, This
result, unfavourable to our interpretation, has been re-examined
by Caspari, and he has attempted to show that Wurm's calcu
lation, rightly understood, far from overturning our thesis, con
firms it, and makes the 14th Nisan of the year 30 fall exactly
on the Friday. The important fact is, that we find ourselves
here face to face with the incalculable eventualities and
subtleties of the Jewish calendar, Wurm feels this himself:
he speaks simply of probabilities. He says also : " One wiU
not be greatly mistaken if he calculates thus." He acknow
ledges that there always reraains an uncertainty of one or
two days, which in this question are of capital importance
(Keim, pp. 498-500). It is therefore surer to operate on
positive texts, as we have done, than on grounds so precarious.
We think, consequently, that we may indicate Friday the 14,th
Nisan, the 'Jth April of the year 30, as the most probable
date of the death of Jesus,
Thus, then, no historical fact reaUy and duly attested lends
itself to falsify the solution which we have presented.
Ill,
Let us now cast a rapid glance at the other proposed solu
tions. 1st, The ideal explanation of Baur and his school: The
Johannine narrative is a fiction dictated on the one hand by
the desire, the real passion (Keim) of the pseudo- John, to pre
sent Christ as the Paschal lamb, and on the other hand by
the tendency to throw as much as possible into the shade the

302 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
Jewish Paschal feast, — But in thus putting hiraself in contra
diction to the tradition received in the Church and the ancient
Gospels, which had fuU authority within it, did not the forger
run the risk of coraproraising the entire success of his work ?
And that for nothing ; for the typical relation between Christ
and the Paschal larab was a point universally adraitted in the
second century, on the ground of 1 Cor. v, 7, xi, 24, 25, 1
Pet. i. 19, and the Apocalypse, and that abstracting from all
chronological connection between the slaying of the lamb and
the day of Christ's death. As to the Jewish Passover, it had
already given place everywhere in the second century to the
Christian Supper (Schiirer, pp. 29-34); it was no longer
necessary to reduce its importance,
2d. The interpretation of John which seeks to find in his
narrative a meaning ordinarily attributed to the Synoptics
(the death of Jesus fixed on the 15th Nisan). In spite of aU
the efforts of erudition and sagacity made by Hengstenberg,
Tholuck, Wieseler, Hofmann, Luthardt, Lichtenstein, Lange,
Langen, Riggenbach, Baumlein, Oosterzee, Ebrard, Kirchner,
and Rotermund, this explanation seems to conflict with the
clear and precise texts of John, and to succumb to their
force. 3d. Various attempts, tending either to put the IsraeUtish
Paschal feast forward by an evening, or to hold two feasts, the
one on the 14th, the other on the 15 th, of which Jesus chose
the forraer. The Jews this year held the Paschal feast a day
earlier (Eusebius and Chrysostom ; see Tholuck, p, 41) ; the
Jews made it a day later this year to avoid celebrating two
Sabbaths in succession (Friday, 15 th, and Saturday, 16 th), and
Jesus abode by the legal day (Calvin, Beza, Scaliger, Casau-
bon) ; the Jews celebrated the Paschal feast every year, and
legaUy on the evening between the 13 th and 14th, and not
the evening between the 14th and 15th (Frisch, Rauch);
Jesus on this occasion- followed the practice of some sect, the
Karaites, for example, who celebrated the Passover on the
evening between the 13th and 14th (Stier); in consequence
of the great number of lambs to be slain in the teraple from
three to six o'clock (sometimes more than 250,000, according
to Josephus), the Galileans (Ebrard) or the Jews of the Dias
pora (Serno) celebrated the feast the evening before the legal

OF THE DAY OF OUR LORD'S DEATH. 303
day, and Jesus joined them. But there is no contemporary
historical ground either in Josephus or Philo, or in the N, T.,
to support any one of these hypotheses whatever. And yet
if ours is rejected, one or other of them raust be accepted,
unless we take the desperate course to which sorae conderan
theraselves :
4th. That of admitting a contradiction pure and simple
between our Gospel narratives, and declaring it insoluble
(Liicke, Neander, Bleek, de Wette, Steitz, J. MiiUer). Comp.
also M, de Pressens^ {Vie de Jdsus, p. 593) : "We regard the
question up till now as insoluble, whUe holding John's
account to be entirely correct." Undoubtedly this would be
what should be done if the text of the Synoptics refused to be
harmonized with the latter. But how explain such a contra
diction on a point like this ?
To sum up, we think that the difference between John and
the Synoptics may be formulated and explained as foUows : —
In editing the oral tradition, the Synoptics contented them
selves, as it had done, with placing Christ's last Supper on the
first day of unleavened bread, without expressly distinguishing
between the first and second evening of that day. Now, as
Jesus had wished to give to this last feast, celebrated on the
evening of the 13th, the forms of the Paschal feast with the
view of connecting with it the institution of the Holy Supper,
while substituting the one of those sacred feasts for the other,
a misunderstanding might easUy arise ; it might be thought
that this feast had been the ordinary Paschal feast, a mistake
which would necessarily result in displacing the day of our
Lord's death by carrying it over to the 15th. John (as he
had done in so many other cases in his Gospel) wished to
rectify this misunderstanding and to dissipate the obscurity
of the Synoptics, which might give it countenance. He
therefore deUberately and clearly restored the real course of
things, to which, besides, the synoptical narrative bore testi
raony at aU points (corap. in raodern times : Krummel, Lit-
teraturblatt of Darmstadt, Feb. 1868 ; Baggesen, Der Apostel
Johannes, 1869 ; Andreae, Beweis des Glaubens, art. quoted).

EIFTH PAET.
XX. 1-29.
THE RESURRECTION.
TE WISH unbelief had at once consummated and condemned
itself in the trial and doom of Jesus. Now, the faith of
the disciples reaches its full expansion through the highest
earthly manifestation of the glory of Jesus — His resurrection.
John's narrative strilces out for itself a firra and sure way
through the soraewhat divergent narratives of the Synoptics,
and without effort gives us a glimpse of their harmony. In
a first piece (vv. 1—10), the evangelist relates how he himself
attained to faith in the resurrection. Then, in the three
following passages, he relates the appearances of Jesus by
which this same faith was prepared, then estabhshed, and at
last consummated in the apostolic circle. These are the
appearances to Mary Magdalene (vv. 11—18), to the apostles
on the evening of Easter day (vv. 19—2 3), and to the same,
including Thomas, eight days after (vv, 24-29),
I. Peter and John at the Sepulchre. — Vv. 1—10.
Everything in this first passage tends to the words of ver,
8 : " And he saw, and believed." The part of Mary Magdalene
is only that of the messenger who calls the two disciples to
the sepulchre,
Vv, 1-3. " Thefirst day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene
early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the
stone taken away from the sepulchre. Then she runneth, and
cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple whom Jesus
loved, and saith unto them. They have taken away the Lord out
of the sepulchre} and we know not where they have laid Him.
' X, some Mnn. It"""" Cop. Sah, add xro Tn; tupx; (from the door) before e»
TOU f/.vny.iio'j (X) or tov p/.vnpi.iiou. £04

CHAP. XX, 1-3. 305
Peter therefore went forth, and that other disciple, and came to the
sepulchre!' — In the phrase pia twv aa^^dTcov, there might be
given to the word o-a/S/Sara the meaning of Sabbath : "the first
day {p,ia) starting from the Sabbath." But Luke xviii. 12
proves that ad^^aTov or ad^^aTa signifies also the whole week,
as forming the interval between two Sabbaths, So : " the
first {pia) of the days of the week." The greater was the
deUverance which Mary Magdalene owed to Jesus (Luke
viii 2 ; Mark xvi 9), the raore fervent was her gratitude, the
more lively her attachment to His Person. John does not
mention the purpose which brought her to the sepulchre, and
which the Synoptics mention, that of embalming the Lord's
body. Did she come alone ? That is in itself far from pro
bable. A woraan would not have ventured to go alone to the
sepulchre at so early an hour. Besides, the Synoptics inform
us that her companions had the same intention as she had.
FinaUy, the verb in the plural : we know not, in ver, 2, indi
cates positively that she was not alone. If she only is
mentioned, it is because of the part which she plays in the
foUowing scene. Meyer objects the ovk oiSa, I know' not, of
ver, 13, and alleges that this singular counterbalances the plural
of ver, 2. A weak reason, which proves that if there is a
harmonistic partiality, there may also be an anti-harmonistio
passion. Alone with the angels, ver. 13, and naturally
enough not speaking with them, but in her own name, she
says here : " / know not} and not : " we know not ; " as she
says : " my Lord} and not : " the Lord " (ver. 2). Meyer
attempts to explain the plural : we know not, by saying that
Mary is speaking in the name of the Lord's disciples in general.
But why, then, bring in aU the believers here, not one of
whora, according to Meyer, attested the opening of the torab
with her ? Ewald and Luthardt hold that she arrived alone,
and that the other women foUowed her. But is it not simpler
to say that they came aU together, and that, as soon as from
a distance they saw the tomb open, Mary Magdalene made
haste to bring the disciples word, while her companions re-
inained in the vicinity of the sepulchre? When Mary
returned with Peter and John, her companions had already
gone back to the city. Comp. Luke xxiv, 22, 23 : "Certain
women of our corapany were early at the sepulchre, and when
GODET m. U JOHN.

306 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
they found not the body," etc, and Mark xvL 1-8, — There is
only a slight chronological difference between John, Matthew,
and Luke on the one side, who say -. " When it was yet dark}
or : "As it began to dawn} and Mark on the other, who says :
"At the rising of the sun." Perhaps there were several
groups of women, whom each evangehst combines in one. —
During Mary's absence, her companions approached the tomb
and received the angel's raessage, which is related by the
three Synoptics. As to the appearing of Jesus to the woraen
mentioned by Matt. xxviU. 9, 10, it is certainly no other than
the appearance to Mary Magdalene which is about to be
described by John himself. Other features detaUed coincide
perfectly. The first Gospel' applies to the whole group what
passed in the case of one of its members. Thus is to be
understood the account of Mark xvi. 1-8, and the words of
the two disciples of Eraraaus in Luke xxiv. 22, 23, implying
that the women had not seen the Lord. In fact, Mary Mag
dalene not having seen the Lord at the tomb tiU later, and
after the other women had returned to the city, the two
disciples of Emmaus had set out from Jerusalem without
having heard of this appearance. There were therefore in
reaHty no other appearances on the morning of that day than
that of the angels to the women and to Mary Magdalene, and
that of Jesus to the latter. There is no occasion for_the loud
cries which are uttered by criticism (Keim, iii. p. 530).
The repetition of the preposition ttjoo?, to the house of,
ver. 2, may lead us to conclude that the two disciples had
different homes, which is natural, if John Hved with his
mother and Mary the mother of Jesus. — The term ecpiXei,
loved, which has something more famihar in it than ¦qydtra,
is no doubt used here only as a designation, without par
ticular emphasis, Jesus Himself being absent. — The imp.
fjp')(ovTo, they were coming, were repairing, the fact pictured.
This imperfect of duration reflects the feeUng of inexpres
sible expectation which made the heart of the disciple and his
companion beat.
Vv. 4-7. "So they mn bath together: and the other dis
ciple ^ did outrun Peter, and came first to the sepulchre. And
he stooping down, seeth the linen clothes lying ; ^ yet went he
' X omits xm c xXXo; /txinTn;. ' X A X Syr. Cop, Sah, place xu/isvx after oSovix,

CHAP, XX, 8-10. 307
not in. Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went
into the sepulchre, and seeth the linen clothes lie} and the
napkin, that was about His head, not lying with the linen
clothes, hut wrapped together in a place by itself." — John, pro
bably younger and more agile, arrives first. But his eraotion
is so great that he stops at the entrance to the sepulchre
after looking in, Peter, of a raore masculine and practical
character, enters resolutely. These detaUs are so natural, and
so much in keeping with the personahty of the two disciples,
that they bear in themselves the seal of their authenticity.
They remind us of the detaUs of ch. i. — The pres, he seeth
(ver, 5) contrasts with the Aor, eame (ver, 4) ; the same con
trast reappears between the verbs he went into and he seeth
(ver, 6), John hereby brings out the contrast between the
single moraent of arrival, and the attentive and prolonged
examination which foUows it in either case. The Oecopel, con
siders, includes observation and reflection on the fact. This
linen displayed to view, did not lead to the supposition of a
removal ; the body would not have been taken away entirely
naked. The napkin especiaUy, wrapped together and care
fuUy put aside, attested not a precipitate removal, but a calm
and holy awakening. There was matter of reflection here for
the two disciples.
Vv, 8—10. " Then went in also that other disciple which
came first to the sepulchre, and he saw, and believed. For as
yet they knew^ not the scripture, that He must rise again from
the dead. Then the disciples went away again unto their
own home." — The singulars, he saw and he believed, are reraark
able, TUl now, the two disciples had been spoken of ; and
in ver, 9 the plural is resuraed: they knew not. What is
meant in such a context by these two verbs in the singular,
if they do not indicate an experience pecuHar to this dis
ciple ? Here is an incident in the author's inmost Hfe. He
initiates us into the way by which he reached faith in the
resurrection first of all, and then through it to complete
faith in Christ as the Messiah and Son of God. The idea
of beUeving cannot, in fact, refer solely, as some have thought,
^ X omits the end of ver. 5 from ou and aU ver. 6 (confusion of the two t. o.
xlii/.svx). " X It""' : viiu.

308 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
to the report of Mary Magdalene. On seeing the state of
the tomb and the position of the linen clothes, the disciple
arrived at this conviction : Jesus Uves. And perhaps this
is the explanation why there is no mention -of any particular
appearance of the Lord to His beloved disciple, whUe there
is mention of appearances to Peter and James. On the other
hand, we must not see in these two words, he saw and he
believed, an eulogy which in this case would rather be a boast.
They contain a reproach or, better stUl, a confession. For
the following verse proves that we must paraphrase : " he saw
and he beheved at length." John hiraself is amazed at the
state of ignorance in which he, like Peter, had been plunged
tUl then, in regard to the Scriptm-e prophecies announcing the
resurrection of the Messiah. He says rjBeiaav, which has the
meaning of the imperfect, not the pluperfect, "They knew
not} not even then ! It was the teaching of Jesus after His
resurrection which opened the disciple's eyes on this point, as
on so many others, Luke xxiv. 25-27 and 45.
As to Peter, the sight of the interior of the sepulchre did
not yet bring him to faith. To gain this result fuUy, there
was needed the Lord's appearance, which was granted him
that same day (Luke xxiv. 34 ; 1 Cor, xv, 5), — The paraUel
of Luke xxiv, 12 is probably nothing more than a gloss bor
rowed from John's narrative. And hence we make no use of
it, — This whole passage relating to the disciple whom Jesus
loved and to Peter, presents one of the raost striking instances
of the autobiographic character of our Gospel,
The Tiibingen school, followed in this by M, Renan aud
Strauss (in his second Leben Jesu), think that this narrative
is a fiction intended to place John in all respects on a
level with Peter. John, it is said, seeks systematicaUy " to
put himself above Peter " (M. Renan). How ? Because he
ascribes to himself more agile Umbs, but less courage ? Or
Peter and John personify, the one the carnal Christianity of
the Twelve, the other Johannine spiritual Christianity, How
so ? Does not John accuse hiraself of having required to
see in order to beUeve? Does not all this MachiaveUisra
ascribed to the evangelist vanish before the simple reading of
this narrative ? Is the sense of the true and pure reaUy
paralyzed in our critics ?

CHAP. XX. 11-13. 309
M. Colani sees in the words, ver. 9 : " they knew not the
scripture} a contradiction to the predictions of the resur
rection put into the mouth of Jesus by the Synoptics. If
those predictions were real, the evangehst would have said :
" they knew not the predictions of Jesus." ^ But John has
himself already explained to us (u. 22), that scripture was
the medium through which he came to understand the pro
phecies of Jesus regarding His Person : " When He was risen
from the dead . . . His disciples believed the scripture, and
the words which Jesus had spoken." And then John had
quoted no other prophecies regarding His resurrection than
that of ch. ii ; he was not, therefore, obUged to make special
aUusion here to such prophecies.
II, The Appearance fo Mary Magdalene. — Vv, 11-18.
Mary Magdalene has just been the messenger to the two
chief disciples announcing the empty tomb ; she is to become
to them and to aU the others the first herald of the Uving
Jesus. Vv. 11-13. "But Mary stood without at the sepulchre'^
weeping : and as she wept, she stooped down, and looked into
the sepulchre, and seeth two angels^ in white sitting, the one
at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus
had lain. And they say unto her. Woman, why weepest thou ?
She saith unto them, Because they have taken away my Lord,
and I know not where they have laid Him." — Peter and John
withdraw, the one meditating, the other already believing ;
Mary remains and weeps. Jesus, adapting His conduct, as
He always did, to the wants of each of His own, reveals
Himself to this suffering, loving soul. There is nothing to
prevent us from taking the partic. pres, KaOe^opevov;, sitting,
in its strictly grammatical sense. She sees the two angels at
the tune of their appearance. This fact does not contradict
the previous appearance of an angel to the women who had
first visited the torab. Angels are not immoveable and visible
' Jisus Christ et les croyances messianiques de son temps, p, 112,
" Instead of ^po; to fivn/mov, ABEGHLMaa, 60 Mnn, read vpo; tu
livfi/iuoi, X s» Toi poniiiiw (rejecting i%u with A ItP'«'i"« Syr. ).
* X omits Sm before ayyiXoos.

310 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
after the fashion of stone statues. — Mary answers the question
of the heavenly arabassadors as siraply as if she had been
conversing with human beings, so thoroughly is she pre
occupied with a single idea: to recover her Master. 'Who
would have invented a touch Hke this ?
Vv. 14-16, "And when she had thus said, she turned her
self hack, and saw Jesus standing, and knew not that it was
Jesus. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, why weepest thou ?
whom seekest thou ? She, supposing Him to be the gardener,
saith unto Him, Sir, if thou have borne Him hence} tell me
where thou hast laid Him, and I will take Him away.
Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith
unto Him} Rabboni; which is to say. Master!' — Mary, after
bending for a little over the sepulchre, raises herself and
turns round as if to seek Him of whom she is in quest.
His transition frora His former to His new life, without
destroying the identity of the body of Jesus, had yet
wrought a change. in His whole Person: He appeared ev
eTepa pop(f>fj, says Mark (xvi. 12), His own who saw Him
again had an experience something Hke that which passes
with us when we meet a friend after a long separation ; we
need a longer or shorter tirae to recognise hira, and the
simplest manifestation in such a case is often sufficient to
make the bandage fall from our eyes. — It has been asked
what garments Jesus wore, and it has been supposed that He
had borrowed the clothes of the gardener. Are this question
and answer in keeping with the conditions of the new exist
ence of the glorified Jesus ? — The most personal thing in
human manifestations is the sound of the voice ; it is thus
that Jesus makes Hiraself known to her. The tone which
the name Mary takes in His mouth expresses all that she is
to Him, and aU that He is to her. — It appears frora the word
aTpa<j)eiaa, turning herself back, that she had again fixed her
eyes on the tomb. For she was agitated, and sought first on
one side, then on the other. And now, at the sound of that
well-known voice, trembling with joy to the very depths of
her soul, she in turn puts aU her being into the cry : " My
Master I " and casts herself at His feet, seeking to clasp them,
^ ^ : II iru u 0 ^xffTXtrx;.
'XBDLOXad, 7 Mnn, ItP'=rii»« Syr. Cop. read i^pxi^Ti after xuto,.

CHAP, XX, 17, 18. 311
as is shown by ver. 17, — Rabboni, which, occurs only here and
in Mark x, 51, is a forra of the word Rabban. — The i is
either the < paragogic or the suffix my. In the second case,
it must have gradually lost its signification, which explains
why the evangelist does not translate it.
Vv, 1 7, 1 8. "Jesus saith unto her. Touch me not; for I am not
yet (xscended to my Father : ^ hut go to my brethren} and say
unto them, I ascend^ unto my Father, and your Father, to
my God, and your God. Mary Magdalene comes and tells^
the disciples that she had seen the Lord, and that He had spoken
these things unto her!' — If we put ourselves at the standpoint
of chs, xiv.— xvi., the words of ver. 17 do not present the
great difficulties which have been found in them. Jesus had
said: "Ye shall see me, hecause I go to my Father" (xvi, 16),
which meant that it would not be tUl after His ascension
and from the midst of His Divine glory that He would
re-form the tie which His death was about to sever. His
appearances as the Risen One were not therefore intended
to estabUsh the new state of communion between them and
Him, but to prepare for it, to render it possible by laying the
foundation of faith in the hearts of His own. This thought
explains the words : " Touch me not." "A-TTTeadai denotes a
touch intended not to hold the object {KpuTeiv), but to possess
or enjoy it : to attach oneself to. " It is not yet the time
for laying hold of me, as if my promise to return to you
were already accomphshed." According to Luke xxiv., Jesus
in one of His appearances uses this remarkable expression :
" While T was yet with you!' He is no longer with thera : He
only appears to them ; but soon He will be in them. Then
they wUl have Him anew. The regimen pov, me, is placed
before the verb, with a certain emphasis : " Me, as I am here
before thee in my human individuahty." In this sense, the
motive assigned by Jesus : "for I am not yet ascended . . .,"
is easily understood. " I have not yet reached the state by
means of which I shaU be able to live with you in the
communion which I promised you." Jesus does not use
the Aor. dve^rjv, which would signify : " I have not yet done
' X B D It"^' reject /^oo after vxTipx, and X D (/.ov after x^iXfov:.
^ X adds <Sao before xvx^xivai.
^ X A B I X : ayyiXXovrx for x-rxyyiXXouffX,

312 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
the- act of ascending." It is not an act which is in question,
but a state. Hence the perfect dva^e^rjKa: "I am not
yet in the state of one who has ascended ; I have not yet
acquired that supreme position which is the condition of
our mutual meeting," We can see by this denial of Jesus
that the disciples considered His death as having already
realized the promise which He had made to them of ascend
ing to the Father. Thus the resurrection disappeared; for
death becarae the ascension itself ; and if He was to reappear,
it raust be not as the Risen One, but as the Glorified One
descending from the bosora of the Father. For the notion
of the resurrection there was substituted that of a Parousia.
Such was undoubtedly the figurative sense which the disciples
instinctively had given to the resurrection promises related
by the Synoptics. The surprise which the resurrection caused
them is therefore perfectly compatible with the historic reaUty
of these promises. In opposition to aU these ideas, Jesus
declares that He is not yet ascended, but that now only He is
about to ascend. The resurrection is the first stage of His
glorification, of His return to the Father, which, far from being
finished, begins that very day (pres, I ascend).
As with the instant of His death His resurrection began
(xix, 34), so from the moment of the resurrection dates the
beginning of His ascension. Instead, therefore, of luxuriat
ing in this moment of possession, as if Jesus were really
restored to her, Mary must rise and go to teU the disciples
what is passing. "But go . . ." is opposed to the act of
staying to enjoy that which is about to be taken from her (as
from tbe two of Emmaus). The message with which Jesus
charges her for His own thus signifies : " From the tirae that
I shaU be in my state of glory, I shaU make you sharers
in it, and then nothing shall separate you more from me,"
Hence the expressions : " my brethren} and " my Fatlur and
your Father . . ." They bring out the indissoluble unity
which shall exist between thera and Him in the new state upon
which He is just entering. They shall be before God exactly
in the same position as Hiraself. Calvin and Hengstenberg
here refer to Ps. xxu. 23, where the Messiah, rescued from
His sufferings, exclaims : " / will declare Thy name unto
my brethren;" comp, also Matt, xxviii 10: "Go teU m.y

CHAP. XX 17, 18. 313
brethren!' He goes to prepare the place (xiv. 2, 3), to make
the heart of His Father and His God to be the heart of their
Father and their God, Col, ui 3 : "Ye are dead, and your
life is hid with Christ in God!' Jesus does not say: our
Father, our God, because God is not their Father, their God,
in the sense in which He is His. The word Father describes
filial intimacy ; the word God complete dependence. These
two features which have characterized the worship of Jesus
and His entire Hfe, while preserving in Him an exclusive
character, wiU henceforth be reflected in the life of His
own. Comp, Gal. iv. 6 : " Because ye are sons, God hath sent
forth the Spirit of the Son into your hearts, crying, Abba,
Father ! "
The explanation which we have just given is almost that
of Calvin,^ and approximates very nearly to that of de Wette,
Gerlach, and Luthardt, The principal divergent explanations
are : 1st, That of Beza, Bengel, and Hofmann : "Stay not to
touch me, but haste thee, go and teU . . ." But the foUowing
words : " I am not yet ascended} present absolutely no sense,
2d, That of Liicke and Hilgenfeld : " Do not worship rae ;
for I have not yet entered into my Divine glory {dineaOai in
the classical sense of diTTeaOat iroBwv, yovaTcov)!' But eight
days later Jesus accepts the worship of Thomas, 3d. That
of Neander : " Do not hold me thus ; I ara not disposed to
escape from thee." For this meaning KpdTei would be needed
rather than d-jTTov, and the explanation : " I am not yet
ascended} does not give a clear sense. 4th. That of Paulus,
Schleiermacher, and Olshausen : " My body is still suffering
from its wounds," or " is yet in a state of transformation ;
do not touch it." But that very evening Jesus invites His
disciples to touch Him (Luke xxiv. 39). 5th. That of
Meyer : " Do not touch me thus to be assured that I am
corporeally present ; I have not yet returned to the state of
pure spirit," But, in the Bible view, Jesus glorified does not
becorae pure spirit. 6th. That of Baur: "Do not detain
me ; for at this very moment I rise to ray Father," Baur
^ The meaning of these words is, that the condition of His resurrection wUl
not be at all full or perfect until He is seated at His Father's right hand, and
so that the women do wrong in that, contenting themselves merely with the
half of His resuiTection, they desire to have Him present in the world.

314 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
thinks that, according to our Gospel, the ascension raust be
placed on this very day, so that the foUowing appearance,
vv. 19-23, is posterior to that event. But there was no
reason in that case to begin with saying : "J am not ascended!'
It would be necessary to say immediately: "for I am
ascending." And how could the ascension have taken place
that day, when in the appearance of the evening, and in
that which took place eight days after, Jesus convinces His
disciples of His sensible presence in the midst of them ?
When the glorified Saviour appears to Paul, He does not say
to him : Touch me ! Jesus wishes, therefore, . to raise the
thoughts of Mary and His disciples from this passing re
appearance, which is only a means, to the permanent spiritual
communion which is the end, and of which His perfect
elevation to the Father is the yet uncompleted condition.^ —
This warning applies to all the visits which shall follow, and
is intended to console His own for the disappearances which
terminate them.
The pres. she comes (ver. 18) expresses in aU its vividness
the surprise produced among the disciples by Mary's arrival
and message. — The identity of this appearance with tbat related
by Matthew appears from the words : " Touch me not!' com
pared with these : " They held Him by the feet . . .;'' " Go
thou and tell my brethren} comp, with these : " Go ye and tell
my brethren." But what unprejudiced man could hold, with
some of our critics,^ that the scene in John is a poetical
ampHfication of the short narrative of Matthew enlarged with
some details from Mark and Luke ? Is it not plain, on the
contrary, that Matthew's account is only a vague and imperfect
summary of tradition, whUe John's description reproduces the
scene in all its primitive freshness and vividness ?
III. The First Appearance to the Disciples. — Vv, 19—23,
The Lord proceeds gradually in His self-revelation. The
appearance to Mary Magdalene, prepared for by that of the
angels, prepares in its turn, by the raessage confided to her for
¦¦ Keim for example, iii. p, 658: "The evangelist of Christian mysticism
borrows from Matthew the visit of Mary Magdalene to the sepulchre, aud the
message to the disciples ..."

CHAP, XX. 19, 20. 315
the disciples, for the appearing of Jesus in the midst of them.
Three manifestations of the Risen One took place during the
second haK of that day, the appearance to the two disciples of
Emmaus, that which was granted to St. Peter (Luke xxiv.
13-32, 34; Mark xvi. 12, 13), and that the account of
which we are about to consider. This one must be identical
with those related by Luke (xxiv. 36 et seq.) and Mark
(xvi 14) ; it took place in the evening, according to aU the
accounts. Vv. 19, 20. " Then the same day at evening, being the first
day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples
were ^ for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst,
and saith unto them. Peace be unto you. And when He had
so said. He showed unto them His hands and His side} Then
were the disciples glad, when they saw the Lord!' — The phrase :
" the doors were shut',' can only be meant to indicate the
miraculous way in which Jesus entered. Strauss goes the
length of declaring, in opposition to Schleiermacher, that it
needs a veritable induration against the real sense of the
Gospel text to maintain the contrary. Calvin and M, de
Pressense suppose that the doors opened miraculously (corap.
Acts xii 10). Yet the natural sense of the expression is that
the doors were and remained closed, and that Jesus appeared
rather than entered. In truth, the body of Jesus was stiU
that which had served Hira as the organ of His activity during
His Hfe (ver, 20); but, as is proved by His walking on the
waters, this body before His death was subject to the power
of the Spirit (vi, 16-21) ; and now it was still more assimi
lated to the nature of the spiritual or glorified body (1 Cor,
XV, 44), Now the characteristic of the latter is its being
subject to the free disposition of the Spirit, Hence the word
earrj, which occurs also in Luke's narrative : " He stood there}
without any one having seen Him enter. We can understand
the terror of the disciples and their supposition: it is a
spirit (Luke xxiv. 37). To this mode of appearing there
correspond the sudden disappearings (Luke xxiv, 3 1 : a<pavTo<;
iyeveTo). — The salutation of Jesus is the same in Luke and
John : " Peace be unto you." It is the ordinary Jewish forra,
' T. R. adds o-omij-^shm, omitted in X A B D I A, 6 Mnn. It""' Syr.
^ X A B D I : Tx; ^lipx; XXI Tnv ^Xlupxv xvtoi; ; A B : xxi tx; ^sipx;.

316 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
but serving here to express an entirely new thought. Jesus
invites His disciples to open their hearts to the peace which
He has just secured for them by His redeeming work, and
which He brings them as the Risen One. AU the painful
emotions through which they have passed, the fear which they
stUl feel, aU their former and present trouble, must give place
to complete serenity in the certainty that God is for them ;
comp, Eph. ii 17: " He came and preached peace!' — The
words: " When He had so said" (ver. 20), are intended to
bring out the relation between this prayer and the foUowing
act. To convince thera of the bodUy reality of His appearance
is to give thera, by the greatest of miracles, the transcendent
proof of Divine good-wUl toward their Master and toward
themselves. Besides, frora the moment they have satisfied
themselves of the identity of His Person, their terror is changed
not only into peace, but into joy.
Vv. 21-23. " Then said Jesus^ to them again. Peace be unto
you : as my Father hath sent me, even so send ^ / you. And
when He had said this. He breathed on them, and saith unto
them. Receive ye [the] Holy Spirit. Whosesoever ^ sins ye remit,
they are remitted * unto them ; and whosesoever sins ye retain,
they are retained!' — It is not only in regard to their past and
to them as behevers that Jesus wishes to comraunicate
peace ; it is also in view of their future and of their apostolic
caUing that He assures them of it. Hence the repetition of
the prayer : "Peace he unto you!' They must face their ministry
with that peace of reconcihation which they are to preach
to the world (2 Cor, v, 20), On the foundation of the work
accomphshed by Him, Jesus confers on thera the office (ver,
21b), then communicates to them the gift of the ministry, in
so far as He is able to do so in His present position (ver. 22) ;
and finally He reveals to them the greatness of the work which
they have to accomplish (ver. 23).
Strictly speaking, there is only one mission from heaven to
earth, that of Jesus. He is the Apostle (Heb, UL 1). That of
1 T. B. reads iwovs before -rxXiv, which is omitted by X D L 0 X ItP'"'i"»
Vg, Cop,
^ Instead of wip^^ot, X : vipjo'^ai ; D L 0 : xoroffTiXXo].
^ Instead of tivoiv, B It°"i: <rivo;.
'¦ The Mss. are divided between xfuvTxi, m T. E. with 11 Mjj. (E G I, etc.),
aud x<piuvTxi (A D L 0 X).

CHAP. XX. 21-23. 317
the disciples is embraced in His, and completes its realization.
Hence it comes that Jesus, when speaking of Hiraself, uses the
most solemn term direaTcCkKe : His is an embassy ; whUe in
passing to them He makes use of the simpler term trepTrco :
they are envoys.
As there is but one mission, that of Jesus, so there is but
one power, that of the Holy Spirit whom Jesus communicates.
The words: "when He had so said} serve, Hke ver. 20, to
connect the foUowing act closely with the preceding words.
After conferring the office, Jesus conveys the gift. There are
two extreme opinions as to the value of the act described in
this verse. According to Chrysostom, Grotius, and Tholuck,
it is simply a symbol, a proraise. But is this meaning com
patible with the imper. Xa/Sere, receive? There would be
needed : ye shall receive. This phrase imphes an actual com
munication. On the other hand, Baur aUeges that here is
Pentecost itself, so far as it was known to the evangehst.
But the absence of the article before irvevpa dyiov could not
well be explained in this sense. The natural meaning of the
words of Jesus is : " Receive an effusion of the Spirit." What
Jesus gives them is not a simple promise, but neither is it
the fulness of the Spirit ; it is an earnest. Raised Himself to
a degree of higher Ufe, He hastes to make them sharers in it
as far as that is possible. This communication is to the
resurrection what Pentecost wUl be to the ascension. As by
Pentecost He wUl initiate them into His ascension, so by
breathing on thera now He associates thera with His life as
the Risen One. Some commentators, M. Reuss for exaraple,
see here an aUusion to Gen. U, 7 : " The Lord breathed into his
nostrils the breath of life." Jesus would thus stand forth as
the author of the new spiritual creation which is to sanctify
and consuraraate the natural creation. But perhaps His
thought is rather related to the future than to the past, and
He raeans : " When the promised day shaU come on which
you shall feel the raysterious breathing, ye shaU recognise in
that breath of the Spirit the gift of your glorified Master."
What was the iraraediate fruit of that preparatory communica
tion, that anticipatory Pentecost ? Luke informs us when he
says (xxiv. 45) : " Then opened He their understanding, that
they might understand the Scriptures." The meaning of the

318 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
whole theocratic work and word was unveUed to them. It
may be said that the Gospel of St, Matthew is the fruit of this
first inspiration.
The commission and the gift point to a work to be reaUzed.
This work is presented in ver. 23 in aU its grandeur: it is
the salvation, or, if not, the conderanation of huraanity. Hence
forth raen wUl no more have to do, as in the Old Testament,
with a provisional pardon or a rejection which may be revoked.
With Pentecost, the world enters into the domain of absolute
and immoveable realities. It has been sought to Hmit the
meaning of the words used by Jesus in this verse to the offer
or declaration of pardon, as weU as to the threatening of dam
nation by the preaching of the Gospel But the words of
which He makes use involve positive action, real efficacy.
We only need to remember that the ministry of the word
(ver, 21) is carried out in the power of the Spirit (ver, 22),
It is this Divine force which through its human organ looses
or binds, removes or seals sin, Peter and Paul did not merely
speak to the world of salvation or daranation. They consum
mated the double work of the salvation of the GentUes and
the rejection of the Jews, and thus presented to the Church
the most striking example of the fulfilraent of these words.
Corap. Acts X. 34 et seq., xiu. 45 et seq., xxviii. 25 et seq.
The pres, d^ievTai (HteraUy, are pardoned) indicates a present
effect; the perf dcpecovTai, found in several Alexandrines,
would signify : " are and remain pardoned." This perfect has
probably been introduced to render this proposition sym
metrical with the foUowing {KeKpdTijvTai). The copyists did
not understand that, in the forraer case, a deed is in question,
which is accomplished at the instant when the Divine act
emancipates the believer; while, in the second, Jesus is speak
ing of a state which is the consequence of unbelief itself, and
which continues. The order of the two propositions indicates
that the first of those two effects is the true object of the
mission, and that the second is not destined to be reaUzed
save in those cases in which the first fails.
IV, Tlie Second Appearance to the Disciples. — Vv. 24-29.
A last leaven of unbeUef remained still in the circle of the

CHAP. XX. 24-27. 319
Twelve. It is rooted out, and the development of faith reaches
its goal in all the future witnesses of the Christ.
Vv. 24, 25. "But Thomas, one of the Twelve, called Didymus,
was not with them when^ Jesus came. When therefore^ the other
disciples said unto him, We have seen the Lord, he said unto
them. Except I shall see in His hands the print ^ of the nails,
and thrust my hand into His side, I will not believe." — On
BiBvpo<;, twin, see xi. 16. We have learned to know Thomas
from xi. 16 and xiv. 5 ; the impression made on him by his
Master's death does not surprise us. It could • not fail to be
that of deep discouragement. " I told Hira so," this no doubt
was what he kept repeating to hiraself. His absence on that
first day could not be without relation to that feeling of bitter
ness, and this is confirraed by the raanner in which he receives
the testimony of his brethren. There is tenacity even in the
form of his utterance, especially in the deUberate repetition of
his phrases. And so we need not hold, with Tischendorf, the
reading tottov, the place, instead of the second tvitov, the print;
this reading takes away precisely from the denial of the
disciple its marked character of obstinacy. Thomas does not
speak of the feet; this is perfectly simple in the circum
stances, and it is ridiculous to conclude from it, as some
commentators do, that the feet were not naUed.
Vv. 26, 27. "And after eight days again His disciples
were within, and Thomas with them : Jesus came, the doors
being shut, and stood in the midst, and said. Peace be unto you.
Then saith He to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold
my hands ; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my
side : and become not faithless, hut believing." — The disciples
spent the whole Passover week at Jerusalem; that was
natural At the utmost stretch, they might have set out for
GaUlee on the Sunday which foUowed the second Saturday
of the feast. What was it that detained them still on that
day ? Is it not aUowable to suppose that it was the fear
of abandoning Thomas, and of losing him if they left him
behind in the state of mind in which he had passed the
' X adds ouv after ots, and rejects it in ver, 25 after iXtyov.
* A I ItPi"*"" Vg, Syr. Or. read nmv (the place) instead of tvtov, and X: us
T»v x^'fi'' (^'c) oouTou (except I put my finger into His hand, and except I put my
hand into His side).

320 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
week ? — In His salutation Jesus includes this disciple also ;
nay, it is to him that He addresses it speciaUy, for he is the
only one who does not yet enjoy the peace which faith gives.
— The almost literal reproduction of the disciple's rash words
is intended to make him blush at the grossness and carnality
of such exactions. — ^By the expression : " become not} Jesus
gives him to understand that he is now at the critical point
at which the two routes diverge : that of decided unbeUef, and
that of perfect faith.
Vv. 28, 29. "Thomas answered^ and said unto Him, My
Lord and my God. Jesus saith ^ unto him, Because thou
hast seen me} thou hast believed: blessed are they that have
not seen} and yet have believed." — What produces so pro
found an impression on Thomas is not merely the conviction
of the reality of the resurrection, but also the proof of
omniscience which the Lord gives him by repeating the words
which he thought he had uttered in His absence. And it is
this immediate contact at once with the Divine attribute
of omniscience, and with victory over death, which inspires
him with the cry of adoration which goes forth from his
heart. This scene recaUs that of Nathanael (ch, i,). As in
the case of that disciple, the light shines at this supreme
raoraent with sudden splendour to the very depths of Thomas'
soul; and by one of those reactions frequent in the moral
Hfe, he rises at a single bound from the lowest depths of
faith to its very pinnacle, and proclaims the divinity of his
Master in a more categorical form than had ever passed
from the Hps of any of his coUeagues. The last becomes for
the time the first, and the faith of the apostles, as pro
fessed by Thomas, attains at length to the full height of the
Divine truth formulated by the prologue. It is in vain for
Theodore of Mopsuestia and others to attempt to apply to
God, and not to Jesus, Thomas' cry of adoration. In that
case, it should not be elTrev avTm, " he said to Him ; " and
the word my Lord can only refer to Jesus. To this the
' 7 Mjj. (X B C D I, etc.) ItPi^'i™ reject xxi before x^nxpih.
^ Instead of Xiyti, X : s/«» Ss.
' All the Mjj. 150 Mnn. It. Syr, reject s«^« after loopxxx; poi. Instead of
it, X reads xxi.
* X Syr, readjtis after i^ovts;.

€HAP. XX, 28, 29. 321
monotheism of Thomas is objected. But it is for the
very reason that* the disciple understands that henceforth he
bears toward Jesus a leeUng which transcends aU that can
be accorded to a creature, that he is forced by his very
monotheism to place this being in the heart of Deity. — The
objective validity of this feehng in Thomas is attested by
the manner in which Jesus receives the expression of it. The
Lord does not repress this outburst, like the angel of the
Apocalypse, who says to John : " Worship God." He answers,
on the contrary : " Thou hast believed." In an article of the
Lien (May 1869), it is objected that this approving answer
relates not to the exclamation : " my God} but to his faith
in the fact of the resurrection. But the two convictions of
the resurrection of Jesus and of His Divine character are
absolutely confounded in the impression of Thomas : the one
is involved in the other; and it is this faith with its full
object, as Thomas has just expressed it, which Jesus haUs.
Otherwise he could easUy have removed the alloy while
preserving the pure gold.
The perf Treirla-TevKa^ does not signify merely : Thou hast
performed an act of faith, but : Thou art henceforth in posses
sion of complete faith. These words, Hke those of Jesus to
Nathanael, i 50, and to the disciples, xvi, 31, may be taken
as an affirmation. But Meyer observes, not' without reason,
that the side of rebuke emphasized by the words : " because thou
hast seen} comes out better with the interrogative form. In
the last words Jesus describes the entirely new character of
the era which is beginning, the era of a faith which shall
have to content itself with the apostolic testiraony, without
claiming, like Thoraas, to check it with its own eyes,' The
words thus close the history of the development of faith in
the apostles, while opening the history of the Church. . Baur
aUeges that Jesus is here contrasting with faith in external
facts that which seeks its contents only in itself, in the idea
of which it is henceforth fully conscious. It is easy to see
that vv, 30 and 31 are entirely opposed to this view. And
so Baur declares them interpolated, though they are not
wanting in any document. The contrast which Jesus indi
cates is that between a faith which, to accept the miraculous
fact, insists on seeing it, and a faith which consents to accept
GODET IIL X JOHN.

322 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
it on the foundation of testimony. In the first way, faith
would be possible for the world only on condition of miracles
being renewed unceasingly, and appearances of Jesus being
repeated to every individual. Such was not to be the course
of God's operation on the earth, and hence Jesus calls those
blessed who shall believe by the solitary means of that faith
to which Thomas insisted on adding the other. — The Aorist
participles lB6vTe<;, ¦KiaTevaavre'i, are taken from the stand
point of one who places himself at the goal of the development
of the Church, and casts his eyes backwards on the way
in which all the glorified have attained to faith, and thereby
to Hfe (ver. 31).
These words of Jesus, which indicate the goal of the
development of faith in the apostoUc circle, and the point of
departure for the history of faith on the earth, are the normal
conclusion of a Gospel Uke John's, which rests on this
thought: the manifestation of the glory of Jesus producing
on the one hand unbelief, which separates frora God, and on
the oihQY faith, which unites to Him.
Of the Resurrection of Jesus.
Here, as Strauss says, is " the decisive point at which the
naturalistic school must retract all its previous assertions,
or succeed in explaining faith in the resurrection without
bringing in a corresponding miraculous fact."^ It is no
longer possible to have recourse to the customary expedients,
" the secret forces of spontaneity," " the contact of an exquisite
person," etc. For no human being took part in the resur
rection of Jesus, If He really left the tomb after being, laid
there dead, it was indubitably Divine power which broke
forth in this central fact of history ; and, as Peter says, " God
hath raised up Jesus!' "What, do you think it impossible that
God should raise the dead ? " asked St. Paul of King Agrippa
and the Governor Festus. — Yes; for it is contrary to the
laws of nature, — But if the laws of nature were in this
case the very element ordering the fact which you deny
in their name ? Does not the same natural law, in virtue
of which sin separates from God and kiUs, require that
» Das Leben Jesu, 1864, p. 288,

OF THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS. 323
hoUness should unite to God and vivify ? Is not this
moral effect as necessary as the physical effect of whole
some nourishment to strengthen the body, or of a poisoned
drink to destroy it? If Jesus was free from aU sin, and
supported Himself here below only on holiness, if He lived
on God (John vi. 57), is not life the crown which should
await this bold, this unequaUed conqueror at the close
of His career? And if, to fulfil the law which condemns
sinful humanity. He gives Himself up voluntarUy to death,
will not this blow, faUing upon a nature perfectly sound,
both moraUy and physically, and reaching it only from
without, raeet, — wiU it not awake even, in this exceptional
organism powers of reaction which are also exceptional, and
from which Divine power will draw forth Hfe as legitimately
and necessarily as death is evolved from the action of sin ?
Certain symptoms in the body of Jesus betrayed, as we have
seen, an unexampled vital reaction at the moment when
dissolution coraraences in every other body. And that loud
final cry with which He gave up His life and left it, not to
be wrung from Him like the sinner, is another evidence, at
once physical and moral, of an exceptional state fitted for the
triumph of life over death, strength over weakness.
In these circumstances, then, the laws of physical and
raoral nature, far from protesting against the resurrection of
Jesus, imperiously demand it.
Is it possible ? If it is moraUy necessary, it raust be
possible, unless we are to affirra an irreconcilable dualism
between being and virtue, which would be the destruction of
monotheisra. The essence of being, and consequently also
of matter, is wiU; and as the law of the Divine will is
virtue, it cannot be allowed that any part of being whatever
escapes frora the law of virtue. The will which made matter
appear in relation to free being did not abdicate its power
in relation to it, but reserved to itself the means of always
ruling it and making it subserve the education and final
destiny of free being, " Every historian," says Strauss, " should
. possess philosophy enough to be able to deny miracles here as
well as elsewhere," " Every true philosopher," we shall reply,
" should be sufficiently initiated into the secrets of history to
understand the possibility of a miracle here as elsewhere.''

324 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
There are four ways of getting rid of the miracle of the
resurrection of Jesus Christ : —
1st. The oldest and simplest is to suppose a fraud on the
part of the apostles, they in some way or other making the
body of Jesus disappear (Matt, xxviii, 12-15), This is the
plan to which the Jews who devised it had recourse, and
following thera Celsus, the Wolfenbilttel Fragments, and others.
It is positively rejected by Strauss, A premeditated decep
tion is indeed incompatible with the discourageraent into
which the disciples were plunged after the death of Jesus,
and with the triumphant faith which they drew during their
whole ministry from the conviction of their Master's resur
rection. 2d. The second plan consists in asserting that Jesus was
not entirely dead when He was laid in the torab, and that
the vital force was reawakened by the influence of the spices
and of the coolness of the sepulchre. Paulus and Schleier
macher are the chief defenders of this hypothesis. Frora
this point of view, the appearances of Jesus are real, but
natural facts. Strauss has disposed of this hypothesis also.
How, indeed, could Jesus appear in a room the doors of
which were closed ? How, after a punishment like that of
the cross, could He make a long journey on foot with the
disciples of Emmaus, to disappear suddenly thereafter, and
reappear in the evening at Jerusalem ? How, some days
later, could He undertake the journey to GalUee ? But above
aU, how could a half-dead being who had dragged Himself
miserably from the tomb, whose life depended on every sort
of care and nursing, and who after some time could not fail
to succumb to His sufferings, have been able to produce on
His disciples the impression of a conqueror of the grave, a
Prince of life ? How could such a sight have transformed
their sadness into enthusiasm, their confidence into adora
tion ? Here is puzzle which no serious historian wUl ever
explain. 3d, The third and boldest plan is to acknowledge that
the disciples believed in the resurrection, that without this
faith the founding of the Christian Church was an impos
sibility, but to explain this faith by a purely mental
phenomenon, a series of hallucinations in the holy women

OF THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS. 325
and in the disciples. " No one in reality,'' says Strauss,^ " was
a witness of the fact of the resurrection." Besides, none of
our Gospels being authentic, we have not a single directly
apostohc testimony. And then the accounts of the different
appearances contradict one another in our Gospels. Finally,
the notion of the risen body of Jesus presents contradictory
characteristics ; on the one hand it is raised above the laws
of space and gravity, and on the other it can assimUate honey
and fish. It must therefore be held that, in consequence of
a morbid disposition of Mary Magdalene, and of a state of
exaltation produced in the disciples by their return to Galilee,
in the places where they had lived with Jesus, His meraory
reawoke in their hearts with extraordinary vividness, and
became transformed into visions. They believed they saw
Him, heard Him, touched Him ; and this Ulusion produced
the sarae moral effect on them as would have been produced
by the objective fact. — Of course the date of the third day,
indicated by the narratives, is not historical ; w;e are to regard
it oiUy as a misapplication of a proverbial phrase and of
some Scripture expressions. As to the body of Jesus, it was
cast on the dunghUl Uke those of the two malefactors ; and
when, six weeks later, at Pentecost, Peter for the first time
publicly proclaimed the resurrection, it was impossible to use
it to undeceive the disciples and annul the powerful effect of
their testimony, — Such is the explanation of Strauss, shared
in its leading features by Baur and M. Renan.
That the fact of the resurrection had no iraraediate witness
is certain ; but if the appearances of the Risen One are estab
lished, this proves nothing against the fact itself, — If even it
were true that we are not possessed of any authentic Gospel,
we should not be without aU direct apostolic testimony to it.
Does not the Apocalypse, in which Strauss recognises the
work of John, put into the mouth of the glorified Jesus the
foUowing words : " I was dead, and, behold, I am alive. . . . I
have the keys of hell and of death" (L 18); "These things
saith He who was dead amd is alive " (ii. 8) ? Besides, Strauss
acknowledges that the apostolic preaching which founded
tbe Church implies faith in the resurrection. The passage
1 Cor. XV. 1—1 1 would prove it unanswerably ; for it ranks the
' Das Leben Jesu, 1864, p. 602 et seq., pp. 312, 316 et seq., and elsewhere.

326 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
testimony of the Twelve to this fact among the fundamental
points of tradition proceeding from their lips, and that at a
time when Peter, John, and the most of the Twelve were yet
alive and preaching (1 Cor, ix, 5), — Divergences of detail
between the Gospel narratives serve only to bring into brighter
light their substantial rmanimity, and, as Reuss says {Histoire
ivangilique, p, 698), to prove that the faith of the Church
on this point is not "the product of an arbitrary and con
ventional combination ; " for in this case, certainly, " men
would have come to a uniform and stereotyped report." The
differences are easily explained, if account is taken of the
special circumstances which deterrained the mode of each of
our Gospel narratives, Matthew's, agreeably to the character
of his whole narrative, is suraraary as to its history, and airas
solely at the proclaraation of the Messiah and the royal
instructions addressed by Jesus to the Twelve in His last
discourse (Matt, xxviii. 18-20). These words are the counter
part of the first word of the book (i, 1) : " Jesus the Christ,
the son of David, the son of Abraham!' They show the
programme drawn in this preface as realized: Jesus as
the Jewish Messiah, and at the same time as the Saviour of
all the families of the earth. As such, Jesus charges His
apostles to make the conquest of the world in His name, by
preaching and baptism. The fact of the resurrection is estab
lished by the appearing ; this is all that was needed in this
narrative. The historical deUneation is only the frame de
signed to contain the teaching on which the mission is based.
Luke's narrative has also in this last part a very abridged
character, g,s is shown by tbe words : "And He saith unto
them} frequently repeated without any indication of the
precise situation, which is contrary to aU Luke's antecedents.
The reason of this fact, different from that which concerns
Matthew, is, that the author proposed to give all historic
detaUs in opening the second volume of his work, the Book
of Acts, As to Mark's Gospel, the conclusion of his treatise
is wanting, — The contradictions which are pointed out between
the different characteristics of the risen body of Jesus fall to
the ground if account is taken of the words of Jesus Himself :
" I ascend} dva^aivco (xx, 1 7), It is a transition time, during
which our Lord's body in certain respects still belongs to the

OF THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS, 327
present 6rder of things, and yet already possesses, in a certain
measure, the qualities of the spiritual body ; that is to say, a
body which has as its principle of life not a human soul
merely, but the Spirit (1 Cor, xv. 44, 45), We must acknow
ledge, besides, the mystery which siich a state presents, a
mystery on which we have no experimental datum.
The hypothesis of Strauss himself is beset with difficulties
otherwise insurmountable.^ 1. The first question, supposing a
hallucination on the disciples' part, is, What became of the
Lord's body ? " It was cast to the dunghiU," says Strauss, or, as
others express theraselves, friends and enemies left it neglected.
But the fact is, that our biblical accounts are unanimous in
relating that it remained in the hands of friends of JeSus, and
the Roman law is perfectly in keeping with this mode of pro
cedure. If it is so, the supposition of haUuoinations becomes
impossible ; they must have vanished in presence of the dead
body. We should thus have to return to the hypothesis of
fraud, which Strauss himself had so vigorously set aside.
But if it is alleged, despite the unaniraity of the records, that
the body reraained in the hands of the eneinies of Jesus, how
did they not use it to bring those poor raisguided minds to
reason ? For if it was at Pentecost that Peter preached for
the first time, it was nevertheless from the third day that the
conviction of the resurrection sprang up in the disciples.
This date is established not only by the four records, which
diverge on so many other points, but also by the positive
declaration of Paul, 1 Cor. xv. 4. So he had learned the fact
from the lips of Peter and James (Gal, i 18, 19), To escape
this date, and to endeavour to form a gulf between the faith
of the disciples and the terrible instrument of conviction
deposited so near them at Jerusalem, Strauss makes them flee
to Galilee on the day of the death or the day after, and
there give themselves up to the dreams of their imagination.
But this is a pure romance. According to all the accounts,
the first appearances took place at Jerusalem, ahd that even
according to Matthew, the most Galilean of the evangelists ;
' Some of them have been vigorously exposed by Keim (iii. pp. 594-602),
though there is an unmistakeable desire in this critic not to close this retreat
against himself absolutely, if his present position (see below) should become
scientifically untenable.

328 GOSPEL OF JOHN,
comp. xxviii. 1-10, If so, the disappearance of the body can
only be explained by the voluntary leaving of His tomb by
Jesus, and the faith of the disciples only by this mode of
disappearance. 2, The idea of a haUucination is incompatible with the
disciples' state of mind. None of them expected the return of
the body to life. The woraen repaired to the sepulchre to
embalm it. The disciples shared their feeling. Now, haUu
cination can only be the fruit of expectation, the child of
desire. If the disciples expected anything, as we have seen,
it was the heaveidy reappearance of Jesus glorified. It is
with this meaning that the two of Emmaus say : " And this
is now the third day" (Luke xxiv. 21); and the thief: "Re
meraber rae when Thou comest into Thy kingdom " (xxiii. 42).
Such, without doubt, is the application which the disciples
had sought to give to the promises of Jesus in relation to His
resurrection. As to the return of His body to a terrestrial
existence, no one had a glimpse of it. They expected the
Parousia, not the resurrection. Now, in this disposition of
raind, how would they have interpreted simple haUucinations
as bodily appearances ? They would rather have done the
very reverse, that is to say, interpreted real appearances as
simple spiritual visions. And is not this what they really do
when they believe that they see in Jesus who has appeared a
pure spirit, and when Jesus endeavours to convince them of
the contrary, and rebukes thera on this point for their unbelief ?
(Matt. xxvuL 17; Mark xvi 11-14; Luke xxiv. 25, 26, 37,
38, 42,43; John xx, 20, 27,)
3, If there was nothing in question but simple subjective
visions, it would be necessary to hold a real contagion, a
nervous epidemic, which, origuiating with one or two of the
faithful, Mary Magdalene and Peter, had gradually spread to
the whole community, and finally issued in the most incon
ceivable paroxysm, in a hallucination not only of two or eleven,
but of five hundred persons simultaneously (1 Cor. xv. 6),
This supposition is improbable enough in itself, and Keim
rightly meets it by pointing to the calm self-possession, the
thoroughly practical energy of wiU, all the signs, in fine, of
a perfectly sound intellectual and moral disposition, which
characterized the founders of the early Church, and which are

OF THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS. 329
incorapatible with a state of visionary and morbid excitement.
We could understand a time of intoxication being succeeded
by coolness. But the simultaneousness of the two opposite
states is moraUy impossibla
4. The very nature of the appearances is irreconcilable
with the idea of purely subjective visions. If the object con
templated were sorae lurainous appearance floating between
heaven and earth, and soon vanishing into the azure of the
sky, one raight be forced to explain it by a haUucination,
though it would be difficult to understand how it could be
coramon to various persons. But we have to do with a per
sonage who shows Himself very near, who invites men to
touch Him, who gives distinct orders to gather, for example,
on a mountain which is naraed, to baptize the nations, to
preach the gospel to every human creature, to remain frora
that day forward at Jerusalem, etc, who has detailed conver
sations with the two of Emmaus, with Thomas, Peter, etc.
Here we have a series of instructions and promises which,
though scattered through the four records, forra a whole which
has admirable appropriateness and gradation.^ HaUucination
is not compatible with features so particular and precise. It
is absolutely necessary to charge the narratives with being
legendary, and even fictitious. But what, then, are we to say
of Paul, who, during the lifetime of the apostles, alludes to
them in the most express manner ? (1 Cor. xv.)
5, But the last and greatest difficulty is that which Keim
first brought out prominently : the sudden end of those aUeged
visions. At the end of a few weeks, — after eight or nine
appearances,^ which Paul, foUowing oral tradition, counts, so
to speak, on his fingers, and to which the narratives of our
evangelists perfectly correspond, — on a well-raarked day which
the Church designates by the name of the Ascension, the
excitement all at once calras down. Those 500 visionaries
have suddenly returned to coolness. The Montanist excitement,
^ Comp. the fine development of this remark iu Gess, Christi Zeugniss, etc. ,
pp. 198-204,
' Four on the first day (Mary Magdalene, the two of Emmaus, Peter, and
the eleven) ; one eight days after (Thomas) ; three during the following weeks
(on the shore of the lake of Gennesaret ; on the mountain in Galilee, pro
bably the same as that mentioned by Paul to the 500 ; and James) ; the last
(ascension).

330 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
though much less creative, lasted a whole half-century. . . .
Here, at the end of six weeks, everything returns to order.
For it is evident that the visions of Peter and Paul in the
sequel of the Acts — except that on the way to Damascus,
which fills a place by itself — do not belong to the same
category ; they have no relation to the earthly existence Of
Jesus. They are not signs of His victory over death, but
manifestations proceeding frora the midst of His heavenly
glory. As to the appearance of the Risen One, it is as if a
charm had been broken. They take end for ever. The fact
is incomprehensible, unless an external fact controlled both
those few strictly-counted manifestations and their sudden
cessation. — The hypothesis of visions is therefore as untenable
as the preceding. M. Reuss rightly says : " Recourse to a
visionary illusion is impossible, in view of the universality
and firmness of the convictions within the Church" (p, 701).
4th, Keim has advanced another explanation already pro
posed by Weisse and defended by Fichte (the son) : The
appearances of the Risen One are true and real manifesta
tions of Jesus, as glorified Spirit, to the spirit of the disciples.
The objectivity which the preceding explanation denied to the
appearances is granted to them in this, which at the same
time accounts more easily for the small number of those
miraculous facts, and for their prompt and abrupt cessation. —
It may be said that as the apostles, in- their expectations,
substituted the Parousia for the resurrectiou, Keim's hypothesis
identifies the resurrection with Pentecost. For what is the
work of the Spirit, except the spiritual revelation of Jesus
glorified to the hearts of believers ? There is here a fii'st step
in the way of return to the explanation which the Church has
always given of the fact. But this step is not enough, and that
for the following reasons : 1st. This hypothesis does not explain
any better than the preceding the disappearance of the body
of Jesus and the empty tomb. 2d. What are we to think of
Jesus, who, being pure spirit, ate before His disciples and
called them to feel Him with their hands, to prove to them
that He was not pure spirit ; of Jesus, who, being pure spirit,
rebukes them for their unbelief, which leads them to thinlc
that they have to do with a pure spirit ! 3d. How could
the disciples, so little expecting a resurrection properly so

OF THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS. 331
called, have come to substitute for those purely spiritual
visions the idea of bodily appearances ? Keim's hypothesis
succumbs to these insoluble contradictions, — We shall take
up the two theatres of the appearances (Judea and Galilee)
when we corae to deal with the fact related in the following
chapter, Strauss had the good sense to acknowledge, that without
the faith of the apostles in the resurrection of Jesus the
Church would never have been born. We think we raay add
with no less truth, that without the fact of the resurrection,
the faith of the apostles in that event would never have been
born.

THE CONCLUSION.
XX. 30, 31,
THE evangelist here closes his narrative ; for he tells
his reader of the way in which he has proceeded in
composing it (ver. 3 0), and of the aim of his work (ver. 3 1).
How are we to explain this so abrupt termination ? If his
aira had been to write the history cf Jesus, could he rationally
close his narrative with the conversation between Jesus and
Thomas ? Evidently not ; this termination has no meaning
except in so far as this conversation, with the exclamation in
which it ends and the declaration of Jesus which foUows it,
is in close and essential connection with the purpose which
has prevailed throughout the whole narrative — with the very
idea of the book. This cannot be understood unless we acknow
ledge that the author's purpose was to describe the development
of the disciples' faith and of his own. It is obvious in this
case that the exclamation in whicli Thomas at length pays
homage not only to the Messiahship, but to the personal
divinity of Jesus, is the normal close of such a work, as the
first testimony of John the Baptist relative to the Person of
Jesus, and which resulted in the visit paid to the Lord by
John and Andrew, was from this standpoint its equally normal
comraenceraent. The birth of faith was the starting-point of
the narrative, the consummation of faith must be its close.
We need not therefore wonder at not finding in such a
Gospel the account of the ascension, any more than at not
finding that of the baptism of Jesus. Both of these events lie
bej'ond the limits which the author has marked out for hiraself,
the one on this side, the other on that. And it is easUy seen
how unfounded are the consequences which have been drawn
from this sUence by an unwise criticism, whether in the way
of disputing the author's faith in these events, or the reality
£.32

CHAP, XX, 80, 31. "333
of the facts themselves,^ If John beUeves in the reality of
the bodUy resurrection of Jesus, — and the preceding chapter
leaves no doubt on this head, — and if he cannot have thought
that this ¦ raised body was anew subjected to death, there
remains only one possibility, namely, that he ascribed to it
as its mode of departure the ascension, as this was held by
the whole Church. This is further proved by the words which
he puts into the mouth of Jesus, vi 62 and xx, 17, And this
would be proved if need were by his very silence, which
excludes every other supposition. — The author's declaration
about his method (ver. 30) and about his aim (ver. 31) is in
harmony with this view.
Vv. 30, 31. "And many other signs truly did Jesus in the
presence of His disciples} which are not written in this hook :
but these are written, that ye might believe^ that Jesus is the
Christ, the Son of God ; and * that believing ye might have life
through His name!' — It is not a complete picture of what he
has seen and heard that John meant to draw. From the mass
of facts which he acknowledges to be true, and part of which
already form the subject of other works than his, he has set
himself to make a selection appropriate to the object which
he has in view, — The particle pev oSv, it is true, might be
paraphrased thus : " There may be wonder, no doubt, that from
a life so rich as that of Jesus I have related only so smaU a
number of facts. But these suffice for the end which I have
had in view," How, with this declaration of the author before
us, can serious critics argue thus : John omits — therefore he
denies or knows not !
The facts which he has omitted differ from those whicli he
has adopted in his narrative not only as to quantity {TroXXd,
in great number), but also as to quality {dXXa, other). Conse
quently, if he has not given speciraens of all the kinds of
miracles, — if, for example, he has not related cures of lepers or
of possessed persons, it wiU be positively in opposition to his
intention to conclude frora this silence that he raeant thereby
^ Keim, iii, p. 616 : "John knows nothing of a visible ascension, though
Jesus speaks once of it in one of His sayings (vi. 62). "
2 AuTou is omitted by A B E K S A, 12 Mnn.
^ X B : oriffTiut]T£ instead of ^urTivffviTt.
* X omits XX, .before ivx, and with C D L T"*, 12 Mnn, It"""!, adds xio,v„v to
^oir,t.

334 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
to deny them, — According to many commentators, from
Chrysostom to Baur, the words : " the signs which Jesus did}
denote merely the appearances related in the foregoing
chapter as signs or proofs of the resurrection; whence it
would follow that these vv. 30 and 31 are the conclusion not
of the Gospel, but only of the account of the resurrection.
This opinion is incorapatible, 1st, with the term iroielv, to
do: an appearance is not done; 2d, with the epithets many
and other : the appearances were not so numerous and diverse;
3d, with the expression in this book, which shows that the
contents of the whole book, and not of one of its parts,
are in question. — Why does John refer only to the signs
and miracles, and not also to the discourses which he has
related ? No doubt because the discourses are usuaUy in
this Gospel the raere expansion of the ralracles which serve
as their theme.
The phrase : " in the presence of His disciples} brings out the
part assigned to the Twelve in the foundation of the Church.
They were the chosen witnesses of the works of Jesus not only
with a view to their personal faith, but also with a view to
the establishing of faith throughout the whole world ; comp.
XV. 26, and Acts i. 21, 22. The position of the word tovtco
after ^ijSXla {this hook) gives it peculiar force, which, whatever
Luthardt may say, seems to indicate an aUusion to other
/StySXt'a {hooks) which already contain the things omitted in this
one. The phrase, thus understood, harmonizes with all the
proofs which we have found of the acquaintance which John
already had with our Synoptics. If it is so, the apostle in
these words ratifies the contents of those Gospels anterior to
his own, and gives it to be understood that he merely wished
to complete thera in certain respects.
But if his method did not consist with writing as coraplete
a history of the ministry of Jesus as possible, what end then
had he in view? Ver. 31 answers the question. He has
related what he thought best fitted to guide his hearers to the
faith which fills himself And for this end, as we have shown,
he has siraply selected from the life of his Master those facts
and testimonies which had most powerfully contributed to
the formation and strengthening of his own faith. From this
selection sprang the Gospel of John. When he says ye, the

CHAP. XX. 30, 31. 335
apostle addresses certain known Christians; but they, as Luthardt
says, represent the whole Church, They believe already, no
doubt, but faith ought always to be making progress, and at
every step the previous faith appears as no longer deserving
the name of faith (see ii. 1 1 and elsewhere). — The position of
ia-Tiv, is, in the text, can only be rendered by our translation :
"is really." John characterizes Jesus, so far as He is the
object of faith, so as to remind us of the two phases which
we have observed in the development of his own : first the
Christ, and then the Son of God. The first of these terms
refers to the fulfilment of the prophecies and of the theocratic
hope. It was in this character that the faith of the disciples
had first welcomed Him (i 42, 46). The solemnity with
which this notion of the Messiah is referred to in this verse,
which is a summary of faith, absolutely sets aside the idea of
any tendency in the author of the fourth Gospel hostile to
Judaism. But the acknowledgment of the Messiah in Jesus
was only the first step of apostolic faith. From this John and
his colleagues were soon raised to a more subUme conception
of Him in whom they had believed. In this Messiah they
recognised the Son of God. The first title referred to His office ;
the latter refers to the Divine character of His Person. Especially
from ch. v. of our Gospel does this new light begin to pene
trate the souls of the disciples, under the influence of the
declarations of Jesus. It reached its consummation in the
words of Thomas : " My Lord and my God} which has just
closed the Gospel. — If John desires by his narrative to make
his readers sharers of this faith, it is because he knows by
experience that it gives life: "that believing ye might have life!'
By receiving Jesus as the Son of God, the heart is opened to
the Divine fulness with which He is Himself filled, and man
enters into that perfect communion with God which is life,
human existence saturated with blessedness and strength.
The words: in His name, depend on the phrase: having life. The
name is the acknowledgment of the dignity of Jesus in the
lieart. His essence as the Son of God written in letters of fire
in the believer's soul. ,
Either the author who speaks thus of the aim of his book
is deceiving us, or his work is not a work of religious specu
lation. His aim is not to produce knowledge, but faith, and

336 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
by faith life. He has not laboured as a romance -making
philosopher ; his work as a historian is included in his apos
tolical commission. It is the testimony to which, in all ages;
the faith of those shall be able to cling who have not seen.
Such is the real aim of the fourth Gospel

APPENDIX. XXL 1-25.
IT seeras to us impossible to doubt that this chapter is
a piece composed independently of and posterior to
the Gospel, but one which was closely connected with it
before the time of its publication. The former of these facts
follows : 1st. Frora the conclusion, xx. 30, 31, which evidently
closes the original narrative. AU the efforts of Hengstenberg,
Holeraann, HUgenfeld, etc., have not succeeded in effacing this
final period, placed at the end of his work by the author's hand.
2d. Frora the relation which we have established between the
scene with Thomas and the governing idea of the Gospel
The goal is reached, the work finished, the plan exhausted !
Lange and Holemann see in this chapter an epilogue intended
to form the counterpart of the prologue. " As," says the
former {Leben Jesu, iv. p. 752), "the evangehst depicted in
ch. i, the ante-historical reign of the Christ . . ., so he now
draws the picture of His post-historical reign to the end of
the world," But this parallel is more ingenious than real.
In the foUowing account it is the apostles who are on the
scene much more than the Lord Himself; and it is their
future lot which is described, much more than the reign of
their glorified Lord. The counterpart of the prologue, from
the point of view indicated by Lange, is not ch, xxi, but the
Apocalypse, Weitzel has made a remark which may appear
soraewhat better founded,^ The three other Gospels, says
he, close each with a piece relating to the activity of the
apostles after the departure of Jesus ; corap. Matt, xxvUi.
19, 20 ; Mark xvi 20 ; Luke xxiv. 53, With the sarae
right as those passages, ch, xxi forras, according to hira, an
integral part of our Gospel. But though the observation
were more just than it is (it cannot be held either in the
' "Das Selbstzengniss des vierten Evangelisten iiber seine Person," Stud. a.
Kritih. 1849, p, 678 et seq,
GODET HL Y JOHN.

338 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
case of Mark or Luke, and scarcely in the case of Matthew),
no conclusion could be drawn from it in regard to the fourth
Gospel, composed as it is on a special plan. The insertion of
the conclusion contained in vv. 30 and 31 of ch, xx, wUl
always remain inexplicable from this point of view.
This piece, composed separately from, was certainly composed
after, the Gospel Ver, 14 (" this was now the third time . . ."),
which supposes the narratives of the resurrection, excludes all
doubt on this head. The same appears also from ver. 24 :
" This is the disciple which testified of these things," evidently
of all the facts contained in the Gospel.
At the same time, and independently of the proofs which
may be gathered frora the contents of the piece, we have
ground to think that this appendix was joined to the Gospel
before it was put into public circulation. Otherwise there
would undoubtedly have been forraed, as in the case of Mark's
Gospel, two famihes of copies, the one a faithful reproduction
of the original text, without the appendix, the other derived
frora the completed text. We must therefore place the addi
tion of this chapter between the time of the composition of
the Gospel and that of its pubUcation. M, Renan's judgment
is almost to the same effect, " I close," says he, " the first
work at the end of ch. xx. Chapter xxi, is an addition, but
an almost contemporary addition, either by the author himself
or his disciples" (p, 534).
It remains now to be seen, 1st, by whom and with what
view this piece was edited ; 2d, by whom and with what
view it was joined to the Gospel, The solution of these
questions supposes the previous study of the piece.
This narrative may be regarded as containing two distinct
scenes, which are expressly divided by the remark of ver, 14 : the
one general, referring to all the disciples present, w, 1—1 3 ; the
other particular, referring speciaUy to the two principal of them,
vv, 15—2 3, — Vv. 24 and 2 5 form the conclusion of the appendix,
and at the same tirae bind it indissolubly to the work as a
whole. I. Jesus and His Disciples. — Vv, 1—14,
This first general scene comprises two descriptions, that of
the fishing and that of the repast.

CHAP. XXL 1-14. 339
The fishing : vv. 1-8.
The theatre of this narrative is reraarkable : it is the shore
of the sea of Tiberias, in GalUee. The Johannine tradition,
therefore, from which in any case this account proceeds,
related other appearances besides those which took place in
Judea, and which were related in ch, xx. This notion is in
keeping with the Gospel of Matthew, which places the great
Messianic appearance in GalUee on a mountain, perhaps
Tabor, where, by a mistaken tradition, the transfiguration was
afterwards placed. Thus the bond is estabhshed between
Matthew, who (excepting the appearance to the women at
Jerusalem) speaks only of the GaUlean appearance, and Luke,
who relates only the appearances which took place on the first
day at Jerusalera, and on the last, near the Mount of Olives.
The forty days of which Luke speaks in Acts i. 3 give, indeed,
the necessary margin for a reconciliation. But it is our
narrative which furnishes the harraony itself, by proving that
the Johannine tradition related appearances on both theatres.
The disciples then had returned to GalUee, and had there for
the tirae resumed their old mode of life. Then towards the
end of the forty days they returned, no doubt at the bidding
of Jesus, to Jerusalem, where they were to begin the work of
pubhc preaching; and it is to this sojourn that the Lord's
command refers not to leave Jerusalem till the coming of the
Holy Spirit (Luke xxiv. 49, comp. with Acts i, 3, 4), " Har
monistic expedients ! " exclaims Meyer, " Anti -harmonistic
passion" is our answer. — According to Matt. xxvi. 31, 32, and
xxviU, 7-1 0, aU the believers {the flock ; ye, addressed to the
women) were to assemble anew in GaUlee after the death of
Jesus, and there see Him again. The appearances in Judea,
by gathering the apostles, commenced this reunion of the
flock ; through the obstinacy of Thoraas, a whole week
elapsed before this first object was reached. Only there
after could the apostles return to Galilee, where Jesus
appeared to thera, flrst by the sea-shore, afterwards on a
mountain designated by Him (comp. Matt, xxviii. 16).
Though Matthew speaks only of the leaders of the flock, the
Eleven, 'because to them was given the missionary instruc
tion which foUows, we understand from 1 Cor. xv. 6 that
this was the reunion of all the GalUean beUevers, to the

340 GOSPEL" OF "JOHN.
number of more than flve hundred, which Jesus had in view
before His death.
Vv. 1, 2. "After these things Jesus showed Himself again to
the disciples ' at the sea of Tiberias ; and on this wise showed
He Himself. There were together Simon Peter, and Tliomas
called Didymus, and Nathanael of Canu in Galilee, and the
sons of Zebedee} and two other of His disciples!' — The transition
peTa Tama, after these things, is frequent in John (v. 1, vi, 1,
vU, 1, etc.). It obviously serves to join the appendix to the
narrative of the last appearance, xx, 29, and to the Gospel,
The phrase e^avepeoaev eavTov is equally agreeable to John's
style (vu, 4 : ipavepcoaov aeavTov ; xi, 33 : erdpa^ev eavTov).
TiU now Jesus had manifested His glory, now He manifests
Himself ; for His Person even has entered from this time forth
into the sphere of invisibility. The name sea of Tiberias is in
the N, T. a purely Johannine name (vi 1). — The Synoptics
say sea of Galilee (Matt, iv, 18), or lake of Gennesaret
(Luke V, 1), The 0. T. knows neither the one nor the other
of these expressions ; Josephus uses thera both.'— The propo
sition : " and on this wise . . .," is by no means superfluous. It
impresses us with the solemnity of the foUowing scene. — Of
the seven persons indicated in ver. 2, the first five only are
apostles ; the last two belong to the number of the disciples,
in the wide sense which so often belongs to the word in our
Gospel (vi. 60, 66, vii. 3, viU. 31, etc.). If it were other
wise, why would they not have been expressly named as weU
as the former ? Hengstenberg asserts that " every one must
understand that it was Andrew and Philip ! " The other
reasons aUeged have as little weight. The sons of Zebedee
then occupy the last place among the apostles properly so
caUed. The fact is the more remarkable, because, in aU the
apostolic catalogues, they are immediately joined to Peter,
who is uniformly put first. We know of only one reason
which can explain this striking circumstance : it is that the
author of the narrative is himself one of Zebedee's two sons.
It has been said, " But John never naraes either himself or his
brother." That is true ; and exactly by this designation he
avoids the proper name, whUe yielding to the necessity of
1 D H M U X r, 40 Mnn. ItP'«"iuo gyr. Cop. add xutou to /^xHtxi;.
^ X D E read «/ vioi instead of o/.

" CHAP, XXI. 3-6, '341
pointing to hiinself in view of the following scene. — On
Thomas Didymus, see on xi 1 6. — The explanation : " of Cana in
Galilee} had not been given in ch. i. The author here repairs
that omission, — Might the two unnamed disciples not be that
Aristion and that presbyter John of whom Papias speaks as
old disciples of the Lord {paOrjTal tov Kvpiov), Uving at
Ephesus at the time when John wrote, and having almost the
rank of apostles ?
Vv, 3, 4. " Simon Peter saith unto them, I go a fishing.
They say unto him. We also go with thee. They went forth}
and entered into ^ a ship immediately ; ' and tliat night they
caught nothing. But when the morning* was come} Jesus stood
on * the shore : hut the disciples knew ' not that it was Jesus." —
After their Master's ministry, the disciples returned to their
old profession. As usual, Peter takes the initiative. There
is something abrupt in the apostle's words, which seem to
indicate an uneasiness, a presentiment. The evOvf, immediately,
wrongly rejected by some Mss., confirms this impression, —
The word irid^eiv, used in vv, 3 and 10, occurs six tiraes
besides in our Gospel, nowhere in the Synoptics (Hengsten
berg). Baumlein : The asyndeta Xiyei, Xeyovaiv, i^rjXdov, etc.,
are in John's style. — That long night of fruitless toU must
have reminded the apostles of that which had preceded their
caUing to be preachers of the Gospel (Luke v.).
Vv. 5, 6. " Then Jesus saith unto them. Children, have ye
any^ meat? They answered Him, No. And He said unto
them. Cast the net on the right side of the ship, and ye shall
find. They cast therefore} and now they were not able '" to draw
it for the multitude of fishes." — The term nraiBla, young people,
boys, is not strange to John's language (First Epistle, U. 14,
18). It is quite natural for Him not to use here the terra of
endearment, reKvia, my little children, as in xiii 33; for He
' A P It""" add XXI before, X 6 L X, ouir after ilnXlov.
" T. R. with A A : xvifinrxv ; almost all the Mjj. : ivilititxv.
^XBCDLXa, some Mnn, It, Vg, Syr, Cop, omit ivfvs.
* K, some Mnn. Itf'""!" Vg. Syr«* omit >iJ«,
' A B C E L, 10 Mnn.: yreo^svjis instead of yivopjuvni.
*XADLMUX read iori instead of n; (t»» ouyixXov).
' J5 L X : lyvuirxv instead of liStirxv. ^ X omits n.
* X I* Cop. : 01 Sb ijixXov instead of e xXov ouv.
1" X B C D L A O, 10 Mnn, Itr'"''!"'' Vg, : irxvov instead of irxurxv.

342 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
could not do so without betraying Himself. He makes use
of the word of a master speaking to his workmen, — The
meaning of the interrogative form, p^ ri . . ., is analogous to
that of vi, 67: Ye have nothing then . . . ? Why this ques
tion ? The sequel wiU explain. Jesus is contemplating not
merely a take of fish, as in Luke v., but a repast. We need
not therefore think, with Tholuck and others, that Jesus
appears as a merchant desiring to buy fish, — Hpocy^dyiov
denotes, Uke o^dpiov, what is added to bread at a meal So
in this case fish : only the second of the two terms reminds us
of the cooking {mTdco, to roast). — The apostle thinks that this
stranger is acquainted with fishing, and that he has observed
some symptom of a nature to give rise to his advice. Is the
opposition between the left side of the ship, where they vainly
cast the net the whole night through, and the right side, where
they are about to take their magnificent draught, intended to
symbolize the contrast between the failure of the work of evan
gelization in Israel and its unspeakably rich fruits in the heathen
world ? This is not sufficiently indicated, and seems contrary to
what is related in Acts ii.-v. and xxi. 20 {pvpidSeg). It is safer
to hold to the general idea of the immense successes which
will be gained in the world by preaching, if the apostles take
direction from the Lord in the course of their work. This
meaning could not escape them, however Httle they might
reraember the terms of the original caU : " I will make you
flshers of living men." They did not understand it, however,
tiU after recognising Jesus.
Vv. 7, 8, " Therefore that disciple whom Jesus loved saith
unto Peter, It is the Lord. Now when Simon Peter heard that
it was the Lord, he girt his fisher's coat unto him {for he was
naked), and did cast himself into the sea. And the other
disciples came in a little ship ^ {for they were not far from
' land, but as it were two hundred cubits), dragging the net with
flshes." — How characteristically do the two apostles appear in
these simple incidents ! John contemplates and divines ;
Peter acts, and that with impulsive energy. WhUe recording
these details, the author doubtless thought of the part subse
quently taken by each of thera in the evangelization of the
world, — The garraent called e'7revSvT7}<; is one intermediate
' X reads xXXu before vXoixpiu (" with tlie other boat I ").

CHAP, XXL 9-lL 343
between the x'™^> the under dress, the shirt, and the IpdTiov,
the Tipper dress, the coat ; it is the workman's blouse. After
taking it off, Peter was really naked, except for the suhliga-
eulum, the apron, demanded by decency.^ Yet Meyer thinks
that he wore an under garment, which, in Greek usage, does
not prevent the use of the term yvpv6<i, naked. The word
Bie^maaTo, HteraUy he girt himself, here evidently includes the
two ideas of putting on the dress and fastening it. — While
Peter casts himself into the water and swims to the Lord,
John remains with the other disciples in the boat. This detaU
has also its meaning, as we shall see. UXoiapico, local dative
(Meyer), or rather instrumental: by means of the boat (in
opposition to Peter, who had taken to swimming), and while
dragging the net. The for explains how they could in
this case have recourse to dragging : " they were not far from
the shore!' Two hundred cubits are a Httle over 100 yards.
'.^TTO, remarks Hengstenberg, is only used to measure distance
in our Gospel (xi 18), and in the Apocalypse (xiv. 20). The
same author observes that the terms irXoiov and m-Xoidpiov
alternate in this piece, as in vi 17 et seq.
Strauss thinks that this miracle is a fictitious enhance
ment of the two legends Luke v. and Matt. xiv. (the walking
of Peter on the waters). Only he is embarrassed by the
fact that swimming is not more but less miraculous than
walking on the sea. But he does not suffer this to trouble
him. For, says he, in this case " aU the surroundings are
supernatural" And so in this case the excess of the super
natural produces the return to the natural ! — The suppleness
of criticism is inexhaustible in devices.
The repast: w. 9—14.
Vv. 9—11. "As soon then as they were come^ to land, they
saw a flre of coals there, and flsh laid thereon, and bread.
Jesus saith unto them, Bring of the flsh which ye have now
caught. Simon Peter went up} and drew the net to land * full
of great flshes, an hundred and flfty and three : and for all
' Meyer, in his note directed to me, p. 668, forgets that I made this excep
tion. Nothing more common in the East than to see men in the state here
described. '^ J{ H : avi^viirxv, A : ttrt/Sttirav, instead of xvi^wxv.
^ X B : sȣ/3x instead of xvi^n.
* X A B C L P X A n : us tvv ym instead of i'ri Ttit ynt.

344 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
there were so many, yet was not the net broken!' — If this
draught is to the disciples the symbol and pledge of the
success of their preaching, the repast is undoubtedly the
erablera of the spiritual and even teraporal assistance on
which they may reckon from their glorified Lord so long as
the work shaU last. Grotius, Olshausen, and others (I rayself
in my 1st ed.), have thought that, in contrast with the sea
which represents the field of labour, the land and the repast
represent heaven, from which Jesus gives aid, and to which
He receives the faithful after their labour. The first meaning
is simpler, and we are more naturally led to it by the question
which opens the narrative : " Ye have nothing to eat then ? "
— 'AvOpaKid, brazier, is found only here and in the account of
Peter's denial, and in John's account of the denial only, xviii, 1 8
(Mark and Luke : irvp and ^ws). — The sing, o^dpiov, roasted
fish, must certainly be taken to the letter, whatever Meyer
and Luthardt may say : a fish. In ver. 1 0 Jesus bids Peter
bring some of the fish which they had just taken, simply
because the quantity prepared is not sufficient. The plural
of the word is used by John v. 10 and vi, 9 {Svo o'yjrdpia).
— Whence came this bread and this fish ? Luthardt traces
them to the ministry of angels ; Baumlein, to the activity of
Peter, The disciple might indeed have lighted the fire ; but
whence could he have procured the bread and the fish ?
Lampe thinks that Jesus received these provisions from some
fisher in the neighbourhood. Anyhow, He did not create
them ; this course would be contrary to aU His antecedents
(ii 7, vi, 9 ; comp, vol, ii. pp. 7 and 207). Does not the
word of John hiraself : "It is the Lord} make it superfluous to
occupy ourselves with this question ? — The food prepared by
the Lord must be completed by the product of their own
fishing. Such a detail is incomprehensible unless it has a
symbolical meaning. Jesus raeans to teach thera that the
satisfying of their wants will constantly depend on the con
currence of two factors : His blessing and aid on the one
hand, and their faithful work on the other; as it is written,
Ps. cxxviii. 2 : " Thou shalt eat the labour of thine hands!'
The number of one hundred and fifty-three has been made
the text of the strangest commentaries. Some Fathers have
seen in it the emblem of God and of the Church (100,

'CHAP, xxi 9-11. '345
representing the GentUes; 50, the Jews; 3, the Trinity).
Hengstenberg explains it by an allusion to the 153,600
Canaanitish proselytes who were received into the theocracy
at the time of Solomon (2 Chron, U, 17), According to an
explanation somewhat prevalent among critics at the present
day, this figure originates in the idea received among
uaturaUsts of that time, that the entire number of the kinds
of fish was 153. Kostlin, indeed, has quoted a passage
from Jerome {Comment, on Ezekiel, xlvu,) which seems to
prove the existence of this idea araong the savants of the
day from the words of a Cilician poet caUed Oppian, who
lived under Marcus Aurelius : " Those who have written
on the kinds of animals . , ., and among them the very
learned poet Oppian of Cilicia, say that there are 153
kinds of fishes, which were all taken by the apostles, and
none of which remained uncaught," ^ The figure, according
to him, would naturally designate the totality of the Gentile
nations. Hilgenfeld, to complete the interpretation, holds
that the fish and the bread prepared by Jesus represent the
Jewish people. But, 1st. Strauss himself {Leben Jesu, 1864,
p. 414) remarks that Oppian does not indicate the total 153,
but that he raerely raakes a not very clear enuraeration, the
sura of which raay as probably be a number larger or smaller
as that nuraber itself Then, 2d. Oppian's work is later than
John's, and the terms used by Jerome would appear to
signify that John's figure has rather been taken advantage of
to support this scientific fable. As to Hilgenfeld's idea {Einl.
p. 718), how are we to suppose that a sensible writer would
represent the Jewish people under the figure of a roasted
fish and bread ? ^
The mention of this number is not at all more astonishing
^ "Aiunt qui de animantium scripsere naturis et proprietate, qui xXhutixx
tam latino quam grseoo didicere sermone, de quibus Oppianus Cilix est poeta
doctissimus : CLIII. esse genera piscium, quae omnia capta sunt ab apostolis et
nihil remansit inceptum. "
* We shall merely indicate iu passing the stiU more fantastic explanations of
some moderns, who find the key to this number by calculating the letters in the
name Peter ; thus Egli, following the Hebrew form : Schimeon Jonah (Simon,
son of Jonah) ; Volkmar (Himmelf. Mose, p. 62), taking the form : Schimeon
(71) bar (22) Jonah (31) Kdpha (29), total 153 ; and finaUy Keim himself
(Gesch. Jesu, iii. p, 664), under this other form : Schimeon (71) Jochanna (53)
Kepha (29).

346 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
than that of the number of men who were fed, and of the
baskets filled with fragments after the multipUcation of the
loaves, John vi. It is the simple fact recorded to prove two
things: 1st. The largeness of this draught; 2d The eager
interest with which the apostle fishers counted the take. —
The unbroken net is perhaps mentioned as a symbol of the
Lord's special protection vouchsafed to His Church and to aU
those whom it contains.
Vv. 12-14. "Jesus saith unto them. Come and dine. But^
none of the disciples durst ask Him, Who art Thou ? knowing
that it was the Lord. Jesus cometh} and taketh bread, and
giveth them, and fish likewise. This is^ now the third time
that Jesus showed Himself to His disciples} after that He was
risen from the dead!' — A feeling of respectful fear prevents
the disciples from approaching this mysterious personage,
Jesus invites them to eat; and even then they dare not
address Hira. Their relations are no longer the famUiar
ones of former days. — "EpyeTai (ver, 1 3) : approaches the
brazier, — The use of the terms ToXpdv and e^erd^eiv cannot
be estabhshed in John, But as to the former, it is evidently
a pure accident. As to the second, it is the notion of
informing oneself, and not the more ordinary one of inquiring
{eTrepcoTciv), which is meant to be expressed here.
The indication given at ver. 14 divides the narrative in
two ; for it is evident that the words of ver. 15: " So, when
they had dined} connect the foUowing conversation with the
scene of the repast, ver, 13, The author undoubtedly meant
hereby to separate what in this appearance had a general
character, and referred to the work of evangelization repre
sented by the disciples present, whether apostles or siraple
believers, from what specially concerned the future part and lot
of the two chief apostles, Peter and John, — The phrase toOto
fjBr} TpiTov, this is now the third time, is singular ; it conceals
one of those subtleties of which we have remarked several
in the course of this Gospel. It reminds us of the forms
already explained, u. 11 : ravrrjv iTroirjcre ttjv dp')(fiv, and
iv. 54: toCto trdikiv BevTepov aijpeiov eTroirjcrev. We have
1 B C omit Se. 2 j5 B Q J) L X omit ot/v.
^ J5 6 L X omit Se after t»kt<i,
* X A B C L, some Mnn. omit xutov after (ixltiTxis.

CHAP. XXI. 12-14. 347
seen in these two examples that the somewhat compUcated
phrases covered a rectification of the synoptical narrative.
The same is the case here. It seemed, according to Matthew
(and Mark ?), that Jesus appeared for the first time to the
disciples not in Judea, but in GaUlee. By no means, says
our author here; when He appeared to them in Galilee, it
was now the third time that He showed Himself to thera as
the Risen One. The two previous appearances to which he
aUudes are evidently the last two of ch. xx, ver, 19 et seq.
and ver. 26 et seq. He does not reckon that to Mary
Magdalene, because, as he says expressly, he means to speak of
appearances to the disciples only.
On the relation of these words of John to Luke's account
and the enumeration of Paid, 1 Cor. xv, 5-7, two words
only : The first two appeances in Luke (Emmaus and Peter)
are not reckoned here by John, any more than that to Mary
Magdalene, which is related by himself. The reason is in
the to the disciples, ver, 14, The third (to the Twelve) com
prehends the two, John xx, 19 and 26. — Paul sums up the
apostolic testimony. He instances, 1st. Peter, the witness
par excellence; 2d. The Twelve (comp. John xx, 19 and 26);
3d, The five hundred, at the head of whom were the Eleven
(Matt, xxviu, 16-20); 4th. James, that personage who was
so important as the brother of Jesus ; 5 th. The Twelve (ascen
sion). — John xxi. is omitted as in Luke. Here, as elsewhere,
John has repaired the omission of tradition.
Might it not be these last appearances indicated by
Matthew and Paul of which our author gives a hint in the
phrase : " now the third time}' which leads us to suppose that
there were others besides posterior to that which he relates
here ? — Thus aU our narratives have their pecuUarities in
harmony with the object which inspires thera, but they
present no difference which it is not possible and even easy
to reconcUe.A last question reraains to us in regard to this verse : Why
did John not include in his Gospel the appearance to the
disciples which forms the subject of this appendix ? The
answer appears from what we have said above on occasion of
the scene with Thomas. The two appearances to the disciples
(ch. XX.) had for their aim to establish faith in the resur-

¦34^ GOSPEL OF JOHN.
rection in the "circle of the apostles, the witnesses chosen by
Jesus. The present appearance no longer bore on the faith
of the disciples; it was destined to assure them of their
glorified Master's blessing and aid in the apostolic work
which they were about to undertake, ' The Risen One, by
the eloquent language of signs (fishing and eating), confirms
not the fact of His resurrection, but the apostolic ministry
which He had instituted during the days of His fiesh.
This appearance, therefore, did not enter into the framework
of the fourth Gospel, as we have understood it. On the
groundwork of this description relative to all the apostles,
there now rises, in the second part of the narrative, a special
revelation concerning the future of the two cluef of them,
II, Jesus with Peter and John. — Vv. 15—23.
Jesus and Peter: vv. 15— 19a.
As the preceding scene contained the confirmation of the
apostoUc ministry given by the Risen Jesus, so the foUowing
conversation is a reinstallation of Peter as director of the
apostolate. No doubt Jesus had already pardoned his sin in
the strictly private appearance which he had granted him
(Luke xxiv. 34 ; 1 Cor. xv. 5), But he had not yet restored
him to his position either as apostle or as chief of the apos
tolate. This is what He does in the first part of the foUowing
conversation (vv, 15-17),
Ver, 1 5, " So, when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon
Peter, Simon, son of Jonas} lovest thou me more than these ?
He saith unto Him, Yea, Lord ; Thou knowest that I love Thee.
He saith unto him. Feed my lambs." ^ — There is a remarkable
resemblance between the present situation and that of the two
scenes in the previous life of Peter with which it is related.
He had been called to the ministry by Jesus after a miraculous
draught of fishes ; it is after a similar draught that the ministry
is restored to him. He had lost his office by his denial beside
a fire of coal ; it is beside a fire of coal that he recovers it, —
The form : " Simon, son of Jonas} or rather, as it should
probably read, according to the Alex, : " Simon, son of John} is
' B C D L Iti''"'i''e xea.i loixwov instead of loivx ; X omits this word,
* C D : tTfoPxTx instead of xpvix.

CHAP. XXL 15. 349
not contrasted imintentiohally with the name Simon Peter,
which is used by the evangelist in this very verse. It recaUs
to Peter his natural state, from which the call of Jesus had
brought him, into which he had relapsed by his faU, and which
now serves as the starting-point for his restoration. The
allusion to the apostle's threefold denial in the three foUowing
questions cannot be doubted, whatever Hengstenberg may
think to the contrary. The threefold profession of his love to
Jesus is intended to efface, as it were, the triple blot which
he himseK caused. It is to furnish him with the opportunity
of fuliiUing this noble task that Jesus is now concerned.
When he adds : " more than these} Jesus certainly reminds him
of the presumptuous superiority which he had claimed when
he said. Matt, xxvi, 3 3, Mark xiv. 29:" Though all shall be
offended because of Thee, yet will I never be offended." No doubt
John has not raentioned these words ; but have we not found
his narrative in constant relation to that of the Synoptics ?
Except for curiosity, it is unnecessary to quote the interpreta
tion which refers these to the fishing implements or to the
fish : " Lovest thou rae raore than thou lovest thine old pro
fession ? " Peter, with a humUity inspired by the memory of
his faU, first drops from his answer the last words : " more
than these;" then for the term d/^airav, to love, in the sense of
veneration, complete, profound, eternal love, he substitutes
the word <f>iXetv, to love, in the sense of cherishing friend
ship, simple personal attachment, devoted affection. He
thinks he raay claim this latter feeUng, and yet he
does so not without expressing a certain self- distrust,
nor without seeking an authentication for the testimony of
his own heart in the profound and infaUible knowledge of
the human heart which he ascribes to his Master. It is not
omniscience in the absolute sense of the word which is in
question here, Comp, u, 24, 25, This appeal, as Luthardt
says, softens the too decided tone which a simple yea would
have had.
On this reply, Jesus assigns to hira the care of His flock.
" He confides those whom He loves to the man who loves
Him," says Luthardt. The expression : " the lambs} does not
denote a special class of the members of the Church, the
children and laity, for example, but the entire flock viewed in

350 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
relation to the individual care and tender painstaking needed
by aU its merabers frora him who is over them as the repre
sentative of the Chief Shepherd. The terra lamb is a famUiar
one with the author of the Apocalypse. Of course its appli
cation is the more intense in proportion as those whora it
designates have, raoreover, the character of weakness. The
term/eetZ, ^oaKeiv, denotes the intimate sympathy which springs
from love, tender direction, and strong aid.
Vv. 16, 17. " He saith to him again the second time} Simon,
son of Jonas} lovest thou me ? He saith unto Him, Yea} Lord ;
Tliou knowest that I love Thee. He saith unto him, Lead my
sheep} He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas}
lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because He said unto him
the third time, Lovest thou me ? And he said^ unto Him, Lord,
Thou knowest all things ; Thou knowest that I love Thee. Jesus
saith unto him. Feed my sheep!' ' — As the " more than these "
had gained its object, Jesus now drops it ; but He persists in
using the most elevated term to denote love, dyairav. Peter,
on his side, does not venture to appropriate such a term ; but
so rauch the more energetically does he affirm his love in the
simple sense of the word ^iXeiv, and that whUe anew appealing
to the searching glance of the Lord. On this condition Jesus
again confides to him His fiock, but with two characteristic
differences. For the word ^oaKeiv, feed, which referred to the
most personal care. He substitutes iroipalveiv, lead, Hke a
shepherd. This term denotes the direction of the Church as
a whole. According to the two manuscripts, the Vatican and
Ephrem, He moreover uses the term irpo^dTia, here, strictly
speaking, little sheep, instead of Trpo/Sara, sheep, which aU the
others read. And this reading is very possibly the true one ;
for, while expressing a feeling of tenderness, this word denotes
a stronger and more advanced state than the word lamb, and
forms the transition to the term sheep, irpo^aTa.
FinaUy, the third question leaves Peter no longer in doubt
' X omits 'SsuTipov.
" Here again X B C D ItP'^^'i''' read laixwou instead of laivx.
^ X omits vxi.
* B C read Ttpo^xTix instead of ¦xpo^xTx, the reading oi aU the others.
' X B D Itpi'"*i>"' : \ooxvvov instead of \o>vx.
* X A D X : Xiyu instead of ii'xiv,
'ABO: orpo^xTix instead of orpo/ixTa.

CHAP. XXI. 16, 17. 351
of the humiUating fact which the Lord wishes to recaU to his
raind ; and he is the raore painfuUy affected because Jesus now
substitutes, as Peter himself had done from the beginning, the
term cpiXeiv for dyafrav, whereby He seems to caU in question
even that lower kind of attachraent which the apostle had
claimed, Peter feels the spear-point pierce even to the quick,
and, gathering aU his energy for a last affirmation, he appeals
expressly to the Lord's most penetrating knowledge : " Thou
knowest all things} and under the eye of this omniscience he
says : See if I do not love Thee'! Three old manuscripts
(A B C) here read (Hke two of them above) -n-po/Sdna ; but is
it not probable that the copyists, not apprehending the shades,
have mistakenly repeated this diminutive, and that Jesus said
this time irpo^aTa, my sheep, which once again denotes the
whole flock, but from the standpoint of its normal state.
Jesus here resumes the teim feed, whereby He gives Peter to
understand that the general government of the Church should
not hinder the pastor from occupying himself individually with
each of the members of the flock. Acts xx. 31 shows that
the apostles thus understood their commission. The passage,
1 Pet, V, 1—4, seems also to be an echo of these words of Jesus
to the apostle. — It has been asked if Peter was simply restored
by this second instaUation to the apostolate which he had in
common with his coUeagues, or if the words of Jesus include
the idea of a primacy belonging to Peter in relation to the
other apostles, Meyer seems to me to give the right answer
to the question when he says that Peter is restored to his
former position, and consequently that this restoration embraces
the pre-eminence of Peter so far as it already belonged to his
previous apostleship.
After restoring Peter to his apostleship in the first part of
the conversation, Jesus announces to him in the second, vv.
18, 19a, what shaU be the end of his ministry. The con
nection between this new idea and the previous dialogue is
easy to understand. Peter, by his protestation of love to
Jesus, had just effaced his denial ; but the Lord promises him
that he wUl one day accompUsh this same task better than by
words — that he wiU accomplish it in act by martyrdom. A
similar connection of ideas may be seen. Acts ix. 15, 16.
Vv. 18, 19a. " Verily, verily, I say unto thee, When thou

352 GOSPEL OF j:oHir.
wast younger, thou girdedst thyself, and walkedst whither thou
wouldest : but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth
thy hands, and another shall gird^ thee, and carry thee whither^
thou wouldest not. This spake He, signifying by what death
he should glorify God." — The form dpijv, dpi]v, Verily, verily,
belongs exclusively to John. In the foUowing saying there
is a correspondence between the three merabers of the two
propositions. To " thou wast younger} corresponds : " thou shall
be old." Peter was married, and must have been of ripe age.
He must then have been of intermediate age between youth
and old age. The phrase younger, however, might also be
applied to the present in contrast with the time of his old age,
to which Jesus transfers Hiraself in thought. To the words :
" thou girdedst thyself} there correspond the foUowing: "thou shalt
stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee!' This cor
relation proves that the idea of stretching out the hands has no
significance in itself, and is only the condition needed for the
accompHshment of the act of being girded by another. One
who is to be bound stretches out his hands either in token of
complete resignation, and to give them over to be chained, or
at least that the arms may not be pinioned with the body.
It is therefore impossible to refer these words, as so many
interpreters, including even Baumlein, have done, to the act
of crucifixion, in which the arms are extended on the instru
ment of punishment. This meaning is, besides, excluded by
what follows : " another shall carry thee whither thou wouldest
not!' The idea of punishment occurs only in this last proposi
tion ; the preceding words indicate merely the preparation -for
it. If the idea of extending the arms be applied to crucifixion,
the word gi7d, which follows, must be applied to the act of
binding the crucified one to the cross, or there must be seen
in it an allusion to the suhligaculum in this punishment, two
meanings which are far from natural, and which are, besides,
excluded by the antithesis : "thou girdedst thyself} in tbe previous
proposition ; then we must apply the words : " another shall
lead thee (Ut. will carry thee) whither thou wouldest not} to the
elevation of the crucified one to the height of the cross after
having his hands nailed to the transverse beam on the ground.
^ X D n : x>.Xol ^eo/rouiriv.
^ X . voina^ouffi ffoi otTx instead of oiau o-rov.

CHAP. XXL 19-21. 353
But this meaning is forced, and does not well suit the antithesis:
" and walkedst vjhither thou wouldest."
Some have seen in the words before us the contrast
between self-will, which was the prominent feature of the
apostle's natural character, and that submissive passiveness
which was to become characteristic of his spiritual Ufe. But
then wUl this latter disposition not begin tUl the time of
his old age ? Jesus is merely contrasting the full liberty of
motion belonging to the man who has stiU the disposal of
himself with the passiveness of the man who is led off bound.
" Whither thou wouldest not} is spoken from the standpoint of
natural feeUng. By another, Bleek understands Jesus Him
self. This explanation would only be admissible were there
to be given to the thought the moral meaning which we have
just set aside, — The phrase : " hy what death} refers to the death
of martyrdom in general, and not speciaUy to the punishraent
of crucifixion, as we have just proved. This expression is
simply opposed to the idea of natural death. The author
speaks here of Peter's death as of a fact weU known to his
readers. This narrative was therefore drawn up after that
event, which took place, according to most authors, in July
64, according to others one or two years later. The phrase :
"to glorify God} to signify martyrdom, became a technical
term in later ecclesiastical writings. Here we find it stiU in
its original freshness. The phrase tovto Se elirev crrfpaivcov
is peciiUarly Johannine, as well as the ttoIco OavuTcp which
foUows; compare xu. 33.
Jesus and John: vv. 196-21.
This conversation refers to the future of John's ministry,
as the preceding to the future of Peter's,
Vv. 196-21. "And when He had spoken this. He saith unto
him. Follow me. Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple
whom Jesus loved following ; ^ which also leaned on His breast at
supper, and said} Lord} which is he that hetrayeth thee ? Peter
seeing* him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall become of this
man ? " — Very diverse meanings have been put on the com-
X omits KXoXovSouvTX o;.
^ X : Xiyti instead of smv ; X C D add xutoi.
^ X C omit xupi'..
¦* X B C D ItP'^rti"' Vg. Cop. Or. add ouv after toutov.
GODET III, Z JOHN,

354 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
mand : "Follow me." Paulus understood it in the most literal
sense : " Follow me in the place where I am going to bring
thee to converse with thee alone." Chrysostom and Baumlein :
"FoUow me in the active work of the apostolic ministry."
Meyer : " FoUow me in the way of martyrdom where my
example leads thee." Luthardt : " Follow me to that invisible
world into which I have already entered, and to which thou
shalt be raised by martyrdom." We would not dispute the
gravity and solemnity of this comraand; but it is absolutely
irapossible for us to believe that, when the text adds : " Peter,
turning about} there is no indication of a motion made by
Jesus, Peter following Him in the Hteral sense, a fact which
speaks decidedly in favour of the meaning of Paulus, This
meaning is confirmed by the foUowing words : " He seeth the
disciple following them " {uKoXovSovvTa) ; this identity of terms
cannot be, as Meyer would have it, accidental. After an
nouncing to Peter his martyrdom, Jesus began to move off,
and comraanded Peter to foUow Him in the Hteral sense ; and
John followed them without any express invitation. Must
we conclude frora this that the meaning of the command :
"Follow me} is thus exhausted ? By no means ; for this step
which Peter took in the following of Jesus was the first step
in the way of obedience which was to guide him to the last,
viz. martyrdom. Thus it is that the higher sense naturaUy links
itself with the lower. It is vain for Meyer to scout this
symboUsm; it forms the basis of John's entire Gospel; it
forced itself on our attention with the first word of the Gospel
in the "Follow me" addressed by Jesus to PhiUp, i, 44 (follow
me to GalUee on the way of faith), and we find it here again
at the close in a manner equaUy evident.
What could be the object of the conversation which Jesus
desired to have with Peter ? Perhaps it was to give him
the necessary instructions for convoking those hundreds of
GaUlean believers to whom Jesus wished to manifest Himself
personally before whoUy withdrawing His visible presence
from the earth (1 Cor, xv. 6). We learn from Matt, xxvUi, 16
that Jesus Himself, with this view, designated a certain moun
tain in GaUlee, It was no doubt by Peter that He made His
will known to His own on this point ; perhaps He wished to
communicate it to him at this time. This was therefore his

CHAP, XXL 22, 23, 355
first act as shepherd of the flock {iroipaiveiv), the office which
Jesus had just been committing to him. With the turning
about, eiricTTpa^evi, comp, xx, 14 and 16; it is an absolutely
Johaniune form, John foUowed Jesus and Peter; for the
intimacy with Jesus, to which he had been adraitted during
His earthly life, authorized him to do so, and this is precisely
what is expressed by the two epithets : " the disciple whom
Jesus loved} and : " he who leant on Jesus' bosom, and said to
Him . . ." John was certain that nothing could pass between
Jesus and Peter which shoidd be kept a secret from him. Such
is the true reason why that mark of supreme confldence which
he had enjoyed at the last feast is here referred to (xiii, 25),
It does not therefore contradict the Johannine origin of the
narrative. The Kai after 6'?, " who also (or in consequence),"
indicates that this exceptional intimacy was precisely in con
nection with his character as the weU-beloved disciple,
¦What is the true motive of Peter's question, ver. 21? It is
not only the Tiibingen school, but men like Olshausen, Liicke,
Meyer, Baumlein, who ascribe to this apostle a feehng of
jealousy towards John. He is curious, they say, to know
whether Jesus does not reserve for this privUeged disciple a
less painfrd future than that which He has just announced to
himself. Such a feehng seems to us incompatible with the
frarae of mind into which the previous conversation must have
brought Peter, Must not the love which he had just testified
for Jesus, and the memory of his denial so vividly reawakened,
have' led bim to regard martyrdom rather as a favour than as
a misfortune ? Besides, Peter and John were closely bound
to one another, and loved one another truly (ver. 7), The
former, with his mascuHne nature, understood the tender and
sensitive character of the latter ; and it is his sympathy with
a weaker nature which suggests to him the question, so full of
interest : " and this man, what shall become of him ? " If we
think of the profound emotion which had just been produced
on Peter's mind by the announcement of his tragical end,
nothing wUl appear simpler than this question,
Vv, 22, 23. "Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry
till' I come, what is that to thee ? follow thou me} Then went
this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should
' X A B 0 D ItP'»"i'"' Vg. Or. place ptoi before xxoXouSti.

356 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
not die : yet Jesus said^ not unto him. He shall not die ; hut. If
I will that he tarry till I come!'^ — Peter's question, though
dictated by a feehng of affection, was somewhat indiscreet ; and
the Lord raakes him feel this by the words : " what is that to
thee ? " The coming of the Lord, in the fourth Gospel (ch. xiv.-
xvi,), denotes His coming in the spirit from Pentecost onwards.
This raeaning is not apphcable here, for Peter was present at
that event. The coraing of Jesus in the passage xiv. 3 refers
at the same time to the death of the apostles ; and this mean
ing has been tried here, Jesus, it is held, predicts a natural
death for John as the close of a long apostohcal activity, in
opposition to the martyrdom of Peter, This, or nearly this,
is the meaning adopted by Grotius, Olshausen, Weitzel, Ewald,
But it would follow frora this that the Lord comes to seek
only those of His own who die a natural death, and not those
who perish by martyrdom; which would be absurd, and is
contradicted by the account of Stephen's martyrdora. The
coming of Jesus denotes also in some passages His invisible
return to judge Jerusalem, and (for this correlative idea may be
joined here) to establish His kingdora and make his cause
triumphant in the Gentile world (Matt, x, 23, xvi 28, comp,
with Mark ix, 1 and Luke ix, 27; Matt, xxiv, 33, 34, etc).
This important epoch in the kingdom of God, frora the year
70 to the end of the first- century, was not witnessed by Peter ;
but John Hved and took a preponderating part in it to the
very end of his career. And it is to this difference between
the two chief disciples that Baumgarten-Crusius, Luthardt,
and others refer the proraise of Jesus in this verse. This
explanation is certainly preferable to the preceding ; it is, I
think, that which applies to Mark ix, 1 and paraUels. It is
therefore also possible here. Lastly, the Lord's coming denotes
most frequently His glorious advent at the cloSe of the present
economy (comp, in John's First Epistle, ii. 2 8, iii, 2), Meyer and
others apply this meaning here : " If I wUl that he tarry till
my Parousia." It appears, certainly, that this was how the
contemporaries of John interpreted the words, since they had
concluded from them that John would not die, but that, pre-
^ X B C Or. : oux tiviv 5s instead of xxi oux n^js-iv.
- We reject here the words ti irpo; in (what is that to thee ?), which are omitted
by X, some Mnn. It°'''^

CHAP, XXL 22, 23. 357
served till the Parousia, he would be changed with the then
living believers (1 Thess. iv, 17; 1 Cor, xv, 51, 52), This
meaning of the expression : " till I come} is certainly the most
natural, But it raises the question : Did John really die, yea
or nay ? In the former case, what becomes of the promise
implicitly contained in the words of Jesus ? In the latter,
how are we to conceive of a fact so extraordinary as that which
would be revealed to us here : John remaining alive during
aU the present economy ? Meyer thinks he can escape
from the difficulty by means of the conditional form : "If I will}
and laying special stress on the conjunction edv, used here in
preference to et. The difference of meaning between eay and
et proves nothing ; for what matters it whether Jesus says :
"If I will (et)," or : "If it happen that I should will {edv)"1 As
to the conditional forra in itself, it does not remove the real
difficulty. When He said : "If I will} Jesus must in any case
have had before Him something precise, reasonable, and possible.
The hypothetical forra bore only on the realization or non-reaUza-
tion of the idea. But when He spoke thus, the Lojd must have
thought something ; and it is this something which puzzles our
understanding. For to hold that He threw out to Peter as
possible a supposition which He regarded as impossible, is to
reproach the seriousness of His character. In spite of the if
the problem therefore remains entire. The idea which I gave
forth (1st ed.) may be called strange, as it is by Meyer, —
the. idea, viz., that the Lord here spoke of the possibihty of
preserving John, the last survivor of the apostolate, in
constant connection with the progress of the Church to the
very end, in a form raysterious and to us (who know at bottom
the nature neither of Ufe nor of death) impenetrable. Yet we
shaU be easily led, if we are resolved not to make play of this
last word of the Lord in our Gospel, to give it this or some
similar meaning. And a fact of this nature, inconceivable as
it may appear, is not without biblical precedent. The primitive
epoch of huraanity had its Enoch, who knew not death ; the
theocratic epoch had its Elias, who was also exempted from
its power; and may not the Christian epoch also have its
representative set free from death ? But I ara aware that
such a meaning will be denied to the saying of our Lord. In
that case, it remains only to take refuge in the preceding

353 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
explanation. For no one surely wUl bring his mind to accept
either the explanation of Paulus : " If I wUl that he tarry
here, to wait for us tUl I return with thee," or that of Bengel,
Ebrard, Hengstenberg : " If I wiU that John remain in life till
the day when he shaU receive the apocalyptic revelation," ^
Here the unity of the whole chapter opens up to us. As
on the basis of the miraculous draught of fishes, which repre
sents the future of aU the apostles, there stands out the
particular part assigned to the two chief of them, that of
Peter, who suddenly leaves the boat to make his way across
the waters to the very feet of Jesus, and that of John, who
remains patiently in the boat to the end of the fishing, so in
the future of the apostolic work in general there will stand
out as two contrasted and prorainent forms the ministry of
Peter, the apostle who shall be removed frora the Church by
a speedy raartyrdora, and the apostleship of John, who shall
continue to be active within the Church tiU the estabhshment
of the kingdom of God upon the earth. Here again we shall
not let ourselves be staggered by the epithet strange {wunder-
lich), whereby Meyer and Luthardt characterize this paraUel
The question is not whether the correlation which we point
out between the events of the fishing and the meaning of the
conversation is or is not strange, but whether it is or is not
in the mind of the author of the narrative. And so far as
we are concerned, the answer is not doubtful. Thereafter
we shall wUlingly accept Luthardt's idea, that in these two
principal forms of apostleship there are represented the two
permanent types of the Christian ministry, the testimony of
blood by martyrdom, and that of speech by a Johannine and
priestly activity, — After this saying relating to John, Jesus
anew invites Peter to follow Him to receive His present com
mands, and so to return immediately to the active work of
His apostleship, which had been for the moment interrupted
(ver. 1). The av, thou, which Jesus here expressly isolates
frora the verbal idea (in opposition to the form, ver. 19), is
related to the ti 7r/3o? ere (" what is that to thee ? ") : " As to
' The idea expressed by Holtzmann (art. "Johannes " iu the Bibel-lexicon of
Schenkel), that this saying of Jesus is only an application to John of the general
promise (Matt, xvi, 28 ; Mark ix. 1 ; Luke ix. 27), is ingenious, but it does not cor
respond to the precisely-marked situation in which it is placed by our appendix.

CHAP. XXL 22, 23. 359
thee, this is what concerns thee." — The Alex, place the poi,
me, to me, before the verb : " It is to me, and no other, that
thou must look ; for it is in my steps that thou must walk,"
The author does not give in ver, 23 the interpretation of
the saying of Jesus. He contents himself with correcting
the misunderstanding which eventually came to be attached
to it, by reproducing its exact tenor. The last words : " what
is that to thee ? " not being necessary in this view, it is
probable that the reading of the Sinaiticus, which omits them,
is the true one. The present dirodvrjaKei, he dieth not, is not
the present of fact, but of idea. What is raeant is not that
John does not die at the tirae when the words are spoken,
but that absolutely speaking he does not die. If we vividly
imagine this. X6yo<;, this common saying, we shall feel that the
author reproduces it just as he hears it repeated in the Church
at that very tirae. The interest of this rectification, besides,
is not easily conceivable tUl that time, that is to say, imme
diately after or a Uttle before the apostle's death, with the
view of effacing or preventing the scandal caused by the con
tradiction between his death and the saying ascribed to Jesus ;
and it is probable that care was taken rather to prevent than
to repair (see on ver. 24). Keim (i p, 137) and Mangold
(Bleek's Einl. 3d ed. p. 258), who place the coraposition of
this appendix towards the end of the second century, are
consequently obliged to seek a quite different object for this
rectification. Its aim, according to thera, is to reconcUe the
tendency of the Church of this epoch to establish itself cora-
fortably here below with the declarations of Jesus about the
nearness of His Parousia (comp. 2 Pet. in, 4 et seq,). But
on this understanding the reraark of ver, 23 would harraonize
nothing ; but the contrary, since it appears frora the exactly
given tenor of the saying of Jesus, that John raight possibly
be present in Hfe at the Parousia, And what purpose, besides,
woidd it serve to exhume from obUvion, at the end of the
second century, a lost saying in order to rectify it, whUe the
Gospels contained so large a number of others perfectly well
known, in regard to which the difficulty remained entire ? It
follows, therefore, from this passage, that, according to the
view of Bleek, Meyer, Ewald, and Baumlein, this appendix
necessarUy dates from the last years of the apostle's Ufe, or

360 GOSPEL OF JOHN,
from the time which immediately followed his death, — The
Kal adversative, and yet, before ovk elirev, reminds us of one
of the raost uniform peculiarities of our evangeUst's style
(i, 8, v, 39, vi 36, xv 24, etc).
Here is the end of the narrative contained in the appendix.
What can be its aim ? Here again the school of Baur sup
poses an ignoble manoeuvre. The object, according to it, is to
raise John, the apostle of Asia Minor, above Peter, the patron
of the Roman church. Strange means to this end, the triple
installation of Peter in his apostolic dignity (not without the
idea of a primacy over his colleagues), and the proraise made
to this apostle of the most glorious death ! Not to take into
account that, according to Baur and his school, the whole
Gospel was intended to raake good the case of Rome against
Asia Minor in the Easter controversy, which establishes a
flagrant contradiction between the object of the appendix and
that of the Gospel. Besides, Kosthn and Volkmar have
come to suppose a wholly contrary intention. This appendix,
according to the dictum of the former, is a flattery addressed
to the bishop of Rome in favour of his supremacy ; and, accord
ing to the second, an attempt to re-establish the authority of
Peter, which the rest of the Gospel had undermined. We
cite these vagaries ; they need no refutation. Bleek, Meyer,
and others more simply find the object of this narrative in
the refutation of the false report circulating about John, vv,
22 and 23, But would this have required the reproduction
of the entire fishing scene, of the repast, and of Peter's rein
stallation ? This intention, besides, seems to us inconsistent
with the parenthesis of ver, 14, which divides the chapter
into two, and thus gives a significance of its own to the first
part of the narrative. The same objection holds also against
the much too particular intention assumed by M. Reuss
{Gesch. der heil. Schrift. des N. T. § 239), that of re-establish
ing the dignity of Peter, which had been compromised by his
denial. — ^We have seen that the unity of the different pieces of
which this appendix is composed only comes out clearly when
it is regarded as intended to cast a survey over the future of
the apostolic ministry in general — such is the meaning of the
first picture, vv. 1-14, and over that of the ministry of the
two chief apostles in particular — such is the object of the two

CHAP. XXI. 22, 23. 361
conversations, w. 15-23. It is Hkewise from this point of
view that there opens up the relation between the appendix
and the whole book. Lange, Schaff, and Holeraann have
regarded this chapter as the counterpart of the prologue, and
we have already seen that this idea is untenable. The matter
in question here is not the celestial activity of Jesus as the
counterpart of His divine activity anterior to His incarnation.
It is not quite so far back in the Gospel we must go to find
the counterpart of our appendix. The second part of ch. i.
relates the first caU of the apostles, in particular that of Peter
and John. What Jesus did then provisionally at the begin
ning of the formation of faith. He definitively confirms on the
foundation of faith acquired. The caU to education for their
raission is ratified by the call to the mission itself This is
what is described in the appendix. As not entering into the
description of the development of the apostles' faith, this
incident could not forra an integral part of the Gospel. But
as a glance thrown at the future of the apostolic rainistry, it
was its natural corapleraent ; for the consuraraation of their
faith is their mission.
To whom are we to ascribe the coraposition of this narrative ?
The Johannine type as to raatter and style is so deeply
and obviously iraprinted on it, that only two suppositions
are possible on this subject : either John hiraself composed
this piece sorae time after having finished the Gospel, or
we have here the work of that circle of friends and disciples
who surrounded the apostle at Ephesus, who had often heard
hira relate the facts contained in it, and who have reproduced
thera in his own language. It is of sraall importance which
of these two suppositions is chosen. Yet we must say that
the first alternative, as it seeras to us, deserves to be pre
ferred, 1st, Would the disciples of John, in the enumeration
of ver. 2, have placed their master in the last rank among the
apostles properly so called ? 2d, Could they have preserved
so deUcately the slightest shades in the conversation between
Jesus and Peter ? 3d, Who besides, more than John himself,
would feel bound to correct the possible error arising from the
saying uttered by Jesus in regard to him ? 4th, Finally,
ver. 24, Uttle as may be the value attached to the testimony
it contains, settles the question in this way.

362 GOSPEL OF JOHN.

Conclusion of the Appendix. — Vv, 24, 25.
Vv, 24, 25. " ITiis is the disciple which testifieth of these
things, and wrote these things : ^ and we know that his^ testimony
is true. There are also many other things which ^ Jesus did, the
which, if they should he written every one, I suppose thai even the
world itself could not contain * the hooks ^ that should be written."
— From what pen do these two last verses proceed ? On this
point very different opinions prevail Some (Hengstenberg,
Lange, Weitzel, HUgenfeld, Holemann, etc.) regard them as
both belonging to the author of the whole appendix. Others
(such as Meyer, Tischendorf, etc.) ascribe ver. 24 to this author,
and ver. 25 to a later interpolator. A third party,. finaUy
(Tholuck and Luthardt), regard them as both added to the
appendix by one or more persons different frora the author.
Between these three views only a detailed study will enable
us to decide. The author of these Unes declares, in the first
part of ver. 24, that he who has not only related {fiapTvpwv,
which testifieth), but also written {ypd'\lra<;, which wrote) these
things is the beloved disciple who has just been spoken of in
vv, 2 0-2 3. First of all, what things {tovtcov) are in question ?
Does such an attestation bear simply on the contents of the
appendix ? It is hard to beheve this. The narrative had no
such great importance as to caU for this solemn declaration
about its author. The editor of ver, 24 has therefore in view
not only the appendix, but the entire Gospel, The conclusion,
XX, 30, 31, had closed the Gospel This new conclusion,
imitating the preceding one, is intended to close at once both
the Gospel and the appendix, whUe binding them into one
whole. Can it proceed from the hand of the evangelist ?
No doubt we have heard John himself, xix. 35, declaring
himself to be the witness on whose authority a particular fact
is to be believed in the Church, But here the editor goes
^ Instead of xxi ypx-^x;, B D Cop. read xxi o ypx^x;, and X" and some Mnn. :
c XXI ypx-^x;.
^ B C D place xvtou before « fjoxpTupix.
' Instead of oox, which T. R. reads with 13 Mjj. (A D, etc.), X B 0 X read x.
* ^ B C Cop. : ^bipviffuv instead of ;^oop9iffxi.
'^ X A B C D, some Mnn. ItP"'"!'" Vg. Syr. Cop. Sah. Or. omit xpim after
PiliXix. — The whole of this 25th verse is wanting in X (not in Cod. 63, as was
long said erroneou.sly after Mill, Wetstein, Griesbach ; see Tischendorf 's Sth ed.).

CHAP, XXL 24,25, 363
further ; he ascribes to John not only the authority of the
testimony, but the fact of the writing. This declaration is
therefore probably added by a person other than the apostle,
whom special circumstances authorize to give forth such an
attestation in the face of the Church. The o'iBapev, we know,
which follows, confirms the idea that the writer of this note
is by no means the author of the appendix and of tbe Gospel ;
for the latter never speaks of himself in the plural, and it is
impossible to have recourse to the expedient of Chrysostom,
who divided this verb into two words : olSa pev, now I know.
It is equally impossible to accept the explanation of Meyer,
who ascribes these words to the author of the Gospel, and
who thinks that he wrote them as an expression not only
of his own feehng, but of the feeling of all the faithful who
surrounded him. In this case, where the matter in question
concerns the author personally, it is absolutely impossible to
combine in one and the same " we know " the expression of the
author's feehng and that of the persons surrounding him.
The moral position of the former and of the latter in regard
to this fact of consciousness is too widely different. This
declaration, therefore, proceeds very obviously from a plurality
of individuals. We cannot, it is true, name with certainty
those who were parties to it. But the well-known passage of
the Fragment of Muratori (Introd, i. p. 248) brings on the
scene on this occasion the Apostle Andrew and other apostles
(such as Philip) Hving in Asia at that time, as well as the
bishops of Ephesus ; ^ the famous passage of Papias ^ suggests
also the thought of Aristion, of the presbyter John, and of Papias
himself In any case, we have certainly to do here with
those in whose hands the apostle had deposited his writing,
who had charged themselves with publishing it at time con
venient, and who, when carrying out their commission, think
themselves bound to accompany a work of such importance
with tlus semi-official certificate,
Meyer justly brings out the contrast between the pres,
partic. 0 paprvpcSv, he which testifieth, and the past partic.
ypd-fa<;, he who wrote. It follows thence that at the time
'¦ "John the disciple, exhorted by his feUow - disciples and the bishops,
said , . , ; that same night it was revealed to Andrew, one of the apostles ..."
'^ Introd. vol. i. p. 49.

364 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
when this attestation was penned, John was still continuing,
in addition to his now finished written testimony, that of his
living word. — The term ypd'<^a^, who wrote, obviously does
not exclude the process of dictation then generaUy employed.
It may be said that Paul ivrote the Epistle to the Roraans,
notwithstanding Rora. xvi. 22. — The information of this verse
is, therefore, not only that John is the author of the Gospel,
but that he was still living' at the time when this declaration
was made. But why is it necessary to add to a narrative
which is the work of John himself an attestation like this:
" and we know that his testimony is true " ? If this declaration
proceeds from John's colleagues in the apostleship, it simply
certifies that their recollection of the facts accords with
that of John, which assuredly implies nothing hurtful to his
character. Is it not related in the Muratori Fragment that
it was decided that John should write all in his own name,
and that the others should revise his narrative {recognoscentibus
cunctis) ? If it emanates from the presbyters of Ephesus, it
signifies that they, knowing the apostle personally, and having
found hira truthful and holy in aU his conduct, are perfectly
assured of the truth of his testiraony in the Gospel narrative
which he has left. There is nothing to prevent these two
meanings from being applied here together. There is nothing,
therefore, in this saying which is opposed, as M. Nicolas has
alleged {Revue germanique, Ap. 1863), to the apostoUc dignity
of him who wrote the Gospel,
Does ver. 25 proceed from the same plurality of witnesses
as ver, 24 ? There are three evidences which lead us to
doubt this. First, the graramatical or syntactical forra of the
verse, Ver, 24 stiU bore the irapress of Johannine sim
plicity. The construction of ver. 25 is more compUcated.
Then the verb in the sing, olpai, I suppose, which contrasts
with the plur, o'iSapev, we know, ver, 24, FinaUy, the too
emphasized exaggeration which characterizes the verse. We
feel ourselves carried somewhat beyond the simple gravity
and sobriety of an apostle. But must we conclude hence
that the verse has been interpolated at a date posterior to the
publication, as is thought by Meyer and Tischendorf? It
would be impossible in this case to understand how there
were not spread throughout the Church a great many copies

CHAP, XXL 24, 25, 365
free from this addition. It is true the Sinaiticus omits it,
but it is solitary in this respect, and there is no manuscript
more chargeable than it is with omissions and inadvertencies.
Besides, we have here to do probably with an intentional
rejection, in consequence of the very proofs which we have
been indicating. As this verse is wanting nowhere else,
any more than ver. 24, it is probable that it accompanied the
Gospel from the time of its pubUcation, and that it proceeds
consequently from the pen of some one of the members of
that body from which the attestation of ver. 24 emanates.
The tone of the verse is not without resemblance to that of
the descriptions given by Papias in his well-known ampli
fications relative to the thousand years' reign ; and as this
Father is said to have been contemporary with Aristion, with
the presbyter John, and even with the. Apostle John (Introd.
vol, i, pp, 49—54), it is not impossible that the subject of
the verb / think may be Papias himself, a fact which would
explain the strange notice discovered by Tischendorf in a
manuscript of the Vatican, according to which Papias was
the secretary to whom John dictated his Gospel.^
In any case, the meaning of the verse is, that if this
narrative is the truth (ver. 24), it is not all tbe truth; for,
says the author, the task of evangelic narration, if it were
understood in the sense that it raust furnish a coraplete
history of the Hfe of Jesus, could never be realized, not only
because never could such a life be adequately contained in
books, but also {ovSi, not even) because the whole universe
would be too Uttle to contain the books which would fulfil
this condition. The meaning of this hyperbole, which taken
literaUy would be ridiculous, even attenuated as it is by the
word I think, is evidently this : the infinite cannot be com
pletely contained within the compass of the finite ; or : the
category of spirit is and remains superior to that of space.
Writings might be added to writings without end to describe
the glory of the only-begotten Son, fuU of the grace and
truth of God. . . , This indefinite series of writings would
never exhaust such a subject.
From this detaUed study we conclude: 1st, That the
narrative, vv, 1-23, is from the hand of the evangelist, 2d.
' Wann wurden unsere Evangelien verfasst ? p. 119.

366 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
That ver, 24 is a declaration emanating from the friends of
John, who had caUed forth the composition of his Gospel,
and to whom he had comraitted it after its completion (comp.
what is said of Mark entrusting his Gospel to his friends in
the Roman church who had asked it of him). 3d. That
ver. 25 is written by one of them with whom the work was
deposited, and who thought himself bound to close it thus,
to the glory not of the author, but of the subject of the
history. By these last words the entire work becomes one
whole. Accordingly we are shut up to hold either that
John is the author of our Gospel, or that the author is a
forger who, 1st, palmed himself off on the world with all
the characteristics of the apostle ; who, 2d, carried his shame-
lessness so far that he got made out for him, by an accomplice
of his fraud, a certificate of identity with the person of
John ; or who, more simply still, to save himself the trouble
of finding a companion in falsehood, made out this certificate
for himself in the name of another, or of several others.
And he who had recourse to such ways was the author of a
writing in which lying is blasted as the work of the devil
(viU. 44), and truth glorified as one of the two essential
features of the Divine character ! If any one wUl believe
such a story ... let him believe it ! (1 Cor. xiv, 38),
For my part, I rejoice to be able to say that the renewed
study of this inimitable work has made the certainty of its
authenticity shine before my view with evermore irresistible
clearness. It is proved, as it seems to me, above aU by the
luminous transparency with which there is revealed in it the
self-consciousness of Christ, A Divine life, humanly Hved,
Jesus offers Himself to the world as the bread of life, come
down from heaven, that whosoever eats of it may realize
through Him the sublime destination of our race : man in
God, God in man. This conception bears within it the seal
of its origin.

THE END.

T. and T. Clark's Publications.

Just published, in demy Swo, price 12s,,
THE SCRIPTURAL DOCTRINE OF SACRIFICE.
Bt ALFRED CAVE, B.A.

BOOK I.— PREPARATORY.
Part I. The Pateiaechal Doctrine of Saceifice.
Part II. The Mosaic Doctrine of Saceifice.
Part III. The Post-Mosaic Doctrine of Sacrifice.
BOOK IL— PLEROMATIC.

' We have nothing but praise for its clearness, its method, its thoroughness, and its
tolerance. We most warmly commend Mr. Cave's book to the study of the clergy, who
will find it full of suggestiveness and instruction.' — Eiiglish CImrchman.
' A thoroughly able and erudite book, from almost every page of which something
may be learned. The author's method is exact and logical, the style perspicuous
and forcible — sometimes, indeed, almost epigrammatic; and as a cai-eful attempt to
ascertain the teaching of the Scripture on an important subject, it cannot fail to be
interesting even to those whom it does not convince.' — Walch'man.
- ' We wish to draw particular attention to this new work on the deeply-important
subject of sacrifice. , . . If we can induce our- readers not only to glance through
the book, but to read every line with thoughtful care, as we have done, we shall have
earned their gratitude.' — Church Bells.
' It would be difficult to point to any modern theological work in English which
reveals more abundant and patient scholarship, a more vigorous and comprehensive
view of a gi-eat question. The subject is large and the literature enormous, the lines of
investigation are numerous and intricate; but the author of the volume before us has
displayed a fine mastery of voluminous material, and, after examining the scriptural
phraseology in its historical development, positive declarations, and immediate infer
ences thefefrom, he draws out his conclusions with great care and contrasts them with
views of a more speculative kind which have been advanced by distmguished_ scholars
in Germany and England. The argument of the volume is sustained by logical com
pact: lucidity of style, and considerable learning; it is a guide to the opmious of
th^ principal writers on every part of the subject, and is pervaded by a fine spnitual
tone.' — Evangelical Review.
' Mr Cave has given us in this large volume a very thorough examination of the great
doctehie orsSce. . . . And rlligious constructors will find m this work a perfect
storehouse oMnformation, and ample materials for expositions and defences.. We
clnnot be mistaken in predicting for the book a cordial welcome.'-Sa^«u« Mugazme.
' It is of supreme and imperative importance that the inspired writings should be con-
this theme; but all ms reanmg ^° """" , ,,j^ ^^ felicity and critical ability
Bible speak in clear and ""^^^gl^^ to'ies and wi^^^^^ ^^^ ^^^j^^^^ ^^
he enforces upon the attention everything the fc"="P™^«^^^; j scholarly notes, and an
thiscrucialdoctrineof conteoveray andfaift ^=1 appendix o .y ^^.^ ,^^
fo'mpiriSf bTofoVtrS^iS^o^^^^^^^^^^ ^ ^^-1 f» —
prZnsiveuess and interest'-Ke Study and the PulpU.

2 T. and T. Clark's Publications. y
Just published, in crown Svo, price 5s,,
THE
SYMBOLIC PAEABLES
OF
THE CHUEOH, THE WOKLD, AND THE ANTICHEIST,
ISetng tije Separate Pretitctt0n0 of tlje ^pocalgp^e,
VIEWED IN their RELATION TO THE GENERAL TRUTHS OF SCRIPTURE.
Br Mrs. STEVENSON.

' An excellent treatise, containing much clear thongbt, and written as intelligibly as tlie
subject would permit. To students of propbecy tbe book ougbt to be an attractive one;
and to every one who desires to bave a clearer understanding of bis Bible, it wiU give
mucb valuable assistance.' — Glasgow Herald.
' Tbis is a sober, well- written, and instructive treatise on tbe Apocalypse. It is exceed
ingly suggestive, and tbe tbeory tbe autbor expounds bolds well togetber. Tbe key
seems to fit every ward of tbe lock. Tbis volume is wortby of tbe most serious con
sideration of all wbo take an interest in propbecy.' — Daily Review.
' It is quite refresbing to meet witb a treatise on tbe Book of Eevelatiou Hke tliis,
marted by good sense and reverence. Brief as it is, it throws more light on a difificult
subject than many laboured tomes.' — Methodist Recorder.
' It deserves careful study from all to wbom tbe Book of Eevelation has been regarded
as a mystic utterance not meant for them, for it bas tbe great advantage of being com
prehensible by tbe most siraple and unlearned.' — Jofin Bull.
' Preachers will here find a mine of valuable bints on tbe spiritual bearing of the
symbols which John's Apocalypse contains.' — Dickinson's Quarterly.

Just published^ in crown Svo, price 45.,
OUTLINES OF BIBLICAL PSYCHOLOGY.
By j. T. beck, D.D.,
PROF. CRD. THEOL., TUBINGEN.
SCranslateti from tlje 2ri)irb ffinlargcb anb dorreeteti ffierman fi^tiitton, 1877.

' In this little volume Dr. Beck has given us a valuable contribution to the study of
this science.' — HomileiiG Quarterly.
' This handbook of Dr. Beck's is an admhable summary, and cannot fail to be fruitful
in rich and valuable thought to those who will take the trouble to study it.'— Christian ¦
Age. ' The smallness of the work should not lead to -its being undervalued ; it well deserves
a place side by side with Delitzsch and Heard. . . . We do warmly recommend this
volume as one of the most fresh and valuable contributions to theological literature of
recent date.' — Wesleyan Methodist Magazine.
' "We qiiite endorse Bishop EUicott's statement that, for many readers, Beck's will be
found to be the most handy manual on the subject.' — Church Bells.

T. and T. Clark's Publications.

In two volumes, demy Svo, price 21s.,
Growth of the Spirit of Christianity,
FEOM THE FIEST CENTURY TO THE DAWN OF
THE LUTHERAN ERA,
BY THE
REV, GEORGE MATHESON, M.A., B.D,,
AUTHOK OP ' AIDS TO THE STUDY OF GEEMAN THEOLOST.'

CONTENTS.

CHAPTEK I. The Originality and Oldness of
the Chi-istian Eeligion.
II. Preparation for the Cross.
III. The Ingathering.
IV. Birthplace of the Spirit of Chris
tianity.
v. Transition from Infancy into
Childhood.
VI. The Hopes of CMldbood.
VII. Breaking up of Home Associa
tions.
VIII. Extinctionof Home Associations.
IS. Independent Speculations of the
Child-Life.
X. Influence of Worldly Contact.
XI. Moral Stru^les of the Child-
Life.
XII. Fluctuations of the Struggle.
XIII. Decline of the Ideal
. XIV. The Child-Life under the World's
Tuition.
XV. Last Efforts of the SeU-WilL
XVI. The Eeconciliation Completed,
XVII. Close of aie Child-Life.
XVIIL Chairacteristicsofthe New Period.
XIX. First Practical Influences of the
Christian Spirit.
XX. First Intellectual Stage of the
School-Life.
XXI. Protestant Influence of Moham
medanism,

CHAPTEB XXII. First Eeyolt of the School-
Life.
XXIIL The Church under New Guar
dianship.
XXIV. The Church become the World.
XXV. Eevival of Aspiration.
XXVI. First Glimmeriags of the
Komantic Age.
XXVII. Expanding of Christiaji Intel
ligence.
XXVIIL Second Eeyolt of the School-
¦ Life.
XXIX. Last Triumphof the Temporal
Papacy.
XXX. Search for a Eule of Conduct.
XXXI. Discovery of * New Well-
Spring.
XXXII. Decline of the Temporal
Papacy.
XXXIII. Third Eevolt of the School-
Life.
XXXIV. Close of the School-Lite; the
Negative Eeformation Com
pleted.
XXXV. The Independence of Youth.
XXXVL The Moral Preparation of
Youth.
XXXVII. The Intellectual Preparation of
Youth in its Eelation to Art
and the Eeformation.
XXXVIIL The Dawn of a New Day.

BY THE SAME AUTHOR.

In crown Svo, Third Edition, price is. 6d.,
Aids to the Study of Germmt Theology.
' The Author has done his work well, and has given us a real help to the understanding
of German theology.' — Princeton Review.
' A work of much labour and learning, giving in a small compass an intelligent review
of a very large subject.' — Spectator.
' An excellent and modest book, which may be heartily recommended. — Academy.
' A helpful little volume : helpful to the student of German theology, and not less so
to the careful observer of the tendencies of English religious thought.'— /"recmare.
' The writer or compiler deserves high praise for the clear manner in which he has in
a brief compass stated these opinions.' — Christian Observer.

T. and T. Clark's Publications.

In crown Svo, price f>s.,
THE LEVITICAL PRIESTS.
A CONTRIBUTION TO THE CRITICISM OF THE
PENTATEUCH.
Br SAMUEL IVES CURTISS, Jk.,
DOCTOK OF PHILOSOPHY, LEIPZIG.

Chapter I. Introduction.
II. The Ordination and Duties of Levi.
III. The Inheritance of Levi.
IV. The Blessing of Levi.
V. The Modern Critic's Bridge.
VI. Joshua — 2 Kings.
VII. The Credibility of the Chronicler.
VIII, The Prophets and the Priests,
IX. The Authorship of Deuteronomy and the Middle Books of the Pentateuch.
Appendix I. The Sources of the Chronicler.
„ II. The Meaning of the word Thorah in Hos. iv. 6.
„ III. The Authorship of Isaiah xl.-lxvi.
„ IV. The text of D'''li'n Dijnan.
Extract from Preface by Dr. Delitzsch.
THE Author of the following work has made himself thoroughly acquainted with the
writings of the chief representatives of this theory, and seeks by means of sober
arguments to show (1) that the history of the people of Israel, as it lies before us in the
historical books, presupposes a distinction in rank between the priests and the Levites,
which reaches back to the time of Moses, and existed througboutall the periods of Israelitish
history ; (2) that the post-exilic books are in no way favourable to the opinion that the
priestly hierarchy is a product of the time of Ezra ; (3) that Deuteronomy, where it
treats of religious privileges, does indeed assign them to the tribe of Levi, but yet so
that these privileges — without contradicting the older legislation, which Deuteronomy
recapitulates in an abridged form, and accommodates to changed circumstances — raay be
relatively distributed to the sons of Aaron and the Levites. He shows — and this
deserves special attention — that the post-exiUo Chronicles contain passages which in a
Deuteronomic manner entirely obliterate the distinction between priests and Levites,
while other passages emphasize it.

In crown Svo, price 5s.,

FAITH IN GOD:
SERMONS
The
Late
Rev. JAMES HAMILTON,
EDITED BY
M.A,
Rev.
WILLIAM SCRYMGEOUR.
T. and T. Clark's Publications.

Just published, in demy Svo, price 6s.,
A TREATISE ON THE
Inspiration of the Holy Scriptures.
BT
CHARLES ELLIOTT, D.D.,
PEOFESSOE OF BIBLICAL LITEEATUEE AND EXEGESIS IN THE PKESBTTBEIAN THEOLOGICAL
SEMINAEY OF THE NOKTH-WEST, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS.
Just published, in one large Svo volume. Eighth English Edition, price 15s.,
A TREATISE ON THE
GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK,
§l^gairir*ir as i\t §asis ai |t«to %t^imimi (^w^mx^.
Translated from the German [of Dr. G. B. WINER].
With large additions and full Indices. Second Edition, Edited by Rev, W,
P. Moulton, D.D., one of the New Testament Translation Eevisers,
The additions by the Editor are very large, and will tend to make this great
work far more useful and available for English students than it has hitherto
been. The Indices have been greatly enlarged, bnt with discrimination, so as
to be easily used. Altogether, the Publishers do not doubt that this will be the
Standard Grammar of New Testament Greek.
' We gladly welcome the appearance of Winer's great work in an English translation,
and must strongly recommend it to all who wish to attain to a sound and accurate
knowledge ot the language of the New Testament. We need not say it is the Grammar
of the New Testament. It is not only superior to all others, but so superior as to be by
common consent the one work of reference on the subject. No other could be mentioned
vrith it.' — Literary Churchman.

T. and T. Clark's Publications.

Just published. Second Edition, demy %vo, \as. 6d.,
The Training of the Twelve ;

OR,

EXPOSITION OF PASSAGES IN THE GOSPELS
EXHIBITING THE TWELVE DISCIPLES OF JESUS UNDER
DISCIPLINE FOR THE APOSTLESHIP.

A. B. BRUCE, D.D.,
PEOFESSOE OF DIVmiTY, FEEE CHURCH COLLEGE, GLASGOW,

' Here we have a really great book on an important, large, and attractive subject — a
book full of loving, wholesome, profound thoughts about the fundamentals of Christian
faith and practice.' — British and Foreign Evangelical Review.
' It is some five or six years since this work first made its appearance, and now that a
second edition has been called for, the author has taken the opportunity to make some
alterations which are likely to render it still more acceptable. Substantially, however,
the book remains the same, and the hearty commendation with which we noted its first
issue appUes to it at least as much now.' — Rock.
' The value, the beauty of this volume is that it is a unique contribution to, because a
loving and cultured study of, the Ufe of Christ, in the relation of the Master of the
Twelve.' — Edinburgh Daily Review.
' The volume is of permanent value, and we trust that its author may favour us with
others of like chai-acter.' — Freedman.
* It is of no mean order as a profoundly devout piece of practical divinity.' — Wesleyan
Methodist Magazine.
'It was by the first edition of this invaluable book that Dr. Bruce becaine known to
English students as a theological writer. A more scholarly, more helpful book has not
been published for many years past.' — Baptist Magazine.
BY THE SAME AUTHOR.
In one volume, %vo, price \2s.,
THE HUMILIATION OF CHRIST
IJ^ ITS PHYSICAL, ETHICAL, AJVD
OFFICIAL ASPECTS.

(Sixth Series of Cunningham Lectures.)
' These lectures are able and deep-reaching to a degree not often found in the rehgious
literature of the day; withal, they are fresh and suggestive. . . , The learning and the
deep and sweet spirituality of this discussion wiU commend it to many faithful students
of the truth as it is in Jesus.' — Congregaiionalist.
' We have not for a long time met with a work so fresh and suggestive as this of
Professor Bruce. . . . We do not know where to look at our English Universities for
a treatise so calm, logical, and scholarly.' — English Independent.
' The title of the book gives but a faint conception of the value and wealth of its con
tents. ... Dr. Bruce's work is really one of exceptional value; and no one can read it
without perceptible gain in theological knowledge.' — English Churchman.
' The writer gives evidence of extensive and accurate theological learning in the topics
of which he treats, and he shows that he has theological grasp as well as learning.' —
Church Bells.

YALE UNIVbRbl I V LiBRARY

3 9002 08837 4971