_________________________________________________________________

           Title: The New Testament Commentary Vol. III: John
      Creator(s): Johnson, B.W.
     Print Basis: St. Louis: Christian Pulishing Company, 1886
          Rights: Public Domain
   CCEL Subjects: All; Bible; Commentary
      LC Call no: BS2615.J6
   LC Subjects:

   The Bible

   New Testament

   Special parts of the New Testament
     _________________________________________________________________

                                      The

                           New Testament Commentary

                                  Volume III

                                     John

                          A Commentary for the People

                            Based on both versions.

   Author of
   “A Vision of the Ages,”
   “Christian Lesson Commentary,”
   etc.

   Christian Board of Publication
   St. Louis 3, Missouri

   COPYRIGHTED, 1886, BY CHRISTIAN PUBLISHING COMPANY
   [This text is in the public domain.]

   To
   Sarah A. Johnson,
   the faithful companion of a long pilgrimage,
   whose constant watchcare has
   greatly multiplied the labors of
   a not strong constitution,
   this volume is affectionately inscribed
   by the author.
     _________________________________________________________________

                                    Preface

   I have had in view, in writing this Commentary on John, the wants of the
   ordinary reader, rather than critics, preachers and theologians, and have
   therefore aimed to write in plain and simple language, avoiding technical
   phrases and Greek words which would only be intelligible to the learned.
   While I have endeavored to avail myself of the studies of the great Biblical
   scholars I have sought to present in a popular form the results of their
   studies, rather than their methods. As it has been the aim of my life to
   speak or write for the benefit of the common people, so in this volume I
   have constantly had before my mind that class to whom the Great Teacher so
   adapted his instruction that “they heard him gladly.” I have felt the more
   need of simple forms of speech, copious illustration and application, in
   that the Fourth Gospel itself, on account of its lofty themes, rises to an
   elevation far above the ordinary channels of human thought, and is less
   likely to be understood by the common reader than the more matter of fact
   treatises that precede it in the New Testament.

   It is fitting that I should acknowledge my indebtedness to those of whose
   studies I have freely availed myself. With most of the commentaries of note
   in the English language at hand for consultation, I have industriously
   compared them, often adopting their views, and even when I did not,
   frequently receiving suggestions that have aided me to a satisfactory
   conclusion. Where I have quoted an author I have given proper credit, but I
   cannot refrain from expressing my especial obligation to the critical Greek
   Testament of Dean Alford. I have found no other author whose calm and
   impartial temper and sound judgment were so generally trustworthy. I also
   place a high value upon the work of Canon Westcott.

   I have thought it would help to an understanding of the text to give the
   Revision and the Common Version, side by side. The former, while not likely
   to become the “Accepted Version” until it has undergone further revision, is
   probably the most accurate translation yet made, and often clears up obscure
   passages. While it is given, and used in the comment, it is not made the
   basis for the reason that it is not yet the Accepted Version of the English
   speaking world.

   On the difficult question of the Chronology of the ministry of our Lord I
   have, in the main, followed Andrews, from whose very careful arrangement, a
   departure is not lightly to be made, though in one or two instances I have
   thought there were sufficient reasons for a deviation. It will be seen that
   John, while passing many details, follows the natural order of events and,
   in order that each may be seen and studied in its proper connection, I have
   aimed to outline, in their place, the incidents of our Savior's history
   which are to be supplied from the other Evangelists.

   Whatever imperfections of style the reader may discover are to be ascribed,
   in part, to the fact that this work has been written at intervals snatched
   from a very busy life. While the study of the writings of John has been a
   pursuit and joy for years, the writer feels that the quiet and studious
   repose of the library would have been more favorable to satisfactory
   arrangement of the results than the hurry of an editorial career. Still he
   trusts that his labors may aid some of his fellow mortals to a fuller
   knowledge of Him whom to have seen and known is to have seen the Father. He
   commits this study of the last and greatest of the Gospels to the public
   with the prayer that it may be blessed as a means of leading men to “believe
   that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing, they might
   have life through his name.”
     _________________________________________________________________

                                 Introduction.
     _________________________________________________________________

The Authorship.

   The Fourth Gospel has in all ages been ascribed by the Church to John, the
   son of Zebedee, an apostle of Jesus Christ. Within less than an hundred
   years of the date of his death Christian writers living in different
   portions of the world, whose writings are still extant, indicate to us that
   this was the universal belief of the Church. The testimony to the authorship
   is stronger than can be furnished in behalf of almost any uninspired writing
   of antiquity, and it would hardly be worth while to allude to the question
   had not a class of modern critics arisen who decide the question of the
   authorship of a portion of Scripture by the agreement or non-agreement of
   its teachings with their own views. Since the Fourth Gospel is more emphatic
   in affirming the pre-existence and divine majesty of Jesus Christ than the
   other three, a school of recent rationalistic critics has held that it is
   not the work of an apostle. I will very briefly show the reasons why its
   authorship must be conceded to John.

   1. It is certain that it was written by a Jew. The familiarity which is
   constantly shown with Jewish locations proves that the author must have been
   a resident of Palestine. Places are named that are not spoken of elsewhere
   in the Old or New Testament, and of the existence of which we would have had
   no knowledge were it not for the fact that they are mentioned in this
   Gospel. Some of these, whose sites were unknown for ages, have been brought
   to light by recent exploration. “Ænon near to Salim” is an example. Not only
   does the author exhibit the most intimate knowledge of places, but of Jewish
   rites, customs, prejudices and feelings. This is so constantly exhibited as
   to demonstrate that the Gospel could not be the work of a Gentile. Every
   ancient writer, not of the Jewish race, who attempts to describe the Jewish
   people falls into the greatest errors, and the exact acquaintance with
   Jewish life, portrayed in almost every chapter, leaves no doubt that the
   Fourth Gospel is the product of a man born and reared under Jewish
   influences. Not only does the author exhibit an intimate knowledge of Jewish
   life, usages, and religious views and feelings, but also of the Jewish
   Scriptures. These are quoted with great frequency and it is noted by
   scholars that these quotations are often not taken from the Septuagint, the
   version into the Greek language, in which only these writings were known to
   the Gentile world. They are at times from the Hebrew, where it differs from
   the Septuagint, and at times the translation is original, instead of that of
   the Greek version. This establishes beyond a doubt, not only that the author
   was a Hebrew, but a Hebrew of Palestine. Among the Jews dispersed abroad
   (The Dispersion) the service of the synagogue was conducted, not in Hebrew,
   but in Greek by means of the Septuagint version. To Gentiles of all
   conditions of life and to Jews of the Dispersion with rare exceptions, the
   Hebrew Scriptures were, even in the Apostolic Age and earlier centuries,
   unknown. No instance is known of a Gentile in those times becoming possessed
   of such knowledge.

   To the same conclusions the Hebraic style of the book bears testimony. Dr.
   Ewald, the greatest Hebrew scholar of the nineteenth century, declares “The
   Greek language of our author bears the strongest marks of a genuine Hebrew
   who, born among the Jews of the Holy Land, and having grown up among them,
   had learned the Greek language in later life, but still exhibits in the
   midst of the whole the spirit and air of his native tongue.”

   2. The Jewish author must have been a personal attendant of the Savior and a
   witness of the scenes which he describes. There is a life-like portraiture
   and an attention to details that could not come from hearsay. The first
   chapter furnishes an illustration in its account of the witness of John, the
   disciples directed to the Lamb of God, the disciples gathering around Jesus,
   and the conversation with Nathanael. The same characteristic is seen in the
   account of the wedding feast at Cana of Galilee, at the feeding of the Five
   Thousand, in the conversation at the Passover Supper, and on many other
   occasions. The writer must either describe as an eye-witness what he saw and
   heard, or he must have manufactured the details, a hypothesis utterly
   improbable, for reasons that will be given elsewhere. He claims to have been
   an eye-witness, and the internal evidence declares that his claim is true.

   3. If the writer was a Jew, an attendant on Christ and a disciple, he must
   have been an apostle. There were none others who were with him from the
   beginning to the end of his earthly ministry. He must have been an apostle,
   too, who was admitted to the most sacred intimacy with the Lord, and who
   shared his thoughts to a degree not common even to the apostolic band. There
   is no other portion of the Scriptures, not excepting the other Gospels, that
   so completely reveals the inmost thoughts of our Lord. Elsewhere we have the
   Savior portrayed as the teacher of Israel and as He appeared in his
   conflicts with his adversaries. Here, in addition, we hear his confidential
   counsels to his chosen disciples, his tender consolation and intense
   solicitude; we behold the very pulsations of his loving heart as he stands
   revealed as Lord and Master, Friend and Brother. Of the apostolic band only
   three, Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, were admitted to the inner circle
   of the Savior's confidence. Peter could not have been the author, because
   (1) the style and mode of thought differ materially from what we observe in
   Peter's addresses and the two Epistles of which he was the author, and (2)
   all antiquity holds that the Gospel of Mark was written under the
   supervision of Peter. James could not have written it, for he suffered
   martyrdom at the hands of Herod long before the date to which it must be
   assigned. John only, remains, and it follows from this induction that it
   must have been written by John the Apostle.

   4. This harmonizes with the statements made in the Gospel itself and with
   its internal character. Certain facts should be noted. (1) The author never
   mentions John the Apostle by name, and barely once names the sons of
   Zebedee. When he names John the Baptist, he calls him simply John, as if no
   other John was worthy of mention. (2) The author was an intimate companion
   of Peter. It was to him Peter whispered at the Supper; he and Peter come to
   the sepulcher together; they were fishing together in Galilee when the risen
   Savior appeared; it was of his future fate that Peter asked the Lord on this
   same occasion. When we turn to the history of Peter and John we find that
   the same intimacy existed, they were fishermen together and partners before
   they became disciples of Jesus; they were constant companions and
   fellow-workers in the early preaching of the Gospel as recorded in Acts.

   5. There can be no doubt but that the same person was the author of the
   Fourth Gospel who wrote the First Epistle of John. There is an identity of
   thought and a similarity of phraseology that are unmistakable. If it is from
   the hand of John, as is generally conceded, so must be the Gospel also.

   We have now considered the internal evidence of authorship which points
   unmistakably to the younger of the two sons of Zebedee. It will be of
   service to inquire whether this view is confirmed by the testimony of
   antiquity. As stated by Lucke, who has made an exhaustive examination of the
   subject, “down to the end of the second century this Gospel was universally
   recognized and attributed to the apostle whose name it bears.” In the Canon
   Muratori, the first list of the New Testament writings, a fragment which
   belongs to somewhere near A. D. 180, it is named and ascribed to John. About
   the close of the century or the beginning of the next, Clement of
   Alexandria, Tertullian of Carthage, and Irenæus of Gaul, all bear similar
   testimony. That the reader may see his opportunity for full knowledge upon
   the subject we will quote from Irenæus. This eminent writer, an earnest
   Christian and a martyr, says: “I can even describe the place where the
   blessed Polycarp used to sit and discourse—his going out and his coming
   in—his general mode of life and personal appearance, together with the
   discourses he delivered to the people; also how he spoke of his familiar
   intercourse with John, and with the rest of those who had seen the Lord; and
   how he could call their words to remembrance. . . . What I heard of him I
   wrote, not on paper, but in my heart, and by the grace of God I constantly
   keep it in mind.” It will be seen that Irenæus was a pupil of Polycarp who
   was a pupil of John, and surely had every opportunity of knowing just what
   John did write. He states it as an undoubted fact that John wrote the Gospel
   that bears his name. The testimony stands as follows. 1. All the internal
   evidence points directly to John as the author. 2. Men who talked with those
   who were his companions, affirm that be was the author. 4. The universal
   voice of the Church at the close of the second century harmonizes in
   ascribing the Gospel to John; an array of testimony that can leave no doubt
   that it came from the pen of the beloved apostle. If we reverse the order of
   proof it stands as follows:

   1. In the fourth century all the ancient Greek manuscripts of the New
   Testament, including the Sinaitic and Vatican, which belongs to the age of
   Constantine, and are copies of older manuscripts; all the ancient versions
   made during the second and third centuries, and all the canons of the books
   of the New Testament contain John and ascribe it to the apostle.

   2. The Greek and Latin Fathers up to the middle of the second century,
   without a dissenting voice, bear the same testimony. This includes Jerome
   who died A. D. 419, Eusebius (340), Origen (254), Tertullian (200), Clement
   (190), Irenæus who wrote about A. D. 178, Theophilus (180), Muratorian Canon
   (170), Tatian (155-170) who quotes the Gospel, Justin Martyr (103-166) who
   also quotes it. It may be added that Polycarp, the disciple of John, of
   whose writings only a fragment is preserved, in it quotes the First Epistle
   of John, but it is conceded that it had the same author as the Gospel. This
   martyr died A. D. 155, when about 86 years old, and was 25 or 30 years old
   when John went to rest.

   If, then, John did not write the Fourth Gospel, it must have been written
   about the time he died by a great Unknown, the mightiest mind of the Gospel
   historians and palmed off on the men who knew John personally and had been
   educated at his feet as the genuine composition of the last of the apostles.
   This must have been done so skilfully that no dissenting voice in the Church
   protested against the fraud!

     Either we must have here truths which Christ taught reported by one who
     lived after the spiritual and catholic character of Christianity had begun
     to show its actual development, and who, therefore, comprehended his
     profounder instructions as they were not comprehended during his lifetime;
     or else we must believe that the centuries immediately following the
     Christian era produced a spiritual genius whose insight into the
     profounder truths of human experience, when inflamed into more than merely
     human life by the inbreathing of God, makes him the equal if not the
     superior of the Jesus portrayed in the three Synoptic Gospels, and yet one
     who has been utterly unknown to fame, and who has left no other monument
     to his memory than a document that is a fraud if not a forgery. The
     skepticism that asserts this lays too heavy a tax on human credulity. It
     asks us to believe not only in a Socrates who had no Plato to reveal his
     teachings and his influences, but in one who did not hesitate to employ a
     petty and a useless fraud as a setting for the most transcendent spiritual
     truth.—Abbott.
     _________________________________________________________________

The Author's Life.

   John the Apostle, was evidently born and reared in the vicinity of the sea
   where he afterwards assisted his father in the calling of a fisherman. It
   has been thought that Bethsaida on the northern shore was his early home. As
   James is usually mentioned first, John is supposed to have been the younger
   of the two sons of Zebedee. Salome, his mother, is thought to have been a
   sister of Mary the mother of Christ, a hypothesis that would make John the
   cousin of our Savior. He was probably a few years younger than Jesus as all
   antiquity testifies that he lived until the year 98 of our era. His parents
   seem to have been in comfortable circumstances, since we have an allusion to
   the hired servants of his father, and his mother was one of that band of
   noble women who followed Jesus, supported him with their means, who brought
   spices to his tomb, and who were last at the cross and first at the open
   sepulcher. John was himself a personal acquaintance of the high priest and
   seems to have had a home in Jerusalem into which he received the mother of
   our Lord after the crucifixion. The fact that he was called on to do so
   favors the idea that he was a kinsman.

   He was pronounced by the Jews (Acts 4:13) an “unlearned and ignorant man.”
   This, however, does not mean that he was illiterate, but that he had taken
   no theological course in the rabbinical schools, without which they thought
   that it was great presumption for any one to assume to be a teacher of
   religion. The education of John was such as all respectable Jewish children
   were wont to receive and we know that they were better educated than the
   children of any other nation in the world. There never was a people where
   the requirements of home education were so rigid and, in addition, a school
   was attached to the synagogue. Familiarity with the Scriptures in the Hebrew
   original was required from the earliest childhood, five years being the age
   named by the Jewish writers as that at which the child should begin to read,
   and the education was continued by regular gradations to the age of
   eighteen. John had not only passed through this course but had also been a
   disciple of John the Baptist and enjoyed the benefit of his preparation for
   the ministry of Christ. In addition to this, before he entered upon the work
   of the Twelve as the representatives of the will of Christ on the earth, he
   had sat for three years at the feet of Jesus and enjoyed the benefit of his
   constant teachings. Surely with these opportunities few men have enjoyed
   such educational opportunities as the author of the Fourth Gospel.

   It was while attending upon John as his disciple that he was pointed to
   Jesus by the Forerunner, and left him to become a disciple of our Lord. This
   incident occurred on the banks of the Jordan where John was baptizing,
   shortly after the Temptation. A little later he was enrolled as one of the
   Twelve, and becomes one of the Three who stood nearest of all to Christ, who
   beheld his transfiguration and the scene of the Garden of Gethsemane. He
   leaned on the bosom of Christ at the last Supper, followed him to the court
   of the high priest, alone of all the apostles stood near the cross at the
   crucifixion, and was entrusted by the dying Savior with the care of his
   mother. He was the first to recognize the Savior at the sea of Galilee, and
   seems to have had a rare faculty of spiritual perception, shown in the
   reception of the deepest sayings of the Lord.

   While quiet, contemplative and loving, he was not without traits of a
   different character. It is James and John who are styled by the Savior the
   Sons of Thunder, a name which seems to imply a fiery, energetic temper; it
   is James and John who wish to call down fire upon the Samaritan village
   which had refused to receive Jesus (Luke 9:54-56); it is John who forbade
   others who were doing a good work in the name of Christ, because they were
   not of the apostolic circle (Luke 9:49); it is Salome who asks, in behalf of
   her two sons, that they may be the prime ministers of Christ in the earthly
   kingdom that they expected him to establish; and it is John who in his
   epistles exhibits the most intense indignation over the wiles of opposers.
   Here every one who dishonors the Christian profession is a liar; one who
   hates his brother a murderer; one who sins wilfully a child of the devil,
   and those who deny the incarnation are Antichrist. Evidently John's was a
   strong, fiery nature, of intense feeling, but sweetened down by the love of
   Christ and guided by the Holy Spirit.

   From the era of the founding of the Church on Pentecost John stands along
   with Peter as one of the foremost characters. At a little later period Paul
   speaks of Peter and James and John “as seeming to be the pillars” (Gal.
   2:9), and as apostles of the circumcision, while Paul and Barnabas
   represented the uncircumcision. With Peter he heals the cripple at the gate
   of the temple; he is arrested with Peter and threatened by the Sanhedrim,
   and with him he was sent to confirm the Christian converts at Samaria. While
   it is evident that he made his home in Jerusalem and Judea for twenty or
   thirty years after the establishment of the Church, he seems to have stood
   aloof from the Judaizing controversy that assumed such prominence during
   that period. Though not mentioned by name he is included in those said to be
   present at the conference on this question about A. D. 50 or 51, and Paul,
   in Gal. 2:9, referring to a visit to Jerusalem which is believed to have
   been at this time, says expressly that he saw him. At the fifth and last
   visit of Paul, made some eight or ten years later, he saw only James (Acts
   21:18). All the apostles living had dispersed to other fields of labor.

   It seems probable from this that before the year 60 John had left Jerusalem.
   He must have made that city his home until the death of Mary, but from this
   time we have no scriptural testimony of his whereabouts until we behold him
   as an exile on the island of Patmos.

   The gap that remains between his disappearance from Jerusalem and his
   reappearance at Patmos can only be partly filled from the testimony of the
   early church. There can be no doubt but that he passed many years in Asia
   Minor with his headquarters at Ephesus, but it is almost certain that he did
   not remove there until after the death of Paul, placed by the best
   authorities in A. D. 68. According to Conybeare and Howson Paul wrote to
   Titus from Ephesus in A. D. 67, and in the same year wrote to Timothy at
   Ephesus. In neither epistle is the name of John mentioned, which is
   sufficient proof that he was not yet in that part of the world. Already the
   disturbances had begun which culminated three years later in the destruction
   of Jerusalem, and as after a few years John was at Ephesus, we are justified
   in concluding that on, or shortly before, the overthrow of the Jewish state,
   he left Judea, and finally was led by the need of apostolic influence in the
   flourishing churches of Asia Minor, after the death of their founder, to
   locate at Ephesus. This change could hardly have taken place until after the
   fall of Jerusalem.

   Concerning the length of the period John spent in this section of the world,
   or the details of his evangelical labors, we can do little more than
   conjecture. It is only in the dim twilight of the apostolic age that we
   again behold him certainly as the exile of Patmos. Of the following facts we
   may be sure: 1. That at some time during this period he wrote his Gospel,
   the Epistles ascribed to him, and Revelation. 2. That he was exiled for a
   season to Patmos and while there wrote the last named book. 3. That the
   Seven Churches of Asia, of which Ephesus was the center, were to him special
   objects of solicitude (Rev. 1:11), and if we accept the voice of antiquity
   he died and was buried at Ephesus in the reign of Trajan, and at that place
   his grave was pointed out for centuries.

   It is a pleasing picture that the early writers draw of the closing years of
   the last of the Apostles. He is described as the apostle of love, who in his
   extreme old age was carried on the arms of the disciples to the place of
   meeting, and repeated again and again the exhortation, “Little children,
   love one another.” Various legends have come down, some of which may be
   true, but are not confirmed by satisfactory testimony.
     _________________________________________________________________

The Place and Date.

   We have found that the later years of John were passed in Asia Minor and
   principally at Ephesus. Irenæus, who had such excellent sources of
   information and who was himself educated in the same region by a disciple of
   John, declares that the Gospel was written at Ephesus; with him agree Jerome
   and later writers. Irenæus also states that it was the latest written of the
   Gospels, and this agrees with judgment of all commentators. It was therefore
   written after the departure of the Apostle to this portion of the world, and
   there can be little doubt that its place of composition was the great
   metropolis of this portion of the world, and for along period after the fall
   of Jerusalem, the chief center of Christianity. “After the destruction of
   Jerusalem Ephesus became the center of Christian life in the East. Even
   Antioch, the original source of missions to the Gentiles, and the future
   metropolis of the Christian patriarch, appears for a time less conspicuous
   in the obscurity of early church history than Ephesus, to which Paul
   inscribed his Epistle, and in which John found a dwelling place and a tomb.
   This half Greek, half Oriental city, visited by ships from all parts of the
   Mediterranean, and united by great roads with the markets of the interior,
   was the common meeting place of various characters and classes of
   men.”—Conybeare and Howson.

   Of the date we can have no certain knowledge. There are internal evidences
   that would refer it to the last quarter of the first century. It has been
   held by some critics that it is the last composition of the New Testament,
   but I think it contains internal evidence that it was composed before
   Revelation, while the latter seems in its final words to close the sacred
   canon. In addition, the voice of the early church agrees that the Gospel had
   the earlier date. It was almost certainly composed between A. D. 75 and A.
   D. 90. A vague tradition that it was written during the exile to Patmos has
   no authority. Alford fixes the date between A. D. 70 and 85; Macdonald at A.
   D. 86 or 86; Godet between A. D. 80 and 90; Tholuck at not far from A. D.
   100.
     _________________________________________________________________

Character of the Gospel.

   The last record made of the Life and Words of our Lord is contained in the
   Fourth Gospel. The only survivor of the band that had attended his
   footsteps, heard his words, beheld his life, and been a witness of his
   resurrection, was John. The consciousness that he was closing the record,
   giving the last witness, and paying the last tribute to the Master which
   would come from a personal witness, must have produced a profound impression
   upon John when he undertook the task of outlining the ministry of Christ.
   Apart from all promptings of the Spirit, which would bring, all things to
   remembrance, he would be moved by his love and reverence for the Savior to
   give the truest possible revelation of his heart, life and majesty.

   That this consciousness was ever present is manifest from the first to the
   last line of the Gospel. The last is the deepest, the highest, the most
   tender and loving, the most spiritual and the best of all the Gospels.
   Origen calls it “the crown of all the Gospels.” Dr. Schaff pronounces it the
   most influential work of literature that was ever given to the world. There
   can be no doubt that John, with the exception of Paul, is the greatest human
   force that has appeared in Church history, and it may be regarded certain
   that no single book of the Bible has exerted as profound and far-reaching an
   influence as the Gospel of John. Nor is it difficult to account for this. He
   not only wrote after all the other apostles had passed from earth; after
   Jerusalem had fallen, the Jewish nation scattered, the church separated from
   the synagogue, the Jewish and Gentile Christians moulded into one, and the
   Jews regarded by even Jewish converts as an alien people, but he was a
   member of the apostolic band; one, too, of the sacred inner circle who were
   permitted to look into the very heart of Christ. Nay, more, of these three
   he was the “beloved apostle,” the one who leaned on the bosom of the Lord,
   who spoke with him as a confidential friend, and who had charge of the
   mother of Christ after the tragedy of the cross. Surely there never was
   anyone else who enjoyed such precious advantages or who so nobly used them.

   The appreciative reader is struck with the difference between John and the
   other Evangelists as soon as he reads the first sentence. He is conscious
   that a loftier and sweeter key has been struck. He has entered the Holy of
   Holies of the New Testament. He is in the presence of the Divine. It is not
   the tender, helpless Babe of Bethlehem, hanging on the bosom of an earthly
   mother, that meets him at the threshold, but the Incarnate Word, the Word
   who was in the beginning with God and is God. Yet while the Lord first
   appears clothed with Divine majesty, and though no one else has so exalted
   his matchless glory, yet, on the other hand, no one else has so lifted the
   veil from the humanity of the Master, revealed his heart and the tenderness
   of his soul in the intimacy of his private life. It is John who takes us
   within the sacred circle and allows us to sit at the Master's feet and
   listen to his “table talk” with his own beloved disciples. While we have
   combined, such exalted revelations of the “One sent by the Father,” on the
   one hand, and such near views of the loving Brother, upon the other, all is
   told in a plain, clear and natural way; simple as the story of a child and
   yet lofty as the flight of a seraph. If we search for the peculiarities that
   make it different from the other Gospels the following will be most
   apparent:

   I. It is the Gospel of the Incarnation. The emphasis is upon the grand truth
   that Christ is the Word made flesh, the One sent from the Father, the Bread
   of Life come down from heaven, the One who hath life in himself and is
   therefore the Life of men, the Vine from whence the branches draw their
   life, the Light that cometh into the world, the I AM, the Son of God. John
   expressly disclaims having recorded all the words and deeds of the Lord, and
   assures us that he had selected from almost infinite resources. He has
   omitted much that is recorded in the other Gospels; he has added five
   miracles that they omitted and a series of discourses to which they hardly
   alluded, but a study of his material will show that the leading thought has
   been its bearing upon the oneness of Christ with the Father. We search in
   vain for many things found in the other Evangelists that portray the human
   side of the Redeemer's nature. No genealogies are given, there is no mention
   of the birth at Bethlehem, or of the life at Nazareth; the childhood is
   passed over as well as the baptism of our Lord, and the Lord appears before
   the reader, in the very beginning, not only as the Son of man but as the Son
   of God. The Divine Word is traced, step by step, as he speaks and acts in
   human form, as he controls the elements of nature, creates food and drink
   for man, creates new organs in those without them from birth, unlocks the
   tomb and calls forth a friend from the embrace of death, as he speaks to
   friends and foes of his relations to the Father, as he suffers and is
   humiliated, and in the sublimest of all miracles, overthrows Death who
   claimed him as a victim. He is traced when he comes forth a conqueror
   because “he had life in himself,” and after a continued manifestation to his
   disciples, ascends in order that the Comforter might come “to abide with
   them forever.” Never for a moment does John lose sight of the truth that the
   Savior in the “brightness of the Father's glory and the express image of his
   person.” Yet it must not be supposed that in this respect there is any
   contradiction between John and the other Gospels. While the Savior is
   regarded from different standpoints the pictures are in complete harmony.
   John shows us the mother and “his brethren,” the Baptist as the “Voice in
   the wilderness” who bears witness of Christ; he reveals the Lord
   “groaning” and “troubled in spirit,” as weeping at the grave of a friend, or
   weary at Jacob's well. He attests that with his own eyes he saw him wounded
   to death and die, and indeed he concedes all they narrate of the human life
   of our Lord. On the other hand, they affirm, if with less emphasis, the
   matchless majesty of the Son of God. He is conceived without sin, is the
   Lord of David (Matt. 22:43), claims power on earth to forgive sins, declares
   himself the judge of the world (Matt. 7:21 and 25:31-46), will come riding
   on the clouds of heaven, will come in his glory with his holy angels with
   him, will take his seat on the throne of glory to judge all nations, is seen
   on the Mount of Transfiguration shining with heavenly glory, declares after
   the resurrection that all power in heaven and earth is given into his hands,
   associates himself with the Father and the Holy Spirit in the baptismal
   formula, as the connecting link between the two and thus assumes a place on
   the very throne of the Deity. There is nothing in the Johannean conception
   of the Son that is higher. This statement with which Matthew closes shows in
   what sense he uses the term Immanuel, “God with us,” in the very first
   chapter of his Gospel (1:23). Indeed, it is strange that any candid man
   should have held that the Christ of John is a different conception from the
   Christ of the three Evangelists. With all four he is the Son of man, but
   with all four he is the Son of God, not a son, but the Son of God, and it is
   because he made this claim before the Sanhedrim, according to these Gospels,
   that he was condemned to death. In the earlier Gospels the Son of David, the
   Son of Mary, is demonstrated to be the Son of God; in the last Gospel he is
   seen as the Godhead in bodily form, the Son of God who is the manifestation
   of the Father. In the first three the human is divine; in the Fourth the
   Divine is human.

   II. The Gospel of John is the Gospel of Love. It is true that the same
   doctrine is taught by the others. There the Savior declares that love is the
   very basis of eternal life; there is taught, perhaps the sweetest of all
   parables, that of the Good Samaritan. Yet there is an emphasis of love by
   John not found elsewhere. He it is who declares, “God is love,” and of this
   he gives the highest possible proof in the fact that “God so loved the world
   that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should
   not perish, but have eternal life.” Here it is that Christ is revealed as
   the “Good Shepherd who layeth down his life for his sheep;” here is also
   given the New Commandment, “Love one another, as I have loved you;” and here
   it is, also, the sin of unbelief in rejecting a Savior whose very being is
   love, is most fully described.

   III. It is the most Spiritual Gospel. Within about a hundred years of the
   time when it was written Clement of Alexandria declared that John wrote a
   Gospel of spiritual things, while the earlier Evangelists wrote Gospels of
   material things. By this he meant that they were more matter of fact, and
   did not enter into the deep questions, or take the deep spiritual views
   which are constantly exhibited in John. As the student of Scripture drinks
   more deeply into the word of God he will observe this more and more. Not
   only does John bring to the front the profoundest questions, but he beholds
   a significance in every act of Christ. Every miracle and act becomes a kind
   of parable. The water of the well of Jacob gives occasion to the precious
   utterances concerning the Living Water; the feeding of the Five Thousand
   brings out the discourses on the Bread of Life; the rejection of the healed
   blind man by his spiritual shepherds calls out the beautiful picture of the
   Good Shepherd; the fruit of the Vine on the table of the Last Supper
   occasions the delineation of the True Vine. Not only does John unfold a deep
   spiritual meaning, as just described, but he gives an emphasis to the Holy
   Spirit that is not found in the preceding Gospels. They are by no means
   silent; they speak of the baptism of the Holy Spirit, the sin against it,
   praying for it, baptism in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and
   of the promise of the Father that the disciples shall be endued with its
   power in Jerusalem, but it is John who unfolds the great doctrine of the
   Comforter, outlines his work, and declares in explicit terms that he shall
   be a perpetual possession of the church. Nor can it be doubted that when he
   penned, “He shall guide you into all truth,” “shall bring all things to your
   remembrance,” that he was gratefully conscious of the Spirit's help in
   bringing the Savior's life and discourses vividly to memory, a half century
   after his ascension to the heavenly throne.
     _________________________________________________________________

                             The Analysis of John.

   The plan of John is much more systematic, clear and simple than those of the
   other three Evangelists. It will be a help in a connected study of this part
   of Holy Scripture to have an analysis. I am indebted to Dr. Schaff for the
   outlines of the following plan, though I have modified and condensed the
   view he gives in his History of the Apostolic Church. I have marked by a
   star those sections which are not found in the other Gospels.

   *I. The Prologue. 1:1-18.

   (1) The Word in Relation to God. 1:1, 2.

   (2) The Word in Relation to the World. 1:3-5.

   (3) The Word in Relation to John the Baptist and the Jews. 1:6-13.

   (4) The Word Made Flesh. 1:14-18.

   II. Manifestation of the Word in Life and Work. 1:19 to 12:50.

   *(1) John bearing witness of and pointing to the Lamb of God. 1:19-37.

   *(2) Gathering of the First Disciples. 1:38-51.

   *(3) The First Miracle. 2:1-11. First sojourn in Capernaum. 2:12. First
   Passover at Jerusalem. 2:13.

   *(4) First Cleansing of the Temple. 2:14-25.

   *(5) Conversation with Nicodemus and the New Birth. 3:1-21.

   *(6) Labors of Christ in Judea. The Testimony of John the Baptist. 3:22-36.

   *(7) Labors in Samaria. At Jacob's Well. The Samaritan Woman. 4:1-42.

   (8) Public Teaching in Galilee. 4:43-45. Compare Matt. 4:17; Mark 1:14; Luke
   4:14.

   *(9) Nobleman's Son at Capernaum Healed. 4:46-54.

   *(10) Second Journey to Jerusalem to a Feast supposed to be the Passover;
   The Healing at the Pool of Bethesda. 5:1-18. The Beginning of the Enmity of
   the Jews that finally led to the Crucifixion. The discourse of Christ on his
   Relation to the Father. 5:19-47.

   *(11) The Feeding of the Five Thousand and the Stilling of the Tempest.
   6:1-21.

   *(12) The discourse on the Bread of Life. 6:22-71.

   *(13) Third Visit to Jerusalem, at the Feast of Tabernacles. The Discourse
   at the Temple. The Increase of Hostility. Attempt to Seize the Lord. 7:1-52.

   *(14) The Woman taken in Adultery. 7:53 to 8:11.

   *(15) Discourse on the Light of the World. The Children of God and the
   Children of the Evil One. Attempt to Stone Jesus. 8:12-59.

   *(16) The Healing of the Man Born Blind, on a Sabbath; His Testimony of the
   Pharisees. 9:1-41.

   *(17) The Good Shepherd, the Sheepfold and the Sheep. 10:1-21.

   *(18) Discourse at the Feast of Dedication in Solomon's Porch. 10:22-39.

   *(19) Departure to the Country beyond the Jordan. 10:40-42.

   *(20) The Resurrection of Lazarus at Bethany, and its effect in increasing
   the Enmity of the Jews. The Counsel of Caiaphas. 11:1-53.

   *(21) Jesus retires to Ephraim. 11:54-57.

   (22) The Anointing by Mary at Bethany at the Feast. 12:1-8.

   (23) The Counsel of the Chief Priests. 12:9-11.

   (24) The Entry into Jerusalem as a King. 12:12-19. Compare Matt. 21:1-17;
   Mark 11:1-11; Luke 19:29-44.

   *(25) The Visit of the Greeks to Jesus. Discourse on the Grain of Wheat that
   must die to bear Fruit. The Voice from Heaven. 12:20-50.

   It will be observed that, thus far, most of the matter is peculiar to John.
   The same is true of the discourses to the disciples which now follow.

   III. Christ Manifested to His Disciples. The time is during the last
   Passover week. The place is Jerusalem. 13:1 to 17:26.

   *(1) Jesus washes the feet of his Disciples at the Passover Meal. 13:1-20.

   (2) He Announces the Traitor and Judas departs. 13:21-30.

   *(3) The New Commandment of Love. (The Lord's Supper supposed to be
   Instituted.) 13:31-35.

   (4) Peter's Denial Predicted. 13:36-38.

   *(5) The Farewell Discourses to the Disciples. The House of Many Mansions.
   The Father in the Son. The Conditions of Enjoying the Divine Presence.
   Promise of Answer to Prayer. Benediction of Peace. 14:1-33.

   *(6) The Promise of the Comforter. The Work of the Spirit. 15:1-27.

   *(7) The True Vine and the Branches. The Spirit and the World. 16:1-33.

   *(8) The Prayer for the Apostles; for Believers in all ages; for the Unity
   of the Church. 17:1-26.

   IV. Christ Lifted Up; On the Cross. From the Tomb. 18:1 to 20:31.

   (1) Passage of the Kedron and the Betrayal. 18:1-11.

   (2) Jesus before the High Priest. 18:12-24.

   (3) Peter's Denial. 18:15-27.

   (4) Jesus before Pilate the Roman Governor. 18:28 to 19:16.

   (5) The Crucifixion. 19:17-37.

   (6) The Burial of Christ. 19:38-42.

   (7) The Resurrection. Mary Magdalene, John and Peter at the empty tomb.
   20:1-10.

   (8) Christ appears to Mary Magdalene on the first Lord's day. 20:11-18.

   *(9) Christ appears to the Apostles. Thomas not present. 20:19-23.

   *(10) Christ appears to all the Apostles, Thomas included, on the second
   Lord's day. 20:26-29.

   *(11) The object of John's Gospel. Written in order to cause men to believe
   that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. 20:30, 31.

   *The Appendix and Epilogue. 21:1-25.

   While the other Gospels allude to the appearance of the risen Lord in
   Galilee the incidents of this chapter are narrated only by John.

   (1) Christ appears to Seven Disciples on the shores of the Sea of Galilee.
   The third time he had revealed himself to his Apostles. 21:1-14.

   (2) The Dialogue with Simon Peter. His Restoration. 21:15-22.

   (3) The intimation concerning John tarrying until he came. 21:21-23.

   (4) The attestation to the authorship of the Gospel. 21:24, 25.

   An examination of the stars prefixed to the sections peculiar to John will
   show how far his history is independent of the other Gospels. Up to the
   beginning of the eighteenth chapter only five incidents are named, I
   believe, which are narrated by the other writers. The accounts of the trial,
   crucifixion, burial, resurrection, and appearances, are more nearly
   parallel, but the last chapter is, again, entirely new matter. These facts
   serve to show how much of the Savior's words and life would have been lost
   to the world if the Fourth Gospel had never been written. They also
   demonstrate the infinite resources from whence the Gospel historians drew
   their accounts; resources so vast, that after three historians wrote the
   life of the Redeemer, a fourth was still able to write another history, in
   full harmony with what was already written, but composed almost entirely of
   new matter, not less important or interesting than what had already been
   narrated.
     _________________________________________________________________

                                  Chapter I.
     _________________________________________________________________

Preliminary Note.

   The reader who opens the Gospel of John at once notices a marked difference
   between it and the three preceding gospels. They begin with the times of
   Jesus Christ upon the earth, while the fourth carries the reader back to the
   unknown period that lies before the dawn of Creation. The question will at
   once arise why John introduces his history of Christ with the profound
   exposition of the WORD which occupies the first eighteen verses of this
   chapter. It must always be kept in mind that he wrote many years later than
   the authors of the other Gospels, wrote far away from Judea among a people
   deeply imbued with the philosophical spirit of Grecian civilization. At
   Ephesus he was in a center of Grecian culture, and even the church would be
   more or less affected by the prevalent speculations of the philosophers. In
   the earlier part of the century there lived at Alexandria in Egypt, a great
   center of Grecian learning where the greatest library of the ancient world
   was gathered, a Jew named Philo, born about b.c. 20, who, writing in the
   Greek language, had indulged in, or rather had gathered from various
   sources, a system of profound speculation upon the nature and essence of the
   Divine Being. He held that the absolute Deity was incapable of coming in
   contact with, or influencing matter, or manifesting himself to other
   intelligences, but that he gave forth certain divine powers or influences,
   which surround God as the members of a court surround an earthly monarch.
   The highest of these he called the Logos, or Word, a term that not only
   indicates Reason, but is the expression of thought in language. He also held
   that God was pure and absolute Light. His philosophy would possess little
   interest for us were it not for the fact that it was developed into a system
   called Gnosticism which reached its climax in the second century, and was
   already, before the close of the first century, a troublesome heresy. It
   took the idea of Philo of an absolute Deity, and taught that there were
   various emanations from God, among which were Reason, the Word, Power, Light
   and Life, which were all a kind of lesser deities. Even Jehovah, the
   revealed God of the Jews, was one of these inferior deities, and Jesus
   Christ was another, but a higher manifestation. These theories had begun to
   disturb the church before the death of Paul who refers to them a number of
   times (Col. 2:18; 2 Tim. 2:16–18), and John at Ephesus would at once come in
   contact with their subtle influence.

   He therefore, in the very outset of his Gospel, shows that these
   speculations do not harmonize with the revelation of Jesus Christ. The first
   eighteen verses are the profoundest exposition of the unity of the God-head,
   and the absolute divinity of the Word manifested in the flesh, that was ever
   penned. The first section (verses 1–4) contains a description of the essence
   of the Divine Word. He was before time began, was in association with God
   and was God. He was also the uncreated source of all created things, was the
   Power of God; and was also the Light, and the fountain of existence, the
   Life of men. He is not only these things, but is shining in upon the
   darkness. This Word became flesh and dwelt among men in the person of Jesus
   Christ, who is, therefore, God, divine, the Power, the Light, the Life, the
   light and life of men. To him the prophets have borne witness, and most of
   all, John, who was not himself the Light, but came as a witness of the
   Light. These grand declarations, which cover the ground of the Gnostic
   heresy, and which show its errors, are kept in view in the whole Gospel. The
   Son of man is revealed as the Son of God, as Divine, the Light of the world,
   the Resurrection and the Life, the Bread and Water of Life, and as the
   manifestation of the Father, the whole reaching its climax in the
   declaration, “These things are written that you might believe that Jesus
   Christ is the Son of God.”

   This Word (logos), which John introduces without explanation, is not used in
   the sense of Philo and the Gnostics, as representing Reason, nor is it ever
   used in that sense by the writers of the Bible. Nor is it an attribute of
   God, but an acting reality, personal, instead of an abstraction or
   personification, a Person who appeared upon the earth in human form. Jesus
   Christ, the Son of God, is the Word of God, not because he speaks the word,
   nor because he is spoken of, nor because he is the author and source of the
   word as spoken in the Scriptures, but because the Word dwells in him, acts
   through him, and speaks from him. He is not only the Word, but the Light and
   Life, for similar reasons; the Light dwells in and shines from him, and the
   Life lives in and works from him. It is because he is the Light that he has
   filled the world with light; because he is the Life that the dead of the
   earth hear his voice, become new creatures, live a new life, and the world
   itself is regenerated. It is because he is the Word that he spake as never
   man spake, spoke in the morning of time, and at his voice order came out of
   the primeval chaos, spoke to the dead when he was upon the earth, and they
   rose from the tomb, and shall speak to those that are in their graves and
   they shall hear his voice and come forth in the resurrection. It was this
   Word which was pre-existent, before time, that was manifested in the fulness
   of time in the flesh to carry out the gracious ends of divine love.
     _________________________________________________________________

The Word Made Flesh.

   1. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word
   was God. This sublime preface of John carries us back to the account given
   in Genesis of the beginning of all things, when, “In the beginning God made
   the heavens and the earth.” The passage declares that at that time, before
   creation, the Word existed, was with God and separate from him, but was God,
   or divine. What this Word is we learn from verse 14th, where it is stated
   that it became flesh and dwelt among men in the person of Christ. This deep
   disquisition upon the divine Word, almost too deep for human understanding,
   was penned by John on account of certain false philosophies which began to
   creep into and to trouble the church. Much has been written, very learnedly,
   upon those heresies and upon the Word and its relation to the Father, but I
   will pass by all speculation and confine myself to what is the manifest
   meaning of the Scripture. This passage then affirms: 1. That the person
   afterwards manifest as the Christ existed before creation began; 2. That he
   was present with God; 3. That he was divine; 4. That he was the Word; 5.
   That by or through him were all things made that were made (verse 3). The
   first chapter of Genesis helps us to understand its meaning. God said, “Let
   there be light,” “Let there be a firmament,” “Let the earth bring forth,”
   etc., and it was done. God exhibits his creative power through the Word, and
   also manifests his will through the Word. Every careful reader of the Old
   Testament is struck with the prominence given to the Word of the Lord, and
   also with the frequent reference in the Pentateuch to the Angel of Jehovah
   through whom the Lord manifests himself. When Jesus came he was “the
   brightness of the Father's glory, and the express image of his person,” the
   manifestation of the Father, the “Word made flesh and dwelling among men.”
   There are mysteries belonging to the divine nature and to the relation
   between the Son and the Father that we have to wait for eternity to solve.
   They are too deep for human solution, but this is clear: that God creates
   and speaks to man through the Word. As we clothe our thoughts in words, God
   reveals his will by the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ. (Joh 1:2)

   2. The same was in the beginning with God. John reiterates a part of his
   first statement, partly for emphasis, and partly to bring out the thought
   that there is a real distinction between the Word and the Father. He labors
   to make clear two thoughts, that the Word was divine, God, and yet had an
   individuality of its own. From the beginning, that unknown epoch, before
   creation began, he was with God. (Joh 1:3)

   3. And all things were made by him. Having affirmed the divine and uncreated
   nature of the Word, John next proceeds to tell of his relation to creation.
   All things, the world and all it contains, and the whole universe, were made
   by or through him. Paul declares (Heb. 1:2), “Through him the worlds were
   made.” The account of creation in Genesis helps us to understand. It was God
   who said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. It was when the Word
   was employed that the sun, moon, and stars took their place in the sky. All
   things that were made were spoken into being, or made through the Word. The
   Word was not yet named Jesus Christ, for he had not yet been manifested as
   our Savior, nor is it certain that he was called the Son of God until he
   appeared upon earth as the Son of Man. (Joh 1:4)

   4. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. Here is a grand
   affirmation. He is a fountain of life from whence life flows like a river.
   From him life flowed in the beginning. Man can construct the statue, but he
   cannot breathe it into existence. The Word could create the form and endow
   it with life. And when the Word became flesh, he became a “fountain of
   living waters,” a well springing up to eternal life. Because he had life in
   himself, the dead heard his voice and lived, and when he was slain the grave
   could not hold him, but he came forth and brought to light life and
   immortality. Hence the sublime utterance, “I am the resurrection and the
   life.” “The life was the light of men.” Man was created in the divine image.
   In him was fuller life than in the brute creation. Hence he is intelligent,
   capable of reasoning, of learning, of progress. His life is light, in the
   sense that it enlightens him. Then, in him can dwell the Word, which is the
   true light that enlightens the world. As the sun chases away darkness, so
   Jesus, the light of the mind and soul, chases away error, ignorance and
   superstition. The Life will overcome death and the Light will fill the
   redeemed world with his glory. (Joh 1:5)

   5. And the light shineth in darkness. Now the apostle comes more plainly to
   the thought that Christ is the light of the world. He is the light that
   shineth in the darkness, has shone in it as the Word, and who continues to
   shine. The sun shines in the heavens, but bats and owls that hate the light
   hide from his rays. So, too, Christ shines, but men who love darkness rather
   than light, can reject him and abide in darkness. The darkness comprehended
   it not. The sun shines upon the darkness and the darkness disappears, but
   when John wrote the true Light was shining in the earth and the people in
   darkness understood it not. Christ, the Light of the world, came to his own
   and his own received him not. They had eyes and saw not, hence were not
   enlightened. The difficulty was not that there was not light, but they loved
   darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil. There is a sad
   tone running through this and the following verses to verse 14. (Joh 1:6)

   6. There was a man sent from God whose name was John. Having declared the
   pre-existence of Christ, the apostle now begins the history of the Word
   being made flesh and dwelling among men as the Light of the World. He first
   presents the messenger who preceded him and who came to bear witness of the
   Light. He was a man “sent from God,” predicted by Isaiah and Malachi, and by
   the angel that appeared to Zacharias. Notice that John the apostle calls the
   great forerunner simply John, instead of John the Baptist, as do the other
   writers, as if the Baptist was the only John entitled to distinction. (Joh
   1:7)

   7. The same came for a witness to bear witness of the Light. John came, not
   so much as a reformer, as a witness. His work, as declared by Malachi, was
   to be a messenger to go before the Lord. In all his preaching he testified
   of Christ. When he preached repentance he declared the Kingdom was at hand.
   When he baptized he declared that there was one coming who would baptize
   with the Holy Spirit and fire. He said, “I am not he that should come, but
   there cometh one whose shoes I am unworthy to loose.” He pointed his
   disciples to Jesus and declared him the Lamb of God. That through him all
   men might believe. That John's preparation and testimony should cause men to
   believe upon the Light. The earliest disciples of Christ, including at least
   a part of the apostles, were men who had been prepared by John. John bore
   witness to Christ before he was manifested, The apostles bore witness after,
   for the same purpose, to cause men to believe. This too is the work of the
   church and of every preacher of the word. (Joh 1:8)

   8. He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness. An early heretical
   sect held that John the Baptist was the Messiah. The apostle is explicit in
   order to correct this error. It is said by the Savior, of the Baptist (John
   5:35), that he was a shining light. It is well to keep in mind that the term
   here translated light is different. It is a word that means original,
   self-shining light, like the sun; in 5:35 it is one that means a reflected
   light, like the moon. Christ shines by his own light; John shone by Christ's
   light. (Joh 1:9)

   9. That was the true light, which lighteth every man that cometh into world.
   That was the real light who enlightens all men. Christ is the universal
   light. The Revision reads, “There was the true light, even the light which
   lighteth every man, coming into the world.” Grammatically, both in the Greek
   and the English, coming may belong to the light, or every man. We believe
   that it should agree with light. That was the true or real light who, when
   he comes into the world, enlightens every man. Jesus says (John 12:46), “I
   am come a light into the world.” Here John affirms that he came into the
   world to lighten every man. It should be kept in mind that the apostle is
   now about to treat of the personal coming into the world of the Light in the
   form of the Christ. As the Creator of natural things, as the Word that has
   been spoken to man from the beginning, and as God manifest in the flesh, he
   is the source of all the moral and spiritual light the world has ever known.
   (Joh 1:10)

   10. He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew
   him not. John has just spoken of the personal coming of the Light of the
   world. Lest any one should forget that he was already in the world as the
   Word, he says that he was in the world and was its Creator, and had been in
   it from the beginning, though the world did not recognize him. There is a
   connection between this and the following verse. This declares that (1) he
   was in the world, (2) the world was made by him, (3) it did not recognize
   him. The next verse states (1) that he came, personally, to his own. He took
   upon himself a fleshly form and came to the race to which he was united by
   fleshly ties; (2) his own received him not. The world is humanity in
   general, which knew him not; his own is the Jewish nation, who received him
   not. (Joh 1:11)

   11. He came to his own, and his own received him not. It is stated above
   that he was in the world, from the beginning. Here it is stated that he
   came, to his own, when he came to Judea as the son of Mary, and, therefore,
   of the Jewish race. This passage is full of pathos and is an epitome of the
   Savior's earthly history. When the kingly babe came there was “no room”
   found even in the inn; a few days later he was carried to Egypt to save him
   from the murderous Herod; when he entered upon his ministry he was met by
   hatred, reviling and conspiracy; at last the Sanhedrim of the nation
   condemned him to death; and before Pontius Pilate, choosing a robber in his
   stead, they cried, “Away with him; crucify him!” His own people received him
   not. Even his townsmen of Nazareth sought to put him to death. (Joh 1:12)

   12. To as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of
   God. The Revision reads, “Children of God,” which is better. While the
   nation rejected him, some received him. To such as receive him in every age
   he gives power to become the children of God. The manner in which he is
   received is given; even to those who believe upon his name. It is not
   declared that they are made children by believing, but to the believer he
   gives the “power to become” a child. When one believes in Christ, his faith
   becomes a power to lead him to yield himself to God and to receive the Word
   into his heart. He can now repent of sin, surrender to the will of the
   Father, and then, “being baptized into Christ he puts on Christ,” is his
   brother and a child of God by adoption, whereupon, “because he is a son, God
   sends his Spirit into his heart,” enabling him to say: “Abba! Father.”
   Wesley says, “The moment we believe we are sons.” The Scriptures do not so
   teach, but that when we believe, Christ “gives us power to become
   children.” Without “belief upon his name” the “power” to become a child is
   impossible. (Joh 1:13)

   13. Who were born, not of blood, nor by the will of the flesh. The Jews
   prided themselves on being Abraham's children, and trusted in their blood
   for salvation. John declares that blood, or race, has nothing to do with
   becoming the children of God; nor has this new birth which makes one a child
   of God aught to do with natural generation (the will of the flesh), nor
   earthly adoption (the will of the man). It is not a fleshly birth at all,
   but the spirit of the subject is born of God. In John 3:1–8 the Savior
   explains this birth more particularly. Faith, repentance and obedience
   prepare us for the gift of the Spirit, and we are thus made new creatures in
   Christ Jesus. (Joh 1:14)

   14. And the word was made flesh, and dwelt among us. The Word assumed a
   human form and became incarnate as the child of Mary. It did not merely
   manifest itself, but dwelt among us for about thirty-three years. There was
   already a heretical sect, the Gnostics referred to in 2 John 7, who denied
   that Christ had come in the flesh. The apostle here makes this positive
   statement to meet this heresy. And we beheld his glory. Peter, James and
   John not only beheld the sinless and godlike life of Christ, but they saw
   the glory of the Mount of Transfiguration, “the glory as of the only
   begotten of the Father.” Full of grace and truth. The Word incarnate,
   Christ, was full of grace and truth; his mission was one of grace or favor
   to men, and he was the Truth, as well as the Way and the Life. (Joh 1:15)

   15. John testified of him. Verse 7 declares that John came to testify of
   Christ and here the substance of his testimony is given. When he saw Jesus
   he cried, “This is he of whom I said, He that cometh after me is preferred
   before me because he was before me.” (Joh 1:16)

   16. Out of his fulness have we all received. It is John, the apostle, who
   speaks. The thought refers to the two preceding verses. John had seen the
   glory of Christ, who was “full” of grace and truth, and the Baptist declares
   that Christ existed before he came into the world, and then John declares,
   “We have all received of his fulness, and favor upon favor.” (Joh 1:17)

   17. The law was given by Moses. It was not a system of grace, nor could it
   make men perfect; in contrast with it the system of grace and truth (see
   verse 14) were given by Jesus Christ. (Joh 1:18)

   18. No man hath seen God, with bodily eyes, but he was manifested as the
   Word and at last the “only begotten Son hath declared him.” “He that hath
   seen me,” said Christ, “hath seen the Father. The Father is in me and I in
   him.” Christ came in human form, in order to reveal the Father to a race who
   knew him not.
     _________________________________________________________________

Practical Observations.

   1. What wonderful condescension that so glorious a being as the Word should
   take upon himself our nature, dwell among men, suffer and die for us! “This
   is the love of God that he hath sent the Son into the world, not to condemn
   the world, but in order that the world might be saved.”

   2. How can any one treat lightly the Word of the Lord when he learns that
   “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was
   God?” It is said that the Jews refused even to throw upon the earth slips
   that had printed or written upon them passages of Scripture. We have
   infinitely more reason for reverencing the Word than the Jews. Every passage
   of the inspired testimony has come to us through the medium of him who is
   the Word.

   3. Christ is the light of the World. Take a map and delineate those
   countries which are most enlightened in bright colors, then shade others
   more and more as you approach barbarism and ignorance. Then make another map
   in which the countries that most truly receive the Bible and Christ are
   represented in bright colors, shade those lands that have a corrupted
   Christianity, shading according to the degree of corruption, and put those
   in darkest colors where nothing is known of Christ. Then compare the two
   maps. It will be found that there are not two maps, but two copies of one
   map.

   4. The Word made flesh. God, the uncreated, the incomprehensible, the
   invisible, attracted few worshipers; a philosopher might admire so noble a
   conception, but the crowd turned away in disgust from words that presented
   no image to their minds. It was before Deity, embodied in human form,
   working among men, partaking of their infirmities, leaning on their bosoms,
   weeping over their graves, bleeding on the cross, that the prejudices of the
   synagogue, and the doubts of the academy, and the pride of the portico, and
   the fasces of the lictors, and the swords of thirty legions, were humbled in
   the dust.—Macaulay.
     _________________________________________________________________

The Witness of John.

   19. And this is the record of John. The history now begins its sweep onward.
   All before is prefatory. The historian passes by the incidents connected
   with the birth of John and of Jesus, the early history, and even the account
   of John's preaching and the baptism of Christ, given in the other Gospels.
   He wrote at a much later period and these facts are supposed to be well
   known. The witness here noted was given after the baptism and probably while
   Christ was in the wilderness at the time of the temptation. When the Jews
   sent priests and Levites. John uses the term “Jews” as though he was not of
   that race. He was now an old man and for many years had transferred his
   allegiance to another nation (1 Peter 2:9), and for a long time had been
   dwelling in Asia Minor, among Gentile Christians. That his Jewish feelings
   had gradually passed away is often shown in his language. Usually “the
   Jews” means the ruling classes of Judea. In this case it refers to the
   SANHEDRIM. As this court fills a conspicuous place in the New Testament
   history it will help the student to have a clear understanding of its
   nature. The Jewish writers claim that it originated with the seventy elders
   whom Moses (Num. 11:16, 17) was directed to associate with himself in the
   government of Israel, who, with himself, would make a court of seventy-one
   persons. Hence it was composed of seventy-one members. There is, however, no
   positive proof of its existence during the period of the Jewish kings, and
   it only appears in unmistakable form during the later days of the Hebrew
   commonwealth. Its very name, Sanhedrim, or more correctly, Sanhedrin, is
   Greek, and this fact points to a period after the Macedonian conquest of the
   East, when it assumed shape. According to the Jews themselves (Jerusalem
   Gemara), forty years before the destruction of Jerusalem the right to
   inflict capital punishment was taken away from it, which agrees with the
   answer of the Jews to Pilate (John 19:31). It was a supreme court to which
   belonged the trial of a tribe fallen into idolatry, false prophets, and
   accused priests. As an administrative council its jurisdiction was still
   more extensive. Jesus was arraigned before this body as a false prophet
   (John 11:47) and condemned as a blasphemer (Matt. 26:65). Peter, John,
   Stephen and Paul were arraigned by it as false teachers and deceivers of the
   people. It was entirely in harmony with its prerogatives that it should send
   an official deputation to ascertain the character of John. He had produced a
   profound sensation and stirred the whole land, and it was the duty of the
   Sanhedrim, from its standpoint, to examine into his claims. There is nothing
   in the language to show whether this deputation was hostile or friendly, and
   it is probable that it was neither, but only one of inquiry. Its members
   were all of the sacerdotal tribe. (Joh 1:20)

   20. I am not the Christ. The idea had already begun to receive currency that
   John might be the expected Christ. In his preaching recorded by Matthew he
   denied this with great emphasis and explained his relation to the Coming
   One. Here he is equally emphatic. The stress which the apostle here lays on
   this denial shows that he had in mind that later class of the disciples of
   John, who in the latter half of the first century, asserted that he was the
   Christ. (Joh 1:21)

   21. They asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? Malachi (4:5) had declared
   that Elias would precede the Messiah. Hence when John denied that he was the
   Christ, the next question was whether he was Elias. He said that he was not;
   he was not the literal Elias whom they expected; nor is it certain that God
   had revealed to John that he was the spiritual Elias. He was greater than he
   himself knew. He was, in many respects, in mission, manner of life,
   fearlessness and ruggedness, an Elias, and was the Elias foretold by the
   prophet (Matt. 17:12), though Elias did literally come on the mount of
   transfiguration. Art thou that prophet? They ask still another question.
   Moses had predicted a prophet like himself (Deut. 18:15), but John denies
   that he is the fulfillment. It was later (Acts 3:22; 7:37) when the apostles
   understood that Jesus was he of whom Moses did speak. (Joh 1:22)

   22. Who art thou? The conjectures are exhausted and they demand an explicit
   answer, that they may carry the information to “them that sent them,” or to
   the Sanhedrim. (Joh 1:23)

   23. I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness. John answers this
   question by quoting Isaiah 40:3, where the prophet describes his mission.
   The passage is applied to John, Matt. 3:3; Mark 1:2, and Luke 3:4. He sinks
   his own personality, and is simply the “voice of one crying in the
   wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord.” His work was that of
   preparation for the Lord. (Joh 1:24)

   24. Of the Pharisees. The messengers were not only of the religious tribe,
   but of the strictest of Jewish sects. The Pharisees were far more attentive
   to external rites than any other class, and as the next question is
   concerning such a rite, the fact that they were Pharisees is noted. (Joh
   1:25)

   25. Why baptizest thou then? This question shows that John's baptism was, to
   them, a new rite. They could understand that Christ, or Elias, or “that
   prophet” might establish a new ordinance by the divine authority, but if
   John is none of these, why does he do so? Their perplexity shows that, in
   some way, the baptismal rite was new to them. It is claimed that Gentile
   proselytes to the Jewish faith were baptized (immersed according to all the
   Jewish authorities) before this time, but the only proof offered is the
   testimony of the Talmud, written two or three centuries later. Even if
   proselyte baptism had been instituted, John's rite presented the new feature
   of baptizing Jews, those who considered themselves God's people. In that it
   called the chosen people to baptism it was a new rite. (Joh 1:26)

   26. I baptize with water. The correct rendering is in water, and the
   preposition en is thus rendered by the American Committee of the Revisers,
   as well as by Canon Westcott of the Church of England and the most judicious
   scholars. Even in the Common Version, out of 2,660 times that en occurs in
   the Greek of the New Testament, it is rendered by “in” 2,060 times. There is
   no good reason why it should not be so rendered every time it occurs in
   connection with baptism. The translators of the Catholic Bible in English,
   the Douay Version, were more honest than King James' revisers, and have
   always so rendered it. John does not answer the question of the Pharisees
   directly, but points to one already standing among them. The baptism of
   water connects itself with that pre-eminent being. Standeth among you. This
   points out that the Christ was already on the earth, in Judea, though
   unknown and unrecognized by the people. (Joh 1:27)

   27. Whose shoe's latchet I am not worthy to unloose. The latchet was the
   thong by which the sandal was bound on the foot. To loose or fasten it was
   the work of a menial. The dignity of Christ was so exalted, that John
   counted himself unworthy even to attend to this office. (Joh 1:28)

   28. These things were done in Bethabara, beyond Jordan, where John was
   baptizing. The Revision substitutes Bethany for Bethabara. Both terms are
   found in the manuscripts, but Bethany has the better authority. The Bethany
   named was not the one near Jerusalem, but a village, whose site is not now
   known, on the east bank of the Jordan. Bethany is said to mean “the house of
   the boat,” and Bethabara “the house of the ford,” both alike pointing to a
   ferry or ford of the Jordan. We have three allusions to the localities of
   John's baptismal rite, all showing that abundance of water was an essential;
   Matt. 3:5, 6 and 13; John 3:23, and the present passage.

   The sending of this deputation is a proof of the great stir caused
   throughout Judea by the teaching of John. That he exerted a profound
   influence upon the nation and was accounted a prophet are evident from
   Jewish writers. Josephus, a Jewish priest and general, a contemporary of
   John and Christ, says (Antiquities, book 18, chap. 5): “Now some of the Jews
   thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and that very
   justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the
   Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and one who commanded the
   Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness toward one another, and
   piety toward God, and so to come to him for baptism; for that the washing
   with water would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order
   to the putting away (or the remission) of some sins (only), but for the
   purification of the body: supposing still that the soul was thoroughly
   purified beforehand by righteousness. Now when (many) others came into
   crowds about him, for they were greatly moved by hearing his words, Herod,
   who feared lest the great influence which John had over the people might put
   it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion (for they seemed
   ready to do anything he might advise), thought it best, by putting him to
   death, to prevent any mischief he might cause, and not to bring himself into
   difficulties, by sparing a man who might make him to repent of it when it
   should be too late. Accordingly he was sent a prisoner, out of Herod's
   suspicious temper, to Machærus, the castle I have before mentioned, and put
   to death there.”
     _________________________________________________________________

Christ's Ministry Begins.

   At this point Jesus breaks suddenly in upon the narrative. The Fourth Gospel
   passes by all the details contained in the other three concerning the early
   life of the Savior; the miraculous conception, the birth at Bethlehem, the
   flight to Egypt, the return to Nazareth, the visit to the temple when Jesus
   was twelve years old, and even his baptism a short time before in the
   Jordan. This is referred to, and a familiarity with it implied, but its
   history is not given. In these facts we have additional evidence that John
   wrote many years after the other evangelists and supposed his readers to be
   acquainted with the facts that they narrated.

   Jesus was at this time thirty years old, had lived a singularly blameless
   life with his home at Nazareth, where he had worked at the trade of Joseph,
   and hence is spoken of as “the carpenter” and “the carpenter's son.” He had
   never attended the great schools of the Jewish law in which all the Rabbins
   obtained their education, but went from the carpenter's bench to John's
   baptism, was anointed with the Holy Spirit, retired to the desert for forty
   days of lonely preparation, and then reappears at this point, to begin his
   ministry. (Joh 1:29)

   29. The next day John seeth Jesus. The next day after the visit of the
   deputation of the Sanhedrim. It was not the first visit of Jesus to John.
   About forty days before he had presented himself and demanded baptism. He
   doubtless knew Jesus personally before this, for he testifies to the
   blameless purity of his life, but it had not then been revealed to him that
   Jesus was the Christ; only that the One upon whom he should see the Spirit
   descending was the King of whom he bore witness. After this baptism Jesus
   had retired to the wilderness to meet the tempter alone. It is at the period
   of his return that John points him out as the Lamb of God which taketh away
   the sin of the world. The lamb was a very familiar object of sacrifice to
   the Jews. It was slain by every Jewish family at the passover, was commonly
   used for a sin offering (Lev. 4:32); in the cleansing of the leper (Lev.
   14:10); at both the morning and the evening sacrifice (Exod. 29:38); at all
   the great feasts, and on special occasions. When John pointed out Jesus, not
   as a, but the Lamb of God, it can only mean that God had provided him as a
   sacrificial offering. Every lamb offered on Jewish altars pointed to him;
   Isaiah, in chapter LIII, points out that he was “lead as a lamb to the
   slaughter.” In Revelation he is declared to be the Lamb, “as it were
   slain.” There is no escape from the idea that Jesus became a sacrificial
   offering for the world. This is entirely in harmony with the class of
   passages which affirm that “his blood cleanseth from all sin.” We may not be
   able to fathom all the mysteries of the atonement, but it is the part of
   faith to accept and trust fully, what is so clearly taught. It will be seen,
   also, that John, by inspiration, is enabled to grasp the magnitude of the
   Savior's work. He is to take away the sin, not of Jews only, but of the
   world.

   The reader should not fail to note, at the beginning of the Savior's
   ministry, that the idea that he is more than a Jewish deliverer comes into
   prominence. He is the Lamb of God who taketh away sin, not the sin of Israel
   only, but the sin of the world. John, by inspiration, is enabled to rise
   above the idea of a Jewish Messiah, the sphere of whose blessings would be
   confined to the narrow limits of the race of Abraham, and at once points his
   followers to Jesus as the Messiah of man, the Redeemer of the world who
   taketh away the sin thereof. Here, at the outset, is a divergence from the
   Messianic ideas of the Jews, and the germ of that disappointment of their
   hopes by seeing in Jesus the founder of a universal spiritual kingdom,
   rather than a worldly national empire, which led to their rejection of the
   Christ. (Joh 1:30)

   30. This is he of whom I said. In verse 27 the words he refers to are given.
   The One who will come after him in point of time, precedes him in eminence,
   for he was before him in existence. John might be first known on earth and
   older by human birth, but Christ had existed from eternity. (Joh 1:31)

   31. I knew him not. Knew not whom God had chosen as the Christ. He knew
   Jesus personally, but did not know he was the Christ until God pointed him
   out. Therefore am I come baptizing with (in) water. His whole mission of
   preaching and baptizing was to prepare for and reveal the Christ. In his
   baptizing the Christ became manifest in the way stated in the following
   verses. (Joh 1:32)

   32. John bare record. Gave witness to the fact, either at this or some
   subsequent time. I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove. See
   Matt. 3:16. At this time, as Jesus came up out of the water, the Spirit was
   seen descending in the form of a dove, and the voice of God was heard
   declaring, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” Thus Jesus
   was anointed with the Spirit, and was thenceforward the Christ, the
   Anointed. It is significant that this took place at the time of baptism. Why
   should any Christian disparage a rite the Lord has so honored? (Joh 1:33)

   33. And I knew him not. Knew not who was the Messiah. The Lord had however,
   given him a sign by which he could recognize him. Upon whomsoever the Spirit
   visibly descended and abode, the same would baptize in the Holy Spirit. The
   only one baptizing in the Holy Spirit is the Christ. The Spirit in its
   fulness abode with him, and hence he was able to impart its fulness in the
   baptism of the spirits of his disciples. Christ did not baptize in the Holy
   Spirit until after he had ascended, the first instance being recorded in
   Acts 2:1–4. (Joh 1:34)

   34. And I saw and bare record that this is the Son of God. While the apostle
   does not give the history of the Savior's baptism, his allusions to it are
   very full and can only be understood by comparing them with the accounts
   given in the other Gospels. John “saw” all that is recorded by Matthew
   (3:13–17) and heard the Divine voice. Hence he “bare record that this is the
   Son of God.” This language was spoken the “next day” after the deputation of
   the Sanhedrim had waited upon him, and that event is thus located after the
   baptism and temptation of Christ. The order of events, in the gospel
   history, up to this date, is about as follows: 1. The Annunciation to Mary;
   2. The Birth of John the Baptist; 3. The Birth of Jesus; 4. Jesus in the
   Temple with the Doctors; 5. The Preaching of John; 6. The Baptism of Jesus;
   7. The Temptation in the Wilderness; 8. The Deputation of the Sanhedrim to
   John; 9. The Return of Jesus to John.
     _________________________________________________________________

The First Disciples.

   35. Again the the next day after, Jesus stood, and two of his disciples. In
   verses 19–28, the account is given of the visit of the priests and Levites,
   sent by the Sanhedrim to John. “The next day” after this John sees Jesus and
   points him out as the Lamb of God, giving a discourse of which, in verses
   29–34, we have a synopsis. On the “next day” after this, the third day after
   the deputation of the Sanhedrim, and the second after the return of Jesus
   from the wilderness, John stood with two of his disciples. One of these two,
   we learn from verse 40, was Andrew; the other, we have reason to believe,
   was John, the apostle. The statement that they were John's disciples, shows
   that they had accepted his message and been baptized by him. All the earlier
   disciples of Christ had been prepared for him by the Forerunner. At first
   glance it might seem as if John was merely repeating the testimony that he
   had given in verse 29, but there the testimony is general; it is not stated
   to whom it was spoken; here it is specific, and spoken to two disciples who
   were afterwards, almost certainly, apostles of Jesus. (Joh 1:36)

   36. Behold the Lamb of God! On the preceding day John had recognized Jesus
   in a public discourse as “the Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the
   world.” Now he personally points the disciples to him. The lamb, throughout
   Old Testament times, was commonly used as a sin-offering (Lev. 4:32), at the
   morning and evening sacrifice (Ex. 12:21–27), at the great feasts (Num.
   28:11), and on special occasions (1 Chron. 29:21). The paschal lamb was
   offered by every family in Israel at every passover. In pointing out Jesus
   as the Lamb of God, John declares that he is the great sin-offering of which
   all the lambs slain on Jewish altars were the types. “He taketh away the
   sins of the world;” he is the great sin-bearer, not for a single generation,
   but for all time; not for a single family or race, but for the world. These
   words teach a sacrifice and an atonement, but were not understood by John
   himself, as we learn by turning to Matt. 11:2–6. “Under the Old Testament
   were provided by the sinner, lambs, whose sacrifice took sins away from the
   individual or the nation, but for the time only, and therefore the sacrifice
   had to be continually repeated; under the New Testament one Lamb is
   provided, the Lamb of God, whose sacrifice takes away the sin of the whole
   world, and therefore needs never to be repeated.”—Abbott. (Joh 1:37)

   37. And they followed Jesus. As John intended, the two disciples at once
   left him and followed the footsteps of Jesus. They did not become followers
   in the religious sense, but literally followed him, possibly from curiosity,
   possibly from a yearning desire to know more of the Lamb of God. (Joh 1:38)

   38. Jesus turned . . . and saith, What seek ye? Jesus does not ask this in
   order that he may know their object, but to open a conversation and to draw
   them out. Such was his custom; for example, see the conversation with the
   woman at Sychar (Chap. 4:10–16). The Christian teacher may find a valuable
   hint in the example of the Master. His teaching was almost all by
   conversation and his methods are incomparable. Rabbi. A term of very ancient
   origin, signifying teacher, or master. Ahasuerus set a Rab, or master, over
   the tables of his feast (Esther 1:8). Among the Jews there are three
   degrees—Rabban, Rab, and Rabbi—the last being the lowest. It is by the
   highest that Mary addresses the Lord at the tomb after his resurrection.
   Where dwellest thou? The disciples dared not probably, from their timidity,
   to express fully their motives in following Jesus, but asked for his
   temporary abiding place and where he might be found. This question, which
   some might have regarded impertinent curiosity to be met by a rebuff, was
   met by a kind invitation that attached the disciples to Jesus for life. Here
   again we should note the effect of gentleness and hospitality. Note, too,
   that Jesus is not sought in vain. “They that seek shall find.” (Joh 1:39)

   39. They abode with him that day, for it was about the tenth hour. The Jew
   commenced the hours with 6 A. M. and hence the tenth hour would be 4 P. M.
   As it was near the close of the day the disciples remained over night. The
   conversation of that evening is unrecorded, but the impression that it made
   upon the minds of the two guests is seen in their conduct the next day. All
   doubts had passed away and they were ready to seek their friends with the
   joyful message: We have found the Messiah. (Joh 1:40)

   40. One of the two . . . was Andrew, Simon Peter's brother. Andrew and his
   brother Simon were sons of Jonas, of the town of Bethsaida in Galilee, and
   were fishermen by trade. The description of Andrew as Peter's brother shows
   the importance assigned by John to the apostle who was to open the doors of
   the kingdom. Andrew was afterwards one of the Twelve. The other “one of the
   two” is supposed to be John, the apostle, for the reason that he never
   mentions his own name, but invariably those of other disciples. (Joh 1:41)

   41. He first findeth his own brother Simon. Andrew sought and found Simon,
   before he sought anyone else. This is the true spirit. Unless one is ready
   to tell the joyful story to his own relatives and neighbors, we have a poor
   opinion of his zeal for the conversion of the Zulus or Congo negroes. Christ
   and the apostles began their work at home and extended it in an ever
   widening circle. We have found the Messias. The Anointed, the Hebrew term
   which corresponds to the word Christ. It was with the utmost joy that Andrew
   told this joyful story. It was the fruition of the long delayed hope of
   Israel. Andrew's exclamation of delight on finding the Messiah is the same
   attributed to Archimedes when he made his discovery of the amount of
   adulteration in Hiero's crown. The, cry of each was Eureka, “I have
   found.” The grandest discovery ever made, greater than that of a continent,
   was the finding of Christ, the hope of the world. (Joh 1:42)

   42. Thou art Simon . . . thou shalt be called Cephas. There was no
   hesitation on the part of Peter to go at once to see him of whom Andrew
   spoke. He, also, as one of John's disciples, was waiting for the King. To
   his name Simon, Christ added another by which afterwards he was known.
   Cephas is Hebrew, and means a stone; Peter means the same in Greek; not
   rock, as some have urged. The word for that in the Greek is petra, while the
   word anglicised as Peter is petros. In Matt. 16:18, Christ says, in response
   to Peter's confession, “Thou art Petros (a stone), and upon this petra (a
   solid rock) I will build my church.” The Rock was the “Stone cut out without
   hands.” Peter was a fragment of rock built upon the Stone by the great
   confession. Christ is the Rock; Peter was a rockman. (Joh 1:43) (Joh 1:44)

   43. The day following. The next day after Andrew brought Peter to Jesus.
   According to Meyer, the order of this interesting week is as follows: First
   day, John's conference with the priests and Levites (verses 19–28); second
   day, John's testimony of Jesus (29–34); third day, the two disciples pointed
   to Jesus (35–39); fourth day, Peter brought to Jesus (40–42); fifth day,
   Nathanael brought to Jesus (43–51); seventh day, (one day intervening,) the
   marriage at Cana, (chap. 2). Findeth Philip, and saith unto him, Follow me.
   This is the first recorded instance of the Savior calling a disciple to
   follow him. Philip, it must be borne in mind, is not Philip, “one of the
   seven,” but “one of the Twelve,” a citizen of Bethsaida, of Galilee, and a
   fellow-townsman of Andrew and Peter. (Joh 1:45)

   45. Philip findeth Nathanael. As we learn from John 21:2, Nathanael, like
   Peter and Andrew, James and John, and Philip, was a Galilean, his home being
   at “Cana of Galilee.” His name only occurs in these two places. He is
   supposed to have been one of the Twelve, the same one mentioned in the other
   Gospels as Bartholomew, which is a patronymic, meaning son of Tolmai. The
   use of the name in John 21:2 favors this hypothesis. We have found him of
   whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write. There was only one to
   whom this could refer, “The prophet like unto Moses,” the Messiah; and when
   Philip names Jesus of Nazareth, Nathanael is at once skeptical whether the
   Messiah could come out of Nazareth. Note, 1. That although Cana was not far
   from Nazareth, so quiet had been the life of Jesus, thus far, Nathanael does
   not seem to have heard of him; 2. As soon as Philip becomes a disciple he at
   once begins to seek others, an excellent example for all young Christians.
   For references in the books of Moses to the Messiah, see Gen. 3:15; 17:7;
   and Deut. 18:15–19. (Joh 1:46)

   46. Nathanael said . . . can there any good thing come out of Nazareth? The
   Jews of Jerusalem despised Galilee and scornfully rejected the Galilean
   teacher, while the rest of Galilee seems to have despised Nazareth. From the
   manner in which the mob thrust Jesus out of the synagogue and tried to kill
   him, its population could not have been of high moral type. The Jews were
   wont to associate all moral and religious good with Jerusalem, and could
   hardly conceive that the King would come from elsewhere than the capital of
   David. Come and see. That is the best answer to the skeptic. Bring him to
   Christ, let him consider him, and what he has done for mankind. The
   strongest proof that Jesus is the Christ is Jesus himself. The unbelieving
   John Stuart Mill said that no one could find a better rule of virtue than
   “to endeavor to live so that Christ would approve his life.” Renan
   pronounces him “the greatest and purest of the sons of men.” (Joh 1:47)

   47. Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile! The Savior salutes
   Nathanael with a tribute to his honest, guileless character. He was a true
   Israelite, without hypocrisy, worshiping God with sincere soul, according to
   the light he had received. (Joh 1:48)

   48. Whence knowest thou me? Nathanael, who had never met Jesus before, was
   surprised to hear himself spoken of as one known. When thou wast under the
   fig tree. There was Something about this answer that filled Nathanael with
   astonishment. Under the shade and shelter of the fig tree he had had some
   rare experience that is not recorded, and that he supposed unknown to man.
   That Jesus knew of it and read his soul startled him and dissipated his
   unbelief. (Joh 1:49)

   49. Thou art the Son of God; the King of Israel. Philip had said, “Jesus,
   the Son of Joseph,” as he supposed, but Nathanael, convinced, declared him
   the Son of God. This is the first confession of the divinity of Jesus, and
   is the spirit, rather than the letter of Old Testament prophecy of the
   Messiah. Nathanael, devout, a devoted student of prophecy, living in the
   great hope, rises to the heights of the Messianic prophecies. (Joh 1:50)

   50. Thou shalt see greater things than these. Nathanael, as a follower of
   Christ, did see greater things than the revelation of hidden knowledge that
   convinced him. So, too, if all believers faithfully use their present
   opportunities they shall have greater. There is a growth in grace and
   knowledge. (Joh 1:51)

   51. Ye shall see the heavens open, and the angels of God ascending. Jacob,
   old Israel, in his dream at Bethel, saw the ladder that reached to heaven
   with the angels upon it (Gen. 28:12). Christ is that ladder, the way from
   earth to heaven, the way heaven sends messages to the world and the way we
   must go to reach it. Nathanael would be permitted to see that Jesus was the
   Mediator, that through him the Father speaks to man; that through him there
   is intercommunication between earth and heaven. Nathanael sees heaven open,
   not opened. It still stands open, and has been since the vail of the temple
   was rent.
     _________________________________________________________________

Practical Observations.

   1. Jesus is the Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world. He who
   refuses the sacrifice of the Lamb hath none other. There is “none other name
   under heaven, given among men, whereby we must be saved.”

   2. The best reply to the honest doubter is to bid him, “Come and see.” If he
   is a quibbler, it is vain to talk with him. If he is an honest skeptic, do
   not seek to argue, but get him to look at and study Christ. “I know men,”
   said Napoleon Bonaparte on St. Helena, “and I tell you that Jesus Christ is
   not a man.”

   3. The examples in the lesson are well worthy of imitation. 1. As soon as
   Andrew found the Messiah, he at once sought his brother to bring him to
   Christ. Let every Christian, young or old, seek to bring the members of his
   own family to the Savior. 2. As soon as Philip was called, he sought, at
   once, for Nathanael and induced him to go and meet the Savior. Every
   Christian should labor to bring all his friends to the Redeemer.

   4. God's ways are not man's ways. When he called a leader to deliver Israel
   from bondage, he chose a shepherd of Midian; when he chose the founder of
   the line of Jewish kings, he took a shepherd boy of Bethlehem; when the
   “Word became flesh,” it dwelt in the person of Jesus in the despised town of
   Nazareth, while the Jews all expected that the Messiah would appear in
   Jerusalem of the princes or great men of Israel. Still he chooses the weak
   and humble to confound the mighty; “the things that are not to confound the
   things that are.”
     _________________________________________________________________

Note on “the Son of Man.”

   In verse 51 occurs for the first time in the Gospel of John the phrase “the
   Son of man.” This remarkable designation is the one the Lord usually applies
   to himself. It occurs thirty times in the Gospel according to Matthew,
   thirteen times in Mark, twenty-five times in Luke, and twelve times in John.
   In the Gospels it is never used by the historians or disciples as a
   designation of Christ, and is used only by the Lord in speaking of himself.
   Hence, it only occurs once beyond the range of the Gospels, in Acts 7:56,
   and the Lord never uses it after his resurrection. It will be found that the
   passages in which the Lord uses the phrase may be grouped into two classes:
   1. Those which refer to the earthly work of the Lord during the period of
   his humiliation, and 2. Those which refer to his future coming in glory. It
   is used in the present instance in the latter sense. Another striking
   example of this use is found in Matt. 25:31, “When the Son of man shall come
   in his glory, and all his holy angels with him” to take his seat on the
   throne of judgment. Such passages show that the Son of man is a divine being
   who shall sit surrounded by angels upon the throne of eternal judgment. The
   phrase is not an equivalent to the word “Messiah,” or Christ, but one that
   expresses the universal humanity of our Divine Lord. He describes himself,
   not as the Son of Mary, nor as the Son of Abraham, but as the Son of man. He
   appeared upon earth, not as the kindred of the family of Nazareth, or of the
   Jewish nation, but as the kindred of humanity. He is the brother of the
   Greek, the Roman, the Gaul, the American, the African, as well as of the
   Jew. Nor did he ever call himself a Jew, but in all his relations with the
   Jewish nation he held himself as one not of their race. He always spoke to
   them, not of our but of your law. And it is as the brother of our race that
   the Son of man shall judge the world.
     _________________________________________________________________

                                  Chapter II.
     _________________________________________________________________

The First Miracle.

   “On the third day” after the events narrated in the closing portion of the
   last chapter there occurred the first exercise of miraculous power on the
   part of the Savior. The scene was Cana of Galilee, the northern district of
   Palestine, to which he had returned immediately after the witness of John
   (Chap. 1:43). (Joh 2:1)

   1. And the third day there was a marriage. It is well known that the
   marriage ceremonies of the Jews began at twilight. It was the custom in
   Palestine

     “To bear away The bride from home at blushing shut of day,”

   2. Both Jesus and his disciples were invited. He now had disciples, those
   called in the few days before, John, Andrew, Peter, Philip and Nathanael. As
   the invitation of Jesus is named apart from that of Mary it was probably
   sent after he and his disciples had returned to Galilee. (Joh 2:3)

   3. And when they wanted wine. The Revision says, “When the wine failed.”
   From some cause, perhaps from a larger number of guests than was expected,
   the wine gave out. “None but those who know how sacred in the East is the
   duty of lavish hospitality, and how passionately the obligation to exercise
   to the utmost it is felt, can realize the gloom which this incident would
   have thrown over the occasion, or the misery and mortification it would have
   caused to the wedded pair. They would have felt it to be, as in the East it
   is still felt to be, an indelible disgrace.”—Farrar. It has been supposed
   that this deficiency was due to the presence of the disciples of Jesus, who
   had been invited after all the preparations were made. The mother of Jesus
   saith to him, They have no wine. The solicitude of Mary could hardly be
   expected from one not a relative, but why did she appeal to Jesus? In part,
   because it was natural to speak to him in her perplexity, and in part,
   likewise, because she hoped he would meet the difficulty. She knew who he
   was, and could not doubt his ability to do what had been done for the
   widow's cruse of oil (1 Kings 17:14). Perhaps, also, she felt that the
   failure of the supply was due to his bringing his five disciples. If his
   “hour was come,” why should he not create the supply needed? (Joh 2:4)

   4. Woman, what have I to do with thee? These words in our language sound
   harsh and almost rude, but the term rendered woman was so respectful that it
   might be addressed to the queenliest, and so gentle that it might be spoken
   to those most tenderly loved. It is used by servants to queens, and Christ
   uses it when he, from the cross, commends his mother to the care of John.
   The time, too, had come for Jesus to act no longer as Mary's son; henceforth
   earthly ties of blood were not to bind him. “Whosoever did his will,” the
   same was to be “mother and sister and brother.” This is implied in his
   question. Mary must understand that, henceforth, he is the Son of man and
   the Son of God, rather than her son, and under her authority. Chrysostom
   says, “The answer is not that of one rejecting his mother, but of one who
   would show her that, having borne him, would avail nothing, were she not
   faithful,” and St. Augustine adds: “As much as to say, thou art not the
   mother of that in me which worketh miracles.” This language, partly a rebuke
   to Mary, shows very plainly that the Catholic fiction of Mary being
   immaculate, the “Queen of Heaven,” and “the Mother of God,” is all
   nonsensical. Mine hour is not yet come. The hour of his full manifestation,
   as the divine King of Israel. If his mother was rebuked for attempting to
   direct him in the days of his flesh, how absurd to address her as if she had
   the right to command him on the throne of glory!—Wesley. (Joh 2:5)

   5. Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it. The words of Mary to the servants
   show: 1. That the family where the wedding took place were in comfortable
   circumstances; 2. That Mary had some right to direct, being probably a
   relative; 3. That she understood from the manner of the reply, more than
   from the words, that Jesus would relieve the difficulty in some way. (Joh
   2:6)

   6. There were set there six water-pots of stone. These water-pots were to
   supply water for the washings usual at feasts (see Mark 7:4). The Jews were
   regarded ceremonially unclean if they did not wash both before and after
   eating. This was done in a formal manner, and was, with the washing of cups,
   pots and brazen vessels, a ritual observance on which the Pharisees laid
   great stress. The six water-pots, on this occasion, each held two or three
   firkins, meaning, it is supposed, the Hebrew bath, a measure of seven and a
   half gallons. The pots would hold about twenty gallons each, and the whole
   capacity would be about one hundred and twenty gallons. (Joh 2:7)

   7. Jesus said, Fill the water-pots with water. Some have commented on the
   amount of wine made by Jesus. 1. There is no proof that he made more than
   was needed for the number of guests and the length of the feast, where wine
   was the common beverage of the people. 2. It is God's way to pour out his
   bounty in abundance. When the 5,000 were fed there was twelve baskets over.
   (Joh 2:8)

   8. He said, Draw out now, and bear unto the governor of the feast. They had
   poured in water and they took out wine. “He that had made wine that day in
   those six water-pots does the same every year in the vines. For as what the
   servants put in the water-pots was changed into wine by the operation of the
   Lord, just so what the clouds pour forth is changed into wine by the
   operation of the same law.”—Augustine. (Joh 2:9)

   9. When the ruler of the feast had tasted. The ruler of the feast, and the
   governor of verse 8th, are the same. It was customary to choose, sometimes
   by lot, a president who regulated the whole order of festivities. The ruler
   of the feast on this occasion was a guest, chosen to this honorary office.
   As he presided at the banquet he had known nothing of the failure of the
   wine, or the source from whence the new supply came. Called the bridegroom.
   Probably called to him across the table. (Joh 2:10)

   10. Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine. The language of the
   ruler is sportive, but still he states a custom. The best wine was offered
   when the appetite of the guests was sharpest and most critical. After they
   were well filled and had entered fully into the spirit of the feast, poorer
   was offered. Are drunken. Not intoxicated, but have drunk considerable. The
   Revision says, “Have well drunk.” Satan gives his good wine first; so the
   drunkard finds it; so did the prodigal son. Afterwards he gives the bitter;
   red eyes, pain, hunger, wretchedness. Thou hast kept the good wine until
   now. What meaneth Christ making wine. It must be borne in mind that among
   the Greeks and Romans and in Palestine there were three kinds of wine: 1.
   Fermented wines, which, however, were very unlike our fiery liquors, and
   contained only a small per cent. of alcohol. These were mixed with two or
   three parts of water. The laws of Zaleucus, the Locrian, put to death anyone
   who drank unmixed wine, except as medicine. The fermented wine, at first
   mild, and then diluted with water, was a drink as used, that had no
   intoxicating power unless used in enormous quantities. 2. New wine, the
   fresh juice of the grape, like our new cider, not intoxicating. 3. Wines in
   which, by boiling the unfermented juice of the grape, or by the addition of
   certain drugs, the process of fermentation was stopped, and which had no
   intoxicating properties. We cannot surely determine which kind the Savior
   made here, but we agree with Whedon, who says: “We see no reason for
   supposing that the wine of the present occasion was that upon which
   Scripture places its strongest interdict, (Proverbs 20:1; 23:31; Isaiah
   22:13,) rather than that eulogized as a blessing (Psalms 104:15; Isaiah
   55:1).” Even adopting the view that it was fermented wine, it was totally
   unlike the fiery and undiluted drinks sold as wines in saloons, used in many
   families, offered at hotels and wine parties, and even poured out at
   communion tables. In the use of the usual wine of Palestine there is not the
   slightest apology for drinking as a beverage the alcoholic drinks which are
   the curse of our times. With regard to them the only safe rule is “to touch
   not, taste not, handle not.” They are the “cup of Devils.” It is a shame
   that anyone should pretend to quote the example of Christ as an apology for
   being a modern tippler. (Joh 2:11)

   11. This beginning of miracles. This was the first miracle of Christ. The
   stories told in Catholic fables and in the Apocryphal New Testament are
   baseless. He had refused to make bread to feed his own hunger in the
   wilderness, but he was ready to supply the needs of others. A miracle is a
   supernatural act, in which a higher power employs, modifies, or suspends the
   laws of nature. Jesus did this by his own power; his apostles in his name.
   Peter says: “In the name of Jesus of Nazareth, arise and walk.” Christ says:
   “Young man, I say unto thee, arise!” Manifested forth his glory. This was
   the first supernatural manifestation of his divine power; that he by whom
   all things were made controlled the powers of nature. His disciples believed
   in him. They already believed, but their faith was made firmer. The five
   named in the last chapter are meant. (Sec 2)
     _________________________________________________________________

Practical Observations.

   1. See how marriage is honored! God solemnized the first marriage in Eden.
   Christ wrought his first miracle on a marriage occasion.

   2. It is to be noted that he was not an ascetic, nor did he delight in
   asceticism. He not only attended the joyous festivities of the marriage
   feast, but he even contributed to the means of enjoyment. He would still
   rather see us bright, joyous and thankful, than long-faced, doleful and
   fault finding. His ministry was to be one of joy and peace; his sanction is
   to be given, not to a crushing asceticism, but to genial innocence; his
   approval, not to compulsory celibacy, but to a sacred union.—Farrar.

   3. The first miracle of Moses was to turn the river of a guilty nation into
   blood; the first of Jesus to fill the water pots of an innocent family with
   wine.

   4. The world giveth its best and richest first. At the board it spreads the
   viands may not fail; nay, may even grow in number and improve in quality,
   but they soon pall on the sated appetite, and the end of the world's feast
   is always worse and less enjoyable than the beginning. Who has found it so
   of the provisions of the Savior's grace, of those quiet, soothing,
   satisfying pleasures, that true faith imparts? There the appetite grows with
   the food it feeds upon. . . . Of each new cup from the heavenly Provider we
   may say: “Thou hast kept the good wine even until now.”—Hanna.

   5. “Let no table be spread to which He who graced the marriage feast of Cana
   could not be invited; let no pleasure be indulged in that could not live in
   the light of his countenance.” Then thou wilt be an invited guest to the
   marriage supper of the Lamb of God. Rev. 19:9.
     _________________________________________________________________

The Brethren of the Lord.

   12. After this he went down to Capernaum. Capernaum was situated on the
   northern shore of the Sea of Galilee, and the road thence was “down” from
   the hill country where Cana was located. His mother and brethren according
   to the flesh went with him, and this city became his favorite abode during
   his earthly ministry. The “disciples” who accompanied him were the same who
   were present at Cana. His mother and his brethren. Who were the brethren of
   our Lord who are attending his mother? Before attempting to answer this
   question it is well to explain that as no mention is made of the presence of
   Joseph after Jesus was twelve years old he is supposed by all commentators
   to have died before the Lord began his ministry. This seems to be confirmed
   by his charge to John from the cross to provide for his mother and furnish
   her a home. As to the brethren there have been various views. The term is
   used in the Bible with some latitude, as it is with us. It sometimes means
   kindred, cousins, those of the same race, and also the disciples of the
   Lord. Still it is not used with greater latitude than among us, as we apply
   it in till these significations, and hence the apparent meaning to an
   English reader of the term “his brothers” is to be taken unless there are
   reasons for its rejection. The expression “his brethren” occurs nine times
   in the Gospels and once in Acts. Of these the first three (Matt. 12:46; Mark
   3:32; Luke 8:19) tell of his mother and brethren coming to speak with him;
   the two next (Matt. 13:55; Mark 6:3), mention his brothers in connection
   with his mother and sisters; the sixth is this passage; in three more his
   brethren are represented as urging him to show himself to the world, and it
   is stated that they did not believe on him (John 7:3). In Acts 1:14 it is
   said that the Apostles “continued in prayer and supplication with the women,
   and with his brethren.” In addition, Paul (1 Cor. 9:5) speaks of “the rest
   of the apostles and the brethren of the Lord,” and in Gal. 1:19 he speaks of
   “James, the Lord's brother.” These passages would seem to establish beyond
   doubt that Jesus was the first-born son of Mary, and that she had four other
   sons, whose names are given, besides daughters.

   To this it is objected (1) that early tradition, accepted by the Catholic
   and Greek churches, holds that Mary remained a virgin, and she is worshiped
   as the Virgin Mary. To this it may be answered that the tradition was not
   universally accepted in the early Church, and has none of the marks of
   authentic history. (2) It is urged that Jesus would not have committed Mary
   to the care of John if she had other sons. To this it may be replied that at
   that time his brethren were unbelievers (John 7:5), though after his
   resurrection their unbelief passed away. (3) It is further urged that they
   were all the Lord's cousins, the sons of a sister of Mary, also named Mary,
   and of Alphæus or Cleophas. This argument relies on the fact that their
   names were “James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon” (Matt. 13:55); while
   there was also a “Mary the mother of James and Joses,” (Matt. 27:56) and a
   “James and Judas were the sons of Alphæus” (Luke 6:15). To this we answer
   that, (a) While Mary had a sister (John 19:25), there is no evidence that
   she was named Mary; nor is there any parallel case of two Jewish sisters
   having the same name; nor is there any evidence that she was the wife of
   Cleophas; (b) It could not be true that his cousins are meant because “his
   brethren” were not apostles, nor believers, and he had cousins who believed
   and were among the apostles, if this theory be correct; (c) Nor does it
   prove anything that the names James and Joses occur as those of the children
   of another Mary, as the names were very common. There are five Jameses in
   the New Testament, several Judes, and Josephus, who lived at this time,
   names twenty-one Simons, seventeen Joseses, and sixteen Judes.

   On the other hand the expression, first-born son, in Luke 2:7, implies that
   Mary had other and younger children, and Matt. 1:25, implies that what was
   true before the birth of Christ was not after. Common sense will indicate
   that if Mary continued a virgin, Matthew would have chosen different
   language. To these passages we may add the general tone of the Gospels in
   all the passages cited above. The “brothers” of Jesus are constantly
   represented as attending his mother, without a hint that they were not her
   children. These cogent facts cannot be set aside by a tradition or by
   conjectures. Alford well sums up the argument in a few words which we quote:

   1. There were four persons known as the brethren “of him,” or “of the
   Lord,” not of the number of the Twelve.

   2. That these persons are found in all places, but one or two, in immediate
   connection with Mary, the mother of Jesus.

   3. That not a word is anywhere dropped to prevent us from inferring that the
   brothers and sisters were his relations in the same literal sense that we
   know his mother to have been.

   4. All explanations which make them aught else than the children of his
   mother are mere conjectures.

   5. The silence of the Scripture narrative leaves Christians free to believe
   that they were real (younger) brethren and sisters of our Lord.
     _________________________________________________________________

The Cleansing of the Temple.

   The Gospels are silent concerning any visit of Jesus after his twelfth year
   until the first passover after his ministry began. The Lord, after his
   baptism, the temptation, and the witness of John, had begun his work rather
   quietly in Galilee, but when the passover season came he joined the vast
   crowds who were seeking the city of David, and repaired to the national
   capital where popular expectation held that the Messiah would reveal
   himself. The following events have a fuller significance when it is borne in
   mind that it is the Lord's first visit to the temple after his work began.
   The cleansing is an assertion of his Lordship, and authority over the
   temple, a declaration to the religious rulers that the Holy One of Israel
   had come. (Joh 2:13)

   13. And the Jews' passover was at hand. Observe that John writes as one far
   from Judea and among Gentiles. He does not say the, but the Jews' passover.
   For an account of the institution of this annual feast, see Exodus, chapter
   XII. There is no account that John the Baptist ever went to Jerusalem, but
   the Savior attended all the passovers but one during his ministry. A short
   time before he had been baptized and anointed for his ministry; since then
   his time had mostly been spent in Galilee. Now, first, since his work began
   he visited the capital of the nation and the Temple. His life had thus far
   been quiet, but it behooved him to assert his authority in the very center
   of national worship, and his collision with the corruptions of the times
   brought upon him immediately the antagonism of the priesthood and Pharisees.
   From this time onward his pathway is stormy. (Joh 2:14)

   14. And he found in the temple. The Jewish worship centered in the temple.
   There the nation gathered at the great religious festivals; there all
   sacrifices were offered and the priesthood were consecrated. First there was
   the Tabernacle, the movable temple of the wilderness; then the temple of
   Solomon, destroyed at the time of the Captivity; then the second temple
   built by Zerubbabel; lastly, the temple of Herod, a great enlargement of the
   second temple, one of the most costly and beautiful buildings on the earth.
   It was of white marble, with roofs of cedar, and was rather a collection of
   buildings, courts and porches than a single building, all within the temple
   enclosure covering nineteen acres. The plan on the following page will give
   a better idea of it than any description.

   ntc3051

   Temple Plan.

   In the center was the Holy of Holies, only entered by the High Priest once a
   year, at the feast of the atonement; next without was the Holy Place,
   entered only by the priests; without the entrance of this was the Court of
   Israel; then the Court of Women; then still without, the Court of the
   Gentiles. It was in this last named court that the traffic was conducted
   that aroused the indignation of the Savior. Those that sold oxen and sheep
   and doves. These were for the sacrifices. It is stated that at the passover
   200,000 paschal lambs were required, and as the vast throngs who came from
   distant parts could not bring them it was needful to buy them in Jerusalem.
   The traffic in these and the victims required for sacrifices, oxen, sheep,
   kids and doves, became an enormous one. Instead of being conducted at
   stock-yards it was installed in the temple itself, under the eye and
   patronage of a venal priesthood. The Court of Gentiles, designed as a “house
   of prayer for all nations” (Mark 11:15–19), was converted into cattle
   stalls, filled with their ordure, and noisy with their lowing and the din of
   traffic. And the changers of money sitting. The Jew was required to pay for
   the support of the temple service a half shekel annually (Exodus 30:13;
   Matt. 17:24). No heathen coin could be put into the temple treasury because
   they usually had images upon them which the priests regarded idolatrous; the
   Jewish shekels were not in general circulation, and hence it was needful
   that the current coin be changed before the temple tax could be paid. This
   money brokerage had also installed itself in the temple and much gain was
   made by the commissions charged. (Joh 2:15)

   15. Made a scourge of small cords. The original implies that it was made of
   rushes, which were carried in as bedding for cattle. It was not a formidable
   weapon of itself; was chosen more as a symbol, and was probably not laid in
   violence upon any one. Drove them all out of the temple. His indignation was
   aroused at the desecration. As the representative of the Father he had the
   right to cleanse the Sanctuary, and here, first, he asserts his authority.
   The traffickers fled before his glance; not in terror of his scourge, or of
   one man whom they might have defied, but there was something about him that
   struck consternation; an authority, a divine majesty, a mysterious power
   that could not be resisted. The act was superhuman. If any one doubts it let
   him try to clean a market of thousands of greedy traffickers with a harmless
   scourge, and see how soon he will bite the earth. Along with the traders he
   drove out their cattle, and overturned the tables of the money changers.
   (Joh 2:16)

   16. Said unto them that sold doves. Cattle could be driven out, the money
   overturned, but the doves were in cages and could only be carried out, or
   released and lost. Christ's object was to cleanse the temple, not to destroy
   any one's property. Hence, he commands them to carry them out. Make not my
   Father's house a house of merchandise. His authority for his act is that
   this is his Father's house. He does not say our, but my Father, or in other
   words, he acts as the Son of God. His act is really a public proclamation of
   his divine authority. He still looks with indignation upon the desecration
   of his Father's House. How often still it is converted into a house of
   merchandise! This cleansing of the temple must not be confounded with the
   later one that occurred on his last visit to Jerusalem. His ministry in the
   Holy city very appropriately begins and ends with a protest against the
   desecration of the temple. (Joh 2:17)

   17. His disciples remembered. As they beheld his flaming zeal and thought of
   the wrath that it would bring down upon him, they thought of the words in
   Ps. 69:9, “The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up.” (Joh 2:18)

   18. Then answered the Jews. I suppose that “the Jews” has an official
   signification as in John 1:19. As soon as they have time to recover from
   their surprise, the officials demand his authority for these acts. They are
   evidently full of resentment. The enmity that grew more and more bitter
   until its object was nailed to the cross, had begun. They call for a sign,
   some miraculous demonstration of his rights. One had just been given. (Joh
   2:19)

   19. Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. To the demand
   for a sign, made more than once during his ministry, this was his constant
   answer. Unbelief would do its work in destroying the temple of his body, and
   its argument would be overthrown by his resurrection from the dead. The
   temple itself was only a type of the spiritual body of Christ. His body
   contained within itself the spiritual temple that would be developed. It was
   appropriate to point to it as the temple, though the Jews did not comprehend
   his words. (Joh 2:20) (Joh 2:21)

   20. Forty and six years was this temple in building. It had been forty-six
   years since Herod the Great had begun his work. At this time the work was
   not fully completed and workmen were still engaged on some of its parts. It
   was eighty years from the time it was begun before it was fully completed by
   Herod Agrippa II. a.d. 64. The Jews did not understand him, nor is it
   certain that he designed they should. To the obstinate and hostile
   unbelievers he often spoke in parables. To honest seekers for truth his
   language was plain and simple. (Joh 2:22)

   22. When therefore he was risen from the deed his disciples remembered. They
   remembered and understood his words then; they did not now. Then “they
   believed the Scripture” which foretold his death and resurrection, though
   they had never understood it before. (Joh 2:23)

   23. Many believed in his name when they saw the miracles. The miracles that
   he worked at this passover season are not recorded, but this passage affirms
   them, as well as John 3:2. Their belief was rather an intellectual assent
   that he was a divine teacher than an obedient trust in him as the Savior.
   (Joh 2:24)

   24. He did not commit himself to them. He knew too well that theirs was not
   a heartfelt trust to reveal himself unreservedly to them. (Joh 2:25)

   25. He know what was in man. He knew their hearts, because he possessed the
   divine omniscience that could fathom the depths of every heart.
     _________________________________________________________________

Practical Observations.

   1. The Master still looks with indignation upon the conversion of the Temple
   into a house of merchandise. It is still done by a corrupt priesthood, a
   greedy ministry, or a membership who try to make gain by professed
   godliness. When a priesthood sells its offices, makes its set charges for
   absolution, extreme unction, the burial of the dead, masses and indulgences;
   or in Protestant churches the ministry become a set of hirelings, in the
   market for the highest bidder; or the membership convert the house of God
   into a place for shows, festivals, raffles, etc., the Father's House is made
   a house of merchandise. There is need of the whip of small cords to scourge
   out the traffickers.

   2. When corruption and avarice enshrined themselves in the Jewish temple the
   time of its overthrow was near. Soon God departed from it and “their place
   was left unto them desolate.” When the church becomes sordid instead of
   spiritual God will abandon it to destruction.

   3. The Master still knows what is in every heart. He has no need to be told
   what is in mi