Notes on the Old and New Testaments

J^Il^(, the writer of tliis Gospel, was the son of Zcbedce and Salome. Com. pare Malt, xxvii. 56, witli Mark xv. 40, 41. His father was a tishcrman of Galilee, though it would appear that he was not destitute of property, and wa« not in the lowest condition of life. He had hired men in his employ. Mark i. 20. Salome is described as one who attended our Saviour in his travels, and ministered to his wants. Matt, xxvii. 55. Mark xv. 41. Jesus commended his own mother Mary, on the cross, to John, and he took her to his own home (John xix. 26,27.), with whom, history informs us, she lived until her death, about fifteen years after the crifcifixion of Christ; and John was known to Caiaphas, the high priest. John xviii. 15. From all this it would seem not improbable that John had some property, and was better known than any of the other apostles.

He was the youngest of the apostles when called, and lived to the greatest age, and is the only one who is supposed to have died a peaceful death. He was called to be a follower of Jesus while engaged with his father and his elder brother James, mending their nets at the sea of Tiberias. Matt. iv. 21. Mark i. 19. Luke v. 10.

John was admitted by our Saviour to peculiar favor and friendship. One of the ancient fathers ('riieophylact) says that he was related to ou' Saviour. "Joseph," he says, "had seven children by a former wife, four sons and three daughters, Martha, Esther, and iSa/omc, whose son John was; therefore Salome was reckoned our Lord's sister, and John was his nephew." If this was 'he case, it may explain the reason why James and John sought and expected the first places in his kingdom. Matt. xx. 20, 21. These may also possibly be the persons who were called our Lord's " brethren" and " sisters." Matt. xiii. 55, 56. And it may also explain the reason why our Saviour committed his mother to the care of John on the cross. John xix. 27.

The two brothers, James and John, with Peter, were several titncs admitted to [)cculiar favors by our Lord. They were the only disciples that were j)crmittcd to be present at the raising of the daughter of Jairus (.Mark v. 37; Luke viii. 51); they only were permitted to attend our Saviour to t)ic mount where he was transfigured: Matt. xvii. 1. Mark ix. 2. The same three were permitted to be present at his sutferiiigs in the garden of Gclhscmane. MatU xxvi. 30 — 4.^). Mark xiv. 32 — 42. And it was to thtsc disciples, togithcr with Andrew, to whom our Saviour espcciajly addrefscd himself when he reads

Imowii Ihu ilesolations tliut vvcro coming upon Jurusalcrn and Judca. Conii)are Matt. xxiv. \2; Mark xiii. 3, 4. John was also admitted to peculiar fricnduhip with tlic Lord Jesus. Hence he is mentioned as "that disciple whom Jcsua loved " (John xix. 2(j), and he is represented (John xiii. 23) as leaning on Jesus' bosom at the institution of the Lord's supper; an evidence of peculiar fricndshij). See Note on that place. Though the Redeemer was attached to all his disciples, yet there is no absurdity in supposing tliat his disposition was congenial with that of the meek and amiable John; thus authorising, and setting the example of, special friendships among Christians.

To John wTis committed the care of Mary, the mother of Jesus. After the ascension of Christ he remained some time at Jerusalem. Acts i. 14; iii. 1 iv. 13. John is also mentioned as having been sent down to Samaria to preach tJic gospel there with Peter (Acts viii. 14—25), and from Acts xv. it appears that he was present at the council at Jerusalem, A. D. 49 or.50. All this agrees with what is said by Eusebius, that he lived at Jerusalem till the death of Mary, fifteen years after the crucifixion of Christ. Till this time it is probable that he had not been engaged in preaching the gospel among the Gentiles.

At what time John went first among the Gentiles to preach the gospel is not certainly known. It has commonly been supposed that he resided in Judea and the neighborhood until the war broke out with the Romans, and that he came into Asia Minor about the year 66 or 70. It is clear that he was not at Ephesus at the time that Paul visited those regions, as in all the travels of Paul and Luke there is no mention ever made of John.

Ecclesiastical history informs us that he spent the latter part of his life in Asia Minor, and that he resided chiefly in Ephesus, the chief city of that country. Of his residence there, little is certainly known. In the latter part of his life he was banished to Patmos, a small desolate island in the iEgean sea, about twenty miles in circumference. This is commonly supposed to have been during the persecution of Domitian, in the latter part of hie reign. Domitian died A. D. 96. It is probable that he returned soon after that, in the reign of the emperor Trajan. In that island he wrote the book of Revelation. Rev. i. 9. After his return from Patmos, he lived peaceably at Ephesus until his death, which is supposed to have occurred not long after. He was buried at Ephesus; and it has been commonly thought that he was the only one of the apostles who did not suffer martyrdom. It is evident that he lived to a very advanced period of life. We know not his age, indeed, when Christ called him to follow him; but we cannot suppose it was less than 25 or 30. If so, he must have been not far from 100 years old when he died.

Many anecdotes are related of him while he remained at Ephesus, but there is no sufficient evidence of their truth. Some have said that he was taken to Rome in a time of persecution, and thrown into a caldron of boiling oil, and came out uninjured. It has been said that going into a bath one day at Ephe sus, he perceived Cerinihus, who denied the divinity of the Saviour, and that John fled from him hastily, to express his disapprobation of his doctrine. It is also said, and of this there can be no doubt, that during his latter years he was not able to make a long discourse. He was carried to the church, and was accustomed. to say nothing but this: "Little children, love one another." At length his disciples asked him why he always dwelt upon the same thing. He replied, " Because it is the Lord's command; and if this be done, it is suffi cient."

Learned men have been much divided about the time when this Gospel waa written. VVetstein supposed it was written just after our Saviour's ascension; Mill and Le Clerc, that it was written in 97; Dr. Lardner, that it was about tlie year 68, just before the destruction of Jerusalem The common opinion

«8. that li wus written at Ephcsus, after his return from Patnius, and of courso as late as the year 97 or 98. Nothings can be determined with certainty on the eubject, and it is a matter of very ilttle consequence.

There is no doubt that it was written by John. This is abundantly confirmed by the ancient fathers, and was not questioned by Celsus, Porphyry, or Julian, the acutcst enemies of revelation in the early agos. It lias never been extensively questioned to have been tiie work of John, and is one of the books of the New Testament whose canonical authority was never disputed. Sec Lardncr; HT Paley's Evidences.

The design of writing it, John himself states. Ch. xx. 31. It was to show *hat Jesus was the Clirist, the Son of God, and that those who believed migh have life through his name. This design is kept in view through the whole Gospel; and should he remembered in our attempts to explain it. Various attempts have been made to sliow that he wrote it to confute the followers of Ce. rinthus and the Gnostics, but no satisfactory evidence of such a design has been furnished.

As he wrote after the other evangelists, he has recorded many things which;hey omitted. He dwells much more fully than they do on the divine character of Jesus; relates many things pertaining to the early part of his ministry which they had omitted; records many mare of his discourses than they have dune, and particularly the interesting discourse at the institution of the supper. See eh. xiv., XV., xj/i., xvii.

It has been remarked that there are evidences ni this Gospel that it was not written for the Jews. He explains words and customs whicli to a Jew would have needed no explanation. See ch. i. 38, 41; v. 1, 2; vii. 2; iv. 9. The style in the Greek indicates that he was an unlearned man. It is simple, plain, unpolislicd; such as we should suppose would be used by one in his circumstances. At the same time it is dignified, containing pure and profound sentiments, and is on many accounts the most dilFicult of all the books of the New Testament to interpret. It contains more about Christ, his person, design, and Work, than any of the other Gospels. The other evangelists were employed more in recording the miracles, and giving external evidence of the divine mission of Jesus. John is employed chiefly in telling us what he was, and what was his j)eciiliar doctrine. His aim was to siiow, 1st. That Jesus was tiie.Messiah. 2(1. To show, from the words of Jesus himself, what the Messiah was. The other evangelists record his parables, his miracles, his debates with tlie scribes and Pharisees; John records chiefly his discourses about himself. If any one wishes to learn the true doctrine respecting the Messiah, the Son of God, expressed in simple language, but with most sublime conceptions; to learn the true nature and character of God, and the way of approach to his mercyscat; to see the true nature of Christian piety, or the source and character of religious consolation; to have perpetually before him the purest model of character the world has seen, and to contemi)late the purest precepts that have ever been delivered to man; he cannot better do it than by a prayerful study of the Gospel by John. It may be added that this Gospel is, of itself, proof that cannot be overthrown of the truth of revelation. John was a fisherman, uiihonored and unlearned. Acts iv. 13. What man in that rank of life now could compose a book like this? And can it be conceived that any man of that rank, unless under the inllucnce of inspiration, could conceive so sublime notions of God, 80 i)ure views of morals, and draw a character so inimitably lovely and pure as that of Jesus Ciirist? To ask these questions is to answer them. And this Gosjiel will stand to the end of time as an unanswerable demonstration -hat the fisherman who '^^ rote it was under a more than human guidance, and was, according to the pre nisc that he has recorded (xvi. 13, compare xiv. 26).

guided into all truth. It will also remain as an unanswerable proof that the cha. raeler wiiicli lie has described — the character of the Lord Jesus — was real. Il is a perfect character. It has not a flaw. How has this liappened? The attempt has often oecn made to draw a perfect character — and as often, in every other instance, failed. How is it, when Homer and Virgil and the ancient his torians have all failed to describe a perfect character, with the purest models before them, and with all the aid of imagination, that in every instance they have failed? How is it that this has at last been accomplished only by a Jewish fisherman? The difficulty is vastly increased if another idea is borne in mind. John describes one who he believed had a divine nature. Ch. i. 1. It is an attempt to describe God in human nature, or to show how the divine being acts when united with man, or when appearing in human form. And the description is complete. There is not a word expressed by the Lord Jesus, or an emotion ascribed to him, inconsistent with such a supposition. — But this same attempt was often made — and as often failed. Homer and Virgil and all the ancient poets have undertaken to show what the gods would be if they came down and conversed with man. And what were they? What were Jupiter, and Juno, and Venus, and Mars, and Vulcan? — Beings of lust, and envy, and contention, and blood. How has it happened that the only successful account which has been given of the divine nature united with the human, and living and acting as became sucli a union, has been given by a Jewish fisherman? — How, unless the character was real, and the writer under a guidance far superior to the genius of Homer, and the imagination of Viigii-^the guifiancA of the Half Spirit?

1. Intlieheginning. This expression IS used also in Gen. i. 1. To that place John evidently has allusion here, and means to apply to "the word" an e.\- fression which is there applied to God. n both places it clearly means "before creation," " before the world was made," "when as yet there was nothing." The meaning is, that the word had an e.\istence before the worfd was created. This is not spoken of the man Jesus, but of that which became a man, or was incarnate. (Vcr. 14.) The Hebrews, by expressions like this, commonly denoted eternity. Thus the eternity of God is described (Ps. xc. 2): Before the mountains were brought forth, &c. And eternity is commonly expressed by the phrase, before the foundation of the world. Whatever is meant by the term " word," it is clear that it had an existence before creation. It is not, then, a creature, or created being, and must be, therefore, uncreated and eternal. There is but one Being that is uncreated, and Jesus must be therefore divine. Compare the Saviour's own declarations respecting himself in the following places: John viii. 58. xvii. 5. vi. 62. iii. 13. vi. 46. viii. 14. xvi. 2S. ' Was the word. Greek, "was the Logos." This name is given to him who afterwards became flesh, or incarnate (ver. 14) — i. e., to the Messiah. Whatever is meant by it, therefore, is applicable to the Lord Jesus Christ. There have been many opinions about the reason why this name was given to the Son of God, and about its meaning. Those opinions it is unnecessary to repeat. The opinion which seems most plausible may be expressed as follows: 1st. A word is that by which we communicate our will, by which we conirey our thoughts, or by which we issue commands; the medium of communication wiih others. 2d. The Son of God may be called "the word," be- VoL. II — 16 cause he is the medium by which God promulgates his will, and issues hia commandment. See Hebrews i. 1 — 3. 3d. This term was in use before the time of John, (a.) It was used in the Chaldcc translation of the Old Testament; as, e. g., Isa. xlv. 12: " I have made the earth, and created man upon it." In the Chaldec it is, "I, by my word, have made," &lc. Isa. xlviii. 13: " Mine hand also hath laid the foundation of the earth." In the Chaldee, " By my word I have founded the earth." And so in many other places. (6.) Thii term was used by the Jews as applicable to the Messiah. In their writings he was commonly known by the term " Mimra." — i. e., "word;" and no small part of the interpositions of God in defence of the Jewish nation were declared to be by " the word of God." Thus, in their Targum on Deut. xxvi. 17, 18, it is said, " Ye have appointed THE WORD OF GoD a king over vou this day, that he may be your God." (c.) This term was used by the Jews who were scattered among the Gentiles, and especially those who were conversant with the Greek philosophy. (6-) The term was used by the followers of Plato among the Greeks, to denote the second person of the Trinity. The term nous or mind, was commonly given to this second pcnson; but it was said that this nous was the word, or reason of the first person. The term was therefore extensively in use among the Jews and Gentiles before John wrote his (iospel; and it was certain that it xcotild be applied to the second person of the Trinity by Christians, whether converted from Judaism or Paganism. It was iinpor tant, therefore, that the meaning of the term should be settled by an inspired man; and accordingly John, in the commencement of his Gospel, is at much pains to state clearly what is the true doctrine respecting tue Logos, of (181)

word. It is posKihle also that the doctrines ot the CJnostifis had begun to spread in the time of John. They were Bn Oriental sect, and held that the Logos or word was one of the Aeons that nad been created, and that this one had been united to the man Jesus. If that doctrine had begun to prevail, it was of the more importanjc for John to settle the truth in regard to the rank of the Logos or word. This he has done so that there need be no doubt about his meaning. Ii Was rvith God. This expression denotes friendship, intimacy. Compare Mark ix. 19. John affirms that he was with God in the beginning— i. e., before the world was made. It implies, therefore, that he was partaker of the divine glory; that he was blessed and happy with God. It proves that he was intimately united with the Father, so as to partake of his glory and to be appropriately called by the name God. He has himself explained it. See John xvii. 5: And now, 0 Father, glorify thou me, with thine own self, with the glory which I had loilh thee before the world was. See also John i. 18: No man hath seen God at any time; the only-begotten Son, which

hath declared him. Sec also John iii. 13: The So7i of man, which is ifi heaven. Compare Phil. ii. 6, 7. IT Was God. In the previous phrase John had said that the word was with God. Lest it should be supposed that he was a different and inferior being, he here states that he was God. There is no more unequivocal declaration in the Bible than this, and there coidd be no stronger proof that the sacred writer meant to affirm that the Son of God wag equal with the Father. For, 1st. There is no doubt that by the Lo^os is meant Jesus Christ. 2d. This is not an attribute or quality of God, but is a real subsistence, for it is said that the Logos was made/es/(; that is, became a man. 3d. There is no variation here in the manuscripts, and critics have observed that the Greek will bear no other construction than what is expressed in our translation — that the word was God. 4th. There is no evidence that John intended to use the word God in an inferior fflnse. It is not ' the word was a God,' or the word was like God, but the word was ">d. He had just used the word God as evidently applying to Jehovah, the true God; and it is absurd to suppo.T> that he would in the same v^rse, and without any indication that he was using the word in an inferior sense, employ it to denote a being altogether inferior to the true God. 5th- The name God is elsewhere given tw him, showing that he is the supreme God. See Rom. ix. 5; Heb. i. 8, 9, 10—12; 1 John v. 20; John xx. 28. The meaning of this important verstj may, then, be thus summed up: 1st. The name Logos, or word, is given to Christ in reference to his becoming the Teacher or Instructer of mankind; the medium of communication between God and man. 2d. The name was in use at the time of John, and it was hia design to state the correct doctrine respecting the Logos. 3d. The word or Logos existed before creation — of course was not a creature, and must have been, therefore, from eternity. 4th. He was rcith God — i. e., was united to him in a most intimate and close union before the creation; and as it could not be said that God was v^ith himself, it follows that the Logos was in some sense distinct from God, or that there was a distinction between his Fathci and the Son. When we say that one is with another, we imply that there is some sort of distinction between them. 5th. Yet, lest it should be supposed he was a different and inferior being — a creature — he affirms that he was God — i. e., equal with the Father. This is the foundation of the doctrine of the Trinity: 1. I'hat the second person ia in some sense distinct from the first. 2. That he is intimately united with him in essence, so that there are not two or more Gods. 3. That the second may be called by the same name, ha.s the same attributes, perforijis the same works, and is entitled to the same honors with the first; and that therefore he is " the same in substance, and equal in power and glory, " with God. 2. The same. The word, or the Logos. T Was ill the beginning with God, This seems to be a repetition of what was said in the first verse. But it is repeated to guard the doctrine, and tt-

him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

pre\enl the possibility of a mistake. He haa said that he was before creation, and that he was with God. But he had not said in the first verse that the u?iion with God existed in the beginning. He now expresses tliat idea, and assures us that that union was not one that was commenced in lime, and which might be, therefore, a mere union of feeling, or a compact, liite that between any otlicr bciiign, but was one which existed in eternity, and whicli was, therefore, a union of nature or essence. 3. All things. The universe. The expression cannot be limited to any part of the universe. It appropriately expresses every thing which exists — all ilie vast masses of material worlds; and all the animals, and things, great or small, that compose those worlds. See Rev. iv. 11. Heb. i. 2. Col. i. IG. t Were made. The original word is from the verb tobe, and signifies ''were" by him. But it expresses the idea of creation here. It does not alter the sense, whether it is said, 'were by him,' or, ' were created by him.' It is often used in the sense of creating, or forming from nothing. 8ee James iii. 9: and Gen. ii. 4; Isa. xlviii. 7, in the Septua- ^int. ^ By him. In this place it is afhrmed that creation was eflected by the word, or the Son of tJod. In Gen. i. 1, it is said that the being who created the heavens and the earth was God. In l*s. cii. 25 — 28, this work is ascribed to Jehovah. The word, or the Son of God, is, therefore, appropriately called God. The work oi creation is uniformly ascribed in tiie scriptures to the second person of the Trinity. See Col. i. IC. Heb. i. 2, 10. Bv this is meant evidently that he was the agent, or the efficient cause, by which the universe was made. There ia no higher proof of Omnipotence than the work of crealion; and hence God often appeals to that work to prove that he is the true God in oppositi(m to idols. See Isa. xl. 18 — 28. Jir. X. 3 — Ki. P.s. xxiv. 2; xxxix. 11. Frov. iii. 1'). It is absurd to say that God can invest a creature wiih Omnipntmre. If he can make a creature Omnipotent, he can make him Omniscient, and can, in the same

4 In him" was life; and the life was the light * of men.

way, make him Omnipresent, and in finitely wise and good; that is, he car invest a creature with all his own attributes, or make another being like himself, or which is the same thing, there could be two Gods — or as many Gods as he should choose to make. But this is absurd. The being, therefore, that created all things must be divine; and as this work is ascribed to Jesus Christ; and as it is uniformly in the scriptures declared to be the work of God, Jesus Christ is, therefore, equal with the Father. II Without him. Without his agency; his notice; the exertion of his power. Compare Matt. x. 29. This IS a strong way of speaking, designed to confirm, beyond the possibihty of doubt, what he had just said. He says, therefore, in general, that all things were made by Christ. In this part of the verse, he shuts out all doubt, and affirms that there was wo exception; that there was not a single thing, however minute or unimportant, which was not made by him. In this way he confirms what he said in the first verse. Christ was not merely called God, but he did the works of God; and, therefore, the name^is used in its proper sense as implying supreme divinity. To this same test Jesus himself appealed as proving that he was divine. John X. 37. 7/ / do not THE works of my Father, believe me 7tot. John V. 17. My Father vurktth hitherto, and I work.

4. In him was life. The evangelist had just allirmed (ver. 3.), that by the Logos or word, the world was originally created. One part of that creation consisted in breathing into man the breath of life. Gen. ii. 7. God is declared to he life, or the living God. because he is the source or fountain of lite. This attribute is here ascribed to Jesus Christ. He not merely made the material worlds, but he also gave life. He was the agent by which the veartable world became animated; by which hrtUes live; and by which man became a living.soul, or was endowed with immortality. Thi* was a hicher proof that the " word was (Jod," than the creation of the material worlds. But there is another sense ai which he was life. 'I'he new creation-

5 And the light shincth in " darkness; and the darkness comprehended * it not.

or the renovation of man, and restoration from a state of sin, is often compared with the first crralion; and as the Logos was the source of life then, so in a similar, but iii^hcr sense, he is the source of Hfe to the soul dead in trespasses and sins. Eph. ii. 1. And it is probably in reference to this, that he is so often called life in the writings of John. " For as the Father hath life in himself, so hath he given the Son to have life in himself" John v. 26. " He giveth life unto the world." John vi. 33. "I am the resurrection and the life." John xi. 25. "This is the true God and eternal life." 1 John V. 20. See also 1 John i. 1, 2; v. 11. Acts iii. 15. Col. iii. 4. The meaning is, that he is the source, or the fountain of both natural and spiritual hfe. Of course he has the attributes of God. T The life was the light of men. Light is that by which we see otijects distinctly. The light of the sun enables us to ciiscern the form, distance, magmtude, and relation of objects, and prevents the perplexities and dangers which result from a state of darkness. Light is in all languages, therefore, put for k9iowledge — for whatever enables us to discern our duty, and the path of safety, and that saves us from the evils of ignorance and error. " Whatsoever doth make manifest is light." Eph. v. 13. See Isa. viii. 20; ix. 2. The Messiah was predicted as the light of the Church. Isa. ix. 2, compared with Matt. iv. 15, 16. Isa. Ix. 1. See John viii. 12. " I am the light of the world." xii. 35, 36, 46. "I am come a light into the world." The meanmg is, that the Logos or word of God, is the instrucler or teacher of mankind. This was done before his advent by his direct agency in giving man reason or understanding; in giving his law, for the " law was ordained by angels in the hands of a mediator,^' (Gal. iii. 19.); by his personal ministry when on earth; by his Spirit iJohn xiv. 16, 26.); and by his ministers since. Eph. iv. 11. 1 Cor. xii. 28. 5. The light shineth in darkness. — Darkness, in the Bible, commonly denotes ignoi mce, guih, or miserv. See

6 There was a man ' sent fjroa God, whose name was John.

Isa. ix. 1, 2. Matt. iv. 16. Acts xxvi. 18. Eph. V. 8, 11. Rom. xili. 12. It refers here to a wicked and ignorant people. When it is said that "the light shineth in darkness," it is meant that the Lord Jesus came to teach an ignorant, benighted, and wicked world. This has always been the case. It was so when he sent his prophets; so during his own ministry; and so in every age since. His efforts to enlighten and save men have been like light struggling to penetrate a thick, dense cloud; and though a few rays may pierce the gloom, yet the great mass is still an impenetrable shade. If Comprehended it not. The word means, admitted it not; or received it not. The word comprehend with us means to understand. This is not the meaning of the original. The darkness did not receive or admit the rays of light; the shades were so thick that the light could not penetrate them; or, to drop the figure, men were so ignorant, so guilty, and debased, thai they did not appreciate the value of hia instructions; they despised and rejected him. And so it is still. The great mass of men, sunk in sin, will not receive his teachings, and be enhghtened and saved by him. Sin always blinds the mind to the beauty and excellency of the character of the Lord Jesus. It indisposes the mind to receive his instructions, just as darkness has no affinity for light, and if the one exists, the other must be displaced.

6. A man se7it from God. See Matt, iii. The evangelist proceeds now to show that John was not the Messiah, and to state the true nature of his office. Many had supposed that he was the Christ, but this opinion he corrects. Yet he admits that he was sent from God; that he was divinely commission ed. Though he denied that he was tht 3Iessiah, yd he did not deny that he was sent from or by heaven on an important errand to men. Some have supposed that the sole design cf this Gospel was to show that John the Baptist was not the I\Iessiah. Though there is no foui\dation for this ojiir.ion yet there is no doubt that one objeo'

7 The same came for a witness, I was sent to beai witness ol' that lo bear witness of the Light, that [ Light.

all men through him might be- [ 9 Thai was the tnie Light, * lieve. i which lighteth every man that

8 He " was not that Light, but j cometh into the world.

was to show this. The main design was to Bhow that Jesi:s was the Christ. Ch. XX. 31. To do this, it was proper in the beginning to prove that Johri was not the Messiah. And this might have been at that time an important object. John made many disciples. Matt. iii. 5. Many persons supposed that he might be the Messiah. liuke iii. 15. John i. 19. Many of these disciples of John remained at Epiiesus, the very place where John is supposed lo have written this Gospel, long after the ascension of Jesus. Acts xix. 1 — 3. It is not improbable that there might have been many others who adhered to John, and perhaps many who supposed that he was the Messiah. On these accounts, it was important for the evangelist to show that John was not the Christ, and to show also thai he, who was extensively admitted to be a prophet, was an important witness to prove that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ. The evangelist in the first four verses stated that " the word" was divine; he now proceeds to state the proof that he was a man, and was the Messiah. Tlie_^r.<!< evidence adduced, is the testimony of John the Baptist.

7, 8. For a witness. To give testimony. He came to prepare the minds of the people to receive him. Matt. iii. Luke iii.); to lead ihcm by repentance to God; and to point out the Messiah to Israel when he came. John i. 31. IT Of the light. That is, of the Messiah. Compare Isa. Ix. 1. H That all men, &c. That was the object of John's testimony, that all men might believe. He designed to prepare them for it; to announce that the Messiaii was about to come; to direct the minds of men lo him, and thus to fit them to believe when he came. Thus he baptized them saying, "that they should believe on him \'ho shovdd come after him." Acts xi.x. 4. And thus he produced a very general expectation that the Christ was about to come. The testimony of John was peculiarly valuable on the following accounts: Ist. It 16* was made when he had no personal acquaintance with Jesus of Nazareth, an of course there could have been no col lusioti, or agreement to deceive them. John i. 31. 2d. It was sufficiently long before he came to excite general attention, and to fix the mind on it. 3d. It was that of a man acknowledged by all to be a prophet of God, " for all men held John to be a prophet." Matt. xxi. 26. 4th. It was /or the express mirpost of declaring beforehand that he was about to appear. 5th. \\.\\vls disinterested. He was himself extretnely popular Many were disposed to receive him as the Messiah. It was evidently in his poioer to form a large party, and to be regarded extensively as the Christ. This was the highest honor to which a Jew could aspire; and it shows the value of John's testimony that he was willing to lay all his honors at the feet of Jesus, and to acknowledge that he was unworthy to perform for him the office of the huinblcst servant. Matt, iii. 11. ^ Through him. Through John, or by means of his testimony. H Was not that light. Was Hot the Messiah. This is an explicit declaration designed to satisfy all the disciples of John. The evidence that he was not the Messiah, lie states in the following verses.

From the conduct of John here, wc may learn: 1st. The duty of laying all our honors at the feet of Jesus. 2d. As John came that all might believe, so it is no less true of the ministry of Jesus himself He came for a similar purpose, and we may all, therefore, trust in him for salvation. 3d. We should not rely too much on ministers of the gospel. They cannot save us any more than John could; and their office, as his was, is simply to direct men to the I^mb of God that takcth away the sin of the xrorld.

10 He was in the world, uiid the world was made l)y liini, and " the world knew him not. a ver.5.

false beacon on the shores of the ocean may lead ships to quicksands or rocks; or an i<rnis fatuus to fens, and precipices, and death. A true light is one that does not deceive us, as the true beacon may guide us into port, or warn us of danger. Christ leads none astray. All false teachers do. ^ That ligldeth. That enlightens. He removes darkness, error, ignorance, from the mind. If Every man. This is an expression denoting, in general, the whole human race — Jews and Gentiles. John preached to the Jews. Jesus came to he a light to lighten the Gentiles, as well as to be the glory of the people of Israel. Luke ii. 32. IT That cometh into the world. The phrase in the original is ambiguous. The word translated, "that cometh," may either refer to the light, or to the word man. So that it may mean either, ' this true light that cometh mto the world, enlightens all;' or, ' it rinlightens every man that cometh into the world.' Many critics, and among the fathers, Cyril and Augustine, have preferred the former, and translated it, " The true light was he who, coming vnto the world, enlightened every man." The principal reasons for this are, 1st. That the Messiah is often spoken of as he that cometh into the world. See ch. vi. 14; xviii. 37. 2d. He is often distinguished as ' ' the light that cometh into the world.'^ Ch. iii. 19. " This is the condemnation that light is come into the world." Ch. xii. 46. "I am come a light into the world." Christ may be said to do what is accomplished by his command, or appointment. This passage means, therefore, that by his own personal ministry, and by his Spirit and apostles, hght, or teaching, is afforded to all. It does not mean that every individual of the human family is enlightened with the knowledge of the gospel, for this never yet has been. But It means, 1st. That this light is not confnied to the Jew, but is extended to all — Jews and Gentiles. 2d. That it is provided for all, and offered to all. 3d. It is not affirmed that at the time 'hat John wrote, all were actually enlightened, but the word " lighteth" has

II He * came unto his own, and his own received him not.

the form of the future. This is that light so long expected and predicted, which, as the result of its coming inti the world, will ultimately enlighten all nations.

10. He vias in the world. This refers, probably, not to his pre-existence, but to the fact that he became incarnate; that he dwelt among men. H And the world was made by him. Thia is a repetition of what is said in verse 3. Not only man, but all material things, were made by him. These facts are mentioned here to make what is said immediately after more striking, to wit: That men did not receive him. The proofs which he furnished that they ought to receive him were, 1st. Those given while he was in the world; the miracles that he wrought, and his in structions: and 2d. The fact that the world was made hy him. It was remarkable that the world did not know or approve its own maker. IT The world knew him not. The word knew is sometimes used in the sense of approving, or loving. Ps. i. 6. Matt. vii. 23. In this sense it may be used here. The world did not love or approve him, but rejected him, and put him to death. Or it may mean that they did not understand, or know, that he was the Messiah. For had the Jews known and believed that he was the Messiah, they would not have put him to death. 1 Cor. ii. 8. " Had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory." Yet they might have known it, and, therefore, they are not the less to blame.

11. He came unto his own. His own land or country. It was called his land because it was the place of his birth. Also, because it was the chosen land where God delighted to dwell, and to manifest his favor. See Isa. v. 1 — 7. Over that land the laws of God had been extended; and that land had been regarded as pecuharly his. Ps. cxlvii. 19, 20. T His own. His own people. There is a distinction in the original words, which is not preserved in the translation. It may be thus expressed. ' He came to his own land, »nd bis own

IS Hut as many 'as received him, to them gave he ' power to become the sons of God, even to them '' that believe on his name:

people received him not.' They were his people, because Ciod had chosen them to be his above all other nations; had given to tiiem his laws; and bad Bignally protected and favored them. Deut. vii. (J f xiv. 2. IT Kiceived him. not. Did not acknowledge him to be the Messiah. They rejected him; put him to death agreeably to the prophecy. Isa. liii. 3, 4. — From this we learn, Isl. That it is reasonable to expect that those who have been peculiarly favored, sliould welcome the message of God. He had a right to e.xpect, after all that had been done for the Jews, that they would receive the message of eternal hfe. So he lias a right to expect that IPC should embrace liirii and be saved. Yet 2d. It is not the abundance oi mercies that incline men to seek God. The Jews had been signally favored, l)ut they rejected him. So, many in Christian lands, live and die rejecting the Lord Jesus. 3d. Men are alike m every age. All would reject the Saviour if left to themselves. All men arc by nature wicked. There is no more certain and universal proof of it, than the universal rejection of the Lord Jesus. 12. To as many as rrceived him. The great mass; the people; the scribes and Pharisees, rejected liim. A few in his lifetime received him, and many more after his death. To receive him, here, means to believe on him. This is expressed at tli(! end of the verse. If Gave he power. This is more appropriately rendered in the margin by the word "privilege." It is so used in 1 Mac. xi. 58. IF Sons of God. Children of God by juloption. See Note, Matt. i. 1. Christians are called sons of God, 1st. Because they are adopted by him. 1 John iii. 1. 2d. Because they arc like him; thoy rcscmljlc him, and have his ppirit. 3d. Tiicy arc iniiled to the Lord Jesus, the Son of (Jod — arc regarded by him as his brclbrcn (Matt. x.w. 40.); and are, therefore, regarded as the children of the Most Iligli. ^ In his name. This is another way of sayitig, belicveth in him. I'he iiarnc ot a person is

13 Which were horn, ' not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but ot

often put for the person himself. Ch. ii. 23; iii. 18. 1 John v. 13. From this verse we learn, 1st. That to be a child of God is a privilege — far more so than to be a child of a man, though in the highest degree rich, or learned, or honored. Christians are, therefore, more honored than any other men. 2d. God gave them this privilege. It is not by their own works or deserts: it is because God chose to impart this blessing to them. Eph. ii. 8. John xv. 16. 3d. This favor is given only to those who believe on bun. All others are the children of the wicked one; and no one who has not confidence in God, can be regarded as bis child. No parent would acknowledge one for his child or approve of him, who had no confidence in him; who doubled, or denied all he said, and who despised all his goodness. Yet this the sinner constantly does toward God, and he cannot, therefore, bo called his son.

13. Which were horn. This doubtless refers to the new birth, or to the great change in the sinner's mind, called regeneration, or conversion. It means that they did not become the children of God in virtue of their birth; or because t'/ey were the children of Jews, or of pious parents. The term " to be born," is often used to denote this change. Compare John iii. 3 — 8. 1 John ii. 29. It illustrates clearly and bcautibilly, this great change. The natural birth introduces us to lite. This is the beginning of spiritual life. Before, the sinner is dead in sins. Eph. ii. 1. Now he begins to live for God. Before, he wa.-i in darkness. Now he is ushered into life. And as the natural birth is the beginning of life, so to be born of God is to be introduced:o real life, to light, to happiness, and to the favor of God. Tiie tertn expresses a< once the grealnrss, and the nature of the change. H Not of blood. Gr. plural. Not of hlooils; i. e. not of man. Compare Matt, xxvii. 4. The Jewp prided tbemselvcs <ju being the descendants of Abraham. Matt. iii. 9. They

14 And the Word " was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and * we beheld his glory, the glory as of

Bupposed that it was proof of the favor of God to be descended from such an illustrious ancestry. In this passage this notion is corrected. It is not because men arc descended from an illustrious or pious parentage that they are entitled to the favor of God; or perhaps the meaning may be, not because there is a union of illustrious lines of ancestry or bloods in them. The law of Christ's kingdom is different from what the Jews supposed. Compare 1 Peter i. 23. It was necessary to be bor7i of God by regeneration. Possibly it may mean that they did not become children of God by the bloody rite of circumcision, as many of the Jews supposed they did. This is agreeable to the declaration of Paul in Rom. ii. 28, 29. IT Nor of the will of the Hesh. Not by natural generation. If Nor of the will of man. This may refer, perhaps, to the will of man in adopting a child, as the former phrases do to the natural birth; and the design of using these three phrases may have been to say ihat they became the children of God not in virtue of their descent from illustrious parents like Abraham; not by their natural birth: and not by being adopted by a pious man. None of the ways by which we become entitled to the privileges of children of men can give us a title to be called the sons of God. It is not by human power, or agency, that men become children of the Most High. IT But of God. That is, God produces the change, and confers the privilege of being called his children. The heart is changed by his power. And no privilege of birth; no unaided effort of man; no works of ours, can produce this change. At the Bame time, it is true that no man is renewed who does not himself (^f sire and will to be a believer — for the effect of the change is on his will (Ps. ex. 3.) and no one is changed who does not strive to enter in at the strait gate. Phil. ii. 12. — This important verse, therefore, teaches us: 1st. That if men are saved they must be born again. 2d. Thai their salvation is not the resuit of their birth, or of any honorable or pious

the only-begoUen of the Fathe*,; full * of grace and truth.

parentage. 3d. Tiiat the children of the rich and the noble, as well as of the poor, must be born of God if they will be saved. 4th. That the children of pious parents must be born again, or they cannot be saved. They will not go to heaven simply because \he.\r parents are Christians. 5ih. That thia work is the work of God, and no man can do it for us. Cth. That we should forsake all human dependence; cast off all confidence in the flesh and go at once to the throne of grace, and beseech of God to adopt us into his family and save our souls from death.

14. And the Word was made flesh. The word flesh here is evidently used to denote human nature, or man. See Matt. xvi. 17; xix. 5; xxiv. 22. Luke iii. 6. Rom. i. 3; ix. 5. The " Word" was made man. This is commonly expressed by saying that he became incurnote. When we say that a being becomes incarnate, we mean that one of a higher order than man and of a different nature, assumes the appearance of man, or becomes a man. Here it is meant that " the Word," or the second person of the Trinity, whom John had just proved to be equal with God, became a man, or was united with the man Jesus of Nazareth, so that it might be said that he was made flesh. If Was made. This is the same word that is used in verse 3: "All things were made by him^" It is not simply affirmed that he was flesh, but was made flesh, implying that he had pre-existence, agreeably to verse 1. This is in accordance with the doctrine of the scriptures elsewhere. Heb. x. 5. "A body hast thou prepared me." Heb. ii. 14. " As the children were partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same." 1 John iv. 2. " Jesus Christ is come in the flesh." See also 1 Tim. iii. 16. Phil. ii. 6. 2 Cor. v.ii. 9. Luke i. 35. The expression then means that he became a man, ana that he became such by the power of God providing for him a body. It cannot mean that the divine nature was changed into the human, for that could not be. But it means, that the Logoi became so intimately united to Jesus that it might be said that he was a man, as the soul becomes so united to the body and the animal hfe that we may say that it is one peraon or a man. 1i And dwelt among us. The word in the original denotes "dwelt as in a tabernacle or tent" with us; and some iiave supposed that John means to say that the human bo4y was a tabernacle or tent for the Logos to abide in, in allusion to the tabei-nacle among the Jews in which the Shechiiiah, or visible symbol of God, dwelt. But it is not necessary to suppose this. The object of John was to prove that " the word" became incarnate. To do this he ap- |)eals to various evidences. One was that he dwelt among them; sojourned with them; ate, drank, slept, and was with them for years, so that they " saw him with their eyes, they looked upon him, and their hands handled him." 1 John i. 1. To dwell in a tent v-iit. one, is the same as to be in his family; and when John says he tabernacled with them, he means that he was with them as a friend, and as one of a family, so that they had full opportunity of becoming familiarly acquainted with him, and could not be mistaken in supposing that he was really a man. ^ We beheld his glory. This is a new proof of what he was affirming, that the word of God became man. The first was that they had seen him as a man. He now adds that they had seen him in his properglory as God and man united in one person, constituting him the unequalled Son of the Father. There is no doubt that there is reference here to the transfiguration on the holy mount. See Matt. xvii. 1 — 9. To this same evidence Peter also appeals. 2 Pet. i. 16 — 18. John was one of the witnesses of that scene, and hence he says, "we beheld his glory." IVIark ix. 2. The word glory ncre means majesty, dignity, splendor. If The glory as of the only begotten of the Father. 'Phc cfignity which was appropriate to the only-begotten Son of God. Such glory or splendor as could belong to no other, and as properly e.xpressed his rank and characior. This glory was seen cvuinenily on the mount, and to this John had doubtlcs.s special refertnce. It was also seen in his miracles, and ci'cJ, saying, This was he of his doctrine, his resurrection, his ascension; all of which were such as to illustrate the perfections and manifest the glory that belongs only to the Son of God. 11 Only begotten. This term is never applied by Uohn to any but Jesus Christ. It is apphed by him five times to the Saviour (ch. i. 14, 18; iii. 16, 18. 1 John iv. 9.) It means literally an only child. Then, as an only child is peculiarly dear to a parent, it means one that is especially beloved. Compare Gen. xxii. 2, 12, 16. Jer. vi. 26. Zech. xii. 10. On both these accounts it is bestowed on the Saviour. 1st. As he was eminently the Son of God, sustaining a peculiar relation to him in his divine nature, exalted above all men and angels, and thus worthy to be called by way of eminence his only Son. Saints are called his sons, or children, because they are born of his Spirit, and are like him. But the Lord Jesus is exalted far above all, and deserves eminently to be called his only begotten Son. 2d. He was peculiarly dear to God, and therefore this appellation, implying tender affection, is bestowed on him. If Full of grace and truth. The word full here refers to the Word made flesh, which is declared to be full of grace and truth. The word grace means favors. gifts, tokens of beneficence. lie was kind, merciful, gracious, doing good to all, and seeking man's welfare by great sacrifices and love: oo much so that it might be said to be characteristic of him, or he abounded in favors to mankind. He was also full of truth. He declared the truth. In him was no falsehood. He was not like the false prophets and false Messiahs who were wholly impostors; nor was he like the emblems and shadows of the old dispensation, which were only types of the true; but he was true in all things. He represented things as they are, and thus became the truth as well as the way and the life.

1.0. John bare witness of him. The evangelist now returns to ihe testimony of John the Baptist. He had staled that the Word became incarnate, and he now appeals to the testimony of John to show that he was the.Messiah. H He that Cometh after me. He of whom 1 am the for?rinner, or whose way I am coino to whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me.

prepare. See Notes on Matt. iii. 3. IT Is preferred before me. Is superior to me. Most criucs iiave supposed that ihc words translated "is preferred," relate to time, and not to dignity, meaning thai thougli he came after him pubUcly, being six months younger than John, as well as entering on his worli after John, yet that he had existed long before him. Some, however, have understood it as our translators seem to have done, as meaning he was worthy of more honor than I am. U He was hefore me. This can refer to nothing but nis pre-existence, and can be explained only on the supposition that he existed before John, or as the evangehst had before shown, from the beginning. He came after John in his public ministry and in his human nature, but in his divine nature he had existed long before John had a being — from eternity. — We may learn here that it is one mark of the true spirit of a minister of Christ to desire and feel that Christ is always preferred to ourselves. We should keep ourselves out of view. The great object is to hold up the Saviour; and however much such ministers may be honored or blessed, yet they should lay all at the feet of Jesus, and direct all men to him as the undivided object of aiTection and honor. It is the business of every Christian, as well as of every Christian minister, to be a witness for Christ, and to endeavor to convince the world that he is worthy of confidence and love.

16. Of his fulness. In the 14th verse the evangelist has said that Christ w^as full of grace and truth. Of that fulness he now says that all the disciples had received; that is, they derived from his abundant truth and mercy grace to understand the plan of salvation, to preach the gospel, to live lives of holiness; they partook of the numerous blessings which he came to impart by his instructions and his death. These are undoubtedly not the words of John the Baptist, but of the evangelist John, the writer of this gospel. They are a continuation of what he was saying in the 14th verse, the 15th verse being evidently thrown in as a parenthesis.

IG And of his fulness • have at Ave received, and grace for grace. 17 For the law^ was given by a Jno.3.34.

The declaration had not exclusive refer ence probably to the apostles, but it iji extended \oall Christians, for all bcUevers have received of the /aZness of grace and truth that is in Christ. Compare Eph. i. 23; iii. 19. Col. i. 19; ii. 9. In all these places our Saviour is represented as the fulness of God, as abounding in mercy, as exhibiting the divine attn butes, and possessing in himself all tha is necessary to fill his people with truth and grace, and love. IT Grace for grace Many interpretations of this phrase have been proposed. The chief are briefly the following: 1st. ' We have received, under the gospel, grace or favor instead of those granted under the law. And God has added by the gospel important favors to those which he gave under the law.' This was first proposed by Chrysostom. 2d. ' We, Christians, have received grace answering to, or corres ponding to that which is in Jesus Christ, We are like him in meekness, humiUty,' &c. 3d. ' We have received grace for grace sake, as grace, that is, freely. We have not purchased it, nor deserved it, but God has conferred it on us freely.'' Grotius. 4th. The meaning is probably simply that we have received through him abundance of grace or favors. T'le Hebrews, in expressing the superlative degree of comparison, used smiply to repeat the word. Thus "pits, pits," meaning many pits. Heb. in Gen. xiv. 10. So here grace for grace may mean much grace, superlative favors bestowed on man, superior to all that had been under the law, superior to all oihei things that God would confer on men in this world. These favors consist in pardon, redemption, protection, sanctification, peace here, and heaven hereafter. 17. The law was given. The Old Testament economy. The institutions under which the Jews lived. ^ By Moses. By Moses, as the servant of God. He was the great legislator of the J»ws by whom, under God, their polity waa formed. The law worketh wrath (Rom. iv. 15); it was attended with many burdensome rites and ceremonies (Acts xv. 10;) it was preparatory to another state of things. The gospel succeeded thai

Moses, but g^race " and truth came bj Jesus Christ.

which is in the bosom of the Father, he hatli declared him and took its place, and thus showed the greatness of the f^ospel economy, as well JiS its griicc and truth. H Grace and truth came by Jisiis Christ. A system of religion full of favors, and the true system was revealed by him. The old system was one of law, and shadows, and burdensome rites. This was full of mercy to mankind, and was true in all things. We may learn from these verses: 1st. That all our mercies come from, Jesus Christ. 2d. "All true believers receive from Christ's fulness; the best and greatest saints cannot live without him, the meanest and weakest may live by him. Tliis excludes i)roud boasting that we have nothing, but we have received it; and siienceth perplexing fears that wc want nothing but we may receive it."

18. No man hath seen God at any time. This declaration is probably made to ehow the superiority of the revelation of Jesus above that of any previous dispensation. It is said, therefore, that Jesus had a« intimate kiiowlid/re of God, which neither iMoses nor any of the ancient prophets had possessed. God is invisible. No human eyes have seen him. But Christ had a knowledge of God which might be expressed to our apprehension by saying that he saw him. He knew him intimately and completely, and was therefore fitted to make a fuller manifestation of him..See John v. 37; vi. AG. 1 John iv. 12. Ex. xxxiii. 20. John xiv. '.). This passage is not meant to deny that men had wittiessc^d manifestatiotis of (iod, as when ho appeared to Moses and the prophets. Compare Num. xii. 8. Ita. vi. But it is meant that no one has seen the essence of (iod, or had fully known God. The prophets delivered what they /je«rfi God speak;.Tesus what he knew of God as his equal, and as understanding fully his nature. ^ The only-hei^oltcn Son. See on verse 14. This verse shows John's scn.sc of the meaning of that phrase, as denoting an intimate and lull

19 And this ■* is the recoid o*" John, when the Jews sent priests and Lcvites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art then ]

20 And he confessed, and denied not; but confessed, I am not the Christ.

knowledge of God. If In the bosom of the Father. This expression is taken from the custom among the Orientala of reclining at their meals. See Note on Matt, xxiii. G. It denotes intimacy, friendship, aficction. Here it means that Jesus had a knowledge of God such as one friend has of another, knowledge of his character, designs, and natuni which no other one possesses, and which renders him therefore qualified above all others to make him known. H Hath declared him. Hath fully revealed him, or made him known. Compare Hcb. i. 1, 4. This verse shows that Jesus had a knowledge of God above that which any of the ancient prophets had, and that the fullest revelations of his character are to be expected in the gospel. By his word and Spirit he can enlighten and guide us, and lead us to the true knowledge of God. And there is no true and full knowledge of God which is not obtained through his Son. Compare 1 John ii. 22, 23.

19. This is the record. The word record here means testimony, in whatever way given. The word record now refers to written evidence. This is not its meaning here. John's testimony was given without writing. H ^Vhcn the Jews sent. John's fame was great. See Matt. iii. 5. It spread to Jerusalem, and the nation seemed to suppose from the character of his preaching that he was the Messiah. Luke iii. 1.5. The great council of the nation, or the san liedrim, had among other things the charge of religion. They felt it to bo their duty, therefore, to inquire into the character and claims of John, and to learn whether he was the Messiah. It ia not improbable that they wished that he niij^ht be the long-expected ("hrist, and were prepared to regard him at such. ^Priests. See Notes, Matt. iii. IT Lrvites. See Notes. Matt. iii. These Were probably members of the sanhedrim

21 And they asked him, What then ■? Art thou Elias ■? And he saitli, I am not. Art thou ' that propliel ■? And he answered, No.

'1-i, Then said they unto him, Who art thou] that we may give an answer to them that sent us. What sayest thou of thyself?

fession shows that John was not an impostor. He had a wide reptitation. The nation was expecting that ilie Messiah was about to come, and multitudes were ready to believe that John was he. Luke iii. 15. If John had been an impostor, he would have taken advantage of this e.xcited state of public feeling, proclaimed himself to be the Messiah, and formed a large party in his favor. The fact that he did not do it, is full proof that he did not intend to impose on men, but came only as the forerunner of Christ.- And his example shows that all Christians, and especially all Christian ministers, however much ihey may be honored and blessed, should be willing to lay all their honors at the feet of Jesus, to keep themselves back, and to present only the Son of God. To do this is one eminent mark of the true spirit of a minister of the gospel.

21. Art thou Elias? The Greek way of writing Elijah. The Jews e.xpected that Elijah would appear before the Messiah came. See Note, Matt. xi. 14. They supposed that it would be the real Elijah returned from heaven. In this sense John denied that he was Elijah; but he did not deny that he was the Elias which the prophet intended (Matt. iii. 3), for he immediately proceeds to state (ver. 23) that he was sent to prepare the way of the Lord. So that while he corrected their false notions about Elijah, he so clearly stated to them his true character, that they might understand that he was really the one predicted as Elijah. If That prophet. It is possible that the Jews.supposed that not only ElijaJi would re-appear before the coming of the Messiah, but also Jeremiah. See Note, Matt. xvi. 14. Some have supposed, however, that this question has reference to the prediction of Moses in Deut. xviii. 15.

23 He » said, I am the voice of one cryinjr in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet '' Esaias.

24 And they which were sent were of the Pharisees.

25 And they asked him, and said unto him. Why baptizest thou then, aMatt.3.3. Mar.1.3. Lii.3.4. c.3.28. ftls.40.3

24. Were of the Pharisees. For an accoimt of this sect, see Note, Matt. iii. 7. Why they are particularly mentioned is not certainly known. Many of the Sadducees came to his baptism. Matt. iii. 7. But it seems that they did not join in sending to him to know what was the design of John. Thia circumstance is one of those incidental and delicate allusions which would occur to no impostor in forging a book, and which show that the writers of the New Testament were honest men, and knew what they affirmed. For: Ist. The Pharisees composed a great part of the sanhedrim. Acts xxiii. 6. It ia probable that a deputation from the sanhedrim would be of that party. 2d. The Pharisees were very tenacious of rites and customs, of traditions and ceremonies. They observed many. They believed that they were lawful, Mark vii. 3, 4. Of course, they oelieved that those rites might be increased; but they did not suppose that it could be done except by the authority of a prophet, or of the Messiah. When, therefore, John came haptizin", adding a rite to be observed by his followers, baptizing not only Geiitiles but also Jews, the question was, whether he had authority to institute a new rite; whether it was to be received among the ceremonies of religion. In thia question the Sadducees felt no interest, for they rejected all such rites at once. But the Pharisees thought it was worth inquiry; and it was a question on which they felt themselves specially called on to act as the guardians of the ceremo* nies of religion.

25. Why haptiiest thou then, &c. Baptism on receiving a proselyte from heathenism was common before the time of John. But it was not customary to baptize a Jetv. John had chano:ed the custom. He baptized all; and tney were desirous of knowing by what authority he made such t change

if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet 1

2G John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: but there standcth one " among you, whom ye know not:

Ln the religious custom ot the nation. They presumed from the fact that he introduced that change that he claimed to be a prophet, or the Christ. They supposed that no one would attempt it without preteTiding at least authority from heaven. As he disclaimed the character of Christ, and of the prophet, they asked whence he aerived his authority. As he had just before applied to himself a prediction that they all considered as belonging to the forerunner of Christ, they miglit have understood whu he did it. But they were blind, and manifested, as all sinners do, a remarkable slowness in understanding the plainest ca.ses in religion.

26. / baptize. He did not deny it. Nor did he condescend to state his authority. Thai he bad given. He admitted that he had introduced an important chatifre in the rites of religion. And he goes on to tell them that this was not all. Greater and more important ciianges would soon take place without their authority. The Messiah was about to come, and the power was about to depart from their hands. ^ There standethane. There w one. ^ Amons! you. In tlw midst of you. FIc is undisiinguishod among the multitude. 'I'be Messiah bad already come, and was about to be manifested to the people. It was not until the ne.\t day (vcr. 2'J) that Jesus was manifested, or proclaimrd as the Messiah. But it is not improbable that he was then among the people that were assembled near the Jordan, and mingled with ibnm though he was undisiingiiisiied. He had gone there probably with the multitudes that were attracted by the fame of John, and had gone without attracting attention, though his real object was to receive baptism in this public manner, and to be exhibited and proclaimed as the Messiah. ^ Whom ye know not. Jesus was not yet declared publiv-ly to be the Christ. Tliough it is probable that he was then among the multitude.

me, is preferred bctbre me, whose shoe's latchet I am not worthy to unloose.

yet he was not known as the Messiah. vVe may hence learn: 1st. That there is often great e.Kcellency in the world that is obscure, undistinguished, and unknown. Jesus was near to all thai people, but they were not conscious of his presence, and be was retired and obscure. Though the greatest personage ever in the world, yet he was not externally distinguished from others. 2d. Jesus may be near to men of the world, and yet they know him not. He is every where by bis Spirit, yet few know it, and few are desirous of knowing it.

27. Whose shoe's latchet. Note, Matt. iii. 11. The latchet of sandals was the string or thong by which they were fastened to the feet. To unloose them was the office of a servant, and John means, therefore, that he was unworthy to perform the lowest office for the Messiah. This was remarkable humility. John was well known. He was highly honored. Thousands came to hear him. Jesus was at that time unknown. But John was unworthy to perform the humblest office for Jesus. So we ail should be willing to lay all that we have at the feet of Christ, and feel that wc are unworthy to be his lowest servants.

28. ]n Bethabara. Almost all the ancient manuscrijits and versions instead of Bethabara here have Bethany, and this is doubtless the true reading. There was a Bethany about two miles east of Jerusalem, but there was also anotlier in the tribe of Reuben, on the cast side of the river Jordan, and in this place probablv John was baptizing. It is about twelve miles above Jericho. IT Beyond Jordan. On the east side of the river Jordan.

29. The next day. The day after the Jews made inqiiirv wbetbor be was the Christ. If Behold the Lamb of Cod. A tamh among the Jews was killed and eaten at the passo\T?r, to commemorate their deliverance from Egypt. Ex. xii.

ens coming unto him, and saith, Bohold the Lamb » of God, which ' talceth '' away the sin of the world!

30 This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was l)efore me.

21 And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water.

32 And John bare record, saying,

A lamb was offered in the temple every morning and evening, as a part of the daily worship. Ex. xxix. 38, 39. The Messiah was predicted as a Iamb led to the slaughter, to show his patience in his sufferings, and readiness to die for man. Isa. liii. 7. A lamb among the Jews was also an emblem of patience, meekness, gentleness. On all these accounts, rather than on any one of them alone, Jesus was called the Lamb. He was innocent (1 Pet. ii. 23 — 25); he was a sacrifice for sin — the subs'tance represented by the daily offering of the lamb, and slain at the usual time of the evening sacrifice (Luke xxiii. 44 — 46); and he was what was represented by the passover, turning away the anger of God, and saving us by his blood from vengeance and eternal death. 1 Cor. v. 7. ^ Of God. Appointed by God, approved by God, and most dear to him. The sacrifice which he chose, and which he approves to save men from death. ^ JV hichtakethawaj/. This denotes his hearing the sins of the world, or the sufferings which made an atonement for sin. Compare Isa. liii. 4. 1 John iii. 5. 1 Pet. ii. 24. He takes away sin by hearing or suffering in his own body the pains which God appointed to show his sense of the evil of sin, thus magnifying the law, and rendering it consistent for Him to pardon. Rom. iii. 24, 25. IT Of the world. Of all mankind, Jew and Gentile. His work was not to be confined to the Jew, but was also to benefit the Gentile; it was not confined to any one part of the world, but was designed to open the way of pardon to all men. He was the propitiation for the sins of the whole

I saw i-he Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.

33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to bapti/.e with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt seethe Sjiirit descending, and remaining' on him, the same is he which baptizeth "^ with the H0I7 Ghost.

34 And I saw, and hzse record that this is the Son of God.

3\. I knew him not. John was not per sonally acquainted with Jesus. Though they were remotely related to each other, yet it seems that they had no personal acquaintance. John had hved chiefly in the hill country of Judea. Jesus had been employed with Joseph at Nazareth. Until Jesus came to be baptized by John (Matt. iii. 13, 14), it seems that he had no acquaintance with him. He understood that he was to announce that the Messiah was about to appear. He was sent to proclaim his coming, but he did not personally know Jesus, or that he was to be the Messiah. This proves that there could have been no collusion or agreement between them to impose on the people. IT Should he made manifest. That the Messiah should be exhibited or made known. He came to prepare the way for the IVIessiah, and it 7iow appeared that the Messiah was Jesus of Naza reth. IT To Israel. To the Jews.

33, 34. The same said, &c. This was the sign by wliich he was to know the Messiah. He was to see the Spirit descending like a dove, and abiding on him. It does not follow, however, that he had no iiitimation before this that Jesus was the Christ, but it means that by this he should infallihly know it. From Matt. iii. 13, 14, it seems that John supposed, before the baptism of Jesus, that he claimed to be the Messiah, and that he beheved it. But the in/allihle, certain testimony in the case

35 Again, the next day after, John stood, and two of his disciples;

3G And looking upon Jesus as he walked, he saith, Behold the Lamb of God!

was the descent of the Holy Spirit on liim at liis baptism. If Thai this is the Son of God. This was distinctly declared by a voice from heaven at his baptism. Matt. iii. 17. This John heard, and testified that lie had heard it.

35. The next day. The day after his remarkable testimony that Jesus was (he Son of God. This testimony of John is reported because it was the main design of the Evangelist to show.hat Jesus was the Messiaii. To do this, he adduces the decided and repeated testimony of John the Baptist. This was impartial and decided evidence in the case, and hence he so particularly dwells upon it. ^> John stood. Or, was standing. This vvas probably apart from the multitude. ^ Ttvo of his disciples. One of these was Anarew (ver. 40); and it is not improbable that the other was the writer of this Gospel.

36. Looki7i^u-pon Jesus, &LC. Fixing his eyes intently upon him. Singling him out and regarding him with special attention. Contemplating him as the long-expected Messiah and Deliverer of the world. In this way should all ministers fix the eye on the Son of God, and direct all others to him. ^ As he walked. While Jesus was walking.

37. The tj followed Jesus. They had been the disciples of John. His office was to point out the Messiah. When that was done, they left at once their master and teacher, John, and followed the long-expected Messiah. This shows that Johti was sincere; that he was not desirous of forming a party, or of building up a sect; that he was willing that all his followers should follow Christ. The object of ministers should not be to build up themselves. It is to point men to the Saviour. And ministers, however popular or successful, should bo willing that their disciples should look to Christ rather than to theni; nay, should ybr/rc/ them, and look away from them, to tread in the footsteps of the Son of God. And the conduct of these disciples shows us that we should forsake all and follow Jesus when ho m Domtcd out to us as the Messiah.

37 And the two d sciples heard him spfak, and they followed Jesus.

38 Then Jesus turned, and saw them following, and saith unto them, What seek ye ] They said

We should not delay nor debate the matter, but leave at once all our old teachers and guides, and follow the Lamb of God. And we should do that, too, though to the world the Lord Jesus may appear, as he did to the multitude of the Jews, as poor, unknown, and despised. Reader, have you left all and followed him? Have you forsaken all the guides of fahe philosophy and deceit, of sin and infidelity, and committed yourself to the Lord Jesus Christ?

38. What.trek ye? This was not asked to obtain information. Compare ver. 4S. It was not a harsh reproof, forbidding them to follow him. Compare Matt..\i. 28 — 30. It was a kind inquiry respecting their desires; an invitation to lay open their mind, to state their wishes, and to express all then feelings respecting the INIessiah and iheir own salvation. We may learn, Tst. That Jesus regards the first inclinations of the.soul to follow him. He turned towards these disciples, and he will incline his car to all who begin to approach him for salvation. '2d. Jesua is ready to hear their requests, and to answer them. 3d. Ministers of the gospel, and all other Christians, should be accessible, kind, and tender, towards all who are inquiring the way to life. In conformity with their Master, they should be willing to aid all those who look to them for guidance and help in the great work of their salvation. ' jRabbi. U'his was a Jewish title conferred somewhat as the title of Doctor of Divinity now is, and meaning literally master. Our Saviour solemnly forbade his disciples to wear that title. See Notes on Matt, xxiii. 8. The fact that John interpreted this word shows that he wrote nis Gospel not for the Jews only, but for those who did not understand the Hebrew language. It is sup posed to have been written at Ephesus. ^ Where dwellest thou t This question they probably asked him in order to signify their wish to be with him, and to be instructed by him. They wished more fully to listen to him than they could now liy the wayside. They were onto liim Rabbi, Jwliich is to say, beino ini-;rprete(J, Master,) where dwellcst ' thou ]

39 He saith unto them. Come and see. They came and saw wherj he dwelt, and abode with him that day: for it was about^ the tenth hour.

40 One of the two which heard John speak, and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter's brother.

unwilling to interrupt him in his travelling. Religion leaches men true politeness, or a disposition to consult the convenience of others, and not improperly to molest them, or to break in upon them when engaged. It also teaches us to desire to be with Christ; to seek every opportunity of communion with him, and chiefly to desire to be with him where he is when we leave this world. Compare Phil. i. 23.

39. Come and see. This was a kind and gracious answer. He did not put them ofi'tosome future period. Then, as now, he was wiUing that they should come at once and enjoy the full opportunity which they desired of his conversation. Jesus is ever ready to admit those who seek him to his presence and favor. IT Abode with him. Remained wiih him. This was probably the dwelling of some friend of Jesus. His usual home was at Nazareth. IT The tenth hour. The Jews divided their day into twelve equal parts, beginning at sunrise. If John used their mode of computation, it was about four o'clock, P. M. The Romans divided time as we do, beginning at midnight. If John used their moae, it was about ten o'clock in the forenoon. It is not certain which he used.

41. He first findeth. He found him and told him about Jesus before he brought him to Jesus. II We have found the Messias. They had learned from the testimony of John, and now had been more fully convinced from conversation with jesus. that he was the Messiah. The word Messiah, or Messias, is Hebrew, and means the same as the Greek word Christ, aiwinted. See Note, Matt. i. 1. From the conduct of Andrew we max learn that it is

I 41 He first lindeth his own broj ther Simon, and saith unto him. We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, ^ the Christ.

42 And he brought him to Jesua And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the s6n of Jona: Thou " shalt be called Ce* phas, which is, by interpretation, A stone.

43 The day following, Jesus

the nature of religion to desire that others may possess it. It does not lead us to monopolize it, or to hide it undei a bushel; but it seeks that others also may be brought to the Saviour. It does not wait for them to come, but it goes for them; it seeks them out, and tells them that a Saviour is found. Young converts should seek their friends ana neighbors, and tell ihem of a Saviour; and not only their relatives, but the salvation of the whole world, that all may come to Jesus and be saved.

42. Cephas. This is a Syriac word, meaning the same, as the Greek word Peter, a stone. See Note, Mati. xvi. 17. The stone, or rock, is a syrobol oi firmness and steadiness of character — a trait in Peter's character after the ascension of Jesus that was very remarkable. Before the death of Jesus he wa.«! rash, headlong, variable; and it is one proof of the omniscience of Jesus that he saw that Peter would possess a character that would be expressed appropriately by the word rock. The word Jona is a Hebrew word, whose original signification is a dove. It may be that Jesus had respect to that when he gave Simon the name Peter. ' You now bear a name emblematic of timidity and inconstancy. You shall be called by a name denoting firmness and constancy.'

43. Would CO forth. Was about to go. 1i Into Galilee. He was now in Judea, where he went to be baptized by John. He was now about to return to his native country. T Findeth Fhilip. This does not refer to his calling these disciples to be apostles, for that took place at the sea of Tiberias. Matt. iv. IS. But it refers to their being convinced that he was the Christ. "ThiB it

uould go forth into Galilee, and findeth Philip, and saith unto him. Follow me.

44 Now Philip was of Bcthsaida, the city of Andrew and Peter.

45 Philip findeth Nathanael, and Baith unto him. We have found him of whom Moses " in the law, and the prophets did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.

the object of this evangelist, to show how and when they were convinced of this. Matthew states the time and occasion in which they were called to be apostles. John, the time in whicli they first became acquainted with #bsus. There is, therefore, no contradiction in the Evangelists.

44. Of Bethsaida. See Matt. xi. 21. IT The city of. The place where Andrew and Peter dwelt.

4.5. Moses, in the law. Moses, in ihat pan of the Old Testament which he wrote, called by the Jews the law. See Deut. xviii. 15, 18; Gen. xli.x. 10, iii. 15. T And the prophets. Isa. liii. i.\. 6, 7. Dan. i.\. 24 — 27. Jer. xxiii. 5, 6, &,c. ^ Jcsu.'! of Nazareth, &.c. They spoke according to common apprehension. 'I'hey spoke of him as the son of Joseph because he was comiiionly supposed to be. They spoke of him as dwelling at Nazareth, though they might not have been ignorant that he was born at Bethlehem.

46. Can anif f^ood thing, &c. The character of Nazareth was proverbially bad. To be a Galilean, or a Nazarene, was an expression of decided contempt. John vii. 52. Note, Matt. ii. 23. Nathanael asked, therefore, whether it was possible that the.Messiah should come t'roin a place proverbially wicked. This was a mode of judging in the case not uncommon. It is not by examining evidence, but by prejudice. Many persons suffer their minds to be filled with prejudice against religion, and then pronounce at once without examination. They refuse to examine, for they have!>pt it down that it cannot be true. It matters not where a teacher comes from, or what is the place of his birth, provided he be authorized of tJod, and i]ualili('d for ills work. ^ Come and ree. This was the best way to answer 17*

46 And Nathanael said unto him, * Can there any good thinfj come out of Nazareth? Philip saith unto him, Come and see.

47 Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, and saith of him, Behold, ' an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile!

48 Nathanael saith unto him Whence knowest thou me ■? Jesu

Nathanael. He did not sit down to reason with him, or speculate about the possibility that a good thing could come from Nazareth; but lie asked him to go and examine for himself, to see the Lord Jesus, to hear him converse, to lay aside his prejudice, and to judge from a fair and candid examination. So we should beseech siimers to lay aside their prejudices against religion, and to be Christians, and thus make trial for themselves. If men can be persuaded to come to Jesus, all iheir petty and foolish objections against religion will vanish. They will be satisfied from tlieir own experience that it is true, and in this way only will they ever be satisfied.

47. An Israelite indeed. One who is really an Israelite, not by birth only, but one worthy of the name. One who possesses the spirit, the piety, and the integrity, which befit a man who is really a Jew, who fears God and obeys his law. Compare Rom. ix. 6; ii, 28, 29. ^ No ffuile. No deceit, no fraud, no hypocrisy. He is really what lit professes to be, a Jew, a descendant of the Patriarch Jacob; fearing and scrv ing God. He makes no profession which he does not believe and live up to. He docs not say that Nathanael was without guilt or sin, but that he had no disguise, no trick, no deceit.

! a most honorable testimony to be borne of this man. How happy would it Iw if he who knows the hearts.)f all as h« did that of Nathanael, coidd bear the same testimony of all who profess the

! 48. ]Vhence knowrsi thou me? Nathanael was not yet acc]uainted with the divinity of Christ, and supposed that he had been a stranger to him. Hearing

answered and said unto him, 13eforo that Philip called tlioe, when thou wast under the fiir-trec, I saw " thee. 49 Nathanael answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, thou * art the Son of God; thou art the King ' of Israel.

he naturally inquired by what means he had any knowledge of him. His conscience testified to the truth of what Jesus said, that he had no guile, and he was anxious to know whence he had learned his character. H Before that Philip called thee. See verse 45. IT When thou, wast under the jig-tree. It is evident that it was from something that occurred under the fig-tree that Jesus judged of his character. What that was is not recorded. It is not improbable that Nathanael was accustomed to reiire to the shade of a certain tree, perhaps in his garden, or in a grove, for the purpose of meditation and prayer. The Jews were much in the habit of selecting such places for private deration, and in such scenes of stillness and retirement there is something peculiarly favorable for meditation and prayer. Our Saviour also worshipped m such places. Compare John xviii. 2; Luke vi. 12. In that place of retirement it is not improbable that Nathanael was engaged in private devotion. IT / sail) thee. It is clear from the narrative that Jesus did not mean to say that he was bodily present with Nathanael, and saw him; but he knew his thougbts, his desires, his secret feelings, and wishes. In this sense Nathanael understood him. We may learn, 1st. That Jesus sees in secret, and is therefore divine. 2d. That he sees us when we little think of it. 3d. That he sees us especially in our private devotions, hears oar prayers, and marks our meditations. And 4th. That he judges of our character chiefly by our private devotions. Those are secret; the world sees them not; and in our closets we show what we are. How does it become us, therefore, to seek that our secret prayers and meditations be without guile and hypocrisy, and such as Jesus will approve!

49. Ral'bi. Master — applied appropriately to Jesus, and to no one else. Matt, xxiii. 10. IT The So7i of God. By

50.Tesus answered and said unto him, Because I said unto thee, I saw thee under the fig-tree, believest thou ■? Thou shalt see greater things than these.

51 And he saith unto him. Verily, verily, I say unto you. Hereafter ye

this title he doubtless meant that he was the Messiah. His conscience told him that he had judged right of his character, and that therefore he must know the heart and desires of the mind. If so, he could not be a mere man, but must be the long-expected Messiah. Tf The King of Israel. This was one of the titles by which the Messiah was mpected; and this was the title which was affixed to his cross. John xix. 18. This case of Nathanael, John adduces as another evidence that Je.sus was the Christ. The great object he had in view in writing this »ospel was to collect the evidence that he was the Messiah. Ch. xx. 31. A case, therefore, where Jesus searched the heart, and where his knowledge of the heart convinced a pious Jew that he was the Christ, is very properly adduced as important testimony.

50. Greater things. Fuller proof of his Messiahship — particularly what is mentioned in the following verse.

51. Verily, verily. In the Greek, amen, amen. The word amen means truly, certainly, so be it — trom a verb to confirm, to establish, to be true. It is often used in this gospel. When repeated, it expresses the speaker's sense of the importance of what he is about to say, and the certainty that it is as he affirms, "a Ye shall see. Not, perhaps, with the bodily eyes, but you shall have evidence that it is so. The thing shall take place, and you shall be a witness of it. If Heaven open. This is a figurative expression, denoting the conferring of favors. Ps. Ix-xvLii. 23, 24: ''He opened the doors of heaven, and had rain • ed down manna." And also it denotea that God was about to work a miracle in attestation of a particular thing. See Matt. iii. 1(>. In the language, here, there is an evident allusion to the ladder that Jacob saw in a dream, and to the angels ascending and descending on it. Gen. xxviii. 12. It is not probable that he referred to any particular instance in shall see heaven " open, and *the anirels * of God ascending and de- Bcendinjj upon the Son of man.

.vbich Nathanacl should literally see.he lioavens opened. The baplism of Jesus had taken place, and tiicre is no Dther instance in his life in which it is said that the heavens were opened. — If Angels of God. Those pure and holy beings that dwell in heaven, and that are enipioycd as ministcrin;^ spirits to our world. Heb. i. 14. Good men are represented in tlic scriptures as being andcr their protection. Ps. xci. 11, 12. jen..x.wiii. 12. They are the agent.s oy which (jod often expressed his will c men. Ileb. ii. 2. Gal. iii. 19. They arc represented as strengthening the Lord Jesus and ministering unto him. Thus they aided him in the wilderness (Mark i. 13), and in the garden (Luke xxii. 13); and they were present when he rose from the dead. By their ascending and descending upon him it is probable that he meant that Nathanacl w^ould have evidence that they came to his aid, and that he would have the Ki.xD of protection and aid from God which would show more fully thai he was the Messiah. Thus his life, his many deliverances from dangers, his wisdom to confute his skilled and cunning adversaries, the scenes of his death, and the attendance of angels at nis resurrection, may all be represented by the angels descending upon him, and all would show to Nathanacl and the other disciples, most clearly, that he was the Son of (Jod. IT The Son of man. A term by which he often describes himself It shows his humility, his love for man, his willingness to be esteemed as a vian. Phil. ii. (i, 7.

From this interview with Nathanacl we may learn, 1st. That Jesus searches the heart. 2d. Thiit he was tndy the iMessiah. 3d. That he was under the protection of God. 4th. That if we nave faitli in Jesus, it will be continually strengthened. 'I'he evidence will prow bri<;hter and brighter,."ith. That ij we believe his wo-d. wo shall yet see full nroof that his woid is true. 6lh.

2 And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to tiie marriage. ^

3 And • when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saitli unto him, They have no wine.

As Jesus was under the protection of God, so shall all iiia friends be. God will defend and save us also if we put our trust in him. 7th. Jesus apphca to himself terms expressive of humility. Ho was not solicitous even to be called by titles which he mifrht claim. So we sliould not be ambitious of lilies and honors. Ministers of the gospel most resemble him when they seek for the fewest titles, and do not aim at distinc tions from each other or their brethren. See Note on Matt, x.xiii. 8. CHAPTER H. 1. And the third day. On the third day after his conversation with Na thanacl. ^ Cana. This was a small town about fifteen miles north-west of Tiberias, and six miles north-east of Nazareth. It is now called Kefcr Kenna; is under the government of a Turkish officer, and contains, perhaps, three hundred inhabitants, chiefly Ua-' tholics. The natives still pretend to show the place where the water was turned into wine, and even one of the large stone water-pots..Large stone pots are said to be found there whose use seema to be unknown to the present inhabitants. It was called Cana of Galilee, to distinguish it from another Caiia in the tribe of Ephraim. Josh. xvi. 9. This was the native place of Nathanael. John xxi. 2. ^ The mother of Jesus. Mary. It is not improbable that she was a relative of the family where tho marriage took place.

2. Ilis disciples. Those that he had made when in Judca. These were Peter, Andrew, Philip, and Nathanacl. They were not yet called to be apostles, but they believed that he was the Messiah. 'I'lie miracle wrought here wa» doubtless to convince them more fully that he was the Christ.

3. Wjicn thry wanted wine. A mar riage feast among ilui Jews, was com monly observed for seven or eight days It is not probable that there would bo a want of wine at the marriage itself and

4 Jesus saith unto lier, Woman, what have 1 to do with thee 1 Mine hour is not yet come.

5 His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever " he saith unto you, do il.

I't in possible, therefore, that Jesus came I here some time during the marriage feast. If They have no wine. It is not known why Mary told this to Jesus. It would seem that she had a belief that he was able to supply it, though he had as yet worked no miracle.

4. ]Vomim. This term, as used here, seems to imply reproof, as if she was interfering in that which did not properly concern her. But it is evident that no such reproof or disrespect was intended by the use of the term woman instead of mother. It is the same term by which he tenderly addressed Mary Magdalene after his resurrection (ch. KK. 15), and his mother when he was on ihe cross. Ch. xix. 26. Compare also Matt. XV. 28; John iv. 21; 1 Cor. vii. 16. IT What have I to do with thee? See Note, Matt. viii. 29. This expression is sometimes used to denote indignation or contempt. See Judges xi. 12; 2 Sam. xvi. 10; 1 Kings xvii. 18. But it is not probable that it denoted either in this place; if it did, it was a mild reproof of Mary for attempting to control or direct bim in his power of working miracles. Most of the ancients supposed this to be the intention of Jesus. The words sound to us harsh, but they might have been spoken in a tender manner, and not have been intended as a reproof It is clear that he did not intend to refuse to provide wine, but only to delay it a httle; and the design was, therefore, to compose the anxiety of Mary, and to prevent her being so- Hcitous about it. It may, then, be thus expressed: ' My mother, be not anxious. To you and to me this should not be a matter of solicitude. The proper lime for my interfering has not yet come. When thut i? come, I will furnish a supply. And in the mean time, neither you nor I should be solicitous.' Thus understood, it is so far frqm being « harsh T'vroof, that it was a mild exhortation for her to dismiss her fears, and to put proper trust in him. H Mine hour, &LC. My time. The proper time

G And there were set there six water-pots of stone, after the mannei of the purifyinjj of the Jews, containing two or three hrkins apiece.

7 Jesus saith unto them. Fill thb water-pots with water. And the^ filled them up to the hrim.

for my interposing. Perhaps the wine was not yet entirely exhausted. The wine had begun to fail, but he would not work a miracle until it was entirely gone, that the miracle might be free from all possibility of suspicion. It does not mean that the proper time for his working a miracle, or entering on his public work, had not come; but that the proper lime for his interposing there had not arrived.

5. His mother saith, &.C. It is evident from this verse that his mother did not understand what he had said as a harsh reproof and repulse, but as an indication of his willingness, at the pro per time, to furnish wine. In all this transaction he evinced the proper feel ings of a son towar' a mother.

6. Six water-pols of sloni. Made of stone; or, as we should say, stone ware. "H After the manner. After thft usual custom. ^- Of the purifying. Of the washings or ablutions of^ihe Jews. They were placed there after the usual manner of the Jews, for the various washings and minute rites of puiifying themselves at their feasts. They were for the purpose of washing the hands before and after eating (Matt. xv. 2), and for the formal washing of vessels and even articles of furniture. Luke xi. 39. Mark vii. 3,4. IT Tag or three firkins. It is not quite certain what is meant here by the word Jirkins. It is probable that the measure intended is the Hebrew bath, containing about seven gallons and a half If so, the quantity of wine v.-as very considerable.

7. With water. This was done by the servants employed at the feast. It was done by them so that there might be no opportunity of saying thai the disciples of Jesus had filled them with wine to produce the appearance of a miracle. In this case there could be no deception. The quantity was very considerable. The servants would know whether the wine or iruter had been put in these vessels. It could not be beliftved that the]/ had the power or

8 And lie saith unto thoin, Draw i wine, and knew not whence it waB, •out now and boar unto tlie governor ' (but the ' servants which d.ew the * of the feast. And they bare it. water knew,) the governor of the

9 When the ruler of the feast feast called the bridegroom, had tasted the water tliat was made 10 And saith unto him, Every disposition to impose on others in this munnpr. And llit; way was therefore clear for thi; proof that Jesus had really changed what was known to be water iMio wine. 1i To the brim. To the top. Full. So that no feme could be ■poured in to give the appeararice of a mixture. Further, vessels were used for this miracle in which wine had not been kept. These pots were never used to put wine in, but simply to keep water in for the various purposes of ai)lution. A large number was used on this occasion, because there were many guests.

8. Draw out now. This command was given to the servants. It showed that the miracle had been immediateli/ wrought. As soon as they were tilled, the servants were directed to take to the governor of the feast. Jesus made no parade about it, and it does not even appear tnat he approached the waterpots. He willed it, and it was done. This was a clear exertion of his divine power, and made in such a manner as to leave no doubt of its reality. IT The governor. One who presided on the occasion. The one who stood at the head, or upper end of the table. He had the charge of the entertainment, provided the food, gave directions to the servants, Sec.

9. And knew not whence it wax. This is said probably to indicate that his judgment was not biassed by any favor, or want of favor towards Jesus. Had he known what was done, he would have been less likely to have judged impartially. As it is, we have his testimony that this was real wine, and of so fnie a body and llavor as to surpass that which bad been provided for the occasion. Every thing in this miracle nhows that there was no collusion, or understanding between Jesus and any cf the persons at the feast.

10. Even/ man. It is customary, or it is generally done. ^ lVhe7i men have Well drunk. This word does not of.necessity mean that tin y were intoxifated, though it is usually employed in that sense. It may mean when they have drunk sufficient; or to satiety; or so nmcli as to produce hilarity, and to destroy the keenness of their taste, so that they could not readily distinguish the good from that which was worse. But this cannot be adduced in favor ol drunkenness, even if it means to be intoxicated. For 1st. It is not eaid ol those who were present at that feast, but of what nenerally occun'ed. For any thing that appears at that feast, all were perfectly temperate and sober. 2d. It is not the saying of Jesus that is here recorded, but of the governor of the feast, who is declaring what usually occurred as a fact. 3d. There is not any expression of opinion of its propriety even by that governor. 4tli. It does not appear that our Saviour even heard the observation. f)tb. Still less is there any evidence that he approved such a state of things, or thai he designed that it should take place here. Further, the word translated " well drunk" cannot be shown to mean intoxication. But it may mean when ihey had drunk as much as they judged proper, or as they desired, then the other was presented. It is clear that neither our Saviour, nor the sacred writer, nor the speaker here, expresses anv approbation of intemperance, nor is there the least evidence that any thing of the kind occurred here. It is not proof that we approve of intemperance, when wc mention, as this man did, what occurs usually among men at feasts. 1i /.<: worse. Isol an inferior quality. ^ The flood wine This shows that this had all tlie quahties of real wine. Wc should not be deceived bv the phrase " goodwine." IlVuse the phrase to denote that it is good in proportion to its strength, and its power to into.xicate. But no such sense is to be attached to the word here. Pliny, Plutarch and Horace describe wine as ^o«f, or meiiiion that as the best wine which was harmless, or innornit — poculo vini innocenlis. The mosi useful wine — utilixsimum riinim — was that wbii-ll had little strength; and the most wholesome wine — salubcrrimum vL'ium — was that man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then tliat which is which had not been adulterated by "the addition of any thing to tiic mtist or juice." Phny expressly says that a 'good wine" was one liiat was destitute of spirit. Lib. iv. c. 13. It should not be assumed, therefore, that the "good wine" was stronger than the other. It is rather to be presumed that it was milder. That would be the best wine certainly. The wine referred to here was doubtless such as was commonly drunk in Palestine. That was the pure juice of the grape. It was not brandied wine; nor drugged wine; nor wine compounded of various substances euch as we drink in this land. The common wine drunk in Palestine was that which was the simple juice of the grape. IFe use the word wine now to denote the kind of litjuid which passes under that name in this country — always fermented, and always containing a considerable portion of alcohol — not only the alcohol produced by fermentation, but added to keep it or make it stronger. But we have no right to take that sense of the word, and go with it to the interpretation of the scriptures. We should endeavor to get into the exact circumstances of those times; ascertain precisely what idea the word would convey to those who used it then; and apply that sense to the word in the interpretation of the Bible. And there is not the slightest evidence that the word so used would have conveyed any idea but that of the pure juice of the grape; nor tlie slightest circumstance mentioned in this account that would not be fully met by such a supposition. No man should adduce this instance in favor of drinking wine, unless he can prove that the wine made in the "water-pots" of Canawas just like the wine which he proposes to drink. The Saviour's example may be always pleaded just as it was — but it is a matter of obvious and simple justice that we should find out exactly what the example was before we plead it. There is, moreover, no evidence that any other part of the water was converted into wme than that which was drau-n out of the water-casks for the use of the guests. On this supposition^ certainly, all the