The Gospel According to St. John; commentaries on Hebrews and 1–3 John

3, 4. The last words of v. 3 (o yeyovev \that\iuhich hath been made) can be taken either (i) with the words which follow, or (2) with the words which go before. In the former case the text will run...^a>pif avrov (ytvero ovSe tv. o yeyovtv tv OVTOI £0)17 ^v...iuithout Him was not anything made: that which hath been made was life in Him (in Him <was life); in the latter case^.^wpif avrov fyivtro oi)5e tv o y«'- yovfv. tv avTa £&»}?\v...without Him ivas not anything made that hath been made. In Him <was life...

The former (to speak generally) was the punctuation of the ante-Nicene age: the latter is that of the common texts, and of most modern versions and popular commentaries. The evidence in greater detail is as follows: (i)..,\<u>p\s aiirov iyivtro ov8( ev. 6 ytyovtv

£v aJrw £0)17 jJi/.-.This punctuation is supported by overwhelming ancient authority of MSS., versions, and Fathers.

(a) Manuscripts. AC (firsthand) D place a distinct point before o yeyovev, and no point after it1. The remaining two (KB) of the five most ancient MSS. make no punctuation. Other important but later MSS. give the same stopping, as e.g. L.

(/3) Persians. One of the most important of the Old Latin copies (h} inserts autem, so that the connexion is unquestionable: Quod autem factum est, in eo -vita est. Others (a, c, fiff'1 &c.) give the same connexion by punctuation. But in themselves the words are ambiguous; and therefore it is not surprising that in c and in MSS. of the Vulgate generally (as in the editions) the quod factum est is connected with the words which go before.

The Old Syriac (Curetonian), like b, introduces a conjunction, so as to leave no doubt as to the punctuation which it follows: But that which was... The Thebaic and j£thiopic versions support the same connexion.

(y) Fathers. The same connexion is supported by Clem. Alex., Orig., (Euseb.), Cyr. Alex., Hil., Aug., and by the earliest heretical writers quoted by Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Clem. Alex.

Ambrose gives both readings, but he adopts the reading quod factum est in ipso vita est, and evidently implies that this was known to be the oldest reading, though it was felt to be ambiguous in sense. Jerome's quotations appear to recognise both punctuations.

()3) Versions. The Memphitic and the printed Latin texts. But the clause "which hath been made" is omitted in one MS. of the Memphitic.

(•y) Fathers. The modern stopping was due to the influence of the Antiochene School, who avowedly adopted it to make it clear that the former words applied only to "things created" and not, as had been alleged, to the Holy Spirit.

So Chrysostom (in /of.) "Without Him was made not even one thing which hath been

1 A careful and repeated examination of D satisfies me completely that this MS. has no stop after ytyovev. There is a slight flaw in the vellum which extends towards ytyovtv from the top of the following e, of which the upper boundary is above the level of the writing, but this is certainly not the vestige of a stop. The stops are below the level of the writing. And again, there is no increased space between yiyovev and tv such as is found where a stop occurs, as between ouSfv and 8. On holding the leaf to the light, the point of a C falls within the flaw and gives the semblance of a stop.

made," "that is of things made (r<5v both visible and mental (vorjTttv) none has been brought to being without the power of Christ. For we shall not put the full point at 'not even one thing,' as the heretics do (*ara TOVS alpfTiKovs)', for they say thus 'that which hath become in Him was life,' wishing to speak of the Holy Spirit as a creation (KTUT/UCI)."

At the same time he takes the next clause iv aura foil) rjv as meaning " that in Him all things live and are in Him providentially ordered (jrpofoeirat), so that that which has been said of the Father might properly be said also of Him, that in Him we live and move and have our being."

The punctuation thus recommended was supported also by Theodoret and Theodore of Mopsuestia, and prevailed in later times.

Epiphanius in his 'Ancoratus' (c. LXXV.) written in 374 A. D., after quoting the passage according to the old punctuation (c. LXXIV.), goes on to say that the words have been used by some to derogate from the honour of the Holy Spirit. The true way of reading the passage is, he continues, All things were made through Him, and without Him was nothing made that hath been made in Him. Nothing can be said for this division of the words, and it may be fairly concluded that Epiphanius is simply hazarding a hasty judgment. In 'Haer.' LXIX. § 56 (p. 779), he treats the words o yiyovtv as the subject of fa}) fjv, while he connects them with the words which go before («mfi>) rjv jccu rjv *al rjv (v. i) KO.I ra iv <7VT&> £017 tjv).

The interpretation of the passage is undoubtedly most difficult, but it does not seem that the difficulty is increased by the ancient punctuation. The difficulty in either case centres in the use of the imperfect (" was life..." " was the light..."), for which several ancient authorities read is in the first place, a substitution which can only be regarded as an arbitrary correction. It is indeed by no means clear in what sense it can be said: Life was in the Word, and the Life [thus spoken of as in the Word] was the Light of men; or again: That which hath been made was Life in the Word, and the Life [thus enjoyed by creation in the Word] was the Light of men. Yet the second conception will be seen upon consideration to fall in with the scope of St John's view of the nature and action of the Word.

The Apostle deals with the two main aspects of finite being, origin and continuance. As to the first, he says exhaustively that all things became through the Word as Agent; and Nothing, no not one thing, became without — apart from — Him. At this point, then, the view of the act of creation is completed. But the continuance of created things has yet to be noticed. That which " became " still lasts. And as Creation (on one side) was " in the Word," so too continuance is in Him. The endurance of the universe is due to its essential relation to the Creator. Creation has not " life in itself" (v. 26), but it had and has life in the Word.

It will however be objected that the phrase of the Apostle is " was life in Him," and not "has life in Him." At first sight the objection appears to be strong. The latter phrase would no doubt be far simpler than that which is actually used, and it would express part of the truth more clearly; but at the same time it would fall short of the fulness of what is written. As it is, the thought of the reader is carried away from the present, and raised (so to speak) to the contemplation of the essence of things. For a moment we are taken from phenomena — "that which hath become" — to being, to the divine " idea'' of things. From this point of sight the Life of the world was included in the Word, and with the Life also the destination of the Life. Even in that which is fleeting there is that which "was," something beyond time, of which particular issues are shewn in time. In regard to God things "were" in their absolute, eternal, perfection; in regard to men "they have become." The thought occurs once again in the writings of St John. There is the same contrast between the " idea" and the temporal realisation of the idea, in the Hymn of the Elders in the Apocalypse (iv. n): Thou art worthy, our Lord and our God, to receive glory and honour and power, for thou didst create all things, and for thy pleasure (6t\rjna) they were (rja-av, according to the true reading), and ivere created.

Human language is necessarily inadequate to express distinctly such a conception as has been faintly indicated; but at least it will be seen that the early punctuation of the passage suggests a view of the relation of the Creation to the Creator which claims to be reverently studied. That which was created and still continues, represents to us what was beyond time (if we dare so speak) in the Divine Mind. In its essence it was not only living, but life in the Word, in virtue, that is, of its connexion with Him (comp. ch. v. 17, note). And through it — through the finite — the Word made Himself known; so that Creation was essentially a manifestation of the Word to men who were able to observe and to interpret in part the phenomena of life.

According to this view the word life is used both times in the same sense to express the divine element in creation, that in virtue of which things " are," each according to the fulness of its being. It is the sum of all that is physically, intellectually, morally, spiritually in the world and in man. This " life" is for rational beings a manifestation of God through the Word; and it was the Divine Will that it should be so: the life was the light of men. Comp. Rom. i. 19, 20, ii. 14, 15; Acts xiv. 17, xvii. 23 ff.

It will be seen that in this explanation the words in Him are connected with was life, and not with that which hath been made. The unusual but emphatic order finds a parallel in the true reading of iii. 15. The other combination however -has very early authority (comp. Iren. i. 8. 5). Thus Clement of Alexandria applies the words to the Christian reborn in Christ. "He that hath been baptized (o Tre^wrto-^eVo?) is awake unto God and such a one lives: For that which hath been made in Him is lite" ('Pasd.' n. 9 § 79; comp. 'Peed.' I. 6 § 27).

Cyril of Alexandria, who grasps with singular vigour the double relation of Creation to the Word as Creator and Preserver of all things, which is conveyed in the passage, appears to invert the description of the continuous vital connexion of the Word and the

world. "As for that which hath come into being" — so he paraphrases — "the Life, the Word that is the Beginning and Bond (cnWao-is) of all things, was in it "..."The Word, as Life by nature, was in the things which have become, mingling Himself by participation in the things that are " (' Comm.' ad loc.}. This

construction seems to be quite impossible; and the meaning suffers, inasmuch as things are not referred to their one centre of living unity, but on the contrary this one life is regarded as dispersed.

Augustine (• Comm.' in /or.) has illustrated

the meaning well. " Quod fact-am est; hie subdistingue [he has just set aside the punctuation quod factum est in illo, vita est~\ et deinde infer, in illo vita est. Quid est hoc?...Qiiomodo possum dicam.... Faber facit arcam. Primo in arte habet arcam: si enim in arte arcam non haberet, unde illam fabricando proferret?...In arte invisibiliter est, in opere visibiliter erit....Arca in opere non est vita, area in arte vita est; quia vivit anima artificis, ubi sunt ista omnia antequam proferantur: Sic ergo, fratres carissimi, quia Sapientia Dei, per quam facta sunt omnia, secundum artem continet omnia antequam fabricat omnia, hinc quse fiunt per ipsam artem non continue vita sunt, sed quidquid factum est, vita in illo est. Terram vides...caelum vides...foris corpora. sunt, in arte vita sunt."

Thus the ancient division of the clauses gives a consistent if mysterious sense to every phrase. If however the other punctuation, that of A. V., be adopted, the addition of the words "that hath been made" adds nothing to the sense, and the harmony of the rhythm of the original is spoiled, especially if the true reading (ovSe ev for ouSeV) be taken. Then further there is a certain abruptness in the beginning, In Him was life, unlike the repetition of the subject in the adjacent clauses (vv. i, z...the Word...the same 'was, vv. 4, 5, the light...the light shineth...). It is a still further objection to this arrangement of the passage, that nothing is said of the means by which the Life became the Light of men. The 3rd verse naturally prepares the way for the announcement of the revelation of the Word through and in His works.

But still, even in this arrangement of the clauses, the sense, though less clearly expressed, will remain substantially the same. The mention of " life" in the Word must be made in reference to finite being and not in reference to Himself. He was the centre and support of all things according to their several natures; and the life thus derived from Him was the light of men. According to this view the verb it-aj describes what was the historical relation of things at the moment after creation, and not what was the archetypal idea of things. Still even so that which " was " when God pronounced all things '' very good," represents the essential law of being.

4. //. him was (fjv) life] An important and well-marked group of ancient authorities, which represent a text of the second century, KD, MSS. of Orig., Lot. vt., Syr.?•/., read in him is (itrriv) life. The variant is without doubt a very early gloss; and it may be observed, once for all, that these authorities, both separately and collectively, are characterized by a tendency to introduce interpretative readings. In such cases where they stand alone against the other authorities, their reading, though of great antiquity and once wjdely current, is very rarely to be received.

is eminently characteristic of the writings of St John. He nowhere uses aluv (o vvv auoi>, o aio>«> ovrof, &c.) for the moral order; and conversely xo'cr/inr is very rarely used with a moral sense, as the sphere of revelation, by the Synoptists (comp..Matt. v. 14, xiii. 38, xviii.;, xxvi. 13; [Mk. xvi. i,-]), though it occurs more frequently in St Paul (Rom. iii. 19; I Cor. i. 21, &c.).

2. The fundamental idea of KOCT/JO? in St John is that of the sum of created being which belongs to the sphere of human life as an ordered whole, considered apart from God (xvii. 5, 24). The world is relative to man as well as to God. So far as it includes the material creation, this is regarded as the appointed medium and scene of man's work (comp. Wisd. ix. 2 f., x. i). Spiritual existences (angels, &c.) are not included in this conception of the world: they are "of the things above" as contrasted with "the things below" (viii. 23).

In this widest sense "the world was made through (8m)" the Word (i. 10). Comp. Rev. xiii. 8, xvii. 8.

3. More specially the world is that system which answers to the circumstances of man's present life. At birth he "comes into the world" (vt. 14, xvi. 21), and "is in the

4. So far. "the world" represents that which is transitory and seen as opposed to the eternal (i John ii. 15 ff., iii. 17). And these particular ideas of the transitoriness, the externality, the corruption of " the world " are emphasized in the phrase "this world" (6 «roo-/*os oJroj, viii. 23, xi. 9, xii. 25, 31, xiii. i, xviii. 36, xvi. 1 1; i John iv. 1 7. Comp. xiv. 30). So far as it is regarded under this aspect the "world" has no direct connexion with God (comp. i John v. 19).

5. It is easy to see how the thought of an ordered whple relative to man and considered apart from God passes into that of the ordered whole separated from God. Man fallen impresses his character upon the order which is the sphere of his activity. And thus the "world" comes to represent humanity in its present state, alienated from its Maker, and so far determining the character of the whole order to which man belongs. The world instead of remaining the true expression of God's will under the conditions of its creation, becomes His rival (r John ii. 15 — 17). St John says little as to cause or process of this alienation. It is referred however to the action of a being without, who is the source and suggestor of evil (viii. 44, xiii. 2; i John iii. 8).

6. Through this interruption in its normal development, the world which was made by the Word, recognised Him not (i. 10; comp. xvii. 25.; i John iii. i). It became exposed to destruction (arrwXtia, iii. 16, viii. 24; i John v. 19 ff., ii. 2). Still it was the object of God's xii. 47; i John iv. 14), giving life to it (vi. 33, 51). He spoke not to a sect or to a nation, but to the world (xviii. 20, viii. 26). He is a propitiation "for the whole world" (i John ii. 2).

7. The coming of Christ into the world was necessarily a judgment (ix. 39). Out of the whole, regarded as a system containing within itself the spring of a corresponding life (xv. 19, xvii. 14, 16; i John iv. 5, ii. 16), some were chosen by (xv. 19) or "given" to Him (xvii. 6). Thus the whole has become divided. Part attaches itself to God in answer to His call: part still stands aloof from Him. In contrast with the former the latter is called the world. In this sense the "world" describes the mass of men (comp. xii. 19) distinguished from the people of God, characterized by their peculiar feelings (vii. 7, xiv. 27, xv. 18 f., xvi. 20, xvii. 14; i John iii. 13, iv. 5) and powers (xiv. 17; i John iii. i), hostile to believers, and incapable of receiving the divine spirit. The disciples and "the world" stand over against one another (xiv. 19, 22). On the one side are the marks of "light" and "love" and "life;" on the other, "darkness" and "hatred" and "death." The world has its champions (i John iv. i ff.), its inspiring power (i John iv. 4, v. 19), its prince (xiv. 30, xvi. u). In the world the disciples have tribulation, though Christ has conquered it (xvi. 33); and His victory is repeated by them through the faith (i John v. 4 f.).

8. But even this "world" is not uncared for, though for a time it was left (xvii. 9). The disciples are sent into it (xvii. 18^). The Paraclete's Mission is to convict it (xvi. 8), the self-surrender of Christ (xiv. 31), the unity (xvii. 21) and the glory of the disciples (xvii. 23), are to the end that the world may come to knowledge and faith.

9. From this analysis of St John's usage of the term it will be seen how naturally the original conception of an order apart from God passes into that of an order opposed to God: how a system which is limited and transitory becomes hostile to the divine: how the "world" as the whole scene of human activity is lost in humanity: how humanity ceases to be "of the world" by its union with God in Christ.

13. In some of the early Latin copies (b, Tertullian and perhaps the translator of Irenaeus) a very remarkable variation was introduced into this verse, by which it was referred to the Word as subject, Who... was born. The variation arose from the ambiguity of the relative in Latin, which was taken with the nearest antecedent (ejus, qm... natus est}.

15. of whom I spake] The variations in a few of the most ancient authorities here suggest the possibility of some very early corruption of the text. The original hand of X gives, This was be that cometh after me who is become before me (OVTOS rjv 6 on. p.. epx- o? (p. ft. y.). This insertion of the relative (oj) finds some support in one old Latin copy. The first hands of B and C and a very early corrector of N read nvbo spake (o flncav for ov e«roi>); and this reading gives an intelligible sense by emphasizing the reference to the Baptist's testimony: "this John and no other was he who spake the memorable words."

16. And of...'] This reading, which is supported by A, the secondary uncials, almost all the cursives, three Syriac versions and the Vulgate, is a good example of a change introduced, probably by the unconscious instinct of the scribe, for the sake of smoothness and

(as it was supposed) of clearness. At a very early time (second century) verse 16 was regarded as a continuation of the words of the Baptist, so that the true reference of the second because (em) was lost, and the repetition of the conjunction in two consecutive clauses was felt to be very harsh. The true reading, because of... (on e'ic...) is supported by an overwhelming concurrence of the representatives of the most ancient texts (B, ND, CLX, 33, Lat. tit., Memph.) though it practically disappeared from later copies.

18. the only begotten Son] Two readings of equal antiquity, as far as our present authorities go, though unequally supported, are found in this passage. Of these the first, followed by A. V., the only begotten Son (o /xovoytvrjs vloi), is found in AX, the secondary uncials, all known cursives except 33, the Lt. vt.t Syr. vt., Syr. Hcl. and Hier., the Vulgate, Arm.

A third reading, the only begotten God (o povoyevfis 6e6s), which is found in Nc, 33 (the reading of the Memphitic version is ambiguous: it may express the only-begotten of God, but it is more probable that it expresses the only-begotten God (o ^ovoyev^s decs): Schwartze rejects the former rendering, which is that of Wilkins, too peremptorily), probably arose from a combination of the two readings, and may be dismissed at once. The Strangely inaccurate statement of many commentators that d \iov. dtos is the reading of "NBCL, &c.," shews a complete misapprehension not only of the facts but of the significance of the readings. The tempting reading of one Latin copy, the only begotten, has still less real claim to be taken into account in the face of the facts of the case. In considering this evidence it will appear that

1. The most ancient authorities for the reading, the only-begotten Son, the Old Latin and Old Syriac versions, are those which are inclined to introduce interpretative glosses (see note on v. 4), and on this occasion their weight is diminished by the opposition of N.

2. The reading, God, only-begotten, in the Peshito, can hardly have been a correction of the original text, because this reading is not found in the type of text (e.g. AX) by the help of which the version appears to have been revised.

3. There is no ancient Greek authority for the reading, the only-begotten Son, while the Greek authorities for God, only-begotten, represent three great types, B, K, CL.

4. The universal agreement of the later copies in the reading, the only-begotten Son, shews that there was no tendency in scribes to change it, while the correction of N (the oniybegotten God) shews us the reading, God, onlybegotten, modified under the influence of the common reading.

5. The substitution, intentional or accidental, of God (6s) for Son (^) does not explain the omission of the article in the reading, God, only-begotten- while, on the contrary, the substitution of Son for God would naturally cany with it the addition of the article (ch. iii. 16, 18).

6. The occurrence of the word " Father" in the context would suggest the use of the word "Son," while the word God would appear at first sight out of place in the relation described.

Thus the testimony of the direct documentary evidence for thr text very decidedly preponderates in favour of the reading, God, only-begotten.

The patristic testimony is complicated, and it is impossible to discuss it at length. It must be enough to say that

1. The phrase God only begotten (ftovoyt^s 6f6i) is found from very early times in Greek writers of every school. By Clement, Ircnzus and Origen it is connected with this passage. [The Latin writers, almost without exception, have uniciu or unigenitus flitu.]

2. It is very unlikely that a phrase in itself most remarkable should have obtained universal and unquestioned currency among Greek writers if it were not derived from apostolic usage.

It may further be added that the Valentinian writers, the earliest writers by whom the text is quoted, could have had no reason for introducing the reading, God, only-begotten, which they give. While on the other hand the substitution of tfx only-begotten Son for God onlybegotten is not unlike the style of " Western " paraphrase (e.g. •w. 4, 34; Mark i. 30, vi. 36, 56, &c.; Luke xxiii. 35).

On the whole, therefore, the reading God only-begotten must be accepted, because (i) It is the best attested by ancient authority; (a) It is the more intrinsically probable from its uniqueness; (3) It makes the origin of the alternative reading more intelligible.

An examination of the whole structure of the Prologue leads to the same conclusion. The phrase, which has grown foreign to our ears though it was familiar to early Christian writers, gathers up the two thoughts of sonship and deity, which have been separately aftirmed of the Word (vu. 14, i).

The reading has been discussed in detail by Dr E. Abbot (' Bibliotheca Sacra,1 Oct. 1861; Unitarian Review,' June, 1875); and by Dr Hort ('Two Dissertations...,' Camb. 1875). The conclusion of Dr Hort in favour of povoytvfis 0(6s, after a full examination of Prof. Abbot's arguments for <J fiovoyfvrjs vios, is pronounced by Prof. Harnack in an elaborate review of his essay in 'Theol. Lit. Zeit.' 1876, pp. 541 ff., to have been "established beyond contradiction."

24. All the most ancient MSS.(X*A*BC*, D is defective), with Origen (and Mempb.}rezA air«TTa\iifvoi rjtrav in place of of dirt err. yo-av. This reading can be rendered either: they had been sent from..., or, certain had been sent from among... Origen expressly distinguishes two missions, the first in -v. 19, and the second here.

2>8. Bethabara'] The great preponderance of authorities is in favour of the reading Bfthany. Origen implies that a diversity of reading existed here in his time. "Almost all the copies," he says, " have Bethany, but I am convinced that we ought to read Bethabara,'''' which probably was the reading of the minority. His reasons are simply geographical; and it is a striking fact that even his authority thus boldly exerted was unable to induce scribes to alter the reading which they found in their archetypes, so that Bethabara still remains the reading only of a small minority. The oldest authority which gives Bethabara is Syr. -vt., but this very early translation frequently admits glosses (see next note).

34. For the words the Son of God a group of authorities characteristically " Western " (see v. 4, note), K, e, Syr. -vt., Ambr., read the chosen of God. The two readings are combined curiously in several early Latin authorities (elect iu Deifillus).

51. The words air aprt (from henceforth} must be omitted on the authority of the witnesses which preserve the purest ancient text (HHL, Latt., Memph., Orig.). They were probably added from Matt. xxvi. 64, where the words are undisturbed.

1. The title " the Son of man " stands in significant contrast with the other titles which are assigned to the Lord, and particularly with that title which in some respects is most akin to it, " the Son of David." It was essentially a new title; it was used, so far as we know, with one exception only, by the Lord and of Himself; it expresses a relationship not to a family or to a nation, but to all humanity.

2. The title was a new one. It is common to regard it as directly derived from the book of Daniel. But in reality the passage (vii. 13) in which the title is supposed to be found has only a secondary relation to it. The vision of Daniel brings before him not "the Son of man," but one "like a son of man." The phrase is general (Ezek. ii. i), and is introduced by a particle of comparison. The Greek represents the original exactly: CDS vios avBpwnov epxaptvos ijv, and the true parallel is found in Rev. i. 13, xiv. 14. The thought on which the seer dwells is simply that of the human appearance of the being presented to him (comp. Dan. x. 16; Ezek. i. 26). The force of this comparison comes out more plainly if the context be taken into account. The divine kingdom is being contrasted with the kingdoms of the world. These are presented under the images of beasts. The brute forces symbolized them, just as man, to whom originally dominion was given, symbolized the rightful sovereignty which was to be established. " I saw," the seer writes, " in my vision by night... and four great beasts came up from the sea. The first was like a lion,... and... a second... like a bear,... and lo another like a leopard....! saw in the night visions, and behold one like a son of man came with the clouds of heaven..." (vii. 2 ff.). The dominion which had been exercised by tyrants was henceforward to be entrusted to "the saints of the Most High" (vii. 17 £, 27). The former rulers had come forth from the sea — the symbol of all confusion and instability— the divine ruler came from heaven.

3. It is true that the image of Daniel found fulfilment in the sovereignty of Christ, and so the words of the seer, with the substitution of "the Son of man" for "one like a son of man " were applied by the Lord to Himself (Matt. xvi. 27, xxiv. 30, xxvi. 64). But He was not only " like a son of man," He was " the Son of man." The less is of necessity included in the greater; but in itself the language of Daniel furnishes no parallel to the language of the Gospels.

4. The same may be said of all the other passages in which the phrases "the sons of men "or " Son of man " occur in the Old Testament. They describe man as dependent, limited, transitory. The singular, except in Ezekiel as addressed to the prophet, is of rare occurrence; and (as I believe) it is never found with the article (e.g. Ps. viii. 5, Ixxx.

5. But there can be no doubt that the image in Daniel exercised some influence upon later apocalyptic writings. The remarkable use of the title " Son of man " in reference to the Messiah in the Book of Henoch is directly based upon it. The sense of the title however remains equally limited as before. The Messiah is " a Son of man," and not properly "the Son of man" (c. 46, §§ i, 2, 3, 4; c. 48, § 2). In these places the chosen messenger of the Most High is described simply as a man, and not as one who stands in any special relation to the human race.

6. There is very little in the Gospels to shew how far the fuller applications of the title found in the apocalypse of Henoch obtained currency, or how the people commonly understood the title. There is at least nothing to shew that the title was understood to be a title of Messiah. On the contrary, "the Son of man " and " the Messiah " are, as it were, set one against the other, Matt. xvi. 13, 16 (the parallels, Mark viii. 27; Luke ix. 18, give simply me}; John xii. 34. And it is inconceivable that the Lord should have adopted a title which was popularly held to be synonymous with that of Messiah, while He carefully avoided the title of Messiah itself.

7. The title, then, as we find it in the Gospels, the Son of man absolutely, was a new one. It is out of the question to suppose that the definite article simply expressed " the prophetic Son of man." The manner in which the title is first used excludes such an interpretation. The title is new, and the limits within which its usage is confined serve to fix attention on its peculiarity. In the Gospels it is used only by the Lord in speaking of Himself; and beyond the range of His discourses it is found only in Acts vii. 56.

8. In the Lord's discourses the title is distributed generally. It is found both in the earlier and in the later discourses in about equal proportions. It is not however found in the discourses after the Resurrection. The title occurs many times in St John's Gospel, but less frequently than in the other three; and in the last discourses which St John gives at length it occurs only once, in the opening sentence, xiii. 31. [In St Matthew 30 times; in St Mark 13; in St Luke 25; in St John 12.]

9. The passages in which the title is found in the Synoptic Gospels may be grouped into two great classes: (i) those which refer to the earthly work of the Lord in the time of His humility; and (2) those which refer to His future coming in glory. The usage in St John is strictly parallel, but the occurrence of the title in his Gospel will be considered more in detail on ix. 35.

(i) The earthly presence of the Lord as the Incarnate Son presented a series of startling contrasts, (a) He was to outward eyes despised, and yet possessing supreme authority; (|3) He lived as men live, and yet He was at all times busy with His Father's work; (y) His true nature was veiled, and yet not wholly hidden; (8) His mission was a mission of love, and yet.it imposed on those to whom He came heavy responsibility; (e) to misinterpret Him was to incur judgment, and yet the offence was not past forgiveness; (£) He foresaw the end from the beginning, with its sorrows and glory.

The following passages in which the title occurs illustrate these different thoughts:

(2) Side by side with these traits of the human life of the Son of man, visions are opened of another life of glory, sovereignty, judgment, (a) Though He had come, yet He still spoke of His coming as future. (;3) Meanwhile men are left on their trial, to which an end is appointed in a swift and unexpected catastrophe. This " presence" of the Son of man at " the consummation of the age" is to be followed by a (y) judgment of men and nations, and (8) by the gathering of the elect into a divine kingdom.

These thoughts are illustrated by the following passages in which the title occurs:

Jo. A consideration of these passages will enable us to seize the outlines of the teaching which is summed up in the title. The idea of the true humanity of Christ lies at the foundation of it. He was not only "like a son of man," but He was "a Son of man:" His manhood was real and not apparent. But He was not as one man among many (yet the title a»6p<anos occurs John viii. 40; i Tim. ii. 5). He was the representative of the whole race; " the Son of man " in whom all the potential powers of humanity were gathered.

ii. Thus the expression which describes the self-humiliation of Christ raises Him at the same time immeasurably above all those whose nature He had assumed. Of no one, simply man, could it be said that he was " the man," or " the Son of man," in whom the complete conception of manhood was absolutely attained.

12. The teaching of St Paul supplies a striking commentary upon the title when he speaks of Christ as the "second Adam" (i Cor. xv. 45. Comp. Rom. v. 14), who gathers up into Himself all humanity, and becomes the source of a higher life to the race.

13. As a necessary conclusion from this view of Christ's humanity which is given in the title " the Son of man," it follows that He is in perfect sympathy with every man of every age and of every nation. All that truly belongs to humanity, all therefore that truly belongs to every individual in the whole race, belongs also to Him. (Compare a noble passage in Goldwin Smith's ' Lectures on History,' pp. 134 ff.)

14. The thought is carried yet further. We are allowed to see, and it can only be as it were "by a mirror in a riddle" (i Cor. xiii. 12), that the relation which exists in the present order of things between every man and Christ, is continued in another order. As "the Son of man" He is revealed to the eyes of His first martyr, that Christians may learn that that which is begun in weakness shall be completed in eternal majesty (Acts vii. 56).

15. It may well be admitted that the early disciples did not at first apprehend all that the later history of the race enables us to see in the title. Perhaps it may have been from some sense of the mysterious meaning of the term, which had not yet been illuminated by the light of a Catholic Church, that they shrank themselves from using it. But we cannot be bound to measure the interpretation of Scripture by that which is at once intelligible. The words of the Lord are addressed to all time. They stand written for our study, and it is our duty to bring to their interpretation whatever fulness of knowledge a later age may have placed within our reach.

A 3D the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there:

3. THE TESTIMONY OF SIGNS (ii. i— n). The manifestation of the glory of Christ (ii. n) follows naturally upon the recognition of His claims in virtue of testimony and experience. He shews by a significant sign, spontaneously offered in the presence of an acknowledged want and significant only to disciples (v. ii), the nature of the new order which He has already described (i. 51). He has been announced, and followed; He is now believed in. The scene still lies in the circle of the family, and not among " the people " or in " the world."

1 And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage.

the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine.

exact sequence. The Evangelist describes the time and scene (vv. i, 2), the occasion (vv. 3 — 5), the manner (vv. 6 — 8), the result (vv. 9, 10), and the effect (v. n) of Christ's first sign.

CHAP. II. 1, 2. The details of time, place, and persons contribute to the meaning of "the beginning of signs." It was shewn in close connexion with the faith of the first disciples (the third day), at the village where one at least of them dwelt (xxi. a), at a festival of the highest natural joy.

1. the third day] i.e. from the last day mentioned, i. 43. The distance from the place where John was baptizing to Nazareth was about sixty miles, three days journey.

a marriage] or a marriage feast, which was frequently celebrated for several (seven) days, Gen. xxix. 22 ff.; Judges xiv. 12. It is wholly unknown in whose honour the feast was held.

Cana of Galilee] So called each time when it is mentioned in the Gospel, to distinguish it from a Cana in Ccelo-Syria (Jos. ' Antt.' xv. 5. i, &c.). This village is mentioned in the N. T. (comp. Jos. 'Vita,' § 16) only by St John here and iv. 46, xxi. 2. It has been traditionally identified (from the 8th century) with Kefr Kenna, about 4^ miles north-west of Nazareth. Recently the site has been sought at a village about nine miles north of Nazareth, Khurbet-Cana, which is said (though this is doubtful) to have retained the name Kana-el- Jelil. The Syriac versions agree in inserting a -t- in the name (Katna). This may point to local knowledge; and it has been conjectured that Kana may be identified with Katana, a place about four miles from Nazareth.

the mother of Jesus'] In St John alone the name of "the mother of Jesus" is not mentioned, even when Joseph is named (vi. 42). Comp. xix. 25 ff., note.

was there] From v. 5 it is evident that the Virgin Mary was closely connected with the family; and so she was already at the house when Jesus arrived at Cana with His disciples. The absence of all mention of Joseph here and elsewhere (see xix. 27) has been reasonably supposed to imply that he was already dead. See Mark vi. 3, note.

<was called] i.e. on his return from the Baptist, and not had been called. ^ h'u disciples'] This is the first distinct mention of the relation in which the little group gathered from "the disciples of John" (i. 35, 3 7) now stood to the greater Teacher ("Rabbi," i 49).

3 — 5. The depth, obscurity, and (at the same time) naturalness of this conversation witness to the substantial truth of the record. The words only become intelligible when the exact relation between the mother of Jesus and her divine Son is apprehended. As soon as this is grasped the implied request, the apparent denial, the persistence of trust, the triumph of faith, are seen to hang harmoniously together.

3. when they quanted wine] Rather, -when the wine failed, as it might be expected to do from the unexpected addition of seven guests to the party already gathered. The fact that the arrival of Jesus had brought the difficulty, made it more natural to apply to Him for the removal of it. There is a Jewish saying, "Without wine there is no joy" ('Pesach.' 109 a, Wiinsche), and the failure of the wine at a marriage feast would be most keenly felt. The reading of some early authorities (X* and copies of Lat. vt.~) is a remarkable example of the paraphrases which are characteristic of the " Western " text: they had no wine, for the wine of the marriage was consumed (o-wereXeV^ij).

They have no wine] It is enough to state the want. To describe the circumstance is in such a case to express a silent prayer. Compare xi. 3, and contrast that passage with iv. 47.

The Mother of the Lord having heard of the testimony of the Baptist, and seeing the disciples gathered round her Son, the circumstances of whose miraculous birth she treasured in her heart (Luke ii. 19, 51), must have looked now at length for the manifestation of His power, and thought that an occasion only was wanting. Yet even so she leaves all to His will. Contrast Luke ii. 48.

4. Jesus saith'} And Jesus saith. These two clauses are joined together closely, just as •vv. 7, 8, while vv. 5 and 7 are not connected with what immediately precedes.

The order here is, What have I to do with thee, woman f It is otherwise in xix. 26. Here the contrast comes first; there the personality.

Woman] In the original there is not the least tinge of reproof or severity in the term. The address is that of courteous respect, even of tenderness. See xix. a 6. Comp. iv. 21, xx- J3» 15- At the same time it emphasizes the special relation which it expresses; as here the contrast between the divine Son and the human Mother.

what have 1 to do with thee?'] Or, what hast thou to do with me? Literally, what is what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come.

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

6 And there were set there six waterpots of stone, after the man-

ner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three firkins apiece.

7 Jesus saith unto them, Fill the waterpots with water. And they filled them up to the brim.

there to me and thee f (ri e/io» /cat trot, yvvat; Vulg. quid mihi et tibl est, mulier?) "Leave me to myself; let me follow out my own course." The phrase occurs not unfrequently in the Old Testament, ^ S. xvi. 10; i K. xvii. 18; a Chro. xxxv. 21 (Judg. xi. iz). It is found also in the New Testament: Matt. viii. 29, and parallels. Comp. Matt, xxvii. 19. Everywhere it marks some divergence between the thoughts and ways of the persons so brought together. In this passage it serves to shew that the actions of the Son of God, now that He has entered on His divine work, are no longer dependent in any way on the suggestion of a woman, even though that woman be His Mother. Henceforth all He does springs from within, and will be wrought at its proper season. The time of silent discipline and obedience (Luke ii. 51) was over. Comp. Matt.xii. 46 ff.

mine hour is not yet come~\ the due time for the fulfilment of my work. The words are here used of that part of Christ's work which was shewn in the first revelation of His glory; but more commonly they refer to the consummation of it in the Passion. See viii. 20, note, xvii. i, note. Mary may have believed that the first manifestation of Christ would lead at once to full triumph; and to that fancy the words are a pregnant answer.

There is no inconsistency between this declaration of Christ that " His hour was not yet come," and the fulfilment of the prayer which followed immediately. A change of moral and spiritual conditions is not measured by length of time. Comp. xiii. i, note.

5. The Lord's reply left the faith which rests absolutely in Him unshaken. Nowhere else perhaps is such trust shewn. Whether divine help was given through Him or not, so much at least could be provided, that if the right moment came — and it is impossible to use a temporal measure for moral changes — all should be ready for His action. Whatsoever he saitb unto you, do it; the command is wholly unlimited: all is left to Christ.

6 — 8. The manner of working the miracle is described with singular minuteness and yet with singular reserve. The wine is found to be present; the water shews the contents of the source from which it was drawn.

there"] in the court of the house as it seems (v. 8) and not in the guest-chamber.

six 'waterpots'] The large number would be required in consequence of the many guests assembled at the feast. They were of stone — as our canon directs fonts to be — since that material is less liable to impurity. Vessels of stone or earthenware were prescribed by Jew • ish tradition for the washings before and aftermeals (' Sola,' 4, WUnsche). The "purifying" extended not only to the " washing of hands," but also to " the washing of cups and brasen vessels and couches" (Mark vii. 3, 4). For the washing of vessels, which were immersed and not only sprinkled, later tradition prescribed a receptacle holding "forty Sata," about five times as large as one of these.

Dr E. D. Clarke gives a remarkable illustration of the passage: "...walking among

these ruins [at Cana] we saw large, massy stone water- pots... not preserved nor exhibited as reliques, but lying about, disregarded by the present inhabitants... From their appearance and the number of them, it was quite evident that a practice of keeping water in large stone pots, each holding from eighteen to twenty-seven gallons, was once common in the country." (' Travels,' II. p. 445, referred

two or three frkins apiece] The measure here (metretes) probably corresponds with the Bath, which was equivalent to three Sata (measures, Matt. xiii. 33), about 8| gallons. It is reasonable to suppose that the vessels provided for this extraordinary gathering were of different sizes, but all large.

7. unto them] The sixth verse is substantially parenthetical, and in thought v. ^ follows v. 5 directly.

they filed them up to the brim] This preliminary work was done completely, so that the contents of the vessels were obvious to all.

8. Draw out] Rather, Draw. There is considerable obscurity as to the meaning of these words. According to the current interpretation the water in the vessels of purification was changed into wine, and the servants are bidden to draw from these. There is out now, and bear unto the governor of the feast. And they bare it.

9 When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was: (but the servants which drew the water knew j) the governor of the feast called the bridegroom,

10 And saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now.

1 1 This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and mani-

nothing in the text wnich definitely points to such an interpretation; and the original word is applied most naturally to drawing water from the well (iv. 7, 15), and not from a vessel like the waterpot. Moreover the emphatic addition of now seems to mark the continuance of the same action of drawing as before, but with a different end. Hitherto they had drawn to fill the vessels of purification: they were charged now to " draw and bear to the governor of the feast." It seems most unlikely that water taken from vessels of purification could have been employed for the purpose of the miracle. On the other hand, the significance of the miracle comes out with infinitely greater force if the change is wrought through the destination of the element. That which remained water when kept for a ceremonial use became wine when borne in faith to minister to the needs, even to the superfluous requirements, of life. This view, that the change in the water was determined by its destination for use at the feast, can be held equally if the water so used and limited to that which was used were "drawn" from the vessels, and not from the well.

If, however, the traditional view of the miracle be retained no real difficulty can be felt in the magnitude of the marriage gift with which Christ endowed the house of a friend.

the governor (ruler, as v. 9) of the feasf\ Some have supposed this "ruler" to be the chief servant, " steward," to whose care all the arrangements of the feast were entrusted, and not one of the guests. This is the classical usage of the term employed, and hence Juvencus speaks of summus minister. But on the other hand, in Ecclus. xxxv. i? 2) one of the guests is described as "ruler" (jjyov/iei/os), and there is no certain evidence that the Jews had any such an officer among their servants, who certainly would not in any case be likely to be found in such a household as this.

9, 10. The independent witness to the two parts of the miracle establishes its reality. The ruler of the feast declares what the element is, the servants knew what it was.

that <unu model Literally, when it had become, after it had become. The clause is predicative and not simply descriptive.

and knew not...knew] This clause is most probably to be taken as a parenthesis: Whe n the ruler tasted... (and he knew not...but...knew) he calleth... Com\>. i. 14, note. -His ignorance of the source from which the wine came did not lead to his inquiry, but rather gave weight to his spontaneous testimony to its excellence.

10. The words are half playful and fall in with the character of the scene. The form of the first part of the sentence is proverbial, and there is nothing to offend in the strong term, have well drunk (comp. Gen. xliii. 34, LXX.), "drunk freely," which has no immediate application to the guests present. The last clause seems to be one of those unconscious prophecies in which words spoken in recognition of a present act reveal the far deeper truth of which it is a sign.

good wine] Rather, the good wine from his store. The definite article is made pokited by the end of the verse.

kept] The idea of the verb (T^FII/) is that of watchful care rather than of safe custody (0vXao-o-<ti/). Comp. ch. xii. 7.

11. This beginning...] Rather, according to the true reading, This as a beginning of his signs...

miracles'] signs (o-rj/ieta, Vulg. signaj. The value of the work was rather in what it indicated than in what it was. Miracles, in this aspect which is commonest in the New Testament, are revelations of truth through the symbolism of the outward acts.,

The translation signs is always preserved in the Synoptists except Luke xxiii. 8 (see Matt. xvi. 3); but in St John we frequently find the rendering miracles, even where the point of the teaching is lost by this translation, e.g. John vi. 26, not because ye' saw signs but..., where the motive was not the prospect of something yet nobler to be revealed, but acquiescence in the gross satisfaction of earthly wants. Whenever the word is used of Christ's works it is always with distinct reference to a higher character which

fested forth his glory; and his disciples believed on him.

Capernaum, he, and his mother, and his brethren, and his disciples: and they continued there not many days.

they indicate. Those who call them "signs" attach to Him divine attributes in faith, ii. 23, iii. 2, &c., or fear, xi. 47; and each sign gave occasion to a growth of faith or unbelief according to the spirit ot those who witnessed it. The word was adopted into the Aramaic dialect (i^D) in the general sense of " sign."

It may be added that the word power (8vvanis) for miracle never occurs in St John, while he very commonly includes miracles under the term works, xiv. n, &c.

In this passage the twofold effect of the sign is described by St John, first as a manifestation of Christ's glory, and next as a ground of faith in those who were already disciples. The office of miracles towards those who do not believe is wholly left out of sight.

his glory'] The glory (comp. i. 14, note) is truly, inherently, Christ's glory. A prophet would manifrst the glory of God. The manifestation of His glory in this "sign" must not be sought simply in what we call its " miraculous" element, but in this taken in connexion with the circumstances, as a revelation of the insight, the sympathy, the sovereignty of the Son of Man, who was the Word Incarnate. See Additional Note.

his disciple i believed on bim~\ Testimony (i. 36) directs those who were ready to welcome Christ to Him. Personal intercourse converts followers into disciples (ii. 2). A manifestation of power, as a sign of diviner grace, converts discipleship into personal faith.

believed on hini] The original phrase («r»- (TTfvcrav «iy avrov, Vulg. crediderunt in cum) is peculiarly characteristic of St John. It is found in one place only in the Synoptic Gospels (Matt, xviii. 6 || Mark ix. 42), and but rarely in St Paul's Epistles (Rom. x. 14; Gal. ii. 16; Phil. i. 29). The idea which it conveys is that of the absolute transference of trust from oneself to another.

As the beginning of Christ's signs this miracle cannot but have a representative value. We may observe

1. Its essential character. A sign of sovereign power wrought on inorganic matter, not on a living body.

2. Its circumstantial character. The change of tfle simpler to the richer element. In this respect it may be contrasted with the first public miracle of Moses, with whose history the record of miracles in the Old Testament commences.

3. Its moral character The answer of love to faith, ministering to the fulness of human joy in one of its simplest and most natural forms. Contrast this feature with the action of the Baptist, Matt. xi. 18, 19.

In each respect the character of the sign answers to the general character of Christ as a new creation, a transfiguration of the ceremonial Law into a spiritual Gospel, the ennobling of the whole life. It may be added also that the scene of the " sign " — a marriage feast — is that under which the accomplishment of Christ's work is most characteristically prefigured, ch. iii. 29; Matt. xxii. 2 ff.,. xxv. i ff.; Rev. xix. 7, xxi. 2.

This miracle alone of those recorded by St John has no parallel in the Synoptists; and we cannot but conclude from the minuteness of the details of the history that the Mother of the Lord made known some of them to the Apostle to whose care she was entrusted. Moreover in this miracle only does she occupy a prominent place.

12. This verse forms a transition. As yet the family life was not broken. Till "His hour was come " in a new sense the Lord still waited as He had hitherto lived.

Capernauni] Caphar-nahum, according to the most ancient authorities (Ka<£api/aou/n, D1D3 nSD. Josephus gives both K«0api/aoufi and K.f(j>apv<au.i)). This town was on the shores of the lake, so that Christ went down thither from Nazareth or Cana, which were on the table-land above. Caphar (a hamlet, cf. Luke ix. 12, Syr.) is found in late names of places not unfrequently, answering to the Arabic Kefr. The site of Capernaum has now been identified beyond all reasonable doubt with Tell-Hum (Wilson, 'Sea of Galilee,' in Warren's ' Recovery of Jerusalem,' pp. 342 ff.; Tristram, ' Land of Israel,' pp. 428 ff. ed. 3). Compare Matt. iv. 13, ntite.

From the mention of "his brethren," who are not noticed vv. i, 2, it appears likely that the Lord had returned to Nazareth from Cana. The passing reference to a sojourn at Capernaum falls in with what is said in the Synoptists (Matt. iv. 13) of the Lord's subsequent removal thither from Nazareth at the commencement of His Galilaean ministry, though this fact is not expressly mentioned by St John. Comp. vi. 24 ff.

his brethren] Most probably the sons of Joseph by a former marriage. See an exhaustive essay by Dr Lightfoot, ' Galatians,' Essay n.

not many days'] This is perhaps mentioned to shew that at present Capernaum was not made the permanent residence of the Lord, as it became afterwards.

13 fl And the Jews' passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem,

14 And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting:

The formation of a small group of disciples inspired by true faith (v. n) was followed by the commencement of the Lord's public work. This is presented in three forms as undertaken in three distinct scenes, Judaea, Samaria, Galilee.

Hitherto the Revelation of Christ has been given mainly through the confession of disciples (i. 51, note). The Evangelist now, as he traces the sequence of events, crowns the record of the testimony rendered to Christ by the record of His first self-revelation. He shews how He satisfied anticipations and wants; how He was misunderstood and welcomed. Unbelief is as yet passive, though it is seen by Christ (ii. 35).

The narrative deals still for the most part with representative individuals, and not with the masses of the people.

The general contents of the section are thus distributed: i. The work in Judaea (ii. 13 — iii. 36).

Effect on the disciples (v. 17). ii. The promised sign (18 — ai).

It was fitting that the Lord's public work should commence in Judaea and in the Holy City. The events recorded in this section really determined the character of His after ministry. He offered Himself by a significant act intelligible to faith as the Messiah: His coming was either not understood or misunderstood; and, after a more distinct revelation of His Person in Samaria, He began his work afresh as a prophet in Galilee. Henceforward He appeared no more openly as Messiah at Jerusalem till His final entry.

It is impossible not to feel the change which at this point comes over the narrative. There is a change of place, of occasion, of manner of action. Jerusalem and Cana, the passover and the marriage feast, the stern Reformer and the sympathizing Guest. So too the spiritual lessons which the two signs convey are also complementary. The first represents the ennobling of common life, the second the purifying of divine worship. Or, to put the truth in another light, the one is a revelation of the Son of man, and the other a revelation of the Christ, the Fulfiller of the hope and purpose of Israel.

The history falls into two parts, the symbolic act (13 — 17), the promised sign (18 — aa). The contents of the section are peculiar to St John, who was an eye-witness, ii. 17.

13 — 17. The record is a commentary on Mai. iii. i ff. Comp. Zech. xiv. ao f. The first step in Messiah's work was the abolition of the corruptions which the selfishness of a dominant and faithless hierarchy had introduced into the divine service. Origen ('in Joh.' t. x. § 1 6) justly points out the spiritual application of this first act of Christ's ministry to His continual coming both to the Church and to individual souls.

13. the Jews' passover] ch. xi. 55. Comp. vi. 4. The exact rendering, the passover of the Jews, brings out the sense more clearly. The phrase appears to imply distinctly the existence of a recognised " Christian Passover " at the time when the Gospel was written. Compare v. 6. Origen ('in Joh.' t. x. § 14) thinks that the words mark how that which was "the Lord's Passover" had been degraded into a merely human ceremonial.

For the general sense in which the term the Jews is used in St John, see Introd. pp. ix, x.

14. And found} And He found. There is a pause at the end of -v. 13 which must be marked by the commencement of a new sentence. The visit to the Holy City is recorded first, and then the visit to the temple. It was natural that the Lord's work should begin not only at Jerusalem but also at the centre of divine worship, the sanctuary of the theocracy. He now comes in due time to try the people in His Father's house, and to judge abuses which He must have seen often on earlier visits. The event is to be placed before the

15 And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables;

doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father's house an house of merchandise.

1 8 11 Then answered the Jews passover (jv. 23), and probably on the eve of the feast, when leaven was cleared away, Exod. xii. 15; i Cor. v. 7.

in the temple] i.e. in the outer court, the court of the Gentiles, where there was a regular market, belonging to the house of Hanan (Annas). See note on Mark xi. 15.

those that sold'] Not simply men engaged in the traffic, but those who were habitually engaged in it.

changers of money] The word used here (wp/iartorijc) is different from that in v. 15 ((coAAu/Ston/r). The present word indicates properly the changer of large into smaller coins; the second word is derived from the fee paid for the exchange (»coAAv#or), which appears in the vernacular Aramaic (Buxtorf, ' Lex.' s.v. D137p). Obviously no coins bearing the image of the Emperor or any heathen symbol could be paid into the temple treasury, and all offerings of money would require to be made in Jewish coins. The yearly payment of the half-shekel, which could be made in the country (Matt. xvii. 24), was also received at the temple, and the exchange required for this gave abundant business to the exchangers. Lightfoot has collected an interesting series of illustrations on Matt. xxi. 1 2.

15. a scourge of small cords'] as a symbol of authority and not as a weapon of offence. The "cords" (o-^otvia, properly of twisted rushes) would be at hand. No corresponding detail is mentioned in the parallel narratives. Jewish tradition ('Sanh.' 98 b, WUnsche) figured Messiah as coming with a scourge for the chastisement of evil-doers. On this occasion only, when He came to claim authority by act, did the Lord use the form ot force. For the effect compare xviii. 6.

them alt] apparently the sellers as well as the animals, though the next clause must be translated, both the sheep and the oxen (ra re npofiuTa KCU'...).

and poured... and said...'] ana he poured... and he said... Each stage in the action is to be distinguished.

16. Take these things hence] Since these could not be driven. There is no reason to think that those who sold the offerings of the poor were as such dealt with more gently than other traffickers.

my Fathers house"] Compare Luke ii. 49 ("in that which belongs to my Father"). The speciality of the title (my Father's house, not our Father's house) must be noticed. When Christ finally left the temple (Matt. xxiv. i) He spoke of it to the Jews as your bouse (Matt. xxiii. 38); the people had claimed and made their own what truly belonged to God. It must be observed also that the Lord puts forth His relation to God as the fact from whioh His Messiahship might be inferred. This formed the trial of faith.

bouse of merchandise'] Contrast Matt. xxi. 13 (a den of robbers}. Here the tumult and confusion of worldly business is set over against the still devotion which should belong to the place of worship.

merchandise^ Vulg. negotiationis. The word (ffjLTropiov) means the place of traffic, the mart, and not the subject or the art of trafficking (fpiropia). Comp. Ezek. xxvii. 3 (LXX.). Thus the "house" is here regarded as having become a market-house, no longer deriving its character from Him to whom it was dedicated, but from the business carried on in its courts.

17. And (omit) his disciples'] We notice here on the occasion of the first public act of Christ, as throughout St John, the double effect of the act on those who already believed, and on those who were resolutely unbelieving. The disciples remembered at the time (contrast v. 22) that this trait was characteristic of the true prophet of God, who gave himself for his people. The Jews found in it an occasion for fresh demands of proof.

it was (written'] Or more exactly, it is (written, i.e. stands recorded in Scripture and said unto him, What sign shew- 19 Jesus answered and said unto est thou unto us, seeing that thou them, 'Destroy this temple, and in doest these things? three days I will raise it up.

Hf'vov eVriV). Compare vi. 31, 45, x. 34, xii. 14. St John prefers this resolved form to the simple verb (ytypanrm) which prevails almost exclusively in the other books. Comp. iii. 21.

For a general view of the quotations from the Old Testament in St John see Introd.

The zeal of thine house] the burning jealousy for the holiness of the house of God, and so for the holiness of the people who were bound by service to it, as well as for the honour of God Himself. Comp. Rom. x. 2; 2 Cor. xi. 2.

bath eaten me~\ According to the true text, will eat (devour) me. The reference is not to the future Passion of the Lord, but to the overpowering energy and fearlessness of His piesent action. It is not natural to suppose that the disciples had at the time any clear apprehension of what the issue would be. They only felt the presence of a spirit which could not but work.

18 ft. The act in which the Lord offered a revelation of Himself called out no faith in the representatives of the nation. Thereupon in answer to their demand He takes the temple, which He had vainly cleansed, as a sign, having regard to the destruction which they would bring upon it. The end was now visible though far off. Comp. Matt. ix. 15.

The words are an illustration of Luke xvi. 31. To those who disregarded the spirit of Moses, the Resurrection became powerless.

18. Then answered the Jews'] The Jews therefore answered (and so in <v. 20). See i. 22, note. The connexion is with -v. 16 directly.

answered] The term is not unfrequently used when the word spoken is a reply to or a criticism upon something done, or obviously present to the mind of another: e.g. v. 17, xix. 7; Matt. xi. 25, xvii. 4, xxviii. 5; Mark x. 51, xii. 35; Luke i. 60, xiii. 14; Acts iii. 12, v. 8; Rev. vii. 13. And once even in reference to the significant state of the barren fig-tree; Mark xi. 14.

What sign shewest thou...'] By what clear and convincing token (comp. i Cor. i. 22) can we be made to see that thou hast the right to exercise high prophetic functions, teeing that (ort, comp. ix. 17) thou doest these things which belong to a great prophet's work? Comp. Matt. xxi. 23.

The same demand for fresh evidence in the presence of that which ought to be decisive is found ch. vi. 30; Matt. xii. 38 f., xvi. i ff.

doest~] The work was not past only, but evidently charged with present consequences.

19. Destroy this temple...'] The phrase here placed in its true context appears twice as the basis of an accusation, (i) Matt. xxvi. 61, note; Mark xiv. 57, 8, and (2) Acts vi. 14. In both cases the point of the words is altered by assigning to Christ the work of destruction which he leaves to the Jews. (/ am able to (/ will) destroy as contrasted with Destroy.}

In the interpretation of the words two distinct ideas have to be brought into harmony, (i) the reference to the actual temple which is absolutely required by the context, and (2) the interpretation of the.Evangelist (v. 21). At the same time the "three days" marks the fulfilment as historical and definite. The point of connexion lies in the conception of the temple as the seat of God's presence among His people. So far the temple was a figure of the Body of Christ. The rejection and death of Christ, in whom dwelt the fulness of God, brought with it necessarily the destruction of the temple, first spiritually, when the veil was rent (Matt, xxvii. 51), and then materially (observe oar aprt Matt. xxvi. 64). On the other hand the Resurrection of Christ was the raising again of the Temple, the complete restoration of the tabernacle of God's presence to men, perpetuated in the Church, which is Christ's body.

In this connexion account must be taken of the comparison of the temple with Christ, Matt. xii. 6. Compare ch. i. 14 (fo-Kyvvcrev).

The Resurrection of Christ was indeed the transfiguration of worship while it was. the transfiguration of life.

In the Synoptic Gospels Christ connects the destruction of the temple with the faithlessness of the people: Matt. xxiv. 2 ff., xxiii. 38.

It may be noticed that on a similar occasion the Lord referred to the "sign of the prophet Jonah," as that alone which should be given (Matt. xii. 39, xvi. 4). Life through death; construction through dissolution; the rise of the new from the fall of the old; these are the main thoughts.

The imperative destroy is used as in Matt xxiii. 3 2, _/?///* up. Comp. xiii. 28. Thus in the first clear antagonism Christ sees its last issue. The word itself (Avcrure) is a very remarkable one. It indicates a destruction which comes from dissolution, from the breaking of that which binds the parts into a whole,

20 Then said the Jews, Forty and 22 When therefore he was risen six years was this temple in building, from the dead, his disciples rememand wilt thou rear it up in three bered that he had said this unto

/ twill...] The Resurrection is here assigned to the action of the Lord, as elsewhere to the Father (Gal. i. i; see v. 22, note).

20. Forty and six... building] Rather, In forty and six...<was this temple built as we now see it. The work is regarded as complete in its present state, though the reparation of the whole structure was not completed till 36 years afterwards. Herod the Great began to restore the temple in B.C. 20 (Jos. 'B. J.' i. 21 (16). i: comp. ' Antt.' xv. n (14. i), and the design was completed by Herod Agrippa A.D. 64. The tense of the verb (toKoSo/ii/^r;) marks a definite point reached; that point probably coincided with the date of the Lord's visit; but the form of expression makes it precarious to insist on the phrase as itself defining this coincidence.

rear it up] raise It up: the same word is used as before. That which Christ raises (x. 1 8) is that which was (raise /'/ up) and not another. The old Church is transfigured and not destroyed. The continuity of revelation is never broken.

21. But he (f'ttrlfor)...] The pronoun (i. 1 8, note) is emphatic and marks a definite contrast, not only between the Lord and the Jews, but also between the Lord and the apostles. St John seems to look back again upon the far distant scene as interpreted by his later knowledge, and to realise how the Master foresaw that which was wholly hidden from the disciples.

of (nfpi)...] i.e. concerning... This was the general topic of which He was speaking, not the direct object which He indicated, as in vi. 71 (tAryfi/ rov 'I.), from which usage it must be caretully distinguished. Compare Eph. v. 32 (Xt'yw (Is), where the ultimate application is marked.

the temple of his body] i.e. the temple defined to be His body, as in the phrase "the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah " (2 Pet, ii. 6). Compare Acts iv. 22; 2 Cor. v. i; Rom. iv. TI (v. 1.). For the usage see i Cor. vi. 19; Rom. viii. u.

St John notices on other occasions the real meaning of words of the Lord not understood at first: vii. 39, xii. 33, xxi. 19; and in each case he speaks with complete authority. This trait of progressive knowledge is inexplicable except as a memorial of personal experience.

22. was risen] Rather, <was raised: so also xxi. 14. The full phrase would be, " was raised by God from the dead," as in the corresponding expression, "whom God raised from the dead" (Acts iii. 15, iv. 10, v. 30, x. 40, xiii. 30, 37; Rom. iv. 24, viii. ii, x. 9; i Cor. xv. 15, &c.). In all these cases the resurrection is regarded as an awakening effected by the power of the Father. Much less frequently it is presented simply as a rising again, consequent on the awakening, in reference to the manifestation of the power of the Son, Mark viii. 31, ix. 9; Luke xxiv. 7. Comp. John xi. 23, 24; and -v. 19, note.

remembered'] v. 17. The repetition of the word seems to mark the facts of Christ's life as a new record of revelation, on which the disciples pondered even before the facts were committed to writing. Compare xii. 16.

the scripture] The phrase "the Scripture" occurs elsewhere ten times in St John, vii. 38, 42, x. 35, xiii. 18 (xvii. 12), xix. 24, 28, 36, 37 (xx. 9), and in every case except xvii. 12 and xx. 9 the reference is to a definite passage of Scripture given in the context, according to the usage elsewhere, Mark xii. 10 [xv. 28]; Luke iv. 21; Acts i. 16, viii. 35, &c. (though St Paul appears also to personify Scripture), while the plural is used for Scripture generally, v. 39; Luke xxiv. 32; i Cor. xv. 3, 4, &c. In xvii. 12 the reference appears to be to the words already quoted, xiii. 18, so that the present and the similar passage, xx. 9, alone remain without a determinate reference. According to the apostle's usage, then, we must suppose that here also a definite passage is present to his mind, and this, from a comparison of Acts ii. 27, 31, xiii. 35, can hardly be any other than Ps. xvi. 10.

the word... had said (tlirtv)] the revelation which St John has just recorded, not as an isolated utterance (fa pa), but as a comprehensive message (i-<5 Xoyw). The Synoptists narrate a cleansing of the

23 ^ Now when he was in Jeru- many believed in his name, when salem at the passover, in the feast day, they saw the miracles which he did.

temple as having taken place on the day of the triumphal entry into Jerusalem before the last passover (Matt. xxi. izff.; Mark xi. 15 if.; Luke xix. 45 if.). Of such an incident there is no trace in St John (xii. 12 ff.), and conversely the Synoptists have no trace of an earlier cleansing. It has been supposed that the event has been transposed in the Synoptic narratives owing to the fact that they give no account of the Lord's ministry at Jerusalem before the last journey; but a comparison of the two narratives is against the identification.

2. There is a significant difference in the words used to justify the act, Mark xi. 17; John ii. 1 6.

3. The character of the two acts is distinct. The history of St John presents an independent assumption of authority: the history of the Synoptists is a sequel to the popular homage which the Lord had accepted.

4. The cleansing in St John appears as a single act. The cleansing in the Synoptists seems to be part of a continued policy (Mark xi. 1 6).

5. In the record of the later incident there is no reference to the remarkable words (ii. 19) which give its colour to the narrative of St John, though the Synoptists shew that they were not unacquainted with the words (Matt, xxvi. 6 1; Mark xiv. 58).

Nor on the other hand, is there any improbability in the repetition of such an incident. In each case the cleansing was effected in immediate connexion with the revelation of Jesus as the Messiah. This revelation was twofold: first when He claimed His royal power at the entrance on His work, and then when He claimed it again at the dose of His work. In the interval between these two manifestations He fulfilled the office of a simple prophet. In the first case, so to speak, the issue was as yet doubtful; in the second, it was already decided; and from this difference flows the difference in the details of the incidents themselves. For example, there is a force in the addition " a house of prayer for all nations" in the immediate prospect of the Passion and of the consequent rejection of the Jews, which finds no place at the beginning of the Lord's ministry, when He enters as a Son into " His Father's house." And again, the neutral phrase, "a house of merchandise," is in the second case represented by its last issue "a den of robbers."

Assuming that the two cleansings are distinct, it is easy to see why St John records that which occurred at the beginning, because it was the first crisis in the separation of faith and unbelief; while the Synoptists necessarily, from the construction of their narratives, recorded the later one. This, on the other hand, was virtually included in the first, and there was no need that St John should notice it.

The record of the great Messianic work (ii. 14 — 1 6), which was the critical trial of the representatives of the theocracy, is followed by a summary notice of the thoughts which it excited among the people generally, and also in one who was fitted to express the feelings of students and teachers. The people imagined that they had found the Messiah of their own hopes: the teacher acknowledged the presence of a prophet who should continue, and probably reform, what already existed. In both respects the meaning of Christ's work was missed: the conclusions which were drawn from His "signs'* (ii. 23, iii. 2) were false or inadequate.

The section falls into two parts: Christ's dealing with the people (ii. 23 — 25), and with "the teacher of Israel" (iii. i — 21).

The contents are peculiar to St John. It is probable that he writes from his own immediate knowledge throughout (comp. iii. ii).

23 — 25. Christ's dealing with the people generally. In this brief passage the false faith of the people is contrasted with the perfect insight of Christ. The people were willing to accept Him, but He knew that it would be on their own terms. Comp. vi. 14 f. (Galilee).

The explanation which St John gives of the reserve of Christ shews a characteristic knowledge of the Lord's mind. It reads like a commentary gained from later experience on what was at the time a surprise and a mystery.

23. in Jerusalem] if not in the temple, yet still in the Holy City. It may be noticed that of the two Greek forms of the name, that which is alone found (in a symbolic sense) in the Apocalypse (iii. 12, xxi. 2, 10, 'lepovo-a- X?7/i) is not found in the Gospel, in which (as in St Mark) the other form ('lepoo-oXv/xa) is used exclusively (twelve times).

The triple definition of place (in Jerusalem), time (at the passover), circumstance (during the feast) is remarkable. The place was the city which God had chosen: the time was the anniversary of the birth of the nation: the circumstances marked universal joy.

in the feast day] Rather, at the feast, i.e. of unleavened bread, kept on the seven

24 But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all

25 And needed not that any should testify of man: for he knew what was in man.

days which followed the actual passover (Lev. xxiii. 5, 6). It has been conjectured, not unreasonably, that the purifying of the temple took place on the eve of the passover, when the houses were cleansed of leaven.

many] Among these there may have been some Galilaeins, who had come to the feast, • as " the Jews" (v. 20) are not distinctly mentioned. Comp. viii. 30 f., iv. 45.

believed in (on) bis name"] Comp. i. 12 and viii. 30, note. In this place the phrase seems to imply the recognition of Jesus as the Messiah, but such a Messiah as Him for whom they looked, without any deeper trust (for the most part) in His Person (v. 14). They believed not on Him (iii. 18), but on Ha name, as Christ (comp. Matt. vii. 22. Orig. 4 in Joh.' t. x. § 28). The phrase occurs again in connexion with the title "Son of God," i John v. 13, where there is no limitation of the fulness of the meaning. For the use of 44 believe on " (JTIOTCV* tv m) with other than a personal object, see i John v. 10.

when they saw] when they beheld (fitotpovvrts) with the secondary notion of a regard of attention, wonder, reflection. The word (6tu>ptiv) is so used in vii. 3, xii. 45, xiv. 19, xvi. 1 6 ff., &c. In this place it connects the imperfect faith of the people with the immediate effect of that which arrested their attention. Contrast iv. 45 (cupcucorrr). the miracles (his signs) which be did] time after time (a iiroiti). Here the Evangelist dwells on the works as still going on (which He was doing): in iv. 45 he regards the same works in their historical completeness (all that He did, ocra (iroirja-tv). The conviction was wrought not at once, nor on a survey of all the works, but now by one, now by another. The same idea is given by the present participle (when they beheld, 6fa>povv- Tts) in combination with the aorist (believed). The incidental notice of these u signs" (comp. vii. 31, xi. 47, xx. 30) is an unquestionable proof that St John does not aim at giving an exhaustive record of all he knew. Similar references to cycles of unrecorded works are found in the Synoptists: Mark iii. 10, vi. 56. 24. But Jesus] The contrast is emphasized in the original by the preceding pronoun, But on His part Jesus (avror £e '!.)• commit] The same word (foloraw) is used here as that rendered believe (v. 23).

Compare Luke xvi. n. The kind of repetition would be in some degree, though inadequately, expressed in English by "many trusted on His name... but Jesus did not trust Himself to them." There is at the same time a contrast of tenses. The first verb marks a definite, completed, act: the second a habitual course of action. A partial commentary on this reserve of Christ is found in vi. 14 f., where He refuses to accept the homage of the people which is offered with false beliefs and hopes. Comp. Matt. vii. 21 ff.

24, 25. because he knew... And needed not...] The original is more exact and expressive: owing to the fact that — for that — He knew (Sia TO yivtaa-ntiv) all men, and because He needed not... (Vulg. eo quod...quia...). The ultimate reason lay in His knowledge of all men: the immediate reason in the fact that He needed no testimony to the character of any man.

24. he knew] The pronoun is emphatic. Christ knew 44by Himself," 44in virtue of His Owu power."

knew] It is of great importance to distinguish in the narrative of St John the knowledge (i) of discernment and recognition from that (2) of intuition and conviction. The one word (-yuwo-Kfti/), used here, implies movement, progress: the other (e toVi/at) satisfaction, rest. For the contrast between the t words compare (i) i. 49, iii. 10, vi. 69, xiii. 12 (yivuxTKfiv): (2) i. 26, 31, iii. 2, n, ix. 29 (cidewu). See Additional Note.

25. testify of man] bear witness concerning man generically (irtp\ TOV dv0p<o- TTOV). The original (TOV dvdptirrov) may mean also I4the man with whom from time to time he had to deal," as it appears to do in the second case. Compare vii. 51 (TOV ai>6pa>- n-oiO; Matt. xii. 43, xv. u.

he knew] as in v. 24, "He Himself kne<iv, by His Own power on each occasion...." The pronoun is repeated a third time (auroj — avrov — avros).

what was in man] This knowledge is elsewhere attributed to Jehovah (Jer. xvii. 10, xx. 12). It was immediate (of Himself), universal (all men), complete (what was in man, i.e. the thoughts and feelings as yet unexpressed).

one feature of St John's Gospel which has whole human life of Christ, under its actual been overlooked by one school of critics and conditions of external want and suffering and of internal conflict and sorrow, as a continuous and conscious manifestation of divine glory. He shews from first to last how " the eternal life was manifested which was with the Father" (i John i. a) in the works, and in the words of Christ, in what He did and in what He suffered. (Compare Introd.) Such a view, it has been argued, is inconsistent with the portraiture of the Saviour in the other Gospels, and with the teaching of St Paul upon the " exinanition " of Christ (Phil. ii. 5— u).

This objection appears to rest upon a totally inadequate conception of human life. If life is potentially the expression of a divine purpose, it is evident that all the circumstances which it includes are capable of ministering to the divine end. A want or a sorrow cannot be regarded in itself. It has a relation to a whole, and is interpretative at once and preparatory. A perfect human life, a life lived, that is, in absolute harmony with the divine, will therefore in every point reveal to those who have the eyes to see, something of God, of His " glory." And further, a human consciousness, which has complete insight into the true order of things, or so far as it has insight, will be able to realise at any moment the actual significance of each detail of experience. This being so, it is clear that all the acts and sufferings of " the Son of Man " were essentially revelations of glory, and become so to us so far as we are enabled to apprehend their meaning. They are at the same time to be regarded externally, but that external realisation is only a condition for their spiritual understanding. From the nature of the case each fact in the life of Christ was the vehicle for conveying some eternal truth. It could not be otherwise. St John lays open in some representative instances what this truth was, and while he does so he shews how the knowledge of it was present to the mind of Christ. Humiliation, shame, death are thus not regarded outwardly, as they may rightly be in suitable connexions, but as the appointed, and so the best, means for the attainment of the highest end, and recognised as such. In this light they become "glories" (i Pet. i. n).

These remarks hold true in regard to each event in the Lord's life; but St John, from his point of sight, regards the whole work of Christ as one, as the complete fulfilment of the divine counsel. All is present at each moment, "one act at once," while we "as parts can see but part, now this, now that." The Passion is the Victory; and this not only in relation to divine knowledge but also in relation to perfect human knowledge, which from point to point is in accordance with the divine.

St John therefore, while from time to time he dwells on Christ's glory and on Christ's assertion of His glory, is not recording, as has been said, that which can be understood only of the Eternal Word, but that which properly belongs to the Son of Man, who at each stage, in each fragment of His life, recognised the perfect fulfilment through Himself of the purpose of the Father towards the world. Compare i. 51, viii. 28, xi. 40 ff., xiii. 31, xvii. 4.

24. All the Evangelists agree in representing the Lord as moving among men with a complete and certain knowledge of their characters and needs. Only on very rare occasions does He ask anything, as if all were not absolutely clear before His eyes (e.g. Mark viii. 5; comp. Mark xi. 13; John xi. 34). But St John exhibits this attribute of complete human knowledge most fully, and dwells upon it as explaining Christ's action at critical times. He describes the knowledge both as relative, acquired (yivco'o-Keti/), and absolute, possessed (ei'So/m). In some cases the " perception " (•yi/ovr, eyi/to, yivaxrut i) is that which might be gained "naturally" by the interpretation of some intelligible sign (v. 6, vi. 15, xvi. 19, iv. i). At other times it appears to be the result of an insight which came from a perfect spiritual sympathy, found in some degree among men (i. 42, 47, ii. 24 f., v. 42, x. 14 f., 27: comp. xxi. 17); which reaches from the knowledge of the heart even to the knowledge of God (xvii. 25). The absolute knowledge (ei'Swr, tlSevai) is shewn in connexion with divine things (iii. ii, v. 32, vii. 29, viii. 55, xi. 42, xii. 50), and with the facts of the Lord's being (vi. 6, viii. 14, xiii. i, 3, xix. 28), and also in relation to that which was external (vi. 61, 64, xiii. u, 18, xviii. 4). A careful study of these passages seems to shew beyond doubt that the knowledge of Christ, so far as it was the discernment of the innermost meaning of that which was from time to time presented to Him, and so far as it was an understanding of the nature of things as they are, has its analogues in human powers. His knowledge appears to be truly the knowledge of the Son of Man, and not merely the knowledge of the divine Word, though at each moment and in each connexion it was, in virtue of His perfect humanity, relatively complete. Scripture is wholly free from that Docetism — that teaching of an illusory Manhood of Christ — which, both within the Church and without it, tends to destroy the historic character of the Gospel.

'"INHERE was a man of the Phari- JL sees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:

This first conversation is, together with the Evangelist's comment, the personal application of the general call to repentance, with which the other Gospels open. It is, like the public message of the Baptist or of Christ, a proclamation of the kingdom of heaven, but given under new circumstances.

Under another aspect the history is complementary to the passage which precedes. Christ was unwilling to commit Himself— His Person — to those who had false views; and in the same spirit He laid open the truth to one who sought it. By refusal and by compliance alike He shewed His knowledge of men.

The record consists of two parts. The first part (r — 15) contains a summary of the actual conversation: the second gives the commentary of St John (16— ai).

It is interesting to notice that according to the Sarum Use, following the old Roman Use, the section w. i — ij is read as the Gospel for Trinity Sunday. This Gospel is retained in our Prayer Book, while the modern Roman Use gives Matt, xxviii. 18 ff. The fitness of the selection is obvious. The narrative shews how the Lord deals with the difficulties of the thoughtful man, reproving presumption and elevating faith.

CHAP. III. 1—15. The general outline of the discourse can be marked with fair distinctness, and places the relation in which the new order— the kingdom of God. established through Christ— stands to the old in a clear light

Nicodemus comes as the representative of the well-instructed and thoughtful Jew who looked for the consummation of national hope to follow in the line along which he had himself gone, as being a continuation and not a new beginning (v. a).

The Lord at once checks this anticipation. The kingdom of God cannot, He says, be seen — outwardly apprehended — without a new birth. The right conception of it depends upon the possession of corresponding and therefore fresh powers (v. 3).

But the obvious answer is, Such a change in man is impossible. He is physically, morally, spiritually, one: the result of all the past (v. 4).

This objection would be valid if tlie change belonged to the same order as that to which we naturally belong. But the Lord replies that the birth which He reveals is an entrance to a new order, and wrought by a new power. It has an external element, because it belongs to men now in life: it has an internal element, because it carries men into a new world (v. 5).

No change of man in himself, so far as the life of sense is concerned, would be adequate (v 6).

But none the less the change, though wrought by a mysterious and unseen Power, coming we know not whence, going we know not whither, in the interspace of earthly life, is manifested by its results (7 f.).

Such ideas were strange to Nicodemus, and to the traditional Judaism of the time (v. 9).

Yet even already there were some with the Lord who had known and seen the reality of the teaching and facts by which these ideas were established (10 f.).

And, beyond these "earthly things" of which sensible experience was possible, the new kingdom included in its principles "heavenly things," still farther removed from current beliefs (v. la).

Such was the doctrine of the Person of the Lord; and flowing from it the doctrine of the Redemption through His Cross (13 ff.).

The circle of thought is thus complete. Christianity — in consideration of the completed work of Christ, which is presupposed — stands contrasted with Judaism both as an organization and as a divine economy. The entrance to the Church is through a sacrament not outward only but spiritual also. The facts on which it rests and which it proclaims belong essentially to heaven, not to earth. Viewed in these relations the discourse expands and explains the truth stated generally in its outward form in the Sermon on the Mount: Except jour righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no ease enter into the kingdom of heaven (Matt. v. ao).

1. There ivas a man...'] Now there was a man.... The word man is repeated to emphasize the connexion with ii. 25. Nicodemus offered at once an example of the Lord's inward knowledge of men, and an exception to this general rule which He observed in not trusting Himself to them.

Nicodemus'] Comp. vii. 50, xix. 39. The name was not uncommon among the Jews. Nicodemus ben Gorion (Bunai) who lived to the siege of Jerusalem, has been identified (falsely, v. 4 old) with this one. The traditions as to Bunai, which are very vague and untrust-

2 The same came to Jesus by 3 Jesus answered and said unto night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee,

know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.

Except a man be born B again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old?

worthy, have been collected by Lightfoot on this place, and by Delitzsch, 'Zeitschr. f. Luth. Theol.' 1854.

by night~\ This detail is noticed again in xix. 39 (but not according to the true reading in vii. 50). On each occasion where Nicodemus is mentioned we may see other traces of the timidity to which it was due. He defended Jesus without expressing any personal interest in Him: he brought his offering only after Joseph of Arimathaea had obtained the Body from Pilate.

Rabbi] Such a style of address in the mouth of Nicodemus (v. 10) is significant (comp. i. 38). The title was one of late date, not having come into use till the time of Herod the Great, with the Schools of Shammai and Hillel. It is formed like "Master" from a root meaning great, and was used in three forms, Rab, Rabbi, Rabban (Rabbun, John xx. 16). According to the Jewish saying, "Rabbi was higher than Rab, Rabban than Rabbi, but greater than all was he who [like the prophets] was not called by any such title."

five know] The pronoun is not emphatic. There is however a symptom of latent presumption in the word. Nicodemus claims for himself and for others like him the peculiar privilege of having read certainly the nature of the Lord's office in the signs which He wrought. So much at least he and they could do, if the common people were at fault. Comp. ix. 24. It is natural to connect such a recognition of the divine mission of Jesus with the report of the envoys sent to John: i. 19. Contrast Matt. xii. 24; c. ix. 29.

from God] The words stand first emphatically: "it is from God, not from man, thy title to teach is derived." Jesus had not studied in the schools, but possessed the right of a Rabbi from a higher source. Comp. vii.

a teacher] not different in kind from other teachers. In this conception lay the essence of the error of Nicodemus. The word used here (didao-KoXos) is commonly rendered master, after the Vulgate (magister), a rendering miracles'] signs. Comp. ii. n note. The address of Nicodemus is incomplete, but he evidently wishes to invite the Lord to give a fuller view of His teaching, and that, it may reasonably be supposed, with regard to the kingdom of God of which John had spoken.

3. answered] not the words, but the thoughts. The Lord's answers to questions will be found generally to reveal the true thought of the questioner, and to be fitted to guide him to the truth which he is seeking. Nicodemus implied that he and those like him were prepared to understand and welcome the Lord's teaching. This appeared to him to be of the same order as that with which he was already familiar. He does not address the Lord as if he were ready to welcome Him as "the Christ" or "the prophet." On the other hand, the Lord's reply sets forth distinctly that His work was not simply to carry on what was already begun, but to recreate. The new kingdom of which He was the founder could not be comprehended till after a new birth.

Verily, •verily] i. 51, note. The words by their emphasis generally presuppose some difficulty or misunderstanding to be overcome; and at the same time they mark the introduction of a new thought carrying the divine teaching further forward, w. 5, u. Comp. v. 19, vi. 47, 53- he cannot see the kingdom of God~] Without this new birth — this introduction into a vital connexion with a new order of being, with a corresponding endowment of faculties — no.man can see — can outwardly apprehend — the kingdom of God. Our natural powers cannot realise that which is essentially spiritual. A new vision is required for the objects of a new order. Elsewhere there are refeiences to the change required (Matt, xviii. 3; i Cor. ii. 14) in order that we may observe that which though about us is unregarded (Luke xvii. 20, 21).

cannot] The impossibility lies in the moral characteristics of the man, and not in any external power. Comp. vi. 44, note.

The sense which is commonly given to " see " in this passage, as if it were equivalent

can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?

say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

1 Pet. iii. 10, see good days), entirely sacrifices the marked contrast between "seeing" and " entering into " the kingdom. Part of the same thought is found in Luke xvii. 20.

the kingdom of Cod] The phrase occurs only here and in v. 5 in St John's Gospel (yet compare xviii. 36, 37; Rev. xii. 10), while it is frequent in the Synoptists. St Matthew alone uses, in addition, the phrase "the kingdom of heaven," which Is found as an early variant in v. 5 (in K, &c.). The phrase "the kingdom of God " is found in the Acts, and in each group of St Paul's epistles; but it does not occur in the Epistle to the Hebrews or in the Catholic Epistles (comp.

2 Pet. i. n). The words have always a twofold application, external and internal; arid the immediate application in each case leads on to a more complete fulfilment in the same direction. Thus under the old dispensation the visible Israel was the kingdom of God as typical of the visible catholic church, the spiritual Israel as typical of the true spiritual church. And now again the visible church is the type of the future universal reign of Christ, as the spiritual church is of the consummation of Christ's reign in heaven.

4. Nirodemus saith] It is commonly supposed that Nicodemus either misunderstood the general scope of the Lord's answer, or half-mockingly set it aside. But in fact he employs the image chosen by the Lord in sober earnest to bring out the overwhelming difficulties with which the idea suggested by it was encompassed. It is one indication of the point of his argument that he substitutes for the indefinite phrase used by the Lord (except one (m) be born...) the definite title (how can a man (avfyctiros) be born...).

How can a man be born...] How is it possible for a man whose whole nature at any moment is the sum of all the past, to start afresh? How can he undo, or do away with, the result which years have brought and which goes to form himself? His " I " includes the whole development through which he has passed; and how then can it survive a new birth? Can the accumulation of long ages be removed and the true " self" remain?

when be is old] Nicodemus evidently applies the Lord's words to his own case. The trait is full of life.

can he enter the (a) second time into his mother's womb, and be bornf] Nicodemus takes one part of a man's complex personality only. Is it possible to conceive physical birth repeated? And if not, Nicodemus seems to say to Christ, how then can there be any such moral new birth as you claim? For all life from its first beginning has contributed to the moral character which belongs to each person. The result of all life is one and indivisible.

This thought is one which cannot but occur to every one. It goes to the very root of faith. The great mystery of religion is not the punishment, but the forgiveness, of sin: not the natural permanence of character, but spiritual regeneration. And it is one aspect of this mystery which Nicodemus puts forth clearly.

5. Jesus answered] Christ meets the difficulty by an enlarged repetition of the former statement. As before He had insisted on the

I fact of the new birth, He now reveals the nature of the birth. This involves an outward and an inward element, which are placed side by side.

Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit (or, and spirit)] The preposition used («'£) recalls the phrase "baptize — plunge — in water, in spirit" (Matt. iii. ii), so that the image suggested is that of rising, reborn, out of the water and out of that spiritual element, so to speak, to which the water outwardly corresponds.

The combination of the words water and spirit suggests a remote parallel and a marked contrast. They carry back the thoughts of hearer and reader to the narrative of creation (Gen. i. »V and to the characteristics of natural birth, to which St John has already emphatically referred (i. 13). The water and the spirit suggest the original shaping of the great Order out of Chaos, when the Spirit of God brooded on the face of the waters; and at the same time this new birth is distinctly separated from the corruptible element (blood) which symbolizes that which is perishable and transitory in human life.

These distant references serve in some degree to point to the true sense of the passage. If further we regard the specific Biblical ideas. of water and spirit, when they are separated, it will be seen that water symbolizes purification (comp. i. 25, note) and spirit quickening: the one implies a definite external rite, the other indicates an energetic internal operation. The two are co-ordinate, correlative, complementary. Hence all interpretations which treat the term water here as simply figurative and descriptive of the cleansing power of the Spirit are essentially defective, as they are also opposed to all ancient tradition.