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

31 — 59. This conversation lays open the essential differences between the men who would have given permanence to the Old Dispensation and Christ who fulfilled it. The historical and the spiritual, the external and the moral, the temporal and the eternal, are placed side by side. The contrast is made more complete because Abraham and not Moses is taken as the representative of Judaism.

. The successive pleas of the Jews give in a | natural order the objections which they took I to Christ's claims. " We are Abraham's seed:...how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free?" (y. 33). "Abraham is our father" (v. 39). " We were not born of fornication: we have one Father, even God" (v. 41). 44 Thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil " (v. 48). " Art thou greater than our father Abraham, who died?" (v. 53). " Hast thou seen Abraham? " (v. 5 7). The first three press the claims of inheritance, of kinsmanship, of religious privilege: the last three contain decisive judgments on Christ's character, on His authority, on His implied divine nature.

With the help of the clue thus given it is more easy to follow the course of the argument. At the outset Christ promises freedom to those who honestly follow out an imperfect faith (31 f.). "But we are free" is the answer (v. 33). Not spiritually (w. 33 — 36); nor does descent carry with it religious likeness (w. 37 — 42). Inability to hear Christ betrays and springs from a close affinity with the powers of evil (vv. 43 — 47). Such a judgment is sober and true (in.'. 48 — 50). The word which Christ brings is life-giving (vv. 5I_53); and He Himself was before Abraham (vv. 54 — 58).

31. Among the body of new converts were some Jews — men, that is, characterized as retaining the mistaken views of the nation — who believed Him, who acknowledged

His claims to Messiahship as true, who were convinced by what He said, but who still interpreted His promise and words by their own prepossessions (comp. vi. 15). They believed Him and did not believe In Him. The addition of the word "Jews" and the change in the construction of the verb distinguish sharply this group from the general company in v. 30; and the exact form of the original makes the contrast more obvious (ot irfiTHTTfvKOTts aur<5 'louSaiot, not ot 'lovSatot ot ireiriaTfVKOTfs avrw).

Then said Jesus...~\ Jesus therefore said...which had believed Him. See v. 30,

If ye... disciples indeed] If ye — even ye with your inveterate prejudices and most imperfect faith — abide in my word ye are truly my disciples. The emphasis lies on the pronoun (ye) and not, as we are inclined to place it, on the verb (abide). The sentence is a gracious recognition of the first rude beginning of faith. Even this, if it were cherished with absolute devotion, might become the foundation of better things. It included the possibility of a true discipleship, out of which knowledge and freedom should grow; for there is a discipleship of those who for the time are in ignorance and in bondage.

continue (abide) in my word] The word, the revelation of Christ, is at once the element in which the Christian lives, and the spring of his life. He abides in the word, and the word abides in him (v. 38; i John ii. 14, i- 10). Just so, in the language of St Paul, the believer lives in Christ and Christ in the believer (Gal. ii. 20). The phrase which ^ is used here and in w. 37> 43 (» Xoyos o iftos) expresses the word which is tputy characteristic of Christ and not simply that which He utters. Comp. xv. 9 note. His word is the word of God', xviL d, 14,!?•

32. ye shall know the truth'] Comp. i. 17, v. 33. This Truth is no mere abstract speculation. It is living and personal. Comp. v. 36, and xiv. 6.

the truth shall make you free] The freedom of the individual is perfect conformity to the absolute— to that which is. Intellectually, this conformity is knowledge of the Truth: morally, obedience to the divine Law. This principle is that which Socrates (for example) felt after when he spoke of vice as ignorance; and the Stoics when they maintained that "the wise man alone is free." The Jews also had a saying, " Thou wilt find no freeman but him who is occupied in learning of the Law," and hence they substituted mystically cheruth (freedom) for cbarutb (graven) in Exod. xxxii. 16 ('Perek R. Meir,' 2. See

33 U They answered him, We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free?

34 Jesus answered them, Verily, /Rom. 6. verily, I say unto you, -^Whosoever Tpet.2.19. committeth sin is the servant of

35 And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever.

36 If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.

37 I know that ye are Abraham's seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you.

Taylor, ad loc.~). These different thoughts are summed up in the noble paradox Deo servire at libertas.

33. They answered,.."] i.e. the Jews who believed Him who have just been characterized.

We be Abraham?* seed] to whom the sovereignty of the world has been assured by an eternal and inalienable right. Comp. Matt. iii. 9; Luke iii. 8.

and were never (have never yet been) in bondage to any man] The episodes of Egyptian, Babylonian, Syrian and Roman conquests were treated as mere transitory accidents, not touching the real life of the people, who had never accepted the dominion of their conquerors or coalesced with them.

how...free?] How sayest thou — thou, a solitary if a great teacher, against the voice of the national consciousness — -ye shall be made — become— -free f

34. The answer to the national boast of the Jews lies in the affirmation of the true principle of freedom (Verily, verily. Comp. w. 51, 58).

Whosoever (Every one that) committeth sin] "To commit sin" (iroifiv rffv d/zap- Ttav) is not simply to commit single, isolated, acts of sin, but to live a life of sin (i John iii. 4, 8). The exact contrast is doing the Truth (iii. 21; i John i. 6) on one side and doing righteousness on the other (i John ii. 29, iii. 7). Sin as a whole — complete failure, missing of the mark, in thought and deed — is set over against Truth and Righteousness.

35. The transition from the thought of bondage to sin to that of freedom through the Son is compressed. Bondage to sin is the general type of a false relationship to God. He who is essentially a bondman cannot be a son of God. Whatever may be his outward connexion with God it can last only for a time. Permanent union with God must rest upon an abiding and essential foundation. Even the history of Abraham shewed this: Ishmael was cast out; the promises centred in Isaac. Thus there is a two-fold change in thought, (i) from bondage to sin to the idea of bondage, and (2) from the idea of sonship (contrasted with the idea of bondage) to the Son. Comp. Gal. iv. 22 ff.; Rom. vi. 1 6 ff.

36. This general principle, illustrated in the origin of the Jewish people by the parable of Isaac and Ishmael, has one absolute fulfilment. The Son, the true Son, is one. Through Him alone — in Him, in fellowship with Him — can lasting freedom be gained, seeing that He alone is free, and abideth unchangeable for ever.

If the Son therefore'] The Son and not the Father is represented as giving freedom, in so far as He communicates to others that which is His own.

free indeed] The word translated indeed (o«Ta>r) occurs here only in St John. It appears to express reality in essence from within, as distinguished from reality as seen and known (a\r)6£>s v. 31, i. 48, iv. 42, vi. 14, vii. 40). The conception of freedom which is given in this whole passage presents the principle which St Paul applied to the special case of external ordinances.

37. The conception of freedom having been thus illustrated, the Lord goes back to the claim of the Jews, and admits it in its historical sense.

I know that ye are Abraham's seed; but...'] Outwardly ye are sons; but in fact you seek to destroy the true Son. Your conceptions of the Father's will and purpose are so fatally wrong that they place you — however little the final issue may be apparent now — in deadly hostility to me. You believe me, but you would make me fulfil your thoughts. When you find that this cannot be, you too will see the murderous spirit revealed in you.

The ground of the hostility of the Jews was the fact that the revelation of Christ (my word) made no way, no progress in them. It had in some sense found an entrance, but it made no successful progress in their hearts.

hath no place"] maketh no way in you, hath not free course in you (Ow x^P*^ Vulg. non cafit). The sense given in A.V.

38 I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father.

39 They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abra-

ham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham.

40 But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham.

is not supported by ancient authority; and the idea required is not that of " abiding," but of growth and movement. Comp. Wisd. vii. «3, 24-

38. And yet the word of Christ justly claimed acceptance, for it was derived from immediate knowledge of God. The things which I («'y<") — I myself directly, in my own Person — have seen with (in the presence <if) the Father I speak. Compare iii. n,

/ have seen] The perfect revelation through the Son rests upon perfect and direct knowledge. He speaks to men in virtue of His immediate and open vision of God, which no man could bear (i. 18). The appeal to this Vision of God is peculiar to St John. Comp. iii. 34, vi. 46 (the Father); and though man naturally is unable to attain to the sight of God (v. 37; i John iv. 20), yet in Christ the believer does see Him now (xiv. 7, 9. Comp. iii. n; i John iii. 6; 3 John IT), and shall see Him more completely (i John iii. a. Comp. Matt. v. 8; i Cor. xiii. iz).

and ye do that which ye have seen with your father] Or, according to the more probable muling, the things which ye heard from... The verb in the original (jrowire) is ambiguous. It may be imperative do je, or indicative ye do. If it be taken as an imperative the sense will be: and do ye therefore the things which ye heard from the Father: fulfil in very deed the message which you have received from God, and in which you make your boast. If it be taken as an indicative "the father" must receive opposite interpretations in the two clauses (my Father, even God, and your father, even the devil: rov irarpos is to be read in both places). The sense will then be: and ye therefore, tragically consistent, do the things which ye heard from your father, the devil, whose spiritual offspring ye are. This thought has not yet been distinctly expressed, and in v. 41 your father is distinctly written (rov irarpos vp&v, not roil irarpos), but on the other hand v. 39 may be supposed to imply a special reference.

father — the one head of our whole race and of none other — is Abraham, whom we obey beyond question." If it be taken indicatively then the answer is: "What is this covert reproach as to our obedience to our father? There can be no doubt as to whom we obey. Our father is Abraham." The thought is somewhat different from that in the words ewe are Abraham's seed. This phrase we are Abraham's seed suggests the notion of rightful inheritance; Abraham is our father that of a personal relationship.

If ye were...ye (would do... Abraham] There is great variety of reading in the Greek texts in this passage. The most probable reading gives the sense: If ye are children of Abraham, do (iroifirf) the works of Abraham. Or perhaps it may be rendered: Ifjrea.ro children of Abraham, ye do the works of Abraham, a supposition which is obviously false. The emphasis is laid upon the community of nature (children), and not upon the inheritance of privilege (sons).

a man] The word man (avdpcowov) stands in contrast with of God, and so brings out the element of condescension in the Lord's teaching which exposed Him to the hostility of the Jews; and at the same time it suggests the idea of human sympathy, which He might claim from them (a man), as opposed to the murderous spirit of the power of evil. The title is nowhere else used by the Lord of Himself. Compare Rom. v. 15; i Tim. ii. 5; Acts ii. 22. xvii. 31 (avrjp).

this did not Abraham] who faithfully obeyed each word of God, and paid honour to those who spoke in His name, as to Melchizedek and the angels (Gen. xiv., xviii.). In the traditions of the East, Abraham, "the Friend," is still spoken of as "full of loving-kindness."

•v. 38 the connexion is: "Do not speak to works (as v. 38). The condemnation stands us of some general relationship of the Father, in a solemn isolation, and carries the thought and raise a doubt as to our obedience: our back to v. 38: Do ye... va^^ ye do...

Then said they to him, We be not God; neither came I of myself, but born of fornication; we have one Fa- he sent me.

43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.

42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from

Then said they...'] They said... The line of thought seems to be this. You admit, the Jews argue, that we are historically descended from Abraham (v. 37), but you deny that we are spiritually like Abraham (i>. 39). You speak of another father whose spiritual seed we are. But we appeal to facts. Just as we are literally Abraham's true seed, so are we spiritually. We, with a proud emphasis, ive be (were) not born of fornication. We do not owe our position to idolatrous desertion of Jehovah. We are the offspring of the union of God with His chosen people. Our spiritual descent is as pure as our historical descent.

42. The answer to the boast lies in the natural conditions of all kinsmanship. The true children of God in virtue of their nature can always recognise Him however He shews Himself. The Jews by their misunderstanding destroyed the claim which they set up. Cf. i John v. i.

for I... sent me~\ The Person and the Work of the Lord were both evidences of His Sonship. This He shews by placing His mission first in relation to His divine nature, and then in relation to its historic aspect. In the first clause the two points, the actual mission (I came forth, (£fi\6ov), and the present fulfilment of the mission (I am come, ^KW), are contemplated in their distinctness. In the second (have I come, f\rj\v6a\ they are brought together, so that the mission is regarded in its fulfilment.

proceeded forth and came...~\ came forth from (i.e. out of) God and am come... The first phrase (V* TOV &ov c^Xdoc, Vulg. ex deo processi) is most remarkable, and occurs only in one other place, xvi. 28, where the preposition has been variously disturbed, some copies reading from the side of (napa), and others away from (OTTO), but here there is no variation. The words can only be interpreted of the true divinity of the Son, of which the Father is the source and fountain. The connexion described is internal and essential, and not that of presence or external fellowship. In this respect the phrase must be distinguished from " came forth from " (tj-i\6t 1» OTTO) used of the separation involved in the Incarnation under one aspect (xiii. 3, xvi. 30); and also from "came forth from the side of" (ti-f\6flv irapa), which emphasizes the personal fellowship of the Father and the Son (xvi. 27, xvii. 8). These differences of thought are clearly seen in xvi. 27, 28, 30. Augustine expresses the idea very

well: "Ab illo processit ut Deus, ut asqualis, ut Filius unicus, ut Verbum Patris; et venit ad nos quia Verbum caro factum est ut habitaret in nobis. Adventus ejus, humanitas ejus: mansio ejus, divinitas ejus: divinitas ejus quo vivus, humanitas ejus qua vivus."

and came] and I am come (^KG>). Comp. i John v. 20. In this word the stress is laid wholly on the present.

neither came /...] for neither have I come (eXfJXutfa)... Comp. iii. 2, 19, v. 43, vii. 28, xii. 46, xvi. 28, xviii. 37. Here the present is connected with the past act on which it rests. The deeper meaning of the first clause explains the form of the second. My Being is inherently divine in its derivation; and so it is also in its manifestation to the world, for neither — not even — on this mission of infinite love have I come of myself... This act of supreme sacrifice is in absolute dependence on the Father's will. That which causes offence to you is done in obedience to Him.

43. If the Jews had been true children of God they would have recognised His Son. But yet more than this. They failed not only in instinctive feeling towards Christ, but also in intellectual apprehension of His teaching. They had no love for Him, and therefore they had no understanding of His Gospel. They could not perceive the meaning or the source of His speech, in which little by little He familiarly set forth His work (comp. iv. 42), because they could not grasp the purport ot His Word, the one revelation of the Incarnate Son in which all else was included.

ye cannot] inasmuch as the wilful service of another power hinders you (v. 44). The fatal obstacle was one of their own making. Comp. vii. 7, note.

44. Te~\ There is a strong emphasis on the pronoun in answer to the <we, v. 41, Te so-called children of Abraham, children of God, are of your father, true children of your true father, the devil, and the lusts (desires) of your father it Is your will to do (6e\fTf TToieti'); you deliberately choose as your own the feelings, passions, ends, which belong to him. You are, so to speak, his voluntary organs; what he desires, that you carry out. A strange translation, which the original (« TOV irarpos TOV fita/3.) admits, and which has and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

45 And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not.

46 Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me?

47 h He that is of God hear- * eth God's words: ye therefore hear

been put forward by a few recent critics, found some support in early times, and is adopted by Macarius Magnes without remark (n. c. 21): "ye are of the father of the devil;" as if the Jews and the devil were alike the offspring of another spiritual progenitor. According to this view the Jews are said to be murderers and liars like the devil, who followed the pattern of his (and their) father. But the interpretation finds no support elsewhere in Scripture.

He was a murderer from the beginning] When creation was complete he brought death upon the race of men by his falsehood (Rom. v. iz). For even before he had fallen through want of truth. He stood not in the truth (tv TV dX.) — the divine Sum of all truth — because there is no truth (OI!K t<mv aX.) — no fragmentary truth which has affinity with the Truth — In him.

The reference appears to be to the Fall and not to the death of Abel (i John iii. 12). The death of Abel was only one manifestation of the ruin wrought by selfishness (see i John iii. 8 ff.). Comp. Wisd. ii. 24-

When he speaketh a lie...'] Whenever he (the devil) speaketh a lie (TO t^fGSor, the falsehood as opposed to the Truth as a whole, comp. v. 38), he speaketh of his own; his utterances are purely selfish, he draws them simply from within himself (contrast v. 42; a Cor. iii. 5), for (because) he is a liar, and the father of it.

It is however most probable that this very difficult sentence should be translated quite differently: Whenever a man speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own, for his father also is a liar. A man, that is, by lying reveals his parentage and acts conformably with it. The omission of the subject with the verb is certainly harsh (orav XaXjj), but scarcely more so than the other renderings of the pronoun (aCrov).

45. And because...,] But because... If I had spoken falsehood, such is the argument, you would have recognised that which is kindred to yourselves, but... The final opposition between Christ and the devil lies in the opposition of Truth to Falsehood. And this opposition repeats itself in the children of the two spiritual heads. There must be that which is akin to Truth in us, if we are to believe Truth. If our souls are given up to a lie we cannot believe the truth addressed to us. The contrast between / and ye is made as sharp as possible. " But as for me, because I tell you...(«'yw 8( on)-"

46. Falsehood in action is sin. Falsehood within must shew itself. From words then the appeal is made to acts. Which of you convinceth (convict eth) me of sin? Who. that is, arraigneth me on a just charge of sin? The word sin (d/iapn'a) is not to be taken for error or falsehood, but for "sin" generally, according to the uniform usage of the New Testament, and here probably, from the connexion, as measured by the Law. The words suggest but they do not prove the sinlessness of Christ. The appeal is to a human standard, yet such an appeal on such an occasion carries far more with it.

And if I say the truth...'] If I say truth, that which is true: truth, and not the Truth, the part and not the whole revelation. The absence of sin includes necessarily the absence of falsehood. Hence the Lord takes it as proved that His words are true.

47. We must suppose a pause after 463, and again after 46b. Then follows the final sentence. The true child of God alone can hear the words (ra wnora), each separate message, of God. For this reason, because the power of hearing (v. 43) depended on inward affinity, the Jews could not hear, because they were not of God. Comp. xviii. 37, vii. 17, xii. 48 f., xiv. 23, note; i John iv. 6.

He that is of God] the true child of God, who draws his life and support from Him.

ye therefore... because..."] for this cause ye.because. This combination in St J ohn com-

48 Then answered the Jews, and said unto him, Say we not well that thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil?

of devil; but I honour my Father, and ye do dishonour me.

50 And I seek not mine own glory: there is one that seeketh and judgeth.

monly refers back to a former principle, which is exemplified at the time in the immediate circumstances. Comp. v. 16, 18, x. 17, xii. J8, 39; i John iii. i.

ye are not ofGod~] The whole scope of the argument proves that this state does not exclude true moral responsibility. Comp. i John iii. 7 ff.

48. Then answered the Jews..."] The Jews answered... The key- word (the Jews) is introduced again in this new phase of the argu-

Say ive not iveil...?'] The form of expression shews that the reproach was a current one; so that a glimpse is here offered of the common judgment on Christ. He was in the eye of "the Jews" a Samaritan, a bitter foe of their nationality, and withal a breaker of the Law, and a frantic enthusiast, who was not master of his own thoughts and words. Thus the Jews turned back upon Christ both the charges which He had brought against them, that they were not legitimate children of Abraham, and that they were of the devil as their spiritual father. The pronoun is emphatic (ov K. X. »?/«»s): "Are not we at last right...?"

thou art a Samaritan] There is bitter irony in the original words, from the position of the pronoun at the end of the clause, which it is difficult to reproduce. "Thou that boastest great things of a kingdom and a fulfilment of the Law, after all art but a Samaritan."

49. The contrast is between the persons / and you. "/ (t'yoi), even in these bold mysterious utterances which move your wonder, have not a demon, but speak only words of soberness, which I must speak that I may thereby fulfil my mission. By so doing / honour my Father, and am no Samaritan; and ye are unable to see the Father in the Son, and therefore^ (O/ieli) do dishonour me."

The Lord leaves unnoticed the first epithet of reproach (thou art a Samaritan). He would not recognise the meaning which they attached to a difference of race.

50. And...'] But when I speak of dishonour it is not that I shrink from it: / seek not mine own glory; that quest is not my part, but belongs to another; and there is one that seeketh and judgeth — that seeketh and in the very act of seeking judgeth. For he who has failed in giving to me what is due is thereby condemned; and the will of the Father is that all men should honour the Son even as they honour the Father (v. 23).

that... judgeth] The phrase is superficially opposed to v. 22. But the thought here is ot the divine law which is self-executing in the very nature of things.

51. Verily, verily] These words (as always) introduce a new turn of thought. The claims of the Jews based upon their historical descent and their spiritual sonship have been met and set aside; and the Lord now returns to the declaration of w. 31 f., but with this difference, that what was then regarded in relation to state is now regarded in relation to action. For " abiding in the word '' we have " keeping the word," and for " freedom '' we have "victory over death."

keep my saying] keep my word, "doctrinam credendo, promissa sperando, facienda obediendo," Bengel. The original term for " keep" (rjjptti/) is characteristic of St John. It expresses rather the idea of intent watching than of safe guarding (0iiXao-(r«tv). The opposite to "keeping (rr^pdv) the word" in this form would be to disregard it; the opposite to "keeping ($v\curotiv) the word" in the other form would be to let it slip. " Keeping the word " of Christ is also to be distinguished from "keeping His commandments" (i John ii. 3, 5); the former marks the observance of the whole revelation in its organic completeness, and the latter the observance of definite precepts.

The " sight " described here is that of long, steady, exhaustive vision, whereby we become slowly acquainted with the nature of the object to which it is directed. The words must be compared with Gen. ii. 17. There is that in the believer which never dies, even though he seems to die; and conversely, Adam

If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death.

52 Then said the Jews unto him, Now we know that thou hast a devil. Abraham is dead, and the prophets j and thou sayest, If a man keep my saying, he shall never taste of death.

53 Art thou greater than our father Abraham, which is dead? and

the prophets are dead: whom makest thou thyself?

54 Jesus answered, If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my Father that honoured! me; of whom ye say, that he is your God:

55 Yet ye have not known him; but I know him: and if I should say, I know him not, I shall be a liar like

died at the moment of his disobedience, though he seemed still to live. Comp. xi. 26, vi. 50.

death'] Just as "life" in St John is present, or rather eternal (xvii. 3), so "death" is not an event but a state, that selfish isolation which is the negation of life. Comp. xi. 25 f., vi. 50, v. 24; i John iii. 14.

52. Then said the Jews..."] The Jews said... The name is repeated here as in v. 48 at the beginning of the answer to the new self-revelation.

<we know] The direct statement, made in apparent good faith, and yet (as the hearers thought) obviously and flagrantly false, could only be explained on the supposition of evil possession.

Abraham... death~\ God had spoken to Abraham and to the prophets, and they had kept His word and yet died, who then was this with a word more powerful? For the objection is intensified by the fact that the Lord did not simply claim life for Himself, but, what was far more, claimed to communicate eternal life.

taste of death] The inaccuracy of quotation is significant. The believer, even as Christ (Hebr. ii. 9), does "taste of death," though he does not "see" it in the full sense of -v. 51.

54 f. The Lord prefaces His answer as to the relative dignity of Abraham and Himself by a revelation of the principle in obedience to which the answer is given. It does not come from any personal striving after glory, but in obedience to the will of the Fatl er which the Son knows absolutely and obeys. The Son " makes Himself" to be nothing: He is, and He declares Himself to be that which the Father, so to speak, makes Him.

If I honour myself my honour...] If I, I in obedience to my own impulse, glorify myself my glory... Comp. v. 31.

it is my Father that honour eth me] there is my Father that glorifieth me. I glorify not myself, nor need I to do it; there is one that glorifieth me... The construction is exactly parallel with v. 50.

55. Yet ye have not known him] And, while you make this claim (comp. v. 20, note), ye have not come to know him (ov\ tyvumaTt) by the teaching of the Law and of the Prophets, and now of the Son Himself, but I know (otda) Him, essentially; and if I should dissemble my knowledge, if 1 should withhold the message which I have to give, if I should say I know Him not, I shall be like unto you, a liar.

I know him] Comp. vii. 29. For the difference between progressive and absolute knowledge see iii. 10 f. The special ignorance of these Jews stands in contrast with the knowledge which was characteristic of the nation: iv. 22.

a liar] for to hide the truth is no less falsehood than to spread error. Compare i John ii. 4, 22, iv. 20, v. 10.

but...'] even in this crisis of separation, when my words will be misunderstood and so widen the breach between us (cf. v. 26), I proclaim the knowledge which I have and fulfil my mission by keeping His word.

and keep his saying (word)] The relation of the Son to the Father is attested by the same active devotion as the relation of the believer to Christ (v. 51). Comp. xv. 10.

56. This then is the answer. There is no such comparison as you dream of between A brahain and me. Abraham your father, the

unto you: but I know him, and keep his saying.

56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw /'/, and was glad.

57 Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?

59 Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.

father whom you delight to name (v. 53) and in whom you trust (v. 39), rejoiced with the joy of exultation in his eager desire, in his confident hope, to see my day, and he saw it and was glad. I am He for whom he looked as the fulfilment of all that was promised to him; and you, who profess to be his children, pretend that I do him dishonour in claiming: power which he could not have.

rejoiced (»;'yaXXtacraTO, exulte^) to see} The peculiar construction (H/O. 48/7, Vulg. ut 'videref) may be explained by consi4ering that the joy of Abraham lay in the effort to see that which was foreshadowed. It lay not in the fact that he saw, nor was it in order to see; but partial vision moved him with the confident desire to gain a fuller sight. Winer's translation (' Gramm.' § xciv. 8, c) "that he should see " obscures this, sense.

my day] That is probably the historic manifestation of the Christ (comp. Luke xvii. 22) without any special reference to any particular point in it as the Passion. It may be however that the historic work of Christ is regarded in its consummation in the day which is spoken of emphatically as " that day," " the day of the Son of man" (Luke xvii. 30), " the day of Christ" (Phil. i. 6, 10, ii. 16).

be saw it] The reference cannot be to any present vision in Paradise (comp. Hebr. xi. 13). The tense of the original is decisive against this view. All conjecture must be uncertain, but there is nothing unnatural in the supposition that the faith shewn in the offering up of Isaac may have been followed by some deeper, if transient, insight into the full meaning of the promises then renewed. Such faith was in itself, in one sense, a vision of the day of Messiah.

According to the Jewish tradition ('Bereshith R.*44 Wtlnsche) Abraham saw the whole history of his descendants in the mysterious vision recorded in Gen. xv. 8 ff. Thus he is said to have " rejoiced with the joy of the Law."

57. Then said the Jews...'] The Jews therefore said..., still persisting in the literal interpretation of the words.

fifty years old] This age was the crisis of completed manhood (Num. iv. 3). There was an early tradition (probably based on this passage) that Christ was about 50 years old at the Passion (Iren. 'Adv. Hser.' n. 22. 5 f.). This opinion was said to be derived from St John. However strange it may appear, some such a view is not inconsistent with the only fixed historic dates which we have with regard to the Lord's life, the date of His birth, His Baptism, and the banishment of Pilate.

hast thou seen...] The language of the Lord is again (v. 52) misquoted; and on this occasion the misquotation completely misrepresents the thought.

58. There can be no doubt as to the meaning of the final answer which follows as a natural dimax to what had been said before. Abraham died: Christ was the Giver of life. Abraham was the father of the Jews: Christ was the centre of Abraham's hope. Abraham came into being as a man: Christ is essentially as God. And this closing revelation is prefaced by the solemn words which fix attention upon its substance. Verily, verify, I say unto yo«? Before Abraham was — was born, came to be — / am (jrpiv 'A. ytveo-Oai tyta ct/u, Vulg. antequam fieret Abraham ego sum).

I am] The phrase marks a timeless existence. In this connexion "I was" would have expressed simple priority. Thus there is in the phrase the contrast between the created and the uncreated, and the temporal and the eternal. At the same time the ground of the assurance in -v. 51 is made known. The believer lives because Christ lives, and lives with an absolute life (comp. xiv. 19).

59. "Then took they up...] They took up therefore..., as understanding rightly the claim which was advanced in the last words. If the sentence had been a simple affirmation of the claim to Messiahship, it would have been welcomed. Comp. x. 24. But it was the affirmation of a new interpretation of Messiah's nature and work. Comp. x. 30 f.

going through... passed by] This clause must be omitted in accordance with a combination of the best authorities.

17). And Augustine suggests that the passage was removed from the [Latin] text by "some who were of slight faith, or rather hostile to the true faith," to avoid scandal (' De Conj. Adult.' II. 7). Several scholia which notice its omission remark that it was found in " ancient " or " most ancient" copies.

2. It is found in most Latin copies, be, £c., Vulg.; in the Jerusalem Syriac; in the Althiopic, and in some later versions.

3. It was read as part of the Gospel by Augustine, Ambrose, and many later Latin Fathers; and it is quoted in the Apostolical Constitutions (n. 24).

4. It is found in the Calendar of Lessons in K (ninth cent.); and it has been read in the Greek Church, partially but not universally, at the Festivals of several saints from a date earlier than tjie eighth century. It was also read in the service at Rome in the time of Gregory the Great.

1. The text of D is conspicuous for additions similar in character to this narrative, though less in extent (e.g. Luke vi. 5); and some of these (e.g. Matt. xx. 28) obtained a wide currency, though they cannot be considered to be a part of the authentic evangelic text.

2. The statement of Jerome is, of course, beyond question; but even he implies that the majority of copies was on the other side; and it is clear from other similar statements that he did not speak on critical questions after a very large examination of authorities. The general assertions of late MSS. as to "the ancient copies" are neutralised by opposite assertions in other MSS.

3. The early Latin copies are just those which admitted interpolations most freely (e.g. Matt. xx. 28); and it is easily intelligible that if Jerome found any Gjreek authority for the narrative he would not remove the history from the text. The fact therefore that he left it in the Latin text (he did not insert it) proves no more than that he did not feel bound to expunge it.

The Jerusalem Syriac is a lectionary, and though it abounds in very ancient readings, the MS. is not earlier than the eleventh century.

4. The date of the present text of the Apostolic Constitutions is too uncertain to admit of the conclusion being drawn that the narrative was found by the writer in the Greek text of St John in the third century. He may have quoted the narrative (e.g.) from St Luke or from tradition. It is however not improbable that the narrative may have found a place in some Greek texts of the Gospel in the third century, though there is no direct evidence of the fact.

External and internal evidence combine to shew beyond all reasonable doubt that this remarkable narrative is not a genuine portion of the Gospel of St John.

1. It is omitted by all the oldest Greek MSS. with one exception, and by a considerable number of those later MSS. which generally give a very ancient text: K[A]B[C]LT XA> 33. I3i, IJ7» ipe, &c. [A and C are defective, but it is certain that they did not contain the passage from an estimate of the contents of the missing pages; L (eighth cent.) and A (ninth cent.) indicate a knowledge of the existence of the narrative, which was evidently not found in their archetypes, by leaving a small gap.]

2. The passage is marked by asterisks or obeli in many MSS. which contain it. Euthymius Zigabenus [more correctly, Zygadenus, fin8], the earliest Greek commentator who writes upon it, observes that it is not found in "the accurate copies" or is obelized in them, and that therefore it is not to be accounted genuine.

(a) At the end of the Gospel by i and about ten other MSS. (V) After vii. 36 by 225. (c) After Luke xxi. by 69 and three other

4. It is omitted by important Latin copies af, &c., by the Egyptian versions, by the. Old Syriac (the Berlin fragment), by the Gothic version, and by the best MSS. of the Peshito and of the Armenian versions.

5. It was certainly not read as a part of the Gospel by Tertullian, Origen, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria; nor is there any evidence that it was known by Cyprian or Hilary.

6. The earliest Greek text (that in D) differs very considerably from the common text; and the variations in the section generally are far more considerable than in portions of the authentic text of St John.

In other words, it is omitted by the oldest representatives of every kind of evidence (MSS., versions, fathers); and the critical character of the text is such as to distinguish it from the rest of the book with which it is connected.

i. It is found in D and in the mass of the later uncial and cursive manuscripts.

Jerome mentions that it was found in his time " in many Greek and Latin MSS. in the Gospel according to John " (' adv. Pelag.' n.

passage does not carry its existence as a part of the Gospel beyond the date given by direct documentary evidence.

6. Augustine's assertion as to the removal of the passage from the text of St John, on prudential grounds, which has been maintained by the modern scholars who defend the genuineness of the passage, is wholly at variance with the cardinal facts of the history of the text of the New Testament. Wilful corruptions of the apostolic writings, however recklessly they were imputed in controversy, are happily in fact all but unknown. Changes, and even such a change as the insertion of this passage, can be accounted for without recourse to the assumption of dishonesty.

Thus the only natural explanation of the unquestioned facts is that the narrative was current in the third century in a Greek but not in a Latin text, though over a narrow range; that towards the end of the fourth century it was introduced in various places, but particularly where it now stands, and was thence taken into the Latin texts; that from the sixth century onwards it was found more and more frequently in the Gonstantinopolitan texts and all but universally in the Latin texts, and in the course of time was partially introduced into other versions.

i. The language of the narrative is different from that of St John both in vocabulary dnd in structure.

Thus St John nowhere uses the terms TO opos TWV i\ai&v, ol ypa^aTfif, Karaicpti/d), which are found in all the Synoptists; nor again, iras 6 Xow, which is common in St Luke, while Xaoj occurs in St John only in a special sense in xi. 50, xviii. 14; nor opdpov (St Luke), but jrpui or jrpcotas; nor Kadicras f8i8ao-K€v; nor nopevtcrdai in the simple sense of "to go" without the subsidiary notion of a purpose (even in iv. 50).

a. The general "tone" of the narrative is alien from St John, and akin to the tone of the common Synoptic basis.

But it may be asked how the narrative came to be inserted where we find it? The answer can, I believe, be given with tolerable certainty. A narrative very similar to this was preserved by Papias, and was found also in the Gospel according to the Hebrews (Euseb. ' H. E.' in. 40). The object of Papias was to collect traditions illustrative of " the oracles of the Lord." It is then a most natural con • jecture (Lightfoot, ' Contemporary Review,' Oct. 1875, P- 847) that this incident was given by Papias in illustration of ch. viii. 15; and so was inserted in the text, on which it had been originally a marginal note, in the nearest convenient place. Comp. Ewald, 'Joh. Schr.' I.

The incident appears to belong to the last visit to Jerusalem, so that the position which it occupies in St Luke is perhaps historically correct.

25. Even the i'ame...the beginning] The numerous interpretations of this most obscure sentence fall into two main classes, according as it is taken affirmatively (i), or interrogatively (2).

(i) The affirmative interpretations again are twofold. In some rrjv ap-^v is taken adverbially, and in others as parallel with the relative on (o ™).

According to the latter interpretation the sense is: "I am the Beginning (Rev. xxi. 6), that which I am even saying to you." This appears to be the sense of the early Latin translation: Initium quod et loquor uobis. But even if rrfv apx^v could be attracted to on. in this way at the beginning of the sentence, the use of XaX<u and not Xe'yw appears to be fatal to such an interpretation, for it evidently refers to the conversation, the general teaching, of Christ, and not to any specific declaration.

It may be here noticed that Augustine's interpretation, which is based upon the later Latin text, Principium, quia et loquor uobis, is obviously inconsistent with the Greek. " Believe me to be the Beginning, because I am even speaking with you, because, that is, I have become humble for your sake..." This interpretation however was followed by many Latin fathers who were ignorant of Greek.

If TTfv apxty be taken adverbially, it may have the sense of " altogether, essentially," or " to begin with, first of all," or (perhaps) " all along."

(a) " Altogether, essentially I am what I even speak to you. My Person is my teaching." The words of Christ are, to express the idea otherwise, the revelation of the Word Incarnate.

(/3) "To begin with, first of all, I am even that which I am saying, that is, the Light of the world, the source of life."

(•y) " Even that which I am speaking and have spoken to you, all along, from the first, that I am. My words from the beginning have made known my Person."

Of these interpretations (a) seems to be open to the least objection on the score of the Greek, and to give the best sense. In (/3) Xc'ya and not XaXo> would be required; and the sense given to TTJV apx7?" in (y) is very questionable, while A.V. which gives a true sense to rffv dp^rjv would require e'AoAqo-a.

(a) On the whole it is probably best to treat the sentence as interrogative; or (which gives the same sense) as a sad exclamation which is half interrogative. This is the sense which is given to the words by the Greek fathers.

" How is it that I even speak to you at all? " "Why do I even so much as speak with you? " Or, " To think that, can it be that, I even speak with you."

The interrogative sense of on is illustrated by Mark ix. a8, (ii. 7), ix. u. And for the order see Matt. xv. 16.

The interrogative rendering: " Do you ask that which all along I am even saying to you? " leaves TTJV dp^v without any real force.

(j) Others have connected TTJV dpxqv with the next clause, "To begin with... I have many things to say... concerning you." But no adequate sense can be given in this case to the intervening words.

44. The readingof the best MSS.(XB*DLX, &c.), OYKGCTHK6N, that is OVK forrjKfv, which has been disregarded by editors, and arbitrarily altered Jnto ovx tvrtjKfv (Tischendorf prints OVK (<mjKtv), is undoubtedly correct. Gomp. Rev. xii. 4. The verb is the imperfect of trnj/oo (ch. i. a6; Rom. xiv. 4; i Thess. iii. 8; i Cor. xvi. 13). The Vulgate, which regularly renders (tmjxa sto (Matt. xii. 47. xx. 6; Acts i. n, xxvi. 6, &c.), here translates rightly in veritate non stetit. The context requires a past tense, and the strong form or the verb ("stand firm:" comp. i. 26, is perfectly appropriate to the place.

ND as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth.

The true reading in x. aa (Then <was the Feast of Dedication) determines that ch. ix. and x. i — ai is connected with the Feast of Dedication, and not, as is commonly supposed, with the Feast of Tabernacles. The latter connexion has found support from the false gloss added to viii. 59, which appears to have been suggested by the "passing by" i^ ix. i. As it is ch. ix. begins abruptly like ch. vi. The contents of ix. i — x. 21 have a close affinity with x. 12—39. The thought throughout is of the formation of the new congregation, the new spiritual Temple.

The section falls into three main divisions: the sign, with the judgments which were passed upon it (ix. i— 12, 13 — 34); the beginning and characteristics of the new society (ix. 35 — 41, x. i — ai); Christ's final testimony as to Himself (x. ai — 39).

The narrative of the healing is marked by the same kind of vivid details as we have noticed before. The occasion of the miracle, the peculiarity of the mode of cure, the reference to Siloam, are without direct parallels, and yet in perfect harmony with other narratives. The variety of opinion among the people and the mention of "the man called Jesus" belong to the experience of an immediate witness.

where the man was waiting for the alms of worshippers (Acts iii. a). The word (irapdyttv), which is rarely used (Matt. ix. 9; Mark ii. 14; Matt. ix. 27, xx. 30; Mark xv. ai), directs notice to the attendant circumstances. The narrative has been generally connected with the events of the preceding chapter owing to the false reading in viii. 59. It stands really as an independent record.

be savi] Something in the man's condition seems- to have arrested the attention of the Lord. The word is significant. Naturally we should have expected "the disciples saw and asked."

blind from his birth] The miracles recorded in St John's Gospel stand out each as a type of its class. Hence stress is laid upon this special fact.

2. The thoughts of the controversy recorded in ch. viii. seem to have passed away. At once "a great calm" has come. The Lord stands in the centre of His disciples, and not of an angry crowd. Yet the question of the disciples moves in the same spiritual region as the speculations on inherited religious privileges and divine Sonship. Such a question is perhaps the simplest and commonest form of inquiry into our relation to those who have gone before us.

3 Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.

that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work.

5 As long as I am in the world, al achap.,.9. am the light of the world.

should be... by the just sequence of punishment on guilt. It is assumed that the particular suffering was retributive. The only doubt is as to the person whose sin was so punished; whether it was the man himself either before birth or in some former state of existence, or the man's parents. The latter alternative was familiar to the Jews (Exod. xx. 5; Hebr. vii. 10); and there are traces of a belief in the pre-existence of souls, at least in later Judaism (Wisd. viii. 20).

Perhaps it is most natural to suppose that the question, which in itself belongs to a Jewish mode of thought, was asked without any distinct apprehension of the alternatives involved in it. Lightfoot (ad loc.) has a curious collection of Rabbinical passages illustrating different forms of opinion on this subject.

born blind] From the disciples' acquaintance with this fact it may be supposed that the history of the man was popularly known.

3. The Lord's answer deals only with the special case (comp. Luke xiii. i ff., and for the general idea towards which it is directed, Acts xxviii. 4); and that only so far as it is an occasion for action and not a subject for speculation. We are not concerned primarily with the causes which have determined the condition or circumstances of men, with the origin of evil in any of its forms, but with the remedying of that which is amiss and remediable. It is true always, in one way or other, that for us evil is an opportunity for the manifestation of the works of God. But evil never ceases to be evil; and it may be noticed that at the proper occasion the Lord indicates the connexion between sin and suffering: v. 14, Matt. ix. a.

Neither hath...sinned, nor...~\ Neither did... sin, «or...so as to bring down on him, that is, this particular retribution.

but that... in him] but he was born blind that the works of God, the works of redemptive love which He has sent me to accomplish, may be made manifest in him. Comp. v. 36. The works themselves are real even though we cannot see them: they need (from this side) manifestation only. For the emphatic but compare xv. 25, note. Underneath what we can see and conclude there lies a truer cause of that which perplexes us most.

in him} The man is not treated as an instrument merely, but as a living representative of the mercy of God. His suffering is the occasion and not the appointed preparation for the miracle, though when we regard things from the divine side we are constrained to see them m their dependence on the will of

4. / must...sent me] According to the more probable reading: we must (work tht works of Him that sent me. So the Lord associates His disciples with Himself as before in iii. 1 1. The truth is general and holds good of the Master and of the servants. They are sent for the manifestation of the works of God. But the obligation of the servant's charge comes from the Master's mission. The works are no longer regarded as "the works of God" generally, but "the works of Him that sent" the Son.

while it is day] while the appointed time for working still remains: Ps. civ. (ciii.) 23. "Day" and "night" are taken in their most general sense as the seasons for labour and rest in regard to the special end in view. After the Passion there was no longer the opportunity for the performance of the works characteristic df the historic Life of Christ. Then in one sense "night" came, and in a yet fuller sense a new day dawned for new works, to be followed by another night, another close. It is not to be supposed that the "night" here describes an abiding and complete rest of Christ: it presents rest only from the works which belong to the corresponding "day."

The image partially finds place in the 'Sayings of the Jewish Fathers:' "R. Tarphon (Tryphon) said, The day is short, and the task is great, and the workmen are sluggish, and the reward is much, and the Master of the house is urgent" ('Pirke Aboth,' 11. 19).

the night cometh] night cometh... The order is significant. The emphasis is laid upon the certain and momentary advance of that which ends all successful efforts in the present order: there cometh swiftly and inevitably night, when no man (one) can work. The necessary cessation of labour is expressed in its completest form.

5. As long as (Vulg. quamdiu)... world] Whensoever I am in the world (orav...^)... The indefinite form of the statement suggests the thought of the manifold revelations of the Word. " Whensoever" and not only during that revelation which was then in the course of being fulfilled, but also in the time of the Patriarchs, and of the Law, and of the Prophets, and through the later ages of the Church, Christ is the light of the world. This

6 When he had thus spoken, he in the pool of Siloam, (which is by

Sc^«pon °^ t^le sP'tt:le> and ne " anointed the eyes of eyes of the blind man with the clay, 7 And said unto him, Go, wash

nterpretation, Sent.) He went his way therefore, and washed, and came seeing.

universality of application is further brought out by the omission of the personal pronoun in both clauses of the sentence. The stress is thrown upon the character of the manifestation of the Son, and not as in the former place where the phrase occurs (viii. 12) upon the Person of the Son.

the light of the world'] The omission of the definite article (<£<Sf r. *., as compared with viii. iz, TO (f)a>s r. K.) is not without significance; Christ is "light to the world" as well as "the one light of the world." The character is unchangeable, but the display of the character varies with the occasion. In this case it is shewn in personal illumination. Bodily sight is taken as the representation of the fulness of human vision (irv. 39 ff.).

6. he spat on the ground...] Com p. Mark vii. 33, viii. 23. We must suppose that the attention of the blind man was by this time fully roused, perhaps by the conversation just recorded, or by some words addressed to him.

The application of spittle to the eyes, which was considered very salutary (comp. Tac. 'Hist.' IV. 81), was expressly forbidden by Jewish tradition, on the Sabbath. See Wetstein or Lightfoot, ad loc. The kneading of the clay further aggravated the offence.

be anointed... the clay] He anointed his eyes with the clay. At first Christ may seem to work against the end for which His help is sought. Here He sealed, so to speak, the eyes which He designed to open. It is impossible to determine why the Lord chose this method of working the cure. In the end the mode proved all-important.

Siloam, (which is by interpretation (which is Interpreted), Sent] The idea which underlies this note of the Evangelist appears to be that in vii. 37 f. The stream which issued from the heart of the rock was an image of Christ. In the passage of Isaiah (viii. 6) "the waters of Siloah that go softly" are taken as the type of the divine kingdom of David resting on Mount Zion, in contrast with "the waters of the river [Euphrates], strong and mighty, even the king of Assyria and all his glory," the symbol of earthly power. (Comp. Delit'/sch, /. c.) So therefore here Christ works through "the pool," the "Sent," sent, as it were, directly from God, that He may lead the disciples once again to connect Him and

His working with the promises of the prophets. Thus, in some sense, God Himself, whose law Christ was accused of breaking, was seen to cooperate with Him in the miracle. At the same time the charge tried the faith of the blind man.

Siloam'] The name of the pool properly indicates a discharge of waters (airocrroKri) "sent," in this case, from a subterranean channel. For the form see Ewald, ' Gramm.' § 156, 2, a. The pool, which still retains its old name, Birket Silwan, is one of the few undisputed sites at Jerusalem. It lies at the mouth of the Tyropoeon Valley, south of the temple, "at the foot of Mount Moriah," in

Jerome's words. " The two pools of Siloam were probably made for the irrigation of the gardens below, and seem always to have been a favourite place for washing purposes; besides the surface drainage they received a supply of water from the Fountain of the Virgin by means of a subterranean channel. The upper pool is small " [an oblong reservoir cut in the rock, about fifty feet long, sixteen feet broad, and eighteen feet deep], "and at the south-west corner has a rude flight of steps leading to the bottom; but the whole is fast going to ruiri, and the accumulation of rubbish around is very great; a little below this a dam of solid masonry has been built across the valley, forming the end of the lower and larger pool, now nearly filled up with rich soil and covered with a luxuriant growth of fig trees "

Sent] The interpretation of the name connects the pool with Christ (xvii. 3, &c.), and not with the man. See above.

8. The neighbours therefore...] No mark of time is given. This scene may belong to the following day, as -v. 13 fF. certainly do they which...was blind] they which saw — used habitually to see, behold as a conspicuous object (ol 6(a>powT(s)— him before that (or because) he was a beggar. The particle is capable of both meanings (that, because). In other passages (iv. 19, xii. 19) St John uses the phrase certainly for " see...that...;" here however "because" suits the context better: because he was a beggar in a public spot, they were familiar with his appearance.

they which before had seen him that he was blind, said, Is not this he that sat and begged?

9 Some said, This is he: others said) He is like him: but he said, I am he.

10 Therefore said they unto him, How were thine eyes opened?

11 He answered and said, A man that is called Jesus made clay, and anointed mine eyes, and said unto me, Go to the pool of Siloam, and wash: and I went and washed, and I received sight.

1 2 Then said they unto him, Where is he? He said, I know not.

13 f They brought to the Pharisees him that aforetime was blind.

14 And it was the sabbath day when Jesus made the clay, and opened his eyes.

15 Then again the Pharisees also asked him how he had received his sight. He said unto them, He put clay upon mine eyes, and I washed, and do see.

1 6 Therefore said some of the Pharisees, This man is not of God,

The circumstantiality of the narrative which follows seems to shew that the man himself related the events to the evangelist.

9. Some said... others said, He...'] Others said...others said No, but he... Two classes of people apparently are mentioned different from the first group.

he said} The pronoun here and in w. 1 1, 12, 28, 36 is remarkable (eWtvoff). It presents the man as the chief figure in a scene viewed from without. " He, that signal object of the Lord's love...." (comp. ii. 21, v. n, (x. 6), (xiii. 30), xix. 21), and not "He himself," in contrast with the opinions of others.

10. How...'] How then.... It is to be observed that all the stress is laid upon the manner and not upon the fact. Comp. trv. 15, 19, 26.

A man (The man, Vulg. Hie homo) that is called Jesus'} Not "that is called the Christ." He had learnt the personal name of the Lord, but says nothing of His claims to Messiahship. The form of the sentence, however, points to the general attention which was directed to the Lord. It is "the man" not '-a man; " the man of whom report speaks often.

I received sight] Strictly, I recovered my sight (avfjSKtfya) (Matt, xi.5; Mark x. 51 f.; Luke xviii. 41 ff.), for sight by nature belongs to a man even though he has been born blind. This sense appears to us better than: " I looked up" (Mark xvi. 4).

12. Then said they (And they said)...Where is he (e/ceii/os)] that strange, unwelcome teacher, of whom we hear so much. Comp. vii. ii, v. 10 note.

The examination of the man who was healed offers a typical example of the growth of faith and unbelief. On the one side the Pharisees, who take their stand on a legal preconception, grow more determined and violent: 1 6 (debate, division); 24 (Judgment); 34 (disgraceful expulsion). On the other side the man gains courage and clearness in his answers: 17 (He is a prophet. Opinion); 30 ff. (acceptance of discipleship~)\ and finally he openly confesses Christ, v. 38.

The characters thus live and move, and shew marked traits of individuality. There is nothing vague, nothing conventional, in the narrative. The record includes three scenes: the first examination of the man (13 — 17); the examination of his parents (18 — 23); the final examination and expulsion of the man

13. They brought (bring) to the Pharisees'] as the recognised judges in religious questions. There were in Jerusalem two smaller courts, or Synagogue Councils, and the man was probably taken to one of these. In the later sections of the narrative, -w. 18 ff., the general title the Jews is used.

14. it 'was the sabbath day when...'] The original phrase, according to the oldest text, is remarkable. It reads literally, "It was a sabbath on the day on which," i.e. the day was a Sabbath whereon (rjv o-c^/3. «/ § jfifpa). Comp. v. 9.

made the clay] The words mark the feature in the miracle which technically gave offence. Comp. v. 12.

15. Then again...'] Again therefore the Pharisees also... as not content with the report of others (w. 10, ii).

bow he had received...} how he received... The answer is more curt than before (v. n); and there is already something of impatience in the tone of it, which breaks out afterwards, v. 27. The making of the clay and the command to go to Siloam are passed over.

16. Therefore said...'] because to the legalist no other conclusion seemed to be possible.

because he keepeth not the sabbath day. Others said, How can a man that is a sinner do such miracles? And there was a division among

17 They say unto the blind man again, What sayest thou of him, that he hath opened thine eyes? He said, He is a prophet. »

1 8 But the Jews did not believe concerning him, that he had been blind, and received his sight, until they called the parents of him that had received his sight.

19 And they asked them, saying, Is this your son, who ye say was born blind? how then doth he now see?

20 His parents answered them and said, We know that this is our son, and that he was born blind:

21 But by what means he now seeth, we know not; or who hath opened his eyes, we know not: he is of age; ask him: he shall speak for himself.

22 These words spake his parents, because they feared the Jews: for the Jews had agreed already, that if any man did confess that he was Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue.

23 Therefore said his parents, He is of age; ask him.

24 Then again called they the man that was blind, and said unto him,

Others (Buto^vrv) said, Honu can... a sinner} It is presupposed therefore that Christ had valid authority for the apparent violation of the Sabbath.

a division} as before "in the multitude" (vii. 43) and afterwards "in the Jews" (x. 19). One party, it will be noticed, laid stress upon the fact, the others upon a preconceived opinion by which they judged of the fact.

What...eyesf\ What dost thou (<rv) say — we appeal to your own judgment and to the impression made upon you — What do at thou say of him, seeing that he opened thine eytsf For the construction, see ii. 18.

18 — 23. The examination of the parents of the man follows the examination of the man himself. They shrink with singular naturalness from incurring the displeasure of the dominant party.

18. But the Jews..."] The Jews therefore...seeing that they could not reconcile a real miracle with disregard to the Sabbath. They probably suspected some collusion on the part of the man.

The Jews represent the incredulous section of the Pharisees (v. 16). Comp. v. aa.

19. And they asked}... And asked...The words are closely connected with the preceding clause.

•who ye say was...} of whom ye (v/mr) •"*/, from whom we may expect certain information, that he was...

therefore answered and said, because they were unwilling to incur any responsibility.

we know not..,<we (?^ms) know not} The emphatic insertion of the pronoun in the second case gives a new turn to the phrase: "we directly, of our own experience, know not, as you appeal to us, who opened his eyes."

he is of age... himself ~\ ask him, not us: heisofage, and therefore his answer will be valid, and he will not be slow to give it: he will speak for himself.

bad agreed... that...} had formed a compact among themselves (vvvfrtdfivro, Vulg. conspiraverant) to secure this end, that... Comp. Acts xxiii. ao. The idea is not that they had determined on a punishment, but that they had determined on an aim.

that he was Christ} The question had already been publicly debated, vii. a 6 ff.; though the Lord had not so revealed Himself in Jerusalem (x. 34) as He had done in Samaria (iv. a6).

put out of the synagogue'} xii. 42, xvi. a. This excommunication appears to have been exclusion from all religious fellowship (comp. Matt. xviii. 17) from "the congregation of Israel." In later times there were different degrees of excommunication, the Curse (Din), and the Isolation (Nn»K>). Comp. Buxtorf, 'Lex.' s. v. 'HI Lightfoot and Wunsche, ad loc.

23. Therefore...] For this cause... (Sta TOVTO), seeing that the hostility of the Jews was now passing into action.

Give God the praise: we know that this man is a sinner.

25 He answered and said, Whether he be a sinner or no, I know not: one thing I know, that, whereas I was blind, now I see.

26 Then said they to him again, What did he to thee? how opened he thine eyes?

27 He answered them, I have told you already, and ye did not hear: wherefore would ye hear it again? will ye also be his disciples?

28 Then they reviled him, and said, Thou art his disciple; but we are Moses' disciples.

29 We know that God spake unto Moses: as for this fellow, we know not from whence he is.

30 The man answered and said unto them, Why herein is a marvellous thing, that ye know not from whence he is, and yet he hath opened mine eyes.

3 1 Now we know that God heareth not sinners: but if any man be a conflict is brought to a decisive issue. The man chooses the Saviour whom he had experienced before the Moses of the schools.

24. Then again...the man..."] So they called the man a second time: we must suppose that he was dismissed after the confession in v. 17. As they could no longer question the fact, they seek to put a new construction upon it.

Give God the praise] Give glory to God. The phrase (8os 86gav r<5 $e<5) is a solemn charge to declare the whole truth. Compare Josh. vii. 19; i Esdr. ix. 8; (i S. vi. 5). The man by his former declaration (v. 17) had really (so they imply) done dishonour to God. He was now required to confess his error: to recognise in the authoritative voice of "the Jews" his own condemnation, and to admit the truth of it. At the same time under this thought of the rendering of glory to God by the confession of error, lies the further idea that the cure was due directly to God, and that to Him, and not to "the man called Jesus," was gratitude to be rendered. This, however, is not the primary sense of the phrase, though it is natural so to interpret A. V.

we know...] We, the guardians of the national honour, the interpreters of the divine will, we know (rjnels <si8ap.fv)... The claim is to absolute knowledge, and no reasons are alleged for the conclusion.

Whether,..! know not] The order in the original is remarkable: If he is a sinner, as you assert, that I know not. The first clause is an echo of the words of the Pharisees, and the man simply states that his knowledge furnishes no confirmation of it. Comp. Luke xxii. 67; Acts iv. 19, xix. 2. In i John iv. i and elsewhere the order is different.

suggest that they were yet willing to believe, if the facts were not decisive against belief.

0«X«Te)...the words go back to the we, -u. 24: ye who make the proud claims of which we have all heard, ye as well as I a poor mendicant, would ye... Have you a real desire, if only you can yield to it, to become bis disciples? The would points the idea suggested by the fresh interrogation.

28. Then (And) they reviled him] by questioning his loyalty to the law, and treating him as an apostate. Comp. Acts xxiii. 4.

his disciples'] Literally, that man's disciple. Comp. w. 13, 37. Christ is looked upon as separated from them by a great chasm.

29. We know] The claim to knowledge is repeated (v. 24) with a bitter emphasis. " Moses" and "this man" stand at the head of the two clauses to make the contrast sharper.

spake~] hath spoken familiarly, face to face (AeXaXjjKf i>), and the words abide still.

as for (but as for)... whence he is] that is, with what commission, by whose authority, he comes. Comp. Matt. xxi. 25. The converse objection is urged, vii. 27. Pilate at last asks the question, xix. 9; and the Lord claims for Himself alone the knowledge of the answer, viii. 14.

30. Why herein is a marvellous thing (the marvellous thing, TO #av/uaar6V)] Comp. iv. 37. The particle brings out an affirmation drawn from the previous words. "That being so as you say. then assuredly..."

31. Now we know] We know, not you alone, nor I, but all men alike. The simple verb (oTSa/iev) is contrasted with the strong personal affirmation in int. 24, 29 (jf/ueir oi6\).

if any man be a (worshipper of God, and doeth (be devout or religious and do)...]

worshipper of God, and doeth his will, him he heareth.

32 Since the world began was it not heard that any man opened the eyes of one that was born blind.

33 If this man were not of God, he could do nothing.

34 They answered and said unto him, Thou wast altogether born in sins, and dost thou teach us? And they ' cast him out.

him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God?

36 He answered and said, Who is he, Lord, that I might believe on him?

37 And Jesus said unto him, Thou hast both seen him, and it is he that talketh with thee.

The word (Qtoo-tfiqs) occurs here only in New Testament (comp. i Tim. ii. 10). The two phrases mark the fulfilment of duty to God and man.

34. The order is very significant: "In sins wast thou born altogether." So the Jews at once interpret and apply the question of the disciples, v. a. Blindness was but a sign of deeper and more prevailing infirmity.

teach us] The emphasis lies on "teach." " Dost thou, marked out as a sinner, assume the prerogative of instruction...."

cast him out'] from the place of their meeting, with contempt and contumely, as unworthy of further consideration. Comp. Mark i. 43, note. The word does not describe the sentence of excommunication, which such a body was not competent to pronounce.

The ejection of the blind man who had been healed from the council of the Pharisees furnished the occasion for the beginning of a new Society distinct from the dominant Judaism. For the first time the Lord offers Himself as the object of faith, and that in His universal character in relation to humanity, as "the Son of man." He had before called men to follow Him: He had revealed Himself, and accepted the spontaneous homage of believers: but now He proposes a test of fellowship. The universal Society is based on the confession of a new truth. The blind who acknowledge their blindness are enlightened: the seeing who are satisfied with their sight (we know) are proved to be blind.

when he had found (having found) him, he said unto him] Omit unto him. Comp. i. 43, v. 14. The "work of God" was not yet completed. Modo lavat faciem cordis in Augustine's words.

Dost thou believe on the Son of God (man)?] The emphasis of the pronoun is remarkable, and may be contrasted with v. 34. Dost thou, the outcast, thou that hast received outward sight, thou that hast borne a courageous testimony, believe on the Son of Man— cast thyself with complete trust on Him who gathers up in Himself, who bears and who transfigures all that belongs to man? The thought of "the Son of man" stands in true contrast with the selfish isolation of "the Jews." The new Society, seen here in its beginning, rests upon this foundation, wide as humanity itself. See Additional Note

36. Who is he...] And who is he... The conjunction marks the eager, urgent, wondering question. The thought which it meets seems to be beyond hope. Comp. Mark x. 26; Luke x. 29.

that I might (may)...] He asks that faith may find its object. His trust in Jesus is absolute.

37. And Jesus said (Jesus saith)... Thou hast both seen him — with the eyes which God hath even now opened — and he that talketh with thee IB he (cxcit/or). The natural form of the sentence would have been "Thou hast both seen Him and heard Him;" but the power of the immediate position gives shape to the latter clause. "He that talketh with thee familiarly, as man with man, is He, that sublime Person, who seems to stand far off from thought and experience."

38. Confession in word and deed follows at once on the revelation. In St John "worship" (jrpovKWfiv) is never used of the worship of mere respect (iv. 20 ff., xii. 20).

39. And Jesus said] not directly to any one nor to any group of those about Him, but as interpreting the scene before Him. The separation between the old and the, new was now consummated, when the rejected of merit I am come into this world, and said unto him, Are we blind that they which see not might see; also?

For judgment I (ryw) am come (I came)...] not to execute judgment (»cpiW), but that judgment (/cpt^a) might issue from His Presence. The Son was not sent to judge (iii. 17), but judgment followed from His advent in the manifestation of faith and unbelief (iii. 1 8 f.). The emphatic pronoun carries back the reference to the "Son of man."

this world} the world as made known to us in its present state, full of conflict and sin, and so distinguished from the world which includes all created being. The phrase occurs viii. a3, xi. 9, xii. 45, 31, xiii. i, xvi. n, xviii. 36; i John iv. 17.

they which see not"] The true commentary on these verses is Luke x. ai || Matt. xi. 35, and Matt. xii. 31, 34. The phrase must be taken literally to describe those who have no intellectual knowledge, no clear perception of the divine will and the divine law; the simple, the little children. These by apprehending the revelation of the Son of man grasp the fulness of the Gospel, and see. Those on the other hand who had knowledge of the Old Covenant, who were so far "wise and understanding," and rested in what they knew, by this very wisdom became incapable of further progress and unable to retain what they had.

be made (become) blind] By wilfully confining their vision men lose the very power of seeing. There is a contrast between "those that see not" (ot pr) jSAeTroires)) and "those who are blind" (™<£Aoi). The former have the power of sight though it is unused: the latter have not the power.

40. And (omit) some of the Pharisees (Those of the Pharisees) which were with him...'] who still followed under the guise of discipleship (Matt. xii. a f., 38; Luke vi. a; Mark xvi. 10, &c.), but clung to their own views of Messiah's work (viii. 31 ff.).

Are we blind alsof] Are we also blind? we who have acknowledged Thy claims in advance — we who in virtue of our insight (iii. a) have come to know Thee while others are in 'doubt (x. 24)? Can it be that we who saw then have now lost the power of sight? The question (like the claim of Nicodemus, iii. a, we know) is inspired by the pride of class. The answer lays open the responsibility of privilege. Better — such is the force of it — is the lack of knowledge, than knowledge real and misused. The claim of the Pharisees to sight is conceded so far as to leave them without excuse, when they failed to profit by it.

41. ye should (would) have (have had) no sin] Cornp. xv. aa, a4, xix. n; i John i. 8. Sin is regarded as something cleaving to the man himself, which has become (so to speak) part of him, and for which he is responsible.

but now ye say, We see~] There seems to be a pathetic pause after these words. Then at last follows the sentence: "You plead the reality of your knowledge, and the plea, in this sense, is just. You are witnesses against yourselves. Then is there no further illumination. Your sin abideth (omit therefore).'1'1

There is a remarkable saying assigned to R. Abuhu which expresses the thought of this verse. A Sadducee asked him, When cometh the Messiah? "Go first," was the answer, "and make dark this people." "What sayest thou? That is a reproach to me." "I appeal" answered the Rabbi "to Isai. Ix. a." ('Sanhedrin,' 993, quoted by WUnsche on John iii. 19.)

ADDITIONAL NOTE on CHAP. ix. 35.

The ancient authorities are divided as to the reading of the title under which the Lord offers Himself as the object of faith, rov viov TOV dvGpdnrov (the Son of man) is read by NBD, the Theoaic version, by copies of the ^thiopic, and by some texts of Chrysostom.

On the other hand, TOV vlbv rov dtov (the Son of God) is read by ALX I, 33, and apparently all other MSS. (C is defective), by the Latin and Syriac and Memphitic versions, by Tertullian, Cyril of Alexandria, &c.

Both readings were evidently very widely spread at the beginning of the third century; and though undoubtedly such a combination of MSS. as XBD is shewn by a wide induction to be practically irresistible, the case is one in which it is important to take internal evidence into account

The titles " the Son of man " and " the Son of God " do not occur very frequently in St John, and each about the same number of times. Nor does there appear to have been any general tendency to substitute one for the other, or to introduce either one or the other. In v. 19, D and a few kindred authorities read " the Son of man" for " the Son." It is of much more importance that elsewhere in confessions the title used is uniformly " the Son of God" (i. 34, 50, xi. 27: comp. xx. 31); and partly for this reason the introduction of the Synoptic confession of St Peter in vi. 69 became natural and easy. At first sight indeed the demand for belief in " the Son of man " is difficult to understand. It seems certain that there could have been no inclination on the part of scribes to substitute this unusual phrase for the common one; and the evidence is too varied to admit of the supposition that "Son of man" was accidentally substituted for "Son of God." On the other hand, the converse change from " Son of man " to " Son of God" was very obvious, whether the change was made mechanically or as the correction of a supposed blunder.

All the probabilities of change are in favour of "the Son of man" as the original reading. A closer examination of the context shews that this title is required to bring out the full meaning of the scene. The man had been expelled with contumely by the religious leaders of his people. He had in the popular sense broken with Judaism. He was therefore invited to accept an object of faith larger than that which was offered by the current conceptions of Messiah, "the Son of God." It was not necessary that he should have any very distinct understanding of the full meaning of the phrase "the Son of man" (xii. 23, 34); but at least it must have suggested to him one who being Man was the hope of man. This is the elementary form of the confession of the Incarnation on which the universal Church rests.

An examination of the other passages (i. 51, iii. 13 f., vi. 27, 53, viii. 28, xii. 23, xiii. 31) in which the title occurs shews clearly that it is in each case (as here) an essential part of the teaching which they convey.

The reception of the outcast of the Synagogue gave occasion for an exposition under familiar figures of the nature of the new Society. At first this is given generally. The relation of the Shepherd to the Fold and to the Sheep suggests the character of the work which Christ had to do in respect of the organization of the divine Church, and to the completeness of His power to claim His own true followers (i— 6). Afterwards the images are applied directly. Christ shews how He fulfils the offices indicated by "the Door" (7—10), and by "the Shepherd" (u— 16). He is " the Good Shepherd " in regard of His devotion (11—13) and of His sympathy (14— 1 6). His work too rests on perfect fellowship with the Father (17, 18). Once again His words divide His hearers (19 — 21).

CHAP. X. 1—6.' The point of connexion lies in the thought of the Pharisees as the shepherds of God's Fold in contrast with the shepherds who may perhaps have been seen gathering their flocks for the night's shelter on the hills, though the thought of the allegory is that of the morning's work. On one side were self-will and selfishness; on the other loyal obedience and devotion. Comp. Ezek. xxxiv. a ff.; Jer. xxiii. i ff.; Zech. xi. 3 ff.

The allegory is given at first in its complex form. All the elements stand together undistinguished. Afterwards the two chief facts are considered separately, the fold and the flock. In relation to the Fold Christ is the Door; in relation to the Flock He is the Good Shepherd. But for the present this personal application lies in the background. The teaching is general. Even in Old Testament times the "Word" was the Door. Augustine (' in Joh.' XLV. 9) says well: ternfora "variata sunt non fides.

1. Verily, verily...'] The old thought is taken up upon a fresh stage: there is continuance at once and progress (v. 7).

the sheepfold'} More exactly, the fold of the sheep (Vulg. ovile ovium). The two ideas of the fold and the flock are presented distinctly. Comp. v. 7, the door of the sheep.

climbeth up (over the fence) some other way] not coming from the pastures or from the shepherd's home (a\\ax6dev), and thinking of himself only, he makes his own road and overleaps the barriers which are set.

the door is the shepherd of the sheep.

3 To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out.

4 And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice.

5 And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers.

6 This parable spake Jesus unto them: but they understood not what things they were which he spake unto

7 Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep.

2. is the (a) shepherd of the sheep] one, it may be, of many, but his true nature is shewn by his act. The absence of the article fixes attention on the character as distinct from the person.

Several flocks were often gathered into one fold for protection during the night. In the morning each shepherd passed into the fold to bring out his own flock; and he entered by the same door as they. Hence the emphatic repetition of "sheep" (vv. a, 7). As several flocks were gathered in one fold, the sheep of the One Shepherd might be in several folds (•v. 1 6).

3. the porter (Vulg. ostiariusj] the guardian to whose care the fold in each case is committed. Comp. Mark xiii. 34. Thus the interpretation will vary according to the special sense attached to the " sheep " and the " shepherd." The figure is not to be explained exclusively of the Holy Spirit or of the Father, or of Moses, or of John the Baptist, but of the Spirit acting through His appointed ministers in each case.

openeth] when the shepherd returns to seek out his sheep and lead them to pasture.

the sheep'} all that are gathered within the fold, listen to his voice, as a shepherd's voice, even though they are not peculiarly his own sheep. But the shepherd of each flock calleth his own sheep by name and leadeth them out. First comes the personal recognition, and then follows the fulfilment of the specific office.

4. And when he putteth forth] When he hath put forth. In part an idea of separation underlies the parable. There is a sense in which the true shepherd not only "leads forth," but also " puts forth his own sheep " with a loving constraint, as well as that in which the false shepherds " put forth " (ix. 34). With regard to the old fold of Israel the time for this separation was at hand.

his own sheep..."] all his own... according to the true reading. So when the shepherd hath put forth all his own, he places himself at their head and goeth before them, strangers'] as a class contrasted with the sons of God. Comp. Matt. xvii. aj f.; (Hebr. xi. 34). These are not however the same as the " thieves and robbers."

but they understood not...'] The men whose legal self-complacency has been already noted (enflvoi), failed to perceive the true meaning of the allegory; the spiritual conceptions of the fold, the door, the sheep, the shepherd, were all strange to them (comp. i>. 20).

7 — 10. After drawing the general picture of the true relation of the Teacher to the Society and the outward organization, the Lord interprets it in relation to Himself under two main aspects. He is " the Door of the sheep" (7 — 10), and also "the Good Shepherd" (n — 1 6). The first application determines that He is the one means of entrance to the Church at all times. "Through Him " men enter, and "through Him" they find access to the full treasures of life.

7. Then said Jesus...,] Jesus therefore... in order to bring out the chief points of teaching in the allegory, said to them again, probably after an interval (viii. la, ai). There is at least a pause in thought.

Verily, •verily...'] The teaching is again advanced another stage. That which has been up to this time general is now set forth in its special and most complete fulfilment. The universal law of the divine revelation is presented in its absolute expression. For he that

8 All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers: but the sheep did not hear them.

9 I am the door: by me if any

man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture. 10 The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy:

entereth (v. 2) we read / am (vv. 7, u). This being so, Christ reveals Himself under two distinct aspects. He is "the Door" in regard of the society (the Fold) to which He gives admission; He is " the Good Shepherd" in regard of the individual care with which He leads each member of His flock. The thoughts of Ezek. xxxiv. are everywhere present.

the door of the sheep] not the door of the fold. Even under this aspect the thought is connected with the life and not simply with the organization.

of the sheep] by which sheep alike and shepherd enter, and not simply the door to the sheep. The phrase includes the thought of v. i and of v. 9. Even the shepherds — except the One Shepherd — are sheep also.

8. All thai ever came... are] Omitw^r, which obscures the sense. The second verb fixes the application of the words to the immediate crisis of national expectation. The interpretation of the whole phrase lies in the word came, in which we may see the full significance of the title, he that should come, as in v. 10. Thus the term includes essentially the notions of false Messiahs and self-commissioned teachers.

The omission of before me in an important group of early authorities (K*, Theb., Lot. vt., Syrr., &C.; Vulg. quotquot venerunt) points to this interpretation, while it obscures it. They who "came" (comp. i John v. 6), who pretended to satisfy the national expectation inspired by the prophets, or to mould the national expectations after the Pharisaic type, who offered in any way that which was to be accepted as the end of the earlier dispensation, who made themselves " doors " of approach to God (Matt, xxiii. 14), were essentially and continued to be inspired by selfishness, whether their designs were manifested by craft or by violence, and whether they were directed to gain or to dominion. They were thieves and robbers. With them John the Baptist may be contrasted. He claimed only to prepare the way for one " coming " (i. 30).

before me...'] of time. Christ came when "all things were ready," in the fulness of time; and therefore whoever anticipated by however little the moment of the divine revelation so far violated its harmony with life. The other interpretations, "instead of," "passing by," "apart from," "before my commission to them," do violence to the words, and express only fragments of the true idea.

did not fxar them] Such as were 'waiting for the consolation of Israel found no satisfaction in the works or designs or promises of those who sought to substitute another hope for that which the true Christ realised. There was no " Gospel for the poor " (Luke vi. 20, vii. 22; Matt. xi. 5) till the Son of man came.

9. the door] The thought is now concentrated upon the office (the door), and not upon the relation (the door of the sheep).

by me] The emphatic order brings out the \ unique personal relation in which the Lord"/ • stands to the believer, even in regard to they society.

any man] The words are used quite generally, and not of the shepherds only. The one entrance once made (If any one enter) is followed by the assurance and the enjoyment of freedom (he shall be saved...). These words evidently describe the blessings of all Christians, and not of teachers only.

he shall be saved, and shall go in and go ont+ \ and shall find pasture] The fulness of the \\ Christian life is exhibited in its three elements — safety, liberty, support. Admission to the J fold brings with it first security (he shall be saved). But this security is not gained by isolation. The believer goes in and goes out without endangering his position (Num. xxvii. 17; Deut. xxxi. 2); he exercises the sum of all his powers, claiming his share in the inheritance of the world, secure in his. home. And while he does so hefnds pasture. He is able to convert to the divinest uses all the fruits of the earth. But in all this he retains his life "in Christ," and he approaches all else "through Christ," who brings not only redemption but the satisfaction of man's true wants. Comp. vii. 37.

10. The thief... ~] Christ presents Himself in His relation to others (through me if...). His rivals stand by themselves. And here the meaner word (thief not robber) is chosen to shew the true nature of that which appears to be less hateful when it is seen in its more violent forms.

to destroy] Whoever sets up a selfish ideal, and falls short of the completeness of selfsacrifice, abridges the resources of men. He not only steals to satisfy his own ends, but in doing thus he necessarily kills and destroys. In the pursuit of his object he wastes life and he wastes the sustenance of life, even if he does not propose to himself such an end. This is a universal truth (cometh, not came); and contrasted with it is the single unparalleled fact I came (not I am come) that men may have

I am come that they might have life, and that they might have // more abundantly.

ii "I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.

12 But he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth: and the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep.

life and may have abundance. These two aims are contrasted with kill and destroy: the contrast to " steal " lies in the very fact of Christ's coming. And thus the work of Christ is presented in its two issues, which correspond with- the two fatal issues of the selfish prophet: the gift of life, and the gift of abundance. Life in itself is not all. There must be also that which shall maintain, and strengthen, and extend the action of life; and this also Christ assures. His sheep " find pasture."

might have it (life)... abundantly} Rather, may have abundance (jrepicr<rov e^aMrtv). The repetition of have (e^wo-ti') points to this parallelism. The idea that the phrase points to something more than life, as the kingdom of heaven, or the participation in the Holy Spirit, expresses only part of the meaning, which is indicated in i. 16.

11 — 16. The last verse furnishes the transition from the social to the personal relation, from the door to the shepherd. Two points are specially brought out in the character of " the good shepherd," His perfect self-sacrifice (n — 13), and His perfect knowledge (14, 15), which extends beyond the range of man's vision (16). The whole portraiture of "the Good Shepherd" is a commentary on Isai. liii. See Taylor, 'The Gospel in the Law,' pp. 107 ff.

11. I am the good shepherd^ The exact form of the expression, / am the shepherd, the good (shepherd), carries back the thought to others who partially and imperfectly discharge the office which Christ discharges completely. The epithet itself is remarkable (o TT. o /caXos). It recalls the phrases "the true bread" (vi.32), and "the true vine" (xv. i), but it is somewhat different. Christ is not only the true shepherd (o IT. o d\n6ii>6s), who fulfils the idea of the shepherd, but He is the good shepherd who fulfils the idea in its attractive loveliness. The epithet implies the correspondence between the nobility of the conception and the beauty of the realisation. The "good " is not only good inwardly (ayaQos), but good as perceived (*aXos). In the fulfilment of His work " the Good Shepherd " claims the admiration of all that is generous in man.

the good shepherd] The character of the Good Shepherd is first described in itself; and then (14 fF.) the relation of Christ as the Good Shepherd to the flock. The first picture however is in itself general, and it is wrong to seek any direct application of the images of the "hireling" and of "the wolf," as contrasted with one another, to the Jews of the time. Both indeed find their counterparts at all times.

giveth his life] layeth down his life (as in vv. 15, 17, &c.). The A.V. comes from Vulg., which reads here dat animam. The phrase is peculiar to St John (in the New Testament), vv. 15, 17, xiii. 37, 38, xv. 13; i John iii. 1 6, and is not found elsewhere. The image has been explained from the custom of laying down the price for which anything is obtained (comp. Matt. xx. 28), as here the good of the sheep. The usage of St John (xiii. 4) rather suggests the idea of putting off and laying aside as a robe. The phrase " to lay down life " must be compared with the language in vi. 51, which expresses another aspect of the truth. It is possible that there may be a reference to Isai. liii. 10 (1^S3 D'BTI).

for (vTTf'p, in behalf of) the sheep] It is not said expressly for his sheep (vv. 3, 4, 26). The thought here is simply that of the intrinsic relation of shepherd and flock.

12. But (omit) he that is an hireling, and not the (a) shepherd...'] As the good shepherd regards his duty, and is bound by nature to the sheep, so his rival is described as a hireling who does his work for his reward, and so is not connected essentially with the flock. The idea of " own " here is not that of individual possession (i Pet. v. 2 f.), but of peculiar relationship (v. 3).

seeth~] beholdeth. The whole soul of the hireling is concentrated (comp. vi. 19) for the time upon the approaching peril, and then his choice is made. Augustine (ad loc.) says tersely fuga animi timor est.

the <wolf~\ The flock has its natural enemies; and when it passes, as it must, into the world, it is open to their attacks.

catcheth... the sheep~\ seizeth them and scattereth the flock. Some fall victims to the attack, and all lose their unity. Individuals perish: the society is broken up. The word to be supplied after scattereth is not "the sheep," which is wrongly inserted in many authorities, but " the flock."

catcheth'] seizeth (or snatcheth). The word (aprrafn) describes the suddenness as well as the violence of the assault. Comp. v. 28 f., Matt. xiii. 19; Acts xxiii. 10.

13 The hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep.

14 I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of

even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.

1 6 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; *and there shall be one fold, and one * Ezek 37- shepherd.

13. The hireling fleeth~\ This clause must be omitted on the authority of N(A*)BDL i, 33 e, Memph., Theb., &c. The abruptness of the true reading places in close contrast the fate of the false shepherd and of the sheep. The double issue of cowardice and suffering comes from the fact that he who should have been a guardian thinks of himself and not of his charge: According to the Jewish tradition (Lightfoot, ad /or.), the shepherd for hire was responsible for damage done by wild beasts to his flock.

14 — 16. The Lord applies directly to Himself and to His flock the ideal of the Good Shepherd.

14. 15. / am...and kno<w...and am known of mine. As the Fat her... me, even so...] / am... and I know... and mine know me, even as the Father knoweth me and I know the Father, according to the most ancient authorities.

The relation of Christ to His people corresponds with that of the Son to the Father. Comp. vi. 57, xiv. 20, xv. 10, xvii. ji. The words are not simply a comparison, but the one relation is (so to speak) a measure of the other. Christ first took our nature that we might afterwards receive His. Such mutual knowledge as is described involves sympathy, love, community of nature: i John iv. 7 f.; Gal. iv. 9; i Cor. viii. 3; ch. xvii. 3, 25.

15. Completeness of knowledge is consummated in completeness of sacrifice. Perfect sympathy calls out the perfect remedy. Christ does actually what the Good Shepherd is prepared to do. This thought leads to the prospect of the removal of the barriers between race and race by the death of Christ (Eph. ii. 13 fF.: comp. Hebr. xiii. 20). But in this discourse, as elsewhere, the law of the divine revelation is observed, " to the Jew first and afterwards to the Gentile."

16. By the anticipation of the Cross (xii. 32) the spiritual horizon is extended. The flock of Christ is not confined to those enclosed in the Jewish fold, whether in Palestine or elsewhere. Even before His death, while the wall of partition is still standing, He "has" other sheep, who even if they know Him not are truly His (comp. xi. 52). The words are the historical affirmation of the other sheep] In the case of the Gentiles there was no outward unity. They did not form a " fold " as the Jews, whose work was realised through an outward organization. They were "scattered abroad" (xi. 52); but still they were Christ's " sheep " in fact, and not only potentially.

bring] Rather, lead. The idea is that of openly assuming the guidance of the sheep, and not that of gathering them into one body (o-vvayaytlv, xi. 52), or of conducting them to one place (irpoa-ayaytlv). The tense points to the one act whereby the Shepherd took up His rightful position. This could only be by His death, which re-unites man with God and therefore man (as man) with man (xii.

shall hear] Acts xxviii. 28. Such obedience is the sign that we are Christ's (vv. 4, 27).

there shall be one fold] they shall become — they shall present the accomplishment of the ancient prophecy — one flock, one shepherd (Ezek. xxxiv. 23). That which "is" in the eternal counsel and truth of things "becomes" in human history, and this stage by stage, and not by one complete transformation.

The translation " fold " for " flock" (wile for grex) has been most disastrous in idea and in influence. See Additional Note. ^The change in the original from " fold " (aiJXi;), to " flock " (iroifuv}), is most striking, and reveals a new thought as to the future relations of Jew and Gentile. Elsewhere stress is laid upon their corporate union (Rom. xi. 17 fF.), and upon the admission of the Gentiles to the Holy City (Isai. ii. 3); but here the bond of fellowship is shewn to lie in the common relation to One Lord. The visible connexion of God with Israel was a type and pledge of this original and universal connexion. The unity of the Church does not spring out of the extension of the old kingdom, but is the spiritual antitype of that earthly figure. Nothing is said of one "fold " under the new dispensation.

It may be added that the obliteration of this essential distinction between the " fold " and the " flock " in many of the later Western versions of this passage indicates, as it appears.

ij Therefore doth my Father love '• 53- me, c because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.

1 8 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have *Acts2. power to take it again. rfThis commandment have I received of my Father.