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

19 fl There was a division therefore again among the Jews for these sayings.

20 And many of them said, He hath a devil, and is mad; why hear ye him?

21 Others said, These are not the words of him that hath a devil. Can a devil open the eyes of the blind?

a tendency of Roman Christianity, and has served in no small degree to confirm and extend the false claims of the Roman see. See Additional Note.

The fulfilment of the promise began with the establishment of one church of Jew and Gentile (Eph. ii. 13 fF.) and goes forward until the consummation of all things (Rom. xi. 36).

17. Therefore] For this reason (8ia TOVTO) — namely, that the Good Shepherd freely offers Himself for His flock, to bring all into a true unity — doth the Father love me. The perfect love of the Son calls out (if we dare so speak) the love of the Father, just as man's love calls out the active love of

The reason thus gathered from the former verses is summed up in the sentence which x follows: because I — the pronoun is emphatic, I, in the exercise of my personal will — lay down my life with this clear end in view, that 1 may (not might) take it again. The " that " (iva) marks a definite purpose, and not merely a result or a condition. The sacrifice is not a casting away of a blessing of God, but is itself made in order to give the blessing fuller reality, and this end is here distinctly set forth. Christ died in order to rise to a completer life and to raise men with Him. This purpose evoked the love of the Father. Comp. xii. 32; Phil. ii. 9; Hebr. ii. 10, xii. 2.

18. No man taketh it...] The aoristic reading (rjpfv), which is probably true, no one took it from me, opens a glimpse into the eternal counsel independent of time, into "being" as distinguished from "becoming." Comp. Rev. iv. 1 1 (qo-av Kal fUTio-drjaav); i. 4. The work of Christ, the Incarnate Son, was, so to speak, already accomplished when He came. And this work was imposed by no constraining power at first (took) but was to its last issue fulfilled by the free-will of Christ Himself, in harmony with the will of the Father (v. 30, vii. 28, viii. 28, 42, xiv. 10). Here only does Christ claim to do anything "of Himself" (air tpavrov). Compare a like contrast in v. 31, viii. 14, 18.

ability, but just authority («£ot><n'a) to do so. The emphasis which is laid on the personal act of sacrifice is traced back to its ground in these words. The two parts of the one act of Redemption are set side by side (/ have right to lay down, I have right to... take again).

I have power (right) to lay it down] In the case of Christ even death itself was voluntary. His will to the last absolutely coincided with the Father's will, so that He could do what no man can do.

/ have power (right) to take it (Xa/Seii/) again] The words contain implicitly the mystery of the divine-human Person of the Lord, gathered up in His divine Personality. In virtue of this undying Personality (v. 26), He had power to revivify all that was dissolved by death, "taking" in this sense that which was given by the Father. Comp. ii. 19. Christ in His divine nature works with the Father. Thus the "right " of the Son to "take" life again completely harmonizes with the fact that the Resurrection is elsewhere referred to\ the Father, though the Son is the Resurrection.

This commandment] which is one and complete— to lay down life and to take it again — is the source of eternal life: xii. 49 f., xiv. 31. Thus the action of the Son is finally led back to His Father (My Father, and not simply the Father) in the sense of the phrase of myself I do nothing.

these sayings'] these words (\6yovs, Vulg. sermones), these discourses: not only the last parables, but all the discourses of this visit.

why hear ye him?] This was said apparently by those who feared the effect which the teaching of Christ had.

21. These are not the words...] the say- Ings (piJ/Liara, Vulg. verba) — the specific utterances which arrested their attention, and not the general teaching — of one possessed with a demon (8ai[iovi£onevov). The teaching itself refutes the charge of madness: the act indicates the co-operation of a power greater than and different from that of a demon (Can a demon open...?).

23 And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomon's porch.

24 Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How

long dost thou u make us to doubt? ' °r> hold If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly. *»*t

In this section the testimony of the Lord to Himself reaches its climax. In answer to a direct question put to Him in the temple at a season suggestive of great hope (22 — 24), He directs His interrogators to His teaching and His works (25), while He points out the ground of their unbelief (26). At the same time He claims for Himself a flock separate from the corrupt theocracy, for which He has provided the fulness of life through His absolute fellowship with the Father (27 — 30). This claim, which is practically an answer to the original question, leads to an outburst of violence (31). Christ again appeals to His works (32); and, in answer to the charge of blasphemy (33), shews that the Old Testament pointed to that fellowship of God and man which He at length presented (34 — 36). Finally, once again He appeals to His works. By accepting these as real and studying them, He shews that men may rise to a true view of His Nature (37, 38).

The argument evidently falls in completely with the occasion. While it reveals to careful inquiry the essential basis of St John's own teaching, it is wholly free from his peculiar language, and even superficially (35, 36) at variance with it

22. And it was at Jerusalem the feast of the dedication] At that time the feast of the dedication was held (<y«/ero) at Jerusalem. See Additional Note. The special mention of the time appears to be made in order to connect the subject of the Lord's teaching with the hopes associated with the last national deliverance. The Hymn which is at present used in Jewish Synagogues at the Festival records the successive deliverances of Israel, and contains a prayer for yet another. Christ in fact perfectly accomplished what the Maccabees wrought in a figure, and dedicated «i new and abiding temple: ii. 18 ff.; (Hebr. x. 20). For the history of the Festival, which was kept about the middle of December (Kisleu 25, and seven following days), see i Mace. iv. 36 ff.; Jos. 'Ant.' xn. 7. 7 (xu. n). It was known as "the Feast of lights," and the title chosen by the Lord in ix. 5 may refer to their custom of kindling the lights, no less than to the ceremonies of the Feast of Tabernacles.

it was winter (omit and)] The note is added, not simply as a mark of time, but as an explanation of the fact that the Lord chose a sheltered spot for His teaching.

23, 24. The vividness and particularity of the description (was walking, surrounded, began to say, the porch of Solomon [comp. viii. 20]) are to be noticed.

walked] was walking. The verb marks the circumstances of the special conversation.

24. Then came the Jews... ] The Jews therefore came..., because the place was a public resort, and offered an opportunity for a decisive interview.

round about] Acts xiv. 20. Probably they were resolved to bar escape.

dost thou make us to doubt?] hold our minds In suspense. The original word (aipns) is used for " raising "the mind with various emotions as the case may be, here in doubt between hope and fear.

If thou be (art) the Christ...'] The emphasis lies on the pronoun. If thou, far as thou art from our ideal and from our wishes, if thou art (« <rv «t) the Christ, tell us.... The words seem to betray an unsatisfied longing which seeks rest, if it can be gained, even from this strange teacher. The notion that the question is asked with a deliberate evil intention is unsuited to the occasion. It was repeated with terrible emphasis afterwards, Luke xxii. 67.

tell us plainly] without reserve and without fear, vii. 13, note, xi. 14. As if they wished to add, "and we on our part will not be wanting to carry out your purpose and our own."

25. The answer is a test of faith. The Lord was the Christ of the Old Testament, and yet not the Christ of the Pharisaic hope. The questioners therefore are thrown back upon their own spiritual discernment. The words and the works of Christ reveal Him.

/ told you] not indeed directly, as the woman of Samaria (iv. 26); that open declaration came only when hope was past and it could foster no false expectations (Matt. xxvi. 64, note); but yet Christ's words were such that faith could not have misunderstood their meaning. And even if His teaching had remained a riddle, His works might still have furnished the interpretation of it. Comp.

you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me.

26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.

27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:

28 And I give unto them eternal life j and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

which I do} The emphatic pronoun (which I — I, the very person whom you see and despise — do) at once refers back to the thou of the Jews' question, and forward to the relation of the Son to the Father.

in my Father's name] as revealing, that is, the special connexion in which I stand to Him, and in virtue of that connexion. Comp.

26. But} the fault lies not in the lack of witness. It is the power to apprehend it which is wanting. You on your part believe not, because...

not of my sheep...'] The phrase calls back the teaching of the earlier part of the chapter: vv. 14 ff. The exact form of expression "the sheep that are mine" (TO. 7rp6/3ara ra ffM) is characteristic of St John. Comp. xv.

as 1 said unto you} These words are to be omitted in accordance with KBL, &c., Memph., Theb., Vulg., &c.

27 — 30. The connexion of this paragraph with that which precedes is not very obvious. It seems to lie in the affirmation of the existence of a society of believers though Israel was unfaithful. " You hear not; you fail to recognise your Messiah; but still there are those who welcome the blessings which I bring, and acknowledge in me a wider office and a higher Being."

27, 28. These verses admit of three distinct arrangements, either into three divisions of one, two, and three clauses respectively; or into three divisions of two clauses; or into two divisions of three clauses (as A.V.). According to the first arrangement the general truth is stated at the outset, and afterwards developed on its two sides:

My sheep hear my voice. And I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, and no one shall snatch them out of my

My sheep hear my voice, and I know them; And they follow me, and I give unto them eternal life; And they shall never perish, and no one shall snatch them out of my hand.

So the knowledge (sympathy, love) of Christ answers to obedience; life to progress; victory to salvation.

However the symmetry of the thought is arranged the ground of all is the same, the unity in essence, and power, and will, of the Father and of the Son.

they follow'} v. 4. Life is progress towards fuller knowledge, and not rest.

28. I give} Not simply " I will give." The offer is present and continuously appropriated.

they shall... hand} They are safe from inward dissolution and from outward violence.

neither shall any man pluck them] and no one shall snatch them, as a fact distinguished from can snatch, v. 29.

27, 28. The doctrine of " final perseverance" has been found in this passage. But we must carefully distinguish between the certainty of God's promises and His infinite power on the one hand, and the weakness and variableness of man's will on the other. If man falls at any stage in his spiritual life, it is not from want of divine grace, nor from the overwhelming power of adversaries, but from his neglect to use that which he may or may not use. We cannot be protected against ourselves in spite of ourselves. He who ceases to hear and to follow is thereby shewn to be no true believer, i John ii. 19. The difficulty in this case is only one form of the difficulty involved in the relation of an infinite to a finite being. The sense of the divine protection is at any moment sufficient to inspire confidence.

29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.

31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.

good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?

33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

29. My Father... all} The reading of the original text in this place is doubtful. See Additional Note. According to the most probable reading the translation is, that which the Father hath given me is greater than all: the faithful regarded in their unity, as a complete body, are stronger than every opposing power. This is their essential character, and no one is able... Comp. I John and no man... my Father's (the Father's) hand} The thought, which is concrete in v. 28, is here traced back to its most absolute form as resting on the essential power of God in His relation of universal Fatherhood. The variations in expression all point in the same direction. Here it is said simply snatch, and not snatch them; can snatch, and not shall snatch; the Father, and not my Father.

30. / and my Father are one] I and the Father are one. Every word in this pregnant clause is full of meaning. It is /, not the Son; the Father, not my Father; one essence («», Vulg. unum), not one person (ds, Gal. iii. 28, units); are, not am. The revelation is of the nature of Christ in the fulness of His double nature, of the incarnate Son in the fulness of His manifested being, and that in relation to the Father, to God as He is Father at once of the Son and of men. The Incarnation was the proof of the complete unity of the Father and the Son. Through that was shewn the true connexion of God and man. And so it is that the union of believers together is made dependent on the union of the Father and the Son (xvii. 22, according to the true reading).

It seems clear that the unity here spoken of cannot fall short of unity of essence. The thought springs from the equality of power (my band, the Father's hand); but infinite power is an essential attribute of God; and it is impossible to suppose that two beings distinct in essence could be equal in power. Comp. Rev. xx. 6, xxii. 3.

The phrase was very commonly quoted in controversy from the time of Tertullian. The following passages will repay study: Tertull. 'adv. Prax.' 22; Hippol. 'c. Noet.' 7; Ambr.

31. Then the Jews took up...~\ The Jews took up, lifted up or bore. The word (V/3ooravav, d bajulaverunt, but Vulg. sustulerunt) describes that which is borne as a heavy weight rather than that which is seized, Gal. vi. 2, 5, 17. The stones probably were brought from a distance by the most eager assailants (contrast viii. 59,?;pai/). The works which were going on at the temple would supply them.

32. answered] their accusation in action. Comp. ii. 1 8, note. Here the Lord did not withdraw Himself at once (viii. 59), but further unfolded the revelation which He had given, and held their judgment in suspense by His word.

good (works'] good in the sense of morally beautiful (KO\O), so that they claimed directly the instinctive admiration of men.

shewed} A divine work is a revelation to be studied. It is emphatically " a sign " (ii. 1 8). Something is left for the witness to bring to the interpretation of the fact (v. 20).

from my (the) Father} proceeding from Him as their source (eVc TOW IT.) and connected with Him as the stream with the spring. Comp. vi. 65, vii. 17, viii. 42, 47> xvi. 28. See also v. 36, xv. 24- Under this aspect it is important to observe that the Lord speaks not of my Father but of the Father; the relationship to which He appeals is with men and not with the Son only.

for which} The interrogation marks quality (8ia irolov) and not simple definition (Sia ri), Matt xxi. 23 5 Acts iv. 7.

do ye stone me?] The pronoun (e>e) is emphatic; do ye stone me, who truly reveal the Father in act. The irony of the speech becomes the expression of stern indignation. The miracles of Christ had in fact called out the bitterest hostility of the Jews.

33. The Jews answered him (omit, with the most ancient MSS., saying)...} The second clause defines and intensifies the charge in the first. It was not, they reply, simple blasphemy, derogation from the honour due to God, but the assumption by man of the divine prerogatives, which called for their action. Comp. xix. 7.

/Psat 82. 24 Jesus answered them, ^Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I

whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

37 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.

34. Jesus answered...'} The accusation of the Jews was grounded upon a false conception of the unity of God drawn from the Old Testament. This, they argued, was violated if Jesus, truly man, claimed to be One with God. The Lord therefore shews in His answer that even in the Old Testament there was a preparation for that union of God and man which He came to complete.

in your law] in the code to which you appeal, viii. 17. For the extension of the title "law" to the other Scriptures, see xii. 34, xv. 25; (Rom. iii. 19: i Cor. xiv. ai). The same usage is found in Rabbinic writers. Comp. Wlinsche, ad loc.

The reference in Ps. Ixxxii. 6 is to judges who indeed violated the laws of their august office, yet even so their office was no less divine.

35. The case is taken as an extreme one. If the Scripture called them unto whom the word of God came: if the direct divine call to a sacred office carried with it such a communication of the divine power as justified the attribution of the title: do ye (yptls) say, ye who plead the strictest adherence to the law as your justification, of him whom...

he called] The subject is not defined in the original («i...e?7re). It may be taken from the preceding " I said;" or "the Scripture" may be supplied from the second clause.

the word of God} This phrase, which is used of the divine communication under the old covenant, cannot be without reference to the Word before the Incarnation, through whom God held converse with His people and made His will known. Comp. Luke xi. 49; Matt, xxiii. 34.

the scripture cannot be broken] The particular sentence (j ypafyrj) which has been quoted. This appears to be always the force of the singular in St John. See ii. aa, note, xvii. la, xx. 9, note.

It must be noticed that St John records the permanent significance of the Old Testament no less than the Synoptists: xiii. 18, xvii. la, xix. 34, 28, 36, compared with Matt. v. 1 8, &c.

36. In contrast with those who derived their title from the temporary mission of the Word stands that One Whom the Father Himself directly sanctified, set apart for

His work, and then sent into the ivor/d. The two moments in the mission of the Son are thus distinguished in their complete complementary fulness. The translation... to Whom the Word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), Whom (i.e. the Word of God) the Father... sent... is wholly alien from the style of St John. Yet see Cyril Alex, ad loc.

hath sanctified] sanctified (consecrated). Comp. xvii. 17, 19. This fact belongs to the eternal order. The term ftyiaaev, Vulg. sanctifica-vit) expresses the divine destination of the Lord for His work. This destination carries with it the further thought of the perfect endowment of the Incarnate Son. His divine Person, if it is allowable so to speak, included an essential capacity for the Incarnation, so that a term peculiarly appropriate to the human nature can be properly used of the unchangeable Person. The various manifestations of the Spirit to Christ after His Advent were results of this eternal consecration. Comp. vi. 27; Acts iv. a 7, 30. The word is used of the divine consecration of prophets (Jer. i. 5; Ecclus. xlix. 7), of Moses (Ecclus. xlv. 4), of the chosen people (a Mace. i. 25 f.; 3 Mace. vi. 3). Comp. vi. 69; i John ii. 20.

the Son of God?'} Son of God. The absence of the article (see xix. 7) fixes attention on the character and not on the person. As the position of Christ was higher than that of the theocratic judges, so the title which He here assumes is lower (Son of God, Gods). But how, it may be asked, does this argument justify the phrase used in <v. 30? The phrases ye are Gods, Son of God, I and the Father are one, do not appear to be homogeneous. The answer appears to be this:

i. Such a phrase as that in Ps. Ixxxii. 6 really includes in a most significant shape the thought which underlies the whole of the Old Testament, that of a covenant between God and man, which through the reality of a personal relationship assumes the possibility of a vital union. Judaism was not a system of limited monotheism, but a theism always tending to theanthropism, to a real union of God and man. It was therefore enough to shew in answer to the accusation of the Jews that there lay already in the Law the germ of the truth which Christ announced, the union of God and man.

a. And again the words I and the Father are one, exclude the confusion of the divine Persons and so suggest the thought of a Son

38 But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.

39 Therefore they sought again to take him: but he escaped out of their hand,

Jordan into the place where John at first baptized; and there he abode.

41 And many resorted unto him, and said, John did no miracle: but all things that John spake of this man were true.

of the same essence with the Father. In this sense the title " Son of God " does completely answer to the former revelation.

It will be observed that though the title (o Xoyoj) "the Word" is almost suggested by the current of thought, yet St John keeps his own phraseology apart from the record of the Lord's words.

37, 38. Once again (v. 32") the Lord appeals to His works. The inborn power of recognising the divine in deed is the startingpoint: the end is the recognition of the absolute intercommunion of the Incarnate Son (/) and the Father.

believe the works'] accept as real the signs which testify of me, v. 25. To " believe the works" is the first step towards "believing for the works' sake" (xiv. u).

The belief in the testimony of the works is the foundation of the general knowledge and the growing perception in all its manifold revelations of the inner fellowship of the Father and the Son (that the Father is in me and I in the Father). This fellowship itself is first realised in works and then in absolute Being. The fellowship of "being" between the Father and the Son must be compared with the fellowship of " abiding " of the believer and God described in i John iv. 16, a passage which has evidently been modified by this.

that ye may knmu, and believe...] That ye may know and m&-y under stand... perceive once for all, and then go on advancing in ever fuller perception (Iva yv£>Tt KOI •ytywovcjjre)... Comp. xvii. 21, 23; Phil. i. 9.

to take~] to seize. Their immediate violence (v. 31) was so far checked.

he escaped (went forth) out of their hand] The phrase (iTfqXfa «'*) occurs only here. It marks the power of Christ's personal majesty as contrasted with the impotence of

His adversaries. Their "hand" is contrasted in some sense with "His hand" (v. 28), and His " going forth " with their inability to carry away any from His Father's protec-

40 — 42. The testimony of Works and the testimony of the Baptist, which now found no acceptance in Judxa, were welcomed beyond Jordan.

40. And went away again...] And he went away again... The clause commences a new section. The reference is probably to some recent and unrecorded visit. ' The events of i. 28 are too remote.

This sojourn in Perasa is noticed in the Synoptists, Matt. xix. i; Mark x. i; (Luke xviii. 15).

at first baptized] was at first baptizing, as recorded in i. 28, in contrast with iii. 23. So the narrative of the Lord's ministry closes on the spot where it began. The Evangelist naturally marks the scene where he had himself met Christ.

41. many resorted unto him, and said...] The acceptance of Christ beyond the limits of Judaea serves to complete the picture of the incredulity of the Jews.

The verse contains a double opposition of the Baptist and Christ, as is indicated by the repetition of John's name. The first contrast lies in the fact that John wrought no sign, while Christ was working many (Matt. xix. i); and the second in the fact that John was not indeed " he that should come," but a true herald. The second clause presupposes the acceptance of Jesus as the Messiah on the testimony of the signs which were seen.

John did no miracle] The notice shews how little inclination there was to invest popular teachers with miraculous powers. The new Elijah might have seemed above all men likely to shew signs.

42. believed on him] with the devotion of self-surrender, and did not simply (as vv. 37, 38) accept His statements.

there] with a pointed reference to v. 40; there, if not in Jerusalem.

16. The two words avXj (fold) and {flock) are given in this passage without any variation in the Greek text; and the two words are distinguished in the Syriac (Peshito, Harclean, Hierosol.) and Egyptian versions.

The earliest Latin note upon the passage which I have observed is by Jerome (In Ezek. xlvi. 22): " Alias oves habeo quas non sunt ex hoc atrio; et illas oportet me adducere, et vocem meam audient, et fiet unum atrium et unus pastor. Hoc enim Graccum avXij significat, quod Latina simplicitas in ovile transtulit." This observation is interesting for several reasons. It shews how perfunctory Jerome's criticism of the Latin text was. He distinctly prefers atrium to ovile as the rendering of av\ij, and yet he did not introduce it into his revision. And again he implies that av\j stands in the Greek text in both places, which at least shews that he did not verify his reference.

Elsewhere, it may be added (In Isai. Ix. 22), Jerome reads " unus grex et unus pastor," giving grex also as the rendering of av\ij in the former clause.

The old Latin texts (a, b, c, e) read ovile, grex; the Latin of D reads atrium, grex, according to Jerome's suggestion; many mixed texts (f, jf^, cod. aur., but none of Bentley's MSS.) read ovile, grexj in the Latin of A, iroifjivr) is represented by the strange alternatives wile v. pastorale. Cyprian gives civile, grex.

The reading in Augustine varies. In treating of the passage he reads ovile, o-vile, without comment. Elsewhere (e.g. ' Serm.' 138. 5) he reads ovile, grex.

The standard text of the Vulgate (Cod. Amiat. &c.), gives o-vile, ovile, and this reading became practically universal among Latin mediseval writers. Even Erasmus left the rendering unchanged; and so also did Beza until 1582. The phrase unum ovile, unus pastor, had evidently become sacred by use.

Luther truly rendered the Greek (aus diesem Stalle, Eine Herde), and so also did Tyndale and Coverdale (fold, flock). Wiclif, however, following the Vulgate, had already made "one fold" familiar in English; and this rendering was introduced into Cromwell's Bible, 1539, and retained its place down to 1611.

It would perhaps be impossible for any correction now to do away with the effects which a translation undeniably false has produced on popular ecclesiastical ideas.

22. The reading in this verse is of critical importance in regard to the connexion of the preceding discourses.

(a) cycVero 8e in KADX, and the mass of MSS., in some old Latin copies, and in the Syriac versions.

(3) A small group of cursive mss., including some of importance (i, 225, a1*0, &c.), and the best copies of the Old Latin (a, b) have no connecting particle.

(4) The Memphitic version and one Latin copy at least (gat) represent both TOT* and 8f.

These phenomena may be accounted for by supposing either that originally there was no connecting particle, or that it was one which caused difficulty.

The evidence in support of the first supposition, though considerable, appears to be inadequate; and Tore would be an unlikely particle to insert.

On the other hand, if Tore stood in the text originally it would create superficial difficulty from the apparent confusion of the feasts; and again it is an unusual word in St John, and not often found in this position, though in fact its unusual position is significant (Matt. xxiv. 21, xxvii. 16, "at that time, while these discussions as to the old church and the new were going on").

If fie' had been the true reading, it is not easy to see why it should have been changed. The origin of the TOTC from the repetition of the last syllable of tyevtro is very unlikely. And, though Se has no obvious difficulty, it is hard to suppose that St John would have indicated in such a way a fresh journey to Jerusalem (xiii. i is not a parallel), and the statement, "Now the Feast of Dedication took place (e'yeWro) at Jerusalem," is on this supposition, as it seems, singularly without force.

On the whole therefore it is best to adopt the reading rare, which has strong external and internal authority, and which brings the conversation in x. i — 1 8 into connexion with its sequel, -v. 25 ff., and with a characteristic epoch.

The reading (2) is impossible. The readings (4) and (5) are evidently corrections: if either had been original, it would not have been disturbed. The choice lies between (i) and (3). Of these (i) has the most ancient authority, and is the most difficult and at the same time the most in accordance with the style of St John (vi. 39, xvii. 2). This reading has therefore been adopted in the notes.

If the masculine relative be adopted (os) the sense is quite simple: My Father which gave them to me is greater (personally, /iei'£wi>, or rather, a greater power, /xet£bi/: comp. Matt. xii. 6) than all; and (as a consequence) no one is able..,

Hilary ('de Trin.' 7. 22; n. 12) takes the phrase in a wholly different sense as referring to the derivation of the Son's divine nature from the Father (Datio paterna sumptae nativitatis professio est, et quod unum sunt, proprietas ex nativitate naturae est: u. 12).

Ambrose ('De Spir. Sancto,' in. 116: Dedit pater per generationem non per adoptionem) and Augustine (ad loc. Quid dedit Filio Pater majus omnibus? Ut ipse illi esset unigenitus Filius) take the same view. But the usage of St John (vi. 39, all that which the Father hath given me: comp. v. 37, xvii. 2, all that which thou hast gi-ven Him) seems distinctly to point to the society of the faithful as the Father's gift; and this interpretation brings the clause into parallelism with those which have gone before.

This last section of the record of the Lord's public ministry, represented by His great controversy at Jerusalem, consists of two parts. The first part contains the narrative of the final sign with its immediate consequences (xi.); the second part gives three typical scenes which mark the close of the work, together with a summary judgment upon its results (xii.).

The narrative of the raising of Lazarus is unique in its completeness. The essential circumstances of the fact in regard to persons, manner, results, are given with perfect distinctness. The history is more complete than that in ch. ix. because the persons stand in closer connexion with the Lord than the blind man, and the event itself had in many ways a ruling influence on the end of His ministry.

Four scenes are to be distinguished: (i) The prelude to the miracle (i — 16); (2) The scene at Bethany (17 — 32); (3) The miracle (33 — 44); (4) The immediate issues of the miracle (45— 57).

i. The sign itself is the last of a series, which has evidently been formed (xx. 30 f.) with a view to the complete and harmonious exhibition of the Lord's work. The seven miracles of the ministry, which St John relates, form a significant whole (ii. i ff., iv. 46 ff., v. i ff., vi. 5 ff., 15 ff., ix. i ff., xi.). And in this respect it is of interest to notice that the first and last are wrought in the circle of family life, and among believers to the strengthening of faith (ii. n, xi. 15); and both are declared to be manifestations of "glory" (ii. ii, xi. 4, 40). So the natural relations of men become the occasions of the revelation of higher truth.

^. The circumstances of the miracle ought to be minutely compared with those of the corresponding miracles recorded by the Synoptists (Mark v. 22 ff. and parallels; Luke vii. ii ff.). The omission of the raising of Lazarus by the Synoptists is no more remarkable in principle than the omission of these raisings by St John. In each case the selection of facts was determined by the purpose of the record. The miracles wrought at Jerusalem were not included in the cycle of apostolic preaching which formed the basis of the Synoptic Gospels.

3. Numerous minute touches mark the fulness of personal knowledge, or the impression of an eye-witness: e.g. the relation of the family to Jesus (v. 5); the delay of two days (6); the exact position of Bethany (18); the presence of Tews (19); the secret message (28); the title '*the Master" (id.); the pause of Jesus (30); the following of the Jews (31), and their weeping (33); the prostration of Mary (32); the successive phases of the Lord's emotion (33, 35, 38); the appearance of Lazarus (44).

4. Not less remarkable than this definiteness of detail are the silences, the omissions, in the narrative; e.g. as to the return of the messenger (v. 4); the message to Mary (27 f.); the welcome of the restored brother (44). Under this head too may be classed the unexpected turns of expression: e.g. "unto Judasa" (^.7), •w. ii f., *v. 37.

5. That however which is most impressive in the narrative, as a history, is its dramatic vividness; and this in different respects. There is a clear individuality in the persons. Thomas stands out characteristically from the apostles. Martha and Mary, alike in their convictions, are distinguished in the manner of shewing them. Then again there is a living revelation of character in the course of the narrative; Martha reflects the influence of the Lord's words. The Jews are tried and separated. And above all the Lord is seen throughout, absolutely one in His supreme freedom, perfectly human and perfectly divine, so that it is felt that there is no want of harmony between His tears and His life-giving command.

NOW a certain man was sick, wiped his feet with her hair, whose named Lazarus, of Bethany, brother Lazarus was sick.)

the town of Mary and her sister Martha.

3 Therefore his sisters sent unto him, saying, Lord, behold, he whom

2 ("It was that Mary which an- thou lovest is sick, ointed the Lord with ointment, and 4 When Jesus heard that, he said,

6. With regard to the fact itself it is important to remark that, while it was a sign of the resurrection, the Evangelist makes it clear throughout that this raising to a corruptible life is essentially distinct from the Lord's rising again to a glorified life.

7. Apart from the antecedent assumption that a miracle is impossible, and that the record of a miracle must therefore be explained away, it is not easy to see any ground for questioning the literal exactness of the history. No explanation of the origin of the narrative on the supposition that it is unhistorical, has even a show of plausibility. Those who deny the fact are sooner or later brought to maintain either that the.scene was an imposture, or that the record is a fiction. Both of these hypotheses involve a moral miracle.

8. No overwhelming influence is assigned to the miracle by the Evangelist. It is a "sign," a revelation of the divine glory, to those who believe, or who have sympathy with the truth. But others, apparently, without questioning the reality of the fact, simply find in it a call to more energetic opposition. The work arrests attention f and then it becomes a touchstone of character. In this respect it completely answers to the function assigned to miracles in the New Testament.

9. This last consideration helps to explain the omission of the miracle from the Synoptic narratives. For us the incident, as an external fact, has naturally a relative importance far greater than it had for the Evangelists. For them, as for the Jews, it was one of " many signs" (xi. 47), and not essentially distinguished from them. The entry into Jerusalem was the decisive event in which the issue of all Christ's earlier works was summed up. This therefore the Synoptists record. For St John, however, the raising of Lazarus was, as the other miracles, a spiritual revelation. It fell in then with his plan, as far as we can discern it, to relate it at length, while it did not fall in with the common plan of the Synoptic Gospels, which excluded all working at Jerusalem till the triumphal entry.

The record of the miracle is prefaced by an account of the external and moral circumstances under which it was wrought. The message as to the sickness of Lazarus was brought to the Lord in His retirement at Peraea. He declared what the end would be in mysterious terms, and still remained where He was (i — 6). Then followed the announcement of His intention to return to Judaea, which served to shew the feeling of His disciples, alike in their weakness and in their devotion (7 — 16). Throughout the Lord speaks with the authority of certain knowledge (<wu. 4, 15).

1. Now... was..."] The particle (Se) marks the interruption to the retirement beyond Jordan (x. 40).

Lazarus'] The name is a shortened form of Eleazar. It occurs again in Luke xvi. 20; Jos. 'B. J.' v. 13. 7, and in Rabbinic writers (ITJp), see Lightfoot, ad loc. All the attempts to identify Lazarus with the person in the parable or with the rich young man are quite baseless. It may also be added that the identification of Mary with Mary Magdalene is a mere conjecture supported by no direct evidence, and opposed to the general tenour of the Gospels.

of Bethany... the town..."] The contrast of prepositions in the original text, of (arro, Vulg. a) Bethany, sprung from (e'/c, Vulg. de) the town (village, and so "v. 30) of..., describes the actual residence, and the true home of Lazarus. The "village" may have been Bethany, or it may have been some other village (a certain village, Luke x. 38).

Mary... Martha] Mary is apparently put forward as the person best known from the event mentioned in v. 2 and related in ch. xii., though Martha seems to have been the elder sister (w. 5, 19; Luke x. 38 f.). "This name of Martha is very frequent in the Talmudic authors " (Lightfoot, ad loc.).

2. It <was that Mary..."] The original is ambiguous. It may be either But (Se) Mary was she that... whose...; or, as A. V., But it <was (the) Mary which...whose... The verse obviously presupposes (as v. i) a general knowledge of the Evangelic history.

3. Therefore his sisters...'] The sisters therefore, feeling sure of His love in their sorrow.

behold] It was enough to state the fact; they offer no plea. " Sufficit ut noveris: non enim amas et deseris " (Augustine, ad loc.). The interjection is characteristic of St John. Comp. xvi. 29, note.

This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God, that the Son of God might be glorified thereby.

5 Now Jesus loved Martha, and her sister, and Lazarus.

6 When he had heard therefore that he was sick, he abode two days still in the same place where he was.

8 His disciples say unto him, Master, the Jews of late sought to stone thee; and goest thou thither again?

9 Jesus answered, Are there not twelve hours in the day? If any man walk in the. day, he stumbleth not,

be whom thou lovest] with the natural affection of personal attachment (5» <£tXet?, Vulg. quern amas). So they point the relation. The Evangelist uses a different word in v. 5 (rjydira, Vulg. diligebaf). For the distinction between the two words, see v. 30, note, xxi. 15, 17, notes.

4. When Jesus...he said~\ But when Jesus heard it he said. The words are for all. They are not a simple answer to the messengers, nor yet a simple lesson for the disciples. They contain an answer, and they kindle faith. And the messenger seems to have returned reassured by them, while they were also designed to suggest hope to the sisters when all hope was over (i>. 40).

This sickness... thereby] This sickness is not unto death as its issue and end, but for — to serve and to advance — the glory of God, in order that the Son of God may be glorified thereby. The general object (the glory of God) is made specific in the particular end. The actual occurrence of death was in no way against this statement. It rather helped to realise the deeper fulness of the revelation.

for the glory] In every other place in St John (even i. 30; 3 John 7) the preposition used here (uWp, Vulg. pro) marks the notion of "sacrifice in behalf of;" and this idea lies under the narrative here. There was some mysterious sense in wnich the sick man suffered in behalf of God's glory, and was not merely a passive instrument. Thus the sickness is regarded in a triple relation: "unto" in respect of the actual result; "in behalf of" in respect of the suffering borne; "in order that " in respect of the divine purpose.

might (may) be glorified] The phrase contains a clear allusion to the glory of the Lord won through the Passion. The raising of Lazarus by revealing Christ's power and character brought the hostility of His enemies to a crisis (w. 47 ff.), and led to His final "glorifying:" xii. 23, xiii. 31.

5. Now Jesus loved...] The words are a preparation for v. 6. The Evangelist describes the Lord's affection for this family as that of moral choice (rjycnra.: see 11. 3, note). The passing notice of that which must have been the result of long and intimate intercourse is a striking illustration of the fragmentariness of the Evangelic records. Lazarus is not mentioned in Luke x. 38 ff.

6. When he had heard therefore..] When therefore he heard... The delay and the return were alike consequences of the same divine affection and of the same divine knowledge. Because the Lord loved the family He went at the exact moment when His visit would be most fruitful, and not just when He was invited.

he abode... Then after that] he abode for the time...then after this (rare p.ei>...eireiTa... Vulg. tune quidem...deinde post hoc...).

two days] The journey would occupy about a day. Thus Lazarus died at the time when the message came (<w. 17, 39). Christ therefore did not wait for the death, but knew of the death. Meanwhile He finished the work which He had to do before going back to Judaea. The supposition that the interval was left in order that the Lord might raise the dead and not heal the sick, and so shew greater power and win greater glory, is alien equally from the spirit and from the letter of the narrative, v. 15.

7. Let us go into Judxa again] It is to be noticed that the words are not let us go to Bethany. The thought is of the hostile land of unbelief in contrast with Peraea (x. 40).

the Jews... again?] Even now (vvv) the Jews were seeking...and art thou going thither again? The English idiom hardly admits the vividness of the original.

9. The answer is exactly complementary to that in ix. 4. It is here laid down that there is an appointed measure of working time given, and consequently that as long as that lasts work can be done. On the other hand (ix. 4) there is only a limited time, and the work must be finished within it.

There is no warrant for applying the ideas of "night" and " stumbling " to any special aspects of the Lord's work, as in the case of men, xii. 35. The answer is, as a whole, a

because he seeth the light of this world.

10 But if a man walk in the night, he stumbleth, because there is no light in him.

11 These things said he: and after that he saith unto them, Our friend Lazarus sleepeth; but I go, that I may awake him out of sleep.

12 Then said his disciples, Lord, if he sleep, he shall do well.

13 Howbeit Jesus spake of his death: but they thought that he had spoken of taking of rest in sleep.

14 Then said Jesus unto them plainly, Lazarus is dead.

15 And I am glad for your sakes that I was not there, to the intent

parable of human action. All action is subject to corresponding conditions. Man does not carry within him all that he requires. In order to move in the world he must be illuminated by the light of the world. This law held true even of Christ's work on earth. It could be done, and at the same time it could only be done, while the " day " yet continued. A similar idea is expressed in Luke xiii. 32 f.

The journey to Bethany was not yet begun, so that the image was probably suggested by the early dawn.

10. there is...him] the light is not in him: the light which he needs for the fulfilment of his work.

11. These things said he: and after that...'] These things spake he, and after this...

Our friend...sleepeth} More exactly: Lazarus, our friend, is fallen asleep («KOI- /i»;rai). Even so he still is "our friend" in that world of spirit. Comp. xv. 14 f.; Luke xii. 4. The Lord joins His disciples with Himself in one bond of friendship (our friend).

12. Then said... sleep..."] The disciples therefore said to him...if he is fallen asleep... The misunderstanding followed from a false view of the promise in v. 4. The *' sleep" seemed to the disciples to be the crisis of recovery, as, for example, in fever, due to the intervention of the Lord. And if this was so, the perilous journey was no longer necessary; still less could it be well to break the rest which had at last been given.

he shall do welQ he shall be saved (Vulg. salvus erit). It is important to notice how the word "save" reaches through the whole of man's nature to every part of it. We cannot draw the line between what we are tempted to call the higher and the lower. The whole narrative is a revelation of life and death, in}. 25 f.

13. Hoivbeit Jesus spake...had spoken...] Now Jesus had spoken...spake... The solemn word misunderstood is contrasted with the immediate interpretation of it (on... Ae'yti).

•14. Then said Jesus..."} Then therefore Jesus said... because the disciples had failed to catch the meaning of the words with which He had tried their spiritual discernment. It is clearly implied that the knowledge was supernatural. " Quid lateret eum qui creaverat? " (Aug.).

Lazarus is dead} Or strictly, Lazarus died. The thought is carried back to the critical moment on which the disciples rested in hope. It is interesting to contrast the phrase used before (v. n), is fallen asleep, which describes the continuous state with that used here, died, which marks the single point of change.

15. / am glad...believe} I am glad for your sakes, to the intent ye may believe, that I was not there. The words to the intent ye may believe are brought into the closest connexion with for your sakes, so as to explain the strange saying. Christ is glad not for the death of Lazarus, but for the circumstances and issues of the death. It will be observed that the Lord speaks of His own actions, as if they were in some sense not self-determined.

/ was not there} as if death would have been impossible in the presence of Christ.

nevertheless...'} but (aXXd), not to dwell on present sorrow or joy to come. The word breaks abruptly the connecting thought. Habet Dominus boras suas et moras.

go unto him} not thither, but unto him: unto him, and not to the sisters who were mourning for him. Even as Christ spoke of Lazarus as still "a friend" (v. ii), so here He speaks of the body "sleeping" in the tomb as the man himself. He fixes the thoughts

ye may believe; nevertheless let us go unto him.

1 6 Then said Thomas, which is called Didymus, unto his fellowdisciples, Let us also go, that we may die with him.

17 Then when Jesus came, he found that he had lain in the grave four days already.

1 8 Now Bethany was nigh unto Jerusalem, ' about fifteen furlongs off:

19 And many of the Jews came to Martha and Mary, to comfort them concerning their brother.

20 Then Martha, as soon as she heard that Jesus was coming, went and met him: but Mary sat still in the house.

of the disciples upon a real present relationship of Lazarus to them and to Himself. That is now the ground of hope (xiv. 19: comp. Luke xx. 38; Matt. xxii. 32, note).

16. Then said Thomas...] Thomas therefore said... in answer to the invitation, as seeing that the resolution of the Master was fixed. There is no longer (•!>. 8) any objec- which is called...,] not as an additional name, but as the interpretation of Thomas (•7"twz). Comp. iv. 25, (xix. 17), i. 38. The same note is repeated xx. 24, xxi. ^. It is difficult to see why special prominence is given to this Greek equivalent of the Aramaic name. Perhaps Thomas may have been familiarly known in Asia Minor among the Gentile Christians as Didymus. The traditions as to his work in Parthia and India are late and uncertain.

Let us also] In v. n Christ had spoken of Himself alone; in v. 15 there is a general invitation. Thomas emphasizes the voluntariness of the act.

that we may die with him] i.e. Jesus, suggested by "we also." It seems strange that any one should have referred it to Lazarus.

that -we may die~] The words stand in sharp contrast with the Lord's words, that ye may believe. Thomas keeps strictly within the range of that which he knew. There was no doubt as to the hostility of the Jews (comp. Luke xxii. 33). He will not go one step beyond that which is plain and open. He will die for the love which he has, but he will not affect the faith which he has not.

The other passages in which St Thomas appears shew the same character, xiv. 5 (we know not whither...), xx. 25 ff.

After giving a general view of the circumstances at Bethany (17—19), the Evangelist lays open the meaning of the miracle as a revelation to faith, in connexion with the hope and sorrow of Martha (20 — 27) and Mary (28 — 32). Martha's confession of faith is in words (vv. 22, 24, 27); Mary's is in simple self-surrender (y. 32); while both alike start from the expression of the same conviction

(vv. 21, 32). It has been commonly observed, and with justice, that under very different circumstances the sisters shew the same differences of character as in Luke x. 38 ff. Martha is eager, impetuous, warm; Mary is more devoted and intense.

18. Bethany 'was...'] The whole scene in the apostle's mind is distinct both in place and time. He looks back on the spot (nigh unto Jerusalem) and the company (the Jews had come) as prepared by a divine fitness for the work to be wrought.

fifteen furlongs off~\ i.e. about two miles. The construction in the original is peculiar (OTTO or. §«...). Comp. xxi. 8; Rev. xiv. 20. The modern name of Bethany (see ' Diet, of Bible,' s.?>.) (El-Azariyeh) is derived from the miracle. See Wilson, ' Lands of the Bible,' I. 485-

19. of the Jews] w. 31, 36, 45. This was the last trial. Natural human love gave them once more the opportunity of faith.

came... to comfort] had come...to comfort. During the seven days (!"!JDK>) of solemn mourning it is still customary for friends to make visits of condolence. Comp. i S. xxxi. 14; i Chro. x. 12; Job ii. 13 (' Jewish Daily Prayers,' pp. xxx. f.). Lightfoot (ad /or.) gives many illustrations of the ancient usages.

20. Then Martha...] Martha therefore... (vv. 1 8, 19 are parenthetical). Martha appears to have been engaged in some household duty, and so first heard of the Lord's approach; Mary was still in her chamber, so that the tidings did not at once come to her (v. 29). Comp. Luke x. 38 ff.

that Jesus was coming] Literally, that Jesut cometh. He had been watched for while hope lasted, and the watch seems to have been still kept when hope was gone. The words appear to be the exact message brought to Martha: " Jesus is coming."

21 Then said Martha unto Jesus, Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died.

22 But I know, that even now, whatsoever thou wilt ask of God, God will give it thee.

23 Jesus saith unto her, Thy brother shall rise again.

24 Martha saith unto him, *I know * Luke '*• that he shall rise again in the resur- chap. 5. 29. rection at the last day.

25 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the c life: he that ' <*• 6- asbelieveth in me, though he were dead,

21. Then said Martha...Lord, if...'] So Martha said... Lord, if... The words are a simple expression of faith and love, without any admixture of complaint. Martha does not say, "if thou hadst come;" she does not even emphasize the pronoun. She thinks only of a necessary absence. See v. 32.

22. But... now...~\ And now (/cm vvv) I know that... even when death seems to have closed all. Faith reaches forth to that which it does not grasp. The words perhaps refer to the mysterious saying of the Lord (i>. 4) which had been reported to her.

The emphatic repetition of God, at the end of both clauses in the original, serves to bring out, as it were, the special relation in which Christ stood to God in Martha's thoughts. It is to be observed that Martha uses a word for the Lord's prayer (atYeic) which the Lord uses of others (xiv. 13 f., xv. 16, xvi. 23 f.), but never of Himself. Comp. xvi. 26, note.

23. Thy brother shall rise again] The whole history of the raising of Lazarus is a parable of Life through death (vv. 4, it, 16), of life through what is called death, of death through what is called life (v. 50). Here then, at the beginning, the key-note is given. Whatever death may seem to be, there is a resurrection. Death is not the final conqueror. As yet the idea of " resurrection " is not defined. It is enough that the idea be recognised.

24. Martha acknowledges the doctrine of a resurrection, as an object of remote belief: as something of general but not of personal interest, and therefore powerless in the present bereavement: / know that he shall rise again in the resurrection, in that awful scene of universal awakening, at the last day, when all human interests cease.

25. The reply of the Lord meets each implied difficulty. He does not set aside Martha's confession, as if her idea were faulty. He brings the belief which she held into connexion with man's nature as He had made and revealed it. The resurrection is not a doctrine but a fact: not future but present: not multitudinous, but belonging to the unbroken continuity of each separate life. The Resurrection is one manifestation of the Life: it is involved in the Life. It is a personal communication of the Lord Himself, and not a grace which He has to gain from another. Martha had spoken of a gift to be obtained from God and dispensed by Christ. Christ turns her thoughts to His own Person. He is that which men need. He does not procure the blessing for them. Compare iv. 15 if., vi. 35 ff. I am — not I shall be hereafter — I am, even in this crisis of bereavement, in this immediate prospect of the Cross, the Resurrection and the Life. The word " Resurrection " comes first, because the teaching starts from death; but the special term is at once absorbed in the deeper word which includes it, Life (shall live, not shall rise again).

I am the resurrection...'} Christ in the fulness of His Person does not simply work the Resurrection and give life: He is both. He does not say " I promise," or "I procure," or "I bring," but "I am." By taking humanity into Himself He has revealed the permanence of man's individuality and being. But this permanence can be found only in union with Him. Thus two main thoughts are laid down: Life (Resurrection) is present, and this Life is in a Person.

and the life] The context in which this revelation is given determines the sense in which it must be interpreted. Christ is the life of the individual believer, in Whom all that belongs to the completeness of personal being (v. 23, thy brother; v. n, our friend) finds its permanence and consummation. The same statement is made again in the last discourses (xiv. 6 note), but in a different connexion, and with a different scope. Just as "the life" in combination with "the resurrection " fixes the thought upon the man, so "the life" in combination with "the way" and "the truth" fixes it upon the whole sum of existence (i. 4), to which every man contributes his " individual difference." Christ is the Life in both relations. He gives unity and stability to each man separately, and at the same time in virtue of this to the whole creation. St Paul expresses the same double truth when he speaks of the believer as " living in Christ" (Rom. vi. n), and of "all things consisting in Him" (Col. i. 17).

26. The truth is presented in its two forms as suggested by Resurrection and Life. Some

Heveth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?

27 She saith unto him, Yea, Lord: I believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of God, which should come into the world.

28 And when she had so said, she went her way, and called Mary her sister secretly, saying, The Master is come, and calleth for thee.

29 As soon as she heard that, she arose quickly, and came unto

30 Now Jesus was not yet come into the town, but was in that place where Martha met him.

31 The Jews then which were with her in the house, and comforted her, when they saw Mary, that she rose up hastily and went out, followed

there were, like Lazarus, who had believed and died, some like Martha who yet lived and believed. Of the first it is said that the death of earth under which they had fallen is no real death: He that believeth on me, though he were dead (even if he die), shall live — shall live still, live on even through that change, and not resume life at some later time. And of the second that the life of heaven shall never be broken off: Whosoever (nay) liveth and believeth in me, he that in that faith hath seized the true conception of life, shall never die. To him who is in Christ death is not what it seems to be. The insertion of the universal term in this clause gives amplitude to the promise.

The verse points to mysteries which have occupied the thoughts of Eastern and also of Western philosophers, as the famous verses of Euripides shew, " Who knoweth if to live be truly death, and death be reckoned life by those below?" ('Polyid.' Fragm. vu.: comp. 'Phryx.' Fragm. xiv.), and indicates a higher form of " corporate " life, such as St Paul expresses by the phrase "in Christ" (Gal. ii. 20; Col. iii. 4). Comp. xvii. 3, note.

Part of the thought is expressed in a saying in the Talmud: " What has man to do that he may live? Let him die. What has man to do that he may die? Let him live " (' Tamid,' 32 a). The last words of Edward the Confessor offer a closer parallel: " Weep not," he said, "I shall not die but live; and as I leave the land of the dying I trust to see the blessings of the Lord in the land of the living " (Richard of Cirencester, n. 292).

shall never die'] According to the universal usage of St John this must be the sense of the original phrase (eir /iq...«r TOO at<5i>a), and not " shall not die,for ever." See iv. 14, viii. 51,52, x. 28, xiii. 8.

Relieves t thou this?'] i.e. Is this thy belief* (rovro Tri(rrfvtis'i) not Do you admit my statement? (rOUT6) 7Tl<TT(V(lS ])•

27. Martha accepts the revelation, and then falls back upon the confession of the faith which she had won. She does not say simply " I believe," repeating the form given; but " I — even. I — the pronoun is emphatic — Have believed" — "I have made this belief my own." And the belief which she expresses, though it falls short technically of Christ's declaration, being real as far as it goes, carries all else with it. He who holds firmly what he has gained will find afterwards that it contains far more than he has realised.

'which should come (even he that cometh) into the world] for whom in both aspects men are ever looking. The title is peculiar. Comp. vi. 14; Matt. xi. 3; Luke vii. 19 f.

she went her way (away)] Her faith answering to the revelation left nothing more to be said. She had risen above private grief.

called... secretly, saying] called, saying secretly. In the three other places where the adverb occurs (Matt. i. 19, ii. 7; Acts xvi. 37) it precedes the word with which it is connected (Xo% «V.). The message was given so that Mary might meet the Lord alone and that the ill-feeling of the Jews might not be called out.

The Master] used absolutely. Comp. xx. 1 6, xiii. 13 f.; Matt. xxvi. 18, and parallels. The title opens a glimpse into the private intercourse of the Lord and the disciples: so they spoke of Him.

calleth for (calleth) thee] The conversation with Martha is evidently not related fully. We cannot suppose (with Cyril of Alexandria) that Martha herself framed the message out of the general tenor of the Lord's wo/ds.

29. As soon (And as soon)... arose... and came (set forth) unto him] The terms are singularly vivid. The momentary act (rjyfpdn, contrast also dvea-rn, v- 31) is contrasted with the continuous action which followed (fo^ro).

30. but was still in that place...] as though He would meet the sisters away from the crowd of mourners.

her, saying, She goeth unto the grave to weep there.

32 Then when Mary was come where Jesus was, and saw him, she

fell down at his feet, saying unto him, Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died.

to weep (Iva K\av<rj], Vulg. ut floret)"] The verb describes the continuous, almost passionate, expression of sorrow. Comp. xvi. 20, xx. ii ff. So it is used especially of wailing for the dead: Matt. ii. 18; Mark v. 38 f. &c., Luke vii. 13, viii. 52; Acts ix. 39. The word must be carefully distinguished from that used in v. 35.

The secrecy of Martha became of no avail, and so it came to pass that the work was wrought in the presence of a mixed body of spectators (Cyril).

32. Then...<was come...feet...] Mary therefore, when she came...fell at his feet with more demonstrative emotion than

Martha (-7;. 21), as afterwards she is represented as "weeping," v. 33.

Lord,... died} The words are identical with those used by Martha save for the significant transposition of the pronoun (OVK. av pov air. 6 d&), and represent without doubt what the sisters had said one to another: "If the Lord had been here...."

The details of the working of the miracle bring out several features not so clearly seen elsewhere. The work is not a simple exertion of sovereign, impassive, power. It follows on a voluntary and deep apprehension of the sorrow in itself and in its source (w. 33 — 38). At the same time the issue is absolutely known while the present pain is fully shared (39, 40). Such knowledge follows from the perfect sympathy between the Father and the Son. The Son's works are the open expression of the will of the Father which He has recognised (41, 4*)-

33. No conversation and no answer follows the sister's address as before. This was the climax of natural grief which called for the act of power and not for the word of power only.

saw her (Mary) weeping] Martha seems to have calmly trusted to the promise of restoration which yet she could not understand groaned in the spirit} The word rendered groaned (here and in -v. 38, eW/Spi/ifj'craTo raj irvftifiari, Vulg. fremuit or infremuit spiritu), occurs in three other places in the New Testament (Matt. ix. 30; Mark i. 43, xiv. 5, where see notes).

In these places there is the notion of coercion springing out of displeasure. The feeling is called out by something seen in another which moves to anger rather than to sorrow. So here we may set aside those interpretations or the word which represent the emotion as grief only. For such a sense of the word there is no authority at all. So much is clear that the general notion of antagonism, or indignation, or anger, must be taken.

But further difficulty arises as to the construction. Is the verb absolute or not? Is the spirit the sphere, or the instrument, or the object of the emotion?

1. In the other passages of the New Testament the dative of the object is always added (and so also in Isai. xvii. 13, Symm.). If " the spirit " be the object here, what must we then understand by " the spirit " to which this vehement expression of feeling is directed? (a) Some have supposed that "the spirit" here is, the seat of human feeling, which the Lord in respect of His divine nature checked in its intensity. But " the spirit " can hardly describe the passionate, sympathetic side of human nature; and this conception is inconsistent with the words "He troubled Himself" which follow. (/3) Others again have taken " the spirit" to express, according to the common usage of the word, that part of the Lord's human nature whereby He was in immediate fellowship with His Father. And in this case two distinct views may be taken of the sense according as (i) the antagonism is with that which unduly shrinks from action, or (2) with that which unduly presses forward to action. If we follow the first idea the sense will be that the Lord "straitly charged," summoned up to vigorous conflict with death the spirit which might, humanly speaking, hang back from the terrible encounter which even through victory would bring His own death. If we follow the second the thought will be that the Lord checked the momentary impulse which arose within Him to exert His divine power at once, and first voluntarily brought Himself into complete sympathy with the sorrow which He came to relieve. According to the first of these two interpretations, " vehemently moved His spirit" would be parallel with " He troubled Himself:" according to the second, "He sternly checked His spirit " would be the complement of it. Both interpretations fall in with the general sense of the passage, but the second seems to be the most natural.

2. Against this view of the construction, which makes "the spirit" the object of the

weeping, and the Jews also weeping which came with her, he groaned in the spirit, and fwas troubled,

34 And said, Where have ye laid him? They said unto him, Lord, come and see.

36 Then said the Jews, Behold how he loved him!

not this man, d which opened the rfchap.g.6. eyes of the blind, have caused that verb, it may be urged that in His Spirit (T<B Tri>fi/p.ari) is used elsewhere in parallel passages to describe the sphere of feeling (Mark viii. 12; Luke x. 21; John xiii. 21). If then the verb be taken absolutely, which appears to be justifiedby the use below (f'^/3. ev «avr<5), what is the implied object of the indignant' antagonism? Various answers have been given. Some have supposed that the Lord felt indignation (a) with the Jews as hypocritical mourners at the scene, and soon to become traitors. But this seems to be inconsistent with the general tone of irv. 45 f.: and with the parallelism of the verse (weeping, weeping). Others ($) find the cause of indignation in the unbelief or misapprehension of the Jews and even of the sisters. But these faults have not been brought into prominence. The emotion is stirred by the sight of sorrow as sorrow, and not as unbelief or distrust or disappointment. Others again (y) think that the Lord was indignant at the sight of the momentary triumph of evil, as death, or personally of Christ's adversary the devil, who had brought sin into the world, and death through sin, which was here shewn under circumstances of the deepest pathos. This interpretation accords well with the scope of the passage.

On the whole, therefore, the choice seems to lie between the senses i (/3) (2), " He sternly checked His spirit;" and 2 (y), " He groaned" — expressed, that is, indignant emotion— " in spirit." And the use of the word below (v. 38) leads to a decision in favour of the second or these renderings.

Whichever view however be taken, it must be remembered that the miracles of the Lord were not wrought by the simple word of power, but that in a mysterious way the element of sympathy entered into them. He took away the sufferings and diseases of men in some sense by taking them upon Himself, as is expressed in Matt. viii. 17. So it is said (Luke viii. 46) that He knew that power "had gone out from Him." Compare Hcbr. v. 7. It has been suggested also that in this case the conflict was the heavier, seeing that Lazarus himself was called upon to undergo a life of suffering. The reader will recall Browning's interpretation of his after life in the ' Epistle of Karshish.' was troubled} troubled Himself. It cannot be supposed that the peculiar turn of the phrase used here (eYapa£ei> tavrov, Vulg. turbavit se if sum), is equivalent to was troubled (fTapaxdn, xiii. 21, Vulg. turbatus est). The force of it appears to be that the Lord took to Himself freely those feelings to which others are subject; and this feeling of horror and indignation He manifested outwardly. " Turbaris tu nolens: turbatus est Christus quia voluit" (Aug. ad loc. Compare his note on xiii. 21).

34. Where... laid him?] The question is remarkable as being the angle place in the Gospel where the Lord speaks as seeking information. Yet see -v. 17 (found).

They said (say)... ] Apparently Martha and Mary, to whom we must suppose that the question was addressed.

35. wept} The exact word (e8aKpv<rfv, Vulg. lacrimatus est} occurs here only in the New Testament. It says just so much as that " tears fell from Him." Once it is recorded that Jesus "wept" with the sorrow of lamentation: Luke xix. 41 (e/cXavo-ej'). This weeping was for the death of a people, a church, and not of a friend. Here too the death of Lazarus is the type of the universal destiny of manhood. It must be noticed that St John notices incidentally many traits of the Lord's perfect manhood: thirst (iv. 7, xix. 28), fatigue (iv. 6), love ((J)i\flv, xx. 2); as in the other Gospels we find mention of hunger (Matt. iv. 2), joy (Luke x. 21), sorrow (Mark iii. 5; Matt. xxvi. 38), and anger (Mark iii. 5).

36. Then said the Jews... ] The Jews therefore said... From -w. 45 f- it appears that some had joined the company who were not of Mary's friends.

37. And (But)... Could not... not have died (not die)?] It is possible that the words are used in irony: as if the speakers would draw the conclusion that the former miracle must have been unreal, because no miracle was wrought when a deep personal feeling must have suggested it. Tears shewed love, and shewed it to be powerless. In

38 Jesus therefore again groaning in himself cometh to the grave. It was a cave, and a stone lay upon it.

39 Jesus said, Take ye away the stone. Martha, the sister of him that was dead, saith unto him, Lord, by this time he stinketh: for he hath been dead four days.

40 Jesus saith unto her, Said I not unto thee, that, if thou wouldest believe, thou shouldest see the elorv of r> j 5 ' God?

41 Then they took away the stone from the place where the dead was

laid. And Jesus lifted up his eyes, and said, Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard me.

favour of this view >v. 46 (But some of them...) may be quoted. But it is equally possible to regard the words as spoken in sincerity and ignorance. It can cause no difficulty that the tidings of the Galilasan raisings from the dead had not become current at Jerusalem (comp. Luke viii. 56).

of the blind'} of him that was blind (row T.). The phrase is a definite allusion to the miracle recorded in ch. ix.

38. Jesus therefore] as standing in the presence of this conflict of grief and doubt, and with a clear vision of the realities of death. His emotion at this point has less outward manifestation. If it be supposed that the last words were spoken in mockery, then we can see the occasion of the new struggle.

It ivas (Now it 'was') a cave..."] The caves used as tombs were closed by stone doors, and in some cases by stones which could be rolled along a ledge to the opening into which they were fitted: Matt, xxviii. 2; Luke xxiv. %; Mark xvi. 3, 4 (dvaK€Kv\t<TTqi). Thus the word rendered lay upon it does not necessarily describe a pit. The sense may be better given by laid against it.

39. Jesus said (saith), Take ye away'] Comp. xx. i, where the other Evangelists have rolled away or rolled back,

Martha... saith,..] Mary having once expressed her last hope remains silent. Martha too had laid aside all present liope, at the Lord's bidding as she thought (<vv. 23 ff.), and looked now for some future restoration, connected it may have been with the manifestation of Messiah's glory (i>. 27).

the sister of him that <was dead] The close relationship is mentioned in order to place in a clearer light the tender solicitude with which Martha shrinks from the disclosure of the ravages of death on one nearly bound to her.

for he hath been... ] It will be observed that the Evangelist gives no support to the exaggerated statements of later interpreters (e.g. Augustine, 'in Joh. Tract.' XLIX. i, *' recuscitavit fcetentem"). He simply records the natural words of the sister, who speaks of what she believes must be, and not of an ascertained fact.

dead four days (rerapraior, Vulg. quadnduanus)~\ The full significance of the words appears from a passage of ' Bereshith R.' (p. 1143), quoted by Lightfoot: "It is a

tradition of Ben Kaphra's: The very height of mourning is not till the third day. For three days the spirit wanders about the sepulchre, expecting if it may return into the body. But when it sees that the form or aspect of the face is changed [on the fourth day], then it hovers no more, but leaves the body to itself." " After three days," it is said elsewhere, " the countenance is changed."

40. The Lord directs Martha to the deeper meaning of His words. He does not simply say, Thy brother shall rise again. He answers the suggestion of corruption by the promise of "glory." The general description of the victory of faith (i». 26) contained necessarily a special promise. The fulfilment of that promise was a revelation of the glory of God (v. 4), for which Christ had from the first encouraged the sisters to look. In this way attention is called to the permanent lesson of the sign.

41. Then (So) they took away the stone"] It was enough. No one gainsaid the Master's word. The remainder of the clause {from the place... laid) must be omitted in accordance with most ancient authorities.

/ thank thee that thou hast heard (heardest) me~\ The prayer had been made before, and the answer to the prayer had been assured v. 4. It was now the occasion not for supplication but for thanksgiving. But this thanksgiving was not for any uncertain or unexpected gift (v. 22}. It was rather a proclamation of fellowship with God. The sympathy in work (v. 19) and thought between the Father and the Son is always perfect and uninterrupted, and now it was revealed in action. Even in this sorrow the Son knew

me always: but because of the people which stand by I said /V, that they may believe that thou hast sent me.

43 And when he thus had spoken, he cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth.

44 And he that was dead came forth, bound hand and foot with graveclothes: and his face was bound

about with a napkin. Jesus saith unto them, Loose him, and let him go.

45 Then many of the Jews which came to Mary, and had seen the things which Jesus did, believed on

46 But some of them went their ways to the Pharisees, and told them what things Jesus had done.

the end (I [tya> 8f] on my part, whatever may have been the misgivings of others, knew that...); but that which He knew others denied, and by the open claim to the cooperation of God the Lord made a last solemn appeal to the belief of His adversaries.

This passage may help to an understanding of the true nature of prayer in the case of the Lord, as being the conscious realisation of the divine will, and not a petition for that which is contingent (comp. i John iii. 22). In the case of men prayer approximates to this more and more. It is not the setting up of the will of self, but the apprehension and taking to self of the divine will, which corresponds with the highest good of the individual. Comp. xv. 7, note.

42. At the close of v. 41 we must make a pause. The reflection which follows is spoken as a self-revelation to the disciples. It will be noticed also that the Lord uses the phrase "because of the people (multitude)," and not "because of the Jews," which would have been the natural phrase of the Evangelist, if this had been, as some have alleged, a free rendering of the Lord's words.

I said it] The thanksgiving for the prayer fulfilled was the proof of the divine mission of the Son. For by thanking God for a work not yet seen He gave a crucial test of His fellowship with God.

with a loud -voice] of intelligible command (<£o>i/7;). The contrast lies in the muttered incantations of sorcerers.

44. And be...~] He... The omission of the conjunction by the best ancient authorities increases the solemn emphasis of the state-

It is unnecessary to speculate how Lazarus so bound came forth. The limbs may have been swathed separately, as was the Egyptian custom.

Loose... go (virdyeiv)] The simple command, made necessary by the awe of the bystanders, corresponds with the Lord's action in the parallel records, Luke vii. 15 (he gave him to his mother); viii. 55 (he commanded that something be given her to eat). The narrative leaves the sequel untold.

The miracle was a decisive test of faith and unbelief in those who witnessed it (45, 46). The Jews and the Lord prepare themselves for the end. The Council, acting now under the influence of the Sadducaean hierarchy, decide on the death of Christ (47 — 53); and Christ withdraws from "the Jews" and waits " with His disciples " in retirement for the feast time, while men anxiously look for His appearance (54 — 57). Comp. note on Luke ix. 51.

45. Then... which came... had seen...] Many therefore of the Jews, even they that came... and beheld. "The Jews," as a general term here (comp. v. 37), seems to include others in addition to the friends of Mary. Curiosity may readily have led some to join the company on their way to the grave.

to Mary] The phrase is different from that in v. 19 (to Martha and Mary), in order to refer exactly to the circumstances of <v. 31.

the things which Jesus did] that which He did. The singular, which has the best ancient authority, as compared with the things which (v. 46), marks the concentration of thought upon the crowning work.

46. some of them] of " the Jews," that is, and not as A.V. seems to express, of " the Jews who had come to Mary."

went their ways (away) to the Pharisees'] Comp. v. 15, ix. 13. It is not possible to determine their motive. It may have been simple perplexity. There is no trace of malevolence (unless it be found in v. 37), while there is, on the other hand, no trace of

47 ^1 Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council, and said, What do we? for this man doeth many miracles.

48 If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation.

49 And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all,.

50 *Nor consider that it is expe-'chap. ia. dient for us, that one man should die M

for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.

faith. Want of sympathy made the messengers the occasion of the final catastrophe. Comp.

47. Then... chief priests'] The chief priests therefore, inasmuch as it was evident that this last work could not but create a popular crisis at the coming feast.

The " chief priests " — the hierarchical Sadducaean party — take the lead. Comp. vii. 32 (true reading). So it is throughout: xi. 57, xii. 10, xviii. 3, 35, xix. 6, 15, 21. In the whole record after this chapter the Pharisees are mentioned only twice (xii. 19, 42), and then in a very different aspect.

The same fact appears also in the Synoptic narratives. The only mention of " the Pharisees " in the history of the Passion is Matt, xxvii. 62 (the chief priests and Pharisees, i.e. the Sanhedrin), while "the chief priests" take the place of the deadly enemies of Christ (Matt. xxvi. 3, 14, &c.).

So also in the Acts the Pharisees never stand out as the leading enemies of the Christian. On the contrary, in the two scenes where they appear they are represented as inclined to favour them: v. 34, xxiii. 6 ff. The priests and the Sadducees — who belonged to the same party — take up the opposition: iv. i, v. 17, xxii. 30, xxiii. 14, xxv. 2. Saul, himself a Pharisee, was their emissary (ix. 21, xxvi. 10).

a council] that is, " a meeting of the Council." The word (<rvi>f8piov, Vulg. concilium) occurs here only without the article (Matt. x. 17 is different).

What do <we?~\ Not simply " What must we do?" (Acts iv. 16, rl iroifia-o^fv;) as if there were room for quiet deliberation; but, "W hat are we doing? What course are we taking? (rt iroiovpfv; Vulg. Quid facimus?) The crisis for action is present and urgent. There is no question of considering Christ's claims, even when His works are acknowledged. The matter is regarded only as it affects themselves.

48. If we let...~\ It is assumed that the multitude will place their own interpretation upon the miracles, and set Jesus at their head, and that He will lend Himself to their zeal. This being so, they argue that the Romans will interfere with their power because they are unable to suppress seditious risings.

take a<ujay~\ as something which was their possession. They look at the hypothetical catastrophe from its personal side as affecting themselves. The two finite verbs (fXcuo-ovrai Kal apovaiv), instead of the participle and finite verb, give distinction to each element in the picture. Comp. xv. 16.

both our place and our nation] the visible seat of the theocracy, the Temple and the City (comp. Acts vi. 13, xxi. 28; [Matt xxiv. 15]), and our civil organization.

being...year] being high-priest that year. The phrase is added not as though the office were annual, but to bring out that at this last crisis of the fate of the Jews Caiaphas was the religious head of the nation. So he spoke as their mouthpiece. Nothing can be more natural than that in the recollection of St John the year of the death of Christ — the end and the beginning — should stand out conspicuously from all history as " the year of the Lord." That Caiaphas was highpriest "in that year" (v. 51, xviii. 13) gave its character to his pontificate. Comp. c. xx. 19 (note); Mark iv. 35 (that day).

Te know nothing'] Ye (i5/^e?rj, who dwell on these scruples and these fears, do not even know the simplest rule of statesmanship, that one must be sacrificed to many. The emphatic pronoun is bitterly contemptuous. The unscrupulous Sadducee (Acts v. 17) contrasts the timid irresolution of mere Pharisees with his own clear policy of death (comp. xii. 19). They could not even see their own interest; they were dreaming of some kind of restraint when they might make use of a convenient victim. This thought brings out the force of the clause which follows: '•'•nor consider (\oyifco-df) that it is expedient for you " (not for us).

51 And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation;

52 And not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad.

53 Then from that day forth they took counsel together for to put him to death.

openly among the Jews; but went thence unto a country near to the wilderness, into a city called Ephraim, and there continued with his disciples.

55 11 And the Jews' passover was nigh at hand: and many went out of the country up to Jerusalem before the passover, to purify themselves.

56 Then sought they for Jesus, and spake among themselves, as they stood in the temple, What think ye, that he will not come to the feast?

and so constantly in the LXX., e.g. Exod. xxxiii. i. This use is wholly distinct from that of the plural, "the nations" (ra €$1/77).

51. And... spake... that nation] Now this he said... the nation. The high-priest represented the divine headship of the Jews, and it was through him that an inspired decision was given on questions of doubt: Num. xxvii. 21. The true priest is, as Philo says, a prophet ('De Great. Princ.1 8, ll. p. 367). Here, in virtue of his office, Caiaphas so utters his own thoughts as to pronounce a sentence of God unconsciously. By a mysterious irony he interpreted the results of the death of Christ truly, though in a way directly opposite to that which he apprehended. Something of the irony which reaches its climax here is found in other parts of the Gospel: vii. 41, 42, xix. 21.

52. that nation] the nation. St John does not repeat the word " people." The Jews at this crisis had ceased to be " a people." They were a "nation" only, as one of the nations of the world. The elements of the true " people" were scattered throughout the world, as Jews, and Jews of the Dispersion, and Gentiles.

gather together Into one] Not as locally united, but as partaking in a common life and relationship through and to Him. Comp. x. 16, xvii. 23. " The Christian at Rome feels the Indian to be one of his members, and Christ the Head of all" (Chrysostom). ' the children of God...'] These "scattered children of God" were truly "children of God," though they had not as yet received the full knowledge of their Father. Comp. x. 1 6. The title is not given by anticipation, but by a revelation of the true essence of things. They were the constituents of the new "people" (xii. 32; i John ii. 2), even as they witnessed to the original filial relation of man as man to God. The term scattered abroad (Vulg. flios del qui grant dispersi) marks a broken unity and not only wide dispersion (Matt. xxvi. 31; Acts v. 37). Such is the state of mankind in relation to its divine original.

53. 'Then from... took counsel together] So from...took counsel. That which had been a fluent (departed)... unto a (the) country] That is, the country as opposed to the parts about Jerusalem, as in the next verse.

Ephraim] Apparently the place mentioned with Beth-el in 2 Chro. xiii. 19 (Ophrah). In this case "the wilderness" is the wild country N.E. of Jerusalem.

55. And (Now) the Jews' passover] ii. 13 (otherwise in vi. 4). The contrast between the Jewish passover and "the Christian passover " is distinctly before the mind of the Evangelist (i Cor. v. 7).

spake among themselves'] spake one with another... The phrase (eXtyov irpos dXX.) seems to describe the many knots of questioners gathered from time to time.

mat think ye f think ye that...?J The words appear to be spoken in mere curiosity, without love or hatred.

57 Now both the chief priests and the Pharisees had given a commandment, that, if any man knew where he were, he should shew it, that they might take him.

THEN Jesus six days before the passover came to Bethany, where Lazarus was which had been dead, whom he raised from the dead.

2 There they made him a supper; and Martha served: but Lazarus was one of them that sat at the table with

57. Now (omit both] the chief priests...] This was known, and hence came the anxious questionings of the people.

given a commandment] given commands. The plural seems to be on the whole the most probable reading. In either case the phrase implies that particular instructions had been given, and not only a general direction.

St John's narrative differs from that of the Synoptists as to the close of the Lord's ministry, as it differs throughout, but in a converse manner. Hitherto he has recorded a controversy at Jerusalem which they omit. At the last visit they record a controversy which he omits. The omission follows from the structure of his gospel. He has already traced the conflict with Judaism in its essential features, and he has therefore no need to dwell on the final discussions which made clear to all what he has shewn in its successive stages. Hence he closes his record of the public ministry with three typical scenes in which the relation of the Lord to the disciples, to the multitude, and to the larger world outside is imaged, with a dark background of unbelief (xii. i — 36); and then he gives two summary judgments on the whole issue of Christ's work

This narrative must be compared with the Synoptic parallels (Matt. xxvi. 6 ff.; Mark xiv. 3 ff.), and contrasted with Luke vii. 36 ff. The event is transposed without any definite mark of time in the Synoptic narrative, in order to bring it into close connexion with the treachery of Judas which was called out by it. See notes on the passages referred to. In the incident recorded by St Luke the central fact is the washing of the Lord's feet "with tears." The sinner and the friend were equal in their devotion, yet widely separated in the manner in which they shewed it

CHAP. XII. 1. Then Jesus..."] Jesus therefore... or, So Jesus... Such being the time (xl 55) and the general circumstances six days before...'} That is, apparently, on the 8th Nisan. See Matt. xxi. i, note. If, as has been shewn to be the case (Matt. xxvi. additional note), the Crucifixion took place on the i4th Nisan, and if, which seems to be less certain, that day was a Friday, the date given by St John falls on the Sabbath. It must then be supposed that the feast took place in the evening after the close of the Sabbath. If the Passion fell on Thursday, for which strong reasons can be adduced ('Introd. to Gospels,' pp. 344 ff.), the arrival at Bethany took place on Friday. In this case the Sabbath was kept a day of rest, and followed by the feast. On either supposition the entrance into Jerusalem was made on the Sunday, the next (natural) day.

St John appears to mark the period as the new Hexaemeron, a solemn period of " six days," the time of the new Creation. His Gospel begins and closes with a sacred week (comp. i. 29, 35, 43, ii. i).

came to Bethany'] having joined the Paschal gathering from Galilee through Perzea near Jericho: Luke xviii. 35 and parallels. This pause at Bethany is not mentioned in the Synoptists; but there is nothing surprising in the omission. St Matthew and St Mark mention that during the days which followed the Lord "went out to Bethany" at night. (Matt.xxi. 17; Markxi. ii. Comp. Luke xxi.

(where Lazarus... the dead~] We must read with the best ancient authorities, where Lazarus ewas whom Jesus raised from the dead. There is a solemn emphasis in the repetition of the Lord's name.

2. There... supper] They (probably the people of the village) made him therefore... supper there. The feast was a grateful recognition of the work done among them (therefore). The mention of Lazarus as one of those present hardly falls in with the idea that he and his sisters were the hosts. From Matt. xxvi. 6, Mark xiv. 4, it appears that the feast was held in the house of "Simon the leper."

ointment of spikenard, very costly, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair: and the house was filled with the odour of the ointment.

4 Then saith one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, which should betray him,

5 Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor?

6 This he said, not that he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and "had the bag, and bare what " chaPwas put therein.

2, 3. Martha and Mary at this common feast still fulfil their characteristic parts.

3. Then took Mary...~\ Mary therefore took... feeling by a divine intuition the full significance of the festival. The act of anointing was symbolic of consecration to a divine work. This Mary felt to be imminent The name is not mentioned in the Synoptic narrative.

of ipikenard~\ The original phrase which occurs here and in St Mark (vdpSov Trtermtfjr, Vulg. nardi pistici here and nardt spicati in St Mark) is of uncertain meaning. See note on Mark xiv. 3. In later Greek the epithet (TTJO— TiKoi) is used in the sense of "trustworthy," and it may mean here "genuine," "pure;" or it may mean "liquid" (jrtVw). Perhaps it is best to suppose that it is a local technical term.

the feet... his feet...'] The repetition is significant, and so is the order of the original in the second clause: with her hair bis feet. The Synoptists mention only the "pouring on the head. " This was an ordinary mark of honour: Ps. xxiii. 5.

the house... ointment] The detail is peculiar to St John, and is one of those minute points which belong only to a personal impression at the time. The keen sense of the fragrance belongs to experience and not to imagination.

4. Then... Judas Iscariot] But Judas Iscariot, one of his disciples... saith... Omit, with the best ancient authorities, Simon's son. These words are practically undisturbed in the three other places where they occur: vi. 71, xiii. 2, 26.

<whic h should betray him] The purpose is represented as already present if hitherto undefined. Now it took shape. Judas expressed what others felt (the disciples, Matt. xxvi. 8; some, Mark xiv. 4). With him the thought answered to an evil spirit: with them it was a passing suggestion. It is natural that St John should assign to the one that which truly belonged to him only.

The parts of Mary and Judas in respect to the death of Christ are brought into sharp contrast. Mary in her devotion unconsciously provides for the honour of the dead. Judas in his selfishness unconsciously brings about the death itself.

the poor] The omission of the definite article in the original gives emphasis to the character as distinguished from the class. Comp. Matt. xi. 5; Luke xviii. 22.

The poor were not forgotten, as may be gathered from xiii. 29. And Christ Himself was the true image of the poor, as the poor hereafter were to be of Him.

6. This he said...] Now this he said... and had the bag, and bare...'] and having the bag took what... The word "took" (('Pd(rra£(i>, Vulg. portabat and exportabaf) can from the context gain the sense took away: ch. xx. 15; and so it appears to be used here. If the simple meaning, bare, be adopted the force of the addition will be: "He was a thief, and from his position he could indulge his avarice at the expense of the disciples."

the bag~\ The box, or chest (•yXoxro-oKo/iop, Vulg. ioculos). The word was adopted in Rabbinic. See Buxtorf, s. v. NDpD1*?X

The question has been asked why the office, which was itself a temptation, was assigned to Judas? The answer, so far as an answer can be given, seems to lie in the nature of things. Temptation commonly comes to us through that for which we are naturally fitted. Judas had gifts of management, we may suppose, and so also the trial which comes through that habit of mind. The work gave him the opportunity of self-conquest.

7. Let her alone...] The general sense of the answer is clear. This offering was but the beginning of the work indicated by it, and yet in itself most significant. The anointing to the sacred office was an anointing for the tomb. Judas found fault with an unfruitful expenditure. The words of the Lord shew that there is that which is unfruitful directly, and yet in accordance with our instincts. No one grudges the gifts of affection to the dead; and this natural sacrifice of love, acknowledged by all, Mary had made, though she knew not the full import of the act. The anointing

against the day of my burying hath she kept this.

8 For the poor always ye have with you; but me ye have not always.

9 Much people of the Jews therefore knew that he was there: and they came not for Jesus' sake only, but that they might see Lazarus also, whom he had raised from the dead.

10 ^l But the chief priests consulted that they might put Lazarus also to death;

1 1 Because that by reason of him many of the Jews went away, and believed on Jesus.

12 fi b On the next day much people that were come to the feast, when they heard that Jesus was coming to Jerusalem, was in truth the first stage in an embalming. Death would give the opportunity of completing what was begun; and that was rightly done which would find its fulfilment in the preparation for the burial.

The words as given in the Synoptists (Matt. xxvi. 12; Mark xiv. 8) dwell on the present import of the deed. St John recognises this, but points also to some further fulfilment which should follow.

against the day... she kept this'] The reading which is supported by preponderant authority gives this sense: Suffer her to keep it for the day of my preparation for burial (Vulg. ut in die sepulture me<e servet illud~). The interpretation of these words is difficult. If, as appears at first sight from the Synoptic parallels, the ointment was poured out, in what sense could it be said to be kept? Two explanations have been proposed: "Let her alone: she hath done all this, she hath preserved her treasure unsold, that she might keep it for my preparation for burial." And again: "Suffer her to keep it — this was her purpose, and let it not be disturbed — for my preparation for burial." Both explanations seem to fall in with the context. The latter perhaps with its apparent paradox is to be preferred, and the idiom by which a speaker throws himself into the past, and regards what is done as still a purpose, is common to all languages. It may, however, be questioned whether the Synoptists describe the consumption of the whole of the large amount of ointment mentioned by St John (Karexffv, Matt. xxvi. 7; Mark xiv. 3). Part may have been used for this preliminary, unconscious, embalming, and part reserved.

of my burying] of my preparation for burial (evra^taa-nov). This preparation, the Lord implies, was now begun, though it was completed afterwards (xix. 40). Mary had done her part.

me ye have not always] For the other side of this truth see Matt, xxviii. 20, (xxv. 40). The juxtaposition by Christ of Himself and the poor is a revelation of His claims.

It is remarkable that the promise of the future record of the act of love (Matt. xxvi.

13; Mark xiv. 9) is omitted by the one evangelist who gives the name of the woman who shewed this devotion to her Master.

9. Much...Jews'] The common people (o o^Xov TroXvy, according to the most probable reading, in which the two words o. TT. form a compound noun, as in v. 12) therefore of the Jews... as contrasted here with their leaders (t;. 10).

of the Jews] The original is not a simple genitive. A preposition is used (eVc, Vulg. ex) to mark the class out of which the multitude was formed. Comp. vi. 60, xvi. 17, iii. i, vii. 48.

not for Jesus'1 sake (fiia r. '1.)... but that (aXX* Iva)... The Evangelist gives the general and the specific purpose.

10. the chief priests] Here, as before, they are prepared for decisive measures. The sacrifice of the "one man" (xi. 50) soon involved the sacrifice of more.

(2) The triumphal entry into Jerusalem (14 — 19). In this incident again St John's narrative is parallel to that of the Synoptists, but more exact in details. The Synoptists say nothing of the rest at Bethany; and it appears at first sight as if they placed the triumphal entry on the same day as the journey from Jericho (Matt. xx. 29 fF. and parallels). And yet in each case there is the sign of a break: Matt. xxi. i; Luke xix. 29. And the return to Bethany noticed by St Mark (xi. n) suggests at least that village for the starting point. The same passage of St Mark shews that the expulsion of the traders took place on the next day. So that it may be reasonably conjectured that the entry did not take place till the afternoon, when the Lord had time only to regard the whole state of things without doing any special work.

12. the next day] The day after the feast, according to the natural reckoning, i.e. on

13 Took branches of palm trees, and went forth to meet him, and cried, Hosanna: Blessed is the King of Israel that cometh in the name of the Lord.

14 And Jesus, when he had found a young ass, sat thereon; as it is written,

16 These things understood not his disciples at the first: but when Jesus

was glorified, then remembered they that these things were written of him, and that they had done these things unto him.

17 The people therefore that was with him when he called Lazarus out of his grave, and raised him from the dead, bare record.