Expository Thoughts on the Gospels

31. — {In the mean while.] This expression means " during the time when the Samaritans were coming out of the city to the well," between the time when the woman went her way, and the time when her fellow-countrymen, aroused by her testimony, appeared at the well. It is highly probable that they were already in sight.

[Prayed.] The Greek word so rendered is remarkable. It is frequently used to convey the idea of '' asking, or making inquiry." It is a curious fact that it is not used in describing any person's address to God in prayer, except in the case of our Lord Jesus Christ. (John xiv. 16; xvi. 26; xvii. 9, 15, 20.) There is one remarkable instance where it seems to be used in describing a believer's prayer. (1 John v. 16.) But this instance stands so entirely alone that it is probable the meaning is not "pray," but " make curious inquiry."

[Master, eat] The difference between our Lord and His disciples appears here in a striking manner. Their weak minds were preoccupied with the idea of food and bodily sustenance. His heart was filled with the great object of His ministry, " doing good to souls." It is a striking illustration of a difference that may frequently be seen between a believer of great grace and a believer of little grace. The latter, with the best possible intentions, will oflen attach an importance to bodily and temporal things, with which the strong behever will feel no sympathy. 32. — [I have meat, &c.] The meaning of our Lord's words in this verse must evidently be figurative. He had soul-nourishment and soul-sustenance of which His disciples were ignorant. He fi.und such refreshment in doing good to ignorant souls that for the time present He did not feel bodily hunger.

There is no neces-ity for supposing that our Lord referred to any miraculous supply of His bodily wants in this pl;'ce. His words appear to me only to indicate that He found such delight and comfort in doing good to souls, that it was as good as meat and drink to Him. Many of His holiest servants in every age, I believe, conld testify much the same. The joy and happiness of spiiitual success has for the time lifted thf-m above all bodily wants, and supplied the place of material meat and drink. I see no reason why this may not have been the case with our Lord. He had a body in all respects constituted like our own.

The idea of some writers that these words show that our Lord's " thirst " was only simulated and pretended, seems to mo utterly unworthy of notice.

The application of the words which every believer ought to endeavour to make to himself, is familiar to every well-instructed Christian. He has supplies of spiritual nourishment and support, which are hidden and unknown to the world. These supplies he ought to use at all times, and specially in times of sorrow and trial.

33. — [Therefore said...one to another, &c.'\ These words seem to have been spoken privately, or whispered one to another, by the disciples. Their inability to put any but a carnal sense on their Master's words, has been already remarked. In slowness to see a spiritual sense in His language they do not appear at all unlike Nicodemus and the Samaritan woman. " What wonder is it,"

says Augustine, '' if the woman could not understand our Lord, speaking about living water, when the disciples could not understand Him speaking about meat?"

The original Greek of the expression " hath any man brought him ought to eat," is remarkable. There is a negative left out in our translation. It seems to show that the question of the woman, at verse 29, would have been better rendered, " Is this the Cljrist? Can this be the Christ?"

34. — [Jesus saith, cfec] The leading idea of this verse is, " that doing G-od's wiU, and finishing God's work, was so soul-refreshing and pleasant to our Lord that He found it equivalent to meat and drink."

The Greek expression rendered " to do," and " to finish," would have been more literally rendered, " that I should do," and, " that I should finish." But there can be little doubt, as Winer remarks, thiit the language is intended to have an infinitive sense. Precisely the same construction is employed in another remarkable place, John xvii. 3. It seems matter of regret that our translators did not render that verse as they have rendered the verse before us. It should have been, " this is life eternal to know thee, &c."

The " will of God," which it was Christ's meat to " do," must mecui God's will, that salvation by faith in a Saviour should be proclaimed, and a door of mercy set wide open to the cliief of sinners. " It is my meat," says our Lord, " to do that will, and to proclaim to every one with whom I speak that whosoever believeth on the Son shall not perish." The view that it simply means, " my meat is to obey God's commandments and do what He has told me to do," appears to me to fall short of the full meaning of the expression. The leading idea seems to me to be specially God's will about proclaiming salvation by Christ. Compare John vi. 39, 40.

The " work of God," which it was Christ's meat to " finish," must mean that work of complete fulfilment of a Saviour's office which Christ came on earth to perform, and that obedience to God's law which He came to render. " It is my meat," says our Lord, '' to be daily doing that great work which I came into the world to do for man's eoul, to be daily preaching peace, and daily fulfilling all righteousness." Compare John xvii. 4.

The utter unlikeness between Christ and all ministers of the Gospel who perform their duties in a mere prefanctory way, and care more for the world, and its pleasures or gains, than for saving souls, is strikingly brought out in this and the preceding verse. How many professing teachers of religion know nothing whatever of the spirit and habits of mind which our Lord here displays! It can never be said of hunting, shooting, ball-going, card-playing, farming clergymen, that it is their meat and drink to do God's will and finish His work! With what face wdl they meet Christ in the day of judgment?

Cyril says, on this verse, " We learn from hence how great is the love of God towards men. He caRs the conversion of lost people His meat."

35. — [Say not ye, &c.] This saying is interpreted in two different ways.

Some think, as Origen, Rupertus, Brentius, Beza, Jansenius, Cyril, Lightfoot, Lampe, Suicer, and many others, that our Lord really meant that there were four literal months to harvest, at the time when He spoke; and that as the harvest began about May, He spoke in February. The sense would then be, " Ye say at this time of the year that it wiU be harvest in four months. I3ut I tell you there is a spiritual harvest already before you, if you will only lift up your eyes and see it."

Others think, as De Dieu, Maldonatus, Calovius, Whitby, Schottgen, Pearce, Tittman, Stier, Alford, Barnes, and Tholuck, that our Lord only meant that it was a proverbial saying among the Jews, — " four months between seed time and harvest," and that He did not mean the words to be literally taken. The sense would then be, '^Ye havt a common saying that it is four montLs from seed time to harvest. But I tell you that in spiri tiial works the harvest lipens far more quickly. Behold those Samaritans coming out already to hear the word, the very day that seed has been sown among them. The fields are already white for harvest."

Either of the above views make good sense and good divinity. Yet on the whole I prefer the second view, viz.: that our Lord quoted a proverb. To suppose that He really meant that there were literally four months to pass away before harvest, appears to me to involve serious chronological difficulties. It necessitates the assumption that at least thiee quarters of a year had passed away since the passover, when our Lord puritied the temple. (John ii. 23.) No doubt this possibly may have been the case. But it does not appear to me probable. — In addition we must remember that our Lord, on another occasion, referred to a proverbial saying about the weather, beginning much as He does hi-re, " Ye say." Matt. xvi. 3. Moreover, in this very passage He quotes a proverb about " one sowing and another reaping," within two verses. The expression therefoie, "say not ye," seems to me to point to a proverbial saying much more than to a fact. The antithesis to it is the " I say," which immediately follows.

Calvin says, "By this expression, do not ye say? Clirist intended indirectly to point out how much more attentive the minds of men are to earthly than to heavenly things, for they burn with so intense a desire of harvest that they carefully reckon up months and days, while it is astonishing how drowsy and indolent they are in gathering the heavenly wheat."

Cornelius d Lapide conjectures that the disciples had been talking to one another about the prospects of liarvest, as they came to the well, and that our Lord knowing the conversation, referred to it by the words, "do not ye say?"

[^Lift up...eyes..look...JieJds...white...harvest] There can be little doubt that this saying must be interpreted figuratively. The sense is, " There is a harvest of souls before you ready to be gathered in." The same figure is used elsewhere. (Matt. ix. 37. Luke X. 32.)

Some think, as Chrysostom, that when our Lord said, " Be hold....lift up your eyes...look," He spoke with especial reference to the crowd of Samaritans whom He saw coming from the city to the well. If this be so, it is hard to suppose that He first, began conversation with the woman at six o'clock in the evening.

Others think, thnt our Lord spoke these words Avilh reference to the whole world, and special!}- the Jewish nation, at the time of His ministr}. They were so ready and prepared for the preaching- of the Gospel, that they were hke a field white for harvest. The expression, " lift up your eyes," is used elsewhere in Scripture, when mental attention is being called to something rem irkable. See Isai. xlix. 18; Ix. 4; Gen. xiii. 14, 15.

I am disposed to think that both views are correct. Our Lord wished His disciples to notice that both at Samaria and elsewhere the minds of men were everywhere ready to receive the mes-age of the Gospel in an unusual degree. Let them mark how willing the multitude was everywhere to listen to the truth. Let them know that everywhere, as in the apparently hopeless field of Samaria, they would find a harvest of souls ready to be reaped, if only they would be reapers.

Chrysostom, on this verse, remark?, " Christ leads His disciples,

as His custom is, from low things to high. Fields and harvests here express the great number of souls which are ready to receive the word. The ei/es are both spiritual and bodily ones, for they saw a great multitude of Samaritans now approaching. This expectant crowd He calls, very suitably, white fields. For as the corn, when it grows white, is ready for harvest, so were those ready for salvation. But why does He not say all this in direct language? Because by making use of the objects around them He gave great vividness and power to His words, and also caused His discourse to be more pleasant and sink deeper into their memories."

36. — [He that reapeth, &c^ This verse seems to me to show thai our Lord is speaking generally of the field of this world, and of the whole work which His apostles would have to do in it, not only in Samaria, but to the ends of the earth. The verse is a general promise for the encouragement of all labourers of Christ. The full meaning of it can hardly be brought out without a paraphrase. "The reaper of the spiritual harvest has a far more honourable and satisfactory office than the reaper of the natural harvest. He receives wages and gathers fruit not for this life only, but for the life to come. The wages that he receives are eternal wages, a crown of glory that fadeth not away. (1 Pet. V. 4.) The fruit that he gathers is eternal fruit, souls plucked from destruction and saved for evermore." See Daniel xii. 3; John XV. 16; and 1 Cor. ix. 17.

Burkitt, and several other writers, call attention to the fact that the harvestman's wages are much more than the wages of any o^:h'^r labourer, and hence draw the conclusion that no Christian will receive so glorious a reward as the man who labours to win souls to Christ.

appeal Id me to refer to the common joy that there will be in heaven among all who have laboured for Christ, when the whole harvest of saved souls is finally gathered in. The Old Testament prophets and John the Baptist, who sowed, will all rejoice together with the apostles, who reaped. — The results of the spiritual harvest are not like those of the natural harvest, temporal, but eternal, so that a day will come when all who have laboured for it in any way, either by sowing or reaping, will sit down and rejoice together to all eternity. Here in this world the sower sometimes doe-i not live to see the fruit of his labour, and the reaper who gathers in the harvest rejoices alone. But work done in the spiritual harvest is eternal work, and consequently both sowers and reapers are sure at last to "rejoice together," and to see the fruit of their toil.

Let it be noted, that in heaven there will at last be no jealousy and envy among Christ's labourers. Some will have been sowers and some will have been reapers. But all will have done that part of the work allotted to them, and all will finally "rejoice together." Envious feelings will be absorbed in common joy.

Let it be noted, that in doing work for Christ, and labouring for souls, there are sowers as well as reapers. The work of the reaper makes far more show than the work af the sower. Yet it \a perfectly c'ear that if there was no sowing there would be no reaping. It is of great importance to remember this. The Church is often disposed to give an excessive honour to Christ's reapers, and to overlook the labours of Christ's sowers.

87. — [Herem...fhat saying true, &c. tfec] Our Lord here quotes a proverbial saying, which appears to me to confirm the view I have already maintained, that the expression of the 35th verse, " Say not ye there are yet four months," &c., refers to a proverb.

The phrase " herein" means literally, " in this," and seems to me to refer to the verse which immediately follows. " That common saying, one soweth and another reapeth, is made good in this way, — is fulfilled by this circumstance, — is verified in the following manner, viz., I sent you to reap," &c.

The meaning of the proverb is plain. " It is a common saying among men that it often falls to one to sow the field and to another to reap it. The sower and the reaper are not always the same person."

The fi equent use of proverbial sayings in the New Testament deserves notice. It shows the value of proverbs, and the importance of teaching them to children and young people. A pointed proverb is often remembered when a long moral lesson is forgotten.

38. — [I ifcnf you to reap, <&c.] Our Lord here states the manner in which the proverbial saying of the preceding verse is true. He tells the apostles that they were sent to reap a spiritual harvest on which they had bestowed no labour. Other men had laboured, viz., the prophets of the Old Testament and John the Baptist. They had broken up the ground. They had sown the seed. The result of their labour was that the minds of men in the apostles' times were prepared to expect the Messiah, and the apostles had oniy to go forth and proclaim the glad tidings that Messiah was come.

Pearce maintains the strange notion that our Lord, in this verse, only means, " I sent you away into the city to buy meat. While you were absent I sowed spiritual seed in the heart of a Samaritan woman. She is now gone to call others. These and many more will be the harvest which you will reap, without having bestowed any labour on it." This interpretation seems to me quite untenable.

The past tense in this verse, " I have sent," is used, as a grammarian would say, proleptically. It means, "I do send you." Such a use of the past tense is common in Scripture, and especially when G-od speaks of a thing about to be done. With God there is no uncertainty. When He undertakes a thing, it may be regarded as done and finished, because in His counsels it is certain to be finished. Our Lord's meaning is, "I send you throughout Samaria, Galilee, and Judaea, to reap the fruit of the labours of the prophets and John the Baptist. They have sowed, and you have now only to reap."

Some think, as Stier and Alford, that when our Lord said, " other men have laboured," He referred rather to Himself than to the prophets. I am unable to see this. It appears to me a forced and unnatural interpretation. I hold decidedly with Chrysostom, Cyril, Theophylact", Calvin, Zvvingle, Melancthon, Brentius, Lampe, and Poole, that it applies principally to the law and

prophets. — "If the prophets were not the sowers," saith Augustine, "whence had that saying come to the woman, I know that Messias cometh?" — Origen says, "Did not Moses and Elias, the sowers, rejoice with the reapers, Peter, James, and John, when they saw the glory of the Son of God at the transfiguration?"

Theophylact sees in this verse a strong argument against the heretical view of the Marcionites, Manichees, and others, that the New Testament is contrary to the Old. Here the prophets and apostles are spoken of together as labourers under one common Master, in one common field.

The idea propounded by Bucer, that our Lord alludes here to the heathen philosophers as well as the prophets, seems to me unwarrantable and unsafe.

%9.— [Many... Samaritans... believed.] About the exact nature of the belief mentioned here and in the 41st verse, we have no materials for forminpr an opinion. Whether it was only an intellec tual belief that Christ was the Messiah, or whether it was that true faith of the heart which justifies a sinner betore Grod, we are left to conjecture. The more probable opinion appears to be that it was true faith, though very weak and unintelligent, like that of the apostles themselves. It is a strong confirmation of this view, that when Philip, after the day of Pentecost, went down to Samaria and preached Christ, his preaching was received with joy, and many were baptized, both men and women. (Acts viii. 5 — 12.) The Gospel was received without prejudice, and embraced at once as an acknowledged truth.

[For....saying....woman... testified, c&c] These words show the importance of merely human testimony to Christ's Gospel. The word of one weak woman was made the instrumental means of behef to many souls. There was nothing remarkable in the woman's word. It contained no elaborate reasoning, and no striking eloquence. It was only a hearty, earnest testimony of a believing heart. Yet God was pleased to use it to the conversion of souls. We must never despise the use of means. If the woman had not spoken, the Samaritans would not have been converted. — Above all, we must never despise means because of their apparent weakness, feebleness, and inaptness to do good. God can make the weakest instruments powerful to pull down the strongholds of sin and Satan, just as He made David's sling and stone prevail over Goliah.

Theophylact points out that the Samaritan woman's past wicked life was well known to her fellow-citizens, and that their attention must have been aroused by her publicly proclaiming that she had found One who knew her former life, although a stranger. They rightly concluded that He must be no common person.

Melancthon remarks that the belief which resulted from the testimony of a woman in this case, is a clear proof that it is not absolutely necessary to have regular ministerial orders, in order to do good to souls, and that episcopal orders are not absolutelyneedful in order to give effect to the word when spoken.

iO. — [So ivhen... Samaritans... come...besought.Jarry, cfec] The desire nf the Samaritans for instruction is shown in this verse, and the willingness of Christ to assist inquirers is strikingly exhibited. He waits to be entreated. If we have Him not abiding with us, it is because we do not ask Him. The two disciples journeying to Emmaus would have missed a great privilege if they had not said, " Abide with us." (Luke xxiv. 29.)

Ferus on this verse remarks the wide difference between the Samaritans and the Gergesenes. The Gergesenes prayed our

Lord to " depart " from them, the Samaritans to " tarry " with them. (Matt. viii. 34.)

[He abode...two days.] We can only suppose that these two days were spent m teaching and preaching the G-ospel. One would like to know all that was thought and said in those two days. But it is an instance of the occasional " silences " of Scripture, which every attentive Bible-reader must have noticed. The first thirty years of our Lord's life at Nazareth, — the way in which St. Paul speut his time in Arabia, — and his employment during his two years' imprisonment in Cassarea, are similar silences. (G-al. i. 17; Acts xxiv. 27.)

It is an interesting fact which has been observed by some writers, that at this very day, Nablous and its neighbourhood, occupying the site of Samaria and Sychar, are in a more flourishing and prosperous condition than almost any place in Palestine. While Capernaum, and Chorazin, and Bethsaida, which rejected Christ, have almost entirely passed away, Samaria, which believed and received Him, flourishes still.

il. — [Mamj more believed....own luord.] This verse shows the sovereignty of Grod in saving souls. One is called in one way and another in another. Some Samaritans believed when they heard the woman testify. Others did not beheve till they he^ird Christ Himself. — We must be careful that we do not bind down the Holy Ghost to one mode of operation. The experience of saved souls ofien differs widely. If people are brought to repentance and faith in Christ, we must not be stumbled because they are not all brought in the same way.

Olshausen remarks on this verse, " Here is a rare instance in

which t'le ministry of the Lord produced an awakening on a lai ge scale. Ordinarily we find that a few individuals only were aroused b}^ Him, and that these, like grains of seed, scattered here and the. e, became the germs of a new and higher order of things among the people at large."

42. — [Ax»w; we beIieve....not....thy saying.] The Greek words so rendered would be translated more literally, "Not any longer because of thy saying do we believe."

Calvin thinks that the Greek word here rendered " saying," means literally, " talk or talkativeness," and that " the Samaritans appear to boast that they have now a stronger foundation than a woman's tongue." In the only other three places where it is used, it is translated "speech." (Matt. xxvi. 73; Mark xiv. 70; John viii. 43.)

[This is indeed.... Christ... Saviour....world.] The Greek words BO rendered would be translated more literally, ''This is the Sayiour of the world, the Christ."

The singular fulness of the confession made by these Samari' tans deserves special notice. A more full declaration of our Lord's office as " Saviour of the world " is nowhere to be found in the G-ospels. Whether the Samaritans clearly understood what they meant when they spoke of our Lord as " the Saviour," may be reasonably doubted. But that they saw with pecahar clearness a truth which the Jews were specially backward in seeing that He had come to be a Redeemer for all mankind, and no* for the " Jews " only, seems evident from the expression '' the world." That such a testimony should have been borne to Christ, by a mixed race, of seini-heathen origin, like the Samaritans, and not by the Jews, is a remarkable instance of the grace of Grod.

The inference drawn by Calvin from this verse, that '' within two days the sense of the Gospel was more plainly taught by Christ at Samaria than he had hitherto taught it at Jerusalem," seems both unwarrantable and needless. Ought we not rather to fix our eyes on the dijfference between the Jews and Samaritans? Christ's teaching was the same, but the hearts of His hearers were widely different. The Jews were hardened. The Samaritans believed.

Chemnitius, on this verse, thinks that an emphasis is meant to be laid on the Greek word rendered " indeed." Literally it is " truly." He thinks it was used of our Lord in contradistinction to the false Christs and Messiahs who had appeared before Him, as well as to the typical Messiahs and Saviours, such as the Judges.

In leaving the passage we may well wonder that so many '! Samaritans " should at once have believed on our Lord, when so few "Jews" ever beUeved. Our wonder may well be increased, when we consider that our Lord worked no miracle on this occasion, and that the woi'd was the only instiument used to open the Samaritans' hearts. — We see, for one thing, the entire sovereignty of the grace of God. The last are often first and the first last. The most ignorant and unenhghtened believe and are saved, while the most learned and enlightened continue unbelieving and are lost. — We see, for another thing, that it is not miracles and privileges, but grace, which converts souls. The Jews saw scores of mighty miracles worked by our Lord, and heard Him preach for weeks and months, and yet with a few rare exceptions remained impenitent and hardened. The Sarnarifans saw no miracles worked at all, and only had our Lord among (hem for two days, and yet many of them believed. If ever there was clear proof that the grace of the Holy Spirit is the chief thing needed in order to procure the conversion of soul?, we have it in the verses wc are now leaving.

The allegorical and typical meanings which some writera assign to the Samaritan woman and her history, as related in this cliapter, are hardly worth recounting. Some regard the woman as a type of the Jewish synagogue, slavishly bound to the five books of the law, and drawn finally by Christ to drink the living water of the Grospel. — Some regard the woman as a typo of the Gentile nations, for five thousand years committing fornication with heathen idols, and at length purged by Christ,, and casting away their empty water-pots in obedience to Christianity,— Some go even further, and regard the woman as a prophetical type of things yet to come. They consider her as a type of the Greek Church, which is yet to be brought into the true faith of Christ I These views appear to me at best only fanciful speculations, and more Ukely to do harm than good, by drawing men away from the plain practical lessons which the passage contains.

43 Now after two days he departed thence, and went into Galilee.

44 For Jesus himself testified, that a prophet hath no honour in his own country.

45 Then when he was come into Galilee, the Galilaeans received him, having seen all the things that he did at Jerusalem at the feast: for they also went unto the feast.

46 So Jesus came again into Cana of Galilee, where he made the water wine. And there was a certain nobleman, whose son was sick at Capernaum.

47 When he heard that Jesus was come out of Judsea into Galilee, he went unto him, and besought him that he would come down, and heal his son: for he was at the point of death.

48 Then said Jesus unto him, Except ye sec signs and wonders, ye will not beUeve.

49 The nobleman saith unto him, Sir, come dovni, ere my child die.

50 Jesus saith unto him, Go thy way; thy son hveth. And the man beUeved the word that Jesus had spoken unto him, and he went his way.

51 And as he was now going down, his servants met him, and told him, saying. Thy son liveth.

52 Then enquired he of them the hour when he began to amend. And they said unto him, Yesterday at the seventh hour the fever left Mm.

53 So the father knew that it was at the same hour, in the wliich Jesus said unto him, thy son liveth: and himself beheved, and his whole house.

54 This is again the second miracle thai Jesus did, when he was come out of Judaea into Ga» lilee.

Four great lessons stand out boldly on the face of this passage. Let ns fix them in our memories, aud use ihem continually as we journey through life.

We learn, firstly, that the rich have afflictions as well as the poor. We read of a nobleman in deep anxiety because his son was sick. We need not doubt that every means of restoration was used that money could procure. But money is not almighty. The sickness increased, and the nobleman's son lay at the point of death.

The lesson is one which needs to be constantly impressed on the minds of men. There is no more common, or more mischievous error, than to suppose that the lich have no cares. The rich are as liable to sickness as the poor; and have a hundred anxieties beside, of which the poor know nothing at all. Silks and satins often cover very heavy hearts. The dwellers in palaces often sleep more uneasily than the dwellers in cottages. Gold and silver can lift no man beyond the reach of trouble. They may shut out debt and rags, but they cannot shut out care, disease, and death. The higher the tree, the more it is shaken by storms. The broader its branches, the greater is the mark which it exposes to the tempest. David w^as a happier man when he kept his father's sheep at Bethlehem, than when he dwelt as a king at Jerusalem, and governed the twelve tribes of Israel.

Let the servant of Christ beware of desiring riches. They are certain cares, and uncertain comforts. Let him pray for the rich, and not envy them. How hardly shall a rich man enter the kingdom of God! Above all, let him learn to be content with such things as he has. He only is truly rich, who has treasure in heaven.

We learn, secondly, in this passage, that sickness and death come to the young as loell as to the old. We read of a son sick unto death, and a father in trouble about him. We see the natural order of things inverted. The elder is obliged to minister to the younger, and not the younger to the elder. The child draws nigh to the grave before the parent, and not the parent before the child.

The lesson is one which we are all slow to learn. We are apt to shut our eyes to plain facts, and to speak and act, as il young people, as a matter of course, never died when young. And yet the grave-stones in every churchyard would tell us, that few people out of a hundred ever live to be fifty years old, while many never grow up to man's estate at all. The first grave that ever was dug on this earth, was that of a young man. The first person who ever died, was not a father but a son. Aaron lost two sons at a stroke. David, the man after God's own heart, lived long enough to see three children buried. Job was deprived of all his children in one day. These things were carefully recorded for our learning.

He that is wise, will never reckon confidently on long life. "We never know what a day may bring forth. The strongest and fairest are often cut down and hurried away in a few hours, while the old and feeble linger on for many years. The only true wisdom is to be always prepared to meet God, to put nothing off which concerns eternity, and to live like men ready to depart at any moment. So living, it matters little whether we die young or old. Joined to the Lord Jesus, we are safe in any event.

We learn, thirdly, from this passage, what benefits affliction can confer on the soul. We read, that anxiety about a son led the nobleman to Christ, in order to obtain help in time of need. Once brought into Christ's company, he learned a lesson of priceless value. In the end, " he believed, and his whole house." All this, be it remembered, liinged upon the son's sickness. If the nobleman's son had never been ill, his father might have lived and died in his sins.

Affliction is one of God's medicines. By it He often teaches lessons which would be learned in no other way.

By it He often draws souls away from sin and the worlds which would otherwise have perished everlastingly. Health is a great blessing, but sanctified disease is a greater. Prosperity and worldly comfort, are what all naturally desire; but losses and crosses are far better for us, if they lead us to Christ. Thousands at the last day, will testify with David, and the nobleman before us, " It is good for me that I have been afflicted." (Psa. cxix. 71.)

Let us beware of murmuring in the time of trouble. Let us settle it firmly in our minds, that there is a meaning, a needs'be, and a message from God, in every sorrow that falls upon us. There are no lessons so useful as those learned in the school of affliction. There is no commentary that opens up the Bible so much as sickness and sorrow. " No chastening for the present seeraeth to be joyous, but grievous: nevertheless afterward it yieldeth peaceable fruit." (Heb. xii. 11.) The resurrection morning will prove, that many of the losses of God's people were in reality eternal gains.

We learn, lastly, from this passage, that Christ'' s word is as good as Chrisfs presence. We read, that Jesus did not come do^\'n to Capernaum to see the sick young man, but only spoke the word, "Thy son liveth." Almighty power went with that little sentence. That very hour the patient began to amend. Christ only spoke, and the cure was done. Christ only commanded, and the deadly disease Btood fast.

The fact before us is singularly full of comfort. It gives enormous value to every promise of mercy, grace, and peace, which ever fell from Christ's lips. He that by faith has laid hold on some word of Christ, has got his feet upon a rock. What Christ has said, He is able to do; and what He has undertaken. He will never fail to make good. The einner who has really reposed his soul on the word of the Lord Jesus, is safe to all eternity. He could not be safer.

il' he saw the book of life, and his own name written in it. If Christ has said, "Him that cometh to me, I will in nowise cast out," and our hearts can testify, "I have come," we need not doubt that we are saved. In the things of this world, we say that seeing is believing. But in the things of the Gospel, believing is as good as seeing ' Christ's word is as good as man's deed. He of whom Jesus says in the Gospel, " He liveth," is alive for evermore, and shall never die.

And now let us remember that afflictions, like that of the nobleman, are very common. They will probably come to our door one day. Have we known anything of bearing affliction? Would we know where to turn for help and comfort when our time comes? Let us fill our minds and memories betimes with Christ's words. They are not the words of man only, but of God. The words that he speaks are spirit and life. (John vi. 63.)

43. — [After two day si] The G-reek words here would be more hteraily rendered, " After the two days," i. e., after the two days mentioned in the preceding verse.

[Departed thence.'] Quesnel remarks, " It is an instance of self-

denial wliich is very uncommon, to leave those who respect and applaud us, that we may go to preach among others from whom we have reason to expect a quite different treatment."

44. — [.For Jesus himself testified.. Ms oivn country^ This verse has much perplexed commentators. What is meant by the expi-ession, ''His own country?" If it means Gahlee, as most suppose, how are we to reconcile it with the words which follow, "the Galileans received him?" — And again, what is the connection between the verse before us and the one which precedes it? Why should our Lord go into Galilee, when it was a place where He had no honour? And finally, how are we to reconcile the statement that our Lord had n) "honour" in Galilee with the undeniable fact that nearly all His disciples and adherents were Galileans? All these points have given rise to much speculation and conjecture.

in the following manner. They say that the words, " His own country," mus^t mean Jadasa, and Bethlehem, where Christ was born. The sense will then be, '' alter two days Jesus departed from Samaria, and went into Galilee, and not into Judiea, ba cause in Judoea He received no honour, and was not believed.* This solution seems to me unnatural and unsatisfactory. Our Lord's going to Galilee was a premeditated journey, and not a sudden plan decided on during His stay at Samaria. Beside this, there is no proof whatever that our Lord was not received and believed in Judaea. On the contrary. He "made and baptized" so many disciples in Judgea, that it attracted the notice of the Pharisees, and made it necessary for Him to " depart into Guhlee."

(b.) Augustine holds that " His own country" means Galilee, and seems to attach the following sense to the verse, " And yet Jesus testified that a prophet hath no honour in his own country, for when he came into Galilee no one believed on Him, except the nobleman and his house," This appears to me a far-fetched and unnatural interpretation. Tittman and Blomfield take much the same view, and render it, " Although Jesus had testified, ' &c.

(c.) Chrysostom and Euthymius think that " His own country" means Capernaum. This interpretation also seems to me improbable. We find Capernaum elsewhere called our Lord's " own city," but nowhere else " His own country." (See Matt, ix. 1.)

(d.) Theophylact suggests that the verse before us is inserted in order to explain " why our Lord did not always abide and continue in Galilee, but only came there at intervals. The reason was that He received no honour there." This also seems to me an unsatisfactory interpretation.

(e.) Alford aays, " The only true and simple view is, that thia verse refers to the next following, and indeed to the whole narrative which it introduces. It stands as a preliminary explanation of ' Except ye see signs and wonders ye will not believe,' and indicates the contrast between the Samaritans, who believed on Him for His own word, and His own countrymen, who only received Him because they had seen the miracles which He did at Jerusalem." This view of the text seems to me as fai-fetchevi and unsatisfactory as any of those I have mentioned Moreover I doubt much whether the Greek word rendered ''for," is ever used in the sense Alford puts on it, in the New Testament.

(/.) Tlie following explanation appears to me by far the most probable one. The words, " His own country," mean neither Galilee nor Judaea, but "Nazareth." The sense is, "Jesus departed f;om Samaria into Galilee, but not to His own country Nazareth, bccaute He lestilied, both now and on other occasions, that a prophet has no honour in his own country." — In contirmation of the view I have maintained, it deserves notice, that in tlie six only places in which the Greek word here rendered "country" is found in the Gospels, beside the one before us, it always meaDS the town of Nazareth, and not the district in which Nazaieth is situated. (Matt. xiii. 54, 57; Mark vi. 1, 4; Luke iv. 23, 24.) The view I have supported is that of Cyiil, CalTin, Calovius, Lampe, Poole, De Dieu, Pearce, Doddridge, Dyke, and Olshausen.

Our Lord's use of a proverb in this verse is again worthy of notice. It is another proof of the value of proverbial sayings.

The lesson of the proverb is a very instructive one. It is one of the most melancholy proofs of man's fallen and corrupt state, that he never values what he is familiar with, and that familiarity breeds contempt. Ministers of the Gospel discover this by painful experience, when they have resided many years in the same parish, and ministered long in the same congregation. Those who have the most abundant supply of Gospel privileges are often the people who value them least. " The nearer the church the further from God," is often found to be hterally true. Those who hve furthest off, and are obliged to deny themselves most in order to hear the Gospel, are often the very persons who take most pains to hear it.

One grain of comfort, however, may be extracted from this painful verse. A minister must not despair, and accuse himself of unfaithfulness, because the Gospel he preaches is not honoured in his own congregation, and many remain hardened and unbelieving, after he has preached to them many years. Let him remember thnt he is sharing his Master's lot. He is drinkino- the very cup of which Christ drank. Christ had no honour in Nazareth, and faithful ministers have often less honour among their own people than they have elsewhere.

Pellican thinks that our Lord " testified " the truth contained in this verse in reply to some one who asked Him why He did not go to Nazareth. I prefer the opinion that it simply means our Lord " always did testify, and made a practice of testifying."

i5. — [Galilceans received him.'] The word "received" probably means no more than that they "received Him with respect and reverence," as One who was no common person. There is no warrant for supposing that they all received Him with true faith, and experimentally believed on Him as the Saviour of their souls.

firms tlie vitw already maintained (Jolm ii. 23), that our Lord did many otlier miracles at Jerusalem at the first passover, when He was there, beside casting the buyers and sellers out of the temple, It is probable that the miracles recorded in the four Gospels are only a selection out of the number that Christ worked.

Here, as elsewhere, we see the special use of miracles. Thev served to arrest men's attention, and gave the impression that He who wrought them deserved a hearing. The Galileans were ready to receive Christ respectfully, because they had seen His miracles.

{They also went.... feast.] This sentence is a useful proof of the universality of the Jewish custom of attending the great feasts at Jerusalem, and especially the feast of the Passover. Even those who lived furthest off from Jerusalem, in Galilee, made a point of going to the Passover It serves to show the publicity of our Lord's ministry, both in life and death. When He was crucified at the Passover, the event happened in the presence of myi iads of witnesses from every part of the world. The overruling providence of God ordered things so that the facts of Christ's life and death could never be denied. " This thing was not done in a corner." (Acts xxv. 26.)

4-G. — [Jestis came again.... Can a.] The circumstance of our Lord going twice to Cana may be accounted for by remembering the fact that one of His disciples, " Nathanael," belonged to Cana, and that His mother, Mary, in all probability had relatives there. (See note on John iil 1.)

[A certain nobleman.] The Greek word rendered " nobleman " is only found here in this sense, as a substantive, in the New Testament. The marginal reading, " courtier or ruler," hardly makes it more clear. Some have conjectured that the nobleman must have been some one attached to Herod's court, and is therefore called " a royal person," which is the literal meaning of the word. Some, as Luther, Cliemnitins, Lightfoot, and Pearce, have also conjectured that " Chuza, Herod's steward," whose wife Joanna became one of our Lord's disciples, and "ministered unto Him," (Luke viii. 3,) must have been this nobleman. This is no doubt possible, and would be an interesting fact if it could be proved. But there is no authority for it, except conjecture. Lightfoot adds a conjecture, that if not Chuza it might have been Manaen. (Acts xiii. 1.)

The rarity of a nobleman and a person connected with a royal court seeking Christ under any circumstances, is observed by Glassins and others. It shows us that Christ will hive trophies of the power of His grace out of every rank, clas.s, and condition.

In the first chapter of St. John's Grospel we see fishermen converted; in the third, a self-righteous Pharisee; in the beginning of the fourth, a fallen Samaritan woman; and in the end, a nobleman out of a king's court.

Pearce thinks that the nobleman was one of the class called Herodians. (Matt. xxii. 16.)

[Son was sick at Capernaum^ "We should always nofice thii number and greatness of miracles which our Lord worked at Capernaum, and the dignity of the persons at whose instance they were worked. Here He healed the Centurion's servant. (Matt. viii. 5.) Here, in all probability, He restored to life the daughter of Jairus, the ruler of the synagogue. (Mark v. 21.) And here, in the present instance, He healed the nobleman's son. Three distinct and leading classes had, each of them, a mighty miracle wrought among them. Tiie Centurion wa^ a Gentile soldier. The ruler of the synai;ogue was a Jew of high ecclesiastical position. The nobleman was connected with the highest civil authorities. The consequence no doubt was that the name and power of Christ be<'ame known to every leading family in Capernaum. No wonder that our Lord say^, '• Thou Capernaum that art exalted unto heaven." (Matt. xi. 23.) No place was so privileged as this city.

The idea entertained by some that this " nobleman " was the same as the Centurion in Matt. viii. 5, and that the miracle here recorded is only the same miracle differently reported, seems to me entirely destitute of foundation. The details of the two miracles are entirely different. The miracle before us is nowhere else reported in the Gospels.

47. — [Heard that Jesus was come, &c.'\ This verse shows how widely spread was the fame of the miracle wrought at Can a upon the occas'on of our Lord's former visit, and how great was the report of our Lord's miracles at Jerusalem, brought back by the Galileans who went to the feast. In no other way can we account for the nobleman going to our Lord and beseeching Him to come and heal his son. Our Lord must have got the reputation of being One who was both able and willing to work such cures.

Museulus remarks on this verse, how much more love descends than ascends. In all the Gospels we never read of any sons or * daughters coming to Christ on behalf of their parents.

Dyke observes, " Some crosses drive men to Christ, especially in our children. This was the cross that subdued Egypt: and to great men, such as this ruler, who have much to leave their children, this cross is the greatest."

48. — [ Then said Jesus^ Except ye see, d;c.} Our Lord in this verse appears to refer to the common desire expressed by the Jews to see miracles and signs, as a proof of His Messiahship. " Cannot you believe unless you actually see with your own eyes a miracle worked? Is your faith so small, that except you see something you cannot believe?" — No doubt our Lord knew the heart of the man before Him. He wished to test his faith, and to draw out from him more earnest desires after the mercy that he wanted. The resemblance between our Lord's first answer to the nobleman and His first answer to the woman of Canaan, who came to Him about her daughter, deserve comparison. (Matt. xv. 24.)

Chrysostom remarks, " Christ's meaning is, Ye have not yet the right faith, but still feel towards me as only a prophet. He r6buketh the state of mind wiih which the nobleman had come to Him, because that before a miracle he believed not strongly. Thus too He drew him on the more to belief — That the nobleman came and entreated was nothing wonderful, for parents in their great affection are wont to resort to, and talk with physicians. But that he came without any strong purpose appears from this, that he only came to Christ when Christ came into Galilee, whereas, if he had firmly believed, he would not have hesitated, when his child was at the point of death, to go into Judaea."

Glassius thinks that our Lord, in these words, intends to contrast the faith of the Samaritans with the unbelief of the Galileans. The Samaritans believed without having seen any signs or wonders at all.

Chemnitius thinks that our Lord, in this verse, spoke with special reference to the state of mind in which He found the inhabitants of Cana upon His second visit. He thinks that He found them aroused to a state of expectation and curio.^ity, by H s miracle of changing water into wine, but still destitute of any real saving faith.

Poole compares the nobleman to Naaman, who had faith enough to come to Elisha's door to be healed of his leprosy, but was stumbled because Elisha did not put his hand on the diseased place, but only sent him a message. (2 Kings v. 11.)

id. — [The nobleman saith, t&c] This verse shows the earnestness of the nobleman's desire for relief, quickened and sharpened by the apparent rebuff contained in oin- Lord's reply to his fiist application. Yet it was a saying exhibiting much ignorance. It is dear that he did not discover what our Lord hinted at, that possibly he might be helped without His coming down to S3e hia sick son. He neither denies the iruth of our Lord's words, nor enters into argument. He only knew that he felt in grievous distress, and begged our Lord to "come down ere his child died." That our Lord could heal him he did not doub\ Bat that He conld heal him at a distance, without even seeing him, was something that he could not yet understand.

Chrysostom says, " Observe how thes3 very words show the weakness of (he man. When he ought, after Christ had rebuked his state of mind, to have imagined something great concerning Him, even if he did not before, listen how he drags along the ground! Pie speaks as though Christ could not raise his son after death, and as though He knew not in what state the child was."

Brenti'is remarks that the nobleman did not bring to Christ faith, but merely a spark of faith.

50. — {Jesus saith vnto Am, d'c] Three things are very deserving of notice in this verse, (a.) We should observe our Lord's marvellous Idndness and compassion. He takes no notice of the nobleman's^vveak faith and slowness of understanding. He freely grants his request, and gives his son life and health without delay. (&.) We should observe our Lord's ajmighty power. He simply speaks the words, " Thy son liveth," and at once a sick person, at several miles' distance, is cured and made well. He spake and it was done, (c.) We should observe, not least, the unhesitating confidence which the nobleman reposed in our Lord's power. He asked no more questions after he heard the words, '• Thy son Uveth." At once he believed that all would be well, and went his way.

Cyri! observes on this verse, that onr Lord here healed two persons at one time by the same words. " He brought the nobleman's mind to faith, and delivered the body of the young man from disease."

Chrysostom remarks, '■ What can be the reason why in the case of the Centurion Christ undertook voluntarily to come and heal, while here, though invited, he came not? Because in the case of the Centurion faith had been perfected, and therefore He undertook to go, that we might learn the right-mindedness of the man; but here the nobleman was imperfect. When therefore he continually urged Him, saying. Come down, and knew not clearly that even when absent He could heal. He showeth that even this was possible unto Him, in order that this man might gain, from His not going, that knowledge which the Centurion had of himself."

Bishop Ha 1 observes, " The ruler's request wa=:, Come and heal. Christ's answer was, ' Go thy way: thy son hveth.' Our merciful Saviour meet^ those in the end whom He crosses in the way. How sweetly doth He correct our prayers; and while He doth not give us wlia!: we asked, gives us better than we asked."

51. — [As he teas now going down.]. The relative posit'ons of Caua and Capernaum are not precisely known at the present day. The exact site of Capernaum is matter of dispute among travellers and geographers. All we can glean from the expression before us is, that Cana was probably in the hill country, and Capernaum on the lake of Galilee. Hence a person leaving Cana for Capernaum would " go down."

\_Thy son liveih.] The meaning of this expression must evidently be, '' Thy son is so much better, that he is comparatively alive from the dead. He was as one dead. He is now alive."

52. — [Then inquired he the hour.] This man's mind seems at once to have laid hold on the nature of the miracle, and to have acknowledged the power of Christ's word.

[He began to amend] The G-reek expression so rendered is a very peculiar one, and only found in this place. It is hterally, " Had himself better, in more elegant order." — Let it be noted, that here, as elsewhere, we find an expression which is only used once in the New Testament. This shows that it is no valid argument against the inspiration of any text or passage, that it contains Creek expressions nowhere else used.

[Yesterday at the seventh hour.] This expression has been differently interpreted — according to the view which commentators take of St. John's mode of reckoning time. Those who think that he numbered hours in the same way that we do, maintain that it means, '' at seven o'clock in the evening." Those, on the contrary, who maintain that St. John observed the Jewish mode of computation, say that it means " at one o'clock in the afternoon."

I have already given it as my decided opinion, that John obsei'ves the Jewish mode of reckoning time; and I therefore hold with those who think, that " the seventh hour" means one o'clock. The arguments of those who say that, if ii had been one o'clock, the nobleman would never have taken till the next day to reach home, appear to my mind quite inconclusive. For one thing, we know nothing accurately of the distance from Cana to Capernaum. — For another thing, we fjrget the slow rate at which people travel in Eastern countries, on bad roads, in a hilly country. — For another thing, it is entirely an assumption to suppose that the nobleman had nothing else to do at Cana, when he came to Jesus about his son. For anything we know, he had, as a nobleman, business of various kinds, which male it impossible for him to reach home in the afternoon nfter Jesns had said, '^Thy son liveth." — Last, but not least, it seems hardly probable that the nobleman would have asked our Lord to come down to Capernaum at so late an hour as seven o'clock in the evening; or would have set off on his own return ai that hour, and met his servants in the night.

[The fever left him.] Trench remarks, that the words seem to indicate, that there was no^ merely an abatement of the lexer, but that it suddenly fur.sook him. Compaie Luke iv, 9.

53. — [Himself believed.] Beda remarks, on the matter of the nobleman's believing, that "there are three degrees of faith, — the beginning, the increase, and the perfect- on. There was a beginning in this man, when he first came to Christ; an inurease, \\ hen our Lord told him that his son lived; and a perfection, whei. he found him to have recovered at that very time."

[His whole house.] This expression probably mean?, " his whole family," — including children and servants. We have no right whatever to exclude children from the sense of the words. Remembering this, we shall better understand what is meant, when it is written, St. Paul baptized " the household of Stephanas: " or when it is related, that the house of Lydia was baptized. (1 Cor. i. 16; Acts xvi. 15.)

There seems no reason for doubting that the nobleman, from this time forth, became a thorough, true-hearted, beUever in Christ. If, as some suppose, he is the same as Chuza, Herod's steward, we may perhaps date the conversion of Joanna his wite, to the period of the verse now before us.

Bishop Hall remarks on this verse, " G-reat men cannot want

clients. Their example sways some: their authority more. They cannot go to either of the other worlds alone. In vain do they pretend power over others, who labour not to draw their famihes to Grod."

54. — [The second miracle that Jesus did.] The plain meaning of these words is, that our Lord had worked no other miracle in Galilee before this one, excepting that of turning the w-ater into wine at Cana. It appears likely that many of our Lord's earhest miracles were wrought in Judaea and Jerusalem; although we have no record of them, except in the second chapter of St. John's GospeL (John ii. 23.) This fact is note-worthy, because it throws Hght on the wickedness of the Jews at Jerusalem, where at last Christ was condemned and crucified.

Chrysostom remarks, " The word ' second' is not added without cause, but to exalt yet more the praises of the Samaritans, by showing that even when a second miracle had been wrought, they who beheld it had not yet reached so high as those who had not. seen one."

Origen says, " Mystically the two journeys of Christ into G-alilee signify His two advents. At the first He makes us His guests at supper, and gives us wine to drink. At the second He raises up the nobleman's son at the point of death, — ke., the

Jewish people, who after the fulness of the Gentiles attain salvation. The sick son is the Jewish people fallen from the true

religion. — This is patristic interpretation! Allegoiical expositions like this destroy the whole value of God's word. At this rate the Bible niay be made to mean anything.

Chemnitius thinks, that with this chapter ends the first year of our Loi d's public ministry, and gives a useful summary of the principal events comprehended within it. These are the Lord's baptism, — the calling" of the first disciples, — the miracle at Cana, — the miracle of casting out of the temple the buyers and sell- «?rs, — the conversation with Nicodemus, — the tarrying in Judaea and baptizing, — the testimony of John the Baptist, — the journey through Samaria, — the arrival in Gralilee, — and the healing of the nobleman's son. Epiphanius, he observes, calls it the " acceptable year" of our Lord's ministry, because it was the most quiet and peaceful.

Bengel, in closing this chapter, observes, that St. John seems to arrange our Lord's miracles in threes. He relates three in Galilee, — the first at the marriage in Cana, the second on the nobleman's son, the third in feeding five thousand men (John vi.); — three in Judaea, — the first at Bethesda at pentecost (ch. v.), the second after the feast of tabernacles, on the bhnd man (ch. ix.), the third on Lazarus before the passover (ch. xi.). — So also after the ascension, he describes three appearances of our Lord to His disciples. (John xxi. 14.)

Dyke observes how God keeps account of all the gracious means He affords men for their good. " The second miracle ia specified to aggravate the infidelity of the Jews; that though Christ had now done another and a second miracle, yet only the ruler and his household beheved. Two miracles wrought, and one household converted 1 God takes account not only how many men are won by a sermon, (Acts ii. 41,) but of how many sermons are lost by men."

1 After this there was a feast of the Jews; and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.

2 Now there is at Jerusalem by the sheep market a pool, which is called in the Hebrew tongue BeUtic^sda, having five porch ^js.

3 In these lay a great multitude of impotent folk, of blind, halt, withered, waiting for the moving of the water.

4 For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever

then arst after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had.

5 And a certain man was there, which had an infirmity thirty and eight years.

6 When Jesus saw Mm lie, and knew that he had been now a long timo in that case, he saith unto him, "Wilt thou be made whole?

7 The impotent man answered him, Sir, I have no man, when the water is troubled, to put me into the pool: but while I am coming, another steppeth down before me.

8 Jesus saith unto him, Rise, take up thy bed, and walk.

9 And immediately the man was made whole, and took up his bed, and walked: and on the same day was the sabbath.

10 The Jews therefore said unto

1 him that was cured. It is the sab- ' bath day: it is not lawful for thee to carry thy bed.

11 He answered them, He that made me whole, the same said unto me. Take up thy bed, and walk.

12 Then asked they him. What man is that which said unto thee Take up thy bed, and walk?

13 And he that was healed wist not who it was: for Jesus had conveyed himself away, a multitude being in that place.

14 Afterward Jesus findeth him in the temple, and said unto him, Behold, thou art made whole: sin no more, lest a worse thing como unto thee.

15 The man departed, and told the Jews that it was Jesus, which had made him whole.

We have in this passage one of the few miracles of Christ, which St. John records. Like every other miracle in this Gospel, it is described with great minuteness and particularity. And like more than one other miracle it leads on to a discourse full of singularly deep instruction.

We are taught, for one thing, in this passage, what misery sin has brought into the world. We read of a man who had been ill for no less than thirty-eight years! For eight-and-thirty weary summers and winters he had endured pain and infirmity. He had seen others healed at the waters of Bethesda, and going to their homes rejoicing. But for him there had been no healing. Friendless, helpless, and hopeless, he lay near the wonder-working waters, but derived no benefit from them. Year after year passed away, and left him still un cured. No relief or change for the better seemed likely to come, except from the grave.

When we read of cases of sickness like this, we should remember how deeply we ought to hate sin! Sin was the original root, and cause, and fountain of every disease in the world God did not create man to be full of aches, and pains, and infirmities. These things are the fruits of the Fall. There would have been no sickness, if there had heen no sin.

No greater proof can be shown of man's inbred unbelief, than his carelessness about sin. " Fools," says the wise man, "make a mock at sin." (Pro. xiv. 9.) Thousands delight in things which are positively evil, and run greedily after that which is downright poison. They love that which God abhors, and dislike that which God loves. They are like the madman, who loves his enemies and hates his friends. Their eyes are blinded. Surely if men would only look at hospitals and infirmaries, and think what havoc sin has made on this earth, they would never take pleasure in sin as they do.

Well may we be told to pray for the coming of God's kingdom! Well may we be told to long for the second advent of Jesus Christ! Then, and not till then, shall there be no more curse on the earth, no more sufiTering, no more sorrow, and no more sin. Tears shall be wiped from the faces of all who love Christ's appearing, when their Master returns. Weakness and infirmity shall all pass away. Hope deferred shall no longer make hearts sick. There will be no chronic invalids and incurable cases, when Christ has renewed this earth.

We are taught, for another thing, in this passage, hoic great is the mercy and compassion of Christ. He " saw" the poor sufferer lying in the crowd. Neglected, overlooked, and forgotten in the great multitude, he was observed by the all-seeing eye of Christ. *' He knew " full well, by His Divine knowledge, how long he had been *' in that case," and pitied him. He spoke to him unexpectedly, with words of gracious sympathy. He liealed him by miraculous power, at once and without tedious delay, and sent him home rejoicing.

This is just one among many examples of our Lord Jesus Christ's kindness and compassion. He is full of undeserved, unexpected, abounding love towards man. "He delighteth in mercy." (Micah vii. 18.) He is far more ready to save than man is to be saved, far more willing to do good than man is to receive it.

No one ever need be afraid of beginning the life of a true Christian, if he feels disposed to begin. Let him not hang back and delay, under the vain idea that Christ is not willing to receive him. Let him come boldly, and trust confidently. He that healed the cripple at Bethesda is still the same.

We are taught, lastly, the lesson that recovery from sickness ought to impress upon us. That lesson is contained in the solemn words which our Saviour addressed to the man He had cured: " Sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee."

Every sickness and sorrow is the voice of God speaking to us. Each has its peculiar message. Happy are they who have an eye to see God's hand, and an ear to hear His voice, in all that happens to them. Nothing in this world happens by chance.

And as it is with sickness, so it is with recovery. Renewed health should send us back to our post in the world with a deeper hatred of sin, a more thorough watchfulness over our own ways, and a more constant purpose of mind to live to God. Far too often the excitement and novelty of returning health tempt us to forget the vows and intentions of the sick-room. There are spiritual dangers attending a recovery! Well would it be for us all after illness to grave these words on our hearts, " Let me sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto me."

Let us leave the passage with grateful hearts, and bless God that we have such a Gospel and such a Saviour as the Bible reveals. — Are we ever sick and ill? Let us remember that Christ sees, and knows, and can heal J He thinks fit. — Are we ever in trouble? Let us heai in our trouble the voice of God, and learn to hate sin more.

1. — [AJier this.] Literally translated, this would be, "aftei these things." Some think that when St. John is telling some event which follows immediately after the last thing narrated, be uses the expression, " after this thing " (as John ii. 12), but that wiien there has been an interval of time he uses the expression, " after these things." — If this be correct, we must suppose that some space of time elapsed between the healing of the nobleman's son and the visit to Jerusalem, recorded in this chapter.

[A feast of the Jews.] Tliere is nothing to show what feast this was. Most commentators think it was the passover. Many however think it was the feast of pentecost. Some few say it was the feast of tabernacles, some the feast of purim, and some the feast of the dedication. Each view has its advocates, and the question will probably never be settled. An argument in favour of the passover is the f ict that none of the five Jewish feasts were so regularly attended by devout Jews as the passover. An argument against it is the fact that on three other occasions, when the feast of the passover is mentioned in St. John, he carefully specifies it by name; and one would naturally expect that it would be named here.

The matter is really of no peculiar importance. In one point of view only it is interesting. — If the "feast" was the passover, it proves that there were four passovers during the period of our Lords ministry on earth. St. John mentions three by name, — beside this '* feast." (John ii. 23; vi. 4; xii. I.) This would m.ike it certain that our Lord's ministry lasted three full years, or at any rate must have begun with a passover, and ended Avith a passover. — If the "feast" was not the passover, we have no pioof that His ministry lasted longer than between two and three years. (See notes on John ii. 13.)

The expression, "a fea-t of the Jews," is one of many incidental evidences that St. John wrote specially for the use of Gentile converts, and that he thought it needful for their benefit to explain Jewish ordinances.

[Jesus went up.] The f equency of our Lord's attendance at Jewish feasts, and the respect He showed for ^losaic ordinances, should always be noticed. They were appointed by God. and 8o long as they lasted, He gave them honour. It is an important proof t3 us, that the unworthiness of minist'^rs is no reason for neglectin/^ God's ordinances, such as bapti-m and the Lord'a Supper The benefit we receive from ordinances and sacraments does not depend on the character of those who administer them, but on ihe state of our own souls. The pries's and officers of the Tei iple. in our Lord's time, were probably very unworthy per.-ons. But that did not p: event our Lord hunou iog the Temple ordinances and feasts. — It does not however foilow!'rom this thf t we should be justified in habitually going to hear false doctrine preached. Our Lord never did this.-

Let it be noted, that none of the four Gospel-writers speak 80 much of our Lord's doings in Judaea and Jerusalem as St. John does.

2. — [There is at Jerusalem^ These words, it is thought, show that Jerusalem was yet standing, and not taken and destroyed by the Romans, when John wrote his Gospel. Otherwise, it is argued, he would have said, " There was at Jerusalem."

[By the sheep-marJcef a pool] Nothing certain is known about this pool, or its precise situation. Modern travellers have p'Ofessed to point out where it was. But there is lirtle groun 1 for determining the matter, except conjecture and tradition. After all the changes of eighteen centuries, points like these are almost incapable of a satisfactory solution. There is no place in the world, perhaps, where it is so difficult to settle anything decidedly about ancient buildings and sites as ' Jerusalem. S jme propose to render the expression " sheep-market '' the " sheepgate," because of Nehemiah iii. 1. But we really have no certain ground for either expression.

[Cal.ed in the Huhrew tongue Bethesda.] The word "Bethesda," according to Cruden, means " house of effusion," or " house of pity or mercy." It is not mentioned anywhere else in the Bible. The mention of the " Hebrew tongue," shows again that John did not write for Jews so much as Gentiles.

[Raving Jive porches.] These porches were probably covered arcades, piazzas, colonnades, or verandas, open at one side to the air, but protected against the sun or rain over-head. la a hot country hke Palestine, such buildings are very necessary,

3. — [In the^e lay a great multitude.] The context seems to show tliat the multituile were assembled at this particular feast in this place, expecting a certain miracle to be wrought, which only took place at tliis particular time of the year.

[ Impotent folk ] This expression evidently does not mean paralytic people, but merely people who were sick and ilL Tha mention of " blind, halt, withered," shows this.

[Moving of the luater.] This " moving " must have been something that could be seen and observed by persons standing by or looking on. There was no virtue or healing element in the water, until the movement took place.

4. — [For an angel went down, &c.] The thing we are here told is very curious. There is nothing like it in the Bible, Josephu^, the Jewish writer, does not mention it. The simplest view is that it was a standing miracle wrought once every year, as Cyril says, or at any rate at sonie special season only, by God's appointment, to keep the Jews in mind of the wonderful works that had been done for them in time past, and to remind them that the God of miracles was unchanged. — But when this singular miracle first began, — on what occasion it began, — why we never hear anything else about it, — in what way the angel came down, — are questions which cannot be answered. — That angels did interpose in a miraculous manner in the days of the New Testament, is perfectly clear fi-om many instances in the Gospels and Acts. That the Jews themselves had strong faith in the interposition of angels on certain occasions, is clear from the account of the vision of Zacharias, when we are simply told that the people "perceived that he had seen a vision in the temple."' (Luke i. 22.) That from the days of Malachi, when inspiration ceased, God may have seen it good to keep up in the Jewish mind a faith in unseen things, by the grant of a standing miracle, is a very probable opinion. The wisest course is to take the passage as we find it, and to befieve though we cannot explain.

All other attempts to get over the difficulties of the passage are thoroughly unsatisfactory. To condemn the passage as not genuine, is a lazy way of cutting the knot, and not at all clearly warranted by the authority of manuscripts. — To say that St. John only used the popular language of tlie Jews in describing the miracle, and did not really believe it himself, is, to say the least, irreverent and profane. — To suppose, as Hammond and others have done, that the "angel" only means a common human "messenger" sent by the priests, and that the healing efl&cacy of the water arose from the blood of the many sacrifices which drained into the pool of Bethe.^da at the pa'^sover feast; — • or to suppose, as others, that Bethesda was a p.iol where sacrifices were washed before they were offered, are all entirely gratuitous assumptions, and do not get over the main difficulty. There is no proof that the blood of the sacrifices did drain into the pool. There is no proof that the blood would give the water any healing virtue. There is no proof, as Liuht^oot shows, that sacrilices were waahed at all. (See Light foot's Exeroitations on John, on this passage.) Moreover, this hypothesis would not account for only one person being healed every time the waters were " tro ibled," or for St. John's mention of tlie " angel troubling " the waters. Here, as in many other instances, the simplest view, and the one which involves the fewest difficulties, is to take the passage as we find it, and to interpret it as narrating an actual fact, — viz.: a standing miracle which actually was literally wrought at a certain season, and perhaps every year.

After all there is no more real difficulty iti the account before us, than in the history of our Lord's temptation in the wilderness, the various cases of Satanic possession, or the release of Peter from prison by an angel. Once admit the existence of angels, their ministry on earth, and the possibiUty of their interposition to carry out God's designs, and there is nothing that ought to stumble us in the passage. The true secret of some of the objections to it, is the modern tendency to regard all miracles as useless lumber, which must be thrown overboard, if possible, and cast out of the Sacred Narrative on every occasion. Against this tendency we must watch and be on our guard.

Rollock remarks, " The Jewish people at this time was in a state of great confusion, and the presence of God was in great measure withdrawn from it. The prophets whom God had been accustomed to raise up for extraordinary purpose^, were no longer given to the Jews. Therefore God, that He might not appear altogether to cast off His people, was willing to heal some miraculously, and in an extraordinary way, in order that He might testify to the world that the nation was not yet en-

tirely rejected." Brentius and Calvin say much the same.

Poole thinks that this miracle only began a little before the birth of Christ, "as a figure of him being about to come, who was to be a fountain opened to the house of David." Lightfoot takes the same view.

[Troubled the water.] This means, no doubt, " disturbed, agitated, stirred up," the water of the pool. There is no reason foi supposing that the angel visibly appeared in doing this. It is enough to suppose that at a certain hour there was a sudden stir and agitation of the waters, immediately after which tliey possessed the miraculous virtue of healing, — just as Ihe waters at Marah became sweet i:amediately after Moses cast the tree into them. (Exod. xv. 25.)

[ WTiosoever then first. \ This shows that the whole affair was miraculous. On no other supposition can we account for only one person, being healed after the troubling of the water. That only " one" was healed, is plain, I think, from the wording of the passage

[Of whatsoever dismse he had.] These words would be more literally translated, " with whatsoever disease he was held."

Bengel thinks that the use of the past t(ms3 throughout; this verse shows that the miracle had ceased when John wrote. He "used to go down,"— ''used to trouble the waters," &c. Tertullian declares expressly that the miracle ceased from the timo that the Jews rejected Christ.

5. — [^Infirmity thirty and eight years.'] This means the length of time during which the sick man had been ilL How old he was we do not know.

Baxter remarks, " How great a mercy is it to live eight and thirty years under God's wholesome discipline! 0 my Grod, I thank Thee for the hke disciphne of eight and fifty years. How safe a life is this compared to one spent in full prosperity and pleasure!"

Those who see typical and abstruse meanings in all the least details of the narratives of Scriptures, observe that thirty-eight years was the exact time of Israel's wanderings in the wilderness. They see in the sick man, — helpless and hopeless till Christ came, — a type of the Jewish Church. The pool of Bethesda is Old Testament religion. The smaU benefit it conferred, — viz.: only healing one at a time, represents the narrow and limited benefit which Judaism conferred on mankind. The merciful interference of Christ on the sick man's behalf, represents the bringing in of the Gospel for all the world. These are pious thoughts, but it may well be doubted whether there is any warrant for them.

The notions that the pool of Bethesda was a type of baptism, and the five porches typical of the five books of the law, or the five wounds of Christ, appear to me mere ingenious inventions of man, without any solid foundation. Yet Chrysostom, Augustine, Theophylact, Euthymius, Burgon, Wordsworth, ar:d many others, maintain them. Those who wish to see a fuU reply to the theory, that the miracle at the pool of Bethesda is a typical proof of the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, will find it in Gomarus, the Dutch divine. He takes up Bellarmine's argument on th« subject, and anwers him completely.

6. — [When Jesus saw...knew.. Jong time^^ We need not doubt that our Lord knew this man's history by that divine knowledge which, as God, He possesses of all things in heaven and earth. To suppose that He ascertained by inquiry the state of his case before speaking to him, is a weak, meagre, and frigid interpretation. As a practical truth, it is a most comfortable doctrine that Jesus knows every sickness and disease, and all its weary history. Nothing is hid from Him.

[He said unto him.'] This is an example of our Lord being the first to speak and begin conversation, as He did with the woman of Samaria. (John iv, 7.) Unasked, unsolicited, unexpectedly, He mercifully addressed the sick man. No doubt He always begins in man's heart.before man begins with Him. But He does all things, as a Sovereign, according to His own will; and it is not always that we see Him taking the first step so entirely of Himself, as we do here.

[Wilt thou be made whole?] The English language here fails to give the fuU force of the Greek. It means, "Hast thou a will? Dost tho.1 wish? Dost thou desire to be made whole?" The question was perhaps meant to awaken desire and expectation in the man, aad to prepare him in some sense for the blessing about to be bestowed on him.

Is not this, to take a spiritual view, the very language that Christ is continually addressing to every man and woman who hears His Gospel? He sees us in a wretched, miserable, sin-sick condition. The one thing He asks us is, " Hast thou any wish to be saved? "

7. — [The impotent man ansiuered^ him, Sir.] The word rendered "Sir" is the same that is more commonly rendered "Lord." It is the same that is rendered " Sir " aJl through the fourth chapter, in the history of the Samaritan woman.

[/ have no man....put me into the pool.] This is no doubt mentioned as an intentional proof of the heartlessness and unkindness of human nature. Think of a poor invalid waiting for years by the water, and having not a single friend to help him! The longer we live on earth the more we shall find that it is a selfish world, and that the sick and afflicted have few real friends in time of need. " The poor is hated even of his neighbour." (Prov. xiv. 20.) Christ is the only unfailing friend of the friendless and helper of the helpless.

B. — [Rise, taJce up thy bed and walk.] Here, as in other similar cases, it is evident that miraculous healing power went forth with the words of our Lord. Thus, " Stretch forth thy hand " (Mark iii. 5); " Go show yourselves to the priests " (Luke xvii. 14). Commands like these tested the faith and obedience of those to whom they were given. How could they possibly do the things commanded, if impotent, like the man before us? Where the use of doing them, if stili covered with leprosy, like the ten lepers? But it was precisely in the act of obedience that the blessing came. The whole power is Christ's. But He loves to make us exert ourselves, and show our obedience and faith.

- Augustine finds in the command, " Take up thy bed," au exhortation to the love of our nei^-hbours, because we are to bear one another's burdens; and in the command, " walk," an exhortatio.i to love God! Such allegorizing appears to me very unwarrantable, and calculated to bring the Bible into contempt^ as a book that can be made to mean anything. 12*^

9. — [Immediately.... made whole,....ivalked.] Here we see the reality of the miracle wrought. Nothing but Divine power could enable one who had been a cripple for so many years to move his limbs znd carry a burden all at once. But it was as easy to our Lord to give immediate strength as it was to create muscles, nerves, and sinews in the day that Adam was made.

When we are told that the man " took up his bed," we must remember that this probably was nothing more than a light mattress, carpet, or thick cloth, such as is commonly used in hot countries for sleeping on. 10. — [The Jews.] Here, as in many places in St. John's Gospel, the expression, " the Jews," when used of the Jews at Jerusalem, means the leaders of the people, — elders, ruleis, and scribes. It does not mean vaguely the "Jewish crowd" around our Lord, but the representatives of the whole nation, — the heads of Israel at the time.

unlawfulness, the Jews would allege not merely the general law of the fourth commandment, but the special passages in Nehemiah and Jeremiah, about " bearing no burden " on the Sabbath day. (Neh. xiii. 19; Jer. xvii. 21.) But they could not have proved that these passages appHed to the case of the man before them. — For a man to carry merchandise and wares on the Sabbath was one thing. For a sick man, suddenly and miraculously healed, to walk away to his home, carrying his mattress, was quite another. — To forbid the one man to carry his burden was Scriptural and lawful. To forbid the other was cruel, and contrary to the spirit of the law of Moses. — The act of the one man was unnecessary. The act of the other was an act of necessity and mercy. — It might perhaps be urged in defence of the Jews, that they only saw a man carrying off a burden, and knew nothing of his previous illness or his cure. But when we remember the many instances recorded in the Gospels of their extreme and harsh interpretation of the fourth commandment, it is doubtful whether this plea will stand.

11. — [He that made me whole the same said, etc.] The answer of the man seems simple. But it contains a deep principle. " He that has done so great a thing to me was surely to be obeyed, when He told me to take up my bed. If He had authority and power to heal, He was not likely to lay upon me an unlawful command. I only obeyed him who cured me." If Christ has really healed our souls, should not this be our feeling toward Him? — '' Thou hast healed me. What thou commandest I will do."

12. — [ What man is he which said,...Talce vp thy hed, etc.] Ecolampadius, Grotius, and many others, remark what an example this question is of the malevolent and malicious spirit of the Jews. Instead of asking, " who healed thee?" they asked " who told thee to carry thy bed?" They cared not for knowing what they might admire as a work of mercy, but what they might make ihe ground of an accusation. How many arc hke them! They are always looking out for something to find fault with.

13. — [Wist not who it was.] It is most probable that the cripple really knew not who it was that had healed him, and had only seen our Lord that day for the first time. He was ignorant of His name, and only knew Him as a kind person, who came up and said suddenly, " Wilt thou be made whole?" and, after curing him miraculously, suddenly disappeared in the crowd.

[Conveyed himself away.] The Greek word so rendered ia peculiar, and only found in this place. Parkhurst thinks that it simply means " departed, or went away." Schleusner says that the root of the idea is, " swimming out, or escaping by swimming," and that the meaning here is, "withdrew himself secretly from the crowd that was in the place." If so, it is not improbable that, as in Luke iv. 30, at Nazareth, and John x. 39, in the Temple, our Lord put forth a miraculous power in passing or gliding through the crowd without being observed or stopped. l-t. — [Afterward....temple.] It is not clear how long a time elapsed before our Lord found the man whom He had healed in the Temple. If the theory be correct to which I adverted in the note on the first verse, there must have been an interval. The word " afterwards " is literally " after these things."

Chrysostom thinks that the circumstance of the man being found " in the temple " is an indication of his piety.

[Behold thou art made whole: sin no more, etc.] These words appear to point at something more than meets the eye. They are a solemn caution. One might fancy that our Lord knew that some sin had been the beginning of the man's illness, and that he meant to remind him of it. It certainly seems very unlikely that our Lord would say broadly and vaguely, " sin no more," unless he spoke with a significant reference to some sin which had been the primary cause of this man's long illness. (See 1 Cor. xi. 30.) There are sins wliich bring their own punishments on men's bodies; and I am strongly disposed to think that it may have been the case with this man. The expression, " a worse thing," would then come out with more force. It would be " a heavier visitation," — a worse judgment, — even than this thirtyeight years' illness. A sick bed is a sorrowful place, but hell is much worse.

Besser remarks, — "It is a dreadful thing, when the correction and mercy of Divine love wearies itself with a man in va'n. You that are sick, write over your beds, when you rise up from them in renewed health, — ' Behold thou art made whole; sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee.' " Brentius says much the same,

If sin was the cause of this man's disease, and he had been ill from the effects of it thirty and eight years, it is plain that it must have been committed before our Lord was born! It is an instance, in that case, of our Lord's perfect and Divine knowledge of all things, past as well as future. 15. — [Departed and told the Jews.'] There is no proof that the man did this with anj evil design. Born a Jew, and taught to reverence his rulers and elders, he naturally wished to give them the information they desired, and had no reason to suppose, for anything we can see, that it would injure his Benefactor.

16 And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him, because he had done those things on the sabbath day.

17 But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.

18 Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making lumself equal with God.

19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, the Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son hkewise.

20 For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel.

21 For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth/Aem; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will.

22 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:

23 That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.

These verses begin one of the most deep and solemn pasgages in the four Gospels. They show us the Lord Jesus asserting His own Divine nature, His unity with God the Father, and the high dignity of His office. Nowhere does pur Lord dwell so fully on these subjects as in the chapter before us. And nowhere, we must confess, do we find out 60 thoroughly the weakness of man's understanding! There is much, we must all feel, that is far beyond our comprehension in our Lord's account of Himself. Such knowledge, in short, is too wonderful for us. *' It is high: we cannot attain unto it." (Psalm cxxxix. 6,) How often men say that they want clear explanations of sueh doctrines as the

Trinity. Yet here we have our Lord handling the subject of His own Person, and, behold! we cannot follow Him. We seem only to touch His meaning with the tip of our fingers.

We learn, for one thing, from the verses before us, that there are some works which it is lawful to do on the Sabbath day.

The Jews, as on many other occasions, found fault because Jesus healed a man who had been ill for thirty-eight years, on the Sabbath. They charged our Lord with a breach of the fourth commandment.

Our Lord's reply to the Jews is very remarkable. " My Father," he says, " worketh hitherto, and I also work." It is as though He said: — " Though my Father rested on the seventh day from His work of creation, He has never rested for a moment from His providential government of the world, and from His merciful work of supplying the daily wants of all His creatures. Were He to rest from such work, the whole frame of nature would stand still. And I also work works of mercy on the Sabbath day. I do not break the fourth commandment when I heal the sick, any more than my Father breaks it when He causes the sun to rise and the grass to grow on the Sabbath."

We must distinctly understand, that neither here nor elsewhere does the Lord Jesus overthrow the obligation of the fourth commandment. Neither here nor elsewhere is there a word to justify the vague assertions of some modern teachers, that " Christians ought not to keep a Sabbath," and that it is " a Jewish institution which has passed away." The utmost that our Lord does, is to place the claims of the Sabbath on the right foundation. He clears the day of rest from the false and superstitious teaching of the Jews, about the right way of observing it. He shows us clearly that works of necessity and works of mercy are no breach of the fourth commandment.

After all, the errors of Christians on this subject, in these latter days, are of a very different kind from those of the Jews. There is little danger of men keeping the Sabbath too strictly. The thing to be feared is the disposition to keep it loosely and partially, or not to keep it at all. The tendency of the age is not to exaggerate the fourth commandment, but to cut it out of the Decalogue, and throw it aside altogether. Against this tendency it becomes us all to be on our guard. The experience of eighteen centuries supplies abundant proofs that vital religion never flourishes when the Sabbath is not well kept.

We learn, for another thing, from these verses, the dignity and greatness of our Lord Jesus Christ.

The Jews, we are told, sought to kill Jesus because He said " that God was his Father, making himself equal with God." Our Lord, in reply, on this special occasion, enters very fully into the question of His own Divine nature. In reading His words, we must all feel that we are reading mysterious things, and treading on very holy ground. But we must feel a deep conviction, however little we may understand, that the things He says could never have been said by one who was only man. The Speaker is nothing less than " God manifest in the flesh. (1 Tim. iii. 16.)

He asserts His own unity with God the Father. No other reasonable meaning can be put on the expressions, — " The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise. — The Father loveth the Son, and showeth him all things that himself doeth." Such language, however deep and high, appears to mean that in operation, and knowledge, and heart, and will, the Father and the Son are One, — two Persons, but one God. Truths such as these are of course beyond man's power to explain particularly. Enough for us to believe and rest upon them.

gi» e life. He tells us, "The Son qiiickeneth whom he will." Lir^ is tlie highest and greatest gift that can be bestowed. It is precisely that thing that man, with all his cleverness, can neither give to the work of his hands, nor restore when taken away. But life, we are told, is in the hands of the Lord Jesus, to bestow and give at His discretion. Dead bodies and dead souls are both alike under His dominion. He has the keys of death and hell. In Him is life. He is the life. (Jolin i. 4. Rev. i. 18.)

He asserts, in the last place. His own authority to judge the world. " The Father," we are told, " has committed all judgment unto the Son." All power and authority over the world is committed to Christ's hands. He is the King and the Judge of mankind. Before Him every knee shall bow, and every tongue shall confess that he is Lord. He that was once despised and rejected of man, condemned and crucified as a malefactor, shall one day hold a great assize, and judge all the world. " God shall judge the secrets of man by Jesus Christ.'' (Rom. ii. 16.)

And now let us think whether it is possible to make too much of Christ in our religion. If we have ever thought so, let us cast aside the thought for ever. Both in His Own nature as God, and in His ofiice as commissioned Mediator, He is worthy of all honour. He that is one with the Father, — the Giver of life, — the King of kings, — the coming Judge, can never be too much exalted. " He that honoureth not the Son, honoureth not the Father that sent him."

If we desire salvation, let us lean our whole weight on this mighty Saviour. So leaning, we never need be afraid. Christ is the rock of ages, and he that builds on Him shall never be confounded, — neither in sickness, nor in death, nor in the judgment-day. The hand that was nailed to the cross is almighty. The Saviour of sinners is *' mighty to save." (Isaiah Ixiii. 1.^

\Q,—-{^Thi>ref ore... Jews persecute^ etc.] The verbs in this verse are all in the imperfect tense. It may be doubted whether the meaning is not, strictly speaking, something of this kind: — " The Jewa from this time began to persecute Jesus, and vi^ere always seeking to Siay Him, because He made a habit of doing these things on the Sabbath day." It is some confirmation of this view that our Lord at a much later period refers to this very miracle at Bethesda, as a thing which had specially angered the Jews of Jerusalem, and for which they hated Him and sought still to kill Him. It was long after the time of this miracle when He said, — *' Are ye angry at me, because I have made a man every whit whole on the Sabbath day? " (John vii. 23.)

17. — [But Jesus answered.] This seems to have been the first reply which our Lord made wheo charged with breaking the fourth commandment. It was a short, simple justification of the lawfulness of doing works of mercy on the Sabbath. There seems to have been an interval between this reply and the long argumentative defence which begins in the 19th verse.

[^fy Father worJceth hitherto, and I also work.] The words rendered "hitherto," are, literally, "until now," — that is, from the beginning of creation up to the present time.

I can only see one meaning in this pithy sentence: — "My Father in heaven is continually working works of mercy and kindness in His providential government of the world, in supplying the wants of all His creatures, in maintainmg the whole fabric of the earth in perfection, in giving rain from heaven and fruitful seasons, in preserving and sustaining life. All this He does on Sabbaths, as well as week days. Were He to cease from such works, the whole world would be full of confusion. When He rested from His works of creation He did not rest from His works of providence. I also, who am His beloved Son, claim the right to work works of mercy on the Sabbath. In working such works I do not break the Sabbath any more than My Father does. My Father appointed the fourth commandment to be honoured, and yet never ceased to cause the sun to rise and the grass to grow on the Sabbath. I also, who claim to be One with the Father, honour the Sabbath, but I do not abstain from works of mercy upon it."

Two things should be observed in this sentence. One is the plain practical lesson that the Sabbath w^as not meant to be a day of total idleness, and of entire cessation from all kinds and sorts of work. " The Sabbath was made for man," — for his benefit, comfort, and advantage. Works of mercy and of real necessity to man's life and animal existence on the Sabbath day, were never intended to be forbidden. — The other thing to be observed is our Lord's assertion of His own Divinity and equality with God the Father. When He said, " My Father worketh, and I also work/' He evidently meant much more than bringing forward His Fatlier's example, though that of course is contained in His argument, and justifies all Christians in doing works of mercy on Sundays. What He meant was, '' I am the beloved Son of God: I and My Father are one in essence, dignity, honour, and authority; whatever He does I also do, and have right to do. He works and I also work. He gave you the Sabbath, and it is His day. I too, as one with Him, am Lord of the Sabbath." That the Jews saw this to be the meaning of His words seems clear from the next verse.

Chrysostom remarks on this verse: — " If any one say, ' How

doth the Father ivorh, who ceased on the seventh day from all His works? ' let him learn the manner in which He worketh. What is it? He careth for, He holdeth together all that hath been made. When thou beholdest the sun rising, and the moon running in her path, the lakes, the fountains, the rivers, the rains, the course of nature in seeds, and in our own bodies and those of irrational beings, and all the rest, by means of wliich this universe is made up, then learn the ceaseless working of the Father." (Matt. v. 45; vi. 30.)

Schottgen quotes a remarkable saying of Philo Judaeus, — " God never ceases to work. Just as it is the property of fire to burn and of snow to be cold, so is it the property of God to work."

Ferus remarks on the great variety of arguments used by our Lord on various occasions, in reply to the superstitious views of the Jews about the Sabbath. One time He adduces the example of David eating the shew-bread, another time the example of the priests working in the Temple on the Sabbath, another time the readiness of the Jews to help an ox out of a pit on the Sabbath. All these arguments were used in defence of works of necessity and mercy. Here He takes higher ground still, — the example of His Father. 18. — [Therefore the Jews sought the more to Jcill him.] This short defence which our Lord made seems to have rankled in the minds of the Jews, and to have made them even more bitter against Him. What length of time is covered by this verse is not very plain. I am inclined to think that it implies some little pause between the 17th and 19th verses. Here again, as in the 16th verse, we have the imperfect tense all the way through. It must surely pomt at something of habit, both in the designs of the Jews itgainst our Lord, and in our Lord's conduct, and in. Hia language about His Father.

[Said God...his Father...equal with God.^ It is clear that our Lord's words about His Son ship struck the Jew5 in a far more forcible way than ihey seem to strike us. In a certain sense all believers are " sons of God." (Rom, viii. 14.) Bat it is evident that they are not so in the sense that our Lord meant when He talked of God as His Father, and Himself as God's Son. The Greek undoubtedly might be translated more clearly, "said that God was His own particular Father." (Compare Rom. viii. 32). The Jews at any rate accepted the words as meaning our Lord to assert His own peculiar Sonship, and His consequent entire equality with God the Father. Their charge and ground of anger against Him amounted to this: — " Thou callest God Thine own particular Father, and claimest authority to do whatsoever He does. By so doing Thou makest Thyself equal with God." And our Lord seems to have accepted this charge as a correct statement of the case, and to have proceeded to argue that He had a right to say what He had said, and that He really was equal with God. As St. Paul says, — " He thought it not robbery to be equal with God." (Phil. ii. 6.)