CHAPTER XII.

Ch. 12:1-11. ANOINTING OF JESUS BY MARY.--A COSTLY EXPRESSION OF A FERVENT LOVE IS NOT WASTE.--HYPOCRISY SETS PHILANTHROPY AND PIETY IN CONTRAST.--NONE ARE SO DEAF AS THEY THAT WILL NOT HEAR.

PRELIMINARY NOTE.--This anointing is not to be confounded with that of which Luke (7:36-50) gives an account. The reasons for distinguishing it from that anointing I have stated in the preliminary note there. This anointing is not mentioned by Luke. It is reported by Matthew (26:6-13) and Mark (14:3-9). It is true that some harmonists have supposed two distinct anointings in Bethany, but that opinion is entertained by very few scholars and by none of the moderns, and is not a reasonable hypothesis; the differences between John’s account and those of Matthew and Mark are not greater than might have been expected in accounts given by independent witnesses. Matthew and Mark say that Mary anointed Jesus’ head, John that she anointed Jesus’ feet; but certainly she may have anointed both the head and the feet. The principal difference lies in the fact that Matthew and Mark impliedly place the anointing two days before the Paschal feast (Matt. 26:2; Mark 14:1), while John impliedly places it six days before the feast (ver. 1). The chronology is uncertain; some scholars adopt that of Matthew and Mark (_Robinson_, _Geo. W. Clark_, _Hackett_)--others, that of John (_Townsend_, _Andrews_, _Alford_). The former of these opinions appears to me the more probable for reasons stated in the note on Matthew 26:6-16. In such a case as this, where there appears to be a conflict in the chronology of the evangelists, neither of whom puts any emphasis upon chronological data or gives what may properly be called a date, we may reasonably allow the order of events to be determined by a consideration of the probable way in which one event leads on to another. In this case the discourses of Jesus in the temple and the overthrow of the ambitious hopes of Judas Iscariot naturally led to his complaint at this anointing, and Christ’s sharp rebuke of his spirit here naturally led in turn to his final act of treachery. The note of time afforded by John in verses 1 and 12, though they certainly indicate that the anointing took place prior to the triumphal procession, are not conclusive; for verses 2-9 may be regarded as parenthetical. Thus Dr. Hackett: “John is the only one of the evangelists who speaks of the Saviour stopping at Bethany on the way between Bethany and Jerusalem. Hence, this feast being the principal event which John associates with Bethany during these last days, he not unnaturally inserts the account of the feast immediately after the speaking of the arrival at Bethany. But having (so to speak) discharged his mind of that recollection, he then turns back and resumes the historical order, namely, that on the next day after coming to Bethany Jesus made his public entry into Jerusalem as related by the Synoptists.” We suppose, then, that after the tarry in Ephraim Christ came up to the Passover; stopped at Jericho, where occurred the healing of the blind man, the conversion of Zaccheus, and the parable of the ten pounds (Luke 18:35 to 19:28); from Jericho proceeded to Jerusalem, stopping on the way at Bethany, where, perhaps, he spent the Sabbath; entered Jerusalem in triumph on the following day, and drove from the temple the traders (Luke 19:28-48), and there gave the instructions recorded more or less by all the Synoptists, but most fully by Matthew (chaps. 21:12 to 25:46); and thence retreated to Bethany, where this supper, made for him by Martha and her sister Mary, led directly to the conspiracy of Judas Iscariot for his betrayal (Matt. 26:14-16). See _Tabular Harmony_, page 45.

[Illustration: BETHANY.]

1 Then Jesus, six days before the passover, came to Bethany, where[467] Lazarus was which had been dead, whom he raised from the dead.

[467] ch. 11:1, 43.

2 There they made him a supper, and Martha[468] served: but Lazarus was one of them that sat at the table with him.

[468] Luke 10:38-42.

=1, 2. Six days before the passover.= This note of time is quite inconclusive, because it is uncertain whether the day of Christ’s arrival and the first day of the passover should be excluded or included, or one should be excluded and the other included, and also because it is uncertain on which day of the month the passover is to be considered as having begun. For various chronological views, see _Andrews’ Life of our Lord_, page 397. The most probable hypothesis, and the one commonly accepted, makes Christ arrive at Bethany on Friday night, spending there the Sabbath and going on to Jerusalem on the following day, the first day of the week.--=Came to Bethany.= A well known village about fifteen stadia (ch. 11:18), that is, about a mile and a half, east of Jerusalem, on the eastern slope of the Mount of Olives, not far from the point at which the road to Jericho begins its more sudden descent toward the valley. Fruit and other trees growing around--olive, almond, and oak--give the spot an air of seclusion and repose. It is not mentioned in the O. T., but is intimately associated with the life of our Lord. Here Lazarus was raised from the dead; here Christ found a secluded retreat and the refreshment of friendship during the stormy periods of his ministry in Jerusalem; thence he ascended when the cloud received him from the side of his disciples. The present village, El-Azariyeh, is a ruinous and wretched hamlet of some twenty families, the inhabitants of which display even less than the ordinary Eastern thrift and industry.--=They made him a supper.= The word _supper_ (δεῖπνος) represents the chief meal of the Jews and also of the Greeks and Romans, taken at evening after the labors of the day were over, and sometimes prolonged into the night. The same word is sometimes used to signify a banquet or feast (Matt. 23:6; Mark 6:21; Luke 14:12; 20:46; Rev. 19:9). Who made the supper is not directly stated, by either John or the other Evangelists. It was in the house of one Simon the leper (Matt. 26:6; Mark 14:3). Godet supposes that he was a leper who had been healed by Jesus and who claimed the privilege of entertaining, in the name of the rest of the inhabitants of Bethany, Jesus, who had conferred on their town so great a favor by raising Lazarus from the dead. This seems to me a wild hypothesis on the part of a very sober and cautious scholar. The fact that Martha served is at least an indication that the supper was given at the house of Martha and Mary, who were certainly Christ’s most intimate friends in the village. There is nothing to indicate that Simon was present or had been cured. The common hypothesis is more reasonable, that he was the father of the sisters, or possibly the husband of Martha, and was either dead or through his leprosy exiled from his home, and that the house is described by the two Synoptists as his house because he was a well-known resident, and also because they wished to avoid concentrating the attention of the Pharisees, who had already determined upon the death of Lazarus, on him and his two sisters. They are not mentioned by name in the Synoptical narratives. The difference in character between Martha and Mary, as indicated both by their conduct here and the incident narrated in Luke 10:38-42, is one of those incidental coincidences which attest the historic truth of the Gospels.

[Illustration: ANOINTING OF FEET.]

3 Then[469] took Mary a pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair: and the house was filled with the odour of the ointment.

[469] ch. 11:2; Matt. 26:6, etc.; Mark 14:3, etc.

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

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

6 This he said, not that he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief,[470] and had[471] the bag, and bare what was put therein.

[470] 2 Kings 5:20-27; Ps. 50:18.

[471] ch. 13:29.

=3-6. A pound of ointment of spikenard.= Mark and John both add a word characterizing this ointment, which is not elsewhere found, in either Biblical or classic Greek (πιστικῆς). Commentators disagree in their translation of this word, and the English translators seem to have avoided the difficulty by omitting it altogether. Some scholars derive it from a Greek verb (πίνω) meaning _to drink_, and suppose it to indicate that the ointment was liquid, perhaps drinkable. By other scholars it is derived from the verb (πιστεύω) _to believe_, and is supposed to signify a trustworthy or a reliable ointment; that is, one that was pure or unadulterated. This is the more probable meaning. Spikenard was liable to all kinds of adulteration. Pliny enumerates nine plants with which it might be mixed in preparing it for the market. The spikenard appears to have been procured from an Indian plant of the family of _valeriana_, and to have been imported from India by way of Arabia. It was highly prized among the ancients. Horace, writing to Virgil, asks his guests to bring as contribution to the feast a little spikenard, and by way of equivalent he would match it with a cask of wine. The use of fragrant oils and ointments were very common among the ancients, who anointed themselves twice or three times a day in order that the delicious fragrance might not be dissipated. The wealthier classes carried their ointments and perfumes in small boxes of costly material and beautiful workmanship. This ointment was contained in an alabaster box (Matt. 26:7; Mark 14:3). This box Mary broke, pouring the ointment first on Christ’s head and then on his feet. There is doubt as to the meaning of the expression “she brake the box;” some suppose that she simply broke the seal; others, that she broke off the neck of the box with a sharp blow, so pouring out the whole ointment as an offering to Christ, a very little of which would have sufficed for the purpose of an ordinary anointing. For an illustration of alabaster boxes see Luke 7:38, note.--=Very costly.= A pound was an enormous quantity to lavish on a single anointing.--=Wiped his feet with her hair.= So did the woman who was a sinner (Luke 7:38). But there is this characteristic difference between the two cases: the unknown woman in Luke washed his feet with her tears, and it was the tears which she wiped off with her hair. Here there are no tears; all is joy and gladness.--=And the house was filled with the odor of the ointment.= The service rendered to Christ did not stop with him alone. Such service never does; it becomes fragrant to all who are within the reach of its influence.--=One of his disciples.= The objection was started by Judas Iscariot. The others, however, shared this feeling; they too had indignation (Matt. 26:8; Mark 18:4), and regarded Mary’s action as wasteful. To prosaic natures the expression of love always seems a waste, but to ardent natures nothing seems too costly to express the enthusiasm of love.--=For three hundred denarii.= The denarius, or, as the word is translated in the New Testament, _penny_, was a coin of about seventeen cents in value, but at that time was a day’s wages (Matt. 20:10). Thus, this offering of Mary was practically equivalent to an offering in our time of three hundred dollars.--=And given to the poor.= A pretended regard for the poor is often made a cloak for an attack upon the Christian church, and especially upon Christian worship. In the case of Judas, as in many other cases, it was but a cover for a more sordid motive, but it served its purpose.--=But because he had the bag.= Possibly a _box_; more probably a money bag or purse (Latin, _sacculus_), in which the funds of Jesus and his disciples were carried. These funds were doubtless small and were made up of gifts from other disciples (Luke 8:3). This is implied by the language here, “what was put therein,” signifying literally what had been cast therein; that is, by friends of Jesus.--=And bare what was put therein.= The original is capable of being translated “_purloined_ what was put therein.” This is the significance given to it by most of the scholars (_Meyer_, _Alford_, _De Wette_, _Godet_).

[Illustration: ANCIENT MONEY BAG.]

7 Then said Jesus, Let her alone: against the day of my burying hath she kept this.

8 For[472] the poor always ye have with you; but[473] me ye have not always.

[472] Deut. 15:11; Matt. 26:11; Mark 14:7.

[473] verse 35; chaps. 8:21; 13:33; 16:5-7.

=7, 8.= If we combine the reports of the three Evangelists, it will appear that Christ’s words were substantially as follows: “Let her alone. Why trouble ye the woman? for she hath wrought a good work upon me; she hath done what she could; against the day of my burying hath she kept this, and is come beforehand to anoint my body for the burial. The poor always ye have with you, and whensoever ye will ye may do them good; but me ye have not always.” _Let her alone_ is the language of sharp rebuke. Christ was indignant at the hypocrisy which made a pretended consideration of the poor an excuse for attacking and condemning an act of love towards himself. _Why trouble ye the woman?_ indicates that Mary was herself abashed and downcast by the criticism of the twelve. Perhaps, as Maurice says, “she could not herself have answered Judas Iscariot’s complaining question.” _For she hath wrought a good work upon me_, is a strong expression of approbation of an act which was service only as it was an expression of love. The word rendered _good_ is literally _beautiful_; but with the Greeks, who were an æsthetic race, the word expressive of moral beauty was one of the highest commendation. To express love to Christ is to render a good work unto Christ. _She hath done what she could_, commends Mary in the same spirit in which the poor widow was commended (Mark 12:44). Whether her act was wise or not was not to be questioned. It was the outpouring of a heart full of love, and there is no condemnation to those who are thus in Christ Jesus. There is some question respecting the reading of the phrase _Against the day of my burying hath she kept this_. Some critics (_Meyer_, _Alford_) understand its meaning to be, _Against the day of my burying let her preserve this_. And Meyer supposes that only a part of the ointment was used in the anointing, and that Christ expresses the idea that the rest is not to be sold for the poor, but to be preserved to complete Mary’s unfinished act. But there is no question respecting the reading of the text in Matthew. That the anointing was treated by Christ as a prophetic act is more in accordance both with the reports of the other Evangelists and with the spirit of the entire narrative. Christ’s declaration then is, not that Mary should reserve the rest of the ointment for the anointing of his corpse, nor that she had deliberately and intentionally preserved it for a prophetic anointing, but that it was in accordance with a divine purpose that she had poured it upon him while he lived. His body was not anointed at the time of his death, the completion of the funeral honors being prevented by his resurrection (Mark 16:1, 2).--_The poor always ye have with you, and whensoever ye will ye may do them good_, is founded upon the great principle that philanthropy needs no special emotion, only opportunity, and that is never wanting; while the expression of love can only be made when the love itself burns ardently in the heart, and that must of necessity be occasional and exceptional; in other words, philanthropy may always exhibit itself in acts of charity, but emotion can only occasionally exhibit itself in acts of reverence and love. Matthew and Mark add the declaration by Christ, that _Wheresoever this Gospel shall be preached in the whole world over, shall also this that this woman hath done be told for a memorial for her_. See Matt. 26:13, note.

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

10 But the chief priests consulted that they might put Lazarus also[474] to death;

[474] Luke 16:31.

11 Because that[475] by reason of him many of the Jews went away, and believed on Jesus.

[475] verse 18; ch. 11:45.

=9-11. Much people of the Jews therefore knew that he was there.= This is an indication that he tarried there at least over one day, probably the Sabbath preceding the passion. See Prel. Note.--=But that they might see Lazarus also.= They were drawn together by curiosity.--=But the chief priests consulted that they might put Lazarus to death.= That is, they were at this time consulting. While the people were drawn to Lazarus by curiosity, and others were led by the story of his resurrection, confirmed by himself, to believe that Jesus was the Messiah, the chief priests in Jerusalem were consulting how they might get rid both of Jesus and of the witness to his divine power. Thus they demonstrate the truth of Christ’s saying, “Neither will they believe though one rose from the dead” (Luke 16:31).--=Believed on Jesus.= That is, they believed that he was the Messiah. Nor was this a mere intellectual opinion. It involved attachment to Christ and hope in him; a looking forward to a revelation of himself in some miraculous and decisive display of divine power against the Romans. The period was one of a brief but great popularity, which accounts for the triumphal entry into Jerusalem, and the Pharisees’ fear of the people which kept them from openly arresting Christ during his teaching in the temple on the eventful days that immediately followed.

12 On[476] the next day much people that were come to the feast, when they heard that Jesus was coming to Jerusalem,

[476] Matt. 21:8, etc.; Mark 11:8, etc.; Luke 19:36, etc.

13 Took branches of palm trees, and went forth to meet him, and cried,[477] Hosanna! Blessed _is_ the King of Israel that cometh in the name of the Lord.

[477] Ps. 118:25, 26.

14 And Jesus, when he had found a young ass, sat thereon; as it is[478] written,

[478] Zech. 9:9.

15 Fear not, daughter of Sion; behold, thy King cometh, sitting on an ass’s colt.

16 These things[479] understood not his disciples at the first: but when Jesus was glorified,[480] then remembered[481] they that these things were written of him, and _that_ they had done these things unto him.

[479] Luke 18:34.

[480] ch. 7:39.

[481] ch. 14:26.

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

18 For[482] this cause the people also met him, for that they heard that he had done this miracle.

[482] verse 11.

=Ch. 12:12-18.= THE TRIUMPHAL ENTRY INTO JERUSALEM. Comp. Matt. 21:1-17; Mark 11:1-11; Luke 19:29-44. The account is on the whole the fullest in Luke. See notes there. The statement that some from Jerusalem took palm branches and came out to meet the procession as it approached the city is peculiar to John. So also is his account of the effect produced on the Pharisees (ver. 19). The statement in Luke 19:39, that some of the Pharisees called on Jesus to rebuke his disciples is equally indicative of their feeling, which was one of intense though suppressed hostility. _The next day_, verse 12, might mean the day after the anointing, but I believe means the day after the visit to Bethany, the account of the anointing being parenthetical. See Prel. Note. Those who came out to meet Jesus are not described as _Jews_, and may have been, as Meyer surmises, unprejudiced pilgrims who had come to the feast and had there heard the fame of the Messiah. For account of how the young ass was found, see Matthew 21:2-7.

* * * * *

Ch. 12:19-50. GREEKS VISIT JESUS--HIS DISCOURSE THEREON.--DEATH THE CONDITION OF LIFE (24, 25).--FOLLOWING CHRIST THE CONDITION OF COMPANIONSHIP WITH HIM (26).--THE SOUL CONFLICTS OF CHRIST ILLUSTRATED (27-30).--THE ACHIEVEMENTS OF THE CROSS OF CHRIST; IT JUDGES THE WORLD; DEFEATS OF THE WORLD’S FALSE PRINCE; DRAWS ALL MEN TO THE TRUE KING (31-33).--DISOBEDIENCE OF THE INNER LIGHT OF THE SOUL QUENCHES IT; FAITH IN AND FOLLOWING OF THAT LIGHT NOURISHES AND PERFECTS IT (34-40).--THE CRIME OF COWARDICE ILLUSTRATED (42, 43).--CHRIST A GUIDE TO THE FATHER (44-46).--CHRIST’S WORDS MAN’S JUDGE (47, 48).--THE SOURCE OF CHRIST’S AUTHORITY AND POWER (49, 50).

19 The Pharisees therefore said among themselves, Perceive[483] ye how ye prevail nothing? behold, the world is gone after him.

[483] ch. 11:47, 48.

20 And there were certain[484] Greeks among them that[485] came up to worship at the feast:

[484] Acts 17:4; Rom. 1:16.

[485] 1 Kings 8:41, 42.

21 The same came therefore to[486] Philip, which was of Bethsaida of Galilee, and desired him, saying, Sir, we would see Jesus.

[486] ch. 1:44.

22 Philip cometh and telleth Andrew: and again Andrew and Philip tell Jesus.

=19-22. The Pharisees therefore said among themselves.= Some among the Pharisees were friendly to Jesus, but dared not come out openly in his favor. Of this number was Nicodemus. To the same class belonged the lawyer that answered Christ discreetly and the ruler whom it is said Jesus loved (Mark 10:21; 12:34). Chrysostom supposes that the Pharisees here referred to were of this sort, and that their language is that of remonstrance against the endeavors of the rest to destroy him. The language seems to me rather that of approval of Caiaphas’ counsel. They point to the fact that the cautious methods have availed nothing. So Bengel and most modern critics.--=The world is gone out after him.= Literally _are departing after him_; that is, are leaving us, the old and acknowledged teachers, to go after him, this new and unordained rabbi. The _world_ signifies the multitude, not especially the wicked; but it is a term of reproach.--=But there were certain Greeks.= _But_, not _and_. The particle (δέ) is adversative, and indicates a contrast between the persons mentioned in the previous sentence and those here referred to. So do the terms _Pharisees_, who were Hebrews of the Hebrews, and _Greeks_ who were, not Jews dispersed in Greece and coming up thence to the feast, but men who belonged to the Greek nationality and had adopted the Hebrew religion, _i. e._, Greek proselytes. On the character of these proselytes from foreign nations, see Matthew 23:15, note. That these were Greeks, not Grecian Jews, is evident from the word employed to describe the Greeks (Ἕλληνες), which is one signifying nationality, not location; that they were proselytes is evident from the characterization as _among them which were accustomed_ (present participle signifying habit--_Meyer_) _to come up to worship at the feast_. They were of the same character as the centurion whose son Christ healed, the Cornelius who sent for Peter, and the Eunuch to whom Philip preached (Matt. 8:7-10; Acts 8:27-40; ch. 10). The pilgrims to Jerusalem were increased considerably in the increasing decay of the polytheistic worship of Greece and Rome, with such converts to the simple and sublime monotheism of Judea.--=The same came therefore to Philip.= Why to Philip is purely a matter of conjecture. In fact, Philip and Andrew are both Greek names, and the only names of Greek origin among the twelve.--=Sir= (κύριε). The term is the same one translated _lord_ when used in addressing Christ. Its fair equivalent in the English language is Sire. They address Philip with marked respect.--=We would see Jesus.= Rather, _we have desired_ to see him. They assume that a private interview will be readily granted them. That this is what they desire is evident, because Christ was publicly teaching in the temple during the four days preceding his arrest, and therefore it was very easy for them to both see and hear him in public. The motive of this request may probably have been a mixed one; partly a curiosity to see and hear more of this extraordinary Rabbi, partly a real moral and spiritual appreciation of and drawing to him; possibly a dim and unconfessed wonder whether he might possibly be the promised Messiah. Stier compares this visit to that of the Magi at the birth, one a coming to the cradle, the other to the cross. Godet refers to the tradition narrated by Eusebius, that an embassy was sent by the king of Edessa, in Syria, to invite Jesus to take up his abode with him, and to furnish him such a royal welcome as should compensate him for the obstinacy with which the Jews rejected him.--=Andrew and Philip tell Jesus.= The two were of the same city (ch. 1:44). The fact that Philip takes Andrew with him is one of the not unfrequent indications of the awe with which, despite the fullness and even familiarity of his love, Christ inspired his most intimate disciples (Luke 9:45; Mark 9:32, etc.). So Bengel: “Philip feared to introduce the Greeks alone; with a friend he ventured to do so.” It is to be remembered, however, that the request would seem a doubtful one to them, since the Rabbinical theology forbade to teach the truth to a Gentile, who was regarded as unworthy of it, and Jesus himself had confined his ministry to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Matt. 10:5; 15:24).

23 And Jesus answered them, saying, The hour is[487] come, that the Son of man should be glorified.

[487] chaps, 13:32; 17:1.

24 Verily, verily, I say unto you,[488] Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit.

[488] 1 Cor. 15:36.

25 He[489] that loveth his life shall lose it: and he that hateth his life in this world, shall keep it unto life eternal.

[489] Matt. 10:39; 16:25; Mark 8:35; Luke 9:24; 17:33.

26 If[490] any man serve me, let him follow me; and where[491] I am, there shall also my servant be: if[492] any man serve me, him will _my_ Father honour.

[490] ch. 14:15; Luke 16:46; 1 John 5:3.

[491] chaps. 14:3; 17:24; 1 Thess. 4:17.

[492] 1 Sam. 2:30; Prov. 27:18.

=23-26. But Jesus answered them.= _But_ (δέ) not _and_; the adversative particle indicates that the request was refused. So also does the word (ἀποκρίνομαι) rendered _answered_, literally to distinguish, then to reject after inquiry; then to make response; but primarily a negative response. So also, it appears to me, does the discourse which follows. Neither, however, is conclusive. Tholuck apparently thinks the request granted; Meyer supposes that Christ intended to grant the request, but was interrupted by the voice from heaven; a quite improbable conjecture. Whether the interview was granted or refused, is a point on which John lays no emphasis. He narrates the request only because it leads to a brief utterance by Jesus, called out by it, and which he could not intelligibly report without reporting the incident which led to it.--=The hour is come that the Son of man should be glorified.= _Hour_ is here equivalent to the more general word _time_ or _era_. The prophets of the O. T. foretell the ingathering of the Gentiles through the Messiah. This is both his glory and the glory of the Jewish nation in him (Psalm 2:8; Isaiah 53:11). In this application of these Greek proselytes, Christ sees a prophetic indication of the time when, with a profounder meaning, the Gentile world will everywhere put forth a request to see Jesus, when, being lifted up, he will draw all men unto him, when they will come from the north and the south, the east and the west, to sit down with Jesus in his kingdom (Matt. 8:11), when he will break down the partition wall between Jew and Gentile (Ephes. 2:14), and gather into one nation the dispersed children of God (John 11:52; Col. 3:11; Rev. 7:9). The term _Son of man_ is here, as always when used by Christ in reference to himself, equivalent to _the Messiah_.--=Verily, verily, I say unto you.= A customary prelude to an important saying (Matt. 5:18, note). Here it is used by Christ to emphasize a truth which the disciples had already proved themselves so loth to receive that they were practically unable to understand it (Mark 9:32; Luke 18:34), namely, that the Messiah’s death must precede this ingathering of the Gentiles and prepare the way for it, and itself become the instrument for its accomplishment. He states this truth, first under a figure drawn from nature (ver. 24), then as a general law, alike applicable to the Master and his disciples (ver. 25).--=Except a kernel of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone.= In the granary it is _safe_, but _useless_. Its death is the precursor of its usefulness. Paul employs the same figure in a different connection in 1 Cor. 15:36. Christ embodies it in the Lord’s Supper, which reminds us of this law of self-sacrifice. It is the wheat ground to powder that makes the bread, and the body bruised that makes the bread of life; it is the grape crushed that makes the wine, and the blood poured out as a libation that makes the wine of life. This truth of self-sacrifice symbolized by nature is one of the universal laws of spiritual life.--=He that loveth his life shall lose it.= The _life_ or _soul_ (the same Greek word, ψυχή, is indiscriminately rendered by both English words in our English version) is the æsthetic and intellectual part of man in contrast with the spiritual nature (ὅ πνεῦμα). If one gives himself to the saving of this soul or life he destroys it; for this is but the adjunct of the spiritual nature, and perishes if that is left to perish. “Lange points out that this saying involved a condemnation of Hellenism. For what was Greek civilization but human life cultivated from the view-point of enjoyment, and withdrawn from the law of sacrifice.”--(_Godet._) The same judgment Paul re-affirms in 1 Cor. 1:18-21; and it is equally applicable as a judgment of modern unreligious culture. Culture without religion destroys what it would preserve.--=He that hateth his life in this world shall guard it unto life eternal.= Two different Greek words (ψυχή and ζωή) are rendered by the same English word _life_ in the two clauses of this sentence. Yet if we were to render it, _He that hateth his soul shall guard it unto life eternal_, the rendering would be at least equally liable to misapprehension. If the reader understands _soul_ to mean the earthy side of human nature, in contrast with the spiritual, as explained above (and this is the N. T. use of the term), this substituted rendering will give him the true meaning of the original. Beware of understanding _hate_ to mean merely does not love, or _guard_ as merely equivalent to _keep_, as it is rendered in our English version. The meaning is that he who finds no satisfaction in earthly sources of enjoyment, who turns away from them with a sense of satiety that, at least at times, becomes a generous contempt and a noble loathing, toward the higher spiritual life which mere intellectual and æsthetic culture does nothing to satisfy, is by that very hate protected from the excesses and the demoralization which of necessity inheres in a life contented with the provisions for the earthly nature. The hate inspired in a noble nature by every unworthy thing is the best protection against subtle temptations.--=If any man would serve me, let him follow me.= This is Christ’s answer to the request of the Greeks. Service of Christ is to be sought, not by secret interviews, not by sacred and saintly communings, which he gives to whom he will, but by practical following of him in a life of daily self-sacrifice for others.--=And where I am, there shall my servant be.= This practical following is the way that leads to intimate fellowship. The sacred conversations of Christ with the twelve, recorded in John, chaps. 13-16, did not come till for three years they had followed him, forsaking all things for the sake of his companionship. This following has the promise both of heavenly companionship with Christ on earth (ch. 14:21-23), and eternal companionship with him in heaven (Rom. 8:17; 2 Tim. 2:11, 12).--=If any man serve me, him will my Father honor.= For it is with the Father, not with the Son, to determine who shall sit at his right hand and his left (Mark 10:40), who are to receive the honors, what is to be the allotment of rank in the kingdom of God. The Christian’s ambition, therefore, is to be Christ-like in the life of earthly service, and leave all else to the will of the Father concerning him.

27 Now[493] is my soul troubled: and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour: but[494] for this cause came I unto this hour.

[493] ch. 13:21; Matt. 26:38, 39; Luke 12:50.

[494] ch. 18:37.

28 Father, glorify thy name. Then came there a voice[495] from heaven, _saying_, I have both glorified _it_, and will glorify _it_ again.

[495] Matt. 3:17.

29 The people therefore that stood by, and heard _it_, said that it thundered: others said, An angel spake to him.

=27-29. Now is my soul troubled.= Literally, _stirred up, in conflict_. In 11:33 it is said that Jesus was indignant in _spirit_, here that his _soul_ is in conflict. See note on 11:33, and on this contrast between soul and spirit, see above on verse 25; the one links man to God, the other to the animal. At the grave of Lazarus the higher spiritual nature was indignant at the exhibition of formalism and false pretence; here the lower and earthly nature was in conflict between the instincts of self-preservation and the impulse of love and duty. “A horror of death and an ardor of obedience concurred.”--(_Bengel._) It was a real struggle; the narration of it refutes the rationalistic hypothesis that John omitted the agony at Gethsemane because he desired to portray a Son of God superior to all trial and conflict. It illustrates and is interpreted by Heb. 2:18; 4:15; 5:7; see Notes on Temptation of Christ, Matt. 4:1-11; and on Lessons of Gethsemane, Matt. 26:36-46.--=And what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour?= This is to be taken not affirmatively but interrogatively. Christ does not first pray to be delivered from his passion and then change his mind, recall the prayer and put up another and a different one. Nor is it uttered didactically, to teach his disciples. The contrast between the two petitions is explained by the precedent declaration, “Now is my soul in conflict;” the nature of that conflict is hinted at in the twofold prayer, the first hypothetical, the second final: Shall I ask my Father to save me from this hour? (That is the suggestion of the natural instincts.) No! for this cause came I unto this hour. Rather, Father, glorify thy name. (That is the victory of the spiritual nature.) “The struggle is like one of those fissures in its crust, which enables science to fathom the bowels of the earth. It lets us read the very inmost depths of the Lord’s being.”--(_Godet._) Beware of understanding this conflict as one between the God and the man in the God-man. The _spirit_ is in every child of God, increasingly dominant, though in none absolutely, unquestionably and always supreme as in Jesus Christ. _This hour_ is the hour of the passion toward which Christ had steadfastly set his face (Luke 9:51) in coming up for the last time to Jerusalem.--=For this cause came I unto this hour.= In order to be a sacrifice he had both come from heaven to earth, and also, at this very moment, from the safety and comparative popularity of Perea to Jerusalem.--=Father, glorify thy name.= Comp. Matthew 26:39. In both cases there is not merely resignation to a superior will, an invincible fate, but a real and supreme desire to fulfil that will whatever it may entail.--=Then came there a voice from heaven.= The critics since, as the people then, have discussed whether this was really an articulate voice, speaking words, or only a sound of thunder which Christ interpreted as a divine response to his prayer. The word _voice_ (φωνὴ) is not conclusive, because it signifies sometimes an inarticulate sound, as of a trumpet, chariots, waters, thunder, and the like (Matt. 24:31; 1 Cor. 14:7, 8; John 3:8; Rev. 9:9; 6:1; 14:2; 18:22, etc.). But the plain implication of the narrative is that this was an articulate voice, the words of which were understood by others than Jesus, though not by all. So at Paul’s conversion his companions heard the _sound_, but understood not the _words_ of the voice that spake to him (Acts 9:7 with 22:9, notes). This is the view of nearly all evangelical scholars, _e. g._, Alford, Meyer, Godet, etc. The latter’s illustration is apt: “The whole multitude heard a noise; but the meaning of the voice was only perceived by each in proportion to his spiritual intelligence. Thus the wild beast perceives only a _sound_ in the human voice; the trained animal discovers a _meaning_, a command, for example, which it immediately obeys; man alone discerns therein a _thought_.”--Here the multitude (ὁ ὄχλος, _the people_) did not comprehend; but some (ἄλλοι, _others_), a smaller number, did.--=I have both glorified it and will glorify it again.= The Father had glorified his name by giving Jesus daily and hourly the power to do and to bear all that had been laid on him up to that moment; and he would glorify it by continuing to give him the power to do and to bear all that should be laid on him to the end. The prayer and the promise are both for us. In our passion-hour true prayer will be the cry, not of the soul, but of the spirit; a cry, not to be saved from our Calvary, but to be enabled to glorify our Father’s name in and through it. And the answer is interpreted by our experience in the past (Psalm 77:10-12); the grace that has been sufficient will be sufficient to the end.

30 Jesus answered and said, This voice came not because of me, but[496] for your sakes.

[496] ch. 11:42.

31 Now is the judgment of this world: now shall[497] the prince of this world be cast out.

[497] ch. 16:11; Luke 10:18; Acts 26:18; Ephes. 2:2.

32 And I, if I be lifted[498] up from the earth, will draw all[499] _men_ unto me.

[498] ch. 8:28.

[499] Rom. 5:18.

33 This he said, signifying[500] what death he should die.

[500] ch. 18:32.

=30-33. Not for me but for you.= If there were no articulate words, if Christ simply imputed to the sound of thunder the meaning, there would have been in it no value to the bystanders. This declaration, therefore, seems to me conclusive that a voice spoke comprehensible words; and even to indicate that the hypothetical explanation “It thundered,” was not an honest one.--=Now is the judgment of this world.= The language is anticipative. Christ speaks as though the passion on which he was entering were already accomplished. That passion he declares will be characterized by a threefold result: the world will be judged, the devil conquered and cast out, and the all-conquering Christ brought in. The judgment of the world has already begun. It “dates from Good Friday” (_Godet_). While Christ came not to judge the world but that the world through him might be saved, his cross is in fact a judgment-seat, and men are discriminated morally and spiritually by their reception of the suffering, self-sacrificing Redeemer.--=Now the prince of this world is cast out.= The Prince of this world was a phrase much used by Jewish writers to designate the spiritual monarch of the Gentiles in opposition to the one true God whom they regarded as in a peculiar sense the God of Israel. Christ employs their language; he sees in the application of the Greeks for an interview with him a prophecy of the time when Satan will be cast out and all the kingdoms of this world will become the kingdoms of our Lord and of his Christ. This he regards as accomplished _now_, that is, by the sacrifice of Calvary. The world’s battle was fought and the victory won there. The second coming is not to redeem the world, but to realize for the world the fruits of redemption, in an established and eternal kingdom of righteousness, after, by the cross, humanity has been judged, the devil cast out, and the redeemed race lifted up into oneness with Christ Jesus. The passages of the N. T., which imply the continuing influence of the devil (Rom. 16:20; 2 Cor. 4:4; Ephes. 2:2; 6:12, etc.) are not inconsistent with Christ’s language here, because it is prophetic; he speaks of that as already accomplished which is absolutely certain to be accomplished by the power of that divine sacrifice so soon by him to be consummated.--=And I if I be lifted up will draw all men toward myself.= _If_ is not to be rendered as equivalent to _when_. The language is sympathetic with that of verse 27; it is the last trace of that soul-storm. His crucifixion was contingent; it was made, to the last, dependent on his own voluntary submission. Even in the hour of his arrest the way of deliverance was open to him (Matt. 26:53). He is still, as it were, arguing with himself. The whole language is that of _quasi_ soliloquy. The phrase _lifted up from the earth_ certainly does not refer to his ascension, as Meyer interprets it. John’s own interpretation in the next verse is conclusive on that point. Apart from inspiration, he, as a sympathetic ear-witness, is to be trusted as a correct interpreter. Nor does it refer to the mere physical elevation from the ground of a foot or two in the crucifixion. The N. T. use of the original word rendered _lifted up_ (ὑψόω) as well as the added words _from the earth_, is conclusive on that point. To give a physical interpretation to the phrase is to belittle and degrade it. The word here rendered _lifted up_ is generally rendered _exalted_ (Matt. 11:23; 23:12; Luke 1:52; 14:11), and is used in reference to Christ’s divine exaltation in consequence of his voluntary sacrifice (Acts 2:33; 5:31). The crucifixion is exaltation because self-sacrifice is divine glory (1 Cor. 1:23, 24). _From the earth_ is added to mark the contrast between the kingdom of the Prince of this world which is to be overthrown and that of the Prince of Light which takes its place. The one is of the earth earthy; the other is not of this world (ch. 18:36), but _over_ it, a kingdom lifted up from the world but dominating it. In each individual soul the kingdom of God begins, as it began in the world of humanity, in crucifixion. When we take up our cross and follow Christ, we are lifted up from the earth and in us the Prince of this world is cast out (Mark 9:49, 50; Luke 14:27, notes). The word _drawing_ here refers not primarily to the influence of the Holy Spirit winning men to Christ (ch. 7:39; 14:18, 19; 16:7), certainly not to what theologians call effectual calling, but to the attractive power of the cross itself. Self-sacrifice always draws us toward the sacrificed one, the soldier, the martyr, the mother; and has drawn all hearts toward Christ as the pre-eminent martyr. This is not, however, a promise that all men shall be actually brought to Christlikeness of disposition. The original does not imply this. The preposition _to_ (ηρός) should rather be rendered _towards_; for it indicates _direction_, not _result_, the place or person toward which anything moves or an affection is directed, not that to which anything comes or upon which an affection is finally centered. _All men_ must not be rendered with Calvin as equivalent to “all the children of God;” nor does it merely mean men of both Gentile and Jewish origin, _i. e._, all classes of men. Christ’s words need no mending. All men to whom the simple story of the cross is told are drawn toward him who gave himself for us; whether they _follow him_ and become like him through a like voluntary cross-bearing is another question. Of that Christ says nothing here. The whole sentence, then (vers. 31, 32), may be paraphrased thus: Already is the judgment of this world beginning to take place; already is the Prince of this world beginning to be cast out; and I, if I am faithful to the end in enduring that cross for which I came into this hour, will draw all hearts toward me, even as now these stranger hearts are drawn toward me.

34 The people answered him, We have heard[501] out of the law[502] that Christ abideth for ever: and how sayest thou, The Son of man must be lifted up? who is this Son of man?

[501] Ps. 89:36, 37; 110:4; Isa. 9:7.

[502] Rom. 5:18; Ps. 72:17-19.

35 Then Jesus said unto them, Yet a little while is the light[503] with you.[504] Walk while ye have the light, lest darkness come upon you: for he[505] that walketh in darkness knoweth not whither he goeth.

[503] ch. 8:12.

[504] Jer. 13:6.

[505] ch. 11:10.

36 While ye have light, believe in the light, that ye may be[506] the children of light. These things spake Jesus, and departed, and did hide himself from them.

[506] Ephes. 5:8.

=34-36. We have heard out of the law that the Messiah abideth forever.= They evidently understand Christ’s language to refer to his death, at least to his departure from the earth, and are really perplexed. For the idea of an earthly Messianic kingdom was so firmly fixed in the public mind that they were absolutely incapable of receiving any other; and the O. T. in many passages does describe that kingdom as an everlasting one (Ps. 89:36; 145:13; Isaiah 9:5, 7; Dan. 7:13, 14).--=Who is this Son of man?= The language is that of sneer. What strange sort of a Messiah is this, that must die in order to draw all nations unto him, and enter into his kingdom?--=Then Jesus said unto them.= His reply is not responsive to their question. He rarely if ever replied to sneers.--=Yet a little while is the light with you.= The commentators generally regard the phrase _the Light_ as Christ’s designation of himself. So Alford, Godet, Meyer, among the moderns, and Chrysostom and Calvin among the older commentators. But this interpretation entangles the whole sentence. Christ then bids his auditors to walk, _i. e._, “be not slothful but spiritually active” (_Meyer_), for the two or three days that intervene before his death; for his death will bring darkness on them, and make it impossible for them to walk intelligently thereafter. The direction is thus deprived of all significance to us, and is contradicted by history; for the death of Christ brought light, not darkness, and was itself the necessary precursor of highest spiritual activity in all that believe on him. The _light_ here, as in Matthew 6:23, is the moral and spiritual nature of man, that which links him to the divine and makes it possible for him to become a child of God. God is the Light of the world (1 John 1:5) because he is the fountain, the central sun which supplies and keeps alive this moral and spiritual nature in men. Christ is the Light of the world (ch. 9:5), because in him this spiritual nature shone out without any dimness from sin or moral infirmity. Christians are lights in the world (Matt. 5:14), because this spiritual nature in them is their guide, illuminating them and through them others. If one follows this inner light it grows brighter and brighter unto perfect day (Prov. 4:18); if he disobeys it he quenches it and goes into moral darkness, losing the very power of moral and spiritual discrimination (1 John 2:8-11). I understand Christ’s meaning then to be this: You have yet for a little while longer the light of conscience; it is not utterly quenched. Beware. Walk according to such light as you possess, lest utter moral darkness come upon you. And he who walks in such darkness knows not the future fate that awaits him. _Walk while ye have the light_ should rather be rendered, _Walk as ye have the light_ (ὡς not ἕως is the best reading, so _Alford_, _Meyer_, etc.); that is, _According to the light ye possess_. The phrase _Come upon you_ is hardly forcible enough to express the meaning of the original (καταλαμβάνω) which is literally to _seize_ or _take violent possession of_. See Mark 9:18; John 8:3; 1 Thess. 5:4. _Knoweth not whither he goeth_ indicates the awful mystery which hangs about the final fate of those who refuse to follow the light of their own better nature, and so to accept the light which comes from God through Jesus Christ his Son.--=As ye have the light, have faith in the light, that ye may become the children of light.= Observe the difference between this rendering, which accurately follows the original, and that of the English version, from which it differs in three important particulars. Christ does not say _while ye have the light_, but _according as ye have the light_, that is, faith is to be exercised according to the opportunity; he does not say _believe_, a word which indicates an intellectual act, but _have faith_, a word which indicates a spiritual habit; he does not say _may be the children of light_, as though a single act of belief perfected the soul in sonship, but _may become the children of light_, faith in such light as the soul possesses being the way unto a final perfection in the divine life. Faith is the evidence of things unseen (Heb. 11:1), that is, the power of the soul by which it appreciates unseen moral qualities; hence the divine qualities in Christ: hence, by direct, immediate communion, the invisible spirit of God. The direction here is the natural outcome of the preceding warning, and may be paraphrased thus: “As you have moral and spiritual illumination, exercise faith toward it, apprehend, appreciate, obey the sacred inner monitions of your moral nature; so shall you be led constantly into clearer light, and shall at last become children of light, wholly possessed and pervaded by it.” This of course includes the exercise of faith in Christ according to the measure in which he is revealed to the soul; but it certainly is much more than a mere exhortation to the Jews to believe in Jesus as the Messiah while he remained in the flesh among them. Both the warning against quenching this inner light by disobedience, and the exhortation to nourish it by appreciating and following it are applicable to all men and for all time.--=And departed and hid himself from them.= The very fact that these were among Christ’s last words, and that immediately on uttering them he departed into a concealment from which apparently he did not issue till the time for his passion, should have sufficed to prevent the common but unspiritual interpretation controverted above. “This was the farewell of Jesus to Israel. He then retired and did not reappear on the morrow. This time it was no mere cloud which obscured the sun; the sun itself had set.”--(_Godet._) This statement fixes the time of this incident; it was concurrent with his farewell to Jerusalem, that is, on the same day with, and probably just subsequent to the discourse recorded in Matthew, ch. 23. In the discourses of which that was the culmination, Christ plainly foretold the destruction of Jerusalem and the dispersion of the Jews, and indicated the calling of the Gentiles (Matt. 21:43; 23:37-39). It may be that those prophecies led to this application of the Greeks for a more private interview with the prophet who thus foretold the ingathering of the Gentiles.

37 But though he had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him:

38 That the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake,[507] Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed?

[507] Isa. 53:1.

39 Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said[508] again,

[508] Isa. 6:9, 10.

40 He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart: that they should not see with _their_ eyes, nor understand with _their_ heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.

41 These things said Esaias, when[509] he saw his glory, and spake of him.

[509] Isa. 6:1.

42 Nevertheless among the chief rulers also many believed on him; but[510] because of the Pharisees they did not confess _him_, lest they should be put out of the synagogue:

[510] ch. 9:22.

43 For[511] they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God.

[511] ch. 5:44; Rom. 2:29.

=37-43.= These words are John’s comments on the whole incident and teaching. The passages from Isaiah (6:9, 10; Isaiah 53:1) illustrate Christ’s warning, and Christ’s warning interprets Isaiah’s prophecy. The blinding and hardening are here attributed to God because they take place in accordance with the divine law which Christ has enunciated, namely, that disobedience to the light quenches and destroys it. In Matthew 13:13-15, the Jews are represented as blinding their own eyes, etc., because they have done so by their disobedience. See notes on Matthew. To those who recognize the authority of John, his language here is conclusive that Isaiah spoke as a prophet, and under divine inspiration. Observe that Isaiah, though living seven centuries before Christ, _saw his glory_, which the blinded eyes of the Pharisees, though they were his contemporaries, could not see. _Putting out of the synagogue_, that is, excommunication, was in those days a very serious matter. See ch. 9:22, note. I make no attempt to follow other commentators in a discussion here respecting the relation of divine decrees and human free agency; that belongs not to the commentator but to the metaphysician and theologian. Taking the whole passage together with its context, it seems to me clear (against _Alford_) that the statement of John _Therefore they could not believe_, refers not backwards to the precedent prophecy of Isaiah, so that the meaning is that they could not believe “because it was otherwise ordained in the divine counsels,” but forward to the subsequent prophecy of Isaiah, so that the meaning is that they could not believe because their eyes were blinded and their hearts hardened. Either interpretation is grammatically possible; this one makes John’s comment germane to Christ’s discourse respecting the light, and the effect of refusing obedience to it; the other does not. An interpretation which represents God as blinding the eyes and hardening the heart, so as to prevent the exercise of faith, and this in order that a prophecy may be fulfilled, cannot be reconciled with the divine righteousness, much less with the divine infinite mercy.

44 Jesus cried and said, He[512] that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me.

[512] Mark 9:37; 1 Pet. 1:21.

45 And he that seeth me seeth him that sent me.

46 I[513] am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness.

[513] chaps. 1:5; 3:19.

=44-46. But Jesus cried and said.= What follows, to the end of the chapter, is not to be regarded as a report of a further discourse by Jesus, but as a summary furnished by John, of his Lord’s previous discourses. This view is required by the context, what follows being closely connected with John’s previous comments, by the structure of the discourse, which is substantially a repetition of previously reported discourses (see notes), and by the consideration that, not only no time or place is indicated, but that none is allowed, since it is expressly asserted, immediately before, that Christ departed and hid himself from the people (ver. 36). This view is taken by all the moderns (_Alford_, _Meyer_, _Godet_, _Luthardt_). Bengel is hardly self-consistent. In his Grammar he characterizes this as “the peroration and recapitulation, in John’s Gospel, of Christ’s public discourses;” in his _Harmony_ he suggests that Christ “spake in the very act of departure, when he was now at a considerable distance from the men; wherefore he is said to have cried, in order, doubtless, that those very persons with whom he had spoken might hear;” an hypothesis which Luthardt justly characterizes as artificial, unwarranted by the Gospel account, and disagreeable.--=He that hath faith in me, hath faith not in me but in him that sent me.= _In_ (εἰς) indicates the ultimate end or object of the faith. The negative is not to be omitted or reduced to a mere rhetorical expression, or read as though it was equivalent to “hath not faith in me alone.” True scriptural faith in Christ does not _stop_ with him, but finds in him the way to the Father, the Spirit who is to be worshipped in spirit as well as in truth, and whom no man hath seen at any time. Hence Paul’s declaration, “Yea, though we have seen Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth we know him no more.” “Christ descended to us that he might unite us to God. Until we have reached that point, we are, as it were, in the middle of the course. We imagine to ourselves but a half Christ, and a mutilated Christ, if he do not lead us to God.”--(_Calvin._) For parallel teaching of Christ, see ch. 5:24, 30, 38, 43; 8:19, 42; 10:38; 14:10, 11.--=And he that seeth me seeth him that sent me.= _See_ is here used not of external but of spiritual perception, as in chaps. 4:19; 6:40; 14:19; 17:24. He that has a spiritual perception and appreciation of the glory of Christ’s character has a perception and appreciation of the divine glory; for the Son is the express image of the Father’s person and the brightness of his glory (Heb. 1:3). “Jesus’ essence does not consist in his merely external appearance, but in his internal relation to the Father.”--(_Luthardt._) Comp. ch. 14:9, where the language is almost precisely the same.--=I am come a light into the world.= A light to lead to the Father, and to the divine life which is lived only by communion with the Father through the Spirit.--=In order that whosoever believeth in me should not abide in darkness.= The object of Christ’s incarnation and atonement is that through faith in him we may be delivered from the power of darkness and translated into the kingdom of God’s dear Son (Col. 1:13), and thus walk no longer in the darkness but in the light, by walking in fellowship with God (1 John 1:5-7; 2:8-11). This light is the illumination and inspiration of the moral and spiritual nature afforded by faith in and a life of following after Jesus Christ. Comp. ch. 8:12; 9:5.

47 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came[514] not to judge the world, but to save the world.

[514] ch. 3:17.

48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words,[515] hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.

[515] Deut. 18:19; Luke 9:26.

49 For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.

50 And I know that his commandment[516] is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak.

[516] 1 John 3:23.

=47-50. I judge him not * * * * The word that I have spoken the same shall judge him.= This declaration is not inconsistent with other passages of the N. T. which declare that Jesus Christ shall judge the world (ch. 5:25-27); but it interprets them. That judgment shall not be an arbitrary one; nor one pronounced by a judge after trial, like a human judgment, in which questions of law and fact are involved. The book of each man’s life shall be opened, and compared with the life of Christ which is the pattern; and the life and teaching of Christ will itself be the judgment; the comparison will be conclusive; there will be no need of investigation or of sentence. Hence every man is judging and condemning himself, and if unrepentant and unpardoned is condemned already. Comp. ch. 3:18, 19; 5:45.--=He that rejecteth me= (ἀθετέω). Literally, _displaces me_. To reject Christ does not necessarily involve a deliberate decision against him. Simply putting him one side as of no practical importance is a rejection of him.--=And receiveth not my words.= We receive them only by obeying them. See Matthew 13:23.--=Because I have not spoken out of myself.= Christ is not the ultimate source of his own authority. His words are divine because they are God-given. The Father is the reservoir from whom Christ draws. Compare ch. 5:30; 7:16-28; 8:26, 28, 38.--=What I should say and what I should speak.= “The former is to be understood of the contents and the latter of the external act of speaking.”--(_Luthardt._) To the same effect Meyer. The double expression indicates that not only the _substance_ but also the _form_ and _method of expression_ of Christ’s teaching are God-given.--=And I know that his commandment is life eternal.= It has for its aim to produce life eternal; it has for its subject-matter the conditions and nature of life eternal; it is, in other words, the law of the spiritual life. As science has to do with the laws of the external, so Christianity with the laws of the internal or spiritual world. Comp. ch. 6:63, 68. There is a weighty significance in the words “I know.” By his own acceptance of and obedience to the Father’s commands Christ made, as it were, trial of them, and spoke out of his own personal experience of their value and effect. It is only as the Christian thus knows and speaks that his testimony is effective (2 Cor. 4:13).