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).