Expository Thoughts on the Gospels: St. John, Vol. I

Would we know, for one thing, the exceeding sinfulness of sin? Let us often read these first five verses of St. John's Gospel. Let us mark what kind of Being the Redeemer of mankind must needs be, in order to provide eternal redemption for sinners. If no one less than the Eternal God, the Creator and Preserver of all things, could take away the sin of the, world, sin must be a far more abominable thing in the sight of God than most men suppose. The right measure of sin's sinfulness is the dignity of Him who came into the world to save sinners. If Christ is so great, then sin must indeed be sinful !

Would we know, for another thing, the strength of a true Christian's foundation for hope ? Let us often read these first five verses of St. John's Gospel. Let us mark that the Saviour in whom the believer is bid to trust is nothing less than the Eternal God, One able to save to the uttermost all that come to the Father by Him. He that was " with God," and " was God," is also " Emmanuel, God with us." Let us thank God that our help is laid on One that is mighty. (Psalm lxxxix. 19.) In ourselves we are great sinners. But in Jesus Christ we have a great Saviour, He is a strong foundation-stone, able to bear the weight of a world's sin. He that believeth on Him shall not be confounded. (1 Peter ii. 6.)

This wonderful verse contains three things. It tells us that our Lord Jesus Christ, here called the Word, is eternal, — that He is a distinct Person from God the Father, and yet most intimately united to him, — and that He is God. The term " God," be it remembered, in the second clause, is to be taken personally, for God the Father, and in the third to be taken essentially, as signifying the Divine Being.

The expression, " in the beginning," means in the beginning of all creation. It is like the first verse of Genesis, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." (Gen. i. 1.)

The expression, "the Word," is a very difficult one, and is peculiar to St. John, I see no clear proof that it is used by any other New Testament writer. The texts, Acts xx. 32, and Heb. iv. 12, are, to say the least, doubtful proofs. That it here signifies a " person," and not a spoken word, and that it is applied to our Lord Jesus Christ, is clear from the after sentence, " The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us." That it was a term familiar to the Jews is undeniable. But why this particular name is used by St. John, both here and in his other writings, is a point on which commentators have differed greatly.

Some think, as Melancthon, Rollock, Gomarus, and Scott, that Christ is called " the Word," because He is the speaker, utterer, and interpreter of God the Father's will. It is written in this very chapter, that " the only begotten Son hath declared the Father." It is also written, that " God hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son," (Heb. i. 1,)

I think the last of these views the simplest and most satisfactory. All of them are at best only conjectures. There is probably something about the expression which has not yet been discovered.

This sentence means, that from all eternity there was a most intimate and ineffable union between the first and second Persons in the blessed Trinity, — between Christ the Word, and God the Father. And yet, though thus ineffably united, the Word and the Father were from all eternity two distinct Persons. " It was He," says Pearson, to whom the Father said, " Let us make man in our image." (Gen. i. 26.)

The truth contained in this sentence, is one of the deepest and most mysterious in the whole range of Christian theology. The nature of this union between the Father and the Son, we have no mental capacity to explain. Augustine draws illustrations from the sun and its rays, and from fire and the light of fire, which, though two distinct things, are yet inseparably united, so that where the one is the other is. But all illustrations on such subjects halt and fail. Here, at any rate, it is better to believe than to attempt to explain. ...

This sentence means that the Lord Jesus Christ, the eternal Word, was in nature, essence, and substance very God, and that "as the Father is God, so also the Son is God." It seems impossible to assert Christ's divinity more distinctly than it is here asserted. The sentence cannot possibly mean that the Father is God, since no one ever thought of disputing that. Nor yet can it possibly mean that the title of God was conferred on some being inferior to God and uncreated, as the princes of this world are called " gods." He who is here called God, is the same who was uncreated and eternal. There is no inferiority in the Word to God the Father. The Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one. To maintain in the face of such a text, as some so-called Christians do, that our Lord Jesus Christ was only a man, is a mournful proof of the perversity of the human heart.

The whole verse, honestly and impartially interpreted, is an unanswerable argument against three classes of heretics. It confutes the Arians, who regard Christ as a Being inferior to God. — It confutes the Sabellians, who deny any distinction of Persons in the Trinity, and say that God sometimes manifested Himself as the Father, sometimes as the Son, and sometimes as the Spirit, and that the Father and the Spirit suffered on the cross! — Above all it confutes the Socinians and Unitarians who say that Jesus Christ was not God but man, a most holy and perfect man, but only a man.

This verse contains an emphatic repetition of the second clause of the preceding verse. St. John anticipates the possible objection of some perverse mind, that perhaps there was a time when Christ, the Word, was not a distinct Person in the Trinity. In reply to this objection, he declares that the same Word who was eternal, and was God, was also from all eternity a Person in the Godhead distinct from God the Father, and yet with Him by a most intimate and ineffable union. In short, there never was a time when Christ was not " with God."

There are two passages in the Old Testament which throw strong light on the doctrine of this verse. The one is in the Book of Proverbs viii. 22 — 31. The other is in Zechariah xiii. 7. The passage in Proverbs seems intended to explain the verse before us. The passage in Zechariah contains an expression which is almost a parallel to the expression " with God." " Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, and against the man that is my fellow, saith the Lord." "The man that is my fellow," according to the best commentators, means the Messiah, Jesus Christ, and a reference to Poole's Synopsis will show that the words signify " the man that is near me, or joined to me."

Arrowsmith says, " Ask the sun, if ever it were without its beams. Ask the fountain, if ever it were without its streams. So God was never without His Son."

This sentence means that creation was the work of our Lord Jesus Christ, no less than of God the Father. "By him were all things created." (Coloss. i. 16.) " Thou Lord in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth." (Heb. i. 10.) Now He that made all things must needs be God.

The expression, we must carefully remember, does not imply any inferiority of God the Son to God the Father, as if God the Son was only the agent and workman under another. Nor yet does it imply that creation was in no sense the work of God the Father, and that He is not the maker of heaven and earth. But it does imply that such is the dignity of the eternal Word, that in creation as well as in every thing else. He co-operated with the Father. " What things soever the Father doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise." (John v. 19.) "By whom also He made the worlds." (Heb. i. 2.) When we read the expression " by me kings reign," (Prov. viii. 15,) we do not for a moment suppose, that kings are superior in dignity to Him by whom they reign.

This sentence appears added, to show the utter impossibility of our Lord Jesus Christ being no more than a created being. If not even the slightest thing was created without Him, it is plain that He cannot possibly be a creature Himself

The fathers raised curious speculations about the origin of evil from the expression now before us. " If nothing was made without Christ," they argued, "from whence came sin?" The simplest answer to this question is, that sin was not among the things which were originally created at the beginning. It came in afterwards, at the fall, "By one man sin entered into the world." (Rom. v. 12.) That it could not have entered without divine permission, and that its entrance has been overruled to the display of divine mercy in redemption, are undeniable truths. But we have no right to say that sin was among the "all things," which were "made by Christ."

This sentence means that in the eternal counsels of the Trinity, Christ was appointed to be the source, fountain, origin, and cause of life. From Him all life was to Now. As to the kind of " life" which is here meant, there is much difference of opinion among commentators.

Some think as Cyril, Theophylact, Chemnitius, and Calvin, that the expression refers specially to the continued preservation of all created things by Christ's providence. Having created all things, He keeps all alive and in order.

Some think, as Luther, Melancthon, Brentius, Flacius, Lightfoot, Lampe, and Pearce, that the expression applies solely to spiritual life, and that it is meant to declare that Christ alone is the source of all life to the souls of men, whether in time or eternity. He was the creator of all things, and He also was the author of new creation. To this opinion I decidedly incline. For one thing, natural life seems already included in the preceding verse about creation. For another thing, it is the view which seems to agree best with the conclusion of the verse, and to be in harmony with the words, "With thee is the fountain of life : in thy light we shall see light." " God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in His Son." (Psalm xxxvi. 9; 1 John v. 11.)

[The life was the light of men.] This sentence means that the life which was in Christ, was intended before the fall to be the guide of man's soul to heaven, and the supply of man's heart and conscience, — and that since the fall of man it has been the salvation and the comfort of all who have been saved. It is those and those only who have followed Christ as their light, who have lived before God and reached heaven. There has never been any spiritual life or light enjoyed by men, excepting from Christ.

This sentence means that the spiritual light which Christ, the source of life, offers to man, has always been neglected since the fall, and is still neglected by unregenerate men. It has been like a candle shining in a dark place, a light in the middle of a world of darkness, — making the darkness more visible. Unregenerate men are darkness itself about spiritual things. "Ye were darkness." (Ephes. v. 8.)

This sentence means that the natural heart of man has always been so dark since the fall, that the great majority of mankind have neither understood, nor received, nor laid hold upon the light offered to them by Christ.

The difference in the tenses of the two verbs used in this verse is very remarkable. About the " light" the present tense is used ; " It shineth now as it has always shone ; it is still shining." — About the " darkness" the past tense is used ; " It has not comprehended the light ; it never has comprehended it from the first, and does not comprehend it at the present day."

We see, lastly, in these verses, the vast privileges of all who receive Christ, and believe on Him. We are told that "as many as received Him, to them gave He power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on His name."

Christ will never be without some servants. If the vast majority of the Jews did not receive Him as the Messiah, there were, at any rate, a few who did. To them He gave the privilege of being God's children. He adopted them as members of His Father's family. He reckoned them His own brethren and sisters, bone of His bone, and flesh of His flesh. He conferred on them a dignity which was ample recompense for the cross which they had to carry for His sake. He made them sons and daughters of the Lord Almighty.

Privileges like these, be it remembered, are the possession of all, in every age, who receive Christ by faith, and follow Him as their Saviour. They are " children of God by faith in Christ Jesus." (Gal. iii. 26.) They are born again by a new and heavenly birth, and adopted into the family of the King of kings. Few in number, and despised by the world as they are, they are cared for with infinite love by a Father in heaven, who, for His Son's sake, is well pleased with them. In time He provides them with everything that is for their good. In eternity He will give them a crown of glory that fadeth not away. These are great things ! But faith in Christ gives men an ample title to them. Good masters care for their servants, and Christ cares for His.

This is a short and striking description of John the Baptist, He was the messenger whom God promised to send before Messiah's face. He was born when his parents were aged, by God's miraculous interposition. He was filled with the Holy Ghost from his mother's womb. He received a special commission from God to preach the baptism of repentance, and to proclaim the immediate coming of Christ. In short, he was specially raised up by God to prepare the way for the Messiah. For all these reasons he is here called " a man sent from God." It is, in one sense, the common mark of all true ministers of the "Gospel. Ignorant, blind, and unconverted ministers may be ordained and sent by man. But they are not " sent from God."

This does not mean, as it might at first sight appear, " came to be a witness." The Greek word which we translate "witness," does not mean " a person," but the testimony which a witness bears.

[To hear witness of the light.] This means, to testify concerning Jesus Christ the light of the world, that He was the promised Messiah, the Lamb of God, the Bridegroom, the Almighty Saviour, to whom all dark souls ought to apply.

[All men.] This cannot of course signify " all mankind." It means all who heard John's testimony, and all Jews who were really looking for a Redeemer. One end of John the Baptist's testimony was that all such should believe on Christ the true light.

This expression would be more literally rendered, "' He was not the light," the promised light of sinners, the light of the world. The Greek article " the," is used in a similar emphatic manner, to denote eminence and distinction, in the following passages. " That bread." John vi. 32. "That prophet." John i. 21—25. "That day." 1 Thess. v. 4. " That way." Acts ix. 2.

Let it be noted that our Lord himself calls John the Baptist at a later period, " The burning and shining light." (John v. 35.) But it is a curious fact that the Greek word there rendered "light," is not the one used here. It is a word which is frequently translated " candle." John the Baptist was a " candle," but not the light itself Believers are called " the light of the world." (Matt. v. 14,) but only as members of Christ the light, and borrowing light from him. Christ alone is the great sun and fountain of all light, the light itself

The force of the expression " true " in this sentence, is well brought out by Arrowsmith in his commentary on this verse. He says that Christ is " the true light " in four respects. Firstly, He is undeceiving light, the true light in opposition to all the false lights of the Gentiles. — Secondly, He is real light, true in opposition to ceremonial types and shadows. — Thirdly, He is underived light, true in opposition to all light that is borrowed, communicated, or participated from another.— Fourthly, He is supereminent light, true in opposition to all that is ordinary and common.

Some think, as Chrysostom, and Brentius in his Homilies, and Lightfoot, that Christ is really given to be the light of all mankind. They think that when it is said. He " lighteth every man," it means that He shines sufficiently for the salvation of all mankind, both Jews and Gentiles, (like the sun shining upon all creation,) though the majority of men are so blinded by sin that they do not see Him. Yet Christ is for every man. " He lighteth all," says Chrysostom, " as far as in Him lies." — "There is power and good will in the light," says Chemnitius, " to illumine all ; but some love darkness rather than light." Arrowsmith says, " Christ doth dispense to every one light sufficient to leave him without excuse. But Christ doth not dispense to every one converting light sufficient to bring him to salvation."

I believe this last view to be the most probable one, though I confess that it is not unattended by difficulties. But I rest in the conclusion that Christ is offered as a light to all the world, and that every one born into the world will prove at last to have been in some way indebted to Christ, even though not saved.

This verse describes the unbelief of the whole world before Christ's incarnation. He "was in the world " invisibly, before He was born of the Virgin Mary, as in the days of Noah. (1 Pet. iii. 19.) He was to be seen in His works and in His providential government of all things, if men had only had eyes to see Him. And yet the very world which He had made, the work of his hands, did not acknowledge, believe, or obey Him. It knew Him not. At Athens, Paul found an altar " to the unknown God."

That the expression applies to Christ before His incarnation, and not after, is said by Lampe to be the unanimous opinion of Origen, Chrysostom, Augustine, Cyril, Theodoret, Beda, Theophylact, and Euthymius.

This verse describes the unbelief of the Jewish nation after the incarnation of Christ, and during His ministry among them. He came to a people who were peculiarly His own, by their redemption from Egypt, by their introduction into the land of Canaan, and by their possession of the law of Moses, and the covenants, and yet they did not believe on Him, or receive Him, but actually rejected and slew Him.

There is a peculiarity about the Greek words rendered " his own," in this verse, which ought not to be overlooked. The first " his own " is in the neuter gender, and means literally " his own things." The second "his own" is in the masculine gender, and means "his own men, servants or subjects." It is probably meant to show that our Lord came to a people whose land, territory, cities, temple, were all His own property, and had been originally granted by Himself. The Jews, Palestine, Jerusalem, the temple, were all Christ's peculiar possession. Israel was "His inheritance." (Psalm lxxviii. 71.)— This made the sin of those who "received Him not," even more sinful.

This expression signifies, "as many as believed on Christ, and acknowledged Him as the Messiah." It is only another form of the expression at the end of the verse, "believed on His name." To receive Christ is to accept Him with a willing heart, and to take Him as our Saviour. It is one of many forms of speech, by which that justifying faith which unites the sinner's soul to Christ is expressed in the Bible. To believe on Christ with the heart, is to receive Him, and to receive Him is to believe on Him. — St. Paul says to the Colossians, " As ye have received Christ, so walk ve in Him." (Col. ii. 6.)

The Greek word rendered, " As many as," is literally, "whosoever," " whatsoever persons." Glassius remarks, that the expression denotes the universality of the benefits which Christ conferred. " Whosoever " received Him, Pharisees, Sadducees, learned or unlearned, male or female, Jews or Gentiles, to them He gave the privilege of sonship to God.

The word "power" in this sentence requires careful guarding against misrepresentation. It means, as the marginal reading says, " right or privilege." It does not mean strength or ability. It does not mean that Christ confers on those who receive Him a spiritual and moral strength, by which they convert themselves, change their own hearts, and make themselves God's children. No doubt Christ gives to all His people all needful grace to supply all the wants of their hearts, and the necessities of their position. No doubt He gives them strength to carry the cross, fight the good fight, and overcome the world. But that is not the truth taught in the words before us, and must be sought in other places. The words before us only mean that Christ confers the privilege of adoption on all believers, and did so especially on His first disciples. While their unbelieving fellow-countrymen were boasting of being children of Abraham, Christ gave His disciples the far higher privilege of being children of God.

The birth here spoken of is the new birth, or regeneration, that complete change of heart and nature which takes place in a man when he becomes a real Christian. It is a change so great that no other figure but that of birth can fully express it. It is as when a new being, with new appetites, wants, and desires is brought into the world. A person born of God is " a new creature, old things are passed away, behold all things are become new." (2 Cor. V. 17.)

The persons who believe on Christ's name are said to be born " not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." The interpretation of this expression which is usually given by commentators appears to me neither correct nor seemly. The true meaning of the words, I believe, is this. Believers did not become what they are " by blood," that is by descent from Abraham or blood connection with godly people. Grace does not descend from parent to child. — Nor yet did believers become what they are by the will of the flesh, — that is by the efforts and exertions of their own natural hearts. Nature can never change itself. " That which is born of the flesh is flesh." — Nor yet did believers become what they are by the will of man, — that is by the acts and deeds of others. Neither ordained ministers, nor any one else, can confer grace upon another. Man cannot regenerate hearts. — Believers become what they are solely and entirely by the grace of God. It is to God's free grace, preventing, calling, converting, renewing and sanctifying, that they own their new birth. They are born of God, or, as the third chapter says more distinctly, " born of the Spirit."

The main truth which this verse teaches is the reality of our Lord Jesus Christ's incarnation, or being made man, St. John tells us that " the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us."

The plain meaning of these words is, that our divine Saviour really took human nature upon Him, in order to save sinners. He really became a man like ourselves in all things, sin only excepted. Like ourselves, he was born of a woman, though born in a miraculous manner. Like ourselves, He grew from infancy to boyhood, and from boyhood to man's estate, both in wisdom and in stature. (Luke ii. 52.) Like ourselves, he hungered, thirsted, ate, drank, slept, was wearied, felt pain, wept, rejoiced, marvelled, was moved to anger and compassion. Having be come flesh, and taken a body, He prayed, read the Scriptures, suffered being tempted, and submitted His human will to the will of God the Father. And finally, in the same body. He really suffered and shed His blood, really died, was really buried, really rose again, and really ascended up into heaven. And yet all this time He was God as well as man !

This sentence means that the eternal Word of God, the second Person in the Trinity, became a man, like one of ourselves in all things, sin only excepted This He accomplished, by being born of the Virgin Mary, after a miraculous manner, through the operation of the Holy Ghost And the end for which He became flesh, was that He might live and die for sinners.

The expression " the "Word," shows clearly that " the Word " who " was with God and was God," must be a Person. It could not reasonably be said of any one but a Person, that He became " flesh and dwelt among us." Whether St. John could have found any other name for the second Person of the Trinity equally proper, we need not trouble ourselves to inquire. It certainly would not have been accurately correct to say that " Jesus was made flesh," because the name Jesus was not given to our lord till after His incarnation. Nor yet would it have been correct to say, " In the beginning was Christ," because the name Christ belongs to the times after the fall of man.

The Greek word rendered dwelt, means literally " tabernacled," or " dwelt in a tent." The sentence does not mean that Christ dwelt in His human body as in a tabernacle, which He left when He ascended up to heaven. " Christ," says Arrowsmith, "continueth now, and shall for ever, as true man as when He was born of the Virgin Mary. — He so took human nature as never to lay it down again." The sentence only means that Christ dwelt among men on earth for thirty-three years. He was on earth so long conversing among men, that there could be no doubt of the reality of His incarnation. He did not appear for a few minutes, like a phantom or ghost. He did not come down for a brief visit of a few days, but was living among us in His human body for the duration of a whole generation of men. For thirty-three years He pitched His tent in Palestine, and was going to and fro among its inhabitants.

This sentence means " such glory as became and was suitable to one who is the only begotten Son of God the Father." These words will hardly apply to Christ's miracles. They seem to confine the glory which John says " we beheld," to the vision of glory which he and his two companions saw when Christ was transfigured, and they heard the Father saying, " This is my beloved Son."

Lightfoot's paraphrase of this expression is worth reading though he does not apply the passage to the transfiguration " We saw His glory as what was worthy, as became, the only begotten Son of God. He did not glisten in any worldly pomp or grandeur, according to what the Jewish nation fondly dreamed their Messiah would do. But He was dressed with the glory of holiness, grace, truth, and the power of miracles."

We must carefully remember that the adverb " as " in this place, does not imply comparison, or similitude, as if John only meant that the Word's glory was like that of the only begotten Son of God. Chrysostom says, " The expression ' as ' in this place does not belong to similarity or comparison, but to confirmation and unquestionable definition, as though he said, we beheld glory such as it was becoming and likely that He should possess, who is the only begotten and true Son of God and King of all." He also remarks that it is a common manner of speaking, when people are describing the appearance of a king in state, to say that " he was like a king," meaning only that he was a real king.

Some think that the words describe especially the spiritual riches that Christ brought into the world, when He became incarnate, and set up His kingdom. He came full of the gospel of grace, in contradistinction to the burdensome requirements of the ceremonial law. He came full of truth, of real, true, solid comfort, in contradistinction to the types, and figures, and shadows of the law of Moses. In short the full grace of God, and the full truth about the way of acceptance, were never clearly seen until the Word became flesh, dwelt among us on earth, opened the treasure-house, and revealed grace and truth in His own person.

I decidedly prefer the second of these two views. The first is truth, but not the truth of the passage. The second appears to me to harmonize with the 17th verse, which follows almost immediately, where the law and the gospel are contrasted, and we are told that " grace and truth came by Jesus Christ."

We are taught, thirdly, that it is Christ alone who has revealed God the Father to man. It is written that " no man hath seen God at any time : the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him."

The eye of mortal man has never beheld God the Father. No man could bear the sight. Even to Moses it was said, " Thou canst not see my face : for there shall no man see me, and live." (Exod. xxxiii. 20.) Yet all that mortal man is capable of knowing about God the Father is fully revealed to us by God the Son. He, who was in the bosom of the Father from all eternity, has been pleased to take our nature upon Him, and to exhibit to us in the form of man, all that our minds can comprehend of the Father's perfections. In Christ's words, and deeds, and life, and death, we learn as much concerning God the Father as our feeble minds can at present bear. His perfect wisdom, — His almighty power, — His unspeakable love to sinners, — His incomparable holiness, — His hatred of sin, could never be represented to our eyes more clearly than we see them in Christ's life and death. In truth, " God was manifest in the flesh," when the Word took on Him a body. "He was the brightness of the Father's glory, and the express image of His person." He says Himself, " I and my Father are one." " He that hath seen me hath seen the Father." "In Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." (Coloss. ii. 9.) These are deep and mysterious things. But they are true. (1 Tim. iii. 16 ; Heb. i. 3 ; John x. 30 ; xiv. 9.)

The first " before," signifies before in place, position, or dignity. The Greek adverb so rendered, is used forty-nine times in the New Testament, but never once in the sense of " before in point of time or age."

The second " before," signifies before in point of time or existence. " He was existing before me, at the time when I was not." The expression is certainly remarkable and uncommon, but there is another exactly like it in this Gospel, " It hated me before it hated you," where the literal rendering would be, "it hated me first of you."

The sentence " he was before me," is a distinct statement of Christ's pre-existence. He was born at least six months after John the Baptist, and was therefore younger in age than John. Yet John says, " He was before me. He was existing when I was born," If he had meant only, that our Lord was a more honourable person than himself, he would surely have said, " He is before me."

This sentence means, " all we who believe on Jesus, have received an abundant supply of all that our souls need out of the fall store that resides in Him for His people. It is from Christ and Christ alone, that all our spiritual wants have been supplied."

Waterland, in his book on the Trinity, calls particular attention to this expression. He thinks that it was specially used with a view to the strange doctrines of the Gnostics in general, and the Cerinthians in particular, whose heresies arose before St. John's Gospel was written. They seem to have held that there was a certain fulness or plenitude of the Deity, into which only certain spiritual men, including themselves, were to be received, and from which others who were less spiritual, though they had grace, were to be excluded. " St. John," says Waterland, " here asserts, that all Christians, equally and indifferently, all believers at large, have received of the plenitude or fulness of the divine Word, and that not sparingly, but in the largest measure, even grace upon grace."

6. Some think that it means " accumulated grace, abundant grace, grace upon grace." This is the view of Schleusner, Winer, Bucer, Pellican, Musculus, Gualter, Poole, Nifanius, Pearce, Burkitt, Doddridge, Bengel, A. Clarke, Tittman, Olshausen, Barnes, and Alford.

Brentius, Bullinger, Aretius, Jansenius, Hutcheson, Gill, Scott, and Henry, give several views, but signify their adhesion to no one in particular.

On the whole, I am inclined to think that the sixth and last is the correct view. I admit fully that the Greek preposition, here rendered ''for," is only found in three senses in the Greek Testament,— viz. : " In the room or place of." (Matt. li. 22.) " In return for." .(Rom. xii. 17.) and "On account of" (Acts xii. 23 ; Ephes. V. 31.) Ill composition it also signifies " opposition," but with that we have nothing to do here. In the present case I think the meaning is " grace in the place of grace, constant, fresh, abundant supplies of new grace, to take the place of old grace, and therefore unfailing, abundant grace, continually filling up and supplying all our need."

This verse seems intended to show the inferiority of the law to the Gospel. It does so by putting in strong contrast the leading characteristics of the Old and New dispensations, — the religion which began with Moses, and the religion which began with Christ.

By Moses was given the law, — the moral law, full of high and holy demands, and of stern threatenings against disobedience ; — the ceremonial law, full of burdensome sacrifices, ordinances, and ceremonies, which never healed the worshipper's conscience, and at best were only shadows of good things to come.

By Christ, on the other hand, came grace and truth, — grace by the full manifestation of God's plan of salvation, and the offer of complete pardon to every soul that believes on Jesus, — and truth, by the unveiled exhibition of Christ Himself, as the true sacrifice, the true Priest, and the true atonement for sin.

This verse seems intended to show the infinite personal superiority of Christ to Moses, or to any other saint that ever lived.

No man hath ever seen God the Father ; neither Abraham nor Moses, nor Joshua, nor David, nor Isaiah, nor Daniel. All these, however holy and good men, were still only men, and quite incapable of beholding God face to face, from very weakness. What they knew of God the Father, they knew only by report, or by special revelation, vouchsafed to them from time to time. They were but servants, and " The servant knoweth not what his lord doeth." (John xv. 15.)

Christ on the other hand, is the only begotten Son, which if in the bosom of the Father. He is one who is most intimately united from all eternity to God the Father, and is equal to Him in all things. He, during the time of His earthly ministry here, fully showed to man all that man can bear to know concerning His Father. He has revealed His Father's wisdom, and holiness, and compassion, and power, and hatred of sin, and love of sinners, in the fullest possible way. He has brought into clear light the great mystery how God the Father can be just, and yet justify the ungodly. The knowledge of the Father which a man derived from the teaching of Moses, is as different from that derived from the teaching of Christ, as twilight is different from noon-day.

The expression, " Which is in the bosom of the Father," is doubtless a figurative one, mercifully accommodated to man's capacity. As one who lies in the bosom of another is fairly supposed to be most intimate with him, to know all his secrets, and possess all his affections, so is it, we are to understand, in the union of the Father and the Son. It is more close than man's mind can conceive.

The Greek word rendered " declared," means literally, "hath expounded." It is the root of the words, which are well known among hterary students of the Bible, " exegesis and exegetical." The idea is that of giving a full and particular explanation. (Acts XV. 14.) Whether the " Declaring of God the Father," here described, is to be confined to Christ's oral teaching about the Father, or Whether it means also that Christ has in His Person given a visible representation of many of the Father's attributes, is a doubtful point. Perhaps both ideas are included in the expression.

We have, for one thing, in these verses, an instructive example of true humility. That example is supplied by John the Baptist himself.

John the Baptist was an eminent saint of God. There are few names which stand higher than his in the Bible calendar of great and good men. The Lord Jesus Himself declared that "Among them that are born of woman there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist." (Matt. xi. 11.) The Lord Jesus Himself declared that he was " a burning and a shining light." (John v. 35.) Yet here in this passage we see this eminent saint lowly, self-abased, and full of humility. He puts away from himself the honour which the Jews from Jerusalem were ready to pay him. He declines all flattering titles. He speaks of him.J self as nothing more than the '.' voice of one crying in the wilderness," and as one who " baptized with water." He proclaims loudly that there is One standing among the Jews far greater than himself. One whose shoe-latchet he is not worthy to unloose. He claims honour not for himself but for Christ. To exalt Christ was his mission, and to that mission he steadfastly adheres.

The Greek word translated "record," is the same that is rendered •' witness" in the 7th verse. The sentence means, " this is the testimony that John bore."

[When.] This word raises the question, " At what time was this testimony of John borne?" It appears to have been after our Lord Jesus Christ's baptism, and at the end of His forty days' temptation in the wilderness. The 29th verse tells us, that " the next day John seeth Jesus coming to him." It is worthy of notice that nowhere in the Gospels do we find "days "so carefully marked, as in that portion of the first chapter of St. John, which we have now begun.

We can hardly suppose that these Priests and Levites were ignorant that John was the son of a priest, Zacharias, and therefore a Levite himself. Their inquiry seems to refer to John's office. " What did he profess to be ? Did he assume to be the Messiah ? Did he claim to be a prophet? What reason could he assign for his having taken up his remarkable position as a preacher and a baptizer at a distance from Jerusalem ? What account could he give of himself and his ministry ?"

This is a peculiar form of speech, implying a very positive, unmistakeable, emphatic asseveration. It gives the idea of a man shrinking with holy indignation from the very thought of being regarded as the Christ ; — " Pain me not by suggesting that such an one as I can be the Christ of God. I am one far inferior to Him."

Bengel says on this verse, "Whilst John denied himself, he did not deny Christ." — Luther makes some excellent remarks on the strong temptation which was here put in John's way, to take honour to himself, and the humility and faith which he showed in overcoming it.

This question was not an absurd and unnatural one, as some commentators have thought fit to say. It was based upon that prophecy of Malachi, which speaks of God "sending Elijah the prophet before the great and terrible day of the Lord." (Mai. iv, 5 ) The manner, dress, and ministry of John the Baptist, as well as his appearing in the wilderness, constituted a great similarity between him and Elijah, and suggested the idea that John might possibly be Elijah. " If this man," thought the Priests and Levites, " is not the Christ, perhaps he is his forerunner, the prophet Elijah."

This answer of John's deserves particular notice, and involves a grave difficulty. How could John say, " I am not Elias," when Christ says distinctly in another place, "This is Elias." How shall we reconcile these two statements ? — To me it seems impossible to explain John's words, except on the simple theory, that there are two comings of Elijah the prophet. The first was only a coming in spirit and in power, but not a literal coming. The second will be a literal and real appearance on earth of him whom Elisha saw taken up into heaven. The first coming took place at Christ's first advent, and was fulfilled by John the Baptist going before Messiah's face in the spirit and power of Elijah. The second coming of Elijah will take place at the second advent of Jesus Christ, and will be fulfilled by Elijah himself once more coming as a prophet to the tribes of Israel.

It is of this second, future, literal coming of Elias that John speaks in this place. When he says, " I am not Elias," he means, " I am not that Elijah you mean, who was taken up to heaven 900 years ago. The coming of that Elijah is yet a future thing. I am the forerunner of the first advent in humiliation, not of the second advent in glory. I am not the herald of Christ coming to reign, as Elijah will be one day, but the herald of Christ coming to suffer on the cross. I am not come to prepare the way for a conquering King, such as you fondly expect, but for a meek and lowly Saviour, whose great work is to bear our sins and to die. I am not the Elias you expect."

There are two views of this question. Some think, as Augustine and Gregory, that the words should be as our marginal reading has them, " Art thou a prophet?" Others think, as Cyril and Chrysostom, that the question referred to "the prophet," of whom Moses foretold that he would come. (Deut. xviii. 15.) I decidedly prefer the latter view. It seems very improbable that John the Baptist would entirely deny that he was a prophet. — Besides this, it seems not unreasonable that the Jews would ask whether he was " the great prophet foretold by Moses." And to this question, John answers most truly, that he was not. — It admits of doubt, whether the Jews who questioned him, clearly saw that the "prophet like unto Moses," and the " Messiah," were to be one and the same. It rather looks as if they thought " Christ " and " the prophet" were two different persons.

This expression confirms the opinion already given, about the character of those who questioned John. They were not idle inquirers, but a formal deputation sent down from the Sanhedrim at Jerusalem, with a c immission to find out who John was, and to make a report of what they discovered.

John the Baptist's account of himself in this verse, consists of a reference to Scripture. He reminds the Priests and Levites who wanted to know who he was, of Isaiah's prophecy concerning the times of the Messiah. (Isaiah xl. 3.) They would there find Isaiah saying, with the abruptness of an inspired prophet, and speaking as if he saw what he was describing, "The voice of Him that crieth in the wilderness 1" That means, "I hear in spirit, as I look forward to Messiah's time, a man crying in a wilderness, prepare ye the way of the Lord," — " That prophecy," says John the Baptist, " is this day fulfilled in me. I am the person whom Isaiah saw and heard in vision. I am come to prepare the way for Messiah, like a man going before a King in a desert country, to prepare a road for his master. I am come to make ready the barren hearts of the Jewish nation for Christ's first advent, and the kingdom of God. I am only a voice. I do not come to work miracles. I do not want disciples to follow me, but my master. The object of my mission is to be a herald, a crier, a warning voice to my fellow-countrymen, so that when my master begins His ministry they may not be found unprepared."

The expression " voice," has often been remarked as a beautiful illustration of the general character of John's ministry. He was eminently a humble man. He was one who desired to be heard, and to awaken attention by the sound of his testimony, but not to be seen or visibly honoured.

The object of this verse is somewhat doubtful. Some think that it refers to the verse preceding, which contains a quotation from Isaiah. They which were sent, being Pharisees, and not Sadducees or Herodians, should have seen and admitted the Scriptural character of John's mission. Some think, as Bengel, that it refers to the following verse, in which a question was raised about baptism. They which were sent, being Pharisees, were specially strict about ceremonies, ordinances, and forms. Therefore they were not satisfied with a reference to Scripture. They asked John's authority for baptizing. Some think that it refers generally to the notorious enmity and dislike with which the Pharisees regarded John the Baptist all through his ministry. Our Lord says in another place, " They rejected the counsel of God, not being baptized by him." (Luke vii. 30.) The text before us would then mean, that they which asked all these questions, asked them with a thoroughly unfriendly spirit, and with no real desire to learn God's truth, because they were Pharisees.

This verse evidently implies that John's questioners expected the Messiah, or his forerunner, to baptize whenever he appeared. It is not unlikely, as Lightfoot says, that the idea arose from the text in Ezekiel, describing Messiah's time, " Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean," &c. (Ezek. xxxvi. 24.)

Luther thinks, that this verse shows that the questioners who came to John, now changed their tone. Hitherto they had flattered. Now they began to threaten.

One thing is very clear from this verse. The Jews were not unacquainted with baptism as a religious ordinance. It was one of the ceremonies, according to Lightfoot, by which proselytes were admitted into the Jewish Church. Moreover it is worthy of notice, that when proselytes were so admitted, their children were baptized together with them. It was not therefore the fact of John baptizing, which the Pharisees here called in question, but his authority for administering baptism.

The answer of John the Baptist here reported is very elliptical, and the full meaning of what he said must be supplied from other places. He seems to say, " I do not baptize by my own authority, but by a commission fro n One far higher than either you or I. I only baptize with water ; and I do not do it to make disciples for myself, but for my master. I form no party. I ask no man to follow me. I tell all whom I baptize to believe on that Mighty One who is coming after me. I am only the servant of One far greater than myself, who is even now standing among you, if you had eyes to see him. He is one so much above me in nature and dignity, that I am not worthy to be his humblest servant. He can baptize hearts, and will fulfil the promises about Messiah, to which you are vaguely referring. In the mean time I only baptize with water all those who profess repentance and willingness to receive my master. — I baptize for another and not for myself."

I doubt whether these words literally mean, "There is standing in the crowd of you m • hearers." I prefer the sense, " there is already living and abiding among you in this land of Judaea one greater than I." I think this the sense because of the words in the 29th verse, " John seeth Jesus coming to him," which seem to imply that he was not with him the previous clay. — The thought seems parallel to that contained in the words, ," The kingdom of God cometh not with observation." — " The messenger of God cometh suddenly to his temple." (Mai. iii. i ; Luke xvii. 20.) All serve to point to the same truth, viz. — that when Messiah came the first time, He came quietly, without noise, without display, without the nation of the Jews knowing it, so that he "stood among them," and yet they were not aware of His presence.

The remarks made on the 15th verse apply fully to this expression. John declares, that though his master, in point of time, began his ministry after him, in point of dignity he was far above him. To exalt Christ, and abase himself, seem ideas never long out of John's mind.

[Shoe's latchet... .worthy to unloose.] This is evidently a proverbial expression. "I am so interior to Him that came after me, that in comparison with him, I am like the humblest servant compared to his master." To be not fit to carry a person's shoes, in our times, is a well-known proverb, describing inferiority.

In hot countries like Palestine, it was evidently important for John the Baptist to be near a supply of water, suited to the baptism of the multitudes who came to him. If Beth-barah, spoken of in Gideon's history is the same place, it is worthy of notice that it is specially mentioned as near " waters."(Judges vii. 24.)

The name of the place ought always to be dear to the hearts of Christians. It is the place where the first disciples of Jesus were made, and the foundation of the Christian church was laid. It was here, " the next day," that Jesus was publicly proclaimed as the "Lamb of God." It was here, ''the day after," that Andrew and another disciple followed Jesus. Here then the Church of Christ, properly so called, began.

Let us notice, firstly, in this passage, the peculiar name which John the Baptist gives to Christ. He calls Him "The Lamb of God."

This name did not merely mean, as some have supposed, that Christ was meek and gentle as a lamb. This would be truth no doubt, but only a very small portion of tho truth. There are greater things here than this ! It meant that Christ was the great sacrifice for sin, who was come to make atonement for transgression by His own death upon the cross. He was the true Lamb which Abraham told Isaac at Moriah God would provide. (Gen. xxii. 8.) He was the true Lamb to which every morning and evening sacrifice in the temple had daily pointed. He was the Lamb of which Isaiah had prophesied, that He would be " brought to the slaughter." (Isaiah liii. '7.) He was the true Lamb of which the passover lamb in Egypt had been a vivid type. In short, He was the great propitiation for sin which God had covenanted from all eternity to send into the world. He was God's Lamb.

There can be no reasonable doubt that John gave this name to our Lord because He was the true sacrifice for sin, the true antitype of the passover lamb, and the lamb prophesied of by Isaiah. (Is. liii. 7.) The idea that he only refers to the quietness and meekness of our Lord's personal character is utterly unsatisfactory. He is describing our Lord's official character as the great propitiation for sin.

The expression, " Lamb of God," according to some, signifies " that eminent, great, divine, and most excellent Lamb." It is a well-known Hebraism to describe anything very great as a thing " of God." Thus we read of " thunderings of God," and "trembling of God," (Exod. ix. 28; 1 Sam. xiv. 15.) — According to others i signifies the Lamb which God has provided from all eternity, and which God has long covenanted and promised to send into the world to be slain for sinners. Both views make good doctrine, but the second seems the preferable one.

The Greek word so rendered, is given in the marginal reading, " beareth." Both ideas are included. It means " taketh away by his expiatory death." The Lamb of God " beareth " the sin of the world by taking it upon Himself He allowed our guilt to be laid upon Him, and carried it away like the scapegoat, so that there was none left. It is one of the many expressions which describe the great Scripture truth, that Christ's death was a vicarious sacrifice for sin. He became our substitute. He took upon Him our sin. He was made sin for us. Our sins were imputed to Him. He was made a curse for us.

It is almost needless to say that there are two views of this expression. Some say, that it only means, that Christ takes away the sins of Gentiles as well as Jews, and that it does not mean the sin of any but the elect. Others say, that it really means that Christ "taketh away" the sin of all mankind, that is, that He made an atonement sufficient for all, and that all are salvable, though not all saved, in consequence of His death.

I decidedly prefer the latter of these two views. I hold as strongly as any one, that Christ's death is profitable to none but to the elect who believe on His name. But I dare not limit and pare down such expressions as the one before us. I dare not say that no atonement has been made, in any sense, except for the elect. I believe it is possible to be more systematic than the Bible in our statements. When I read that the wicked who are lost, " deny the Lord that bought them," (2 Peter ii. 1,) and that " God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself," (2 Cor. V. 19,) I dare not confine the intention of redemption to the saints alone. Christ is for every man.

These words appear to have been spoken in our Lord's presence, and to have been specially intended to point the multitude to Him. "This person before you is He of whom I have repeatedly spoken in my ministry, as the coming One who is far greater than myself. You see Him now before you."

[A man.Jie was before me.] ' The human and divine natures of our Lord are here brought together by John in one sentence, "He of whom I spake to you is a man, and yet at the same time He is One who was before me, because He has existed from all eternity."

This means "I was not acquainted with Him in time past. There has been no private collusion or arrangement between Him and me. I did not even know Him by sight until the day when He came to be baptized." The difficulty connected with these words of John will be considered fully at the 33d verse.

[That he should be made manifest to Israel, &c.] John here declares that the great end of his ministry was, that this wonderful Person, whom he had just pointed out, should be manifested and made known to the Jews. He did not come to form a party of his own, or to baptize in his own name. The whole object of his preaching and baptizing was now before his hearers, it was simply to make known to Israel the Mighty One, the Lamb of God, whom they now saw.

These words seem to denote a public and solemn testimony borne by John to the fact, that our Lord had been visibly acknowledged by God the Father as the Messiah. If his hearers would have further proof that this Person, to whom he was pointing them, was really the Christ, he would tell them what he had seen with his own eyes. He would bear witness that he had seen visible proofs that this Person was really the Messiah.

I cannot satisfy myself that the expression " like a dove " in this verse, means that any dove was really seen by John, when our Lord was baptized. All the four Gospel-writers describe an appearance "like a dove." St. Luke distinctly speaks of "a bodily shape." That something visible was seen by John is plain, and that its appearance descending on our Lord, resembled the downward flight of a dove, is also plain. But I am unable to see that the Holy Ghost took upon Him the actual form of a dove.

We must beware of supposing for a moment, that this vision of the Spirit descending was meant to imply, that our Lord first received the grace of the Holy Ghost at that particular time, or that He had not received it before in the same degree. We must not doubt that the Holy Ghost dwelt in Jesus " without measure " from the very time of His incarnation. The vision was meant to show the Church, that when Christ's ministry began, a fuller revelation of all Three Persons in the Trinity was made at once to mankind. It was meant at the same time to be a formal testimony to John the Baptist that the Messiah was before him, — that this was the promised Saviour whom God had anointed with the Holy Ghost and sent into the world, ^-that the time of Christ's ministry had begun, — that He who had the Spirit to bestow on men was before him, — and that His entrance on His public work was attested by the presence both of the Father and the Holy Ghost, in short, by a manifestation of all three Persons in the Trinity at one time.

The Greek word so rendered, both here and in the 31st verse, is literally, "I had not known him." There is a difficulty connected with the expression which demands explanation. St. Matthew tells us, that when our Lord came to John to be baptized, John said to him, " I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?" (Matt. iii. 14,) showing plainly by these words that he knew He was before him. And yet here we find John saying, " I knew him not." How can this apparent inconsistency be reconciled ?

The remarkable description of our Lord, here given by John the Baptist, has received three very different interpretations.

Some think that it means, " This is He who shall institute Christian baptism, with which the gift of the Holy Ghost shall be connected. His baptism shall be like mine, a baptism of water. But it shall not be a baptism of water only, as mine is, but a baptism accompanied by the regenerating grace of the Spirit."

Some think that it means, " This is He who shall baptize with the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost, and confer miraculous gifts on the church."

Some think it means, "This is He who shall baptize the hearts of men, which neither thou canst do nor any other human minister. He has the prerogative of giving spiritual life. He is the giver of- the Holy Spirit to all who believe on Him."

I am decidedly of opinion that this third view is the correct one. It is the only one which seems at all answerable to the majesty of the person spoken of, the dignity of the speaker, and the solemnity of the occasion. — To say, "This is He who shall institute Christian baptism " seems a very lame and impotent account of the expression. — To say, " This is He who shall bestow miraculous gifts at the day of Pentecost," is a degree better, but gives a picture of our Lord's office confined to a single generation. — But to say, " This is He who, in every age of the church, will baptize the hearts of his people by the Holy Ghost, and by this baptism continually replenish the ranks of His mystical body," is saying that which exactly suits the occasion, and describes our Lord's work in the world in a worthy manner.

This means, " I saw perfectly, and from that time have distinctly and unhesitatingly testified that the person whom you now see before you is the Christ, the Son of the living God. From the day of His baptism I have been fully convinced that this is the Messiah."

John here declares his own firm conviction of our Lord's divinity and eternal generation. He was satisfied that our Lord was not the son of Mary only, but the Son of God.

We see, for one thing, in these verses, what good is done by continually testifying of Christ.

The first time that John the Baptist cried, " Behold the Lamb of God," no result appears to have followed. We are not told of any who heard, inquired, and believed. But when he repeated the same words the next day, we read that two of His disciples "heard him speak and followed Jesus." They were received most graciously by Him whom they followed. "They came and saw where he dwelt, and abode with him that day." Truly it was a day in their lives most eventful, and most blessed ! From that day they became fast and firm disciples of the new-found Messiah. They took up the cross. They continued with Him in His temptations. They followed Him whithersoever He went. One of them at least, if not both, became a chosen apostle, and a master builder in the Christian temple. And all was owing to John the Baptist's testimony, " Behold the lamb of God." That testimony was a little seed. But it bore mighty fruits.

Let St. John's particularity in noting days at this period of our Lord's history, be observed again in this verse. If, as many suppose, St. John was one of the two who this day followed Jesus and became His disciples, we can well understand that it was a memorable day to him.

[John stood.] This expression seems to imply that there was some particular spot near Bethabara, where John the Baptist was in the habit of standing, to preach, and to receive those who came to be baptized. While he "stood " here, the event which follows took place.

This probably means that he saw Jesus walking among the crowd of persons who were attracted to Bethabara, alone, without followers, and as yet not recognized by any one as the Messiah.

Stier remarks, "John saw Jesus walking, in silent meditation, waiting for His hour, and His Father's commands ; in full preparation for the world and its sin : equipped for the testimony to the truth, with that armour, which has been tested and approved in His first great spiritual conflict ; and for the utterance of the new words of God, which the Father has given Him."

This seems to have been a second public proclamation of our Lord's office and character, a partial repetition of what had been said the day before ; and yet, as the event shows, a more effective proclamation. The same truth may do good the second time that it is preached, which does nothing the first time.

The three steps described in this verse, are very noteworthy. John the Baptist "speaks." The disciples " hear," After hearing they "follow Jesus." This is a succinct summary of God's way of saving myriads of souls.

Rollock on this verse remarks, "We learn by this example, how powerful is the preaching of Christ, — yea, one or two words about Christ and the cross, how powerful are they in changing the hearts of men ! Preach, if you like, about the great deeds of kings and generals, and their courage and glory ; — these things will please men for a little time, but they will not convert them. But preach concerning Him that was crucified, a subject apparently ignominious and foolish, — and then the story of the cross, which is foolishness to them that perish, will be the power and wisdom of God to them that believe."

We cannot doubt that our Lord knew perfectly well the hearts and motives of these two disciples. In asking this question, therefore, He spoke partly for their encouragement, and partly to stir them up to self-inquiry. " What seek ye ? Is there anything that I can do for you, any truth that I can teach you, any burden that I can take away ? If so, speak, and be not afraid." — " What seek ye ? Are you sure that you are following me with right motives? Are you sure that you are not regarding me as a temporal ruler ? Are you sure that you are not, like other Jews, seeking riches, honour, greatness, in this world ? Prove your own selves, and be sure that you are seeking the right object."

This question seems to imply a desire for conversation and private communion. "We would fain know more of Thee. We are drawn to Thee by John the Baptist's proclamation. We would like to go aside with Thee from the crowd, and inquire of Thee more privately and quietly, at thy dwelling, about the things which are upon our heart"?."

The great affability, and condescension of these first words of our Lord's after His public appearance as Messiah, ought not to be overlooked. The very first thing that we hear Him saying, after He has been publicly proclaimed as the "Lamb of God," is ''Come and see." It is a pleasant type of what He has been ever saying to the sons of men from that; day down to this. " Come and see who I am, and what I am. Come and be acquainted with me."

The Jewish day began at six o'clock in the morning. The tenth hour therefore means, four o'clock in the afternoon. At this late hour of the day, His disciples found it impossible to conclude their conversation with Jesus, and therefore remained in the same lodging with Him all night.

Many commentators, from Augustine downwards, make the natural remark, that this evening must have been a blessed evening for these two disciples ; and that it would have been pleasant if the conversation had been given to us 1 Yet if it had been good for us to know the conversation, it would doubtless have been recorded. There are no deficiencies in Scripture.

The priority of Andrew to Peter ought not to be overlooked, Peter, to whom the Church of Rome boastfully attributes a primacy among the apostles was neither converted nor made acquainted with Christ, so soon as his brother.

Who the other of these two disciples was, we are not told. It is highly probable, as Chrysostom and Theophylact conjecture, that it was St. John himself. On seven other occasions in this Gospel he humbly withholds his name. (John xiii. 23 ; xix. 26, 35 ; XX. 2 ; xxi. 7, 20, 24.) It is therefore very likely that he withheld it here. — The supposition of Musculus, and others, that the other disciple was a person of less zeal and sincerity than Andrew, and is therefore not named, appears to me improbable.

This expression must either mean that Andrew was the first of the two disciples who brought a brother to Jesus. — or that he was the first disciple, speaking generally, who spoke to others of the Messiah, when he had found Him, — or that he was the first to tell his brother Peter, and Peter was not the first to tell him about Christ.

[ We have found.] This expression implies an unexpected and joyful discovery. The evening's conversation which Andrew had held with Jesus, had convinced him that He was indeed the Christ.

It is almost needless to remark, that these names mean the " anointed one." The first is Hebrew, and the second is Greek. Kings, prophets, and priests, in the Old Testament, were anointed, and our Lord as the Prophet, Priest, and King of the Church was called the Anointed One, not because He was really anointed with oil, but because he was " anointed with the Holy Ghost." (Acts x. 38.)

The extent of Andrew's religious knowledge ought not to be overlooked. Poor and humble in station as he was, he seems, like all the Jews, to have known what the Old Testament prophets had foretold about Messiah, and to have been prepared to hear of a person appearing in the character of Messiah. It is one of many expressions in the Gospels which show that the lower orders among the Jews were far better acquainted with the letter of the Old Testament Scriptures, than the poor in our own day generally are with the letter of the New Testament, or indeed of any part of the Bible.

Our Lord here displayed His perfect knowledge of all persons, names, and things. He needed not that any should tell Him who and what a person was. This knowledge was supposed by the Jews to be a peculiar attribute of Messiah, whenever He came. He was to be one of " quick understanding." (Isaiah xi. 3.) Enough for us to know that it is a peculiar attribute of God. He alone knows the hearts of men. Our Lord's perfect knowledge of all hearts was one among many proofs of His divinity. The same knowledge appears again in His address to Nathanael, in this chapter, ver. 47, and in His conversation with the Samaritan woman. (John iv. 18, etc.) — The effect produced in both cases, is very worthy of notice.

If it be asked why our Lord gave Simon this new name, the best answer appears to be that it was given with a special reference to the change which grace was to work in Simon's heart. Naturally impulsive, unstable, and unsteady, he was finally to become a firm, solid stone in the Church of Christ, and to testify his unshaken adherence to Christ by suffering martyrdom.

Let us observe, as we read these verses, how various are the paths by which souls are led into the narrow way of life.

We are told of a man, named Philip, being added to the little company of Christ's disciples. He does not appear to have been moved, like Andrew and his companions, by the testimony of John the Baptist. He was not drawn, like Simon Peter, by the out-spoken declaration of a brother. He seems to have been called directly by Christ Himself, and the agency of man seems not to have been used in his calling. Yet in faith and life he became one with those who were disciples before him. Though led by different paths, they all entered the same road, embraced the same truths, served the same Master, and at length reached the same home.

This is the fourth successive day which is specially named by St. John, and its events described. The first contained John the Baptist's reply to the priests and Levites, — the second, his public announcement of our Lord as the Lamb of God, — the third, the calling of Andrew and his companion, and Peter, — the fourth describes the calling of Philip and Nathanael.

This simple sentence describes the direct quickening voice of an almighty Saviour. It is evident that the power of the Holy Ghost accompanied our Lord's words, and that as soon as they were spoken, Philip, like Matthew the publican, arose, left all, and became a disciple. In conversion God acts as a sovereign. One is called in one way, and another in another. .Rollock observes on this verse, " This teaches us that Christ is able to call any one whom He pleases into the kingdom of heaven, without the ministry either of angel or man."

This verse seems to make it probable that Philip's conversion and calling took place at Bethsaida. Andrew and Peter having been converted and become companions of Jesus on His way to Galilee, would appear to have taken Him to their own native place, Bethsaida.

Here, as in the case of Andrew, we should notice the familiarity with the general contents of Scripture which a poor Jew like Philip possessed. He thoroughly understood that " Moses and the prophets" held forth the promise of a coming Redeemer, and that a better Priest, Prophet, and King were foretold in their writings. " The Old Testament," as the Church of England Article wisely declares, "is not contrary to the New; for both in the Old Testament and New, everlasting life is offered to mankind by Christ." We must beware, in these latter days, of despising the Old Testament. It is one by-path to infidelity.

Philip here describes our Lord according to the common report about Him, and in all probability according to his own present knowledge. His heart was at present better than his head. The miraculous conception of Christ was hidden from him. Yet it is not unworthy of remark, that this ignorant account of our Lord was very likely the cause of Nathanael's doubt and prejudice, exhibited in the next verse. The mistakes of young converts are often mighty stumbling-blocks in the way of other people's souls. We must not, however, despise Philip because of his mistake. Rollock remarks, " I had rather a man should stammer and babble about Christ, providing he does it sincerely and from his heart, and has before i him as an object the glory of God and salvation of men, than say many things eloquently about Christ, for ostentation and vain glory."

This question shows the low estimate in which Nazareth, where our Lord had been brought up, was held. It was an obscure town in a corner of Galilee, not far from the borders of the province, and its reputation seems to have been very bad. Nathanael could not remember any prophecy about Messiah coming out of Nazareth. and at once stumbled at the idea of Him whom "Moses and the prophets" had described, belonging to such a contemptible place.

The condescension of our Lord in living thirty years in such a place as Nazareth, is strongly brought out by Nathanael's question.

How common this expression was among the Jewish religious teachers has been already noticed. Philip's wisdom in not arguing and reasoning with Nathanael, should be observed. Ford gives a good quotation from Adam, " Little good comes by disputing. Pride is generally at the bottom of it, and not charity or love of truth; and it is seldom managed with decency or candour enough to produce any good effect. Let fall a word in season, and wait in patience till the rain drops on it from heaven."

It is very likely that in using this expression our Lord referred to the 32nd Psalm, where the character of the godly man is described. He is not only one whose iniquities are forgiven, but one "in whose lips there is no guile." The expression implies a true heart, a really converted man, a genuine son of Abraham by faith, as well as a son according to the flesh.

Hutcheson observes, " The true mark of a true Israelite m spirit, is not sinlessness or perfection, but sincerity."

The common opinion about this expression is, that Nathanael was praying or holding communion with God under the fig-tree. It may be so. We are told nothing about it, and are entirely left to conjecture. If it had been good for us to know, it would have been told us. Sufficient for us to understand that when Nathanael thought he was alone and no eye upon him, the Lord Jesus, by His divine power of seeing and knowing all things, was perfectly acquainted with all that Nathanael said, thought, and did. His " eyes are in every place." (Prov. xv. 3.)

These words are the outburst of a heart convinced at once that Jesus was the Messiah. They are a noble confession that our Lord was that divine Person who was promised to come into the world to redeem sinners, and that King who was prophesied of as the future Gatherer and Ruler of the tribes of Israel. Whether Nathanael clearly understood the nature of our Lord's kingdom at this time, may be reasonably doubted. But that he saw, like Peter, that He was the Christ, the Son of the Blessed, we cannot doubt. The restoring of the kingdom to Israel was a subject which we know from other passages of Scripture, was one of the last which the first disciples were able to understand aright. (Acts i. 6.)

The history of Nathanael's calling at this point should be compared with that of the woman of Samaria, in the fourth chapter of this Gospel. It is striking to observe that a discovery and conviction of our Lord's perfect knowledge of the most secret things, was in both cases the turning point.

It should not be forgotten, that the title " King of Israel," was one which our Lord never refused during His ministry, though He never took to Himself His great power and actually reigned.

The angel Gabriel foretold that, the " Lord God would give unto Him the throne of His father David, and that He would reign over the house of Jacob, and that of His kingdom there would be no end." (Luke i. 32, 33.) When the wise men came from the East, they inquired for him who was born " King of the Jews." (Matt. ii. 2.) When our Lord was crucified, the title over His head was, " King of the Jews." All this shall yet be literally true. Christ shall yet be King in Zion, and reign over the gathered and restored tribes of Israel at His second coming. And then the words of Nathanael shall be seen completely fulfilled He shall be acknowledged by all as the " Son of God, and King of Israel."

It admits of a question whether this expression would not be better rendered, as it might be with perfect grammatical correctness, "thou believest." It would then be very like our Lord's words to Thomas, " Because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed." (John xx. 29.) The sense would be, " Because I said I saw thee under the fig-tree thou believest. It is well. Great is thy faith. But I tell thee for thy comfort and encouragement, that thou shalt one day see far greater proofs of my divinity and Messiahship than these." Wycliffe's, Tyndale's, and Cranmer's versions, all render the expression as an affirmation, and not as a question. Aretius maintains the same view.

This expression is peculiar to St. John's Gospel, and very remarkable. It is the word which is familiar to all Christians, " Amen," twice repeated. It is found twentyfive times in this Gospel, always at the beginning of a sentence, and always used by Christ. In every place it implies a very solemn, emphatic assertion of some great truth, or heart-searching fact. No other writer in the New Testament, except St. John, ever gives the double "Amen."

This prediction is very remarkable. It should be carefully observed, that it is not addressed to Nathanael alone. The preceding verse says, "thou shalt see." The present verse says, " ye shall see," — that is, " thou and all my other disciples."

About the true meaning of the prediction, commentators differ exceedingly. Arguing, as nearly all do, that the words plainly refer to Jacob's vision of the ladder reaching from heaven to earth, (Gen. xxviii. 12,) they disagree about the way in which the prediction is fulfilled.

The only true and satisfactory view, I behove, is that which makes the whole prediction apply to events which are still future. Our Lord spoke of His second coming and kingdom. When He comes the second time to take His great power and reign, the words of this text shall be literally fulfilled. His believing people shall see heaven open, and a constant communication kept up between heaven and earth, — the tabernacle of God with men, and the angels visibly ministering to the King of Israel, and King of all the earth.

We learn lastly, from these verses, the Ahnighty poioer of our Lord Jesus Christ. "We are told of a miracle which He wrought at the marriage feast, when the wine failed, By a mere act of will He changed water into wine, and so supplied the need of all the guests.

The manner in which the miracle was worked deserves especial notice. We are not told of any outward visible action which preceded or accompanied it. It is not said that He touched the waterpots containing the water that was made wine. It is not said that He commanded the water to change its qualities, or that He prayed to His Father in Heaven. He simply willed the change, and it took place. We read of no prophet or apostle in the Bible who ever worked a miracle after this fashion. He who could do such a mighty work, in such a manner, was nothing less than very God.

I cannot close the note or this wonderful miracle without saying something about the allegorical and typical meanings assigned to it by the fathers and many other commentators. Many see in the miracle an allegorical history of the introduction of the Gospel into the world. Like the marriage feast, the Gospel was an occasion of joy. As at the marriage feast, the personal presence of Jesus was the great feature of the Gospel. The times of the Jewish dispensation were times of deficiency and dim light. The coming of Christ supplied all that was lacking. Revealed religion before Christ was like water. Christ coming into the world turned the water of the old dispensation into wine. The good wine was reserved until the time of Christ. The first miracle wrought by Moses was turning water into blood. The first wrought by Christ was turning water into wine.

These are undoubtedly pious thoughts, and full of truth. I should be sorry to speak harshly of them, or to pronounce decidedly that they may not be legitimately deduced from the miracle. I only venture the remark, that it is far wiser to abstain from allegorical interpretations as a general rule, and to be content with the plain meaning which appears on the surface of Scripture. Once begin allegorizing Scripture, and you never know where you are to stop. You may prove anything, and find anything in the Bible upon the allegorical system, and at last throw open the floodgate to a torrent of wild fanaticism.

The question naturally arises, " What day was this ? From what day was it the third ?" The most probable answer is, that it was the third day after the last event described in the preceding chapter, the third day after Nathanael was brought to Jesus and became a disciple. The meaning therefore is, " The third day after the conversation between Jesus and Nathanael."

[A marriage in Cana.] Let it be remembered, that we are told elsewhere that Nathanael was an inhabitant of Cana. (John xxi. 2.) This makes it far from improbable, that Nathanael, after he became a disciple, invited our Lord to visit the place where he lived. Cana is a place not mentioned in the Old Testament. Robinson, in his Biblical Researches, says it was a village about three hours' journey from Nazareth.

We must suppose that the Virgin Mary was in some way connected with the bride or bridegroom, and was therefore present at the marriage and assisting in the arrangements of the feast. Without some such supposition it is difficult to understand her speaking to the servants, as she afterwards does.

The absence of Joseph's name, both here and in other places where the mother of our Lord is mentioned in the Gospels and Acts, has induced most commentators to think that Joseph was dead when our Lord began His public ministry. The point is one of which we know nothing except by conjecture. It deserves notice, however, that the Jews of Capernaum speak of Jesus as " the Son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? (John vi. 42.) If it had been profitable to us to know more about Joseph, we should have been told more. The Roman Catholic Church has already given him a superstitious reverence, upon the authority of tradition, and withput the slightest warrant of Scripture. What would have not been said about Joseph by the Romish Church, if he had been more prominently mentioned in God's Word ?

Our Lord was doubtless invited as the Virgin Mary's son. His disciples were invited as His friends and companions. We cannot, of course, suppose, at so early a period of our Lord's ministry, that He was recognized as a religious teacher, or those with Him as disciples of a new faith. The disciples here spoken of must be the five mentioned in the last chapter, viz., Andrew and his companion, (probably John.) Simon Peter, Philip, and Nathanael.

Let it be noted, that the presence of Jesus, and His disciples, and the Virgin Mary at a marriage, is a significant fact, which stands out in strong contrast to the Patristic and Roman Catholic doctrine, of the imperfection of the state of marriage compared to that of celibacy. " Forbidding to marry " is a doctrine of Antichrist, not of Christ. (1 Tim. iv. 3.)

The Roman Catholic argument, that Christ, by His presence, made marriage a sacrament, is utterly worthless. Dyke remarks that we might as well call feasts and burials sacraments, because Christ was present at them. He says, " There is required a word of institution to make a sacrament. Let the Papists show any such word here used. And if Christ did make marriage a sacrament, why do they call it a work of the flesh ? Are sacraments works of the flesh ? "

The Greek words so rendered mean literally, " Wine having failed." This circumstance probably shows the poor and humble condition of those to whose marriage Jesus was invited. His acquaintances and those of His mother were not wealthy persons.

It throws light on this expression, and indeed on the whole story, to remember that a marriage feast among the Jews was often an affair of several days' duration, and an occasion when many were invited. Consequently it entailed not only much expense, but a considerable consumption of food and wine. Thus Samson's marriage feast lasted seven days. (Judges xv. 10—18.) Thus the marriage feast described in the parable of the King's Son, was a feast which large numbers were invited to attend. (Matt. xxii. 2, &c.) This being the case, we may well understand that in the feasts of those who were not wealthy the wine might soon run short, without there having been any excess of drinking. So it seems to have happened in the case before us.

By far the most reasonable and probable idea is, that Mary conjectured that our Lord might in some way supply the deficiency of wine. How it would be done she could not tell. There is not the slightest ground for supposing that our Lord had ever worked a miracle up to this time. But it wculd be foolish to suppose that Mary did not remember well all the miraculous I ireumstances of our Lord's birth, and all the words spoken before by the angel Gabriel concerning Him. — "We cannot doubt, that although our Lord had lived a quiet life at Nazareth for thirty years, and done no miracles, His mother must have observed in Him a per''ection of word and deed utterly unlike the behaviour of common men. — We cannot doubt that she was aware of all the events of the last few weeks, — our Lord's baptism by John, John's public proclamation of Him as the Messiah, and the gathering around Jesus of a small knot of disciples. — Remembering all these thing-, we surely need not wonder that Mary's expectations were greatly raised. She looked for her Son speedily doing some great miracle. She was in daily expectation that He would prove Himself the Messiah by some mighty act. And it was under these feelings that she turned to Him, saying, " They have no wine." It is as though she said, — " Surely the time is come for declaring thyself. Manifest thy power, as I have long expected thee to do, by providing a supply of wine."

This remarkable verse has naturally attracted great attention. In interpreting it, it is very important to avoid the extremes into which some Protestants and nearly all Roman Cathohc writers have fallen, in their interpretations.

On the one side we must not lay too much stress on the expression " Woman." It is surely a mistake to suppose, as. Calvin and others suggest, that it conveys any reproof, or is anywise inconsistent with reverence and respect. The very same expression was used by our Lord when He addressed His mother for the last time on the cross, and aflfectionatedy commended her to John's care. He said, " Woman, behold thy son." (John xix. 26.) The Yirgm Mary was an erring woman, like all other believing women, but we must not lay more blame on her than Scripture warrants.

On the other side, it is useless to deny that our Lord's words were intended, as Chrysostom, Theophylact, and Euthymius say, to be a rebuke to Mary. She erred here, perhaps from aflfectionate desire to bring honour to her Son, as she erred on other occasions. The words before us were meant to remind her, that she must henceforth leave our Lord to choose His own times and modes of acting.- The season of subjection to her and Joseph was over. The season of his public ministry had at length begun. In carrjing on that ministry, she must not presume to suggest to Him. The utter contrariety of this verse to the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church about the Virgin Mary is too palpable to be explained away. She was not without error and sin, as Romish writers have dared to assert, and was not meant to be prayed to and adored. If our Lord would not allow His mother even to suggest to Him the working of a miracle, we may well suppose that all Roman Catholic prayers to the Virgin Mary, and especially prayers entreating her to " command her Son," are most offensive and blasphemous in His eyes.

The simplest and most reasonable view of these words is to refer them to Christ's "hour" or time for working a miracle. It is like the expression, " my time is not yet full come." (John vii. 8.) Our Lord did not tell Mary that He would not work a miracle. But He would have her know that she roust not expect Him to do mighty works to please His relatives after the flesh. He would only work a miracle, upon this or any other occasion, when the fitting season for it, the time appointed in God's counsel, had arrived.

Two tilings are very noteworthy in this verse. One is the meekness with which the Virgin Mary submitted to the gentle rebuke which came from our Lord's mouth, in the last verse. The other is the firm faith which she still exhibited in our Lord's power to work a miracle in order to supply the lack of wine, and in the probability of His working it.

Dyke observes, " The direction which Mary gives to the servants belongs to us all. We must perform simple obedience to Christ in all things ; His sayings must be our doings. No reasoning of the matter must there be, no inquiry, as into men's commandments and speeches ; but this must suffice, ' Christ hath said it.' This is the bhnd obedience which Jesuits yield to their superiors, but it is the obedience that belongs to Christ. Many will do something that Christ says, but not whatsoever He says."

St. John mentions these details in describing the miracle, with a special reference to Gentile readers. He meant them to understand that there was nothing remarkable in the circumstance that there were six large water-pots of stone in the place where the feast was held. The peculiar customs of the Jews about ceremonial washings and purifyings, made it necessary to have a large supply of water at hand. The words of St. Mark throw light on the verse before us : — " The Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders," &c. (Mark vii. 3, &c.) The presence of the six water-pots, therefore, could not arise from collusion or pre-arrangement. It was a natural consequence of Jewish habits in our Lord's times.

Many foolish and unprofitable remarks have been built on this expression, as to the very large quantity of wine which our Lord must have created when the miracle we are considering was wrought. It might suffice to reply that there is much uncertainty about the precise quantity of liquid which the ancient measure, which we here render " firkins," contained. But the best and safest answer is, that we must not measure the demands of a Jewish marriage feast, which perhaps lasted several days, and included a large number of guests, by the feasts of our own times.

The remark is frequently made by commentators on this verse, with much propriety, that these simple words describe the duty of all who work for Christ, and especially of ministers and teachers. They are to hear Christ's voice, and do as He tells them, and then leave the result to Him. Duties are ours. Events are God's. It is ours to fill the water-pots. It is Christ's to make the water wine.

[Up to the brim.] This circumstance is no doubt mentioned in order to show that there was no room left for trick, jugglery, or imposture. What was put into the water-pots was water, and only water, and they were so filled that nothing could be infused, or mingled with their contents.

It was at this moment, no doubt, that the miracle took place. By an act of will our Lord changed the contents of the water-pots. That which was poured in was water. That which was drawn out was wine. To Him who created the vine and made it bear grapes at the first, the change was perfectly easy. He who could create matter out of nothing, could much more easily change one kind of matter into another.

[The governor of the feast.] This person appears to have been one who presided at large entertainments like that before us, and superintended all the proceedings. The Greek word so rendered, is precisely the same as that translated " ruler of the feast," in the following verse. The presence of such a person at feasts was a well-known custom among the Greeks and Eomans.

The testimony of the ruler of the feast is specially adduced, in order to show the reality of the miracle. He knew nothing of what had been done to the water-pots. He had not seen the water poured in by our Lord's command. There was no collusion or conspiracy between him and the servants, much less between him and our Lord. Hence the value of his testimony. He not only testifies that the liquid which a few minutes before was water was now wine, but that it was also wine of more than common goodness and strength, — not wine mixed with water, but pure, good wine.

Let the word " tasted " be carefully noticed in this place. It supplies a strong incidental argument against the Romish doctrine of transubsfantiation. The occasion before us is the only known occasion on which our Lord changed one liquid into another. When He did so change it, the reality of the change was at once proved by the "taste." Why is it then that in the pretended change of the sacramental wine in the Lord's Supper into Christ's blood the change cannot be detected by the senses? Why does the wine after consecration taste like wine, just as it did before? — These are questions which the Roman Caihohcs rannot satisfactorily answer. The pretended change of the bread and wine in the Lord's Supper is a complete delusion. It is contradicted by the senses of every communicant. The bread after consecration is still bread, and the wine is still wine. That which contradicts our senses we are nowhere required in God's Word to believe.

The words in this sentence must not be pressed too closely, in order to bring out of them a spiritual meaning. The ruler of the feast makes a general remark about the way in which banquets were usually managed. The ordinary custom was to bring the best wine first, and the inferior wine last. But the wine before him, drawn from the water-pots, was so singularly good, that the custom of this day seemed reversed. The verse is a strong incidental testimony to the reality and greatness of our Lord's miracle. Not only did He change water into wine, but into wine so singularly good as to excite remark and attention.

A good practical remark has often been raised from these words of the ruler of the feast. The world gives its best things, like the best wine, first, and its worst things last. The longer we serve the world, the more disappointing, unsatisfactory, and unsavoury will its gifts prove, Christ, on the other hand, gives His servimts their best things last. They have first the cross, the race, and the battle, and then the rest, the glory, and the crown. Specially will it be found true at his second advent. Then will believers say emphatically, " Thou hast kept the good wine until now." These are pious and useful thoughts. But it may be doubted whether they are more than accommodations.

The plain meaning of this sentence seems to be that this was the first miracle which our Lord Jesus Christ ever worked. The miracles which some have reported that He worked in His infancy and childhood, are destitute of the slightest foundation in Scripture, and utterly unworthy of credit. Those who wish to see their absurdity will find specimens of them in the preliminary Essay to Trench's Notes on Miracles.

Lightfoot suggests the five following reasons why the miracle now before us was purposely the first that Christ worked. 1. As marriage was the first institution ordained by God, so at a marriage was Christ's first miracle. 2. As Christ had showed Himself miraculous a little while ago by a fast, so He doth now by an extraordinary provision at a feast. When He would not make stones bread, it was not because He could not. 3. He would not make stones into bread to satisfy Satan, but He was willing to turn water into wine to show forth His own glory. 4. The first miracle wrought in the world by man was transformation, (Exod. vii. 9,) and the first miracle wrought by the Son of Man was of the same nature. 5. The first time you hear of John the Baptist, you hear of his strict diet, and so the first time you hear of Christ in His public ministry, you hear of Him at a marriage feast.

I am unable to see that those words refer to the expression used in the first chapter, " We beheld his glory." (John i. 14.) I believe the meaning to be that " by this miracle Jesus now for the first time opened or revealed His glorious and divine power, and His commission to be the Messiah." After thirty years' seclusion at Nazxreth, He now for the first time lifted up the veil which He had thrown over His divinity in becoming flesh, and revealed so nething of His almighty power and Godhead.

[His disciples believed on him.] These words cannot of course mean that Andrew, and John, and Peter, and Philip, and Nathanael now believed on Jesus for the first time. The probable meaning is, that from this time forth they believed more confidently, more implicitly, and more unhesitatingly. From this time they felt thorougly convinced, in spite of much remaining ignorance, that He whom they were following was the Messiah.

The second miracle which our Lord is recorded to have wrought demands our attention in these verses. Like the first miracle at Cana, it is eminently typical and significant of things yet to come. To attend a marriage feast, and cleanse the temple from profanation were among the first acts of our Lord's ministry at His first coming. To purify the whole visible Church, and hold a marriage supper, will be amongst His first acts, when He comes again.

The strict accuracy of John'a writing is note-worthy here. Cana was a village in the hill country. Capernaum was a town on the shore of the lake of Galilee, at a very much lower level than Cana. It is therefore said that Jesus " went downy

Capernaum appears to have been our Lord's principal residence in Galilee during his earthly ministry. " Leaving Nazareth, he dwelt in Capernaum." (Matt. iv. 13.) At no place does He seem to have worked so many miracles ; and on no place does He denounce so severe a judgment for its impenitence and neglect of privileges : " Thou Capernaum which art exalted to heaven shalt be cast down to hell." (Matt. xi. 23.) It is a striking fact that though Capernaum was a wealthy and important place in our Lord's time, it has so entirely passed away and been " cast down," that even its situation has never been clearly ascertained.

There is no good ground for supposing that these were our Lord's brethren according to the flesh, and that Mary ever had any other son after our Lord's miraculous birth. — For one thing, it is well known to every careful reader, that the word "brethren" is apphed in the Bible to many relatives besides those whom we call " brethren." Abraham says to Lot, " We be brethren," (Gen. xiii, 8,) though Lot was his nephew. Mishael and Elzaphan were called the " brethren " of Nadab and Abihu, though they were only cousins. (Lev. x. 4.) — Jacob said " to his brethren " gather stones (Gen. xxxi. 46) ; yet they were his sons and servants. — For another thing, it is quite possible that Joseph might have had children by a former marriage, before he was espoused to the Virgin Mary ; and these children, we can well understand, would be called our Lord's " brethren." — In the last place, we know that the Apostle James was called our "Lord's brother," (Gal. i. 19,) and yet we are distinctly told that he was the son of Alpheus or Cleophas, the husband of the Virgin Mary's sister. It is therefore most probable that " brethren" in the verse before us means " cousins," some of whom believed on our Lord, though others did not. (John vii. 5.)

We see, for one thing, in this passage, how much Christ disapproves all irreverent behaviour in the house of God.

We are told that He drove out of the temple those whom He found selling oxen and sheep and doves within its walls, — that He poured out the changers' money and overthrew their tables, — and that He said to them that sold doves, " take these things hence, make not my Father's house an house of merchandise." On no occasion in our Lord's earthly ministry do we find Him acting so energetically, and exhibiting such righteous indignation, as on the occasion now before us. Nothing seems to have called from Him such a marked display of holy wrath as the gross irreverence which the priests permitted in the temple, notwithstanding all their boasted zeal for God's law. Twice, it will be remembered. He discovered the same profanation of His Father's house going on, within three years, once at the beginning of His ministry and once at the end. Twice we see Him expressing his displeasure in the strongest terms. " The thing is doubled '* in order to impress a lesson more strongly on our minds.

This expression is another proof that St. John wrote his Gospel for Gentile believers rather than for Jews.

Our Lord's regular attendance on the feasts and ordinances of the law of Moses, deserves notice. So lorig as the dispensation of the Old Testament lasted, He gave it all due honour, however unworthy the hands which administered it. The unworthiness of ministers will not justify us in neglecting God's ordinances.

The exact number of Passovers which our Lord kept, and consequently the exact length of His ministry from His baptism to His crucifixion, are points on which there is much difference of opinion. For myself I can see no better view than the old one, that our Lord's ministiy lasted three years. It evidently began shortly before a Passovei-, and ended with a Passover. But whether it included only three Passovers, and in that case lasted between two and three years, — or four Passovers, and in that case lasted between three and four years, — I think we have no materials for deciding positively. If I must venture an opinion, I think it most likely that our Lord only kept three Passovers. — But it is an open question, and one happily not of deep moment. — Three Passovers are distinctly named by John, viz., the one before us, the one in the sixth chapter, (John vi. 3.,) and the one at which our Lord was crucified. If the ''feast" mentioned in the fifth chapter (John v. 1,) was the Passover, our Lord kept four Passovers. But this last point cannot be settled.

The presence of oxen, sheep, doves, and money-changers, within the temple courts, is easily accounted for. The animals were intended to supply the wants of Jews who came to the Passover and other feasts, from distant places, and required sacrifices. For them the dealers in oxen, sheep, and doves, were ready, within a few yards of the altar. The changers of money came naturally enough where buying and selling went on, to meet the convenience of Jews who had nothing but foreign money, which they wished to exchange for the current coin of Jerusalem. The tendency of the whole custom was evidently most profane. It was no doubt connived at by the priests from covetous motives. They were either connected with those who sold animals and changed money, and shared in their profits ; or else they received a rent for the privilege of carrying on business within the sacred walls. No doubt they would have pleaded that all was done with a good intention ! Their end was to provide facilities for worshipping God ! But good intentions cannot sanctify unscriptural actions. As Dyke says on the passage, ''No pretence of good ends can justify that which is forbidden by God."

I am inclined to see in this visit of our Lord to the temple at His first appearance in Jerusalem after beginning His ministry, a partial though very imperfect fulfilment of Malachi's prophecy : " The Lord whom ye seek shall suddenly come to his temple." (Mai. iii. 1.) While the Jewish nation was expecting the appearance of a conquering Messiah with power and great glory, the true Messiah suddenly appeared in the temple, and declared His presence, not by exhibiting temporal power, but by insisting on greater purity in the temple worship, as the first thing which the nation needed.

The Greek word translated " small cords," means literally a " cord made of rushes," Some have thought that these rushes were used as Htter for the sheep and oxen. Others have thought that such small cords as these might very likely have been lying about, after having been used for tying up the oxen. Whether the scourge was applied to those persons who brought the animals into the temple, as a sort of chastisement, as some old painters have represented the scene, we do not know. The more probable view seems to be, that the scourge was simply meant to assist our Lord in speedily ejecting the sheep and oxen.

The whole transaction is a remarkable one, as exhibiting our Lord using more physical exertion, and energetic bodily action, than we see Him using at any other period of His ministry. A word, a touch, or the reaching forth of a hand, are the ordinary limits of His actions. Here we see Him doing no less than four things : — (1) Making the scourge ; — (2) Driving out the animals ; — (3) Pouring out on the ground the changers' money ; — (4) Overthrowing the tables. On no occasion do we find Him showing such strong outward marks of indignation, as at the sight of the profanation of the temple. Remembering that the whole transaction is a striking type of what Christ will do to His visible church at His second coming, we may get some idea of the deep meaning of that remarkable expression, " The wrath of the Lamb." (Rev. vi. 16.)

The distinction between our Lord's mode of dealing with each of the obiects of His displeasure deserves notice. The oxen and sheep He drove out. There was no danger of their beirg lost by such treatment. — The money He threw on the ground. It might be soon picked up and carried away. — The doves He simply ordered to be talcen away. Had He done more, they might have flown away, and been completely lost to their owners. — It would have been well for the church, if all church reformers had blended like wisdom with a like zeal in their proceeding?. In the present instance all were rebuked and all instructed. But no one was really injured, and nothing was lost.

[My Father's house.'] This expression is note-worthy. Whether the Jews observed it, in the hurry and confusion of the whole transaction, may be questioned. It was evidently an assertion by our Lord of His divine Sonship, and consequently of his right to vindicate the purity of His Father's place of worsliip. On another occasion when our Lord called God His Father, the Jews at once said that He " made himself equal with God." (John v. 18.) Some have thought that the expression is parallel to that used in the description of Christ among the doctors, (Luke ii. 49.) and that the words used there, * I must be about my Father's business," would have been better rendered, " I must be in my Father's house."

The 69th Psalm, from which this text is taken, is quoted no less than seven times in the New Testament, as the utterance of Messiah. In the first twenty-one verses of the Psalm the Messiah's sufferings are related by Himself. The fifth verse is undoubtedly very remarkable as coming from Messiah's lips, when He speaks of " my foolishness" and "my sins." Ainsworth says it means, "false imputation of sins." '* Thou knowest if there be any such as my foes charge me with.'"' Bonar says much the same.

The text before us shows that it is sometimes justifiable to be entirely absorbed and eaten up, so to speak, by zeal for some object in. which God's glory is concerned. Moses, Phineas, and Paul at Athens, are examples of such zeal. (Exodus xxxii. 19 ; Numbers xxv. 11 ; Acts xvii. 16.)

Doddridge remarks here that these Jews were probably the rulers, because the Great Assembly, or Sanhedrim, sat in the temple, and our Lord's actions would undoubtedly come to their knowledge without delay. This makes the question and answer which follow the more important,

[ What sign showest thou....doest these things.] This question of the Jews shows us that they admitted the lawfulness of a man doing such things as our Lord had done, if he could prove that he had a divine commission. He had suddenly taken upon Himself a great and independent authority. Though neither a priest nor a Levite, He had virtually interfered with the management of the temple courts. Let Him now show that He was a prophet, like Elijah or Amos, and they would concede He had a warrant for His conduct.

The meaning of this remarkable expression is either hypothetical or prophetical. It must either be rendered, " Supposing you destroy this temple," or "Ye will destroy this temple," — "If ye kill my body," or '* When ye shall kill my body." — It is of course absurd to suppose that our Lord literally commanded the Jews to destroy Him. The use of the imperative instead of the future, must surely be familiar to every Bible reader. See especially the 109th Psalm. In the present case it is truly astonishing that any one can see difficulty in our Lord's expression. He only used a mode of speaking which is in common use among ourselves. If a lawyer said to his client in a consultation, " Take such a step, and you will be ruined," we all know that he would not be commanding his client to take the step. He would only mean, "If you do take such a step." — A similar form of language may be seen in our Lord's words, " Fill ye up the measure of your fathers," addressed to the Pharisees. (Matt, xxiii. 32.) No one would say that our Lord commanded the Pharisees to do this. It is a prophecy. — So also, " Make the tree good," (Matt. xii. 33,) is not so much a command as an hypothesis. See also Isai. viii. 9, 10.

This is a prophecy of our Lord's resurrection. But it is a very remarkable one, from the fact that our Lord distinctly asserts His own power to raise Himself up. It is like the expression, "I have power to lay down my life, and I have power to take it again." (John x. 18.) Both the expressions deserve particular notice, because many now-a-days assert that our Lord's resurrection was owing to the operation of God the Father and of God the Holy Ghost, and that He did not rise by His own power. This is a dangerous heresy. That the Father and the Holy Ghost co-operated in the resurrection of our Lord's body there can be no doubt. It is clearly 'taught in many places. But to say that our Lord did not raise his own body, is to contradict the text before us, and the other which has been already quoted.

This expression has given rise to some diflference of opinion. The temple to which the Jews refer, cannot of course be the temple built by Solomon. That temple was completely destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar.— Nor yet does it seem likely to have been the temple built by Zerubbabel and his companions, after the return from Babylon. There is no sufficiently clear proof that this temple was forty and six years building. — By far the most probable view is, that the temple spoken of is the one repaired, or rather re-built by Herod, and that the forty-six years here mentioned mean the time during which these repairs were going on, and that the entire completion of them had not been effected up to our Lord's time. These repairs, according to Josephus, had been going on exactly forty-six years when our Lord visited the temple. They were so extensive and costly, that eighteen thousand workmen were employed about them, and they amounted to a re-building. Moreover, the minds of the Jews would probably be full of them at this particular time, because they were of recent date, if not going on at that very time. The Greek words might fairly be rendered, " Forty and six years has this temple been building." — They denote a time, as Whitby remarks, not perfectly past.

This question implies three things, — a sneer, astonishment, and incredulity. There is probably an emphasis meant to be laid on the word " thou." Such an one as thou 1 Wilt thou do it ?

That this saying of our Lord, nevertheless, was not thrown away and forgotten, but stuck in the minds of the Jews, though they did not understand it, is strikingly proved by two facts. — One is, that the false witnesses brought it forward, though in a garbled form, when our Lord was arraigned before the high priests. — The? other is, that the Jews taunted Him with it when He hung on the cross. (Matt. xxvi. 61 ; xxvii. 40.)

This verse is an instance of St. John's habit of making explanatory comments in his Qospel as he goes on, in order to make things clear to his Gontile readers.

Let it be noted, that as our Lord calls His own body a "temple," so also the bodies of His believing people are called " the temple of the Holy Ghost." (1 Cor. vi. 19.) If it was wrong to defile and profane the temple made of stone and wood, how much more is it wrong to defile by sin the temple of our bodies ! St. Paul and St. Peter both call our bodies our "tabernacle." (2 Cor. v. 1; 2 Pet. i. 13.)

This sentence is an interesting proof of two things. For one thing, it shows how much light was brought to the minds of the disciples by our Lord's resurrection, and how many hard sayings of His were at once unravelled and made plnin. — For another thing, it shows how long truth may lie dormant in men's minds without being understood, or doing them any service. It is one of the special offices of the Holy Ghost to bring things to remembrance. (John xiv. 26.) We must not suppose religious teaching does no good because it is not understood immediately. It may do good long after the teacher is dead.

What Scripture does this mean ? It cannot, of course, be our Lord's saying. What our Lord said is specially added, as something beside the Scripture, which the disciples " believed." — Nor yet does it seem likely that it means any particular text in the Old Testament about the resurrection. I incline to the opinion, that it means generally the whole testimony of Scripture to our Lord's claim to be received as the Messiah. When Jesus rose from the dead, the disciples were fully convinced that the Scripture about the Messiah was fulfilled in their Master.

The expression "believed" cannot mean that the disciples then believed for the first time. As in other places, it signifies that they believed fully, and without any more doubt and hesitation. The same may be said of John xiv. 1.

These persons do not appear to have really believed with the heart, but to have been only convinced in their understandings. The distinction between intellectual belief and saving belief, and between one degree of saving behef and another, ought to be carefully noticed in Scripture. There is a faith wtich devils have, and a faith which is the gift of God. The persons mentioned in this verse had the former, but not the latter. So also we are told that Simon Matifus " believed." (Acts viii. 13.) Again, there is a real heart-belief which a man may have that admits of great increase. This is the belief spoken of in the preceding verse.

This expression shows us that there were many miracles worked by our Lord which are nowhere recorded in Scripture. St. John himself tells us so twice over. (John xx. 30; xxi. 25.) Nicodemus refers to these miracles in the beginning- of the following chapter. (John iii, 2.) If it had been good for us to know anything about these miracles, they would no doubt have been recorded. But it is well to remember that there were such miracles, in order that we may rightly understand the unbelief and hardness of the Jews a Jerusalem. The miracles which are related as having been worked in or near Jerusalem, we must remember, are by no means all that our Lord worked there.

The Greek word so rendered means literally " Did not trust himself" It is the same verb that is generally rendered "believe."

[He knew all men.] This is a direct assertion of our Lord's divine omniscience. As God He knew all mankind, and these seeming believers among others. As God, He knew that their hearts were like the stony ground in the parable, and their faith only temporary.

Melancthon makes some very wise remarks on this verse, as to the example which our Lord sets us here of caution in dealing with strangers. It is a melancholy fact, which the experience of years always confirjns, that we must not trust implicitly to appearances of kindness, or be ready to open our hearts to every one as a friend, upon short acquaintance. The man who does not hastily contract intimacies, may be thought cold and distant by some ; but in the long run of life he will escape many sorrows. It is a wise saying, that a man ought to be friendly with all, but intimate with few.

These words mean that our Lord had no need of any one's testimony "about man." He required no information from others about the real character of those who professed faith in Him.

[He knew what was in man.] This means that our Lord, as God, possessed a perfect knowledge of man's inner nature, and was a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. We should remember Solomon's words in his prayer, " Thou only knowest the hearts of all the children of men." (1 Kings viii. 39.)

The immense difference between our Lord and all ministers of His Gospel appears strikingly in this verse. Ministers are constantly deceived in their estimate of people. Christ never was, and never could be. When He allowed Judas Iscariot to be a disciple, He "was perfectly acquainted with his character.

One other thing ought to be remarked, in leaving this subject of ()ur Lord's conversation with Nicodemus. That thing is the singular fulness of matter by which the whole of our Lord's address is characterized. Within the space of twenty verses we read of the work of all Three Perspns in the Trinity, — the Father's love, the Son's death on the cross, and the Spirit's operation in the new birth of man, — the corruption of man's nature, the nature of regeneration, and the efficacy of faith in Christ, — the way to escape perishing in hell, the true cause of man's condemnation if he is lost, and the true marks of sincerity in an inquirer. A fuller sermon was never delivered than that which was here preached to Nicodemus in one evening I There is hardly a single important point in divinity which is left untouched I

We should notice, secondly, in these verses, what a mighty change our Lord declares to he needful to salvation, and what a remarkable expression He uses in describing it. He speaks of a new birth. He says to Nicodemus, "Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." He announces the same truth in other words, in order to make it more plain to his hearer's mind : " Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." By this expression He meant Nicodemus to understand that " no one could become His disciple, unless his inward man was as thoroughly cleansed and renewed by the Spirit, as the outward man is cleansed by water." To possess the privileges of Judaism a man only needed to be born of the seed of Abraham after the flesh. To possess the privileges of Christ's kingdom, a man must be born again of the Holy Ghost.

The change which our Lord here declares needful to salvation is evidently no slight or superficial one. It is not merely reformation, or amendment, or moral change, or outward altei*ation of life. It is a thorough change of heart, will, and character. It is a resurrection. It is a new creation. It is a passing from death to life. It is the implanting in our dead hearts of a new principle from above. It is the calling into existence of a new creature, with a new nature, new habits of life, new tastes, new desires, new appetites, new judgments, new opinions, new hopes, and new fears. All this, and nothing less than this is implied, when our Lord declares that we all need a "new birth."

The close connection of the conversation between Christ and Nicodemus with the end of the preceding chapter ought to be carefully noted. In fact the original Greek contains a connecting particle, which our translators have omitted to express in our version. The chapter should begin, " And there was a man," or " Now there was a man." — The convers^ation took place when our Lord " was in Jerusalem," at the time of the Passover. Nicodemus was one of those who "saw the miracles which Jesus did," and was so much struck by what he saw, that he sought out our Lord in order to converse with Him.

The striking variety of character in those who were brought to believe on Christ while He was on earth, ought not to be overlooked. His disciples were not drawn exclusively from any one class. As a general rule, none were more bitterly opposed to Him and His doctrines than the Pharisees. Yet here we see that nothing is impossible with grace. Even a Pharisee became an inquirer, and ultimately a disciple ! Nicodemus and St. Paul are standing proofs that no heart is too hard to be converted. The third chapter shows us Jesus teaching a proud, moral Pharisee. The fourth will show him teaching an ignorant, immoral Samaritan woman. None are too bad to be taught by Christ.

[A ruler of the Jews.] The civil government of the Jews at this time, we must remember, was in the hands of the Eornans. "When Nicodemus is called " a ruler," it means that he was a chief person among the Jews, probably in high ecclesiartical position, and certainly a famous religious teacher. See the 10th verse.

The fact here recorded appeals to me to show that Nicodemus was influenced by the fear of man, and was afraid or ashamed to visit Jesus by day. — The view maintained by some, that we ought not to blame him for coming by night, because it was the quietest time for conversation, and the time when an interview was least liable to be interrupted, or because the Jewish teachers were in the habit of receiving inquirers by night, appears to me undeserving of attention. I am confirmed in this opinion by the fact, that on the only other occasions where Nicodemus is mentioned, he is specially described as the man who " came to Jesus by night." This repeated expression appears to me to imply blame. (John vii. 50; xix. 39.)

This cautious sentence is an instructive indication of the state of Nicodemus' mind. He was naturally a timid, hesitating, slow-moving man. That Jesus was somebody remarkable, he m- as convinced by His miracles. That He might possibly be the Messiah, had probably crossed his mind, and the more so because he doubtless knew of the ministry of John the Baptist, and had heard that John spake of one greater than himself who was yet to come. But until he can make out more about Jesus, by private conversation, he declines to commit himself to any stronger statement than that before us. The Greek words would be more literally rendered, " From God thou hast come a teacher."

This sentence has been justly called an illustration of one great purpose of our Lord's miracles. They arrested men's attention. They were evidences of a divine mission. They showed that He who wrought them was no ordinary Person, and ought to be listened to.

I am aware that some have thought that Nicodemus attached too much weight to our Lord's miracles, and have boldly asserted that miracles are no necessary proof of a divine mission, seeing that Anti-christ will appear with signs and lying wonders. (2 Thess. ii. 9; Rev. xiii. 14.) Li reply it might be sufficient to remark that our Lord Himself declared that " His works bore witness that the Father had sent Him." (John v. 36 ; x. 25 ; xv. 24.) But I also think that sufficient stress is not laid on the expression, " These miracles that thou doest." The character and quality of our Lord's miracles were such as to prove His divine commission. False teachers and .Anti-christs may be permitted to work some miracles, like the magicians who withstood Moses. But there is a point beyond which Anti-christ and his servants cannot go. Such miracles as our Lord worked could only be wrought by the finger of God. I therefore think that Nicodemus' argument was just and correct. — It is moreover worthy of note, that the expression he uses is precisely the same as that used by St. Peter when describing our Lord's ministry and miracles. He says, " God was with him." (Acts x. 38.)

The question has often been asked, "To what did our Lord answer?" No question was put to him. What is the connecting link between the words of Nicodemus, and the solemn statement contained in the first words which our Lord addressed to him ?

I believe the true reply to these questions is, that our Lord, as on many other occasions, made answer according to what He saw going on in Nicodemus' heart. He knew that the inquirer before Him, like all the Jews, was expecting the appearance of Messiah, and was even suspecting that he had found Him. He therefore begins, by telling him at once what was absolutely needful if he would belong to Messiah's kingdom. It was not a temporal kingdom, as he vainly supposed, but a spiritual one. It was not a kingdom, in which all persons born of the seed of Abraham, would, as a matter of course, have a place because of their birth. It was a kingdom in which grace, not blood, was the indispensable condition of admission. The first thing needful in order to belong to Messiah's kingdom, was to be "born again." Men must renounce all idea of privileges by reason of their natural birth. All men, whether Jews or Gentiles, must be born again, born anew, born from above by a spiritual birth. — "Nicodemus," our Lord seems to say, "if you want to know how a man is to become a member of Messiah's kingdom, understand this day, that the first step is to be born again. Think not because Abraham is your father, that Messiah will acknowledge you as one of his subjects. I tell you at once, that the first thing you and all other men need is a new birth."

The Greek word here rendered " again," might be translated with equal correctness, "from above," i. e. from heaven, or from God. It is so translated in this chapter, (verse 31,) and in four other places in the New Testament. (John xix. 11 ; James i. 17; iii. 15, 17.) In one other place, (Galat. iv. 9,) it is " again." Many commentators in every age, as Origen, Cyril, Theophylact, Bullinger, Lightfoot, Erasmus, Bengel, have maintained strongly, that " born from above," and not " born again," is the true and better translation of the phrase. Cranmer's version renders it " born from above," and our own translators have allowed it in. a marginal reading. My own impression agrees with that of most commentators, that " born again " is the right translation. — For one thing, it seems most probable that Nicodemus understood our Lord to mean " born again," or else he would hardly have asked the question, " Can a man enter the second time into his mother's womb and be born." — For another thing, the Greek words used in four other places where regeneration is spoken of in the New Testament, admit of no other meaning than being " born again," and could not possibly be rendered " born from above." See 1 Pet. 1. 3, 23 ; Matt. xix. 28 ; Titus iii. 5.

The true view of the expression I believe to be this. Being " born again," means that complete change of heart and character which is produced in a man by the Holy Ghost, when he repents, behoves on Christ, and becomes a true Christian. It is a change which is frequently spoken of in the Bible. In Ezekiel it is called "taking away the stony heart and giving a heart of flesh," — " giving a new heart, and putting within a new spirit." (Ezek. xi. 19 ; xxxvi. 26.) In Acts it is called " repentance and conversion." (Acts iii. 19.) In Romans it is called "being alive from the dead," (Rom, vi, 13.) In Corinthians it is called " being a new creature," (2 Cor. v. 17.) In Ephesians it is called " being quickened," (Ephes, ii. 1,) In Colossians it is called " putting off the old man and putting on the new." (Coloss. iii. 9, 10.) In Titus it is called the "washing of regeneration." (Titus iii, 5.) In Peter it is called " being called out of darkness into light," and being "made partaker of the divine nature," (1 Peter ii. 9; 2 Peter i. 4.) In John it is called "passing from death to life." (1 John iii. 14.) I believe that all these expressions come to the same thing in the end. They are all the same truth, only viewed from different sides. They all mean that mighty inward change of heart, which our Lord here calls a " new birth," and which John the Baptist foretold would specially characterize Messiah's kingdom. He was to baptize not with water, but with the Holy Ghost. Our Lord begins Hi? address to Nicodemus by taking up His forerunner's prediction: — He tells him that he must be " born again " or baptized with the Spirit. — Human nature is so entirely corrupt, diseased, and ruined by the fall, that all who would be saved must be born again. No lesser change will suffice. They need nothing less than a new birth.

This expression has received two interpretations. Some think that it means, " he cannot understand ot comprehend." Others think that it means, "he cannot enter, enjoy, partake of, or possess." The last I believe to be the true meaning of the expression. The first is truth, but not the truth of the text. The second ib confirmed by the language used in the fifth verse, and is a common form of speech of which there are many instances in the Bible. Thus we find, to " see life,"(John iii. 36,)— to "see corruption," (Psalm xvi. 10,) — to "see death," (John viii. 51,) — to see evil," (Psalm xc. 15,) — to " see sorrow." (Rev. xviii. 7.)

The question of Nicodemus is precisely one of those which the natural ignorance of man in spiritual things prompts a person to ask. Just as the Samaritan woman, in the 4th chapter, put a carnal meaning on our Lord's words about " living water," and the Jews, in the 6th chapter, put a carnal meaning on the "bread of God," so Nicodemus puts a carnal meaning on the expression " born again." — There is nothing which the heart of man in every part and every age of the world is so slow to understand as the work of the Holy Ghost. Our minds are so gross and sensuous, that we cannot take in the idea of an inward and spiritual operation. Unless we can see things and touch things in religion we are slow to believe them when he is old.] This expression seems to indicate that Nicodemus himself was an old man when this conversation took place. If this be so, it is only fair, in judging his case, to make some allowance for the slowness with which old age receives new opinions, and. specially in the things of religion. At the same time it supplies an encouraging proof that no man is too old to be converted. One of our Lord's first converts was an old man!

This famous text has unhappily given rise to widely different interpretations. On one thing only respecting it, nearly all commentators are agreed It is the same truth that is laid down in the third verse, only laid down with greater fulness in compassion to Nicodemus' weakness of understanding. But what does it mean ? The expression " born of water " is peculiar to this place, and occurs nowhere else in the Bible. It cannot be literally interpreted. No one can be literally " born of water." What then does the phrase signify ? When can it be said of any one, that he is " born of water and of the Spirit ? "

The third, and much the least common interpretation, is to refer the text entirely to the regeneration of man's heart, and to exclude baptism altogether from any place in it. — According to this view, our Lord explains to Nicodemus, by the use of a figure, what He had meant when he spoke of being " born again." He would have Nicodemus know that a man must have his heart as thoroughly cleansed and renewed by the Spirit as the body is cleansed and purified by water. He must be born of the Spirit working on his inward nature, as water works on the material body. In short, he must have a " clean heart" created in him if he would belong to Messiah's kingdom. Most of those who take this view, consider that baptism was certainly meant to point to the change of heart described in the text, but that this text was meant to point out something distinct from baptism, and even more important than baptism. This is the view which I believe to be the true one, and to which I unhesitatingly adhere.

In this verse, our Lord gives Nicodemus the reason why the change of heart called "new birth," is a thing of such absolute necessity, and why no slight moral change will suffice. Nicodemus had spoken of " entering a second time into his mother's womb." Our Lord tells him, that even if such a thing was possible, it would not make him fit for the kingdom of God. The child of human parents would always be like the parents from which it sprung, if it was born a hundred times over. " That which is born ot the flesh is flesh." All men and women are by nature corrupt. sinful, -fleshly, and alienated from God. " They that are in the flesh cannot please God." (Rom. viii. 8.) Their children will always be born with a nature like that of their parents. To bring a clean thing out of an unclean, is proverbially impossible A bramble will never bear grapes, however much it may be cultivated, and a natural man will never be a godly man without the Spirit. In order to be really spiritual and fit for the kingdom of God, a new power from without must enter into a man's nature. " That which is born of the spirit is spirit."

The word "flesh," I am inclined to think, with Poole and Dyke, is taken in two senses in this verse. In the first case, it means the natural body of man, as in John i. 14. In the second case, it means the corrupt carnal nature of man, as in Gal. v. 17. — The same remark applies to the word Spirit. In the first instance, it means the Holy Spirit, and in the second, the spiritual nature which the Spirit produces. The offspring of all children of Adam is fleshly. The offspring of the Spirit is spiritual. Neither the grace, nor rank, nor money, nor learning of parents will prevent a child having a corrupt heart, if it is naturally born of the flesh. Nothing will make any one spiritual but being born again of the spirit.

In reading this verse, the stress ought to be laid on the two last words, " born again." It is evident that the thing which stumbled Nicodemus was the idea of any " new birth" at all being necessary. He felt unable to understand what this "new birth" was. Our Lord forbids him to marvel, and proceeds to explain the new birth by a familiar illustration.

It is a noteworthy and striking fact, that no doctrine has excited such surprise in every age of the Church, and has called forth s ) much opposition from the great and learned, as this very doctrine of the new birth. The men of the present day who sneer at conversions and revivals, as fanaticism and enthusiasm, are nowise better than Nicodemus. Like him, they expose their own ignorance of the work of the Holy Ghost.

The object of this verse appears to be to explain the work of the Holy Ghost in the regeneration of man, by a familiar illustration drawn from the wind. Mysterious as the Spirit's work was, Nicodemus must allow that there was much of mystery about the wind. " The wind bloweth where it listeth." We cannot account for the direction in which it blows, or for the beginning or extent of its influence. But when we hear the sound of the wind, we do not for a moment question that it is blowing. Our Lord tells Nicodemus that it is just the same with the operations of the Spirit. There is doubtless much about them that is mysterious and incomprehensible. But when we see fruit brought forth, in a manifest change of heart and life, we have no right to question the reality of the Spirit's operations.

The last clause of the verse is undeniably somewhat difficult, — " So is every one that is born of the Spirit." We should rather have expected, " So does the Spirit operate on every one that is born again." And this was;, no doubt, our Lord's meaning. Yet the form of speech which our Lord uses is not altogether without parallel in the New Testament. For instance, we read, " The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed." (Matt. xiii. 24.) The likeness in this case is clearly not between the man and the kingdom. The meaning is that the whole story is an illustration of the kingdom of heaven. So also we read that "the kingdom of heaven is like unto a merchantman seeking goodly pearls," and might make a similar remark. (Matt. xiii. 45.)

These verses show us, secondly, the original source from which man's salvation springs. That source is the love of God the Father. Our Lord says to Nicodemus, " God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

This wonderful verse has been justly called by Luther, "The Bible in miniature." No part of it, perhaps, is so deeply important as the first five words, " God so loved the world." The love here spoken of is not that special love with which the Father regards His own elect, but that mighty pity and compassion with which He regards the whole race of mankind. Its object is not merely the little flock which He has given to Christ from all eternity, but the whole " world " of sinners, without any exception. There is a deep sense in which God loves that world. All whom He has created He regards with pity and compassion. Their sins He cannot love ; — but He loves their souls. " His tender mercies are over all His works." (Psal. cxlv. 9.) Christ is God's gracious gift to the whole world.

This is the third and last time that Nicodemus speaks during his visit to Christ, BO far as it is reported to us. His question here is a striking and instructive instance of the deep spiritual ignorance which may be found in the mind of a learned man. In four different ways our Lord had brought before him one and the same lesson. First, He had laid down the great principle that every man must be "born again." — Secondly, He had repeated the same thing in fuller words, and brought in the idea of " water," to illustrate the work of the Spirit. — Thirdly, he had shown the necessity of the new birth, from the natural corruption of man. — Fourthly, He had illustrated the work of the Spirit a second time by the instance of the " wind." And yet now, after all that our Lord has said, this learned Pharisee seems utterly in the dark, and asks the pitiable question, " How can these things be?" We have no right to be surprised at the vast ignorance of saving religion which we see on all sides, when we consider the history of Nicodemus. We should make up our minds to expect to find spiritual darkness the rule, and spiritual light the exception. Few things in the long run give so much trouble to ministers, missionaries, teachers, and district-visitors, as beginning work with extravagant and unscriptural expectations.

It will be observed, that our Lord does not answer the question of Nicodemus directly, but rebukes him sharply for his ignorance. Yet it ought to be carefully noted, as Melancthon remarks, that before He concludes what He now begins to say, He supplies a complete answer to His inquirer. He shows him the true root and spring of regeneration, namely, faith in Himself. He answers his groping inquiry, " How can these things be ? " by showing him the first step in saving religion, viz., to believe in the Son of God. Let Nicodemus begin like a little child, by simply believing on Him who was to be lifted up on the cross, and he would soon understand " how " a man could be born again, even in his old age.

The English version of this question hardly gives the full force of the original. It should be literally rendered, " Art thou the master of Israel? " i. e., " Art thou the famous teacher and instructor of the Jews?" ''Dost thou profess to be a light of them that sit in darkness, and an instructor of others?" — The expression certainly seems to indicate that Nicodemus was a man of established reputation as a teacher among the Pharisees. When the teachers were so ignorant, what must have been the state of the taught ?

[Knowest not these things.] These words unquestionably imply rebuke. The things which our Lord had just mentioned, Nicodemus ought to have known and understood. He professed to be a religious teacher. He professed to know the Old Testament Scriptures. The doctrine, therefore, of the necessity of a new birth ought not to have appeared strange to him. " A clean heart, — circumcision of the heart, — a new heart, — a heart of stone instead of a heart of flesh," were expressions and ideas which he must have read in the prophets, and which all pointed towards the new birth. (Psalm li. 10 ; Jer. iv. 4 ; Ezek. xviii. 31 : xxxvi. 26.) His ignorance consequently was deserving of blame.

The meaning of the sentence appears to be this, "I declare with authority, and bear witness to truths, which from all eternity I have known and seen, as God in union with the Father and the Holy Ghost. I do not speak (as all merely human ministers must) what I have been taught by others. I do not testify things which I have received as God's servant,, as ordinary prophets have, and which I should not have known without God's inspiration, I testify what I have seen with my Father, and knew before the world began." It is like the expression, "I speak that which I have seen with my Father." (John viii. 38.)

This sentence corresponds so exactly with John the Baptist's words, at verse 32, that it confirms me in the opinion that our Lord, in this verse, only speaks of Himself. The words before us, as well as those of John the Baptist, must be taken with some qualification : "The greater part of you receive not our testimony." — The object of the verse is to rebuke the unbelief of Nicodemus and all who were likeminded with him among the Jews. The use of the plural number " ye," makes it probable that our Lord in this verse refers not merely to what He had just been saying to Nicodemus, but to all His public teaching at Jerusalem, from the time of His casting out the buyers and sellers in the temple. If we do not adopt this theory, we must suppose Him to mean, "What I have spoken and testified to you about regeneration, is what I continually say to all who come, like you, to inquire of me; and yet neither you nor they believe what I say. You all alike stumble at this stumbling-stone, the new birth."

To see the full force of this verse, we should paraphrase it thus. " If ye do not believe what I say when I tell you, as I have done, things that are earthly, how will you believe if I go on, as I shall do, to tell you of things that are heavenly? If you will not believe when ye hear my first lesson, what will ye do when ye hear my second? If ye are stumbled at the very alphabet of my Gospel, what will ye do when I proceed to show you higher and deeper truths?"

By " earthly things " I believe our Lord means the doctrine of the "new birth," which He had just been expounding to Nicodemus. By " heavenly things " I believe He means the great and solemn truths which he was about immediately to declare, and which he does declare in rapid succession from this verse down to the end of the conversation. — These truths were His own divinity, — the plan of redemption by His own death on the cross, — the love of God to the whole world, and His consequent provision of salvation, —faith in the Son of God as the only way to escape hell, — and man's wilful rejection of light, the only cause of man's condemnation.

The true view of the text, I venture to think, is as follows. The words of the text are to be taken literally. Our Lord begins His list of "heavenly things" by declaring to Nicodemus His own divine nature and dignity. He reminds him that no one has ever ascended literally into that heaven where God dwells. Enoch, and Elijah, and David, for instance, were doubtless in a place of bliss, when they left this world, but they had not " ascended into heaven." (Acts ii. 34.) But that which no man, not even the holiest saint, had attained, was the right and prerogative of Him in whose company Nicodemus was. The Son of man had dwelt from all eternity in heaven, had come down from heaven, would one day ascend again into heaven, and in His divine nature was actually in heaven, one with God the Father, at that very moment. — " Know who it is to whom you are speaking. I am not merely a teacher come from God, as you say. I am the Messiah, the Son of man, foretold by Daniel. I have come down from heaven, according to promise, to save sinners. I shall one day ascend again into heaven, as the victorious forerunner of a saved people. Above all, I am as God in heaven at this moment. I am He who fills heaven and earth," — I prefer this view of the verse to any other, for two reasons. For one thing, it gives a literal meaning to every word in the text. For another, it seems a fitting answer to the first idea which Nicodemus had put forward in the conversation, viz., that our Lord was only " a teacher come from God." It is the view which is in the main held by Rollock, Calovius, and Gomarus, and expounded by them with much ability.

The expression "which is in heaven," deserves particular notice. It is one of those many expressions in the New Testament which can be explained in no other way than by the doctrine of Christ's divinity. It would be utterly absurd and untrue to say of any mere man, that at the very time he was speaking to another on earth he was in heaven ! But it can be said of Christ with perfect truth and propriety. He never ceased to be very God, when He became incarnate. He was "with God and was God." As God He was in heaven while He was speaking lo Nicodemus.

The expression is one which no Socinian can explain away. If Christ was only a very holy man and nothing more, He could not have used these words. The Socinian explanation of the former part of the verse, viz., that Christ was caught up into heaven after His baptism, and there instructed about the Gospel He was to teach, would be of itself utterly absurd, and a mere theory invented to get over a difficulty. But the conclusion of the verse is a blow at the very root of the Socinian system. It is written not only that Christ " came down from heaven," but. that " he is in heaven."

In this verse our Lord proceeds to show Nicodemus another " heavenly thing," viz., the necessity of His own crucifixion. Nicodemus probably thought, like most Jews, that when Messiah appeared. He would come with power and glory, to be exalted and honoured by men. Jesus tells him that so far from this being the case, Messiah must be " cut off" at His first advent, and put to an open shame by being hanged on a tree. He illustrates this by a well-known event in the history of Israel's wanderings, the story of the brazen serpent. (Numb. xxi. 9.) "Are you expecting me to take to myself power and to restore the kingdom of Israel ? Cast away such a vain expectation. I have come to do very different work. I have come to suffer, and to offer up myself as a sacrifice for sin."

The expression " Son of Man " was doubtless intended to remind Nicodemus of Daniel's prophecy of the Messiah. — The Greek word rendered " must," signifies "it behoveth that," "it is necessary that." It is necessary in order that God's promises of a Redeemer may be fulfilled,— the types of the Old Testament sacrifices be accomplished,— the law of God be satisfied, — and a way for God's mercy be provided. In order to all this Messiah must suffer in our stead. The phrase " lifted up," appears to me most decidedly to mean " lilted up on the cross." For one thing we find it so explained in this Gospel. (John xii. 32, 33.) For another the illustration of the brazen serpent makes it absolutely necessary to explain it so. To apply the phrase, as Calvin and others do, to the " necessity of lifting up and exalting Christ's atonement in Christian teaching," seems to me a mistake. It is needlessly dragging in an idea which the words were not intended to convey. It is truth no doubt, and truth abundantly taught in Scripture, but not the truth of this text.

The points of resemblance appear to me to be these. — (a.) As the Israelites were in sore distress, and dying from the bites of poisonous serpents, so is man in great spiritual danger, and dying from the poisonous effects of sin.

(&.) As the serpent of brass was lifted up on a pole in the sight of the camp of Israel, so Christ was to be lifted ap on the cross publicly, and in the sight of the whole nation, at the Passover.

(c.) As the serpent, lifted up on the pole, was an image of the very thing which had poisoned the Israelites, even so Christ had in Himself no sin, and yet was made and crucified " in the likeness of sinful flesh," and counted sin. (Rom. viii. 3.) The brazen serpent was a serpent without poison, and Christ was a man without sin. The thing which we should specially see in Christ crucified, is our sin laid upon Him, and Him counted as a sinner, and treated as a sinner, and punished as a sinner, for our redemption. In fact we see on the cross our sins punished, crucified, borne, and carried by our Redeemer.

(d.) Finally, as the one way by which Israelites obtained relief from the brazen serpent, was by looking at it, so the one way to get benefit from Christ, is to look at him by faith. The feeblest look brought cure to an Israelite, and the weakest faith, if true and sincere, brings salvation to sinners.

In this verse our Lord declares to Nicodemus the great end and purpose for which the Son of man was to be " lifted up" on the cross, and the way in which the benefits of Kis crucifixion become our own. In interpreting the verse, we should carefully remember that the comparison of the serpent lifted up in the wilderness must be carried through to the end of the sentence. The Son of man must be lifted up on the cross, that whosoever believeth on Him, or looks to Him by faith, as the Israelites looked to the brazen serpent, should not perish in hell.

The expression " believeth in Him," is deeply important. It describes that one act of man's soul which is needful to give him an interest in Jesus Christ. It is not a mere belief of the head that there is such a Person as Jesus Christ, and that He is a Saviour, It is a belief of the heart and will: When a person, feeling his desperate need by reason of sin, flees to Jesus Christ, and trusts in Him, leans on Him, and commits his soul entirely to Him as his Saviour and Redeemer, he is said, in the language of the text, to " believe on Him." — The simpler our views of faith are, the better. The more steadily we keep in view the Israelites looking at the brazen serpent, the more we shall understand the words before us. " Believing" is neither more nor less than heart-looking. Whosoever looked at the brazen serpent was made well, however ill he was, and however feeble his look. Just so, whosoever looks to Jesus by faith, is pardoned, however great his sins may have been, and however feeble his faith. — Did the Israelite look? That was the only question in the matter of being healed from the serpent's bite. — Does the sinner believe ? That is the only question in the matter of being justified and pardoned. — Looking to Moses, or looking to the tabernacle, or looking even to the pole on which the serpent hung, or looking to anything except the brazen serpent, the bitten Israelite would not have been cured. Just so, looking to anything but Christ crucified, however holy the object looked at may be, the sinner cannot be saved.

Our Lord, in this verse, shews Nicodemus another " heavenly thing." — Nicodemus probably thought, like many Jews, that God's purposes of mercy were entirely confined to His chosen people Israel, and that when Messiah appeared. He would appear only for the special benefit of the Jewish nation. Our Lord here declares to him that God loves all the world without any exception, that the Messiah, the only begotten Son of God, is the Father's gift to the whole family of Adam, and that every one, whether Jew or Gentile, who believes on Him for salvation, may have eternal life. — A more startling declaration to the ears of a rigid Pharisee it is impossible to conceive ! A more wonderful verse is not to be found in the Bible I That God should love such a wicked world as this and not hate it, — that He should love it so as to provide salvation — that in order to provide salvation He should give, not an angel, or any created being, but such a priceless gift as His only begotten Son, — that this great salvation should be freely offered to every one that believeth, — all, all this is wonderful indeed 1 This was indeed a " heavenly thing."

The true view of the words, " God loved the world," I believe to be this. The " world " means the whole race of mankind, both saints and sinners, without any exception. The word, in my opinion, is so used in John i. 10, 29 ; vi. 33, 51 ; viii. 12. — Rom. iii. 19.— 2 Cor. v. 19.— 1 John ii. 2; iv. U. The "love" spoken of is that love of pity and compassion with which God regards all His creatures, and specially regards mankind. It is the same feeling of "love" which appears in Psalm cxlv. 9, — Ezek. xxxiii. 11 —John vi. 32.— Titus iii. 4.— 1 John iv. 10.— 2 Pet. iii. 9. — 1 Tim. ii. 4. It is a love unquestionably distinct and separate from the special love with which God regards His saints. It is a love of pity and not of approbation or complaisance. But it is not the less a real love. It is a love which clears God of injustice in judging the world.

The gift of Christ, be it here noted, is the result of God's love to the world, and not the cause. To say that Go. I loves us because Christ died for us, is wretched theology indeed. But to say that Christ came into the world in consequence of the love of God, is scriptural truth.

The expression " he gave," is a remarkable one. Christ is God the Father's gift to a lost and sinful world. He was given generally to be the Saviour, the Redeemer, the Friend of sinners, — to make an atonement sufficient for all, — and to provide a redemption large enough for all. To effect this, the Father freely gave Him up to be despised, rejected, mocked, crucified, and counted guilty and accursed for our sakes. It is written that He was " delivered for our offences," and that "God spared Him not, but delivered him up for us all." (Rom. iv. 25 ; viii. 32.) Christ is the " gift of God," spoken of to the Samaritan woman, (John iv. 10,) and the " unspeakable gift" spoken of by St. Paul. (2 Cor. ix. 15.) He Himself says to the wicked Jews, "My Father giveth you the true bread from heaven." (John vi. 32.) This last text, be it noted, was one with which Erskine silenced the General Assembly in Scotland, when he was accused of offering Christ too freely to sinners.

In this verse our Lord shows Nicodemus another ''heavenly thing." He shows him the main object of Messiah coming into the world. It was not to judge men, but to die for them ; not to condemn, but to save.

I have a strong impression that when our Lord spoke these words, He had in view the prophecy of David about Messiah bruising the nations with a rod of iron, and Daniel's prophecy about the judgment, where he speaks of the thrones being cast down, and the Ancient of days judging the world. (Psalm ii. 6 — 9: Dan. vii. 9—22.) I think that Nicodemus. like most Jews, was filled with the expectation that when Messiah came He would come with power and great glory, and. judge all men. Our Lord corrects this notion in this verse. He declares that Messiah's first advent was not to judge but to save people from their sins. He says in another place. " I came not to judge the world, but to save the world." (John xii. 47.) The Q-reek word for judging and condemning, it must be remembered, is one and the same. Judgment and the condemnation of the ungodly, our Lord would have us know, are not the work of the first advent, but of the second. The special work of the first advent was to seek and save that which was lost.

This sentence must clearly be interpreted with some qualification. It would contradict other plain texts of Scripture, if we took it to mean, "God sent His Son into the world, that all the world might finally be saved through Him, and none be lost." In fact, our Lord Himself declares in the very next verse, " that he that believeth not is condemned already."

The meaning of the sentence evidently is, that " all the world might have a door of salvation opened through Christ, — that salvation might be provided for all the world, — and that so any one in the world believing on Christ, might be saved." In this view it is like the expression of St. John, "The Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world." (1 John iv. 14.)

In this verse our Lord shows Nicodemus another "heavenly thing." He declares the privileges of believing, and the peril of not believing in the Son of God. Nicodemus had addressed Him as a " teacher come from Gol." He would have Nicodemus know that He was that high and holy One, to believe on whom was life eternal, and not to believe on whom was everlasting destruction. Life or death was before men. If they believed and received Him as the Messiah, they would be saved. If they believed not, they would die in their sins.

This sentence means that the man who refuses to believe on Christ is in a state of condemnation before God, even while he lives. The curse of a broken law, which we all deserve, is upon him. His sins are upon his head. He is reckoned guilty and dead before God, and there is but a step between him and hell. Faith takes all a man's sins away. Unbelief keeps them all on him. Through faith a man is made an heir of heaven, though kept outside till he dies. Through unbelief a man is already a subject of the devil, though not yet entirely in his power, and within hell. The moment a man believes, all charges are completely wiped away from his name. So long as a man does not believe, his sins cover him over, and make him abominable before God, and the just wrath of God abides upon him.

This sentence is justly thought to prove that no sin is so great, and so damning and ruinous to the soul as unbelief. In one sense it is the only unpardonable sin. All other sins may be forgiven, however many and great, and a man may stand complete before God. But if a man will not believe on Christ, there is no hope for him ; and if he persists in his unbelief he cannot be saved. Nothing is so provoking and offensive to God as to refuse the glorious salvation He has provided at so mighty a cost, by the death of His only begotten Son. Nothing is so suicidal on the part of man as to turn away from the only remedy which can heal his soul. Other sins may be scarlet, filthy, and abominable. But not to believe on Christ is to bar the door in our own way, and to cut off ourselves entirely from heaven. It has been truly remarked that it was a greater sin in Judas Iscariot not to believe on Christ for pardon, after he had betrayed Him, than to betray Him into the hands of his enemies. To betray Him no doubt was an act of enormous covetousness, wickedness, and ingratitude. But not to seek Him afterwards by faith for pardon, was to disbelieve His mercy, love, and power to save.

In this verse our Lord shows Nicodemus one more " heavenly thing." He unfolds to him the true cause of the ruin of those who are lost. Primarily, I think, our Lord had in view the unbelieving Jews of His own day, and the real reason of their rejection of Himself. It was not that there was any want of evidence of His Messiahship. They had evidence enough and to spare. The real reason was that they had no mind to give up their sins. — Secondarily, I think, our Lord had in view the future history of all Christians, and the true cause of the ruin of all who are not saved in every age. It is not because there is any want of light to guide men to heaven. It is not because God is wanting in love and unwilling to save. The real reason is that men in every age love their own sins, and will not come to Christ that they may be delivered from them.

The verse is one which deserves special notice, because of the deep mystery it unfolds. It tells us the true reason why men miss heaven and are lost in hell. The origin of evil we are not told. The reason why evil men are lest, we are told plainly. There is not a word about any decree of God predestinating men to destruction. There is not a syllable about anything deficient or wanting either in God's love, or in Christ's atonement. On the contrary our Lord tells us that "light has come into the world," that God has revealed enough of the way of salvation to make men inexcusable if they are not saved. But the real account of the matter is that men have naturally no will or inclination to use the light. They love their own dark and corrupt ways more than the ways which God proposes to them. They therefore reap the fruit of their own ways, and will have at last what they loved. They loved darkness and they will be cast into outer darkness, they did not like the light and so they will be shut out from light eternally. In short, lost souls will be what they willed to be, and will have what they loved.

This verse and the following one form a practical application of all that our Lord has been saying to Nicodemus, and are also a logical consequence of the preceding verse. Like the preceding verse, these two verses apply primarily to the Jews in our Lord's day, and secondarily to every nation to which the light of the Gospel comes. They are a most remarkable appeal to an inquirer's conscience, and supply a most searching test of the sincerity of a man in Nicodemus' state of mind.

The words " every one that doeth evil," mean every unconverted person, every one whose heart is not right and honest in God's sight, and whose actions are consequently evil and ungodly. Every such person " hateth the light, neither cometh to the light." He cannot really love Christ and the Gospel, and will not honestly, and with his whole heart, seek Christ by faith and embrace His Gospel, until he is renewed The reason of this is, that every unconverted person shrinks from having his ungodliness exposed. He does not wish his wicked ways to be discovered, and his utter want of true righteousness and true preparedness for death, judgment, and eternity to be put to shame. He does not "like his deeds to be reproved," and therefore he shrinks from the light, and keeps away from Christ.

This verse, it is needless to say, is closely connected with the preceding one. The preceding verse describes the unconverted man. The verse before us describes the converted man.

The expression, " He that doeth truth," signifies, the person whose heart is honest, the man who is truly converted, however weak and ignorant, and whose heart and actions are consequently true and right in the sight of God. The phrase is frequently found in St. John's writings. (S-'e John xviii. 37 ; 1 John i. 6—8; ii. 4; iii. 19; 2 John i. ; 3 John iii. 4.) Every such person will always come to Christ and embrace His Gospel when it is brought near him. He will have an honest desire that " his deeds may be made manifest," and that his real character may be discovered to himself and others. He will have an honest wish to know whether his habits of life are really godly, or " wrought in God."

The principle here laid down is of great importance, and experience shows that the assertion of the text is always confirmed by facts. I believe there was not a truly good man among the Jews in our Lord's day, who did not at once receive Christ, and welcome Christ's Gospel, as soon as it was brought before him. Nathanael was an example. He was a man " who did truth " under the obscure light of the law of Moses, as ministered by Scribes and Pharisees. But the moment the Messiah was brought before him, he received Him and believed. — So also, I believe, when the Gospel comes into a church, a parish, or a congregation, it is always gladly received and embraced by any whose hearts are true. To be a truly godly man, and yet to refuse to come to Christ, is an impossibility. He that hears of Christ and does not come to Him, and believe on Him as God's appointed way of salvation, has something fatally wrong about him. He is not really "doing truth." He is not a converted man. Gospel light is a mighty magnet. If there is any one that has true religion within its sphere, it will attract to itself that person. To be truly religious and not to gravitate towards Him who is the great centre of all light and truth, is impossible. If a man refuses Christ, he cannot be a godly man.

We have, secondly, in these verses, a splendid pattern of true and godly humility. We see in John the Baptist a very different spirit from that displayed by his disciples. He begins by laying down the great principle, that acceptance with man is a special gift of God ; and that we must therefore not presume to find fault, when others have more acceptance than ourselves. "A man can receive nothing except it be given him from heaven." He goes on to remind his followers of his repeated declaration, that one greater than himself was coming ; — " I said, I am not the Christ." He tells them that his office compared to that of Christ, is that of the bridegroom's friend, compared to the bridegroom. And finally, he solemnly affirms, that Christ must and will become greater and greater, and that he himself must become less and less important, until, like a star eclipsed by the rising sun, he has completely disappeared.

A frame of mind like this, is the highest degree of grace to which mortal man can attain. The greatest saint in the sight of God, is the man who is most thoroughly "clothed with humility." (1 Peter v. 5.) Would we know the prime secret of being men of the stamp of Abraham, and Moses, and Job, and David, and Daniel, and St. Paul, and John the Baptist ? They were all eminently humble men. Living at different ages, and enjoying very different degrees of light, in this matter at least they were all agreed. In themselves they saw nothing but sin and weakness. To God they gave all the praise of what they were. Let us walk in their steps. Let us covet earnestly the best gifts ; but above all, let us covet humility. The way to true honour is to be humble. No man ever was so praised by Christ, as the very man who says here, " I must decrease," the humble John the Baptist.

Some have thought, from this expression, that the conversation between Christ and Nicodemus did not take place in Jerusalem or Judaea, but in Galilee. Others have thought that a long interval must be supposed to have elapsed between the conversation and the events which are here narrated. — I can agree with neither view. — I believe the true explanation is, that "the land" here spoken of means the rural part or territory of Judaea, in contradistinction to the capital town of the territory, Jerusalem. The meaning will then be, that Jesus left the city and went into the country districts. The expression, " Thou Bethlehem, in the land of Judaea," is similar. (Matt. ii. 6.)

The questions have often been raised, "In what name was this baptism administered?" " Was it a baptism that needed tj be repeated after the day of Pentecost ?" — The most probable answer to the first question is, that it was a baptism in the name of Jesus, upon profession of belief that he was the Messiah. The most probable answer to the second question is, that it was certainly not a baptism that required repetition. To suppose that a baptism, administered by our Lord's disciples, under our Lord's own eye, and by our Lord's own command, was not as effectual and profitable an ordinance as any baptism that was ever afterwards administered, is a most improbable supposition.

We can hardly doubt that John baptized all who came to him, at this period of his ministry, in the name of Jesus, upon confession of faith that Jesus was the Messiah. It seems most improbable that after publicly pointing out Jesus Christ as the Lamb of God, and the promised Saviour, he would be content to baptize with the baptism of repentance, which he had administered before Christ appeared. In short, John's baptism at this period, and the baptism administered by Christ's disciples, must have been precisely the same.

It is frequently assumed from this expression, that John's baptism was immersion and not sprinkling, and that on this account a great supply of water was absolutely needful. It may perhaps have been so. The point is one of no importance. That immersion, however, is necessary to the validity of baptism, and that sprinkling alone is not sufficient, are points that can never be demonstrated from Scripture. So long as water is used, it seems to be left a matter of indifference whether the person baptized is dipped or sprinkled. I should find it very hard to believe that the three thousand baptized on the day of Pentecost, or the jailor and his family, baptized at midnight in the Philippian prison, were all immersed. The Church of England wisely allows either mode of applying wa er to be used. To suppose that dipping is forbidden to English Churchmen is mere ignorance.

John's diligence in his Master's work is here pointed out. He doubtless knew that his ministry was fulfilled when Christ appeared, and that the time of his own departure, and violent death under Herod's hands, was at hand. Yet he worked on to the very last. "Blessed is that servant, whom his Lord when he cometh shall find so doing." (Matt xxiv. 46.)

Theophylact thinks that John's early death was permitted la God's providence, in order to prevent any distraction in people's minds between him and Christ.

The nature and particulars of this dispute must be left to conjecture. We can only form an idea of it from the context. It seems probable that it was a dispute between the unbelieving Jews and the disciples of John the Baptist, about the comparative value of the two baptisms which were being administered in Judea, viz., John's baptism and Christ's. — Which was the most purifying? Which was the most efficacious? Which was the most valuable of the two? — The Jews probably taunted John's disciples with the decline of their master's popularity. John's disciples, in ignorant zeal and heat for their master, probably contended that no new teacher's baptism could possibly be more purifying and valuable than their own master's.

The language of the whole verse seems intended to show that John's disciples were jealous for their master's ministry, and that its declining popularity, in consequence of our Lord's appearance in Judaea as a public teacher, was a cause of annoyance to them. The verse is an instructive instance of that littleness and party spirit which are ?o painfully common among Christians when one minister's popularity is interfered with by the appearance of another.

[He...with thee...thou barest witness.] This expression shows the publicity and notoriety of John's testimony to our Lord as the Messiah and the Lamb of God. It was testimony not borne privately in a corner, but in the hearing and full knowledge of all John's disciples. It would seem to have had very little effect on their minds. The words fell on their ears, but went no further.

This expression implies partly surprise and partly complaint. In any case it shows how little the bulk of John's disciples understood that Jesus was really the Messiah promised in the prophecies. If they hid understood it, they would surely neither have been surprised nor annoyed at Him for baptizing and becoming popular. They would rather have expected it and rejoiced at it. It is one among many proofs that ministers may be loved by their hearers, and may tell them the truth faithfully, and yet be utterly unable to make their hearers understand or believe. Few are like Andrew, and "follow Jesus," when their minister says, "Behold the Lamb." The most are as though they did not hear at all.

This sentence is the statement of a general truth in religion. Success, promotion, and growth of influence are gifts which God keeps entirely in His own hands. If one faithful minister's popularity wanes, while another's popularity and influence over men's hearts increase, the thing is of God, and we must submit to His appointment. (Psalm lxxv. 6.)

The application of the sentence is not to Christ, as Chrysostom thought, but to John the Baptist himself, as Augustine thought. They are meant to imply, " I cannot command continued success in my ministry. I can only receive what God gives me. If He thinks fit to give any one more acceptance with men than myself, I cannot prevent it, and have no right to complain. All success is of God. All that I have had, at any period of my ministry, has been received, and none deserved." — To apply the sentence to our Lord, seems to me an unsatisfactory interpretation, and derogatory to the dignity of Christ's ministry. Those who take this view, would probably prefer the marginal reading of the word "receive," and would render it, "No man can take to himself anything." The sentence would then be like St, Paul's words to the Hebrews, " No man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron." (Heb. v. 4.) But the translation, " receive," and the application to John the Baptist, appear to me more agreeable to the context, and the general spirit of John's reply. And although the word, a " man," ought not to have much stress laid upon it, I cannot help thinking that John uses it intentionally, in order to point to himself. "A mere man like me can receive nothing but what is given him from heaven."

John here reminds his disciples that he had repeatedly told them that he was not the Christ, and that he was only a forerunner sent before Him. They ought to have remembered this. If they had done so, they would not have been surprised at the rise and progress of Christ's ministry, but would rather have expected Him 10 outshine and surpass their master, as a matter of course.

The verse is an instructive illustration of the forgetfulness of hearers. John's testimony to the dignity of Christ and His superiority to himself had been constantly repeated. But it had been all thrown away on his disciples, and when Christ began to receive greater honours than their master, and their own party began to grow smaller than that of Christ's disciples, they were offended. People soon forget what they do not like.

In this verse John the Baptist explains the relative positions occupied by himself and Christ by a familiar illustration. In tracing it out, it is of great importance not to press the points of resemblance too far. The illustration is one which specially requires to be handled with reverence, decency, and discretion.

The "bride," in the verse, signifies the whole company of believers, the Lamb's wife. (Rev. xxi. 9.) The " bridegroom " is the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. The "friend of the bridegroom" means John the Baptist, and all other faithful ministers of Christ. According to the marriage-customs of the Jews, there were certain persons called the bridegroom's friends, who were the means of communication between him and the bride before the marriage. Their duty was simply to set forward and promote the bridegroom's interests, and to remove all obstacles, as far as possible, to a speedy union of the parties. To accomplish this end and promote a thoroughly good understanding between the bride and bridegroom was their sole office. If they saw the bridegroom's suit prospering, and at last saw him received favourably and gladly by the bride, their end was accomplished and their work was done. To all this John the Baptist makes allusion in the verse now before us. He tells his disciples that his sole work was to set forward and promote a good understanding between Christ and men. If he saw that work prospering he was thankful and would rejoice, even though the result was that his own personal importance was diminished. He would have his disciples know that the growing popularity of Christ which offended them, was the very thing which he longed to see. He had no greater joy than to hear of the voice of Christ, the bridegroom, being listened to by believers, the bride. It was the very thing for which he had been preaching and ministering, His " joy was fulfilled."

The whole verse is a most instructive picture of a true minister's work and character. He is a friend of Christ, and is ordained in order to promote a union between Christ and souls. (2 Cor. ii. 2.) He must rigidly adhere to that office, and must never take to himself that which does not belong to him. The minister who allows honour to be given to himself which only belongs to Jesus, and exalts his own office into that of a mediator and priest, is treacherously usurping a position which is not his but his Master's. The professing Christian who treats ministers as if they were priests and mediators, is dishonouring Jesus Christ, and basely giving that honour to the Bridegroom's friends which belongs exclusively to the Bridegroom Himself.

In this sentence John the Baptist tells his complaining disciples that it is right and proper and necessary that Christ should grow in dignity, and that he himself should be less thought of. He was only the servant ; Christ was the Master. He was only the forerunner and ambassador, Christ was the King. He was only the morning star; Christ was the Sun. The idea implied appears to be that of the stars gradually fading away, as the sun rises, after the break of day. The stars do not really perish or really become less, bat they pale and become invisible before the superior brightness of the great centre of light. The sun does not really become larger, or really increase in brightness, but it becomes more fully visible, and occupies a position in which it more completely fills our vision. So was it with John the Baptist and Christ. — Every faithful minister ought to be like-minded with John. He must be content to be less thought of by his believing hearers, in proportion as they grow in knowledge and faith, and se( Christ Himself more clearly. As churches decay and fall away , they think less of Christ and more of their ministers. As churches revive and receive spiritual life, they think less of ministers and more of Christ. To a decaying church the sun is going down, and the stars are beginning to appear. To a reviving church the stars are waning, and the sun appearing.

... Christ is " from above." He is not merely man, but God. He came from heaven when He took our nature on Him, and was born. As God, He is as far above all His ministers and servants as the Creator is above the creature. He is " far above all principality, and power, and every name that can be named." He is " Head over all things to the church," and richly deserves all the honour, and dignity, and respect, and reverence that man can give. (Ephes. i. 21, 22.)

In this sentence John the Baptist expresses in strong language the comparative inferiority to Christ of himself or of any other minister. " All who like me," he seems to say, " are only men, mere dust and clay, descended from a father who was made out of the dust of the ground, are comparatively earthly. The weakness and feebleness of our origin pervade all our doings. By nature earthly, our works are earthly, and our speaking and preaching earthly." — In short, there will be a savour of humanity about the ministry of every one who is naturally engendered of the seed of Adam.

The difficulty that some see in John the Baptist calling his own ministry " earthly," is quite needlessly raised. It is evident that he calls it so " comparatively." Compared to the teaching of Scribes and Pharisees it was not earthly but heavenly. Compared to the teaching of Him who came from heaven it was earthly. A candle compared to darkness is light. But the same candle compared to the sun is a poor dim spark.

In this sentence John the Baptist shows the divinity of Christ, and His consequent superiority over himself in another point of view. He says that Christ bears witness to truths which he has " seen and heard." He is not like mere human ministers who only declare what they have been taught by the Holy Spirit, and inspired to communicate to others. As God, He declares with authority truths which Ho had seen, and heard, and known from all eternity with the Father. (John 7. 19, 30 ; viii. 38.)

The expression "no man " in this sentence, must evidently, from the following verses, be taken with qualification. It must mean " very few." Andrew, Peter, Philip, and others, had received Christ's testimony. The sentence seems intended to rebuke the complaint uttered by John's disciples, " All men come unto him." John seems to say, " However many persons come to hear Jesus, you will yet see that very few believe on him. Great as he is, and deserving of far more reverence than myself, you have yet to learn, that ever he is really believed on by few'. The crowds who follow him are. unhappily, not true believers. The temporary popularity which attends his ministry, is as worthless as that which attended my own."

In this verse John shows the great importance of receiving Christ's testimony. So far from being offended by the crowd which attended Christ's ministry. John's disciples should be thankful that so many heard Him, and that Some few received His teaching into their hearts.

[Hath set to his seal.'] This expression is peculiar, and found nowhere else in the New Testament, in the same sense. Of course it does not mean any literal sealing. It only means, ''hath formally declared his belief, — hath publicly professed his conviction," — just as a man puts his seal to a document, as a testimony that he consents to its contents. In ancient days, when few comparatively could write, to affix a seal to a paper, was a more common mode of expressing assent to it, than to sign a name. — The sentence is equivalent to saying, " He that receives Christ's testimony, has set down his name as one who believes that God is true."

These words may be taken two ways. According to some they mean, "He that receives Christ, declares his belief, that it is the true God who has sent Christ ; and that Christ is no impostor, but the Messiah, whom the true God of the Old Testament prophets promised to send." — According to others they mean, " He that receives Christ, declares his belief, that God is true to his word, and has kept the promise that he made to Adam, Abraham, and David." That the Greek word rendered " true," will bear this last meaning, seems proved by the expression, " Let God be true, but every man a liar." (Rom. iii. 4.) Either view makes good sense and good divinity ; but on the whole, I prefer the second one. It seems to me strongly confirmed by the expression in St. John's 1st Epistle: "He that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son." (1 John v. 10.)

In this verse John the Baptist shows the dignity of Christ, and His superiority over all other teachers, by another striking declaration about Him. He begins by giving Him the well-known epithet which was peculiarly applied to Messiah, " He whom God hath sent, the sent One, — the One whom God has sent into the world according to promise."

[Speaketh the words of God.] This sentence means that Christ's words were not the words of a mere man, like John himself or one of the prophets. They were nothing less than the words of God. He who heard them heard nothing less than God speaking. The unity of the Father and the Son is so close that he who hears the teaching of the Son hears the teaching of the Father also. (Compare John vii. 16 ; v. 19 ; xiv. 10, 11 ; viii. 28 ; xii. 49.) When John the Baptist spoke, he spoke merely human words, however true, and good, and scriptural. But when Christ spoke, He spoke divine words, even the words of God Himself. As Quesnel says, ''He spoke by the Holy Ghost, who is His own Spirit, who inseparably dwelleth in Him, and by the possession of whose fulness He receives His unction and consecration."

The whole sentence is peculiar, and requires careful interpretation. The object of John the Baptist is to show once more the infinite superiority of the Lord Jesus over himself or any other man. To all others, even to the most eminent prophets and apostles, God gives the Holy Spirit " by measure," Their gifts and graces are both imperfect. As St Paul says, they " know in part and prophesy in part." (1 Cor. xiii. 9.) But with Him whom God hath sent, it is very different. To Him the Holy Ghost is given without measure, in infinite fulness and completeness. In His human nature the gifts and graces of the Spirit are present without the slightest shadow of imperfection. As man, Jesus of Nazareth was anointed with the Holy Ghost, and fitted for His office as our Priest, and Prophet, and King, in a way and degree never granted to any other man. (Acts x. 38.)

There is something, at first sight, abrupt and elliptical in this verse. The full meaning of it, I believe to be as follows. " He whom God hath sent is One far above me or any other prophet. He is the eternal Son of God, whom the Father loved from all eternity, and into whose hands all things concerning man's salvation have been given and committed by an everlasting covenant. He is no mere man, as you, my disciples, ignorantly suppose. He is the Son, of whom it is written, ' Kiss the Son lest He be angry, and so ye perish from the way.' He is the Son to whom the Father has said, "I will give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.' (Psalm ii. 7 — 9.) Instead of being jealous of his present popularity, you should serve Him with fear, and rejoice before Him with trembling."

The " love of the Father toward the Son," here spoken of, is a subject far too deep for man to fathom. It is an expression graciously accommodated to man's feeble understanding, and intended to signify that most intimate and ineffable union which exists between the First and Second Persons in the blessed Trinity, and the entire approbation and complacency with which the Father regards the work of redemption undertaken by the Son. It is that love to which our Lord refers in the words, " Thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world," (John xvii. 24,) and which the Father expressly asserted at the beginning of the Son's earthly ministry, " This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." (Matt. iii. 17.)

When it says that " the Father hath given all things into the Son's hand," we must understand that mediatorial kingdom which in the eternal counsels of the Trinity has been appointed to Christ. By the terms of the everlasting covenant, the Father has given to the Son power over all flesh, to quicken whom He will — to justify, to sanctify, to keep, and to glorify His people, — to judge, and finally punish the wicked and unbelieving, — and at last to take to Himself a kingdom over all the world, and put down every enemy under His feet. These are the " all things" of which John speaks. Christ, he would have us know, has the keys of death and hell in His hand, and to Him a' one men must go, if they want anything for their souls.

In this verse John the Baptist concludes his testimony to Christ, by a solemn declaration of the unspeakable importance of believing on Him. Whether his disciples would receive it or not," he tells them that life or death, heaven or hell, all turned on believing in this Jesus who had " been with him beyond Jordan."

The excellence of faith should be noted here. Like his divine Master, John teaches that " believing on the Son," is the principal thing in saving religion. Believing is the way to heaven, and not believing the way to hell.

The " presentness" of the salvation which is in Christ should be here noted. Again, like his divine Master, John teaches that a believer " hath" everlasting life. Pardon, peace, and a title to heaven are at once and immediately a man's possession, the very moment that he lays his sins on Jesus, and puts his trust in Him.

This concluding sentence of John the Baptist's testimony, is again very like his Master's teaching, " He that believeth not is condemned already." The meaning of the sentence is, that so long as a man is not a believer in Christ, the just wrath of God hangs over him, and he is under the curse of God's broken law. We are all by nature born in sin, and children of wrath; and our sins are all upon us, unpardoned, unforgiven, and untaken away, until that day when we believe on the Son of God and are made children of grace.

We should observe, for another thing, in this passage, what is said about our Lord's human nature. We read that Jesus was " weaned with his journey."

We learn from this, as well as many other expressions in the Gospels, that our Lord had a body exactly like our own. When " the Word became flesh," He took on Him a nature like our own in all things, sin only excepted. Like ourselves. He grew from infancy to youth, and from youth to man's estate. Like ourselves. He hungered, thirsted, felt pain, and needed sleep. He was liable to every sinless infirmity to which we are liable. In all things His body was framed like our own.

The connection between this chapter and the last will be found at the 25th verse of the last chapter. The controversy between John's disciples and the Jews was the means of calling public attention to our Lord's ministry. It became a subject of common conversation, and attracted the notice of the principal religious teachers of the Jews, viz., the Pharisees. They had already been disturbed by the ministry of John the Baptist, and the crowds which attended it. (John i. 19—28.) The deputation which they sent to John had been distinctly told by him that One greater than himself was about to appear. When therefore " the Pharisees heard" mat Jesus was actually baptizing more disciples, and attracting more attention than John, we can well imagine that their minds would be even more disturbed than before. A vague uncomfortable feeling would arise in their hearts, that this mysterious person, who had cast out of the temple the buyers and sellers in so miraculous a manner, and was now baptizing so many disciples, might possibly be -the Christ. And then would come the attendant feeling, that if this was the Christ, He was not the Christ they either expected or wanted. The result of both feelings would probably be a bitter enmity against our Lord, and a secret determination, if possible, to settle all doubts by putting Him to death.

In what manner our Lord "knew" what the Pharisees had heard, we need not be careful to inquire. Possibly He knew it from information obtained by His disciples. We can hardly doubt that some of them kept up intercourse with their old master, John the Baptist, and so learned what was going on at ^non. — It is more probable that He knew it from His omniscience as God. We are frequently told that " He knew the thoughts " of His enemies, and acted and spoke accordingly. It is good for us all to remember that nothing is spoken, talked of, or reported among men, however secretly, which Christ does not know.

The fact that our Lord did not actually administer baptism with His own hands, is only mentioned here in the Gospels, and is noteworthy. It shows, at any rate, that what is done by Christ's ministers, at Christ's command, in the administration of ordinances, is regarded as done by Christ Himself. The preceding verse says that " Jesus baptized," while the present one says, that He " baptized not." Lightfoot remarks, "It is ordinary, bath in Scripture phrase and in other language, to speak of a thing as done by a man himself, which is done by another at his appointment. So Pharaoh's daughter is said to 'nurse Moses,' and Solomon is said to 'build the temple and his own house.' So David ' took Saul's spear and cruse,' meaning Abishai by David's appointment," (1 Sam, xxvi. 12.)

To these reasons we may add another of considerable importance. Oar Lord would show us that the effect and benefit of baptism do not depend on the person who administers it. We cannot doubt that Judas Iscariot baptized some. The intention of the minister does not affect the validity of the sacrament.

One thing seems abundantly clear, and that is, that baptism is not an ordinance of primary, but of subordinate importance in Christianity. The high-flown and extravagant language used by some divines about the sacrament of baptism and its effects, is quite irreconcilable with the text before us, as well as with the general teaching of Scripture. (See Acts x. 48; 1 Cor. i. 17.)

The context of the preceding verses seems to show that this movement was intended to avoid the designs of the Pharisees against our Lord. If he had remained in Judaea, He would have been cut off, and pat to death before the appointed time. He therefore withdrew into the province of Galilee, where He was further off from Jerusalem, and where His ministry would attract less public notice.

Our Lord's conduct on this occasion shows us that it is not obligatory on a Christian to await danger to life and person, when he sees it coming, and that it is not cowardice to use ai' reasonable means to avoid it. We are not to court martyrdom, or needlessly to throw our lives away. There is a time for all things, — a time to live and work, as well as a time to suffer and to die. Whether some of the primitive martyrs would have acted as our Lord did here may be questioned. Their zeal for martyrdom seems sometimes to have partaken of the character of fanaticism.

Many pious and profitable remarks have been made on this expression. It has been thought to teach that our Lord went purposely, and out of the regular road, in order to save the soul of the Samaritan woman. It admits of grave question whether this opinion is well-founded. — There was no other way by which a person could conveniently go from Judaea to Galilee, excepting through Samaria. — The" expression, therefore, is probably nothing more than a natural introduction to the story of the Samaritan woman. The first in the train of circumstances which led to her conversion, was the circumstance that Jesus was obliged to pass through Samaria, on His journey towards Galilee. This accounted for His meeting with a Samaritan woman.

The common opinion is, that the city here spoken of is the same as Sichem or Shechem. (Gen. xxxiii. 18, 19.) Few places in Palestine, after Jerusalem, have had so much of Bible history connected with them. Here God first appeared to Abraham. (Gen. xii. 6.) Here Jacob dwelt when he first returned from Padan-aram, and here the disgraceful history of Dinah, and the consequent murder (-f the Shechemites took place. (Gen. xxxiv. 2, &c.) Here Joseph's brethren fed their flocks when Jacob sent him to them, little thinking he would never see him again for many years. (Gen. xxxvii. 12.) Here, when Israel took possess' on of the land of Canaan, was one of the cities of refuge. (Josh. xx. 7,8.) Here Joshua gathered all the tribes when he addressed them for the last time. (Josh, xxiv 1.) Here the bones of Joseph were buried, and all the patriarchs were interred. (Josh. xxiv. 32 ; Acts, vii. 16.) Here the principal events in the history of Abimelech took place. (Judges ix. 1, &c.) Here Rehoboam met the tribes of Israel after Solomon's death, and gave the answer which rent his kingdom in two. (1 Kings, xii. 1.) Here Jeroboam first dwelt, when he was made king of Israel. (1 Kings xii. 25.) And finally, close by Shechem was the city of Samaria itself, and the two hills of Ebal and Gerizim, where the solemn blessings and cursings were recited, after Israel entered Canaan. (Josh. viii. 33.) A more interesting neighbourhood it is difficult to imagine. Whichever way the eye of a wearied traveller looked, he would see something to remind him of Israel's history.

The ground here spoken of seems to consist of two parts. One part was bought by Jacob of Hamor, Shechem's father, for a hundred pieces of silver. (Gen. xxxiii. 29.) The other seems to have been his by conquest, when his sons slew the Shechemites for dishonouring Dinah. (Gen. xxxiv. 28, and xlviii. 22.)

Let it be carefully noted that St. John here speaks of Jacob and Joseph and the events of their lives, as if the history contained in Genesis was all simple matter of fact. It is always so in the New Testament. The modern theory, that the histories of the Old Testament are only fables, destitute of any foundation in fact, is a mere baseless invention, without a single respectable argument to be adduced in its favour.

It is not known how or when this well received its name. In Genesis we find mention of Abraham and Isaac digging wells, but not of Jacob doing so. All we know about it is what we read in the chapter before us,

A well called Jacob's well is still shown to all travellers in Palestine, near the ruins of Shechem, and is commonly supposed to be one of the oldest and most genuine remains of ancient times in the Holy Land. In fact there seems no reason for disputing the common belief, that it is the very identical well at which our Lord sat and held the conversation recorded in this chapter. It is in good preservation, and about thirty yards deep,

This expression deserves notice. It shows the reality of our Lord's human nature. He had a body like our own, subject to all the conditions of flesh and blood. — It shows our Lord's infinite compassion, humility, and condescension, when He became flesh, and came on earth to live and die for our sins. Though He was rich He became poor. He who had made the world, and whose were "the cattle on a thousand hills," was content to be a weary traveller on foot, in order to provide eternal redemption for us. We never read of Jesus travelling in a carriage, and only once of His riding on a beast. — It supplies the poor with the strongest argument for contentment. If Christ was willing to be poor, we may surely be willing to submit to poverty. Men need not be ashamed of poverty, if they have not brought it on themselves by misconduct. It is disgraceful to be profligate and immoral. But it is no sin to be poor. — Finally, it shows believers what a sympathizing Saviour Christ is. He knows what it is to have a weak and weary body. He can be touched with the feeling of our infirmities. When our work wearies us, though we are not weary of our work, we may confidently tell Jesus, and ask Him for help. He knows the heart of a weary man.

What time of the day was this, according to our calculation of time ? — By far the most common opinion is, that the sixth hour here means twelve o'clock, the hottest and sultriest time of the day. It is notorious that the Jewish day began at six o'clock in the evening. Our seven o'clock was their one o'clock, and their sixth hour would be our twelve o'clock.

It is however only just and right to say, that some commentators, as Wordsworth and Burgon, maintain strongly that in St. John's Gospel the Jewish mode of reckoning the hours of the day is not observed. They say that, writing later than the other Evangelists, and in Asia Minor, St. John uses the Roman or Asiatic mode of reckoning time, and that the Roman mode was like our own. They say, therefore, that when the disciples followed Jesus, (John i. 39,) at the tenth hour, it was ten o'clock in the morning, and when the fever left the ruler's son at the seventh hour, it was seven o'clock in the evening. (John iv. 52.) They say that when Pilate brought forth Jesus to the Jews, on the day of the crucifixion, at the sixth hour, (John xix. 14,) it was six o'clock in the morning. And finally, they say that when Jesus, in the passage before us, sat wearied on the well at the sixth hour, it means six o'clock in the evening. Moreover, they plead in support of their view, that it is inhn't ly more likely that a woman would come to a well to draw water at six o'clock in the evening than at twelve o'clock in the day. In Genesis it is distinctly said that the "evening" is the " time that women go out to draw water." (Gen. xxiv. 11.)

We should mark, secondly, Christ's readiness to give mercies to careless sinners. He tells the Samaritan woman that if she had asked, " He would have given her living water." He knew the character of the person before Him perfectly well. Yet He says, "If she had asked, He would have given," — He would have given the living water of grace, mercy, and peace.

The infinite willingness of Christ to receive sinners is a golden truth, which ought to be treasured up in our hearts, and diligently impressed on others. The Lord Jesus is far more ready to hear than we are to pray, and far more ready to give favours than we are to ask them. All day long He stretches out His hands to the disobedient and gainsaying. He has thoughts of pity and compassion towards the vilest of sinners, even when they have no thoughts of Him. He stands waiting to bestow mercy and grace on the worst and most unworthy, if they will only cry to Him. He will never draw back from that well-known promise, "Ask and ye shall receive: seek and ye shall find." The lost will discover at the last day, that they had not because they asked not.

In leaving the whole passage, there are several striking points which ought never to be forgotten. (a.) Our Lord's mercy is remarkable. That such an one as He should deal so graciously with such a sinner is a striking fact. (b.) Our Lord's wisdom is remarkable. How wise was every step of His way in dealing with this sinful soul! (c.) Our Lord's patience is remarkable. How He bore with the woman's ignorance, and what trouble He took to lead her to knowledge ! (d) Our Lord's power is remarkable. What a complete victory He won at last! How almighty must that grace be which could soften and convert such a carnal and wicked heart!

We must never despise any soul, after reading this passage. None can be worse than this woman. But Christ did not despise her.

We must never despair of any soul, after reading this passage. If this woman was converted, any one may be converted.

Finally, we must never contemn the use of all wise and reasonable means in dealing with souls. There is a " wisdom which is profitable to direct " in approaching ignorant and ungodly people, which must be diligently sought.

The scarcity of water in the hot climates of the East makes drawing water from the nearest well an important part of the daily business of an Eastern household. We learn from other parts of Scripture that it was a work ordinarily done by women. (G-en. xxiv. 11. 1 Sam. ix. 11.) A well became naturally a common meeting-place for the inhabitants ol a neighbourhood, and especially for the young people. (Judges v. 11.) The insinuation, however, of some writers, as Schottgen, that the Samaritan woman's motives in coming to the well were possibly immoral, seems destitute of any foundation. Bad as her moral character evidently was, we have no right to heap upon her more blame than is warranted by facts.

In this simple request of our Lord there are four things deserving notice, (a.) It was a gracious act of spiritual aggression on a sinner. He did not wait for the woman to speak to Him, but was the first to begin conversation. (b.) It was an act of marvellous condescension. He by whom all things were made, the Creator of fountains, brooks, and rivers, is not ashamed to ask a draught of water from the hand of one of his sinful creatures, (c.) It was an act full of wisdom and prudence. He does not at once force religion on the attention of the woman, and rebuke her for her sins. He begins with a subject apparently indifferent, and yet one of which the woman's mind was doubtless full. He asks her for water, (d.) It was an act full of the nicest tact, and exhibiting perfect knowledge of the human mind. He asks a favour, and puts Himself under an obligation. No line of proceeding, it is well known to all wise people, would be more likely to conciliate the woman's feelings towards Him, and to make her willing to hear His teaching. Simple as the request was, it contains principles which deserve the closest attention of all who desire to do good to ignorant and thoughtless sinners.

This verse is an instance of our Lord's general rule not to work a miracle in order to supply his own wants. He who could feed five thousand with a few loaves and fishes when He willed, was content to buy food, like any other man. — It is an instance of His lowly-mindedness. The Creator of all things, though rich, for our sakes became poor. — It ought to teach Christians that they are not meant to be so spiritual as to neglect the management of money, and a reasonable use of it for the supply of their wants. God could feed His children, as He fed Elijah, by a daily miracle. But He knows it is better for our souls, and more likely to call grace into exercise, not to feed them so, but to make them think, and use means. There is no real spirituality in being careless about money. Jesus Himself allowed His disciples to " buy."

This question implies that the woman was surprised at our Lord speaking to her. It was an unexpected act of condescension on His part, and as such arrested her attention. Thus one point, at any rate, was gained. It is a great matter if we can only get a careless sinner to give us a quiet hearing. We shall soon see how our Lord improved the opportunity.

How the woman knew our Lord to be a Jew, is matter of conjecture. Some think that she knew it by the dialect that He spoke. Some think that she knew it by the fringe upon His dress, which he probably wore, in conformity to the Mosaic law, (Num. XT 38, 39,) and which the Samaritans very likely neglected. One thing is very clear. There was nothing in our Lord's personal appearance, when He was a man upon earth, to distinguish Him from any other Jewish traveller who might have been found sitting at a well. There was nothing eccentric or peculiar about his dress. He looked like other men.

This sentence is generally thought, with much reason, to be the explanatory comment of St. John, and not the words of the Samaritan woman. It certainly seems more natural to take it so. The sentence should then be read as a parenthesis. Calvin thinks it is the woman's words, but his reasons are not convincing.

The enmity between the Jews and Samaritans, here referred to, no doubt originated in the separation of the ten tribes under Jeroboam, and the establishment of the kingdom of Israel. It was exceedingly increased after the ten tribes were carried into captivity by the Assyrians, by the fact that the Samaritans became mingled with foreigners, whom the king of Assyria sent to Samaria from Babylon and other places, and so lost their right to be called pure Jews. (2 Kings xvii. 1, &c.) It was further aggravated by the opposition which the inhabitants of Samaria made to the re-building of Jerusalem, after the return from the captivity of Babylon, in the days of Ezra. (Ezra iy. 10, &c.) In the days of our Lord the Jews seem to have gone into the extreme of regarding the Samaritans as entirely foreigners, and aliens from the commonwealth of Israel. When they told our Lord that He was " a Samaritan and had a devil," they meant the expression to convey the bitterest scorn and reproach. (John viii. 48.) It is clear, however, from the conversation in th's chapter, that the Samaritans, however mistaken on many points, were not ignorant heathens. They regarded themselves as descended from Jacob. They had a kind of Old Testament religion. They expected the coming of Messias.

In this verse our Lord proceeds to use the opportunity which the woman's question affords Him. He passes over for the present her expression of surprise at a Jew speaking to a Samaritan. He begins by exciting her curiosity and raising her expectations, by speaking of something within her reach which He calls " living water." The first step to take with a careless sinner after his attention has been arrested, is to produce on his mind the impression that we can tell him of something to his advantage within his reach. There is a certain vagueness in our Lord's words which exhibit His consummate wisdom. A systematic statement of doctrinal truth would have been thrown away at this stage of the woman's feeling. The general and figurative language which our Lord employed, was exactly calculated to arouse her imagination, and to lead her on to further inquiry.

Of these four views the last seems to me, on the whole, the most probable and satisfactory. The first sounds strange and unlike the usual teaching of Scripture. " If thou knewest the Holy Spirit, thou wouldst have asked," is an expression we can hardly expect at this period of our Lord's ministry, when the mission of the Comforter had not yet been explained. — The second view seems hardly more natural than the first. — The third view is undoubtedly recommended by the fact that Christ is frequently spoken of as God's great gift to the world. If the woman had really known anything aright about Messiah, and had known that He was before her, she would have asked of Him living water. Nevertheless, it is a strong objection to this view, that it makes our Lord apparently say the same thing twice over. " If thou knewest Christ, and that it is Christ who speaks."

The meaning of this expression, like "the gift of God," is variously explained. Some, as Calovius and Chemnitius, seem to think it means the doctrine of God's mercy, pardon, cleansing, and justification. Others, as Chrysostom, Augustine, Cyril, Theophylact, Calvin, Beza, Gualter, Musculus, and Ferus, think it means the Holy Spirit, renewing, and sanctification.

I doubt whether either view is quite correct. I am inclined, with Bullinger and Rollock, to regard the expression as a general figurative description of everything which it is Christ's office to bestow on the soul of man, — pardon, peace, mercy, grace, justification, and sanctification. As water is cleansing, purifying, cooling, refreshing, thirst-satisfying to man's body, so are Christ's gifts to thei soul. I think everything that a sinful soul needs is purposely included under the general words, " living water." It comprises not only the justifying " blood which cleanses from all sin," but the sanctifying grace of the Spirit, by which we " cleanse ourselves from all filthiness,"— not only the inward peace which is the result of pardon, but the sense of inward comfort, which is the companion of renewal of hearts.

The words of the woman in this and the folk wing verse, imply surprise, curiosity, and perhaps a slight sneer. At any rate they show that her attention was arrested. A strange Jew at a well suddenly speaks to her about "living water." What could He mean? Was He in earnest or not? With a woman's curiosity she desires to know.

[Sir.] The Greek word so rendered is generally translated "Lord" This leads some, as Chrysostom, to think, that the woman's heart was so far impressed now, that she purposely used a term of respect and reverence. We must not, however, lay too much stress on the word. It is certainly translated "Sir," in other places, where inferiors speak to superiors Matt, xiii 27; xxi. 30; xxvii. 63. John iv. 49; v. 7 ; xii. 21; xx. 15. Rev, vii. 14. Yet it is difficult to see what other word the woman could have used in addressing a strange man, without rudeness and discourtesy.

The Greek expression here is simply a substantive, meaning " an instrument for drawing water." What it was we are left to conjecture. Schleusner suggests from Nonnus that it must mean a cup fastened to a rope.

[The well is deep.] These words, according to the universal testimony of travellers at this day, are still literally true. The well is at least thirty yards deep, and to a person not provided with a rope, as the woman doubtless saw was our Lord's case, the water would be inaccessible.

Let it be noted that the woman carefully claimed relationship with Jacob, and called him our father, though after all the intermixture of the Samaritans with heathen nations, the relationship was not very easy of proof. But it is common to find people shutting their eyes to difficulties, when they want to prove a connection or relationship. The advocates of an extreme view of apostolical succession seldom condescend to notice difficulties when they assert that episcopally ordained ministers can trace their order up to the apostles.

When it says that "Jacob gave" the well, there is probably a reference to the grant which Jacob made to his son Joseph of the district near the well. From Joseph came the tribe of Ephraim, to which, no doubt, the Samaritan woman claimed to belong. (Qen xlviii. 22.)

In this and the following verse our Lord proceeds to raise the desires of the woman by exalting the value of the living water of which He had spoken. He still refrains from distinct statements of doctrinal truth. He still adheres to the figurative expression, " water." And yet He makes an advance, and leads on the woman gently and almost imperceptibly to glorious spiritual things. Now, for the first time, He begins to speak of " everlasting life."

[Whosoever drinketh....this water.. ..thirst again.] It will be noted, that our Lord does not answer the woman's questions directly. He keeps steadily to the one point He desires to fasten on her mind, viz.: the infinite excellence of a certain "living water " which He had to give. And first He reminds her of what she knew well by laborious experience. The water of Jacob's well might be good and plentiful. But still he who drank of it was only satisfied for a few hours. He soon thirsted again.

These words contain a precious promise, and declare a glorious truth of the Gospel. The benefits of Christ's gifts are promised to every one who is willing to receive them, whosoever and whatsoever he may be. He may have been as bad .'is the Samaritan woman. But the promise is for him as well as for her, "whosoever drinketh, shall never thirst." — The declaration " shall never thirst" does not mean, " shall never feel any spiritual want at all." It simply asserts the abiding and enduring nature of the benefits which Christ gives. He that drinks of the living water which Christ gives, shall never entirely and completely lose the cleansing, purifying, and soulrefreshing effects which it produces.

Our English translation of this sentence hardly gives the full sense of the Greek. Literally rendered, it would be, " shall never thirst unto eternity." The same expression is used frequently hi St. John's Gospel. See John vi. 51 — 58; viii. 51; x. 28; xi. 26; xiv. 16.

To see the full meaning of this figurative sentence, it must be paraphrased. The meaning seems to be something of this kind. " The gift of grace, mercy, and peace which I am ready to give, shall be in the heart of him who receives it an everflowing source of comfort, satisfaction, and spiritual refreshment, continuing and flowing on, not only through this life, but unto life eternal He that receives my gift of living water has a fountain opened in his soul of spiritual satisfaction, which shall neither be dried up in this life or the life to come, but shall flow on to all eternity."

Let it be noted that the whole verse is a strong argument in favour of the doctrine of the perpetuity of grace, and the consequent perseverance in the faith of believers. It is difficult to understand how the Arminian doctrine of the possibility of believers completely falling away, and being lost, can be reconciled with any natural interpretation of this verse.

In this verse, I think, we see the first sparks of good in the woman's soul. Our Lord's words aroused a desire in her heart for this living water of which He had spoken. She does what our Lord said she ought to have done at first. She "asks" Him to give her the water.

I venture to think that none of these three views is quite correct. The true motive of the request was probably a vague feeling of desire that the woman herself could hardly have defined. It is useless to analyze and scrutinize too closely the first languid and imperfect desires that arise in souls when the Spirit begins His work of conversion. It is folly to say that the first movings of a heart towards God must be free from all imperfect motives and all mixture of infirmity. The woman's motives in saying "Give me this water," were probably mixed and indefinite Material water was not out of her thoughts, and yet she had probably some desires after everlasting life. Enough for us. to know, that she asked and received, she sought and found. Our great aim must be to persuade sinners to apply to Jesus, and to say to Him, " Give me to drink." If we forbid them to ask anything until they can prove that they ask in a perfect spirit, we should do no good at all. It would be as foolish to scrutinize the grammatical construction of an infant's cries, as to analyze the precise motives of a soul's first breathings after God. If it breathes at all and says, " Give," we ought to be thankful.

This verse begins an entirely new stage in the history of the woman's conversion. From this point we hear no more of " living water." Figurative language is dropped entirely. Our Lord's words become direct, personal, and plain. The woman had asked at last for " living water." At once our Lord proceeds to give it to her.

Our Lord's reasons for bidding the woman to call her husband, have been variously interpreted. Some think that he only meant her to understand that He had spoken long enough to her, a solitary woman; and that before He proceeded further, she must call her husband to be a witness of the conversation, and to partake of the benefits He was going to confer. This seems the view of Chrysostom and Theophylact. — Others think, with far more probability, in my judgment, that our Lord's main object in naming the woman's husband, was to produce in her mind conviction of sin, and to show her His own divine knowledge of all things. He knew that she had no husband, and He purposely named him in order to touch her conscience. He always knew the thoughts of those to whom He spoke ; and He knew in the present case, what the effect of His words would be. It would bring to light the woman's besetting sin. — It is as though He said, " Thou dost ask me for living water. Thou dost at last express a desire for that great spiritual gift which I am able to bestow. Well,- then, I begin by bidding thee know thyself and thy sinfulness. I will show thee that I know thy spiritual disease, and can lay my finger on the most dangerous ailment of thy soul. Go, call thy husband, and come hither."

These words were an honest and truthful confession, so far as they went. Whether the woman wished it to be supposed that she was a widow, it would perhaps be hardly fair to inquire. Theophylact and Euthymius suggest that she did wish to deceive our Lord. The way in which our Lord receives her declaration, makes it probable that she did not profess to be a widow, and very likely her dress showed that she was not. In this point of view the honesty of her confession is noteworthy. There is always more hope of one who honestly and bluntly confesses sin, than of a smooth-tongued hypocrite.

[Jesus said.. .thou hast well said...husband.] Our Lord's commendation of the woman's honest confession deserves notice. It teaches ns that we should make the best of an ignorant sinner's words. An unskilful physician of souls would probably have rebuked the woman sharply for her wickedness, if her words led him to suspect it. Our Lord on the contrary says, " Thou hast well said."

Many foolish and unseemly things have been written about this sentence, which it is not worth while to bring forward. Of course it is utterly improbable that the woman had lost five husbands by death, and had been five times a widow. The more likely explanation is that she had been divorced and put away by several husbands in succession. Divorces were notoriously common among the Jews, and in all probability among the Samaritans, for very trivial causes. In the case, however, of the woman before us, the second clause of the verse before us makes it likely that she had been justly divorced for adultery.

There is a kindness very worthy of notice in these words. Wicked and abandoned as this Samaritan woman was, our Lord deals gently and kindly with her, and twice in one breath commends her confession: " Thou hast well said. — In that thou saidst truly." Kindness of manner like this will always be found a mo-it important point in dealing Avith the ungodly. Scolding and sharp rebuke, however well-deserved, have a tendency to harden and shut up hearts, and to make people bolt their doors. Kindness, on the contrary, wins, softens, conciliates, and disarms prejudice. An unskilful soul-physician would probably have ended his sentence by saying, " Thou art a wicked woman ; and if thou dost not repent, thou wilt be lost." All this would have been true no doubt. But how different our Lord's grave and gentle remark, " Thou saidst truly I"

I think we see in this verse a great change in the Samaritan woman's mind. She evidently confesses the entire truth of what our Lord had just said, and turns to Him as an anxious inquirer about her soul. It is as though she said, "I perceive at last that thou art indeed no common person. Thou hast told me what thou couldst not have known, if thou wert not a prophet sent from God. Thou hast exposed sins which I cannot deny, and aroused spiritual concern which I would now fain have relieved. Now give me instruction."

Let it be noted that the thing which first struck the Samaritan woman, and made her call Jesus " a prophet," was the same that struck Nathanael, viz., our Lord's perfect knowledge. — To call our Lord " a prophet " at first sight may seem not much. But it must be remembered that even after His resurrection, the two disciples going to Emmaus, only described Jesus as a "prophet mighty in deed and word." (Luke xxiv. 19.) A clear knowledge of the divine nature of Messiah seems to have been one of the points on which almost the whole Jewish nation was ignorant. Et en the learned Scribes could not explain how Messiah was to be David's Lord and also David's Son. (Mark xii. 37.)

To see the full drift of this verse, we must carefully remember the state of the Samaritan woman's mind at this moment. I think that she spoke under spiritual anxiety. She was alarmed by having her sins suddenly exposed. She found herself for the first time in the presence of a prophet. She felt for the first time the necessity of religion. But at once the old question between the Jews and Samaritans arose before her mind. How was she to know what was truth ? What was she to believe ? Her own people said that the Samaritan mode of worshipping God was correct. The Jews said that Jerusalem was the only pace where men ought to worship. Between these two conflicting opinions what was she to do ?

When the woman spoke of "this mountain," she doubtless meant the hill on which the rival temple of Samaria was built, to the bitter annoyance of the Jerusalem Jews. It is said that this temple was first built in the days of Nehemiah by Sanballat, and that his son-in-law, the son of Joiada, whom Nehemiah " chased from him," was its first high-priest. (Neh. xiii. 29.) Some have gone so far as to maintain that the hill Gerizim at Samaria was the hill on which Abraham offered up Isaac, and that the words of the woman refer to this. The more common opinion is that Mount Moriah at Jerusalem was the place.

Our Lord here declares that under the Gospel there was to be no more distinction of places like Jerusalem. The old dispensation under which men were bound to go up to Jerusalem three times a year, to attend the feasts and worship in the temple, was about to pass away. All questions about the superior sanctity of Samaria or Jerusalem would soon be at an end. A church was about to be founded, whose members would find access to the Father everywhere, and would need no temple-service, and no priests or sacrifices or altars in order to approach God. Ir was therefore mere waste of time to be disputing about the comparative claims of either Samaria or Jerusalem. Under the Gospel all places would soon be alike.

The utter passing away of the whole Jewish system seems clearly pointed at in this verse. To bring into the Christian Church holy places, sanctuaries, altars, priests, sacrifices, gorgeous vestments, and the like, is to dig up that which has been long buried, and to turn to candles for light under the noon-day sun. The favourite theory of the Irvingites that we ought as far as possible in our public worship, to copy the Jewish temple services and ceremonial, seems incapable of reconciliation with this verse.

In this verse our Lord unhesitatingly condemns the religious system of the Samaritans, as compared with that of the Jews. The Samaritans could show no Scriptural authority, no revelation of God, commanding and sanctioning their worship. Whatever it was, it was purely an invention of man, which God had never formally authorized or accredited. They had no warrant for believing that it was accepted. They had no right to feel sure that their prayers, praises, and offerings were received. In short, all was uncertainty. They were practically worshipping an "unknown God."

Our Lord here declares that God's promises of a Saviour and Redeemer specially belong to the Jerusalem Jews. They were the descendants of the tribe of Judah, and to them belonged the house and lineage of David. On this point at any rate the Samaritans had no right whatever to claim equality with 'the Jews. Granting that the Samaritans had any right to be called Israelites, they were of the tribe of Ephraim, from which it was nowhere said that Messiah should spring. And in truth the Samaritans were of such mixed origin, that they had no right to be called Israelites at all.

I believe with Olshausen, that " salvation," in this verse, was really intended to mean " the Saviour" Himself. The use of the article in the Greek is striking. It is literally " the salvation." Does not the saying to Zacchaeus point the same way? " This day is salvation come to this house." (Luke xix. 9.)

These words mean that the times of the Gospel approach, and indeed have already begun. "They have begun by the preaching of the kingdom of God. They will be fully brought in by my death and ascension, and the establishment of the New Testament church."

[True worshippers ..worship. ..spirit and.. .truth.] Our Lord here declares who alone would be considered true worshippers in the coming dispensation of the Gospel. They would not be merely those who worshipped in this place or in that place. They would not be exclusively Jews, or exclusively Gentiles, or exclusively Samaritans. The external part of the worship would be of no value compared to the internal state of the worshippers. They only would be counted true worshippers who worshipped in spirit and in truth.

The words "in spirit and in truth" are variously interpreted, and much has been written about them, I believe the simplest explanation to be this. The word " spirit" must not be taken to mean the Holy Spirit, but the intellectual or mental part of man in contradistinction to the material or carnal part of man. This distinction is clearly marked in 1 Cor. vii. 34, "Holy in body and in spirit." — " Worship in spirit" is heart-worship in contradistinction to all formal, material, carnal worship, consisting only of ceremonies, offerings, sacrifices, and the like. When a Jew offered a formal meat-offering, with his heart far away, it was worship after the flesh. When David offered in prayer a broken and a contrite heart, it was worship in spirit. — " Worship in truth," means worship through the one true way of access to God, without the medium of the sacrifices or priesthood, which were ordained till Christ died on the cross. When the veil was rent, and the way into the holiest made manifest by Christ's death, then, and not till then, men "worshipped in truth." Before Christ, they worshipped through types, and shadows, and figures, and emblems. After Christ they worshipped in truth. — Spirit is opposed to " flesh ;" truth to "shadow." " Spirit," in short, is heart-service, contrasted with lip worship and formal devotion. " Truth" is the full light of the Christian dispensation contrasted with the twilight of the law of Moses.

This is a remarkable sentence. I believe it to mean that " the hour is come, in which the Father has ordained from eternity that He will gather out of the world a company of true and spiritual worshippers. He is even now seeking out and gathering in such worshippers." — The expression " seeketh" is peculiar. There is something like it in the sentence, "The Son of man is come to seek and to save that which is lost." (Luke xix. 10.) It seems to show the exceeding compassion of the Father, and His infinite willingness to save souls. He does not merely wait for men to come to Him. He ''seeks" for them. — It also shows the wide opening of God the Father's mercy under the Gospel. He no longer confines His grace to the Jews. He now seeks and desires to gather in everywhere true worshippers out of every ration.

The clause appears to me specially intended to encourage the Samaritan woman. Let her not trouble herself with difficulties about the comparative claims of the Samaritan and Jewish systems. Was she willing to be a spiritual worshipper ? That was the one question which deserved her attention.

Our Lord here declares to the Samaritan woman the true nature of God. Let her cease to think that God was such an one as man, and that He could not be found, or approached, or addressed, like a mere earthly monarch, except at one particular place. Let her learn to have higher, nobler, and more exalted views of the Being with whom sinners have to do. Let her know this day that God was a Spirit.

The declaration before us is one of the most lofty and definite sayings about God's nature which is to be found in the whole Bible. That such a declaration should have been made to such a person as the Samaritan woman is a wonderful instance of Christ's condescension! To define precisely the full meaning of the expression is past man's understanding. The leading idea most probably is, that "God is an immaterial being, that He dwelleth not in temples made with hands, and that He is not, like ourselves, therefore, absent from one place when He is present at another." These things are all true, but how little we can realize them 1

Our Lord draws this broad conclusion from the statement of God's nature which He has just made. If " God is a Spirit" it behoves those who would worship Him acceptably, to worship in spirit and in truth. It is unreasonable to suppose that He can like any worship which does not come from the heart, or can be so well pleased with worship which is offered through types and ceremonies, as with worship offered through the true way which He has provided, and is now revealing.

The importance of the great principle laid down in this and the preceding verse, can never be overrated. Any religious teaching which tends to depreciate heart-worship, and to turn Christianity into a mere formal service, or which tends to bring back Jewish shadows, ceremonies, and services, and to introduce them into Christian worship, is on the face of these remarkable verses most unscriptural and deserving of reprobation.

This verse is an interesting one. It shows the woman at last brought to the very state of mind in which she would be prepared to welcome a revelation of Christ. She had been told of " living water," and had expressed a desire for it. She had been told her own sin, and had been unable to deny it. She had been told the uselessness of resting on any formal membership of the Samaritan Church, and the necessity of spiritual and heart-worship of God. And now what can she say ? It is all true, she feels, — she cannot gainsay it. But what can she do? To whom is she to go? Whose teaching can she follow? All she can do is to say that " she knows Messias is one day coming, and that He will make all things clear and plain." It is evident that she wishes for Him. She is uncomfortable and sees no relief for her newlyraised perplexities, unless Messias should appear.

The mention of Messias in this verse, makes it clear that the Samaritans were not altogether ignorant of the Old Testament, and that there was an expectation of a Redeemer of some kind among them, as well as among the Jews. The existence of a general expectation of this sort throughout the East, at the time when our Lord appeared on earth, is a fact to which even heathen writers have testified.

When the woman says, "He will tell us all things," we must probably not inquire too closely into what she meant. It is very likely that she had only a vague feeling that Messias would remove all doubts and show all things needful to salvation.

These words are the fullest declaration which our Lord ever made of His own Messiahship, which the Gospel writers have recorded. That such a full declaration should be made to such a person as the Samaritan woman is one of the most wonderful instances of our Lord's grace and condescension related in the New Testament! At last the woman obtained an answer to one of her first questions, "Art thou greater than our father Jacob ? " When the answer came it completely converted her soul.

Rollock remarks on this verse, how ready and willing Christ is to reveal Himself to a sinner's soul. The very moment that this woman expressed any desire for Messiah, He at once revealed Himself to her— "I am He."

We see, lastly, in this passage, how zealous a truly converted person is to do good to others. We are told that the Samaritan woman " went into the city, and said to the men, Come, see a man which told me all things that ever I did : is not this the Christ ?" In the day of her conversion she became a missionary. She felt so deeply the amazing benefit she had received from Christ, that she could not hold her peace about Him. Just as Andrew told his brother Peter about Jesus, and Philip told Nathanael that he had found Messiah, and Saul, when converted, straightway preached Christ, so, in the same way, the Samaritan woman said, "Come and see Christ." She used no abstruse arguments. She attempted no deep reasoning about our Lord's claim to be the Messiah. She only said, " Come and see." Out of the abundance of her heart her mouth spoke.

That which the Samaritan woman here did, all true Christians ought to do likewise. The Church needs it. The state of the world demands it. Common sense points out that it is right. Every one who has received the grace of God, and tasted that Christ is gracious, ought to find words to testify of Christ to others. Where is our faith, if we believe that souls around us are perishing, and that Christ alone can save them, and yet hold our peace? Where is our charity if we can see others going down to hell, and yet say nothing to them about Christ and salvation? — We may well doubt our own love to Christ, if our hearts are never moved to speak of Him. We may well doubt the safety of our own souls, if we feel no concern about the souls of others.

The true idea contained in this expression seems to be, "At this point, at this critical juncture in the conversation between our Lord and the woman." — What the woman would have said next after our Lord's marvellous discovery of Himself, we are left to conjecture. But just as our Lord said, ''I am the Messiah," the disciples returned from buying food, and their appearance stopped the conversation. The woman's heart was probably too full, and her mind too much excited to say more in the presence of witnesses, and especially of strangers. Therefore no more was said, and she withdrew. The soul, in the beginning of a work of grace, shrinks from discovering its workings before strangers.

I am inclined to think that these words would have been more correctly rendered, "Talked with a woman." There is no article in "the original Greek. The wonder of the disciples was excited, not so much by our Lord talking to this woman, as by His talking to a woman at all. It is clear from Rabbinical writings, that there was a common opinion among the Jews that both in understanding and religion women were an inferior order of beings to men. This ignorant prejudice had most likely leavened the minds of the disciples, and is probably referred to in this place. Of the woman's moral character it is not clear that the disciples could know anything at all.

The expression, "No man said," seems to imply that no man ventured to ask any question what was our Lord's reason for talking with the woman. It is not very clear why the sentence is introduced. The object probably is, as Cyril and Chrysostom remark, to show us the deep reverence and respect with which the disciples regarded our Lord and all His actions, even at this early period of His ministry. — It also shows us that they sometimes thought things about Him to which they dared not give expression, and saw deeds of His which they could not understand, but were content silently to wonder at them. There is a lesson for us in their conduct. When we cannot understand the reason of our Lord's dealings with souls, let us hold our peace, and try to believe that there are reasons which we shall know one day. A good servant in a great house must do his own duty, and ask no questions. A young student of medicine must take many things on trust.

The Greek word here rendered " water-pot " is the same that is used in the account of the miracle at Cana in Galilee. (John ii. 6.) It does not mean a small drinking-vessel, but a large jar, such as a woman in Eastern countries would carry on her head. We can therefore well understand that if the woman wished to return in haste to the city she would leave her water-pot. So large a vessel could not be carried quickly, whether empty or full.

The mind of the woman in leaving her water-pot seems to me clear and unmistakeable. She was entirely absorbed in the things which she had heard from our Lord's mouth. She was anxious to tell them without delay to her friends and neighbours. She therefore postponed her business of drawing water, for which she had left her house, as a matter of secondary importance, and hurried off to tell others what she had been told. The sentence is deeply instructive.

Lightfoot thinks, beside this, that the woman left her water-pot out of kindness to our Lord, " that Jesus and His disciples might have wherewithal to drink."

[Went her way., city.] The Greek word rendered "went her way," means simply, " departed " or " went." The city must of course mean " Sychar."

The missionary spirit of the woman, in this verse, deserves special notice. Having found Christ herself, she invites others to come and be acquainted with Him. Origen calls her " the apostle of the Samaritans."

Let it be noted that her words are simple in the extreme. She enters into no argument. She only asks the men to " come and see." This, after all, is often the best way of dealing with souls. A bold invitation to come and make trial of the Gospel often produces more effect than the most elaborate arguments in support of its doctrines. Most men do not want their reason convinced so much as their will bent, and their conscience aroused. A simple-minded, hearty, unlearned young disciple will often touch hearts that would hear an abstruse argument without being moved. — This fact is most encouraging to all believers who try to do good. All cannot argue. But all believers may say, " Come and see Christ. If you would only look at Him and see Him, you would soon believe."

These words must be taken with some qualification?. Of course they cannot mean that our Lord had literally told the woman " all things that ever she did in her life." This would have been physically impossible in the space of a single afternoon. — The probable meaning is, "He has told me all the principal sins that I have committed. He has shown a perfect knowledge of the chief events of my life. He has shown such thorough acquaintance with my history, that I doubt not He could have told me anything I ever did."

Some allowance must probably be made for the warm and excited feelings of the woman when she spoke these words. She used hyperbolical and extravagant language, under the influence of these feelings, which she would probably not have used in a calm state of mind, and which we must therefore not judge too strictly. Moreover, as Poole remarks, it admits of doubt whether our Lord may not have spoken of other things in the conversation, which St. John has not been inspired to record.

The Greek words so rendered would be translated with equal correctness, "Is this the Christ? Can this be the Christ?" A similar form of interrogative sentence is found in thirteen other places in the New Testament. In twelve of them the interrogative is used without " not," viz., Matt. vii. 16; xxvi. 22, 26] Mark iv. 21; xiv. 9; Luke vi. 39; John vii. 31 ; viii. 22; xviii. 35; Acts x. 47 ; 2 Cor. i. 17; James iii. 11. — In only one place is the interrogative used with " not," Matt. xii. 23. I am inclined, on the whole, to think that " not" would have been better omitted in the sentence before us. Euthymius takes this view.

Perhaps the sentence would be more literally rendered, " were coming," or " began to come to Him." It was while they were coming that the conversation which immediately follows, between Christ and His disciples, took place, and perhaps it was the sight of the crowd coming which made our Lord say some of the things that He did.

Calvin remarks on this part of the woman's history, that some may think her blameable, in that "while she is still ignorant and imperfectly taught, she goes beyond the limits of her faith. I reply that she would have acted inconsiderately if she had assumed the office of a teacher; but when she desires nothing more than to excite her fellow-citizens to hear Christ speaking, we will not say that she forgot herself, or proceeded further than she had a right to do. She merely does the office of a trumpet or a bell, to invite others to come to Christ."

We have, for another thing, in these verses, strong encouragement held out to those who labour to do good to souls. We read, that our Lord described the world as a "field white for the harvest;" and then f^ aid to His disciples, " He that reapeth, receiveth wages, and gathereth fruit unto life eternal."

Work for the souls of men, is undoubtedly attended by great discouragements. The heart of natural man is very hard and unbelieving. The blindness of most men to their own lost condition and peril of ruin, is something past description. " The carnal mind is enmity against God." (Rom. viii. 7.) No one can have any just idea of the desperate hardness of men and women, until he has tried to do good. No one can have any conception of the small number of those who repent and believe, until he has personally endeavoured to " save some." (1 Cor. ix. 22.) To suppose that everybody will become a true Christian, who is told about Christ, and entreated to believe, is mere childish ignorance. " Few there be that find the narrow way !" The labourer for Christ will find the vast majority of those among whom he labours, unbelieving and impenitent, in spite of all that he can do. "The many" will not turn to Christ. These are discouraging facts. But they are facts, and facts that ought to be known.

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

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

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

The difference between our Lord and His disciples appears here in a striking manner. Their weak minds were preoccupied with the idea of food and bodily sustenance. His heart was filled with the great object of His ministry, " doing good to souls." It is a striking illustration of a difference that may frequently be seen between a believer of great grace and a believer of little grace. The latter, with the best possible intentions, will often attach an importance to bodily and temporal things, with which the strong believer will feel no sympathy.

The meaning of our Lord's words in this verse must evidently be figurative. He had soul-nourishment and soul-sustenance of which His disciples were ignorant. He found such refreshment in doing good to ignorant souls that for the time present He did not feel bodily hunger.

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

These words seem to have been spoken privately, or whispered one to another, by the disciples. Their inability to put any but a carnal sense on their Master's words, has been already remarked. In slowness to see a spiritual sense in His language they do not appear at all unlike Nicodemus and the Samaritan woman. " What wonder is it," says Augustine, "if the woman could not understand our Lord, speaking about living water, when the disciples could not understand Him speaking about meat ?"

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

The leading idea of this verse is, " that doing God's will, and finishing God's work, was so soul-refreshing and pleasant to our Lord that He found it equivalent to meat and drink."

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

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

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

This saying is interpreted in two different ways.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some think, as Stier and Alford, that when our Lord said, " other men have laboured," He referred rather to Himself than to the prophets. I am unable to see this. It appears to me a forced and unnatural interpretation. I hold decidedly with Chrysostom, Cyril, Theophylact, Calvin, Zwingle, Melancthon, Brentius, Lampe, and Poole, that it applies principally to the law and prophets. — "If the prophets were not the sowers," saith Augustine, "whence had that saying come to the woman, I know that Messias cometh?" — Origen says, "Did not Moses and Elias, the sowers, rejoice with the reapers, Peter, James, and John, when they saw the glory of the Son of God at the transfiguration ?"

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

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

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

Ferus on this verse remarks the wide difference between the Samaritans and the Gergesenes. The Gergesenes prayed our Lord to " depart " from them, the Samaritans to " tarry " with them. (Matt. viii. 34.)

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

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

This verse shows the sovereignty of God in saving souls. One is called in one way and another in another. Some Samaritans believed when they heard the woman testify. Others did not believe till they heard Christ Himself. — We must be careful that we do not bind down the Holy Ghost to one mode of operation. The experience of saved souls often differs widely. If people are brought to repentance and faith in Christ, we must not be stumbled because they are not all brought in the same way.

Olshausen remarks on this verse, " Here is a rare instance in which t'le ministry of the Lord produced an awakening on a lai ge scale. Ordinarily we find that a few individuals only were aroused by Him, and that these, like grains of seed, scattered here and the. e, became the germs of a new and higher order of things among the people at large."

The Greek words so rendered would be translated more literally, "Not any longer because of thy saying do we believe."

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

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

The singular fulness of the confession made by these Samaritans deserves special notice. A more full declaration of our Lord's office as " Saviour of the world " is nowhere to be found in the Gospels. Whether the Samaritans clearly understood what they meant when they spoke of our Lord as " the Saviour," may be reasonably doubted. But that they saw with peculiar clearness a truth which the Jews were specially backward in seeing that He had come to be a Redeemer for all mankind, and not for the " Jews " only, seems evident from the expression "the world." That such a testimony should have been borne to Christ, by a mixed race, of semi-heathen origin, like the Samaritans, and not by the Jews, is a remarkable instance of the grace of God.

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

The fact before us is singularly full of comfort. It gives enormous value to every promise of mercy, grace, and peace, which ever fell from Christ's lips. He that by faith has laid hold on some word of Christ, has got his feet upon a rock. What Christ has said, He is able to do ; and what He has undertaken. He will never fail to make good. The sinner who has really reposed his soul on the word of the Lord Jesus, is safe to all eternity. He could not be safer. il' he saw the book of life, and his own name written in it. If Christ has said, "Him that cometh to me, I will in nowise cast out," and our hearts can testify, "I have come," we need not doubt that we are saved. In the things of this world, we say that seeing is believing. But in the things of the Gospel, believing is as good as seeing ' Christ's word is as good as man's deed. He of whom Jesus says in the Gospel, " He liveth," is alive for evermore, and shall never die.

The Greek words here would be more literally rendered, " After the two days," i. e., after the two days mentioned in the preceding verse.

[Departed thence.'] Quesnel remarks, " It is an instance of selfdenial which is very uncommon, to leave those who respect and applaud us, that we may go to preach among others from whom we have reason to expect a quite different treatment."

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

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

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

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

[Having seen....things....Jerusalem....feast.] This expression confirms the view already maintained (John ii. 23), that our Lord did many other miracles at Jerusalem at the first passover, when He was there, beside casting the buyers and sellers out of the temple, It is probable that the miracles recorded in the four Gospels are only a selection out of the number that Christ worked.

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

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

The circumstance of our Lord going twice to Cana may be accounted for by remembering the fact that one of His disciples, " Nathanael," belonged to Cana, and that His mother, Mary, in all probability had relatives there. (See note on John iil 1.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This verse shows the earnestness of the nobleman's desire for relief, quickened and sharpened by the apparent rebuff contained in our Lord's reply to his first application. Yet it was a saying exhibiting much ignorance. It is dear that he did not discover what our Lord hinted at, that possibly he might be helped without His coming down to see his sick son. He neither denies the truth of our Lord's words, nor enters into argument. He only knew that he felt in grievous distress, and begged our Lord to "come down ere his child died." That our Lord could heal him he did not doubt. But that He could heal him at a distance, without even seeing him, was something that he could not yet understand.

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

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

The relative positions of Cana and Capernaum are not precisely known at the present day. The exact site of Capernaum is matter of dispute among travellers and geographers. All we can glean from the expression before us is, that Cana was probably in the hill country, and Capernaum on the lake of Galilee. Hence a person leaving Cana for Capernaum would " go down."

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

This man's mind seems at once to have laid hold on the nature of the miracle, and to have acknowledged the power of Christ's word.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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