International Critical Commentary

The Prologue to the Gospel is in the form of a hymn,¹ whose theme is the Christian doctrine of the Logos, explanatory comments being added at various points. Speculations about the Logos of God were current among Greek thinkers, and Jn. does not stay to explain the term, which was in common use at the time. But he sets out, simply and without argument, what he believes the true doctrine to be; and he finds its origin in the Jewish teaching about the Word of God rather than in the theosophy of Greek Gnosticism. Its final justification is the Life and Person of Jesus Christ.

Paul had declared that “a man in Christ is a new creation” (καινὴ κτίσις, 2 Cor 5:17). This thought is connected by Jn. with the Jewish doctrine of the creative Word, and accordingly he begins by stating his doctrine of the Logos in phrases which recall the first chapter of Genesis.

1:1. ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος. The book of Genesis opens with ἐν ἀρχῇ ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν. But Jn. begins his hymn on the creative Logos even farther back. Before anything is said by him about creation, he proclaims that the Logos was in being originally—ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν, not ἐν ἀρχῇ ἐγένετο (see for the distinction on 8:58). This doctrine is also found in the Apocalypse. In that book, Christ is also called the Word of God (19:13), and He is represented (22:13) as claiming pre-existence: “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.” Paul, who does not apply the title “Logos” to Christ, yet has the same doctrine of His pre-existence: “He is before all things” (Col. 1:17). With this cf. the words ascribed to Jesus in 17:5.

Philo does not teach the pre-existence of the Logos (see Introd., p. cxl); but a close parallel to Jn.’s doctrine is the claim of Wisdom (σοφία) in Prov. 8:23, κύριος … πρὸ τοῦ αἰῶνος ἐθεμελίωσέ με ἐν ἀρχῇ, πρὸ τοῦ τὴν γῆν ποιῆσαι, Jn. never employs the word σοφία (or σόφος), while he uses λόγος of the Personal Christ only here and at v. 14; but it is the Hebrew doctrine of the Divine Word going forth (λόγος προφορικός) rather than the Greek doctrine of immanent Divine Reason (λόγος ἐνδιάθετος) which governs his thought of the relation of the Son to the Father.

λόγος is apparently used of the Personal Christ at Heb. 4:12 (this difficulty need not be examined here); as we hold it to be in 1 Jn. 1:1, ὃ ἦν ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς ὃ ἀκηκόαμεν … περὶ τοῦ λόγου τῆς ζωῆς (see for ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς on 15:27 below, and cf. Introd., p. lxi).

καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν. εἶναι πρός τινα is not a classical constr., and the meaning of πρός here is not quite certain. It is generally rendered apud, as at Mk. 6:3, 9:19, 14:49, Lk. 9:41; but Abbott (Diat. 2366) urges that πρὸς τὸν θεόν carries the sense of “having regard to God,” “looking toward God” (cf. 5:19). This sense of direction may be implied in 1 Jn. 2:1 παράκλητον ἔχομεν πρὸς τὸν πατέρα, but less probably in 1 Jn. 1:2, τὴν ζωὴν τὴν αἰώνιον ἥτις ἦν πρὸς τὸν πατέρα, which provides a close parallel to the present passage. In Prov. 8:30, Wisdom says of her relation to God, ἤμην παρʼ αὐτῷ: and in like manner at Jn. 17:5, Jesus speaks of His pre-incarnate glory as being παρὰ σοί. It is improbable that Jn. meant to distinguish the meanings of παρὰ σοί at 17:5 and of πρὸς τὸν θεόν at 1:1. We cannot get a better rendering here than “the Word was with God.”

The imperfect ἦν is used in all three clauses of this verse, and is expressive in each case of continuous timeless existence.

καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος, “the Word was God” (the constr. being similar to πνεῦμα ὁ θεός of 4:24). θεός is the predicate, and is anarthrous, as at Rom. 9:5, ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεός. L reads ὁ θεός, but this would identify the Logos with the totality of divine existence, and would contradict the preceding clause.

This, the third clause of the majestic proclamation with which the Gospel opens, asserts uncompromisingly the Divinity of the Logos, His Pre-existence and Personality having been first stated; cf. 10:30, 20:28; and Phil. 2:6

2. This verse reiterates, after a fashion which we shall find Jn. to favour, what has been said already in v. 1, laying stress, however, upon the fact that the relationship with Deity implied in πρὸς τὸν θεόν was eternal; it, too, was “in the beginning.” That is to say, v. 2 is a summary statement of the three propositions laid down in v. 1, all of which were true ἐν ἀρχῇ.

3. πάντα (all things severally, as distinct from ὁ κόσμος, the totality of the universe, v. 10) διʼ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, “all things came into being (for creation is a becoming, as contrasted with the essential being of the Word) through Him.”

In the Hebrew story of creation, each successive stage is introduced by “And God said” (Gen. 1:3). The Psalmist personifies in poetical fashion this creative word: “By the word of Yahweh were the heavens made” (Ps. 33:6; cf. Ps. 147:15, Isa. 55:11). In later Judaism, this doctrine was consolidated into prose; cf., e.g., “Thou saidst, Let heaven and earth be made, and Thy Word perfected the work” (2 Esd. 6:38; cf. Wisd. 9:1). This was a Jewish belief which Philo developed in his own way and with much variety of application, sometimes inclining to the view that the λόγος was a mere passive instrument employed by God, at other times, under Greek influence, regarding it as the cosmic principle, the formative thought of God.¹

3, 4. καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν. This expresses negatively what has been said positively in the previous line, a common construction in Hebrew poetry (cf. Ps. 18:36, 37, 39:9, etc). Jn. uses this device several times (e.g. 1:20, 3:16, 6:50, 1 Jn. 1:5, 2:4). “Apart from Him nothing came into being.” The sentence excludes two false beliefs, both of which had currency, especially in Gnostic circles: (a) that matter is eternal, and (b) that angels or aeons had a share in the work of creation.

The interpretation of this passage during the first four centuries implies a period or full-stop at ἕν, whereas since Chrysostom the sentence has been generally taken as ending with ὃ γέγονεν: “apart from Him nothing came into being that did come into being.” ὃ γέγονεν, if we adopt the later view of the constr., is redundant and adds nothing to the sense But this kind of emphatic explicitness is quite in accordance with the style of Jn. It is also the case that Jn. favours ἐν with a dative at the beginning of a sentence, e.g. 13:35, 15:8, 16:26, 1 Jn. 2:4, 3:10, 16, 19, 4:2, so that to begin with ἐν αὐτῷ in v. 4 would be in his manner.

The early uncials, for the most part, have no punctuation, while the later manuscripts generally put the point after γέγονεν. But the evidence of MSS. as to punctuation depends upon the interpretations of the text with which scribes were familiar, and has no independent authority. In the present passage the Old Syriac,¹ Latin, and Sahidic versions, as well as the Latin Vulgate, decidedly favour the placing of the point after ἕν, the O.L. b putting this beyond doubt by inserting autem in the next clause: “quod autem factum est, in eo uita est.” The interpretation which places the point after ἕν was adopted by Catholics and Gnostics alike in the early centuries; cf. Irenæus (Hær. II. ii. 4, III. viii. 3), Hippolytus (c. Noetum, 12), Origen (in Ioann. 36, etc.), Clem. Alex. (Pæd. i. II, Strom. vi. II), and, apparently, Tertullian (adv. Prax. 21). It is difficult to resist their witness to the construction of the Greek, provided that the next sentence as read by them yields an intelligible meaning.

Harris² defends the construction “without Him was not anything made that was made,” by citing a passage from the Stoic Chrysippus which is alike redundant in form: Fate is “the λόγος according to which all things that have been made have been made, and all things that are being made are being made, and all things that are to be made will be made.”

4. ὃ γέγονεν ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν, “That which has come into being was, in Him, Life,” i.e. the life which was eternally in the Word, when it goes forth, issues in created life, and this is true both of (a) the physical and (b) the spiritual world. (a) Jesus Christ, the Son and the Word, is the Life (11:25, 14:6), the Living One (ὁ ζῶν, Rev. 1:17); and it is through this Life of His that all created things hold together and cohere (τὰ πάντα ἐν αὐτῷ συνέστηκεν, Col. 1:17). (b) In the spiritual order, this is also true. The Son having life in Himself (5:26) gives life to whomsoever he wishes (οὓς θέλει ζωοποιεῖ, 5:21). Cf. 1 Jn. 5:11, and see on 17:24. The children of God are those who are quickened by a spiritual begetting (see on v. 13). See also on 6:33.

If ἐν αὐτῷ is the true reading at 3:15 (where see note), we have another instance there of ἐν αὐτῷ being awkwardly placed in the sentence.

Presumably because of this awkward position of ἐν αὐτῷ, some Western authorities א D, many Old Latin texts, and the Old Syriac, replace ἦν by ἐστίν; interpreting, as it seems, the sentence to mean “that which has come into being in Him is life.” But this reading and rendering may safely be set aside as due to misapprehension of the meaning.

καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἦν τὸ φῶς τῶν ἀνθρώπων. The first movement of the Divine Word at the beginning was the creation of Light (Gen. 1:3). This was the first manifestation of Life in the κόσμος, and the Psalmist speaks of the Divine Life and the Divine Light in the same breath: “With Thee is the fountain of life, and in Thy light shall we see light” (Ps. 36:9). God is Light (1 Jn. 1:5) as well as Life, if indeed there is any ultimate difference between these two forms of energy (see on 8:12).

In this verse, Jn. does not dwell on the thought of the Word’s Life as the Light of the κόσμος, but passes at once to the spiritual creation; the Life of the Word was, at the beginning, the Light of men. Cf. 12:46, 9:5, and see especially on 8:12 for the Hebrew origins and development of this thought, which reaches its fullest expression in the majestic claim ἐγώ εἰμι τὸ φῶς τοῦ κόσμου (8:12).

Philo speaks of the sun as a παραδεῖγμα of the Divine Word (de somn. i. 15); but he does not, so far as I have noticed, connect life and light explicitly.

5. τὸ φῶς ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ φαίνει. The guiding thought is still the story of the creation of light, which dissipated the darkness of chaos. But this is a story which ever repeats itself in the spiritual world; Jn. does not say “the Light shone,” but “the Light shines.” In 1 Jn. 2:8 he applies the thought directly to the passing of spiritual darkness because of the shining of Christ, the true light (ἡ σκοτία παράγεται καὶ τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀληθινὸν ἤδη φαίνει).

καὶ ἡ σκοτία αὐτὸ οὐ κατέλαβεν. καταλαμβάνειν generally means to “seize” or “apprehend,” whether physically (Num. 21:32, Mk. 9:18, [Jn.] 8:4), or intellectually (Acts 10:34, 25:25, Eph. 3:18, etc.). Thus we may translate “the darkness apprehended it not,” i.e. did not understand or appreciate it; and so the vulg. has tenebrae eam non comprehenderunt, the note of tragedy being struck at once, which appears again, vv. 10, 11 (where, however, the verb is παραλαμβάνειν); see on 3:19.

But καταλαμβάνειν often means also to “overtake” (Gen. 31:23, Ex. 15:9, Ecclus. 11:10, 1 Thess. 5:4); Moulton-Milligan illustrate from the papyri this use of the verb, viz. of evil “overtaking” one. This is its meaning in the only other place where it occurs in in., viz. 12:35, ἵνα μὴ σκοτία ὑμᾶς καταλάβῃ, “lest darkness overtake you.”¹ Origen (with other Greek interpreters) takes κατέλαβεν in this sense here, explaining that the thought is of darkness perpetually pursuing light, and never overtaking it.² The meaning “overtake in pursuit” readily passes into “overcome”; e.g. 2 Macc. 8:18, where it is said that God is able “to overcome those who come upon us” (τοὺς ἐρχομένους ἐφʼ ἡμᾶς … καταλαβεῖν). A classical parallel is cited by Field from Herod. i. 87, ὡς ὥρα πάντα μὲν ἄνδρα σβεννύντα τὸ πῦρ, δυναμένους δε οὐκέτι καταλαβεῖν, i.e. “when he saw … that they were unable to overcome the fire.” That this is the meaning of the verb in the present verse is supported by the fact that the thought of Christ’s rejection does not appear, and could not fitly appear, until after the statement of His historical “coming into the world” (vv. 9, 10). We have not yet come to this, and it is the spiritual interpretation of the Creation narrative that is still in view. Thus in the Hymn of Wisdom (Wis. 7:29) we have: “Night succeeds the Light, but evil does not overcome wisdom” (σοφίας δὲ οὐκ ἀντισχύει κακία). The darkness did not overcome the light at the beginning, and the light still shines. This is not the note of tragedy, but the note of triumph. Good always conquers evil. “The darkness did not overcome the light” (so R.V. marg.).

Philo’s commentary on Gen. 1:3 is in agreement with this interpretation. He says that τὸ νοητὸν φῶς is the image of θεῖος λόγος, which is the image of God. This may be called παναύγεια, “universal brightness” (cf. 8:12). On the first day of creation this light dispelled the darkness: ἐπειδὴ δὲ φῶς μὲν ἐγένετο, σκότος δὲ ὑπεξέστη καὶ ὑπεχώρησεν,³ i.e. “darkness yielded to it and retreated.” Jn. applies this thought to Christ as the Light of the world. There is never an eclipse of this Sun.

C. J. Ball suggested⁴ that behind κασέλαβεν lies a confusion of two Aramaic verbs, קַבּיל, “take, receive,” and אַקבּיל, “darken.” He holds that, both here and at 12:35, the original Aramaic (which he finds behind the Greek) was לא אקבליה, “obscured it not,” and that this was misread לא קבליה, “received it not.”¹ This is ingenious, but, as we have seen, κατέλαβεν is good Greek for “overcome,” so that there is no need to suppose any corruption of the original text.

A feature of the style of Jn. is his habit of pausing to comment on words which he has recorded (cf. Introd., p. xxiv). Here we have a parenthetical note to explain that the Light of which the Logos hymn sings is not John the Baptist. It has been suggested that this was inserted as necessary to combat the pretensions of some Christians who exalted the Baptist unduly (cf. Acts 18:25, 19:3f.); but see on v. 20 below.

For Jn., as for Mk., the “gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God” (Mk. 1:1), began with the preaching of the Baptist. Jn. does not stay to record stories of the Birth of Jesus, as Lk. and Mt. do. He opens his Gospel with a mystical hymn about the Logos, which reminds the reader that the true beginnings of the wonderful life are lost in the timeless and eternal Life of God. But in the Gospel Jn. is to describe the historical manifestation of the Word, and this was prepared for, and introduced by, the preaching of the Baptist. Upon this Jn. dwells more fully than any other evangelist, probably because his informant, the aged son of Zebedee, was himself one of the Baptist’s disciples. For the use made by Jn. of Mk., see Introd., pp. xcvi, c; and the correspondences between Mk. 1 and Jn. 1 in regard to what they tell about the Baptist and his sayings are remarkable.

Mk. 1:2 introduces the Baptist by quoting Mal. 3:1, “I send my messenger before my face”; Jn. introduces him as a man “sent from God.” Both Mk. 1:2 and Jn. 1:23 apply to him the prophecy of Isa. 40:3. Mk. 1:7 gives two utterances of the Baptist about Christ which reappear Jn. 1:15, 27, 30. Mk. 1:8 and Jn. 1:26 both report the emphasis laid by the Baptist on his baptism being with water. And the allusions to the baptism of Jesus in Jn. 1:33, 34 are reminiscent of Mk. 1:10, 11.

6. ἐγένετο ἄνθρωπος κτλ. (“There arose a man,” etc.). There is no introductory particle connecting this with v. 5. It is a sentence quite distinct from the verse of the Logos Hymn which goes before.

ἀπεσταλμένος παρὰ θεοῦ. The Baptist made this claim for himself (3:28); cf. Mal. 3:1. Cf. 9:16, 33 for a similar use of παρὰ θεοῦ, and see on 6:45.

ὅνομα αὐτῷ Ἰωάνης. For the constr. cf. 3:1 and Rev. 6:8, 9:11. Burney urges that this is a Semitic constr.,¹ and represents an Aramaic or Hebrew שמו; but it is also good Greek, e.g. Ἀριστοφῶν ὅνομα αὐτῷ (Demosth. contra Zenoth. 11).

The spelling Ἰωάνης is preferred to Ἰωάννης by most modern editors, being almost universally found in B “It belongs to the series of Hellenised names which treat the an of the Hebrew termination (Ioanan) as a variable inflection” (Blass, Gram. 11).²

Jn. is prone to distinguish carefully people who have the same name, e.g. Judas (6:71, 13:2, 14:22), Mary (11:2, 19:25), Joseph (19:38); in this being more scrupulous than the Synoptists. It is, perhaps, worthy of note, therefore, that Jn. never writes “John the Baptist,” but always “John,” as if there were no other John who could be confused with him. On this has been based an argument to prove that John the son of Zebedee is, in some sense, the author (if not the actual scribe) of the Fourth Gospel; for the one person to whom it would not occur to distinguish John the Baptist from John the son of Zebedee would be John the son of Zebedee himself. On the other hand, the Synoptists only occasionally give the full description “John the Baptist,” “John” being quite sufficient in most places where the name occurs. It would not be as necessary for an evangelist writing for Christian readers at the end of the first century to say explicitly “John the Baptist,” when introducing the John who bore witness to Jesus at the beginning of His ministry, as it was for Josephus when writing for Roman readers to distinguish him as “John who is called the Baptist” (Antt. xviii, v. 2).

7. οὗτος ἦλθεν εἰς μαρτυρίαν. This was the characteristic feature of the Baptist’s mission, “to bear witness” to the claims of Him who was to come. The Fourth Gospel is full of the idea of “witness” (see Introd., p. xc), the words μαρτυρία, μαρτυρεῖν, being frequent in Jn., while they occur comparatively seldom in the rest of the N.T. The cognate forms μαρτύς,

μαρτύριον, are, on the other hand, not found in Jn., although they occur in the Apocalypse.

ἴνα μαρτυρήσῃ. ἴνα with a finite verb, in a telic sense, where in classical Greek we should expect an infinitive, is a common constr. in κοινή Greek, and is specially frequent in Jn.¹ Burney² held that this linguistic feature is due to the Aramaic origin of Jn., and that behind ἴνα is the particle דְּ or דִּי. But the colloquial character of Jn.’s style provides a sufficient explanation (cf. 11:50 and 18:14).

περὶ τοῦ φωτός. John Baptist says (v. 33) that it was revealed to him that Jesus was the Coming One.

ἴνα πάντες πιστεύσωσιν διʼ αὐτοῦ (“that all might believe through him,” i.e. through, or by means of, the testimony of John the Baptist). Ultimately the Baptist’s mission would affect not Israel only, but all men (πάντες). As the Divine Law is said to have come διὰ Μωυσέως (v. 17), so there is a sense in which Christian faith came διʼ Ἰωάνου. Abbott (Diat. 2302 f.) inclines to the view that αὐτοῦ refers here to Christ, αὐτός throughout the Prologue being used for the Word; but Jn. never uses the expression πιστεύειν διὰ Ἰησοῦ (see on 3:15). Jesus, for him, is the end and object of faith, rather than the medium through which it is reached (see on 1:12).

Jn. uses the verb πιστεύειν about 100 times, that is, with nine times the frequency with which it is used by the Synoptists, although the noun πίστις, common in the Synoptists, never occurs in Jn., except at 1 Jn. 5:4.³ See further on v. 12.

Here πιστεύειν is used absolutely, the object of faith being understood without being expressed; cf. 1:50, 4:42, 53, 5:44, 6:64, 11:15, 12:39, 14:29, 19:35, 20:8, 25.

8. ἐκεῖνος is used substantially, whether as subject or obliquely, with unusual frequency in Jn., the figures for its occurrence is the four Gospels being (according to Burney⁴) Mt. 4, Mk. 3, Lk. 4, Jn. 51. Jn. uses it often to express emphasis, or to mark out clearly the person who is the main subject of the sentence, as here. It is used of Christ, 1:18, 2:21, 5:11, 1 Jn. 2:6, 3:5, 7, 16.

οὐκ ἦν ἐκεῖνος τὸ φῶς. The Baptist was only ὁ λύχνος, the lamp; cf. 5:35.

ἀλλʼ ἵνα μαρτυρήσῃ περι τοῦ φωτός. This is an elliptical constr. of which somewhat similar examples occur 9:3, 13:18, 15:25, 1 Jn. 2:19 (Abbott, Diat. 2106 f.). The meaning is, “but he came that he might bear witness, etc. The repetition of the whole phrase ἵνα μαρτυρήσῃ περὶ τοῦ φωτός is thoroughly Johannine.

Burney suggests¹ that here (as also at 5:7, 6:50, 9:36, 14:16) ἵνα is a mistranslation of an Aramaic relative, דְּ, “who.” The rendering then is simple, “he was not the Light, but one who was to bear witness of the Light”; but the correction is unnecessary.

9. ἦν τὸ φῶς κτλ. The constr. of the sentence has been taken in different ways, and the ambiguity was noticed as far back as the time of Origen.²

(I) The Latin, Syriac, and Coptic versions take ἐρχόμενον with ἄνθρωπον. The Light enlightens every man who comes into the world. But if this were the meaning, (a) we should expect παντὰ τὸν ἐρχόμενον rather than παντὰ ἄνθρωπον ἐρχόμενον; (b) these words are wholly redundant, for they do not add anything to “every man”; (c) the expression “coming into the world” is not used elsewhere by Jn.³ of a man being born (16:21 is no exception). This last consideration excludes also the rendering “every man, as he comes into the world,” apart from the fact that, although Wordsworth suggests it in his Ode, the idea of any special Divine enlightenment of infants is not Scriptural.

(2) It is better to take ἐρχόμενον with φῶς (so R.V.). Jn. several times uses the phrase “coming into the world” of the Advent of Christ (6:14, 11:27, 16:28, 18:37); and elsewhere (3:19, 12:46) in the Gospel Christ is spoken of as “light coming into the world.” And if we render “the Light, which lighteth every man, was coming into the world,” the constr. of ἦν with the present participle as used for the imperfect is one which appears frequently in Jn. (see on 1:28 below). ἦν … ἐρχόμενον means “was in the act of coming.”

Westcott, while retaining this meaning, endeavours to combine with it the conception of the Light having a permanent existence (ἦν, the verb used in v. 1). “There was the Light, the true Light which lighteth every man; that Light was, and yet more, that Light was coming into the world.” This seems, however, to attempt to get too much out of the words, and on our view of the whole passage the meaning is simpler.

We are still occupied with Jn.’s comment (vv. 6–9) on what the Logos Hymn has said about the Light (vv. 4, 5). The Baptist was not the perfect Light, but he came to bear witness to it; and this perfect Light was then coming into the world. When Jn. wrote the First Epistle he could say, “The true Light already shineth” (1 Jn. 2:8), but it was only coming at the time when the Baptist’s mission began. Jesus had come into the world, indeed; but He had not yet manifested Himself as the Light.

ἀληθινόν. Christ is τὸ φῶς ἀληθινόν, not to be interpreted as “the true Light” (although such a rendering is convenient), for that suggests that all other lights are misleading, which is not implied; cf. 5:35. ἀληθινός is distinguished from ἀληθής as the genuine from the true. The opposite of ἀληθινός is not necessarily false, but it is imperfect, shadowy, or unsubstantial. “The ἀληθής fulfils the promise of his lips, but the ἀληθινός the wider promise of his name. Whatever that name imports, taken in its highest, deepest, widest sense, whatever according to that he ought to be, that he is to the full” (Trench, Synonym’s of N.T.). Thus ἀληθινός here is significant. Christ is not “the true and only Light,” but rather “the perfect Light,” in whose radiance all other lights seem dim, the Sun among the stars which catch their light from Him.

There are indeed a few passages where ἀληθινὸς cannot be sharply distinguished from ἀληθής: thus ἀληθινός at 19:35 stands for the veracity of the witness, just as ἀληθής does at 21:24. Moreover, the fact that ἀληθής and its cognates are not found in the Apocalypse, while ἀληθινός occurs in it 10 times, might suggest that the choice of the one adjective rather than the other was only a point of style. In the same way, ψεύστης is used 7 times in Jn. for a liar, but the word in the Apocalypse is ψευδής.

Nevertheless the distinction between ἀληθής and ἀληθινός in Jn. is generally well marked. We have τὸ φῶς ἀληθινόν here (cf. 1 Jn. 2:8); οἱ ἀληθινοὶ προσκυνηταί, 4:23; ὁ ἄρτος ὁ ἀληθινός, 6:32; ὁ μόνος ἀληθινὸς θεός, 17:3 (cf. 7:28, 1 Jn. 5:20); ἡ ἀληθινὴ κρίσις, 8:16; ἡ ἄμπελος ἡ ἀληθινή, 15:1. In all these passages the meaning “genuine” or “ideal” will bear to be pressed, as also in the only place where the word occurs in the Synoptists, for τὸ ἀληθινόν of Lk. 16:11 is the genuine riches. Even at 4:37, where ἀληθινός is applied to a proverb, something more is implied than veraciousness (see note in loc.).

Less clearly, but still with some plausibility, can the distinctive sense of ἀληθινός be pressed in the Apocalypse, where it is applied to God’s ways (15:3), His judgments (16:7, 19:2), His words (19:9, 21:5, 22:6), to Himself (6:10), and to Christ (3:7, 14, 19:11). See further on 17:3.

φωτίζει. This verb does not occur again in Jn., but cf. Lk. 11:35, 36.

ὃ φωτίζει παντὰ ἄνθρωπον. That the Servant of Yahweh would be a “light to the Gentiles” as well as to the Jews was the forecast of Deutero-Isaiah (42:6, 49:6); but this passage suggests a larger hope, for the Coming Light was to enlighten every man. It was this great conception upon which the early Quakers fixed, urging that to every man sufficient light was offered; and some of them called this passage “the Quaker’s text.” The Alexandrian theologians, e.g. Clement, had much to say about the active operation of the Pre-Incarnate Word upon men’s hearts; and it is interesting to observe that they did not appeal to this text, which is in fact not relevant to their thought, as it speaks only of the universal enlightenment which was shed upon mankind after the Advent of Christ.

εἰς τὸν κόσμον. The term κόσμος is used of the universe by Plato (Gorg. 508) and Aristotle (de mund. 2), Plutarch (Mor. 886 B) affirming that Pythagoras was the first to use the word thus, the order of the material world suggesting it¹ This idea of a totality of the natural order is thoroughly Greek, and is without early Hebrew counterpart, עוֹלָם not being used in this meaning until the later days of Jewish literature² In the LXX κόσμος appears in the sense of “ornament,” and occasionally to describe the ordered host of the heavenly bodies, but it is not used for “universe” until we reach the later Hellenistic books, e.g. Wisd. 11:17. Paul has κόσμος 46 times, and the Synoptists 14 times; but Jn. has it 100 times. Primarily, in the N.T. it is used of the material universe as distinct from God (cf. 21:25). But man is the chief inhabitant of the world as we know it, and thus κόσμος usually in Jn. includes the world of moral agents as well as the sum of physical forces. That is, it stands for mankind at large, as well as for the earth which is man’s habitation (6:51, 7:4, 12:19).

When, however, a term which was the product of Greek philosophy began to be used in connexion with the Hebrew doctrine of God and man, it inevitably gathered to itself the associations connected with Hebrew belief as to the Fall. To the Stoic, the κόσμος was perfect. This could not be held by a Jew. Inasmuch, then, as the Fall introduced disorder into that which in the beginning was “good” (Gen. 1:31), the term κόσμος when used of the visible order frequently carries with it a suggestion of imperfection, of evil, of estrangement from the Divine. The κόσμος cannot receive the Spirit of Truth (14:17); it hates Christ (7:7); it hates His chosen (15:19, 17:14); they are forbidden to love it (1 Jn 2:15). The world which is aloof from God may easily pass into an attitude of hostility to God, and the phrase “this world” (see on 8:23) calls special attention to such enmity.

According to Philo (quod deus imm. 6 and de mund 7), the κόσμος is the father of time, God being the Father of the κόσμος; a picturesque expression which brings out his view that the universe was created by God, who brought Cosmos out of Chaos, while its genesis goes back beyond the beginning of time.

A striking parallel to this verse is found in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (Levi, c. 14): τὸ φῶς τοῦ νόμου τὸ δοθὲν ἐν ὑμῖν εἰς φωτισμὸν πάντος ἀνθρώπου. Charles, indeed (note in loc), holds that Jn. 1:9 is based on this passage; but the date of the Greek versions of the Testaments is by no means certain, and there is no sufficient evidence of their existence in their present form before the time of Origen.¹

There are unmistakable allusions to the verse in the Christian Apocalypse known as “The Rest of the Words of Baruch,” where Jeremiah addresses God as τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀληθινὸν τὸ φωτίζον με (9:3). In the same section the writer calls Christ τὸ φῶς τῶν αἰώνων πάντων, ὁ ἄσβεστος λύχνος (9:13), and speaks of Him as ἐρχόμενον εἰς τὸν κόσμον ἐπὶ τὸ ὄρος τῶν ἐλαιῶν (9:18). See Introd., p. lxxii.

For the citation of the verse by Basilides, as quoted by Hippolytus, see Introd., p. lxxiii.

10. ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ ἦν. ἦν, as in vv. 1–4, stands for continuous existence. The Logos was immanent in the world before the Incarnation, which has not yet been mentioned in the hymn, although suggested in the evangelist’s comment in v. 9.

καὶ ὁ κόσμος διʼ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, repeated from v. 3, “the world came into being through Him,” the creative Logos being personal all through the hymn.

καὶ ὁ κόσμος αὐτὸν οὐκ ἔγνω. The paratactical constr. καὶ … καί is continued, as in vv. 1, 4, 5. At this point καί is used adversatively, “and yet,” the world not recognising the Word although the Word was immanent in it.

This use of καί for καίτοι (which Jn. never employs) is characteristic of the Fourth Gospel, e.g. 3:11, 5:43, 6:70, 7:28, 30, 8:26, 9:30, 10:25, 16:32. Burney¹ claims this as a Semitic usage, but it occurs in classical Greek; e.g. Thucyd. v. 6. 1, Σταγείρῳ προσβάλλει … καὶ οὐκ εἷλε, and Eurip. Herakl. 508, ὁρᾶτʼ ἔμʼ ὅσπερ ἦν περίβλεπτος βροτοῖς ὀνομαστὰ πράσσων, καί μʼ ἀφείλεθʼ ἡ τύχη.

ὁ κόσμος αὐτὸν οὐκ ἔγνω. Primarily, the reference is to the world’s ignorance of the Pre-Incarnate Logos, immanent continuously in nature and in man.

Pfleiderer points out the similarity of this language to what Heraclitus says about the eternal Reason: τοῦ δὲ λόγου τοῦδʼ ἐόντος αἰεὶ ἀξύνετοι γίνονται ἄνθρωποι … γινομένων γὰρ πάντων κατὰ τὸν λόγον τόνδε ἀπείροισιν ἐοίκασι, i.e. “men are without understanding of this Logos, although it is eternal, … although everything happens in accordance with this Logos, men seem to be ignorant (of it).”² Heraclitus was one of those whom Justin accounted a Christian before his time, having lived μετὰ λόγου,³ and his writings were probably current in the circles where the Fourth Gospel was written. But although Jn. used similar language to Heraclitus when writing of the Word, his thought goes far beyond the impersonal Reason of the Greek sage.

Even here, the meaning of “the world knew Him not” cannot be confined to the Immanent Logos. Jn. several times comes back to the phrase, applying it to the world’s failure to recognise the Incarnate Christ; e.g. ὁ κόσμος … οὐκ ἔγνω αὐτόν (1 Jn. 3:1); οὐκ ἔγνωσαν … ἐμέ (16:3). Cf. 14:7, 17:25, 1 Cor. 1:21. And in the next verse (v. 11) the Incarnate Word is clearly in view, for the aorist ἦλθεν expresses a definite point of time, although the Incarnation of the Word is not explicitly asserted until v. 14.

A saying about Wisdom very similar to the thought of this verse is in Enoch xlii. 1: “Wisdom found no place where she might dwell; then a dwelling-place was assigned to her in the heavens. Wisdom came to make her dwelling among the children of men and found no dwelling-place; then Wisdom returned to her place and took her seat among the angels.” What the Jewish apocalyptist says of Wisdom, the Prologue of the Fourth Gospel repeats of the Logos.

11. εἰς τὰ ἴδια ἦλθεν. This (see on 19:27) is literally “He came to His own home.” And the following words, “His own received Him not,” would well describe His rejection by His own kinsfolk and neighbours in Galilee, according to the saying that a prophet has no honour in his own country (Mk. 6:4, Mt. 13:57, Lk. 4:24; cf. Jn. 4:44). But the thought of this verse is larger. The world did not know Him, did not recognise Him for what He was (v. 10). But when He came in the flesh, He came (ἦλθεν) to “the holy land” (2 Macc. 1:7, Wisd. 12:3), to the land and the people which peculiarly belonged to Yahweh and were His own (Ex. 19:5, Deut. 7:6). In coming to Palestine, rather than to Greece, the Word of God came to His own home on earth. Israel were the chosen people; they formed, as it were, an inner circle in the world of men; they were, peculiarly, “His own.” He was “not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Mt. 15:24). “His own” intimate disciples did indeed receive him (see 13:1, 17:6, 9, 11 for οἱ ἴδιοι), but the thought here is of His own people, Israel. The Fourth Gospel is the Gospel of the Rejection; and this appears thus early in the Prologue (cf. 3:11, 5:43).

It is not said that Israel did not “know” Him, as is said of the “world” (v. 10); but Israel did not receive Him in welcome (cf. 14:3 for this shade of meaning in παραλαμβάνω). Like the Wicked Husbandmen in the parable (Mk. 12:1, Mt. 21:33, Lk. 20:9), Israel knew the Heir and killed Him.

12. “His own received Him not” might suggest that no Jew welcomed Him for what He was. Accordingly (cf. Introd., p. cxlv), the evangelist notes that there were some of whom this could not be said. ὅσοι δέ κτλ. = but (δέ must be given its full adversative force), at the same time, as many as received Him (and this would include Jews as well as Greeks) were endowed with the capacity and privilege of becoming children of God. For λαμβάνειν used of “receiving” Christ, cf. 5:43, 13:20.

ὅσοι δὲ ἔλαβον αὐτόν, ἔδωκεν αὐτοις κτλ. This is the first appearance of a constr. which is very frequent in Jn., viz. the reinforcement of a casus pendens by a pronoun. It is a common, if inelegant, form of anacoluthon, more often met with in colloquial than in literary Greek. Jn. employs it 27 times (as against 21 occurrences in all three Synoptists). Burney suggests that this is due to the Aramaic original which he finds behind Jn., the cases pendens being a favourite Semitic idiom.¹

The Jews rejected Christ; but His message was addressed to all mankind. He gave to “as many as received Him” the right to become children of God. ἐξουσία occurs again 5:27, 10:18, 17:2, 19:10, 11; it stands for authority rather than power. The privilege and right of those who “receive” Christ, i.e. those who “believe on His Name,” is that they may become τέκνα θεοῦ; but this (Jn. suggests) is not an inherent human capacity.

The conception of the faithful as “children of God” has its roots deep in Jewish thought. Israel conceived of herself as in covenant with Yahweh (see on 3:29), and the prophets speak of her as Yahweh’s wife (Hos. 1, 2). “Thy sons whom thou hast borne to me” are words ascribed to Yahweh when addressing the nation (Ezek. 16:20). Thus the Jews were accustomed to think of themselves as peculiarly the children of God (see on 8:41). But the teaching of Jesus did not encourage any such exclusive claim of Judaism. He taught the doctrine of the Fatherhood of God as having a more catholic range. To enter the kingdom of God is to become the child of God and the possessor of eternal life (for all these phrases mean the same thing; cf. 3:3f.), and the gate of the kingdom is the gate of faith in Christ. This is the message of the Fourth Gospel (20:30), and it is addressed to all who will hear it. We have here (in vv. 12, 13) a summary of the teaching of c. 3 about the New Birth and Eternal Life.

The phrase τέκνα θεοῦ is not placed either by Synoptists or by Jn. in the mouth of Jesus Himself: He is represented as speaking of υἱοὶ θεοῦ (Mt. 5:9); and this is also the title for believers generally used by Paul (Gal. 3:26), who employs the notion of adoption, as recognised by Roman law, to bring out the relation of God to the faithful.² But τέκνα θεοῦ is thoroughly Johannine (cf. 11:52 and I Jn. 3:1, 2, 10, 5:2), and the phrase implies a community of life between God the Father and His children, which is described in v. 13 as due to the fact that they are “begotten” of God (cf. 3:3f.). τέκνον is from the root τεκ—,“to beget.”

The “children of God” are all who “believe in the Name” of Christ. The idea of the Fatherhood of God as extending to all mankind alike, heathen or Jewish, prior to belief in Christ, is not explicit in the Gospels (cf. Acts 17:28), however close it may be to such a pronouncement as that of the Love of God for the world at large (3:16). But for Jn., the “children” are those who “believe.”

τοῖς πιστεύουσιν εἰς τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ. The frequency of the verb πιστεύειν in Jn. has been already noted (1:7). Here we have to mark the form πιστεύειν εἰς … The phrase “to believe in Christ,” in Him as distinct from believing His words or being convinced of certain facts about Him, is, with one exception (Mt. 18:6), not found in the Synoptists; but in Jn. we find πιστεύειν εἰς … 35 times,¹ always referring to God or Christ, except εἰς τὴν μαρτυρίαν (1 Jn. 5:10). The phrase πιστεύειν εἰς τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ occurs again 2:23, 3:18 (cf. 1 Jn. 5:13), but not in the speeches of Jesus Himself. In the O.T. the “Name” of Yahweh is often used as equivalent to His Character or Person, as He manifests Himself to men (cf. 2 Sam. 7:13, Isa. 18:7; see on 5:43 below). It is possible that this usage of ὄνομα in the N.T. is an Aramaism. We have it several times in the expression βαπτίζειν εἰς τὸ ὄνομά τινος (cf. Mt. 28:19).² But, whether it is Aramaic or no, to believe in “the Name” of Jesus for Jn. is to believe “in Him” as the Son of God and the Christ.

13. For οἳ … ἐγεννήθησαν, the O.L. version in b gives qui natus est, the verse being thus a reference to the Virgin Birth of Christ. Irenæus (adv. Haer. iii. xvii. 1 and xx. 2), and possibly Justin (Tryph. 61; cf. Apol. i. 32, 63 and ii. 6), bear witness to the existence of this (Western) reading. Tertullian (de carne Christi, 19) adopts it formally, adducing arguments against the common text “who were born,” which he says is an invention of the Valentinians. In recent years the reference of the verse to Christ, and the reading qui natus est, have been approved by Resch (Aussercanonische Paralleltexte, iv. 57) and by Blass (Philology of the Gospels, p. 234).³ But the MS. evidence is overwhelming for ἐγεννήθησαν, which moreover, as we shall see, is in accordance with the characteristic teaching of Jn.

The children of God are “begotten” by Him by spiritual generation, as contrasted with the ordinary process of physical generation.

οὐκ ἐξ αἱμάτων κτλ. It was a current doctrine in Greek physiology that the human embryo is made from the seed of the father, and the blood of the mother. Thus Wisd. 7:2, “In the womb of a mother was I moulded into flesh in the time of ten months, being compacted in blood (παγεὶς ἐν αἵματι) of the seed of man and pleasure that came with sleep.” Cf. 4 Macc. 13:20 and Philo (de opif. mundi 45).¹

The plural αἱμάτων is unexpected, but Bräckner quoted the parallel ἄλλων τραφεὶς ἀφʼ αἱμάτων (Eurip. Ion, 693). Augustine (Serm. cxxi. 4) explains αἱμάτων, “mixtis sanguinibus, masculi et feminae, commixtione carnis masculi et feminae,” which may be right; but more probably the plural is used to indicate drops of blood.

οὐδὲ ἐκ θελήματος σαρκός, “nor yet of the will of the flesh,” i.e. of sexual desire. θέλημα is used once or twice in the LXX in the sense of delectatio, e.g. Isa. 62:4 and Eccles. 12:1. Hippolytus (Ref. vi. 9) has the phrase ἐξ αἱμάτων καὶ ἐπιθυμίας σαρκικῆς, καθάπερ καὶ οἱ λοιποὶ, γεγεννημένος, which is apparently a reminiscence of this verse, of which at any rate it gives the meaning, identifying θέλημα with ἐπιθυμία (cf. 1 Jn. 2:16).

The passage is also recalled by Justin (Tryph. 63), ὡς τοῦ αἵματος αὐτοῦ οὐκ ἐξ ἀνθρωπείου σπέρματος γεγεννημένου ἀλλʼ ἐκ θελήματος θεοῦ.

οὐδὲ ἐκ θελήματος ἀνδρός, “nor yet of the will of a man,” i.e. a male, for so ἀνήρ is always used in Jn., as distinct from ἄνθρωπος.

The threefold negation emphasises the point that the “begetting” of the children of God has nothing to do with the normal begetting of children.

ἀλλʼ ἐκ θεοῦ (God being the immediate cause of the new spiritual life which begins in the believer). The metaphor of God as “begetting” children is strange to a modern ear, but it is frequent in Jn. Cf. also 1 Pet. 1:3, ὁ … ἀναγεννήσας ἡμᾶς εἰς ἐλπίδα ζῶσαν, and see J. B. Mayor on Jas. 1:18.

The verb γεννᾶν in the active voice generally means “to beget,” and is used of the father, e.g. Ἀβραὰμ ἐγέννησε τὸν Ἰσαάκ (Mt. 1:2). Sometimes this is followed by ἐκ and the mother’s name, e.g. ἐγέννησα ἐξ αὐτῆς Τωβίαν (Tobit 1:9).

γεννᾶν is also, but rarely, used of the “bearing” of children by a woman, e.g. μία μήτηρ ἐγέννησεν ἡμᾶς διδύμους (Acta Philippi, 115).

In Jn. the verb (with one exception, 1 Jn. 5:1) is only found in the passive γεννᾶσθαι Sometimes this means “to be born,” e.g. 9:2f., 16:21, 18:37; cf. Μαρίας, ἐξ ἧς ἐγεννήθη Ἰησοῦς (Mt. 1:16). But usually in Jn. γεννᾶσθαι means “to be begotten,” and the phrase “to be begotten by God” is thoroughly Johannine. Jn. does not shrink from drawing out the metaphor, e.g. πᾶς ὁ γεγεννημένος ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ ἁμαρτιαν οὐ ποιεῖ, ὅτι σπέρμα οὐτοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ μένει (1 Jn. 3:9). Gods σπέρμα is in the man, who is thus (the phrase occurs in the next verse, 1 Jn. 3:10) τέκνον θεοῦ. An even closer parallel to vv. 12, 13, is πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων ὅτι Ἰησοῦς ἐστὶν ὁ Χριστὸς ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ γεγέννηται (1 Jn. 5:1, 4), where it is again said that those who believe in Christ are “begotten of God.” Cf. also 1 Jn. 2:29, 4:7, 5:18. This mystical language goes back to Ps. 2:7, where Yahweh says of the king of His favour, ἐγὼ σήμερον γεγέννηκά σε. Indeed, to say that believers are “begotten of God” is only to stretch a little farther the metaphor involved in the words, “Our Father which art in heaven.” See on v. 12.

The rendering of ἐγεννήθησαν here by nati sunt in the Latin versions cannot be taken to exclude the translation “were begotten”; for in the several passages in 1 Jn. where we have the phrase γεγεννημένος ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ (2:29, 3:9, 4:7, 5:1, 18), and where it must bear the meaning “begotten by God” (see especially 1 Jn. 3:9), the Latin versions similarly have natus.

14. καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο. The repeated καὶ introducing the next three clauses should be noticed.

Here we have the climax of the Johannine doctrine of Christ as the Word. That the Son of God became man is unmistakably taught by Paul (Rom. 1:3, 8:3, Gal. 4:4, Phil. 2:7, 8): He was “manifested in the flesh” (1 Tim. 3:16). So, also, according to Heb. 2:14, He partook of our flesh and blood. But the contribution of Jn. to this exalted Christology is that he expressly identifies Christ with the “Word of God,” vaguely spoken of in the Wisdom literature of the Hebrews and also in the teaching of Philo and his Greek predecessors. The Logos of philosophy is, Jn. declares, the Jesus of history (cf. v. 11); and this is now stated in terms which cannot be misunderstood. That “the Word became flesh” must have seemed a paradox to many of those who read the Prologue to the Fourth Gospel when it was first made public; but the form of the proposition is deliberate. It would have been impossible for Philo (see Introd., p. cxli).

The heresy of Docetism was always present to the mind of Jn. (while it is most plainly in view in the First Epistle); the idea of Christ as a mere phantasm, without human flesh and blood, was to him destructive of the Gospel. “Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God” (1 Jn. 4:2). But it is the deceiver and the antichrist who “confess not that He is come in the flesh” (2 Jn. 7). The lofty teaching of the Prologue identifies Jesus with the Word, and the explicit declaration that the Word became flesh was necessary to exclude Docetic teaching.¹ A characteristic feature of the Fourth Gospel is its frequent insistence on the true humanity of Jesus. He is represented as tired and thirsty (4:6, 7; cf. 19:28). His emotion of spirit is expressed in His voice (see on 11:33). He wept (11:35). His spirit was troubled in the anticipation of His Passion (12:27, 13:21). And the emphasis laid by Jn. on His “flesh” and “blood” (6:53), as well as on the “blood and water” of the Crucifixion scene, shows that Jn. writes thus of set purpose. Cf. also 20:27. At one point (8:40) Jn. attributes to Jesus the use of the word ἄνθρωπος as applied to Himself.

ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο. Here σάρξ signifies man’s nature as a whole, including his rational soul (cf. 1 Thess. 5:23). Thus the rendering here in the Old Syriac (although not in the Peshitta) of σάρξ by pagar,² sc. “the Word became a body”—a rendering known to Ephraim³ and Aphrahat⁴—is inadequate and might mislead. The Logos did not became “a man,” but He became “man” in the fullest sense; the Divine Person assuming human nature in its completeness. To explain the exact significance of ἐγένετο in this sentence is beyond the powers of any interpreter.

καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν. This sentence has generally in modern times been understood to mean “and He pitched His tent among us,” or dwelt among us, ἡμῖν referring to those who witnessed the public ministry of Jesus, and more particularly to those who associated with Him in daily intercourse. ἐν ἡμῖν, on this rendering, would be equivalent to apud nos or inter nos, a use of ἐν with the dative which may be defended by 10:19, 11:54. A σκήνη or tent is a temporary habitation, and ἐσκήνωσεν might thus indicate the sojourn on earth for a brief season of the Eternal Word. In the N.T., however, the verb does not connote temporary sojourning in any other place where it is found.

Origen⁵ and Chrysostom⁶ understand the clause differently, For them, it is parallel to the preceding clause, “the Word became flesh,” and is another statement of the Incarnation.¹ The Word took humanity as His tabernacle, ὥσπερ ὁ ναὸς δόξαν εἶχε θεοῦ κατασκηνοῦσαν ἐν αὐτῷ (Origen, l.c. 202). This would be in harmony with Paul’s great phrase ναὸς θεοῦ ἐστέ (1 Cor. 3:16), and gives its proper force to ἐν ἡμῖν. Cf. Ecclus. 24:8 ἐν Ἰακὼβ κατασκήνωσον, as addressed to Wisdom.

In the N.T. the verb only occurs again Rev. 7:15, 12:12, 13:6 and 21:3, where it is said that in the New Jerusalem God σκηνώσει μετʼ αὐτῶν. So the prophets had foretold, e.g. κατασκηνώσω ἐν μέσῳ σου, λέγει κύριος (Zech. 2:10); ἔσται ἡ κατασκήνωσίς μου ἐν αὐτοῖς (Ezek. 37:27). Cf. Lev. 26:11, Ezek. 43:7. Such language goes back to the thought of the σκήνη or tabernacle in the desert (Ex. 25:8, 9), where Yahweh dwelt with Israel. The verb σκηνοῦν would always recall this to a Jew. Philo says that the sacred σκήνη was a symbol of God’s intention to send down to earth from heaven the perfection of His Divine virtue (Quis div. hœr. 23).

The connexion of δόξα and the verb σκηνοῦν will presently be examined more closely.

ἐθεασάμεθα τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ. θεᾶσθαι is never used in the N.T. of spiritual vision, while it is used 22 times of “seeing” with the bodily eyes. Cf. 1:32, 38, 4:35, 6:5, 11:45, 1 Jn. 4:12, 14 (θεὸν οὐδεὶς πώποτε τεθέαται … ἡμεῖς τεθεάμεθα … ὅτι ὁ πατὴρ ἀπέσταλκεν τὸν υἱόν), and 1 Jn. 1:1, 2 ὃ ἑωράκαμεν τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς ἡμῶν, ὃ ἐθεασάμεθα κτλ. Neither here nor at 1 Jn. 1:1 is there any question of a supersensuous, mystical perception of spiritual facts, in both passages the claim being that the author has “seen” with his eyes (the aorist points to a definite moment in the historic past) the manifested glory of the Incarnate Word.

The use of the first person plural when speaking of his Christian experience is characteristic of Jn., and runs all through the First Epistle (cf. 1 Jn. 1:1, 3:2, 14, 5:15, 19, 20) He speaks not only for himself but for his fellow-believers (cf. 3:11); and in this passage for such of these (whether living or departed) as had been eye-witnesses of the public ministry of Jesus. (Cf. also 2 Pet. 1:17, and see Introd., p. lx).

δόξα, δοξάζειν are favourite words with Jn. (although they are not found in the Johannine Epistles). Certain shades of meaning must be distinguished.

As in Greek authors generally, δόξα often means no more than “honour,” and δοξάζειν means “to honour greatly”; e.g. 5:41, 7:18, 8:50, 54, 9:24, 11:4, 12:43, 14:13, 15:8, 16:14, 17:1, 4, 10, 21:19 (See on 4:44). But Jn. uses these words sometimes with special reference to that δόξα which belongs to God alone, e.g. 17:5 recalls the glory of the Eternal Word. According to one interpretation (see above) of ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν, δόξα here (cf. 2:11, 11:40) stands for the Divine glory exhibited in the earthly life of Jesus which was perceived by those who companied with Him, and this must in any case be part of the meaning of ἐθεασάμεθα τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ. The crisis of this “glorification” in Jn. is the Passion (7:39, 12:16, 23) consummated in the Risen Life (13:32). See especially on 13:32.

We must, at this point, recall the later Jewish doctrine of the Shekinah or visible dwelling of Yahweh with His people. The word שְׁכִינָה, “that which dwells,” is appropriated in later Judaism to the Divine presence. When in the O.T. Yahweh is said to dwell in a place, the Targums, to avoid anthropomorphism, preferred to say that He “caused His Shekinah to dwell.” The Shekinah was the form of His manifestation, which was glorious; but the glory is distinct from the Shekinah, which is used as equivalent to the Divine Being Himself. Thus the Targum of Isa. 60:2 is: “In thee the Shekinah of Yahweh shall dwell, and His glory shall be revealed upon thee.” Again, Lev. 26:12, “I will walk among you and be your God,” becomes in the Targum “I will place the glory of my Shekinah among you, and my Memra shall be with you.” Or again, Isa. 6:1, “I saw the Lord,” becomes in the Targum “I saw the glory of the Lord” (see on 12:41).¹

Now by bilingual Jews the representation of Shekinah by σκήνη was natural, and when σκηνοῦν or κατασκηνοῦν is used in the later books of the LXX or the Apocalypse of the dwelling of God with men, the allusion is generally to the doctrine of the Shekinah (cf. Rev. 7:15). Accordingly, ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ὑμῖν καὶ ἐθεασάμεθα τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ also carries a probable allusion to the glory of the Shekinah which was the manifestation on earth of God Himself.²

δόξαν ὡς μονογενοῦς παρὰ πατρός. The glory of the Word is described as “a glory as of the Only-begotten from the Father.” Neither Son nor Father has yet been mentioned, and the sentence is a parenthesis explanatory of the δόξα of the Word. We may connect παρὰ πατρός either (a) with μονογενοῦς or (b) with δόξαν.

If (a) be adopted, then we have the parallels 6:46, 7:29, 16:27, 17:8, in all of which passages Jesus says of Himself that He is παρὰ θεοῦ or the like, a phrase which means more when applied to Him thus than it means in 1:6, where John Baptist has been described as ἀπεσταλμένος παρὰ θεοῦ, or in 9:16, 33, where the Pharisees say that Jesus was not παρὰ θεοῦ. But μονογενὴς παρά would be an unusual combination, especially in Jn., who always has ἐκ θεοῦ, not παρὰ θεοῦ, when he wishes to say “begotten of God”¹ (cf. 1 Jn. 2:29, 3:9, 4:7, 5:1, 4, 18). It is true, indeed, that the distinctions between παρά, ἀπό, and ἐκ were being gradually obliterated in the first century, and that we cannot always distinguish παρά from ἐκ (see on 6:46), but the point is that Jn. never uses παρά with γεννᾶσθαι.

(b) If we connect δόξαν with παρὰ πατρός, the meaning is “the glory such as the only Son receives from his Father.” Cf. 5:41, 44 for δόξαν παρὰ τοῦ μόνου θεοῦ. “No image but the relation of a μονογενής to a father can express the twofold character of the glory as at once derivative and on a level with its source.”² The manifested glory of the Word was as it were the glory of the Eternal Father shared with His only Son. Cf. 8:54 ἔστιν ὁ πατήρ μου ὁ δοξάζων με, where see note.

The word μονογενής is generally used of an only child (e.g. Judg. 11:34, Tob. 3:15, 6:10, 14, Lk. 7:12, 8:42, 9:38, Heb. 11:17), the emphasis being on μονο—rather than on γενής. Thus Plato speaks of μονογενὴς οὐρανός (Tim. 31); and Clement of Rome (§ 25) describes the legendary bird, the phænix, as μονογενές, sc. it is the only one of its kind, unique (cf. the LXX of Ps. 25:12). Some of the O.L. texts (a e q) render μονογενής here by unicus, which is the original meaning, rather than by unigenitus, which became the accepted Latin rendering so soon as controversies arose about the Person and Nature of Christ.

An only child is specially dear to its parents; and μονογενής is used to translate יָתִיד in Ps. 22:20,³ 35:17, where we should expect ἀγαπητός. Conversely ἀγαπητός is used for an only son, Gen. 22:2; cf. Amos 8:10.¹ And in every place where Jn. has μονογενής (except perhaps in this verse), viz. 1:18, 3:16, 18, 1 Jn. 4:9, we might substitute, as Kattenbusch has pointed out, ἀγαπητός for it, without affecting the sense materially.²

At this point, however, the meaning is clear. The glory of the Incarnate Word was such glory as the only Son of the Eternal Father would derive from Him and so could exhibit to the faithful.

πλήρης χάριτος καὶ ἀληθείας. If καὶ ἐθεασάμεθα … πατρός is parenthetical, as we take it to be, then πλήρης is in apposition to λόγος at the beginning of the verse, and the construction is regular and simple. If the adj. πλήρης were always treated as declinable (as it is, e.g., Mk. 8:19, Mt. 14:20, 15:37, Acts 6:3), this would be the only possible construction of the passage.

πλήρης, however, is often treated as indeclinable by scribes, in the N.T., the LXX, and the papyri;³ and it is possible, therefore, to take it in the present passage (the only place where it occurs in Jn.) as in apposition either to δόξαν or to αὐτοῦ or μονογενοῦς in the previous line. For πλήρης here D reads πλήρη, which apparently was meant by the scribe to be taken with δόξαν. Turner has shown⁴ that Irenæus, Athanasius, Chrysostom, and later Greek Fathers did not connect πλήρης with ὁ λόγος, but (generally) with δόξαν. And the Curetonian Syriac (Syr. sin. is deficient at this point) will not permit πλήρης to be taken with λόγος.⁵

On the contrary, Origen seems to favour the connexion of πλήρης with λόγος or μονογενής.⁶ The O.L. (followed by vulg.) has plenum in apposition with uerbum; and internal evidence seems to favour this construction, despite the authority of most Greek Fathers. For to speak of the glory of Christ as being “full of grace and truth” is not as intelligible as to speak of Christ Himself being πλήρης χάριτος καὶ ἀληθείας; cf. Acts 6:8, Στέφανος πλήρης χάριτος καὶ δυνάμεως, and for this constr. of πλήρης as descriptive of a man’s quality, see Acts 6:3, 5, 7:55, 11:24. Further, in v. 16 the πλήρωμα from which Christians receive grace is that of Christ Himself, which shows that πλήρης here refers to Him.

The problem is one of grammar rather than of exegesis, for on any rendering grace and truth are specified as characteristic attributes of the Incarnate Word, or of His manifestation of Himself in the world. These two words χάρις and ἀλήθεια must now be examined.

The characteristically Christian word χάρις does not appear in Jn. except at 1:14, 16, 17, in the Prologue. It is never placed in the mouth of Jesus by any evangelist (except in the sense of thanks, Lk. 6:32, 34, 17:9), and is not used at all by Mk. or Mt. In Lk. it is applied occasionally to the special favour of God to individuals (1:30, 2:40, 52), as it is several times in the LXX (e.g. Gen. 6:8). But its Christian use as grace is derived from Paul,¹ who habitually employs it to designate the condescending love of God in redemption, as contrasted with the legalism of the Mosaic economy (Rom. 5:21, 6:14 and passim); and the influence of Paul’s terminology appears in Acts (e.g. 20:24 το εὐαγγέλιον τῆς χάριτος τοῦ θεοῦ), Heb. 10:29, 1 Pet. 1:13, etc. So we have χάρις in the specially Christian sense in Barnabas, § 5, and Ignatius (Magn. 8), and thenceforth in all Christian writers. But Jn. never uses χάρις except here and vv. 16, 17, and this is an indication of the faithfulness with which the primitive Christian phraseology is preserved in the Fourth Gospel. He does not even speak of the grace of God, when he writes ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον (3:16), although what Paul meant by χάρις is behind his thought.

On the other hand, ἀλήθεια is one of the keywords of the Fourth Gospel. The question of Pilate, “What is truth?” (18:38) has received its answer. It was the purpose of Christ’s mission that He should “bear witness to the truth” (18:37; cf. 5:33). The Word of the Father which He came to proclaim is truth (17:8). He emphasises the truth of His pronouncements to His disciples (16:7) and to the multitude (8:45). He is “a man that hath told you the truth” (8:40). Truth came through Him (1:17); He is “full of truth” (1:14); He is the Truth itself (14:6). So He will send the Spirit of truth (15:26, 14:17; cf. 1 Jn. 4:6, 5:7), who is to guide the faithful into all the truth (16:13). Christ’s disciples will “know the truth, and the truth shall make them free” (8:32); “he that doeth the truth cometh to the light” (3:21; cf. 1 Jn. 1:6); and Christ’s prayer for His chosen is that they may be “sanctified in the truth” (17:17, 19). Every one that is of the truth hears His voice (18:38).

The word ἀλήθεια occurs 25 times in the Gospel and 20 times in the Johannine Epp., while it is only found 7 times in the Synoptists and not at all in the Apocalypse. The distribution of ἀληθής and ἀληθῶς is similar, while that of ἀληθινός (see on v. 9) is somewhat different, as it is common in the Apocalypse. These figures show that the idea of Truth is dominant with Jn.,¹ and that the truth of Christ’s teachings is one of his deepest convictions. He represents Christ as claiming to teach and to be the Truth; and although the Synoptists do not dwell upon it, yet this feature of Christ’s claim appears in their account of His controversy with the Pharisees at Jerusalem during the last week of His public ministry (Mk. 12:14, Mt. 22:16, Lk. 20:21). “We know,” they said, “that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth”; i.e. they began by a verbal recognition of the claim that He had made for Himself, a claim directly recorded by Jn. alone. While then, the emphasis laid in the Fourth Gospel upon the truth of Christ’s teaching is partly due to the circumstances in which the book was produced, and the desire of Jn. to assure his readers not only of the spiritual beauty but also of the solid foundations of Christian doctrine, we need not doubt that it gives a representation faithful to historical fact, when it describes Jesus as Himself claiming to be the Ambassador and Revealer of the Truth. In the Galilæan discourses we should not expect to find this topic prominently brought forward, and the Synoptists are mainly occupied with Galilee. But when they bring Jesus to the critical and intellectual society of Jerusalem, they indicate that His claims to the possession of absolute truth had been noticed by those who wished to disparage and controvert His teaching.

Various explanations have been offered of the combination “grace and truth” as the two pre-eminent attributes of the Incarnate Logos. As we have seen, grace is what Jn. prefers to describe as love (God’s love descending on men), and truth brings light (cf. Ps. 43:3)); accordingly some exegetes refer back to v. 4, where the Divine life issues in light. But even if we equate χάρις with ἀγάπη, we cannot equate it with ζωή; and further Jn. does not represent ἀλήθεια as issuing from χάρις. Rather are χάρις and ἀλήθεια co-ordinate.

The combination is found again in v. 17, where grace and truth, which came through Christ, are contrasted with the Law, which was given through Moses. In the O.T. χάρις and ἀλήθεια are not explicitly combined, but ἔλεος and ἀλήθεια occur often in combination as attributes of Yahweh (Ps. 40:11 89:14; cf. Ex. 34:6), and in Ps. 61:7 as attributes of the Messianic King. As we have seen above (p. 21), the meeting of ἔλεος and ἀλήθεια is associated in Ps. 85:9, 10 with the dwelling (κατασκηνῶσαι) in the Holy Land of the Divine δόξα. And it is to this passage in the Psalter, more than to any other passage in the O.T., that the words and thoughts of Jn. 1:14 are akin. The idea of the Divine compassion (ἔλεος), of which the O.T. is full, is enlarged and enriched in the N.T. by the idea of Divine grace (χάρις).¹

15. The verse is parenthetical, interpolating at this point the Baptist’s witness to the pre-existence of Christ, which has been implied in v. 14.

μαρτυρεῖ, the historic present. What John said is, and remains, a witness to the pre-mundane dignity of Christ.

καὶ κέκραγεν, “and he hath cried aloud”; his voice was still sounding when the Fourth Gospel was written. For κράζειν, see on 7:28. א*D om. λέγων after κέκραγεν.

οὗτος ἦν ὃν εἶπον, “this was He of whom I spake”; cf. 8:27, 10:35 for the constr. ὃν εἶπον. At v. 30 we have the more usual ὑπὲρ οὗ εἶπον. The awkwardness of the constr. is responsible for variant readings. ὁ εἰπών is read by א^aB*C*, but this is impossible; ὃν εἶπον is found in א^cbA B³D L Θ, and must be accepted despite the inferiority of its attestation.²

ὃν εἶπον. It would seem from all four Gospels that the Baptist proclaimed “the Coming One” (ὁ ἐρχόμενος) before he had identified Him with Jesus. The terms of John’s proclamation are repeated in v. 30, almost verbally, and must be placed beside the Synoptic forms. We have seen on v. 6 above that the correspondences between Jn. and Mk. as to the Baptist’s witness are very close;³ and it is clear that at this point ἔμπροσθέν μου γέγονεν is intended by Jn. to express what Mk. (and also Mt., Lk.) meant by ἰσχυρότερός μου (see also on v. 27). Thus ἔμπροσθεν does not indicate priority in time as at 3:28 (that is brought out in the next clause), but in dignity, as at Gen. 48:20, where it is said that Jacob made Ephraim ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ Μανασσῆ. “He that comes after me has come-to-be before me” (cf. 6:25 for a like use of γέγονε).

ὅτι πρῶτός μου ἦν. This is a Johannine addition to the Synoptic proclamation of the Baptist. It has been rendered in two different ways. (a) To render πρῶτός μου as “my Chief,” “my Superior,” is defensible, and Abbott (Diat. 2665) cites some authorities for a similar use of πρῶτος. But “He was my Chief” would be a tame addition to the great saying, “He that cometh after me is preferred before me.” (b) The usual interpretation treats πρῶτος as equivalent to πρότερος, “He was before me,” sc. in His pre-Incarnate life, although He was born into the world six months after the Baptist. The verb ἦν favours this (cf. 8:58 and vv. 1, 2, 4, 10 above). πρῶτός μου, then, is parallel to πρῶτον ὑμῶν at 15:18, in both cases πρῶτος meaning anterior. This use of a superlative for a comparative may be supported by classical examples, e.g. Xenophon, Mem. 1. ii. 46 δεινότατος σαυτοῦ ταῦτα ἦσθα, and we may compare Justin, Apol. i. 12, where οὗ βασιλικώτατον καὶ δικαιότατον … οὐδένα οἴδαμεν means “than whom we know no one more regal and just.” On this rendering of πρῶτος “because He was before me,” Jn. ascribes to the Baptist a knowledge of Christ’s Pre-existence, which it is improbable that he had realised. But it is quite in the manner of in. to attribute to the Baptist that fuller understanding of Christ’s Person which was not appreciated even by the apostles until after His Resurrection (see on v. 29).

16. ὅτι … ὅτι on introduces vv. 16, 17, v. 16 being explanatory of v. 14, and v. 17 elucidating v. 16 further. ὅτι is here read by א B C*D L 33, and must be preferred to the rec. καὶ (A WΘ), which is probably due to scribes not understanding that v. 15 is a parenthesis.

ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ πληρώματος αὐτοῦ κτλ. The Incarnate Word is indeed “full” of grace and truth, for (ὅτι) out of His “fulness” we have all received. Stephen is described (Acts 6:8) as πλήρης χάριτος as well as his Master, although in a lesser degree; but he was only one of many disciples of whom this might be said.

ἡμεῖς πάντες ἐλάβομεν, “we, all of us,” ἡμεῖς being prefixed for emphasis, i.e. all Christian disciples. The subject of ἐλάβομεν is wider than that of ἐθεασάμεθα in v. 14, where the thought is of contemporary witnesses of the public ministry of Jesus. It is, however, not only they who receive of His fulness, but every true believer.

πλήρωμα¹ does not occur again in Jn., but is used in the same way of the “fulness” of Christ at Eph. 4:13, Col. 1:19. The thought of Eph. 1:23 that the Church is His πλήρωμα is a different one; cf. also Rom. 15:29. See p. cxxxvii.

καὶ χάριν ἀντὶ χάριτος. ἀντί does not appear again in Jn.; it is a preposition which was going out of use in the first century.

Chrysostom understands the sentence to mean that Christians have received the higher χάρις of Christ in exchange for the χάρις of the law, “for even the things of the law were of grace.” If this were the meaning intended, viz. that the lesser favour were replaced by the greater, there is a parallel to the thought in Philo, who says that God always limits His first favours (τὰς πρώτας χάριτας), and then bestows others in their stead (ἀεὶ νέας ἀντὶ παλαιοτέρων, de post. Caini, 43). But the point of v. 17 is that χάρις did not come through the Mosaic law, the word being explicitly confined to the grace of Christ (see on v. 14).

A better suggestion is that of J. A. Robinson,² viz. that ἀντί implies correspondence rather than substitution here, and that the idea is that the χάρις which the Christian receives corresponds to the source of the χάρις in Christ.³

17. The paratactic construction (see p. lxxix) is unmistakable; we should expect ὁ νόμος μὲν … ἡ χάρις δὲ καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια κτλ.

In v. 16 the evangelist exults in the “grace for grace,” i.e. the grace after grace, which all believers have received in Christ. This is, indeed, in marked contrast with the spiritual condition of those who were “under the law,” as Paul would have expressed it, for it is pre-eminently through Christ that “grace” comes into play. χάρις is never spoken of in the LXX as a privilege of the Jew, and the contrast between law and grace is a master-thought of Paul (Rom. 4:16, 6:14, 15, Gal. 5:4). Here it is explicit; it had become a Christian commonplace by the time that the Prologue came to be written, but Jn. never returns to it in the body of his Gospel.

The contrast is between νόμος and χάρις, as in Paul, but καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια was added by Jn. after χάρις, the two having been combined in v. 14. The thought of the freedom which truth brings appears again at 8:32, and ἀλήθεια is very apposite here. Its addition to χάρις is Jn.’s contribution to Paul’s contrast of law and grace. It is not that the Mosaic law was not true, as far as it went; but that the truth of Christ emancipates the believer from the bondage of the law.

That the law was given through Moses is repeated 7:19 (cf. 6:32); but the grace and the truth (ἡ ἀλήθεια; cf. 14:6) came through Jesus Christ. Moses was only the mediator through whom God gave the law; but Christ is Himself the source of grace and truth.

The full historical name “Jesus Christ” appears here for the first time in Jn. It was not used by the contemporaries of Jesus in His public ministry, and is only found in the Synoptists Mk 1:1, Mt. 1:1. It appears again Jn. 17:3, and also 1 Jn. 1:3, 2:1, 3:23, 4:2, 5:20. In the Acts it occurs 2:38, 3:6, 4:10, 10:36, 16:18, five times in the Apocalypse, and often in Paul (see Introd., p. cxxxvi).

18. θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε. That God is invisible to the bodily eye was a fundamental principle of Judaism (Ex. 33:20, Deut. 4:12). The Son of Sirach asks, τίς ἑόρακεν αὐτὸν καὶ ἐκδιηγήσεται; (Ecclus. 43:31), to which Jn. supplies the answer here (cf. ἐξηγήσατο at the end of the verse). Philo, as a good Jew, has the same doctrine. God is ἀόρατος (de post. Caini, 5), even though Moses in a sense may be called θεόπτης (de mut. nom. 2), and the name “Israel” means uir uidens deum (see on 1:51 below).¹ ἀόρατος is applied to God in like manner, Col. 1:15, 1 Tim. 1:17.²

The doctrine that God is invisible is not, indeed, peculiar to Hebrew thought; cf. the verse from the Orphic literature quoted by Clement Alex. (Strom. v. 12):

εἰσοράᾳ θνητῶν, αὐτὸς δέ γε πάντας ὁρᾶται.

μονογενής, Θεός ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ Πάτρος,

Jn. is specially insistent on the doctrine that God is invisible. Cf. 5:37, οὔτε εἶδος αὐτοῦ ἑωράκατε, and (a passage closely parallel to 1:18) 6:46, οὐχ ὅτι τὸν πατέρα ἑώρακέν τις, εἰ μὴ ὁ ὢν παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ. οὗτος ἑώρακεν τὸν πατέρα. See note on 14:7, and cf. 1 Jn. 4:12, 20.

In the Greek Bible πώποτε always occurs with a negative. Jn. has it again 5:37, 6:35, 8:33, 1 Jn. 4:12; cf. also Lk. 19:30.

μονογενὴς occurs again in Jn. only at 1:14, 3:16, 18, 1 Jn. 4:9, and in the last three instances in connexion with υἱός, so that the tendency of scribes would be to replace the more difficult θεός here by the more familiar υἱός, as they have done; while there would be no temptation to replace υἱός by θεός. μονογενὴς θεός² was an expression adopted by Arius and Eunomius as freely as by the orthodox Catholics, so that its occurrence in a Gospel text would hardly have been used for polemical purposes by either party. It is an expression unfamiliar to the modern ear, and is therefore hard of acceptance by any to whom the cadence “only begotten Son” seems inevitable. However, it is probable—although the patristic testimony does not altogether favour this view—that μονογενής is not to be taken as an adjective qualifying θεός, but that μονογενής, θεός, ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρός are three distinct designations of Him who is the Exegete or Interpreter of the Father (cf. Abbott, Diat. 1938).

That the Word is θεός (not ὁ θεός) has already been stated without qualification in v. 1. In v. 14 His glory is said to be like the glory which a μονογενής. receives from his father, which prepares the way for giving Him the title of μονογενής. This title suggests that relation of Christ to God, as the Son to the Father, which has not yet been mentioned, but which is prominent in the Fourth Gospel. And, finally (as is also suggested by μονογενής, see on v. 14 above), this relation is one of eternal love. The Word may be described as ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρός.

θεὸν οὐδεὶς κτλ. Jn. generally begins such a sentence with οὐδείς but here θεόν is put first for special emphasis; cf. 3:32, 13:28, 15:13, 16:22, where similarly οὐδείς is not put in the forefront.

εἰς τὸν κόλπον. “The wife of one’s bosom” is a phrase, used in many languages, for “beloved wife.” Cf. Num. 11:12, Deut. 13:6. The metaphor is even applied to friendship between man and man; e.g. Cicero (ad Fam. Ep. xvi. 4, 3), “Cicero meus quid aget? iste uero sit in sinu semper et complexu meo,” and Plutarch, Cato minor, 33 fin., Γαβίνιον Αὖλον, ἐκ τῶν Πομπηΐου κόλπων ἄνθρωπον.

Hence ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρός expresses the intimate relationship of love between the Son and the Father; the Word shares in the secrets of Deity. ὤν stands for eternal being (cf. 8:58 and Rev. 1:4); it is the relation between Son and Father prior to the Incarnation, that is in the writer’s thought.

εἰς τὸν κόλπον, without a verb of motion, occurs elsewhere neither in the Greek Bible nor in Greek literature generally (Abbott, Diat. 2712), the more usual constr. being ἐν τῷ κόλπῳ (as at 13:23, which does not, however, help us). It is possible that εἰς is used here in the same sense as ἐν (cf. 19:13), as it often is in Mk.;¹ on the other hand, ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρός recalls ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν (v. 1), where πρός may carry a sense of direction (see note in loc.).

Ignatius has a phrase which may be reminiscent of v. 18, viz. Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν τὸν ἀφʼ ἑνὸς πατρὸς προελθόντα καὶ εἰς ἕνα ὄντα καὶ χωρήσαντα (Magn. 7); see on 13:3.

For ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πάτρος, Harris² appositely quotes Spenser’s Hymn to Heavenly Beauty:

where Spenser seemingly identifies the σοφία of the Sapiential Books of the O.T. with the λόγος of the N.T.

ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο. For ἐκεῖνος, see on v. 8; here it is very emphatic: “It is He who interpreted (the Father).” The object of ἐξηγήσατο is not stated, but it is not doubtful. It was God as Father that He who was “in the bosom of the Father” revealed to men. The aorist indicates a particular period in time, i.e. that of the life of Christ on earth.

ἐξηγεῖσθαι is used elsewhere in the N.T. by Lk. alone (Lk. 24:35, Acts 10:8, 15:12, 14, 21:19), and in the sense of “to rehearse,” for the benefit of others, words or incidents of sacred significance. It is the verb technically used in Greek literature of a declaration or exposition of Divine mysteries (see Wetstein for many examples). Thus, in Job 28:27 it is said that God “declared” (ἐξηγήσατο) wisdom, which was otherwise hidden from man; and the official interpreters of dreams in Gen. 41:8, 24 are called ἐξηγηταί.

Here we have the climax of the Prologue. The significance of the doctrine of the Logos is expressed in two words, ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο, “It is He who interpreted the Father.” In v. 17 it has been affirmed that “the truth came through Jesus Christ,” and the highest form of truth is the knowledge of God. This He declared with a precision which could only be exhibited by One whose dwelling was “in the bosom of the Father.” “What He hath seen and heard, of that He beareth witness” (3:32). Cf. Mt. 11:27, Lk. 10:22.

The last words of the Prologue (v. 18) set out briefly the theme of the Gospel which is to follow. It is the ἐξήγησις or Exhibition to the world of God in Christ.¹

19. This is the beginning of the Gospel, as distinct from the Prologue, and it opens, as Mk. does, with the witness of John the Baptist, differing, however, from Mk. in that the Baptism of Jesus is already over, reference being made to it at vv. 32, 33.

The indications of time in cc. 1, 2 are remarkable and precise. If the incident described vv. 19–28 is dated Day i., then Day ii. (ἐπαύριον) is taken up with vv. 29–34. Again, Day iii extends from v. 35 (ἐπαύριον) to v. 39. Then, if we read πρωΐ for πρῶτον (see note in loc.) at v. 41, the incident of vv. 40–42 belongs to Day iv. Day v. extends from v. 43 (ἐπαύριον) to the end of the chapter. Nothing is told of Day vi., but Day vii. (τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῇ τρίτῃ) is the day of the Marriage at Cana (see further on 2:1). That is, the Gospel opens with the detailed report of a momentous week.

καὶ αὕτη ἐστὶν κτλ. “Now the witness of John is this …,” αὕτη being the predicate of identification, and καί referring back to v. 7 or v. 15, where John’s witness has been mentioned. We have now a threefold testimony of John, given on three consecutive days (vv. 19, 29, 35), the first being the announcement of the Coming One, the second the designation of Jesus as He who was to come, and the third having as its consequence the following of Jesus by two of John’s disciples. The particularity of detail points to the story coming ultimately from an eye-witness, probably from John the son of Zebedee, whose reminiscences lie behind the Fourth Gospel (see on vv. 35, 40). For the idea of μαρτυρία in Jn., cf. Introd., p. xci, and see on v. 7.

ὅτε ἀπέστειλαν πρὸς αὐτὸν οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι κτλ. So B C* 33, but א C³L Δ W om. πρὸς αὐτόν. AΘ fam. 13 add πρ. αὐτόν after Λευείτας.

John the Baptist was now carrying on his ministry, and his work had aroused intense interest (Lk. 3:15). It was natural that the Sanhedrim (see on 7:32) should send representatives to inquire into his purpose and personal claims. John the Baptist’s father being a priest, his activities would be of special interest to the whole priestly order. Accordingly the authorities at Jerusalem sent “priests and Levites,” a combination that does not occur again in the N.T. Levites are mentioned elsewhere only at Lk. 10:32, Acts 4:36; and Jn. does not employ the term ἱερεύς again, although he often has ἀρχιερεύς.

οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι. The use of this term in Jn. is remarkable. Except in the phrase, “the King of the Jews,” the Synoptists only use the word Ἰουδαῖος five times (Mt. 28:15, Mk. 1:5, 7:3, Lk. 7:3, 23:51), while it occurs more than 70 times in Jn. When Jn. refers to the social or religious customs of “the Jews” (e.g. 2:6, 13, 4:9, 5:1, 6:4, 7:2, 11:55, 19:40, 42), he does not exclude Galilæans, who were at one in religion and habits of life with the inhabitants of Judæa. But he generally means by “the Jews,” the people of Judæa and particularly of Jerusalem, the scene of so large a part of his narrative. The Fourth Gospel is pre-eminently the story of the rejection of Jesus by these “Jews,” who were deeply imbued with national sentiment, intensely conservative in religious matters, bigoted and intolerant in their pride of race (cf. 5:10). Their popular leaders were the Pharisees, and we find from v. 24 that the commission of inquiry about John the Baptist’s doings had been sent by them. In v. 19 οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι are not to be distinguished from οἱ Φαρισαῖοι of v. 24. It is the “Jews” and the “Pharisees” who are represented throughout the Fourth Gospel as especially the opponents of Jesus and His claims.

In one passage (6:41, 52), indeed, objectors who appear from the context to have been Galilæans are explicitly called “the Jews,” perhaps because they represented the Jewish party of hostility; but see note in loc. In the present verse, there is no doubt that οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι are the leaders of religious thought in Jerusalem.

ἐξ Ἱεροσολύμων. The Hebrew ירושׁלם is transliterated Ἱερουσαλήμ in the LXX, whence we have “Jerusalem.” This primitive form of the name is not found in Mt. (except 23:37), Mk., or Jn., while it is nearly always used by Lk., and always in the Apocalypse (3:12, 21:2, 10, of the New Jerusalem).

The Hellenised form Ἱεροσόλυμα came into vogue about 100 b.c., and is the form usually employed in the Books of the Maccabees (cf. 2 Macc. 3:9) and in Josephus. It is generally treated as a neuter plural, but in Mt. 2:3 and Tob. 14:4 it appears as a feminine singular, perhaps being taken to represent “the sacred Solyma.”¹ This is the form (Ἱεροσόλυμα, as a neuter plural) which is always used in Jn., as well as in Mt. and Mk. See further on 2:23.

ἵνα ἐρωτήσωσιν αὐτόν, “that they should interrogate him.” They asked him, Σὺ τίς εἶ; “Who are you?” not meaning thereby to ask him his name or parentage, for that his father was Zacharias the priest must have been well known to the authorities. But they meant to ask him who he claimed to be, and he understood their meaning, for he disclaimed at once any pretence of being the Christ.²

For the answer given by Jesus to the same question, Σὺ τίς εἶ; see 8:25.

The pronoun σύ is used with extraordinary frequency in Jn., his tendency being to lay stress on personality (cf. Abbott, Diat. 1726, 2402).

20. καὶ ὡμολόγησεν καὶ οὐκ ἠρνήσατο καὶ ὡμολόγησεν, a good example of parataxis, or the habit of using co-ordinate sentences conjoined by καί, which is so marked a feature of Jn.’s style. See above on v. 10.

The alternation of affirmative and negative statements, so as to make explicit what is meant, is also thoroughly Johannine; cf. 1 Jn. 1:5, 2:4, 27. See above on v. 3.

With “confessed and denied not,” cf. Josephus, Antt. VI. vii. 4, Σαοῦλος δὲ ἀδικεῖν ὡμολόγει καὶ τὴν ἁμαρτίαν οὐκ ἠρνεῖτο.

John the Baptist is bold and direct in his reply to them, saying ἐγὼ οὐκ εἰμὶ ὁ χριστός, ἐγώ being emphatic, “I am not the Christ,” the form of his answer suggesting that they might have to reckon with the Christ, nevertheless. Lk. (3:15) tells in like manner of John’s disclaimer, which is mentioned again 3:28 below (cf. also Acts 13:25).

ἐγὼ οὐκ εἰμί. So א A B C*L W 33; rec. has οὐκ εἰμὶ ἐγώ (C³Θ). In c. 1, the Baptist’s use of ἐγώ is a feature of the narrative (vv. 23, 26, 27, 30, 31, 33), his distinctive ministry being thus brought into clear view.

Jn. dwells with special emphasis on the acceptance by John the Baptist of a ministry quite subordinate to that of Jesus (cf. 3:28–30, 5:33f., 10:41). Disciples of the Baptist had been found by Paul at Ephesus (Acts 19:1–7); and there is some evidence that by the end of the first century a Baptist community was prominent there, whose members offered allegiance to their founder rather than to Christ. As late as the middle of the third century, the Clementine Recognitions mention such a sect explicitly: “ex discipulis Johannis qui … magistrum suum ueluti Christum praedicarunt” (i. § 54 and § 60).¹ The necessity of refuting such claims made for the Baptist in Ephesus and its neighbourhood sufficiently explains the importance which the Fourth Gospel attaches to John the Baptist’s confession, “I am not the Christ.”

21. καὶ ἠρώτησαν αὐτόν, Τί οὖν; The argumentative τί οὖν; quid ergo? appears in Rom. 6:15, 11:7.

The variants are puzzling. B has σὺ οὖν τί; which can hardly be right; א L om. σύ; C* 33 insert σύ before Ἠλείας; while A C³Γ Δ Θ with the Latin vss. have Ἠλείας εἶ σύ. Perhaps σύ has been interpolated from the next clause; it is not necessary for the sense. We omit it, with Tischendorf, accordingly.

Ἠλείας εἶ; There was a general belief that Elijah would return to earth to prepare the way of the Messiah. This was founded on Mal. 4:5. In Mk. 9:11 it is mentioned, as commonly recognised, that “Elijah must first come” (cf. Mk. 6:15, 8:28 and parallels). His mission was to be the establishment of order (Mk. 9:12), as is also explained in the Mishna.¹ Justin quotes (Tryph. 8) Jewish doctrine to the effect that Messiah was to be hidden until pointed out and anointed by Elijah.

In a sense, John the Baptist was the Elijah of Jewish expectation, and so Jesus declared (Mt. 11:14; cf. Lk. 1:17), but in the sense in which the Jewish emissaries put the question, “Art thou Elijah?” the true answer was No; for, while the Baptist fulfilled the preliminary ministry of which Malachi had spoken, he was not Elijah returned to earth in bodily form.²

ὁ προφήτης εἶ σύ; This was another alternative. The Jews held that not only Elijah, but others of the great prophets, would return before Messiah’s appearance. Cf. 2 Esd. 2:17, “For thy help will I send my servants Isaiah and Jeremiah,” a passage which may be pre-Christian. One of the rumours about Jesus during His Galilæan ministry was that He was “Jeremiah or one of the prophets” (Mt. 16:14; cf. Mk. 8:28). See 9:17 below. But more specific than this expectation of the return of one of the older prophets was the expectation of one who was pre-eminently “the prophet,” whose coming was looked for on the ground of Deut. 18:15. This idea is not in the Synoptists, but appears three times in Jn. (1:21, 6:14, 7:40). Christian exegesis from the beginning (Acts 3:22, 7:37) found the fulfilment of Deut. 18:15 in the Christ; but pre-Christian, i.e. Jewish, comment distinguished “the prophet like unto Moses” from the Messiah, as is clear from the present passage and from 7:40; see on 6:31. To the question, “Art thou the prophet?” the only answer was No, for the Jews were mistaken in distinguishing ὁ προφήτης ὁ ἐρχόμενος from the Christ, whose herald John was.

22. εἶπαν οὖν κτλ., “And so they said to him, Who are you?” οὖν is a favourite connecting particle in the Fourth Gospel, seldom expressing logical sequence, but generally historical transition only (as in Homer). It occurs 195 times, and is used as εὐθύς is used in Mk.¹ In a few passages Jn. places it in the mouth of Jesus, indicating logical consequence, e.g. 6:62, 12:50, 13:14, 16:22. It does not occur in 1 Jn. at all.

ἳνα ἀπόκρισιν κτλ. The constr. is elliptical, as at 9:36, where see note. ἀπόκρισις occurs again 19:9.

23. ἔφη, Ἐγὼ φωνὴ κτλ. The Synoptists (Mk. 1:3, Mt. 3:3, Lk. 3:4) apply the words of Isa. 40:3 to the Baptist and his mission; but Jn. represents him as applying the text to himself² when answering the interrogation of the Jews. The source of the citation, viz. the prophecy of Isaiah, is explicitly given in all four Gospels.

The Synoptists quote from the LXX, but Jn. seems to reproduce a citation made memoriter from the Hebrew. Instead of ἑτοιμάσατε τὴν ὁδὸν κυρίου, he has εὐθύνατε, from the second clause of Isa. 40:3, where the LXX has εὐθείας ποιεῖτε.³

Theologians, both Eastern and Western, have noted the contrast between φωνή and λόγος. John “was the Voice, but not the Word” (Ephraim, Epiphany Hymns, i. 9). So also Augustine (serm. 293, 3): “Johannes uox ad tempus, Christus uerbum in principio aeternum.” Cf. Origen, Comm. (ed. Brooke, ii. 233).

24. The rec. text (so N WΘ) inserts οἱ before ἀπεσταλμένοι, i.e. “And certain had been sent from among the Pharisees,” as distinct from the questioners of v. 19. But οἱ is omitted by א*A*B C*L; and we must render “And they,” i.e. the priests and Levites of v. 19, “had been sent from the Pharisees.” And, in fact, v. 25 shows that the argument is carried on from v. 21.

The Pharisees (mentioned again 4:1, 7:45, 8:13, 9:13, 11:46, 12:19, 42) were the true representatives of the old Jewish spirit (see on v. 19). Strictly conservative, they were intolerant of all innovation, whether of doctrine or ritual, and the baptizing ministry of John aroused their suspicions. See on 7:32.

25. τί οὖν βαπτίζεις; Hitherto, no hint has been given that the ministry of John the herald was one of baptism. It is assumed that all readers of the Gospel will know that. The question, “Why are you baptizing?” is put to him by the Pharisees of the deputation from Jerusalem, who were the conservative guardians of orthodox practice.

The baptism of proselytes from heathenism was a recognised, if not a universal, practice in Jewry at this time. But why should Jews be baptized? And what authority had John to exercise this ministry? Baptism, that is a symbolic rite of purification, would indeed be a token of the approach of the Messianic kingdom; “I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean” (Ezek. 36:25) were prophetic words (cf. Zech. 13:1). But John had admitted that he was not Messiah; he was not even Elijah or “the prophet” (v. 21). His claim to be the Voice in the wilderness of Isa. 40:3 did not satisfy the Pharisees as to his authority for exercising so novel and irregular a ministry as that of baptizing Jews seemed to be.

26. The attitude of the Baptist to Jesus is explained more clearly in vv. 25–34 than it is in the Synoptists, whose source of knowledge about him was tradition and not personal acquaintance. This is what we should expect if the ultimate author of the Fourth Gospel were John the son of Zebedee, for he seems to have been one of the Baptist’s disciples (see on v. 35). Jn. does not narrate the Baptism of Jesus directly, but what he tells is consistent with the Marcan story.

We have, first, the Proclamation of the Coming One (Mk. 1:7, Mt. 3:11, Lk. 3:16), to which reference is made several times in this chapter. But when the proclamation was first made, the Baptist did not know (except in Mt.’s account; see on v. 31) that Jesus was the Predestined One for whose Advent he looked. Both in the Synoptists and in Jn. is the contrast drawn out between baptism ἐν ὕδατι (which was all that John offered) and baptism ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ (which was to be the work of the Christ). When Jesus presented Himself for baptism, the Baptist noticed a dove alighting on His head (v. 32); and as he looked he became conscious that this was the sign of the Spirit, and that Jesus was the expected One who should baptize ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ. All this is now to be set out in detail.

ἀπεκρίθη αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰωάνης λέγων. In Jn. we nearly always have the constr. ἀπεκρίθη καὶ εἶπεν (see on v. 50 below), but here and at 12:23 ἀπεκρ. λέγων seems to be the true reading.

The Baptist had been asked, “Why do you baptize?” What authority have you? (v. 25). He gives no direct answer; but before he speaks of Him whose herald he was, he admits that he did baptize, but only “with water.” ἐγὼ βαπτίζω ἐν ὕδατι. ἐγώ is emphatic: “Yes, I baptize, I administer a symbolic rite of purification, of cleansing with water.” The words are in all the Synoptic accounts of the Proclamation, where the contrast with the baptism with the Holy Spirit (v. 33) immediately follows (Mk. 1:8 and parallels). Here, at v. 26, ἐγὼ βαπτίζω ἐν ὕδατι is only a reiteration of the claim for himself which he was accustomed to make as he predicted the Coming of a Greater One (see on v. 33).

μέσος ὑμῦν. The rec. text (so NΘ) inserts δέ after μέσος, but om. א B C*L T ^b. It is not required by the sense. A new sentence begins with μέσος, in Johannine style without any connecting particle. We should have expected ἐν μέσῳ ὑμῶν, but Jn. never uses this constr.; cf. 19:18 μέσον δὲ τὸν Ἰησοῦν, and see on [8]:3, 9.

στήκει is read by B L T^b, and א has ἐστήκει: the rec. with A CΔ W N Θ gives the more usual ἕστηκεν. But στήκει, “standeth up” or “standeth fast,” is more dramatic, and well attested.

μέσος ὑμῶν στήκει. Apparently Jesus was actually present on this occasion, which is subsequent to His Baptism, as appears from the fact that the Baptist now knows Him for what He is, although the questioners did not: ὃν ὑμεῖς οὐκ οἴδατε, ὑμεῖς being emphatic. Perhaps the Baptist’s statement that the Coming One was even in their midst was treated as of no serious importance; there is no record, at any rate, of his being further questioned as to what he meant, or to which person of the company his words were applicable.

οἴδατε. εἰδέναι is a favourite verb with Jn., occurring three times as often in the Fourth Gospel as in the Synoptists. It is not easy to distinguish it in meaning from γινώσκειν (see on 1:48), although Westcott (on Jn. 2:24) has made a subtle analysis of the two verbs. Probably we might say that γινώσκειν generally stands for relative, acquired knowledge, gradually perfected, while εἰδέναι indicates a complete and absolute knowledge of the object. The latter would be the natural verb to express Divine knowledge (but cf. 17:25), although it would include also human certainty (see 2:9). But it is doubtful if the two verbs can be differentiated with any precision.¹ Both are frequently used in the LXX to render יָדַע; and the following list of passages shows that they are often used in Jn. without any perceptible difference of meaning.

Both verbs are used of Christ’s knowledge of the Father; γινώσκω at 10:15, 17:25, οἶδα at 7:29, 8:55. Both are used of the world’s knowledge (or ignorance) of God, or of that possessed by the Jews: γινώσκω at 1:10, 17:23, 25, 8:55, 16:3, 1 Jn. 3:1, 6; οἶδα at 7:28, 8:19, 15:21. Both are used of man’s knowledge of God and Christ: γινώσκω at 14:7, 9, 17:3, 1 Jn. 2:4, 13, 14, 4:6, 7, 8, 5:20, and οἶδα at 1:31, 33, 4:22, 14:7. Both are used of Christ’s knowledge of men or of ordinary facts, e.g. γινώσκω at 2:25, 5:6, 42, 6:15, 10:14, 27, and οἶδα at 6:64, 8:37, 13:3. The word used for the Father’s knowledge of the Son is γινώσκω (10:15), and not οἶδα as we should have expected. With this array of passages before us, we shall be slow to accept conclusions which are based on any strict distinction in usage between the two verbs.

27. ὁ ὀπίσω μου ἐρχόμενος κτλ. This clause (see v. 15) is in apposition to μέσος ὑμῶν στήκει κτλ. of the previous verse. Through misunderstanding of this, variants have arisen. The rec. with A C³Γ Δ prefixes αὐτός ἐστιν (as if v. 27 began a new sentence), and adds (with Θ) ὃς ἔμπροσθέν μου γέγονει (from v. 15); but neither of these insertions is found in א B C*L N T ^b W. א*B also omit ὁ before ὀπίσω, but ins. A Cא³N W Θ; the omission of the article is awkward, and is explicable from itacism, ὁ … ὀπ.

For the Synoptic forms of the Baptist’s proclamation, see Introd., p. c. Mt.’s alteration of “loosen the thong of His sandals” to “carry His sandals” (βαστάσαι for λύσαι) may point back to the form in Q. Either duty was that of a slave; and Wetstein (Mt. 3:11) cites a Rabbinical maxim (Cetuboth, f. 90. 1) to the effect that a disciple might offer any service to his teacher which a slave did for his master, except that of unfastening his shoes, which was counted as a menial’s duty.

ἄξιος does not occur elsewhere in Jn. (cf. Lk. 15:19), and the constr. ἄξιος ἵνα … is not found elsewhere in the N.T. Jn. never uses ἱκανός (οὐκ εἰμὶ ἱκανὸς ἵνα … is found again Mt. 8:8, Lk. 7:6). Perhaps ἄξιος is the more appropriate adj. here (cf. Acts 13:25, where it is found in the citation of the Baptist’s proclamation, instead of the Synoptic ἱκανός); but cf. 2 Cor. 2:16 πρὸς ταῦτα τίς ἱκανός;

28. The situation of the place is uncertain, and the variety of reading perplexes the topographical problem still more.

Βηθανίᾳ is read by א*A B C*W NΘ and must be accepted, although a “Bethany beyond Jordan” is not mentioned elsewhere. The rec. reading Βηθαβαρᾷ was adopted by Origen on geographical grounds (Comm. vi. 40). The Sinai Syriac has Beth Abré, which Burkitt thinks must rest on local tradition similar to that followed by Origen.

Conder identified Bethabara with the ford called ’Abârah, N.E. of Bethshean.¹ Jordan had many fords and ferries, and the name Bethabara would suit any place near a ford, its root being עבר “to cross”; but it is in favour of Conder’s identification that the name is not found elsewhere (cf. Beth-barah, Judg. 7:24). ’Abârah is barely 20 miles from Cana as the crow flies, but would be about 40 miles by road, so that it would be a possible site, if we take into account the time spent on the journey (2:1). It is, however, too far from Jerusalem to suit the Synoptic narrative (Mk. 1:5, Mt. 3:5), and the traditional site is much farther south, near Jericho.²

Beth-Nimrah, on the E. side of Jordan, N.E. of Jericho, will meet all the conditions of the problem. In Josh. 13:27 (B) Beth-Nimrah becomes Βαιθαναβρά, and this form might be corrupted either into Bethany or Bethabara. We incline to accept this identification, which, made at the first by Sir George Grove, was accepted by Sir Charles Wilson,³ and favoured by Cheyne.

ὅπου ἧν Ἰωάνης βαπτίζων. This coupling of a participle with the verb εἶναι, where we should expect an imperfect (ἐβάπτιζε) denoting continued action, is common in Jn. We have the phrase ἦν Ἰωάνης βαπτίζων repeated 3:23, 10:40; cf. also 5:5, 11:1, 13:23. It is also found in the Synoptists (e.g. Lk. 5:16, Mt. 19:22). This may be an Aramaic constr., but it is also found in classical Greek.

Abbott notes (Diat. 2171) that ὅπου after the name of a place (a constr. which appears again 12:1, 19:18, and in Mk., Mt. occasionally) is not in accordance with classical usage. Milligan cites from a second-century papyrus, εἰς Λιβύην ὅπου Ἄμμων … χρησμῳδεῖ, an excellent parallel.

29. τῇ ἐπαύριον. We now come to the second day of this spiritual diary (see on v. 19). One of the characteristics of the Fourth Gospel is the precision with which the author gives dates (see Introd., p. cii).

βηέπει τὸν Ἰησοῦν. The name Ἰησοῦς generally takes the article in Jn. (as in the Synoptists), except where an appositional phrase with the article is introduced, or in a quotation (4:1, 47, 6:24), or in the phrase ἀπεκρίθη Ἰη. (see on 1:50), or before οῦν (see on 6:15). There are a few other exceptions to the rule (e.g. 11:51, 12:44), but where the article is missing before Ἰη. the text always calls for scrutiny. B is more prone to omit ὁ before Ἰη. than the other great uncials. (See Introd., p. lxvi.)

ἐρχόμενον πρὸς αὐτόν, “coming towards him.” According to the Johannine narrative, Jesus had been baptized already, and probably the Temptation in the Wilderness had taken place. It would be natural that He should come back to John’s neighbourhood, where many earnest inquirers were gathered. There is no mention of any conversation between Him and John on this occasion; but John, as He passes, designates Him publicly as the Christ.

Ἴδε κτλ. This is a favourite word with Jn.; cf. 1:36, 47, 3:26, 5:14, 7:26, 52, 11:3, 36. 12:19, 16:29, 18:21, 19:4, 5, 14, 20:27. The Apocalyptist prefers ἰδοῦ.

ὁ ἀμνὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, i.e. the Lamb provided by God (see on 6:33).

The word ἀμνός common in LXX, appears in N.T only here, v. 36, 1 Pet. 1:19, and Acts 8:32 (a quotation from Isa. 53:7), in each instance being applied to Christ, and with a sacrificial connotation. On the other hand, the diminutive ἀρνίον (occurring occasionally in the LXX, e.g. Ps. 114:4, 6, Jer. 11:19, 50:45, but not as often as ἀμνός) is found in the N.T. only at 21:15 and in the Apocalypse, where it is applied to Christ 29 times. Although the distribution of ἀμνός and ἀρνίον is thus markedly different, no distinction of meaning can be traced when they are applied to Christ.

ὁ ἀμνὸς τοῦ θεοῦ κτλ. We have, first, to ask what the evangelist understood by the unique title “the Lamb of God,” and what connotation it had for him.

(a) In Jer. 11:19 we have: “I was as a gentle lamb (ἀρνίον) led away to be slaughtered,” the emphasis being on the innocence of the victim; and Isaiah’s “as a lamb (ἀμνός) before her shearers is dumb” (Isa. 53:7) conveys the same idea. The two passages are brought together by Origen,¹ and the point of the comparison need not be missed. But the thought of the gentleness of a lamb is insufficient to explain the “Lamb of God which takes away the sin of the world.”

(b) In 1 Pet. 1:19 the Redemption of Christ is likened to that wrought on a lower plane by the sacrifice of a lamb without blemish. The deliverance from Egypt is the type of deliverance from the bondage of sin, and so the blood of the Paschal lamb was typical of the blood of Christ. At the institution of the Passover, indeed, the blood of the Paschal lamb was not primarily piacular or redemptive; it was sprinkled on the doorposts, that the destroying angel might “pass over” the house (Ex. 12:13). Nevertheless, the conception of its redemptive efficacy prevailed in later Jewish thought; and Hort quotes (on 1 Pet. 1:19) an apposite Midrash on Ex. 12:22: “With two bloods were the Israelites delivered from Egypt, the blood of the Paschal lamb and the blood of circumcision.” The reference in 1 Pet. 1:19, then, relates to the Paschal lamb rather than to the lamb of Isa. 53:7.

In the Apocalypse, the application of ἀρνίον to Christ has primary reference to the idea of a lamb as a victim¹ (Rev. 5:6, 9, 7:14), whose death is an expiatory sacrifice, efficacious for all mankind. And the association in Rev. 15:3 of the “Song of Moses” with the “Song of the Lamb” suggests that, as in 1 Pet. 1:19, the slain Lamb of the Apocalypse is compared with the Paschal lamb, rather than with the lamb of the daily sacrifice.

The comparison of Christ with the Paschal lamb appears also in a document earlier than either 1 Peter or the Apocalypse, viz. 1 Cor. 5:7, “Christ our Passover has been sacrificed for us.” And, inasmuch as this thought is conspicuously present in the Johannine narrative of the Passion (see on 19:36), it would be legitimate to interpret “the Lamb of God” in the present passage in the same way, and to find here the thought that “the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sins of the world,” is the true Paschal Lamb, of whom the Passover victims of the past had been a type.

(c) It seems, however, that in the Johannine use of the title, “the Lamb of God,” there is a reference to Isa. 53:6, 7: “Yahweh hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all … as a lamb that is led to the slaughter … He opened not His mouth.”² The passage is directly applied to Christ in Acts 8:32, and other phrases from the same prophecy are treated as having a Messianic reference in Mt. 8:17, 1 Pet. 2:22f., Heb. 9:28. It is certain that, soon after the Passion, Christian believers found in Isa. 53 a forecast of the sufferings and the redemption of Jesus Christ. And the author of the Fourth Gospel, writing at the end of the first century, could not have been unaware of this Christian interpretation of Hebrew prophecy,³ which would be quite sufficient to explain the majestic title, “The Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world.” Indeed, Jn. treats Isa. 53 as a Messianic chapter at 12:38; see on 19:30.

Such considerations help us to understand Jn.’s use of the title. But it is the Baptist’s use of the title that presents difficulty. That he had been led to identify Jesus with Messiah who was to come, whether by private converse with Him before His baptism, or by the sign at the baptism which he believed himself to have received (v. 33), is in accordance with all the evidence that is available.¹ But that John the, Baptist should have spoken of the Christ as “the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world,” and have done so, not only before His Passion, but before His public ministry had begun, requires explanation.

The idea of a Suffering Messiah was not prevalent among the Jews of the first century² (see on 12:34). The apostles never reconciled themselves to the idea that Jesus was to die by violence (Mk. 9:32 and passim; cf. Lk. 24:21). Yet here we find the Baptist represented as foreseeing from the beginning that the climax of the ministry of Jesus would be death, and as announcing this publicly by acclaiming Him as the true Lamb of sacrifice, foreordained of God. It has been urged, in explanation, that the Baptist was the son of a priest, familiar with sacrificial ideas all his life. He certainly thought of himself as the Forerunner of the Christ, and Jn. represents him as believing that he was the herald of Isa. 40:3 (see on v. 23). He was, therefore, a student of the Isaianic prophecies which tell of the ideal Servant of Yahweh, the chosen One in whom Yahweh delights (Isa. 42:1). Later he was reassured, when in perplexity, by learning that the mighty works of Jesus were such as had been predicted of this Servant of Yahweh (Mt. 11:5, Lk. 7:22; cf. Isa. 35:5, 6, 42:7, 61:1). And so what more natural than that he should apply to Jesus the most striking of all the prophecies about Yahweh’s Servant, viz. Isa. 53? If he identified in his thoughts this great prophetic ideal with the person of Jesus, it would be explicable that he should call Jesus “the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.”

Dr. C. J. Ball³ held that the title “Lamb of God” has an even closer connexion with Isa. 53 than is indicated by the word ἀμνός in Isa. 53:6. The Hebrew word טָלֶה “lamb” came in its Aramaic form טַלְיָא to mean “child,” “boy,” “servant”; and he suggested that what the Baptist really said in Aramaic was, “Behold the Servant of God, who takes away the sin of the world,” the Greek rendering in Jn. 1:29 being an excusable mistranslation. Ball urged further that ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ in v. 34 is a more correct rendering of the same Aramaic phrase, in both cases the explicit reference being to the παῖς of Isa. 42:1, 52:13, Acts 3:13, 4:27.

The main difficulty in the way of all such explanations is that there is no good evidence that the Messianic application of Isa. 53 was current among the Jews in pre-Christian times. As has been said above, it became current among Christians immediately after the Passion of Christ; but it does not appear that either the Jews or the early disciples during the earthly ministry of Jesus conceived of Isa. 53 as foretelling a suffering Christ.¹ It is, therefore, hard to believe that John the Baptist, alone among the witnesses of the ministry of Jesus, and before that ministry had begun, should have associated Him with the central figure of Isa. 53; and that he should have so markedly anticipated the conclusions reached by those who, after the Passion, looking back upon the life and death of Jesus, found them to fulfil the predictions of the Hebrew prophet.

To sum up. John Baptist believed Jesus to be the Christ of Jewish expectation, and announced Him as such, probably in the hearing of John, the son of Zebedee. Looking back, the aged apostle in after years realised how momentous an announcement this was, even more momentous than the Baptist had understood. And when dictating his recollections of an incident on which he had pondered long and deeply, it is intelligible that he should state the Baptist’s cry, “Behold the Christ,” in terms which unfolded all that Jesus had come to mean for himself. Jesus was “the Lamb of God, who takes away the world’s sin.” We do not suppose that the speeches in the Fourth Gospel were all spoken exactly as they are set down, although they may have been in some instances. But here, whether we attribute the form of the Baptist’s announcement to John the son of Zebedee, or to the scribe and editor of the Gospel who put in order the old man’s reminiscences, we must recognise the probability that the Baptist’s actual words were simpler, and a less perfect expression of the Gospel of Redemption. Cf. Introd., p. cii.

ὁ αἴρων τὴν ἁμαρτίαν τοῦ κόσμου. In 1 Jn. 3:5 we have ἐκεῖνος ἐφανερώθη ἵνα τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἄρῃ. Here the “taking away” is in the present tense, the futurum instans (like μαρτυρεῖ in v. 15). ὁ αἴρων is He who takes away and is always taking away the world’s sin, a profound Christian conception, formulated first in this verse, and reproduced with fidelity in the liturgical “Lamb of God, which takest away (not which took away once for all at Calvary, although that also is true) the sins of the world.” For the Atonement is not only an event in time, but an eternal process.

The sin of the world—not sins in the plural, as at 1 Jn. 3:5—is here contemplated. Western liturgies have followed 1 Jn. 3:5 rather than Jn. 1:29 in pleading “Agnus Dei qui tollis peccata mundi, miserere nobis.” But the sin of the world is a deeper stain than the sins of individual men and women; and the Fourth Evangelist, who views the mission of Jesus sub specie æternitatis, sees that it is the sin of the κόσμος (cf. v. 9), the lawlessness and rebellion of all created being, that is the subject of redemption. This includes, indeed, the sins of all men, but it is the sin of the κόσμος, which knew not Jesus (v. 10), that is in view in this tremendous phrase.

αἴρειν is used of taking away sin at 1 Sam. 15:25, 25:28, as at 1 Jn. 3:5; at Isa. 53:4 we have οὗτος τὰς ἁμαρτίας φέρει, the image being of the bearing of another’s sin.

30. This verse is almost verbally identical with v. 15, and illustrates well Jn.’s habit of repeating a phrase which he regards as specially significant after a short interval, in a slightly different form (see on 3:16).

οὗτός ἐστιν κτλ. “This One,” pointing to Jesus, is He of whom I spake. The reference is not merely to vv. 26, 27, but to Jn.’s proclamation of the Coming of Jesus, before He began His ministry, which is common to the Synoptists and Jn. (see on v. 15, and Introd., p. c).

The rec. text has οὗτός ἐστι περὶ οὗ ἐγὼ εἶπον, with א^cA C³L N Δ Θ; but א*B C*W give ὑπὲρ οὗ, “in whose behalf,” the Baptist always regarding himself as the herald of Jesus. Blass points out that λέγειν ὑπέρ = λέγειν περί, “to speak about,” is common in classical Greek, and that ὑπέρ for περί is found in Paul (e.g. 2 Cor. 8:23). But in Jn. (with whom it is a favourite preposition) ὑπέρ always means “in behalf of.” Cf. 6:51, 10:11, 15, 11:4, 50, 51, 52, 13:37, 38, 15:13, 17:19, 18:14, 1 Jn. 3:16. See on 1:15 for ὃν εἶπον, which seems to be the true text in that place.

ἀνήρ is applied, as here, to Jesus, Acts 2:22, 17:31; see on 1:13 above for its Johannine usage.

31. κἀγὼ οὐκ ᾔδειν αὐτόν, repeated v. 33, “even I did not know Him” (cf. v. 26), sc. as the Messiah. That John the Baptist knew Jesus in their early years is hardly doubtful, but the statement here made is that he did not recognise Him for what He was before His Baptism. The account in Mt. 3:14f. is different, and represents John as unwilling to baptize Jesus because he was aware of His Messiahship. Jn’s narrative, here as at other points (see v. 32), is more primitive than the Matthæan tradition.

ἵνα φανερωθῇ τῷ Ἰσραήλ. John knew that his ministry was one of preparation only; its ultimate purpose was that in its exercise the Expected One should be made manifest.

φανεροῦν, “to reveal,” is a late Greek word, occurring in LXX only at Jer. 33:6. In the Synoptic Gospels it appears once only (Mk. 4:22), but is used in the Marcan Appendix (16:12, 14) of the “manifestation” of the Person of Jesus, as in Jn. (7:4, 21:1, 14; cf. 1 Jn. 1:2). The verb always indicates emergence from mysterious obscurity, and a sudden breaking forth into clear light. Cf. 2:11 where it is used of the manifestation of the glory of Jesus; and 3:21 of the manifestation in Him of the works of God. At 1 Tim. 3:16 it suggests Divine pre-existence, and of this there may be a hint here (cf. v. 15), as there certainly is in 1 Jn. 3:5, ἐκεῖνος ἐφανερώθη ἵνα τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἄρῃ.

τῷ Ἰσραήλ. The “manifestation” for which the Baptist looked was only to Israel. The exhortation of the brethren of Jesus was, indeed, φανέρωσον σεαυτὸν τῷ κόσμῳ (7:4), but even there no more is suggested than a public manifestation to the Jews. Jn. is fond of the term κόσμος (see on v. 9), and the thought that Jesus manifested Himself to the whole order of created life is deep-rooted in his thought; but he does not suggest that the Baptist had any such wide vision.

ἦλθον ἐγὼ ἐν ὕδατι βαπτίζων. This was the most conspicuous feature of his ministry; cf. v. 26, and see further on v. 33.

32. John now explains how and when it was that he came to recognise Jesus as the Christ.

ἐμαρτύρησεν. This testimony, as the aorist denotes, was delivered at a definite moment; cf. contra μαρτυρεῖ in v. 15. The testimony is to the effect that John saw a dove or pigeon alight on Jesus at His baptism. There is no hint that we are to think of a spiritual vision; the verb θεᾶσθαι (see on 1:14) is always used in the N.T. of seeing with the bodily eyes. The incident is related differently by Mk. (1:10), who implies (as does Mt. 3:16) that Jesus Himself saw the Spirit descending like a dove. Lk. 3:22 does not say who saw it, but all agree that a dove was seen, the words of Lk., σωματικῷ εἴδει, laying emphasis on the objective and physical nature of the incident. All the evangelists, that is, agree in recording that a dove alighted upon Jesus when presenting Himself for baptism.

The dove was regarded in Palestine as a sacred bird. Xenophon (Anab. i. iv. 9) reports that it was not lawful in Syria to hunt doves; and this is suggested by Tibullus (i. 7. 17):

So Lucian explains that to the Syrians a dove is tabu, and that any one unwittingly touching a dove is counted unclean (de Dea Syria, 54; cf. 14). Philo¹ comments on the great number of doves at Ascalon, and upon their tameness, due to the circumstance that from ancient times the people were not allowed to eat them, so that they were never caught (ap. Euseb. Praep. Evangel. viii. 14, 64).²

Furthermore, the dove was regarded among the Semites as a symbol of the Spirit. Of φωνὴ τῆς τρυγόνος, “the voice of the turtle” (Cant. 2:12), there is a Chaldee interpretation, reported by Wetstein, “the Voice of the Spirit.” And by the Jewish doctors the Spirit hovering over the primeval waters (Gen. 1:2) was compared to a dove: “Spiritus Dei ferebatur super aquas, sicut columba, quae fertur super pullos suos nec tangit illos.”³

Hence we can understand why a dove alighting upon Jesus should have been regarded as symbolic of a descent of the Divine Spirit.⁴ The words ascribed to the Baptist are explicit. He saw the dove, and forthwith recognised it as the sign which he had been expecting (v. 33).

For the expression καταβαίνειν ἐξ οὐρανοῦ see on 3:13.

Some other divergences from the Synoptic accounts of the Baptism should be observed. Jn. says nothing of the heavens being opened (Mk. 1:10 and parallels), or of the Voice from heaven (see on 12:28 below); and having regard to his knowledge of Mk.,⁵ with whose account of the Baptist he has so much in common (see on v. 6), it would seem that these omissions are deliberate. Here, as in v. 31, the Johannine narrative appears to be more primitive than that of the Synoptists.

καὶ ἔμεινεν ἐπʼ αὐτόν (cf. for the constr. 3:36). This is, on the other hand, a detail not found in the Synoptic narratives, perhaps added here with a reminiscence of Isa. 11:2, where it is said of the Messianic King, ἀναπαύσεται ἐπʼ αὐτὸν πνεῦμα τοῦ θεοῦ.¹ Jerome (on Isa. 11:2) quotes the following from the Gospel of the Hebrews: “When the Lord was come up out of the water, the whole fount of the Holy Spirit descended and rested upon Him, and said to Him: My Son, in all the prophets was I waiting for thee that thou shouldest come, and I might rest in thee. For thou art my rest, thou art my first-begotten Son that reigneth for ever.” This is a doctrinal combination of the Synoptic and Johannine narratives, probably intended to teach the permanence of the spiritual gift here vouchsafed through Christ to mankind.²

The form in which the Dove and the Voice from heaven at the Baptism of Jesus are mentioned in the Odes of Solomon³ is curious. Ode xxiv. begins: “The Dove fluttered over the Christ, because He was her head, and she sang over Him and her voice was heard,” sc. in the Underworld. The singing or cooing of the dove is as it were a Heavenly Voice; and “fluttering” recalls the verb used by Justin, ὡς περιστερὰν τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα ἐπιπτῆναι ἐπʼ αὐτόν (Dial. 88). The verb ἐπιπτῆναι is also found, in reference to the Baptism of Christ, in the Sibylline Oracles (vii. 67) and in Origen (c. Cels. i. 40, 41), and its rendering volare or devolare in Tertullian (adv. Val. 27) and in Hilary (in Ps. 54:7), showing that it had a place in some extra canonical record. This idea of the dove “fluttering” is, as we have seen, associated in Hebrew thought with the idea of the Spirit “brooding” over the waters; cf. Gen. 1:2, Deut. 32:11.

33. κἀγὼ οὐκ ᾔδειν αὐτόν, repeated from v. 31. John the Baptist repeats, as an essential part of his witness, that he did not recognise Jesus for what He was until the dove lit upon Him; and he recognised Him then only because he had been divinely warned that there would be a sign. The Baptist is not represented as saying that he knew that the sign would be forthcoming in the case of a candidate for baptism.

ἐκεῖνός (explicit and emphatic, see on v. 8) μοι εἶπεν κτλ. The Hebrew prophets had claimed that “the word of Yahweh” came to them, and John, the last of them, makes the same claim. “God said to me”; of that he was assured.

ἐφʼ ὃν ἂν ἴδῃς τὸ πνεῦμα καταβ. κτλ. Upon whomsoever the Spirit descended and abode, He would be the minister of a greater baptism than that of John. John had doubtless (although this is not recorded) had many opportunities of observing the intense spirituality of the early life of Jesus, and his intercourse with Jesus previous to His baptism (according to Mt. 3:14) had led John to see something of His unique personality. But, as the story is told, the Baptist was not finally assured of the Messiahship of Jesus until the dove rested upon Him. He had not been told that the descent of the Spirit would thus be indicated; but the sign was sufficient, and he accepted it joyfully.

οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ βαπτίζων ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ. For οὗτος, cf. 1:2, and note that βαπτίζων is a prophetic present (cf. αἴρων in v. 29). The Spirit descended on Jesus, so that He might baptize men therewith, and that the Spirit might rest on them as it rested on Him, although not in the same plenitude (cf. 3:34).

ἐν ὕδατι … ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ. Baptism as administered by John was, according to the Synoptists, symbolical of purification of the soul. It was, according to Mk. 1:4, βάπτισμα μετανοίας εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν. There may be a hint at 3:25 of some association of John’s ministry with the idea of purification, but there is no suggestion anywhere in the Fourth Gospel that his baptism was one “of repentance with a view to the remission of sins.” It has been pointed out¹ that the language of Josephus (Antt. xviii. 5. 2) about John’s ministry of baptism suggests that it was not addressed so much to penitents as to those who were dedicating themselves very specially to an ascetic life of virtue. That it was symbolical, at any rate, of dedication, as well as of purification, is plain from the circumstance that Jesus submitted, at the beginning of His ministry, to be baptized by John.

In all the Gospels the primary contrast between the ministry of John and the ministry of Jesus is that the first was ἐν ὕδατι, the second ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ. Jn. makes the Baptist insist three times (vv. 26, 31, 33) that his baptism was only ἐν ὕδατι—that is, it was only the symbol of a baptism ἐν πνεύματι which he could not minister. In the prophets water is used several times as an image of the Spirit (cf. Isa 44:3, Ezek. 36:25, and note the verb in Joel 2:28, “I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh”). Jn. is fond of this image (cf. 4:14, 7:38); and the contrast of “water” and “spirit” in the Baptist’s references to his ministry of baptism is intended to convey that it was only preparatory to, and symbolical of, a greater ministry that was at hand.

Mt. 3:11 and Lk. 3:16 (but not Mk. 1:8 or Acts 1:5) speak of the ministry of Jesus as a baptizing “with the Holy Spirit and with fire.” But Jn. says nothing about a baptism with fire. Fire is the symbol of judgment, and Jesus “came not to judge the world, but to save the world” (12:47; cf. 9:39), in the Johannine presentation of His teaching.

34. κἀγὼ ἑώρακα, καὶ μεμαρτύρηκα. John’s testimony was that of an eye-witness. He had seen the sign of the dove, and he bears witness accordingly, the perfect μεμαρτύρηκα indicating that his testimony was continuous up to the time of speaking, that Jesus was the Son of God.

In Jn., ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ is a recognised title of Messiah, Nathanael (1:49) and Martha (11:27) employing it as the Baptist does here. With this the Synoptists agree (Mk. 3:11, Mt. 14:33, 26:63, 27:40, Lk. 22:70); the title had a definite meaning to Jewish ears, and was applied in the sense of “Messiah.”¹ In this sense it had its roots in the O.T.; cf., e.g., Ps. 2:7, where the theocratic king is Yahweh’s Son, and Ps. 89:27. The evidence for its use in Apocalyptic literature is scant, only one instance being found in Enoch (105:2) of Messiah being called “my Son”; cf. 2 Esd. 7:28, 13:32, 37, 52, 14:9.

Jn is the only evangelist who represents Jesus as using this title of Himself (5:25, 10:36, 11:4, where see notes). In these passages, if they stood alone, no higher meaning than “Messiah” need be ascribed to it; but when they are taken in connexion with the peculiar claims of sonship made by Jesus, in the Synoptists as well as in Jn. (see on 3:17), the phrase “the Son of God” seems intended by Jn. to have a deeper significance (cf. 3:18, 5:25, 19:7, 20:31).

For ὁ υἱὸς here there is a Western reading, ὁ ἐκλεκτός (א* e Syr. cur., probably supported by Pap. Oxy. 208). Cf. Mt. 27:40 with Lk. 23:35.

35. τῇ ἐπαύριον (cf. v. 29). This is the third day of the story (see on 1:19), and the first day of the ministry of Jesus: “primae origines ecclesiae Christianae” (Bengel).

πάλιν is a favourite word with Jn., occurring over 40 times, while it only occurs twice in Lk. (Mk. has it 27 times, and 17 times). Jn. uses it as a sort of resumptive conjunction, where a new section is introduced (e.g. 8:12, 21, 10:7, 19, 21:1, etc.), the idea of repetition not being prominent in such cases.

πάλιν εἱστήκει.¹ The next incident is that the Baptist was standing awaiting Jesus, whom he had acclaimed on the previous day. On this occasion he had two of his own disciples with him.

ἐκ τῶν μαθητῶν αὐτοῦ δύο. For the constr. δύο ἐκ τῶν …, see on 1:40. A μαθητής is one who learns from, and associates himself with, a respected teacher. The μαθηταί of John the Baptist are mentioned again 3:25, 4:1 (cf. Mk. 2:18, Mt. 11:2, 14:12, Lk. 7:18, 11:1). See on 2:2.

One of these two disciples of the Baptist (cf. 3:25, 4:1) was Andrew (v. 40); the other is not named, and nothing more is said about him. But the Synoptic account of the call of the first disciples of Jesus (Mk. 1:19, Mt. 4:18) indicates that the first pair, Andrew and Peter, were quickly followed by the second pair, the sons of Zebedee. These are never mentioned explicitly in Jn., except in 21:1, but it is natural to infer that the unnamed disciple of v. 35 was one of them, viz. either James or John; and it would be in harmony with the reticence in regard to himself displayed throughout by the eye-witness whose reminiscences lie behind the Fourth Gospel, that he should here be referred to, i.e. that the unnamed disciple was John the son of Zebedee (see on vv. 19, 40).²

36. καὶ ἐμβλέψας. The verb (only again in Jn. at v. 42) signifies an intent, earnest gazing; cf. Mk. 10:21, 14:67.

Jesus was not coming towards the Baptist (cf. v. 29) on this occasion, but moving away. John again designates him as “the Lamb of God” or the Christ, in the hearing of the two disciples who were in his company.

37. א B place αὐτοῦ after μαθηταί, but αὐτοῦ comes first in C*L T^b 33, and even before οἱ δύο in A C³N Γ Δ Θ W.

The two disciples heard John’s words, and heard them with understanding and appreciation, for such (see on 3:8) is the force in Jn. Of ἀκούειν followed by a genitive.

καὶ ἠκολούθησαν τῷ Ἰησοῦ, “and went after Jesus.” Here was no decision to follow Him throughout His ministry and attach themselves to His Person, for the aorist only indicates their action at one definite moment. Jesus had not “called” them, or invited them to be His companions and disciples (cf. Mk. 1:17 and parallels); nor were they constrained to go after Him by anything that they had seen Him do, John’s striking and repeated designation of Him as the Expected One arrested their attention, and His own Personality did the rest.

38. στραφεὶς δέ κτλ. He turned round (cf. 20:14), for He had heard their steps behind Him.

He asks, τί ζητεῖτε; “What do you seek? what are you looking for?” Their answer is, “Where are you staying?” for they desired an opportunity of private conversation with Him, They had not yet reached the stage of discipleship; they wished to know a little more about Him.

Abbott (Diat. 2649b) finds an illustration of τί ζητεῖτε; in Philo (quod. det. pot. 8) who, commenting on τί ζητεῖς; of Gen. 37:15, explains it as the utterance of the ἔλεγχος to the wandering soul. Later on (c. 40) the ἔλεγχος is identified with the λόγος. But the parallel is not close enough to prove that Jn. is indebted to Philo for the use of so familiar a phrase as τί ζητεῖτε; Cf. 18:4, 20:15.

The disciples address Jesus as Rabbi, a title which Jn., writing for Greek readers, at once interprets, ὃ λέγεται μεθερμηνευόμενον, Διδάσκαλε. For similar interpretations of Aramaic or Hebrew words, cf. vv. 41, 42, 4:25, 5:2, 9:7, 11:16, 19:13, 17, 20:16.

They may have addressed Jesus thus because they took Him for a Rabbi travelling alone, but more likely they used Rabbi as an ordinary title of respect, It was the title which the Baptist’s disciples were accustomed to use when addressing their master (3:26); and it appears from 13:13 that afterwards the disciples of Jesus habitually addressed Him either as Rabbi (teacher) or as Mari (lord). The distinction is only this, that the antithesis to Rabbi is “scholar,” and to Mar is “servant” or “slave” (cf. 15:15); the terms being often used without any clear sense of a difference between them. Either might be rendered “Sir,” without going wrong. Thus, in the Synoptic narratives of the Transfiguration, where Mk. (9:5) has Rabbi, Lk. (9:33) renders it by ἐπιστάτα, and Mt. (17:4) by κύριε. So in the story about the storm on the lake, where Mk. (4:38) has διδάσκαλε, Lk. (8:24) has ἐπιστάτα, and Mt. (8:25) has κύριε. But while κύριε may thus sometimes represent Rabbi, or be used (as at 12:21, 21:15) merely as the equivalent of the English “Sir,” it generally points to an original מָרִי or Mari.¹

The Johannine usage of these terms is interesting. In the early part of the Gospel the disciples are always represented as saying Rabbi, while others,² such as the woman of Samaria (4:11), the noble man ofCapernaum (4:49), the sick man at Bethesda (5:7), the blind man after his cure (9:36), Mary and Martha of Bethany (11:3, 21, 27, 32, but cf. 11:28 and note there), say κύριε. The multitude who were fed with the five loaves first say Rabbi (6:25); but, after they have heard the discourse about the heavenly bread, say κύριε (6:34). The first occasion on which a disciple is represented as saying κύριε is at the conclusion of this discourse, when Peter says, “Lord, to whom shall we go?” (6:68). We have Ῥαββεί used again by the disciples at 11:8, but κύριε at 11:12; and thenceforward Rabbi disappears from their speech, and they say Lord (13:6, 25, 14:5, 8, 22, 21:15, etc.), the change in address indicating a growing reverence. The title Rabbi was not employed after the Resurrection of Jesus, who was afterwards spoken of as Maran or ὁ κύριος (cf. 1 Cor. 16:22, and see note on 4:1).

Thus Jn.’s report as to the use of these titles by the disciples is not only consistent, but is probably historical. Nothing of this kind can be traced in the Synoptists, who do not distinguish between διδάσκαλε and κύριε as modes of address, both being in use, as they represent the facts, at all stages of the association of the Twelve with Jesus. Indeed, Lk. (11:1) puts the phrase κύριε δίδαξον ἡμᾶς into the mouth of the disciples. In this regard, a more primitive tradition is preserved in the Fourth Gospel.

The Aramaic Rabbi is not found in Lk., and in Mt. only in the greeting of Judas to his Master (26:25, 49). Mk. has it in the corresponding place (Mk. 14:45), and also places it twice in Peter’s mouth (Mk. 9:5, 11:21). Rabboni is found in Mk. 10:51. With these exceptions, the Synoptists always translate רַבִּי, and do not reproduce the title itself.

Lk. and Jn., both of whom wrote for Greek readers, thus differ markedly as to the title Rabbi, Lk. never mentioning it, while Jn. has it again and again, giving the Greek rendering of it on its first occurrence. Probably the explanation is that behind Jn. we have the report of one who spoke Aramaic, and who was present at many of the scenes which he describes; while Lk. rests on documents and on information gained at second hand. In the reminiscences of his first intercourse with Jesus, as John the son of Zebedee dictated them, he employed the term Rabbi, which he remembers that he used; and his interpreter, Jn., naturally translated it for the benefit of his Greek readers, but preserved the original word.

39. Ἔρχεσθε καὶ ὄψεσθε. For ὄψεσθε (B C*L T^b W and syrr.), the rec. has ἴδετε with א A C³N Δ Θ and latt. Lightfoot (Hor. Hebr. in loc.) and Schlatter note that “Come and see” is a common formula of authoritative invitation in Talmudic authors; but parallels are unnecessary to cite for so simple a phrase. Cf. 1:46, 11:34, ἔρχου καὶ ἴδε.

“Come and ye shall see.” This is the method of discovery which Jesus commended to the first inquirers, and it is still the method by which He is revealed. Not by dialectic or argument, although these have their place, is the soul’s quest satisfied. For that there must be the personal following, the “abiding” in His presence. Cf. 8:31, and see on 6:35.

ἦλθαν καὶ εἶδαν ποῦ μένει. Observe the historic present following “they saw” (cf. 21:4).

Accordingly, the two inquirers παρʼ αὐτῷ ἔμειναν τὴν ἡμέραν ἐκείην, “abode with Jesus that day,” sc. that eventful day which the narrator recalls (see on 11:49 for a like use of ἐκεῖνος). Perhaps it was the Sabbath day (see on 2:1). The addition “it was about the tenth hour” is, no doubt, a personal reminiscence. That is, it was ten hours after sunrise, or about 4 p.m., when the two disciples reached the place where Jesus was lodging.

The evangelists uniformly follow the practice, common throughout the Roman world, of counting the hours from sunrise. Thus Josephus reports (Vita, 54) that it was a Jewish custom to dine (ἀριστοποιεῖσθαι) on the Sabbath day at the sixth hour. Now the ἄριστον was the usual midday meal (δεῖπνον being supper), so that “the sixth hour” means noon, i.e. the day began about 6 a.m. The parable of the Discontented Labourers shows this clearly (Mt. 20:5, 6). So, in the present passage, “the tenth hour” was about 4 p.m. There were “twelve hours in the day” (11:9), but as the day was reckoned from sunrise to sunset, the length of an “hour” depended on the time of year. No doubt, the precision of reckoning habitual to people with watches and clocks is not to be looked for among Orientals of the first century; but it is remarkable how prone Jn. is to note the time of day (cf. 4:6, 52, 18:28, 19:14, 20:19), and his exactitude suggests that he is reproducing the report of an observer of the events recorded.¹

40. Ἀνδρέας. Jn. alone tells that Andrew was a disciple of the Baptist (v. 35). The Synoptic story of the call of Peter and Andrew (Mk. 1:16f. and parls.) may be another version of vv. 40–42, but it probably narrates a more formal call to apostleship which came later (see on v. 37, and Introd., p. xxxv). Andrew is introduced as “Simon Peter’s brother,” being the less famous of the two (cf. also 6:8 and Mk. 1:16, Mt. 4:18, 10:2, Lk. 6:14); and, except at 12:22, he is always associated with Peter. Jn. assumes that every one will know who Simon Peter was, a similar assumption being made by Lk., who mentions “the house of Simon” and “Simon’s wife’s mother” (Lk. 4:38), before anything is told about Simon himself. See, further, on 6:8 for the prominence of Andrew in the Fourth Gospel.

εἷς ἐκ τῶν δύο κτλ. Jn. prefers to write εἷς ἐκ rather than εἷς simpliciter when speaking of one of a number of persons (cf. 6:8, 70, 71, 7:50, 11:49, 12:2, 13:21, 23, 18:26, 20:24). The Synoptists generally omit ἐκ, as Jn. does on occasion (7:19, 12:4).

τῶν ἀκουσάντων παρὰ Ἰωάνου, sc. v. 35. The constr. παρά τινος occurs again 6:45, 7:51, 8:26, 40, 15:15; it is quite classical.

41. The text is uncertain. א*L WΓ Δ give πρῶτος. This would mean that Andrew was the first to find his brother Peter; implying that the unnamed disciple had also set out to find his brother (i.e., presumably, James, the elder son of Zebedee), and that he did find him, but later. But if the sentence means all this, it is very obscurely expressed.

πρῶτον, accepted by most modern editors, is supported by א^cA B T ^b Θ fam. 13, and the vss. generally. This would mean that Andrew found Peter first, before he did anything else, there being no suggestion of John looking for any one, or of any other disciple being found by either of them. The emphasis on ἵδιον “his own brother,” would be consistent with this.

Whether we read πρῶτος or πρῶτον, a good deal of time elapses between v. 39 and v. 43. Andrew and the innominatus, presumably, have a full and convincing conversation with Jesus, staying with Him for the afternoon and night; Andrew goes out and finds Peter, who is brought back to Jesus, welcomed, and renamed Kephas. Modern editors (Alford is an exception) try to find time for all this between 4 p.m. and the next morning (ἐπαύριον, v. 43), although this is not stated. It would be easier to understand the sequence of events if we suppose “that day” (v. 39) to mean a full day of twenty-four hours, from sunset to sunset, and allow two nights, instead of one only, to intervene between ἐπαύριον of v. 35 and ἐπαύριον of v. 43. This would be consistent either with πρῶτος or πρῶτον, both being awkward on any hypothesis.

But there is another reading, πρωί, supported by the O.L. texts b, e, and (apparently) r, all of which have mane.¹ An original πρωιτοναδελφον would readily be corrupted to πρωτοναδελφον, which leads to πρωτοντοναδελφον. We conclude that πρωί is the true reading. Jn. uses this form (not πρωΐα) again at 18:28, 20:1; and it gives an excellent sense here. here. “He finds early in the morning his own brother Simon,” having stayed the night at the lodging where Jesus was. Then ἐπαύριον in v. 43 stands for the day after the finding of Simon, which occupies Day 4. of the spiritual diary covered by this chapter (see on v. 29 above). This is certain if πρωί be accepted as the true reading, and even if we read πρῶτον it is highly probable.

εὑρήκαμεν τὸν Μεσσίαν. This was (and is) the Great Discovery. Andrew speaks for his unnamed companion as well as for himself: “We have found the Messiah.”

τὸν Μεσσίαν. The Aramaic title נָמשׁיח is found in the N.T.

elsewhere only at 4:25. see on v. 38 for the preservation of such Aramaic forms in Jn., although not in the Synoptists, the Greek interpretation being added. Cf. Ps. 2:2, Dan. 9:25, 27.

According to Jn., the recognition of Jesus as the Christ by Andrew, by Philip (v. 45), and by Nathanael (v. 49) was swift and unhesitating; although it is noteworthy that nothing of this kind is told of Peter, whose confession of faith is not recorded until 6:68, 69. The Synoptists suggest, as is probable a priori, that the disciples did not reach full conviction all at once, but that it came to them gradually, the critical point being Peter’s confession (Mk. 8:29, Mt. 16:16, Lk. 9:20). Perhaps we should regard the full assurance which Jn. ascribes to Andrew, Philip, and Nathanael on their first meeting with Jesus as antedated. It is, however, legitimate to treat their utterances (vv. 41, 45, 49) as the expressions of an enthusiasm which became dulled, as the novelty of their intercourse with Jesus passed away, and which did not become a reasoned conviction until later.¹

ἐμβλέψας sc. “having looked intently on him.” This verb has already (v. 36) been used of the Baptist’s earnest look at Jesus; it is used by the Synoptists of the piercing, scrutinising gaze of Jesus (Mt. 19:26, Mk. 10:21, 27, Lk. 20:17), and of His “looking” upon Peter after his denial.

It is plain from this verse (cf. 21:15–17 and Mt. 16:17 that Simon was known as “Simon, son of John,” to distinguish him from others bearing the common personal name “Simon.” By the Synoptists he is generally called “Peter,” but often simply “Simon”; in the lists of the apostles it being added that he was surnamed “Peter” (Mt. 10:2, Mk. 3:16, Lk. 6:14), this addition being necessary to distinguish him from the other apostle called Simon. The designation “Simon Peter” marks a later date than “Simon” simply; and it is noteworthy that while in Jn. he is described as Σίμων Πέτρος 17 times (see further on 18:15), this double name appears in the Synoptists only at Mt. 16:16 (a passage peculiar to Mt. and later than the Marcan tradition) and at Lk. 5:8.²

Jn. states here that Jesus gave Simon the Aramaic name or nickname of Kephas, which became Πέτρος in Greek, when He saw him for the first time, discerning his strong character at a glance. Mk. (3:16) rather suggests (although he does not say expressly) that Simon was given the name of Peter when he was selected as one of the Twelve, much as John and James were called Boanerges or “sons of thunder.” This is not suggested, however, in the lists of the apostles in Lk. (6:14f.) and Mt. (10:2; Mt. has Σίμων ὁ λεγόμενος Πέτρος). It is obviously appropriate that Mt. should call the apostle “Simon Peter” (16:16) when relating his great confession, and that Jesus, addressing him on that occasion as “Simon, son of John,” should have reminded him of the name Kephas: σὺ εἶ Πέτρος, καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν. Jn. may have ante-dated the giving of the new and significant name, but there is no proof of this.

To give a new name in the O.T. history sometimes marked the beginning of a new relation to God; e.g. Jacob was called Israel (Gen 32:28), and Abram became Abraham (Gen. 17:5), after a spiritual crisis (cf. also Isa. 62:2, 65:15). When adult converts from heathenism are baptized, they are given a new name for a similar reason. But there is no evidence that it is in Jn.’s mind to suggest this when he recalls that Jesus called Simon, Kephas, “the rock man,”¹ although such an inference might be drawn from Mt. 16:16f. if it stood alone. Jn.’s narrative here is quite simple, and there is no subtlety in the telling. See, however, on 6:69.

The Aramaic name Kephas (perhaps the same as Kaiaphas) is familiar in Paul, who uses it to designate Simon always in 1 Cor. (1:12, 3:22, 9:5, 15:5) and generally in Gal. (1:18, 2:9, 11, 14; but cf. 2:7, 8). It appears in no other Gospel but Jn., and the retention of the Aramaic כיפא is a touch that could hardly have occurred to any one whose mother speech was not Aramaic (see on vv. 38, 41, and cf. p. lxxix). By the end of the first century Simon was best known as Πέτρος, and he has been generally called by this name ever since.

43. τῇ ἐπαύριον, i.e. on Day v. of this eventful week (see on v. 9), Jesus resolved to go forth into Galilee; for ἐξελθεῖν εἰς τὴν Γαλιλαίαν cf. 4:43 and note that Jesus is now on the E. side of Jordan. Either as He was starting, or on the way, He found Philip, who was a Galilxan like Andrew and Peter, and who was probably brought into touch with Him by their means.

The rec. text adds ὁ Ἰησοῦεν, after ἠθέλησεν, omitting the name after αὐτῷ, but the better reading (א A B W Θ) omits it after ἠθέλησεν and inserts it after αὐτῷ.

Thus, we might suppose from the order of the words that the subject of ἠθέλησεν and εὑρίσκει is not ὁ Ἰησοῦς, but Πέτρος, who has been mentioned immediately before. Then we should have the attractive sequence: Andrew finds Peter, Peter finds Philip, Philip (in his turn) finds Nathanael (v. 45), all being fellow-Galilæans and friends. But if Πέτρος is the subject of εὑρίσκει, it must also be the subject of ἠθέλησεν.

44. Philip is said to be ἀπὸ Βηθσαϊδά, i.e. from Bethsaida Julias, at the N.E. end of the Lake of Galilee (see on 6:1, 16, 12:21). Bethsaida had been rebuilt by Philip, tetrarch of Ituraea (Lk. 3:1), as Josephus records (Antt. xviii. 2, 1); and it is possible that the apostle Philip was named after the ruler of the district.

After Βηθσαοϊδά, Jn. adds ἐκ τῆς πολέως Ἀνδρέου καὶ Πέτπου. The house of Andrew and Peter was not at Bethsaida, but at Capernaum (Mk. 1:21, 29), a town which Jn. mentions, 2:12, 4:46, 6:17, 24, 59, and of which he knew the situation precisely. The discrepancy is unimportant.

Attempts have been made to distinguish in Jn. between a ἀπό, as indicating habitation, and ἐκ, birthplace (see Abbott, Diat. 2289). If this could be sustained, we might say that Philip was a native of Capernaum, whose home was at Bethsaida. But it appears from 6:33, 38, 41, 7:42, that ἀπό and ἐκ are used almost interchangeably, as they were beginning to be in Greek authors generally. Cf. Ps. 140:1,

where no distinction can be traced. Moulton-Milligan, s.v. ἐκ, quote from papyri the phrase of οἱ ἐκ τῆς κώμης of the inhahitants (not necessarily the natives) of a village. See further on 11:1.

ἀκολούθει μοι This probably means no more, in this context, than that Jesus asked for Philip’s company on the journey into Galilee. The same call was afterwards addressed to others with a more exacting meaning (cf. Mk. 2:14, Mt. 8:22, 19:21, and especially Jn. 21:19).

It has been suggested that Philip is to be identified with the disciple who wished to bury his father before he obeyed the call to follow (Mt. 8:22), but this is mere conjecture.

45. Nathanael is a Hebrew name, נְתַנְאֵל, meaning “God has given,” the equivalent of the Greek Theodore. He was of Cana of Galilee (21:2), and it was perhaps there that Philip found him, as Cana is the next place mentioned (2:1).

Nathanael has been identified, e.g. by Renan and Zahn, with Bartholomew, because (1) in the Synoptic lists of the apostles, Philip is associated with Bartholomew as he is here with Nathanael, and (2) while the name Nathanael does not occur in the Synoptists, Bartholomew (which is only a patronymic, Bar Tholmai) is not found in Jn.

This group of disciples are represented as students of the O.T. As Andrew says, “We have found the Messiah” (v. 41), so Philip says, “We have found Him of whom Moses and the prophets wrote.” This is what was explained to the disciples at Emmaus (Lk. 24:27). The reference to “Moses” includes at any rate Deut. 18:15.

The Person in whom these prophecies were fulfilled is described by Philip as “Jesus, a son of Joseph (not the son, τὸν υἱόν of the rec. text being erroneous), the man from Nazareth.” It is certain that the author of the Fourth Gospel did not regard Jesus as a “son of Joseph”; for him Jesus was μονογενὴς θεός (v. 18). But he does not stay to explain that Philip’s confession fell short of the truth, just as he does not comment on the query, “Is not this Jesus the son of Joseph?” (6:42). Jn. is sure that his readers are of one mind with himself as to the Divinity of Jesus, and that they will not misunderstand. This characteristic of Jn.’s style has been called “the irony of St. John,”¹ and it appears several times. (Cf. 6:42, 7:35, 18:28, 19:19.)

τὸν ἀπὸ Ναζρέτ. “The man from Nazareth” (so Acts 10:37) was the natural designation of Jesus by those who only knew where He lived (see on 18:5). “Jesus of Nazareth” is still a descriptive phrase on the lips of many who are assured that He was θεὸς ἐκ θεοῦ.

46. Nathanael’s rejoinder has been taken by some to be a meditative comment on what Philip has said rather than a question, viz. “Some good might come out of Nazareth.” But the order of the words is in favour of it being taken interrogatively, “Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?” Nazareth is not mentioned in the O.T., so that there was nothing to connect the place with the prophecies of Messiah. See on 7:41, 52. But Nathanael’s question has something of scorn in it, as if Nazareth had a bad name; however, of this there is no evidence. Nathanael was of Cana, and the rivalry between neighbouring villages might account for his expression of incredulity as to Nazareth being a prophet’s home. That he does not seem to have heard of Jesus before shows how retired His life had been before He began His public ministry.

47. There is no suggestion that Jesus overheard Nathanael’s incredulous query. He speaks from His previous knowledge of the man (v. 48).

ἀληθῶς Ἰσραηλείτης ἐν ᾦ δόλος οὐκ ἕστιν. Isaac complained of Jacob’s guile (δόλος, Gen. 27:35); but that was before he received the new name of Israel and had a vision of heavenly things. The Psalmist hails as blessed the man “in whose spirit there is no guile” (Ps. 32:2); and of the ideal Servant of Yahweh it was declared, “neither was any guile found in his mouth” (Isa. 53:9). Thus he who is truly an Israelite (cf. Rom. 2:29), representing Israel at its best, must be without guile, and such a man Nathanael was declared by Jesus to be.

48. πόθεν με γινώσκεις; “Whence do you know me?” Nathanael had overheard the remark of Jesus, and expresses wonder that He should have known anything about him.

γινώσκειν is a favourite word with Jn., occurring about twice as frequently as it does in the Synoptists, which is all the more remarkable as Jn. never uses the noun γνῶσις, (Lk. 1:77, 11:52, and often in Paul). For the supposed distinction between εἰδέναι and γινώσκειν, see on v. 26; Cf. 2:24.

ἀπεκρ. Ἰη. א Δ insert ὁ before Ἰησοῦς, but om. A B L WΓ Δ; see on vv. 29, 50.

πρὸ τοῦ σε φίλιππον φωνῆσαι. φωνεῖν is the word used in Jn. for calling any one by his personal name or usual title; Cf. 10:3, 11:28, 12:17, 13:13, 18:33.

ὑπὸ τὴν συκῆν εἶδόν σε, “I saw thee under the fig tree.” ὑπό is not found with the acc. elsewhere in Jn. (see on ὑποκάτω in v. 50). Perhaps it indicates here that Nathanael had withdrawn to the shelter of the fig tree, under which Jesus had seen him.

ὑπὸ τὴν συκῆν. The fig tree is a very familiar object in Palestine, where it was specially valued for the grateful shade of its leaves. National tranquillity is often pictured by the image of every man sitting “under his vine and under his fig tree” (1 Kings 4:25, Mic. 4:4, 1 Macc. 14:12). When Jesus says to Nathanael, “When thou wast under the fig tree,” i.e. probably the fig tree in the precincts of his own house, He alludes to some incident of which the evangelist gives no explanation. What ever it was, the fact that Jesus should have known it impressed Nathanael so much that he broke out into the confession, “Thou art the Son of God, Thou art the King of Israel.” The power which Jesus had of reading the secrets of men’s hearts is alluded to again, 2:24, 25, 4:19, 29.

This episode has been compared¹ with the story of the prolonged meditation of Gautama under the Bodhi tree, where he attained Buddha-hood, and thenceforward began to gather disciples. But there is no real parallel. It was not Jesus, but His disciple Nathanael, who meditated under the fig tree, nor is there any hint (as in the Buddha legend) that Jesus received “enlightenment” thus.

Cheyne² gets rid of the fig tree by the supposition that there has been a misreading of an Aramaic original, the words וְאַתָּה מִתְחַנֵּן, “when thou wast making supplication,” being mistaken for ואַתָּה תַּהַת הַתְּאֵנָה, “when thou vast under the fig tree.” This is not convincing.

Other fanciful hypotheses about Nathanael are that the incident indicated here is another version of the story of Zacchoeus in the sycamore tree (Abbott, Diat. 3375 f.); or that in him we are to see a figure symbolical of Paul, an Israelite who broke through the prejudices of his early training (sufficiently answered by Moffatt, Introd. to N.T., p. 565); or that we are to equate him with the Beloved Disciple (cf. Introd., p. xxxvii). But the simplest interpretation is the best. Nathanael was a real figure, and his call was vivid in the mind of the aged disciple whose recollections are behind the Fourth Gospel.

σὺ εἶ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ. Cf. Peter’s σὺ εἶ ὁ ἅγιος τοῦ θεοῦ (6:69) and Martha’s σὺ εἶ ὁ Χριστός, ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ (11:27); and see below on v. 51. Nathanael sees in Jesus One who has displayed a wonderful knowledge of his past life (cf. 4:19, 29), and so he identifies Him with the expected Messiah. For the title ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, see on v. 34 above.

σὺ βασιλεὺς εἶ τοῦ Ἰσραήλ. This, to us, is a lesser title than ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, but not so to Nathanael; see on 12:13. Nathanael has been hailed by Jesus as an “Israelite,” a worthy and representative son of Israel, and he replies out of the fulness of his heart, “Thou art the King of Israel,” and therefore Nathanael’s King. Both Messianic titles, “Son of God” and “King of Israel,” have their roots in Ps. 2.

50. ἀπεκρίθη Ἰη. καὶ εἶπεν. In the Synoptists (except at Mk. 7:28) the formula is ὁ ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν, but in Jn. the almost invariable use is “answered and said,” two co-ordinate verbs being used (see on v. 26). In the LXX both constructions are found.

Burney (Aramaic Origin, etc., p. 53) claims ἀπεκρίθη Ἰη. καὶ εἶπεν as a literal rendering of an Aramaic original, as it is in Theodotion’s Daniel. The constr., however, is common in the LXX, where the original is Hebrew (not Aramaic), e.g. 1 Sam. 14:28, 19:22, 2 Chron. 29:31, 34:15, Joel 2:19 (of Yahweh). A more plausible argument for an Aramaic original of Jn. is found by Burney in the large number of asyndeton sentences. This is a specially Aramaic (not a Hebrew) characteristic. If, however, the narrative parts of the Gospel were dictated (as we hold to be probable) by one to whom Aramaic was his native language, we should expect to find them reproduced sometimes in Greek with an Aramaic flavour.

Ἰησοῦς often—perhaps generally—takes the def. art. in Jn. (see on v. 29); but the phrase ἀπεκρίθη Ἰησοῦς is common, e.g. 4:10, 8:14, 54, 9:3, 13:7, 36, 18:34, 36, etc.

ὅτι εἶπόν σοι ὅτι κτλ. The second ὅτι introduces the words actually said. The first ὅτι is “because,” a favourite use with Jn., and is here employed suspensively at the beginning of the sentence, as again at 14:19, 15:19, 16:6, 20:29 (and also in the Apocalypse; cf. Abbott, Diat. 2176).

ὑποκάτω is not found again in Jn.; it is more emphatic than ὑπό of v. 48, and perhaps indicates concealment “under the cover of the fig tree.” But the variation ὑπὸ τὴν συκῆν ̣ ̣ ̣ ὑποκάτω τῆς συκῆς is thoroughly Johannine; when repeating a phrase, Jn. is apt to alter it slightly, either by a change in the order of the words, or by using a different word.

μείζω τούτων ὅψῃ. Perhaps there is an allusion here to the designation of Nathanael as ἀληθῶς Ἰσραηλείτης (v. 47). Jacob, to whom the name of “Israel” was given, was pre-eminently a man of vision. The ancient (although erroneous) interpretation of his new name equated it with אִישׁ רֹאֶה אֵל, uir uidens Deum. This etymology was adopted by Philo, who, commenting on the story of Jacob at Peniel (Gen. 32), says (de somn. 1. 21): “He compels him to wrestle, until He has imparted to him irresistible strength, having changed his ears into eyes, and called this newly modelled type, Israel, i. e. one who sees” (Ἰσραήλ, ὁρῶιτα)

Nathanael, who is “an Israelite indeed,” must also be a man of vision, and the vision which is promised him is greater even than that which he has already recognised, viz. that Jesus is “the King of Israel” (v. 49).

51. καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ, Ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν. Despite the singular αὐτῷ, the plural ὑμῖν suggests that the words which follow were addressed to others besides Nathanael. When Jesus prefaces a saying addressed to an individual by this solemn introduction, He is represented by Jn. as putting it in the form ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω σοι (3:3, 5, 11, 21:18). Further, although the promise is in the singular μείζω τούτων ὅψῃ, the vision is described as to be seen by more than one, ὅψεσθε κτλ. Nathanael is only one of those who are to see “the heaven opened and the angels ascending and descending,” etc.

ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν. The authority with which Jesus was accustomed to speak has been noted above (Introd., p. cx). His authoritative manner of speech is indicated sometimes in the Synoptists by the mere addition of λέγω σοι or λέγω ὑμῖν, e.g. Mk. 2:11, 11:24, Lk. 5:24, 6:27, 7:28, 10:12, 24, 11:8, 9 etc., Mt. 5:44, 16:18, 21:43, 23:39 etc. This is often found in the expanded form ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν (30 times in Mt., 13 in Mk., and 6 in Lk., who also translates אמן by ναί, ἀληθῶς or ἐπʼ ἀληθείας). Jn. always gives it in the form ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν (25 times; cf. 4:35, 13:33 for λέγω ὑμῖν simply). In Jn. the formula is usually associated with sayings not given by the Synoptists; but cf. 3:5, 13:16, 20. It is clear from the Gospels that this was a characteristic usus loguendi of the Lord (Himself the Amen, Rev. 3:14; cf. Isa. 65:16), who never rested His sayings on the authority of other masters, as the Rabbinical habit was, but spoke as One possessed of the secrets of life.

Why the ἀμήν is doubled in the Johannine reports cannot be confidently explained. There are instances in the other Gospels of Jesus repeating at the beginning of a sentence the name of the person addressed, for greater emphasis, e.g. Martha, Martha (Lk. 10:41), Simon, Simon (Lk. 22:31), Eloi, Eloi (Mk. 15:34); but this does not provide, an exact parallel. It would appear that ἀμήν was for Him a form of solemn attestation (see also on 4:21); and it may be that the solemnity was emphasised by Him sometimes by doubling the ἀμήν. He forbade oaths (cf. 4:21), but where people wished to be emphatic He allowed them to say Yea, yea, ναὶ ναί (Mt. 5:37), and this is Verily, verily.¹ See Lk. 7:26, 11:51 for ναί as equivalent to ἀμήν. Hence, in Mt. 5:37, Jesus recommends as a form of solemn affirmation ἀμὴν ἀμήν, which we find from the report of Jn. to have been frequently adopted by Himself. The duplication of ἀμήν impressed the disciple, who remembered it, the Synoptic record having lost this characteristic feature.

In Jn. (as in the Synoptic Gospels, where λέγω ὑμῖν only or ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν is found) ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, while special emphasis is laid on the words which follow, always carries a reference to what has gone before—either a reply to an observatiosn (e.g. 3:3, 6:26, 32, 5:19, 8:34, 58, 13:38; cf. Mk. 10:29, Mt. 26:34), or an explanation and expansion of something that has already been said (e.g. 1:51, 5:24, 25, 10:1, 7, 12:24, 13:16, 20, 21, 16:20, 23, 14:12; cf. Mk. 13:30, Mt. 26:13). Even 8:51 goes back to 8:43, 6:47 to 6:40, 5:25 to 5:24, although the connexion is not so obvious. But it is important to observe that in Jn. the prelude ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν never introduces a new saying unrelated to what precedes (see on 10:1). In like manner in the O.T. we find ἀμήν prefacing a responsive agreement to something that has been already said (1 Kings 1:36, Neh. 5:13, Jer. 11:5); or in its doubled form, ἀμὴν ἀμήν, as concluding a sort of liturgical response (Num. 5:22, Judith 13:20, Ps. 41:13). But in the O.T. we do not find ἀμήν used at the beginning of a sentence, to strengthen what is to follow.

ὄψεσθε. ὄπτομαι (but not ὁρᾶν in the pres. or perf. tenses) is always used in Jn. (3:36, 11:40, 16:16, 1 Jn. 3:2) of the vision of heavenly or spiritual realities, as distinct from a seeing with the eyes of the body. The same usage is common in the rest of the N.T., but there are exceptions (e.g. Acts 7:26, 20:25). For the difference in usage between ὅπτομαι and θεωρεῖν see on 2:23, and cf. Abbott (Diat. 1307, 1597 f.).

ὄψωσθε τὸν οὐρανὸν ἀνεῳγότα κτλ. We can hardly doubt that some words here are taken from the story of Jacob’s vision at Bethel, viz. κλίμαξ ἐστηριγμένη ἐν τῇ γῇ ἧς ἡ κεφαλὴ ἀφικνεῖτο εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν, καὶ οἱ ἄγγελοι τοῦ θεοῦ ἀνέβαινον καὶ κατέβαινον ἐπʼ αὐτῆς. ὁ δὲ κύριος ἐπεστήρικτο ἐπʼ αὐτῆς καὶ εἶπεν κτλ. (Gen. 28:12, 13). It is, however, remarkable that no Christian writer before Augustine seems to have noticed that Jn. 1:51 is, in part, a quotation (see, for the patristic interpretations of the passage, Additional Note, p. 70 f.). The promise to Nathanael, as an “Israelite indeed,” that he (with others) shall see angelic visions, is couched in terms which recall the vision of Jacob, the father of his race, of whom Nathanael is no unworthy descendant. That the vision of Bethel was seen by Jacob before he received the new and pregnant name of Israel does not constitute a difficulty, for we are not concerned with the details of Jacob’s vision. The evangelist’s report does not indicate that he thought of it as fulfilled in Nathanael. The words ascribed to Jesus have to do with Jacob’s vision only in so far as they suggest to Nathanael that he was not the first Israelite to have visions of heaven and the angels.

What is to be the occasion of the vision promised to Nathanael and his companions? The direction in which an answer must be sought is indicated by the use, for the first time, in the Gospel of the strange designation of Jesus as “the Son of Man.” We have already seen (Introd., p. cxxvii) that the title “the Son of Man,” applied by Jesus to Himself, most frequently appears in eschatological passages, which have reference to His final and glorious Advent, after which His indestructible kingdom is to be fully established (cf. Dan. 7:13). The vision of this Advent seems to be what is promised to Nathanael and his believing companions. Nathanael is represented as acknowledging that Jesus is “the Son of God, the King of Israel” (v. 49), i.e. that He is the Messiah as looked for under the aspect of King, the “political” Messiah (see on v. 34) of Israel’s hope. But there was a higher conception than this, a more spiritual picture than that of an earthly prince; and it was to this (as suggested by the words of Dan 7:13) that Jesus pointed His followers, when He spoke of Himself as the Son of Man. It was a greater thing to see Him as the Son of Man than as the King of Israel. The vision which would be the condemnation of the high priest who presumed to condemn Jesus, viz. ὄψεσθε τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐκ δεξίων καθήμενον τῆς δυνάμεως καὶ ἐρχόμενον μετὰ τῶν νεφελῶν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ (Mk. 14:62), would be the reward of disciples who faithfully accepted Him as the Messiah.

The parallel to this passage in the Synoptists is the promise which followed upon the confession of Peter and the rest. Peter’s confession, like that of Nathanael, was σὺ εἶ ὁ χριστός and in making it he was the spokesman of the others. And the promise which follows is the counterpart of the promise to Nathanael, viz.: “The Son of Man shall come in the glory of His Father with His angels.… Verily I say unto you, There be some of them that stand here which shall in no wise taste of death, till they see the Son of Man coming in His Kingdom” (Mt. 16:27, 28; cf. Mk. 8:38, 9:1, Lk. 9:26, 27). The parallelism with Jn. 1:51 is remarkable, and the difficulty of explaining both passages (for they are left unexplained by the evangelists) shows that, alike in the Synoptists and in Jn., they embody a genuine reminiscence or tradition.¹ See on 6:69 for Jn.’s version of Peter’s confession.

There is in Jn. a third confession of faith, which should be placed beside that of Nathanael and that of Peter, viz. that of Martha (11:27), who says σὺ εἶ ὁ χριστός, ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, ὁ εἰς τὸν κόσμον ἐρχόμενος. No reply of Jesus is recorded until we reach v. 40, when He says, with apparent reference to her previous confession, “Said I not unto thee, that if thou believedst, thou shouldest see the glory of God?” That is, again, as in the case of Nathanael, Vision is the reward of Faith: the vision of the Divine glory, as exhibited in the power over death which Jesus had (see note on 11:40).

The attempts which have been made to trace a detailed correspondence between what is said about Jacob’s vision at Bethel and the vision promised to Nathanael are quite unsuccessful. Nathanael, it must be borne in mind, is here typified by Jacob or Israel as “the man who sees.” It is, therefore, impossible to take Jacob as the type of Christ or the Son of Man; and this rules out several modern interpretations. E.g., to take (see Meyer) the angels ascending and descending as typical of the continuous intercourse between God and Christ, the Father and the Son (see on 5:19, 6:57), presupposes that Jacob at Bethel typifies Christ, not to mention that the idea of the intercourse between the Father and the Son being carried on by the ministry of angels is quite foreign to the Gospels.

Burney² points out that the Hebrew בּוֹ, which is rendered at Gen. 28:13 ἐπʼ αὐτῆς by the LXX, and by the English versions “on it,” sc. on the ladder, might also be rendered “on him,” sc. on Jacob. He cites a Midrash where this interpretation is proposed, and where it is said of the angels at Bethel that they were ascending on high and looking at Jacob’s εἰκών (which was in heaven), and then descending and finding his sleeping body. Burney suggests that the heavenly εἰκών of Israel was the Son of Man, and that Gen. 28:13 is quoted here by Jn. from the Hebrew, בּוֹ being rendered “on Him,” i.e. the heavenly Ideal of Israel. If the heavens were opened, Nathanael would then see the angels of God “ascending and descending upon the Son of Man.” But, as we have said, Jn. certainly does not intend Jacob at Bethel to be taken as the type of the Son of Man, and so this interesting interpretation does not help us.

1:51. No commentator before Augustine suggests any connexion between Gen. 28:13 and Jn. 1:51. When the proneness of the early exegetes to seek O.T. testimonia is remembered, this is remarkable. A few passages may be cited to illustrate the various interpretations that were placed on both texts.

(a) Philo, as one would expect, has much to say about Jacob’s vision at Bethel (de somn. i. 22). Between heaven and earth, he says, there is the air, the abode of incorporeal souls, immortal citizens. The purest of the beings who pass to and fro are angels, who report the Father’s orders to His children, and their needs to Him. Here (§ 23) is an image of man’s soul, of which the foundation, as it were, is earthly (αἴσθησις), but the head is heavenly (νοῦς). And the λόγοι of God move incessantly up and down, ascending that they may draw the soul heavenwards, condescending that they may impart life from above. This, despite some verbal similarities, has no bearing on the exegesis of Jn. 1:51.

(b) Origen (c. Celsum, vi. 21) recalls the Platonist doctrine, favoured by Celsus, that souls can make their way to and from the earth through the planets, and speaks with approval of Philo’s exposition of Gen. 28:13 which has been cited above. He says that Gen. 28:13 either refers to the Platonic view or to “something greater,” but he does not explain what this is.

(c) Origen quotes Jn. 1:51 several times. In Hom. in Luc. xxiii. (Lommatzsch, v. 178) he quotes it to show that visions of angels are seen only by those to whom special grace is given; and similarly in de Orat. 11 (Lommatzsch, xvii. 128) he says that the angels ascending and descending are visible only to eyes illuminated by the light of knowledge (γνῶσις). In another place (c. Celsum, i. 48) he interprets the phrase τὸν οὐρανὸν ἀνεῳγότα of the opening of the heavens at the Baptism of Christ, forgetting that Jn. represents the Baptism as prior to the call of Nathanael. In none of these passages is it suggested that Gen. 28:13 had occurred to him as a parallel.

(d) Tertullian refers twice to Jacob’s ladder. Just as some men behave badly in time of persecution, and others well, so in Jacob’s dream some mount to higher places, others go down to lower (de Fuga, 1). More interesting is his comment in another place (c. Marcion. iii. 24): By the vision of Jacob’s ladder, with God standing above, is shown the way to heaven, which some take and others fall from. “This,” said Jacob, “is the gate of heaven,” and the gate is provided by Christ. Tertullian never mentions Jn. 1:51. It may be added that Cyprian quotes neither Gen. 28:13 nor Jn. 1:51.

(e) Irenæus (Dem. 45) says that Jacob’s ladder signifies the Cross, “for thereby they that believe on Him go up to the heavens,” adding that “all such visions point to the Son of God, speaking with men and being with men.” He does not quote Jn. 1:51 anywhere.

(f) Justin (Tryph. 58, 86) quotes in full the story of Jacob at Bethel. He urges that it was not God the Father who stood above the ladder (Gen. 28:13), but the Angel of His presence; and he finds the type of Christ, not in the ladder, but in the stone which Jacob had used for a pillow, and which he anointed (Gen. 28:18). He does not allude to Jn. 1:51.

(g) Chrysostom (in loc.) regards the ministry of angels in Gethsemane (Lk. 22:43) and the Resurrection (Jn. 20:12) as a fulfilment of Jn. 1:51, an inadequate explanation. In an obscure passage (in Col. ii. 5), he refers to Gen. 28:13 as a sign of the Divine Sonship of Christ, but he does not associate it with Jn. 1:51.

(h) Jerome alludes to Jacob’s ladder several times (e.g. Epp 98. 3, 118. 7, 123. 15, and Tract. de Ps. 119.). It represents, he says, the Christian life, the Lord standing above holding out His hand to help those going up, and casting down the careless. Like Justin, he takes the stone of Jacob as a type of Christ the cornerstone; but he does not quote Jn. 1:51 in this context.

(i) Augustine is the first exegete to find in Jn. 1:51 an allusion to Gen. 28:13. He, too, regards Jacob’s stone as a type of Christ; and he suggests that the confession of Nathanael that Jesus is the Christ was like the anointing of the stone by Jacob (Gen. 23:18). The “angels, ascending and descending,” typify the preachers of the Gospel. Augustine, however, introduces two ideas not altogether consistent with each other. First the angels “ascend and descend upon the Son of Man,” because He is at once above and below, in heaven and on earth. “Filius enim hominis sursum in capite nostro, quod est ipse Salvator; et Filius hominis deorsum in corpore suo, quod est Ecclesia.” Secondly, he explains that the Ladder is a type of Christ, who said, “I am the Way”; and it is notable that Augustine is the first Christian writer to suggest this thought (c. Faustum, xii. 26). He refers again to the association between Gen. 28:13 and Jn. 1:51 in de Civ. Dei, xvi. 39, and in Serm. cxxiii. 3, 4; but he does not elsewhere speak of Jacob’s ladder as typifying Christ. Augustine does not seem to be clear as to the correspondence between the details of Jacob’s vision and the promise to Nathanael; and, in fact, the correspondence cannot be set out precisely. But his general idea has left its mark on modern exegesis.

2:1. Cana of Galilee, to which the narrative now brings us, is named twice again in Jn. (4:46, 21:2), but nowhere else in the N.T. It is mentioned by Josephus (Vita, § 16) κώμη τῆς Γαλιλαίας ἣ προσαγορεύεται Κανά, and is not to be confounded with another Cana in Cœlo-Syria. Its exact situation is not certain. The traditional site is Kefr Kenna, 3 1/2 miles N.E. of Nazareth; but ˓Ain Kânâ, a little nearer Nazareth, and Khirbet Kânâ, 8 miles N. of Nazareth, have also been suggested.

τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῇ τρίτῃ. So א A L Δ W, but B Θ and fam. 13 have τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ.

Jesus reached Cana on the third day after the call of Philip and Nathanael (1:43), when a start was made from the neighbourhood of Bethabara for Galilee. This is a journey that would occupy two days (1:28), and no incident is recorded of the last day of travel.

It has been pointed out (on 1:19) that we have in the first section of the Gospel (1:19 to 2:11) a record of six or (more probably) of seven eventful days at the beginning of the public ministry of Jesus. Which of these days was the Sabbath? Most probably it was the day of the call of Andrew and John, who “abode with Him that day” (1:39). There was no travelling, such as there was on the days of the journey from Bethany to Cana. If this be so, we reach an interesting coincidence, for then the day of the Marriage at Cana would be the fourth day of the week; and a Talmudical direction ordained that the marriage of a virgin should be on the fourth day,¹ or our Wednesday. Marriage feasts in Palestine were, and are, generally held in the afternoon or evening.

ἡ μήτηρ τοῦ Ἰη. Jn. never gives her name (cf. 2:12, 6:42, 19:25), just as he does not mention the name of John the son of Zebedee or that of James his brother. Mary, who had apparently some special interest in the wedding (2:3, 5), had come over to Cana from the neighbouring village, Nazareth, or from Capernaum (see 2:12). Perhaps it was the wedding of a relative, which would account for Jesus being invited to attend.

In a Sahidic apocryphal fragment edited by Forbes Robinson,¹ Mary is said to be the sister of the bridegroom’s parents. The fragment (which seems to be part of a sermon on the Marriage at Cana) adds that the parents told Mary that the wine was failing, and asked her to use her influence with Jesus, who replied to her “in a kindly voice, Woman, what wilt thou with me?” (see on v. 4 below). According to this account, the waterpots were prepared that the guests might wash before the meal (see on v. 6).

The Monarchian Preface to the Gospel (see Introd., p. lvii) begins: “Hic est Iohannes euangelista unus ex discipulis dei, qui uirgo electus a deo est, quem de nuptiis uolentem nubere uocauit deus, etc.” This legend that the bridegroom was John the son of Zebedee (whose mother Salome was sister of Mary) had much currency in later times. That Jesus had dissuaded John from marriage is told in the second-century Gnostic Acts of John (§ 113).

2. μαθηταί. In all the Gospels the followers of Jesus are so described, the title sometimes indicating members of the apostolic Twelve or all of them, sometimes being used in a wider sense. Thus in Mk. 2:15, 3:7, Mt. 8:21, Lk. 6:13, Jn. 6:60, 61, 66, 20:30, μαθηταί is not restricted to the Twelve.

At first the followers of Jesus were called of οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ, thus distinguishing them from the disciples of other Rabbis (cf. on 1:35); but as time went on they began to be described absolutely as of οἱ μαθηταί, “the disciples” being a Christian phrase which no one would mistake. The earlier description is found in Mk., as is natural, much oftener than the later, and the same habit of phrase is found in Jn.²

Thus of οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ stands for the general body of the apostles in 6:3, 8, 12, 16, 22, 24, 12:4, 16, 13:23, 16:17, 29, 18:1, 19, 25, 20:26, and perhaps 21:2. The phrase is used in a wider sense at 2:17, 22, 4:2, 6:60, 61, 66, and perhaps 3:22. At 4:8, 27, 9:2 it is not clear which or how many of οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ were present, and the same is true of the present verse.

The later phrase, οἱ μαθηταὶ, used absolutely, is only applied once in Jn. to the collected Twelve (13:5, followed consequentiallyby 13:22). It often stands for the disciples already mentioned, e.g. 20:10 (two), 21:4, 12 (seven), 20:19, 20 (ten). At 4:31, 33 and 11:7, 8, 12, 54 (and perhaps 20:18), in like manner, οἱ μαθηταί indicates only the disciples present on the occasion, whose number is not specified. οἱ μαθηταί is used in the widest sense at 20:30, as including all the eye-witnesses of Jesus’ works.

It is plain from a comparison of these passages that not only does Jn. follow the earlier rather than the later phrase when speaking of the Twelve, but that μαθηταί is often used by him when the Twelve are not in the picture.

Jn. tells nothing of the selection of the Twelve, although he has οἱ δώδεκα as a distinctive description of them (6:67, 70, 71, 20:24; cf. 6:13). He never gives the title ἀπόστολοι to the Twelve, the word ἀπόστολος only occurring 13:16 in its general sense of “one that is sent”; cf. 20:21.

There is nothing to indicate that of οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ in this verse is meant to include all the new disciples, five in number, that have been named in the preceding chapter. Jesus asked Philip (1:43) to accompany Him to Galilee, and Nathanael was himself of Cana. These two may be assumed to have been present. Perhaps, also, John the son of Zebedee, whom we have identified with the unnamed disciple of 1:37, was there; for there are hints that the narrative goes back to an eye-witness (see on v. 6). But there is nothing to suggest that the brothers Andrew and Peter were present. And the absence of any mention of this incident in Mk., which is based on Peter’s reminiscences, would be natural if Peter was not a witness of it.

In any case, as Jesus had not yet declared Himself for what He was, and as the “disciples” had been attracted only during the previous week, it is not likely that they were invited to the wedding in their capacity as His disciples. They were probably present as friends of the bride and bridegroom. Nothing in the narrative supports the suggestion of some commentators that they were unexpected guests, and that the failure of the wine was due to this sudden addition to the wedding party.

ἐκλήθη is perhaps to be rendered “there had been bidden,” as if it were a pluperfect.

3. For ὑστερήσαντος οἵνου א^aA B L W Δ Θ is found in א* a b ff² a Western paraphrase, οἶνον οὐκ εἶχον, ὅτι συνετελέσθη ὁ οἶνος τοῦ γάμου, εἶτα … For οἶνον οὐκ ἕχουσιν at the end of the verse, א* has accordingly substituted οἶνος οὐκ ἕστιν.

Wine was always provided on occasions of rejoicing (cf. Gen. 14:18); and there was a Jewish saying, “Without wine there is no joy” (Pesachim, 109a). That there should not be enough for the guests would be deemed unfortunate; and Mary, who is represented as having some kind of authority in the house, or at any rate as sufficiently intimate to give orders to the servants (v. 5), calls the attention of Jesus to the deficiency. That she should tell Him of this, rather than the host or the “governor of the feast,” suggests at least that she had unbounded trust in His resourcefulness. But probably something more is meant. Jesus had now for the first time gathered disciples round Him, and Mary may well have thought that the time had come for Him to show Himself for what she knew Him to be.

λέγει … πρὸς αὐτόν. The more usual constr. λέγει αὐτῇ occurs in the next line. The constr. πρός τινα after λέγειν is not found in Mk., Mt., the Apocalypse, or the Johannine Epistles, but it is often found in Jn. (3:4, 4:15, 48, 49, 6:5, 7:50, 8:31) as well as in Lk.

4. τί ἐμοὶ καὶ σοί; is a phrase, translated from the Hebrew, occurring several times in the Greek Bible, and always suggestive of diversity of opinion or interest. Thus in Judg. 11:12 Jephthah says τί ἐμοὶ καὶ σοί; in hostile challenge to the King of the Ammonites. David (2 Sam. 16:10) says τί ἐμοὶ καὶ ὑμῖν; to the sons of Zeruiah, meaning that he does not agree with their advice. The Woman of Sarepta (1 Kings 17:18) reproaches Elijah with the same phrase. Elisha uses it in declining to help King Jehoram (2 Kings 3:13). Neco, King of Egypt, says to Josiah, τί ἐμοὶ καὶ σοι; meaning, “Why should we fight? I am not marching against you” (2 Chron. 35:21). And in Mk. 5:7 the man with the unclean spirit says the same thing to Jesus, “Why do you concern yourself with me? Let me alone” (cf. Mk. 1:24, Mt. 8:29).

The phrase does not always imply reproach, but it suggests it. Here it seems to be a gentle suggestion of misunderstanding: “I shall see to that; it will be better that you should leave it to me.” This is the view of Irenaeus: “Dominus repellens eius intempestivam festinationem, dixit, etc.” (Hær. iii. 17. 7).

γύναι, as a vocative, does not convey any idea of rebuke or reproach, as is clear from the tender γύναι, ἴδε ὁ υἱός σου of 19:26. It was thus that Augustus addressed Cleopatra (Dio, li. 12. 5) and Ulysses addressed Penelope (Odyssey, 19. 555). But, nevertheless, that Jesus should call His mother γύναι, and not μήτερ, as would be natural, indicates that the time is past for the exercise of any maternal authority on her part.

οὔπω ἥκει ἡ ὥρα μου means primarily, in this context, that the moment had not come for Jesus to intervene; that He was conscious of the failure of the wine, and did not need to be reminded of it. At the proper moment, He would act, if necessary.

The evangelist, however, means something more by the record of this saying of Jesus. He places similar words in His mouth more than once. ὁ καιρὸς ὁ ἐμὸς οὔπω πάρεστιν (πεπλήρωται) (7:6, 8) means that the time had not come for the public manifestation of Himself as Messiah. At 12:23 Jesus says that the hour of His Death has come: ἐλήλυθευ ἡ ὥρα ἵνα δοξασθῇ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου (cf. 12:27); and, again, Πάτερ, ἐλήλυθεν ἡ ὥρα (17:1; cf. 13:1). Jn. in his own person speaks similarly of the appointed hour of the manifestation and death of Jesus, e.g. οὔπω ἐληλύθει ἡ ὥρα αὐτοῦ (7:30; cf. 8:20).

Twice in Mt.’s account of the Passion, similar phrases are used, viz. ὁ καιρός μου ἐγγύς ἐστι (Mt. 26:18) and ἤγγικεν ἡ ὥρα (Mt. 26:45, Mk. 14:41); and Jesus frequently in the Synoptic narrative predicts death as the conclusion of His public ministry. But the Fourth Gospel is written from beginning to end sub specie æternitatis; the predestined end is foreseen from the beginning. (See on 3:14 for Jn.’s use of δεῖ.) It is as inevitable as is the hour of a woman’s travail (16:21). Bearing this in mind, it is probable that Jn. meant his readers to understand by the words “Mine hour is not yet come” spoken at the Marriage Feast at Cana, that the moment had not yet come for the public manifestation by Jesus of Himself as Messiah, the first sign of this Epiphany being the miracle of the water turned into wine.

5. Mary did not take amiss the words of Jesus. She has been assured that He is aware of all the facts, and that is enough for her. So she bids the servants to execute promptly any order that He gives, for she feels certain that He will intervene, when the time has come. She is represented in the story as expectant of some “sign” that will show Jesus for what He is.

ποιήσατε. In Jn., the aorist imperative often occurs, as “more authoritative than the pres. imper., which may denote continuous action.”¹ Cf. vv. 7, 8 γεμίσατε … ἀντλήσατε, and also 2:16, 19, 4:16, 35, 6:10, 7:24, 9:7, 11:39, 12:27, 13:27, 15:9, 21:10.

6. ἦσαν δὲ ἐκεῖ κτλ. Jn. often uses δέ to introduce a new point: “Now there were six waterpots, etc.” Cf. 6:10, 18:40.

χωροῦσαι ἀνὰ μετρητάς κτλ., “containing two or three firkins apiece.” ἀνά does not occur again in Jn.; cf. Rev. 4:8. For this classical use of χωρεῖν (see on 8:37) cf. 2 Chron. 4:5 χωροῦσαν μετρητὰς τρισχιλίους.

ὑδρίαι. It was customary to have large water-jars of stone in or near the room where a feast was being held, in order that water might be available for the ceremonial washing of hands prescribed before and after meals. The water was carried from the jars in pitchers or basins, and was poured over the fingers, so that it ran down to the wrist (cf. Mk. 7:3); and it was a special duty of one’s servant to see to this (cf. 2 Kings 3:11, where Elisha is described as he “who poured water on the hands of Elijah,” i.e. as his servant). A “firkin” or bath (μετρητής; cf. 2 Chron. 4:5) was about 81/2 gallons, so that the huge water-pots of the narrative (quite distinct from wine vessels) contained about 20 gallons each. A smaller sized ὑδρία was used for carrying water from a well (cf. 4:28).

κατὰ τὸν καθαρισμὸν τῶν Ἰουδαίων (cf. 3:25). The Fourth Gospel was written for Greek, not for Jewish, readers; and so, as at many other points, an explanatory note of this kind is added (cf. v. 13). The Jewish customs as to ceremonial washings were common to Galilee, as to the rest of Palestine; and no special emphasis should be laid here on the term “Jews” as distinguished from Galilæans. See above on 1:19, and cf. 2:13, 6:41.

7. εὥς ἄνω, “up to the brim” (cf. Mt. 27:51 for ἕως κάτω, “down to the bottom”). This is mentioned to show that no room was left for adding anything to the water in the jars.

8. ἀντλήσατε νῦν κτλ. “Draw out now, and bear to the governor of the feast.” The ἀρχιτρίκλινος is called the ἡγούμενος in Ecclus. 32:1. It was customary for one of the principal guests to preside as arbiter bibendi (Horace, Od. ii. 7) or συμποσίαρχος, and it is this person who is indicated here by ἀρχιτρίκλινος, a word which elsewhere means a butler who arranged the triclinium, or three couches, each for three, at the table.

ἀντλήσατε νῦν has been generally taken to mean that the servants were bidden to draw water from the great jars and convey it in pitchers to the ruler of the feast. Westcott argues that ἀντλήσατε νῦν means rather “draw out now from the well,” whence water had previously been taker to fill the jars “up to the brim”; and that no miracle was wrought upon the water in the jars, but only upon water freshly drawn from the well in response to the command of Jesus. It is true that ἀντλεῖν is naturally used of drawing water from a well (cf. 4:7 and Gen. 24:20, Ex. 2:19, Isa. 12:3). But the difficulties of this interpretation are considerable:

(1) If Westcott’s view be taken, the act (v. 7) of filling the large jars with water was quite otiose and has nothing to do with the story. There was no reason to mention the waterpots at all, if the miracle consisted in the conversion to wine of water freshly drawn from the well in pitchers¹ and brought direct to the ἀρχιτρίκλινος.

(2) ἀντλεῖν can quite properly be used of drawing or pouring a liquid from a large vessel into a smaller one; and in its compounds ἐξαντλεῖν, καταντλεῖν, it means “to pour out,” “to pour over.” The drawing from the large hydriæ in the story would have been done by ladles (κύαθοι).²

(3) That ἀντλεῖν could be used of drawing wine appears from a passage in the comic poet Pherecrates (see D.C.G. ii. 815); and that a hydria was sometimes used to hold wine can be shown from Pollux, Onomasticon, x. § 74, … ἔφη Ὑδρίαν δανείζειν πεντέχουν ἢ μείζονα, ὥστʼ οὐ μόνον ὕδατος ἀλλὰ καὶ οἴνου ἂν εἴη ἀγγεῖον ἡ ὑδρία. This last quotation shows that the ἀρχιτρίκλινος would have had no reason for being surprised at wine being brought from the waterpots.

Jn. clearly means his readers to believe that what was served to the ruler of the feast was drawn from the water—jars; and that it was then served as a beverage. Had it been brought by the attendants for the purpose of pouring it on the hands of the ἀρχιτρίκλινος, it would have been brought in a different kind of vessel, and he would not have proceeded to taste it.

We must further notice that Jn. does not say that either the ruler of the feast, or the wedding guests generally, found anything miraculous in the wine that was served at the end. It was the disciples only who are said to have “believed” in Jesus, in consequence of this “sign.” See Introd., p. clxxxii.

9. ὡς δὲ ἐγεύσατο ὁ ἀρχιτρ. κτλ., the aorist being used like a pluperfect: “when the ruler of the feast had tasted, etc.” Cf. 7:10.

τὸ ὕδωρ οἶνον γεγενημένον. The words have been generally understood to imply that all the water in the six waterpots, amounting to about 120 gallons (see on v. 6), had been turned into wine. Jn. may have meant this; but if so, the new supply would have been a large over-provision for the needs of the guests at the end of the feast, when they had already consumed what had been provided by the host. In the story of Bel and the Dragon, six firkins, or 50 gallons of wine, offered daily to the idol are regarded as sufficient for 70 priests with their wives and families. A hundred and twenty gallons would be so unnecessarily large a supply that the residue of the twelve baskets left after the Feeding of the Five Thousand (6:13) does not furnish any analogy. Here there would have been a prodigality, not indeed inconceivable in the case of One whom the narrator describes as the Agent of creation (1:3), but without parallel in the record of the other “signs” of Christ.

The difficulty arising from the quantity of wine that would have been left over perhaps affects modern readers more than it would have affected contemporaries. Wine might be abused, and drunkenness was always blameworthy; but the idea that it is wrong to use wine in moderation, like any other gift of God, would have been foreign to primitive Christianity or to Judaism.¹ The modern notion that “wine” in the N.T. means unfermented, non-intoxicating wine is without foundation.² Indeed, it was just because Jesus did not condemn the use of wine that He was reproached as a “winebibber” (Mt. 11:9, Lk. 7:34 by those who wished to disparage Him. Unlike John the Baptist, Jesus was not an ascetic.

It must, however, be observed that Jn. does not say explicitly that the entire contents of the water-jars were turned into wine. “The water which had become wine” was that which was served to the ruler of the feast, and Jn. says nothing of any other. Nor is it clear that he means us to understand that the servants had noticed any change in the beverage which they served. They knew that they had taken it from the waterpots (or from one of them); that is all.

To change one pitcher of water into wine is no less “super-natural” than to change 120 gallons; and we do not escape difficulty by refusing to exaggerate the story as it stands. Jn. certainly implies that some objective change took place in the water served for drinking purposes (cf. 4:46). To reduce the powers of Christ to human standards was no part of his design. It has been thought, indeed, by some that a suggestion made by Jesus that the water had become wine may have wrought so powerfully on the minds of those present that they were convinced that it was even so. The belief of the ἀρχιτρίκλινος that he had been drinking wine, when he had only been drinking water, may have been an illusion due to the magnetic and compelling force of the words of Jesus. But we cannot tell precisely what happened, and must be content here with the endeavour to discover what Jn. meant his readers to believe.

The indirect manner in which the statement of the miracle is made should be observed. “When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that had become wine.” The story is not told for the first time. It is recorded as if the facts were well known. The ἀρχιτρίκλινος on tasting the beverage served to him, not knowing anything of its source, says, “It is very good, even better than that which was served first.” It is this observation of the ruler of the feast that is emphasised by the narrator, rather than the extraordinary character of the “sign” which he records.

Another feature of this story is that it does not lead up to any great saying of Jesus or to any discourse like that which Jn. appends to the Feeding of the Five Thousand. Nor does the evangelist draw any moral from it. He notes it as the first of the “signs” of Jesus by which He exhibited His glory (v. 11), but he says no more. In short, the way in which the story is told goes far to support the view that it is a genuine reminiscence, or tradition, of an actual occurrence, although it is impossible now to discern exactly what took place. See Additional Note p. 81, and cf. Introd., p. clxxxii.

10. τὸν ἐλάσσω. The rec. text, with א^cA N Γ Δ Θ, prefixes τότε, but om. א*B L T^b W.

The ἀρχιτρίκλινος speaks of a common practice at feasts as he knew them; viz. that when men’s palates had become dull by drinking—cum inebriati fuerint (vg.), “when men be dronke,” as Tyndale and Cranmer translate—inferior wine was served.

Schlatter quotes a Rabbinical tradition as to the wine drunk on the occasion of a boy’s circumcision: the father says to the guests as he offers it, “Drink from this good wine; from this I will give you to drink also at his wedding.” In the present case, the surprise of the ruler of the feast was due, not to good wine being served, but to its being served last. It was kept ἕως ἄρτι (cf. 5:17, 16:24 and 1 Jn. 2:9 for this phrase).

For the adj. καλός, see further on 10:11. καλός is used of wine, as here, in a fourth-century papyrus quoted by Moulton-Milligan, s.v.

τὸν καλὸν οἶνον τίθησιν. This suggests that the wine was placed on the table, as is our modern custom.

11. ταύτην ἐποίησεν ἀρχὴν τῶν σημείων. We have now passed from the “witness” of the Baptist to the “witness” of the works of Jesus (see on 1:7). The Miracle of Cana was the first of the “signs” which Jesus wrought during His earthly ministry. By them, according to Jn., “He made manifest His glory” (see on 1:14). They were not merely wonders or prodigies (τέρατα), but “signs” by which men might learn that He was the Christ (20:31) and “believe on Him.” (For the phrase πιστεύειν εἱς αὐτόν, see on 1:12.) The highest faith is that which can believe without a sign (20:29), but signs have a useful function as bearing their witness to the glory of Jesus. This aspect of His signs is asserted by Jesus Himself (5:36). When the tidings reached the disciples that Lazarus was dead, He said that it was well, for the miracle of his recovery would be all the greater (11:15). He rebuked the multitudes, because they followed Him for what they might get, and not because of His signs (6:26). Cf. 10:38, 14:11. And the same aspect of miracles appears in the Synoptists (Mk. 2:10, Mt. 11:20, etc.).¹ See on 4:48 and 10:25.

The “disciples” who are here said to have “believed on Him” as a consequence of what they saw at Cana, or rather whose new faith was thus confirmed, were, as yet, few in number, Philip and Nathanael and John being among them (see on v. 2).

Some exegetes have supposed that this incident foreshadowed (or was intended by the evangelist to indicate) the replacement of the inferior dispensation by the superior, the Law by the Gospel. Such a view of Jn.’s literary method has been discussed in the Introduction (p. lxxxv); but it may be pointed out that the arguments assembled to prove that this particular narrative is an invention of the evangelist, designed to teach spiritual truth in an allegorical way, seem peculiarly weak.

(1) Six, it is said, is a significant number—the perfect number—and so there are 6 waterpots. But there is no number from 1 to 10 which could not be given a mystical interpretation; and the idea that 6 represents the 6 days of creation, which is the best that Origen¹ can do with the waterpots, is not very convincing.

Origen also suggests that the “two or three firkins” in each waterpot of purification intimate that the Jews are purified by the word of Scripture, receiving sometimes “two firkins,” i.e. the psychical and spiritual sense of the Bible, and sometimes “three firkins,” i.e. the psychical, spiritual, and corporeal senses. That is, he thinks that on occasion the literal or corporeal sense is not edifying, although it generally is (see Introd., p. lxxxv). But Origen does not say that he abandons the literal or historical sense of Jn. 2:1–11, and it is probable that he did not mean this, while he found allegorical meanings in some details of the story.² In the same way, Gregory of Nyssa is not to be taken as questioning the historicity of the narrative when he says that “the Jewish waterpots which were filled with the water of heresy, He filled with genuine wine, changing its nature by the power of His faith.”³ That an incident can be treated by a commentator in an allegorical manner does not prove that he regards it as unhistorical, and still less that the narrator had invented it to serve a spiritual purpose.

For example, there must be few preachers who have not drawn out lessons of a spiritual sort from the incident of the wine that was served at the end of the wedding feast being the best. It is a law of nature, and therefore a law of God, that the best comes last, being that for which all that goes before has prepared. So it is, to take the illustration suggested by the story, in a happy marriage. The best wine of life comes last. The fruits of autumn are richer than the flowers of spring. So perhaps it will be in the next life:

Such reflexions are legitimate. But there is nothing to show that they were in the mind of the evangelist, or that the story of the Marriage at Cana was invented to teach them.

(2) A modern attempt to explain the story of the Sign at Cana as merely a parable of edification is that of E. A. Abbott.⁴ He finds the germ of the story in the account of Melchizedek given by Philo, as bringing forth “wine instead of water” (Leg. Alleg. iii. 26); and he explains that “the six waterpots represent the inferior dispensation of the weekdays, i.e. the Law, preparing the way for the perfect dispensation of the Sabbath, i.e. the Gospel, of which the wedding feast at Cana is a type.” He adds a Philonic quotation about the number 6 “being composed of 2 × 3, having the odd as male and the even as female, whence originate those things which are according to the fixed laws of nature.… What the number 6 generated, that the number 7 exhibited in full perfection” (de septen. 6).

Moffatt¹ favours yet a third Philonic explanation of the number 6, suggesting that the six ὑδρίαι correspond to Philo’s principle that six is the “most productive” (γονιμωτάτη) of numbers (decal. 30).

These are desperate expedients of exegesis, and if Jn. really had any such notions in his mind when he said there were six waterpots prepared for the use of the wedding guests, he wrote more obscurely than is his wont. The truth is that mention of this unusually large number of ὑδρίαι is more reasonably to be referred to the observation of an eye-witness, who happened to remember the circumstance, than to elaborate symbolism of the narrative.

(3) The case for treatment of the whole story as due to a misunderstanding of some figurative saying can be put more plausibly. Wendt² puts it thus: “It is quite possible that an utterance which the apostle originally made in a figurative sense—Jesus turned the water of legal purification into the wine of marriage joy—was afterwards interpreted by the circle of Johannine disciples as recording an actual conversion of such water of purification into wine for a marriage.” This is not to say that Jn. did not mean to narrate the incident as historical; it is to say, on the contrary, that he was mistaken in doing so, and that the story, in all its intimate detail, has been built up from vague hearsay. Quite different is such a theory from that which would regard the narrative as invented in order to teach that the wine of the Gospel, which Jesus provides, is better than the unsatisfying water of the Law; but it has its own difficulties. See Introd., p. clxxxii.

12. μετὰ τοῦτο. This phrase does not occur in the Synoptists, but appears 4 times in Jn. (cf. 11:17, 11, 19:28), and always connotes strict chronological sequence, as distinct from the vaguer μετὰ ταῦτα (see Introd., p. cviii). μετὰ ταῦτα is read here in the fourth century Pap. Oxy. 847 and also in M 124* with b f ff² q.

κατέβη εἰς Καφαρναούμ (this is the best attested spelling). Jesus “went down” to Capernaum, Cana being on higher ground: Jn. uses the same phrase again (4:47) for the journey from Cana to Capernaum. The distance by road is about 20 miles. To assume that the party walked by way of Nazareth (which is in a different direction), and that this journey to Capernaum is to be identified with that mentioned Mt. 4:13, lacks evidence.

Capernaum is to be located at Tell Hum (more properly, Telhum); or, less probably, at Khan Minyeh.¹ These places are about 3 miles apart, both on the N. shore of the Sea of Galilee.

Nothing is told about this short visit to Capernaum, so that mention of it has no allegorical significance. v. 12 is merely an historical note.

It will be noticed that the mother and “brethren” of Jesus were with Him now, on the return of the wedding guests from Cana; but thenceforth they do not travel about with Him. His public mission has begun.

They stayed at Capernaum “not many days” (οὐ πολλὰς ἡμέρας), the note of time being characteristic (see Introd., p. cii) of the Fourth Gospel.

After ἀδελφοί, B L T^b W, with Pap. Oxy. 84 7, omit αὐτοῦ, but ins. א A N Γ Δ Θ, and most vss. א a b e ff² l q, with some cursives and the Coptic Q, Omit καὶ οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ.

The mother and “brethren” of Jesus accompanied Him on this journey. The “brethren” are always (except in Jn. 7:3f.) mentioned in the Gospels in connexion with Mary (cf. Mk. 3:31, Mt. 12:46, Lk. 8:19 and Mk. 6:3, Mt. 13:55); and it is not unlikely that she shared their home until (see 19:27) she was entrusted to the care of her nephew, John the son of Zebedee. The evangelists consistently represent them as incredulous of the claims of Jesus (see reff. above), and as regarding Him as out of His mind (Mk. 3:21, for “His friends” here are apparently to be identified with “His mother and His brethren” in v. 31). Their names were James, Joseph, Simon, and Jude (some of the commonest names in Palestine), and they had sisters (Mt. 13:55, Mk. 6:3). James, “the Lord’s brother,” became a believer after the Resurrection of Jesus (Acts 1:14); St. Paul reports that the Risen Lord appeared to him (1 Cor. 15:7); and he was the first bishop of Jerusalem (see Acts 12:17, 15:13). Grandsons of Jude (who probably also confessed Christ afterwards, Acts 1:14) were leaders of the Church in the time of Domitian (Eus. H.E. iii. 19, 20, 32).

The ancient problem as to the “brethren of the Lord” cannot be fully discussed here. (1) The theory known as the Hieronymian, because it was started by Jerome, is that they were the sons of Alphæus, who is identified with Clopas, and Mary, who is regarded as the Virgin’s sister (but see on 19:25 as to both these equations). Thus they were maternal cousins of Jesus, and were loosely called His “brethren.” This would involve the identification of “James the Lord’s brother” with James the son of Alphæus, who was one of the Twelve. But the Lord’s brethren remained incredulous throughout His public ministry, and could not therefore have been numbered among the Twelve (see on 7:5). That James the Lord’s brother is called an “apostle” at Gal. 1:19 is nothing to the point, for the circle of “apostles” was much larger than the circle of the Twelve. Further, despite the vague use of ἀδελφός in a few passages in the LXX, where a cousin is addressed or indicated (cf. 2 Sam. 20:9, 1 Chron. 23:21, 22, Tobit 7:2, 4), we cannot equate ἀδελφός and ἀνεψιός or give any reason for the evangelists’ use of the word “brethren” when “cousins” would have been more literally exact. (2) The Helvidian theory, against which Jerome’s polemic was addressed, is that these “brethren” were sons of Joseph and Mary, born later than Jesus, and appeal is made by its advocates to the phrasing of Mt. 1:25 as indicating that Mary did not remain a virgin. But it is difficult to understand how the doctrine of the Virginity of Mary could have grown up early in the second century if her four acknowledged sons were prominent Christians, and one of them bishop of Jerusalem. (3) The most probable, as it is the most ancient, view is that expounded by Epiphanius, viz. that the “brethren of the Lord” were sons of Joseph by a former wife. Thus they were really the stepsons of Mary, and might naturally be called the “brothers” of Jesus; the fact, too, that Mary shared their home would be accounted for. Hegesippus (fl.150; cf. Eus. H.E. iii. II, iv. 22) stated that Clopas (Jn. 19:25) was a brother of Joseph, a view which Epiphanius adopted.

It thus appears that we have to distinguish three groups of persons bearing the same names, viz.:

i. James the son of Zebedee, James the son of Alphæus; Simon Peter, Simon Zelotes; Judas the son of another James, also called Thaddæus, and Judas Iscariot, were all of the Twelve (Mt. 10:2f., Mk. 3:16f., Lk. 6:14f.).

ii. James called the just, the first bishop of Jerusalem, Simon, Judas, and Joseph, the Lord’s brethren, were sons of Joseph by his first wife (Mk. Mk. 6:3, Mt. 13:55).

iii. James the Little (ὁ μικρός), of whom we know nothing more, and Joses were sons of Clopas and another Mary (Mk. 15:40, Mt. 27:56; see on Jn. 19:25). They had another brother, Symeon, who was second bishop of Jerusalem, and was appointed to that office, according to Hegesippus, because he was the Lord’s “cousin” (Eus. H.E. iii. II, iv. 22). This phrase is used because Clopas was brother of Joseph, the foster father of Jesus.

Hence it would seem that James, Joses, and Symeon in Group 3. were first cousins of James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas in Group ii.¹

13 ff. This incident is placed in the traditional text of Jn. at the beginning of the ministry of Jesus (2:13–17), while the Synoptists place it at the end (Mk. 11:15–17, Mt. 21:12, 13, Lk. 19:45, 46). Before examining this discrepancy, we must review the differences between the Synoptic and Johannine narratives, and also come to some conclusion as to the significance of the action of Jesus on this occasion.

The Synoptic tradition is based on Mk.; Mt. and Lk. having no details that are not in Mk., and omitting some of his. It is convenient, then, to begin by comparing Jn. with Mk.; and it appears at once that Jn. (as often elsewhere²) knows Mk.’s narrative, which he amplifies and alters in some details.

Both evangelists tell of the upsetting of the tables of the moneychangers. Jn. omits, as do Mt. and Lk., a point preserved by Mk., viz. that Jesus forbade the carrying of goods or implements through the Temple courts, a practice probably due to the desire to make a short cut between the city and the Mount of Olives (Mk. 11:16). Jn. alone states that sheep and oxen were being sold in the precincts (τὸ ἱερόν), the sale of pigeons only being mentioned by Mk. Jn. adds that Jesus used a whip to drive out the beasts, while he ordered their owners to take the pigeons away, with the rebuke, “Make not my Father’s house a house of business.” The rebuke in Mk. is different, being made up of quotations from Isa. 56:7 and Jer. 7:11, “My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations, but you have made it a den of thieves.” That is to say, Mk. represents Jesus as denouncing the dishonesty of the traffic which was carried on within the Temple precincts; while from Jn. it would seem as if the traffic itself, apart from its honesty or dishonesty, were condemned. The Scripture which the burning zeal of Jesus recalls to Jn. is Ps. 69:9; and he notes that the Jews asked for a sign of His authority, to which Jesus replied by saying, “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it up in three days”—enigmatical words which (according to Jn.) the Jews misinterpreted. None of this is in Mk., who adds, however, that the chief priests and scribes began to seek the death of Jesus, fearing Him and being alarmed at the effect of His words upon the people.

What was the meaning of the action of Jesus in “cleansing” the Temple? It does not seem to have been suggested by any special incident. According to all the accounts, it was quite spontaneous.

Perhaps the best answer is that the action of Jesus was a protest against the whole sacrificial system of the Temple.¹ The killing of beasts, which was a continual feature of Jewish worship, was a disgusting and useless practice. The court of slaughter must have been like a shambles, especially at Passover time. And Jesus, by His bold action, directed public attention not only to the impropriety of buying and selling cattle in the sacred precincts, with the accompanying roguery which made the Temple a den of thieves, but also to the futility of animal sacrifices. He had declared Himself against Jewish Sabbatarianism. He now attacks the Temple system. This it was which set the temple officials against Him. The cry, “Thou that destroyest the temple,” disclosed the cause of their bitter enmity.

There is, indeed, no hint that Jesus interfered directly with the work of the priests.² He quoted a prophetic passage (Hos. 6:6) which deprecated the offering of animal victims (Mt. 9:13, 12:7), but not on this occasion. Nor is He said to have prevented any animal from being led to sacrifice. What He interfered with was a market, not held in the court where the altars were, but in the outer Court of the Gentiles. Yet some such market was necessary, if animal sacrifices were to go on. It was inevitable that oxen and sheep and pigeons should be available for purchase, in or near the precincts of the Temple, by the pilgrims who came up to worship at the great feasts, and particularly at the Passover. If this practice were stopped, the whole system of sacrificial worship would disappear. It may therefore have been the purpose of Jesus, by His action of “cleansing the Temple,” to aim a blow at the Temple system in general (cf. 4:21). But if so, it was not immediately perceived to be His purpose by His own disciples, who continued to attend the Temple worship after His Passion and Resurrection (Acts 2:46, 3:1; cf. 6:7).

Whether this be the true explanation of the drastic action of Jesus, or whether we should attach a lesser significance to it by supposing that His purpose was merely to rebuke those who profaned the Temple courts by chaffering and bargaining, it is not possible to decide with certainty. We pass on to consider whether it is more probable that the incident occurred at the beginning or at the end of His ministry. Mk. (followed by Mt. and Lk.) places it at the end; Jn. seems to place it at the beginning. Which is more likely?

It is true that Mk. only tells of one visit of Jesus to Jerusalem; and so, if he mentioned the Cleansing of the Temple at all, he had to put it at the end of the ministry. Nor is the Marcan dating of events in the last week always to be accepted as accurate. As to the date of the Day of the Crucifixion, e.g., Jn. is to be preferred to Mk. (see Introd., p. cvi). So that it is not to be taken for granted that, in a matter of this sort, Mk. must be right and Jn. wrong. But if we reflect how deep must have been the indignation aroused by such an act as that recorded in Jn. 2:15, how the vested interests of the cattle-dealers must have been affected by it, how little disposed men are to yield to opposition which will bring them financial loss, we shall find it hard to believe that Jesus was a comparatively unknown person in Jerusalem when He “cleansed” the Temple. The one moment at which such an action could have been carried through without instant retaliation was, apparently, the moment after His triumphal entry, when even the Pharisees began to despair of diverting the crowds from following Him (12:19). On psychological grounds, the incident is hardly credible, if it is to be put at the beginning of the ministry of Jesus. At that time the Temple officials would have made short work of any one who attempted to stop the business of the Temple courts by violence.

Our conclusion accordingly is that there is some mistake (which cannot now be explained) in that account of the Cleansing of the Temple which places it immediately after the miracle of Cana, as the traditional text of Jn. places it.¹ Some expositors have postulated two cleansings, one at the beginning, the other at the close of Jesus’ ministry; but, apart from the fact that this duplication of similar incidents is improbable, we find it difficult to suppose that this particular incident, or anything like it, could have happened at so early a stage in the ministry of Jesus as is suggested by the traditional order of the chapters in the Fourth Gospel.²

13. ἐγγὺς ἦν τὸ πάσχα τῶν Ἰουδαίων. ἐγγύς is used again 6:4, 7:2, 11:55 of the approach of a feast; elsewhere in the Gospel it is used of proximity in space, not time.

τὸ πάσχα τῶν Ἰουδαίων. Jn. is accustomed to describe the Passover festivals which he mentions as “of the Jews” (cf. 5:1, 6:4, 11:55), and he speaks in the same way of the Feast of Tabernacles (7:2). The Synoptists never speak thus. Westcott suggested that the qualifying phrase “of the Jews” implies the existence at the time of writing of a recognised Christian Passover, from which Jn. wishes to distinguish those which he records. But this explanation will not cover the language of 7:2, for there was no Christian Feast of Tabernacles. It is simpler to say that Jn. is writing for Greek readers, and that the qualifying clause is explanatory for them (cf. v. 6 and 19:40). Paul. was proud of being a Jew, but he speaks nevertheless of Ἰουδαϊσμός (Gal. 1:13) as something quite foreign to his present religious convictions; and so there is nothing in the addition “of the Jews” inconsistent with the nationality of John the son of Zebedee, even if we were to suppose that he wrote these words with his own hand, at the end of a long Christian life, lived for the most part out of Palestine, during which he had dissociated himself from his Jewish past.

ἀνέβη εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα. ἀναβαίνειν is the verb regularly used of “going up” to Jerusalem for the feasts (5:1, 7:8, 11:55, 12:20). In this context it does not connote the idea of ascending from lower to higher ground (as in v. 12), but of journeying to the metropolis.

14, 15. The ἱερόν, or sacred precinct, must be distinguished from the ναός, or Temple itself. Here, the ἱερόν is the Outer Court, or Court of the Gentiles, where the animals needed for sacrifice or offering were bought. To those coming from a distance, as well as to Jews of Jerusalem, it was a convenience to be able to buy on the spot the oxen or sheep or pigeons (Lev. 5:7, 15:14, 29, 17:3, etc.) that were required for sacrifice or for offerings of purification. So, too, the trade of the moneychangers was a necessary one, because Roman money could not be paid into the Temple treasury. The capitation tax or “atonement money” of half a shekel (see Ex. 30:13, Neh. 10:32, Mt. 17:24) had to be tendered in the orthodox coinage.

κέρμα signifies a small coin, and hence we have κερματιστής, “a moneychanger.” So too, κόλλυβος, κολλυβιστής, with like meanings (v. 15). Lightfoot quotes¹ a Talmudic rule: “It is necessary that every one should have half a shekel to pay for himself. Therefore, when he comes to the exchange to change a shekel for two half-shekels he is obliged to allow him some gain, which is called קולבון or κόλλυβος.” That is, the κόλλυβος was the discount charged by the moneychanger for exchanging a shekel into two half-shekels.

For τὰ κέρματα (B L T^b W 33, with Pap. Oxy. 84 7) the rec. has τὸ κέρμα with א A N D&Θ, apparently treating it as a collective noun: “He poured out the coin (pecuniam) of the moneychangers.”

For ἀνέτρεψεν (B WΘ, with Pap. Oxy. 847) the rec. has ἀνέστρεψεν with א L N D, א fam. 13 having κατέστρεψεν (from Mk. 11:15). ἀναστρέφειν is not used in the N.T. in the sense of “upsetting”; for ἀνατρέπειν, cf. 2 Tim. 2:18.

τράπεζα is classical for a moneychanger’s table, and we have τὴν τράπεζαν ἀνατρέπειν “to upset the table” in Demosthenes (403.7).

σχοινιά means “a bunch of rushes,” while σχοινίον is a “cord”; and some have thought that the scourge or whip used by Jesus was made from the rushes used for bedding for the cattle. It may have been so, but φραγέλλιον ἐκ σχοινίων is adequately translated by “a whip of small cords.” The whip is not mentioned by the Synoptists, and the detail is suggestive of the recollections of an eye-witness.

πάντας ἐξέβαλεν … τά τε πρόβατα καὶ τοὺς βόας. It would seem that the whip was used on the owners of the cattle as well as on the sheep and oxen. πάτας ἐξέβαλιν in the Synoptist accounts (Mt. 21:12; cf. Mk. 11:15, Lk. 19:45) certainly applies to the men; the Synoptists do not mention the driving out of the cattle.

Jerome (in Mt. 21:15) says that the cattle-dealers did not resist Jesus: “a certain fiery and starry light shone from His eyes and the majesty of Godhead gleamed in His face.”¹

16. The doves or pigeons could not be driven out as the cattle were; but the order to those who sold them is peremptory: ἄρατε ταῦτα ἐντεῦθεν, “take them hence.” For the aor. imper. ἄρατε, see on v. 5.

The reason given for this action is different from that given by the Synoptists. They represent Jesus as indignant at the dishonesty of the traffic pursued in the Temple: “Ye have made it a den of thieves.” According to Jn., Jesus seems to object to the traffic in itself, honest or dishonest, as secular business that ought not to be transacted in a sacred place: “Make not my Father’s house a house of merchandise” (but see above, at p. 87). The remarkable phrase “my Father”—not “our Father”—is not found in Mk., but it occurs 4 times in Lk., 16 times in Mt., and 27 times in Jn. We have thus the authority of Mt. and Lk., as well as that of Jn., for regarding it as a phrase which Jesus used habitually. It indicates a peculiar relationship between Him and God, the Father of all, which is not shared by the sons of men (cf. Jn. 20:17).

ὁ οἶκος τοῦ Πατρός μου is the earthly Temple. So the Lord is represented by Lk. (2:49) as saying, “Wist ye not that I must be in my Father’s house?” (ἐν τοῖς τοῦ Πατρός μου). But ἡ οἰκία τοῦ Πατρός μου (14:2), “the Dwelling Place of my Father,” in which are many mansions, is the heavenly temple, the Eternal and Changeless Home of the Eternal.

The Temple is often described in the O.T. as “the house of God,” and Jesus so described it (Mk. 2:26, Mt. 12:4, Lk. 6:4). It was to make an unmistakable claim for Himself to substitute for this familiar expression the words “the house of My Father.” Here is an express assertion that He was Messiah, the Son of God, as Nathanael had already perceived Him to be (1:49). Cf. 5:17.

17. οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ, sc. who were present (see on 2:2). They saw in the action of Jesus in purifying the Temple courts an illustration of that burning zeal of which the Psalmist had sung, “The zeal of thy house hath consumed me” (Ps. 69:9). No Psalm is so frequently quoted in the N.T. as this. The rest of v. 9, “The reproaches of them that reproach thee are fallen upon me,” is applied by Paul to the Christ (Rom. 15:3). Jn. represents Jesus as citing v. 4, “They hated me without a cause,” as fulfilled in His own experience (15:25), and as saying, “I thirst,” on the Cross in fulfilment of v. 21.¹ It appears, then, that Ps. 69 was regarded as prophetic of Messiah, and the disciples, as they watched Jesus, seem to have regarded His Cleansing of the Temple as a Messianic action (cf. Mal. 3:1–5). They foresee that the fiery energy which He displays will wear Him out at last, and they substitute for the past tense of the Psalmist, “hath consumed me” (κατέφαγεν), the future καταφάγεται, “will consume me.”

The rec. text here has (κατέφαγε), but the uncials give καταφάγεται. The true text of the LXX at Ps. 68:10 seems to be κατέφαγε (following the Hebrew), but B reads καταφάγεται.

Other citations from Ps. 69 are found, Acts 1:20 (v. 25), Rom. 11:9, 10 (vv. 22, 23). Cf. also Mt. 27:34, 48.

The Synoptists always have γέγραπται for citations from the O.T.; Jn. prefers γεγραμμένον ἐστίν (as here and at 6:31, 45, 10:34, 12:14; but see 8:17 and critical note there).

18. The Jews (see on 1:19, 5:10) did not view the action of Jesus as His disciples did. They wished to know by what authority He had taken upon Himself the rôle of a reformer (cf. Mk. 11:28, Mt. 21:23, Lk. 20:2). If He had authority, what “sign” could He perform in proof of it? It has always been true of uneducated people that “except they see signs and wonders, they will not believe” (4:48). And even the educated Pharisees and scribes asked Jesus for “signs,” although, probably, they asked because they did not think that He could gratify their request (cf. Mk. 8:11, Mt. 16:1). See on v. 11 for the value of the witness of such signs.

Jesus gave no sign such as the crowds asked for. His words (see on v. 19) did not provide anything more than a fresh assertion of His power. This is quite consistent with the Synoptic reports of His refusal to work “signs” for Herod (Lk. 23:8) or for the scribes and Pharisees (Mt. 12:39).

19. λύσατε τὸν ναὸν τοῦτον κτλ. We must distinguish this saying of Jesus from the interpretation which the evangelist puts upon it in v. 21. That it is an authentic saying is plain from the fact that, perhaps in a distorted form, it was made a topic of accusation against Jesus at His trial before the high priest (Mk. 14:58, Mt. 26:61; cf. Mk. 15:29, Acts 6:14). That by the ναός which would be destroyed Jesus was understood to mean Herod’s Temple is certain from the retort of the Jews (see on v. 20). But the precise form of words is uncertain, nor were the witnesses at the trial agreed about this. According to Mk., the witnesses falsely reported the saying in the form, “I will destroy this temple made with hands, and in three days (διὰ τριῶν ἡμερῶν) I will build another made without hands” (Mk. 14:58). This is softened down by Mt., according to whom the witnesses alleged that Jesus said, “I can destroy the temple of God and build it in three days” (Mt. 26:61). According to Jn. in the present passage, Jesus only said that if the Jews destroyed the Temple, in three days He would raise it up. It is a question whether any of these reports precisely reproduces the words of Jesus at the Cleansing of the Temple. On another occasion He is reported by the Synoptists (Mk. 13:2, Mt. 24:2, Lk. 21:6) to have predicted the downfall of the Temple, and this is undoubtedly authentic. But it is not probable that He should have declared that He would rebuild it or raise it up again.¹ A rebuilding of the Temple would mean the restoration of the old Jewish system of ritual and sacrifice, and we know that this was not the purpose of Jesus (see above, pp. 87, 88). He told the Samaritan woman that He did not accept the principle which she attributed to Him, that Jerusalem was the special place where men ought to worship (4:20, 21). The worship of the future was to be of a spiritual sort, and not to be confined to any one centre. To the vision of the seer of the Apocalypse, there was no temple in the New Jerusalem (Rev. 21:22). That Jesus should have said that He would rebuild the Temple at Jerusalem if it were destroyed, is not credible. The Temple was, indeed, the chief obstacle to the acceptance of His gospel by the Jews.

But the Marcan version of His words, or rather the Marcan version of the witnesses’ report of His words (Mk. 14:58), has no such improbability. It lays stress on the contrast between the temple made with hands and the temple made without hands (cf. Acts 7:48, 17:24, Heb. 9:11), between the temple built by Herod, which was the centre of Jewish worship, and the “spiritual house” of Christian believers, which was to offer up “spiritual sacrifices” (1 Pet. 2:5; cf. 2 Cor. 6:16). That Jesus foresaw the passing of the Temple, and its replacement by a less exclusive and less formal worship is certain, however we try to explain His prescience.

Next, we observe that it is common to all the reports of this saying of His that He asserted that the replacement of the old by the new would be “in three days.” Salmon suggested¹ that Jesus may have had in His thoughts the words of the prophet about reconstruction after apparent destruction “After two days will He revive us: on the third day He will raise us up, and we shall live before Him” (Hos. 6:2). The Synoptists, however, tell again and again that Jesus predicted that His Death would be followed by His Resurrection “on the third day” (Mk. 8:31, Mt. 16:21, Lk. 9:22; Mk. 9:31, Mt. 17:23; Mk. 10:34, Mt. 20:19, Lk. 18:33; cf. also Mt. 27:63). It is more natural to bring the “three days” of Mk. 14:58, Mt. 26:61, Jn. 2:19 into connexion with these passages than to presuppose a reminiscence of Hos. 6:2—a prophetic text which, it is curious to note, is never quoted of the Resurrection in the Apostolic age.²

We conclude, then, that Jesus at the Cleansing of the Temple declared (1) that the Temple, the pride and glory of Jerusalem, would be destroyed at no distant date, and that the Temple worship would pass away; (2) that He would Himself replace it by a spiritual temple; and (3) that the transition from the old order to the new would occupy no more than “three days.” His hearers were at once indignant and incredulous, for they understood His words as a threat, and that the rebuilding of which He spoke was a literal rebuilding with stones and mortar.

The Epistle of Barnabas (§ 16) states explicitly that the spiritual temple then being built up was the company of Christian believers: “I will tell you concerning the temple how these wretched ones [i.e. the Jews] being led astray set their hope on the building, and not on their God that made them, as if it were the house of God.” He quotes Isa. 49:17 and Enoch lxxxix. 56 as predictive of the destruction of the Temple, and proceeds, “Let us inquire whether there be any temple of God.” He concludes that there is, quoting words of Enoch (91:13), “When the week is being accomplished, the temple of God shall be built gloriously.” He goes on, “Before we believed in God, the abode of our heart was corrupt and weak, a temple truly built by hands”; but the temple of the Lord is now built gloriously, for “having received the remission of sins and having set our hope on the Name, we became new, being created again from the beginning, wherefore God truly dwelleth in our habitation within us.… This is a spiritual temple built for the Lord.” The allusion to “the temple made with hands” is reminiscent of Mk. 14:58, and the whole passage shows that the antithesis between the Jewish temple of stone and the Christian temple of faithful hearts was familiar to the sub-Apostolic age. We have it again in Justin (Tryph. 86), who says that Jesus made His disciples to be “a house of prayer and worship” (οἶκος εὐχῆς καὶ προσκυνήσεως). The idea probably goes back to sayings of Jesus such as Mk. 14:58 and the present passage, although it is not suggested here that Barnabas knew the Fourth Gospel.

“In three days I will raise it up.” The Agent of the revival is to be Jesus Himself. This suggests at once that it was not to His own bodily Resurrection that Jesus referred here. For by the N.T. writers God the Father is always designated as the Agent of Christ’s Resurrection (Acts 2:24, 3:15, 4:10, 10:40, 13:30, Rom. 4:24, 8:11, 10:9, 1 Cor. 6:14, 15:15, 2 Cor 4:14, Gal. 1:1, Eph. 1:20, 1 Thess. 1:10, Heb. 13:20, 1 Pet. 1:21). Jesus is not represented as raising Himself. Hence we have a confirmation of the conclusion already reached, that it was not the resuscitation of the Body of Jesus from the tomb that was in His thought here, but rather the passing of the old (and material) temple and the beginning of the new (and spiritual) temple of Christian believers. See on v. 21, and note the passive ἠγέρθη at v. 22; but cf. also 10:18

20. Jn. relates several conversations of Jesus, cast in somewhat similar form to this. That is, there is first a difficult saying of His. It is misunderstood and its spiritual significance is not discerned, a too material interpretation being given to it by His hearers. Then either He Himself, or the evangelist, adds an explanatory statement. Cf., for instances of this, 3:4, 4:11, 33, 6:42, 51f. See Introd., p. cxi

ἐν τρισὶν ἡμέραις, “within three days,” not “after three days,” the preposition perhaps being significant.¹

τεσσεράκοντα καὶ ἓξ ἔτεσοιν κτλ. Abbott (Diat. 2021–4) would refer these words to the original building of the Temple in the time of Ezra. If, with the LXX, we omit the words “of Babylon” after “Cyrus the king” at Ezra 5:13, and assume that “Cyrus king of Persia” (Ezra 1:1) is intended, we may take the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, i.e. 559 b.c., for the year in which the edict to build the Temple was issued. But according to Josephus (Antt. xi.i.1), it was completed in 513 b.c., i.e. forty-six years after; and so it is stated in the chronology of Eusebius. This is a summary of Abbott’s argument, which seems, however, to depend on too many subsidiary hypotheses to be satisfactory. Heracleon refers the words to Solomon’s Temple,¹ which Origen refutes, but gives no satisfactory explanation of his own. It seems more likely, as has generally been held by modern editors, that Herod’s building is the subject of the allusion in this verse.

τεσσεράκοντα καὶ ἓξ ἔτεσιν οἰκοδομήθη κτλ. The aor. οἰκοδομήθη does not imply that the building was completed, as may be seen from a parallel sentence in Ezra 5:16 (appositely cited by Alford) describing the building of Ezra’s Temple, ἀπὸ τότε ἓως τοῦ νῦν ᾠκοδομήθη καὶ οὐκ ἐτελέσθη: it only implies that building operations had been in progress for forty-six years. In fact, Herod’s Temple was not completed until 64 a.d. in the time of Herod Agrippa.

According to Josephus, Herod the Great began to repair and rebuild the Temple in the eighteenth year of his reign (Antt. xv.xi.1), i.e. 20–19 b.c. This would give either 27 a.d. or 28 a.d. as the year of the Passover indicated in these verses.² The year of the Crucifixion is not certain, but it was probably 29 a.d. or 30 a.d. It is not possible to draw exact chronological inferences from the “forty and six years” of this verse, but the phrase agrees well enough with the probable date, as gathered from other considerations. It is difficult to account for the attribution of so definite a statement of time to the Jewish objectors if it did not embody a reminiscence of fact. As to the fact itself, the Jews must have been well informed.

As at other points in the Gospel (v. 6, 5:5, 21:11), some critics have supposed that the number mentioned here is to be interpreted in an esoteric fashion, after the methods of Gematria. The name Ἀδάμ has 46 as its numerical equivalent, and thus the occult reference³ in “forty-six years hath this Temple been in building” would be to some contrast between the first and second Adam. It is unnecessary to dwell upon such extravagances.⁴ Hardly less fanciful is it to suppose, as Loisy does, that the forty-six years refer to the actual age of Jesus at the time, He being taken for a man forty-nine years old (8:57), near the end of His ministry.

21. ἐκεῖνος δὲ ἔλεγεν κτλ., “but He was speaking about the temple of His body.” ἐκεῖνος is emphatic, “but He, on the contrary …” See on 1:8, 19:35.

For Jn.’s habit of commenting on sayings of Jesus, cf. Introd., p. xxxiv. This comment seems to convey that by the words “Destroy this temple,” Jesus meant “Destroy this body of mine.” But this is hardly possible (see on v. 19). Had He meant that, He would have spoken with less ambiguity. He plainly meant Herod’s Temple, and was so understood. Christian believers are, indeed, spoken of as the “Temple of God” (2 Cor. 6:16), but not Christ Himself. He was “greater than the Temple” (Mt. 12:6). But the comment is much condensed, and may mean only that the “temple of His body” of which Jesus spoke was the “spiritual house” of Christian believers (1 Pet. 2:5), who are collectively the Body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:27); the “three days” carrying an allusion to the interval between the Death and Resurrection of Jesus, which marked, as it seems to the evangelist looking back, the watershed between Judaism and Christianity.

τοῦ σώματος αὐτοῦ. Jn. is not fond of the word σῶμα (see p. clxxi); he always uses it of a dead body, not of a living one (cf. 19:31, 38, 40, 20:12).

22. ἐμνήσθησαν οἱ μαθηταί (see on v. 2) in v. 17 recalls what the disciples remembered at the time, i.e. they thought of Ps. 69:9 when they saw the burning zeal of their Master; in this verse it recalls what they thought after His Resurrection of the meaning of His words recorded in v. 19. So, again, in 12:16 Jn. tells that it was not until after Jesus was glorified that the disciples understood the forward reference of Zech. 9:9;¹ cf. Lk. 24:8 and Jn. 13:19, 14:29.

ἐπίστευσαν τῇ γραφῇ. ἡ γραφή seems to refer in Jn. to a definite passage of Scripture,² as it does throughout the N.T., rather than to the O.T. generally (which would be αἱ γραφαί) At Jn. 10:35, 13:18 (17:12), 19:24, 28, 36, 37 the actual passage is quoted; at Jn. 7:38, 42 (which see) the reference is not quite certain; while here and at 20:9 no clue is given to the passage to which allusion is made. But as it is plain from Acts 2:31, 13:35 that Ps. 16:10, “Neither wilt thou suffer thy Holy One to see corruption,” was cited by Peter and Paul alike as predictive of the Resurrection of Christ, we may conclude that this is the verse in the evangelist’s mind when he says that the disciples after the Resurrection “believed the Scripture.” Ps. 16:10 was the “proof text” to which the Apostolic age referred.

καὶ τῷ λόγῳ ὃν εἶπεν ὁ Ἰη., “and the saying which Jesus spake,” i.e. the saying in v. 19. ὁ λόγος is often thus used of a “saying” of Jesus; e.g. ἐπίστευσεν ὁ ἄνθρωπος τῶ λόγῳ ὃν εἶπεν αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰη. (4:50); cf. 6:60, 7:36, 15:20, 18:9, 32, 21:23. ὅν is read by א B L T ^b, the rec. having ᾧ with A N WΓ Δ Θ.

23. ἐν τοῖς Ἱεροσολύμοις. This is the true reading here, although rec. text with a few minuscules omits τοῖς, in accordance with Jn.’s usual practice. He has the article with Ἱεροσόλυμα (see on 1:19 for this form) 3 times only, viz. 2:23, 5:2, 11:18 (see on 10:22). No other N.T. writer has this usage, but it appears 2 Macc. 11:8, 12:9. Perhaps τὰ Ἱεροσόλυμα means “the precincts of Jerusalem” in these exceptional passages.

If the traditional order of the verses 2:13–3:21 be correct, then the statement of v. 23 is not easy to interpret. Nothing has been said hitherto of “signs” at Jerusalem, and yet both here and at 3:2 they are mentioned as notorious. The only “sign” that has been mentioned is the “sign” at Cana of Galilee. There would be no difficulty if we could assume that vv. 2:13–3:21 belong to the last week in the ministry of Jesus. The “signs” would then be those which were wrought at Jerusalem or in its neighbourhood on His last visit, “the signs which He was doing” (ἐποίει). The Raising of Lazarus is given by Jn. special prominence among these (12:18), and there was also the Blasting of the Fig Tree (Mk. 11:14), as well as others not described in detail (12:37; cf. 7:31).

But, as the text stands, we must suppose that Jn. refers here to “signs” at Jerusalem wrought at the beginning of the ministry of Jesus, which he does not describe (cf. 3:2, 4:45).

πολλοὶ ἐπίστευσαν, including not only inhabitants of Jerusalem, but some from among those who had come up to the feast from the country parts.

For the phrase ἐπίστευσαν εἰς τὸ ὄνομα, see on 1:12. Although these people had been attracted to Jesus because of the “signs” that they saw, their belief was neither stable nor adequate. A similar thing happened in Galilee, ἠκολούθει αὐτῷ ὄχλος πολύς, ὅτι ἐθεώρουν τὰ σημεῖα ἃ ἐποίει (6:2), the same phrase that we have here.

θεωρεῖν is a favourite verb with Jn., occurring 23 times; cf also 1 Jn. 3:17. It only occurs twice in the Apocalypse (11:11, 12), and never in Paul. It may be used either of bodily vision (20:6, 14) or of mental contemplation (12:45, 14:17), but always connotes intelligent attention. The English word which most nearly represents θεωρεῖν, as used by Jn., is “to notice.” Here and at 6:2, 7:3 it indicates the notice which the observers took of the “signs” of Jesus. See for the difference between θεωρεῖν and ὄπτομαι on 1:51, and cf. 16:16.

24, 25. οὐκ ἐπίστευεν αὑτὸν αὐτοῖς, “He was not trusting Himself to them.” The kind of faith that is generated by “signs” is not very stable; cf. 4:48 and 6:14, 15.

διὰ τὸ αὐτὸν γινώσκειν πάντας, “because He knew all men.” See 1:48, 5:42 for other instances of this penetrating insight into men’s characters (γινώσκειν being used in both cases), and 6:61, 64, 13:11 (where οἶδα is used in the same way; see on 1:26 above). Another illustration of the same faculty of insight is found in 4:19, 29. Cf. Mt. 9:4, Jn. 21:17.

αὐτὸς γὰρ ἐγίωσκεν τί ἦν τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ “He knew what was in man,” ὁ ἄνθρωπος being used generically (cf. 7:51). This, to be sure, is a Divine attribute, and is so represented in the O.T., e.g. Jer. 17:10, 20:12, where Yahweh is said to “search the heart and try the reins.” But it is also, in its measure, a prerogative of human genius; and (with the possible exception of 1:48) it is not clear that Jn. means us to understand that the insight of Jesus into men’s motives and characters was different in kind from that exhibited by other great masters of mankind.

3:1. Nicodemus appears three times in the Fourth Gospel (see on 7:50, 19:39), but is not mentioned by any other evangelist, unless we may equate him with the ἄρχων of Lk. 18:18 (see below on v. 3). The attempt to identify him with Joseph of Arimathæa has no plausibility (see on 19:39); and the suggestion that he is a fictitious character invented by Jn. to serve a literary purpose is arbitrary and improbable (see Introd., p. lxxxiii f.). Νικόδημος is a Greek name borrowed by the Jews, and appears in Josephus (Antt. xiv. iii. 2) as that of an ambassador from Aristobulus to Pompey. In the Talmud (Taanith, 20. 1) mention is made of one Bunai, commonly called Nicodemus ben Gorion, and it is possible (but there is no evidence) that he was the Nicodemus of Jn. He lived until the destruction of Jerusalem, which would accord very well with the idea that Jn. has the “young ruler” of Lk. 18:18 in his mind, although in that case γέρων of v. 4 must not be taken to indicate that the person in question was really “old” at the time of speaking. All that can be said with certainty of the Nicodemus of the text is that he was a Pharisee, and a member of the Sanhedrim (7:50), and apparently a wealthy man (19:39). He seems to have been constitutionally cautious and timid (see on 7:50).

Some points in the narrative of 3:1–15 would suggest that the incident here recorded did not happen (as the traditional text gives it) at the beginning of the ministry of Jesus. First, at v. 2, mention is made of σημεῖα at Jerusalem which had attracted the attention of Nicodemus; but we have already noted on 2:23 that no σημεῖον in that city has yet been recorded. On the other hand, the “signs” which had been wrought at Jerusalem during the weeks before the end had excited much curiosity. That Nicodemus should have come secretly during the later period would have been natural, for the hostility of the Sanhedrim to Jesus had already been aroused (7:50); but that there should have been any danger in conversing with the new Teacher in the early days of His ministry does not appear. Again, at v. 14 (where see note), Jesus predicts His Passion; but if this prediction be placed in the early days of His ministry, we are in conflict with the Synoptists,who place the first announcement of His Death after the Confession of Peter. No doubt, Jn. is often in disagreement with the earlier Gospels, but upon a point so significant as this we should expect his record to agree with theirs.

However, there is not sufficient evidence to justify us in transposing the text here; and we leave the story of Nicodemus in its traditional position, although with a suspicion that the original author of the Gospel did not intend it to come so early.¹

2. For the rec. τὸν Ἰησοῦν (N),א A B L T ^b W Θ have αὐτόν.

οὗτος ἤλθεν πρὸς αὐτὸν νυκτός. This was the feature of the visit of Nicodemus which attracted attention: he came by night. Cf. 7:50, 19:39. He was impressed by what he had heard, and he gradually became a disciple; cf. 12:42.

The form into which the conversation is thrown is similar to that in c. 4.² There is a mysterious saying of Jesus (3:3, 4:10), at which the interlocutor expresses astonishment (3:4, 4:11, 12), whereupon the saying is repeated (3:5f, 4:13, 14), but still in a form difficult to understand. That, in both cases, there was an actual conversation is highly probable; but the report, as we have it, cannot in either case be taken to represent the ipsissima verba. Nothing is said in c. 3 of any one being present at the interview between Jesus and Nicodemus; but, on the other hand, there is nothing to exclude the presence of a disciple, and hence the account of the interview may be based, in part, on his recollections.

καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ Ῥαββεί. See on 1:38. Nicodemus was ready to address Jesus as Rabbi, because he recognised in Him a divinely sent διδάσκαλος. This was not to recognise Him as Messiah; but Nicodemus and others of his class (note the plural οἴδαμεν, “we all know,” as at 9:31 and Mk. 12:14),¹ like the blind man of 9:33, were convinced by the signs which Jesus did that He had come ἀπὸ θεοῦ (cf. 13:3, 16:30). That “signs” are a mark of Divine assistance and favour was a universal belief in the first century; and Jn. repeatedly tells that this aspect of His signs was asserted by Jesus Himself (see on 2:11 above, and cf. Introd., p. xcii). The declaration of Nicodemus that no one could do the miracles which Jesus did, ἐὰν μὴ ᾖ δ θεὸς μετʼ αὐτοῦ, however foreign to modern habits of thought, expressed the general belief of Judaism. That Jesus went about doing good and healing, ὅτι ὁ θεὸς ἦν μετʼ αὐτοῦ is the declaration ascribed to Peter in Acts 10:38. The σημεῖα to which Nicodemus referred were those mentioned 2:23 as having inspired faith at Jerusalem. See note in loc.

3. For the phrase ἀπεκρίθη Ἰησοῦς καὶ εἶπεν, see on 1:50. א Δ Θ A N read ὁ Ἰησοῦς, but B L T^b W Omit ὁ: see on 1:29. For “Verily, verily,” see on 1:51.

Jesus answers the thought of Nicodemus, rather than his words. Nicodemus was prepared to accept Him as a prophet and a forerunner of the Messianic kingdom; but he misunderstood the true nature of that kingdom. It was a spiritual kingdom, “not of this world,” as it is described in the only other place in Jn. where it is mentioned (18:36). It did not come “with observation” (Lk. 17:20, 21), and no appreciation of signs or miracles would bring a man any nearer the understanding of it. A new faculty of spiritual vision must be acquired before it can be seen. The answer of Jesus is startling and decisive: ἀμὴν ἀμὴν (see on 1:51) λέγω σοι (the saying is of general application, but it is personally addressed to Nicodemus), ἐὰν μή τις γεννηθῇ ἅνωθεν, οὐ δύναται ἰδεῖν τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ.

This saying is the Johannine counterpart of Mk. 10:15 ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, ὃς ἐὰν μὴ δέξηται τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ ὡς παιδίον, οὐ μὴ εἰσέλθῃ εἰς· αὐτήν (cf. the parallels Mt. 18:3, Lk. 18:17). It is to be observed that this saying in Mk. and Lk. comes immediately before the colloquy with the rich young man, whom Lk. describes as a “ruler,” and it is not impossible that this “ruler” is to be identified with Nicodemus (see on v. 1).¹ In any case, “the kingdom of God” or “the kingdom of heaven” is a main topic in the teaching of Jesus as reported by the Synoptists; and it is noteworthy that in this passage (the only passage where Jn. reproduces the phrase in full) the saying which introduces it is terse and epigrammatic, quite in the Synoptic manner. That we have here a genuine saying of Jesus is certain, given in another shape at Mk. 10:15. It is repeated in an altered form at v. 5 (cf. v. 7), and reason is given in the note there for regarding the form in v. 3 as the more original of the two. For the repetitions in Jn., see further on 3:16.

ἄνωθεν, in the Synoptists (generally) and always in the other passages (3:31, 19:11, 23) where it occurs in Jn., means “from above,” desuper; so also in James 1:17, 3:15, 17. This is its meaning here, the point being not that spiritual birth is a repetition, but that it is being born into a higher life. To be begotten ἄνωθεν means to be begotten from heaven, “of the Spirit.”²

No doubt, to render ἄνωθεν by denuo, “anew,” “again,” as at Gal. 4:9, gives a tolerable sense, and this rendering may be defended by Greek usage outside the N.T. Wetstein quotes Artemidorus, Oniroer. i. 13, where a man dreams that he is being born, which portends that his wife is to have a son like himself: οὕτω γὰρ ἄνωθεν αὐτὸς δόξειε γεννᾶσθαι. So Josephus, Antt. 1. xviii. 3, φιλίαν ἄνωθεν ποιεῖται πρὸς αὐτόν, “he made friends with him again.” But desuper suits the context in the present passage better than denuo.

οὐ δύναται ἰδεῖν τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ “To see” the kingdom of God is to participate in it, to have experience of it, as at Lk. 9:27. For this use of ἰδεῖν, cf. Acts 2:27 “to see corruption,” Lk. 2:26 and Jn. 8:51 “to see death (cf. Ps. 89:48, Heb. 11:5), Rev. 18:7 “to see mourning,” 1 Macc. 13:3 “to see distresses,” Eccl. 9:9 “to see (that is, to enjoy) life.”¹ No doubt, a distinction may be drawn linguistically between “seeing the kingdom of God” and “entering into the kingdom of God,” which is the phrase used in v. 5. Thus in Hermas, Sim. ix. 15, the wicked and foolish women see the kingdom while they do not enter it. But no such distinction can be drawn here; v. 5 restates v. 3, but it is not in contrast with it. “Seeing the kingdom of God” in Jn.’s phraseology is “entering into it”; it is identical with the “seeing” of “life” in v. 36, where see note.²

4. λέγει πρὸς αὐτὸν ὁ Ν. For this constr. Of λέγειν, see on 2:3.

Nicodemus is represented as challenging the idea of rebirth. From one point of view this is easy to understand. He was probably familiar with the Jewish description of a proselyte as “one newly born” (see Introd., p. clxiii). But for Jews a Gentile was an alien, outside the sheltering providence of Yahweh. Certainly, he must begin his spiritual life anew, if he would be one of the chosen people. But it was incredible that any such spiritual revolution should be demanded of an orthodox Jew.

Yet this is not the objection which Nicodemus is represented as urging. The words placed in his mouth rather suggest that he took the metaphor of a new birth to mean literally a physical rebirth. “How can a man be born again, when he is old?” (as may have been his own case, but see on vv. 1, 3). “Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb?” This would have been a stupid misunderstanding of what Jesus had said, but yet it is to this misunderstanding that the reply of Jesus is directed. It is not a fleshly rebirth that is in question, but a spiritual rebirth, which is a different thing.

Nicodemus says δεύτερον, where Jesus had said ἅνωθεν, thus mistakenly understanding by ἅνωθεν, denuo rather than desuper; see on v. 3 above.

πῶς δύναται κτλ.; This is a favourite turn of phrase in Jn. Cf. 3:9, 5:44, 6:52, 9:16.

For γεννηθῇ nearly all the Latin versions have renatus (f alone has natus), which may point to a Western reading ἀναγεννηθῇ. But probably the Latin rendering is of the nature of an interpretation (with a reminiscence of γεννηθῇ ἄνωθεν in v. 3), the verb ἀναγεννάω occurring in N.T. only at 1 Pet. 1:3, 23.

Another Western variant¹ is τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐραῶν, for the rec. τὴν βασ. τοῦ θεοῦ, which is supported by א^cA B L N W Γ Δ Θ. א* 511 e m support τῶν οὐρανῶν, which is also read in Justin (Apol. i. 61), Hippolytus (Ref. viii. 10), Irenæus (Frag. xxxiii., ed. Harvey), and ps.—Cyprian de Rebaptismate 3. Tertullian has in regnum caelorum (de Bapt. 13); but in another place in regnum dei (de Anima 39). Origen’s witness is alike uncertain, his Latin translation giving both caelorum (Hom. xiv. in Lucam, and Comm. in Rom. ii. 7) and dei (Hom. v. in Exod.). Perhaps, as Hort says, the Western reading was suggested by the greater frequency of the phrase εἰσέρχεσθαι εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν in Mt.

The seal of the baptismal waters is thrice mentioned by Hermas (Sim. ix. 15, 16) as a pre-requisite to entering the kingdom of God; and in 2 Clem. 6 (before 140 a.d.) we have “if we keep not our baptism pure and undefiled, with what confidence shall we enter into the kingdom of God?” It is possible that here we have reminiscences of the language of v. 5. See Introd., p. lxxvi.

The reference in the word ὕδατος is clearly to Christian baptism (see Introd., p. clxiv). But, so far as Nicodemus was concerned, this would have been an irrelevant reference; the argument being darkened by the presence of ὕδατος καὶ before πνεύματος. Jesus explains that Nicodemus must be “begotten from above” before he can enter the kingdom of God, i.e. that a spiritual change must pass upon him, which is described in v. 6 as being “begotten of the Spirit.” The words ὕδατος καί have been inserted in v. 8 by א a b e, etc. (see note in loc.), although they form no part of the true text; and it has been suggested that, in like manner, in the verse before us they are only an interpretative gloss.² There is, however, no MS. evidence for their omission here (although the Sinai Syriac transposes the order of words and testifies to a reading “begotten of Spirit and of water”), nor is there extant any patristic citation of the verse which speaks of “being begotten of the Spirit” and does not mention the water. The passage from Justin (Apol. i. 61) by which Lake supports his argument is as follows: ἔπειτα ἄγονται ὑφʼ ἡμῶν ἔνθα ὕδωρ ἐστί, καὶ τρόπον ἀναγεννήσεως, ὃν καὶ ἡμεῖς αὐτοὶ ἀνεγεννήθημεν, ἀναγεννῶνται … καὶ γὰρ ὁ Χριστὸς εἶπεν, Ἂν μὴ ἀναγεννηθῆτε, οὐ μὴ εἰσέλθητε εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν. Justin is quoting loosely (after his manner), and it is not certain whether it is Jn. 3:3 or Jn. 3:5 that he has in his mind. But there is nothing to suggest that the reading before him was ἐὰν μή τις γεννηθῇ ἐκ Πνεύματος κτλ. Indeed, in another place (Tryph. 138) he has the phrase τοῦ ἀναγεννηθέτος ὑπʼ αὐτοῦ διʼ ὕδατος καὶ πίστεως καὶ ξύλου.

We conclude that the words ὕδατος καί cannot be extruded from the text of Jn., but that they are not to be regarded as representing precisely the saying of Jesus. They are due to a restatement by Jn. of the original saying of v. 3, and are a gloss, added to bring the saying of Jesus into harmony with the belief and practice of a later generation.¹

ἐὰν μή τις γεννηθῇ κτλ. We have seen (on 1:13) that those who believe on the name of Christ are described as “begotten of God,” ἐκ θεοῦ γεγεννημένοι, and the references given in the note show that this is a characteristic Johannine phrase. It is necessary to interpret the words ὁ γεγεννημένος ἐκ τοῦ πνεύματος (vv. 5, 6, 8) in similar fashion, and to understand them as describing the man who “is begotten of the Spirit.” “God is Spirit” (4:24), and the phrases “begotten of God” and “begotten of the Spirit” mean the same thing. At 1 Jn. 3:9 we have πᾶς ὁ γεγεννημένος ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ ἀμαρτίαν οὐ ποιεῖ, ὅτι σπέρμα αὐτοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ μένει, but a few verses later (1 Jn. 3:24) it is said of those who keep God’s commandments γινώσκομεν ὅτι μένει ἐν ἡμῖν, ἐκ τοῦ πνεύματος οὖ ἡμῖν ἔδωκεν. The “seed of God” is the “Spirit,” whereof believers are made partakers by a spiritual begetting. That is to say, the words ἐκ τοῦ Πνεύματος in this verse point to the Spirit as the Begetter of believers.

To translate “born of the Spirit” suggests that the image is of the Spirit as the female parent of the spiritual child, whereas Johannine usage (and O.T. usage also, as we have seen on 1:13) shows that the image is that of the Spirit as the Begetter. It has been pointed out already (on 1:13) that the Latin rendering natus must not be taken as excluding the meaning begotten.

In Semitic languages the Spirit, Ruḥ, is feminine; e.g. the Old Syriac of 14:26 runs, “The Spirit, the Paraclete, she shall teach you all things.” Thus the phrase “begotten of the Spirit,” which we have found reason for accepting as Johannine, would be inconsistent with the Aramaic origin of the Fourth Gospel. If, as Burney held, Jn. were originally written in Aramaic, then the original behind τὸ γεγεννημένον ἐκ τοῦ Πνεύματος must have meant “born of the Spirit.” But this does not harmonise with 1:13 or 1 Jn. 3:9.

6. After σάρξ ἐστιν, 161 Syr. cur. and some O.L. texts add the explanatory gloss on ὅτι ἐκ τῆς σαρκὸς ἐγεννήθη. After πνεῦμά ἐστιν, a similar group with Syr. sin. add ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ πνεύματός ἐστιν.

Flesh and Spirit are distinct, and must not be confused. They are contrasted with each other in 6:63, where the property of “quickening” is ascribed to spirit, while flesh has no such quality, where eternal life is in question. Both are constituent elements of man’s nature, and so of the nature of Christ (Mk. 14:38, 1 Pet. 3:18, 4:6). They represent the two different orders of being, the lower and the higher, with which man is in touch. Flesh can only beget flesh, while spirit only can beget spirit.

7. μὴ θαυμάσῃς κτλ. “Marvel not that I said to thee, You must be begotten from above.” The aphorism is repeated in the original form (v. 3), which we have shown reason for supposing to have been amplified in v. 5. ὑμᾶς, includes all men, and not Nicodemus only; observe that it is not ἡμᾶς, for Jesus Himself did not need re-birth. Of His natural birth it could be said τὸ γὰρ ἐν αὐτῇ γεννηθὲν ἐκ πνεύματός ἐστιν ἁγίου (Mt. 1:20).

μὴ θαυμάσῃς: cf. 5:28, 1 Jn. 3:13. θαυμάζειν in Jn. generally indicates unintelligent wonder.

δεῖ ὑμᾶς … See on 3:14 (cf. 2:4, 4:24) for the thought of the Divine necessity involved in Jn.’s use of δεῖ.

8. ἐκ τοῦ πνεύματος. א a b eff² m Syr. sin. and Syr. cur. give ἐκ τοῦ ὕδατος καὶ τοῦ πνεύματος, an expansion of the true text from v. 5.

τὸ πνεῦμα ὅπου θέλει πνεῖ, καὶ τὴν φωνὴν αὐτοῦ ἀκούεις.

πνεῦμα may be translated either “wind” or “Spirit.” It is true that elsewhere in the N.T. πνεῦμα never has its primitive meaning “wind” (except in the quotation of Ps. 104:4, in Heb. 1:7; cf. 2 Esd. 8:22); but this meaning is often found in the LXX, e.g. Gen. 8:1, 1 Kings 18:45, 19:11, 2 Kings 3:17, Isa. 7:2, 11:15, Ps. 148:8, Ecclus. 43:17, Wisd. 5:23.

The verb πνεῖν occurs 5 times elsewhere in the N.T. and is always applied to the blowing of the wind (cf. 6:18). In the LXX it is found 5 times with the same application, there always being in the context some allusion to the Divine action. Cf. Bar. 6:61 τὸ δ αὐτὸ καὶ πνεῦμα ἐν πάσῃ χώρᾳ πνεῖ, and esp Ps. 147:18 πνεύσει τὸ πνεῦμα αὐτοῦ καὶ ῥυήσεται ὕδατα.

φωνή is properly articulate speech, but is often equivalent to “sound.” In the LXX “the Voice of God” is a common form of expression, and φωνή is often used of thunder as God’s Voice in nature (Ex. 9:23, 1 Sam. 7:10, Ps. 18:13, etc.). It is twice used of the sound of wind, in Ps. 29:8 (of a tempest, as the Voice of Yahweh) and 1 Kings 19:12 (φωνή αὔρας λεπτῆς, “the still small voice” which Elijah heard). In Jn. it is always used of a Divine or heavenly voice (except 10:5 where the “voice” of strangers is contrasted with the “voice” of the Good Shepherd).

There is no etymological objection to translating “The wind blows where it will, and thou hearest its sound”; but we may equally well translate “The Spirit breathes where He will, and thou hearest His Voice.” There is a like ambiguity in Eccles. 11:5, ἐν οἷς οὐκ ἔστιν γινώσκων τις ἡ ὁδὸς τοῦ πνεύματος, where the “way” which is unknown by man may be the “way of the Spirit” or the “way of the wind.” To the Hebrew mind the wind, invisible yet powerful, represented in nature the action of the Divine Spirit, as is indicated in Gen. 1:2 and often in the O.T.; and so in some places the precise rendering of πνεῦμα may be doubtful. That, however, it never stands for “wind” in the N.T. elsewhere is a weighty consideration for the translator of the verse before us. φωνή may mean, as we have seen, “the sound” of wind; but it is also to be remembered that the φωνή from heaven of Rev. 14:13 was the Voice of the Spirit. The ἦχος from heaven on the Day of Pentecost was said to be like a “rushing mighty wind” (Acts 2:2).

The context, however, seems to remove all ambiguity in the present passage. Πνεῦμα at the beginning of the verse must refer to the same subject as πνεύματος at its close, and in vv. 5, 6. The argument is that, as the Divine Spirit operates as He will, and you cannot tell whence or whither (οὐκ οἶδας πόθεν ἔρχεται καὶ ποῦ ὑπάγει), so it is with every one begotten of the Spirit. That which is begotten of the Spirit shares in the quality of spirit (v. 6). Thus Christ, who was preeminently ὁ γεννηθεὶς ἐκ πνεύματος (Mt. 1:20), said of Himself, in words identical with those of this verse, ὑμεῖς οὐκ οἶδατε πόθεν ἔρχομαι, ἤ ποῦ ὑπάγω (8:14; cf. 9:29). So it is in his measure of every child of God who is begotten of the Spirit (cf. 1:13). Not only do the laws of physical generation not govern spiritual generation (for natural law does not always hold in the spiritual world), but you cannot standardise or reduce to law the manifestations of spiritual life. It is the teaching of Jn. (8:32), just as clearly as of Paul, that “where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty” (2 Cor. 3:17).

The rendering of πνεῦμα as Spirit rather than wind is supported by the Latin versions,¹ which have “spiritus ubi uult spirat”; and it is noteworthy that the earliest patristic allusion to the passage, viz. Ign. Philad. 7, is decisive for it. Ignatius says: “Even though certain persons desired to deceive me after the flesh (κατὰ σάρκα) yet the Spirit (τὸ πνεῦμα) is not deceived, being from God, οἶδεν γὰρ πόθεν ἔρχεται καὶ ποῦ ὑπάγει,” the last phrase being an exact quotation from the verse before us.² Other early authorities for the same view are Origen (Fragm. in loc., ed. Brooke, ii. 252), and the author of the third-century treatise de rebaptismate, 15, 18. It is not until we reach the later Fathers that the interpretation “the wind blows where it lists” makes its appearance.

τὴν φωνὴν αὐτοῦ ἀκούεις. The construction of ἀκούειν in Jn. is remarkable. When it governs the acc., as here (cf. 5:37, 8:43, etc.), it means merely “to perceive by hearing”; but when it takes the gen. it generally means “to hearken to,” i.e. to hear and appreciate (cf. 1:37, 5:25, 28, 6:60, 9:31, 10:3, 16, 20, 18:37).³ In the present passage “thou hearest His voice” does not connote obedience to the Spirit’s teaching. See on 1:40 for the constr. ἀκούειν παρά τινος

9. πῶς δύναται ταῦτα γενέσθαι Here is no repetition of the former question (v. 4). Nicodemus is puzzled by the teaching of vv. 6–8 about the spiritual birth and the freedom and unexpectedness of the spiritual life in one who has been “begotten of the Spirit.”

ὁ διδάσκαλος τοῦ Ἰσραήλ. Both articles are significant: “Art thou the authorised (or, the well-known) teacher of the Israel of God?”

καῖ ταῦτα οὐ γινώσκεις; He might have been expected to recognise, when he was told it, the doctrine of the various manifestations of the Spirit in man’s life.

With this verse v. 32 is closely parallel: ὃ ἐώρακεν καὶ ἤκουσεν, τοῦτο μαρτυρεῖ· καὶ τὴν μαρτυρίαν αὐτοῦ οὐδεὶς λαμβάνει. We should expect καίτοι rather than καί in the second member of the sentence in both cases, but Jn. never uses καίτοι. See on 1:10.

The verb λαλεῖν is used with special frequency in Jn. It occurs nearly 6o times in the Gospel; and 30 times it is placed in the mouth of Jesus in the first person singular, the only Synoptic instance of this latter use being Lk. 24:44. The general distinction between λέγειν and λαλεῖν, viz. that λέγειν relates to the substance of what is said, while λαλεῖν has to do with the fact and the manner of utterance, holds good to a certain extent in Jn., as it does in classical Greek. But in Jn. the two verbs cannot always be distinguished in their usage and meaning, any more than “say” and “speak” can always be distinguished in English. Here ὃ οἴδαμεν λαλοῦμεν should be rendered “we speak of what we know,” the words spoken not being given; but then ταῦτα τὰ ῥήματα ἐλάλησεν (8:20) means, “He spoke these words,” viz. the very words that have just been cited (cf. 16:25, 17:1, 13, etc.). See, in particular, 10:6, 14:10, 12:49, 16:18, in which passages the verb λαλεῖν is used exactly as λέγειν might be; cf. 8:43.

If there is any special tinge of meaning in λαλεῖν as compared with λέγειν in Jn., it is that λαλεῖν suggests frankness or openness of speech. Jn. “assigns it to Christ 33 times in the first person, whereas it is never thus used by the Synoptists, except at Lk. 24:44 after the Resurrection” (Abbott, Diat. 2251b). See on 18:20.

The plural forms οἴδαμεν, λαλοῦμεν, etc., arrest attention. The verse is introduced by the solemn ἀμὴν ἀμήν, and so is represented by Jn. as spoken by Jesus. Now the plural of majesty is not ascribed to Jesus anywhere, and in v. 12 He employs the singular εἶπον. Abbott (Diat. 2428) suggests that the plurals here associate the Father’s witness with that of the Son (cf. 5:32, 37); but this would be foreign to the context. Further, v. 32, ὃ ἑώρακεν καὶ ἥκουσεν, τοῦτο μαρτυρεῖ is clearly a repetition of what is said in this verse.

The plurals οἴδαμεν are, therefore, explained (cf. 4:22) by some exegetes (e.g. Godet, Westcott) as associating His disciples with Jesus in the testimony with which He confronts Nicodemus. “We,” i.e. my disciples and I, “speak of what we know.” But this is markedly unlike the authoritative tone of the rest of the discourse. Nor is there any other instance of the disciples’ testimony being mentioned in the same breath as His own testimony. They bore witness, indeed, because they had been with Him from the beginning (15:27), but He did not rely on this while He was in the flesh. Even if we adopt the reading ἡμᾶς for ἐμέ at 9:4 (where see note), we do not get a true parallel to ὃ ἐωράκαμεν μαρτυροῦμεν of the present verse.

The similarity of the language used here to that which Jn., in other passages, uses to associate his own witness with that of his fellow-disciples is very close: e.g. ὃ ἀκηκόαμεν, ὃ ἐωράκαμεν … ὃ ἐθεασάμεθα … ἀπαγγέλλομεν ὑμῖν (1 Jn. 1f.; cf. 1 Jn. 4:14), or ἐθεασάμεθα τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ (1:14), or the use of οἴδαμεν in 1 Jn. 3:2, 14, 5:15, 19, 20. And, having regard to the way in which commentary and free narrative are intermingled in this chapter (see on v. 16), we seem to be driven to the conclusion that in v. 11 Jn. is not reproducing the actual words of Jesus so much as the profound conviction of the Apostolic age that the Church’s teaching rested on the testimony of eye-witnesses (cf. 1 Jn. 4:14). He has turned the singular ἑώρακα (see v. 32) into the plural ἑωράκαμεν (v. 11), just as in v. 5 he has added ἐξ ὕδατος to the original saying of the Lord about the need of spiritual birth.

καὶ τὴν μαρτυρίαν ἡμῶν οὐ λαμβάνετε. This is repeated (v. 32), and is a frequent theme in the Fourth Gospel. Cf. 1:11, 5:43, 12:37.

12. The contrast between τὰ ἐπίγεια and τὰ ἐπουράνια appears again, 1 Cor. 15:40, 2 Cor. 5:1, Phil. 2:10, 3:19, James 3:15; the word ἐπίγειος appearing in these passages only in the Greek Bible. The thought of this verse is like Wisd. 9:16, 17, “Hardly do we divine the things that are on earth, and the things that are close at hand we find with labour; but the things that are in the heavens who ever yet traced out … except thou gavest wisdom and sentest thy Holy Spirit from on high?”

The ἐπίγεια or “earthly things” as to which Jesus has already spoken include the doctrine of the kingdom of God, which was to be set up on earth, and accordingly of the New Birth which Nicodemus found it difficult to accept. Such matters are wonderful in the telling, although ἐπίγεια all the time, in contradistinction to the deep secrets of the Divine nature and purpose (ἐπουράνια), of which no one could tell except “He that cometh from heaven” (v. 32).

πιστεύσετε. So א A B L. πιστεύσητε is read by Γ Δ Θ W fam. 13, etc.

13. οὐδεὶς ἀναβέβηκεν εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν κτλ. The argument is that none can speak with authority of τὰ ἐπουράνια, except one who has been ἐν οὐρανῷ, and has come down from thence. And of no one can this be said but the “Son of Man” (see Introd., p. cxxx), for no man has ever ascended thither. To the question of Prov. 30:4 τίς ἀνέβη εἰς τὸν οὐρανον καὶ κατέβη; the suggested answer is “God alone” (cf. Deut. 30:12 and the reference thereto in Rom. 10:6). So too in Bar. 3:29, “Who hath ascended to heaven and taken her (sc. Wisdom), and brought her down from the clouds?” the answer is “No one.” There is a Talmudic saying which taught this explicitly: “R. Abbahu said: If a man says to thee, I ascend to heaven, he will not prove it,”¹ i.e. the thing is impossible. This was the accepted Jewish doctrine.

On the other hand, the Jewish apocalypses have legends of saints being transported to heaven that they might be informed of spiritual truth, e.g. Enoch (Enoch lxx. 1, etc.), Abraham (in the Testament of Abraham), Isaiah (Ascension of Isaiah, 7), etc.² But of such legends the Fourth Gospel has no trace. “No one has ascended into heaven, save He who descended from heaven, viz. the Son of Man.”

There is no reference to the Ascension of Christ in this passage (cf. 6:62, 20:17), which merely states that no man has gone up into heaven to learn heavenly secrets. It is only the Son of Man who came down from heaven, which is His home, who can speak of it and of τὰ ἐπουράνια with the authority of knowledge.³

The phrase καταβαίνειν ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ is used again of Christ’s coming in the flesh at 6:33, 38, 41, 42, 50, 51, 58, but in that sense nowhere else in the N.T. In 1 Thess. 4:16 κατ. ἐξ οὐρανοῦ is used of the Advent of Christ in glory, and in 1:32 above of the Descent of the Spirit at the Baptism of Jesus. καταβαίνειν is also used Eph. 4:9 of the Descent into Hades. The phrase here, however, undoubtedly refers to the Descent of Christ to earth in His Incarnation, and the use of the title “the Son of Man” in this context has no Synoptic parallel (see Introd., p. cxxx).

It may be added that the pre-existence of the Son of Man in heaven is a tenet of the Book of Enoch: “That Son of Man was named in the presence of the Lord of Spirits and His name before the Head of days. And before the sun and the signs were created, before the stars of the heaven were made, His name was named before the Lord of Spirits” (xlviii. 2, 3). See on 6:62.

ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου. So א B L T ^b W 33, but the clause ὁ ὢν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ is added by A NΓ Δ Θ, with the Lat. and some Syr. vss. (not Diatessaron). If the clause were part of the original text, it is not easy to account for its omission. It does not contain any doctrine different from that of the Prologue as to the pre-existence of the Son; cf. ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρός (1:18). Nor does it add anything to the argument, which is complete in itself, if the verse ends with ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου. Indeed, it makes the argument more difficult to follow. The point is that the Incarnate Son of Man is the only person on earth who can speak with authority of heavenly things, and that because He has come down from heaven itself. If we retain ὁ ὢν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ we must interpret the phrase of the timeless existence of the Son in the heavenly places, while yet He is manifested on earth. But this thought suggests later developments of Christology. The clause is probably an interpretative gloss, added at an early period, possibly in the second century.¹

It may be doubted whether vv. 13–15 really belong to the discourse of Jesus to Nicodemus, or whether they should not ather be taken as part of the commentary which Jn. subjoins (see on v. 16 below). If the latter alternative be accepted, the report of the discourse ends quite naturally with the question of v. 12. But the title “the Son of Man” is never used in the Gospels in narrative, or in evangelistic comment, being found only in the report of words of Jesus Himself.² This consideration is conclusive for taking the comment of Jn. as beginning with v. 16, and not with v. 13.

ὑψοῦν means “to lift up,” either literally or figuratively, when it is equivalent to “exalt.” In Acts 2:33 (τῇ δεξιᾷ τοῦ θεοῦ ὑψωθείς) and Acts 5:31 (τοῦτον ὁ θεὸς … ὕψωσεν τῇ δεξιᾷ αὐτοῦ) it is used of the exaltation by God of Jesus to His right hand, i.e. of the Ascension. Cf. Phil. 2:9 and Isa. 52:13, where it is said of the Servant of Yahweh ὑψωθήσεται καὶ δοξασθήσεται σφόδρα.

But the word is not used thus in the Fourth Gospel, where it is always applied to the “lifting up” of Jesus on the Cross, and is always found in connexion with the title “Son of Man” (see Introd., p. cxxxii). Jesus said to the incredulous Jews (8:28) ὅταν ὑψώσητε τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, τότε γνώσεσθε ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι, “When ye shall have lifted up the Son of Man, then ye shall know, etc.” This “lifting up” is to be the act of the Jews, not of God (as in Acts 2:33, 5:31), and it is therefore clear that it does not refer to the Ascension, but to the Crucifixion. Again in 12:32 we have ἐὰν ὑψωθῶ ἐκ τῆς γῆς, πάτας ἐλκύσω πρὸς ἐμαυτόν, on which Jn.’s comment is, “this He said, signifying by what death He should die.” And that the people understood the word thus appears from their rejoinder (12:34); while they knew that the Christ “abides for ever,” they were puzzled by the saying that the “Son of Man” was to be “lifted up.” If ὑψωθῆναι were to be understood merely as “exaltation” (as the Ascension was) they would have had no difficulty in admitting δεῖ ὑψωθῆναι τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου (see note in loc.).

In the present passage, there can in like manner be no reference to the Ascension of Jesus, as in that case the type of the brazen serpent would not be applicable. In the story in Num. 21:9f., Moses set his brazen serpent “upon the standard,” or, as the LXX turns it, ἔστησεν αὐτὸν ἐπὶ σημεὶου, so that those who had been bitten by the poisonous serpents might look upon it and live. As the story is explained in Wisd. 16:6, 7, the brazen serpent was a σύμβολον σωτηρίας: “he that turned towards it was not saved because of that which was beheld, but because of thee, the Saviour of all (τὸν παντῶν σωτῆρα).” The word ὑψοῦν is not used anywhere in the LXX of the act of Moses in “lifting up” the serpent and exposing it to the gaze of the people, nor is the word used anywhere in the N.T. outside Jn. of the “lifting up” of Jesus on the Cross. But this is undoubtedly the parallel which is drawn in the words of Jesus in 3:14. Those who looked in faith upon the brazen serpent uplifted before them were delivered from death by poison; those who look in faith upon the Crucified, lifted up on the Cross, shall be delivered from the death of sin.

The early Greek interpreters are quite unanimous about this. Thus Barnabas (§ 12) says that Moses made a brazen serpent, the τύπος of Jesus, that he set it up conspicuously (τίθησιν ἐδόξως), and bade any man that had been bitten “come to the serpent which is placed on the tree (ἐπὶ τοῦ ξύλου ἐπικείμενον) and let him hope in faith that the serpent being himself dead can yet make him alive (αὐτὸς ὢν νεκρὸς δύναται ζωοποιῆσαι), and straightway he shall be saved.” This is but an elaboration of the idea in Jn. 3:14, going beyond what is there said, for Barnabas emphasises the point that the brazen serpent is a type of Jesus, while all that is said in Jn. 3:14 is that as the first was “lifted up,” so must the Son of Man be “lifted up.”

Origen (Exhort. ad martyr. 50, arguing that death by martyrdom may be called ὕψωσις), and Cyprian (Test. ii. 20) apply Jn. 3:14 to the Crucifixion of Jesus; cf. Justin, Tryph. 94. Claudius Apollinaris (about 171 a.d.) writes of Jesus as ὑψωθεὶς ἐπὶ κεράτων μονοκέρωτος, where ὑψοῦν evidently means to lift up on the Cross; Cf. Ps. 22:21 (Routh, Reliq. Sacr., i. 161). See also the passage from Artemidorus quoted on 21:18, 19 below, for the connexion between the ideas of ὕψος and of crucifixion.

We have then here a prediction placed in the mouth of Jesus, not only of His death, but of the manner of that death. The Synoptists represent Jesus as more than once foretelling His death by violence (Mk. 8:31, 9:31, 10:33 and parallels), but only in Mt. 20:19 is death by crucifixion specified; cf. Lk. 24:7. But by the use of the word ὑψοῦν (cf. also 8:28 and 12:32) Jn. consistently represents Jesus as predicting that He would be crucified, which would carry with it the prediction that He would suffer at the hands of the Roman authorities, and not by the Jews (cf. Jn. 18:31, 32).

It is not consistent with the Synoptic tradition (cf. Mk. 8:31, Mt. 16:21, Lk. 9:22) to represent Jesus as foretelling His Passion so early in His Ministry. We should expect not to find any indication of this until after the Confession of Peter (6:68, 69). And if vv. 11–15 are intended by the evangelist to be taken as words of Jesus, rather than as reflexions of his own (see on v. 13), then it is probable that they are recorded here out of their historical context. See on v. 1 above.

It has been suggested, however (e.g. by Westcott and E. A. Abbott) that we must see a deeper significance in the word ὑψοῦν as placed in the lips of Jesus. Abbott holds¹ that the Aramaic word which is rendered by ὑψοῦν was זְקַף, and that this actually has the double meaning (1) to exalt, (2) to crucify. But Burkitt has shown that this cannot be accepted because זִקַף could not be used of a “lifting up” such as the Ascension was.² In short, (a) Jn. clearly states his own view of what Jesus meant by the words which he ascribes to Him here; (b) all the early Greek exegetes agree with him; (c) if we try to get back to the Aramaic word lying behind ὑψοῦν, we cannot find one which has this special ambiguity. ארים will fit ὑψοῦν in the sense of “exalt,” but not in that of “crucify.” זקף will fit ὑψοῦν in the sense of “crucify,” but not in that of “exalt.” We cannot therefore accept Westcott’s view that “the lifting up includes death and the victory over death.” There does not seem to be any hint of this in any of the passages in which ὑψοῦν occurs in Jn.

The Jewish commentators on Num. 21:9f. give little help as to the significance of the brazen serpent, being perplexed by the inconsistency of the story with the general prohibition of all images in the religion of Israel. Indeed, Hezekiah found it necessary to destroy “the brazen serpent that Moses had made” (2 Kings 18:4) because it had led to idolatrous practices. Philo (Legg. All. ii. 19) allegorises the narrative after his manner. As the poisonous serpents signify the pleasure (ἡδονή) which is dangerous to the soul, so the brazen serpent signifies temperance (σωφροσύνη); then the man who sees psychically the beauty of σωφροσύνη, καὶ διὰ τούτον τὸν θεὸν αὐτόν, ζήσεται.

Jesus, however, explicitly takes this story as a type of His Cross, which must have fulfilment: δεῖ, “it is necessary” that so “the Son of Man shall be lifted up,” as Jn. reports His words here. Something has already been said (see note on 2:4) of what may be called the Predestinarian Doctrine of Jn.; see also Introd., p. clii, where Jn.’s use of the phrase “that it might be fulfilled” is examined. A similar Divine necessity is indicated several times elsewhere in this Gospel by the word δεῖ. The evangelst uses it, when writing in his own person, of the inevitableness of the Resurrection of Christ. But he also ascribes the employment of this way of speech to Jesus Himself. “I must work the works of Him that sent me, while it is day” (9:4); “Other sheep I must bring” (10:16); and again at 12:34 the people charge Jesus with saying, as here, δεῖ ὑψωθῆναι τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου. Cf. also 3:30. There is nothing peculiar to the Fourth Gospel in this.¹ The Synoptists and Paul alike share the belief that it is not Fate but Providence that rules the world, that God foreknows each event because He has predetermined it, and that therefore it must come to pass. To reconcile this profound doctrine with human free will was the problem of a later age.

15. Before ἔχῃ the rec. text interpolates μὴ ἀπόληται ἀλλʼ (from v. 16) with א Γ Δ Θ, but the words are omitted here by א B L T ^b 33 fam. 1, etc.

The rec. has εἰς αὐτὸν after πιστεύων (a common constr in Jn.; see on 1:12) with א Γ Δ Θ; but recent editors have generally followed B T^b W in reading ἐν αὐτῷ Yet the constr. πιστεύειν ἔν τινι never appears in Jn., so that if we read ἐν αὐτῷ, πιστεύων must be taken in an absolute sense (see on 1:7 for this usage), and we must translate, with the R.V., “Whosoever believeth may in Him have eternal life.” (Cf. for the constr. 1:4.) The thought of the believer being “in Christ” is thoroughly Johannine (15:4, 1 Jn. 5:20) as well as Pauline. But we prefer the reading εἰς αὐτόν, which has good MS. support. See on v. 16.

The connexion between faith and eternal life runs through the Gospel, the purpose of its composition being ἵνα πιστεύοντες ζωὴν ἔχητε ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι αὐτοῦ (20:31). Cf. 6:47 ὁ πιστεύων ἔχει ζωὴν αἰώνιον and 3:36 ὁ πιστεύων εἰς τὸν υἱὸν ἔχει ζω. αἰώ, where see note.

The adj. αἰώνιος is always associated in Jn. with ζωή (never, as in Mt. or Mk., with “sin” or “fire”), the expression ζωὴ αἰώνιος occurring 17 times in the Gospel and 6 times in 1 Jn. (in the form ἡ ζωὴ ἡ αἰώνιος in 1 Jn. 1:2, 2:25). ζωὴ αἰώνιος as the portion of the righteous is mentioned Dan. 12:2, and thereafter the expression is found in the Psalter of Solomon (3:1–6) and in Enoch.¹ It occurs frequently in the Synoptists and in Paul, and always in the sense of the future life after death (but see on 12:50). This significance it has also in Jn. many times; e.g. in the present passage this is the primary meaning. Cf. esp. 12:25, and see note on 4:14. But for Jn, and for him alone among N.T. writers (although cf. 1 Tim. 6:19), ζωὴ αἰώνιος may be a present possession of the believer (3:36, 5:24, 6:47, 1 Jn. 5:13), which continues and abides after the shock of death (6:54). “To have eternal life” means more than “to live for ever”; the stress is not so much upon the duration of the life, as upon its quality. To have eternal life is to share in the life of God (5:26) and of Christ (1:4), which is unfettered by the conditions of time. And so it is defined as the knowledge of God and of Christ (17:3), for true knowledge cannot be without affinity. Thus ὁ ἔχων τὸν υἱὸν ἔχει τὴν ζωήν (1 Jn. 5:12). See Introd., p. clx.

The Evangelist’s Comment on the Preceding Discourse (vv. 16–21, 31–36)

16. This “comfortable word” is described in the Anglican Liturgy as one of those which “our Saviour Christ saith.” But it would seem that Jn. does not mean to place vv. 16–21 in the mouth of Jesus; these verses are rather reflexions and comments by the evangelist on the words which he has already ascribed to Jesus in His discourse with Nicodemus. The dialogue framework is dropped; past tenses, ἔδωκεν, ἀπέστειλεν, ἐλήλυθεν, are used, as would be natural if the writer is meditating on the great events of the past; the word μονογενής, which occurs twice, vv. 16, 18, is not elsewhere placed on the lips of Jesus, while it is thoroughly Johannine (see 1:14, 1:18 and 1 Jn. 4:9). Indeed v. 16 is repeated almost verbatim 1 Jn. 4:9: ἐν τούτῳ ἐφανερώθη ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ θεοῦ ἐν ἡμῖν, ὅτι τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ τὸν μονογενῆ ἀπέσταλκεν ὁ θεὸς εἰς τὸν κόσμον ἵνα ζήσωμεν διʼ αὐτοῦ.

The passage vv. 16–21 is introduced by οὕτως γάρ …, which is quite in Jn.’s style when he is making a comment: cf. αὐτὸς γάρ … (2:25), οἱ γὰρ μαθηταί (4:8), ὁ γὰρ Ἰησοῦς. (5:13), ὁ γὰρ πατήρ (5:20), αὐτὸς γὰρ ᾔδει … (6:6), ᾔδει γάρ … (6:64, 13:11), οὔπω γὰρ ἦν … (7:39), οὐδέπω γὰρ ᾔδεισαν … (20:9). Further, it is to be observed that ὥστε does not occur again in Jn., and that the constr. οὕτως … ὥστε with indicative, although classical, does not appear elsewhere in the N.T. (see Abbott, Diat. 2203, 2697). No new theme is introduced at v. 16, but the teaching of the discourse with Nicodemus is recapitulated, the opening sentence being a summary of the “Gospel according to St. John.”

It is the constant teaching of Jn. that in the order of redemption God’s Love precedes the movement of man’s soul to him. “We love because He first loved us” (1 Jn. 4:19; cf. 1 Jn. 4:10). Cf. “Ye did not choose me, but I chose you” (15:16) and also 13:18. See Rom. 5:8. In this verse the Love of God is represented as prior to the faith of man. Indeed, God is Love (1 Jn. 4:8).

The verb ἀγαπάω is generally used by the Synoptists for the love which man has for man or for God (Mk. 12:30); and Jn. in like manner uses it of the love of man for his fellows (13:34, 15:12, 17), or for Jesus (8:42, 14:15, 21, 23, 21:15) or for God (1 Jn. 4:10). It is used once in the Synoptists for the love of Jesus for man (Mk. 10:21), and this is frequent in Jn. (11:5, 13:1, 23, 34, 14:21, 15:9, 12, 21:7, 20). ἀγαπάω is never used in the Synoptists of the Love of God for man, although this central fact is behind many of the parables; but Jn. employs it thus, not only here but at 14:23, 17:23, 1 Jn. 3:1, 4:10 (cf. Rom. 5:8, Eph. 2:4, 2 Thess. 2:16). The mutual love of God and Christ is implicit in the Synoptists (cf. ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητός, Mk. 1:11, 9:7, Mt. 3:17, 17:5, Lk. 3:22), but Jn. is explicit in using ἀγαπάω to describe it, e.g. 3:35, 10:17, 15:9, 17:23, 24, 26, and 14:31. See, further, Additional Note on 21:15 on ἀγαπᾶν and φιλεῖν.

Here the Love of God for man is an all-embracing love: ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον (for κόσμος see on 1:9). It was manifested by His giving “His only begotten Son” (for μονογενής see on 1:14), “His Beloved Son,” ὁ υἱὸς ὁ ἀγαπτός (Mt. 3:17). The language is perhaps reminiscent of Gen. 22:16, where it was said to Abraham οὐκ ἐφείσω τοῦ υἱοῦ σου τοῦ ἀγαπητοῦ, the simple ἔδωκεν conveying the sense of a complete “giving up”; cf. Rom. 8:32.

τὸν υἱὸν μονογενῆ. So א*B W, but א*C A L T^b Θ add αὐτοῦ after υἱόν.

ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστ. κτλ. This was the motive of the Gift, that all men might have eternal life (see on v. 15) through faith in Christ. For the phrase πιστεύων εἰς αὐτόν, as see on 1:12.

“To perish” (ἀπολλύναι) is contrasted again with “to have eternal life” at 10:28 (cf. 17:12). It is the word used for “losing” one’s soul; and it refers here to a man’s final destiny (cf. Mt. 10:28 σῶμα ἀπολέσαι ἐν γεέννῃ). Hence ζωὴ αἰώνιος in this verse must be interpreted of the future (see on 3:15) rather than of the present, although it includes this.

The repetition of the phrase ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον from v. 15, with a slight change (viz. the addition after αὐτόν of μὴ ἀπόληται ἀλλά), is a feature of Johannine style.¹ Jn. frequently repeats phrases or themes of special import, often with slight verbal changes, as if they were a refrain. Cf., e.g., 3:3, 5, 4:23, 24, 6:35, 41, 48, 51, 6:39, 40, 8:24, 10:8, 9, 11, 15, 15:1, 5, 16:14, 15.

17. ἀπέστειλεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν υἱόν κτλ. The “sending” of Jesus by God is a conception common to the Synoptists, to Paul, and to Jn. Two verbs are used, πέμπω and ἀποστέλλω, the former being more frequent in Jn., and the latter in the Synoptists, no distinction of meaning between them being traceable (cf. 17:18 and 20:21). Paul has πέμπω only (Rom. 8:3); Lk. has πέμπω once (Lk. 20:13), but the parallels Mk. 12:6, Mt. 21:37 have ἀποστέλλω. Elsewhere the Synoptists always have ἀποστέλλω of God sending His Son, e.g. Mk. 9:37, Mt. 10:40, 15:24, Lk. 4:43, 9:48, 10:16. It may be added that πέμπω is infrequent in the LXX, which generally has ἀποστέλλω. There is a fine passage in the Ep. to Diognetus (§ 7) about God “sending” His Son, in which both verbs are used.¹ Westcott attempts to distinguish Jn.’s usage of πέμπω and ἀποστέλλω (see his Additional Note on 20:21), and so does Abbott (Diat. 1723d–g), who reverses the meanings that Westcott proposes. No distinction can safely be drawn.

For ἀποστέλλω in Jn. in similar contexts to the present (i.e. of God sending His Son), cf. 3:34, 5:36, 38, 6:29, 57, 7:29, 8:42, 10:38, 11:42, 17:8, 18, 21, 23, 25, 20:21 and 1 Jn. 4:9, 10, 14. For πέμπω cf. 4:34, 5:23, 24, 30, 6:38, 39, 44, 7:16, 28, 33, 8:16, 18, 26, 29, 9:4, 12:44, 45, 49, 13:20, 14:24, 15:21, 16:5.

τὸν υἱόν. The rec. text adds αὐτοῦ, with AΓ Δ Θ, but om. א B L T ^b W fam. 1.

This usage of ὁ υἱός absolutely, as contrasted with ὁ πατήρ, is common to all the evangelists, and by all of them is attributed to Jesus when speaking of Himself. See Mk. 13:32, Mt. 11:27, Lk. 10:22, and Jn. 5:19, 6:40, 8:36, 14:13, 17:1, besides Jn. 3:36, 1 Jn. 2:22, 4:14, where the evangelist thus describes Jesus. He uses ὁ υἱός absolutely, at this point for the first time. Cf. 1 Cor. 15:28.

This verse is in close connexion with v. 16. The Divine purpose in redemption embraces all humanity. It is not confined to Jews only, or to elect nations or individuals, but embraces the whole world. This Divine intention may be thwarted by man’s abuse of his free will, but none the less it is directed to all mankind (cf. 1 Tim. 2:4, Tit. 2:11).

But in the current Jewish eschatology² Messiah was to come as the Judge of mankind, and so Jesus taught, both according to the Synoptists (Mt. 25:31f.) and to Jn.: cf. Jn. 5:27, where we have the Son given “authority to execute judgment, because He is the Son of man,” the context showing that the Last Judgment is indicated. So, again, in 9:39 we have εἰς κρίμα ἐγὼ εἰς τὸν κόσμον τοῦτου ἦλθον, the reference being indeed to a present rather than a future judging, but still the coming of Jesus being represented as εἰς κρίμα, as issuing in judgment. See further on 8:15.

How, then, is this to be reconciled with the universal purpose of love in the mission of Christ? Jn. is quick to supply the answer. The purpose of this mission in the mind of God was that every one who believed in Christ should have eternal life. Christ, as the Son of Man, is to be the Judge of mankind; he does not question that, and later on he says it explicitly (5:27). But His primary office is that of Saviour, and it was to save that He was sent. That some should reject Him is no part of the Father’s will; but if they do reject Him, they bring judgment on themselves. And so Jn. declares οὐ γὰρ ἀπέστειλεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν υἱὸν εἰς τὸν κόσμον ἵνα κρίνῃ τὸν κόσμον, ἀλλʼ ἵνα σωθῇ ὁ κόσμος διʼ αὐτοῦ. This is repeated 12:47, where Jesus is represented as saying οὐ γὰρ ἦλθον ἴνα κρίνω τὸν κόσμον, ἀλλʼ ἵνα σώσω τὸν κόσμον. ἵνα σωσω, not ἵνα κρίνω (as Jewish-Apocalyptic believed), expresses the final cause of the mission of the Son of Man. Cf. Zech. 9:9 ὁ βασιλεύς σου ἔρχεταί σοι δίκαιος καὶ σώζων.

For the universality of this redemptive purpose, see 4:42 ὁ σωτὴρ τοῦ κόσμου, and the note there. It was one of the last prayers of Jesus that the world should come to recognise at last that God loved it, and that therefore He had sent His Son (17:23).

σωθῇ. σώζειν occurs only 6 times in Jn., σωτηρία once (4:22), and σωτήρ twice (4:42, where see note, and 1 Jn. 4:14).

In the LXX it generally represents ישע, which primarily means “enlargement” and hence “deliverance,” ישועה being, at last, almost equivalent to “victory,” and often used in the O.T. of the final Messianic Deliverance. In the N.T. σώζειν sometimes stands for deliverance from bodily sickness, or healing (see 11:12 and cf. Mk. 5:28, 6:56, 10:52 etc.); frequently it carries with it the idea of rescue from physical death (e.g. 12:27, Mk. 3:4, 15:30); and in other passages the thought is of spiritual deliverance (e.g. 5:34, 10:9, 12:47, Mk. 10:26, 13:13), i.e. of the transition from death to life, conceived of either as present or as future (in an eschatological reference), wrought by the life-giving power of Christ, and applied to the individual soul by an act of faith. This, the deepest meaning of σωτηρία, is constantly present to the mind of Jn. See on 4:42 for σωτήρ.

18. To the thought of Jn., ζωὴ αἰώνιος begins in the present, and is not only a hope of the future (see on 3:15 above); so also the κρίσις, or the inevitable distinction between man and man, determined by the use or abuse of his free will, begins in the present life.

Here for Jn. is the supreme test of the human spirit, whether the man “believes in” Christ or does not believe. ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν οὐ κρίνεται, or, as it is expressed later on, εἰς κρίσιν οὐκ ἔρχεται, ἀλλὰ μεταβέβηκεν ἐκ τοῦ θανάτου εἰς τὴν ζωήν (5:24). The believer has eternal life in Christ; he has passed into life. There is no uncertainty as to the final judgment for him.

But there is also the man who is not willing to come to Christ that he may have life (5:40), i.e. not willing to “believe.” Of him Jn. says ὁ μὴ πιστεύων ἤδη κέκριται, “he has been judged already” by his unfaith, the present judgment being anticipatory of the future. This is, indeed, the judgment which will declare itself at the Last Day (12:48). But that the judgment will be manifested at the Last Day is not inconsistent with its having been already determined in the present life by the unbelief and blindness and disobedience of the man. So it is said of the prince of evil that he “has been judged” (16:11), although the exhibition of this tremendous judgment is not yet.

The rec. text has ὁ δὲ μὴ πιστ. κτλ. with A L T^b Γ Δ Θ; but א B W ff² l om. δέ. The two sentences ὁ πιστεύων … and ὁ μὴ πιστεύων are co-ordinate and complementary; and it is quite in the Johannine manner to place them side by side without any adversative or connecting particle.

ὅτι μὴ πεπίστευκεν …, “because he has not believed,” a continuing movement of unbelief being indicated by the pft. tense. Abbott (Diat. 2187) compares with ὁ μὴ πιστεύων … ὅτι μὴ πεπίστευκεν … of this verse, the passage 1 Jn. 5:10 … ὁ μὴ πιστεύων … ὅτι οὐ πεπίστευκεν … “In the latter ὅτι οὐ states the fact objectively; in the former ὄτι μή states it subjectively, as the judgment pronounced by the Judge.” ὅτι μή is a very unusual construction (see Diat. 2695), and demands some such explanation here.¹

For μονογενής, see on 1:14. It is possible that the repetition of the adjective here is intended to mark, not only the greatness of the Father’s love (as in v. 16), but also the uniqueness of Jesus as a Saviour. There is no other (cf. Acts 4:12).

19. αὕτη δέ ἐστιν ἡ κρίσις. The form of the sentence, introducing an explanation, is thoroughly Johannine; cf. 1 Jn. 1:5, 5:11, 14. “This is the judging,” sc. not the sentence of judgment (κρίμα), but the way in which the judgment is accomplished. It is no arbitrary sentence, but the working out of a moral law. The root of unbelief in Christ is the refusal to turn to His Light, because the man’s conduct will not bear scrutiny. Jn. traces unbelief to moral causes.

“The Light came into the world”; so he has already in the Prologue described the Advent of Christ (1:4, 5, 9); “and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for evil were their works” (see on 1:9). The comparison of wickedness to darkness and of virtue to light is, of course, found elsewhere, e.g. Philo, Quaest. in Gen. ii. 22, and Test. of XII. Patr., Naph. ii. 10, “neither while ye are in darkness can ye do the works of light.” So Job says of the wicked that they “are of them that rebel against the light” (Job 24:13). The image occurs with special frequency in Jn., e.g. 8:12, 12:35, 46, 1 Jn. 1:6, 2:8, 9, 11; that Jesus is τὸ φῶς τοῦ κόσμου (8:12) is one of his central thoughts.

With ἦν γὰρ αὐτῶν πονηρὰ τὰ ἔργα cf. 7:7, where Jesus is represented as saying that the κόσμος hated Him, ὅτι τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ πονηρά ἐστιν. The same phrase appears in 1 Jn. 3:12, of the deeds of Cain. Jn. always takes the darkest view of the world apart from Christ; cf. ὁ κόσμος ὅλος ἐν τῷ πονηρῷ κεῖται (1 Jn. 5:19). Cf. also Col. 1:21, 2 Tim. 4:18, for τὰ ἔργα τὰ πονηρά.

20. Jn. proceeds to explain the psychology of this shrinking of the world from Christ the Light.

πᾶς γὰρ ὁ φαῦλα πράσσων κτλ., “for every one who practises base things hates the Light.” Both in this passage and at 5:29 (the only two places where Jn. has the adj. φαῦλος or the verb πράσσειν), we have φαῦλα πράσσειν, but ἀγαθά (τὴν ἀλήθειαν, v. 21) ποιεῖν. πράσσειν does not carry with it the idea of anything accomplished, or abiding as the result of action, whereas ποιεῖν is to make as well as to do; and perhaps some such difference is intended by Jn., although in Rom. 7:15, 19 the verbs cannot be distinguished.

The base liver does not come to the Light, lest his works be reproved. We have ἐλέγχειν again 8:46, 16:8; cf. Eph. 5:13 τὰ δὲ πάντα ἐλεγχόμενα ὑπὸ τοῦ φωτὸς φανεροῦται.

We should expect μήποτε for ἵνα μή, but μήποτε never occurs in Jn., who employs the constr. ἵνα μή 18 times. Burney points out¹ that ἵνα μή corresponds exactly with the Aramaic דְּלָא.

21. א* omits from ὁ δὲ ποιῶν to τὰ ἔργα, because of the homoioteleuton τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ v. 20 and v. 21 (as read in its exemplar, instead of αὐτοῦ τὰ ἔργα).

ὁ δὲ ποιῶν τὴν ἀλήθειαν (cf. 1 Jn. 1:6) ἔρχεται πρὸς τὸ φῶς This is a universal saying, not to be confined to those who are already believers in Christ. As Christ Himself said: πᾶς ὁ ὢν ἐκ τῆς ἀληθείας ἀκούει μου τῆς φωνῆς (18:37). Jn. states that every honest doer of the truth comes into the light, and (as Christ is the Light) he therefore approaches Christ; he does so “that his works may be made manifest” (cf. 9:3). See on 8:34.

ὅτι ἐν θεῷ ἐστιν εἰργασμένα. ὅτι may mean “because” or “that.” The latter rendering seems preferable. The honest man (“in whom is no guile,” 1:47) comes to the light that it may be made plain that his deeds have been done ἐν θεῷ, a remarkable expression for which there is no exact parallel; cf. κοπιώσας ἐν κυρίῳ (Rom. 16:12). See Ps. 139:23, 24 for the prayer of the righteous man, who does not shrink from the closest scrutiny of his life.

31–36. Reasons have been given in the Introduction (p. xxiii) for taking these verses in sequence to vv. 16–21, vv. 22–30 having been displaced from their original position.

The argument of this paragraph is as follows: He that is of the earth can testify only to earthly things (v. 31; cf. v. 12). Christ, who is from heaven, in testifying of heavenly things, testifies to that which He has seen and heard, but His witness is not accepted (v. 32; cf. v. 11). Nevertheless, he who does accept it, agrees that Jesus was the promised Messenger of God (v. 33; cf. v. 17). He speaks the message of God, and thereby shows that He was sent by God (v. 34). He speaks this message in its completeness, for the Spirit is not granted to Him in part only (v. 34); He is the Beloved Son (v. 35; cf. v. 16).

ὁ ἄνωθεν ἐρχόμενος, i.e. Christ. ἄνωθεν has its usual Johannine significance of desuper, “from above” (but see on 3:3); cf. ἐγὼ ἐκ τῶν ἄνω εἰμί (8:23) and 1 Cor. 15:47.

ἐπάνω πάντων ἐστίν. This is expressed by Paul in the same way ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων (Rom. 9:5; cf. Eph. 1:21).

ὁ ὢν ἐκ τῆς γῆς … λαλεῖ. There is a similar thought in 1 Jn. 4:5: αὐτοὶ ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου εἰσί· διὰ τοῦτο ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου λαλοῦσιν, the only difference being that κόσμος carries the idea of the moral condition of the world (see on 1:9), while γῆ is the physical “earth” simply. Cf. 2 Esd. 4:21: “Qui super terram inhabitant quae sunt super terram intellegere solummodo possunt, et qui super caelos quae super altitudinem caelorum.” See on 3:12.

ἐκ τῆς γῆς ἐστιν. Jn. is inclined to the constr. εἶναι ἐκ … as indicating origin and affinity; cf. 8:23 and passim. The constr. γεγεννῆσθαι ἐκ has already been discussed (3:5 and 1:13).

32. AΓ Δ Θ read καὶ ὃ ἑώρακεν, but א B D L T ^b W om. καὶ. In this verse the words of v. 11 are repeated, the evangelist taking them up and amplifying them.

ὃ ἑώρακεν. This is one of the few passages in Jn. where ὁρᾶν in the perf. tense is used of spiritual vision (see also 8:38, 14:7, 15:24, and cf. 1:18).

ὃ … ἤκουσεν, τοῦτο μαρτυρεῖ. It is the constant teaching of Jn. that Jesus proclaimed what He had “heard” from the Father (8:40, 15:15; cf. 12:49). Jesus is the “Faithful Witness,” according to the Apocalypse (Rev. 1:5). Cf. Introd., p. xcii.

καὶ τὴν μαρτυρίαν αὐτοῦ οὐδεὶς λαμβάνει. This is reproduced from v. 11, where see note. In the traditional order of the text, this sentence would be inconsistent with v. 26, which tells of the crowds that flocked to hear Jesus; but it is plain that John the Baptist is not the speaker here (see Introd., p. xxiii).

Jn. hastens in v. 33 to correct the rhetorical οὐδείς, just as he corrects 1:11 by 1:12; cf. also 8:15, 16, 12:44f..

33. ὁ λαβὼν αὐτοῦ τὴν μαρτυρίαν κτλ., i.e. who has accepted as convincing the witness of Christ about eternal life and God’s love; cf. vv. 3–15, upon which all this is commentary.

σφραγίζειν here and at 6:27 (where see note) is the equivalent of “to attest,” the metaphor of sealing being a common one. He who accepts the witness of Jesus thereby attests that Jesus speaks the words of God as His accredited Messenger, and in this attestation virtually testifies to his belief that God is true (ὁ θεὸς ἀληθής ἐστιν). So at 8:26 it is urged that God, who sent Jesus, is true (ὁ πέμψας με ἀληθής ἐστιν), and that Jesus speaks what He has heard from God, the implied conclusion being that the hearers of Jesus may believe in Him and trust what He says. The argument of 1 Jn. 5:10 puts the same thing in another way, viz. God has testified of His Son, and so he who does not believe this testimony makes God a liar.

Lightfoot (Hor. Hebr. in loc.) quotes the Rabbinical maxim that “the seal of God is truth.”

34. ὃν ἀπέστειλεν ὁ θεός. See, on this Divine mission of the Son, the note on v. 17 above. He whom God has sent speaks God’s words; cf. 8:26 and 17:8 τὰ ῥήματα ἃ ἔδωκάς μοι.

In Jn. ῥῆμα never occurs in the singular; we always have τὰ ῥήματα (no art. at 6:68), and in Jn. they are always “the” words of God (cf. 8:47) or of Christ Himself. In contradistinction to this, τὰ ῥήματα never occurs in the Apocalypse, while we have instead οἱ λόγοι, used for Divine words or sayings (cf. Introd., p. lxvi). In Jn., λόγος is always in the singular, except 10:19, 14:24 (see on 10:19).

τὰ ῥήματα τοῦ θεοῦ λαλεῖ, sc. Christ speaks the sayings, the full message, of God Himself; He does not merely proclaim fragments of that message. Cf. 17:8, and see on 3:11 for λαλεῖν.

οὐ γὰρ ἐκ μέτρου δίδωσιν τὸ πνεῦμα, “for [God] does not give the Spirit [to Him] by measure,” but in its fulness.

The rec., with A C²D Γ Δ Θ, adds ὁ θεός after δίδωσιν, but om. א B C*L T ^b W 33; it supplies, however, the correct interpretation of the words. Origen rightly understands “God” to be the subject of δίδωσιν, although some have supposed “Christ” to be the subject and the meaning to be that Christ gives the Spirit in its fulness to those who believe in Him: but this latter interpretation destroys the argument of the passage, and introduces a thesis which is very questionable. Christ gives the Spirit to His own (cf. 7:38, 15:26), but could it be said that He gives it οὐκ ἐκ μέτρου? Only of One could it be said that the Spirit was given in its fulness. The Talmudical saying that “the Spirit of God did not dwell upon the prophets, nisi mensura quadam,”¹ is true, whether it be an original Jewish saying, or one which owes its form to Christian influence.

ἐκ μέτρου is, apparently, equivalent to μέτρῳ, “by measure”; but the constr. ἐκ μέτρου is not found again in the Greek Bible, nor has any parallel been produced from Greek literature.²

God the Father gives the Spirit in its fulness, and not “by measure,” to Christ, because He is His Beloved Son, as v. 35 explains.

35. ὁ πατὴρ ἀγαπᾷ τὸυ υἱόν. It is characteristic of Jn. to use the verb ἀγαπᾶν of the mutual love of God the Father and Christ (see on 3:16 above). In 5:20 we find ὁ γὰρ πατὴρ φιλεῖ τὸν υἱόν, in a context similar to that of the present passage; but it does not seem probable that, in describing the inmost mystery of the Divine Love, Jn. would have ventured to differentiate between φιλεῖν and ἀγαπᾶν. As to the alleged distinction between them, see on 21:17.

πάντα δέδωκεν ἐν τῇ χειρὶ αὐτοῦ. So in 13:3 (where see note) πάντα ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ ὁ πατὴρ εἰς τὰς χεῖρας. It is a favourite thought in Jn., that the Father has given all things to the Incarnate Son; e.g. judgment 5:22, 27, to have life in Himself 5:26, authority 17:2, glory 17:24, His Name 17:11, His commandments 12:49 (cf. 14:31, 17:4), and even His disciples 6:37 (where see note). The parallel in the Synoptists is πάντα μοι παρεδόθη ὑπὸ τιο͂ πατρός μου (Lk. 10:22, Mt. 11:27); and there can be little hesitation in accepting the saying that “the Father gave all things” to His Son as a genuine saying of Jesus. “What grace is in the Pauline Epistles, giving is in the Fourth Gospel” (Abbott, Diat. 2742).

36. ὁ πιστεύων εἰς τὸν υἱὸν ἔχει ζωὴν αἰώνιον (see on 6:27, 29). We have had almost the same sentence above, 3:15, where see note, and cf. also 6:47. The present participles πιστεύων … ἀπειθῶν are noteworthy, as indicating continuous belief or disobedience. A single Credo does not gain “eternal life,” nor for a single act of disobedience or faithlessness does “the wrath of God” necessarily “abide” on a sinner. It is the temper and trend of the life that count with God.

ἀπειθέω does not occur again in Jn. It is, strictly, “to be disobedient,” as opposed to πείθομαι, “to allow oneself to be persuaded”; but rather implies a rebellious mind than a series of disobedient acts. Sometimes it expresses unbelief rather than disobedience, as at Acts 14:2. In the present passage there is a variant ἀπιστῶν for ἀπειθῶν found in a few cursives, and the Vulgate, following the “European” and “Italian” O.L. versions, has accordingly incredulus. But the African O.L. follows the better reading ἀπειθῶν, understanding by it disobedience rather than unbelief. That this is the meaning is confirmed by the remarkable parallel in Eph. 5:6: ἔρχεται ἡ ὀργὴ τοῦ θεοῦ ἐπὶ τοὺς υἱοὺς τῆς ἀπειθείας.

It is not always possible to distinguish the two shades of meaning in ἀπειθεῖν. To “believe” is to have “eternal life,” and this “eternal life” is God’s commandment (ἡ ἐντολὴ αὐτοῦ ζωὴ αἰώνιός ἐστιν, 12:50); so that “to believe” is “to obey.”

οὐκ ὄψεται ζωήν. Cf. v. 3, οὐ δύναται ἰδεῖν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ, and also 8:51, 52, where “seeing” death is equivalent to “tasting” death. The rebel (ἀπειθῶν) will not “see” life, because he cannot appreciate or assimilate it. Cf. 6:53, and esp. 1 Jn. 5:12, ὁ μὴ ἔχων τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ τὴν ζωὴν οὐκ ἔχει.

ἡ ὀργὴ τοῦ θεοῦ is not mentioned again in Jn., although often in Paul (Rom. 1:18, Eph. 5:6; and cf. Rev. 19:15 etc.). It is a thoroughly Hebraic conception, the phrase being common in the LXX; and John the Baptist spoke of “the wrath to come” (Mt. 3:7, Lk. 3:7). The expression does not appear in the Synoptic reports of the words of Jesus, and He may never have used it, preferring to dwell on the fatherly love of God rather than on His hatred of sin. The phrase ἡ ὀργὴ τοῦ θεοῦ has nothing in common with Greek philosophy or religion, but it has its roots in that conception of God as essentially a moral Being, to whom therefore sin is hateful, which is behind all the teaching of Christ.

μένει is the pres. tense, not the future (μενεῖ), as some Latin authorities take it to be. Not only in the world to come, but in this world, the “wrath of God” abides upon him who is continuously rebellious, in will and deed, against the heavenly vision.

22. μετὰ ταῦτα, the phrase with which Jn. is accustomed to introduce new chapters to his story (see Introd., p. cviii). After the ministry of Jesus in Jerusalem at the Passover and the interview with Nicodemus (2:22ff.), He moved with the disciples whom He had gathered round Him (see on 2:2) into the country districts of Judæa, εἰς τὴν Ἰουδαίαν γῆν (the only occurrence in the N.T. of this descriptive phrase; cf. Mk. 1:5), and He stayed there with them, baptizing. Probably the locality was somewhere near the fords in the neighbourhood of Jericho.

διατρίβειν occurs in N.T. elsewhere only in Acts (but see on 11:54). The imperfect tenses διέτριβεν … ἐβάπτιζεν imply that Jesus and His disciples made a stay of some duration in the district. Here, and at 3:26, 4:1, it is said that Jesus baptized people; but the editor’s correction at 4:2 states that Jesus did not baptize in person, that being the work of His disciples. This is the only ascription in the N.T. of a ministry of baptism to Jesus, whether in person or with the aid of others (see on 4:2). But there is no historical improbability about it. He had Himself submitted to baptism at the hands of John, thus (at the least) giving the seal of His approval to the ministry which John was exercising. His first disciples were taken from among the disciples of John. There is no question, at this stage, of Christian baptism, i.e. of baptism as a sacramental rite. That was only to be instituted after His Resurrection (Mt. 28:19); cf. 7:39. The baptism of John was symbolic of a cleansing of the soul (cf. 3:25 below), and making a fresh start in the spiritual life. “Repent ye” was an early message of Jesus (Mk. 1:15), as it was the chief message of John Baptist. See further on 4:2.

23. For the constr. ἦν … Ἰω. βαπτίζων, where we would expect ἐβάπτιζεν (as in the preceding verse), see on 1:28. παραγίγνομαι does not occur again in Jn.

John also was carrying on his ministry of baptism in the same neighbourhood, viz. at Aenon.

Αἰνὼν ἐγγὺς τοῦ Σαλείμ. These places cannot be identified with certainty. There is a Salim to the E. of Shechem, and a village called ˒Ainun to the N.E.; but (1) there is no water at ˒Ainun, and Αἰνών was a place of ὕδατα πολλά; (2) ˒Ainun is 7 miles from Salim, and this could hardly be described as “near” (cf. 11:18, 19:20, 42); and (3) it is not likely that John the Baptist was labouring among the Samaritans (cf. 4:9). The site assigned by Eusebius and Jerome (and shown to the pilgrim Aetheria in the fourth century) is probably the true site, viz. in the Jordan valley about 7 1/2 miles south of Beisan, the ancient Scythopolis. “Aenon near to Salim” is marked at this point on the mosaic map of Madeba. There is still here “a remarkable group of seven springs, all lying within a radius of a quarter of a mile, which answers well to the description ὕδατα πολλά”¹ It is on the W. bank of the Jordan, and this is confirmed by v. 26. Cheyne would read “Jerusalem” for “Salim,” and finds Aenon in ˒Ain Karim, which is near Jerusalem on the W. side.² But this is merely guess-work.

Those who find allegory in Jn.’s place-names, interpret “Aenon near to Salim” as indicating “fountains near to peace,” the Baptist preparing for the higher purification by Christ the King of peace (Melchi-zedek).¹

24. This verse is a parenthetical comment of Jn. (see Introd., p. xxxiv), which indicates the time at which the events happened which he records (see p. cii). The Synoptists tell nothing of this ministry of Jesus in Judæa, and Jn. is careful to remark that it was exercised in the earlier days of His public activity, before John the Baptist had been imprisoned. It is quite in his manner to assume that his readers know of the arrest of John and his martyrdom (cf. Introd., p. xciv). See also on 5:35.

All that has been mentioned in the Fourth Gospel up to this point seems to be precedent to the wonderful ministry in Galilee (Mk. 1:14–6:6), which culminated in the choice of the Twelve (Mk. 3:13) and their subsequent mission (Mk. 6:7). Indeed Mk. expressly says that all this was “after John was delivered up” (Mk. 1:14). When, therefore, Jn. speaks of the “disciples” who were with Jesus in this early ministry in Judaea, we cannot assume that the “Twelve” are indicated, the presumption being the other way (see on 2:2 above). That episodes like those in c. 3 and the beginning of c. 4 are not recorded by Mk. may be due to the fact that Peter, upon whose reminiscences Mk. has largely based his narrative, was not present; while their appearance in the Fourth Gospel is explicable, if the authority behind it was one of the disciples who witnessed the ministry in Judaea and Samaria. He may have been John the son of Zebedee.

25, 26. ἐγένετο οὖν κτλ. “So there arose a questioning on the part of (ἐκ) John’s disciples with Jews about purifying,” sc. about the purificatory baptisms which Jesus, as well as John, was encouraging.² The turn of the sentence (ἐκ) shows that it was the Baptist’s disciples who began the dispute; they were puzzled that Jesus, to whom John had pointed as One far superior to himself, should carry on a ministry, outwardly similar to John’s, and thus divert disciples from their own master, who was pre-eminently “the Baptist.” Naturally, they would cross-examine the Jews who flocked to Jesus, ministry of baptism, and would ask them what was its special virtue.

Finally, they came to John with their complaint, addressing him as their Rabbi (see on 1:38): “He who was with thee on the other side of the Jordan (sc. at Bethany or Bethabara; cf. 1:28), to whom thou hast borne witness (1:32), behold (see on 1:29), He (οὗτος, perhaps implying hostility; cf. 6:42) is baptizing and all are coming to Him.” They were jealous and angry that what they counted their master’s prerogative should be invaded.

ζήτησις does not occur again in the Gospels, but we find the word in 1 Tim. 6:4, suggesting meticulous dispute rather than legitimate and profitable inquiry.

The rec. reading Ἰουδαίων (א*Θ fam. 13, the Latin vss., and Syr. cu.) seems preferable to Ἰουδαίου (א^cA B L N W Γ Δ), which the R.V. has adopted. If the dispute were only with an individual Jew, we should expect Ἰουδαίου τινος¹

We have had the word καθαρισμός, of ritual or ceremonial purification, at 2:6 above.

27, 28. ἀπεκρ. Ἰω. καὶ εἶπεν. For the construction, see on 1:26.

John’s reply to his disciples’ outburst of jealousy was to remind them of a great principle of life: “A man can receive nothing, except it have been given him from heaven.” As Paul says, “What hast thou, that thou didst not receive?” (1 Cor. 4:7). The same principle is enunciated, in different forms, Jn. 6:65, 19:11. As to John’s baptism, it became a puzzle to the Jews whether it was “from heaven or of men” (Mk. 11:30); John would certainly have claimed that his commission to baptize was “from heaven,” but he could not go beyond its limitations. “Ye yourselves,” he answers, “are my witnesses that I said I am not the Christ (1:20, 23), but that I am sent before (1:15) Him (ἐκείνου. sc. Jesus, whom you know that I acclaimed as the Christ).”

29. ὁ ἔχων τὴν νύμφην νυμφίος ἐστίν. This is the only reference in Jn. to the representation of Christ as the Church’s Bridegroom, which has its origin in the mystic phraseology of the O.T. (see on 1:12). Yahweh is described as the jealous husband of Israel (Ex. 34:15, Deut. 31:19, Ps. 73:27), or as betrothed to Israel (Hos. 2:19), and we have the explicit statement, “Thy Maker is thy husband: Yahweh of hosts is His Name” (Isa. 54:5). The Rabbis held that Moses was the paranymph or “friend of the bridegroom.” In the N.T. Christ is represented as the Bridegroom, and the Church, the spiritual Israel, as the Bride. The image appears in Paul (Eph. 5:32 and 2 Cor. 11:2; in the latter passage, Paul regarding himself as the paranymph), and also in the Apocalypse, where the New Jerusalem descends from heaven as a bride adorned for her husband, the Lamb (Rev. 19:7, 21:2). This doctrine, according to the Synoptists, goes back to the teaching of Jesus Himself. The parables of the Marriage Feast and of the Ten Virgins (Mt. 22:1, 25:1) imply as much; and, above all, there is the reply of Jesus to the question why His disciples did not practise fasting, while the disciples of John the Baptist did: “Can the sons of the bridechamber fast, while the Bridegroom is with them?” (Mk. 2:19). In this saying Jesus claims to be the mystical Bridegroom Himself, and thus answers those who would put Him on a level with John the Baptist.

The answer of John in the present passage is similar. His disciples complain because his work is being invaded by Jesus; but he reminds them that while Jesus is the νυμφίος, who naturally has the Bride for His own, he, John, is only ὁ φίλος τοῦ νυμφίου, the Bridegroom’s friend, the paranymph, whose office it was to bring the Bride and the Bridegroom together. That being done, his task is accomplished.

The shoshben, or παρανύμφιος, was a well-recognised personage in Judæa (not in Galilee, and there is no mention of him in the account of the marriage at Cana). He stands expectant (ὁ ἐστηκώς; cf. 12:29), and rejoices when he hears the voice of the bridegroom in converse with his bride (for ἡ φωνὴ τοῦ νυμφίου, cf. Jer. 7:34, 16:9, 18:23).

χαρᾷ χαίρει does not occur again in Jn., but is found Isa. 66:10, 1 Thess. 3:9. It is not necessarily a Hebraism; cf. Plato, Sympos. 195 B,; φεύγων φυγῇ τὸ γῆρας

ἡ χαρὰ ἡ ἐμὴ πεπλήρωται. Cf. for the same phrase, 15:11.

ἐμός is a favourite possessive pronoun with Jn., occurring 40 times, as against one appearance in the Apocalypse (Rev. 2:20). Cf. Introd., p. lxvi.

30. ἐκεῖνον δεῖ αὐξάνειν κτλ. Again (see on 3:14) we have δεῖ, “it has to be.” The herald’s task is over when He who has been proclaimed is come. It was divinely ordered that John the Baptist’s ministry should recede into the background, while that of Jesus drew “all men” (v. 26) more and more. “He must increase, while I must decrease,” is the final message of the Baptist. So Jesus had said, “The least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he” (Mt. 11:11).

4:1. ὁ κυριος. This is read by A B C L T^b W, but the Western reading (א D Θ fam. 1, with a b c e ff² l Syr. cur.) is ὁ Ἰησοῦς. It is plain that the text has been tampered with. The verse is clumsily expressed and seems to have been rewritten, ὁ κύριος having probably been inserted in the later draft to remove any ambiguity as to the subject of the sentence.

It has been pointed out (on 1:38) that His disciples were accustomed to address Jesus either as Rabbi (Teacher) or as Mari (Lord). And in His absence, according to the Synoptists, they used both terms, either saying ὁ διδάσκαλος (as Jesus bade them do, Mk. 14:14) or ὁ κύριος (Mk. 11:3), an appellation which He approved (Mk. 5:19). In Jn., Martha says ὁ διδάσκαλος (11:28); Mary Magdalene says ὁ κύριος (20:2, 18), and so do the disciples (20:25, 21:7).

In direct narrative, when the evangelists are using their own words and not reporting the words of others, a distinction must be made. In Lk. (7:13, 10:1, 11:39, 12:42, 17:5, 22:61), “the Lord” is often used by the evangelist. So in the Marcan Appendix (16:19, 20) we have “the Lord” twice. This also is the usage of the Gospel of Peter. But Mk. (followed by Mt.) never writes “the Lord,” but always “Jesus.” The primitive narratives, that is, took the form “Jesus said …,” “Jesus did …” The form “the Lord said” is later.

Now in the direct narrative of the Fourth Gospel we find “Jesus” as in Mk., and not “the Lord” as in Lk., with five exceptions which are instructive. In 4:1, 6:23, 11:2, ὁ κύριος is the true reading; but these verses are all explanatory glosses, not from the hand of Jn., but written after the first draft of the story had been completed. In 20:20, 21:12, where we have ὁ κύριος, we are in the middle of the post-Resurrection narrative, and it is not unnatural that special reverence should be exhibited in writing of Him who had risen.

Soon after the Resurrection, the title began to imply that larger and deeper meaning of ὁ κύριος as the representative of יְהוֹה which is frequent in Paul and is found in the Acts (2:36, 9:11).That “Jesus is Lord” (1 Cor. 12:3; cf. Phil. 2:11) has become the central thought of the Christian profession; but now the predicate means more than “Master,” for it expresses the doctrine of the Incarnation. Perhaps we may say that the passage from the lower to the higher sense begins with the citation of Ps. 110:1 by the Master Himself (Mk. 12:36).

Thus the use by Jn. of the form of narrative in which the central figure is designated as “Jesus” (save in the exceptional passages cited) rather than as “the Lord,” illustrates well the primitive characteristics which the Fourth Gospel exhibits.

Probably some time had elapsed since Jesus had begun His ministry in Judæa (cf. διέτριβεν, 3:22); and it is possible that His departure was subsequent to John’s imprisonment (cf. 3:24). The Pharisees (see on 1:24) had begun to take notice of Him, being perhaps even more suspicious of Him than they had been of John (1:24), because they had heard that (ὅτι recitantis) “Jesus is making more disciples than John”; and so He moved to another place (cf. 7:1, 10:39). At this stage He was anxious to avoid open collision with the Pharisees. It will be noticed that we have the “making of disciples” and “baptizing” associated closely thus early, long before the charge is said to have been given to the apostles μαθητεύσατε … βαπτίζοντες αὐτούς (Mt. 28:19).

The art. is omitted before Ἰησοῦς πλείονας μαθ. ποιεῖ, contrary to the general usage of Jn., who prefers to write ὁ Ἰησοῖς (see on 1:29). We have the same omission at 4:47, 6:24, and for the same reason as here, viz. that ὅτι introduces the words which were actually spoken: the construction is not oblique, but that of ὅτι recitantis.

2. If this verse is part of the original draft of the Gospel, it is a parenthetical comment or correction by Jn., and is quite in his manner (see on 2:21). He wishes to prevent his readers from making any mistake; the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was baptizing disciples in large numbers, but Jn. pauses to explain that the report which reached them was inaccurate in so far as it suggested that Jesus baptized in person. And it may be that this correction of ἐβάπτιζεν in 3:22 (where see note) is well founded.

But it is probable that the verse 4:2 is not from the hand of Jn.,¹ but was added at a revision of the text, because of the idea that it would detract from the dignity of Jesus to perform the ministry of baptism, which even Paul was accustomed as a rule to leave to others. There are slight indications, too, that the style of the verse is not Johannine. καίτοιγε does not occur elsewhere in the N.T., and Jn. is apt to use καί where another would use καίτοι (see on 1:11. Again, Ἰησοῦς is not preceded by the def. article, as is the general usage of Jn. (see on 1:29). For οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ, see on 2:2.

3. ἀφῆκεν τὴν Ἰουδαίαν, “He forsook Judæa.” ἀφίημι is an unusual word to use of leaving a place, but cf. 16:28.

D Θ fam. 13 with Latin texts read τὴν Ἰουδαίαν γῆν (cf. 3:22).

καὶ ἀπῆλθεν πάλιν εἰς τὴν Γαλιλαίαν, “He departed again into Galilee,” the first ministry in Galilee having been already described (1:43–2:12); see on 3:24. We should not have expected the aor. ἀπῆλθεν, as the journey is not yet completed, and the Samaritan episode comes next. But it is quite good Greek, εἰς meaning “towards.” “He left again for Galilee,” is the exact rendering.

πάλιν is a favourite word with Jn., as with Mk. It is used of going back to a place, as it is here, 4:46, 6:15, 10:40, 11:7, 18:33, 38, 19:4, 9, 20:10. A B*Γ D omit πάλιν, but ins.א B²C D L T ^b W Θ fam. 13 with the O.L. and Old Syriac vss.

4. ἔδει δὲ αὐτὸν κτλ., sc. “He had to go through Samaria,” unless He wished to make a detour. Josephus mentions (Antt. xx. 6. 1) that it was the habit of the Galilæans going to Jerusalem to pass through Samaria, this being the direct route (cf. Lk. 9:51, 52). But apparently Jesus did not start from Jerusalem, but from Jericho (cf. 3:22); and the road that He took was probably the north-western road from thence to Ai and Bethel, where He would strike the great northern road used by caravans.

ἔδει does not stand here for any Divine necessity, although Jn. often uses it thus (see on 2:4, 3:14).

5. Συχάρ. “Near to the plot of ground (χωρίον; cf. Mt. 26:36) that Jacob gave to Joseph,” i.e. to the E. of Shechem (Gen. 33:18, 48:22), the modern Nabliûs. Some have thought that Sychar and Shechem are identical, but they have been distinguished since Eusebius. Sychar is probably to be identified with the village ˒Askar (ע having displaced א, a linguistic change which is also observable in the Arabic form of Ascalon). ˒Askar is situated about five furlongs N.E. of Jacob’s Well.¹

E. A. Abbott finds Sychar in the root שׁכר “drunkenness”; i.e. it is an opprobrious name for Shechem (cf. Isa. 28:1: this, he suggests, is suitable to the moral of the dialogue, which has to do with drinking.² But there is no need to find such subtle and obscure allegory in a place-name.

6. κεκοπιακώς. The verb is used again by Jn. only at v. 38. ὁδοιπορία appears elsewhere in the N.T. only at 2 Cor. 11:26.

ἐκαθέζετο, “He was seated”; cf. 11:20, 20:12. καθέζομαι in the N.T. is always used in a durative sense. T^w has the unique variant ἐκάθισαν.

οὕτως may mean “just as He was,” sc. without waiting to select a place deliberately; but more probably it refers to κεκοπιακὼς ἐκ τῆς ὁδοιπορίας “tired with His journey, He was seated by the well.” Cf. 1 Kings 2:7 for a somewhat similar use of οὕτως. οὕτως is omitted here in some cursives and in Latin, Syriac, and Coptic vss.

For κεκοπιακώς, see on 1:14 for Jn.’s emphasis on the true humanity of Jesus. He saw nothing in speaking of Jesus as “tired” which was inconsistent with His oneness with Him of whom the prophet wrote, “The Everlasting God, the Lord, fainteth not, neither is weary” (Isa. 40:28).

“Jacob’s Well”³ is at a fork in the northern road to Samaria; one branch, the ancient caravan road, going N.E. to Scythopolis, the other going W. by Nablus and thence N. to Engannim. The well is about 100 feet deep, and at the bottom the water collects, probably by infiltration. The double title πηγή (v. 6) and φρέαρ (vv. 11, 12) is thus explicable. Why any one should have taken pains to sink a deep pit, when there is abundance of water both at Nabl̂us and ˒Askar, we cannot tell; any more than we can explain why a woman should come half a mile from ˒Askar to draw water which she could have got in the village. But, at any rate, the well is there, and probably has been there since the days of Jacob. In the absence of knowledge of the exact position of the woman’s house, it would be idle to speculate as to the motive which drew her to this, which was even then a sacred well, rather than to the ˓Ain at ˓Askar.

“It was about the sixth hour,” that is, about noon (see on 1:39), the natural time to rest while the sun was at its height. The account given by Josephus of Moses resting by a well in. Midian (Ex. 2:15) provides a striking parallel: καθεσθείς ἐπί τινος φρέατος ἐκ τοῦ κόπου καὶ τῆς ταλαιπωρίας ἠρέμει μεσημβρίας οὕσης οὐ πόρρω τῆ πόλεως (Antt. ii. xi. 1). As in the Gospel story, Moses was sitting by the well at midday, weary with his journey, when the women came to draw water for their flocks. No doubt, the usual time for this was in the evening, but there is no improbability in water being drawn sometimes at noon, as Josephus represents it, and as Jn. says that the woman came to do.

7. “A woman of Samaria” (ἐκ τῆς Σαμαρίας: cf. 1:44). In later days she was commemorated as St. Photina, on March 20.

For ἀντλεῖν, the regular word for drawing water from a well, see on 2:8, 9 above.

δός μοι πεῖν. So א*B*C*D L the rec. has πιεῖν. This is a common Greek constr.; cf. Xen. Cyrop. vii. i. 1, τῷ δὲ Κύρῳ … προσήνεγκαν ἐμφαγεῖν καὶ πιεῖν, and see v. 33.

8. οἱ γὰρ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ κτλ., “For His disciples had gone into the city (sc. Sychar, vv. 5, 39) to buy food.” Had they been with Him, they would have been the natural persons to draw water for their Master, and He would not have had need to ask of a stranger. Probably they carried with them an ἅντλημα, or skin-bucket, as part of their travelling equipment, in which water could be drawn. The woman notices that Jesus has no ἄντλημα (v. 11).

We do not know which of His disciples were with Jesus on this journey (see on 2:2), or how many there were. See further on v. 18.

Syr. sin. places this clause in its chronological order after πηγῇ (v. 6), a rearrangement of the text made for the sake of clearness;¹ but the use of parenthesis is quite in Jn.’s style (see, e.g., 2:6).

That the disciples should buy victuals in a Samaritan town shows that the barrier between Jew and Samaritan was not impassable. The rule as to food seems to have varied from time to time. One Rabbinical precept is, “Let no man eat the bread of the Cuthæans, for he that eateth their bread is as he that eateth swine’s flesh” (M. Shebhiith, viii. 10), and Samaritan wine was forbidden to a Jew. But, on the other hand, “the victuals of the Cuthæans are permitted if not mixed with wine or vinegar” (Jesus. Ab. Zar. v. 4), and their unleavened bread was allowed (Bab. Kidd. 76a).¹ There was continuous traffic of Jews through Samaria—from Galilee to Jerusalem, and from Jerusalem to Galilee—and it is unlikely, except at moments of intense theological excitement, that a hungry traveller would have scrupled to buy bread in a Samaritan village, or that a Samaritan villager would have scrupled to sell it.

9. Πῶς σὺ Ἰουδαῖος ὢν κτλ. The Samaritan woman affects surprise—for her words are ironical—that a Jew should ask her for water. There was nothing strange in asking a woman for water, as it was women who generally drew it from the wells; cf. Gen. 24:17. However bitter the feeling between Jew and Samaritan, we cannot suppose that a draught of cold water in the noontide heat would be likely to be refused by either to other. It was counted the mark of a wicked man “not to have given water to the weary to drink” (Job. 22:7); and the precept of kindness was universal: “If thine enemy be thirsty, give him water to drink” (Prov. 25:21). Yet the woman makes her little gibe—half-jest, half-earnest—recalling to Jesus the old feud between Jews and Samaritans. She recognised Jesus as a Jew, perhaps by His dress or perhaps by His manner of speech (cf. Mt. 26:73). The narrative does not say explicitly that she granted the request of Jesus, Δός μοι πεῖν, but the reader is intended to understand that she did so.

The explanatory comment οὐ γὰρ συνχρῶνται Ἰουδαῖοι Σαμαρείταις, “for Jews do not treat familiarly with Samaritans,” is omitted by א*D a b e, but it must be retained with א^aA B C L T ^b W N Θ. συγχρᾶσθαι does not occur again in N.T., but it appears in Ignat. Magn. 3, ὑμῖν δὲ πρέπει μὴ συγχρᾶσθαι τῇ ἡλικίᾳ τοῦ ἐπισκόπου, “it becomes you not to presume upon the youth of your bishop,” to treat him with undue familiarity.

If συνχρῶνται is translated “have dealings with,” co-utuntur, the comment would not be accurate; for although Jews and Samaritans were intolerant of each other (cf. Lk. 9:53, Jn. 8:48), of necessity there was much business intercourse. As v. 8 indicates, Jews could trade with Samaritans, as indeed they could do with heathen (cf. Neh. 13:16).

The comment is not that of the Samaritan woman, but of the evangelist, and is quite in his manner (cf. Introd., p. xxxiv).

εἰ ᾔδεις τὴν δωρ. κτλ., “If thou knewest the gift of God”; Cf. 8:19. δωρεά, a free gift, occurs in the Gospels adverbially (Mt. 10:8), and is always used in the Acts and Epistles of a divine gift. It refers here to the “living water” mentioned in the next sentence, i.e. to the gift of the Holy Spirit (which δωρεά always indicates in the Acts). Some commentators have referred to 3:16, and have interpreted it of the gift which God gave of His Son, and the revelation of salvation through Him.

τίς ἐστιν ὁ λέγων σοι. The woman had taken Him for a Jew. But He was no ordinary Jew, and if she had understood who He was, she would have been the suppliant (σὺ ἂν ἤτησας αὐτόν, “It is you who would have asked Him), and He would have granted her request (cf. Mt. 7:7); He would have given her “living water.”

ἔδωκεν ἄν σοι ὕδωρ ζῶν. This saying was paradoxical in its form, like the saying with which the attention of Nicodemus was arrested (3:3). The woman did not understand it (v. 11), nor could she have been expected to do so. But Jesus is here following the method by which He was accustomed to convey instruction to simple people who were willing to learn; and the discourse which follows may be particularly compared with 6:26f. The plan of these instructions, for which there are Synoptic parallels, has been discussed in the Introduction, p. cxi.

ὕδωρ ζῶν. “Living water” is water issuing from a spring or fountain, unlike the water in Jacob’s Well, which was due to percolation and rainfall,¹ being collected in a kind of cistern or pit (τὸ φρέαρ, v. 12). This was good water, but had not the virtues of “running” or “living” water, such as was always preferred, especially for purposes of purification (Gen. 26:19, Lev. 14:5, Num. 19:17).

Water was full of symbolism to Eastern thought, and in the O.T. it is often symbolic of the Divine Wisdom which is the source of life. Thus “the law of the wise” is πηγὴ ζωῆς (Prov. 13:14; cf. Prov. 14:27). The Son of Sirach declares that he that possesses the law shall obtain wisdom: “with bread of understanding shall she feed him, and give him water of wisdom to drink” (Ecclus. 15:2, 3). Zechariah’s vision of hope is that “living waters shall go out from Jerusalem” (Zech. 14:8; cf. Ezek. 47:1, Joel 3:18), i.e. that in the glorious future the blessings of the Law shall be extended far and wide. The promise of Isaiah (12:3) is “with joy shall ye draw water out of the wells of salvation,” a passage specially parallel to the declaration of Christ here.

“If thou hadst known who it is that speaketh to thee, thou wouldest have asked Him, and He would have given thee living water.” To appreciate the depth of this saying, it must be remembered that, according to the O.T., it is Yahweh Himself who is the Fountain of living waters (Ps. 36:9, Jer. 2:13, 17:13; cf. Cant. 4:15, where the mystic Bride is described as φρέαρ ὕδατος ζῶντος). So also in the Apocalypse, the river of the Water of Life proceeds from the throne of God and of the Lamb (Rev. 22:1; cf. Rev. 7:17). Thus the statement of Jesus to the Woman of Samaria that, had He been asked, He would have given her living water, implies His claim to be One with the Lord of the O.T. prophets, who is alone the Source and Spring of the living waters which refresh the soul and assuage the spiritual thirst of men. See further on v. 14.

Note that Jesus does not call Himself the Living Water, although He calls Himself the Living Bread (6:51). It is from Him that the Living Water proceeds, for this is the symbol of the Spirit which He was to send (7:39).

There is no exact parallel in Philo to this doctrine of the Living Water which flows from the Word, although the similar idea expounded by St. Paul (1 Cor. 10:4) of the mystical meaning of the Rock in the Desert from which water flowed forth for the refreshment of Israel is found in Leg. Alleg. ii. 21: ἡ γὰρ ἀκρότομος πέτρα ἡ σοφία τοῦ θεοῦ ἐστιν, ἣν ἄκραν καὶ πρωτίστην ἔτεμεν ἀπὸ τῶν ἑαυτοῦ δυνάμεων, ἐξ ἧς ποτίζει τὰς φιλοθέους ψυχάς.

In the Messianic forecast of Isa. 35:7 one of the promised blessings was εἰς τὴν διψῶσαν γῆν πηγὴ ὕδατος, and at v. 26 below (where see note) Jesus is represented as declaring that He was Messiah. See on 9:1 for a quotation of this Messianic passage by Justin Martyr.

11. κύριε. She is impressed by the Speaker, and so addresses Him now (cf. vv. 15–19) in terms of respect (see on 1:38). How could He provide spring water, or water of any kind, without a bucket (ἄντλημα; cf. v. 8)?

For φρέαρ and its depth, see on v. 6. The broken Constr. οὔτε … καί is found only once again in N.T., at 3 Jn. 10.

λέγει αὐτῷ ἡ γυνή. B, with the Coptic Q and Syr. sin., omits ἡ γυνή; but א^cA C D L T ^b W Θ.

12. It could not be from the well, that Jesus would provide living water. Whence then could He get it? Even Jacob got water for himself and his household from this well. Was the Speaker greater than Jacob, who had to draw the water from the well like any one else?

μὴ σὺ μείζων εἶ τοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν Ἰακώβ; See 6:31 and cf. the similar question put by the Jews (8:53), “Art thou greater than our father Abraham?”

“Our father Jacob.” The Samaritans claimed descent from Joseph, through Ephraim and Manasseh (Josephus, Antt. xi. 8, 6).

ὃς ἔδωκεν ἡμῖν τὸ φρέαρ. Field compares Pausan. iii. 25, 3: ἔστι δὲ ἐν τῇ πυρρίχῳ φρέαρ ἐν τῇ ἀγορᾷ, δοῦναι δέ σφισι τὸν Σιληνὸν νομίζουσι.

θρέμμα is a word occurring nowhere else in the Greek Bible. τὰ θρέμματα means “cattle,” a usage of which Wetstein gives many instances; etymologically, it might include also Jacob’s servants or retainers, all who were fed by him.

13, 14. Jesus explains to the puzzled woman that He does not speak of ordinary spring water. Those who drink of it will thirst again; but the Living Water satisfies eternally (οὐ μὴ διψήσει εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα: cf. 6:35). The parallels between this discourse and that of 6:26f. have been exhibited in the Introduction, p. cxi.

14. “It shall become in him a fountain of water springing up unto eternal life.” In v. 10 the thought is of God as the Eternal Fountain; but it was also a Hebrew thought that the man who has assimilated the Divine Wisdom becomes himself, as it were, a fountain from which streams of the water of life proceed. Thus the promise of Isa. 58:11 is, “Thou shalt be like a spring of water, whose waters fail not.” Schoettgen quotes an apposite saying from the Talmud: “Quando homo se convertit ad dominum suum, tanquam fons aquis uiuis impletur, et fluenta eius egrediuntur ad omnis generis homines et ad omnes tribus.” And similarly Wetstein quotes from Tanchuma, f. 17. 1: “Unde Abrahamus didicit legem? R. Simeon filius Jochai dixit: bini renes eius tanquam binae lagenae aquarum factae sunt, ex quibus lex promanavit.” See on 7:38 below.

The passage in Ecclus. 24:21–31 about the Divine Wisdom presents some parallels to these thoughts. The stream of the waters of Wisdom comes originally from God: “Her thoughts are filled from the sea, and her counsels from the great deep” (v. 29). Of the wise man increasing in wisdom it may be said, “My stream became a river, and my river became a sea” (v. 31); these waters of Wisdom lose themselves at last in the same eternal Ocean whence they sprang. Cf. Ps. 36:9 παρὰ σοὶ πηγὴ ζωῆς. The water of life is, as Jesus says here, πηγὴ ὕδατος ἁλλομένου εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον, leaping forth to eternal life. C. Wesley puts it all in familiar words:

The verb ἅλλομαι does not seem to be applied elsewhere to the action of water. But water in this passage is symbolic of the Spirit (cf. 7:38f.); and “ἅλλομαι or ἐφάλλομαι in LXX is applied to the action of a ‘spirit of God,’ forcing its way or falling violently on Samson, Saul, and David.”¹ It may be, therefore, as E. A. Abbott has suggested, that ἁλλομένου is used here with special reference to the action of the Holy Spirit, vehement like that of rushing waters. If that be so, εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον expresses the purpose of this spiritual torrent of grace; it is “with a view to eternal life.”

There seems to be a reminiscence of this passage in Ignatius, Rom. 7, ὕδωρ δὲ ζῶν καὶ λαλοῦν† ἐν ἐμοί, where Lightfoot supposes the MS. reading to be a corruption of ὕδωρ δὲ ζῶν καὶ ἁλλόμενον. It is possible that there is also a trace of it in Justin (Tryph. 69). Commenting on Isa. 35:7 he says: πηγὴ ὕδατος ζῶντος παρὰ θεοῦ … ἀνέβλυσεν (i.e. has gushed forth) οὗτος ὁ Χριστός. Cf. also Tryph. 114, and see on 7:38.

In one important particular, at least, the promise of Jesus about the Living Water transcends what is said about the Water of Wisdom by the Son of Sirach. “They that drink me shall yet be thirsty” are the words of Ecclus. 24:21; the spiritual thirst is insatiable, so far as the Hebrew sage knew. But Jesus said: “Whosoever shall drink of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst” (cf. 6:35). To him who has appropriated the revelation of God in Christ, there is no sense of imperfection in the Divine gift, no dissatisfaction with it as insufficient. The Living Water is always quickening, always flowing in correspondence with human need. As Bengel puts it: “ubi sitis occurrit, hominis non aquae defectus est.” The promise of Jesus is that those who “thirst after righteousness shall be filled” (χορτασθήσονται, Mt. 5:6).

εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, “for ever.” This is a common phrase in the LXX and occurs elsewhere in the N.T.; but it is especially frequent in Jn. (6:51, 58, 8:35, 51, 52, 10:28, 11:26, 12:34, 13:8, 14:16, 1 Jn. 2:17, 2 Jn. 2).

The phrase εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον first appears in 4 Macc. 15:3, where a mother prefers to the temporal safety of her sons τὴν εὐσέβειαν … τὴν σώζουσαν εἰς αἰώνιον ζωὴν κατὰ θεόν. It appears again in Jn. 4:36, 6:27, 12:25, Rom. 5:21, 1 Tim. 1:16, and Jude 21, and in each case the reference is to the future life, the life after death (see note on 3:15).

15. λέγει πρὸς αὐτόν. For the constr., see on 2:3. For κύριε. Cf. v. 11.

δός μοι τοῦτο τὸ ὕδωρ. Cf. 6:34 δὸς ἡμῖν τὸν ἄρτον τοῦτον. The woman did not understand Jesus, words about the Water which assuages thirst for ever; and her reply is a puzzled request: “Give me this water, that I may not be thirsty, and need not come hither continually to draw from the well.” She speaks half in irony; for she does not believe in any πηγὴ ὕδατος such as Jesus had incomprehensibly spoken of as being “in” the recipient of His gift.

The rec. text has ἔρχωμαι with A C D WΓ Δ Θ; but א*B support διέρχωμαι. As Field points out, διέρχωμαι may have arisen from a mistake in transcribing μηδεερχωμαι; but in any case the prep. διά does not add special force to the verb here (cf. Lk. 2:15).

ἵνα μὴ διψῶ κτλ. For ἵνα with the pres. subj., cf. 6:29, 1 Jn. 1:2, 2:27, 5:3.

16. The exact bearing of the words of Jesus, “Go, call thy husband, and come hither,” is not easy to determine. Perhaps the woman was going off, after her last retort, and Jesus bade her come back again with her “husband,” as He wished to carry on His ministry at Sychar (v. 39). He had observed her intelligence, and He knew her need. Another interpretation of the words is that Jesus wished, by mentioning her “husband,” to recall her to a sense of her sad condition, that thus the way might be opened for a fuller presentation to her of His message. We cannot in any case assume that more than a fragment of the conversation has been preserved, and much that was said is, no doubt, omitted in the narrative of Jn. (see on v. 18).

For the verb ὑπάγειν, see on 16:7; and for the aor. imper. φώνησον, see on 2:5.

The woman, by this time, feels that she is in the presence of One to whom she cannot lie, and she confesses, “I have no husband.” Jesus gently shows her that He knows all about that, and about her past. “You had five husbands, and he whom thou hast now is not thy husband.” Jn. frequently lays stress on the power which Jesus had of reading men’s hearts (cf. 1:48, 2:24, 25). If the report of His words here is precise, He showed more than natural insight, and this the evangelist evidently means to suggest. But (see on v. 18) we have to remember that the record of this conversation probably depends on the subsequent report of the woman (v. 27), and in regard to some details she may have confused what her own guilty conscience told her with what Jesus saw in her face. On the other hand, to have had five husbands in succession would be an unusual experience, and the woman may have been notorious for the number of her marriages. But there is no hint in the narrative that Jesus had heard of her before, although there is nothing to exclude this possibility.

18. πέντε ἄνδρας. It is remarkable that Heracleon (according to Origen) read ἓξ ἄνδρας, a reading unknown elsewhere. Origen, himself, finds allegory in the number five, and says that it refers to the fact that the Samaritans only recognised as canonical the five books of Moses.¹

Upon the words πέντε γὰρ ἄνδρας ἔσχες κτλ. has been built a theory that the narrative of the Samaritan woman at the well is an allegory from beginning to end, and that the woman is a symbol of the Samaritan people. It is recorded (2 Kings 17:24f.) that the King of Assyria brought colonists from Babylon, Cuthah, Avva, Hamath, and Sepharvaim, and planted them in Samaria; and that each set of colonists brought with them the cult of their former national deities, who were worshipped side by side with Yahweh. Here then are the five “husbands” of the Samaritan woman, while the husband who was “not a husband” stands for the spurious cult of Yahweh, which to the Jews was little better than heathenism.¹ But this ingenious interpretation will not bear analysis. It appears from the narrative in 2 Kings 17:30, 31 that not five, but seven, strange deities were introduced into Samaria from Assyria.² Further, these were not the objects of worship in succession, but simultaneously, so that the supposed analogy to the successive husbands of the Samaritan woman breaks down. Again, the allegory would imply that the heathen deities had been the legitimate gods of Samaria, while Yahweh whom she came to worship was not a true “husband” at all, and that therefore Samaria’s relation to Yahweh was that of an illegitimate and shameful sort, shame equally resting on her and Him who was not her “husband.” No Christian writer of the first century, or of any century, would have ventured to construct an allegory so blasphemous when its implications are examined. This fancy may safely be rejected.

Another suggestion is that “he whom thou hast is not thy husband” alludes to Simon Magus, who had a great influence in Samaria (Acts 8:9–11).

But the simplest interpretation is the best. The narrative is a genuine reminiscence of an incident that actually happened, recorded many years after the event, and probably—so far as the words of the conversation are concerned—with much freedom. That Jesus expressed Himself so tersely and even enigmatically, to an ignorant woman, as the deep saying of v. 14 would suggest, without explaining what He said more fully, is improbable. On the other hand, the vividness and simplicity of the story have the note of actuality. The narrative brings out clearly the main features of the interview between Jesus and the woman, and it is easy to follow the general lines of their conversation.

When the woman got back to her friends (v. 29) she reported in eager haste what her experience had been, and told them what Jesus had said to her. She may have exaggerated or confused words here and there, but that the incident became known to any one was probably due to her own talk about it. Jesus seems to have been alone with her (v. 27), but this is not certain. If we could suppose that one of the disciples remained with his Master at the well, while the others went into Sychar to make their purchases (which would a priori be probable), then we should be able to refer the report of the conversation to the disciple’s recollection, as well as to the woman’s account of it. And that the disciple who remained with his Master is not mentioned by the evangelist would not surprise us if he were John the son of Zebedee, who is kept so much out of sight in the Fourth Gospel, while at the same time his reminiscences are behind large parts of it. But this only can be affirmed with certainty, that the woman told the story to her fellow-villagers, and with such emphasis that many of them “believed on” Jesus, so that He (and no doubt His disciples) stayed at Sychar for two days (v. 40). All the disciples who were present (see on v. 8) must have become thoroughly familiar with her report.

19. For κύριε, see v. 11, and for the shades of meaning of θεωρεῖν see on 2:23.

κύριε, θεωρῶ κτλ., “Sir, I perceive,” sc. from what you have said, “that you are a prophet” (cf. 9:17, Lk. 7:16, “a prophet” not “the prophet”). A prophet was one who had special powers of insight, as well as of foresight. Cf. Lk. 7:39, where the Pharisee objects that if Jesus were really a prophet He would have known that the woman with the cruse of ointment was a sinner. The Samaritan woman was astonished at the knowledge of her personal history which Jesus displayed, and, by her reply, she virtually confesses that it is wit! her even as He had said.

20. The woman diverts the conversation to another subject, and proceeds to raise a theological difficulty, either to evade the personal issue, or because she was honestly anxious to learn what a prophet with such wonderful insight would say about the standing controversy between Jews and Samaritans. Probably both motives affected her.

οἱ πατέρες ἡμῶν κτλ., “Our fathers worshipped in this mountain,” i.e. Mount Gerizim, at the foot of which Jacob’s Well is situated. Abraham (Gen. 12:7) and Jacob (Gen. 33:20) had set up altars at Shechem; and the Samaritan Pentateuch at Deut. 27:4 recorded the setting up of an altar in Mount Gerizim (the true reading being Mount Ebal); cf. also Deut. 11:29, 27:12. After the Return from the Babylonian Captivity, the Jews and Samaritans parted company, and a temple was erected on Mount Gerizim about 400 b.c. It was destroyed by John Hyrcanus about 129 b.c.; but the odium theologicum grew more bitter thereafter, and in the first century the hatred between Jew and Samaritan was ready to break out at any moment.

καὶ ὑμεῖς λέγετε κτλ., “and you (i.e. the Jews) say that in Jerusalem is the place where one ought to worship.” ὁ τόπος is “the place (Deut. 12:5) which the Lord your God shall choose … to put His Name there” (cf. Deut 16:2, 26:3), but the name of the place is not given in the Books of the Law, and the Samaritans recognised no later Scriptures (as they deemed them). Thus such passages as 2 Chron. 6:6, 7:12, Ps. 78:68, to which Jews appealed as justifying their claim for Jerusalem as the appointed religious centre, were not recognised as authoritative by Samaritans. For τόπος as indicating the Temple, see 11:48.

J. Lightfoot¹ illustrates this passage by the following from Bereshith Rabba, § 32: “R. Jochanan going to Jerusalem to pray, passed by Mount Gerizim. A certain Samaritan, seeing him, asked him, ‘Whither goest thou?’ ‘I am,’ saith he ‘going to Jerusalem to pray.’ To whom the Samaritan, ‘Were it not better for thee to pray in this holy mountain than in that cursed house’?” Cf. Lk. 9:53 and Jn. 8:48.

The verb προσκυνεῖν is used absolutely here and at 12:20; it may be followed either by a dative, 4:21, 23, 9:38 (as always in Mk. and Paul), or by an accusative, 4:22, 23 (as in Lk. 24:52). It is noteworthy that in the Apocalypse, where it occurs 25 times, there is the same variety of construction as in Jn. Cf. Rev. 5:14 for the same absolute use as here.² The word always stands in Jn. for divine worship, while elsewhere it sometimes signifies no more than respect (cf. Mt. 18:26 and perhaps Mt. 8:2).

21. πίστευέ μοι, γύναι, is read by א B C*L W; the rec. has γύναι, πίστευσόν μοι (A D NΓ Δ Θ).

πίστευέ μοι, a unique phrase in the Greek Bible, calls attention to the fact that what follows is deliberately said: the more usual ἀμήν ἀμήν does not occur in this chapter (see on 1:51). In a monastic Rule formerly ascribed to St. Benedict it was laid down that no stronger form of asseveration than this is to be used: “iuramentum aliud nemo proferat, nisi Crede mihi, sicut in euangeliis legimus dominum Samaritanae affirmasse, aut Certe aut Sane.”³

ἔρχεται ὥρα, “an hour is coming”: so v. 23, 5:25, 28 16:2, 25, 32. That the phrase occurs 7 times exactly is noted by Abbott (Diat. 2625).

It is not ἡ ὥρα, for the thought of the inevitableness of the predestined hour (see on 2:4) is not present here; cf. Lk. 17:22.

οὔτε … οὔτε …, “not (only) in Gerizim and not (only) in Jerusalem.” These ancient rivalries will disappear when the spirituality of true religion is fully realised. The prophets had already taken this wide view. “Men shall worship Yahweh, every one from his place,” was the vision of Zephaniah (2:11): “in every place incense is offered unto my Name, and a pure offering,” was Malachi’s forecast (1:11). The words ascribed to Jesus here are in entire harmony with His saying about the destruction of the Temple, and its replacement by the spiritual temple of believers (see on 2:19). Cf. Acts 7:48, 17:24, 25.

“The Father,” not as contrasted with “the Son” (see 3:35), but as the Father of all men. The Samaritan woman had referred to “our father Jacob,” and “our fathers (who) worshipped” in Gerizim (vv. 12, 20); but pride of ancestry is to be replaced by the thought of the universal Fatherhood of God, when questions pertaining to worship are being answered.

ὁ πατήρ is a very frequent designation of God in Jn.; but it nearly always occurs in connexion with the thought of the Sonship of Christ. Here, however, it is rather “the Universal Father”; perhaps we may compare 8:27, 16:26f. (see on 6:27).

22. This verse is an assertion of the superiority of the Jewish religion to the Samaritan, not based on any difference as to the place of worship, rather on the difference as to their knowledge of the Object of worship. “Ye,” i.e. the Samaritans, “worship that which ye know not” (cf. ἣν ὑμεῖς οὐκ οἴδατε in v. 32). They accepted Yahweh for the true God, indeed, but they knew little about Him. By refusing to recognise the writings of the prophets and psalmists they had shut themselves off from all revelation of God except that which was contained in the Law. The Athenian inscription Ἀγνώστῳ θεῷ quoted in Acts 17:23 provides no parallel to the ignorance of the Samaritans. The Samaritans knew, as the Athenians professedly did not know, the Name of the God to whom they erected their altar on Mount Gerizim; but their ignorance was an ignorance of His character and purposes.

“We,” on the other hand, i.e. the Jews, “worship that which we know” (but cf. 7:28), the same God as the God of the Samaritans, but known to Jews as He was not known to Samaritans; cf. Ps. 147:19, 20.¹ The Jews were the chosen people, “whose is the adoption and the glory and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service (of God), and the promises” (Rom. 9:4). Paul’s enumeration of their prerogatives is not more emphatic than the calm statement, “We worship that which we know.” The woman of Samaria is not permitted to suppose that the Speaker believes the Samaritan religion to be as good as the Jewish, although He tells her that in the future their poor rivalries as to their respective sanctuaries will be disregarded as of no consequence. He gives the reason why the Jewish religion is, and must be, superior: ἡ σωτηρία ἐκ τῶν Ἰουδαίων ἐστίν.

ἡ σωτηρία, “the salvation,” the Messianic deliverance (see on 3:17), was the central thought of Jewish national expectation (cf. Lk. 1:69, 71, 77, Acts 13:26, 47). It was to come from the tribe of Judah, ἐκ τῶν Ἰουδαίων, as distinct from the other tribes; cf. Gen. 49:10 (a passage which Samaritans accepted as canonical, although they do not seem to have taken it as Messianic), Isa. 59:20 (quoted Rom. 11:26). Later Judaism held firmly to this conviction of Jewish prerogative. Cf. Test. of XII. Patr., Dan. 5:10, “There shall arise unto you from the tribe of [Judah and] Levi the salvation of Yahweh”; see also Gad viii. 1, Naph. viii. 2). See further for σωτήρ, σωτηρία, on 4:42. Here the point is that the Messianic deliverance was to be ἐκ τῶν Ἰουδαίων. For the constr. εἶναι ἐκ … cf. 1:46, 7:22, 52, 10:16; and for “the Jews” in the Fourth Gospel, see on 1:19.

The force of ἡμεῖς must be observed: “We worship that which we know.” Jesus, here, definitely associates Himself with the Jews; He is a Jew. Their God is His God. Nowhere in the Gospels is there another passage so emphatic as this, in its assertion of the common nationality of Jesus and the Jews who rejected Him; cf. Mt. 15:24. Here He associates Himself with Jews in a common worship. The plural οἴδαμεν in 3:11 (see note) is not a true parallel to this. See on 15:25.

In this verse are expressed the worthiness of Jewish worship and the supreme privilege of the Jewish race; but in v. 23 we have on the other hand the simplicity of the ideal worship of God and the catholicity of true religion. Both aspects are included in the Fourth Gospel. The evangelist is not forgetful of the debt which Christianity owes to Judaism, while he views Christianity sub specie œternitatis as for all men and for all time.

23, 24. The repetition of τοὺς προσκυνοῦντας seems to have misled scribes and translators, so that there are a good many minor variants, but none calling for special notice. Syr. cur. exhibits extraordinary confusion here, for in it v. 24 runs as follows: “For God is a Spirit, and those that worship Him in spirit, and to worship for them it behoves, even those that in spirit and in truth worship Him.”¹

23. ἔρχεται ὥρα, repeated from v. 21 (where see note), the theme of that verse, which has been temporarily abandoned in v. 22, being resumed. It is a question whether καὶ νῦν ἐστίν, both here and at 5:25, should not be treated as an editorial comment on the words of Jesus. But probably the words “and now is” are appended to “an hour is coming,” to obviate any misunderstanding. Jesus has told the Samaritan woman that the old rivalries as to sanctuary are passing away, and that in the future “the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth.” But that is not confined to the future; it may be equally asserted of the present, that true worshippers worship thus. See on 5:25.

For the word ἀληθινός, “genuine,” see on 1:9. Here οἱ ἀληθινοὶ προσκυνηται is equivalent to “the genuine worshippers”: at whatever altar they worship, they worship ἐν πνεύματι καὶ ἀληθείᾳ.

The πνεῦμα is the highest in man, for it associates him with God who is Spirit. In so far as a man walks κατὰ πνεῦμα, does he realise the dignity of his being (cf. Rom. 8:5). To worship ἐν πνεύματι is, then, to worship in harmony with the Divine Spirit, and so to worship in truth (cf. 16:13 τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας). This is a general statement, and we must not bring in here thoughts which are peculiar to Christian doctrine, because of that fuller revelation of God which was granted in the Incarnation. Indeed, Philo has a passage precisely parallel: γνήσιοι [θεραπεῖαι] δὲ εἰσὶν αἱ ψυχῆς ψιλὴν καὶ μόνην θυσίαν φερούσης, ἀλήθειαν, sc. “Genuine religious services are those of a soul offering the plain and only sacrifice, viz. truth” (quod. det. pot. insid. 7). Cf. Ps. 145:18.

καὶ γάρ only occurs again in Jn. at 4:45; it seems to mean “for indeed” (but cf. Abbott, Diat. 2167).

ζητεῖ, “seeks.” It is not only that the true worshippers are accepted of God, but that He seeks for such. The approach of man to God is not initiated by man; the first movement of love is on the side of God. This is the constant teaching of Jn.; cf. 1 Jn. 4:10, and Jn. 3:16, 6:44, 15:16. It is a phase of that doctrine of pre-destination which underlies the Fourth Gospel; see note on 3:14. The gift of the Spirit is a necessary preliminary to spiritual worship.

24. πνεῦμα ὁ θεός. The spirituality of God was an essential tenet of Judaism (cf. 1 Kings 8:27, Isa. 31:3), although all its implications were not recognised. It was a tenet common to Jews and Samaritans, but it is here for the first time put into three words, and its bearing on the nature of worship drawn out. The similar phrases ὁ θεὸς φῶς ἐστίν, ὁ θεὸς ἀγάπη ἐστίν (1 Jn. 1:5, 4:8), show that we must render “God is Spirit,” not “God is a spirit.” It is the Essential Being, rather than the Personality, of God which is in question.

The consequence of this, as regards worship, is repeated from v. 23. For true worship there must be affinity between the Worshipped and the worshipper.

ἐν πνεύματι καὶ ἀληθεία. א* has the aberrant reading ἐν πνεύματι ἀληθείας (from 14:17).

For the repetition of the phrase “worship in spirit and in truth” from v. 23, see on 3:16 above. Such refrains or repetitions are a special feature of Johannine style.

25. Little is known about the Messianic doctrine of the Samaritans, but that they cherished Messianic hopes, although less clearly than the Jews did, is known from other sources, Josephus (Antt. XVIII. iv. 1) tells of a rising in Samaria, quelled by Pilate, which was evidently due to a kind of fanaticism, similar to that of Simon Magus in the same district (Acts 8:9) who gave himself out to be “some great one.”¹ The Samaritan woman thought of Messiah as a prophet, like the prophet foretold in Deut. 18:18 (cf. v. 29 below). This was common to Jew and Samaritan, that Messiah was to be a Revealer of new truths about God and man: ὅταν ἔλθῃ ἐκεῖνος, ἀναγγελεῖ (cf. 16:13) ἡμῖν ἅπαντα. Thus in the Similitudes of Enoch (xlvi. 3) there is a description of the Son of Man “who reveals all the treasures of that which is hidden, because the God of spirits hath chosen Him.”

The Samaritan woman had already confessed that Jesus was “a prophet” (v. 19); but now she begins to wonder if He may not be more. “I know,” she says it wistfully, “that Messiah is coming; when He comes, He will declare all things to us.” Her words are almost a query; they invite a further declaration on the part of Jesus, which He gives forthwith.

Messiah is here without the article, and the title may have been used as a kind of proper name. At 1:41 (where see note) it has the article, and there as here is explained by Jn. for his Greek readers (cf. 1:38). ὁ λεγόμενος is not “which is interpreted” (ὅ ἐστιν μεθερμηνευόμενον, 1:41), but is equivalent to “which is commonly called,” χριστός being used like a proper name by the time that the Fourth Gospel was written. See, for a similar usage, 11:16 and cf. 5:2.

26. Jesus declares Himself. “I who am talking to you (λαλῶν) am He.” So, to the blind man whose sight had been restored, He said ὁ λαλῶν μετὰ σοῦ ἐκεῖνός ἐστιν (9:37). The usage of the phrase ἐγώ εἰμι in Jn. has been discussed in the Introduction, p. cxx; and it is probable that this is one of the cases where, although the predicate is not expressed, it is implied in the context: “I that talk to you am the Christ.” See on v. 10.

Nevertheless, the phrase ἐγώ εἰμι αὐτὸς ὁ λαλῶν is placed in the mouth of Yahweh at Isa. 52:6, and it may be that Jn. here intends ἐγώ εἰμι to indicate the style of Deity, as at other points (see Introd., p. cxxi). Cf. esp. 8:58.

ἐγώ εἰμι, ὁ λαλῶν σοι,, then, if not an assertion of the Speaker’s Divinity, is at any rate an assertion of His Messiah-ship. That it should have been made so early in His public ministry is not in accordance with what we should gather from the Synoptists. Perhaps Jn. has antedated this momentous declaration; or perhaps it was actually made on this occasion, although unheard or unnoticed by Peter, who may not have been present with Jesus on His journey through Samaria (see on v. 8 above).

27. ἐπὶ τούτῳ κτλ., “upon this came His disciples,” i.e. at this point in the story. ἐπὶ τούτῳ is not used elsewhere in the N.T. in this sense, but the reading is well attested, only א*D having ἐν τούτῳ.

ἐθαύμαζον, “began to wonder” or “kept wondering.” This is the true reading (א A B C D W Θ) as against the rec. ἐθαύμασαν.

To talk with a woman in a public place was not consonant with the grave dignity of a Rabbi; Lightfoot quotes the Rabbinical precept, “Let no one talk with a woman in the street, no, not with his own wife.”¹

Yet the disciples had learnt by this time that Jesus had good reason for what He did, and they did not venture to expostulate. They did not ask the woman Τί ζητεῖς; “What do you want?” nor did they ask Jesus Τί λαλεῖς μετʼ αὐτῆς; “Why are you talking with her?” That they did not ask these questions, which they were tempted to ask, is the reminiscence of some one who was of the company. For μέντοι, see on 12:42.

28. The woman was so much impressed that she went off to tell her friends in Sychar. She left her waterpot, or ὑδρία, which was a large, heavy vessel (cf. 2:6), behind her, as she intended to return speedily. Probably it had not yet been filled, as she had been engrossed with the conversation (cf. v. 7), and it was useless to carry it backwards and forwards.

29. During the heat of the day, the men of the village were not working in the fields, and so she found them readily. In her excitement, she uses the exaggerated language of an uneducated woman, “Come and see a man who told me all things that ever I did.”

μήτι οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ χριστός; “Is this, perhaps, the Christ?” (see on v. 25). Cf. Mt. 12:23 μήτι οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ υἱὸς Δαυείδ; and Jn. 8:22 (for the form of sentence) μήτι ἀποκτενεῖ ἑαυτόν; The question is put tentatively, with just a shade of hope that the answer may turn out to be in the affirmative. But cf. 18:35 and 21:5, where μήτι introduces a question to which it is assumed that the answer will be “No.”

30. We have seen above (v. 25) that the Samaritans had Messianic hopes. The men of Sychar were so much impressed by what the woman told them that they left the village and “were coming” (ἤρχοντο) to Him. The impft. tense is used as indicating that they were on their way while the conversation between Jesus and His disciples which follows was being carried on.

The redundant ἐξῆλθον ἐκ occurs again 8:42, 59, 10:39, 1 Jn. 2:19; and cf. 18:29.

31. ἐν τῷ μεταξύ (subaud. χρόνῳ), “in the meanwhile,” sc. before the Samaritan villagers arrived. There is no exact parallel to this use of μεταξύ in the Greek Bible; but cf. Acts 13:42 and Lk. 8:1.

ἠρώτων αὐτόν κτλ., “the disciples begged Him, saying, Rabbi, eat.” For of οἱ μαθηταί used absolutely of the disciples who were present, see on 2:2. For ἐρωτᾶν, “to beseech,” cf. vv. 40, 47. The disciples (see vv. 8, 31) were apprehensive lest He should be overcome by hunger and fatigue (cf. v. 6).

32. Jesus had been fatigued, but He was sustained by spiritual support of which the disciples did not know (v. 34). ἐγώ and ὑμεῖς are both emphatic.

βρῶσις occurs again 6:27, 55, in the same sense as the more correct form βρῶμα (see v. 34), viz. that of the thing eaten, not of the act of eating (as in 1 Cor. 8:4). The only other occurrence of βρῶσις in the Gospels is in Mt. 6:19, 20, where it means “rust.”

33. The conversation pursues the course usual in Jn.’s narrative. Jesus utters a profound saying (v. 32). It is misunderstood and its spiritual meaning is not discerned (v. 33). Then He enlarges the saying and explains it to some extent.¹

Here the puzzled disciples say to each other (πρὸς ἀλλήλους; cf. 16:17), “Did some one perhaps bring Him something to eat?”

μή τις ἤνεγκεν αὐτῷ φαγεῖν; For constr., see on 4:7; and cf. v. 29 for the form of the sentence.

34. ποιήσω is read by B C D L N T^b Θ W the rec. text has ποιῶ, with א A Γ Δ. Yet ποιήσω may be due to assimilation of tense with τελειώσω which follows.

Jesus answers the disciples by reminding them that it was in the fulfilment of His mission that He had His strength and His joy. He had been tired and, no doubt, hungry; but the joy of perceiving the receptiveness of the Samaritan woman and the eager welcome which the villagers gave Him was sufficient to renew His vigour of body as well as of spirit.

To do God’s will is the supreme obligation of man at every moment of life, and to it is attached the supreme reward (Mk. 3:35, Mt. 7:21, Jn. 7:17, 9:31 and passim). The condition “Thy will be done” (Mt. 6:10) governs all Christian prayer, as it governed the prayer of Christ (Lk. 22:42, Mt. 26:42) at Gethsemane. Christ’s “meat” was to do the will of God, the metaphor being similar to that suggested by “Man doth not live by bread alone, but by every word of God” (Deut. 8:3), which was the Scripture thought that supported Him in His Temptation (Mt. 4:4, Lk. 4:4); cf. Job 23:12, Ps. 119:103. It was in Him that the words of the Psalm, “Lo, I come to do thy will, O God,” received their complete fulfilment (Ps. 40:7, 8, Heb. 10:7).

ἐμὸν βρῶμά ἐστιν ἵνα ποιήσω κτλ.: ἵνα has no telic force here (cf. 6:29, 15:8, 17:3), “My meat is to do, etc.” Wetstein quotes a good parallel from Thucyd. i. 70 μήτε ἑορτὴν ἄλλο τι ἡγεῖσθαι ἢ τὸ τὰ δέοντα πρᾶξαι.

βρῶμα is found in Jn. only in this verse; see above (v. 32) on βρῶσις. The thought is one which appears many times in Jn.; e.g. “I seek not mine own will, but the will of Him that sent me” (5:30), and “I am come down from heaven not to do mine own will, but the will of Him that sent me” (6:38); cf. 14:31 and Acts 13:22.

τοῦ πέμψαντός με. For the conception of Jesus as “sent” by God, see on 3:17.

καὶ τελειώσω αὐτοῦ τὸ ἔργον, “and to accomplish His work.” “To do God’s will” is, in a measure, within the reach of any man, but “to accomplish His work,” to perform it perfectly and completely, was possible only for the Son of Man. This perfection of achievement bore witness to the uniqueness of His mission: “The works that the Father hath given me to accomplish bear witness that the Father hath sent me” (5:36). So at the close of His ministry He could say, “I have accomplished the work which Thou hast given me to do” (17:4); and from the Cross came the word τετέλεσται (19:30).

35. The illustration of the harvest used by Jesus to unfold to the disciples the significance of the incident just narrated brings Jn. into line with the Synoptists, who repeatedly tell of His parables of the seed.

He was the Great Sower (cf. Mk. 4:14ff.), and the seed just now sown in the heart of the Samaritan woman was springing up already. The harvest of souls at Sychar followed forthwith upon the sowing, contrary to the natural order in which he who wishes to reap must have patience and wait. Natural law does not always prevail in the spiritual world. The spiritual harvest was ready to be reaped with joy (v. 35), so that Sower and reaper might rejoice together (v. 36). But the reaping would not be for Him. It was the apostles who were to reap at a later date the harvest which originally sprang from the seed that He had sown in Samaria.

τετράμηνος So א A B C D L N T ^b Θ, as against the rec. τετράμηνον. τετράμηνος does not occur again in the Greek Bible, although τετράμηνον (used as a substantive) is read by A at Judg. 19:2, 20:47. The meaning “four months long” is not doubtful, and the words τετράμηνός ἐστιν καὶ ὁ θερισμὸς ἔρχεται mean “the harvest comes in four months’ time.” But we cannot interpret this as indicating that the harvest of the fields of Sychar would not be ready for four months from the date of the interview of the woman of Samaria with Jesus, for that would involve the scene being laid in January or early in February. That was the rainy season, and there would have been no difficulty in getting water to drink, such as is suggested (vv. 6, 7). The words οὐχ ὑμεῖς λέγετε, “Do you not say?” which introduce the sentence, suggest that it was a proverbial phrase.

J. Lightfoot (Hor. Hebr., in loc.) quotes a passage from a Rabbinical writer, showing that the agricultural year was divided into six periods of two months each, viz. seed-time, winter, spring, harvest, summer, and the season of extreme heat, so that the interval between sowing and harvest would be reckoned roughly as four months, although actually it might be a little longer. Thus Jesus here reminds His disciples of a rural saying, “Harvest does not come for four months,” and then he points to the contrast with the spiritual harvest already ripe for gathering in the hearts of the Samaritan villagers, although the seed had been sown only that day.

The words of this proverbial saying, with a trifling change, form a line of iambic verse:¹

If Jn. represented Jesus as quoting Greek iambics, then there would be some ground for treating the narrative of c. 4 as an allegory rather than as an historical reminiscence, freely edited. But this would be at variance with the general lines on which the Gospel is written. The disciples elsewhere (see on 1:38) address Jesus in Aramaic, and doubtless He spoke in the same language to them. That Jn. should represent them as familiar with a Greek proverb in verse is incredible. Further, not only is this proverb unknown in Greek literature, but it would be hard for it to have currency among Greeks. There is no evidence that the Greeks had a sixfold division of the agricultural year as the Hebrews had; and if they did not adopt this division, four months would not be as likely an interval to be contemplated as normal between seed-time and harvest as five or even six months.

Again, ἔτι precedes τετράμηνός ἐστιν κτλ. in א A B C N T ^b W D Θ, and has to be retained, although it is omitted by D L fam. 13 Syr. cur. But ἔτι spoils the iambic senarius, and yet it must be reckoned with; for the saying which Jesus quotes as familiar to the disciples is, “There are yet four months (sc. from the time of sowing), and then comes the harvest.”

We conclude, therefore, that the rhythm of ὁ θερισμὸς ἔρχεται is an accident, and that we are to regard the whole phrase as the Greek rendering of an Aramaic agricultural proverb. See 5:14 for another accidental Greek verse.

With the paratactic constr. ἔτι τετράμηνός ἐστιν καὶ ὁ θερισμὸς ἔρχεται, Milligan² compares the illiterate P Par. 18:14 ἔτι δύο ἡμέρας ἔχομεν καὶ φθάσομεν εἰς Πηλοίσι.

ἰδού λέγω ὑμῖν. ἰδού is unusual in Jn., occurring again only in 16:32, 19:5 (12:15 is a LXX quotation). Jn. generally has ἴδε (see on 1:29). ἰδού here and at 16:32 is almost equivalent to “but”; it introduces a contrast with what has gone before.

ἐπάρατε τοὺς ὀφθαλμούς is an expressive phrase, suggesting careful and deliberate gaze, which we have both in O.T. (Gen. 13:10, 2 Sam. 18:24, 1 Chron. 21:16, Ezek. 18:6) and in N.T. (Lk. 16:23, 18:13, Mt. 17:8). See on 6:5 (cf. 11:41, 17:1), where, as here, the phrase is followed by the verb θεᾶσθαι, which in the N.T. (see on 1:14) is always used of seeing with the bodily eyes.³

The disciples could see for themselves that the fields (cf. Lk. 21:21 for this use of χώρα) were whitening for the harvest already. Jesus does not say that the material harvest of the fields of Sychar was springing up immediately after it had been sown; the harvest of which He speaks is expressly contrasted with the harvest that takes months to grow and ripen. The allusion is to the spiritual receptiveness of the Samaritan woman, the measure of faith which she has already exhibited (v. 29), and the eagerness with which her friends and neighbours were even now coming to inquire of Jesus for themselves. These were the fields for the spiritual harvest, which was patent not to the eye of faith only, but to the bodily eyes of the disciples, for these people were hastening to meet them even at the moment of speaking.

ἤδη may be taken either with what precedes, or with what follows. But the word “already” seems to go more impressively with what has just been said than with the saying of v. 36.

Nothing, then, can be certainly inferred as to the time of year from this verse. The fields may have, literally, been ready for the reapers, and if so, it was the harvest season. That, in itself, would bring home to the disciples the meaning of the Lord’s words about the spiritual harvest; but it is clear that it is the spiritual harvest which is primarily referred to in v. 35b, while it is the natural harvest which is the subject of the proverb of v. 35a.

36. The terse, pithy aphorisms of vv. 35–37 recall the sayings of Jesus recorded in the Synoptists, by their form no less than by the use of the illustration of sowing and reaping. See Introd., p. cx.

ὁ θερίζων μισθὸν λαμβάνει. Cf. the more general saying, true of all labour and not only of that in the fields, ἄξιος γὰρ ὁ ἐργάτης τοῦ μισθοῦ αὐτοῦ (Lk. 10:7); and also 2 Tim. 2:6. Here the reaper reaps in spiritual fields, and his reward is that he gathers fruit unto life eternal. (For this phrase, see on 4:14.) The reaping is itself the reward, because of the joy which it brings; the “fruit” which is gathered is that of the spiritual harvest, the outlook being not that only of the present life, but of that which is to come.

Jn. does not use the word μισθός again, but of καρπός he has much (15:2f.) to say. The apostles were chosen (15:16) ἵνα ὑμεῖς ὑπάγητε καὶ καρπὸν φέρητε, καὶ ὁ καρπὸς ὑμῶν μένῃ. Just as Paul speaks of his converts as καρπός (Rom. 1:13), so here the “fruit” which the disciples were to gather εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον was the harvest of souls in Samaria.¹

ἵνα ὁ σπείρων κτλ., “so that the sower may rejoice together with the reaper.” This is quite contrary to the natural order. In nature the rule is that men sow in tears, if they are afterwards to reap in joy (Ps. 126:5, 6). The labour of the sower is heavy, and it precedes by a long interval (cf. v. 35) the joy of the reapers at harvest-time (Isa. 9:3). But the prophet had sung of the wonderful days of Messiah, when “the plowman shall overtake the reaper, and the treader of grapes him that soweth the seed” (Amos 9:13; cf. Lev. 26:5), so fertile should the land be. Something like this had happened at Sychar. The Sower was rejoicing along with the reapers, who were already gathering fruit unto life eternal. See on 11:15.

ὁμοῦ is found again in N.T. only at 20:4, 21:2 and Acts 2:1; and it is infrequent in the LXX.

37. The rec. text has ὁ before ἀληθινός, but om. א B C*L N T^b W Δ.

ἐν γὰρ τούτῳ κτλ., “Herein is the saying true (ἀληθινός, for which see on 1:9), One soweth, and another reapeth.” Another proverb is cited here, for which many parallels can be found. Wetstein quotes ἄλλοι μέν σπείρουσιν, ἄλλοι δʼ ἀμήσονται.

That the sower should not have the joy of reaping is regarded in the O.T. as a sad thing (Job 31:8), and is spoken of as a punishment for sin (Deut. 28:30, Mic. 6:15). Yet this often happens, not through sin but through the unselfishness of the sower or the inevitable conditions of his work. So here, Jesus was the Sower, but He permitted His disciples to reap. And the labourer in the field of the spirit must be ready to acknowledge that “One sows, another reaps,” may be a condition of his highest usefulness. “Sic uos, non uobis” is his Master’s challenge.

But more was involved here, and a greater paradox than is suggested by the reaper being a different person from the sower. That a man should reap where he had not sown is, indeed, ordinarily a matter for peculiar thankfulness on his part (Deut. 6:11, Josh. 24:13); but this privilege is the natural prerogative of the lord of the. fields, who sends his servants to sow, but takes the harvest for himself (Mt. 25:26). Yet Jesus, who was here the Lord of the harvest, had Himself done the sowing, while He permitted His servants to gather the fruits.

Hence ἀληθινός means more than ἀληθής here. The proverb is not only accurate, if cynical, in regard to the physical harvest; but the highest illustration of its truth is seen in the spiritual region. Cf. Abbott, Diat. 1727i.

38. This is to repeat what has already been said, but puts it into plainer language. ἐγώ is emphatic; it was I who sent you to reap in a field which you had not sown.

If we confine the words ἐγὼ ἀπέστειλα ὑμᾶς κτλ. to the incident just narrated, the verse yields a quite intelligible sense. The disciples had not “laboured” in Sychar; the seed was sown there by Jesus Himself, and in some measure by the Samaritan woman. Primarily, Jesus and the woman were the ἄλλοι into whose labours the disciples had entered, not to speak of every prophet and pious teacher of the past who had prepared the way in Samaria for the message of Christ.

The verb ἀποστέλλειν is frequent in Jn. (see on 3:17); but it is only used once again by Jn. of Jesus sending forth His disciples, viz. at 17:18, nor does Jn. use the title ἀπόστολος of them (cf. 13:16). But ἐγὼ ἀπέστειλα ὑμᾶς at once suggests a mission such as those recorded Mk. 3:14, 6:7, although Jn. has not described anything of the kind; and it might be thought that these words placed by Jn. in the mouth of Jesus here have reference to a former sending forth of the Twelve, such as the Synoptists report, rather than to any mission confined to the disciples (see on v. 8) who were with Jesus at Sychar. But the missions of the Twelve and of the Seventy were of men who were sent to sow rather than to reap, nor could they be fitly described by the words, “I sent you to reap where you had not laboured.” Nor can we be sure that the missions of Mk. 3:14, 6:7 had been initiated before this Samaritan journey took place (see on 6:1).

Pfleiderer¹ suggests that the words of this verse, which might fitly be applied to the later work of the apostles (e.g. Acts 8:5–7, 14f.), are carelessly applied here by Jn. to an early incident in Jesus’ ministry. But the fact is that the words “others have laboured and you have entered into their labours” will fit every period of the Church’s life, as they would fit every era of scientific discovery. That, however, does not supply any ground for refusing credence to the statement that they, or words like them (for Jn. writes freely), were addressed by Jesus to His disciples at Sychar, as conveying a lesson which it was good for them to learn.

39. The Samaritan villagers who, on another occasion, rejected Jesus and His disciples had not heard Him teach; their objection to His presence was not personal, but rested on the fact that, as a Jew, He was going to Jerusalem to keep a feast (Lk. 9:52). The people of Sychar, on the other hand, were won by His words (v. 42).

πολλοί ἐπίστευσαν εἰς αὐτόν. The phrase is a favourite with Jn., occurring six times (cf. 7:31, 8:30, 10:42, 11:45, 12:42). The aorist seems to indicate a definite, but not necessarily lasting, movement of faith evoked by special words or deeds of Jesus. For the constr. πιστεύειν εἴς τινα, see on 1:12.

The first believers at Samaria were won, not by visible miracles or signs (cf. 2:23, 7:31, 10:42, 11:45, 12:42), but by the woman’s report of what Jesus had said to her. Many more believed because of His sayings which they themselves had heard (v. 42; cf. 8:30). But v. 39 illustrates the normal way in which men are drawn to Christ in the first instance; cf. His prayer for those who were to be led to Him through the apostles’ teaching: ἐρωτῶ … περί τῶν πιστευόντων διὰ τοῦ λόγου αὐτῶν εἰς ἐμέ (17:20).

40. ὡς οὖν ἦλθον κτλ. For Jn.’s frequent use of οὖν, see on 1:22. He likes the introductory ὡς οὖν (cf. 11:6, 18:6, 20:11, 21:9), which is not found in the Synoptists.

The Samaritans who had been impressed by the woman’s story desired to listen themselves to the teaching of Jesus, and at their request he lodged in Sychar two days. For Jn.’s habit of recording dates, or intervals of time, see Introd., p. cii. He repeats in v. 43 that the stay of Jesus in this village was for two days only, τὰς δύο ἡμέρας (cf. 11:6).

41. πολλῷ πλείους ἐπίστευσαν …, “many more believed because of His word.” Cf. ταῦτα αὐτοῦ λαλοῦντος πολλοί ἐπίστευσαν εἰς αὐτόν (8:30).

N Θ fam. 13 add εἰς αὐτόν after ἐπίστευσαν (as at 8:30), but om. the greater uncials. πιστεύειν is here used in an absolute sense, “to believe,” as often in Jn. See on 1:7.

42. ἀκηκόαμεν. The gloss παρʼ αὐτοῦ is added by א fam. 13.

After κόσμου, the rec. text, with A D L N Γ Θ, inserts ὁ Χριστός, but, again, this explanatory gloss is not found in א B C*T ^b W, and must be rejected.

λαλιά, “way of speech,” “manner of talking,” occurs again in N.T. only at Mt. 26:73 and 8:43 (where see note).

οὐκέτι διὰ τὴν σὴν λαλιάν κτλ., “No longer do we believe because of thy speaking, for we have heard and know, etc.” οὐκέτι always means “no longer” in Jn. (cf. 6:66, 11:54, 14:19, 30, 15:15, 16:10, 21, 25, 17:11, 21:6). The initial stages of belief may be brought about by the report of others (see on v. 39), but the belief which is complete and assured depends on personal contact and association with Christ (see on 1:39 and cf. Lk. 24:39, “Handle me and see”).

That the Samaritan villagers rose to the conception of Jesus as not only Messiah, but as “the Saviour of the world,” is not probable. This great title reflects the conviction of a later moment in Christian history, and of a more fully instructed faith. Jn. in writing the story of Jesus at Sychar tells it in his own phraseology, as will become apparent if the history of the terms “saviour,” “salvation,” is recalled.

In O.T. theology, Yahweh is the Author of salvation (see on 3:17), and to Him it is always ascribed. He is repeatedly called מוֹשִׁיע, σωτήρ (Ps. 24:5, 62:7, Isa. 12:2, Bar. 4:22, 3 Macc. 7:16), the “Saviour” of Israel or of individual Israelites. σωτήρ is also used in the LXX of human deliverers, e.g. of the judges (Judg. 3:9), just as in Egypt the Ptolemies, and in Greece Brasidas and Philip of Macedon, were so designated. But in the O.T., Messiah is never called מוֹשִׁיעַ or σωτήρ, the nearest approach to such a description being Zech. 9:9 ὁ βασιλεύς σου ἔρχεται δίκαιος καὶ σώζων. To O.T. Judaism, Messiah was but the instrument of the true σωτήρ, Yahweh, who is described (Ps. 28:8) as ὑπερασπιστὴς τῶν σωτηρίων τοῦ χριστοῦ αὐτοῦ.

In the later literature, there are faint traces of the conception of Messiah as Saviour; e.g. it is said of the Son of Man in Enoch xlviii. 7, “The righteous are saved in his name, and he is the avenger of their life”; cf. l. 3. The Messianic deliverance was pre-eminently the “salvation of Israel” for which pious Hebrews looked (see on v. 22 above); but that in the first century Messiah was given the title σωτήρ is not proven.

In the Synoptists, σωτήρ occurs only twice, Lk. 1:47 (where it is applied to God, as in the O.T.), and Lk. 2:11 σωτὴρ ὅς ἐστι Χριστὸς κύριος, “a Saviour (not the Saviour) who is Christ the Lord.” Cf Acts 13:23 and Acts 5:31 ἀρχηγὸς καὶ σωτήρ, which suggests ὁ ἀρχηγὸς τῆς σωτηρίας of Heb. 2:10.

The first unambiguous instance of the application of the title in its full sense to our Lord is Phil. 3:20 σωτῆρα … κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν. See also 2 Tim. 1:10, Tit. 1:4, 3:6, 2 Pet. 1:11, 2:20, 3:2, 18; and cf. Eph. 5:23, 1 Tim. 1:15.

The evidence shows that σωτήρ, as a title, began to be applied to Christ as readily as to God the Father, as soon as the Gospel message of redemption was understood and appropriated. The title has its roots in the O.T., and there is no need of the hypothesis that it is imported into the N.T. from the pagan mysteries or from the Emperor cults.¹ But that it was recognised as a Messianic title before Christ came is unproved and improbable.

The universality of salvation (at any rate so far as Jews were concerned) had already been declared by the prophets; cf. Joel 2:32 ἔσται πᾶς ὃς ἂν ἐπικαλὲσηται τὸ ὂνομα κυρίου σωθήσεται (quoted Acts 2:21, Rom. 10:13). God is called τὸν πάντων σωτῆρα (Wisd. 16:7); cf. 1 Tim 4:10 σωτὴρ πάντων ἀνθρώπων. But the magnificent title ὁ σωτὴρ τοῦ κόσμου is found in the Greek Bible only in the verse before us, and at 1 Jn. 4:14. It is one of the distinctive phrases of the Johannine writings; cf. 12:47 and especially 3:17, where the purpose of Christ’s mission is declared to be ἵνα σωθῇ ὁ κόσμος διʼ αὐτοῦ. See note on 3:17, and for κόσμος on 1:9.

It has been suggested by G. Vos² that a parallel for ὁ σωτὴρ τοῦ κόσμου may be seen in 2 Esd. 13:26, where it is said of Messiah liberabit creaturam suam. But it is doubtful if creatura is equivalent to “the universe of creation,” and further the passage may be affected by Christian influence.

A nearer parallel is Philo’s ὁ σωτὴρ τοῦ παντός (quod deus imm. 34), which he applies to God. The passage presents some superficial resemblance to the story of the Samaritan woman at the well. Philo has quoted Num. 20:17ff., where the Israelites seek permission to pass through Edom, promising not to drink water from the wells, or, if they did, to pay for it. To be able to pass by the attractions of earth befits the heavenly soul; such is Philo’s reflexion, and he adds that it is folly to drink from cisterns contrived by the distrustfulness of man, when the Saviour of the Universe has opened to us His heavenly treasury (cf. Deut. 28:12), in comparison with which all the wells in the world are not worth looking at. This suggests Jn. 4:14, but then the σωτήρ in the Philo passage is not the Logos, but God Himself. The resemblance between Philo’s language and Jn.’s is not sufficient to indicate any literary connexion.

It may, however, be noted as a curious point that a reference in Jn. 4:42 to Num. 20:17f. is actually traced by Ephraim Syrus. In a baptismal hymn (Epiphany Hymns, vii. 7) he has: “To the sons of Lot Moses said, ‘Give us water for money, let us only pass by through your border.’ They refused the way and the temporal water. Lo! the living water freely given and the path that leads to Eden.”

43. τὰς δύο ἡμέρας, sc. the two days mentioned in v. 40.

After ἐκεῖθεν the rec. text, with A NΓ Δ, adds καὶ ἀπῆλθεν from v. 3, but the addition is not found in א B C D T^b W, and is unnecessary. Θ substitutes καὶ ἀπῆλθεν for ἐκεῖθεν.

Jesus had left Judæa because of the attention with which the Pharisees were suspiciously regarding His work there (v. 1), and was moving into Galilee (v. 3). The teaching at Sychar was only an episode of His journey (vv. 4–42), and the narrative is now resumed.

44. προφήτης ἐν τῇ ἰδίᾳ πατρίδι τιμὴν οὐκ ἔχει. The writer does not say that Jesus quoted this familiar proverb¹ when He was passing from Samaria into Galilee. The verse is an editorial comment, illustrative of the context, and only notes that Jesus quoted the saying either then or on some other occasion. The aor. ἐμαρτύρησεν seems to be used like an English pluperfect; cf. the similar aorists ἐποίησεν and ἦλθον in v. 45, “He had done,” “they had come”; cf. also ἐξένευσεν at 5:13. For the verb as applied to explicit sayings of Jesus, cf. 13:21.

The saying is placed in the mouth of Jesus in the Synoptic narratives, at Mk. 6:4, Mt. 13:57, in the form οὐκ ἔστιν προφήτης ἄτιμος εἰ μὴ ἐν τῇ πατρίδι αὐτοῦ, and in Lk. 4:24 as οὐδεὶς προφήτης δεκτός ἐστιν ἐν τῇ πατρίδι αὐτοῦ. In these passages the πατρίς of Jesus is Nazareth, where He was teaching and where His friends and kinsfolk were amazed that “the carpenter, the Son of Mary,” should exhibit such wisdom as His words revealed.

As Jn. applies the proverb, the circumstances were wholly different from those at Nazareth. Jesus had left Judæa, where the Pharisees were beginning to watch Him with suspicion (4:1–3), and was moving via Samaria into Galilee. What does the writer mean here by His having “no honour in His own country”? Alternative explanations have been offered.

(1) If 4:44 refers to the departure of Jesus from Judæa, because His mission was not sufficiently welcomed there, then by His πατρίς Jn. must mean Jerusalem or Judæa. Origen (in Joann. p. 268, and Fragm. in Joann. 4:44) adopts this view. He says that Jerusalem was the πατρίς of all the prophets, and of Jesus as well. Thus 1:11 εἰς τὰ ἴδια ἦλθεν, καὶ οἱ ἴδιοι αὐτὸν οὐ παρέλαβον would provide a parallel for the present verse. But (a) Jesus had made many disciples in Jerusalem already (2:23), and it was His success that had aroused the suspicion of the Pharisees (4:1). And (b) Jn. knew quite well that Jesus was “of Galilee,” which implies that His home or πατρίς was there (see 1:45 and 7:42, 52). It is unlikely that Jn. should allude to Jerusalem as Christ’s πατρίς, more particularly as there are good reasons for holding that he was familiar with Mk.,¹ who applies the word to Nazareth.

(2) Some commentators apply 4:44, not to what precedes but to what follows. Jesus had been attracting much notice in Judæa; it was His habit to withdraw Himself, at least in the early stages of His ministry, from a hostile environment (7:1, 10:39), and to seek retirement. He wished, then (so it is urged), to go from Judæa to some place where He might escape unwelcome attention, and He knew from former experience that His old friends in Galilee would not be likely to make too much of Him. According to this view, the citation of the proverb here is a suggestion of the writer that Jesus deliberately chose to go into a territory where He expected that His mission would not arouse public interest. This is highly improbable; and, besides, Jesus was, in fact, cordially received by the people of Galilee (v. 45), and the miracle of the healing of the nobleman’s son is recorded immediately (vv. 46 ff.).

The verse, then, is a gloss the applicability of which to the context is not immediately clear. Perhaps it has been misplaced, but there is no evidence for this. Jn. is prone to insert explanatory reflexions² or glosses in the body of his narrative, which are not always convincing to modern readers; and this gloss seems to be Johannine. μαρτυρεῖν and ἴδιος are favourite words with Jn.; he is apt to introduce his explanations with γάρ (cf. esp. 5:13 ὁ γὰρ Ἰησοῦς ἐξένευσεν, where, as here, the aor. stands for the pluperfect). τιμή, indeed, is not in Jn.’s vocabulary, and instead of it he always uses δόξα when he would speak of the honour paid by one man to another (see on 1:14); but the proverb as quoted by Mk. has ἄτιμος (although τιμή only occurs in the Synoptists in the sense of “price”; cf. Mt. 27:6, 9). It is remarkable that the true text of the verse before us gives αὐτὸς γὰρ Ἰησοῦς κτλ. (א A B C D W Γ Δ Θ) without ὁ, while Jn.’s use is to prefix the def. article to the name Ἰησοῦς (as the rec. text does here); see on 1:29.

We conclude that v. 44 is a gloss, introduced by Jn. or by some later editor from Mk. 6:4, suggested by the mention of Galilee, but not apposite in this place.

For ὅσα (א^cA B C L N W Θ, ἅ is read by the rec. with א*D T^b Γ Δ. See, for a similar variant, vv. 29, 39.

ὅτε οὖν ἦλθεν κτλ., “When, then, He had come into Galilee,” οὖν not connoting causation but sequence only (see on 1:22).

The Galilæans, among whom He came, had seen His “signs” at Jerusalem at the feast (2:23, 3:2), καὶ αὐτοὶ γὰρ ἦλθον εἰς τὴν ἑορτὴν, sc. “for (note the introduction of the explanation by γάρ) they also had come for the feast” (the aor. ἦλθον, as well as the preceding ἐποίησεν, being used with a pluperfect sense). The Samaritans did not go up to Jerusalem for the feasts, and so Jesus and His activities there were not known to them; but the Galilæans were orthodox and went up regularly. The words of Jesus alone, without “signs,” were sufficient to convince the villagers of Sychar of His claims.

αὐτοὶ γὰρ ἦλθον εἰς τὴν ἑορτήν. ἔρχσθαι is naturally used of coming up to the feast, when the standpoint of the writer is Jerusalem (e.g. 11:56, 12:12); but when the scene is in Galilee, as here, and mention is made of worshippers “going up” to the feast, we should expect ἀναβαίνειν (as at 7:8). In this sentence of explanation the writer seems to be recalling what he had noticed at Jerusalem, viz. that the Galilaeans came up for the Passover mentioned in c. 2.

46. Despite the differences between the story of the healing of the centurion’s servant (Mt. 8:5ff., Lk. 7:6ff.) and Jn.’s story of the healing of the nobleman’s son, the two narratives probably recall the same incident. The differences are obvious. In Jn. the anxious inquirer is βασιλικός; in Mt., Lk., he is ἐκατόνταρχος. In Jn. the patient is sick of a fever; in Mt. he is παραλυτικός. In Mt., Lk., Jesus is asked only to speak the word of healing, but He offers to go down to the man’s house. In Jn. He is asked to go down, but he only says that the boy will recover (v. 50); nor does Jesus express surprise at the man’s faith, as He does in Mt., Lk. In Mt., Lk., the patient is the servant (Mt. has παῖς, Lk. has both παῖς and δούλος), while in Jn. he is the man’s son (υἱός, παιδίον). Further, it has been argued that the strong faith of the centurion in Mt., Lk., “becomes intelligible, without ceasing to be admirable, when we reflect that he was evidently aware of the miracle formerly wrought for another inhabitant of the same city, an eminent person, one of the court which his own sword protected.”¹

It has also been supposed that while the centurion of Mt., Lk., was a Gentile (Mt. 8:10), the nobleman of in. was probably a Jew; but of this latter conjecture there is no evidence. There is no hint in Jn. as to the nationality or religious belief of the βασιλικός.

Yet the stories are not so dissimilar that they could not have been confused. Irenæus actually treats them as one and the same: “Filium centurionis absens verbo curavit dicens, Vade, filius tuus vivit,” are his words (Hær. ii. 22. 3). In both cases the patient’s home was at Capernaum, and in both cases it is suggested (although not expressly stated by Jn.) that he was healed from a distance; that is, that the healings were “telepathic” in modern phrase. The only other instance of this in the Gospels is the case of the Syrophœnician woman’s daughter (Mk. 7:29, 30, Mt. 15:28). The faith of the nobleman, as indicated in v. 50, “the man believed the word which Jesus spake to him,” was very strong, and he cannot be placed, in this respect, on a lower level than the centurion of Mt., Lk. It is probable that one of the most obvious discrepancies in the two narratives, “servant” and “son,” is due to the ambiguity of the word παῖς, which may mean either. That Jn. uses παῖς in v. 51 (and there alone in the Gospel), although he has υἱός in vv. 46, 47, 50, 53, may be significant in this connexion.² See, for the “miraculous” element in the story, Introd., p. clxxix.

ἦλθεν οὖν κτλ. οὖν expresses sequence, not causation (see on 1:22). It was not because the Galilæans welcomed Him that Jesus moved on to Cana. πάλιν, a favourite word with Jn. (see on 4:3), reminds the reader that He had been there before.

Κανᾶ … ὅπου ἐποίησεν τὸ ὕδωρ οἶνον. An explanatory note reminding the reader of the narrative of 2:1ff..

βασιλικός, i.e. one of the courtiers of Herod, tetrarch of Galilee; D has βασιλισκός, regulus, which would convey the erroneous idea that this courtier was a petty king. Some have identified him with Chuza, Herod’s steward (Lk. 8:3), or with Manaen (Acts 13:1); but this is only guess-work. The man was eager to invoke any help that might cure his son, quite independently of his religious principles or position.

47. ἀκούσας ὅτι … ὅτι recitantis is followed by the actual words which reached the anxious father, viz. “Jesus is coming from Judæa into Galilee”; hence, in accordance with Jn.’s practice, ὁ is omitted before Ἰησοῦς (see on 4:1).

ἀπῆλθεν πρὸς αὐτόν. The man left his son for a time, in his eagerness to secure the aid of a healer.

καὶ ἰάσηται αὐτοῦ τ. ὑ. ἰᾶσθαι occurs in Jn. only once again (5:13), except in a quotation where it is used metaphorically (12:40). Presumably the “signs” which had impressed the people at Jerusalem (2:23) were works of healing, but Jn. does not say so explicitly. He assumes that his readers will know why it was that a man whose son was sick should seek Jesus, sc. because of His reputation as a healer.

ἤμελλεν ἀποθνήσκειν, incipiebat mori. The phrase is used at 11:51, 12:33, 18:32 of the impending death of Jesus; but in the present passage there is no suggestion in ἤμελλεν of the inevitability or predestined certainty of the boy’s death; it expresses futurity only, “was going to die.”

48. εἶπεν ὁ Ἰ. πρὸς αὐτόν. For the constr. of λέγειν here and at v. 49, see on 2:3.

The answer of Jesus was neither “Yes” nor “No.” It almost conveys a feeling of disappointment that the working of “signs” should be expected of Him. The Samaritan villagers had accepted Him because of His words alone, without any signs (4:41, 42).

The collocation σημεῖα καὶ τέρατα does not occur again in Jn., but it is frequent in the Greek Bible (Ex. 7:3, Isa. 8:18, 20:3, Dan. 4:2, 3, 6:27, Mt. 24:24, Mk. 13:22, Acts 2:19, 22, 43, 4:30, 5:12, 6:8, 7:36, 14:3, 15:12, Rom. 15:19, 2 Cor. 12:12, 2 Thess. 2:9, Heb. 2:4). τέρας, “a prodigy,” never occurs in the N.T. except in conjunction with σημεῖον. No doubt a σημεῖον need not be miraculous, but the Jews, like all the peoples of early ages, were more ready to see the Divine power in what seemed to be “supernatural” than in the “natural” order; and it is not likely that they would have distinguished sharply a σημεῖον from a τέρας. Jn. is specially prone to use the word σημεῖον when speaking of the “works” of Jesus (see Introd., p. clxxvi, and also on 2:11, where the relation between faith and “signs” in the Fourth Gospel is considered).

οὐ μὴ πιστεύσητε. This might be interrogative: “Will you not believe without signs?” But more probably it is categorical: “You will not believe, etc.” That the Jews “seek signs” (1 Cor. 1:22) was as true at Cana as in Jerusalem. The plural πιστεύσητε may indicate that the words, although addressed to an individual, include in their reference a whole class of people to which the nobleman belonged.

κατάβηθι. The man perceives that his request has not been definitely refused, despite what Jesus had said to him and to the bystanders as to the imperfection of a faith based on “signs.”

πρὶν ἀποθανεῖν τὸ π. μ. In like manner, Martha and Mary (11:21, 32) thought that for Jesus to rescue their sick brother from death, He must be by his bedside. “Duplex imbecillitas rogantis, quasi Dominus necesse haberet adesse, nec posset aeque resuscitare mortem. Atqui etiam ante quam descendit parens, vitae restitutus est filius eius” (Bengel).

τὸ παιδίον μου. A fam. 13 have υἱόν for παιδίον. But not only is παιδίον the word in the best texts; it is obviously right. “My little child,” the father says in his anguish; cf Mk. 9:24 ὁ πατὴρ τοῦ παιδίου.

50. The answer of Jesus tests the father severely. “Go thy way; thy son lives.” When the father had left the boy, he was at the point of death (v. 47); but the only assurance that Jesus gave was that the boy was still living. See Introd., p. clxxx.

Before ἐπίστευσεν the rec. inserts καὶ (A C NΓ Δ Θ), but om. א B D W.

ἐπίστευσεν τῷ λόγῳ. For the constr., cf. 5:47; and note that the man believed without any corroboration of Jesus’ words. See 20:29.

καὶ ἐπορεύετο. The impft. marks the continuous progress of the man’s journey, and not any sudden movement of departure. Cf. Mt. 24:1, Lk. 2:3, 7:6, 19:28, 24:28, for ἐπορεύετο.

By some commentators a difficulty has been found in the statement of v. 52, that the anxious father did not reach home until the next day, although Jesus’ words of assurance had been addressed to him at 1 p.m. (see on v. 52). But even if we are to apply such strict tests of time and circumstance to the Johannine stories, there is no special difficulty here. It is 20 miles or more, the way being rough and hilly, from Cana to Capernaum. Presumably the βασιλικός had a retinue with him, and it would take some time to get them together for the journey. Even if an immediate start had been made in the midday heat, it would not have been easy to reach Capernaum the same evening. If we are to speculate about such a matter, it seems probable that the father got home early the next morning, for his anxiety would have prevented him resting at night on the way. If he left Cana at 3 p.m. and got home at 2 a.m. next morning, all the time conditions of the story would be satisfied.

51. ὑπήντησαν. So א B C D L N Θ W; the rec. has ἀπήντησαν. Cf. 11:20, 30, 12:18.

After αὐτῷ the rec. adds καὶ ἀπήγγειλαν (א D have ἤγγειλαν); om. B L N.

ὁ παῖς. This is the only appearance of παῖς in Jn., and it is replaced (wrongly) by υἱός in D L fam. 13. See on v. 49.

For αὐτοῦ (א A B C W), the rec. has σου (with D LΔ Θ), as if ὅτι after λέγοντες were ὅτι recitantis, introducing the actual words of the servants.

52. ἐπύθετο. This is the best attested reading. Fam. 13 give the more usual form ἐπυνθάνετο. πυνθάνομαι does not occur again in Jn.

τὴν ὥραν παρʼ αὐτῶν. So א A C D N W Θ; the rec. has παρʼ αὐτῶν τὴν ὥραν; B omits παρʼ αὐτῶν, and has τὴν ὥραν ἐκεινήν.

ἐν ᾗ κομψότερον ἔσχεν, “in which he got better,” the aor. marking a definite change in his condition. κομψότερον is not found again in the LXX or N.T., but the phrase κομψῶς ἔχεις, “you are doing finely,” occurs in Arrian, Epict. iii. 10. 13, an apposite passage cited by Wetstein. κομψότερον ἔσχεν is good, idiomatic Greek, and does not read like a translation from the Aramaic. Cf. Introd., p. lxvii.

The spelling ἐχθές (א A B*C D W Θ) must be preferred to the rec. χθές (cf. Acts 7:28, Heb. 13:8).

ὥραν ἑβδόμην, sc. about the seventh hour, the acc. being less definite than the dat. of v. 53; see Ex. 9:18 ταύτην τὴν ὥραν αὔριον, “to-morrow about this hour” (cf. Rev. 3 ποίαν ὥραν). The seventh hour was 1 p.m. (see on 1:39). The point may be, however, that it was common belief that the seventh hour of fever was the critical hour. Clement of Alexandria (Strom. vi. 16) thought that the seventh day of any disease marked the crisis.

ὁ πυρετός, “the fever”. The word occurs again in N.T. only at Mt 8:15, Mk. 1:31, Lk. 4:38, 39, Acts 28:8.

53. ἐκείνῃ τῇ ὥρᾳ, “that very hour,” the dat. fixing the hour definitely. The rec. text prefixes ἐν, but א*B C omit. In this was the σημε͂ιον, that the fever left the boy at the exact time that Jesus said, “Thy son lives.”

ἐπίστευσεν, “believed,” the verb being used absolutely, to express complete faith (see on 1:7).

54. πάλιν δεύτερον. This tautologous phrase occurs again 21:16; Cf. πάλιν ἐκ δευτέρου, Mt. 26:42, Acts 10:15.

The sentence points back to the miracle at Cana, which Jn. says was the first of the “signs” of Jesus; and it calls attention to the fact that the healing of the nobleman’s son was, like the earlier sign, wrought after Jesus had left Judæa for Galilee

¹ Cf. Introd., p. cxliv.

Diat. E. A. Abbott’s Diatessarica, including his Johannine Vocabulary and Johannine Grammar, Parts I.–X. (1900–1915).

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

¹ See Introd., p. cxl.

MSS. manuscripts

¹ Also the Peshitta; see Burkitt, J.T.S., April 1903, p. 436.

² “Stoic Origins of St. John’s Gospel,” in Bulletin of John Rylands Library, Jan. 1922, quoting Stobæus, Phys. 180.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

Moulton-Milligan Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, illustrated from the papyri, by J. H. Moulton and G.Milligan (1914–). This is being completed by Dr. Milligan; it is indispensable.

¹ See also the reading of אD at 6:17 and the note there.

² In loann. 76; cf. also Brooke’s edition, ii. 214.

³ de opif. mundi, 9.

⁴ Quoted by Burney, Aramaic Origin, etc., p. 30.

¹ Cf. F. C. Burkitt in Theology, July 1922. p. 49, for a criticism of Ball’s emendation.

¹ Aramaic Origin, etc., p. 31.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

² Cf. Westcott-Hort, Appx., p. 59, and E.B. 2504.

¹ Cf. Abbott, Diat. 2093, 2687.

² Aramaic Origin, etc., p. 70.

Diat. E. A. Abbott’s Diatessarica, including his Johannine Vocabulary and Johannine Grammar, Parts I.–X. (1900–1915).

³ Per contra, πιστεύειν never occurs in the Apocalypse, while πίστις occurs 4 times. See Introd., p. lxv.

⁴ Aramaic Origin, etc., p. 82.

Diat. E. A. Abbott’s Diatessarica, including his Johannine Vocabulary and Johannine Grammar, Parts I.–X. (1900–1915).

¹ Aramaic Origin, etc., pp. 32, 75.

² In Ioann. (ed. Brooke, ii. 216).

³ It is found, however, several times in the Talmud; see Lightfoot, Hor. Hebr., in loc.; and cf. Schlatter, Sprache u. Heimat., u.s.w., p. 18.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

¹ Cf. Trench, Synonyms of N. T.

² Dalman, Words of Jesus, pp. 162, I71.

¹ Cf. Burkitt, J.T.S., Oct. 1908; Plummer, Comm. on St. Matthew, p. xxxiv. f.

¹ Aramaic Origin, etc., p. 66.

² See Hippol. Ref. ix. 9, cited by Pfleiderer, Primitive Christianity, iv. 7.

³ Apol. i. 46.

¹ Aramaic Origin, etc., p. 64.

² Paul has τέκνα θεοῦ at Rom. 8:16, 17, 21, Phil. 2:15 (from Deut. 32:5).

¹ Note that πιστεύουσιν is the present participle, and expresses the continual life of faith, not an isolated act of faith (see on 6:29). See, further, for the unclassical constr. πιστεύειν εἰς, Abbott, Diat. 1470 f.

² I have discussed this expression in Studia Sacra, p. 66 f. A similar use of the construction εἰς τὸ ὅνομά τινος occurs in papyri; e.g. ἕντευξις εἰς τοῦ βασιλέως ὄνομα is a “petition to the king’s majesty,” the name of the king being the essence of what he is as ruler. Cf. Deissmann, Bible Studies, Eng. Tr., 146 f., 196 f.

³ Cf. also Burney, Aramaic Origin, etc., p. 43.

MS. manuscript

¹ See H. J. Cadbury (Expositor, Dec. 1924, P. 432). to whom these references are due.

¹ Cf. Introd., p. clxx.

² Cf. Introd., p. clxix.

³ Cf. Burkitt, Ephraim’s Quotations from the Gospel, p. 50.

⁴ Of the Resurrection, § 15.

⁵ Comm. in Ioann. 20, 142, 202.

⁶ In loc.

¹ Burkitt (Ev. da Mepharreshe, ii. 307) favours this mode of rendering the Syriac.

¹ Cf. Marshall in D.B., s.v “Shekinah”; and see Burney, Aramaic Origin, etc., PP. 35–37.

² Generally in the LXX, δόξα is the rendering of כָּבוֹך (as in Ps 85:9, Isa. 60:1); but in Esth. 1:1, 6:3 it represents יְקָר which is the word commonly used in the Targums.

¹ So the original Nicene Creed ran, γεννηθέντα ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς μονογενῆ.

² Hort, Two Dissertations, p. 13. Cf. Phil. 2:6 ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων.

³ Justin (Tryph. 105) associates Ps. 22:30 with Jn. 1:14, using the term μονογενής.

¹ See J. A. Robinson, Ephesians, p. 229 f.

² See D.C.G., s.v. “Only-Begotten”; and for a different line of reasoning reaching the same conclusion, cf. Harris, Bulletin of John Rylands Library, July 1922.

³ See Hort, Select Readings, p. 24; Blass, Gram., p. 81; Turner, J.T.S., 1899, p. 121 f., and 1900, p. 561, for many examples.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

⁴ J.T.S., 1899, p. 123 f., 1900, p. 561.

⁵ See Burkitt, J.T.S., 1900, p. 562.

⁶ See Origen, Comm. in Ioann., ed. Brooke, ii. 219, 220.

¹ J. A. Robinson (Ephesians, p. 224), in a valuable note on χάρις, does not think that Paul introduced the word in its new sense to the Christian vocabulary, but that he did much to develop its use, especially in connexion with the extension of the Gospel to the Gentiles.

¹ As it is with Paul (cf. 2 Thess. 2:10).

¹ Cf. Augustine (de pecc. mer. ii. 31), who notes that when you compare Jn. 1:14 with Ps. 85:10, you have to substitute gratia for misericordia.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

C Ephræmi (δ 3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

Θ Koridethi (ε 050). Tiflis. vii–ix. Discovered at Koridethi, in Russian territory, and edited by Beermann & Gregory (Leipzig, 1913). The text is akin to that of fam. 13, fam. 1, and the cursives 28, 565, 700 See Lake and Blake in Harvard Theol. Review (July 1923) and Streeter, The Four Gospels. Cf. also J.T.S. Oct. 1915, April and July 1925.

² See further, for the variants, Abbott, Diat. 2507a.

³ See Introd., p. ci.

Diat. E. A. Abbott’s Diatessarica, including his Johannine Vocabulary and Johannine Grammar, Parts I.–X. (1900–1915).

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

C Ephræmi (δ 3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

¹ For πλήρωμα, see Lightfoot, Colossians, p. 255 f., and J. A. Robinson, Ephesians, p. 255 f.

² Ephesians, p. 223.

³ The LXX of Zech. 4:7 has the difficult phrase ἰσότητα χάριτος χάριτα αὐτῆς, but the resemblance to χάριν ἀντὶ χάριτος here seems to be only verbal.

¹ See Drummond’s Philo Judæus, ii. 9, 206.

² See Introd., p. cxxxviii.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

C Ephræmi (δ 3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

D Bezæ (δ 5). Cambridge. v–vi. Græco-Latin. Cc. 18:14–20:13 are missing in the Greek text, and the gap has been filled by a ninth-century scribe (D^supp).

¹ Two Dissertations (1876), the most valuable of commentaries on Jn. 1:18.

MSS. manuscripts

² μουνογένεια θεά is cited by Harris from the Orphic literature as a title of Persephone (Bulletin of John Rylands Library, July, 1922).

Diat. E. A. Abbott’s Diatessarica, including his Johannine Vocabulary and Johannine Grammar, Parts I.–X. (1900–1915).

¹ See Turner, J.T.S., Oct. 1924, p. 14.

² Bulletin of John Rylands Library, July 1922.

¹ See Introd., p. cxlv.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

C Ephræmi (δ 3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

C Ephræmi (δ 3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

Δ Sangallensis (ε 76). St. Gall. ix–x. Græco-Latin.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

¹ Westcott-Hort do not adopt the rough breathing, “as due to a false association with ἱερός”; but see Moulton-Milligan, s.v. Ἱεροσόλυμα.

² For the vagueness, and also the prevalence, of the expectation in the first century that a divinely appointed leader, popularly called Messiah, should appear, see G. F. Moore in The Beginnings of Christianity, i. 356.

Diat. E. A. Abbott’s Diatessarica, including his Johannine Vocabulary and Johannine Grammar, Parts I.–X. (1900–1915).

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

C Ephræmi (δ 3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

C Ephræmi (δ 3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.

¹ Cf. Lightfoot, Colossians, p. 401 f.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

C Ephræmi (δ 3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

C Ephræmi (δ 3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.

Γ (ε 70) Oxford and Leningrad. ix–x. Contains cc. 1:1–6:13 8:3–15:24 19:6 to end.

Δ Sangallensis (ε 76). St. Gall. ix–x. Græco-Latin.

¹ Edujoth, viii. 7, quoted by Schürer, Hist. of Jewish People, II. ii. 156.

² Cf. Headlam, Life and Teaching of Jesus Christ, p. 166.

¹ Cf. Burkitt, Evangelion da-Mepharreshê, ii. 89, and Abbott, Diat. 1883, 2640. Jn.’s usage of οὖν corresponds somewhat to the Hebrew “wāw consecutive.”

² Justin reproduces (Tryph. 88) this peculiar feature of the Fourth Gospel, and represents the Baptist as saying οὐκ εἰμὶ ὁ Χριστός, ἀλλὰ φωνὴ βοῶντος vv. (20, 23).

³ See Lightfoot. Biblical Essays, p. 139, and Burney, Aramaic Origin, etc., p. 114.

N Purpureus Petropolitanus (ε 19). Dispersed through the libraries of Leningrad, Patmos, Rome, Vienna, and British Museum. vi. Some pages are missing. Edited by H. S. Cronin in Cambridge Texts and Studies (1899).

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

C Ephræmi (δ 3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

C Ephræmi (δ 3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

T Muralt (ε 31). Leningrad. vi. Contains cc. 1:25–42 2:9–4:14 4:34–50.

^b Muralt (ε 31). Leningrad. vi. Contains cc. 1:25–42 2:9–4:14 4:34–50.

Muralt (ε 31). Leningrad. vi. Contains cc. 1:25–42 2:9–4:14 4:34–50.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

T Muralt (ε 31). Leningrad. vi. Contains cc. 1:25–42 2:9–4:14 4:34–50.

^b Muralt (ε 31). Leningrad. vi. Contains cc. 1:25–42 2:9–4:14 4:34–50.

Muralt (ε 31). Leningrad. vi. Contains cc. 1:25–42 2:9–4:14 4:34–50.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

C Ephræmi (δ 3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.

Δ Sangallensis (ε 76). St. Gall. ix–x. Græco-Latin.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

¹ Cf. R. Law, The Tests of Life (p. 364), for γινώσκειν and εἰδέναι.

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

C Ephræmi (δ 3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.

Γ (ε 70) Oxford and Leningrad. ix–x. Contains cc. 1:1–6:13 8:3–15:24 19:6 to end.

Δ Sangallensis (ε 76). St. Gall. ix–x. Græco-Latin.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

C Ephræmi (δ 3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

T Muralt (ε 31). Leningrad. vi. Contains cc. 1:25–42 2:9–4:14 4:34–50.

^b Muralt (ε 31). Leningrad. vi. Contains cc. 1:25–42 2:9–4:14 4:34–50.

Muralt (ε 31). Leningrad. vi. Contains cc. 1:25–42 2:9–4:14 4:34–50.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

C Ephræmi (δ 3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

C Ephræmi (δ 3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

¹ D.B., s.v. “Bethabara.”

² Eusebius, Onom.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

³ See Smith’s D.B.², s.v. “Beth-Nimrah”; cf. also E.B., s.v. “Bethany,” and see Rix, Tent and Testament, p. 175 f.

Diat. E. A. Abbott’s Diatessarica, including his Johannine Vocabulary and Johannine Grammar, Parts I.–X. (1900–1915).

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

¹ In Ioann. vi. 53.

¹ Secondarily, as Charles shows, the Apocalyptist conceives of the Lamb as leader, an idea prominent in Jewish apocalyptic, but not present in the Fourth Gospel (Revelation, I. cxiii).

² Cyprian’s Testimonia (ii. 15) for Jn. 1:29 include both Ex. 12:3f. and Isa. 53:7.

³ Clement of Rome (§ 16), writing in the same decade, cites Isa. 53 in full, applying it all to Christ.

¹ See Introd., p. ci.

² Cf. also Justin, Tryph. 32, and Introd., p. cxxxiii.

³ See Burney, Aramaic Origin, etc., p. 108.

¹ Burkitt, Christian Beginnings, p. 39, points out that the application of Isa. 53 to the Passion was made by Greek-speaking Christians in the first instance. Cf. Theology, July 1922, p. 50.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

C Ephræmi (δ 3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

Δ Sangallensis (ε 76). St. Gall. ix–x. Græco-Latin.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

C Ephræmi (δ 3). Paris. v. Palimpsest. Contains considerable fragments of Jn.

W Freer (ε 014). Washington. iv–vi. Discovered in Egypt in 1906. The Gospels are in the order Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk. Collation in The Washington MS. of the Four Gospels, by H. A. Sanders (1912).

¹ In Quis rer. div. hær. § 25, Philo, when discoursing on Gen. 15:9, interprets the turtle dove and pigeon (τρυγόνα καὶ περιστεράν) of divine and human wisdom respectively, the περιστερά standing for human wisdom, as being gentle (ἤμερος and fond of the haunts of men.

² Clement of Alexandria says that the Syrians venerate doves, as the Eleans venerate Zeus (Protrept. ii. 35).

³ Quoted by Wetstein on Mt. 3:16 from Chagiga, 15A.

⁴ Students of the fantastic science of Gematria have not failed to note that the arithmetical value of the letters in περιστερά is 801, the same total as that represented by αω (Alpha and Omega). Cf. Irenæus, Hær. i. 14, 6, who gives this as a Gnostic fancy.

⁵ See Introd., p. c.

¹ Irenæus (Hær. iii. 17. 1) associates Isa. 11:2 with the Baptism of Jesus.

² See Abbott, Diat. 712 ff., for speculations as to why Jn. avoided the word rest and preferred abide.

³ Cf. Introd., p. cxlvi.

¹ Jackson and Lake, The Beginnings of Christianity, i. 102.

¹ Cf. contra, Dalman, Words of Jesus, Eng. Tr., p. 275; Burkitt (Christian Beginnings, p. 25) regards “Son of God” as the most primitive of the Christological titles.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

Pap. Oxy. (von Soden, ε 02) and 1781 form fragments of the same MS., the oldest extant text of Jn. (sæ. iii), and are at the British Museum. They give in a mutilated form Jn. 1:23–41, 16:14–30, 20:11–25. This MS. was a codex, made up of a single quire of some twenty-five sheets. See p. xxix.

208 (von Soden, ε 02) and 1781 form fragments of the same MS., the oldest extant text of Jn. (sæ. iii), and are at the British Museum. They give in a mutilated form Jn. 1:23–41, 16:14–30, 20:11–25. This MS. was a codex, made up of a single quire of some twenty-five sheets. See p. xxix.

¹ This form (plpft. with sense of impft.), “was standing,” occurs again 7:37, 18:5, 16, 20:11. The MSS. vary between εἱστήκει and ἱστήκει, the latter being always adopted by Westcott-Hort.

² Cf. Introd., p. xxxvi.