International Critical Commentary

1. καὶ παράγων εἶδεν κτλ. This is an abrupt beginning, but the introductory καί is thoroughly Johannine. παράγειν does not occur again in the Fourth Gospel; but cf. 1 Jn. 2:8, 17.

τυφλὸν ἐκ γενετῆς. Probably the man was a well-known figure, as he begged for alms (v. 8) near the Temple or at some other much-frequented place. γενετή does not appear again in the N.T., but the phrase τυφλὸς ἐκ γενετῆς is common in secular writers (see Wetstein).

It is not reported of any other case of healing in the Gospels that the person cured had been sick, blind, or lame from his birth (cf. Acts 3:2, 14:8), and some critics have found here an instance of Jn.`s alleged habit of magnifying the miraculous element in the ministry of Jesus (see Introd., p. clxxx). This healing goes beyond any of the healings of blind men recorded by the Synoptists, Jn., after his wont, selecting one typical and notable case for record (see below on v. 6).

Diseases of the eye are common in the East, and it is not surprising that blind folk should have been brought for cure to Jesus. There is no mention in the O.T. of a blind person being cured (unless the case of Tob. 11:11 be reckoned as such); but to the prophet the blessings of the Messianic age included the opening of the eyes of the blind (Isa. 35:5), and the Baptist was reminded of this in connexion with the cures wrought by Jesus (cf. Mt. 11:5). Mk. records two special cases, sc. at Mk. 8:23 (to which further reference must be made) and Mk. 10:46 (cf. Mt. 20:29, Lk. 18:35). See also Mt. 9:27, 12:22 (cf. Lk. 11:14) 15:30, 21:14. But the singularity of the case recorded by Jn. is that the blindness is said to have been congenital.

There is a passage in Justin (Tryph. 69) which seems to presuppose a knowledge of this verse. Justin has quoted Isa. 35:1–7, and he proceeds: πηγὴ ὕδατος ζῶντος παρὰ θεοῦ ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ γνώσεως θεοῦ … ἀνέβλυσεν, sc. Christ, τοὺς ἐκ γενετῆς καὶ κατὰ τὴν σάρκα πηροὺς καὶ κωφοὺς καὶ χωλοὺς ἰάσατο (cf. Apol. i. 22). πηρός is used of blindness, as well as of other bodily disabilities; but, apart from that, the phrase ἐκ γενετῆς indicates a knowledge of Jn. 9:1, for it occurs nowhere else in the Gospels, nor is the circumstance that Jesus healed men of congenital infirmities mentioned elsewhere in the N.T.

2. ἠρώτησαν αὐτὸν οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ. These disciples may have been His Jewish adherents, as distinct from the Twelve, or the Twelve or some of them may be indicated (see on 2:2). But the nature of the question which they put betrays an intimate relation of discipleship (note the word Rabbi, and see on 1:38); and the close connexion of c. 9 with c. 10, in which the discourse about the Good Shepherd seems specially appropriate to the inner circle of His followers, suggests that οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ here at any rate includes the Twelve.

τίς ἥμαρτεν κτλ. The question is as old as humanity. The first of the alternative answers suggested is that the man himself had sinned and that his blindness was a punishment divinely sent. As to this, it may be true in an individual case, but the whole drift of the Book of Job is to show that suffering is not always due to sin, and with this may be compared the words of Jesus at Lk. 13:2, 4 (see on 5:14 above). In this particular instance which drew forth the disciples` question, as the man had been blind from birth, if his blindness was a punishment for his own sin, it must have been prenatal sin. This was a possibility, according to some Rabbinical casuists (see Bereshith, R xxxiv, cited by Wetstein). Cf. v. 34. It is hardly likely that the questioners had in view sins committed in a former body, although the doctrine of the pre-existence of souls was not unknown to later Judaism; cf. Wisd. 8:19, 20.

The other alternative answer, as it seemed to the disciples, was that the man’s blindness was divinely sent as a punishment for the sins of his parents, a doctrine which is frequently stated in the O.T. (Ex. 20:5, 34:7, Num. 14:18, Ps. 79:8, 109:14, Isa. 65:6, 7). This was the doctrine of punishment which Ezekiel repudiated, declaring that justice is only to be found in the operation of the principle, “The soul that sinneth, it shall die” (Ezek. 18:20).

The question of the relation between sin and suffering was discussed by the Gnostic Basilides in a passage quoted by Clem. Alex. (Strom. iv. 12), but although the problem raised is similar to that in the text, the discussion does not contain any allusion to the story before us.

3. ἀπεκρίθη ̓Ιησοῦς. See for the omission of ὁ before Ἰης. on 1:50.

The answer of Jesus to the questioners approved neither of the alternatives which they put before Him. His answer, as set forth by Jn., is that the man’s blindness was foreordained so that it might be the occasion of the exhibition of Divine power in his cure, ἵνα φανερωθῇ τὰ ἔργα τοῦ θεοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ.¹ Cf. 5:36 for the witness borne to the Divine mission of Jesus by His ἔργα; and 11:4 (where see note), where the sickness of Lazarus is said to have been “for the glory of God, that the Son of God may be glorified thereby.”

The doctrine of predestination is apparent at every point in the Fourth Gospel, every incident being viewed sub specie aternitatis, as predetermined in the mind of God. See on 2:4 and 3:14.

4. ἐμὲ δεῖ ἐργάζεσθαι τὰ ἔργα τοῦ πέμψαντός με. So א^aA C N Γ Δ Θ, the Lat. and Syr. vss. (including Syr. sin.). But א*B D L W read ἡμᾶς δεῖ, and for τοῦ πέμψαντός με, א L W read τοῦ πέμψαντος ἡμᾶς. The latter variant may be rejected, both on the MS. evidence and because the phrase “He that sent me” is characteristically Johannine (see on 4:34), while “He that sent us” would be foreign to the phraseology of the Gospels. But ἡμᾶς δεῖ ἐργάζεσθαι, etc., would give a tolerable sense (see on 3:11). It is adopted by Westcott-Hort, and by the R.V., as having the weight of uncial authority, the combination of א*B D (and also apparently the evidence of Origen) being strong. Yet although it is true of all of us that “we must work while it is day” (cf. Ecclus. 51:30), “the works of Him that sent me” in this passage has special reference to the ἔργα τοῦ θεοῦ, such as were made manifest in the cure of the blind man, which could not be wrought by the disciples, but were the “signs” of Jesus alone. In the doing of such ἔργα Jesus never associated others with Himself.

Nor, again, is it in the manner of Jn. to report a mere maxim of experience, such as “We must all work while it is day” would be. The force of δεῖ goes deeper, for the words of Jesus here (vv. 3, 4) express that Divine predestination of events which is so prominently brought out in Jn. (see Introd., p. clii, and on 2:4). The man’s blindness had been foreordained in the Divine purpose ἵνα φανερωθῇ τὰ ἔργα τοῦ θεοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ (v. 3); and in like manner there was a Divine necessity that Jesus should do the works of “Him that sent Him” (see on 4:34 for this phrase). The only reading that brings out the force of the passage and gives consistency to the sentence is the rec. reading ἐμὲ δεῖ ἐργάζεσθαι τὰ ἔργα τοῦ πέμψαντός με.

Some expositors find in these words an allusion to 5:17 ὁ πατήρ μου ἕως ἄρτι ἐργάζεται, κἀγὼ ἐργάζομαι (see note in loc.); this healing at Siloam, like the healing at Bethesda, having been wrought on a Sabbath (v. 14). But the allusion to 5:17 is doubtful.

ἕως ἡμέρα ἐστίν. The day is the time for labour, while the night is for rest (Ps. 104:23); and the day is none too long for its appointed task. Jesus had already spoken of the shortness of His time (see on 7:33). The “night” was coming for Him in this sense only, that when His public ministry on earth was ended, the “works” which it exhibited would no longer be possible.

ἕως with the pres. indic. occurs in Jn. only here and at 21:22, 23 (but cf. 12:35), and is in these passages to be rendered “while” (cf. 13:38, where, followed by οὗ, it is “until”).

5. ὅταν ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ ὦ, φῶς εἰμὶ τοῦ κόσμου. We had in 8:12 the majestic claim ἐγώ εἰμι τὸ φῶς τοῦ κόσμου (see note in loc.). Here it reappears, but not in so universal or exclusive a form: ἐγώ is omitted; so is the article before φῶς, and it is introduced by a clause which seems to limit its application to the time of the ministry of Jesus upon earth. “While I am in the world, I am a light of the world,” He says; and He proceeds to impress His meaning upon His hearers by restoring his sight to the blind man. When Jn. says that Christ was “in the world” (1:10) he refers quite definitely to the period of His historical manifestation in the flesh (cf. also 17:11); and the context in the present passage shows that the same meaning must be given here to ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ. Christ is always, and always has been, and will be, τὸ φῶς τοῦ κόσμου; but that thought is not fully expressed by ὅταν ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ ὦ, φῶς εἰμὶ τοῦ κόσμου. The thought here is that it had been eternally ordered in the Divine purpose that He should “work the works of God” during His earthly ministry; and another way of expressing this is to say that while He is in the world He is, inevitably, a light of the world, whose brightness cannot be hidden.

6. Jesus is represented here (as also at 5:6) as curing the sufferer without waiting to be asked. This is unlike the Synoptic narratives of healing, e.g. Mk. 8:23, the cure of the blind man at Bethsaida, who was brought to Jesus by his friends. In that case, however, as in this, Jesus is said to have resorted to the use of physical means for the recovery of the patient, sc. the eyes were treated with spittle (cf. also Mk. 7:33).

The curative effects of saliva (especially of fasting saliva) have been, and still are, accepted in many countries. “Magyars believe that styes on the eye can be cured by some one spitting on them.”¹ A blind man who sought a cure from Vespasian asked “ut … oculorum orbes dignaretur respergere oris excremento” (Tacitus, Hist. iv. 81). Lightfoot (Hor. Hebr. in loc.) quotes a Rabbinical story which embodies the same idea. It was, apparently, a current belief in Judæa that spittle was good for diseased eyes, and that Jesus accommodated Himself to that belief is reported both by Mk. and Jn., although in neither case is it stated that He Himself accepted it as well founded. This tradition of Jesus curing blindness by means of His spittle is not found in Mt. or Lk. It is evidently the oldest tradition.

Severus Sammonicus, a second-century physician, quoted by Wetstein, prescribes the use of clay for smearing bad eyes, “turgentes oculos uili circumline caeno.”²

These strange remedies may be compared with those mentioned in a second-century inscription:³ Οὐαλερίῳ Ἄπρῳ στρατιώτῃ τυφλῷ ἐχρημάτισεν ὁ θεὸς ἐλθεῖν καὶ λαβεῖν αἷμα ἐξ ἀλεκτρυῶνος λευκοῦ μετὰ μέλιτος καὶ κολλυρίου συντρῖψαι (cf. the mixture of clay and spittle) καὶ ἐπὶ τρεῖς ἡμέρας ἐπιχρεῖσαι ἐπὶ τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς (cf. ἐπέχρισεν … ἐπὶ τοὺς ὀφθαλμούς, v. 6) καὶ ἀνέβλεψεν καὶ ἐλήλυθεν καὶ ηὐχαρίστησεν δημοσίᾳ τῷ θεῷ.¹

ἔπτυσεν χαμαί. πτύειν occurs again only Mk. 7:33, 8:23; it should be noted that at Mk. 8:23 Jesus spat into the eyes of the blind man, πτύσας εἰς τὰ ὄμματα αὐτοῦ. χαμαί only occurs again 18:6.

ἐπέχρισεν. So א A D N W Θ; B C* give ἐπέθηκεν. In the N.T. ἐπιχρίω occurs again only at v. 11.

The true text (א B L N Θ) proceeds: αὐτοῦ τὸν πηλὸν ἐπὶ τοὺς ὀφθαλμούς, i.e. “and smeared its clay” (sc. the clay which He had mixed with His spittle) “on the eyes.” The rec. text after ὀφθαλμούς adds τοῦ τυφλοῦ, “He smeared the clay on the eyes of the blind man.”

Irenæus has a curious comment on the use of clay. He says (Hær. v. xv. 2) that the true work of God (cf. v. 3) is the creation of man, “plasmatio hominis,” and he quotes Gen. 2:7 of God making man out of the dust of the earth. He concludes that the use of clay for the cure of the blind man was similar to this; being blind from his birth, he had virtually no eyes, and Jesus created them out of the clay.

εἰς τὴν κολυμβήθραν. The man interpreted this command (v. 11) as meaning, “Go to the Pool, and wash.” νίψαι εἰς τήν κτλ., however, may be translated as “wash in the Pool,” εἰς being often used where the verb of motion is not expressed but only implied, e.g. ἐλθὼν κατῴκησεν εἰς πόλιν κτλ. (Mt. 2:23; cf. Mt. 4:13), and cf. ἐντετυλιγμένον εἰς ἕνα τόπον (20:7). See, further, on 19:13.

The man, apparently, was not directed to bathe in the Pool, but only to go there to wash off the clay with which his eyes had been smeared. The Egyptian vss. render νίψαι as meaning “wash thy face” (cf. v. 10).

The Pool of Siloam (there are two pools) is situated to the south of the Temple area, at the mouth of the Tyropœon Valley. It is mentioned Isa. 8:6, where “the waters of Shiloah that go softly” are contrasted with “the waters of the Euphrates, strong and many,” which typify the Assyrian power; cf. also Neh. 3:15, Lk. 13:4. The waters which gather in the Pool are connected by a subterranean tunnel or conduit with the Virgin’s Well (see on 5:2). שָׁלַח, misit, is the root of the name Shiloah, or Siloam, which thus means, etymologically, “sent,” this name having been given to the Pool because the water is “sent” or “conducted” thither by the artificial aqueduct which goes back to the time of Hezekiah, or even earlier.¹

In the note ὃ ἑρμηνεύεται Ἀπεσταλμένος we observe the tendency to interpret Hebrew proper names for his Greek readers, of which we have many instances in Jn. (see on 1:38). Σιλωὰμ ὃ ἑρμηνεύεται Ἀπεσταλμένος is exactly parallel to Κηφᾶς ὃ ἑρμηνεύεται Πέτρος (1:42). Hence it is unnecessary, and even perverse, to seek esoteric symbolism in the note ὃ ἑρμ. Ἀπεσταλμένος, such as is suggested by commentators who call attention here to the fact that Jesus was “sent” by God (6:29 etc.). The evangelist knew that the name Siloam was given to the Pool because the water was conducted or “sent” there artificially; and he naturally passes on the information to his readers.² The word “Siloam” is not strictly a proper name, and this Jn. indicates by prefixing the article, τοῦ Σιλωάμ, as in Isa. 8:6, Lk. 13:4.

ἀπῆλθεν οὖν καὶ ἐνίψατο, καὶ ἦλθεν βλέπων. B omits οὖν … ἦλθεν, an omission due to homoioteleuton (ἀπῆλθεν … ἦλθεν). The man did as he was bidden. He was able to find his way to the Pool of Siloam, for he was no doubt familiar with the streets near the place where he was accustomed to solicit alms. Apparently, he had some confidence in the power of Jesus to heal him, for he did not hesitate, as Naaman did when bidden to bathe in the Jordan.

ἦλθεν βλέπων. The mention of his neighbours in the next verse suggests that ἦλθεν means that he went home after he had visited the Pool. At any rate, it is not clearly said that the cure was instantaneous (but cf. v. 11). The restoration or improvement of sight may not have been observed for a day or more; and some days may have elapsed between v. 7 and v. 8. See v. 13 τόν ποτε τυφλόν.

8. The lively account which follows, of the experiences of the blind man who had recovered his sight, may go back to the evidence of the man himself.

οἱ θεωροῦντες αὐτὸν ὅτι κτλ. θεωρεῖν is used here (see on 2:23) of “taking notice,” as at 10:12, 20:6 etc. They noticed the man because he was a familiar figure, as a blind beggar. Burney urges that ὅτι must mean “when,” and that it is a misrendering of the Aramaic particle דְּ, which might be translated either “that” or “when.” But this is unnecessary. They had noticed the man formerly because he used to beg from them; cf. 12:41.

With ὁ καθήμενος καὶ προσαιτῶν cf. Mk. 10:46 τυφλὸς προσαίτης ἐκάθητο παρὰ τὴν ὁδόν. A blind man begging by the wayside is a common figure in the East.

9. His neighbours and those who had formerly noticed the poor man, were not sure of his identity, now that his sight had been restored. His appearance would naturally be changed. Some said he was the man, others thought not. But he himself (ἐκεῖνος, cf. vv. 11, 12, 25, 36) set them right. ἐγώ εἰμι, “I am the man.” This is a simple affirmation of identity, not to be confused with the mystical use of ἐγώ εἰμι in Jn. (see Introd., p. cxx).

10. πῶς οὖν ἠνεῴχθησάν σου οἱ ὀφθαλμοί; The fact that the man’s sight had been restored is not challenged; it is only the manner of the cure that is in question. See vv. 15, 19, 26.

11. Ὁ ἄνθρ. ὁ λεγόμενος Ἰησοῦς κτλ., “the man who is called Jesus,” etc. He does not yet acknowledge Jesus as the Christ (cf. v. 36).

ὕπαγε εἰς τὸν Σιλωὰμ καὶ νίψαι. Some Latin and Syriac renderings give “wash thy eyes”; the Egyptian versions have “wash thy face.” (See on v. 7 above.)

νιψάμενος ἀνέβλεψα. For ἀναβλέπειν of recovering sight, see Tob. 14:2, Mt. 11:5, Mk. 10:51, Lk. 18:41; and cf. Lk. 4:18. The aor. ἀνέβλεψα would suggest that the man was cured immediately after the washing at the Pool of Siloam; but cf. v. 7 above. Strictly speaking, the verb is inappropriate to the case of congenital blindness; but a parallel is cited from Pausanias (Messen. iv. 12. 10), in which a man, who is described as τὸν ἐκ γενετῆς τυφλόν, after an attack of headache recovers his sight (ἀνέβλεψεν ἀπʼ αὐτοῦ), although only temporarily.

12. Ποῦ ἐστιν ἐκεῖνος; See on 7:11 for the same question.

The Pharisees Investigate the Cure of the Blind Man on the Sabbath (vv. 13–34)

13. The cure was so striking, and the technical breach of the Sabbath so obvious, that some of those who had been interesting themselves in the case brought the man that had been cured before the Pharisees, as the most orthodox and austere of the religious leaders (see on 7:32). This was not on the day of the cure, but on a later day. Note τόν ποτε τυφλόν.

14. ἦν δὲ σάββατον (cf. 5:9) ἐν ᾗ ἡμέρᾳ (so א B L W, but the rec. has simply ὅτε, with A D NΓ Δ Θ) τὸν πηλὸν ἐποίησεν. It was the kneading of the clay that primarily called for notice, as it was obviously a work of labour and so was a breach of the Sabbath.

15. πάλιν οὖν ἠρώτων κτλ. The questioning (see v. 10) had to begin all over again, for this was an official inquiry, and the brevity and sharpness of the man’s answers now show that he is tired of replying to queries as to the manner and circumstances of his cure.

16. There was a division of opinion among the Pharisees who heard the story of the man whose sight had been restored. The strict legalists among them fastened on one point only, viz. that the Sabbath had been broken. οὐκ ἔστιν οὗτος παρὰ θεοῦ ὁ ἄνθρωπος, “this person is not from God,” i.e. has not been sent by God, has no Divine mission. For παρά cf. 1:6, also 1 Macc. 2:15, 17; and see on 6:46 for the deeper meaning which παρὰ θεοῦ has elsewhere.

ὅτι τὸ σάββατον οὐ τηρεῖ. This was the charge that had been made against Jesus on a former occasion, when He healed the impotent man at Bethesda and told him to carry his mat away (5:10). There was a twofold violation of the Sabbath laws apparent in this case, for not only had the clay been kneaded (v. 14), but it was specially forbidden to use spittle to cure bad eyes on the Sabbath: “As to fasting spittle; it is not lawful to put it so much as upon the eyelids.”¹

It is curious that the phrase τὸ σάββατον τηρεῖν does not occur again in the Greek Bible; but τηρεῖν is a favourite verb with Jn. (see on 8:51).

Others among the Pharisees took a larger view of the situation, probably such men as Nicodemus or Joseph of Arimathæa. They called attention to the σημεῖα of Jesus as wonderful, no matter what the day was on which they were wrought. πῶς δύναται ἄνθρωπος ἁμαρτωλὸς (this word “sinner” is only found in Jn. in this chapter) τοιαῦτα σημεῖα (see on 2:11) ποιεῖν; How could a sinner do such things?

καὶ σχίσμα ἦν ἐν αὐτοῖς. Cf. for similar divisions of opinion, 7:43, 10:19; and see also 6:52, 7:12.

17. λέγουσιν οὖν τῷ τυφλῷ πάλιν, “they,” sc. the Pharisees collectively who were present, “say again to the blind man,” i.e. they resume their inquiry, to get more details.

τί σὺ λέγεις περὶ αὐτοῦ; “What do you say about Him?”

ὅτι ἠνέῳξέν implies that as Jesus had opened his eyes, the man’s opinion was worth having. “What do you say, inasmuch as it was your eyes that He opened?” conveys the sense. For the constr., cf. 2:18. Burney suggested that ὅτι is here a mistranslation of the Aramaic relative דְּ, and points to the Vulgate qui aperuit. But it is not necessary to appeal to an Aramaic original here. See Abbott, Diat. 2183.

The man’s answer was προφήτης ἐστίν. He did not say that Jesus was “the prophet,” as the multitude said after the miracle of the loaves (6:14), but only that He was “a prophet,” a simple answer like that of the Samaritan woman (4:19), i.e. that He was an extraordinary person who could do extra-ordinary things.

18. Up to this point the Pharisees have not directly challenged the statement that the man’s sight had been restored, having confined themselves to the question about the breach of the Sabbath which was involved. But the answer of the man, προφήτης ἐστίν, leads the more hostile of them (οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι, see on 5:10) to suspect collusion between Jesus and the patient, and so they summon the parents for further inquiry as to their son’s blindness and its cure.

γονεῖς occurs in Jn. only in this chapter: the word in the N.T. is always used in the plural.

19. The Pharisees now cross-examine the parents, in strict fashion. “Is this your son? the son whom you say was born blind? How is it that he now sees?”

ἄρτι is a favourite word with Jn., and signifies “at this moment,” as distinct from the vaguer νῦν, “at the present time.” Cf. v. 25, 13:7, 33, 37, 16:12, 31.

20. ἀπεκρίθησαν οὖν οἱ γονεῖς κτλ. א B support οὖν, which is omitted in the rec. text, αὐτοῖς being put in its place (om. א B L W).

The parents were anxious to avoid responsibility in the matter of the cure, being afraid of the Jewish leaders (v. 22). They admit, of course, that the man was their son, and that he had been born blind, but they disclaim all knowledge of the manner of his cure. Perhaps they had not been present when Jesus smeared the man’s eyes. At any rate, they repudiate with special emphasis any knowledge of who it was that healed him: τίς ἤνοιξεν αὐτοῦ τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς ἡμεῖς οὐκ οἴδαμεν.

21. αὐτὸν ἐρωτήσατε, ἡλικίαν ἔχει, “ask him, he is of age,” and therefore a legal witness. ἡλικία in the Synoptists always means “stature,” but in this passage and at Heb. 11:11 it means “age.” ἡλικίαν ἔχει is a good classical phrase, and is found in Plato. αὐτὸς περὶ ἑαυτοῦ λαλήσει, “he will tell you about himself.” The parents were much alarmed.

αὐτὸν ἐρωτήσατε is omitted by א*W b and the Sahidic vss. (including Q), a remarkable combination.

22. ταῦτα εἶπαν … ὅτι ἐφοβοῦντο τοὺς Ἰουδαίους. The fear of “the Jews” (see 1:19, 5:10), the Jewish opponents of Jesus, whose leaders were the Pharisees, was very definite (cf. 7:13). They were determined to check His success, and to put down His popularity. Cf. 7:44f.

ἤδη συνετέθειντο, they had formed a compact (cf. 7:32, 47–49), and decided that strong measures must be taken against any one confessing (see on 1:20) Jesus as Christ. He had not yet declared Himself openly in Jerusalem (10:24), but it had been debated whether He were not indeed the Christ (7:26f.).

Except when Jn. is interpreting Μεσσίας (1:41, 4:25), this is the only place in the Gospel where we find Χριστός without the def. article: “if any one should confess Him as Christ.” Cf. Rom. 10:9 for a similar constr.: ἐὰν ὁμολογήσῃς Κύριον Ἰησοῦν, “if thou shalt confess Jesus as Lord.”

ἀποσυνάγωγος, “excommunicate.” The word is found in the Greek Bible only here and at 12:42, 16:2. Full excommunication involved a cutting off from the whole “congregation of Israel” (cf. Mt. 18:17); but it is probable that the lesser penalty of exclusion from the synagogue for a month (the usual period) is all that is indicated here. That he who acknowledged Jesus as the Messiah was to be treated as ἀποσυνάγωγος is mentioned again 12:42.¹

23. διὰ τοῦτο, “wherefore,” referring (as generally in Greek) to what precedes; cf. 13:11, 15:19, 16:15, 19:11, 1 Jn. 4:5. For διὰ τοῦτο as referring to what follows, see on 5:16.

ὅτι Ἡλικίαν ἔχει, αὐτὸν ἐπερωτήσατε (so א B W). ὅτι is recitantis, purporting to introduce the actual words spoken. Note that the order of the words has been changed, for in v. 21 we have αὐτὸν ἐρωτήσατε, ἡλίκιαν ἔχει. Jn. is not punctilious in his narrative about reproducing the exact words or the order of words (see on 3:16).

24. The Jewish leaders summon the man himself for re-examination (ἐκ δευτέρου, cf. v. 17). They now press him on the point of his former evidence, which they suggest was not true.

δὸς δόξαν τῷ θεῷ. This does not mean here “Thank God” (cf. Lk. 17:18), but it is a form of adjuration meaning “Speak the truth,” as at Josh. 7:19 (cf. 1 Esd. 9:8).

ἡμεῖς οἴδαμεν ὅτι οὗτος ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἁμαρτωλός ἐστιν, “we know,” speaking with ecclesiastical authority, “that this man is a sinner,” although the blind man had said (v. 17) that He was a prophet. They suggest that the man was lying, and was in collusion with Jesus.

25. The shrewdness and obstinacy of the man reveal themselves in his answer. He refuses to discuss their assertion that Jesus was a sinner. “One thing I know, that being a blind man, now I see.” That is all he will say.

26. Accordingly his questioners attempt a further cross-examination, hoping to elicit some damaging admission.

After αὐτῷ, the rec. text has πάλιν (א^cA N Γ Δ Θ), but om. א*B D W.

27. The man who has recovered his sight now becomes irritable, and turns on his questioners: εἶπον ὑμῖν ἤδη καὶ οὐκ ἠκούσατε, “I told you already (v. 15), and you did not hear,” i.e. you did not heed. Fam. 13 have ἐπιστεύσατε for ἠκούσατε, and the O.L. r has creditis, an attempt to interpret ἠκούσατε.

μὴ καὶ ὑμεῖς θέλετε αὐτοῦ μαθηταὶ γενέσθαι; “Surely you do not wish to become disciples of His?” He could not refrain from this ironical gibe, which he must have known would irritate the Pharisees. καί before ὑμεῖς, “you also,” suggests that it was known that Jesus had made some disciples already, and that the Pharisees were aware of it.

28. καὶ ἐλοιδόρησαν αὐτόν, “and they reviled him.” Having failed to get anything out of the man which might be damaging to Jesus, they angrily accuse him of being on the side of Jesus.

Σὺ μαθητὴς εἶ ἐκείου, “you yourself are a disciple of that fellow.” ἐκεῖνος conveys a suggestion of contempt; and, as Bengel says, “hoc vocabulo remouent Iesum a sese.”

ἡμεῖς δέ κτλ., “we, on the contrary, are disciples of Moses,” as all orthodox Rabbis claimed to be.

29. ἡμεῖς οἴδαμεν (cf. v. 24) ὅτι Μωϋσεῖ λελάληκεν ὁ θεός (cf. Heb. 1:1): that was why they were proud to be disciples of Moses.

τοῦτον δὲ οὐκ οἴδαμεν πόθεν ἐστίν. They profess complete ignorance of the antecedents of Jesus. Some of the people of Jerusalem knew, indeed, whence He came, τοῦτον οἴδαμεν πόθεν ἐστίν (7:27, where see note), although there was a deeper sense in which none of the Jews knew it (8:14). But the Pharisees would not admit that they either knew or cared what was His origin or who were His kindred.

30. The man whose sight had been restored is now thoroughly angry, and he goes on to argue in his turn, shrewdly enough, beginning with a mocking retort.

ἐν τούτῳ γὰρ (this is the order of words in א B L Θ) τὸ θαυμαστόν ἐστιν κτλ., “Why, then, here is an astonishing thing, that you (ὑμεῖς, whose business it is to know about miracle-workers) do not know whence He is, and yet (καί) He opened my eyes!” Syr. sin., with a b c ff², om. γάρ, D and e replacing it by οὖν; but γάρ must be retained. Blass says that we should treat the sentence as an interrogative, “Is not this, then, an astonishing thing?” (see Abbott, Diat. 2683). But it is simpler to take γάρ as referring back to what had just been said, “Why, if that be so, etc.”

31. The argument is clear. God does not hear the prayers of sinners. Miracles are granted in answer to the prayers of a good man. Jesus has worked a miracle. Therefore Jesus is a good man.

οἴδαμεν, “we all know,” introducing a maxim which no one will dispute; cf. 3:2, 1 Jn. 5:18.

ἁμαρτωλῶν ὁ θεὸς οὐκ ἀκούει, “sinners are not heard by God,” ἁμαρτωλῶν being put in the first place (with א A L N W Γ Δ, but B DΘ have ὁ θε. ἁμ.) for emphasis. ἀκούειν here takes the genitive, because it implies a hearing with attention; see on 3:8.

The principle that God does not hearken to the prayers of sinners appears frequently in the O.T.; cf. Job 27:9, Ps. 66:18, Isa. 1:15, 59:2, Ezek. 8:18, Mic. 3:4, Zech. 7:13. For the converse principle, that God hears the prayer of a godly man, cf. Ps. 34:15, 145:19, Prov. 15:29, Jas. 5:16.

θεοσεβής is not found again in the N.T. (it occurs in the LXX, e.g. Job 1:1); but cf. 1 Tim. 2:10 for θεοσέβεια.

ἐάν τις … τὸ θέλημα αὐτοῦ ποιῇ, τούτου ἀκούει. That Jesus “did the will of God” is a frequent thought in Jn.; see on 4:34. For the answer always given to His prayers, cf. 11:22, 41.

32. ἐκ τοῦ αἰῶνος. The phrase ἀπὸ τοῦ αἰῶνος or ἀπʼ αἰῶνος occurs Lk. 1:70, Acts 3:21, 15:18, and is common in the LXX (1 Chron. 16:36, Ps. 25:6, 90:2, Ecclus. 14:17, Jer. 2:20, etc.), as it is in the papyri. But ἐκ τοῦ αἰῶνος does not occur again in the Greek Bible, the nearest phrase being ἐξ αἰῶνος, Prov. 8:21. (Wetstein illustrates it freely from non-Biblical authors.) We have here an instance of the interchangeability of ἐκ and ἀπό which we have already observed in Jn. (see on 1:44, 6:38).

ἐκ τοῦ αἰῶνος κτλ., “Since the world began it was unheard of that any one opened the eyes of one who was born blind.” It is this point, viz. that the blindness was congenital, that is insisted on throughout; whereas in the case of the cure of the man at Bethesda, the circumstance that he had been infirm for thirty-eight years (5:5) passes out of view at once, and attention is concentrated on the fact that he was cured on a Sabbath day.

33. εἰ μὴ ἦν … ποιεῖν οὐδέν. This was a principle recognised by Nicodemus (3:2), to which reference is made again at 10:21. “If this man were not sent from God (cf. v. 16 for παρὰ θεοῦ), He could do nothing,” sc. of this wonderful nature.

34. The Pharisees will not stoop to refute a low person who ventures to argue with them; but the retort ascribed to them is weak, for it admits what they had previously questioned (v. 19), viz. that the blindness was congenital, and assigns as a reason for it the man’s prenatal sin (cf. v. 2).

ἐν ἁμαρτίαις (the emphatic words beginning the sentence) σὺ ἐγεννήθης ὃλος. Cf. Ps. 51:5; and for ὅλος cf. 13:10.

καὶ ἐξέβαλον αὐτὸν ἔξω. This does not signify “they excommunicated him” (v. 22), a formal act which could only be done at a formal sitting of the Sanhedrim. It only means “they put him out,” sc. of their presence; cf. note on 6:37, where ἐκβάλλειν ἐκ is shown to be a Johannine phrase.

35. ἤκουσεν Ἰησοῦς א*B omit ὁ before Ἰησοῦς, perhaps rightly; see on 1:29, 50.

When Jesus heard of the repulse of the man by the Pharisees, after his courageous utterances, He sought him out. With εὑρὼν αὐτόν cf. 1:43, 5:14.

σὺ πιστεύεις εἰς τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου; The form of the question presupposes an affirmative reply, “Thou, at least, believest in the Son of Man?” The man’s simplicity and constancy, in the presence of those whom he had good reason to fear, show Jesus that he is already on the way to become a disciple. Not only did he assert before the Pharisees that his Healer must have a Divine mission (παρὰ θεοῦ, v. 33), but his faith was beginning to go deeper. He was on the point of believing in (see on 1:12 for the force of πιστεύειν εἰς … and cf. 4:39) the Son of Man (see Introd., p. cxxxi). This is the criterion of Christian discipleship which was placed before him.

We follow א B D W and Syr. sin. in reading τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου But A LΘ and most vss. read τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ, which is the usual title in Jn. when confession of faith is in question. See, e.g., 1:34, 49, 11:27; and cf. Mt. 16:16. According to 20:31, the purpose of the Fourth Gospel is that readers may believe that “Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.” But if “the Son of God” were the original reading here, it is surprising that scribes should have altered it to “the Son of Man,” which does not appear in any of the other confessions of faith; while the change from the unusual “Son of Man” to “Son of God,” the usual title in similar contexts, is easily explicable (see 6:69 for a similar alteration by scribes). Further, v. 36 shows that the would-be disciple did not understand who was meant by “the Son of Man” or that Jesus was claiming such a title for Himself. As we have seen (1:49), the Messiah was popularly designated “the Son of God,” but “the Son of Man” was not a recognised Messianic title (see Introd., p. cxxx). The man to whom Jesus spoke was evidently puzzled (cf. 12:34).

36. ἀπεκρίθη ἐκεῖνος καὶ εἶπεν καὶ τίς ἐστιν, κύριε; For this B W have the shorter form καὶ τίς ἐστιν, ἔφη, κύριε;

The man had accepted Jesus as a prophet (v. 17), and so he was ready to act on whatever Jesus bade him. He will put his trust in the “Son of Man” if he is told who He is, and where he may find Him.

καὶ τίς ἐστιν; “Who then is He?” For the initial καὶ, cf. καὶ τίς δύναται σωθῆναι; (Mk. 10:26, Lk. 18:26) and καὶ τίς ἐστίν μου πλησίον; (Lk. 10:29). Cf. also 14:22.

He addresses Jesus with respect: κύριε, “sir” (see on 12:21). κύριε generally comes at the beginning of the sentence, but here and at v. 38 it comes at the end.

ἵνα πιστεύσω εἰς αὐτόν, taking up the words of Jesus in the preceding verse. There is an ellipsis before ἵνα, which has full telic force. “Who is He?” for I want to know in order that I may put my trust in Him.” Cf., for a similar constr., 1:22.

37. The reply of Jesus, beginning καὶ ἑώρακας αὐτόν, has a special force as addressed to a man who had been blind from his birth. “You have seen Him.” This was one of the first blessings which came to him through “the opening of his eyes.” In his case, faith followed immediately on the “seeing” of Jesus, in marked contrast with the case of those to whom it was said ἑωράκατέ [με] καὶ οὐ πιστεύετε (6:36, where see note).

καὶ ὁ λαλῶν μετὰ σοῦ ἐκεῖνός ἐστιν, “He who is talking with you is He.” Cf. 4:26 for a similar discovery of Himself to the Samaritan woman. For ἐκεῖνος, used by the speaker or narrator of himself, see on 19:35.

38. The man’s response is unhesitating: πιστεύω, κύριε, “I believe, Lord”; κύριε being now used with a respect which has passed into reverence (see on 1:38, 4:1), for the narrator adds καὶ προσεκύνησεν αὐτῷ “and he worshipped Him.” προσκυνεῖν (see on 4:20) is always used in Jn. to express divine worship.

The whole of v. 38 and the words καὶ εἶπεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς in v. 39 are omitted in א*W, the O.L. b, and the fourth-century Coptic MS. described as Q. The O.L. l also omits the clause, with the exception of καὶ προσεκύνησεν αὐτῷ. Such a consensus of Greek, Coptic, and Latin authorities for this omission is remarkable, as a textual phenomenon; but the omission cannot be original.

The Inner Meaning of the Healing, and the Condemnation of the Pharisees (vv. 39–41)

39. Here is given, in brief, the interpretation of the story, for this miracle was a σημεῖον (v. 16). The cure of the man’s blindness was symbolic of the giving of spiritual vision to those conscious of their spiritual blindness, who are therefore willing to be healed. But some do not feel the need of a Healer. This is the dividing line between man and man. And the mission of Jesus leads up to judgment, according as men do or do not recognise their Deliverer in Him.

εἰς κρίμα ἐγὼ εἰς τὸν κόσμον τοῦτον ἦλθον. Cf. 16:28, 18:37 for the saying “I am come into the world”; and cf. also 6:14. For the phrase “this world,” see on 8:23. It means the earthly world, the home of fallen man, which is therefore imperfect. κρίμα (a word not found again in Jn.) is the result of a κρίσις or act of distinguishing between good and bad, and so of judging. So the sentence means, “It was with a view to that ultimate decision which shall distinguish man from man that I came into this world,” special emphasis being laid on ἐγώ.

There is no mention of the Agent of this Judgment, i.e. of the Personality of the Judge, and so there is no inconsistency with 3:17 (cf. 8:15). Jesus does not say here that He came to execute Judgment (cf. 5:22), but in order that by His coming men might be tested and so judgment reached at last. The supreme test, as always (cf. v. 35, and see on 3:15), is faith in Himself. Those who recognise Him for what He is are in one category; those who fail to do so, in another.

He came, not only to give recovery of sight to the physically blind (Isa. 61:2, quoted by Himself Lk. 4:18), but to open the eyes of the spiritually blind. It was the challenge of a prophet, “Look, ye blind, that ye may see” (Isa. 42:18); and Jesus came to bring this illumination to those conscious of their blindness, ἵνα οἱ μὴ βλέποντες βλέπωσιν.

There is also a severer purpose in the coming of Jesus. It was ἵνα … οἱ βλέποντες τυφλοὶ γένωνται, “that those who see should become blind” (cf. Mk. 4:12). There is a darkening of moral vision which is caused by complacent satisfaction with the light that is already enjoyed (cf. Rev. 3:17, 18). Those who see only dimly, and do not desire to see more clearly, lose the power of sight wholly; they become blind. This was the end of the Pharisees (the “blind guides” of Mt. 23:16), who did not see anything exceptional in Jesus. They could not see at first, because they would not; and so the judgment of blindness fell upon them. See further on 12:40.

40. Some Pharisees who were near overheard what Jesus said, and interjected the scornful question, “Are we also blind?”

ἐκ τῶν φαρισαίων … οἱ μετʼ αὐτοῦ ὄντες. The Sinai Syriac renders “who were near Him,” μετά indicating proximity in place, but not necessarily any attachment of discipleship. See τοὺς πτωχοὺς γὰρ πάντοτε ἔχετε μεθʼ ἑαυτῶν (12:8); and cf. Mt. 9:15. The crushing reply of Jesus (v. 41) to their question forbids the hypothesis that these Pharisees are to be reckoned among the half-believing Jews mentioned at 8:31.

μὴ καὶ ἡμεῖς τυφλοί ἐσμεν; “Are we also spiritually blind,” we who are the recognised religious teachers of the nation? The form of the question, μὴ καὶ ἡμεῖς …, suggests that a negative answer is believed by the questioners to be the obviously true answer See on 6:67.

41. The answer of Jesus is as overwhelming as it was unforeseen. The Pharisees had expected that He would say, “Yes, you are blind, despite your authoritative position as religious guides” (cf. Mt. 23:16). But instead of that, He said, “No, you are not wholly blind; that is the worst feature of your case.”

εἰ τυφλοὶ ἦτε, οὐκ ἂν εἴχετε ἁμαρτίαν. If they were wholly and involuntarily blind to the presentation of the Divine which Jesus embodied, they would not be blameworthy for refusing to acknowledge it. Cf. εἰ μὴ ἦλθον καὶ ἐλάλησα αὐτοῖς ἁμαρτίαν οὐκ εἴχοσαν (15:22). But this was not their situation. The perpetual reproach with which Jesus challenged them (cf., e.g., 8:47) was that their failure to accept Him was a moral failure. Their self-satisfaction prevented them from seeing what they ought to have seen in Him (see on v. 39 above). Their claim to “see,” βλέπομεν, was arrogant, and shut them out from the larger vision which had offered itself (cf. Prov. 26:12). So “your sin abides,” i.e. is not removed.

For the Johannine constr. ἔχειν ἁμαρτίαν, cf. 15:22, 19:11 and 1 Jn. 1:8.

ἡ ἁμαρτία ὑμῶν μένει. There is a sin against light which is eternal in its consequences. Cf. Mk. 3:29 for the Synoptic form of this tremendous judgment.

10:19. The sequence of ideas brings vv. 19–29 into direct connexion with c. 9 rather than with 10:1–18, and they are printed accordingly at this point. See Introd., p. xxiv, for some considerations which favour the order 9:41, 10:19–29, 10:1–18, 10:30ff.

σχίσμα. A division of opinion had appeared before among the crowd (7:43), but this was among the Jewish critics of Jesus, the Pharisees, who were not all of one mind about Him. πάλιν refers back to the σχίσμα of 9:16, which had originated in the cure of the blind man, and which is still apparent.

20. δαιμόνιον ἔχει. This was an easy way of accounting for the strangeness of the teaching of Jesus, and we have had it before 7:20, 8:48; cf. Wisd. 5:4, and see Introd., p. clxxvii.

τί αὐτοῦ ἀκούετε; “Why do you heed Him?” ἀκούειν with the gen. always indicating in Jn. a hearing with attention and appreciation (see on 3:8). The question betrays a certain uneasiness on the part of the questioners.

21. Others were less swayed by prejudice. “These are not the words of one possessed with a devil.” δαιμονίζεσθαι is a familiar verb in Mk. and Mt., but it occurs only here in Jn., who prefers δαιμόνιον ἔχειν.

“Can a devil open the eyes of blind people?” Mt. represents the Pharisees as admitting the possibility of miracles wrought by demoniac agency (Mt. 12:24), but this idea does not appear in Jn. To open the eyes of the blind is a Divine prerogative (Ps. 146:8).

The Feast of the Dedication: Jesus Admits that He is Messiah, of Which His Words Should Have Been Sufficient Proof (vv. 22–25)

22. ἐγένετο τότε τὰ ἐνκαίνια ἐν τοῖς Ἱεροσολύμοις. τότε is read by B L W, but it has been replaced by δέ in א A D Θ and the rec. text. τότε is not common in Jn., and indicates here that some time had elapsed since the last date mentioned, viz. the Feast of Tabernacles (7:37). Chapters 8 and 9 describe a period of continual controversy with the Pharisees, which was brought to a head by the healing of the blind man and the claims subsequently made by Jesus. The Feast of Tabernacles was celebrated about the month of October, and it was now December. Jn. is forward to give dates when he can (see Introd., p. cii).

The Feast of the Dedication (חֲנוּבִה, “Renewal”) was instituted by Judas Maccabæus to commemorate the purification of the Temple from the pollutions of Antiochus Epiphanes by the dedication of a new altar (1 Macc. 4:36, 59, 2 Macc. 10:5, 6), and was kept at the winter solstice (Chislev, 25); and during the following week Josephus notes that it was customary to light the lamps on the “candlestick” as a mark of rejoicing, and that the Feast was sometimes called τὰ φῶτα (Antt. XII. vii. 6). The ceremonial was similar to that of Tabernacles (2 Macc. 10:6), the idea of light being conspicuous in both festivals. Hence the words “I am the Light of the World” (8:12, 9:5) would have been equally illustrated by the ritual of Tabernacles or of Dedication.

It was not a matter of obligation to attend at Jerusalem for the Feast of τὰ ἐνκαίνια, which might be observed elsewhere; and Jesus is not represented by Jn. as “going up” to Jerusalem for it. It happened that the season of the Dedication came on while He was there, and, as Jn. notes, it was winter.

Ἱεροσολύμοις. A B L WΘ prefix τοῖς, which א D Γ Δ omit. Jn. usually omits the article before Ἱεροσόλυμα (see on 2:23; and cf. 1:19).

23. “It was winter, and Jesus was walking in the Temple, in Solomon’s porch.” That is, He was giving His teaching under shelter, because of the severity of the season, in the eastern cloister of the Temple precincts (for τὸ ἱερόν, the Temple enclosure, see on 2:14). This vivid touch suggests that the writer is thoroughly familiar with the place and the conditions under which instruction was given there. At the time when the Fourth Gospel was written, the Temple had been for some years in ruins; but the note of time and circumstance is easily explicable, if we have here the reminiscence of an eye-witness of the scene.

ἡ στοὰ τοῦ Σολομῶνος is mentioned again, Acts 3:11, 5:12.

24. ἐκύκλωσαν οὖν αὐτὸν οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι. “The Jews (see on 1:19) surrounded Him,” sc. that they might settle the question as to His claims.

ἕως πότε τὴν ψυχὴν ἡμῶν αἴρεις; “How long dost thou hold us in suspense?” This rendering of the R. V. is probably accurate, although no exact parallel for ψυχὴν αἴρειν in this sense has been produced. We have the phrase at Ps. 25:1, 86:4, meaning “lift up my soul,” and so Josephus uses it (Antt. III. ii. 3). Here it is, “How long do you excite our spirits,” i.e. arouse our expectations?—in other words, keep us in suspense. The expression is idiomatic Greek, and has survived in modern Greek: ὡς πότε θὰ μᾶς βγάζεις τὴν ψυχήν, “How long will you plague us?”¹

εἰ σὺ εἶ ὁ Χριστός κτλ. “If thou be the Christ, etc.,” σύ being emphatic, “If you are really the Christ.”

εἰπὸν ἡμῖν παρρησίᾳ. Cf. Mt. 26:63, Lk. 22:67; and for παρρησίᾳ, see on 7:4.

25. “Art thou the Christ?” is one of those questions which cannot be answered by a direct “Yes” or “No,” if misunderstanding is to be avoided. If He had said “Yes,” they would have assumed that He claimed to be the Messiah of Jewish patriotic expectation; and this He was not. But He could not say “No” without disavowing His mission. So He answers by saying (1) that He had told them already, and (2) that His works sufficiently exhibit Him as the Anointed of God.

א*D omit αὐτοῖς, but ins. א^cA B L W Θ B omits ὁ before Ἰησοῦς, as it frequently does.

εἶπον ὑμῖν (see on 6:36, 11:40). The only open avowal by Jesus of His Messiahship recorded by Jn. before this point in the narrative is at 4:26, and this was addressed, not to the Jews but to the Samaritan woman. But He had told them indirectly, and more than once (e.g. 5:39, 8:24, 56, 9:37; cf. 2:16); if their thoughts had been in tune with His, they would have understood.

καὶ οὐ πιστεύετε, “and yet (note καί for καίτοι or ἀλλά; see on 1:10) you do not believe,” πιστεύειν being used absolutely; see on 1:7. The reason for their unbelief is explained in v. 26.

τὰ ἔργα. For ἔργα used of the “works” of Christ, see on 5:20.

The place of “signs” as generating faith in Christ has already been discussed (see on 2:11); here He speaks, as at 5:36, of the value of His “works” as “witnessing” to His claims, which is the same thing put into different words. His works bear witness as to the kind of Messiah which He is. For the idea of “witness” in Jn., see Introd., p. xcii.

τὰ ἔργα ἃ ἐγὼ (emphatic) ποιῶ ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι τοῦ πατρός μου. For the phrase “the Name of my Father,” see on 5:43. The works of Jesus were done, not only as the ambassador of the Father and sent by Him (see on 3:17), but as by one to whom the “Name,” that is the providential power of the Father, had been given (see on 17:11, and cf. 14:26). There is no special reference to the invocation of the Name of God comparable with the invocation of names of power common in Gnostic magic. In the Fourth Gospel the ἔργα of Christ are the ἔργα of the Father (cf. v. 37).

ταῦτα, the subject of the sentence, repeated for the sake of emphasis; see on 6:46.

The Jews Do Not Believe in Jesus, Because They are Not of His Flock. He is Their True Shepherd, Would They But Recognise It; Other Shepherds are False Guides (vv. 26–29, 1–6)

26 ff. In our arrangement of the text we have at v. 26 the first appearance in Jn. of the image of Jesus as the Shepherd, and of His followers as His sheep. The image is introduced without any explanation, but it is apparent from the Synoptic Gospels that it was one which Jesus often used, and which must have been familiar to His disciples. He called them His “little flock” (Lk. 12:32); and He declared His mission to be primarily addressed to “the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Mt. 10:6, 15:24). One of the most touching of His parables is that in which He compared Himself with a shepherd seeking a lost and strayed sheep, while the rest of his flock are left temporarily by themselves (Mt. 18:12, Lk. 15:4). The wandering crowds move His pity, because they are as “sheep without a shepherd” (Mk. 6:34, Mt. 9:36). He told His disciples, in words from Zechariah, that when their Shepherd was smitten, they would be like sheep scattered abroad (Mk. 14:27, Mt. 26:31). This was one of the illustrations by which Jesus was accustomed to describe His own ministry; and the apostolic writers speak of Him in the next generation as the “Shepherd of souls” (1 Pet. 2:25), “the great Shepherd of the sheep” (Heb. 13:20), without adding any comment or explanation.

This imagery, natural to a pastoral people, was already familiar to the Jews. In the Psalms, Yahweh is the Shepherd of His people (Ps. 23:1, 77:20, 79:13, 80:1, 95:7, 100:3; cf. Ezek. 34:12–16). And it is particularly to be observed that Messiah is spoken of in the O.T. as a Shepherd. Micah (5:4) and Isaiah (40:11) both speak of the future Deliverer as one who will feed His flock; and in the Psalms of Solomon (17:45) the same picture is found of the Messianic king tending the flock of Yahweh. Cf. 2 Esd. 2:34. This idea of the Messiah as Shepherd is developed in the verses which follow here.

The sequence of thought in vv. 26–29, 1–18, must now be set out. In v. 24, the Jews ask Jesus for a plain answer to the question, “Art thou the Messiah?” In the note on v. 25 it has been pointed out that an answer “Yes” or “No” might have been misleading. Jesus first replies that He has in effect, told them already, and then that His “works should be a sufficient witness. He now goes on to give a fuller answer. The reason why the Jews did not realise at once that He was the Messiah was that they were not His true “sheep.” Were they His sheep, they would recognise His voice as that of their Shepherd, and would follow Him unhesitatingly (v. 27). He it is indeed who gives His sheep eternal safety, and no one can snatch them out of His hand, or out of the hand of God who gave them to Him (v. 28). They are “the sheep of His hand,” as the Psalmist has it (Ps. 95:7).

It ought to be possible always to recognise a true shepherd. He comes into the fold through the door, and does not climb over the wall, as a thief would do (v. 1). The porter opens the door to him, and the sheep recognise his voice: he calls them by name, and leads them forth (v. 3). He leads and they follow, recognising his voice (v. 4), while they would run from that of a stranger (v. 5). But the Jews did not understand what bearing this allegory had on the question they had asked, sc. “Art thou the Messiah?” In particular, they cannot perceive what or where is the door into the fold by which the true shepherd enters. So Jesus explains this.

“I am the Door,” He says (v. 7). Accordingly all claiming to be your Messianic shepherds who did not pass through this Door are thieves and robbers (v. 8), as is further established by the fact that the sheep of Israel did not attend to them (v. 8). “I am the Door,” and not only for the shepherds, but for the sheep. I am the Door for the shepherds because I am the Door for the sheep. It is only through me that you can enter the fold of safety, and be led out into good pastures (v. 9). The thieves and robbers come only to destroy and kill. I am come to give life abundantly (v. 10).

And then the main theme is resumed, the metaphor of the Door having been explained. I am the Good Shepherd, who gives His life for the sheep, unlike the hireling who runs away when there is danger (vv. 11–13). I know my sheep, and they know me (just as the Father knows me and I know Him), vv. 14, 15. I have other sheep besides those of the Flock of Israel: them also I must lead, and they too shall hear my voice. So shall there be One Flock and One Shepherd (v. 16).

The Father loves me, because I am thus laying down my life, to take it up again (v. 17). My death is voluntary. But the Father knows and approves. Indeed this is His commandment (v. 18). The fact is, that I and my Father are One (v. 30).

26. ἀλλὰ ὑμε͂ις οὐ πιστεύετε, ὅτι οὐκ ἐστέ κτλ. So א B D L W Θ, but the rec. has οὐ γὰρ ἐστέ. The thought is the same as that at 8:47, where see the note. Those who are not of the flock of Christ have no faith. This is natural, for faith, in the Fourth Gospel, is born of a certain spiritual affinity.

The rec. adds at the end of the verse καθὼς εἶπον ὑμῖν, with A D; but these words are not found in א B L W Θ, and cannot be regarded as part of the true text. If genuine, they must refer to something that has preceded, and cannot be associated with what follows (Tatian links them with v. 27). It is not easy to find any previous saying of Jesus in Jn., to which καθὼς εἶπον ὑμῖν could be referred at this point, if the words were genuine, other than such passages as 8:47 mentioned above (cf. 6:36, 11:40, 14:2). Even if the traditional arrangement of the text be followed, there is nothing in vv. 1–18 which says expressly that those who are not of Christ’s flock have no faith. Probably καθὼς εἶπον ὑμῖν is the interpolation of a scribe working on the displaced text, who wished to connect τὰ πρόβατα τὰ ἐμά of vv. 26, 27, with those of whom (as he supposed) vv. 1–18 had already told.

27. τὰ πρόβατα τὰ ἐμὰ τῆς φωνῆς μου ἀκούουσιν, sc. hear with obedient attention. Cf. vv. 3, 16; and see on 3:8.

The rec. has ἀκούει (from v. 3), but א B L W Θ give ἀκούουσιν (cf. v. 16). So we have here the plural ἀκολουθοῦσιν, while at v. 4 we have ἀκολουθεῖ.

The sheep, in Eastern lands, follow the shepherd, who always goes before and leads. Cf. Ignatius, Philad. 2, ὅπου δὲ ὁ ποιμήν ἐστιν, ἐκεῖ ὡς πρόβατα ἀκολουθεῖτε.

28. κἀγὼ δίδωμι αὐτοῖς ζωὴν αἰώνιον. (This is the order of the words in א B L.) This was the gift of Jesus to His sheep, i.e. to His faithful disciples, as promised 6:27, 40. Cf. 1 Jn. 2:25, 5:11.

καὶ οὐ μὴ ἀπόλωνται εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα. These sheep of His will not be lost finally. See on 3:16; and cf. 6:39, 17:12, 18:9. The words recall the Synoptic parable of the lost sheep rescued by the Shepherd.

καὶ οὐχ ἁρπάσει (so A B WΓ Δ Θ, while א D L have ἁρπάσῃ) τις αὐτὰ ἐκ τῆς χειρός μου. This had already been promised by Jesus (6:37, 39). For ἁρπάζειν in a similar sense, cf. v. 12; the verb has occurred before at 6:15.

29. ὁ πατήρ μου ὃς δέδωκέν μοι πάντων μείζων ἐστίν. The textual variants are puzzling. For ὅς (A B²Γ Δ Θ syrr. sah.), א B*L W latt. have ὅ; and for μείζων (א D L Γ Δ W Syr. sin. sah.), A B Θ latt. have μεῖζον.

Thus the weight of MS. authority favours the reading ὃ … μεῖζον. The Vulgate, following the O.L., clearly supports this: “pater meus, quod dedit mihi maius omnibus est.” But the meaning then must be: “As for my Father, that which He has given me (i.e. my flock of sheep) is greater than all.” This is quite unsuited to the context, as not only here, but in vv. 1–18, the main thought is of the weakness of the sheep and their dependence on the Shepherd’s strength. To introduce at this point the idea of the Church as a mighty organisation would be wholly irrelevant, and the reading ὃ … μεῖζον is to be rejected.

ὁ πατήρ μου must be the subject of ἐστίν, and ὅς must be preferred to ὅ. The neuter singular is used several times in Jn. to denote the sum-total of those who have been given by the Father to the Son; and probably through reminiscence of such phrases as πᾶν ὃ δέδωκέν μοι (6:39, and see note on 6:37) and πᾶν ὃ δέδωκας αὐτῷ (17:2), ὅ has got into the text at this point. μείζων has then been changed to μεῖζον, so as to agree with ὅ.

Burney¹ found in the aberrant ὃ … μεῖζον an illustration of his theory that in the Fourth Gospel we have to do with a translation from an Aramaic source, רַבָּא … דְּ being rendered ὃ … μεῖζον, instead of ὃς … μείζων. This ingenious argument is, however, not necessary, as the variants can be explained otherwise.

The rendering, then, of the text which we adopt is simple: “My Father, who gave (them) to me, is greater than all things,” i.e. is all-powerful. For the “giving” by the Father to the Son, see on 3:35; and cf. 17:11.

καὶ οὐδεὶς δύναται ἁρπάζειν ἐκ τῆς χειρὸς τοῦ πατρός. Jesus has already given the assurance that “no one will snatch His sheep away from Him.” They are the sheep which His all-powerful Father has given to Him, and He adds (as self-evident) that “no one can snatch them away from the Father.” See Deut. 32:39 οὐκ ἔστιν ὃς ἐξελεῖται ἐκ τῶν χειρῶν μου; and cf. Isa. 49:2, 51:16. This is at the heart of the comfortable saying of Wisd. 3:1 δικαίων δὲ ψυχαὶ ἐν χειρὶ θεοῦ.

The allegory of the Sheep and the Shepherd follows at this point. No one can snatch the sheep of Jesus from His safe-keeping, and He proceeds to explain with emphasis that it is only with Him that safety is assured (see Introd., p. xxiv).

10:1. ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν. For this solemn prelude to sayings or discourses of special significance, see on 1:51. It is never used abruptly to introduce a fresh topic, out of connexion with what has gone before, nor does it begin a new discourse. It always has reference to something that has been said already, which is expanded or set in a new light (cf. 8:34, 51, 58). Thus it introduces here the allegory of the sheep in the fold who recognise their shepherd, which arises out of the pronouncements in vv. 26–29. To begin this allegory by “Verily, verily,” is exactly in the Johannine manner.

Verses 1–5 are a παροιμία of general application, of which Jesus explains the reference to Himself and His flock in vv. 7–16.

The αὐλὴν τῶν προβάτων is the open courtyard in front of the house, where the sheep were folded for the night. The word is used thus in Homer, where the Trojans are compared to ὄϊες πολυπάμονος ἀνδρὸς ἐν αὐλῇ (Iliad, iv. 433). So Josephus represents Abraham as sitting παρὰ τῇ θύρᾳ τῆς αὐτοῦ αὐλῆς, where the LXX has σκηνῆς (Gen. 18:1; cf. Antt. 1. xi. 2). A shepherd, who had access to the courtyard, would naturally come in and go out by the θύρα. See on v. 16; and cf. 18:15, 16 for these terms.

ἀλλὰ ἀναβαίνων ἀλλαχόθεν, “but one climbing up another way,” sc. a man who gets over the wall into the courtyard. ἀλλαχόθεν (4 Macc. 1:7) is a legitimate form for ἄλλοθεν, and is found in the papyri (see Moulton-Milligan, s.v.). It does not occur elsewhere in the N.T.

ἐκεῖνος, inserted for explicitness, as Jn. so frequently uses it (see on 1:8).

κλέπτης ἐστὶν καὶ λῃστής, “is a thief and a robber”; he has, presumably, come to steal the sheep and to carry them off with violence. See further on v. 8. κλέπτης is used again of Judas (12:6) and λῃστής of Barabbas (18:40). Cf. Obad. 5 for κλέπται and λῃσταί coming by night.

2. ὁ δὲ εἰσερχόμενος κτλ. On the other hand, a man coming into the court or fold by the door presumably is entitled to do so. He is a shepherd, whose business it is to look after the sheep. He is ποιμὴν προβάτων (Gen. 4:2). The application of this to Jesus comes later. So far the picture is true of all sheepfolds and shepherds.

3. τούτῳ ὁ θυρωρὸς ἀνοίγει, “to him the doorkeeper opens” the door when he comes. This, again, is part of the general picture. It does not appear that in the allegory the θυρωρός is significant. In every parable there are details in which a spiritual meaning is not necessarily to be sought.

καὶ τὰ πρόβατα τῆς φωνῆς αὐτοῦ ἀκούει κτλ. The sheep hear his voice with obedient attention (see v. 27 and the note on ἀκούειν with the gen. at 3:8). That is, they recognise his voice as that of a shepherd.

τὰ ἴδια πρόβατα φωνεῖ κατʼ ὄνομα. Several flocks under different shepherds might be brought into the same fold for a night. All the sheep might discern the note of authority in the voice of any lawful shepherd. But it is only the sheep of his own flock that a shepherd will call by name. This he does, as he leads them out to pasture; and it is only “his own sheep” that follow.

φωνεῖ. So א A B D L W, as against the rec. καλεῖ (Γ Δ Θ). Jn. prefers φωνεῖν to καλεῖν; but cf. Isa. 40:26, 43:1, 45:3 for the use of καλεῖν with ὄνομα. See on 1:48.

It is still common for Eastern shepherds to give particular names to their sheep, “descriptive of some trait or characteristic of the animal, as Long-ears, White-nose, etc.”¹

4. ὅταν τὰ ἴδια πάντα ἐκβάλῃ. So א^caB D L Θ, but AΓ Δ read πρόβατα for πάντα. The rec. has καὶ ὅταν (with A DΓ Δ), but א B L W Θ omit καί. It probably came in from καὶ τὰ ἴδια in the preceding verse. “When he has put out (of the fold) all his own”: he is careful to forget none, as he leads his flock to pasture. ἐκβάλλειν suggests a certain measure of constraint, the shepherd thrusting out a sheep that delays unduly in coming forth at his call.

The shepherd, having collected his own flock from the fold, goes before them (ἔμπροσθεν αὐτῶν). At 3:28 ἔμπροσθεν is used of priority in time; here it refers to space, as at 12:37. His own sheep follow him (cf. v. 27), because they know his voice (cf. vv. 26, 3).

5. They will not follow an ἀλλότριος, that is, any one who is not their own shepherd, whether he be the legitimate shepherd of another flock, or an impostor and a thief (v. 1) Rather will they run away from him, for they do not know or recognise his voice. This, as we shall see (v. 8), is a specially significant feature of the allegory. Cf. v. 26 above and v. 8 below.

ἀκολουθήσουσιν. So A B DΔ, but א L W Θ have ἀκολουθήσωσιν.

6. ταύτην τὴν παροιμίαν εἶπ. κτλ. παροιμία occurs again in N.T. only in Jn. 16:25, 29 (as well as in 2 Pet. 2:22, where it introduces a quotation from Prov. 26:11). On the other hand, παραβολή does not occur outside the Synoptists, except at Heb. 9:9, 11:19. In the LXX both words are used to translate מָשָׁל: in Ezek. 12:23, 18:2, 3, the LXX having παραβολή and Symmachus παροιμία. In Ecclus. 47:17 we find Solomon’s ᾠδαί and παροιμίαι and παραβολαί all mentioned together.

Etymologically παραβολή suggests the placing of one thing beside another (παραβάλλειν) or a comparison, while παροιμία is derived from παρʼ οἶμον, something said “by the way.” But the distinction sometimes put forward, that παραβολή always stands for a fictitious narrative, intended to instruct the hearer, as in the “parables” of Christ, while παροιμία is a “proverb,” a terse saying of wisdom, cannot be sustained. Thus in the passage now under consideration, παροιμία is the description of the allegory of the Shepherd and the Sheep, while at Lk. 4:23 the proverbial taunt, “Physician, heal thyself,” is called a παραβολή (cf. Lk. 5:36). And in Ezekiel παραβολή is sometimes descriptive of an allegory (17:2f.), and sometimes signifies a “proverb” (16:44, 18:2). Cf. Ecclus. 8:8, 39:3, for the παροιμίαι of the wise and their hidden meaning.

All that can be said about these two Greek words here is that Jn. uses παροιμία, while the Synoptists prefer παραβολή, both doubtless going back to the Hebrew מָשָׁל, a saying or discourse which, either from its terseness or its veiled significance, may need explanation before it can be fully understood.

This παροιμία of the Shepherd and the Sheep was addressed to the Jews (see v. 25): εἶπεν αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰησοῦς. They, however (ἐκεῖνοι, for clearness as to the persons indicated; see on 1:8), did not understand its application; and accordingly Jesus proceeds to explain how it bears on what he had told them (v. 26). The idea of a shepherd as a spiritual leader was, of course, quite familiar to them (see on v. 26), as were also the ordinary habits of shepherds and sheep. But what they did not realise was the appositeness of the allegory in vv. 1–5, in relation to their question, “Art thou the Messiah?” (v. 24). In particular, what was the Door through which Jesus said the true shepherd must come?

7. εἶπεν οὖν πάλιν ὁ Ἰησοῦς. οὖν is here more than a mere conjunction; it was because they did not understand that the explanation which follows was given. “Accordingly, Jesus said to them again”; πάλιν also being emphatic (cf. 8:12, 21).

ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ θύρα τῶν προβάτων. For the use in Jn. of the dignified prelude ἐγώ εἰμι, which marks the style of deity, see Introd., p. cxviii.

ἡ θύρα τῶν προβάτων must mean primarily the gate by which the sheep enter and leave the αὐλή, and this would also be the gate used by the shepherd. The phrase cannot be translated, however, “the gate to the sheep,” although that is involved. Cf. ἡ πύλη τῶν ἱππέων, “the horse gate” (2 Chron. 23:15), meaning the gate by which the horses enter. “The sheep gate” (cf. 5:2) in Neh. 3:1 is ἡ πύλη ἡ προβατική. Jn. never uses πύλη, while θύρα occurs again 18:16, 20:19, 26.

When Jesus announces here that He is ἡ θύρα τῶν προβάτων, the primary meaning is that He is the legitimate door of access to the spiritual αὐλή, the Fold of the House of Israel, the door by which a true shepherd must enter. In v. 9 the thought is rather that He is the door which must be used by the sheep.

For ἡ θύρα, the Sahidic supports ὁ ποιμήν, which is adopted by Moffatt as the true reading here. But, apart from the fact that ἡ θύρα τῶν προβάτων has the weight of MS. authority overwhelmingly in its favour, ὁ ποιμήν would not fit the argument at this point. The Jewish inquirers could not have failed to understand that Jesus claimed to be the Shepherd (see v. 26); their difficulty was as to the interpretation of the Door which was so important in the allegory of vv. 1–5. Verses 7–10 are taken up with the explanation of this: “I am the Door,” a figure verbally inconsistent indeed with the image of the Shepherd entering by the door, but being quite intelligible when taken by itself. See further on v. 9.¹

8. πάντες ὅσοι ἦλθον πρὸ ἐμοῦ κλέπται εἰσὶν καὶ λῃσταί. So א^cA B D L W but א* om. πρὸ ἐμοῦ, with most vss., including the Latin, Sahidic, and Syriac; and Westcott-Hort treat the words as a “Western and perhaps Syrian” gloss. On the other hand, they may have been omitted by scribes to lessen the risk of the passage being interpreted as if it applied to the O.T. prophets.² πρὸ ἐμοῦ must relate to priority in time (cf., e.g., Neh. 5:15). But even if the words be omitted, ἦλθον involves a “coming” in the past; and we must translate “all that came before me are thieves and robbers.”

The reference is, undoubtedly, to v. 1. He who enters the fold by any other way than the “door” is “a thief and a robber.” Now Jesus claims to be the Door of the Fold of the Flock of Israel, and hence it follows that all who sought a way of access to the sheep before He was manifested as the “Door” may be described as “thieves and robbers.” This, nakedly stated, is a harsh saying. But, if the sequence of the argument be followed from v. 23 onward (see on v. 26), it is not so intolerant as it sounds (see also on 14:6). The distinction that is being drawn out is not that between the ministrations of older prophets and teachers, and the perfect ministration of Jesus, but rather (as Chrysostom points out) between those who falsely claimed to be heaven-sent deliverers and the true Messiah Himself.

The methods, e.g., of Judas of Galilee, who instigated the people to revolt against Roman taxation about the year a.d. 6, were violent, and led to murder and robbery (so Josephus, Antt. XVIII. i. 6; cf. B.J. II. viii. 1 and Acts 5:37). According to Acts 5:36, Theudas was an earlier impostor of the same type, although Josephus (Antt. xx. v. 1) seems to put him later, if indeed he is describing the same person. And, apart from Judas and Theudas, we have the testimony of Josephus (Antt. XVII. x. 4, 18) that at the beginning of the first century Judæa was the scene of innumerable risings and disorders, which were caused, in part at any rate, by current misinterpretations of the Messianic idea, associated by the Zealots with militant activities. It is true that we have no knowledge of any Jew before Barcochba (a.d. 135) who claimed explicitly to be the Messiah. But there were many pretenders to the office of leadership of the nation, and to such the words of Jesus, “thieves and robbers,” were fitly applied. And the present tense εἰσίν confirms the view that His allusion was to leaders of revolt who belonged to the first century, some of whom were probably living at the time.

The convincing proof that none of these was the divinely appointed Shepherd of Israel was: οὐκ ἤκουσαν αὐτῶν τὰ πρόβατα, “the sheep,” sc. the true sheep of Israel, who are alone in view throughout this chapter, “did not listen to them” (cf. vv. 4, 5, where it was pointed out that sheep recognise their true shepherd’s voice, while they will not listen to one who is only an impostor). It was just because the Jews who were arguing were not the true sheep of Israel that they did not accept Jesus as their Shepherd (v. 26).

9. ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ θύρα. This is repeated from v. 7, a repetition in the Johannine manner (see on 3:16), a slight change being made in the form of the saying. In v. 7 the stress is laid on Jesus being the Door through which a lawful shepherd would enter. But here the thought is simpler. He is the Door through which the sheep must enter the fold, a saying which is not relevant to the allegory of this chapter, but is consonant with the teaching of Jesus as presented by Jn. elsewhere. He is the Door into the spiritual fold, as He is the Way (and the only Way) of access to the Father (14:6; cf. Eph. 2:18, Heb. 10:20). The αὐλή (see v. 1) to which He is the Door is the fold of the house of Israel, the Jewish fold; nor has anything been said up to this point which suggests any wider fold (cf. v. 16, where the Gentile fold is indicated for the first time). But the saying I am the Door has always been quoted, from the first century onward, as having as wide an application as the parallel saying I am the Way.

Clement of Rome, commenting on Ps. 118:19, 20, speaks of “that gate (πύλη) which is in righteousness, even in Christ” (§ 48). Ignatius (Philad. 9) speaks of Christ as being θύρα τοῦ πατρός, “through whom Abraham and Isaac and Jacob enter in, and the prophets and the apostles, and the Church.” Both these passages seem to carry an allusion to ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ θύρα. So also Hermas (Sim. ix. 12) has: ἡ πέτρα αὕτη καὶ ἡ πύλη ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, the explanation being added that the Rock is ancient, but the Gate recent (καινή), because “He was made manifest in the last days of the consummation,” … ἵνα οἱ μέλλοντες σώζεσθαι διʼ αὐτῆς εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν εἰσέλθωσι τοῦ θεοῦ, words which recall the teaching of v. 9. According to Hegesippus (Eus. H.E. II. xxiii. 8), James, the Lord’s brother, was asked by inquirers τίς ἡ θύρα τοῦ Ἰησοῦ; which carries an allusion either to this passage or to a Synoptic precept such as Lk. 13:24 ἀγωνίζεσθε εἰσελθεῖν διὰ τῆς στενῆς θύρας (Mt. 7:13 has πύλης).

Two reminiscences of the Johannine “I am the Door” may be quoted from Gnostic sources. In the hymn in the second-century Acts of John (§ 95), we find the phrases θύρα εἰμί σοι [τῷ] κρούοντί με, ὁδός εἰμί σοι παροδίτῃ. The image of one knocking at a door is not identical with that of one entering by it; but it probably goes back to Jn. 10:9. Again, Hippolytus cites Jn. 10:9 from a Naassene writer in the form ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ πύλη ἡ ἀληθινή, and he represents the Naassene as adding οὐ δύναται σωθῆναι ὁ τέλειος ἄνθρωπος, ἐὰν μὴ ἀναγεννηθῇ διὰ ταύτης εἰσελθὼν τῆς πύλης (Ref. v. viii. 21), a passage which recalls Jn. 3:5 as well as 10:9.¹

Probably the proclamation “I am the Door” should be taken in connexion with the Synoptic saying about the Narrow Door (Mt. 7:13, Lk. 13:24). Jn., however, is careful not to suggest that the Door is narrow, while he implies that there is only one Door. The comparison with the Synoptists suggests that the αὐλή or fold of the spiritual Israel represents the kingdom of God.

διʼ ἐμοῦ ἐάν τις εἰσέλθῃ, σωθήσεται κτλ. διʼ ἐμοῦ comes first for emphasis. The form ἐάν τις expresses the catholicity of the implied appeal (cf. 7:17); any one may enter by this Door. And the sheep which enters the fold thus shall, first of all, be safe (σωθήσεται; see on 3:17). As Jesus had said already, none can snatch His sheep from the Shepherd’s hand (v. 28).

καί εἰσελεύσεται καὶ ἐξελεύσεται. The “going out and coming in” suggests being at home (Deut. 28:6, Ps. 121:8), the daily routine of the sheltered flock (cf. Acts 1:21). Num. 27:17, which speaks of the shepherd leading the sheep out and bringing them in again, is hardly apposite, for at this point the thought is of the sheep rather than of the shepherd. We must take the words in connexion with καὶ νομὴν εὑρήσει. The sheep which has entered the fold by the door is then safe, and he shall find pasture for his needs. Cf. 1 Chron. 4:40, where the same phrase εὑρίσκειν νομήν is found. The shepherd leads the sheep to pasture (v. 3 above; and cf. Ps. 23:1, 74:1, 95:7, 100:3, Ezek. 34:14); but here the thought is of the happiness of the sheep rather than of the duty of the shepherd.

10. ὁ κλέπτης οὐκ ἔρχεται κτλ. The thief (cf. Ex. 22:1) comes only to steal and kill (κλέπτειν and θύειν do not occur again in Jn.) and destroy (see Jer. 23:1; and cf. v. 28, οὐ μὴ ἀπόλωνται εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα).

ἐγὼ ἦλθον κτλ., “I have come (on the contrary) that they may have life.” Cf. v. 28 and 14:6. The Fourth Gospel was written that believers might thus “have life” in the Name of Jesus (20:31).

καὶ περισσὸν ἔχωσιν, “and may have it to the full.” This is the περισσεία of Christ’s grace (Rom. 5:20). So Xenophon (Anab. VII. vi. 31), περισσὸν ἔχειν, “to have a surplus.”

11. We have had the allegory of the Shepherd and the Sheep (vv. 1–5); then the explanation of what is meant by the Door (vv. 7–10); now we come to the great proclamation of Jesus as the Good Shepherd, as contrasted with the hireling.

Philo (de Agric. §§ 6, 9, 10) draws out a similar contrast between the ἀγαθὸς ποιμήν, who does not allow his sheep to scatter, and the mere herd (κτηνοτρόφος), who permits the flock to do as it likes. But the similarity does not go beyond what may naturally be observed between the words of two writers who are expounding the same image; there is no literary connexion to be traced between Jn. 10 and Philo.

On ἐγώ εἰμι, and the special appropriateness of this phraseology in passages such as this, something has already been said in the Introduction (p. cxviii). Dods quotes, however, a striking parallel from Xenophon (Mem. II. vii. 14), where ἐγώ εἰμι is used only to mark a contrast, the sheep-dog being represented as saying to the sheep, ἐγὼ γάρ εἰμι ὁ καὶ ὑμᾶς αὐτὰς σώζων, ὥστε μήτε ὑπʼ ἀνθρώπων κλέπτεσθαι, μήτε ὑπὸ λύκων ἁρπάζεσθαι. If this had been found in Philo, it would probably have been claimed by somebody as the source from which Jn. derived the language of these verses. But literary parallels do not always imply literary obligation.

ὁ ποιμὴν ὁ καλός, “the Good Shepherd,” Pastor bonus. We have already noticed that Philo calls his good shepherd ἀγαθός; and it is not possible to draw any clear distinction in such passages as the present between the two adjectives. No doubt, goodness and beauty were closely associated in Greek minds; and, if we please, we can find the thought of the beauty of holiness suggested by the application of καλός to the Good Shepherd (cf. καλὰ ἔργα in v. 32). But ὁ καλὸς οἶνος in 2:10 is simply good wine, the adjective carrying no allusion either to moral or æsthetic beauty. In Tob. 7:7 and 2 Macc. 15:12 an “honest and good man” is καλὸς καὶ ἀγαθός, a frequent Greek combination. And when καλός is combined, as here, with the description of a man pursuing a particular business, it simply conveys the idea that he discharges his office or fulfils his calling well, just as we would speak of “a good doctor.” Thus we have καλοὶ οἰκονόμοι, “good stewards” (1 Pet. 4:10); ὁ τοῦ μισθοῦ καλὸς ἀνταποδότης, “the good paymaster of the reward,” i.e. he who will make no default (Barnabas, xix. II); and “good priests,” καλοὶ καὶ οἱ ἱερεῖς (Ignatius, Philad. 9), in comparison with the High Priest, who is κρείσσων. Barnabas in another place (7:1) speaks of “the good Lord,” ὁ καλὸς κύριος. Here, then, ὁ ποιμὴν ὁ καλός is simply the Good Shepherd, One who tends His flock perfectly, without any failure of foresight or tenderness, of courage or unselfishness.¹

τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ τίθησιν κτλ. He lays down His life for the sheep. All good shepherds are ready to risk their lives in defence of their flock (1 Sam. 17:35, Isa. 31:4); He who is uniquely the Good Shepherd lays down His life.

For τίθησιν, א*D substitute the more usual δίδωσιν, but τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ τιθέναι is a characteristic Johannine expression for the “laying down” of His life by Jesus, occurring again vv. 15, 17, 13:37, 38, 1 Jn. 3:16, and (of a disciple acting as Jesus did) 15:13. It stands in contrast with the Synoptic δοῦναι τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ (Mk. 10:45, Mt. 20:28).

The expression τὴν ψυχὴν τιθέναι, “to lay down one’s life,” ponere animam, is not found in the Greek Bible outside Jn. (cf. 15:13, 1 Jn. 3:16). Nor is it a classical phrase, but from Hippocrates, ψυχὴν κατέθετο, “he died,” is quoted by Dods, following Kypke. We have, indeed, in Judg. 12:3 (cf. 1 Sam. 19:5, 28:21), ἔθηκα τὴν ψυχήν μου ἐν χειρί μου, “I took my life in my hand,” i.e. I risked my life; but in Jn. τὴν ψυχὴν τιθέναι means rather “to divest oneself of life,” as at Jn. 13:4 τίθησι τὰ ἱμάτια means “He divests Himself of His garments.”

ὑπὲρ τῶν προβάτων, “on behalf of the sheep.” The Synoptists in similar contexts have ἀντί (Mt. 20:28, Mk. 10:45), but ἀντί occurs only once in Jn. (1:16), and there it does not mean “instead of.” In this passage the Death of Jesus is said to be “on behalf of the sheep”: it is not explicitly declared that it was on behalf of all men, “to take away the sin of the world,” as at 1:29, 1 Jn. 2:2. But there is no inconsistency with the catholicity of these great pronouncements; and, lest the allegory might be too narrowly interpreted, mention is made in v. 16 of “other sheep” who must learn to follow the Shepherd.

12. ὁ μισθωτὸς καὶ οὐκ ὢν ποιμήν. The rec. with AΓ has δέ after, א D Δ Θ have it before, μισθωτός: om. B L W. Syr. cur. has “the hireling, the false one,” but this explanatory gloss is not in Syr. sin.

Blass (Gram. 255) suggests that οὐκ is a Hebraism, “since in the case of a participle with the article, the LXX render לֹא by οὐ” (cf. στεῖρα ἡ οὐ τίκτουσα, Isa. 54:1). But although in v. 1 we have ὁ μὴ εἰσερχόμενος, “any one not coming through the door,” at v. 12 οὐκ is preferable to μή before ὤν, because the hireling is certainly not the shepherd.

ὁ μισθωτός. The term occurs again in the N.T. only at Mk. 1:20, where it is used of the “hired servants” in Zebedee’s boat. It occurs often in the LXX, and is not necessarily a term of reproach. In Job 7:2 it is used, as here, of a servant who thinks primarily of his wages. The μισθωτός may be an honest man; but the care of a herdsman who comes for wages to look after a flock of sheep can never be equal to that of their own shepherd, who knows each one and is ready to give his life for theirs. In vv. 1–5 the shepherd was contrasted with the thief, nothing being said about the excellence of the shepherd’s service, the thought being only of his right to enter the fold. Here, in vv. 11–15, we have the contrast exhibited between a good shepherd and a hired man whose only interest in his flock comes from his wages. In vv. 12, 13, the conduct which may be expected from the μισθωτός in the hour of danger is described in terms contrasting strongly with the conduct of the really good shepherd. We must not confuse the “hireling” with the “thief” of v. 1, any more than with the “wolf” of v. 12. He is only blameworthy because his service is perfunctory, as compared with ὁ ποιμὴν ὁ καλός, who is the perfect shepherd.

The centre of the picture is the figure of “the Good Shepherd,” that is, of Jesus Himself. His example of self-sacrifice and watchfulness has always been held up to the “pastors” of His Church (vv. 1–16 form the Gospel for the Ordering of Priests); but to these lesser pastors there is no direct reference in this passage, while the figure of the “hired man” supplies a warning to them all. Cf. 1 Pet. 5:2, where those who tend the flock of God are warned that they must not do their work “for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind.”

οὗ οὐκ ἔστιν τὰ πρόβατα ἴδια, “whose own the sheep are not.” There is no thought here of the owner of the sheep; that does not come into the allegory. But every true shepherd counts the sheep entrusted to his care as his own in a peculiar sense; this the μισθωτός does not feel.

θεωρεῖ τὸν λύκον ἐρχόμενον, “notices the wolf coming.” For θεωρεῖν as signifying intelligent perception, see on 2:23, and cf. 9:8.

The wolf is the great danger to sheep in a country like Palestine (cf. Mt. 10:16); and that “grievous wolves would enter in, not sparing the flock” (Acts 20:29), was a warning to the Church at Ephesus of which its leaders could not mistake the meaning. The μισθωτός is likely to leave the sheep and run away when the wolf appears. Cf. “ut non derelinquas nos, sicut pastor gregem suum in manibus luporum malignorum” (2 Esd. 5:18). See Zech. 11:17.

ὁ λύκος ἁρπάζει αὐτά, “the wolf snatches them,” as no enemy could snatch His sheep from the care of Jesus (v. 29). That is because He is “the Good Shepherd.”

καὶ σκορπίζει. The rec. adds τὰ πρόβατα, but this explanatory addition is not necessary, and is not found in א B D W. A consequence of the carelessness of the man in charge of the sheep is described similarly in Jer. 10:21 καὶ διεσκορπίσθησαν (cf. Jer. 23:1). And in the vision of Ezek. 34:5, when the shepherds neglected their duty “the sheep became meat to all the beasts of the field, and were scattered.”

For σκορπίζομαι, διασκορπίζομοι, as applied to the “scattering” of the spiritual flock, cf. 11:52, 16:32. One of the marks of the unworthy shepherd of Zech. 11:16 is τὸ ἐσκορπισμένον οὐ μὴ ζητήσῃ. Cf. also Zech. 13:7, “smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered.”

The rec. repeats after σκορπίζει, ὁ δὲ μισθωτὸς φεύγει, but this unnecessary gloss is omitted by א B D L Θ. W om. this, and also the following ὅτι μισθωτός ἐστιν.

13. οὐ μέλει αὐτῷ περὶ τ. π. We have the same construction, descriptive of God’s providence, at 1 Pet. 5:7 αὐτῷ μέλει περὶ ὑμῶν. Cf. Tob. 10:5, οὐ μέλει μοι.

14. ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ποιμὴν ὁ καλός, repeated after the Johannine manner. Cf. v. 9 for the repetition of “I am the Door”; and see on 3:16.

καὶ γινώσκω τὰ ἐμά. This has been said already, v. 27, κἀγὼ γινώσκω αὐτά. It is one of the marks of a good shepherd; cf. v. 3, where it is noted as a habit of the shepherd to have individual names for his sheep. “The Lord knoweth them who are His” is a sentence of judgment (Num. 16:5); but it may also be taken as a benediction (2 Tim. 2:19). Cf. Nah. 1:7.

The rec. proceeds καὶ γινώσκομαι ὑπὸ τῶν ἐμῶν (see on 14:21), following AΓ Δ Θ, but א B D L W read καὶ γινώσκουσί με τὰ ἐμά. This, too, has been said or implied before; cf. vv. 27, 3, 4. The sheep know their shepherd’s voice.

15. καθὼς γιν … κἀγὼ γινώσκω … We have seen on 6:57 that the constr. καθὼς … κἀγώ may be taken in two different ways. In the present passage we may either (1) place a full stop after ἐμά, and then we have a new sentence, sc. “As the Father knoweth me, so I know the Father,” the constr. being the same as that at 15:9, 20:21; or (2) we may treat καθὼς γινώσκει … τὸν πατέρα as explanatory of the preceding words, sc. “I know mine, and mine know me, even as the Father knoweth me, and I know the Father,” the constr. then being similar to that at 6:57, 17:21. The A.V. follows (1), the R.V. adopts (2); and both are legitimate renderings of the Greek, and consistent with Johannine usage. The difficulty of (1) is that the words “As the Father knoweth me, so I know the Father,” would seem to be irrelevant to the context, unless we are to connect them with what is said in v. 17, and understand by v. 15, “As the Father knoweth me, so I know the Father, and, because I know Him and His will, I lay down my life for the sheep.”¹ But this is to interpolate a thought which is not expressly stated. On the other hand, it may be objected to the rendering (2), that it suggests that the knowledge of Christ by His true disciples is comparable in degree and in kind to the knowledge that He has of the Father. No other statement in the Fourth Gospel or elsewhere claims for His disciples so intimate a knowledge of Christ as this would seem to do (the promise of 14:20 is for the future, not the present). But we have seen (on 6:57) that καθὼς … καί does not, in fact, imply a perfect or complete parallelism with what has gone before. All that is said here, if rendering (2) be adopted, as we believe it must be, is that the mutual knowledge by Christ’s sheep of their Good Shepherd, and His knowledge of them, may be compared with the mutual knowledge of the Son and the Father; it is not the perfection or intimacy of the knowledge that is in view, it is its reciprocal character. Cf. 1 Cor. 11:3; and see further on 17:18.

Adopting rendering (2), the sequence of thought in vv. 14, 15, is plain: “I am the Good Shepherd, as is shown first by my knowledge of my sheep and theirs of me, and secondly by my readiness to lay down my life on their behalf.” These are the two principal marks of the Good Shepherd which have been noted in the preceding verses.

The mutual knowledge of the Father and the Son which is brought in here parenthetically is explicitly stated in the great declaration Mt. 11:27, Lk. 10:22, and is implied at 17:21 and at many other points in the Gospel. That Jesus knew God in a unique manner and in pre-eminent degree was His constant claim (see on 7:29; and cf. also 8:55, 17:25).

καὶ τὴν ψυχήν μου τίθημι κτλ. This is repeated, like a refrain, from v. 11, in the Johannine manner. See note on 3:16 for such repetitions.

For τίθημι, א*D W have δίδωμι. See the similar variant in v. 11, and the note there.

16. ἄλλα πρόβατα ἔχω κτλ. These “other sheep” were the Gentiles, who “were not of this fold,” i.e. not of the Jewish Church.¹ They were not, indeed, in any fold as yet, being “scattered abroad” (11:52). Jesus claims them as already His: “Other sheep I have,” for such is the Divine purpose, which, being certain of fulfilment, may be spoken of as already fulfilled.

κἀκεῖνα δεῖ με ἀγαγεῖν, “them also I must lead,” δεῖ expressing that inevitableness which belongs to what is foreordained by God (see on 3:14). Not only had it been prophesied of Messiah that He was to be a “Light to the Gentiles” (Isa. 42:6, 49:6), but there was the explicit promise, “The Lord God which gathereth the outcasts of Israel saith, Yet will I gather others to Him, beside His own that are gathered” (Isa. 56:8).

All this is intelligible from the standpoint of a Christian living at the end of the first century, when it had long been conceded that the gospel was for the Gentile as well as for the Jew. But it is not so easy to be sure how far Jesus taught this explicitly. Had His teaching been clear on so important a point, it is difficult to believe that the apostles could have misunderstood it. Yet Acts and the Pauline Epistles show that acute controversy arose in the apostolic circle about the position of the Gentiles. All were ready to admit that, as Jewish proselytes, they might pass into the Christian Church; but could they be admitted to Christian baptism without passing through the portal of Judaism? For this Paul contended successfully, but his struggle was severe. Had he been able to quote specific words of Christ determining the matter, his task would have been easier; but this, seemingly, he was unable to do. Did Jesus, then, teach plainly that Gentile and Jew were equally heirs of the Gospel promises?

In Mk. (excluding the Appendix), the mission of Jesus to those who professed the Jewish religion is the exclusive topic of the narrative, and there is no saying of Jesus recorded which would suggest that He had a mission also to the Gentiles. Indeed, when He crossed the border into the country “of Tyre and Sidon,” He did not wish His presence to be known (Mk. 7:24); and when the Syrophœnician woman asked Him to cure her daughter He is reported to have said to her, “Let the children first be filled,” adding that children’s bread should not be given to “dogs.” This may have been a proverbial saying (which would mitigate its seeming harshness); but at any rate Mk. gives no hint that Jesus regarded non-Jews as having any claim on His ministry. In Mt. (15:24) Jesus actually says to the woman, “I was not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel”; as He had said to the apostles in an earlier passage (10:5, 6), “Go not into any way of the Gentiles, and enter not into any city of the Samaritans; but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”

But these are only seemingly instances of Jewish particularism. They do not explicitly convey more than that Jesus regarded His mission as directed in the first instance to the Jews; and, in fact, there are many indications that both Mt. and Lk. believed the Gentiles to be included within the redeeming purpose of Christ. The prophecies about Messiah being a light to the Gentiles are quoted (Mt. 4:16, 12:21; cf. Lk. 2:32). The Roman centurion was commended for his faith (Mt. 8:10); so was the Samaritan leper (Lk. 17:19); and the example of the Good Samaritan is held up for imitation (Lk. 10:37). The saying, “Many shall come from the east and the west, and shall sit down with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob,” is in Mt. (8:11), and, in a different context, also in Lk. (13:28). The command to preach to all nations is in the Marcan Appendix (Mk. 16:15) as well as in Mt. 28:19; and, even if it be supposed that we have not in the latter passage the ipsissima verba of Christ, there can be no doubt that it represents one aspect of His teaching (cf. Mt. 24:14, Lk. 24:47).

In Jn.’s narrative the Gentiles come without argument or apology within the scope of the Gospel. Jesus stays two days with the Samaritan villagers, to teach them (4:40); He does not admit that descent from Abraham is a sufficient ground for spiritual self-satisfaction (8:39); He is approached by a party of Greeks (12:20f.); He declares that He is the Light of the world (8:12), which implies that the Gentiles as well as the Jews are the objects of His enlightening grace. And in the present passage (10:16) Jesus, in like manner, declares that He has “other sheep” besides the Jews, while it is not to be overlooked that He puts them in the second place: “Them also I must lead.” They are not His first charge: that was to shepherd “the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” He “came to His own” (1:11) in the first instance.

Jn., then, is in agreement with Mt. and Lk. in his representation of the teaching of Jesus about the Gentiles; and this teaching is accurately represented in the saying of Paul that the gospel was “to the Jew first, and also to the Greek” (Rom. 1:16). Mk. is the only evangelist who says nothing about the inclusion of the Gentiles. The significance of what Jesus had said about this was perhaps not appreciated by Mk., any more than it was by those with whom Paul had his great controversy. See further on 11:52, 12:21.

καὶ τῆς φωνῆς μου ἀκούσουσιν. So He says again, v. 27 (cf. 18:37). So Paul said of the Gentiles, when the Jews at Rome had declined to accept his message: τοῖς ἔθνεσιν ἀπεστάλη τοῦτο τὸ σωτήριον τοῦ θεοῦ· αὐτοὶ καὶ ἀκούσονται, “they will hear it” (Acts 28:28). Note that ἀκούειν here takes the gen., as it does when it connotes hearing with understanding and obedience. See on 3:8.

μία ποίμνη, εἷς ποιμήν, “one flock, one shepherd”: the alliteration cannot be reproduced in another language.

A rendering of the Latin Vulgate in this verse has led to so much controversy, that the textual facts must be briefly stated. All Greek MSS. have ἐκ τῆς αὐλῆς ταύτης … μία ποίμνη, εἷς ποιμήν. The O.L. vss.¹ correctly preserve the distinction between αὐλή and ποίμνη, by rendering them respectively ouile (fold) and grex (flock). But Jerome’s Vulgate has ouile in both places. This might be taken for a mere slip, were it not that in his Comm. on Ezekiel (46) he distinctly implies that the Greek word αὐλή is repeated, saying that he is dissatisfied with the old rendering ouile for αὐλή and suggesting atrium. Wordsworth and White (in loc.) regard this as establishing Jerome’s reliance here on some Greek authority which had αὐλή in the last clause instead of ποίμνη. Into this question we need not enter, further than to note that no such Greek authority is now extant. However Jerome’s eccentric rendering unum ouile et unus pastor arose, the weight of authority is overwhelmingly against it, although it has caused misunderstanding and perplexity for many centuries.

Jesus did not say there would be one fold (αὐλή): He said one flock, which is different. In one flock there may be many folds, all useful and each with advantages of its own, but the Flock is One, for there is only One Shepherd. The unity of the Hebrew people is indicated similarly in Ezekiel by the assurance that one shepherd will be set over them, as ruling over an undivided kingdom, Judah and Israel having come together again: “I will set up one shepherd over them, even my servant David: he shall feed them” (Ezek. 34:23; cf. 37:24). The phrase “one shepherd” is also found in Eccles. 12:11, where it refers to God as the one source of wisdom.

Jn., in the next chapter, expresses the thought that the Death of Jesus had for its purpose the gathering into one of the scattered children of God: ἵνα τὰ τέκνα τοῦ θεοῦ τὰ διεσκορπισμένα συναγάγῃ εἰς ἕν (11:52). In 10:16 Jesus is to “lead” (ἀγαγεῖν) the Gentile members of His flock: in 11:52 He is to bring them together (συναγαγεῖν).

17. διὰ τοῦτο … ὅτι. See on 5:16 for this favourite Johannine construction, διὰ τοῦτο referring to what follows. The meaning here is that God’s love for Jesus is drawn out by His voluntary sacrifice of His life in order that He may resume it after the Passion for the benefit of man. The same idea is found in Paul: “Wherefore God also highly exalted Him” (Phil. 2:9). See also Heb. 2:9; and cf. Isa. 53:12

με ὁ πατήρ ἀγαπᾷ. Jn. generally uses ἀγαπᾶν of the mutual love of the Father and the Son (see on 3:16), but at 5:20 we find ὁ πατὴρ φιλεῖ τὸν υἱόν. See also on 3:35, 21:17, as to the alleged distinction in usage between ἀγαπᾶν and φιλεῖν, a distinction which is not observed in the Fourth Gospel.

ὅτι ἐγὼ τίθημι τὴν ψυχήν μου, sc. as a good shepherd does for his sheep (see on v. 11 for the phrase). The self-sacrificing love of Jesus for man draws out the love of the Father to Him. Love evokes love.

ἵνα πάλιν λάβω αὐτήν. ἵνα must be given its full telic force. It was in order that He might resume His Life, glorified through suffering, that Jesus submitted Himself to death. Death was the inevitable prelude to the power of His Resurrection Life. It was only after He had been “lifted up” on the cross that He could draw all men to Himself (12:32). The Spirit could not come until after the Passion (7:39, where see note). The purpose of the Passion was not only to exhibit His unselfish love; it was in order that He might resume His life, now enriched with quickening power as never before.

18. οὐδεὶς ἦρεν αὐτὴν ἀπʼ ἐμοῦ. א*B read ἦρεν, while the easier reading of the rec. text (א^cA D W Θ latt.) is αἴρει If the aorist ἦρεν is adopted, “no one took it from me,” Jn. is representing Jesus as speaking sub specie œternitatis. The issue is so certain that He speaks of His death, which is still in the future, as if it were already past. Whether ἦρεν or αἴρει be read, it is the voluntariness of the Death of Jesus which is emphasised; cf. 18:6, Mt. 26:53.

ἀλλʼ ἐγὼ τίθημι αὐτὴν ἀπʼ ἐμαυτοῦ. This clause is omitted by D, probably because of its apparent verbal inconsistency with 5:19 (cf. 5:30, 7:28, 8:28) οὐ δύναται ὁ υἱὸς ποιεῖν ἀφʼ ἑαυτοῦ οὐδέν. But there is no real inconsistency. ἀπʼ ἐμαυτοῦ here does not mean without authority from the Father, for that authority is asserted in the next sentence. It only implies spontaneity, voluntariness, in the use of the authority which Jesus has received from the Father, and in the obeying of the Father’s commandment. See on 5:19.

ἐξουσίαν ἔχω θεῖναι αὐτήν. For ἐξουσία, “authority” as distinct from “power,” in Jn., see on 1:12. The authority which Jesus claimed from the Father was, first, the authority to lay down His life spontaneously (which no one has unless he is assured that his death will directly serve the Divine purposes); and, secondly, the authority to resume it again. That He had been given this latter ἐξουσία is in accordance with the consistent teaching of the N.T. writers that it is God the Father who was the Agent of the Resurrection of Jesus. Jesus is not represented as raising Himself from the dead. See on 2:19.

ταύτην τὴν ἐντολήν κτλ. This was the Father’s commandment, viz. that He should die and rise again. See further on 12:49 for the Father’s ἐντολή addressed to Christ. This Johannine expression is recalled in Hermas (Sim. v. vi. 3), δοῦς αὐτοῖς τὸν νόμον ὃν ἔλαβε παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ.

He says “my Father” here and vv. 25, 29, 37. His relation to God was unique; see on 2:16.

30. ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἕν ἐσμεν. As has been shown (Introd., p. xxv), this great utterance seems to have been made in explanation of v. 18, upon which it immediately follows in our arrangement of the text. None the less, it would not be out of place if it followed on v. 29, in the traditional order.

It has been customary, following the habit of the patristic commentators, to interpret these significant words in the light of the controversies of the fourth century. Bengel, e.g. (following Augustine), says: “Per sumus refutatur Sabellius, per unum Arius”; the words thus being taken to prove identity of essence between the Father and the Son, while the difference of persons is indicated by the plural ἐσμέν. But it is an anachronism to transfer the controversies of the fourth century to the theological statements of the first. We have a parallel to ἕν ἐσμεν in 1 Cor. 3:8, where Paul says ὁ φυτεύων καὶ ὁ ποτίζων ἕν εἰσιν, meaning that both the “planter” and the “waterer” of the seed are in the same category, as compared with God who gives the increase. A unity of fellowship, of will, and of purpose between the Father and the Son is a frequent theme in the Fourth Gospel (cf. 5:18, 19, 14:9, 23 and 17:11, 22), and it is tersely and powerfully expressed here; but to press the words so as to make them indicate identity of οὐσία, is to introduce thoughts which were not present to the theologians of the first century.

Ignatius expresses the same thought as that conveyed in this verse, when he writes ὁ κύριος ἄνευ τοῦ πατρὸς οὐδὲν ἐποίησεν, ἡνωμένος ὤν (Magn. 7). Cf. 8:28 above.

The Jews Accuse Jesus of Blasphemy: He Defends His Claim to Be Son of God (vv. 31–39)

31. The Jewish opponents of Jesus, with a true instinct, perceived that He was claiming to be more than human.

ἐβάστασαν πάλιν (cf. 8:59) λίθους οἱ Ἰουδ. κτλ. For βαστάζειν, see on 12:6 below. Here it means “to lift up and carry off,” and expresses more than αἴρειν in the similar context in 8:59. They fetched stones from a distance, that they might stone Him. The verb λιθάζειν does not occur in the Synoptists, but cf. 11:8.

32. ἀπεκρ. αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰη. He did not withdraw Himself immediately, as at 8:59, but proceeded to answer the thoughts which urged them to kill Him. Cf. 5:17 and Mk. 11:14 for ἀπεκρίνεσθαι used of an answer to acts, rather than to words.

πολλὰ ἔργα καλά, “many noble works,” καλός expressing goodness as well as beauty (see on v. 11; and cf. 1 Tim. 6:18); His works of healing were not only good works (as we use the phrase), but were works significant of the beauty of holiness. See on 2:23 for “signs” which He showed at Jerusalem on an earlier visit. These ἔργα were ἐκ τοῦ πατρός. This He had repeatedly urged (5:19, 36, 9:4, 10:25).

The rec. has μου after πατρός, but om. א*B DΘ. For ἔδειξα, Θ has ἐδίδαξα.

διὰ ποῖον αὐτῶν ἔργον ἐμὲ λιθάζετε; He knew, indeed, that it was not merely because He had cured the impotent and the blind that they sought to kill Him, but because of the claims which He consistently made as to the source of His power and authority. He desired to bring this out, by putting to them such a question, “For what kind of work among these do you stone me?” ποῖον directs their attention to the quality and character of His works.

33. ἀπεκρίθησαν αὐτῷ οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι. The rec. adds λέγοντες, but this is rightly omitted by א A B L W Θ ἀπεκρίθη followed by the pres. part. λέγων is very rare in Jn. (see on 1:26), who prefers to use two co-ordinate verbs, ἀπεκρ. καὶ εἶπεν (see on 1:50).

The Jewish opponents of Jesus give Him the answer that He anticipated. They had set about stoning Him, because death by stoning was the appointed penalty for blasphemy (Lev. 24:16; cf. 1 Kings 21:10, 13), and His language was, in their ears, blasphemous, “making Himself God,” as they said. Cf. 5:18, and 19:7 below, where the charge against Him was more accurately formulated, ἑαυτὸν υἱὸν θεοῦ ἐποίησεν.

περὶ βλασφημίας, “because of blasphemy”; cf. Acts 26:7 περὶ ἧς ἐλπίδος ἐγκαλοῦμαι, where περί is used in the same way. The word βλασφημία occurs in Jn. only in this passage.

34. For the formula of citation ἔστιν γεγραμμένον, see on 2:17.

The quotation is from Ps. 82:6, the “Law” embracing the O.T. generally; cf. 12:34, 15:25, Rom. 3:19, 1 Cor. 14:21. Thus in Philo, de Iona (§ 44, extant only in an Armenian version), we find, “Hast thou not read in the Law …?” quoting Ps. 102:26. So also in Sanhedrin, f. 91. 2, cited by Wetstein: “Quomodo probatur resurrectio mortuorum ex lege? quia dicitur (in Ps. 84:5) non laudauerunt sed laudabunt te.”

ἐν τῷ νόμῳ ὑμῶν. So א^aA B L latt. and some syrr.; but om. ὑμῶν א*DΘ and Syr. sin. For the phrase “your law” on the lips of Jesus, see on 8:17.

The argument is thoroughly Jewish: “In your Scriptures, judges are addressed as אֶלֹהִים by the Divine voice, being commissioned by God for their work and thus being His delegates and representatives; where, then, is the blasphemy in my description of myself as υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, being (as I am) the Ambassador of God and sent by Him into the world?” In Ps. 82, which represents God as the Judge of judges, He is represented as reminding unjust judges that it is by His appointment they hold their office, which is therefore divine: “I have said (sc. when you were made judges), Ye are gods.” Cf. Ex. 21:6, 22:9, 28 for אֶלֹהִים used of judges in the same way. The argument is one which would never have occurred to a Greek Christian, and its presence here reveals behind the narrative a genuine reminiscence of one who remembered how Jesus argued with the Rabbis on their own principles.

The natural retort (obvious to a modern mind) would be that the argument is insecure, because it seems to pass from “gods” in the lower sense to “God” in the highest sense of all. But (1) ad hominem the argument is complete. On Jewish principles of exegesis it was quite sound. Jesus never called Himself “son of Yahweh”; such a phrase would be impossible to a Jew. But “sons of Elohim” occurs often in the O.T. (Gen. 6:2, Job 1:6, Ps. 29:1, 89:6, etc.). That Jesus should call Himself υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ could not be blasphemous, having regard to O.T. precedents, however unwarranted His opponents might think the claim to be. And (2) there is a deeper sense in which the argument as presented in Jn. conveys truth. The strict Hebrew doctrine of God left no place for the Incarnation. God and man were set over against each other, as wholly separate and distinct. But even in the Jewish Scriptures there are hints and foreshadowings of potential divinity in man (cf. Ps. 82:6, Zech. 12:8); and it is to this feature of Hebrew theology that attention is drawn in v. 34. The doctrine of the Incarnation has its roots, not in bare Deism, but in that view of God which regards Him as entering into human life and consecrating human activities to His own purposes.

35. εἰ ἐκείνους εἶπεν θεούς, “if then the Law (i.e. the Scripture) called them gods,” πρὸς οὓς ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ ἐγένετο, “to whom the message of God came,” sc. at the moment of their appointment to high office, which was a Divine call. So it was said of Jeremiah ὃς ἐγενήθη λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ πρὸς αὐτόν (Jer. 1:2), and of John the Baptist ἐγένετο ῥῆμα θεοῦ ἐπὶ Ἰωάνην (Lk. 3:2); and it is implied here that the same words are applicable to the judge who is invested with authority to execute justice in God’s name. The call of circumstance may often be truly a “word of God” to the man to whom it comes.

καὶ οὐ δύναται λυθῆναι ἡ γραφή. For λύειν used of “breaking” a law, see on 5:18. Here we should render “the Scripture cannot be set at naught.” The opposite of setting the Scripture at naught or “destroying” it is the “fulfilling” of it. See Mt. 5:17. The meaning of this parenthesis is that the words of Ps. 82:6 are full of permanent significance and must not be ignored. See Introd., p. clii.

ἡ γραφή, as always in Jn., signifies the actual passage of the O.T. which is cited or indicated, and not the whole body of the Hebrew Scriptures. See on 2:22.

36. ὃν ὁ πατὴρ ἡγίασεν. ἁγιάζειν is a Biblical word, connoting primarily the idea of setting apart for a holy purpose. Thus it is used of Yahweh hallowing the Sabbath (Ex. 20:11), and of the consecration of an altar (Lev. 16:19). It is applied to men who are set apart for important work or high office, e.g. to Jeremiah as prophet (Jer. 1:5), to the priests (2 Chron. 26:18), to Moses (Ecclus. 45:4), to the fathers of Israel (2 Macc. 1:25). In the N.T. οἱ ἡγιασμένοι are the Christian believers (Acts 20:32, 26:18, 1 Cor. 1:2, Heb. 2:11, 10:10, 2 Tim. 2:21), a form of expression which we have in Jn. 17:19, where Jesus prays that the apostles may be ἡγιασμένοι ἐν ἀληθείᾳ., In that passage (where see note) He declares ἑγὼ ἁγιάζω ἐμαυτόν, but here the Agent of His consecration is the Father. In virtue of this hallowing, Jesus is ὁ ἅγιος τοῦ θεοῦ (6:69, where see note). That He was set apart for His mission by the Father, who sent Him into the world, is the constant doctrine of the Fourth Gospel.

καὶ ἀπέστειλεν εἰς τὸν κόσμον. Cf. 17:18; and see on 3:17.

ὑμεῖς λέγετε ὅτι κτλ., “Do you say …”; ὑμεῖς being emphatic.

ὅτι εἶπον, υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ εἰμί. This He had repeatedly said, by implication, if not explicitly (cf. especially v. 30; and see 5:18, 19:7). It was involved in the claim that He made when He spoke of God as “my Father”: see on 2:16.

37. εἰ οὐ ποιῶ τὰ ἔργα τοῦ πατρός μου, μὴ πιστεύετέ μοι. He returns to the argument which He has put forward all through. They had seen His works of healing; He had declared consistently that they were really the ἔργα of God Himself, whose Ambassador He was (v. 25); if they did not recognise these as works of God and accept their witness. He did not expect them to believe His words (μὴ πιστεύετέ μοι: for πιστεύειν followed by a dative, see on 8:31). Cf. 5:36.

38. εἰ δὲ ποιῶ κτλ. But, on the other hand, if they recognised the divine character of these ἔργα of Jesus, they should accept their witness as to His authority. This would not produce the highest kind of faith, but it would be a beginning. See 5:36–38. The witness of the works will convince them of His trustworthiness, and so they will come to believe what He says. This, in turn, will lead on to belief “in Him” (see on 1:12), to faith in the majesty of His Person.

ἵνα γνῶτε καὶ γινώσκητε, “that you may perceive, and so reach the fixed conviction of knowledge,” ὅτι ἐν ἐμοὶ ὁ πατὴρ κἀγὼ ἐν τῷ πατρί, “that the Father is in me, and I in the Father” (cf. 17:21). This faith would appreciate the saying at which they had stumbled, ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἕν ἐσμεν (v. 30).

γινώσκητε. So B L WΘ, but א A Γ Δ substitute πιστεύσητε. But there is nothing pleonastic in γνῶτε followed by γινώσκητε, the pres. subjunctive referring to a continuous appreciation and understanding, the aorist to the initial apprehension of the truth. Cf. ἵνα γινώσκουσιν (17:3) and ἵνα γινώσκῃ (17:23).

The argument is repeated 14:11, πιστέυετέ μοι (i.e. believe my word) ὅτι ἐγὼ ἐν τῷ πατρὶ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἐν ἐμοί· εἰ δὲ μὴ (but, if you will not, then accept the lower form of witness) διὰ τὰ ἔργα αὐτὰ πιστέυετε. The reciprocal communion of the Father and the Son—“I in Him, and He in me”—is expressed again in the same mystical words at 17:21; cf. 1 Jn. 3:24, 4:15.

39. ἐζήτουν οὖν. So א A L W Δ, but οὖν may have come in from 7:30 or may be an itacism; om. BΘ.

The project of stoning Him (v. 31) was abandoned, perhaps because v. 38 did not seem to express His equality with the Father so uncompromisingly as v. 30, but more probably because οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι (v. 33) found that, as before, the crowd were not in entire agreement with their policy of violence.

πάλιν. His Jewish opponents had sought His arrest more than once before (cf. 7:1, 30, 44, 8:20). א*D omit πάλιν.

καὶ ἐξῆλθεν ἐκ τῆς χειρὸς αὐτῶν. There is no suggestion of His escape being miraculous, any more than at 8:59 (q.v.).

Jesus Retires Beyond the Jordan, and Many Believe on Him There (vv. 40–42)

40. It had become apparent that the Jews were not to be persuaded of the claims of Jesus, to whom their hostility was increasing. So he retired beyond the Jordan to the scene of His earliest ministry, where He had called His first disciples; and there He found what must have been a welcome response to His teaching.

καὶ ἀπῆλθεν πάλιν κτλ. πάλιν is omitted by Syr. sin. and by e; but it is a favourite word with Jn. when he wishes to indicate that one is going back to a place that has been visited before (see on 4:3). The use of πάλιν does not suggest that the former visit was a recent one, as Lange and others have supposed. Jesus returned to Bethany (or Bethabara) beyond Jordan (see on 1:28 for different views as to the exact place), which was in the district called Peræa; and it is probable that this visit is to be identified with that mentioned Mk. 10:1, Mt. 19:1.

For the constr. ὅπου ἦν Ἰω. βαπτίζων, see on 1:28. Jn. is careful to note that he means the place where John was baptizing first, not “Ænon near Salim,” where we find him exercising his ministry at 3:22.

For τὸ πρῶτον, א D Θ give τὸ πρότερον; but the constr. τὸ πρῶτον appears again 12:16, 19:39.

καὶ ἔμενεν ἐκεῖ. Jesus seems to have remained in Peræa, until He went to Bethany for the raising of Lazarus (11:7), i.e. perhaps about three months.

41. That the people flocked to hear His teaching in Peræa is confirmed by the Marcan tradition (Mk. 10:1, Mt. 19:1). They remembered what John the Baptist had said about Him, and remembered too that his witness had been found trustworthy. This was the reason why they came now in such numbers to see and hear Jesus.

Of John the Baptist, too, they remembered that he did no “sign,” such as might be expected of a prophet; but nevertheless, although it was not confirmed by signs (see on 2:11), his witness was true. For the witness of the Baptist, cf. 1:7, 29–34, 3:27–30, 5:33. It made a profound impression.

א D omit ὅτι after ἔλεγον, apparently not realising that ὅτι here is recitantis. The words which follow are set down as the actual words which the people used.

42. πολλοὶ ἐπίστευσαν εἰς αὐτόν, a favourite phrase of Jn. See on 4:39.

ἐκεῖ comes before εἰς αὐτόν in the rec. text; but א A B D L W Θ place it at the end of the sentence, as at v. 40. perhaps for emphasis. It often comes last in Jn., e.g. 2:1, 11:8, 15, 31, 12:2.

11:1. ἦν δέ τις ἀσθενῶν. For the constr. of ἦν with a participle, cf. 3:23, 18:25, and see note on 1:28.

The name Lazarus, לעזר, is a shortened form of Eleazar, אלעזר, and is found again in the N.T. only in the parable of Lk. 16. Bethany, which is about 2 miles from Jerusalem, is now called El˒Azariyeh, from the tradition of the miracle narrated here.

Lazarus is described as ἀπὸ βηθανίας, ἐκ τῆς κώμης Μαρίας (א D have τῆς Μαρίας) καὶ Μάρθας. So Philip is described as ἀπὸ βηθσαϊδά, ἐκ τῆς πόλεως Ἀνδρεοῦ καὶ Πέτρου (1:44, where see note). It has been suggested that we ought to distinguish “Bethany” from “the village of Mary and Martha,” and place the latter (see Lk. 10:38) in Galilee. But Lk. does not always arrange the incidents he narrates in such strict order that we can be sure either of the locality or the time at which a given incident is to be placed. It can hardly be doubted (cf. 12:1) that Lazarus, Mary, and Martha lived at Bethany together. The attempt to distinguish between ἀπό and ἐκ, so as to regard ἀπὸ Βηθανίας as indicating domicile, while ἐκ τῆς κώμης κτλ. would indicate place of origin (see Abbott, Diat. 2289 f.), is not only without corroborative evidence as to such a use of the two prepositions, but would make the opening sentence of this chapter very clumsy. See on 1:44.

Mary is mentioned before Martha, while elsewhere (Jn. 11:19, Lk. 10:38) Martha, as the mistress of their house, is named before Mary. At the time the Fourth Gospel was written, Mary was the more prominent of the two in Christian tradition, as is recorded in Mk. (14:9): “Wheresoever the gospel shall be preached throughout the whole world, that also which this woman hath done shall be spoken of for a memorial of her.”

2. This verse seems to be an explanatory gloss added by an editor. There are two non-Johannine touches of style. The phrase τὸν κύριον (see on 4:1) appears instead of Jn.’s usual τὸν Ἰησοῦν. And, secondly, the characteristically Johannine ἦν ἀσθενῶν (v. 1) is altered to the more classical ἠσθένει.

The story by which Mary is identified is that of her anointing Jesus, and wiping His feet with her hair, which Jn. tells in the next chapter. But this story is also told of the sinful woman of Lk. 7:38. Christian readers of the next generation would not be helped by an explanatory note which might equally be applied to two distinct women; and the conclusion is inevitable that Jn. (or his editor) regarded Mary of Bethany as the same person who is described by Lk. as ἁμαρτωλός.¹ The easiest way to identify her for the reader is to recall the singular gesture by which she was best known, and which she had enacted not once only, but twice. She was the best-known member of her family, and the note recalls that it was her brother, Lazarus, who was sick.

It is worth observing, in view of the discrepancy between Mk. 14:3 and Jn. 12:3, as to whether it was the head or the feet of Jesus that Mary anointed, that this note evades the difficulty by saying simply “anointed the Lord.” ἀλείφειν, μύρον, ἐκμάσσειν, θρίξ, are words common to this passage with both Lk. 7:38 and Jn. 12:3; and the reference is probably to both incidents. ἐκμάσσειν is only found again in N.T. at 13:5, and there, as in Lk. 7, Jn. 12, of wiping feet.

Μαριάμ, rather than Μαρία, seems to be the best-attested spelling of Mary’s name throughout Jn., although here א A D L W Θ have Μαρία, B 33 alone supporting Μαριάμ.² This provides another reason for suspecting v. 2 to be non- Johannine. Cf., however, v. 20, 12:3; and see 19:25.

3. ἀπέστειλαν οὖν αἱ ἀδελφαὶ πρὸς αὐτόν. “So the sisters sent to Him,” i.e. to Jesus; D b c e support πρὸς τὸν Ἰησοῦν.

κύριε. It is thus that the sisters address Jesus throughout (vv. 21, 27, 32, 34, 39), although Martha speaks to Mary of Jesus as ὁ διδάσκαλος (v. 28), and the disciples address Him as Rabbi (v. 8). See the note on 1:38; and cf. 4:1, 13:13.

ὃν φιλεῖς ἀσθενεῖ, “he whom thou lovest is sick.” They feel it unnecessary to send any explicit invitation to Jesus to come and heal their brother: “Sufficit ut noueris. Non enim amas et deseris” (Augustine).

ὃν φιλεῖς. So v. 36 ἴδε, πῶς ἐφίλει αὐτόν (cf. 20:2). But at v. 5 we have ἠγάπα ὁ Ἰησοῦς … τὸν Λάζαρον. There is no real distinction in meaning between the two verbs. Cf. 3:35, 5:20, and note on 21:17. See Introd., p. xxxvii n.

4. αὕτη ἡ ἀσθένεια οὐκ ἔστιν πρὸς θάνατον. This was the comment of Jesus when the tidings of Lazarus’ illness reached Him. It was not a direct reply to the sisters’ message, and we do not know if it was reported to them (v. 40).

The constr. πρὸς θάνατον is unusual, occurring again in the N.T. only at 1 Jn. 5:16 ἁμαρτία πρὸς θάνατον, and in the LXX at 4 Macc. 14:4, 17:1, while εἰς θάνατον is common (cf. 2 Kings 20:1, where it is said of Hezekiah that he was sick εἰς θάνατον). If a distinction is to be drawn between the two constructions, perhaps “this sickness is not πρὸς θάνατον” is more reassuring than “this sickness is not εἰς θάνατον.” The latter would mean that the sickness would not have death as its final issue; the former ought to mean that the sick person is not in danger at all, that his sickness is not “dangerous,” as we would put it. Consequently the meaning that the disciples inevitably took from the words of Jesus was that Lazarus was not dead at the time of speaking, and further that Jesus was convinced he would recover. No doubt, the evangelist means his readers to understand that this was not the real meaning of Jesus’ words (see v. 11). But it is strange that he should translate them by using πρός instead of εἰς; for, in fact, Lazarus’ sickness was πρὸς θάνατον, although it might plausibly be argued that it was not εἰς θάνατον, as death was not the final issue.

Jesus adds that this illness had come upon Lazarus ὑπὲρ τῆς δόξης τοῦ θεοῦ, “on behalf of God’s glory,” i.e. in order that the glory and power of God might be revealed. The attempt to give ὑπέρ a semi-sacrificial sense here, as if the sickness were a voluntary offering by Lazarus, is fanciful ὑπέρ is used exactly as in 1:30, 10:11, “on behalf of.” The issue of the sickness and death of Lazarus was the revelation of the glory of God, as exhibited in his miraculous resuscitation. The miracle was more than a “wonder”; it was a “sign” of ἡ δόξα τοῦ θεοῦ. And so Martha was reminded, when it was over, that she had been told that she would see this glory (v. 40).

The glory of God was exhibited through the person and works of Jesus; this sickness, with its issue, had for its purpose ἵνα δοξασθῇ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, that He might be honoured by this revelation of His Father (cf. 8:54 ἔστιν ὁ πατήρ μου ὁ δοξάζων με). We have seen (on 7:39) that the supreme “glorification” of Jesus is identified by Jn. with the Passion and its sequel, and it has been thought by some that this too is the reference in the present passage. If so, ἵνα δοξασθῇ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ would mean here that the final cause of Lazarus’ sickness was that it might lead up to the Passion by making public the power of Jesus and thereby bringing the hostility of his enemies to a crisis (Westcott). But this is over subtle. The true parallel to 11:4b is 8:54. This revelation of “the glory of God” was that the Son might be honoured or “glorified” by so signal a mark of His Father’s favour as the power to raise a dead man would exhibit. As in the O.T., “the glory of God” is the visible manifestation of His presence. See also on 9:3, 10:25, 14:13; and cf. 17:1.

For the title “the Son of God,” see on 1:34 and 5:25. Only here and at 5:25, 10:36 is Jesus said to have used this title as descriptive of Himself.

5. Moffatt transposes this verse, placing it after the parenthetical v. 2; and this is the most natural position for it, as it then explains in proper sequence why it was that the sisters sent to Jesus the news that Lazarus was ill. Jesus was their friend, and they hoped that He would come and heal their sick brother. In the traditional position of v. 5, it seems to suggest as the reason why Jesus did not immediately leave Peræa and start for the sick man’s house, that because He loved the household at Bethany, He stayed for two days longer where He was. That is, no doubt, a possible explanation of His action or delay, sc. that because He loved them, He wished to exhibit in their case the greatness of His power and the reach of His compassion. But, if that were so, He was content to leave the sisters in the agony of grief for three or four days, in order that the “glory of God” might be more signally vindicated in the end.

There is no textual authority for Moffatt’s transposition of the text, and I have left v. 5 in its traditional position. It is possible, however, that v. 5 is an explanatory gloss added by an editor which has got into the wrong place (see 4:44 for a like case of displacement). Two small points suggest that v. 5 is not from the pen of the author of vv. 1, 3. In v. 1 we have Mary and her sister Martha, while in v. 5 we have the more usual order, Martha and her sister,¹ a sudden change (but cf. v. 19). Again, the verb twice used in this chapter for the affection which Jesus had for Lazarus is φιλεῖν (vv. 3, 36), while in v. 5 it is ἀγαπᾶν. We must not, indeed, sharply distinguish these verbs (see on 21:17); but we should expect the same verb to be used in v. 3 and v. 5. It is possible that v. 5 is a non-Johannine gloss, which ought to be placed where Moffatt places it, after v. 2.

6. ὡς οὖν ἤκουσεν κτλ. οὖν is resumptive, and looks back to v. 4, “And so, when He heard, etc.” It was because of His confidence that the sickness was not πρὸς θάνατον, and that the issue of it would be for the glory of God, that He did not hasten to the bedside of His friend. For ὡς οὖν, see on 4:40.

ὅτι is recitantis: what the messenger from Bethany had said was ἀσθενεῖ.

τότε μὲν ἔμεινεν κτλ. He remained where He was for two days. Jn. consistently represents Jesus as never being in haste. He always knew when the time to move had come (cf. 2:4, 7:6, 8).

Jn.’s tendency to indicate the time between one event and another has been already mentioned (see Introd., p. cii). He notes here that Jesus remained in His Peræan retreat for two days (cf. 4:40) after the condition of Lazarus had been reported. From Bethany or Bethabara beyond Jordan (see on 1:28), whatever its exact situation, it would be a long and rough day’s walk to Bethany near Jerusalem, and the journey may well have occupied part of a second day. When Jesus reached the tomb, Lazarus had been dead more than three days (v. 39). Jn. may intend to convey that the patient was dead at the time that the message reached Jesus; but, on the other hand, Martha’s words in v. 21 suggest that she thought that if Jesus had started at once, He would have arrived while Lazarus was yet alive.

7. ἔπειτα (only here in Jn.) μετὰ τοῦτο, i.e. deinde postea. μετὰ τοῦτο implies a short interval: cf. v. 11 and 2:12, 19:28. See Introd., p. cviii.

After μαθηταῖς, A DΓ Δ add αὐτοῦ, but א B L W Θ omit. For οἱ μαθηταί used absolutely, see on 2:2; and cf. vv. 8, 12, 54.

ἄγωμεν. This intransitive form occurs again 11:15, 16 and 14:31 (so Mk. 14:42, Mt. 26:46): “let us go.” So in Homer we have ἄγε used intransitively “go.”

εἰς τὴν Ἰουδαίαν πάλιν, “back to Judæa,” whence they had come to avoid the danger caused by the hostility of the Jews (10:39, 40).

8. Ῥαββεί. So the disciples called Him. See on 1:38 for the use of this title in Jn.

νῦν κτλ., sc. “quite recently (10:31, 39), the Jews (see on 1:19) were seeking to stone Thee”: cf. 7:1, 8:59.

καὶ πάλιν ὑπάγεις ἐκεῖ; “and are you going back there?” For the Johannine use of ὑπάγειν, see on 7:33. Probably their apprehension of danger was on their own account, as well as on that of their Master.

9. ἀπεκρίθη Ἰησοῦς. See on 1:29 for the omission of the article before Ἰησοῦς in this phrase.

οὐχὶ δώδεκα ὧραί εἰσιν τῆς ἡμέρας; “Are there not twelve hours in the day?” That is, Jesus tells them that their anxiety is premature. The hour of danger had not yet come. Jesus never acted before the appropriate time (see on v. 6).

This saying is the counterpart of 9:4. There Jesus had said that work must be done during the day, and that it could not be postponed until night without failure, and that this law applied to Him as well as to mankind at large. He implied that but a short time remained to Him. But in this passage the thought is different. The hour of His Passion was near, but it had not yet arrived. There was no need for undue haste. The “twelve hours” of His day were not yet exhausted.

ἐάν τις περιπατῇ ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ κτλ. We have already had the contrast between walking in the light and walking in darkness (see note on 8:12 for its significance). Here this solemn aphorism is put in connexion with what goes before. The disciples were apprehensive. But Jesus assured them that the night had not yet come. So long as men walk in the light of day they are safe, but it is the night that is the time of hazard.

Here, however, a mystical meaning lurks behind the literal meaning of the words employed. It is literally true that a man walking in the daytime does not stumble, because he sees τὸ φῶς τοῦ κόσμου τούτου, that is, the sun (see for the expression ὁ κόσμος οὗτος on 9:39). But Jesus had already spoken of Himself as the Light of the World (see on 8:12), and the suggestion is the same as in the former passage, sc. that he who walks by the light that Jesus gives does not walk in darkness.

The answer of Jesus to the disciples, then, in these verses implies first that there is no danger yet, for the day—His day—is not yet over; and suggests also that danger need not be dreaded by those who follow Him on His appointed way.

10. ἐὰν δέ τις περιπατῇ ἐν τῇ νυκτί κτλ. In this second clause it is the mystical and not the literal sense which is most clearly expressed. For we should expect v. 10 to run, “If any one walk in the night, he stumbles because he has no light,” or, as it is expressed at 12:35 (a parallel passage), “He that walketh in the darkness knoweth not whither he goeth” (cf. 1 Jn. 2:11). But instead we have ὅτι τὸ φῶς οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν αὐτῷ (not ἐν αὐτῇ, which D reads in an attempt to simplify the passage). This departs from the literal application of the illustration of a guiding light, and directs the thought of the reader to the idea of spiritual enlightenment. Cf. 8:12 and Mt. 6:23. With the picture of one stumbling in the darkness, cf. Jer. 13:16.

11. ταῦτα εἶπεν, i.e. vv. 9, 10, which but for this explicit statement might be treated as a comment of the evangelist (see on 3:16) rather than as words spoken by Jesus on this occasion.

καὶ μετὰ τοῦτο. Some interval between vv. 8–10 and v. 11 is implied; see on v. 7 above.

Λάζαρος ὁ φίλος ἡμῶν. Lazarus was the friend of the disciples, as well as of the Master; and it is implied that if Jesus ventured into Judæa to visit him, they also ought to be ready to do so. Lazarus was within the circle of those whom Jesus called His “friends” (see 15:14, Lk. 12:4; and cf. v. 3 above).

κεκοίμηται, “has fallen asleep.” The natural interpretation of this verb would be that put upon it by the disciples, sc. that the sick man had fallen into a refreshing slumber. In ordinary Greek, as throughout the LXX, κοιμᾶσθαι is generally used in this, its primary, meaning. But in poetry it is sometimes used of the sleep of death, e.g. in Homer, Il. xi. 241; in Job 3:13, 14:12, 21:13, 26, Ezek. 32:19, 20, 27, as well as in the oft-repeated phrase, “he slept with his fathers.” Cf. also 2 Macc. 12:45. In the N.T. this euphemistic use is found 13 times, as against 3 occurrences of the verb in the sense of ordinary sleep (Mt. 28:13, Lk. 22:45, Acts 12:6). Although this use was not original to Christianity, or even to Judaism, κοιμᾶσθαι (and κοιμητήριον; see Moulton-Milligan, s.v.) came to be more frequently applied to the sleep of death after the Christian era than before.

The verb does not occur again in Jn.; but its interpretation by the disciples here as indicating physical sleep was no stupid misunderstanding but natural, and almost inevitable, having regard to the circumstances.

ἀλλὰ πορεύομαι ἵνα ἐξυπνίσω αὐτόν, “but I am going to wake him up.” ἐξυπνίζω is a Hellenistic word, not occurring again in the N.T. We find it in the LXX (1 Kings 3:15), and may especially note Job 14:12, where, as here, it is associated with κοίμᾶσθαι, used of the sleep of death: ἄνθρωπος δὲ κοιμηθεὶς … οὐκ ἐξυπνισθήσονται ἐξ ὕπνου αὐτῶν.

12. εἶπαν οὖν οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτῷ. So B C*Θ against the rec. οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ: א D W have αὐτῷ οἱ μαθηταί.

εἰ κεκοίμηται, σωθήσεται, “if he has fallen asleep, he will recover.” They understood Jesus to mean that the sick man had fallen into a natural sleep—not the sleep of death. This was a favourable symptom, and suggested that Lazarus would get well. It puzzled them to think that Jesus would wish to wake him from health-giving sleep. No doubt, they were glad of another argument by which they might dissuade their Master from facing the dangers of Judæa. The journey would be to no good purpose.

σωθήσεται, “he will get well.” For this use of σώζειν, see on 3:17.

13. εἰρήκει δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς κτλ., “But Jesus had been speaking about his death.” This is one of those parenthetical comments which are so frequent in the Fourth Gospel (see Introd., p. xxxiv), the writer calling attention to a misunderstanding by the disciples of the words of Jesus. They thought that Jesus was using the word κοιμᾶσθαι of natural sleep, whereas he was really using it of death.

ἐκεῖνοι δὲ ἔδοξαν κτλ., “but they thought, etc.,” ἐκεῖνος being employed to mark distinctly the subject of the verb. It is often used by Jn. to make his point, just as an English writer may resort to italics for the sake of clearness (see on 1:8).

κοίμησις does not occur again in the N.T. It is used euphemistically at Ecclus. 46:19, 48:13 of the sleep of death, but not elsewhere in the LXX in any sense.

14. τότε οὖν κτλ. “At this point, Jesus said plainly, Lazarus died”; He no longer spoke enigmatically to the disciples. For παρρησίᾳ, see on 7:4.

15. καὶ χαίρω διʼ ὑμᾶς, ἵνα πιστεύσητε, ὅτι οὐκ ἤμην ἐκεῖ, “And I rejoice for your sakes that I was not there, so that you may believe.” The implication is that the recovery of Lazarus from death would be a more remarkable “sign” than his recovery from a sick-bed would have been. The disciples were already “believers,” or they would not have been “disciples”; but faith is always growing, if it be alive, and the Twelve knew that theirs was susceptible of increase (cf. Lk. 17:5). Although His friend has died and the sisters are in grief, Jesus rejoices because of His confidence not only that Lazarus will be called back to life, but because this sign of power will increase the faith of His disciples, and promote the glory of God (v. 4).

Abbott (Diat. 2099) translates, “I am glad on account of you, that ye may believe, because I was not there,” which is, indeed, a possible rendering, but unnecessarily subtle.

ἵνα πιστεύσητε is, as it were, in parenthesis, explaining why Jesus was glad that He was not present when Lazarus was still alive. For πιστεύειν used absolutely, as here, the object of belief being left unexpressed, see on 1:7.

Bengel notes that no one is said to have died in the presence of Jesus, and suggests that perhaps death was impossible where He was: “Cum decoro divino pulchre congruit, quod praesente uitae duce nemo unquam legitur mortuus.” But we cannot infer from the narrative that Jn. means to hint at this.

χαίρω is not elsewhere placed in the lips of Jesus, but He speaks of His joy (ἡ χαρὰ ἡ ἐμή) at 15:11, 17:13; and at 4:36 we have ἵνα ὁ σπείρων ὁμοῦ χαίρῃ καὶ ὁ θερίζων, where He refers to Himself as the Sower. In all these passages, it will be noticed that His rejoicing is connected with the fulfilment of His mission. So also at Lk. 10:21 it is said of Him ἠγαλλιάσατο τῷ Πνεύματι τῷ Ἁγίῳ, because of the acceptance of His message by the Seventy, and of their success. And the rejoicing of the shepherd, when the lost sheep is found (Mt. 18:13, Lk. 15:6), is, in like manner, drawn out by the happy issue of his labours.

ἀλλὰ ἄγωμεν πρὸς αὐτόν, “but, anyway, let us go to him,” as He had said before ἄγωμεν εἰς τὴν Ἰουδαίαν (v. 7, where see note on ἄγωμεν). The repetition of this invitation, even though Lazarus was now dead and a visit to his bedside for the purpose of healing him was now impossible, seems to have convinced the hesitating disciples that Jesus had some great purpose in view when He proposed to return to a place where He and they would be in danger. At all events, no further objection is raised, and the loyal outburst of Thomas, “Let us also go, that we may die with Him,” is acted on by all.

16. Θωμᾶς ὁ λεγόμενος Δίδυμος. תְּאֹם is a “twin” (found only in Gen. 25:24, 38:27, Cant. 4:5, 7:3, always in the plural, and always rendered by δίδυμα or δίδυμοι), and of this Θωμᾶς is a transliteration. Three times in Jn. (cf. 20:24, 21:2) to this name the note is added ὁ λεγόμενος Δίδυμος, an appellation which is not found in the Synoptists. This suggests (see on 4:25) that the apostle was called “Didymus” in Greek circles; if Jn. only meant to interpret Thomas, he would probably have written ὃ ἑρμηνεύεται Δίδυμος (as at 1:42).¹

The personal name of the apostle is given as Judas in the Acta Thomœ and elsewhere; and the attribution of this name to him led afterwards to the attempted identification of Thomas with “Judas of James” and “Judas the Lord’s brother.”

The character of Thomas comes out as clearly in the Fourth Gospel as does that of Nicodemus (see on 3:1). The notices of him here, at 14:5 and 20:24f., are remarkably consistent, one with the other, and reveal a man whose temper of mind we can thoroughly understand. Thomas always looks at the dark side of things, and is a pessimist by disposition, while entirely loyal to his convictions and ready to act on them at all cost. He is a man of independent mind who says what he thinks, and does not wait for the promptings of others. Here Thomas foresaw only too clearly that Jesus was going to His death, and he realised that to enter Judæa as His disciple was to risk the same fate. But Jesus was his Master, and he would not draw back when he found that Jesus was resolved to go back to Judæa. εἶπεν οὖν Θωμᾶς κτλ., “Thomas thereupon said, Let us also go (for ἄγωμεν, see on v. 7) that we may die with Him.”

This challenge was addressed to his “fellow-disciples.” συνμαθηταί does not occur again in the N.T., but as used here it suggests the Twelve, of whom Thomas was one, rather than any outer circle of μαθηταί (see on 2:2). It is not implied that all of the Twelve were present during the retreat to Peræa or at Bethany when Lazarus was recovered from the tomb; but συνμαθηταῖς suggests that the disciples who were with Jesus on this occasion were of the inner circle.

It is probable that Peter was not among them. He is not mentioned once in Part II. of the Gospel, and there is no indication in Mk. (which is thought to depend on Peter’s information) that Peter knew anything about this Jerusalem ministry. Probably the Galilæan disciples were often at their homes when Jesus was in Judæa or in Peræa. If Peter had been present, we might have expected that he would take the lead² in assuring Jesus that His disciples would not abandon Him, just as he was foremost when the danger was even nearer (13:37). From the Synoptists we should not have gathered that Thomas was one of the leaders of the apostolic company; but the notices of him in Jn. (see above; and also 21:2, where he is named immediately after Peter) indicate that he was prominent among them, so that the statement that he acted as spokesman for the rest on this occasion is not surprising.

17. ἐλθὼν οὖν κτλ., “Jesus, then, having come, etc.” οὖν is resumptive, not causal.

εὗρεν αὐτὸν τέσσαρας ἤδη ἡμέρας ἔχοντα κτλ. He found Lazarus had been already four days in the tomb. For the constr. ἡμέρας ἔχειν, see on 5:5. ἤδη is om. by A*D, and its position varies in other MSS., but the weight of authority is in favour of its retention.

For the “four days,” see on v. 6 above; and cf. v. 39. The burial would have taken place as soon as possible after death (cf. Acts 5:6).

Augustine (in loc.) finds allegory in the “four days”: one day of death for original sin, one for violation of natural law, one for breaking the law of Moses, and one for transgressing the Gospel. This is no more, and no less, fantastic than the efforts of modern expositors to find allegory in Jn.’s narrative.

18. Moffatt places vv. 18, 19, between v. 30 and v. 31, where they would fit very well. But there is no insuperable difficulty in their traditional position, and I do not venture to alter it.

ἦν δὲ Βηθανία κτλ. Jn. alone of the evangelists uses ἦν in this way (cf. 18:1, 19:41, and perhaps 6:10); Meyer suggested that it is employed by him thus instead of the present ἐστί because he is writing after the devastation of Jerusalem and its suburbs. But if (as we hold) his narrative reproduces the reminiscences of the aged apostle John, looking back on many years, ἦν is more natural than ἐστί, without assuming any allusion to the fall of Jerusalem. See on 5:2.

The rec. inserts ἡ before Βηθανία, with א^cA C D L W Θ; but א*B om. ἡ, as in v. 1.

ὡς ἀπὸ σταδίων δεκαπέντε, “about fifteen furlongs.” Bethany is a little less than 2 miles from the city. The constr. of ἀπό with the genitive to indicate distance is not necessarily a Latinism, as, e.g., a millibus passuum duobus (Cæsar, Bell. Gall. ii. 7). It occurs again at 21:8; cf. Rev. 14:20, and see Hermas, Vis. iv. 1, οὕτω γὰρ ἦν ἀπʼ ἐμοῦ ὡς ἀπὸ σταδίου.

19. πολλοὶ δέ. So א B C D L W Θ, as against the rec. καὶ πολλοί (AΓ Δ)

ἐκ τῶν Ἰουδαίων, i.e. of the citizens of Jerusalem. οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι often represents in Jn. the Jews who were hostile to Jesus (see on 1:19, 5:10); but here that suggestion is not present.

Jerusalem being so near (v. 18), it was natural that many friends from the city should come to condole with Martha and Mary on the death of their brother. Lightfoot gives (Hor. Hebr., in loc.) curious details about the ceremonial which was customary at these mournful gatherings. The first three days after death were kept with severity, the next four days with less strictness, the period of observance lasting for thirty days altogether. Cf. for the “seven days of mourning for the dead” (Ecclus. 22:12). 1 Sam. 31:13, Job 2:13, Judith 16:24; and for the visits of neighbours to console, 2 Esd. 10:2.

παραμυθεῖσθαι, “to comfort,” is found in the Greek Bible only here, v. 31, 1 Thess. 2:11, 5:14, and 2 Macc. 15:9.

πρὸς τὴν Μάρθαν καὶ Μαριάμ is the best-attested reading (א B C*L), but the article should be prefixed to both or to neither of the names. D has πρὸς Μάρθαν καὶ Μαριάμ. Syr. sin. seems, on the other hand, to presuppose the article in both places, and reads “went forth to Bethany that they might comfort Martha and Mary,” omitting “concerning their brother.” See on v. 24 for Jn.’s consistent use of ἡ Μάρθα, ἡ Μαριάμ.

The rec. text, with A C³Γ Δ Θ, has ἐληλύθεισαν πρὸς τὰς περὶ Μάρθαν καὶ Μαριάμ, which ought to mean “came to the women of the household of Martha and Mary”; but it can hardly be genuine. Perhaps τὰς περί came in from [αὐ]τὰς περί in the next line. After ἀδελφοῦ A CΓ Δ add αὐτῶν, but om. א B D L W Θ

20. The congruity of the characters of Martha and Mary, as suggested by what we read of them in Lk. 10:38f., with what Jn. tells in this chapter about their demeanour is remarkable.¹ Martha is the busy housewife who, as the mistress of the house, is the first to be told of the approach of Jesus (v. 20). She goes to meet Him, and expresses at once her own conviction and that of Mary (vv. 21, 32), that if He had been present, Lazarus would not have died. She is puzzled by the enigmatical words of hope which Jesus addresses to her (v. 23), and supposes that He is giving the usual orthodox consolation (v. 24). She does not understand what He then says (vv. 25, 26); but her faith in Him as the Messiah is strong, and of this she assures Him (v. 27), although she does not expect that He can do anything now to restore her brother. Then she goes to tell her sister that Jesus has arrived and is asking for her.

Before Martha told her, Mary had not heard of the arrival of Jesus (v. 29): she was seated inside the house (v. 20) as a mourner, and it had been to her that the condolences of the friends who had come from Jerusalem were specially addressed (v. 45). But as soon as she learnt that Jesus had come, she got up hastily and left the house without acquainting the mourners of her purpose in going out (v. 29). Her friends thought that she was going to wail at the tomb (v. 30). When she met Jesus, she fell at His feet (unlike her more staid sister), greeting him with the same assurance that Martha had given (v. 32), but wailing unrestrainedly (v. 33). Her cries of grief seem to have affected the human heart of Jesus as the grave sorrow of Martha did not do (v. 33). But, as they proceed to the tomb, Martha is with them, and, practical woman as she is, demurs to its being opened (v. 39). Throughout, her figure is in sharp contrast with that of her more emotional sister. See further, Introd., p. clxxxv.

ἡ οὖν Μάρθα ὡς ἤκουσεν ὅτι κτλ. She is the first to be told, as the mistress of the house. ὅτι is recitantis: what was said to her was Ἰησοῦς ἔρχεται.

ὑπήντησεν αὐτῷ, “met Him,” but without any display of emotion such as Mary exhibited. She met Jesus before He entered the village (see v. 30).

ἐν τῷ οἴκῳ ἐκαθέζετο, “she was seated in the house”; see on 4:6 for ἐκαθέζετο. It was customary for mourners to be seated when receiving the condolences of their friends; see Job 2:8, 13, and cf. Ezek. 8:14. Sitting down was also a common posture for mourners among the Romans. It was adopted, e.g., by Cato after Pharsalia, and Varro after Cannæ (Plutarch, Cato, 56).

Μαρία is attested by most authorities, but Θ 33 give Μαριάμ (see also 12:3), in accordance with the general usage of Jn. (see on v. 2).

21. εἶπεν οὖν (οὖν being resumptive) ἡ Μάρθα πρὸς Ἰησοῦν. Cf. 2:3 for the constr. λέγειν πρός τινα. The rec., with A C²D L W Θ, inserts τόν before Ἰησοῦν, but om. א B C* See on 1:29.

εἰ ἦς ὧδε κτλ., “if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died.” Mary greets Jesus with the same words (v. 32). No doubt, Martha and Mary had said this to each other many times during the last four days. The greeting may imply a reproach, suggesting that if Jesus had started immediately after He heard of Lazarus’ illness, He would have kept him from death (see on v. 6). On the other hand, the sisters do not say “if thou hadst come here,” but “if thou hadst been here,” which may only imply wistful regret.

ἀπέθανεν. So א B C*D L W, but A C³Γ Δ have ἐτεθνήκει Θ has τεθνήκει.

22. The rec. inserts ἀλλά before καὶ νῦν: om. א*B C*. Jn. often uses καί adversatively (see on 1:10), and ἀλλά is not needed here.¹ “Even now (although my brother is dead) I know that whatsoever thou shalt ask of God, God will give it thee.” This is a deeper confidence than that which recognises the efficacy of the prayers of any good man (see 9:31). Martha wistfully expresses faith in Jesus not only as her friend, but as the Son of God (v. 27). She understands, though dimly, that He stands in a special relation to God; and the repetition of ὁ θεός at the end of the sentence is emphatic. Perhaps His remark in v. 4 had been reported to her.

ὅσα ἂν αἰτήσῃ τὸν θεόν. Martha used, however, a verb to describe the prayers of Jesus which (according to Jn.) Jesus never used of them. αἰτεῖν is often used in the Gospels of men’s prayers to God, and Jesus uses it thus at Jn. 14:13, 15:16, 16:23, but the word that He uses of His own prayers is ἐρωτᾶν. In Jn. (and in Jn. only) ἐρωτᾶν is used of prayer to God; and in the Gospel it is not generally used of the prayers of men, but of the prayers of Jesus (14:16, 16:26, 17:9, 15, 20). Too much, however, must not be made of this usage, for the distinction between αἰτεῖν and ἐρωτᾶν had almost disappeared in later Greek (cf. Acts 3:2, 3), and at 1 Jn. 5:16 ἐρωτᾶν is used of the prayer of Christians. See further on 16:23. It is remarkable that the words προσεύχεσθαι, παρακαλεῖν, and δεῖσθαι, which are all used elsewhere of prayer, do not occur in Jn.

But Martha, although she uses a word about the prayers of Jesus which He never applies to them, is right in substance; and her confession is a true, if imperfect, statement of what Jesus says Himself at v. 41.

23. ἀναστήσεται ὁ ἀδελφός σου. This must often have been said both to Martha and Mary during the past four days; it was (and is) a commonplace of consolation in bereavement offered by friends. By the first century, belief in the resurrection, at any rate of good men, was widely spread among the Jews (see on 5:28). The doctrine is plainly expressed in the Psalms of Solomon (about 80 b.c.): οἱ δὲ φοβούμενοι κύριον ἀναστήσονται εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον (3:12). And Jesus commends this assurance to Martha as a truth which should assuage her grief. A doctrine which is trite may, nevertheless, be both true and important.

24. Martha’s reply is not sceptical or querulous. She does not deny the tremendous doctrine of resurrection at the Last Day. She replies, wistfully enough, that she knows it and accepts it. But, like many another mourner, she fails to derive much immediate consolation from it. The Last Day seems very far off. Meanwhile, where is her brother? And what are the conditions of this Resurrection? What is the Resurrection?

The answer of Jesus is unexpected indeed. “I am the Resurrection”: the soul that has touched me has touched life; and the life of God is eternal. That is the whole answer. And Martha, not fully understanding it, recognises that He who spoke to her, spoke with an awful prescience, as befitted Him in whom she saw the Messiah.

λέγει αὐτῷ ἡ Μάρθα. The article, which is omitted by א A C³Γ Δ W, must be retained with B C*D L Θ. Throughout the chapter (except at vv. 1, 39, which are not true exceptions), Jn. writes ἡ Μάρθα. See on vv. 2, 20.

For the doctrine of the Last Things in Jn., see Introd., p. clviii; and for the phrase ἡ ἐσχάτη ἡμέρα, which is peculiar to Jn., see on 6:39. For the word ἀνάστασις, used of a resurrection from death, see on 5:28.

25. ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ ἀνάστασις καὶ ἡ ζωή. For the form of this solemn pronouncement, ἐγώ εἰμι …, and for the claim to an equality with God which is involved in such a way of speaking, see Introd., p. cxix.

For the Divine prerogative of Jesus as a “quickener” of the dead, see 5:21 and the note there. It is asserted again in the proclamation, four times repeated, ἀναστήσω αὐτὸ [ἐν] τῇ ἐσχάτῃ ἡμέρᾳ (see note on 6:39). Here, what is said goes beyond even that great assurance.

All the great similitudes by which Jesus describes Himself in the Fourth Gospel are introduced by the opening phrase ἐγώ εἰμι, which marks the style of Deity (see Introd., p. cxviii). But ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ ἀνάστασις differs from the other pronouncements in this respect, that it is not a similitude. When Jesus is represented as saying that He is the Bread of Life, or the Light of the World, or the Door, or the Way, or the True Vine, or the Good Shepherd, every one understands that these are only figures of speech, used to illustrate and explain that He strengthens and guides mankind. Here, however, in reply to Martha’s allusion to the Resurrection at the Last Day, Jesus uses no explanatory figure of speech. “I am the Resurrection” is not a similitude; it is the reference to Himself of what Martha had said about the final resurrection. The sentence is comparable to ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ μαρτυρῶν περὶ ἐμαυτοῦ (8:18), rather than to any of the so-called similitudes; but it is more difficult to interpret. For how can a person represent an event in the future? Yet this is what is asserted. ἡ ἀνάστασις in v. 25 must refer back to ἡ ἀνάστασις in v. 24. Jesus does not say ἐγώ εἰμι ἀνάστασις (without the article), or identify Himself with the act or process of “rising again”; but He diverts the thought of Martha, as it were, from the Resurrection at the Last Day, which she feels is very far distant, to the Resurrection of which He is potentially the Source as well as the Agent.

“I will raise him up at the Last Day.” That is a frequent theme of the Fourth Gospel (see on 6:39). But, if Jesus had said no more on the subject, it would have postponed the possibility of resurrection to the new and heavenly life until the day of the Final Assize. And it is equally, and more particularly, a doctrine of the Fourth Gospel, that as men are judged now, so the entrance on the ζωὴ αἰώνιος is a present possibility (see Introd., p. clx). Jesus is the Door to the Kingdom, i.e. to the enjoyment of “eternal life”; and it is through Him that man enters into its possession here and now.

Thus, in vv. 24, 25, the old Jewish and the new Christian eschatology are explicitly confronted with each other. Jn. never represents Jesus as denying the Jewish doctrine of a Last Judgment; but he perpetually represents Him as insisting upon the judgment of the present hour, not pronounced by a fiat of external authority, but determined by the man’s own self and his relation to God in Christ (see on 3:18).

So ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ ἀνάστασις is meant to convey to Martha, not indeed a rebuke for her belief in the General Resurrection at last, but an assurance that the “rising again” of believers in Him is not to be postponed until then. If a man believe in Him, although his body dies yet his true self shall live (v. 25). Or, as it may be put in other words, no believer in Jesus shall ever die, so far as his spirit is concerned (v. 26). The consolation which Jesus offers to those mourning the death of a Christian believer is not that their friend will rise again at some distant day when the dead shall be raised by a catastrophic act of God (however true that may be), but that the Christian believer never dies, his true life is never extinguished. “Your friend is alive now; for in me he touched the life of God which is eternal; in me he had already risen, before his body perished.” This is the Johannine doctrine of life (see Introd., p. clxi); it is also the doctrine of Paul (cf. Col. 3:1).

Neither Jn. nor Paul discuss or contemplate the future life of those who are not “in Christ.” The assurance of life, here and hereafter, in the Fourth Gospel, is for all “believers”; and in this passage no others are in view.

καὶ ἡ ζωή. This second clause in the great pronouncement of Jesus is omitted by Syr. sin., and also by Cyprian (de Mortal. 21), who quotes these verses in the form: “Ego sum Resurrectio. Qui credit in me, licet moriatur, uiuet; et omnis qui uiuit et credit in me non morietur in aeternum.” Cyprian appears to have missed the distinction between the two clauses 25b and 26, and he may have omitted et uita, not perceiving that the words are essential, if what follows is to be understood. But this does not explain the omission in Syr. sin. All other authorities have the words καὶ ἡ ζωή, which are indispensable for the argument.

Jesus is not only the Resurrection, and thus the pledge and the source of the believer’s revival after death; but He is the Life, for this revival is unending. In the two sentences which follow, the twofold presentation of Jesus as the Resurrection and as the Life is expanded and explained. He is the Resurrection, and therefore the believer in Him, though he die, yet shall live again. He is the Life, and therefore the believer in Him, who has been “raised from the dead” and is spiritually alive, shall never die. See further on v. 26.

That Jesus is the Life is, in one sense, the main theme of the Fourth Gospel. Cf. 1:4, 6:57, 14:6, 20:31; and see Introd., p. clxi.

ὁ πιστεύων εἰς ἐμέ κτλ., “he who believes in me” (see on 1:12 for the constr. πιστεύειν εἰς, and cf. 9:35) “even if he die (sc. physically), yet shall he live” (sc. spiritually, in the spiritual body, as Paul has it). So it has been said already (3:36).

Westcott compares Philo’s saying that “the wise man who appears to have died in respect of this corruptible life, lives in respect of the incorruptible life” (quod det. pot. 15). But the distinctive feature of the Johannine teaching is that the privilege of the immortal, spiritual life is for him who “believes in Christ,” and so has touched the life of God.

26. καὶ πᾶς ὁ ζῶν κτλ. The verse is susceptible of two meanings. (1) If πᾶς ὁ ζῶν is understood as meaning “every living man,” sc. living in this earthly life (cf. ἐνώπιον παντὸς ζῶντος, Tob. 13:4), then v. 26 is but the repetition in other words of what has already been said in v. 25, “no living man who believes in me shall ever die.” Such repetition is quite in the Johannine style (see 3:3, 5), and it gives a good sense here. (2) But inasmuch as ζήσεται in v. 25 refers to spiritual life, the life of the believer after the death of the body, it is preferable to take ζῶν in v. 26 as having the same reference, and to treat v. 26 as continuing the topic of v. 25, but not repeating it. “Every one who is living (sc. in the heavenly life) and a believer in me shall never die.” Verse 25 gives only the promise of life after physical death; v. 26 gives the assurance of that future life being immortal. For this use of ζῶν as indicating one who is living, not on earth, but in the spiritual world, cf. the saying of Jesus to the Sadducees, that God is not the God of the dead, but of the living (ζώντων, Mk. 12:27 and parallels).

For this use of εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, “shall never die,” cf. 4:14, and esp. 8:51.

It should be observed that vv. 25, 26, do not suggest to Martha that Lazarus will live again on earth. They are general pronouncements applying to every believer in Jesus, and the emphasis is laid on the words ὁ πιστεύων εἰς ἐμέ. It is this essential condition of life in its deepest sense that is proclaimed to Martha. She is asked if she believes it, and she says “Yes”; but her answer does not indicate that she understood what was involved.

27. Martha’s reply is a confession of Jesus as the Messiah. It hardly goes farther; although, in terms, it embraces all that Jn. hopes his readers will reach, sc. that full faith which leads to life (20:31). She hastens to summon Mary, who may be expected to understand the mysterious sayings of Jesus better than she (cf. Lk. 10:39).

Ναί. Cf. 21:15, 16 and Mk. 7:28. She acquiesces in the truth of what Jesus had said, because she believed Him to be the Christ.

ἐγὼ πεπίστευκα. With the perfect tense cf. 6:69 and 1 Jn. 4:16; ἐγώ is emphatic. Certainly Martha accepts the word of Jesus as true, for she has believed for some time past in His Messiahship. ὃτι σὺ εἶ ὁ χριστός For the form of the confession σὺ εἶ, cf. 1:49, 6:69, Mk. 8:29, Mt. 16:16.

ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ—a recognised title of Messiah. See on 1:34 for its usage and significance. Cf. the note on 6:69 for the confession of Jesus as the Christ by Peter; and see further on v. 40. Note that the exact terms, ὁ χριστός, ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, appear together again at 20:31, where Jn. defines the faith which he aims to inspire in his readers.

ὁ εἰς τὸν κόσμον ἐρχόμενος. This is the way in which the coming Prophet was described in popular discourse (see 6:14, Mt. 11:3). Jesus used the expression of Himself more than once (9:39, 16:28, 18:37).

Mary, Being Informed of Jesus’ Presence, Hastens to Speak to Him (vv. 28–32)

28. τοῦτο εἰποῦσα. This is the true reading, with א B C L W, rather than ταῦτα of A DΓ Δ Θ. Martha said one thing only in response to Jesus’ words of mystery; she did not make a speech.

She called (ἐφώνησεν) “Mary.” Μαριάμ does not take the article here, suggesting that the actual name was called out by Martha.

λάθρᾳ, “secretly,” presumably because she wished Mary to see Jesus privately, without the crowd of mourning friends being present. However, this did not succeed, for they followed Mary out of the house (v. 31). λάθρᾳ occurs elsewhere in N.T. at Mt. 1:19, 2:7, Acts 16:37. D reads σιωπῇ, which gives the same sense.

ὁ διδάσκαλος. So they called Jesus among themselves, although they addressed Him as κύριε. See on 1:38, 13:13; and cf. 20:16.

καὶ φωνεῖ σε. No mention has been made hitherto of the desire of Jesus to see Mary.

29. ἐκείνη δέ. δέ should be retained with א B C*L W. ἐκείνη designates the person who has just been mentioned (see on 1:8).

ἠγέρθη ταχὺ καὶ ἤρχετο πρὸς αὐτόν. With her natural impulsiveness (see Introductory Note on 12:1–8), Mary rose up quickly from the seat of mourning (see on v. 20), and went to meet Jesus, as she had been bidden to do. The rec. (with AΘ) has ἐγείρεται … ἔρχεται, but the aorist and imperfect tenses are significant.

30. οὔπω δέ κτλ. It is useless to make guesses as to why Jesus had not yet come into the village. He may have been resting at the spot where Martha met Him first.

ἔτι is om. by A D LΓ Δ, but ins. א B C W. Θ has ἐπὶ τῷ τόπῳ.

31. The friends who had come out from Jerusalem to mourn with the sisters (see v. 19), when they saw Mary rise up (see on v. 20) and leave the house suddenly without giving any explanation, supposed that she had gone to wail at the tomb, a common habit of mourners.

κλαίειν does not indicate silent weeping (cf. v. 35), but the unrestrained wailing of Orientals. It is used elsewhere, as here, of wailing for the dead; cf. Mk. 5:38 (of the wailing for Jairus’ daughter), Lk. 7:13 (for the widow of Nain’s son), Acts 9:39 (for Dorcas), Mt. 2:18 (Rachel wailing for her children). See on 16:20.

It is noteworthy, in view of the identity of Mary the sister of Martha with Mary Magdalene,¹ that Mary Magdalene is represented (20:11, 13, 15) as wailing (κλαίουσα) at the tomb of Jesus.

32. When Mary met Jesus, she fell at His feet, impulsive and demonstrative creature as she was, and said, as Martha had said, “Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died” (see on v. 21). She is described by Lk. (10:39) as sitting at His feet for instruction, and later she anointed His feet (12:3), probably for the second time (see Introductory Note on 12:1–8).

πρὸς τοὺς πόδας. So א B C*D L W, but A C³Γ Δ Θ give εἰς τοὺς πόδας. πρός is the preposition used by Mk. (5:22, 7:25) when telling of Jairus and the Syrophœnician woman falling at the feet of Jesus. So, too, is it used in Rev. 1:17 and (in the LXX) at Esth. 8:3. But εἰς τοὺς πόδας in a context like this would be curious Greek. Lk. prefers to use παρά (8:41, 17:16; but cf. Acts 5:10)

Jesus Weeps, and, Being Directed by the Mourners, Goes to the Tomb (vv. 33–38)

33. Ἰησοῦς οὖν ὡς εἶδεν αὐτὴν κλαίουσαν κτλ., “Jesus, then, when He saw her wailing and the Jews which came with her also wailing.”

ἐνεβριμήσατο τῷ πνεύματι. Cf. v. 38 ἐμβριμώμενος ἐν ἑαυτῷ, this being the only other occurrence of the verb in Jn. In its primary sense, ἐμβριμᾶσθαι is “to snort” like a horse (cf. Æsch. Septem c. Theb. 461); while in the LXX it means “to show indignation” (Dan. 11:30), ἐμβρίμημα being used of the anger of Yahweh at Lam. 2:6. A similar use of the cognate words occurs Ps. 7:12 (Aq.), Isa. 17:13 (Symm.), and Ezek. 21:31. In Mk. 14:5 ἐνεβριμῶντο αὐτῇ carries the idea of indignation: “they roared against her,” sc. in their indignation at the waste of the ointment. But in Mk. 1:43, Mt. 9:30, ἐμβριμησάμενος αὐτῷ and ἐνεβριμήσατο αὐτοῖς can hardly mean that Jesus was angry with the leper or the blind men whom He had cured: “strictly charged them” is the rendering of the R.V., but it is doubtful if this adequately represents ἐμβριμᾶσθαι, or if any Greek parallel can be cited for such a meaning.

All three occasions on which this rare word is applied to Jesus (Mk. 1:43, Mt. 9:30, Jn. 11:33, 38) were occasions, as we must suppose, of intense emotion. The cure of a leper, the restoring of sight to the blind, the preparation of Himself for so stupendous a task as the raising of Lazarus from the tomb, must have involved the output of spiritual energy in a degree which we cannot measure. The narrative of vv. 33–43 reveals, as no other passage in the N.T. does, that the working of “miracles” (however we try to explain them) was not achieved without spiritual effort or without the agitation of the human spirit of Jesus. “He shuddered” (ἐτάραξεν ἑαυτόν): “He shed tears” (ἐδάκρυσεν). And the verb ἐμβριμᾶσθαι may well express the physical effect of powerful emotion upon His voice. It represents the inarticulate sounds which escape men when they are physically overwhelmed by a great wave of emotion. And Jesus, the Perfect Man, experienced this as He experienced all else that is human and not sinful. As He charged the leper and the blind whom He had relieved to tell nothing of what had been done for them, He stumbled over the words, the loud and harsh tone of His voice indicating His agitation. “He roared at them” would not exactly convey the sense, for that would suggest violence of speech or of command. But it is nearer the primary meaning of ἐνεβριμήσατο than “strictly charged them.” So in the present passage “He groaned in spirit” is probably the best rendering; but, if not explained, it might suggest the groaning of one in sorrow, and this ἐνεβριμήσατο cannot mean. But the groaning, like the tears and the shuddering, were the outward and bodily indications of a tremendous spiritual agitation and effort.¹ ἐμβριμώμενος ἐν ἑαυτῷ, He arrived at the tomb, not “indignant” at anything nor “groaning” with loud outbursts of sorrow, but making those inarticulate sounds which are the expression of mental agitation and strain.

D has the variant ἐταράχθη τῷ πνεύματι ὡς ἐνβρειμούμενος, which d renders “conturbatus est spiritu sicut ira plenus.” But, as has been said, anger is not primarily suggested by the verb ἐμβριμᾶσθαι, nor does the idea of Jesus being angry enter into the story of the Raising of Lazarus.²

ἐνεβριμήσατο τῷ πνεύματι καὶ ἐτάραξεν ἑαυτόν. Cf. 12:27 ἡ ψυχή μου τετάρακται and 13:21 ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἐταράχθη τῷ πνεύματι. Putting these passages side by side, it is not easy to make a distinction between the use of ψυχή and πνεῦμα. In each case the “soul” of Jesus, as we would say, was troubled. So again Jn. tells of His death in the words παρέδωκεν τὸ πνεῦμα (19:30; see note in loc.); but he makes Jesus speak of His death in 10:17 in the words ἐγὼ τίθημι τὴν ψυχήν μου. We have not now to do with the psychological doctrine of Paul; we are only concerned with the Johannine use of the two words πνεῦμα and ψυχή; and while recognising that πνεῦμα suggests what is Divine (4:24), and that ψυχή suggests the bodily life (12:25) in Jn. as in other writers, it is not legitimate to differentiate them sharply in a verse like that before us. The Lucan parallelism (Lk. 1:47):

καὶ ἠγαλλίασεν τὸ πνεῦμά μου ἐπὶ τῷ θεῷ …

shows that the words may be used synonymously; and the Johannine usage agrees with this. See on 12:25.

34. καὶ εἶπεν Ποῦ τεθείκατε αὐτόν; “Where have you laid him?” This is a simple request for information. See on 6:6 for other examples of questions asked by Jesus.

λέγουσιν αὐτῷ, sc. (apparently) Martha and Mary, who preface their reply with the κύριε of respect (see on v. 3).

35. ἐδάκρυσεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς. א D Θ prefix καί to ἐδάκρυσεν, but it is quite in the style of Jn. to begin the sentence without any conjunction. δακρύειν does not occur again in the N.T. It means “to shed tears,” but not to “wail.” The word in Lk. 19:41, where Jesus “wept” over Jerusalem, is ἔκλαυσεν: cf. Heb. 5:7, of Gethsemane, μετὰ κραυγῆς ἰσχυρᾶς καὶ δακρύων.

It is not said in the Gospels that Jesus “laughed,” while it is told here, and suggested elsewhere, that He “wept.” But to draw the inference that He never laughed would be misleading. To be incapable of laughter would be to fall short of the perfection of manhood. This was perceived by the compilers of the apocryphal gospels: cf. Gospel of Thomas, A 8, ἔγελασε τὸ παιδίον μέγα, and Pseudo-Matth. 31, “Jesus laeto vultu subridens.”

The ethics of Jesus were not those of the Stoics, and Jn. brings out, perhaps more clearly than the Synoptists, that He did not aim at the Stoic ἀπάθεια. Juvenal finely says of human tears, “haec nostri pars optima sensus” (Sat. xv. 133).

36. The visitors from Jerusalem were impressed by the sight of Jesus weeping, and said to each other, “See, how He loved him,” how great a friend of Lazarus He was! Cf. vv. 3, 5, for ἐφίλει.

37. Some of them, however (δέ), expressed surprise that He who had cured the blind man at Jerusalem (9:6, 7) could not have kept His friend from death. Like Martha (v. 21) and Mary (v. 32), they seem to think that if Jesus had been present, Lazarus would not have died, although they are not so sure of it. They are not contemplating any raising of Lazarus from the dead; such a thing does not occur to them. They refer merely to a healing miracle at Jerusalem, of which they had recently heard, and which they may have witnessed.

A reference here to the Galilæan miracles of raising from the dead (Mk. 5:35f., Lk. 7:11f.) could hardly have been resisted by a writer who was inventing the story of the raising of Lazarus. But these citizens of Jerusalem may not have heard of any Galilæan miracles.

38. That the article ὁ is omitted before Ἰησοῦς in all the MSS. except Θ and 33 (which, however, preserves some good readings in this chapter; cf. v. 20) is contrary to the general usage of Jn. (see on 1:29).

Again (πάλιν) the agitation of Jesus was noticeable (ἐμβριμώμενος ἐν ἑαυτῷ, see on v. 33), as He was approaching the tomb of Lazarus. It was a cave, such as was often used as a burial-place (cf. Gen. 23:19, Isa. 22:16, 2 Chron. 16:14), the cavern being sometimes natural, sometimes artificial. The body was either let down through a horizontal opening, as is the European practice, or placed in a tomb cut in the face of the rock. In either case the opening was closed by a stone, which had to be a heavy one to keep wild animals out. Cf. 20:1, Mk. 15:46, Mt. 27:60, Lk. 24:2. If the cave were a subterranean one, then λίθος ἐπέκειτο ἐπʼ αὐτῷ must be rendered “a stone lay upon it”; if it were cut in the face of the rock, then the stone lay against the opening.

39. ἄρατε. The aorist imperative is the command of authority; see on 2:5. The same verb is used of the removal of the stone at the tomb of Jesus (cf. 20:1).

ἡ ἀδελφὴ τοῦ τετελευτηκότος, “the sister of the deceased.” τελευτάω occurs only here in Jn., and is infrequent in the N.T. (cf. Mk. 9:48). The rec. substitutes the more usual τεθνηκότος.

Martha, although she had joined the party which was visiting the tomb, had no thought of the resuscitation of her brother, and, with her strong sense of decorum (Lk. 10:40), was horrified to think of the exposure of the corpse, it being now the fourth day after death. She was sure that putrefaction had begun, which shows that the body had not been embalmed, but had only been bound with swathes (v. 44), spices being probably used, after the Jewish custom (cf. 19:40). It is not alleged by Jn. that Martha was stating a fact when she said ὄζει, “he stinketh.” That was merely what she thought must be the case.

ὄζειν is only used again in the Greek Bible at Ex. 8:14, where it is used of the dead frogs.

τεταρταῖος does not occur again in the Greek Bible (except by mistake for τέταρτος in the A text of 2 Sam. 3:4); but in Herod. ii. 89 τεταρταῖος γενέσθαι is “to be four days dead,” as here. Lightfoot (Hor. Hebr. in loc.) cites a Jewish tradition to the effect that “for three days (after death) the spirit wanders about the sepulchre, expecting if it may return into the body. But when it sees that the form or aspect of the face is changed, then it hovers no more, but leaves the body to itself” (Beresh. Rabba, fol. 114. 3). The same tradition is found in The Rest of the Words of Baruch, § 9 (ed. Harris, p. 62).

For the three days of weeping, followed by four days of lamentation, see on v. 19; and cf. v. 17 for τεταρταῖος.

40. Jesus rebukes Martha, although gently, for her lack of understanding: “Said I not to thee, that if thou believedst, thou shouldest see the glory of God?” Some commentators suppose the allusion to be to what Jesus had said about the sickness of Lazarus being for “the glory of God” (v. 4, where see note). But this was said to the disciples in Peræa, not to Martha, and there is no hint that it was reported to her. Nor is there anything in v. 4 about belief being a condition precedent to the vision of the Divine glory. It is more probable that the reference is to Martha’s previous conversation with Jesus (vv. 25–27), where she declared her belief in Him as the Christ. Such confessions of faith are elsewhere (see on 1:51) answered by a benediction from Jesus, in which He promises to the faithful as a reward a vision of the Advent of the Son of Man in glory; and it may be that some such promise, although not recorded, was given by Jesus to Martha¹ (see on 6:36, 10:25).

ἐὰν πιστεύσῃς ὄψῃ τὴν δόξαν τοῦ θεοῦ. Whatever this promised vision was to be, it was a spiritual vision that is meant, for ὄπτομαι is always used in Jn. of seeing spiritual or heavenly realities, as at 1:51 (where see note). Bearing this in mind, it is difficult to suppose that “thou shalt see the glory of God” means “thou shalt see Lazarus restored from the grave,” nor is there any suggestion that Martha understood this to be the meaning. Paul’s phrase that Christ was “raised from the dead, through the glory of the Father” (Rom. 6:4), may, however, be thought to supply a parallel; and the “glory of God” which Martha was to “see” with the eye of faith would then be the Divine power which was put forth in the raising of Lazarus. Thus the larger promise of vision, which it may be supposed was given in response to Martha’s confession of faith, was about to receive a special exemplification in the revival of her brother. Even this, however, is not free from difficulty; for it would suggest that the sight of the raising of Lazarus could have been perceived only by those who had faith (ἐὰν πιστεύσῃς), whereas the whole tenor of the story is that all the bystanders, Jews and disciples alike, were witnesses of it. But perhaps what is meant is that only those who had faith could see the inner meaning of this “sign”, and discern in it the exhibition of the Divine glory.

41. ἦραν οὖν τὸν λίθον, as Jesus had bidden them (v. 39). The rec. text adds after λίθον the explanatory gloss οὗ ἦν ὁ τεθνηκὼς κείμενος: om. א B C*L D.

ἦρεν τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς ἄνω. This is a natural prelude to prayer or thanksgiving: cf. Ps. 121:1 ἦρα τοὺς ὀφθαλμούς μου εἰς τὰ ὄρη, and Lk. 18:13. So, again, did Jesus “lift up His eyes” before His great high-priestly prayer (17:1); and, as the Synoptists tell (Mk. 6:41), before the blessing of the loaves, although Jn. omits this detail (see note on 6:11). “To lift the eyes” is used more generally of any careful or deliberate gaze (see on 4:35, 6:5).

καὶ εἶπεν πάτερ. It was thus that Jesus began His own prayers or thanksgivings, even as He taught men to begin with “Our Father.” Other instances in Jn. are 12:27, 17:1; and in the Synoptists, Mk. 14:36, Lk. 22:42 (cf. Mt. 26:39), Lk. 10:21 (Mt. 11:25), and Lk. 23:34, 46. He does not say “Our Father,” but “My Father” (see on 5:17), or “Father,” simply, as here; for His relation to the Eternal Godhead is different from that of men in general. Bengel’s comment on the simple invocation πάτερ (at 17:1) is suggestive: “nomina dei non sunt cumulanda in oratione.”

εὐχαριστῶ σοι. For εὐχαριστεῖν in Jn., see on 6:11.

ὅτι ἤκουσάς μου, “because Thou didst hear me,” the aor. indicating some definite act of prayer, whether spoken or only mental, perhaps before v. 4. He gives thanks before the visible answer to His prayer, because He is in no doubt as to the issue. His prayers were always directed to the realisation of the Father’s will (5:30), and this cannot be frustrated (see on 12:28).

For ἀκούειν with a gen. case as connoting sympathetic or appreciative hearing, see on 3:8.

42. ἐγὼ δὲ ᾔδειν κτλ., “But I knew that thou hearest me always.” This is a phase of Jesus’ consciousness of Himself as in unique relation with the Father, which appears all through the Fourth Gospel, and which is most explicitly stated in the words ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἕν ἐσμεν (10:30).

We examine, first, the rec. reading ἀλλὰ διὰ τὸν ὄχλον τὸν περιεστῶτα εἶπον, “but for the sake of the crowd standing round, I said it”; i.e. He said aloud εὐχαριστῶ σοι ὅτι ἤκουσάς μου, not merely because of thankfulness to His Father for an answer to His prayer (for of this He had been sure), but because He wished the bystanders to appreciate the true secret of His power. The prayer of Elijah, “Hear me, O Lord, that this people may know that thou art God” (1 Kings 18:37), is not a true parallel, for Elijah had not the certainty of his prayer being answered as he wished, that Jesus had. See, however, 12:30, where Jesus is represented as saying that the voice from heaven was not for His sake, but for the sake of the wondering crowd; and cf. 17:13. ἵνα πιστεύσωσιν ὅτι σύ με ἀπέστειλας, “that they might believe (cf. 17:8, 21) that thou hast sent me.” This, according to the rec. text, was the purpose with which Jesus had uttered aloud His thanksgiving and His assurance that the Father always heard Him, sc. that He might fix the attention of the bystanders upon His claim, that He was “sent” by the Father (see on 3:17; and cf. 6:29). For the reiterated claim, σύ με ἀπέστειλας, cf. 17:8, 18, 21, 23, 25. It is difficult to accept the rec. text as exactly representing the motive behind the words εὐχαριστῶ σοι ὅτι ἤκουσάς μου. Without the addition of v. 42, these words commend themselves to every reader as a sublime expression of thankfulness. But v. 42 represents them as having been uttered in order to impress the crowd. Perhaps we might take v. 42 as a comment or interpretative gloss of the evangelist rather than as a saying of Jesus.¹

Probably, however, the rec. text is corrupt. In one uncial (Θ) there is a variant reading which we take to represent the original, viz.: διὰ τὸν ὄχλον τὸν παρεστῶτά μοι ποιῶ, ἵνα κτλ.

First, παρεστῶτα is read not only by Θ and the allied cursive 28, but also by 235 and the ninth-century uncial Λ. Further, the Vulgate G has adstantem, not circumstantem (which is the usual rendering of the rec. περιεστῶτα). Again, περιϊστάναι is never used by Jn. elsewhere, and in N.T. only at Acts 25:7 “to surround him” (used transitively), and at 2 Tim. 2:16, Tit. 3:9 “to shun”; while Jn. has παρεστηκώς at 18:22 and παρεστῶτα at 19:26. For παρίστημι followed by a dative (as in παρεστῶτά μοι), cf. Acts 1:10, 9:39, 27:23. On all grounds, παρεστῶτά μοι, “standing by me,” is preferable to περιεστῶτα, “standing round,” which would be a unique instance in the N.T. of this intransitive sense.

Secondly, the reading of Θ, ⲙⲟⲓⲡⲟⲓⲱ, might readily be corrupted into the rec. ⲉⲓⲡⲟⲛ; and the verb ποιῶ gives us a meaning as unexceptionable as εἶπον is difficult. At 5:36 Jesus says τὰ ἔργα ἃ ποιῶ μαρτυρεῖ περὶ ἐμοῦ ὅτι ὁ πατήρ με ἀπέσταλκεν (cf. also 10:25, 38). And so here, reading ποιῶ, we translate “because of the multitude standing by I do it, that they may believe that thou didst send me.” There is thus no intimation that the thanksgiving of Jesus in v. 41 was uttered only to impress the bystanders. The words of v. 41 were the inmost expression of His personal life. Rather in v. 42 does He speak of the purpose with which He is about to perform the sign that will convince the onlookers of His Divine mission.

The only authority, as it seems, corroborating ποιῶ, the reading of Θ, is the Armenian version, which, for the widely attested “I said it,” gives “I do it.” This appears also in two Armenian MSS. of Ephraem’s Commentary on Tatian’s Diatessaron,¹ as well as in a homily on the Raising of Lazarus ascribed to Hippolytus, part of which is extant only in Armenian.² The text of Θ (whose home is in the neighbour-hood of Armenia) has been thought to show special affinities to the Armenian version;³ and it is possible that “I do it” in Jn. 11:42 has been taken over by an Armenian (or Georgian⁴) scribe from the version with which he was most familiar, not only in Θ, but in Ephraem’s Commentary and in the Hippolytus homily. If this be so, the reading ποιῶ has its roots in the Armenian version, the sources of which are imperfectly known.

It has been shown⁵ that the Armenian version of the Gospels rests in part on the Old Syriac. In this instance, however, the Syriac gives no support to ποιῶ, the Armenian deserting the Syriac here as in other instances;⁶ and it is probable that here some Greek authority is behind the Armenian vulgate.

The attestation of παρεστῶτά μοι ποιῶ is undoubtedly weak, but the phrase could so readily be corrupted into περιεστῶτα εἶπον (which has the non-Johannine περιεστῶτα as well as the disconcerting εἶπον), that παρεστῶτά μοι ποιῶ has been adopted in this edition as probably the original Greek.

43. φωνῇ μεγάλῃ ἐκραύγασεν κτλ. As in the Synoptic accounts of the raising of Jairus’ daughter (Mk. 5:41) and of the widow of Nain’s son (Lk. 7:14), the dead person was recalled to life by an authoritative command from Jesus Himself. This is repeated with emphasis at 12:17. It is His voice which, being heard by the dead as addressing them personally, is spoken of as the effective instrument of their resurrection (cf. 5:28, 29).

The verb κραυγάζειν occurs only once in the LXX, and there, as here, is associated with “a loud voice”; ὁ λαὸς ἐκραύγασε φωνῇ μεγάλῃ (Ezra 3:13) describes the joyful shouts of the people. The verb is found in the N.T. (in the best texts) only in Jn., who has it six times (cf. 12:13, 18:40, 19:6, 12, 15), and at Mt. 12:19, where the words of Isa. 42:1 are rendered “He shall not cry aloud” (οὐδὲ κραυγάσει).¹ It is only here that the verb is used of an utterance of Jesus.

Two of the Words from the Cross are said to have been uttered φωνῇ μεγάλῃ (Mk. 15:34, 37); and in Rev. 1:10 the voice of the glorified Son of Man is described as φωνὴ μεγάλη, as is also (Mt. 24:31) the voice of the Trumpet at the coming in glory of the Son of Man. Cf. Rev. 21:3. Jn. represents the voice of Jesus when He summoned Lazarus from the grave as in like manner “a great voice.”

Λάζαρε (note the personal call), δεῦρο ἔξω, huc foras, “Come out.” δεῦρο occurs only here in Jn.

44. The rec. text, with א A C³W Γ Δ Θ, prefixes καί to ἐξῆλθεν, but om. B C*L. The absence of a conjunction is quite in Jn.’s manner.

The dead body had been bound as to feet and hands with swathes (cf. 19:40), and the face had been bound with a napkin (cf. 20:7), after the Jewish custom. It is idle to speculate as to how the evangelist means us to understand the emergence from the tomb. The bandages would, seemingly, forbid the free use of the limbs; and they had to be loosened (λύσατε αὐτόν) as soon as Lazarus appeared.

The word κειρία appears elsewhere in the Greek Bible only at Prov. 7:16, where it stands for part of the covering of a bed. Moulton-Milligan (s.v.) note its occurrence in the form κηρία in a medical papyrus. However, there is no doubt as to its meaning here, sc. “bandage” or “swathe.”

σουδάριον is a Latin word, “a napkin”; it occurs again in N.T. at 20:7, Lk. 19:20, Acts 19:12.

B C*L have ἄφετε αὐτόν. א A D Γ Δ om. αὐτόν. Θ has ἐάσατε αὐτόν.

For ὑπάγειν, see on 7:33 ἄφετε αὐτὸν ὑπάγειν is equivalent to “let him go home.” This simple and kindly counsel is comparable with that of Mk. 5:43; cf. also Lk. 7:15.

It is noteworthy how few are the apocryphal legends about Lazarus. A priori, it might have been expected that pious fancy would have delighted in depicting his experiences in the unseen world, and his sayings when he was restored to earth. But there is little of the kind. Epiphanius says that among the traditions with which he was familiar, there was one which gave the age of Lazarus at thirty, and alleged that he lived for thirty years longer after his resuscitation (Hær. lxvi. 34). There is nothing impossible in that. The grim legend (cited by Trench, without giving his authority) that after Lazarus returned from the tomb, he was never known to smile, is probably a mediæval fancy. The Anaphora of Pilate (B 5) says that Lazarus was raised from the dead on a Sabbath day, an idea which is probably due to imperfect recollection of the healings in cc. 5 and 9. A Sahidic sermon in F. Robinson’s Coptic Apocryphal Gospels, p. 170 f., represents the miracle as having been wrought by Jesus in order to convince Thomas, who expressed a desire to see a man raised from the grave; and that Jesus told him that His action in calling Lazarus forth was a figure of what would happen at the Resurrection on the Last Day.

45. Many of the spectators became believers in Jesus because of the raising of Lazarus (cf. 12:11), just as many had become believers after former healings (7:31). Some of them reported the story to the Pharisees.

πολλοὶ οὖν ἐκ τῶν Ἰουδαίων, οἱ ἐλθόντες κτλ. must be rendered “many, therefore, of the Jews, sc. those who had come to Mary (vv. 19, 31), and had seen what He did, believed on Him.” The “many” are defined as those who had come to visit Mary.

D for οἱ ἐλθόντες reads τῶν ἐλθόντων, altering the sense, which then would be that many of the Jews who had come to visit the sisters believed on Jesus in consequence of the miracle, but not all of them. Some (v. 46) went off to report it to the Pharisees, the implication being that they were not among those who believed in Him, and that their action was prompted by hostility or malevolence. But ἐλθόντες is undoubtedly the true reading, and it conveys the meaning that the many Jews (the phrase is repeated from v. 19) who had come to condole with the sisters were all convinced by the miracle of the claims of Jesus.

Syr. sin. has a reading unsupported by the uncials, sc. “Many Jews that came unto Jesus, because of Mary, from that hour believed in Jesus.”

θεασάμενοι. θεᾶσθαι is always used in Jn. of physical vision, of seeing with the eyes of the body (see on 1:14). For the effect of the miracle, cf. 2:23.

ὃ ἐποίησεν. So A²B C*D; but א A L W Γ Δ Θ have ἅ (perhaps from v. 46). Before ἐποίησεν the rec. adds ὁ Ἰησοῦς (from v. 46); but om. A B C*W.

46. τινὲς δὲ ἐξ αὐτῶν κτλ. There is nothing to prove that this action of some of the citizens who had come to Bethany and had been convinced of the claims of Jesus by the raising of Lazarus was malevolent. δέ means no more here than “however.”

ἀπῆλθον πρὸς τοὺς φαρισαίους, “went off to the Pharisees,” i.e. to the religious leaders who formed the most zealous and orthodox party in the Sanhedrim (see on 7:32). An event of such religious significance as the miracle at Bethany seemed to be would naturally be brought before them, and those who reported it probably did so without meaning to injure Jesus. See on 5:15 for a similar case.

If the plural ἅ before ἐποίησεν is to be pressed, it means that not only the raising of Lazarus, but other actions of Jesus which they had observed or of which they had heard, were included in their report (cf. πολλὰ σημεῖα, v. 47).

47. οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς καὶ οἱ φαρισαῖοι, sc. the principal members of the Sanhedrim (see on 7:32). From this time onwards, the chief priests take the lead in the arraignment of Jesus. These leaders summoned an informal council.

συνήγαγον … συνέδριον, the Ferrar cursives adding the explanatory gloss κατὰ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ. This is the only occurrence of the word συνέδριον in Jn.

καὶ ἔλεγον τί ποιοῦμεν; “They were saying (to each other), What are we doing?” sc. Why are we doing nothing? The parallel Acts 4:16 τί ποιήσωμεν; “What are we to do?” has a slightly different tinge of meaning. ποιοῦμεν in the present tense cannot be rendered “What shall we do?”¹

ὃτι οὗτος ὁ ἂνθρωπος κτλ., “for this person is doing many signs”; the turn of phrase expressing contempt. For “many signs” in Jerusalem, cf. 2:23; but the reference here is to the report brought by those who had been present at the raising of Lazarus (v. 46).

48. The Jewish leaders were anxious lest the growing fame of Jesus should suggest to those who were being convinced of His claims, that He was the national Deliverer of their expectation (cf. 6:15); and that thus a rebellion should break out, which would call down stern punishment from their Roman rulers. It was, indeed, the charge preferred against Him before Pilate that He claimed to be the “King of the Jews” (cf. 18:33f.).

ἐὰν ἀφῶμεν αὐτὸν οὕτως κτλ., “if we let Him go thus,” i.e. without intervening and curbing His activities, “every one will believe in Him” (cf. v. 45).

καὶ ἐλεύσονται οἱ Ῥωμαῖοι. This has a verbal resemblance to the LXX of Dan. 11:30 καὶ ἥξουσι Ῥωμαῖοι, but there is no allusion here to that passage. “Romans” are not mentioned by the Synoptists (cf. 19:20).

καὶ ἀροῦσιν ἡμῶν καὶ τὸν τόπον καὶ τὸ ἔθνος. The position of ἡμῶν is emphatic. “They will suppress our place and our nation.” ὁ τόπος seems to mean the Holy Place, i.e. the Temple, with which the chief priests were specially concerned. Cf. 4:20 and Mt. 24:15, Acts 6:13, 14, 21:28. At 2 Macc. 5:19 the τόπος is the Temple, and the fortunes of the τόπος and the ἔθνος are associated, as they are here.

The apprehension attributed in this verse to the Jewish leaders, of the destruction of the Temple and the nation, might, no doubt, be regarded as a prophecy after the event, for Jerusalem had fallen twenty years or more before the Fourth Gospel was written. But, on the other hand, there is an antecedent probability that such anxieties must always have been present. during the first century, to the minds of the chief priests, who were well aware that any Messianic rebellion would be sternly repressed by their Roman masters.

49. εἷς δέ τις ἐξ αὐτῶν. For ἐκ before a gen. pl. in sentences of this kind, see on 1:40.

καϊάφας, ἀρχιερεὺς ὤν. The office of high priest, under the ancient Hebrew laws, was for life; but in Roman times the high priest only held his position at the pleasure of the imperial authority. He might be high priest for one year only, or for a term of years, according as he pleased his Roman masters. Annas was high priest from 6 a.d. to 15 a.d., when he was deposed by the procurator Valerius Gratus. But he retained his influence throughout his life, and several of his sons held the office after him. In the year 18 a.d., Joseph Caiaphas (as Josephus calls him), the son-in-law of Annas, succeeded to this great position, which he held until 36 a.d., thus being high priest throughout the whole period of Pontius Pilate’s procuratorship. His name is not mentioned by Mk., but he appears as the principal person at the trial of Jesus in Mt. 26:57; see further on 18:19f.

The phrase ἀρχιερεὺς ὢν τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ ἐκείνου is applied to him thrice (v. 51, 18:13) by Jn. This does not imply that Jn. supposed mistakenly that the high priest was appointed annually, like the Asiarchs. But the phrase is repeated with emphasis, “high priest in that fateful year” (for such a use of ἐκεῖνος, cf. 1:40, 20:19), because Jn. thinks it so remarkable that the high priest, whose duty it was to enter the holy of holies and offer the atonement for that year, should unconsciously utter a prophecy of the efficacy of the Atonement which was presently to be offered on the Cross. This was the acceptable year of the Lord.¹

ὑμεῖς οὐκ οἴδατε οὐδέν κτλ. The council was an informal one, and Caiaphas was not presiding. But he speaks very sharply to the other members, for their irresolution. “You people” (ὑμεῖς is contemptuous) “know nothing at all”; you do not understand that it is in your interests that the man should die. Why hesitate about it? This is the obvious policy. Caiaphas was evidently a strong man, who knew his own mind; and the sharpness of his speech provides an illustration of what Josephus says about Sadducee manners: “The behaviour of the Sadducees to one another is rather rude, and their intercourse with their equals is rough, as with strangers” (Bell. Jud. II. viii. 14). For the relation of the Sadducee or priestly party to the Pharisees, see on 7:32.

50. οὐδὲ λογίζεσθε. So א A B D L W, as against the rec. διαλογίζεσθε. Neither verb occurs again in Jn.; the simple verb being customary in Paul, and the compound in the Synoptists.

ὅτι συμφέρει ὑμῖν (cf. 16:7 for the constr.; and cf. 18:14 for ἵνα … ἀποθάνῃ), “that it is expedient for you,” perhaps spoken contemptuously.

ἵνα εἷς ἄνθρωπος ἀποθάνῃ ὑπὲρ τοῦ λαοῦ κτλ.: a fine sentiment in its proper setting, and one which could be copiously illustrated from history. Caiaphas, from his point of view, was giving politic if cynical advice. Better that one man die than that the nation perish.

λαός is used by Jn. only in this saying of Caiaphas (repeated 18:14); ἔθνος is used by him only 1n this passage and at 18:35. ἔθνος has reference to the Jews as a political unit, organised for civic and social life; λαός is used when their relation to God, as His peculiar people, is in view. But it is as impossible to provide exact and exclusive definitions of these two Greek words as of the English words “nation” and “people.” It is doubtful if in this verse any stress should be laid on the difference between ἔθνος and λαός. ἔθνος is used of the Jewish nation at Lk. 7:5, 23:2 and elsewhere; while ἔθνη in the plural is always in sharp contrast to λαός.

51. This is one of those editorial comments of which Jn. gives his readers many (cf. Introd., p. xxxiv). The words of Caiaphas, he notes, were an unconscious prophecy, for it was true in a deeper sense than Caiaphas understood that the Death of Jesus would be expedient for the Jews, as well as for the wider circle of all God’s children.

The Jews ascribed a measure of prophetic faculty to the high priest, when, after being duly vested, he “inquired of Yahweh” (Ex. 28:30, Lev. 8:8, Num. 27:21). Josephus has left on record that he, as a priest, claimed to have power to read the future (B.J. III. viii. 3). And Philo says that the true priest is always potentially a prophet (de const. principum, 8). The word ἐπροφήτευσεν is applied to Zacharias the priest (Lk. 1:67), just as it is here (its only occurrence in Jn.) to Caiaphas: “He, being high priest that year (see on v. 49), prophesied.”

Caiaphas spoke not “of himself,” but being, as it were, inspired by the Spirit of God, ἐπροφήτευσεν. See on 19:21.

Note that ἐπροφήτευσεν (א B D L Θ) is the true form of the aorist, not προεφήτευσεν, with the rec. text. The augment precedes the preposition, there being no simple verb φητεύω.

ὅτι ἤμελλεν Ἰησοῦς ἀποθνήσκειν κτλ. For ἤμελλεν (A B D L WΘ) א has ἔμεκλλεν. The def. art. before Ἰησοῦς is omitted by א A B D L W (see on 1:29).

For ἤμελλεν, used of the Death of Jesus, cf. 12:33, 18:32. It conveys in these passages the sense of predestined inevitableness, which is always present to the mind of Jn. (see on 2:4, 3:14; and cf. Introd., p. cii). See also for μέλλειν on 4:47, 6:71.

ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἔθνους. See for ὑπέρ on 1:30; and cf. 6:51, 10:11. Jn. alters the phrase of Caiaphas ὑπὲρ τοῦ λαοῦ (v. 50) to ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἔθνους, perhaps because he wishes to suggest that by their rejection of Jesus the Jews had forfeited their privilege as the λαός of God. But he is prone, when he repeats a phrase, to alter it slightly (see on 3:16); and in any case, as we have seen, we cannot distinguish very sharply between ἔθνος and λαός.

52. The Death of Jesus was not only on behalf of Jews. This is the teaching of Jn. Cf. 3:16, 10:16, 12:32, 1 Jn. 2:2, as a few of the passages which make this plain. It is natural that in a Gospel written amid Greek surroundings and primarily for Greek readers, the scope of the Christian message of salvation as extending beyond the borders of Judaism should be explained with special emphasis.

Its larger purpose was “to gather into one the scattered children of God,” ἵνα καὶ τὰ τέκνα τοῦ θεοῦ τὰ διεσκορπισμένα συναγάγῃ εἰς ἕν. The phrase looks onward to the future, when those who are potentially God’s children shall have become τέκνα θεοῦ, begotten of God, through faith in Jesus (see on 1:12, 13 for τέκνα θεοῦ in Jn.); and it looks onward also to the more distant future, when all these children of God shall be gathered into one. It should be observed again at this point (see on 1:12) that the ideas of the universal Fatherhood of God, and of the whole human family as His children, are not explicit in Jn. All who will “believe” may become His children; but this faith is presupposed.

τὰ διεσκορπισμένα. These potential children of God are “scattered,” as Jn. writes. They are, to his mind, in every part of the world. The verb διασκορπίζω does not occur again in Jn., but is frequently used in the LXX of the scattering of Israel among the nations, which is a thought foreign to the context here; for the “children of God who are scattered abroad” are not all of Israel. Jn. has σκορπίζω at 10:12, but there the allusion is to the wolf scattering the flock, of which there is no suggestion in the present passage.

There seems to be a reminiscence of this verse in the Didache (ix. 4), where mention is made of the Eucharistic loaf: ὥσπερ ἦν τοῦτο τὸ κλάσμα διεσκορπισμένον ἐπάνω τῶν ὀρέων καὶ συναχθὲν ἐγένετο ἕν, οὕτω συναχθήτω σου ἡ ἐκκλησία ἀπὸ τῶν περάτων τῆς γῆς εἰς τὴν σὴν βασιλείαν. See on 6:12.

συναγάγῃ εἰς ἕν. Cf. 10:16, δεῖ με ἀγαγεῖν κτλ., where see note. For the nature of this unity, see on 17:21; and cf. Eph. 2:14.

53. ἀπʼ ἐκείνης οὖν τῆς ἡμέρας κτλ. “From that day, therefore (sc. because they were impressed by the advice of Caiaphas), their plan was to kill Him.” The hostility of the ecclesiastical authorities had been gradually intensified; it began with the cures on Sabbath days, and the claim of Jesus to Divine authority (5:18, 7:32, 9:22); but after the raising of Lazarus, and Caiaphas’ warning, they came to the decision (ἐβουλεύσαντο ἵνα) that He must die (cf. 12:10 for a similar phrase).

For ἡμέρας, L reads ὥρας: there is a similar variant at 19:27, where see note. Jn. is prone to note the time at which things happened: see Introd., p. cii.

54. ὁ οὖν (because of the machinations of His enemies) Ἰησοῦς οὐκέτι παρρησίᾳ (see for this word on 7:4) περιεπάτει (see on 7:1) ἐν τοῖς Ἰουδαίοις (the hostile Jews; see on 1:19, 5:10).

He withdrew “to the country near the desert,” i.e. the hill country to the north-east of Jerusalem, which was thinly populated. The town or village of Ephraim is not mentioned elsewhere in the N.T. “But it is mentioned by Josephus (Bell. Jud. IV. ix. 9), in connexion with the mountain district (ἡ ὀρεινή) north of Jerusalem, as a small fort (πολίχνιον).… Josephus couples it with Bethel, and it is a coincidence that where it occurs in 2 Chron. 13:19 (τὴν Ἐφρών) Bethel is named with it. The two places were probably not far apart.”¹ It is generally identified with El-Tayibeh, 4 miles north-east of Bethel, on the road from Samaria to Jericho, from which it is distant about 15 miles.

Cod. Bezæ after χώραν inserts ςαμφουρειμ (Sapfurim). Harris¹ ingeniously suggests that Σαμφουρείμ “is a mere corruption from the Syriac words answering to whose name is Ephraim,” which were inserted as a gloss, σαμ standing for the Hebrew שֵׁם. Sepphoris in Galilee has been supposed by some to be indicated by Σαμφουρείμ, but this place is too far away to suit the conditions of the narrative.

κἀκεῖ ἔμεινεν. This is the reading of א B L W (cf. 10:40). A D Γ Δ Θ read διέτριβεν, which occurs at 3:22 ἐκεῖ διέτριβεν μετʼ αὐτῶν. μένειν is a favourite word with Jn. (cf. e.g. 2:12, 4:40), and is used with μέτα, as here, at 1 Jn. 2:19.

The rec. text adds αὐτοῦ after μαθητῶν: om. א B D L W See on 2:2.

55. ἦν δὲ ἐγγὺς τὸ πάσχα τῶν Ἰουδαίων. For this phrase, see on 2:13, as also for the phrase καὶ ἀνέβησαν εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα (cf. 1:19).

ἐκ τῆς χώρας. Many went up “from the country parts,” ἡ χώρα not referring here to the Ephraim district (v. 54).

ἵνα ἁγνίσωσιν ἑαυτούς. Ceremonial purity was requisite if a man was to keep the Passover duly (cf. Num. 9:10, 2 Chron. 30:17, 18); and the necessary ritual of purification might last a whole week, or a much shorter time if the pilgrim had not been gravely polluted (see Lightfoot, Hor. Hebr. in loc.). Accordingly many pilgrims had to arrive in Jerusalem some days before the Passover, πρὸ τοῦ πάσχα. See 18:28 for the emphasis that was laid on ritual purity; and cf. Acts 21:24.

ἁγνίζειν is not found in the Synoptists, and is used by Jn. again only at 1 Jn. 3:3 (of spiritual purification).

56. Just as at an earlier Passover (7:11), the pilgrims were curious to see and hear Jesus: ἐζήτουν οὖν τὸν Ἰησοῦν. And the knots of people in the Temple precincts, where they naturally gathered, as well as because it was here that Jesus had been accustomed to teach, were full of eager speculation. “What do you think?” “Surely He isn’t coming to the Feast?” This, they thought, was unlikely, because of the order for His arrest which had been made by the authorities.

D reads τί δοκεῖτε; instead of τί δοκεῖ ὑμῖν; and Syr. sin. puts the two questions into one, “Do ye suppose that perchance He cometh not to the Feast?” The A.V. takes the Greek similarly: “What think ye, that He will not come to the Feast?” But the better reading, and the better rendering of the Greek, give two short ejaculatory questions instead of one (see Abbott, Diat. 2184).

57. δεδώκεισαν δέ. The rec. text, with D, adds καί, the effect of which is to disconnect v. 57 from v. 56. But καί must be omitted with א A B L W Δ Θ. It spoils the sense, which clearly is that the people thought it improbable that Jesus would come up to Jerusalem, for the Sanhedrim had given orders (δεδώκεισαν δέ) for His arrest.

For οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς καὶ οἱ φαρισαῖοι, cf. v. 47; and see on 7:32.

ἐντολάς (א B W) seems to be preferable to ἐντολήν of the rec. text (A D LΓ Δ Θ): they gave “directions,” that if any one knew where Jesus was, he should give information (μηνύσῃ, only here in Jn., but cf. Acts 23:30), in order that they might arrest Him.

ὅπως πιάσωσιν αὐτόν. This is the only place where Jn. has ὅπως, it being used here (as Blass suggests, Gram., p. 211) for variety, as ἵνα has occurred immediately before.

There are three evangelical traditions of the anointing of Jesus at an entertainment in a private house: that of Mk. 14:3–9 (followed by Mt. 26:6–13), that of Jn. 12:1–8, and that of Lk. 7:36–50. From the second century to our own time the comparison of these narratives has been attempted by critical readers, and various answers have been given to the questions which arise. Were there three anointings or only two? Or did one incident furnish the material for all three stories?

Few modern expositors hesitate to identify the incident described in Mk. 14 with that of Jn. 12. The place is the same, viz. the κώμη or village of Bethany near Jerusalem; and in both traditions the scene is laid in the week before the Crucifixion, Jn. putting it on the Sabbath before the Passover, while Mk. suggests (although he does not say it explicitly) that it is to be dated two days only before that feast (cf. Mk. 14:1, 3). Mk. does not name the woman who anointed Jesus, but Jn. says that it was Mary, the sister of Martha and Lazarus. In Mk. the host is “Simon the Leper,”¹ but Jn. says that Martha waited on the company, which might mean that she was the mistress of the house; Lazarus, in any case, is included among those at table. In the Marcan story the woman anoints the head of Jesus (a frequent mark of honour to a distinguished guest; cf. Lk. 7:46), no mention being made of His feet, or of the use of her hair as a towel. Jn., however, says nothing either of anointing the head of Jesus or of washing His feet; but he relates that Mary anointed His feet, and then wiped them with her hair. This is, prima facie, a strange statement. Anointing the feet of a guest might follow the washing of them, but why should the ointment be wiped off? And it is improbable that a suitable towel (see 13:4) would not be at Mary’s disposal in a house where the acting hostess was her sister. That she should have used her hair for the purpose of wiping the feet of Jesus on this occasion, either after washing or anointing them, is an extraordinary circumstance, to which we shall return presently.

It is not doubtful, however, despite the superficial differences between the Marcan and Johannine stories, that they refer to the same incident, and that Jn. is conscious of the fact and familiar with the earlier narrative. Like Mk., Jn. mentions the criticism made about the waste of the precious ointment (a criticism which he ascribes to Judas); and like Mk., he recalls the Lord’s rebuke, “The poor ye have always with you, but me ye have not always.” Again, Mk.’s προέλαβεν μυρίσαι τὸ σῶμά μου εἰς τὸν ἐνταφιασμόν is reflected in Jn.’s ἵνα εἰς τὴν ἡμέραν τοῦ ἐνταφιασμοῦ μου τηρήσῃ αὐτό. And Jn.’s νάρδου πιστικῆς πολυτίμου is a reproduction of Mk.’s νάρδου πιστικῆς πολυτελοῦς. We may say with confidence that the Marcan and Johannine narratives are versions of the same story, Jn. having corrected Mk. where he thought it necessary to do so.²

The narrative of Lk. 7:36f. is markedly different from both Jn. and Mk. The place where the incident happened is not named, but the context suggests that it was somewhere in Galilee, and that it occurred during the period of John the Baptist’s imprisonment. But Lk. does not always observe strict chronological sequence, and the story may have been inserted at this point in connexion with the accusation that Jesus was “a friend of publicans and sinners” (v. 34). The host, on this occasion, was a Pharisee named Simon, and the woman who is the central figure was “a sinner” (ἁμαρτωλός). The story tells of her coming into the house—uninvited, as was possible in a country where meals were often semi-public—and standing behind Jesus, as He reclined at table. As she wept, her tears dropped on His feet, and she wiped them off with her long flowing hair. Then she kissed them, and anointed them with ointment which she had brought with her, probably with the hope of being allowed to anoint His head. This would have been an ordinary act of courtesy, but anointing of the feet is not mentioned again (except Jn. 12:3) in Scripture, and was evidently unusual.¹ Simon the Pharisee was shocked that a guest who had been entertained as a possible prophet should submit to the ministrations of a sinful woman; but Jesus rebuked him with the parable of the Two Debtors, and the story ends with the benediction given to her who had been forgiven much and who had therefore loved much.

The moral of this narrative is wholly unlike anything in the narratives of Mk. 14 and Jn. 12; nor does there seem to be any connexion with the narrative of Mk. 14. The name of the host, indeed, both in Lk. and Mk. was Simon, but Simon the Pharisee is not necessarily to be identified with Simon the Leper, for Simon was the commonest of Jewish names. Nor can we suppose that a leading Pharisee would have entertained Jesus at his house during the week before His Passion, when He was already the subject of orthodox suspicion. The unnamed woman may be the same in both narratives, nevertheless, although Mk. does not note that she was or had been a sinner; but that Mk. and Lk. deal with quite different incidents is plain.

The resemblances, however, of the Lucan story to that in Jn. 12 are striking. In both, it is the feet (not the head, as in Mk.) which are anointed, and the language used is similar in both cases. Thus Lk. 7:38 has τοῖς δάκρυσιν ἤρξατο βρέχειν τοὺς πόδας αὐτοῦ καὶ ταῖς θριξὶν τῆς κεφαλῆς αὐτῆς ἐξέμασσεν … καὶ ἤλειφεν τῷ μύρῳ, while Jn. 12:3 has ἤλειψεν τοὺς πόδας τοῦ Ἰησοῦ καὶ ἐξέμαξεν ταῖς θριξὶν αὐτῆς τοὺς πόδας αὐτοῦ.

It will be observed that there is no formal washing of Jesus’ feet in either story, and that the falling of the woman’s tears upon them, which is so touching a feature of Lk.’s account, has no place in Jn. But the linguistic similarities between the two verses just cited show conclusively that Jn. intended to tell a story similar to that told by Lk.; while, on the other hand, his version is as puzzling as Lk.’s is lucid. Why should Mary of Bethany appear with dishevelled hair, and use this instead of a towel? Why should she anoint the feet of Jesus at all? The woman of Lk. 7 did so from penitent humility, but does this apply to Mary of Bethany? And why should Mary wipe off the unguent once it was applied? The ἁμαρτωλός only wiped off her falling tears.

We shall approach these difficulties presently, but at this point we seem called to recognise the fact that Jn. is writing in terms of the Lucan story. He is not necessarily describing the same incident as Lk., but he is describing an incident so similar in some exceptional features, that we must believe him to be writing of the same woman that Lk. has depicted. This involves the conclusion that Jn. regarded Mary of Bethany as the sinful woman of whom Lk. tells. Lk. does not make this identification. He mentions Mary afterwards as being at the house of Martha her sister, the situation of which is not indicated (10:38), and records how Mary was praised by Jesus as having “chosen the good part,” in comparison with the housewifely activities of her sister. This is not inconsistent with the conclusion that Mary had formerly been of loose behaviour, but it does not suggest it directly.

The relations between the various evangelical narratives of the anointing of Jesus have been discussed at length, both in ancient and modern times, and we cannot stay here to examine the opinions of individual Fathers or critics.¹ Clement of Alexandria (Pæd. ii. 61) identifies the anointings of Lk. 7 and of Jn. 12, Mk. 14; so does Tertullian (de pudic. xi.). Origen is not consistent with himself, at one time speaking of three (Comm. in Mt. 77) or two anointings (Hom. in Cant. 1:12), at another time of only one (Fragm. in Joann. 11², ed. Brooke, ii. 287). Ephraim Syrus (Hom. i. “On our Lord”) has a lengthy commentary on the sinful woman, whom he explicitly distinguishes from Mary of Bethany. Tatian treats the story of Lk. 7 in like manner as distinct from the story of Jn. 12, Mk. 14. But, since the time of Gregory the Great, the Roman Church has been accustomed to identify Mary of Bethany, Mary Magdalene, and the ἁμαρτωλός of Lk. 7. The Breviary office for the Feast of St. Mary Magdalen (July 22) draws out this identification, and treats the story of Mary as that of one who, once a great sinner, became a great saint.

This identification has been accepted in the present commentary. Of Mary Magdalene, i.e. Mary of Magdala (a village some 3 miles from Capernaum, now called Mejdel), Lk. tells that “seven devils had gone out of her” (Lk. 8:2), a statement that is made immediately after the story of the ἁμαρτωλός. She is named along with other women who had been “healed of evil spirits and infirmities”; and Lk.’s statement about her is repeated in the Marcan Appendix: “He appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom He had cast out seven devils” (Mk. 16:9). This description would not necessarily point to special vice, for it might only refer to madness; but it remains, for all that, a very apt description of a woman who had been rescued as the ἁμαρτωλός was, and would be a convenient euphemism. Further, the identification of Mary Magdalene with Mary of Bethany enables us to interpret the otherwise difficult words of Jn. 12:7, “Suffer her to keep it against the day of my burying” (cf. Mk. 14:8, Mt. 26:12). No evangelist speaks expressly of Mary of Bethany as going to the tomb to anoint the Lord’s body on the day of the Resurrection; but all four name Mary Magdalene as taking part. The equation of Mary Magdalene to Mary of Bethany explains quite simply the Lord’s words about the latter at the Supper at Bethany (Jn. 12:7, where see note)—words which are otherwise left without fulfilment.

We hold, then, that a comparison of Jn. 12 with Lk. 7 makes it necessary to identify the woman that was a sinner with Mary Magdalene and also with Mary of Bethany, or at any rate to recognise that Jn. identified them.

There is another significant bit of evidence for the latter conclusion. At Jn. 11:2 is a parenthetical explanation (whether by Jn. or by a later editor need not now be discussed; see note in loc.), that Mary of Bethany is ἡ ἀλείψασα τὸν κύριον μύρῳ καὶ ἐκμάξασα τοὺς πόδας αὐτοῦ ταῖς θριξὶν αὐτῆς. Now this would not identify Mary of Bethany for the reader, if another woman had also “anointed the Lord with ointment and wiped His feet with her hair.” If we distinguish the woman of Lk. 7 from the woman of Jn. 12, this singular gesture may be attributed to two women, and thus the note of 11:2 would be useless for its purpose of identification. It is plain that the Fourth Gospel regards the ἁμαρτωλός of Lk. 7 as the sister of Lazarus and Martha.

It is to be observed, however, that while Jn. uses the same words of Mary’s action that Lk. does of the action of the ἁμαρτωλός, he does not necessarily imply that the narratives of Jn. 12:3 and Lk. 7:38 refer to the same incident. Mary may have, in the days of His public ministry, anointed the feet of Jesus in penitence (Lk. 7:38); and then, having repented and returned to her family, when Jesus came to her home the day before His entry to Jerusalem, have repeated an act so full of memories for her (Jn. 12:3). No emphasis is laid in Lk. on the costliness of the ἀλάβαστρον μύρου; the woman had brought with her an ordinary supply of unguent. But in Jn. and Mk. the special quality of the ointment is a principal feature of the story. It was “very precious,” so exceptionally costly that the use of it called forth criticism. If Mary desired to repeat the act which had in the first instance called forth the benediction of Jesus, it would be quite natural that she should provide herself with unguent of specially fine quality. And the circumstance that she used her hair for a towel would also be explained by her purpose of reproducing the former scene. It could not be exactly reproduced; there were no tears of penitence on the second occasion. But, just on that account, a true narrative of what happened would be at once like and unlike the story of Lk. 7; and this is what we find in Jn. 12 Thus, while we do not identify the incident recorded in Lk. 7 with that recorded in Jn. 12 and Mk. 14, we may regard Lk. 7 as telling of the first occasion on which Mary anointed Jesus, the second being that narrated in Jn. 12:1 and (with less exactness) in Mk. 14, Mk. missing the point that it was the feet (not the head) of Jesus that were anointed at the house in Bethany shortly before His Passion.

12:1. ὁ οὖν Ἰησοῦς. οὖν is not causal: it does not carry us back to 11:57, where it is said that the priests were planning to arrest Him. His motive in going to Bethany was not to seek a place of safety, but it was on His way to Jerusalem, whither He was proceeding for the feast. οὖν is only copulative, “and so” (see on 1:22). He knew, indeed, of the enmity of the priestly party; but that did not move Him from His purpose. Indeed, Jn. lays special emphasis on the continual consciousness on the part of Jesus of what was impending (cf. 18:4).

According to the Synoptists (Mk. 11:11, Mt. 21:17, Lk. 21:37), He lodged at Bethany during the nights that remained before the end.

πρὸ ἓξ ἡμερῶν τοῦ πάσχα, a transposition of πρό, the phrase meaning “six days before the Passover.” Meyer cites Amos 1¹ πρὸ δυὸ ἐτῶν τοῦ σεισμοῦ for the same construction. Jn. is prone to record dates (see Introd., p. cii); and he notes that the day of the arrival of Jesus at Bethany was the Sabbath before the Passover, i.e., in our reckoning, the Saturday preceding Palm Sunday. He may have arrived just as the Sabbath was beginning, i.e. on the Friday evening; or He may have only come from a short distance, and so have refrained from exceeding the limit of a Sabbath day’s journey.

From Mk. 14:1, Mt. 26:1, we might infer that the supper at Bethany was held later in the week, “two days before the Passover,” but neither statement is quite definite as to the date. What Jn. tells here is more probably accurate.

ὅπου ἦν Λάζαρος. On this account, Bethany was a place of special danger. It was no place to come for one who feared the vindictiveness of the priests which had been excited by the raising of Lazarus.

ὁ τεθνηκώς is added after Λάζαρος by A DΓ Δ Θ, with support from the vss., including the Coptic Q, but om. א B L W

ὃν ἤγειρεν ἐκ νεκρῶν Ἰησοῦς. The rec. text omits Ἰησοῦς, which indeed is unnecessary to the sentence, but א*B W insert it. Perhaps all the words after Λάζαρος, sc. [ὁ τεθνηκώς] ὃν ἤγειρεν ἐκ νεκρῶν Ἰησοῦς, are a gloss that has crept in from v. 9, where ὃν ἤγειρεν ἐκ νεκρῶν is quite in place and apposite; here it is superfluous. Cf. v. 17.

Syr. sin. gives here: “came Jesus to the village Beth Ania unto Lazar, him that was dead and lived. And he made for Him a supper there, and Lazar was one of the guests that sat down to meat with Him, but Martha was occupied in serving.”

2. ἐποίησαν οὖν αὐτῷ δεῖπνον ἐκεῖ. The subject of ἐποίησαν is undefined. Probably we should understand that the villagers of Bethany prepared a supper for Jesus, having still in vivid recollection the fame of His recent miracle. Mk. says that the entertainment was in “the house of Simon the Leper,” and this may be an accurate report, although of Simon we know nothing (see p. 410). From the way in which the presence of Lazarus as one of the company is mentioned by Jn., it would seem probable that at any rate the supper was not in his house. On the other hand, ἐποίησαν οὖν αὐτῷ δεῖπνον might mean that it was the well-known household of Bethany, Martha and Mary and Lazarus, who gave the feast, and the Sinai Syriac (quoted on v. 1) understands the text thus. Lazarus would in any case be a figure to attract attention and curiosity, which may account for the words ὁ δὲ Λάζαρος εἷς ἦν ἐκ τῶν ἀνακειμένων σὺν αὐτῷ. That Martha was serving (διηκόνει) would be more natural if she were in her own house, as at Lk. 10:40, where it is said of her περιεσπᾶτο περὶ πολλὴν διακονίαν.

For ἀνακειμένων σὺν αὐτῷ א A B D L Θ, the rec. (W) reads συνανακειμένων αὐτῷ. The better-attested reading is interesting because of the preposition σύν, which is used again by Jn. only at 18:1, 21:3 (it does not occur in Rev.). Abbott (Diat. 2799, ii.) remarks that Jn. agrees with Demosthenes and Epictetus in hardly ever using σύν, the reason being that σύν belongs to literary, as distinct from spoken, Greek. Thus Lk. (Gospel and Acts) employs σύν more frequently than all the other N.T. writers put together.

λαβοῦσα λίτραν μύρου. λίτρα (libra) occurs again in N.T. only at 19:39. Mk. says of the woman (whom he does not name) ἔχουσα ἀλάβαστρον μύρου, “having an alabaster cruse or flask of ointment,” and then goes on to tell that she broke the flask and poured the contents on the head of Jesus. To anoint the head of a guest (cf. Ps. 23:5) was an act of Eastern courtesy and respect, but Jn. treats the incident differently, and tells that Mary anointed Jesus’ feet. The Lat. fuldensis tries to combine the two, and its text here gives “habens alabastrum … et fracto effudit super caput ihesu recumbentis et unxit pedes.” Syr. sin. has a similar conflate text.

This marked difference between the narratives of Mk. and Jn., which clearly refer to the same incident, is considered above (p. 410).

νάρδου πιστικῆς πολυτίμου. This is almost identical with Mk.’s νάρδου πιστικῆς πολυτελοῦς. A special point is made in both narratives (not in the earlier story, Lk. 7:38) of the costliness of the ointment provided (cf. “the chief ointments” of Amos 6:6). The adj. πιστικός (only here and at Mk. 14:3 in the Greek Bible) is of uncertain meaning. It may be derived from πίστις, and it is applied, as Abbott (Diat. 1736d) has pointed out, to a “faithful” wife. Thus it might mean here genuine, as indicating the quality of the spikenard. The vg., however, at Mk. 14:3 (but not here), renders it spicati, and Wetstein called attention to the word σπίκατον, which means a luxurious unguent. It is possible that, as Abbott suggests, some form of σπίκατον originally stood in the Gospel texts, and that it was altered to πιστικός by an attempt at allegorical interpretation. Swete quotes Jerome as playing on the word thus: “ideo uos uocati estis pistici.” Another, less likely, derivation of πιστικός is from πίνω, so that it would mean “potable,” as some perfumes were; but this would be quite out of place in the present context. Yet another explanation is quoted by Dods (in loc.) from the Classical Review (July 1890), sc. that we should read not πιστικῆς, but πιστακῆς, the latter word referring to the Pistacia terebinthus, which grows in Palestine “and yields a turpentine in such inconsiderable quantities as to be very costly.” Whatever the precise derivation of the word may be, the combination νάρδου πιστικῆς (νάρδου, like πιστικῆς, occurring again in the N.T. only at Mk. 14:3) is so unusual, that we must suppose Jn. to have followed here either the actual text of Mk., or a familiar tradition embodying these words.

With this costly unguent, Jn. tells that Mary anointed the feet of Jesus. He insists upon the word feet, repeating τοὺς πόδας twice, that there may be no misunderstanding, and to show that he is deliberately correcting Mk.’s account. He adds, in words that reproduce Lk.’s story of the sinful woman (Lk. 7:38), that Mary wiped the Lord’s feet with her hair (καὶ ἐξέμαξεν ταῖς θριξὶν αὐτῆς τοὺς πόδας αὐτοῦ). Attention has already (p. 411) been directed to the fact that a perfumed anointing of feet (as distinct from the washing of them, of which there is no mention here) is a custom not mentioned in Scripture elsewhere than here and Lk. 7:38. It is further to be observed that for a woman to have her hair unbound was counted immodest by the Jews,¹ and that Mary should unloose her hair at an entertainment where men were present requires some special explanation. A towel would be readily accessible (cf. 13:5) whether this supper was in the house of Martha and Mary, or not; and it would be more seemly and convenient to use it. But for what purpose were the Lord’s feet wiped after the unguent had been applied? In the story of Lk. 7:38 the woman wiped His feet with her unbound hair, because her tears had fallen on them by inadvertence, but she did not wipe off the ointment. These considerations seem to prove that when Jn. reproduces as nearly as possible the words of the earlier narrative (Lk. 7:38) he does so, not by any inadvertence or mistaken recollection, but because the act of Mary recorded here did actually reproduce her former gesture, then dictated by a sudden impulse of penitence, now inspired by adoring homage of her Master. The moment of her “conversion,” to use the modern word, was the moment to which she looked back as the most memorable in her life; and when she learnt that Jesus was to honour a supper in Bethany by His presence, she decided that she would once again anoint His feet, and present herself in the guise of a penitent and grateful disciple, the significance of whose strange gesture would be well understood by all her friends, as well as by Jesus.

This, at least, is what Jn. seems to indicate. If he did not regard Mary as identical with the unnamed sinner of the earlier incident, he has told the story of the anointing at Bethany in a way which is unintelligible.

ἡ δὲ οἰκία ἐπληρώθη ἐκ τῆς ὀσμῆς τοῦ μύρου. For this use of ἐκ as indicating “with,” cf. Rev. 8:5, Mt. 23:25.

This detail is peculiar to Jn., and suggests that the narrative is due to the recollection of some one who was present on the occasion. It seems to have been known to Ignatius, who interprets the savour of the ointment pervading the whole house as typifying the fragrance of incorruptibility diffused throughout the Church from the Person of Christ (Eph. 17). Cf. also Clem. Alex. Pœd. ii. 8 (P 205) for a similar spiritualising of the incident.

Wetstein quotes from Midr. Koheleth, vii. 1: “A good unguent spreads from the bedroom to the dining-hall; so does a good name from one end of the world to the other.” The latter clause recalls Mk. 14:9, “Wherever the gospel is preached in the whole world, what she hath done shall be told for a memorial of her,” a saying which Jn. does not record. It is possible, but improbable, that the circumstance told by Jn., that the house was filled with the odour of the ointment, gave rise, by an allegorical interpretation, to the saying of Mk. 14:9. But the idea that Jn. meant it to be taken allegorically is devoid of evidence and may be confidently rejected.

4. The description of Judas is almost identical with that given in 6:71 (where see note).

א B L W, fam. 1, and most vss. read here Ἰούδας ὁ Ἰσκαριώτης (cf. 14:22 for ὁ Ἰσκ.); but AΓ Δ Θ have Ἰούδας Σίμωνος Ἰσκαριώτης, introducing the name of his father (as at 6:71, 13:2).

The rec. text, following A DΘ, places the sentence εἷς [ἐκ] τῶν μαθητῶν αὐτοῦ before Ἰούδας; but א B L W place it after Ἰσκαριώτης.

For ὁ μέλλων, D has ὃς ἤμελλεν (perhaps a reminiscence of 6:71). μέλλων may convey the idea that Judas was predestined to betray Jesus (see on 3:14 and 6:71).

According to the Synoptists (Mk. 14:4, Mt. 26:8), the uneasy feeling that the ointment was wasted was shared by several of the onlookers, but Jn. specifically mentions Judas as the one who remonstrated. Perhaps he first suggested to the others the extravagance of what had been done by Mary in purchasing exceptionally rare and costly ointment.

5. This verse reproduces Mk. 14:5 ἠδύνατο γὰρ τοῦτο τὸ μύρον πραθῆναι ἐπάνω δηναρίων τριακοσίων καὶ δοθῆναι τοῖς πτωχοῖς. 300 denarii would be about ten guineas, a large sum. To suppose, as Schmiedel does (E.B. 1797), that 300 is a symbolical number indicating “the symmetrical body of humanity,” is fantastic. The Gospel of St. Mark, at any rate, does not deal in allegories of this cryptic kind.

Jn. here follows Mk.,¹ just as he does at 6:7 when he recalls 200 denarii as the estimated cost of bread for the multitude.

6. εἶπεν δὲ τοῦτο κτλ. This is the evangelist’s comment (cf. 7:22; and see Introd., p. xxxiv). It has been thought by some that he is unfair to Judas, and that he is so possessed with the conviction of the baseness of his treachery, that he imputes the lowest of motives to him (see on 6:70, 18:5). The criticism that the money spent on the costly ointment might have been better spent is very natural on the lips of the disciple who, as keeper of the common purse, was responsible for the moneys spent by the Twelve, amounting in all, we may be sure, to no large sum. But Jn. roundly says that he was a thief. Judas was not above a bribe, for he took the thirty pieces of silver; but he was not therefore dishonest, although the value which he attached to money may have made ill-gotten gains a strong temptation. “Temptation commonly comes through that for which we are naturally fitted” (Westcott), i.e. in this case the handling of money. And it may have been found out, after the secession of Judas, that, as Jn. says, he had been guilty of small peculations, for which he had full opportunity. However that may be, the bitterness of the words about Judas in this verse is easily explained if they go back to one who was a former comrade in the inner circle of the Twelve, who had had no suspicions even at the end (see on 13:28, 29), and whose indignation, when disillusioned, was all the more severe.

τὸ γλωσσόκομον: cf. 13:29. A γλωσσοκομεῖον originally meant a case to hold the reeds or tongues (γλῶσσαι) of musical instruments, and hence any kind of box, e.g. it is used for a coffin (by Aquila, Gen. 50:26). The word became accepted by Aramaic speakers, and appears as גלוסקמא in the Talmud. It stands for a coffer into which money is cast, at 2 Chron. 24:8, 10 ἐνέβαλλον εἰς τὸ γλωσσόκομον, and this is the sense in which the word is used here. The γλωσσόκομον or money-box of the disciples was kept by Judas (it was not necessarily carried about with him habitually: τὸ γλωσσόκομον ἔχων is the phrase), and into it well-wishers (cf. Lk. 8:3) were wont to throw (βάλλειν) small coins to provide for the needs of Jesus and His followers. In this it was like the begging-bowl of an Eastern holy man. To translate it “purse” is misleading; and the Latin vss. rightly render it by loculi, i.e. a box or coffer with several compartments. See Field, in loc., on γλωσσόκομον and βαστάζειν.

τὰ βαλλόμενα, sc. the moneys cast into the box by well-wishers and friends; cf. 2 Chron. 24:10 quoted above.

ἐβάσταζεν. The verb βαστάζειν is used (10:31, 16:12, 19:17) of carrying or bearing something heavy; but here and at 20:15 it is equivalent to the vulgar English “to lift,” i.e. to carry off furtively or unscrupulously, and so “to steal.” Field gives a convincing illustration of this usage from Diog. Laert. iv. 59 μαθόντα δὲ ταῦτα τὰ θεραπόντια … ὅσα ἐβούλετο ἐβάσταζεν, “When therefore the servants found this out, they used to steal whatever they pleased.” Deissmann (Bible Studies, Eng. Tr., p. 257) cites some further instances from the papyri of this use of βαστάζειν.¹

Hence we must translate, “he was a thief, and having the money-box used to steal what was cast into it.” To render ἐβάσταζεν here as if it only meant that Judas, as the treasurer, used to “carry about” what was put into it, would give a tame and superfluous ending to the sentence.

The rec. text, with AΓ Δ, omits ἵνα and reads τετήρηκεν, while א B D L W Θ support ἵνα … τηρήσῃ.

We must render “let her alone, in order that she may keep it (sc. the remainder of the spikenard) against the day of my burying.” In Mk.’s narrative (here being corrected silently by Jn.¹) the flask of ointment was broken and its entire contents poured upon the head of Jesus; but Jn. says nothing of the flask being broken, and it is not to be supposed that all the ointment was used for His feet. ἐνταφιασμός (cf. 19:40) is “preparation for burial,” and might or might not include the anointing of the whole body. The words of Jesus tell of His impending death and burial to any of the company who had sufficient insight; the rest of the spikenard will soon be needed, and will not be wasted.

We have above (p. 412) identified Mary of Bethany with Mary Magdalene; and thus she who began His ἐνταφιασμός by anointing the Lord’s feet in Bethany, was among the women who finished the anointing of His body eight days later (cf. 20:1, Mk. 16:1).

For ἄφες αὐτήν, cf. Mk. 14:6, Mt. 15:14, 2 Sam. 16:11, 2 Kings 4:27. We might translate (with R.V.^mg) “Let her alone; (it was) that she might keep it,” or (with R.V.^txt) “Suffer her to keep it,” but we prefer to render “Let her alone, in order that, etc.”

8. This verse is identical with Mt. 26:11, and both Jn. and Mt. reproduce exactly the words of Mk. 14:7, both of them omitting Mk.’s καὶ ὅταν θέλητε, δύνασθε αὐτοὺς εὖ ποιῆσαι. But that Jn. is using Mk. rather than Mt. all through the story is not doubtful.²

With πτωχοὺς πάντοτε ἔχετε μεθʼ ἑαυτῶν, cf. Deut. 15:11.

The People’s Curiosity About Lazarus, and the Hostility of the Priests (vv. 9–11)

9. ὁ ὄχλος πολύς is read by א B*L, and at v. 12 by B LΘ, but in both places many authorities omit ὁ. If we omit ὁ and read ὄχλος πολύς, “a great multitude,” then no difficulty presents itself. We had ὄχλος πολύς before at 6:2, and πολὺς ὄχλος at 6:5: cf. Mk. 5:21, 24, 6:34, 9:14, Acts 6:7, Rev. 7:9.

But ὁ πολὺς ὄχλος is undoubtedly the right reading at Mk. 12:37, and it means there the mob, the mass of the people, or, as the E.V. has it, “the common people heard Him gladly”; and of this use of ὁ πολὺς ὄχλος Field (in Mk. 12:37) gives some classical instances. This, too, would suit the context well in the present passage, for crowds are generally composed of “the common people” and include “riff-raff.” But, as Abbott points out (Diat. 1739–1740), the variant of Jn. gives here and at v. 12, not ὁ πολὺς ὄχλος (as at Mk. 12:37), but ὁ ὄχλος πολύς, which is bad Greek. Westcott suggests that ὄχλος πολύς here must be treated as “a compound noun,” but why Jn. should adopt such a usage is not explained.

Having regard to the grammatical difficulty presented by ὁ ὄχλος πολύς, and to the fact that both Latin and Syriac versions give “a great crowd” as the rendering, the balance of evidence seems to be against ὁ, and we therefore read ὄχλος πολύς both here and at v. 12.

ἔγνω οὖν. The rumour of the supper at Bethany spread quickly, and the people generally were much excited by the expectation of seeing not only Jesus, but Lazarus whom He raised from the dead (for ὃν ἤγειρεν ἐκ νεκρῶν, cf. vv. 1, 17).

ὄχλος πολὺς ἐκ τῶν Ἰουδαίων, “a great crowd of the Jews,” sc. of the people of Judæa, who were generally hostile to Jesus. But “the Jews” does not specially indicate here, as at 5:10, 6:41, etc., the party of opposition to Him; it includes those who favoured (v. 11) as well as those who did not favour His claims (see on 1:19). A “great crowd” of them came to Bethany, apparently on the evening of the Sabbath, to see the man who had come back from the dead, as well as to see Jesus who raised him. To see one returned from the dead would indeed be a great experience (cf. Lk. 16:31).

10. ἐβουλεύσαντο δὲ οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς κτλ. The Sanhedrim (see on 7:32) had given directions that the movements of Jesus should be reported to them (11:57); and having heard of the excitement caused by the presence of Lazarus as well as of Jesus at Bethany, they made up their minds that both Lazarus and Jesus should die: ἵνα καὶ τὸν Λάζ. ἀποκτείνωσιν, “that they would kill Lazarus also.” The priests, being of the Sadducean party, who rejected the idea of resurrection, were naturally disconcerted by the report that Lazarus had been raised from the dead; and they were unscrupulous as to the means which they employed to put an end to what they regarded as mischievous talk.

11. The priests were specially urgent about the putting away of Lazarus, because, on his account (διʼ αὐτόν), many of the Jews (cf. 11:45) “began to go away” (ὑπῆγον), perhaps to Bethany, which was the centre of attraction, “and began to believe in Jesus” (ἐπίστευον εἰς τὸν Ἰησοῦν; cf. note on 1:12). The force of the imperfect tenses must be observed. The verb ὑπάγειν, “to withdraw,” is a favourite word with Jn. (see on 7:33), and ὑπῆγον here may mean simply “they began to withdraw,” i.e. from their allegiance to the chief priests, as at 6:67, where Jesus asks His disciples, “Would you also go away?”

12. The Synoptic accounts of the entry to Jerusalem are found at Mk. 11:7–10, Mt. 21:4–9, Lk. 19:35–38. As has been pointed out above (on v. 1), Mk. (followed by Mt.) places the supper at Bethany later in the week of the Passion, but Jn., putting it on Saturday, Nisan 9, halts Jesus and the disciples at Bethany for that night, the entry taking place on Sunday, Nisan 10. Christian tradition has followed Jn. in putting the triumphal entry on Palm Sunday.

τῇ ἐπαύριον, sc. on the Sunday. Jn. is fond of these notes of time (see Introd., p. cii).

ὄχλος πολύς (see on v. 9) κτλ., “a great crowd that had come up to the feast,” sc. those that came from the country parts to the metropolis, including doubtless many Galilæans (see 4:45).

ἀκούσαντες, “having heard,” sc. from those who had come by way of Bethany. ὅτι is recitantis. The words they heard were: ἔρχεται Ἰησοῦς εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα. BΘ prefix ὁ to Ἰησοῦς, while א A D L W omit; it is usually B that omits the def. art. (see on 1:29).

The entry of Jesus would naturally provoke curiosity and enthusiasm, coming (as Jn. represents it to have done) not long after the raising of Lazarus (11:55, 56). The most conspicuous discrepancy between Mk. and Jn. is at this point, Mk. not mentioning Lazarus at all, but describing none the less the triumphal entry, while the enthusiasm with which Jesus was received is expressly connected by Jn. with the miracle at Bethany (see Introd., p. clxxxiii).

13. ἔλαβον τὰ βαΐα τῶν φοινίκων. βαΐον, a “palm branch,” occurs again in the Greek Bible only at 1 Macc. 13:51, in the account of Simon’s triumphal entry into Jerusalem, μετὰ αἰνέσεως καὶ βαΐων κτλ. (cf. 2 Macc. 10:7). To carry palms was a mark of triumphant homage to a victor or a king (cf. Rev. 7:9). Either βαΐα or φοίνικες, separately, would mean “palms,” so that Jn.’s τὰ βαΐα τῶν φοινίκων is superfluously precise (see Abbott, Diat. 2047), “the palm branches of the palm trees,” perhaps trees which grew on the slopes of Olivet. The Synoptists do not mention the bearing of palms: Mk. has στιβάδας, i.e. “litter” of leaves, etc., which were strewn in the road; Mt. says ἔκοπτον κλάδους ἀπὸ τῶν δένδρων καὶ ἐστρώννυον ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ. There seem to have been two crowds, one accompanying Jesus, the other going out from the city to meet Him (ἐξῆλθον εἰς ὑπάντησιν αὐτῷ); see Swete on Mk. 11:9, and cf. v. 18 below.

καὶ ἐκραύγαζον κτλ., “they kept crying out Hosanna.” ἐκραύγαζον is read by א B³D L W, as against ἔκραζον of the rec. text (AΓ Δ Θ) For κραυγάζειν applied to the shouting of crowds, cf. Ezra 3:13; and see note on 11:43 above.

Before Ὡσαννά, the rec., with א A D W, ins. λέγοντες: om. B LΓ Δ Θ

The words from the Psalter with which (according to the Synoptists as well as Jn.) the acclaiming crowds greeted Jesus as He rode into the city, were the words with which in the original use of the Psalm the priests blessed the procession entering the Temple. “Hosanna: Blessed in the Name of Yahweh is he that cometh” (Ps. 118:25, 26). The sense is missed if ἐν ὀνόματι κυρίου is connected with ὁ ἐρχόμενος. The Hebrew priests were chosen “to bless in the name of Yahweh” (Deut. 21:5); and so also it is written of David εὐλόγησεν τὸν λαὸν ἐν ὀνόματι κυρίου (2 Sam. 6:18). Cf. also 1 Kings 22:16, 2 Kings 2:24; and see note on 16:23.

The quotation of Ps. 118:25, 26 by the crowds who hailed Jesus on His entry to Jerusalem was something more than a mere blessing of welcome, as of One who had done wonderful things (cf. Ps. 129:8). It recognised in Him ὁ ἐρχόμενος, “the Coming One,” even as Martha had said to Him σὺ εἶ … ὁ εἰς τὸν κόσμον ἐρχόμενος (11:27; cf. Mt. 11:3).

The cry of Hosanna (in Aramaic הוֹשַׁעְנָא, rendered σῶσον δή in the LXX of Ps. 118:25) was the refrain sung by the people in the processional recitation of Ps. 118 at the Feast of Tabernacles. When v. 25 was reached, the palm branches which were carried by the worshippers were waved; and hence these sprigs of palm with myrtle and willow (lulab was the technical name) came themselves to be called hosannas.

The practice, however, of bearing palm sprigs and crying Hosanna was not confined to the Feast of Tabernacles, although it originated in the Temple services at that festival; and we have already cited from 1 Macc. 13:51 an instance of palm branches being borne on the occasion of a popular welcome to a hero at another time of the year. There is thus no historical improbability in Jn.’s statement that palms and hosannas were accompaniments of the entry of Jesus to the city.¹

καὶ ὁ βασιλεὺς τοῦ Ἰσραήλ. Mk. has instead of this εὐλογημένη ἡ ἐρχομένη βασιλεία τοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν Δαυείδ, which conveys the same idea, sc. that the crowds were acclaiming Jesus as the Messianic king. Lk. has ὁ ἐρχόμενος ὁ βασιλεύς, but Mt. puts it differently, reporting the cry as Ὡσαννὰ τῷ υἱῷ Δαυείδ (a different use of hosanna, perhaps derived from some liturgical refrain). Jn. has already (1:49) attributed the confession σὺ βασιλεὺς εἶ τοῦ Ἰσραήλ to Nathanael. It was this public acclamation of Jesus as King of Israel or King of the Jews which was the foundation of the charge made against Him before Pilate (18:33). He had refused earlier in His ministry to allow the eager people to “make Him king” (6:15); but now He did not disclaim the title (cf. Lk. 19:38–40). Pseudo-Peter represents the inscription on the cross as being in the form οὗτος ἐστιν ὁ βασιλεὺς τοῦ Ἰσραήλ (see on 19:19).

14. εὑρὼν δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς ὀνάριον κτλ. This is not verbally consistent with the Synoptists, who tell that it was the disciples who had found the ass, in accordance with the directions given them by Jesus (Mk. 11:2–6). Chrysostom is at unnecessary pains to reconcile the various statements; see v. 16 below.

ἐκάθισεν ἐπʼ αὐτό So Mk. 11:7; Lk. 19:35 says ἐπεβίβασαν τὸν Ἰησοῦν.

καθώς ἐστιν γεγραμμένον. See on 2:17 for this formula of citation.

15. The quotation is from Zech. 9:9, in an abbreviated form. The LXX has πῶλον νέον, whereas Jn. has πῶλον ὄνου, a more literal rendering of the Hebrew; for the opening words, “Exult greatly,” he gives μὴ φοβοῦ. Mk. and Lk., while narrating the entry into Jerusalem, do not quote the prophecy. Mt. (21:5) gives it in the form Εἴπατε τῇ θυγατρὶ Σιών, Ἰδού, ὁ βασιλεύς σου ἔρχεταί σοι πραῢς καὶ ἐπιβεβηκὼς ἐπὶ ὄνον καὶ ἐπὶ πῶλον υἱὸν ὑποζυγίου. Jn. notes (v. 16) that the application of this prophecy of Zechariah to the entry of Jesus was not thought of until a later time; but Mt. introduces his account with the formula ἵνα πληρωθῇ τὸ ῥηθὲν διὰ τοῦ προφήτου λέγοντος … (see Introd., p. cliv).

The full quotation, as given by Mt., is misleading. The story, as told by the other evangelists, is simply that an ass’s colt was found and that Jesus rode on it. But Mt., misunderstanding the Hebrew repetition in Zech. 9:9,

where only one animal is indicated, tells us that two animals were fetched,¹ and garments put on them that they might be ridden. Jn., on the contrary, gives only that part of the prophecy which is relevant, sc. “sitting on an ass’s colt.”

It is not to be thought that there is any suggestion of humility in riding upon an ass. On the contrary, the ass and the mule were the animals used in peace by great persons for their progresses, as the horse was used in war. The sons of the judges rode upon asses (Judg. 10:4, 12:14); so did Ahithophel (2 Sam. 17:23); so did Mephibosheth, Saul’s son, when he went to Jerusalem to meet David (2 Sam. 19:26); cf. Judg. 5:10. Indeed Zech. 9:10 shows plainly that the prophecy was specially of One coming in peace.

The LXX translators did not understand this. They have πώλους only in Judg. 10:4, 12:14, probably because they thought of an ass as a beast of burden exclusively; thus in Zech. 9:9 they have not noticed that אָתוֹן is the regular word for she-ass (Gen. 32:15), which may be either used for riding or for carrying loads.

The king, then, in the vision of Zechariah, rode upon an ass to signify that he came in peace, not to destroy but to save; and the entry of Jesus to Jerusalem on an ass was understood by the populace, in like manner, as the entry of the Prince of Peace.

16. A similar reminiscence of the evangelist is set down at 2:22, where see note. The saying of Jesus about restoration, after the Cleansing of the Temple, was not understood by the disciples until after His Resurrection. So, too, they did not perceive the significance in connexion with prophecy of His entry into Jerusalem, riding upon an ass, until He was “glorified,” and they began to reflect upon the events of His ministry.

א B L W Θ omit δέ after the first ταῦτα, which the rec. inserts. αὐτοῦ οἱ μαθηταί (א B Θ) is the true order of words.

The rec. (with D WΘ) inserts ὁ before Ἰησοῦς, which is omitted in א A B L. This omission of the article is not in accordance with Jn.’s general usage (see on 1:29), and it is possible that the whole verse is an explanatory gloss added by an editor other than the evangelist himself. The threefold repetition of ταῦτα is somewhat clumsy, and can hardly be intentional. Again, the phrase ἐπʼ αὐτῷ γεγραμμένα is unlike Jn. (cf. Rev. 10:11, 22:16): it must mean that the Scriptures quoted were, as it were, “based on Him.” D substitutes περὶ αὐτοῦ for ἐπʼ αὐτῷ, recognising the difficulty. And, finally, the last clause of the verse, which says that the disciples afterwards remembered “that they had done these things to Him,” invites the question, “What things?” Evidently, the answer is that the reference is to the search for the ass, in accordance with the instructions of Jesus, of which the Synoptists tell. But, as we have seen, Jn. tells nothing of this incident. He says only (v. 14) that “Jesus having found the ass, sat thereon,” but he does not mention the co-operation of the disciples in this, or that they took any part in the entry to the city. It seems likely that the comment preserved in the last clause of this verse is due to some one who was thinking of the Synoptic narrative.

17. The interpretation of this verse depends mainly upon whether ὅτε (rec. with א A B W Γ Δ Θ) or ὅτι (D L) is adopted as the true reading before τὸν Λάζαρον. If ὅτι be approved (with Tischendorf), we translate, “So the crowd that was with Him was testifying that He called Lazarus from the tomb, and raised him from the dead,” ὅτι introducing the actual words used by the crowd when acclaiming the entry of Jesus. Cf. Lk. 19:37: “the whole multitude of the disciples began to rejoice and praise God with a loud voice for all the mighty works which they had seen.” According to this rendering, the shouts of the crowd made special reference to the raising of Lazarus. This is entirely consistent with the view which Jn. gives his readers of the extraordinary effect which that miracle had on the public mind (vv. 9, 18). But, attractive as this rendering is, ὅτε must be preferred to ὅτι on the MS. evidence; and we translate: “So the crowd that was with Him when He called Lazarus from the tomb, and raised him from the dead,” i.e. the onlookers at the scene described 11:33–44, “bore their testimony.” The true authors of the ovation were the people who had been spectators of the miracle, who no doubt inspired all their acquaintances with their wondering enthusiasm. They “bore their witness.” See for the idea of μαρτυρία in Jn., the note on 1:7; and cf. Introd., p. xc.

18. διὰ τοῦτο (see on 5:16 for this opening) καὶ ὑπήντησεν αὐτῷ ὁ ὄχλος, “for this reason the crowd also met Him,” sc. the multitude mentioned v. 13, as distinct from the crowd accompanying Him from Bethany, where they had seen the raising of Lazarus. There were two streams of people: one escorting Jesus, the other meeting Him (see on v. 13), “because they heard (ἤκουσαν is preferable to the rec. ἤκουσε) that He had done this sign.”

19. οἱ οὖν φαρισαῖοι. The Pharisees formed the party who were most deeply opposed to the teaching of Jesus (see on 1:24), and who initiated the movement for His arrest, which was ultimately carried out by the authority of the ἀρχιερεῖς (v. 10), who were the most influential members of the Sanhedrim (see on 7:32). They were in despair at the reception given to Jesus at His entry into the city, and said to each other, “Do you notice (θεωρεῖτε is probably indicative, rather than imperative) that you don’t do any good?” θεωρεῖν is used here of mental perception and understanding of the situation (see on 2:23).

With οὐκ ὠφελεῖτε οὐδέν; cf. 6:63 ἡ σὰρξ οὐκ ὠφελεῖ οὐδέν.

ὁ κόσμος. D L add ὅλος to bring out the sense, “the whole world,” everybody, tout le monde. Wetstein quotes a Rabbinical story of a priest of whom it was said, in like manner, “all the world was going after him.” For κόσμος in Jn., see on 1:9.

ὀπίσω αὐτοῦ ἀπῆλθεν. The aor. ἀπῆλθεν is here equivalent to “has gone,” or, as the Sinai Syriac renders, “is going.” The movement which the Pharisees regretted was in progress.

For the use of ὀπίσω, cf. 2 Sam. 15:13 ἐγενήθη ἡ καρδία ἀνδρῶν Ἰσραὴλ ὀπίσω Ἀβεσσαλώμ.

20. The episode of the Greek inquirers is introduced immediately after the complaint made by the Pharisees, “the world is gone after Him.” Among those who were excited and moved by the reports about Jesus and Lazarus were some Greek pilgrims; it was not only Jews and Galilæans who were attracted by what they had heard of the wonderful things that had happened at Bethany, but Greeks as well. And Jn., alone among the evangelists, notes that some of them told Philip of their desire to see Jesus, and that Jesus was informed of it. This incident is naturally recalled in a Gospel written primarily for Greek readers. It is, however, not explicitly said that the request of the Greeks for an interview with Jesus was granted, or that they were present while the sayings of vv. 23–28 were being pronounced.

But, although there is no positive statement to this effect in the text, it has been generally held since the days of Tatian that v. 20 begins a new section of the Gospel, and that vv. 20–22 are to be read in connexion with what follows. On this supposition, it is natural to seek in the words of Jesus here some message which may be taken as specially appropriate to Greeks. It has been suggested, e.g. by Lange, that the tremendous paradox of v. 25, “he that loveth his life loseth it, and he that hateth his life shall keep it,” has a peculiar applicability, if regarded as the judgment of Christ on Greek ideals of life. For the Greek, the ideal of manhood was to reach the fulness of personal life; a man should develop his own personality; the larger and richer his life, the more nearly he approached his highest. There is something of this in Christianity as well as in Greek paganism, for Christianity holds up the Perfect Man as exemplar. But the Christian ideal involves sacrifice, and this was foreign to the philosophy of Greece. Jn. may mean us to understand v. 25 as implying the condemnation by Jesus of Greek ideals of life. Again, v. 32, “I will draw all men to myself,” is a universal promise, including not only Jews but Gentiles like the Greek inquirers. And some have found in the exhortation, “Believe in the light, that ye may become sons of light” (v. 36), an allusion to the prophecy, “The glory of the Lord is risen upon thee.… Nations (ἔθνη) shall come to thy light, and kings to thy brightness” (Isa. 60:1, 3).

Yet it must be owned that if vv. 23–28 are to be interpreted as addressed in particular to the Greeks whom Jesus now saw for the first time, the use of the Jewish title “Son of Man” (see Introd., p. cxxxii) is puzzling (v. 23); and it is even more difficult to suppose that Jesus revealed to these strangers the anguish of His soul in words like those of v. 27. It is possible that vv. 20–22 should be treated as linked closely with v. 19, but as having no special relation with vv. 23 ff., a new paragraph beginning at v. 23 (where see note).

ἦσαν δὲ Ἕλληνές τινες (this is the reading of א B D L W, as against τινες Ἕλληνες of the rec. text) ἐκ τῶν ἀναβαινόντων (for ἀναβαίνειν of “going up” to Jerusalem, cf. 2:13) ἵνα προσκυνήσωσιν (see on 4:20 for the absolute constr. of προσκυνεῖν ἐν τῇ ἑορτῇ. Among (ἐκ) those who went up to the feast were many strangers (cf. 1 Kings 8:41). These men were not Ἑλληνισταί, i.e. Greek-speaking Jews (see on 7:35), but Ἕλληνες, Greeks who had become proselytes of the gate, and accordingly attended the Jewish festivals (see Acts 17:4 for “devout Greeks” at Thessalonica; and cf. Acts 8:27 for the Ethiopian eunuch who came up to Jerusalem to worship). To such proselytes the Court of the Gentiles in the Temple precincts was appropriated. It was from this court (see on 2:14) that the moneychangers and the cattle were expelled by Jesus on the occasion when He cleansed the Temple; and if this episode is rightly placed by the Synoptists in the last week of Jesus’ ministry (but see on 2:13f.), the Greek inquirers may have been moved to seek speech with Him by the impression which His strong action had made on them, as well as by the reports of the raising of Lazarus.

21. οὗτοι οὖν προσῆλθον φιλίππῳ τῷ ἀπὸ βηθσαϊδὰ τῆς Γαλιλαίας. For the notices of Philip in Jn., see on 1:43, 44. He had a Greek name, and this may have encouraged the Greek proselytes to speak to him. They may have come from the Greek cities of Decapolis.

Objection has been taken to the phrase “Bethsaida of Galilee,” i.e. Bethsaida Julias, for no other Bethsaida is known (see on 6:1), on the ground that the next appearance of this descriptive title is in Claudius Ptolemæus (c. 140 a.d.), and that such language suggests a second-century writer. But there is abundance of evidence that the north-eastern side of the lake, where Bethsaida is situated, was reckoned as in the province of Galilee by the year a.d. 80.¹

The Greeks address Philip with respect, as κύριε, “Sir.” He was not a Rabbi or teacher, but κύριε was an appropriate mode of address from those who saw in Philip the disciple and friend of One on whom they looked with reverential admiration (see on 1:38).

θέλομεν τὸν Ἰησοῦν ἰδεῖν. There is no suggestion that they understood or imagined that Jesus was the Christ. They say τὸν Ἰησοῦν (using His personal name; cf. 18:5), not τὸν Χριστόν. And they mean by “seeing” Him, having a private conversation; any one could see Him in the Temple courts, but they wished for something more intimate.

The request may well have embarrassed Philip. The Twelve had been forbidden to preach to Gentiles (Mt. 10:5, 6); and although the Jews at Jerusalem had wondered whether one of the mysterious sayings of Jesus could mean that He proposed “to teach the Greeks” (7:35), it is a question how far Jesus had explained to the apostles the full scope of His mission. This has been considered above (see on 10:16); but we must mark here that although in the Fourth Gospel the Gentiles are more explicitly than in the Synoptists brought within the range of Jesus’ mission, it is in that Gospel that we can most clearly trace a hesitation on the part of one of the Twelve to admit that Jesus has a message for Greeks as well as for Jews. As has been said above (on v. 20), we are not told whether Jesus gave an interview to these inquirers or whether He refused it.

22. ἔρχεται ὁ φίλιππος καὶ λέγει τῷ Ἀνδρέᾳ. For the close association between Philip and Andrew, and for the vivid characterisation of each which is apparent in Jn., see on 6:8. Philip is cautious, perhaps a little dull; Andrew is the practical man to whom others appeal in a difficulty. Andrew is one of the inner circle of the Twelve (Mk. 13:3), and perhaps might venture to proffer an unusual request to Jesus, where Philip would hesitate.

For the second ἔρχεται the rec. text has καὶ πάλιν, omitting καί before λέγουσι. But the best-attested reading is ἔρχεται Ἀνδρέας καὶ φίλιππος καὶ λέγουσιν τῷ Ἰησοῦ. The singular ἔρχεται followed by the plur. λέγουσιν is quite a classical usage in a sentence like this.

Jesus Announces His Impending Passion (v. 23); Here is the Supreme Exemplification of the Law of Life Through Death (vv. 24–26)

23. ἀποκρίνεται. So א B L W, as against ἀπεκρίνατο (see on 5:17) of the rec. text, with A DΓ Δ. Θ fam. 13 have ἀπεκρίθη. The pres. tense does not occur in the Synoptists, and in Jn. only twice again, 13:26, 38.

ἀποκρίνεται αὐτοῖς, sc. He answers Andrew and Philip. The Greeks may have heard what He said, but there is no hint of it in what follows.

For the unusual constr. ἀποκρίνεται λέγων, see on 1:26; and cf. 1:50.

ἐλήλυθεν ἡ ὥρα. The time of the Passion had come. Cf. 13:1 ἦλθεν αὐτοῦ ἡ ὥρα and 17:1 ἐλήλυθεν ἡ ὥρα. The phrase occurs in the Synoptists only in the account of the words of Jesus at Gethsemane immediately before the Betrayal, ἦλθεν ἡ ὥρα, Mk. 14:41, Mt. 26:45 (cf. ὁ καιρός μου ἐγγύς ἐστιν, Mt. 26:18, which was said at an earlier stage, before the preparation of the Last Supper).

The Fourth Gospel is written throughout, as Jesus Himself spoke, sub specie æternitatis. He is represented as knowing from the beginning the time and manner and sequel of the end of His public ministry in the flesh. Twice in this Gospel He is made to say “my time (καιρός) is not yet come” (7:6, 8); and twice Jn. comments “His hour (ὥρα) was not yet come” (7:30, 8:20; see on 2:4).

It will be noticed that, with the possible exception of this passage (12:23), the phrase “the hour has come” is always (13:1, 17:1, Mk. 14:41) applied to the hour immediately before the Betrayal. It is not used loosely, as if it only meant “the time is near,” and in every case the verb ἐλήλυθεν (ἦλθεν) comes first, the phrase ἐλήλυθεν ἡ ὤρα being strikingly and austerely impressive and final. Its presence suggests that what is about to be narrated relates to the last scenes, and we shall see (on v. 27) that there are some indications that in what follows Jn. is giving us his version of the prayers of Jesus at Gethsemane.

ἐλήλυθεν ἡ ὥρα ἵνα δοξασθῇ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, “the hour is come that the Son of Man should be glorified.” For δοξασθῇ, “glorified,” sc. in His Death, see on 7:39; and cf. 12:16, 13:31. This is quite a different use of δοξάζεσθαι from that at 11:4, where ἵνα δοξασθῇ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ means “that the Son of God might be glorified” by the manifestation of the Father’s power in the recovery of Lazarus. Here, with the Passion in view, Jesus does not speak of Himself as “Son of God,” but as “Son of Man”; cf. 3:14, 6:53, 8:28, and see Introd., p. cxxxii.

The glorification of Jesus as Son of Man would be in His Passion, as He now Himself declares. This is the paradox of the Cross. But it is a paradox only to those who have not considered its threefold illustration in nature and in human life: (1) the seed must die that it may be fruitful, v. 24; (2) the true life of man is achieved only through sacrifice, v. 25; (3) the life of service, of ministry, is the life of honour, of the true glory, v. 26.

ἐλήλυθεν ἡ ὥρα ἵνα δοξασθῇ κτλ. ἵνα seems prima facie to be used as equivalent to “when”; and Burney finds an explanation of this in his suggestion that ἴνα is often a translation or mistranslation of the Aramaic דּ, which may bear this meaning. But if we compare 13:1, 16:2, 32, we see that in each case where ἵνα is used as here, it always follows “the hour has come” or “the hour cometh.” When God’s predestined hour has come, the purpose which He has in view must follow. It has come in order that this purpose may be fulfilled. The use of ἵνα in such passages is an illustration of that view of the sequence of events, which is constantly present to the mind of Jn., and which he does not hesitate to ascribe to Jesus Himself (see on 2:4).

24. ἀμὴν ἀμήν κτλ. See on 1:51 for this formula introducing a saying of special solemnity. Here it is prefixed to the first illustration of the paradox that Life comes through Death, viz. the law that the grain of wheat (ὁ κόκκος. any grain) must die before it can bear fruit. To this law Paul appeals in his statement of the resurrection of man (1 Cor. 15:36). It has, perhaps, a special applicability here, in reference to what precedes; for Christ, who is about to be glorified in Death, claimed to be, Himself, the Bread of Life.

Hippolytus (Ref. vi. 16) quotes from the Apophasis of Simon Magus (a work written about a.d. 100) a passage that Schmiedel¹ thinks is behind this verse. Simon says that a tree abiding alone and bearing no fruit is destroyed (ἐὰν δὲ μείνῃ δένδρον μόνον, καρπὸν μὴ ποιοῦν, ‹μὴ› ἐξεικονισμένον ἀφανίζεται), but he goes on to cite Mt. 3:10. There is a verbal similarity with Jn., but the thought is quite different.

25. We now come to the second illustration of the great paradox of the Cross: “He that loveth his life (ψυχή) loseth it (ἀπολλύει, with א B L W, is to be preferred to the rec. ἀπολέσει), and he that hateth his life in this world (ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ τούτῳ, cf. 8:23) shall keep it unto life eternal (for ζωὴ αἰώνιος, see on 4:14).”

ψυχή is the conscious organ of feeling and desire, not so near the Divine as πνεῦμα, sometimes (as here) to be distinguished from πνεῦμα, but often used as its equivalent, just as in English we do not always sharply differentiate “soul” from “spirit” (see on 11:33).

This great saying may have been repeated by Jesus more than once, representing as it does the central lesson of His teaching and His life. In the Marcan tradition it is placed after the Confession of Peter (Mk. 8:35, Mt. 16:25, Lk. 9:24), when Jesus began to tell the Twelve that His Mission would issue in death. It is found also in other settings in the Mt.—Lk. tradition (Mt. 10:39, Lk. 17:33), where it comes from the source Q. In its most literal meaning it was applicable to the choice between martyrdom and apostasy, which Christians of the first century (as well as later) were sometimes called to make. But selfishness is always the death of the true life of man.

The strong expression “hateth his life” (ὁ μισῶν τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ) is softened down in the Synoptic parallels, but it is found in another context, Lk. 14:26.

26. In this verse is the third illustration of the paradox of v. 23, that the Passion of Jesus is His glorification. The life of ministry is a life of honour.

ἐὰν ἐμοί τις διακονῇ κτλ. The doctrine of διακονία, i.e. of the dignity of ministry, occupies a large place in all the Gospels. It is, naturally, an instinct of discipleship to minister to a master; and the ministry of women disciples to Jesus (Mk. 1:31, 15:41, Lk. 10:40, Jn. 12:2) needs no special comment. A servant is not thankworthy because he thus ministers (Lk. 17:9). But the repeated teaching of Jesus goes much beyond this. He taught that the path to pre-eminence in His Kingdom is the path of service, of ministry (Mk. 10:43), and that true greatness cannot be otherwise attained (Mk. 9:35). Actually, the test by which His professed disciples shall be judged at the Last Judgment is the test of ministry; have they ministered to man, and therefore to Christ? (Mt. 25:44). This is the essentia of discipleship, for ministry was the essential characteristic of the life of Christ, who came not διακονηθῆναι ἀλλὰ διακονῆσαι (Mk. 10:45); and the issue of His ministry was death, δοῦναι τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ λύτρον ἀντὶ πολλῶν.

In the present passage, He suggests that this, too, may be the portion of His faithful disciples. He has laid down the universal law of sacrifice, “he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it to life eternal” (v. 25). And He warns those to whom He has just foretold His death (v. 23), that His discipleship means following Him, and this may mean a following in the way of death.

ἐὰν ἐμοί τις διακονῇ. This is the true order of words (א A B L W), although the rec. has διακονῇ τις. ἐμοί here is emphatic. It is the service of Christ that involves a perilous following.

καὶ ὅπου εἰμὶ ἐγώ κτλ., “and where I am, there shall my minister be,” in spiritual companionship, both here and (as is promised later) hereafter (14:3, 17:24). εἰμί is the essential present, not necessarily conveying the idea of the visible presence of Christ (cf. 8:58). He does not say ἐγώ εἰμι—that would suggest different thoughts (see Introd., p. cxx)—but εἰμὶ ἐγώ. On the other hand, He had said to the Jews ὅπου εἰμὶ ἐγώ, ὑμεῖς οὐ δύνασθε ἐλθεῖν (7:34, where see note).

ἐάν τις ἐμοὶ διακονῇ. Here τις is the emphatic word; the promise that follows is for all true disciples.

τιμήσει αὐτὸν ὁ πατήρ, “him shall the Father honour”; but the honour may be the kind of honour with which Christ was honoured (v. 23). For τιμᾶν, see on 5:23.

Jesus’ Agony of Spirit (v. 27); A Voice from Heaven (vv. 28–30); The World’s Condemnation (v. 31); The Universal Appeal of the Cross (v. 32)

27. Jn. does not give any account of the Agony in Gethsemane (see on 18:1); but the prayer recorded here corresponds very closely to the prayer in the garden recorded by the Synoptists (Mk. 14:35, 36, Mt. 26:39, Lk. 22:42); and it may be that he intends vv. 27–29 to be his version of that tremendous spiritual crisis (see on v. 23). Thus ἡ ψυχή μου τετάρακται corresponds with Mk. 14:34 περιλυπός ἐστιν ἡ ψυχή μου ἕως θανάτου: σῶσόν με ἐκ τῆς ὥρας ταύτης corresponds to Mk. 14:35 προσηύχετο ἵνα εἰ δυνατόν ἐστι παρέλθῃ ἀπʼ αὐτοῦ ἡ ὥρα: and the repeated πάτερ … πάτερ may reflect ἄββα ὁ πατήρ of Mk. 14:36 (cf. Lk. 22:42). Indeed, no passage in Jn. illustrates so powerfully as this the words of Mk. 14:38 τὸ μὲν πνεῦμα πρόθυμον, ἡ δὲ σὰρξ ἀσθενής. And, finally, in Lk.’s narrative the sequel of the Agony is ὤφθη δὲ αὐτῷ ἄγγελος ἀπʼ οὐρανοῦ ἐνισχύων αὐτόν (Lk. 22:43). Is this another version of Jn. 12:29 ἄλλοι ἔλεγον, ἄγγελος αὐτῷ λελάληκεν?

It is noteworthy that while Mk., followed by Mt., asserts that John the son of Zebedee was present with Peter and James when the Agony of spirit began (Mk. 14:33), Lk. does not mention the names of any disciples as specially witnesses of the scene in the garden. The tradition of Mk. is different from the tradition of Lk.; and it would seem that the tradition of Jn. as to the Agony is different from both of his predecessors. Such a crisis of spiritual decision may, indeed, have recurred, Jn. mentioning the earlier occasion, while the Synoptists tell only of the later. But even this does not give a complete solution of the questions raised by the divergences of the evangelists in regard to the Agony; for Jn. at 18:11 puts the saying, “The cup which the Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?” (cf. Mk. 14:36, Lk. 22:42), into the mouth of Jesus at Gethsemane (although after His arrest) and not in connexion with the narrative of c. 12.

Nor, again, is it a sufficient explanation to say that Jn. does not narrate the Agony in the garden because he wishes to bring out the Divine self-surrender exhibited in the last scenes; for Jn. all through his Gospel lays special stress on the human emotions which Jesus felt. Jn. knew of the Agony in the garden, but we cannot tell why he chooses to reproduce some of the words then spoken by Jesus at the point in the narrative which we have now reached, rather than in what is (apparently) the proper place, viz. c. 18.

ἡ ψυχή μου τετάρακται. Cf. 13:21 and 11:33, where see the note. As is there shown, we cannot in such phrases distinguish ψυχή from πνεῦμα. His “soul” was troubled. See the note on 4:6 for the emphasis laid by Jn. on the complete humanity of Jesus; and cf. Ps. 42:7 πρὸς ἐμαυτὸν ἡ ψυχή μου ἐταράχθη (cf. also Ps. 6:4). This troubling of spirit was truly human (Heb. 5:7).

καὶ τί εἴπω; “and what shall I say?” εἴπω, the deliberative subjunctive (see Abbott, Diat. 2512), being used to express a genuine, if momentary, indecision.

πάτερ, σῶσόν με ἐκ τῆς ὥρας ταύτης. This is the natural, human prayer of One face to face with a cruel death.

πάτερ. So Jesus was accustomed to begin His prayers; see on 11:41. For the aor. imper. σῶσον, see on 2:5.

ἐκ τῆς ὥρας ταύτης: the hour had come (v. 23), and He wished to be saved from its horrors. No distinction can be drawn between ἐκ and ἀπό in a constr. like this (see on 1:44, 6:38).

ἀλλὰ διὰ τοῦτο κτλ., “and yet for this very purpose,” sc. that His ministry should be consummated in the Passion, “did I come to this hour”; cf. 18:37. He cannot now draw back from the accomplishment of what He had come to do, in fulfilment of the mission He had received. “Concurrebat horror mortis et ardor obedientiae” (Bengel).

28. πάτερ, δόξασόν σου τὸ ὄνομα, “Father (see on preceding verse), make Thy Name glorious,” sc. in the fulfilment of the mission of Redemption, which was the Passion of Christ. As “save me from this hour” is the prayer of the σάρξ, so this is the prayer of the πνεῦμα, willing to suffer all, if thereby the Name of God may be glorified. For “the Name” of God, as expressing His character revealed in and by the Son, see on 1:12, 5:43, 17:11. The “glory” of His Name is His glory as exhibited in the world (cf. Isa. 63:14, 66:5); and that the Father was “glorified” in the Death of Jesus is said again at 13:31, where see note.

In Ps. 79:9 we have βοήθησον ἡμῖν, ὁ θεὸς ὁ σωτὴρ ἡμῶν, ἕνεκα τῆς δόξης τοῦ ὀνόματός σου, but the Psalmist`s prayer was that the people might be delivered, and that in this deliverance the glory of the Name might be exhibited. Here the prayer is not for deliverance; it is a prayer of submission to what was impending, because through the Passion God`s Name would be glorified. This is the most complete and perfect example of the prayer enjoined upon every disciple, ἀγιασθήτω τὸ ὄνομά σου (Mt. 6:9). In the Lord`s Prayer this comes first, before any petition; it is the condition to be accepted before the petition “deliver us from evil” can be offered. But in the case of Jesus it involved the surrender of all thought of such deliverance. “Glorify Thy Name” carries with it the “Thy will be done” of resignation.

There is a variant reading (L 1, 13, 33), δόξασόν σου τὸν υἱόν, which may (as Abbott suggests, Diat. 2769) have arisen by the misreading of a scribe, τοονομα being written τουνομα, and then ⲧⲟⲩⲛ at the end of a line being read as ⲧⲟⲩⲛ, “the Son.” But it is more likely that δόξασόν σου τὸν υἱόν has been imported here from 17:1; and the fact that D adds ἐν τῇ δόξῃ ᾗ εἶχον παρὰ σοὶ πρὸ τοῦ τὸν κόσμον γένεσθαι from 17:5 makes this probable. In any case, “glorify Thy Son” has a wholly different meaning (see note on 17:1) from “glorify Thy Name,” which is undoubtedly the true reading in the present passage.

It must be observed that πάτερ, δόξασόν σου τὸ ὄνομα is not a prayer that God`s Name may be glorified by Jesus or by the world (for which idea, cf. Ps. 86:12, Isa. 42:10, Mal. 1:11), but that God may Himself make it glorious. This is to be, indeed, through the voluntary Death of Jesus; but the ministry of Jesus is treated throughout the Gospel as fulfilled in the Name of the Father, His words and works being, as it were, words and works of the Father (see on 5:43, 10:25, 17:11).

ἦλθεν οὖν φωνὴ ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, “there came then,” sc. in answer to the prayer, “a Voice from heaven.” This expression first appears Dan. 4:31, where a voice from heaven warns Nebuchadnezzar. The phrase became common in later Judaism. In the O.T. there are many indications of the belief that God may speak to men with audible and articulate voice (e.g. 1 Sam. 3:4, 1 Kings 19:13, Job 4:16). The Rabbis, however, hesitated to use so anthropomorphic a form of speech as “God said,” and they preferred to speak of a “voice from heaven.” For examples, see Enoch lxv. 4, Jubilees xvii. 15, 2, 2 Esd. 6:13. 17, and the first-century Apocalypse of Baruch xxii. 1, which has “The heavens were opened, and … a voice was heard from on high, and it said, Baruch, why art thou troubled?” Cf. also a remarkable parallel to the passage before us in Test. of XII. Patr. (Levi, 18:6): “The heavens shall be opened, and from the temple of glory shall come upon him sanctification, with the Father’s voice as from Abraham to Isaac, and the glory of the Most High shall be uttered over him.”

In Rabbinical literature the heavenly voice is often mentioned under the name of bath-qôl, בת קול, i.e. “the daughter of a voice.” The days of the prophets being over, the bath-qôl was regarded as the only medium of Divine revelation, and was generally counted as miraculous.¹ Two points only can be noted here: (1) the revelations of the bath-qôl were often expressed in Scripture phrases,² and (2) there are instances of the bath-qôl taking the form of an echo of words spoken on earth.³

In the N.T. voices from heaven are spoken of in Acts 11:7, Rev. 10:4, and besides in three passages of the Gospels, sc. the Synoptic narratives of the Baptism (Mk. 1:11) and the Transfiguration (Mk. 9:7) of Jesus, and the present verse. In both the Synoptic passages, sc. of the Baptism and Transfiguration, the bath-qôl or heavenly Voice speaks in almost the same words. It combines Ps. 2:7 and Isa. 42:1: “Thou art My Son … My chosen in whom My soul delighteth”; that is, it was expressed in Scripture phrases. Jn. does not tell of the Transfiguration, and he says nothing about the voice from heaven at the Baptism (cf. 1:32, 33). But he mentions here a bath-qôl of which, on the other hand, the Synoptists say nothing. Even if we are right in regarding vv. 28–30 as the Johannine version of the agonised prayer at Gethsemane, there is nothing in any of the Synoptic accounts of Gethsemane which corresponds with this comforting voice, although Lk. (22:43) tells of angelic ministration.

That is, according to the Gospel narratives, heavenly voices were heard by Jesus at three great moments of crisis and consecration in His ministry: after His Baptism, at His Transfiguration, and just before His Passion. In no case is it said that others understood or interpreted these “voices”; and if we put this into our modern ways of speech, we should say that their messages were subjective in the sense that they conveyed a meaning to none but Him to whom they were addressed, while objective in the sense that He was not deluded or deceived, for they were truly messages from God.

In v. 28 the Voice is an answer to the prayer δόξασον τὸ ὄνομα, and according to Jn. it said to Jesus καὶ ἐδόξασα καὶ πάλιν δοξάσω, i.e. “I did glorify My Name, and will glorify it again.” This is not a quotation from the O.T., as the bath-qôl often was, although there are O.T. passages verbally like it. The pregnant saying of 1 Sam. 2:30 τοὺς δοξάζοντάς με δοξάσω, and the promise of Divine deliverance in Ps. 91:15, which ends ἐξελοῦμαι καὶ δοζάσω αὐτόν, both speak of God “glorifying” His pious servants; but the thought here is of God glorifying His own Name, which is quite different. The bath-qôl, if it may be so called, in this passage is of the nature of an echo, the word “glorify” in the prayer being twice repeated in answer. It is just possible, as Abbott suggests (Diat. 782 f.), that we should illustrate this by the one or two instances of an echoing bath-qôl that appear in the Talmud. But, whether this be so or not, it is plain that Jn. means us to understand that a sound was heard after Jesus had prayed, which conveyed an assurance to Him that His prayer was answered, while at the same time it impressed the bystanders with the sense that, at all events, something unusual was taking place.

ἐδόξασα, as, e.g., at the raising of Lazarus, where the spectators saw τὴν δόξαν τοῦ θεοῦ (11:40). All the ἔργα of Jesus during His earthly ministry were ad maiorem Dei gloriam.

πάλιν δοξάσω, sc. in the approaching Passion of Jesus, when ὁ θεὸς ἐδοξάσθη ἐν αὐτῷ (13:31). Nor need the promise πάλιν δοξάσω be thus restricted, for in every fresh triumph of the Christian spirit may be seen its fulfilment.

Aphrahat (Sel. Dem. xxi. 17) attributes the words “I have glorified and will glorify” to Jesus Himself—a curious slip of memory, unless it is a deliberate attempt to evade the difficulty of the passage.

29. ὁ οὖν ὄχλος ὁ ἑστὼς (A D WΘ have ἑστήκως; cf. 3:29) καὶ ἀκούσας κτλ., “the crowd (that is, most of the bystanders) that stood by and heard said that it had thundered.” That thunder is the Voice of God is a commonplace in the O.T. (cf. Ex. 9:28, 2 Sam. 22:14, Ps. 29:3, Job 37:5, Jer. 10:13); and when the crowd said that it had thundered, they meant that the thunder was a Divine response to what Jesus had said, although they did not catch any articulate words. This is the only place in the N.T. where mention is made of a thunderclap.

ἄλλοι ἔλεγον, ἄγγελος αὐτῷ λελάληκεν, “others,” that is, a few of the crowd, discerned that Jesus had received a definite message of comfort, and that something more than a clap of thunder had been heard. But none of the bystanders heard any articulate words; and this Jn. is careful to make clear. In this particular, the narrative is like that of the Voice from heaven at the conversion of Paul, where his companions heard a sound (ἀκούοντες τῆς φωνῆς, Acts 9:7) but did not distinguish the words (τὴν φωνὴν οὐκ ἤκουσαν τοῦ λαλοῦντός μοι, Acts 22:9; see note above on 3:8).

Wetstein illustrates the passage by the prayer of Anchises, which has some verbal similarities (Virg. Æn. ii. 692):

οὐ διʼ ἐμὲ ἡ φωνὴ αὕτη (this is the order of א A B D L W Θ) γέγονεν ἀλλὰ διʼ ὑμᾶς, “this voice has not happened for my sake but for yours.” (For γέγονεν D has ἦλθεν, and Θ has ἐλήλυθεν.)

This statement presents difficulties similar to those which the traditional text offers at 11:42; for it represents the Voice from heaven as without any significance for Jesus Himself, and as intended only to impress the crowd. No doubt, it might be said that the sound, whatever it was, suggested to the crowd that they would do well to mark what was happening, for it seemed to be a heavenly signal in answer to the prayer of Jesus. It was the signal for the judgment of the world (v. 31), now beginning. But we cannot attach any meaning to the words καὶ ἐδόξασα καὶ πάλιν δοξάσω (v. 28), which the crowd were not able to catch (v. 29), if they had no significance for Jesus. It was to Him that the heavenly Voice seemed to come, and in coming to give assurance to His spirit, that His impending Death was to the greater glory of God. It is not impossible that v. 30 has been added by the evangelist, in order to emphasise the voluntariness of Christ’s surrender of Himself, as a superhuman Person who needed no support for His soul even in this dark hour. But v. 31, for all that, follows v. 30 in a true sequence: “The Voice was on your account. For now is the world of men like you being judged.”

31. νῦν. The Passion is conceived of as already begun (see on v. 23 and 13:31). It is a judging (κρίσις), a testing of men (see 3:17, 8:15, 9:39).

The phrase ὁ ἄρχων τοῦ κόσμου τούτου appears again 14:30, 16:11, but nowhere else in the N.T. (cf., however, ὁ θεὸς τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου 2 Cor. 4:4 and Eph. 2:2, 6:12). The title “the ruler of this world” is applied to Beliar in the earlier part of the Ascension of Isaiah (1:3, 2:4, 10:29), which is probably contemporary with the Fourth Gospel; and Ignatius has ὁ ἄρχων τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου several times, e.g. Eph. xvii., xix. According to Lightfoot (Hor. Hebr. in loc.) שַׂר הָעוֹלָם was a well-known Jewish title for Satan¹ (or for Sammael, the Angel of Death), and it may be that the Johannine ὁ ἄρχων τοῦ κόσμου τούτου goes back to this.

“The prince of this world has been already judged” (16:11); but here is in view the issue of the judgment, when he shall be finally cast out (ἐκβληθήσεται ἔξω) of the world over which he claims dominion (cf. 1 Jn. 4:4). For ἐκβάλλειν ἐκ, see on 6:37.

32. ἐὰν ὑψωθῶ ἐκ τῆς γῆς, sc. on the Cross. See the note on 3:14; and cf. 8:28. ἐκ τῆς γῆς is “from the earth” and not “out of the earth” as R.V. marg. has it, and as Westcott interprets because he finds the Ascension indicated here by ὑψωθῶ.

πάντας ἑλκύσω πρὸς ἐμαυτόν. For the verb ἑλκύειν, see on 6:44. For ἐμαυτός in Jn., see on 5:30.

It has often been suggested (the criticism goes back to Celsus; see Origen, c. Cels. ii.13) that the predictions of His Passion which the evangelists place in the mouth of Jesus are vaticinia ex eventu, and that in particular these predictions, as recorded by Jn., are so precise that they cannot be regarded as historical. It is not, indeed, impossible that in some instances the evangelists, and especially Jn. and Mt., ascribed language to Jesus which was coloured by their knowledge of the sequel of His ministry. But that He foresaw the end is certain. He knew, and apparently was conscious from a very early stage in His ministry, what its issue would be. And wonderful as a prophecy like δεῖ ὑψωθῆναι τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου (v. 34) seems to be, and is, it is not more wonderful than that we should find in a document of the first century the prophecy ἐὰν ὑψωθῶ ἐκ τῆς γῆς, πάντας ἑλκύσω πρὸς ἐμαυτόν, “I will draw all men to myself” (cf. 10:16). The continuous fulfilment of this prophecy throughout many centuries and among all races of men is a fact of history. It is not any easier to believe that the prophecy is an invention of the evangelist, than that he recorded it because he had heard that his Master uttered it. Whether we have in Jn. 12:32 a genuine saying of Christ or a saying which Jn. thought would be appropriate to Him, it is a saying of remarkable prescience. The Word of the Cross (1 Cor. 1:18) has always been a word of power; and the Appeal of the Cross has been the most effective that the world has known. It draws “all men,” πάντας, to the Crucified.

33. τοῦτο δὲ ἔλεγεν, introducing a comment of the evangelist, as at 2:21, 6:6, “this He was saying, etc.” (For the impft. ἔλεγεν, cf. 5:18, 6:71, 8:31.) This explanatory comment is repeated 18:32, and it shows the interpretation which Jn. gives to ὑψωθῶ. In the Fourth Gospel ὑψοῦν always has reference to the lifting up of the Son of Man on the Cross. See note on 3:14.

ἤμελλεν. So A B D W. א has ἔμελλεν. Perhaps ἤμελλεν ἀποθνήσκειν, as also at 11:51, 18:32, carries the idea of the inevitableness of the Death of Jesus, as foreordained by God. See on 6:71.

The People Ask Who the “Son of Man” Is (v. 34), and Jesus Warns Them to Use the Light While They Can (vv. 35, 36)

34. ἀπεκρ. οὖν αὐτῷ κτλ. א B L W support οὖν, which Θ and the rec. text omit.

ἡμεῖς ἠκούσαμεν ἐκ τοῦ νόμου ὅτι ὁ Χριστὸς μένει εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα. “The Law” (see on 10:34) often includes more than the Pentateuch, and the reference is somewhat vague. Ezek. 37:25 has “David my servant shall be their prince for ever”; Ps. 89:4, 110:4 are apposite, as also Isa. 9:7. Cf. Orac. Sibyll. iii. 767, and Psalms of Solomon, xvii. 4.

πῶς λέγεις σὺ ὅτι δεῖ ὑψωθῆναι τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἄνθρώπου; τίς ἐστιν οὗτος ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου; We have seen (Introd., p. cxxiii) that Jesus habitually spoke of Himself in the third person as “the Son of Man,” and Jn. implies here that Jesus had used this way of speech when He said that He would be “lifted up,” i.e. crucified. But His present hearers did not understand what He meant; they were not accustomed to His habits of speech, and the title “the Son of Man” was unfamiliar to them (cf. 9:35). “Who is this ‘Son of Man’?” they asked. The form of the question is exactly the same as τίς ἐστιν οὗτος ὁ λόγος ὅν εἶπεν; (7:36). There is no emphasis on οὗτος in either passage. We must not translate “Who is this Son of Man,” as if there were another “Son of Man,” of whom they had often heard; for Jn. does not express emphasis by such a use of οὗτος, and “the Son of Man” was not a recognised title of the Christ.¹

On the other hand, if we could suppose that in popular speech the Christ was sometimes called “the Son of Man,” the meaning of the passage would be somewhat different. It would represent the crowd as puzzled that any one should seem to tell them that the Christ was to suffer a dishonourable death. “The Son of Man must be crucified, you say … Who can this Son of Man be?… He cannot be the Christ or the Son of Man of Daniel’s vision (Dan. 7:13), whose dominion is to be everlasting.” Cf. Enoch, lxii. 14, “With that Son of Man will they eat and lie down and rise up for ever.” But if this was what the objectors meant, we should have expected them to say, “the Son of Man abides for ever,” rather than “the Christ abides for ever,” as more apposite to the objection which they are putting forward. We prefer the view that the title “Son of Man” as applied to Messiah was unfamiliar to them.¹

There is a passage in Justin (Tryph. 32) which recalls their argument on any interpretation. Justin has quoted Dan. 7, and Trypho the Jew objects, “These scriptures indeed compel us to expect that Great and Glorious One who as a son of man receives the eternal kingdom from the Ancient of Days; but this your so-called Christ became dishonoured and inglorious so that he fell under the last curse in the law of God (Deut. 21:23), for he was crucified.” The Jews, with whom Trypho was in accord, did not expect a Suffering Messiah.

35. “Who is this Son of Man?” Jesus does not answer the question, or explain Himself further. But He repeats the austere warning which He gave before (9:4 and 7:33, where see note), that He would not be much longer among them: it would only be μικρὸν χρόνον, “for a little while.” Even this He expresses in mystic words which not all could have understood in their fulness; or, at least, the evangelist represents Him as speaking only indirectly of Himself and His approaching departure, when He said ἔτι μικρὸν χρόνον τὸ φῶς ἐν ὑμῖν ἐστιν. He had claimed to be the Light of the World (8:12), but not many had believed that the Light was really among them, or had grasped what was meant.

ἐν ὑμῖν is the true reading (א B D W Θ and the Latin vss.) rather than the rec. μεθʼ ὑμῶν (A). Cf. for ἐν as equivalent to “among,” Acts 4:34; and note ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν (1:14).

He goes on with an exhortation: “Walk while ye have the light”² (ὡς τὸ φῶς ἔχετε, not ἕως of the rec. text, is the best attested reading). For περιπατεῖν as used of conduct, cf. 8:12; and see especially 9:4, 11:9, 10.

ἵνα μὴ σκοτία ὑμᾶς καταλάβῃ, “lest darkness overtake you,” and so get the better of you. See on 1:5, the only other place where καταλαμβάνειν is found in Jn. (but cf. [8:4] and note on 6:17); and cf. 1 Thess. 5:4, where the “day” is said to “overtake” one engaged in dark pursuits.

The second half of the verse is almost verbally identical with 1 Jn. 2:11 ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ περιπατεῖ καὶ οὐκ οἶδεν ποῦ ὑπάγει. See 11:10.

36. ὡς τὸ φῶς ἔχετε, sc. while Jesus was among them; but the exhortation has a wider application, and is for all time.

πιστεύετε εἰς τὸ φῶς. For the Johannine phrase πιστεύειν εἰς … see on 1:12; τὸ φῶς indicates here the Person who is the Light (1:4). To trust the Light, and walk in confidence that it will not mislead, is necessary for those who would become “sons of light.”

υἱοὶ φωτός. The Oriental “looked upon any very intimate relationship—whether of connexion, origin, or dependence—as a relation of sonship, even in the spiritual sphere”;¹ but there is nothing necessarily Hebraic in such a phrase as υἱὸς φωτός, which is not alien to the genius of the Greek language (cf. 17:12). It is equivalent to “an enlightened man,” and first appears in a saying of Jesus recorded in Lk. 16:8, that the υἱοὶ τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου are sometimes more prudent than the υἱοὶ τοῦ φωτός. The contrast between those who are in darkness and those who are υἱοὶ φωτός, as Paul called his converts, appears in 1 Thess. 5:5; and there is a similar exhortation in Eph. 5:8 ὡς τέκνα φωτὸς περιπατεῖτε. φωτισμός became soon the regular word for the grace of baptism (cf. Heb. 6:4, 10:32); but there is no trace of this usage in Jn.

44–50. We place these verses after v. 36a (see Introd., p. xxv). There is now a sequence of thought, the ideas of light and truth in v. 36a being the subjects of vv. 44–46.

The section vv. 44–50 can represent only a summary of the teaching of Jesus on the occasion. See below on vv. 36b–43. His final warning recalls the lament over Jerusalem’s unbelief and its rejection of His claims preserved in Mt. 23:37–39, Lk. 13:34, 35.

44. Ἰησοῦς δὲ ἔκραξεν καὶ εἶπεν. The def. art. is omitted here before Ἰησοῦς, contrary to the general usage of Jn. (see on 1:50). But he often omits it in the phrase ἀπεκρίθη Ἰη. καὶ εἶπεν (see on 1:29), which is like the phrase here. For ἔκραξεν, see on 7:28.

ὁ πιστεύων εἰς ἐμέ κτλ., “he that believeth on me, believeth not on me (only), but on Him that sent me.” The affirmative sentence, followed by a negative clause to bring out the sense, is thoroughly Johannine. See on 1:20; and cf. 3:32.

For πιστεύειν εἰς …, a characteristically Johannine constr., see on 1:12; and for the idea of the Father “sending” the Son, which is so frequent in Jn., see on 3:17. Cf. v. 49.

That he who believes on (or accepts) the Son accepts the Father, is a saying found in the Synoptists: ὁ ἐμὲ δεχόμενος δέχεται τὸν ἀποστείλαντά με (Mt. 10:40; cf. Lk. 9:48). Jn. here substitutes his favourite word πιστεύειν for δέχεσθαι, and also uses πέμπειν for ἀποστέλλειν (see on 3:17); but in 13:20 (where see note) he has λαμβάνειν instead of πιστεύειν in a second citation of this saying of Jesus.

Cf. 5:24 πιστεύων τῷ πέρψαντί με, and (for the general sense of the verse) 8:19, 42. In 14:1 the argument is turned round: “Ye believe in God; believe also in me.”

45. ὁ θεωρῶν ἐμέ κτλ. θεωρεῖν is used here (as at 6:40, 14:19) of spiritual vision. Not all those who saw Jesus with bodily eyes “saw the Father.” For θεωρεῖν, see on 2:23; and cf. the saying ὁ ἑωρακὼς ἐμὲ ἑώρακεν τὸν πατέρα (14:9, where see note). So at v. 41 Jn. identifies the δόξα of Christ with the δόξα of God. Cf. 8:19.

τὸν πέμψαντά με. Fam. 13 read ἀποστείλαντα (see on 3:17 for πέμπω and ἀποστέλλω).

46. ἐγὼ φῶς εἰς τὸν κόσμον ἐλήλυθα. Cf. 3:19 τὸ φῶς ἐλήλυθεν εἰς τὸν κόσμον, and 9:5 ὅταν ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ ὦ, φῶς εἰμὶ τοῦ κόσμου. That Christ is the Light of the world is a principal topic with Jn.; cf. also 1:4, 5, 9, 8:12.

ἵνα πᾶς (B om. πᾶς per incuriam) ὁ πιστεύων εἰς ἐμέ κτλ., “in order that every one that believeth in me may not remain in darkness” (going back to v. 35), sc. in the darkness which is the normal state of man before the revelation of Christ (cf. 1 Jn. 2:9, 11). The form of the sentence is that of 3:16 ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν μὴ ἀπόληται, and the meaning is the same, although a different metaphor is employed. Christus Illuminator is Christus Saluator.

47. ἐάν τίς μου ἀκόυσῃ τῶν ῥημάτων, sc. with appreciation and understanding of what they signify: if it were only the mere physical hearing that was meant, ἀκούειν would take the acc., and we should have τὰ ῥήματα. See on 3:8. It is only the man who is neglectful of Christ’s words, while understanding them all the time, that is here contemplated.

μὴ φυλάξῃ. So א A B D L W, but rec. has πιστεύσῃ. DΘ omit μή before φυλάξῃ, the motive apparently being to place vv. 47 and 48 in sharp contrast. But v. 48 is, in fact, a reaffirmation of v. 47; the distinction suggested by Westcott, that v. 47 contemplates the listener who does not put into practice what he has heard, while v. 48 contemplates the man who defiantly does not listen at all, is over subtle.

φυλάττειν is used in Mk. 10:20 of “keeping” the Ten Commandments; cf. Lk. 11:28. In the Sermon on the Mount, the man “who hears these words and does them not” (Mt. 7:26) is compared to one who builds on the sand. Of him Jesus says here ἐγὼ οὐ κρίνω αὐτόν (see note on 8:15); He came not to judge the world, but to save the world (see on 3:17). There is a sense in which “judgment” is inevitably the issue of His Advent (cf. 9:39), but it was not the main purpose of that Advent. See on 1:33.

The clause, “I came not to judge the world, but to save the world,” recalls an addition to the text at Lk. 9:55. In that passage Jesus rebuked James and John, the true text, according to א A B C L, being στραφεὶς δὲ ἐπετίμησεν αὐτοῖς. But a “Western and Syrian” addition (to use the nomenclature of Westcott-Hort) gives: “and said, Ye know not what spirit ye are of, for the Son of man came not to destroy men’s lives, but to save them.” If this Western text represents a true tradition (whether it be Lucan or not) of words addressed by Jesus to John the son of Zebedee, it is significant that similar words should be ascribed to Jesus in the “Gospel according to St. John.” If, however, the words ὁ γὰρ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου οὐκ ἦλθεν ψυχὰς ἀνθρώπων ἀπολέσαι, ἀλλὰ σῶσαι may be taken as Lucan, then we have here another point of contact between Lk. and Jn., where Jn. is seemingly correcting Lk. (see Introd., p. xcix). Cf. 20:5 for a similar instance.

48. ἀθετεῖν is not found again in Jn.; but cf. Lk. 10:16. For the phrase λαμβάνων τὰ ῥήματά μου, cf. 17:8; and see Mt. 13:20.

He who receives not the word of Christ “has one who judges him,” sc. the “word” itself, which shall rise up in judgment against him at the Last Day (cf. Deut. 18:19). The λόγος is the “saying,” or the sum of the ῥήματα, the words spoken. With this passage cf. Mt. 10:32, Lk. 12:8, 9; and see Introd., p. clix.

For the Johannine use of ἐκεῖνος, see on 1:8; and for the phrase “the Last Day,” peculiar to Jn., see on 6:39.

49. The reason why His word is final and absolute, is that it is not His own merely, but that it is the word of God who sent Him, and thus provides the ultimate test by which men are judged.

ἐγὼ ἐξ ἐμαυτοῦ οὐκ ἐλάλησα. He had said this before (7:17). We cannot distinguish ἀπʼ ἐμαυτοῦ from ἐξ ἐμαυτοῦ; see on 1:44. As He had said that He could do nothing of Himself (5:30), so now He declares of His words that they, too, are words of the Father. For His “mission” from the Father, see on 3:17 and the references given there.

αὐτός μοι ἐντολὴν δέδωκεν, “Himself hath given me commandment …,” the pft. tense expressing continuing action (cf. 14:31). The rec. ἔδωκε has only secondary uncial support. See 17:8 τα ῥήματα ἃ ἔδωκάς μοι δέδωκα αὐτοῖς; and cf. 10:18, 14:31, 15:10 for the ἐντολή of the Father to Christ. Of the Prophet to come (Deut. 18:18), Yahweh had said, “I will put my words in His mouth, and He shall speak unto them all that I shall command Him.” Indeed, the formula of all the prophets was, “Thus saith Yahweh.”

τί εἴπω καὶ τί λαλήσω. Perhaps both the substance and the form of His words are suggested by the two verbs; but it seems simpler to treat them as identical in meaning here (see λαλῶ, v. 50), the repetition being in the style of dignity.

Justin (Tryph. 56) recalls this Johannine doctrine of the relation of the Son to the Father: “He never did anything except what God willed Him to do or to speak” (βεβούληται καὶ πρᾶξαι καὶ ὁμιλῆσαι).

50. καὶ οἶδα ὅτι κτλ. Cf. 5:32, 8:55, this form of solemn assurance being used in each case by Jesus, when speaking of His knowledge of the “witness” or “commandment” of God, or of God Himself.

ἡ ἐντολὴ αὐτοῦ ζωὴ αἰώνιός ἐστιν. See for ζωὴ αἰώνιος on 3:15; and cf. 6:68, where Peter confesses to Jesus ῥήματα ζωῆς αἰωνίου ἔχεις. It is instructive to recall the Synoptic story that the answer to the young man who asked τί ποιήσω ἵνα ζωὴν αἰώνιον κληρονομήσω; was to refer him to the Ten Commandments (Mk. 10:18). It is not only for Jn., but for the Synoptists too, that the Divine Commandment, when fully realised, is Eternal Life, although in the Synoptists the idea of eternal life as already present is only latent and is not made explicit.

καθὼς εἴρηκέν μοι ὁ πατήρ, οὕτως λαλῶ. This is the secret of the absolute value of the words of Jesus; cf. 8:28 and 14:31.

The Final Rejection by the Jews: The Evangelist’s Comment on Their Unbelief as Foreordained in Prophecy (vv. 36b–43)

36b. It is explained above (on v. 44) that the section vv. 44–50 has been transposed, so as to place v. 44 immediately after v. 36a. Thus the connexion of ideas is unbroken, and we now come to v. 36b.

“These things spake Jesus, and He departed and hid Himself from them.” This is the conclusion of Part II. of the Gospel,¹ the climax of the Jerusalem ministry, the rejection of Jesus by the Jews. He had hidden Himself before (8:59), when the Jews sought to stone Him; but He went into seclusion now because He had given His last warning. The time for teaching was over.

In Mk. (13:35, 36) the final word to the Jews is, “Watch, … lest the Master coming suddenly find you sleeping.” But the final word in Jn. is more sombre, and is suggestive in its phrases of the judgment that afterwards came on the Jews: “Walk while ye have the Light, lest darkness overtake you.… While ye have the Light, believe in the Light” (vv. 35, 36). He had reiterated His august claims (vv. 44–50), and then He withdrew. Jn. does not say where He withdrew, but according to Lk. 21:37 it seems to have been in Bethany that He passed the last nights.

37. Verses 37–43 contain an explanatory commentary by the evangelist upon the Rejection of Jesus by the Jews, its causes and its extent.²

τοσαῦτα, “so many” (cf. 6:9, 21:11), not “so great.” For the term σημεῖα, see on 2:11, 23. Many had believed in consequence of the “signs” that had been wrought; cf. 2:23, 4:45, 7:31, 11:47, 48, it being clear that Jn. knew of many “signs” other than those which he describes (cf. 20:30). But the nation as a whole did not accept Him (cf. 1:11, 3:11, 32, 5:43, 15:24), although some in high station were among those that believed, while they were afraid to confess it (v. 42). For the constr. ἐπίστευον εἰς αὐτόν, see on 1:12.

38. Jn. does not hesitate to say that the unbelief of the Jews was “in order that” the prophecies of Isaiah should be fulfilled. ἵνα πληρωθῇ must be given its full telic force; see Introd., p. cliv. Paul (Rom. 10:16) quotes Isa. 53:1 to illustrate this unbelief and as a prophecy of it, but he does not say ἵνα πληρ. as Jn. does (cf. 1:29, 19:30).

The quotation is from Isa. 53:1, 2, introduced by the opening word κύριε, which is also added in the LXX. Here, probably, Jn. is influenced by the LXX version.

There was a twofold fulfilment: (1) the people did not believe the words of Jesus, and (2) they did not recognise the “arm of the Lord” in His signs. In the O.T. the “arm of God” is often figurative of His power (Deut. 5:15, cf. Lk. 1:51), especially in Deutero-Isaiah (40:10, 51:9, 52:10, 63:5). One of the theses of Cyprian’s Testimonia (ii. 4) is “Quod Christus idem manus et brachium Dei,” and he quotes Isa. 53:1, 2 as here; but it would be to go beyond the evidence to conclude that this idea is in the thought of Jn.

39. διὰ τοῦτο, i.e. because of the prophetic words of Isaiah which follow: they had to be fulfilled, for they were the expression of Divine foreknowledge.¹

διὰ τοῦτο refers to what follows, not to what precedes; see note on 5:16, and cf. 1 Jn. 3:1.

40. This second quotation, from Isa. 6:10, differs markedly from the LXX. (1) The LXX has altered the Hebrew, which ascribes the hardening of Israel’s heart to God’s agency, and throws the sentence into a passive form: ἐπαχύνθη γὰρ ἡ καρδία τοῦ λαοῦ τούτου κτλ. Jn., however, reproduces the sense (although not the exact phrases) of the Hebrew “He hath hardened their heart.” (2) The LXX has μήποτε ἴδωσιν τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς. Now Jn. (and it is one of the notable features of his style) never uses μήποτε. Instead, he has ἵνα μὴ here and elsewhere (see on 3:20), which may represent the Aramaic דְּלָא. Indeed דְּלָא is actually reproduced in the Pesh. rendering of Isa. 6:10. Burney infers² that Jn. is here translating direct from the Aramaic.

The passage Isa. 6:10 is quoted also by Mt. (13:15), who takes it verbally from the LXX. He places it in the mouth of Jesus Himself; it is not in Mt., as in Jn., an illustrative passage quoted by the evangelist. It is quoted also in Acts 28:26 from the LXX, where Paul is represented as applying its words to the Jews at Rome. Probably Isa. 6:10 was regarded by Christians from the beginning as predictive of the Rejection of Jesus by the Jews (cf. Mk. 4:12, Lk. 8:10).

The prophets often speak of people who “have eyes and see not, and ears and hear not” (Jer. 5:21, Ezek. 12:2; cf. Isa. 42:20), and the same thing may be observed in every age and country. The child’s story of “Eyes and no Eyes” has a universal application. But Isa. 6:10 speaks of a penal blindness, an insensibility which was, as it were, a Divine punishment for sin. So at Isa. 44:18 we have, “He hath shut their eyes, that they cannot see; and their hearts, that they cannot understand.” And in Deut. 29:4 the comment of Moses when the Israelites did not recognise the meaning of the “signs” in Egypt is, “The Lord hath not given you an heart to know and eyes to see and ears to hear unto this day.” Paul makes this doctrine his own: “God gave them eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear” (Rom. 11:8). That sin causes a blindness of the soul, a moral insensibility to spiritual truths, is a law of the natural, that is of the Divine, order.

Jesus rebukes the multitude (Mk. 8:18) who did not rightly interpret the miracle of the loaves, by saying, “Having eyes, see ye not? and having ears, hear ye not?” In explaining the Parable of the Sower to His disciples, while He did not explain it to the multitudes, He gave the reason, “Unto them that are without all things are done in parables, that seeing they may see and not perceive, and hearing they may hear and not understand, lest haply they should turn again and it should be forgiven them” (Mk. 4:11, 12, Lk. 8:10). Mt. 13:13 gives the same saying, and represents Jesus as quoting Isa. 6:9, 10 in full from the LXX, which does not ascribe the moral blindness of the people to the agency of God.

Jn., however, never shrinks from a direct statement of events as predestined; if things happened, it was because God intended them to happen. He does not attempt here to soften down the tremendous judgment of Isa. 6:9, 10.

The verb ἐπώρωσεν has been generally translated “hardened.” But this is a misleading rendering.¹ πώρωσις is numbness, rather than hardness; and the prophet’s ἐπώρωσεν αὐτῶν τῆν καρδίαν is strictly parallel to the first half of the verse, τετύφλωκεν αὐτῶν τοὺς ὀφθαλμούς. We should translate:

for πώρωσις τῆς καρδίας is precisely “blindness of heart.” See 9:39 above; and cf. 8:43.

στραφῶσιν is read by א B D*, and is therefore to be preferred to the rec. ἐπιστραφῶσιν. L WΘ have ἐπιστρέψωσιν. Field points out that στραφῶσιν is to be taken in a middle sense, “turn themselves”; cf. a similar usage at 20:14, 16.

41. The true reading is ὅτι (א A B L Θ), not ὅτε of the rec. text or ἔπει with W. It was not when Isaiah saw his vision of Yahweh and the seraphim that he announced the blindness of men’s eyes (Isa. 6:1, 2, 10), but it was because the vision was so dazzling that he realised how far men were from being equal to it.

The vision was not with the eye of sense; it was spiritually that Isaiah “saw the Lord,” a statement that the Targum characteristically softens by saying he saw the glory of the Lord. But Jn. goes farther. He declares that in this vision Isaiah saw the glory of Christ, and spake of Him (εἶδεν τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἐλάλησεν περὶ αὐτοῦ, αὐτοῦ necessarily referring to the same person in both limbs of the sentence). This illustrates well the freedom, so to speak, with which Jn. treats the O.T. In the vision of Isa. 6, the prophet contemplates the awful glory of the invisible God; but the evangelist, in affirming that he spoke of the glory of Christ, identifies Christ with the Yahweh of Israel. It was a later Christian thought that the Logos was the agent of the O.T. theophanies, and it may be that Jn. means to suggest this. In any case, he seems to be aware of the Targum which says that Isaiah saw the glory of Yahweh (see on 1:14).

42. ὅμως μέντοι. The Coptic Q omits both words. Neither of them is used by the Synoptists, ὅμως occurring again in N.T. only 1 Cor. 14:7, Gal. 3:15. For μέντοι, cf. 4:27, 7:13, 20:5, 21:4.

τῶν ἀρχόντων, sc. the principal men in the Sanhedrim; cf. 7:26, 48, and see on 7:32 for the composition of the Sanhedrim.

καὶ ἐκ τῶν ἀρχ. κτλ., “even of the rulers,” who were most difficult to convince, “many believed on Him” (for the constr. see on 1:12), e.g. men like Nicodemus (3:1) and Joseph of Arimathæa. See note on 8:30 for the phrase πολλοὶ ἐπίστευσαν εἰς αὐτόν. The Pharisees had put it to the common folk, many of whom were attracted by Jesus (vv. 11, 37), as a test question, “Hath any of the rulers believed on Him?” (7:48). This had now actually come to pass, but fear of the fanaticism of the Pharisees (cf. v. 19) prevented their belief from showing itself in open confession of the claims of Jesus. It has been suggested that the young ruler who made the Great Refusal¹ may have been among these secret disciples.

οὐχ ὡμολόγουν, “they were not confessing Him.” For ὁμολογεῖν used of “confessing” Christ, see 1:20, 9:22, 1 Jn. 2:23, 4:2, 3, 15, Rom. 10:9.

For ἀποσυνάγωγοι, see on 9:22. To be forbidden to enter a synagogue, even for a short period, would be a serious matter for a member of the Sanhedrim. To be shut off from the common worship of one’s friends and colleagues is a grave penalty, especially for an ecclesiastical personage.

43. ἠγάπησαν γὰρ τὴν δόξαν τῶν ἀνθρώπων κτλ., “for they loved the honour that men bestow rather than the honour that God bestows” (see 5:44 and the note there). The genitives ἀνθρώπων … θεοῦ are both genitives of origin, the thought being similar to that in 5:44, where the same contrast is drawn. δόξα is used in the sense of “honour” (see on 1:14); it would be quite unfitting to speak of any one loving the glory of God, in the sense in which δόξα has been used above at v. 41.

The form of the sentence is like 3:19, ἠγάπησαν οἱ ἄνθρωποι μᾶλλον τὸ σκότος ἢ τὸ φῶς, except that here Jn. has ἤπερ for ἤ. ἤπερ occurs only here in the N.T. (cf. 2 Macc. 14:42), and is perhaps more emphatic than ἤ, μᾶλλον ἤπερ signifying “much more than.” א L W 1, 33, 69 have ὑπέρ, but A B DΓ Δ Θ give ἤπερ, which was altered to ὑπέρ as the more ordinary word.

This comment, in which Jn. attributes low motives to those of whom he writes, may be compared with what he says about Judas (12:6). A grave and austere judgment on the discipleship that prefers to be in secret (see on v. 42) is the last comment of the evangelist on the rejection of Jesus by the Jews, as described in Part II.

¹ For the ellipse in ἀλλʼ ἵνα, cf. 13:18, 15:25, 1 Jn. 2:19.

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.

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).

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.

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.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

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.

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.

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).

MS. manuscript

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

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).

¹ See ERE xi. 102, s.v. “Saliva.”

² See, for other illustrations, Trench, Miracles, p. 294.

³ See Moulton-Milligan, s.v. ἐπιχρίω.

¹ The paratactic style of this inscription, καί … καί, is very like that of vv. 5–8, and shows that a redundance of καί conjunctions does not always point to a Semitic original (cf. Introd., p. lxvii).

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 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).

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).

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.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

¹ See G. A. Smith, Jerusalem, i. 102 ff.

² Grotius tried to identify Siloam with Shiloh, and noted that the Vulgate of Gen. 49:10 renders Shiloh by “qui mittendus est.”

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

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.

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).

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.

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).

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 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).

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 Shabb. c. 21, cited by Lightfoot, Hor. Hebr. on 9:6.

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.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

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).

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).

¹ See, for Jewish excommunications, Schürer, History of Jewish People, 11. ii. 61.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. 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.

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.

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).

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.

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).

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.

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).

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.

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).

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

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).

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.

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. 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.

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).

MS. manuscript

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

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).

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

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).

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 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).

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

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).

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).

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.

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.

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 See A. Pallis, Notes on St. Mark and St. Matthew (1903), p. v.

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.

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

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).

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

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.

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.

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.

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).

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

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).

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

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.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. 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).

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.

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.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

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.

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).

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).

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

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.

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.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

MS. manuscript

¹ Aramaic Origin, etc., p. 102. Torrey agrees with this (Harvard Theol. Review, Oct. 1923, p. 328).

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.

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.

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).

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 C. T. Wilson, Peasant Life in the Holy Land, p. 165. The author’s observations illustrative of the relation of the shepherd to his sheep are very apposite in connexion with c. 10.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

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.

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

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.

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 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).

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.

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).

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).

Δ Sangallensis (ε 76). St. Gall. ix–x. Græco-Latin.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

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).

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 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).

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).

MS. manuscript

¹ For a critical analysis of the parable of the Shepherd and the Sheep, see Holtzmann, Life of Jesus, Eng. Tr., p. 37 f.

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.

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.

² So Valentinus applied them (Hippol. Ref. vi. 35). Jülicher thinks (Introd., p. 401) that the words have a Gnostic ring.

¹ For an account of the nineteenth-century Persian reformer who called himself Bāb, or “the Gate,” see ERE ii. 299, s.v. “Bāb.”

¹ καλός “denotes that kind of goodness which is at once seen to be good” (Hort, on 1 Pet. 2:12).

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).

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

Γ (ε 70) Oxford and Leningrad. ix–x. Contains cc. 1:1–6:13 8:3–15:24 19:6 to end.

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).

Δ Sangallensis (ε 76). St. Gall. ix–x. Græco-Latin.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

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).

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. Abbott, Diat. 2125, 2126.

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).

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 Clem. Alex. (Strom. vi. 14, p. 794 P) comments on the “other sheep, deemed worthy of another fold and mansion, according to their faith.”

MSS. manuscripts

¹ Except Cod. Sangallensis (sæc. ix.), which has ouile vel pastorale for ποίμνη.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

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.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 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).

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).

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.

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.

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

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).

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.

L Regius (ε 56). Paris. viii. Cc. 15:2–20 21:15–25 are missing.

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).

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

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).

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

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.

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 are missing.

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).

Δ Sangallensis (ε 76). St. Gall. ix–x. Græco-Latin.

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

Diat. E. A. Abbott’s Diatessarica, including his Johannine Vocabulary and Johannine Grammar, Parts I.–X. (1900–1915).

¹ Cf. Introductory Note on the Anointing at Bethany (12:1–8).

א Sinaiticus (δ 2). Leningrad. iv.

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 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).

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).

B Vaticanus (δ 1). Rome. Cent. iv.

² See Westcott-Hort, Appendix, 156, for details as to the spelling.

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 This is the true reading, but Θ fam. 13 give in v. 5 τὴν Μαριὰμ καὶ τὴν ἀδελφὴν αὐτῆς Μάρθαν, being influenced by v. 1.

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 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).

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.

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).

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.

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.

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).

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).

Diat. E. A. Abbott’s Diatessarica, including his Johannine Vocabulary and Johannine Grammar, Parts I.–X. (1900–1915).

¹ The extraordinary statement in the Greek Acta Thomœ (§ 31) that he was the twin brother of Jesus seems to be due to a misunderstanding of the original Syriac.

² Cf. Introd., p. clxxxiii.

A Alexandrinus (δ 4). British Museum. v. Cc. 6:50–8:52 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).

MSS. manuscripts

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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 See Lightfoot, Biblical Essays, p. 38.