him some distance from home. 7 P.M. is improbable; the servants would meet him before midnight. Thus the modern method of reckoning from midnight to midnight does not suit. Adopting the Jewish method from sunset to sunset, the seventh hour is 1 P.M. He would scarcely start at once in the mid-day heat; nor would the servants. Supposing they met him after sunset, they might speak of 1 P.M. as 'yesterday.' (But see on xx. 19, where S. John speaks of the late hours of the evening as belonging to the day before sunset.) Still, 7 P.M. is not impossible, and this third instance must be regarded as not decisive. But the balance here seems to incline to what is antecedently more probable, that S. John reckons the hours, like the rest of the Evangelists, according to the Jewish method.

53. yvw. Recognised, perceived.

ÉπíOTEVσEV. Eis aúróv, i.e. as the Messiah: comp. v. 42, i. 7, 51, vi. 36, xi. 15, where, as here, TOTEúw is used absolutely. The growth of this official's faith is sketched for us in the same natural and incidental way as in the cases of the Samaritan woman (v. 19), the man born blind (ix. 11), and Martha (xi. 21).

η oikla av. öλŋ. The first converted family. Comp. Cornelius, Lydia, and the Philippian gaoler (Acts x. 24, xvi. 15, 34).

54. τοῦτο π. δ. σ. This again as a second sign did Jesus, after He had come out of Judaea into Galilee. Once more S. John carefully distinguishes two visits to Galilee, which any one with only the Synoptic account might easily confuse. Both signs confirmed imperfect faith, the first that of the disciples, the second that of this official and his household.

The question whether this foregoing narrative is a discordant account of the healing of the centurion's servant (Matt. viii. 5; Luke vii. 2) has been discussed from very early times, for Origen and Chrysostom contend against it. Irenaeus seems to be in favour of the identification, but we cannot be sure that he is. He says, 'He healed the son of the centurion though absent with a word, saying, Go, thy son liveth.' Irenaeus may have supposed that this official was a centurion, or centurion' may be a slip. Eight very marked points of difference between the two narratives have been noted. Together they amount to something like proof that the two narratives cannot refer to one and the same fact, unless we are to attribute an astonishing amount of carelessness or misinformation either to the Synoptists or to S. John.

(1) Here a 'king's man' pleads for his son; there a centurion for

his servant.

(2) Here he pleads in person; there the elders plead for him.

(3) The father is probably a Jew; the centurion is certainly a Gentile.

(4) Here the healing words are spoken at Cana; there at Caper

naum.

(5) Here the malady is fever; there paralysis.

(6) The father wishes Jesus to come; the centurion begs Him not

to come.

(7) Here Christ does not go; there apparently He does.

(8) The father has weak faith and is blamed (v. 48); the centurion has strong faith and is commended.

And what difficulty is there in supposing two somewhat similar miracles? Christ's miracles were signs;' they were vehicles for conveying the spiritual truths which Christ came to teach. If, as is almost certain, He often repeated the same instructive sayings, may He not sometimes have repeated the same instructive acts? Here, therefore, as in the case of the cleansing of the Temple (ii. 13—17), it seems wisest to believe that S. John and the Synoptists record different events.

CHAPS. V. TO XI. THE WORK AMONG MIXED MULTITUDES,

CHIEFLY JEWS.

The Work now becomes a CONFLICT between Christ and 'the Jews;' for as Christ reveals Himself more fully, the opposition between Him and the ruling party becomes more intense; and the fuller revelation which excites the hatred of His opponents serves also to sift the disciples; some turn back, others are strengthened in their faith by what they see and hear. The Evangelist from time to time points out the opposite results of Christ's work: vi. 60–71, vii. 40—52, ix. 13-41, x. 19, 21, 39–42, xi. 45-57. Three miracles form crises in the conflict; the healing of the impotent man (v.), of the man born blind (ix.), and the raising of Lazarus (xi).

Thus far we have had the announcement of the Gospel to the world, and the reception it is destined to meet with, set forth in four typical instances; Nathanael, the guileless Israelite, truly religious according to the light allowed him; Nicodemus, the learned ecclesiastic, skilled in the Scriptures, but ignorant of the first elements of religion; the Samaritan woman, immoral in life and schismatical in religion, but simple in heart and readily convinced; and the royal official, weak in faith, but progressing gradually to a full conviction. But as yet there is little evidence of hostility to Christ,. although the Evangelist prepares us for it (i. 11, ii. 18-20, iii. 18, 19, 26, iv. 44). Henceforth, however, hostility to Him is manifested in every chapter of this division. Two elements are placed in the sharpest contrast throughout; the Messiah's clearer manifestation of His Person and Work, and the growing animosity of the Jews' in consequence of it. The opposition is stronger in Judaea than elsewhere; strongest of all at Jerusalem. In Galilee they abandon Him, in Jerusalem they compass His death. Two miracles form the introduction to two great discourses: two miracles illustrate two discourses. The healing at Bethesda and the feeding of the 5000 lead to discourses in which Christ is set forth as the Source and the Support of Life (v., vi.). Then He is set forth as the Source of Truth and Light; and this is illustrated by His giving physical and spiritual sight to the blind (vii.-ix.). Finally He is set forth as Love under

ST JOHN

9

the figure of the Good Shepherd giving His life for the sheep; and this is illustrated by the raising of Lazarus, a work of love which costs Him His life (x., xi.). Thus, of four typical miracles, two form the introduction and two form the sequel to great discourses. The prevailing idea throughout is truth and love provoking contradiction and enmity.

CHAPTER V.

3. Omit ἐκδεχομένων τὴν τοῦ ὕδατος κίνησιν after ξηρών, with NABC'L against D and the great mass of later authorities; a gloss suggested by v. 7, and added before v. 4.

4. Omit the whole verse, with NBC1D against AL and the majority of later authorities; a gloss probably embodying an ancient tradition. Insertion in this case is easily explained, omission not.

5. Insert avroû (overlooked between -a and Tou-) after ảo Develą. 8–11. кρáßаттOV is the form now generally received in N. T. for κράββατον.

16. Omit καὶ ἐζήτουν αὐτὸν ἀποκτεῖναι (inserted from v. 18) with NBCDL against A.

25, 28. άkoúσovov. We cannot determine with certainty between this form (xvi. 13?) and ἀκούσονται: ἀκούσομαι is the more common future in N. T. On Lýσovoiv (v. 25) see on vi. 57.

36. μείζων (ΑΒEGMA) is to be preferred to μείζω (Ν), δέδωκεν (NBL) to dwke (AD), which has been influenced by vv. 26, 27.

37. keîvos (NBL) for airós, which was first inserted along with ékeivos (D), and then drove it out (A).

43. λήμψεσθε for λήψεσθε: xvi. 14, 15, 24. Winer, p. 53.

CHAP. V. CHRIST THE SOURCE OF LIFE.

In chaps. v. and vi. the word 'life' occurs 18 times; in the rest of the Gospel 18 times. Thy son liveth' (iv. 51) leads up to this subject.

This chapter falls into two main divisions; (1) The Sign at the Pool of Bethesda and its Sequel (1—16); (2) The Discourse on the Son as the Source of Life (17—47).

1-9. THE SIGN AT THE POOL OF BETHESDA.

1. μετὰ ταῦτα. See on iii. 22.

OPTη T. 'I. ABD, Origen, and many later authorities omit the article, which though very ancient, was probably inserted owing to a belief that Tabernacles or the Passover was the feast intended.

6

Insertion would be more likely than omission. If éoprý is the true reading, this alone is almost conclusive against its being the Passover; S. John would not call the Passover a feast of the Jews.' Moreover in all other cases where he mentions Passovers he lets us know that they are Passovers and not simply feasts, ii. 13, vi. 4, xi. 55, &c. He gives us three Passovers; to make this a fourth would be to put an extra year into our Lord's ministry for which scarcely any events can be found, and of which there is no trace elsewhere. In vii. 19-24 Jesus justifies the healing at this feast. Would He go back to an event like this after a year and a half? Almost every other feast, and even the Day of Atonement, has been suggested; but the only one which fits in satisfactorily is Purim. We saw from iv. 35 that the two days in Samaria were either in December or January. The next certain date is vi. 4, the eve of the Passover, i. e. April. Purim, which was celebrated in March (14th and 15th Adar), falls just in the right place in the interval. This feast commemorated the deliverance of the Jews from Haman, and took its name from the lots which he caused to be cast (Esther iii. 7, ix. 24, 26, 28). It was a boisterous feast, and some have thought it unlikely that Christ would have anything to do with it. But we are not told that He went to Jerusalem in order to keep the feast; Purim might be kept anywhere. More probably He went because the multitudes at the feast would afford great opportunities for teaching. Moreover, it does not follow that because some made this feast a scene of unseemly jollity, therefore Christ would discountenance the feast itself. Assuming Purim to be right, why does S. John not name it? Not because it was without express Divine sanction; the Dedication (x. 22) was a feast of man's institution. More probably because Purim had no reference to either Christ or His work. 'The promised salvation is of the Jews,' and S. John is ever watchful to point out the connexion between Jesus and the O. T. The Passover and Feast of Tabernacles pointed clearly to Him; the Feast of Dedication pointed to His work, the reconsecration of the Jewish people to Jehovah. To refer the political festival of Purim to Him whose kingdom was not of this world (xviii. 36), might cause the gravest misunderstanding. The feast here has no symbolical meaning, but is a barren historical fact; and the Evangelist leaves it in obscurity.

ávéẞn. Went up, because to the capital.

2. σTIV. The present tense is no evidence that this Gospel was written before the destruction of Jerusalem. S. John might easily write of the place as he remembered it. Even if the building were destroyed the pool would remain; and such a building, being of the nature of a hospital, would possibly be spared. See on xi. 18.

ἐπὶ τῇ προβατικῇ κ.τ.λ. Reading and interpretation are somewhat uncertain: κολυμβήθρα is preferable to κολυμβήθρᾳ, ἡ ἐπιλεγομένη to τὸ λεγόμενον, and Βηθλαθά to Βηθεσδά or Βηθσαϊδά. It is better to supply πύλῃ rather than ἀγορᾷ with προβατικῇ, although the ellipse of Túly occurs nowhere else; for we know from Neh. iii. 1, 32, xii. 39, that there was a sheep-gate. It was near the Temple, for by it sacri

fices probably entered the Temple. There is evidence, however, that there were two pools at this place, and so we may translate, Now there is at Jerusalem, by the sheep-pool, the pool (or, reading Tò λey., the place) called, &c. We cannot be sure from emiλeyoμévn (“ surnamed') that the pool had some other name as well. The pool' might be the name, Bethzatha the surname. Beth-esda='House of Mercy,' or (-Aschada) of outpouring,' or (estáu) of the Portico.' Bethzatha may mean 'House of the Olive.' The traditional identification with Birket Israel is not commonly advocated now. The Fountain of the Virgin' is an attractive identification, as the water is intermittent to this day. This fountain is connected with the pool of Siloam, and some think that Siloam is Bethesda. That S. John speaks of Bethesda here and Siloam in ix. 7, is not conclusive against this: for Bethesda might be the name of the building and Siloam of the pool, which would agree with èmɩλeyoμévn, as above.

'Eẞpaïorí. In Aramaic, the language spoken at the time, not the old Hebrew of the Scriptures. See on xx. 16. The word occurs only in this Gospel (xix. 13, 17, 29, xx. 16) and in Revelation (ix. 11, xvi. 16). See on i. 14, iv. 6, vii. 30, xi. 44, xv. 20, xix. 37, xx. 16.

Oroás. Colonnades or cloisters. These would shelter the sick. The place seems to have been a kind of charitable institution, and Jesus, we may suppose, had come to heal this patient.

3. τυφλ., χ., ξ. The special kinds of ἀσθενοῦντες. The words which follow in T.R., and the whole of v. 4 are an interpolation, though a very ancient one, for it was known to Tertullian (De Bapt. v.). "The whole passage is omitted by the oldest representatives of each great group of authorities" (Westcott). The conclusion of v. 3 was added first as a gloss on v. 7; and v. 4 may represent the popular belief with regard to the intermittent bubbling of the healing water, first added as a gloss, and then inserted into the text. The water was probably mineral, and the people may have been right in supposing that it was most efficacious when it was most violent. The MSS. which contain the insertion vary very much.

5. r. Accusative after ëxwv, like xpóvov in v. 6; having (passed) thirty-eight years in his infirmity. Not that he was 38 years old, but had had this malady 38 years. To suppose that S. John regards him as typical of the nation, wandering 38 years in the wilderness and found paralysed by the Messiah, is perhaps fanciful.

6. yvoús. Perhaps supernaturally, as He knew the past life of the Samaritan woman (see on ii. 25): but He might learn it from the bystanders; the fact would be well known.

0éλes. Dost thou wish? Note that the man does not ask first. Here and in the case of the man born blind (ix.), as also of Malchus' ear (Luke xxii. 51), Christ heals without being asked to do so. Excepting the healing of the royal official's son all Christ's miracles in the Fourth Gospel are spontaneous. On no other occasion does Christ ask a question without being addressed first: why does He now ask a question of which the answer was so obvious? Probably in