53 taste of death. Art thou greater than our father Abraham, which is dead? and the prophets are dead :* 54 whom makest thou thyself? Jesus answered, If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing: it is my Father that glorifieth me; of whom ye say, that he is your 55 God; and ye have not known him but I know him; and if I should say I know him not, I shall be like unto you, a liar: but I know him, and keep his word.

:

*For " is dead" and "are dead" read "died" (Compare 6: 40, 58).—Am. Com..

preserve His followers from that which had come upon the prophets, and even on Abraham himself, He is clearly placing Himself above Abraham and the prophets. Whom then is He making Himself?— The Jews do not quote the words of Jesus with exactness.

6

He had

said, shall never behold death,'-for ever shall be spared the sight of death; they vary the metaphor a little, passing to a still more familiar phrase, 'taste death;' perhaps because it seemed more distinct and clear, less susceptible of a figurative meaning.

Vers. 54, 55A. Jesus answered, If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing: it is my Father that glorifieth me, of whom ye say that he is your God, and have not got knowledge of him. First, Jesus answers the direct question, Whom makest Thou Thyself?' and the general charge of self-exaltation which those words contain. The specific reference to Abraham He speaks of afterwards (ver. 56). The tenor of His reply resembles that of ver. 50; but, as elsewhere, the second statement has the greater force and clearness. The reality of the glory of Jesus consists in this, that it comes from His Father, whom they called their God, but of whom they had gained no knowledge.

Ver. 55 B. But I know him; and if I should say I know him not, I shall be like unto you, a liar: but I know him, and keep his word. Jesus can say, 'I know God,' by direct, intuitive, perfect knowledge. The word which He uses in reference to Himself (I know') is different from that used in the preceding clause, this latter ('ye have got knowledge') referring to the result of experience, to knowledge gained by many acts of perception. Were Jesus to deny His immediate knowledge, He would be as false as they have been in professing to know God. The last words are interesting as bringing out once more the truth which we have seen presented in earlier verses: His own work in the execution of the Father's will is the model of the work which He requires from man. His people keep His word' (ver. 51): He Himself keeps the Father's word. So, in chap. 20: 21, He says to the apostles, As my Father hath sent me, I also

send you.'

56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day; and

1 Or, that he should see.

Ver. 56. Your father Abraham exulted that he should see my day; and he saw it and rejoiced. This translation, though more exact than that of the Authorized Version, does not fully bring out the meaning of the original. All English renderings of the words (unless they are paraphrases) must be more or less ambiguous. Rejoiced to see' conveys the meaning of rejoiced because (or when) he saw;' exulted that he should see, means strictly, exulted in the knowledge that he should see.' Nor is the difficulty removed if we take the ordinary rendering of the Greek construction, that he might ;' for exulted that he might see is ambiguous still, though not in the same way. Perhaps the Greek words (which are very peculiar) are best represented by the paraphrase, Your father Abraham exulted in desire that he might see my day; and he saw (it) and rejoiced.' The interpretation, which is as difficult as the translation, turns mainly on the meaning of the words 'my day.' The nearest approach to this expression in the New Testament is found in Luke 17: 22, one of the days of the Son of man,' where the meaning must be one of the days connected with the manifestation of the Son of man upon the earth.' Here the form is more definite, my day,' and it seems exceedingly difficult to give any other meaning than either the whole period of the life of Jesus on earth, or, more precisely, the epoch of the Incarnation. In this case the past tense he saw it is conclusive for the latter, if actual sight is intended. The patriarch received the promise in which was contained the coming of the day of Christ. By faith he saw this day in the far distance, but-more than this-exulting in the prospect he longed to see the day itself: in joyful hope he waited for this. In the fulness of time the day dawned; the heavenly host sang praises to God for its advent; and (none who remember the appearance of Moses and Elias on the Mount of Transfiguration can feel any difficulty in the words of this verse) Abraham too saw it and rejoiced. By those who do not accept this explanation it is urged-(1) That Jesus would probably not thus refer the Jews to that which no Scripture records. But the truth spoken of is so general and so simple-Abraham's knowledge of the fulfilment of God's promises to him-that no Jew who believed in Jesus could refuse it credence. (2) That 'sees' and 'rejoices' would be more natural than 'saw' and 'rejoiced.' Not so, if the Incarnation is the event before the mind. (3) That this view is not in harmony with the reply of the Jews in the next verse. That point will be considered in the note on the verse. The only other possible interpretation is that which refers the words to two distinct periods in the earthly life of Abraham; one at which, after receiving the promise, he exulted in eager desire for a clearer sight, and another at which this clearer sight was gained. But it is very hard to think of two epochs in the patriarch's life at which these conditions were satisfied; and it is still more difficult to believe that my day' is the expression

57 he saw it, and was glad. The Jews therefore said unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast 58 thou seen Abraham? Jesus saith unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was,* I They took up stones therefore to cast at him;

59 am.

1 Gr. was born.

*For "was" read "was born" and omit marg. 1-Am. Com.

that Jesus would have used had this been the sense designed. Verily, if Abraham thus exulted in the thought of the coming of his son and his Lord, the Jews who are despising and rejecting Him do not Abraham's works, are no true seed of Abraham.

6

Ver. 57. The Jews therefore said unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? The Jews understand my day' to mean the time of His life; and His knowing that Abraham has witnessed this with joy must certainly imply that He has seen Abraham. How can this be, since He is not fifty years of age? It seems most probable that 'fifty' is chosen as a round number, as a number certainly beyond that of our Lord's years of life. Some have supposed from this verse that sorrow had given to Him the appearance of premature age when He was only thirty. Not likely.

Ver. 58. Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was born, I am. The third occurrence of the solemn formula, 'Verily, verily,' marks the highest point reached by the words of Jesus at this time. The substance of the words is in completest harmony with the form. In the clearest possible manner Jesus declares, not only His existence before Abraham, but also the essential distinction between His being and that of any man. Man is born, man passes through successive periods of time: of Himself, in regard alike to past, present, and future, Jesus says 'I am.' He claims for Himself that absolute, unchanging existence which is the attribute of God alone. If any argument be needed to enforce that which the words themselves supply, it is furnished in the conduct of the Jews (ver. 59), who clearly understood them to be a distinct (and in their mind a blasphemous) claim of that which belonged to God alone. The thought is distinctly present in the Old Testament: see Fs. 102: 27, but especially Ps. 90: 2. The English reader naturally recurs in thought to Ex. 3: 14, but there are two considerations which make it very difficult to assert positively that that verse is necessarily referred to here: (1) The doubt which rests on the translation. 'I will be' is at least as natural as a translation as 'I am.' (2) The Greek translation of the Divine Name there used differs materially from the words of this verse, and agrees rather with the original of Rev. 1: 4. If our version does really express the meaning of Ex.3: 14, it is impossible not to associate that verse with the one before us.

Ver. 59. They took up stones therefore that they might cast them upon him; but Jesus hid himself, and went forth

but Jesus hid himself, and he went out of the temple."

CHAPTER 9: 1-12.

The Opening of the Eyes of the Blind Man.

And as he passed by, he saw a man blind from his 2 birth. And his disciples asked him, saying, Rabbi,

1 Or, was hidden, and went, &c.

2 Many ancient authorities add and going through the midst of them went his way, and so passed by.

from the temple-courts. The Jews were enraged at what they considered blasphemy, and in their rage they would have stoned Him (compare chap. 10: 31). But His hour was not yet come. He hid Himself (whether miraculously or not we cannot tell), and went forth from the temple.

The Opening of the Eyes of the Blind Man, vers. 1-12. CONTENTS. The conflict of Jesus with the Jews begins to draw to a close. At the last verse of the preceding chapter, Jesus had hidden Himself and gone out of the temple, leaving it in possession of those who had wilfully blinded themselves against His claims, who must now therefore be left to the darkness which they have chosen, and from whom such as will behold in Him the Light of Life must be withdrawn. This great truth is illustrated by the story of the man born blind, upon whom a miracle of healing is performed. The enmity of the Jews is roused; but in the process raised by them, they are defeated, and the blind man, cast out by his former co-religionists, becomes a trophy of the power and grace of the persecuted Redeemer.

Ver. 1. And as he passed by, he saw a man who was blind from his birth. There is nothing to connect this chapter with the last, in regard to time or place. The day to which the narrative refers was a Sabbath (ver. 14); the blind man (who was of Jewish birth; see ver. 34) had been wont to sit and beg from passersby (ver. 8), perhaps at the gates of the temple, like the lame man, Acts 3. The two points which John brings before us are simply that the case of the afflicted man was (in itself) hopeless, and that the Saviour saw him as He passed by. The obvious purpose of this latter statement is to direct our thoughts to the spontaneous compassion of Jesus. The man said nothing, did nothing, to awaken His pity, nor did the question of the disciples in ver. 2 first call His attention to the case. He feels and acts Himself; and the interest of the disciples does not precede, but follow, that shown by their Master.

Ver. 2. And his disciples asked him, saying, Rabbi, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he should be born blind? It is not said that the disciples were moved to pity; but it is not right to assume the contrary. That Jesus had looked on the blind man would be enough to raise their expectation of a cure; but expressly to relate this might well seem needless. Whatever feeling,

who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he should 3 be born blind? Jesus answered, Neither did this man sin, nor his parents: but that the works of God however, the sight may have stirred in them, it recalled a problem which was very familiar to the thought of the Jews, and which repeatedly meets us in the Scriptures of the Old Testament-the connection between personal sin and bodily suffering or defect. Here was a signal example of physical infirmity; what was its cause? In assuming that the blindness was the consequence of sin, they were following the current theology of their time; but how was this dogma to be applied in the case before them? Who had sinned? Was it the man himself? Or had his parents committed some offence which was now visited upon their child? (Comp. Ex. 20: 5; 34: 7; Num. 14: 18, 33; Jer. 32: 18.) As to the former alternative, three explanations deserve mention. (1) We are told by Josephus, that the Pharisees held the belief that, whereas the souls of the wicked are eternally punished, the souls of the righteous pass into other bodies. Hence it has been maintained that the Pharisees held the doctrine of the transmigration of souls; and the passage before us is frequently explained accordingly. If, however, we compare all the passages in which Josephus refers to tenets of the Pharisees respecting the state of man after death, it will at least appear very uncertain that such a meaning should be attached to his words as quoted above. It is very possible that the historian is there referring entirely to a state of being beyond the limits of this world's history; or that, in the attempt to present the belief of his countrymen in a form familiar to the Roman conquerors, he has used language which conveys an erroneous impression. At all events, we cannot assume that the transmigration of souls was a tenet widely embraced by the Jewish people of that age, without far stronger evidence than we now possess. (2) The philosophic doctrine of the pre-existence of souls was certainly held by many Jews at the time of Christ. As early as the Book of Wisdom we find a reference to it (see chap. 8: 19, 20), and passages of similar tendency may easily be quoted from Philo. (3) It seems to have been an ancient Jewish opinion, that sin could be committed by the unborn child; and that the narrative of Gen. 25, appearing to teach that the odious character of a supplanter belonged to Jacob even before birth, gave the authority of Scripture to such a belief. On the whole this affords the best explanation of the question of the disciples: Was the sin so severely punished committed by this man himself, in the earliest period of his existence, or have the iniquities of his parents been visited upon him?

Ver. 3. Jesus answered, Neither did this man sin, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him. Jesus does not deny the presence of sin in the man himself or in his parents; His words must be read in close connection with the question to which they form a reply. The meaning of the whole verse (which is unusually elliptical) may be given thus: