Page images
PDF
EPUB

h Matt. xi. 27.

ch. 1. 18:
vii. 28

vii. 16:

him, How can these things be? 10 Jesus answered and 8 ch. vi. 52, 60. said unto him, Art thou da master of Israel, and knowest not these things? 11 h Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our 8 witness. 12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you [of] heavenly things? 13 And

[blocks in formation]

xii. 49: χίν. 24.

i ver. 32.

render, understandest. render, testimony.

:

pneuma is not the violent wind, which is otherwise expressed, but the gentle breath of the wind;-and it is heard, not felt ;a case in which "thou knowest not, &c." is more applicable than in that of a violent wind steadily blowing. It is one of those sudden breezes springing up on a calm day, which has no apparent direc tion, but we hear it rustling in the leaves around. The where it listeth, in the application, implies the freedom (2 Cor. iii. 17) and unrestrained working of the Spirit (1 Cor. xii. 11). every one that is born of the Spirit] Our Lord can hardly, as Stier explains, mean Himself by these words; or if He does, only inclusively, as being one born of the Spirit,not principally. He describes the mystery of the spiritual life: we see its effects, in ourselves, and others who have it; but we cannot trace its beginnings, nor can we prescribe to the Holy Spirit His course: He works in us and leads us on, accompanying us with His witness,-His voice, spiritually discerned. This saying of the Lord-in contradiction to all so-called Methodism, which prescribes the time and manner of the working of the Spirit assures us of the manifold and undefinable variety of both these. The physiognomies of those who are born again, are as various as those of natural men.' Draseke. 9.] The question of Nicodemus is evidently still one of unbelief, though no longer of frivolity: 11.] Henceforward the discourse is an answer to the unbelief, and in answering that, to the question (How can these things be?) of Nicodemus: by shewing him the appointed means of this new birth, and of being upheld in the life to which it is the entrance, viz. faith in the Son of God. We speak that we do know...] Why these plurals? Various interpretations have been given: "Either He speaks concerning Himself and the Father, or concerning Himself alone." Euthymius;- He speaks of Himself and the Spirit' (Bengel);-of Himself and the Prophets (Beza, Tholuck);-of Himself

see ver. 12.

homit.

and John the Baptist (Knapp);-of Teachers like Himself (Meyer);-of all the born of the Spirit (Lange, Wesley);-of the three Persons in the Holy Trinity (Stier); -or, the plural is only rhetorical (Lücke, De Wette). I had rather take it as a proverbial saying; q. d. "I am one of those who," &c. Our Lord thereby brings out the unreasonableness of that unbelief which would not receive His witness, but made it an exception to the general proverbial rule. ye receive not, addressed still to Nicodemus, and through him to the Jews: not to certain others who were present, as Olshausen supposes. 12.] The words receive our testimony prepared the way for the new idea which is brought forward in this verse-believing. Faith is, in the most pregnant sense, the receiving of testimony;' because it is the making subjectively real the contents of that testimony. So the believing in him (see ver. 15) is, the full reception of the Lord's testimony; because the burden of that testimony is, grace and truth and salvation by Himself. This faith is neither reasoning, nor knowledge, but a reception of divine Truth declared by One who came from God; and so it is far above reasoning and knowledge:-we believe above we know. But what are the earthly things? The matters relating to the new birth which have hitherto been spoken of; -called so because that side of them has been exhibited which is upon earth, and happens among men. That the parable about the wind is not intended, is evident from "and ye believe not," which in that case would be 'ye understand not.' And the heavenly things are the things of which the discourse goes on to treat from this point: viz. the heavenly side of the new birth and salvation of man, in the eternal counsels of God regarding His onlybegotten Son. Stier supposes a reference in this verse to Wisd. ix. 16, "Hardly do we guess aright at things that are upon the earth, and with labour do we find the things that are before us: but the things

k Prov. xxx. 4.

k

ch. vi. 33,

88, 51, 61: xvi. 28.

Acts ii. 34.

no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in 141 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the

1 Cor. xv. 47. heaven.

Eph. iv. 9, 10.

[ocr errors]

1 Num. xxi. 9.

that are in heaven who hath searched out?" 13.] The whole verse seems to have intimate connexion with and reference to Prov. xxx. 4, Who hath ascended up to heaven, or descended?" and as spoken to a learned doctor of the law, would recall that verse, especially as the further ques tion is there asked, Who hath gathered the wind in His fists?' and 'What is His name, and what His Son's name ?' See also Deut. xxx. 12, and the citation, Rom. x. 6-8. All attempts to explain away the plain sense of this verse are futile and ridiculous. The Son of Man, the Lord Jesus, the Word made Flesh, was in, came down from, heaven,-and was in heaven (heaven about Him, heaven dwelling on earth, ch. i. 52), while here, and ascended up into heaven when He left this earth;-and by all these proofs, speak ing in the prophetic language of accomplished Redemption, does the Lord establish, that He alone can speak of heavenly things to men, or convey the blessing of the new birth to them. Be it remembered, that He is here speaking by anticipation, of results of His course and sufferings on earth,-of the way of regeneration and salvation which God has appointed by Him. He regards therefore throughout the passage, the great facts of redemption as accomplished, and makes announcements which could not be literally acted upon till they had been so accomplished. See vv. 14 ff., whose sense will be altogether lost, unless this hath ascended up be understood of His exaltation to be a Prince and a Saviour. which is in heaven] See ch. i. 18 and note. Doubtless the meaning involves whose place is in heaven;' but it also asserts the being in heaven of the time then present: see ch. i. 52. Thus majestically does the Lord characterize His whole life of humiliation in the flesh, between His descent and His ascent. As uniting in Himself God, whose dwelling is Heaven, with man, whose dwelling is on earth, He ever was in heaven. And nearly connected with this fact is the transition to His being the fountain of eternal life, in vv. 14 ff.: cf. 1 Cor. xv. 47-50, where the same connexion is strikingly set forth. To explain such expressions as "to ascend up into heaven," &c., as mere Hebrew metaphors (Lücke, De Wette, &c.) is no more than saying that Hebrew metaphors were founded on deep

insight into divine truth:-these words in fact express the truths on which Hebrew metaphors were constructed. Socinus is quite right, when he says that those who take hath ascended up into heaven' metaphorically, must in all consistency take The that came down from heaven' metaphorically also; "the descent and ascent must be both of the same kind." 14.] From this point the discourse passes to the Person of Christ, and Redemption by His Death. The Lord brings before this doctor of the Law the mention of Moses, who in his day by divine command lifted up a symbol of forgiveness and redemption to Israel. In interpreting this comparison, we must avoid all such ideas as that our Lord merely compares His death to the elevation of the brazen serpent, as if only a fortuitous likeness were laid hold of by Him. This would leave the brazen serpent itself meaningless, and is an explanation which can only satisfy those who do not discern the typical reference of all the ceremonial dispensation to the Redeemer. It is an important duty of an expositor here, to defend the obvious and only honest explanation of this comparison against the tortuous and inadequate interpretations of modern critics. The comparison lies between the exalted serpent of brass, and the exalted Son of Man. The brazen serpent sets forth the Redeemer. This by recent commentators (Lücke, De Wette, and others) is considered impossible: and the thing compared is held to be only the lifting up.' But this does not satisfy the construction of the comparison. The brazen serpent was lifted up every one who looked on it, lived;' this sentence, in its terms, represents this other, The Son of Man must be lifted up every one who believes on Him, shall live.' The same thing is predicated of the two;-both are lifted up; cognate consequences follow,-body-healing and soul-healing (as Erskine, Ŏn the Brazen Serpent). There must then be some reason why the only two members of the comparison yet unaccounted for stand where they do, considering that the brazen serpent was lifted up not for any physical efficacy, but by command of God alone. Now on examination we find this correspondence fully established. The serpent' is in Scripture symbolism, the devil, - from the historical temptation

xii. 32.

wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: mch. viii. 28 1 15 that whosoever believeth in him i should not perish, but nk have eternal life.

16

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only

i render, may.

in Gen. iii. downwards. But why is the devil set forth by the serpent? How does the bite of the serpent operate? It pervades with its poison the frame of its victim: that frame becomes poisoned :and death ensues. So sin, the poison of the devil, being instilled into our nature, that nature has become a poisoned nature, -a flesh of sin (see Rom. viii. 3). Now the brazen serpent was made in the likeness of the serpents which had bitten the children of Israel. It represented to them the poison which had gone through their frames, and it was hung up there, on the banner-staff, as a trophy, to shew them that for the poison, there was healing ;that the plague had been overcome. In it, there was no poison; only the likeness of it. Now was not the Lord Jesus made in the likeness of the flesh of sin, Rom. viii. 3? Was not He made Sin for us, who knew no sin' (2 Cor. v. 21)? Did not He, on His Cross, make an open shew of, and triumph over, the Enemy, so that it was as if the Enemy himself had been nailed to that Cross (Col. ii. 15)? Were not Sin and Death and Satan crucified, when He was crucified? "In that case, since the injury was by the serpent, by the serpent was also the cure: and in this, since by man death came into the world, by man entered life also." Euthymius.

must the Son of man be lifted up: i. e. it is necessary, in the Father's counsel-it is decreed, but not arbitrarily ;the very necessity of things, which is in fact but the evolution of the divine Will, made it requisite that the pure and sinless Son of Man should thus be uplifted and suffer; see Luke xxiv. 26. In the word lifted up there is more than the mere crucifixion. It has respect in its double meaning (of which see a remarkable instance in Gen. xl. 13, 19) to the exaltation of the Lord on the Cross, and through the Cross to His Kingdom; and refers back to "hath ascended up into heaven" before. 15.] The corresponding clause applying to the type is left to be supplied-And as every one who looked on it was healed, so...

believeth in him] This expression, here only used by John, implies his exaltation,-see ch. xii. 32. It is a belief in (abiding in, see note on ver. 18) His Person being what God by his sufferings and VOL. I.

n ver. 36. ch. vi. 47. o Rom. v. 8. 1 John iv. 9.

k better, may have.

exaltation hath made Him to be, and being that TO ME. This involves, on the part of the believer, the anguish of the bite of the fiery serpent, and the earnest looking on Him in Whom sin is crucified, with the inner eye of faith. have eternal life] Just as in the type, God did not remove the fiery serpents,-or not all at once,—but healing was to be found in the midst of them by looking to the brazen serpent (every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it shall live,' Num. xxi. 8),—so the temptations and conflicts of sin shall not leave the believer,-but in the midst of these, with the Eye of Faith fixed on the uplifted Son of Man, he has eternal life; perishes not of the bite, but shall live. See on this verse the remarkable passage, Wisd. xvi. 5-13, where as much of the healing sign is opened as could be expected before the great Antitype Himself appeared.

16.] Many Commentators-since the time of Erasmus, who first suggested the notion,-have maintained that the discourse of our Lord breaks off here, and the rest, to ver. 21, consists of the remarks of the Evangelist. (So Tholuck, Olshausen, Lücke, De Wette; which last attributes vv. 13, 14 also to John.) But to those who view these discourses of our Lord as intimately connected wholes, this will be as inconceivable, as the idea of St. Matthew having combined into one the insulated sayings of his Master. This discourse would be altogether fragmentary, and would have left Nicodemus almost where he was before, had not this most weighty concluding part been also spoken to him. This it is, which expands and explains the assertions of vv. 14, 15, and applies them to the present life and conduct of mankind. The principal grounds alleged for supposing the discourse to break off here seem to be (a) that all allusion to Nicodemus is henceforth dropped. But this is not conclusive, for it is obvious that the natural progress of such an interview on his part would be from questioning to listening: and that even had he joined in the dialogue, the Evangelist would not have been bound to relate all his remarks, but only those which, as vv. 2, 4, and 9, were important to bring out his mind and standing-point. (b) that henceforth past tenses are used; making it more probable that the passage was K K

p Luke ix. 56.

ch. v. 45:
viii. 15:

xii. 47.

begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but m have everlasting life. 17 P For God sent

1 John iv. 14. not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but

1 ch. v. 24:

vi. 40, 47:

xx. 81.

that the world through him

1 render, might.

render, judge.

added after the great events alluded to had taken place. But does not our Lord speak here, as in so many other cases, proleptically, of the fulness of the accomplishment of those designs, which in the divine counsels were accomplished? Is not this way of speaking natural to a discourse which is treating of the development of the new birth, itself not yet brought in till the Spirit was given? See a parallel instance, with the Evangelist's explanation, ch. vii. 37-39. (c) on account of this use of onlybegotten, verses 16, 18, which is peculiar to John. But, as Stier well enquires, whence did John get this word, but from the lips of his divine Master? Would he have ventured on such an expression, except by an authorization from Him? (d) It is asserted that John often continues our Lord's discourses with additions of his own ;-and ver. 31, and ch. i. 16, are alleged as instances. Of these, ch. i. 16 is beside the question;-for the whole prologue is spoken in the person of the Evangelist, and the Baptist's testimony in ver. 15 is merely confirmatory of ver. 14, and then the connexion goes on with ver. 16. On the untenableness of the view with regard to vv. 31 ff., see notes there. It would besides give us a very mean idea of the honesty or reverence of one who sets forth so sublime a view of the Divinity and Authority of our Lord, to suppose him capable, in any place, of attributing to his Master words and sentiments of his own invention. And that the charge amounts to this, every simple reader can bear testimony. The obvious intention of the Evangelist here is, that the Lord shall have said these words. If our Lord did not say them, but the Evangelist, we cannot stop with the view that he has added his own remarks to our Lord's discourse, but must at once pronounce him guilty of an imposture and a forgery. I conclude therefore on all these grounds that the words following, to ver. 21, cannot be otherwise regarded than as uttered by our Lord in continuation of His discourse. loved]

The indefinite past tense, signifying the universal and eternal existence of that love which God Himself is (1 John iv. 8). the world, in the most general sense, as

[blocks in formation]

represented by, and included in, man,Gen. iii. 17, 18, and i. 28;—not, the elect, which would utterly destroy the force of the passage; see on ver. 18. The Lord here reveals Love as the one ground of the divine counsel in redemption,―salvation of men, as its one purpose with regard to them. he gave his only. begotten Son] These words seem to carry a reference to the offering of Isaac; and Nicodemus in that case would at once be reminded by them of the love there required, the substitution there made, and the prophecy there uttered to Abraham, to which the following words of our Lord so nearly correspond.

gave-absolute, not merely to the world-gave up,-Rom. viii. 32; where, as Stier remarks, we have again, in the "spared not," an unmistakeable allusion to the same words, said to Abraham, Gen. xxii. 16. that who

soever.. .] By the repetition of this final clause verbatim from ver. 15, we have the identity of the former clauses established: i. e. the uplifting of the Son of Man like the serpent in the wilderness is the manifestation of the divine Love in the gift of the Son of God: "the Son of Man" of ver. 14 is equivalent, in the strictest sense, to "his only-begotten Son" of ver. 16. 17.] the world,-the Gentile world,—was according to Jewish ideas to be judged and condemned by the Messiah. This error our Lord here removes. The assertion ch. ix. 39, "for judgment (or, condemnation) came I into this world," is no contradiction to this. The judgment there, as here, results from the separation of mankind into two classes, those who will and those who will not come to the light; and that result itself is not the purpose why the Son of God came into the world, but is evolved in the accomplishment of the higher purpose, viz. Love, and the salvation of men. Observe, the latter clause does not correspond to the former-it is not that He might save the world, but that the world through Him might be saved :—the free will of the world is by this strikingly set forth, in connexion with verses 19, 20. Not that the Lord is not the Saviour of the world (ch. iv. 42), but that the peculiar cast of this passage required the other side of the

that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is P condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only-begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the 4 condemnation, that light is come into rch. 1. 4, 9, the world, and men loved darkness rather than r light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For every one that Job xxiv. doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. 21 But he that doeth

• render, cometh not into judgment. P render, judged.

r

8

¶ render, judgment.

render, the light . . the darkness . . . . . the light.

[blocks in formation]

.....

10, 11: viii. 12.

13, 17.
Eph. v. 13.

the verbs used in the original in the expressions doeth evil and doeth the truth, which is too remarkable to be passed over,

[ocr errors]

not into judgment - see ch. v. 24, where the same assertion is made more fully; and note there. is judged already, implying,-by-especially as the same distinction is obno positive act of judgment of Mine,-but by the very nature of things themselves. God has provided a remedy for the deadly bite of sin; this remedy the man has not accepted, not taken: he must then perish in his sins: he is already judged and sentenced. hath not believed] The perfect sets before us the deliberate choice of the man, q. d. he hath not chosen to believe' see 2 Thess. ii. 11, 12. in the name-not without meaning: that name was "JESUS, for He shall save his people The from their sins," Matt. i. 21. word only-begotten also here sets before us the hopelessness of such a man's state: he has no other Saviour.

19.] The par

[ocr errors]

served in ch. v. 29. I think the distinc-
tion is perhaps this, that the first verb
represents more the habit of action; so
that we might say he that practises
evil;' but the second the true doing of
good, good fruit, good that remains. He
who practises, has nothing but his practice,
which is an event, a thing of the past, a
source to him only of condemnation; he
has nothing to shew for it, for it is also
empty, worthless (which is the real primi-
tive meaning of the adjective here rendered
'evil"); whereas he that does, makes,
creates (for this is the force of the second
verb), has his deed, or thing made,—he has
abiding fruit; his works do follow him.
So that the expressions will not perhaps
here admit of being interchanged. In the
allusion to darkness, there may possibly be
a hint at the coming by night of Nicode-
mus, but surely only by a distant implica-
tion. He might gather this from what
was said, that it would have been better
for him to make open confession of Jesus;
but we can hardly say that our Lord re-
proves him for coming even as he did.
21.] Who is this doer of the truth? the
end of ch. i. will best explain to us,-in
whom there is no guile, see also Luke viii.
15, and Ps. xv. The practiser of wicked-
ness is crooked and perverse; he has a
light, which he does not follow; he knows
the light, and avoids it; and so there is no
truth, singleness, in him; he is a man at
variance with himself. But the simple and
single-minded is he who knowing and ap-
proving the light, comes to it; and comes
that he may be carried onward in this
spirit of truth and single-mindedness to
higher degrees of communion with and
likeness to God. "The good man seeks the
light, and to place his works in the light, not

ticular nature of this decided judgment is now set forth, that the light (see ch. i. 7, and notes) is come into the world, and men (men in general; an awful revelation of the future reception of the Gospel) loved (the perversion of the affections and will is the deepest ruin of mankind) the darkness (see note on ch. i. 5; the state of sin and unbelief) rather than (not to be resolved into and not; but, as Bengel says, "The loveliness of the light struck them, but they persevered in the love of the darkness,' see ch. v. 35; xii. 43; 2 Tim. iii. 4) the light, because their deeds were evil (their habits, thoughts, practices, -all these are included,-were perverted).

loved and were are the indefinite past tense, implying the general usage and state of men, when and after the light came into the world. 20.] This verse analyzes the psychological grounds of the preceding. The light is not here 'the common light of day,' nor light in general: but, as before, the Light; i. e. the Lord Jesus, and His salvation: see ver. 21 end.

There is here a difference between

« PreviousContinue »