6

6

Jesus spoke symbolically; that to be born again' or 'anew' or from above,' means to be baptized; that the water' is the water of baptism; that the 'spirit' is the Holy Spirit, who comes with or through the rite of baptism. But surely if Jesus wished to impress upon Nicodemus the absolute necessity of baptism, he could and 16 Mark 16 would have used plainer words, as he did on another occasion: 'He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.' From first to last Nicodemus gathered no such meaning, but was lost in doubt and wonderment at the strangeness, the depth and the breadth, of these statements of Jesus: How can a man be born when he is old .. How can these things be?' Luther's figurative interpretation, quoted by Alford, we can appreciate and respect: My teaching is not of doing and leaving undone, but of a change in the man; so that it is, not new works done, but a new man to do them; not another life only, but another birth. From the first there has been a difference of opinion. Alford quotes Chrysostom: "Some say, from heaven, some, from the beginning,' and adds that 'he and Euthymius explain it by regeneration: Origen, Cyril, and Theophylact taking the other meaning.' Of course the new birth' means 'regeneration,' but not necessarily by baptism. Alford takes upon himself to say: 'It is impossible that Nicodemus can have so entirely and stupidly misunderstood our Lord's words, as his question here would seem to imply.' It is much more natural and probable to assume that Nicodemus detected no reference to baptism in the words of Jesus, notwithstanding the fact that the idea of a new birth was by no means alien from the Rabbinical views. They described a proselyte when baptized as "like an infant just born," Lightfoot. If we suppose Jesus to have been anxious to impress upon his hearer the importance of baptism, would it not have been wise and right to speak with the utmost plainness, to avoid all possibility of doubt or misapprehension? Why should we either attribute obscurity to the speaker or perversity to the listener? If Dean Alford had not started with the foregone conclusion that the water and spirit' must as a matter of course refer to the water administered and the Spirit received in baptism, and if, instead of doing so, he had bent his mind to an unprejudiced investigation of the discourse of Jesus, probably he would not have accused Nicodemus, nor have penned the following passage: "There can be no doubt, on any honest interpretation of the words, that to be born of water refers to the token or outward sign of baptism, to be born of the Spirit the thing signified, or inward grace of the Holy Spirit. All attempts to get rid of these two plain facts have sprung from doctrinal prejudices, by which the views of expositors have been warped. Such we have in Calvin : who explains the words to mean, "the Spirit who cleanses us, and by diffusing His influence in us inspires the vigour of heavenly life:" Grotius, "the Spirit, who cleanses like water;" Cocceius, "the grace of God, washing away our uncleanness and sins;" Tholuck, who holds that not Baptism itself, but only its idea, that of cleansing is referred to; and others, who endeavour to resolve water and the Spirit into a figure, so as to make it mean "the cleansing or purifying Spirit." All the better and deeper expositors have recognized the coexistence of the two, water and the Spirit.' 'Doctrinal prejudices!' Alford applied the expression to prejudices against the

6

doctrine of baptismal regeneration his opponents would say it applies equally to prejudices in favour of that doctrine. Apart from that question, Alford contends that a real meaning, instead of a bare figurative meaning, should be attached to the statements of Jesus. To that extent we are in agreement under that conviction and in that direction, the foregoing independent investigation has been carried out.

"

2

3, 4

We have now to return to the feast of tabernacles. After the incidents connected with it, the observation follows: And they went 7 John 53 every man unto his own house.' This may be understood to denote the completion of the festival, during which the people lived for a week in booths, to remind them of their desert wanderings.'* Jesus retired to the mount of Olives, on the outskirts of Jerusalem. But 8 John 1 Jesus went unto the mount of Olives.' Early in the morning he returned to the city, seated himself in the temple, and there began discoursing to the crowd which came to hear him. And early in the morning' (literally, at dawn-Young) he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him, and he sat down, and taught them.' Although the temple was the recognised place for religious worship, it bore small resemblance to our consecrated cathedrals and churches. The people seem to have wandered at their will within its precincts, and went even to the length of buying and selling, making it a market place for doves, sheep and oxen, which were probably, at least ostensibly, required for sacrifice. After a time, the discourse being either ended or interrupted, the scribes and Pharisees made their appearance, bringing with them a woman who had been detected in her sin. They placed her in the midst of those present, and told Jesus what was the charge against her. And the scribes and the Pharisees bring a woman taken in adultery; and having set her in the midst, they say unto him, Master (or, Teacher), this woman hath been taken in adultery, in the very act.' The only question to be decided was as to what ought to be done to her. The Mosaic law doomed the offender to death, which was to be brought about, not by a single executioner, but by the combined action of the congregation, each casting a stone or stones at the criminal. Alford explains: The command here mentioned is not to be found, unless "putting to death" generally, is to be interpreted as stoning.' It would seem, however, to have been necessarily and clearly inferred, as Alford admits, from 22 Deu. 23, 24, and the command was so understood. Now in the law Moses commanded us to stone such.' Alford renders such as 'such women.' The accusers invited Jesus to express his views as to the proper mode of dealing with the woman. 'What then sayest thou of her? The Revisers, adopting the reading of Wordsworth, have added of her.' The narrator explains that the question was not put in good faith, but with the express object of founding upon the reply of Jesus an accusation against him. And this they said, tempting (or, trying) him, that they might have whereof to accuse him.' We can only conjecture the grounds on which they could have done so. Jesus had already been reproached as a friend of publicans and sinners.' If on this occasion he 11 Mat. 19 inclined towards mercy, his leniency would expose him to further

6

6

* 66 Helps to the Study of the Bible."

"

5

"

5

6

8 John 6

misinterpretation and calumny. He had also been charged with
breaking the law of Moses by infringing the sabbath: if in this case
he were to advocate the remission of capital punishment, he would
be laying himself open to a similar reproach. Yet the fate of this
erring woman seemed to be left in his hands; a word from him
justifying the view expressed by these scribes and Pharisees might be
equivalent to a sentence of death against her. Moreover, the
punishment of death for such an offence was probably opposed to
Roman law, and the enemies of Jesus would have been only too ready
to denounce him as the instigator of the deed if, having been appealed
to on the subject, he made no protest against the proposed death by
stoning. Alford quotes Lücke on this point: Some kind of civil
or political collision the question certainly was calculated to provoke:
but from the brevity of the narration, and our want of more accurate
knowledge of criminal proceedings at the time, it is impossible to lay
down definitely, wherein the collision would have consisted."
did not feel himself called upon to answer the question put to him.
Wisely and discreetly he maintained an entire silence. Criminals
should be brought by their accusers to a proper tribunal of justice.
Why should Jesus be appealed to publicly on a point of law in this
particular case? He practically refused to discuss the matter: they
had no right to question him, and he certainly had the right to
remain silent. He chose to do so, and by his attitude and gesture
plainly intimated his determination. But Jesus stooped down, and
with his finger wrote on the ground.' Under the peculiar circum-
stances, this method of refusing to be entangled into a discussion, was
wise and dignified. Probably a feeling of indignation may have had
to do with it. All they cared about was to trump up an accusation
against himself, and they were not ashamed to make this poor, guilty,
trembling creature the occasion of it! He will baffle their designs;
not a word shall they extract from him. Let them go their way,
leaving him to his work, or at least to his meditations. His mind is
busy with some other train of thought: better anything than to take
or give counsel with such men on such a subject! It were useless to
show the anger which, we know, could flash on occasion from his
eye; it were cruel to look towards the crushed, shame-laden woman :
better to fix his gaze on the ground at his feet. Those apparently
idle, aimless tracings of his fingers on the floor are signs, not of
vacancy, but of a mind at work, full to overflowing with who can
say what blended thoughts of scorn, grief, pity. What words, if any,
were written by the nervous workings of his fingers during that deep
absorption, none can tell, though some have tried to guess.
'One of
our MSS. reads: "He wrote on the ground the sins of each of them,'
(Alford). When would the divine law come to be written as easily
on human hearts? When would it cease to be as light, as fleeting,
as well-nigh invisible there, as though traced on unyielding stone or
on the wind-blown, feet-trodden dust of the earth? When would
the two great laws of love to God and man be recognised as
binding and supreme? Many and deep the problems Jesus might
then be pondering. They scrupled not, however, to interrupt his
reverie, pestering him with repetitions of their question, What then
sayest thou of her?' At last he raised himself to meet their super-
cilious gaze and give an answer to their mocking words. It was

6

their matter, not his; they had raised the question about their duty; let them act according to their light and conscience. But when 8 John 7 they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.' If, knowing well the infirmities, degradation, and sinful propensities of human nature, they judged it right, wise, expedient, and their duty, to insist upon the rigorous exaction of the stern penalty decreed by Moses so many centuries ago, let them proceed to carry out the sentence. Let any one of them who knew himself to be pure in mind, in heart, in conduct, cast the first stone at her, and then all would be free to follow his example. That was the first and last word of Jesus on the subject. Again he hid his face from everyone, stooped down, and began afresh that mysterious writing on the ground. And again he stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground.' Not one of them dared now to lift his hand first against the woman. When the eldest was seen to rise, it was not to cast a stone, but to leave the place. The next in age and honour followed his example. With every departure, the responsibility laid upon. those remaining was felt the more; one by one each man slunk away, until Jesus and the woman alone were left. 'And they, when they heard it, went out one by one, beginning from the eldest, even unto the last and Jesus was left alone, and the woman where she was, in the midst.' Then Jesus rose from his stooping posture : had he done so sooner, or had he not stooped at all, probably his adversaries would have met his gaze defiantly, and have braved out the matter to the end. It was far better settled thus. Better, it would seem, than Jesus himself anticipated; for his first question indicated unconsciousness and surprise. And Jesus lifted up himself, and said unto her, Woman, where are they?' His last look at them had discerned a general determination to convict her. Was it possible

6

6

that not one out of all of them had formulated the sentence of condemnation? Did no man condemn thee?' Yes! it had turned out even so. And she said, No man, Lord (Sir-Young).' Then she might dismiss all fear: Jesus would be the last man to raise hand or voice against her. And Jesus said, Neither do I condemn thee.' She was free to go, uncondemned, but not unwarned. Let her ever henceforth avoid the sin which had placed her life in peril. Go thy way; from henceforth sin no more.'

6

6

To this narrative the Revisers have appended the note: Most of the ancient authorities omit John vii. 53-viii. 11. Those which contain it vary much from each other.' Alford explains: This passage is to be treated very differently from the rest of the sacred text. In the Alexandrine, Vatican, Paris, and Sinaitic MSS., the ancient Syriac Versions, and all the early fathers, it is omitted: the Cambridge MS., alone of our most ancient authorities contains it. Augustine states, that certain expunged it from their MSS., because they thought it might encourage sin. But this will not account for the very general omission of it, nor for the fact that Ch. vii. 53 is included in the omitted portion. Eusebius assigns it apparently to the apocryphal "Gospel according to the Hebrews.".. In the MSS. which contain it, the number of variations is very much greater than in any other equal portion of Scripture: so much is this the case, that there are in fact three separate texts, it being hardly possible

10

$ John 12

1 John 4

12

5

9

$ John 13

14

to unite them into one.' The passage was rejected by Tischendorf, as no part of the original gospel. But he gives it in two forms, one from the text of D, or the Cambridge MS.; the other according to the received text, or the Elzevir of 1624. Comparing these, the differences are unimportant. The narrative carries on the face of it the stamp of authenticity. The minute details and touches are such as could have been given only by an eye-witness. As in a picture a great artist is revealed by his manner and style, so in this narrative we discern certain inimitable characteristics of Jesus, his wisdom, his caution, his self-restraint, his deep insight, his mastery in argument, his loving gentleness, his broad compassion.

The evangelist_now introduces a new subject with the words, 'Again therefore Jesus spake unto them, saying, I am the light of the world.' The expression again therefore' seems to indicate the recommencement of an address: possibly Jesus had been interrupted, and his congregation dispersed, by the entrance of the priests with the woman; and possibly the rising sun,-the people having assembled at early dawn,-suggested the metaphor. It was very bold, suggestive, self-laudatory, deliberately chosen on that account, -for Jesus added: 'He that followeth me shall not walk in the darkness, but shall have the light of life.' No ordinary man could dare to speak such words; only one who knew himself to be above all others of mankind, in his person, attributes, office, could claim a preeminence so exalted, so superhuman. In this and similar assertions made by Jesus with respect to himself, we find the justification of this evangelist for those astounding statements about the origin, nature and influence of Jesus, which are placed in the forefront of the narrative. When the writer asserted: 'In him was light, and the light was the life of men. And the light shineth in the darkness ; and the darkness overcame it not . . . The true light, which lighteth every man, was coming into the world,'-the authority for such statements was the express declaration of Jesus. The evangelist was not giving us his own notions, but the actual claims and assurances of Jesus himself.

In opposition to the solemn asseveration now made by Jesus that he was the light and life of the world, the Pharisees brought two objections: (1) it was an uncorroborated statement; (2) it was false. 'The Pharisees therefore said unto him, Thou bearest witness of thyself; thy witness is not true.' Jesus took up the question. Even though his statement rested only upon his own word, it was none the less true; for he knew his origin and his destiny, his abode prior to his entrance into this world, and the place which would receive him on his departure hence. Jesus answered and said unto them, Even if I bear witness of myself, my witness is true; for I know whence I came, and whither I go.' On those points they were entirely ignorant, and could exercise only a judgment based upon the 14, 15 ordinary experiences of humanity. But ye know not whence I come, or whither I go. Ye judge after the flesh' Not so did Jesus judge any man; but any judgment he might form would be based upon higher knowledge than that of mankind generally, for it would not be merely human, he being aided by the presence and guidance 15, 16 of Him who had sent him hither. I judge no man. Yea and if I