went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, hHe shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? 24 This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and P we pch. xix. 25. know that his testimony is true. 25 qi And there are also ach. xx. 30. many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they g render, was not to die. h 3 John 12. render, that he was not to die. i render, Moreover there are. follow thou Me, directs his view along that course of duty and suffering, which was appointed for him by his divine Master. In the original, both thou and Me are in emphatic positions: "His appointed lot is no element in thy onward course: it is ME that thou must follow." On the words, if I will that he tarry till I come ...., three opinions have been held (for that which refers the words to John's remaining where he then was, on the shore, till the Lord returned from His colloquy with Peter, is not worth more than cursory mention): (1) that of Augustine and others (it being allowed on all hands, that to tarry means to remain in this life: see abideth (the same word in the original), ch. xii. 34), 'If I will that he remain till I fetch him,' i. e. by a natural death. But this is frigid, and besides inapplicable here. Peter's death, although by the hands of another, was just as much the Lord's 'coming for him,' as John's, and there would thus be no contrast. (2) That that coming of the Lord' is meant, which is so often in the three Gospels alluded to (see especially notes on Matt. xxiv.), viz. the establishment in full of the dispensation of the Kingdom by the destruction of the nation and temple of the Jews. This is the view of some mentioned by Theophylact, of Bengel, and others, and is upheld by the similar place, Matt. xvi. 28. (3) That the Lord here puts a case only, Even should I will that he remain upon earth till My last comingwhat would that be to thee?' This view is upheld by Trench; but I think must be rejected on maturer consideration of the character of the words of our Lord, in whose mouth such a mere hypothetical saying would be strangely incongruous, especially in these last solemn days of His presence on earth. The second view seems then to remain, and I adopt it with some qualification. At the destruction of Jerusalem began that mighty series of events of which the Apocalypse is the prophetic record, and which is in the complex known as the 'COMING OF THE LORD,' ending, as it shall, with His glorious and personal Advent. This the beloved Apostle alone lived to see, according to ancient and undoubted tradition. 23.] the brethren is an expression of later date than any usually occurring in the Gospels. It is however frequent in the Acts: e. g. ix. 30: xi. 1, 12: xii. 17: xv. 1, &c. The following words are to me a proof that this chapter was written during St. John's lifetime. If written by another person after St. John's death, we should certainly, in the refutation of this error, have read, that St. John was dead and buried, as we do read of David in Acts ii. 29. This notion of St. John's not having died, was prevalent in the early Church, -so that Augustine himself seems almost to credit the story of the earth of St. John's tomb heaving with his breath. The English sect of the "seekers," under Cromwell, expected the reappearance of the Apostle as the forerunner of the coming of Christ.' Tholuck. The simple recapitulation of the words of the Lord shews that their sense remained dark to the writer, who ventured on no explanation of them; merely setting his own side of the apostolic duty over against that of Peter, who probably had already by following his Master through the Cross, glorified God, whereas the beloved disciple was, whatever that meant, to tarry till He came. 24, 25.] IDENTIFICATION OF THE AUTHOR, AND CONCLUSION. See remarks below. 24.] The words these things certainly refer to the whole Gospel, not merely to the Appendix-and are quite in St. John's style:-see ch. xii. 41; xx. 31. 25.] The purpose of this verse seems to be to assert and vindicate the fragmentary character of the Gospel, considered merely as an historical narrative: -for that the doings of the Lord were so many,-His life so rich in matter of record,-that, in a popular hyperbole, we can hardly imagine the world containing 'them I Amos vii. 10. should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. [ Amen.] komit. all, if singly written down; thus setting forth the superfluity and cumbrousness of any thing like a perfect detail, in the strongest terms,-and in terms which certainly look as if fault had been found with this Gospel for want of completeness, by some objectors. The reader will have perceived in the foregoing comment on the chapter a manifest leaning to the belief that it was written by St. John himself. Of this I am fully convinced. In every part of it, his hand is plain and unmistakeable: in every part of it, his character and spirit is manifested in a way which none but the most biassed can fail to recognize. I believe it to have been added by him, some years probably after the completion of the Gospel; partly perhaps to record the important miracle of the second draught of fishes, so full of spiritual instruction, and the interesting account of the sayings of the Lord to Peter;-but principally to meet the error which was becoming prevalent concerning himself. In order to do this, he gives a complete account, with all minute details,—even to the number of the fish caught,—of the circumstances preceding the conversation,and the very words of the Lord Himself: not pretending to put a meaning on those words, but merely asserting that they announced no such thing as that he should not die. Surely nothing can be more na tural than this. External evidence completely tallies with this view. The chapter is contained in all the principal MSS.; and there is no greater variety of reading than usual. In these respects it differs remarkably from John vii. 53-viii. 11, and indeed from even Mark xvi. 9-20. Internal evidence of style and diction is nearly balanced. It certainly contains several words and constructions not met with elsewhere in John (see these noticed in my Greek Test.); but, on the other hand, the whole cast of it is his;-the coupling particles are his ;-the train of thought, and manner of narration. And all allowance should be made for the double alteration of style of writing which would be likely to be brought about, by lapse of time, and by the very nature of an appendix,a fragment, not forming part of a whole written continuously, but standing by itself. The last two verses, from their contents, we might expect to have more of the epistolary form; and accordingly we find them singularly in style resembling the Epistles of John. On the whole, I am persuaded that in this chapter we have a fragment, both authentic and genuine, added, for reasons apparent on the face of it, by the Apostle himself, bearing evidence of his hand, but in a second manner,'- a later style;-probably in the decline of life. THE ACTS OF THE A POST LE S. I. 1 THE former treatise have I made, O a Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach, 2 b until the day in which he was taken up, after that he a through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles 19. Mark xvi. 15. John xx. 21. ch. x. 41, 42. a better, in order to preserve the ambiguity in the original (see note), had given commandments to the Apostles whom he had chosen through the Holy Ghost. On the title, see Introduction. 1-8.] INTRODUCTION. 1. The former treatise....] The latter member of this sentence, but the present one . . . . is wanting, and the Author proceeds at once to his narration, binding this second history to the first by recapitulating and enlarging the account given in the conclusion of the Gospel. of all that Jesus....] Whatever latitude may be given to the word all, it must at all events serve to refute the notion that St. Luke had at this time seen the Gospels of Matthew or Mark, in which many things which Jesus did and taught are contained, which he had not related in his former treatise. On Theophilus, see notes, Luke i. 3. that Jesus began both to do and teach] I cannot think began here to be merely superfluous. Its position here shews that it is emphatic, and the parallel cases (Matt. iv. 17: Mark i. 45: Luke xiii. 25; xxiii. 5) all point to a distinct and appropriate meaning for the word. That meaning here seems to be, that the Gospel contained the beginnings, the outset, of all the doings and teachings of our Lord, as distinguished from this second treatise, which was to relate their sequel and results. Meyer understands itwhich Jesus first of all men did, &c. But VOL. I. this introduces a meaning irrelevant to the context, besides not giving the emphasis to the word began, which it must have by the arrangement of the original, but to the word Jesus. The position of emphasis given to the verb shews, that the beginning of the doing and teaching of Jesus must be contrasted with the continuance of the same, now about to be related. 2. he was taken up] The use of the verb in this abbreviated form, without the addition of "into heaven," testifies to the familiarity of the apostolic church with the Ascension as a formal and recognized event in our Lord's course. had given commandments unto the apostles] See Luke xxiv. 48 ff., and ver. 4 below. The words through the Holy Ghost may, in the original, be joined either with had given commandments, or with had chosen. There are ancient authorities both ways. In the former case, our Lord is said to have given His commands to the Apostles through, or in the power of, the Holy Ghost. Similarly He is said, Heb. ix. 14, "through the Eternal Spirit to have offered Himself without spot to God." In the latter, He is said to have chosen the Apostles by the power of the Holy Ghost. Similarly, in ch. xx. 28, Paul tells U U Luke xxiv. 36. John XX. 19, 26: xxi. 1, 14. 1 Cor. xv. 5. e Luke xxiv. e & Mark xvi. 14. whom he had chosen: 3 d to whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God: 4 and, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which [, saith he,] ye have heard of me. 43, 49. f Luke xxiv. 49. John xiv. 16, 26, 27: xv. 26: xvi. 7. ch. ii. 33. g Matt. iii. 11. ch. xi, 16: xix. 4. h Joel iii. 18. ch. ii. 4: xi. 15. f h 58 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence. 1 Matt. xxiv. 3. 6 d When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, k Isa. i. 26. j Dan. vii. 27. saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the Amos ix. 11. b not expressed in the original. Crender, Because. render, They therefore came together and asked him. the Ephesian elders, that the Holy Ghost had made them bishops in the Church of God. The former construction however appears much the best, as expressing not, as might at first seem, a mere commonplace, but the propriety of the fact, that His last commands were given in the power of (see John xx. 22) the Holy Ghost. 3. by infallible proofs] See Luke xxiv. 31, 39, 43. being seen of them forty days] It is hardly possible to give in English the exact force of the original, which implies that He was occasionally seen by them during a period of forty days. "He was not always with them as before the Resurrection," says Chrysostom: for the " Evangelist does not say He was seen for forty days, but [at times] during forty days." This is the only place where the duration of the interval between the Resurrection and the Ascension is specified. the things pertaining to the kingdom of God] What things these were, we are not told. Certainly, not future events in their detail, as the next portion of the narrative shews us. I should rather believe them to have concerned the future founding and government of the Church: though even here the greatest Apostles were apparently left to the unfolding of the teaching of the Holy Spirit as years went on. 4-14.] THE LAST DISCOURSES AND ASCENSION OF THE LORD. RETURN OF THE APOSTLES TO JERUSALEM; RECAPITULATION OF THEIR NAMES. 4. being assembled together with them] so the original word imports, not "eating together with them," which marginal reading of the A. V. originated in a mistake as to the etymology of the word. that they should not depart from Jerusalem] See Luke xxiv. 49. 66 They are com manded to remain together, because they days hence] literally, after these not many 36. Mark 1 Thess. v. 1. m ch. ii. 1, 4. kingdom to Israel? 7 And he said unto them, 'It is not 1 Matt. xxiv. for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own ee power. 8 mf But ye shall receive power, 1g after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and shall be a witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in ye e render, But. n 40. Luke xxiv. Luke xxiv. 48. John xv. 27. ver. .ch. II. 32. ee render, authority. It is not the same word as that rendered power in the next verse. f render, Howbeit. render, by the Holy Ghost coming upon you. h better literally, my witnesses. "assembling" of ver. 4. Lord, wilt thou restore] literally, dost thou restore? The stress of the question is in the words, which in the original are prefixed for emphasis, at this time. That the Kingdom was, in some sense, and at some time, to be restored to Israel, was plain; nor does the Lord deny this implication (see on ver. 8). Their fault was, a too curious enquiry on a point reserved among the secrets of God. Lightfoot's idea, that the disciples wondered at the Kingdom being about to be restored to the ungrateful Jews, at this time, now that they had crucified Him, &c., would make our Lord's answer irrelevant.See Micah iv. 8.-Meyer would refer at, or in this time, to the interval designated by "not many days hence," "during this time;" "wilt thou, during this time, restore?" But this does not seem natural. I should rather understand it, at this present period, now. The present tense, dost thou restore (see above), is often used in speaking with reference to matters of prophecy, importing fixed determination. So that we must not understand it, "Art thou restoring?" but "will," or "dost thou restore ?" 7.] This is a general reproof and assertion, spoken with reference to men, as forbidden to search curiously into a point which Omniscience has reserved--the times and seasons of the future divine dealings. But it is remarkable that not "God," but the Father is here used; and this cannot fail to remind us of that saying (Mark xiii. 32), "But of that day or hour knoweth none, no not an angel in heaven, (so in our oldest MSS.,) nor even the Son, but the Father." It may be observed however, that the same assertion is not made here: only the times and seasons said to be in the power of the Almighty Father, Who ordereth all things "according to the counsel of His will." The Knowledge of the Son is not here in question, only that of the disciples. It is an enquiry intimately connected with the interpretation of the two passages, but one beyond our power to resolve, how far, among the things not yet put under His feet, may be this very thing, the knowledge of that day and hour.-Bengel attempts to evade the generality of the assertion It is not for you to know.. "It was not yet for the Apostles to know these," he says; "but they were afterwards signified by the Apocalypse." But signified to whom? What individual, or portion of the Church, has ever read plainly these times or seasons in that mysterious book? -There is truth in Olshausen's remark, that the Apostles were to be less prophets of the future, than witnesses of the past; but we must not limit the word you to the Apostles, nor forget that the knowledge of times and seasons has very seldom been imparted by prophecy, which generally has formed a testimony to this very fact, that God has them in His foreknowledge, and, while He announces the events, conceals for the most part in obscurity the times. times or seasons] The two do not signify the same thing: times being the wider term, applicable to any kind of portion or point of duration, whereas a season is always a definite, limited space of time, and involves the idea of transitori8.] "As the best means of bridling their curiosity, Christ recalls them both to God's promise and to His command." Calvin. Howbeit "marks ness. the contrast between that which did be- See |