RPM, Volume 17, Number 46, November 8 to November 14, 2015

Barnes' New Testament Notes

Notes on the New Testament Explanatory and Practical
Part 28

By Albert Barnes

Grand Rapids, Mich.:
Baker Book House, 1949.



John, the writer of this Gospel, was the son of Zebedee and Salome; compare Mt 27:56 with Mr 15:40,41. His father was a fisherman of Galilee, though it would appear that he was not destitute of property, and was not in the lowest condition of life. He had hired men in his employ, Mr 1:20. Salome is described as one who attended our Saviour in his travels, and ministered to his wants, Mt 27:55; Mr 15:41. Jesus commended his own mother Mary, on the cross, to John, and he took her to his own home (Joh 19:26,27), with whom, history informs us, she lived until her death, about fifteen years after the crucifixion of Christ; and John was known to Caiaphas, the high-priest, Joh 18:15. From all this it would seem not improbable that John had some property, and was better known than any of the other apostles.

He was the youngest of the apostles when called, and lived to the greatest age, and is the only one who is supposed to have died a peaceful death. He was called to be a follower of Jesus while engaged with his father and his elder brother James mending their nets at the Sea of Tiberias, Mt 4:21; Mr 1:19; Lu 5:10.

John was admitted by our Saviour to peculiar favour and friendship. One of the ancient fathers (Theophylact) says that he was related to him.

"Joseph," he says, "had seven children by a former wife, four sons and three daughters, Martha, Esther, and Salome, whose son John was; therefore Salome was reckoned our Lord's sister, and John was his nephew."

If this was the case it may explain the reason why James and John sought and expected the first places in his kingdom, Mt 20:20,21. These may also possibly be the persons who were called our Lord's "brethren" and "sisters," Mt 13:55,56. This may also explain the reason why our Saviour committed his mother to the care of John on the cross, Joh 19:27. The two brothers, James and John, with Peter, were several times admitted to peculiar favours by our Lord. They were the only disciples that were permitted to be present at the raising of the daughter of Jairus, Mr 5:37; Lu 8:51; they only were permitted to attend the Saviour to the mount where he was transfigured, Mt 17:1; Mr 9:2. The same three were permitted to be present at his sufferings in the garden of Gethsemane, Mt 26:36-45; Mr 14:32-42. And it was to these disciples, together with Andrew, to whom the Saviour specially addressed himself when he made known the desolations that were coming upon Jerusalem and Judea; compare Mt 24:12; Mr 13:3,4.

John was also admitted to peculiar friendship with the Lord Jesus. Hence he is mentioned as "that disciple whom Jesus loved" (Joh 19:26), and he is represented (Joh 13:23) as leaning on his bosom at the institution of the Lord's Supper-an evidence of peculiar friendship. See Barnes "Joh 13:23".

Though the Redeemer was attached to all his disciples, yet there is no improbability in supposing that his disposition was congenial with that of the meek and amiable John—thus authorizing and setting the example of special friendships among Christians.

To John was committed the care of Mary, the mother of Jesus. After the ascension of Christ he remained some time at Jerusalem, Ac 1:14; 3:1; 4:13.

John is also mentioned as having been sent down to Samaria to preach the gospel there with Peter (Ac 8:14-25); and from Acts chapter 15 it appears that he was present at the council at Jerusalem, A.D. 49 or 50. All this agrees with what is said by Eusebius, that he lived at Jerusalem till the death of Mary, fifteen years after the crucifixion of Christ. Till this time it is probable that he had not been engaged in preaching the gospel among the Gentiles.

At what time he went first among the Gentiles to preach the gospel is not certainly known. It has commonly been supposed that he resided in Judea and the neighbourhood until the war broke out with the Romans, and that he came into Asia Minor about the year 69 or 70. It is clear that he was not at Ephesus at the time that Paul visited those regions, as in all the travels of Paul and Luke there is no mention made of John.

Ecclesiastical history informs us that he spent the latter part of his life in Asia Minor, and that he resided chiefly at Ephesus, the chief city of that country. Of his residence there little is certainly known. In the latter part of his life he was banished to Patmos, a small desolate island in the AEgean Sea, about twenty miles in circumference. This is commonly supposed to have been during the persecution of Domitian, i.n the latter part of his reign. Domitian died A.D. 96. It is probable that he returned soon after that, in the reign of the Emperor Trajan. In that island he wrote the book of Revelation. See Barnes "Re 1:9".

After his return from Patmos he lived peaceably at Ephesus until his death, which is supposed to have occurred not long after. He was buried at Ephesus; and it has been commonly thought that he was the only one of the apostles who did not suffer martyrdom. It is evident that he lived to a very advanced period of life. We know not his age, indeed, when Christ called him to follow him, but we cannot suppose it was less than twenty-five or thirty. If so, he must have been not far from one hundred years old when he died.

Many anecdotes are related of him while he remained at Ephesus, but there is no sufficient evidence of their truth. Some have said that he was taken to Rome in a time of persecution and thrown into a caldron of boiling oil, and came out uninjured. It has been said also that, going into a bath one day at Ephesus, he perceived Cerinthus, who denied the divinity of the Saviour, and that he fled from him hastily, to express his disapprobation of his doctrine. It is also said, and of this there can be no doubt, that during his latter years he was not able to make a long discourse. He was carried to the church, and was accustomed to say nothing but this, "Little children, love one another." At length his disciples asked him why he always dwelt upon the same thing. He replied, "Because it is the Lord's command; and if this be done, it is sufficient."

Learned men have been much divided about the time when this Gospel was written. Wetstein supposed it was written just after our Saviour's ascension; Mill and Le Clerc, that it was written in 97; Dr. Lardner, that it was about the year 68, just before the destruction of Jerusalem. The common opinion is that it was written at Ephesus after his return from Patmos, and of course as late as the year 97 or 98. Nothing can be determined with certainty on the subject, and it is a matter of very little consequence.

There is no doubt that it was written by John. This is abundantly confirmed by the ancient fathers, and was not questioned by Celsus, Porphyry, or Julian, the acutest enemies of revelation in the early ages. It has never been extensively questioned to have been the work of John, and is one of the books of the New Testament whose canonical authority was never disputed. See Lardner, or Paley's Evidences.

The design of writing it John himself states, Joh 20:31. It was to show that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God, and that those who believed might have life through his name. This design is kept in view through the whole Gospel, and should be remembered in our attempts to explain it. Various attempts have been made to show that he wrote it to confute the followers of Cerinthus and the Gnostics, but no satisfactory evidence of such a design has been furnished.

As he wrote after the other evangelists, he has recorded many things which they omitted. He dwells much more fully than they do on the divine character of Jesus; relates many things pertaining to the early part of his ministry which they had omitted; records many more of his discourses than they have done, and particularly the interesting discourse at the institution of the Supper. See chapters 14-17.

It has been remarked that there are evidences in this Gospel that it was not written for the Jews. The author explains words and customs which to a Jew would have needed no explanation. See Joh 1:38,41 Joh 5:1,2; 7:2; 4:9.

The style in the Greek indicates that he was an unlearned man. It is simple, plain, unpolished, such as we should suppose would be used by one in his circumstances. At the same time it is dignified, containing pure and profound sentiments, and is on many accounts the most difficult of all the books of the New Testament to interpret. It contains more about Christ, his person, design, and work, than any of the other Gospels. The other evangelists were employed more in recording the miracles, and giving external evidence of the divine mission of Jesus. John is employed chiefly in telling us what he was, and what was his peculiar doctrine. His aim was to show,

1st. That Jesus was the Messiah.

2nd. To show, from the words of Jesus himself, what the Messiah was. The other evangelists record his parables, his miracles, his debates with the Scribes and Pharisees; John records chiefly his discourses about himself. If anyone wishes to learn the true doctrine respecting the Messiah, the Son of God, expressed in simple language, but with most sublime conceptions; to learn the true nature and character of God, and the way of approach to his mercy-seat; to see the true nature of Christian piety, or the source and character of religious consolation; to have perpetually before him the purest model of character the world has seen, and to contemplate the purest precepts that have ever been delivered to man, he cannot better do it than by a prayerful study of the Gospel by John. It may be added that this Gospel is of itself proof that cannot be overthrown of the truth of revelation. John was a fisherman, unhonoured and unlearned, Ac 4:13. What man in that rank of life now could compose a book like this? Can it be conceived that any man of that rank, unless under the influence of inspiration, could conceive so sublime notions of God, could present so pure views of morals, and could draw a character so inimitably lovely and pure as that of Jesus Christ? To ask these questions is to answer them. And this Gospel will stand to the end of time as an unanswerable demonstration that the fisherman who wrote it was under a more than human guidance, and was, according to the promise that he has recorded (Joh 16:13 comp. Joh 14:26), guided into all truth. It will also remain as an unanswerable proof that the character which he has described—the character of the Lord Jesus—was real. It is a perfect character. It has not a flaw. How has this happened? The attempt has often been made to draw a perfect character—and as often, in every other instance, failed. How is it, when Homer and Virgil, and the ancient historians, have all failed to describe a perfect character, with the purest models before them, and with all the aid of imagination, that in every instance they have failed? How is it that this has at last been accomplished only by a Jewish fisherman? The difficulty is vastly increased if another idea is borne in mind. John describes one who he believed had a divine nature, Joh 1:1. It is an attempt to describe God in human nature, or to show how the Divine Being acts when united with man, or when appearing in human form. And the description is complete. There is not a word expressed by the Lord Jesus, or an emotion ascribed to him, inconsistent with such a supposition. But this same attempt was often made, and as often failed. Homer and Virgil, and all the ancient poets, have undertaken to show what the gods would be if they came down and conversed with man. And what were they? What were Jupiter, and Juno, and Venus, and Mars, and Vulcan? Beings of lust, and envy, and contention, and blood. How has it happened that the only successful account which has been given of the divine nature united with the human, and of living and acting as became such a union, has been given by a Jewish fisherman? How, unless the character was real, and the writer under a guidance far superior to the genius of Homer and the imagination of Virgil—the guidance of the Holy Spirit?


Verse 1. In the beginning. This expression is used also in Ge 1:1. To that place John evidently has allusion here, and means to apply to "the Word" an expression which is there applied to God. In both places it clearly means "before creation," "before the world was made," "when as yet there was nothing." The meaning is, that the Word had an existence before the world was created. This is not spoken of the man Jesus, but of that which became a man, or was incarnate, Joh 1:14. The Hebrews, by expressions like this, commonly denoted eternity. Thus the eternity of God is described (Ps 90:2): Before the mountains were brought forth, &c.; and eternity is commonly expressed by the phrase, before the foundation of the world. Whatever is meant by the term "Word," it is clear that it had an existence before creations. It is not, then, a creature or created being, and must be, therefore, uncreated and eternal. There is but one Being that is uncreated, and Jesus must be therefore divine. Compare the Saviour's own declarations respecting himself in the following places: Joh 8:58; 17:5; 6:62; 3:13; 6:46; 8:14; 16:28.

Was the Word. Greek, "was the Logos." This name is given to him who afterward became flesh, or was incarnate (Joh 1:14)—that is, to the Messiah. Whatever is meant by it, therefore, is applicable to the Lord Jesus Christ. There have been many opinions about the reason why this name was given to the Son of God. Those opinions it is unnecessary to repeat. The opinion which seems most plausible may be expressed as follows:

1st. A word is that by which we communicate our will; by which we convey our thoughts;

2nd. The Son of God may be called "the Word," because he is the medium by which God promulgates his will and issues his commandments. See Heb 1:1-3.

3rd. This term was in use before the time of John.

(a) It was used in the Chaldee translation of the Old Testament, as, e.g., Is 45:12: "I have made the earth, and created man upon it." In the Chaldee it is, "I, by my word, have made," &c. Isa 48:13: "Mine hand also hath laid the foundation of the earth." In the Chaldee, "By my word I have founded the earth." And so in many other places.

(b) This term was used by the Jews as applicable to the Messiah. In their writings he was commonly known by the term "Mimra "—that is, "Word;" and no small part of the interpositions of God in defence of the Jewish nation were declared to be by "the Word of God." Thus, in their Targum on De 26:17,18, it is said, "Ye have appointed THE WORD OF GOD a king over you this day, that he may be your God."

(c) The term was used by the Jews who were scattered among the Gentiles, and especially those who were conversant with the Greek philosophy.

(d) The term was used by the followers of Plato among the Greeks, to denote the second person of the Trinity. The term nous, or mind, was commonly given to this second person, but it was said that this nous was the word or reason of the first person. The term was therefore extensively in use among the Jews and Gentiles before John wrote his Gospel, and it was certain that it would be applied to the second person of the Trinity by Christians, whether converted from Judaism or Paganism. It was important, therefore, that the meaning of the term should be settled by an inspired man, and accordingly John, in the commencement of his Gospel, is at much pains to state clearly what is the true doctrine respecting the Logos, or Word. It is possible, also, that the doctrines of the Gnostics had begun to spread in the time of John. They were an Oriental sect, and held that the Logos or Word was one of the Aeons that had been created, and that this one had been united to the man Jesus. If that doctrine had begun then to prevail, it was of the more importance for John to settle the truth in regard to the rank of the Logos or Word. This he has done in such a way that there need be no doubt about its meaning.

Was with God. This expression denotes friendship or intimacy. Comp. Mr 9:19. John affirms that he was with God in the beginning— that is, before the world was made. It implies, therefore, that he was partaker of the divine glory; that he was blessed and happy with God. It proves that he was intimately united with the Father, so as to partake of his glory and to be appropriately called by the name God. He has himself explained it. See Joh 17:5: And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self, with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. See also Joh 1:18: No man hath seen God at any time, the only-begotten Son, which IS IN THE BOSOM OF THE FATHER, he hath declared him. See also Joh 3:13: The Son of man, which is in heaven. Comp. Php 2:6,7.

Was God. In the previous phrase John had said that the Word was with God. Lest it should be supposed that he was a different and inferior being, he here states that he was God. There is no more unequivocal declaration in the Bible than this, and there could be no stronger proof that the sacred writer meant to affirm that the Son of God was equal with the Father; for,

1st. There is no doubt that by the Logos is meant Jesus Christ.

2nd. This is not an attribute or quality of God, but is a real subsistence, for it is said that the Logos was made flesh—that is, became a man.

3rd. There is no variation here in the manuscripts, and critics have observed that the Greek will bear no other construction than what is expressed in our translation-that the Word was God.

4th. There is no evidence that John intended to use the word God in aninferior sense. It is not "the Word was a god," or "the Word was like God," but the Word was God. He had just used the word God as evidently applicable to Jehovah, the true God; and it is absurd to suppose that the would in the same verse, and without any indication that he was using the word in an inferior sense, employ it to denote a being altogether inferior to the true God.

5th. The name God is elsewhere given to him, showing that he is the supreme God. See Ro 9:5; Heb 1:8,9,10-12; 1 Jo 5:20; Joh 20:28.

The meaning of this important verse may then be thus summed up:

1st. The name Logos, or Word, is given to Christ in reference to his becoming the Teacher or Instructor of mankind; the medium of communication between God and man.

2nd. The name was in use at the time of John, and it was his design to state the correct doctrine respecting the Logos.

3rd. The Word, or Logos, existed before creation—of course was not a creature, and must have been, therefore, from eternity.

4th. He was with God—that is, he was united to him in a most intimate and close union before the creation; and, as it could not be said that God was with himself, it follows that the Logos was in some sense distinct from God, or that there was a distinction between the Father and the Son. When we say that one is with another, we imply that there is some sort of distinction between them.

5th. Yet, lest it should be supposed that he was a different and inferior being—a creature—he affirms that he was God—that is, was equal with the Father. This is the foundation of the doctrine of the Trinity:

1. That the second person is in some sense distinct from the first.

2. That he is intimately united with the first person in essence, so that there are not two or more Gods.

3. That the second person may be called by the same name; has the same attributes; performs the same works; and is entitled to the same honours with the first, and that therefore he is "the same in substance, and equal in power and glory," with God.

{a} "In the beginning" Pr 8:22-31; Col 1:16,17; 1 Jo 1:1

{b} "the Word" Re 19:13 {c} "with God" Joh 17:5

{d} "was God" Php 2:6; Heb 1:8-13; 1 Jo 5:7


Verse 2. The same. The Word, or the Logos,

Was in the beginning with God. This seems to be a repetition of what was said in the first verse; but it is stated over again to guard the doctrine, and to prevent the possibility of a mistake. John had said that he existed before the creation, and that he was with God; but he had not said in the first verse that the union with God existed in the beginning. He now expresses that idea, and assures us that that union was not one which was commenced in time, and which might be, therefore, a mere union of feeling, or a compact, like that between any other beings, but was one which existed in eternity, and which was therefore a union of nature or essence.


Verse 3. All things. The universe. The expression cannot be limited to any part of the universe. It appropriately expresses everything which exists—all the vast masses of material worlds, and all the animals and things, great or small, that compose those worlds. See Re 4:11; Heb 1:2; Col 1:16.

Were made. The original word is from the verb to be, and signifies "were" by him; but it expresses the idea of creation here. It does not alter the sense whether it is said "were by him," or "were created by him." The word is often used in the sense of creating, or forming from nothing. See Jas 3:9; Ge 2:4 Isa 48:7, in the Septuagint.

By him. In this place it is affirmed that creation was effected by the Word, or the Son of God. In Ge 1:1, it is said that the Being who created the heavens and the earth was God. In Ps 102:25-28, this work is ascribed to Jehovah. The Word, or the Son of God, is therefore appropriately called God. The work of creation is uniformly ascribed in the Scriptures to the second person of the Trinity. See Col 1:16; Heb 1:2,10.

By this is meant, evidently, that he was the agent, or the efficient cause, by which the universe was made. There is no higher proof of omnipotence than the work of creation; and hence God often appeals to that work to prove that he is the true God, in opposition to idols. See Isa 40:18-28 Jer 10:3-16; Ps 24:2; 39:11; Pr 3:19.

It is absurd to say that God can invest a creature with omnipotence. If he can make a creature omnipotent, he can make him omniscient, and can in the same way make him omnipresent, and infinitely wise and good; that is, he can invest a creature with all his own attributes, or make another being like himself, or, which is the same thing, there could be two Gods, or as many Gods as he should choose to make. But this is absurd. The Being, therefore, that created all things must be divine; and as this work is ascribed to Jesus Christ, and as it is uniformly in the Scriptures declared to be the work of God, Jesus Christ is therefore equal with the Father.

Without him. Without his agency; his notice; the exertion of his power. Comp. Mt 10:29. This is a strong way of speaking, designed to confirm, beyond the possibility of doubt, what he had just said. He says, therefore, in general, that all things were made by Christ. In this part of the verse he shuts out all doubt, and affirms that there was no exceptions; that there was not a single thing, however minute or unimportant, which was not made by him. In this way he confirms what he said in the first verse. Christ was not merely called God, but he did the works of God, and therefore the name is used in its proper sense as implying supreme divinity. To this same test Jesus himself appealed as proving that he was divine. Joh 10:37: If I do not THE WORKS of my Father, believe me not. Joh 5:17: MY FATHER worketh hitherto, and I work.

{e} "All things" Ps 33:6; Eph 3:9


Verse 4. In him was life. The evangelist had just affirmed Joh 1:3 that by the Logos or Word the world was originally created. One part of that creation consisted in breathing into man the breath of life, Ge 2:7. God is declared to be life, or the living God, because he is the source or fountain of life. This attribute is here ascribed to Jesus Christ. He not merely made the material worlds, but he also gave life. He was the agent by which the vegetable world became animated; by which brutes live; and by which man became a living soul, or was endowed with immortality. This was a higher proof that the "Word was God," than the creation of the material worlds; but there is another sense in which he was life. The new creation, or the renovation of man and his restoration from a state of sin, is often compared with the first creation; and as the Logos was the source of life then, so, in a similar but higher sense, he is the source of life to the soul dead in trespasses and sins, Eph 2:1. And it is probably in reference to this that he is so often called life in the writings of John. "For as the Father hath life in himself, so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself," Joh 5:26; "He giveth life unto the world," Joh 6:33; "I am the resurrection and the life," Joh 11:25; "This is the true God and eternal life," 1 Jo 5:20. See also 1 Jo 1:1,2; 5:11; Ac 3:15; Col 3:4.

The meaning is, that he is the source or the fountain of both natural and spiritual life. Of course he has the attributes of God.

The life was the light of men. Light is that by which we see objects distinctly. The light of the sun enables us to discern the form, the distance, the magnitude, and the relation of objects, and prevents the perplexities and dangers which result from a state of darkness. Light is in all languages, therefore, put for knowledge —for whatever enables us to discern our duty, and that saves us from the evils of ignorance and error. "Whatsoever doth make manifest is light," Eph 5:13. See Isa 8:20; 9:2. The Messiah was predicted as the light of the world, Isa 9:2, compared with Mt 4:15,16; Isa 60:1. See Joh 8:12, "I am the light of the world;" Joh 12:35,36,46

"I am come a light into the world." The meaning is, that the Logos or Word of God is the instructor or teacher of man-kind. This was done before his advent by his direct agency in giving man reason or understanding, and in giving his law, for the "law was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator" (Ga 3:19); after his advent by his personal ministry when on earth, by his Spirit (Joh 14:16,26), and by his ministers since, Eph 4:11; 1 Co 12:28.

{f} "In him was life" Joh 5:26; 1 Jo 5:11

{g} "the light of men" Joh 8:12


Verse 5. The light shineth in darkness . Darkness, in the Bible, commonly denotes ignorance, guilt, or misery. See Is 9:1,2, Mt 4:16; Ac 26:18; Eph 5:8,11; Re 13:12.

It refers here to a wicked and ignorant people. When it is said that "the light shineth in darkness," it is meant that the Lord Jesus came to teach an ignorant, benighted, and wicked world: This has always been the case. It was so when he sent his prophets; so during his own ministry; and so in every age since. His efforts to enlighten and save men have been like light struggling to penetrate a thick, dense cloud; and though a few rays may pierce the gloom, yet the great mass is still an impenetrable shade.

Comprehended it not. This word means admitted it not, or received it not. The word comprehend, with us, means to understand. This is not the meaning of the original. The darkness did not receive or admit the rays of light; the shades were so thick that the light could not penetrate them; or, to drop the figure, men were so ignorant, so guilty, so debased, that they did not appreciate the value of his instructions; they despised and rejected him. And so it is still. The great mass of men, sunk in sin, will not receive his teachings, and be enlightened and saved by him. Sin always blinds the mind to the beauty and excellency of the character of the Lord Jesus. It indisposes the mind to receive his instructions, just as darkness has no affinity for light; and if the one exists, the other must be displaced.

{light shineth in darkness} Joh 3:19 {comprehendeth it not} 1 Co 2:14


Verse 6. A man sent from God. See Matthew, Chapter 3. The evangelist proceeds now to show that John the Baptist was not the Messiah, and to state the true nature of his office. Many had supposed that he was the Christ, but this opinion he corrects; yet he admits that he was sent from God—that he was divinely commissioned. Though he denied that he was the Messiah, yet he did not deny that he was sent from or by heaven on an important errand to men. Some have supposed that the sole design of this gospel was to show that John the Baptist was not the Messiah. Though there is no foundation for this opinion, yet there is no doubt that one object was to show this. The main design was to show that Jesus was the Christ, Joh 20:31. To do this, it was proper, in the beginning, to prove that John was not the Messiah; and this might have been at that time an important object. John made many disciples, Mt 3:5. Many persons supposed that he might be the Messiah, Lu 3:15; Joh 1:19. Many of these disciples of John remained AT EPHESUS, the very place where John is supposed to have written this gospel, long after the ascension of Jesus, Ac 19:1-3. It is not improbable that there might have been many others who adhered to John, and perhaps many who supposed that he was the Messiah. On these accounts it was important for the evangelist to show that John was not the Christ, and to show, also, that he, who was extensively admitted to be a prophet, was an important witness to prove that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ. The evangelist in the first four verses stated that "the Word" was divine; he now proceeds to state the proof that he was a man

, and was the Messiah. The first evidence adduced is the testimony of John the Baptist.

{k} "man sent from God" Lu 3:2,3


Verses 7, 8. For a witness. To give testimony. He came to prepare the minds of the people to receive him (Mt. 3; Lu. 3.); to lead them by repentance to God; and to point out the Messiah to Israel when he came, Joh 1:31.

Of the Light. That is, of the Messiah. Comp. Isa 60:1.

That all men, &c. It was the object of John's testimony that all men might believe. He designed to prepare them for it; to announce that the Messiah was about to come, to direct the minds of men to him, and thus to fit them to believe on him when he came. Thus he baptized them, saying "That they should believe on him who should come after him" (Ac 19:4), and thus he produced a very general expectation that the Messiah was about to come. The testimony of John was peculiarly valuable on the following accounts:

1st. It was made when he had no personal acquaintance with Jesus of Nazareth, and of course there could have been no collusion or agreement to deceive them, Joh 1:31.

2nd. It was sufficiently long before he came to excite general attention, and to fix the mind on it.

3rd. It was that of a man acknowledged by all to be a prophet of God—"for all men held John to be a prophet," Mt 21:26.

4th. It was for the express purpose of declaring beforehand that he was about to appear.

5th. It was disinterested. He was himself extremely popular. Many were disposed to receive him as the Messiah. It was evidently in his power to form a large party, and to be regarded extensively as the Christ. This was the highest honour to which a Jew could aspire; and it shows the value of John's testimony, that he was willing to lay all his honours at the feet of Jesus, and to acknowledge that he was unworthy to perform for him the office of the humblest servant, Mt 3:11.

Through him. Through John, or by means of his testimony.

Was not that Light. Was not the Messiah. This is an explicit declaration designed to satisfy the disciples of John. The evidence that he was not the Messiah he states in the following verses.

From the conduct of John here we may learn,

1st. The duty of laying all our honours at the feet of Jesus.

2nd. As John came that all might believe, so it is no less true of the ministry of Jesus himself. He came for a similar purpose, and we may ALL, therefore, trust in him for salvation.

3rd. We should not rely too much on ministers of the gospel. They cannot save us any more than John could; and their office, as his was, is simply to direct men to the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world.


Verse 8. No Barnes text on this verse.

{l} "He was not" Ac 19:4


Verse 9. That was the true Light. Not John, but the Messiah. He was not a false, uncertain, dangerous guide, but was one that was true, real, steady, and worthy of confidence. A false light is one that leads to danger or error, as a false beacon on the shores of the ocean may lead ships to quicksands or rocks; or an ignis fatuus to fens, and precipices, and death. A true light is one that does not deceive us, as the true beacon may guide us into port or warn us of danger. Christ does not lead astray. All false teachers do.

That lighteth. That enlightens. He removes darkness, error, ignorance, from the mind.

Every man. This is an expression denoting, in general, the whole human race—Jews and Gentiles. John preached to the Jews. Jesus came to be a light to lighten the Gentiles, as well as to be the glory of the people of Israel, Lu 2:32.

That cometh into the world. The phrase in the original is ambiguous. The word translated "that cometh" may either refer to the light, or to the word man; so that it may mean either "this true light that cometh into the world enlightens all," or "it enlightens every man that cometh into the world." Many critics, and, among the fathers, Cyril and Augustine, have preferred the former, and translated, "The true light was he who, coming into the world, enlightened every man." The principal reasons for this are,

1st. That the Messiah is often spoken of as he that cometh into the world. See Joh 6:14; 18:37.

2nd. He is often distinguished as "the light that cometh into the world." Joh 3:19: "This is the condemnation, that light is come into the world." Joh 12:46: "I am come a light into the world." Christ may be said to do what is accomplished by his command or appointment. This passage means, therefore, that by his own personal ministry, and by his Spirit and apostles, light or teaching is afforded to all. It does not mean that every individual of the human family is enlightened with the knowledge of the gospel, for this never yet has been; but it means,

1st. That this light is not confined to the Jews, but is extended to all—Jews and Gentiles.

2nd. That it is provided for all and offered to all.

3rd. It is not affirmed that at the time that John wrote all were actually enlightened, but the word "lighteth" has the form of the future. This is that light so long expected and predicted, which, as the result its coming into the world, will ultimately enlighten all nations.

{m} "true light" Isa 49:6


Verse 10. He was in the world. This refers, probably, not to his pre-existence, but to the fact that he became incarnate; that he dwelt among men.

And the world was made by him. This is a repetition of what is said in Joh 1:3. Not only men, but all material things, were made by him. These facts are mentioned here to make what is said immediately after more striking, to wit, that men did not receive him. The proofs which he furnished that they ought to receive him were,

1st. Those given while he was in the world—the miracles that he wrought and his instructions; and,

2nd. The fact that the world was made by him, It was remarkable that the world did not know or approve its own maker.

The world knew him not. The word knew is sometimes used in the sense of approving or loving, Ps 1:6; Mt 7:23. In this sense it may be used here. The world did not love or approve him, but rejected him and put him to death. Or it may mean that they did not understand or know that he was the Messiah; for had the Jews known and believed that he was the Messiah, they would not have put him to death, 1 Co 2:8: "Had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory." Yet they might have known it, and therefore they were not the less to blame.

{m} "and the world knew him not" Joh 1:3


Verse 11. He came unto his own. His own land or country. It was called his land because it was the place of his birth, and also because it was the chosen land where God delighted to dwell and to manifest his favour. See Isa 5:1-7. Over that land the laws of God had been extended, and that land had been regarded as peculiarly his, Ps 147:19,20.

His own. His own people. There is a distinction here in the original words which is not preserved in the translation. It may be thus expressed: "He came to his own land and his own people received him not." They were \@his\ @people, because God had chosen them to be his above all other nations; had given to them his laws; and had signally protected and favoured them, De 7:6; 14:2.

Received him not. Did not acknowledge him to be the Messiah. They rejected him and put him to death, agreeably to the prophecy, Isa 53:3,4.

From this we learn,

1st. That it is reasonable to expect that those who have been peculiarly favoured should welcome the message of God. God had a right to expect, after all that had been done for the Jews, that they would receive the message of eternal life. So he has a right to expect that we should embrace him and be saved. Yet

2nd. It is not the abundance of mercies that incline men to seek God. The Jews had been signally favoured, but they rejected him. So, many in Christian lands live and die rejecting the Lord Jesus.

3rd. Men are alike in every age. All would reject the Saviour if left to themselves. All men are by nature wicked. There is no more certain and universal proof of this than the universal rejection of the Lord Jesus.

{o} "He came unto his own" Ac 3:26; 13:46


Verse 12. To as many as received him. The great mass; the people; the scribes and Pharisees rejected him. A few in his lifetime received him, and many more after his death. To receive him, here, means to believe on him. This is expressed at the end of the verse.

Gave he power. This is more appropriately rendered in the margin by the word right or privilege. Comp. Ac 1:7; 5:4; Ro 9:21; 1 Co 7:37; 8:9; 9:4,5.

Sons of God. Children of God by adoption. See Barnes "Mt 1:1".

Christians are called sons of God—

1st. Because they are adopted by him, 1 Jo 3:1.

2nd. Because they are like him; they resemble him and have his spirit.

3rd. They are united to the Lord Jesus, the Son of God—are regarded by him as his brethren (Mt 25:40) , and are therefore regarded as the children of the Most High.

On his name. This is another way of saying believeth in him. The name of a person is often put for the person himself, Joh 2:23

Joh 2:18; 1 Jo 5:13. From this verse we learn,

1st. That to be a child of God is a privilege-far more so than to be the child of any man, though in the highest degree rich, or learned, or honoured. Christians are therefore more honoured than any other men.

2nd. God gave them this privilege. It is not by their own works or deserts; it is because God chose to impart this blessing to them, Eph 2:8; Joh 15:16.

3rd. This favour is given only to those who believe on him. All others are the children of the wicked one, and no one who has not confidence in God can be regarded as his child. No parent would acknowledge one for his child, or approve of him, who had no confidence in him, who doubted or denied all he said, and who despised his character. Yet this the sinner constantly does toward God, and he cannot, therefore, be called his son.

{p} "as many as received him" Isa 56:4,5; Ro 8:15; 1 Jo 3:1

{1} "power to become" or, "the right or privilege


Verse 13.

Which were born. This doubtless refers to the new birth, or to the great change in the sinner's mind called regeneration or conversion. It means that they did not become the children of God in virtue of their natural birth, or because they were the children of Jews, or because they were descended from pious parents. The term "to be born" is often used to denote this change. Comp. Joh 3:3-8

1 Jo 2:29. It illustrates clearly and beautifully this great change. The natural birth introduces us to life. The new birth is the beginning of spiritual life. Before, the sinner is dead in sins (Eph 2:1); now he begins truly to live. And as the natural birth is the beginning of life, so to be born of God is to be introduced to real life, to light, to happiness, and to the favour of God. The term expresses at once the greatness and the nature of the change.

Not of blood. The Greek word is plural; not of bloods—that is, not of man. Comp. Mt 27:4.

The Jews prided themselves on being the descendants of Abraham, Mt 3:9. They supposed that it was proof of the favour of God to be descended from such an illustrious ancestry. In this passage this notion is corrected. It is not because men are descended from an illustrious or pious parentage that they are entitled to the favour of God; or perhaps the meaning may be, not because there is a union of illustrious lines of ancestry or bloods in them. The law of Christ's kingdom is different from what the Jews supposed. Comp. 1 Pe 1:23.

It was necessary to be born of God by regeneration. Possibly, however, it may mean that they did not become children of God by the bloody rite of circumcision, as many of the Jews supposed they did. This is agreeable to the declaration of Paul in Ro 2:28,29.

Nor of the will of the flesh.

Not by natural generation.

Nor of the will of man. This may refer, perhaps, to the will of man in adopting a child, as the former phrases do to the natural birth; and the design of using these three phrases may have been to say that they became the children of God neither in virtue of their descent from illustrious parents like Abraham, nor by their natural birth, nor by being adopted by a pious man. None of the ways by which we become entitled to the privileges of children among men can give us a title to be called the sons of God. It is not by human power or agency that men become children of the Most High.

But of God. That is, God produces the change, and confers the privilege of being called his children. The heart is changed by his power. No unaided effort of man, no works of ours, can produce this change. At the same time, it is true that no man is renewed who does not himself desire and will to be a believer; for the effect of the change is on his will (Ps 110:3) , and no one is changed who does not strive to enter in at the strait gate, Php 2:12. This important verse, therefore, teaches us,

1st. That if men are saved they must be born again.

2nd. That their salvation is not the result of their birth, or of any honourable or pious parentage.

3rd. That the children of the rich and the noble, as well as of the poor, must be born of God if they will be saved.

4th. That the children of pious parents must be born again, or they cannot be saved. None will go to heaven simply because their parents are Christians.

5th. That this work is the work of God, and no man can do it for us.

6th. That we should forsake all human dependence, cast off all confidence in the flesh, and go at once to the throne of-grace, and beseech of God to adopt us into his family and save our souls from death.

{r} "born, not of blood" Jas 1:18


Verse 14.

And the Word was made flesh. The word flesh, here, is evidently used to denote human nature or man. See Mt 16:17; 19:5; 24:22; Lu 3:6; Ro 1:3; 9:5.

The "Word" was made man. This is commonly expressed by saying that he became incarnate. When we say that a being becomes incarnate, we mean that one of a higher order than man, and of a different nature, assumes the appearance of man or becomes a man. Here it is meant that "the Word," or the second person of the Trinity, whom John had just proved to be equal with God, became a man, or was united with the man Jesus of Nazareth, so that it might be said that he was made flesh.

Was made. This is the same word that is used in Joh 1:3.

"All things were made by him." It is not simply affirmed that he was flesh, but that he was made flesh, implying that he had pre-existence, agreeably to Joh 1:1.

This is in accordance with the doctrine of the Scriptures elsewhere. Heb 10:5: "A body hast thou prepared me." Heb 2:14: "As the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same." 1 Jo 4:2. "Jesus Christ is come in the flesh." See also 1 Ti 3:16; Php 2:6; 2 Co 8:9

Lu 1:35. The expression, then, means that he became a man, and that he became such by the power of God providing for him a body. It cannot mean that the divine nature was changed into the human, for that could not be; but it means that the Logos, or "Word," became so intimately united to Jesus that it might be said that the Logos, or "Word" became or was a man, as the soul becomes so united to the body that we may say that it is one person or a man.

And dwelt among us. The word in the original denotes "dwelt as in a tabernacle or tent;" and some have supposed that John means to say that the human body was a tabernacle or tent for the Logos to abide in, in allusion to the tabernacle among the Jews, in which the Shechinah, or visible symbol of God, dwelt; but it is not necessary to suppose this. The object of John was to prove that "the Word" became incarnate. To do this he appeals to various evidences. One was that he dwelt among them; sojourned with them; ate, drank, slept, and was with them for years, so that they saw him with their eyes, they looked upon him, and their hands handled him, 1 Jo 1:1.

To dwell in a tent with one is the same as to be in his family; and when John says he tabernacled with them, he means that he was with them as a friend and as one of a family, so that they had full opportunity of becoming familiarly acquainted with him, and could not be mistaken in supposing that he was really a man.

We beheld his glory. This is a new proof of what he was affirming- that THE WORD OF GOD became man. The first was, that they had seen him as a man. He now adds that they had seen him in his proper glory as God and man united in one person, constituting him the unequalled Son of the Father. There is no doubt that there is reference here to the transfiguration on the holy mount. See Mt 18:1-9.

To this same evidence Peter also appeals, 2 Pe 1:16-18. John was one of the witnesses of that scene, and hence he says, "WE beheld his glory," Mr 9:2. The word glory here means majesty, dignity, splendour.

The glory as of the only-begotten of the Father. The dignity which was appropriate to the only-begotten Son of God; such glory or splendour as could belong to no other, and as properly expressed his rank and character. This glory was seen eminently on the mount of transfiguration. It was also seen in his miracles, his doctrine, his resurrection, his ascension; all of which were such as to illustrate the perfections, and manifest the glory that belongs only to the Son of God.

Only-begotten. This term is never applied by John to any but Jesus Christ. It is applied by him five times to the Saviour, Joh 1:14,18; 3:16,18; 1 Jo 4:9.

It means literally an only child. Then, as an only child is peculiarly dear to a parent, it means one that is especially beloved. Comp. Ge 22:2,12,16; Jer 6:26; Zec 12:10.

On both these accounts it is bestowed on the Saviour.

1st. As he was eminently the Son of God, sustaining a peculiar relation to him in his divine nature, exalted above all men and angels, and thus worthy to be called, by way of eminence, his only Son. Saints are called his sons or children, because they are born of his Spirit, or are like him; but the Lord Jesus is exalted far above all, and deserves eminently to be called his only-begotten Son.

2nd. He was peculiarly dear to God, and therefore this appellation, implying tender affection, is bestowed on him.

Full of grace and truth. The word full here refers to the Word made flesh, which is declared to be full of grace and truth. The word grace means favours, gifts, acts of beneficence. He was kind, merciful, gracious, doing good to all, and seeking man's welfare by great sacrifices and love; so much so, that it might be said to be characteristic of him, or he abounded in favours to mankind. He was also full of truth. He declared the truth. In him was no falsehood. He was not like the false prophets and false Messiahs, who were wholly impostors; nor was he like the emblems and shadows of the old dispensation, which were only types of the true; but he was truth itself. He represented things as they are, and thus became the truth as well as the way and the life.

{s} "Word" Lu 1:35; 1 Ti 3:16

{t} "and we beheld" 2 Pe 1:17; 1 Jo 1:1,2

{u} "full of grace and truth" Ps 45:2; Col 2:3,9


Verse 15.

John bare witness of him. The evangelist now returns to the testimony of John the Baptist. He had stated that the Word became incarnate, and he now appeals to the testimony of John to show that, thus incarnate, he was the Messiah.

He that cometh after me. He of whom I am the forerunner, or whose way I am come to prepare. See Barnes "Mt 3:3".

Is preferred before me. Is superior to me. Most critics have supposed that the words translated "is preferred" relate to time, and not to dignity; meaning that though he came after him publicly, being six months younger than John, as well as entering on his work after John, yet that he had existed long before him. Most, however, have understood it more correctly, as our translators seem to have done, as meaning, He was worthy of more honour than I am.

He was before me. This can refer to nothing but his preexistence, and can be explained only on the supposition that he existed before John, or, as the evangelist had before shown, from the beginning. He came after John in his public ministry and in his human nature, but in his divine nature he had existed long before John had a being—from eternity. We may learn here that it is one mark of the true spirit of a minister of Christ to desire and feel that Christ is always to be preferred to ourselves. We should keep ourselves out of view. The great object is to hold up the Saviour; and however much ministers may be honoured or blessed, yet they should lay all at the feet of Jesus, and direct all men to him as the undivided object of affection and honour. It is the business of every Christian, as well as of every Christian minister, to be a witness for Christ, and to endeavour to convince the world that he is worthy of confidence and love.

{v} "John bare witness of him" Mt 3:13


Verse 16.

Of his fullness. In Joh 1:14

the evangelist has said that Christ was full of grace and truth. Of that fulness he now says that all the disciples had received; that is, they derived from his abundant truth and mercy grace to understand the plan of salvation, to preach the gospel, to live lives of holiness; they partook of the numerous blessings which he came to impart by his instructions and his death. These are undoubtedly not the words of John the Baptist, but of the evangelist John, the writer of this gospel. They are a continuation of what he was saying in the 14th verse, the 15th verse being evidently thrown in as a parenthesis. The declaration had not exclusive reference, probably, to the apostles, but it is extended to all Christians, for all believers have received of the fulness of grace and truth that is in Christ. Comp. Eph 1:23; 3:19; Col 1:19; 2:9.

In all these places our Saviour is represented as the fulness of God—as abounding in mercy, as exhibiting the divine attributes, and as possessing in himself all that is necessary to fill his people with truth, and grace, and love.

Grace for grace. Many interpretations of this phrase have been proposed. The chief are briefly the following:

1st. "We have received, under the gospel, grace or favour, instead of those granted under the law; and God has added by the gospel important favours to those which he gave under the law." This was first proposed by Chrysostom.

2nd. "We, Christians, have received grace answering to, or corresponding to that which is in Jesus Christ. We are like him in meekness, humility," &c.

3rd. "We have received grace as grace—that is, freely. We have not purchased it nor deserved it, but God has conferred it on us freely" (Grotius).

4th. The meaning is, probably, simply that we have received through him abundance of grace or favour. The Hebrews, in expressing the him. He knew him intima superlative degree of comparison, used simply to repeat the word—thus, "pits, pits," meaning many pits (Hebrew in Ge 14:10) . So here grace for grace may mean much grace; superlative favours bestowed on man; favours superior to all that had been under the law —superior to all other things that God can confer on men. These favours consist in pardon, redemption, protection, sanctification, peace here, and heaven hereafter.

{w} "fulness" Joh 3:34


Verse 17.

The law was given. The Old Testament economy. The institutions under which the Jews lived.

By Moses. By Moses, as the servant of God. He was the great legislator of the Jews, by whom, under God, their polity was formed. The law worketh wrath (Ro 4:15); it was attended with many burdensome rites and ceremonies (Ac 15:10); it was preparatory to another state of things. The gospel succeeded that and took its place, and thus showed the greatness of the gospel economy, as well as its grace and truth.

Grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. A system of religion full of favours, and the true system, was revealed by him. The old system was one of law, and shadows, and burdensome rites; this was full of mercy to mankind, and was true in all things. We may learn from these verses—

1st. That all our mercies come from Jesus Christ.

2nd. "All true believers receive from Christ's fulness the best and greatest saints cannot live without him, the meanest and weakest may live by him. This excludes proud boasting that we have nothing but we have received it, and silenceth perplexing fears that we want nothing but we may receive it."

{x} "grace and truth" Ps 85:10; Ro 5:21


Verse 18.

No man hath seen God at any time. This declaration is probably made to show the superiority of the revelation of Jesus above that of any previous dispensation. It is said, therefore, that Jesus had an intimate knowledge of God, which neither Moses nor any of the ancient prophets had possessed. God is invisible; no human eyes have seen him; but Christ had a knowledge of God which might be expressed to our apprehension by saying that he saw him intimately and completely, and was therefore fitted to make a fuller manifestation of him. See Joh 5:37; 6:46; 1 Jo 4:12; Ex 33:20; Joh 14:9.

This passage is not meant to deny that men had witnessed manifestations of God, as when he appeared to Moses and the prophets (comp. Nu 12:8; Is 6:1-13); but it is meant that no one has seen the essence of God, or has fully known God. The prophets delivered what they heard God speak; Jesus what he knew of God as his equal, and as understanding fully his nature.

The only-begotten Son. See Barnes "Joh 1:14".

This verse shows John's sense of the meaning of that phrase, as denoting an intimate and full knowledge of God.

In the bosom of the Father. This expression is taken from the custom among the Orientals of reclining at their meals. See Barnes "Mt 23:6".

It denotes intimacy, friendship, affection. Here it means that Jesus had a knowledge of God such as one friend has of another— knowledge of his character, designs, and nature which no other one possesses, and which renders him, therefore, qualified above all others to make him known.

Hath declared him. Hath fully revealed him or made him known. Comp. Heb 1:1,4.

This verse proves that, Jesus had a knowledge of God above that which any of the ancient prophets had, and that the fullest revelations of his character are to be expected in the gospel. By his Word and Spirit he can enlighten and guide us, and lead us to the true knowledge of God; and there is no true and full knowledge of God which is not obtained through his Son. Comp. Joh 14:6; 1 Jo 2:22,23.

{y} "No man hath seen" Ex 33:20; 1 Ti 6:16

{z} "The only-begotten" 1 Jo 4:9


Verse 19.

This is the record. The word record here means testimony, in whatever way given. The word record now commonly refers to written evidence. This is not its meaning here. John's testimony was given without writing.

When the Jews sent. John's fame was great. See Mt 3:5.

It spread from the region of Galilee to Jerusalem, and the nation seemed to suppose, from the character of his preaching, that he was the Messiah, Lu 3:15. The great council of the nation, or the Sanhedrim, had, among other things, the charge of religion. They felt it to be their duty, therefore, to inquire into the character and claims of John, and to learn whether he was the Messiah. It is not improbable that they wished that he might be the long-expected Christ, and were prepared to regard him as such.

When the Jews sent priests and Levites. See Barnes "Lu 10:31,32".

These were probably members of the Sanhedrim.

{a} "the record of John" Lu 3:15


Verse 20.

I am not the Christ. This confession proves that John was not an impostor. He had a wide reputation. The nation was expecting that the Messiah was about to come, and multitudes were ready to believe that John was he, Lu 3:15.

If John had been an impostor he would have taken advantage of this excited state of public feeling, proclaimed himself to be the Messiah, and formed a large party in his favour. The fact that he did not do it is full proof that he did not intend to impose on men, but came only as the forerunner of Christ; and his example shows that all Christians, and especially all Christian ministers, however much they may be honoured and blessed, should be willing to lay all their honours at the feet of Jesus; to keep themselves back and to hold up before the world only the Son of God. To do this is one eminent mark of the true spirit of a minister of the gospel.


Verse 21.

Art thou Elias? This is the Greek way of writing Elijah. The Jews expected that Elijah would appear before the Messiah came. See Barnes "Mt 11:14".

They supposed that it would be the real Elijah returned from heaven. In this sense John denied that he was Elijah; but he did not deny that he was the Elias or Elijah which the prophet intended (Mt 3:3), for he immediately proceeds to state (Joh 1:23) that he was sent, as it was predicted that Elijah would be, to prepare the way of the Lord; so that, while he corrected their false notions about Elijah, he so clearly stated to them his true character that they might understand that he was really the one predicted as Elijah.

That prophet. It is possible that the Jews supposed that not only Elijah would reappear before the coming of the Messiah, but also Jeremiah. See Barnes "Mt 16:14".

Some have supposed, however, that this question has reference to the prediction of Moses in De 18:15.

{2} "that prophet" or, "a prophet"


Verse 22. No Barnes text on this verse.


Verse 23.

I am the voice, &c. See Barnes "Mt 3:3"

{b} "He said" Mt 3:3; Mr 1:3; Lu 3:4; Joh 3:28

{c} "prophet Esias" Isa 40:3


Verse 24.

Were of the Pharisees. For an account of this sect, See Barnes "Mt 3:7".

Why they are particularly mentioned is not certainly known. Many of the Sadducees came to his baptism (Mt 3:7) , but it seems that they did not join in sending to him to know what was the design of John. This circumstance is one of those incidental and delicate allusions which would occur to no impostor in forging a book, and which show that the writers of the New Testament were honest men and knew what they affirmed. For,

1st. The Pharisees composed a great part of the Sanhedrim, Ac 23:6. It is probable that a deputation from the Sanhedrim would be of that party.

2nd. The Pharisees were very tenacious of rites and customs, of traditions and ceremonies. They observed many. They believed that they were lawful, Mr 7:3,4. Of course, they believed that those rites might be increased, but they did not suppose that it could be done except by the authority of a prophet or of the Messiah. When, therefore, John came baptizing—adding a rite to be observed by his followers— baptizing not only Gentiles, but also Jews—the question was whether he had authority to institute a new rite; whether it was to be received among the ceremonies of religion. In this question the Sadducees felt no interest, for they rejected all such rites at once; but the Pharisees thought it was worth inquiry, and it was a question on which they felt themselves specially called on to act as the guardians of the ceremonies of religion.


Verse 25.

Why baptizest thou then, &c. Baptism on receiving a proselyte from heathenism was common before the time of John, but it was not customary to baptize a Jew. John had changed the custom. He baptized all, and they were desirous of knowing by what authority he made such a change in the religious customs of the nation. They presumed, from the fact that he introduced that change, that he claimed to be a prophet or the Christ. They supposed that no one would attempt it without pretending, at least, authority from heaven. As he disclaimed the character of Christ and of the prophet Elijah, they asked whence he derived his authority. As he had just before applied to himself a prediction that they all considered as belonging to the forerunner of Christ, they might have understood why he did it; but they were blind, and manifested, as all sinners do, a remarkable slowness in understanding the plainest truths in religion.


Verse 26.

I baptize. He did not deny it; nor did he condescend to state his authority. That he had given. He admitted that he had introduced an important change in the rites of religion, and he goes on to tell them that this was not all. Greater and more important changes would soon take place without their authority. The Messiah was about to come, and the power was about to depart from their hands.

There standeth one. There is one.

Among you. In the midst of you. He is undistinguished among the multitude. The Messiah had already come, and was about to be manifested to the people. It was not until the next day (Joh 1:29) that Jesus was manifested or proclaimed as the Messiah; but it is not improbable that he was then among the people that were assembled near the Jordan, and mingled with them, though he was undistinguished. He had gone there, probably, with the multitudes that had been drawn thither by the fame of John, and had gone without attracting attention, though his real object was to receive baptism in this public manner, and to be exhibited and proclaimed as the Messiah.

Whom ye know not. Jesus was not yet declared publicly to be the Christ. Though it is probable that he was then among the multitude, yet he was not known as the Messiah. We may hence learn,

1st. That there is often great excellency in the world that is obscure, undistinguished, and unknown. Jesus was near to all that people, but they were not conscious of his presence, for he was retired and obscure. Though the greatest person- age ever in the world, yet he was not externally distinguished from others.

2nd. Jesus may be near to men of the world, and yet they know him not. He is everywhere by his Spirit, yet few know it, and few are desirous of knowing it.

{d} "there standeth" Mal 3:1


Verse 27.

Whose shoe's latchet. See Barnes "Mt 3:11". The latchet of sandals was the string or thong by which they were fastened to the feet. To unloose them was the office of a servant, and John means, therefore, that he was unworthy to perform the lowest office for the Messiah. This was remarkable humility. John was well known; he was highly honoured; thousands came to hear him. Jesus was at that time unknown; but John says that he was unworthy to perform the humblest office for Jesus. So we all should be willing to lay all that we have at the feet of Christ, and feel that we are unworthy to be his lowest servants.


Verse 28.

In Bethabara. Almost all the ancient manuscripts and versions, instead of Bethabara here, have Bethany, and this is doubtless the true reading. There was a Bethany about 2 miles east of Jerusalem, but there is said also to have been another in the tribe of Reuben, on the east side of the river Jordan, and in this place, probably, John was baptizing. It is about 12 miles above Jericho. The word Bethabara means house or place of a ford. The reading Bethabara, instead of Bethany, seems to have arisen from the conjecture of Origen, who found in his day no such place as Bethany, but saw a town called Bethabara, where John was said to have baptized, and therefore took the liberty of changing the former reading.—Rob., Lex.

Beyond Jordan. On the east side of the river Jordan.

{e} "in Bethabara" Jud 7:24


Verse 29.

The next day. The day after the Jews made inquiry whether he was the Christ.

Behold the Lamb of God. A lamb, among the Jews, was killed and eaten at the Passover to commemorate their deliverance from Egypt, Ex 12:3-11.

A lamb was offered in the tabernacle, and afterward in the temple, every morning and evening, as a part of the daily worship, Ex 29:38,39. The Messiah was predicted as a lamb led to the slaughter, to show his patience in his sufferings, and readiness to die for man, Isa 53:7. A lamb, among the Jews, was also an emblem of patience, meekness, gentleness. On all these accounts, rather than on any one of them alone, Jesus was called the Lamb. He was innocent (1 Pe 2:23-25); he was a sacrifice for sin—the substance represented by the daily offering of the lamb, and slain at the usual time of the evening sacrifice (Lu 23:44-46); and he was what was represented by the Passover, turning away the anger of God, and saving sinners by his blood from vengeance and eternal death, 1 Co 5:7.

Of God. Appointed by God, approved by God, and most dear to him; the sacrifice which he chose, and which he approves to save men from death.

Which taketh away. This denotes his bearing the sins of the world, or the sufferings which made an atonement for sin. Comp. Isa 53:4; 1 Jo 3:5; 1 Pe 2:24.

He takes away sin by bearing in his own body the sufferings which God appointed to show his sense of the evil of sin, thus magnifying the law, and rendering it consistent for him to pardon. See Barnes "Ro 3:24, See Barnes "Ro 3:25".

Of the world. Of all mankind, Jew and Gentile. His work was not to be confined to the Jew, but was also to benefit the Gentile' it was not confined to any one part of the world, but was designed to open the way of pardon to all men. He was the propitiation for the sins of the whole world, 1 Jo 2:2.

See Barnes "2 Co 5:15".

{f} "Lamb of God" Ex 12:3; Isa 53:7,11; Re 5:6

{g} "which" Ac 13:39; 1 Pe 2:24; Re 1:5

{3} "taketh" or, "beareth" Heb 9:28


Verse 30. No Barnes text on this verse.


Verse 31.

I knew him not. John was not personally acquainted with Jesus. Though they were remotely related to each other, yet it seems that they had had heretofore no personal acquaintance. John had lived chiefly in the hill country of Judea. Jesus had been employed with Joseph at Nazareth. Until Jesus came to be baptized (Mt 3:13,14) , it seems that John had no acquaintance with him. He understood that he was to announce that the Messiah was about to appear. He was sent to proclaim his coming, but he did not personally know Jesus, or that he was to be the Messiah. This proves that there could have been no collusion or agreement between them to impose on the people.

Should be made manifest. That the Messiah should be exhibited, or made known. He came to prepare the way for the Messiah, and it now appeared that the Messiah was Jesus of Nazareth.

To Israel. To the Jews.


Verse 32.

Bare record. Gave testimony.

I saw the Spirit, &c. See Barnes "Mt 3:16,17"


Verses 33, 34.

The same said, &c. This was the sign by which he was to know the Messiah. He was to see the Spirit descending like a dove and abiding on him. It does not follow, however, that he had no intimation before this that Jesus was the Christ, but it means that by this he should infallibly know it. From Mt 3:13,14, it seems that John supposed, before the baptism of Jesus, that he claimed to be the Messiah, and that he believed it; but the infallible, certain, testimony in the case was the descent of the Holy Spirit on him at his baptism.

That this is the Son of God. This was distinctly declared by a voice from heaven at his baptism, Mt 3:17.

This John heard, and he testified that he had heard it.

{h} "descending and remaining" Joh 3:34

{i} "baptizeth" Ac 1:5; 2:4


Verse 34. No Barnes text on this verse.


Verse 35.

The next day. The day after his remarkable testimony that Jesus was the Son of God. This testimony of John is reported because it was the main design of this evangelist to show that Jesus was the Messiah. See the Introduction. To do this, he adduces the decided and repeated testimony of John the Baptist. This was impartial evidence in the case, and hence he so particularly dwells upon it.

John stood. Or was standing. This was probably apart from the multitude.

Two of his disciples. One of these was Andrew (Joh 1:40) , and it is not improbable that the other was the writer of this gospel.


Verse 36.

Looking upon Jesus, &c. Fixing his eyes intently upon him. Singling him out and regarding him with special attention. Contemplating him as the long-expected Messiah and Deliverer of the world. In this way should all ministers fix the eye on the Son of God, and direct all others to him.

As he walked. While Jesus was walking.


Verse 37.

They followed Jesus. They had been the disciples of John. His office was to point out the Messiah. When that was done, they left at once their master and teacher, John, and followed the long-expected Messiah. This shows that John was sincere; that he was not desirous of forming a party or of building up a sect; that he was willing that all those whom he had attracted to himself by his ministry should become followers of Christ. The object of ministers should not be to build up their own interests or to extend their own fame. It is to point men to the Saviour. Ministers, however popular or successful, should be willing that their disciples should look to Christ rather than to them; nay, should forget them and look away from them, to tread in the footsteps of the Son of God; and the conduct of these disciples shows us that we should forsake all and follow Jesus when he is pointed out to us as the Messiah. We should not delay nor debate the matter, but leave at once all our old teachers, guides and companions, and follow the Lamb of God. And we should do that, too, though to the world the Lord Jesus may appear, as he did to the multitude of the Jews, as poor, unknown, and despised. Reader, have you left all and followed him? Have you forsaken the guides of false philosophy and deceit, of sin and infidelity, and committed yourself to the Lord Jesus Christ.


Verse 38.

What seek ye? This was not asked to obtain information. Comp. Joh 1:48.

It was not a harsh reproof, forbidding them to follow him. Comp. Mt 11:28-30. It was a kind inquiry respecting their desires; an invitation to lay open their minds, to state their wishes, and to express all their feelings respecting the Messiah and their own salvation. We may learn,

1st. That Jesus regards the first inclinations of the soul to follow him. He turned toward these disciples, and he will incline his ear to all who begin to approach him for salvation.

2nd. Jesus is ready to hear their requests and to answer them.

3rd. Ministers of the gospel, and all other Christians, should be accessible, kind, and tender toward all who are inquiring the way to life. In conformity with their Master, they should be willing to aid all those who look to them for guidance and help in the great work of their salvation.

Rabbi. This was a Jewish title conferred somewhat as literary degrees now are, and meaning literally a great one, and was applied to a teacher or master in the Jewish schools. It corresponded with the title Doctor. Our Saviour solemnly forbade his disciples to wear that title. See Barnes "Mt 23:8".

The fact that John interpreted this word shows that he wrote his gospel not for the Jews only, but for those who did not understand the Hebrew language. It is supposed to have been written at Ephesus.

Where dwellest thou? This question they probably asked him in order to signify their wish to be with him and to be instructed by him. They desired more fully to listen to him than they could now by the wayside. They were unwilling to interrupt him in his travelling. Religion teaches men true politeness, or a disposition to consult the convenience of others, and not improperly to molest them, or to break in upon them when engaged. It also teaches us to desire to be with Christ; to seek every opportunity of coremration with him, and chiefly to desire to be with him where he is when we leave this world. Comp. Php 1:23.

{5} "tenth hour" or, that was two hours before night


Verse 39.

Come and see. This was a kind and gracious answer. He did not put them off to some future period. Then, as now, he was willing that they should come at once and enjoy the full opportunity which they desired of his conversation. Jesus is ever ready to admit those who seek him to his presence and favour.

Abode with him. Remained with him. This was probably the dwelling of some friend of Jesus. His usual home was at Nazareth.

The tenth hour. The Jews divided their day into twelve equal parts, beginning at sun-rise. If John used their mode of computation, this was about four o'clock P.M. The Romans divided time as we do, beginning at midnight. If John used their mode, it was about ten o'clock in the forenoon. It is not certain which he used.

{5} "tenth hour" or, "That was about two hours before night"


Verse 40. No Barnes text on this verse.


Verse 41.

He first findeth He found him and told him about Jesus before he brought him to Jesus.

We have found the Messias. They had learned from the testimony of John, and now had been more fully convinced from conversation with Jesus, that he was the Messiah. The word Messiah, or Messias, is Hebrew, and means the same as the Greek word Christ, anointed. See Barnes "Mt 1:1".

From the conduct of Andrew we may learn that it is the nature of religion to desire that others may possess it. It does not lead us to monopolize it or to hide it under a bushel, but it seeks that others also may be brought to the Saviour. It does not wait for them to come, but it goes for them; it seeks them out, and tells them that a Saviour is found. Young converts should seek their friends and neighbours, and tell them of a Saviour; and not only their relatives, but all others as far as possible, that all may come to Jesus and be saved.

{6} "the Christ" or, "the anointed.


Verse 42.

Cephas. This is a Syriac word, meaning the same as the Greek word Peter, a stone. See Peter "Mt 16:17".

The stone, or rock, is a symbol of firmness and steadiness of character—a trait in Peter's character after the ascension of Jesus that was very remarkable. Before the death of Jesus he was rash, headlong, variable; and it is one proof of the omniscience of Jesus that he saw that Peter would possess a character that would be expressed appropriately by the word stone or rock. The word Jonas is a Hebrew word, whose original signification is a dove. It may be that Jesus had respect to that when he gave Simon the name Peter. "You now bear a name emblematic of timidity and inconstancy. You shall be called by a name denoting firmness and constancy."

{k} "thou shalt be called Cephas" Mt 16:18 {7} "A Stone" or, "Peter"


Verse 43.

Would go forth.

Into Galilee. He was now in Judea, where he went to be baptized by John. He was now about to return to his native country.

Findeth Philip. This does not refer to his calling these disciples to be apostles, for that took place at the Sea of Tiberias (Mt 4:18) , but it refers to their being convinced that he was the Christ. This is the object of this evangelist, to show how and when they were convinced of this. Matthew states the time and occasion in which they were called to be apostles; John, the time in which they first became acquainted with Jesus, and were convinced that he was the Messiah. There is, therefore, no contradiction in the evangelists.


Verse 44.

Of Bethsaida. See Barnes "Mt 11:21".

The city of. The place where Andrew and Peter dwelt.


Verse 45.

Moses, in the law. Moses, in that part of the Old Testament which he wrote, called by the Jews the law. See De 18:15,18

Ge 49:10; 3:15. And the prophets, Isa 53:1-12; 9:6,7; Da 9:24-27; Jer 13:5,6; &c.

Jesus of Nazareth, &c. They spoke according to common apprehension. They spoke of him as the son of Joseph because he was commonly supposed to be. They spoke of him as dwelling at Nazareth, though they might not have been ignorant that he was born at Bethlehem.

{l} "Moses in the law" Lu 24:27,44


Verse 46.

Can any good thing, &c. The character of Nazareth was proverbially bad. To be a Galilean or a Nazarene was an expression of decided contempt, Joh 7:52.

See Barnes "Mt 2:23".

Nathanael asked, therefore, whether it was possible that the Messiah should come from a place proverbially wicked. This was a mode of judging in the case not uncommon. It is not by examining evidence, but by prejudice. Many persons suffer their minds to be filled with prejudice against religion, and then pronounce at once without examination. They refuse to examine the subject, for they have set it down that it cannot be true. It matters not where a teacher comes from, or what is the place of his birth, provided he be authorized of God and qualified for his work.

Come and see. This was the best way to answer Nathanael. He did not sit down to reason with him, or speculate about the possibility that a good thing could come from Nazareth; but he asked him to go and examine for himself, to see the Lord Jesus, to hear him converse, to lay aside his prejudice, and to judge from a fair and candid personal inquiry. So we should beseech sinners to lay aside their prejudices against religion, and to be Christians, and thus make trial for themselves. If men can be persuaded to come to Jesus, all their petty and foolish objections against religion will vanish. They will be satisfied from their own experience that it is true, and in this way only will they ever be satisfied.

{m} "Can there be any good thing" Joh 7:41


Verse 47.

One who is really an Israelite—not by birth only, but one worthy of the name. One who possesses the spirit, the piety, and the integrity which become a man who is really a Jew, who fears God and obeys his law. Comp. Ro 9:6; 2:28,29.

No guile. No deceit, no fraud, no hypocrisy. He is really what he professes to be—a Jew, a descendant of the patriarch Jacob, fearing and serving God. He makes no profession which he does not live up to. He does not say that Nathanael was without guilt or sin, but that he had no disguise, no trick, no deceit—he was sincere and upright. This was a most honourable testimony. How happy would it be if he, who knows the hearts of all as he did that of Nathanael, could bear the same testimony of all who profess the religion of the gospel!

{n} "Behold" Ps 32:2; Ro 2:28,29


Verse 48.

Whence knowest thou me? Nathanael was not yet acquainted with the divinity of Christ, and supposed that he had been a stranger to him. Hearing him express a favourable opinion of him, he naturally inquired by what means he had any knowledge of him. His conscience testified to the truth of what Jesus said—that he had no guile, and he was anxious to know whence he had learned his character.

Before that Philip called thee. See Joh 1:45.

When thou wast under the fig tree. It is evident that it was from something that had occurred under the fig-tree that Jesus judged of his character. What that was is not recorded. It is not improbable that Nathanael was accustomed to retire to the shade of a certain tree, perhaps in his garden or in a grove, for the purpose of meditation and prayer. The Jews were much in the habit of selecting such places for private devotion, and in such scenes of stillness and retirement there is something peculiarly favourable for meditation and prayer. Our Saviour also worshipped in such places. Comp. Joh 18:2; Lu 6:12.

In that place of retirement it is not improbable that Nathanael was engaged in private devotion.

I saw thee. It is clear, from the narrative, that Jesus did not mean to say that he was bodily present with Nathanael and saw him; but he knew his thoughts, his desires, his secret feelings and wishes. In this sense Nathanael understood him. We may learn—

1st. That Jesus sees what is done in secret, and is therefore divine.

2nd. That he sees us when we little think of it.

3rd. That he sees us especially in our private devotions, hears our prayers, and marks our meditations. And

4th. That he judges of our character chiefly by our private devotions. Those are secret; the world sees them not; and in our closets we show what we are. How does it become us, therefore, that our secret prayers and meditations should be without guile and hypocrisy, and such as Jesus will approve!

{o} "I saw thee" Ps 139:1,2


Verse 49.

Rabbi. Master. Applied appropriately to Jesus, and to no one else, Mt 23:10.

The Son of God. By this title he doubtless meant that he was the Messiah. His conscience told him that he had judged right of his character, and that therefore he must know the heart and the desires of the mind. If so, he could not be a mere man, but must be the long-expected Messiah.

The King of Israel. This was one of the titles by which the Messiah was expected, and this was the title which was affixed to his cross, Joh 19:18.

This case of Nathanael John adduces as another evidence that Jesus was the Christ. The great object he had in view in writing this gospel was to collect the evidence that he was the Messiah, Mt 20:31. A case, therefore, where Jesus searched the heart, and where his knowledge of the heart convinced a pious Jew that he was the Christ, is very properly adduced as important testimony.

{p} "the Son" Mt 14:33; Joh 20:28,29

{q} "the King of Israel" Mt 21:5; 27:11


Verse 50.

Greater things. Fuller proof of his Messiahship, particularly what is mentioned in the following verse.


Verse 51.

Verily, verily. In the Greek, Amen, amen. The word amen means truly, certainly, so be it—from the verb to confirm, to establish, to be true. It is often used in this gospel. When repeated it expresses the speaker's sense of the importance of what he is saying, and the certainty that it is as he affirms.

Ye shall see. Not, perhaps, with the bodily eyes, but you shall have evidence that it is so. The thing shall take place, and you shall be a witness of it.

Heaven open. This is a figurative expression, denoting the conferring of favours. Ps 78:23,24: "He opened the doors of heaven, and had rained down manna." It also denotes that God was about to work a miracle in attestation of a particular thing. See Mt 3:16. In the language, here, there is an evident allusion to the ladder that Jacob saw in a dream, and to the angels ascending and descending on it, Ge 18:12. It is not probable that Jesus referred to any particular instance in which Nathanael should literally see the heavens opened, The baptism of Jesus had taken place, and no other instance occurred in his life in which it is said that the heavens were opened.

Angels of God. Those pure and holy beings that dwell in heaven, and that are employed as ministering spirits to our world, Heb 1:14.

Good men are represented in the Scriptures as being under their protection, Ps 91:11,12; Ge 28:12.

They are the agents by which God often expressed his will to men, Heb 2:2; Ga 3:19. They are represented as strengthening the Lord Jesus, and ministering unto him. Thus they aided him in the wilderness (Mr 1:13), and in the garden (Lu 22:43), and they were present when he rose from the dead, Mt 28:2-4; Joh 20:12,13.

By their ascending and descending upon him it is probable that he meant that Nathanael would have evidence that they came to his aid, and that he would have the KIND of protection and assistance from God which would show more fully that he was the Messiah . Thus his life, his many deliverances from dangers, his wisdom to confute his skilled and cunning adversaries, the scenes of his death, and the attendance of angels at his resurrection, may all be represented by the angels descending upon him, and all would show to Nathanael and the other disciples most clearly that he was the Son of God.

The Son of man. A term by which he often describes himself. It shows his humility, his love for man, his willingness to be esteemed as a man, Php 2:6,7.

From this interview with Nathanael we may learn,

1st. That Jesus searches the heart.

2nd. That he was truly the Messiah.

3rd. That he was under the protection of God.

4th. That if we have faith in Jesus, it will be continually strengthened—the evidence will grow brighter and brighter.

5th. That if we believe his word, we shall yet see full proof that his word is true.

6th. As Jesus was under the protection of God, so will all his friends be. God will defend and save us also if we put our trust in him.

7th. Jesus applied to himself terms expressive of humility. He was not solicitous even to be called by titles which he might claim. So we should not be ambitious of titles and honours. Ministers of the gospel must resemble him when they seek for the fewest titles, and do not aim at distinctions from each other or their brethren. See Barnes "Mt 23:8".

{r} "heaven open" Eze 1:1

{s} "the angels of God" Ge 28:12; Da 7:9,10; Ac 1:10,11

From this interview with Nathanael we may learn,

1st. That Jesus searches the heart.

2nd. That he was truly the Messiah.

3rd. That he was under the protection of God.

4th. That if we have faith in Jesus, it will be continually strengthened—the evidence will grow brighter and brighter.

5th. That if we believe his word, we shall yet see full proof that his word is true.

6th. As Jesus was under the protection of God, so will all his friends be. God will defend and save us also if we put our trust in him.

7th. Jesus applied to himself terms expressive of humility. He was not solicitous even to be called by titles which he might claim. So we should not be ambitious of titles and honours. Ministers of the gospel must resemble him when they seek for the fewest titles, and do not aim at distinctions from each other or their brethren. See Barnes "Mt 23:8".

{r} "heaven open" Eze 1:1

{s} "the angels of God" Ge 28:12; Da 7:9,10; Ac 1:10,11


Verse 1.

And the third day. On the third day after his conversation with Nathanael.

Cana. This was a small town about 15 miles north-west of Tiberias and 6 miles north-east of Nazareth. It is now called Kefr Kenna, is under the government of a Turkish officer, and contains perhaps three hundred inhabitants, chiefly Catholics. The natives still pretend to show the place where the water was turned into wine, and even one of the large stone water-pots.

"A Greek church," says Professor Hackett (Illustrations of Scripture, p. 322),

stands at the entrance of the town, deriving its special sanctity, as I understood, from its being supposed to occupy the site of the house in which the marriage was celebrated to which Jesus and his friends were invited. A priest to whom we were referred as the custodian soon arrived, in obedience to our call, and unlocked the doors of the church. It is a low stone building, wretchedly neglected and out of repair.

"The houses," says Dr. Thomson (The Land and the Book, vol. 2. p. 126),

were built of limestone, cut and laid up after the fashion still common in this region, and some of them may have been inhabited within the last fifty years. There are many ancient cisterns about it, and fragments of water-jars in abundance, and both reminded us of the beginning of miracles. Some of my companions gathered bits of these water-jars as mementoes—witnesses they could hardly be, for those of the narrative were of stone, while these were baked earth.

"The place is now quite deserted. Dr. Thomson (ibid.) says:

There is not now a habitable house in the humble village where our blessed Lord sanctioned, by his presence and miraculous assistance, the all-important and world-wide institution of marriage.

It was called Cana of Galilee to distinguish it from another Cana in the tribe of Ephraim, Jos 16:9. This was the native place of Nathanael, Joh 21:2.

The mother of Jesus. Mary. It is not improbable that she was a relative of the family where the marriage took place.

{a} "Cana of Galilee" Jos 19:28; Joh 4:46


Verse 2. His disciples. Those that he had made when in Judea. These were Peter, Andrew, Philip, and Nathanael. They were not yet called to be apostles, but they believed that he was the Messiah. The miracle wrought here was doubtless to convince them more fully that he was the Christ.

{b} "the marriage" Heb 13:4


Verse 3. When they wanted wine. A marriage feast among the Jews was commonly observed for seven or eight days. It is not probable that there would be a want of wine at the marriage itself, and it is possible, therefore, that Jesus came there some time during the marriage feast.

They have no wine. It is not known why Mary told this to Jesus. It would seem that she had a belief that he was able to supply it, though he had as yet worked no miracle.

{c} "And when they wanted wine" Ec 10:19; Isa 24:11


Verse 4. Woman. This term, as used here, seems to imply reproof, as if she was interfering in that which did not properly concern her; but it is evident that no such reproof or disrespect was intended by the use of the term woman instead of mother. It is the same term by which he tenderly addressed Mary Magdalene after his resurrection (Joh 20:15), and his mother when he was on the cross, Joh 19:26. Comp. also Mt 15:28; Joh 4:21; 1 Co 7:16.

What have I to do with thee? See Barnes "Mt 8:29".

This expression is sometimes used to denote indignation or contempt. See Jud 11:12; 2 Sa 16; 1 Ki 17:18.

But it is not probable that it denoted either in this place; if it did, it was a mild reproof of Mary for attempting to control or direct him in his power of working miracles. Most of the ancients supposed this to be the intention of Jesus. The words sound to us harsh, but they might have been spoken in a tender manner, and not have been intended as a reproof. It is clear that he did not intend to refuse to provide wine, but only to delay it a little; and the design was, therefore, to compose the anxiety of Mary, and to prevent her being solicitous about it. It may, then, be thus expressed:

"My mother, be not anxious. To you and to me this should not be a matter of solicitude. The proper time of my interfering has not yet come. When that is come I will furnish a supply, and in the meantime neither you nor I should be solicitous."

Thus understood, it is so far from being a harsh reproof, that it was a mild exhortation for her to dismiss her fears and to put proper trust in him.

Mine hour, &c. My time. The proper time for my interposing. Perhaps the wine was not yet entirely exhausted. The wine had begun to fail, but he would not work a miracle until it was entirely gone, that the miracle might be free from all possibility of suspicion. It does not mean that the proper time for his working a miracle, or entering on his public work had not come, but that the proper time for his intTHE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN - Chapter 2 - Verse 5

Verse 5. His mother saith, &c. It is evident from this verse that his mother did not understand what he had said as a harsh reproof and repulse, but as an indication of his willingness at the proper time to furnish wine. In all this transaction he evinced the appropriate feelings of a son toward a mother.

{d} "Whatsoever he sayeth" Lu 5:5,6


Verse 6. Six water-pots of stone. Made of stone; or, as we should say, stoneware.

After the manner. After the usual custom.

Of the purifying. Of the washings or ablutions of the Jews. They were for the purpose of washing the hands before and after eating (Mt 15:2), and for the formal washing of vessels, and even articles of furniture, Lu 11:39; Mr 7:3,4.

Two or three firkins. It is not quite certain what is meant here by the word firkins. It is probable that the measure intended is the Hebrew bath, containing about 7« gallons.


Verse 7. With water. This was done by the servants employed at the feast. It was done by them, so that there might be no opportunity of saying that the disciples of Jesus had filled them with wine to produce the appearance of a miracle. In this case there could be no deception. The quantity was very considerable. The servants would know whether the wine or water had been put in these vessels. It could not be believed that they had either the power or the disposition to impose on others in this manner, and the way was therefore clear for the proof that Jesus had really changed what was known to be water into wine.

To the brim. To the top. So full that no wine could be poured in to give the appearance of a mixture. Farther, vessels were used for this miracle in which wine had not been kept. These pots were never used to put wine in, but simply to keep water in for the various purposes of ablution. A large number was used on this occasion, because there were many guests.


Verse 8. Draw out now. This command was given to the servants. It showed that the miracle had been immediately wrought. As soon as they were filled the servants were directed to take to the governor of the feast. Jesus made no parade about it, and it does not even appear that he approached the water-pots. He willed it, and it was done. This was a clear exertion of divine power, and made in such a manner as to leave no doubt of its reality.

The governor. One who presided on the occasion. The one who stood at the head or upper end of the table. He had the charge of the entertainment, provided the food, gave directions to the servants, etc.

{e} "Draw out" Ec 9:7

{f} "governor of the feast" Ro 13:7


Verse 9. And knew not whence it was. This is said, probably, to indicate that his judgment was not biased by any favour, or any want of favour, toward Jesus. Had he known what was done, he would have been less likely to have judged impartially. As it is, we have his testimony that this was real wine, and of so fine a body and flavour as to surpass that which had been provided for the occasion. Everything in this miracle shows that there was no collusion or understanding between Jesus and any of the persons at the feast.

{g} "servants" Ps 119:100; Joh 7:17


Verse 10. Every man. It is customary, or it is generally done.

When men have well drunk. This word does not of necessity mean that they were intoxicated, though it is usually employed in that sense. It may mean when they have drunk sufficient, or to satiety; or have drunk so much as to produce hilarity, and to destroy the keenness of their taste, so that they could not readily distinguish the good from that which was worse. But this cannot be adduced in favour of drunkenness, even if it means to be intoxicated; for,

1st. It is not said of those who were present at that feast, but of what generally occurred. For anything that appears, at that feast all were perfectly temperate and sober.

2nd. It is not the saying of Jesus that is here recorded, but of the governor of the feast, who is declaring what usually occurred as a fact.

3rd. There is not any expression of opinion in regard to its propriety, or in approval of it, even by that governor.

4th. It does not appear that our Saviour even heard the observation.

5th. Still less is there any evidence that he approved such a state of things, or that he designed that it should take place here. Farther, the word translated "well drunk" cannot be shown to mean intoxication; but it may mean when they had drunk as much as they judged proper or as they desired, then the other was presented. It is clear that neither our Saviour, nor the sacred writer, nor the speaker here expresses any approbation of intemperance, nor is there the least evidence that anything of the kind occurred here. It is not proof that we approve of intemperance when we mention, as this man did, what occurs usually among men at feasts.

Is worse. Is of an inferior quality.

The good wine. This shows that this had all the qualities of real wine. We should not be deceived by the phrase "good wine." We often use the phrase to denote that it is good in proportion to its strength and its power to intoxicate; but no such sense is to be attached to the word here. Pliny, Plutarch, and Horace describe wine as good, or mention that as the best wine, which was harmless or innocent—poculo vini innocentis. The most useful wine — utilissimum vinum— was that which had little strength; and the most wholesome wine— saluberrimum vinum— was that which had not been adulterated by "the addition of anything to the must or juice." Pliny expressly says that a "good wine" was one that was destitute of spirit (lib. iv. c. 13). It should not be assumed, therefore, that the "good wine" was stronger than the other: it is rather to be presumed that it was milder. The wine referred to here was doubtless such as was commonly drunk in Palestine. That was the pure juice of the grape. It was not brandied wine, nor drugged wine, nor wine compounded of various substances, such as we drink in this land. The common wine drunk in Palestine was that which was the simple juice of the grape. We use the word wine now to denote the kind of liquid which passes under that name in this country—always containing a considerable portion of alcohol —not only the alcohol produced by fermentation, but alcohol added to keep it or make it stronger. But we have no right to take that sense of the word, and go with it to the interpretation of the Scriptures. We should endeavour to place ourselves in the exact circumstances of those times, ascertain precisely what idea the word would convey to those who used it then, and apply that sense to the word in the interpretation of the Bible; and there is not the slightest evidence that the word so used would have conveyed any idea but that of the pure juice of the grape, nor the slightest circumstance mentioned in this account that would not be fully met by such a supposition. No man should adduce this instance in favour of drinking wine unless he can prove that the wine made in the" water-pots" of Cana was just like the wine which he proposes to drink. The Saviour's example may be always pleaded JUST AS IT WAS; but it is a matter of obvious and simple justice that we should find out exactly what the example was before we plead it. There is, moreover, no evidence that any other part of the water was converted into wine than that which was drawn out of the water-casks for the use of the guests. On this supposition, certainly, all the circumstances of the case are met, and the miracle would be more striking. All that was needed was to furnish a supply when the wine that had been prepared was nearly exhausted. The object was not to furnish a large quantity for future use. The miracle, too, would in this way be more apparent and impressive. On this supposition, the casks would appear to be filled with water only; as it was drawn out, it was pure wine. Who could doubt, then, that there was the exertion of miraculous power? All, therefore, that has been said about the Redeemer's furnishing a large quantity of wine for the newly-married pair, and about his benevolence in doing it, is wholly gratuitous. There is no evidence of it whatever; and it is not necessary to suppose it in order to an explanation of the circumstances of the case.

{h} "kept" Ps 104:15; Pr 9:2,5


Verse 11. This beginning of miracles. This his first public miracle. This is declared by the sacred writer to be a miracle— that is, an exertion of divine power, producing a change of the substance of water into wine, which no human power could do.

Manifested forth. Showed; exhibited.

His glory. His power, and proper character as the Messiah; showed that he had divine power, and that God had certainly commissioned him. This is shown to be a real miracle by the following considerations: 1st. Real water was placed in the vessels. This the servants believed, and there was no possibility of deception.

2nd. The water was placed where it was not customary to keep wine. It could not be pretended that it was merely a mixture of water and wine.

3rd. It was judged to be wine without knowing whence it came. There was no agreement between Jesus and the governor of the feast to impose on the guests.

4th. It was a change which nothing but divine power could effect. He that can change water into a substance like the juice of the grape must be clothed with divine power.

Believed on him. This does not mean that they did not before believe on him, but that their faith was confirmed or strengthened. They saw a miracle, and it satisfied them that he was the Messiah. Before this they believed on the testimony of John, and from conversation with Jesus (Joh 1:35-51); now they saw that he was invested with almighty power, and their faith was established. From this narrative we may learn,

1st. That marriage is honourable, and that Jesus, if sought, will not refuse his presence and blessing on such an occasion.

2nd. On such an occasion the presence and approbation of Christ should be sought. No compact formed on earth is more important; none enters so deeply into our comfort in this world; perhaps none will so much affect our destiny in the world to come. It should be entered into, then, in the fear of God.

3rd. On all such occasions our conduct should be such that the presence of Jesus would be no interruption or disturbance. He is holy. He is always present in every place; and on all festival occasions our deportment should be such as that we should welcome the presence of the Lord Jesus Christ. That is not a proper state of feeling or employment which would be interrupted by the presence of the Saviour.

4th. Jesus delighted to do good. In the very beginning of his ministry he worked a miracle to show his benevolence. This was the appropriate commencement of a life in which he was to go about doing good. He seized every opportunity of doing it; and at a marriage feast, as well as among the sick and poor, he showed the character which he always sustained —that of a benefactor of mankind.

5th. An argument cannot be drawn from this instance in favour of intemperate drinking. There is no evidence that any who were present on that occasion drank too freely.

6th. Nor can an argument be drawn from this case in favour even of drinking wine such as we have. The common wine of Judea was the pure juice of the grape, without any mixture of alcohol, and was harmless. It was the common drink of the people, and did not tend to produce intoxication. Our wines are a mixture of the juice of the grape and of brandy, and often of infusions of various substances to give it colour and taste, and the appearance of wine. Those wines are little less injurious than brandy, and the habit of drinking them should be classed with the drinking of all other liquid fires.

The following table will show the danger of drinking the wines that are in common use:

Brandy has fifty-three parts and 39 hundredths in a hundred of alcohol; or .........................53.39 per cent.
Rum ................................53.68 "
Whisky, Scotch .....................54.32 "
Holland Gin ........................51.60 "
lowest ..................21.40 "
Madeira, highest .............. 29.42 "
lowest .............. 19.34 "
Lisbon .............................18.94 "
Malaga .............................17.26 "
Red Champagne ......................11.30 "
White " ..................... 12.80 "
Currant Wine .......................20.25 "

It follows that a man who drinks two glasses of most of the wines used has taken as much alcohol as if he had taken one glass of brandy or whisky, and why should he not as well drink the alcohol in the brandy as in the Wine? What difference can it make in morals? What difference in its effects on his system? The experience of the world has shown that water, pure water, is the most wholesome, safe, and invigorating drink for man.

{i} "manifested forth his glory" Joh 1:14

{k} "and his disciples" Joh 5:13


Verse 12. To Capernaum. See Barnes "Mt 4:13".

Not many days. The reason why he remained there no longer was that the Passover was near, and they went up to Jerusalem to attend it.


Verse 13. The Jews' passover. The feast among the Jews called the Passover. See Barnes "Mt 26:2, also Mt 26:3-17.

And Jesus went up to Jerusalem. Every male among the Jews was required to appear at this feast. Jesus, in obedience to the law, went up to observe it. This is the first Passover on which he attended after he entered on the work of the ministry. It is commonly supposed that he observed three others— one recorded Lu 6:1, another Joh 6:4, and the last one on the night before he was crucified, Joh 11:55. As his baptism when he entered on his ministry had taken place some time before this —probably not far from six months— it follows that the period of his ministry was not far from three years and a half, agreeably to the prophecy in Da 9:27.

{l} "passover" Ex 12:14

{m} "Jesus" Joh 2:23; 5: 1; 6:4; 11:55


Verse 14. Found in the temple, &c. The transaction here recorded is in almost all respects similar to that which has been explained in the See Barnes "Mt 21:12".

This took place at the commencement of his public ministry; that at the close. On each occasion he showed that his great regard was for the pure worship of his Father; and one great design of his coming was to reform the abuses which had crept into that worship, and to bring man to a proper regard for the glory of God. If it be asked how it was that those engaged in this traffic so readily yielded to Jesus of Nazareth, and that they left their gains and their property, and fled from the temple at the command of one so obscure as he was, it may be replied,

1st. That their consciences reproved them for their impiety, and they could not set up the appearance of self-defence.

2nd. It was customary in the nation to cherish a profound regard for the authority of a prophet; and the appearance and manner of Jesus—so fearless, so decided, so authoritative—led them to suppose he was a prophet, and they were afraid to resist him.

3rd. He had even then a wide reputation among the people, and it is not improbable that many supposed him to be the Messiah.

4th. Jesus on all occasions had a most wonderful control over men. None could resist him. There was something in his manner, as well as in his doctrine, that awed men, and made them tremble at his presence. Comp. Joh 18:5,6. On this occasion he had the manner of a prophet, the authority of God, and the testimony of their own consciences, and they could not, therefore, resist the authority by which he spoke.

Though Jesus thus purified the temple at the commencement of his ministry, yet in three years the same scene was to be repeated. See Mt 21:12. And from this we may learn,

1st. How soon men forget the most solemn reproofs, and return to evil practices.

2nd. That no sacredness of time or place will guard them from sin. In the very temple, under the very eye of God, these men soon returned to practices for which their consciences reproved them, and which they knew God disapproved.

3rd. We see here how strong is the love of gain—the ruling passion of mankind. Not even the sacredness of the temple, the presence of God, the awful ceremonials of religion, deterred them from this unholy traffic. So wicked men and hypocrites will always turn religion, if possible, into gain; and not even the sanctuary, the Sabbath, or the most awful and sacred scenes, will deter them from schemes of gain. Comp. Am 8:5. So strong is this grovelling passion, and so deep is that depravity which fears not God, and regards not his Sabbaths, his sanctuary, or his law.

{n} "And found in the temple" Mt 21:12; Mr 11:15; Lu 19:45


Verse 15. A scourge. A whip.

Of small cords. This whip was made as an emblem of authority, and also for the purpose of driving from the temple the cattle which had been brought there for sale. There is no evidence that he used any violence to the men engaged in that unhallowed traffic. The original word implies that these cords were made of twisted rushes or reeds— probably the ancient material for making ropes.


Verse 16. No Barnes text on this verse.


Verse 17. It was written, &c. This is recorded in Ps 69:9. Its meaning is, that he was affected with great zeal or concern for the pure worship of God.

The zeal of thine house. Zeal is intense ardour in reference to any object. The zeal of thine house means extraordinary concern for the temple of God; intense solicitude that the worship there should be pure, and such as God would approve.

Hath eaten me up. Hath absorbed me, or engaged my entire attention and affection; hath surpassed all other feelings, so that it may be said to be the one great absorbing affection and desire of the mind. Here is an example set for ministers and for all Christians. In Jesus this was the great commanding sentiment of his life. In us it should be also. In this manifestation of zeal he began and ended his ministry. In this we should begin and end our lives. We learn, also, that ministers of religion should aim to purify the church of God. Wicked men, conscience-smitten, will tremble when they see proper zeal in the ministers of Jesus Christ; and there is no combination of wicked men, and no form of depravity, that can stand before the faithful, zealous, pure preaching of the gospel. The preaching of every minister should be such that wicked men will feel that they must either become Christians or leave the house of God, or spend their lives there in the consciousness of guilt and the fear of hell.

{o} "The zeal" Ps 69:9


Verse 18. What sign, &c. What miracle dost thou work? He assumed the character of a prophet. He was reforming, by his authority, the temple. It was natural to ask by what authority this was done; and as they had been accustomed to miracles in the life of Moses, and Elijah, and the other prophets, so they demanded evidence that he had authority thus to cleanse the house of God.

Seeing that thou doest. Rather "by what title or authority thou doest these things." Our translation is ambiguous. They wished to know by what miracle he had shown, or could show, his right to do those things.

{p} "What sign" Mt 12:38; Joh 6:30


Verse 19. Destroy this temple. The evangelist informs us (Joh 2:21) that by temple, here, he meant his body. It is not improbable that he pointed with his finger to his body as he spoke. The word destroy, used here in the imperative, has rather the force of the future. Its meaning may thus be expressed:

You are now profaners of the temple of God. You have defiled the sanctuary; you have made it a place of traffic. You have also despised my authority, and been unmoved by the miracles which I have already wrought. But your wickedness will not end here. You will oppose me more and more; you will reject and despise me, until in your wickedness you will take my life and destroy my body.

Here was therefore a distinct prediction both of his death and the cause of it. The word temple, or dwelling, was not unfrequently used by the Jews to denote the body as being the residence of the spirit, 2 Co 5:1. Christians are not unfrequently called the temple of God, as being those in whom the Holy Spirit dwells on earth, 1 Co 3:16,17; 1 Co 6:19; 2 Co 6:16. Our Saviour called his body a temple in accordance with the common use of language, and more particularly because in him the fulness of the Godhead dwelt bodily, Col 2:9. The temple at Jerusalem was the appropriate dwelling-place of God. His visible presence was there peculiarly manifested, 2 Ch 36:15; Ps 76:2. As the Lord Jesus was divine—as the fulness of the Godhead dwelt in him—so his body might be called a temple.

In three days I will raise it up. The Jews had asked a miracle of him in proof of his authority—that is, a proof that he was the Messiah. He tells them that a full and decided proof of that would be his resurrection from the dead. Though they would not be satisfied by any other miracle, yet by this they ought to be convinced that he came from heaven, and was the long-expected Messiah. To the same evidence that he was the Christ he refers them on other occasions. See Mt 12:38,39. Thus early did he foretell his death and resurrection, for at the beginning of his work he had a clear foresight of all that was to take place. This knowledge shows clearly that he came from heaven, and it evinces, also, the extent of his love—that he was willing to come to save us, knowing clearly what it would cost him. Had he come without such an expectation of suffering, his love might have been far less; but when he fully knew all that was before him, when he saw that it would involve him in contempt and death, it shows compassion "worthy of a God" that he was willing to endure the load of all our sorrows, and die to save us from death everlasting. When Jesus says, "I will raise it up," it is proof, also, of divine power. A mere man could not say this. No deceased man can have such power over his body; and there must have been, therefore, in the person of Jesus a nature superior to human to which the term "I" could be applied, and which had power to raise the dead—that is, which was divine.

{q} "Destroy this temple" Mt 26:61; 27:40


Verse 20. Then said the Jews, &c. The Jews, either from the ambiguity of his language, or more probably from a design to cavil, understood him as speaking of the temple at Jerusalem. What he said here is all the evidence that they could adduce on his trial (Mt 26:61; Mr 14:58), and they reproached him with it when on the cross, Mt 27:40. The Jews frequently perverted our Saviour's meaning. The language which he used was often that of parables or metaphor; and as they sought to misunderstand him and pervert his language, so he often left them to their own delusions, as he himself says, "that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand," Mt 13:13. This was a case which they might, if they had been disposed, have easily understood. They were in the temple; the conversation was about the temple; and though he probably pointed to his body, or designated it in some plain way, yet they chose to understand him as referring to the temple itself; and as it appeared so improbable that he could raise up that in three days, they sought to pervert his words and pour ridicule on his pretensions.

Forty and six years, &c. The temple in which they then were was that which was commonly called the second temple, built after the return of the Jews from Babylon. See Barnes "Mt 21:12".

This temple Herod the Great commenced repairing, or began to rebuild, in the eighteenth year of his reign—that is, sixteen years before the birth of Christ (Jos. Ant., b. xv. 1). The main body of the temple he completed in nine years and a half (Jos. Ant., xv. 5, 6), yet the temple, with its outbuildings, was not entirely complete in the time of our Saviour. Herod continued to ornament it and to perfect it even till the time of Agrippa (Jos. Ant., b. xx. ch. viii. § 11). As Herod began to rebuild the temple sixteen years before the birth of Jesus, and as what is here mentioned happened in the thirtieth year of the age of Jesus, so the time which had been occupied in it was forty-six years. This circumstance is one of the many in the New Testament which show the accuracy of the evangelists, and which prove that they were well acquainted with what they recorded. It demonstrates that their narration is true. Impostors do not trouble themselves to be very accurate about names and dates, and there is nothing in which they are more liable to make mistakes.

Wilt thou, &c. This is an expression of contempt. Herod, with all his wealth and power, had been engaged in this work almost half a century. Can you, an obscure and unknown Galilean, accomplish it in three days? The thing, in their judgment, was ridiculous, and showed, as they supposed, that he had no authority to do what he had done in the temple.


Verse 21. No Barnes text on this verse.

{r} "temple" Eph 2:21,22; Col 2:9; He 8:2


Verse 22. When he was risen from the dead, &c. This saying of our Saviour at that time seemed obscure and difficult. The disciples did not understand it, but they treasured it up in their memory, and the event showed what was its true meaning. Many prophecies are obscure when spoken which are perfectly plain when the event takes place. We learn from this, also, the importance of treasuring up the truths of the Bible now, though we may not perfectly understand them. Hereafter they may be plain to us. It is therefore important that children should learn the truths of the sacred Scriptures. Treasured up in their memory, they may not be understood now, but hereafter they may be clear to them. Every one engaged in teaching a Sunday-school, therefore, may be imparting instruction which may be understood, and may impart comfort, long after the teacher has gone to eternity.

They believed. That is, after he rose from the dead.

The scripture. The Old Testament, which predicted his resurrection. Reference here must be made to Ps 16:10, comp. Ac 2:27-32, Ac 13:35-37; Ps 2:7, comp. Ac 13:33. They understood those Scriptures in a sense different from what they did before.

The word which Jesus had said. The prediction which he had made respecting his resurrection in this place and on other occasions. See Mt 20:19; Lu 18:32,33.

{s} "his disciples" Lu 24:8


Verse 23. Feast-day. Feast. During the celebration of the Passover, which continued eight days.

Miracles which he did. These miracles are not particularly recorded. Jesus took occasion to work miracles, and to preach at that time, for a great multitude were present from all parts of Judea. It was a favourable opportunity for making known his doctrines and showing the evidence that he was the Christ, and he embraced it. We should always seek and embrace opportunities of doing good, and we should not be deterred, but rather excited, by the multitude around us to make known our real sentiments on the subject of religion.


Verse 24. Did not commit himself. The word translated commit here is the same which in Joh 2:23 is translated believed. It means to put trust or confidence in. Jesus did not put trust or reliance in them. He did not leave himself in their hands. He acted cautiously and prudently. The proper time for him to die had not come, and he secured his own safety. The reason why he did not commit himself to them is that he knew all men. He knew the inconstancy and fickleness of the multitude. He knew how easily they might be turned against him by the Jewish leaders, and how unsafe he would be if they should be moved to sedition and tumult.

{t} "he knew all men" 1 16:7; 1 Sa 16:7; 1 Ch 28:9; 29:17; Jer 17:9,10; Mt 9:4

Lu 16:30; Ac 1:24; Re 2:23


Verse 25. Should testify of man. Should give him the character of any man.

He knew what was in man. This he did because he had made all Joh 1:3, and because he was God, Joh 1:1. There can be no higher evidence than this that he was omniscient, and was therefore divine. To search the heart is the prerogative of God alone (Jer 17:10); and as Jesus knew what was in these disciples, and as it is expressly said that he knew what was in man—that is, in all men— so it follows that he must be equal with God. As he knows all, he is acquainted with the false pretentions and professions of hypocrites. None can deceive him. He also knows the wants and desires of all his real friends. He hears their groans, he sees their sighs, he counts their tears, and in the day of need will come to their relief.

Subscribe to RPM
RPM subscribers receive an email notification each time a new issue is published. Notifications include the title, author, and description of each article in the issue, as well as links directly to the articles. Like RPM itself, subscriptions are free. Click here to subscribe.