Isa. lv. 1.

C), V1. 35. Rev. xxi. 17.

Prov. xviii. liv. 3. ch.

4. Isa. ii. 3:

iv. 14. q Isa.

8

P render, were about to. rrender, neither was Jesus. render, multitude.

r

days the ceremony had been performed, and the Hallel sung. On the eighth day the Hallel was sung, but the outpouring of the water did not take place: something was missed, which took place on the other days. Then Jesus stood and cried, &c.' Was not this the most natural time? Was it not probable that He would have said it at such a time, rather even than while the ceremony itself was going on? On the sense of our Lord's words, see notes on ch. iv. 13, 14. as the scripture hath said] These words must apply to the words "out of his belly shall flow, &c.," since the words "he that believeth on me" could not form part of the citation. But we look in vain for such a text in the O. T., and an apocryphal or lost canonical book is out of the question. I believe the citation to be intimately connected with the ceremony referred to, and that we must look for its place by consulting the passages where the flowing out of water from the temple (see above) is spoken of. The most remarkable of these is found in Ezek. xlvii. 1-12. There a river of water of life (see ver. 9 especially) flows from under the threshold of the temple. Again in Zech. xiv. 8, living waters shall go out from Jerusalem. I believe these expressions to be all to which the citation applies, and the words "out of his belly' to be the interpretation of the corresponding words in the prophecies. For the temple was symbolic (see ch. ii. 21) of the Body of the Lord; and the Spirit which dwells in and flows forth from His glorified Body, dwells in and flows forth from His people also, who are made like unto Him, Gal. iv. 6; Rom. viii. 9— 11; 1 Cor. iii. 16. 39.] The diffi. culties raised concerning this interpretation of the saying of our Lord have arisen from a misapprehension. St. John does not say that the words were a prophecy of VOL. I.

r

1-a. xliv. 3. Acts ii. 17, cxii. 16:

ch. xvi. 7.

33, 38.

7.

s Deut. xviii. 15, 18. ch. i. 21: vi. 14.

vi. 69.

:

66

the water of life,-what is that life but the life of the Spirit? "The mind of the Spirit, is life," Rom. viii. 6; and again, "the Spirit, is life," ib. ver. 10. was not yet] The additions given," "upon them," as some authorities read,and the like, are all put in by way of explanation, to avoid a misunderstanding which no intelligent reader could fall into. Chrysostom writes, "The Evangelist says, for the Holy Ghost was not yet,' i. e. was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified meaning by the Glory, the Cross." It is obvious that the word was cannot refer to the essential existence of the Holy Spirit, as this would be not only in flat contradiction to ch. i. 32, 33; iii. 5, 8, 34, but to the whole Old Test., in which the agency of the Spirit in the outward world is recognized even more vividly than in the N. T. The word implied is not exactly "given," but rather "working," or some similar word: was not,had not come in; the dispensation of the Spirit was not yet.' glorified, through death. The glorified Body of the Lord is the temple from under whose threshold the Holy Spirit flows forth to us; see ch. i. 16; Rom. viii. 11; Col. ii. 9. 40.] the Prophet is here clearly distinguished from the Christ: see note on ch. i. 21, and Deut. xviii. 15. 41-43.] The mention of the question about Bethlehem seems to me rather to corroborate our belief that the Evangelist was well aware how the fact stood, than, as some have said, to imply that he was ignorant of it.

NN

h render, see that.

Galilæans) who had attached themselves to Jesus. Whether we read ariseth or hath arisen, the assertion is much the same for the expression "no prophet” cannot include the Prophet, or the Messiah. It was not historically true;-for

Matt. iv. 15. ch. i. 46. ver. 41.

i Some MSS. have, hath arisen.

two prophets at least had arisen from Galilee Jonah of Gathhepher, and the greatest of the prophets, Elijah of Thisbe; and perhaps also Nahum and Hosea. Their contempt for Galilee made them lose sight of historical accuracy.

[This passage is to be treated very differently from the rest of the sacred text. In the Alexandrine, Vatican, Paris, and Sinaitic MSS., the ancient Syriac Versions, and all the early fathers, it is omitted: the Cambridge MS. alone of our most ancient authorities contains it. Augustine states, that certain expunged it from their MSS., because they thought it might encourage sin. But this will not account for the very general omission of it, nor for the fact that ch. vii. 53 is included in the omitted portion. Eusebius assigns it apparently to the apocryphal "Gospel according to the Hebrews." Other things to be noted respecting it are, (1) that in the MSS. which contain it, the number of variations is very much greater than in any equal portion of Scripture: so much is this the case, that there are in fact three separate texts, it being hardly possible to unite them into one. (2) That in the original, the style, and manner of narrating, are entirely different from those of our Evangelist. It is not merely that many words and idioms occur which John never uses, but that the whole cast and character of the passage is alien from his manner, in whichever of the existing texts we read it. (3) The great majority of those MSS. which contain the passage, place it here. Some however insert it after the end of Luke xxi., which certainly seems a more fitting place, seeing that the incidents evidently belong to the later part of our Lord's ministry. (4) I have adopted the plan also followed in the last edition of my Greek Testament, and have printed it beneath the text of St. John, which I have allowed to go on inde

c the most ancient MS. omits this.

pendently of the inserted passage. See the whole matter discussed and the authorities given, in my Greek Testament. 53.] The circumstance that this verse is included in the dubious passage is remarkable, and seems to shew, as remarked above, that the doubt has not arisen from any ethical difficulty, as Augustine hints,for then the passage would have begun with ch. viii. 1. Nor can this verse have been expunged to keep up the connexion with ch. viii. 12-for that is just as good with it,-if understood, as usually, of the members of the Sanhedrim. We must now regard it as fragmentary, forming the beginning of the account of the woman taken in adultery. It is therefore not clear to what the words apply. Taken in conjunction with what follows (see on ch. viii. 5.), I should say that they indicate some time during the last days of the Lord's ministry, when He spent the nights on the Mount of Olives, as the date of the occurrence. Certainly the end of Luke xxi. seems to be its fitter place. CHAP. VIII. 1.] St. John never elsewhere mentions the Mount of Olives (not even in ch. xviii. 1): and when he introduces a new place, it is his habit to give explanations (see ch. i. 45; v. 2, and the expressions used in ch. iv. 5; xix. 13, 17). Stier, who says, "The simple answer to Alford's remark is, that John here, and here only, mentions the Mt. of O.," omits all allusion to this habit of the Evangelist, which alone gives weight to my remark. Most of the many differences from the style and expression of St. John must be gathered from the notes in the Greek Test., as they cannot be made clear to the mere English

a ch. i. 4, 5, 9:

iii. 19: ix. 5:

xii. 35, 36, 46.

a Lev xx. 10. Deut. xxii.

22.

d read, bring.

reader.

3.] St. John never mentions "the Scribes" elsewhere, but usually calls the opponents of Jesus "the Jews," or "the rulers." "The Scribes and Pharisees" is a very common expression in the three Gospels. The account gives no light as to the capacity in which these Scribes and Pharisees acted when they brought the woman. Probably, only as tempting Jesus, and not in the course of any legal proceedings against her. Such would have required (Lev. xx. 10; Deut. xxii. 22) that the man also should have been put to death. 4.] The words " say unto him, tempting him" savour much more of the three Gospels than of John: see Mt. xvi. 1; xix. 3; xxii. 18, 35: Mk. viii. 11; x. 2; xii. 15, &c. Obviously our ch. vi. 6 is no example to the contrary. The difficulty is even greater than the last, to say, in what sense this was a temptation, to lead to His accusation. The principal solutions of it have been, (1) that the command of the law had fallen into disuse from the frequency of the crime, and to re-assert it would be contrary to the known mildness of Jesus. But what reason had any of His sayings,--who came to fulfil the Law, not to destroy it,-given them to expect such mildness in this case? And suppose He had re-asserted the law,how could they have accused Him? (2) That some political snare was hereby laid for Him, whereby the Roman power might have been brought to bear against Him. But this does not in any way appear; for (a) the Romans certainly allowed to the Jews (by connivance) the power of putting to death according to their law,-as they did in the case of Stephen: (b) our Lord's

answer need not have been so worded as to trench upon this matter: and (c) the accusers would have been more deeply involved than Himself, if such had been the case, being by the law the prominent persons in the execution. So that I

leave the difficulty unsolved. Lücke observes: Since Jesus seems to avoid every kind of decision on the question put to Him, it follows that He found in it no reference to the great subjects of His teaching, but treated it as a purely civil or political matter, with which in His ministry He had no concern. Some kind of civil or political collision the question certainly was calculated to provoke: but from the brevity of the narration, and our want of more accurate knowledge of criminal proceedings at the time, it is impossible to lay down definitely, wherein the collision would have consisted.' 5.] I will

just remark that the very fact of their questioning thus, Moses commanded, . but what sayest Thou?' belongs to the last days of the Lord's ministry, and cannot well be introduced chronologically where it here stands: nor does St. John any where introduce these questions between the law of Moses and Jesus; but the other Gospels often do. The command here mentioned is not to be found, unless putting to death' generally, is to be interpreted as stoning;-compare Exod. xxxi. 14; xxxv. 2, with Num. xv. 35, 36, in which the special order given by God would sanction such a view. But the Rabbis taught that every punishment of death in Scripture put absolutely, without specification, was to be understood as meaning stran gulation. The passage Ezek. xvi. 38, 40

13 The

1 render, the darkness.

woman taken in adultery are forced and harsh. It was, say they, the early morning (ver. 2) and the sun was just rising, to

b

m render, witness.

which these words "the light of the world" allude,-and the walking in darkness is an allusion to the woman, whose

9 And

proves nothing, or proves too much; for it is added, and thrust thee through with their swords.' I would rather suppose that from Deut. xxii. 21, 23, 24, an inference was drawn what kind of a death was intended in ver. 22, the crime being regarded as the same; "he hath humbled his neighbour's wife." We have similar indefiniteness in ib. ver. 25, where evidently the same punishment is meant.

6.

wrote on the ground] The habit was a usual one to signify pre-occupation of mind, or intentional inattention. The addition, "as though he heard them not," is an explanatory gloss. It does not follow that any thing was actually written. Stier refers to Jer. xvii. 13, but perhaps without reason. This minute circumstance speaks strongly for the authenticity of the narration. 7.] The expression, "without sin," is not here used in the general sense, meaning, entirely sinless, nor in the strictest, free from the crime of adultery' (it can hardly be that any of the Pharisees should have held themselves sinless, or that all should have been implicated in adultery):-but-as the word "a sinner," in Luke vii. 37,-of the sin of uncleanness generally. Stier, who contends strongly for the genuineness of this narrative in this place, finds in ver. 46 an allusion to this saying. I cannot say that his attempts to establish a connexion with the subsequent discourse are to me at all

Rom. ii. 1.

k read, wrote with his finger. m read, so that all went out.

satisfactory: I am much more inclined to think with Luthardt, that the whole arrangement and plan of our Gospel is broken by the insertion of this passage. The Lord Jesus was not sent to be a ruler and a judge in this or that particular case of crime, see Luke xii. 14; but the Ruler and Judge of all: and His answer expresses this, by convicting them all of sin before Him. Some of our MSS. read, "the stone:" in that case, our Lord refers to the first stone, which by Deut. xvii. 7 the witnesses were to cast. 8.] Euthymius remarks that our Lord adopted this gesture, of again writing on the ground, in His goodness, to allow them to pass out without being specially observed by Him. One of our MSS. reads, He wrote on the ground the sins of each of them." 9.] They had said, ver. 5, “such women -they now perceive that they themselves were such men. There is no historical difficulty in this conduct of the Pharisees, as Olshausen finds;- they were struck by the power of the word of Christ. It was a case somewhat analogous to that in which His saying, "I am he," struck His foes to the ground, ch. xviii. 6. The variations of reading are very wide in the latter part of the verse. We can hardly (with some) lay any stress on "beginning at the eldest," as indicating the natural order of conviction of sin. If the consciences of older sinners have heavier loads on them,