Luke 24

; 3 p] 2 chre. 9 These report it to others. 13 Christ himself appeareth to the two disciples make use of men to communicate his will to men, that they may not be alarmed and terrified. So Elihu said to Job: ** My terror shall not make thee afraid: I also am formed out of the clay.’’ ((Job 33:6-7).) But there are cases in which human agents are improper and inefficient. ‘‘ No man hath ascended into heaven,” and therefore no man can bring down messages from thence. But angels, who wait constantly on the divine presence, are always ready, and seem to delight when they are commissioned on errands of mercy or benevolence to mankind. In the case before us, with what tenderness and gentleness doth the angel address the women who came to perform the last office of tenderness to their departed Lord: ‘‘ Why seek ye the living among the dead?

I know that ye seek Jesus that was crucified; but he is not here: he is risen:’’ and to confirm his words, he brings to their recollection the conversation of their divine Master, ‘‘ Remember how he spake unto you, when he was yet in Galilee.’ On these words we may remark—1. That much of religion consists in recollection—in recollecting what Christ has said and done for us; and one of his last affectionate admonitions was, as he surrounded his supper table, ‘‘ Do this in remembrance of me!” Israel of old were commanded to remember “ all the way which the Lord their God had led them;” and much of the bliss of the celestial paradise will probably consist in the like employment. So Dr. Watts:— “* There on a green and flowery mount, Our weary souls shall sit; And with transporting joys recount The labours of our feet.”

2. That our duty, next to the recollection of God’s goodness, is to report it to others. The women remembered these words of their now risen Lord, ‘‘and returned from the sepulchre, and told all these things unto the eleven, and to all the rest;’ and they shortly after went forth into all the then known world to preach a risen Saviour. 3. Women had the honour to be the first believers in the resurrection of their Lord: for some time, even the eleven apostles were incredulous, and the reports of the women were to them as ‘‘idle tales.” Blameable as this might be, it, however, clears them from the charge of a weak credulity, and gives strength to their subsequent and found it empty, does not yet appear satisfied: the most that is said of him is, that he ‘‘ departed, wondering in himself at that which was come to pass.”

Ver. 13—35. Jesus appears to two disciples in their way to Emmaus.—This Emmaus was a village little more than seven miles from Jerusalem. (See note, ver. 13.) One of these disciples is named Cleopas, who is asserted by some of the ancient fathers to have married the sister of the Virgin Mary, and to have been father to James the less, to Jude, and Joses, the cousins of our Lord. The other disciple is not named, which has led many to suppose it might be Luke himself, which seems the more probable from the particularity of the account. While these disciples were conversing by the way of the death of Jesus, and the circumstances which accompanied it, Jesus himself, in the garb of a traveller, joined in the conversation here related, and which now calls for our obser- Dr.

D. Hunter, an elegant and pious writer before quoted, remarks the peculiar delicacy and tenderness of Jesus in the gradual discovery of himself to his disciples, after his resurrection. Adverting to the narrative now before us, he remarks,—“It is beautiful to observe the steps by which the disciples were led on to the discovery. The sadness of their countenance, the conversation in which they were engaged on the subject of their distress, and the opportunity presented of mixing familiarly with them, were circumstances inviting the attention of Jesus, and which we behold him improving, to the great purpose of the interview. Persons in distress are easily set a talking on the subject of their distress: there is a fulness and overflowing of the heart in such situations.

The disciples, encouraged by the inquiries of Jesus, easily enter on the subject of his sufferings, and discover themselves to be under the power of prejudices, which, previously to a discovery, it was highly proper for him to correct. In the mean time, he was concealed by these very prejudices of the disciples, and by the casualty of the interview. Besides, “their eyes were holden (perhaps miraculously) that they should not know him.’’ With this advantage on his side, he enters on the subject of his sufferings—with freedom censures them for their slowness and unbelief—and, with his wonted kindness, begins to instruct them. It was not yet time to open their eyes, or to risk a discovery, by reminding them of his own predictions: “ But, beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded to them, in all the Scriptures, the things concerning himself.”

This he did with such ardour and energy, that, after he had left them, they said one to another, * Did not our hearts burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and opened to us the Scriptures?” The fulness and freedom of his discourse, the impressions which it made upon the disciples, their importunate invitation, his indulgent acceptance of it, and, after his wonted manner sitting down to eat with them, are circumstances which had the most happy tendency to enlarge their views, and to prepare them for seeing with open eyes, Jesus, their master, risen from the grave. The historian doth not leave us to conjecture the use which they made of the discovery: ‘‘ They rose up the same hour, and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven; and they told them what things were done in the way, and how he was known of them in the breaking of bread.”

But we cannot pass over the interesting conversation here referred to, without offering a remark or two on the subject of it. We observe, 1. That in Moses, and the prophets, and in all the Scriptures, and especially the types and prophecies, there is much which concerns the character and work of Christ; and if this be true, as respects the Old Testament, much more must it be admitted in reference to the New where he is ‘‘the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end.” 2. That in the history of Christ, in both Testaments, the great points kept in view are his atonement and resurrection, his sufferings and glory: “ Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and (afterwards) to enter into glory?’ Alas!

that Christians should ever tire in conversing on such a subject! When Moses and Elijah met with Jesus upon Mount Tabor, ‘‘ they spake of the decease which he should accomplish at Jerusalem;’’ and in all the interviews which Jesus had with his disciples after his resurrection, this appears to have been the reigning topic of conversation, which he closed by showing them his wounds: “ Behold my hands and my feet!’ Ver. 36—53. Jesus, after farther proofs of his resurrection, returns to heaven.—In the preceding section we find that the two disciples to whom Jesus discovered himself at Emmaus hastened back immediately to Jerusalem, where they found the apostles collected together, and other disciples with them.

These had already received the happy intelligence, of the resurrection from other quarters, and exultingly exclaimed when they saw Cleopas and his fellow disciple— The Lord is risen, indeed! and hath appeared to Simon!” While they were thus rejoicing and conversing, our Lord himself suddenly appeared in the midst of them, and blessed them in his accustomed manner, saying, ‘Peace be unto you!’ Instead of being calmed, however, they were terrified; and, instead of hailing him as their risen Saviour, they thought it was his spirit—for that spirits did occasionally appear on earth, was in those days Ver. 46. Thus it behoved.—Doddridge, ** was necessary.’”” Compare ver. 26. Ver. 48. Witnesses.—’‘ Christ’s resurrection being a matter of fact must be proved by the testimony of eye-witnesses, who, if they be honest men, and such as suffer the greatest prejudices in fortunes, reputation, and life, for this testimony, we have the greater reason to believe it: for their honesty must render them unwilling to testify a falsehood; their interest and prudence would not suffer them, without any necessity laid upon them, to testify a lie; much more to testify the grossest falsehood, to their utmost damage, and without any prospect of advantage.

But, farther, if they confirm this testimony by all kinds of signs, miracles, and wondrous powers, exercised by themselves, and others CONCLUDING REMARKS ON LUKE the Evangelist was born at Antioch, the metropolis of Syria; a city celebrated by the great orators of antiquity, for the pleasantness of its situation, the fertility of its soil, the richness of its trade, the wisdom of its senate, and the learning of its professors, and from its wealth and splendour called the Queen of the East, and yet renowned for this one peculiar honour above all who embraced their testimony; if this was done in all places, on all kinds of persons, for a whole age, or ages, this renders it impossible that, Dag tare attest a lie: and therefore Christ bids them stay at Jerusalem, till they were empowered by virtue from on high, to confirm this testimony.’’—Whitby.

Ver. 49. Promise of my Father.—(Matthew 10:19). (John 14:16). Reference was doubtless also made by Christ to the promise of God made in the days of Joel respecting the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, and which was so strikingly fulfilled on the day of Pentecost. See (Joel 2:28-29). also Acts ii, 16—21.—— Endued with power, &c.—Power of working miracles and speaking with THE GOSPEL OF ST. LUKE. the Gospel, and Epiphanius states, that “his labours were blessed to the conversion of very many persons: thus he who had been a successful physician of the body, became also a successful physician of the soul. The manner of his death is not certain, but Nicephorus gives the following account: In the prosecution of his labours in preaching the gospel, Luke came

Notes on the verses

Chap. XXIV. Ver. 1. Very early in the morning.—See note, Mat. xxviii, 1. — Bringing the spices to embalm the body of the Lord; which shows that they had no hope of his resurrection on the third day. Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea had done this before the body was laid in the tomb; but on account of the approach of the sabbath, it was probably hastily and imperfectly performed; and hence a second embalming would be deemed necessary, for which purpose the spices now brought by the women were intended. ]—B. zi Ver. 4. Two men stood by them.—Matthew and Mark speak only of one— a young man,” and him “sitting.”? It is not uncommon for one Evangelist to name one only of two named by others, as in the case of Bartimeus, &c.; and the angel singled out by the two first Evangelists was probably the

one who spoke. As to the word rendered stood, Archbishop Newcome says, it does not necessarily import a posture, but may be rendered, ‘appeared to them.’” So it is used (Luke 2:9). Ver. 5. The living, &c.—[Mary Magdalene and the other Mary saw only one angel in white, sitting on the stone which he had rolled from the door of the sepulchre; but the women here mentioned saw no angel till they had entered the sepulchre, when two appeared to them in “garments shining like lightning,” as the word imports. This, and several other variations, show there were two distinct companies of women, who went successively to the tomb on the morning of the resurrection; which renders the whole account clear and consistent.

]}—Bagster. Ver. 12. And departed, wondering, &c.—Dr. Campbell observes, that by a slight change in the pointing, (a thing very allowable when it clears the sense,) some render the phrase, “* And he went home, wondering at what had happened.” So ae &e.; but he (Campbell) prefers the common punctuation, as best supported by the ancient versions. He reads, therefore, “ He (Peter) went away, musing with astonishment,” &c. Ver. 13. Emmaus.—[ Emmaus was situated, according to the testimony both of Luke and Josephus, 60 furlongs from Jerusalem, that is, about seven miles and a half. It has generally been confounded with Evunaus, a city of Judah, afterwards called Nicopolis; but Reland has satisfactorily shown, that they were distinct places; the latter, according to the old Itinerary of

Palestine, being situated ten miles from Lydda, and 22 miles from Jerusalem. D’Arvieux states, that going from Jerusalem to Rama, he took the right from the high road to Rama, at some little distance from Jerusalem, and ‘‘ travelled a good league over rocks and flint stones, to the end of the valley of terebinthine trees,’’ till he reached Emmaus; which ‘‘seems, by the vines which surround it, to have been formerly larger than it was in our Saviour’s time. The Christians, while masters of the Holy Land, re-established it a little, and built several churches. Emmaus was not worth the trouble of having come out of the way to see it. Ruins, indeed, we saw on all sides; and fables we heard from every quarter, though under the guise of traditions.””]}—Bagster.

Ver. 17. And are sad.—Doddridge, “ appear with a sorrowful countenance,” which is evidently the sense, though the conciseness of the original might be preserved, by rendering, “‘ And look sad,” or gloomy. Ver. 18. Art thou only a stranger? &c.—Campbell, “ Art thou the only stranger in Jerusalem who is unacquainted,” &c.; implying that these events occupied the whole conversation of the day, and of the people. Ver. 19. In deed and word—i. e. in preaching and working miracles. Ver. 20. And have crucified him.—So also this crime is charged upon the Jews repeatedly by St. Peter, ((Acts 2:22-23); iv. 8, 10,) because they were the guilty, procuring cause. i Ver. 21. Redeemed Israel—That is, from the Roman yoke, and set up a temporal kingdom.

Ver. 25. O fools!—Doddridge, “thoughtless creatures.”—{Justly termed such, because they had not attended to the description of the Messiah by the prophets, nor to his teaching and miracles, as proofs that HE alone was the person described. |—Bagster. Ver. 27 In all the scriptures—Namely, of the Old Testament, for none of the New Testament was yet written. ‘“‘ We may hence learn that the Mosaical sacrifices, and especially the solemn anniversary expiation, typified the sufferings of Christ: as also did the oblation of Isaac, and the lifting up of the brazen serpent.”’— Whitby.. ue Ver. 28. He made as though—(That is, he was directing his steps as if to go onwards; and so he doubtless would, had he not been withheld by their friendly importunities..

There is not the smallest ground for founding a charge of dissimulation against our Saviour, or affording any encouragement to dissimulation in others.]—Bagster. ‘ Ver. 29. They constrained him.—See note on (Luke 14:23), where the same word is used. x f Ver. 30. Sat at meat.—The ancients always reclined on couches when at a meal. —He took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them.—This was the appropriate office of the master of the feast. Though he was in their house he acted as master. This probably first attracted their attention. He now acted as he had been accustomed to do; and as he handed them the bread, they observed the prints in his hands, and thus certainly knew that it was Christ.

Ver. 31, Eyes were opened—That is, they now recognized him not only to be Jesus, but also the true Messiah ——He vanished out of their sight.— Doddridge, “ Withdrew himself (suddenly) from before them.” Campbell, Ver. 32. Heart burn within us.—They felt a very deep interest in his discourse. It moved their hearts, as he convincingly elucidated the Scriptures. Ver. 33. Same hour.—Here was disinterested Joy. Though it was late, and Jerusalem was more than seven miles distant, still they hasten to communicate to their fellow disciples, the Joyful tidings that Christ had risen.— The eleven.—So the apostles were usually called after the loss of Judas, though ten only could have been present; for we know that Thomas was not there.

See (John 20:24). (1 Corinthians 15:5). P iy Ver. 34. And hath appeared to Simon.—This appearance is not related by either of the Evangelists, but is referred to by St. Paul, (1 Corinthians 15:5).—[From (Mark 16:13), we learn that the Apostles did not believe the testimony even of the two disciples from Emmaus, while it is here asserted they were saying, when they entered the room, “ The Lord is risen,” &c. ‘This difficulty is removed by rendering interrogatively, ‘* Has the Lord risen,” &c.]—Bagster. Ver. 35. Known of them the breaking of bread.—As neither of these disciples were present at our Lord’s last supper, this seems to imply that there was a peculiarity and characteristic solemnity in his manner of asking a blessing on their food.

and Ver. 36. Peace be unto you.—The usual form of salutation in the East. Ver. 37. Terrified and affrighted.—Doddridge, “ and terrified."”’ » these, that here it was the disciples were first called Christians. Jews abounded in Antioch, who had here their synagogues and schools of education, and to their religion Luke became a proselyte, and was afterwards converted to Christianity. Luke possessed, in this city, ample opportunity of obtaining the advantage of a sound and learned education, and he excelled particularly in the art of physic. After his conversion, our Evangelist became the inseparable companion and fellow labourer of St. Paul in the ministry of JOHN, who, according to the unanimous testimony of the ancient fathers, and ecclesiastical writers, was the author of this Gospel, was the son of Zebedee, a fisherman of Bethsaida, by Salome his wife, (compare (Matthew 10:4), with (Matthew 27:55-56), and Ma. xv. 40,) and brother of James the elder, whom ‘‘ Herod killed with the sword.” ((Acts 12:2).) Theophylact says, that Salome was the daughter of Joseph the husband of Mary, by a former wife; and that consequently she was our Lord’s sister, and John was his nephew. He followed the occupation of his father till his call to the apostleship, ((Matthew 4:21-22). Ma. i. 39, 20. (Luke 5:1-10).) which is supposed to have been when he was about 25 years of age; after which he was a constant eye-witness of our Lord’s labours, journeyings, discourses, miracles, passion, crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension. After the ascension of our Lord, he returned with the other apostles to Jerusalem, and with the rest partook of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost, by which he was eminently qualified for the office of an Evangelist and Apostle.

After the death of Mary the mother of Christ, which is supposed to have taken place about fifteen years after the crucifixion, and probably after the council held in Jerusalem about A. D. 49 or 50, ((Acts 15)) at which he was present, he is said by ecclesiastical writers, to have proceeded to Asia Minor, where he formed and presided over seven churches in as many cities, but chiefly resided at Ephesus. Thence he was banished by the Emperor Domitian, in the 15th year of his reign, A. D. 95, to the isle of Patmos in the Aegean sea, where he wrote the Apocalypse. ((Revelation 1:9).) On the accession of Nerva the following year, he was recalled from exile, and returned to Ephesus, where he wrote his Gospel and Epistles, and died in the 100th year of his age, about A.

D. 100, and in the third year of the Emperor Trajan. ‘It is generally believed that St. John was the youngest of the twelve apostles, and that he survived all the rest. Jerome, in his comment on (Galatians 6)says, that he continued preaching when so enfeebled with age, as to be obliged to be carried into the assembly; and that, not being able to deliver any long discourse, his custom was, to say in every meeting, My dear children, love one another.’ An opinion has prevailed, that he was, previous to his banishment to Patmos, thrown into a caldron of boiling oil, by order of Domitian, before the gate called Porta Latina at Rome, and that he came out unhurt; but on examining into the foundation of this account, we find that it rests almost entirely on the authority of where: (Epiphanius and others, who have related the sufferings of the apostles, it seems to deserve but little credit. The general current of ancient writers declares, that the apostle wrote his Gospel at an advanced period of life, with which the internal evidence perfectly agrees; and we may safely refer it, with Chrysostom, Epiphanius, Mill, Le Clerc, and others, to the year 97.

‘The Gospel of John (says Dr. Pye Smith) is distinguished by very observable characters, from the composition of the other Evangelists. It has much less of narrative and is more largely occupied with the doctrines and discourses of the Lord Jesus. ‘The topics also of the discourses possess a marked character, indicating that they have been selected with an especial view to the presenting of what, during his earthly ministry, Jesus himself had taught concerning his own person, and the spiritual and never-dying blessings which he confers upon those who believe in his name. ‘The design of St. John in writing his Gospel is said by some to have been to supply those important events which the other Evangelists had omitted, and to refute the notions of the Cerinthians and Nicolaitans, or, according to others, to confute the heresy of the Gnostics and Sabians.

But, though many parts of his Gospel may be successfully quoted against the strange doctrines held by those sects, yet the Apostle had evidently a more general end in view than the confutation of their heresies. His own words sufficiently inform us of his motive and design in writing this Gospel—* These things are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing, ye might have life through his name.” Learned men are not wholly agreed concerning the language in which this Gospel was originally written. Salmasius, Grotius, and other writers, have imagined, that St. John wrote it in his own native tongue, the Aramean or Syriac, and that it was afterwards translated into Greek.

This opinion is not supported by any strong arguments; and is contradicted by the unanimous voice of antiquity, which affirms that he wrote it in Greek, which is the general and most probable opinion. Michaelis prefers his style, in respect of purity, to the other Evangelists, which he attributes to his long residence at Ephesus. Whether the Evangelist had herein any allusion to Cerinthus, or other ancient heretics, is much disputed among the learned. That he might have some reference to them, is, we think, hardly to be doubted; but the Scripture method of confuting error, was by stating the opposite truths, which John does very succinctly; or only the wisdom, or reason, or power of God? “The Logos appears to be a real existence, and not merely an attribute.

For, first; the attributes of God are no where else personified by the New Testament writers; i. e. the usage of the New Testament authors is against this mode of writing. Secondly; Logos, if considered as an abstract term, or as merely designating an attribute, must mean either wisdom or word; and in what intelligible sense can the wisdom or the word of God, in the abstract sense, be said to have ‘ become flesh and dwelt among us,’ v. 14.; or why should John select either the wisdom or word of God, as any more concerned with the incarnation, than the benevolence of God, or the mercy of God, which one might suppose would be the attributes more especially displayed in the incarnation? Thirdly; if Logos mean here the power of God, as many assert, the exposition is attended with the same difficulties.

Fourthly; if it mean, as others aver, the power of God putting itself forth, i. e. in creation, it is liable to the same objections. In short, make it any attribute of God thus personified, and you introduce a mode of writing that the New Testament no where else displays. Is it probable, that a revelation from heaven is made to inform us that the attributes of a being are with that being; or what can be thought of the assertion, that the wisdom or power of God, is God himself? * Let us proceed, now, to the second clause, ‘and the Logos was with God;’ i. e. as all agree, with God the Father. Compare verses 14 and 18; also (Luke 17:5), and 1 John i. 1,2; which make the point clear. Is this expression capable of any tolerable interpretation, without supposing that the Logos, who was with God, was in some respect or other different, or diverse from that God, with whom he was?

This Logos was the same that became incarnate, ver. 14; that made the most perfect revelation of the will and character of God to men, ver. 18; and was called Christ. He was therefore, in some respect, diverse from the Father, and therefore by no means to be confounded with him. The phrase, ‘and the Logos was with God,’ amounts to asserting that the Logos was most intimately connected with God. See (John 1:18), where the only begotten is said to be in the bosom of the Father, which is a phrase of similar import to the one under consideration. “and the Logos was God.’ It is said, that,‘ Theos is destitute of the article, and therefore cannot designate the Divine Being, who is Supreme.’ This observation, however, is far from being justifiable, either by the usage of the sacred writers, or the principles of Greek syntax.

Among instances where the Supreme God is certainly designated, and yet the article is omitted, the inquirer may consult the very chapter in question, ver. 6, 13, 18; also, (Matthew 19)(Luke 16:13). (John 9:33); xvi. 30. (Romans 8:8). (1 Corinthians 1:3). (Galatians 1:1). (Ephesians 2:8). (Hebrews 9:14). Besides, every reader of Greek knows, that where the subject of a proposition has the article, the predicate omits it. ‘I understand John as affirming, that the Logos was God, and yet was with God; viz. that he was truly divine, but still divine in such a manner, that there did exist a distinction between him and the Father. I take the word God, in one case, to mean, as in a great number of cases it does mean, God as Father; in the other case, I regard it as a description of Divine Being, of the Divinity, without reference to the distinction of Father; a use which is very common.”——The Word.—* The Greek word Logos, is susceptible of several interpretations, the chief of which are reason and speech…..

The latter acceptation has been adopted by most interpreters. If the practice of preceding translators is ever entitled to implicit regard from their successors, it is where the subject is of so abstruse a nature, as hardly to admit an exposition. This exposition was written before we observed this note. In our exposition of this verse, we have mentioned the Chaldee word Memra, which the Targums use, as corresponding both to the Heb. Debar, and the Gr. Logos. ‘They use it not only for the Word of God, the Angel of God, and the Messiah, but for God himself; and sometimes in a way that can only be accounted for by considering it as a favourite term, which they seem often to introduce without occasion, and even without any distinct meaning.

But it had been imported from the Alexandrian School, and become naturalized among the Jews before the time of John; and in Greek, Logos was always used as corresponding with it, and was the only term, therefore, adapted to the use of the Evangelist. See the Bishop of St. David’s ‘‘ The Bible, and nothing but the Bible.”” Also, Dr. Smith’s Messiah.—The word was God.— Luther, and the English translators of Henry VII, adhering to the order of the original, read, ‘God was the word.” The sense is the same, but it is worse English. Because the Greek article is prefixed to the word, but not to God, some would render it, (as the Unitarian version,) ‘The word was a God.” But Campbell remarks, that ‘though the article prefixed shows a noun to be definite, the bare want of the article is not sufficient evidence that the noun is used indefinitely.

See verses 6, 12, 13, and 18, of this chapter, in all which, though the word ‘‘ God” (Theos) has no article, there can be no doubt that it means God, in the strictest sense.” F Ver. 3. All things were made by him.—” The all things which the Logos created, means, (as common usage and the exigency of the passage require,) the universe; the worlds material and immaterial. (Ver. 10.) Here, consequently, in the first chapter of John, is a passage in which, beyond all reasonable doubt, Christ is called God; and where the context, instead of furnishing us with reasons for understanding the word God in an inferior sense, (as is usual, when this designation is applied to inferior beings,) has plainly and unequivocally taught us, that this God, who was the Logos, created the universe.

The Bible everywhere appeals to creative power, as the peculiar and distinguishing prerogative of the Supreme God; and attributes it solely to Jehovah. Read (Genesis 1:2-3). (Exodus 20:11). (Isaiah 44:24). (Jeremiah 10:12). (Psalms 8:3-4). cii. 25, and other passages of the same tenor. Read Isaiah xl., and onward, where God by his prophet makes a most solemn appeal to all polytheists, to bring the objects of their worship into competition with him; and declares himself to be distinguished from them all, by his being “ the Creator of the ends of the earth,” (v. 28;) and by his having formed and arranged the heavens, (v. 26.)" —Stuart’s Letters to Channing. Ver. 5. The darkness comprehended it not.—Doddridge, “‘ apprehended it not.”—Campbell, “admitted it not.”

The allusion seems to be to air, so gross and foul as to extinguish any light (link or torch) that may be introduced into it.; Ver. 7. That all men through him—i. e. all who heard his testimony— might believe—In Jesus. ‘ Ver. 9. Which lighteth every man that cometh, &c.—Doddridge, ‘* which coming into the world enlighteneth every man.”—‘* He that cometh,” was periphrasis for the Messiah. See ch. vi. 14, &c. Ver. 10. Knew him not.—They neither knew nor acknowledged him, as the word often means. " - Ver. 11. He came unto his own, and his own, &c.—The word “ own,” in the first instance, is neuter; in the second, masculine; it is, therefore, properly rendered by Campbell, ‘He came unto his own (land,) and his own (people) received him not.”

See (Luke 20:9-16). In 20 senses is applied to Christ. Ver. 3 and 10, Schleusner understands it of creation: so also (Hebrews 11:3). (James 3:9). It is also applied to his incarnation, made of a woman,” (Galatians 4:4); to his being “* made,” or constituted, “a prophet,” (Luke 24:19); and in various other ways.— And dwelt—Literally, tabernacled.” (So Wesley.) Campbell, “ sojourned.” See (Hebrews 11:9). But Doddridge thinks it an allusion to the Shechinah or (divine) glory which resided in the tabernacle. ‘The incarnation of the Son of God was doubtless anticipated under the Patriarchal dispensation. Abraham, and other Old ‘Testament believers, by faith saw “his day,” and rejoiced in it. ((Luke 8:56).) From them the doctrine spread among the heathen, all whose deities became occasionally incarnate; but the most extraordinary notions of this kind are to be found among the Hindoos.

According to them, Veeshnu (or Chreeshna) was nine times incarnate for various great and important purposes, of which the last was, to put an end to human sacrifices. See “ Dictionary of Religions,” 3d edition, under Hindoos.–—Full of grace and truth.—Grace and truth, the sum of that emanation of divine fulness, called in Scripture, the glory of God.— Edwards. Ver. 15. John bare witness, &c.—Campbell includes this verse in a parenthesis, and connects the 16th with the 14th, thus—The Word was “ full of grace and truth;” and “of his fulness have all we received,” &c.——He was manner as Doddridge does, ‘‘ He existed before me.” This verse seems in anticipation of verse 19 See verse 30. 2 4 Ver. 16.

Grace for grace.—The Greek preposition (anti) rendered for, is capable of various acceptations; we shall mention only two, which we think most probable. ‘‘ Grace for grace” is then either, 1. Grace upon grace; so Doddridge, Wesley, and others; or, 2. Grace answering to grace. See Park- Ver. 18. He hath declared him.—Doddridge and Campbell, ‘“ Hath made him known.” Compare (Luke 6:46). ‘ z Ver. 19. Levites.—The posterity of Levi—appointed by the Mosaic law, to be the ministers or servants of the priests. * Ver. 21, Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not.—He was not Elijah come from the invisible world, as the Jews doubtless meant; (for such was their expectation;) yet he was the Elias intended by the prophet Malachi.

(Matthew 11:1-19).— That prophet.—The Greek is more accurately rendered by Campbell, ‘The Christ,’ and “ The Prophet.” See (Deuteronomy 18:15). Ver. 28. In Bethabara.—Campbell reads, ‘in Bethany:” and adds, that “the MSS. which read Bethany, are, both in number and in value, more than a counterpoise to those in which we find the vulgar reading (Bethabara.) Ad to these, the Vulgate, the Saxon, and both the Synac versions,” &c. Su Gries