John 2

John 2:1-12

The Gospel According to John John 1:1-51 - John 2:1-12 The Thesis (John 1:1; John 1:14; John 1:18) Having considered the writer’s account of his book as found in his foot-note in verses thirty and thirty-one of chapter twenty (John 20:30-31), we turn to the systematic writing, which begins at John 1:1, and runs to John 20:29. In it there are two movements, first a summary, or summation, or summing up, in the first eighteen verses of chapter one (John 1:1-18). We usually call it the prologue. I am not quarrelling with that word, provided that we do not think prologue means preface. It is far more than a preface. In these eighteen verses we have an explanation of everything that follows from the nineteenth verse of chapter one, to the twenty-ninth verse of chapter twenty.

All that follows is intended to prove the accuracy of the things declared in the first eighteen verses. Possibly John wrote those eighteen verses last. Having made his selection of signs, and written them, he made a summary, writing it last. On the other hand, of course, he may have written his summary first, and then the things that proved it. Whether the summation was written first or last, it is a summation; everything is found in those first eighteen verses. The whole truth, as John saw it, concerning “Jesus Christ the Son of God,” is found in these first eighteen verses (John 1:1-18).

So, I say, we have two movements in the system; a summary, summation, or summing up of everything. That constitutes the thesis of John. He states his thesis in what we now call the prologue. Then, having stated his thesis, from verse nineteen of chapter one, to the twenty-ninth verse of chapter twenty, he gives the selection of signs, which prove the accuracy of the things stated in the summary.

In this statement of thesis there are two parts; first the essential declarations which are found in verses one, fourteen, and eighteen (John 1:1, John 1:14, John 1:18); then certain statements which are parenthetical. In verse fourteen (John 1:14), the King James and English and American translators have put certain words in brackets. They have done so because the words so enclosed do constitute a statement interpolated upon the main movement. But that applies equally to all that is found in verses two to thirteen, and again in verses fifteen to seventeen. Thus there are three parentheses.

This is the structure of the prologue. A statement is made, verse one. That statement is illustrated by a parenthesis, verses two to thirteen. A second statement is made, verse fourteen, and in the middle of it there is a second parenthesis of illumination. This is followed by a third parenthesis of illustration, verses fifteen to seventeen (John 1:15-17). Finally a third statement is made, verse eighteen (John 1:18).

We are now dealing with the essential declarations of verses one, fourteen, and eighteen. In verse one we have three statements. In verse fourteen we have three statements. In verse eighteen we have two statements. Let us set out the statements in verse one:

“In the beginning was the Word;” “And the Word was with God:” “And the Word was God.” There are also three statements in verse fourteen. They are not so clearly marked. The first statement in verse fourteen is clearly made. The second is made, but the subject of the sentence is not named; it is understood. The third statement is a phrase only, but with subject and predicate understood. Supplying the subject in the second case; and subject and predicate in the third, let us set out these statements:

“The Word became flesh;” “And (the Word) dwelt among us;” “(And the Word was) full of grace and truth.” In the eighteenth verse there are two statements. Let us set these in order:

“No man hath seen God at any time;” “The only begotten Son, Who is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him.” Now let us observe that the three statements in verse one, and the three statements in verse fourteen are closely related. This will be seen if we read them alternately. That is to say, instead of reading verses one and fourteen straight through in each case, we will read the first statement in one, and then the first statement in fourteen, and so on through.

“In the beginning was the Word.” “And the Word became flesh.” “And the Word was with God;” “And the Word dwelt among us.” “And the Word was God:” “Full of grace and truth.” Then in verse eighteen we have two declarations. Of these, the first belongs to verse one; and the second belongs to verse fourteen. Once more let us set them out:

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” “No man hath seen God at any time.” “And the Word became flesh, and pitched His tent among us . . . full of grace and truth.” “The only begotten Son, Who is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him.” Now let us take the statements of verse one.

“In the beginning was the Word,” “And the Word was with God,” “And the Word was God.”

So much has been written about that verse that it seems almost unnecessary to stay to say very much about it. There are, however, some general facts which should be recognized.

If we had those three statements only, apart from their connection with all that follows, there are two things of which we should be conscious; first that of the truth of the ideas; and secondly that they are inexplicable. That is a paradoxical statement, but none the less true.

Glance at the three statements in themselves. First we have a noun that arrests us, “The Word.” This is coupled with a verb which does not arrest us in our English translations, but it does arrest us at once in the Greek, not in the essence of the verb, but in the tense employed.

We begin with the noun, “the Word.” What is meant by that? In the realm of Greek philosophy the term τ logos, was very familiar. While that is true, I do not personally believe it explains John’s use of the term. I do not believe that John was influenced by Greek philosophy when he employed it. He was influenced rather by Hebrew philosophy, which is a very important distinction. I recommend to every student, Dr.

Burney’s book, The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel. I do not agree with Dr. Burney in some points, but he has established, without dispute, that the Gospel of John in its thinking is Aramaic, not Greek; and his findings are that the book must have been the work of a Palestinian Jew; and that he could not have written it later than a.d. 75. Thus he maintains that the thinking of the writer is Hebrew. When John used the Greek term τ logos, unquestionably he would do so in the Hebrew sense as found in the Hebrew word Memra. The term “would have the Greek significance, qualified by Hebrew philosophy.

What then did the Greek mean by it? It referred to the whole realm of thought, the abstract conception lying at the back of everything concrete. Perhaps the idea may be expressed in the word Wisdom. The Greek philosopher recognized wisdom as antedating all works, noumena as preceding phenomena.

The Hebrew philosopher said, Things postulate thought. Wherever there is a thing, it proves a thought. The thing is the outcome of the thought. The Hebrew philosopher went further, and said, If things postulate thought, thought postulates a thinker. The Greek philosopher did not go so far as that. The Greek philosopher said, Behind all things there must be thought, but the thought is abstract.

The Hebrew philosopher said; You cannot have an abstract thought unless you have a thinker. Therefore the Hebrew philosopher said, “The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom.” The Hebrew philosopher said there is no unsolved problem of the universe finally. It is solved in the mind of the Thinker. “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” The Thinker, God; the thought therefore; and then the thing as the result of His thought and His action. So much for the noun.

Now look at the verb. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Now that, as I have said, is not arresting to us, because our language is not inflected as is the Greek language. The tense in Greek in every case is the imperfect tense, and the imperfect tense suggests not something past, or something present, or something future; but something continuous. The word “was” there suggests a continuous state. “In the beginning was the Word,” a continuous fact; “and the Word was with God” continuously; “and the Word was God” constantly. The imperfect tense thus described an age existence which cannot be measured by what we call time. Time is merely the marking off of eternity, to help finite beings until they reach the glory of eternity. The verb as here employed, takes us into the realm of the timeless. “In the beginning was the Word,” Wisdom postulated as existing. “And the Word was with God”; Wisdom vested in a Personality, if I may use the word; only as we use it, do not let us think of ourselves, but think of Infinite Personality.

Personality as I think of it in the realm of the human, is limited. Again, “the Word was God”; or to translate in the Greek idiom, “God was the Word.” That is to say that the nature of the wisdom, was the nature of the Personality, in Whom all wisdom was found.

Let it at once be admitted that while in some senses these statements are self-evident truths, they nevertheless are finally inexplicable. The one quantity is inexplicable; and therefore all the statements are also inexplicable. The one Quantity is God. We cannot explain God; consequently His thought is a mystery; it is beyond us; and the fact of it being with Him is necessary, but inexplicable.

Glance on for a moment to verse eighteen (John 1:18). “No man hath seen God at any time.” That is as far as philosophy can go, whether Greek or Hebrew. A recognition of Wisdom, and of personality; of the thought and the Thinker, and no more. “No man hath seen God at any time.” That is as far as verse one takes us. But how far is that? The fact of existence, “In the beginning was the Word”; the law of existence, “the Word was with God”; the nature of existence, “God was the Word.” All is still in the realm of the abstract. Yet here the Hebrew philosopher transcends Greek philosophy, which never rose to the height of affirming the personality of God. So we pass to verse fourteen (John 1:14). Again notice the noun and the verb. The same noun is here: “the Word.” But the verb is different, not “was,” but “became.” The word refers, not to the beginning of something new, but to that which already had existence, as it became new in manifestation. “The Word became,” that is one verb. There is another. “Dwelt,” literally, pitched a tent.

Whatever is meant in the first verse by the noun “The Word,” is meant in the fourteenth. But here are new verbs, no longer marking the continuity that defies all thinking in terms of past, present, and future; but declaring that something happened, something new, something fresh. “The Word became,” and that same Word “dwelt.”

Now take the statements, “The Word became flesh.” The word “flesh” is used to cover the whole fact of human nature. Having become flesh, the Word pitched His tent among us, dwelt among us. And then merely a phrase, revealing the things that were seen when that thing happened, that new thing happened, “full of grace and truth.”

Once again, mark the relationship between verses one and fourteen. “In the beginning was the Word,” existence; “the Word became flesh,” a new form of existence; a new form, not a new existence, but a new form of the same existence. Writing to the Philippians Paul said: “Have this mind in you, which was also in Christ Jesus; Who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a prize to be snatched, and held for His own enrichment, but emptied Himself,” of what? Of His Deity? No, but of one form of manifestation. “Emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant”;-a new form,-“made in the likeness of men.” “The Word became flesh,” a new beginning. “In the beginning was the Word”-timeless existence. “The Word became flesh,” a new form of existence.

Again, “The Word was with God.” In this new form of existence, He “pitched His tent among us.” Who? The same One. So the things we could not see, we began to see; and the things we could not know, we began to know; the things we had never heard with clearness of enunciation, were now finding utterance.

Finally John summarized all he saw through that new manifestation, “full of grace and truth.”

That is Christianity in a flash; and nothing else than that is Christianity. If men try to build up Christianity on an examination of the Man Jesus, they fail. Christianity takes hold of Hebrew philosophy, accepts its accuracy, but declares a new fact in the economy of God, that carries us much further than Hebrew philosophy ever did. “The Word became flesh, pitched His tent among us . . . full of grace and truth.” “The only begotten Son, Who is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him.” That is what Christianity is in its sum totality; it is the revelation of that which was undiscoverable, in order to apprehension and obedience.

So we come to the last statements. “No man hath seen God at any time,” or more literally, “No man hath ever yet seen God.” But now, “the only begotten Son Who is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him.” Many very ancient authorities read, instead of “the only begotten Son,” “God only begotten.” No man can be dogmatic as to which John wrote, because some old manuscripts read one way, and others the other. It does not matter, because “begotten” marks Sonship and relationship; and the idea is the same whichever form John may have written. The Son of God means One sharing the nature. He hath declared Him.

But how? “The Word became flesh,” and that becoming flesh was the method of declaring God. Now observe something peculiar and arresting. John wrote,” The only begotten Son Who is in the bosom of the Father." That phrase, “Who is in the bosom of the Father “marks limitation. It declares that what the Son has revealed of the Father has to do with that which is represented by that most beautiful and tender expression, “the bosom of the Father.” The revelation He came to make, is the revelation of the heart of God. He did not come to reveal the wisdom and the might and the majesty of God. These things are revealed in Nature, although we have never understood them in their fullness.

These things are not possible of apprehension yet. We have eternity to investigate them. But Jesus came to speak from the heart of God. He hath revealed Him from the bosom of the Father. In that sense it is a limiting expression. It is illimitable, because who can measure or fathom the heart of God; but it is from the bosom of the Father He hath spoken.

Here John employs a revealing verb, “He hath declared Him.” “Declared” is a beautiful word. In some senses we cannot improve upon it for the common understanding of ordinary men and women; but if I take the Greek verb, and instead of translating, transliterate it, it reads, “The only begotten Son Who is in the bosom of the Father, He hath exegeted Him.” What is exegesis? The word means bringing out from into visibility; to bring forth authoritatively into visibility. Exegesis is the authoritative bringing forth into visibility of that which was there all the time, but which was not seen until so brought forth.

Jesus is the Exegesis of God. He is the One through Whom there is brought forth authoritatively into visibility the things men had not seen. “No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son Who is in the bosom of the Father, He hath exegeted Him.”

That is John’s summary. John, who, according to the records, in the days of the flesh of our blessed Lord, laid his head on His bosom. When he did so, he was conscious not merely of the beating of a human heart, but distinguished the reverberations of the eternal compassion.

The Parentheses, John 1:2-13, John 1:14 b, John 1:15-17.

We now turn to the parentheses in the summary of the first eighteen verses (John 1:1-18). The first is found in verses two to thirteen (John 1:2-13). In verse fourteen certain words are in brackets. They constitute the second. Then in verses fifteen to seventeen (John 1:15-17) we have the third.

In the first parenthesis, having written the first facts about the Word, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was the Word,” or “and the Word was God,” beginning with the words, “The same was in the beginning with God,” the writer turned aside to show the relationship of the Word to two creations.

In the middle of verse fourteen we find an interpolated exclamation, “And we beheld His glory, glory as of the Only begotten from the Father.” That parenthesis summarizes what John and the rest of them saw.

In the third parenthesis, verses fifteen to seventeen, we have the testimony of two witnesses; first that of John the herald; and then that of the writer, John the apostle; John, the Hebrew prophet, the last voice of the old economy; and John, the Christian apostle, the first voice of the new.

To summarize yet more briefly. Three parentheses. Number one, the Word and two creations; Number two, the Word as it was beheld; Number three, the Word and two witnesses.

In the first parenthesis there are two movements. The first of these deals with the relation of the Word to the first creation (verses two to five); while the second deals with the relation of the Word to a new creation (verses six to thirteen).

As to the first creation. Here the writer surveyed the stream of history from the beginning, as recorded in Genesis, to the moment of writing. In doing so he referred to original creation. Of that, he wrote, “The same was in the beginning with God.” “The same,” that is the One to Whom he has already referred as “the Word.” The first declarations moved in the realm of the abstract, and may be impersonal. Now “the same,” or more literally, “this One,” was “in the beginning with God,” brings the consideration into the realm of the personal.

The Greek preposition rendered “with” in verse one, and in verse two, is arresting. It is the preposition pros. It is not meta; it is not sun; it is not para. All these can be translated in our language accurately by the one preposition with. Yet there is a distinction between them. Meta means “in the midst of,” or “after.” Sun means “in closest association.” Para means “by the side of.” Pros suggests not merely nearness, but a processional nearness, and united activity. He was with God, that is, facing God; and the suggestion is that of facing Him, in a perpetual approach of nearness, and co-operation of activity; facing God, approaching God, acting with God.

That was the relationship of the Word with God in original creation. So, “All things were made through Him.” The word panta, rendered “all things” means exactly that, but recognizes things separately, not only sum totality, but each thing separately. All “were made through Him.” That is to say, the Word was the Agent of God’s action, through Whom all things came into being.

But there is more to say. “And without Him,” that is, “apart from Him was not anything made that hath been made.” This declares that processional creation has also been through Him. Originally, through Him all was caused to be; and without Him there has been no progress or development.

This is the same truth as declared by Paul in his letter to the Colossians, “In Him were all things created in the heavens and upon the earth, . . . and in Him all things consist.” That which was from the beginning, with God, and of the very nature of God, is the One through Whom God acted, and still acts; through Whom everything was originally created; and processionally, nothing further has appeared, except through Him.

Proceeding, the writer now makes a summarizing declaration, and recognizes a distinction. The summarizing declaration is contained in the words, “In Him was life.” What life? All life. What do we know about life? We recognize the fact of life. It may be that of an arch-angel or a butterfly. In that inclusive sense the declaration is made, “In Him was life”; He is the Fountain-Head of life; all life is from Him.

Then a distinction is recognized. “And the life was the light of men.” Life everywhere, super-abundant life, life infinite, mysterious; but in man, life became light. Man, as distinguished from everything beneath him in the earthly creation, has this element of light. Man is the first, and the only one who, being created, understands; who can look back into the face of God and commune with Him. Humanity is seen as thus distinguished from everything beneath it in all the realm, or scale, if you like, of life. “The life was the light of men.”

Then follows a brief, but arresting declaration. “And the light shineth in the darkness.” Darkness, only a word; but a word recognizing all human failure. In writing of the great conflict of the soldier saints of Jesus, Paul referred to “the age-rulers of this darkness.” That is how Paul saw the world. So did John. He saw that darkness persisting through all human history. But he says, “The light shineth in the darkness, and the darkness apprehended it not.” The word “apprehended” as we now use it, might mean “understood.” But that is not the thought of the writer. It is rather that the darkness has never extinguished the light.

It is everywhere, but men have not walked in it. This is not ancient history only; it is true to-day. The light is everywhere, but men are walking in darkness, not obedient to that light. The human consciousness is universal in recognizing a distinction between right and wrong. That is the shining of a light. We read in the Wisdom literature, “The spirit of man is the lamp of the Lord.” Not the Spirit of God, but the spirit of man, is the lamp of the Lord.

In that spirit nature of man the consciousness exists of the distinction between right and wrong. That light the darkness has never extinguished. Whether men obey it or not is another question.

Having thus dealt with the relation of the Word to the first creation, John turns to another matter, breaking in with the words, “There came a man.” He is still viewing the stream of history. In that stream, “There came a man; sent from God, whose name was John. The same came for witness, that he might bear witness of the light, that all might believe through Him. He was not the light, but came that he might bear witness of the light.”

This marks a new departure. It began with prophetic foretelling. “There was a man, whose name was John”; and he came, not to bring some new message, but to talk to men of that which was already with them, the light. This man was not the light; he was bearing witness to it. “There was the true light, even the light which lighteth every man, coming into the world.” This is the second creation. The Light that lighteth every man, was coming into the world, was coming into observation, was coming into focussed visibility.

The phrase, “coming into the world,” may refer to the word “light,” or the word “man.” It can mean either grammatically. It can mean, There was the Light which lighteth every man who comes into the world; or it may mean that the Light that lighteth every man, was coming into the world. The whole movement of the thought here gives little room for doubt that the reference is to the fact that the Light was now coming into the world. It recognizes that there is a light lightening every man; but the emphasis here is upon the fact that this Light was now entering human history in a new way. A new beginning was being made; a new creation was taking place.

Then the writer looks back, and looks around. “He was in the world.” There was a sense in which He was in every man. “The world was made through Him,” and yet “the world knew Him not.” Then “The Word became flesh,” so “He came unto His own.” The Greek there is neuter, and we are sometimes told that it means that He came to His own country, Palestine. I think it has a wider meaning. He came into His own world. Then “they that were His own received Him not.” There the reference is to men, not Jews only, but the men of His creation. That is the story of His coming, and of His rejection.

But that is not all. “But as many as received Him, to them gave He the right,” the authority, “to become children of God.” Here we may pause for a moment with a technicality, upon which no man can be dogmatic. The question has to do with the words, “who were born.” Some manuscripts read “who was born.” The question is, does that passage mean that the people who believed on Him, were born; or does it mean that He was born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, but of God. It is an open question. Dr. Burney in his book, The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel, argues that it should be “Who was born,” referring to the Word; and he says, moreover, that there is to be found John’s recognition of the Virgin birth. He gave authority to those who believe on Him, to become children of God.

Who did? He Who was born,-mark the words very carefully,-not by the will of the flesh, not of the will of man, but of God.

Take it either way, the main thought is not interfered with. Here is a new beginning. The light that was in every man, which darkness could not put out, came into the world; and when He came, they that were His own did not receive Him. The world that was His own, did not recognize Him, and those that should have received Him did not. But He started a new creation, and to everyone who did receive Him, who did believe on His name, He gave the authority, the right, to become children of God; and, either He Who did so, was the One born Himself, not by the will of man, nor by the will of the flesh, but of God; or those who from Him received that right, were so born. This is the relationship of the Word to the second creation.

In the parenthesis of verse fourteen, John says, “We beheld His glory.” The Word . . . pitched His tent amongst us, and “we beheld.” The Greek word means we inspected, we saw completely. What was seen was “Glory, as of an only begotten Son of a Father.” The Greek preposition here is para, “an only begotten Son with a Father,” the thought is that of the perfect fellowship of being between the Father and the Son.

Then in a phrase he described that glory,-“Full of grace and truth.” In the signs recorded presently in the realm of works, John begins with the turning of water into wine at Cana. That was the glory of God in creation. The last sign he records is that of the raising of Lazarus from the dead. That was the glory of God in restoration. It was the glory of God that shined, when the water blushed into the fruit of the vine. It was the glory of God that was seen, when the body of the dead was reanimated, and came forth restored to strength and activity.

So we pass to the last of the parentheses, verses fifteen to seventeen. “John,” that is the herald, “beareth witness of Him, and crieth, saying, This was He of Whom I said, He that cometh after me is become before me; for He was before me.” That is the last word of the old economy. It declared that the Word made flesh, takes precedence in rank, because of eternal precedence. On a later day Jesus Himself said, “Before Abraham was, I am.”

Then follows the first word of the new, the witness of the new. John the apostle says, “For of His fulness we all received, and grace for grace. For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.” Literally, out of the fullness of Him we all received, and grace for grace; grace in the place of grace, grace succeeding grace.

The first dispensation was of His grace, but the measure was not complete. The law was given through Moses. It was temporary. Now “Grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.” The idea of that is not that grace and truth supersede law, except as the law was a temporary application of truth; and not the final enunciation of it. This passage is often quoted as though it drew a distinction between Law and Grace in essence. As a matter of fact it does not do so; but it does draw a distinction between them in method. The Law was an expression of Grace, temporary, transient, fitting the need of the time. Every provision of it was a requirement in the interest of man, and inspired by the love, that is the grace of the heart of God. It was given through Moses. Now that same grace in union with truth came through Jesus Christ. All the requirements of the Law are lifted on to a higher level of interpretation through the Incarnation, both in a moral code, and in the interpretation of human realization. But now the grace which inspired law has come into visibility of action which brings to man a new ennoblement, by way of the cleansing of the nature, and a new birth.

Thus we have three parentheses. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” That Word was related to the first creation, originating; and processionally continuing, the very Fountain-Head of life, which in man was light. That Word is related to a new beginning. There came a man from God named John, bearing witness to light; and there was the Light, coming into the world. For those who received Him He established a new creation. Those who receive Him, become the children of God. As He tabernacled in flesh, “we beheld His glory.”

Two witnesses speak, John the herald, the last of the Hebrew line; John the apostle, the messenger of the new. The old came out of the Older, for “in the beginning” before Law, “The Word was with God.” Now that Word-the Original in every way-has “become flesh”; He is the One Who was “before John,” and so the New is related to the Eternal.

Now that the Original has come in a new way, the one who was related to the period of the Law, and the herald of the New retires; and the apostle of the New bears his testimony. John 1:19-34 We have considered the great summarizing declarations; and the illuminating parentheses, dealing successively, with the relation of the Word to two creations; the fact of what men saw, glory as of the Only-begotten of the Father; and the testimony of two witnesses, John the herald, the last of the old economy, retiring; and John the evangelist, the representative of the new, advancing. We now begin the main section of the writing. The book consists, as we saw in our first meditation on the writer’s footnote (John 20:30-31), of a selection of signs from the life and the ministry of our Lord. We now commence a consideration of those signs. As we proceed, we shall find eight in the realm of works, and eight in the realm of words. The present paragraph is introductory. In it no sign is recorded.

At this point it is important that we call to mind the course and method of the public ministry of our Lord. It was divided quite clearly into three periods. That has always been recognized. The three periods have been often described geographically; as the Judζan ministry, the Galilean ministry, and the Perζan ministry. Now whereas that may be permissible, it is not strictly accurate, because in the first period He was not wholly in Judζa, He was sometimes in Galilee; and in the second period He was not wholly in Galilee, He was also in Judζa; and in the third period He was not wholly in Perζa, He was occasionally also in Judaea and Galilee. A better division is this.

He commenced His ministry at His baptism. That was the hour of His dedication to Messianic work and consecration therefore, as the Spirit fell on Him.

That first period of ministry lasted until the imprisonment of John. When John was put in prison He began the second period. Matthew, Mark, and Luke tell us nothing about the first period. They all begin the story of the ministry of Jesus when John was put in prison. Unquestionably that was a crisis, upon which our Lord entered upon a new period. The second period then lasted from the imprisonment of John to the hour at Cζsarea Philippi, when Simon Peter made his great confession. After that confession the third period commenced, which lasted about six months. As a rule it is said that the public ministry of our Lord lasted for three years.

I am personally convinced that it lasted three and a half years, but it is not worth debating. The first period lasted a year, and it was a quiet year comparatively, in which Jesus alternated between Jerusalem and Galilee. Then John was put in prison, and Jesus immediately went into Galilee, and began quite clearly what was intentionally a public ministry of definite propaganda, intending to draw attention to Himself and His message, as He had not done until that time. When the voice of the herald was silenced, the Lord at once invaded the tetrarchy of the man who had put him in prison, Herod; and caught up and carried on the great message, beginning exactly as John had begun, “Repent, for the Kingdom of heaven is at hand.” Then followed the second period, a crowded period, in which we may say His fame grew and increased by leaps and bounds.

Then came the next dividing line when He said to His disciples at Caesarea Philippi, Who do men say that I am? thus raising His test question. They reported the best things they had heard said concerning Him. Then He made the question personal to them: Who do you say that I am? One of their number, as I always believe expressing the conviction of the rest, made the great confession. Then, says Matthew, “From that time began Jesus to show them that He must suffer, and be killed, and be raised.” He had never told them that before explicitly. The last period of six months was still crowded, but the shadow of the Cross was upon them; and as we follow through we see that He was devoting Himself very largely to His own disciples, preparing them for the Cross.

Thus we have the three divisions. The first year, a quiet year, alternating between Jerusalem and Galilee. The next two years crowded years, during which His fame was increasing. The last six months still crowded, largely spent over Jordan in Peraea; and all the way shadowed by the Cross.

Now with that in mind, it is well to notice that John selected his signs mainly from the first period and the period. The first five chapters of John have all to do with the quiet year. Apart from them we should have had no details of the year between His baptism and the imprisonment of John the Baptist. Only John gives us incidents, and five chapters are occupied with happenings during that first period.

Of the crowded two years, so fully accounted for in Matthew, John gives us only glimpses. Chapter six is the only chapter that deals with that period. I am not accounting for the reason of this method, but it may at least be suggested that John had read Matthew’s Gospel, and knew the record was there of that central period. From chapter seven to the end, we have the record of things that happened after Caesarea Philippi.

We now consider the account of certain preliminary matters of great significance and importance, those namely of the witness of the herald; and the introduction of Jesus in Person, and His identification by His herald.

Observe in the first place, how John the evangelist, the writer, plunges in at that nineteenth verse, “And this is the witness of John.” We glance back to verse six, in this same chapter, and there we read, “There came a man, sent from God, whose name was John. The same came for witness, that he might bear witness of the light.” Now in verse nineteen: “And this is the witness of John.” Thus he starts in upon this main section with an introduction which assumes knowledge concerning John which has already been written, “a man sent from God” to “bear witness”; and “this is the witness.”

He records the witness in a very remarkable way. The witness was given in answer to enquiries, “When the Jews sent unto him from Jerusalem priests and Levites to ask him.” That is the only occasion where we find that phrase in the New Testament, the two orders named together, “priests and Levites.” Such were sent from Jerusalem to ask John, Who are you? In verse twenty-four (John 1:24) we are told “they had been sent from the Pharisees.” John had been exercising his ministry for a long time, and it was a ministry that had startled the country-side. All Judζa had gone out to listen to him. Even king Herod had sought him, and had had conversations with him, and had very nearly entered into the Kingdom of God; for it is said that at one time “Herod heard him gladly.” It had been a marvellous ministry, but quite evidently the authorities in Jerusalem were becoming concerned about it, and whereunto it tended, and who this man really was, who he was officially, who he really claimed to be. They sent down a remarkable deputation of those who were priests in the full order, and those who were Levites, waiting upon their courses in the services of the Temple.

They sent down a deputation to ask this man the real meaning of his own ministry. It may have been perfectly sincere, or not. John simply records the fact. When they came and asked him, “he confessed, and denied not; and he confessed, I am not the Christ.” They did not ask him in so many words if he was the Christ. They said, Who are you? But John knew what most evidently they were debating, as to whether, peradventure he was the Messiah, or wondering whether he claimed to be Messiah.

His answers were first negative and then positive. His first negative answer was, “I am not the Christ.” Very well then, they said, “What then? Art thou Elijah? And he saith, I am not.” And then they said, “Art thou the prophet? And he answered, No.” It is interesting how his answers became shorter in each case. “I am not the Christ . . . I am not, . . . No.”

These men were intelligent; they were sent by the Pharisees, trained in the lore of their own religion. They began by suggesting Art thou the Christ? The reply was clear, “I am not the Christ.” Then they went back to Malachi, and they said Malachi said that before the Christ comes, Elijah would come again. Are you Elijah? He said, I am not. Then they went back further.

They went to Moses, and said, “Art thou the prophet?” The interpretation of that question is found in Deuteronomy, eighteenth chapter, fifteenth verse. Moses had said that God should one day raise up a prophet like unto him. These men were employing their own Scriptures. Art thou the Messiah? Art thou Elijah? Well then, art thou the prophet?

Every time the answer was a denial. Then they said, " Who art thou? that we may give an answer to them that sent us.” We cannot go back with negatives. Tell us, “Who art thou? What sayest thou of thyself?”

Now his reply was very suggestive. Its implicates were that they had knowledge of their own Scriptures; they had the Messianic hope; they were familiar with Malachi; and they knew the prediction of Moses. So he took them to the great central prophecy of Isaiah; “I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said Isaiah the prophet.”

Then these men did what men often do when they are surprised. They raised a ritualistic technicality. They said, “Why then baptizest thou, if thou art not the Christ, neither Elijah, neither the prophet?” In reply he interpreted his mission. “I baptize in water.” That is all. They knew what his baptism in water had meant. They knew what had preceded it, in his preaching, and what baptism in water at his hands had signified. He had called them to repent and be baptized unto the remission of sins; repentance, the confession of guilt, and baptism, a sign of the need for remission.

Then he said this amazing thing. “In the midst of you standeth One Whom ye know not.” I think that statement must be taken quite literally. John knew Jesus was standing in the crowd that day. Why he did not identify Him that day I cannot tell. I have no doubt there was some reason. But he did definitely declare, “In the midst of you standeth One Whom ye know not, even He that cometh after me, the latchet of Whose shoe I am not worthy to unloose.”

That was the witness of John. I am not the Christ; I am not Elijah; I am not the prophet; I am the voice, crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord; and in your midst is the One Whose way I am preparing by the uttering of my voice. He did not then declare what the mission of Jesus was to be. He did not identify Him that day, but affirmed that He was already come, that He was there, undiscovered.

Then, “On the morrow”-mark it carefully. The next day, “he seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith.“Let us remember that these things took place about six weeks after the baptism. When Jesus had been baptized, John had seen the Holy Spirit descending upon Him; and by that sign had known that He was Messiah. He had not known before. He said he did not know Who the Messiah was, but a sign had been given to him, unquestionably in his communion with God, that upon Whom he should see the Spirit descend, that was He. Now, he said, I have seen it; I have seen the Spirit descend on Him.

In that hour he knew what he did not know before, that Jesus was the Messiah. Between that sign given and these events, Jesus had been into the wilderness, tempted for forty days. Now He had returned. Allowing for the journey to the wilderness and the journey back, six weeks had elapsed. Now Jesus was in the midst of the crowd. On the day of the deputation John saw Him, but did not identify Him.

Now mark the significance of “on the morrow.” He saw Jesus coming to him. How are we to interpret that? I think there can only be one answer, that Jesus was approaching him in order to be publicly identified. Be that as it may, John saw Him approaching, and as He came, he said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.”

It was a most remarkable identification in the light of John’s previous ministry. I am not undervaluing John’s earlier ministry. I am not suggesting that it was in any sense invalidated; but there was a tremendous change. In all the record of the ministry of John to that point we find nothing like that. That was a new note. He had said He would come with the fan, with the fire, with the axe.

He had declared that He was coming to burn up all chaff, and garner wheat; that He was coming to lower mountains and exalt valleys. Every phrase was suggestive of His coming in majesty and in power; and it was all true. But something had happened; and when Jesus was identified, he did not say, Behold, the Man of the fan, and of the fire, and of the axe. He said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.” So far as my reading and understanding of the narrative goes, I am quite sure that that conception and vision had broken upon him six weeks before, and had come now to maturity, because of the pondering of those six weeks. Six weeks before, Jesus came to be baptized. John did not know Who He was, but he hesitated about baptizing Him, because though he did not know He was Messiah, he was conscious of His sinlessness.

There was no room for John’s baptism in His life. Then Jesus had said, “Suffer it to be so now, for thus,” thus by the very thing from which you are shrinking, the Sinless taking the place of the sinful, by My being numbered with transgressors, “thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness.”

Now six weeks had gone, and when the great herald identified Him, he did it in those words, “Behold, the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.” Then he gave his proof. “I have beheld the Spirit falling upon Him.” That was his reference to the baptism of Jesus.

Then he declared His mission. The day before he had said, “I baptize you with water.” Now he said. He “baptizeth with the Holy Spirit.” Thus in connection with his identification of Jesus, John revealed the character of His mission. He introduced Him, identified Him, pointed Him out as “the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world,” and as the One Who baptized with the Holy Spirit. Thus all the evangelical values were revealed. The twofold mission of the Messiah was that of the taking away of sin, a cleansing process; and baptizing with the Spirit, an enabling process.

We take a step further. “Again on the morrow,” another day, “John was standing, and two of his disciples; and he looked upon Jesus as He walked.” On the day of identification it is distinctly stated that Jesus was approaching John, and he identified Him. On the next day John was talking to two of his disciples, I think undoubtedly in the early hours of the morning. He was not in public, but in private. The crowds were not round about him. He was with two of his own disciples, talking. Inevitably they were talking about what had happened yesterday.

Andrew was one, and shall I say without argument, John the writer was the other. Two in the inner circle, two who had heard his message and obeyed it, and had enrolled themselves as being with him. They had heard him say yesterday, “Behold, the Lamb of God,” about Jesus; a Person whom they had known almost surely, though perhaps not intimately, though John after the flesh was related to Him. They had heard the herald declare that He was the Lamb of God. As they talked of these matters, John saw Jesus walking, not towards him, but passing on His way. Then John once more cried, not the full declaration, but an indication of identity, as he said, “Behold, the Lamb of God.” In effect he said, There He is.

In that moment the two broke with John, and went after Jesus; and the public ministry of gathering has begun.

The central things that are revealed in these preliminary matters are the words in which John denied that he was Messiah or Elijah or the prophet; and declared his office, that of “the voice”; together with his revelation of the two aspects of the Messianic mission of Jesus, those of bearing sin, and baptizing with the Spirit. John 1:35-51 - John 2:1-12. Our previous meditation was concerned with those preliminary matters; the witness of the herald, when the deputation came from Jerusalem to enquire as to who he was; and then his public identification of Jesus as the Messiah. We ran over a little into this paragraph because of its references to the day after the public identification, when John was standing with two of his disciples, and Jesus passed by; and as He passed, walking evidently on His way, John said-not I think, to the disciples, but so that they heard him,-“Behold, the Lamb of God,” the One Whom he had identified in full description on the previous day in the words, “Behold, the Lamb of God, Which taketh away the sin of the world.” So that we come now to the third day in a series. The first day was the day of the coming of the deputation, when John declared, “There standeth One Whom ye know not,” but did not identify Him. On the next day came the identification to which we have referred. Now we reach the day following that, when John said, “Behold, the Lamb of God.”

That takes us back to the two things he had said about Him on the previous day; one already twice quoted, “Behold, the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world”; and the other, “The same is He that baptizeth in the Holy Spirit.” Thus He had been described as the Sin-Bearer, and the Spirit-Baptizer.

Now Jesus was seen walking, starting on the pathway of His public ministry; and we have the story of the first group of disciples gathered to the Messiah; followed by an account of the first sign, as John names it, the sign at Cana.

With regard to the gathering of this first group of disciples, let us consider two things; first, the men that were gathered to Him as He began His mighty ministry; and secondly, how He dealt with them.

As to the men, we take them in rapid survey. They are Andrew and another-and I am going to assume that the other was John, the writer of the Gospel,-then Simon, the brother of Andrew; and although it is not recorded here, I believe that we may put James in the group. The way the story of Andrew’s finding of Simon is told at least suggests that-“He findeth first his own brother Simon.” A slight alteration in phrasing gives the thought as I understand it, “He first findeth his own brother.” Not, He findeth his own brother first, implying that he was after someone else afterwards. But that he was the first to find his own brother; the implicate being that the other man also found his brother. I have no doubt personally that John found James then. It seems so natural and beautiful a thing to do.

Then Simon was named, and then Philip. From the standpoint of earthly position, not a single man of these was of any great note. I do not know much about Nathanael as to what his position in the world was. Yet what variety in a little compass.

Andrew. All we know about Andrew is that upon three occasions he was found introducing someone to Jesus. His own brother first; and then a little later on, a lad who had some supplies, when all the apostles were devoid of them. And then the occasion when after consultation with Philip, he came to Jesus with the Greeks. That is how we see Andrew. If I had to paint his portrait, I would paint the portrait of a rugged and strong soul.

He is the patron saint of Scotland! I would paint him so; not dour, for he was not that, but rugged and strong; the sort of man who cared for his brother, and brought him to Jesus. It is good to remember that this brother was the man who, on the Day of Pentecost, Andrew heard preach, and lead three thousand into the Kingdom. How many brothers there have been of that sort. Andrew was cautious. That is seen in this story.

When Jesus said, What seekest thou? Andrew said in effect, Nay then, but where do you live? He was a man who could not talk easily out there on the highway. He had to have a time of quietness.

John. He and James Boanerges, sons of thunder; and John presently known as apostle of consolation. John, the dreamer, the mystic, the seer. Two very different men were these, but they were together with John the Baptist, enrolled as His disciples, because obedient to his message.

Simon. A great elemental soul, with all the essentials of humanity strong in his personality; and yet just as weak as a man can be, until the day when he was apprehended by Jesus Christ, and the process began that turned him from shaly stuff into rock character.

Philip. Certainly a shy and unimpressive man, so shy and unimpressive that Matthew, Mark, and Luke tell us nothing about him, except that Jesus enrolled him as an apostle; and if I may dare to say so without irreverence, I think they sometimes wondered why the Lord took the man into the apostolate. But John, this man of the seeing eyes, tells us much about Philip. He was the man who at the end, when all the shadows were gathering around that little group of frightened souls, blurted out the whole of human agony in one great cry, “Show us the Father, and it sufficeth us.” Those shy men are often the biggest men we have to deal with.

Nathanael. I do not need to describe Nathanael. Our Lord did it. “Behold, an Israelite indeed, in whom is no Jacob.” That is exactly the significance of “no guile.” Certainly Jacob was in the mind of our Lord, because He made another reference to him presently, about a ladder set up on earth, and reaching to the heavens.

Thus we see them, the first men, the pioneers, striking the trail in the wake of the footsteps of Jesus. Andrew, the cautious; John, the poet; Simon, the elemental; Philip, the shy; and Nathanael, the guileless.

With what apparent lack of organization the work began. He just moved on, and they came, one by one. Now let us watch Him as He handles them.

The very first thing that He is recorded to have said to one soul on the pathway of His public ministry was the thing He said to Andrew. He knew that those two were following Him, that they had broken with John. There was no rupture. It was the departure from the lower to the higher. Because of John’s ministry they had been prepared for this thing. When the hour struck, they went at once after Jesus; and they were following Him; and our Lord turned, and speaking to Andrew and the other, said, “What seek ye?” Mark carefully, He did not say, Whom seek ye? That was self-evident. They were seeking Him. Yes, but He said in effect, Why are you seeking Me? What is the meaning of this break with John, and this coming after Me? What do you want? That is the very first word that is recorded as falling from the lips of Jesus as He began His public ministry. As a matter of fact we have only two other earlier words on record; the first as a Boy of twelve; and again at the baptism, except such words as are recorded as passing in the hour of temptation. Here then was, and is the first question, the first question of Jesus to a human being; the first question of Jesus to humanity as He begins His ministry. It is a question that plumbs the deepest thing in human life. What are you seeking? What are you seeking?

Now, here in the sanctuary, with the open Book in front of us, or to-morrow in the store, the office, the home, that is the supreme question about each one of us individually. What do we want? What are we seeking? What is the central inspiration, urge beneath all our lives’ activities?

Then, as I have said, came that very characteristic answer, “Where dwellest Thou?” which surely did mean that Andrew was conscious of the big thing that had been asked of him, and perhaps he was conscious of his own inability to answer it. As though he might have said, “Well, what am I seeking? What does lie deep down in my life?” I do not know that he went through that process, but I think he did. And so he said, I cannot answer it at once. Give me time; where do You live? Can’t I come and see you, and talk it out?

And then came the second word of Jesus, “Come, and see,” the Old Version had it; but the Revised gives a more accurate shade of meaning; “Come, and ye shall see.” The two first words of Jesus then in His public ministry, were, What are you seeking? and Come with Me, and your eyes shall be opened, and you shall see. And they went into the house, “and it was about the tenth hour.” We will not enter into any debate as to whether it was the Hebrew or Roman time. If the Hebrew, it was four o’clock in the afternoon. If John used the Roman time, it was ten o’clock in the morning. I do not know. It has been argued with equal scholarship both ways.

I think personally that it was the Roman time all through John, and that therefore it was ten o’clock in the morning. In either case several hours elapsed of which we have no record. It was one of those unrecorded private interviews that Jesus had more than once with individual souls.

Then we see Andrew coming out, and hurrying away to find Simon with one message, “We have found the Messiah.” Then we see him coming back with Simon, this elemental man; and again the Lord is heard speaking; “I know you; you are Simon. Your father’s name is John. You shall be called Rock.” It was a most amazing thing to say, and unless I sadly misunderstand human nature, no one was quite so amazed as Simon himself. Rock? That is the one thing he knew he was not. He knew perfectly well his strength, but he also knew his weakness; for every man of that kind is conscious of his own weakness.

We need not take the trouble to point it out. Men would say;-“Oh yes, we all know old Simon, he is a good sort, but heavens above! save us from him. We cannot build on him.” That is the expression men use of that sort of man. He knew men could not build on him; but here were eyes looking into his, and a voice that said, You shall be rock; you shall be a man men can build on. Our Lord had captured him. He never lost him again.

It looked at one time as though he were going to slip out of His hands altogether; but he never did.

Philip. According to the record, nobody went after Philip. What did I say? There was One Who went after Philip, and we have that illuminative declaration, “He findeth Philip.” Perhaps he had no brother, perhaps no close friend, interested enough to go after him. These other two came from his town, and probably Philip was associated with them in their disciple-ship of John; but they had not thought of Philip. But Somebody did. “He findeth Philip,” and to Philip He uttered for the first time, so far as the records reveal, the formula of which He so loved. He said to Philip when He found him, “Come and travel with Me”; for I make no apology in saying that that is the truer translation. That was all; but He had gained him.

Nathanael. Philip found Nathanael, and when Nathanael came-mark the method of the Master. First of all His word was not spoken directly to him, but to those about him; “Behold, an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile”-no deceit, no crookedness, who is transparent and open. The proof of the estimate was at once unconsciously given by Nathanael himself, as he said, How do you know me? I have known people if you said something like that to them, they would have replied, No, that is too kind altogether! Guile! Guile! This man said, How do You know there is no guile in me? How do You know about me?

Then Jesus uttered that word so full of significance. “Before Philip “-He is always before Philip.” “Before Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree,” in that quiet hour of meditation, possibly reading the story of Jacob and the ladder, “when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee.” “Before Philip,” and that guileless soul saw a glory that amazed him, and at once responded, “Thou art the Son of God; Thou art the King of Israel.” And then once again the words of Jesus. Do you believe simply because I said I saw you under the fig tree? You shall see greater things than these. You shall see that matter that you have been contemplating under the fig tree, that story of a ladder set up on earth, and reaching to heaven, fulfilled in Me, “Ye shall see the heaven opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man.”

Such was the first group as the story shows; different men; different methods. Mark that carefully. Let those who have the cure of souls in any form, not stereotype their methods. If you have somewhere a book giving mechanical instructions as to how to deal with souls, go straight home and burn it! Why? Because the next soul you meet will baffle your text books, and laugh at your regulations. Humanity is infinite in variety; and our Lord is always changing His method. That is what I see as I read this page of John, with its story of that early group, and how He dealt with it. Thus we come to the first Sign. On the third day they arrived at Cana. There are three matters to be considered; first the occasion of the sign; secondly, that arresting intermission when He talked to His Mother; and then the sign itself, and its value.

The occasion. The first sign was given at a marriage, at the sacred hour of union, through which there is completed the image and the likeness of God. A significant statement is found in Genesis v. 1 and 2 (Genesis 5:1-2). “This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made He him; male and female created He them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.” I once heard Dan Crawford, reading that chapter at Northfield, say, “Please note that. He called their name Adam, not the Adamses! “I repeat then that our Lord wrought His first sign in that sacred hour, that sacramental hour, when the two sides of the one image and likeness of God were coming into union, and that for the continuity of the race, and the carrying on of the revelation. In God there is Father-“Like as a Father pitieth His children”; and there is Mother,-“as one whom his mother comforteth.” And even then God is not complete in revelation.

There is childhood. The likeness of God is completed in the Son. It was a sacred hour, the hour of joy; and Jesus went there for His first sign. He was a bidden Guest, John tells us, and He accepted the invitation; and while He was there the wine failed.

Then came the revealing intermission. Let us attempt to understand what did happen as between Jesus and His Mother. The naturalness of the story first arrests us. His Mother came to Him, and said, “They have no wine.” Now what did Mary mean by that? What did she want? The easy answer is that of course she wanted Him to provide wine. But the converse reveals a deeper meaning in her words. We should never have known what Mary meant that day, if it had not been for what He said to her. What did He say to her? “Woman, what have I to do with thee? Mine hour is not yet come.” I do not know apiece of translation which hides the spirit of something said more than that does. To begin with, our word “Woman,” may give a false impression. On the lips of Jesus it was a word of intense tenderness. He used it again to Mary from His Cross. Then the question as translated has a harshness quite unjustified.

Let us translate literally, even though the idiom is not ours. “Woman, what is there to thee and to Me? Mine hour is not yet come.” “What is there to thee and to Me?” It was as if He had said; Mother Mine, I know what you want, but you do not understand; there are limitations to your understanding of Me. Mother of My flesh, dear to My heart, Mother under whose heart My life was enshrined when God prepared for Me My body; there are limitations to your understanding. You have been watching over Me all My years, and now I seem to be moving out into public work, you are anxious I shall do something that will reveal the meaning of My personality and mission. Mary was indeed the blessed Virgin. In her Magnificat she had sung by inspiration “All generations shall call me blessed.” She knew the profound secret of His personality, and it was a secret she never could share.

Has it ever occurred to you that the Virgin Mother went through life under suspicion, because there are some things which cannot be interpreted to common carnal humanity. And now the thought of her heart was,-Oh, if only He would show something, and prove!

To that longing He said; Mother, Mine, I know what you want. “Mine hour is not yet come.” What did He mean? That He would not perform the miracle? Certainly not. He did it. He turned the water into wine. It was His first sign; but He said in effect; That sign cannot satisfy the hunger of your heart; it will not produce the effect that you desire.

From that point in John’s story let us take a rapid glance on. In the seventh chapter we find that He said to His brethren, “My time is not yet come.” In the same chapter it is declared that “No man laid his hand on Him because His hour was not yet come.” In the eighth chapter John tells us He was teaching in the Temple “And no man took Him because His hour had not yet come.” In chapter twelve, when the end was approaching, the Greeks came, and He said, “The hour is come that the Son of man should be glorified,” and went on to show He was referring, to His coming Cross, resurrection and ascension. In chapter thirteen we read, “Knowing that His hour was come that He should depart out of the world”; and once more in chapter seventeen He said, “Father, the hour is come.” Thus His first reference to His hour was made to His Mother, and the last to His Father; and the thought of His glory being manifested through His Cross is discovered throughout.

Then, having said that there were things His Mother could not apprehend, and that all the infinitely deep desire of her heart could not be satisfied in the way she suggested, He at once performed the sign, and turned the water into wine.

Then John tells us that the value as to Himself was that “He manifested His glory.” That does not mean that there was a full and final and complete manifestation; but that He manifested His glory, that is, that He made His glory shine forth. In chapter twenty-one by and by we read, “He manifested Himself again “to the disciples. Here the same verb is employed, with the same idea; something done resolutely of His own will and intention. He manifested His glory. In his summing up John had written, “We beheld His glory, glory as of the only-begotten Son of a Father, full of grace and truth.” Here then was the value of what He did. “He manifested His glory.” The glory as of the Only-begotten of the Father, shone through that wonder.

The value so far as His disciples were concerned was that they believed on Him. The verb employed there is an arresting one. It means that His disciples made a surrender to Him in complete confidence. Of course they had believed on Him on that journey up. But now what they saw led them further; and in that moment, in a way not realized before, they saw His glory, and they believed on Him.

The first sign in the house of joy at a wedding, was a creative act, the turning of the water into wine. Thus the eternal Word is seen, in flesh, sanctifying the marriage relationship, sharing human joy; acting in essential human experience, and sanctifying human life in that realm of its ever persistent origin and new beginning.

John 2:13-25

The Gospel According to John John 2:13-25 - John 3:1-21.

John 2:13-25 - John 3:1-21.

After the first sign at Cana, as John records, Jesus tarried a few days in Capernaum; and then He took His journey to Jerusalem, because the Passover feast was at hand. This was His first recorded visit to Jerusalem, as Messiah. I have no doubt He had been there before in the course of His life. We have the story of a visit when He was a Boy; and we have every reason to believe He had gone up year after year. But now, coming as Messiah, it was certainly within the Divine order that He made His way to the Temple, which was at the centre of the national life. There He wrought a sign, which is the second in John’s selection.

It was wrought in the Temple, and it was of the Temple, distinctly a sign in the realm of worship. The first sign at Cana was in the realm of joy at a marriage feast, a revelation of creative power. Now He passed to the centre of the national life in the city, and to the centre of the life of the city in the Temple; and there He wrought this second sign in the realm of worship.

It was startlingly significant, and produced far-reaching results. It began the action unquestionably, of definite hostility towards Him, which never found its culmination, until they put Him on His bitter Cross. The action is most significant as we consider what He said in connection with it; something that was not understood at the moment, which nevertheless does interpret to us His own mind, His own heart, His own outlook, His own understanding, His own purpose. In considering the matter, we will follow two lines; first, the sign in itself; and then, those immediate results which John has recorded for us. We are first arrested by what John tells us Jesus found in the Temple. The word translated Temple here is hieron, not the word naos, used a little later on, of which more anon. It refers not to the sanctuary, but the outer courts, more or less open and available to all, and especially to the Gentile courts. What did He find in the Temple? “Those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting.” To realize what that means, we must remember the Temple, and what it really signified in the Divine economy; what it was intended to be in the history of the nation, and through the nation, in the interest of the world. Jesus came, the Messiah, into the Temple; and He found the Gentile courts with cattle in them, and the changers of money trafficking in them. These men were there to change Roman coins into Jewish coins, because no coin with the effigy of the emperor could be offered within those Temple courts for any purpose.

That would have been a desecration. So, for the convenience of the worshippers, there were men there prepared, at a percentage, to change the money. They also were ready to change large coins for smaller ones. This thing, by the way, still goes on. I have occasionally been asked if I could provide some small change before someone was going to service! These men were there to make religion easy!

There was no need to trouble to rear one’s own lamb, or bring one’s own pair of pigeons. It could all be done for you. Everything was conveniently arranged for, in the Temple courts. That is what He found. Religion made easy, and so devitalized.

Now with equal brevity, let us remind ourselves of what He did. He first plaited a scourge of cords; very likely picking up cords that were lying about, which had been bound round the oxen. He plaited them into the form of a whip of action; and then He advanced upon that whole crowd, and drove them out. There is an anaemic form of thinking that is eager to say He did not smite. I do not know that He did; but we do not know He did not. In any case I make my protest against that weak idea of Jesus that imagines there was no lightning flashing from His eyes, no wrath manifested upon His face, and no anger in His heart.

That is an anaemic Christ Who does nothing for the world. The very symbol at any rate suggested “the wrath of the Lamb.” We must not cancel that expression. When we do, we cancel Christianity as a living force. He plaited that cord, and He drove them out, and with splendid iconoclasm turned the money tables over, and scattered the coins across the Temple floor, in every direction.

Why was He doing all this? Listen to Him, “Take these things hence; make not My Father’s house a house of traffic.” He saw the desecration of the House of His Father, “My Father’s house.” The last thing He called this Temple much later on was, “Your house,”-“Your house is left unto you desolate.” He saw the courts, the places where men and women drew nigh to God, desecrated; and He wrought the sign; and the disciples remembered that it was written, “The zeal”-do not soften that,-the burning, consuming passion “of Thy house shall eat Me up.”

His second sign, in John’s selection, was thus a sign in the realm of worship; and a sign characterized, by the revelation of an august and an awful majesty, acting for the restoration of a desecrated House to its true function. I emphasize once more the fact that, as we know from other writings, those money changers carried on their work, and the sellers of oxen, sheep, and doves their work, not in Jewish courts, but in the courts that were supposed to be consecrated or set apart for Gentiles. The supreme iniquity to the heart of Jesus was that the Hebrew people were failing to function as God intended. His intention was always that they should bless all the nations; but they had now come to that position when they thought only of themselves, and the ease and comfort of their own worship. Gentiles! What did Gentiles matter?

Certainly use their courts, and desecrate them. Christ thus came, and swept out the whole unholy traffic, the zeal of the House of God consuming Him. Such was the sign.

Now immediately following the sign, we have John’s record of the results. There are three things to observe. First, in verses eighteen to twenty-two the challenge that was given to Him, and His answer to it. Then a little paragraph at the close of the chapter, showing in result, belief in Him, and His unbelief in those who did believe in Him. And finally, the story of Nicodemus, in the first twenty-one verses of chapter three.

First then the challenge that they brought to Him after He had wrought the sign. The exact words are found in verse eighteen-“The Jews therefore answered and said unto Him.” That is, they answered His action. They saw in His action a challenge. They “answered.” It is quite significant. The rulers recognized the startling challenge in what He had done in cleansing the Temple courts. As He stood in lonely dignity, coins scattered, animals dispersed in every direction, and with the animals those who owned them gone, they gathered about Him and they “answered” Him.

It was an answer to what He had done. “What sign showest Thou unto us, seeing that Thou doest these things?” They asked Him for a sign, to authenticate a sign. They had just received a remarkable sign. At any rate there was one man in the crowd had seen it, I feel sure; and that one man was Nicodemus. Presently we hear him say, “No man can do these signs that Thou doest, except God be with Him.” But they said, What sign do You give, which authenticates the sign You have given?

Thus we come to that which is the most significant thing in all the story. Jesus answered them and said, “Destroy this sanctuary.” Here I use the marginal reading, “sanctuary,” to draw a distinction between hieron, the word used for the Temple courts that were cleansed; and naos, the sacred enclosure itself, which was the word our Lord used now, " Destroy this sanctuary, and in three days I will raise it up.” How many of us would have understood Him, had we heard Him utter those words? Not one of us. Nobody did understand. The rulers did not. They laughed at Him. “They said, Forty and six years has this temple been building.” The Temple was not finished even then; nor for another ten years after that.

They practically pointed, Look at it; for forty-six years this building has been going on; and one can hear the ribaldry of their mockery, “and wilt Thou raise it up in three days?” It was very natural. We might have said the same sort of thing. John is magnificently honest. He tells us that it was not until after His resurrection that they remembered He had said that, and so understood. We hear the words nineteen hundred years after, and we listen to them, not as the rulers understood them, not as the disciples failed to understand them, but as He meant them. What is Thy sign? said these rulers; Thou Who comest up to this Temple, and sweepest out the vested interests that are supposed to be in the interest of religion? Thou overturnest everything. Thou art an Iconoclast. What is the sign of Thy authority?

Now very reverently, hear me, if I change the wording, not to improve it, but interpret it. In effect He said; The sign of My authority will be My Cross and resurrection. The ultimate proof and demonstration of the authority of all I am doing to-day will be discovered in the day when you unloose this tabernacle; destroy it in that sense, dissolve it; and I will raise the unloosened tabernacle in three days.

No, it was not intended that they should understand it then; but right here, in the beginning, in the first sign in the House of God, I discover the thought of His heart, and the sense of His mind, and the centre of His authority. What was it? His Cross and His resurrection.

Let me turn aside for a moment, and make an excursus in relation. Later on in His ministry, another evangelist records that He said; “An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it but the sign of Jonah the prophet; for as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the sea-monster; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.” That is the same thing, but in other language. He gave many signs. Yes, but He said, No sign will carry, no sign will be demonstration, no sign will produce conviction. An evil and adulterous generation seeketh a sign, and no sign shall be given it; but there will be a sign; the sign of death, and of resurrection. In those words then we find an unveiling of His own heart, and His own thinking at that moment. Next, John tells that when He was there in Jerusalem at the Passover, during the feast, “many believed on His name, beholding His signs which He did.” He did other signs, which are not recorded. John has given the central one. He now declares that many believed, not on Him, but “on His name,” that is, accepted His Messianic claim, “beholding His signs which He did.” Then this startling thing follows. “But Jesus did not trust Himself unto them.” The same verb is employed in both cases. I think something will be gained if we rendered it so. “Many believed in His name . . . but He did not believe in them.” Or, “Many trusted in His name, or on His name; . . . but He did not trust them.” Or to change it yet again, “Many committed themselves to His name; . . . but He did not commit Himself.”

Here we are face to face with something arresting. His signs produced a belief, but it was not a belief to which He could commit Himself. They committed themselves to Him in a certain way; but He could not commit Himself to them. Their belief was shallow. It was based on wonder. The things that were necessarily arresting, startling, spectacular, were all they wanted. Belief that is based upon the spectacular is always shallow and evanescent. If belief is nothing more than admiration for the spectacular, it will create in multitudes applause; but the Son of God cannot commit Himself to that kind of faith.

In that connection John illuminates His personality. He says, “He knew all men, and because He needed not that any one should bear witness concerning man; for He Himself knew what was in man.” He knew all men, generically; and He knew every man, individually. That is why He could not commit Himself. And yet in that heart there surged the infinite, the eternal compassion of God, and the desire to save. But He could not commit Himself to them. He needed something deeper on which to build.

Then we come to the story of Nicodemus. Notice how it begins; “Now there was a man of the Pharisees.” The word rendered “Now” may with equal accuracy be translated “But.” When I went to school they told me “But” was a disjunctive conjunction; which means that it indicates a separation of ideas, and a contrast. What then is the meaning of “Now there was a man of the Pharisees”? John was linking the Nicodemus story, with that which had immediately preceded it. Jesus could not trust Himself to some men, but there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus,-and to summarize all the story,-to whom He did commit Himself, whom He could trust, in whom He did believe.

Here then is a man to whom Jesus could commit Himself. It has become almost an expository habit to abuse Nicodemus, and to say that he was a coward. It may be well to remember that he and Joseph of Arimathaea were so-called secret disciples; but when all the loud-shouting crowd ran away, those were the two who buried Him. Sometimes there is more courage in quietness, than in noise.

Then follows the matchless story of the converse between Jesus and Nicodemus. It was night, and Nicodemus came at night, because he was determined to have Jesus all to himself. He had something of grave importance to say to this Teacher. He did not see Him as more than that. But he did believe Him to be One officially sent from God. The signs he had seen had convinced him of that. He had come to the absolutely correct conclusion, that anyone who wrought those signs must be from God.

The conversation proceeded in three movements. In verses two and three we have the first movement, in which we see Nicodemus and Jesus face to face. Then the second movement is in verses four to eight, in which we see Nicodemus and Jesus mind to mind. The last movement is in verses nine to twenty-one, in which we see Nicodemus and Jesus heart to heart.

Face to face. “Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews, a Pharisee.” He addressed Jesus as “Rabbi.” The title was one of respect, but it was not the highest. Rab; Rabbi; Rabban. Such were the degrees. Rabbi was the middle title. But it was respectful. “Rabbi, we know that Thou art a Teacher come from God; for no man can do these signs that Thou doest, except God be with Him.” He was perfectly right. He had not asked for anything.

He had simply made a statement, and then stood quietly waiting. But unquestionably the statement was a suggestion. What was it? That he wanted the latest word from God. He was a ruler. Jesus presently said to him, “Art thou the teacher of Israel?” I believe at that moment Nicodemus was-to use the word perhaps in its higher and better sense-the most popular teacher in Jerusalem.

He knew the Torah; was familiar with the Nebiim; and was acquainted with the Kethubim, or Sacred Writings. He knew too that there had been no authentic voice until that of John had sounded, the herald; and now this Teacher, authenticated by signs, demonstrating that He was from God. So he came, waiting to hear this latest word from God.

Then, in the history of that man, that wonderful man, that fine man, that courageous man, there crashed across all human thinking, all its religions, all its philosophies, and its theologies, the revealing word. “Except a man be born from above, he cannot see the Kingdom of God.” Human intellect is entirely at fault. There must be a new birth, a new life principle, before the Kingdom of God can be seen, to say nothing of entering into it.

Thus they are seen face to face, the seeker standing in the presence of a Divine Teacher, wanting the last word; the one final and authoritative Teacher saying, What you need is not to graduate, but to backslide further back than babyhood; you need to be born anew. No psychology will ever effect conversion. Regeneration must affect psychology. “Except a man be born anothen, from above, he cannot see.

Now mark the second movement, mind to mind. Nicodemus said, How can this thing be? He was not contradicting Jesus. I believe that in a flash he saw what a marvellous thing it would be if that could be; what a glorious thing it would be if a man could begin all over again. But how could it be? Then he used the physical as an illustration, “Can a man enter a second time into his mother’s womb, and be born?” He was only illustrating, but it was a very powerful illustration.

Nicodemus meant to say, Born again! Here am I, and what I am is the result of what I was an hour ago, and yesterday, and all the days of the past. My personality is the result of processes. Can this body of mine be turned back into embryonic form in my mother’s womb? And if that cannot be, then how is the more difficult thing to be done, that of remaking my personality, spirit, mind, and body?

Then Jesus went on, very beautifully answering him in the realm of interpretation. Listen to Him. He said, “Except a man be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.” Mark the continuity. You have been attending the ministry of one who baptized you in water, and told you Another would baptize you in the Spirit. Except you are born of all that the water baptism signified, repentance; and that which the Spirit baptism accomplishes, regeneration, you cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.

Then correcting the illustration He said, “That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” That is to say, Nicodemus, your illustration won’t do; it only applies in the realm of the flesh, and it is impossible in the realm of the flesh; you cannot enter into your mother’s womb a second time and be born. That is the flesh. Do not confuse flesh with spirit. The spirit of a man can be completely regenerated; he can be born again. That which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not confuse the two things, said Jesus in effect.

And then He gave an illustration. You cannot understand the blowing of the wind, but you obey the law and gain its force; so with the Spirit. Do not postpone relationship with the possibility, Nicodemus, by intellectual struggle. Obey the law of the wind, and the wind obeys you. Obey the Law of the Spirit, and you will know the new birth.

Then Nicodemus came with his last question. I am sure this question had an entirely different significance. Nicodemus said, “How can these things be?” His first question meant, Can they be at all; the second question meant. What is the process?

Then with tender, gentle playfulness Jesus said. Are you the teacher in Israel, and don’t you know these things? If I told you earthly things, the things I have told you so far, and you don’t believe; how are you going to believe if I tell you heavenly things? But He went on, and did tell him of the heavenly.

His answer to the last “How” of Nicodemus is found in three movements. “As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up; that whosoever believeth may in Him have eternal life.” That is how.

Let us go further. “God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son.” That is how.

And yet a little further, “God sent not the Son into the world to judge the world; but that the world should be saved through Him” He has sent the light. That is how.

How? said Nicodemus. Jesus said, Life through My death; love from the heart of God through His gift; light through My mission in the world. That is How. Because God so loved, He gave; and life comes through that gift; and now the light is shining.