The Pulpit Commentary — John — Volume 1 — Section 347

nuothe1 and more staggering charge which wish "the J ewe" to uuderstnud by "the they were n0t ot that moment able to condone. Son''? Did be identify himself with tho They rought the more to slay him beoauee he Son of whom he here speaks? Buroly this was oalling God his own (lt,ov) Father, is unquestionably the ease, for the" answer" making himself equal to, on a level with, God. here given is one addressed to those who He did use the phrase, "my Father," with were seeking to slay him becnuse he olnimed n mo.rked emphn8is. He did not say, "our for himself thnt God wo.s "bis own Father." Father, or !JOll-r Father;" he nssumed a unique He had said," My l!'atber worketh hitherto, rclntion to the Father. The inmost centre and I work." He justified the true roverenoe of the Didne consciousness in him thrilled he felt for the Father when using this 1hrough the human. Though he did not language, by desotibing in various ways ,.ear now the "form of God," but the "form tho functions, privileges, nnd work of "the of the Scrrnnt," yet the Servant lmew thnt Son." Is "the Bon," however, here the he was Son and Lord of all. The Divine Eternal Son, the Logos, before nnd indepen- l'crsonality which had always wrought out dently of his inonrnntion? and are tho tile eterna.l oonnsels of the Father's will was doctrines here announced an appeal to a working now on identical nnd parallel lines pre-existing belief in such a sonship on the in the humnn sphere. There were senses part of his enemies, so thnt he is denling, in ,vhich the Lord Jesns was the own and at least from vere. 19-23, with the internal only begotten Son of God. This was a hsrd relations of tile Godhead, The references saying. This placing of himself on n level to the recent lp-yov, and the moral effects with God Wllll the blasphemy which the whioh are to be produced upon his hearers Jews resented. Jesus knew what he said, by further nctivity, make this view doubtful, and saw the impression his words produced, Does he here speak simply of " the Son of nnd took no steps to correct it. Two classes mnn " in his purely dependent, servile of result naturally followed. Some said, capacity, nnd earthly manifestation? (Wat~ " He blnsphemeth.,'~ " He h.ath a devil," and kins). We think not; for the deeds and lhe high priest subsequently, in reply to a functions of " the Son" are here so lofty similar utterance of the Lord, rent his clothes; and far-reaching that this interpretation is but other some felt conoerning him that the inadmissible. Therefore we conclude, with relation between him and the Father was, Meyer aud others, that by •• the Son" he did so far OB they knew, absolutely nniqne. The mean "the whole subject, the God-Man, the nuthor of this Gospel exclitimed, "He who incarnate Logos, in whom the self-determi- ' wn.e 'llith God and was God • has been nstion of action independently of the Father manifested in the :flesh, and we saw his cannot find place." This view of •• the Son" glory, the glory of the Only Begotten of the involves the continuity of the Lo~os-con- Father." scionsness, and not its obliteration ; nor is Vere. 19-29.-(b) Christ mndwated hie this (ns Reuss urges, and even Godet appeani equality 'IJ!ith tlie Father. in part to couccde) incompatible with the Ver. 19, 20a.-(a) He declares him,,elf to Logos-doctrine of the prologue. The Bon be " the Son." is not able to do anything from himself, Ver. 19.--Jesm therefore answered and in the great work of healing, life-giving, and aid to them; i.e. replied to their secret redemption, except that which he seeth thought.a, and to the seuti.ments of animosity the Father doing. The Logos made :flesh; end hostility which they did not conceal. He the Son who ha.a taken huma.nity up intd spake in language of extraordinary solemnity his own eternal being, is ever in full con-. and august claim. The Verily, verily, with templation of the Father's activity. He ia which he prefaced the opening sentence, in intimate and continuous and affectionate and which he repeated (cf. vers. 24, 25, as in relations with the Father, who in this eh. iii. 3 and elsewhere) on st:bsequen t occa- capacity hns sent hie Son to be the world's sions, denoted the high ground of authorita- Saviour. He sees the Father's healing tive revelation on which he took his stand. grace and omnipresent energy and ceasele~s He proceeded, without a break or iuterrup- activity in regions where "the Jews" fail tion, to asdert, on the authority of his own to discern them. The incarnate Son does consciousness, the true relation subsisting not set up a rival tlirone or authority. He 1.,etween the Son and the Father-the deep, moves, lives, has his being, from the Fath.er eterne.l, sacred link between them; in essence and not from himself. and in affection, in work and function ; and Yer. 20.-For-the Lord introduces a gave several illustrations of these matters, reason, states a fact, which is calculated to the verification of which was not beyond the make this vision of the Father's activity cape.city of his hearers. These he me.de apprehensible to hie hearers-the Father the bn.eis of the argument of ver. 23, " that loveth ( ,p,>-Ei expresses strong personal, all men should honour the Son, even e.s natural affection, amat rather than the tbBy honour the Father." What did he a-yari or diligit of Ql&ny other paoeage,, en. v. 1-17.] nm GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. JOHN.