The Pulpit Commentary — John — Volume 1 — Section 494

11.nn0unros ll dootrine concerning the devil, folly upou him immedie.tely ; but, so far from and cum·evs ruC-1'8 informl\tion than can be convincing him or mankind, they etnud for obll\ine<I from euy other eouroe. This is ever co,·ered with the eho.me of their own nnt n11,,.., RC<'Clmruod•tion to the conscioue- incompetence to e.pprehend hie messugo or nl't!s of "die:non10c or 1h11 prejudices of the himself. He being, then, without ein, nnd Je-ws, "" somA hRve iutc,rpreterl Christ's assuming that li.e stands iu the eternal truth, hmgt111.g-e in •he ,;vnoptio G-ospols, but it e.nd is the o.bsolnte Truth of things, o.nd that is dist1r-ct rlogumtic t.e,achini: About the he cannot from his moro.l purity ,leceive or J'l''"""n,.lity, chal'8Cter, l\:.d meth,,d of the misinform them, o.u<i that his testimony to devil. himself is final, sufficieut, and trustworthy, Ver. 45.-Then, turning to t 1,...,.e children asks, If I say the truth-without your of the wicked one, Christ rlch~""-"1 11. tre- having <'O?vi~ted me of sin or. brought any mendous d,•mmcie.tion : Bnt becau~& l ~ay moral obhqu1ty or offence a.garnet mo-if I the truth-~ause I Rm the Ort:;>tn., UttenH!""', ea.y (Utf) truth, why do ye not believe me1 and lncnrnntion of the truth-ye believe me The reason is in them ro.ther than in him. not. If he spake lies to them, they would ThElir non-belief discloses no flBw in his greC'dily receive them. The very cause of revelation, but mo.kes it evident that they I.heir lack of credence is the utterance of and be are on different planes of being, truth. The " I" is emphatic, and set over with a di:icrepant, opposed, moral paternity, ag-ainst the "you" of the second chtuse. ·• Why do ye not believe me?" He me.r- There is a tragic force nbout this charge vl'llcd at their unbelief I He is from God; almost unpo.ra 1leled, implying the most wil- they a.re from God'd great enemy. The ful estmng-ement frum GoJ, a rejection of moral perfection of Jesus as the God-Man 1.--nown truth because it was truth, a love of is e.bsolutely necessary to his character as de.rkness because it was de.rkness, a moral "nod's Lamb," as "the Only Begotten,"" the obtuseness which answers to the terrible Son," and e.s "the Judge,'' of ihe hnman language, "Leet they should see with their race. As he subsequently said," The prince eyes," etc. of this world cometh, and hath nothing in Ver. 46.-Which of you oonvioteth me of me." To account for this sinless, perfect sin , 'E>.l;,x01 is used in the sense of eh. humanity, the entire conception of the :sxi. G-8 (see note)-Which of you can Divine nature blended in indissoluble union justify a charge of siil against me? can bring with his own is found im perntive at every it home to me or others? Sin (a./l-apTla) is epoch of Christ's life. At every development not mere "error," as Erasmus and some others of his officio.I character, in every new com- ha'<'e urged, because the word throughout bination of ciroumstnnce, in con!I ict and the :Kew Testament (o.nd in the clo.ssics sorrow, when smarting from trenchery and when not accompanied by some explanatory dying alone upon the cross, he is "perfecr." term) always means "contrariety to the will he fulfils the perfect norm, he reaches the of God," more.I offence not intellectual defect standard of Divine humanity. There is no (so Meyer, Luthardt, Godet, Westcott). Nor discrepanoe here with even Mark's account is it round exegesis to limit a.µ,apTla to one of his language to the young ruler (Mark particular fonn of sin ( euch as '' false x. 18), for he does not there say that he .is doctrine," Calvin, Jl1ele.ucthon, Tholnck). not good, nor does he do other than suggest There is no need to limit its reference ; and that he is identified with the One who is in the unanswered query, while we cannot good. say that by itself this passage is sufficient Vers. 47-58.-(6) THE I AM. The claim !o demonstrate the sinlessness of Christ, it to be th,e Source of liberty and life, in reply reve:i.ls a sublime depth in his translucent f,o those who appealed to their Father God OOl16Cionsness that places him-unless he and their father Abraham, led JesUJJ to auert were the moat deluded or self-eu:flicient of his anteriority to Abraham. human teachers-on e. different position from Ver. 47.-There was eome po.use after all other Divine meSBengers. In proportion this searching inquiry. Silenoe showed as other great moral prophets hs.ve b<lt their that, if they conld not convince him of sin, own stan<lard high, they have become con- they were ready with no answer to his scious of their own defects; and from question. He assumes that his word is Moses to St. Paul, from .Augustine to St. unanswerable ; he is what he so.ye he is, aud Fre.ncis, the saintliest men have been the is able to set men free from sin o.nd to give most alive to their own departures from them eternal life. Their position is still their ideas of right. The etando.rd of Jesus further explained by a distinct syllogism, of is liigher than that of any other, and he which the major premiss is: Re that is of appears ne\"e1theless al,solutely without need God hee.reth the words of God ; words whioh of repentance, above the power of tempta- it is obviously taken for granted he is tion, beyor.d the range of conviction. True, freely, surely uttering. Who are the persona the Jews br-mght a charge of madneas and ri;ferred to? Some, like. J;lilgenfold, d4- CH, vm. 1-59.] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. JOHN. 369