The Pulpit Commentary — John — Volume 2 — Section 49

olaime; thPir active trust ie rewarded by hie own Personality as dietinct from thnt of the gre,,tt>st gift; their indefMeible birthright is Father, and yet ho asserts a fundomontnl guaranteed by hie limitless authority and unity. But what kiud of unity is it? Is power to prot.ect them. It would be gross it a unity of wish, emotion, sentiment, on Jy? perversion of the pa,-eage to urge this inde- On the contrary, it is a ouoness of rodemptivo feasible birthright on the ground of a few power. Tho Divino activity of the Father'• oooe.sional flashes of conscious assurance and eternal love did not come to any arrest or without nuy recognition of all the terms of pause when he g,we the sheep to the Son, the relRtion. but with its irre.,islible might is present in Ver. 29.-Tbe last stat.ement is sustnined the" hand" of Jesus (110 one "can," not no by " 11till loftier BSsumption. Before trans- one .. aha.II "). Thereforo the ,.,, the one lating, it is neC'.essary to notice the three reality, if it does uot express notuo.l unity of reudings of the text. (I) That of the T.R. essence, involves it. Some have endeo.vourod and the Revisers' Text: 1 My Father who gat1e to minimize the forco of this remo.rkn ble (them) t-0 me is great.er tlurn all the powers statement by compnl'ing it with ob. xvii. that can possibly be arrayed against them. 21-23, where Jesus so.id believers ure "to (2) The reasing of ~. D, With refertmee t-0 be in us," and "to be one, even as we o.re that which my Father, One greater than all,, one," i.e. to have the same kind of relation gave me, and no on.e is able to pluc/r from the with ono another (being a collective unity) hand of the Father. Meyer. however, tre.us- as tho Fnther and Son susta.in towards each lates this differently; he supposes the µ,,(ov other, " I in them, thou in me, that they to refer to the Father "a something ~eater, may be perfected [reaoh their.-lAos, by being a greater potence." Wesloott e.nd Hort blended) into one;" i.e. into one Divine per- prefer the reading with 8 e.nd µel(ov; and sonality by my indwelling. Now, it is uo- Wcstcott translates, That which my Father where there said tha.t believers and the luu; giuen me is greater tJ,an all, and regards it Father are one, but such o. statem11nt is e.s e. reference to the sheep ns e. collective scrupulously avoided. Numerous attempts unity. The interna.l reaaons compel Lu- have been me.de to escape from the stupen- tha.rdt, Godet, e.nd Lange to fa.11 bnck on dous assumption of this unity of power and T.R.. and surely the extraordinary sire.in essence with the Father. The whole gist of of the meaning justifies them. Our Lord the assertion reveals the most overwhelming· would sustain with even stronger assurance self-consciousness. The Lord declares that the safety of his sheep. The Father's gift he can bestow eternnl life and blessedness to himself, the Father's own eternal love upon those who stand in olose living rela- and power, the Divine omnipotence of the tion with himself, and between whom and Lord God himself, is pledged to their secu- himself there is mutual recognition and the rity. "My hand" becomes "my ~'ather's interchanges of love and trust. He b11.ses the hand." He seems to say, " If you question claim on the fact that the Father's ha.nds my capacity, you need not question his a.re behind his, nnd that the Father's eternal power. Sacrilegions violence mo.y appa.- power and Godhead suste.in his mediatorial rently nail my hands to the cross; the functions and, more than all, thnt the sword may awake age.inst Jehova.h's Shep- Father's Personality and his own Personality herd. Bat none can outwit, surprise, cru- are merged in one essence and entity. If he cify, con~uer, my Father, none can invalidate merely mea.nt to imply moral and spi.J:ituo.l his care.' union with the Father, or completeness of Ver. 30.-Then follows the sublime minor revelo.tion of the Divine mind, why should premise of the syllogism, I e.nd the Father the utterance have provoked such fierce (we) are one. As Augustine and Bengel resentment? have sa.id, the first clause is incompatible Vere. 31-39.-(3) Rellented and chal- with Se.belli.anism, and the second clause lenged, but 'Uindicated by word and sign. with Aria.n.ism. The Lord is conscious of his Ver. 31.-Tho.t the Jews supposed him to speak of an essential unity is obvious from 1 The rea.ding of the T.R. and R.T., with what follows. The Jews (then 1) took up- the exception of the last word, is, 'O na..-fip should rather be carried or bore in their µ.au, 8s 5,!5,,,,d ,,_.,, ,,_,l(rov ,ra..,.,.,,,., lu.-l· «a.I ha.n<Li-stonea again, huge pieces of marble ou5Els li611a.Ta.l a.p,ra.(ew '" -rijs x«pbs TOU ,ra.- lying around in the public worlts then pro- -rp6s [lwu). Although the R.T. places in tI:e ceeding. There is an increase of mCLlioe over margin & 5,!Bro«t ,,_o, ,ro.v.-rov µ,a(ov lu.-1, th18 and above what was involved in simply lift- is the reading preferred by Westcott and ing stones from the pavement (cf. eh. viii. Hort. Tischeudurf (8th edit.) aud 'fregelles, f)!J ), and the alloration of the word is another on the authority of tc, D, L, Coptie, Sahidio, hint of the eye-witness. The word" ngain" and Italic, read 8 8,5ro«Ev with ,,..t(tlv, and subsequent modification in A, B, X. Vul- 1 o~., is omitted by R.T, and Tisohendorr pte, etc., read £s and p.Ei(o~. (8th edit.).  UH. X, 1-42,) THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. ,JOHN. 61