Bible Commentaries
John 2

XXII

JOHN’S TESTIMONY TO JESUS, JESUS’ FIRST DISCIPLES AND HIS FIRST MIRACLE

Harmony pages 18-19 and John 1:19-2:11.

The subject matter of this chapter is in John’s Gospel alone, John 1:19-2:11. There are two places only, Bethany beyond Jordan and Cana of Galilee. The whole period of time is one week. Four consecutive days are specified and the seventh day. The very hour of one day is also given. The time of year is near the Passover, therefore in the spring (John 2:13), the first Passover in the ministry of Jesus. The important divisions of this chapter are (1) John’s testimony to Jesus, (2) the first disciples, and (3) the first miracle of Jesus.

This chapter commences a series of first things. The whole series comprises (a) John’s first testimony, (b) first disciples of Jesus, (c) first miracle, (d) first introduction of his mother in his public ministry, (e) first (and perhaps last) marriage attended by Jesus, (f) first residence in Capernaum, (g) first Passover, (h) first purgation of the Temple, etc.

The first scene is on the left or east bank of the Jordan. This we know from the word "beyond" as spoken from Aenon on the west bank, John 3:26. There is a difference in text as to this first place. The common version, following later authorities, locates it at Bethabara. All the older manuscripts followed by the Canterbury revision, say that it was Bethany. If Bethany be the true text, it cannot be the Bethany near Jerusalem, mentioned in John 11:1 as the home of Lazarus, Mary, and Martha, but some now unknown locality in either Perea or Iturea. Bethany certainly suits the context and has the testimony of tradition. Such also is the testimony of Origen.

JOHN AS A WITNESS

One of the most important functions of John’s office was to bear witness to Jesus as the Christ. His whole mission was to prepare the way for him, to make ready a people for him and then to bear witness to him. The witness-bearing feature of John’s mission is particularly brought out and emphasized in the Fourth Gospel alone.

I will now give the outline of John’s work as a witness for Christ, from which any preacher may preach a sermon.

Text: John 1:6-7.

Theme: John the Baptist a witness to Jesus as the Messiah.

Matthew 3:11; Mark 1:7; Luke 3:16 give the testimony before he knew Jesus as the Messiah, as to the office, dignity, and work of the Messiah.

Office: "The Lord," "The One coming after me," "The Christ."

Dignity: "One whose shoe latchet I am unworthy to unloose."

Work: "Who baptizeth in the Holy Spirit and in fire," separating the wheat from the chaff, determining and fixing the destiny of both.

Testimony as to purity and sinlessness (Matthew 3:14): "I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?" Testimony to the deputation from Jerusalem, John 1:15; John 1:19-28; John 5:32-33; as to his office and dignity.

Testimony to Jesus as the vicarious Lamb, bearing or taking away the sin of the world, as to his pre-existence, anointing by the Holy Spirit, as the baptizer in the Holy Ghost and as the Son of God (John 1:29-34).

Testimony to his own disciples that Jesus was the Lamb of God (John 1:35-37).

Testimony to a Jew (a) that Jesus was the bridegroom, (b) that he must increase, (c) that he was divine – “come down from heaven," (d) that he was sent of the Father, (e) that he speaketh the Father’s words, (f) that the Spirit was given without measure to him, (g) as to the filial object of the Father’s love, (h) that all things were given into his hands, (i) that he is the object of faith, (]) the source of eternal life, (k) that unbelief in him and disobedience to him bring instant, persistent and eternal wrath (John 3:22-36).

Resuming the discussion, let us look at John’s Bethany testimony.

The occasion of this testimony was the visit to John of a formal deputation from the Jerusalem authorities, the Pharisees, sent to ascertain from John himself Just who he was, what his mission and what his authority.

The fact that the authorities of Jerusalem deemed it important and necessary to take this step is remarkable evidence to the great impression which John’s early ministry had made on the public mind, and the direction of this impression shows how widespread was the expectation of a Messiah and how earnestly the restless and burdened Jews longed for deliverance from Roman oppression.

In a previous chapter has been shown the out-cropping and direction of this impression concerning John (Luke 3:15). Subsequent testimony shows how the public mind was similarly agitated about Jesus and his work (Luke 9:7-9; Matthew 16:13). And still later, at the trial of Jesus, we find the Jerusalem authorities endeavoring to secure from Jesus by judicial oath his testimony concerning himself (Matthew 26:63; Mark 14:60 f).

The earnestness of the inquirers is manifested by their many, rapid and searching questions: "Art thou the Christ? Who then? Elijah? That prophet? Why baptizeth thou then? What sayest thou of thyself?"

In John’s replies two things are most striking: first, he minifies himself; second he magnifies Jesus.

This suggests an important lesson to all preachers and indeed to all Christians: get behind, and not before the cross.

It also teaches that between the purest and greatest men on the one hand and Jesus Christ on the other, there is infinite distance, which establishes his divinity.

It is also quite important to note how clean and manifold is John’s testimony: (a) as to dignity of person ("shoelatchet,") (b) his divinity and pre-existence ("from heaven," "Son of God,") (c) His vicarious mission, the object of faith, (d) his anointing (Messiah) and its fulness, "without measure."

Testimony to his own disciples: (a) "Lamb of God," (b) "Leave me . . . go to him." Compare John 3:26; Matthew 2:2-3; Matthew 14:12.

THE FIRST DISCIPLES OF JESUS
These were John’s disciples. It proves that John had made ready a people for the Lord, thus fulfilling that part of his mission and also preparing the way. Cf. Acts 1:21 f, which gives the successor to Judas. The names of first two are John and Andrew. The important lessons are: (a) If we know Jesus let us follow him, and (b) bring others to him. Then follows the case of Andrew and Peter. Here we have the change of Peter’s name from Simon to Cephas. (See the author’s sermon "From Simon to Cephas," first book of sermons, p. 279). The case of Philip and Nathanael follows, showing the evidence on which Nathanael believed. This section closes with the angels ascending and descending upon the Son of man which is the antitype of Jacob’s ladder.

Now let us consider this passage more in detail. The first thought of the passage is a shepherd finding a sheep; Jesus is the shepherd and Philip the sheep. Jesus finds Philip. It is a wonderful thing when Jesus finds any of us. He came to seek us out; to find the lost. It is his great office, as the shepherd, to find that which was driven away, to find that which was lame; to seek it until he does find it, and then to bring it home again healed and saved. Such finding is an event. It is an event of a lifetime. But when he does find us it seems to us as if we had found him; and when we tell about it we don’t say, "Jesus found me;" we say, "I found Jesus." That is as it appears to our consciousness. Speaking from our experience, we state it as if Jesus had been lost and we had found him. While history says, "Jesus found Philip," Philip says, "We found him." And we can understand how that is. If a child should lose himself in the woods, trying to find his father who had gone out hunting, and the father, returning home, should ascertain that the child was lost and go out to seek the child and search until he struck the trail of the little wanderer, and follow it until he at last discovered him, the true account would be that the father found the child. But the child would say, "I have found my papa at last." Both have been seeking. They have been seeking each other. But in the experience of the child it will be as if he had found his father. So, whenever Jesus finds a lost soul, that lost soul which has also been searching in an aimless kind of way, searching and desiring – that soul will look at its own experience and say, "I have found the pearl of great price. I have come upon it at last." This paradox of experience runs all through our religious life – human consciousness appearing to contradict both doctrine and fact. There are two parties, God and man; God working, man working; God seeking, man seeking; God finding, man finding. And if we should stand on the God side of it and shut ourselves up entirely to that, we can preach some very hard, but true, though one-sided doctrine; and if we stand on the man side of it and shut ourselves up to that, we can preach some very unsound doctrine.

Now, when Jesus finds anyone, and that one realizes that he is found of Jesus, then what? If Jesus has found us, and if we, looking at it from our own consciousness and experience, have found Jesus, then what? Oh, Christian, what? Here is the answer; Every one who has been found of Jesus must become a finder for Jesus; that is, just as soon as Jesus finds Andrew, Andrew finds Peter for Jesus. As soon as Jesus finds Philip, Philip finds Nathanael for Jesus. Whoever is found of Jesus becomes a finder for Jesus. What then must a Christian do? Find people for Jesus. Surely any little child can understand that. Every one whom Jesus finds becomes a finder for Jesus.

Having settled it that our mission as "found-ones" is also to find others for Jesus, now let us see if we can also learn, not only that we are to do this, but how we are to do it. And not only how we are to do it, but when we may know that we get to the end of our duty; that is, let us seek to find the limit of human endeavor and stop when we get there and not try to go beyond that. We have done much when we can ascertain the limit of human effort, and then don’t try to do what we cannot do and what we never were required to do. Therefore to find out the salient points of Christian duty, and the limit of human endeavor, is to settle a great many things. What is it then? As soon as Jesus found Philip, Philip determined somebody else should know about Jesus, so he exercised his mind. He reasoned within himself: "To whom shall I go and tell this? I must make a selection of somebody. I must begin somewhere. Well, there is one man that I think about Just now, a man named Nathanael. I will go and tell Nathanael about it." So he proceeds to Nathanael and commences with the following clearly stated and comprehensively stated proposition: "We have found him of whom Moses in the law and the prophets did write. We have found him to be Jesus. We have found him to be Jesus of Nazareth. We have found him to be Jesus of Nazareth, reputed to be the son of Joseph. He is in Galilee. He is in Nazareth of Galilee. His name is Jesus. We have found that this man Jesus lives in Nazareth, is the one of whom Moses in the law and the prophets did write."

Now that leads to the next point. When we go to find people for Jesus what kind of an argument had we best employ in endeavoring to get them to come to Jesus? This argument: "We have found him." What is the import of that argument? That argument is our Christian experience. "Nathanael, we have found him." It is a very simple argument, but it is very convincing. Now suppose Philip had said, "Nathanael, you ought to seek him of whom Moses in the law and the prophets did write." "Where is he?" Nathanael would very properly reply, "Do you know?" "No." "Do you know his name?" "No." "How, then, are you going to guide me, since you are Just as ignorant as I am?"

Please notice this point, that whenever we go to find anyone for Jesus, whatever power we may have will be based upon the fact that we ourselves have found Jesus. "We speak that we do know, we testify that which we have seen." We come to men, not with speculations, however fine spun; not with theories, however plausible; not with reasonings, however cogent, but as witnesses of a fact, saying, "Here is what I have experienced. I have felt this myself. I have tasted of this myself. I know whereof I affirm. I have found Jesus."

The mightiest argument that the apostle Paul ever employed in his preaching was his own Christian experience. Whether he stood before Felix, Festus, Agrippa, or the Sanhedrin, his answer was one: "I will tell you what happened to me: I was on my way to Damascus on a certain occasion," and then details how he found Jesus and how Jesus found him. Suppose there had been a tradition that in a certain section of a state, in the mountains somewhere, was a wonderful cave; the opening of it hard to find, but inside of it marvelous things to see; and many people had been for a long time trying to find it, and many very wise people had set up very plausible theories as to its locality, and each confident theorist should dogmatically insist that it ought to be and must be where his argument placed it. But in the midst of their disputations an ignorant Negro should appear and say, "I know it is not at any of those places, because I have found it and been in it." And suppose that each learned disputant should demand that he should answer his argument locating it elsewhere. Would not the Negro say, "Master, I know nothing of argument, but I do know where the cave is. If you don’t believe me, come and see." I venture to say that crowd would follow the Negro. If I had heard of a wonderful cave, or a gold mine, or any strange thing and desired to see it and a man should come to me, bearing honesty and frankness in his face, and say, "I have found it; I have seen it; I have been in it myself," that would make an impression upon me. But if he were to say, "I want to present to you a line of argument to show you about where it must be," that would not make much impression upon my mind. He is theorizing. He is doing no more than I might do; than ten thousand others have done. But whether he is a rustic or city man; whether he is a scholar or a boor, if he comes with an honest front and says, "I have found it," that makes an impression.

What is our chief business? Finding people for Jesus. What is our chief argument in inducing people to come to Jesus? Testify that we have found him ourselves – the power of our own Christian experience. Speak to them of a fact within our personal knowledge; speak of the precious thing within our own heart. There is our power in dealing with the world.

Now, as soon as we begin to tell about finding Jesus we will strike a difficulty. What is it? Some preconceived opinion in the mind of men is an obstacle in the way, and it does not make an atom of difference what it is) for if it is not in one thing it will be in another. Take, for example, this particular case: "We have found him of whom Moses wrote." Nothing wrong there. "We have found him of whom the prophets wrote." Nothing wrong there. "We have found him to be Jesus." Nothing wrong there. "Of Nazareth," ah, of Nazareth! "Now, I have a preconceived opinion about that." What is that preconceived opinion? "No good thing can come out of Nazareth." What an awful thing that preconceived opinion is! If we can establish the main point, first, the character of the person, "such as Moses wrote of, such as the prophets wrote of," and if we can find the person himself – Jesus – why will one allow a preconceived opinion about locality to keep him from accepting him? But there stands that preconceived opinion: "Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?" Now the most ingenious device of the devil is his use of proverbs, either lying proverbs, or proverbs so misapplied that they are made to be lying proverbs, and that was one of them, that no good thing could come out of Nazareth.

The Old Testament does not mention Nazareth, nor does Josephus. Its bad reputation is to be gathered from the New Testament. There are two instances in the New Testament history that tell about its bad character, the incorrigible unbelief of its inhabitants and their cruelty when, first, they not only refused to hear Jesus, but sought to slay him by casting him over the face of the precipice, and then their later rejection of him caused him to change his place of residence. So he left Nazareth forever, and moved to Capernaum. They were a hard lot of people; that much was true. And now Nathanael asks: "Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?"

The place where a man has lived has a great deal to do with his opportunities of usefulness in after life, and the reputation of the place clings to him; but if he be in himself strong and true, and there be real power in him, he will be a man and make his mark, no matter where he hails from. But there was that preconceived opinion now. If it had been rightly considered, that objection was one of the demonstrations of the messiahship of Jesus Christ; that objection was one of the arguments in favor of him. The prophets had declared that he should be called a Nazarene. I do not mean to say that any prophet had specified Nazareth as his home, but more than one of the prophets had described him as "one who is despised," and the word "Nazarene" was a term of contempt and reproach and is so used in the New Testament repeatedly. Yet that name which was a term of reproach became a name of glory. It was inscribed upon his cross: "Jesus of Nazareth," and he himself avowed his connection with Nazareth after his resurrection, and "the sect of the Nazarenes" took the world. The Apostate Julian when dying is reported to have said, "Thou Nazarene, hath conquered."

We meet some preconceived opinions in every man that we approach who is outside of Christ. He will spring some little point of objection. The ground in his mind is occupied, the preconceived opinion stands in his way. In other words, he has accepted a certain premise as established, and that premise being established in his mind, it keeps him from accepting any conclusion not deducible from it. Now what are we going to do when we strike a difficulty of that kind? Do not argue with that man; he will argue until doomsday. We need not scold; that won’t do any good. But we may propose to him this practical and experimental test: "Come and see."

So as our business is to be a finder for Jesus, our argument must be that we have found him ourselves. When any sort of a preconceived opinion is given as an objection, our remedy for that preconceived opinion is the simple invitation to put the matter to a personal, practical test: "Come and see." I don’t know any shorter or more efficient way to settle all doubt. It should not make any difference to us what is the character of any man’s objection to the Bible, what is the character of his objection to Jesus Christ as the Son of God, what is the mental difficulty or moral difficulty in his way, if he will only put it to a personal, practical test, we may have hope of him, and none under heaven unless he will. What is the next point? When we bring a man to Jesus that is the end of our work. We cannot convert a man not to save our life. That does not rest with us; that is not a part of our duty; we have reached our limit when we have brought him to Jesus. He will attend to his part of it. And yet how many of the human family have been devoted to doing God’s work – men trying to make Christians out of other men, and giving formulas for it, and prescribing rites by which it is to be accomplished – a certain form of words to be pronounced! I say our limit is reached when we have brought that man to Jesus; and the sooner we find that out the better. God alone can forgive sins. It is blasphemy for any man to claim that power. When they took a bed up, on which a man with the palsy was lying, and when they had exhausted their efforts to get in through the door and could not, and then climbed up on the house and took up the tiles of the roof and let him down before Jesus, their work was done. They could not cure the palsy. They brought him to Jesus and stopped. That is the limit of our work.

Let us restate: The points are very simple. If we have been found of Jesus, then our chief mission is to be finders for Jesus, and our chief argument in bringing people to Jesus is the fact that we have found Jesus ourselves; that is, our Christian experience; and as a remedy against any objection in the way of a preconceived opinion on the part of the one that we are trying to lead to Jesus, we are to use no argument, no scolding, but simply "Come and see." "Let him that heareth say, some." Oh, that power of such witnessing cannot be attained by any sort of argument in which we might be pleased to indulge!

The reader may recall a touching poem in McGuffey’s old Fourth Reader. It tells a sad and tragic story of a bride who, in all the loveliness of youth and beauty, just after the marriage ceremony, turns for a moment from the happy bridegroom and, looking back with eyes full of love’s sweet light, disappears through the doorway, never to be seen again. And the reader may recall the poet’s description of her father, representing him as one always looking for, and never finding his missing child. Looking in every room, over all the grounds, the suddenly demented mind always searching, never finding. So is the sinner. There is an unrest, an anxious void, a felt need of obtaining something he knows not what, for which he is ever seeking but which he has never found, something that will give even peace to his soul.

Let us look for a moment at that fig tree incident. It is not clearly stated why he went out to that tree; but it is very clearly implied that this was a private place. A man sitting under his own vine and fig tree, secluded from the world. Perhaps in his garden, where, sheltered from every eye, he could be alone; and out there alone, he kneels down to pray, and express his wants, and gives voice to his desires, and manifests his unrest and longing of his soul. No human eye is on him. He is alone. But the eye of Jesus is on him. That is the very thing that made Nathanael believe that he was the Messiah; because, hidden from human observation, in the secrecy of his most private devotion, here is one who reads every thought of his heart, and registers every index of his character. "Whence knowest thou me? How knowest thou that my heart is sincere, without any guile?" "I read your heart, Nathanael, when you were praying alone." So he sees us in the privacy of our closet when the door is shut. He knows whether we are in earnest, or merely affecting an interest we do not feel. He knows when we come from curiosity. How readily he discovers to Ezekiel the character of his hearers: "Also, thou son of man, the children of thy people still are talking against thee by the walls and in the doors of the houses and speak one to another, every one to his brother, saying, Come, I pray you, and hear what is the word that cometh forth from the Lord. And they that come unto thee as the people cometh, and they sit before thee as my people, and they hear thy words, but they will not do them; for with their mouth they show much love, but their heart goeth after their covetousness. And, lo, thou art unto them as a very lovely song of one that hath a pleasant voice, and can play well on an instrument; for they hear thy words, but they do them not." Such discernment of the heart is within the power of God alone. It convinced the woman of Samaria at the well that Jesus was the Messiah. So it satisfied Nathanael, evoking his ready response: "Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel." Whoever comes without guile, comes with a true and worthy purpose; coming to find – that man will believe on the very first clear proof. And after all, whenever any man is convinced, it is but one proof that convinces; and, indeed, we never need but one good reason for anything. One good proof is sufficient.

And now here is my last point: While it is true that one who comes without guile, not to argue, not to satisfy curiosity, not to be entertained, but conscious of need, desiring to find a Saviour, finds it easy to believe, and while one proof satisfies the soul, yet he does not suffer that faith to rest always on that one proof, but ever confirms it by new and greater proof. So reads the passage: "Jesus answered and said unto him, Because I said unto thee, I saw thee under a fig tree) believest thou? Thou shalt see greater things than these. And he saith unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Hereafter ye shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man." This is not "you shall see heaven opened;" it has long been open; but "you shall see an open heaven." It is not that it is now to open, but that it has been open, and you did not heretofore see it. "You accepted as a proof of my divinity that I could read the heart. Here is proof mightier than that proof that reaches from high heaven down to earth; proof that reaches from the very throne and heart of God. Proof which says, Angels coming down en me; therefore, I am divine. There is a way from me to heaven, therefore, I am divine. I am the Messiah, the one who brings heaven and earth together. My right hand is on the throne, my left hand is on the sinner." We shall see it, if, without guile, honestly coming, we accept the Lord Jesus Christ as the Son of God. Yes, heaven was already open over sleeping Jacob in the beginning of his religious life and over dying Stephen before he fell asleep in Jesus. Here I am a witness and not a theorist. To me, by faith) has that open heaven long been visible. By faith I have seen the angels ascending and descending upon the Son of God. It is no distempered fancy, no freak of the imagination, but a sweet and substantial reality. As, like Jacob, I have seen that gate of heaven and found in lonely places the house of God, and in my travels have met the "hosts of heaven," so when, like Stephen, I come to die, whenever and wherever and however that may be, I, too, shall be able to "look up stedfastly into heaven and see the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God" to receive and welcome my spirit. Yes, God will confirm our faith by even greater proofs. Angela will come down to us in our sorrows. They will minister to us as heirs of salvation. And when, like Lazarus at the rich man’s gate, our bodies die, they will catch away our parting souls and convey them to our heavenly home.

On page 19, Section 19 (John 2:1-11), of the Harmony we have an account of the first miracle of Jesus. At this point in our studies it is fitting that we should take a general view, somewhat, of the miracles which occupy an important place in the Bible. The names used to describe miracles, according to their effect on the beholder, their design, their source, or the thing accomplished, are wonders, signs, powers and mighty works, respectively. See Acts 2:22; 2 Corinthians 12:12; 2 Thessalonians 2:9, e. g., the incarnation of Christ, the healing of the paralytic (Mark 2:12), the raising of Lazarus, and the resurrection of Christ. The following are some definitions of a miracle:

"A miracle is an effect in nature not attributable to the ordinary operations of nature, nor to the act of man, but indicative of superhuman power, and serving as a sign or witness thereof; a wonderful work, manifesting a power superior to the ordinary forces of nature." – Century Dictionary.

"A miracle is a transgression of a law of nature by a particular volition of the Deity, or by the interposition of some invisible agent." – Hume.

"A miracle is an event or effect contrary to the established constitution and course of things, or a deviation from the known laws of nature; a supernatural event, or one transcending the ordinary laws by which the universe is governed." – Webster.

"A miracle is an extraordinary event, discernible by the senses, apparently violating natural laws and probabilities, inexplainable by natural laws alone, produced by the agency of a supernatural power, for religious purposes, usually to accredit a messenger or to attest God’s revelation to him." – The Author.

It needs to be emphasized in this connection (1) that a miracle is not a violation of natural law, (2) not a greater power, but a different and particular method and (3) not a disregard of natural law, but it is superhuman and may come from God or the devil (2 Thessalonians 2:9-10). If it comes from God it corroborates that which is good; if from the devil, that which is evil. True religion rests on divine revelation. ID the beginning man dealt directly with God and God sufficiently revealed his divinity and the vital principles of religion. But the devil approached man through an accredited intermediary. The miracle should not have been accepted as proof, because the alleged message was contrary to what had been revealed by God directly. (See Deuteronomy 13:3; Galatians 1:8; Matthew 24:24; 2 Thessalonians 2:9; Revelation 13:13.) After man’s fall God could reveal himself only through an intermediary, hence the necessity of miracles. So man has neither warrant nor power to invent or impose a religion. Whatever claims to be a religion (a) must harmonize with previous revelation and nature, and (b) the messenger must be accredited and the message must be attested, as in the case of Jonah.

There are certain tests which must be applied to every miracle before we can know whether it is from God or from the devil. If from God, it must (1) not be immoral, (2) not a mere freak in nature, but it must (3) aim at that which is good, (4) result in good, and (5) establish right doctrine. So John says, "Try the spirits." Therefore Moses, the elders and Pharaoh had a right to test the miracles they witnessed. (See Interpretation, volume, Exodus-Leviticus.)

There are three great groups of miracles in the Bible, each showing the intervention of God in a great crisis in the history of the true religion: (1) In the time of Moses; (2) In the time of Elijah and Elisha; (3) In the time of Christ and his apostles. The third group, which we are now to study, may be classed as follows: those wrought on Christ, such as (a) his incarnation, (b) the descent of the Spirit upon him, (c) the transfiguration, (d) the voice of John 12:28, (e) the events of Gethsemane, (f) the events of the crucifixion, (g) his resurrection. Those wrought by him, beginning at Cana of Galilee and ending with the inspiration of the apostles (these we will study in order). Those wrought by his apostles which we find mainly in the book of Acts and will be considered in the interpretation of that book. If we admit the incarnation, all the others follow. The test miracle is the resurrection of Christ. He made it the test, his disciples accepted it as the test, and they ever afterward rested everything on it. (See 1 Corinthians 15.)

Now we will take up this first miracle and discuss it briefly. The time was the third day after our Lord’s interview with Nathanael. The place was Cana of Galilee. The occasion was a marriage to which our Lord and his disciples were invited. The incident leading to it was the failure of the wine, upon which the mother of Jesus intervenes and states the case. The Romanists set great store by this incident as teaching the mediatorial position of Mary, but there is not a hint at such teaching in this miracle. The story of the miracle is simple and impressive. The water turned to wine. As Milton says, "The unconscious water saw its God and blushed." The whiskey men try to find in this incident a justification for their nefarious business, but the ground of their justification in this passage is the sinking sand of delusion, and their claim is as utterly false as is the claim of the Romanists for the mediatorial work of Mary based upon the same incident. This miracle manifested the glory of Christ and strengthened the faith of his disciples. The purpose of this miracle as viewed by John was to attest the divinity of Jesus Christ. Thus he uses the word "sign" for this great event, which word is most common with him, and indicates the purpose of his gospel, viz: to prove that Jesus is the Christ.

QUESTIONS

1. In what Gospel is the subject matter of this chapter?

2. What two places are named?

3. What was the period of time, what points of time mentioned, and what the time of the year?

4. What are the important divisions of this chapter?

5. What are the "first-things" in the whole series introduced by this chapter?

6. What is the first scene, where and what the proof?

7. What was one of the most important functions of John the Baptist and what was his whole mission?

8. Where is the witness-bearing feature of his mission brought out?

9. What was the testimony of John to Jesus before he knew him as the Messiah?

10. What was his testimony to the purity and sinlessness of Jesus?

11. What was his testimony as to his office and dignity?

12. What was his testimony as to his vicarious work, his pre-existence, his anointing, etc.?

13. What was his testimony to him as the Lamb of God?

14. What was the bundle of testimony to Jesus in John 3:22-36?

15. What was the occasion of the Bethany testimony?

16. What was the significance of this event?

17. Show the progress of the concern of the authorities relative to the ministry of John and Jesus,

18. How is their earnestness manifested here?

19. What two striking things in John’s replies?

20. What lesson suggested to all preachers and Christiana by this attitude of John?

21. What additional lesson does this testimony of John teach?

22. How is the clearness of his testimony marked?

23. What was John’s testimony to his own disciples?

24. How were John and Jesus related in their work, and what things in general, to be noted in John 1:35-51?

25. Taking this passage more in detail, what was the first thought and what its application?

26. What is the duty of every one who has been found by Jesus and how is it illustrated here?

27. How then are we to do this and what important fact to be learned here?

28. What is the argument to be used, how illustrated here and how illustrated by Paul?

29. Give the author’s illustration.

30. What difficulty is often found in this work and how is it illustrated here?

31. What of the character and reputation of the people of Nazareth and what reference to it here?

32. What are we to do with the man with preconceived opinions?

33. Where does our work in the salvation of people end, and how is it illustrated in the Bible?

34. What is the lesson from the fig tree incident here?

35. What is the meaning of "in whom is no guile"?

36. How does Jesus confirm the faith of them that receive him?

37. Explain the "Jacob’s Ladder" antitype here.

38. What were the names used to describe miracles and what their meaning, respectively?

39. Give the definition of miracle according to the Century Dictionary.

40. Give Hume’s definition.

41. Give Webster’s definition.

42. Give the author’s definition verbatim.

43. What things need to be emphasized in this connection?

44. What are the two sources of miracles and what is the distinguishing characteristics in general?

45. On what does true religion rest, and what is its bearing on the question of miracles?

46. What was the first miracle, what was its purpose, what was the proof that it should not have been received as proof?

47. What of the necessity of miracles after the fall of man and what was its bearing on the question of man-made religions?

48. What are the tests of true religion?

49. What are the tests of a God-given miracle?

50. What are the three great groups of miracles in the Bible and why did they come as they did?

51. What is the classification of the third group and what is included in each class?

52. What miracle admitted and all others follow?

53. What was the time, place, and occasion of and the incident lead ing to the first miracle of Jesus?

55. What was the Romanist teaching based on this incident and how do you meet it? . 56 Tell the story of the miracle, giving quotation from Milton.

57. What use do the whiskey men make of this incident and how do you offset their contention?

58. What was the effect of this miracle?

59. What was its purpose?

60. What word did John moat frequently use for miracle and what the significance of his use of it?

Verses 12-21

XIII

THE SOJOURN OF JESUS AT CAPERNAUM, HIS FIRST PASSOVER DURING HIS MINISTRY AT WHICH HE CLEANSES THE TEMPLE AND INTERVIEWS NICODEMUS

Harmony pages 20-21 and John 2:12-3:21.

After the events at Cana Jesus went down to Capernaum with his kindred and early disciples and there abode a short time. Nothing further of this brief sojourn at Capernaum is known. From Capernaum he goes to Jerusalem, where two significant events take place, viz: the cleansing of the Temple and the interview with Nicodemus. It is well to note here the scenes of his early ministry: beside the Jordan, at Cana of Galilee, at Capernaum, at Jerusalem, in Judea, and in Samaria.

A remarkable deed characterized both the beginning and end of his ministry in Judea. This was the cleansing of the Temple. At this first passover in his ministry he found the money-changers and those who sold animals for sacrifice in the Temple, making the Temple a house of merchandise. He at once proceeded to drive out the animals and to overturn the tables of the money-changers, an act which the Son of God only could perform without a protest from the offended. But the majesty of our Lord here doubtless beamed forth in such splendor that they were completely overawed and dared not resist, but simply demanded a sign of his authority. To which he replied that if they should destroy the temple of his body, in three days he would raise it up. This is the first reference to his resurrection which he thus made the test of his messiahship early in his ministry and referred to it many times later, making it the test, both to his disciples and to his enemies. This cleansing of the Temple fulfilled two prophecies – Psalms 69:9 and Isaiah 56:7. Then follows a statement of the response of the people to his signs which he did: "Many believed on his name." But Jesus did not trust himself to any man because his omniscience saw what was in man.

The second great event of this visit to Jerusalem was our Lord’s interview and discourse with Nicodemus, which furnishes us our most profitable lesson on…

REGENERATION
The occasion of this discussion of our Lord was the coming to him of Nicodemus, by night at some unknown place in Jerusalem, to learn more of this great miracle worker. Our English word "regeneration," etymologically, is a compound word. Generation means the act of begetting; regeneration, the begetting anew. Theologically it means a radical change in the soul or spirit of a man by the action of the Holy Spirit. But this change does not affect the substance of the soul, or impart any new faculty. It is not limited to the intellect, or to the will or to the affections, but it applies to the soul as a unit, including all its faculties or powers – intellect, will and affection. It consists in spiritual quickening or making alive, in illuming the mind, in changing the will, in awakening new affections, and in spiritual cleansing. We say this radical change in the soul or spirit, called regeneration, is by the action of the Holy Spirit. How can the Holy Spirit of God act immediately on any other spirit, i.e., by direct impact of Spirit on spirit, or must he act mediately, i.e, by the use of means? He acts both ways, immediately and mediately. The scriptural proof that the Holy Spirit can act directly, or immediately, is as follows:

(1) On inanimate matter, Genesis 1:2; Genesis 2:7; Psalms 104:32.

(2) On beasts, Psalms 104:29-30.

(3) On babes in the womb, Jeremiah 1:5; Luke 1:41-44.

(4) In inspiration, 1 Samuel 10:10.

(5) In dreams and visions, Genesis 28:11-17; 1 Kings 3:5; Matthew 2:12.

(6) In demoniacal possessions, Acts 5:3; John 13:27.

(7) In regeneration of infants dying in infancy -implied – 2 Samuel 12:23.

(8) In the call to the ministry by impressions.

Some theologians hold that in the new birth the subject is passive and the Spirit’s power is immediate, i.e., the direct impact of Spirit on spirit. Others held that in the new birth the subject is active and that the Spirit employs the word of God as a means, but I say that there is an element of truth in both positions. Antecedent to all human effort a direct power of the Holy Spirit quickens the soul or makes it sensitive to impressions by the word. For example, "The Lord opened the heart of Lydia that she should attend to the words spoken by Paul." Now if this first touch of the Spirit is what we mean by the new birth, the first position is undoubtedly correct. But while insisting on the necessity and reality of this initial and direct power of the Spirit, if one should hold that this is not what the Scriptures call the new birth he would be able to support his view by many scriptures. This appears from the fact that when one is born into the kingdom of God he is fully a child of God. But if the subject of the hew birth is passive only – if regeneration is completed without the use of means and before the subject is penitent or believing, then we have a child of God who is yet in his sins, impenitent, without faith, and hence without Christ, which is philosophically impossible. Moreover, it is contrary to Scripture, as witness James 1:18: "Having willed it, he begat us (apekuesen)by the word of truth" (1 Peter 1:23) : "Having been begotten again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of the living God. But this is the word which was announced to you" (Galatians 3:26): "For ye are all the children of God through faith in Christ Jesus." Romans 10:17: "So then faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God." Moreover, in John 3:9-18, when Nicodemus asks, "How can these things come to be," that is, what is the instrumental means of the new birth, Jesus explains by telling that Christ must be lifted up as an object of faith, as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness. Again, John 1:12-13: "But as many as received him, to them gave he the right to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." This teaching may be put into a syllogism, thus: Every one born of God has the right to be called a child of God. But no one has the right until he believes in Jesus. Therefore the new birth is not completed without faith.

The true scriptural position then is this: There is, first of all, a direct influence of the Holy Spirit on the passive spirit of the sinner, quickening him or making him sensitive to the preaching of the Word. In this the sinner is passive. But he is not a subject of the new birth without contrition, repentance and faith. In exercising these he is active. Yet even his contrition is but a response to the Spirit’s conviction, and the exercise of his repentance and faith are but responses to the antecedent spiritual graces of repentance and faith. To illustrate take this diagram:

Conviction – Grace of Repentance – Grace of Faith = New Birth

Contrition – Repentance – Faith

The upper or divine side represents the Spirit’s work. Then contrition, repentance, and faith are the constituent elements of the human side of regeneration.

When we say repentance and faith are fruits of regeneration we simply mean that in each case the Spirit grace above originates and works out the respective human exercise below. The following scriptures prove that repentance is a grace as well as a human exercise: Acts 5:31; Acts 11:18. That faith also is a grace, is seen from 1 Corinthians 2:4-5; 1 Corinthians 3:5; 2 Peter 1:1. The Holy Spirit then is the agent in regeneration and the instrumental means of regeneration is the Word of God, or the preaching of Christ crucified, yet the power of the Spirit does not reside in the word as inspired by him, but the agency is positive and active in the use of the word. This is illustrated by the use of the ax and the sword. We say that an ax is adapted to cutting down trees, and not that it has power to cut down a tree apart from its intelligent use by the woodsman; and we say that the sword is adapted to cut or thrust, not that it has in itself the power to kill apart from its intelligent wielding by the swordsman. So, though the Word of God is represented as "quick and powerful and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart, neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight, but all things are naked and open unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do," yet this Word is but the Spirit’s sword, powerful only when wielded by him.

The scriptural proof that dying infants are regenerated is constructive and inferential rather than direct. Infants partake of the fallen nature of the parents, and without a change of that nature would be unfitted for heaven. The Scripture says that we are all by nature the children of wrath, but David says with reference to his dead child, "I shall go to him, but he cannot return to me." As they cannot enter heaven without a change, and as the Spirit is the author of all the change that makes one meet for heaven, it is justly to be inferred that infants are regenerated.

While out hunting on a Western mountain I turned over a huge rock on the mountainside that seemed to be evenly balanced. Under this rock was a den of rattlesnakes, some of them very small, without rattles, and with the fangs not yet developed nor the poison secreted in the sac. These little snakes had never yet bitten any man, and yet if one of them bad been taken to a home and fed upon the milk which nourishes a child, as the snake grew the rattle would form, the fang would develop, the poison would secrete, and even if in its infancy it had been carried to heaven itself without a change of its nature, there, hard by the throne of God, it would have matured the deadly venom. The necessity for the regeneration of infants if they, when dying, are to enter heaven, is imperious. The nature vitiated through the fall of the first Adam is changed by the Spirit through the virtue of the Second Adam, our Lord Jesus Christ. In their case the Spirit’s power is immediate.

The principal passages of Scripture defining, embodying or illustrating the doctrine of regeneration are as follows: Psalms 51:2-10; Ezekiel 36:25-27; John 1:12-13; John 3:3-15; Romans 12:2; 2 Corinthians 5:17; Ephesians 2:1-10; Ephesians 4:22-24; Ephesians 5:25-27; Colossians 2:13; Colossians 3:9-10; Titus 3:5; James 1:18; 1 Peter 1:23. All of these passages, and others like them, are to be carefully studied in order to a full understanding of this theme. Greek students will find it very profitable to look carefully at the original terms employed in these passages, but we may say for English students that among these terms are: "Born from above," "born again," "to make alive," "to quicken," "to raise from the dead," "to transform," "to renew," "to create," "to illumine," and "to cleanse." These terms imply supernatural power.

It has been said that the most important passage on regeneration is the third chapter of John. Returning to that chapter, we find that Jesus and Nicodemus talk of two births, the natural and the spiritual birth. The Spirit birth is first designated as "born from above." It is next designated 8.3 ’born of water and spirit." Theologians usually refer the phrase, "born of water" to baptism, but there are certain evils of this reference, viz: The doctrine of baptismal regeneration the conditioning of salvation upon external ordinances. It is impossible to exaggerate the fearful evils that have followed this wrong interpretation of the phrase, "born of water."

It led directly to the doctrine of infant baptism. The logic would be this: If infants are lost without regeneration, and regeneration is by baptism, in order to save the infants they must be baptized. The teaching of history is very clear as to the origin of infant baptism, that it arose from the preceding doctrine of baptismal regeneration. Then there followed also historically and quite naturally a change of baptism itself into sprinkling or pouring, to meet the case of infants, though the Greek church yet practices the immersion of infants.

The phrase, "born of water," cannot be explained by baptism.

The argument is very conclusive. Christ and Nicodemus discuss but two births, the natural birth and the spiritual birth; "that which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." The phrase, "born of water and Spirit," cannot mean two births, one of water and one of Spirit, because there is no article in the original before the words. Whatever it means, it is one birth. It must be either baptism or Spirit, and both terms express only one birth. Otherwise our chapter talks of three births – the natural birth, the baptism birth, and the Spirit birth, which is contrary to the context. Moreover, the context shows that the salvation involved in the third chapter of John is a salvation of grace and not of sacraments. But what is most conclusive is that our Lord rebukes Nicodemus for not understanding what he meant by "born of water and Spirit," Nicodemus being a teacher of the Old Testament. But as the Old Testament has not a word about baptism, he would not be censurable for failing to understand the meaning of this phrase, if "born of water" referred to baptism. The censure lies in the fact that what is meant by "born of water and Spirit" is clearly set forth in the Old Testament, which is so silent about baptism, and with which Nicodemus, as a master in Israel, ought to have been well acquainted.

The phrase, "born of water and Spirit," is but an expansion of the previous phrase, "born from above." It interprets and develops the first phrase, bringing out the two elements in regeneration, namely, cleansing and renewing. It is only when we lose sight of the cleansing element in regeneration that we are liable to go astray in interpreting the phrase "born of water." The matter is clearly set forth in Ezekiel 36:25-26, which declares: "Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean; from all of your filthiness and from all of your idols, will I cleanse you." This is the cleansing element of regeneration. The passage adds: "A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them." And this is the renewing element. Clean water in this passage does not mean pure water or just water. It means water of cleansing, or water of purification. There was a special recipe for the compounding of this cleansing water, or water of purification.

This recipe is found in the book of Numbers, where Moses is directed to take a red heifer and burn her with red cedar wood, and to cast scarlet thread into the fire, and then to gather up the ashes and mingle them with running water, in order to put them into a liquid form, and this is the clean water, or water of purification of the Bible. It was administered by taking a bunch of hyssop and dipping it into this liquid and sprinkling it upon the one to be ceremonially cleansed. We can thus easily understand the fifty-first Psalm, in which David says, "Purge me [or cleanse me] with hyssop, and I shall be clean. Wash me and I shall be whiter than snow." He thus brings out in type the cleansing element in regeneration.

Now, this water of purification was a type. It was typical of the blood of Christ. Concerning this the letter to the Hebrews says, "For if the blood of bulls and of goats and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God purify your conscience from dead works to serve the living God." So that the Old Testament idea of clean water was equal to the ashes of the heifer, and that typified the blood of Christ, applied in regeneration by the Holy Spirit. This produces the cleansing element of regeneration, and with this Nicodemus ought to have been familiar.

"Born of water and spirit" simply means "cleansed by the blood of Christ and renewed by the Holy Spirit."

The New Testament with even greater clearness brings out these two elements of regeneration. Paul writes to Titus (3:5): "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit." The same thought is presented in his letter to the Ephesians, when he says, "Christ also loved the church and gave himself for it, that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the Word." Here is a strange kind of washing – a washing through the Word, indicating the instrumentality of the Word in effecting regeneration, and yet showing that the washing is a figurative washing, a washing that accomplishes cleansing, and that cleansing is applied by the Holy Spirit.

So that the phrase, "born of water and Spirit" means the same as "born from above," and it means the same as the "washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit."

Christ says, "Ye must be born from above in order to see the kingdom of God," and he says, "Except a man be born of water and Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God." This language emphasizes the necessity of regeneration in the strongest possible way. Now let us clearly and forcibly state the reason or ground of this necessity. The necessity lies in the fact that man is fallen and depraved, and without the change effected by regeneration could not enjoy heaven, even if he were permitted to enter it. Therefore in any true system of theology the doctrine of human depravity is a vital and fundamental doctrine. It is a touchstone that when applied clearly defines every man’s position and shows his proper alignment. If he does not believe that man is fallen he sees no necessity for the regeneration and sanctification by the Holy Spirit.

The doctrines of depravity and regeneration irreconcilably antagonizes the modern doctrine of evolution, which teaches that man has never fallen; that he is continually ascending; and hence no full-fledged Darwinian evolutionist believes in the historic veracity of the account in Genesis of the fall of man, nor does he believe in the necessity of either regeneration by the Spirit, or sanctification by the Spirit, holding that man can be cultivated and trained into the highest possible development.

Another vital scriptural doctrine is involved in this antagonism, viz., the vicarious expiation of Christ. If spiritual cleansing, secured by the application of the blood of Christ, is an essential and integral part of regeneration, the doctrine of the vicarious expiation of Christ is necessarily involved in this antagonism, and hence, consistently, the full-fledged Darwinian evolutionist like Mr. Haeckel, boldly denies any necessity for an atonement, or any virtue in this direction in the death of Christ.

Justification comes in touch with regeneration at that point where the Spirit of God by the application of the blood of Christ, cleanses the soul. When the man accepts the Lord Jesus Christ as, his Teacher, Sacrifice, Priest, and King, and trusts in him for salvation, then God in heaven justifies the man, or declares an acquittal of him) through his faith in the blood, but the blood is applied in the cleansing part of regeneration, so that we see again from this relation between regeneration and justification how it is that regeneration cannot be complete without faith.

QUESTIONS

1. Trace Jesus in his early ministry from the banks of the Jordan to the beginning of his great ministry in Galilee.

2. What remarkable deed characterized both the beginning and the end of his ministry in Judea?

3. How do you explain this bold act of Jesus?

4. What sign of his authority did he here submit and how did he here afterward make this the test of 1) is messiahship?

5. What prophecies were fulfilled ill these two incidents of cleansing the Temple?

6. What statement here of the omniscience of Jesus?

7. What was the second great event of this visit to Jerusalem and what the great lesson from it?

8. What the occasion, time, and place of this interview with Nicodemus?

9. What the etymological meaning of the English word "regeneration"?

10. Theological meaning?

11. Does it change the substance of the soul, or impart any new faculties?

12. Is its effect limited to the intellect, or to the will, or to the affections?

13. In what then does it consist?

14. Can the Holy Spirit operate immediately on another spirit, i.e., direct impact of Spirit on spirit, or must he operate immediately, i.e., through the use of means?

15. Cite scriptural proof that the Spirit may act immediately in at least eight different cases.

16. According to theologians, does the Holy Spirit in regeneration operate mediately or immediately?

17. But what do you say?

18. While insisting on the immediate operation of the Holy Spirit how do you make it appear that the scriptural new birth is not complete without the use of means?

19. Cite the scriptural proof.

20. Put the scriptural proof of John 1:12-13 in the form of a syllogism, its human exercise.

21. What then is the true scriptural teaching?

22. Illustrate this by a diagram.

23. Explain the diagram.

24. How then may we rightly say that repentance and faith are fruits of regeneration?

25. Cite Scripture proof that the divine grace of repentance precedes

26. What is the similar proof concerning faith?

27. Who then always is the efficient agent of regeneration?

28. The instrumental means?

29. What part of the Word of God, the Law or the Gospel?

30. When we say the Spirit is the power and the Word is the means, does the Spirit power reside in the Word because inspired, or is the Spirit agency positive and active in the use of the Word?

31. Illustrate this by the ax and the sword.

32. In the case of infants dying are they saved with or without regeneration?

33. What is the constructive scriptural proof?

34. In their case is the Spirit’s operation mediate or immediate?

35. Cite the principal passages. Old Testament and New Testament, embodying the doctrine of regeneration,

36. What words are here employed to define or illustrate regeneration?

37. What do they imply?

38. Greek students cite the principal Greek words employed to define or illustrate regeneration, citing one passage in which each separate word is used, giving the inflection of the word these used (i.e., the case and number and person of the noun or the voice, mood, tense, number and person of the verb).

39. Of how many births do Nicodemus and Jesus talk?

40. How is the Spirit birth first designated?

41. How the second time?

42. To what do theologians generally refer "born of water"?

43. What the evils of the doctrine?

44. Show why it cannot be so explained.

45. What then does it mean?

46. Christ says, "Ye must be born from above to see the kingdom of God . . . Except a man be born of water and Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God." State clearly and forcibly the reason, or ground, of this necessity.

47. What then is the position of the doctrine of depravity?

48. How do the doctrines of depravity and regeneration irreconcilably antagonize the modern doctrine of evolution?

49. What other vital scriptural doctrine is involved in this antagonism?

50. At what point in regeneration does justification come in touch with it?