James the brother of John, and two other disciples whose names are not mentioned, made up the party. Some of them, probably all of them, were fishermen by calling, and to supply their necessities (and perhaps those of other disciples) while waiting for their Lord's appearance, they resorted to their former avocation. They entered the little vessel at evening, as we infer from the narrative (ver. 3, 4). At day-dawn the Lord appeared to them, standing on the shore, but was not recognised at first by any of the party, either by the eye or the ear, owing to the dimness of the light, or the distance, which was not less than one hundred yards, or eighteen rods, even if He stood at the water's edge. His inquiry, “Have ye any meat? was understood by them to refer to fish, as is plain from the sixth verse. * The haul they made at His bidding being very extraordinary, if not miraculous, was the means of His recognition. Naturally would it remind them of a similar occurrence near the beginning of our Lord's ministry, which had greatly astonished them (Luke v. 4–11). John Iwas the first to know Him. He tells his thoughts to Peter, perhaps in the hearing of the others, but that is not said. Immediately they made for the land, but the ardour of Peter did not allow him to wait the slow progress of the boat. Girding himself hastily with his fisher's coat,t he plunged into the water and swam ashore, leaving his fellow-disciples to draw in the net. We are not told whether Peter approached the Lord before the others landed, or if he did, what words, if any, passed between them. When all had come to the land, they saw a fire of coals and a fish laid thereon. At the command of Jesus other fish were brought, and their morning meal prepared, consisting of bread and fish. But whence the bread? Was it miraculously produced? Although it is not expressly affirmed, we regard the whole preparation of the repast as miraculous, and designed to remind them of their first call to discipleship (Luke v. 4–7), and thus to add a proof of another kind confirmatory of the proofs already given of the identity of His person. Until this time, not a word is spoken to Him by any of the apostles, if we except their answer to His inquiry from the shore, before they knew Him. The majesty of His person (Erasmus suggests) had taken from them their usual confidence. We prefer, however, another explanation. Evidently they regarded Him as they would have regarded an angel come from the invisible world. He had spoken of Himself as being no longer with them (Luke xxiv. 44). A feeling of awe per * Προσφάγιον, from Προσφάγειν, signifes whatever is eaten with bread, especially fish. The word ὀψάριον (or ὀψωνιον) in verse 9 is translated fish. The ὀψον, from έψω, coquo, signifes παν το πυρι κατασκευασμενον εἰς ὀδωδην. See Beza in loco. + The word is ἐπενδύτης, which signifes commonly an overcoat (το ἱματιον navo.-Suidas Lex. See 1 Sam. xviii. 4, in LXX.) Some suppose that it means shirt in this place, because in the next place it is said Peter was naked, which is not a sufficient reason. In his eagerness to get to the shore, Peter would naturally be content to put on his outer garment only, even if he were accustomed to wear others underneath it, and they were at hand. vaded their minds, rendering them incapable of familiar intercourse with Him. Hence, as we suppose, the reason, in part, of the manner in which He approached Cleopas and his companion. Hence, too, the disciples are represented almost always as silent when conscious of His presence. It is remarkable that neither Matthew nor Mark record a word as having been addressed to Him by any of the disciples after His resurrection. Nor does Luke in his Gospel, with the exception of the words of Cleopas. Mary Magdalene could tranquilly address Him while she supposed Him to be the gardener; but after she knew Him she could only exclaim, "Rabboni." Besides what Mary said, the evangelist John records only the confession of Thomas and the answers of Peter to the thrice-repeated question, "Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me?" and his inquiry concerning John hereafter to be noticed. At the meal thus miraculously prepared, not a word was spoken by any of the apostles, though they received the food from the Lord's hand (ver. 13). "None of them," says John, " presumed so much as to inquire of Him who he was, for they knew Him," and regarded Him as a visitor from the heavenly worlds. JOHN XXI. 14. "This is now the third time that Jesus shewed himself to his disciples after that he was risen from the dead." The evangelist means, this was the third appearance of the Lord to the apostles whom He had chosen as the witnesses of His resurrection. We have seen He appeared—(1.) To Mary Magdalene, John xx. 17; Mark xvi. 9. (2.) To the company of women returning from the sepulchre, Matt. xxviii. 9, 10. (3.) To Peter, Luke xxiv. 34; 1 Cor. xv. 5. (4.) To Cleopas and his companion, Luke xxiv. 15. (5.) To the eleven, with the exception of Thomas, and perhaps Peter, on the evening of His resurrection, Luke xxiv. 36; John xx. 19. (6.) To the eleven, when Thomas was present, John xx. 24. Consequently this appearance, which John calls the third, was in fact the seventh if all are enumerated, but the third if we take into account only the appearances to the apostles collectively. To such only does John refer in this verse; for he excludes from his account the appearance to Mary Magdalene, which he had also mentioned, John xx. 16, 17. The circumstances of this appearance were so convincing, that not a doubt could remain upon their minds, if any existed before (ver. 12). We note particularly the manner of His appearance at a distance, His calling out to them from the shore, the question He put to them, making the impression upon their minds, perhaps, that He wished to buy of them. Then the miraculous draught of fishes, and when they reached the shore, the fire, the fish, the bread, and more than all, His familiar form and countenance, the tones of His voice, His actions, His whole deportmentand perhaps, also, the very wounds of crucifixion still appearing fresh in His hands and His feet. Such were the grounds of their judgment, by which we may know that they could not be mistaken or deceived. We must not suppose, however, that this appearance of the Lord was merely or chiefly to convince the apostles of the reality of His resurrection, although it served that end. We may apply the same observation to that last noticed (John xx. 24). Peter as well as Thomas had grievously sinned, and it was the kindness and condescension of the Lord which determined the time and the circumstances of both these appearings. It was to shew this, that the evangelist has so minutely recorded them. JOHN XXI. 15-19. This conversation having passed in the presence of the other apostles, none of them could doubt the corporeal presence of the Lord Jesus. But it is chiefly important to observe how tenderly the Lord reminded Peter of his great sin, how graciously He assures him of pardon by restoring him to his office, and instructing him in his duty! How comforting, also, to this apostle was the assurance that henceforth, during a long service, he at least, whatever others might do, should remain faithful even unto death-that not even the pains of crucifixion should thereafter extort another denial of his Lord. Such information is seldom given to man. Peter was the only one of the apostles to whom his personal history was foretold. His martyrdom is foreshewn, as a proof and example of his future fidelity-not to gratify curiosity, although it had the effect of exciting it in the mind of this apostle. JOHN XXI. 20, 21. “Then Peter turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following. Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord (ovtos dè tí), what shall this man do?" (or rather, "This man-what?" that is, What shall be suffer?) The questions the Lord had put to Peter, and the answers drawn from him, emboldened him voluntarily to make this inquiry, which is the first any of the evangelists have recorded. It was characteristic of this apostle, when impelled by his curiosity, to break through restraints which were felt by the others. But it was not for Peter to know what would be the end of John's earthly career. His curiosity was untimely. Our Lord's reply was constructed so as to withhold all information, except that He himself was the sovereign disposer of John's life. JOHN XXI. 22. "If I will that he tarry till I come (τí ñpós σe), what is that to thee? follow thou me." As if he had said: If it be my pleasure to continue John in my ser vice on earth until I come again in my kingdom, that concerns thee Let it be enough for you to know your duty and your end. not. This answer gave occasion to a false report among the brethren, which John thought it necessary to correct. The seven who heard the words of Jesus, repeated them perhaps incorrectly to others, who understood them as a positive affirmation that the beloved disciple should not die; thus bringing his end into marked contrast with the predicted end of Peter. It was a misrepresentation of the Saviour, and calculated to cast discredit on his prophetical character at the death of John. For this reason, John is careful to record the very words of Jesus, as the best means of correcting the error; and this was probably one of the reasons for adding the last sixteen verses to this chapter. JOHN XXI. 23. "Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die; yet Jesus said not unto him (Peter), He (John) shall not die; but (he said simply), If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?" Dr Adam Clarke says, that for nearly eighteen centuries the greatest men in the world have been puzzled with this passage. We doubt whether the difficulty has been felt so long; and, indeed, that there is any difficulty in the passage itself, when considered in its proper connexions.* Had these brethren thought that the coming of which the Lord spoke was not to occur until after the lapse of many centuries, it is not to be supposed they could have put such an interpretation upon His words. But assuming (as the early Christians did), that His advent in His kingdom was near, and that it might be expected, at latest, within a period not greatly exceeding an ordinary lifetime, they might easily convert the hypothetical expression, "If I will that he tarry till I come," into an affirmation of the purpose. Had they believed, as Dr Whitby and other modern divines have taught the Church, that a thousand, or two thousand, or three thousand years, at least, must intervene between the Lord's ascension into heaven and His final coming, they would have found it difficult to reconcile the assurance of so long a life with the favour, in other respects, shewn to the beloved disciple. To live so long in the body, under infirmities ever increasing with years, and to be absent all the while from the Lord, would not have been esteemed by them such a token of love as the gracious Saviour would shew to this highly-favoured disciple. We observe here the same reserve that characterised all our Lord's * Erasmus found no difficulty in explaining the passage or accounting for the mistake of the brethren. He paraphrased it thus: "Ortus est igitur ex hujus occasione sermonis, inter discipulos rumor, quod discipulus ille, Jesu dilectus, non esset moriturus violenâ morte, sed permansurus in vita, donec rediret Dominus, &c., quod omnes tum brevi futurum opinabantur," &c. replies concerning the times and seasons. The supposition or hypothesis which he makes, that such might be His will for aught that Peter could know, implied that His advent might occur within the lifetime of some of that generation. The idea thus hypothetically admitted is utterly irreconcilable with the view now generally entertained of a thousand years to precede the second coming of Christ. Reviews. The Oblation and Temple of Ezekiel's Prophetic Visions, &c. By Wм. HEWSON, M.A. London. 1858. THE varied and discursive nature of this volume prevents a detailed examination of its contents. We differ, moreover, so widely from the author, and on so many points, that we think it better not to enter upon a discussion. The author is much too figurative for us. A Choice Book for the People of God: or, Scripture collated with Scripture. Second Edition. London: Wertheim and Macintosh. 1859. THIS is a book of texts, not arranged in any particular order, but merely set in couplets, the one against the other, so that each casts light upon its fellow-light often very brilliant, and sometimes quite unexpected. The Titles of Jehovah: a Series of Lectures. To which are added, Six By the Rev. J. W. REEVE, M.A. 1858. FROM these simply scriptural and fervent-spirited lectures, we select the following passage, as bearing on a portion of the prophetical word—the temple of Ezekiel : "Before we proceed to consider the title, 'Jehovah-shammah,' which the margin informs us is the original of the phrase, 'The Lord is there,' it will be right, perhaps, to say a few words on the portion of Scripture with which the text stands connected. "This portion of Scripture includes the last eight chapters of Ezekiel; and is confessedly one of the difficulties of Scripture. It contains some things 'hard to be understood;' but we must distinguish as to where the difficulty lies. Not, assuredly, in the chapters themselves; which are a simple, intelligible description of a city containing a temple, having a priestly ritual. This is not very difficult to understand; but the difficulty lies rather in attempting to explain how, and where, these things shall be in the dispensations of God. If we compare this portion of Scripture with others, in some respects similar, in the hope of reconciling them, it is quite beyond our power to do so; but although we cannot reconcile them, it does not follow that they cannot be reconciled. If the renewal of sacrifice seems at variance with Christ's one sacrifice for sins for ever,' the believing these chapters to |