Ch. 5:1-47. HEALING OF IMPOTENT MAN AND DISCOURSE THEREON.--A PARABLE
OF REDEMPTION; THE NATURE AND THE CONDITION OF SPIRITUAL CURE
ILLUSTRATED.--THE CHRISTIAN LAW OF THE SABBATH ILLUSTRATED.--THE
AUTHORITY OF THE SON OF GOD: HE IS WITH THE FATHER; COMES FROM THE
FATHER; IS TO BE HONORED AND TRUSTED AS THE FATHER; HE RAISES THE DEAD
AND JUDGES THE LIVING.--THE EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY; THE TESTIMONY
OF JOHN; OF CHRIST’S LIFE AND WORKS; OF THE SCRIPTURE.--THE CAUSE OF
UNBELIEF.
[Illustration: CHURCH OVER THE POOL OF BETHESDA.]
1 After this there was a feast[159] of the Jews; and Jesus
went up to Jerusalem.
[159] ch. 2:13; Lev. 23:2, etc.; Deut. 16:16.
2 Now there is at Jerusalem by the sheep _market_, a pool,
which is called in the Hebrew tongue Bethesda, having five
porches.
3 In these lay a great multitude of impotent folk, of
blind, halt, withered, waiting for the moving of the water.
4 For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool,
and troubled the water: whosoever then first[160] after the
troubling of the water stepped in, was made whole[161] of
whatsoever disease he had.
[160] Prov. 8:17; Eccles. 9:10; Matt. 11:12.
[161] Ezek. 47:8, 9; Zech. 13:1.
=1-4. After this was a feast of the Jews.= There were three great
feasts of the Jewish nation, the Passover in the spring, usually
March; the Pentecost, fifty days after, coming therefore usually early
in June; and the Tabernacles, a feast in the Fall, usually October,
analogous to our Thanksgiving. To these must be added the feast of
Purim, which was kept in celebration of the deliverance of Israel, in
the time of Esther, from massacre (Esther 9:17-19), and the feast of
Dedication, instituted subsequent to the close of the O. T. canon, to
commemorate the purging of the temple and the rebuilding of the altar,
after Judas Maccabeus had driven out the Syrians, B. C. 164. There is
nothing in the language of John to indicate which of these various
feasts is the one here intended. Some manuscripts have indeed the
words, _the_ feast of the Jews, and if this reading were correct it
would unquestionably designate the Passover; but the weight of
authority is against it. The question is one which has provoked a vast
deal of discussion, but no general agreement. It is important only in
determining the chronology of the life of Christ, and is itself so far
undetermined that it cannot be of great value even for that purpose. I
think it clear (_a_) that it could not be the feast of Dedication,
which took place in the winter, when it is not probable that the sick
would be lying in the porches of Bethesda; (_b_) nor the feast of
Purim, though this has been maintained by some eminent modern
scholars, as Wieseler, Godet, Olshausen, Ellicott, and Meyer; for
there is no evidence that the Jews generally went up to Jerusalem to
celebrate the feast of Purim, and no reason to believe that our Lord
would have gone there in honor of a festival which was purely
national, not directed by the O. T., observed not in connection with
the temple service, but privately at home, and often, if not
generally, with rioting and excess, rather than with religious
services. I agree therefore with Alford and Tholuck that we cannot
gather with any probability what feast it was.--=And Jesus went up to
Jerusalem.= Presumptively to attend the feast.--=By the sheep-market.=
Rather _sheep-gate_. See Neh. 3:1, 32; 12:39. The site is unknown. The
traditional site, identical with the gate now known as St. Stephen’s,
is pretty effectually disproved by Robinson, who shows that no wall
was existing there at the time of Christ.--=A pool.= Properly _a
swimming-place_. Pools for purposes of bathing were in use in the
great cities of the old world; and recent excavations have brought to
light the fact that ancient Jerusalem was in a remarkable degree
supplied with water. See below.--=Called Bethesda.= The word means
_House of mercy_. The location is entirely uncertain. Tradition places
it near the modern St. Stephen’s gate; but this tradition dates back
only to the 12th century.--=Having five porches.= Opening upon the
bath or tank. In these the sick could lie and be partially protected
from the weather.--=In these lay a great multitude of impotent, blind,
halt, withered.= Four classes intended to embrace all forms of purely
bodily disorder of a chronic character, but not including those
possessed of evil spirits. The _impotent_ are those simply suffering
from special weakness and infirmity or from general debility; the
_halt_ are those deprived from any reason of the full and free use of
their limbs; the _withered_ are those affected by paralysis or kindred
disorders.--=Waiting for the moving of the water * * * * was made
whole of whatever disease he had.= Whether this explanation, _i. e._,
the last clause of ver. 3 and the whole of ver. 4, is genuine or a
later interpolation, is a question of dispute among the critics; the
weight of authority is, on the whole, in favor of its omission; the
weight of reason is wholly so. (_a_) The external evidence is, on the
whole, against its retention. It is wanting in the Vatican, Cambridge,
and Sinaitic manuscripts; in those manuscripts in which it occurs, the
verbal variations are considerable. Tischendorf, Meyer, Alford, and
Tregelles all declare against it. (_b_) The internal evidence is
conclusive. If it had been in the original, the early copyists would
not have omitted it; for in the first centuries there was no such
reluctance to accept the supernatural, and no such discrimination
between wonders that are and wonders that are not miracles, as would
have induced its omission. On the other hand, if no explanation of the
reason why the sick were gathered in the porches of Bethesda were
given in the original account, it would have been very natural for
copyists to have supplied the omission by inserting one. (_c_) The
explanation offered by the doubtful passage is itself incredible. It
is a marvel, but it is in no sense a miracle. The irregular and fitful
appearance of help by such an angelic visitor, would have witnessed to
no truth, would have had no tendency to confer faith in God or his
grace. “That God would thus miraculously interpose to throw down from
time to time a boon among a company of cripples, to be seized by
the most forward, selfish, and eager, leaving the most helpless
and miserable to be overwhelmed again and again with bitter
disappointment, is a supposition not admissible.”--(_Jacob Abbott’s
Notes on the N. T._) (_d_) These considerations have led the latest
and best scholars, with substantial unanimity, to omit the explanatory
words of ver. 4, and latter clause of ver. 3. So Alford, Tholuck,
Ebrard, Trench, Olshausen, Meyer, Tischendorf, and Tregelles. But
though it is no part of the sacred record, it probably correctly
states what was the popular belief among the Jews, or at least among
such as resorted to this spring for cure. The real basis of this
belief is indicated by recent researches. These have made it evident
that the pools in and about Jerusalem were connected with each other
by underground aqueducts. Dr. Robinson gives an account of his
exploration of such an aqueduct connecting two pools, the Fountain of
the Virgin and the Pool of Siloam. He satisfied himself that water
flowed from the one to the other reservoir, and he witnessed the
“troubling of the water” in the Fountain of the Virgin. “We perceived
the water rapidly bubbling up from under the lower step. In less than
five minutes it had risen in the basin nearly or quite a foot; and we
could hear it gurgling off through the interior passage. In ten
minutes more it had ceased to flow; and the water in the basin was
again reduced to its former level.” His observation has been since
confirmed by others. It is now difficult to see how the Fountain of
the Virgin could ever have been surrounded by porches or made a
resting-place for the sick; and it is quite certain that the Fountain
of the Virgin cannot be asserted with any positiveness to have been
the Pool of Bethesda. But these discoveries indicate the probably true
explanation of the troubling of the water mentioned, not by John it
will be remembered, but by some subsequent copyist, in the text. The
Pool of Bethesda, probably, was connected by an underground passage
with some intermittent spring, possibly possessing healing virtues,
and the bubbling of the water from time to time gave rise to the
legend of an angelic visitant, which certain of the Jews accepted, but
which the Evangelist does not confirm, and to which there is no
reference in other literature.
5 And a certain man was there, which had an infirmity[162]
thirty and eight years.
6 When Jesus saw him lie, and[163] knew that he had been
now a long time _in that case_, he saith unto him, Wilt
thou be made whole?
7 The impotent man answered him, Sir, I have[164] no man,
when the water is troubled, to put me into the pool: but
while I am coming, another steppeth down before me.
8 Jesus saith unto him, Rise,[165] take up thy bed, and
walk.
9 And immediately the man was made whole, and took up his
bed, and walked: and on[166] the same day was the sabbath.
[162] Luke 8:43; 13:16.
[163] Ps. 142:3.
[164] Deut. 32:36; Ps. 72:12; 142:4; Rom. 5:6; 2 Cor.
1:9, 10.
[165] Matt. 9:6; Mark 2:11; Luke 5:24.
[166] ch. 9:14.
=5-9. Which had an infirmity.= The original implies rather a loss of
power than a positive disease; probably it was a nervous disease of
the paralytic type.--=Thirty and eight years.= The words “in that
case,” are added by the translator, but they correctly convey the
meaning, which is not that he had been at the Pool of Bethesda, but
that he had been diseased that length of time.--=Wilt thou be made
whole?= Why this question? Not necessarily because there was any
reasonable doubt whether the man desired healing; nor because Christ
required, as a conditional preliminary, the man’s assent to healing on
the Sabbath; nor because he would imply blame, as though the man’s
long infirmity were the result of his own weakness of will; nor,
surely, because he would indicate that he was an impostor and desired
to use his apparent but exaggerated infirmity to appeal to the
compassion of others. All these hypotheses have been suggested. But
Christ almost, if not quite, always requires on the part of the healed
some act of the will precedent to and concurrent with his act of
grace; the cured are never merely receptive and quiescent. I believe
there is a deep religious meaning in this, for every miracle is a
parable of redemption, and that our Lord would teach us that it is
only as we will to be made whole that any wholeness is possible for
us, even through omnipotent divine grace. In this particular case it
is certainly true that the man might have traded on his infirmity and
not really desired to be cured; and though Christ’s knowledge of
character would have rendered the question unnecessary for his own
information, it was not unnecessary to make it clear to others that he
was acting in sympathy with the man, nor was it unimportant as a
disclosure to the man himself that he must rouse himself from the
lethargy of despair, and lay hold, by hope, on the salvation brought
to him.--=I have no man.= It is the friendless who appeals peculiarly
to the Friend of the sinful and the suffering.--=Rise, take up thy bed
and walk.= The original (κράββατόν) implies a small, low bedstead. See
for illustration Mark 2:4, note. Here, however, the term may be used
in a more general way, and may imply simply a mattress which served as
a couch by day and a bed by night. Observe the command to _take up the
bed_. This apparently was not necessary; I can conceive but two
reasons for it; one to emphasize the perfection of the cure, the other
to provoke the controversy with the Pharisees respecting the
Sabbath, and thus make it the occasion for the discourse which
follows.--=Immediately.= The instantaneousness of the cure indicates
its miraculous character; so does its permanence. He was cured
instantly; he was cured so thoroughly that he could not only walk, but
could carry his bed; and he remained cured.
I have already said that the miracles are parables of redemption. Of
no one of the miracles is this more strikingly true than of the
present one. The diseased man has been a long time sick. He is
helpless, friendless, in despair. He waits for an imagined moving of
the water, an expected divine cure that is to come without act or
interposition on his part; and it never comes. Christ calls first his
will into exercise: Wilt thou be made whole? then bids him do: “Rise,
take up thy bed;” and in the choice and the _obedience_, by faith
indeed, but by the faith which chooses and obeys, he is made instantly
and permanently well.
10 The Jews therefore said unto him that was cured, It
is the sabbath day:[167] it is not lawful for thee to carry
_thy_ bed.
[167] Jer. 17:21, etc.; Matt. 12:2, etc.
11 He answered them. He that made me whole, the same said
unto me, Take up thy bed, and walk.
12 Then asked they him, What man is that which said unto
thee, Take up thy bed, and walk?
13 And he that was healed wist[168] not who it was: for
Jesus had conveyed[169] himself away, a multitude being in
_that_ place.
[168] ch. 14:9.
[169] Luke 4:30.
=10-13. It is not lawful for thee to carry thy bed.= The general
Sabbath command was, Thou shalt do no work. Nehemiah, enforcing this
command, forbade the carriage of commercial burdens (Neh. 13:19). From
this the Pharisees, with their accustomed literalism, had deduced the
doctrine that nothing must be carried on the Sabbath. To forbid this
man from carrying his bed was like forbidding a modern, man to move a
chair or a campstool. Either he must have left his bed at the pool, to
be stolen, or he must have stayed there to watch it, or he must have
been allowed to take it home with him. For the Pharisaic regulations
respecting the Sabbath, see Matt. 12:2, note.--=He that made me whole
said unto me.= The man knew nothing about Christ or his authority. His
idea appears to have been that Christ proved his right to give the
command, Take up thy bed and walk, by his miracle of healing.--=What
man is it that said unto thee, Take up thy bed.= Observe the spirit of
the Pharisees. Their question is not, Who healed thee? but, Who said
unto thee, Take up thy bed and walk? They are blind to the miracle;
they can see only the Sabbath violation, as they regard it.--=A
multitude being in that place.= Christ had stopped a moment, spoken
the word of healing, and passed on into the crowd. All was over
in an instant, and because of the crowd Christ escaped the man’s
identification. This was early in his ministry; he was not yet widely
known and thronged, as later in life. Observe the indications of the
nature of belief, an obedient trust, not a correct intellectual
apprehension. This man had faith enough to be healed because faith to
obey Christ’s directions despite Pharisaic criticism; yet he knew
nothing of Christ’s person, character, or work; did not even know who
he was. It is possible to have faith in even an unknown Christ.
14 Afterward Jesus findeth him in the temple, and said unto
him, Behold, thou art made whole: sin[170] no more, lest a
worse thing come unto thee.
[170] ch. 8:11.
15 The man departed, and told the Jews that it was Jesus,
which had made him whole.
16 And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought
to slay him, because he had done these things on the
sabbath day.
=14-16. In the temple.= Possibly an indication that the divine grace
of healing had already acted as a means of spiritual quickening.--=Sin
no more, lest=, etc. A plain indication that the man’s disease,
probably some form of paralysis, was an effect of sin. See note on ch.
9:1. Here, as almost everywhere, Christ makes the physical healing
minister to a spiritual cure.--=And reported to the Judeans that it
was Jesus which had made him whole.= They asked who bade him carry his
bed; he replied that it was Jesus who healed him. They asked to
condemn, he answered so as to honor Christ.--=And therefore did the
Judeans come in pursuit of Jesus.= Here, as very generally throughout
his gospel, John uses the word Jews (Ἰουδαῖος) to signify not
generally the members of the Hebrew race, but distinctly the
inhabitants of the province of Judea. I therefore render it here and
elsewhere by the more distinctive word Judeans. His language indicates
not a legal persecution, but a malicious pursuit. Norton translates as
I have, Came in pursuit of Jesus. This is the literal rendering of the
original verb (διώκω), which however generally, though not always,
indicates a pursuit with an evil intent. Here the meaning is not that
the general cause of the persecution which Christ suffered in Judea
was his supposed Sabbath violation, but that in this particular
instance they pursued him to call him to account for this particular
act of Sabbath breaking. It is always the nature of the ceremonialist
to care more for the ceremony than for man.--=And sought to slay him.=
These words do not belong here. They have been added to explain and
correspond with the expression in verse 18, Sought the more to kill
him. They are omitted by Alford, Meyer, Norton, and all the best
critical authorities.
* * * * *
=17-47.= In the study of the discourse which follows, beware of
considering it simply verse by verse. It is not a collection of
incidental aphorisms, but a connected address, the theme being the
character, mission, authority, and credentials of the Son of God. The
Pharisees call Christ to account for healing on the Sabbath; he cites
in his defence the example of his heavenly Father. They seize upon his
language, deduce from it the conclusion that he makes himself equal
with God, and charge him with blasphemy. This serves as the text of
the discourse which follows. He declares that he comes not to draw
allegiance from, but to, the Father; that he acts under the Father’s
will; that to him the Father has committed the whole work of grace on
the earth; that he is even now raising the spiritually dead to life;
that he is to raise the physically dead to a new life; and that he
will finally complete this work entrusted to him, by declaring and
executing the divine judgment. The evidence of his mission and
authority is not in his own words; he is testified to by John the
Baptist; by his own life and work; and by the Scriptures of the O. T.
He closes by pointing out the secret cause of the Jews’ rejection of
him, viz., their personal ambition. Beware, too, of imputing to the
words a dogmatic meaning borrowed from later ecclesiastical
controversies, which they did not bear in the minds of his hearers at
the time. There is little or nothing here respecting the relations of
the Son to the Father, except as the language throughout implies that
the Son is subordinate to and dependent upon the Father; but the
relation of the Son to the human race is clearly revealed, the
relation of life-giver and judge, and is certainly not that of any
man, however endowed, to his fellow-men. Nevertheless this address
contains the christology of Jesus Christ, his own teaching concerning
his own character and work; and it clearly implies, on the one hand,
that he not only represents the Father, as an ambassador might
represent a king, that he is not only clothed with divine authority,
as Moses was clothed, in the administration of the theocracy, with the
authority of God, but that he is a partaker of the divine nature; nor
less clearly, on the other hand, does it imply that his authority is
derived from the Father, that his power is conferred on him by the
Father, that he executes in all things the will of the Father, that he
is to be conceived of not as distinct from, but as one with the
Father, and that his object is in all things to be a way unto the
Father. Against every form of tri-theism, against all substitution of
the Son in the place of the Father, this discourse is a solemn and
earnest admonition, no less than against all belittling of either his
character to that of man or angel, or his mission to that of mere
messenger or teacher.
17 But Jesus answered them, My[171] Father worketh
hitherto, and I work.
[171] chaps. 9:4, 14:10.
=17. My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.= The argument is very
brief; it is based on the premises that we are to be followers of God
as dear children (Ephes. 5:1), that the Father’s work is a pattern for
our own working. It gives color to the opinion that the days of
creation are long eons or periods; that the seventh day, which God
blessed and on which he rested, is the present period in which the
mere physical work of creation has given place to the higher work of
redemption; thus the Sabbath of God becomes both interpreted and an
interpreter to us of what our Sabbath should be. The divine work does
not cease; the grass grows, the buds swell, the flowers bloom, the
fruits ripen, the rains fall, the winds blow,--but all this is the
work of love; over all this work God’s tender mercies brood (Psalm
145:9). The lesson of nature interpreted here by Christ is that the
work of love is never a violation of the true Sabbath law. This verse,
with Matt. 12:8 and Mark 2:27, give the three canons for the Christian
observance of the Sabbath. (1) The Son of man is Lord also of the
Sabbath. It is then a Christian day, belongs to the Christian
dispensation, is under the Lordship of Christ and in his kingdom, and
is to be kept in that spirit of joyous freedom with which Christ makes
free. (2) The Sabbath is made for man. It is therefore man’s day;
belongs to all men, Gentile and Jew, poor and rich; a day to be used
_for_ man; so that whatever work is necessary to the real abiding
welfare of the human race, is not foreign to this day. (3) My Father
worketh hitherto. The Father’s work is the example and the law for his
children; the work of love, the work for others, the work that has
tender mercy for its inspiration and its overseer, is Sabbath work. It
is to be our rest-day as it is our heavenly Father’s rest-day, and
only so; a prophecy of that eternal rest which will be one of glorious
activity: a rest from care, from worldliness, from the common
temptations of life, but not a day of mere dull cessation of labor.
18 Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill[172] him,
because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also
that God was his Father, making[173] himself equal with God.
[172] ch. 7:19.
[173] ch. 10:30, 33; Zech. 13:7; Phil. 2:6.
=18. Because he had not only broken the Sabbath.= Literally _relaxed_
(λύω) the Sabbath. See note on Matt. 5:19 for meaning of the word. The
Pharisees then, as the literalists now, believe that the sanctity of
the Sabbath could only be preserved by putting the soul under bonds to
a literal compliance with specific regulations. Christ broke these
bonds asunder, gave the soul liberty, and preserved the Sabbath by
inspiring the souls of his disciples with allegiance to himself, love
for humanity, and sympathy with the redeeming work of the Father. He
did relax what they supposed to be essential to the preservation of
the day, but what was really destroying it. To keep this poor man on
his bed, or watching it to prevent it from being stolen, would have
destroyed for him the rest of the day, in order that he might comply
with the letter of the Pharisaic regulations. So he who rides in a
horse-car rather than remain away from church, or travels late
Saturday night or early Sunday morning rather than destroy his Sabbath
by spending it with strangers, seems to the Sabbatarian of to-day to
be relaxing the Sabbath, while he may be in truth preserving it.--=But
said also that God was his own Father.= (πατέρα ἴδιον.) Norton renders
the sense accurately though freely, _Had spoken of God as particularly
his Father_. The meaning of the original will be indicated to the
English reader by Rom. 8:32, “Spared not _his own_ Son;” 1 Cor. 6:18,
“Sinneth against _his own_ body;” 1 Cor. 7:2, “Have _her own_
husband.” It is clear that the Jews either did understand Christ by
his language to claim peculiar relations with God, or pretended so to
do. In his mere reference to God as Father there was no such claim,
for he bids us all call him our Father (Matt. 6:6, 7). True, in the
language “_my_ Father,” most commentators see a ground for the
interpretation put upon his language by the Judeans:--thus Meyer:
“They rightly interpreted ‘my Father’ as signifying peculiar and
personal fatherhood;” Bengel: “The Only-begotten alone can say, ‘my
Father’;” similarly Alford, Tholuck, and others. There is perhaps some
ground for this view. Yet I can hardly think that Christ’s mere
designation of God as “_my_ Father” implies more than Paul’s “Abba
Father” (Rom. 8:15), which Luther renders “dear Father,” or the
frequent designation of God as _my_ God by the patriarchs, and
especially by David. See for example, Exod. 15:2; 1 Chron. 28:20; 2
Chron. 18:13; Ps. 22:1, 10; 38:21; 71:12; 2 Cor. 12:21; Phil. 4:19.
And in Psalm 89:26; Jer. 3:4, man is directed by God to apply this
very phrase “my Father” in his address to God. I believe then that the
statement that Jesus said that God was _in a peculiar sense_ his
Father, and the deduction that he thus made himself equal to God, are
the malicious wresting of his words by the Judeans, for the very
purpose of finding an occasion of offence. They manifested the same
spirit in John 10:31, etc., though there they have better ground for
the interpretation which they put upon his words. In the discourse
which follows, Christ does not hold them to their original charge
respecting the Sabbath. He follows them into the new ground which they
have entered on, and expounds his true nature and mission.--=Making
himself equal with God.= “On the same level with God” (_Meyer_); “On
an equality with God” (_Norton_); “Of the same nature and condition”
(_Robinson_). The language of Jesus, his claim of the right to work
because the Father works, and his language _My Father_, the Judeans
regard as embodying an assumption that he is of the divine nature and
possesses the divine prerogatives. That they so interpreted his
language does not prove that it is to be so interpreted. The Pharisees
are not authorized interpreters of the words of Christ. His claim we
must interpret for ourselves from the discourse which follows. How far
does he correct and how far confirm their interpretation? It seems to
me clear that at the very outset he materially modifies it, in his
declaration of his obedience to and dependence upon and work under the
Father (ver. 19), while he confirms the substantial idea that he
possesses the same nature as the Father, is, so to speak, of kin to
Him, by his declaration that he does what the Father does (ver. 19),
shares in all the counsels of the Father (ver. 20), gives life to the
dead as the Father (ver. 21), judges all men for the Father (ver. 22),
is to be honored as the representative of the Father (ver. 23), is the
door through which all must enter into eternal life in the Father
(ver. 24), and is the final Resurrection and Judge for the Father
(ver. 25-29); yet at the close he again emphasizes the truth that in
all this he is not a second or even subordinate God, but the One
through whom the Father does all (ver. 30), the one mediator between
God and man (1 Tim. 2:5).
19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily,
I say unto you,[174] The Son can do nothing of himself,
but what he seeth the Father do: for what things
soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.
[174] verse 30.
20 For[175] the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all
things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater
works than these, that ye may marvel.
[175] chaps. 3:35; 17:26; Matt. 3:17.
=19, 20. Verily, verily.= A formula used by Christ in cases of
important and emphatic affirmation.--=The Son can do nothing of
himself=, _i. e._, of his own will or authority. “Of myself (ἀφ’
ἑαυτοῦ), _i. e._, of one’s own will or accord, without authority or
command from another.”--(_Rob._ 24, art. ἀπό.) This declaration cannot
be limited, as by Calvin, to the power of Christ in his human nature,
without, adding to the verse what is not in it, nor in its necessary
connection; nor can we read it, as Chrysostom does, that Christ can do
nothing contrary to his Father’s will, because of the perfect union
between them, for this is clearly not the meaning of the original.
Christ says not, I can do nothing contrary to my Father, but, I can do
nothing _of myself_ by my own independent and original power. The
meaning of the original is transparent, though the truth is
transcendent. This is that _the power of Christ is not an original but
a derived power_; that it comes from the Father and is a power only to
do those things which carry out the Father’s will. As the Christian
can do nothing without Christ (ch. 15:5), yet can do all things
through Christ strengthening him (Phil. 4:13), so Christ can do
nothing without the Father, but does all things by virtue of a divine
power imparted to him by the Father, and as a manifestation of the
Father. This is a partial answer to the charge that Christ makes
himself equal to the Father. He show’s that so far from doing anything
calculated to draw away allegiance from the Father, he draws
allegiance to the Father, since in all that he does he acts out only
the Father’s will. He is divine because of the divinity with which he
has, so to speak, been clothed by the Father’s love.--=But what he
seeth the Father do.= “A familiar description, borrowed from the
attention which children give to their father--of the inner and
immediate intention which the Son perpetually has of the Father’s
will, in the perfect consciousness of fellowship of life with
Him.”--(_Meyer._)--=Whatsoever things he doeth, these also doeth the
Son likewise.= _In like manner_ (ὁμοίως), that is, with like power and
authority. This surely could be said of no man, no angel. It indicates
not only a superhuman but also a super-angelic character. Thus this
verse puts in a very compact form the paradox of Christ’s character--a
paradox not to be explained away by either modifications of the first
clause or denials of the second. The first clause asserts that
Christ’s power comes from the Father, and thus, in a sense, is not
equal to that of the Father, which is uncreated and underived. And
with this declaration agree many other passages of Scripture. See for
example, ch. 7:17, 18; 8:42; 14:10; Phil. 2:9; Heb. 1:9; 3:2. The
second clause asserts that this power, conferred upon the Son, is that
of the Father, who has put all things into the hands of the Son that
he may be Lord of all. Acts 10:36; James 5:9; Col. 1:16, 17; 3:11. It
is noticeable that John, who of all Evangelists makes most clear the
divine nature of Christ, as well as his divine mission, is the one who
more clearly than any other of the evangelists asserts his dependence
on the Father.--=For the Father loveth the Son=, etc. This is stated
as the reason why the Son is able to do all things that the Father
doeth. His power is derived from the Father through the Father’s love
for him. Comp. Heb. 1:9.--=And showeth him all things.= “He who loves
hides nothing.”--(_Bengel._)--=He will show him greater works than
these.= Greater miracles than the healing of the impotent man. Far
greater works were done later in Christ’s ministry in Jerusalem and
vicinity, the consummation being the raising of Lazarus from the
dead.--=That ye may marvel.= Here the verb _marvel_ (θαυμάζω) is used
with the idea of praise as well as wonder. The object of the wonderful
works of God is not merely to awaken the wonder of mankind, but,
through the wonder, the reverence and so the allegiance of mankind to
the Father through Christ his Son.
21 For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth
_them_; even[176] so the Son quickeneth whom he will.
[176] ch. 11:25; 17:2; Luke 8:54.
22 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed[177]
all judgment unto the Son;
[177] Matt. 11:27; Acts 17:31; 2 Cor. 5:10.
23 That all _men_ should honour the Son, even as they
honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son, honoureth
not the Father which hath sent him.
=21-23. For as the Father raiseth up the dead and maketh them to live,
even so the Son, whom he will, makes to live.= Observe, (1) that the
verbs in this sentence are in the present tense; Christ is therefore
speaking of a _present_ resurrection, one now taking place. (2) That
this resurrection is one recognized among men, not one taking place in
the invisible world (ver. 23). (3) That as the result of this
resurrection, the raised pass from death unto life (ver. 24). (4) That
a universal resurrection is not indicated, but only of those whom _he
wills_ to raise (ver. 21). It is then not of a future resurrection of
all men at the last day, nor of a present resurrection of the
literally dead taking place as they die, that Christ here speaks, but
of a spiritual resurrection, taking place on the earth, confined to
those whom the Saviour calls and who hear and answer his call, and so
manifest to men that it is recognized as a sign of the Saviour’s
power. As Christ has power on earth to forgive sins (Mark 2:10), so
also he has power to raise the dead in trespasses and sins. Thus he is
now, as he will be in another sense in the last day, the resurrection
and the life (John 11:25). This theme of a spiritual resurrection and
life-giving occupies verses 21-27; then by a natural transition Christ
passes to the future resurrection of the physical dead. Be not
surprised, he says in substance, at my declarations respecting the
spiritual resurrection; for the final resurrection shall also be at my
voice. Be not surprised at my claim to be now a judge, for the great
day of judgment the Father has also committed into my hands.--=Whom he
will.= This phrase does not indicate “that he specially confers this
grace on none but certain men, that is, on the elect” (_Calvin_); nor
can we say that “He will not quicken others because they believe not”
(_Meyer_), for though this is true, it is neither asserted, nor even
hinted at here; nor is the meaning merely that “in every instance
where his will is to vivify, the result invariably follows”
(_Alford_). Clearly the indication of the passage is that spiritual
life has its source, not in the will of the sinner but in that of the
Saviour (comp. ch. 1:13; Rom. 9:16); but the reason why the divine
will apparently chooses some and not others, whether for reasons in
human character and choice, or for inscrutable reasons, not explained
nor indeed explicable, is not here hinted at.--=For the Father judgeth
no man.= The whole work of judgment, the whole moral government of the
world, the whole course of divine Providence, as regards the nation,
the church, and the individual, is entrusted to the Son. See Psalm 2;
Rev. 1:5.--=That all men should honor the Son even as they honor the
Father.= There is some reasonable ground for a difference of opinion
as to the proper interpretation of the preceding verses, which treat
of the relations of the Father to the Son; and Christian critics are
not wholly agreed respecting their meaning. But there can be no room
for difference of opinion as to the meaning of this verse, which gives
the practical outcome of those which precede. Whatever opinion the
theologian may entertain concerning the mystery of Christ’s nature,
the Christian can hardly doubt the plain teaching of Scripture that
the highest allegiance that the soul can pay to its God, the highest
love it can offer, the highest reverence it can experience, are all
due to the Son. _Even as_ signifies the manner and the degree. So in
heaven the highest praises are paid to the Lamb slain from the
foundation of the world (Rev. 5:12; 7:10).--=He that honoreth not the
Son, honoreth not the Father which hath sent him.= Not because the
failure to honor an ambassador is a failure to honor the king whom he
represents, but because the honor paid to God belongs to his
character, and of that character the Son is the manifestation; so that
the soul that does not honor the Son, who is the brightness of the
Father’s image, and who doeth all things which the Father does, and as
the Father does them, does not really honor the Father. In truth, he
who does not recognize in Christ the Son of the Father, the true image
of the divine glory, has either no true conception of the Son or none
of the Father; for the only way to the Father is the Son. And in fact,
those forms of theological doctrine which have tended to belittle
Christ have also tended, in the history of the church, to dwarf
worship.
24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He[178] that heareth my
word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting
life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is
passed[179] from death unto life.
[178] ch. 6:40, 47.
[179] 1 John 3:14.
=24. Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth me and hath faith
on him that sent me, hath eternal life, and comes not into judgment,
but has passed out of the death into the life.= The meaning of this
declaration is not obscure, though it has been sometimes obscured by
unbelief. To _hear the word of Christ_ is to hear it with the
spiritual ear, not merely with the physical ear. Thus those may be
included who have never heard of the historic Christ; for as he is the
Light of the world, who lighteth _every man_ who cometh into the world
(ch. 1:9, note), so those who, without the literal hearing of his
words, do hear and attend to the message which he speaks to the soul,
in the inner experience, are to be included among those who hear his
words. To _have faith on him that sent me_, is not merely to believe
his written word, nor to believe that he has sent Christ into the
world, nor to believe any specific dogma respecting Christ, however
important, but to have faith in an unseen divinity, in contrast to
faith in either one’s self or in any human helper. It is to direct
faith toward this unseen God that Christ came into the world; and to
have faith in Christ is to have faith in the Father who sent him, in
order that he might bring all unto the Father, and present all to him
(ch. 17:8, 21, 24). _Cometh not into judgment_ is mistranslated in our
English version, _Shall not come into condemnation_. The verb is not
future, and the noun is judgment, not condemnation. “There can be no
good reason why the word (κρίσις, _krisis_) should be rendered
_judgment_ in the 22d verse, and _condemnation_ in the 24th. But from
a fear, I suppose, lest the one should seem to contradict the
other--lest the Son should be thought not to execute the judgment that
had been committed to him--they (the translators) were unfaithful to
the letter, perhaps even more unfaithful to the spirit, of the
passage.”--(_Maurice._) The promise is one fulfilled in this life, a
promise of present not merely future deliverance, and of a deliverance
not merely from condemnation, but from judgment. If the Christian
comes into judgment, he would also inevitably come into condemnation
(1 John 1:8, 10). The meaning of this verse then is, that when the
soul has accepted Christ as its Master, hearing his words, and
following him, for spiritual hearing involves following (ch. 10:3, 4)
so as to live by faith in God (Gal. 2:20), he is no longer subject to
divine judgment; there is no more condemnation to them who are thus in
Christ Jesus (Rom. 8:1). With this is involved the further truth that
there will be no true judgment for them in the last day. “The
reckoning which ends with ‘Well done, good and faithful servant,’ is
not judgment; the reward is of free grace. In this sense the believers
in Christ will not be judged according to their works; they are
justified before God by faith, and by God.”--(_Alford._) Finally, the
last clause of the verse, _but hath passed out of death into life_,
indicates the true condition of both the impenitent and the believer;
the one is already in death, from which he can only be delivered by
the Life-giver; the other has already entered into eternal life. This
is not a future reward reserved for him; it begins here and now,
though it is to be consummated hereafter. _The_ life is spiritual
life, _the_ death spiritual death. Of these great realities physical
life and death are but tropes and symbols.
25 Verily, verily, I say unto you. The hour is coming, and
now is, when the dead[180] shall hear the voice of the Son
of God; and they that hear shall live.
[180] verse 28; Ephes. 2:1.
26 For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given
to the Son to have life[181] in himself;
[181] 1 Cor. 15:45.
27 And hath given him authority[182] to execute judgment
also, because he is the Son of man.
[182] verse 22.
=25-27. The hour is coming, and now is, when=, etc. The resurrection
here spoken of is then one already taking place. In order to meet this
evident requirement of the verse, those commentators who regard Christ
as throughout this passage speaking of the final resurrection suppose
here a reference to the cases of resurrection which took place in
connection with his ministry. But none such had as yet taken place;
moreover, this construction requires us to suppose that Christ used
the word _life_ in one sense in the preceding verse and in another
sense here, without giving any indication of the change of meaning.
His reference then I believe to be here, as throughout this passage up
to verse 28, to spiritual death and spiritual resurrection.--=For as
the Father hath life in himself, so he hath given to the Son to have
life in himself.= Norton renders this somewhat enigmatical verse
liberally, thus: “For as the Father is the fountain of life, so hath
he given to the Son to be the fountain of life.” This must be regarded
rather as a paraphrase than as a translation; but it embodies well the
meaning of the verse, as indicated by the context. No man is a
fountain of life to any other man. He may be a conduit, but not a
source. It is given to Christ to be a source of life himself to
others. We live only as we draw continuously our life from God; to the
Son the Father has given life in such a sense that he becomes himself
the life of the world, and thus the life-giver to the dead.--=Because
he is a Son of man.= Not, as in the English version, _the_ Son of man.
The omission of the article is significant, for without the article
the phrase son of man means simply one of the human race; with the
article it always means the Messiah. Here then the meaning is that
Christ is to be the judge of all the earth, because he has taken on
himself human nature. Why is this any reason that he should be the
judge of the world? The answer is, I think, indicated by Heb. 5:15:
“We have not an high-priest which cannot be touched with the feeling
of our infirmities, but was tempted in all points like as we are, yet
without sin.” Our judge is chosen, because he knows our frame, he
understands sympathetically our temptations, is able to make
allowances for all infirmities and weaknesses of humanity, and for all
trials of life, and able, also, to measure at their true worth the
false excuses with which we endeavor to excuse ourselves to ourselves
and to our fellows. Other explanations, for which in detail see Meyer,
as that judgment is a necessary part of redemption, or that it belongs
to Christ as the Messiah, or that it is given to him as a reward for
accepting the humility of human nature, seem to me to be inadmissible.
Judgment is not a part of redemption; it is in no true sense
redemptive; the phrase _a_ son of man never means the Messiah; and it
would be no reward to a tender and loving nature to exercise judgment,
except as it afforded an opportunity for the exercise of mercy in
judgment.
28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the
which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
29 And shall come forth; they[183] that have done
good, unto the resurrection of life; and they
that have done evil, unto the resurrection of
damnation.[184]
[183] Dan. 12:2.
[184] Matt. 25:46.
=28, 29. Marvel not at this.= Not only because the greater wonder
absorbs the less (_Meyer_), but also because there is nothing strange
in the declaration that he who is to be the final judge of all flesh
should exercise judgment now on men, and he who is to be the final
resurrection and the life should be the resurrection and the life in
the spiritual realm now.--=For the hour is coming.= He does not add
_and now is_, for now he is speaking not of a present resurrection, but
of one to take place only in the future.--=All that are in their
graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth.= A voice like the
sound of a trumpet (Rev. 1:10), and like the sound of many waters
(Rev. 1:15), that is, like the roar of the ocean for fullness and
power. Comp. 1 Thess. 4:16. The entire language is highly figurative.
If literally interpreted it would seem to imply a bodily resurrection,
and it is apparently so understood by some of the commentators, _e.
g._, Alford and Olshausen; but it is evident that it cannot be
literally interpreted. Thus the dead do not in a literal sense hear
his voice; their arousing is not that of literal sleepers who have
been awakened by a voice. The doctrine that death is a sleep, that the
soul remains in an unconscious state till the resurrection, and that
the life is then anew given to the soul simultaneously with the
re-creation of the body from the dust, is so inconsistent with the
plain teaching of Scripture in many passages (see 1 Cor. 15:36-38, 50,
51), that it cannot be sustained by doubtful interpretations of
pictorial passages like the present one. How little ground there is
for the opinion that the Bible supports a doctrine of a literal and
universal bodily resurrection, will be evident to the student who
considers the force of the following passages, which are said by
Olshausen, and quoted with apparent approval by Alford, both of whom
seem to believe in a literal resurrection of the body, to be the only
passages in Scripture which imply a resurrection of the bodies of the
impenitent: Acts 24:15; Matt. 10:28; Matt. 25:34, etc.; Rev. 20:5, 12;
Dan. 12:2. No one of these directly asserts the resurrection of the
body, and some of them can hardly be said even remotely to imply it.
The doctrine is directly inconsistent with the teaching of Paul in 1
Cor., ch. 15. See notes there.--=They that have done good unto the
resurrection of life.= That is, unto a resurrection the necessary
result of which is life, life in the Messiah’s kingdom.--(_Meyer._)
--=And they that have practised evil.= The righteous have _done_
good--their fruit remains; the wicked have only _practised_
evil--their works do not follow them. The wheat is garnered into the
storehouses; the chaff is destroyed. See ch. 3:20, 21.--=Unto the
resurrection of judgment.= Observe again that only they that have done
evil come into judgment (verse 24, note). Observe too that it is they
that have done good to whom is given the gift of eternal life, and
they that have practised evil that enter into judgment. The test, and
the only test of character which the New Testament recognizes, is that
of fruit in the actual life (Matt.7:20; 12:33; 25:31-46; Ephes. 5:6; 1
John 3:7, 8). The works of righteousness are the fruits of the Spirit;
his gracious influences are received into the soul by faith, but the
evidence of the abiding of that Spirit consists in the manifestation
of these fruits in a righteous life (John 15:1, 2, 6; Gal. 5:22-24;
James 2:14-26). Living a Christ-like life is the only evidence of
possessing a Christ-like spirit.
30 I[185] can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I
judge: and my judgment is just: because I seek not mine own
will, but the will[186] of the Father which hath sent me.
[185] verse 19.
[186] ch. 4:34; 6:38; Ps. 40:7, 8; Matt. 26:39.
=30.= In this verse Christ returns to the statement made in the
beginning of the discourse, ver. 19 (see note there); he does all
things as the representative of the Father and the expression of the
Father’s will.--=As I hear I judge.= As Christ is the image of the
Father, so his voice is the echo of the Father’s voice.--=My judgment
is just, because I seek not my own will, but the will of the Father.=
To the Father there is no law superior to his own will; to the Son the
will of the Father is the law. In this declaration our Lord gives us
an example of the way in which we may secure just judgments in
ourselves. It is self-seeking which obscures the judgment. Unselfish
seeking of the Father’s will is the great clarifier of the moral
judgments of the disciple.
31 If I bear witness[187] of myself, my witness is not true.
[187] ch. 8:14; Prov. 27:2; Rev. 3:14.
=31.= This verse makes a transition from the subject-matter of the
discourse thus far to a new subject. Christ has been speaking of his
own character and authority; he now passes to speak of the evidences
which attest it. The verse is to be read not affirmatively, but
interrogatively. Do you say, if I bear witness of myself, my witness
is not true? I will then point you to other testimony. That this is
the true reading of the verse is evident from ch. 8:14, where Christ
declares that though he bears witness of himself, his witness is true.
He here anticipates the objection there made by the Pharisees (ch.
8:13), and replies to it. In his reply, which extends to verse 39, he
cites in attestation of his mission three witnesses: (1) the testimony
of John the Baptist (vers. 32-35); (2) his own works, including, but
only incidentally, his miracles (ver. 36); (3) the personal testimony
of the Father, speaking chiefly through the O. T. Scripture (vers.
37-39).
32 There is another[188] that beareth witness of me; and I
know that the witness which he witnesseth of me is true.
[188] ch. 8:18; Acts 10:43; 1 John 5:7-9.
33 Ye sent unto John, and[189] he bare witness unto the
truth.
[189] ch. 1:7, 32.
=32, 33. There is another that beareth witness of me.= Most of the
modern commentators consider this _another_ to be the Father. So
Alford, Meyer, Bengel, Tholuck, and others. They understand the
connection to be this: The Father testifies to me; John’s testimony I
do not receive, because it is human and fallible, but in passing I
refer to it, for your salvation. Thus verses 33-35 are parenthetical.
The other interpretation seems to me the more natural and preferable.
Christ gives, in an ascending climax, a threefold testimony to
himself: first the testimony of John, a prophet, rather the prophet
and forerunner of the Messiah; then his own works; finally the
testimony of the Father, in the heart and through the written
word.--=And I know that the witness which he witnesseth of me is
true.= Such language confirming the testimony of John the Baptist is
natural; such language in confirmation of the testimony of the Father
seems to me strained and unnatural. What significance can be given to
the statement, The Everlasting Father testifies of me, and I know that
his testimony of me is true? It is apt if applied to John the Baptist,
a human and fallible witness, whose language might be attributed by
the Jews to extraordinary and mistaken admiration.--=Ye sent unto
John.= The reference is probably to the delegation which came out from
Jerusalem to inquire into John’s character and work (ch. 1:19).--=He
bare witness unto the truth.= That is, To the truth concerning Jesus
Christ. By this declaration Christ makes the christology of John the
Baptist his own, and declares of himself that he is the Son of God and
the Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world. See ch. 1:29,
34.
34 But I receive not testimony from man: but[190] these
things I say, that ye might be saved.
[190] ch. 20:31; Rom. 3:3.
35 He was a burning and a shining light: and ye were
willing[191] for a season to rejoice in his light.
[191] Matt. 21:26; Mark 6:20.
=34, 35. But I receive not testimony from man.= This is not equivalent
to, I will not avail myself of human witness in this matter (_Meyer_);
he does in fact avail himself of human witness, cites it, and declares
the reason why he does so, that his auditors may by it be saved from
fatal error; nor does it merely mean, as Calvin, that he cites this
testimony out of regard to them rather than to himself, though this is
true, and equally true of all his ministry, and of all the testimony
which he cites in support of his divine claims. Here, as in so many
other places in the N. T., especially in the reports of Christ’s
words, the careful study of the original clears up obscurity which is
felt in the translation, and sometimes which any mere translation
fails to clear away. _From_ (παρά), when joined to verbs of inquiring,
asking, and learning, indicates that the matter to be learned is
viewed as in the mental possession of the person cited (see _Winer_, §
47, p. 365), that is, as derived from him and dependent on his
testimony. So in common language with us, “I know such a fact to be
true, for I learned it _from_ Mr. A.,” indicates Mr. A. as the
_authority_ for the statement. Christ’s declaration here then is, not
that he will not use human testimony, but that his claims do not
depend upon it. Compare Matt. 11:27, “No man knoweth the Son but the
Father,” and Matt. 16:17, “Flesh and blood hath not revealed it (the
truth respecting Jesus) unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.”
The testimony of John the Baptist, like that of all the prophets, is
not in truth testimony of or from man, but testimony _from_ God,
_through_ man, the man speaking as he is moved by the Holy Ghost. And
the moral for us is that all mere human argument for and witness to
the character of Christ breaks down; it is only as the divine
character has been divinely revealed to us, by the Spirit of God, that
we can hope to persuade others of the truth, a lesson abundantly
confirmed in the history of the church by its dealings with
infidelity. Unbelief is to be vanquished by spiritual, not by mere
intellectual power. Alford represents the idea well by a free
translation, “I take not my testimony from man.”--=These things I say
that ye might be saved.= Blind to the testimony of the O. T. (2 Cor.
3:14), unspiritual, and therefore deaf to the inner voice of God (1
Cor. 2:14), there is hope that they may heed the recent testimony of
John, whom all men counted for a prophet (Matt. 21:26), and whose
baptism even the Pharisees and the Sadducees had attended (Matt. 3:7).
Therefore he cites it to them, that he may by any means save some. He
seeks to outflank their prejudice.--=He was the lamp, kindled and
shining.= Observe the difference between this translation and that of
our English version. He was not _a light_, but _the lamp_; not
_burning_, but _kindled_. A common title given to famous Rabbis was
The candle of the law; Christ borrows it, applies it to John, and
declares him to have been _the_ lamp, lighting not the law, but the
way to Christ. _The_ lamp, because the one foretold in the prophets to
light the way of the Lord and prepare for his coming. The _lamp_, not
_light_. Two different Greek words (λύχνος and φῶς) are erroneously
rendered by the same English word, _light_. Man is but a _lamp_;
Christ is _the light_ which lighteth every man that cometh into the
world (ch. 1:9); and man (the lamp) can give light to others only as
he is himself filled with Christ (the true and only light). This lamp
is _kindled_ (καιόμενος, passive), _i. e._, by the touch of God, as a
lamp unable to give light until it is filled and lighted by the
owner’s hand; and _shining_, as one of the lights of the world (Matt.
5:14), shining with divine light because kindled by a divine hand and
partaking of the divine nature (_lumen illuminatum_, not _lumen
illuminans_).--=And ye were willing for a season to rejoice in his
light.= The two marks of a spurious religious enthusiasm. They were
willing to _rejoice_, but not to _repent_; they were ready to “enjoy
religion,” but not to “bring forth fruit meet for repentance;” they
flocked in great crowds to John’s Baptism (Matt. 3:5), much as men now
flock to camp and tabernacle meetings; but they were not ready to “do
justly, love mercy, and walk humbly before God.” And their enthusiasm
was but “for a season,” as all merely emotional enthusiasm is. It made
no practical and lifelong change in their character or conduct.
36 But I have greater witness than _that_ of John; for the
works[192] which the Father hath given me to finish,[193]
the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the
Father hath sent me.
[192] ch. 10:25; 15:24; Acts 2:22.
[193] ch. 17:4.
=36. But I have greater witness than that of John; for the works which
the Father hath given me to finish.= From the testimony of John the
Baptist, Jesus passes to the second authentication of his mission, the
works which he is doing. These _works_ are not merely nor primarily
his miracles. Against this narrow and unspiritual interpretation the
church should have been saved by even a careful study of the words.
For (_a_) the word here rendered _works_ (ἔργον) is never used by John
as equivalent to a miracle, but always, when in connection with
Christ, as significant of his whole course of beneficent and redeeming
activity; (_b_) in this very discourse Christ uses it in connection
with and in reference to his work of spiritual life-giving to the dead
in trespasses and sins (vers. 20, 21); (_c_) the phrase “hath given me
to finish” points forward to the time when he should be able to say in
prayer to his Father, “I have finished the work which thou gavest me
to do” (ch. 17:5; comp. 4:34), and in his last triumphant cry upon the
cross, “It is finished” (ch. 19:30). The matter is important because
the church needs to recognize that the evidences of Christianity on
which Christ relied are not the miracles, which are purely historical
acts, the historic veracity of which must be proved like that of any
other past events, but the whole work of redeeming love, the visible
and indubitable fruits of which are to be unceasingly seen in
the victories of Christianity over the individual and over
communities.--=The same works that I am doing.= Not _have done_, which
might have been said of miracles already wrought, but _am now engaged
in doing_, which alone could be said of the unceasing work of him who
ever went about doing good. Observe that the works which he is doing
are those which the Father _hath given him to do_ (vers. 19, 20,
notes), and that whatever the Father hath given him, that he does (ch.
18:11).--=Bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me.= Because
they are manifestations of the Father’s love. The message which the
Son has come to bring is the message of the Father’s grace (ch. 1:14).
37 And the Father[194] himself, which hath sent me, hath
borne witness of me. Ye[195] have neither heard his voice
at any time, nor seen his shape.
[194] Matt. 3:17; 17:5.
[195] Deut. 4:12; 1 Tim. 6:16.
38 And ye have not his word[196] abiding in you: for whom
he hath sent, him ye believe not.
[196] 1 John 2:14.
=37, 38. And he which hath sent me, the Father himself, hath borne
witness of me.= The past tense of the verb indicates a completed
testimony, borne in past time, but accessible to present hearers. The
meaning therefore cannot be the witness of the Spirit to Christ’s
character and mission, a continuously fresh testimony, which is
however borne only to those that are already the sons of God, through
a measurable faith in Jesus as Saviour and Messiah. The reference is
possibly in part to the testimony which the Father had borne at the
baptism to Christ as his well-beloved Son (Matt. 3:17), a testimony
repeated on other occasions (Matt. 17:5; John 12:28); but the primary
reference is to the testimony borne to God in the O. T. Scriptures,
which were to the Jewish nation witnesses to the Messiah, whose coming
they heralded, and whose work they described (Luke 24:27-44; Acts
13:27).--=No voice of his have ye ever heard, no appearance of his
have ye ever seen, and his word ye have not abiding in you.= This
gives as nearly literally as is possible the meaning of the original.
Two interpretations are possible. One is that indicated by our English
version. According to this interpretation Christ declares the general
philosophic truth, that the Father is a Spirit, and therefore
invisible and inaudible, to be spiritually discerned; and since the
Jews have not spiritual discernment, since they have not God’s word
abiding in them, they are without any knowledge of God or
understanding of his witness. The other interpretation is that
indicated by the more literal translation given above. According to
this translation it is the language of “reproach for want of
susceptibility to this (divine) testimony” (_Meyer_). This was the
view of Calvin, who here, as in the interpretation of so many other
passages, anticipated the results of later criticism. “When he says
that they had never heard the voice of God or seen his shape, these
are metaphorical expressions, by which he intends to state generally
that they are utterly estranged from the knowledge of God.” This last
I believe to be the correct interpretation, both because it more
nearly accords with the literal rendering of the original, and
because, according to the other interpretation, Christ inserts in the
midst of his discourse an abstract statement of philosophic truth, in
a manner which, if not absolutely artificial, is at least quite unlike
his usual method. _His word abiding in you_ is the word of the O. T.
This they had; but it was external to them. They did not believe it
“with the heart unto righteousness” (Rom. 10:10). It was not an
abiding force in the shaping of their conduct or the formation of
their character. He only can truly comprehend what the Scriptures
teach concerning God, who yields obedience to whatever they teach
concerning duty; for it is only as the divine attributes are
reproduced in us that we can approximate an understanding of them in
God.--=For whom he hath sent, in him ye have not faith.= This may be
regarded either as the reason why they have not seen God nor heard his
voice, because they have not faith in his Son; or as the evidence that
they have not seen God, etc., since if they had they would have faith
in his Son. The latter is the preferable interpretation, He that is
truly and spiritually familiar with the Father will discern the
Father’s lineaments in the Son; he that does not recognize the
divinity in the Son bears thereby witness that he does not truly know
in what divinity consists.
39 Search[197] the Scriptures; for in them ye think ye have
eternal life: and they are[198] they which testify of me.
[197] Isa. 8:20; 34:16.
[198] Luke 24:27; 1 Pet. 1:10, 11.
40 And ye will not come[199] to me, that ye might have life.
[199] ch. 3:19.
=39, 40. Ye search the Scriptures because in them ye think ye have
eternal life; and they are they which testify concerning me; and still
ye will not come unto me that ye might have life.= The verb _search_
(ερευνᾶτε) may be rendered either as imperative or as indicative.
Alford and Tholuck make it, as does the English version, imperative,
thus interpreting it as a direction to search the Scriptures; Meyer,
Bengel, Olshausen, and Godet make it indicative, thus interpreting it
as a statement of a fact and a basis for the condemnation which
follows. Which interpretation is correct is to be determined wholly by
the context and the circumstances; either is grammatically correct. It
appears to me clear, both from the context and the audience, that
Christ does not give here a command or an exhortation, but simply
states a fact. For (1) he is addressing men who did not need a
direction to Scriptural study; the great, almost the exclusive, study
of the Jewish Rabbis was either the Scriptures or the commentaries
thereon. It is true that their search was not spiritual; they stopped
with the letter which killeth, and disregarded the spirit which giveth
life; but this was a reason, not for an exhortation to more searching,
but to a different spirit in the searching. (2) The theme of Christ’s
discourse here would not naturally lead to an exhortation to Bible
study. He is pointing them to himself; and their failure to find him
was not because they were not familiar with the Scriptures, but
because a veil was over their hearts when they read it (2 Cor. 3:15).
I understand then that Christ in this verse notes a contrast between
the Scriptures and himself; the Jews search the Scriptures because _in
them_ they think to find eternal life. But eternal life is not in the
_Book_; it is in the _person_ to whom the Book bears witness. And they
search in vain who do not find in it the Christ to whom the Book bears
testimony. In contrast with their searching, note the spirit and
method of the Bereans, who searched to see _if these things were so_
(Acts 17:10, 11), that is, with a docile and inquiring, not a
predetermined mind.--=Ye will not come unto me.= Though the Scriptures
which they searched so diligently contained testimony to a suffering
and saving Messiah, they would not come to him. They were as one who
reads a guide-board, but goes not whither it points.--=That ye might
have life.= The object of Christ’s coming was to give life; the object
of coming to Christ is to receive life (ch. 10:10). The kind of life
imparted by him and to be received by us is indicated in Ephes. 2:10;
Gal. 5:22, 23.
41 I receive not honour from[200] men.
[200] verse 34; 1 Thess. 2:6.
42 But I know you, that ye have not the love of God in you.
=41, 42. I receive not honor from men.= It is true that at his name
every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess him to be Lord,
but _to the glory of God the Father_ (Phil. 2:10, 11). As the
Christian lets his light shine that men may glorify Christ, so Christ’s
light glorifies the Father. Moreover, this honor is not derived from
men. What was said on the meaning of the original on ver. 34 (see
note there) is equally applicable here. From men (παρά) indicates
the original source. Christ’s glory comes _from_ the Father (Phil.
2:9); human voices do but echo the divine voice.--=I know you.= As no
man ever knows his fellow-men. For illustration of Christ’s divine
insight into the hearts of men, see Matt. 9:4; John 2:24; Heb.
4:13.--=That ye have not the love of God in you.= They who were
condemning Christ for a violation of the ceremonial law of the Sabbath
were themselves guilty of violating the first and great commandment Of
the law (Deut. 6:5).
43 I am come in my Father’s name, and ye receive me not: if
another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.
44 How can ye believe, which[201] receive honour one of
another, and seek[202] not the honour that _cometh_ from
God only?
[201] ch. 12:43.
[202] Rom. 2:10.
=43, 44. In my Father’s name.= “The name of God, of Christ, is a
paraphrase for God himself, Christ himself, in all their being,
attributes, relations, manifestations.”--(_Rob. Lex._, art. ὄνομα.) See
Matt. 28:19, note. Here, therefore, Christ’s declaration is primarily,
I have come in the power of the Father, not in my own power, or with my
own authority; and secondarily, I have come to manifest and glorify not
myself, but Him.--=If another shall come in his own name, him ye will
receive.= The reference is primarily to the false Christs, of whom many
have been at different times received by Jews. See Matt. 24:5, note.
But the declaration has a wider application to all times and nations.
Wherever the minister is received, not as a guide to God, but as an
independent object of hero-worship, he is received _in his own
name_.--=How can ye have faith which receive honor derived from=
(παρά) =one another?= Earthly ambition is inconsistent with spiritual
growth. He that seeks the perishable cannot at the same time seek the
imperishable crown.--=And seek not the honor which cometh from the
only God.= Not, as in our English version, from God only. The
structure of the sentence forbids that interpretation. The reference
is to such passages as Exod. 8:10; 9:14; 20:3; Deut. 4:35, 39; 2 Sam.
7:22; Isa. 45:5, 6, etc. To those who seek from the one and only true
God glory and honor and immortality, by patient continuance in
well-doing, and to them alone, is the gift of eternal life promised
(Rom. 2:6, 7).
45 Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there
is[203] _one_ that accuseth you, _even_ Moses, in whom ye
trust.
[203] Rom. 2:12.
46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me:
for he[204] wrote of me.
[204] Gen. 3:15; 22:18; Deut. 18:15, 18; Acts 26:22.
47 But if ye[205] believe not his writings, how shall ye
believe my words?
[205] Luke 16:31.
=45-47. Do not think that I will be your accuser before the Father.=
The imagery is borrowed from the course of judicial proceedings. In
the last judgment Christ will be judge (ver. 37), not public
prosecutor.--=There is one that accuseth you.= Observe the present
tense, _who is accusing you_. The law is a perpetual accusation against
the sinner (Rom. 2:15; 3:19, 20), from whose indictments there
is no escape except in the pardon offered by the grace of God through
Jesus Christ. For prophetic and specific accusations of the Jewish
nation in the Mosaic writings, see Deut. 31:21, 26.--=Even Moses.=
The law-giver is put for the law.--=In whom ye have put your hopes.=
(εἰς ὃν) For the meaning of _in whom_ (εἰς ὅν), see 2 Cor. 1:10. _In_
(εἰς) signifies the end toward which any action tends; with verbs
indicating a mental action, the object of that action. The hopes of
the Jews looked toward Moses, _i. e._, toward an exact obedience of
the letter of the law given by Moses, not toward a spiritual communion
with the Father whose children they were called to be. For a portrayal,
autobiographically, of this legal and self-righteous hope, see Phil.
3:4-6.--=Had ye believed Moses.= Not believed _in_ or _on_ him; the
child of God believes the prophets, he believes _in_ or _on_ Christ
only. If the Jews had really believed Moses, even as a teacher, they
would have believed _on_ Christ; for Moses testified of Christ.--=For
he wrote of me.= An incidental testimony to the Mosaic authorship of
the books usually attributed by the Jews to Moses, viz., the first
five books of the O. T.; also an indication of the prophetic and
typical character of the ceremonial law. Moses was a prophet because
the entire O. T. ceremonial and service--temple sacrifices, ablutions,
etc.--were prophecies, fulfilled in and by Christ. Thus Christ himself
incidentally confirms that view of the O. T. ceremonial which
underlies and is most fully expounded by the Epistle to the
Hebrews.--=But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my
words?= “The meaning is, Men give greater weight to what is written
and published, the letter of a book, than to mere word of mouth; and
ye in particular give greater honor to Moses than to Me: if then ye
believe not what _he_ has written, which comes down to you hallowed by
the reverence of ages, how can you believe the words which are uttered
by _Me_, to whom ye are hostile? This however is not all; Moses leads
to Christ; is one of the witnesses by which the Father hath testified
of Him; ‘if then ye have rejected the _means_, how shall ye reach the
_end_?’ If your unbelief has stopped the path, how shall ye arrive at
Him to whom it leads?”--(_Alford._)