1‐9. *Jesus goes up to Jerusalem on the occasion of a festival,
and there cures a man on the Sabbath day.*
10‐16. *The Jews first challenge him who was healed, and then
persecute Christ for violating the Sabbath.*
17. *Christ’s answer and defence.*
18. *They are still more exasperated, and seek to kill Him.*
19‐39. *Christ’s discourse, in which He proves, by various
arguments, that He is justified in calling God HIS Father, and in
making Himself equal to God.*
40‐47. *He upbraids their incredulity, and points out its cause.*
1. Post haec erat dies festus 1. After these things was a
Iudaeorum, et ascendit Iesus festival day of the Jews, and
Ierosolymam. Jesus went up to Jerusalem.
1. The interval to be admitted between the events now about to be narrated
and the preceding, depends upon the answer to be given to the question:
what festival is here referred to? On this question a great diversity of
opinion has always existed among commentators. The more common opinion is
that it is the festival of the _Pasch_; others, however, hold that it is
the festival of _Pentecost_, or of _Tabernacles_, or of the _Purification_
of the Temple, or of _Lots_.
The Pasch was celebrated from the evening of the 14th till that of the
21st of Nisan, the first month of the Jewish sacred year. Pentecost was
the fiftieth day from the second day of the Pasch. The feast of
Tabernacles was celebrated from the evening of the 14th till that of the
22nd of Tisri, the seventh month of the sacred year. The feast of
Purification lasted eight days, beginning with the 25th Casleu, the ninth
month of the sacred year. The feast of Lots lasted two days, the 14th and
15th of Adar, the twelfth month of the sacred year.
The three feasts of Pasch, Pentecost, and Tabernacles were the great
Jewish feasts, on which, and on which alone, all adult males were bound to
go up to Jerusalem to worship. See Exod. xxiii. 14‐17; xxxiv. 18, 22, 23.
Many have held that the approach of the feast is mentioned (verse 1), as
giving the reason why Christ went up, like the other adult Jewish men, to
Jerusalem (ii. 13). Others, however, hold that the text merely states a
fact, that Christ went up on the occasion of a festival, without implying
at all that the festival was such as ought to be celebrated at Jerusalem.
It is difficult, if not impossible, to definitely decide which feast is
meant; but it seems to us extremely probable that it is either Pasch or
Lots. In favour of the Pasch it is argued—(1) (ἑορτὴ) even without the
article(45) _may_ designate the Pasch (Matt. xxvii. 15; Mark xv. 6); and
it is to be believed that it does in the present instance, because ten
verses before (iv. 45) the same word is used to designate the Pasch
(compare John ii. 13, 23). (2) From iv. 35 we learn that Jesus was on His
way, through Samaria, to Galilee, in December; that is, about the _close_
of the first year of His public life. Hence it cannot be to any of the
three great feasts of that _first_ year that our text refers. Naturally,
then, it is to the Pasch of the second year, which was the first great
feast to occur in the course of the year, and for which, if Christ had not
gone to Jerusalem, St. John would probably have explained His absence, as
He does (vii. 1) in reference to the Pasch mentioned vi. 4. (3) Were it
any other feast than that of the Pasch, which was by excellence _the_
feast of the Jews, St. John, according to his custom (vii. 2; x. 22),
would have named it. (4) This is the opinion of St. Irenæus, who was a
disciple of Polycarp, himself a disciple of our Evangelist.
In favour of the feast of Lots—(1) The absence of the article in the more
probable reading points to one of the minor feasts of the Jews. (2) From
John iv. 35, and vi. 4, it would seem to be clear that this feast fell
between December and the Pasch; but only the feast of Lots occurred at
that time. (3) If this be the second Pasch of our Lord’s public life, and
that in vi. 4 the third, then the events of a whole year are passed over
by our Evangelist, who proceeds, in vi. 1: “After these things Jesus
went,” &c., affording no hint that he has passed over the events of a
year. (4). Were this the Pasch, St. John would have named it, as he does
on the other three occasions (ii. 13; vi. 4; xi. 55). But as it was only a
minor feast of the Jews, and probably unheard‐of by the Christians of Asia
Minor, the Evangelist thinks it unnecessary to name it, and contents
himself with referring to it as *a feast of the Jews*.
It is perhaps impossible, as we have said already, to decide with
certainty which feast is meant, but we shall follow the more common
opinion and hold that there is question of the Pasch. Thus, we hold that
St. John mentions four Paschs as having occurred during our Lord’s public
life: the first in ii. 13; the second here; the third in vi. 4; and the
fourth and last in xii. 1 and xiii. 1, when our Lord was put to death. He
passes over the events that occurred between the second and third Pasch,
because they were already narrated by the Synoptic Evangelists.
2. Est autem Ierosolymis 2. Now there is at Jerusalem a
probatica piscina, quae pond, _called_ Probatica,
cognominatur hebraice which in Hebrew is named
Bethsaida, quinque porticus Bethsaida, having five
habens. porches.
2. The best supported Greek reading would be rendered, “Now there is in
Jerusalem _by the sheep‐gate_ (πύλη being understood) a pond which is
called in Hebrew _Bethesda_,” &c.
Bethesda, in Syro‐Chaldaic, which was the language of Palestine at this
time, means the house (place) of mercy; and the name was given in the
present instance on account of the merciful cures wrought there. For the
building of this sheep‐gate by the priests, see 2 Esd. iii. 1. The site of
either gate or pond cannot be determined with certainty; but the pond
seems to have been close to the Temple, near the gate through which the
sheep to be sacrificed entered within the outer enclosure of the temple.
The *porches*, which served to shelter the sick from sun and rain, were
open on the sides, but covered with a roof supported on pillars.
The Vulgate reading, *a sheep‐pond*, has been variously explained. Some
say the pond might be so called because the sheep were washed there before
they were sacrificed; others, because their entrails were brought there to
be washed. *Bethsaida*, read by the Vulgate, means the house (place) for
fishing.
3. In his iacebat multitudo 3. In these lay a great
magna languentium, caecorum, multitude of sick, of blind,
claudorum, aridorum, of lame, of withered, waiting
expectantium aquae motum. for the moving of the water.
4. Angelus autem Domini 4. And an Angel of the Lord
descendebat secundum tempus in descended at certain times
piscinam: et movebatur aqua. into the pond; and the water
Et qui prior descendisset in was moved. And he that went
piscinam post motionem aquae, down first into the pond after
sanus fiebat a quacumque the motion of the water, was
detinebatur infirmitate. made whole of whatsoever
infirmity he lay under.
3, 4. The genuineness of the passage, beginning with *waiting for the
moving of the water*, and comprising the whole of verse 4, is disputed.
The Council of Trent, indeed, defined “libros singulos cum omnibus suis
partibus ... prout in vulgata Latina Editione habentur ... pro sacris et
canonicis esse suscipiendos:” but it is not thereby defined that every
tittle (_particula_) or every verse, is canonical Scripture. It would
seem, therefore, that Catholics are free to reject this passage, and it is
a question for criticism to decide whether we are to receive or reject it.
After an examination of the evidence for and against, we believe that the
passage is more probably genuine. It stands in codex A (Alexandrinus), and
in at least ten other uncial and very many _cursive_ MSS. It is read in
the “Vetus Itala” and in the Vulgate; in the _plain_ and _figured_ Syriac
versions, and in the Persian, Coptic, and Arabian versions. It is read by
Cyril of Alexandria, Chrys., Theophy., Euthy., Tertull., Ambr., and
August. Finally, the context, especially the reply of the sick man (verse
7), supposes it. Why it came to be wanting in so many MSS. it is difficult
to explain.(46)
That the wonderful efficacy here attributed to the water of this pond was
miraculous, and not merely, as the Rationalists would have us believe, the
effect of salubrious natural properties in the water, seems clear. For—(1)
there is the intervention of an angel which disturbed (ἐτάρασσε) the
water; (2) only the first person entering the pond was cured; (3) he was
cured not gradually, but at once, and completely: “he was immediately made
whole;” (4) he was cured no matter what his disease. When the Rationalists
find for us an intermittent spring whose waters possess the properties
here attributed to Bethesda, we shall be prepared to listen to them.
The waters of Bethesda, in their wonderful efficacy to cure every disease,
were a striking though imperfect type of the waters of Penance, which heal
every spiritual malady of everyone, be he first or last who bathes in
them.
5. Erat autem quidam homo ibi 5. And there was a certain man
triginta et octo annos habens there, that had been eight and
in infirmitate sua. thirty years under his
infirmity.
6. Hunc cum vidisset Iesus 6. Him when Jesus had seen
iacentem, et cognovisset quia lying, and knew that he had
iam multum tempus haberet, been now a long time, he saith
dicit ei: Vis sanus fieri? to him: Wilt thou be made
whole?
7. Respondit ei languidus: 7. The infirm man answered
Domini, hominem non habeo, ut, him: Sir, I have no man, when
cum turbata fuerit aqua, the water is troubled, to put
mittat me in piscinam: dum me into the pond. For whilst I
venio enim ego, alius ante me am coming, another goeth down
descendit. before me.
8. Dicit ei Iesus: Surge, 8. Jesus saith to him: Arise,
tolle grabatum tuum, et take up thy bed, and walk.
ambula.
9. Et statim sanus factus est 9. And immediately the man was
homo ille: et sustulit made whole: and he took up his
grabatum suum, et ambulabat. bed and walked. And it was the
Erat autem sabbatum in die sabbath that day.
illo.
5‐9. Christ speaks with and heals a man who had been thirty‐eight years
ill (of paralysis or some similar disease, as would appear from verses
7‐8); and, to show how complete the cure was, perhaps also to give an
occasion for the discourse which follows, He orders the man who has been
cured to take up his bed and walk. It would be a rather severe trial of
recovered strength to have to carry some of the beds of modern times; but
that on which the poor paralytic had been resting was not cumbrous. It was
probably only a carpet or mattress, or at most there was but a very light
framework. In Acts v. 15, we find the term used in our text distinguished
from κλίνη, which was rather the bed of the rich, more expensive and
cumbrous.
10. Dicebant ergo Iudaei illi 10. The Jews therefore said to
qui sanatus fuerat: Sabbatum him that was healed: It is the
est, non licet tibi tollere sabbath, it is not lawful for
grabatum tuum. thee to take up thy bed.
10. *It is not lawful.* See Exod. xx. 8; Jer. xvii. 21, 22.
11. Respondit eis: Qui me 11. He answered them: He that
sanum fecit, ille mihi dixit: made me whole, he said to me:
Tolle grabatum tuum, et Take up my bed, and walk.
ambula.
11. The man appeals to the authority of Him who had cured him, who surely
must be from God, and able to dispense in the Sabbath law.
12. Interrogaverunt ergo eum: 12. They asked him, therefore:
Quis est ille homo qui dixit Who is that man who said to
tibi, Tolle grabatum tuum, et thee: Take up thy bed and
ambula? walk?
13. Is autem qui sanus fuerat 13. But he who was healed,
effectus, nesciebat quis knew not who it was. For Jesus
esset. Iesus enim declinavit a went aside from the multitude
turba constituta in loco. standing in the place.
13. Christ had gone aside to escape the envy of the evil‐minded as well as
the admiration of the well‐disposed. See vi. 15. A more correct rendering
of the Greek would be: *For Jesus had gone aside, there being a crowd in
the place.*
14. Postea invenit eum Iesus 14. Afterwards Jesus findeth
in templo, et dixit illi: Ecce him in the temple, and saith
sanus factus es: iam noli to him: Behold thou art made
peccare, ne deterius tibi whole: sin no more, lest some
aliquid contingat. worse thing happen to thee.
15. Abiit ille homo, et 15. And the man went his way,
nuntiavit Iudaeis quia Iesus and told the Jews that it was
esset, quia fecit eum sanum. Jesus who had made him whole.
14. Christ’s words, *Sin no more*, insinuate that the man’s previous
illness had been the result of sin; and he is warned that if he provoke
God further, something worse may happen to him; worse, perhaps, even on
this side, and infinitely worse beyond, the grave. “Some say, indeed,”
says St. Chrys., “because we have corrupted ourselves for a short time,
shall we be tormented eternally? But see how long this man was tormented
for his sins. Sin is not to be measured by length of time, but by the
nature of sin itself.”
16. Propterea persequebantur 16. Therefore did the Jews
Iudaei Iesum, quia haec persecute Jesus, because he
faciebat in sabbato. did these things on the
sabbath.
16. Therefore the Jews, especially the Scribes and Pharisees, persecuted,
or rather, perhaps, accused(47) Jesus for healing a man on the Sabbath
(comp. vii. 23; Luke vi. 7), and for authorizing him who was healed to
violate the Sabbath.
17. Iesus autem respondit eis: 17. But Jesus answered them:
Pater meus usque modo My Father worketh until now;
operatur, et ego operor. and I work.
17. Christ’s reply is, that as _His_ (not _our_, for He was the natural
Son of God, we are only adopted sons) Father worketh continually, and
therefore even on the Sabbath, conserving and governing all things; so,
too, He Himself, He being consubstantial with the Father. Thus He tells
them that equally with the Father He is exempt from the law of the
Sabbath.
18. Propterea ergo magis 18. Hereupon therefore the
quaerebant eum Iudaei Jews sought the more to kill
interficere, quia non solum him, because he did not only
solvebat sabbatum, sed et break the sabbath, but also
patrem suum dicebat Deum, said God was his Father,
aequalem se faciens Deo. making himself equal to God.
Respondit itaque Iesus, et
dixit eis:
18. They understand Him, so far at least as to see that He makes Himself
equal to God; and as they now consider Him to be not merely a Sabbath‐
breaker, but also a blasphemer, they become more exasperated, and seek to
kill Him. See Deut. xiii. 5.
19. Amen, amen dico vobis: non 19. Then Jesus answered and
potest Filius a se facere said to them: Amen, amen, I
quidquam, nisi quod viderit say unto you: the Son cannot
Patrem facientem: quaecumque do anything of himself, but
enim ille fecerit, haec et what he seeth the Father
Filius similter facit. doing: for what things soever
he doth, these the Son also
doth in like manner.
19. The remainder of the chapter is taken up with Christ’s discourse, in
which He asserts His Divinity, and proves it by various arguments. (1) By
His own testimony (19‐30), which the Jews might be excused for rejecting,
were it alone and unsupported (31); (2) by the testimony of the Baptist
(32‐35); (3) by the testimony of His miracles (36); (4) by the testimony
of His Father which is contained in the Sacred Scriptures (37‐39).
The Jews had understood Him to make Himself equal to God, and He goes on
not to withdraw, but to reiterate and expand what He had said. He declares
His operation as God to be identical with that of the Father; in a word,
His works to be the works of God. He had received, in His eternal
generation, His Divine nature and operation identical with the Father’s,
and as God He does nothing except what the Father does, and the Father
does nothing except what He does. This inability to work of Himself, that
is to say, alone, without the Father (_a seipso_), proceeds not from any
defect of power, but from His inseparable union with the Father in nature
and operation. The Son’s “seeing,” and the Father’s “showing” (v. 20), are
both metaphorical expressions, and signify that the Son derives His divine
nature and operation from the Father.(48) The Arians appealed to this
verse to prove the inferiority of the Son to the Father, because, they
said, Christ here declares Himself merely an imitator of the works of the
Father, just as a pupil or apprentice imitates his master. But Christ’s
words, “I and the Father are one” (x. 30), show that there can be no
question here of inferiority; and, moreover, since _all_ things were made
by the Son (i. 3), it was impossible for Him to copy from anything made
beforehand.
*But what he seeth* (βλέπει) *the Father doing*. “But what,” that is, not
by Himself, _but_ together with the Father, “nisi” of the Vulgate being
here equal to “sed.” See Matt. xii. 4; Gal. ii. 16.
*For what things soever He doth, these the Son also doth in like manner.*
St. Thomas on this verse says:—“Excludit in his tria circa potestatem
suam: scilicet particularitatem (_quaecumque_), diversitatem (_haec_), et
imperfectionem (_similiter_).” And St. Augustine on this verse says
beautifully: “He does not say whatsoever the Father doeth, the Son does
_other_ things like them, but the very same things. The Father made the
world, the Son made the world, the Holy Ghost made the world. If the
Father, Son and Holy Ghost, are one, it follows that one and the same
world was made by the Father, through the Son, in the Holy Ghost. Thus it
is the very same thing that the Son doth. He adds _likewise_, to prevent
another error arising. For the body seems to do the same things with the
mind, but it does not do them in a like way, inasmuch as the body is
subject, the soul governing; the body visible, the soul invisible. When a
slave does a thing at the command of his master, the same thing is done by
both; but is it in a like way? Now in the Father and Son there is not this
difference; they do the same things, and in a like way. Father and Son act
with the same power; so that the Son is equal to the Father.” Since then
the works of the Son as God are the works of the Father, if they blamed
the Son for violating the Sabbath, they thereby blamed the Father also.
And it is of the Son _as God_ there is question here; for as man, or as
God‐man He could do many things “of Himself,” such as eating, walking on
the waters, &c., which, of course, the Father never did; and, moreover, it
would not be true to say that the Son as man does all that the Father
does.
20. Pater enim diligit Filium, 20. For the Father loveth the
et omnia demonstrat ei quae Son, and showeth him all
ipse facit: et maiora his things which himself doth: and
demonstrabit ei opera, ut vos greater works than these will
miremini. he show him, that you may
wonder.
20. Here is given the reason for the Son’s identity of operation with the
Father. *For the Father loveth the Son*, and from all eternity
communicateth to Him the one Divine power and operation, whereby He
Himself doth all things; and that Divine power shall yet be _manifested_
by the Son in greater works than the healing of the paralytic, that you
may wonder.
We are not to conclude from this verse that the love of the Father is the
cause of the communication of the Divine nature to the Son, as if the Son
proceeded from the Father through love, and therefore through the Will.
The common teaching of theologians is that the Son proceeds not through
the Divine will, but through the Divine intellect. See Perr. De. Trin., §
401. Hence the meaning is not, that the Father loves the Son, and
_therefore_ communicates His Divine nature to Him. Toletus, however,
thinks that this form of expression is purposely used here by Christ to
show men that the Father shares His nature and power with the Son, since
among men, those who love share their goods with each other.(49)
As already indicated, the future, “will show,” is used in this verse in
reference to the _manifestation_ in time of that power which was given
from eternity. *That you may wonder.* Some take “that” (ἵνα) here as
introducing a consequence; others, and rightly, in its usual sense as
introducing a purpose. The purpose of God was that they might wonder and
believe.
21. Sicut enim Pater suscitat 21. For as the Father raiseth
mortuos, et vivificat: sic et up the dead, and giveth life:
Filius, quos vult, vivificat. so the Son also giveth life to
whom he will.
21. The connection here shows that the raising of the dead is one of the
“greater works” just referred to, as is also the judgment by Christ
mentioned in the next verse. But who are the dead, and what is the
resurrection of which there is question?
(_a_) Those who were _corporally_ dead like Lazarus, and were raised by
Christ, to the wonder of the Jews.(50) For—(1) This view suits the
context. Christ had cured a paralytic; He now promises greater miracles;
hitherto he had only healed bodies that were sick; now He would raise to
life bodies that were dead. (2) In verse 28 there is certainly question of
a corporal resurrection; therefore also here. (3) This raising of the dead
was to excite the wonder of the Jews; therefore there must be question of
the raising of the body, since a spiritual resurrection could not be
known, and hence could not be a matter of wonder.
(_b_) Those _spiritually_ dead, who were to be raised through the
preaching of Christ and His Apostles from the death of sin to the life of
grace. For—(1) It is more probable that there is question of spiritual
death and resurrection in verse 24; therefore also in verse 21. (2) The
words “And now is” of verse 25 point to a resurrection then present,
therefore to a _spiritual_. (3) This view suits the context. The spiritual
resurrection brought about by Christ, though in itself invisible, produced
in the world effects _more wonderful_ than the curing of the paralytic,
and it is as a proof that Christ can raise those spiritually dead, that He
refers in verse 28 to the fact that He will raise those corporally dead.
We prefer the latter view; but whichever view we may hold, we must bear in
mind that the sense is not that the Father raises some, and the Son
others, from the dead. As God, Christ’s will is _identical_ with the
Father’s, and what one does the other does. Christ then is here said to
raise “whom He will” in order to show us His absolute equality with the
Father.
22. Neque enim Pater iudicat 22. For neither doth the
quemquam: sed omne iudicium Father judge any man: but hath
dedit Filio. given all judgment to the Son.
22. Another greater work than the curing of the paralytic is the judging
of men. Some think it is the judgment of discussion, the trial which
awaits all (Heb. ix. 27), that is referred to; others that (as in verses
24, 29, and iii. 19) it is the judgment of condemnation passed upon the
reprobate, the Greek word which is used being generally (if not always)
used by St. John of the judgment of condemnation. When it is said here
that *neither doth the Father judge any man*, the meaning is that although
the Father and the Holy Ghost pass the same identical judgment as the Son,
yet they do not do this _visibly_, so as to be seen and heard like the
God‐man Jesus Christ. This is particularly true in regard to the judgment
of the wicked; Christ alone, in His humanity, appears to them; for as St.
Augustine says: “Si mali Deum in propria natura viderent jam essent
beati.” The Father gave all power to judge to Christ as God in the eternal
generation, to Christ as man at the incarnation; and it is as God and man
that Christ judges: as God authoritatively, and as man visibly.(51)
23. Ut omnes honorificent 23. That all men may honour
Filium, sicut honorificant the Son, as they honour the
Patrem; qui non honorificat Father. He who honoureth not
Filium, non honorificat Patrem the Son, honoureth not the
qui misit illum. Father who hath sent him.
23. Here is declared the end that God had in view in conferring the
supreme judiciary power upon the Son, namely, that men might honour Him
_equally_ with the Father. He that honoureth not the Son, honoureth not
the Father who sent Him in the Incarnation equal in all things to Himself.
In dishonouring Jesus Christ, the Jews were dishonouring that Divine
nature and majesty which is one with the Father’s, and they were,
moreover, spurning the testimony which the Father had already given to the
Divinity of His Son, as well after Christ’s baptism (Matt. iii. 17), as in
the miracles which He had given Christ to perform (verse 36).
24. Amen, amen dico vobis, 24. Amen, amen, I say unto
quia qui verbum meum audit, et you, that he who heareth my
credit ei qui misit me, habet word, and believeth him that
vitam aeternam, et in iudicium sent me, hath life
non venit, sed transiit a everlasting; and cometh not
morte in vitam. into judgment but is passed
from death to life.
24. We believe the connection with the preceding to be this. In speaking
of the end God had in view in conferring the supreme judiciary power upon
the God‐man, our Lord had noted parenthetically the effect of not
honouring the Son (verse 23); here He adds what the effect of honouring
Him is.
*Amen, amen.* The repeated asseveration indicates the solemn importance of
the declaration about to be made, namely, that he who accepts the teaching
of Christ, and thereby the testimony of the Father testifying to Christ as
His Son, has eternal life. We take “death” and “life” of this verse of the
death of sin and the life of grace, and understand “has passed” in
reference to the justification of the sinner. See 1 John iii. 14, and what
we have said on i. 13.
25. Amen, amen dico vobis, 25. Amen, amen, I say unto
quia venit hora, et nunc est, you, that the hour cometh and
quando mortui audient vocem now is, when the dead shall
Filii Dei: et qui audierint, hear the voice of the Son of
vivent. God, and they that hear shall
live.
25. Having stated parenthetically the effect of dishonouring and honouring
Himself, Christ returns to the proof of His divine power. There is the
same difference of opinion here regarding the life and death meant, as in
verse 21.
The words, *And now is*, favour the view that there is question of a
spiritual resurrection that had already begun.
*And they that hear, shall live.* These words, too, suggest that there is
question of a spiritual resurrection, a resurrection in which all those
that hear and believe are to share.
26. Sicut enim Pater habet 26. For as the Father hath
vitam in semetipso: sic dedit life in himself; so he hath
et Filio habere vitam in given to the Son also to have
semetipso: life in himself:
26. For the Son is essential Life like the Father, and being in Himself
the source of life can therefore impart it to others.
27. Et potestatem dedit ei 27. And he hath given him
iudicium facere, quia Filius power to do judgment, because
hominis est. he is the son of man.
27. The meaning is, that as it was ordained from all eternity, that the
Second Person of the Blessed Trinity should become man, so it was ordained
that He, as God‐man should judge all men without exception in the general
judgment, and all who die after the incarnation, in the particular
judgment.
28. Nolite mirari hoc, quia 28. Wonder not at this, for
venit hora in qua omnes qui in the hour cometh wherein all
monumentis sunt, audient vocem that are in the graves shall
Filii Dei: hear the voice of the Son of
God.
28. *This* at which they are not to wonder, is His power of raising the
dead, _i.e._, the few whom He raised corporally during His public life,
or, as we prefer, the many whom He raised spiritually; and His power of
judging.
*For the hour cometh wherein all that are in the graves shall hear the
voice of the Son of God.* It is admitted by all that the reference in
these words is to the general resurrection, and the Jews are told not to
be surprised at the spiritual resurrection, inasmuch as the resurrection
of all flesh shall come to pass at the word of the same Son of God. The
words of this verse imply that the spiritual resurrection excites less
wonder than the corporal; and this indeed is true, for though the
spiritual resurrection is, in fact, the greater miracle, and in itself
more wonderful, yet it is not sensible, and cannot excite our wonder so
much as the raising of even one dead body to life.
29. Et procedent qui bona 29. And they that have done
fecerunt, in resurrectionem good things, shall come forth
vitae: qui vero mala egerunt, unto the resurrection of life;
in resurrectionem iudicii. but they that have done evil,
unto the resurrection of
judgment.
29. This verse affords a clear proof that we are not justified by faith
alone, but that according to our works we shall be rewarded or condemned.
30. Non possum ego a meipso 30. I cannot of myself do
facere quidquam. Sicut audio, anything. As I hear, so I
iudico: et iudicium meum judge: and my judgment is
iustum est, quia non quaero just: because I seek not my
voluntatem meam, sed own will, but the will of him
voluntatem eius qui misit me. that sent me.
30. What Christ said in verse 19 of every operation of His, He now repeats
and applies in particular to this judgment. Since He judges as God‐man,
the words “As I hear,” probably refer both to His Divine nature, which,
like His judgment was identical with that of the Father, and to His human
nature, in which, on account of the plenitude of grace within Him, He can
think or will nothing contrary to the Father.(52)
31. Si ego testimonium 31. If I bear witness of
perhibeo de meipso, myself, my witness is not
testimonium meum non est true.
verum.
31. From verse 19 Christ has borne witness to Himself, to His Divine power
and equality with the Father, and now He says that if He were _alone_ in
bearing such witness of Himself, His witness would not be such as men
would be bound to receive. Of course, even though a man were alone and
unsupported in testifying regarding himself, still it is plain his witness
_might be true_; but it would not be trustworthy, such as ought to be
received, because it _might be false_, and would be reasonably suspected.
No doubt, Christ’s testimony of Himself though unsupported would be more
than enough to those who believed in His Divinity; but He is here
addressing those who had no such belief. Comp. viii. 14‐16.
32. Alius est qui testimonium 32. There is another that
perhibet de me: et scio quia beareth witness of me: and I
verum est testimonium quod know that the witness which he
perhibet de me. witnesseth of me is true.
32. Christ’s witness of Himself is supported by that of the _Father_ (some
think, by that of the Baptist), to which He can confidently appeal. But
before mentioning how the Father’s testimony is given, He turns aside for
a moment to appeal to the Baptist’s testimony.
33. Vos misistis ad Ioannem: 33. You sent to John; and he
et testimonium perhibuit gave testimony to the truth.
veritati.
34. Ego autem non ab homine 34. But I receive not
testimonium accipio: sed haec testimony from man: but I say
dico ut vos salvi sitis. these things that you may be
saved.
34. He now tells them that He has invoked the testimony of the Baptist,
not that He needs any testimony of men, but in the hope that they, who had
regarded the Baptist as a prophet, might perchance accept his testimony to
Christ.
35. Ille erat lucerna ardens, 35. He was a burning and a
et lucens: Vos autem voluistis shining light. And you were
ad horam exultare in luce willing for a time to rejoice
eius. in his light.
35. The Greek is: _He was the lamp that burneth and shineth_. From the use
of the word _was_ here, it is fairly concluded that the Baptist had been
already put to death by Herod Antipas (Mark vi. 17‐28). The Baptist was a
bright _lamp_ λύχνος of truth, but not _the light_ (τὸ φῶς i. 8, 9), which
was Christ Himself.
36. Ego autem habeo 36. But I have a greater
testimonium maius Ioanne. testimony than that of John.
Opera enim quae dedit mihi For the works which the Father
Pater ut perficiam ea, ipsa hath given me to perfect: the
opera quae ego facio, works themselves, which I do,
testimonium perhibent de me, give testimony of me, that the
quia Pater misit me: Father hath sent me.
36. A third testimony is now invoked in the miracles which the Father gave
Christ to perform. See x. 37, 38, and what was said above on iii. 2.
37. Et qui misit me Pater, 37. And the Father himself who
ipse testimonium perhibuit de hath sent me, hath given
me: neque vocem eius unquam testimony of me: neither have
audistis, neque speciem eius you heard his voice at any
vidistis: time, nor seen his shape.
38. Et verbum eius non habetis 38. And you have not his word
in vobis manens: quia quem abiding in you: for whom he
misit ille, huic vos non hath sent, him you believe
creditis. not.
37, 38. Besides the indirect testimony of the Father through Christ’s
miracles, another testimony of His is now appealed to. Some understand
this of the testimony of the Father on the occasion of Christ’s baptism,
(Matt. iii. 17). So Chrys., A Lap., M’Ev. But if there were reference to
that past and definite occasion, the Greek aorist, not the perfect, would
be used. Others, as Mald., connect this verse closely with the preceding,
and hold the reference is still to the Father’s testimony given through
Christ’s miracles. But the form of words: “And the Father Himself, who
hath sent Me, hath given testimony of Me,” seems to add another distinct
testimony to those already mentioned. Others, therefore, hold that the
reference is to the Father’s testimony conveyed through the oracles of the
prophets. So St. Cyril, Theoph., Euthy., Kuin., Corl.; and this opinion
seems to be the correct one.
About the meaning and connection of the words which follow in this verse
and the next, there is a great variety of view.
(1) Some thus: But you have never listened to His voice speaking to you
through the Sacred Scriptures, nor recognised Him as speaking in them, nor
do you believe in His inspired word; and the reason of this is, because
you do not believe in Me whom He has sent. (Patriz.)
(2) Others thus: But though the Father has testified of Me, “neither have
you heard His voice ... abiding in you;” _i.e._, you have been excluded
from familiarity with Him, and from belief in His testimony, because you
refuse to believe in Me. (Hengstenberg.)
(3) Others take the words to refer to the covenant entered into by God
with the Jews (Deut. xviii. 15‐19), that He should terrify them no more by
His awful presence, as when He gave the law on Sinai (Exod. xx. 19‐21),
but should speak to them through a prophet. Hence Christ’s words signify:
The Father has borne testimony of Me, nor has He broken His word to you,
that you should hear and see no more the terrifying sounds and sights of
Sinai; and yet you refuse to keep your part of the compact (“you have not
His word abiding in you”), inasmuch as you refuse to believe in Me, the
Prophet whom He promised. (Tolet., Beel.)
(4) Others again thus: The Father has borne unquestionable testimony of
Me, though not, I admit, in such a manner as that He could be seen, or His
voice heard by you. But that testimony you accept not (you have not His
word abiding in you), as is plain from the fact that you refuse to believe
in Me. See the note to A Lap., in Migne’s Ed., which agrees with Kuinoel.
Whatever view be adopted, we understand the testimony referred to in verse
37, to be that which is explicitly mentioned in verse 39; viz., the
testimony of God given through the Scriptures in the writings of Moses and
the prophets.(53)
39. Scrutamini scripturas, 39. Search the scriptures, for
quia vos putatis in ipsis you think in them to have life
vitam aeternam habere: et everlasting; and the same are
illae sunt, quae testimonium they that give testimony of
perhibent de me: me:
39. Here our Lord distinctly mentions the testimony to which He had
already alluded (verse 37). *Search the Scriptures*, or rather, *Ye search
the Scriptures*. In both the Greek and Latin texts the form of the verb
leaves it doubtful whether it is to be understood as an indicative or an
imperative. But the context, in which all the verbs are in the indicative,
and the course of the argument, render it much more probable that the form
is to be understood as an indicative. So, too, all the best modern
commentators, even among the Protestants; _e.g._, Kuin., Alf., Bloomf.,
Westc., and the Revised Version, which renders: “Ye search the
Scriptures.”
It is unnecessary then to delay long in refuting the argument which used
to be drawn by Protestants from this text in favour of the
_indiscriminate_ reading of the Bible by all the faithful. A few words
will suffice. (1) It is much more probable that the words do not contain a
precept, but merely state a fact. (2) Even if they did contain a precept,
they are addressed very probably only to the Jewish _teachers_ (see verse
44). (3) Even if we admitted that the words contain a precept, and are
addressed to all the Jews, still it would not follow that all the faithful
now are bound to read the Bible, nor that the Church may not sometimes,
for grave reasons restrict the liberty to read it. For we must bear in
mind that our Lord is here referring to the Sacred Scriptures in
connection with one particular point, namely, the fulfilment of prophecy
in Himself. Even if the Jews were authorized or commanded to read the
Sacred Scriptures in regard to a particular question, it by no means
follows that Protestants are commanded or even authorized to read them in
order to form by the aid of private judgment an opinion on all questions
of faith and morals.
The Catholic Church freely admits, of course, and insists that the reading
of the Bible is in itself good and useful; but since the Bible contains
“certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable
wrest ... to their own destruction” (2 Pet. iii. 16), hence she knows it
is possible that, like all God’s best gifts, the Bible may in certain
circumstances be abused.
40. Et non vultis venire ad me 40. And you will not come to
ut vitam habeatis. me that you may have life.
40. *And* is equivalent to “and yet.”
41. Claritatem ab hominibus 41. I receive not glory from
non accipio. men.
41. Not through a desire to gain glory from them has He borne the
preceding testimony to Himself. This is said parenthetically, and the next
verse is to be connected with verse 40.
42. Sed cognovi vos, quia 42. But I know you, that you
dilectionem Dei non habetis in have not the love of God in
vobis. you.
42. *But I know you, that* &c. Their unbelief in Christ was due to the
fact that they did not love God. Had they loved God, they would have
corresponded with grace, and recognised the Messias whom God had sent.
43. Ego veni in nomine Patris 43. I am come in the name of
mei, et non accipitis me: si my Father, and you receive me
alius venerit in nomine suo, not: if another shall come in
illum accipietis. his own name, him you will
receive.
43. The sense is: I am come in the name, and with the power of My Father
manifested in My works. If another come to you, and without giving any
evidence that He is from God, say that he is the Messias, you will believe
him, and believe in him. We know that this actually happened. Many false
Christs arose before the destruction of Jerusalem (70 A.D.); and obtained
a following among the people. A person named Barchochebas was the most
successful of those impostors.
44. Quomodo vos potestis 44. How can you believe, who
credere, qui gloriam ab receive glory one from
invicem accipitis: et gloriam, another: and the glory which
quae a solo Deo est, non is from God alone, you do not
quaeritis? seek?
44. Another cause of their unbelief is their empty vanity which sought,
and was satisfied with, the praise of men.
45. Nolite putare quia ego 45. Think not that I will
accusaturus sim vos apud accuse you to the Father.
Patrem: est qui accusat vos There is one that accuseth
Moyses, in quo vos speratis. you, Moses, in whom you trust.
45. It will not be necessary for Christ to accuse them before God, because
Moses, their own great prophet, will accuse them.
46. Si enim crederetis Moysi, 46. For if you did believe
crederetis forsitan et mihi: Moses, you would perhaps
de me enim ille scripsit. believe me also. For he wrote
of me.
46. *You would perhaps.* See above on iv. 10.
47. Si autem illius litteris 47. But if you do not believe
non creditis, quomodo verbis his writings: how will you
meis credetis? believe my words?
47. This is said because Moses far surpassed Him in their estimation; and
with the telling thought, that their own Scriptures, even Moses himself,
pointed Him out as their Messias, this weighty discourse ends.