CHAPTER V.

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._)