Chapter V.

Chapter V.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 Iudaeorum, et ascendit Iesus Ierosolymam.1. After these things was a festival day of the Jews, and 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 thePasch; others, however, hold that it is the festival ofPentecost, or ofTabernacles, or of thePurificationof the Temple, or ofLots.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[pg 090]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 article45maydesignate 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 thecloseof the first year of His public life. Hence it cannot be to any of the three great feasts of thatfirstyear 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 excellencethefeast 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,[pg 091]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 asa 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 probatica piscina, quae cognominatur hebraice Bethsaida, quinque porticus habens.2. Now there is at Jerusalem a pond,calledProbatica, which in Hebrew is named Bethsaida, having five porches.2. The best supported Greek reading would be rendered,“Now there is in Jerusalemby the sheep-gate(πύλη being understood) a pond which is called in HebrewBethesda,”&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. Theporches, 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 magna languentium, caecorum, claudorum, aridorum, expectantium aquae motum.3. In these lay a great multitude of sick, of blind, of lame, of withered, waiting for the moving of the water.4. Angelus autem Domini descendebat secundum tempus in piscinam: et movebatur aqua. Et qui prior descendisset in piscinam post motionem aquae, sanus fiebat a quacumque detinebatur infirmitate.4. And an Angel of the Lord descended at certain times into the pond; and the water was moved. And he that went down first into the pond after the motion of the water, was made whole of whatsoever infirmity he lay under.3, 4. The genuineness of the passage, beginning withwaiting for the moving of the water, and comprising[pg 092]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 manycursiveMSS. It is read in the“Vetus Itala”and in the Vulgate; in theplainandfiguredSyriac 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.46That 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,[pg 093]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 triginta et octo annos habens in infirmitate sua.5. And there was a certain man there, that had been eight and thirty years under his infirmity.6. Hunc cum vidisset Iesus iacentem, et cognovisset quia iam multum tempus haberet, dicit ei: Vis sanus fieri?6. Him when Jesus had seen lying, and knew that he had been now a long time, he saith to him: Wilt thou be made whole?7. Respondit ei languidus: Domini, hominem non habeo, ut, cum turbata fuerit aqua, mittat me in piscinam: dum venio enim ego, alius ante me descendit.7. The infirm man answered him: Sir, I have no man, when the water is troubled, to put me into the pond. For whilst I am coming, another goeth down before me.8. Dicit ei Iesus: Surge, tolle grabatum tuum, et ambula.8. Jesus saith to him: Arise, take up thy bed, and walk.9. Et statim sanus factus est homo ille: et sustulit grabatum suum, et ambulabat. Erat autem sabbatum in die illo.9. And immediately the man was made whole: and he took up his bed and walked. And it was the sabbath that day.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.[pg 094]10. Dicebant ergo Iudaei illi qui sanatus fuerat: Sabbatum est, non licet tibi tollere grabatum tuum.10. The Jews therefore said to him that was healed: It is the sabbath, it is not lawful for thee to take up thy bed.10.It is not lawful.See Exod. xx. 8; Jer. xvii. 21, 22.11. Respondit eis: Qui me sanum fecit, ille mihi dixit: Tolle grabatum tuum, et ambula.11. He answered them: He that made me whole, he said to me: Take up my bed, and walk.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: Quis est ille homo qui dixit tibi, Tolle grabatum tuum, et ambula?12. They asked him, therefore: Who is that man who said to thee: Take up thy bed and walk?13. Is autem qui sanus fuerat effectus, nesciebat quis esset. Iesus enim declinavit a turba constituta in loco.13. But he who was healed, knew not who it was. For Jesus went aside from the multitude 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. Seevi. 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 in templo, et dixit illi: Ecce sanus factus es: iam noli peccare, ne deterius tibi aliquid contingat.14. Afterwards Jesus findeth him in the temple, and saith to him: Behold thou art made whole: sin no more, lest some worse thing happen to thee.15. Abiit ille homo, et nuntiavit Iudaeis quia Iesus esset, quia fecit eum sanum.15. And the man went his way, and told the Jews that it was 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[pg 095]not to be measured by length of time, but by the nature of sin itself.”16. Propterea persequebantur Iudaei Iesum, quia haec faciebat in sabbato.16. Therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, because he did these things on the sabbath.16. Therefore the Jews, especially the Scribes and Pharisees, persecuted, or rather, perhaps, accused47Jesus 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: Pater meus usque modo operatur, et ego operor.17. But Jesus answered them: My Father worketh until now; and I work.17. Christ's reply is, that asHis(notour, 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 quaerebant eum Iudaei interficere, quia non solum solvebat sabbatum, sed et patrem suum dicebat Deum, aequalem se faciens Deo. Respondit itaque Iesus, et dixit eis:18. Hereupon therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he did not only break the sabbath, but also said God was his Father, making himself equal to God.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 potest Filius a se facere quidquam, nisi quod viderit Patrem facientem: quaecumque enim ille fecerit, haec et Filius similter facit.19. Then Jesus answered and said to them: Amen, amen, I say unto you: the Son cannot do anything of himself, but what he seeth the Father 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[pg 096]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.48The 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, sinceallthings 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,buttogether 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 doesotherthings 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[pg 097]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 addslikewise, 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 Sonas Godthere 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, et omnia demonstrat ei quae ipse facit: et maiora his demonstrabit ei opera, ut vos miremini.20. For the Father loveth the Son, and showeth him all things which himself doth: and greater works than these will 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 bemanifestedby 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, andthereforecommunicates 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[pg 098]their goods with each other.49As already indicated, the future,“will show,”is used in this verse in reference to themanifestationin 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 mortuos, et vivificat: sic et Filius, quos vult, vivificat.21. For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and giveth life: 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 werecorporallydead like Lazarus, and were raised by Christ, to the wonder of the Jews.50For—(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) Thosespirituallydead, 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 aspiritual. (3) This view suits the context. The spiritual resurrection brought about by Christ, though in itself invisible, produced in the world effectsmore wonderfulthan the curing of the paralytic, and it is as a proof that Christ can raise those spiritually dead,[pg 099]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 isidenticalwith 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 quemquam: sed omne iudicium dedit Filio.22. For neither doth the Father judge any man: but hath 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 thatneither 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 thisvisibly, 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.5123. Ut omnes honorificent Filium, sicut honorificant Patrem; qui non honorificat Filium, non honorificat Patrem qui misit illum.23. That all men may honour the Son, as they honour the Father. He who honoureth not the Son, honoureth not the 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 Himequallywith the Father. He that honoureth not the Son,[pg 100]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, quia qui verbum meum audit, et credit ei qui misit me, habet vitam aeternam, et in iudicium non venit, sed transiit a morte in vitam.24. Amen, amen, I say unto you, that he who heareth my word, and believeth him that sent me, hath life everlasting; and cometh not 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 oni. 13.25. Amen, amen dico vobis, quia venit hora, et nunc est, quando mortui audient vocem Filii Dei: et qui audierint, vivent.25. Amen, amen, I say unto you, that the hour cometh and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of 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 vitam in semetipso: sic dedit et Filio habere vitam in semetipso:26. For as the Father hath life in himself; so he hath given to the Son also to have life in himself:26. For the Son is essential[pg 101]Life like the Father, and being in Himself the source of life can therefore impart it to others.27. Et potestatem dedit ei iudicium facere, quia Filius hominis est.27. And he hath given him power to do judgment, because 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 venit hora in qua omnes qui in monumentis sunt, audient vocem Filii Dei:28. Wonder not at this, for the hour cometh wherein all that are in the graves shall hear the voice of the Son of God.28.Thisat 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 fecerunt, in resurrectionem vitae: qui vero mala egerunt, in resurrectionem iudicii.29. And they that have done good things, shall come forth unto the resurrection of life; 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 facere quidquam. Sicut audio, iudico: et iudicium meum iustum est, quia non quaero voluntatem meam, sed voluntatem eius qui misit me.30. I cannot of myself do anything. As I hear, so I judge: and my judgment is just: because I seek not my own will, but the will of him that sent me.30. What Christ said in verse[pg 102]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.5231. Si ego testimonium perhibeo de meipso, testimonium meum non est verum.31. If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.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 werealonein 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 witnessmight be true; but it would not be trustworthy, such as ought to be received, because itmight 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 perhibet de me: et scio quia verum est testimonium quod perhibet de me.32. There is another that beareth witness of me: and I know that the witness which he witnesseth of me is true.32. Christ's witness of Himself is supported by that of theFather(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: et testimonium perhibuit veritati.33. You sent to John; and he gave testimony to the truth.34. Ego autem non ab homine testimonium accipio: sed haec dico ut vos salvi sitis.34. But I receive not testimony from man: but I say 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[pg 103]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, et lucens: Vos autem voluistis ad horam exultare in luce eius.35. He was a burning and a shining light. And you were willing for a time to rejoice in his light.35. The Greek is:He was the lamp that burneth and shineth. From the use of the wordwashere, it is fairly concluded that the Baptist had been already put to death by Herod Antipas (Mark vi. 17-28). The Baptist was a brightlampλύχνος of truth, but notthe light(τὸ φῶς i. 8, 9), which was Christ Himself.36. Ego autem habeo testimonium maius Ioanne. Opera enim quae dedit mihi Pater ut perficiam ea, ipsa opera quae ego facio, testimonium perhibent de me, quia Pater misit me:36. But I have a greater testimony than that of John. For the works which the Father hath given me to perfect: the works themselves, which I do, give testimony of me, that the 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 oniii. 2.37. Et qui misit me Pater, ipse testimonium perhibuit de me: neque vocem eius unquam audistis, neque speciem eius vidistis:37. And the Father himself who hath sent me, hath given testimony of me: neither have you heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.38. Et verbum eius non habetis in vobis manens: quia quem misit ille, huic vos non creditis.38. And you have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him you believe 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[pg 104]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,[pg 105]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.5339. Scrutamini scripturas, quia vos putatis in ipsis vitam aeternam habere: et illae sunt, quae testimonium perhibent de me:39. Search the scriptures, for you think in them to have life everlasting; and the same are they that give testimony of 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 theindiscriminatereading 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 Jewishteachers(see verse44). (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[pg 106]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 ut vitam habeatis.40. And you will not come to me that you may have life.40.Andis equivalent to“and yet.”41. Claritatem ab hominibus non accipio.41. I receive not glory from 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 dilectionem Dei non habetis in vobis.42. But I know you, that you have not the love of God in 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 mei, et non accipitis me: si alius venerit in nomine suo, illum accipietis.43. I am come in the name of my Father, and you receive me not: if another shall come in 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 (70a.d.); and obtained a following among the people. A person named Barchochebas was the most successful of those impostors.44. Quomodo vos potestis credere, qui gloriam ab invicem accipitis: et gloriam, quae a solo Deo est, non quaeritis?44. How can you believe, who receive glory one from another: and the glory which is from God alone, you do not seek?44. Another cause of their unbelief is their empty vanity[pg 107]which sought, and was satisfied with, the praise of men.45. Nolite putare quia ego accusaturus sim vos apud Patrem: est qui accusat vos Moyses, in quo vos speratis.45. Think not that I will accuse you to the Father. There is one that accuseth 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, crederetis forsitan et mihi: de me enim ille scripsit.46. For if you did believe Moses, you would perhaps believe me also. For he wrote of me.46.You would perhaps.See above oniv. 10.47. Si autem illius litteris non creditis, quomodo verbis meis credetis?47. But if you do not believe his writings: how will you 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.[pg 108]

Chapter V.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 Iudaeorum, et ascendit Iesus Ierosolymam.1. After these things was a festival day of the Jews, and 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 thePasch; others, however, hold that it is the festival ofPentecost, or ofTabernacles, or of thePurificationof the Temple, or ofLots.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[pg 090]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 article45maydesignate 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 thecloseof the first year of His public life. Hence it cannot be to any of the three great feasts of thatfirstyear 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 excellencethefeast 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,[pg 091]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 asa 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 probatica piscina, quae cognominatur hebraice Bethsaida, quinque porticus habens.2. Now there is at Jerusalem a pond,calledProbatica, which in Hebrew is named Bethsaida, having five porches.2. The best supported Greek reading would be rendered,“Now there is in Jerusalemby the sheep-gate(πύλη being understood) a pond which is called in HebrewBethesda,”&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. Theporches, 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 magna languentium, caecorum, claudorum, aridorum, expectantium aquae motum.3. In these lay a great multitude of sick, of blind, of lame, of withered, waiting for the moving of the water.4. Angelus autem Domini descendebat secundum tempus in piscinam: et movebatur aqua. Et qui prior descendisset in piscinam post motionem aquae, sanus fiebat a quacumque detinebatur infirmitate.4. And an Angel of the Lord descended at certain times into the pond; and the water was moved. And he that went down first into the pond after the motion of the water, was made whole of whatsoever infirmity he lay under.3, 4. The genuineness of the passage, beginning withwaiting for the moving of the water, and comprising[pg 092]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 manycursiveMSS. It is read in the“Vetus Itala”and in the Vulgate; in theplainandfiguredSyriac 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.46That 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,[pg 093]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 triginta et octo annos habens in infirmitate sua.5. And there was a certain man there, that had been eight and thirty years under his infirmity.6. Hunc cum vidisset Iesus iacentem, et cognovisset quia iam multum tempus haberet, dicit ei: Vis sanus fieri?6. Him when Jesus had seen lying, and knew that he had been now a long time, he saith to him: Wilt thou be made whole?7. Respondit ei languidus: Domini, hominem non habeo, ut, cum turbata fuerit aqua, mittat me in piscinam: dum venio enim ego, alius ante me descendit.7. The infirm man answered him: Sir, I have no man, when the water is troubled, to put me into the pond. For whilst I am coming, another goeth down before me.8. Dicit ei Iesus: Surge, tolle grabatum tuum, et ambula.8. Jesus saith to him: Arise, take up thy bed, and walk.9. Et statim sanus factus est homo ille: et sustulit grabatum suum, et ambulabat. Erat autem sabbatum in die illo.9. And immediately the man was made whole: and he took up his bed and walked. And it was the sabbath that day.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.[pg 094]10. Dicebant ergo Iudaei illi qui sanatus fuerat: Sabbatum est, non licet tibi tollere grabatum tuum.10. The Jews therefore said to him that was healed: It is the sabbath, it is not lawful for thee to take up thy bed.10.It is not lawful.See Exod. xx. 8; Jer. xvii. 21, 22.11. Respondit eis: Qui me sanum fecit, ille mihi dixit: Tolle grabatum tuum, et ambula.11. He answered them: He that made me whole, he said to me: Take up my bed, and walk.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: Quis est ille homo qui dixit tibi, Tolle grabatum tuum, et ambula?12. They asked him, therefore: Who is that man who said to thee: Take up thy bed and walk?13. Is autem qui sanus fuerat effectus, nesciebat quis esset. Iesus enim declinavit a turba constituta in loco.13. But he who was healed, knew not who it was. For Jesus went aside from the multitude 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. Seevi. 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 in templo, et dixit illi: Ecce sanus factus es: iam noli peccare, ne deterius tibi aliquid contingat.14. Afterwards Jesus findeth him in the temple, and saith to him: Behold thou art made whole: sin no more, lest some worse thing happen to thee.15. Abiit ille homo, et nuntiavit Iudaeis quia Iesus esset, quia fecit eum sanum.15. And the man went his way, and told the Jews that it was 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[pg 095]not to be measured by length of time, but by the nature of sin itself.”16. Propterea persequebantur Iudaei Iesum, quia haec faciebat in sabbato.16. Therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, because he did these things on the sabbath.16. Therefore the Jews, especially the Scribes and Pharisees, persecuted, or rather, perhaps, accused47Jesus 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: Pater meus usque modo operatur, et ego operor.17. But Jesus answered them: My Father worketh until now; and I work.17. Christ's reply is, that asHis(notour, 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 quaerebant eum Iudaei interficere, quia non solum solvebat sabbatum, sed et patrem suum dicebat Deum, aequalem se faciens Deo. Respondit itaque Iesus, et dixit eis:18. Hereupon therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he did not only break the sabbath, but also said God was his Father, making himself equal to God.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 potest Filius a se facere quidquam, nisi quod viderit Patrem facientem: quaecumque enim ille fecerit, haec et Filius similter facit.19. Then Jesus answered and said to them: Amen, amen, I say unto you: the Son cannot do anything of himself, but what he seeth the Father 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[pg 096]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.48The 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, sinceallthings 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,buttogether 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 doesotherthings 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[pg 097]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 addslikewise, 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 Sonas Godthere 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, et omnia demonstrat ei quae ipse facit: et maiora his demonstrabit ei opera, ut vos miremini.20. For the Father loveth the Son, and showeth him all things which himself doth: and greater works than these will 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 bemanifestedby 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, andthereforecommunicates 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[pg 098]their goods with each other.49As already indicated, the future,“will show,”is used in this verse in reference to themanifestationin 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 mortuos, et vivificat: sic et Filius, quos vult, vivificat.21. For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and giveth life: 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 werecorporallydead like Lazarus, and were raised by Christ, to the wonder of the Jews.50For—(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) Thosespirituallydead, 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 aspiritual. (3) This view suits the context. The spiritual resurrection brought about by Christ, though in itself invisible, produced in the world effectsmore wonderfulthan the curing of the paralytic, and it is as a proof that Christ can raise those spiritually dead,[pg 099]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 isidenticalwith 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 quemquam: sed omne iudicium dedit Filio.22. For neither doth the Father judge any man: but hath 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 thatneither 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 thisvisibly, 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.5123. Ut omnes honorificent Filium, sicut honorificant Patrem; qui non honorificat Filium, non honorificat Patrem qui misit illum.23. That all men may honour the Son, as they honour the Father. He who honoureth not the Son, honoureth not the 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 Himequallywith the Father. He that honoureth not the Son,[pg 100]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, quia qui verbum meum audit, et credit ei qui misit me, habet vitam aeternam, et in iudicium non venit, sed transiit a morte in vitam.24. Amen, amen, I say unto you, that he who heareth my word, and believeth him that sent me, hath life everlasting; and cometh not 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 oni. 13.25. Amen, amen dico vobis, quia venit hora, et nunc est, quando mortui audient vocem Filii Dei: et qui audierint, vivent.25. Amen, amen, I say unto you, that the hour cometh and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of 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 vitam in semetipso: sic dedit et Filio habere vitam in semetipso:26. For as the Father hath life in himself; so he hath given to the Son also to have life in himself:26. For the Son is essential[pg 101]Life like the Father, and being in Himself the source of life can therefore impart it to others.27. Et potestatem dedit ei iudicium facere, quia Filius hominis est.27. And he hath given him power to do judgment, because 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 venit hora in qua omnes qui in monumentis sunt, audient vocem Filii Dei:28. Wonder not at this, for the hour cometh wherein all that are in the graves shall hear the voice of the Son of God.28.Thisat 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 fecerunt, in resurrectionem vitae: qui vero mala egerunt, in resurrectionem iudicii.29. And they that have done good things, shall come forth unto the resurrection of life; 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 facere quidquam. Sicut audio, iudico: et iudicium meum iustum est, quia non quaero voluntatem meam, sed voluntatem eius qui misit me.30. I cannot of myself do anything. As I hear, so I judge: and my judgment is just: because I seek not my own will, but the will of him that sent me.30. What Christ said in verse[pg 102]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.5231. Si ego testimonium perhibeo de meipso, testimonium meum non est verum.31. If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.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 werealonein 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 witnessmight be true; but it would not be trustworthy, such as ought to be received, because itmight 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 perhibet de me: et scio quia verum est testimonium quod perhibet de me.32. There is another that beareth witness of me: and I know that the witness which he witnesseth of me is true.32. Christ's witness of Himself is supported by that of theFather(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: et testimonium perhibuit veritati.33. You sent to John; and he gave testimony to the truth.34. Ego autem non ab homine testimonium accipio: sed haec dico ut vos salvi sitis.34. But I receive not testimony from man: but I say 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[pg 103]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, et lucens: Vos autem voluistis ad horam exultare in luce eius.35. He was a burning and a shining light. And you were willing for a time to rejoice in his light.35. The Greek is:He was the lamp that burneth and shineth. From the use of the wordwashere, it is fairly concluded that the Baptist had been already put to death by Herod Antipas (Mark vi. 17-28). The Baptist was a brightlampλύχνος of truth, but notthe light(τὸ φῶς i. 8, 9), which was Christ Himself.36. Ego autem habeo testimonium maius Ioanne. Opera enim quae dedit mihi Pater ut perficiam ea, ipsa opera quae ego facio, testimonium perhibent de me, quia Pater misit me:36. But I have a greater testimony than that of John. For the works which the Father hath given me to perfect: the works themselves, which I do, give testimony of me, that the 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 oniii. 2.37. Et qui misit me Pater, ipse testimonium perhibuit de me: neque vocem eius unquam audistis, neque speciem eius vidistis:37. And the Father himself who hath sent me, hath given testimony of me: neither have you heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.38. Et verbum eius non habetis in vobis manens: quia quem misit ille, huic vos non creditis.38. And you have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him you believe 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[pg 104]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,[pg 105]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.5339. Scrutamini scripturas, quia vos putatis in ipsis vitam aeternam habere: et illae sunt, quae testimonium perhibent de me:39. Search the scriptures, for you think in them to have life everlasting; and the same are they that give testimony of 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 theindiscriminatereading 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 Jewishteachers(see verse44). (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[pg 106]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 ut vitam habeatis.40. And you will not come to me that you may have life.40.Andis equivalent to“and yet.”41. Claritatem ab hominibus non accipio.41. I receive not glory from 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 dilectionem Dei non habetis in vobis.42. But I know you, that you have not the love of God in 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 mei, et non accipitis me: si alius venerit in nomine suo, illum accipietis.43. I am come in the name of my Father, and you receive me not: if another shall come in 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 (70a.d.); and obtained a following among the people. A person named Barchochebas was the most successful of those impostors.44. Quomodo vos potestis credere, qui gloriam ab invicem accipitis: et gloriam, quae a solo Deo est, non quaeritis?44. How can you believe, who receive glory one from another: and the glory which is from God alone, you do not seek?44. Another cause of their unbelief is their empty vanity[pg 107]which sought, and was satisfied with, the praise of men.45. Nolite putare quia ego accusaturus sim vos apud Patrem: est qui accusat vos Moyses, in quo vos speratis.45. Think not that I will accuse you to the Father. There is one that accuseth 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, crederetis forsitan et mihi: de me enim ille scripsit.46. For if you did believe Moses, you would perhaps believe me also. For he wrote of me.46.You would perhaps.See above oniv. 10.47. Si autem illius litteris non creditis, quomodo verbis meis credetis?47. But if you do not believe his writings: how will you 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.[pg 108]

Chapter V.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 Iudaeorum, et ascendit Iesus Ierosolymam.1. After these things was a festival day of the Jews, and 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 thePasch; others, however, hold that it is the festival ofPentecost, or ofTabernacles, or of thePurificationof the Temple, or ofLots.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[pg 090]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 article45maydesignate 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 thecloseof the first year of His public life. Hence it cannot be to any of the three great feasts of thatfirstyear 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 excellencethefeast 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,[pg 091]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 asa 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 probatica piscina, quae cognominatur hebraice Bethsaida, quinque porticus habens.2. Now there is at Jerusalem a pond,calledProbatica, which in Hebrew is named Bethsaida, having five porches.2. The best supported Greek reading would be rendered,“Now there is in Jerusalemby the sheep-gate(πύλη being understood) a pond which is called in HebrewBethesda,”&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. Theporches, 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 magna languentium, caecorum, claudorum, aridorum, expectantium aquae motum.3. In these lay a great multitude of sick, of blind, of lame, of withered, waiting for the moving of the water.4. Angelus autem Domini descendebat secundum tempus in piscinam: et movebatur aqua. Et qui prior descendisset in piscinam post motionem aquae, sanus fiebat a quacumque detinebatur infirmitate.4. And an Angel of the Lord descended at certain times into the pond; and the water was moved. And he that went down first into the pond after the motion of the water, was made whole of whatsoever infirmity he lay under.3, 4. The genuineness of the passage, beginning withwaiting for the moving of the water, and comprising[pg 092]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 manycursiveMSS. It is read in the“Vetus Itala”and in the Vulgate; in theplainandfiguredSyriac 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.46That 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,[pg 093]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 triginta et octo annos habens in infirmitate sua.5. And there was a certain man there, that had been eight and thirty years under his infirmity.6. Hunc cum vidisset Iesus iacentem, et cognovisset quia iam multum tempus haberet, dicit ei: Vis sanus fieri?6. Him when Jesus had seen lying, and knew that he had been now a long time, he saith to him: Wilt thou be made whole?7. Respondit ei languidus: Domini, hominem non habeo, ut, cum turbata fuerit aqua, mittat me in piscinam: dum venio enim ego, alius ante me descendit.7. The infirm man answered him: Sir, I have no man, when the water is troubled, to put me into the pond. For whilst I am coming, another goeth down before me.8. Dicit ei Iesus: Surge, tolle grabatum tuum, et ambula.8. Jesus saith to him: Arise, take up thy bed, and walk.9. Et statim sanus factus est homo ille: et sustulit grabatum suum, et ambulabat. Erat autem sabbatum in die illo.9. And immediately the man was made whole: and he took up his bed and walked. And it was the sabbath that day.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.[pg 094]10. Dicebant ergo Iudaei illi qui sanatus fuerat: Sabbatum est, non licet tibi tollere grabatum tuum.10. The Jews therefore said to him that was healed: It is the sabbath, it is not lawful for thee to take up thy bed.10.It is not lawful.See Exod. xx. 8; Jer. xvii. 21, 22.11. Respondit eis: Qui me sanum fecit, ille mihi dixit: Tolle grabatum tuum, et ambula.11. He answered them: He that made me whole, he said to me: Take up my bed, and walk.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: Quis est ille homo qui dixit tibi, Tolle grabatum tuum, et ambula?12. They asked him, therefore: Who is that man who said to thee: Take up thy bed and walk?13. Is autem qui sanus fuerat effectus, nesciebat quis esset. Iesus enim declinavit a turba constituta in loco.13. But he who was healed, knew not who it was. For Jesus went aside from the multitude 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. Seevi. 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 in templo, et dixit illi: Ecce sanus factus es: iam noli peccare, ne deterius tibi aliquid contingat.14. Afterwards Jesus findeth him in the temple, and saith to him: Behold thou art made whole: sin no more, lest some worse thing happen to thee.15. Abiit ille homo, et nuntiavit Iudaeis quia Iesus esset, quia fecit eum sanum.15. And the man went his way, and told the Jews that it was 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[pg 095]not to be measured by length of time, but by the nature of sin itself.”16. Propterea persequebantur Iudaei Iesum, quia haec faciebat in sabbato.16. Therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, because he did these things on the sabbath.16. Therefore the Jews, especially the Scribes and Pharisees, persecuted, or rather, perhaps, accused47Jesus 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: Pater meus usque modo operatur, et ego operor.17. But Jesus answered them: My Father worketh until now; and I work.17. Christ's reply is, that asHis(notour, 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 quaerebant eum Iudaei interficere, quia non solum solvebat sabbatum, sed et patrem suum dicebat Deum, aequalem se faciens Deo. Respondit itaque Iesus, et dixit eis:18. Hereupon therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he did not only break the sabbath, but also said God was his Father, making himself equal to God.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 potest Filius a se facere quidquam, nisi quod viderit Patrem facientem: quaecumque enim ille fecerit, haec et Filius similter facit.19. Then Jesus answered and said to them: Amen, amen, I say unto you: the Son cannot do anything of himself, but what he seeth the Father 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[pg 096]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.48The 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, sinceallthings 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,buttogether 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 doesotherthings 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[pg 097]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 addslikewise, 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 Sonas Godthere 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, et omnia demonstrat ei quae ipse facit: et maiora his demonstrabit ei opera, ut vos miremini.20. For the Father loveth the Son, and showeth him all things which himself doth: and greater works than these will 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 bemanifestedby 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, andthereforecommunicates 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[pg 098]their goods with each other.49As already indicated, the future,“will show,”is used in this verse in reference to themanifestationin 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 mortuos, et vivificat: sic et Filius, quos vult, vivificat.21. For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and giveth life: 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 werecorporallydead like Lazarus, and were raised by Christ, to the wonder of the Jews.50For—(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) Thosespirituallydead, 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 aspiritual. (3) This view suits the context. The spiritual resurrection brought about by Christ, though in itself invisible, produced in the world effectsmore wonderfulthan the curing of the paralytic, and it is as a proof that Christ can raise those spiritually dead,[pg 099]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 isidenticalwith 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 quemquam: sed omne iudicium dedit Filio.22. For neither doth the Father judge any man: but hath 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 thatneither 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 thisvisibly, 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.5123. Ut omnes honorificent Filium, sicut honorificant Patrem; qui non honorificat Filium, non honorificat Patrem qui misit illum.23. That all men may honour the Son, as they honour the Father. He who honoureth not the Son, honoureth not the 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 Himequallywith the Father. He that honoureth not the Son,[pg 100]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, quia qui verbum meum audit, et credit ei qui misit me, habet vitam aeternam, et in iudicium non venit, sed transiit a morte in vitam.24. Amen, amen, I say unto you, that he who heareth my word, and believeth him that sent me, hath life everlasting; and cometh not 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 oni. 13.25. Amen, amen dico vobis, quia venit hora, et nunc est, quando mortui audient vocem Filii Dei: et qui audierint, vivent.25. Amen, amen, I say unto you, that the hour cometh and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of 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 vitam in semetipso: sic dedit et Filio habere vitam in semetipso:26. For as the Father hath life in himself; so he hath given to the Son also to have life in himself:26. For the Son is essential[pg 101]Life like the Father, and being in Himself the source of life can therefore impart it to others.27. Et potestatem dedit ei iudicium facere, quia Filius hominis est.27. And he hath given him power to do judgment, because 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 venit hora in qua omnes qui in monumentis sunt, audient vocem Filii Dei:28. Wonder not at this, for the hour cometh wherein all that are in the graves shall hear the voice of the Son of God.28.Thisat 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 fecerunt, in resurrectionem vitae: qui vero mala egerunt, in resurrectionem iudicii.29. And they that have done good things, shall come forth unto the resurrection of life; 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 facere quidquam. Sicut audio, iudico: et iudicium meum iustum est, quia non quaero voluntatem meam, sed voluntatem eius qui misit me.30. I cannot of myself do anything. As I hear, so I judge: and my judgment is just: because I seek not my own will, but the will of him that sent me.30. What Christ said in verse[pg 102]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.5231. Si ego testimonium perhibeo de meipso, testimonium meum non est verum.31. If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.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 werealonein 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 witnessmight be true; but it would not be trustworthy, such as ought to be received, because itmight 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 perhibet de me: et scio quia verum est testimonium quod perhibet de me.32. There is another that beareth witness of me: and I know that the witness which he witnesseth of me is true.32. Christ's witness of Himself is supported by that of theFather(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: et testimonium perhibuit veritati.33. You sent to John; and he gave testimony to the truth.34. Ego autem non ab homine testimonium accipio: sed haec dico ut vos salvi sitis.34. But I receive not testimony from man: but I say 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[pg 103]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, et lucens: Vos autem voluistis ad horam exultare in luce eius.35. He was a burning and a shining light. And you were willing for a time to rejoice in his light.35. The Greek is:He was the lamp that burneth and shineth. From the use of the wordwashere, it is fairly concluded that the Baptist had been already put to death by Herod Antipas (Mark vi. 17-28). The Baptist was a brightlampλύχνος of truth, but notthe light(τὸ φῶς i. 8, 9), which was Christ Himself.36. Ego autem habeo testimonium maius Ioanne. Opera enim quae dedit mihi Pater ut perficiam ea, ipsa opera quae ego facio, testimonium perhibent de me, quia Pater misit me:36. But I have a greater testimony than that of John. For the works which the Father hath given me to perfect: the works themselves, which I do, give testimony of me, that the 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 oniii. 2.37. Et qui misit me Pater, ipse testimonium perhibuit de me: neque vocem eius unquam audistis, neque speciem eius vidistis:37. And the Father himself who hath sent me, hath given testimony of me: neither have you heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.38. Et verbum eius non habetis in vobis manens: quia quem misit ille, huic vos non creditis.38. And you have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him you believe 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[pg 104]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,[pg 105]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.5339. Scrutamini scripturas, quia vos putatis in ipsis vitam aeternam habere: et illae sunt, quae testimonium perhibent de me:39. Search the scriptures, for you think in them to have life everlasting; and the same are they that give testimony of 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 theindiscriminatereading 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 Jewishteachers(see verse44). (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[pg 106]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 ut vitam habeatis.40. And you will not come to me that you may have life.40.Andis equivalent to“and yet.”41. Claritatem ab hominibus non accipio.41. I receive not glory from 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 dilectionem Dei non habetis in vobis.42. But I know you, that you have not the love of God in 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 mei, et non accipitis me: si alius venerit in nomine suo, illum accipietis.43. I am come in the name of my Father, and you receive me not: if another shall come in 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 (70a.d.); and obtained a following among the people. A person named Barchochebas was the most successful of those impostors.44. Quomodo vos potestis credere, qui gloriam ab invicem accipitis: et gloriam, quae a solo Deo est, non quaeritis?44. How can you believe, who receive glory one from another: and the glory which is from God alone, you do not seek?44. Another cause of their unbelief is their empty vanity[pg 107]which sought, and was satisfied with, the praise of men.45. Nolite putare quia ego accusaturus sim vos apud Patrem: est qui accusat vos Moyses, in quo vos speratis.45. Think not that I will accuse you to the Father. There is one that accuseth 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, crederetis forsitan et mihi: de me enim ille scripsit.46. For if you did believe Moses, you would perhaps believe me also. For he wrote of me.46.You would perhaps.See above oniv. 10.47. Si autem illius litteris non creditis, quomodo verbis meis credetis?47. But if you do not believe his writings: how will you 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.

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.

1-9.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. 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 thePasch; others, however, hold that it is the festival ofPentecost, or ofTabernacles, or of thePurificationof the Temple, or ofLots.

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[pg 090]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 article45maydesignate 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 thecloseof the first year of His public life. Hence it cannot be to any of the three great feasts of thatfirstyear 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 excellencethefeast 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,[pg 091]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 asa 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. The best supported Greek reading would be rendered,“Now there is in Jerusalemby the sheep-gate(πύλη being understood) a pond which is called in HebrewBethesda,”&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. Theporches, 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, 4. The genuineness of the passage, beginning withwaiting for the moving of the water, and comprising[pg 092]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 manycursiveMSS. It is read in the“Vetus Itala”and in the Vulgate; in theplainandfiguredSyriac 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,[pg 093]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.

5-9. 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.It is not lawful.See Exod. xx. 8; Jer. xvii. 21, 22.

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.

13. Christ had gone aside to escape the envy of the evil-minded as well as the admiration of the well-disposed. Seevi. 15. A more correct rendering of the Greek would be:For Jesus had gone aside, there being a crowd in the place.

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[pg 095]not to be measured by length of time, but by the nature of sin itself.”

16. Therefore the Jews, especially the Scribes and Pharisees, persecuted, or rather, perhaps, accused47Jesus 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. Christ's reply is, that asHis(notour, 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. 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. 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[pg 096]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.48The 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, sinceallthings 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,buttogether 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 doesotherthings 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[pg 097]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 addslikewise, 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 Sonas Godthere 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. 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 bemanifestedby 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, andthereforecommunicates 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[pg 098]their goods with each other.49

As already indicated, the future,“will show,”is used in this verse in reference to themanifestationin 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. 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 werecorporallydead like Lazarus, and were raised by Christ, to the wonder of the Jews.50For—(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) Thosespirituallydead, 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 aspiritual. (3) This view suits the context. The spiritual resurrection brought about by Christ, though in itself invisible, produced in the world effectsmore wonderfulthan the curing of the paralytic, and it is as a proof that Christ can raise those spiritually dead,[pg 099]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 isidenticalwith 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. 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 thatneither 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 thisvisibly, 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. Here is declared the end that God had in view in conferring the supreme judiciary power upon the Son, namely, that men might honour Himequallywith the Father. He that honoureth not the Son,[pg 100]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. 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 oni. 13.

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. For the Son is essential[pg 101]Life like the Father, and being in Himself the source of life can therefore impart it to others.

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.Thisat 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. 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. What Christ said in verse[pg 102]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. 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 werealonein 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 witnessmight be true; but it would not be trustworthy, such as ought to be received, because itmight 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. Christ's witness of Himself is supported by that of theFather(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.

34. He now tells them that He has invoked the testimony of the Baptist, not that He needs any testimony of[pg 103]men, but in the hope that they, who had regarded the Baptist as a prophet, might perchance accept his testimony to Christ.

35. The Greek is:He was the lamp that burneth and shineth. From the use of the wordwashere, it is fairly concluded that the Baptist had been already put to death by Herod Antipas (Mark vi. 17-28). The Baptist was a brightlampλύχνος of truth, but notthe light(τὸ φῶς i. 8, 9), which was Christ Himself.

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 oniii. 2.

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[pg 104]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,[pg 105]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. 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 theindiscriminatereading 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 Jewishteachers(see verse44). (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[pg 106]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.Andis equivalent to“and yet.”

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.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. 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 (70a.d.); and obtained a following among the people. A person named Barchochebas was the most successful of those impostors.

44. Another cause of their unbelief is their empty vanity[pg 107]which sought, and was satisfied with, the praise of men.

45. It will not be necessary for Christ to accuse them before God, because Moses, their own great prophet, will accuse them.

46.You would perhaps.See above oniv. 10.

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.

Back to IndexNext